Auto Cruise

Sorry, drifting close to politics here.

There has been much said recently regarding self driving cars.  This seemingly Sci-fi idea is getting very close to becoming a reality as companies like Google are developing systems that can reliably navigate urban environments without mowing down pedestrians.  It really is exciting stuff.

Sadly this has given a mass of clueless pundits a stick to beat any public transport project with.  Mention purchasing new buses, or worse, building railways and out they come shouting "this is obsolete technology, driverless cars are the future". Usually combined with a demand to build more roads instead, unsurprisingly something that will help them in the short term while doing very little for everyone else who relies on public transport.

The argument sounds tempting, why should a government invest in railways when we will soon be whizzing to our destination in our personal travel pod?

The argument has two problems.

First, the argument is a bit like saying we shouldn't build coal/nuclear fission/wind/tidal/giant bicycle power stations because Nuclear fusion is the future.  Or indeed don't buy an electric car because hydrogen fuel cells are the future.  In short they probably are the future but are no where near there yet.

To give an idea of how distant self drive tech is, lets look at how common self drive elements are in today's cars.  First, automatic parallel parking.  First commercially released around 2002 this tech has now filtered into several models of car as a high end extra.  Considering how long extras like cruise control have taken to become commonplace and that self driving cars have yet to leave the prototype phase, this is at least 5-10 years away from being a plaything for the rich let alone a standard feature.

Second, while some US states have passed laws to allow self driving cars there is still a sticking point over having entirely autonomous vehicles and with good reason.  Those who deride older forms of public transport see a futuristic dream where your car drops you off before driving away to park itself, returning when summoned to take the driver home again.  Sadly I see this as a pipe dream.  For the immediate future I can't see laws allowing cars to operate without a human being on hand to take over.  Why?  Responsibility.  We currently technically have self flying aircraft.  A commercial jet can land on auto pilot, so why have a fallible human at the controls.  Partly it is a final backup but mainly because someone has to be responsible for the aircraft.  This is the same with a car.  While an automated vehicle is significantly less likely to be involved in an accident, nothing is impossible and when you get hit by a car with no driver who is to blame?  And while reading or watching a film while the car does  the driving would be OK being in any way unfit to drive, i.e. Drunk would be out of the question.  The closest to this would probably be a robotic taxi, where a person would observe the vehicle remotely with an override available.

We will see auto driving cars within the next decade but they are no reason to neglect the current public transport infrastructure.

Snowmageddon

We’re all doomed, the icy white stuff has trapped us, quick, stockpile bread, milk and petrol in case they run out.

Yes, it has snowed, a function of weather.  Its snowed a lot, we also got trapped by a wave of idiot commentators and idiotic members of the public spouting uninformed opinions regarding the way our infrastructure stands up to the snow.  I thought I’d take a look and try to explain why we appear to grind to a halt in the snow and hopefully bust a few of the myths in the process.

So, to begin, why do our roads, rails and runways seem to shut down entirely when the snow hits while no other country seems to have this problem.

This is actually part of our first mini myth; countries with a similar or warmer climate, such as Belgium, Germany and France do suffer in the snow, to roughly the same extent.  In the previous snow fall there were massive tailbacks on the autobahn and deaths in France due to accidents.  Their trains get slowed down as well.  Their rail networks hold up slightly better, but this is due to their relatively recent construction (Around 1940s-50s) and the lower frequency of services.  As to why we survived better when we got similar snowfalls in the 1960s, quite frankly fewer of us travelled smaller distances to work and did not expect shops to run 24/7.  Back then it was also not unthinkable to call and say you were snowed in.
So, what about countries with snowy climates, Russia, Canada, North America, even Sweden, Norway etc.  How do they keep things running during their far more severe winters?  Well two reasons.
First, they Engineer for it, their infrastructure is built with snow in mind, such as better facilities for clearing points when they freeze and snow drift breaks.  Similarly more of their vehicles can be equipped for snow.  They also have a larger stand-by level of snow ploughs gritters etc, as anyone who had to deal with bitter cold and severe snow and ice every year will have.  Why don’t we, because we won’t pay for the gritters or the stand by crews, and I assure you if we did then come the first mild winter some lump like Eric Pickles or the Tax Payers alliance would be out asking why we are wasting so much money on gritters that are not needed, using the usual faulty memory that plagues those who resent paying a penny of their vast fortunes in tax.
We haven’t engineered our infrastructure for this in the past because there has been little to no requirement.  It make it pretty clear that this weather is unprecedented, or at any rate rare when it doesn’t qualify to be included in the engineering specs for the construction of new roads and railways or the abilities of council vehicles and trains.

Similarly, in places like the Northern US and Canada, a “snow day” is not an uncommon occurrence, where whole schools and workplaces will close for a day.  This official closure allows the authorities to clear the roads without the rush hour traffic getting in the way and compacting the snow into ice.
Finally, as people they are better prepared, many in those parts own snow tyres or snow chains, and just about every municipal vehicle will have access to these as well.  At least now our authorities are looking into buying such things for the next cold snap, hopefully allowing ambulances and police vehicles to avoid getting stuck.

The second question is “Why do we start running out of simple things like bread and milk?”  This is easy.  Particularly for perishable goods such as bread, milk and fresh fruit and veg, most stores now work on a principal of receiving supplies of these on a daily basis, this allows them to minimise losses through spoilage by only stocking around a days worth of such items.  The down side is if the supply chain is interrupted supplies can run short.  This is not helped by people panic buying the minute the snow hits, the stores can take a small run on bread but people filling their freezers quickly wipes out their supplies.  Fuel is a similar case although will usually last slightly longer.  The pres don’t help as the minute they say there are shortages it promotes even more panic buying.  Again in cold countries, this just doesn’t happen because people are used to the weather and don’t get driven into a panic by the possibility of 24hrs without being able to drive to Tescos, something which seems to affect most brits judging by the rushes around the Xmas Day and new years closures.

People also do need to pitch in.  In Edinburgh the Army were drafted in to clear the streets, conversely, in Aberdeen, where this weather is more common most know in heavy snow you dig yourself out, then start digging out the street.  We have a certain complacency that it is the council’s job to clear the snow, which it is, however they will usually have more important routes to clear, so if you want your street cleared quickly, do it yourself.

Finally, and this will sound bad, its high expectations.  In cold countries people understand that it’s best to wait out the snow, allow the authorities to clear the roads then carry on.  We seem to insist that in the face of adverse weather everything must carry on regardless.  People seem to think that with the passing of a snowplough and gritter that roads will magically return to black tarmac.  Well sorry, a snow plough will be wrecked by hardened ice and grit ceases to melt anything below -10.  Grit is tricky to do right, too soon and it will simply be washed away or destroyed by traffic, too late and the snow can dilute the effect.  Finally, things can and still do go wrong.  The M8 closure should not have cost a transport minister his job, no opposition MSP has been able to explain how they would have acted differently.  The M8 was hit by heavy snow during the morning rush hour where, as anyone who has driven it during that time will tell you, it is full.  You could not have got a gritter through that traffic, the traffic then compacted the fresh snow to ice and this causes accidents and in some cases made some hills completely impassable.  I drove a more minor road that day and it was an experience I would not like to repeat.  We need to learn the world will not end if we take one day off work, and the govt needs to stop kowtowing to businesses complaining of the cost and call a few snow days, for the long term good.

High Speed Rail

Recently Network Rail proposed a plan to build a new High speed line from scratch; it would be 200+mph, travel from Edinburgh and Glasgow to London via Birmingham and have a Journey time of around 2hrs 30 mins. Now, I think this is a fantastic idea, think about it, that is faster than flying. Some will say that the flight to London is under an hour, however neither Glasgow, Prestwick or Edinburgh airports are in the city centres, and factoring in check in times and all the interminable waiting that airlines seem to want you to do, and your City Centre to City Centre time is closer to 3-4 Hours flying. This link would be on a train in Glasgow, and 2.5 hrs later you’re in the centre of London. It’s cleaner than flying or driving, ok so electric trains are only as clean as the power station available, but it’s better than burning aviation fuel or diesel and way more sustainable. In fact not much of this project doesn’t make sense.

However I’m sceptical if it will ever get built. Its price tag is around the £34 billion. It’s a shame that the government won’t commit to such a high spend, considering the millions it will quite readily spend for motorway enhancements and a 3^rd runway at Heathrow which seems to be wanted only by BAA and airlines. This is not all this project has stacking up against it. I can see the air travel lobby being pretty vocal in its objections to this project, after all, if it is faster than flying, and if the tickets aren’t extortionate, then it will take passengers from domestic flights, environmentally this is a good thing but airlines tend not to see loss of custom that way. It may also be scrapped by an incoming Tory government, which looks most likely. The Tories have generally shown a dislike for public transport (“This is the age of the Car”) and anything north of Birmingham. Until recently I would have said that the Scottish government would at least fund its side but after the scrapping of GARL I’m not so sure. Finally it is possible that the city of London may try to derail this project (Pardon my pun)

There was an article about a year or so ago, suggesting that regeneration doesn’t work and that we should all move to the south east. It was interpreted as a sign of fear from London that it may be loosing its importance to business. Back in the day you had to have a major office in London; it was how you did business. Problem is that London is expensive, and now many businesses are moving the bulk of their operations to regenerated areas like Manchester and Newcastle and leaving a shadow presence in London (Usually a few desks rented in a building) as modern transport and communications means that the city is only a few hours away. 2.5 hours from the central belt of Scotland to London would further erode any necessity to actually be based there. Hell, we could probably remove the second home allowance for many Scottish MPs because 2.5 hours is a commutable distance. Not an ideal one but definitely an option.

Of course, for everywhere else this is a great thing. And this is who should be getting behind the project, Local governments and big business should all welcome the chance to move away from the capitol, it means lower rents for business, and more interest for abandoned industrial towns. It means reduced overcrowding in the south and hopefully removing the need to build on flood plains. Basically, spend the 36bn, do it properly (No bloody PFI) have reasonable fares and this could be a massive boon to the whole UK.

GARL or Who Makes up These Contracts?

Well, I’ve not talked about politics and transport for a while, and here is a post which kind of combines both.

Just recently the SNP has announced its new budget; something that has caused much consternation was the cancellation of the Glasgow Airport Rail Link.

Now on the political side, the SNP hasn’t exactly done itself any favours. They must have known that this would be unpopular. The Greens are already complaining that a public transport initiative was cut while road building continues and Labour are claiming that the SNP are anti-Glasgow. Now, I will come to the reasons that the project is claimed to have been cancelled in a minute or so. First I’ll go over how this could have been better handled.

The SNP should have known this would be an unpopular decision, and so I would have suggested a good offence with this one. I still expect to hear is that Westminster has cut the Scottish budget, and so this is their fault, but I think they already know that argument has incredibly limited mileage, regardless of how much the Westminster labour government does seem to want to show up the SNP. (Still sore about loosing the Scottish parliament as their own rubber stamp service I guess) A good direction would have been to blame the Edinburgh trams, as they tried to shut down that white elephant but were blocked, and the project has now spiralled out of control, they could have argued that there would have been plenty of money to pay for GARL if the Edinburgh tram project could have been canned.

