Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
observer

The Railways?

Recommended Posts

Quite amusing to see someone advocating road over rail; when one only needs to drive to the nearest main road these days, to get stuck in a line of traffic! :roll::wink:

 

That's coz most of the taxes levied on motorists are diverted to subsidise rail.

 

Increased rail would actually lead to even more town centre traffic because trains run from stations, stations are in town and city centres, people will need to drive to and park at the station to get the train. Imagine any significant proportion of the traffic currently getting on the various motorways around Warrington each morning all heading for the town centre instead to catch trains. If you think the Bridge Foot traffic is bad now, it'll be 10 times worse with a big car park at Bank Quay and more people catching trains from there!!

 

Long distance trains may well have a higher top speed than an average car, but by the time you've fitted your own plans around the train timetable, got to the station to catch the train and then got from the station at the other end to your actual destination the total journey time is rarely quicker than by car.

 

Increased rail would possibly give some reduction in long distance or motorway traffic - but apart from a few particular hot spots this is not predominately where the current problem is. Free up the Billions being poured into railways and the motorway pinch points could soon be sorted out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

..and where, pray, are these vast tracts of land to tarmac over, to provide the ever increasing road space? :? In towns, you can't even get down down streets due to parked cars, sorry more roads = even more cars = continued grid-lock. :shock: As for trains, you don't have to drive your own car to the station, you could use a taxi or even a bike or bus, thus no car park required, your car could remain at home to show folk how well-off you are! :wink: Any computer model, dealing with "people movement", will show centrally controlled and integrated systems work, everyone for himself (as in car traffic) doesn't. :roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quite amusing to see someone advocating road over rail; when one only needs to drive to the nearest main road these days, to get stuck in a line of traffic! :roll::wink:

 

We got stuck in traffic going to the station on Friday morning because of some antiquated annual booze up disguised as a religous walk of churches!!

 

Train to London was fabulous, just got back now having seen Jerry Springer in Chicago. A great relaxed journey and the only way to travel to London. I wouldn't fancy going anywhere on a train which hasn't got a Virgin badge on it though!

 

Just one thing though; when we got off the train at Bank Quay, some lowlife decided it was a good idea to stand in the door of the train having a fag... illegal now and yet the station staff did nothing except play a few pre-recored "smoking is illegal....." tapes. Surely he should have been dragged off and fined the ?80.00 and made to walk the rest of the way?? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
..and where, pray, are these vast tracts of land to tarmac over, to provide the ever increasing road space? :?

Any railway line would provide a fantastic route directly into a town or city centre if tarmac'd over. The bridges, underpasses and cuttings are already there - couple of quids worth of asphalt and the job's done.

 

In towns, you can't even get down down streets due to parked cars,

Stations take up a huge amount of space. Any idea how many cars a multi-storey car park the size of Piccadilly station could accommodate? Demolish the stations, build car parks, parking problem solved.

 

sorry more roads = even more cars = continued grid-lock. :shock:

Rubbish. There's a finite number of people trying to make a finite number of journeys. Tarmac-ing the railways would INCREASE the total passenger capacity of the transport network and DECREASE traffic density.

 

As for trains, you don't have to drive your own car to the station, you could use a taxi or even a bike or bus
How does that relieve congestion? A taxi is still a car, in fact using taxis increases congestion as a whole because they make a significant proportion of their journeys empty and non-productive. Can't get much in the way of luggage or shopping on a bike, but they are great if you want to turn up to meetings sweaty and stinking. Buses have a part to play, but unless all the bus stops on a route are lay-bys rather than just painted stopping places then all they achieve is to force every vehicle on the road to stop every couple of hundred yards.

Any computer model, dealing with "people movement", will show centrally controlled and integrated systems work, everyone for himself (as in car traffic) doesn't. :roll:

Any computer model dealing with the movement of ANYTHING, be it goods, people, power, data, water, anything at all, will show that a system which is reliant on bringing everything to centralised nodes for onward distribution from there is inflexible and highly prone to complete failure. A network approach which provides multiple alternative paths from any one point to any other is far more robust and efficient. That's one of the main differences between a rail and a road network.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more lorries we can get off the road the better, put more freight on the trains, that will free up the roads for cars.

 

Inlky there is a study about the M25, when they built it, it actually attracted more traffic to it and again when they put a forth lane on it :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, because the M25 made possible journeys which people wouldn't have considered previously.

 

Same happened with the M62. Very few people would have commuted across the Pennines before it was built.

 

But then, exactly the same argument applies equally to trains. Only in their case, the more trains you run the more subsidy you require.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, your "finite" equation isn't quite correct; the amount of land/space for manoevre around densily populated urban areas, in the third most densily populated country in the world, is certainly "finite"; but the numbers of folk yet to get behind the wheel aint. :shock: Every new road that has been recently built, is clogged up within weeks of folk knowing about it. :wink: What's the problem with taxis? A to B, and no parking required; AND if everyone used them, there would be no car users to moan about them travelling empty, same with buses, threy'd all be full. :roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok Obs, find me a bus or train timetable which allows me to travel quickly, door to door, between my home and customer sites scattered right across the north west of England at any time of the day or night. I need to be able to get to any one of them, 24x7, within 2 hours of them calling for me. Even the most ambitious "integrated transport" proposals come nowhere near meeting that need.

 

But my car can do it.

 

It goes directly to where I need to go, when I need to go there. I'm not forced to travel via numerous intervening points and change vehicles at each of them.

 

It only consumes energy when it's actually doing something useful for me - it never undertakes a journey with no-one aboard.

 

It waits patiently for whenever I need to use it, if I'm late leaving work I haven't missed it.

 

It easily carries the tools and parts I require to be able to do my job when I get there.

 

There's a reason why more people travel by car every day than by all other forms of transport combined. It's because, despite massive under-investment in our road infrastructure and the excessive tax burden placed on the motorist to subsidise buses and trains, the car is still by far the best way for most people to get from where they are to where they want to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't dispute your convenience arguement; but the problem occurs when everyone else also tries to enjoy such convenience at the same time - gridlock. :shock: It's a bit like the evacuation procedure for a building or ship: some think they would survive an every man for himself scenario, but when the lemmings start running chaos reigns, and most don't get very far. :roll: Likewise, most experts agree, that IF every car owner in the country decided to use their car at the same time, you wouldn't get beyond the bottom of your street! :roll: Thus the need for (slightly less convenient) ordered and co-ordinated movement systems. :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Experts" also say that IF all the people in China breathed in at the same time, the rest of us would all suffocate.

 

There's only one thing which would guarantee that everyone on a particular road was jumping into their car at the same time - and that's if they were all going to catch the same train!!!!

 

I don't see how anyone can advocate spending taxpayers money on more railway lines and more trains to alleviate rail congestion on routes which run at a loss even when full of passengers, and at the same time oppose more road building or better traffic management to address the needs of the tax paying motorist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So how come that massive subsidies are still required - both to Network Rail and the train operators - when passenger numbers are at an all time high? The fact that train operators are trying to squirm out of their franchise agreements DESPITE higher fare revenues than ever before simply proves that railways are not and never will be financially viable.

 

If more trains are to be run, then even more subsidy will be required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What IP said :wink::wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cost arguement only applies if you believe it should make profits along commercial lines; IF you believe in a fully integrated public transport system IMO, it should be free or certainly low priced; being subsidised by the "private" motorist: thus an incentive for the petrol heads to pay more, to get the rest of us onto cheap public transport, so they can then enjoy more road space - and possibly get out of first gear! :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, a modern, flexible and efficient form of transport is expected to run at a "profit" purely to subsidise some romantic vision of an out-dated, anachronistic one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, it's about using whatever transport mode is most efficient for the econonomy as a whole; some may cost more than others, but still prove more effective. EG; In London, the best means of getting from A to B, is the Tube, which alas is now groaning under the weight of passengers. :? Just imagine if all these rail passengers tried to drive to work - absolutely no chance! :roll::wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In any event saying "I blame Maggie" says more about your ignorance of current affairs than anything else. :wink:

 

Indeed. It was all that John Major's fault.

 

Reality check? The reality is that the railways were privatised under a Tory administration (a huge mistake in my opinion, but spilt milk now), but the government for the last 12+ years has not been a Tory government however much Obs may claim it. And what have they done to improve things?

 

I think there's a certain amount of myopia when it comes to the privatised railways. Stations are being improved - look at Warrington Central and Manchester Piccadilly for examples. New trains are being introduced - Pendolinos to London and some lovely new trains for Trans Pennine Express. There's been an increase in frequencies on some routes - every hour to London. New stations - Wavertree Technology Park and Liverpool South Parkway.

 

Having said all that - you could probably have done the same for a lot less money (and without a doomsday Railtrack scenario) if large chunks of money weren't being dished out to shareholders here, there and everywhere. Perhaps Labour should have allowed the original franchises to expire and taken back operations into the public sector: they've near enough taken back operation of the track with the creation of Network Rail.

 

The structure of rail privatisation was such that the Tories simply cannot absolve themselves yet for the huge pile of mess that they left for the incoming Labour government. It's a lot more than spilt milk - though not Margaret Thatcher's fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Increased rail would actually lead to even more town centre traffic because trains run from stations, stations are in town and city centres, people will need to drive to and park at the station to get the train. Imagine any significant proportion of the traffic currently getting on the various motorways around Warrington each morning all heading for the town centre instead to catch trains. If you think the Bridge Foot traffic is bad now, it'll be 10 times worse with a big car park at Bank Quay and more people catching trains from there!!

 

Sankey. Padgate. Birchwood. Three stations that aren't in the town centre, and serve the line that I suspect carries most commuters, i.e. people who work in Manchester or Liverpool.

 

You also make the assumption that everyone will drive into town to park up at the station. If we're assuming that everyone is going to use the train, then why can't we assume that everyone is going to catch the bus to the station?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sankey. Padgate. Birchwood. Three stations that aren't in the town centre, and serve the line that I suspect carries most commuters, i.e. people who work in Manchester or Liverpool.

 

Lymm, Thellwall, Grappenhall, Stockton Heath, Appleton, Stretton, Latchford, Walton, just a selection of the areas of Warrington without their own railway station and from which it's impossible to get to the stations you mentioned without going through the middle of town.

 

You also make the assumption that everyone will drive into town to park up at the station. If we're assuming that everyone is going to use the train, then why can't we assume that everyone is going to catch the bus to the station?

 

Perhaps because the vast majority of the towns buses go nowhere near the towns mainline railway station?

 

At the end of the day if it's going to take me 35-40 minutes to get a bus into Warrington, then 30-45 minutes to get a train into Manchester or Liverpool, and a further say 20 minutes to get another bus from the station to my place of work, then that's a minimum hour and a half's journey by public transport - ASSUMING perfect connections and nothing running late - compared to probably 40 minutes door to door by car.

 

No contest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, but if everyone else had the same idea, it would take a lot longer than 40mins - every passenger on a bus or train, is one less tin box on four wheels adding to a congested road system. :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lymm, Thellwall, Grappenhall, Stockton Heath, Appleton, Stretton, Latchford, Walton, just a selection of the areas of Warrington without their own railway station and from which it's impossible to get to the stations you mentioned without going through the middle of town.

 

If I lived in Latchford, it wouldn't be impossible to get to Padgate via Kingsway Bridge. Likewise if I lived in Lymm then Birchwood via Thelwall Viaduct would be a possible option.

 

Perhaps because the vast majority of the towns buses go nowhere near the towns mainline railway station?

 

Bank Quay perhaps - and more work needs to be done on that problem - but the bus interchange is right next door to Central station...

 

At the end of the day if it's going to take me 35-40 minutes to get a bus into Warrington, then 30-45 minutes to get a train into Manchester or Liverpool

 

...two cities which are both served by next-to-the-bus-interchange Central station, not Bank Quay. Besides, if you're in Lymm and you want to go to Manchester then you'd probably catch the bus into Altrincham and change onto the Metrolink.

 

a further say 20 minutes to get another bus from the station to my place of work

 

There doesn't have to be a journey at the other end if someone works within walking distance of the station.

 

then that's a minimum hour and a half's journey by public transport - ASSUMING perfect connections and nothing running late - compared to probably 40 minutes door to door by car.

 

But no one's trying to force you personally to take public transport - although with your suggestion to rip up rails and replace them with roads, you seem to be trying to force everyone to drive.

 

More people on public transport = less cars on the road = less disruption to public transport caused by traffic jams = less disruption to those people who really do need to drive to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warrington should have taken the opportunity to build a new station where the lines cross near Bewsey.

 

They spent a fortune on Central and then a fortune on Bank Quay so the funds were obviously there in part! Thay way it could have been built with a decent sized car park and good, regular bus links to encourage more people onto the trains and off the M62

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Warrington should have taken the opportunity to build a new station where the lines cross near Bewsey.

 

Too much cost, not enough benefit. Lousy location (except for the hospital). Cramped site. A more frequent, direct shuttle bus between Bank Quay and the interchange (for Central station) will suffice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...