Yesterday the government released its plans for High Speed 2, the next high speed rail line to be built in the UK, following on from High Speed 1, the new line from London to the Channel Tunnel.
Reading the reception in the press there are certain common themes that come up in comments to it, many of which lead one to doubt the intelligence of the reporter writing it, or at least whether they have actually bothered to research the topic they are writing about at all.
Here are a few pearls of reporterly wisdom that I have found particularly irritating, and my answers to them.
1. "Spending £X billion to save 30 minutes isn't a good use of money."
The main driver behind high speed rail in the UK is transport network capacity. We have a choice between building or expanding motorways, expanding airports, or building railways. Yes HSR trains are fast, but they are preferable to conventional speed rail because there is a much better business case for faster trains. They are more likely to attract travelers from other modes of transport.
2. "HS2 only goes to Birmingham."
Yes, in phase 1 HS2 only goes to Birmingham. Guess what, phase 1 of the M1 motorway only went from Watford to Rugby. There are two points here: Firstly the trains on HS2 will be able to run on to serve other destinations beyond the end of high speed line such as Manchester, Liverpool and Scotland. Secondly it's important to see HS2 as the first stage of a broader UK-wide network.
3. "Nobody will be able to afford a ticket."
I've no idea where this particular pocket of nonesense comes from. Perhaps this is because of the current high cost of tickets on routes like the West Coast Main Line where capacity problems lead to operators trying to manage excessive demand by increasing the cost of flexible tickets. Each train on HS2 will have up to over 1,000 seats and the line will have capacity for 18 trains an hour; that's a lot of seats! Tickets will be priced such that people use the service and fill those seats, otherwise the business plan wouldn't be viable in the first place.
4. "HS2 does nothing for communities between Birmingham and London."
No, it does a lot for communities between. Principally it releases an enormous amount of capacity on the overstretched existing rail network such as the West Coast Main Line, which can be used for freight - fewer lorries on the roads - and also for more local rail services.
5. "£30 Billion is too expensive."
£30 Billion is a lot of money, but the greater cost comes from not acting on the nation's increasing transport problems. As already states we have a choice between roads, air and rail. High speed rail is the best choice from both economic and environmental perspectives.
6. "Can't that money be spent on improving the trains we already have?"
£13 Billion has been spent in the West Coast Main Line upgrade program, and it will be at full capacity again by 2017. Incremental upgrades to existing rail lines are expensive, disruptive, and do not produce anywhere near the same levels of new capacity for the same amount of money as a new build line.
7. "We can't afford this in a recession."
Recessions come and go. We're in recession now, but most likely won't be when construction work actually starts in a few years time.
8. Why will it take 16 years to open just 130 miles of railway track? Surely it would take only a fraction of that time if this line was being built in France, Span, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, China, etc?
Oh, hang on, this is a question I too would like an answer to...
Showing posts with label Trains. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Trains. Show all posts
Friday, 12 March 2010
Friday, 21 August 2009
...and another thing!
Whilst I'm ranting about the RAC, I'll post another link to this.
Basically it's another demonstration of how they are able to, by choosing the numbers that represent only a small part of the picture, suggest that a great injustice is being done to motorists.
Who are these "motorists" anyway, are they a separate species? Are we not all just human beings trying to get from A to B using the best method made available to us?
Anyway, they will argue that the BCR, or "Benefit-Cost ratio" of road schemes is much higher than for public transport schemes, thus the money should be spent on roads.
They quote average BCRs for different types of projects undertaken:
First, road schemes never include the cost of vehicles in the calculations, because the user pays for them directly. This makes road schemes appear cheaper when in fact on an overall cost per user basis they are much more expensive.
Secondly, and most significantly, fuel duty is included in the calculations. This means that any analysis using this set of criteria will come out in favour of a scheme that puts more cars on the roads. Light rail schemes, for example, which are designed to reduce congestion by attracting motorists out of their cars, have to gain a high enough benefit cost ratio to get approval despite the loss of income to the treasury from fuel duty counting against them.
Numbers can be useful, but they should always be viewed in context.
Basically it's another demonstration of how they are able to, by choosing the numbers that represent only a small part of the picture, suggest that a great injustice is being done to motorists.
Who are these "motorists" anyway, are they a separate species? Are we not all just human beings trying to get from A to B using the best method made available to us?
Anyway, they will argue that the BCR, or "Benefit-Cost ratio" of road schemes is much higher than for public transport schemes, thus the money should be spent on roads.
