Are speculative ideas less popular?

[edwin_m]

To put it frankly, this forum has become a miserable bunch of people who are ready to shoot down any ideas for any reason they can possibly find...speculation in this part of the forum doesn't always need to be boring and "financially viable" and can simply be "crayonista" ideas people have, but certain members sit on here day by day just waiting for the chance to shoot down ideas.

Thats why many people, myself included, have given up posting any speculative ideas on this forum, and frankly have gotten bored of this over-moderated forum as a whole.

As one of the people who you would probably categorise as a miserable bunch, I do rather resent that characterisation - especially when a solution has been suggested (post as "Fantasy" if you don't want a serious discussion) and you haven't chosen to engage with it.

I get the impression there are plenty of people who post ideas here and welcome discussion and constructive criticism. It's just sometimes difficult to know which ones they are.

 

[yorksrob]

I agree and I am resigned to the likelyhood that a rolling program of electrification is lost on the UK - a fantasy. I wonder - how did Europe do it. It was a long time ago of course !.

We almost managed something similar during the 1980's. But things seem too set in stone now.

 

[eldomtom2]

Bit in bold - however when those costs *are* different because of fundamental differences between countries, such as land value, planning processes etc you can't just ignore them and say "oh but the UK is expensive, look at 'x'" without acknowledging some of the reason for that.

My point is that in many places costs are higher in the UK for reasons that aren't immutable - and planning processes are part of this as planning processes can be changed. Other reasons include stuff that's definitely under the railways' control such as how projects are contracted.

More frustrating from my view is the argument "oh but it used to be cheaper in the 70s or 80s" which often isn't backed up by fact and disregards where regulations mean you *can't* do things in the way they were in the 70s or 80s for a multitude of good reasons alongside a fundamental misunderstanding of the principle of "grandfather rights" - which in reality allow you to continue to do something in a certain way *where it already exists*, not to be extended on just because it fits a narrative.

Well, I think the more relevant point is that in the 70s and 80s British rail construction costs were generally similar to those in Continental Europe, whereas today they are significantly higher - that's not the fault of accessibility regulations, because those in the UK don't differ significantly to those in Europe.

There was an interesting thread on why projects cost more here.

Yes, I made one. There wasn't much interest, though, and definitely an attitude of "it's all out of the railway's control".

 

[A0]

My point is that in many places costs are higher in the UK for reasons that aren't immutable - and planning processes are part of this as planning processes can be changed. Other reasons include stuff that's definitely under the railways' control such as how projects are contracted.

Bit in bold - except planning processes exist for good reason as there are the interests of multiple parties to consider. What you seem to be suggesting is large infrastructure projects should be able to "steamroller" their way through - at the expenses of local communities who would be affected. I assume you'd be equally happy for road schemes or airports to be subject to lesser planning controls or is it only rail schemes ?

Well, I think the more relevant point is that in the 70s and 80s British rail construction costs were generally similar to those in Continental Europe, whereas today they are significantly higher - that's not the fault of accessibility regulations, because those in the UK don't differ significantly to those in Europe.

Bit in bold - evidence ?

 

[Peter Sarf]

I think there is a possibility that some speculative threads get no interest and some get some hot interest.
No interest because clearly no feedback is welcome (unless positive).
Hot interest because people have bothered to read it and bothered to reply positively or objectively.

In a fair world conversation is a two way street. One states ones point of view but while expecting others to pay attention one must then be prepared to pay attention to the replies.

Really if one wants to state a point of view one has to expect some surprises. Anything too surprising/unpleasant will incur the attention of the moderators.

My following might be better in a separate thread ?.

I think people underestimate the rhetorics being used by those in power, and parroted by the uninformed. It's always about something being too expensive, or too difficult, when it comes to railways. And because it gets repeated so much, people believe the lie.

But we can find money for road projects, we can find endless money for the NHS, and we can find money for asylum seekers. And I'm not saying we shouldn't pay for those things, but the NHS in particular is an endless money pit, which never actually results in improvements. And yet people will happily continue to throw money at it and other things. But, you mention the railways needing investment, and it's like you just swore, even though railway investment actually shows improvements and success, like the Elizabeth Line.

If you want people talking about railways, and talking about speculation for future rail projects, then the 'lack of money' rhetoric needs to die.

One way of looking at priorities is which expenditure makes the UK money that can be used to pay for future expenditure and growth.

