Discussion
Comiserations to anyone involved or affected by this, but, when are we going to realise that ploghing billions back into the rail network and encouraging people to use it is about as practical as having an initiative to get people to wear top hat & tails to work? It's Victorian technology, and just becouse the Euroloonies are hanging onto it, doesn't mean we have to too.
If any commercial or passenger vehicle had the sort of braking distances required by trains I'm sure they'd fail their MOT. And then there's the small, but no inconsiderable matter of seat belts, or rather, lack of them.
Should just tarmac the whole network and run big articulated land train type things (like the big Aussie trucks). We'd save a fortune on track maintenance, and could probably increase the volume of traffic no end.
>> Edited by DIGGA on Friday 10th May 15:01
If any commercial or passenger vehicle had the sort of braking distances required by trains I'm sure they'd fail their MOT. And then there's the small, but no inconsiderable matter of seat belts, or rather, lack of them.
Should just tarmac the whole network and run big articulated land train type things (like the big Aussie trucks). We'd save a fortune on track maintenance, and could probably increase the volume of traffic no end.
>> Edited by DIGGA on Friday 10th May 15:01
quentin got it right on 5th gear last week when he pointed out after hatfield crash they're spending £ 2billion on train safety - the amount of people that died then happens twice a day on british roads but very little is spent improving safety on roads despite motorists contributing 10% of governments income.
quote:Ah, but if the trains weren't moving they wouldn't have crashed, so that's obviously the solution. Well done, take a large civil service pension that man.
Maybe they should put speed, sorry, safety cameras on railways. After all the government seems to be convinced they can cure everything else.
quote:
Comiserations to anyone involved or affected by this, but, when are we going to realise that ploghing billions back into the rail network and encouraging people to use it is about as practical as having an initiative to get people to wear top hat & tails to work? It's Victorian technology, and just becouse the Euroloonies are hanging onto it, doesn't mean we have to too. If any commercial or passenger vehicle had the sort of braking distances required by trains I'm sure they'd fail their MOT. And then there's the small, but no inconsiderable matter of seat belts, or rather, lack of them.
Should just tarmac the whole network and run big articulated land train type things (like the big Aussie trucks). We'd save a fortune on track maintenance, and could probably increase the volume of traffic no end.
>> Edited by DIGGA on Friday 10th May 15:01
Not with you on that one Marcus. It is just that people have to realise that running an efficient train transport business in a country cannot be a profitable business. However, it is part of a country's infrastructure and indirectly generates billions of pounds of revenue. Country / Urban planning is far to important to be left to market forces. In France, running the TGV between Paris and Bordeaux or Nantes may not be a very profitable business, but it has contributed to the economic development of these regions, which in an overcentralised country like France is no minor feat.
rthierry, take a walk to (not on!) your nearest railway - look at the volume of traffic. Then go and have a look at a road of similar width. Compare and contrast.
I live near to the West Coast mainline (used to play on it as a kid) and theres six lines with nothing whatsovever running on them a lot of the time.
Then consider how quickly you can brake steel wheels on steel rails, and the fact that you can't swerve in train, not at all, not even a little bit.
Then look at the maintenance cost per mile for UK railways (remembering that the standard we're maintaining to in the UK is below the continental norm, as proved recently when the German company building trains for the UK had to deliberately 'distress' their lines to recreate running conditions) and compare with that of a stretch of asphalt.
>> Edited by DIGGA on Friday 10th May 16:26
I live near to the West Coast mainline (used to play on it as a kid) and theres six lines with nothing whatsovever running on them a lot of the time.
Then consider how quickly you can brake steel wheels on steel rails, and the fact that you can't swerve in train, not at all, not even a little bit.
Then look at the maintenance cost per mile for UK railways (remembering that the standard we're maintaining to in the UK is below the continental norm, as proved recently when the German company building trains for the UK had to deliberately 'distress' their lines to recreate running conditions) and compare with that of a stretch of asphalt.
>> Edited by DIGGA on Friday 10th May 16:26
quote:
Comiserations to anyone involved or affected by this, but, when are we going to realise that ploghing billions back into the rail network and encouraging people to use it is about as practical as having an initiative to get people to wear top hat & tails to work? It's Victorian technology, and just becouse the Euroloonies are hanging onto it, doesn't mean we have to too.
