As rail passengers face months of problems, is Southampton set to get a reputation for disruption?

Daily Echo: Jim Morgan of South West Trains Jim Morgan of South West Trains

IT is the multi-million pound project that will bring Southampton’s railway network up to standard.

A total of 30 new sets of points will be added between Southampton Central and Redbridge stations to improve the reliability of trains at a cost of £20million.

But thousands of train passengers could have their travel plans thrown into chaos as the improvement project starts today.

The work will see every service through Southampton Central cancelled on weekends from March 16 to May 4 and the line between Southampton Central and Brockenhurst will be closed today and tomorrow.

Now fears have been raised Southampton will get a reputation as a “city of disruption” as the work effectively cuts the station off the network at weekends.

It comes after drivers were caught up in traffic chaos several times since the turn of the year by a long-running roadworks project near the docks.

Indeed if you type the words “traffic chaos” into Internet search engine Google the first option it offers is “traffic chaos Southampton”.

Councillor Royston Smith, the city’s Tory group leader and parliamentary candidate for Southampton Itchen, has even called for rail passengers to be allowed to travel half price to soften the blow of having to use replacement bus services until the work is finished on May 4.

He told the Daily Echo: “We have had significant disruption in Southampton that could have been avoided, such as the problem with the roads with the cruise ships in and when the football is on. We are going to have more disruption on the back of that.

“When you have disruption on top of disruption you build up a reputation that Southampton is a difficult place to get to.

“I understand you cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs and it has to be done, but if passengers are going to be affected let them travel half price.”

However Jim Morgan, infrastructure director at Network Rail and the South West Trains Alliance, which is carrying out the work, said the work was down to the success of Southampton as a city.

Nick Farthing, from Hampshire Chamber of Commerce, agrees.

He argued that while the work will cause inconvenience at weekends, it shows there is an economic buzz around Southampton.

He said: “It is obvious there will be some disruption but once completed, the railway will be more resilient and robust and allow even more passenger and freight traffic through the city, freeing up capacity for business and others that have to be on the roads “The impact on the city of Southampton will no doubt be felt during the works but I don’t feel this will detract from people wishing to visit, shop, or stay in the city.

“There are some great things going on in the area at the moment – the Arts Quarter under way, Royal Pier signed up, Watermark West Quay starting this summer, new developments taking place in Ocean Village, St Mary’s, the city centre and at the City Gateway at Swaythling, to mention a few.

“A good sign of a local economy is the number of |construction cranes in position – take a look across the city skyline to see how well we are doing.”

As reported by the Daily Echo, concerns have been raised that the closures will have impact on businesses in the city, and people travelling by train to events including the Sainsbury’s Sport Relief Mile, Easter fair, and St George’s Day parade will all face disruption.

Latest Office of Rail Regulator (ORR) national figures show that rail passenger numbers in Southampton increased by 2.4 per cent during 2012 and 2013 – and continues to increase year on year.

Southampton Itchen MP John Denham said investment in Southampton railway infrastructure was vital to cope with increasing numbers of rail users.

He said: “Catching a train from central station it’s obvious to see there is pressure there with more people travelling.

“We have got to remember that people travelling on South West Trains pay a very high price. The work is essentially being paid for by passengers while paying out a lot of money to the Treasury at the same time.

“It is good to see investment but with rising fares going up faster than wages, passengers need to get a fair deal out of this.”

Chris Bluemel, Green Party candidate for the Freemantle ward, said: “The Southampton and District Green Party welcomes the news that passenger numbers have grown in the Southampton area, and the investment by Network Rail into the track infrastructure.

“It is regrettable that this will mean that the line will have to close on some weekends, but we accept that this is unavoidable.

“We would call on all of the train operators to ensure |that the replacement bus services are as efficient |and easy for passengers to |use as possible.”

A Network Rail spokesman said: “The line is fit for purpose – it carries millions of people every week – but obviously from time to time requires maintenance and upgrades to keep it that way.

“Our railway network gets busier every year and we work hard to keep it running safely and reliably.

“There will always be the need to maintain and upgrade our infrastructure and, as ever, any work which involves disruption to passengers will be communicated in advance to keep disruption to a minimum.

“More than anything, the changes passengers are likely to notice most in the years ahead centre on the plans to improve the area in and around the station itself.”

Comments (35)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:23am Sun 9 Mar 14

SotonGreen says...

It isn't unavoidable, they could do the work at a slower pace overnight. It would just cost them more.
It isn't unavoidable, they could do the work at a slower pace overnight. It would just cost them more. SotonGreen
  • Score: 6

9:02am Sun 9 Mar 14

mickey01 says...

who agreed for all the stores to be at west quay who agreed to have the football stadium at northam any body with half a brain would know the infrastructure wasn't going to cope with all this near a busy port this seems a bit of closing the stable door to me
who agreed for all the stores to be at west quay who agreed to have the football stadium at northam any body with half a brain would know the infrastructure wasn't going to cope with all this near a busy port this seems a bit of closing the stable door to me mickey01
  • Score: 8

9:13am Sun 9 Mar 14

Zeo says...

If it doesn't get done, those worn out rails will cost a lot of lives instead of a lot of money.
If it doesn't get done, those worn out rails will cost a lot of lives instead of a lot of money. Zeo
  • Score: 11

9:16am Sun 9 Mar 14

bigfella777 says...

