From the BBC:


A selection of pictures of the achievement can be found here.

 

  why can't the British ?

     http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20101015/twl-job-done-world-s-longest-tunnel-comp-3fd0ae9.html

 
Probably because we don't need a 35 mile long tunnel here.

 
Because the Swiss are capable of having a calm, rational debate about things. In this case, the number of lorries crossing the country between Germany and Italy, before they voted in referendums in the 1990s to go ahead with this and the Lotschberg base tunnel, even though the Gotthard tunnel has cost them something like ^800 a head for everyone living in the country. Just imagine trying to get people here to vote for that. What would happen if you had a referendum on building High Speed 2?  

 
I'm going to stick my neck out a little here: I really have no patience with "everything's better abroad" syndrome.

a) We don't need to burrow a tunnel of that length through anything, and the very suggestion that we possible should in the UK is rather silly.
b) I would like to think that, were we to have a referendum on HS2, the result would quite rightly be a resounding "no", seeing as we seem to be poising ourselves to spunk billions of pounds on something that, although it might be nice to have and look all shiny and high-tech, is frankly not that necessary. Whilst I'm sure that the burghers of London and Birmingham will be delighted to have journey times that are already quick shaved by 20 minutes, I maintain that were those billions of pounds to be re-allocated and spent across the traditional network they could alleviate all sorts of problems across the country (I'm thinking GWML electrification, Thameslink, new stock for FGW and Northern, capacity improvements in the north, etc etc etc). HS2 strikes me as rather analogous to buying a helicopter for your trip to Tesco because your car is a bit ropey. Why spend a modest sum fixing the car when you could p*ss it up the wall on a helicopter, after all?
c) Do you really want the UK to turn into Switzerland? It's certainly a country with some spectacular natural beauty, but that aside it's the most boring place I've ever been - I've never been so keen to get the hell out of a place as I was after a Monday morning in Zurich waiting for an afternoon flight back home!

 
↑What he said↑

And may I say, very well put, blakey. Even if the language was a bit fruity in places!

 
And completely ignores the fact that major transport projects such as the Channel Tunnel Rail Link aka HS1 - and the motorway network - weren't paid for out of general transport funding.

I don't think Henry, nor I, was actually suggesting we needed a 35-mile tunnel anywhere - though we and the French have already built a 31-mile one. Nor turning the UK into Switzerland, where at least they don't tell you a train is on time when it's actually five or 10 minutes late like this country.

Ask anyone in the rail industry and they will tell you that the key benefit from a high-speed line would not be speed, which everyone goes on and on about here, but extra capacity. Look at the problems over getting any kind of path for extra trains on the ECML, MML and the WCML.

France built its first TGV line because the existing Paris-Dijon-Lyons line was at full capacity. The reduction in journey times was a bonus.

And the number of people using trains is rising again, while road traffic is falling, which suggests the capacity problem is only likely to get worse. A nice problem to have but a problem that will require a solution. And our low bridges and tunnels mean we can't go down the double-deck trains route without massive expense and disruption.

On the other hand, if rail fares do go up 30-40 per cent in the next few years, as Channel 4 News suggested last night, then people may well get back in their cars and we'll have to build more roads instead of railway line, high-speed or otherwise.

 

Ahh, would that be major projects like GWML electrification or HST replacement then, which as far as I understand it (but I am open to correction by those with a superior knowledge of treasury machinations) were not due to be paid for out of the general transport pot, but yet appear very likely to suffer at the hands of the spending review on Wednesday?


I think you and I must be talking to different echelons in the rail industry, because the view of the people I know who work in it has been universal cynicism. More seriously, I don't entirely disagree with you. However, the first stage of HS2, London to Birmingham, will do little more than duplicate the WCML which has had large sums of money spent on upgrades, and is about to have a big capacity boost with new Pendolinos and extensions of many existing units to 11 cars. And even the completed "Y"-shaped route (I think that's what was planned last time I checked, but it seems to be changing every few days) doesn't do much more than duplicate the best existing rail services in the UK.