They quote average BCRs for different types of projects undertaken:
- Highways Agency Roads - 4.66
- Local roads - 4.23
- Heavy rail schemes - 2.83
- Light rail schemes - 2.14
- Local public transport schemes - 1.71
First, road schemes never include the cost of vehicles in the calculations, because the user pays for them directly. This makes road schemes appear cheaper when in fact on an overall cost per user basis they are much more expensive.
Secondly, and most significantly, fuel duty is included in the calculations. This means that any analysis using this set of criteria will come out in favour of a scheme that puts more cars on the roads. Light rail schemes, for example, which are designed to reduce congestion by attracting motorists out of their cars, have to gain a high enough benefit cost ratio to get approval despite the loss of income to the treasury from fuel duty counting against them.
Numbers can be useful, but they should always be viewed in context.
"Transport Crisis"
In the news today were reports on the publication of a report by the think tank "Reform" on the UK's transport infrastructure. Link here.
My particular disagreements with this paper are generally related to the way in which they are ever so slightly massively skewed toward the road lobby. For example they trot out the RAC's old chestnut about how much poor old Mr Motorist pays £X in "motoring taxes" and yet how little of it is spent on the UK's roads.
"British drivers, for example, currently pay over £45 billion every year in the various motoring taxes and less than a fifth of this is invested back in the road network."
Let's consider this for a minute.
Firstly, the cost of motoring in the UK at the present time is at the lowest it has ever been at any time in history, so why complain?
Secondly, most of these so called "motoring taxes" are in the form of "duty". This is not a charge in exchange for a service, it is indirect taxation which is not in any way ringfenced. Duty is also paid on other items, such as alcohol, tobacco, import, and the paperwork for moving house (stamp duty), and yet it would be silly to suggest that, for example, alcohol duty should be ploughed back into the brewing industry.
Thirdly, what on earth would we do with £45bn a year on roads? Thankfully government now broadly recognises that it is impossible to build ones way out of road congestion, so we wouldn't be building more of them. Or would we? The RAC want to go back to a massive programme of road building. Thankfully this is now politically very unpopular.
I would, however advocate the prospect of spending a much greater proportion of the funding from this government cash cow on the UK's transport system as a whole. There is a difference.
The report then dusts off another of the RAC's favourites.
"Too much transport policy is a discussion about whether cars, trains or planes are 'good'. This results in irrational decisions. For example road travel constitutes over 90 per cent of all journeys, compared to less than 7 per cent for rail. Yet in 2006-07 the UK invested £5 billion in rail and only £4.8 billion in roads."
On its own of course this sounds like poor old Mr Motorist is being hard done by.
It's not that simple though, because these numbers do not say when and where these journeys are occurring.
For example, over 80% of people who enter central London do so by public transport. London, as a highly profitable global city, could not function without its mainline rail links and underground, even though neither of these generates a profit in itself. The same is true of other cities and urban areas across the country to some extent.
No amount of investment in roads will bend the laws of time and space to negate the physical impossibility of moving the huge numbers of people, that rail moves daily, in and out of major cities by car. There physically isn't space between buildings to accommodate the road lanes and junctions needed, even if the prospect was politically acceptable to those living in those areas.
It's complete folly in my opinion to bemoan spending however much on method A as opposed to method B on the basis of fairness if A works and B doesn't.
Having parroted the RAC's roads sales pitch for a while, the report then goes on to dismiss a future North-South high speed rail line as a "white elephant", and encourages investment in what it calls "value for money improvement" such as train lengthening. Take the short term view basically.
Given the fact that the trains on the West Coast Main Line, which would be relieved by the proposed "High Speed 2", are already being lengthened to 11 carriages and yet the line is still projected to be completely full within a decade, I cannot see how the high speed line would conceivably be anything like a "white elephant". Indeed, demand for services on High Speed 1, including the new "Javelin" commuter trains, has been well above projected levels. High speed rail is very popular with users and brings huge economic benefits with it.
I have mental images of George Stephenson being told, in the 1820s, not to bother with this "rail-way" scheme as it will clearly be a white elephant, and that the solution to the transport problems between Liverpool and Manchester lies with minor improvements to the turnpikes.
There is, however, one point that this obviously right wing think tank makes that I cannot help but agree with.
The UK currently spends £31bn a year on Social Services, £119bn on health, and a whopping £189bn on "Social Protection" - welfare basically. Transport spending is a mere £23bn a year.
