Safe Speed Forums

It was you who first mentioned the Black Death.

The Black Death and similar pestilences are universally acknowledged to be bad things.

On the other hand, cars, trains, ships, aeroplanes etc. are morally neutral - they may be employed in a useful manner, they may also be used in a way that is malign or wasteful of money.

To make one the equivalent of the other is a bit of an underhand debating technique, don't you think?

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Apologies! Showing my ignorance there. I freely admit I know absolutely nothing about railways.

In my ignorance I'd assumed that rural lines continued through from the last village into the nearest town or city.

I never for a moment in my wildest dreams assumed that the rail road "system" was so inefficient as to have lines stop at the last village before town and transfer their passengers to bus/car. If that is the case, then surely it's yet another reason to run the road all the way through (on the former rail road)!



But even the link to that transwatch site provides the answers to your question:

5. Widths and headroom

(a) A two-track railway typically offers room for a UK standard 7.3-metre carriageway with one-metre marginal strips but no other verges.

(b) On the approaches to towns and cities there is often room for a dual two or three lane highway.

(c) Where there is overhead electrification headroom would often be adequate for a triple-decker.

The following link provides a list of conversions: www.pberry.plus.com/ukroads/railtoroad/index.html Transport-watch seeks the cost of these along with data enabling the cost per square meter to be estimated.


A bit of browsing gives us:

The average leveled width of double track rail was 28 feet ( 8.5 metres) although the distance between the stantions carrying electrification is now commonly 10 metres. Single-track railways had an average level width of 18 feet (5.5 metres) because many were constructed in anticipation of a double track. In comparison Trunk and class A roads commonly narrow to 18 feet, which was the standard width for Scottish trunk roads.

Or are you saying that all the "rural" lines are pure single track on single track formation?

I'm sure there would be loadsa room to drive a car down the inside of a train if you took the seats out. And I'm sure there's loadsa room to drive a train down a tunnel.

Are you saying that all the tunnels are single track single line working?

If not, then you are left with miles of room to have a lane of traffic in each direction, no junctions, no climbing to do, no pedestrians, no need to stop or overtake.

Stick up a minimum speed limit and you've got a pretty high quality road in my view!

_________________
http://www.itsyourduty.org.uk

No, I first mentioned:


And after a whole load of other points I LAST mentioned:



Quite clearly at his point I am no longer discussing road to rail conversion, or even rail roads, but the line of "reasoning" being taken by others.

Feel free to continue to follow that line, rather than addressing the points at issue, either of road to rail, railroads, or even the "line" being taken by others, if you so desire.

_________________
http://www.itsyourduty.org.uk

So what's the collective noun for a group of straw men?

A Gag-gle?

_________________
http://www.itsyourduty.org.uk

Just in case you're still struggling, I'm comparing the line of "reasoning":



With:



Ie I'm trying (obviously unsuccessfully!) to demonstate that the lack of "pro", or existence of "anti" comments has no relevance to the validity of the argument.

I'm not comparing railways with the Black Death!

One of the reasons why the motorists will never win is because they insist on fighting guerrilla, and even terrorist, tactics with gloves on, and to the Queensberry rules.

Feel free to point me in the direction of any pro public transport, or cycling or walking supporters, never mind activists, website where they give the pros, as well as the cons, of motoring.

You'll be hard pushed to find any that don't deal in more than hysterical invective.


Might I refer you to:

Four Years Hard Work: Now We Spring The Trap
"Enclosed is Traffic Reduction File No 10. It springs the trap that you have all worked so hard for over the last four years. All your letters; your phone calls; all your lobbying have set this trap. Every response you sent us we filed; every shift you achieved we noted; every promise, every commitment we recorded. TRF10 is the result.

"But a trap is most effective when properly sprung. In the run-up to the Second Reading of the Bill on 30th January we must snap this trap shut as hard as possible. We have this opportunity now to make all this work really bite, and bite hard."

From: http://www.abd.org.uk/pr/127.htm


The Animal Liberation Front said yesterday that a letter bomb attack in North Wales could herald the start of a wider campaign against the 8,600 fish and chip shops in the country.

Robin Webb, a spokesman for the Animal Liberation Front, said chip shops could be regarded as targets. He said: "The fishing industry is perceived as being very, very cruel. With mammals and birds there is a pretence of humane stunning and slaughter, whereas fish are dragged out of the water into an alien environment in which they slowly die.

"People, perhaps, don't have the same perception generally about fish as they don't have hands-on contact with them. But from the scientific point of view they have a central nervous system and they can suffer and feel pain. Although I do not condone actions of this kind, I can understand the anger and frustration that leads people to take radical action when the parliamentary road has failed."

