Hymek wrote:from reading that, it sounds like the DfT are going to . the whole west midlands area up.
Seems they are doing stupid things like axing two cross city trains an hour which could be pretty darned stupid cos it can get rather busy
The cockup was called Privatisation
allypally wrote:
Only in the peaks though - I've travelled on it during the day both on weekdays and weekends and the trains have carried fewer than 10 passengers.
What you doing Alex Traveling all day on off peak services
I have seen some Desiros between Wton - New St recently, apparently doing Liverpool and Euston destinations. Would they be used, or a new franchise. Also, what is the point of the ELL being refurbished. I have been known to sometimes be the only person on the train, plus the driver obviously, during rush hour.
alisterbetts wrote:I thought anyone would be delighted to get rid of 150s, still IMO, the least comfortable train to travel on ever designed....
Pacers surely get that prize?
David
I agree! My morning and evening commute is normally an ATW 142 or 143 but we were treated to a 150 the other evening and it was like riding on air compared to the Pacer
mmmm pacer's oldham loop, well theres this tunnel and it was dark i think i was in the front carriage at the start of the journey but somehow managed to be in the rear after. in a way im glad that oldhams going to trams but sad at the same time, its a classic line and a very bumpy one in a 142.
Martin - the balls-up was allowing a bunch of Civil Servants to take over: failures in the specification and procurement of franchises are solely and wholly the fault of DfT Rail and their Treasury masters. To be fair to Central Trains, they did introduce the every-10-minute frequency on the Cross City line. The Desiros are likely to stay with West Midlands.
The solution to all problems would be to electrify both the South Wales Valley Lines and Birmingham's Snow Hill lines. For both routes, the cost savings of electrification must surely make electrification, at least in part, more affordable than many others routes.
Sam - the point of refurbishing the East London Line is to make it go somewhere, namely Croydon and Highbury, which means upgrading it to take main-line stock. It will also provides a rail service along a very densely-populated corridor which has had no rail service for two decades (Shoreditch-Dalston). And eventually, it should form the eastern Thames crossing for OrbitRail.
mattvince wrote:Martin - the balls-up was allowing a bunch of Civil Servants to take over: failures in the specification and procurement of franchises are solely and wholly the fault of DfT Rail and their Treasury masters. To be fair to Central Trains, they did introduce the every-10-minute frequency on the Cross City line. The Desiros are likely to stay with West Midlands.
The solution to all problems would be to electrify both the South Wales Valley Lines and Birmingham's Snow Hill lines. For both routes, the cost savings of electrification must surely make electrification, at least in part, more affordable than many others routes.
Sam - the point of refurbishing the East London Line is to make it go somewhere, namely Croydon and Highbury, which means upgrading it to take main-line stock. It will also provides a rail service along a very densely-populated corridor which has had no rail service for two decades (Shoreditch-Dalston). And eventually, it should form the eastern Thames crossing for OrbitRail.
No the . up was Privatisation By the Tories and letting Private companies run the Railways all they are intrested with is Profit,Shareholders and fat cats directors
But i do take your point on Civil Servants who some of them are only anygood at paper clip counting and not running a railway
This discussion is degenerating into the horribly partisan political ranting that's so distasteful.
Government interference with the running of railways has been a fact of life since the nineteenth century. Parliament has accorded itself the right to approve the siting of a railway, its route, its traffic potential - even its fare structure - and everything else since day one. The GER spent much of its potential profits in running 'government' trains at a massive loss with no subsidy.
Civil Servants and ministers have effectively been playing with a giant train set since before 1825; why should putting the things back into some form of private ownership make them back off? The only reason the railways were nationalised in the first place - apart from pure political dogma - was that the government ran them into the ground, and left the railway companies with a massive rebuilding and refurbishment need which the government refused to fund, despite it being the government's fault!
They 'borrowed' the train set, broke it, and were forced into the classic 'break it or bend it, you buy it or mend it'
situation. They wouldn't mend it so they had to buy it. They messed about with it, as all political figures have a habit of doing, (they have this misapprehension that being voted into office gives them superhero like powers to fix everything, when all it actually gives them is superhero sized egos) then when it wouldn't work, sold it cheap at a back-street Dutch auction.
