I realise that Tim doesn’t like railways. He’s trotted out the canard that the steering wheel made them obsolete often enough for us to get the message. It didn’t. We get it again today in response to this story where panel members for a radio programme missed their allotted appointment due to a body on the line.
Tim’s reasoning is that this would have not happened if they had been travelling by coach. And that they missed their appointment because of the railways – assuming no other variables.
A coachful of politicians and BBC employees could simply have driven round the body, been more fuel efficient, capable of moving more people per hour per mile of track and been more comfortable.
Bollocks. What happens when there is a road traffic incident on the motorway system? Yes, the police do exactly the same as they do with the rail system; shut the lot and to hell with the travelling public trying to get to their destination. In times gone by, the local signalling inspector’s team would have moved the body, covered it up and waited for the coroner – meanwhile trains would be moving again fairly swiftly, even if only on one line with single line working in place. The railway can no more get trains moving without the say so of the police than can the Highways Agency get a motorway open following an RTI. The police want everything in place while they conduct their investigation just in case there is evidence of foul play. This was exacerbated following an incident a few years back in the Gloucester area where a young man apparently fell from a bridge onto the line and the police assumed that he was a jumper. Subsequent evidence came to light that he had been pushed, so these days they play ultra safe. Anyone who has spent miserable hours stuck in a motorway queue for an accident that happened on the opposite carriageway will recognise the symptom
As for more efficient – well if Tim likes being stuck in a tin box struggling through dense stop-start traffic, who am I to gainsay him? The reality is that for commuting into city centres, the train does so without being stuck in traffic going nowhere fast and the seating – while leaving something to be desired – is more spacious and comfortable than a coach. And on Intercity trains you can always get up and walk to the buffet car. Not sure I’d recommend the produce, mind…
While studies tend to indicate better passenger miles per gallon by road, it’s worth bearing in mind that these reports come with caveats. And efficiency is not just measured by passenger or tonnes per gallon. I’d rather drive on a motorway with fewer trucks playing leapfrog at 56mph – so the same freight travelling behind one train on the rail network suits me just fine. It makes my road journey more efficient.
Far from being obsolete, the rail network offers an alternative to the road and flying for long distance travel and is far, far better for commuting into the traffic choked, clogged centres of modern conurbations. Yes, it is expensive for long distance, which may be a factor in one’s decision making. It’s why I’ll often fly rather than take the train to France. Other times, I’ll take the ferry and drive. But that doesn’t mean that the train is obsolete, far from it – for others, it is an ideal solution. And for a relaxing trip without the obsessive security theatre, the train takes some beating. Unless you take the Eurostar of course – in which case, the ferry avoids all the paranoia. On the subject of domestic flights, I recall a trip back from Edinburgh a few years back. As I was taking the taxi back to the airport the train to Bristol was sitting in Waverley station. The flight was delayed by so much that I caught that same train several hours later at Birmingham International. Perhaps that proves that trains make flying redundant, eh? 👿
If I ever have to go to London, Manchester or Birmingham, I will avoid driving like the proverbial. No, it’s the train every time. Oh, yeah and contrary to the assumptions being made by Tim’s commenters, it’s not some great socialist conspiracy. It’s at times like this when I see such swivel eyed twaddle being peddled as libertarian thought that I start to wonder about my fellow travellers.
——————————————————————
Update: The Englishman responds.
Oh Yes It Did
Look at the figures: – Transport Watch UK
Sigh… I am aware of the figures. I mentioned them in my post (and pointed out that there are caveats). Cost is not merely a monetary thing – unless you consider everything in life by the bottom line. If I want to travel to York from Bristol, for example, the train will get me there more quickly than the car – yes, it will, I’ve done it both ways and the train is way, way quicker. I can relax and work during that time if I so choose. I have to weigh up the cost in money against the saved time. I may decide that the time taken by road is too high a cost. I may decide that the stress of the drive is too high a cost. Consequently, producing raw monetary figures per passenger mile is meaningless. But I said that already – cost is not just about money. Tim is simply repeating his assertion in the hope that if he makes it often enough it will magically become true.
So, no, it didn’t and Tim has failed to provide any evidence that it did.
*It’s also worth pointing out that Transport Watch is a highly biased source, so not really worth taking too much notice of. They advocate converting the railway to road in order improve journey times. Given that the rail has its own infrastructure independent of roads and vehicles are time-tabled and their journeys controlled by an outside system to keep them to time and separate from each other, they can reach three-figure speeds unobtainable with disparate vehicles on a crowded road system. It’s an absurd proposal that only the rabidly anti-rail lobby could come up with and is worthy only of ridicule. If this is the best they can do, I don’t recommend anyone take them too seriously.
Join the club.
I was thinking of your recent comments when I wrote that 😉
Sorry, commented in error.
I could easily drive to work – and when c2c is having one of its ‘moments’, I sometimes regret not doing so.
But it’d be more expensive, I wouldn’t be able to have a drink and lunchtime and as you point out, in the event of a snarl-up on the A13, I’d still be stuck (or taking the long way round) in any case. Plus I couldn’t read on the way!
Commuting by motorcycle is quick, cheap and efficient, delays are very rare, and you don’t have to put up with other people’s BO and strange habits. Highly recommended.
Yes, well, motorcycle is always my first option for commuting. But I won’t ride in London.
Good post, there are some very silly knee jerk prejudices amongst libertarians that can rival the left for daftness. Opposition to railways because they are somehow deemed socialist is one of them. I came across one of these half wits the other day who was ranting on about the noise of the wheels on the Bakerloo line being down to the tube and its staff being “communist”, I couldn’t be bothered to argue with him. “Swivel eyed” is a good description of this sort of thing and with Anna Racoon’s recent revelations about the Libertarian Party I’m glad I’ve never been tempted to join any of these fringe groupings who are, it seems, every bit as bonkers as the far left.
“I was thinking of your recent comments when I wrote that”
I have no idea to what you refer, sir. Cough. (Don’t read Liberal Conspiracy for a while, especially if I’m the author).
Well he’d be in his element here as the railway is shut (both up and down lines) due to so called ‘essential repairs’ (the reality is a lack of planned maintenance. On a railway who’d have thought?) so the service has been replaced by buses… which are constantly delayed by ‘essential improvements’ to the only major road in the area which the buses have to use and was ‘upgraded’ just eighteen months ago?
When did joined up thinking become a lost art?
I was trying to put my finger on what it was that I found so repugnant about Tim’s comments. The idea that a coach driver would simply drive around a dead body and carry on is unbelievably cold blooded. And it’s that callous indifference; the price of everything and value of nothing mentality that irks. Quite apart from the sheer absurdity of plucking one case out of the ether and attempting to use it to prove a prejudice and assuming that bottom line is the only measure of efficiency.
Ah, yes, the old bus replacement service…
There was a time – not so very long ago when one line would be kept open and the service would be worked via the remaining open line using single line working. This was planned months in advance. Renewals work still is. There came a point when it was all too difficult to use single line working – and a degree of elfensafety crept into the equation. Hence; all lines closed and a replacement bus service.
Part of the reason for the lack of single line working these days is that Network Rail just don’t have enough staff available. In the past various grades would have been utillised for handsignalling work but now these people work for the train operating companies. One of the unintended ( I assume ) consequences of the hopelessly botched privatisation process.
Bill:
How do you know the line closure is due to lack of planned maintenance ?
Just like the major scrapyard fire on the M1 which then caused loads of delays at Heathrow and with football fans.
Indeed so. It used to be relief signallers such as me who carried out handsigalling and pilotman duties. These days they aren’t even bothering to train contractors for the handsignalling duties as they only tend to work in possessions.
You made a comment about the comfort of the seats on a train, however:
The Greenline buses into London have 2 + 2 forward facing seating, with arm rests and more than sufficient leg room – London Midland’s new trains have 3 + 2 forward and back facing seating with restricted leg room (in 1st Class it is 2 + 2 but the leg room is still poor, and the fare is 50% higher than Standard).
The seats on a Ryanair 737 are wider than on a Virgin Pendolino, have more leg room and are not squashed against the body-side (and there is more room in the luggage rack (aka overhead lockers).
