It’s weird - anyone else feel like Rishi and Kemi are super chummy on the TV debates - almost like in a US presidential primary debate where the frontrunner is best pals with their obvious VP pick?
And yet there’s no obvious alliance coming, as others have pointed out.
If I was on Kemi’s campaign, I would be saying that although Truss has more MP votes, it seems to be Kemi that would have far more of a chance at picking votes off of Mordaunt or Sunak, and dare I say it, beating Starmer in 2024 than Truss.
However if you were Kemi you would much rather take a gracious defeat now, get a good cabinet job, and then be the LOTO in a scenario where Labour narrowly win 2024 but it’s not stable enough to last the 5 years. You could run on a campaign of being a breath of fresh air, restoring Tory stability, if you were her
With reference to the graphs on rail usage posted earlier, it seems to me blindingly obvious that the decline in rail usage between around 1955 and 1975 was entirely due to the rise of the private motor car, rather than any perceived or real failings of BR/nationalisation. Once the roads got too full, some people returned to the railways.
Why is it 'blindingly obvious' ? The railways change massively in that twenty years: a large section of the network closed, we changed from majority-steam to no-steam, we went from 101 different types of coaches to the Mk-I and Mk-II, and the trains were notoriously unreliable, especially compared to nowadays. The railways were doing everything they could to discourage those pesky passengers and inconvenient freight.
Like many things, the rise in passengers over the last 30 years will be multi-factored. I would not for a moment say that the increase in passengers since privatisation is *all* down to privatisation; there are other factors such as the governments' investments. But those who say privatisation had no effect would IMO also be very wrong.
Some of the private sector operators were brilliant - some appalling. Just as some of the BR managers were brilliant and others appalling.
The key to brilliance regardless of which sector was operating was freedom. Budget freedom to not price passengers off the rails, managerial freedom to look at customers and potential customers and say "lets go and win them".
Sadly now we have the worst of both worlds. Micromanaged insanity where the DfT dictates things like drivers only signing part of a route (TransPennine Express being a great example) which leads to mass cancellations because of a lack of drivers for part of the run.
So the GBR concept was great and could be great. If it ever happens. Without political interference.
It’s weird - anyone else feel like Rishi and Kemi are super chummy on the TV debates - almost like in a US presidential primary debate where the frontrunner is best pals with their obvious VP pick?
And yet there’s no obvious alliance coming, as others have pointed out.
If I was on Kemi’s campaign, I would be saying that although Truss has more MP votes, it seems to be Kemi that would have far more of a chance at picking votes off of Mordaunt or Sunak, and dare I say it, beating Starmer in 2024 than Truss.
However if you were Kemi you would much rather take a gracious defeat now, get a good cabinet job, and then be the LOTO in a scenario where Labour narrowly win 2024 but it’s not stable enough to last the 5 years. You could run on a campaign of being a breath of fresh air, restoring Tory stability, if you were her
Perhaps the alliance is coming. Sunak with Badenoch as the unity ticket. To win so many votes over the next few days that the contest is over.
I am a bit hacked off that disgraced Prime Minister Boris Johnson is allowed to dispense with trivialities like chairing Cobra meetings and is instead indulging his bucket list fantasies such as flying sorties in fast jets with the RAF and organising a massive hooley at Chequers.
I am a bit hacked off that disgraced Prime Minister Boris Johnson is allowed to dispense with trivialities like chairing Cobra meetings and is instead indulging his bucket list fantasies such as flying sorties in fast jets with the RAF and organising a massive hooley at Chequers.
Why? The more he's kept out of any actual governing, the better.
I am a bit hacked off that disgraced Prime Minister Boris Johnson is allowed to dispense with trivialities like chairing Cobra meetings and is instead indulging his bucket list fantasies such as flying sorties in fast jets with the RAF and organising a massive hooley at Chequers.
Did you expect anything else? This is Boris. Fundamentally uninterested in public service.
Might stop in the office. No aircon here, but other half and little one will probably both be in foul moods with the heat, will have to see how the front room has held up.
British trains often feel a bit cramped and for a long time I assumed Britain had a narrow gauge and therefore the carriages were narrower.
(As you can see I am not an engineer and know nothing about trains).
Having learned today that Britain is standard gauge, I presume therefore that the privatised operators merely pack the seating more densely.
They do. Longitudinally as well, which is why the origina 125s were much more comfortable, with proper tables at each window spacing.
TIL it is about the loading gauge. But I was right that British trains do tend to be more cramped.
As a useless fact, it's worse on the old Mark-IV coaches used on the ECML with the class 91's (now being replaced by the Azuma). The Mark-IV coaches were designed so that tilting could be added later if necessary, and hence they have an APT-style narrowing profile from sole bar upwards. It'd be interesting to know if any PBers who travelled on them regularly ever noticed...
The tilting Pendelinos also have narrower profiles for the same reason.
The Azuma is a pretty nice train, spent 8 hours on one coming back from the Highlands yesterday, but it's still not as good as the HST/Mk3 coach. In terms of passenger experience I don't think the HST has been bettered.
I've only been on a GWR IET (the same thing as Azuma), but I found the seats awful. How can the DfT get seats so wrong?
I wouldn't say they were awful but they could have been more comfortable for sure. One thing I did notice was there were a couple of seats at the end of the carriage that had absolutely no window. That is unforgivable.
It’s weird - anyone else feel like Rishi and Kemi are super chummy on the TV debates - almost like in a US presidential primary debate where the frontrunner is best pals with their obvious VP pick?
And yet there’s no obvious alliance coming, as others have pointed out.
If I was on Kemi’s campaign, I would be saying that although Truss has more MP votes, it seems to be Kemi that would have far more of a chance at picking votes off of Mordaunt or Sunak, and dare I say it, beating Starmer in 2024 than Truss.
However if you were Kemi you would much rather take a gracious defeat now, get a good cabinet job, and then be the LOTO in a scenario where Labour narrowly win 2024 but it’s not stable enough to last the 5 years. You could run on a campaign of being a breath of fresh air, restoring Tory stability, if you were her
“It’s weird - anyone else feel like Rishi and Kemi are super chummy on the TV debates - almost like in a US presidential primary debate where the frontrunner is best pals with their obvious VP pick?”
Interested following the discussion on the ownership and operation of the railways, particularly the contribution of privatisation to the growth in passenger numbers. I advised both Eurostar* and Network Rail on project management in the noughties and can recall that revenue management systems were a big change; like the airlines, the rail operators were exploiting new technologies to manage ticket pricing to fill trains during off-peak periods. So, I guess the question is whether a nationalised British Rail would have done the same, or would the absence of a profit motive have meant they didn’t bother. Other contributors may know whether nationalised, continental operators did introduce such systems.
* the move from Waterloo to St Pancras was one of the projects, went about as smoothly as such changes can do.
British trains often feel a bit cramped and for a long time I assumed Britain had a narrow gauge and therefore the carriages were narrower.
(As you can see I am not an engineer and know nothing about trains).
Having learned today that Britain is standard gauge, I presume therefore that the privatised operators merely pack the seating more densely.
They do. Longitudinally as well, which is why the origina 125s were much more comfortable, with proper tables at each window spacing.
TIL it is about the loading gauge. But I was right that British trains do tend to be more cramped.
As a useless fact, it's worse on the old Mark-IV coaches used on the ECML with the class 91's (now being replaced by the Azuma). The Mark-IV coaches were designed so that tilting could be added later if necessary, and hence they have an APT-style narrowing profile from sole bar upwards. It'd be interesting to know if any PBers who travelled on them regularly ever noticed...
The tilting Pendelinos also have narrower profiles for the same reason.
The Azuma is a pretty nice train, spent 8 hours on one coming back from the Highlands yesterday, but it's still not as good as the HST/Mk3 coach. In terms of passenger experience I don't think the HST has been bettered.
I've only been on a GWR IET (the same thing as Azuma), but I found the seats awful. How can the DfT get seats so wrong?
I haven't done a long ride in Standard, but have done London to Aberdeen a couple of times in First and had no complaints. There is a serious issue with so many standard class seats on so many trains, and you have already answered your own question - the DfT.
Lets take an open operator as an extreme example - Lumo. Completely free of direct subsidy, it still had to be awarded an operators license and then paths on the route. To get these the DfT placed strict criteria on First group about how many seats were on their trains. First literally had to cram them in or no license.
And we have seen the same with everything from commuter stock to interurban to long distance. I think my favourite are the Thameslink trains. DfT specs a seat which is uncomfortable in the rake and lack of padding, cram them in too closely, and make no provision for seat back tables. These are interurban sets, with people taking longer rides on them.
The seats are completely unsuitable and have provoked massive complains. And yet they can only be altered at huge expense not just because of the physical design, but because of the contract to build them. DfT not interested, only being able to claim x increase in seats matters. Until Michael Green becomes transport secretary and realises there are votes in it. "Newer comfy seats!!!" he proclaims. There isn't a plan or the £cash to actually deliver, but at least someone actually gets it.
British trains often feel a bit cramped and for a long time I assumed Britain had a narrow gauge and therefore the carriages were narrower.
(As you can see I am not an engineer and know nothing about trains).
Having learned today that Britain is standard gauge, I presume therefore that the privatised operators merely pack the seating more densely.
They do. Longitudinally as well, which is why the origina 125s were much more comfortable, with proper tables at each window spacing.
TIL it is about the loading gauge. But I was right that British trains do tend to be more cramped.
As a useless fact, it's worse on the old Mark-IV coaches used on the ECML with the class 91's (now being replaced by the Azuma). The Mark-IV coaches were designed so that tilting could be added later if necessary, and hence they have an APT-style narrowing profile from sole bar upwards. It'd be interesting to know if any PBers who travelled on them regularly ever noticed...
The tilting Pendelinos also have narrower profiles for the same reason.
The Azuma is a pretty nice train, spent 8 hours on one coming back from the Highlands yesterday, but it's still not as good as the HST/Mk3 coach. In terms of passenger experience I don't think the HST has been bettered.
I'm due to spend 8 hours on an Azuma on Wednesday! But I'm flying back on Saturday as the equivalent train journey would mean changing at Edinburgh and the Azuma from there seems fully booked. Besides I did the line through Stirling, Perth and Aviemore* back in 2019
I am a bit hacked off that disgraced Prime Minister Boris Johnson is allowed to dispense with trivialities like chairing Cobra meetings and is instead indulging his bucket list fantasies such as flying sorties in fast jets with the RAF and organising a massive hooley at Chequers.
