david.hill64

1 minute ago, Kris said:

I would also like to see more freight being put on the rails to help remove lorries from the road. This would likely require some subsidies and a change in mine set from arriving now to arriving in a couple of days. 

Agree, but I think the issue is capacity. HS2 will help a lot but more needs to be done.

As the thread on Ticket office closures has morphed into a 'what sort of railway do I want' discussion, I thought it worthwhile to start a new thread for this discussion, so that views on the pros and cons of ticket closures could be aired without distractions.

In an ideal world there would be ample funding for whatever lifestyle we want, but in the real world funds are limited so please keep that in mind. I think that demographic trends are actually working for rail travel. We have an aging population who still want to travel and are less likely to drive. At the other end of the generation gap, younger people are now less likely to drive than in previous years. Across the whole population environmental concerns are also higher in people's priorities than before. So I think that demand for rail travel (passenger and freight) is likely to increase. So how do we achieve this safely, reliably and economically?

What are your views? How would you spend what money is available?

It is clear that the current system is not ideal. I have little time for DfT, believing that they lack engineering competence to manage what is essentially an engineering system (the same criticism I have of the civil service in general). But there are signs that some intentions are right. The goal of an unified ticketing system for the non-open-access operations seems good. I already use a multi mode (conventional rail, metro, bus taxi and car parking) smart card in Taiwan. It works very well. In my world we would all use such a card, or phone app. Tap in, tap out on gates at commuter routes and by train manager smart card reader/issuer on rural or intercity routes. It would be nice if it were linked to bus fares. (In Taiwan the bus journeys are free if combined with an MRT journey).

I would continue with DOO on commuter routes where trains are frequent and distances between stations relatively short, but I would have train managers on all other services. As well as revenue protection they would be trained for emergency operations. 

Having written, or assessed, safety cases for the operation of driverless trains I am convinced that we will never see this level of automation on the ex BR network (nor LUL for that matter). However, I do see more widespread use of ATO (as per Thameslink) when ETCS role out is more widespread. With smart control centres regulation of trains then becomes far easier to achieve. This will help alleviate capacity constraints.

It is a pity, though understandable, that Network Rail has opted for ETCS level 2 with fall back signalling. Railtrack's vision of adopting ETCS level 3 (no track circuits, no axle counters, no lineside signals) is a better way for a safe reliable railway. Shame it has taken 30 years to agree the specifications.

In my view electrification is a no-brainer for all except very lightly used routes. Now that we once again have our own safe standards there is no reason to delay.

3 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

Arguments over safety are a legitimate but separate argument from closing ticket offices. Closing ticket offices may be undesirable and may push some from traveling by train but I can't see it will degrade safety.

I think there needs to be a thread about 'what sort of railway do we want?' so that this can return to ticket office closures.

2 hours ago, Mallard60022 said:

Yes and so what? 

P

You want all of these double manned with staff who have the necessary skills to relieve an incapacitated driver? 

If so, on what grounds?

Remember, my original comment on this was in answer to a poster who suggested that staff needed to be 'on hand' in case the driver had a heart attack.

56 minutes ago, Mallard60022 said:

He did not suggest that!

 P

Freight drivers? DOO passenger?

42 minutes ago, Nick C said:

 

 

Yes, the idea of having 16 staff on the train was an exaggeration, but there certainly should be more than one. A driver becoming incapacitated is a known risk - it has happened on several occasions. Yes, the train then comes to a stand - and then what? You've then got a train-full of people stuck in the middle of a section with no-one to help them.  What about a crash? The most likely person to be killed is the driver (being as they are at the front), so again, in a single-manned train there's no-one left to deal with the situation. Even normally, the driver needs to concentrate on driving - they can't be looking after the passengers as well. 

 

Actually I agree. But it requires a different mindset from the unions. I would have train managers trained in basic train handling skills so that in case of need they would be able to move the train to a safe location. Ideally 'railmen' (of whatever sex) could be working as train managers or drivers on different shifts, but not all drivers will have the people management skills to be a competent train manager, and not all train managers will have the skills for drivers. So that utopia will never be reached even if ASLEF and RMT could give up their turf.

