What are the railways in this country for?

[The Ham]

Following this post:

We see it a lot on rail threads too - for example, if a Sprinter can do a couple of miles per gallon then a lightly loaded train carrying a couple of dozen passengers on a quiet line (however "socially necessary") isn't the environmentally friendly alternative to those people driving - it'd actually be better for the environment if those people drove (as long as they were doing so in relatively modern cars - doesn't have to be electric/hybrid, just relatively modern).


I'm not saying that "close quiet branch lines to help save the environment" would be a vote winner, of course. Such routes do exist though - e.g. I think the line from Burnley to Colne has an average of about twenty one passengers per journey.


But some people take the attitude that "the railway" must be the answer, no matter what. So we go from threads extolling the need to get people out of their cars to threads encouraging railway passengers to travel hundreds of miles on unnecessary leisure trips - if environmental sustainability is the goal then be careful what you wish for!


Some enthusiasts think that part of the purpose of the railway should be to own lots of retail space so that the profits can help subsidise train operation.


Some think that the purpose of the railway should be to maximise passenger miles, regardless of cost or efficiency.


Some think that we should spend a billion pounds a year on electrifying lines, just to keep skills up to date. What else - give the road budget sufficient to fund a new suspension bridge/ hundred miles of motorway each year, just to ensure that we have trained staff capable of doing such jobs when needed?


Same goes for the "employ as many staff as possible" example that you've given; those inside the industry have no incentive to try to reduce "manpower".


Maybe that could be a whole separate thread - explain the purpose of the railway in 280 characters or fewer (using that number as a benchmark since that's the length of one tweet).

Using up to 280 characters, what is the purpose of the railways?

I would say that:

Railways are to allow people the opportunity to travel without the need to own a car. This will often mean that they will require a level of public support. As a secondary factor it should look to improve the environmental impact of travel.

 

[Ianno87]

Making the UK economy work.

 

[RT4038]

To give us all a good reason to travel by any other means possible.

 

[bnm]

Spotters.

 

[lmuk]

Ravers

 

[43096]

Ravers

No, RAVERS is being phased out....

https://www.rssb.co.uk/improving-industry-performance/r2/r2-faqs

 

[lmuk]

Haha northern rail kinda screwed then

 

[Muzer]

Three purposes:

Providing for high-capacity and fast long-distance travel
Allowing commuters to get to work
Enabling local journeys in a convenient way to solve many of the issues cars cause (congestion, financial, and environmental costs)

 

[Robsignals]

Following this post:



Using up to 280 characters, what is the purpose of the railways?

I would say that:

Railways are to allow people the opportunity to travel without the need to own a car. This will often mean that they will require a level of public support. As a secondary factor it should look to improve the environmental impact of travel.

If those passengers instead had to be given individual lifts/taxis the total mileage would be roughly double due to empty mileage, some may require social care with the carers clocking up lots of car miles so the 'break even' number of passengers is probably lower than may be assumed not to mention the far higher cost than subsidising public transport.

If rail users switch to cars road speeds drop along with mpg. Rail is capable of carrying large numbers with high energy efficiency so public policy should be restricting car use.

 

[dk1]

To keep me in a very generously paid position with excellent working conditions considering I was far too lazy to study or partake in a single exam before leaving school with no intention whatsoever of entering into further education

 

[Wivenswold]

The Railway should be a vital part of an integrated transport network. It provides speed, capacity and value when other modes of transport cannot.

 

[HSTEd]

To foster national unity by providing rapid, affordable transport between all significant population centres, to provide services to support the proper functioning of urban areas and so far as does not conflict with the earlier objectives, to move goods cheaply and efficiently.

 

[etr221]

To provide a transport option for the carriage of passengers and goods (i.e. freight).

The question that follows, and which has never been definitively been answered (in this country, or many others) is to what extent this should be done as a commercial opportunity, with the aim of making a (private) profit, and to what extent it should be done as a national (i.e. for the benefit of the nation) or public service, giving consideration to safety, social desirabilities, the economy and the environment.

Before the first world war the technical and economic environment meant that the railways were able to make an adequate profit while providing what was generally regarded as an adequate public service; changes to that environment have meant that since the second war, or shortly after, they have not been able to do so, and we have struggled to work out and reach a consensus as to how the gap should be dealt with.