Why? The more he's kept out of any actual governing, the better.
Quite. In any case its not remotely necessary for the PM to chair a meeting about it being sunny. Ministers of relevant departments (health, transport) to cover contingencies will do.
If we privatised the railways here and removed all subsidies, we'd have no railways left.
Japan built their railways and maintained them via the Government for decades, easy to privatise when it worked fine in the first place. We are not there yet - but we could be.
On the surface the story looks pretty similar. Investment by private companies at the start, followed by nationalisation in the 20th century, then privatisation just before the turn of the century.
Indeed, but the privatisation was done better. Much better.
People forget just how bad ‘80s BR was, before privatisation.
Their own slogan was “We’re Getting There”, and the timetable was about as optional as the catering.
My train the other day was an hour and a half late. And it cost me £90.
And yet that's still better than what you'd have had under nationalised railways, and yet you want to keep our failing system instead of adopting a proper, privatised, functional, subsidy-free system whereby railways companies need to put YOU their consumer first to get their income instead of lobbying politicians to get it instead.
You are what, 39? Born around 1983? So about 11-14 when nationalisation came? Your personal experience of the nationalised railway wouyld have been, at most, ticking off loco names ...
I can tell you that in many ways BR was a lot easier to deal with than the chaos of nationalisation. Above all if you wanted long journeys other than simple commuter ratruns, or properly designed interiors, or connections which were held even if train 1 was a little late.
There is some truth to that, but I'd really argue with your last point. It was easier to hold a train for a late connection back in the 1980s, as there were far fewer trains. If a train ran on a line every hour, you could probably delay it for ten minutes to allow a late connection. If it runs every half-hour, delaying it ten minutes causes all sorts of chaos to the schedule with other trains on the line. The more trains there are, the greater the need to run to schedule.
You have missed the best part - delay attribution. It costs operators per minute of delay they are responsible for. So even if the branch line connecting train is the only one for x number of hours it won't be held if the connecting train is another operator running late.
Connection held: Branch line operator fined £300 a minute, passengers get to their destinations with minimal delay Connection not held: No fine to the branch line operator, intercity operator picks up the bill for delayed passengers getting a refund / taxi / hotel etc
The system is specifically designed to not hold connections. Because that is more efficient.
Delay attribution is brilliant.
Why?
In the good old days of BR, there would be a problem on the line. The infrastructure peeps would throw a TSR (Temporary Speed Restriction) onto the line, for instance saying that trains could go at a maximum of 50MPH instead of 100MPH.
Obviously, the problem needs fixing. But the trains are still running, and the infrastructure peeps are watching their budget. The operations dept. do not want to pay for the work either. So the TSR remains, and it eventually becomes a PSR (Permanent Speed Restriction).
The same with operations failures: if a train breaks down, it does not cost the operator much. Most passengers do not claim refunds, so it is just an inconvenience of calling out a rescue loco. So a fleet-wide issue that increases failure by 1% does not get fixed.
But delay attribution comes in (and AIUI it was being brought in by BR *before* privatisation, once the computer system were powerful enough to allow it).
Now the infrastructure peeps get charged for the delay caused by that TSR. It comes out of their budget. They now look at it and say, "bu**e,r we'd better fix it." Likewise, it is in the operator's interest to do the work to increase reliability, as it costs them if they cause delays.
Delay attribution has been a massive positive for the railways. By all means simplify it, but getting rid of it would be incredibly stupid.
The concept is fine, the application less fine. In my example lets assume that the late-running intercity service was because of something in their control. They have to pay for their delay. Which is fine.
The problem is that the passengers suffer because the other company decided to send the connection. Watching it pull out as you pull in - with the next one hours away - is a uniquely frustrating experience.
Especially when its a branch train with buckets of padding in its own schedule. So the delayed start won't cause problems.
Delay attribution could be used to maintain connections. Instead it does the opposite.
That also happened in the past. The idea that held connections were common is, AIUI, a fantasy.
Also think of *who* delays the train. You are the guard. If you delay your train more than a minute or two to allow a connection, then you have zero idea what the network effects are elsewhere - your action might cause significant problems for other trains and passengers.
Let's say you have a branch line. For simplicity's sale, say each branch line train carries 50 passengers, of which 10 come from the other (main line) train. There is a train every half-hour, connecting with a main-line service every half-hour at RochPion Junction.
On this occasion, the main line train is 5 minutes late arriving at RochPion Jcn. Delaying the branch line train advantages the ten passengers, who now do not have to wait half an hour for the next train. That is 300 passenger-minutes saved. Cool. Except for the 40 passengers who did not come off the connection, who have lost 200 passenger-minutes (the 5-miniute delay).
But because that branch train is now late, it is late for the crossing loop where it passed the other service on the branch. That train, also containing 50 passengers, is delayed by five minutes. That is 250 passenger minutes cost. But the late arrival of that second service means that ten of those passengers have missed their connection at RochPion Jcn, and have to wait 25 minutes for their next train. Another 250 passenger-minute cost.
Hence, that small delay has saved ten passengers 300 minutes, and cost everyone else on the trains 700 minutes.
Yes, this is a simplified example, but it shows how holding trains can actually cost passengers time, especially if only a few people connect. And ops people do try to hold trains, if they can, but often they cannot. And as we have a much busier network nowadays, holding trains is much harder.
The railways are a network, and network effects are massive.
Nobody is arguing that holding every connection in every scenario makes sense. But so often now they don't hold them, with no operational effects, and the passengers screwed. There are no network effects on one train operation branchlines with long turnaround times at the terminus...
How do you know there are 'no operational effects ?
Besides, the number of branchlines with one-train operation and long turnaround times at the terminus are relatively few, esp. in terms of %age passengers. That number has reduced with the increased numbers of trains run in the last thirty years.
And if the branch line interacts or crosses any other lines at any time, then timing becomes even more important, e.g. Derby to Matlock shares the main line for a large part of the journey.
Looks unlikely anywhere is going to be 40C today if the Sky News report is correct that the hottest place at the moment is 36.7C in Santon Downham, Suffolk.
Looks unlikely anywhere is going to be 40C today if the Sky News report is correct that the hottest place at the moment is 36.7C in Santon Downham, Suffolk.
That’s not even quite hot (starts at 38C according to Accuweather)
British trains often feel a bit cramped and for a long time I assumed Britain had a narrow gauge and therefore the carriages were narrower.
(As you can see I am not an engineer and know nothing about trains).
Having learned today that Britain is standard gauge, I presume therefore that the privatised operators merely pack the seating more densely.
They do. Longitudinally as well, which is why the origina 125s were much more comfortable, with proper tables at each window spacing.
TIL it is about the loading gauge. But I was right that British trains do tend to be more cramped.
As a useless fact, it's worse on the old Mark-IV coaches used on the ECML with the class 91's (now being replaced by the Azuma). The Mark-IV coaches were designed so that tilting could be added later if necessary, and hence they have an APT-style narrowing profile from sole bar upwards. It'd be interesting to know if any PBers who travelled on them regularly ever noticed...
The tilting Pendelinos also have narrower profiles for the same reason.
The Azuma is a pretty nice train, spent 8 hours on one coming back from the Highlands yesterday, but it's still not as good as the HST/Mk3 coach. In terms of passenger experience I don't think the HST has been bettered.
I've only been on a GWR IET (the same thing as Azuma), but I found the seats awful. How can the DfT get seats so wrong?
I haven't done a long ride in Standard, but have done London to Aberdeen a couple of times in First and had no complaints. There is a serious issue with so many standard class seats on so many trains, and you have already answered your own question - the DfT.
Lets take an open operator as an extreme example - Lumo. Completely free of direct subsidy, it still had to be awarded an operators license and then paths on the route. To get these the DfT placed strict criteria on First group about how many seats were on their trains. First literally had to cram them in or no license.
And we have seen the same with everything from commuter stock to interurban to long distance. I think my favourite are the Thameslink trains. DfT specs a seat which is uncomfortable in the rake and lack of padding, cram them in too closely, and make no provision for seat back tables. These are interurban sets, with people taking longer rides on them.
The seats are completely unsuitable and have provoked massive complains. And yet they can only be altered at huge expense not just because of the physical design, but because of the contract to build them. DfT not interested, only being able to claim x increase in seats matters. Until Michael Green becomes transport secretary and realises there are votes in it. "Newer comfy seats!!!" he proclaims. There isn't a plan or the £cash to actually deliver, but at least someone actually gets it.
So... in the good old days of privatisation, operators ordered their own trains. Some were good, some were less good, but all generally better than what went before. Even the Meridians.
The DfT decided this was wasteful, so they decided to make everyone use a centralised design. Which they decided on. This train design has cr@p seats and is suffering from serious cracking that will take years to fix.
Is this really an argument for *more* centralised control of the railways? If the DfT are mucking things up this badly, how will a centralised GBR do any better - especially if the staff and management just transfer over?
British trains often feel a bit cramped and for a long time I assumed Britain had a narrow gauge and therefore the carriages were narrower.
(As you can see I am not an engineer and know nothing about trains).
Having learned today that Britain is standard gauge, I presume therefore that the privatised operators merely pack the seating more densely.
They do. Longitudinally as well, which is why the origina 125s were much more comfortable, with proper tables at each window spacing.
TIL it is about the loading gauge. But I was right that British trains do tend to be more cramped.
As a useless fact, it's worse on the old Mark-IV coaches used on the ECML with the class 91's (now being replaced by the Azuma). The Mark-IV coaches were designed so that tilting could be added later if necessary, and hence they have an APT-style narrowing profile from sole bar upwards. It'd be interesting to know if any PBers who travelled on them regularly ever noticed...
The tilting Pendelinos also have narrower profiles for the same reason.
The Azuma is a pretty nice train, spent 8 hours on one coming back from the Highlands yesterday, but it's still not as good as the HST/Mk3 coach. In terms of passenger experience I don't think the HST has been bettered.
I've only been on a GWR IET (the same thing as Azuma), but I found the seats awful. How can the DfT get seats so wrong?
I haven't done a long ride in Standard, but have done London to Aberdeen a couple of times in First and had no complaints. There is a serious issue with so many standard class seats on so many trains, and you have already answered your own question - the DfT.
