1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172 
Thoughts of a one-track mind
Page 59
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
JANUS, when criticising Britisl Rail's plan for a single-tracl rail-only Channel tunnel (CM February 16) perhaps does no know the reason behind it.
This is that since Britain': EEC membership, trainborn( traffic between Britain anc Europe has been increasing an the existing train ferry capacit) has become limited.
So, either much larger ship! for the train ferry or a Channe tunnel, which would cost abou. the same, are needed. A tunne is the obvious choice because o. its lower operating cost ant consequent greater return or investment.
About 80 per cent of British Rail's freight traffic moves ir trainloads between privatE sidings. Road haulage is not really competitive for it — in fad some trainload movements oi only about ten miles take place.
Although some road freighl traffic would switch to rail when, or if, the Channel tunnel is built, much of the traffic using it would be in trainloads between private sidings in Britain and the Continent.
The argument that the tunnel would largely benefit the South East is false. The firms attracted by the tunnel and Britain's lower wage costs would mainly be large multinationals moving their goods in trainloads.
OTTO RUSKULIS Newcastle upon Time