Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Viral_Jim]

I worked in London for around 18m and even there, unless you were going into zone 1, driving was always the best option.

Taking the lake District example, going to coniston, from (say) Surbiton takes 6hrs 40 on public transport minimum, vs 5h30 in the car.

Now, assuming you don't live at a station, and aren't travelling to just a station, you can add 20mins either end. Plus an extra 20mins at the start because if you don't get to the station on time the rip off merchants will charge you another £120 for a different ticket 

So I've got 2h 10 to sit in traffic before the train draws level. I've also got Aircon, set to my liking, a guaranteed comfy seat and I can listen to what I like on the radio rather than whatever noise pollution some inbred yob wants to put through the carriage. Oh and they want £115 plus bus/taxi fares to get you there. 

Taking such a journey once a month would pay for the fuel for those journeys plus insurance, tax and maintenance on my car. I can travel close to 1000 miles on what they want to charge.

Sorry, but if you have a car you'd have to be mentally ill to want to take a train anywhere in the UK other than the London underground.

[Doctor Gollum]

Plan your journey and travel when the roads are empty. Simples

I did my house to Wick in 16 hours, at an average of 60 mph with breaks.

Equally used to regularly get from New Forest to Solihull in two hours most Wednesday mornings... Coming back at lunch time was rarely more than 2:45...

[TheBoy]

LZ, I went to Penrith,via Windermere and Keswick, on a Friday afternoon a couple of months back. 5hrs, including stopping for sit down hot meal. Can’t do a train in that time.

That’s about as bad as it gets unless roads get closed. Remember rail lines get severely disrupted as well.

I type this on a delayed Chiltern train, running behind due to ongoing issues at Ealing (nought to do with Chiltern lines, which go nowhere near Ealing)

[Varche]

All this talk of planning...

Plan ahead and travel over night or take a picnic

Correctly timed you can get from deepest Sussex to Gretna Green in about 7 hours and Wick in another 8 including a few decent stops

Overnight travel?  50 years ago we used to travel from Scarborough to Birkenhead in the night. That was to avoid getting stuck behind wagons. There used tobe nothing on the roads at all in the night but you had to go through all towns and the traffic lights used to be seemingly stuck on red.

[Doctor Gollum]

Absolutely 

Left the house at about 10pm and stopped for breakfast at Lockerbie.

Used to regularly travel to/from the Norfolk Broads and rarely left before 10 pm in either direction. Always an easy 3 1/4 hours each way versus nearly 5 during the day.

Sustained speed would take a third off that, but it's also a fairly effective way to lose your licence 

About the only time I use the train is if I am planning on a proper drink or seven...

[Lizzie Zoom]

LZ, I went to Penrith,via Windermere and Keswick, on a Friday afternoon a couple of months back. 5hrs, including stopping for sit down hot meal. Can’t do a train in that time.

That’s about as bad as it gets unless roads get closed. Remember rail lines get severely disrupted as well.

I type this on a delayed Chiltern train, running behind due to ongoing issues at Ealing (nought to do with Chiltern lines, which go nowhere near Ealing)

So not 3.5 hours then TB

Obviously you CAN do long distances, say from South to North, in all kinds of times, all dependant on LUCK mainly, and I'm speaking as a million mile business driver who travelled across the country back in the 1970's-90's.  Even if I set off at 0300 hours in the morning, which I did on many occasions, it would not dictate what time I actually arrived say in the North East or North West; it was dependant on how many accidents, road works, or,very importantly, time of the year. 

I must be honest to admit my runs to the Lakes have always been in August, so the type of traffic i.e.the amount of Pikeys with caravans, that sometimes were on their sides blocking all lanes (that happened so many times going down to the South West I lost count) made a big difference.  So the times I quoted were the worst possible I know, but that is what happened at that point in time.  As I said to do that run in 3.5 hours is really pushing it and totally relies on luck.  No matter how fast you drive, as I well know, if you face miles of near stationery, or even stationery traffic, as has happened so many times to me in the past making my days very long, you cannot drive at anything but 0-10 miles per hour.  That resulted in journeys like one I did in 1990 from the North East to Bristol taking 11 hours, that I could normally do then in 3-4 hours.

As for the trains we are all talking about the current situation; no, out of choice I would not use the railways for any long distance journey going away from London being a true female motorhead who loves my car and driving.  However for 4 years I used to commute to my business in London from both the Midlands (yes, via Chiltern Railways which I found to be excellent usually) and the South East as it was far easier than facing London traffic then finding convenient, and not too expensive parking.  I still do commute by train to London from my home town which means, usually I arrive in the big city in just over 1 hour by High Speed train.  Try driving to London from here during a normal day in that time, especially during the peak periods!  You are doing well to do it in 2 hours. Some journeys have taken me 3 hours.

