• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

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

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
39,102
Location
Yorks
Couldn't agree more.

Say you wanted to go to the coast for a day during the latter part of the BR era.

If you lived in Kent, as an example, you would have had frequent, likely half hourly services of eight or even twelve carriages to a range of destinations.

If you lived in Yorkshire and wanted to go to the coast, you might have an hourly service if lucky, or possibly an irregular timetable. Possibly a two carriage DMU with bus seats. Yes, you might get an occasional loco hauled which would at least have a mk1. Yes, BR began to address this with the excellent 158's for example, but frequency and capacity would still have lagged most of the Southern. And that's if you wanted to go somewhere like Scarborough which hadn't had its service heavily destroyed in the cuts. If you wanted to go to Whitby you were even worse off.

I know which I would consider the better service.
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Shaw S Hunter

Established Member
Joined
21 Apr 2016
Messages
2,954
Location
Sunny South Lancs
By the time we get to Portsmouth we have a ~30 minute advantage, which is going to kill the Portsmouth indirect service by Eastleigh, and probably cut the overall frequency on the Portsmouth Direct Line by one (for two remaining tph).
So that's now a net saving of 14.
No no, that PDL path gets re-used for the re-opened Guildford-Cranleigh line service, a scheme whose cost wouldn't even be noticed when compared to your Great Southern Shinkansen.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,765
That last sentence is an utter joke. Southern were notorious for prolonged production and operation of obsolescent if not downright obsolete old junk. For example the EPB had been surpassed by EMUs with LMS and LNER with, shock horror, sliding doors and other modern features in the late 30s. Despite that they carried on producing the same old slamdoor rubbish into the late 50s. Worse still the cause of "standardisation" meant that variants were inflicted countrywide
Depending on your definitions, they produced "slamdoor rubbish" into the 1970s!
Then again, so did everyone else (HST and loco hauled stock!)

Meanwhile they operated a high intensity service that got people where they wanted to go when they wanted to go, unlike other regions.
A multiple unit having sliding doors will be no help if it doesn't arrive!

EDIT:
Also the primary feature of the EPB was electro-pneumatic braking, was that on the LNER or LMS in the 1930s?
I am not aware of it being so.
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,596
At least slam doors meant you could get out of the train the same hour you arrived.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,736
Location
Redcar
I know which I would consider the better service.
Though much of that is down the Southern region being given priority due to the highly dense and lucrative commuter market (easier to make the justification to invest in rolling stock and more services) compared to the North with its lower density and less lucrative market of commuters...
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
39,102
Location
Yorks
Though much of that is down the Southern region being given priority due to the highly dense and lucrative commuter market (easier to make the justification to invest in rolling stock and more services) compared to the North with its lower density and less lucrative market of commuters...

To a degree. Although the Southern has traditionally had to use its rolling stock as long as other regions (albeit very comfortable, high quality rolling stock).
 
Last edited:

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
6,192
Depending on your definitions, they produced "slamdoor rubbish" into the 1970s!
Then again, so did everyone else (HST and loco hauled stock!)

Meanwhile they operated a high intensity service that got people where they wanted to go when they wanted to go, unlike other regions.
A multiple unit having sliding doors will be no help if it doesn't arrive!

EDIT:
Also the primary feature of the EPB was electro-pneumatic braking, was that on the LNER or LMS in the 1930s?
I am not aware of it being so.
Re your edit, l am no expert by any means (and am highly conscious that some on this forum actually are) but believe that Southern were the first mainline trains in the UK to use electropneumatic braking albeit that London Underground had been doing so since the late 1920s.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
39,102
Location
Yorks
Only on main line stock; The EMUs that worked my line for over 30 years, Classes 303 and 311, had no toilets at all. Whereas all trains on the route now do.

What line was that out of interest ? I don't have much experience of the new stock.
 

eldomtom2

On Moderation
Joined
6 Oct 2018
Messages
1,547
Though much of that is down the Southern region being given priority due to the highly dense and lucrative commuter market (easier to make the justification to invest in rolling stock and more services) compared to the North with its lower density and less lucrative market of commuters...
Regular services are a different thing from frequent services.
 