Spending in some areas can provide massive boosts to the future economy of the country, such as capital investment in infrastructure, whilst spending in health and welfare does so far less. Yet, with spending cuts inevitable, where will the money be cut from? Pardon my cynicism but projects like Crossrail, the Nottingham tram extension, High Speed 2, etc are going to look like politically easy targets for cuts, much easier than, for example, trying to reduce the amount being handed out in benefits.
I will conclude with the statement the report opens with, which I agree with completely.
"Britain has an infrastructure shortfall and a cash shortage; the £23 billion transport budget is already being cut. This is despite the fact that infrastructure is one of the most productive parts of government expenditure and could help propel Britain out of the recession. A new policy is needed that frees up transport provision."
In my opinion government must appreciate the importance of transport and end its long history of being the Cinderella department that it is, because the transport problem in the UK is not going to go away, and in fact it is getting worse.
My particular disagreements with this paper are generally related to the way in which they are ever so slightly massively skewed toward the road lobby. For example they trot out the RAC's old chestnut about how much poor old Mr Motorist pays £X in "motoring taxes" and yet how little of it is spent on the UK's roads.
"British drivers, for example, currently pay over £45 billion every year in the various motoring taxes and less than a fifth of this is invested back in the road network."
Let's consider this for a minute.
Firstly, the cost of motoring in the UK at the present time is at the lowest it has ever been at any time in history, so why complain?
Secondly, most of these so called "motoring taxes" are in the form of "duty". This is not a charge in exchange for a service, it is indirect taxation which is not in any way ringfenced. Duty is also paid on other items, such as alcohol, tobacco, import, and the paperwork for moving house (stamp duty), and yet it would be silly to suggest that, for example, alcohol duty should be ploughed back into the brewing industry.
Thirdly, what on earth would we do with £45bn a year on roads? Thankfully government now broadly recognises that it is impossible to build ones way out of road congestion, so we wouldn't be building more of them. Or would we? The RAC want to go back to a massive programme of road building. Thankfully this is now politically very unpopular.
I would, however advocate the prospect of spending a much greater proportion of the funding from this government cash cow on the UK's transport system as a whole. There is a difference.
The report then dusts off another of the RAC's favourites.
"Too much transport policy is a discussion about whether cars, trains or planes are 'good'. This results in irrational decisions. For example road travel constitutes over 90 per cent of all journeys, compared to less than 7 per cent for rail. Yet in 2006-07 the UK invested £5 billion in rail and only £4.8 billion in roads."
On its own of course this sounds like poor old Mr Motorist is being hard done by.
It's not that simple though, because these numbers do not say when and where these journeys are occurring.
For example, over 80% of people who enter central London do so by public transport. London, as a highly profitable global city, could not function without its mainline rail links and underground, even though neither of these generates a profit in itself. The same is true of other cities and urban areas across the country to some extent.
No amount of investment in roads will bend the laws of time and space to negate the physical impossibility of moving the huge numbers of people, that rail moves daily, in and out of major cities by car. There physically isn't space between buildings to accommodate the road lanes and junctions needed, even if the prospect was politically acceptable to those living in those areas.
It's complete folly in my opinion to bemoan spending however much on method A as opposed to method B on the basis of fairness if A works and B doesn't.
Having parroted the RAC's roads sales pitch for a while, the report then goes on to dismiss a future North-South high speed rail line as a "white elephant", and encourages investment in what it calls "value for money improvement" such as train lengthening. Take the short term view basically.
Given the fact that the trains on the West Coast Main Line, which would be relieved by the proposed "High Speed 2", are already being lengthened to 11 carriages and yet the line is still projected to be completely full within a decade, I cannot see how the high speed line would conceivably be anything like a "white elephant". Indeed, demand for services on High Speed 1, including the new "Javelin" commuter trains, has been well above projected levels. High speed rail is very popular with users and brings huge economic benefits with it.
I have mental images of George Stephenson being told, in the 1820s, not to bother with this "rail-way" scheme as it will clearly be a white elephant, and that the solution to the transport problems between Liverpool and Manchester lies with minor improvements to the turnpikes.
There is, however, one point that this obviously right wing think tank makes that I cannot help but agree with.
The UK currently spends £31bn a year on Social Services, £119bn on health, and a whopping £189bn on "Social Protection" - welfare basically. Transport spending is a mere £23bn a year.
