Is rail REALLY that bad in the North?

[AndrewE]

Is it really that bad in the north? What chance is there of this sort of thing
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/stranded-at-manchester-vic.158479/

Yes that train was meant to run (see screenshot) and as they cancelled it they are obliged to get you there using alternative transport. What did the other passengers do?
You are not the first person to be stranded by this disgraceful company and won't be the last, sadly. The rottenness at Northern are endemic, and come right from the top of the company.

happening in Greater London?

 

[yorkie]

GTR have been caught acting unprofessionally and mistreating passengers on numerous occasions. The problems on GTR can be quite different to Northern, but the idea that every TOC in the South is great certainly isn't true.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Not with the uncomfortable 3+2 seating on the 333s they're not!

Pfft, they're only uncomfortable when every seat is taken, which is the same as any 3+2 seating. And even then they're nicer than, say, the 150s. The 333s really are excellent trains.

 

[Dentonian]

400 i used to catch a lot & remember the extension to Manchester Airport.
401 was think Wigan-Oldham think via Westhaughton, then Bolton-Bury-Middleton-Chadderton, then got cut Bolton-Oldham before being extended to Stockport via Hyde, i do remember the 400/401 being rerouted via Lees Road between Oldham & Ashton which was short lived

Spot on - at various times in the 1990s, before 401 finally ran as just a Middleton/Chaddy variation of the 400.

 

[jayah]

I keep reading all these negative stories about rail in the North, but is it really all that bad?

The Pacers are going, Northern and TPE are getting new trains, we're getting lots of new services under "Northern Connect" and over on the east side of the Pennines we're getting new stock on VTEC services.

Yes, I know TPE services are permanently busy, but is Leeds to Manchester in 55 minutes so bad, given the topography of the route? Is that any worse than most other places outside the South East? Look at Bristol to Cardiff - it's no better. 2 trains an hour and one of them is generally a 150. Leeds to Manchester has 2 routes with a total of 8 trains per hour if I'm not mistaken, at present.

From where I live in Wakefield, I can catch 8 trains an hour to Leeds, in as little as 15 minutes. Sheffield on the fastest train is about 25 minutes away, and Doncaster is as little as 15 minutes away. However, TPE routes aren't as fast and yes they could be faster, but the area of improvement I think we need, certainly in the "Metro" area is later trains. I'd rather have later trains from Leeds than the opportunity to get to Manchester 10 minutes earlier.

As for London trains, well, I have 2 per hour on VTEC and the odd one on GC. I have before travelled down to London and been in Ilford (East London) on a Saturday an hour before most shops open, eating a McDonald's breakfast, which I'm partly ashamed to say I love.

More trains are needed and newer stock, but it's on its way and personally I don't think rail travel up here is that bad at all.

It is pretty dire. The speeds are so slow outside of the lines to London there has been no investment in track or signals to make things better. Given most of the investment in the new franchise seems to be 2 car DMU and 3 car EMU it is like the writing is on the wall for crowding - the 185s all over again.

Liverpool to Manchester 45min for 35miles and that route has had money spent on it!

 

[HSTEd]

Ideally we would have rapid services of > 100mph average speed stopping every twenty miles or so stretching across the country.

But that would require a lot of new line construction to get th e speeds required.

Although the idea of solving the Cornish holiday home crisis by turning it into an outright suburb is appealing, on a conceptual level....

 

[xotGD]

Pfft, they're only uncomfortable when every seat is taken, which is the same as any 3+2 seating. And even then they're nicer than, say, the 150s. The 333s really are excellent trains.

The 333 seats are too hard, too narrow and overly curved. They are uncomfortable even if you have a bay of 6 to yourself. The 321s may be from a previous generation, but they have more comfortable seats. As do 150s in 3+2.

 

[jayah]

Ideally we would have rapid services of > 100mph average speed stopping every twenty miles or so stretching across the country.

But that would require a lot of new line construction to get th e speeds required.

Although the idea of solving the Cornish holiday home crisis by turning it into an outright suburb is appealing, on a conceptual level....

Only a few journeys like London to York have 100mph averages. 60mph averages on key city to city flows would be a start, beginning with taxing an axe to the dead wood in the timetable. Far too many tiny trains tripping over each other.

