Trainchat - The failure of privatisation in the British Railway

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Trainchat - The failure of privatisation in the British Railway

«‹›58 »

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

Bobstar posted:

This is interesting, but in a country this size couldn't a good, affordable high speed rail network effectively eliminate internal flights, with all the benefits that brings?

Edit in response to your edit: I'd love to know the equivalent figures for the UK. Long distance trains (London to Edinburgh, Devon, Manchester) always seem full to me, but that may just be because we're bad at those too.

It depends. Let's say we built a Shinkansen-quality line from London to Glasgow. To ensure the best speed, there's no stops along the way so you can stay cruising at 186 MPH all the way through. The train trip would still take 2 hours 10 minutes minimum, longer if the route was built so that there was other cities stopped at along the way. To compare to the schedules you get in Japan where they actually have these trains, and stops along the way, the Tokyo to Osaka route, which is 50 miles shorter than direct London-Glasgow, takes 2 hours 20 minutes. Flight London to Glasgow meanwhile is apparently 1 hour 10 minutes. And I'd have to think that if the for-profit private operators got to run the high speed trains, there's little chance of them costing less than the flight would.

Whether they're full would not necessarily be a good way to judge use. As long as you schedule less seats available than there are people who want to get somewhere by train, you'll have fairly packed trains.

Jonnty posted:

I think the reason people focus on HSR in the US is because the suburban sprawl makes commuter rail in a lot of the country totally infeasible. Much easier to set yourself a relatively achievable goal like eliminating some domestic air travel than to attempt to challenge 50 years of received town planning wisdom.

The ironic thing is that you also need dense or at least reasonably continuous and compact development for the high speed rail to work. When everyone's spread at all over it's inconvenient to go to the nearest high speed rail, and you need to build a lot more of it to get to all the various spread out places.

Like again, to go back to Japan since they have the best system in place for it, notice the way the routes are laid out:

It's mostly one continuous route following the most developed areas of the country, with a few branches here and there There's lots of missing connections, like how if you want to go from Nagano to Osaka, you have to go all the way to Tokyo and then back out. There's plenty of Japanese cities and towns that don't have access to the system without taking other transport.

# ? Aug 16, 2012 20:42

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 24, 2024 17:37

Munin: Nov 14, 2004

Install Gentoo posted:

It depends. Let's say we built a Shinkansen-quality line from London to Glasgow. To ensure the best speed, there's no stops along the way so you can stay cruising at 186 MPH all the way through. The train trip would still take 2 hours 10 minutes minimum, longer if the route was built so that there was other cities stopped at along the way. To compare to the schedules you get in Japan where they actually have these trains, and stops along the way, the Tokyo to Osaka route, which is 50 miles shorter than direct London-Glasgow, takes 2 hours 20 minutes. Flight London to Glasgow meanwhile is apparently 1 hour 10 minutes. And I'd have to think that if the for-profit private operators got to run the high speed trains, there's little chance of them costing less than the flight would.

Yeah, but flights are airport to airport rather than city to city. Frankly if I had guaranteed seats that extra hour would come out in the wash since you wouldn't need the detour, the turning up an hour before your departure etc etc.

Anyway, I just booked a short notice ticket from K�benhavns Lufthavn/Kastrup to Karlskrona C in the south of Sweden and two first class tickets come to �80 and two standard class tickets would come to �65. I am now thinking about my last short trip on East Midlands and the cost + lack of seat, then followed by the last time I had to take a short notice trip to Manchester and the cost for that...

# ? Aug 16, 2012 20:50

Bozza: Mar 5, 2004; "I'm a really useful engine!"

Install Gentoo posted:

It depends. Let's say we built a Shinkansen-quality line from London to Glasgow. To ensure the best speed, there's no stops along the way so you can stay cruising at 186 MPH all the way through. The train trip would still take 2 hours 10 minutes minimum, longer if the route was built so that there was other cities stopped at along the way. To compare to the schedules you get in Japan where they actually have these trains, and stops along the way, the Tokyo to Osaka route, which is 50 miles shorter than direct London-Glasgow, takes 2 hours 20 minutes. Flight London to Glasgow meanwhile is apparently 1 hour 10 minutes. And I'd have to think that if the for-profit private operators got to run the high speed trains, there's little chance of them costing less than the flight would.

Whether they're full would not necessarily be a good way to judge use. As long as you schedule less seats available than there are people who want to get somewhere by train, you'll have fairly packed trains.

The ironic thing is that you also need dense or at least reasonably continuous and compact development for the high speed rail to work. When everyone's spread at all over it's inconvenient to go to the nearest high speed rail, and you need to build a lot more of it to get to all the various spread out places.

Like again, to go back to Japan since they have the best system in place for it, notice the way the routes are laid out:

It's mostly one continuous route following the most developed areas of the country, with a few branches here and there There's lots of missing connections, like how if you want to go from Nagano to Osaka, you have to go all the way to Tokyo and then back out. There's plenty of Japanese cities and towns that don't have access to the system without taking other transport.

You forgot that you've got to get to the airport, check in, sit about, get onto the plane, sit about, take off, land, get through security, get out of the airport then get to where you're going.

Train: get on train, sit about, get off train.

Slight exaggeration, but think you need to look up the generalised cost function.

# ? Aug 17, 2012 00:04

Iohannes: Aug 17, 2004; FREEEEEEEEEDOM

Install Gentoo posted:

It depends. Let's say we built a Shinkansen-quality line from London to Glasgow. To ensure the best speed, there's no stops along the way so you can stay cruising at 186 MPH all the way through. The train trip would still take 2 hours 10 minutes minimum, longer if the route was built so that there was other cities stopped at along the way. To compare to the schedules you get in Japan where they actually have these trains, and stops along the way, the Tokyo to Osaka route, which is 50 miles shorter than direct London-Glasgow, takes 2 hours 20 minutes. Flight London to Glasgow meanwhile is apparently 1 hour 10 minutes. And I'd have to think that if the for-profit private operators got to run the high speed trains, there's little chance of them costing less than the flight would.

Plus check-in an hour before the flight (at least - I haven't taken an internal flight since 9/11) and security checks and baggage claim the other end. Not to mention Glasgow Airport is in Paisley so the commute from there to the city centre. Then the commute from Heathrow, Gatwick or, god forbid, Stansted or Luton into London and what if your flight is from Prestwick which is nowhere near Glasgow.

Focusing on the time spent actually in the air is the big con perpetuated by the airlines to make people thinl flying is quick and not a ridiculous waste of time (and hugely environmentally damaging). Even if we were to operate a French style TGV station not actually in some of the cities, a 2hr 10 min train journey from London to Glasgow would be 2hours and 10 mins from London Euston to Glasgow Central since Tetmini usually are (and in these instances can be, though they'd need to build a new bridge over the Clyde since the slowest part of any journey into Central is that bit.)

Even now, at about 4 hours 20 mins, that's only about an hour more than the time you would have to leave for taking a flight despite only 1 hour of that being in the air. From the centre of Glasgow to the Airport is 26 mins by bus. From Heathrow to Paddington is 22 mins. So far that's a 1 hour 58 minute journey. Add on an hour before the flight for check-in and 30 minutes after for baggage claim, that's 3 hours 28 minutes. Suddenly a 2 hour 10 minute train journey sounds like a better option, not least because time spent on a HS train is not necessarily time wasted like it usually is in airports or on flights: tables to work at, WiFi to use. I used to travel extensively in France and the Benelux countries and there's a reason its hard to buy flights from Paris to Amsterdam, Brussels or even Avignon (429 mi versus 402 mi, London to Glasgow): it's easier, cheaper, and better to go by train.

Install Gentoo posted:

The ironic thing is that you also need dense or at least reasonably continuous and compact development for the high speed rail to work. When everyone's spread at all over it's inconvenient to go to the nearest high speed rail, and you need to build a lot more of it to get to all the various spread out places.

Bollocks. France's TGV system would like a word with you.

Install Gentoo posted:

Like again, to go back to Japan since they have the best system in place for it, notice the way the routes are laid out:

It's mostly one continuous route following the most developed areas of the country, with a few branches here and there There's lots of missing connections, like how if you want to go from Nagano to Osaka, you have to go all the way to Tokyo and then back out. There's plenty of Japanese cities and towns that don't have access to the system without taking other transport.

And you can draw a direct line from London to Glasgow taking in Birmingham and Manchester. Commuter trains from the South East and East Anglia to London; Coventry and Midlands to Birmingham; Sheffield, Liverpool and so on to Manchester; and Edinburgh to Glasgow and you've taken the vast majority of the UK urban population to a HSR hub for their commute. The catchment area would have been even bigger if Beeching's Axe hadn't fallen.

The fact that parts of the country would have to use other transport is an argument for an integrated public transport network not an argument against High Speed Rail.

Iohannes fucked around with this message at 02:07 on Aug 17, 2012

# ? Aug 17, 2012 01:45

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

Iohannes posted:

Bollocks. France's TGV system would like a word with you.

And you can draw a direct line from London to Glasgow taking in Birmingham and Manchester. Commuter trains from the South East and East Anglia to London; Coventry and Midlands to Birmingham; Sheffield, Liverpool and so on to Manchester; and Edinburgh to Glasgow and you've taken the vast majority of the UK urban population to a HSR hub for their commute. The catchment area would have been even bigger if Beeching's Axe hadn't fallen.

The fact that parts of the country would have to use other transport is an argument for an integrated public transport network not an argument against High Speed Rail.

The TGV system that only carries 9% of rail passengers trips in France, and actually doesn't go to very many places you mean.

The integrated public transport network must be built first, high speed rail is useless without it. That's why it is in fact an argument against building high speed rail.

# ? Aug 17, 2012 02:32

Ardennes: May 12, 2002

Install Gentoo posted:

The TGV system that only carries 9% of rail passengers trips in France, and actually doesn't go to very many places you mean.

The integrated public transport network must be built first, high speed rail is useless without it. That's why it is in fact an argument against building high speed rail.

