edwin_m
Veteran Member
It had a high acceleration but only up to a rather low speed when there wasn't enough diesel power to sustain it.
Perhaps we should have been discussing it under speculative ideas all along...
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Are speculative ideas less popular?
- Thread starter Sad Sprinter
- Start date
Perhaps we should have been discussing it under speculative ideas all along...
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
61653 HTAFC
Veteran Member
Would it be that much of a problem for those who like to pour cold water on some of the more outlandish "speculation" threads to, well... Not do that? There are plenty of things on this website that don't interest me, but I don't pooh-pooh those that are interested in those things. A prime example would be the assorted voice-actors who do the recordings for announcements. I personally don't care about whether class X at TOC Y has voice-actor Z's recordings on board... but I don't spam those discussions with "who cares? why is this important?" grumbles*. I just let those who are interested in that topic have their fun.
*= I may have done so in the past once or twice, but we live and learn!
*= I may have done so in the past once or twice, but we live and learn!
I also find it quite disingenuous of people to do that, as if they feel they are better than others, despite also spending their free time on a railway forum.
FlyingPotato
Member
I agree
I completely agree; if anyone spots someone replying along those lines, please do not reply to it, or make any reference to it, other than via the report button.
However, if someone posts a (non-fantasy) suggestion, and someone wants to post constructively why they think it could/should not happen, then that is absolutely fine (even if it's not what the original poster wants to hear!)
YorksLad12
Established Member
If it's happening, what speculation could there be? Except things that are possibly happening (covered by Possible and Plausible).
The details of what is happening may sometimes be absent even if a high level indication has been given.
Exactly; for example if there is going to be a new station opening, or a new operator, and the details of the services, or rolling stock etc, are not yet known.
Sorry but that would be far too much work. We have no paid staff! However, as mentioned above, if anyone has any suggestions for the moderation team to consider, the "Contact Us" form remains available.
Peter Sarf
Established Member
Happening is for two reasons :-
Some ideas will climb out of the melting pot - for example where 379s are going has reached the stage where it is only the detail of what services they will be used on that remains speculation.
Those that are happening but the details are open to speculation - for example a new station announced but there is still speculation about the detail of it.
Really, in the end, a thread that EVENTUALLY reflects what actually is happening would get moved right away OUT OF the speculative area.
Edit :- missing OUT OF above.
Last edited:
I think you mean moved out of the speculative area?
It would normally be a new thread at that stage, i.e. a separate one for progress updates in addition to a speculative thread.
stevieinselby
Member
It depends how the original post has been framed. If it is clearly put forward as a fantasy suggestion then sure, I'll leave it well alone. But if it looks as though it is being made as a genuine, serious suggestion then IMO it merits a genuine, serious reply, even if that reply is to point out that the suggestion is nonsense.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
You may be implying this anyway, but I'd agree with the earlier poster that just saying something is nonsense isn't acceptable. If someone can point out reasons why something won't work, then that is part of the conversation and others may challenge those reasons. Unless it's a "fantasy" thread where people don't want that sort of response - always assuming it's clearly one of those, which isn't always the case now.
61653 HTAFC
Veteran Member
Sure, and I'm not suggesting that speculative ideas should be beyond criticism... but it does baffle me how much energy our more informed members waste on discrediting ideas that I'd automatically interpret as being more fantastical. At times it comes across as a bit of a "killjoy" thing to do, and it's often (in my opinion) unnecessary.
I know that in the past speculative posts from this website (usually in incident threads) have found their way into the mainstream press, and I can understand wanting to guard against such things (hence speculation being strongly discouraged in such discussions) but I can't recall ever seeing a speculative proposal from this section being taken out of context and used elsewhere.
