Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
The problem seems to be some people who indulge in pure fantasy dress it up as speculation - i.e. there is at least some chance of it happening. If people wish to indulge in fantasy with like minded individuals perhaps they could make it clear in the thread title and then others would leave the thread alone.
I think the problem, well - my problem - is that when such proposals are presented, and reasonable points are made as to the challenges to overcome, some of the proposers will simply not listen to reason!
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I feel that, ok. Your new London to Manchester service cannot be pathed through St Albans, but what if it could? Could we discuss that? I think the fact that we prefer not to suggests that the problem isn't necessarily balancing what is practical with what seems "interesting", but a more psychological problem stemming from an unwillingness to deviate from set managerial and administrative norms seen widely within government and public services.
I don’t think it is psychological, although what I write next may cause you to doubt that!
Fundamentally, these pages are not the only place where speculative / fantasy ideas arise. I have been involved in projects where a great many alternative suggestions have been made, mostly by retired gentlemen with too much time on their hands and a good set of maps, but often also by people that really should know better (including, in one example, the Secretary of State). Professionally, and out of courtesy, these need replying to. And it takes up a fair bit of time. So, very bluntly, I don’t want to waste my time even thinking about things that are not possible without breaking the laws of physics, or that would require a wholesale upsetting of existing well established service patterns and markets. Also, I get very frustrated (as regular readers will attest) when a proposer of an ‘idea’ suggests that an ‘improvement’ on an existing railway proposal, and considers that their idea they have thought of, and perhaps spent a bit of time on, is far superior to the one that will have had dozens of professionals working on it for months or years. That is rather self centred, to be mild, but frankly delusional.
Ideas are good; every part of the railway out there is the result of a good idea (and some is the result of bad ideas, but not everything is perfect!). However there does need to be some practicality, otherwise what is the point of spending time on it?
I have proposed a few fantasy concepts in my time.
I think the tone of the debate has changed as the railways financial and political situation has deteriorated, and such fancies are not really in keeping with the mood of the time.
I like this part of the forum. It's fun and an interesting way to learn about why the railway is the way it is, and how it might be better in an alternate universe where funding and policy are different. I haven't been active long enough to notice any modal shifts in the types/frequency of posts made here, but overall I think it's a credit to the forum and I hope it continues to be populated by fantastical and realistic speculations.
I think there is subtlety in the 'could' ideas versus the 'should' ideas. A lot of good or interesting posts are shot down before they can be discussed because people come in and point out reasons they won't happen on the railway as it is now. While this is totally realistic, it does tend to kill the conversation. A symptom of the fantasy/reality divide mentioned before.
Occasionally things turn into a 'who can be more correct' competition when pointing out all the failures in a poster's idea, who maybe only wanted to talk about the pros and cons rather than conduct an amateur business case review! But on the other side, the most knowledgeable people will usually be the most realistic as they know how these things work.
Plus, when it comes to emotive or controversial topics a lot of people seem to have very fixed ideas. Here, objectivity makes way for pretty blatant subjectivity, with no realistic chance of any opinions changing. These discussions, while fascinating to read, don't entice me to join in. Like many others, I am probably not confident in my railway punditry to wade into such waters!
I don't think splitting the forum as some suggested is a good idea, as it stratifies the best aspects of both types of discussion and may only polarise postings into crazy crayonista ideas with no reality check and spirited discussions on the merits and drawbacks of 300m of 3rd rail infill
A lot of good or interesting posts are shot down before they can be discussed because people come in and point out reasons they won't happen on the railway as it is now.
Can they be shot back up again? Why not make the case that the reasons for shooting down aren't the only way of looking at things? A discussion needs to have points for and against, and people to make either case.
Can they be shot back up again? Why not make the case that the reasons for shooting down aren't the only way of looking at things? A discussion needs to have points for and against, and people to make either case.
I think the problem, well - my problem - is that when such proposals are presented, and reasonable points are made as to the challenges to overcome, some of the proposers will simply not listen to reason!
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I don’t think it is psychological, although what I write next may cause you to doubt that!
Fundamentally, these pages are not the only place where speculative / fantasy ideas arise. I have been involved in projects where a great many alternative suggestions have been made, mostly by retired gentlemen with too much time on their hands and a good set of maps, but often also by people that really should know better (including, in one example, the Secretary of State). Professionally, and out of courtesy, these need replying to. And it takes up a fair bit of time. So, very bluntly, I don’t want to waste my time even thinking about things that are not possible without breaking the laws of physics, or that would require a wholesale upsetting of existing well established service patterns and markets. Also, I get very frustrated (as regular readers will attest) when a proposer of an ‘idea’ suggests that an ‘improvement’ on an existing railway proposal, and considers that their idea they have thought of, and perhaps spent a bit of time on, is far superior to the one that will have had dozens of professionals working on it for months or years. That is rather self centred, to be mild, but frankly delusional.
