What is your controversial railway opinion/idea?

[YorkshireBear]

Nationalisation would fix very little, there are much more fundamental problems with the industry at the moment.

 

[al78]

If parking a car became harder and parking a bike was a lot easier then more people would cycle. You would then start to see the critical mass of cyclists that would mean that investment in more cycle facilities to get to the stations and around town becomes politically attractive.

Much as I advocate cycling as an alternative form of transport, I very much doubt you will get significant increase in utility cycling in the UK, without making car use so unpleasant that people cycle because it is the least worst option, rather than because they see it as a viable alternative, and it is unlikely you could ever get there without mass protests. Even in London, which is probably the UK city with the highest level of cycling, and is the least pleasant/most expensive to drive and park, the roads are still rammed full with motor vehicles. People just don't like being directly exposed to poor weather and heavy fast moving machines that can kill on impact, and this is before you look at the car-centric transport policies over the decades which have aimed to enable motor vehicles to move as fast as possible, at the expense of vulnerable road users. The UK is more like America than Europe in this regard.

 

[al78]

Not sure if it's ever been voiced/suggested before (so if it has please forgive me!) but I think that HS2 is a wasted opportunity for so many reasons if not only because it will not (as I understand it) have vehicle carrying carriages only for people. It really should offer a service like Eurotunnel, imagine being able to take your car from (or near) London to (or near) Manchester in around 90 minutes? That ease so much congestion on the M1/M6 etc. I've wondered why this was never part of the thinking for HS2, is there a reason why this was or was it actually considered and ruled out?

How long would it take to get from your home to the London terminal, and from the Manchester terminal at the other end to your destination, at times where congestion on the motorway is likely to cause significant delays, and would it be worth the extra cost (which would likely be substantial)?

 

[al78]

It was never cheaper to take the train (buying a standard ticket, ignoring advances etc) than the marginal cost of driving there instead.

People complain nowadays that its cheaper to fill the car with a tank of petrol than it is to take the train, as if this is proof of the failure of privatisation, or indeed a new thing. It's amazing to think that the cost of a train ticket (which pays for a driver, a guard, signalling staff, the upkeep of the railway, schedulers, cleaners etc and the fuel for the train) would be cheaper than the fuel required for your car (when you are doing various jobs yourself - e.g. driving, cleaning) and not paying directly for other costs (traffic lights, motorway repairs).

Trouble is, drivers don't pay for the indirect costs of driving externalised onto society. Put those on the balance sheet, and then lets see if driving would be cheaper. That is the problem with capitalist thinking, human costs don't matter if they can not be directly represented in monetary terms.

 

[_toommm_]

Delay repay should be available to holders of multi modal tickets. Just because I can go on a bus or tram with my ticket, doesn't always mean there is suitable provision to do so in my area. At the end of the day it's called delay repay, and should do just that. The money I pay goes to TOCs so why not give it back?

 

[EM2]

How long would it take to get from your home to the London terminal, and from the Manchester terminal at the other end to your destination, at times where congestion on the motorway is likely to cause significant delays, and would it be worth the extra cost (which would likely be substantial)?

No debates!

 

[CaptainHaddock]

Introduce "cattle class" open wagons on all commuter services and bring in a "cattle class" season ticket at half the price of a standard one.

 

[Via Bank]

Much as I advocate cycling as an alternative form of transport, I very much doubt you will get significant increase in utility cycling in the UK, without making car use so unpleasant that people cycle because it is the least worst option, rather than because they see it as a viable alternative, and it is unlikely you could ever get there without mass protests. Even in London, which is probably the UK city with the highest level of cycling, and is the least pleasant/most expensive to drive and park, the roads are still rammed full with motor vehicles. People just don't like being directly exposed to poor weather and heavy fast moving machines that can kill on impact, and this is before you look at the car-centric transport policies over the decades which have aimed to enable motor vehicles to move as fast as possible, at the expense of vulnerable road users. The UK is more like America than Europe in this regard.

Hence why money should be invested in kerb-protected cycleways on main roads first. No-one except Lycra-clad red light jumping roadies are going to use a fancy station cycle parking hub if getting to the station involves dicing with death on a four lane roundabout or a mugger-friendly canal towpath.

Anyway. Perhaps a more controversial opinion: it should be significantly harder to issue a penalty fare than it currently is. Rail operators should be required to compensate passengers issued with a PF that is then cancelled.

 

[underbank]

How long would it take to get from your home to the London terminal, and from the Manchester terminal at the other end to your destination, at times where congestion on the motorway is likely to cause significant delays, and would it be worth the extra cost (which would likely be substantial)?