It's great, all we need is a good park and ride service like Bournemouth and Winchester have, all you need is a piece of land, it could be privately run, if I was a millionaire I would definitely look into it.
Add to that they need to make as much cruise traffic as they can use dock gate 20 or even have a new entrance somewhere around the crossroads at the bottom of Regents Park Rd. The cruise co's are raking it in so why couldn't they fund it between them?
It cannot be much of a 21st century strategy to cause more and more gridlock in the city not to mention the pollution we are all breathing in, as has been reported this week.
So come on all you six figure earners at the council, this is what you are paid for, time to get busy and provide some real solutions, the works at Platform Rd are just going to move the problem further down the road.
It's great, all we need is a good park and ride service like Bournemouth and Winchester have, all you need is a piece of land, it could be privately run, if I was a millionaire I would definitely look into it. Add to that they need to make as much cruise traffic as they can use dock gate 20 or even have a new entrance somewhere around the crossroads at the bottom of Regents Park Rd. The cruise co's are raking it in so why couldn't they fund it between them? It cannot be much of a 21st century strategy to cause more and more gridlock in the city not to mention the pollution we are all breathing in, as has been reported this week. So come on all you six figure earners at the council, this is what you are paid for, time to get busy and provide some real solutions, the works at Platform Rd are just going to move the problem further down the road. bigfella777
  • Score: -3

9:39am Sun 9 Mar 14

The Wickham Man says...

SotonGreen wrote:
It isn't unavoidable, they could do the work at a slower pace overnight. It would just cost them more.
THat's rubbish of course, based on no understanding whatsoever. Typiocal Green in fact. So you think that every night at 5am they put all the track back again? If you want to know how facile that argument is try looking up the REading Station track remodelling to see what is involved in infrastructure upgrades.
[quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote: It isn't unavoidable, they could do the work at a slower pace overnight. It would just cost them more.[/p][/quote]THat's rubbish of course, based on no understanding whatsoever. Typiocal Green in fact. So you think that every night at 5am they put all the track back again? If you want to know how facile that argument is try looking up the REading Station track remodelling to see what is involved in infrastructure upgrades. The Wickham Man
  • Score: 4

9:58am Sun 9 Mar 14

sotonbusdriver says...

Indeed if you type the words “traffic chaos” into Internet search engine Google the first option it offers is “traffic chaos Southampton”.
Maybe you need to stop using the over sponsored and hyped search engine "Google", as on "bing" Southampton is not mentioned on he first page at all....
The Cities roads have been at gridlock for nearly a decade.
But what makes you wonder if the Council is behind the gridlock by using the traffic lights against the traffic is, when on odd occasions traffic lights fail for a while, especially over rush hour, the traffic is actually better, flowing through the city faster with less queues.
Maybe the answer is to turn off the traffic lights at the weekends while the work is going on so if flows better..
The Council makes so much of its cash strapped budget from parking fee's, it is amazing that thy make it so difficult to get into town and park In the first place.
Indeed if you type the words “traffic chaos” into Internet search engine Google the first option it offers is “traffic chaos Southampton”. Maybe you need to stop using the over sponsored and hyped search engine "Google", as on "bing" Southampton is not mentioned on he first page at all.... The Cities roads have been at gridlock for nearly a decade. But what makes you wonder if the Council is behind the gridlock by using the traffic lights against the traffic is, when on odd occasions traffic lights fail for a while, especially over rush hour, the traffic is actually better, flowing through the city faster with less queues. Maybe the answer is to turn off the traffic lights at the weekends while the work is going on so if flows better.. The Council makes so much of its cash strapped budget from parking fee's, it is amazing that thy make it so difficult to get into town and park In the first place. sotonbusdriver
  • Score: 5

10:30am Sun 9 Mar 14

Hentis says...

So the comment "
"As rail passengers face months of problems," really equates down to around 416 hours worth of work based on the premise that an engineering possession starts at 01:00 am Saturday morning and ends at 05:00 am the following Monday for 8 weekends in a row. Months of disruption....really
?

Also to the person that said do it overnight....again 416 hours worth of work based on the premise that a possession starts at 01:00 am and finishes at 05:00 am (4 hours) would take 104 (overnight) possessions NOT including weekends which would equate to around 20 weeks of 4 hours work. wheres the logic in that.

At the end of the day the work has to be done. If it was left and there was an accident that caused significant delay or even death to the general public no doubt this local rag, The Government and the public will be all of one voice in saying how bad Network Rail are for not replacing any of the point work any sooner. If any of you lot think can do it better than Network Rail for half the price or disruption then please feel free put up or shut up!
So the comment " "As rail passengers face months of problems," really equates down to around 416 hours worth of work based on the premise that an engineering possession starts at 01:00 am Saturday morning and ends at 05:00 am the following Monday for 8 weekends in a row. Months of disruption....really ? Also to the person that said do it overnight....again 416 hours worth of work based on the premise that a possession starts at 01:00 am and finishes at 05:00 am (4 hours) would take 104 (overnight) possessions NOT including weekends which would equate to around 20 weeks of 4 hours work. wheres the logic in that. At the end of the day the work has to be done. If it was left and there was an accident that caused significant delay or even death to the general public no doubt this local rag, The Government and the public will be all of one voice in saying how bad Network Rail are for not replacing any of the point work any sooner. If any of you lot think can do it better than Network Rail for half the price or disruption then please feel free put up or shut up! Hentis
  • Score: 1

10:36am Sun 9 Mar 14

Bobs Your Uncle ? says...

ha ha no reputation to lose , afterall ,number three in cxxp towns survey.
ha ha no reputation to lose , afterall ,number three in cxxp towns survey. Bobs Your Uncle ?
  • Score: 4

11:00am Sun 9 Mar 14

dango says...

