What are Railways for?

[slipdigby]

After observing that it is impossible to get from Blackpool to Port Vale to see a football match on a Monday in December by rail, I though I'd play agent provocatuer and ask the question that noone (especially politicians) ever seems to do.

What are the UK's railways for? What does steel wheel on steel rail bring to this country that equal investment in other modes of transport, or even investment in other "worthy" institutions such as health or education?

Big question, but I'm interested in your thoughts Play away

[MuzTrem]

Railways should be the transport of the future. Electric cars are all very well but they don't solve the problem of over congested motorways. Does it ever strike you as odd that we build new motorways every year, but apart from the CTRL no mainline railways have been built in Britain for 100 years? If we all switched to railways, we wouldn't need any more horrible strips of concrete ursurping what's left of our wonderful countryside. Sadly, when Joe Public drives to work in his car every day, he dosn't think of the environmental implications-and we need to, before it's too late.

[allypally]

A safe, efficient way of getting from A to B, with a large capacity for passenger usage, and higher speeds possible to expect than could be safe for the average drive on the roads. A 4 track mainline railway actually takes up less of the countryside than a 6 lane motorway. Railways as a whole are capable of producing far less emissions than the road system.


As a whole, railways are there to serve the public, to move mass transit more efficiently than either road or air, and to be financially viable to run, in this day and age.

[johncard]

Pending a few more thoughts (!), I'd say bulk movement, long distance movement and development. Railways are vital for transporting freight such as coal to power stations, and providing that they're not prohibitively expensive to travel on, then people would prefer to travel to a city linked by fast, frequent and comfortable transport than one without.

I personally think that more could be done to improve the viability of railways, using passenger trains to deliver mail, the reintroduction of Motorail over long distances (with a very simple fares system) to take advantage of motorists, likewise with the building of out-of-town park & ride/interchange stations, the development of the 'minimodal' concept - perhaps with the introduction of mixed traffic DMUs carrying both passengers and containers hired by local firms along secondary routes, perhaps even the reintroduction of a form of slip coach.........

Of course 99% of these ideas hinge upon the notion of TOCs carrying both passengers and freight

John

[johndibben]

The answer depends on who you speak to.

In a society where almost (always have to add this qualification as there's always an exception everyone wants a car and to use it as much as possible, the railways now simply act as an alternative.

Commuting and travel to airports must form the majority of journeys. Given people commute much longer disances than in the past, that encompasses much of the former Inter-City network.

Long distance travel within the UK has competition from the air although this appears a crime against nature. Trains appear to be built for speed rather than comfort unlike the old saying about well built ladies

Passenger numbers have increased dramatically but I'm not sure whether they want to use the railways or have little choice.

So the railways are for people who can't use a car. Given many lines have as many passengers as they can handle, that would appear a good enough reason to have them.

Enthusiasts view them as entertainment but they clearly don't have the place in the nation's psyche they used to have.

Very good at hauling bulk freight as well. Despite all the good intentions, the roads will always dominate for smaller loads.

Far more mail and parcels could use the railways.

I'd extended freight services to airports. No idea why no one's ever thought of this?

The railways require radical thinking with new lines, old lines reopened and others closed to make best use of resources.

One thing is for sure, you can't attempt to force people to travel by rail and hope for contented passengers.

It would be a good idea to ask the population as a whole what they see as railways being for. I suspect it's for someone else

PS

Don't take this too seriously.

Only a few thoughts posted in response to Slip while waiting for my dinner

[mattvince]

Railways are good at moving large quantities of 'items' fairly quickly over specific corridors in an efficient manner. Or at least that's the theory.

In certain areas rail really does work far better than any other form of transport - notably in London. I've come to the conclusion that without rail, there would be gridlock inside Zone 6 with the current road system. The economic consequences of that - national economic consequences - are not worth thinking about.

The problem with the economics of rail is that they are competing against cars, which don't cover their full costs, and are politically unlikely to have any form of demand-pricing in the next quarter-century. Unlike rail - which has mileage-based pricing of track usage, and (admittedly somewhat chaotic) demand-pricing of traffic. Rail does have the environmental benefits of less land-take, efficient use of non-land-take methods like tunnelling, and the ability to exploit a mixture of less-polluting energy sources.

There is also the political 'Thomas-the-Tank' mentality - rail is so embedded in British culture that politicians do not want to be rid of it. Unfortunately, the effect of that is that you end up with some bad attitudes - "the Government will always bail out the railway" - creating less efficiency. Throw in some ideology with a touch of Civil Servant, and you end up with chaos.

The problem with allocating more resources to health and education, at the expense of transport in general, is that you can have excellent schools and hospitals, but if the teachers, doctors, nurses et al cannot get in, then the system doesn't work. If the pupils or patients can't get in, then what use is it at all? And ultimately, if no-one can get into work, then how do you fund all those schools and hospitals in the first place - since no-one would be paying Income Tax?! That's the case for more investment in transport in general - without transport, nothing else functions. The amount that rail gets in that spending is another matter, what's needed is a serious debate on how we protect our environment - and where rail can come into that.

[johncard]

I do think that rural line closures would be more accepted if they were replaced with more economically viable ones on a like-for-like basis - such as closing the Esk Valley and rebuilding the Leeds Northern south of Northallerton, or 'contributing' towards the building of a new HSL. I think that if people thought that they were getting a good deal, be they opposed to line closures or wasting taxpayer's money, they would be more positive about the railways.

My reference to slip coaches was bad - I meant through coaches - splitting and joining more trains (read Voyagers) at junctions to both save money and free up paths for freight and more passenger trains. If the Voyagers operate along the same routes as HSTs used to, I can't see how platform lengths should be an issue. Of course the only way that this wold work effectively would be to implement clockface timetables, but I think that due to it's 'national' nature, the XC franchise would be a good one to build such a timetable around.

I hope that makes sense........

John

[hurrella]

What are the UK's railways for?

To run a service?

Actually, no, on second thoughts, definately not... They're to make money for private companies...

[phill70]

What are the UK's railways for?

To run a service?

Actually, no, on second thoughts, definately not... They're to make money for private companies...

A very good and very valid point.

[arabiandisco]

What are the UK's railways for?

To run a service?

Actually, no, on second thoughts, definately not... They're to make money for private companies...

A very good and very valid point.

Though, what is anything for? Tesco don't exist to provide the nation with cheap apples, they exist to make money for the shareholders. As the railways (with the exception of NR) are private they exist to make money for shareholders. (The fact that they're not really private as entrepreneurial flair is banned by the 'Strategic' Rail Authority (or is it the Deptarment For Roads now?) is an entirely different debate).

I'll stick my neck out and say that if a TOC is making a profit, then they're doing something right (subsidies or otherwise). Profit is something of a dirty word these days, but in essence it's why pretty much everything exists, and it's something to be celebrated rather than damned.

[highterrace]

Railways are there to supply canvases for graffitti artists, mobile toilets for drunks and a way for chavs to remove themselves from the gene pool.

Oh yes, and to keep us diesel nuts on trains and out of nut houses.

[Thrashin]

They're to make money for private companies...

Good point, but imagine the chaos if every single train in the country stopped in the sidings for a day. There would be gridlock on the roads and allsorts. Look what happens when it snows: not enough to make a snowman's toe and we have drivers stuck in their vehicles all night. Granted, trains are disrupted - but they don't get stuck all night on the main line. The railway has to, and does, provide a service.

Incidentally, did anyone see that programme a few years ago called The Day Britain Stopped? That was interesting food for thought.

[johncard]

How about using narrow gauge for new lines? If a rail reinstatement is bordering feasible, and the line is not needed as part of a longer route, then wouldn't a narrow gauge route, with either new or imported stock, cost less to run?

It could also be a solution if land-take is a problem.

John

[jpantera]

They are for:

Business people who travel first class paying premium fares for breakfasts et al. (Virgin/GNER)

MPs who fancy stalking deers in the Highlands.

Southerners who commute to work in London

Contractor after contractor who cut corners in order to win tenders.

They are not for:

Families wishing to travel for a day shopping to say Edinburgh from Liverpool unless they book it 5 years in advance and dont go on a weekend.

People trying to get work on time outside of the South East.

Anyone travelling to football, festivals or other major events.

Railtour Operators, these are seen as an inconvienence by Network Rail who will do their very best to not be able to accomodate more than 3 railtours through Edinburgh Waverley on one day, and offer the chance to take passengers to Glasgow instead, thus watch as most passengers demand refunds and another railtour operator goes under.

The general public, most of these people travel in their cars hence why it takes me an hour and 10 minutes to do a 17 mile journey by bus to work even though public transport isavailable.

Rant over I seriously loath the railway of today as you can probably gather.

[MuzTrem]

How about using narrow gauge for new lines? If a rail reinstatement is bordering feasible, and the line is not needed as part of a longer route, then wouldn't a narrow gauge route, with either new or imported stock, cost less to run?

It's a fair suggestion-after all, many Irish branch lines were built to 3' gauge. But there would be all the usual problems of a break of gauge, having to change trains and so on, and there would be difficulties in removing the stock to workshops for overhaul. Really, if we are going to re-instate railway (and I think it is a good idea-after all, people are more likely to catch a train if they can do so at a local station, rather than driving several miles to the nearest town that has one), lightweight one-man crew diesel railbuses are the soloution-BR did try this in the pre-Beeching era, and if they had put a little more thought into the experiment I think they could have saved many branch lines. But in any case, re-instating closed lines is not top priority when the main network is still trying to recover from years if under-investment.