From: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... chip13.xml

_________________
http://www.itsyourduty.org.uk

One of your problems is that you insist on seeing everything in such Manichean, black-and-white terms.

Most cyclists are also drivers, all drivers are pedestrians, and most are at some time public transport users.

Unfortunately sensible debate about transport policy too often ends up being hijacked in pursuit of political agendas.

And take a look at http://www.citytransport.info/ which is a site dealing mainly with public transport solutions which also (where appropriate) takes a line on speed and safety not unlike that of SafeSpeed.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

No, I don't see, and I don't insist on seeing, everything in black and white.

But I fail to understand the viewpoint that if someone is trying to deprive you of your freedom with "colourful" spin, propaganda, lies, emotion, hysteria and invective: one should first find whatever sensible arguments they should have used and present them on their behalf. And only then try to put your own defence.

I also don't understand the people who, on being assaulted and mugged, either advise which pocket they would prefer to have rifled first and what size boot they prefer to be walked all over with. Or who try to protect themselves by suggesting friends, neighbours or colleagues who would be more suitable victims.


Ever read All The Way Down The Slippery Slope?

http://www.guncite.com/journals/okslip.html

(All the way down?!)

Or those two articles I quoted earlier?


Ever heard the quote:

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" ?

Or of Lenin's "Useful Idiots" ?


Which is the more dangerous?




I don't know about most, but I wouldn't argue with any of it.



So why do the hijackers job for them?

I've heard of getting your retaliation in first.

But beating yourself up first on their behalf?!



I took a look. Excellent site.

But are you saying that this is a non driving public transport supporters site being even handed about motoring?

I suspect it's actually a driver (/cyclist/ pedestrian/ public transport user)'s site being even handed about public transport and cars.

But how even handed about (his own) car is he when he refers to congestion alongside a picture of jam-packed cars, rather than an empty bus lane? Or when he shows a picture of a congested motorway alongside a tram track? When he refers to pollution but doesn't point out where it comes from? When he refers to road safety still not being good enough? Etc, etc, etc.


Let me know when you've found a Brake/ Transport 2000/ Reclaim the Streets/ "Official" site that's even handed.


When you last caught a bus, did the big poster on the back say "Speed Kills, Or At Least Inappropriate Use Of Speed Kills, Though Some Would Argue That Lack Of Speed Kills Too" ?


When you last saw that "traffic" pollution ad over a screen shot of a smoking car exhaust did the voiceover end with a disclaimer about the report actually blaming the kind of engines that power buses and trains and trams, not cars?


Thought not!

_________________
http://www.itsyourduty.org.uk

Oooooooh

Just realised:


Don't feel you've got to hold back!

_________________
http://www.itsyourduty.org.uk

Ooooh, oooh, nearly forgot:



You mean I believe in siding with good over evil whilst being inclusive though traditional!

_________________
http://www.itsyourduty.org.uk

No, I mean the opening page of the site, as reached from the "Home" link at the top of the page you provided a link to. The opening page which gives over much of its screen real-estate to providing anti-rail comments and links to pages containing further such material...




Just from the front page...

"Tax payers will also find the site revealing particularly with regard to rail."

Is the level of government subsidy of rail so newsworthy that it requires a specific mention on the front page? Further, it would only be revealing if the tax payers in question were either against public transport subsidy, or were dithering over whether to be for or against - anyone who believes subsidies are a good thing would merely see such revelations as evidence that the government, for once, is doing something right with respect to transport.


"On Friday 28th May all trains to Euston were brought to a standstill because a pigeon flew into overhead cables between Bletchley and Bourne End - highlighting how fragile rail is to the slightest mishap."

This merely highlights how fragile SOME parts of the AC electrified network are to damage. It in no way highlights how fragile rail is in general - on the more robust parts of the AC network, on the DC network, and on all non-electrified lines, an errant pigeon would not be a cause for concern. Overstating the problem is not good for credibility.


"The West Coast Main Line is to be closed for 9 days from 28th May 2004 to allow engineering work between Watford and Coventry and Stafford."

Thanks to the imposition of stricter health and safety regulations on the rail industry, the major engineering works carried out on the WCML required a period of total closure, whereas in days gone by they could have been carried out by simply closing the affected tracks, leaving the remainder of the route open for traffic. And is a 9 day closure that big a deal, compared to the ongoing restrictions on traffic flow around the Heathrow T5 sections of the M25? 9 days of total disruption on a major rail route, 12 months (and counting) of significant disruption on a major road route... And how long have the roadworks been going on over the Thelwall Viaduct? Or other long-term roadworks on other parts of the road network causing prolonged disruption to far far more people than the WCML closure.




