Controversial railway opinions (without a firm foundation in logic..)

[JamieL]

It matters because the intermediate passengers won't be on that train and thus it'll be quieter.

Well they will though won't they? If the plan is to run a combined train up to Carlisle and then split into Edinburgh and Glasgow portions, everyone is travelling on the same train. With Golborne gone, it is extremely unlikely that the HS2 services won't now stop at Warrington and Wigan. So everyone currently embarking at Glasgow will still be embarking on the same train. Not that I think the many people travel Glasgow to Warrington.

 

[Krokodil]

I am not sure that matters? If the trains are fairly full now when leaving GLC, how is reducing 100+ seats from Glasgow to Carlisle going to improve the experience for passengers. 'Don't worry, you'll only have to stand for an hour' isn't the best marketing slogan to sell a brand new multi-£billion railway to its Scottish customers.

Because anyone travelling to Carlisle/Preston will have 1.5 trains per hour instead of the 1.25 currently available. That Birmingham to Scotland service could be portion-worked to provide an hourly service to both cities is demand warrants it. Anyone travelling to the Lakes/Lancaster/Wigan from Scotland will be pushed towards the Birmingham service by default too.

My passenger capacity figure was based on a 7x26m 807, but they will probably go with 8x25m. That should up the capacity to 500 or so.

Well they will though won't they? If the plan is to run a combined train up to Carlisle and then split into Edinburgh and Glasgow portions, everyone is travelling on the same train. With Golborne gone, it is extremely unlikely that the HS2 services won't now stop at Warrington and Wigan.

Why? The trains weren't even planned to stop at Wigan or Lancaster, even though they would pass through.

Not that I think the many people travel Glasgow to Warrington.

Warrington acts as an interchange for Cheshire and North Wales. I shall have to ask a Northern guard how many Glasgow passengers they see, because the TfW services certainly bring plenty of Edinburgh passengers to/from Warrington.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

If ASLEF keep striking they should sack all the train drivers and bring in driverless trains on all routes. *









* Not my opinion, I must stress, but it's a view that regularly gets expressed by people who don't know anything about the railways on BBC News Have Your Say threads.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Because anyone travelling to Carlisle/Preston will have 1.5 trains per hour instead of the 1.25 currently available. That Birmingham to Scotland service could be portion-worked to provide an hourly service to both cities is demand warrants it. Anyone travelling to the Lakes/Lancaster/Wigan from Scotland will be pushed towards the Birmingham service by default too.

The big loser is Penrith which would lose the London service with no real replacement. Oxenholme could and should be solved by extending the branch shuttle back to an hourly Lancaster service (though that would require modifications to Oxenholme station to allow a train to enter and leave the branch at the same time). There's nothing really saying you have to change at Oxenholme for London, Lancaster is fine too.

 

[D6130]

Oxenholme could and should be solved by extending the branch shuttle back to an hourly Lancaster service (though that would require modifications to Oxenholme station to allow a train to enter and leave the branch at the same time). There's nothing really saying you have to change at Oxenholme for London, Lancaster is fine too.

If anything, Lancaster would be a much better interchange point in the Southbound direction. Provided that the Windermere trains were able to use platform 5, it would be a much easier cross-platform connection instead of having to traipse under the subway from 3 to 1 at Oxenholme. However, in the Northbound direction it would be a completely different kettle of fish.

 

[py_megapixel]

If ASLEF keep striking they should sack all the train drivers and bring in driverless trains on all routes. *









* Not my opinion, I must stress, but it's a view that regularly gets expressed by people who don't know anything about the railways on BBC News Have Your Say threads.

Not quite the same, but I do think that short, frequently-stopping routes should be converted to light rail where there is potential to improve the service by doing so. This could take the form of Oldham-style diversions onto the street to get rail into town centres where the current station is awkwardly positioned, a frequency increase, or simply being able to modernise/electrify more cost-effectively. There is no point in having the prestige some people associate with a heavy rail service if it's worse at actually providing public transport than light rail would be along a similar alignment.

Obviously the fares should be integrated with both mainline rail and local buses if this happens.

I would say, on the contrary, that railway lines in this country should not be converted to bus routes, because even where that would on paper be better, it would be ruined because in Britain we simply don't know, and refuse to learn, how to run a bus service properly. Lack of timetable or fare integration with other modes, lack of live information, poor reliability, low-quality vehicles... the list goes on.

 

[daodao]

Not quite the same, but I do think that short, frequently-stopping routes should be converted to light rail where there is potential to improve the service by doing so. This could take the form of Oldham-style diversions onto the street to get rail into town centres where the current station is awkwardly positioned, a frequency increase, or simply being able to modernise/electrify more cost-effectively. There is no point in having the prestige some people associate with a heavy rail service if it's worse at actually providing public transport than light rail would be along a similar alignment.

And the ideal candidate for this is the Manchester Piccadilly-Brinnington-Rose Hill route, but TfGM show no alacrity in progressing this conversion.

 

[PacerTrain142]

Not quite the same, but I do think that short, frequently-stopping routes should be converted to light rail where there is potential to improve the service by doing so. This could take the form of Oldham-style diversions onto the street to get rail into town centres where the current station is awkwardly positioned, a frequency increase, or simply being able to modernise/electrify more cost-effectively. There is no point in having the prestige some people associate with a heavy rail service if it's worse at actually providing public transport than light rail would be along a similar alignment.

Obviously the fares should be integrated with both mainline rail and local buses if this happens.

I would say, on the contrary, that railway lines in this country should not be converted to bus routes, because even where that would on paper be better, it would be ruined because in Britain we simply don't know, and refuse to learn, how to run a bus service properly. Lack of timetable or fare integration with other modes, lack of live information, poor reliability, low-quality vehicles... the list goes on.

