"Abolish the railways!" (The Spectator)

[Ken H]

It seems that many commenters on this thread are not familiar with the Spectator.... it is a publication that publishes OPINION pieces from many different perspectives.... left and right wing. For example, there's articles where the author expresses why they believe Russia will win the war with Ukraine, others who explain why they think Ukraine will defeat Russia and others who think the whole thing will end in a stalemate. The commentators have varying levels of "expertise" in their subject, the less switched on ones get a lot of calling-out in the comments section of the online edition.

Yes the Speccie was generally supportive of Brexit (whilst also publishing Remain pieces) but the general approach of the publication is not right-wing. No, it's generally "libertarian" and biased towards discussing the difficult questions and grey areas that social media and even more mainstream media generally avoid as they stick to which ever pole of opinion they prefer. Within the general libertarian theme there's room for a lot of views- right, left, centre and others. There's more to opinion than left/right, indeed these days the libertarian/authoritarian axes are often more important but are ignored- to our peril. Also bear in mind that Brexit views are NOT a proxy for left/right- there were for many years strong views from parts of the Left (e.g. Tony Benn) why being in the EU was not good for the UK.

The article you refer to has provoked a lot of discussion in the comments on the on-line version of the Spectator- mainly of the flavour of "you cannot abolish the railways they are important" so again I suggest not making lazy assumptions about Speccie readers. Believe it or not, some of us* want to read opinion pieces which cover a wide ground and offer arguments from both sides- ideally well argued and not shouty; although equally there is room for articles which float a fairly provocative piece as a starter for comment (the article discussed here being of the latter type).

Much as I believe there is a need for railways, where the article is along the right lines is in helping (albeit indirectly and probably inadvertently) to open a debate about what the railways should be for- and how that might best be funded.

There's a strong justification (in my view) to have a lot more light rail/metro-type systems in cities (in the regions, not just London), and a more luxury/leisure orientated offering for long distance. Perhaps not the fastest- but comfortable. There's also freight to consider (how a modern freight railway could be run and what it could do- looking forward not back and considering the hub-and-spoke model used by the likes of Amazon) and changes in suburban/commuting/traveling patterns, and then the "socially necessary" services for more rural areas.

If those of us who see the value of railways don't lead this discussion, vested interests (not those supportive of the railway) will fill the vacuum. But we must look ahead- not just come across as not wanting change for the sake of not wanting change. And not bogging down into details of specific prices for specific journeys at this stage, as on its own that's not really a good basis of the justification for retaining rail. All transport modes have pros/cons and in the end, we choose each time we travel based on a complex mix (even if we are not conscious of the way we make that choice). But that doesn't take away the need to consider the fundamental question of "what is/should be our railway be for?" and "how do we make sure it does those things well?"

Finally, sometimes the not-so-obvious approach is needed. I am reminded of the experience of the South Wales Valleys Lines in the early 1980s. BR had basically given upon them corporately, but as a last-ditch attempt to sort them out, a local manager was allowed by Swindon to try out a radical new idea: cut fares and increase service levels at the same time. "It'll never work" was the "expert" thinking..... but it did work. That's basically how the Valley Lines became a suburban metro, and why they are not just here now but more lines opened.

Certainly a debate is required, and I'd like those who see a positive future for the railways to lead it- not by nit-picking over different modal prices for a journey but looking more widely at what we want from the railway, for whom- and how we use general taxation and government policy to support that in the same way that general taxation supports a range of the basic things that constitute civilised society and access to it.

TPO

*Disclaimer: I subscribe to the Spectator (usually on a special offer, when the offer ends cancel it and within a week another one will appear in my email inbox) and I enjoy reading a range of different views in it; where I don't agree, I like to think properly about why that is so. I also consume a range of other media, and don't just believe what I read.........

This ^^^

 

[Dryce]

I don't agree.

Off to university, off to see granny, off to see one friend in Chelmsford.

These are not holiday visits. These are every day visits within the UK that ought to be catered for by the railway.

I deliberately qualified my statement with 'equivalent' journey.

So you would take a train to Chelmsford - I would take a UK domestic flight to Stansted and travel on.

Simply assuming that UK domestic flights are not 'every day' is a matter of not realising that the practicalities vary depending on options and availability.

Flying isn't some special option - it's just a dull everyday option on some routes.