Ideas are good; every part of the railway out there is the result of a good idea (and some is the result of bad ideas, but not everything is perfect!). However there does need to be some practicality, otherwise what is the point of spending time on it?
You are party to it, it is public information, all found via the link below (and theres a lot of it)
Ok, I get it, I’m sure you’ve met plenty of transport ministers who’ve come up with the bright idea of canning electrification and converting the WCML to magnetic levitation instead. Or the perennial suggestion from our libertarian, free-market friends (God bless ‘em) to convert the entire railway network into a high frequency bus system.
But I mean, maybe don’t take it so personally? Realistically I’m not going to say “I really want to share my idea for how I think HS2 should have been built, but I’m not going to because I don’t want to put the noses of the good folk at Marsham Street out of joint”, that’ll be…weird. It’s not self-centred at all to discuss these things, it’s just the product of having an obsessive interest. With that logic, it’ll be delusional to post what your opinion on economic policy is because “hundreds of professionals in The Treasury would have been working on it for months”. In that case, not doing so would be delusional.
I don’t know, the resistance to idea sharing in this forum just seems to be endemic of how the British state works. Any thinking deviating from the established norm is met with “That’s very brave of you, Prime Minister”.
Ok, I get it, I’m sure you’ve met plenty of transport ministers who’ve come up with the bright idea of canning electrification and converting the WCML to magnetic levitation instead. Or the perennial suggestion from our libertarian, free-market friends (God bless ‘em) to convert the entire railway network into a high frequency bus system.
But I mean, maybe don’t take it so personally? Realistically I’m not going to say “I really want to share my idea for how I think HS2 should have been built, but I’m not going to because I don’t want to put the noses of the good folk at Marsham Street out of joint”, that’ll be…weird. It’s not self-centred at all to discuss these things, it’s just the product of having an obsessive interest. With that logic, it’ll be delusional to post what your opinion on economic policy is because “hundreds of professionals in The Treasury would have been working on it for months”. In that case, not doing so would be delusional.
I don’t know, the resistance to idea sharing in this forum just seems to be endemic of how the British state works. Any thinking deviating from the established norm is met with “That’s very brave of you, Prime Minister”.
This really explains to me why we need to split this forum or just tag a post as "Fantasy" or similar if you don't want people to point out the problems. If someone such as Mr Rick does so as an industry expert, then I think it's common courtesy for the proposer of an idea to address the points he raises. They are usually real world reasons such as capacity or low numbers of users, not just "artificial" concerns like "we've always done it that way" or "that's what's in the standards".
The OP has suggested an idea and recognised there are issues, others have commented and responded to the issues raised and explained how they might be overcome.
This really explains to me why we need to split this forum or just tag a post as "Fantasy" or similar if you don't want people to point out the problems. If someone such as Mr Rick does so as an industry expert, then I think it's common courtesy for the proposer of an idea to address the points he raises. They are usually real world reasons such as capacity or low numbers of users, not just "artificial" concerns like "we've always done it that way" or "that's what's in the standards".
Yes, but then we get back to people who just want to discuss an idea because it's a fun thing to do, not because it can't be pathed through wherever for whatever reason. There's nothing wrong with that. Besides, industry experts are not gods, we can choose to discuss an idea, despite impractical, because its fun. And we can and should challenge their opinion as well. Just like any expert opinion. I don't think what I'm saying is inherently unreasonable.
Yes, but then we get back to people who just want to discuss an idea because it's a fun thing to do, not because it can't be pathed through wherever for whatever reason. There's nothing wrong with that. Besides, industry experts are not gods, we can choose to discuss an idea, despite impractical, because its fun. And we can and should challenge their opinion as well. Just like any expert opinion. I don't think what I'm saying is inherently unreasonable.
I agree what you say is reasonable. But I do consider there needs to be some way to distinguish serious speculation, where counter-suggestions will be properly considered and debated, from fun ideas where the proposer doesn't want their fun to be spoiled. To me this suggests either a separate sub-forum or a sub-forum rule for the second type to be tagged as "fantasy" or some other term to be agreed.
