Bad news I think

From the Sunday Mirror at <http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/page.cfm?objectid=13044392&method=full
&siteid=106694&headline=BEECHING%20II>

"BEECHING II Jun 8 2003

Darling plans huge cuts in rail services

By Chris Mclaughlin, Political Editor

ALASTAIR Darling has ordered a "summer summit" to pave the way for the biggest reductions in rail
services since the infamous Beeching cuts of the 1960s.

The Transport Secretary is poised to close dozens of branch lines to fund a new rail "super-highway"
connecting major cities.

The plan is to be discussed this week, prior to a crisis conference in July when Mr Darling will ask
experts to prepare a radical overhaul of the system.

Among those who will be called to the summer summit are the train operators, passenger groups,
freight managers, town planners, academics, the Strategic Rail Authority and motoring organisations.

The blueprint for the new network is based on Whitehall figures which reveal that it will be
impossible to find enough money to maintain the present network.

Cross-country links between towns and cities in East Anglia, Devon and Cornwall, Cumbria, Wales and
Scotland could be under threat. Even major links between regional big cities could have fewer
connections.

It would be the biggest cut in rail services since the programme drawn up by Dr Richard Beeching's
1963 report called the Re-Shaping of British Railways, which called for the closure of 2,000
stations and 5,000 miles of track. Some lines were reprieved but by 1969 the total length of the
rail network had been cut by more than 4,500 miles.

Mr Darling's latest survey says the only way to make rail work is to admit that the car is the
preferred method of travel for most people. He believes a new network of express trains - mainly for
business use - should be introduced to bypass existing routes.

The Government has accepted it is impossible to find enough money to keep the antiquated system
operating safely and efficiently. Instead, cash will be pumped into express strategic routes in a
similar way to the high-speed services in France, Spain and Germany.

New lines will be aimed at attracting international and big business travellers who can afford the
luxury of more expensive rail travel while avoiding the inconvenience of airlines.

Passengers and unions fear the new 10-year plan is part of a long-term "thinning out" of what is
left of the rail network.

Private companies who want to surrender their franchises will be allowed to do so, or will have
their franchises to run regional lines withdrawn because they fail to meet performance targets. Out
of 25 train operators, 22 per cent reported worsening performance, say latest figures.

The reduction in rail services would be a massive U-turn by a Government which once pledged to boost
passenger numbers by 50 per cent by the end of the century.

Mr Darling recently announced that the bulk of a £5.5billion package of transport improvements will
benefit car drivers.

The longer-term plan coincides with the misery promised by rail cuts in the new summer timetable.

Richard Hope, consultant editor of the Railway Gazette, said: "It is tragic if these lines have to
be cut back because the structure and over-regulation that the railways are suffering from is
driving up costs enormously. We are looking at a situation where the cost of rewiring the signals is
now five times higher than when British Rail was doing it."

A spokesman for Mr Darling said: "Spending on the rail network is set to double by 2004. There is a
lot of money there, it is essential to spend it in the best possible way."

Train travellers vowed last night to fight any plans to cut services.

Rail Passengers Council spokeswoman Caroline Jones said: "Putting money into major strategic routes
is good, but it must not be at the expense of other lines, particularly in rural areas."

LINES LIKELY TO FACE THE AXESCOTLAND

Inverness to Kyle

Inverness to Wick

Helensburgh to Fort William

Helensburgh to Mallaig

Aberdeen to Inverness

WALES

Shrewsbury to Aberystwyth

Shrewsbury to Pwllheli

Heart of Wales line between Swansea and Shrewsbury

Whitland to Pembroke

NORTH OF ENGLAND

Carlise to Carnforth via Whitehaven

Middlesbrough to Whitby

Settle to Carlisle

EAST ANGLIA

Norwich to Cromer

Norwich to Great Yarmouth

Norwich to Lowestoft

Ipswich to Lowestoft

SOUTH OF ENGLAND

Ryde to Shanklin (Isle of Wight)

DEVON AND CORNWALL

Exeter to Branstaple

Exeter to Exmouth

Newton Abbot to Torquay

Liskeard to Looe

Par to Newquay

Truro to Falmouth

St Erth to St Ives"

Far be it from me to question the intelligence of a government minister but with our roads nearing
gridlock, won't the above just mean more car journeys and we reach gridlock even quicker???
Shouldn't he be supporting and encouraging the move away from overdependence on the car???