Lets take an open operator as an extreme example - Lumo. Completely free of direct subsidy, it still had to be awarded an operators license and then paths on the route. To get these the DfT placed strict criteria on First group about how many seats were on their trains. First literally had to cram them in or no license.
And we have seen the same with everything from commuter stock to interurban to long distance. I think my favourite are the Thameslink trains. DfT specs a seat which is uncomfortable in the rake and lack of padding, cram them in too closely, and make no provision for seat back tables. These are interurban sets, with people taking longer rides on them.
The seats are completely unsuitable and have provoked massive complains. And yet they can only be altered at huge expense not just because of the physical design, but because of the contract to build them. DfT not interested, only being able to claim x increase in seats matters. Until Michael Green becomes transport secretary and realises there are votes in it. "Newer comfy seats!!!" he proclaims. There isn't a plan or the £cash to actually deliver, but at least someone actually gets it.
So... in the good old days of privatisation, operators ordered their own trains. Some were good, some were less good, but all generally better than what went before. Even the Meridians.
The DfT decided this was wasteful, so they decided to make everyone use a centralised design. Which they decided on. This train design has cr@p seats and is suffering from serious cracking that will take years to fix.
Is this really an argument for *more* centralised control of the railways? If the DfT are mucking things up this badly, how will a centralised GBR do any better - especially if the staff and management just transfer over?
More engineers involved. Fewer generalist civil servants. Worth a try!
I am a bit hacked off that disgraced Prime Minister Boris Johnson is allowed to dispense with trivialities like chairing Cobra meetings and is instead indulging his bucket list fantasies such as flying sorties in fast jets with the RAF and organising a massive hooley at Chequers.
Why? The more he's kept out of any actual governing, the better.
Quite. In any case its not remotely necessary for the PM to chair a meeting about it being sunny. Ministers of relevant departments (health, transport) to cover contingencies will do.
It appeared it wasn't "remotely necessary for the PM to chair a meeting about" the upcoming pandemic way back in early 2020. So no one can accuse him of being inconsistent when it comes to Cobra meetings.
Looks unlikely anywhere is going to be 40C today if the Sky News report is correct that the hottest place at the moment is 36.7C in Santon Downham, Suffolk.
British trains often feel a bit cramped and for a long time I assumed Britain had a narrow gauge and therefore the carriages were narrower.
(As you can see I am not an engineer and know nothing about trains).
Having learned today that Britain is standard gauge, I presume therefore that the privatised operators merely pack the seating more densely.
They do. Longitudinally as well, which is why the origina 125s were much more comfortable, with proper tables at each window spacing.
TIL it is about the loading gauge. But I was right that British trains do tend to be more cramped.
As a useless fact, it's worse on the old Mark-IV coaches used on the ECML with the class 91's (now being replaced by the Azuma). The Mark-IV coaches were designed so that tilting could be added later if necessary, and hence they have an APT-style narrowing profile from sole bar upwards. It'd be interesting to know if any PBers who travelled on them regularly ever noticed...
The tilting Pendelinos also have narrower profiles for the same reason.
The Azuma is a pretty nice train, spent 8 hours on one coming back from the Highlands yesterday, but it's still not as good as the HST/Mk3 coach. In terms of passenger experience I don't think the HST has been bettered.
I've only been on a GWR IET (the same thing as Azuma), but I found the seats awful. How can the DfT get seats so wrong?
I haven't done a long ride in Standard, but have done London to Aberdeen a couple of times in First and had no complaints. There is a serious issue with so many standard class seats on so many trains, and you have already answered your own question - the DfT.
Lets take an open operator as an extreme example - Lumo. Completely free of direct subsidy, it still had to be awarded an operators license and then paths on the route. To get these the DfT placed strict criteria on First group about how many seats were on their trains. First literally had to cram them in or no license.
And we have seen the same with everything from commuter stock to interurban to long distance. I think my favourite are the Thameslink trains. DfT specs a seat which is uncomfortable in the rake and lack of padding, cram them in too closely, and make no provision for seat back tables. These are interurban sets, with people taking longer rides on them.
The seats are completely unsuitable and have provoked massive complains. And yet they can only be altered at huge expense not just because of the physical design, but because of the contract to build them. DfT not interested, only being able to claim x increase in seats matters. Until Michael Green becomes transport secretary and realises there are votes in it. "Newer comfy seats!!!" he proclaims. There isn't a plan or the £cash to actually deliver, but at least someone actually gets it.
So... in the good old days of privatisation, operators ordered their own trains. Some were good, some were less good, but all generally better than what went before. Even the Meridians.
The DfT decided this was wasteful, so they decided to make everyone use a centralised design. Which they decided on. This train design has cr@p seats and is suffering from serious cracking that will take years to fix.
Is this really an argument for *more* centralised control of the railways? If the DfT are mucking things up this badly, how will a centralised GBR do any better - especially if the staff and management just transfer over?
More engineers involved. Fewer generalist civil servants. Worth a try!
But... But... that would mean putting *Trade* Specialists in charge of spending big money. Which means giving them senior positions. Only people with a Law or Accountancy qualification can possibly hold senior posts....
See the comedy of British army ammunition fiasco - the experts were binned, and some nice, comforting generalists bought in. Who bought the cheapest shit ammunition on the market. Because it's all the same, isn't it?
I do hope that the eye-catching temperature readings today are kosher i.e. not taken in full sun. For the record, I have a placed a thermometer outside in the shade, on an upturned shoebox, here in the Midlands and it is currently reading 30.1.
Yet you just know Weather is going to fail. A lack of self belief. The potential is there yet something prevents the record falling. Psychological
This is a shit heatwave and I for one am off to the dry cleaners
Bloody hell. @Leon (before your time) went to the dry cleaners last week in Montenegro. wtf do you take to Montenegro that needs a dry clean and then another one in London? Is this a euphemism, or a physical dependency on the inhalants available there? Aren't dry cleaners baking hot on hot days?
They iron my linen shirts
I still have fond memories of the hotel bar in HK (pre handover!) where after my first Stinger, the bar tender enquired whether I wanted the tab on the room to be under Laundry or Dry Cleaning.....
Obviously VERY experienced in (over) serving British business guests.
Doesn't feel too bad so far, maybe because it isn't particularly humid.
Yep the humidity is key. The hottest I've ever been was in Borneo with a combo of heat and high humidity. This doesn't feel as hot even though it's hotter.
I remember the first time I went to Florida in summer. Wandering around the air-conditioned airport thinking 'cor, it's damn hot!'. Then the doors opening and stepping out into a wall of hot, dank humidity and thinking 'I've made a terrible, terrible mistake...'
Looks unlikely anywhere is going to be 40C today if the Sky News report is correct that the hottest place at the moment is 36.7C in Santon Downham, Suffolk.
Looks unlikely anywhere is going to be 40C today if the Sky News report is correct that the hottest place at the moment is 36.7C in Santon Downham, Suffolk.
Bloody Suffolk show offs.
Cummon Norfolk!
We will have the best quality temperature regardless
Yet you just know Weather is going to fail. A lack of self belief. The potential is there yet something prevents the record falling. Psychological
This is a shit heatwave and I for one am off to the dry cleaners
Bloody hell. @Leon (before your time) went to the dry cleaners last week in Montenegro. wtf do you take to Montenegro that needs a dry clean and then another one in London? Is this a euphemism, or a physical dependency on the inhalants available there? Aren't dry cleaners baking hot on hot days?
They iron my linen shirts
I still have fond memories of the hotel bar in HK (pre handover!) where after my first Stinger, the bar tender enquired whether I wanted the tab on the room to be under Laundry or Dry Cleaning.....
Obviously VERY experienced in (over) serving British business guests.
Indeed - I pre-tipped the chap at the front desk. After that I think I could have ordered assassinations on room service. His advice about what to do and not bet on at Happy Valley paid for the tips, just for a start.
I am a bit hacked off that disgraced Prime Minister Boris Johnson is allowed to dispense with trivialities like chairing Cobra meetings and is instead indulging his bucket list fantasies such as flying sorties in fast jets with the RAF and organising a massive hooley at Chequers.
Why? The more he's kept out of any actual governing, the better.
That's actually what they should have done straight after the election win - sat him down and explained that he could do PM-like things but wouldn't be making any decisions. TBF, I think Cummings did try that. Maybe Carrie did too. But to no avail. He insisted on having lots of powers. Such a ridiculous episode in our national story.
I am a bit hacked off that disgraced Prime Minister Boris Johnson is allowed to dispense with trivialities like chairing Cobra meetings and is instead indulging his bucket list fantasies such as flying sorties in fast jets with the RAF and organising a massive hooley at Chequers.
Why? The more he's kept out of any actual governing, the better.
Quite. In any case its not remotely necessary for the PM to chair a meeting about it being sunny. Ministers of relevant departments (health, transport) to cover contingencies will do.
It appeared it wasn't "remotely necessary for the PM to chair a meeting about" the upcoming pandemic way back in early 2020. So no one can accuse him of being inconsistent when it comes to Cobra meetings.
He clearly cant be arsed and its therefore good hes off, but this time i think its reasonable to not bother. Its sunshine, not apocalypse.
British trains often feel a bit cramped and for a long time I assumed Britain had a narrow gauge and therefore the carriages were narrower.
(As you can see I am not an engineer and know nothing about trains).
Having learned today that Britain is standard gauge, I presume therefore that the privatised operators merely pack the seating more densely.
They do. Longitudinally as well, which is why the origina 125s were much more comfortable, with proper tables at each window spacing.
TIL it is about the loading gauge. But I was right that British trains do tend to be more cramped.
As a useless fact, it's worse on the old Mark-IV coaches used on the ECML with the class 91's (now being replaced by the Azuma). The Mark-IV coaches were designed so that tilting could be added later if necessary, and hence they have an APT-style narrowing profile from sole bar upwards. It'd be interesting to know if any PBers who travelled on them regularly ever noticed...
The tilting Pendelinos also have narrower profiles for the same reason.
The Azuma is a pretty nice train, spent 8 hours on one coming back from the Highlands yesterday, but it's still not as good as the HST/Mk3 coach. In terms of passenger experience I don't think the HST has been bettered.
I've only been on a GWR IET (the same thing as Azuma), but I found the seats awful. How can the DfT get seats so wrong?
I haven't done a long ride in Standard, but have done London to Aberdeen a couple of times in First and had no complaints. There is a serious issue with so many standard class seats on so many trains, and you have already answered your own question - the DfT.