I mean, for a site that is supposedly an independent look at the entire transport system in the UK, there seems to be an inherent bias against rail.




No, but it does bring into question the actual role of the organisation. How can it genuinely evaluate the best use of transport resources if the people involved in the evaluation appear to be biased in favour of certain types of transport?




Umm, you're asking for two contradictory things there.




Apples and oranges. The organisations you mention are, without question, dedicated to fighting such causes, and therefore I would be utterly unsurprised if their respective sites were filled with comments straight out of those handbooks. Can you point out to me where Transport Watch admits to being an anti-rail organisation?

But the "About Us" page says:

"Our objective is to become the non-governmental point of reference for factual data dealing with Transport generally and road and rail in particular."

Were you hoping their objective was to become the duplicate governmental point of reference?



Just from that comparisons page:

Very much against public and political sentiment roads managed to avoid congestion would offer 3 to 4 times the capacity to move freight and people at one quarter the cost of rail while using 30% to 40% less energy and reducing casualty costs suffered by rail passengers by a factor of 2.

The problem with the proposition is that (a) it is so very much against expectation (b) the numbers are so overwhelming as to inspire disbelief rather than belief (c) few people have ever seen a motor road managed to avoid congestion - the UK road network is (with the exception of motorways and some modern single carriageways) a collection of access roads never designed for motor traffic (d) rail is so romantic.

The primary proposition is expanded below. Nearly all the statements were tested at the Public Inquiry into the West Coast Main Line Modernisation Programme. There, Railtrack's immensely expensive Inquiry Team could do nothing in the face of the research presented. Any person who doubts that may have copies of the relevant closing statements in PDF Format. Additionally, the whole is supported by a series of facts sheets also available in PDF format, list appended.

Which I think also answers several of your other points.



Does it say "unbiased" anywhere?

"Transport Watch is an independent organisation not connected with any business, organisation or political party initially funded by a private trust"

Or where you hoping that they would find all forms of transport equivalent, or even that trains would come out ahead?!

_________________
http://www.itsyourduty.org.uk

I may be wrong, but I'd be surprised if a majority of drivers did not use a bus, train, ferry or aeroplane at least once in a year.


Yes - so do you accept the principle that there are some situations where a railway of some kind (or shall we say a dedicated land-based public transport system) is the most appropriate solution to a particular transport need?

The London Tube, perhaps?

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

You are absolutely right....they don't. So, in the face of this overwhelming evidence, when do the bulldozers start ripping up the West Coast Mainline and its associated branchlines?



Yeah, isn't it just I love trains, choo-chooing along. Sweeping across huge viaducts built through the ingenuity of our industrial forefathers in a land where railways were invented.
But what the heck, rip the lot up without nary a thought for change or improvement. And to add insult to injury, lets tarmac them over so we can put our modern legacy on display...our sheer bloody selfishness exemplified by our pathetic slavery to cars.

Or, wait just one second, is there perhaps a wider agenda that needs to be considered, one that looks to the needs of the future where individual vehicles may perhaps not be a viable option (abhorrent though that may sound to todays car fixated society).
No government is going to leave as its legacy a transport system devoid of railways.

Well, regardless of its (very questionable) merits, large-scale rail-to-road conversion is a complete political non-starter anyway.

Also no other major developed country has done it - if it really was such a good idea, surely it would have been widely adopted.

Even in the US, the vast majority of abandoned railway tracks have just been left to the tumbleweed.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

A point you are abundantly demonstrating in this thread.

The original letter from Paul Withrington was talking about rural railways, not major trunk routes - unfortunately you can't (or choose not to) tell the difference between the two.

It's as if someone was discussing the economics of maintaining minor rural roads and the A74(M) was given as an example.

And you still haven't come up with an example of a rural railway that in your view could be usefully turned into a road.


The interior of a train is about the width of the average garage. You wouldn't drive a car very quickly down there - and you couldn't drive a truck at all.


I've never disputed that it is possible to convert the alignment of a 2-track railway into a 2-lane road. However the width of bridges and tunnels is insufficient to meet modern safety standards, and therefore either they would need to be totally reconstructed, or measures such as low speed limits or alternate working would need to be adopted.

There would also obviously have to be junctions with other roads, and because of differential vehicle speeds the need for overtaking would inevitably arise.

I repeat what I said - a 2-lane single carriageway road with at-grade junctions is not a high quality road by modern standards. Also, such roads tend to have a poor accident record, particularly when they have very long straight stretches which tend to encourage ill-judged overtaking manoeuvres. The accident record on the A15 north of Lincoln, which follows the Roman Ermine Street, is very bad indeed.

The thought that turning the railway network into dangerous, sub-standard roads would improve the overall transport situation in this country is frankly laughable.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

It may be worth mentioning that I posted Paul Withrington's original letter on another group where it didn't receive a very positive response.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Ooooh! Veeerrry clever!


You just love going off on tangents, don't you!






Where have I said otherwise?

I'm even happy to see disused rail track preserved as part of a strategic network (though I'd be happier to see it utilised, even, or perhaps especially, by rail enthusiasts - keep them occupied and stop them meddling )

But I'm not here to argue for it.

Neither am I here to supply ammunition to the opposition.

Refer to my post about the trap being sprung:

What's the betting that Georgeda is now going to quote this as "even rABiD speedophiles support a strategic rail network?!"

_________________
http://www.itsyourduty.org.uk

Now, now: no need to get all hysterical!


Well, put: you've convinced me!

Let's carry on taxing selfish motor transport out of existence to pay to maintain the romantic railways.

But once you've taxed motor transport out of existence: who will pay for the railways?

Isn't it better to get rid of the rail roads that don't serve any function apart from as a money pit.

And preserve the infrastructure by sticking real roads on them?

_________________
http://www.itsyourduty.org.uk

Even?

Surely they have the space there not to need to convert.

And less in the way of planning controls.

And doesn't France (and probably everywhere else) have more room, and make it much easier to build a new road from scratch.

Unlike the UK.

Oh, and don't they all have several times as much main road and motorway anyway.

_________________
http://www.itsyourduty.org.uk

I was hoping their objective was to become the organisation described in their "About Us" page - i.e. one that was capable of examining all types of transport purely on a factual basis, without the need to exaggerate the problems inherent in a particular form of transport in order to improve the appearance of other forms.




Indeed. We all know how bad the roads can get at present, yet they're seriously suggesting, with a bit of management, that the road network could not only cope with the existing levels of traffic but also with an additional amount of traffic equivalent to 3-4 times that carried by the rail network? Inspiring disbelief is one way of putting it...


Neat little soundbites like "At Waterloo 50,000 crushed passengers alight in the morning peak hour. They could all find seats in 1,000 50-seat motor coaches. Those coaches would occupy no more than one lane of a motor road. At Waterloo there is room for 3 or 4 lanes in each direction. The waste is lamentable." make it sound like the poor old railways are really struggling against the mighty road. Yet what, EXACTLY, does "would occupy no more than one lane of a motor road" mean?

1000 coaches, even running nose to tail with zero separation, would require a lane 18km long. Throw in a 5m gap to allow for some safety margin and you've just added another 5km to the lane length. So when they grandly talk about how all these coaches would occupy just a single lane, note how they conveniently forget to mention the length of that lane.
They also neglect to mention how the levels of noise and pollution would compare between 1000 (presumably diesel powered) coaches and the equivalent number of electric trains currently used to deliver those commuters to Waterloo, or the increased wages bill required by all the extra coach drivers, or the cost of providing those 1000 new coaches, or the environmental impact of providing garaging and maintenance facilities, or any of the other "minor" points that would in reality make their proposal challenging at best and entirely unworkable at worst.




The UK rail network is (with the exception of main lines and some modern secondary routes) a collection of branch lines never designed for present-day levels of rail traffic... The road network isn't the only transport network having to cope with changes in traffic levels and types (IIRC much of the existing rail network was designed for freight traffic, which is where the rail companies made most of their money, on some lines passenger traffic was very much a secondary concern).



Air travel is also still considered romantic. Some people get dewy eyed over buses, trams, motorbikes, taking their classic car out for a spin across the moors road... All forms of transport have their admirers, is it such a bad thing that rail travel still manages to inspire positive feelings in a decent sized chunk of the population?




No. And that's the problem. If TW is genuinely interested in being an independent body for evaluating the best use of transport resources, then it MUST NOT be biased for/against any particular form of transport. If there is even the slightest bias inherent in the people behind the organisation, then it simply cannot perform the function it claims to do - how can we be certain that its findings are genuinely based on fact, accuracy and truth if there is the suggestion that the people responsible for those decisions may have pre-judged certain types of transport during their evaluation?



Not at all, if someone can present a genuine, fact-based, emotionless, unbiased argument in favour of scrapping rail, then I'll seriously consider it. If, on the other hand, someone presents yet another mostly fact-based but emotionally charged argument, exaggerating the slightest failing of rail whilst silently skipping over similar failings of other transport modes, in favour of scrapping rail, then I'll respond in the same way as I've responded here to the Transport Watch ideas.