I take this title from a book that details the excuses offered by British Rail for its notoriously abysmal service, a book supposedly called The Wrong Kind of Snow (and the “wrong kind of snow” was one of those excuses.) I’ve also been on a train to Scotland delayed by “leaves on the track!”
From the tumblr site Welcome in my mind:
‘h/t: Ant
Amen to that!
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_wrong_type_of_snow
Ah yes – the wrong kind of snow was the nasty dry continental type that is no good for snowballs. Different type of crystal that gets into nooks & crannies & clogs up engines etc.
Sounds like excellent powder for skiing. 😉
The point being that it was very different to what is normally delivered to Britain (which has much larger flakes and packs down with much less interstitial water). I remember the winter in question and the furore over the excuse – it was in the late 1990s or very early 2000s – and while it was relatively grim weather, the patheticness of the excuse was legendary within minutes of it’s being emitted.
IF I recall correctly, the same winter and possibly the same night had hundreds or thousands of motorists stuck on a major motorway (“freeway” in en_US ; possibly the Birmingham bypass on the M6, a TOLL motorway even!) because of an inch or so of snowfall. Which caused much ribald amusement on this side of the border.
Is there no depth to which a PR flack will not stoop? (The answer is “no”, of course.)
They are only “freeways” out west. In the east they are “highways.”
Very funny. I’d also add that because of the recent influx of Californians/Texans and massive migration of Mexicans to Colorado, our cities in Colorado now grind to an emergency halt every time the skies spit an inch. Enough people are unaccustomed, and simply do not know how to handle the conditions. I have rescued quite a few desperate and panicky people, many times having to use my fractured Spanish in the process to get really basic concepts across… like not stomping on the gas harder when the wheels are spinning – how to brake, etc. and giving personalized demonstrations. We are entering some really interesting times. (and our lack of mass transit will force us into criticality in short order, I’m afraid)
…however, leaves on the track will derail a train.
I’ve been delayed on the New Jersey Transit trains many times for leaves on the tracks.
I dunno about derailing being common.
But leaves and their fatty waxes cuts friction between steel-steel surfaces with several times. Happens in Sweden, at which point trains may not make it up their usual grades, but half or even a third of the usual max slope. Railway companies have service trains with steam guns (IIRC) that burns away the non-stick material when that happens.
If you are used to rubber tires you may not think so much of leaves. I hear it is the metal that gets a real beating, friction-wise.
So, grades – I imagine Scotland would have the same problem. I hear Norway has.
Significantly more trees in Scotland than England – but they’re mostly conifers with much more acicular leaves, shed more irregularly.
Not just Scotland. I used to commute from Oxford to central London, and delays due to “wet leaves on the line” were a regular autumn occurrence.
The Paris metro runs on rubber tyres, which also makes for a much quieter and more comfortable ride.
There is a blog called Leaves on the Line, presumably referring to this.
Even better: there is a Wikipedia page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_rail
*Some* lines of the Paris Metro run on rubber tyres (and rubber side guide wheels), intended to improve traction. The tyres run on a sort of transversely grooved flat metal track, but they also have flanged wheels for interchangeability with conventional tracks. However, they’re not necessarily quieter, the tyres howl in the transverse grooves. And IMO the ride isn’t more comfortable, they lurch on the bends (though the bends are often extremely sharp), also they accelerate like a bat out of hell which is obviously good for the timetable but you have to hang on. Kinda fun.
There’s a good piccy of Line 1 at Bastille here:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Place_de_la_Bastille_Metro.jpg
I dunno. If the tracks were blocked by this kind of snow, I’d hope the trains would be shut down until the mess was most thoroughly cleared up.
b&
And everyone would be happy about it.
We had a fire in our computer room many moons ago. When the smoke alarm manufacturers were challenged as to why the alarm go off, we were told that it was the wrong type of smoke.
Just goes to show that despite all our perceptions, the Creationists don’t hold the monopoly on BS (though they almost do).
Veering somewhat further away, in college our fire alarms were triggered by heat detectors. During the long vacation, when the college hosted Saga holidays for the over fifties (that’s me now!), these were replaced with more-sensitive smoke detectors, to give the “old folks” more time to escape. We few post-grads still in college had to be very careful as the steam from the kettles in the kitchens could set them off!
/@
Thanks for reminding me to check the smoke detector!
“Leaves on the track” is a real problem, the leaves can be compacted into a slimy mush which prevent a train stopping correctly (remember there is normally poor adhesion between steel rail and steel wheels)which can result in accidents. The mush can also prevent a train starting.
