icn

German castoffs would be the ICE 1 or 2 which are 15kV only. Some of the newer ICEs - i.e. what would've been used for the tunnel - are specced for 25kV too, but there's no chance of getting any of those anytime soon. At least on the positive side, the ICEs mostly appear to have ETCS fitted already, so as long as they stay on the new network - and they'd have to because of loading gauge - they're ready to use. It's a bit surprising that they had to drag the ICE to St. Pancras though, the France-equipped units that would've been used to London I suppose should already have all the right safety systems in place? Old TGVs are closer to what are needed since they were built for 25kV, but... they don't have ETCS (which is also why TGVs were ironically not able to use the one almost-high-speed line in Switzerland, although I think that's been addressed with the newer TGVs). But I think there's a solution much closer to home - they should've kept all the IC225s, and they could finally run at the speed they were supposed to.

That's a strawman argument if I've ever seen one. There's a world of alternatives between the UK and China. Like I said, ask the voters first and then stick to their decision. Which is a process used in Switzerland, a democratic and free country if I've ever seen one. (Although it has to be said that sometimes decisions are revisited, but I can't think of any infrastructure decisions that have been revisited - it's more about tax changes and international relations that might be revisited.)

It is related to ETCS, but... it's complicated. Magnet based Signum was replaced with "Euro-Signum" which relies on Eurobalises to transmit equivalent information. It's not ETCS because (at least initially) the balise transmitted an "empty" ETCS message which contained Signum data in the attachment. And on the loco side, there is a receiver which extracts this attachment and feeds it into the existing Signum circuitry. Later on, these same Balises were upgraded to also transmit ETCS information. Trains running on the network can either use ETCS L1 or Euro-Signum, depending on how they're equipped. Many older trains for example have no ETCS installation, and some have ETCS software that is using an older baseline - both of these will rely on the Euro-Signum functionality because they cannot handle the ETCS L1 part of the message from the Balise. Other trains have newer software, and (if running in ETCS mode) will use the ETCS part of the message from the Balise, and ignore the Euro-Signum part. In fact all new trains are being delivered without Signum and therefore have to use ETCS all over the network - I don't know if any trains exist that both support ETCS L1 and also have Euro-Signum installed.

Wikipedia offers a nice summary - and agrees with you that there's no post: "The phrase first-past-the-post is a metaphor from British horse racing, where there is a post at the finish line[4] (though there is no specific percentage "finish line" required to win in this voting system, only being furthest ahead in the race)." Now I have to say... if only there were a way to keep politics out of such infrastructure projects once they're decided. Say, ask the voters to confirm that they want it and then stick to it - it's a reasonable enough approach for a time-bounded infrastructure project, as has been shown in some countries that manage to build lots of them (it gets more complicated when it comes to secessions and the like though, because the consequences might not be that clear in the beginning).

This is great, I'm seriously considering a trip to Germany while they still have rules to protect the vulnerable.

I didn't say anything about enforcement, I was merely pointing out what the law states. I personally don't condone tax evasion in any case - but I should point out that I have heard of people being stopped, searched, and given a fine. I've only ever had a 2 sentence questioning myself over years of travel admittedly. These policies seem initially questionable from a jurisdictional standpoint, but the UK is actually a straggler in this regard. Similar policies have existed within the United States for cross-state commerce for a long time now, the EU has introduced such rules recently, and others are following suit. The EU and UK rules aren't even as bad as it seems at first - parcels without prepaid taxes are simply handled as before, perhaps taking into account some duty free threshhold. However sellers who don't follow the rules are putting their customers at a disadvantage as they will now have to pay not only the taxes but customs processing fees on top. As a seller you want to follow these rules to avoid a bad reputation. Large intermediaries such as Ebay and Amazon have no choice in any case as they have UK-based subsidiaries. Small sellers can ignore the rules and end up with disappointed customers.

One thing that I haven't seen raised here is: what happens when the licencer goes out of business? You'll be left with uselss software - unless you have the technical means to fool the system. To be fair the announcements on their forum make their high level stance on licencing pretty clear: if your USB stick for an old enough version dies, tough luck, buy one of the newer versions (the washing machine comparison is certainly original...). Same if their online service breaks I guess. But I'm not convinced that either of these topics matches the terms of their licence agreement, and I wonder what consumer law should say about it.

