Uk rail white paper

[Parkey]

...

Would anyone else like to pre-empt my rant on the government's 30-year plan *cough* for the UK railways?

[Griff]

Oh go on Parkey, we know your deperate..please, go ahead and rant.

[Dave]

No HSR?

[XeryusTC]

This sounds like a silly thread, it's like asking "Can anyone rant for me, I'm not in the mood ATM".

[Parkey]

Yes the lack of HSR alone would be enough for me to throw the toys out of the pram but we've already discussed that in some detail. I'll rant about everything else instead.

*ahem*

What a bunch of ignorant short-termist bean counters!

I've always been a bit sceptical when I've heard people talking about "spin" in politics, but now I see exactly what they mean. Cutting rail investment in half and at the same time announcing an "ambitious plan to expand the railways" couldn't really be a better example.

We've got year on year growth at the moment, and the railways on a stable financial footing. Now is the best time there's ever been to invest and expand the network. Theres's no mention of anything like that. In fact they rule out any new lines or reopenings. It's like a man who gets paid a fixed fee to dig a ditch refusing to buy a spade because he already has a trowel, and anyway spades are expensive!

Yes capacity is going to increase a bit on some of the worst routes, but it's nowhere near enough to cope with the forecast increase in demand. That means overcrowding can only get worse. That means fares will have to go up to suppress demand. When that happens I feel my freedom to travel being erroded away.

There is nothing at all in the plans that is new either, and a lot of it has been delayed 10 years or more. The bare minimum that they could get away with. It's not even a long term plan as advertised, it's just a summary of what they're doing now and they say they can't act for what might be needed beyond about 7 years time because it's "uncertain". Frankly it makes me sick! We were doing so well before this came along!

On the plus side they have finally approved the plan to redevelop Birmingham New Street. This is obviously a good thing because the current station is a dump. Not an inch of new track for the Country's worst rail bottleneck though.

They've also finally approved the upgrade for Reading station, which is well needed, and at least the planners of that have "future-proofed" it to be able to cope with new links to Heathrow and/or Crossrail.

Not least there's Thameslink 2000 (snigger). It's getting funding... 7 years late... and only half of it... and that's only because of the 2012 Olympics... but it is going ahead!

Giving the go-ahead to a small number of long-delayed plans doesn't make up for anything in my book.

Finally... no mention of Crossrail.

Howzat?

[Illegal_Alien]

You guys mean this thingy?: http://www.therailwaycentre.com/Resourc ... _Paper.pdf

[Parkey]

You guys mean this thingy?: http://www.therailwaycentre.com/Resourc ... _Paper.pdf

"Thingy" is far too inoffensive a word to describe it, but yes.

[orudge]

I haven't read the report in detail, although I've read summaries of it on various news sites. It is nice having devolved powers over the railways in Scotland though, the Scottish Executive has its own plans for railways, and it does actually tend to get things done! Although, the SNP does appear to be showing less enthusiasm for rail, as mentioned in a previous post, so that may not be quite so fun. According to the local paper here in North Wales, anyway, there will be an increase in services here, which is no bad thing (not sure if that's related to this report or just the new Virgin West Coast timetable for 2008/9, whichever it was).

Well, that was a bit of a disjointed post.

[Griff]

This doesnt show an awful lot, but this is what new New Street should look like when finished
http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid ... =wm&news=1

and the article about it; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west ... 913985.stm

[Kevo00]

To be fair, this white paper, apart from being a committment to do nothing may simply be a reminder that a harsh world exists outside the pages of Rail magazine. Don't worry, there'll be another reshuffle along shortly.

[Dave]

That new thing of New Street isn't THAT different. The layout remains virtually the same. Not sure about these steps though. It means there will be no open air above the station right?

[Parkey]

To be fair, this white paper, apart from being a commitment to do nothing may simply be a reminder that a harsh world exists outside the pages of Rail magazine. Don't worry, there'll be another reshuffle along shortly.

Well I guess if you ask any enthusiast whether there should be more tracks and more trains their answer would be obvious and it probably wouldn't be for the right reasons either, but there is something else here. I see the railways as a large part of my freedom to travel. I've seen the stress and costs associated with Motoring rise over the last few years and more often than not I'll prefer to leave the car at home and get on a train. I take exception to increasing overcrowding and ticket prices. They're bad enough as it is.

The worst thing is when people with very little knowledge of something are put in charge. My parents, for example, already have a word or two to say about Ruth Kelly. They're both teachers, although now gladly retired. Ruth Kelly isn't a teacher, and never was, and they put her in charge of education. This is typical of the way things are run at the moment, there's extremely constrictive top-down control from miles behind the front line by people who have no experience at all of what they are controlling.

A typical symptom of this is when these people in positions of power get an idea into their head that those under them think is completely bonkers, and yet will be unable to talk them around to common sense. Anyone who knows anything of the history of World War II will be able to name plenty examples of what happened when Hitler made military decisions for example.

The prime example of such dogmatism in the DfT at the moment is that any new express lines should be built to conventional speeds (125mph) because truly high speed lines (186mph+) use too much energy and are therefore less environmentally friendly. I’m sure this statement on its own makes complete sense to them and indeed it’s a great example of government logic. It does, however, fly in the face of the entire global rail industry where 186mph or even 200mph is the standard for new express lines, and of course the fact that once they’ve been planned and the land purchased they don’t cost much more to build than 125mph lines anyway. The laws of physics indeed state that faster trains need more energy, but if those making decisions even just skim-read any analyses into high speed rail they’d know that the target to aim for is to make journeys less than 3 hours, because this means that trains will be able to compete with airlines. So yes, the faster trains aren’t as green, but if they run at the slower speeds the passengers will just take a short-haul flight instead.

Then of course there’s the whole argument against electrification that states there’s no need because fuel cell technology is on the way. This is despite the fact that the process of making, transporting, storing and using hydrogen is at least three times less efficient than just plugging the train into the mains with wires. A valenta-powered HST is probably more eco-friendly. (Please note I’m not one of these militant electrification nuts; I’m just using the example.)

So finally a joke:

Q. How many ministers does it take to change a lightbulb?
A. None. They take the old one out and then hold an enquiry to decide what to do next. The enquiry continues in the dark forever…

[Kevo00]

Quite true, but would you rather have an undemocratic government of technocrats or a democratically elected government?

[Parkey]

Well, when Gordon Brown's government was voted into office....... oh!

As the saying goes: "Democracy is the worst kind of government, except for the all the others that have been tried".

I would rather see a lot less high level political interferrence in all services, not just rail. That's in addition to my feeling that the DfT should be actively representing and championing the railways, and other forms of transport, to government, and be run by someone who has knowledge and experience of the industry. It should not acting as the treasury's budget cutting lapdog, as appears to be the case here.

History has shown that autocracy on a large scale isn't a good thing.

[Kevo00]

Yes. The use of services such as rail as political footballs is the main problem here. I'd like to see government reduce its involvement in a wide range of sectors, although infrastructure is one area it should remain relatively active in as it is indeed a public good. But in general we the UK public need to decide if we are willing to foot the bill for public services in general, whether directly or indirectly, or go down a more minimum spend route akin to the US. I'm finding myself become more and more libertarian these days as government gets bigger. Ooops sorry this site is meant to be about the trains...