If any commercial or passenger vehicle had the sort of braking distances required by trains I'm sure they'd fail their MOT. And then there's the small, but no inconsiderable matter of seat belts, or rather, lack of them.
Should just tarmac the whole network and run big articulated land train type things (like the big Aussie trucks). We'd save a fortune on track maintenance, and could probably increase the volume of traffic no end.
>> Edited by DIGGA on Friday 10th May 15:01
I think they are called buses. They have a tarmaced track for them on the M4. Presumably you're not serious on this?
The train is an essential means of transport - try getting into work in London when you live outside London without it.
And what do braking distances have to do with it? Rail safety is all about only having the train and nothing else on one piece of track. System failures which cause crashes between trains are unacceptable, as are track failures which cause derailing. Lack of investment is a factor in this - not the fact that the train has its roots in Victorian times. Following your logic we should scrap cars because the technology is also ancient.
I take it you don't need to use the train much? As a rail user I find your comments a little daft...
(P.S. I'm not some Green party lunatic - I need to get into London every day so I see the need for a reliable rail system. When I'm not at home in the Griff...)
As you say, in an ideal world there should be no need for trains to stop, no unexpected hazards to avoid on the track. We don't live in an ideal world, and it's clearly impossible to partol and/or monitor every piece of track.
You're correct in assuming I don't personally use trains to commute, but I'm not suggesting that public tranport is scrapped. I realise that sub-urbaners rubbishing public transport, despite the fact they have no first hand experince of it, is as infuriating as some cabinet minister, a tube ride away from work, telling the country as a whole to get the bus/trin to work.
But do 'trains' really need to run the way they do? How is a train driver supposed to avoid the debris chucked onto the tracks, the numptymobile that's just dropped onto the line, or the other train that's just run a red light?
>> Edited by DIGGA on Friday 10th May 17:25
>> Edited by DIGGA on Friday 10th May 17:25
You're correct in assuming I don't personally use trains to commute, but I'm not suggesting that public tranport is scrapped. I realise that sub-urbaners rubbishing public transport, despite the fact they have no first hand experince of it, is as infuriating as some cabinet minister, a tube ride away from work, telling the country as a whole to get the bus/trin to work.
But do 'trains' really need to run the way they do? How is a train driver supposed to avoid the debris chucked onto the tracks, the numptymobile that's just dropped onto the line, or the other train that's just run a red light?
>> Edited by DIGGA on Friday 10th May 17:25
>> Edited by DIGGA on Friday 10th May 17:25
Trains are safer than cars. Crashes are more spectacular and more unusual so they make good news. Same for airline crashes.
I spent some years commuting into London on the train and whilst it wasn't great it meant I could get really pissed after work and get home. They were pretty reliable (commuters love to complain) really and there wasn't an alternative means of getting into London.
We're becoming such a nation of moaning, finger pointing numpties in the country.
Let's face it - trains have their place. Trains could be better. Trains are safe, and every effort should be made to keep them safe. Just watch the ridiculous witch hunt there will be now.
Contrast that with the carnage on our roads where we let woefully inexperienced and undereducated drivers to crash into each other willy nilly.
I spent some years commuting into London on the train and whilst it wasn't great it meant I could get really pissed after work and get home. They were pretty reliable (commuters love to complain) really and there wasn't an alternative means of getting into London.
We're becoming such a nation of moaning, finger pointing numpties in the country.
Let's face it - trains have their place. Trains could be better. Trains are safe, and every effort should be made to keep them safe. Just watch the ridiculous witch hunt there will be now.
Contrast that with the carnage on our roads where we let woefully inexperienced and undereducated drivers to crash into each other willy nilly.
quote:
I think our system is in a rather poor state, don't you...
yes, but I don't want any taxpayers money being spent on fixing it.
As for safety, two billion quid is being spent on a
travel system that kills about thirty folks a year
on average. While each death is a tradgey, I think
all that money will only reduce the death toll
by about a dozen folks.
Meanwhile, on the roads, some 3500 die each year, and
about how much gets spent on making it safer ?
I think, yet again, total blame for most of the problems this country is facing can be laid squarely on the doorstep of 10 Downing Street!
The governent saw a quick and easy way of making a few bob by selling off British Rail to local operators, WAGN, Scotrail, GNER, Great Western etc and the infrastructure to Railtrack!