The mush affects the railway signalling where Track Circuit Block detection is used, TCB detection involves the train completing a circuit between the rails to drive relays which control signals and tell the controllers where a train is, the mush being an insulator blocks the circuit. British practice is no detection-all stop,all stop = no accidents. Leaves can be a serious problem and much time and effort is spent every autumn in cleaning tracks to run trains.
There is a car I often see parked near my home that has this bumper sticker:
“Do you think that intelligent design
would have created YOU?”
Excellent! I’ve never had a bumper sticker on a car but that one I’d consider!!
In the interests of accuracy, and for the benefit of any potential visitors to the UK I would just point out that “British Rail” ceased to exist about 20 years ago, and the rail service here is no longer “notoriously abysmal” – although it can be expensive. I’m a regular rail traveller and the privatised services I use are modern, clean, nearly always on-time and generally vastly better than in the old state-run BR days.
The rail services are better because of the billions of public money that has been spent subsidising the supposedly ‘privatised services’. BR was starved of investment for many years the current subsidies paid are many times more than what BR was paid. Effectively the current system is a heads we win, tails you lose for the train operators if they look like making a loss they just ask for more money or threaten to walk away.
There are couple of missing commas in that. 🙁
Or, like GNER, get told to sod off. The trains are now operated by the state-owned East Coast, which is not quite as sharp as GNER, but pretty not bad.
/@
Few long-distance passenger rail services can compete effectively with buses, cars or planes, which is why rail services almost everywhere in the world must be heavily subsidized even to retain a small market share.
Eurostar, London to Paris/Brussels, totally unsubsidised, has a majority share of the market (about 90% iirc).
Eurostar, London to Paris/Brussels, totally unsubsidized
Apparently, you think it cost nothing to build the track, tunnel and stations.
The Channel Tunnel has been an economic disaster for Britain. It cost twice as much as forecast to build, and revenues were only half as much as forecast.
Apparently, you think that it costs nothing to build and maintain roads, bridges, highway patrol forces, airports, air traffic control, navigation aids, or any other form of infrastructure that vehicles and aircraft would be useless without.
b&
Apparently, you think that it costs nothing to build and maintain roads, bridges, highway patrol forces, airports, air traffic control, navigation aids, or any other form of infrastructure that vehicles and aircraft would be useless without.
No, I don’t think that. I also have no idea what you think it has to do with rail subsidies.
The Channel Tunnel has been an economic disaster for Britain. It cost twice as much as forecast to build, and revenues were only half as much as forecast.
The British taxpayer didn’t pay for the tunnel, in fact public funding was specifically forbidden by the act of parliament whcih approved the project, so I don’t see how it can be considered an economic disaster for Britain.
In fact we just sold a 30 year concession for running the trains a couple of years ago, for £2.1 billion.
The British taxpayer didn’t pay for the tunnel, in fact public funding was specifically forbidden by the act of parliament whcih approved the project, so I don’t see how it can be considered an economic disaster for Britain.
Taxpayers saddled with £4.8bn Channel Tunnel debt
In total, adding together net public and private losses, the Channel Tunnel is estimated to have cost the British economy about £10 billion ($15 billion). That is, Britain’s GDP would be £10 billion greater if it had never been built.
It is nonsense to suggest that “Britain’s GDP would be £10 billion greater if it had never been built.”
The cost of building the tunnel represents economic activity. The most common method of measuring GDP is the expenditure method:
GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports)
True, it was vastly over budget, but then, most large capital projects overrun by a considerable degree, but any overspend is also economic activity. The additional cost may well come out of the public purse, but then, the vast majority of government expenditure is paid for by taxpayers.
Such large capital projects help to support a nation’s economy, assuming they can afford to pay for them in the first place.
The current London Crossrail project is forecast to run considerably over budget, but last year and this year the project supported the equivalent of 13,800 full-time jobs throughout the supply chain. Additionally, the project supports 400 apprenticeships, creating a skills bank that might not otherwise exist. The channel tunnel had a similar effect. The lead miner on one of the London Crossrail Tunnel Boring Machines learned hos trade working under his father on the Channel Tunnel.
You are confused. GDP is a measure of value, not simply “economic activity.” Paying people to dig holes and fill them in again is economic activity, but it doesn’t increase GDP. The total British domestic costs of the Channel Tunnel are estimated to have exceeded the total domestic benefits by about £10 billion. Hence, it was a net cost to the British economy of that amount.
