Seemingly trivial things that annoy you

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

I think we have different ideas of what is "pretty good" and not, tbh.

I mean, look at the state of this, even the bbc has article explainers on why they're rubbish: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51026379

And since then they've taken 30% of the carriages out - one of the proposed solutions for improved services!

They haven't reduced train size on any of the routes I have used recently. I think you are damning all on the basis of one route.

If you think everything is uniquely bad in the UK, have a look at Jon Worth on Twitter, who has just done a big trans European train journey with very mixed results.

In Scotland they are only just phasing put those 1980s carriages based on a bus. Please don't pretend the railways in the UK are any good.

Unless you have the wealth of Norway, sparsely populated areas are never going to have lavish railways.

Sparsely populated places like commuter lines to Glasgow Central?

OK, less densely populated. If LU is struggling to make ends meet with ~300 million journeys a year (down from 1.4billion in 2017-18, Glasgow's 12.7million will inevitably lead to less money.

Pross

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

morstar said:

Pross said:

People paying tribute to a child who drowned by releasing a load of balloons in the river. I know it sounds harsh but surely there's enough knowledge of the damage that sort of thing can do to wildlife and surely there are more environmentally friendly ways people can pay tribute?

I agree. Unfortunately round our way, there are a few memorials popping up in open countryside.
Adorned with tinsel ornaments and all sorts of wotsit. Not environmentally damaging as with the balloons but really quite vulgar looking and totally out of place.

Yeah and people get very upset when their unauthorised memorial gets cleared

Remember all those ghost bikes? And the arguments about removing them?

Yep, by their very nature often positioned where visibility was already dodgy.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

I think we have different ideas of what is "pretty good" and not, tbh.

I mean, look at the state of this, even the bbc has article explainers on why they're rubbish: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51026379

And since then they've taken 30% of the carriages out - one of the proposed solutions for improved services!

They haven't reduced train size on any of the routes I have used recently. I think you are damning all on the basis of one route.

If you think everything is uniquely bad in the UK, have a look at Jon Worth on Twitter, who has just done a big trans European train journey with very mixed results.

In Scotland they are only just phasing put those 1980s carriages based on a bus. Please don't pretend the railways in the UK are any good.

Unless you have the wealth of Norway, sparsely populated areas are never going to have lavish railways.

Sparsely populated places like commuter lines to Glasgow Central?

OK, less densely populated. If LU is struggling to make ends meet with ~300 million journeys a year (down from 1.4billion in 2017-18, Glasgow's 12.7million will inevitably lead to less money.

The underground is unique. A better comparison is commuting to somewhere like Bristol, I suppose.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

I think we have different ideas of what is "pretty good" and not, tbh.

I mean, look at the state of this, even the bbc has article explainers on why they're rubbish: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51026379

And since then they've taken 30% of the carriages out - one of the proposed solutions for improved services!

They haven't reduced train size on any of the routes I have used recently. I think you are damning all on the basis of one route.

If you think everything is uniquely bad in the UK, have a look at Jon Worth on Twitter, who has just done a big trans European train journey with very mixed results.

In Scotland they are only just phasing put those 1980s carriages based on a bus. Please don't pretend the railways in the UK are any good.

Unless you have the wealth of Norway, sparsely populated areas are never going to have lavish railways.

Sparsely populated places like commuter lines to Glasgow Central?

OK, less densely populated. If LU is struggling to make ends meet with ~300 million journeys a year (down from 1.4billion in 2017-18, Glasgow's 12.7million will inevitably lead to less money.

The underground is unique. A better comparison is commuting to somewhere like Bristol, I suppose.

I'm not sure it is but anyway. Bristol has been thinking about some sort of metro since I was a child. It's never happened. The commuter trains look a lot more modern than 1980s. It sounds as though there is just a lot less public money spent on rail north of the border.

briantrumpet

Pross said:

morstar said:

Pross said:

People paying tribute to a child who drowned by releasing a load of balloons in the river. I know it sounds harsh but surely there's enough knowledge of the damage that sort of thing can do to wildlife and surely there are more environmentally friendly ways people can pay tribute?

I agree. Unfortunately round our way, there are a few memorials popping up in open countryside.
Adorned with tinsel ornaments and all sorts of wotsit. Not environmentally damaging as with the balloons but really quite vulgar looking and totally out of place.

Yeah and people get very upset when their unauthorised memorial gets cleared

I think I might have had a moan about the phenomenon before. Of course people need to grieve, but I'm not sure why everyone else should be (in effect) to be aware of the grieving by repeatedly attaching gaudy plastic tributes to benches in popular spots with nice views, and suchlike. It is probably both harsh and heartless for me to say it, but there's something rather, erm, vulgar, about the habit.

pinno

So less travel = less revenue. The best way to solve it is to dissuade people from using the train 'cos they don't know when strike is going to occur.
If you've bought or are about to get a £7k (?) season ticket from Brighton to London and you can't use it because of disruption...

I am sympathetic but given public sector wage rises, 7% is just plain ridiculous.
Maybe potential train operators will be dissuaded from tendering a contract because of the potential for industrial action or will only come into the game under certain T&C's which are counter productive to investment and long term service.

I went by Virgin rail (West coast) before they lost the contract and the train was smooth, fast and comfortable. They came a long way on a line that was notorious for faults and it seems that there is a huge disparity between operators.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

I think we have different ideas of what is "pretty good" and not, tbh.

I mean, look at the state of this, even the bbc has article explainers on why they're rubbish: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51026379

And since then they've taken 30% of the carriages out - one of the proposed solutions for improved services!

They haven't reduced train size on any of the routes I have used recently. I think you are damning all on the basis of one route.

If you think everything is uniquely bad in the UK, have a look at Jon Worth on Twitter, who has just done a big trans European train journey with very mixed results.

In Scotland they are only just phasing put those 1980s carriages based on a bus. Please don't pretend the railways in the UK are any good.

Unless you have the wealth of Norway, sparsely populated areas are never going to have lavish railways.

Sparsely populated places like commuter lines to Glasgow Central?

OK, less densely populated. If LU is struggling to make ends meet with ~300 million journeys a year (down from 1.4billion in 2017-18, Glasgow's 12.7million will inevitably lead to less money.

The underground is unique. A better comparison is commuting to somewhere like Bristol, I suppose.

I'm not sure it is but anyway. Bristol has been thinking about some sort of metro since I was a child. It's never happened. The commuter trains look a lot more modern than 1980s. It sounds as though there is just a lot less public money spent on rail north of the border.

You are right, Glasgow has an underground of sorts. Better to say its not a particularly useful comparator for surface rail.

Stingy rail investment is not unique to Scotland. Much of he north is also short changed.

That said, when you consider how much leveling up needs to be done, it does piss me off when Londoners complain about the Barnett formula.

mully79

Always seems strange to me that a commuter seasonal train ticket cannot be paid via gross income tax ie as a BIK.
It’s hardly small change for a season ticket.

pinno

mully79 said:

Always seems strange to me that a commuter seasonal train ticket cannot be paid via gross income tax ie as a BIK.
It’s hardly small change for a season ticket.

What a good idea and what a good incentive that would be.

Mully for PM.

rick_chasey

mully79 said:

Always seems strange to me that a commuter seasonal train ticket cannot be paid via gross income tax ie as a BIK.
It’s hardly small change for a season ticket.

Most firms will pay it for you and knock it off your salary after tax over the period of the ticket

surrey_commuter

mully79 said:

Always seems strange to me that a commuter seasonal train ticket cannot be paid via gross income tax ie as a BIK.
It’s hardly small change for a season ticket.

As people do not want to commute long distances why not charge inversely with travel time. This would also help with levelling up.

surrey_commuter

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

I think we have different ideas of what is "pretty good" and not, tbh.

I mean, look at the state of this, even the bbc has article explainers on why they're rubbish: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51026379

And since then they've taken 30% of the carriages out - one of the proposed solutions for improved services!

They haven't reduced train size on any of the routes I have used recently. I think you are damning all on the basis of one route.

If you think everything is uniquely bad in the UK, have a look at Jon Worth on Twitter, who has just done a big trans European train journey with very mixed results.

In Scotland they are only just phasing put those 1980s carriages based on a bus. Please don't pretend the railways in the UK are any good.

Unless you have the wealth of Norway, sparsely populated areas are never going to have lavish railways.

Sparsely populated places like commuter lines to Glasgow Central?

OK, less densely populated. If LU is struggling to make ends meet with ~300 million journeys a year (down from 1.4billion in 2017-18, Glasgow's 12.7million will inevitably lead to less money.

The underground is unique. A better comparison is commuting to somewhere like Bristol, I suppose.

I'm not sure it is but anyway. Bristol has been thinking about some sort of metro since I was a child. It's never happened. The commuter trains look a lot more modern than 1980s. It sounds as though there is just a lot less public money spent on rail north of the border.

You are right, Glasgow has an underground of sorts. Better to say its not a particularly useful comparator for surface rail.

Stingy rail investment is not unique to Scotland. Much of he north is also short changed.

That said, when you consider how much leveling up needs to be done, it does piss me off when Londoners complain about the Barnett formula.

Doesn’t decades of the Barnett formula prove that Govt attempts at levelling up don’t work?

First.Aspect

surrey_commuter said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

I think we have different ideas of what is "pretty good" and not, tbh.

I mean, look at the state of this, even the bbc has article explainers on why they're rubbish: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51026379

And since then they've taken 30% of the carriages out - one of the proposed solutions for improved services!

They haven't reduced train size on any of the routes I have used recently. I think you are damning all on the basis of one route.

If you think everything is uniquely bad in the UK, have a look at Jon Worth on Twitter, who has just done a big trans European train journey with very mixed results.

In Scotland they are only just phasing put those 1980s carriages based on a bus. Please don't pretend the railways in the UK are any good.

Unless you have the wealth of Norway, sparsely populated areas are never going to have lavish railways.

Sparsely populated places like commuter lines to Glasgow Central?

OK, less densely populated. If LU is struggling to make ends meet with ~300 million journeys a year (down from 1.4billion in 2017-18, Glasgow's 12.7million will inevitably lead to less money.

The underground is unique. A better comparison is commuting to somewhere like Bristol, I suppose.

I'm not sure it is but anyway. Bristol has been thinking about some sort of metro since I was a child. It's never happened. The commuter trains look a lot more modern than 1980s. It sounds as though there is just a lot less public money spent on rail north of the border.

You are right, Glasgow has an underground of sorts. Better to say its not a particularly useful comparator for surface rail.

Stingy rail investment is not unique to Scotland. Much of he north is also short changed.

That said, when you consider how much leveling up needs to be done, it does piss me off when Londoners complain about the Barnett formula.

Doesn’t decades of the Barnett formula prove that Govt attempts at levelling up don’t work?

Not really. It shows the cost of not having done so.

Leveling up is patching the hole in the bucket. Barnett is putting water in the leaky bucket.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

I think we have different ideas of what is "pretty good" and not, tbh.

I mean, look at the state of this, even the bbc has article explainers on why they're rubbish: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51026379

And since then they've taken 30% of the carriages out - one of the proposed solutions for improved services!

They haven't reduced train size on any of the routes I have used recently. I think you are damning all on the basis of one route.

If you think everything is uniquely bad in the UK, have a look at Jon Worth on Twitter, who has just done a big trans European train journey with very mixed results.

In Scotland they are only just phasing put those 1980s carriages based on a bus. Please don't pretend the railways in the UK are any good.

Unless you have the wealth of Norway, sparsely populated areas are never going to have lavish railways.

Sparsely populated places like commuter lines to Glasgow Central?

OK, less densely populated. If LU is struggling to make ends meet with ~300 million journeys a year (down from 1.4billion in 2017-18, Glasgow's 12.7million will inevitably lead to less money.

The underground is unique. A better comparison is commuting to somewhere like Bristol, I suppose.

I'm not sure it is but anyway. Bristol has been thinking about some sort of metro since I was a child. It's never happened. The commuter trains look a lot more modern than 1980s. It sounds as though there is just a lot less public money spent on rail north of the border.

You are right, Glasgow has an underground of sorts. Better to say its not a particularly useful comparator for surface rail.

Stingy rail investment is not unique to Scotland. Much of he north is also short changed.

That said, when you consider how much leveling up needs to be done, it does piss me off when Londoners complain about the Barnett formula.