As for privatisation being the 'cause of the problem' just look at the amount of investment in railways since privatisation; it beats government investment levels in the decades preceding it by quite a large margin. Private companies have an interest in their railway; do it right or you make no profit, so no profits means no investment, and so on. No investment means that you lose revenue, lower revenue means no profits, no profits means no investment and so on. Higher profits result from better service; better service means more passengers, more passengers need better trains and better stations. Overall we now have fast, clean, comfortable, modern train in most areas. The last 'slammers' have departed, speeds have risen, and so have passenger numbers. Yes, in some areas, new stock is still awaited - but how many thirty- or forty-year-old buses does your local service run? Not many, I'll bet. In mainline service (ie, not a preserved line) there are few places with old rolling stock that ought to be replaced; refurbishment has extended the lives of many. I've ridden both the original and rebuilt 455s on SWT lines, and there's no comparison. I also rode some of the generation 1 DMUs in their day; they were less comfortable, noisier, slower and less reliable that stock which is seen as past it nowadays - and that was when they were NEW!
There are some anomalies; Virgin Cross Country services (at least that I've used) are abysmal; their Voyager trains are too short, noisy, uncomfortable, always overcrowded, and invariably late. SWTs DMUs on the Waterloo-Salisbury route are by comparison, quiet, fast, punctual and palatial.
Capitalism works, and works well in most cases, provided it has a conscience, because it relies on a basic human trait - making money. Nationalised industries just cost us all more and more every day because there's no incentive to do anything efficiently- and they are looked upon by the workforce and Unions as a simple cash-cow - though it does often run out of milk.
BarryH - thenudehamster
BarryH - thenudehamster
(nothing to do with unclothed pet rodents -- it's just where I used to live)
-----------------
Any opinion expressed above is herein warranted to be worth exactly what you paid for it.
thenudehamster wrote:This discussion is degenerating into the horribly partisan political ranting that's so distasteful............................
................. Nationalised industries just cost us all more and more every day because there's no incentive to do anything efficiently- and they are looked upon by the workforce and Unions as a simple cash-cow - though it does often run out of milk.
BarryH - thenudehamster
Hi Barry
I'd agree with your first paragraph....but then you degenerate to your own bias....which I totally disagree with.
BR was working and working well by the eighties.........fact.........no arguments.
A lot of railways never made money .........ask the original Victorian investors.
Unfortunately what we have now is totally unacceptable to me, I still subsidise people who use the railways....but I personally can't get a local train because the private company can't afford to run them.
Cheers
Jon
------------------------Supporting whats good in the British community------------------------
thenudehamster wrote:This discussion is degenerating into the horribly partisan political ranting that's so distasteful............................
................. Nationalised industries just cost us all more and more every day because there's no incentive to do anything efficiently- and they are looked upon by the workforce and Unions as a simple cash-cow - though it does often run out of milk.
BarryH - thenudehamster
Hi Barry
I'd agree with your first paragraph....but then you degenerate to your own bias....which I totally disagree with.
BR was working and working well by the eighties.........fact.........no arguments.
A lot of railways never made money .........ask the original Victorian investors.
Unfortunately what we have now is totally unacceptable to me, I still subsidise people who use the railways....but I personally can't get a local train because the private company can't afford to run them.
Cheers
Jon
You spot on the Jon
BR was working and working well by the eighties.........fact.........no arguments.
They got it right under the Intercity Era when Chris green was running IC
even Provincial service where getting there but look what happerned to all the good work there did in them days
salopiangrowler wrote:mmmm pacer's oldham loop, well theres this tunnel and it was dark i think i was in the front carriage at the start of the journey but somehow managed to be in the rear after. in a way im glad that oldhams going to trams but sad at the same time, its a classic line and a very bumpy one in a 142.
Pacers are much better than trams! Faster cheaper and I'd even say more comfortable given Metrolink's current level of investment in p-way. A lot of the time it's a 150 or 156 especially on the faster, through services.
I'm not going to get too deep into this argument but I will agree this thread is being hijacked by the usual socialist revolutionaries who are in favour of a nationalised railway on an idealogical basis and view BR through their rose tinted glasses.
As for most of the railways that never made any money they were the ones that were built purely to fight off competition and it was known they served no other purpose and were unlikely to ever make any money, they were also the lines that bore the brunt of the Beeching cuts and yet oddly the nationalised railways lobby thinks they should be brought back!
The rage for railroads is so great that many will be laid in parts where they will not pay.