HSR isn't useless without it, you can still park and ride, it is just more efficient in an integrated system. In the US, you probably aren't going to get most trips from rail to rail but car to rail, it is just that rail system has to be faster/more comfortable than car travel.

# ? Aug 17, 2012 06:23

Rude Dude With Tude: Apr 19, 2007; Your President approves this text.

Virgin Trains staff respond to news about their new overlords being First

# ? Aug 17, 2012 17:28

Hezzy: Dec 4, 2004; Pillbug

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad posted:

Virgin Trains staff respond to news about their new overlords being First

you can tell he's a driver because his arse is super flat

# ? Aug 17, 2012 18:34

StarkingBarfish: Jun 25, 2006; Novus Ordo Seclorum

Hezzy posted:

you can tell he's a driver because his arse is super flat

It's.... magnificent... like two perfect eggs.

I never thought I'd find myself enthralled by a photo of someone sticking their arse out a train window, but there you go.

# ? Aug 17, 2012 20:16

Munin: Nov 14, 2004

The main thing I'll say about rail versus air is that the issue is that it's often cheaper to just fly to Scotland instead of taking the train bringing us right back to the broken UK train system.

# ? Aug 18, 2012 22:13

Rude Dude With Tude: Apr 19, 2007; Your President approves this text.

In unrelated totally surprising never would have been expected news, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19324962

BBC News posted:

Virgin Atlantic to fly between Heathrow and Manchester

Virgin Atlantic is to introduce a short haul service between London Heathrow and Manchester from next March. The airline says its first foray into the UK domestic market will provide competition for British Airways. It will also provide a regional link for passengers using its long haul services from Heathrow.

"Flying between Heathrow and Manchester is just the start for Virgin Atlantic's new short haul operation," said airline chief executive Steve Ridgway. "We have the means to connect thousands of passengers to our long haul network as well as to destinations served by other carriers."

The airline says it will operate three daily flights to Manchester using Airbus A319 aircraft from 31 March 2013. Virgin says that 65% of people who fly from Manchester to London then connect on to another long haul flight, and they want a share of that market.

Manchester Airports Group said Virgin was already a strong carrier at the airport with long haul routes to Barbados, Orlando and Las Vegas. "We aim to support our airlines as they look to grow and we hope the success of Virgin's domestic services will lead to further expansion at Manchester," said Ken O'Toole, chief commercial officer at Manchester Airports Group (MAG).

Virgin Atlantic was founded by Sir Richard Branson, and is 49% owned by Singapore Airlines. Earlier this month it reported an annual loss because of higher fuel prices. The carrier made a loss of £80m in the 12 months to the end of February, compared with a profit of £18.5m a year earlier.

Last week Virgin Rail was informed that it had lost the West Coast Mainline franchise - which includes the London to Manchester rail route - which it has held for 15 years from 1997. Virgin deny that the airline move is in response to that decision.

BA said in a statement that it was "confident that our excellent customer service and great value fares will continue to set the standard in UK short haul aviation".

Major was right! Competition in the railways! (now their subsidiary doesn't run it)

# ? Aug 21, 2012 00:24

Hezzy: Dec 4, 2004; Pillbug

"Virgin deny that the airline move is in response to that decision."

Yes it's just a major coincidence that this is announced a few days after the decision to take the WCML off of Virgin was made

Looking forward to seeing how cheap the flights are!!

# ? Aug 21, 2012 06:52

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Hezzy posted:

"Virgin deny that the airline move is in response to that decision."

Yes it's just a major coincidence that this is announced a few days after the decision to take the WCML off of Virgin was made

Looking forward to seeing how cheap the flights are!!

I think you're reading a bit much into this...

# ? Aug 21, 2012 16:25

Iohannes: Aug 17, 2004; FREEEEEEEEEDOM

If you want to know how poo poo our transport system is: you can't even leave the country easily without using a car.

Of the 19 UK airports listed by Wikipedia as airports of entry only the following have train connections:
1. Birmingham
2. London City
3. London Gatwick
4. London Heathrow
5. London Stansted
6. Manchester
7. Newcastle
8. Southampton

I'm not counting Dyce (for Aberdeen), Rhoose (for Cardiff) or London Luton Parkway because, despite their proximity, for foot passengers they're loving useless, often being at the end of the runway or in a village that borders the airport, not at the terminal.

What you'll notice is that fewer than half have proper train connections and outside of London (including Stansted) four airports have them. There are no train connections for international airports in the following constituent countries of the United Kingdom: Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales. Not one of the four airports in Scotland (popn. 5 million) has a train connection. Need to fly from a Scottish airport? Hope you've got money for the cab fair.*

This is loving ridiculous.

* some buses are available dependant upon road works and whether FirstGroup and/or Stagecoach feel like it.

# ? Aug 22, 2012 04:37

Total Meatlove: Jan 28, 2007; Rangers died, shoujo Hitler cried ;_;

Glasgow Prestwick has a train station called Glasgow Prestwick that is connected by a 20m footbridge to the main terminal?

# ? Aug 22, 2012 08:34

Seagull Fiasco: Jul 25, 2011

Just last week I had the pleasure of getting reacquainted with the UK train system and it was even more poo poo than I remember and I just need to rant.

Arriva Trains from Crewe to Haverfordwest: a stretch that services Wales' major cities as well as a bunch of middle-of-nowhere stops (at least they felt that way to me, but I'm not so familiar with Wales). As I waited on the platform, I expected a decently sized train for this journey. I paid 37 glorious pounds for an advance ticket, which amounted to more than half half my one-way plane fare from Berlin to Manchester (with Lufthansa, not Ryanair).

The train arrived and all my hopes of a comfortable journey were dashed as I realised that, apparently, two carriages are considered enough for this particular line, despite the fact that the amount of people waiting on the platform in Crewe alone could've easily filled one carriage. I was lucky enough to get a seat and eventually, after Cardiff, the crowd thinned out a little. It was, however, the least comfortable train journey I've ever taken because the air conditioner seemed to be stuck at a permanent, balmy 12 degrees Celsius. Shivering in my thick sweater, I watched people in the villages we drove by stroll around wearing t-shirts, shorts and sandals in blazing sunshine. This journey took more than 5 hours.

On the way back it was the same: two old-rear end carriages, hugely overcrowded and cold enough that you could store your milk in the train for a week and it wouldn't go bad. Most people had to stand for the two hours to Cardiff, then it was decided that the train was terminating there and that everyone would have to step on a new train. Stepping out out of the train and into the rain felt like stepping into a cosy log cabin after a long day out in wintery Siberia.

Seriously, I've travelled on trains in Thailand with better temperature regulation.

# ? Aug 22, 2012 08:56

Betjeman: Jul 14, 2004; Biker, Biker, Biker GROOVE!

Norrskensren posted:

Seriously, I've travelled on trains in Thailand with better temperature regulation.

Takes me back a few years to when I commuted from Stourbridge to Birmingham. As a strapping 6 footer, obviously there was no room in regular seating for me to fit my legs, so I had to sit on one of the inward facing seats that sat over the diesel fume pumping hot air blowers. Which would still be switched on in the middle of summer.

Air conditioning, luxury. At least you could breathe.

*NB: since I quit commuting, they have now replaced the trains with lovely new air conditioned ones (read: 15 year old trains instead of 30)

# ? Aug 22, 2012 11:46

feedmegin: Jul 30, 2008

Norrskensren posted:

It was, however, the least comfortable train journey I've ever taken because the air conditioner seemed to be stuck at a permanent, balmy 12 degrees Celsius.

This sounds like heaven to me, especially with the weather lately.

# ? Aug 22, 2012 11:57

nozz: Jan 27, 2007; proficient pringle eater

Sound like you were just unlucky, there was a 50% chance on that route for you to have a whopping three carriages.

# ? Aug 22, 2012 12:24

John_Anon_Smith: Nov 26, 2007

I remember getting the overnight to London down the east coast. It was just me and this cockney guy in a carriage where the temperature periodically oscillated between 5C and 30C. We spent the entire journey removing and replacing jumpers and jackets for the entire night until we finally arrived at Liverpool St.

Also, Edinburgh has a really handy and regular airbus service. I use it a lot and it's a shame that no other city I've lived in has had such a great service. The Dublin one is good but hugely overpriced.

# ? Aug 22, 2012 12:36

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Iohannes posted:

If you want to know how poo poo our transport system is: you can't even leave the country easily without using a car.

Of the 19 UK airports listed by Wikipedia as airports of entry only the following have train connections:
1. Birmingham
2. London City
3. London Gatwick
4. London Heathrow
5. London Stansted
6. Manchester
7. Newcastle
8. Southampton

I'm not counting Dyce (for Aberdeen), Rhoose (for Cardiff) or London Luton Parkway because, despite their proximity, for foot passengers they're loving useless, often being at the end of the runway or in a village that borders the airport, not at the terminal.

What you'll notice is that fewer than half have proper train connections and outside of London (including Stansted) four airports have them. There are no train connections for international airports in the following constituent countries of the United Kingdom: Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales. Not one of the four airports in Scotland (popn. 5 million) has a train connection. Need to fly from a Scottish airport? Hope you've got money for the cab fair.*

This is loving ridiculous.

* some buses are available dependant upon road works and whether FirstGroup and/or Stagecoach feel like it.

Edinburgh airport is very well serviced by airport buses... Also this:

Fat Guy Sexting posted:

Glasgow Prestwick has a train station called Glasgow Prestwick that is connected by a 20m footbridge to the main terminal?

# ? Aug 22, 2012 20:27

Wootcannon: Jan 23, 2010; HAIL SATAN, PRINCE OF LIES

Also Glasgow has either two or three bus routes, most of them adapted for large bits of luggage, that go from the City Centre to Glasgow International airport every 10 or 15 minutes, as well as the bus link from Paisley Gilmour Street (regular trains from Central) to Glasgow Airport which isn't far down the road from the station.

