A long way off i know but they need to go a lot further to reducing the cost of rail travel before it will take traffic off the roads and out of the sky.
I know it is supply and demand extra however the difference between me travelling to London at peak and off peak time is the difference between £50 and £175!!
IMO its the breaking up of the service that has brought it to its knees. If the rolling stock and network was delivered by one company or nationalised things would be so much better.
Look at France for how to do things rail.
Or Switzerland
Fully support HS2 but it's going to have an impact on some of the best biking routes in the Chilterns.
If the rolling stock and network was delivered by one company or nationalised things would be so much better.
There's a lot that could be improved with the current system but it's amazing how quickly people have forgotten quite how bad British Rail were...
Agree with Pieface - giving someone a rail network for a couple of years is hardly an open invitation for investment in the rolling stock.
Oh, and don't forget the Victorians built our current rail network. I'd like to see what the current shambles will make of it:-
building company: "we can do that for £25 and a bag of crisps by next week. (chat to you later about the job on the board"
government: "sold to the lowest bidder"
building company: "ah, now we've signed the contract we've noticed you actually want some work doing. We need 1000 billion. Oh, and twenty five years"
goverment: "here's the open cheque. After 30 years we'll write you out another one to stop your (non) work and declare everything a wonderful success in bringing Manchester only 7 hours train ride away from the centre of the world (London)."
public "erm, it only took 2 hours before you started work, and it now takes me 5 hours to drive into the centre of Manchester to get the high speed link to London"
it's amazing how quickly people have forgotten quite how bad British Rail were...
Well - that's just it. People haven't forgotten how BR ran the network. And most seam to take the view that they ran a pretty good network given the decades of chronic underfunding by succesive Governments.
BR was the ongoing butt of jokes and jibes from a largely Tory media with a road transport agenda.
given the decades of chronic underfunding by sucesive Governments
And isn't that just the point? We now have a goverment with so much debt that any spending on anything is going to be a miracle, so why anyone thinks going back to something that plainly didn't work is a good idea is a mystery to me.
But, it didn't work a whole lot better than the current system that doesn't work.
Especially given the comparatively huge levels of investment that have been thrown at what are essentially privatised monopolies.
PikeBN14 - Member
Or Switzerland
Apparently*... there are the same number of train journeys in Kent everyday as the whole of Switzerland, so not necessarily a fair comparison.
*probably a QI fact.
But, it didn't work a whole lot better than the current system that doesn't work
The problem in the BR days was generating enough cash from under-used trains to keep the system going without closing large parts of it down. The problem now in many parts of the rail system is that the trains and tracks are full to capacity and they can't expand the service (hence the need for e.g. HS2). I wonder which is best?
Before Major's deliberate break up of BR into unconnected pieces BR was consciously underfunded in order to promote car use. In the last 10-15 years that underfunded system (also not helped by the infrastructure being run by a property development company) was not given the funding to maintain, let alone improve the service markedly.
Rail infrastructure improvements take years to implement, also not helped by being the most highly regulated system in Europe. I'm currently working on projects where we're planning to build new stuff to allow for additional services to be operated and the major concern is finding the timetable slots for 10 years in the future.
HS2 would be brilliant (as long as I can get me a piece of it anyway 
)
I like how the present government announces something that won't even be started by the next government, but at least the one after that!
Do you think there is an election due by any chance?
And the high speed rail plans are so flawed that it going to be a political football.
My understanding is the Currant plans don't go anywhere near Heathrow - so will be useless for those from the north that want to use it to connect up with international flights.
The Tories wouldn't join in to try to get a political consensus 'cos the obvious route goes thru too many tory constituencies - so thay want a route that cuts thru the Chilterns instead - although they have spotted the Heathrow connection.
As a a result nothing will be done for years yet. High speed rail is a bit daft anyway - main line / expresses are fast anyway. Edinburgh / london in 4 hrs competes well with planes as a city centre to city centre trip by the time you add on the time to get to and from the airposts each end and check in times.
What we need are higher capacity feeder lines and suburban networks. - and decent rail links to airports. I can get a direct trin from edinburgh to Manchester airport but not to Edinburgh or Glasgow airports and even with Edinburghs trams there will be no proper integration from trains to the airports.
And breathe!
TandemJeremy - MemberMy understanding is the Currant plans don't go anywhere near Heathrow
That's a good point you're Raisin.
