Tim Leunig is prone to writing some quite off-the wall stuff, he once suggested that the northern cities be abandoned and everyone should move to Cambridge, Oxford and London.
This article is no different.
That's not the point, it's cheaper in the long run, less dependent on oil, and cleaner. There are good reasons why high speed railways around the world rarely use diesel traction. An electric railway is generally a better one. For freight, you can haul massive loads at express passenger speeds which cause less congestion.
The high speed trains are getting on for 40 years old and have done millions of miles, the face of travel connecting our major cities should not have life expired trains. Buying diesel trains for another 40 years is folly for environmental and fuel security reasons.
This is all highly debatable. We could have made the same arguments against motorways 40 years ago, and the same arguments against the railways 150 years ago. The fact of the matter is rail travel is growing, car and domestic air travel is falling or static. How do we meet new demand?
The same can be said for any network: Rail, air, postal, electricity, road, gas, internet, telephone. Some parts of all networks provide little value and are on the face of it not cost effective. But they provide and overall service to the populace at large. It's fine to say cars are better in rural areas, and in some cases they are. But you need to take into account the cost of running cars, ability to drive and access to jobs and services as well as effects on inbound tourism, especially in national parks, if rail services are withdrawn.
See above. The rail network is quite small, the road network is 24 times bigger. Yes, some stations have very few passengers and there might be a case for closing them, but the idea you would save large amounts of money doing this is folly. When rail passenger numbers are at their highest since the 1920s, we should be expanding the network, not shrinking it.
The last time the railway companies were forced to carry commuters at bargain basement rates it was disastrous for railway finances. We only have to look at the trouble the Great Eastern and Great Northern railway got themselves into after huge housing estates sprawled out of London so the trains could carry people into the city. Commuting is not profitable due to large amounts of resources sitting idle off peak. A better suggestion to encourage business to stagger working hours through business rates and spread the load.
Overall there are actually far better ways to save money through increased productivity, technology and providing a service people actually want to use, rather than providing a skeleton service which few do.
This article is no different.
That's not the point, it's cheaper in the long run, less dependent on oil, and cleaner. There are good reasons why high speed railways around the world rarely use diesel traction. An electric railway is generally a better one. For freight, you can haul massive loads at express passenger speeds which cause less congestion.
The high speed trains are getting on for 40 years old and have done millions of miles, the face of travel connecting our major cities should not have life expired trains. Buying diesel trains for another 40 years is folly for environmental and fuel security reasons.
This is all highly debatable. We could have made the same arguments against motorways 40 years ago, and the same arguments against the railways 150 years ago. The fact of the matter is rail travel is growing, car and domestic air travel is falling or static. How do we meet new demand?
The same can be said for any network: Rail, air, postal, electricity, road, gas, internet, telephone. Some parts of all networks provide little value and are on the face of it not cost effective. But they provide and overall service to the populace at large. It's fine to say cars are better in rural areas, and in some cases they are. But you need to take into account the cost of running cars, ability to drive and access to jobs and services as well as effects on inbound tourism, especially in national parks, if rail services are withdrawn.
See above. The rail network is quite small, the road network is 24 times bigger. Yes, some stations have very few passengers and there might be a case for closing them, but the idea you would save large amounts of money doing this is folly. When rail passenger numbers are at their highest since the 1920s, we should be expanding the network, not shrinking it.
The last time the railway companies were forced to carry commuters at bargain basement rates it was disastrous for railway finances. We only have to look at the trouble the Great Eastern and Great Northern railway got themselves into after huge housing estates sprawled out of London so the trains could carry people into the city. Commuting is not profitable due to large amounts of resources sitting idle off peak. A better suggestion to encourage business to stagger working hours through business rates and spread the load.
Overall there are actually far better ways to save money through increased productivity, technology and providing a service people actually want to use, rather than providing a skeleton service which few do.
equate to about 14.4% of passenger entries (again just using entries for quick calculation).