The actual reason given, although the SNP haven’t really been playing it to its full, a pretty poor move politically, is that the costs were becoming significantly greater than initially stated. This is actually an intriguing angle. If they played it as stopping another Scottish Parliament or Edinburgh tram wild overspend before it started, they may get some more understanding and support on the decision, after all, they would be wildly slated if the project ran wild on their watch.

What actually confuses me is this, how do these projects run wild?

I’m an engineer, and while studying my HNC we covered contracts in a little detail, much has sadly vacated my empty head, but the basic Tendering process and contract rules have not. The basic gist is this. Someone wants a big project undertaken, say a building built. The client will usually provide a specification, plus surveys and all the information a contractor needs to make an estimate. The contractors will then make up a document explaining how they would conduct the project, what timescale it would be completed in and how much it would cost. The contract types generally hold bonuses for early completion, and also some bonuses for coming in under budget. Similarly there are penalties for running late, and generally any cost over-runs must be covered by the contractor. This works because it keeps both sides honest (It’s actually more complicated with clauses for various possibilities of delay but this simple explanation should fit)

However for some reason Government projects seem to work differently. For these if a contractor runs over time or over budget, the Government covers the shortfall, and I’ve no idea why. Why should costs spiral for a tender when a contract has been agreed. If we are farming big projects out to private companies, particularly high profile ones such as Trams or a Parliament building, then we should basically say “Well you said you could do it for amount X, that’s what we gave you, now we want our building to spec, if you’ve under bid, that’s your problem.”

Now back to the SNP, if they could commission some works, and have them come in on budget and on time, they could build a reputation for better practice on bug projects. No spiralling costs with this government. Sadly, from how it’s been played so far, this may be the breaking of them.

Electric

What holds back the electric car, and who made Steve Gutenberg a Star? I will attempt to answer one of these questions in this post.

Steve Gutenberg had a cheeky smile that suited some roles during the 1980s furthermore.....

Just kidding. There are currently moves to encourage electric car ownership, with government attempting to get a network of plug in points assembled across the country. This has seen some success in London where the GeeWhiz electric car has been quite successful as a small commuting vehicle.

Electric cars have also evolved from their predecessors which often lacked speed and range. Indeed it is often said that an Electric Car's bigges weakness is the weight of its batteries and the amount of energy it spends hauling those around. However I disagree. Range is now just about comparable to a tank of petrol and speed isn't an issue with cars like the Tesla proving that it is possible to build an exciting electric car.

Nope, the electric car's biggest hindrance is charging time. Take a petrol car, when you run low on petrol you stop at a petrol station and fill up the tank, this usually takes a few minutes. Batteries take hours to charge. This is irrelevant when you are driving your car to work, plugging it in for 7-8 hours, driving home and plugging in again, but what if you want to make a trip that is outside the range of your batteries, you may need 3.5 hour stopovers every time you run out of power, making long journeys longer.

So, what are the solutions. Well, most practical is the Hybrid, cars such as the Toyota Prius, which carry a petrol engine which can run the car and charge the batteries at the same time. Its not the ideal solution, the car is heavy with the weight of an engine and batteries, and this seriously affects the engine's fuel efficiency when running on petrol. There is a plug-in version available, which allows you to charge the batteries by plugging in, but the hybrid really is a stopgap.

Far More promising is the Hydrogen fuel cell, which has been perfected, it uses a clever chemical reaction from hydrogen to generate electricity. The only by-products, water. of course, the down side is that at the moment it costs more energy to produce Hydrogen than you ever get out of it, but that's merely the next hurdle.

Finally, there have been some encouraging experiments done in fast charging batteries. in short re-chargeable batteries that could run for 3 hours and charge in 30mins. Suddenly all an electric car does is make you take regular breaks.

Providing people are willing to invest and promote new technology I foresee a future where nearly all of us drives either a Hybrid or and Alternative fuel car

The Edinburgh Tram Farce

Well, once again I, a resident of near Glasgow can have a mild chortle about the Edinburgh Tram project. Already suffering difficulties of public disinterest, anger from store owners and ignoring the fact that trams are really an obsolete technology, there have been several new events that will most likely mark this project as a gold standard to measure council waste and corruption.

Digging Up the Road

There were complaints from shop owners along the route that business was being lost due to tram works. Now any engineer will tell you one of the most important factors of working in a densely packed urban area is to minimise disruption. However the group of cowboys who paid the best kickbacks clearly haven't considered this. There are reports of holes being dug for the moving or underground services, tarmacked over then dug up again in order to lay track (Also a really funny story about a hole in the road getting its 1 year birthday party thrown which ended in a minor scuffle but I digress)

When planning work there are several useful exercises to go through, Charts such as bar charts, activity on the arrow and activity on the node diagrams allow you to make the best use of your time. They show areas where, for example you will have the hole dug anyway. The only way I can envisage this happening is if the guy doing the diagram was slightly worse at it than I am.

Attached to this is the digging up of Princes street, which will see arguably the busiest street in Edinburgh effectively closed for over 9 months, which will include the festival period. Somehow at the planning stage no-one saw this as a problem.

Memorial

One of the mind boggling elements that again brings into question the entire team behind the running of this project was the war memorial outside Haymarket station. People were understandably upset to discover that it was to be removed to run the tramlines through. Understandably because I would assume, quite foolishly in my naivety, that whoever surveyed the route would see a war memorial and work around it, rather than just decide to flatten it.


What I wonder about these things is why no-one brought this up in the planning stage. Why no-one looked at haymarket and said "Where's the war memorial?" or looked at the schedule and said "You're not blocking off princes street during the festival are you, oh for how long, nope, work a different way around it," or indeed "Project not Viable, seek alternatives" Of course, Edinburgh has been setting itself up as having some really stupid transport ideas. The guided bus routes still confuse me, exactly what are they for, as far as I see they provide all the disadvantages of bus travel with all the disadvantages of a railway. In fact my inner cynic makes me think that they were a stopgap for a tram system as a far more useful installation would have been a road with a "No entry except Buses" sign at either end. No special buses, no blocking the thing off if a bus breaks down.