Spending in some areas can provide massive boosts to the future economy of the country, such as capital investment in infrastructure, whilst spending in health and welfare does so far less. Yet, with spending cuts inevitable, where will the money be cut from? Pardon my cynicism but projects like Crossrail, the Nottingham tram extension, High Speed 2, etc are going to look like politically easy targets for cuts, much easier than, for example, trying to reduce the amount being handed out in benefits.
I will conclude with the statement the report opens with, which I agree with completely.
"Britain has an infrastructure shortfall and a cash shortage; the £23 billion transport budget is already being cut. This is despite the fact that infrastructure is one of the most productive parts of government expenditure and could help propel Britain out of the recession. A new policy is needed that frees up transport provision."
In my opinion government must appreciate the importance of transport and end its long history of being the Cinderella department that it is, because the transport problem in the UK is not going to go away, and in fact it is getting worse.
Thursday, 23 July 2009
Sparks!
Good news today, very good news!
I was amazed to discover this morning this article on the BBC website: £1bn plan to electrify rail line - a £1bn plan to electrify the main rail route between London and Swansea has been announced by the government.
This is the government giving the go-ahead to electrify the Great Western Main Line, which, significantly for me, runs through Didcot Parkway and branches off to Oxford. The new policy, which one could argue should have been pursued decades ago, makes even more sense nowadays for a whole host of reasons. Electric trains are faster, quieter, cleaner, cheaper to build and maintain, more efficient, and can carry more passengers. There's even a name for the surge in patronage due to the improved performance on lines that are electrified, it's often referred to as the "sparks effect".
It seems that government has finally, in the context of transport, grasped the meaning of the old schoolboy question: "Option A costs £10 to start and £2 a year, Option B costs £20 to start but £1 a year. What is the better choice over 30-40 years?" The answer is blindingly obvious but it requires one to look beyond a 5-year time horizon, which is difficult for many politicians.
Indeed it seems that Andrew Adonis, Secretary of State for transport, has written this article in the Times today. Most notably he says:
"The nation that pioneered the train has squandered the legacy of Brunel and Stephenson. It’s time to say ‘all change’"
This coming from someone in government is unheard of in the last few decades! In the past we have always had individuals who have taken no particular interest in making real improvements and who have moved on at the first opportunity. What a change!
"At present rail accounts for only 6.3 per cent of journeys, half the proportion of Switzerland and a fifth of that in Japan. There is no good reason why Britain should not aim for much higher proportions."
Were this from another man it would be reminiscent of John Prescott's announcement about reducing car traffic that never stood up to the test of reality. The difference with Adonis is that he's already supporting his rhetoric with action, as anyone who has been following the story of high speed rail development in the UK and the huge leaps and bounds it has made in the last year will know well.
I think transport, especially public transport, has long been a Cinderella department in government and to have someone who is a visionary and a genuine enthusiast running the DfT making the case for change and improvement rather than seeking excuses for inaction and parroting the party line is absolutely brilliant.
It almost gives me a reason to hope that the otherwise long overdue general election doesn't come too soon. I want Adonis's pet projects like this and high speed rail to gain so much momentum so that it becomes incredibly difficult for a future Conservative government to pull the plug, which they will undoubtedly want to do.
I was amazed to discover this morning this article on the BBC website: £1bn plan to electrify rail line - a £1bn plan to electrify the main rail route between London and Swansea has been announced by the government.
This is the government giving the go-ahead to electrify the Great Western Main Line, which, significantly for me, runs through Didcot Parkway and branches off to Oxford. The new policy, which one could argue should have been pursued decades ago, makes even more sense nowadays for a whole host of reasons. Electric trains are faster, quieter, cleaner, cheaper to build and maintain, more efficient, and can carry more passengers. There's even a name for the surge in patronage due to the improved performance on lines that are electrified, it's often referred to as the "sparks effect".
It seems that government has finally, in the context of transport, grasped the meaning of the old schoolboy question: "Option A costs £10 to start and £2 a year, Option B costs £20 to start but £1 a year. What is the better choice over 30-40 years?" The answer is blindingly obvious but it requires one to look beyond a 5-year time horizon, which is difficult for many politicians.
Indeed it seems that Andrew Adonis, Secretary of State for transport, has written this article in the Times today. Most notably he says:
"The nation that pioneered the train has squandered the legacy of Brunel and Stephenson. It’s time to say ‘all change’"
This coming from someone in government is unheard of in the last few decades! In the past we have always had individuals who have taken no particular interest in making real improvements and who have moved on at the first opportunity. What a change!
