Her Madges Gov. are proposing record spending on the railways.
Now I may be wrong, but why do I get the funny feeling it will be the motorist bearing the majority of the funding burden? Somehow I don't see 80,000 civil servants going quietly to help pay for this, do you?
There wouldn't be an election due in the next 18 months, would there?
|
As a Toyota Landcruise is more economical in mpg than a train, this seems like a strange way forward.
Oh, did you mention an election, ND?
|
HMG make lots of announcements like this on an almost daily basis because they hope it makes them look good. What they often turn out to mean is - the same money out of a different pocket.
We can but hope.
|
|
The number of announcements recently, anyone would think there was some really embarrassing news to squash.
|
|
presumably the reuslt of the 2 byelections.....
|
|
gosh, so much healthy cynicism - in same vein, wonder what our Brooding Chancellor will do abt that planned duty rise in fuel in September .... funny how, as he scents the keys to Number 10, he's trying to become more voter-friendly!
|
more voter-friendly
Correction:
Less voter-vicious.
|
|
|
|
As a Toyota Landcruise is more economical in mpg than a train, this seems like a strange way forward. Oh, did you mention an election, ND?
A train carries a few more people than a Landcruiser, so more economical in passenger miles, don't you think?
|
A train carries a few more people than a Landcruiser, so more economical in passenger miles, don't you think?
;) are you sure? Landcruisers are obscenely big....
JaB
|
|
|
|
|
Motorists aren't the only ones who pay tax you know, ND. And when you consider that only a small percentage of the motoring-related tax goes on the roads anyway your point sound more like sour grapes than anything.
As I've commented on other threads, surely a better rail network is a benefit all round anyway as it will get traffic off the roads and ease congestion. Now, if they only either increased the level of rail freight subsidy to somewhere remotely near that road freight gets, or increased the level of tax lorries pay then it would be even more of a result.
|
|
You have to get cargo from the rail terminals to the supermarkets. I'm all for getting lorries off the main roads, but you'l still need them to take the goods from the railways to the supermarkets.
|
|
Fraid not, machika. Figures published last week show the train to be less economical per passenger/mile than the car. It's the colossal weight of the rolling stock apparently.
|
Fraid not, machika. Figures published last week show the train to be less economical per passenger/mile than the car. It's the colossal weight of the rolling stock apparently.
depends on the train: the latest intercity ones are apparently much less economical than their predecessors, but the research acknowledged that other trains are muchly better. And the car comparison was with a Passat, not a Landcruiser
|
depends on the train: the latest intercity ones are apparently much less economical than their predecessors, but the research acknowledged that other trains are muchly better. And the car comparison was with a Passat, not a Landcruiser
>>
Was the comparison with a full train and a full car? How many times is a car full? Not many, in most cases, and that applies to Landcruisers too.
|
|
|
|
Railway network is still large enough to remove a lot of long distance freight - local distribution network by road wouldn't add any more or less traffic.
EWS (train operator) is trying to up it's rail freight by 100% over 3 years, they're even lobbying to re-open disused track to facilitate this.
This need someone like Branson to make this work - I still don't believe the government is capable of standing back and taking a look at the big picture.
|
|
|
|
surely a better rail network is a benefit all round anyway
ND didn't predict a better rail service; he predicted higher spending. You're assuming that a higher level of spending will ipso facto result in a better service.
As an assumption, that has been sorely tested in recent years.
|
The best thing for the rail network is to rip all the tracks out and tarmac it all over and turn it in to roads.
It would be cheaper in the long run and would solve the congested motorway problems.
This country has never been able to run a railway properly for years, if ever.
You can't keep throwing money at it and getting nothing back.
|
|
train tracks aren't that wide, they'd be rather narrow roads.
|
if tax raised is less than the income spent on roads and remember its ROAD tax we are talking about why should we give more to recieve less.
Its a cut in services, put the hgv goods on canal barges, solves the congestion on motorways
|
if tax raised is less than the income spent on roads and remember its ROAD tax we are talking about...
It's not actually. Very common misconception this one.
Its a cut in services, put the hgv goods on canal barges, solves the congestion on motorways
I agree. Plenty of freight doesn't need to be delivered "just in time". Anything non-perishable where a constant and predictable supply is needed doesn't need to travel at 50mph. Years ago I remember watching the "merry-go-round" coal trains near Doncaster and they did 5mph all day, loading and unloading without stopping.
|
Fine on a dedicated line between mine and power station, but this would cause havoc on the existing rail network.
It does show that the system can work, it just needs a little more pro-active thinking in todays climate (which is why I excluded any government involvement).
Always though that the railways would be better suited to automation as well with attendant reductions in overheads.
|
|
|
|
You actually need both roads and rail, each has its place in the order of things.
The problem is the polarisation of views, one faction wants all rail ripped up and replaced by roads, the other wants all cars banned and replaced by buses, with rail tracks down the high street.
Neither view is sustainable.
Nor is pouring all your resources into one mode whilst jacking up the cost of the competing mode to make it uneconomic.
Rail has its place for inter-city passenger transport and bulk freight
Buses are fine for short urban trips or rural journeys where no rail link exists. (But should not compete with underground services in cities, where they exist).
Cars are the natural choice for leisure; where loads have to carried e.g. shopping, the disabled or animals; journeys out of public transport hours; and journeys where an excessive number of changes makes public tranport too time-consuming.
Both buses and rail are heavily subsidised from taxes, so any comparisons of cost per passenger mile are distorted. However, one effect is probably to concentrate busines activity in city centres, thus requiring more commuting and travel, rather than encouraging the dispersion of jobs to nearer peoples' homes.
|
If you mean that buses should complement underground services, yes agree totally.
The underground network in London is running at overcapacity on most lines, especially the inner London lines.
Although some lines have been extended, the sheer volume of passengers means that buses have to take some of the excess capacity.
Don't understand the dispersion of jobs theory, if I have to commute to the centre of town and my colleague does likewise albeit from a different direction - what happens if the job moves to my location?
My travel is less but my colleagues travel is the same amount more - no net gain whatsoever.
|
Your colleage may seek a position closer to his house. Or move.
If "every" job is in the square mile then no-one has a choice.
|
If "every" job is in the square mile then no-one has a choice.
move closer to the sq mile is one option. Not everybody's preferred option, cos it means high-density housing, but it is an option
|
|
Are you going to buy me a family house near the square mile then?? Not even mapmaker would describe that as an insignificant sum!
|
Are you going to buy me a family house near the square mile then?? Not even mapmaker would describe that as an insignificant sum!
true!
But until recently, you could buy a flat reasonably near the sq mile for abt the same as you'd pay for a family house further away. There's lottsa reasons ppl don't want that sort of high-density housing, but it is an option.
|
There's lottsa reasons ppl don't want that sort of high- density housing, but it is an option.
Such as two small children ... in a flat ... well I'd work much longer hours, I can say. About 24 per day...
|
|
Not every job is in the square mile, admittedly sentiment has kept a lot of organisations in the City, but as far back as the 80's there were a number of high profile relocations.
Poole, Cardiff, etc.
Take a look at most large city centres, same company profile wherever you go.
Re-location is not the most expedient solution, from a commercial viewpoint the company will pay less in a non-premium location - however those less favourably placed employees then have to either move or seek alternative employment.
It's the way of the world - shops aren't all over the place, they put them in high streets or retail parks so they're all conveniently in one place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
