Is the government spending its money on rail in the right way?

[The DJ]

Discuss.

Rather than embarking on brand new multi-million pound rail projects such as HS2 and Crossrail, the government should have spent the billions on:-

1. Upgrading every inch of track on the network
2. Electrifying every route or section of route not currently electrified
3. All main lines to utilize ETCS allowing 150mph operation
4. All other lines to have 90mph operation possible even if not always desirable
5. All work should be carried out to European standards and not to the usual cheapskate UK government standards.
6. Trains should be built to European standards with the modification necessary for use on the UK network.
7. Long distance services should be slightly less frequent but using 12-carriage trains.
Provincial “intercity” services should be operated with 6-8 carriage trains.
Only on the quietest lines should 2-3 carriage units be used.

Costly and time consuming prosecutions for travel irregularities should be done away with and a flat rate £50 instant penalty put in place for travel irregularities.
Railway employees should be granted the new (widely publicised) power to request ID in the event of such an irregularity and police summoned if the passenger declines to show ID.
The instant penalty would of course have an appeal procedure built in but it would be a dedicated Appeals Section of Network Rail regional offices dealing with appeals. No more shady third party companies involved.

Also done away with would be the use of contract staff for station duties. All station staff should be bona fide trained Network Rail employees with employment benefits (perks) being modest at the lowest grade but increasing as the employee progresses to higher grades.

 

[JonathanH]

3. All main lines to utilize ETCS allowing 150mph operation

How? Is that in any way realistic? How long are you prepared to see the railway shut for to deliver that sort of upgrade?

 

[Bletchleyite]

7. Long distance services should be slightly less frequent but using 12-carriage trains.
Provincial “intercity” services should be operated with 6-8 carriage trains.
Only on the quietest lines should 2-3 carriage units be used.

I wouldn't get fixated on "coaches". Other than Eurostar and the Caledonian Sleepers, the 11-car Pendolinos are the longest trains on the UK network at present, with 24m intermediate and 25m end vehicles. They are actually slightly longer than 12.350. And then you've got GA's 12-car FLIRTs which have even shorter vehicles than that.

As a comparison, a 5-car 80x set (26m vehicles) is about 130m long, whereas a 6-car Southern EMU (20m vehicles) is actually shorter at 120m.

I do however agree that short DMUs belong on branch lines, and that 4x20m should be the minimum on any mainline (and TBH we are heading that way anyway).

 

[popeter45]

Discuss.

Rather than embarking on brand new multi-million pound rail projects such as HS2 and Crossrail, the government should have spent the billions on:-

1. Upgrading every inch of track on the network
2. Electrifying every route or section of route not currently electrified
3. All main lines to utilize ETCS allowing 150mph operation
4. All other lines to have 90mph operation possible even if not always desirable
5. All work should be carried out to European standards and not to the usual cheapskate UK government standards.
6. Trains should be built to European standards with the modification necessary for use on the UK network.
7. Long distance services should be slightly less frequent but using 12-carriage trains.
Provincial “intercity” services should be operated with 6-8 carriage trains.
Only on the quietest lines should 2-3 carriage units be used.

Costly and time consuming prosecutions for travel irregularities should be done away with and a flat rate £50 instant penalty put in place for travel irregularities.
Railway employees should be granted the new (widely publicised) power to request ID in the event of such an irregularity and police summoned if the passenger declines to show ID.
The instant penalty would of course have an appeal procedure built in but it would be a dedicated Appeals Section of Network Rail regional offices dealing with appeals. No more shady third party companies involved.

Also done away with would be the use of contract staff for station duties. All station staff should be bona fide trained Network Rail employees with employment benefits (perks) being modest at the lowest grade but increasing as the employee progresses to higher grades.

1. most intercity routes that has already been done
2. WAY more expensive than HS2 will every be (installing OHLE on new track is substantially cheaper than retrofitting on a active line)
3. that's already the long term plan but a new signalling system wont magically allow 150mph on areas with physical limitations that limit to 125mph or less
4. so you want to just rip up all metro lines or station approaches and rebuild entire cities just to allow 90mph in areas that will never need it?
5-6. again cost would be astronomical and that's what HS2 is already doing
7. most lines have platforms there is no way you could extend them that much for 400m trains without major realignment of lines (e.g. Paddington or Kings cross) and tbh many just dont need that kind of length

 

[Irascible]

Could at least finish the GWML off. But is comparing HS2 to spend on NR infrastructure not apples to oranges?

 

[Ianno87]

1. Upgrading every inch of track on the network

What does "every inch" actually mean? Take Cambridge to Hitchin as an example...

-Pretty well optimised speed profile
-Accommodates all the traffic it needs to given constraints elsewhere

The only thing you could do is to make it 4 track or build cut offs to get the speed up.... but doesn't deliver much benefit given constraints elsewhere.

5. All work should be carried out to European standards and not to the usual cheapskate UK government standards.

New work is done in compliance with Technical Standards for Interoperability.

But to run "European gauge" trains requires every single bridge, tunnel, platform etc to comply with this. Which will cost a darn sight more (and take much longer with more disruption) than HS2 for a fraction of the end benefit.

 

[Bletchleyite]

One thing I've certainly noticed is that the ride quality in Germany is massively, massively better than in the UK, even on rolling stock that is known to have poor suspension e.g. ICE1s and the various older UIC/RIC stock. That presumably means they have less tolerance of track positioning - does anyone know for certain?

 

[PeterC]

We need a new east-west line in London and a GWML relief line. Crossrail and HS2 may or may not have been the best solutions for those requirements but they are the ones that we have got.

 

[Bald Rick]

1. Upgrading every inch of track on the network

In what way?

2. Electrifying every route or section of route not currently electrified

That will cost more than HS2 alone

3. All main lines to utilize ETCS allowing 150mph operation

ETCS alone doesn’t enable any speed increase.

4. All other lines to have 90mph operation possible even if not always desirable

90mph through Birmingham New st? West Highland Line? The Cornwall branches?

5. All work should be carried out to European standards and not to the usual cheapskate UK government standards.

U.K. standards are typically more stringent than european.

6. Trains should be built to European standards with the modification necessary for use on the UK network.

If you mean european gauge, you’re looking at hundreds of billions. What’s the benefit?

7. Long distance services should be slightly less frequent but using 12-carriage trains.

Many long distance services are already at maximum length, AND frequent.

Costly and time consuming prosecutions for travel irregularities should be done away with and a flat rate £50 instant penalty put in place for travel irregularities.

Prosecutions for repeat offenders. I’d suggest £200 penalty fare minimum.

Also done away with would be the use of contract staff for station duties. All station staff should be bona fide trained Network Rail employees with employment benefits (perks) being modest at the lowest grade but increasing as the employee progresses to higher grades.

Network Rail staff? Really? Even at the 2000+ stations that aren’t managed by NR?

That presumably means they have less tolerance of track positioning - does anyone know for certain?

Yes, partly enabled by not having so many lines that have frequent high speed passenger services and frequent freight in the same lines. Also more daytime maintenance.