In a recent publication from our local council I was initially pleased to hear that they are proposing to add smart ticketing across the city for the bus services.
As a curmudgeon who has long been hoping for such a thing to spread as this should make life easier for people and perhaps increase the takeup of public transport I was optimistic.
Unfortunately my optimism was to be unfounded. As I could not find any details either in the document, or on the web links it gave I emailed the public transport coordinator for the council.
It turns out that phase one is for a 'smart' paper ticket! Basically a day rover ticket that will be accepted on the two major operators in the city and only valid on the day of purchase. Not exactly what I would call smart ticketing. No mention of whether the smaller operators would accept it either.
Phase two however is equally disappointing - this will consist of smart card tickets, with each operator issuing their own.
One of these operators already has as smart card ticket scheme and reading between the lines it appears they are not prepared to make any changes so the second operator will have to adopt their scheme or they will 'take their ball home'!
As yet however there are no clear plans to make them compatible between the operators, apparently this will be left to the individual companies to negotiate and the council seem to have no plans to mediate. This seems ridiculous as there is a standard navailable (ITSO) for both the hardware elements (cards and readers) and the software.
At present, we have up to two years to wait to see what develops.
As I was now in bus mode, I decided to also query the signs which are appearing at the bus stops which simply report the time of the next bus based on the timetable.
Apparently the system was intended to use real time tracking from the buses, using a system developed by another county. That county then scrapped the system forcing a rethink and partnership with yet another county.
This latest system does not yet integrate to GPS tracking from the buses and this is under development. This is why we get the timetabled times. When the GPS tracking is enabled it will display minutes to the next bus if available or the fallback is the timetable data as at present.
Having visited the county where it is running and seen it in action I can see it works. I suppose the next question I shall have to ask is why is the integration taking so long?
Showing posts with label Public Transport. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Public Transport. Show all posts
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Not So Smart Transport System
On a recent train journey I noticed an advert for the train company's smart ticketing system. No more paper tickets, no more inconvenience - simply purchase tickets on your smart ticket.
So far so good, so I logged on to the website and ordered myself the smart ticket, which in essence is a contactless smart card like the Oyster system.
After a very short wait, my ticket arrived in the post, branded Stagecoach. As Stagecoach are the parent company of my local rail operator this was no surprise to me.
Now I started to look at what I can do with my ticket - and that is where it starts to go down hill. I could see from the accompanying leaflet that I could use it for certain journeys on the network but not all stations on the line would accept it. I could go to London but whereas with a paper ticket I can include travel within London, that is not yet possible with the smart ticket.
I tried contacting Stagecoach customer services via their website, to be told they only handled the bus and coach smart cards. Eventually I was put in touch with a very helpful gentleman in the IT department who DOES know what is going on.
After a long conversation I was able to ascertain the following, with the rider on all elements being - we are working towards that.
So, all in all, not a very smart solution after all.
I can only praise the chap in IT who was able to both understand and answer fully all my questions, but why did customer services not have this information?
I remember reading of a promise by the last government to implement nationwide smart ticketing by the end of 2014. This was I believe taken on by the present administration without a move of the target dates. Based on what I have seen from this scheme and Oyster, I think they are both very wide of the mark.
In Nottingham, we have Phase 2 of the tram network - allegedly this will include smart ticketing options. I will be interested to see their solution. Perhaps we all need card holders that can hold a multitude of smart cards, remembering that as they are all contactless we will have to take the appropriate card out of the wallet to use it in order to avoid confusing the reader.
So far so good, so I logged on to the website and ordered myself the smart ticket, which in essence is a contactless smart card like the Oyster system.
After a very short wait, my ticket arrived in the post, branded Stagecoach. As Stagecoach are the parent company of my local rail operator this was no surprise to me.
Now I started to look at what I can do with my ticket - and that is where it starts to go down hill. I could see from the accompanying leaflet that I could use it for certain journeys on the network but not all stations on the line would accept it. I could go to London but whereas with a paper ticket I can include travel within London, that is not yet possible with the smart ticket.
I tried contacting Stagecoach customer services via their website, to be told they only handled the bus and coach smart cards. Eventually I was put in touch with a very helpful gentleman in the IT department who DOES know what is going on.
After a long conversation I was able to ascertain the following, with the rider on all elements being - we are working towards that.
- My smart ticket can only be used with my network - if I want to use other smart ticket services withing the Stagecoach group I must obtain the ticket for that particular network.
- As I already knew, only certain stations can accept the smart ticket.
- I cannot buy a ticket online to load to the smart ticket, I must do this by phone or at the station.
- There is a limit of how many tickets can be on the card at any one time - and get this, it depends on how much data each ticket contains, as if I am likely to know this - about four to six apparently.
- There is no facility to get a bus smart card on a Pay as You Go basis like Oyster, only weekly and monthly passes.
- There is no interoperability with other smart card ticketing systems throughout the country.
So, all in all, not a very smart solution after all.
I can only praise the chap in IT who was able to both understand and answer fully all my questions, but why did customer services not have this information?
Dates for roll out of the missing features are necessarily vague, but don't hold your breath. Until then we will have to stick to good old fashioned paper tickets.
I remember reading of a promise by the last government to implement nationwide smart ticketing by the end of 2014. This was I believe taken on by the present administration without a move of the target dates. Based on what I have seen from this scheme and Oyster, I think they are both very wide of the mark.
In Nottingham, we have Phase 2 of the tram network - allegedly this will include smart ticketing options. I will be interested to see their solution. Perhaps we all need card holders that can hold a multitude of smart cards, remembering that as they are all contactless we will have to take the appropriate card out of the wallet to use it in order to avoid confusing the reader.
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
London Olympics 2012
We hear in the news that yet more of our money may be required for the 2012 London Olympics.
This is a ridiculous waste of public money.
Jobs are being lost in the public sector, services are being reduced, taxation is increasing. Why are we not capping the spend on the Olympics? We cannot afford to spend any more and it looks like a number of the promised benefits may well not be realised.
During the Olympics it appears that travel in London will become much more difficult as the public transport system struggles to cope and the roads become more congested, especially in areas where there are the special lanes for competitors and VIPs.
This will have the most impact upon those who live and work in London and is likely to be rather disruptive.
So what benefits will we get:
Increased tourism? Possibly not as many have announced they will not visit due to the expected congestion so we will find the visitors to the games will merely replace those who are no longer comings as tourists.
New facilities? Maybe but the Velodrome is rather specialised, the Aquatic Centre is similar and the main stadium is probably going to be sold or given to a football team and used for little else. Remember the Millennium Dome, now the O2 Arena, which cost the taxpayer a fortune before being more or less given away.
Improved transport? Better links to an area where many will not wish to go - great!
The London Olympics is just a case of trying to show off to the rest of the world. We should never have looked to host the Olympics and given that we have no way to back out, we must keep a lid on the costs before it cripples the country.
This is a ridiculous waste of public money.
Jobs are being lost in the public sector, services are being reduced, taxation is increasing. Why are we not capping the spend on the Olympics? We cannot afford to spend any more and it looks like a number of the promised benefits may well not be realised.
During the Olympics it appears that travel in London will become much more difficult as the public transport system struggles to cope and the roads become more congested, especially in areas where there are the special lanes for competitors and VIPs.
This will have the most impact upon those who live and work in London and is likely to be rather disruptive.
So what benefits will we get:
Increased tourism? Possibly not as many have announced they will not visit due to the expected congestion so we will find the visitors to the games will merely replace those who are no longer comings as tourists.
New facilities? Maybe but the Velodrome is rather specialised, the Aquatic Centre is similar and the main stadium is probably going to be sold or given to a football team and used for little else. Remember the Millennium Dome, now the O2 Arena, which cost the taxpayer a fortune before being more or less given away.
Improved transport? Better links to an area where many will not wish to go - great!
The London Olympics is just a case of trying to show off to the rest of the world. We should never have looked to host the Olympics and given that we have no way to back out, we must keep a lid on the costs before it cripples the country.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Brussels Bureaucracy
From reading an article in the paper yesterday I get the feeling we are likely to be put under the Brussels thumb again. There are two caveats of course - first that you should never believe all you read in the paper, and secondly that this is currently not enacted in law.
The key issue is that Brussels wants to make users of transport pay the whole cost and for there to be no subsidies by the government and have issued a White Paper to this effect.
The article was focussed on rail travel, with the concern that some fares could rise by up to fifty percent. The White Paper also calls for an increase in road charges (as if they aren't high enough already). No mention is made of other transport options such as bus and tram but they may well also get caught up in this. Indeed the increased road charges are likely to hit the cost of bus travel.
What on earth are they trying to achieve. If rail charges went up without increased road charges it would reverse the government's desire to get people on to public transport for so called environmental reasons, but if road costs go up also then it is likely that some of the population will be unable to afford to even get to work in order to pay these costs.
In the days when many people worked in the local mill or factory then travel to work was often a short journey which was frequently walked. That however was the 19th and early 20th centuries. We are now in the 21st century and the world works differently.
It is not practical to change our requirement for travel significantly, the world has evolved.
Not only do we have the issues for individuals travelling to work, what about all the additional costs for businesses. Firms will encounter increased transport costs for goods or overheads on necessary staff travel. Some meetings may become video conferences but the day of the salesman who travels to showcase the company's products are not over yet.
Apparently a spokesman for the European Commission stated 'These are just proposals and any measures would have to be agreed by national governments' We have seen that before and it is probable that a few powerful governments (of which ours is not one) would steamroller the proposals through and ensure all countries complied with the EC Big Brother.
The key issue is that Brussels wants to make users of transport pay the whole cost and for there to be no subsidies by the government and have issued a White Paper to this effect.
The article was focussed on rail travel, with the concern that some fares could rise by up to fifty percent. The White Paper also calls for an increase in road charges (as if they aren't high enough already). No mention is made of other transport options such as bus and tram but they may well also get caught up in this. Indeed the increased road charges are likely to hit the cost of bus travel.
What on earth are they trying to achieve. If rail charges went up without increased road charges it would reverse the government's desire to get people on to public transport for so called environmental reasons, but if road costs go up also then it is likely that some of the population will be unable to afford to even get to work in order to pay these costs.
In the days when many people worked in the local mill or factory then travel to work was often a short journey which was frequently walked. That however was the 19th and early 20th centuries. We are now in the 21st century and the world works differently.
It is not practical to change our requirement for travel significantly, the world has evolved.
Not only do we have the issues for individuals travelling to work, what about all the additional costs for businesses. Firms will encounter increased transport costs for goods or overheads on necessary staff travel. Some meetings may become video conferences but the day of the salesman who travels to showcase the company's products are not over yet.
Apparently a spokesman for the European Commission stated 'These are just proposals and any measures would have to be agreed by national governments' We have seen that before and it is probable that a few powerful governments (of which ours is not one) would steamroller the proposals through and ensure all countries complied with the EC Big Brother.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Integrated Public Transport
One of my problems with public transport is the method of payment. It is inconvenient to carry around large amounts of change and assorted bank notes just to cover the various fares we have to pay.
In many parts of the country there are smartcard systems, all seemingly discrete and incompatible.
What we need is a national travel card. My thinking is that the Oyster Card model works well. When I am in London I can use my Oyster to pay for train, tube, bus, tram and boat journeys - all with a simple tap on a reader, sometimes just on boarding, say for buses, other times on entry and exit, like the tube.
This charges the journey to your card. The basic card can operate either as a stand alone prepaid card that you manually add credit to when it runs out, or for those who make more journeys you can set an auto top up feature that links to your preferred payment method. The former is better for those who are concerned about providing payment details as they can top up in shops with cash.
Extending the model, the card can also be loaded with season tickets for those who have them and the correct ticket or charge will be recognised by the system.
Why do we not have this across the whole of the UK?
Many buses already have the smartcard readers and it therefore would seem only to be a software issue to add a national card into this. The driver already has to determine the fare so why not state your destination, be told the fare and then just tap your payment card.
Trams could either adopt the model used in London whereby you tap in at the point of boarding as all fares are fixed, or as used on the riverboats in London, where the conductor has a portable reader.
Even if we just implement this on buses and trams this would save a lot of grief. Depending upon financial limits we could potentially roll it out to taxis as well.
Imagine the benefits if you are away from home on holiday or business, you don't know the local fares so may have no idea how much money you need. A travel card like this will be ideal and will also speed up boarding of buses and reduce the amount of cash that both the passenger and the bus have to carry.
Prior to the last election I asked this question of both Labour and Conservative transport departments. Labour failed to answer the question (despite three letters repeating it) and the Conservatives said it was planned. I would have asked the Liberal Democrats but had no idea they would get anywhere near government!
I will update this post when (if) I get an answer from the present government, watch this space.
In many parts of the country there are smartcard systems, all seemingly discrete and incompatible.
What we need is a national travel card. My thinking is that the Oyster Card model works well. When I am in London I can use my Oyster to pay for train, tube, bus, tram and boat journeys - all with a simple tap on a reader, sometimes just on boarding, say for buses, other times on entry and exit, like the tube.
This charges the journey to your card. The basic card can operate either as a stand alone prepaid card that you manually add credit to when it runs out, or for those who make more journeys you can set an auto top up feature that links to your preferred payment method. The former is better for those who are concerned about providing payment details as they can top up in shops with cash.
Extending the model, the card can also be loaded with season tickets for those who have them and the correct ticket or charge will be recognised by the system.
Why do we not have this across the whole of the UK?
Many buses already have the smartcard readers and it therefore would seem only to be a software issue to add a national card into this. The driver already has to determine the fare so why not state your destination, be told the fare and then just tap your payment card.
Trams could either adopt the model used in London whereby you tap in at the point of boarding as all fares are fixed, or as used on the riverboats in London, where the conductor has a portable reader.
Even if we just implement this on buses and trams this would save a lot of grief. Depending upon financial limits we could potentially roll it out to taxis as well.
Imagine the benefits if you are away from home on holiday or business, you don't know the local fares so may have no idea how much money you need. A travel card like this will be ideal and will also speed up boarding of buses and reduce the amount of cash that both the passenger and the bus have to carry.
Prior to the last election I asked this question of both Labour and Conservative transport departments. Labour failed to answer the question (despite three letters repeating it) and the Conservatives said it was planned. I would have asked the Liberal Democrats but had no idea they would get anywhere near government!
I will update this post when (if) I get an answer from the present government, watch this space.
Monday, August 1, 2011
Nottingham Transport System
Some years ago Nottingham started developing what seemed like a good transport system. There was to be a new tram system providing links from outside the city direct to the centre. You would be able to leave your car at one of the car parks on the outskirts of the city and travel quickly and easily to the heart of it.
That was the idea at least.
We now have Phase 1 in operation and it has been so for a while now therefore I think any initial issues should have been ironed out. Phase 2 is repeatedly on/off depending upon political wills and the method of funding.
Let's start with the issues with what we have.
First and foremost the trams are frequently overcrowded. The capacity was seemingly underestimated, either that or the system was sized to the budget and not the actual requirement. Given the frequency of the trams I think there is no scope to run extra trams and the infrastructure was built around the size of the existing trams so adding an extra car to the trams, even if possible, would not work without major rebuilding. This means that there is no spare capacity for growth in population or popularity.
Secondly, the payment system is antiquated. London has the Oyster Card which allows very quick payment of fares, tap and go as they would say. The tram system has a smart card but it is very slow in operation. It is also limited in that you purchase a one month card say and if for some reason you don't make many trips you lose out. The Oyster Card is simply a payment card which doesn't have these constraints but still offers discounted rates for using it. Or you can just use cash but be warned, bank notes above £10 are not accepted on the trams so a family of four, whose ticket price would exceed the limit cannot use a £20 note to pay!
Then we have the issue of access to the city centre. If there are protests or marches in the city for whatever reason then the trams stop some way before their destination (ultimately the main rail station) without even getting as far as the Old Market Square in the heart where most people seem to go. Is there a discounted ticket on these days? No. Do they consider keeping the march away from the tram? No.
Finally, and one which I have experienced only once fortunately, the provision for breakdown. I was using the tram to attend an exhibition in the city centre. All went well with my journey in but when it came to return there was a loud bang from the tram shortly before one of the tram stops. We continued and stopped in the tram stop to be told by the driver there was a small technical problem and we would continue shortly. Quite why he said this I don't know because he and the conductor had already inspected the problem (pantograph broken) and as the tram has only one then we were going nowhere - of course we we were on the tram and hadn't seen this.
After some considerable time the driver told us the tram was going no further and we might as well get off and continue our journey by other means. For a considerable time we we were told nothing and when we used the platform intercom to contact the central control they could tell us nothing either.
Eventually we were told that a replacement bus service was being laid on but from a previous stop. Trams were running on the other line to get passengers there but by then the bus service was already swamped as all trams coming out of the city were emptying passengers on to the platform. Compare the capacity and frequency of the bus compared with the tram and you realise this will only get worse. I was forced to do the same as many others, go back to the city centre and take a taxi out to my car.
There were two possible solutions I could see yet when I suggested then to the company after the event I was told they were not possible.
The trams were equipped with towing links designed to enable one to tow another - the engineer who was sent out set this up on our tram and the one pulled in behind but never actually linked them or moved the broken down tram. Had they done this the broken down tram could have been towed the short distance to the depot (remember no trams running on this part of the line at all now).
Alternatively as there are two lines at this point it should have been possible to implement single line working on the remaining section (which does go down to single line later anyway) and provide a reduced service but still a service. Had this requirement been thought about when the line was designed it should be possible to make allowances for such a contingency.
The outcome was a tram service that only covered a fraction of the service for many hours. Amusingly the 'Next Tram' indicators confidently counted down to the next tram even though none were moving!
And now for Phase 2 - well there isn't much to say apart from the fact that I am not sure we will ever get it and if we do it may have limited use.
Remember the car parks for Park and Ride? Well for one of the lines it is quite a way towards Nottingham down a heavily congested single carriageway A road. The opportunity was there to run the line a little bit further out to join up with East Midlands Parkway rail station which means better rail links and access to the huge and underutilised car park there. That also has a shorter stretch of A road to get to it so this could be made dual carriageway at a lesser cost. Apparently though this is not to be done as there are few intermediate stations to be served along this route.
There you go then, a semi tick in an environmental box without solving too many problems.
That was the idea at least.
We now have Phase 1 in operation and it has been so for a while now therefore I think any initial issues should have been ironed out. Phase 2 is repeatedly on/off depending upon political wills and the method of funding.
Let's start with the issues with what we have.
First and foremost the trams are frequently overcrowded. The capacity was seemingly underestimated, either that or the system was sized to the budget and not the actual requirement. Given the frequency of the trams I think there is no scope to run extra trams and the infrastructure was built around the size of the existing trams so adding an extra car to the trams, even if possible, would not work without major rebuilding. This means that there is no spare capacity for growth in population or popularity.
Secondly, the payment system is antiquated. London has the Oyster Card which allows very quick payment of fares, tap and go as they would say. The tram system has a smart card but it is very slow in operation. It is also limited in that you purchase a one month card say and if for some reason you don't make many trips you lose out. The Oyster Card is simply a payment card which doesn't have these constraints but still offers discounted rates for using it. Or you can just use cash but be warned, bank notes above £10 are not accepted on the trams so a family of four, whose ticket price would exceed the limit cannot use a £20 note to pay!
Then we have the issue of access to the city centre. If there are protests or marches in the city for whatever reason then the trams stop some way before their destination (ultimately the main rail station) without even getting as far as the Old Market Square in the heart where most people seem to go. Is there a discounted ticket on these days? No. Do they consider keeping the march away from the tram? No.
Finally, and one which I have experienced only once fortunately, the provision for breakdown. I was using the tram to attend an exhibition in the city centre. All went well with my journey in but when it came to return there was a loud bang from the tram shortly before one of the tram stops. We continued and stopped in the tram stop to be told by the driver there was a small technical problem and we would continue shortly. Quite why he said this I don't know because he and the conductor had already inspected the problem (pantograph broken) and as the tram has only one then we were going nowhere - of course we we were on the tram and hadn't seen this.
After some considerable time the driver told us the tram was going no further and we might as well get off and continue our journey by other means. For a considerable time we we were told nothing and when we used the platform intercom to contact the central control they could tell us nothing either.
Eventually we were told that a replacement bus service was being laid on but from a previous stop. Trams were running on the other line to get passengers there but by then the bus service was already swamped as all trams coming out of the city were emptying passengers on to the platform. Compare the capacity and frequency of the bus compared with the tram and you realise this will only get worse. I was forced to do the same as many others, go back to the city centre and take a taxi out to my car.
There were two possible solutions I could see yet when I suggested then to the company after the event I was told they were not possible.
The trams were equipped with towing links designed to enable one to tow another - the engineer who was sent out set this up on our tram and the one pulled in behind but never actually linked them or moved the broken down tram. Had they done this the broken down tram could have been towed the short distance to the depot (remember no trams running on this part of the line at all now).
Alternatively as there are two lines at this point it should have been possible to implement single line working on the remaining section (which does go down to single line later anyway) and provide a reduced service but still a service. Had this requirement been thought about when the line was designed it should be possible to make allowances for such a contingency.
The outcome was a tram service that only covered a fraction of the service for many hours. Amusingly the 'Next Tram' indicators confidently counted down to the next tram even though none were moving!
And now for Phase 2 - well there isn't much to say apart from the fact that I am not sure we will ever get it and if we do it may have limited use.
Remember the car parks for Park and Ride? Well for one of the lines it is quite a way towards Nottingham down a heavily congested single carriageway A road. The opportunity was there to run the line a little bit further out to join up with East Midlands Parkway rail station which means better rail links and access to the huge and underutilised car park there. That also has a shorter stretch of A road to get to it so this could be made dual carriageway at a lesser cost. Apparently though this is not to be done as there are few intermediate stations to be served along this route.
There you go then, a semi tick in an environmental box without solving too many problems.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
HS2 - My View
There has been a lot of talk about the new high speed rail link (HS2) and whether it offers a benefit or not.
It also seems there are contradictory views in the environmental camp. In theory HS2 has the capability to reduce air travel within the UK. This reduces the need to expand airports and cuts the CO2 emissions and noise from the flights that are either cut or extra flights that are no longer needed. On this basis you would expect the evironmentalists to be positively encouraging HS2. But no, they don't want this solution. It isn't clear what they want unless we are all to stop travelling but at the moment the broadband infrastructure is still inadequate as a replacement for face to face meetings and is never likely to replace conferences and business exhibitions.
What is the answer? The existing rail network is already creaking at the seams so there is very little scope for adding more trains. Speaking as someone who has had to stand on a number of reasonably long journeys in dangerously overcrowded trains I feel we must do something if we are not to force people in to their cars (again much hated by environmentalists).
Based on this we should go ahead and build HS2, making sure it covers enough of the country to provide benefit which means it must ultimately go to Birmingham, Manchester, Edinburgh, Glasgow and other such key centres.
From an environmental impact point of view in many areas it is being built into tunnels and cuttings so reducing noise and visual disturbance. Maybe more of the route has to be built in this way but that depends on where it is passing.
Given the recent furore about Bombardier surely there must be good reason for going ahead - jobs could be saved and created. Not only jobs directly related to building the trains, but also construction jobs for the track and infrastructure and jobs at the new stations, drivers, maintenance staff and so on.
Of course a number of people in the south have complained about the line. An interesting solution was provided for this, put a station near them - improved links to London will send their house prices rocketting and they will suddenly change their minds.
We live in the 21st century and increasing population and work diversity means we must travel. Let us not be rated the poor relative to Europe when it comes to transport systems.
It also seems there are contradictory views in the environmental camp. In theory HS2 has the capability to reduce air travel within the UK. This reduces the need to expand airports and cuts the CO2 emissions and noise from the flights that are either cut or extra flights that are no longer needed. On this basis you would expect the evironmentalists to be positively encouraging HS2. But no, they don't want this solution. It isn't clear what they want unless we are all to stop travelling but at the moment the broadband infrastructure is still inadequate as a replacement for face to face meetings and is never likely to replace conferences and business exhibitions.
What is the answer? The existing rail network is already creaking at the seams so there is very little scope for adding more trains. Speaking as someone who has had to stand on a number of reasonably long journeys in dangerously overcrowded trains I feel we must do something if we are not to force people in to their cars (again much hated by environmentalists).
Based on this we should go ahead and build HS2, making sure it covers enough of the country to provide benefit which means it must ultimately go to Birmingham, Manchester, Edinburgh, Glasgow and other such key centres.
From an environmental impact point of view in many areas it is being built into tunnels and cuttings so reducing noise and visual disturbance. Maybe more of the route has to be built in this way but that depends on where it is passing.
Given the recent furore about Bombardier surely there must be good reason for going ahead - jobs could be saved and created. Not only jobs directly related to building the trains, but also construction jobs for the track and infrastructure and jobs at the new stations, drivers, maintenance staff and so on.
Of course a number of people in the south have complained about the line. An interesting solution was provided for this, put a station near them - improved links to London will send their house prices rocketting and they will suddenly change their minds.
We live in the 21st century and increasing population and work diversity means we must travel. Let us not be rated the poor relative to Europe when it comes to transport systems.
Monday, June 27, 2011
Railway Blues
We are frequently encouraged to use public transport more and our cars less. In situations where this can reduce congestion and pollution I am all for it, after all I can relax and have a cold beer if I am not driving.
Trouble is, public transport seems to have so many problems to make this impractical in many instances. Take today for example, we are told by the rail companies that due to the warm weather a number of services will be cancelled during the day and others will run at significantly reduced speed.
Add this to the problems in the past from the wrong kind of snow, leaves on the line, too much rain and you get the picture - our trains only run under optimal conditions
If I am making an important trip, I have to take into account the possible problems before deciding if I should drive or take the train. Whilst it is true that road travel also has it's issues, you would anticipate that as the railway is a much more controlled environment from a traffic poiint of view it could be run much more reliably. I believe it is done in other countries, why not here?
This reminds me of an amusing story from some years ago now.
A university friend had stopped with me on her way to an interview with British Rail as it was then. On the morning of her interview I took her to Preston Rail Station to enable her to travel to the interview in Crewe using the rail pass she had been given.
When we arrived we waited for the train which didn't show on time - the boards always seemed to indicate it would arrive in ten minutes. Further enquiries with staff showed that they had no idea where the train was and that in fact they had not seen the previous train on that service yet either (now some 90 minutes late).
I drove my friend to Crewe as it appeared that the train would be an issue. When we arrived at Crewe station neither of the two trains had yet arrived from Preston.
To top it all off, the interviewer reported there had been a very poor turnout for the interview (could this be something to do with trains not arriving do you think?)
Trouble is, public transport seems to have so many problems to make this impractical in many instances. Take today for example, we are told by the rail companies that due to the warm weather a number of services will be cancelled during the day and others will run at significantly reduced speed.
Add this to the problems in the past from the wrong kind of snow, leaves on the line, too much rain and you get the picture - our trains only run under optimal conditions
If I am making an important trip, I have to take into account the possible problems before deciding if I should drive or take the train. Whilst it is true that road travel also has it's issues, you would anticipate that as the railway is a much more controlled environment from a traffic poiint of view it could be run much more reliably. I believe it is done in other countries, why not here?
This reminds me of an amusing story from some years ago now.
A university friend had stopped with me on her way to an interview with British Rail as it was then. On the morning of her interview I took her to Preston Rail Station to enable her to travel to the interview in Crewe using the rail pass she had been given.
When we arrived we waited for the train which didn't show on time - the boards always seemed to indicate it would arrive in ten minutes. Further enquiries with staff showed that they had no idea where the train was and that in fact they had not seen the previous train on that service yet either (now some 90 minutes late).
I drove my friend to Crewe as it appeared that the train would be an issue. When we arrived at Crewe station neither of the two trains had yet arrived from Preston.
To top it all off, the interviewer reported there had been a very poor turnout for the interview (could this be something to do with trains not arriving do you think?)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)