 

[Jimini]

It seems that many commenters on this thread are not familiar with the Spectator.... it is a publication that publishes OPINION pieces from many different perspectives.... left and right wing. For example, there's articles where the author expresses why they believe Russia will win the war with Ukraine, others who explain why they think Ukraine will defeat Russia and others who think the whole thing will end in a stalemate. The commentators have varying levels of "expertise" in their subject, the less switched on ones get a lot of calling-out in the comments section of the online edition.

*Disclaimer: I subscribe to the Spectator (usually on a special offer, when the offer ends cancel it and within a week another one will appear in my email inbox) and I enjoy reading a range of different views in it; where I don't agree, I like to think properly about why that is so. I also consume a range of other media, and don't just believe what I read.........

Same here — currently in the middle of a three month free Spectator sub (print and digital) as part of my (free!) Telegraph digital sub.

 

[lachlan]

I deliberately qualified my statement with 'equivalent' journey.

So you would take a train to Chelmsford - I would take a UK domestic flight to Stansted and travel on.

Simply assuming that UK domestic flights are not 'every day' is a matter of not realising that the practicalities vary depending on options and availability.

Flying isn't some special option - it's just a dull everyday option on some routes.

Fair enough if you don't care about the environment

 

[philosopher]

I deliberately qualified my statement with 'equivalent' journey.

So you would take a train to Chelmsford - I would take a UK domestic flight to Stansted and travel on.

Simply assuming that UK domestic flights are not 'every day' is a matter of not realising that the practicalities vary depending on options and availability.

Flying isn't some special option - it's just a dull everyday option on some routes.

One advantage of trains compared to flights that I rarely see mentioned is punctuality. Yes I know a lot complain about trains being unpunctual, however in my experience in most cases they are on time and when they are delayed they are usually only delayed by 10 or 20 minutes. Flights on the other hand, in my experience seem to delayed at least a third of the time, and the delays are usually in the order at least 30 minutes. Plus with flights additional delay can be occurred at the baggage reclaim and transport to your ultimate destination. On a train you just walk out of the station and you usually quite close to your ultimate destination.

This means that with a train journey, you can schedule meeting someone or some activity quite soon after the train arrives. However, with a flight you have to leave to a buffer of a few hours after the flight arrives if you need to schedule some activity.

 

[Jonny]

Paul Withrington and Angus Dalgleish live on.

They knew the cost of everything and the value of nothing, especially the speed and comfort that railways can achieve, safely and efficiently, that roads cannot.

 

[nanstallon]

over £20 from Skipton to Preston. Someone is having a giraffe. Its 35 miles down the A59 and takes under an hour. Bet even stagecoach done come near to that for the 280 through bus. and anyone who is averse to buses can bail at Clitheroe and get the train. Or go by Colne

Quite. Railways are in danger of being priced out of the market.

I think flights come on meduim expensive. Then get expensive then drop significantly just before departure as they seek to fill the plane. Ryanair practically give late tickets away in the hope they will make money by upselling. No so the train who charge full whack for a train they know will be half empty, cos they want the expensive full fare from someone making an 'emergency' journey.

Greed doesn't pay in the end.

 

[yorksrob]

I deliberately qualified my statement with 'equivalent' journey.

So you would take a train to Chelmsford - I would take a UK domestic flight to Stansted and travel on.

Simply assuming that UK domestic flights are not 'every day' is a matter of not realising that the practicalities vary depending on options and availability.

Flying isn't some special option - it's just a dull everyday option on some routes.

It is on very few, primarily because we have very few airports. The nearest one to Chelmsford would probably be standard, so a non-direct route. Alternative - Heathrow or Gatwick then traipsing across London ?

Easier to just get the train.

 

[mmh]

Feels like an awful lot of posters have no idea what the Spectator is. It's not a newspaper, it's a periodical of articles. Generally right-wing leaning, but the idea is to generate debate on issues of the day, and question whatever the current status quo of opinion is.

 

[Dryce]

It is on very few, primarily because we have very few airports. The nearest one to Chelmsford would probably be standard, so a non-direct route. Alternative - Heathrow or Gatwick then traipsing across London ?

Easier to just get the train.

Which the normal route for me is traipsing into London and back out again.

So back to that treacherous word 'equivalent'.

And sometimes - surprisingly - it's easier just to drive. (I'd not be too keen on doing that to Chelmsford but the reality is door to door times on many routes are the same or better with a car).

 

[Cowley]

We think this one is probably done.
It’s based on a somewhat silly article and as a staff team we’ve decided that the railway won’t be abolished (I mean it wouldn’t be very good for us if it did )…

Thanks for your contributions everyone.