Private Eye

In article <crhdsa$b7c$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>, Matt
<scorpio191171@m> writes
> I really feel we are fighting a losing battle against negative government
>and public attitudes towards our railways.
>
>I really wonder if i will still be drivng trains when i am 60?
>
>Matt
A billion pax travelled by train I understand in 2004 but I suppose it
depends how old you are, if there is a dramatic decline

Of course if the case about seatbelts in trains goes against fGW and
trains have to fit them, there could then be a very marked dropped in
patronage, as the turn up and go passenger would find it very difficult
to travel.
All trains like airlines would have to be pre-booked to ensure everyone
was allocated a seat as standing would not be permitted, so the humble
commuter who regularly has to stand on his commuter train would be
refused access to the train, presumably if trains had to fit then busses
and trams would be required to as well, which likewise would be
restricted to actual seating capacity. Consequently a massive increase
in private car commuting

Can you imagine everyone seated and belted up on a London tube train !!!

--
Alan Osborn

"Matt" <scorpio191171@m> wrote in message
news:crhdsa$b7c$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Full page advert at the back of Private Eye this issue 7th Jan to 20 Jan
> 2005
>
> Transport WatchUK from their advert want to become the Sustrans of the
> Bus/Goods Vehicle dedicated Roadway.
>
> They want to convert 'underused' Railways into dedicated Roads for Coaches
> and Goods vehicles.
>
> Although i can't blame them for trying to turn the huge amount of
> negativity towards the railway into a healthy enterprising profit.
> I do feel that if they were successful then we would see a rapid reduction
> in rail usage.
>
> With Virgin, First Group, Stagecoach and National Express using the
> railway and taxpayers as a convenient cash cow,
> I really feel we are fighting a losing battle against negative government
> and public attitudes towards our railways.
>
> I really wonder if i will still be drivng trains when i am 60?
>

This concept has been examineed, discussed and debated previously on more
than one occasion and been found wanting.

The proponents should try coming up with something original.

AH...the 21st century reincarnation of the "Railway Conversion League".

"Brimstone" <brimstone@m> wrote in message
news:cri1be$i0t$1@hercules....
>
> This concept has been examineed, discussed and debated previously on more
> than one occasion and been found wanting.
>
There have, of course, been cases where the trackbed of a genuinely
redundant railway has been used to build a road, including East Grinstead
towards Forest Row, the approaches to Gravesend West Street, part of the
Westerham branch (they needed a lot more width to build the M25), the Heads
of the Valleys Road, etc. etc.

One fairly thorough study involved Marylebone station and the GC line out to
Neasden. This was at the time when it was expected that High Wycombe route
trains would be diverted to Paddington, and passengers from the Aylesbury -
Amersham route would travel into London on the Met Line. A proponent of
Railway Conversion at the time was Lance Ibbotson, who had before retirement
been GM of BR(WR). The study found (surprise, surprise) that the costs would
have been far more than was envisaged at the outset, mainly because all
bridges would have had to be rebuilt, including the tunnels in from Canfield
Place, and was scuppered when LT said that the Met Line was full and they
couldn't take the extra traffic.

Peter

In message <41dc5596$0$74001$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>, at
21:02:07 on Wed, 5 Jan 2005, Tim Christian
<tim@isoplethics.free-online.co.uk> remarked:
>Don't these cretins understand that a single line of railway has the
>transport capacity of four lanes of motorway?

Simply not true.

A typical mainline train with perhaps 600 passengers, headway of 5
minutes (although on many lines they'll working 30 minute timetables).

7200 people per hour.

A typical express coach with 50 passengers, headway 5 seconds.

36,000 people per hour (or 144,000 per hour with 4 lanes).
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <41dc5596$0$74001$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>, at
> 21:02:07 on Wed, 5 Jan 2005, Tim Christian
> <tim@isoplethics.free-online.co.uk> remarked:
>
>> Don't these cretins understand that a single line of railway has the
>> transport capacity of four lanes of motorway?
>
>
> Simply not true.
>
> A typical mainline train with perhaps 600 passengers, headway of 5
> minutes (although on many lines they'll working 30 minute timetables).
>
> 7200 people per hour.
>
> A typical express coach with 50 passengers, headway 5 seconds.
>
> 36,000 people per hour (or 144,000 per hour with 4 lanes).

If we take one motorway carriageway is around 4 metres wide, have 8
people walking abreast at 2 metres/second, leaving half a metre between
you and the person in front.

That's 115200 people per hour (or 460800 with four lanes). Get people to
walk a bit closer together and we could easily double that.

So why don't I start a campaign (ie. set up a web site and write the odd
letter to the Times - that's all it seems to take these days) to turn
the motorways into footpaths? Could it be because the idea only appeals
to people who walk to work, perhaps?

Bah another load of nonsense:

(b) National Rail carries an average flow per track equivalent to only 300
buses plus lorries per day. It is difficult to find a minor road anywhere in
the country so lightly loaded in terms of vehicles.

Hm, Ok so that 300 buses and lorries average a day?

Presumably that average includes lines such as Far North, West Highland,
Oban, Aberdeen->Inverness, and similar less used routes in England and
Wales.

I have to wonder what they mean by a minor road? There are public roads out
there which will on some occasions have a total number of vehicles travelled
on them of 0.

300 70 seater buses is 21000 people.

Alan Osborn wrote:
> In article <crhdsa$b7c$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>, Matt
> <scorpio191171@m> writes
>> I really feel we are fighting a losing battle against negative
>> government and public attitudes towards our railways.
>>
>> I really wonder if i will still be drivng trains when i am 60?
>>
>> Matt
> A billion pax travelled by train I understand in 2004 but I suppose it
> depends how old you are, if there is a dramatic decline
>
> Of course if the case about seatbelts in trains goes against fGW and
> trains have to fit them, there could then be a very marked dropped in
> patronage, as the turn up and go passenger would find it very
> difficult to travel.
> All trains like airlines would have to be pre-booked to ensure
> everyone was allocated a seat as standing would not be permitted, so
> the humble commuter who regularly has to stand on his commuter train
> would be refused access to the train, presumably if trains had to fit
> then busses and trams would be required to as well, which likewise
> would be restricted to actual seating capacity. Consequently a
> massive increase
> in private car commuting
>
> Can you imagine everyone seated and belted up on a London tube train
> !!!

Surely for real protection everyone should be in a small padded cubicle with
a door that can be firmly locked?

In message <kIudnSQoN8fImkDcRVnyjg@pipex.net>, at 09:39:42 on Thu, 6 Jan
2005, N.I.B. <NIB@myselecta.com> remarked:
>>> Don't these cretins understand that a single line of railway has the
>>> transport capacity of four lanes of motorway?
>> Simply not true.
>> A typical mainline train with perhaps 600 passengers, headway of 5
>>minutes (although on many lines they'll working 30 minute timetables).
>> 7200 people per hour.
>> A typical express coach with 50 passengers, headway 5 seconds.
>> 36,000 people per hour (or 144,000 per hour with 4 lanes).
>
>If we take one motorway carriageway is around 4 metres wide, have 8
>people walking abreast at 2 metres/second, leaving half a metre between
>you and the person in front.
>
>That's 115200 people per hour (or 460800 with four lanes). Get people
>to walk a bit closer together and we could easily double that.
>
>So why don't I start a campaign (ie. set up a web site and write the
>odd letter to the Times - that's all it seems to take these days) to
>turn the motorways into footpaths? Could it be because the idea only
>appeals to people who walk to work, perhaps?

You could, but it's irrelevant. The specific lie I'm exposing is the one
above starting "don't these cretins..."
--
Roland Perry

Chris Tolley wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 09:44:20 +0000 (UTC), Niall Wallace wrote:
>
>> 90% of the trips made by car would vanish if the car did not exist.
>
> What I'd like to know is, if there are no cars, how do they make that
> other 10% of car trips?

What did people use as personal transport before the motor car?