"French trains? They're worse than ours"

[sweek]

Originally Posted by Bikkel

-Justme

There's little avail in checking those timetables. Check the ones which are in popular demand. Those aren't from Middelburg of Maastricht.
...
You'd have to compare services inbetween smaller cities on the continent to fully realize how crappy services in England really are.

Wait so do we have to look at popular demand (to/from london mostly) or inbetween smaller citiies? The differences in time it takes to get from one city to the other over that were shown in those examples is very big, and I think it's a pretty big problem that we don't have any "real" intercities. IC's simply stop in too many places.The UK has trains going straight from Manchester to London I believe, without stopping once. I'd like to see services such as Maastricht - Eindhoven - Utrecht CS - Amsterdam CS without stopping anywhere else. We once had plans for this in the NL you know, it was called IC+. It's completely gone now and instead we are going to make the IC's we have stop in even more places.

I'm not saying trains shouldn'st stop in places like Ede-Wageningen, I meant that ICE's get stuck over there because there's simply too much traffic on that line. I really don't think you can claim trolley buses being faster than the tube at all. Maybe on some district/circle line services in the centre of town, but definitely not in general.

I probably took a few other routes in England than you, but I've found trains on SouthWest (commuter stopping train) services to be much nicer and more comfortable than the ones I'm used to in Holland. Same with Pendolino's compared to our IC material. We still haven't gotten rid of Mat'64 and DDAR isn't exactly great either. And well, have you tried the Amsterdam metro lately?

Both countries have their good and bad bits really.

[DooMSireN]

I'm perfectly willing to realise that public transport is better in the Netherlands than is it is here in the UK, however some people also seem to be forgetting how quickly it is progressing. Last year there was record passenger numbers throughout the country for over half a century. Give it until 2012 and im sure we'll have a public service transport system that is working as well as or better than much of contintental Europe.

I also, think it its worth mentioning that Middlesbrough train station is having a rather large make-over. Considering that it is a relatively small train station I feel that it is quite a step in making rail travel in the UK a more common means of travel. If this is happening in several places throughout the country (and I assume it is), then this is a good development for rail travel throughout the UK.

[Justme]

Originally Posted by Bikkel

-Justme

There's little avail in checking those timetables. Check the ones which are in popular demand. Those aren't from Middelburg of Maastricht.

The middle part of NL has an amount of traffic the UK will never equal (the european backland (Germany, Swiss, Austria etc) and main routes which run along the Rhine.

I know of a few people living in Amsterdam, working in Arnhem. The railways in NL have always been far more flexible, like with the hightime in the house music era, trains ran from 5 in the morning; from Arnhem to Amsterdam.

Ok, I just checked from Arnhem to Amsterdam and Oxford to london. Both are from similar distances apart. I checked for next Monday night after 11pm.

Arnhem - Amsterdam
After 11pm, 4 trains before last service at 00:12. Next morning service is at 5:24am: 5 services between 5:24 and 7am
link

Oxford - London
After 11pm, 3 trains before last service at 00:20. Next morning service is at 4am: 6 services between 5:20 and 7am
link

Both services take approx 1hr 10minutes for the journey. So, again, no. I don't see exactly how the NL network is "so much better" than the UK service around the South East. And we should be looking at this area of the UK as it has a similar population to that of the Netherlands. Of cause, in far flung remote places of the UK the services are not as good, but you simply do not have far flung places in the NL.

[DooMSireN]

Here in Saltburn (on the Newcastle to Saltburn line), which I feel is a fairly below average regional service, there is often full trains at peak times, they run every 30 minutes. You have to remember that these trains do not get any more demand simply because of the areas they service don't run through many of the largely popular areas. Anyone who has been to the train station at Newcastle may have seen the Newcastle to Middlesbrough service, but lets be honest, who's heard of Saltburn.

Here, there is the only old, 142 class trains that sqeal when moving around the bends at the top end of the town and wake up everybody at roughly 6:50am, simply because Northern Trains can't be arsed to buy new trains that don't do that. If this wasn't to happen though, there would be literally hundreds of people that couldn't get to work in Middlesbrough, Thornaby & Darlington.

Quite simply, the regional services in Britain may not be perfect, but they certainly ain't as bad as some try to portray, here. Living on a line that was due to be closed down just over a year ago and having that decision reveresed, makes me feel like I'm the only one on here that the rail network in Britain is on the up.

[JGG]

Being non British and also travelling frequently in Continental Europe, including the Netherlands, I would like to contribute my opinion:

- If you compare the UK to Continental Europe, you'd have to compare the SE of England to the Netherlands and the rest of the country to France in terms of population density.
- The railways in SE England have progressed much more than in the Netherlands over the last ten years and are approaching the same level of quality.
- BUT Regional trains in Randstad and the RER in Ile de France offer a type of metro service the SE England does not have. Therefore your typical journey into London will be bus - train - tube, whereas for a large percentage of the commuters in Randstand and Ile de France it is just bike/walk - train - walk.
- Maintenance in the Netherlands is clearly much better, you can tell by the clean stations and trains. France is probably at par with the UK.
- Regional railways in the UK outside of SE England have been outperforming the French over the last ten years by a huge margin - this is because all the money being invested in the Paris-centered TGV and before that in the Paris RER.
- France and the Netherlands introduced railways much later than the UK and on top of that did a major overhaul of their railways after the second world war. The UK did not as it was paying off the debts of liberating Europe. This has massive implications that are very expensive to remedy now: sharp radients, low bridge spans, crumbling viaducts, buildings constructed right up to the track everywhere, grade-listed stations that are very expensive to restore etc. In fact a fair comparison would have to be Belgium which was the first continental European country to industrialise and introduce railways (long before the Dutch and French) and you notice they have been tackling many of the same problems as in the UK. The difference is the Belgians have been doing it progressively since the 50s whereas the UK has been very slow up to the end of the 90s.

But there three main problems in the UK:
- SE England really needs a proper metro system - it is called Crossrail and in fact it is unbelievable politicians are still debating the construction of the first Crossrail line when the Ile de France already has - I believe - 7 RER lines !!!!
- The UK needs a HST network but that is not really very relevant for travel within SE England (what's the point to travel at 250 km/h from Ebbsfleet to Kings Cross if you first have to take the bus to get to Ebbsfleet, then have to wait for a train that passes by every 30 mins and then have to take the tube from King's Cross)? It is perfectly fine for the HST network to start north of Luton because only on the long distances you save enough time worth the expense of the HST network.
- There are far too many consultants and enquiries involved in any rail or infrastructure project in the UK - many more than in France or the Netherlands. This makes the decision processes extremely long (Thameslink 2000) and the construction cost between double and triple (WCML). The engineers in the UK need to take over again! I read they already spend 0.5 bio on the Crossrail preparation, this is just unheard of in the Netherlands and France and would create public outcry.

[johnnypd]

i remember a comparison of european railways in the guardian or the independent a few years ago. the netherlands was the only country that came below the uk...

the uk also has a much higher patronage of its railways, and i think better punctuality than in the netherlands now.

[Monkey]

It looks like poor Bikkel is having his nose rubbed in the sour facts.... again.

[london lad]

Originally Posted by JDRS

What's happening to the current Eurostar terminal at Waterloo when the trains move to St Pancras ?

The will given over to SWT when Eurostar moves. They should also be starting a massive redevelopment of Waterloo whcih would involve extending all the platforms & move the waiting areas to below the platfrom level like Eurostar has now.

With regards NL rail services- It is very good but remember the Netherland is a very small country & all the major cities & towns are pretty equally spaced out so your never really more than an hour or so from them its not supprising they have a pretty good rail/road network. Plus thefact itrs right next door to Germany & Belguim then you would expect it would have very good connections.

But thats indicental to the thread- The railways in hte UK are finally getting better after the the disastrously botched originanl privitisation model. I think the government has seen sense & by extending the areas of the franchise & keeping Network Rail a non-profit making organisation. They just need to extend the vision & start of schemes that will make a difference such as crossrail, Thamelinks & new High speed networks across the country & not do as was donei n the past & starve the system of investment & let fall it behind to such a state we got into a few years ago with with the crashes & speed restricitons with dilapidated track.

[Bikkel]

Originally Posted by sweek

(..)I really don't think you can claim trolley buses being faster than the tube at all. Maybe on some district/circle line services in the centre of town, but definitely not in general.(..)

Sorry, that's plain ridiculous; if anywhere I travelled on London's tube and Arnhem's trolley busses most during the past decade. And before I might have agreed with you but now from experience, nope; trolley busses drop you off at a few steps from where you need to be. Even when you race up the stairs in tubestation it cannot compensate for the loss of time. Besides on many trajects, along 30 miles speed limit roads, trolley busses are allowed to speed up to 50!!
I've missed my train at Velp a few times, took the next trolley bus and got there before the train would arrive at the platform ... Whilst it included walking longer distances than with just switching platforms at Arnhem would have been the case.

I can't vouch for the travelling time in Holland there. I don't live in that province, you see.

[Bikkel]

Originally Posted by Justme

Ok, I just checked from Arnhem to Amsterdam and Oxford to london. Both are from similar distances apart. I checked for next Monday night after 11pm.

So what? Oxford can't be compared to Arnhem. It's not just Amsterdam that counts. I've got trains from all directions. If you were to compare London to a city the size of Arnhem, try Edinburgh or somewhere. Not little ole Oxford. You can reach Arnhem from all directions much later than Oxford from anywhere other than from London. Amsterdam certainly doesn't compare to Arnhem like LDN-OX. You love metro definitions and in metro terms Arnhem is well over a million. Does Oxford have late night services from Gloucester, Bristol, Reading, Cambridge? Bet it doesn't.

You seem unable to see that abroad things are run with a very different mindset. Amsterdam is hardly anything more interresting than Arnhem. The oldest music hall and cinema are both in Arnhem you see. Amsterdam is a bit of a new town really.

[Bikkel]

Originally Posted by Monkey

It looks like poor Bikkel is having his nose rubbed in the sour facts.... again.

[Bikkel]

Originally Posted by wjfox2002

Train services in this country are completely fucking shit. Take this morning for example. I had to wait 12 minutes for a train, only to find it had been delayed by another FIFTEEN minutes, then it was so unbearably crowded by the time it arrived that it was barely fit for a human being to travel on. On the way home this evening it was just as bad, if not worse. We were kept waiting at London Bridge for over TWENTY MINUTES in a sweltering, packed train... barely able to stand up straight because it was so fucking overcrowded, and all because some idiot parked a train in front of us that shouldn't have been there. When it finally got moving, most of the people on my carriage were on the verge of passing out. Total fucking shambles, and it seems to happen nearly every other day, but today was 10 times worse because of the absolutely awful humidity.

People back in England tend to agree to me, unwantonly though. This Foxy quote is from the skybar.

[Bikkel]

@JGG

I skipped your reply at first but SE includes Kent which has archaic connections. Again which I can vouch for having travelled on those myself.

I honestly feel like going back 40 years in time, which I can at the age of 45 almost 46, having first visited England in 1965.

This thread is just a big laugh. Honestly, England comes behind: Netherlands, France, Germany, Denmark, Switzerland, Austria. Maybe it can beat say Spain or Italy, but England can't have a siesta so the folk in the latter two won't be that bothered really.

[johnnypd]

Originally Posted by Bikkel

@JGG

I skipped your reply at first but SE includes Kent which has archaic connections. Again which I can vouch for having travelled on those myself.

I honestly feel like going back 40 years in time, which I can at the age of 45 almost 46, having first visited England in 1965.

This thread is just a big laugh. Honestly, England comes behind: Netherlands, France, Germany, Denmark, Switzerland, Austria. Maybe it can beat say Spain or Italy, but England can't have a siesta so the folk in the latter two won't be that bothered really.

that's how it feels to me when using non-tgv french trains. i'm thinking of paris to chateauroux, and chateauroux to limoges. reminds me of a cross between 1950s english trains with the separate compartments, and the new york subway!

[JDRS]

Originally Posted by Bikkel

Sorry, that's plain ridiculous; if anywhere I travelled on London's tube and Arnhem's trolley busses most during the past decade. And before I might have agreed with you but now from experience, nope; trolley busses drop you off at a few steps from where you need to be. Even when you race up the stairs in tubestation it cannot compensate for the loss of time. Besides on many trajects, along 30 miles speed limit roads, trolley busses are allowed to speed up to 50!!
I've missed my train at Velp a few times, took the next trolley bus and got there before the train would arrive at the platform ... Whilst it included walking longer distances than with just switching platforms at Arnhem would have been the case.

To be fair Bikkel, on the trams I travelled on over in Holland, they werent faster than most of the tube and had to keep stopping for red lights and pedestrians. At times they got fast, but not as fast as parts of the tube or the piece of line I use most frequently.

Don't get me wrong, they're wicked to ride and very well organised, but on speed I honestly think the Tube is faster.

[Monkey]

Of course the Tube is faster. No trolley buses anywhere in the world run as fast as the Tube. They would be a serious safety hazard if they did. Bikkel's just farting again....

[Bikkel]

Monkeydonkey, I'm not saying trolley busses run faster - even when they do run much faster like 85km, but because these halt at busstops at only a few steps from your destination, I have known them to be the faster means of transport.

Listen kiddo. I first travelled on the tube way before you were born and most recently travelled on the tube in March this year. You never travelled on the smooth Arnhem trolley bus system. Admit it

You cannot compare!! While I can

[Bikkel]

Originally Posted by JDRS

To be fair Bikkel, on the trams I travelled on over in Holland, they werent faster than most of the tube and had to keep stopping for red lights and pedestrians. At times they got fast, but not as fast as parts of the tube or the piece of line I use most frequently.

Don't get me wrong, they're wicked to ride and very well organised, but on speed I honestly think the Tube is faster.

Trolley busses in Arnhem run smoothly. The national railways faced several delays with the October 2003 storm. None of the trolley busses were delayed - think overground electricity systems to feed the trolleys. Trains not running, trolley busses unaffected. Trolley busses can also run on other streets; away from their overground electricity netwerk.

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by Bikkel

Monkeydonkey, I'm not saying trolley busses run faster - even when they do run much faster like 85km, but because these halt at busstops at only a few steps from your destination, I have known them to be the faster means of transport.

Listen kiddo. I first travelled on the tube way before you were born and most recently travelled on the tube in March this year. You never travelled on the smooth Arnhem trolley bus system. Admit it

You cannot compare!! While I can

Yeah but so far your "comparisons" have all been proven completely wrong!

[Bikkel]

And please; Holland is the the Milton Keynes of Arnhem. Really. Hanseatic Leagues; centuries before Amsterdam and all those towns even existed.

The 'n' in www.ns.nl stand for Netherlands, just like the dot NL bit after it. As long as you continue to persist in calling this country Holland, kindly allow me to laugh in your face.

With all good reason. Holland wouldn't have continued to exist if it wasn't for France. And since you all hate France, you must be delighted to know that without Burgundy (France/Dijon, Lyons) Holland would have been conquered by Gueldres. Gueldres should celebrate its military superiority now that it's about 500 years ago.