"At present rail accounts for only 6.3 per cent of journeys, half the proportion of Switzerland and a fifth of that in Japan. There is no good reason why Britain should not aim for much higher proportions."
Were this from another man it would be reminiscent of John Prescott's announcement about reducing car traffic that never stood up to the test of reality. The difference with Adonis is that he's already supporting his rhetoric with action, as anyone who has been following the story of high speed rail development in the UK and the huge leaps and bounds it has made in the last year will know well.
I think transport, especially public transport, has long been a Cinderella department in government and to have someone who is a visionary and a genuine enthusiast running the DfT making the case for change and improvement rather than seeking excuses for inaction and parroting the party line is absolutely brilliant.It almost gives me a reason to hope that the otherwise long overdue general election doesn't come too soon. I want Adonis's pet projects like this and high speed rail to gain so much momentum so that it becomes incredibly difficult for a future Conservative government to pull the plug, which they will undoubtedly want to do.
Thursday, 2 April 2009
Video: Train vs Lorry
I saw this video the other day and it amused me.
In particular the narrative:
"...Then again, why couldn't the train stop? I hate trains! It's always 'me! me! me! me! me!' with trains isn't it! "I'm not stopping! I'm a train!'"
In particular the narrative:
"...Then again, why couldn't the train stop? I hate trains! It's always 'me! me! me! me! me!' with trains isn't it! "I'm not stopping! I'm a train!'"
Wednesday, 1 April 2009
I like this minister.
Not a statement you'll hear me say often.
I saw this news report today. The headline:
"Arguments against high-speed lines are ‘comical’ says transport minister"
It seems that, in stark contrast with his predecessors, Lord Adonis the transport minister is looking beyond just the price tag of a major public transport infrastructire project and seeing the wider context, which of course includes the even more considerable costs of inaction.
This is of course the need to address transport congestion in the UK by developing a national high speed rail network, which would allow intercity trains to run on dedicated lines at 186mph or even faster. Adonis not only recognises the merits of this concept, but also seems quite insistent on pushing it forward as fast as is possible in British Politics.
A minister who is making rational, down to earth decisions, and above all getting things done! What's wrong with the world?! It's playing with my mind!!
I saw this news report today. The headline:
"Arguments against high-speed lines are ‘comical’ says transport minister"
It seems that, in stark contrast with his predecessors, Lord Adonis the transport minister is looking beyond just the price tag of a major public transport infrastructire project and seeing the wider context, which of course includes the even more considerable costs of inaction.
This is of course the need to address transport congestion in the UK by developing a national high speed rail network, which would allow intercity trains to run on dedicated lines at 186mph or even faster. Adonis not only recognises the merits of this concept, but also seems quite insistent on pushing it forward as fast as is possible in British Politics.
A minister who is making rational, down to earth decisions, and above all getting things done! What's wrong with the world?! It's playing with my mind!!
Friday, 20 February 2009
High Speed 2
I thought I'd write a few words on a story that I've been following for the last couple of years.
As I may have mentioned before I enjoy travelling by train and will do so as my preferred choice of getting from A to B if it's a sensible option. I like being able to sit liberated from the necessity of focusing only on tarmac and brake lights for hours at a time. All in all it's much nicer to watch the countryside go by, read a book or magazine, and actually interact with other human beings. It's also nearly always cheaper than driving, unless one is silly enough to believe that petrol is the only per-mile cost of running a car (a surprising number of people, if asked, actually do).
Eurostar's new terminal at St Pancras has been open for over a year now and in that year they have seen an enormous growth in passenger numbers. Part of this is due to better connections with the rest of the UK due to its location, but journey times are also much shorter. Paris is now just 2 hours and 15 minutes from London and this is because St Pancras is connected to High Speed 1 (HS1, formally known as the Channel Tunnel Rail Link). Whilst trains on the most of the UK rail network are limited to 125mph, trains on HS1 operate at up to 186mph. They cover the 67 miles from London to the Channel Tunnel in just 37 minutes!
Given that the UK's existing main rail lines are fast approaching their capacity, and passengers experiencing the current overcrowding on some routes would argue that they're well beyond that already, one could argue that expanding further lines like HS1 across the UK is a bit of a no-brainer. A high speed line has more passenger capacity than a motorway and yet has a fraction of the environmental footprint. It also provides much faster journeys city centre to city centre than cars or short haul flights. Projected benefit-cost ratios for high speed rail projects are high, in the area of 3:1, and these benefits manifest themselves in the economies of the cities they link. Shifting intercity trains onto dedicated track also provides significant increases in capacity for local and freight services on the existing lines.
