Parliamentary trains

[Peoplesoft bloke]

You have obviously never got on a train in a communist country.

I have. In East Berlin as it happens. It was excellent and very cheap.

I notice Berlin, which some regard as having the best rail system in the world, has been in the news regarding public dissent to privatisation. Not sure what the current status is, but what a loss that would be if the UK were an example of the result.
Rail privatisation

Or maybe the Germans can do privatisation better? If EU trains do go private, will we be able to afford to use rail to holiday in the south of France/Spain rather than by air as the EU directives also propose?

Quite a few European train systems are a partnership between private and public, including IIRC parts of the German system. There are loads of reasons why our railways are a total shed in comparison - some of them are to do with a totally stupid and idealogical privatisation, but not all.

[doodab]

On some parts of the tube, they have actually done this - the stations are slightly elevated compared with the rest of the line. Works well on the tube as all trains stop at all stations.

Some of the U Bahn stops in Munich are like that as well.

[Freamon]

Can't be arsed to check a map, but I can think of one reason why a full service might not want to stop at a station, assuming full means the train was full and not the platform of eager customers. Trains are quite efficient unless they stop often. Slowing down and speeding up takes a lot of energy and also uses up rail capacity. They should build railway stops on little hills, which would help with acceleration and deceleration times and efficiency.

On some parts of the tube, they have actually done this - the stations are slightly elevated compared with the rest of the line. Works well on the tube as all trains stop at all stations.

[TimberWolf]

I notice Berlin, which some regard as having the best rail system in the world, has been in the news regarding public dissent to privatisation. Not sure what the current status is, but what a loss that would be if the UK were an example of the result.
Rail privatisation

Or maybe the Germans can do privatisation better? If EU trains do go private, will we be able to afford to use rail to holiday in the south of France/Spain rather than by air as the EU directives also propose?

[TimberWolf]

Though it's hard to see from your example what the greedy capitalists really gained by cutting the always full service, unless their intention was not to run any trains and not have any passengers. Seems like they shot themselves in the foot.

I grew up in Droitwich, and if I remember correctly, there were only about 2 trains a day that went to Bromsgrove; all the regular services went to Kiddiminster.

With all the global warming talk, surely the new thing should be cutting all train services except the ones that are full?

Can't be arsed to check a map, but I can think of one reason why a full service might not want to stop at a station, assuming full means the train was full and not the platform of eager customers. Trains are quite efficient unless they stop often. Slowing down and speeding up takes a lot of energy and also uses up rail capacity. They should build railway stops on little hills, which would help with acceleration and deceleration times and efficiency.

[VectraMan]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: capitalists are a bunch of greedy self-serving bastards, which is why public infrastructure and services such as mass transportation shouldn't be handed over to them to exploit and abuse for profit.

Though it's hard to see from your example what the greedy capitalists really gained by cutting the always full service, unless their intention was not to run any trains and not have any passengers. Seems like they shot themselves in the foot.

I grew up in Droitwich, and if I remember correctly, there were only about 2 trains a day that went to Bromsgrove; all the regular services went to Kiddiminster.

With all the global warming talk, surely the new thing should be cutting all train services except the ones that are full?

[minestrone]

And you're obviously a moron, but just like your comment, that has absolutely no relevance to what I said.

And here was me trying to be nice to you for months and this is what I get, Ad hominem attacks.

You referenced capatilism and their ability to get trains running, I think it is fair game that I reference communism and goverments that are that way inclined to run train services.

Last time I was on a communist state train the toilet was a hole in the floor with the 'push brush' next to it in case your aim was not so good.

[NickFitz]

You have obviously never got on a train in a communist country.

And you're obviously a moron, but just like your comment, that has absolutely no relevance to what I said.

[minestrone]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: capitalists are a bunch of greedy self-serving bastards, which is why public infrastructure and services such as mass transportation shouldn't be handed over to them to exploit and abuse for profit.

You have obviously never got on a train in a communist country.

[NickFitz]

The train operating companies (TOCs) also have a track record (geddit?) of deliberately stopping popular services in favour of unused ones so they can later claim that, as the services are unused, they shouldn't be required to run them anymore.

When I was living in Cheltenham back in 2000 I had a gig in Bromsgrove. This involved getting the 8:30 train from Cheltenham to Worcester Shrub Hill, then joining a train to Bromsgrove, but the 8:30 was also used by a lot of people who worked in Worcester. The train company then announced that it was going to drop the always-full 8:30 service, but meet its current obligation to run early morning services between the two stations by retaining the 7:00 service. I took the 7:00 service once for other reasons, and it was used by about three people.

The regulars organised a petition and so on, but the TOC still killed the 8:30. Of course, the 7:00 was no good to all the people who would arrive at Worcester at 7:25 rather than 8:55; the offices they worked in wouldn't have been open for a start, so they were left with no option but to switch to travelling by car.

Then the TOC could use the fact that the 7:00 service was almost unused as an excuse to cancel that too, thereby saving money on running both services without going against any of the Service Level Requirements of their franchise, which of course allowed for such shenanigans.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: capitalists are a bunch of greedy self-serving bastards, which is why public infrastructure and services such as mass transportation shouldn't be handed over to them to exploit and abuse for profit.

[Clippy]

They probably saved a lot of taxpayer money by effectively slowing those railway routes and avoiding expensive consultation. Logically it makes sense but still does not feel right...

<whispers>Agreed</whispers>

[thunderlizard]

There was a good radio documentary on them a few months back. One bit involved getting a ticket and phoning a number and they'd send a taxi.

[AtW]

They probably saved a lot of taxpayer money by effectively slowing those railway routes and avoiding expensive consultation. Logically it makes sense but still does not feel right...

[Clippy]

Learn summat new every day.

It's only money.