# ? Aug 22, 2012 21:28

Munin: Nov 14, 2004

Luton also has a regular shuttle bus running from the station to the terminal.

That said a couple of years back First introduced a separate ticket for that so if you just bought a ticket to "Luton Airport Parkway" instead of "Luton Airport" you have to pay a surcharge. You always get a bunch of (rightfully) outraged and confused tourists who bought the wrong tickets or had theirs mis-sold.

# ? Aug 22, 2012 22:06

vanity slug: Jul 20, 2010

Add me to that list. Go gently caress yourself, Luton, at least wait until I have to check-in before I get screwed over.

# ? Aug 22, 2012 23:14

Jonnty: Aug 2, 2007; The enemy has become a flaming star!

Iohannes posted:

If you want to know how poo poo our transport system is: you can't even leave the country easily without using a car.

Of the 19 UK airports listed by Wikipedia as airports of entry only the following have train connections:
1. Birmingham
2. London City
3. London Gatwick
4. London Heathrow
5. London Stansted
6. Manchester
7. Newcastle
8. Southampton

I'm not counting Dyce (for Aberdeen), Rhoose (for Cardiff) or London Luton Parkway because, despite their proximity, for foot passengers they're loving useless, often being at the end of the runway or in a village that borders the airport, not at the terminal.

What you'll notice is that fewer than half have proper train connections and outside of London (including Stansted) four airports have them. There are no train connections for international airports in the following constituent countries of the United Kingdom: Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales. Not one of the four airports in Scotland (popn. 5 million) has a train connection. Need to fly from a Scottish airport? Hope you've got money for the cab fair.*

This is loving ridiculous.

* some buses are available dependant upon road works and whether FirstGroup and/or Stagecoach feel like it.

The Edinburgh express bus is pretty good, and some service buses stop there too. And there might be a tram one day...

John_Anon_Smith posted:

I remember getting the overnight to London down the east coast. It was just me and this cockney guy in a carriage where the temperature periodically oscillated between 5C and 30C. We spent the entire journey removing and replacing jumpers and jackets for the entire night until we finally arrived at Liverpool St.

You mean Euston. Never let it be said I'm not good at what I do...

Jonnty fucked around with this message at 16:35 on Aug 25, 2012

# ? Aug 25, 2012 16:17

Iohannes: Aug 17, 2004; FREEEEEEEEEDOM

Jonnty posted:

And there might be a tram one day...

It might also make it to Leith. One day...

# ? Aug 26, 2012 02:10

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Munin posted:

Luton also has a regular shuttle bus running from the station to the terminal.

That said a couple of years back First introduced a separate ticket for that so if you just bought a ticket to "Luton Airport Parkway" instead of "Luton Airport" you have to pay a surcharge. You always get a bunch of (rightfully) outraged and confused tourists who bought the wrong tickets or had theirs mis-sold.

In all fairness the bus ticket + parkway ticket is exactly the same as the airport ticket so it's not like anyone ends up paying more than they should.

Iohannes posted:

It might also make it to Leith. One day...

# ? Aug 26, 2012 14:16

Munin: Nov 14, 2004

Lord of the Llamas posted:

In all fairness the bus ticket + parkway ticket is exactly the same as the airport ticket so it's not like anyone ends up paying more than they should.

It works out less expensive for a return at least. In any case that extra little bit of unnecessary confusion and aggravation is a showcase for the ticketing system on British public transport. What makes it even more egregious is that both the train and the shuttle-bus are (now) run by First group and they were the ones who introduced the fares for the bus after they gained control of both.

# ? Aug 26, 2012 15:10

Rude Dude With Tude: Apr 19, 2007; Your President approves this text.

cross posting ahoy! Here's why the British railway unions are still loving ace http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...nt-8099812.html

Independent posted:

King�s Cross staff threaten walk out in protest at EDL using station as demonstration rallying point

Passengers travelling to the Paralympics face major disruption today after staff at King�s Cross in London vowed to walk out in protest at supporters of the far-right English Defence League using the station as a rallying point for a demonstration in the north of the capital. Staff members have complained that they faced abuse at the hands of the EDL as they headed to a similar protest last year. A spokesman for the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT) said staff would take the step � in a bid to close the Underground station - in order to protect themselves and the public.

�Staff will walk away from work on the grounds of safety, if nothing else,� said an RMT spokesman yesterday. He added: �we are talking about an organisation which has a track record of violence and our staff have reported problems in the past.� RMT members have privately talked about shutting the station down. However, their bosses at Transport for London insisted yesterday that the station would remain open and said that their talks with the Metropolitan Police and British Transport Police indicated no immediate danger to staff or to the public.

Police sought to ban last year�s march, which saw clashes between the EDL and their opponents, and staff at King�s Cross closed the entrance to the tube for around half an hour.