Unfortunately a couple of years back the government's white paper outlining the future of the railways completely ignored the concept of more high speed rail. As far as I could tell the idea was to double the passenger capacity of the rail network by 2030 without laying a single metre of new track. I'm not sure how that one was supposed to work; perhaps the civil servants at the DfT think the way to work out the capacity of a train is to divide the internal volume of the carriages by the average volume of a person and then implement a 1.1x compression ratio for when the doors are closed.
Thankfully newer policies seems to be closer to the point of sanity. Andrew Adonis, the new transport minister, seems to have taken the task of rolling out high speed rail across the UK to be his personal mission. A company, called High Speed 2, has been created to examine where the next high speed line in the UK should be built; London to Birmingham and Manchester appears to be the most likely choice.
It will be interesting to see how this story develops.
As I may have mentioned before I enjoy travelling by train and will do so as my preferred choice of getting from A to B if it's a sensible option. I like being able to sit liberated from the necessity of focusing only on tarmac and brake lights for hours at a time. All in all it's much nicer to watch the countryside go by, read a book or magazine, and actually interact with other human beings. It's also nearly always cheaper than driving, unless one is silly enough to believe that petrol is the only per-mile cost of running a car (a surprising number of people, if asked, actually do).
Eurostar's new terminal at St Pancras has been open for over a year now and in that year they have seen an enormous growth in passenger numbers. Part of this is due to better connections with the rest of the UK due to its location, but journey times are also much shorter. Paris is now just 2 hours and 15 minutes from London and this is because St Pancras is connected to High Speed 1 (HS1, formally known as the Channel Tunnel Rail Link). Whilst trains on the most of the UK rail network are limited to 125mph, trains on HS1 operate at up to 186mph. They cover the 67 miles from London to the Channel Tunnel in just 37 minutes!
Given that the UK's existing main rail lines are fast approaching their capacity, and passengers experiencing the current overcrowding on some routes would argue that they're well beyond that already, one could argue that expanding further lines like HS1 across the UK is a bit of a no-brainer. A high speed line has more passenger capacity than a motorway and yet has a fraction of the environmental footprint. It also provides much faster journeys city centre to city centre than cars or short haul flights. Projected benefit-cost ratios for high speed rail projects are high, in the area of 3:1, and these benefits manifest themselves in the economies of the cities they link. Shifting intercity trains onto dedicated track also provides significant increases in capacity for local and freight services on the existing lines.
Unfortunately a couple of years back the government's white paper outlining the future of the railways completely ignored the concept of more high speed rail. As far as I could tell the idea was to double the passenger capacity of the rail network by 2030 without laying a single metre of new track. I'm not sure how that one was supposed to work; perhaps the civil servants at the DfT think the way to work out the capacity of a train is to divide the internal volume of the carriages by the average volume of a person and then implement a 1.1x compression ratio for when the doors are closed.
Thankfully newer policies seems to be closer to the point of sanity. Andrew Adonis, the new transport minister, seems to have taken the task of rolling out high speed rail across the UK to be his personal mission. A company, called High Speed 2, has been created to examine where the next high speed line in the UK should be built; London to Birmingham and Manchester appears to be the most likely choice.
It will be interesting to see how this story develops.
Wednesday, 26 November 2008
I want!
There is a saying amongst cyclists:
"The optimum number of bicycles to own is the number you currently have, plus one"
This is the Dahon Vitesse D7HG, and I want one!
Why? Well at the moment I live a 25 minute walk from Didcot Parkway station and yet I often find myself catching the train to go and visit friends or nip to the pub in Oxford. I certainly don't fancy leaving any bike I own locked at the station, and in any case I often need my bike at the other end. Taking a full size bike on the train, whilst possible, is also a bit of a pain.
This bike folds down to a size where it will fit happily on a luggage rack so I could take it anywhere, and then it could take me anywhere. Cycle, fold, train, unfold, cycle, hurrah! I wouldn't have to leave it locked up outside either.
I like this particular design because it has a 7-speed hub gearbox, instead of a deraileur, and a plastic chainguard too, so it's less likely to get oil everywhere. Plus... well, I think the design is very neat, from an engineering point of view.
Hmmm. No prizes for guessing where I'm tempted to spend my Christmas money this year!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)