Asylum seekers and other immigrants - possibly a money pit until you consider that some will do jobs that those of us raised in the UK do not want to do (we have a lot of passengers born and bred in the UK). Lets be fair the largest amount of immigration is LEGAL and the illegal number is dwarfed but expensive (are all those hotels used up holding immigrants putting hotel prices up ?). But do not lose sight of those that can and will earn their place in the UK.

NHS - well keeping people healthy makes them more productive. It s well worth spending money on preventative health care (even my arch supports that have coped with my fallen arch and noticeably reduced my back problems - just a pity I was not diagnosed as needing them 30 odd years earlier). Perhaps less well spent on people who neglected their health BUT where do you draw the line. We could save a packet by not bothering with people who are not of working age - oh hang on that's me !.

Road - well keeping the wheels of industry/commerce etc etc going. But demand should be managed better (why out of town shops).

Rail - same as road except perhaps rail can do more economically what road can do and certainly more environmentally what road can do ???.

Air - Does air pay its true environmental cost ?.

Now my reasons for the above is to ask the questions :-
Where does rail sit in amongst all these priorities ?.
How do these priorities/realities affect the replies to speculative threads that are predominantly rail related ?.

 

[AngusH]

Thinking about this I disagree with some of the proposed categorisation issues.
The word 'fantasy' seems incorrect and I dislike 'crayonista' because it seems like a personal criticism of the proposer.


If having categories may be useful, perhaps "early idea", "developing idea", "ready to go idea"?
Playing the ball and not the man seems important here.



As to "fantasy", I would consider that to be something like:

"Avanti west coast should recruit elves for catering service, because they would be well suited the difficulties of serving food on a moving train"

This would be clearly be a fantasy idea. It is in every sense impossible, not least because I don't think elves would want to work in customer facing role these days.


However there are ideas that aren't currently feasible because there are some absolute obstacles but the idea still deserves serious discussion. These shouldn't be considered fantasy ideas, merely ideas with major technical obstacles or where the cost is too high.

To borrow an example from another industry:

Artificial satellites are an example. The first proposal was probably made by Tsiolkovsky in 1903, and later discussed by Potočnik in 1928.

At those dates the technology was clearly not up to launching such a device, if a suitable satellite could even be built at all.
But serious discussion was useful even if part of it was "it can't yet be done because we don't have a large enough rocket"

The first satellite then launched in 1957, 29 years after Potočnik's book.

I don't want to see discussion of an idea killed off just because there are blocks to implementation currently.
There might be a political or social change, some reduction in cost in the future or some technology might be created to overcome the obstacles.

Maybe with difficult ideas, we should discuss what needs to be done to overcome the obstacles?



As an additional point, there are ideas which are thought by critics to provide no value, however the question there is surely: "what is the proposer intending to achieve? Why do they feel there is value in the idea?"

Most of them tend to be that the proposer wants better service between certain points, so if the idea seems odd perhaps the discussion should be about how the achieve the original goals in a different way.

 

[edwin_m]

Thinking about this I disagree with some of the proposed categorisation issues.
The word 'fantasy' seems incorrect and I dislike 'crayonista' because it seems like a personal criticism of the proposer.


If having categories may be useful, perhaps "early idea", "developing idea", "ready to go idea"?
Playing the ball and not the man seems important here.

I don't think that's what is intended.

As far as I can tell some people just want to throw around ideas for fun with no expectation that they will ever happen, and importantly they don't want others to keep telling them it never will. To use another football analogy, a bit like "Fantasy Football". I don't quite know why they might want to do that, but I'm happy for them to do so and as one of the people who might throw cold water on it, I'm also happy to save wear on my fingers posting if it will only upset someone.

Others however are posting in the same forum with their own ideas which they believe might be viable suggestions and welcome discussion on the various issues they would have to address and overcome. It's not always obvious to the OP what those objections might be, but using the example of the artificial satellite the OP could acknowledge that there wasn't a good enough rocket at the time and move the discussion on to what might happen (and what other problems might occur) if such a rocket became available.

To me that's a serious discussion, and continuing the analogy a "fantasy" topic would be like a fictional work by Isaac Asimov compared with one by Arthur C Clarke. For those that don't know, Clarke was another prophet of the satellite and his fiction as well as factual writing was based around ideas that might not be achievable at the time he wrote them, but were always scientifically plausible and he included some details of how they might be achieved. Asimov's fiction essentially assumed that some concept like travel faster than light or a positronic brain was possible, without getting tangled up in whether or how, and weaved the story around what might be happen if these concepts existed.

Both these are equally valid approaches to a forum discussion, but I suggest the issues raised here would be avoided if it was clearer which type was intended.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Thinking about this I disagree with some of the proposed categorisation issues.
The word 'fantasy' seems incorrect and I dislike 'crayonista' because it seems like a personal criticism of the proposer.


If having categories may be useful, perhaps "early idea", "developing idea", "ready to go idea"?
Playing the ball and not the man seems important here.



As to "fantasy", I would consider that to be something like:

"Avanti west coast should recruit elves for catering service, because they would be well suited the difficulties of serving food on a moving train"

This would be clearly be a fantasy idea. It is in every sense impossible, not least because I don't think elves would want to work in customer facing role these days.


However there are ideas that aren't currently feasible because there are some absolute obstacles but the idea still deserves serious discussion. These shouldn't be considered fantasy ideas, merely ideas with major technical obstacles or where the cost is too high.

To borrow an example from another industry:

Artificial satellites are an example. The first proposal was probably made by Tsiolkovsky in 1903, and later discussed by Potočnik in 1928.

At those dates the technology was clearly not up to launching such a device, if a suitable satellite could even be built at all.
But serious discussion was useful even if part of it was "it can't yet be done because we don't have a large enough rocket"

The first satellite then launched in 1957, 29 years after Potočnik's book.

I don't want to see discussion of an idea killed off just because there are blocks to implementation currently.
There might be a political or social change, some reduction in cost in the future or some technology might be created to overcome the obstacles.

Maybe with difficult ideas, we should discuss what needs to be done to overcome the obstacles?



As an additional point, there are ideas which are thought by critics to provide no value, however the question there is surely: "what is the proposer intending to achieve? Why do they feel there is value in the idea?"

Most of them tend to be that the proposer wants better service between certain points, so if the idea seems odd perhaps the discussion should be about how the achieve the original goals in a different way.

I think your categories might be kinder. But some people have themselves put "fantasy" in the title of the thread they have started. they are indicating that criticism should not be too serious or at all. Whatever the exact naming I think it important that it can indicate to some posters how much effort or not to put into serious analysis and criticism (*) of the idea.

* Criticism in its broadest sense - not down right negative but more an analysis of what can happen or what could happen instead with alternative possibilities if appropriate - positive criticism.

 

[MattRat]

One way of looking at priorities is which expenditure makes the UK money that can be used to pay for future expenditure and growth.

Asylum seekers and other immigrants - possibly a money pit until you consider that some will do jobs that those of us raised in the UK do not want to do (we have a lot of passengers born and bred in the UK). Lets be fair the largest amount of immigration is LEGAL and the illegal number is dwarfed but expensive (are all those hotels used up holding immigrants putting hotel prices up ?). But do not lose sight of those that can and will earn their place in the UK.

NHS - well keeping people healthy makes them more productive. It s well worth spending money on preventative health care (even my arch supports that have coped with my fallen arch and noticeably reduced my back problems - just a pity I was not diagnosed as needing them 30 odd years earlier). Perhaps less well spent on people who neglected their health BUT where do you draw the line. We could save a packet by not bothering with people who are not of working age - oh hang on that's me !.

Road - well keeping the wheels of industry/commerce etc etc going. But demand should be managed better (why out of town shops).

Rail - same as road except perhaps rail can do more economically what road can do and certainly more environmentally what road can do ???.

Air - Does air pay its true environmental cost ?.

Now my reasons for the above is to ask the questions :-
Where does rail sit in amongst all these priorities ?.
How do these priorities/realities affect the replies to speculative threads that are predominantly rail related ?.

Can and does aren't necessarily the same thing. Health hasn't improved in this country for example, despite year on year NHS budget increases. Whereas Crossrail was and is a massive success, greater than any predictions made about it.

And even ignoring that, it still doesn't explain why rail is seen as the black sheep of investment, while other things don't seem to have the same stigma, since even your own post sees rail as worthy of investment.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Can and does aren't necessarily the same thing. Health hasn't improved in this country for example, despite year on year NHS budget increases. Whereas Crossrail was and is a massive success, greater than any predictions made about it.

And even ignoring that, it still doesn't explain why rail is seen as the black sheep of investment, while other things don't seem to have the same stigma, since even your own post sees rail as worthy of investment.

It will be down to perception. Also a cruel fact is that most people do not directly need the railways. Far more will have a car or acecess to a car than who travel by rail. So in a nutshell rail is not relevant to the majority. Now a certain amount of education would lead them to realise that rail does affect them indirectly. Take rail away and there will be more traffic on the roads including Heavy Goods Vehicles. But that is too much of a nuanced complexity for the vast majority to be bothered with.

