Controversial railway opinions (without a firm foundation in logic..)

[eldomtom2]

Wasn't Beeching on the board of ICI at the time and I do believe they made Tarmac!

He left ICI for his job at BR.

 

[D6130]

Wasn't Beeching on the board of ICI at the time and I do believe they made Tarmac!

I think you are maybe confusing Beeching with Ernest Marples, the Tory transport minister who appointed him as Chairman of BR. Marples was the Chairman of Marples Ridgeway, one of the biggest - if not the biggest - road construction firms in the UK at that time. When questioned by the press about a possible conflict of interest in his appointment as Minister of Transport, Marples was reported to have said "Oh that's not a problem....I've signed the company over to my wife!"

 

[SteveM70]

He left ICI for his job at BR.

Sort of. ICI gave him a five year sabbatical and he went back there afterwards

 

[Robert Ambler]

My 70kWh battery will take me 300 miles at motorway speeds. That's equivalent to a petrol or diesel car doing about 150 miles per gallon.
Even if the grid was completely coal fired, it would be less polluting than using ICE. In reality coal is a tiny part of the grid mix. There's a lot of gas generation, but that's about twice the efficiency of coal. My car is mostly charged at home with excess renewable generation.
There's no way a DMU wins in emissions unless I take the view that the train is running regardless and the extra emissions from ne being on board is tiny.
But I definitely feel zero guilt using the car.

Actually one of the biggest issues in the UK is the levels of micro particles (so called pm2.5s or particles less than 2.5 microns in diameter) in the environment which are much higher here in many locations than the WHO safe limits. Whilst the levels of particulates (and carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide) from vehicle tailpipes is much reduced thanks to better IC engine technology and more EVs the levels of micro particles is still very high and in urban areas road vehicles produce much of this. These are particles from the wearing of tyres and brake linings and are dangerous environmentally as they can be breathed in or ingested as they contaminate the water supply or are present in food.
It is an issue that has largely been ignored as there has been more concentration on pollutants causing global warming.
So not quite guilt free using an electric car?

 

[willgreen]

No but would be cheaper due to the cheaper running and leasing costs of the pacer. And on busy services where they are just using a 2 coach sprinter train, an extra pacer would really come in handy. No one would be forced to travel on it either.

Either: a) you are sending Sprinters off lease and replacing them with Pacers. Which might save some money but would not provide any extra capacity and represent a major regression in stock quality
or b) you are bringing extra Pacers on lease (although most have been scrapped) and not removing any Sprinters, which would cost more money than presently
These things can't both be true. You can't simultaneously save money and run extra services. Which is it?

 

[Aviator88]

Actually one of the biggest issues in the UK is the levels of micro particles (so called pm2.5s or particles less than 2.5 microns in diameter) in the environment which are much higher here in many locations than the WHO safe limits. Whilst the levels of particulates (and carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide) from vehicle tailpipes is much reduced thanks to better IC engine technology and more EVs the levels of micro particles is still very high and in urban areas road vehicles produce much of this. These are particles from the wearing of tyres and brake linings and are dangerous environmentally as they can be breathed in or ingested as they contaminate the water supply or are present in food.
It is an issue that has largely been ignored as there has been more concentration on pollutants causing global warming.
So not quite guilt free using an electric car?

100%

Tyre particulates are a huge problem -ironically, EV's are some of the biggest offenders due to their higher than average weight when compared to their ICE cousins. They also benefit/suffer from instant torque at all speeds, which compounds the issue.

In all fairness, that's a tyre problem, not an EV problem, and I still love 'em!

 

[gg1]

100%

Tyre particulates are a huge problem -ironically, EV's are some of the biggest offenders due to their higher than average weight when compared to their ICE cousins. They also benefit/suffer from instant torque at all speeds, which compounds the issue.

Although tyre particulates will be higher from an EV than an ICE car for those reasons, it is offset to a degree as they deposit far less brake dust due to the use of regenerative braking.

 

[Pdf]

The bare minimum frequency for a "turn up and go" service should be a train every ten minutes.

 

[quantinghome]

100%

Tyre particulates are a huge problem -ironically, EV's are some of the biggest offenders due to their higher than average weight when compared to their ICE cousins. They also benefit/suffer from instant torque at all speeds, which compounds the issue.

In all fairness, that's a tyre problem, not an EV problem, and I still love 'em!

They're not THAT much heavier, and the smoother acceleration/regen braking means less chance of wear due to driving style. Anecdotal evidence suggests tires on EVs need to be replaced only marginally more frequently than for an ICE. I suspect tyre inflation and driving style would have a greater effect on tyre particulates. And of course you need to offset that against the near elimination of brake dust and total elimination of tailpipe emissions. And then any remaining particulate emissions are of course absorbed by the smugness of the EV driver

 

[PacerTrain142]

Certain TfW staff , refer to the much respected 150's as "Rickshaws" (I think)

If that’s how they were refer to class 150’s, I wonder what they called the pacers?

Unit allocation between the North and South of England should be reversed so that those of us in the North get to enjoy the luxury of half empty 12 coach trains while Londoners have to pile onto a cramped, wheezing, clapped-out 2 coach class 150 for their daily commute!

Or even better, how about a 2 coach class 142 pacer with bus bench style seating, running in London! (See the attached pic). I’d love to see the reactions of the passengers.

They are great for local trips but, looking at it objectively, not so good on multi hour inter regional journeys with the engines roaring and doors rattling constantly. That said, they have been unphased by the hammering they are getting in their twilight years. Total failures are extremely rare.

I went to a family wedding in Wales a few years ago and got a train from Manchester Piccadilly To Wales. The train was supposed to be a better quality, higher speed train (probably a 170 or 175) but for some reason they swapped it for a 150. It was loud (150’s howl at high speeds), relatively slow for the line it was on, hot and I was on it for about 4 hours. Didn’t enjoy the journey very much.

On the other hand I’ve done many journeys from Colne to Blackpool South and back again (around 2 hrs each way) in a class 142 pacer and enjoyed every minute of it.

They are perfectly suited for short distance lines like St Erth to St Ives or Looe to Liskard though as you say.

Placing your feet on the seat opposite should be an automatic £100 penalty if caught, no ifs, no buts. Also, they get ejected at the next station. Same with anybody vapping on the train. Enforced by plain clothed & uniformed bylaw enforcement officers.

Also any idiots who can't be bothered pushing a bike along the platform and instead jumps onto their bike to ride to the exit regardless how busy the platform is will also get an automatic £100 penalty and bike taken away to be destroyed.

Oooooof, that’s harsh.

Really? Are you sure? As far as I am aware, Northern haven't used any 153s for over a year. Maybe you are thinking of TfW?

Maybe they’ve got rid of them now, pity. I’m guessing 153’s will be the next trains to come to preserved railways because there aren’t many of them left now unfortunatly.

Austerity trains need to be built to address the current shortage of rolling stock with high density bench seats, no aircon (because it never works properly anyway) and centrally locked slammed doors - at least 3 each side of the carriage. To keep with environmental concerns, wood should be preferred over plastic. If necessary, technical expertise from Indian Railways should be used to design and build the stock, because they know how to run a railway in extreme temperatures/weathers.

I agree, with the rolling stock shortage and cost of living crisis, a cheap train is needed. The best solution would have simply been to have kept the pacers, either by refurbishing them to comply with disability legislation or just running them connected to sprinter units. It’s a similar situation to the 1980’s when the pacers were first introduced - rolling stock shortage, country broke, Tory government- the solution? Take a bus, make a few adjustments and plonk it on rails…

So either bring back the pacers or build a new cheap train, maybe from the body of a bus. Disagree with using wood (fire risk) and slam doors (becuase guard has to manually shut them and automatic doors or more convenient).

We just need a cheap train without any mod cons like wifi, air con (opening windows works fine), electronic screens etc. Most people just want to get from A to B as quickly/as cheaply as possible.

A large proportion of railway enthusiasts - perhaps even a majority - are really train enthusiasts.

That’s me tbh. Other than the trains I like I don’t really have that much interest in the railway itself. I think it was riding on the Tyne and Wear metro as a kid and then later the pacers that got me more interested in trains. If it wasn’t for those trains I probably wouldn’t have the same interest in trains today.

No.

Pacers were awful, are awful, and the fact that heritage lines now run them outside of a kind of "look how terrible things were in the 90s/00s/10s" way is terrifying.

The idea of rocking up at a heritage railway on a Saturday and instead of the whoosh of steam being presented with the drudgery of my commute for years is madness (although I fully accept that many older hands would say the same about steam itself).

They are inaccessible, awful, loud, draughty and awful. The only reason you might consider them is to boost capacity that would be much better satisfied by ordering new damn trains and electrifying more of the network to use said new trains.

Still, I guess you fulfilled the brief about controversial opinions not based on logic!

I’d say the class 156’s I travelled on last week were louder! Especially with the constant on board announcements you now get on northerns trains. Ordering new trains and electrifying more of the network is very expensive, the pacers still work fine and have been an excellent workhorse for the north, why get rid of something when it still works just because its a bit old and noisy? Would you rather travel on a packed 150 or have a 142 connected to it and have a more comfortable journey? You have nothing to lose becuase you could just stay on the 150 (which is just as loud as a pacer anyway).

I actually went on a pacer a couple of weeks ago, on the Keighley and Worth Valley Railway. It was quite a nice ride, and actually not very bouncy or noisy due to slower running speeds. I wasn’t the only one riding on it either!

Either: a) you are sending Sprinters off lease and replacing them with Pacers. Which might save some money but would not provide any extra capacity and represent a major regression in stock quality
or b) you are bringing extra Pacers on lease (although most have been scrapped) and not removing any Sprinters, which would cost more money than presently
These things can't both be true. You can't simultaneously save money and run extra services. Which is it?

Either way you either save money or boost capacity, but I’d go for B. Pacers can boost capacity on busy diesel routes without significantly increasing costs.

 

[Thirteen]

Surely there are much better solutions for a so called cheap train than bringing back the Pacers which won't happen because they're obsolete.

Making new Pacers is a even worse idea, buses aren't designed like trains and honestly it'd be a crappy solution to have a train in the 21st century that is basically crap.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

I wonder what they called the pacers?

'Nodding Donkey' would be one of the least impolite.

Surely there are much better solutions for a so called cheap train than bringing back the Pacers...

Re-introducing Victorian-era third class open carriages would be better.

 

[gc4946]

Surely there are much better solutions for a so called cheap train than bringing back the Pacers which won't happen because they're obsolete.

150s, 153s and 156s will be the cheap train solutions for most lines.
If GWR's trial of a battery 230 with fast charging is successful that'll be another solution.

On another note, all passenger trains in service should be monitored by operators working remotely off the train using CCTV who have the power to dish out announcements such as "Please take your feet off the seats" or "Please stop smoking or vaping" or "For those in Coach X, please keep your kids under control" or make requests to police, rail staff, etc in case of incidents on board

 

[61653 HTAFC]

To call back to an earlier post, the "not primarily abstractive" test for Open Access operators should be removed. If your service is so poor that another operator is prepared to take you on and compete with you, so be it. Any revenue that is "abstracted" is revenue you didn't care about until someone threatened your dominant position. If another operator can offer a better service without the subsidy that the franchised TOC gets, all power to them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To call back to an earlier post, the "not primarily abstractive" test for Open Access operators should be removed. If your service is so poor that another operator is prepared to take you on and compete with you, so be it. Any revenue that is "abstracted" is revenue you didn't care about until someone threatened your dominant position. If another operator can offer a better service without the subsidy that the franchised TOC gets, all power to them.

It's more profitable to run 5 trains a day at peak times than an all day several-per-hour service.

Do we want the former only? Because that's what OAOs do - abstract revenue by cherrypicking.

Again, the competitor is the car.

 

[Dr_Paul]

My controversial opinion is that in terms of comfort, the EPB has never been bettered for a suburban commuter train.

Also, VEP's could be perfectly pleasant to travel on (if not overcrowded).

As I commuted into Waterloo, I'd say the 4-SUB rather than the EPB, but I know what you mean: they were both comfortable for half-hour journeys to and from London. I quite liked the 4-VEPs as well, but they didn't run on my commuter route except on very rare occasions.

 

[robert thomas]

It's more profitable to run 5 trains a day at peak times than an all day several-per-hour service.

Do we want the former only? Because that's what OAOs do - abstract revenue by cherrypicking.

Again, the competitor is the car.

It's the Treasury that's worried about abstraction as the revenue of the franchised operator is paid to it.

 

[HSTEd]

It's the Treasury that's worried about abstraction as the revenue of the franchised operator is paid to it.

Anyone associated with the industry should be worried about abstraction, given that this practice does not improve the costs of the industry as a whole.

This industry is not a commercially viable one, it is sustained by continuous and large infusions of public money.

 

[Dr_Paul]

The 707 class is a perfectly adequate EMU for suburban services, and SWR should have retained them.

 

[PGAT]

The bare minimum frequency for a "turn up and go" service should be a train every ten minutes.

Bare minimum?? You must have some very high standards.

TfL state that their interpretation of “turn-up-and-go” is every 15 minutes for trains and every 12 minutes for buses. That’s an average wait time of 7.5 minutes (6 for buses) which most agree is pretty fair

 

[HarryF]

The 707 class is a perfectly adequate EMU for suburban services, and SWR should have retained them.

And ordered more instead of the 701s!

 

[PGAT]

The 707 class is a perfectly adequate EMU for suburban services

Almost but not having any toilets stings

 

[HarryF]

Almost but not having any toilets stings

Agreed, in my ideal world where more 707s had been ordered instead of the 701s, I’d have had the new ones come with toilets and in the same programme had the current ones fitted with toilets

 

[CaptainHaddock]

Instead of wearing uniforms, which can make them come across as petty jobsworths, all RPIs and gateline staff should have to wear furry animal costumes at work.

Not only would this make them appear more friendly and approachable, it would also encourage families to use the railway more. Imagine the kids' excitement when Dad says "Why don't we go down the station today and see what Fare Evasion Fox and Revenue Protection Rabbit are up to?"

 

[PGAT]

Instead of wearing uniforms, which can make them come across as petty jobsworths, all RPIs and gateline staff should have to wear furry animal costumes at work.

Not only would this make them appear more friendly and approachable, it would also encourage families to use the railway more. Imagine the kids' excitement when Dad says "Why don't we go down the station today and see what Fare Evasion Fox and Revenue Protection Rabbit are up to?"

Oh god, a fully grown man in a furry animal costume is one of the least approachable ways to go, not to mention how unprofessional it looks for the company involved

 

[PacerTrain142]

No.

Pacers were awful, are awful, and the fact that heritage lines now run them outside of a kind of "look how terrible things were in the 90s/00s/10s" way is terrifying.

The idea of rocking up at a heritage railway on a Saturday and instead of the whoosh of steam being presented with the drudgery of my commute for years is madness (although I fully accept that many older hands would say the same about steam itself).

They are inaccessible, awful, loud, draughty and awful. The only reason you might consider them is to boost capacity that would be much better satisfied by ordering new damn trains and electrifying more of the network to use said new trains.

Still, I guess you fulfilled the brief about controversial opinions not based on logic!

Surely there are much better solutions for a so called cheap train than bringing back the Pacers which won't happen because they're obsolete.

Making new Pacers is an even worse idea, buses aren't designed like trains and honestly it'd be a crappy solution to have a train in the 21st century that is basically crap.

Plenty of Other countries use rail-buses for their more rural services, including Germany, Argentina and Indonesia . I think part of the problem was that pacers were used a lot on busy commuter routes like Leeds to Manchester, Manchester to Liverpool etc when they would be better suited to more rural lines such as Glasgow to Fort William or the west highland line.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railbus

Even the Japenese, who have some of most advanced railways in the world used a Railbus on thier more rural routes which looks quite similar to a pacer. It was in service for an almost identical period to the pacers as well.

KiHa 31 series

The KiHa 31 series was a low-capacity commuter diesel multiple unit initially operated by the Japanese National Railways and later the Kyushu Railway Company from February 1987 to March 2019. The KiHa 31 series was developed to replace older diesel railcars currently in service on JNR lines in...

locomotive.fandom.com

Basically the Japanese version of a pacer/153:

And in Britain there were some early rail buses built before the pacers, used on rural routes, although they didn’t last very long and werent really a success like the pacers were.

British Rail railbuses - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

People often have this false idea that all European trains are fast, modern and flash and we are stuck in the past with old clapped out rolling stock… But that is not the case at all.

And let’s not forget that the pacers helped to keep a lot of branch lines open. If the financial crisis worsens and the government start to think about closing some heavily subsidised lines down, would you rather have a pacer/new Railbus/a busway or some other cheap solution, or no train at all?

 

[Aviator88]

They're not THAT much heavier, and the smoother acceleration/regen braking means less chance of wear due to driving style. Anecdotal evidence suggests tires on EVs need to be replaced only marginally more frequently than for an ICE. I suspect tyre inflation and driving style would have a greater effect on tyre particulates. And of course you need to offset that against the near elimination of brake dust and total elimination of tailpipe emissions. And then any remaining particulate emissions are of course absorbed by the smugness of the EV driver

I don't know - the Model 3 LR comes in at 25% heavier than a Mondeo!

Also, EV tyres are heavier, bulkier and more expensive than the equivalent ICE tyre. This is mainly for reasons of weight and cabin noise (you'll soon know about it if you try to stick regular tyres on an EV and drive down the motorway). So whilst they last (almost) as long, they contain more stuff to begin with.

Regenerative braking definitely reduces brake wear, I'd argue by a few orders of magnitude - if you do it properly, you only have to dab the brakes a couple of times a week to clear off the rust! Tyres are the cause of the majority of car particulate matter, though (the figures 10 % / 30% / 60% spring to mind for exhaust/brake pads/tyres respectively for an ICE car, can't remember where that came from though...).

There's no question that EVs are a step in the right direction for fighting climate change due to simple economies of scale of energy production - mass producing electric is cleaner than mass producing fossil fuels, even though both are still inherently 'dirty'.

I'm worried I'm derailing the thread...

 

[Dr_Paul]

Almost but not having any toilets stings

At the risk of sounding like one of the Four Yorkshiremen, we managed for many years with 4-SUBs and 4-EPBs. To be more serious, I was being a little sarcastic here, and having toilet facilities on suburban services is a good idea. And so the 700s will be welcome, but I'm wondering how long they're going to be sitting in Clapham yard and only doing the odd test run.

 

[PGAT]

And so the 701s will be welcome, but I'm wondering how long they're going to be sitting in Clapham yard and only doing the odd test run.

Well they said the end of 2023 they will be in service but honestly who knows at this point

 

[yorksrob]

As I commuted into Waterloo, I'd say the 4-SUB rather than the EPB, but I know what you mean: they were both comfortable for half-hour journeys to and from London. I quite liked the 4-VEPs as well, but they didn't run on my commuter route except on very rare occasions.

I must admit, I was more in VEP territory, but the loos were needed for the hour+ journeys.