Ken H

On Moderation
Joined
11 Nov 2018
Messages
6,318
Location
N Yorks
Of course the poor service provided by BR in the north gave the bus boys an open target. Look at the bus timetables from Leeds/Bradford to Ilkley, Keighley and Skipton. Then they wired the Aire triangle and killed off the buses. No buses from Bradford to Wharfedale today. And Transdev have to grab every passenger in Leeds because the through traffic has waned.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,765
No no, that PDL path gets re-used for the re-opened Guildford-Cranleigh line service, a scheme whose cost wouldn't even be noticed when compared to your Great Southern Shinkansen.
Well people could distirbute the freed paths however they want, although I think the big opportunity is providing the breathing space to replan the services in the former Southern Region almost from scratch.
Indeed you could probably make an argument for using the opportunity to transfer the service groups chalked up for Crossrail 2 to Victoria in anticipation.

It probably synergises very well with projects like Crossrail 2 or the Bakerloo line extension, but I think its probably worth it regardless.
 

TrainBoy98

Member
Joined
19 Mar 2012
Messages
446
Location
Worthing
Well people could distirbute the freed paths however they want, although I think the big opportunity is providing the breathing space to replan the services in the former Southern Region almost from scratch.
Indeed you could probably make an argument for using the opportunity to transfer the service groups chalked up for Crossrail 2 to Victoria in anticipation.

It probably synergises very well with projects like Crossrail 2 or the Bakerloo line extension, but I think its probably worth it regardless.
How much are we thinking to build the Shinkansen? And would tickets need an additional fee for the privilege? If so, you'll likely have to keep a lot of the services because the price differential may put lots off, especially if their trip will now require a change.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,765
How much are we thinking to build the Shinkansen? And would tickets need an additional fee for the privilege? If so, you'll likely have to keep a lot of the services because the price differential may put lots off, especially if their trip will now require a change.
The whole point would be to reduce the need for services on the conventional railway, so the fares would be set equal to the conventional services or less.

No point running two half empty railways, given the state pays for it all!

As for price, its about 210km or so. So comparable to Phase 1, but with a lot more tunnel.
The price probably depends on if they manage to get British infrastructure spending cost growth under control.

EDIT:
The single stopping pattern is probably a big help in keeping costs down, especially for stations.
Although an ETCS Hybrid Level 3 solution should be able to manage 24tph at 300kph, assuming enough platforms were available, I am only suggesting 10-12tph to start.

Which means a single platform in each direction is potentially achievable at the intermediate stations, at least to start with.
Assuming we can get tunnels large enough to mitigate the aerodynamic issues, it might even be possible to build Barcelona Metro style stacked stations with the platforms inside the tunnel bore.
With that could add a second pair of platforms in another tunnel if demand ever requires it, and everyone will be boarding the first train they see anyway.
 
Last edited:

Falcon1200

Established Member
Joined
14 Jun 2021
Messages
3,677
Location
Neilston, East Renfrewshire
What line was that out of interest ? I don't have much experience of the new stock.

My local line is Glasgow Central/Neilston, where the off-peak service is now entirely 4-car Class 380 sets, with other types, ie 318 and 320, being used in the peaks. But every Scotrail EMU type in use now has toilets, whereas the Class 303, 311 and 314 sets did not; Class 318 introduced in 1986 for the Ayrshire electrification were the first to offer this facility. Only with the withdrawal of Class 314 in 2019 did toiletless EMUs cease running in Scotland.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,336
By the time we get to Portsmouth we have a ~30 minute advantage, which is going to kill the Portsmouth indirect service by Eastleigh, and probably cut the overall frequency on the Portsmouth Direct Line by one (for two remaining tph).
So that's now a net saving of 14.
Moving onto Southampton the journey time saving is only 6 minutes, although 10tph vs 3 fast tph means that I would expect virtually everyone to switch regardless. I reckon you could probably cut it to two fast-ish trains per hour to Southampton for a reduction of one. Noone is going to take the SWML for London-Bournemouth because the journey time advantage is crushing again.

On the SWML I would do the following:

Shorten the Portsmouth direct service to start from Guildford or Petersfield, as there's still likely to be demand from those places.

The Portsmouth indirect isn't really about Portsmouth to London travel, but rather to provide a wider range of places served, as such it'll likely be kept.

Southampton switch the Southampton to Basingstoke part of the path to be a XC service so there's 2tph with of Basingstoke. Then the Basingstoke part of the service is used to create a new Salisbury to London service calling at all stops Salisbury to Basingstoke, Farnborough, Woking, London Waterloo.

This may need a bit of a recast to get the paths to work, especially for XC. For example switching the Southampton Winchester service to be the path for XC. However using the fast Weymouth path towards London it would run just behind the Exeter service (so giving a near 30 minute gap for the minor stations on the WofE line).