 

[SSp]

In defence of northern trains...
- virgin west coast are always too hot (24/25 degrees by electronic thermometer)
- on northern you can open windows to get fresh air in (which I do even in winter - WAGS can do one)

 

[jayah]

In defence of northern trains...
- virgin west coast are always too hot (24/25 degrees by electronic thermometer)
- on northern you can open windows to get fresh air in (which I do even in winter - WAGS can do one)

The last one I went on was freezing. Which they often are. The only thing more windswept is their poor staff. If half your employees engage with your customers standing shivering outside unmanned halts in the suburbs with PORTIS then you ain't doing something right.

 

[HSTEd]

Only a few journeys like London to York have 100mph averages. 60mph averages on key city to city flows would be a start, beginning with taxing an axe to the dead wood in the timetable. Far too many tiny trains tripping over each other.

In Japan the all-shacks Shinkansen average 110 or so.

The existing lines are fundamentally unsuited to high average speeds, too many minor stations, two many flat junctions and far too much old alignments.

 

[jayah]

In Japan the all-shacks Shinkansen average 110 or so.

The existing lines are fundamentally unsuited to high average speeds, too many minor stations, two many flat junctions and far too much old alignments.

It needs fettling, slewing and realigning, followed by a radical overhaul of the timetables, connections and stopping patterns.

Good old fashioned civil engineering rather than lots of expensive overhead wires which cost the earth and don't actually make anything quicker.

 

[HSTEd]

It needs fettling, slewing and realigning, followed by a radical overhaul of the timetables, connections and stopping patterns.

Good old fashioned civil engineering rather than lots of expensive overhead wires which cost the earth and don't actually make anything quicker.

These alignments can't overcome the limitations of the laws of physics though.
You might get higher speeds out of them with tilting trains, but they will never be able to match a new construction railway.

Which is why i hope HS3 actually is a predominantly new alignment, then all Leeds-Manchester trains apart from stoppers can be routed over it.

 

[jayah]

These alignments can't overcome the limitations of the laws of physics though.
You might get higher speeds out of them with tilting trains, but they will never be able to match a new construction railway.

Which is why i hope HS3 actually is a predominantly new alignment, then all Leeds-Manchester trains apart from stoppers can be routed over it.

You don't need the capital involved in building another railway - 60mph average speeds are what is needed and are well within reach. The country cannot afford HS2 let alone HS3,4,5 and should be thinking in that mentality.

 

[HSTEd]

You don't need the capital involved in building another railway

The ghost of the WCRM looms large unfortunately.

- 60mph average speeds are what is needed and are well within reach.

60mph average speeds will not deliver the economic step change that the north, and the country generally needs.

The country cannot afford HS2 let alone HS3,4,5 and should be thinking in that mentality.

Why not?
The UK Government spends eight hundred billion pounds every year.
Hell, suspend the triple lock for one year and that will give you something like £3bn/yr into perpetuity to spend on these projects.

 

[yorkie]

If you wish to discuss the pros & cons of HS rail, please use the HS rail section of the forum. Thanks.

 

[jayah]

The ghost of the WCRM looms large unfortunately.

60mph average speeds will not deliver the economic step change that the north, and the country generally needs.

Why not?
The UK Government spends eight hundred billion pounds every year.
Hell, suspend the triple lock for one year and that will give you something like £3bn/yr into perpetuity to spend on these projects.

60mph will deliver an economic step change in the north. Currently it is nearer 40mph. Any High Speed line will only benefit a minority of routes leaving everyone else stuck at 40mph for another 30 years.

As explained there is no magic money tree. We have a national debt of £1.5tr there is no money for all these HS5 White Elephants. If the value of time saved is worth so much, charge fares to recover the cost from those using it.

 

[urbophile]

There is a magic money tree but it's been transplanted to Belfast.

 

[SamYeager]

@jayah Please see post 406.

 

[B&I]

It needs fettling, slewing and realigning, followed by a radical overhaul of the timetables, connections and stopping patterns.

Good old fashioned civil engineering rather than lots of expensive overhead wires which cost the earth and don't actually make anything quicker.

Why do you think almost every other advanced country in the world has gone in for widespread electrification?

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Why do you think almost every other advanced country in the world has gone in for widespread electrification?

Because most of them did their rebuilding and realigning immediately after World War Two, unlike the U. K., and consequently don't need to do it now.

 

[al78]

Why do you think almost every other advanced country in the world has gone in for widespread electrification?

I'll go for a complete guess at one factor, which may be completely wrong.

