The new Javelin trains vs..

"andy" · 18 Jun 2009 at 22:51

got to remember that we had a fully working and decent train system long before most other countrys did

just a shame its been left to rot for so long

on another note i once seen a good photo in a motorbike mag of a guy on bike overtaking a TGV at 170mph ish

muon · 18 Jun 2009 at 22:53

mattheman said:
country like spain faster trains, not as wealthy as the uk and has a larger land mass, if they can do it why not the uk. and has more hills than the uk.

Spain's fiscal expansions set them up to be the hardest hit when the bubble finally burst. 18.1% (april 09) unemployment is atrocious.

edit: Although of course you could argue public investment isn't necessarily bad. Also they got some of that money from the EU and so wasn't exactly deficit spending.

Monkeynut · 18 Jun 2009 at 22:53

mattheman said:
country like spain faster trains, not as wealthy as the uk and has a larger land mass, if they can do it why not the uk. and has more hills than the uk.

Because in the 60's IIRC our rail network was ruined?

clv101 · 18 Jun 2009 at 22:58

vidda said:
Yeah, the new train is great and all - but why not focus money on actually improving the railway system and make everything come on time first.

Is it getting better:

Record number of trains 'on time'
Nine out of 10 trains ran on time over the last year - the highest proportion since records began in 1992, Network Rail has said. A total of 90.6% of trains were on time in the year to March 2009, and April saw a monthly record of 93.5%
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8067945.stm

Energize · 18 Jun 2009 at 23:05

ghost101 said:
Doesn't mean demand cannot be high for these trains. With higher prices, those that genuinely need a faster train can pay for it and therefore benefit.

It's only £4 more, everyone can afford it anyway, I'm not sure what you mean by "genuinely need", unless the nhs are now using trains to take people to the hospital.

GreatAuk · 18 Jun 2009 at 23:05

poor old Britain.

mattheman · 18 Jun 2009 at 23:11

clv101 said:
Is it getting better:

Record number of trains 'on time'
Nine out of 10 trains ran on time over the last year - the highest proportion since records began in 1992, Network Rail has said. A total of 90.6% of trains were on time in the year to March 2009, and April saw a monthly record of 93.5%
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8067945.stm

A train is considered to have arrived on time if it reaches its destination within five minutes of the timetabled arrival time for commuter services and within 10 minutes for long-distance services.

muon · 18 Jun 2009 at 23:17

Energize said:
It's only £4 more, everyone can afford it anyway, I'm not sure what you mean by "genuinely need", unless the nhs are now using trains to take people to the hospital.

If I genuinely need to be from A to B quicker than the slower trains I will pay £4 more. If I don't, I will pay £4 less.

With equal prices, everyone attempts to get ticket for the faster services. Now say I need to get from A to B (and be willing to pay £4 extra for the priviledge), I may not be able to get a seat at non equal prices because someone who does not value the journey as £4 better got the seat.

This is the problem of rationing a good or service. The resource isn't efficiently allocated. This is the same reason as why we have peak ticket prices being higher.

[TW]Fox · 18 Jun 2009 at 23:18

We are a small country and we pioneered railways in the 1800's. This means all our lines are built, and our cities are built around them.

In contrast, France is huge and has lots of open space so its easy to build a brand new dedicated high speed line covernig hundreds of kilometers. We do not have the space for this.

The French TGV network is a dedicated high speed network with no other traffic. It's virtually impossible for us to have something similar because of our geography. Yes, the CTRL which the new trains run is also a dedicated high speed link, and Eurostar services run on it at speeds of up to 186mph, but these are not commuter trains - the design contraints around commuter trains prevent ultra high speed designs.

140mph isn't bad for a commuter train.

chimaera · 19 Jun 2009 at 08:43

clv101 said:
Is it getting better:

Record number of trains 'on time'
Nine out of 10 trains ran on time over the last year - the highest proportion since records began in 1992, Network Rail has said. A total of 90.6% of trains were on time in the year to March 2009, and April saw a monthly record of 93.5%
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8067945.stm

All they've done is redefine what it means to be 'on time', my train into Moorgate takes 5 minutes longer than they did in the 70's.

A lot of that is due to speed restrictions after hatfield and potters bar though. But overall i've not really seen any imporvements in recent years.

borich_planner · 19 Jun 2009 at 08:50

Its still good for me, Gravesend London 1 hour and it will be 20 mins now. However I only go london once or twice a year....

Borich

a1ex2001 · 19 Jun 2009 at 08:57

[TW]Fox;14314731 said:
We are a small country and we pioneered railways in the 1800's. This means all our lines are built, and our cities are built around them.

In contrast, France is huge and has lots of open space so its easy to build a brand new dedicated high speed line covernig hundreds of kilometers. We do not have the space for this.

The French TGV network is a dedicated high speed network with no other traffic. It's virtually impossible for us to have something similar because of our geography. Yes, the CTRL which the new trains run is also a dedicated high speed link, and Eurostar services run on it at speeds of up to 186mph, but these are not commuter trains - the design contraints around commuter trains prevent ultra high speed designs.

140mph isn't bad for a commuter train.

Please take your reasonable answer out of this thread we are hear to slate Britain not explain the situation logically

Oh and to the guy who said we had a great train network until the 60's guess again, we had a hideously expensive train network with hardly any passengers on lots of lines that was costing the tax payer a fortune. Even if it was still all open trains would be no faster as the tracks were mainly laid in the era of Steam so are not capable of supporting a modern 200mph system.

platypus · 19 Jun 2009 at 09:01

apeZ said:
I like the look of the train, and suits me too (Kent-London), but those prices seem a little steep :/

A typical commuter reaction. You want the speed but you don't want to pay for it.

Countries with high speed rail networks have invested billions and billions in track to support these trains.

platypus · 19 Jun 2009 at 09:02

[TW]Fox;14314731 said:
In contrast, France is huge and has lots of open space so its easy to build a brand new dedicated high speed line covernig hundreds of kilometers. We do not have the space for this.

Not quite sure you can use the space argument, although it is valid to a certain extent - Japan hardly has an abundance of space.

a1ex2001 · 19 Jun 2009 at 09:12

platypus said:
Not quite sure you can use the space argument, although it is valid to a certain extent - Japan hardly has an abundance of space.

they also only have six high speed train lines and had no choice but to replace there origional train lines as they were narrow gauge and totally unsuitable for trains even as fast as ours. The cost was shouldered byt the government and was truly epic.

platypus · 19 Jun 2009 at 09:17

a1ex2001 said:
they also only have six high speed train lines and had no choice but to replace there origional train lines as they were narrow gauge and totally unsuitable for trains even as fast as ours. The cost was shouldered byt the government and was truly epic.

Indeed, and which is why we don't have a high speed network.

rypt · 19 Jun 2009 at 09:23

a1ex2001 said:
they also only have six high speed train lines and had no choice but to replace there origional train lines as they were narrow gauge and totally unsuitable for trains even as fast as ours. The cost was shouldered byt the government and was truly epic.

And that was done many years ago - which means that UK could have spent that time replacing things gradually.

Fusion · 19 Jun 2009 at 09:25

chimaera said:
But overall i've not really seen any imporvements in recent years.

The recently completed West Coast Mainline upgrade was a huge project (£9 billion). It knocked half an hour off travelling from London-Birmingham, over forty minutes from London-Manchester, fifty minutes from London-Liverpool and nearly an hour from London-Glasgow.

All this plus an extra 1,150 trains per week.

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/1328.aspx

nikebee · 19 Jun 2009 at 10:05

I'd like to see them introduce a Cardiff to London, London to Manchester, London to Glasgow routes personally.

That would mean you can get damn near coast to coast in the UK in no time at all.

daz · 19 Jun 2009 at 10:30

Trains in the UK aren't as bad as everyone makes out.