See The Channel Tunnel—an ex post economic evaluation. Quote:
“The cost benefit appraisal of the Channel Tunnel reveals that overall the British economy would have been better off had the Tunnel never been constructed, as the total resource cost outweighs the benefits generated.”
GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports)
Additionally, the channel tunnel wasn’t simply a project to “dig holes and fill them in again”. It created a capital asset with genuine purpose.
I wasn’t suggesting that the Channel Tunnel is equivalent to digging a hole and filling it in again. I just used that example to illustrate the difference between engaging in economic activity and creating value. The Channel Tunnel clearly has huge value. It has significantly reduced travel times between London and a number of major European cities. The problem is that the costs of building the tunnel were even huger, so it’s a net loss for the country.
Your initial statement was “Britain’s GDP would be £10 billion greater if [the channel tunnel] had never been built.”
If
channel tunnel = private investment + government investment
and
GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports)
then
your initial statement cannot be true.
You don’t understand what you’re talking about. The tunnel costs the producers more to build than it generates in revenues from consumers. That means the investment has negative value. If the tunnel had not been built, the money spent by investors to build it would have been available to invest in the production of other goods with positive (or even zero) net value. And the money spent by consumers to use the tunnel would have been available for consumption of those goods. That means the British economy would have been better off if the tunnel had never been built. In terms of GDP calculation by expenditure, it means that either the investment or consumption terms of the equation, or both, would be higher if the tunnel had not been built.
And you expect the return on initial investment to be made in what, one year, two years?
If your measure were to be used before any UK public investment in infrastructure coluld be approved, we would have no M1, no East Coast Line, no M25.
My first statement stands: Your assertion that the UK GDP is £10bn worse off as a result of the Channel Tunnel being built is wrong.
The UK economy would be better off if the investment put into the channeltunnel had been used to produce goods with a zero value? Good grief, how did you work that one out?
And you expect the return on initial investment to be made in what, one year, two years?
No, of course not. The Channel Tunnel is expected to generate revenue for decades. But the Net Present Value of those revenues plus all other benefits of the tunnel (e.g. consumer surplus) is far less than the NPV of the cost of building and maintaining it. The planners massively overestimated the number of people who would use the tunnel and massively underestimated the cost of building it.
If your measure were to be used before any UK public investment in infrastructure coluld be approved, we would have no M1, no East Coast Line, no M25.
It’s not “my measure.” It’s standard cost-benefit accounting. And no, it doesn’t mean no public infrastructure investment could be approved.
My first statement stands: Your assertion that the UK GDP is £10bn worse off as a result of the Channel Tunnel being built is wrong.
You can repeat it as many times as you like, but it’ll still be wrong. Read the study I cited.
The UK economy would be better off if the investment put into the channeltunnel had been used to produce goods with a zero value? Good grief, how did you work that one out?
No, with zero NET value (value to consumers minus cost of production), because zero net value is better than negative net value.
Oh yeah, then why do the people I now over yonder call it (endearingly) “Late Great Western?” Hmmmmm!?
Generally in agreement with GraemeH below, but I do have memories of some spectacularly grim trains provided by Richard “I wanna fly spaceships” Branson’s Virgin which were literally swimming in Super High Intensity Training from blockages. Which is decidedly un-fun when doing the Edinburgh to London run.
Gary W is sort-of right about rail getting a subsidy, but so does every car driver in the world (see comment above about one of the UKs very few toll-funded motorways, which I’ve used less than 1/10 of the times that I’ve done that route since it was built). Personally, whenever I have to go to “the Smoke” (London) for an interview or meeting, I push my transport organisers to put me onto the overnight sleeper train in preference to taking a flight at horrible o’clock in the alarm clocks. It’s about the same price as a fully-flexible ticket to an airport that is still an hour or so outside central London. But then again, I have to sit through a 15 minute video about what to do if the helicopter crashes and inverts in water most times I fly. Really cheerful. It’s been 6 years since my last in-flight emergency ; I should be due one soon. Haven’t had to swim home. Yet.
In the U.S., road infrastructure is funded mostly through taxes and fees levied on drivers, mainly the gas tax and vehicle registration tax. There is a subsidy, but it’s very small — about 1 cent per passenger-mile.
In Europe, gas taxes are much higher, and road tolls are more common. Revenues from these sources are almost certainly more than sufficient to pay for road infrastructure. The government most likely makes a profit from road users, and uses the extra revenue to pay for other things — like rail infrastructure.
Apparently, in GaryLand, the petroleum industry isn’t subsidized….
b&
All energy is subsidized. For rail users, this is an additional subsidy over and above the enormous subsidies they receive for the construction and maintenance of infrastructure.
…and, also in GaryLand, the Law of Conservation doesn’t apply and the same 55-gallon drum of crude moves the same number of passengers the same number of miles on rails as in SUVs.
Haven’t I told you about the First Rule of Holes, Gary? I’m sure I have.
If you want to make the arguments you’re trying to make, you need to do a total lifetime cost / benefit analysis of the complete system, from resource extraction (for both capital and consumables) through to payload delivery and including externialities such as pollution.
But you’re not going to do that. Why? Because the answers don’t line up with your fantasies.
What you will do is pout that I haven’t spoon-fed you the answers. That’s okay. You’re good at pouting.
b&
Most private automobiles are not SUVs. And trains often run with most of their seats empty. Energy consumption per passenger-mile may by higher by rail than automobile. In any case, no plausible difference in energy subsidies (or pollution externalities) could possibly offset the huge subsidies rail users receive for direct capital and operating costs. Rail users make out like bandits. If tickets were priced at anything close to the actual cost of providing the service, rail would be even less popular than it is. Even in Europe, where governments pour hundreds of billions of dollars into rail subsidies, it has only a small and shrinking share of the market.
Upcoming advances in automobile technology — increased automation and electrification — will almost certainly further increase the dominance of cars. Long-distance rail will find it even harder to compete, and urban mass transit will likely disappear almost entirely.
I hope the Koch brothers pay you well. If not, you should ask them for a raise.
b&
Interesting, and quite the reverse of my experience.
In my experience the privatised service is worse quality, and much more expensive, than the old nationalised industry, despite the greater sums of taxpayers’ money being spent on it.
On the plus side, the stations are much nicer now.
As for the bumper sticker … nice, but if I put one of those on my car, it would be keyed within seconds in any parking lot I cared to leave it in.
I like the finish of my car, thanks.
Ah, those peaceful, loving Christians, &c.
/@
How about: “I am a creationist. I believe man unintelligently designed God.”
Try one of these. Attaches to your rear windscreen: paintwork saved!
http://www.darwinfish.co.uk/dawkinsfish.html
That wouldn’t help. The damage isn’t caused by the sticker but by goddies who want to teach the evil secularist a lesson by vandalizing the car.
Here is an answer: Buy some flexible magnetic vinyl sheeting large enough to hold the bumper sticker. Put the sticker on the sheet, trim it to size, then stick it on one of the metal surfaces of the car, like the back of the trunk lid. When you park, especially near a church, you can remove the sticker and put it in your trunk, thereby becoming a “stealth” secularist.
It always worked for me. I had one of these on my car with a sticker that said, “Jesus, Save Me From Your Worshippers”. When I had to attend my father’s Catholic funeral, it was convenient to be able to take it off temporarily.
Interested to know, generally, where you live. Southern US? US bible belt? The Vatican?
Stick the sticker on someone else’s car then.
When was the last time that you looked at your (rear) bumper as you approached your car?
Mirror print it and stick it on your front bumper ; or do people not use their rear-view mirrors in your country?
I used to have a Darwin fish on the back of my trunk on my car about ten years ago. Then one late night some fine Christians stomped my car, broke the windshield, smashed in the hood and roof, and spray painted a circle around my Darwin fish. This was on the southwest side of Chicago.
‘Leaves on the track’? That sounds like the railways in Holland in autumn…
Leaves on the line are no joke.
http://www.raib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/111117_R182011_Stonegate.pdf
Now that’s a sentiment I can get behind! So to speak.
How come God is Capitalized and man isn’t? Also, not to be picky but, it gets old accepting the word man as synonymous with human.
Gods are capitalized because they’re generally large, non-disposable investments with long service lifetimes. Humans, in contrast, are bulk disposable supplies, which is why they should be expensed rather than capitalized.
Demigods should typically be deprecated on a five-year timescale, while you should use seven years for full gods. Agriculture, fertility, and trades gods and demigods may be eligible for a 179 deduction in lieu of a five- or seven-year depreciation.
See IRS Pub 946 for details and instructions.
Cheers,
b&
I liked some pop-psy-evo theory that we developed storytelling just to flirt with potential mates during cave-woman times. This sticker truly honors our great storytelling “instinct”. I’m wondering when it went so bad. Still I have to meet some god that who is no a misogynist