Lets take an open operator as an extreme example - Lumo. Completely free of direct subsidy, it still had to be awarded an operators license and then paths on the route. To get these the DfT placed strict criteria on First group about how many seats were on their trains. First literally had to cram them in or no license.
And we have seen the same with everything from commuter stock to interurban to long distance. I think my favourite are the Thameslink trains. DfT specs a seat which is uncomfortable in the rake and lack of padding, cram them in too closely, and make no provision for seat back tables. These are interurban sets, with people taking longer rides on them.
The seats are completely unsuitable and have provoked massive complains. And yet they can only be altered at huge expense not just because of the physical design, but because of the contract to build them. DfT not interested, only being able to claim x increase in seats matters. Until Michael Green becomes transport secretary and realises there are votes in it. "Newer comfy seats!!!" he proclaims. There isn't a plan or the £cash to actually deliver, but at least someone actually gets it.
So... in the good old days of privatisation, operators ordered their own trains. Some were good, some were less good, but all generally better than what went before. Even the Meridians.
The DfT decided this was wasteful, so they decided to make everyone use a centralised design. Which they decided on. This train design has cr@p seats and is suffering from serious cracking that will take years to fix.
Is this really an argument for *more* centralised control of the railways? If the DfT are mucking things up this badly, how will a centralised GBR do any better - especially if the staff and management just transfer over?
More engineers involved. Fewer generalist civil servants. Worth a try!
But... But... that would mean putting *Trade* Specialists in charge of spending big money. Which means giving them senior positions. Only people with a Law or Accountancy qualification can possibly hold senior posts....
See the comedy of British army ammunition fiasco - the experts were binned, and some nice, comforting generalists bought in. Who bought the cheapest shit ammunition on the market. Because it's all the same, isn't it?
British trains often feel a bit cramped and for a long time I assumed Britain had a narrow gauge and therefore the carriages were narrower.
(As you can see I am not an engineer and know nothing about trains).
Having learned today that Britain is standard gauge, I presume therefore that the privatised operators merely pack the seating more densely.
They do. Longitudinally as well, which is why the origina 125s were much more comfortable, with proper tables at each window spacing.
TIL it is about the loading gauge. But I was right that British trains do tend to be more cramped.
As a useless fact, it's worse on the old Mark-IV coaches used on the ECML with the class 91's (now being replaced by the Azuma). The Mark-IV coaches were designed so that tilting could be added later if necessary, and hence they have an APT-style narrowing profile from sole bar upwards. It'd be interesting to know if any PBers who travelled on them regularly ever noticed...
The tilting Pendelinos also have narrower profiles for the same reason.
The Azuma is a pretty nice train, spent 8 hours on one coming back from the Highlands yesterday, but it's still not as good as the HST/Mk3 coach. In terms of passenger experience I don't think the HST has been bettered.
I've only been on a GWR IET (the same thing as Azuma), but I found the seats awful. How can the DfT get seats so wrong?
I haven't done a long ride in Standard, but have done London to Aberdeen a couple of times in First and had no complaints. There is a serious issue with so many standard class seats on so many trains, and you have already answered your own question - the DfT.
Lets take an open operator as an extreme example - Lumo. Completely free of direct subsidy, it still had to be awarded an operators license and then paths on the route. To get these the DfT placed strict criteria on First group about how many seats were on their trains. First literally had to cram them in or no license.
And we have seen the same with everything from commuter stock to interurban to long distance. I think my favourite are the Thameslink trains. DfT specs a seat which is uncomfortable in the rake and lack of padding, cram them in too closely, and make no provision for seat back tables. These are interurban sets, with people taking longer rides on them.
The seats are completely unsuitable and have provoked massive complains. And yet they can only be altered at huge expense not just because of the physical design, but because of the contract to build them. DfT not interested, only being able to claim x increase in seats matters. Until Michael Green becomes transport secretary and realises there are votes in it. "Newer comfy seats!!!" he proclaims. There isn't a plan or the £cash to actually deliver, but at least someone actually gets it.
So... in the good old days of privatisation, operators ordered their own trains. Some were good, some were less good, but all generally better than what went before. Even the Meridians.
The DfT decided this was wasteful, so they decided to make everyone use a centralised design. Which they decided on. This train design has cr@p seats and is suffering from serious cracking that will take years to fix.
Is this really an argument for *more* centralised control of the railways? If the DfT are mucking things up this badly, how will a centralised GBR do any better - especially if the staff and management just transfer over?
More engineers involved. Fewer generalist civil servants. Worth a try!
But... But... that would mean putting *Trade* Specialists in charge of spending big money. Which means giving them senior positions. Only people with a Law or Accountancy qualification can possibly hold senior posts....
See the comedy of British army ammunition fiasco - the experts were binned, and some nice, comforting generalists bought in. Who bought the cheapest shit ammunition on the market. Because it's all the same, isn't it?
[Yes its fake, its dramatises a real concept with a fake item]
It was way more stupid than that. Everyone who does clay pigeon shooting up knows that there is shit ammunition out there with harsh recoil that makes a lot of smoke. Cheap nasty propellant.
It doesn't take a brain the size of the planet to realise that when something is half price, you ask why.
British trains often feel a bit cramped and for a long time I assumed Britain had a narrow gauge and therefore the carriages were narrower.
(As you can see I am not an engineer and know nothing about trains).
Having learned today that Britain is standard gauge, I presume therefore that the privatised operators merely pack the seating more densely.
They do. Longitudinally as well, which is why the origina 125s were much more comfortable, with proper tables at each window spacing.
TIL it is about the loading gauge. But I was right that British trains do tend to be more cramped.
As a useless fact, it's worse on the old Mark-IV coaches used on the ECML with the class 91's (now being replaced by the Azuma). The Mark-IV coaches were designed so that tilting could be added later if necessary, and hence they have an APT-style narrowing profile from sole bar upwards. It'd be interesting to know if any PBers who travelled on them regularly ever noticed...
The tilting Pendelinos also have narrower profiles for the same reason.
The Azuma is a pretty nice train, spent 8 hours on one coming back from the Highlands yesterday, but it's still not as good as the HST/Mk3 coach. In terms of passenger experience I don't think the HST has been bettered.
I've only been on a GWR IET (the same thing as Azuma), but I found the seats awful. How can the DfT get seats so wrong?
I haven't done a long ride in Standard, but have done London to Aberdeen a couple of times in First and had no complaints. There is a serious issue with so many standard class seats on so many trains, and you have already answered your own question - the DfT.
Lets take an open operator as an extreme example - Lumo. Completely free of direct subsidy, it still had to be awarded an operators license and then paths on the route. To get these the DfT placed strict criteria on First group about how many seats were on their trains. First literally had to cram them in or no license.
And we have seen the same with everything from commuter stock to interurban to long distance. I think my favourite are the Thameslink trains. DfT specs a seat which is uncomfortable in the rake and lack of padding, cram them in too closely, and make no provision for seat back tables. These are interurban sets, with people taking longer rides on them.
The seats are completely unsuitable and have provoked massive complains. And yet they can only be altered at huge expense not just because of the physical design, but because of the contract to build them. DfT not interested, only being able to claim x increase in seats matters. Until Michael Green becomes transport secretary and realises there are votes in it. "Newer comfy seats!!!" he proclaims. There isn't a plan or the £cash to actually deliver, but at least someone actually gets it.
So... in the good old days of privatisation, operators ordered their own trains. Some were good, some were less good, but all generally better than what went before. Even the Meridians.
The DfT decided this was wasteful, so they decided to make everyone use a centralised design. Which they decided on. This train design has cr@p seats and is suffering from serious cracking that will take years to fix.
Is this really an argument for *more* centralised control of the railways? If the DfT are mucking things up this badly, how will a centralised GBR do any better - especially if the staff and management just transfer over?
@Steven_Swinford Sounds like Tom Tugendhat has already lost quite a few of his 32 backers ahead of tonight's vote
Team Mordaunt thinks that they're going to pick up a fair few of them - enough to retain a lead over Truss
Others are going over to Sunak
So, million $ question - will the Badenoch people put Truss or Mordaunt into the Final?
Truss, obv. Badenoch is hard right, small state, libertarian, anti-woke. Her supporters aren't going to switch to Mordaunt.
There are some snakes in the grass amongst her supporters though.
Like Gove, Gove, Gove and Gove.
Its interesting that all the usual suspects normally aligned with Gove are backing Rishi, while Gove himself is suddenly backing this almost unheard-of opponent who is splitting votes Truss would have been going for.
Gove is Machiavellian enough I think he's actually backing Badenoch in order to weaken Truss, and he'll be backing Rishi afterwards.
But what would be his reward? The Home Secretaryship is always seen as a poisoned chalice, the Foreign Secretaryship is considerably debased, and the Chancellorship is also a poisoned chalice post Rishie Rich.
British trains often feel a bit cramped and for a long time I assumed Britain had a narrow gauge and therefore the carriages were narrower.
(As you can see I am not an engineer and know nothing about trains).
Having learned today that Britain is standard gauge, I presume therefore that the privatised operators merely pack the seating more densely.
They do. Longitudinally as well, which is why the origina 125s were much more comfortable, with proper tables at each window spacing.
TIL it is about the loading gauge. But I was right that British trains do tend to be more cramped.
As a useless fact, it's worse on the old Mark-IV coaches used on the ECML with the class 91's (now being replaced by the Azuma). The Mark-IV coaches were designed so that tilting could be added later if necessary, and hence they have an APT-style narrowing profile from sole bar upwards. It'd be interesting to know if any PBers who travelled on them regularly ever noticed...
The tilting Pendelinos also have narrower profiles for the same reason.
The Azuma is a pretty nice train, spent 8 hours on one coming back from the Highlands yesterday, but it's still not as good as the HST/Mk3 coach. In terms of passenger experience I don't think the HST has been bettered.
I've only been on a GWR IET (the same thing as Azuma), but I found the seats awful. How can the DfT get seats so wrong?
I haven't done a long ride in Standard, but have done London to Aberdeen a couple of times in First and had no complaints. There is a serious issue with so many standard class seats on so many trains, and you have already answered your own question - the DfT.
Lets take an open operator as an extreme example - Lumo. Completely free of direct subsidy, it still had to be awarded an operators license and then paths on the route. To get these the DfT placed strict criteria on First group about how many seats were on their trains. First literally had to cram them in or no license.
