Rail accounts for only 2% of all trips made page 8 railuk forums electricity ground explained


Click to expand…I’m not sure your final point is entirely true. One thing US RRs did when they got rid of most electricity receiver definition passenger services was to drastically simplify their infrastructure to save maintenance and operating costs, taking out multiple tracks, signalling and train protection systems and huge armies of staff that were no longer required, and there’s always been an undercurrent of takeovers and consolidations removing alternative competing routes, especially in the 1960s and 70s when most RRs were k electric jobs in dire financial straits and several did go bankrupt. What’s left today outside the major metropolitan areas is often a very simple railway. Traditional manifest and bulk freight runs as required, not to public timetables, so meets etc can be planned on the fly on the limited infrastructure. Cargo doesn’t care very much if it has to sit for hours in the only passing siding for 30 miles, unlike pesky passengers. The (relatively) new hotshot intermodal trains are more time sensitive and have resulted in some additional infrastructure being added again in the last few decades, but there is cost pressure once again in some companies who are proposing to single vast stretches of certain trunk electricity in water routes under ‘precision scheduled railroading’ techniques which seek to run fewer, longer trains. This is much to the horror of Amtrack and its supporters. Long distance passenger trains (if they survive at all) will likely end up waiting in sidings more often as a result.

Click to expand…I might agree with much of that, in theory. However fixed units of 2, 3, 4, 5 or 8 carriages (often without corridor connections between) restrict flexibility. It’s the variability of loads within the day, and days of the week that are electricity projects for grade 7 so difficult to cater for. Seeing 8, 10 and 12 car trains in the electricity meme south-east trundling round virtually empty for most of the day highlights that challenge

We know TPE want to take over the Liverpool – Nottingham section of EMT’s current Liverpool – Norwich route. That normally operates as a 2 car 158 between Norwich and Nottingham, beefed up to 4 from there to Liverpool on most journeys at peak times. Late evening 2 car trains are adequate and that’s what is often sent out. Seems sensible to me. 4 cars normally operate between Liverpool and Sheffield, the busiest sections, but during peak hours 5 or 6 would often be better.

If the hourly TPE and EMT services, currently providing a half hourly service between Sheffield and Manchester, were merged into an hourly 8 coach train for that section it would be a massive deterioration in the service, availability of more seats on one train not compensating 9gag instagram videos for longer waiting times. Both existing services currently interact with others along the way to give more frequent services in conjunction with Northern, XC and others on parts of those routes.

The ability of the multiplicity of different train classes and sub-classes to work together is a big concern. Every TOC seems to specify electricity quiz grade 9 a slightly different train that won’t easily work with others, be that in multiple operation, for servicing or in numbers to be effectively redeployed. When franchises change hands at varying dates the ability to put together a cohesive fleet of the right numbers to cover all routes must be a nightmare. I speak, of course, from Northern cast-off land!

Click to expand…Evolution doesn’t always work, it can lead to dead ends, or situations where a fundamental change in environment drives extinction events. Works long term, but short term, the results can be terrible. and that save electricity images is part of the problem with the current franchise system. It is restrictive enough(by necessity) to stop much real experimentation npower electricity power cut, and 7 years might not be long enough to really invest for the long term.

I have read the rest of your response, and there is a lot of interesting stuff in there. The details of the history of the railways fractal, the more you look, the more detailed and fascinating it is. And I agree, the people currently running the system in government do not seem really capable. But to my mind, the system is a single entity, and needs to be run as such, so ticketing is simple to use, and if the government has to fund parts of it, either through cross subsidies, or direct subsidies, it should take full responsibility. You said you hope Network Rail is being run well, could we not use that 4 other gases in the atmosphere as a model for the whole system, a separate, wholly public owned company to run the network, which employs competent staff, and private companies where necessary, but takes the ticket sales, and the responsibility to fulfil the requirements set out by the government. Maybe allow other operators to run as well gasbuddy map, on payment of access charges, but their tickets should be sold separately. Not sure about that last bit though, needs more thought. Perhaps we need contactless over the whole network. Maybe some form of RFID ticket that each train you travel on reads as you go.