There will be two stations Euston and Curzon st in Bham,and NOintermediate stations as they slow trains down and cause delay,they also cost a lot of money.
According to the plans there are going to be links to Heathrow, and parts throught the chilterns use disused rail trackways.
Euston will be totally rebuilt with a lot of new longer platforms and Curzon ST willuse the existing Curzon st station site and a bit more land surrounding it.
Or Switzerland
As some-one has already pointed out, If we had as few tracks and trains as Switzerland, no doubt they'd all run on time as well.
Fully support HS2 but it's going to have an impact on some of the best biking routes in the Chilterns.
Where is it, do you think, that the current Chiltern Railway already goes?
(Am worried about TJ's spelling)
Anyway, this is a lovely piece of political football, as TJ mentioned above. Labour announce grand plans, knowing that if they get in, they get the praise if they can deliver. If they don't get in, they can prod and poke as the incumbent government has to backtrack away from such lunatic profligate spending (As it would be bound to become)
Personally, I back high speed train travel. The French do it very well, but they just ignore any protests relating to SSI, beauty spots or the feelings of the people and just plough on through!
Should be using Heathrow as the hub, IMO, much more of an integrated transport offering then.
itsa great idea.
itsa never gonna happen.
Victorian railway network was created by private finance, not the government.
If a high speed rail network is such a necessity, then let a private company fund it, build it and reap the profits.
I can get a direct trin from edinburgh to Manchester airport but not to Edinburgh or Glasgow airports
That's what annoys me with Edinburgh airport - there is a trainline that passes 200m from the end of the runway yet the nearest (major) stations with bus connections to the airport is either Haymarket or Inverkeithing. Madness! Build a nice big station at Turnhouse and hey presto - train to the airport.
This would be the integrated transport network that John Prescott promised everyone 10 years ago...
According to the plans there are going to be links to Heathrow, and parts throught the chilterns use disused rail trackways.
I think it may use these lines once in the Aylesbury Vale, but I'm struggling to see how the old lines will be anywhere near straight enough for 250mph...
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/hs2ltd/route/keyplan.pdf
and
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/hs2ltd/route/
Oh bugger, sod the Chilterns its coming within a few hundred yards of my house!
my family's old farm house got flattened to make way for HS1 (london - folkestone).
my Gran was on German telly an everything, they made a documentary about how she helped out with the land army, and this is how the government said thanks, etc.
IMO there's no need for HS2 to go to Heathrow as it's already well served by HEX which already goes past OOC. Why spend and additional £0.85bn to replicate some thing already reasonably well served and soon to be added to by Airtrack giving acces to Heathrow from the south and southwest?
Of course what is sorely needed is the kiboshed heavy rail goods link round the south and west of London so giving dedicated goods links into CTRL. Unfortunately we can't run double container trains as our infrastructure is of an age that would require almost every road bridge to be reconstructed......
In 20 years, we'll still be 30 years behind France!
They'll squander billions on this and totally balls it up. Then by the time it comes online, at triple the budget and half the performance, it will be outdated as maglevs will be common place, so the cycle begins again. They already have lots of them in china
Perhaps if we didnt have a pointless and expensive war with Afganistan and iraq,we may well have the money for a decent train set,we will probably pull out of afganistan sometime in August, after a lot of people being killed,and litle gained, and no new trainset.
The banks will mke loses and we the tax payer will fund their bonuses,that again could have paid for the trainset.
Oh bugger, sod the Chilterns its coming within a few hundred yards of my house!
Lucky you, appears to go right through my office!!
Actually looking at the more detailed map, it really does go through my office, the notation says "Permanent Land Requirement". best I start looking for new premises...May be having a chat with the landlord!
As a a result nothing will be done for years yet. High speed rail is a bit daft anyway - main line / expresses are fast anyway. Edinburgh / london in 4 hrs competes well with planes as a city centre to city centre trip by the time you add on the time to get to and from the airposts each end and check in times.
I imagine the argument isn't about alternatives, it is about 4 hours by either train or plane is too long so companies won't locate in the regional capitals.
Where is it, do you think, that the current Chiltern Railway already goes?
I suspect that the opposition is going to come because a busy high speed line on viaducts and in large cuttings and with overhead electrification is somewhat more prominent than the Chiltern line meandering along the contours. As I said, I'm in favour but it's not going to be pretty, particularly during the construction.