Given it needs to be on the fast line having just left Farnborough at xy:13 (not least to get out of the way of the following Basingstoke stopper) it would (without a stop) be at Basingstoke at xx:57, and Salisbury at xx:15 however the Exeter is xx:20 at Salisbury and a xx:55 arrival at Basingstoke, so the new service it would need to be slowed down, probably the safest thing to do would be to have a prolonged stop at Basingstoke (xx52 arrival at Basingstoke and xx:10 at Salisbury).
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
39,102
Location
Yorks
My local line is Glasgow Central/Neilston, where the off-peak service is now entirely 4-car Class 380 sets, with other types, ie 318 and 320, being used in the peaks. But every Scotrail EMU type in use now has toilets, whereas the Class 303, 311 and 314 sets did not; Class 318 introduced in 1986 for the Ayrshire electrification were the first to offer this facility. Only with the withdrawal of Class 314 in 2019 did toiletless EMUs cease running in Scotland.

Ah cheers. My knowledge of the Glasgow area is limited. At least things are moving in the right direction there !
 

317 forever

Established Member
Joined
21 Aug 2010
Messages
2,592
Location
North West
Having London Overground trains terminating at New Cross is silly. They should either continue into south east London - to Hayes, Orpington or Dartford (not via Abbey Wood as they have Thameslink and Elizabeth Line) - or stop serving New Cross altogether.
 

cle

Established Member
Joined
17 Nov 2010
Messages
4,045
Having London Overground trains terminating at New Cross is silly. They should either continue into south east London - to Hayes, Orpington or Dartford (not via Abbey Wood as they have Thameslink and Elizabeth Line) - or stop serving New Cross altogether.
They don't take up a path on that network. If they extended, you might see somewhere have to drop a London Bridge - xxx service.

Also it creates 4tph which show up at Surrey Quays relatively quiet, (better for stock # also) - vs the others which are slammed. If anything, it would be great to turn 6tph there - and have it more of a metro hub into SE services (if more called).
 

PGAT

Established Member
Joined
13 Apr 2022
Messages
1,470
Location
Selhurst
Having London Overground trains terminating at New Cross is silly. They should either continue into south east London - to Hayes, Orpington or Dartford (not via Abbey Wood as they have Thameslink and Elizabeth Line) - or stop serving New Cross altogether.
It's a glorified Surrey Quays turnback siding
 

BogiePicker

Member
Joined
29 Dec 2020
Messages
34
Location
Leeds
Talgo have such a product already, and it goes faster than 140mph.
Really? I thought the HSFV1 developed by Wickens was basically a long wheelbase bogie with two axles at each end. If you're referring to the 'Pendular' design, it is radically different. A shared wheel at each corner, and predates the Wickens design by decades.
 

RIP Class 319s

New Member
Joined
29 Dec 2023
Messages
1
Location
Milton keynes
My unpopular opinion: Pacers really weren’t that bad for branch line use - the problem was that they were used on services that they weren’t designed for such as multiple hour treks between cities.
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
6,192
My unpopular opinion: Pacers really weren’t that bad for branch line use - the problem was that they were used on services that they weren’t designed for such as multiple hour treks between cities.
It was the usual any train is better than no train routine.
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,596
My unpopular opinion: Pacers really weren’t that bad for branch line use - the problem was that they were used on services that they weren’t designed for such as multiple hour treks between cities.
With bus seats and the big windows they were fantastic for sightseeing on the Exeter-Torquay run.
 

Krokodil

Established Member
Joined
23 Jan 2023
Messages
2,686
Location
Wales
My unpopular opinion: Pacers really weren’t that bad for branch line use - the problem was that they were used on services that they weren’t designed for such as multiple hour treks between cities.
They were banned from quite a lot of branch lines, they couldn't cope with the tight curves. By the time they had been modified enough to work reliably(ish - still the odd cardan shaft falling off) on the remaining lines they were cleared for, they were no cheaper to manufacture than 150s were.
 

BogiePicker

Member
Joined
29 Dec 2020
Messages
34
Location
Leeds
I ran some estimates for a South Coast Shinkansen, stopping all stations:
StationTime (min)Current time (min)Advantage
Waterloo0N/AN/A
Clapham Junction781
Gatwick Airport20299
Brighton335825
Littlehampton45105*60
Portsmouth and Southsea5887*29
Southampton Central69756
Bournemouth8210624
This assumes 60 seconds of dwell at all stations, using exemplar stations on the Tokaido-Sanyo Shinkansen with similar spacings to the spacings here. Top speed is effectively ~285-300km/h as a result.

