In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 20/04/2017 11:31, mechanic wrote:
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 10:03:12 +0100,
lid wrote:

On 20/04/2017 00:20, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Bus routes tend to be cut if they are little used.

As they should be, empty buses pollute more than the odd
car/taxi.

Maybe they're an essential service for some?


Its never essential to run empty buses.

but someoen might get on at the next stop.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

In article ,
mechanic wrote:
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 10:03:12 +0100,
lid wrote:

On 20/04/2017 00:20, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Bus routes tend to be cut if they are little used.

As they should be, empty buses pollute more than the odd
car/taxi.

Maybe they're an essential service for some?

Surely there is no point in running empty buses just in case someone need
it?

--
*Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 14:02:56 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
mechanic wrote:
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 10:03:12 +0100,
lid wrote:

On 20/04/2017 00:20, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Bus routes tend to be cut if they are little used.

As they should be, empty buses pollute more than the odd
car/taxi.

Maybe they're an essential service for some?

Surely there is no point in running empty buses just in case
someone need it?

If they just have one passenger it's (perhaps) essential for them.
If you think one is still too low a number, I could increase it...

In article ,
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

Surely there is no point in running empty buses just in case someone need
it?

That was the whole point of public services: they were there. You knew
they were there, and you knew you could rely on them, and (in the case
of buses), you could rely on a regular, frequent service. So people
used them -- and I for one would use them again, if any of those
attributes still existed around here.

Just about any country that I've visited in Europe does public transport
better -- far better -- than the UK does. Perhaps they just haven't
"caught up with us yet". They need a Thatcher to sort things out for
them.

J.

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Another John wrote:
[He's obviously (a) winding people up for a little giggle to himself,
and (b) knows nothing at all about diesel engines apart from what the
London-centric media and politicians report, **all of whom know equally
****-all** as far as I can see -- except that they do often choke, in
their city centre habitats, thanks to the density of *old* diesels
clogging the place up, without proper regulation.]

Like those relatively new VW etc which fiddled the figures in the (US)
tests deliberately? And that independant tests show that many new models
produce far more pollution in practice than their test results give?

Anyway ...

I've not seen anyone yet mention the fact that modern diesels use DPFs
(diesel particulate filters) which I presume remove most of the evil
things from diesel exhausts?

The pollutant in the news at the moment is NOx. And that isn't removed by
a particulate filter. That filter is meant to stop the visible black smoke
from a hard working diesel. And anyone who does any driving at all will
have seen plenty modern diesels smoking.

They should switch to vaping.
--
bert

On 20/04/2017 08:18, charles wrote:
In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
mechanic wrote:
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 00:06:30 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
mechanic wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 10:50:46 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

And how about those who live there? Are they to be denied owning
a car?

Do they need one? Try public transport (at least in London).

The obvious retort to that is if you need a car because of where
you live, move. Makes as much sense as you've done.

Not too much sense on here so far; many would walk/cycle/use public
transport if those alternatives were suitable.

The snag tend to be everyone wants everyone to use those far more worthy
ways of getting around - except themselves, of course. 'They' always have
excuses why only they need a car.

Where we are bus
routes are being cut so such alternatives are limited - city
dwellers tend to have more choice.

Bus routes tend to be cut if they are little used.

and, by being cut, become useless and even less used. Our first bus into
town is at 10.35 and there are only two more in the day.

I can drive to work in under 20 minutes door to door.

The alternative is a 15 minute walk to the station, with a lot of pain
due to arthritic knees (10 minutes for someone else), plus allowing a
spare 5 minutes in case of meeting someone on the way or just having to
stop because of the pain.

The train then takes another 15 minutes (assuming it is on time) where I
am likely not to get a seat, so even more pain .

I then have to get from the station to work, I cannot walk it - I would
be in agony. The first bus doesn't leave the station 'til half and hour
after my train arrives and takes another 10 minutes. I can't catch a
later train without being late.

Then I have the same in reverse at the end of the day.

So 30 to 40 minutes a day by car or about 140 minutes by public
transport. That extra 100 minutes per day (ignoring the pain, the
frustration and the fact that I cannot be in and leave work at the times
I need to), adds up to over 8 hours a week less paid work time (I am
paid by the hour) or 8 hours less time with my family.

SteveW

On 20/04/2017 12:34, charles wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 20/04/2017 11:31, mechanic wrote:
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 10:03:12 +0100,
lid wrote:

On 20/04/2017 00:20, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Bus routes tend to be cut if they are little used.

As they should be, empty buses pollute more than the odd
car/taxi.

Maybe they're an essential service for some?


Its never essential to run empty buses.

but someoen might get on at the next stop.

They could certainly run much smaller, less polluting minibuses on
underused routes, as they used to do some years ago.

