Just started working in the centre of Brum and was looking forward to being a low carbon commuter. Well after 3 weeks I've given up and gone back to the car (and am actively looking for car sharers). From Lichfield to Brum takes at least 1h10 each way. By car is a low as 35 minutes, with 50 minutes being worse case (rainy day slowing down junctions and lots of tailbacks). The main problem seems to be the amount of time the train spends slowing down and stopped - ignoring the getting to and from the station , the actual train trip takes 40 minutes, which is actually slower than the car in early rush hour traffic. Go figure!
If I didn't have a life at home maybe I'd be happy to sit on the train and read emails/books, sleep, but when it makes the difference of being out of the house 9 hours a day or 10 hours a day, I'll be taking the car :-(
Now - I have a new plan. Tarmac the rail way, and only allow buses on it. I should then be able to get an express service direct from Lichfield to Brum and not have to stop at 8 stations along the way. No sitting waiting for points to clear on the approach to New St/Foar Oaks, and no regular 8 minutes delays after 4 pm. Any buses that do break down don't cause the network to come to a halt, and if we do have to stop to pick a 1 more passenger at Wylde Green it doesn't take 3/4 of a mile to stop. And then get started again. You can cut the cost of signaling / track repairs / expensive carriages and de-regulate the new "Bus road" to allow all private bus companies to compete and bring the silly prices down (Which is also cheaper by car including city parking!).
I did figure that cars will have to be fully occupied and have CO2 emissions of 40g/km before they are as low as a train. But then tonight - I caught a late train, with 3 carriages weighing 16 tones each and all the lights on. There was only me in the middle carriage. 6g/km??. More like 6kg/km!
GBP-Keith
19 Mar 2009, 6:06 PM
Busses do seem to be a more efficient choice at the moment but I wonder if this is the case in countries where more investment has been made in public transport? Certainly, trams, which seem to be a hybrid between trains and busses are popular on the continent I think.
cloudy_thoughts
23 Apr 2009, 12:13 AM
I've often wondered about the reverse; remove the centre lane(s) of all our motorways and replace with rails. The loss of the lane would have little effect on cars assuming all the lorries were replaced with freight trains. It makes sense to me as cars really only use two lanes of a busy three lane motorway it seems.
As for passenger travel by rail, I can't see that working unless maybe you live near a station, and work near a station. I live in a small town, with no rail connection - thank you Doctor Beeching's. I have a 20 mile journey to get to a station and then London or Birmingham is about the only useful destinations, as when I arrive I'll be on foot.
No, railway is best for freight, I believe. Not that I'm a car lover. I do like cars, but would like be able to use busses or trams to commute. Unfortunately, to get the 4 miles to work I would have to walk 1 mile in the wrong direction to catch a bus that takes half an hour to reach the nearest stop to work, plus another mile walk. And the first bus gets me in 2 hours late, an the last bus leaves before I finish in the afternoon. I'd could walk the 4 mile, but it's straight down a dual carriage way (that the bus does not use because it stops at all the villages on the way).
Peter-from-CG-e
21 Jul 2009, 1:43 PM
The historic issue surrounds the rail routes. In countries like France with lots of space, the lines are just that, lines drawn across the countryside. In the UK, the lines were made to run around the landed gentry estates resulting in charming but rather indirect routes.
One solution to speeding up trains is simple. Just run a series of trains on a branch line that only stop at one station on each trip. One to pick up from the outlying station direct to the destination.
There are issues surrounding the software to manage so many trains on a track but it would provide multiple redundancy and fast transit times.
Each train could be smaller as well carrying fewer passengers and each could be sized for the historic demand at that station. Would also reduce the energy requirement as well with fewer stops and starts and allow the engines to operate in the area of peak efficiency.
Of course it wouldn't make any money, but then it depends on your point of view on transport ownership. SCNF doesn't make money directly, but provides an infrastructure that eases business and delivers real benefits in the form of reduced road use and those associated costs.
In my view we pay in other ways for our antique rail system. We could, if the will was there, bring much of the axed lines back into use.
