Fortsätt till huvudinnehåll

First Great Western stupidity


HST interior
Originally uploaded by seadipper.

First Great Western is refurbishing its Inter-City 125 trains and totally rebuilding the power cars with new low-emission engines. Good, and it is nice to see that proper use is being made of a valuable asset.

But they are shortening the trains and cramming in extra seats. This will cause a problem as it will make them uncomfortable- also they are used on holiday routes where passengers often have a lot of luggage and there will be insufficient space for it. At the moment, you can put luggage on the floor between the back-to-back seats (see picture),

Why are the trains being shortened? The aim is to improve acceleration, which is fair enough, but it could just as well have been done by fitting the drive with a lower gear ratio and leaving the trains their original length. This would have reduced the top speed but on FGW's routes the trains have little opportunity to run at 125 mph anyway due to the close spacing of the stations and speed restrictions.

Kommentarer

If you have a complaint about First Great Western, please visit http://www.railvoice.co.uk You can then post complete details of your complaint and it will be forwarded to FGW.
Anonymous sa…
The route from London to Bristol is well capable of running trains of 125 mph most of the way. In fact, the line curvature allows running of up to 145 mph for the most part of the route, without needing tilting trains.

Isambard Kingdom Brunel built the line with curve radii allowing this, even back in the day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Western_Railway
Physiocrat sa…
Anonymous - the route is well capable of high speed running but nowadays it has become a commuter line and the stops are too close together to allow for sustained high speed running. Acceleration is more important than top speed in those conditions.

Populära inlägg i den här bloggen

Importing people to sustain demand

I got involved in a discussion with a Youtuber called “Philosophy all along”. This was in connection with criticism of Trump’s policy of deporting illegal migrants, which he argued would be bad for the economy as it would reduce demand. This implies that there is a need to import people to sustain demand. There is no obvious reason why a population should not be able to consume everything that the same population produces. If it can not, then something else is going on. It is a basic principle that wages are the least that workers will accept to do a job. Wages are a share of the value added by workers through their wages. The remainder is distributed as economic rent, after government has taken its cut in taxes. Monopoly profit is a temporary surplus that after a delay gets absorbed into economic rent. Land values in Silicon Valley are an example of this; it's like a gold rush. The miners get little out of it. Rent and tax syphon purchasing power away from those who produce the g...

The dreadfulness of British governance

I wrote to my MP on two entirely separate issues recently. The first was to do with the replacement for the Inter City 125 train, which at £2.6 million per vehicle, is twice as expensive as it ought to be. The second concerned the benefits of a switch from business rate and Council Tax to a tax based on site values. In both cases, the replies were full of spurious, unsubstantiated assertions and completely flawed arguments. This is typical. You will not get an iota of sense from the government on any area of public policy at all - finance, economics, trade and employment, agriculture, housing, health, transport, energy. All junk. If you write to your MP you will invariably receive answers that are an insult to your intelligence, no matter what subject you are writing about. Of course they cannot understand statistics. They are innumerate. Whitehall is staffed with idiots with a high IQ. Look at their IT projects. And mind your purse, they will have that too.

How much more will the British tolerate?

The British are phlegmatic, tolerant and slow to rouse. Thus there was no great reaction after the terrorist attack in July 2005. The murder of Lee Rigby created a sense of outrage, but nothing more, since it appeared to be an isolated incident. Two serious incidents within a fortnight are another matter. Since the first major terrorist incident in 2001, authority has tried to persuade the public that Islam is a religion of peace, that these were isolated events, or the actions of deranged "lone wolves", having nothing to do with Islam, or to reassure that the chances of being killed in a terrorist attack were infinitesimally small. These assurances are are beginning to wear thin. They no longer convince. If government does not act effectively, people will take the law into their own hands. What, however, would effective action look like? What sort of effective action would not amount to rough justice for a lot of innocent people? Given the difficulties of keeping large n...