Talk:Rail transport/Archive 1

message: This campaign has been set up in the hope that, once I have pointed out the problems with Britain's railways, Britain will act to sort them out and hence improve the railways. 
My first campaign is for a railway line to be built from Alnmouth to Dunbar via Wooler, Coldstream and Duns.
My second campaign is for part of a London Orbital Railway to be formed. This would mean connecting up Hertfordshire's railways. This means building a line between Hemel Hempstead, St. Alban's, Welwyn Garden City and, lastly, for there to be a tunnelled line connecting both of Hertford's stations. 
The next part of this orbital railway would link up Hertford to Harlow, Romford, Dartford, Redhill, Woking, Slough and Watford and this line will go back to Hemel Hempstead again. 
On this line, there will be 12 stops: Watford, Hemel Hempstead, St Alban's, Welwyn Garden City, Hertford, Hertford East, Harlow, Romford, Dartford, Redhill, Woking and Slough. 
If this railway were to be built, and hopefully as a direct result of my campaign it will be, then the line would operate as follows:
1. Watford to Hemel Hempstead
For this section, trains will just use the current railway line connecting these two towns. 
2.Hemel Hempstead to St. Albans
A new line would be built (some of this tunnelled)
3. St. Alban's to Welwyn Garden City
A new line would be built (again some of this tunnelled)
4. Welwyn Garden City to both of Hertford's stations
A short line would be built (most of this would be tunnelled)
5. Hertford to Harlow
A short line connecting these two towns would be built (a lot of this would be tunnelled)
6. Harlow to Romford
A line connecting these two towns would be built (nearly all or all of this would be tunnelled)
7. Romford to Dartford
The whole length of this line would be tunnelled, including a railway tunnel under the River Thames.
8. Dartford to Redhill
A line connecting these two towns would be built, with a combination of tunnelled and overground stretches.
9. Redhill to Woking
A line (mostly in tunnels) will be built to connect these two towns
10. Woking to Slough
Virtually all of this line will be tunnelled.
Thirdly, I campaign for a line to be built between Newcastle-Upon-Tyne and Consett and for a railway line to be built between Alton and Winchester.
As Director of The British Railway Campaign (TBRC), my fourth campaign is for improved railway service across Britain. Take for example the GNER route between London Kings Cross and Edinburgh. For Monday to Friday, the services start at 06:15, which is quite respectable but the last direct service is at 18:00. Not only do I find this appalling but also I feel there needs to be a bit of an improvement. For example, my campaign would like there to be a couple more services along this route on weekdays. Possible improvements would be two trains after 18:00; one at 19:00 and another at 20:00 respectively, because obviously the 20:00 train cannot depart from Kings Cross before the 19:00 train! Even if these two extra services had less carriages due to a reduced demand off-peak, this would still be a lot better than it is at the moment. 
Moving swiftly on, I have now reached Campaign number five, the implementation of which will see better service from Portsmouth Harbour to London Waterloo via Guildford. On mondays to Fridays, the first service is at 04:39 and the last direct service is at 22:17. I would say that there should be an additional service on either side of these two times. For example, an improvement would see a direct train depart from Portsmouth Harbour as early as 04:00 and as late as 22:45. I feel this would be far better as, the nearer Britain gets to a 24 hour rail service, the less likely it will be that passengers will find themselves stranded in strange towns due to missing a last train. 
My sixth campaign is for the London Paddington to Penzance line to be upgraded and hence journey times will be cut significantly. Let's take the weekday example of the 12:05 from Paddington arriving at Penzance at 17:05. The timetable looks like this:
London Paddington      12:05
Reading          12:30 12:31
Exeter St Davids 14:09 14:10
Newton Abbot     14:31 14:31
Plymouth         15:09
 