SteveW

In article , Steve Walker
writes
On 20/04/2017 12:34, charles wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 20/04/2017 11:31, mechanic wrote:
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 10:03:12 +0100,
lid wrote:

On 20/04/2017 00:20, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Bus routes tend to be cut if they are little used.

As they should be, empty buses pollute more than the odd
car/taxi.

Maybe they're an essential service for some?


Its never essential to run empty buses.

but someoen might get on at the next stop.

They could certainly run much smaller, less polluting minibuses on
underused routes, as they used to do some years ago.

SteveW


Any psv has to provide low floor access and carry at least one
wheelchair.
--
bert

In article , Steve Walker
wrote:
On 20/04/2017 08:18, charles wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , mechanic
wrote:
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 00:06:30 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article , mechanic
wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 10:50:46 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

And how about those who live there? Are they to be denied owning a
car?

Do they need one? Try public transport (at least in London).

The obvious retort to that is if you need a car because of where you
live, move. Makes as much sense as you've done.

Not too much sense on here so far; many would walk/cycle/use public
transport if those alternatives were suitable.

The snag tend to be everyone wants everyone to use those far more
worthy ways of getting around - except themselves, of course. 'They'
always have excuses why only they need a car.

Where we are bus routes are being cut so such alternatives are
limited - city dwellers tend to have more choice.

Bus routes tend to be cut if they are little used.

and, by being cut, become useless and even less used. Our first bus
into town is at 10.35 and there are only two more in the day.

I can drive to work in under 20 minutes door to door.

The alternative is a 15 minute walk to the station, with a lot of pain
due to arthritic knees (10 minutes for someone else), plus allowing a
spare 5 minutes in case of meeting someone on the way or just having to
stop because of the pain.

The train then takes another 15 minutes (assuming it is on time) where I
am likely not to get a seat, so even more pain .

I then have to get from the station to work, I cannot walk it - I would
be in agony. The first bus doesn't leave the station 'til half and hour
after my train arrives and takes another 10 minutes. I can't catch a
later train without being late.

Then I have the same in reverse at the end of the day.

So 30 to 40 minutes a day by car or about 140 minutes by public
transport. That extra 100 minutes per day (ignoring the pain, the
frustration and the fact that I cannot be in and leave work at the times
I need to), adds up to over 8 hours a week less paid work time (I am
paid by the hour) or 8 hours less time with my family.

but you have a car and can drive. Not everybody is in that fortunate
position.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

In article ,
Another John wrote:
In article ,
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

Surely there is no point in running empty buses just in case someone
need it?

That was the whole point of public services: they were there. You knew
they were there, and you knew you could rely on them, and (in the case
of buses), you could rely on a regular, frequent service. So people
used them -- and I for one would use them again, if any of those
attributes still existed around here.

But if the busses are running empty, it's rather obvious people aren't
using them. And saying you would use them if they were there it what
everyone says - but strangely didn't use them when they were there.

Just about any country that I've visited in Europe does public transport
better -- far better -- than the UK does.

You use both regularly? Not surprising you used PT abroad if you've not
taken your car with you.


Perhaps they just haven't
"caught up with us yet". They need a Thatcher to sort things out for
them.

J.

--
*A fool and his money are soon partying *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
Its never essential to run empty buses.

but someoen might get on at the next stop.

They could certainly run much smaller, less polluting minibuses on
underused routes, as they used to do some years ago.

Quite. Or even a subsidised taxi service if only a few use the route.

--
*Go the extra mile. It makes your boss look like an incompetent slacker *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 20/04/17 19:01, Another John wrote:
In article ,
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

Surely there is no point in running empty buses just in case someone need
it?

That was the whole point of public services: they were there. You knew
they were there, and you knew you could rely on them, and (in the case
of buses), you could rely on a regular, frequent service. So people
used them -- and I for one would use them again, if any of those
attributes still existed around here.

Just about any country that I've visited in Europe does public transport
better -- far better -- than the UK does. Perhaps they just haven't
"caught up with us yet". They need a Thatcher to sort things out for
them.

J.

They all spend NHS like amounts of money on them.

--
"Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social
conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the
windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.) "

Alan Sokal

On 20/04/2017 23:50, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
Its never essential to run empty buses.

but someoen might get on at the next stop.

They could certainly run much smaller, less polluting minibuses on
underused routes, as they used to do some years ago.

Quite. Or even a subsidised taxi service if only a few use the route.


Far more sensible considering that the real essential users probably
can't walk to the bus stop anyway.

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Another John wrote:
In article ,
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

Surely there is no point in running empty buses just in case someone
need it?

That was the whole point of public services: they were there. You knew
they were there, and you knew you could rely on them, and (in the case
of buses), you could rely on a regular, frequent service. So people
used them -- and I for one would use them again, if any of those
attributes still existed around here.