But that is in 2018.  Once we (well, I do not think me!!) get to 2050/75 the railways will be very fast across the country, with, I predict, a means of automatic transport taking you from your front door to the train station, and being the same at the other end. As said it will be very fast, very efficient (without the failings of, like this TB, the "Victorian" system) and relatively cheap.  That is cheaper than maintaining and fueling the motor cars of today, with in 2050 the often mentioned "self driving" cars doing the short journeys.

Wishful thinking?  Well maybe!! But just think how man advanced transport from 1900 to 1975 (no flying to Concorde and landing on the Moon) and with the pace of technological advancement increasing what was previously achieved in 75 years COULD be achieved in just 40 years if man/women has the will, finance, and determination to do it

[LC0112G]

Trains are generally a very London centric view of things. If you live anywhere near a main-ish line to London and your destination is either London or somewhere else with a direct London line, then the train is a viable option.

I can get from Yeovil to London (Waterloo or Paddington) in not much more than 2 hours. However, if I want to get to Birmingham naah. It's barely 40 miles to Bristol, but the train takes over 2 hours. Bristol to Birmingham is another 1h30, so with the change/connection it's about 4 hours. Yes I could drive to Taunton (25 miles) and get a direct train Taunton-Birmingham, but even that would take 2+ hours, plus 30 minutes driving to Taunton. If I'm getting in my car then I might as well drive to Birmingham (takes 2 hours). 

I used to travel frequently to a factory site between Preston and Blackpool (Warton). I could drive it in 3.5-4 hours if I left at 4am. Coming home would take 6 hours. The other viable options were the train, but you can't do that anymore in a day, or the plane. I could fly cheaper from Bristol to Dublin, then Dublin to Blackpool on Ryanair cheaper and quicker than the train. And if it wen't belly up on Ryanair there are worse places to be stuck overnight than Dublin 

[LC0112G]

I'd also like to dispute this...

No, the answer is to build and maintain the latest EMU's to a far higher standard so the chances of them breaking down is relagated to "rare".

If a train is (say) 10% likely to break down, then management will put in place "processes" (I hate that word) to recover the situation for when it does go wrong. Things like relief locos/trains etc. It's not very efficient but it means that even with the breakdown, passengers are likely to get to their destination within a reasonable timeframe - perhaps an hour or two late but no biggie.

If a train is (say) 0.01% likely to break down, management will decide that the cost of providing the "process" is not justified. Far more passengers will get to their destination on time every time. But when that 0.01% chance comes up (and it will), there is then no process in place to do anything about it, and you end up being delayed for many, many hours. If you're on that train then I suspect you'd prefer less reliable trains with a backup plan rather than ultra reliable trains with no backup.

There won't be a time when rare=never, so you either accept low reliability with a backup plan, or high reliability and no backup plan. I used the trains an awful lot in the 70's & 80's. I've probably only been on then half a dozen times this century - 3 times to go pick up Omegas I'd bought on eBay :-)

[Lizzie Zoom]

I'd also like to dispute this...

No, the answer is to build and maintain the latest EMU's to a far higher standard so the chances of them breaking down is relagated to "rare".

If a train is (say) 10% likely to break down, then management will put in place "processes" (I hate that word) to recover the situation for when it does go wrong. Things like relief locos/trains etc. It's not very efficient but it means that even with the breakdown, passengers are likely to get to their destination within a reasonable timeframe - perhaps an hour or two late but no biggie.

If a train is (say) 0.01% likely to break down, management will decide that the cost of providing the "process" is not justified. Far more passengers will get to their destination on time every time. But when that 0.01% chance comes up (and it will), there is then no process in place to do anything about it, and you end up being delayed for many, many hours. If you're on that train then I suspect you'd prefer less reliable trains with a backup plan rather than ultra reliable trains with no backup.

There won't be a time when rare=never, so you either accept low reliability with a backup plan, or high reliability and no backup plan. I used the trains an awful lot in the 70's & 80's. I've probably only been on then half a dozen times this century - 3 times to go pick up Omegas I'd bought on eBay :-)

I don't take what you stated as disputing it at all.  You are just stating fact as of now, and what I said was  a (big) hope for the future when the situation (must) be better.

To draw a comparison with rail and road transport.  In the 1960's and 70's you were lucky if your car didn't break down at some time.  Even brand new cars did.  People relied a lot more on other road services, or a complete collection of tools in the boot, to rescue them.  Now cars are so much more reliable, and if maintained correctly, are rarely broken down.  Of course cars do still break down for all kinds of reasons, but my run of Omegas over the last 20 years have never once let me down due to me looking after them.  That is different to two separate brand new Ford Cortinas that broke down in the 1970's due to manufacturing faults.

Therefore, what I am suggesting, is that in the future trains will become so ultra reliable in the mechanical and electrical sense that they will brake down "rarely".  As a train operator you do not then need to factor in an emergency fleet of rescue units. Indeed, even with the previously broken train mentioned by Varche, that I pointed out was a victim of "Beast from the East", had it's passengers taken off (eventually) by another EMU train that pulled up alongside and had ramps to let people cross from one to another.

The days, as in the steam and early diesel era , when trains frequently broke down to to poor maintenance in the case of the former, and poor design / build in the instance of the latter, are over. Electrification and superior, advancing technology, will finally consign it all to history with a railway system fit for the late 21st century.  It's just a pity I will not see it in the lifetime I have left, but there again if I return in a new life I will be able to enjoy the benefits!!

[LC0112G]

I don't take what you stated as disputing it at all.  You are just stating fact as of now, and what I said was  a (big) hope for the future when the situation (must) be better.

There are two type of hope - Bob Hope and No Hope. Bob died in 2003.

To draw a comparison with rail and road transport.  In the 1960's and 70's you were lucky if your car didn't break down at some time.  Even brand new cars did.  People relied a lot more on other road services, or a complete collection of tools in the boot, to rescue them.  Now cars are so much more reliable, and if maintained correctly, are rarely broken down.  Of course cars do still break down for all kinds of reasons, but my run of Omegas over the last 20 years have never once let me down due to me looking after them.  That is different to two separate brand new Ford Cortinas that broke down in the 1970's due to manufacturing faults.

But what you are saying demonstrates what I'm saying. Tyres are now very reliable, and many new cars don't even have a spare. Get a puncture that the can of superglue won't fix and you're stuffed - marooned for hours. And sod's law says it'll be a Bank holiday Friday night, pi55ing down with rain, in the middle of nowhere. Whereas in the 'old' days you'd whip the duff wheel off, put the spare on, and be on your way 20 minutes late, but still on your way.

Making things more reliable tends to make the consequences when things do go wrong much much worse.

Therefore, what I am suggesting, is that in the future trains will become so ultra reliable in the mechanical and electrical sense that they will brake down "rarely".  As a train operator you do not then need to factor in an emergency fleet of rescue units. Indeed, even with the previously broken train mentioned by Varche, that I pointed out was a victim of "Beast from the East", had it's passengers taken off (eventually) by another EMU train that pulled up alongside and had ramps to let people cross from one to another.

And you won't get me on a train like that until rarely=never. You'll ALLWAYS need a fleet of rescue units, or at least a rescue plan. 15 hours in sub zero temps is not a suitable rescue plan.

The days, as in the steam and early diesel era , when trains frequently broke down to to poor maintenance in the case of the former, and poor design / build in the instance of the latter, are over. Electrification and superior, advancing technology, will finally consign it all to history with a railway system fit for the late 21st century.  It's just a pity I will not see it in the lifetime I have left, but there again if I return in a new life I will be able to enjoy the benefits!!

We'll all be teleporting from A to B before that happens. Complete pie in the sky management twaddle to this engineer. If something can fail it will, and at the worst possible time for the stupidest of unforeseen reasons. If you don't have a backup plan in place ready to go then you shouldn't be allowed to run a railway.

[TheBoy]

So not 3.5 hours then TB

5hrs stopping for a hot sit down meal, and taking a massive detour through the slow Lake District roads, I would estimate an easy 3.5hrs non stop, or without detour.

And that is on a Friday Afternoon.  i.e. the busiest time.

It would be 10hrs on a stupid train. 10hrs of standing. And 4-5 times the cost, even before we consider the massive rail subsidies.



As for the rubbish about trains and cars both being Victorian...

First railed transport is from ancient times.  Steam at turn of 19C, and mainstream pre Victorian.

First car, turn of 20C, mainstream during the reign of our current monarch.



Again, I'm typing this sat on a completely knackered train (One of Chiltern's clubmans) running on completely knackered tracks - so bad, I can barely type on this laptop.

[TheBoy]

And as soon as I pressed Post, the driver came on apologising for our slow progress, but the train in front has a technical issue...

...and his words, "I obviously can't overtake"


He makes a very valid point about this outdated, inefficient, ineffective form of transport.

[STEMO]

The awful truth is that neither road nor rail travel are sustainable for too much longer. You can't just keep adding to either system for ever. Too many people needing to travel around the country, and more being added each year, sooner or later we will reach saturation point.
We will soon look like India, with people on the roofs of trains and the front bumper of trucks and buses. The ironic part is..most of them will be Indians. 

[Bigron]

It was said that, with the coming of home computers and the internet, many people would work from home and rarely need to travel to the office. What happened to that idea?

Ron.

[aaronjb]

What happened to that idea?

It's really hard for doctors and nurses to do that, and builders, waiters, waitresses, etc.. I'd wager more people are employed in "non-desk" jobs than are employed in desk jobs.

That said, even with desk jobs there has been a recent trend of ending home working as companies like HP and BT suddenly realised they were paying for very large offices that were almost always empty.. so instead of ditching the office, they told everyone to get their arses in to the office..

He types. From his desk. At home.