There have also been incidents where proposals for new lines put on these pages have also been picked up by the local press, causing local disquiet and (less importantly) work for railway people in explaining to local stakeholders etc that thereare no such plans and they are a pipedream. I had to do this myself personally a couple of weeks back, albeit the source of the local disquiet was not (recently) on this forum.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
So responders need to think about whether a thread is so fantastical that the OP doesn't want it subjected to serious criticism, or merely fairly fantastical and therefore worth pointing out the issues with it.
Bearing in mind how difficult it sometimes is to understand the intent behind written communication, can you see the potential for confusion here?
Indigo Soup
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2018
- Messages
- 1,387
And indeed a poster not fully up to date on the constraints applying to railway operation may not understand that their proposal is fantastical, and can't understand why their proposal for an hourly express train from Felpersham to London (or whatever) is being met with derision.
Sad Sprinter
Established Member
I think this can be solved with one simple maxim: “when responding to someone’s idea, BE NICE”
oh absolutely.
With the corollary “if someone responds to your idea with various reasons why it may be challenging, don’t ignore or refuse to acknowledge them”
Railwaysceptic
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Nov 2017
- Messages
- 1,579
Yes, very much this. While some people dislike sensible contradictions of unrealistic suggestions, I'm far more irritated by over-optimistic posters who ignore any inconvenient facts presented by knowledgeable insiders and continue to assert pie-in-the sky ideas regardless.
Peter Sarf
Established Member
I think it is where someone with knowledge has something to add to the party. There will always be a grey area where it is so easy to add correcting information without intending to look down on the original poster. To me it is the to-and-fro of ideas that makes for - conversation.
There will always be tetchy moments but the nice thing is if people steer clear of those and concentrate on ideas, information and conversation. Life would be so terribly boring if we all agreed ?.
But disagree nicely.
Yes sorry the word out failed to get typed.
Yes - Probably best to close the speculative thread with a link to a new thread of what is ACTUALLY happening at the point where it actually happens (or starts getting obviously happening soon).
Yes the value is in the reason for something not being possible OR a better suggestion.
A thread marked as Fantasy should help make clear the level of seriousness to be attached.
+
AND - in return be NICE back.
No point throwing the rattle out of the pram if someone has taken the trouble to explain the limitations of ones idea. For me I appreciate I might learn something new from the generous time someone with more knowledge than me has put into a reply.
Last edited:
It's more of a general pro-status quo attitude than anything really specific. I've noticed it mainly when talking about high costs for rail projects in the UK - comparisons with other countries tend to get shot down with "oh they're different countries, you can't compare the UK to them".
Yes, there's a hell of a lot of "they may do that over there, but it could never work here" on this forum.
Bit in bold - however when those costs *are* different because of fundamental differences between countries, such as land value, planning processes etc you can't just ignore them and say "oh but the UK is expensive, look at 'x'" without acknowledging some of the reason for that.
That's akin to saying a Rolls Royce is expensive when you can buy a much cheaper car - yes you can but there are fundamental differences which make the Rolls that much more expensive.
More frustrating from my view is the argument "oh but it used to be cheaper in the 70s or 80s" which often isn't backed up by fact and disregards where regulations mean you *can't* do things in the way they were in the 70s or 80s for a multitude of good reasons alongside a fundamental misunderstanding of the principle of "grandfather rights" - which in reality allow you to continue to do something in a certain way *where it already exists*, not to be extended on just because it fits a narrative.
Peter Sarf
Established Member
Probably warrants a thread of its own. But my feeling is the UK railways are different. The UK rail network is a lot older system and that was exacerbated by the lack of destruction + re-building that happened in Europe. Furthermore the UK loading gauge is smaller than most of the rest of the world. I also think much of Europe is more amenable to spending money on public works. In the UK we are also more finance based than engineering based. The result is improvements in the UK are harder to execute in real engineering terms BUT also undergo more scrutiny and disinterest from decision makers.
Even something serious like HS2 has an uphill struggle.
We are where we are.