During the second world war, the rail networks on the European mainland got so badly damaged that it was easier to start again. In starting again, they rebuilt using updated technology and engineered the lines to take modern fast trains. In the UK, we rebuilt and stuck with the original Victorian system, so we are stuck with lines that cannot take high speed trains because of factors like too many curves in the line. The UK has also tended to lean more towards the American car-is-king philosophy, so the transport investment has been ploughed into the road network at the expense of public transport, cyclists and pedestrians. Is it any wonder, after decades of car-centrism, we have some of the most congested roads in Europe?

 

[J-2739]

I'll go for a complete guess at one factor, which may be completely wrong.

During the second world war, the rail networks on the European mainland got so badly damaged that it was easier to start again. In starting again, they rebuilt using updated technology and engineered the lines to take modern fast trains. In the UK, we rebuilt and stuck with the original Victorian system, so we are stuck with lines that cannot take high speed trains because of factors like too many curves in the line. The UK has also tended to lean more towards the American car-is-king philosophy, so the transport investment has been ploughed into the road network at the expense of public transport, cyclists and pedestrians. Is it any wonder, after decades of car-centrism, we have some of the most congested roads in Europe?

I really don't get how we should be regarded as a car centric country when most most countries in Europe have more motorway mileage then we do.

 

[jayah]

Why do you think almost every other advanced country in the world has gone in for widespread electrification?

This was done in an era when steam and diesel were both much slower and less reliable than electric, none of which is true today unless you are talking about very high speed above 125mph where Voyagers on the WCML and ECML prove the point.

 

[Domh245]

I really don't get how we should be regarded as a car centric country when most most countries in Europe have more motorway mileage then we do.

Possibly because most other European countries are far larger than the UK. What you need to compare is the motorway mileage per area of land

 

[47802]

We are stuck with a Victorian railway system whether we like or not and your going to have an extremely strong business case and political will as per HS2 to get any new lines built or existing lines extensively re-engineered for much higher speeds where its even possible.

Apart from being lumbered with an excessive number of Railbuses you could argue that the North isn't any worse than the rest of the country outside London and London Commuter Land, and given that the bulk of North West electrification has gone ahead and there is significant new rolling stock in the pipeline for TPE and Northern then things should improve significantly whether its enough remains to be seen.

 

[B&I]

This was done in an era when steam and diesel were both much slower and less reliable than electric, none of which is true today unless you are talking about very high speed above 125mph where Voyagers on the WCML and ECML prove the point.

So why have other countries carried on doing it into recent decades, when the ghosts of steam have long since vanished?

 

[B&I]

Because most of them did their rebuilding and realigning immediately after World War Two, unlike the U. K., and consequently don't need to do it now.

What I was trying to get at was, if elecrification is as stupid a policy as some on here argue, why have so many countries spent decades pursuing it? BTW, we did start large-scale electrification and other modernisation not long after WWII, but seem to have had difficulty with consistent and well-directed investment eg putting a ludicrous number of unproven diesel locomotive designs into service in the 50s

 

[B&I]

I'll go for a complete guess at one factor, which may be completely wrong.

During the second world war, the rail networks on the European mainland got so badly damaged that it was easier to start again. In starting again, they rebuilt using updated technology and engineered the lines to take modern fast trains. In the UK, we rebuilt and stuck with the original Victorian system, so we are stuck with lines that cannot take high speed trains because of factors like too many curves in the line. The UK has also tended to lean more towards the American car-is-king philosophy, so the transport investment has been ploughed into the road network at the expense of public transport, cyclists and pedestrians. Is it any wonder, after decades of car-centrism, we have some of the most congested roads in Europe?

Those are factors too

We are stuck with a Victorian railway system whether we like or not and your going to have an extremely strong business case and political will as per HS2 to get any new lines built or existing lines extensively re-engineered for much higher speeds where its even possible.

Apart from being lumbered with an excessive number of Railbuses you could argue that the North isn't any worse than the rest of the country outside London and London Commuter Land, and given that the bulk of North West electrification has gone ahead and there is significant new rolling stock in the pipeline for TPE and Northern then things should improve significantly whether its enough remains to be seen.

Short-term fiscal constraints aside, why should the urban areas of the north, at least, not have the same standard of public transport as the urban south-east? If your answer involves lower levels of economic activity compared to London, isn't there a degree of chicken and egg to that?

 

[SamYeager]

Short-term fiscal constraints aside, why should the urban areas of the north, at least, not have the same standard of public transport as the urban south-east?

My cynical view is that in the past those funds went towards to areas that helped politicians, of the two main parties, get votes. Railways and the associated infrastructure were not seen as politically important. I note that you don't seem that bothered about the south-west which is why I tend not to be that bothered about "the north".