Discussion
Moving frieght back onto rail for long distance would be good, havent the likes of Stobart have already started doing this? coupled with more local rail heads for the hauliers to pick up loads from.
Cheaper, frequent and cleaner passenger trains would also be nice, who knows if it was cheaper to use a train than a car, I may use the trains more often
Cheaper, frequent and cleaner passenger trains would also be nice, who knows if it was cheaper to use a train than a car, I may use the trains more often
Rail is very good for some journeys - however £200+ return fare (anytime) from Manchester to London is unaffordable unless on business and the customer pays.
I would be quite happy for rail to be subsidised to attract people off the roads, improving things for those journeys that can still only be accomplished by road (and for us that like driving!). We pay for this over and over again, but there's little interest in transport compared to throwing £1.5 billion at climate change, or £12+ billion at Olympics! I shudder to think about the bill for Iraq!
Also why not renationalise the rail services bit-by-bit as franchises expire?
The last point would assume some competance in government which may be a bit much to ask! Other countries seem to manage the provision of cheap reliable national rail networks though.
Current government thinking seems to sway towards taxing road usage to make it expensive and awkward, when they should be making the alternatives more affordable and reliable.
I relish the though of HS2 being built, but fear that the prices to use it will be ridiculous.
I would be quite happy for rail to be subsidised to attract people off the roads, improving things for those journeys that can still only be accomplished by road (and for us that like driving!). We pay for this over and over again, but there's little interest in transport compared to throwing £1.5 billion at climate change, or £12+ billion at Olympics! I shudder to think about the bill for Iraq!
Also why not renationalise the rail services bit-by-bit as franchises expire?
The last point would assume some competance in government which may be a bit much to ask! Other countries seem to manage the provision of cheap reliable national rail networks though.
Current government thinking seems to sway towards taxing road usage to make it expensive and awkward, when they should be making the alternatives more affordable and reliable.
I relish the though of HS2 being built, but fear that the prices to use it will be ridiculous.
JB! said:
As someone working in the industry, I want to hear peoples views on the way forward for he UK rail network...
On a keen motorists forum ?Long term, pretty much the same as the US network - it must stand
on its own two feet without taxpayer subsidy.
Short term, extending the new Dover - London CTRL high speed line
would be good.
Disused railway lines make lovely cycle paths.
We had a fantastic rail network until Dr Beeching decided we would be better off closing most of the smaller lines and moving everything onto the road.
The closures were supposed to save money, but in the end did very little.
Most towns had a railhead very close to their centres where freight could be taken directly, thus reducing traffic congestion due to freight. Many smaller towns and villages were also connected by branchline, again these were closed.
Unfortunately where most rail and freight yards were there are now housing and industrial estates. Should we want to reinstate the railways I doubt it would happen. The greens would be up in arms about it as we would be chopping down trees and no doubt effecting the countrys eco system by reinstating an older form of transport, and the locals would be up in arms because of the noise the nasty trains make, plus somebody would have to pay for it.
I think it was incredibly short sighted of the Beeching Commission to do what they did and I would love to see the old lines reopened, it would reduce both regular traffic and you could take a large amount of freight from the roads. Sadly I can't ever see it happening - it makes too much sense.
Another dilapidated and underused transport network we have are the canals, not good for perishable goods, but surely they could be used to move some freight around the old industrial areas?
The closures were supposed to save money, but in the end did very little.
Most towns had a railhead very close to their centres where freight could be taken directly, thus reducing traffic congestion due to freight. Many smaller towns and villages were also connected by branchline, again these were closed.
Unfortunately where most rail and freight yards were there are now housing and industrial estates. Should we want to reinstate the railways I doubt it would happen. The greens would be up in arms about it as we would be chopping down trees and no doubt effecting the countrys eco system by reinstating an older form of transport, and the locals would be up in arms because of the noise the nasty trains make, plus somebody would have to pay for it.
I think it was incredibly short sighted of the Beeching Commission to do what they did and I would love to see the old lines reopened, it would reduce both regular traffic and you could take a large amount of freight from the roads. Sadly I can't ever see it happening - it makes too much sense.
Another dilapidated and underused transport network we have are the canals, not good for perishable goods, but surely they could be used to move some freight around the old industrial areas?
JB! said:
As someone working in the industry, I want to hear peoples views on the way forward for he UK rail network...
Just a reminder:
we have the "heaviest" used section of line in Europe (west coast south) in EMGTPA, and have some 22,000 miles of track to maintain currently.
Beeching was short sighted, and as a result went too far with his cuts. We are still suffering for them today (outside the SE). It has affected everything from house price disparity to decline in small town populations (can't commute to city). The mill towns in N England and S Scotland are probably the best examples of this unforeseen-in-the-1960s effect.Just a reminder:
we have the "heaviest" used section of line in Europe (west coast south) in EMGTPA, and have some 22,000 miles of track to maintain currently.
The way forward?
For one not involved in the rail industry, I would say 'depends on demand'?
Is the network capacity the limiting factor?
dcb said:
JB! said:
As someone working in the industry, I want to hear peoples views on the way forward for he UK rail network...
On a keen motorists forum ?Long term, pretty much the same as the US network - it must stand
on its own two feet without taxpayer subsidy.
Short term, extending the new Dover - London CTRL high speed line
would be good.
Disused railway lines make lovely cycle paths.
We tried the US system. It was called railtrack(failtrack) and fell on its arse, and killed people.
The train needs to beat the car in terms of speed and cost.
Unless it's cheaper or faster for a traveller to go by train, they'll always drive if practicable.
I enjoy the train. I like letting someone else take the strain. But if it's cheaper to drive and I can subsequently travel at my own convenience, why use it?