39 minutes ago, Bernard Lamb said:

You are happy to leave the poor driver in the cab if he has a heart attack and wait for help to arrive rather than have help on hand?

 

Are you seriously suggesting that we ought to double man every driving cab to mitigate the effect of a driver having a heart attack? And both men would need to have competence in first aid. 

You cannot eliminate all safety risks on a railway and there is no requirement anywhere (in the world to the best of my knowledge) to do so.

I wish my coach recognition skills were better: there is a fabulous collection of vehicles behind D278 in J1063.

1 hour ago, Mallard60022 said:

It's Tax avoidance from fairly ordinary and reasonably wealthy individuals and Companies that should be sorted!

Phil

Nothing wrong with tax avoidance: HMRC enables us to do it by giving us personal allowances and ISA's for example.

Tax evasion on the other hand is a serious matter and I fully agree that it should be sorted.

For international companies, they will choose to set up base in a country with a low tax rate: hence Ireland's success. But is it right that the Irish should be able to deprive other countries of tax revenue in this way? (Rhetorical question).

Congratulations on reaching 1000 pages. Yours has always been one of my favourite threads.

16 hours ago, Neil said:

 

The funds would depend on tax policy. At the moment the UK has one of the most unequal societies in the world; a spot of levelling down would provide funding. 

But the report you link to says that, for inequality as measured by the GINI coefficient, UK is average within the developed world.

It is also clear that the country is losing many of the super wealthy individuals who pay most tax. Oil and gas companies like Shell are considering moving their tax base out of the UK because of taxation policies. A spot of levelling down runs the risk of being too successful, with no money available even for basic services.

Funding for infrastructure projects will always be cheaper if done by government money but if that is not available then institutions with a long view, such as pension funds, may be the best option. Government money will only be available if we can grow the economy productively. Government debt is now about 100% of GDP and the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that this will rise to 300% in 50 years, so not much hope for rail projects without a step shift in economic performance. The sad thing is that Northern Powerhouse Rail, HS2 etc are key elements of that step shift but when competing for funding for NHS pay will likely lose out.

26 minutes ago, Hobby said:

 

Just wondering how true that is when talking modern electric trams, not horse drawn ones. I've been in an emergency stop on a modern tram and it seems to stop pretty quickly, at least on a par with a bus or lorry, though not a modern car!

Trams are usually fitted with magnetic track brakes for emergency stops. The deceleration rate is non-linear (increases as speed drops) but overall is likely to be about 4m/s/s. A car can stop at about 10m/s/s.

Looking through this thread, I am amazed at just how clean many of the locos were even just months before withdrawal. A credit to the area. (I grew up in Gloucester - Horton Road locos were in abominable condition in their last few years).

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Indeed - but lets be realistic - given the DfT* couldn't hold a piss up in a brewery and their repeated promises to reform the ticketing system over the past few moths have turned out to be nothing but hot air so the chances of the technology being in place to cater for this wonderful ticket counter less world is remote.

 

More likely you will get exactly what we have got now - but worse because there won't be as many staff about to help folk regardless of the 'promises' being made by the train operators or their puppet master in Whitehall.

 

 

* TOCs cannot so much as sneeze these days without the DfT giving permission - and those who still pretend that TOCs have any say in what goes on need to come out of their fairly bubble and wake up to reality!

Cannot say that I disagree with any of that!

7 hours ago, Dava said:

What happens to Park & Ride tickets? On EMR these offer a discounted car parking ticket with a return, even cheaper after morning peak, but issue requires ticket validation by staff and it’s not an option on the auto ticket system. With Railcard it’s an even better option, and you can renew railcard at the office too. Without this it will be cheaper to drive to work. I don’t agree with the ticket office closures either.

 

Dava

If the staff who are currently in the ticket office are instead on the concourse then they can still validate tickets.

The key issue will be about the technology that is going to be used for tickets. If it's around a smartphone app, then railcards, car parking etc can all be linked into that. Smart cards can also do a lot. In Taiwan I use something that used to be called an Easy Card but now seems to be in the process of being renamed as the T pass. I can use this on metros, conventional rail, buses and taxis. Bus transfers are free in conjunction with rail travel and it all works well. 