But the same applies for passengers on the new HS2, i.e. those who don't actually live near the Northern stations and those who don't wish to go to StPancras. A huge number of current passengers will barely see any improvement in journey times due to HS2 and may even see a worsening in times or need more changes.

If you're already driving from, say, Scotland or the more Northern parts of England to London/South East, a slight detour to a rail/road terminal near Manchester will be insignificant compared to the total journey. But, yes, if you live, say, in Chester or Hull it probably wouldn't reduce time (although may still be preferably to some who don't like driving or just want a break on their journeys).

What I'm saying is that you can't generalise. Some people would benefit from a vehicle carriage system on HS2, others won't. I'd have thought that there'd have been some research as to typical journeys. numbers of journeys, etc to consider the viability.

 

[The Ham]

Hence why money should be invested in kerb-protected cycleways on main roads first. No-one except Lycra-clad red light jumping roadies are going to use a fancy station cycle parking hub if getting to the station involves dicing with death on a four lane roundabout or a mugger-friendly canal towpath.

There's plenty of stations where more cycle parking is required as the current provision is not sufficient, without being that demand which is already there there's no point making it safer to get there as there's nowhere to park your cycle. However the suggestion was that providing enough cycle parking be a franchise commitment, you're never going to get TOC's to provide facilities at from stations. That really would be a controversial suggestion!

 

[whitrope69]

Overseas owning groups bring a pool of world class talent who can show us BR has been's how it should be done.

 

[SeanG]

Abolish seat reservations and first class. Seating should be on a first come first served basis with basic manners leading to the young giving up their seats for the old/infirm etc

 

[Journeyman]

The Thomas The Tank Engine stories are a terrifying dystopian nightmare. The Fat Controller is clearly a Stalinesque figure. Any independent thought or deviation from the party line is met with swift and harsh punishment.

 

[Journeyman]

Abolish seat reservations and first class. Seating should be on a first come first served basis with basic manners leading to the young giving up their seats for the old/infirm etc

Good luck with that one! Do that, and I'd fly instead.

 

[B&I]

Overseas owning groups bring a pool of world class talent who can show us BR has been's how it should be done.

Experience since privatisation suggests that overseas owners rely on the same, largely British pool of 'talent' as everyone else, or are sending the least-favoured idiot sons to run their British operations

 

[Kanrakuq]

The endless chaos is not because of the unions, or the management, or the government, or the drivers, or the guards, or the station staff, or Network Rail, or the train leasing companies, it's all of them squabbling like rats in a sack trying to get something beneficial for themselves and giving a shamefully low amount of their time and attention to providing a service for the poor passengers just trying to get to work or see their mum. This selfish attitude at all levels of the "service" has not changed whether the trains are nationalised or privatised, because the problem is the people, top to bottom. Not all people, but always enough.

 

[BigCj34]

It was never cheaper to take the train (buying a standard ticket, ignoring advances etc) than the marginal cost of driving there instead.

People complain nowadays that its cheaper to fill the car with a tank of petrol than it is to take the train, as if this is proof of the failure of privatisation, or indeed a new thing. It's amazing to think that the cost of a train ticket (which pays for a driver, a guard, signalling staff, the upkeep of the railway, schedulers, cleaners etc and the fuel for the train) would be cheaper than the fuel required for your car (when you are doing various jobs yourself - e.g. driving, cleaning) and not paying directly for other costs (traffic lights, motorway repairs).

Going to my parents is a 620 mile round trip. If it wasn't for my railcard, it would be a £132 return trip, diesel would cost £65. As it stands it costs £88 with my railcard discount, a price that competes with driving when factoring the maintenance. I would only pay £132 if I did not have a car, and unless I was travelling mid-week and booked well in advance I would probably fly.

 

[AlterEgo]

Also, these new door mods are a waste of time... Cars have slam doors, your house has none auto doors, whats wrong with trains not having auto doors??

Your house probably doesn’t have to be disabled-accessible, for a start.

 

[Y Ddraig Coch]

No debates allowed, just a straightforward statement of what you think about something railway-related, that is probably not widely shared by others.
Here's mine:

The HST prototype is better looking than the production version.

Just reposting post #1 from the OP, seems a few posts are getting a bit of "debate" just a statement is the idea. No debate.

 

[exile]

It was never cheaper to take the train (buying a standard ticket, ignoring advances etc) than the marginal cost of driving there instead.

People complain nowadays that its cheaper to fill the car with a tank of petrol than it is to take the train, as if this is proof of the failure of privatisation, or indeed a new thing. It's amazing to think that the cost of a train ticket (which pays for a driver, a guard, signalling staff, the upkeep of the railway, schedulers, cleaners etc and the fuel for the train) would be cheaper than the fuel required for your car (when you are doing various jobs yourself - e.g. driving, cleaning) and not paying directly for other costs (traffic lights, motorway repairs).