We have seen over the last few months, that this wasn't the smartest move to make! Railtrack and it's investors, Quite Rightly, were only interested in Profits! (Wouldn't you be if you had just invested in a company!) But, they didn't do anything to the network, normal maintenance wasn't enough, and led to the Hatfield disaster! The regional operators have put an awful lot of trust in Railtrack and the government, thier rolling stock and Passengers on Railtracks lines, using their signals etc!! When you have a train doing in excess of 100mph (much greater than the NSL on the roads I might add!), they EXPECT everything to be perfect, and the slightest problem can have disasterous consequences! Hatfield!
Just a point to note, how much is this latest crash going to cost WAGN in lost revenue, compensation claims, fixing Potters Bar station, and replacing rolling stock!!! I'm not going to speculate on the cause of the crash, but at the end of the day, railtrack are responsible for the condition of the track!!
One final point on tarmacing the tracks! There was an Idea waved about for a while a couple of years back (may have been last year) about the old railway line from St Ives to Cambridge! IIRC all the Stations are still in place, St Ives, Swavesey/Over, etc and the idea was to tarmac over the track and use buses to connect the two, running along this RailRoad! I haven't heard anything of it since, but I think it was scrapped because it would cost too much to referb all the stations, tarmac the line and build buses to operate! They would cross roads by using the same level crossing system used on the Railways, buse approaches, traffic is stopped and bus just keeps going! Good idea to me!!
The governent saw a quick and easy way of making a few bob by selling off British Rail to local operators, WAGN, Scotrail, GNER, Great Western etc and the infrastructure to Railtrack!
We have seen over the last few months, that this wasn't the smartest move to make! Railtrack and it's investors, Quite Rightly, were only interested in Profits! (Wouldn't you be if you had just invested in a company!) But, they didn't do anything to the network, normal maintenance wasn't enough, and led to the Hatfield disaster! The regional operators have put an awful lot of trust in Railtrack and the government, thier rolling stock and Passengers on Railtracks lines, using their signals etc!! When you have a train doing in excess of 100mph (much greater than the NSL on the roads I might add!), they EXPECT everything to be perfect, and the slightest problem can have disasterous consequences! Hatfield!
Just a point to note, how much is this latest crash going to cost WAGN in lost revenue, compensation claims, fixing Potters Bar station, and replacing rolling stock!!! I'm not going to speculate on the cause of the crash, but at the end of the day, railtrack are responsible for the condition of the track!!
One final point on tarmacing the tracks! There was an Idea waved about for a while a couple of years back (may have been last year) about the old railway line from St Ives to Cambridge! IIRC all the Stations are still in place, St Ives, Swavesey/Over, etc and the idea was to tarmac over the track and use buses to connect the two, running along this RailRoad! I haven't heard anything of it since, but I think it was scrapped because it would cost too much to referb all the stations, tarmac the line and build buses to operate! They would cross roads by using the same level crossing system used on the Railways, buse approaches, traffic is stopped and bus just keeps going! Good idea to me!!
I like railways. I've been an obsessive train-spotter all my days 
Seriously though, sympathy to all those who have suffered loss or injury as a result of this accident. Their only comfort will be the usual promise of better things from sanctimonious politicians, plus the inevitable witch-hunt for someone to blame.
There are probably three solutions; either return to a single nationalised system, or revert to the pre-BR setup with a handful of companies responsible for track and rolling stock, or directly nationalise the track and rent it out to the train operators (similar to the Railtrack situation, but with a government department solely and entirely responsible for track maintenance).
The third option appeals because the government would have nowhere to hide. It would have to put its money where its ginormous mouth is, and lease the track to the operators at a price low enough to avoid the need to subsidise them.
Unfortunately all these ideas would need taxpayers money, and there would be even less spent on our antiquated roads.
Seriously though, sympathy to all those who have suffered loss or injury as a result of this accident. Their only comfort will be the usual promise of better things from sanctimonious politicians, plus the inevitable witch-hunt for someone to blame.
There are probably three solutions; either return to a single nationalised system, or revert to the pre-BR setup with a handful of companies responsible for track and rolling stock, or directly nationalise the track and rent it out to the train operators (similar to the Railtrack situation, but with a government department solely and entirely responsible for track maintenance).
The third option appeals because the government would have nowhere to hide. It would have to put its money where its ginormous mouth is, and lease the track to the operators at a price low enough to avoid the need to subsidise them.
Unfortunately all these ideas would need taxpayers money, and there would be even less spent on our antiquated roads.
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff