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

[Krokodil]

Would love to see how this works on Thameslink

A back of the fag packet calculation would seem to indicate that Thameslink got around that in 2018. I'm not sire how Northern's CAF fleet measures up against the units they replaced (they did get some secondhand stock from elsewhere at the same time) but TfW is upping capacity by at least 50% (the CEO quoted 65% but I haven't checked the figure).

 

[ar10642]

A back of the fag packet calculation would seem to indicate that Thameslink got around that in 2018. I'm not sire how Northern's CAF fleet measures up against the units they replaced (they did get some secondhand stock from elsewhere at the same time) but TfW is upping capacity by at least 50% (the CEO quoted 65% but I haven't checked the figure).

Yeah I was more thinking of when the 700s need replacing. Looking forward to my 18 carriage trains to get to work and another load of massive infrastructure works to accommodate them!

 

[Krokodil]

Yeah I was more thinking of when the 700s need replacing. Looking forward to my 18 carriage trains to get to work and another load of massive infrastructure works to accommodate them!

Obviously I've no idea how old you are now, but there won't be many people on these boards who will still be in paid employment by the time that the 700s are life-expired.

I don't think that the poster specified whether this would be a one-off mandate in order to catch up with years of passenger growth around the country, or whether he expected it to continue in perpetuity. The latter would obviously be unsustainable (didn't some ICWC bids promise never-ending growth that would lead to the population of Manchester making three trips a day?). The former however is actually pretty sensible and quite a few rolling stock procurements over the last decade have seen drastic increases in capacity, including Thameslink so they can be ticked off as "complete".

 

[PacerTrain142]

All trains, even on express routes, should have a maximum speed of 60mph. That way passengers would be able to relax more, enjoy the scenery and arrive at their destination far more calmer than they otherwise would have been. Too much emphasis in modern life is placed on doing things as quickly as possible rather than taking your time and enjoying the experience.

In order to avoid the roads gaining an advantage here, the Motor Car Act 1903 should be brought back, limiting speeds on all public highways to 20mph. The Welsh Government are halfway there...

I would back a move to make all cars limited to 70 mph, would make the motorways a lot safer. Interestingly in America, when the car was gaining popularity, some wanted similar speed restrictions after an increase in people being run over but instead they made jaywalking laws, in America you have to cross the road at pedestrian crossings only or you can get fined. And do the welsh government seriously plan on making all roads 20 mph?

Yes, and need to increase the fares to make it work rather than add the "ultra-cheap" fares that are suggested by @PacerTrain142

Maybe TfW got it wrong bringing the 197s to the route and/or the Mk4 lottery.

In fairness if we could be guaranteed a 6 car minimum then it would be nice enough for TfW to retain their 150s on the Marches (Now there is controversial)

Why would you need to increase the fares?

To counter that, I think it is utterly barmy that we are scrapping rolling stock (loco hauled, HST's, pacers etc) when many areas of the network are suffering hugely from a shortage of rolling stock.

I agree, I believe it was a mistake to scrap the pacers. Especially as they had modified a class 144 pacer to meet the new disability regulations. But ended up scrapping it anyway… Why? It looked really good imo. From the inside it actually looked like a modern train. I think they should’ve at least refurbished the class 143’s and 144’s, those trains did not feel that old anyway unlike the 142’s. 142’s could run attached to a PRM compliant sprinter unit to ease overcrowding on busy routes. Surely this would be cheaper than buying brand new trains.

Whether people like it or not, a new cheap railbus for quieter routes is what is needed in austerity Britain right now. I was on a 2 car class 156 between Colne and Preston last week, and there was only about two other people in the carriage I was on. So even that is overkill for some routes. A railbus would be cheaper to run. They could’ve used a 153 (had northern actually bothered to modernise their 153’s to meet disability regulations unlike TFW.) Northern is very lazy when it comes to refurbishing their trains, a lot of their 142’s still had the original interior - metal bus seats till they day they were withdrawn and a lot of their 150’s have not been refurbished either.

And HST’s are excellent workhorses. Why scrap them? I feel like the railways are going backwards in some ways.

And heres a controversial opinion with no basis in accepted fact - I recently did Cardiff to Manchester and chose the front 153 of a 153+153+158 lash up and thought the seats were comfortable, it was well laid out for the length of journey, the visibility was fine, the fresh air and the Cummins roar from the windows was a joy, the ride was smooth and I thoroughly enjoyed the trip.

Yeah TFW have done a good job with their 153’s. A like the 153 a lot better than a 150. And I like it when you see them on their own, I really like the novelty of a single car train for some reason.

The idea that we need a low cost train like the Pacers is somewhat daft because it'd be a lot cheaper to replace some services with Trams/light rail. I would imagine we'll probably have battery powered light rail systems on those rural and branch lines.

Tbh I would be quite happy to have my local line (Colne - Preston) converted to metro link trams or Tyne and Wear metro trains. Especially if it meant a more frequent service and more intermediate stops. Living between stops and the service only being hourly means the train is not very convenient for short journeys as the nearest station is a 20-25 minute walk away or a 5 minute bus ride. I’ve always thought they should add a little station at the level crossing on Barkerhouse Road between Nelson and Colne as the train has to stop there anyway.

I think in the future battery powered trains will be the way to go as some lines will never justify electrification. For example, for the Preston - Ormskirk/Colne/Blackpool South branches, the trains could charge up while they are sat in Preston under the wires and run on batteries the rest of the time. I know the technology is not there at the moment but I’m sure it will be one day. Busways are another cheap solution.

Too many posts to read them all, so hoping I'm not repeating anything but: Skip-stopping should be banned in timetables - especially on long-distance routes.

That will just make journey times longer if intercity trains are forced to stop at every little town along the route. Better to stick to the current model and have a semi-fast service and a stopper, as well as (in my opinion), more direct non-stop services for ultra high speed travel (for example, Manchester to London, London to Birmingham, London to Edinburgh).

Case in point - Im going to Teukesbury and I will have to get off the train (probably a voyager) at Cheltenham and catch a local stopper to get to Teuksbury. A bit inconvenient but had the voyager stop at every single station between Birmingham and Teuksbury I bet it would still take longer.

A back of the fag packet calculation would seem to indicate that Thameslink got around that in 2018. I'm not sire how Northern's CAF fleet measures up against the units they replaced (they did get some secondhand stock from elsewhere at the same time) but TfW is upping capacity by at least 50% (the CEO quoted 65% but I haven't checked the figure).

A 2 car class 142 pacer seated between 102 and 121 people depending on seat layout. A 2 car class 195 Civity seats 124 people. So not a lot of difference.

 

[ar10642]

Obviously I've no idea how old you are now, but there won't be many people on these boards who will still be in paid employment by the time that the 700s are life-expired.

I don't think that the poster specified whether this would be a one-off mandate in order to catch up with years of passenger growth around the country, or whether he expected it to continue in perpetuity. The latter would obviously be unsustainable (didn't some ICWC bids promise never-ending growth that would lead to the population of Manchester making three trips a day?). The former however is actually pretty sensible and quite a few rolling stock procurements over the last decade have seen drastic increases in capacity, including Thameslink so they can be ticked off as "complete".

It was a tongue in cheek comment, I'm 43 now so unlikely to still be commuting on those, on the other hand retirement doesn't look like an option so maybe I will be!

We definitely need investment on a lot of lines, whether we will ever see it or not I don't know. It seems to be going the other way at the moment with cost cutting being the main driver. It's Britain, we can't have nice things out in the sticks.

 

[Krokodil]

And do the welsh government seriously plan on making all roads 20 mph?

No, but almost all roads which would have been 30 in the past will now be 20.

A 2 car class 142 pacer seated between 102 and 121 people depending on seat layout. A 2 car class 195 Civity seats 124 people. So not a lot of difference.

The number of vehicles in the fleet has increased by around 25%, and the availability of those units will be much better, particularly because many of them are electric.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

That will just make journey times longer if intercity trains are forced to stop at every little town along the route. Better to stick to the current model and have a semi-fast service and a stopper, as well as (in my opinion), more direct non-stop services for ultra high speed travel (for example, Manchester to London, London to Birmingham, London to Edinburgh).

Case in point - Im going to Teukesbury and I will have to get off the train (probably a voyager) at Cheltenham and catch a local stopper to get to Teuksbury. A bit inconvenient but had the voyager stop at every single station between Birmingham and Teuksbury I bet it would still take longer.

I think you may have misunderstood my post. By saying, scrap skip-stopping, I'm referring to the specific practice where some trains stop at some stations and other trains along the same line stop at completely different stations - which makes the timetable really complex and hard to understand, and also makes many local journeys difficult to make - when for example, you have lots of trains stopping at A, and lots of other trains stop at the next station - B - but travelling from A to B is tough because relatively few trains stop at both of them. I'm definitely not saying you should scrap fast trains. Just that timetables should be done with the fast trains consistently stopping at the principle stations and the slow trains consistently stopping at most/all stations.

 

[RT4038]

I think you may have misunderstood my post. By saying, scrap skip-stopping, I'm referring to the specific practice where some trains stop at some stations and other trains along the same line stop at completely different stations - which makes the timetable really complex and hard to understand, and also makes many local journeys difficult to make - when for example, you have lots of trains stopping at A, and lots of other trains stop at the next station - B - but travelling from A to B is tough because relatively few trains stop at both of them. I'm definitely not saying you should scrap fast trains. Just that timetables should be done with the fast trains consistently stopping at the principle stations and the slow trains consistently stopping at most/all stations.

Depends what the likely size of the market between A & B is, and whether the time saving advantages in skip stopping (train paths, connections, journey time etc) have a greater worth.

Are there any examples where the A to B market is likely to exceed the other advantages?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Depends what the likely size of the market between A & B is, and whether the time saving advantages in skip stopping (train paths, connections, journey time etc) have a greater worth.

Are there any examples where the A to B market is likely to exceed the other advantages?

The most obvious examples that strike me where you could be killing quite significant passenger flows would be: Milton Keynes only having 1 fast tph to Birmingham and one tph to Manchester, and the Avanti London-Glasgow service skipping Crewe (with the massive interchange opportunities there) but then stopping at much smaller Warrington, leaving just 1tph from Crewe to Warrington/Wigan/Preston/everywhere further North.

Obviously numerous other examples but those are the ones off the top of my head where the passenger flows being inconvenienced are likely to be quite large.

EDIT: Another example: The 45 minute-gaps every hour between Southampton/Southampton Airport and Basingstoke, and only 1tph Southampton/Airport - Woking, both caused by most Waterloo-Bournemouth services alternating between stopping at Woking and stopping at Basingstoke, but rarely stopping at both.

And an example that will involve much smaller passenger numbers, but shows an extreme case of making journeys very hard: The fact that there are virtually no direct trains between Milbrook/Redbridge and stations towards Bournemouth.

 

[D6130]

Obviously numerous other examples but those are the ones off the top of my head where the passenger flows being inconvenienced are likely to be quite large.

Anecdotal evidence suggest that the DfT - and their Treasury masters - don't give a toss about inconveniencing passenger flows. Cost savings are all that count, allegedly.

 

[PacerTrain142]

I think they should re-open all of the closed lines and stations. And open new stations that are next/near towns and places like football stadiums, theme parks and leisure centres. I often look at railway lines on Google maps that run past large towns and there‘s no station (or just one station serving a large town) and I think - why didn’t they put a station there? That would be a great place for a station.

Also build more light rail services with high stop frequency.

And all large cities (Manchester and Birmingham for example) should have an underground tube system.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

Instead of annoying passengers with incessant and irrelevant announcements, stations should use their PAs to play a selection of calming natural sounds and ASMR audio. This would make passengers far more relaxed and less likely to get angry and aggressive when their trains are delayed or cancelled.

 

[J-2739]

Also build more light rail services with high stop frequency.

And all large cities (Manchester and Birmingham for example) should have an underground tube system.

I don't think these are controversial?

 

[PacerTrain142]

I don't think these are controversial?

Id say they are as they cost a lot of money.

 

[Trainguy34]

The DfT should take a Tokyo metro-esque stance when it comes to delay caused by humans outside of the Railway, where the family of or the person causing the delay has to pay "X" per delay minute caused and any expenses incurred for the TOCs (Taxis etc). Except in Extreme Circumstances out of anyone's control.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I believe it was a mistake to scrap the pacers. Especially as they had modified a class 144 pacer to meet the new disability regulations. But ended up scrapping it anyway… Why? It looked really good imo. From the inside it actually looked like a modern train. I think they should’ve at least refurbished the class 143’s and 144’s, those trains did not feel that old anyway unlike the 142’s. 142’s could run attached to a PRM compliant sprinter unit to ease overcrowding on busy routes. Surely this would be cheaper than buying brand new trains.

The PacerEvolution unit was never going to be a long-term solution. Whilst it looked "like a modern train" for the first few weeks I'd question the quality of the workmanship on the conversion as it started to rattle and look tatty very quickly. Despite all the fanfare when it was launched, it still needed several exemptions to the accessibility rules, and was still powered by a rather dated and dirty pair of diesel engines from the 1980s. The 195s will hopefully last another thirty years or so, by which time there will hopefully be more electrification and/or improved battery technology (including improved charging infrastructure and cheaper batteries, which hopefully won't be quite as "problematic" from a procurement point of view). Even if all the 143s and 144s had been "evolved" they'd be lucky to last another 10-15 years.

 

[Some guy]

The most obvious examples that strike me where you could be killing quite significant passenger flows would be: Milton Keynes only having 1 fast tph to Birmingham and one tph to Manchester, and the Avanti London-Glasgow service skipping Crewe (with the massive interchange opportunities there) but then stopping at much smaller Warrington, leaving just 1tph from Crewe

Warrington has a population of 212,000 compared to Crewe’s 74,000. It has lots of demand

 

[owidoe]

The powers that be deliberately killed ECML (and thereby everywhere) 140mph running by choosing the most idiotic possible aspect to expect drivers to distinguish at 140mph. Sabotage by someone who failed in the privatisation gold rush? Who knows.

 

[Krokodil]

Warrington has a population of 212,000 compared to Crewe’s 74,000. It has lots of demand

And will itself be losing most IC services if the Golborne spur goes ahead.

 

[The Ham]

There should be a 30 year plan to double rail capacity (discuss).

As between 2000 and 2023 it's grown by 62% and that includes a noticeable drop due to COVID.

If it turns out that it's not needed the schemes could be pushed back, however I suspect that if you had such a plan and started to deliver on it that you'd likely find that you'd need to plan for a further doubling over the following 25 years from 2035 from whatever point you got to say that point.

Double rail use in 2053 would still mean about 70% of travel being done by car, so the majority of travel would still be by car. As such no one would be forced to give up driving.

 

[Some guy]

And will itself be losing most IC services if the Golborne spur goes ahead.

So will Crewe the 400m Glasgow/Edinburgh services will only serve preston and Carlisle on the west coast Mainline with a split at Carlisle

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I would agree, but not until suitable replacements have been delivered. Getting the orders in now would be positive, e.g. a larger number of 197s for TfW, maybe even some dedicated long distance 5 or 6 car sets with proper 1st and a buffet.

You mean a 2020s version of the 442s!

 

[Dr_Paul]

I have a number of controversial opinions that'll probably wind everyone up:

We were too quick to forget Waterloo International...

I told a young French pal that the Eurostar station was moved to St Pancras from Waterloo because so many Londoners living north of the Thames wouldn't go south of the river. Knowing about the old North London prejudice, she wasn't quite sure whether I was telling the truth or winding her up. (She was suspicious of things I told her after I said that after Lord Lucan disappeared he reappeared as Freddie Mercury.)

 

[Sad Sprinter]

I told a young French pal that the Eurostar station was moved to St Pancras from Waterloo because so many Londoners living north of the Thames wouldn't go south of the river. Knowing about the old North London prejudice, she wasn't quite sure whether I was telling the truth or winding her up. (She was suspicious of things I told her after I said that after Lord Lucan disappeared he reappeared as Freddie Mercury.)

Sound like a quirky British idiosyncrasy that would be true. I do wonder if a high speed line was built to Waterloo whether it would have attracted more custom from the north anyway without moving the terminus

 

[Bletchleyite]

And will itself be losing most IC services if the Golborne spur goes ahead.

2 down to 1tph.

 

[CBlue]

Never used catering on any train and to be honest it's inconsistent at the best of times, so I'd never bother with it and just stock up before travelling - same as travelling by air. Get rid of it and save the money to improve other onboard facilities that everyone can benefit from.

Likewise do away with the spurious definition of "InterCity" that especially seems to infest a certain class of enthusiast.. If you believed some, the target customer for the railways would be 1950s era city gent complete with bowler hat, umbrella and a rolled-up newspaper stuffed under one arm....I couldn't care less where the doors are in the carriage I'm travelling or if there's a full seated dining service. I've travelled on business enough times to know that the attitude is "get a plane" or "get a taxi" rather than waste half your day travelling by train.

The concept of TOC specific tickets is a mess. Trying to explain how a ticket is only valid on "the white train with red doors, but only if it says Greater Anglia on the side" to my German partner was difficult to say the least when preparing for our travels this month.....

 

[Falcon1200]

I've travelled on business enough times to know that the attitude is "get a plane" or "get a taxi" rather than waste half your day travelling by train.

If the train journey takes half your day I'm not sure getting a taxi would be any quicker......

Regarding on train catering, all TOCs should cease direct involvement and lease their buffet and kitchen areas to Greggs or Subway.....

 

[aavm]

Regarding on train catering, all TOCs should cease direct involvement and lease their buffet and kitchen areas to Greggs or Subway.....

Almost. Wetherspoons with £2 pints.

 

[xotGD]

If the train journey takes half your day I'm not sure getting a taxi would be any quicker......

Regarding on train catering, all TOCs should cease direct involvement and lease their buffet and kitchen areas to Greggs or Subway.....

On on train Greggs is the best idea I've seen on this thread.

Bring it on!

 

[Howardh]

lease their buffet and kitchen areas to Greggs or Subway.....

You're not the first to mention that!

A while ago I suggested you could, via an app, contact an outlet in a station down the line (where the train stops) and they bring the food/drink to the door for you. Not sure it's really practical, but another suggestion, a long-distance train without buffet or trolley could have a 15' break put into the timetable at a station that has those facilities on the platform.

To think Manchester > Bournemouth or further with zero catering is unthinkable!