Meanwhile on this forum rail is a far more accepted and understood mode of transport. But that does not help out in the real world where actually I suspect the railways survive because the vast majority do not really notice the railways exist and even more likely have no idea of the level of subsidy.

 

[nw1]

The other point is that there is less capacity to expand services into now because most of the routes are full. There are routes like Waterloo to Reading where the service is as slow as it ever has been with an average speed below 40mph. You just can't imagine any money ever being found to do anything about it. It isn't the only one.

Of course it used to be significantly faster (in the late 80s and early 90s there was an hourly "express" calling Clapham, Richmond and fast to Ascot then all stations; e.g in 1991 the xx04 Reading arrived Waterloo xx11) but presumably the issue now is that there are 4 stopping services per hour to Richmond via Mortlake (due to increased suburban demand) and these prevent any hypothetical reintroduction of the fasts.

Even still, they managed to get 5tph fasts on the Richmond route in the early 80s in the peak (1720, 1722, 1736, 1750, 1752) with 4tph stoppers through Mortlake, overtaken on the four-track section through Putney, so presumably with careful pathing and flighting (e.g. running a Windsor just behind a Reading) you could, in theory, insert 2tph Reading "expresses" off-peak, which are limited-stop to Ascot (maybe with the calling pattern above but with Staines added) and then divert the two existing Readings (on the opposite quarter-hour?) towards Camberley and Guildford, with a quick Reading connection available at Ascot.

The early 70s also featured a variation on the express theme and that one did the journey in exactly one hour, though partly due to the non-existence of Winnersh Triangle and Martins Heron at the time.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Dec 2024 ==

I think your categories might be kinder. But some people have themselves put "fantasy" in the title of the thread they have started. they are indicating that criticism should not be too serious or at all. Whatever the exact naming I think it important that it can indicate to some posters how much effort or not to put into serious analysis and criticism (*) of the idea.

* Criticism in its broadest sense - not down right negative but more an analysis of what can happen or what could happen instead with alternative possibilities if appropriate - positive criticism.

I think there is a place for what I would call "semi-fantasy". In other words, things that are not completely on another planet but are also not constrained by the current economic situation and the setup of the current railway, aka "in an ideal world" scenarios. So things that might not be possible right now, but might have been possible 20 years ago, and might be possible in the future assuming we ever get out of the post-Covid slough of despond (with apologies to Wainwright).

For example, proposals which have seriously considered pathing constraints (so they are not total fantasy) but not so much financial or organisational constraints. Personally I find those kinds of "semi-fantasy" proposals quite interesting to read.

I often have ideas for my local route (the SWML) which would probably not be realistic now, but might have been realistic in, say, the early 00s.

It might not be possible right now, but is one means of escapism from the depressing despondency of the 2020s UK. People after all read fiction for a reason.

That said, it would be fair enough to label such threads as [semi-fantasy] or some such.

 

[JohnElliott]

To my mind, an example of a fantasy thread would be a discussion of how third-rail electrified routes would be converted to overhead electrification -- which routes to convert first, what challenges might be encountered, and so forth. Nothing to offend the laws of physics, but not a project that anyone is seriously expecting might happen in the foreseeable future.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

oh absolutely.

With the corollary “if someone responds to your idea with various reasons why it may be challenging, don’t ignore or refuse to acknowledge them”

Yes, but only if the response isn't A. sarky and made to cause derision and B. proportionate to the apparent age and motivation of the OP's post

 

[edwin_m]

Health hasn't improved in this country for example, despite year on year NHS budget increases.

Life expectancy has generally improved: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...ns/nationallifetablesunitedkingdom/2021to2023

Life expectancy in England and Wales has generally been increasing over the last 40 years. These improvements have been primarily caused by reductions in mortality at older ages, because of advances in health care and improvements in living and working conditions.

proportionate to the apparent age and motivation of the OP's post

Not always possible to tell this from a single post - I made the point earlier about difficulties in telling such subtleties in written communication.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Not always possible to tell this from a single post - I made the point earlier about difficulties in telling such subtleties in written communication.

I think being under-30 myself I can tell when someone is about my age. I think what gives it away sometimes is if someone has a picture of modern stock in their profile, and not a BR era-diesel or something. I think it's also possible to tell if someone's autistic from the way they frame their idea. If they've posted reams of information about branding of their stock, calling patterns, timetables, multitudes of different route offerings, its clear to me they're been ruminating on the idea and their splurging it out. Cawing "what services are you going to remove to make room?" is just not the right response to those posts. But again, I don't know why its hard not to take speculative posts so personally and just let the OP get on with their thread, other casual enthusiasts like myself will just respond.

