South West trains doesn't want cyclists as 'customers'...

Jon Senior jon AT restlesslemon DOTco DOT uk wrote in message .. .
Paul Weaver opined the following...
LOL!

I think you've got that the wrong way round. If 50% of the drivers out
there suddenly stopped driving, the country would have a 20bn a year
tax hole that would need to be filled from somewhere else. Even if
road maintenece was halved it would only save 3bn a year.

Much as I hate to say it: Cite! Other posters have claimed in the past

"Motorists earn the government an estimated £42bn a year"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3868753.stm

Even if you dont think that petrol tax should go to transport (I do by
the way), and even if you dont think a decent road network is
essential to the economy, you cant aruge that if half the drivers
stopped driving, half the tax would be raised.

Can't find the £6bn figure for road maintenence at the moment, however
the entire public expenditure on transport was only £16bn this year.
It should be nearer £40bn (about half and half between the motorway
network, severe underinvestment in the past decade or two, and public
transport. Crossrail and central railway for starters)

http://budget2004.treasury.gov.uk/page_09.html


that road tax + fuel tax do not cover the costs of road maintenance, yet
you suggest that road maintenance costs less than 10% of the money made.

No, about 15%.

Face it, motorists subsidise the railways for you and I, and if they
all came on the 8:22 to London Bridge, we'd have to travel on the
roof.

Or alternatively the 8:22 to London Bridge could take on some extra
carriages to cater for the extra passengers. Since the train would be
considerably busier with regular passengers the extra costs could be
covered.

To add another 3 million people arriving at london each morning, you
would have to
1) Extend platforms
2) More platforms
3) More terminals
4) More tracks
5) Park and ride 24/7 express services from about 30 miles out of
London (combined with an orbital motorway and rail network funneling
european traffic away from the M25), and similar services from about
15 miles outside other major cities.

Ricardo wrote in message
ITYF that motor vehicles are a net drain on the economy. There might be
be £20bn pa less income (let's assume your figures are correct, I'm not
going to check them at 1am ;-), but there would also be considerably
less outgoing in terms of congestion costs, accident costs, pollution

Congestion will simply move from roads to the underfunded rail
network, it will take longer for people to get from A to B, and it
will be more inefficient (why do you think that trains are so
expansive, yet still receive subsidy?). Do you have any figures for
accident costs?

As for polution and health costs, transport is a tiny dent compared
with power generation and industry output. Precisely what "polution"
are you complaining about?

Paul Weaver opined the following...
"Motorists earn the government an estimated =A342bn a year"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3868753.stm

I don't have the figures to dispute that but given it's a quoted=20
guesstimate from the RAC I'd be inclined to take it with a pinch of=20
salt.

Even if you dont think that petrol tax should go to transport (I do by
the way), and even if you dont think a decent road network is
essential to the economy, you cant aruge that if half the drivers
stopped driving, half the tax would be raised.

I wouldn't argue that. I'm just not so sure about the road maintenance=20
costs. I think that a good road network is essential to the economy as=20
much because we have come to depend upon it. If a greater proportion of=20
freight was moved by rail with road links being used for the final=20
distribution of goods rather than their movement around the country then=20
the road maintenance requirements would be significantly decreased.

Can't find the =A36bn figure for road maintenence at the moment, however
the entire public expenditure on transport was only =A316bn this year.
It should be nearer =A340bn (about half and half between the motorway
network, severe underinvestment in the past decade or two, and public
transport. Crossrail and central railway for starters)
=20
http://budget2004.treasury.gov.uk/page_09.html

The problem with rail at the minute is that it is subsidised in an=20
underhand manner which disappears into shareholders' pockets.

that road tax + fuel tax do not cover the costs of road maintenance, ye=
t=20
you suggest that road maintenance costs less than 10% of the money made=
..
=20
No, about 15%.

My bad. Crap bit of maths there!

To add another 3 million people arriving at london each morning, you
would have to
1) Extend platforms

As far as I know, almost every platform in Kings Cross can accomodate a=20
full-length intercity. Most of the commuters that I know use the local=20
services to commute which are rarely more than four carriages and often=20
only two.

2) More platforms

If you can fit a longer train onto the same platform then you can carry=20
more people without more platforms. Or you can use the system used at=20
Glasgow (And probably others) where trains are doubled up on terminating=20
platforms.

3) More terminals

See answer to 2.

4) More tracks

Would be good but not essential. A long train takes as many tracks (1)=20
as a short train. The only concession would be a third track to ensure=20
continued operation in the event of a failure on one of the others.

5) Park and ride 24/7 express services from about 30 miles out of
London (combined with an orbital motorway and rail network funneling
european traffic away from the M25), and similar services from about
15 miles outside other major cities.

Why?

I can see where you are coming from but given that we have the "Heaviest=20
traffic levels in Europe" (RAC!) you have to wonder how the rest of=20
Europe manages. Presumably there is some way of dealing with a lower=20
incidence of car use.

There is also no real need for everyone to move to the railways. If=20
everyone managed to take one passenger with them on their commute then=20
that would halve the number of cars while keeping the basic income from=20
tax the same.

Jon

Helen Deborah Vecht opined the following...
Wouldn't they? On two of the trains I took, there was a trolley plying
wares while the buffet car was closed. On only one, was there no
catering.
The catering car was a waste of space for much of my trip though, much
more than decent bike space would have been.

I forgot a smiley! I'm fully in agreement and would love to see the
catering car replaced with just the trolley. GNER could easily run two
trolleys on their trains for less cost to them. But then GNER still have
guard's vans where I can dump my bike (and often luggage) for the
journey.

Jon

On 11 Jul 2004 07:48:41 -0700, Paul Weaver wrote:

will be more inefficient (why do you think that trains are so
expansive, yet still receive subsidy?).

I never understand why cerain people are so determined the railways
should work without 'government' (really mine, of course) money being
pumped in. After all, precious few roads 'work' without government
money being pumped in, and teh ones that do eventually self-finance
(of which the only one that springs immediately to mind is that across
teh river at Dartford) then get soundly criticised for doing so.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Jon Senior jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uktyped


Helen Deborah Vecht opined the following...
Wouldn't they? On two of the trains I took, there was a trolley plying
wares while the buffet car was closed. On only one, was there no
catering.
The catering car was a waste of space for much of my trip though, much
more than decent bike space would have been.

I forgot a smiley! I'm fully in agreement and would love to see the
catering car replaced with just the trolley. GNER could easily run two
trolleys on their trains for less cost to them. But then GNER still have
guard's vans where I can dump my bike (and often luggage) for the
journey.

Jon

GNER catering is actually reasonable value for money, as it happens.

I think on such long trips and with trains as long as many of the GNER
stock, a catering car is probably a reasonable use of the space
(trolleys would need to be replaced several times on some runs)

What is not reasonable is that 20% of a 5-car set is unused. What also
does not help is that the 10-car sets of yore seem to be a distant
memory.

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

These are probably the same people who regard taxpayers cash spent on
railways as "subsidy" whereas cash spent on roads is "investment"

Huw Francis

"Ian Smith" wrote in message
...
On 11 Jul 2004 07:48:41 -0700, Paul Weaver wrote:

will be more inefficient (why do you think that trains are so
expansive, yet still receive subsidy?).

I never understand why cerain people are so determined the railways
should work without 'government' (really mine, of course) money being
pumped in. After all, precious few roads 'work' without government
money being pumped in, and teh ones that do eventually self-finance
(of which the only one that springs immediately to mind is that across
teh river at Dartford) then get soundly criticised for doing so.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

In message , Jon Senior
writes
As far as I know, almost every platform in Kings Cross can accomodate a
full-length intercity. Most of the commuters that I know use the local
services to commute which are rarely more than four carriages and often
only two.

The smallest trains that use KX (at any time of day) are 4 carriages,
and the suburban part of the station, that they mainly use, can
accommodate only 8 carriage trains. In the rush hours most commuter
trains are 8 carriages.

Thameslink 3000 will let 12 carriage trains operate through to the
south, rather than terminating at KX.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...

The smallest trains that use KX (at any time of day) are 4 carriages,
and the suburban part of the station, that they mainly use, can
accommodate only 8 carriage trains.

Don't 3-car 313s go there late evenings and weekends?
Peter

Paul Weaver wrote:

"Motorists earn the government an estimated £42bn a year"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3868753.stm

And the costs come to between 45 and 52 billion per year (in 1996 -
presumably worse now), eg

http://www.transformscotland.org.uk/...html#motorists

(which is a nice precis of Maddison et al, "The True Cost of Road
Transport, Earthscan, 1996)