 

[gsnedders]

To be part of a transport network, with different media being used as appropriate. Railway is primarily appropriate in three settings: long distance, high speed travel; medium distance, medium density travel; short distance, high density travel. All of these need to be measured against how many passengers would use a given route as there's no way a whole train is worth it if a coach would do.

 

[al78]

We see it a lot on rail threads too - for example, if a Sprinter can do a couple of miles per gallon then a lightly loaded train carrying a couple of dozen passengers on a quiet line (however "socially necessary") isn't the environmentally friendly alternative to those people driving - it'd actually be better for the environment if those people drove (as long as they were doing so in relatively modern cars - doesn't have to be electric/hybrid, just relatively modern).

This assumes that if there were no passengers on the train because they chose to drive, the train wouldn't run. This is not really what happens in reality. A train might be empty or lightly loaded for part of its journey, but can fill up quickly once it stops at a popular station, or it reaches its terminal station and makes its journey back at peak time. If the choice for me is to drive or use a train carrying fresh air, then if the train is running regardless, then driving means both my car and the train are emitting pollution, whereas if I take the train, my car is idle and not emitting pollution. This argument holds as long as the number of trains running doesn't increase as demand increases (i.e. you just cram on more standing passengers, and the extra pollution from rail travel comes from transporting extra weight). This argument doesn't hold for aircraft since airlines do respond to increased passenger demand by flying more planes, I don't think this happens much on the rail network. The more people that are persuaded to choose the train over the car, the more efficient in terms of passenger miles per gallon the train becomes, and the less traffic there is on the roads, which makes road journeys faster and more fuel economical for those who have to drive. Cars are a very inefficient use of space, which is evident from the congestion in cities resulting from a lot of people all wanting to take one car each into a small area at the same time.

 

[gsnedders]

This assumes that if there were no passengers on the train because they chose to drive, the train wouldn't run. This is not really what happens in reality. A train might be empty or lightly loaded for part of its journey, but can fill up quickly once it stops at a popular station, or it reaches its terminal station and makes its journey back at peak time. If the choice for me is to drive or use a train carrying fresh air, then if the train is running regardless, then driving means both my car and the train are emitting pollution, whereas if I take the train, my car is idle and not emitting pollution. This argument holds as long as the number of trains running doesn't increase as demand increases (i.e. you just cram on more standing passengers, and the extra pollution from rail travel comes from transporting extra weight). This argument doesn't hold for aircraft since airlines do respond to increased passenger demand by flying more planes, I don't think this happens much on the rail network. The more people that are persuaded to choose the train over the car, the more efficient in terms of passenger miles per gallon the train becomes, and the less traffic there is on the roads, which makes road journeys faster and more fuel economical for those who have to drive. Cars are a very inefficient use of space, which is evident from the congestion in cities resulting from a lot of people all wanting to take one car each into a small area at the same time.

I think a lot of that depends on where you are. Something like the Far North Line congestion in cities is unlikely to play a large part in the trade-off, whereas something like the Marlow branch line would be a very different situation.

Lines like the West Highland Line are very quiet outside of the tourist season, for the whole route, not just part of its journey, and much of the route is well served with coaches, and it'd be interesting as to how fuel economy per passenger compares. (Obviously, the coaches don't exactly follow the route in its more rural sections across Rannock Moor especially).

 

[Rail Blues]

From some of the threads on here you'd think the purpose of the railway was to allow railway geeks to see their particular favourite piece of antiquated rolling stock in operation. That a TOC hasn't seen fit to assemble a consist of a class 43 and a class 91 sandwiching a class 422 with a pacer tagged on the back for extra capacity is seen by these folk as a national scandal.

I think there's a tension on these boards between those of us who see the railway as a modern form of mass transportation and those who see it as a giant trainset.

 

[Gareth]

To transport people.

 

[TBirdFrank]

There is only one purpose for the railway industry and that is to be as profitable as possible for its shareholders. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just naive.

But the railway industry in the UK makes a net loss you say - and that's why the UK taxpayers are being bled dry by the most byzantine operating structure ever dreamt up just to create that dividend for the fat cats at the top.

Sensible - No! Purposeful Ho Yus!

 

[Bucephalus]

They get you from a to b whilst you are free to do something more productive with your hands than hold a steering wheel. (<280 characters?)

