Petition to help save disused railways.

[phil-b259]

The last recession took us back 100yrs economically as it is, we are so up to our eyes in debt as a country that it will be the grandchildren of our children who will really be the ones to suffer. The present policy's of borrowing to furnish debt is unsustainable, the large grocers you speak of, especially TESCO are already cutting back on stores and jobs.

 

Without faster and cleaner means of transport, food will become even more expensive, meaning producers will have to sell more locally to pay workers.

 

The relatively poor growth in this country is set to continue because large companies are failing to invest in more ecological forms of production and transport, there is a growing wave of Eco support in this country, which may not manifest itself in my time, but it will manifest itself eventually, the growth in alternative energies is proof of that.

 

The deepest recesion in 100 years has made **** all difference to peoples attitudes or the way they live their lives though and that is the point. How many people do you think have decided, thanks to the recesion said to themsleves "i will get a new job in my hometown so as to avoid transport costs" or "I will buy all my food from my local farmer / local conveninec shop so as to minmise car petrol costs". If anything the recession has made people even more concerned about their employment situation and focused on paying the cheapest price possible - something that is totally incompatable with mass production of low value day to day items here in the UK.

 

Going slightly off topic even further here I know - but with respect to Tesco, if you actually examine their finances in detail it will be seen that their day to day shopping aspect has been performing well. What caused them the masive loss - and what has caused them to review their stores policy is basically all down to fancy acounting which saw their property portfolo masively overvalued and various other financial trickery - all of which was done to bost their share price and please finacial gamblers in the likes of the City of London.

 

Also - as model trains has apty demonstrated the cost of transport is in fact a tiny proportion of the cost of an item buy the time it hits the shelves. its the cost of production, including wages that counts - which is why it is cheeper to fly / ship stuff halfway round the world rather than make it here. take cloathes for instance - yes you could make them here rather than Bangladesh (as we used to in the 'northern mill towns' of old) - but the prices would have to be hiked masively to pay the wages a Uk person would demand. That translates to the prices in your local M&S quadroupling, which in tern means ordinary people will be hit masively in the wallet causing a signifficant impact to their lifestyle.

 

However to drag the subject back to something closer to railway reopening, nostaliga is a very poor subsitute for reality. Expansion of Daventry and Mossend  freight terminals shows that increasing rail freight can be done, but this refelcts the reality that the motor lorry is the best way to serve multiple small destinations at either end of the trunk haul. Similarly transporting containers from Felixstowe to Daventry by rail and road distribuition from there is efficent, sending indavidual containers on wagons to sidings all acoss the country is not. On the passsenger front reopenings like the Larkhall branch or Ebaw vale work because they respect the modern way of life in that people are expected and willing to travel longer distances for work / leasure purposes than was the case 50 or 100 years ago. The provsion of parkway stations recognises that, as with daventry freight terminal, facilatating people being able to drive to a railhead allows the railways to do what they do best - i.e. bulk transport of people to a concontrated location.

 

Finally you mention increasing eco support - that may well be true but that doesn't necessarily translate into the reality on the ground. People may like solar pannels on the roof but thats more because of the feed in monies they get than a principled stance. People may buy a hybrid car - but I'm afraid that with many models such a purchase has lots to do with what might best be described as 'status symbols' than pure eceonomics as the price of such models is signifficantly above comparable ordinary models. People might say they like renewables - yet are verhermently opposed to windfarms near them because they "spoil the view". People might also they support renewable enegry in the summer, but when you get warnings in the media of possible electricity blackouts in winter due to an over reliance on said green technology support for 'dirty' power generation isn't quick to appear.

 

Ultimately transport provision fails if it is used as a tool to force people to behave in a certin way. If it is responsive to changes in society it can thrive. Many of the reasons for the decline of BRs revenues in the late 50s can be trced to a inability recognise that society was changing and the need to move with the times. Building large marshaling yards during a time when it was clear the motor lorry was making large inroads into freight traffic, or on the poassnger front ordering new DMUs but not rationalising station staffing provision and infrastructure when it was nor being used effectively all contributed to the situation where things got so bad that, to use a popular metaphor, we threw the baby out with the bathwater in 1962.