And we have seen the same with everything from commuter stock to interurban to long distance. I think my favourite are the Thameslink trains. DfT specs a seat which is uncomfortable in the rake and lack of padding, cram them in too closely, and make no provision for seat back tables. These are interurban sets, with people taking longer rides on them.
The seats are completely unsuitable and have provoked massive complains. And yet they can only be altered at huge expense not just because of the physical design, but because of the contract to build them. DfT not interested, only being able to claim x increase in seats matters. Until Michael Green becomes transport secretary and realises there are votes in it. "Newer comfy seats!!!" he proclaims. There isn't a plan or the £cash to actually deliver, but at least someone actually gets it.
So... in the good old days of privatisation, operators ordered their own trains. Some were good, some were less good, but all generally better than what went before. Even the Meridians.
The DfT decided this was wasteful, so they decided to make everyone use a centralised design. Which they decided on. This train design has cr@p seats and is suffering from serious cracking that will take years to fix.
Is this really an argument for *more* centralised control of the railways? If the DfT are mucking things up this badly, how will a centralised GBR do any better - especially if the staff and management just transfer over?
More engineers involved. Fewer generalist civil servants. Worth a try!
But... But... that would mean putting *Trade* Specialists in charge of spending big money. Which means giving them senior positions. Only people with a Law or Accountancy qualification can possibly hold senior posts....
See the comedy of British army ammunition fiasco - the experts were binned, and some nice, comforting generalists bought in. Who bought the cheapest shit ammunition on the market. Because it's all the same, isn't it?
[Yes its fake, its dramatises a real concept with a fake item]
It was way more stupid than that. Everyone who does clay pigeon shooting up knows that there is shit ammunition out there with harsh recoil that makes a lot of smoke. Cheap nasty propellant.
It doesn't take a brain the size of the planet to realise that when something is half price, you ask why.
Clearly its all marketing and OwnBrand EasyBullets are the same product, made to the same specs as QualityBulletsCo, its just OwnBrand EasyBullets aren't paying for the advertising. Or something.
I do hope that the eye-catching temperature readings today are kosher i.e. not taken in full sun. For the record, I have a placed a thermometer outside in the shade, on an upturned shoebox, here in the Midlands and it is currently reading 30.1.
Doesn't feel too bad so far, maybe because it isn't particularly humid.
Yep the humidity is key. The hottest I've ever been was in Borneo with a combo of heat and high humidity. This doesn't feel as hot even though it's hotter.
I remember the first time I went to Florida in summer. Wandering around the air-conditioned airport thinking 'cor, it's damn hot!'. Then the doors opening and stepping out into a wall of hot, dank humidity and thinking 'I've made a terrible, terrible mistake...'
I had a similar experience on a work trip to Tulsa some years back. Leaving the airport terminal, the hot, humid air felt solid as I walked into it.
According to @scramble_nl there's only one 🇷🇺 Su-34 whose RF number ends in '90.' That is RF-95890 & it is an M - with improvements in avionics, radar, comms, EW & weapons systems.
British trains often feel a bit cramped and for a long time I assumed Britain had a narrow gauge and therefore the carriages were narrower.
(As you can see I am not an engineer and know nothing about trains).
Having learned today that Britain is standard gauge, I presume therefore that the privatised operators merely pack the seating more densely.
They do. Longitudinally as well, which is why the origina 125s were much more comfortable, with proper tables at each window spacing.
TIL it is about the loading gauge. But I was right that British trains do tend to be more cramped.
As a useless fact, it's worse on the old Mark-IV coaches used on the ECML with the class 91's (now being replaced by the Azuma). The Mark-IV coaches were designed so that tilting could be added later if necessary, and hence they have an APT-style narrowing profile from sole bar upwards. It'd be interesting to know if any PBers who travelled on them regularly ever noticed...
The tilting Pendelinos also have narrower profiles for the same reason.
The Azuma is a pretty nice train, spent 8 hours on one coming back from the Highlands yesterday, but it's still not as good as the HST/Mk3 coach. In terms of passenger experience I don't think the HST has been bettered.
I've only been on a GWR IET (the same thing as Azuma), but I found the seats awful. How can the DfT get seats so wrong?
I haven't done a long ride in Standard, but have done London to Aberdeen a couple of times in First and had no complaints. There is a serious issue with so many standard class seats on so many trains, and you have already answered your own question - the DfT.
Lets take an open operator as an extreme example - Lumo. Completely free of direct subsidy, it still had to be awarded an operators license and then paths on the route. To get these the DfT placed strict criteria on First group about how many seats were on their trains. First literally had to cram them in or no license.
And we have seen the same with everything from commuter stock to interurban to long distance. I think my favourite are the Thameslink trains. DfT specs a seat which is uncomfortable in the rake and lack of padding, cram them in too closely, and make no provision for seat back tables. These are interurban sets, with people taking longer rides on them.
The seats are completely unsuitable and have provoked massive complains. And yet they can only be altered at huge expense not just because of the physical design, but because of the contract to build them. DfT not interested, only being able to claim x increase in seats matters. Until Michael Green becomes transport secretary and realises there are votes in it. "Newer comfy seats!!!" he proclaims. There isn't a plan or the £cash to actually deliver, but at least someone actually gets it.
So... in the good old days of privatisation, operators ordered their own trains. Some were good, some were less good, but all generally better than what went before. Even the Meridians.
The DfT decided this was wasteful, so they decided to make everyone use a centralised design. Which they decided on. This train design has cr@p seats and is suffering from serious cracking that will take years to fix.
Is this really an argument for *more* centralised control of the railways? If the DfT are mucking things up this badly, how will a centralised GBR do any better - especially if the staff and management just transfer over?
More engineers involved. Fewer generalist civil servants. Worth a try!
But... But... that would mean putting *Trade* Specialists in charge of spending big money. Which means giving them senior positions. Only people with a Law or Accountancy qualification can possibly hold senior posts....
See the comedy of British army ammunition fiasco - the experts were binned, and some nice, comforting generalists bought in. Who bought the cheapest shit ammunition on the market. Because it's all the same, isn't it?
[Yes its fake, its dramatises a real concept with a fake item]
It was way more stupid than that. Everyone who does clay pigeon shooting up knows that there is shit ammunition out there with harsh recoil that makes a lot of smoke. Cheap nasty propellant.
It doesn't take a brain the size of the planet to realise that when something is half price, you ask why.
Clearly its all marketing and OwnBrand EasyBullets are the same product, made to the same specs as QualityBulletsCo, its just OwnBrand EasyBullets aren't paying for the advertising. Or something.
Read the spec and the feedback. If people can among to do this before buying on Amazon.....
The previous ammunition buying team were gun nuts who practically lived somewhere between Accuracy International and Bisley.
Doesn't feel too bad so far, maybe because it isn't particularly humid.
Yep the humidity is key. The hottest I've ever been was in Borneo with a combo of heat and high humidity. This doesn't feel as hot even though it's hotter.
I remember the first time I went to Florida in summer. Wandering around the air-conditioned airport thinking 'cor, it's damn hot!'. Then the doors opening and stepping out into a wall of hot, dank humidity and thinking 'I've made a terrible, terrible mistake...'
A record of you plus one more person at that fateful moment
British trains often feel a bit cramped and for a long time I assumed Britain had a narrow gauge and therefore the carriages were narrower.
(As you can see I am not an engineer and know nothing about trains).
Having learned today that Britain is standard gauge, I presume therefore that the privatised operators merely pack the seating more densely.
They do. Longitudinally as well, which is why the origina 125s were much more comfortable, with proper tables at each window spacing.
TIL it is about the loading gauge. But I was right that British trains do tend to be more cramped.
As a useless fact, it's worse on the old Mark-IV coaches used on the ECML with the class 91's (now being replaced by the Azuma). The Mark-IV coaches were designed so that tilting could be added later if necessary, and hence they have an APT-style narrowing profile from sole bar upwards. It'd be interesting to know if any PBers who travelled on them regularly ever noticed...
The tilting Pendelinos also have narrower profiles for the same reason.
The Azuma is a pretty nice train, spent 8 hours on one coming back from the Highlands yesterday, but it's still not as good as the HST/Mk3 coach. In terms of passenger experience I don't think the HST has been bettered.
I've only been on a GWR IET (the same thing as Azuma), but I found the seats awful. How can the DfT get seats so wrong?
I haven't done a long ride in Standard, but have done London to Aberdeen a couple of times in First and had no complaints. There is a serious issue with so many standard class seats on so many trains, and you have already answered your own question - the DfT.
Lets take an open operator as an extreme example - Lumo. Completely free of direct subsidy, it still had to be awarded an operators license and then paths on the route. To get these the DfT placed strict criteria on First group about how many seats were on their trains. First literally had to cram them in or no license.
And we have seen the same with everything from commuter stock to interurban to long distance. I think my favourite are the Thameslink trains. DfT specs a seat which is uncomfortable in the rake and lack of padding, cram them in too closely, and make no provision for seat back tables. These are interurban sets, with people taking longer rides on them.
The seats are completely unsuitable and have provoked massive complains. And yet they can only be altered at huge expense not just because of the physical design, but because of the contract to build them. DfT not interested, only being able to claim x increase in seats matters. Until Michael Green becomes transport secretary and realises there are votes in it. "Newer comfy seats!!!" he proclaims. There isn't a plan or the £cash to actually deliver, but at least someone actually gets it.
So... in the good old days of privatisation, operators ordered their own trains. Some were good, some were less good, but all generally better than what went before. Even the Meridians.
The DfT decided this was wasteful, so they decided to make everyone use a centralised design. Which they decided on. This train design has cr@p seats and is suffering from serious cracking that will take years to fix.
Is this really an argument for *more* centralised control of the railways? If the DfT are mucking things up this badly, how will a centralised GBR do any better - especially if the staff and management just transfer over?
I want RailCo. Independent of the DfT.
That would be great. If I had my way, I'd also like a differently structured railway.
What makes me think you, or I, will get our wishes?
Looks unlikely anywhere is going to be 40C today if the Sky News report is correct that the hottest place at the moment is 36.7C in Santon Downham, Suffolk.
Bloody Suffolk show offs.
The Met Office has it at 40 in Putney and earlier west of Esher. Most of Surrey is 33-37, though.
@Steven_Swinford Sounds like Tom Tugendhat has already lost quite a few of his 32 backers ahead of tonight's vote
Team Mordaunt thinks that they're going to pick up a fair few of them - enough to retain a lead over Truss
Others are going over to Sunak
So, million $ question - will the Badenoch people put Truss or Mordaunt into the Final?
