As for times, if I am optimistic, with stopping times: Copenhagen-Hamburg 1h20m, on to Bremen 40m, on to Groningen 50m, on to Amsterdam 50m, 3h40m total. If I am less optimistic about just how through the true high-speed lines would become (e.g. longer upgraded/four-tracked sections along the way, near cities and in a Fehmarn tunnel): 2h, 50m, 1h10m, 1h, together 5h. (Note: Paris-Amsterdam on upgraded conventional line from Brussels to Antwerp, and again Schipol-Amsterdam C).
Stockholm-Copenhagen would be roughly 550 km, so your two hours for a true high-speed service sound realistic. (Currently: more than five hours...) *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
There have been some very postive signs during the last year or two.
I should probably do a diary on it, as the project has the fitting name Europakorridoren, the European Corridor. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
That's not how it works.
With such big projects, the decision that really matters is the start of the main construction tenders.
When the 'decision' is a joint government or even EU-level declaration, that can be drawn out indefinitely, with repeated joint declarations that now we really mean business. Or worse, the decisionmakers might be only willing to pay for preliminary studies, and sell those as the start of the project, but then solicit ever more studies (an example: Brenner Base Tunnel). Even when the decision is tendering the detailed plans, that may be followed up by several plan modifications, or disputes over the price tag that may delay the construction tender (example: Malmö city tunnel), even indefinitely.
I should probably do a diary on it
You should!
(And with the political boundaries clearly drawn, I'd be curious at contrarian comments from other ETers versed in Swedish politics ;-) ) *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