Sorry, I realise I just put the word "intelligence" in relation to a government minister. How
silly of me.

Cheers, helen s

~~~~~~~~~~
Clean up the waste & get rid of the trapped wind to send a reply

Any speeliong mistake$ aR the resiult of my cats sitting on the keyboaRRRDdd
~~~~~~~~~~

 

wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter wrote:

> Among those who will be called to the summer summit are the train operators, passenger groups,
> freight managers, town planners, academics, the Strategic Rail Authority and motoring
> organisations.

Will cyclists be among those? Or is it just another excuse for a supposedly Labour government to
wipe out affordable services and replace them with something to please the fat cats?

> A spokesman for Mr Darling said: "Spending on the rail network is set to double by 2004. There is
> a lot of money there, it is essential to spend it in the best possible way."

I got a strong image of Kenny Everet at this point - anyone else?

Jim Price

 

He needs to to get the road tolls to make money.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2972430.stm

This is the kind of nonsense that really irritates me. I think we do need road tolls, but we need
more motorways, railways, tramways and cycleways as well, and we certainly don't need Mr Prescotts
hundreds of thousands of houses.

 

"Nathaniel Porter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> He needs to to get the road tolls to make money.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2972430.stm
>
> This is the kind of nonsense that really irritates me. I think we do need road tolls, but we need
> more motorways, railways, tramways and cycleways as well, and we certainly don't need Mr Prescotts
> hundreds of thousands of houses.
>
>

my sunday morning manifesto.

we don't need more road tolls, we don't need more motorways.

any branch lines left service-less after the coming cuts should be serviced by modern tram like
rolling stock rather than 'proper' (expensive) trains.

ALL freight to be sent by rail to railheads on the outskirts of towns and cities with a network of
electric vehicles to deliver into said towns and cities.

1 x artic = 3 cars or 2, at a much safer distance

we do need more tram systems, cycleways and a promotion of personal transport devices like the
segway, electric scooters and such.

we still need politicians like prescott to dislike personal transport devices because it's something
for the trend setters to push off against: if the olds hate them they must be cool, right kids ?

hundreds of thousands of houses can and will be derived from the empty factory shells left behind by
our steadily failing manufacturing industries.


Albert

 

In news:[email protected], wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter
<[email protected]> typed:
>
> ALASTAIR Darling has ordered a "summer summit" to pave the way for the biggest reductions in rail
> services since the infamous Beeching cuts of the 1960s.
>

Its ironic that although the original Beeching report was under the Macmillan/Douglas-Home
Conservative government, the vast majority of the implemenation was under the Wilson Labour
government. Now once again a Labour government would seem to be finishing the job despite all their
protestations to the contrary when they were elected.

Tony

--
http://www.raven-family.com

"All truth goes through three steps: First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed.
Finally, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer

 

On 08 Jun 2003 11:06:16 GMT, [email protected] (wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter) wrote:

>ALASTAIR Darling has ordered a "summer summit" to pave the way for the biggest reductions in rail
>services since the infamous Beeching cuts of the 1960s.

Is Darling a Tarmac shareholder as well, then?

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

> WALES
>
> Heart of Wales line between Swansea and Shrewsbury

This line passes within 50 yards of my house and a station is 5 minutes walk away. But the thing is
useless to me. Hardly any trains and at silly times.

I suggest we tarmac it and have a couple of motor coaches going backwards and forwards all day -
vastly cheaper to run than trains, more comfortable and less noisy.

There would probably be room for a cycle lane as well.

John

 

Eatmorepies wrote:

> >
> > WALES
> >
> > Heart of Wales line between Swansea and Shrewsbury
>
> This line passes within 50 yards of my house and a station is 5 minutes walk away. But the thing
> is useless to me. Hardly any trains and at silly times.
>
> I suggest we tarmac it and have a couple of motor coaches going backwards and forwards all day -
> vastly cheaper to run than trains, more comfortable and less noisy.
>
> There would probably be room for a cycle lane as well.

Or add trailers to the coaches.

John B

 

wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> From the Sunday Mirror at
> <http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/page.cfm?objectid=13044392&method=full
> &siteid=106694&headline=BEECHING%20II>
>
> "BEECHING II Jun 8 2003
>
>
> Darling plans huge cuts in rail services

The connection is obvious.

Close the railways, force people back into their cars, then charge them road tolls for the
privilege.

New Labour successfully extracts yet more money from us.

Bill

 

On Sun, 8 Jun 2003 14:58:44 +0100, "Eatmorepies" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I suggest we tarmac it and have a couple of motor coaches going backwards and forwards all day -
>vastly cheaper to run than trains, more comfortable and less noisy.

Not sure if that would work. There have been experiments with buses equipped with rail wheels
running this kind of line, but ultimately for either a train or a bus service to work you have to
have enough people travelling to cover the pay of the driver, and running costs of the equipment.
Trains have an incredibly long service life, costs are really not extortionate until Railtrack, the
train leasing companies and so on all start taking profit from something which is not fundamentally
profitable anyway. Passenger rail transport is not profitable in most countries. But it is generally
very safe and has the potential to have a lower environmental impact than road travel.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 8 Jun 2003 14:58:44 +0100, "Eatmorepies" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I suggest we tarmac it and have a couple of motor coaches going backwards and forwards all day -
> >vastly cheaper to run than trains, more comfortable and less noisy.
>
> Not sure if that would work. There have been experiments with buses equipped with rail wheels
> running this kind of line,

as I read it there are no rails ?

I think tarmacing the dead branch lines is an excellent Idea. not so sure about running existing
coaches on them, perhaps a superflat road surface and specially designed low slung hop on hop off
open bottomed double decker style thingy ?

electric, of course.

Albert

 

"albert fish" <[email protected][thisbit]ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> electric, of course.
>

Whilst I agree we should consider alternatives to petrol (why isn't LPG being pushed by the
government?*), I'm not sure electicty is a good one - don't forget that its a ruddy great coal fired
station that's likely to be generating the electricity to run the coach. (Perhaps someone has stats
comparing electric vehicles with others fuels in this regard?)

*(Hint: its the same reason why the government announces plans for road tolls and rail closures on
the same day :-( )

 

In message <[email protected]>, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email protected]> writes
>Passenger rail transport is not profitable in most countries.

Why is this? There's something about rail transport that just makes it appear so efficient. So why
isn't it profitable? Ability to share cost among large number of passengers, low rolling resistance
(?), fast, town centre to town centre services are just some of the factors that would lead you to
believe that it's efficient.
--
Michael MacClancy

 

Passenger rail transport is not profitable in most countries. But it is generally very safe and has
> the potential to have a lower environmental impact than road travel.
>
> Guy
> ===

At one glorious stage in our civilisation, passenger rail transport was the fastest growing, and
most profitable (IRC) industry in the world. Then a certain gent called Henry Ford turned up.

 

"Nathaniel Porter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "albert fish" <[email protected][thisbit]ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > electric, of course.
> >
>
> Whilst I agree we should consider alternatives to petrol (why isn't LPG being pushed by the
> government?*),

you can get up to 80% government rebate if you fit LPG to a vehicle less than 5 years old, I think,
with a sliding scale on vehicle engine size, etc. and the london congestion charge is waived for
dual fuel cars, iirc.

> I'm not sure electicty is a good one - don't forget that its a ruddy great coal fired station
> that's likely to be generating the electricity to run the coach. (Perhaps someone has stats
> comparing electric vehicles with others fuels in this regard?)

the power station would more likely be gas fired, but a combination of Diesel/LPG with electricity
generated from a big flywheel that could be used to fast charge any electric personal transport
devices, perhaps.

> *(Hint: its the same reason why the government announces plans for road tolls and rail closures on
> the same day :-( )

un hint: tptb do subsidise LPG


Albert

 

"albert fish" <[email protected][thisbit]ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Nathaniel Porter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "albert fish" <[email protected][thisbit]ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > electric, of course.
> > >
> >
> > Whilst I agree we should consider alternatives to petrol (why isn't LPG being pushed by the
> > government?*),
>
> you can get up to 80% government rebate if you fit LPG to a vehicle less than 5 years old, I
> think, with a sliding scale on vehicle engine size,
etc.
> and the london congestion charge is waived for dual fuel cars, iirc.
>

Yeah, but it would be better for the environment if they *required* use of LPG (or an other cleaner
fuel) for cars. They won't do that, as they won't be able to earn as much fuel tax without pissing
people off (fuel tax is allegedly largely there to pay for environmental damage, after all)

> > I'm not sure electicty is a good one - don't forget that its a ruddy great coal fired station
> > that's likely to
be
> > generating the electricity to run the coach. (Perhaps someone has stats comparing electric
> > vehicles with others fuels in this regard?)
>
> the power station would more likely be gas fired, but a combination of Diesel/LPG with electricity
> generated from a big flywheel that could be used to fast charge any electric personal transport
> devices, perhaps.
>

It might be possible - indeed hybrid cars are very good (should be compulsary along with LPG). Not
sure how practical using electricity as the only power source would be.

 

In message <[email protected]>, albert fish
<[email protected][thisbit].invalid> writes

<snip>

>I think tarmacing the dead branch lines is an excellent Idea. not so sure about running existing
>coaches on them, perhaps a superflat road surface and specially designed low slung hop on hop off
>open bottomed double decker style thingy ?
>
>electric, of course.

If they're tarmaced, then of course you'd allow the emergency services to use them. And VIPs,
obviously. Councillors, of course. Doctors. Posties. Bin men.

Oh bugger - another road.

Cheers
--
Keith Wootten

 

"Michael MacClancy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> In message <[email protected]>, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> <[email protected]> writes
> >Passenger rail transport is not profitable in most countries.
>
> Why is this? There's something about rail transport that just makes it appear so efficient. So why
> isn't it profitable? Ability to share cost among large number of passengers, low rolling
> resistance (?), fast, town centre to town centre services are just some of the factors that would
> lead you to believe that it's efficient.
> --
> Michael MacClancy

all of the above works everywhere alse in the world unless you chuck into the mix Ingredient X 'the
british workman'

that's when it all goes pearshaped.


Albert

 

On Sun, 8 Jun 2003 16:19:41 +0100, "albert fish" <[email protected][thisbit]ntlworld.com> wrote:

>> Why is this? There's something about rail transport that just makes it appear so efficient. So
>> why isn't it profitable? Ability to share cost among large number of passengers, low rolling
>> resistance (?), fast, town centre to town centre services are just some of the factors that would
>> lead you to believe that it's efficient.

>all of the above works everywhere alse in the world unless you chuck into the mix Ingredient X 'the
>british workman'

AIUI trains are subsidised in most Western countries, which kind of implies that they are not that
profitable. I was under the impresion that the Japanese were about the only profitable ones, but
that was a while back.

In any case the biggest problem over here now is not the British workperson but the number of tiers
of profit-taking and blame-shifting. If one had set out specifically to design a system that would
end up in paralysis, excessive cost and mass fingerpointing, the privatised rail network is pretty
much what it would look like.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

In message <[email protected]>, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email protected]> writes
>In any case the biggest problem over here now is not the British workperson but the number of tiers
>of profit-taking and blame-shifting. If one had set out specifically to design a system that would
>end up in paralysis, excessive cost and mass fingerpointing, the privatised rail network is pretty
>much what it would look like.

You say that the problem is "the number of tiers of profit-taking". I infer that you mean that the
tiers (in total) are taking out too much profit. So the rail system is, indeed, profitable? If it's
a question of 'over profitability' (leading, I would suppose, to under-investment) then this would
be symptomatic of an inefficient (perhaps monopolistic) market that is being poorly regulated.

Most industries have many tiers of profit-taking and this leads to higher efficiency and better
resource allocation, not lower and poorer.

If rail systems aren't profitable then it would appear to me that there must be some sort of Great
Train Robbery going on all the time. Has anyone seen large numbers of trains being driven in the
direction of Russia? Is there a big shunting yard in Siberia where you can buy stolen trains at
bargain prices?
--
Michael MacClancy