Playing with trains/ HS2 & 3

[teamsaint]

Dunno, but the same reason that the last Liverpool train is at 21.07!! Late arrivals ie post midnight at destination may mean extra pay for crews?? And the train sets may need overnight servicing at local depots - too late and can't be done in time for first out at 5.05 next morning? Wrong sort of Virgins in the lIine?

ECML: Last train to Leeds is at 23.30 arr 02.36 so problem with late working there!! Similar distance too.

Last train for poole 23.05 arr 01.30
First morning train 05.28 arr 07.53

So as you say, no apparent probs with extra pay/turnrounds there ?

to Southampton there are trains at 00.05 and 01.05 !!

[ahinton]

Last train for poole 23.05 arr 01.30
First morning train 05.28 arr 07.53

So as you say, no apparent probs with extra pay/turnrounds there ?

to Southampton there are trains at 00.05 and 01.05 !!

Part of the problem is that certain parts of the train service are run for the benefit of the firms that run it and I suspect that this would be no different if the network were state run. I recently wanted to go from Hereford to Oxford and back on the same day in order to attend a concert in Oxford that happened to take place on a Friday. There are no direct trains back to Hereford on a weekday after mid-evening, so one has to travel via Didcot and Newport, which is a very circuitous route involving two changes of train (how's that for negative environmental impact). However, I discovered that, whilst the Newport to Hereford leg of the return journey starts at Cardiff at 00.30 on Mondays through Fridays, it waits for the Didcot to Newport train (which starts in London) on Mondays through Thursdays but not on Fridays, for no apparent reason, so the only alternative would have been to travel by road, which is also quite a lot faster. I'm sure that there are plenty more instances of this kind of thing, all of which help to discourage train travel.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

The TGVs are quite interesting. They typically run at 5km/minute out of Paris on the west coast line towards Bordeaux, which reduces to 3km/minute somewhere maybe half way between Paris and Bordeaux. Further flung stretches, such as from Bordeaux to Biarritz (particularly), or on the line to Toulouse may not be running at much more than 1km/minute - or so it feels. I don't know enough about ICE operation to know if those trains also have some relatively slow operation over significant stretches of line.

The TGVs run on dedicated track at high speed, but when half-way to Bordeaux, they continue on old lines, though the fast line to Bordeaux will be opeing fairly soon.

[aeolium]

Indeed, although another reason for putting such an idea out to grass is that the air lobbyists and airlines will quite reasonably expect the government to press for similar charges to be imposed upon all other forms of public transport - taxis, coaches, buses, trains and the like and, although a few coaches and buses are relatively environmentally friendly, few taxis are and most trains are not.

Although airlines are to some extent unduly favoured by exemption from any fuel tax levy, which applies to other road transport at least. And it seems reasonable to have differential taxes based on the degree of environmental pollution (though I accept that might be quite difficult to calculate when taking into account overall carbon cost including construction, maintenance of infrastructure etc).

But we have a road tax in addition to other non-hypothecated taxes that are (supposedly) allocated to expenditure on the country's road network, whereas the same could hardly happen for the rail network, because imposing extra taxes on already prohibitively expensive rail fares would simply and swiftly drive people off the rails (if you see what I mean).

But I think it's quite plausible to argue that there need not be extra taxes on top of current very high rail prices since there's a good case for thinking that the cost of running a not-for-profit railway rather than a for-profit one under the wasteful franchise system would be lower. The level of subsidy has greatly increased, for instance, since privatisation; Train Operating Companies are able to accrue profits for shareholders and highly paid executives. There is also the unsatisfactory division of responsibility between the TOCs and Network Rail where there are problems, and the lack of transparency about contracts relating to the franchises. It is unquestionably the case that both subsidy and fares - in real terms - are much higher than they were under BR.

Road congestion will not be materially reduced by allocating extra state funding to the rail network, because the latter would have to be made so competitive with road transport on price that the income from fares would never even begin to cover the requirements.

No, I don't think it can ever be quite competitive on price with road transport but it can be more competitive, to the extent that people may be more tempted to travel by train to avoid congestion on the routes, parking and/or congestion charges, the convenience of being able to go right into city or town centres without a mass of traffic. But the service should be better and offer better value, without ludicrous overpricing and overcrowding. It must be possible - other countries, such as France, can do it!

I agree that running a good and efficient rail transport system will (or should) never be cheap and will need substantial government investment. But it is needed to avoid eventual gridlock on the road network as well as spiralling carbon emissions as people avoid the generally more environmentally friendly (in terms of emissions per passenger mile) rail system for travel on road or by air. It is a public good, and if we have to pay for it, we should.