 

[Kneedown]

I think it is important to remember that many people do not have access to a car, and indeed that many are prevented from driving one due to various medical or age related conditions.
The railways are essential in that they enable everyone to travel in a reasonably environmentally friendly way, but for some it is the only means to travel locally, or across the country.

 

[Starmill]

To compete to be the best fit for the transport need.

Usually this is either:

1. A speed solution - can carry large numbers of people very quickly across medium intercity distances. In the extreme this is your 300 km/h 400m train with 1000 seats undertaking up to a 4 hour ish journey. The comfort advantage over other modes is also vital. Think HS2.

2. A volume solution - the extreme of this is a train that can carry perhaps 1500 people on one train through congested cities at high frequency. Think Thameslink or Crossrail.

If your train isn't even close to fulfilling either of these needs, then it's very likely that a new car is already more efficient in terms of the energy needed. In addition to the energy efficiency of a train there's also the carbon emissions and the air pollution to consider, but it's unlikely that if you're wasting energy you're doing a good job on either of those. If algorithm-driven car sharing trips (especially once supported by electric and automonous car technology) become commonplace, the price of this will probably almost always undercut that of a train ticket. If the train is diesel powered it would probably be more efficient and emit less carbon too.

Trains should have the edge over aircraft (they try very hard not to by using diesel to travel at 125mph - which is rare except in the UK) - unless an electric aircraft with a range of say 700km is ever viable. If that happens then you can forget your Voyager / Super Express Train as either a green or efficient option.

 

[The Ham]

To keep me in a very generously paid position with excellent working conditions considering I was far too lazy to study or partake in a single exam before leaving school with no intention whatsoever of entering into further education

Where's the like button when you need it?

 

[The Ham]

To compete to be the best fit for the transport need.

Usually this is either:

1. A speed solution - can carry large numbers of people very quickly across medium intercity distances. In the extreme this is your 300 km/h 400m train with 1000 seats undertaking up to a 4 hour ish journey. The comfort advantage over other modes is also vital. Think HS2.

2. A volume solution - the extreme of this is a train that can carry perhaps 1500 people on one train through congested cities at high frequency. Think Thameslink or Crossrail.

If your train isn't even close to fulfilling either of these needs, then it's very likely that a new car is already more efficient in terms of the energy needed. In addition to the energy efficiency of a train there's also the carbon emissions and the air pollution to consider, but it's unlikely that if you're wasting energy you're doing a good job on either of those. If algorithm-driven car sharing trips (especially once supported by electric and automonous car technology) become commonplace, the price of this will probably almost always undercut that of a train ticket. If the train is diesel powered it would probably be more efficient and emit less carbon too.

Trains should have the edge over aircraft (they try very hard not to by using diesel to travel at 125mph - which is rare except in the UK) - unless an electric aircraft with a range of say 700km is ever viable. If that happens then you can forget your Voyager / Super Express Train as either a green or efficient option.

Although those two are where trains the to work best for being environmentally friendly I would argue that without a lot of the other bits that the numbers using those services would be lower. As such the overall network needs to be considered as an overall figure when working out how well railways do at being green.

Until all (nearly all in any case) cars are electric, automated and hired for each journey then there's still going to be a good case for a lot of the rail network. Even after that point there's going to be too much congestion in much of the country to consider reducing the scope of the network by very much.

I would be surprised if the costs of road travel could undercut rail travel for all journeys (especially during the peaks when demand is likely to outstrip supply) and it certainly wouldn't match speed. Combined these two factors would likely ensure the continued existence of the railways for a long time, although there could be some reconfiguration from what it looks like today.

 

[The Ham]

"We see it a lot on rail threads too - for example, if a Sprinter can do a couple of miles per gallon then a lightly loaded train carrying a couple of dozen passengers on a quiet line (however "socially necessary") isn't the environmentally friendly alternative to those people driving - it'd actually be better for the environment if those people drove (as long as they were doing so in relatively modern cars - doesn't have to be electric/hybrid, just relatively modern)."