"Indeed if you type the words “traffic chaos” into Internet search engine Google the first option it offers is “traffic chaos Southampton”.
Yes, very easy to sway the search results by setting your location to Southampton in Google.
If you remove your location, Southampton traffic chaos doesn't even make the first page on the results.
Very dubious 'journalism' IMO
"Indeed if you type the words “traffic chaos” into Internet search engine Google the first option it offers is “traffic chaos Southampton”. Yes, very easy to sway the search results by setting your location to Southampton in Google. If you remove your location, Southampton traffic chaos doesn't even make the first page on the results. Very dubious 'journalism' IMO dango
  • Score: 9

11:08am Sun 9 Mar 14

derek james says...

lets face it railways are a relic of the victorian era, they're expensive to maintain and inefficient.however the infrastructure ,the railway routes and the stations in town centres could still be used with the railways tarmaced over and replaced with buses specially designed
lets face it railways are a relic of the victorian era, they're expensive to maintain and inefficient.however the infrastructure ,the railway routes and the stations in town centres could still be used with the railways tarmaced over and replaced with buses specially designed derek james
  • Score: -14

11:39am Sun 9 Mar 14

WarwickNights says...

"At risk" of a bad reputation? We're number 4 in the guide to Crap Towns and that's being generous on the part of the authors.
"At risk" of a bad reputation? We're number 4 in the guide to Crap Towns and that's being generous on the part of the authors. WarwickNights
  • Score: 3

11:41am Sun 9 Mar 14

Bagamn says...

derek james wrote:
lets face it railways are a relic of the victorian era, they're expensive to maintain and inefficient.however the infrastructure ,the railway routes and the stations in town centres could still be used with the railways tarmaced over and replaced with buses specially designed
What a stupid view to take! Most of the goods are moved around the Country by rail, especially exports. As an Ex lorry driver and a bus driver, I have seen transport get worse over the years. Too many people want their little bit of space on the road at the time as millions of others, causing gridlock. If the millions who work in our cities all took to the road, they would never get to work. We have some of the best railways in the world, so let's keep it that way.
[quote][p][bold]derek james[/bold] wrote: lets face it railways are a relic of the victorian era, they're expensive to maintain and inefficient.however the infrastructure ,the railway routes and the stations in town centres could still be used with the railways tarmaced over and replaced with buses specially designed[/p][/quote]What a stupid view to take! Most of the goods are moved around the Country by rail, especially exports. As an Ex lorry driver and a bus driver, I have seen transport get worse over the years. Too many people want their little bit of space on the road at the time as millions of others, causing gridlock. If the millions who work in our cities all took to the road, they would never get to work. We have some of the best railways in the world, so let's keep it that way. Bagamn
  • Score: 8

12:45pm Sun 9 Mar 14

03alpe01 says...

Southampton does have a bad reputation, but it has nothing to do with the railways. Recent flooding obviously can't be helped and this is vital maintenance. Where Southampton fails and fails badly is in terms of what's on offer. No vision, nowhere to take the kids and the Council seem to think all these duplicate developments are God's gift to the City.
Southampton does have a bad reputation, but it has nothing to do with the railways. Recent flooding obviously can't be helped and this is vital maintenance. Where Southampton fails and fails badly is in terms of what's on offer. No vision, nowhere to take the kids and the Council seem to think all these duplicate developments are God's gift to the City. 03alpe01
  • Score: 6

1:10pm Sun 9 Mar 14

OSPREYSAINT says...

Short memory some people, it wasn't that long ago the Southampton railway was shut week-end after week-end while the tunnel was repaired and modified, people managed then and will do so again. The railway is not responsible for grid lock on the roads that is purely down to selfish road users, however with proper planning and decent passenger train services, i.e. the Waterside line, it could alleviate a lot of the congestion. There is just a "head in the tarmac" approach to the problem which is unlikely to change in the near road orientated future so the answer is put up and shut up.
Short memory some people, it wasn't that long ago the Southampton railway was shut week-end after week-end while the tunnel was repaired and modified, people managed then and will do so again. The railway is not responsible for grid lock on the roads that is purely down to selfish road users, however with proper planning and decent passenger train services, i.e. the Waterside line, it could alleviate a lot of the congestion. There is just a "head in the tarmac" approach to the problem which is unlikely to change in the near road orientated future so the answer is put up and shut up. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 5

1:14pm Sun 9 Mar 14

OSPREYSAINT says...

derek james wrote:
lets face it railways are a relic of the victorian era, they're expensive to maintain and inefficient.however the infrastructure ,the railway routes and the stations in town centres could still be used with the railways tarmaced over and replaced with buses specially designed
Have you noticed the standard of railways in Japan, France, Germany lately, nothing much Victorian about some of them.
[quote][p][bold]derek james[/bold] wrote: lets face it railways are a relic of the victorian era, they're expensive to maintain and inefficient.however the infrastructure ,the railway routes and the stations in town centres could still be used with the railways tarmaced over and replaced with buses specially designed[/p][/quote]Have you noticed the standard of railways in Japan, France, Germany lately, nothing much Victorian about some of them. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 6

1:19pm Sun 9 Mar 14

solomum says...

derek james wrote:
lets face it railways are a relic of the victorian era, they're expensive to maintain and inefficient.however the infrastructure ,the railway routes and the stations in town centres could still be used with the railways tarmaced over and replaced with buses specially designed
Replace trains with buses. That is the most ridiculous thing I have heard in a long time. Who's up for the night bus to Scotland? Could be a long journey.
[quote][p][bold]derek james[/bold] wrote: lets face it railways are a relic of the victorian era, they're expensive to maintain and inefficient.however the infrastructure ,the railway routes and the stations in town centres could still be used with the railways tarmaced over and replaced with buses specially designed[/p][/quote]Replace trains with buses. That is the most ridiculous thing I have heard in a long time. Who's up for the night bus to Scotland? Could be a long journey. solomum
  • Score: 8

1:40pm Sun 9 Mar 14

loosehead says...

