Who Has the Worst Rail Network?

[Prester John]

I mean its got to be the British. Its fragmented, run by tin pot companies who don't invest. At rush hour its like a cattle market. Otherwise its untimely, uncomfortable and slow. You try going anywhere in a decent amount of time, even assuming the unlikely event that the trains run on time,unless you're travelling just one line, it is pathetic. Prices are high. Did i mention that apparently some lines (London ? leeds?) are slower now than they were in Victorian times.

So any countries out there got it worse? Anyone want to vent about the British rail system (or public transport in general)?

Come on make us Jealous France whats yours like ;) ?
Germany, The Low countries ? What about The US/ Canada how are your public transport systems?

[Segnosaur]

Canada's passenger rail system (Via Rail is our national line) is pretty bad...

Cut backs back in the late 80s/early 90s mean that the trains don't visit all cities, no high speed rail, and they don't even have their own rail system (I believe they use the rail beds of freight companies, so if a passanger train meets a freight train, the passanger train has to wait on a side track until the freight train has passed.)

On the other hand, the logo for Via Rail (shown below) is useful; if the train ever flips upside down, it still says 'via'.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Prester John
I mean its got to be the British. Its fragmented, run by tin pot companies who don't invest. At rush hour its like a cattle market. Otherwise its untimely, uncomfortable and slow. You try going anywhere in a decent amount of time, even assuming the unlikely event that the trains run on time,unless you're travelling just one line, it is pathetic. Prices are high. Did i mention that apparently some lines (London ? leeds?) are slower now than they were in Victorian times.

So any countries out there got it worse? Anyone want to vent about the British rail system (or public transport in general)?

Come on make us Jealous France whats yours like ;) ?
Germany, The Low countries ? What about The US/ Canada how are your public transport systems?

I would guess US has the worst one compared to other first world countries since it's so affordable to take a car or airplane.

[SFB]

AMTRAK is a joke - at least when it comes to timetables. I don't know why they even bother with them. I was four hours late pulling into Chicago from Massachusetts once and more recently two hours late from Reno into Oakland.

[Prester John]

Yes but come on, slower lines than the 1800's?

[Ladewig]

So any countries out there got it worse?

You're not from around here are you? While a handful of U.S. cities provide cheap, reliable public transportation, any intercity rail service fails in comparison to any European country.

[DanishDynamite]

Found a few numbers for British rail transport on this page: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2993658.stm)

Trains on time March 2002 - March 2003

Train company Per cent

Long distance
Anglia 77.3
Midland Mainline 73.6
Virgin West Coast 73.5
First Great Western 71.9
Great North Eastern Railway 70.8
Virgin CrossCountry 61.7

Sector average 70.6

London and South East
Chiltern Railways 88.4
First Great Eastern 88.4
c2c 86.3
Silverlink 83.9
Connex South Eastern 80.1
Thames Trains 79.2
West Anglia Great Northern 78.7
South Central 77.2
Thameslink 73.1
South West Trains 72.0

Sector average 79.0

Regional operators
Island Line 96.8
Arriva Trains Merseyside 91.5
Anglia Locals 84.0
Gatwick Express 82.1
ScotRail 82.1
Wessex Trains 81.1
First North Western 80.6
Arriva Trains Northern 80.4
Wales & Border Trains 79.9
Central Trains 70.6

Sector average 80.5

National Level 79.2

Trains are considered late if they arrive at their destination five or more minutes after the advertised time.

So, in the UK about 80% of trains arrive on time.

In Denmark there is effectively still only one carrier, namely DSB. Some numbers from DSB can be found here (http://www.dsb.dk/dsb_nu/pressecenter/baggrund/tog_til_tiden.htm#maal) (in Danish I'm afraid). A (translated) excerpt:

Percentage of trains on time:

Year....................... 98 99 00 01 02
Intercity trains...... 92 95 92 92 92
Suburban trains.. 92 92 94 93 93

Intercity trains are considered late if they arrive at their destination five or more minutes after the advertised time. Suburban trains are considered late if they arrive at their destination two or more minutes after the advertised time.

Seems our services are doing fairly well.

[Edited to try and fix the last table]

[DaChew]

Detroit easily has the best light rail in the world. The people mover has never been off schedule that I'm aware of. Of course, there is no schedule and it runs on a 2.5 mile loop so even if you miss your train it'll be back in about 10 minutes. That is unless they implode another building in the downtown area and the rubble lands on it.

[aerocontrols]

Among developed nations, US rail is likely to be the worst, I suspect.

We're simply too spread out for rail to make sense yet.

I believe some of our cities have very nice rail & bus systems, however.

[DanishDynamite]

aerocontrols:Among developed nations, US rail is likely to be the worst, I suspect.

We're simply too spread out for rail to make sense yet. How about high-speed trains? Wouldn't 350 km per hour trains be viable alternatives to flying in some areas?

[Michael Redman]

Actually, we have a pretty good rail system. We just use it for freight.

[ZeeGerman]

The German rail system is still pretty good. I can go from e.g. nuremberg to hamburg (abot 320 miles) in about 4 to 4.5 hours on an hourly schedule.
Sadly, it's being ruined by an incompetent management.

Zee

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
aerocontrols: How about high-speed trains? Wouldn't 350 km per hour trains be viable alternatives to flying in some areas?

Some, I suppose.

[Doubt]

Originally posted by DaChew
Detroit easily has the best light rail in the world. The people mover has never been off schedule that I'm aware of. Of course, there is no schedule and it runs on a 2.5 mile loop so even if you miss your train it'll be back in about 10 minutes. That is unless they implode another building in the downtown area and the rubble lands on it.

Thanks for making me clean my monitor.

Yes, the multi million dollar people mover is great. Just so long as you don't want to travel anyplace outside of down town Detroit.

The only other passenger rail traffic around here is the train to Chicago. This train is best used if you are not in a hurry and want to drink and travel without driving.

Not sure it there is still a train from Windsor to Toronto anymore. You had to cross the border first.

Canadians? Is that train still around?

[jj]

Originally posted by SFB
AMTRAK is a joke - at least when it comes to timetables. I don't know why they even bother with them. I was four hours late pulling into Chicago from Massachusetts once and more recently two hours late from Reno into Oakland.

And, it takes 26 hours to get from Seattle to LA?

IN A SEAT?

Oh, I wonder why nobody takes the train?

[jj]

Originally posted by DaChew
Detroit easily has the best light rail in the world. The people mover has never been off schedule that I'm aware of. Of course, there is no schedule and it runs on a 2.5 mile loop so even if you miss your train it'll be back in about 10 minutes. That is unless they implode another building in the downtown area and the rubble lands on it.

Whoa, there, you have to include the 2 hours in the ER and the half-hour to file the police report on the mugging you underwent at the station.

When you consider all the time costs, it's not very fast, and you can still see the Fischer Body building collapsing, too.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Grammatron


I would guess US has the worst one compared to other first world countries since it's so affordable to take a car or airplane.

I assume you mean passenger rail, which is pretty awful, particularly compared to the heyday when it was one of the best. But in those days business travelers took the train.

The notable exception to this is in the "Northeast Corridor" which is comparable in size to a large chuck of western Europe.

That is Boston to Washington DC and points in between with branches. It's almost solid city the whole way.

Commuter rail and mass transit is acceptable in Chicago and a few other places.

The freight railroad network is still excellent.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
aerocontrols: How about high-speed trains? Wouldn't 350 km per hour trains be viable alternatives to flying in some areas?

Yes in the "corrider."

That is the area from Boston to Washington DC on the east coast.
Rail is competitive there.

[SFB]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
Actually, we have a pretty good rail system. We just use it for freight.

Right, and that slows AMTRAK way down, because it doesn't have its own rails. Freight takes precedence over passengers, and you sit it one place for twenty to thirty minutes while freight moves its cars around.

[SFB]

Originally posted by jj
Oh, I wonder why nobody takes the train?

Well I took AMTRAK from Mass. to IL for the rail experience, and the trip through the Sierras to Nevada for the scenery (which is stunning). I moaned about the trip into Chicago because I didn't realize how bad it would be. For the Nevada trip I was well-prepared!

It really is kind of a joke. They actually post to-the-minute timetables!

[Soapy Sam]

Railways take major investment. With the rise of the car, neither government nor business was willing to invest in rail in the UK post war. By the 1960, thousands of miles of track- much of it rural- was being closed because it was not economical.

As the econoomy became more service -and city-oriented, people found themselves commuting by the million in cars. Result, gridlock.

Villages which kept their rail link to major cities have become commuter suburbs for rail commuters.

I wonder, had we kept those lovely, leafy rural lines, how many small towns and villages would have been changed beyond recognition? Now we are thinking about reopening some.

Darned if you do...darned if you don't.

[jj]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
Railways take major investment. With the rise of the car, neither government nor business was willing to invest in rail in the UK post war. By the 1960, thousands of miles of track- much of it rural- was being closed because it was not economical.

As the econoomy became more service -and city-oriented, people found themselves commuting by the million in cars. Result, gridlock.

Villages which kept their rail link to major cities have become commuter suburbs for rail commuters.

I wonder, had we kept those lovely, leafy rural lines, how many small towns and villages would have been changed beyond recognition? Now we are thinking about reopening some.

Darned if you do...darned if you don't.

Yeah, but do they have the bridge at Inverness fixed, or do you still have to take a bus from Inverness to the next station north to get to any of the North that still has rail service?

Or did they just close everything north of Inverness?

I mean, heck, why didn't they just stop at the Tay after that disaster? :)

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by jj


Yeah, but do they have the bridge at Inverness fixed, or do you still have to take a bus from Inverness to the next station north to get to any of the North that still has rail service?

Or did they just close everything north of Inverness?

I mean, heck, why didn't they just stop at the Tay after that disaster? :)

There are still no trains for the far North of Scotland. The main east coast railway isn't even electrified because of lack of money. This is down to politics. No money for a transport system that will revolutionise Scottish business and tourism. It would cost about £80 million.

But hey, you need £3.5 billion for 14.5 miles of track in London?

No problem............

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I would say the US has the worst rail network. Except we don't have one. :(

[jj]

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland


There are still no trains for the far North of Scotland. The main east coast railway isn't even electrified because of lack of money. This is down to politics. No money for a transport system that will revolutionise Scottish business and tourism. It would cost about £80 million.

But hey, you need £3.5 billion for 14.5 miles of track in London?

No problem............

You mean you still get to Dunbar on the behind of a diesel?

Ecch!

I remember going from Gatwick to Bristol, via Reading. 10 minute change in Reading. Of course the train was on time!

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by jj


You mean you still get to Dunbar on the behind of a diesel?

Ecch!

I remember going from Gatwick to Bristol, via Reading. 10 minute change in Reading. Of course the train was on time!

Not 100% sure, but I think it is electrified up to Edinburgh. I will have to check that. But its deisel all the way up to Aberdeen I know that for a fact.

The railways in Holland were first class. Way better than the UK. But then NS spend money on it.........

[aerosolben]

Originally posted by SFB
AMTRAK is a joke - at least when it comes to timetables. I don't know why they even bother with them. I was four hours late pulling into Chicago from Massachusetts once and more recently two hours late from Reno into Oakland.

The Northeastern is quite good. I've used it a few times recently and it arrived and departed precisely on time unfailingly (almost missed one departure because I only arrived 5 minutes early and they were doing the final boarding call).

[Shaun from Scotland]

Mind you they did shut the trains down on Queens day once because it was "too busy"..

Already bought your ticket? Want a refund?

No chance.........

My how I laughed as I trudged back to Amstelveen from Amsterdam........

[a_unique_person]

The Victorian system had a free market advocates wet dream of a privatisation.

The tram/train/bus network was broken up into about 10 companies. You had the ridiculous spectacle of trains from different companies sharing the same network.

Anyway, the British owned part was underinvested, under resourced and went badly broke. The French owned part is doing nicely, and has it's new trains running and is investing.

However, we now have the ridiculous situation where there are six different types of rail carriage. The different types cannot be 'mix and matched' for flexibility to help keep the rail system running properly.

[Dids]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Found a few numbers for British rail transport on this page: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2993658.stm)

National Level 79.2

Trains are considered late if they arrive at their destination five or more minutes after the advertised time.

So, in the UK about 80% of trains arrive on time.

[Edited to try and fix the last table]
However, as I read in the Private Eye, don't a lot of trains skip stations if they are running late in order to make that final destination on time?

I also remember the nightmare I had last year trying to get from Waterloo to Hapton Court...

Of course, if you want good trains, come to Japan - I'm on a moderately busy line in Osaka, <10 minute frequency for my first train in to work, <5 minutes for the second line, and a 15 minute frequency on return, rail pass 100% paid (in fact 110% due to me taking advantage of a pricing loophole!) by the company, and about once every 4-6 months there'll be an incident resulting on delays greater than a couple of minutes.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Prester John
I mean its got to be the British. Its fragmented, run by tin pot companies who don't invest. At rush hour its like a cattle market. Otherwise its untimely, uncomfortable and slow. You try going anywhere in a decent amount of time, even assuming the unlikely event that the trains run on time,unless you're travelling just one line, it is pathetic. Prices are high. Did i mention that apparently some lines (London ? leeds?) are slower now than they were in Victorian times.


I dont know- Maybe Cuba or Malawi?

British railways arent that bad. Throughout much of the southeast commuter region (which is all of the southeast), there is a turn-up-and-go system ie. trains are so frequent you dont really have to bother with a timetable.

Intercity services mostly run by the hour and often at speeds above 100mph. In fact, we run more services in excess of 100mph than any other country.

Prices have always been high on our railways, even since victorian times. Some trains are slower now than they used to be because there is now some concern about safety.

So what if the east coast mainline isnt electrified? diesel still works fine and frankly I dont care what powers my train so long as its fast and punctual.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The Victorian system had a free market advocates wet dream of a privatisation.

The tram/train/bus network was broken up into about 10 companies. You had the ridiculous spectacle of trains from different companies sharing the same network.

Anyway, the British owned part was underinvested, under resourced and went badly broke. The French owned part is doing nicely, and has it's new trains running and is investing.

However, we now have the ridiculous situation where there are six different types of rail carriage. The different types cannot be 'mix and matched' for flexibility to help keep the rail system running properly.

what country are you refering to?

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland

It would cost about £80 million.

But hey, you need £3.5 billion for 14.5 miles of track in London?



Where do you get your figures from?

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
Railways take major investment. With the rise of the car, neither government nor business was willing to invest in rail in the UK post war. By the 1960, thousands of miles of track- much of it rural- was being closed because it was not economical.

Villages which kept their rail link to major cities have become commuter suburbs for rail commuters.

I wonder, had we kept those lovely, leafy rural lines, how many small towns and villages would have been changed beyond recognition? Now we are thinking about reopening some.


Actually around 50% of all our track was lost in that episode.

This has happened in some leafy villages. I went camping in a village in Sussex that become a commuter hell-hole. Then again, my Grandad's village in the Chilterns is still quaint and leafy despite being an ideal commuter base. It just doesnt have any shops exept for one supermarket and two dozen estate agents.

Freight, btw, is the one sector of British railways that runs itself well and requires no public subsidy.

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Where do you get your figures from?

Damn I must apologise. I got the figures wrong.



It's actually 10 miles of track.........

£320 million a mile (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/529006.stm)

I got the east coast line extension costs from memory. I will see if I can find a source

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


what country are you refering to?

Let me see, was it Venezuala? No, it must be Australia then.

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london

Freight, btw, is the one sector of British railways that runs itself well and requires no public subsidy.

Whereas road transport of freight is subsidised through tax breaks, and so undermines the rail freight market...

Bring back the canals...

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland


Damn I must apologise. I got the figures wrong.

It's actually 10 miles of track.........

£320 million a mile (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/529006.stm)

I got the east coast line extension costs from memory. I will see if I can find a source

Ah... underground costs a lot more than overground, or does it? I wonder what the cost per mile of the west-coast mainline renewal is?

That doesnt suprise me though, what I really wanted was the other figure as £80million is literally peanuts to our wonderfully wastefull privatised railways. Sounds more like the cost of a new train rather than a new track.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Let me see, was it Venezuala? No, it must be Australia then.

No need to get all defensive on my arse! I knew you were an Aussie but what you were describing sounded very much like the UK so I wasnt sure.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Matabiri


Whereas road transport of freight is subsidised through tax breaks, and so undermines the rail freight market...

Bring back the canals...

Not to mention the number of trucks that end up crashing onto the railways. Somehow the motor lobby makes this appear as if its the railways that are unsafe!

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Ah... underground costs a lot more than overground, or does it? I wonder what the cost per mile of the west-coast mainline renewal is?

That doesnt suprise me though, what I really wanted was the other figure as £80million is literally peanuts to our wonderfully wastefull privatised railways. Sounds more like the cost of a new train rather than a new track.

This is not what it would cost now. At the time the Jubille line was being planned and funding put in place(which is 10-15 years ago) the East coast Line from Edinburgh to Aberdeen WOULD have cost £80 million. The Jubille line got what it needed (an original estimate of £900 million which rose to £3.5 billion) And lets not forget all the other rail projects.

The East coast line got better sandwiches..........

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland

It's actually 10 miles of track.........

£320 million a mile (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/529006.stm)

I got the east coast line extension costs from memory. I will see if I can find a source

I thought you were referring to the extension of the Eurostar to St Pancras. Don't know how much that cost, but I think the Waterloo terminal (now due to be ignored) cost somewhere in the region of £400 million (can't find a source offhand).

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Matabiri
.........I think the Waterloo terminal (now due to be ignored) cost somewhere in the region of £400 million (can't find a source offhand).

Dont worry, thats how much it took just to negotiate the contracts for the tube privatization!



This is not what it would cost now. At the time the Jubille line was being planned and funding put in place(which is 10-15 years ago) the East coast Line from Edinburgh to Aberdeen WOULD have cost £80 million. The Jubille line got what it needed (an original estimate of £900 million which rose to £3.5 billion) And lets not forget all the other rail projects.


Yes, thats what I thought. Privatization seems to have provided better value to the taxpayer by a factor of around minus 200. Dontcha just love the Tories? Not that Labour has done much to improve things.......


The East coast line got better sandwiches..........


Who says its all doom and gloom! :p

[richardm]

Originally posted by Matabiri


Bring back the canals...

Ah, the Falkirk Wheel :) I had a go on that last summer - great bit of engineering!

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


No need to get all defensive on my arse! I knew you were an Aussie but what you were describing sounded very much like the UK so I wasnt sure.

Not at all! Just having a bit of fun in my holidays.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
However, we now have the ridiculous situation where there are six different types of rail carriage. The different types cannot be 'mix and matched' for flexibility to help keep the rail system running properly.

I can count six different type sof train carriage that go past my window each day. One operator has three different types, none of which are compatible.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland
Mind you they did shut the trains down on Queens day once because it was "too busy"..That was in 2001, right?
I hope you realize how lucky you were for not being in Amsterdam and trying to get out!

There were a few instances where people pulled the emergency breaks. Because of that some tracks had to be shut down and trains ended up standing still near the Amsterdam Centraal Station. This made things worse as some people lost their patience and opened the doors with the emergency handles and walked across the tracks toward the city. The NS (Dutch Railways) had to shut down basically the entire station to prevent any accidents, which of course made more trains wait, more people losing the patience and so on... Worst of all, the NS assumed it could stabilize the situation quickly enough and did not order any buses as replacement transportation. That was a fatal mistake. The train system remained chaotic.

It ended up with literally tens of thousands of people being stranded at the station waiting to go home, there was no rail traffic, and people could not get out. 'Busy' is an understatement.
There were so many people who wanted to get into the station, the NS had to close it. People outside demanded to be able to go home, which resulted in severe riots until deep in the night.

It's nice to have a reasonably good railsystem (good enough that people complain about 5 minute delays) and it works wonderfully most of the time. However, such a complex and finely tuned system can go really bad when unexpected things start to happen and mistakes that would be small in other situations can have very serious consequences. Luckily the NS learned its lesson well and nothing of this magnitude had happened since, even on the busiest national holidays.

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by Earthborn
That was in 2001, right?
I hope you realize how lucky you were for not being in Amsterdam and trying to get out!

There were a few instances where people pulled the emergency breaks. Because of that some tracks had to be shut down and trains ended up standing still near the Amsterdam Centraal Station. This made things worse as some people lost their patience and opened the doors with the emergency handles and walked across the tracks toward the city. The NS (Dutch Railways) had to shut down basically the entire station to prevent any accidents, which of course made more trains wait, more people losing the patience and so on... Worst of all, the NS assumed it could stabilize the situation quickly enough and did not order any buses as replacement transportation. That was a fatal mistake. The train system remained chaotic.

It ended up with literally tens of thousands of people being stranded at the station waiting to go home, there was no rail traffic, and people could not get out. 'Busy' is an understatement.
There were so many people who wanted to get into the station, the NS had to close it. People outside demanded to be able to go home, which resulted in severe riots until deep in the night.

It's nice to have a reasonably good railsystem (good enough that people complain about 5 minute delays) and it works wonderfully most of the time. However, such a complex and finely tuned system can go really bad when unexpected things start to happen and mistakes that would be small in other situations can have very serious consequences. Luckily the NS learned its lesson well and nothing of this magnitude had happened since, even on the busiest national holidays.

Yep it was a fun day all right.......

I had made the mistake of going on a friends boat and was the only person not to bring an umberella. I was soaked to skin with beer (and maybe other stuff but I dont want to think about it) and had to walk from the leidseplein to Amstelveen station smelling like an explosion at the Amstel brewery.

Wy no refunds though?

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland
Wy no refunds though?Did you ask for a refund form? Was your train ticket worth more than 5 guilders? I have no idea whether they can even give refunds to foreigners. Could be a lot of hassle transferring money to a different country.

And I imagine the NS had more important things on its head after that particular day... :)

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Did you ask for a refund form? Was your train ticket worth more than 5 guilders? I have no idea whether they can even give refunds to foreigners. Could be a lot of hassle transferring money to a different country.

And I imagine the NS had more important things on its head after that particular day... :)

Yeah but they said they were not giving refunds. A lot of my Dutch friends also got the same response in the weeks after it. The forums over at expatica were full of it.

And I live in Holland, pay taxes to the gemente? (sp) and have to put up with Albert Hein so I dont think that was an excuse:D :D (although I am back in Scotland for a while)

[Shaun from Scotland]

Although in fairness to AH, I should mention that Euroshopper lager is surprisingly tasty at 70 eurocents a can........

[sackett]

Originally posted by SFB
AMTRAK is a joke . . .

Note a joke, rather a national park on rails -- and a nice one. Take a sleeper from Chicago to San Fran sometime. Yes, you're paying a stiff tariff to crash along over trackbeds that would embarass Bolivia, and no, you won't arrive much less than a full day late, but so what? Few routes on earth can beat that glorious ride over the Rockies; even Canada would be hard pressed to match it.

Somebody was sardonic about the People Mover here in Detroit. Cheap shot, pal! If you had as many relatives as Coleman Young, you'd be hunting around for boondoggles too!

[Tmy]

Why take inter city rail when you can fly! I can get from Boston to DC by takeing about an hour flight. Train would take me all day. And it'd cost about the same!

Funny thing, the Boston to New York high speed train has become quite popular since 911. Cause airports and flying have become such a hassle.

[Jon_in_london]

Oh this is just the best!

You see, faced with the problem of 1 in 5 trains being late, the rail authorities first tried to cut back on the number of trains. Fewer trains total, fewer to be late, right?

Wrong! Because that didnt improve anything did it!

So in another attempt to remedy the situation by doing anything except actually improving the service, they have decided to just stick a few extra minutes onto the time of each rail journey. Now the train that was 7minutes late will only be 2 minutes late! what a work of genius!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3401839.stm

[The Don]

Perhaps they could just move the stations closer together. If Manchester was only 25 miles from London, then even the British rail system could get you there in under 3 hrs.

[Darat]

Originally posted by The Don
Perhaps they could just move the stations closer together. If Manchester was only 25 miles from London, then even the British rail system could get you there in under 3 hrs.

I wouldn't bet on it!

I can just about drive to Manchester quicker then taking the train (and that's just the journey from the stations not taking into consideration the time to get the station.) And I live 200 miles from Manchester!

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by The Don
Perhaps they could just move the stations closer together. If Manchester was only 25 miles from London, then even the British rail system could get you there in under 3 hrs.

Dont joke. They will probably close all routes that are more than 5 minutes apart next!

"This is the SouthCentral service from Wandworth common to Balham. Change at Balham for the SouthCentral service to Streatham common".

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Darat


I wouldn't bet on it!

I can just about drive to Manchester quicker then taking the train (and that's just the journey from the stations not taking into consideration the time to get the station.) And I live 200 miles from Manchester!
You're an airline pilot? ;) :D

[Darat]

Originally posted by BillyTK

You're an airline pilot? ;) :D

No someone who uses the M6 Toll - what a fantastic road! £2 to cut at least one hour of my journey time!

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by sackett

Note a joke, rather a national park on rails -- and a nice one. Take a sleeper from Chicago to San Fran sometime. Yes, you're paying a stiff tariff to crash along over trackbeds that would embarass Bolivia...

You're quite wrong about the track beds. They are maintained just fine by the freight railroads.

Indeed, having real passenger service in the USA (again) would for the most part consist of building (or re-building) passenger stations and changing the rules (back) about passenger trains not having the right of way.

One might question whether even that would be worthwhile, but that's what it would take.