If the railways were upgraded to the extent that the BRC would like them to be, then the timetable would look like this:
London Paddington      12:05
Reading          12:26 12:27
Exeter St Davids 13:47 13:48
Newton Abbot     14:05 14:05
Plymouth         14:37
Then the journey from London to Penzance would take only 4 hours 33 minutes instead of 5 hours 5 minutes! Even if the trains still called at the same number of stations, they could travel an awful lot faster!!!
Next in my list of campaigns comes a new railway line. I at the BRC campaign for a "South Coast Railway" RUNNING FROM Dover to Penzance. This would go from Dover through Ashford International and along the line through Brighton, Chichester, Southampton, Bournemouth and Weymouth. The only new railway track needed for this line to be successful is a line running from Weymouth to Exeter via Bridport. 
If this line were to go ahead, and hopefully as a direct result of the BRC it will, then an example timetable would be as follows:
Dover Priory                06:00
Folkestone Central    06:12 06:12
Folkestone West       06:15 06:15
Ashford International 06:28 06:31
Hastings              07:01 07:03
Eastbourne            07:21 07:26
Brighton              07:40 07:43
Worthing              07:53 07:54
Barnham               08:07 08:07
Chichester            08:15 08:15
Havant                08:26 08:26
Cosham                08:37 08:38
Fareham               08:46 08:47
Southampton Central   09:09 09:12
Brockenhurst          08:26 08:27
Bournemouth           08:42 08:44
Poole                 08:52 08:54
Dorchester South      09:17 09:18
Bridport              09:32 09:33
Exeter St Davids      10:08 10:13
Newton Abbot          10:33 10:34
Plymouth              11:13 11:17
Liskeard              11:39 11:40
Bodmin Parkway        11:51 11:53
Lostwithiel           11;57 11:58
Par                   12:04 12:05
St Austell            12:10 12:12
Truro                 12:28 12:29
Redruth               12:39 12:40
Camborne              12:46 12:47
Hayle                 12:55 12:56
St Erth               12:59 13:00
Penzance              13:15
As you can see, it would be a lot quicker to get between places than it is at the moment!!!      
Now, I would like to add the campaign of a railway line linking Exeter, Okehampton, Launceston, Bodmin and St Austell. As part of this railway, there would be a completely new line connecting Okehampton to Exeter. 
As you can see, my life as a campaigner is extremely interesting yet very busy. Another of my campaigns is railway-widening, so for example, along the GNER london to Glasgow line, instead of there being just one track in each direction, there would be two. This railway widening will become increasingly important if Britain's railway services are to be improved. 
Also, part of my campaign is for there to be more railway lines built across the country, for example one linking Bournemouth, Ringwood, Fordingbridge, Salisbury, Pewsey, Marlborough, Swindon, Evesham and Birmingham and one express line linking Aberdeen, Peterhead, Fraserburgh, Banff, Portsoy, Cullen and Elgin. 
Next, something that I would really like to see implemented is for a railway to be built, linking Merthyr Tydfil, Brecon and Builth Wells. A lot of this section of railway will be tunnelled as this railway would go through very steep hilly areas. 
Next, I campaign for some more railways in Britain. For example, if a straight underground tunnel were built between Bristol and Manchester, which is about 170 miles. At the moment, journey times between these two cities are over three hours, but if a 170 mile tunnel were built and if trains could travel up to 186 miles per hour, then it would take only an hour to get from Bristol to Manchester. 
Also, I campaign for a new railway to be built in Northern Ireland. This would run from Londonderry to Omagh via Strabane, calling at stations in the intermediate towns and villages. 
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jacktyu (talk • contribs) 14:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The British Railway Campaign

message: Rail transport is also one of the safest modes of transport, and also makes highly efficient use of space: a double-tracked rail line can carry more passengers or freight in a given amount of time than a four-laned road.
This figure seem a bit low. Does anyone know a better source?
:A few back-of-the-envelope calculations:
:Minimun distance between cars in heavy traffic: 2 sec. (That's what they recommend in driving lessons anyway)
:Average occupancy: 1.3
:=> Maximum capacity = 2300 passengers per hour per lane
:Seats on a eurostar train: 750
:Minimum interval between trains on a high speed rail line: 5 min
:=> Maximum capacity = 9000 passergers per hour per track
:9000/2300 = 3.9 road lanes for each rail track
: Passengers on a packed London Underground train: 120 x 6 carriages = 720
: Maximum interval between underground trains: 1 min 30 sec
:=> Maximum capacity = 28,800
... which would suggest a double-tracked rail line is (at least) equivalent to an 8-lane road used by cars.
: Seats on a double-decker bus: 50
: Interval between buses: 4 sec
: => Maximum capacity = 45,000 passengers per hour per lane
... so we should also mention that a single bus-only road lane has a higher capacity than trains.
Klafubra 10:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rail capacity/ land use

message: The link added by an anon editor doesn't appear to have any information of its own, just links to passenger services worldwide. slambo 20:38, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
:Someone needs to do a lot more work on this. There are way too many external links for this topic. Most pages don't exceed a dozen such links.--Daveswagon 00:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted linkspam 

message: I see that this statement applies most present-day rail systems. But as far as I know, in the early decades of railroading most train systems have been highly profitable. This is also reflected in PC games like Railroad Tycoon. And in most countries they continued to be profitable until maybe the 1930s, 1940s or 1950s.
Isn't it? So it's wrong to use „never or rarely“ in this statement.
Dealerofsalvation 19:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: „Most rail systems … have never or rarely been profitable“

message: Our article states "In all, under the right circumstances, a train needs 50-70% less energy to transport a given tonnage of freight (or given number of passengers), than does road transport." What is the source for this claim?
I advised a person of this statistic on the help desk and I wanted to find a source for it. Capitalistroadster 05:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the percentage advantage varies--is the road transport a wagon going through mud, or a truck on a concrete highway. And the energy is calories used or what? I think the original point actually had to do with the coefficient of friction metal on metal versus wood on dirt. Rjensen 05:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Energy efficiency

message: I'm a little worried that the introduction to this article has too much to do with the construction of railways. Maybe this is the point of htis article. Opinions? Oceanhahn 22:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: Although fairly recent to contributing to Wikipedia, I was mulling the idea of adding a page of (in-)famous railroad-related personalities, e.g. Vanderbilt, Drew, Fisk, Gould, Westinghouse, Carnegie, Pitcairn, Stephenson, Mallet, Trevithick, etc.  Would there be any support for such a page? --Dsteckelberg 03:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tycoons page?

message: The article on William Jessop contained the following text:
:In 1790, he founded (with fellow engineer Benjamin Outram) the Butterley Iron Works in Derbyshire to manufacture (amongst other things) cast-iron edge rails – a design Jessop had used successfully with flanged wheels on a horse-drawn railway scheme for coal wagons in Loughborough, Leicestershire (1789).
whilst this article contradicted it with:
:In the late 18th century iron rails began to appear: British civil engineer William Jessop designed edge rails (which have the flange on the rail, used with plain wheels) for use on a scheme from Loughborough, Leicestershire in 1789 ...
I initially assumed this article was definative, and hence William Jessop was wrong, and removed with flanged wheels from that article.
However in looking for original sources, I happened across another reference in WP. Our article Wagonway makes a distiction between plate-rails (where the flange is on the rail) and edge-rails (where the flange is on the wheel). This makes this article wrong, and William Jessop right. Still digging, but if anybody knows a definative source, I'd be grateful. -- Chris j wood 13:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible confusion on rails and flanges 

message: This phrase is obscure. Am loath to delete it unless it means something. Does anyone know what it means?
:Markers are either lights or flags that indicate the front and rear of a train in operation.  I've got a 1948 Santa Fe rulebook (and an NP rulebook somewhere, but it's hidden within a box around here that I haven't been able to locate) that likely has a more official definition, so I'll make the adjustment to the text once I put my hands on the rulebook. Slambo (Speak) 10:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: displaying markers

message: In California, high speed rail is under study. Initial indications are that a high speed rail line linking the San Francisco Bay Area with Los Angeles would be at least as time efficient as air travel, and if implemented, would at least break even in operating revenue versus expenses. So why is there substantial legislative resistance to this good idea?
Passenger rail service is the stuff of urban legend: that they require huge subsidies. In fact, after the loss of passenger service provided by local RR companies when Amtrak was formed, most of the commuter lines were quickly taken over by local metropolitan entities. Why? To fulfill a critical need for commuter trains to move lots of people quickly and efficiently. In communities where passenger rail was abandoned, we had he result of dramatically increased freeway construction and the relegation of commuters to smelly, crowded and unattractive buses.
In the SF Bay Area, the Key System was abandoned in the late 1950's. Yet in only a few short years, BART came into existence, using the very same right of ways for the most part and with vast improvements such as tunneling under the bay. Who made the original short-sighted decision and upon what reasonable information basis? 
Current conventional wisdom would discontinue Amtrak except for its popular Northeast Corridor which has substantial ridership and shows some degree of profitability. On the west coast, the new commuter links of the Surfliner between San Diego and LA, the Capitols between Sacramento and San Jose, and the Altamont Express between the central valley and the bay area have been hugely successful, mostly because they have had California state sponsorship. The have had huge ridership increases and continue to be cost efficient in moving people rapidly and conveniently as an alternative to auto commuting.
The Amtrak Coast Starlight links Seattle with LA. It transverses some of the most scenic coastline and mountains in the whole west. Yet, Amtrak will not add service to this line even though it is mostly sold out every day, despite being chronically late and hard to use. It is limited to one train per day northbound and one southbound. It traverses the most scenic mountainous areas in the dark of night. It fails to connect conveniently with any other trains. Why? 
One can only suspect deliberate efforts on the part of auto manufacturers, freeway builders, fuel suppliers and their allies as the culprits in preventing a rational, well thought out and well financed inter-city rail system from actually developing.--Rrman 11:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen a few op-ed pieces in various publications that the US Federal government wants to shift the cost of passenger rail transport off of the Federal budget and onto State budges.  So far, it's all been speculation and conspiracy theories, but I wouldn't be entirely surprised if someone finds the "smoking gun" to prove such a theory.  Slambo (Speak) 12:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Passenger rail profitability 

message: I removed all of the external links because none of them really seemed appropriate for a top-level article.  If anyone thinks any of them are appropriate, or can think of some good ones for this article, feel free to add them (back).  JYolkowski // talk 21:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just re-removed them again for the same reason. Slambo (Speak) 17:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I think that this should not be in the article. The article does not for example mention the first railways in Canada, Australia, Brazil etc. SO Why the USA? How about a new article called "Histroy of Rail Transport in the United States" and articles of such nature for other countries. The USA built many railways - true, but so did the Chinese and British in India and Dutch - but no mention of these! Segafreak2 21:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article could do with a bit of updating, but on my quick skim through it this morning, I see many references to worldwide rail transport history and operations.  This article is not exclusively US, and I don't see a section that concentrates on US rail history.  There is an article on the History of rail transport in the United States that goes into much more detail on US rail history. Slambo (Speak) 12:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Histroy of the Railroad in the United States