Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 17 to 32 of 33

Thread: Britain's Railway Go Slow Due to WRONG TYPE OF WEATHER

  1. #17
    Registered+ Zathras's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canary Wharf/Richmond
    Posts
    1,454
    Thanks
    13
    Thanked
    7 times in 4 posts
    Of course there are some high speed services and some low speed ones, but the same is true of buses - look at National Express compared with town circular routes. The figures are an average. Buses do have a speed advantage on dedicated routes, but these remain quite few, especially on trunk roads for express travel - look at the furore created by the M4 buslane. It is also very difficult to fit two lanes of motorway width into the same space taken by two express rail lines, plus comfort has to be taken into account. I find travelling by rail far more comfortable than by coach or bus, and there is evidence to suggest that numbers travelling fall significantly when a rail route is closed and replaced by a bus service - it certainly happened after the Beeching cuts. Some of the smallest branch lines may do better with a bus service, I can think of two or three off the top of my head, but I doubt significantly whether the capacity would be increased or speed kept remotely the same were mainline services replaced by coaches. One also has to consider the environmental effects - trains are much more efficient than buses and produce a fraction/passenger of the pollutants. A large amount of freight is carried using the redundant capacity at night - freight that would have to return to the roads or HGV. The rail system needs investment for sure - I'd love to see an LGV (high speed line like the new channel tunnel link or the TGV lines in France) between London and Scotland with speeds around 200mph. It would revitalise the economy (look at the effects the TGV had in France), open up Liverpool as a major port for American-European freight and also help move a lot of traffic off our motorways, meaning car drivers had less congested roads. Rail commuter services into and out of London are already showing improvements with much improved new stock with improved speed. I travelled on the Southend line just the other week on a new train with air conditioning and immense amount of room, and the top speed on the line is 100mph which is attained at a number of places along the route.

  2. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    earth, milky way
    Posts
    178
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    good points Zath, looking Statistically my view of the railway safety has changed. I think its fair to say the reputation of the Railway system of this country is not a good one (in view of most people) thats not a 'FACT' thats just my opinion. This is largely due to complaints from people, the press and the the image given out from recent train accidents.

  3. #19
    Ive got 10/40w for blood... THCi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Somewhere, sometime, dunno why though.
    Posts
    512
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    Originally posted by kimosabi
    if other countries have these types of high temperatures how do thier trains cope??
    The metal in the rails would have already expanded, so they couldnt really expand (a great deal more) and buckle.

    But, the cooling at night will still affect them.

  4. #20
    Sublime HEXUS.net
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    The Void.. Floating
    Posts
    11,819
    Thanks
    213
    Thanked
    233 times in 160 posts
    • Stoo's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Mac Pro
      • CPU:
      • 2*Xeon 5450 @ 2.8GHz, 12MB Cache
      • Memory:
      • 32GB 1600MHz FBDIMM
      • Storage:
      • ~ 2.5TB + 4TB external array
      • Graphics card(s):
      • ATI Radeon HD 4870
      • Case:
      • Mac Pro
      • Operating System:
      • OS X 10.7
      • Monitor(s):
      • 24" Samsung 244T Black
      • Internet:
      • Zen Max Pro
    So, what we really need is a nice new mag-lev infrastructure

    I wonder how much the rail infrastructure could have been improved if the money that was spent on the Iraq Invasion was pumped into the rail network instead...
    (\__/)
    (='.'=)
    (")_(")

  5. #21
    misterious and scary
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    uk, brummieland
    Posts
    335
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    i was on the trains today and they where fine

    but you lot moanin bout the trains, what would happen if the trains where derailed, people would moan and say they should of slowed down the trains


    errr ? ? ?

    im confused

  6. #22
    Registered+ Zathras's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canary Wharf/Richmond
    Posts
    1,454
    Thanks
    13
    Thanked
    7 times in 4 posts
    The image given out by recent accidents is mainly due to the fascination with train crashes. Like plane crashes they are very rare so when one happens it often makes headline news. Take for example the derailment of the Gatwick Express earlier this month. It made the top story on the South East local news yet noone was injured, let alone hurt. The train remained upright, one wheel came off the track. There were three fatal car accidents in the South East region on the same day yet they weren't mentioned at all. Even in the worst accidents such as Great Heck fewer people died than an average day on the country's motorways. It's 'man bites dog' really, car crashes are everyday occurences, train crashes much less so. Also the reaction of the Health and Safety Executive does nothing to alleviate peoples fears of travelling by train. After the GatEx derailment the line was shut for almost a week, meaning longwinded diversions for all traffic on that line, making people remember the incident for a long time as the line remains shut for a while and pushing people into their statistically far more dangerous cars. Even in major fatal accidents on the road the route in question is invariably opened within hours of the accident taking place. This is why many people are so amazed at the actual figures for deaths etc, and it does ask the question why the HSE demand the railway spend ridiculous amounts of money on what amount to very small increases in safety where the same money spent on increasing reliability and service levels would save more lives through drawing more people out of their cars and off the relatively more dangerous roads. The money spent on safety would also have far greater effect were it spent on certain road safety schemes and per pound would save an order of magnitude more lives, but we seem to have a great paranoia about railway safety.

  7. #23
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    160
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    Try telling that to an unlucky soul falling into 3.7 deaths per 1000 mill pass-km catergory...


  8. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sheffield
    Posts
    529
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    The ave time btw accidents is assuming constant travel on the mode of transport. The figures are from the DoT.
    [/B]
    Whoa, so if I was a rep doing 8 hours a day driving in a car I would stand a 1 in 3 chance of dying in 22 years?

    Also, it looks like it was a good idea that I stopped cycling to work. An hour a day 5 days a week..... = a 1 in 10 chance of me dying in the next 20 years. Hmm, sounds a bit high - I always counted myself luck making it through nearly a year of cylcing to work!

  9. #25
    Registered+ Zathras's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canary Wharf/Richmond
    Posts
    1,454
    Thanks
    13
    Thanked
    7 times in 4 posts
    Well I'll tell that to the unlucky soul falling in the 3.7 deaths and you try telling what we're doing to the ten or so deaths that could have been avoided if we'd spent the same money needed to save one person on road safety schemes, or are rail passengers' lives worth far more than car drivers/passengers?

  10. #26
    Registered+ Zathras's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canary Wharf/Richmond
    Posts
    1,454
    Thanks
    13
    Thanked
    7 times in 4 posts
    Trickle, you can't 'add up' the figures like that, they're 'expected' values, call it the mean time if you like. It doesn't mean if you drove 0.52 years on a motorbike you'll definitely die. A lot has to do with experience, how much you drive/ride etc. Also you're here to tell the tale, which shows your probability of you dying over the past however many years is 0 - you're still alive

  11. #27
    By-Tor with sticks spikegifted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    still behind the paddles
    Posts
    920
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    I thought the all-singing, all-dancing, super-duper, fantastic, we'll-save-this-country-from-hell Labor government was going to fix public transport (and the railway in particular) as a matter of priority?!

    Or has their priority changed?

    Now I remember... We (and I mean the government of the land) has blown a big hole in our budget by sending troops (who're suppose to *defend* this country) to a country long, long way away to topple some dictator and may be plant some, I mean find some, weapons of mass destruction before they all evaporate into thin air...
    Caution: Cape does not enable user to fly. - Batman costume warning label (Rolfe, John & Troob, Peter, Monkey Business (Swinging Through the Wall Street Jungle), 2000)

  12. #28
    Goat Boy
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Alexandra Park, London
    Posts
    2,428
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    I'm not a Labour supporter, but I will defend them in as much as they HAVE provided a significant amount of funding for the railways. The simple fact of the matter is that it takes decades to sort out infrastructure problems like those found on the railways. The rail network in the UK has been built over a period of more than 150 years! It is extremely extensive, and it will not be fixed overnight.

    Compared to the Tories, I think they have done a better job. I just wish they'd leave it with the damn PFI everywhere. It's screwing things up!
    "All our beliefs are being challenged now, and rightfully so, they're stupid." - Bill Hicks

  13. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sheffield
    Posts
    529
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    Originally posted by Zathras
    Trickle, you can't 'add up' the figures like that, they're 'expected' values
    I was kidding But it proves how pointless the figures are to individuals outside the likes of huge insurance companies.

    It boils down to one simple fact. You get on a train and its out of your control. When your in a car, you feel invincible no matter how bad in reality a driver you are... and no matter how many Kevs are also driving in your particular area at any given time. So train safety becomes a much bigger issue to you, even if it is blown out of proportion to reality.

  14. #30
    Offline
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    418
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    Originally posted by THCi
    The metal in the rails would have already expanded, so they couldnt really expand (a great deal more) and buckle.

    But, the cooling at night will still affect them.
    Thermal strain on a linear material (most steels are approximately linear materials) is proportional to the rise in temperature.

    We're lucky that the ambient temperature range we're likely to experiance in the UK is not going to be much mroe than 35C. Compare the tables for Brum and Warsaw.

    In addition to what Zathras has already said, this is hardly a problem limited to the UK.

  15. #31
    By-Tor with sticks spikegifted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    still behind the paddles
    Posts
    920
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    Originally posted by Dr. X
    We're lucky that the ambient temperature range we're likely to experiance in the UK is not going to be much mroe than 35C.
    But it is not the ambient temperature that is the problem, right? It is the actual track temperature which is causing the problem. If the ambient temperature is 35C but not sunny, the track temperature will be less than when it is sunny, no?
    Caution: Cape does not enable user to fly. - Batman costume warning label (Rolfe, John & Troob, Peter, Monkey Business (Swinging Through the Wall Street Jungle), 2000)

  16. #32
    Rank Bajin
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Hemel/St Albans
    Posts
    1,163
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    4 times in 4 posts
    Right, this whole thing is really irritating me, after hearing people on the radio ring in and complain. I think it is admirable, as others have said, for them to explain whats happening at the risk of losing face. Id rather they told me and i made allowances for it, than did it secretly, and i realise im an hour late and miss a connection.
    Also, Britain has a great range of temperatures- It has got down to -20 in recent years, and now is reckoned to get as high as 37- a difference of 57,which is really quite alot. I doubt whether anyone could make a railway that doesnt buckle at extremely high temperatures for Britain without uncomfortable, and dangerous gaps during the rest of the year.

    recently, the rail networks changed their methods of installing rails. Now, they are welded on site in mile long lengths, so you dont get the clackety-clack very often, but as a result they dont handle the really high temperatures. Also, bear in mind steel is a good conductor of radient heat, so it will get very, very hot in the sunshine, but will stay hot for some time.
    The Caped Crusader :-)

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •