| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Oxenstierna
Joined: 20 Jun 2011
Posts: 44
Location: Scotlandshire
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
adam2
Site Admin
Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 4463
Location: London UK
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:52 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Well someones got to pay for the new shorter trains !
Spending on railways in recent years has produced little improvement for passengers, with new trains generally replacing old, rather than being a supplement to improve capacity.
Electrification though in theory a good idea due to concerns re future oil supply, is not allways an improvement as regards train length and passenger comfort or facilities.
I for one much prefer a nearly 40 year old (diesel) HST with 7 or 8 coaches to new 4 car electric train.
Current policy appears to be price people off the railways rather than provide full length trains.
Peak time steerage class fares are already a lot more costly than petrol* for a car, and first class is comparable to a taxi fare in many cases.
For 2 or 3 people travelling together a chaufuer driven luxury car is normally cheaper than first class rail fares, and does of course gaurentee a seat !
*there are of course many other costs involved in running a car, but if the vehicle has already been purchased, taxed, insured etc, then the marginal cost for another journey is not much more than the petrol.
_________________
"Installers and owners of emergency diesels must assume that they will have to run for a week or more" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DominicJ
Joined: 18 Nov 2008
Posts: 4387
Location: NW UK
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2011 3:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And one wonders how many of the poeple complaining about rising fares were tweeting happy thoughts to the striking train drivers....
Trains are a monopoly, and like all monopolies, take the piss.
God knows how much is going to cost me to get to work once the Tram comes in.
Is there a reason electric trains are so much shorter?
_________________
I'm a realist, not a hippie |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SleeperService
Joined: 02 May 2011
Posts: 923
Location: Nottingham UK
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2011 3:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DominicJ wrote: | And one wonders how many of the poeple complaining about rising fairs were tweeting happy thoughts to the striking train drivers....
Trains are a monopoly, and like all monopolies, take the piss.
God knows how much is going to cost me to get to work once the Tram comes in.
Is there a reason electric trains are so much shorter? |
To restrict supply, create apparent demand and price up accordingly.
The other reason that fares are going up 5.9% is to pay the directors 49% increase next year. Suggests that they may want more in future.
But surely all these different companies create competition 
_________________
On the point of giving up and dropping out.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
adam2
Site Admin
Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 4463
Location: London UK
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2011 3:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DominicJ wrote: |
Is there a reason electric trains are so much shorter? |
They dont HAVE to be shorter, but in practice often are.
The modern trend is towards multiple unit trains, both diesel and electric. These can be coupled together to make longer trains and sometimes are, but very often run as single units with fewer seats.
Fleet sizes for new trains are often based on very optimistic assumptions regarding reliability and availability, when these are not reailised, then shorter trains.
As an example, the route between London Waterloo and Exeter suffered "total route modernisation" some years ago.
As a result, 3 car diesel multiple units replaced 8 car locomotive hauled trains with consequent overcrowding.
Two of the new units coupled together still had fewer seats than of the old ones.
Some stations had short platforms, with the old trains one had to alight from the correct portion. But this became dangerous with the new trains, therefore services calling at some stations were limited to 3 car only, even if a longer train was available.
After 10 years of overcrowding, several trains on the route are now the same length as THEY ALL used to be.
Selective door opening has also been fitted to permit of a 6 car train calling at a shorter platform. This cost millions and took years, no question of course of specifying it in the first place.
_________________
"Installers and owners of emergency diesels must assume that they will have to run for a week or more"
Last edited by adam2 on Tue Dec 20, 2011 4:39 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DominicJ
Joined: 18 Nov 2008
Posts: 4387
Location: NW UK
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2011 4:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Fleets sizes for new trains are often based on very optimistic assumptions regarding reliability and availability, when these are not reailised, then shorter trains. |
That makes sense.
| Quote: | | Some stations had short platforms, with the old trains one had to alight from the correct portion. But this became dangerous with the new trains, therefore services calling at some stations were limited to 3 car only, even if a longer train was available. |
And I thought it was just us in the sticks who had to play musical carriages to get off at our stop 
_________________
I'm a realist, not a hippie |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JohnB
Joined: 22 May 2006
Posts: 6222
Location: Beautiful sunny West Wales!
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2011 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DominicJ wrote: | | And I thought it was just us in the sticks who had to play musical carriages to get off at our stop |
Most of Waterloo - Exeter is in the sticks!
_________________
John
Eco-Hamlets UK - Small sustainable neighbourhoods
Permaculture UK Forum |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
frank_begbie
Joined: 18 Aug 2010
Posts: 754
Location: Cheshire
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thank God they were privatised.
I hate to think of the cost they'd have been otherwise.
_________________
"In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated, and scorned. When his cause succeeds however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 7071
Location: Newbury, Berkshire
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
It was recently announced that trains in the South and South West are to be lengthened with the addition of another carriage to the multiple units.
_________________
BLOG
It is very, very, very serious indeed. This is the big one!" Professor Tim Lang, APPGOPO, 25/03/08. And he was talking about food, not oil or the economy! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lurker
Joined: 17 Jul 2010
Posts: 437
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2011 10:56 am Post subject: Is this plan still going forward? |
|
|
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/19/rail-train-tax-fares-hammond
| Quote: | | An overhaul of rail industry costs could end inflation-busting fare increases, with shorter off-peak trains and the transfer of rural rail lines to local authorities, according to the transport secretary. |
| Quote: | But he ruled out fare cuts as he warned that the £5.2bn-a-year state subsidy for the "relatively small" and "better off" proportion of the population that use trains is unsustainable at current levels. Overall, farepayers currently spend £6.2bn a year.
"In the long term the taxpayer will not be prepared to just continually increase the level of subsidy that they give to the relatively small number of people who ever use trains – something like only 12% of the population. And of course those who use trains tend to be better off anyway," he said. |
Sounds like beeching all over again.....
_________________
Every time you spend money,you're casting a vote for the kind of world you want.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich" -Napoleon Bonaparte |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ludwig
Joined: 08 Jul 2008
Posts: 3851
Location: Cambridgeshire
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2011 12:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| frank_begbie wrote: | Thank God they were privatised.
I hate to think of the cost they'd have been otherwise.
|
Well it's taxpayers' money that's being shovelled into their coffers to keep their share prices artificially high - a cost that wouldn't exist if they were still public - so don't be too thankful.
_________________
"We're just waiting, looking skyward as the days go down / Someone promised there'd be answers if we stayed around." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RenewableCandy
Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 10691
Location: York
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DominicJ
Joined: 18 Nov 2008
Posts: 4387
Location: NW UK
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2011 9:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ludwig
The subsidy to trains is less than it was before privatisation, not more....
Rail just isnt an efficient way to move people to work and back.
_________________
I'm a realist, not a hippie |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sweat
Joined: 16 Aug 2010
Posts: 49
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2011 4:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ludwig wrote: | | frank_begbie wrote: | Thank God they were privatised.
I hate to think of the cost they'd have been otherwise.
|
Well it's taxpayers' money that's being shovelled into their coffers to keep their share prices artificially high - a cost that wouldn't exist if they were still public - so don't be too thankful. |
I imagine frank was being ironic |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
featherstick
Joined: 05 Mar 2010
Posts: 1222
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2011 4:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DominicJ wrote: | Ludwig
The subsidy to trains is less than it was before privatisation, not more....
Rail just isnt an efficient way to move people to work and back. |
I'm assuming you have a very narrow definition of "efficient" otherwise you're talking rollocks.
_________________
"Tea's a good drink - keeps you going" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
