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

[Horizon22]

As a layman possibly, one being easier than the other. However, both are decision problems over which optimisation can be made and computers are faster than people.

Again an incredibly controversial statement

IF the suggestion is that Northern had problems with their computer algorithm then the suggestion would be that it had not been taught all the things the humans know. There have been major advances in learning since then. Ultimately, if there is a rule that helps a human decide then it can be coded. My feeling is that the Northern "random unit generator" was perhaps still allowed to be too random.

I’d like to see a computer come up with a disruption and service recovery plan given the various constraints and variables a controller has to deal with. I think an AI would make a hash of it

 

[InTheEastMids]

OK, here's another one. "Integrated rail and bus arrangements don't work".

Having been to Switzerland this summer, I think the issue is we just haven't tried hard enough. Even the cable cars were in my experience part of the integrated system.

On any train scheduled to depart after 9pm on Friday or Satruday it should be compulsory for all adult passengers to consume alcohol. These would be widely advertised as "wet trains".

This, of course, is why the 442s and other revered scrapped trains should have been kept. No absorbent materials and hose down the interiors at the end of the night.

My two - not sure they're controversial:
1. Nationalisation will not solve anything by itself
2. 158s are dreadful - cramped, ponderous, vibratory, dated (to be fair this is largely true of all DMUs except the most recent (185s and later)

Hence I disagree with this

'Cl 150 are rubbish'

No. they started the sprinterisation of regional railways, they do a mundane but essentail job day after day.

because a 150 feels to me like riding in a tractor, and might have been competitive with an Austin Maestro, but the world has moved on.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

There should be no announcements on trains unless there is disruption meaning that the train won't call at its advertised stops.

Does anyone ever get on a train without any ideas where it's going? Do grown adults really need to be told what they are or aren't allowed to do while they're on the train?

 

[PGAT]

There should be no announcements on trains unless there is disruption meaning that the train won't call at its advertised stops.

Does anyone ever get on a train without any ideas where it's going? Do grown adults really need to be told what they are or aren't allowed to do while they're on the train?

I think the visually impaired would like to have a word with you...

 

[43096]

I think the visually impaired would like to have a word with you...

But if you work on that basis, how will the visually impaired “see it, say it, sorted”?

 

[Adam Williams]

Transport in London is overrated.

Whether it be due to lack of investment from central govt, or inaction/poor management from TfL, I've always gotten a fairly poor impression when I've had to travel within London's zones and deal with TfL's ticketing. Yes, it's cheaper than what I pay in rural-nowhere, but....

The stations are dirty, the operation is designed to be patronising towards passengers (where else in the country does there need to be someone with a megaphone telling adults in excruciating detail how to board a train every day?!), the system integrates poorly with the rest of the National Rail network (and this interoperability isn't prioritised as much as it should be, it's only getting worse), it's too hot on the vast majority of lines, some of the stock is ancient, crumbling to pieces and vandalised - and I genuinely don't see much in the way of innovation nowadays. Oyster feels like it's stood still for a number of years; I still have to fill in an unintuitive, lengthy form or wait on hold for ages to get a refund. I still have to find a member of staff in person every time I renew my Railcard, or else I miss out on the discount I am entitled to. I can still "not collect a top-up quickly enough". Passenger information provisions are poor, especially during disruption ("severe delays"!)

They've delivered on some really important infrastructure projects, like Crossrail - albeit not quite on time - and I only really have minor gripes in relation to the Elizabeth Line. I also can't claim they don't transport millions of passengers every day, but c'mon - it could be so much better for a capital city.

 

[occone]

I'm bracing myself, but here's one:
"Tilting trains are a great innovation"

In Britain this is absolute tosh - they are cramped, and frankly gimmicky. They do have the benefit of being able to go a bit faster maybe in some circumstances on some lines of the weather is right and the stars align but really they are an antipattern. It's classic Virgin shinyness - impressive looking and arguably fun - but actually doesn't really solve the problem.

I would say the pendolinos are "all fur coat no knickers" but the strength of them as shown in the Grayrigg derailment did appear to show that they are partially knickers, at least, but not for the tilting stuff.

 

[miklcct]

There should be no announcements on trains unless there is disruption meaning that the train won't call at its advertised stops.

Does anyone ever get on a train without any ideas where it's going? Do grown adults really need to be told what they are or aren't allowed to do while they're on the train?

I think the visually impaired would like to have a word with you...

My opinion: The only announcements on trains should be the route and destination (and fast / semi-fast / all stations if there are different stopping patterns) at a station stop, and the next stop, change of lines, door opening side and mind the gap while it is approaching a station stop, when there is no modification to the regular service.

 

[Sorcerer]

My controversial opinion: Avanti are not that bad an operator and that most of their problems aren't solely their fault.

 

[Mzzzs]

Got a feeling I am getting destroyed but here we go:

That guards on metro services are pointless.
If we are going to have guards they should go around check tickets and walk around the train not sit in cabs on their phones.

Class 313 are terrible and should have gone long ago.
Class 319 are also horrible units.

 

[johntea]

One of my controversial opinions (especially after this morning!) is how many train services are actually running on time the entire route...only to come to a screeching halt just outside a mainline station for several long minutes and as a result you miss a connection that would have been perfectly possible to make!

It might only be a 3-5 minute delay for the 'stats' but to the passenger that suddenly snowballs into 30-60 minutes for the next service!

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Having been to Switzerland this summer, I think the issue is we just haven't tried hard enough. Even the cable cars were in my experience part of the integrated system.


This, of course, is why the 442s and other revered scrapped trains should have been kept. No absorbent materials and hose down the interiors at the end of the night.

My two - not sure they're controversial:
1. Nationalisation will not solve anything by itself
2. 158s are dreadful - cramped, ponderous, vibratory, dated (to be fair this is largely true of all DMUs except the most recent (185s and later)

Hence I disagree with this



because a 150 feels to me like riding in a tractor, and might have been competitive with an Austin Maestro, but the world has moved on.

Certain TfW staff , refer to the much respected 150's as "Rickshaws" (I think)

 

[TUC]

Definitely controversial here: it is much more important that the fares system is simple, understandable and fair to all than that people here can use their skills and knowledge to find a cheap fare.

I'd argue that the ability to search online has largely made that argument redundant. Yes there are some people who are still unconfident with technology , but those who do use it are much wider than just rail enthusiasts . Too many 'simplicity' arguments on many issues (not just rail) run the risk of more people paying more money for the service in question.

 

[eldomtom2]

Privatisation didn't go far enough to be successful. Too much government interference or 'regulation' left us with a series of half baked compromises that satisfied nobody.

Whenever I hear someone say this I always want to know what specific regulations they want removed.

The railway likes to claim that safety is its number one priority , but often pushes safety to the limit of what is legally permissable ,

It views following health and safety law as a target , rather than what it should be a baseline standard.

From what is admittedly an outsider's perspective, the British rail network is the exact opposite of that and is one of the safest rail networks in the world. Take a look at America if you want to see what following the letter rather than the spirit of safety law looks like!

 

[james_the_xv]

Ooooh, I'll go for a few...

1. Nationalisation wouldn't work nearly as well as many think it would. TOCs would still be run as largely separate entities, bidding for paths and liable to the same performance metrics. Management and cultural issues would stay the same. I doubt it would even get rid of operator restricted tickets. If FOCs were nationalised, that would see the end of a lot of rail freight in the UK. Freight was a huge winner in privatisation, being profit driven works really well for growth in those areas. If we nationalised the FOCs, DfT would run them to the ground with arbitrary costs for customers, and still manage run it as a loss.

2. DfT have shot them selves in the foot on the WCML, and within 10 years the ECML will become the 'primary' route to get from London to Scotland. To spec non-tilt stock for a route that's designed around EPS speeds for express services is ludicrous, and will be apparent when the 390s start to show their age. 80x's are great for ECML & GWML, not the solution for WCML.

3. I'd trade the 4 tracking of the Trent Valley for 4 tracking of the Coventry corridor in a heartbeat (not that the cov corridor will ever get 4 tracked, unfortunately). Biggest mistake the railway bosses of yesteryear ever made.

4. British culture is responsible for the issues surrounding people blocking seats on busy trains with bags and feet. Not just the reluctance to stand up to them, but the reluctance of other people to back those who do. The people who win in those situations are those who have the balls to do that sort of thing, because they know no one will stand up to them.

5. Only reason why Northampton is relevant as a railway station/location in modern times is because it's next to a depot, otherwise the Northampton loop would get slow 1 tph and 1 fast.

 

[MalaiseForever]

I’d rather my train ran without a train manager/guard than be cancelled.

 

[matt_world2004]

Whenever I hear someone say this I always want to know what specific regulations they want removed.

From what is admittedly an outsider's perspective, the British rail network is the exact opposite of that and is one of the safest rail networks in the world. Take a look at America if you want to see what following the letter rather than the spirit of safety law looks like!

If that is the case then the ORR wouldn't have a significant amount of prosecutions.

Prosecutions | Office of Rail and Road

www.orr.gov.uk

Because all companies would have obeyed the law and as such couldn't be prosecuted.

 

[Horizon22]

Does anyone ever get on a train without any ideas where it's going? Do grown adults really need to be told what they are or aren't allowed to do while they're on the train?