Bear in mind that with this approach you have to declare and tax these imports at the UK border. The personal use exemption is just that, and doesn't cover imports that are intended to be sold. (Similar rules apply to most countries in fact.) Separately, the postal story to the UK is interesting. The UK government does say that below GBP 135 its the seller that's responsible for VAT. So what happens if you are a private individual sending to the UK who didn't bother with prepaying VAT for a package under GBP 135? The Swiss post tells me the receiver will be charged those taxes just like commercial packages over the limit - except for gifts and equivalent under GBP 39: https://www.post.ch/en/sending-parcels/international-consignments/brexit-goods-consignments-to-great-britain . That would match the gift import rule where the receive pays taxes if the gift is over GBP 39. The experience with the magazines upthread isn't surprising: it seems like they were treated the same as gifts - under GBP 39 and there's no import tax due. Mind you the government and Royal Mail could be a lot less convoluted about it: it seems the actual rule is: seller should charge VAT for packages up to GBP 135. If VAT has not been charged for any reason - e.g. because foreign sellers can't be bothered to deal with HMRC (why should they after all): VAT is charged at the border unless the package is under GBP 39.

There are some drive-through gauge changers near the Ukrainian/Polish border and same for Lithuania/Poland, but they're not used anymore: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SUW_2000Bookmark Polish rail media suggests a reactivation or upgrading is still being investigated, but I think the invasion actually makes its use less likely - perhaps because of a reduction in traffic (e.g. no through traffic from China anymore?). I figure that it's use is more interesting for freight rather than passengers? Perhaps the new installation in Switzerland (not sure what system it uses) will help put some impetus into things?

Not anymore. When it comes to couriers (but not most postal services), customs declarations are largely submitted and evaluated digitally. Some couriers may require a printed backup copy on the package, and many shops may add it of their own volition - but it's far from being strictly necessary - and I've received plenty of packages without any way to know what's inside - you'd either need to open the package or access the courier's customs database (which I hope is locked down to those employees in the customs department). That's also why customs processing is effectively immediate for most packages that I receive via the major couriers - they've already processed all the data before the parcel physically reaches the destination country. In theory digital declarations are also necessary for parcels via the postal service for most countries, but I believe practice hasn't caught up with the theory yet.

Thanks! That's interesting, but still left me confused. Those points alone are a bit ambiguous due to lack of explanation, so I had a look at the full report instead. One key issue is related to nylon straps failing, which is both a manufacturer and regulator oversight - but also something that can be solved with maintenance. The more important part seems to be that individual units in the Talgo set are not crash-proof taken alone (they depend on being part of a larger train, which is assumed to not separate - except that in this case it separated). By comparison normal carriages seem to be crash-proof (or at least crash-worthy) because they might be used anywhere in a train or alone I suppose. Fair enough, seems like a reasonable additional layer of protection - which I think was included in the later Talgos built after the new standards were in place. Is it enough to scrap a train? I don't know... most countries allow existing rolling stock to continue operating within reasonable constraints (e.g. PRM modifications). The grandfathering issue, and demanding that grandfathering be removed, is... interesting, because it goes against what most of the rest of the world does. These trains were legitimately built before the new standards were published, so exempting them in the first place seems reasonable (that's actually a point that both Talgo and WDOT brought up when the new standards were being drafted - see comments in the final publication from 1999). And generally countries provide enough time for manufacturers to adapt to new standards - perhaps with the notable exception of what France did when Stadler first tried to get Flirts approved there - so granting it to these specific trains was also reasonable. It seems like a reasonable comparison might be the HSTs in the UK: we know they're not as safe as new trains, and there's a push to get rid of them in some locations - but they're not being banned overnight. But of course every country does things differently.

You may have already tried this: once a parcel leaves the originating country it's usually more helpful to plug the tracking number into the website of the postal service of the receiving country. Then you have a greater chance of actually seeing when it reaches your country and/or if its stuck in customs. Not sure how it works with Parcel Force though. Another option is to use tracking sites like 17track which tries to query data from both postal services. Admittedly most of the time I don't see any tracking updates between "left country A" and "arrived country B" (and the package is usually delivered 1-2 days later where I live) - which I suspect is down to the fact that many parcels are bundled into a bag or container or lorry which travels directly country B. But in particular for countries where customs or domestic handling is slow it might still be useful to see. It's also helpful in cases where parcels are actually handled via an intermediate country - i.e. if the seller is using services like Spring/GDS or Asendia instead of the national postal service.

Of only tangential relevance: I see that these are also going to operate the Cascades. Apparently the original Talgo trainsets have already been retired and scrapped, which completely surprised me - but the two newer Talgos are still around and might be kept longer term. The story around the scrapping of the original Talgos is a bit odd - apparently they aren't compliant with newer safety standards that came into force shortly after they were built... but I suspect that the even older Amtrak stock that has been kept is also not compliant with modern standards either? I have to admit I don't entirely understand the system over there. Anyway, more to this topic: I thought it was interesting that they've chosen a new design for the front - a little closer to the Vectron - as opposed to reusing what they had used for Via rail or Brightline... but then I realised it seems to be designed to match the existing Charger locos.

And yet there are close to 1000 Max's built, with most of them in commercial service. The launch was fumbled (malpractice might be a better word), but it's now a viable product. Real life engineering is about compromises and meeting business requirements, and not about engineering perfection. It seems like Vivarail didn't quite get it right, or they weren't able to fit the market - but it doesn't mean that the concept was fundamentally broken.

No - although unfortunately I was unable to find a full explanation of what they're doing anywhere so my information might not be entirely correct. That coach behind the RE465 is effectively a barrier coach, it stays attached to that loco at all times. I'm guessing this is needed because the RE465 has conventional couplings, and the GPX consist uses Schwab couplings. And I guess it adds a bit more passenger space for the standard gauge portion of the route? The main part of the GPX consist has a cab at each end. At Zweisimmen the RE465+barrier coach get detached, and a narrow-gauge loco (which is fitted with Schwabs too) gets attached. What I was unable to figure out yet is what direction they push and pull. I get the impression that starting in Montreux the consist is pulled by the narrow gauge loco. At Zweisimmen the narrow gauge loco remains on narrow gauge while pulling the GPX consist through the gauge changer (so it's actually dual gauge track here). Loco detaches and runs forwards off to a siding, and the barrier coach and RE 465 attach from the rear (i.e. they go over the gauge converter but don't get converted because they're already on standard gauge). This gets pushed to Interlaken, and pulled back to Zweisimmen. At Zweisimmen the RE465 and barrier coach get removed again and go over the gauge converter again (without a change in gauge) and off to a siding, meter gauge loco attaches itself to the back again. In other words, the gauge converter allows fixed-gauge stock to simply run through it without issues, and only the GPX stock gets converted. For even more fun, the gauge conversion process also apparently results in the carriages being raised (when going to standard) and lowered (when going to narrow). That's how they can achieve level boarding for both the standard gauge (550mm) and narrow gauge (350mm) platforms.

Ah this one: Fair enough, so it's a standalone company. No direct payments. That doesn't mean there's no cost - a loan guarantee is a risk, and one that the market should price in to the cost of loans to the government. To be fair such costs are unlikely to make themselves particularly visible (relatively speaking), but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Oh, but apparently that's not the whole story: the government tells me HS2 Ltd. is funded by grant aid, and HS2 themselves suggest there's a lot of government money being paid. Whether the money is coming directly from taxes, or loans whose interest is being paid by taxes, is not particularly important (more loans means more interest) - either way it's taxes at the end of it.

Ah but you see, you didn't tell us: where does that money come from in the first place? Taxes you say? If you'd charged lower taxes, then the citizens would've had more money, and spent it on other things, hence pumping the same money back into the economy (and back into those cycles you reference, and taxes too), just via a different path. I suspect that this is all a bit beyond the scope of the HS2 discussions though. But lest I be derided as one of those free market extremists, let me say that I do think that public infrastructure like this is precisely one of those things where spending our money is a good idea - the results tend to help both the people and the economy after all. Infrastructure that is actually going to be used is quite different to certain projects that follow "paint it purple policy" which also generates lots of employment and economic cycles but without any real output (or what's worse, output that only benefits one person).