On a positive note, even if the new trams do not cause the traffic chaos that similar systems in Melbourne cause, it may finally put to bed this insane love affair with the tram that runs through planning offices. Negatively, no alternatives, like the Trolley Bus mentioned in older posts, may be considered. I think this may be where my real anger at the project stems from. (My geographical location meaning that the building works and disruption don't affect me) In effect, I'm annoyed that the problems of installing an unnecessary tram system in Edinburgh, a sure case study of Bent councillors and mysteriously appearing "Save the Tram" campaigns, will mean that the "Not viable" option will be used by councils as an excuse to do nothing, rather than "Seek Alternatives"

Pie Man's Flaura and Fauna of the Roads #2

Look, continuation, how amazing.

#2 The Middle Lain drivers.

Pootling is a made up word, by me. It describes the motorist you often see on an empty motorway, tootling along the middle lane at 50mph or less. A close relative of the outer lane moral guardian.

I often use the term pootler because its more generous, it suggest a gentle incompetence, perhaps a little of the grumpy old "this isn't a race you know" mentality. However it only describes one of the two sub-species of the middle lane driver.

Pootlers are usually in the middle lane because they genuinely don't really understand motorways, they may still be believing the myth that the lanes have different speeds assigned, and that the middle is 50-60, they may just be completely clueless and so stick to the middle as it seems like a compromise. Pootlers are pretty hard to identify, they drive a variety of cars and are a variety of ages.

Hogs are the other breed, they know fine well they shouldn't be in the middle lane, but they somehow believe that the inside lane is for slow moving pensioners and girls, and not for them. Yes they can only cope doing 50, or sometimes they are doing 70, but there is still an vast stretch of unused tarmac to their left. Of course they won't admit pride as to their poor lane management, no, they'll make excuses, like they were preparing to overtake a slower car over the horizon, they know that in 30 miles the road becomes 2 lanes, and this is their correct one. Either way it isn't, its just because they can't quite stomach going to the inside unless its for slip road purposes. These hogs quite often become outside lane menaces on dual carriageways. usually identified as male, aged anywhere from 17-55 and will be driving a small hatchback with all the trimmings (Cooling tower exhaust, stereo, extra lights like a mobile disco, picnic table spoiler and mandatory fog lights regardless of visibility) older versions will be driving some sort of repmobiel, Vectra or Mondeo through to BMW and even some of the smaller Mercs.

So, why is this a problem, there's an outside lane, you cans till overtake. This is true, however, say there is someone doing 50 in the middle lane, no traffic to their left. Someone approaches at 60 and needs to overtake on the outside, causing someone travelling at 70 to slow down. Ideally with three lanes, and everyone playing by the rules, the outside lane should only be 70+ (not counting heavy traffic) instead this starts to give us the odd situation where the outside lane is full and the inside almost empty, as everyone tries to overtake the one person sitting in the middle.

So, how do you deal. Well, first thing, Never Undertake. Its dangerous, and you remove an opportunity for them to realise the error of their ways and pull in. Don't tailgate either, again dangerous and calling them a middle lane hog won't help the insurance claim. No, what I do, where possible, is overtake on the outside, then pull right back into the inside, maintaining the higher speed. This often works on the confused pootler, who realises that it is Ok to do 50 in the inside lane if someone is doing 70 in it. The hog, well shouldn't be on the road really, and no amount of instruction or guilt will move that bullish head.

Rolling Home

The pie man has, temporarily, become a road commuter.

Due to my impending child situation I am shunning my usual 1hr 30 mins each way train journey in favour of a 1hr (Give or take) car drive. This is largely to allow me a quick return home should my young be in danger of spawning.

So, here are my first impressions of car vs train on a regular commute.

I actually prefer the train. In sheer practicality, the car is the winner, it gets me home around 3o mins faster and allows me about 15 mins more sleep in the mornings. I am also technically travelling for the full hour not waiting at platforms. Overall I should really be bigging up the car. After all, its my own box, I don't need to cope with someone trying to take up more than their share of the seat next to me, I can listen to whatever i want on the stereo without headphones and control the temperature as much as an elderly Renault Clio will allow. Some may ask, why would I give this up to sit on crowded trains with all the irritating fellow members of the human race?

There are several reasons why I prefer the train. While the trip is longer the amount of effort I actually have to make is minimal, I can read the Metro, or a book while doing my hour and a half commute. In the car, I'm driving. In fact I'm driving even when I'm stuck in the inevitable queues that form when driving on the M8 through Glasgow to motherwell, surely one of the most poorly designed stretches of motorway in Britain. And this is the crux of the matter. On a train all the idiot fellow commuters are soft human lumps like me. We are all in the same can, and occasionally you see great acts of kindness and decency that almost give you hope as a species. On the road the same idiots (obviously not the exact same idiots) have been given a death box to practice their idiocy in, so instead of their selfishness and stupidity merely being an annoyance, it is now endangering my life. Ok I exaggerate a little but really, even with the bottlenecks speed changes and the like a Motorway should only grind to a halt if it is actually closed. The reason it stops is because of poor driving, such as the following examples.

1. Phantom Jam. This is a recorded phenomenon. It is caused by breaking, not any breaking, but tailgaters breaking. See if someone is not leaving a decent space, they ted to be a bit punchy on their breaks when the car in front starts to slow down (Sometimes wheather it breaks or not) This usually means they loose more speed than they should have trying to match the car in front, this causes a domino effect that can bring traffic behind to a standstill.