Example - I went to Wembley recently for a concert with the OH.
I paid £30 for parking and about £15 in fuel. I parked literally next to the steps to take me up to the stadium.
I drove down at my own leisure, parked and then drove out virtually without traffic.
In contrast, I could have sat on a crowded train there, then got a crowded tube, walked further to the stadium, then fought with 25,000 others to get a train back home which, by all accounts, was dangerously crowded.
I would have had to pay for parking at the station where I live and the train tickets themselves would have cost more than my fuel and parking in the car.
No brainer.
Unless it's cheaper or faster for a traveller to go by train, they'll always drive if practicable.
I enjoy the train. I like letting someone else take the strain. But if it's cheaper to drive and I can subsequently travel at my own convenience, why use it?
Example - I went to Wembley recently for a concert with the OH.
I paid £30 for parking and about £15 in fuel. I parked literally next to the steps to take me up to the stadium.
I drove down at my own leisure, parked and then drove out virtually without traffic.
In contrast, I could have sat on a crowded train there, then got a crowded tube, walked further to the stadium, then fought with 25,000 others to get a train back home which, by all accounts, was dangerously crowded.
I would have had to pay for parking at the station where I live and the train tickets themselves would have cost more than my fuel and parking in the car.
No brainer.
Funkateer said:
Rail is very good for some journeys - however £200+ return fare (anytime) from Manchester to London is unaffordable unless on business and the customer pays.
Yet I was able to go from London to Glasgow for £13 becuase I booked in advance - I'd get about 100 miles out of my car for the same money... Get Karter said:
JB! said:
As someone working in the industry, I want to hear peoples views on the way forward for he UK rail network...
Just a reminder:
we have the "heaviest" used section of line in Europe (west coast south) in EMGTPA, and have some 22,000 miles of track to maintain currently.
Beeching was short sighted, and as a result went too far with his cuts. We are still suffering for them today (outside the SE). It has affected everything from house price disparity to decline in small town populations (can't commute to city). The mill towns in N England and S Scotland are probably the best examples of this unforeseen-in-the-1960s effect.Just a reminder:
we have the "heaviest" used section of line in Europe (west coast south) in EMGTPA, and have some 22,000 miles of track to maintain currently.
The way forward?
For one not involved in the rail industry, I would say 'depends on demand'?
Is the network capacity the limiting factor?
Read this book recently
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Eleven-Minutes-Late-Journe...
Here is what I would do (commuting to London)
1. Cut the fat from the timetables - journeys are getting longer than a few years ago
2. Put on longer trains so more people have a chance of a seat at rush hour.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Eleven-Minutes-Late-Journe...
Here is what I would do (commuting to London)
1. Cut the fat from the timetables - journeys are getting longer than a few years ago
2. Put on longer trains so more people have a chance of a seat at rush hour.
Recently had to travel for a meeting in central Birmingham quarter of a mile from New Street.
Price of train £80, cost of fuel £40.
Yes I know there are other costs but there are also other problems associated with public transport, namely travel to and from a mainline station and er, the travelling public.
Price of train £80, cost of fuel £40.
Yes I know there are other costs but there are also other problems associated with public transport, namely travel to and from a mainline station and er, the travelling public.
Edited by mattviatura on Tuesday 15th December 11:31
forget booking in advance, for people to seriously consider using the train as everyday transport they need to be able to turn up and pay a low fare. i for one can't plan my life far enough ahead to take advantage of cheap deals.
so what i'd change is to rationalise ticket prices.
for instance, i can head to the local train station right now and pay £27 return to manchester. thats approx. a 180 mile roundtrip. petrol for this journey in my 528i would be about £40 making it a rational decision to go by rail.
however, the cheapest return to london i could get to london would be £117 for a 380mile rountrip - double the distance but four times the cost. petrol for this trip would be approx. £80.
in my old car i could [and did every weekend for 2 years] do a roundtrip to london w2 for £40 of diesel, park up for free and have the use of the car if it was needed.
so what i'd change is to rationalise ticket prices.
for instance, i can head to the local train station right now and pay £27 return to manchester. thats approx. a 180 mile roundtrip. petrol for this journey in my 528i would be about £40 making it a rational decision to go by rail.
however, the cheapest return to london i could get to london would be £117 for a 380mile rountrip - double the distance but four times the cost. petrol for this trip would be approx. £80.
in my old car i could [and did every weekend for 2 years] do a roundtrip to london w2 for £40 of diesel, park up for free and have the use of the car if it was needed.
JB! said:
Get Karter said:
JB! said:
As someone working in the industry, I want to hear peoples views on the way forward for he UK rail network...
Just a reminder:
we have the "heaviest" used section of line in Europe (west coast south) in EMGTPA, and have some 22,000 miles of track to maintain currently.
Beeching was short sighted, and as a result went too far with his cuts. We are still suffering for them today (outside the SE). It has affected everything from house price disparity to decline in small town populations (can't commute to city). The mill towns in N England and S Scotland are probably the best examples of this unforeseen-in-the-1960s effect.Just a reminder:
we have the "heaviest" used section of line in Europe (west coast south) in EMGTPA, and have some 22,000 miles of track to maintain currently.
The way forward?
For one not involved in the rail industry, I would say 'depends on demand'?
Is the network capacity the limiting factor?
Do you need to buy hundreds of square miles of land, or has the price of steel rail lines gone up?
Podie said:
Funkateer said:
Rail is very good for some journeys - however £200+ return fare (anytime) from Manchester to London is unaffordable unless on business and the customer pays.
Yet I was able to go from London to Glasgow for £13 becuase I booked in advance - I'd get about 100 miles out of my car for the same money... 
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff