Some things never change...

[Elojikal]

Different organisations, same nonsense...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4112360.stm

It's just another of form of the Conservative era practice of making fares high to pare off demand. The railway industry is never going to really take the quantum leap forward that it needs to until the treasury accepts the need to build new lines (and I do mean new lines - modern and meeting today's needs and not just reopening old lines axed in the Beeching era.)

[arabiandisco]

I blame the government (all governments).

They don't want people to travel by train, because they make so much money every time we get into a car, but have to subsidise railways. The treasury exists solely to line the pockets of MPs and civil servants. We will have to make do with "upgrading" existing routes, and occasionally reopening branch lines that clearly should never have been shut.

However, in the era of "privatisation", surely the last thing a TOC should want to do is drive "customers" away? Shows just how "Privatised" the railway is.

[spartacus]

Yes, some things never change. This isn't anything new. The media talking of it as a congestion charge makes it sound like something new and scary. All it is, is a proposed increase in peak time fares. Media scaremongering. They mention a forecast 28% passenger increase figure over 10 years. They know full well that many people will forget everything but the 28% figure, link it to the store being about fare rises and imagine 28% fare rises at peak times next year.

Atoc said the government's road charging plan could prompt such a move by forcing more people on to trains.

Government plans, which may not even go ahead, which even if they do will take years to fully impliment, COULD prompt a move....

Train lengths are unlikely to increase, except in a few notable cases, while the SRA specifies at most equal capacity in it's franchises. Many routes are running close to effective capacity, where performance would deminsish if more trains were run and any new routes would take a decade to plan, never mind get planning permission for, move out 'swampies', NIMBYs, and actually build.

There's no point in going 'but if that route wasn't shut....' as it's already been shut. It's more sensible to redouble, triple or quadrouple lines, as the formation is likely to still exist and be railway property. It's also less likely to have had costly bridges demolished, or supermarkets built over the formation. Line which are easy to reopen tend to be ones which would bring a new service, rather than relieve an alternative line.

[johndibben]

It would be better for the envoirnment if people lived closer to their work.

Road tolls and rail congestion charges might make commuting any distance unprofitable for many, as was always the case.

Can't believe family life is improved by a family of two parents and two kids spending say, possibly 8 hours a day, maybe more, commuting to and from work and school.

40 years ago that would've been an hour between them, much of it on bikes or on foot.

The idea is sound but the public won't like it.

[spartacus]

Of coarse not. People not only want to have their cake and eat it, but often they want somebody else to pay for it as well!

[nwallace]

If I started cycling to work, it woudl be faster than the bus i get now because of the waiting... admittedly its 45 mins vs 50 mins

Can't be bothered sriving, the only fun part of the drive is the multi-story car park.

[johncas]

Anyone see the 6:00 news they said Doubble Deacker Trains could be introduced would love to see that and more ppeople are using the trains than ever so why close down the rural lines whoch are for some people a lifeline the only way to travel.

[crwbandrwg]

This is not an easy solution for Britain due to our limited loading gauge. The Southern Region experimented with double deck EMUs in the 60s but were extremely limited to routes that could accommodate them. They were scrapped in the 70s. Here's what they looked like:

http://www.railfaneurope.net/pix/gb/ele ... D/pix.html

So for double deckers to become as commonplace on our urban networks as they are in Europe we'd need to heighten bridges, widen tunnels etc. A costly, if worthy job. But according to the government who needs a continental loading gauge when we can just price people off the rails.

[beresford]

They could always get rid of First Class, that would increase capacity

[barrybryce01475]

We could have some of these providing a cheap service in rural areas: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4112926.stm (If someone can find a way of bottling what people seem to come up with in the way of ideas for transport in this country.)

[daveannjon]

I can't help feeling this is a political move by ATOC to scare the government into investing more in rail.

Regarding longer trains, some of the TOCs want this - it would mean platforms being lengthened, fair enough, but the blinkered Health and Safety people say you've got to rebuild the whole platform to current spec, consequently it's too expensive and nothing gets done - what a silly country we live in these days!

DaveW

[Elojikal]

I blame the government (all governments).

They don't want people to travel by train, because they make so much money every time we get into a car, but have to subsidise railways. The treasury exists solely to line the pockets of MPs and civil servants. We will have to make do with "upgrading" existing routes, and occasionally reopening branch lines that clearly should never have been shut.

However, in the era of "privatisation", surely the last thing a TOC should want to do is drive "customers" away? Shows just how "Privatised" the railway is.

I normally agree with you but here we'll have to part ways. I don't...well let's say can;t believe that it is a deliberate conspiracy on the part of the treasury to keep people in their cars so as to make more money out of them. As for the branch lines that should never have been shut well again I have to disagree. Most of the lines axed in the Beeching era wern't even profitable when they were built and were built primarily to fight off competition from rivals. They served no practical purpose in the 19th century and money spent investing in railways today could be invested far more wisely elsewhere in building new lines that meet the needs of the great rather than the few and not reopening unsustainable old lines that people get nostalgic over. If companies such as the LBSCR could regularly get in trouble with their shareholders back in the 1860's for opening such loss making lines then how would it be any different today?

That's not to knock some of the small branch lines that have been reopened in recent years with the aid of local input but I don't believe it is a serious solution that should be contemplated en masse.

[jpantera]

The railway has to many cooks spoiling the broth. Billions have been thrown away on making us get to london 30mins faster, contractors have bled the railway dry and now they talk of a congestion charge!! ARRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH
sorry for a unintelligent post but i get seriousley annoyed everytime this cockhanded attempt of a railway we have as some kind of 'solution' to a problem be it overcrowding or under use in other areas.

[LCMXD11]

I would go all the way and opt for complete renationalisation, but with a real commitment to investment. Cloud cucko land I know, but with government owned and operated services, not one penny would end up in the pocket of a shareholder. Alledgedly.

How is it that the tax burden shed by the mass privatisation of our national assets has led to such huge tax rises and price increases? How are we better off? And how could it be worse without the fact cats and vested interests?

[spartacus]

The big problem with any nationalised industry is that if you run over budget, tough, but if you go under budget the government takes that money and gives you that much less next year.