I think Colne to Preston would be a good candidate for light rail because the service is lightly used, has frequent stops and fairly low speed limits. They could add a few more intermediate stops and improve the service frequency (currently hourly) too. And extend the line to Skipton as well to provide easy access to Yorkshire and Leeds.

Looe to Liskard, St Erth to St Ives and Severn Beach to Bristol Temple Meads would also be good candidates.

 

[willgreen]

I think Colne to Preston would be a good candidate for light rail because the service is lightly used, has frequent stops and fairly low speed limits. They could add a few more intermediate stops and improve the service frequency (currently hourly) too. And extend the line to Skipton as well to provide easy access to Yorkshire and Leeds.

An extension to Skipton would have infrequent stops (there’s basically nothing in between) and a higher speed limit (if you wanted anyone to use it ) - I don’t think light rail on the Colne branch would be at all compatible with reopening to Skipton, although it would probably be a fair bit more useful.

 

[YourMum666]

I don’t know if this counts as a hot take, but there should be a direct Euston - Edinburgh service on the WCML

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don’t know if this counts as a hot take, but there should be a direct Euston - Edinburgh service on the WCML

There is.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

There is.

There always was (in planning terms) from PUG2 and the early days of Virgin.......

 

[Bletchleyite]

There always was (in planning terms) from PUG2 and the early days of Virgin.......

Up the Trent?

The one that does exist is of course via Brum.

 

[Falcon1200]

Up the Trent?

There is (usually) one of those too, albeit only once a night.....

 

[YourMum666]

There is.

I’m talking about from avanti, and via the Trent valley, but much like the Glasgow trains where they run non stop till Warrington

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Up the Trent?

The one that does exist is of course via Brum.

In the spirit of private sector competition , it was a deliberate "fast"Euston - Edinburgh against the East Coast..........(not counting of course XC's offer)

 

[urbophile]

An extension to Skipton would have infrequent stops (there’s basically nothing in between) and a higher speed limit (if you wanted anyone to use it ) - I don’t think light rail on the Colne branch would be at all compatible with reopening to Skipton, although it would probably be a fair bit more useful.

If it were extended to Skipton it would once again become part of a through route (even if there were few through trains) between the NW and the NE. Depends what you mean by light rail I suppose: something like a tram train, using heavy rail infrastructure, might work. But downgrading the whole line to a tramway would be a mistake.
Colne to Skipton is not across desolate moorland wastes; it's only a few miles between settlements, albeit more rural than south of Colne. One intermediate station (Earby/Barlick Parkway) would suffice.

 

[willgreen]

If it were extended to Skipton it would once again become part of a through route (even if there were few through trains) between the NW and the NE. Depends what you mean by light rail I suppose: something like a tram train, using heavy rail infrastructure, might work. But downgrading the whole line to a tramway would be a mistake.
Colne to Skipton is not across desolate moorland wastes; it's only a few miles between settlements, albeit more rural than south of Colne. One intermediate station (Earby/Barlick Parkway) would suffice.

I suppose what I meant was that the rationale for Colne-Skipton is usually long-distance traffic - if you're reopening that section you might as well do it heavy rail (although IMHO the business case is poor, East Lancashire already has an hourly link to West Yorks via the Calder Valley). The poster I was initially replying to suggested simultaneously that the line should be converted to light rail, and also that it should be extended to Skipton. You couldn't do both unless you had a) a ridiculously large budget or b) were willing to give up through running to Leeds. The whole idea is a non starter anyway I suppose!

 

[CaptainHaddock]

Anyone advocating the return of Pacers to the UK rail network should be made to live on one for a year first!

And it would have to be one with all the classic Pacer faults as well, ie toilets out of order, windows that only open in winter and heaters that only work in summer!

 

[py_megapixel]

Anyone advocating the return of Pacers to the UK rail network should be made to live on one for a year first!

And it would have to be one with all the classic Pacer faults as well, ie toilets out of order, windows that only open in winter and heaters that only work in summer!

The benches would make a better bed than most train seating though. Every cloud has a silver lining...

 

[PacerTrain142]

Anyone advocating the return of Pacers to the UK rail network should be made to live on one for a year first!

And it would have to be one with all the classic Pacer faults as well, ie toilets out of order, windows that only open in winter and heaters that only work in summer!

Tbh, the class 156’s and 150’s actually seem louder than the pacers, especially when all the windows are open. They are almost as old as the pacers and they aren’t any faster. Never known a pacer toilet to be out of order but been on some sprinter trains where the toilets have been out of order. Never known the windows to not open or the heating on in summer on a pacer. Went on a pacer once on a cold March night with no heating on though.

 

[GWVillager]

The benches would make a better bed than most train seating though. Every cloud has a silver lining...

Unfortunately the pacers aren’t a cloud!

 

[D6130]

Unfortunately the pacers aren’t a cloud!

Unfortunately the pacers aren’t a cloud!

True.....but they did emit clouds of black fumes!

 

[jfowkes]

Here's one: Anyone who mispronounces it "St. Pancreas" should be, at a minimum, fined.

 

[D6130]

U

Here's one: Anyone who mispronounces it "St. Pancreas" should be, at a minimum, fined.

 

[yorksrob]

Here's one: Anyone who mispronounces it "St. Pancreas" should be, at a minimum, fined.

But that's the correct spelling/pronunciation !

 

[D6130]

Only if you believe your autocorrect system !

 

[yorksrob]

Only if you believe your autocorrect system !

I am my own autocorrect

 

[bussnapperwm]

Here's one: Anyone who mispronounces it "St. Pancreas" should be, at a minimum, fined.

What about St Pancakes?

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

What about St Pancakes?

Even worse.