Silly in the snow

No, it's not.

 

Can you identify him? You'd have a tough job.

Sorry, but you're pontificating on something about which you know, as
you've just proved, very little.

I'd take Corfield's word on this any day. There are some people on ukrm
with whom you don't argue on certain topics - Sweller on anything
political, Ivan on science, and Corfield on railways.

 

In charge of what? The track and signals are controlled by Network Rail
bu the trains are controlled by the Train Operating Companies forming
ATOC. All of this is overseen by the legendarily toothless SRA.

There is nobody 'in charge' which is half the problem. Every party
points the finger at somebody else.

 

Bullshit.
And I prove it with the SNCF own stats for my region:

url:http://www.ter-sncf.com/Images/Aquitaine/Tridion/nov%
202009_tcm11-26036.pdf

Worse, the SNCF does not use the number of trains that should have run on
a given day but those that really started: the cancelled trains are
computed as "on time"...

 

Yes, usually.

Quite surreal.

 

Makes sense in a strange way.
If they never left, they can't be late.

 

"Sheep have 'forgotten how to cope with snow'"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...eep-have-forgotten-how-to-cope-with-snow.html

--
Ivan Reid, School of Engineering & Design, _____________ CMS Collaboration,
Brunel University. Ivan.Reid@[brunel.ac.uk|cern.ch] Room 40-1-B12, CERN
GSX600F, RG250WD "You Porsche. Me pass!" DoD #484 JKLO#003, 005
WP7# 3000 LC Unit #2368 (tinlc) UKMC#00009 BOTAFOT#16 UKRMMA#7 (Hon)
KotPT -- "for stupidity above and beyond the call of duty".

 

took a blunt brush and painted...

Err, that is Des you're talking to there. New around here are you?

 

Des is talking bollocks again. Line C is also a bloody nightmare as are
a lot of the RER lines and the Transilien. SWMBO was up the creek recently
when a numpty crashed into a block of concrete which then fell onto the rails
and caused two weeks worth of hassle (the SNCF had promised to repair it within
three working days).

Even French trains get affected by snow (witnessed recently when I dropped
off the SiL at Austerlitz and the last 12 trains were delayed from parting
from 30 mins up.

Every time I travel back from Lyon by TGV, the trains are _always_ delayed
getting into Paris.

The service is good, but by no means 99% good.

 

No need, that's a pretty good summary.

Personally, I don't have too great a problem with the DfT. I'd rather
they actually take the whole shooting match off the franchises (and FOCs)
and direct it as an integrated whole.

 

LUL is pretty phenomenal when you consider the sheer volume of people
moved. The problem now is not so much the trains but the physical
limitations of the stations themselves.

Footfall is the next big capacity problem facing both the 'overground'
and LUL.

 

I travel on the railways nearly every day - both long distance and the
usual commute and that is simply not my experience.

Under-investment yes, too much profiteering yes, but not biblically crap.

I very rarely stand but it's worth bearing in mind the sheer numbers of
people shifted on a daily basis.

The reason people commute such long distance is another question
altogether...

 

And maybe call it something snappy like British Rail?

 

The railway network and the timetabling are gloriously complex but I guess
one can sit a wonderful team of experts down to design a working system.
Then decide what it is going to cost. How do you insulate a working system
from petty politics and changing politics. How do you tie future
governments into the required budget. How do you build in the flexibility
to adapt to change in a positive affordable manner.

A Not for Profit company in public/private ownership perhaps?

Has the public auditor ever tried to calculate the extra cost of the
complexity and bureaucracy in the current system againt an alternative
model?

 

Saved me a fair bit of typing.

Crudely the problem boils down to public finances. Road infrastructure
expenditure is accounted as investment whereas railway is counted as
subsidy.

Until that playing field is levelled the madness will continue.

 

It is a quite bizzarely complex issue, and add in the enormous hurdles in
the way of building new routes. The network only seems to be around 50% of
what could be used in terms of passenger and freight capacity and
geographical coverage.

Perhaps start with the freight capacity and coverage. One reason being the
costs of maintenance of the road network, which is quite well designed for
moving people around, in relative terms. I've a friend at Mouchel who is one
of the principal pavement engineers and was told recently wear calculations
are based on freight and weather. Cars make marginal extra impact.

Oh well, as against what it cost pre Thatcher and what some of the other
countries spend now per freight ton and passenger, per mile. ICBW but I
expect the costs of the legal and administrative complexity are not small.

 

Road users pay more in VED tax than the Exchequer spends on roads I think so
one can see where that kind of thinking might come from.
If I was asked to contribute 50% more VED to to fund a 20 year plan to take
a significant portion of HGV freight off the roads I'd be willing enough.
Don't you think that specific taxation taken from users of transport
infrastructure should all be used for said infrastructure though?

 

Well it might need a redesign of the hub and spoke freight model but a great
deal of product is moved like that anyway, is it not?

 

I think this is fair, especially the 'fly by night' comment.

 

It's worth noting that even though studs are illegal over here you can
buy them from touratech if you feel the need to behave badly.