Ron Ron Ron Posted February 19, 2017 Share Posted February 19, 2017 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffP Posted February 19, 2017 Share Posted February 19, 2017 Interesting...and utterly sickening to see even MORE money being spent in London. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
grahame Posted February 19, 2017 Share Posted February 19, 2017 Great to see something finally happening, even if it's hard to work out exactly what it is from that time elapse footage, and even though it mean more money spent in London. But I don't think there is a former international station in Scunthorpe to spend money on upgrading. G Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenman Posted February 19, 2017 Share Posted February 19, 2017 Interesting...and utterly sickening to see even MORE money being spent in London. Good grief: really? I live in remote Norfolk (a county with zero miles of motorway, and with "A" roads which in some places are just single tracks with passing places). But the everyday problems of overcrowding and congestion are vastly worse in London than even on the busiest market day in, say, Lynn. Why on earth would you begrudge spending infrastructure money where it is most needed? Now if you were complaining that London had got yet another arts or culture building, well, I might be more sympathetic. Paul Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ron Ron Posted February 19, 2017 Author Share Posted February 19, 2017 ....Why on earth would you begrudge spending infrastructure money where it is most needed? Indeed and worth remembering (or realising) that 68% of all rail journeys in the UK, take place wholly within London and the SE of England. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wheatley Posted February 19, 2017 Share Posted February 19, 2017 Ron Ron Ron, on 19 Feb 2017 - 15:48, said: Indeed and worth remembering (or realising) that 68% of all rail journeys in the UK, take place wholly within London and the SE of England. And 97% of the population don't use trains at all. Worth bearing in mind the next time someone complains about the government shifting costs from general taxation onto rail users. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy stroud Posted February 19, 2017 Share Posted February 19, 2017 And 97% of the population don't use trains at all. Worth bearing in mind the next time someone complains about the government shifting costs from general taxation onto rail users. But money spent on the railway system actually benfits people who dont use trains. In busy parts of the country, the road network is gridlocked when the trains are not running. In some cases when there has been a national rail strike for example, people have been told to stay at home and not even attempt to commute as the remaining transport infastructure (ie. roads) cannot cope. andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wheatley Posted February 19, 2017 Share Posted February 19, 2017 I'm aware of the knock-on benefits but I'd suggest that the gridlock largely occurs in the same bit of the country where 68% of the rail journeys occur plus one or two large conurbations. Certainly the last time the trains were on strike up here it made commuting into Leeds very uncomfortable, but in York (which allegedly has horrendous traffic problems according to lots of locals who've obviously never tried the North Circular) it just meant all the free parking spots on the Knavesmire filled up half an hour earlier. I bet if you took all the trains away permanently, in most of the country the traffic would sort itself out (ie be no worse than normal) within weeks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy stroud Posted February 19, 2017 Share Posted February 19, 2017 I bet if you took all the trains away permanently the traffic would sort itself out within weeks Well i'm sure some people would get rid of their car and just give up. That would go some way towards helping the traffic problem. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium melmerby Posted February 19, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 19, 2017 I'm aware of the knock-on benefits but I'd suggest that the gridlock largely occurs in the same bit of the country where 68% of the rail journeys occur plus one or two large conurbations. Certainly the last time the trains were on strike up here it made commuting into Leeds very uncomfortable, but in York (which allegedly has horrendous traffic problems according to lots of locals who've obviously never tried the North Circular) it just meant all the free parking spots on the Knavesmire filled up half an hour earlier. I bet if you took all the trains away permanently, in most of the country the traffic would sort itself out (ie be no worse than normal) within weeks. What passes as "gridlock" in some parts is considered normal elsewhere. I lived in Cumbria for a while and heard plenty of stories about the "horrendous" traffic in Carlisle but having been in the so called horrendous traffic many times I would choose it over normal in many other places! Keith Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arun Sharma Posted February 19, 2017 Share Posted February 19, 2017 And 97% of the population don't use trains at all. Worth bearing in mind the next time someone complains about the government shifting costs from general taxation onto rail users. That's an interesting figure which seems to have escaped comment. Do you have a source for that? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
62613 Posted February 19, 2017 Share Posted February 19, 2017 And 97% of the population don't use trains at all. Worth bearing in mind the next time someone complains about the government shifting costs from general taxation onto rail users. Does that mean I can withhold the part of my taxes that go towards the education budget, since I haven't used the education system since 1980? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockershovel Posted February 19, 2017 Share Posted February 19, 2017 Its depressing to see this expensive white (or blue?) elephant back in the news. It should never have been built, and would not have been had the government of the day taken a consistent, reasoned view of the Channel Tunnel project. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Riley Posted February 19, 2017 Share Posted February 19, 2017 Its depressing to see this expensive white (or blue?) elephant back in the news. It should never have been built, and would not have been had the government of the day taken a consistent, reasoned view of the Channel Tunnel project. But it was built, rightly or wrongly, and it is good to see that it is now to be put to use again. I don't find that depressing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockershovel Posted February 19, 2017 Share Posted February 19, 2017 But it was built, rightly or wrongly, and it is good to see that it is now to be put to use again. I don't find that depressing. I can't argue against that, as far as it goes. But for a major rail terminal to stand derelict for a decade, after a service life of 13 years... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Oldddudders Posted February 19, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 19, 2017 Its depressing to see this expensive white (or blue?) elephant back in the news. It should never have been built, and would not have been had the government of the day taken a consistent, reasoned view of the Channel Tunnel project. If it hadn't been built, what is your proposed alternative in that era? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ron Ron Posted February 19, 2017 Author Share Posted February 19, 2017 That's an interesting figure which seems to have escaped comment. Do you have a source for that? Not my figure, but it tallies with the DfT transport statistics for the total number of trips taken in 2015. 3% of all trips taken in GB were by rail. (down to 2% in 2016) Rail's modal share of travel to work is 9%. 20% of all public transport journeys in GB are by rail. (n.b. the London Underground accounts for only slightly less, at 16%) . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southernman46 Posted February 19, 2017 Share Posted February 19, 2017 I can't argue against that, as far as it goes. But for a major rail terminal to stand derelict for a decade, after a service life of 13 years... True, following its EPS abandonment we were crying out for it to reopened so that it could release other platforms for proper inspection / light maintenance instead of the 2 hour T2 rush-athons then available - during one of which I was expected to inspect and take measurements on 18 sets of S&C in a 30 chain length ............. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ron Ron Posted February 19, 2017 Author Share Posted February 19, 2017 But it was built, rightly or wrongly, and it is good to see that it is now to be put to use again. I don't find that depressing. Fortunately it has been retained for railway use, as there had been very real pressure to demolish it around the time of Gordon Brown's premiership. The proposal was to use the land to build a large office development. Despite lying unused for almost a decade, at least it's being brought back to provide much needed extra capacity at Waterloo. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Kris Posted February 19, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 19, 2017 Not my figure, but it tallies with the DfT transport statistics for the total number of trips taken in 2015. 3% of all trips taken in GB were by rail. (down to 2% in 2016) Rail's modal share of travel to work is 9%. 20% of all public transport journeys in GB are by rail. (n.b. the London Underground accounts for only slightly less, at 16%) . 3% of all trips taken in GB does not equal 97% of the population not using rail, it just says that 97% of journeys are not by rail, given that this would include walking, cycling, driving, flying etc it does not sound that bad. When I look at my own journeys, less than 1% are by rail each year. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodyfox Posted February 19, 2017 Share Posted February 19, 2017 Interesting. I drove the first proper train into the new W'loo International station to lay ballast. I had a 33 and about 10 to 15 seacow hoppers iirc.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wheatley Posted February 19, 2017 Share Posted February 19, 2017 It was a fag packet calculation done a couple of years ago as part of a discussion as to whether it would be cheaper to buy every rail passenger a car than to keep subsidising rail to the current extent. It was something very basic along the lines of UK population minus ATOC's figure for average number of passengers per day. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold TheSignalEngineer Posted February 19, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 19, 2017 It was a fag packet calculation done a couple of years ago as part of a discussion as to whether it would be cheaper to buy every rail passenger a car than to keep subsidising rail to the current extent. It was something very basic along the lines of UK population minus ATOC's figure for average number of passengers per day. It would be cheaper to buy them a car, but to provide enough road for them all to move around by the same amount would probably take more money than running the NHS, not to mention the housing crisis caused by knocking down most of the houses within 20 metres of a main road.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted February 19, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 19, 2017 3% of all trips taken in GB does not equal 97% of the population not using rail, it just says that 97% of journeys are not by rail, given that this would include walking, cycling, driving, flying etc it does not sound that bad. When I look at my own journeys, less than 1% are by rail each year. And includes trips like people popping a mile down the road to the service station shop for a pint of milk which isn't the sort of thing that rail travel is designed for. In my own case, I'm not far off your 1% of trips (numerically) overall but rail accounts for a much higher proportion of longer ones so a bigger percentage of my total mileage. For example, the shortest trip I regularly take by train is 15 miles each way, once or twice a week whereas I tend to use the car for anything over 2 miles (1 if it's raining!), but far more randomly. John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted February 19, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 19, 2017 It would be cheaper to buy them a car, but to provide enough road for them all to move around by the same amount would probably take more money than running the NHS, not to mention the housing crisis caused by knocking down most of the houses within 20 metres of a main road.. Not to mention widening the M25 to 7 lanes each way and "opening up" the London suburbs to dual all the feeder roads. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.