Truss, obv. Badenoch is hard right, small state, libertarian, anti-woke. Her supporters aren't going to switch to Mordaunt.
There are some snakes in the grass amongst her supporters though.
Like Gove, Gove, Gove and Gove.
Its interesting that all the usual suspects normally aligned with Gove are backing Rishi, while Gove himself is suddenly backing this almost unheard-of opponent who is splitting votes Truss would have been going for.
Gove is Machiavellian enough I think he's actually backing Badenoch in order to weaken Truss, and he'll be backing Rishi afterwards.
But what would be his reward? The Home Secretaryship is always seen as a poisoned chalice, the Foreign Secretaryship is considerably debased, and the Chancellorship is also a poisoned chalice post Rishie Rich.
Perhaps Wales....
He's just doing what his boss (Murdoch) tells him.
British trains often feel a bit cramped and for a long time I assumed Britain had a narrow gauge and therefore the carriages were narrower.
(As you can see I am not an engineer and know nothing about trains).
Having learned today that Britain is standard gauge, I presume therefore that the privatised operators merely pack the seating more densely.
They do. Longitudinally as well, which is why the origina 125s were much more comfortable, with proper tables at each window spacing.
TIL it is about the loading gauge. But I was right that British trains do tend to be more cramped.
As a useless fact, it's worse on the old Mark-IV coaches used on the ECML with the class 91's (now being replaced by the Azuma). The Mark-IV coaches were designed so that tilting could be added later if necessary, and hence they have an APT-style narrowing profile from sole bar upwards. It'd be interesting to know if any PBers who travelled on them regularly ever noticed...
The tilting Pendelinos also have narrower profiles for the same reason.
The Azuma is a pretty nice train, spent 8 hours on one coming back from the Highlands yesterday, but it's still not as good as the HST/Mk3 coach. In terms of passenger experience I don't think the HST has been bettered.
I've only been on a GWR IET (the same thing as Azuma), but I found the seats awful. How can the DfT get seats so wrong?
I haven't done a long ride in Standard, but have done London to Aberdeen a couple of times in First and had no complaints. There is a serious issue with so many standard class seats on so many trains, and you have already answered your own question - the DfT.
Lets take an open operator as an extreme example - Lumo. Completely free of direct subsidy, it still had to be awarded an operators license and then paths on the route. To get these the DfT placed strict criteria on First group about how many seats were on their trains. First literally had to cram them in or no license.
And we have seen the same with everything from commuter stock to interurban to long distance. I think my favourite are the Thameslink trains. DfT specs a seat which is uncomfortable in the rake and lack of padding, cram them in too closely, and make no provision for seat back tables. These are interurban sets, with people taking longer rides on them.
The seats are completely unsuitable and have provoked massive complains. And yet they can only be altered at huge expense not just because of the physical design, but because of the contract to build them. DfT not interested, only being able to claim x increase in seats matters. Until Michael Green becomes transport secretary and realises there are votes in it. "Newer comfy seats!!!" he proclaims. There isn't a plan or the £cash to actually deliver, but at least someone actually gets it.
So... in the good old days of privatisation, operators ordered their own trains. Some were good, some were less good, but all generally better than what went before. Even the Meridians.
The DfT decided this was wasteful, so they decided to make everyone use a centralised design. Which they decided on. This train design has cr@p seats and is suffering from serious cracking that will take years to fix.
Is this really an argument for *more* centralised control of the railways? If the DfT are mucking things up this badly, how will a centralised GBR do any better - especially if the staff and management just transfer over?
More engineers involved. Fewer generalist civil servants. Worth a try!
That would be lovely. How do you get there, given the railways abandoned the old work-your-way-up system sixty years ago.
British trains often feel a bit cramped and for a long time I assumed Britain had a narrow gauge and therefore the carriages were narrower.
(As you can see I am not an engineer and know nothing about trains).
Having learned today that Britain is standard gauge, I presume therefore that the privatised operators merely pack the seating more densely.
They do. Longitudinally as well, which is why the origina 125s were much more comfortable, with proper tables at each window spacing.
TIL it is about the loading gauge. But I was right that British trains do tend to be more cramped.
As a useless fact, it's worse on the old Mark-IV coaches used on the ECML with the class 91's (now being replaced by the Azuma). The Mark-IV coaches were designed so that tilting could be added later if necessary, and hence they have an APT-style narrowing profile from sole bar upwards. It'd be interesting to know if any PBers who travelled on them regularly ever noticed...
The tilting Pendelinos also have narrower profiles for the same reason.
The Azuma is a pretty nice train, spent 8 hours on one coming back from the Highlands yesterday, but it's still not as good as the HST/Mk3 coach. In terms of passenger experience I don't think the HST has been bettered.
I've only been on a GWR IET (the same thing as Azuma), but I found the seats awful. How can the DfT get seats so wrong?
I haven't done a long ride in Standard, but have done London to Aberdeen a couple of times in First and had no complaints. There is a serious issue with so many standard class seats on so many trains, and you have already answered your own question - the DfT.
Lets take an open operator as an extreme example - Lumo. Completely free of direct subsidy, it still had to be awarded an operators license and then paths on the route. To get these the DfT placed strict criteria on First group about how many seats were on their trains. First literally had to cram them in or no license.
And we have seen the same with everything from commuter stock to interurban to long distance. I think my favourite are the Thameslink trains. DfT specs a seat which is uncomfortable in the rake and lack of padding, cram them in too closely, and make no provision for seat back tables. These are interurban sets, with people taking longer rides on them.
The seats are completely unsuitable and have provoked massive complains. And yet they can only be altered at huge expense not just because of the physical design, but because of the contract to build them. DfT not interested, only being able to claim x increase in seats matters. Until Michael Green becomes transport secretary and realises there are votes in it. "Newer comfy seats!!!" he proclaims. There isn't a plan or the £cash to actually deliver, but at least someone actually gets it.
So... in the good old days of privatisation, operators ordered their own trains. Some were good, some were less good, but all generally better than what went before. Even the Meridians.
The DfT decided this was wasteful, so they decided to make everyone use a centralised design. Which they decided on. This train design has cr@p seats and is suffering from serious cracking that will take years to fix.
Is this really an argument for *more* centralised control of the railways? If the DfT are mucking things up this badly, how will a centralised GBR do any better - especially if the staff and management just transfer over?
I want RailCo. Independent of the DfT.
That would be great. If I had my way, I'd also like a differently structured railway.
What makes me think you, or I, will get our wishes?
I have high hopes that TSE's forthcoming dictatorship will sort it out.
British trains often feel a bit cramped and for a long time I assumed Britain had a narrow gauge and therefore the carriages were narrower.
(As you can see I am not an engineer and know nothing about trains).
Having learned today that Britain is standard gauge, I presume therefore that the privatised operators merely pack the seating more densely.
They do. Longitudinally as well, which is why the origina 125s were much more comfortable, with proper tables at each window spacing.
TIL it is about the loading gauge. But I was right that British trains do tend to be more cramped.
As a useless fact, it's worse on the old Mark-IV coaches used on the ECML with the class 91's (now being replaced by the Azuma). The Mark-IV coaches were designed so that tilting could be added later if necessary, and hence they have an APT-style narrowing profile from sole bar upwards. It'd be interesting to know if any PBers who travelled on them regularly ever noticed...
The tilting Pendelinos also have narrower profiles for the same reason.
The Azuma is a pretty nice train, spent 8 hours on one coming back from the Highlands yesterday, but it's still not as good as the HST/Mk3 coach. In terms of passenger experience I don't think the HST has been bettered.
I've only been on a GWR IET (the same thing as Azuma), but I found the seats awful. How can the DfT get seats so wrong?
I haven't done a long ride in Standard, but have done London to Aberdeen a couple of times in First and had no complaints. There is a serious issue with so many standard class seats on so many trains, and you have already answered your own question - the DfT.
Lets take an open operator as an extreme example - Lumo. Completely free of direct subsidy, it still had to be awarded an operators license and then paths on the route. To get these the DfT placed strict criteria on First group about how many seats were on their trains. First literally had to cram them in or no license.
And we have seen the same with everything from commuter stock to interurban to long distance. I think my favourite are the Thameslink trains. DfT specs a seat which is uncomfortable in the rake and lack of padding, cram them in too closely, and make no provision for seat back tables. These are interurban sets, with people taking longer rides on them.
The seats are completely unsuitable and have provoked massive complains. And yet they can only be altered at huge expense not just because of the physical design, but because of the contract to build them. DfT not interested, only being able to claim x increase in seats matters. Until Michael Green becomes transport secretary and realises there are votes in it. "Newer comfy seats!!!" he proclaims. There isn't a plan or the £cash to actually deliver, but at least someone actually gets it.
So... in the good old days of privatisation, operators ordered their own trains. Some were good, some were less good, but all generally better than what went before. Even the Meridians.
The DfT decided this was wasteful, so they decided to make everyone use a centralised design. Which they decided on. This train design has cr@p seats and is suffering from serious cracking that will take years to fix.
Is this really an argument for *more* centralised control of the railways? If the DfT are mucking things up this badly, how will a centralised GBR do any better - especially if the staff and management just transfer over?
I want RailCo. Independent of the DfT.
On this I can completely agree with you.
The way to get that is proper privatisation, Japan-style.
Any British state-owned RailCo would never ben independent of the DfT.
OK, here's my current take. It's hard to guesstimate the sequence in which votes will transfer (for example, some Braverman votes might go to Badenoch as an intermediate stage, and it's hard to guess how many). However, I think it's a bit easier to guess where they'll end up.
So, we start from the previous round of Sunak 101, Mordaunt 83, Truss 64, Badenoch 49, Tugendhat 32, Braverman 27. It's hard to see how the last three can be anything other than Sunak/Mordaunt/Truss. So where do the 49+32+27 votes of the to-be-eliminated candidates end up?
The first one is easy. Braverman supporters are all hard-core Brexit nutters: her votes go to Truss, possibly via Badenoch, but they end up at Truss. Truss +27
Secondly, Tugendhat. Well, we know where they're not likely to go, which is to Truss. I think they might end up roughly evenly split between the other two. Mordaunt +16, Sunak +16
What of Badenoch's current 49? It's a mixture of some hardish-core Brexiteers and some just wanting a fresh face, but also some realists. Hard to be sure, but I can see her 49 splitting pretty equally. Let's say Truss +17, Mordaunt +16. Sunak +16
Final tally: Sunak 133, Mordaunt 115, Truss 109.