 

[devon_belle]

I think being under-30 myself I can tell when someone is about my age. I think what gives it away sometimes is if someone has a picture of modern stock in their profile, and not a BR era-diesel or something. I think it's also possible to tell if someone's autistic from the way they frame their idea.

By this logic, I hope you don't conclude that I'm over 100 years old! I'm not sure it is necessary (or particularly helpful) to try and guess personal characteristics about the speculator (or speculatrix) – the contents of the message are nearly always enough to work out the tone of their question and respond in an appropriate manner. As the vast majority of people on here do, just reply with decorum and there should be no problem. If it isn't clear whether the poster wants realistic responses or fantasy, give them both (or neither).

The best threads on here, in my opinion, are the ones which take the idea in good faith, discussing the benefits and drawbacks without immediately dismissing it as unlikely to happen. Assessment of why the idea is infeasible (or better, what parts/steps towards it are more likely in the first instance) is a useful addition only once the post has been addressed. Repeatedly trying to drum into an enthusiastic poster that their idea won't happen in the foreseeable is never a satisfactory outcome – I think it is better to let it fizzle out. On the other hand, we shouldn't wish to drive away the knowledgable industry experts, as they add value to the discussion and their input is basically essential on those threads which want to speculate on realistic future developments.

 

[edwin_m]

On the other hand, we shouldn't wish to drive away the knowledgable industry experts, as they add value to the discussion and their input is basically essential on those threads which want to speculate on realistic future developments.

I suggest the negative views expressed on this thread about those inputs creates a risk of doing just that.

the contents of the message are nearly always enough to work out the tone of their question and respond in an appropriate manner.

If that was always the case we wouldn't have this thread in the first place.

 

[devon_belle]

I suggest the negative views expressed on this thread about those inputs creates a risk of doing just that.

I agree.

If that was always the case we wouldn't have this thread in the first place.

This implies that everyone is already making efforts to consider the type of thread and how to respond appropriately, which doesn't seem to be true.

Edited to finish incomplete sentence.

 

[edwin_m]

This implies that everyone is already trying to consider the type of thread based, which doesn't seem to be true

Not sure I understand that comment, but I think the fundamental problem is that we're trying to deal with two different types of discussion in the same part of the forum. If everyone was agreed on the purpose of Speculative Discussion then there wouldn't be an issue.

 

[Peter Sarf]

By this logic, I hope you don't conclude that I'm over 100 years old! I'm not sure it is necessary (or particularly helpful) to try and guess personal characteristics about the speculator (or speculatrix) – the contents of the message are nearly always enough to work out the tone of their question and respond in an appropriate manner. As the vast majority of people on here do, just reply with decorum and there should be no problem. If it isn't clear whether the poster wants realistic responses or fantasy, give them both (or neither).

If a new speculative thread is not meant to be analysed and poured over then, to me, it serves no purpose. BUT I still believe others are quite welcome to start a thread and post what they (legally and decently) like - after all I do not have to read it. But to me some of the experts' replies mean they are taking the time and trouble to read someones idea and to inform.

The best threads on here, in my opinion, are the ones which take the idea in good faith, discussing the benefits and drawbacks without immediately dismissing it as unlikely to happen. Assessment of why the idea is infeasible (or better, what parts/steps towards it are more likely in the first instance) is a useful addition only once the post has been addressed. Repeatedly trying to drum into an enthusiastic poster that their idea won't happen in the foreseeable is never a satisfactory outcome – I think it is better to let it fizzle out. On the other hand, we shouldn't wish to drive away the knowledgable industry experts, as they add value to the discussion and their input is basically essential on those threads which want to speculate on realistic future developments.

I think for me this is what I find important. I will say or suggest something and I want to know if there is something for me to learn.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

. . . . Meanwhile on this forum rail is a far more accepted and understood mode of transport. But that does not help out in the real world where actually I suspect the railways survive because the vast majority do not really notice the railways exist and even more likely have no idea of the level of subsidy.

I agree with this. I believe many people who currently acquiesce passively to the present level of subsidy could easily be made angry by an iconoclastic agitator. We already see widespread resentment about high levels of Government spending on welfare benefits, Net Zero, Woke "education" projects, the NHS and immigrants.