Also the other poster is plainly ignorant and stupid.
Ther is a very good reason you are safer in a train than in your own home, and why 3000+ people are killed (never mind the injured and maimed) on the roads every year ….
The whole debate is bizarre.
Which means of transport is best depends on lots of variables, like starting and finishing point, how many in the party, do you want to book in advance, are you transporting a lot of stuff etc etc.
Clearly railway is unbeatable for commuting in larger conurbations; car travel is best for town to town travel in most of the countryside; and if you want to get to Australia in a hurry, then it’s got to be aeroplane etc etc.
Indeed so, which was the thrust of my point.
If Tim doesn’t like rail, that’s fine. I would avoid coach travel wherever possible, but I wouldn’t suggest that it isn’t a viable means of getting from A to B relatively quickly for a low cost.
This incident does not tell us that rail travel is obsolete as it could just as easily have disrupted road travel leading to the same outcome. It does tell us that the police can be over cautious. As an attempt to justify Tim’s prejudices, it’s a pretty massive fail.
As for the comfort factor, this is a variable depending on one’s own stature. I’ve travelled on a Pendolino and Ryanair’s Boeings. I prefer the former for comfort as it isn’t just about legroom – and I agree, both are limited. Urban commuter trains offer seats that face each other with masses of legroom and are far more comfortable for me than the intercity stock. Personally I find coaches claustrophobic and the seats uncomfortable.
MW is right in that there is no “best” form of transport, but rail is certainly one of the better options if circumstances allow. It would certainly be my first choice if there was no great advantage to any other option.
I like driving, both from the self-determination (up to a point) aspect of the situation and the convenience of going door to door. However, it’s patently not always the better mode of transport when travelling to central London, for instance.
Air travel used to be tolerable to good, but now it’s a complete fucking nightmare. I do it, but only out of necessity. There’s no pleasure in it anymore.
Trains are great. I used to get the train to school. It was a steam locomotive, and when you leaned out the window, you’d get this smell of coal, and smoke and smuts in your eyes. It was wonderful!
I’ve travelled on trains in a lot of different countries, and always, errm, well, if not enjoyed it, at least had a memorable experience!
Yes, long may trains be clackety-clacking across the countries of the world.
MW is indeed right. What Tim and his commenters have missed is that “cost” does not always apply to money. If I want to travel to Manchester, York or London I can do it more quickly by rail and if I want to can use the time to work. My time is worth more to me than the monetary cost of the ticket. It’s a simple enough economic equation, but there is a certain brand of vulgar libertarianism that sees everything in terms of monetary cost. These people seem to know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
Converting railways to roads is a policy that could only be advocated by people who know little if anything about railways. They don’t seem to realise that railways are generally a lot narrower than even dual carriageways let alone motorways, so there would need to be extra land purchased alongside the routes, in urban areas this would involve quite a lot of demolition. There would also be bridges to widen and tunnels to widen or by-pass, the cost would probably be prohibitive. If anyone really needs convincing of the folly of this idea they should take a look at the Cambridge – St. Ives guided busway, built on a closed railway, years late and massively over budget.
In fact let’s do the conversion in reverse, end the controversy about the proposed route of High Speed 2 and convert the M40 to a railway !
Transport Watch seems to think that it isn’t a problem because they believe railways are wide enough. Sure, some of the multi-track sections, but much of the Western is two track – and bridges and tunnels would need to be remodelled. You also make a serious point about late and over-budget.
Looking at Transport Watch’s website, they are anything but unbiased.
I’d like to see Transport Watch convincing anyone that converting the railways of the South East to roads would either be feasible or reduce journey times. Tunnels everywhere, heavily urbanised, god knows how many level crossings ( think of all the extra lights or roundabouts ! ). That’s before we get on to the cost of widening the loading gauge of ex South Eastern & Chatham Railway routes ( even more restricted than most British railways ).
Suggestion – if you’ve got the time.
Go over to Tim’s site, and tell the rotating-heads there a few facts.
Could be fun
Greg, I was already putting together along response over there when your comment came in. I’ve also put a more detailed response up here.