Sorry, I should have quoted directly the part where Pete said that rail freight is "hopeless for modern manufactured products of any kind". I don't have much to do with freight transport but I thought that the reason a number of so called rail/freight terminals were built in the UK was to try to transport goods from one hub to another by rail and allow shorter distances to be travelled on the roads.
The new Gothard rail tunnel is being built to reduce the number of HGV's on Swiss roads, I understand a second road tunnel was vetoed by referendum
Ha! Straw Man! I don't think that Switzerland has a collectivist approach seeking to curtail individual freedoms - Rail: 46% I am happy with your reasoning concerning the ex-communist bloc but maybe they are reaping the benefits of that policy now. So, we are debating to what extent it is desirable and so far your arguments have totally failed to convince me. Not only does the UK stand out as having a very anti-rail policy, but it seems to have little relation as regards the economic performance of the country, if you look at Germany and Switzerland, to name but two countries. So I am failing to see what the disadvantages of more freight on the rail system are supposed to be. You haven't addressed CO2 emissions, pollution, noise, the stress on the roads and the stress on the population in any remotely credible way so far, if at all in fact. Indeed, your arguments seem to be so empty that, appreciating your intellectual acumen, I could seriously believe that your perverse position is nothing but a Saturday wind-up. Having the benefit of living in a country where 46% of the freight goes by rail, I can assure you that driving/riding is a pleasurable experience with proportionately very few lorries around. That increases the efficiency of cars and decreases travel times. What's not to like?
That's the good thing about referenda: you often end up with a lot more sense than if you let the politicians and the lobbyists decide everything.
The subject under discussion is the proposed building of one rail line, HS2, at gigantic expense, not an entire network. Let us say it actually gets constructed and brought into service. If you happen to need to convey your freight from London Euston to Birmingham New Street, it will be extremely useful - no-one is denying that. Sadly it will be absolutely no help at all to anybody trying to transport stuff from anywhere else to anywhere else - which is most people. The contrast was with investing the same money on many different parts of the road network, all over the UK, to the benefit of nearly everybody. I wonder how much Swiss freight arrives at the border (say at Basel), transits the whole country, and departs another border (say at Chiasso)? Rail transit makes a lot of sense for that unique traffic, but what would be the possible relevance to UK conditions? By the way, are you suggesting that railways don't produce any CO2 emissions, pollution, noise, or stress on the railtrack?
Well it's true that the thread started off discussing HS2, but then you made general comments about rail and the suitability of using it for transporting freight, or rather the lack thereof. It is those comments I have an issue with. I don't think that the UK is a better place for intensive use of HGVs. I have offered no opinion on HS2 itself, but probably largely concur with your own view - I'm not sure exactly what benefit that particular project would bring. I do think that the UK has woefully underinvested in rail over the decades which has resulted in the clogged motorways that are now experienced by UK travellers. I do think that trying to use rail and perhaps water would be good alternatives. It is also a falsely naive misinterpretation of my posts to suggest that rail is entirely free of pollution, CO2 emissions, noise or any other shortcomings. But (and not having any figures to hand) it would seem that on all those counts it is a better bet that road haulage from all I have ever understood. Freight may well enter and leave Switzerland by rail. Why would that be any different to railing stuff up from London to the north, or Scotland, or down to Devon, or anywhere else? I can't see why this suddenly becomes irrelevant for the UK. If twice as much stuff proportionately can be railed in Germany, what is so different about the UK? It is a fact, though, that there are not that many lorries around on the roads of Switzerland. The Swiss still require goods and materials. The conclusion is that the rail freight is not just international haulage, but that the Swiss actually use the railways for much of their own haulage - which makes perfect sense in a mountainous country where roads are often impassable in winter. But then Swiss trains don't grind to a halt with a few leaves on the line. But it actually makes good sense full stop. Apart from flexibility, I am still waiting for the arguments that the UK has out-thought most other European countries by having everything trucked about instead of transported by rail.
I'm not an expert on freight transport although I do occasionally work for the FTA so I thought I'd pluck out something that might explain the issue from their point of view. http://www.fta.co.uk/export/sites/fta/_galleries/downloads/rail_freight/rail_funding.pdf If anyone wishes to provide some substance to their argument that road haulage is the future over rail for primary distribution, I'd love to see it!
The money would be better spent patching up our third world roads and building some new much need by-passes, our roads must now be some of the worst in Europe.
The report you picked out is specifically about rail freight, and is a few years out of date. Perhaps you might try this one, which covers all modalities more widely: http://www.fta.co.uk/export/sites/f...vements_britains_transport_infrastructure.pdf Many of the proposed improvements both road and rail (a long list) have been cancelled by the government due to lack of money. Yet apparently the money can be found for HS2. That is the inconsistency which I am against.