Staff are understood to be unhappy with the approach to last year�s EDL demonstration in Walthamstow. Some said they have decided to take action themselves to stop the group travelling from the station to Blackhorse Road tube station in north London, where this year�s march is due to start. Some of those involved are also believed to be ideologically opposed to the EDL and will seek to block their march if possible. Plans seen by the Independent indicate that some staff at King�s Cross station are planning to �organise halting [the marchers] getting on to the system in the first place�. The plans continue: �The obvious point of exit is Blackhorse Road. We need to close this station down (as opposed to just withdrawing to places of safety) and then Walthamstow when the risk is transferred.

�We mustn�t do this too early because we�ll only hinder the counter demonstration that�s assembling at Walthamstow at 11. In other words, we close Blackhorse Road and Walthamstow stations at the point when the risk actually presents itself. We need to draft up a simple pro forma on refusal to work on the grounds of health and safety on account of the serious and imminent risk presented by the EDL to staff and passengers." In an email, organisers said they planned to �refuse to work, close the station and insist that the service [does not stop there] as a result.�

They said they expected around 500 EDL members to attend the demonstration and anti-EDL groups have vowed to hold counter demonstrations. A TfL spokesperson said: �The safety of our staff and customers is our first priority. We have been working closely with the British Transport Police and Metropolitan Police and there is no known threat to our staff or our customers. We have no plans to close either King�s Cross or Blackhorse Road stations.�

EDL leader Stephen Yaxley-Lennon did not respond to requests for comment. However, the group has repeatedly insisted that it is non-violent but, since it does not have a formal membership structure, cannot control every member of a march.

gently caress yeah!

# ? Sep 1, 2012 01:29

goddamnedtwisto: Dec 31, 2004; If you ask me about the mole people in the London Underground, I WILL be forced to kill you; Fun Shoe

Moving a discussion about disabled accessibility on the Tube from the Olympics thread to here as the better place for it.

Install Gentoo posted:

It is my understanding that there's a lot of stations that only take one kind of train, don't have wheelchair accessible route to the surface, but also have the platform not flush with the trains in use. Since there's already 33 stations that are equipped with an accessible route to the surface, narrow enough gaps, but incorrect platform heights.

I'm looking at the step-free-tube-guide.pdf for the 33 yellow and red A-labeled stations or station-portions. Westminster for instance wouldn't count for the Circle and District platforms - according to the PDF there's both the steps as high as 207 mm and gaps as wide as 183 mm to contend with there. And the Jubilee line platform is already accesible.

I was actually talking about not restoring elevator access, but merely adjusting the platform height if that's out of whack in them. Like it would help a guy on crutches to have the platform be level with the train floor, he could still go up escalators fine enough. Obviously a wheelchair user wouldn't be able to use the station.

But restoring elevator access in stations that used to have them, that's an option I hadn't thought of - assuming the platform height/gap is not prohibitive to fix in those that could add a lot more usable stations.

Apart from Westminster and the (outside the centre) Northern Line stations I mentioned i can't think of any stations that have step-free access to the platforms but don't have a step-free access to the train. (In fact ISTR there's a very good reason why sub-surface stock trains *must* have a step up and out even on completely straight platforms but i really can't remember it, perhaps someone can enlighten me...)

Getting step-free access (or even escalator access) to a number of stations would be basically impossible, too - Victoria, Monument, Liverpool Street and Edgware Road D&C lines, Oxford Circus and Holborn on the Central immediately come to mind as stations with very very small surface buildings unsuitable for escalator or lifts and no free space for new buildings without massive expense.

Also, unfortunately, the stations that most need improvement of access (the big interchanges like Waterloo, Bank/Monument, Victoria, and King Cross/St. Pancras) are also the hardest ones to do, and pretty much also have to be the first ones to do. There's not much point in sorting out, say, Angel and Stockwell Park if those end up the only two stations people can travel between.

# ? Sep 2, 2012 01:47

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

goddamnedtwisto posted:

Moving a discussion about disabled accessibility on the Tube from the Olympics thread to here as the better place for it.

Apart from Westminster and the (outside the centre) Northern Line stations I mentioned i can't think of any stations that have step-free access to the platforms but don't have a step-free access to the train. (In fact ISTR there's a very good reason why sub-surface stock trains *must* have a step up and out even on completely straight platforms but i really can't remember it, perhaps someone can enlighten me...)

Getting step-free access (or even escalator access) to a number of stations would be basically impossible, too - Victoria, Monument, Liverpool Street and Edgware Road D&C lines, Oxford Circus and Holborn on the Central immediately come to mind as stations with very very small surface buildings unsuitable for escalator or lifts and no free space for new buildings without massive expense.

Also, unfortunately, the stations that most need improvement of access (the big interchanges like Waterloo, Bank/Monument, Victoria, and King Cross/St. Pancras) are also the hardest ones to do, and pretty much also have to be the first ones to do. There's not much point in sorting out, say, Angel and Stockwell Park if those end up the only two stations people can travel between.

Ok, here, this is the map from TfL, which marks all stations that are "step-free" from street to platform:

For each station, and each line at a station if neccesary, they mark off step height with Green being in the zone considered "no step", Yellow considered step, and Red considered a high step. Meanwhile, A is a gap that's considered short enough to roll across safely, B is less safe, and C is a severe gap. Additionally, when there's a circle, without a letter, but multiple colors, that indicates either transfer to another underground line's platform at that station is possible without steps, or transfer to a mainline/overground train station is possible from the platform without steps.