 

Moving on 53 years the same lesson holds true, transport should not be organised on an idologigical basis, it has to be guided by events on the ground. As such if a particular section of line can be proved to bring specific benifits to those it may serve then by all means work up a scheme to bring that to a reality. What you cannot do is generalise with respect to outcomes, nor can you assume the way the world opperates is going to change to suit your personal views.

[Graham Walters]

The deepest recesion in 100 years has made **** all difference to peoples attitudes or the way they live their lives though and that is the point. How many people do you think have decided, thanks to the recesion said to themsleves "i will get a new job in my hometown so as to avoid transport costs" or "I will buy all my food from my local farmer / local conveninec shop so as to minmise car petrol costs". If anything the recession has made people even more concerned about their employment situation and focused on paying the cheapest price possible - something that is totally incompatable with mass production of low value day to day items here in the UK.

 

Going slightly off topic even further here I know - but with respect to Tesco, if you actually examine their finances in detail it will be seen that their day to day shopping aspect has been performing well. What caused them the masive loss - and what has caused them to review their stores policy is basically all down to fancy acounting which saw their property portfolo masively overvalued and various other financial trickery - all of which was done to bost their share price and please finacial gamblers in the likes of the City of London.

 

Also - as model trains has apty demonstrated the cost of transport is in fact a tiny proportion of the cost of an item buy the time it hits the shelves. its the cost of production, including wages that counts - which is why it is cheeper to fly / ship stuff halfway round the world rather than make it here. take cloathes for instance - yes you could make them here rather than Bangladesh (as we used to in the 'northern mill towns' of old) - but the prices would have to be hiked masively to pay the wages a Uk person would demand. That translates to the prices in your local M&S quadroupling, which in tern means ordinary people will be hit masively in the wallet causing a signifficant impact to their lifestyle.

 

However to drag the subject back to something closer to railway reopening, nostaliga is a very poor subsitute for reality. Expansion of Daventry and Mossend  freight terminals shows that increasing rail freight can be done, but this refelcts the reality that the motor lorry is the best way to serve multiple small destinations at either end of the trunk haul. Similarly transporting containers from Felixstowe to Daventry by rail and road distribuition from there is efficent, sending indavidual containers on wagons to sidings all acoss the country is not. On the passsenger front reopenings like the Larkhall branch or Ebaw vale work because they respect the modern way of life in that people are expected and willing to travel longer distances for work / leasure purposes than was the case 50 or 100 years ago. The provsion of parkway stations recognises that, as with daventry freight terminal, facilatating people being able to drive to a railhead allows the railways to do what they do best - i.e. bulk transport of people to a concontrated location.

 

Finally you mention increasing eco support - that may well be true but that doesn't necessarily translate into the reality on the ground. People may like solar pannels on the roof but thats more because of the feed in monies they get than a principled stance. People may buy a hybrid car - but I'm afraid that with many models such a purchase has lots to do with what might best be described as 'status symbols' than pure eceonomics as the price of such models is signifficantly above comparable ordinary models. People might say they like renewables - yet are verhermently opposed to windfarms near them because they "spoil the view". People might also they support renewable enegry in the summer, but when you get warnings in the media of possible electricity blackouts in winter due to an over reliance on said green technology support for 'dirty' power generation isn't quick to appear.

 

Ultimately transport provision fails if it is used as a tool to force people to behave in a certin way. If it is responsive to changes in society it can thrive. Many of the reasons for the decline of BRs revenues in the late 50s can be trced to a inability recognise that society was changing and the need to move with the times. Building large marshaling yards during a time when it was clear the motor lorry was making large inroads into freight traffic, or on the poassnger front ordering new DMUs but not rationalising station staffing provision and infrastructure when it was nor being used effectively all contributed to the situation where things got so bad that, to use a popular metaphor, we threw the baby out with the bathwater in 1962.

 

Moving on 53 years the same lesson holds true, transport should not be organised on an idologigical basis, it has to be guided by events on the ground. As such if a particular section of line can be proved to bring specific benifits to those it may serve then by all means work up a scheme to bring that to a reality. What you cannot do is generalise with respect to outcomes, nor can you assume the way the world opperates is going to change to suit your personal views.

 

Whilst what you say in todays world is true, however if you continue to do things the "old" then the movement of freight is less efficient than using the roads.