mickey01 wrote:
who agreed for all the stores to be at west quay who agreed to have the football stadium at northam any body with half a brain would know the infrastructure wasn't going to cope with all this near a busy port this seems a bit of closing the stable door to me
Stadium was Labour Toys are us & the Marlands was Tory but for the live of me I can't remember who signed us up for West Quay as all the development including Cinemas & disco's come under West Quay.
I can't stand Alan Whitehead but supported his monorail around the city & would love to see it happen
[quote][p][bold]mickey01[/bold] wrote: who agreed for all the stores to be at west quay who agreed to have the football stadium at northam any body with half a brain would know the infrastructure wasn't going to cope with all this near a busy port this seems a bit of closing the stable door to me[/p][/quote]Stadium was Labour Toys are us & the Marlands was Tory but for the live of me I can't remember who signed us up for West Quay as all the development including Cinemas & disco's come under West Quay. I can't stand Alan Whitehead but supported his monorail around the city & would love to see it happen loosehead
  • Score: 1

1:41pm Sun 9 Mar 14

loosehead says...

solomum wrote:
derek james wrote:
lets face it railways are a relic of the victorian era, they're expensive to maintain and inefficient.however the infrastructure ,the railway routes and the stations in town centres could still be used with the railways tarmaced over and replaced with buses specially designed
Replace trains with buses. That is the most ridiculous thing I have heard in a long time. Who's up for the night bus to Scotland? Could be a long journey.
I've done the night service to Liverpool & will happily pay more to go by train than face that journey again
[quote][p][bold]solomum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]derek james[/bold] wrote: lets face it railways are a relic of the victorian era, they're expensive to maintain and inefficient.however the infrastructure ,the railway routes and the stations in town centres could still be used with the railways tarmaced over and replaced with buses specially designed[/p][/quote]Replace trains with buses. That is the most ridiculous thing I have heard in a long time. Who's up for the night bus to Scotland? Could be a long journey.[/p][/quote]I've done the night service to Liverpool & will happily pay more to go by train than face that journey again loosehead
  • Score: 4

3:28pm Sun 9 Mar 14

03alpe01 says...

http://www.craptowns
returns.co.uk/2012/0
9/25/southampton/

An interesting forum!
http://www.craptowns returns.co.uk/2012/0 9/25/southampton/ An interesting forum! 03alpe01
  • Score: 0

6:07pm Sun 9 Mar 14

Charlie Bucket says...

sotonbusdriver wrote:
Indeed if you type the words “traffic chaos” into Internet search engine Google the first option it offers is “traffic chaos Southampton”.
Maybe you need to stop using the over sponsored and hyped search engine "Google", as on "bing" Southampton is not mentioned on he first page at all....
The Cities roads have been at gridlock for nearly a decade.
But what makes you wonder if the Council is behind the gridlock by using the traffic lights against the traffic is, when on odd occasions traffic lights fail for a while, especially over rush hour, the traffic is actually better, flowing through the city faster with less queues.
Maybe the answer is to turn off the traffic lights at the weekends while the work is going on so if flows better..
The Council makes so much of its cash strapped budget from parking fee's, it is amazing that thy make it so difficult to get into town and park In the first place.
Over-sponsored? It appears you don't understand how advertising works.
[quote][p][bold]sotonbusdriver[/bold] wrote: Indeed if you type the words “traffic chaos” into Internet search engine Google the first option it offers is “traffic chaos Southampton”. Maybe you need to stop using the over sponsored and hyped search engine "Google", as on "bing" Southampton is not mentioned on he first page at all.... The Cities roads have been at gridlock for nearly a decade. But what makes you wonder if the Council is behind the gridlock by using the traffic lights against the traffic is, when on odd occasions traffic lights fail for a while, especially over rush hour, the traffic is actually better, flowing through the city faster with less queues. Maybe the answer is to turn off the traffic lights at the weekends while the work is going on so if flows better.. The Council makes so much of its cash strapped budget from parking fee's, it is amazing that thy make it so difficult to get into town and park In the first place.[/p][/quote]Over-sponsored? It appears you don't understand how advertising works. Charlie Bucket
  • Score: 0

6:56pm Sun 9 Mar 14

Family Man says...

Is Southampton at risk of a "bad reputation"? I have no conception of why anyone would even contemplate that question!! I suspect it is very much a case that you can get used to anything so people who live here either ignore it, accept it or don't even see it... Living a few miles outside Southampton having lived there for some years, we notice even more just how dirty, scruffy and rundown it is, and that applies to the residents as well, not just huge streets and houses. Travelling into, around in or across. Southampton is always a nightmare, it is as if traffic flow has been designed to maximise delay, inconvenience and pollution. Road works are timed and sited as if to cause the maximum damage. Yes you can come in by train but from the east it is time consuming and you are then faced with an outdated inefficient road system. The shops are good, but largely consist of characterless standards you can find anywhere and everywhere... The whole place is in dire need of radical overhaul and targeted (rather than frittered) investment. Flagship means "bigger than average" flats, nothing else. And it's sea heritage squandered and blocked from view by apartments... Bad reputation? A visit once a month, if we can't avoid it, is more than sufficient confirmation...
Is Southampton at risk of a "bad reputation"? I have no conception of why anyone would even contemplate that question!! I suspect it is very much a case that you can get used to anything so people who live here either ignore it, accept it or don't even see it... Living a few miles outside Southampton having lived there for some years, we notice even more just how dirty, scruffy and rundown it is, and that applies to the residents as well, not just huge streets and houses. Travelling into, around in or across. Southampton is always a nightmare, it is as if traffic flow has been designed to maximise delay, inconvenience and pollution. Road works are timed and sited as if to cause the maximum damage. Yes you can come in by train but from the east it is time consuming and you are then faced with an outdated inefficient road system. The shops are good, but largely consist of characterless standards you can find anywhere and everywhere... The whole place is in dire need of radical overhaul and targeted (rather than frittered) investment. Flagship means "bigger than average" flats, nothing else. And it's sea heritage squandered and blocked from view by apartments... Bad reputation? A visit once a month, if we can't avoid it, is more than sufficient confirmation... Family Man
  • Score: -2