Do you consider headways alone to be more challenging to manage than a complex network dealing with trains from many manufacturers and regulated by many countries with varying versions of software running on tracks with many different ETCS and other safety systems, with complex timetabling interactions with knock-on effects to many other countries affecting freight and passenger transport across the contintent (and all that with the most trains per line per day, which is admittedly just one metric). From a systems engineering perspective I suspect the latter is more daunting, but obviously that's subjective.

Switzerland seem pretty happy adopting ETCS despite being anti-EU. Although it is a bit of a nuanced situation to be fair given their rather tight economic integration - and tight railway integration. Ironically Switzerland seems to be the furthest advanced down the ETCS path with the entire standard-gauge network ETCS fitted, meaning that new trains no longer need legacy equipment (and in fact can't be certified unless they use ETCS). Given that all of Europe is going towards ETCS, there are going to be economies of scale that the British island simply won't be able to match - developing or even maintaining a local system would be cutting off nose to spite face or something like that. And Switzerland is probably a pretty good illustration of the inter-/backwards compatibility of different versions (and also that ETCS works in real life). The newest trains need some form of baseline 3 because most of the network is L1 (which is part of baseline 3). Older trains only have baseline 2, and use that for the ETCS L2 routes which are still running mostly 2.3.0d from various manufacturers perhaps along with one 2.2.2+ installation. It all seems to work well enough on what is apparently the busiest network in the world. Perhaps there's one exception: even after many years Bombardier were unable to get ETCS working on the German IC2 thereby preventing DB from operating them into Switzerland - although it's a bit puzzling since Bombardier have plenty of other trains with ETCS running alright. That specific issue was solved by buying some Stadlers instead...

And you don't even need to look as far as China to see examples of things being built (and usually even on time and on budget). Germany keeps opening new lines, although seemingly mostly in medium speed (250km/h) - the counterpoint is that they do seem unable to sort out their connections in the direction of Switzerland in violation of international agreements. Switzerland of course builds plenty of infrastructure, a lot of it deep underground, even if it also only reaches 250km/h at best- and they're the most expensive country in Europe. For true high speed there's quite a bit of new stuff in France. Wikipedia has a nice page listing high speed lines around the place - it shows that France has opened more than an HS2's worth (and I'm talking about the original full plans not Phase 1) in the past decade, and they have yet more planned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_high-speed_railway_lines

Looks almost like an axle counter, but too far out.

I suspect it's not double tax, but rather a 19% bonus for the seller. I've experienced this once or twice with German (non-railway) shops, some of whom like to view Swiss customers - who would be their primary non-EU market - as a goldmine.

Oh in fact this was even in the Stadler spec from (I think) 2016: https://www.stadlerrail.com/media/pdf/tmrhb0319d.pdf And Stadler press announcement (in English) from 2019: https://www.stadlerrail.com/media/pdf/2019_0415_media release_rhb_roll-out_en.pdf Given that it's also planned (or at least was) for Chur-Disentis I suspect they'll simply be continuing the entire route Disentis-Chur-Landquart-Scuol as before.

I've read that page, but that's precisely what I'm referring to: Specifically these sentences: "it is because the risk of a significant de-wirement event, should the driver get it wrong and a pantograph still be raised when the wires ran out, was too great, and frankly, it turns out it is needed at Cardiff." and "The issue is that if it started off to Swansea or the Valley (? Sorry, can't remember from the scheme plan) with it's pan up then it would do very significant damage to the OLE." No one has explained why this damage would occur. No one seems to dispute that the pantograph will come down eventually, so presumably there has to be something that the pantograph could hit after leaving the wires and before it automatically drops?

This is precisely what the Nightjet people are doing: adding driving trailers. And their trains divide. And like I said, you can still shift around the carriages that are behind the driving trailer if needed. Yes you'll lose 1-2 windows to the cab, but that doesn't seem like the end of the world if you want to save on time and labour at the splitting points.