T~J, you're right,
we need investment/regeneration of the smaller feeder lines, not massive high speed networks.
Those Beeching lines that were closed never saved any money.....
I believe that there is not a single profitable train company in the whole world. The French, Germans, Japanese etc rely on govt. subsidies to make a "profit".
Great idea, but the costs of rail travel need to be brought down ASAP.
Instead, this government seems to want to ratchet up the cost of transport in general. If cheap rail transport were a reality in the UK then motorists would desert their cars.
However, £50bn of fuel duty revenue is too precious to the Treasury to risk losing.
I don't understand the Tories position of wanting a London to Birmingham high speed line to go via Heathrow while at the same time being against Heathrow expansion. Surely the only reason for the line to go to Heathrow would be to encourage people to travel to Heathrow instead of flying from Birmingham or Manchester?
According to the plans there are going to be links to Heathrow
It's unclear to me WTF is going on here - according to the Grauniad the "link" to Heathrow is going to via "Old Oak Common" (I'd never heard of it) - so a brand new station that's neither at Heathrow nor in the centre of town. lolwut?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/11/adonis-high-speed-rail-blueprint
it kinda makes sense, i think...
i forget the numbers, but a lot of flights into/outof Heathrow are internal flights - people who buy a flight from Manchester to New York, only to discover that they'll be flying to Heathrow along the way.
so, in principle, this new rail link could reduce the number of flights into/outof Heathrow.
According to the plans there are going to be links to HeathrowIt's unclear to me WTF is going on here - according to the Grauniad the "link" to Heathrow is going to via "Old Oak Common" (I'd never heard of it) - so a brand new station that's neither at Heathrow nor in the centre of town. lolwut?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/11/adonis-high-speed-rail-blueprint
Old Oak Commmon is not a Station yet, it is just west of paddington station on the Great Western Main Line.
The plan is from what i understand, is for the new crossrail trains from east to west london will stop at ooc and continue to Heathrow in a bout 5-10mins -there will be 14trains per hour in each direction.
I think it would be perfect for our northern friends - 5-10 mins to heathrow and 5-10 mins to central london, better than going into Euston!!
Private enterprise won't necessarily work. In Victorian times the railways had a monopoly on long distance transport. Now almost everyone feels like driving, so demand for railways has to be managed (or increased) for environmental and congestion reasons.
Did the bad days of BR co-incide with a drop off in passenger numbers? I seem to remember reading that passenger numbers had steadily fallen until relatively recently.. anyone got figures?
"Old Oak Common"
Was/Is the Great Western engine shed that supplied Paddington, its also next door to Willesdon Junction (on the Euston line) - so useful.
The idea of a Heathrow connection is that it reduces the UK flights into Heathrow by getting people on trains direct to their long-haul flight.
So not having a third runway and the high-speed rail connecting to Heathrow are agreeable.
I don't believe that Crossrail stopping at OOC is a current reality, more of a desire.
Bit on a different note ELLx should be beginning services in 7 weeks
molgrips - Member
Private enterprise won't necessarily work. In Victorian times the railways had a monopoly on long distance transport. Now almost everyone feels like driving, so demand for railways has to be managed (or increased) for environmental and congestion reasons.
IIRC, towns were also involved in the development of railways. Seaside resorts to begin with, then property developers and industry looking to attract people. The tables have turned now and industry can decide where is wants to go.
it kinda makes sense, i think...
i forget the numbers, but a lot of flights into/outof Heathrow are internal flights - people who buy a flight from Manchester to New York, only to discover that they'll be flying to Heathrow along the way.
so, in principle, this new rail link could reduce the number of flights into/outof Heathrow.
leaving aside the fact that whenever I've flown from Manchester to New York it's been direct, I am aware that you can fly from Manchester to heathrow, though I would rather change planes at Amsterdam, Paris, Atlanta, anywhere but heathrow... Ignoring all that, and the fact that I don't think you can fly from Birmingham to heathrow...
Wouldn't it be much better for londoners to have the option of flying from Birmingham, which a high speed rail link from central London to Birmingham airport gives? Then the airports outside the south east can expand and take the pressure off the likes of heathrow. Adding heathrow to the high speed rail would only encourage use of heathrow.
This topic has been closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