Of course, there's much guesswork here, but to get Truss into second place is going to require both that she gets a substantially higher share of the current Badenoch 49 than I've assumed, and that Mordaunt doesn't do better than I've assumed in getting Tugendhat and Badenoch transfers.
British trains often feel a bit cramped and for a long time I assumed Britain had a narrow gauge and therefore the carriages were narrower.
(As you can see I am not an engineer and know nothing about trains).
Having learned today that Britain is standard gauge, I presume therefore that the privatised operators merely pack the seating more densely.
As others have said, we (mostly) use a standard-gauge track. But we have a whole series of loading gauges - the profile the vehicle's body can fit into), most of which are more constrained that European or American practice. That's a result of building our railways first - and if you look at early railway wagons and locos, the loading gauge was massive in comparison.
Kemi Badenoch has now backed net zero and committed to not stripping away climate commitments at the climate hustings - now all candidates back net zero
Looks unlikely anywhere is going to be 40C today if the Sky News report is correct that the hottest place at the moment is 36.7C in Santon Downham, Suffolk.
Bloody Suffolk show offs.
The Met Office has it at 40 in Putney and earlier west of Esher. Most of Surrey is 33-37, though.
Dom Raab radiating heat from his stunning awesoneness?
James Heale @JAHeale · 52m Told that at today’s climate hustings, chaired by Alok Sharma, Kemi Badenoch spoke “powerfully” about how climate change has impacted Nigeria. She confirmed that she is committed to not stripping out Net Zero legislation.
Looks unlikely anywhere is going to be 40C today if the Sky News report is correct that the hottest place at the moment is 36.7C in Santon Downham, Suffolk.
Bloody Suffolk show offs.
The Met Office has it at 40 in Putney and earlier west of Esher. Most of Surrey is 33-37, though.
Situation in Penge? (I chose it solely because of the notorious "Penge bungalow murders").
British trains often feel a bit cramped and for a long time I assumed Britain had a narrow gauge and therefore the carriages were narrower.
(As you can see I am not an engineer and know nothing about trains).
Having learned today that Britain is standard gauge, I presume therefore that the privatised operators merely pack the seating more densely.
They do. Longitudinally as well, which is why the origina 125s were much more comfortable, with proper tables at each window spacing.
TIL it is about the loading gauge. But I was right that British trains do tend to be more cramped.
As a useless fact, it's worse on the old Mark-IV coaches used on the ECML with the class 91's (now being replaced by the Azuma). The Mark-IV coaches were designed so that tilting could be added later if necessary, and hence they have an APT-style narrowing profile from sole bar upwards. It'd be interesting to know if any PBers who travelled on them regularly ever noticed...
The tilting Pendelinos also have narrower profiles for the same reason.
The Azuma is a pretty nice train, spent 8 hours on one coming back from the Highlands yesterday, but it's still not as good as the HST/Mk3 coach. In terms of passenger experience I don't think the HST has been bettered.
I've only been on a GWR IET (the same thing as Azuma), but I found the seats awful. How can the DfT get seats so wrong?
I haven't done a long ride in Standard, but have done London to Aberdeen a couple of times in First and had no complaints. There is a serious issue with so many standard class seats on so many trains, and you have already answered your own question - the DfT.
Lets take an open operator as an extreme example - Lumo. Completely free of direct subsidy, it still had to be awarded an operators license and then paths on the route. To get these the DfT placed strict criteria on First group about how many seats were on their trains. First literally had to cram them in or no license.
And we have seen the same with everything from commuter stock to interurban to long distance. I think my favourite are the Thameslink trains. DfT specs a seat which is uncomfortable in the rake and lack of padding, cram them in too closely, and make no provision for seat back tables. These are interurban sets, with people taking longer rides on them.
The seats are completely unsuitable and have provoked massive complains. And yet they can only be altered at huge expense not just because of the physical design, but because of the contract to build them. DfT not interested, only being able to claim x increase in seats matters. Until Michael Green becomes transport secretary and realises there are votes in it. "Newer comfy seats!!!" he proclaims. There isn't a plan or the £cash to actually deliver, but at least someone actually gets it.
So... in the good old days of privatisation, operators ordered their own trains. Some were good, some were less good, but all generally better than what went before. Even the Meridians.
The DfT decided this was wasteful, so they decided to make everyone use a centralised design. Which they decided on. This train design has cr@p seats and is suffering from serious cracking that will take years to fix.
Is this really an argument for *more* centralised control of the railways? If the DfT are mucking things up this badly, how will a centralised GBR do any better - especially if the staff and management just transfer over?
I want RailCo. Independent of the DfT.
That would be great. If I had my way, I'd also like a differently structured railway.
What makes me think you, or I, will get our wishes?
I have high hopes that TSE's forthcoming dictatorship will sort it out.
OK, here's my current take. It's hard to guesstimate the sequence in which votes will transfer (for example, some Braverman votes might go to Badenoch as an intermediate stage, and it's hard to guess how many). However, I think it's a bit easier to guess where they'll end up.
So, we start from the previous round of Sunak 101, Mordaunt 83, Truss 64, Badenoch 49, Tugendhat 32, Braverman 27. It's hard to see how the last three can be anything other than Sunak/Mordaunt/Truss. So where do the 49+32+27 votes of the to-be-eliminated candidates end up?
The first one is easy. Braverman supporters are all hard-core Brexit nutters: her votes go to Truss, possibly via Badenoch, but they end up at Truss. Truss +27
Secondly, Tugendhat. Well, we know where they're not likely to go, which is to Truss. I think they might end up roughly evenly split between the other two. Mordaunt +16, Sunak +16
What of Badenoch's current 49? It's a mixture of some hardish-core Brexiteers and some just wanting a fresh face, but also some realists. Hard to be sure, but I can see her 49 splitting pretty equally. Let's say Truss +17, Mordaunt +16. Sunak +16
Final tally: Sunak 133, Mordaunt 115, Truss 109.
Of course, there's much guesswork here, but to get Truss into second place is going to require both that she gets a substantially higher share of the current Badenoch 49 than I've assumed, and that Mordaunt doesn't do better than I've assumed in getting Tugendhat and Badenoch transfers.
Mordunt might lose a few on tonight's vote after a weekend of revelations though?
OK, here's my current take. It's hard to guesstimate the sequence in which votes will transfer (for example, some Braverman votes might go to Badenoch as an intermediate stage, and it's hard to guess how many). However, I think it's a bit easier to guess where they'll end up.
So, we start from the previous round of Sunak 101, Mordaunt 83, Truss 64, Badenoch 49, Tugendhat 32, Braverman 27. It's hard to see how the last three can be anything other than Sunak/Mordaunt/Truss. So where do the 49+32+27 votes of the to-be-eliminated candidates end up?
The first one is easy. Braverman supporters are all hard-core Brexit nutters: her votes go to Truss, possibly via Badenoch, but they end up at Truss. Truss +27
Secondly, Tugendhat. Well, we know where they're not likely to go, which is to Truss. I think they might end up roughly evenly split between the other two. Mordaunt +16, Sunak +16
What of Badenoch's current 49? It's a mixture of some hardish-core Brexiteers and some just wanting a fresh face, but also some realists. Hard to be sure, but I can see her 49 splitting pretty equally. Let's say Truss +17, Mordaunt +16. Sunak +16
Final tally: Sunak 133, Mordaunt 115, Truss 107.
Of course, there's much guesswork here, but to get Truss into second place is going to require both that she gets a substantially higher share of the current Badenoch 49 than I've assumed, and that Mordaunt doesn't do better than I've assumed in getting Tugendhat and Badenoch transfers.
That is a good assessment. I still think there is a slight chance Badenoch overhauls Truss but let's go with the view she doesn't.
I think the issue might with the Badenoch voters. There are a fair few Red Wallers in there. For me, the least appealing candidate of the three to them is Sunak given he clearly wants to rein in spending. Truss might end up getting a few more than Sunak for that reason.
OK, here's my current take. It's hard to guesstimate the sequence in which votes will transfer (for example, some Braverman votes might go to Badenoch as an intermediate stage, and it's hard to guess how many). However, I think it's a bit easier to guess where they'll end up.
So, we start from the previous round of Sunak 101, Mordaunt 83, Truss 64, Badenoch 49, Tugendhat 32, Braverman 27. It's hard to see how the last three can be anything other than Sunak/Mordaunt/Truss. So where do the 49+32+27 votes of the to-be-eliminated candidates end up?
The first one is easy. Braverman supporters are all hard-core Brexit nutters: her votes go to Truss, possibly via Badenoch, but they end up at Truss. Truss +27
Secondly, Tugendhat. Well, we know where they're not likely to go, which is to Truss. I think they might end up roughly evenly split between the other two. Mordaunt +16, Sunak +16
What of Badenoch's current 49? It's a mixture of some hardish-core Brexiteers and some just wanting a fresh face, but also some realists. Hard to be sure, but I can see her 49 splitting pretty equally. Let's say Truss +17, Mordaunt +16. Sunak +16
Final tally: Sunak 133, Mordaunt 120, Truss 107.
Of course, there's much guesswork here, but to get Truss into second place is going to require both that she gets a substantially higher share of the current Badenoch 49 than I've assumed, and that Mordaunt doesn't do better than I've assumed in getting Tugendhat and Badenoch transfers.
Your numbers don't add up.
Truss 64 + 27 + 17 = 108 not 107
Mordaunt 83 + 16 + 16 = 115 not 120
From there, if 4 fewer Badenoch voters switch to Mordaunt and switch to Truss instead then its 112 Truss versus 111 Mordaunt.
James Heale @JAHeale · 52m Told that at today’s climate hustings, chaired by Alok Sharma, Kemi Badenoch spoke “powerfully” about how climate change has impacted Nigeria. She confirmed that she is committed to not stripping out Net Zero legislation.
Have heard of politicos shifting as the wind blows. But as the thermometer rises?
OK, here's my current take. It's hard to guesstimate the sequence in which votes will transfer (for example, some Braverman votes might go to Badenoch as an intermediate stage, and it's hard to guess how many). However, I think it's a bit easier to guess where they'll end up.
So, we start from the previous round of Sunak 101, Mordaunt 83, Truss 64, Badenoch 49, Tugendhat 32, Braverman 27. It's hard to see how the last three can be anything other than Sunak/Mordaunt/Truss. So where do the 49+32+27 votes of the to-be-eliminated candidates end up?
The first one is easy. Braverman supporters are all hard-core Brexit nutters: her votes go to Truss, possibly via Badenoch, but they end up at Truss. Truss +27
Secondly, Tugendhat. Well, we know where they're not likely to go, which is to Truss. I think they might end up roughly evenly split between the other two. Mordaunt +16, Sunak +16
What of Badenoch's current 49? It's a mixture of some hardish-core Brexiteers and some just wanting a fresh face, but also some realists. Hard to be sure, but I can see her 49 splitting pretty equally. Let's say Truss +17, Mordaunt +16. Sunak +16
Final tally: Sunak 133, Mordaunt 120, Truss 107.
Of course, there's much guesswork here, but to get Truss into second place is going to require both that she gets a substantially higher share of the current Badenoch 49 than I've assumed, and that Mordaunt doesn't do better than I've assumed in getting Tugendhat and Badenoch transfers.
Your numbers don't add up.
Truss 64 + 27 + 17 = 108 not 107
Mordaunt 83 + 16 + 16 = 115 not 120
From there, if 4 fewer Badenoch voters switch to Mordaunt and switch to Truss instead then its 112 Truss versus 111 Mordaunt.
Apologies, there were a couple of typos, now fixed
OK, here's my current take. It's hard to guesstimate the sequence in which votes will transfer (for example, some Braverman votes might go to Badenoch as an intermediate stage, and it's hard to guess how many). However, I think it's a bit easier to guess where they'll end up.
So, we start from the previous round of Sunak 101, Mordaunt 83, Truss 64, Badenoch 49, Tugendhat 32, Braverman 27. It's hard to see how the last three can be anything other than Sunak/Mordaunt/Truss. So where do the 49+32+27 votes of the to-be-eliminated candidates end up?
The first one is easy. Braverman supporters are all hard-core Brexit nutters: her votes go to Truss, possibly via Badenoch, but they end up at Truss. Truss +27
Secondly, Tugendhat. Well, we know where they're not likely to go, which is to Truss. I think they might end up roughly evenly split between the other two. Mordaunt +16, Sunak +16
What of Badenoch's current 49? It's a mixture of some hardish-core Brexiteers and some just wanting a fresh face, but also some realists. Hard to be sure, but I can see her 49 splitting pretty equally. Let's say Truss +17, Mordaunt +16. Sunak +16
Final tally: Sunak 133, Mordaunt 115, Truss 109.
Of course, there's much guesswork here, but to get Truss into second place is going to require both that she gets a substantially higher share of the current Badenoch 49 than I've assumed, and that Mordaunt doesn't do better than I've assumed in getting Tugendhat and Badenoch transfers.
I think you underestimate Badenoch->Truss transfers and overestimate Badenoch->Mordaunt transfers, so we get Sunak/Truss in the final two... but, sure, it could well be close between Liz and Penny.
That is a good assessment. I still think there is a slight chance Badenoch overhauls Truss but let's go with the view she doesn't.
I think the issue might with the Badenoch voters. There are a fair few Red Wallers in there. For me, the least appealing candidate of the three to them is Sunak given he clearly wants to rein in spending. Truss might end up getting a few more than Sunak for that reason.
Which would leave it very tight.
Yes, but if they don't go to Sunak, they may go to Mordaunt instead. Hard to tell of course.
James Heale @JAHeale · 52m Told that at today’s climate hustings, chaired by Alok Sharma, Kemi Badenoch spoke “powerfully” about how climate change has impacted Nigeria. She confirmed that she is committed to not stripping out Net Zero legislation.
Comments
And yet there’s no obvious alliance coming, as others have pointed out.
If I was on Kemi’s campaign, I would be saying that although Truss has more MP votes, it seems to be Kemi that would have far more of a chance at picking votes off of Mordaunt or Sunak, and dare I say it, beating Starmer in 2024 than Truss.
However if you were Kemi you would much rather take a gracious defeat now, get a good cabinet job, and then be the LOTO in a scenario where Labour narrowly win 2024 but it’s not stable enough to last the 5 years. You could run on a campaign of being a breath of fresh air, restoring Tory stability, if you were her
The key to brilliance regardless of which sector was operating was freedom. Budget freedom to not price passengers off the rails, managerial freedom to look at customers and potential customers and say "lets go and win them".
Sadly now we have the worst of both worlds. Micromanaged insanity where the DfT dictates things like drivers only signing part of a route (TransPennine Express being a great example) which leads to mass cancellations because of a lack of drivers for part of the run.
So the GBR concept was great and could be great. If it ever happens. Without political interference.
UK record could still go
https://www.wunderground.com/dashboard/pws/ICAMBRID169
This is Boris. Fundamentally uninterested in public service.
Chough…Gove…cough…
* the move from Waterloo to St Pancras was one of the projects, went about as smoothly as such changes can do.
Officially "Geet hot".
Lets take an open operator as an extreme example - Lumo. Completely free of direct subsidy, it still had to be awarded an operators license and then paths on the route. To get these the DfT placed strict criteria on First group about how many seats were on their trains. First literally had to cram them in or no license.
And we have seen the same with everything from commuter stock to interurban to long distance. I think my favourite are the Thameslink trains. DfT specs a seat which is uncomfortable in the rake and lack of padding, cram them in too closely, and make no provision for seat back tables. These are interurban sets, with people taking longer rides on them.
The seats are completely unsuitable and have provoked massive complains. And yet they can only be altered at huge expense not just because of the physical design, but because of the contract to build them. DfT not interested, only being able to claim x increase in seats matters. Until Michael Green becomes transport secretary and realises there are votes in it. "Newer comfy seats!!!" he proclaims. There isn't a plan or the £cash to actually deliver, but at least someone actually gets it.
* also did Strathspey Heritage Line that day.
I think tomorrow is more likely and much further north.
Besides, the number of branchlines with one-train operation and long turnaround times at the terminus are relatively few, esp. in terms of %age passengers. That number has reduced with the increased numbers of trains run in the last thirty years.
And if the branch line interacts or crosses any other lines at any time, then timing becomes even more important, e.g. Derby to Matlock shares the main line for a large part of the journey.
Now people are posting articles about Mrs Rishi's business failures and the associated costs to the taxpayer.
The DfT decided this was wasteful, so they decided to make everyone use a centralised design. Which they decided on. This train design has cr@p seats and is suffering from serious cracking that will take years to fix.
Is this really an argument for *more* centralised control of the railways? If the DfT are mucking things up this badly, how will a centralised GBR do any better - especially if the staff and management just transfer over?
Rishi has blocked the loans performance data from being published.
A shame @Leon is no longer here, he’d pipe up to say that LONDON is HOTTER than DUBAI right now!!!!
It's hardware: "other", software: "WeatherRanger V2.3.8" as used on a £130 Aercus weetherstation.
Great fun but not really reliable. It's probably placed in the sun too.
See the comedy of British army ammunition fiasco - the experts were binned, and some nice, comforting generalists bought in. Who bought the cheapest shit ammunition on the market. Because it's all the same, isn't it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7R9kH_HOUXM
[Yes its fake, its dramatises a real concept with a fake item]
It doesn't take a brain the size of the planet to realise that when something is half price, you ask why.
Perhaps Wales....
It is still 28 in my living room.
https://twitter.com/vcdgf555/status/1549014699710115840
We may be looking at the remains of 10% of the Russian Su-34M modernized variant known to exist.
According to @scramble_nl there's only one 🇷🇺 Su-34 whose RF number ends in '90.' That is RF-95890 & it is an M - with improvements in avionics, radar, comms, EW & weapons systems.
https://kimbellart.org/collection/ap-197939
Hewnce the Xipe which puzzled you.
The previous ammunition buying team were gun nuts who practically lived somewhere between Accuracy International and Bisley.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rI_lUHOCcbc
What makes me think you, or I, will get our wishes?
Wildfires across Europe have forced thousands of people to evacuate. Footage from inside a train shows wildfires on either side of the tracks...
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1549026200122580993
The way to get that is proper privatisation, Japan-style.
Any British state-owned RailCo would never ben independent of the DfT.
So, we start from the previous round of Sunak 101, Mordaunt 83, Truss 64, Badenoch 49, Tugendhat 32, Braverman 27. It's hard to see how the last three can be anything other than Sunak/Mordaunt/Truss. So where do the 49+32+27 votes of the to-be-eliminated candidates end up?
The first one is easy. Braverman supporters are all hard-core Brexit nutters: her votes go to Truss, possibly via Badenoch, but they end up at Truss. Truss +27
Secondly, Tugendhat. Well, we know where they're not likely to go, which is to Truss. I think they might end up roughly evenly split between the other two. Mordaunt +16, Sunak +16
What of Badenoch's current 49? It's a mixture of some hardish-core Brexiteers and some just wanting a fresh face, but also some realists. Hard to be sure, but I can see her 49 splitting pretty equally. Let's say Truss +17, Mordaunt +16. Sunak +16
Final tally: Sunak 133, Mordaunt 115, Truss 109.
Of course, there's much guesswork here, but to get Truss into second place is going to require both that she gets a substantially higher share of the current Badenoch 49 than I've assumed, and that Mordaunt doesn't do better than I've assumed in getting Tugendhat and Badenoch transfers.
Bart gives up?
@JAHeale
·
52m
Told that at today’s climate hustings, chaired by Alok Sharma, Kemi Badenoch spoke “powerfully” about how climate change has impacted Nigeria. She confirmed that she is committed to not stripping out Net Zero legislation.
Just checked = 36C
I think the issue might with the Badenoch voters. There are a fair few Red Wallers in there. For me, the least appealing candidate of the three to them is Sunak given he clearly wants to rein in spending. Truss might end up getting a few more than Sunak for that reason.
Which would leave it very tight.
I was looking forward to that.
Truss 64 + 27 + 17 = 108 not 107
Mordaunt 83 + 16 + 16 = 115 not 120
From there, if 4 fewer Badenoch voters switch to Mordaunt and switch to Truss instead then its 112 Truss versus 111 Mordaunt.
37.1C Northolt
36.2C LHR
36.4C St James Park
36.5C Lakenheath
Vote is sometime before that after the 1922 hustings.
I imagine Sri Lanka wasn't mentioned.