2. Lane Skipping. Often caused by phantom jams, but happens anywhere where all lanes are slow moving traffic queues. You always have captain impatient who is sure the other stream of traffic is moving faster, so he'll switch lanes. In slow traffic this means stopping his lane and the one he's trying to get into in order to change. With one car its an embuggerance, but there is never just one. This is why lanes seem to take turns in changing speed. If everyone stuck to their lane in a traffic queue it would flow, slowly but flow, but because we have idiots jumping for the greener grass on the other side of the fence that lane has more cars, and slows down, while the lane beside has fewer, and so appears to be going faster, so what do they do, change again. Next time you're stuck on the M8 look for a distinctive vehicle, a van or something. You'll pass it, it will pass you, you'll pass it again. Basically you both get to the end of the jam at roughly the same time.

3. Queue jumpers. The M8 is really bad for this, due to its poor design around charing Cross, incidentally its main black spot, it has ample opportunity form people to try and skip the queue as the motorway temporarily expands to three lanes. Now, for the first stretch it is technically a 3 lane motorway, however in reality it is just a slip road, Eastbound leading to cathedral, and westbound to charing cross, if you needed to overtake in normal traffic, fair enough, but when the traffic is one big queue all you're doing is jumping, and causing more holdups as you try and squeeze back in to the traffic further up. Westbound I've actually seen the cars in the slip road held up by some selfish moron who has waited until just before where the road splits to attempt to merge back in. He's stationary beeping at the understandably irritated drivers who don't want him to profit form queue jumping, and the drivers behind him wish he'd take it like a man and go through charing cross, admitting that he couldn't beat the traffic this time.

See, morons but with way more power.

Cost wise, at base its a tough calculation. My work pays for half my train fares, but assuming they didn't.

Travel from Home to Motherwell costs (Using Monthly passes) around £150 per month, calling a month 4 weeks that's £38 per week approx.

The tank on the smaller car costs around £40 to fill up and gives me around 350 miles. Round trip for work is 66 miles a day meaning I should technically have to fill up once a week. So this actually looks like it's only £2 more expensive per week to knock over an hour from my total round trip commute. Ok it adds up to £104 per year, but then that's over 52hrs of my time, or over 2 days not spent travelling. Only problem with this sort of calculation is that it doesn't take into account the true cost of the car.

If we go with one car, the Big one, costs more to fill but gets more from it, it also needs road tax, which with a 2 litre Diesel engine is only going to increase. It also need insured, and I cannot guarantee exclusive use because there will come a point where my wife gets sick of taking our soon to be born baby on the bus. Still disregarding those factors, adding in Road tax, Insurance and servicing, we're talking adding around £500 per year, now including that in my travel costs is arguable, as we'd be keeping the car anyway. But keeping the small car it is at least £300 per year assuming the elderly car doesn't break.

I'll stay on the train.

Bikes and Trains

This is a tough one for the commuter. See I have no real objection to people cycling to and from the station at each end, provided Lycra is only worn by attractive women cyclists. Thing is I really don't like bikes on my trains.

This is mostly because the majority of trains that run on my routes have no space for a bike and the cyclist ends up clogging up the vestibules. Not ideal. The obvious solution would be to put cycle spaces on to trains, but I kind of object to that too since a bike takes up the space that could allow 2 people to sit. Its a conundrum.

Of course Scotrail don't make life easy. I considered trying to cycle to the station from my flat but I neither wanted to lug my bike all the way to work on the train nor leave it chained to something as entertainment for local vandals so I decided to try and rent one of the cycle lockers at my local station. I picked up a leaflet and filled in the details, however as it transpires rental of the lockers is not dealt with at the station, no I would have to travel to head office in Glasgow to hand in my form, obviously only during office hours. This is about the worst way they could have organised this, surely it makes the most sense for me to apply through my local station since I'm there every day and that's where the locker is located. I have decided this means that Scotrail don't really want people using the lockers, this might mean they could be called successful and they may have to invest in more.

Back to bikes on trains, its really part of a larger problem, where a designer and a bean counter get together and commit hideous acts of short-sightedness. Trains now have less luggage space than ever before, with Virgin's pendolino's being the worst, the overhead storage isn't even big enough to take a small rucksack. In Short people have got together and made something that looks pretty and holds loads of people, but neglected to consider that the same people may want to carry things with them, particularly on a Glasgow-London trip. My solution, on local trains just a bit of thought for things like between seat storage for luggage, perhaps even take some dead space and make it a luggage rack. on longer distance, a guards van, yes, a car devoted entirely to luggage, I hear accountants shudder as I type but think of it. As you board you have to check in any larger bags (possibly at cost) where they are labeled with your destination and transfers, someone is then employed to load and offload this carriage at the specified points. Its not flawless but could solve most of the problems.

Cost of travelling

Well, despite widespread protests, huge petitions and generally the public screaming a big fat NO!, road pricing schemes. This is an expensive system that uses GPS and a satellite receiver in every car to track when, where and how long you are using your car. Now we already have a great system of pricing journeys per mile that even rewards fuel efficiency, its called fuel tax, but this won't use oodles of contractable technology (Should be worth a directorship in the company after you leave politics eh?) and of course doesn't allow charging depending on what road you use at what time, so if you use some farm track at 3am, it will be really cheap, on the other hand if you use the M8 at rush hour, boy will the cost rack up. This all goes with the strange opinion that those in power have that we all take to the main roads, and indeed swamp all forms of public transport between around 7-9am and 4-6pm because we like causing congestion.