7:25pm Sun 9 Mar 14

OSPREYSAINT says...

mickey01 wrote:
OSPREYSAINT wrote:
Short memory some people, it wasn't that long ago the Southampton railway was shut week-end after week-end while the tunnel was repaired and modified, people managed then and will do so again. The railway is not responsible for grid lock on the roads that is purely down to selfish road users, however with proper planning and decent passenger train services, i.e. the Waterside line, it could alleviate a lot of the congestion. There is just a "head in the tarmac" approach to the problem which is unlikely to change in the near road orientated future so the answer is put up and shut up.
di@k head
Takes one to find one.
[quote][p][bold]mickey01[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: Short memory some people, it wasn't that long ago the Southampton railway was shut week-end after week-end while the tunnel was repaired and modified, people managed then and will do so again. The railway is not responsible for grid lock on the roads that is purely down to selfish road users, however with proper planning and decent passenger train services, i.e. the Waterside line, it could alleviate a lot of the congestion. There is just a "head in the tarmac" approach to the problem which is unlikely to change in the near road orientated future so the answer is put up and shut up.[/p][/quote]di@k head[/p][/quote]Takes one to find one. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

7:31pm Sun 9 Mar 14

OSPREYSAINT says...

mickey01 wrote:
who agreed for all the stores to be at west quay who agreed to have the football stadium at northam any body with half a brain would know the infrastructure wasn't going to cope with all this near a busy port this seems a bit of closing the stable door to me
The West Quay is the main shopping centre, where do suggest the main stores should be?
Not a lot wrong with the Stadium being at Northam, it was a case of needs must, after the Nimbys got Stoneham thrown out.

With a proper planned infrastructure and a sensible road policy the "busy port" wouldn't be a problem.
[quote][p][bold]mickey01[/bold] wrote: who agreed for all the stores to be at west quay who agreed to have the football stadium at northam any body with half a brain would know the infrastructure wasn't going to cope with all this near a busy port this seems a bit of closing the stable door to me[/p][/quote]The West Quay is the main shopping centre, where do suggest the main stores should be? Not a lot wrong with the Stadium being at Northam, it was a case of needs must, after the Nimbys got Stoneham thrown out. With a proper planned infrastructure and a sensible road policy the "busy port" wouldn't be a problem. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 1

7:34pm Sun 9 Mar 14

redsnapper says...

You can bet that Rayment has no idea of what is going on, so don,t expect any remedial traffic solutions from that department.
You can bet that Rayment has no idea of what is going on, so don,t expect any remedial traffic solutions from that department. redsnapper
  • Score: 4

8:55pm Sun 9 Mar 14

nanana33 says...

Southampton needs a monorail or something like the dlr in london, I would def use it!
Southampton needs a monorail or something like the dlr in london, I would def use it! nanana33
  • Score: 5

9:42pm Sun 9 Mar 14

derek james says...

Bagamn wrote:
derek james wrote:
lets face it railways are a relic of the victorian era, they're expensive to maintain and inefficient.however the infrastructure ,the railway routes and the stations in town centres could still be used with the railways tarmaced over and replaced with buses specially designed
What a stupid view to take! Most of the goods are moved around the Country by rail, especially exports. As an Ex lorry driver and a bus driver, I have seen transport get worse over the years. Too many people want their little bit of space on the road at the time as millions of others, causing gridlock. If the millions who work in our cities all took to the road, they would never get to work. We have some of the best railways in the world, so let's keep it that way.
my "stupid" view was clearly too complicated for you, make roads out of the railways and only allow buses and freight vehicles on them (and tony blair).they could rejoin the main road network at junctions.actually 12% of uk freight travels by rail a figure that will get smaller as manufacturing diminishes in the uk
[quote][p][bold]Bagamn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]derek james[/bold] wrote: lets face it railways are a relic of the victorian era, they're expensive to maintain and inefficient.however the infrastructure ,the railway routes and the stations in town centres could still be used with the railways tarmaced over and replaced with buses specially designed[/p][/quote]What a stupid view to take! Most of the goods are moved around the Country by rail, especially exports. As an Ex lorry driver and a bus driver, I have seen transport get worse over the years. Too many people want their little bit of space on the road at the time as millions of others, causing gridlock. If the millions who work in our cities all took to the road, they would never get to work. We have some of the best railways in the world, so let's keep it that way.[/p][/quote]my "stupid" view was clearly too complicated for you, make roads out of the railways and only allow buses and freight vehicles on them (and tony blair).they could rejoin the main road network at junctions.actually 12% of uk freight travels by rail a figure that will get smaller as manufacturing diminishes in the uk derek james
  • Score: -3

9:47pm Sun 9 Mar 14

derek james says...

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
derek james wrote:
lets face it railways are a relic of the victorian era, they're expensive to maintain and inefficient.however the infrastructure ,the railway routes and the stations in town centres could still be used with the railways tarmaced over and replaced with buses specially designed
Have you noticed the standard of railways in Japan, France, Germany lately, nothing much Victorian about some of them.
i know the french railways cost the government an awful lot of money in subsidies although they are affordable to the end user and the high speed networks are especially expensive-it's cheaper to travel by air! most train journies in uk are for passengers
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]derek james[/bold] wrote: lets face it railways are a relic of the victorian era, they're expensive to maintain and inefficient.however the infrastructure ,the railway routes and the stations in town centres could still be used with the railways tarmaced over and replaced with buses specially designed[/p][/quote]Have you noticed the standard of railways in Japan, France, Germany lately, nothing much Victorian about some of them.[/p][/quote]i know the french railways cost the government an awful lot of money in subsidies although they are affordable to the end user and the high speed networks are especially expensive-it's cheaper to travel by air! most train journies in uk are for passengers derek james
  • Score: 0

11:29pm Sun 9 Mar 14

Mary80 says...