London Trains
Member
- Joined
- 9 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 924
To put it frankly, this forum has become a miserable bunch of people who are ready to shoot down any ideas for any reason they can possibly find...speculation in this part of the forum doesn't always need to be boring and "financially viable" and can simply be "crayonista" ideas people have, but certain members sit on here day by day just waiting for the chance to shoot down ideas.
Thats why many people, myself included, have given up posting any speculative ideas on this forum, and frankly have gotten bored of this over-moderated forum as a whole.
Thats why many people, myself included, have given up posting any speculative ideas on this forum, and frankly have gotten bored of this over-moderated forum as a whole.
Last edited:
It depends what the poster is relying on the comparison for. Yes, that can be built, as long as they’re building it in that country, and likely that year in the past. Is that a helpful answer just because it starts with yes? The assumption is that the poster wants to know how it can be done here, and tell us if it isn’t.
There was an interesting thread on why projects cost more here. If I had a proposal thread with lowballed costs I’d admit they’re low and move on, including posting in the former thread about the wider problem.
Why is pro-status-quo considered the same as realistic pricing on proposals? It’s not, it’s just that some proposals have a failing BCR when the costs are plausible.
Peter Sarf
Established Member
Over moderated ?. I wonder - well I fear that without moderation some threads would become quite nasty. We do not necessarily know how nasty replies could get to speculative threads or other threads without moderators. We don't see what they delete. Also can be useful when moderators move a clear digression off into another dedicated thread.
Some "experts" on this forum come out with quite reasoned explanations as to why some ideas would not work - now that for me is often a valuable education that keeps me interested. OK so perhaps "experts" should ignore the threads marked as "fantasy" in the heading or in a sub forum of "fantasy". But if someone wants to go pure fantasy is anyone going to read the thread - I might not ?.
Really I suppose one could argue that if "experts" bother to reply to a thread then it indicates that the original posts have been worthy of a read and their replies are worthy of a read.
I also think there are two ways of looking at a thread. If one has been following the thread since its start then it often makes a different sense to a thread one first encounters hundreds of posts in. Sometimes a thread needs to be made more readable for people coming to the thread late - but how ?.
Whilst there indeed physical differences in our railway that would prevent things like double decker trains, for example, I don't think these account for the majority of "can't work over here".
Most of these seem to be caused by political/economic fixations, for example the inability to have a competitive fares structure and the inability to undertake rolling electrification etc.
Peter Sarf
Established Member
I agree and I am resigned to the likelyhood that a rolling program of electrification is lost on the UK - a fantasy. I wonder - how did Europe do it. It was a long time ago of course !.
One thing about our loading gauge is it means, for example, HS2 stock that will run beyond onto existing WCML routes has to be compatible with the heritage UK loading gauge, twists and turns, platform lengths and speeds. That makes speculation more interesting !.
I think people underestimate the rhetorics being used by those in power, and parroted by the uninformed. It's always about something being too expensive, or too difficult, when it comes to railways. And because it gets repeated so much, people believe the lie.
But we can find money for road projects, we can find endless money for the NHS, and we can find money for asylum seekers. And I'm not saying we shouldn't pay for those things, but the NHS in particular is an endless money pit, which never actually results in improvements. And yet people will happily continue to throw money at it and other things. But, you mention the railways needing investment, and it's like you just swore, even though railway investment actually shows improvements and success, like the Elizabeth Line.
If you want people talking about railways, and talking about speculation for future rail projects, then the 'lack of money' rhetoric needs to die.
But we can find money for road projects, we can find endless money for the NHS, and we can find money for asylum seekers. And I'm not saying we shouldn't pay for those things, but the NHS in particular is an endless money pit, which never actually results in improvements. And yet people will happily continue to throw money at it and other things. But, you mention the railways needing investment, and it's like you just swore, even though railway investment actually shows improvements and success, like the Elizabeth Line.
If you want people talking about railways, and talking about speculation for future rail projects, then the 'lack of money' rhetoric needs to die.