Maybe Manchester might be a closer match. Not sure if there is such a thing as Transport for Glasgow, but that model seems to work well for coordinating the various modes.

kingstongraham

pinno said:

...

I am sympathetic but given public sector wage rises, 7% is just plain ridiculous.

...

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-rail-workers-around-liverpool-vote-accept-71-pay-deal-2022-06-22/

pangolin

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

I think we have different ideas of what is "pretty good" and not, tbh.

I mean, look at the state of this, even the bbc has article explainers on why they're rubbish: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51026379

And since then they've taken 30% of the carriages out - one of the proposed solutions for improved services!

They haven't reduced train size on any of the routes I have used recently. I think you are damning all on the basis of one route.

If you think everything is uniquely bad in the UK, have a look at Jon Worth on Twitter, who has just done a big trans European train journey with very mixed results.

In Scotland they are only just phasing put those 1980s carriages based on a bus. Please don't pretend the railways in the UK are any good.

Unless you have the wealth of Norway, sparsely populated areas are never going to have lavish railways.

Sparsely populated places like commuter lines to Glasgow Central?

OK, less densely populated. If LU is struggling to make ends meet with ~300 million journeys a year (down from 1.4billion in 2017-18, Glasgow's 12.7million will inevitably lead to less money.

The underground is unique. A better comparison is commuting to somewhere like Bristol, I suppose.

Trains are not a good way to get around Bristol. I live 5 minutes walk from a station that goes to the centre. Work is 5 minutes walk from that centre station. Cycling is at least 20 minutes quicker door to door, even if you time it right for a train.

Buses are even worse.

You can reliably get a seat on both though, come to think of it.

First.Aspect

pangolin said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

I think we have different ideas of what is "pretty good" and not, tbh.

I mean, look at the state of this, even the bbc has article explainers on why they're rubbish: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51026379

And since then they've taken 30% of the carriages out - one of the proposed solutions for improved services!

They haven't reduced train size on any of the routes I have used recently. I think you are damning all on the basis of one route.

If you think everything is uniquely bad in the UK, have a look at Jon Worth on Twitter, who has just done a big trans European train journey with very mixed results.

In Scotland they are only just phasing put those 1980s carriages based on a bus. Please don't pretend the railways in the UK are any good.

Unless you have the wealth of Norway, sparsely populated areas are never going to have lavish railways.

Sparsely populated places like commuter lines to Glasgow Central?

OK, less densely populated. If LU is struggling to make ends meet with ~300 million journeys a year (down from 1.4billion in 2017-18, Glasgow's 12.7million will inevitably lead to less money.

The underground is unique. A better comparison is commuting to somewhere like Bristol, I suppose.

Trains are not a good way to get around Bristol. I live 5 minutes walk from a station that goes to the centre. Work is 5 minutes walk from that centre station. Cycling is at least 20 minutes quicker door to door, even if you time it right for a train.

Buses are even worse.

You can reliably get a seat on both though, come to think of it.

Yes but does the rolling stock date back to the end of Ted Heath?

Most provincial cities have a crap rail network. From memory, Beeching considered that Bristolians only travel east-west pretty much. Same for Exeter? In Edinburgh, there are clearly only essentially two places in the city you need to go - Haymarket and Wavrley - and no one lives anywhere north of there.

Ben6899

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

Ben6899 said:

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

Apparently the median salary for railworkers is around £44,000 and that is across all workers including cleaners etc. (although that came from Grant Shapps so I suspect there is some manipulation / spin involved). The 'modernisation' that the RMT are fighting against includes such radical measures as moving to electronic timesheets instead of paper and insisting the same number of ticket offices are kept open when the vast majority of tickets sold these days are not purchased at a ticket office. Apparently the job losses is a red herring too as this is being dealt with by (over-subscribed) voluntary redundancies.

I don't think it is realistic to expect pay rises to match or even get close to current rates of inflation but then I've worked in the private sector for 26 years now so I'm used to pay rises reflecting the market rather than inflation with companies limited by what they can afford.

The RMT still want the trains to be run like they were in 1930. If they had their way there'd be an engineer, brake man and fire man for each train.

The RMT wants a safe railway and, to be fair, they has embraced a lot of train-based technology that monitors many track condition parameters. For example, the bogey-mounted cameras can identify a missing clip and feed back the location (to 0.1m) to maintenance units for follow-up. Interestingly, this development reduces the required patrol frequency, which takes men off track (safer), but will inevitably lead to job losses.

The RMT is not blocking these developments. Not under Mick Lynch's leadership, at least.

Could be aslef. I just hear union and a gritty regional accent and I tune out.

Essentially anything that seems to result in automation of something thst a person currently does seems to be dressed up as an objection on the grounds of safety. Such as, having a person on the train to open and close the doors, instead of the driver. Twas ever thus, and means you can't ever really tell when they are right.

You can. They aren't.

I can't tell because I'm less able to process complex information than you are.

Nothing that complex, just that automated trains are pretty tried and tested

And unused on most of the tube network.

How do you mean?

de_sisti

Blokes walking around showing the waistband of their underwear; or worse still, showing their butt crack. :sick:

First.Aspect

de_sisti said:

Blokes walking around showing the waistband of their underwear; or worse still, showing their butt crack. :sick:

Are you having some building work done?

Munsford0

briantrumpet said:

Pross said:

morstar said:

Pross said:

People paying tribute to a child who drowned by releasing a load of balloons in the river. I know it sounds harsh but surely there's enough knowledge of the damage that sort of thing can do to wildlife and surely there are more environmentally friendly ways people can pay tribute?

I agree. Unfortunately round our way, there are a few memorials popping up in open countryside.
Adorned with tinsel ornaments and all sorts of wotsit. Not environmentally damaging as with the balloons but really quite vulgar looking and totally out of place.

Yeah and people get very upset when their unauthorised memorial gets cleared

I think I might have had a moan about the phenomenon before. Of course people need to grieve, but I'm not sure why everyone else should be (in effect) to be aware of the grieving by repeatedly attaching gaudy plastic tributes to benches in popular spots with nice views, and suchlike. It is probably both harsh and heartless for me to say it, but there's something rather, erm, vulgar, about the habit.

Loads round the bits of Suffolk I cycle and drive around. Often piled around the splintered tree or mangled road sign which presumably figured in the fatal collision. Why do people want to commemorate the actual spot where their loved one came to a messy end, rather than at a peaceful grave?

TheBigBean

Ben6899 said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

Ben6899 said:

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

Apparently the median salary for railworkers is around £44,000 and that is across all workers including cleaners etc. (although that came from Grant Shapps so I suspect there is some manipulation / spin involved). The 'modernisation' that the RMT are fighting against includes such radical measures as moving to electronic timesheets instead of paper and insisting the same number of ticket offices are kept open when the vast majority of tickets sold these days are not purchased at a ticket office. Apparently the job losses is a red herring too as this is being dealt with by (over-subscribed) voluntary redundancies.

I don't think it is realistic to expect pay rises to match or even get close to current rates of inflation but then I've worked in the private sector for 26 years now so I'm used to pay rises reflecting the market rather than inflation with companies limited by what they can afford.

The RMT still want the trains to be run like they were in 1930. If they had their way there'd be an engineer, brake man and fire man for each train.

The RMT wants a safe railway and, to be fair, they has embraced a lot of train-based technology that monitors many track condition parameters. For example, the bogey-mounted cameras can identify a missing clip and feed back the location (to 0.1m) to maintenance units for follow-up. Interestingly, this development reduces the required patrol frequency, which takes men off track (safer), but will inevitably lead to job losses.

The RMT is not blocking these developments. Not under Mick Lynch's leadership, at least.

Could be aslef. I just hear union and a gritty regional accent and I tune out.

Essentially anything that seems to result in automation of something thst a person currently does seems to be dressed up as an objection on the grounds of safety. Such as, having a person on the train to open and close the doors, instead of the driver. Twas ever thus, and means you can't ever really tell when they are right.

You can. They aren't.

I can't tell because I'm less able to process complex information than you are.

Nothing that complex, just that automated trains are pretty tried and tested

And unused on most of the tube network.

How do you mean?

Many of lines have automated trains that aren't used.

First.Aspect

TheBigBean said:

Ben6899 said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

Ben6899 said:

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

Apparently the median salary for railworkers is around £44,000 and that is across all workers including cleaners etc. (although that came from Grant Shapps so I suspect there is some manipulation / spin involved). The 'modernisation' that the RMT are fighting against includes such radical measures as moving to electronic timesheets instead of paper and insisting the same number of ticket offices are kept open when the vast majority of tickets sold these days are not purchased at a ticket office. Apparently the job losses is a red herring too as this is being dealt with by (over-subscribed) voluntary redundancies.

I don't think it is realistic to expect pay rises to match or even get close to current rates of inflation but then I've worked in the private sector for 26 years now so I'm used to pay rises reflecting the market rather than inflation with companies limited by what they can afford.

The RMT still want the trains to be run like they were in 1930. If they had their way there'd be an engineer, brake man and fire man for each train.

The RMT wants a safe railway and, to be fair, they has embraced a lot of train-based technology that monitors many track condition parameters. For example, the bogey-mounted cameras can identify a missing clip and feed back the location (to 0.1m) to maintenance units for follow-up. Interestingly, this development reduces the required patrol frequency, which takes men off track (safer), but will inevitably lead to job losses.

The RMT is not blocking these developments. Not under Mick Lynch's leadership, at least.

Could be aslef. I just hear union and a gritty regional accent and I tune out.

Essentially anything that seems to result in automation of something thst a person currently does seems to be dressed up as an objection on the grounds of safety. Such as, having a person on the train to open and close the doors, instead of the driver. Twas ever thus, and means you can't ever really tell when they are right.

You can. They aren't.

I can't tell because I'm less able to process complex information than you are.

Nothing that complex, just that automated trains are pretty tried and tested

And unused on most of the tube network.

How do you mean?

Many of lines have automated trains that aren't used.

Rmt on r4 this morning complaining that they've already embraced some technology and that the government is refusing to rule out redundancies because of technology in future and its all about profits.

So this is the rmt reluctant to adopt technology that might reduce required labour, to my ears.

I mean that's why they are there, but let's not be shy about acknowledging it.

Probably it will end up at no compulsory redundancies like it always does.

Ben6899

TheBigBean said:

Many of lines have automated trains that aren't used.

Not true. Although there are drivers, the trains effectively drive themselves (TBTC and CBTC) and drivers press "Go" after dwelling at platforms and also act as the train guard in emergency events. A large chunk of their training is what to do in such an event as 7/7.

Naturally, in the event of system faults, the trains can be driven in full-manual.

The London Underground network is much more automated than you think.

TheBigBean

Ben6899 said:

TheBigBean said:

Many of lines have automated trains that aren't used.

Not true. Although there are drivers, the trains effectively drive themselves (TBTC and CBTC) and drivers press "Go" after dwelling at platforms and also act as the train guard in emergency events. A large chunk of their training is what to do in such an event as 7/7.

Naturally, in the event of system faults, the trains can be driven in full-manual.

The London Underground network is much more automated than you think.

So they could be like the DLR, but instead some sits there and pretends to drive.

Ben6899

TheBigBean said:

Ben6899 said:

TheBigBean said:

Many of lines have automated trains that aren't used.

Not true. Although there are drivers, the trains effectively drive themselves (TBTC and CBTC) and drivers press "Go" after dwelling at platforms and also act as the train guard in emergency events. A large chunk of their training is what to do in such an event as 7/7.

Naturally, in the event of system faults, the trains can be driven in full-manual.

The London Underground network is much more automated than you think.

So they could be like the DLR, but instead some sits there and pretends to drive.

I'm pretty sure that doesn't entirely capture what I described! And you do know that the DLR trains don't leave/enter platforms without being monitored by an actual person?

C'mon now, I love a bit of innovation and hate being stuck in ways just because "that's what we do", but some elements of the rail network are demonstrably safer with humans involved.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

pangolin said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

I think we have different ideas of what is "pretty good" and not, tbh.

I mean, look at the state of this, even the bbc has article explainers on why they're rubbish: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51026379

And since then they've taken 30% of the carriages out - one of the proposed solutions for improved services!

They haven't reduced train size on any of the routes I have used recently. I think you are damning all on the basis of one route.

If you think everything is uniquely bad in the UK, have a look at Jon Worth on Twitter, who has just done a big trans European train journey with very mixed results.

In Scotland they are only just phasing put those 1980s carriages based on a bus. Please don't pretend the railways in the UK are any good.

Unless you have the wealth of Norway, sparsely populated areas are never going to have lavish railways.

Sparsely populated places like commuter lines to Glasgow Central?

OK, less densely populated. If LU is struggling to make ends meet with ~300 million journeys a year (down from 1.4billion in 2017-18, Glasgow's 12.7million will inevitably lead to less money.

The underground is unique. A better comparison is commuting to somewhere like Bristol, I suppose.

Trains are not a good way to get around Bristol. I live 5 minutes walk from a station that goes to the centre. Work is 5 minutes walk from that centre station. Cycling is at least 20 minutes quicker door to door, even if you time it right for a train.

Buses are even worse.

You can reliably get a seat on both though, come to think of it.

Yes but does the rolling stock date back to the end of Ted Heath?

Most provincial cities have a censored rail network. From memory, Beeching considered that Bristolians only travel east-west pretty much. Same for Exeter? In Edinburgh, there are clearly only essentially two places in the city you need to go - Haymarket and Wavrley - and no one lives anywhere north of there.

I think your information may be incorrect.

TheBigBean

Ben6899 said:

TheBigBean said:

Ben6899 said:

TheBigBean said:

Many of lines have automated trains that aren't used.

Not true. Although there are drivers, the trains effectively drive themselves (TBTC and CBTC) and drivers press "Go" after dwelling at platforms and also act as the train guard in emergency events. A large chunk of their training is what to do in such an event as 7/7.

Naturally, in the event of system faults, the trains can be driven in full-manual.

The London Underground network is much more automated than you think.

So they could be like the DLR, but instead some sits there and pretends to drive.

I'm pretty sure that doesn't entirely capture what I described! And you do know that the DLR trains don't leave/enter platforms without being monitored by an actual person?

C'mon now, I love a bit of innovation and hate being stuck in ways just because "that's what we do", but some elements of the rail network are demonstrably safer with humans involved.

I am happy to defer to your greater expertise on this subject, but it feels like there is sometimes resistance to more automation.

rjsterry

Ben6899 said:

TheBigBean said:

Ben6899 said:

TheBigBean said:

Many of lines have automated trains that aren't used.

Not true. Although there are drivers, the trains effectively drive themselves (TBTC and CBTC) and drivers press "Go" after dwelling at platforms and also act as the train guard in emergency events. A large chunk of their training is what to do in such an event as 7/7.

Naturally, in the event of system faults, the trains can be driven in full-manual.

The London Underground network is much more automated than you think.

So they could be like the DLR, but instead some sits there and pretends to drive.

I'm pretty sure that doesn't entirely capture what I described! And you do know that the DLR trains don't leave/enter platforms without being monitored by an actual person?

C'mon now, I love a bit of innovation and hate being stuck in ways just because "that's what we do", but some elements of the rail network are demonstrably safer with humans involved.

Copenhagen Metro is almost entirely unmanned and seems to work fine. Not even any turnstiles.

Ben6899

TheBigBean said:

Ben6899 said:

TheBigBean said:

Ben6899 said:

TheBigBean said:

Many of lines have automated trains that aren't used.

Not true. Although there are drivers, the trains effectively drive themselves (TBTC and CBTC) and drivers press "Go" after dwelling at platforms and also act as the train guard in emergency events. A large chunk of their training is what to do in such an event as 7/7.

Naturally, in the event of system faults, the trains can be driven in full-manual.

The London Underground network is much more automated than you think.

So they could be like the DLR, but instead some sits there and pretends to drive.

I'm pretty sure that doesn't entirely capture what I described! And you do know that the DLR trains don't leave/enter platforms without being monitored by an actual person?

C'mon now, I love a bit of innovation and hate being stuck in ways just because "that's what we do", but some elements of the rail network are demonstrably safer with humans involved.

I am happy to defer to your greater expertise on this subject, but it feels like there is sometimes resistance to more automation.

That feeling is accurate, for sure.