If the improvements make it safer and have less accidents surely a few months of misery is worth it in the long run
If the improvements make it safer and have less accidents surely a few months of misery is worth it in the long run Mary80
  • Score: 3

10:29am Mon 10 Mar 14

Andy Locks Heath says...

derek james wrote:
OSPREYSAINT wrote:
derek james wrote:
lets face it railways are a relic of the victorian era, they're expensive to maintain and inefficient.however the infrastructure ,the railway routes and the stations in town centres could still be used with the railways tarmaced over and replaced with buses specially designed
Have you noticed the standard of railways in Japan, France, Germany lately, nothing much Victorian about some of them.
i know the french railways cost the government an awful lot of money in subsidies although they are affordable to the end user and the high speed networks are especially expensive-it's cheaper to travel by air! most train journies in uk are for passengers
Ah yes, air travel. If I travel to a city by rail then I get to that city for the fare paid.. Air travel proponents have this wonderful notion that "Luton" can be described as "London", "Bradford" can be described as "Leeds", "Girona" can be described as "Barcelona" and so on and they forget to add on the time and cost of car/taxi/car park, check in and so on. . Anyone travelling by air has a long and arduous process at either end that negates all the speed in between, not to mention the thrombosis inducing discomfort of the flight itself. And exactly which part of the rail infrastructure is "Victorian?". Last time I looked the only Victorian element was the (road) bridges, which is somewhat ironic to your argument. And by that description would you describe the A5 trunk road as "Roman" technology just because it follows the route of Watling Street? No wonder it's full of potholes!
[quote][p][bold]derek james[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]derek james[/bold] wrote: lets face it railways are a relic of the victorian era, they're expensive to maintain and inefficient.however the infrastructure ,the railway routes and the stations in town centres could still be used with the railways tarmaced over and replaced with buses specially designed[/p][/quote]Have you noticed the standard of railways in Japan, France, Germany lately, nothing much Victorian about some of them.[/p][/quote]i know the french railways cost the government an awful lot of money in subsidies although they are affordable to the end user and the high speed networks are especially expensive-it's cheaper to travel by air! most train journies in uk are for passengers[/p][/quote]Ah yes, air travel. If I travel to a city by rail then I get to that city for the fare paid.. Air travel proponents have this wonderful notion that "Luton" can be described as "London", "Bradford" can be described as "Leeds", "Girona" can be described as "Barcelona" and so on and they forget to add on the time and cost of car/taxi/car park, check in and so on. . Anyone travelling by air has a long and arduous process at either end that negates all the speed in between, not to mention the thrombosis inducing discomfort of the flight itself. And exactly which part of the rail infrastructure is "Victorian?". Last time I looked the only Victorian element was the (road) bridges, which is somewhat ironic to your argument. And by that description would you describe the A5 trunk road as "Roman" technology just because it follows the route of Watling Street? No wonder it's full of potholes! Andy Locks Heath
  • Score: 1

11:50am Mon 10 Mar 14

OSPREYSAINT says...

derek james wrote:
Bagamn wrote:
derek james wrote:
lets face it railways are a relic of the victorian era, they're expensive to maintain and inefficient.however the infrastructure ,the railway routes and the stations in town centres could still be used with the railways tarmaced over and replaced with buses specially designed
What a stupid view to take! Most of the goods are moved around the Country by rail, especially exports. As an Ex lorry driver and a bus driver, I have seen transport get worse over the years. Too many people want their little bit of space on the road at the time as millions of others, causing gridlock. If the millions who work in our cities all took to the road, they would never get to work. We have some of the best railways in the world, so let's keep it that way.
my "stupid" view was clearly too complicated for you, make roads out of the railways and only allow buses and freight vehicles on them (and tony blair).they could rejoin the main road network at junctions.actually 12% of uk freight travels by rail a figure that will get smaller as manufacturing diminishes in the uk
What is the general opinion of the Fareham - Gosport bus route? Would they welcome freight vehicles using it? Your idea isn't stupid, but has many flaws in it.
[quote][p][bold]derek james[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bagamn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]derek james[/bold] wrote: lets face it railways are a relic of the victorian era, they're expensive to maintain and inefficient.however the infrastructure ,the railway routes and the stations in town centres could still be used with the railways tarmaced over and replaced with buses specially designed[/p][/quote]What a stupid view to take! Most of the goods are moved around the Country by rail, especially exports. As an Ex lorry driver and a bus driver, I have seen transport get worse over the years. Too many people want their little bit of space on the road at the time as millions of others, causing gridlock. If the millions who work in our cities all took to the road, they would never get to work. We have some of the best railways in the world, so let's keep it that way.[/p][/quote]my "stupid" view was clearly too complicated for you, make roads out of the railways and only allow buses and freight vehicles on them (and tony blair).they could rejoin the main road network at junctions.actually 12% of uk freight travels by rail a figure that will get smaller as manufacturing diminishes in the uk[/p][/quote]What is the general opinion of the Fareham - Gosport bus route? Would they welcome freight vehicles using it? Your idea isn't stupid, but has many flaws in it. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: -1

1:19pm Mon 10 Mar 14

derek james says...