Any station marked A and Green is considered fully accessible by TfL.

Now besides those, there's 33 stations/parts of stations with accessible route to the surface, "A" rated gaps, but Yellow or Red step height from the platform. That is, these stations, for at least one line going through them, would become accessible by simply raising or possibly lowering platforms. In some cases you might add the access by only raising or lowering certain parts of the platform, with appropriate warning signage for them.

And again, I'm not saying, "add new surface to platform access", I'm talking about "add train to platform access in stations that already have surface to platform".

Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 04:59 on Sep 2, 2012

# ? Sep 2, 2012 04:54

Whitefish: May 31, 2005; After the old god has been assassinated, I am ready to rule the waves.

I just had to queue for 40 minutes to buy a ticket at my local train station, and lots of people in the queue missed their trains or had to board without a ticket because they couldn't get one in time. I don't use the train regularly enough to know if this is a common occurrence or not. It appeared to me that the station was understaffed, but it may have been that this was just a one-off and generally staffing levels are okay.

In any case, what was annoying was that all the people in the queue who were audibly grumbling were blaming the delay on British Rail - e.g. One guy said, 'this is typical of British Rail'. But it's not loving British Rail who runs the station, it's Greater Anglia, a privately owned, taxpayer subsidised rail franchise. Where I live is a solidly Tory area, and my impression of the people who were complaining was that they thought having to queue in that way was a manifestation of the failure of running the railways as a nationalised industry.

Again, as I said, I don't think it's fair to draw any wider conclusions about rail privatisation from this episode, but it's incredibly frustrating that these people take being inconvenienced by a privately run company as evidence against rail nationalisation.

# ? Sep 4, 2012 10:47

Blacknose: Jul 28, 2006; Meet frustration face to face
A point of view creates more waves
So lose some sleep and say you tried

My sister has literally stopped talking to me due to me pointing out exactly that with regards to complaining about British Rail.

(I may have also said I'd run round her garden dressed as a nazi waving a candle and shouting coke slogans because she missed the olympic torch relay)

# ? Sep 4, 2012 11:17

Bozza: Mar 5, 2004; "I'm a really useful engine!"

Get this literally all the time, or Network Rail getting called 'National Rail' which is a totally seperate thing. Get's right on my tits.

Most people simply do not understand how the privatised railway works, and those that do think it's stupid.

Sigh.

# ? Sep 4, 2012 16:21

FISHMANPET: Mar 3, 2007; Sweet 'N Sour
Can't
Melt
Steel Beams

As an American I occasionally read this thread with morbid curiosity. As to the question raised a while ago about passenger rail in America, one of the problems is the FRA (Federal Railroad Administration) and their train strength requirements. From what I've heard on the issue, foreign (European and Asian) trains are safe because they have systems in place to not crash into each other. In America, trains are safe because we can full balls crash into a freight train and be OK. All this extra buff strength is expensive, both in initial capital costs, and in ongoing running expenses. When we built the Acela, only three companies even tried to bid because nobody wanted to double the weight of their rolling stock to sell it in America. So as the only country in the world (that I know of) with these kinds of buff strength requirements, we're essentially the only market in the world for these trains, and it's a pretty small market at that.

# ? Sep 5, 2012 16:40

Ardennes: May 12, 2002

FISHMANPET posted:

As an American I occasionally read this thread with morbid curiosity. As to the question raised a while ago about passenger rail in America, one of the problems is the FRA (Federal Railroad Administration) and their train strength requirements. From what I've heard on the issue, foreign (European and Asian) trains are safe because they have systems in place to not crash into each other. In America, trains are safe because we can full balls crash into a freight train and be OK. All this extra buff strength is expensive, both in initial capital costs, and in ongoing running expenses. When we built the Acela, only three companies even tried to bid because nobody wanted to double the weight of their rolling stock to sell it in America. So as the only country in the world (that I know of) with these kinds of buff strength requirements, we're essentially the only market in the world for these trains, and it's a pretty small market at that.

Well the issue is that the federal and state governments don't want to have to invest in the capital it is going to take build passenger only track like in Europe and Asia. American trains by and large have to be prepared for a dual use environment so usually are far heavier than other countries and our system is more expensive/less efficient because of that.

I have heard they are loosening restrictions on transit services that doesn't actively use freight track. I am pretty sure Acela does at various points though.

# ? Sep 5, 2012 16:47

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

FISHMANPET posted:

As an American I occasionally read this thread with morbid curiosity. As to the question raised a while ago about passenger rail in America, one of the problems is the FRA (Federal Railroad Administration) and their train strength requirements. From what I've heard on the issue, foreign (European and Asian) trains are safe because they have systems in place to not crash into each other. In America, trains are safe because we can full balls crash into a freight train and be OK. All this extra buff strength is expensive, both in initial capital costs, and in ongoing running expenses. When we built the Acela, only three companies even tried to bid because nobody wanted to double the weight of their rolling stock to sell it in America. So as the only country in the world (that I know of) with these kinds of buff strength requirements, we're essentially the only market in the world for these trains, and it's a pretty small market at that.