 

Along with railway regeneration there would also be a need to re-think how the railways are operated, and how goods are distributed from rail heads and marshaling yards, the ports had to go through a massive transformation to adapt to containerisation, the railways failed to react.

 

Traveling and transporting by rail has to be made more cost effective than it is now, to say it can't be done is putting your head in the sand, it can be done, it just needs someone with the balls big enough, to do it.

[edcayton]

 

 

Traveling and transporting by rail has to be made more cost effective than it is now, to say it can't be done is putting your head in the sand, it can be done, it just needs someone with the balls big enough, to do it.

 

How and why?

 

Ed

[DavidH]

... the ports had to go through a massive transformation to adapt to containerisation, the railways failed to react.

 

So what are all those containers on trains I've seen running from the various port terminals?

[DavidH]

The last recession took us back 100yrs economically as it is, we are so up to our eyes in debt as a country that it will be the grandchildren of our children who will really be the ones to suffer. The present policy's of borrowing to furnish debt is unsustainable ...

As a country, we borrow to fund the deficit, which is the gap between what government takes in and what it pays out. Governments also borrow to invest. Figures for all this can be found on the internet. The borrowing then builds up the debt, or (as between 1998 and 2002) a budget surplus brings the debt down. The debt is currently rising, as expected in a recession and in line with many other countries.

 

Countries don't work financially the same as people do.

 

We aren't up to our eyes in debt either, well I'm not and the country isn't. Other people might be.

[Edwardian]

Lucky you!

 

You'll tell me next you have a pension!

[Reorte]

Countries don't work financially the same as people do.

Often stated but I don't think that it's often backed up. The scale (and hence detail) is obviously completely different but the basics are the same. Continual increase of debt is in the long run unsustainable and damaging at whatever level, and both a country and an individual can borrow some to invest and do financially better out of it than they would've otherwise.

 

On to the "ideology / reality on the ground" thing. The reality on the ground is what is actually possible with the resources you've got, beyond that everything is ideology.

[phil-b259]

Whilst what you say in todays world is true, however if you continue to do things the "old" then the movement of freight is less efficient than using the roads.

 

Along with railway regeneration there would also be a need to re-think how the railways are operated, and how goods are distributed from rail heads and marshaling yards, the ports had to go through a massive transformation to adapt to containerisation, the railways failed to react.

 

Traveling and transporting by rail has to be made more cost effective than it is now, to say it can't be done is putting your head in the sand, it can be done, it just needs someone with the balls big enough, to do it.

Nobody is saying that rail transportation cannot be made more effective because it can. What I am saying is that you do not make it efficient by reopening countless miles of track nor putting back goods handling facilities at every station. Equally you don't make railways more efficient simply by making other modes inefficient - all that does is give you a very bad overall transport solution.

 

As has been noted while it is true that many of the traditional ports (or to be precise their heavily unionised workforces) failed to adapt to containerisation, the railways quickly saw the opportunities available (particularly as domestically, rather than put a container on a lorry, stick it on a train, then back on another lorry, business said 'sod it - why not simply get thge first lorry to take the contasiner from doorto door'). Nowadays those trains prevent hundreds of lorry movements along the likes of the A14 from Felixstowe every day. What the railways don't do is transport containers to isolated sidings at stations all over the rail network because that is extremely inefficient and will remain so in the future.

 

It is a fact of life that you can no more 'dis-invent' the motor vehicle any more than you can dis-invent the atom bomb or penicillin or the internet. As such the approch going forward should be to ensure that the modes of transport our country employs are the most efficient they can be for the task in hand. Like it or not that means the lorry (however it may be powered) and to the lesser extent the private car will remain suprime when it comes to small loads and widely distributed destinations. Short of living in as Soviet style 'planned economy' where every single aspect of daily life is tightly regulated by the state a return to the days of every station having a goods yard won't happen.

[Mike Storey]

I think much of this debate ignores existing, and fairly recent trends

 

1. Car use is declining overall in London, and is declining elsewhere amongst the young (although not overall), who cannot afford the insurance.

 

2. Rail passenger use, whether heavy or light systems, is higher now than since around WW1.

 

3. Freight use has trebled since the 1990's, by volume (but tonne/km will continue to be distorted by the continuing reduction in coal traffic).

