Great Britain and the rest of Europe have always had very extensive rail systems which emerged throughout the Industrial Revolution. You might say that high-speed rail is the icing on Europe's (including the UK) cake.
In this article from a trade journal, the Brits. appear to understand that the fundamentals are at issue. Their entire railway system is overdue for an overhaul.
In the US, we're suddenly hearing a great deal more about our passenger rail system, Amtrak. We don't have many competing passenger rail operators (as we once did). Amtak has pretty much a lock on this business. And they are doing a lousy job. We've already listed many of their shortcomings. Perhaps being a 'sole-source provider' is one of them.
The point here is that before (not during or after) we lay our high-speed rail icing on our barely existing "cake," we better take a look at the Amtrak fundamentals and fix those first.
To put this as succinctly as possible, high-speed rail will not cure Amtrak's many problems.
In many places, especially California which is so determined to have high-speed rail, Amtrak barely exists. And, if we are told that Amtrak is actually doing an adequate job here, then the HSR system shouldn't have to be invented out of whole cloth, but should capitalize on the current Amtrak passenger system. Which is it? Amtrak is already performing well in California, or not?
I'm constantly amazed that all our high-speed rail promoters in California and elsewhere are perfectly satisfied to develop HSR capacity here with the technologies already in operation in other countries, off the shelf, so to speak.
We exist with a barely functioning Amtrak system, and therefore have the opportunity for major innovative technologies, just as we broke ground with computers. Instead of looking to our own future (which this President wants to "win"), we are looking at other countries' recent past and copying that. What better symptom of a failing nation do you need?
===================================
Ellie Zolfagharifard
Special Projects Editor
The Engineer
On the right track
20 May 2011 | By Ellie Zolfagharifard
When television’s Richard Wilson was charged £139 for forgetting his senior railcard during the Channel 4 ‘Train Journeys from Hell’ programme, the “One foot in the grave star” couldn’t believe it.
‘I presume this is going to happen on the way back,’ he cried. ‘I’m going to be charged £280, which is ridiculous.’ At one point during filming, Wilson decided to sits in the toilet for lack of seating in the carriage. ‘Is it always like this?’, he asked a fellow passenger.
It’s probably not every day you come across Victor Meldrew in the toilets of your commuter train. But no doubt the experience of being on an overcrowded carriage with one person’s elbow in your face and another screaming dinner instructions into your ear is a familiar one.
The government claims that initiatives such as High Speed Two, the proposed high speed line between London and the Midlands, will change all of this. They hope it’ll turn us back into a nation of train-lovers who want nothing more than to spend a day watching the scenic British countryside roll past as we sit back and relax in our luxury carriages.
But as the McNulty review made clear yesterday, it’s going to take far more than high speed rail services and refurbished trains to transform our experience of the railways. The industry doesn’t simply need a facelift, it needs a complete overhaul in structure, pricing and operation.
In his report, Sir Roy McNulty, the former Civil Aviation Authority chairman, said that the rail industry needs to cut costs by 30 per cent by 2019 to bring it into line with other European railways. He advised the government to undertake a full review of fares policy and structures, ‘aiming to move towards a system that is seen to be less complex and more equitable.’
The main culprits in our poor level of service, according to the report, are fragmentation of structures and interfaces, the ways in which the role of government and industry have evolved, ineffective incentives and a franchising system that doesn’t encourage cost reduction.
McNulty’s solution, however, is not as radical as some might have hoped. Among other things, he proposes simplification of the system, balancing fares and improving inefficient work practices. Implementing all his recommendations, he believes, could save the public coffers between £700m and £1bn annually by 2019.
Responding to the review, Prof Rod Smith, president of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, said: ‘The report falls short of recommending a wholesale restructuring of the railways and it will remain to be seen whether the proposals will be enough to address the inefficiencies of the current system.
‘Key tests for the new system will be the speed at which new, more efficient technologies can be adopted, and whether there will be sufficient confidence from the engineering supply chain to make the investments needed to improve the efficiency of railway projects and operations.’
Technology’s role in all of this is largely focused on the improving information systems, enhancing communication and increasing the sale of tickets- all of these issues have suffered from a lack of coordinated action across the industry.
But the report doesn’t detail any radical high-tech plans that would provide a silver bullet solution.
And perhaps that’s because there isn’t one. This could be the one area where a common sense approach will provide far better gains to the traveling public than any high-tech system could.
That’s not to say there isn’t a place for radical technological solutions in the rail network. But before that happens, we need sensible solutions that bring the industry together, and that is something politicians still need to work on.
Innovation flourishes under good conditions, and the rail network needs to first get the basics right, before any real change can happen.