Now we've also had an announcement from Scotrail that fares are going to rise 6%, the maximum they can. Do we get newer or longer trains, or a more frequent service, well no. But they are allowed to raise fares 6% and unsurprisingly that's what they've done. Some rail firms have also expressed an interest in making peak time fares more expensive in order to "Reduce overcrowding on trains" because when I'm off work I often decide to take the train in with the commuters for the company as opposed to waiting till 10 when its quiet.

No, all these systems are revenue raising in the oldest traditions of capitalism. More people want to use trains in the rush hours, and so as a result you can get more money from them. Indeed our trains are already monumentally overpriced and I would start enforcing fare reductions without service or rolling stock cuts, and if that means no one wants the franchise then you can re-nationalise without too much hassle. Of course if you were a shareholder in First you may complain but we need cheap and efficient public transport and at the moment nationalisation or not for profit companies similar to Network Rail seem to be the way forward.

As for cars, well the government has clearly realised that there is more money to be squeezed from the motorist of we can charge them more for using the roads at rush hour rather than just charging for the fuel they burn. Of course a side effect of this will be the migration of rush hour traffic from the expensive motorways and by-passes to back roads and villages, increasing road deaths, noise problems for residents and pollution from stop/start motoring. Yes its folly in the extreme but as Blair said when he received the petition "We know best"

Yet more Transport

Saw Panorama's documentary regarding fuel costs today and I feel it missed the point, all though in fairness, it was pretty short of a point, it seemed to ask a lot of questions, such as is fuel taxation a bad thing, well yes if you talk to the crofters on Orkney who need to travel long distances to do anything, no if you talk to the LSE professor who lives, oh in London and sees no reason why people can't take public transport. For my money he has clearly been in London so long he doesn't realise that once you get out of London, yes there is an outside of London, Public transport veers wildly in quality and provision. The programme made a great deal about the GeeWizz electric car, a very small, pretty unsafe electric car that is all their age in London, and it is good there, you have car parks with recharging bays (It only has a 40 odd mile range) and it is exempt from the congestion charge and road tax. The show made the point that outside of London, while the government wants to promote these wee electric cars for cities, not many cities have the facility to charge them up, but hey, why provide any alternative when you can fleece us for tax. It is a catch 22. Councils won't provide charging points until more people have electric cars, but no one will buy one until they can charge it up. trust me I would get a gee whiz tomorrow if I didn't have to run an extension lead from my 3rd floor flat as it would be ideal for my short run to the station.

But of course, that's not the point at all. It is very easy for someone who can afford, say a big BMW, or a custom super charged mondeo with nitrous kit, to do such things as buy an electric car for small trips, or have an LPG conversion. Indeed both myself and my wife would definitely consider the latter as a local petrol station provides LPG at half the cost of petrol. However, like most people who have to drive a big family car (What with having a family) usually older and hence higher emissions (Because we can't afford to take the depreciation hit) and can't afford money staving measures like LPG or electric, we will have to continue to be punished for using fuel, despite the fact that we can not afford an alternative. Yes, the Rich can reap the tax breaks and be smug about being green, we take up the slack. Joy.

I did get a smile today though, I've already heard many negative things about Edinburgh's tram system from residents, largely the realisation of the small area it will cover and the disruption it will cause. As you know I find trams obsolete and wasteful compared to superior but rarely considered trolley buses, but also because of the mass whinge from interested party's (Not to mention councillors who had already taken kickbacks for contracts to dig up roads yet to be awarded) when the SNP tried to cancel the scheme on the grounds of it being a huge white elephant. Now traders in Edinburgh have complained about the drop in business due to the roads being closed during the fitting of their ails, and complaints about the traffic congestion in general. The shop owners admit that business may improve after the trams are running but feel they should be compensated for the disruption. Hmm, its like they have a cake, but also wish to eat it while still keeping the cake, or in a nutshell, they want to bleed as much as possible out of this. I sincerely hope the Government tells them that had they not whined so much to get the project un-cancelled they would not have had the drop in business and to stop wasting everyone's time and money.

Why I don't Rate Trams

When the SNP gained power one of their first moves was to cancel the proposed Edinburgh Airport rail link and local tram system and divert the Billions these would cost into smaller public transport schemes in more deprived areas (Such as reinstating the Airdrie to Bathgate line) I though this was an overall good idea, Rather than spend the money on the Captial, which gets everything else, there seemed to be an intention to provide public transport for those who actually needed it.

Edinburgh is a tricky city to build new things in. This is due to its large numbers of listed buildings, old layout and the fact that if you build anything new in Edinburgh someone will call it an eyesore. In Edinburgh they don't like new things. However what Edinburgh hates even more is other areas getting money it wanted.

Now Edinburgh did do a lot of work with its bus lanes and busses. Most of it is good. Busses don't require much in the way of infrastructure beyond existing roads and bus lanes and sinage has made it a prefered way of getting around the outlying parts of edinburgh. The one glitch in this bus system is the stupid guided bus routes, which basically take all the disadvantages of rail (Costly structure, road blocked if a unit breaks down) with the disadvantages of busses (Low speed, running on deisel) and the only advantages is that its a bus only road. ANyway, with both those cancellations there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth from Edinburgers, particularly regarding the tram system. See the kickbacks for the expensive laying of track and purchase of materials had been paid and some people were in real trouble if teh sceme didn't go ahead. So the whinged and it got reinstated.

Now, I'm really big on public transport, but I really don't like trams. It isn't personal, but they have been superseeded by an altogether better invention, the trolley bus, which was invented over 50 years ago. However whenever a light suburban transport system is proposed, its trams.

Trams are rarely a good solution to light urban transport. They require rails (WHich in turn need maintenance) space on the roads (like busses) and in some ways can be held up by traffic (Although at least Edinburghs bus lanes should help alleviate this)So, what is this mystical trolley bus I rant about? It is an electric bus, powered from overhead wires, think like a tram but with rubber tyres. So, this can run on bus routes and the normal road and all they need are suspended cables, which would be used for trams anyway. In fact some of the newer models used in china can actually fuinction on bateries over medium distances to allow overtaking and operation short distances away from powered areas (In fact I'm amazed no-one's devised a hybrid trolley bus) So, even using something as basic as the trolleys that used to run in Glasgow in the 1960s, what you have is a tram that needs no rails, not only saving money but also the disruption installing rails into the road causes.So why aren't they used. Well, frankly its a mystery. My personal theory is lack of awareness. Everyone remembers Trams from Glasgow, they're nostalgic, and they've been installed in a few other places. Many European cities installed tram systems after WWII and still maintain them. They're seen as a source of pride, more a tourist attraction than a practical solution. WHich while in keeping with Edinburgh, isn't really what the city needs. Sadly Trolley busses are at best forgotten and at worst known by their old nickname "Silent death". See rubber tyres and electric motors are silent, and people who didn't look both ways when crossing the road often got hit by a trolley bus where they'd have heard a car or tram. But nowadays people like silence, its desirable. Trams won't offer that, there will be all the clanking and squealing associated with steel on steel.

My inner cynic says that there are more kickbacks, both on installation and maintenance, of tramlines, thats why they are popular. But if Glasgow decides it needs more suburban transport, I'm campaigning for trolley busses.

Tax It

Gods I sound like some daily mail reading lunatic sometimes but this government's current attatude to make us all bette rpeople is always Tax it.

We selfishly drive cars rather than use public transport, for the good of the planet people must be taxed off the road.
We binge drink causing many health problems, to prevent this Alcohol must be more expensive.

Why do I disagree with these measures (And others like them) first is the basic concept. Make somethings oe xpensive that the majority of people can't afford to do it. In cars this means that peopel who live miles away from public transport (Rural areas, farmers etc) can't afford to run vehicles and are effectively stranded (Although considering how london-centric government acts its amazing they know what a rural area is). It also has the look of money grubbing. But most of all is that this is a very unfair conciet. When you say tax people out of their cars and make binge drinking unaffordable, what you really say is that driving in your own car or getting roundly drunk are privelages of the rich, and not for the likes of you proles.

Notably the government tent to shy away from measures that may either cost money or more specifically not earn. For example rather than tax people off teh orad greater investment in public transport (Accross the board, longer trains, bigger park and ride facilities, more services and lower fares) might persuade poeple out of their cars in a way that is both more effective and more popular than an expensive satellite based vehicle tracking system. That in itself is a stupid idea since if we have to be taxed for using our cars we already have a very good system in place. It taxes people based on vehicle usage and fuel efficiancy, yes, we tax petrol.

Alcohol is a bit different, what the government fail to realise is that increasing the price of alcohol will just lead to increases in crime, smuggling, and people drinking substitutes such as hoem made moonshine or worse, meths. What needs to be done here is some airy fairey, liberal proto-psychological hogwash. In short we need to find out why the only joy in someone's life is to drink their bodyweight in smirnoff ice on a saturday night. Perhaps we could look at the things that worry your average 18-50 year old, such as the lack of a pension since the funds were raided by, oh look, the treasury. Look at increasing insecurity of work, unaffordable housing, a promoted lifestyle that requires excessive working to fund even a basic existance, and lack of faith in a governemnt that is beset with lies, petty corruption and is grabbing at ever more of our civil liberties. Gods thinking about it makes me want to drink.

Commuting on trains: The Unwritten Rules written

I travel daily on trains, and there is a set of unwritten rules regarding how to travel in a way that causes the least inconvenience to you and other passengers and in generally allows things to actually run. The good thing about these rules is that they're applicable on just about every mode of transport.

When boarding the train:

Wait for people to get off the train. How the hell do you think you're going to get a seat, or some choice standing area if you don't let people get off the damn train. Wait to the sides of the doors because, unless you have the power to become insubstantial, such as a ghost or The Vision, people leaving the train can't step through you.

Seating:

You do not deserve 2 seats. I have an arse that can contest many in both size and weight, I know that I don't deserve 2 seats, I know that my rucksack or my shopping has not bought a ticket and is frankly lucky it's getting a free ride at all. You can not reserve a double seat using any of the following actionsSitting in the outside seat and not moving aside when someone wants to sit at the windowPutting bags/shopping/pets on the seat next to youGlaring (Particularly if there are 2 of you on either side of a 3 seater and someone has the audacity to sit between you)If you want any control over how much space you get, space is always dictated by the person at the window, on the outside you have a walkway to occupy, they can't move any further into the wall.When sitting down, fill up empty rows before parking next to strangers, seriously we won't talk to you and will ignore any attempts at conversation regardless of how uppity you get, sit on your own.

Standing.

The door area is fine if there are a few people standing, but if its getting crowded, move into the walkway, I don't care if you're stops the next one, let the other people on and negotiate your way to the doors once the train is moving.

Leaving the train:

At a normal station, pay attention, particularly on a crowded train, you know you’ll have to get through a packed train before your stop, so make a start early, be polite and don't push, and standees, let people past, they don't want your spot, they want off which with the crowding is only a good thing.

At a terminus.

When all is changing, standing passengers get off first, no arguments, no whining, I don't care how short the trip was, you had a seat, they didn't, they get the clean run to the ticket barrier, you wait for them to clear then stand up. Standing up as you're pulling into the platform, or in the case of Glasgow Central, when you're crossing the river doesn't qualify you as standing. Stop barging in front of the poor blighters who have been on their feet all trip just because you don't want to be caught in the throngs of the ticket barrier.

At the ticket barriers,

both ways have your ticket ready, it speeds things up, also, if you can't find your ticket, don't stand at the barrier rummaging through your handbag/pockets there are people who thought ahead wanting to get on with their day, stand aside, get your ticket then approach the barriers. A hint, the human barriers at Glasgow central are manned by the hardiest of the Scotrail staff, like terminators they cannot be reasoned with or stopped. They don't care if your train is leaving shortly. Your assurances that you'll buy a ticket on the train will fall on deaf ears. You don't get past them without a ticket.

Escalators:

The London underground has this right, in London standing two abreast on an escalator so others can't pass is a crime punishable by 2hrs in the stocks. I have days where I just like to take things easy and see the world pass by; I also have days where I'm in a mad panicked rush. So be considerate and leave space for people to pass.

Finally some Do's and Don’ts

DON'T: Play your music through your phone speaker. What the hells are you thinking? I have this MP3 Player on for a reason Cr@pwit. I don't care if you're playing the Best of Pie Man's favourite songs of all time. I don't want to hear it and neither does anyone else. Naturally the norm is duff techno, because the mindset who thinks that this is acceptable behaviour also thinks that white Kappa tracksuits look really good.

DO: Turn your walkman down when the train is packed, its good manners to try and limit your noise output when in a cramped pressure cooker. It prevents you being beaten to death by a copy of the DaVinci Code.

DO: Fold your paper, it’s cramped, and anyway, last time I checked the Independent doesn't have centrefolds, there is no actual reason for you to have to hold your paper fully open, unless you’re a tit who wants everyone to know how much better you are than them by the choice of quality paper you're reading.

DON'T: Get snippy when the person in the seat next to you reads your absurdly open paper with you, even asking for page turns and comment, you're the one trying to occupy an entire 3 seats with arms and broadsheet.

DO: Chat quietly, I don't object to conversations, even if I'm not involved (See earlier comment regarding MP3 player and book) you can talk on your phone, to your friends its all good, just at a volume that doesn't broadcast to the entire train

DON'T: Shout. Just don't.

Follow these rules and you're much less likely to be bludgeoned to death by an aged Creative Zen MP3 player (Those things are really robust)

Perils of getting from A to B #1 - The 40mph Man

I have been driving for around a year and a half, and have picked upa fair amount of experience with teh roads in central scotland both through worjk and general driving. I also walk to get to places often and commute daily using trains and busses. In short I see a lot of travel, just not to particularly varied places. Thsi does aloow me to identify various strange behaviours amongst fellow commuters/drivers/pedestrians though.The 40mph man is usually seen on the national speed limit A and B roads much like those all over Scotland often interrupted by villages where the speed limit will drop from 60 to 30. The 40mph man has decided to play averages, and keep his speed at 40mph, regardless of posted speed limit or terrain. He is different form the timid low speed motorist in that the low speed motorist will slow down for a populated area.Danger - Like the outside lane pootler and the elderly crawler the 40mph man is the direct cause of all frustration led mistakes by other drivers, usually through botched overtakes, however his habit of barreling through small villages at 40 means he's a danger to the residents of the village. Worse still the 40mph man thinks he's the safest driver in teh world, after all, you don't see him rushing at 60 on those backroads, no he's staying at 40 and so is everyone behind him, up until he hits the village at which point the better drivers slow down, partly because of our legal responsibilty to obey the posted speed limit, which is there for a reason, and mostly because the police like to speed trap those roads. Not 40mph man, due to the pig headed thought that he's in the absolute right in all situations, 40mph man will be an absolute pain and will always refuse to accept responsibility when he finally flattens someone or causes a crash.Annoyances - 40mph man's habit of belting through the small villages and towns means that whenever you hit the national speed limit you'll keep having to catch him up, this means opportunities to overtake safely are few and far between. It can slowly drive you mad.40mph man does not prefer one make, model or even type of car, and indeed the term man does not nececarily assign to a gender, in general though the driver will be middle aged and will be the sort of person who will not let simple facts shake a snap judgement.40mph man is very hard to deal with, be a bit bold on overtaking and don't be afraid to push the speed limit a little to get past him, he won't catch you up. Failinga ny opportunity to do this, just try to relax and hope you don't have to be anywhere soon, and hope to see him caught at the next village speed trap.

4 Wheels Driving

Well thats us back from our long weekend away. both Muasdale (on the peninsula of which campbelltown is at the end) and Bowmore (On the fair island of Islay) were lovely and remote and just the thing to get away from it all. Thanks to our hosts who were so generous in hospitality. Wood fired Barbeques are the way forward, it used an iron plate over a wood fire, the plate (as opposed to a grill) gets hot and is more flexible in what you can cook. The approach of covering the plate in olive oil and seasoning it with Garlic was also a fine addition to teh piles of cooked meat brought before us.I don't believe I've ranted about 4WD cars before on this Blog, but I'm sure I will in the future. However I have now driven one, and on Islay, where most roads are single track and many are broken dirt tracks (Although work seems to be going on to improve this). You can get around islay in a normal car but your suspension won't like some of the surfaces you may have to travel over and while I never needed the 4WD it was sunny and dry weather and I did need the ground clearence. Notably on this island there are a lot of 4WD vehicles. However the majority are mainly heavy rugged beasts with few mod cons such as Land Rover Defenders, Mitsibushis and Isuzus. What you don't see many of at all are the hulking BMW Z3 and 5 and its Ilk, you know, the ones which are so popularised by those with little taste and huge amounts of money. The ones that drink fuel like its tapwater, take up huge amounts of space, spew out tonnes of Co2 on the school run and, most notably, can't actually cope with rough roads let alone dirt tracks.Banning all 4WDs is foolish as tehre are those that need them, and those that need them should have exemptions from the heavy taxes soon to be imposed. It was good to drive one where it belonged, in the countryside, not on a school run.