Indeed - the better comparison is with a shared taxi. And the true cost of motoring should include an element for extra depreciation and wear and tear. Car leasing agreements typically charge 10p a mile for excess mileage.

 

[theageofthetra]

Stations in popular tourist areas to provide hourly car rental (ideally electric) as they have in Japan.

 

[tbtc]

In hindsight the WCML upgrade should have kept it as a 110mph railway with no need for tilting trains. The four track sections and grade separated junctions are great, I just think that the extra 15mph wasn’t worth all of the conditions/requirements that come with it.

We’d have fitted more paths (due to keeping all of the faster services at the same top speed)…

…we’d have avoided the need for specialist stock that will be hard to cascade (390s)…

…we’d have found it a lot easier to introduce additional trains for LDHS services (nobody is going to build a tiny fleet of tilting 125mph trains so VT can’t increase capacity on their services; one of the busiest main lines in the UK is essentially in purgatory until HS2 comes along and frees up some paths)…

…XC wouldn’t have been lumbered with narrow Voyagers (that were all built to tilting envelopes, even though so little of the XC network benefited from such functionality that Arriva just put lumps of concrete on the trains to replace the tilting mechanism)…

…the WCML could now be taking on an order of 802s (or equivalent), capable of matching the current fastest times, permitting things like extra services to Blackpool or Liverpool and replacing the Voyager diagrams that currently run under the wires…

…it was a waste of money to go that little bit faster; the tilting requirements were too high a price to pay.

(plus, as various HS2 threads have taught me, it apparently doesn’t matter if you get to Birmingham five minutes earlier, so presumably everyone would be fairly relaxed about getting there marginally slower at 110mph)

 

[whitrope69]

In hindsight the WCML upgrade should have kept it as a 110mph railway with no need for tilting trains. The four track sections and grade separated junctions are great, I just think that the extra 15mph wasn’t worth all of the conditions/requirements that come with it.

We’d have fitted more paths (due to keeping all of the faster services at the same top speed)…

…we’d have avoided the need for specialist stock that will be hard to cascade (390s)…

…we’d have found it a lot easier to introduce additional trains for LDHS services (nobody is going to build a tiny fleet of tilting 125mph trains so VT can’t increase capacity on their services; one of the busiest main lines in the UK is essentially in purgatory until HS2 comes along and frees up some paths)…

…XC wouldn’t have been lumbered with narrow Voyagers (that were all built to tilting envelopes, even though so little of the XC network benefited from such functionality that Arriva just put lumps of concrete on the trains to replace the tilting mechanism)…

…the WCML could now be taking on an order of 802s (or equivalent), capable of matching the current fastest times, permitting things like extra services to Blackpool or Liverpool and replacing the Voyager diagrams that currently run under the wires…

…it was a waste of money to go that little bit faster; the tilting requirements were too high a price to pay.

(plus, as various HS2 threads have taught me, it apparently doesn’t matter if you get to Birmingham five minutes earlier, so presumably everyone would be fairly relaxed about getting there marginally slower at 110mph)

What Branson wanted Branson got.

 

[B&I]

Stations in popular tourist areas to provide hourly car rental (ideally electric) as they have in Japan.

Stations everywhere should have this, to facilitate easier end to end journeys with rail providing the middle bit

 

[Ianno87]

Stations in popular tourist areas to provide hourly car rental (ideally electric) as they have in Japan.

Except Cambridge, where it would be utterly chaotic.

 

[Warwick]

HS2 should be abandoned forthwith. It is a money sponge.

 

[HH]

HS2 should be abandoned forthwith. It is a money sponge.

Supposed to be controversial opinions.

 

[The Ham]

Although many people suggest that we shouldn't be building HS2 no one has come up with a viable alternative, they tend to suggest:
- reopening a route that never got closed at the southern end and is busy with trains
- lengthening existing trains so that they wouldn't be able to run to certain stations
- widening the WCML by adding in a pair of extra tracks through some very built up cities

Until such time as a viable alternative is suggested all suggestions for cancelling HS2 should be disregarded.

 

[Warwick]

Supposed to be controversial opinions.

For some here it is. I

 

[4-SUB 4732]

My controversial opinion:

The current railway system is designed to fail. Privatisation was not the thing that caused so much investment and a rise in standards and safety: any well-funded and sensibly-regulated state system would have achieved the same thing if allowed to buy new trains and invest in people and stations.

At the end of the day, the best thing we could hope for is some sort of ‘regional’ privatised railway if the Government is hell-bent on keeping things privatised so that at least the timetables and trains match up. London North East, Anglia, Scotland, Wales, Western, Southern (incl. Thameslink), London North Western, and Midlands in the Central Trains sense.