2 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

It only 'knows' if you use a bespoke smart card which has such a facility on it. Moreover how is it going to know which train you will take where the gateline is common yet you have a choice of more expensive Avanti and lower priced WM trains to chose from when you get to the platforms.

 

We need to wait to see which technology is required, but I think that it's likely to be a smartphone app. Which of course will not help the minority who don't own such a device so will have to be more than one.

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

A 'tap and go' system cannot determine whether it is an Off peak, a supper off peak ticket, whether you have a discount card like the Network card, whether you want to take advantage of a 'Thameslink only' 'London Midland Only' fare etc - so it will simply charge you the standard off peak rate.

According to the reports I have read so far, the system will know what discount cards you have and will charge the cheapest fare for the journey at the time of day that you make it. If this is indeed the case, then the objective of moving to a simplified national fares structure will have been met.

9 minutes ago, Hesperus said:

I can see the appeal of tap in, tap out but what happens if you tap in at a busy urban station then find the rural station you have arrived at doesn't have anywhere to tap out?

 

It strikes me as a problem for ticket inspections too.

I can see a situation where trains on rural lines have the tap-in, tap out device onboard. Still potentially problematic if you forget to tap out.

A few years ago I was enjoying a short holiday in Devon/Cornwall and planned to use some of the time to explore the branch lines. However, my trip from Penzance to Plymouth was significantly delayed by 'signalling problems' after a severe gale the night before. When I passed a semaphore with its arm twisted back at 90 degrees I could see the problem. I assume it must have been hit by something rather than the force of the wind itself.

Presumably the penalty fares regime will have to change too. The helpful GWR site advises that you will be able to buy your ticket on the train or at your destination station. One would hope that you would not be penalized for so doing.

I would also hope that whatever is in force is applied universally.

4 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Yes and no in amnay resecs.  Quite alot had been dne before then in a. effort to improve various areas of personal safety, particularly in what we nowadays call 'working procedues'.  and there had been increasing emlhasis on re tracjsde safety with the hi-vis mini-vests.

 

Actually my comment was in reply to a general comment about workplace safety, not specifically for rail.

As you know, rail safety now is centred around a risk based approach: identify the hazards proactively, work out effective elimination or mitigation measures and validate that they are in place and effective. As Oldudders commented, this was led by Dupont identifying that a culture change was required away from a rules based approach that was effective at stopping you repeating old accidents but not so good for new ones (especially associated with the introduction of new technologies). The approach has been refined over the years.

2 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

 

Very little consideration was given to worker safety right up until the 1960's and not only just in the railway industry. 

It was the 1974 Health and Safety at Work act that arguably spurred proper efforts.

11 hours ago, jamie92208 said:

In Midland Days Toton had a special ambulance van to get casualties to hospital quicker there were so many accidents.  When was on a tour there in 1971 there were stilmen with brake stckslIchasing wagons after they cam through the retarder. 

 

Jamie

When I joined BR in the late 70's there were still about 30-35 workplace fatalities per year. Happily we are in a better place now.

15 hours ago, 62613 said:

We keep on hearing this, but traffic was already growing under BR (from 1992, when the economy was picking up after the Big Bang recession). Correlation is NOT causation. Is it worth pointing out that traffic had been declining since before The Great War, and that nationalisation wasn't the culprit?

I specifically did not claim that increased passenger numbers and improved safety were the result of privatisation: I merely point out that saying that our rail system is a national disgrace isn't supported by hard evidence. I also stated that they might very well have continued to improve under BR.

8 hours ago, 62613 said:

Again, correlation is not causation. In the 1860s and 1870s, the railways were downright dangerous. There was a gradual implementation of safety measures down the years; are you saying that if BR had not been privatised, TPWS wouldn't have been developed and installed? Both would probably have happened, but quite likely at a slower pace.

BR had committed to ATP and probably would not have commissioned the studies that resulted in the decision to start the SPAD Reduction and Mitigation project, though they did support it. It was mostly a Railtrack initiative.