The Railway Network - If built today...

[ColuGav]

After some afternoon musings, I was wondering. What would the railway network look like if it was designed now, starting from scratch.

Ignoring issues with people not wanting a railway line to pass through their house, or spoiling their view, would we have more route miles than now? Would we just have large 4 - 6 track routes between major towns / cities? or would it look largely how it does now.

What do you think?

[Stedman]

Driverless with the glass surrounds on the platforms, double deck trains with lots of scope to grow (for more lines),

[Hooli]

Worse.

It'd have a million committees that cost more than the actual inferstructure & you'd end up with one line going between places people don't travel & a train that doesn't fit on the line.

[maffski]

Would we build one at all?

I just had a look at flights, business class Manchester to London same day return, £374 and an hour each way. First class train £305 and two hours each way.

Change to economy and it was £144 for the plane and £217 for a train.

Trains only seem affordable if you can travel at weird hours or book three years in advance.

[tight5]

Seems like people are thinking passenger only !

( just like the government )

[Stedman]

tight5 said:

Seems like people are thinking passenger only !

( just like the government )

Freight wise it could be brilliant.

[grumbledoak]

If you wanted the most effective transport system it would look awfully like a better road network. We don't actually need platforms, metal rails, tickets, and drivers at all.

[Podie]

maffski said:

Would we build one at all?

I just had a look at flights, business class Manchester to London same day return, £374 and an hour each way. First class train £305 and two hours each way.

Change to economy and it was £144 for the plane and £217 for a train.

Trains only seem affordable if you can travel at weird hours or book three years in advance.

With a train you can turn up 5 minutes before it actually leaves - to be comparative you need to add the time waiting at the airport.

[maffski]

tight5 said:

Seems like people are thinking passenger only !

( just like the government )

I took the premise as being we had our existing transport infrastructure sans rail - so the motorway network was in place. In which case the only justification for the massive investment in building a rail network would be long distance freight. So you may as well just build more lanes on the motorway - much cheaper.

Canals are the answer, that or we tilt the country, one day Scotland up, next day down. Then we can just coast everywhere. A giant see saw, that's what we need.

Podie said:

With a train you can turn up 5 minutes before it actually leaves - to be comparative you need to add the time waiting at the airport.

True, but is this because it needs to be that way, or because we've been trained to accept it and the airport loves the idea of keeping us in the shops and cafes?

Edited by maffski on Thursday 16th May 14:42

[Collectingbrass]

maffski said:

True, but is this because it needs to be that way, or because we've been trained to accept it and the airport loves the idea of keeping us in the shops and cafes?

Edited by maffski on Thursday 16th May 14:42

It needs to be that way at most airports because they need that time to get the bags on the aircraft. They also need to make sure the self loading frieght is on board so they don't miss their take off slot.

We probably wouldn't get a railway system if we were starting from scratch now, we're too weded to the personal freedom of the car and it would have to be forced through by central government.

Even if we went for it we'd probably only get a link to the continent as now. For the rest, if the government did force it through market forces suggest you'd expect it to look like the provision of broadband does now; a handful of major providors focussed on the major cities and the rest of the UK not getting a look in. The trouble with that is the space take in the cities for rail, especially new, is massive and land / property costs alone would make it so unviable it would take massive government support and no government would risk the loss of votes the tax take this support would cost.

Still, we'd probably have a brilliant road system , all be it far more privately owned, with a lot more frieght out of the way on an extensive canal system.