This assumes that if there were no passengers on the train because they chose to drive, the train wouldn't run. This is not really what happens in reality. A train might be empty or lightly loaded for part of its journey, but can fill up quickly once it stops at a popular station, or it reaches its terminal station and makes its journey back at peak time. If the choice for me is to drive or use a train carrying fresh air, then if the train is running regardless, then driving means both my car and the train are emitting pollution, whereas if I take the train, my car is idle and not emitting pollution. This argument holds as long as the number of trains running doesn't increase as demand increases (i.e. you just cram on more standing passengers, and the extra pollution from rail travel comes from transporting extra weight). This argument doesn't hold for aircraft since airlines do respond to increased passenger demand by flying more planes, I don't think this happens much on the rail network. The more people that are persuaded to choose the train over the car, the more efficient in terms of passenger miles per gallon the train becomes, and the less traffic there is on the roads, which makes road journeys faster and more fuel economical for those who have to drive. Cars are a very inefficient use of space, which is evident from the congestion in cities resulting from a lot of people all wanting to take one car each into a small area at the same time.

I would argue that even when extras services are provided then as long as more people use them (which is generally the case) then that continues to improve the situation. In that the extra emissions are soon offset by a few extra cars being removed from the roads.

I would also point out that generally cars produce more pollution during their construction and disposal than they produce during their lifetime, as such if by running trains which are running anyway you reduce the numbers of cars purchased (read built) then the green credentials improve further.

The final factor is that the more people who so driving there cars the more likely that it is that people will consider walking and cycling shorter journeys. Which further improves the impact on the environment.

For instance someone using the train may well be traveling further than if they drove, however the distance traveled by transport with a motor/engine can be less. Even if it is more then the extra trends to be either marginal or tend to be offset by the benefits of transporting lots of people at once (at least over part of the journey).

As a case in point rail travel from Basingstoke to Guildford is a longer route than driving. However as the numbers of people making that journey are low compared to those traveling between Basingstoke and Woking and between Woking and Guildford the impact is offset by the savings of the many on services which are running anyway.

 

[al78]

I think a lot of that depends on where you are. Something like the Far North Line congestion in cities is unlikely to play a large part in the trade-off, whereas something like the Marlow branch line would be a very different situation.

Lines like the West Highland Line are very quiet outside of the tourist season, for the whole route, not just part of its journey, and much of the route is well served with coaches, and it'd be interesting as to how fuel economy per passenger compares. (Obviously, the coaches don't exactly follow the route in its more rural sections across Rannock Moor especially).

Even the far north line can be popular in summer. I once travelled to Inchnadamph by train and bicycle, which required getting the train to Ardgay and cycling the last 36 miles. When I was travelling back at the beginning of August. I cycled to Ardgay, waited for the train, then found I couldn't board because all the cycle spaces were taken (I should have booked in advance), so ended up having to cycle 71 miles in total back to Inverness (easily managed it in time for the sleeper).

 

[38Cto15E]

TBirdFrank +1

 

[al78]

I would also point out that generally cars produce more pollution during their construction and disposal than they produce during their lifetime, as such if by running trains which are running anyway you reduce the numbers of cars purchased (read built) then the green credentials improve further.

I have heard mixed statements on this (it is often said by those who are anti-public transport trying to counter green advocacy), but bear in mind that not everyone buys a new car. If a car goes through five owners before being scrapped, then the emission costs of construction and disposal are shared over five people. The problem is that many people need a car for a limited number of journeys which may not be practical by train, so will always own a car, then it comes down to the marginal reduction in emissions by them choosing to use the train over the car when they can on a per journey basis.

 

[dk1]

Where's the like button when you need it?

Thank you. It was either that or my Dad was going to set me up with a pub at 18. I'd grown up living in them & knew what a stressful life it could be. Railways where my main passion & I was never much good at doing things I wasn't interested in.

 

[Whattraintoday]

To provide a mass transit facility between population density zones across short-medium, medium & medium-long distances i.e commuter rail (10-50 mins) regional express services (40-90 mins) and longer Inter-City routes (75-240 mins).

Short distances - car or bus (one doesn’t pop out for a pint of milk by train)
Very long distances - fly (over 3.5 hrs travel time is where flying starts to make sense)

Trains should not primarily operate to serve a social function to connect remote villages - use the bus or get a car. If that means closing Shippea Hill etc, tough. Saves money that can go on better services that are justifiable. Might be worth keeping the land if there’s a chance they’re going to build a massive housing estate next to it, otherwise sell it off.

Commuting into a city centre by car is extremely wasteful and slow, buses only slightly better.

Only time short distances make sense by train is Metro systems in dense urban areas where you need to move lots of people with the minimum of disruption on the surface, like LU.