You also have to realize that with all the already heavily built trains in passenger use, any lighter built stuff would have to be able to withstand collision with them! And that'd require being about the same strength as if they hit a freight. No system for preventing crashes is fool proof, so it's really important to mitigate the damage when crashes inevitably occur.

Even if America stopped requiring trains be built as tough, you still couldn't use the new American trains in Europe - they're too wide for the loading gauge in many countries. With the Acela for example, it's an inch too wide and 4 inches too tall for the loading gauge along most of the French TGV system, and too wide for parts of Germany. And then you have the rail cars used for commuter rail systems , like this one currently being used across America and Canada http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_MultiLevel_Coach which is 10 foot 10 inches wide. Apparently the only places in Europe that that will fit is Scandinavia, the Betuweroute, and the Channel Tunnel and its approaches.

As far as being the only market here's also Canada and Mexico at the very least. And it's not actually a small market.

# ? Sep 5, 2012 17:56

Bozza: Mar 5, 2004; "I'm a really useful engine!"

Install Gentoo posted:

You also have to realize that with all the already heavily built trains in passenger use, any lighter built stuff would have to be able to withstand collision with them! And that'd require being about the same strength if they hit a freight. No system for preventing crashes is fool proof, so it's really important to mitigate the damage when crashes inevitably occur.

Um. Well I don't like bold claims, but we solved this in the UK by using something called TPWS (Train Protection and Warning System) whereby all stop signals are fitted with overspeed and overrun sensors that jam in the emergency brake as if the signal is at red, thus vastly lowering the consequences of a collision if it will occur.

These days, the system is deemed so robust that it's practically impossible (without circumventing the system) on a modern TPWS design for two trains to actually collide.

# ? Sep 5, 2012 19:13

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

Bozza posted:

Um. Well I don't like bold claims, but we solved this in the UK by using something called TPWS (Train Protection and Warning System) whereby all stop signals are fitted with overspeed and overrun sensors that jam in the emergency brake as if the signal is at red, thus vastly lowering the consequences of a collision if it will occur.

These days, the system is deemed so robust that it's practically impossible (without circumventing the system) on a modern TPWS design for two trains to actually collide.

There's still the potential for derailments and collision with stuff next to the tracks though isn't there? Of course, most collisions on American railroads involve some moron or their vehicle on the tracks where they shouldn't be. Did the TPWS rollout involve needing the existing trainsets in use needing to be modified or was it done in a way that "just worked" with everything that was already on the rails?

Incidentally, systems like that are being tested or planned to be tested in some areas in the US where currently both freight and light rail passenger trains run on the same tracks, but are currently required to have time separated operations. Can't crash your lightweight light rail vehicles into a freight train when the light rail runs from 6 AM to 10 PM only, and the freights run from 10:30 PM to 5:30 AM only, hence they get a partial FRA waiver on crash standards.

# ? Sep 5, 2012 19:50

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 24, 2024 17:37

Bozza: Mar 5, 2004; "I'm a really useful engine!"

Install Gentoo posted:

There's still the potential for derailments and collision with stuff next to the tracks though isn't there? Of course, most collisions on American railroads involve some moron or their vehicle on the tracks where they shouldn't be. Did the TPWS rollout involve needing the existing trainsets in use needing to be modified or was it done in a way that "just worked" with everything that was already on the rails?

Incidentally, systems like that are being tested or planned to be tested in some areas in the US where currently both freight and light rail passenger trains run on the same tracks, but are currently required to have time separated operations. Can't crash your lightweight light rail vehicles into a freight train when the light rail runs from 6 AM to 10 PM only, and the freights run from 10:30 PM to 5:30 AM only, hence they get a partial FRA waiver on crash standards.

It was a retrofit but was done incredibly rapidly (plus was cheaper than rolling out ATP everywhere) because it's just cut into the existing safety systems and just dumps the brake pipe. The UK also has a system called AWS which has been manditory since the 1950s I think on stock.

It was initially fit to high risk signals, but now it's on basically all controlled signals as part of new schemes or mods. Work I'm doing currently we've got it practically everywhere and it provides totally robust protection against collisions.

As for the stuff on the tracks argument, this is an interesting point about UK vs US railways, in that ours are totally surrounded by a boundary fence (which you can report if it's damaged and someone will be out to fix it pretty sharpish). Oddly, they were mandated not to keep people off the tracks, but to keep railway workers ON the tracks, and therefore not in the 5th Duke of Devonshires back garden.

British class system strikes again!

edit: the Wikipedia article is pretty good http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Train_Protection_%26_Warning_System but a bit out of date to current practice

Bozza fucked around with this message at 20:11 on Sep 5, 2012

# ? Sep 5, 2012 20:08

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Trainchat - The failure of privatisation in the British Railway

«‹›58 »