 

None of these things were predicted in the preceding four decades. Large and growing conurbations continue to be ill-served or un-served by adequate public transport, particularly rail, causing major overcrowding elsewhere. There is a significant and growing case for finding major solutions to capacity and coverage - HS2 is the boldest but there are several others gaining traction - and this petition will help to counter the growing possibility of further old rail routes being more easily destroyed by the relaxation of planning laws being advocated by the present govt.

 

The debate over how great that extra coverage should be will be adjudged by more practical matters than ideology, on a route by route basis, but there is an ideology, regarding unfettered development, that is gaining ground and needs to be countered.

[Mike Storey]

The deepest recesion in 100 years has made **** all difference to peoples attitudes or the way they live their lives though and that is the point. How many people do you think have decided, thanks to the recesion said to themsleves "i will get a new job in my hometown so as to avoid transport costs" or "I will buy all my food from my local farmer / local conveninec shop so as to minmise car petrol costs". If anything the recession has made people even more concerned about their employment situation and focused on paying the cheapest price possible - something that is totally incompatable with mass production of low value day to day items here in the UK.

 

Going slightly off topic even further here I know - but with respect to Tesco, if you actually examine their finances in detail it will be seen that their day to day shopping aspect has been performing well. What caused them the masive loss - and what has caused them to review their stores policy is basically all down to fancy acounting which saw their property portfolo masively overvalued and various other financial trickery - all of which was done to bost their share price and please finacial gamblers in the likes of the City of London.

 

Also - as model trains has apty demonstrated the cost of transport is in fact a tiny proportion of the cost of an item buy the time it hits the shelves. its the cost of production, including wages that counts - which is why it is cheeper to fly / ship stuff halfway round the world rather than make it here. take cloathes for instance - yes you could make them here rather than Bangladesh (as we used to in the 'northern mill towns' of old) - but the prices would have to be hiked masively to pay the wages a Uk person would demand. That translates to the prices in your local M&S quadroupling, which in tern means ordinary people will be hit masively in the wallet causing a signifficant impact to their lifestyle.

 

However to drag the subject back to something closer to railway reopening, nostaliga is a very poor subsitute for reality. Expansion of Daventry and Mossend  freight terminals shows that increasing rail freight can be done, but this refelcts the reality that the motor lorry is the best way to serve multiple small destinations at either end of the trunk haul. Similarly transporting containers from Felixstowe to Daventry by rail and road distribuition from there is efficent, sending indavidual containers on wagons to sidings all acoss the country is not. On the passsenger front reopenings like the Larkhall branch or Ebaw vale work because they respect the modern way of life in that people are expected and willing to travel longer distances for work / leasure purposes than was the case 50 or 100 years ago. The provsion of parkway stations recognises that, as with daventry freight terminal, facilatating people being able to drive to a railhead allows the railways to do what they do best - i.e. bulk transport of people to a concontrated location.

 

Finally you mention increasing eco support - that may well be true but that doesn't necessarily translate into the reality on the ground. People may like solar pannels on the roof but thats more because of the feed in monies they get than a principled stance. People may buy a hybrid car - but I'm afraid that with many models such a purchase has lots to do with what might best be described as 'status symbols' than pure eceonomics as the price of such models is signifficantly above comparable ordinary models. People might say they like renewables - yet are verhermently opposed to windfarms near them because they "spoil the view". People might also they support renewable enegry in the summer, but when you get warnings in the media of possible electricity blackouts in winter due to an over reliance on said green technology support for 'dirty' power generation isn't quick to appear.

 

Ultimately transport provision fails if it is used as a tool to force people to behave in a certin way. If it is responsive to changes in society it can thrive. Many of the reasons for the decline of BRs revenues in the late 50s can be trced to a inability recognise that society was changing and the need to move with the times. Building large marshaling yards during a time when it was clear the motor lorry was making large inroads into freight traffic, or on the poassnger front ordering new DMUs but not rationalising station staffing provision and infrastructure when it was nor being used effectively all contributed to the situation where things got so bad that, to use a popular metaphor, we threw the baby out with the bathwater in 1962.