I agree what you say is reasonable. But I do consider there needs to be some way to distinguish serious speculation, where counter-suggestions will be properly considered and debated, from fun ideas where the proposer doesn't want their fun to be spoiled. To me this suggests either a separate sub-forum or a sub-forum rule for the second type to be tagged as "fantasy" or some other term to be agreed.
They are usually real world reasons such as capacity or low numbers of users, not just "artificial" concerns like "we've always done it that way" or "that's what's in the standards".
I agree the best days of speculative ideas seem to have passed. On this forum, at least, there seems to be quite a gang of transport realists waiting in the wings to douse every new idea with buckets of cold water and cries of "crayonista". Nothing wrong with polite realism, but the level of derision that some apply seems a pity. This part of the forum is, I think, intended to be where you can play with ideas without being tied tightly to a business case!
It's the difference between speculation and fantasy.
Speculation is about what might happen, or at a push what realistically could happen.
Fantasy is about what you might want to happen, even if it's implausible.
A lot of "speculative" (actually fantasy) threads are pie-in-the-sky ideas that have no chance of ever happening, or are random chopping and changing things about without any thoughts about the rationale for it and the impact of the changes. Given the very serious nature of every other part of this forum, it shouldn't be a surprise that that kind of post gets short shrift.
Perhaps this is the reason I struggle with some proposals - do people really come up with proposals that they know are unlikely to work just for ‘fun’? My brain can’t comprehend that!
Perhaps this is the reason I struggle with some proposals - do people really come up with proposals that they know are unlikely to work just for ‘fun’? My brain can’t comprehend that!
Yes they do! Especially if (like myself) they are on the autistic spectrum they're brains may think about these things an awful lot because its an obsessive interest.
Also, I get very frustrated (as regular readers will attest) when a proposer of an ‘idea’ suggests that an ‘improvement’ on an existing railway proposal, and considers that their idea they have thought of, and perhaps spent a bit of time on, is far superior to the one that will have had dozens of professionals working on it for months or years. [..]
If we dig deep enough there will be examples where left field or outside ideas have solution. The article about 6 months back in modern railways about WCML minor interventions (Arpley, and also speed limits exiting passing loops) - that was a rail expert, but not one specifically assigned to the task. There is room for a thinking outside the box department within the railway too - painting anti conductive paint under bridges, appealing regulations etc.. (RTC?)
Ideas are good; every part of the railway out there is the result of a good idea (and some is the result of bad ideas, but not everything is perfect!). However there does need to be some practicality, otherwise what is the point of spending time on it?
It's the difference between speculation and fantasy.
Speculation is about what might happen, or at a push what realistically could happen.
Fantasy is about what you might want to happen, even if it's implausible.
A lot of "speculative" (actually fantasy) threads are pie-in-the-sky ideas that have no chance of ever happening, or are random chopping and changing things about without any thoughts about the rationale for it and the impact of the changes. Given the very serious nature of every other part of this forum, it shouldn't be a surprise that that kind of post gets short shrift.
Had anyone suggested 20 years ago building a high speed railway from London to Birmingham and then stopping there, I'm sure it would have been laughed out of town because nobody would be so daft as to go to all the effort and expense of building such a difficult and expensive route for so little benefit without extending it further north, but there you go
I'm pretty sure that, 20 years ago, after seeing the success of high speed rail in Japan and continental Europe, there were calls for high speed rail in the UK but few people seriously believed that the government would fund it – that's different from not believing it to be worthwhile.
Section 1 of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, from Folkestone to Fawkham, opened in 2003. It did inspire HS2, and could have easily promoted the idea of opening half of the project with a connection to the older network. Fawkham Junction is now rusty, though I expect that no matter how much of HS2 is built, the connections built today at Handsacre will be used.
People on this forum have raised ideas and have been dismissed but then those ideas have became reality. For example the idea of 175s to GWR was dismissed but now they are going to GWR.
So sometimes what the forum decides is fantasy is actually true, but this is not the case all the time of course, but it's just a point
Perhaps this is the reason I struggle with some proposals - do people really come up with proposals that they know are unlikely to work just for ‘fun’? My brain can’t comprehend that!
I think as well it shows we do have an understanding of the industry, even though most of us don't work in it. I'm about to start such a thread now. Wish me luck...
I think Speculative threads could be split down into the following four (or thereabouts) sub forums.
Fantasy
Plausible
Possible
Happening
With the possibility for a thread to get moved "up" a level towards Happening if appropriate. Or maybe (shock horror) "down".
At one end is total brain storming and people in the know will no doubt point out serious flaws. If there are no serious flaws perhaps the thread deserves to get moved to Plausible and so on.