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
derek james wrote:
Bagamn wrote:
derek james wrote:
lets face it railways are a relic of the victorian era, they're expensive to maintain and inefficient.however the infrastructure ,the railway routes and the stations in town centres could still be used with the railways tarmaced over and replaced with buses specially designed
What a stupid view to take! Most of the goods are moved around the Country by rail, especially exports. As an Ex lorry driver and a bus driver, I have seen transport get worse over the years. Too many people want their little bit of space on the road at the time as millions of others, causing gridlock. If the millions who work in our cities all took to the road, they would never get to work. We have some of the best railways in the world, so let's keep it that way.
my "stupid" view was clearly too complicated for you, make roads out of the railways and only allow buses and freight vehicles on them (and tony blair).they could rejoin the main road network at junctions.actually 12% of uk freight travels by rail a figure that will get smaller as manufacturing diminishes in the uk
What is the general opinion of the Fareham - Gosport bus route? Would they welcome freight vehicles using it? Your idea isn't stupid, but has many flaws in it.
waste of money, oversized buses coming off the route and going through small streets, lots of cars damaged.with self-steering technology becoming more a reality it is more feasible.
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]derek james[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bagamn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]derek james[/bold] wrote: lets face it railways are a relic of the victorian era, they're expensive to maintain and inefficient.however the infrastructure ,the railway routes and the stations in town centres could still be used with the railways tarmaced over and replaced with buses specially designed[/p][/quote]What a stupid view to take! Most of the goods are moved around the Country by rail, especially exports. As an Ex lorry driver and a bus driver, I have seen transport get worse over the years. Too many people want their little bit of space on the road at the time as millions of others, causing gridlock. If the millions who work in our cities all took to the road, they would never get to work. We have some of the best railways in the world, so let's keep it that way.[/p][/quote]my "stupid" view was clearly too complicated for you, make roads out of the railways and only allow buses and freight vehicles on them (and tony blair).they could rejoin the main road network at junctions.actually 12% of uk freight travels by rail a figure that will get smaller as manufacturing diminishes in the uk[/p][/quote]What is the general opinion of the Fareham - Gosport bus route? Would they welcome freight vehicles using it? Your idea isn't stupid, but has many flaws in it.[/p][/quote]waste of money, oversized buses coming off the route and going through small streets, lots of cars damaged.with self-steering technology becoming more a reality it is more feasible. derek james
  • Score: 0

1:20pm Mon 10 Mar 14

derek james says...

solomum wrote:
derek james wrote:
lets face it railways are a relic of the victorian era, they're expensive to maintain and inefficient.however the infrastructure ,the railway routes and the stations in town centres could still be used with the railways tarmaced over and replaced with buses specially designed
Replace trains with buses. That is the most ridiculous thing I have heard in a long time. Who's up for the night bus to Scotland? Could be a long journey.
the night trip to scotland would take the same route as trains, probably the same time
[quote][p][bold]solomum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]derek james[/bold] wrote: lets face it railways are a relic of the victorian era, they're expensive to maintain and inefficient.however the infrastructure ,the railway routes and the stations in town centres could still be used with the railways tarmaced over and replaced with buses specially designed[/p][/quote]Replace trains with buses. That is the most ridiculous thing I have heard in a long time. Who's up for the night bus to Scotland? Could be a long journey.[/p][/quote]the night trip to scotland would take the same route as trains, probably the same time derek james
  • Score: 0

1:25pm Mon 10 Mar 14

derek james says...

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
derek james wrote:
OSPREYSAINT wrote:
derek james wrote:
lets face it railways are a relic of the victorian era, they're expensive to maintain and inefficient.however the infrastructure ,the railway routes and the stations in town centres could still be used with the railways tarmaced over and replaced with buses specially designed
Have you noticed the standard of railways in Japan, France, Germany lately, nothing much Victorian about some of them.
i know the french railways cost the government an awful lot of money in subsidies although they are affordable to the end user and the high speed networks are especially expensive-it's cheaper to travel by air! most train journies in uk are for passengers
Ah yes, air travel. If I travel to a city by rail then I get to that city for the fare paid.. Air travel proponents have this wonderful notion that "Luton" can be described as "London", "Bradford" can be described as "Leeds", "Girona" can be described as "Barcelona" and so on and they forget to add on the time and cost of car/taxi/car park, check in and so on. . Anyone travelling by air has a long and arduous process at either end that negates all the speed in between, not to mention the thrombosis inducing discomfort of the flight itself. And exactly which part of the rail infrastructure is "Victorian?". Last time I looked the only Victorian element was the (road) bridges, which is somewhat ironic to your argument. And by that description would you describe the A5 trunk road as "Roman" technology just because it follows the route of Watling Street? No wonder it's full of potholes!
i was referring to long distance travel in europe where invariably travellers use cheap air over expensive trains, no doubt the departure/arrivals process is a little more quicker than in the uk, probably travel time is the same when all waiting is taken into account
[quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]derek james[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]derek james[/bold] wrote: lets face it railways are a relic of the victorian era, they're expensive to maintain and inefficient.however the infrastructure ,the railway routes and the stations in town centres could still be used with the railways tarmaced over and replaced with buses specially designed[/p][/quote]Have you noticed the standard of railways in Japan, France, Germany lately, nothing much Victorian about some of them.[/p][/quote]i know the french railways cost the government an awful lot of money in subsidies although they are affordable to the end user and the high speed networks are especially expensive-it's cheaper to travel by air! most train journies in uk are for passengers[/p][/quote]Ah yes, air travel. If I travel to a city by rail then I get to that city for the fare paid.. Air travel proponents have this wonderful notion that "Luton" can be described as "London", "Bradford" can be described as "Leeds", "Girona" can be described as "Barcelona" and so on and they forget to add on the time and cost of car/taxi/car park, check in and so on. . Anyone travelling by air has a long and arduous process at either end that negates all the speed in between, not to mention the thrombosis inducing discomfort of the flight itself. And exactly which part of the rail infrastructure is "Victorian?". Last time I looked the only Victorian element was the (road) bridges, which is somewhat ironic to your argument. And by that description would you describe the A5 trunk road as "Roman" technology just because it follows the route of Watling Street? No wonder it's full of potholes![/p][/quote]i was referring to long distance travel in europe where invariably travellers use cheap air over expensive trains, no doubt the departure/arrivals process is a little more quicker than in the uk, probably travel time is the same when all waiting is taken into account derek james
  • Score: 0