But if the busses are running empty, it's rather obvious people aren't
using them. And saying you would use them if they were there it what
everyone says - but strangely didn't use them when they were there.


This was the argument used by Beeching to remove branch lines. Change the
train times so that they are useless - don't make connections, etc, and
then claim nobody uses them.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

In article ,
charles wrote:
In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Another John wrote:
In article ,
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

Surely there is no point in running empty buses just in case
someone need it?

That was the whole point of public services: they were there. You
knew they were there, and you knew you could rely on them, and (in
the case of buses), you could rely on a regular, frequent service.
So people used them -- and I for one would use them again, if any
of those attributes still existed around here.

But if the busses are running empty, it's rather obvious people aren't
using them. And saying you would use them if they were there it what
everyone says - but strangely didn't use them when they were there.


This was the argument used by Beeching to remove branch lines. Change the
train times so that they are useless - don't make connections, etc, and
then claim nobody uses them.

Not sure that is entirely true. The local line when I was a kid - Deeside,
from Aberdeen to Ballater, never once broke even in its entire life.

--
*There's two theories to arguing with a woman. Neither one works *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
This was the argument used by Beeching to remove branch lines. Change the
train times so that they are useless - don't make connections, etc, and
then claim nobody uses them.

Ah was that what he did, then? You know this do you?

I suspect that would have been completely unnecessary, there was no
shortage of tiny branch lines with no traffic already.

But of course things change. With much increased road traffic and travel
times by road, some of those branch lines could well be economic today.
But once closed are almost impossible to re-instate.

--
*I was married by a judge. I should have asked for a jury.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 10:38:15 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
This was the argument used by Beeching to remove branch lines. Change
the train times so that they are useless - don't make connections,
etc, and then claim nobody uses them.

Ah was that what he did, then? You know this do you?

I suspect that would have been completely unnecessary, there was no
shortage of tiny branch lines with no traffic already.

But of course things change. With much increased road traffic and travel
times by road, some of those branch lines could well be economic today.
But once closed are almost impossible to re-instate.

Indeed. I grew up in Brighton and belong to a quite interesting FB group
which has lots of interesting photos and stuff (as an aside, it recently
featured a family run shop where I used to buy tools; it's still open and
doing well, and I bought some tools there over 50 years ago that I still
have).

Anyway, there was a branch line from near my house, running to the main
town station. It closed in 1970-ish, but that was goods; it closed for
passenger traffic in the 1930s.

There are people in the group who go on and on about how much better
things were 'back then', and want to re-open that line. However, that
would require opening an ancient single track tunnel, restoring a long
cutting that is now a school playground and a rather nice park,
rebuilding a bridge in place of new houses, and building a long viaduct
whose footprint is now occupied by Machine Mart and Sainsburys.

They also forget that the line was *never* remotely economic; it was
built by the railway company as a spoiling tactic, to stop a competing
line to London!

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , charles
wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Another
John wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

Surely there is no point in running empty buses just in case
someone need it?

That was the whole point of public services: they were there. You
knew they were there, and you knew you could rely on them, and (in
the case of buses), you could rely on a regular, frequent service.
So people used them -- and I for one would use them again, if any
of those attributes still existed around here.

But if the busses are running empty, it's rather obvious people
aren't using them. And saying you would use them if they were there
it what everyone says - but strangely didn't use them when they were
there.


This was the argument used by Beeching to remove branch lines. Change
the train times so that they are useless - don't make connections, etc,
and then claim nobody uses them.

Not sure that is entirely true. The local line when I was a kid -
Deeside, from Aberdeen to Ballater, never once broke even in its entire
life.

Do remember who often stayed at the end of the branch line.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

dennis@home wrote:

On 20/04/2017 23:50, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
Its never essential to run empty buses.

but someoen might get on at the next stop.

They could certainly run much smaller, less polluting minibuses on
underused routes, as they used to do some years ago.

Quite. Or even a subsidised taxi service if only a few use the route.


Far more sensible considering that the real essential users probably
can't walk to the bus stop anyway.

Since a lot of such journeys are regular, and there are common
destinations for many of them, using a pre-booked minibus to pick up
multiple passengers makes this much more economical than a straight taxi
service. School buses in rural areas, or 'dial a ride' schemes,
inevitably subsidised, are examples.



--

Roger Hayter

Tim Streater wrote:

In article , charles
wrote:

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Another John wrote:
In article ,
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

Surely there is no point in running empty buses just in case someone
need it?

That was the whole point of public services: they were there. You knew
they were there, and you knew you could rely on them, and (in the case
of buses), you could rely on a regular, frequent service. So people
used them -- and I for one would use them again, if any of those
attributes still existed around here.

But if the busses are running empty, it's rather obvious people aren't
using them. And saying you would use them if they were there it what
everyone says - but strangely didn't use them when they were there.

This was the argument used by Beeching to remove branch lines. Change the
train times so that they are useless - don't make connections, etc, and
then claim nobody uses them.

Ah was that what he did, then? You know this do you?

I suspect that would have been completely unnecessary, there was no
shortage of tiny branch lines with no traffic already.

But he didn't just close "tiny branch lines with no traffic". He
closed, for instance the only North-South routes in Wales, which had,
and have, very poor road competition.

But I don't think he needed to artificially reduce traffic. The policy
at the time was to just close even very busy routes, on the vague
grounds that road vehicles would turn out much cheaper and more
convenient.





--

Roger Hayter

On 21/04/17 10:05, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , charles
wrote:

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Another John wrote:
In article ,
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
Surely there is no point in running empty buses just in case
someone
need it?

That was the whole point of public services: they were there. You
knew they were there, and you knew you could rely on them, and (in
the case of buses), you could rely on a regular, frequent service.
So people used them -- and I for one would use them again, if any
of those attributes still existed around here.

But if the busses are running empty, it's rather obvious people aren't
using them. And saying you would use them if they were there it what
everyone says - but strangely didn't use them when they were there.

This was the argument used by Beeching to remove branch lines. Change the
train times so that they are useless - don't make connections, etc, and
then claim nobody uses them.

Ah was that what he did, then? You know this do you?

I suspect that would have been completely unnecessary, there was no
shortage of tiny branch lines with no traffic already.

Indeed. I vividly remember waiting at a Devon station for a saddle tank
with just one carriage to puff up and take us another ten miles nearer
our destination. Late 50s or early 60s. I think we were the only passengers.


Even then it went to the wrong place and needed a pickup from the
grandparents and a further 30 mile drive.

Fundamentally trains dont work except for high volume and either
longish distances or a massively high population density.

They are utterly unsuitable, as are buses, for rural densities.

What is needed is to integrate them with driverless electric shuttle
taxis for the last 20 miles etc etc.


--
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for
the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the
truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Joseph Goebbels

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
The real shame is that the rights-of-way were not permanently held.
That would have allowed for them to be later re-used for rail, or
bus-ways or bike/walking routes f'rinstance. Such as parts of the Worth
Way in Sussex.

Well said. There should have been a clause which said that any former
transport route should remain a transport route (even if only for walkers
and cyclists) and BR should not have been allowed to sell off the assets
which at the time belonged to the nation (since BR was a nationalised
industry).

By all means save money by not running trains and not employing staff to do
so or to maintain the route to railway standard, but that's as far as it
should have gone. At least where lines have been closed since the days of
Beeching, it was been on the basis of mothballing, with routes protected
against development.

On 21/04/17 11:37, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Roger Hayter
wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:

In article , charles
wrote:

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Another John wrote:
In article ,
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
Surely there is no point in running empty buses just in
case someone
need it?

That was the whole point of public services: they were there.
You knew
they were there, and you knew you could rely on them, and (in
the case
of buses), you could rely on a regular, frequent service. So
people
used them -- and I for one would use them again, if any of those
attributes still existed around here.
But if the busses are running empty, it's rather obvious people
aren't
using them. And saying you would use them if they were there it what
everyone says - but strangely didn't use them when they were there.

This was the argument used by Beeching to remove branch lines.
Change the
train times so that they are useless - don't make connections, etc, and
then claim nobody uses them.

Ah was that what he did, then? You know this do you?

I suspect that would have been completely unnecessary, there was no
shortage of tiny branch lines with no traffic already.

But he didn't just close "tiny branch lines with no traffic". He
closed, for instance the only North-South routes in Wales, which had,
and have, very poor road competition.

To be pedantic :-) he didn't close any, just recommended them for
closure.

But I don't think he needed to artificially reduce traffic. The policy
at the time was to just close even very busy routes, on the vague
grounds that road vehicles would turn out much cheaper and more
convenient.

The real shame is that the rights-of-way were not permanently held.
That would have allowed for them to be later re-used for rail, or
bus-ways or bike/walking routes f'rinstance. Such as parts of the Worth
Way in Sussex.

Fundamentally rail doesn't work in low density areas . The track and
staffing costs need high traffic volumes to justify the outlay.

There's lots of romantic crap talked about railways. I remember that to
get from Surrey to S wales took from 8 in the morning to 6 at night. You
can drive it in three to four hours these days. Door to door. No taxis
undergrounds, no need to go up to London and change twice..lugging heavy
luggage.


Beeching was 100% right to recommend closure of loss making rural branch
lines.

And I'll tell you something else: if home and teleworking takes off, you
can kiss good bye to dormitory towns and commuter traffic too.

And that means the end of commuter railways leaving just the high speed
intercity stuff. To compete with air travel in the sub 1000 mile routes


--
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
foolish, and by the rulers as useful.

(Seneca the Younger, 65 AD)

On 21/04/17 11:04, Roger Hayter wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:

In article , charles
wrote:

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Another John wrote:
In article ,
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

Surely there is no point in running empty buses just in case someone
need it?

That was the whole point of public services: they were there. You knew
they were there, and you knew you could rely on them, and (in the case
of buses), you could rely on a regular, frequent service. So people
used them -- and I for one would use them again, if any of those
attributes still existed around here.

But if the busses are running empty, it's rather obvious people aren't
using them. And saying you would use them if they were there it what
everyone says - but strangely didn't use them when they were there.

This was the argument used by Beeching to remove branch lines. Change the
train times so that they are useless - don't make connections, etc, and
then claim nobody uses them.

Ah was that what he did, then? You know this do you?

I suspect that would have been completely unnecessary, there was no
shortage of tiny branch lines with no traffic already.

But he didn't just close "tiny branch lines with no traffic". He
closed, for instance the only North-South routes in Wales, which had,
and have, very poor road competition.

But I don't think he needed to artificially reduce traffic. The policy
at the time was to just close even very busy routes, on the vague
grounds that road vehicles would turn out much cheaper and more
convenient.


Utter ********, Beeching, unlike his detractors, was not motivated by
ideology.

He was a pragmatic engineer with a remit to get the best benefit out of
a massively loss making railway system.

He wasn't even in power. He was commissioned as chairman of British Rail
to do a report as a consultant. He was closely allied with the Labour party.


Like coal mining, the government found itself with a nationalised
legacy of failed private companies, that couldn't just be left to die,
because the ruddy things had been nationalised.


Like coal mining, adherents to this day refuse to understand the deep
structural problems of running the business in the face of alternative
and competing technologies.

Railways serve a niche market: when all you had were coal powered steam
trains or stage coaches, that was not the case.

Road maintenance to an acceptable standard is far cheaper per mile than
railways are. Spending public money on roads and letting railways lapse
on all but the most profitable routes was a sensible move.

As it was for coal mines.

Fundamentally railways are pretty crap. Driverless cars under computer
control will take over in due course. For longer distances they can be
glued together as 'trains' anyway.








--
"Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social
conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the
windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.) "

Alan Sokal

In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 21/04/17 11:04, Roger Hayter wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:

In article , charles
wrote:

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Another
John wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

Surely there is no point in running empty buses just in case
someone need it?

That was the whole point of public services: they were there. You
knew they were there, and you knew you could rely on them, and (in
the case of buses), you could rely on a regular, frequent service.
So people used them -- and I for one would use them again, if any
of those attributes still existed around here.

But if the busses are running empty, it's rather obvious people
aren't using them. And saying you would use them if they were there
it what everyone says - but strangely didn't use them when they were
there.

This was the argument used by Beeching to remove branch lines. Change
the train times so that they are useless - don't make connections,
etc, and then claim nobody uses them.

Ah was that what he did, then? You know this do you?

I suspect that would have been completely unnecessary, there was no
shortage of tiny branch lines with no traffic already.

But he didn't just close "tiny branch lines with no traffic". He
closed, for instance the only North-South routes in Wales, which had,
and have, very poor road competition.

But I don't think he needed to artificially reduce traffic. The policy
at the time was to just close even very busy routes, on the vague
grounds that road vehicles would turn out much cheaper and more
convenient.


Utter ********, Beeching, unlike his detractors, was not motivated by
ideology.

He was a pragmatic engineer with a remit to get the best benefit out of
a massively loss making railway system.

He wasn't even in power. He was commissioned as chairman of British Rail
to do a report as a consultant. He was closely allied with the Labour
party.


Like coal mining, the government found itself with a nationalised
legacy of failed private companies, that couldn't just be left to die,
because the ruddy things had been nationalised.


Like coal mining, adherents to this day refuse to understand the deep
structural problems of running the business in the face of alternative
and competing technologies.

Railways serve a niche market: when all you had were coal powered steam
trains or stage coaches, that was not the case.

Road maintenance to an acceptable standard is far cheaper per mile than
railways are.

mmm. A factory at which I was working in 1959, used to have 2 coal wagons
dropped off by a passing goods train each day, The branch line was closed,
It needed 8 lorries to deliver the same amount of coal.





--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

In article ,
charles wrote:
Not sure that is entirely true. The local line when I was a kid -
Deeside, from Aberdeen to Ballater, never once broke even in its entire
life.

Do remember who often stayed at the end of the branch line.

Yes - although not exactly walking distance. Well remember the Royal train
going past - could see the line from our house. Only time you ever saw a
clean engine.

--
*The first rule of holes: If you are in one, stop digging!

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 21/04/17 12:11, charles wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 21/04/17 11:04, Roger Hayter wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:

In article , charles
wrote:

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Another
John wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

Surely there is no point in running empty buses just in case
someone need it?

That was the whole point of public services: they were there. You
knew they were there, and you knew you could rely on them, and (in
the case of buses), you could rely on a regular, frequent service.
So people used them -- and I for one would use them again, if any
of those attributes still existed around here.

But if the busses are running empty, it's rather obvious people
aren't using them. And saying you would use them if they were there
it what everyone says - but strangely didn't use them when they were
there.

This was the argument used by Beeching to remove branch lines. Change
the train times so that they are useless - don't make connections,
etc, and then claim nobody uses them.

Ah was that what he did, then? You know this do you?

I suspect that would have been completely unnecessary, there was no
shortage of tiny branch lines with no traffic already.

But he didn't just close "tiny branch lines with no traffic". He
closed, for instance the only North-South routes in Wales, which had,
and have, very poor road competition.

But I don't think he needed to artificially reduce traffic. The policy
at the time was to just close even very busy routes, on the vague
grounds that road vehicles would turn out much cheaper and more
convenient.


Utter ********, Beeching, unlike his detractors, was not motivated by
ideology.

He was a pragmatic engineer with a remit to get the best benefit out of
a massively loss making railway system.

He wasn't even in power. He was commissioned as chairman of British Rail
to do a report as a consultant. He was closely allied with the Labour
party.


Like coal mining, the government found itself with a nationalised
legacy of failed private companies, that couldn't just be left to die,
because the ruddy things had been nationalised.


Like coal mining, adherents to this day refuse to understand the deep
structural problems of running the business in the face of alternative
and competing technologies.

Railways serve a niche market: when all you had were coal powered steam
trains or stage coaches, that was not the case.

Road maintenance to an acceptable standard is far cheaper per mile than
railways are.

mmm. A factory at which I was working in 1959, used to have 2 coal wagons
dropped off by a passing goods train each day, The branch line was closed,
It needed 8 lorries to deliver the same amount of coal.

At a cheaper price probably.









--
No Apple devices were knowingly used in the preparation of this post.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
The real shame is that the rights-of-way were not permanently held.
That would have allowed for them to be later re-used for rail, or
bus-ways or bike/walking routes f'rinstance. Such as parts of the Worth
Way in Sussex.

What? The state owning things? Surely an anathema to the likes of you?

Far better to sell them off and have a private company charge cyclists etc
to use them.

--
*Is it true that cannibals don't eat clowns because they taste funny?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
NY wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
The real shame is that the rights-of-way were not permanently held.
That would have allowed for them to be later re-used for rail, or
bus-ways or bike/walking routes f'rinstance. Such as parts of the Worth
Way in Sussex.

Well said. There should have been a clause which said that any former
transport route should remain a transport route (even if only for
walkers and cyclists) and BR should not have been allowed to sell off
the assets which at the time belonged to the nation (since BR was a
nationalised industry).

But it's OK for the NHS etc to sell off 'spare' land to build houses few
can afford on?

By all means save money by not running trains and not employing staff to
do so or to maintain the route to railway standard, but that's as far
as it should have gone. At least where lines have been closed since the
days of Beeching, it was been on the basis of mothballing, with routes
protected against development.

Big problem is maintaining things like bridges and tunnels. If that isn't
done, cheaper to simply demolish. And extremely expensive to reinstate.

And so many couldn't be improved to twin or more tracks economically
anyway. So only really of use for leisure.

--
*The most wasted day of all is one in which we have not laughed.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 21/04/17 12:11, charles wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher

Utter ********, Beeching, unlike his detractors, was not motivated by
ideology.

He was a pragmatic engineer with a remit to get the best benefit out
of a massively loss making railway system.

He wasn't even in power. He was commissioned as chairman of British
Rail to do a report as a consultant. He was closely allied with the
Labour party.


Like coal mining, the government found itself with a nationalised
legacy of failed private companies, that couldn't just be left to die,
because the ruddy things had been nationalised.


Like coal mining, adherents to this day refuse to understand the deep
structural problems of running the business in the face of
alternative and competing technologies.

Railways serve a niche market: when all you had were coal powered
steam trains or stage coaches, that was not the case.

Road maintenance to an acceptable standard is far cheaper per mile
than railways are.

mmm. A factory at which I was working in 1959, used to have 2 coal
wagons dropped off by a passing goods train each day, The branch line
was closed, It needed 8 lorries to deliver the same amount of coal.

At a cheaper price probably.

but at an increased cost to the environment, roads, etc.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
This was the argument used by Beeching to remove branch lines. Change the
train times so that they are useless - don't make connections, etc, and
then claim nobody uses them.

Ah was that what he did, then? You know this do you?

I suspect that would have been completely unnecessary, there was no
shortage of tiny branch lines with no traffic already.

But of course things change. With much increased road traffic and travel
times by road, some of those branch lines could well be economic today.
But once closed are almost impossible to re-instate.

So you would have subsidised them for 50 years on the off chance they
may be useful one day.
--
bert

In article , charles
writes
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 21/04/17 11:04, Roger Hayter wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:

In article , charles
wrote:

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Another
John wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

Surely there is no point in running empty buses just in case
someone need it?

That was the whole point of public services: they were there. You
knew they were there, and you knew you could rely on them, and (in
the case of buses), you could rely on a regular, frequent service.
So people used them -- and I for one would use them again, if any
of those attributes still existed around here.

But if the busses are running empty, it's rather obvious people
aren't using them. And saying you would use them if they were there
it what everyone says - but strangely didn't use them when they were
there.

This was the argument used by Beeching to remove branch lines. Change
the train times so that they are useless - don't make connections,
etc, and then claim nobody uses them.

Ah was that what he did, then? You know this do you?

I suspect that would have been completely unnecessary, there was no
shortage of tiny branch lines with no traffic already.

But he didn't just close "tiny branch lines with no traffic". He
closed, for instance the only North-South routes in Wales, which had,
and have, very poor road competition.

But I don't think he needed to artificially reduce traffic. The policy
at the time was to just close even very busy routes, on the vague
grounds that road vehicles would turn out much cheaper and more
convenient.


Utter ********, Beeching, unlike his detractors, was not motivated by
ideology.

He was a pragmatic engineer with a remit to get the best benefit out of
a massively loss making railway system.

He wasn't even in power. He was commissioned as chairman of British Rail
to do a report as a consultant. He was closely allied with the Labour
party.


Like coal mining, the government found itself with a nationalised
legacy of failed private companies, that couldn't just be left to die,
because the ruddy things had been nationalised.


Like coal mining, adherents to this day refuse to understand the deep
structural problems of running the business in the face of alternative
and competing technologies.

Railways serve a niche market: when all you had were coal powered steam
trains or stage coaches, that was not the case.

Road maintenance to an acceptable standard is far cheaper per mile than
railways are.

mmm. A factory at which I was working in 1959, used to have 2 coal wagons
dropped off by a passing goods train each day, The branch line was closed,
It needed 8 lorries to deliver the same amount of coal.





Still more economic than keeping a branch line open,

--
bert

On 21/04/17 12:53, charles wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 21/04/17 12:11, charles wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher

Utter ********, Beeching, unlike his detractors, was not motivated by
ideology.

He was a pragmatic engineer with a remit to get the best benefit out
of a massively loss making railway system.

He wasn't even in power. He was commissioned as chairman of British
Rail to do a report as a consultant. He was closely allied with the
Labour party.


Like coal mining, the government found itself with a nationalised
legacy of failed private companies, that couldn't just be left to die,
because the ruddy things had been nationalised.


Like coal mining, adherents to this day refuse to understand the deep
structural problems of running the business in the face of
alternative and competing technologies.

Railways serve a niche market: when all you had were coal powered
steam trains or stage coaches, that was not the case.

Road maintenance to an acceptable standard is far cheaper per mile
than railways are.

mmm. A factory at which I was working in 1959, used to have 2 coal
wagons dropped off by a passing goods train each day, The branch line
was closed, It needed 8 lorries to deliver the same amount of coal.

At a cheaper price probably.

but at an increased cost to the environment, roads, etc.

So, how did the coal get from the railhead to the factory?

Men trundled it in barrows did they?

And actually you have no evidence that rail transport overall is more or
less polluting than road.


--
Theres a mighty big difference between good, sound reasons and reasons
that sound good.

Burton Hillis (William Vaughn, American columnist)

On 21/04/17 13:00, bert wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes

But of course things change. With much increased road traffic and travel
times by road, some of those branch lines could well be economic today.
But once closed are almost impossible to re-instate.

So you would have subsidised them for 50 years on the off chance they
may be useful one day.


Its someone elses money innit?

Actually branch lines aren't economic today either.

I remember trundling along the line from reading to Canterbury once,
many many years ago. There were 3-4 people on it all the way on and off.
I went back via London. Much faster.

That was just after Beeching.

I doubt it gets any more traffic today. It simply doesnt connect people
and their work.

--
If I had all the money I've spent on drink...
...I'd spend it on drink.

Sir Henry (at Rawlinson's End)

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
I remember trundling along the line from reading to Canterbury once, many
many years ago. There were 3-4 people on it all the way on and off. I went
back via London. Much faster.

That was just after Beeching.

I doubt it gets any more traffic today. It simply doesnt connect people
and their work.

Are there still any services that run end-to-end Reading to Canterbury? I
would imagine that there is a fairly healthy Reading to Gatwick usage, with
separate Redhill to Canterbury (or Redhill to Tonbridge) service that has
lower usage. And does it matter if few people made the end-to-end journey,
if more people travelled between various intermediate stations? I would
imagine there are lots of lines where few people travel from A to Z, but
many travel from A to F, C to H, D to Z etc (where stations are in
alphabetical order).

When I used to travel from Bracknell to Gatwick (to fly to/from my sister
who lived in Boston at the time) it was a toss-up between Bracknell to
Wokingham, wait almost half an hour (*), then Wokingham to Gatwick, versus
Bracknell to Clapham Junction and then Clapham Junction to Gatwick, with a
shorter delay but the need to get my suitcases further between platforms.



(*) Services on the Reading-Waterloo and Reading-Gatwick lines at Wokingham
are timetabled badly for anyone wanting to make a Bracknell to
Guildford/Gatwick connection because, in order to minimise the time and the
number of occasions that the level crossing barriers are down, the
Reading-Gatwick service leaves a few seconds before the Waterloo-Reading
train arrives, and vice versa when going in the opposite direction. Or at
least, that's how they timetabled it when I last used that service in the
late 90s. Occasionally I managed the footbridge sprint if one train was
running early and the other was running late, but more often we'd sit
outside Wokingham, on the opposite side to the station, waiting until the
train in the station was ready to leave, so that one closing of the barriers
satisfied two trains moving in opposite directions simultaneously. Very
frustrating to think "We arrived early enough that I could have caught the
other train but we were stranded on the wrong side of the crossing even
though the other train was running late."

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes

Not sure that is entirely true. The local line when I was a kid - Deeside,
from Aberdeen to Ballater, never once broke even in its entire life.

I knew you were a Scot, Dave, but didn't realise you were from this
area. Did you know Ballater station was razed a couple of years ago?
Very sad.
--
Graeme

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 21/04/17 12:53, charles wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 21/04/17 12:11, charles wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher

Utter ********, Beeching, unlike his detractors, was not motivated by
ideology.

He was a pragmatic engineer with a remit to get the best benefit out
of a massively loss making railway system.

He wasn't even in power. He was commissioned as chairman of British
Rail to do a report as a consultant. He was closely allied with the
Labour party.


Like coal mining, the government found itself with a nationalised
legacy of failed private companies, that couldn't just be left to die,
because the ruddy things had been nationalised.


Like coal mining, adherents to this day refuse to understand the deep
structural problems of running the business in the face of
alternative and competing technologies.

Railways serve a niche market: when all you had were coal powered
steam trains or stage coaches, that was not the case.

Road maintenance to an acceptable standard is far cheaper per mile
than railways are.

mmm. A factory at which I was working in 1959, used to have 2 coal
wagons dropped off by a passing goods train each day, The branch line
was closed, It needed 8 lorries to deliver the same amount of coal.

At a cheaper price probably.

but at an increased cost to the environment, roads, etc.

So, how did the coal get from the railhead to the factory?

The wagons came directly into factory = the rails ran stragiht to the
bolier house.

Men trundled it in barrows did they?

And actually you have no evidence that rail transport overall is more or
less polluting than road.

8 x 10 ton capacity lorries per day would certainly have an effect on the
roads and - to get on topic, they'd have been diesel engined lorries, too.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

In article , NY
wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
I remember trundling along the line from reading to Canterbury once,
many many years ago. There were 3-4 people on it all the way on and
off. I went back via London. Much faster.

That was just after Beeching.

I doubt it gets any more traffic today. It simply doesnt connect people
and their work.

Are there still any services that run end-to-end Reading to Canterbury? I
would imagine that there is a fairly healthy Reading to Gatwick usage,
with separate Redhill to Canterbury (or Redhill to Tonbridge) service
that has lower usage. And does it matter if few people made the
end-to-end journey, if more people travelled between various
intermediate stations? I would imagine there are lots of lines where few
people travel from A to Z, but many travel from A to F, C to H, D to Z
etc (where stations are in alphabetical order).

There used to be a "Birkenhead to Margate" service.



--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

In article ,
Graeme wrote:
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes

Not sure that is entirely true. The local line when I was a kid -
Deeside, from Aberdeen to Ballater, never once broke even in its entire
life.

I knew you were a Scot, Dave, but didn't realise you were from this
area. Did you know Ballater station was razed a couple of years ago?
Very sad.

Yes. I was there only a couple of weeks ago. And noted some of the flood
damage still not sorted.

--
*If one synchronized swimmer drowns, do the rest have to drown too?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
charles wrote:
And actually you have no evidence that rail transport overall is more
or less polluting than road.

8 x 10 ton capacity lorries per day would certainly have an effect on
the roads and - to get on topic, they'd have been diesel engined
lorries, too.

And lorries don't, in general, pay the true costs of using roads.

--
*Santa's helpers are subordinate clauses*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.