Yes, occasionally they do. Plus people easily get distracted and an announcement focuses attention and people will know when their stop is.

 

[Jimini]

I’d rather my train ran without a train manager/guard than be cancelled.

^^ This.

 

[eldomtom2]

If that is the case then the ORR wouldn't have a significant amount of prosecutions.

Prosecutions | Office of Rail and Road

www.orr.gov.uk

Because all companies would have obeyed the law and as such couldn't be prosecuted.

I never said British railways were perfect. I said compared to the rest of the world they're excellent.

 

[matt_world2004]

I never said British railways were perfect. I said compared to the rest of the world they're excellent.

If British railways viewed the law as a baseline rather than a target to aspire to there would hardly be any prosecutions for breaking health and safety law.

Some companies have been prosecuted multiple times.l

Since february 2019 I have been put on duties that break working time law on 50 seperate occasions

There have been 20 incidents in my department of 10 people caused by working without access to a toilet. It's been a basic legal requirement for at least 46 years for someone to have a toilet in their workplace.

 

[Pdf]

5. Only reason why Northampton is relevant as a railway station/location in modern times is because it's next to a depot, otherwise the Northampton loop would get slow 1 tph and 1 fast.

Would they even get a fast? The fasts take the other side of the loop because it's shorter.

 

[PupCuff]

Mine? The basic structure of the railway industry in the UK should be designed at the core to facilitate competition. Not, Avanti run the fast services on the WCML and LNR run the slow trains, a GBR-esque 'guiding mind' should make available all paths on the network at a price which would vary dependent on demand (including subsidies where appropriate), and the regulator should facilitate a practicable structure for new, smaller, innovative companies to gain licensing to operate and hence enter the market. Someone like Uber want to break into the train market? Let them form a management team, get an operator's license, agree their contracts for leasing stock with a ROSCO (or indeed procure it themselves if they so wished) and buy some paths on the West Coast Main Line running it lumo-style. Lack of competition leads to inefficiency, there is no reason to improve, whereas if you know that you need to get customers to choose your trains in order to survive as a company you need to make effective and responsible commercial decisions on how to do that.

Stations can get in on the action too. Naturally there is a cost to running a station but also there is the opportunity to gain income at larger stations by renting out retail and advertising space, commission from ticket sales, as well as the station access fees for the trains stopping there.

The model would potentially make it easier for cities, regions and local authorities etc to improve services - local government or even businesses could offer their own subsidies to the challenger companies to provide new or improved connectivity in their area.

 

[btdrawer]

- People massively overstate how much good nationalisation would do
- More private competition on intercity routes would probably be a good thing, given the successes we've seen in Western Europe in the past few years, with companies like OuiGo driving fares down and passenger numbers up
- The biggest blocker to us having a better railway network is our inability to build things cheaply, we should be studying how things are done in France, Italy, and Spain and copy them as much as we can (accepting that some things - eg lower population densities - we obviously can't)
- I really like IETs

 

[Facing Back]

4. British culture is responsible for the issues surrounding people blocking seats on busy trains with bags and feet. Not just the reluctance to stand up to them, but the reluctance of other people to back those who do. The people who win in those situations are those who have the balls to do that sort of thing, because they know no one will stand up to them.

Trains are open for all manner of travel and sometimes people have large luggage - family holidays or to-and-from airports for example are and should be encouraged. Provide sensible and usable space for luggage or expect it to be blocking seats and aisles.

Mine? The basic structure of the railway industry in the UK should be designed at the core to facilitate competition. Not, Avanti run the fast services on the WCML and LNR run the slow trains, a GBR-esque 'guiding mind' should make available all paths on the network at a price which would vary dependent on demand (including subsidies where appropriate), and the regulator should facilitate a practicable structure for new, smaller, innovative companies to gain licensing to operate and hence enter the market. Someone like Uber want to break into the train market? Let them form a management team, get an operator's license, agree their contracts for leasing stock with a ROSCO (or indeed procure it themselves if they so wished) and buy some paths on the West Coast Main Line running it lumo-style. Lack of competition leads to inefficiency, there is no reason to improve, whereas if you know that you need to get customers to choose your trains in order to survive as a company you need to make effective and responsible commercial decisions on how to do that.

Stations can get in on the action too. Naturally there is a cost to running a station but also there is the opportunity to gain income at larger stations by renting out retail and advertising space, commission from ticket sales, as well as the station access fees for the trains stopping there.

The model would potentially make it easier for cities, regions and local authorities etc to improve services - local government or even businesses could offer their own subsidies to the challenger companies to provide new or improved connectivity in their area.

A dynamic market for paths? Similar to the one which exists for airport slots?

 

[Topological]

I’d like to see a computer come up with a disruption and service recovery plan given the various constraints and variables a controller has to deal with. I think an AI would make a hash of it

This is supposed to be the controversial.

However, what single piece of knowledge can a person have which the computer could not be given.

Lets say 150789 (hopefully not a real unit) has a engine idiosyncracy which means it cannot be used over long distances where there are critical sections of fast running near the end (e.g. Cardiff to Manchester where Crewe to Manchester is shared with Avanti). Then all the computer needs to know is that 150789 should not be allocated to such a service.

Now suppose the train manager rings said fault in coming between Swansea and Cardiff. The computer would immediately remove 150789 from the service and seek a replacement allocation (probably looking at the 150s presently running the valleys and a set swap if there was nothing on Canton spare).

It may just be a superstition thing that stops 150789 calling at Ludlow (sorry to Ludlow, it is a good splitting point) and therefore that unit cannot be put on a Marches train. I understand humans might be reluctant to write that down, but then is it good if the human would have cancelled the train instead of sending 150789 but a computer would not?

To me, the advancement in computer learning and speed means no matter what you throw at the computer it can learn it and can then perform quicker than people.

It astonished me that the "superior" human cannot prevent Northern 150s going to Manchester on the Marches beacuse they are "a common pool" and yet apparently does better than random allocation from a common pool.

(This has probably gone to being a thread in its own right)

 

[JamieL]

I'm bracing myself, but here's one:
"Tilting trains are a great innovation"

In Britain this is absolute tosh - they are cramped, and frankly gimmicky. They do have the benefit of being able to go a bit faster maybe in some circumstances on some lines of the weather is right and the stars align but really they are an antipattern. It's classic Virgin shinyness - impressive looking and arguably fun - but actually doesn't really solve the problem.

I would say the pendolinos are "all fur coat no knickers" but the strength of them as shown in the Grayrigg derailment did appear to show that they are partially knickers, at least, but not for the tilting stuff.

We'll miss the tilting trains when HS2 arrives and slows down travel on the northern half of the WCML.

 

[zuriblue]

On any train scheduled to depart after 9pm on Friday or Satruday it should be compulsory for all adult passengers to consume alcohol. These would be widely advertised as "wet trains".

The SBB are ahead of you here

(YouTube clip from the Swiss comedy programme DeVille showing a guard making a beer check on an evening IC train)

 

[The exile]

They did that due to them building their own empire. It was, and is, an attitude problem.

"Bus und Bahn, starker zusammen". Work together and both grow.

What doesn't work is one side or the other (and I agree it's sometimes the railway) going "stuff you, you change to suit us". It's about having shared management, shared ideals and goals, and shared success.

Exactly that! And it doesn’t mean “all buses have to terminate at a bus station adjacent to the railway station” either.
First step would be to re-establish the principle that a timetable is a fixed thing to be changed only when outside circumstances dictate - not to suit the needs / whim of an operator.
It then needs fully integrated ticketing (which of course immediately removes the issue of “ticket acceptance or not” during disruption), information systems and signage - and finally a lot of patience to accept that people’s habits won’t be changed overnight - the attitude shift will require a generation or so - but that’s not a reason to start now.

 

[GWVillager]

Mine? The basic structure of the railway industry in the UK should be designed at the core to facilitate competition. Not, Avanti run the fast services on the WCML and LNR run the slow trains, a GBR-esque 'guiding mind' should make available all paths on the network at a price which would vary dependent on demand (including subsidies where appropriate), and the regulator should facilitate a practicable structure for new, smaller, innovative companies to gain licensing to operate and hence enter the market. Someone like Uber want to break into the train market? Let them form a management team, get an operator's license, agree their contracts for leasing stock with a ROSCO (or indeed procure it themselves if they so wished) and buy some paths on the West Coast Main Line running it lumo-style. Lack of competition leads to inefficiency, there is no reason to improve, whereas if you know that you need to get customers to choose your trains in order to survive as a company you need to make effective and responsible commercial decisions on how to do that.

Stations can get in on the action too. Naturally there is a cost to running a station but also there is the opportunity to gain income at larger stations by renting out retail and advertising space, commission from ticket sales, as well as the station access fees for the trains stopping there.

The model would potentially make it easier for cities, regions and local authorities etc to improve services - local government or even businesses could offer their own subsidies to the challenger companies to provide new or improved connectivity in their area.

This model would probably drive down fares, but it would definitely make the system more complicated. The number of trains available for you to catch would be limited to the few a day that are run by your operator of choice. A heavily subsidised national operator/franchisee, however, would provide the same cost reductions to the passenger without the complications and inconvenience, and possibly with better integration with other modes.