6:54pm Mon 10 Mar 14

The Wickham Man says...

derek james wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
derek james wrote:
OSPREYSAINT wrote:
derek james wrote:
lets face it railways are a relic of the victorian era, they're expensive to maintain and inefficient.however the infrastructure ,the railway routes and the stations in town centres could still be used with the railways tarmaced over and replaced with buses specially designed
Have you noticed the standard of railways in Japan, France, Germany lately, nothing much Victorian about some of them.
i know the french railways cost the government an awful lot of money in subsidies although they are affordable to the end user and the high speed networks are especially expensive-it's cheaper to travel by air! most train journies in uk are for passengers
Ah yes, air travel. If I travel to a city by rail then I get to that city for the fare paid.. Air travel proponents have this wonderful notion that "Luton" can be described as "London", "Bradford" can be described as "Leeds", "Girona" can be described as "Barcelona" and so on and they forget to add on the time and cost of car/taxi/car park, check in and so on. . Anyone travelling by air has a long and arduous process at either end that negates all the speed in between, not to mention the thrombosis inducing discomfort of the flight itself. And exactly which part of the rail infrastructure is "Victorian?". Last time I looked the only Victorian element was the (road) bridges, which is somewhat ironic to your argument. And by that description would you describe the A5 trunk road as "Roman" technology just because it follows the route of Watling Street? No wonder it's full of potholes!
i was referring to long distance travel in europe where invariably travellers use cheap air over expensive trains, no doubt the departure/arrivals process is a little more quicker than in the uk, probably travel time is the same when all waiting is taken into account
Eurostar killed off short haul flights from England to France and the European High speed network has done the same on journeys of less than 1000km across Europe, because rail offers city centre to city centre. HS2 will kill off much of the north-south air travel when (not if) it arrives. While heavy rail is far from perfect it has big advantages on intermediate journeys up to 1500 km, and freight over about 150km is very competitive on trunk routes. The difficulty of rail economics is that only half the benefits come through the farebox - most of our cities are more dependent than at any time in history on their rail infrastructure - even more so than in Victorian times.
[quote][p][bold]derek james[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]derek james[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]derek james[/bold] wrote: lets face it railways are a relic of the victorian era, they're expensive to maintain and inefficient.however the infrastructure ,the railway routes and the stations in town centres could still be used with the railways tarmaced over and replaced with buses specially designed[/p][/quote]Have you noticed the standard of railways in Japan, France, Germany lately, nothing much Victorian about some of them.[/p][/quote]i know the french railways cost the government an awful lot of money in subsidies although they are affordable to the end user and the high speed networks are especially expensive-it's cheaper to travel by air! most train journies in uk are for passengers[/p][/quote]Ah yes, air travel. If I travel to a city by rail then I get to that city for the fare paid.. Air travel proponents have this wonderful notion that "Luton" can be described as "London", "Bradford" can be described as "Leeds", "Girona" can be described as "Barcelona" and so on and they forget to add on the time and cost of car/taxi/car park, check in and so on. . Anyone travelling by air has a long and arduous process at either end that negates all the speed in between, not to mention the thrombosis inducing discomfort of the flight itself. And exactly which part of the rail infrastructure is "Victorian?". Last time I looked the only Victorian element was the (road) bridges, which is somewhat ironic to your argument. And by that description would you describe the A5 trunk road as "Roman" technology just because it follows the route of Watling Street? No wonder it's full of potholes![/p][/quote]i was referring to long distance travel in europe where invariably travellers use cheap air over expensive trains, no doubt the departure/arrivals process is a little more quicker than in the uk, probably travel time is the same when all waiting is taken into account[/p][/quote]Eurostar killed off short haul flights from England to France and the European High speed network has done the same on journeys of less than 1000km across Europe, because rail offers city centre to city centre. HS2 will kill off much of the north-south air travel when (not if) it arrives. While heavy rail is far from perfect it has big advantages on intermediate journeys up to 1500 km, and freight over about 150km is very competitive on trunk routes. The difficulty of rail economics is that only half the benefits come through the farebox - most of our cities are more dependent than at any time in history on their rail infrastructure - even more so than in Victorian times. The Wickham Man
  • Score: 0

11:05pm Mon 10 Mar 14

derek james says...

only affluent customers switch from expensive planes to trains for medium distances.others mostly use low cost airlines for longer distances and buses or cars for medium distances where affordable rail travel is not an option(rapidly becoming that way in this country, last week i was charged £75 for a day return to london).almost no one uses high speed trains when the travel time is over 5 hours, even those that can afford it.the ever increasing in cost hs2 is mainly aimed at businesmen(and women), increasingly with new communications technology business travel is becoming less necessary in a lot of cases.returning from london to portsmouth on the probably 10% full train took over 2.5 hours with waits at some stations of about 10 minutes!the government is intent on shifting evermore of the burden of rail costs onto the poor commuter and with so many greedy train companies and cossetted overpaid train drivers the cost of this outmoded form of transport is only going one way-more expensive
only affluent customers switch from expensive planes to trains for medium distances.others mostly use low cost airlines for longer distances and buses or cars for medium distances where affordable rail travel is not an option(rapidly becoming that way in this country, last week i was charged £75 for a day return to london).almost no one uses high speed trains when the travel time is over 5 hours, even those that can afford it.the ever increasing in cost hs2 is mainly aimed at businesmen(and women), increasingly with new communications technology business travel is becoming less necessary in a lot of cases.returning from london to portsmouth on the probably 10% full train took over 2.5 hours with waits at some stations of about 10 minutes!the government is intent on shifting evermore of the burden of rail costs onto the poor commuter and with so many greedy train companies and cossetted overpaid train drivers the cost of this outmoded form of transport is only going one way-more expensive derek james
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree