England's Railways - Mucking them up again

[Greebo]

All tracks are routinely checked in the UK using the same technologies as here. Obviously it isn't possible to do this to all tracks all the time, it is done in rotation with the most heavily used tracks checked more frequently.
Malicious damage is another topic entirely.

ETA this is the system in the UK

 

[newyorkguy]

...increased journey times which have resulted from lower running speeds introduced to improve safety...

We seem to have made kind of a jump here. A decision was made to lower train speeds to improve safety? Where does that come from? I haven't found any evidence that happened (at least by Googling). In fact, that speeds are lower has been questioned, it hasn't been established to my knowledge.

 

[The Don]

We seem to have made kind of a jump here. A decision was made to lower train speeds to improve safety? Where does that come from? I haven't found any evidence that happened (at least by Googling). In fact, that speeds are lower has been questioned, it hasn't been established to my knowledge.

Following the Potters Bar incident the running speed on parts of the network were "temporarily" reduced because of concerns over track conditions. The timetables were updated and at least on the line between Bristol and London they never returned to their previous timings.

Now of course it's always convenient to have an extra 10-20 minutes for a 90 minute journey, especially if you have to compensate passengers for late arrival.

 

[ceptimus]

Makes it easier to justify HS2 (HS3, ...) when you've artificially slowed the trains running on existing track.

 

[3point14]

I think the British railways would be better nationalized.

The only downside I see is that when the unions decide to call strike action (usually in the run up to Christmas) it would be the entire rail network grinding to a halt - not just one region.

But that's the one downside - and I think it's a price worth paying for the other benefits that would result.

This can be avoided by paying a reasonable wage and providing reasonable working conditions.

 

[ceptimus]

This can be avoided by paying a reasonable wage and providing reasonable working conditions.

Well, high wages don't seem to stop the London Underground train drivers from striking - I'm not sure about their working conditions, but I suspect they're okay.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ndons-tube-drivers-and-why-are-they-striking/

 

[3point14]

Well, high wages don't seem to stop the London Underground train drivers from striking - I'm not sure about their working conditions, but I suspect they're okay.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ndons-tube-drivers-and-why-are-they-striking/

Given that they are utterly, utterly essential to the smooth running of the city and all the money that's made there, it doesn't seem unreasonable.


Other professions (that don't have available the same sort of leverage) being underpaid isn't a decent argument.



How much are they worth? How much money would London lose if they weren't there, doing their job?

 

[ceptimus]

There are other, equally essential people working in London who don't get paid nearly so much. The driver jobs are not advertised and still oversubscribed by tens of applicants for every vacant position. The trains don't really need drivers at all (there are already some driverless trains operating) but strikes by the remaining drivers prevent the upgrading of the other lines to driverless operation.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

There are other, equally essential people working in London who don't get paid nearly so much. The driver jobs are not advertised and still oversubscribed by tens of applicants for every vacant position. The trains don't really need drivers at all (there are already some driverless trains operating) but strikes by the remaining drivers prevent the upgrading of the other lines to driverless operation.

Perhaps the problem is that they aren't paid enough not that tube drivers are paid too much?

 

[ceptimus]

The train drivers are paid about twice the national average wage. It would be nice if everyone could be paid more, but mathematics says that everyone can't get at least twice the average.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

The train drivers are paid about twice the national average wage. It would be nice if everyone could be paid more, but mathematics says that everyone can't get at least twice the average.

You said 'equally essential people' not 'everybody'.

Oh, and who said everyone should be paid twice the national average? I don't remember anyone saying it so perhaps you could quote?

 

[ceptimus]

You said 'equally essential people' not 'everybody'.

Oh, and who said everyone should be paid twice the national average? I don't remember anyone saying it so perhaps you could quote?

Where did I ever say that anyone said that? Perhaps you could quote.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Where did I ever say that anyone said that? Perhaps you could quote.

I already did.

ETA: Or was it completely irrelevant to the conversation?

 

[ceptimus]

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited for a breach of rule 11 and rule 12. Be civil and polite and do not discuss your ignore list.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove moderated content

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove respose to moderated content

For the record-:

I also think that the chairman of Barclays Bank makes a lot of money but that that hospital cleaners are underpaid, that doesn't mean that I believe that hospital cleaners should be paid the same as the chairman of Barclays Bank is currently paid. Arguing against the position that they should or against the violation of basic mathematics is either a strawman or irrelevant.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

The really odd thing is that other than his/her reaction to my suggestion that other essential workers possibly being underpaid rather might be more of a problem than tube drivers being overpaid, I've actually generally agreed with ceptimus' posts.

Meh, whadayado?

 

[newyorkguy]

The Potter's Bar accidnt, despite the fact the train that derailed was traveling at 97 mph, was not really a result of train speed. It was found to be largely an issue with maintenance practices. The train's high speed undoubtedly was a contributing factor in the deaths of six passengers on board the train. Were speeds reduced systemwide as a result? I found a reference to some train speeds being reduced during a safety review following the Hatfield accident in 2000. That seems to have only lasted for a period of months.

The recent trend towards lengthening trip times -- especially with commuter services -- seems to be due to the same factors as in the United States: pressure on the train operating companies (operating agencies in the U.S.) to maintain a high degree of 'on-schedule' performance. The quotes below are from an Evening Standard report from 2008. The Standard compared the trip times then in effect (in 2007) to trip times twenty years earlier in 1987.

Reading to Paddington, a route which has been blighted by overcrowding, takes 31 minutes, compared with 28 in the late Eighties. Southend to Fenchurch Street is five minutes slower at 54, as is Canterbury to Victoria at 86 rather than 81. Not all routes were slower, however, with the journey time from St Albans to St Pancras International falling from 22 to 21 minutes and the Peterborough to King's Cross route being cut from 58 to 53 minutes, according to Thomas Cook European Timetables.

Liberal Democrat transport spokesman Norman Baker accused train firms of stretching journey times to escape fines for being late..."It's clear that part of this at least is a deliberate policy to lengthen journeys in order to meet punctuality targets and to avoid fines. There is far too much slack in the timetable." Passenger group London TravelWatch backed his criticism of rail firms. Spokesman Jo deBank said: "We have no doubt that most of these increases (in time) are as a result of train companies seeking to improve performance statistics and therefore avoid fines."

Rail firm Southern said journey times and frequencies were part of contracts with Network Rail and approved by the Department for Transport. A DoT spokeswoman said: "Passengers demand both a reliable railway and competitive journey times and it is for Network Rail and the train operator to make this trade-off." Link to Evening Standard article