PowerSwitch

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16260872

So much for the risk of deflation...

Well someones got to pay for the new shorter trains !
Spending on railways in recent years has produced little improvement for passengers, with new trains generally replacing old, rather than being a supplement to improve capacity.

Electrification though in theory a good idea due to concerns re future oil supply, is not allways an improvement as regards train length and passenger comfort or facilities.
I for one much prefer a nearly 40 year old (diesel) HST with 7 or 8 coaches to new 4 car electric train.

Current policy appears to be price people off the railways rather than provide full length trains.
Peak time steerage class fares are already a lot more costly than petrol* for a car, and first class is comparable to a taxi fare in many cases.
For 2 or 3 people travelling together a chaufuer driven luxury car is normally cheaper than first class rail fares, and does of course gaurentee a seat !

*there are of course many other costs involved in running a car, but if the vehicle has already been purchased, taxed, insured etc, then the marginal cost for another journey is not much more than the petrol.

And one wonders how many of the poeple complaining about rising fares were tweeting happy thoughts to the striking train drivers....

Trains are a monopoly, and like all monopolies, take the piss.

God knows how much is going to cost me to get to work once the Tram comes in.


Is there a reason electric trains are so much shorter?

DominicJ wrote:And one wonders how many of the poeple complaining about rising fairs were tweeting happy thoughts to the striking train drivers....

Trains are a monopoly, and like all monopolies, take the piss.

God knows how much is going to cost me to get to work once the Tram comes in.


Is there a reason electric trains are so much shorter?

To restrict supply, create apparent demand and price up accordingly.

The other reason that fares are going up 5.9% is to pay the directors 49% increase next year. Suggests that they may want more in future.

But surely all these different companies create competition

DominicJ wrote: Is there a reason electric trains are so much shorter?

They dont HAVE to be shorter, but in practice often are.

The modern trend is towards multiple unit trains, both diesel and electric. These can be coupled together to make longer trains and sometimes are, but very often run as single units with fewer seats.
Fleet sizes for new trains are often based on very optimistic assumptions regarding reliability and availability, when these are not reailised, then shorter trains.

As an example, the route between London Waterloo and Exeter suffered "total route modernisation" some years ago.
As a result, 3 car diesel multiple units replaced 8 car locomotive hauled trains with consequent overcrowding.
Two of the new units coupled together still had fewer seats than of the old ones.
Some stations had short platforms, with the old trains one had to alight from the correct portion. But this became dangerous with the new trains, therefore services calling at some stations were limited to 3 car only, even if a longer train was available.
After 10 years of overcrowding, several trains on the route are now the same length as THEY ALL used to be.
Selective door opening has also been fitted to permit of a 6 car train calling at a shorter platform. This cost millions and took years, no question of course of specifying it in the first place.

Fleets sizes for new trains are often based on very optimistic assumptions regarding reliability and availability, when these are not reailised, then shorter trains.

That makes sense.

Some stations had short platforms, with the old trains one had to alight from the correct portion. But this became dangerous with the new trains, therefore services calling at some stations were limited to 3 car only, even if a longer train was available.

And I thought it was just us in the sticks who had to play musical carriages to get off at our stop

DominicJ wrote:And I thought it was just us in the sticks who had to play musical carriages to get off at our stop

Most of Waterloo - Exeter is in the sticks!

Thank God they were privatised.

I hate to think of the cost they'd have been otherwise.

It was recently announced that trains in the South and South West are to be lengthened with the addition of another carriage to the multiple units.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011 ... es-hammond

An overhaul of rail industry costs could end inflation-busting fare increases, with shorter off-peak trains and the transfer of rural rail lines to local authorities, according to the transport secretary.

But he ruled out fare cuts as he warned that the £5.2bn-a-year state subsidy for the "relatively small" and "better off" proportion of the population that use trains is unsustainable at current levels. Overall, farepayers currently spend £6.2bn a year.

"In the long term the taxpayer will not be prepared to just continually increase the level of subsidy that they give to the relatively small number of people who ever use trains – something like only 12% of the population. And of course those who use trains tend to be better off anyway," he said.

Sounds like beeching all over again.....

frank_begbie wrote:Thank God they were privatised.

I hate to think of the cost they'd have been otherwise.

Well it's taxpayers' money that's being shovelled into their coffers to keep their share prices artificially high - a cost that wouldn't exist if they were still public - so don't be too thankful.

I'm SOOOOO happy I don't commute any more!!

Ludwig
The subsidy to trains is less than it was before privatisation, not more....

Rail just isnt an efficient way to move people to work and back.

Ludwig wrote:

frank_begbie wrote:Thank God they were privatised.

I hate to think of the cost they'd have been otherwise.

Well it's taxpayers' money that's being shovelled into their coffers to keep their share prices artificially high - a cost that wouldn't exist if they were still public - so don't be too thankful.

I imagine frank was being ironic

DominicJ wrote:Ludwig
The subsidy to trains is less than it was before privatisation, not more....

Rail just isnt an efficient way to move people to work and back.

I'm assuming you have a very narrow definition of "efficient" otherwise you're talking rollocks.