 

Moving on 53 years the same lesson holds true, transport should not be organised on an idologigical basis, it has to be guided by events on the ground. As such if a particular section of line can be proved to bring specific benifits to those it may serve then by all means work up a scheme to bring that to a reality. What you cannot do is generalise with respect to outcomes, nor can you assume the way the world opperates is going to change to suit your personal views.

 

But society is already changing Phil - big time.

 

Daily shopping is increasing to the extent that weekly shopping has declined markedly, hence the hit on large out of town supermarkets, and the growth of mini-markets and cheapo stores.

 

Rail and metro passenger usage has rocketed, with a corresponding car use decline in London particularly. Car use continues to grow elsewhere, to a large extent because the alternative public transport is inadequate or non-existent (as cited by many car drivers in many surveys - the "would if I could" syndrome). 

 

Green energy progression is already seeing a massive decline in coal fired power stations, and the growth of non-rail dependent gas fired stations.

 

Conventional, hide-bound thinking in BR of the 1950's caused a more rapid decline than could have been the case. Lets not allow conventional thinking to determine our future this time.

[Digitrainer]

Signed and shared on our Facebook page - hoping to get some more signs that way.

[ParkeNd]

There must be types of product for which rail freight is suitable - or Stobart's would not be involved in it.

 

But generally the modern logistics approach is - make small batches - ship it the same day - to arrive tomorrow. Rail would need to be able to match that capability. Lorries already have that capability.

[Graham Walters]

So what are all those containers on trains I've seen running from the various port terminals?

 

There are far more running up and down the motorways of Britain 24/7

[Graham Walters]

As a country, we borrow to fund the deficit, which is the gap between what government takes in and what it pays out. Governments also borrow to invest. Figures for all this can be found on the internet. The borrowing then builds up the debt, or (as between 1998 and 2002) a budget surplus brings the debt down. The debt is currently rising, as expected in a recession and in line with many other countries.

 

Countries don't work financially the same as people do.

 

We aren't up to our eyes in debt either, well I'm not and the country isn't. Other people might be.

 

I think you will find that the deficit is what the government borrows above the budgeted amount,  and has nothing to do with the balance of payments which is what you are suggesting.

 

Oh and countries do work in very similar ways to the way people do, if you fail to repay the loans, your credit rating drops, that means you can borrow less, and other countries trust you less with their monies.

 

Think of the IMF as a bank, and the UK a customer with overdraft who's monthly spending goes over the agreed overdraft limit, and you are part way there.

[Graham Walters]

How and why?

 

Ed

 

Well the solution is complex but not beyond possibilities.

 

Establish railheads at all these industrial estates we have built in major cities and towns, also construct warehouses to accept incoming goods.

 

Goods go out on rail, arrive on rail, and are distributed locally by electrically powered lorries and vans.

 

For every articulated lorry on the road actually carrying something, there are just as many empty, why do you think they have wheels which can be lifted to be non running ?   it's a cost saving on tyres.

 

When a lorry calls a Tesco's and drops off a load, it invariably goes back to the warehouse with nothing but a few empty cages and pallets on it.

[APOLLO]

Oil is very cheap today. Brent Crude is $49 today. Too cheap some may argue. Believe it or not, the main producer, Saudi Arabia is now hurting financially. (As is Russia).

 

It's all global politics, and cheap oil won't last that long, unless the world (China, USA) goes into a deep prolonged recession - then we will all hurt, even with cheap oil. It's a see-saw of supply and demand and so complex even the bods in the city can only guess the future.

 

One thing's for sure, 30 - 50 years or so there will still be oil, but a hell of a lot less, and at a price. It won't be $49.

 

We need our railways, and we need to electrify them, all of  them.

 

Brit15

[Rivercider]

I think for lines where there has been major development there is now more hope than there has been for years.

 

 

Back in the 1980s I attended a meeting about the Avon Metro where the main speaker, RIchard Cottrell, made a convincing case for reopened lines, new lines and stations to serve Bristol,

the reopening of the Portishead Branch among them, Avon Metro and Advanced Transport for Avon both came and went, and we are still waitiing...

 

However finally things are under way to reopen the Portishead Branch, now branded MetroWest, Public Consultation has closed and services are planned to start in 2019

 

cheers