I'm interested in the rationale behind HS2. If you have a product, or are thinking of launching one, you'd do market research to find out what the consumer wanted. I find it hard to believe that consumers have indicated that they travel behaviour between London and the north would change radically if they were to arrive 20 minutes earlier at their destination. It would have to be a fairly radical change to justify £2bn. But if you took the same money and invested it in rail freight, you'd almost certainly reap benefits: less road repairs, less congestion on the roads and thus less man-hours lost If you took the money and invested it in roads, you'd be papering over the problem - encouraging more road freight in the process, with more stress on roads, and ultimately more congestion. But people have always liked prestige projects rather than incremental improvements.
You've chosen to show a General Transport document relating to DaSTS, this isn't what we're talking about. The issue was specifically 'freight'. We all want to see better roads, no question. But the issue we were debating is specifically prime distribution of freight and the benefits of rail/road for the transportation of that freight.
If there is an unmet overdemand for some kind of facility (such housing say, or schools, or hospitals, or almost any kind of goods or services), resulting in delays, queues, and complaints, the usual political response is a policy of trying to increase supply. Governments are judged on their success or failure in meeting peoples' demands. When it comes to transport, however, a bizarre double standard seems to kick in. Overdemand and congestion on roads leads not to increasing provision, but to measures strangling off demand; while overdemand and congestion on railways leads not to cutting demand, but to increasing provision. I mainly blame John Prescott for this inconsistency, since it was principally his policy.
Can you not see the double standards here? You are applying different standards a priori to the different modalities. May I suggest running it through again, but this time applying the same standards to both?
I thought the issue we were debating was whether HS2 is a good way of spending £20billion on transport infrastructure, or whether there are more useful ways. HS2 is supposedly for both passengers and freight, I believe - as are roads.
I can't see your issue. You have spare capacity on rail which is not being exploited for whatever reason - maybe logistics hubs? Or problems at ports? Or some other issue. You have no spare capacity on roads. So you think that it would be a good plan to build more of them and bigger ones. In other words encourage more traffic, more emissions, more noise and pollution and reduce arable land. OK, so you build the roads and maybe it is such a great experience for road haulage that it encourages more of it. You would no doubt be delighted as you seem to be in love with the HGV. It comes down to your viewpoint that: “It is roads which are the arteries and veins of the nation.” And “Those HGVs represent much of the UK's economic activity. They are Britain's lifeblood, creating jobs and wealth, adding to GDP growth. I would like to see more of them” and especially “Rail freight remains viable for bulk conveyance of coal, steel, quarry stone, etc but is hopeless for modern manufactured products of any kind.” I’m still really interested to know why “rail freight is hopeless for modern manufactured products of any kind”. This seems to be a completely unsubstantiated remark. The fact that other nations use far more rail freight than the UK seems to indicate that they don’t agree with you. You haven’t got shares in Eddie Stobart, have you?
If you look at the high speed train network in France it enables people to commute from Lyon to Paris ,or vice versa.It really has opened up the possibilities of not having to move from an area you love to live in,but can work in a place that might pay more salary.i was chatting to a guy on the beach near Nimes,he wanted to know where I was from etc(London) and he tells me he often takes the train to London shopping for records ,now get this,he takes a TGV from Nimes to Lille,waits 10 minutes for the Eurostar and door to do he does Nimes London in about five and a half hours,that's what is great about high speed rail travel.If he was relying on planes or driving he would not do it.
TGV trains, or Train à Grande Vitesse, are the high speed trains of the SNCF, the French national rail network, and can reach speeds of up to 200 mph, or 320 km/h. They are much loved by the French, who are very proud of their flagship train service. It’s hardly surprising, as the TGV is cheap, quick, efficient, comfortable and very reliable. For example the fare from Paris to Montpellier starts at around £40. The French national rail network does appear to be far better value than our hugely over-priced rail fares. I have used Eurostar, but find it way too expensive. I have found it to be a pleasant experience, but I just don't feel the cost is justified.
Being brutally honest, I don't want to sit on a train with people I don't know for an extortionate cost. If the journey costs where significantly cheaper than going in my own car I would think about. I have a car and therefore I will use it syndrome. A few moons ago I worked in Brussels and there was the possibility of using the chunnel to travel from London village, bearing in mind I am oop north. The costs though! Jeeze it was cheaper to fly on a expensive airline. Never mind the journey time. West cost line from Chester down to London village 3 hours-ish then onto the chunnel chugger. A waste of time - fly there and earn the money. Not sit on a train for hours and hours. As a money earner for engineering co's and contractors the HS2 is a great big bonus. Plenty of capital to burn hours against at great rates.
I like trains and think they make a lot of sense. If I was going from here (Lausanne) to Paris, I'd take the TGV. Why would I want to drive endless hours on autoroutes, boring myself silly when I can be reading a book? And then at the end of it, negotiate Paris traffic and find somewhere extortionate to park? Travelling into London from the north, it's pretty much the same.