Clearly the Brighton Main line is the main beneficiary, especially for Brighton. Gatwick is less spectacular but given that this would be ~10tph at this running time, it almost certainly thrashes the Gatwick Express et al. This likely means major service reductions are practical, for example, from the 8tph to each of Thameslink and Victoria to 4tph to Thameslink. Which would be a net saving of 12. Presumably you'd rejigg everything to use up the 4tph but the details of a total recast of services to the south coast is out of scope at this time.

Arun Valley line is probably reduced to a shuttle between Littlehampton and the Airport, and the Coastways take on new importance for moving passengers to the Shinkansen stations. Gatwick Airport and Brighton have 60% of entries/exits on the BML south of East Croydon.

By the time we get to Portsmouth we have a ~30 minute advantage, which is going to kill the Portsmouth indirect service by Eastleigh, and probably cut the overall frequency on the Portsmouth Direct Line by one (for two remaining tph).
So that's now a net saving of 14.
Moving onto Southampton the journey time saving is only 6 minutes, although 10tph vs 3 fast tph means that I would expect virtually everyone to switch regardless. I reckon you could probably cut it to two fast-ish trains per hour to Southampton for a reduction of one. Noone is going to take the SWML for London-Bournemouth because the journey time advantage is crushing again.

So I would make that a net reduction of 15 trains per hour into London. Mostly on theBrighton Main Line but I think significant cuts elsewhere are achievable.

A lot of traffic at the likes of Winchester or Petersfield is likely to end up in a situation where optimum routings will vary wildly based on the time of the hour. If the southbound train is coming soon it will be faster to double back over the Shinkansen, whereas if the northbound train arrives earlier it will be faster to head direct. That rather challenges the simplistic frequency estimate but its really hard to do a better analysis without properly designing a timetable.

15 trains per hour is roughly equivalent to the off-peak service out of the Southern side of Victoria, so scrubbing that much demand is likely to allow major changes in central London.
Would be a very expensive ~210km long line to build, but even using Series 800 Shinkansen seating (2+2 and 1.1m of seat pitch!) would still allow 10+tph of 1100 seats and plenty of standing room. Each seat width and the gangway width could each be ~13.8cm greater than in the Class 800.
Interesting.

- Would you consider an even wider loading gauge for 3+2 seating
- Would you build to current platform standards or is this fully segregated wide body new build
- How do you see the business case working out. Aware of comments here and there but would be useful to have all in 1 place. How much in total wd this cost
- one can imagine a lot of other services which might want to use these lines but not for the full length. Heathrow-Gatwick-South Coast, maybe Clapham Junction to North bypassing London. Or would you keep this a fully sealed high frequency service

I also note that what the table doesnt show is that connectivity gains to London are probably far exceeded by connectivity gains between communities on this line. Id guess 50%+ journey time reductions in a lot of cases
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,765
Interesting.

- Would you consider an even wider loading gauge for 3+2 seating
Well there isn't really much experience with wider loading gauges than the Shinkansen, and I was chosing to prioritise an uncramped interior in the hopes of speeding boarding and alighting from such a line.
Some recent trains, especially on JR Kyushu, have used 2+2 seating in the wider 3.38m Shinkansen loading gauge in attempt to be more attractive to tourists.
I suggest the BR Class 700 approach of 2+2 seating but wider aisles is the better option, especially as we can still have comfortable seats with the extra width.
- Would you build to current platform standards or is this fully segregated wide body new build
As the line has to be segregated from conventional services to be operationally feasible without massive additional infrastructure, there seems little point clinging to the cramped standards used on conventional British and European railways. 3.38m width offers real advantages and I think it would be folish to ignore them.
- How do you see the business case working out. Aware of comments here and there but would be useful to have all in 1 place. How much in total wd this cost
Cost of such projects is always very hard to determine without a complex study, but it is likely to be somewhat more expensive than HS2 Phase 1. Although the cost would almost entirely be determined by the quality of the project management which is impossible to really know in advance!
- one can imagine a lot of other services which might want to use these lines but not for the full length. Heathrow-Gatwick-South Coast, maybe Clapham Junction to North bypassing London. Or would you keep this a fully sealed high frequency service
The problem with such things is that they introduce extra operational complexity and make it harder to run the core service reliably.
The model here is essentially a metro line that goes 300kph.
I also note that what the table doesnt show is that connectivity gains to London are probably far exceeded by connectivity gains between communities on this line. Id guess 50%+ journey time reductions in a lot of cases
Well the connectivity gains between settlements can be estimated by just subtracting the London times from each other.
Brighton to Portsmouth would be something like 25 minutes compared to ~76 today.
 

Top