[LeMartinPecheur]

While studying cost-benefit analysis today on somewhat belated management training (seeing that I'm 59 and have been a local govt manager of sorts for years), our attention was drawn to this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22551178 as a cracking example of dodgy stats, as explained in the article. Apologies if this is old news.

A few things apparently not considered there have been mentioned above: eg compensation for losses to householders in the Chilterns. Ditto loss of heritage, rural landscape, agricultural land(*)etc etc. Some of these admittedly tricky to value in pounds sterling so hey, let's agree to put them all in as precisely zero

[Yes, I know the same arguments were probably put forward in 18-dot, and now we just love the Ribble Viaduct or whatever]

[teamsaint]

well I never.It seems that the costs of HS2 are rising fast. According to this the Treasury is working on a figure of over £70Bn

http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/3366146

[Dave2002]

While studying cost-benefit analysis today on somewhat belated management training (seeing that I'm 59 and have been a local govt manager of sorts for years), our attention was drawn to this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22551178 as a cracking example of dodgy stats, as explained in the article. Apologies if this is old news.

Not only dodgy stats (and obfuscations etc.), but also several dodgy assumptions I think. Personally I'm not too convinced about the economic or other benefits of business travel. Face to face meetings can be very effective, but surely this depends how they are used. They are probably very effective in the early parts of any proposal or project, but later on communication can be by electronic means, with only occasional f2f events. Do you really mean to tell me that most of the travellers on inter-city trains are business travellers, and that most of them are really doing vital work either in or out of working hours? Maybe the assumption that travellers do no or little work on trains is correct - look at those travellers who have their laptops open, but are actually watching DVDs, playing Sudoku or some other form of "entertainment". It's quite easy to see this, both on trains and on aircraft. The assumption that they would not do this "back in the office" could also be flawed. So many people nowadays use computers for net surfing or the similar cyber loafing, a lot of which is not directly work related.

However, some people clearly do work. I have seen people write and debug computer code on trains, but how many people do this for a living nowadays? The whole nature of work and what it really means needs to be examined more carefully. Some (many) people have peculiar ideas of what work is, anyway. Whether activity can be classified as work or not may be an interesting question. Two people having a conversation may not be work, but if they are discussing a significant problem, and perhaps progressing towards a solution, it may be. Does reading count as work? It may do, but someone who works at a checkout in a supermarket watching someone read for work might not think so. Some people seem to believe that activity has to be inherently unpleasant in order to qualify as work, and some seem to think that measuring the time spent on activity is a useful way to quantify work. For many people what they call work may indeed be at least irksome if not actually unpleasant, and they may feel that their contribution is only measured by time, and the benefits for themselves can only be established by the size of their pay packet.

[teamsaint]

more trouble for the scheme.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24011403

It would be interesting to see some analysis of how the current WCML is actually used, in terms of the type of journey undertaken.

It would also be interesting to know what people think about the 15 bn Crossrail scheme , as a comparison.

[Beef Oven!]

Also, HS2 will place a further strain on the NHS and this must be factored in as a cost.

If people arrive at their destinations they will be younger than they would have been otherwise. If they are younger, they will look younger.

According to this BBC article an unplanned financial burden on on elderly care would ensue.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8411329.stm

[teamsaint]

Also, HS2 will place a further strain on the NHS and this must be factored in as a cost.

If people arrive at their destinations they will be younger than they would have been otherwise. If they are younger, they will look younger.

According to this BBC article an unplanned financial burden on on elderly care would ensue.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8411329.stm

worrying stuff !!

[mangerton]

Also, HS2 will place a further strain on the NHS and this must be factored in as a cost.

If people arrive at their destinations they will be younger than they would have been otherwise. If they are younger, they will look younger.

Is this not to do with relativity? According to Govt. ministers, these trains are going to be so fast that they'll arrive at their destination before they leave.

(Or have I got this wrong?)

[Beef Oven!]

Is this not to do with relativity? According to Govt. ministers, these trains are going to be so fast that they'll arrive at their destination before they leave.

(Or have I got this wrong?)

You're right in that, that's the only way they'll make a positive contribution to economic growth.

[Serial_Apologist]

Is this not to do with relativity? According to Govt. ministers, these trains are going to be so fast that they'll arrive at their destination before they leave.

(Or have I got this wrong?)

In that case people really will be younger on arrival!

[Pabmusic]

Is this not to do with relativity? According to Govt. ministers, these trains are going to be so fast that they'll arrive at their destination before they leave.

(Or have I got this wrong?)

But the nearer they approach the speed of light, the more everything will slow down. So everyone will complain.

[amateur51]

But the nearer they approach the speed of light, the more everything will slow down. So everyone will complain.