Some threads will start with some basis in fact. For example 379s going to Great Northern means 387s will be leaving - its happening but not yet sure where the 387s will go or even what sub cascades are happening. Now a while back that subject of 379s would have moved from the Fantasy subforum as in what to do with 379s to the Happening subforum as it is definite. Meanwhile what mix of 377s goes where might not yet have got further than Possible.
Now really all speculation starts as brainstorming. In life some ideas move very quickly to happening while others languish in the hopes and dreams of some or all.
Something might move from Fantasy to Plausible if those in the know indicate it is not a fantasy.
This might allow some structure which might be a nuisance but does allow people to air their ideas and see who salutes it.
I can see one disadvantage - more work for the moderators.
I think we have to accept that our own ideas will get analysed by others. To me it is a way of finding out more about something if someone in the know comes along and points out flaws. It is also about the art of conversation - we say something but others have the right to be listened too.
Lets face it most ideas in the world fail to get off the ground. There are orders of magnitude more ideas than there are real possibilities. For most of us we have an idea, shoot it down ourselves and then forget we ever had the idea.
A thought I had about why there was more speculation ten-to-twenty years ago. Perhaps the demographic of the forum has changed. Maybe nowadays there are more people in the know than there used to be - I hope so as I love facts. I love a nice interesting idea also.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Perhaps this is the reason I struggle with some proposals - do people really come up with proposals that they know are unlikely to work just for ‘fun’? My brain can’t comprehend that!
People on this forum have raised ideas and have been dismissed but then those ideas have became reality. For example the idea of 175s to GWR was dismissed but now they are going to GWR.
So sometimes what the forum decides is fantasy is actually true, but this is not the case all the time of course, but it's just a point
I think there are always ideas that have no basis in fact. They might be possible so eventually they might happen.
I have seen it with the rumour mill at work - the rumours filled the gap left by lack of information. The absence of information alerted me and I could see all sorts of things could happen. One rumour (well idea that can become a rumour) comes true and that is the only rumour/idea that everyone remembers. Worse still the managemment were losing respect because they no longer furnished the information. But sometimes it is well defined what is going to happen BUT for reasons of confidentiality those who know also know to keep quiet. In my case it was obvious the customer base was going to be split into up to three groups and sold off - so it followed there would be redundancies. I left for a more promising opportunity a year before it was all gone.
Anyone with a little common sense can think of likely scenarios and generate rumours about them. It is innevitable one of the rumours will come true BUT which one.....
To reference the feeling that 175s would go to GWR was rejected. The only fact at the beginning was that the 175s were available. There will have been various ideas as to where they would go. One of them was very likely to come true BUT at the time the right idea was first mentioned there was no proof. So all the ideas around future use for 175s would have been languishing until one idea came true. Another reason for a speculative thread to move up the hierarchy from Fantasy to Happening.
Now whats happening with HS2 will have seen Phase 2 dropping out of Happening to perhaps Fantasy with Phase 2a possibly Plausible.
I would not really want a hierarchy to become a bone of contention for anybody.
So I hope a bit of structure might let a piece of speculation rise and fall as befitting its status. Dear lovely wonderful moderators.......
If anyone has any suggestions for changes to forum rules/structure etc, please use the "Contact Us" form; please don't post these in forum threads, as there can't be any expectation that we will read them (unless someone else submits a report!)
The suggestion to require a "Fantasy" tag has already been noted, but if anyone else wishes to support this motion, feel free to use the "Contact Us" form anyway because it's always good to see if a suggestion is coming from multiple people!
In principle this seems reasonable. Clearly a high-speed line from Mallaig to Lowestoft is [Fantasy]. Redeploying Class 222s to CrossCountry/ScotRail/wherever is almost certainly [Realistic].
But where might, say, resurrecting the eastern leg of HS2 fit? It's exceptionally expensive and unfunded, which might make it Fantasy. But it's also a perfectly serious proposal that's been made by serious people, which would make it Realistic.
If the author of that thread proposes that the line should run via Meadowhall, does that change things?
How about if that author also proposes a south-western leg towards Bristol and/or South Wales?
Edit to add:
There's definitely a distinction between 'could' speculation, and 'should' speculation. The latter probably ought to be held to a higher standard than the former!
There's definitely a distinction between 'could' speculation, and 'should' speculation. The latter probably ought to be held to a higher standard than the former!
Didn't DfT suspend laws of physics for the original IEP (ie. Class 80x) specification? ... Roger Ford wrote about it at the time - to do with having a high acceleration capability even with lower installed (diesel, presumably) power.. what's sauce for the goose..
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
