You'd be mad to renationalise the railways ...

[amateur51]

Of course the nationalised companies now have to compete with their private counterparts hence the need to be "on their toes" which would not be the case if the network were fully nationalised!

Here's an interesting Which survey though inevitably we are hardly comparing like-with-like here ...

http://www.which.co.uk/home-and-gard...anies-overall/

Interesting in what way? Disparity in sample size plus the pitifully low score of the 'winner' raises all sorts of questions.

[P. G. Tipps]

Interesting in what way? Disparity in sample size plus the pitifully low score of the 'winner' raises all sorts of questions.

It is indeed a somewhat imperfect sample, which I had already expressly conceded. (pun unintended)

However, it appears to be the best objective yardstick of 'customer' satisfaction we have and therefore might conceivably at least interest those with a serious, non-partisan approach to the subject, don't you think?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

It is indeed a start, but there are factors to consider.
1. Which? has increasingly adopted a we-know-best method of questioning and interpreting the results.
2. Rail passengers in the south-east have always been more demanding than in other areas. Despite the fact that Kent and Surrey have some of the best commuter services in the UK, the groups representing them whinge constantly. Northern Rail passengers experience far worse trains and have to put up with skeletal timetables - more so since privatisation in many instances.

[Serial_Apologist]

Christian Wolmar makes some pertinent points in the Evening Standard today on the government's OKing ticket price increases:

http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/christian-wolmar-londoners-need-railways-dont-price-us-off-them-9678464.html

[amateur51]

It is indeed a somewhat imperfect sample, which I had already expressly conceded. (pun unintended)

However, it appears to be the best objective yardstick of 'customer' satisfaction we have and therefore might conceivably at least interest those with a serious, non-partisan approach to the subject, don't you think?

Not really scotty*, a bit like searching for the crock of gold at the end of the rainbow.




*For it is he

[amateur51]

It is indeed a start, but there are factors to consider.
1. Which? has increasingly adopted a we-know-best method of questioning and interpreting the results.
2. Rail passengers in the south-east have always been more demanding than in other areas. Despite the fact that Kent and Surrey have some of the best commuter services in the UK, the groups representing them whinge constantly. Northern Rail passengers experience far worse trains and have to put up with skeletal timetables - more so since privatisation in many instances.

How utterly charming, 'whinge' indeed! Do you commute on these lines frequently or regularly?

Another significiant factor missing is the loons who rise at 03:00hrs on the day the 'advance booking' opens to secure their £2 return fares. Of course these people are going to be disproportiately satisfied and so should be excluded from any satisfaction survey.

[P. G. Tipps]

Another significiant factor missing is the loons who rise at 03:00hrs on the day the 'advance booking' opens to secure their £2 return fares. Of course these people are going to be disproportiately satisfied and so should be excluded from any satisfaction survey.

How ageist and sexist! Are you suggesting it is only young males who have the economic sense to book at the most opportune time for the cheapest tickets?

How dare you!

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Another factor that could have skewed the survey:

Grand Central and Hull Trains have achieved an unusually high level of affection among the public because the have concentrated on providing/improving routes neglected by the bigger companies.

One thing has puzzled me for some time. Why do both East Coast and Hull Trains run their Hull-King's Cross service via Selby rather than Goole? The latter is a larger town and the route is shorter. When electrification arrives in Hull it will be a different matter, as there is no way the swing bridge at Goole can be electrified. But that's all in the future.

[Dave2002]

When electrification arrives in Hull it will be a different matter, as there is no way the swing bridge at Goole can be electrified. But that's all in the future.

That sounds like an engineering challenge. Is it really not possible to electrify the bridge? The swing portion is less than 80 metres long, so there could perhaps be ways of powering trains across that section.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

That sounds like an engineering challenge. Is it really not possible to electrify the bridge? The swing portion is less than 80 metres long, so there could perhaps be ways of powering trains across that section.

It could be done by inertia, of course. Then there's the tricky issue of lowering and raising the pantograph at the right time, thereby avoiding pulling the wires down. :yikes:

The swing bridge itself has been the victim of badly steered ships on a few occasions, and the ship owners have had the audacity to try to blame the bridge.

[Dave2002]

It could be done by inertia, of course. Then there's the tricky issue of lowering and raising the pantograph at the right time, thereby avoiding pulling the wires down. :yikes:

The swing bridge itself has been the victim of badly steered ships on a few occasions, and the ship owners have had the audacity to try to blame the bridge.

Would a third rail approach work? I used to get a train from Watford to Clapham Junction which switched from pantograph to third rail operation with a short stop. The pantograph was raised/lowered with the train stationary.

If there is space to put overhead wires across the fixed part of the bridge, then would it be possible to run cables through the train for the relatively short swing section? Maybe not particularly safe.

Another hybrid possibility might be to use diesel electric motive power, with a fuel powered generator used across the bridge, with the train running otherwise using electric traction.

Inertia might work 90% of the time, but there'd need to be a way for handling the cases when the train doesn't make it.

Surely there must be a way. However, if there is already an alternative route there might be no point in attempting this.

Presumably building another bridge would be too expensive.

[Serial_Apologist]

It could be done by inertia, of course.

As I understand it, following occasions when driver loss of consciousness caused accidents, trains are now installed with "dead man's handles" whereby any fault (and not just driver illness/unconsciousness/inadvertent letting go of the controls) precipitating interruption of the power supply leads automatically to instantaneous braking, thus ruling out any inertia/freewheeling suggestion, unfortunately.

[Dave2002]

...interruption of the power supply leads automatically to instantaneous breaking....

Not wind I hope.

[Dave2002]

Seriously, re msg 57, how do trains get to Hull? I know relatively little about distances along railway tracks. It seems to me that the difference between different routes might be 20 miles at most, though clearly looking at a map if there are viable routes which cross the river by rail they would be shorter. I don't think we're going to see anything like the rail equivalent of the Humber bridge which would make the journey considerably shorter.

Economically it may still be better to go via Selby if there are problems with electrifying the route via Goole and over that bridge.

[Serial_Apologist]

Not wind I hope.

{laugh}

Thanks! Spelling now corrected {blush}