I have no objection in principle to HS2 (really - I would love to see it built) but there couldn't be a worse time to be proposing to build it than now, in my opinion. On the one hand, the government is cutting money from all departments: just to take a couple of examples from education, tuition fees for university look set to soar and funding for academic research in the UK is likely to take a heavy hit. But on the other hand they're preparing to spend many billions on a gold-plated, new shiny rail line that largely duplicates existing ones.

Now, you can call me politically naive (let's be honest, to all intents and purposes you already have), but I can promise you that to me and many millions of others it looks like a bizarrely distorted set of government priorities.

 

 Actually, correct me if I am wrong, we were probably building tunnels i.e. (tube) before most countries.
 
 So how many miles of 'tunnel' is the London Underground ?

 I certainly do not suffer from 'everything better abroad' syndrome, given an equal playing field we can compete with
 any nationality with regard to engineering capability.
 But reading the Railway press regarding other European projects , i.e.  trains from Moscow to Nice, perhaps we
 suffer because we are an insignificant little island in the English Channel.

 
 

From the BBC:

 

Yes they were - that's why they are set to be clobbered. Network Rail's budget and borrowings are part of the general transport pot, whatever the window dressing says. The Government has never classified rail electrification schemes or programmes like the HST replacement as being of major national importance.


What like the French LGV routes, like the German Neubaustrecken, like the Italian direttissima, like Spain's linea de alta velocidad. How could they not duplicate existing routes, running as they do between existing population centres which is where you will find passengers for the trains?

And our key rail routes are increasingly short of capacity. So the WCML is getting a few more Pendolinos - which will eat up the little remaining capacity. What about LM's services, which virgin would cheerfully shunt out of the way if it could, never mind freight? And prospective open-access operators have basically been told that they needn't bother asking for paths - never mind that there aren't any spare 125mph tilting trains anyway.

You completely ignored the MML and ECML, so contemplate the following from the executive summary of Network Rail's East Coast Main Line 2016 Capacity Review Draft for Consultation, published in August.

"Analysis of the aspirations for paths on the ECML against the available capacity on completion of Control Period (CP4) infrastructure schemes has shown that the demand for paths exceeds the capacity available."

That's by 2016. Long before even the first bit of HS2 would be available, should it be authorised, never mind reaching the East Midlands and Yorkshire.

The full 42-page document is here http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browseDirectory.aspx?root=%5CRUS%20Documents%5CRoute%20Utilisation%20Strategies&pageid=4449&dir=%5CRUS%20Documents%5CRoute%20Utilisation%20Strategies%5CEast%20Coast%20Main%20Line

What would do you suggest instead? A decade of WCML-style digging on the ECML? Building a second Welwyn viaduct? Quad-tracking north of Peterborough with a second Stoke summit tunnel? Because that's what you're looking at. Or you could just build a new line...

 
First reports are coming in of a collision between two trains in a single track line in Switzerland, at Grange-pr^s-Marnand (Vaud). Little detail so far, estimates of 40 injured and no deaths but a warning that may not last.

 
Swiss reports are giving an initial explanation: the two trains should have passed in the station where there are two tracks, but one set off too early. 
http://www.rts.ch/info/regions/vaud/5099738-une-collision-de-trains-a-fait-35-blesses-dans-la-broye-vaudoise.html
(Note that some pictures show another track alongside: this is a siding.)

 
From the BBC:

 
I find the extent of damage to one of these carriages quite a shock. I can't find a comparative picture of the other carriages in this train, but it looks as if half its length has been squashed to almost nothing. (Picture from RTS.ch)

 
This report (http://www.rts.ch/info/regions/vaud/5100665-collision-dans-la-broye-la-these-du-non-respect-de-la-signalisation-privilegiee-
par-la-police.html) already gives an almost complete description of what happened (if not an explanation).

A three-car Lausanne S-bahn train S21 from Payerne to Lausanne stopped at the station (Granges-pr^s-Marnand).
A two-car regional train from Lausanne to Payerne was due to pass it without stopping.
(The accident was reported at 19:44, but the RE is timetabled at 18:44 - S21s run at both times).

The S21 left too soon, against the signal which is reported as working, and must have crossed trailing points against it.
The driver stopped just past these points and evacuated the front of carriage 1 (though another police statement said it was moving at 40 km/hr).
The RE struck the stationary S21 at up to 100 km/hr, its first carriage was compressed by 8 m, and its driver killed.
The possibility of passengers being found in the front of this carriage has not yet been excluded.

This line has the lowest of 4 levels of protection described as "Integra".
If this is Integra-Signum, which appears  to intervene after a SPAD, nothing else, it still should have applied the brakes here. If the signal is close to the platform end it is surprising the train got so far - 280 m by my reckoning.

 
Just been posted on sky news

http://news.sky.com/story/1318028/derailed-train-carriages-plunge-into-ravine

 
And some more dramatic images here... http://www.20min.ch/schweiz/ostschweiz/story/Sind-noch-Personen-im-abgestuerzten-Waggon--18005231

(All in German, but the pictures tell it all)

All pax accounted for, with 5 seriouly injured.

 
It does indeed seem quite remarkable that there were no fatalities, and so relatively few serious injuries, in view of the scale of that derailment.  Best wishes to all of those injured for a swift recovery.

The Swiss do seem to have some smart kit available to them, to help deal with any such incidents - for example:

 
Indeed they do, Chris.  A couple of years ago I had a tour of the Lotschberg Base Tunnel emergency train based at Frutigen, and it was impressive stuff.

 
It's very good to know that there were no fatalities and we all hope the injured will fully recover quickly and the crew cope with the shock.  Wonderful rescue service personnel as well as equipment.

Normally, I would expect the Swiss to have the trains running normally by tomorrow night, but allowing for the ravine and the weather I expect it will take until Friday!   

 
Two more photos here

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bu7AxXfCEAE36ow.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bu60wqxCAAAPZ5K.jpg

 

 
The BBC now have it too

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-31547979

 
No word of an official explanation yet, but the pictures do support the initial reports of a signal passed at red.

There are two through lines and two platform loops at Rafz, and the express train from Zurich to Schaffhausen can be seen to have struck the suburban train a glancing blow and to have been almost entirely derailed. It crossed the other through line (to Zurich), and struck something (presumably an OLE stanchion) hard enough to tear a hole in the power car and result in serious injuries to the driver.

This train continued over a small bridge, where it just stayed within the parapet railing, onto the bare ground beside the track. The suburban train was left upright - and may have stopped by the time of the impact. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the suburban train set off before its signal had cleared, unless the signal had cleared in error.

Incidentally, both trains were going to Schaffhausen - in Switzerland - but the next two stations are in Germany. Do they still drive on the left there? It's a bit academic, as the line is single at the border so there is no need for an Alsace-style flyover.

 
Further news (in French) from 24heures.ch

This says that both trains were driven by trainees under instruction, and unlike the last Swiss accident at Granges-Marnand the station has an up to date signalling system (ZUB). This ought to at least stop a train trying to pass a red signal, so the current expert view is that that driver error alone can't explain it.

 

Having looked at the layout on Google Earth, that's wrong. The pictures are misleading - there's a main island platform, and also a second one, but very low. And they use both sides of the main platform for both ways - many trains terminate here and start back both ways too. So the stopping train (RER) was on the left and the express on the rightmost track, which gives the same geometry.

 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36423250

 
Impressive!

 
Don't remember the orange army doing acrobatics and cavorting about in their undies at Dawlish. As I recall it was a bit parky that day !!
Or was it just another Berlusconi Bunga Bunga party ?

 
And the breakthrough in the channel tunnel was celebrated with a couple of handshakes and exchange of slightly soiled flags!

Video from ITN here.

 
Here's a picture of a new Swiss EMU.  It's got sliding doors at different heights.  Presumably different sets of doors open depending on the height of the platform at the stations its serves.  I've never seen his before - maybe it's to help disabled people, load buggies etc?

 

Ah, I've been on these - I don't think they're particularly new.

As I recall, the higher doors are for luggage/goods space - presumably higher to allow them to be directly loaded from a trolley or van/lorry

 
Yes, that makes sense, and is consistent with there being no windows in that part of the train. I've travelled a fair bit by train in Switzerland (and will be there again in May) but never noticed a train with doors like that.

 

A lot of the 'private' railways in Switzerland that go to high resorts seem to carry quite a lot of goods and parcels and luggage - makes sense, especially in winter, to keep some of the vans and lorries off the road. Don't forget the BOB goes to Wengen which is traffic free.

Have you got any specific travel plans for your break this year? The ride on the BOB from Interlaken to Grindelwald and then on up to Junfraujoch is expensive and can be very busy (and is also quite a lengthy trip), but is worth it if you've not done it before. As I recall you can get 50% off with a Swiss Pass or half price card on the Junfrau Bahn and the BOB is classed as part of the national network for the rail cards iirc.

 
It seems to me a little odd that the higher doors intended for light freight or parcels are of a contrasting colour to the surrounding bodywork.

I though that a European standard requires doors intended for passenger use to be of a contrasting colour so as to be seen by those with poor eyesight. That would seem to imply that doors NOT intended for public use should be inconspicuous by being of the same colour as the surroundings.

Or are these doors intended for the public to load their own bulky luggage, skis and so on ?

 
Surely the reason why the doors at the ends of the train are higher is because that's the floor height over the bogies. TGV-duplex also have them, with a luggage storage area in each end trailer. As far as I can see (from an inadequate drawing) at the ends, where there is no high-level connection to the next carriage, there is a half-height "room" between the above-bogie floor and the upstairs floor - only accessible from this short full-height compartment at that sliding luggage door. Presumably the Swiss one, which has a cab not a power car next to that space, is much the same mutatis mutandis.

 
I've thought the same of the staff doors on ATW's class 150s. They say Staff Access on them but are painted the same colour as the passenger doors.

 
From 2012 consolidated text of the the PRM TSI:

There is also this, from the 2014 draft of a revison (apprently still work in progress):

There isn't anything about goods or staff access doors not being painted like passenger ones, which might help. As would common sense, of course.

 

Having witnessed them in action, albeit a few years ago now, I seem to recall station staff (there are lots) loading up with crates of food/drink deliveries, luggage and so on - I assume they use the high doors (agree that the floor is high due to the bogie clearance, but that bring other benefits) as they're on a level with a van or hand cart. And yes, in winter I am sure they'll be racked out for skis, although there is often an open wagon with ski racks that's towed/pushed at one end of some of the mountain railways. There's many tour groups visiting this area, so there will be significant demand for luggage space, especially for trains to Wengen as road access is not permitted.

With regards to oddities and not conforming to euro standards - this is Switzerland afterall...

 

My reading is that this makes the livery on 43003 to be against the 2012 rules, but allowed again from the 2014 rules, as the guard / train manager / bicycle door isn't contrasting.   Commonly accepted (or rather commonly acknowledged) that the who set couldn't be retro under modern requirements.

 

That's what I meant by common sense: is the driver's door an "external door" under the 2012 wording? Or does it not count as there's no reason for considerations of passenger accessibility to apply to it. (Unless it's to help drivers who ...)

 
There was, in fact, a revised version that came out in 2014 - with the new wording:

There has been a lot more changed in the words defining the scope of the standard. This has gone from:
to :

However, the earlier text also had a section headed "2. DEFINITION OF SUBSYSTEM/SCOPE", within which was:

I can see that might be confusing. I take it to define the scope in terms of the subsystem breakdown - which parts of the railway does this apply to (or not) - while the simpler "scope" is about the scope of application, i.e. which aspects are affected. Which I see as common sense (though that's always been a tricky concept in specifications and standards writing).

 

I think the intention has always been for passenger doors to be contrasting.  The 2014 simply make that explicit.  AFAIK the doors on power cars have never had a contrasting livery.

 
I'm no lawyer, and I haven't read the relevant regulations in full, but as far as I can see there is nothing to stop FirstGWR putting a whole rake in a heritage livery if they wanted, for the following reasons:

• The regulations don't actually come into full force until 2020, and the slam-doors mean the train cannot operate beyond that date anyway
• Chiltern painted ex-Virgin mrk3s into blue&grey for their Banbury set and
• as has just brought to my attention by stuving above, there is an exemption for heritage stock anyway

I think a far more likely explanation for only 43002 and 43185 being in retro livery is that FirstGWR don't think it would be a good use of money to do a whole set.

The guards door on the TGS and one of the doors on the buffet cars aren't in a contrasting colour either.

 

Isn't that door on the buffet car permanently out of use? I don't think they even have door handles fitted anymore.

As I recall, on the west coast mk3 loco hauled stock, there was at least one set of doors of each buffet car marked as 'not for public use' (predictably the 'l' used to go missing from time to time...)

 

NB. The BOB doesn't go to Wengen, although part of the same Jungfraubahn group, Wengen is served by the WAB, a change of vehicle is required at Lauterbrunnen to get there. Incidentally a huge project on the other side of Mannlichen from Wengen, the Grindelwald side is being constructed. A new BOB station is being built just north west of Grindelwald to link with the replacement Mannlichen cable car AND the brand new mega cable car service from Grund to Eigergletcher, meaning that Kleine Schiedegg will be by-passed by most of the customers aiming for Jungfraujoch from the Grindelwald side. The existing Grindelwald - Kleine Scheidegg rail service via Grund is to continue but in a reduced format unless the new cable system is weather halted.

http://jungfrau.ch.jungfrauweb1.nine.ch/tourismus/news-events/v-bahn/das-projekt-v-bahn/

 

GTBE junior & family live in Switzerland and his local station is Ilanz, on the Rhatische Bahn between Chur and Dissentis.  Every year we stay a few days with them then travel on by train to a Swiss city. We've done Interlaken and did the trip up the Jungfrau via Grindelwald in the sunshine (best to go early in the day for this). This year it's Bern, so travel via Dissentis, Andermatt, Brig.  We usually get Swiss passes for convenience.

We fly to Zurich.  Used to use Eurostar, but got fed up with unpredictable service and appalling facilities at Gare du Nord which aren't much better than Dover Western Docks used to be.

So many trips to recommend in Switzerland. Rhatische Bahn is wonderful - proper trains with locos on the front and Guard's vans, local pick up freights etc. As Chris75 says, a lot of freight is moved by rail in the high valleys.  Bernina Express route is arguably more scenic that Glacier Express, but on both routes get the local trains not the named trains. 

Edit for spelling of "Rhatische"

 
Bern is a very pleasant city and comes highly recommended from me for a day visit. There are a number of self guided walking tours available from the tourist info which are quite good.

Depending on which direction you arrive from, keep an eye open for Wankdorf station if you wish to have a childish snigger!

Oh, and don't expect anything other than pizza to eat! For some reason we didn't seem to be able to find anything other than pizzerias when looking for an evening bite to eat! 

 

We're both sort of right, the Berner Oberland Bahnen AG (BOB) own all of the rail lines/companies in that valley including the railway at Murren, Schynige Platte, BOB, WAB & Jungfrau Bahn

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernese_Oberland_railway

 
The report of the investigation of this accident has been published by SUST (aka SESE, SISI, and STSB). It's only in one language, in this case German which is local to Rafz. I'd expected the summary to be translated into French and Italian, but apparently not.

Since I know almost no German, and this is complicated stuff full of long words (even by German standards), that causes some problems. However, it's full of pretty pictures, so it's possible to follow the narrative parts pretty well.

For those who think the Swiss set the highest standards of "how to run a railway", the causes of the accident may be a bit of a surprise. The S-bahn train did depart against a red signal, and the emergency stop when this was realised left it foul of the points where a through track joined the platform track.

This is my take on what report identified as the main reasons:

• The drivers (trainee and trainer) mistook the green signal for the through track for the one applying to theirs. It was straight ahead, and brighter than the correct one which was to one side. I think the report even says that the design rules for signals don't include sighting confusions like this.
  
• The train and signalling system (ZUB) should stop a train attempting a SPAD, but in this case it was not fully operative - the train had reversed at Rafz, and turning on the new driving position reinitialised the system so this autostop was temporarily inactive.
  

There are several other things, including a lot about the operational procedure taught for departing a station (rather than the way the learner was being supervised). That, and other points, make less sense to me.

If anyone can cope with the German, and wants to correct any errors in the above, please do.

 
Thanks for posting that STUVING.  I must say that having been involved in signal sighting and scheme layout design in the UK over a considerable number of years, that I do find the conflicting signal aspects somewhat supprising, but then they do tend to rely on the Train Protection system being the safeguard in such circumstances.  If I do manage to decipher anymore of the report (I'm lucky as a signal engineer to be able to understand some of the technical issues even though they are in German) I'll add it here 

 
I've just returned home from holiday in Switzerland, and the first week was spent with rail passes that meant we utilised all the different types of railway in the area to the fullest extent. 

The on train experience
All were immaculately clean whether brand new or decades old
There wasn't an airline seat to be seen, but lots of leg room, so no need to play footsie.
The windows always lined up with the seats
Panoramic windows were the norm (not just on scenic services), much deeper, and often with additional windows at the transition to the roof.
Windows could be opened wide - on some trains you could throw a child out if so inclined, with the only warning a pictorial "no selfie sticks".
Perfectly clear TV displays (consistent across operators) giving next stop and destination information, accompanied by clear bilingual announcements.
Same screens give connection times and platforms on approach to any station. 
Ticket checks were regularly carried out.


Operating Practices
One service we caught regularly split en route at a station call. On splitting, from stopping to the first train pulling away took 50 secs on average.  On joining, from the first train arriving to the combined train pulling away took 2 mins 15 secs.  No messing about with pulling the train up once, letting pax off, closing the doors, joining, reopening the doors, as is sometimes seen in the UK.

The mountain railways would typically run two or three trains in the same direction by sight, so you could see a train no more than 200m in front of you and another behind you moving in the same direction. Maybe not relevant for the National Rail network, but symptomatic of a pragmatic view to safe operating practices.

Infrastructure

Every line was electrified, even the 100 year old mountain railway that only runs for 6 months of the year. And on the mainlines the steel masts and supports were proportionate, rather than the over-engineered constructions currently being erected on the GWML.

Elf'n Safety
Crossing from one platform to another was across the rails in the middle of the platform, even with 4 trains per hour. The station was staffed and staff made sure that it was clear as the train approached, but no need for very expensive footbridges, that then need to be made even more expensive by being accessible.  Mobility impaired customers used a flat level crossing at the end of the platform.

A crossover from one track to another split the island platform, so to get to the end of the platform needed to catch the front portion of the train, you have to cross the split.  Again a pragmatic approach that I can't imagine would get approved in the UK.

So why depressing?  Because I then thought of the comparison with our own railway, the cramped rolling stock, the poor and inconsistent information, the cost of any improvement when gold plated H&S is included. And so on...

P.S. Yes, every train was bang on time, but I expect you guessed that already.

 

 
Everything in Switzerland goes like clockwork. 

 
......and if everyone in the UK was willing and able to pay Swiss rates of taxation, I'm sure we could have similar here! 😀

 
Grass is always greener... 

However, the Swiss Railways are State owned. Maybe we could try their model in the UK. 

 

That's a fair comment, although some of the observations made are likely to result in a lower cost of running and improving a service.

 
Haverfordwest station has a steps-only footbridge at one end and a barrow crossing at the other with (I think) a white light showing when it is clear to cross. Admittedly platform 2 is hardly (if ever) used by passenger trains so nobody needs to use either means of crossing, but it doesn't look like the safety police have made sure nobody tries to use the barrow crossing so even if all down trains used platform 2 I can't see a problem; so why can't that system be adopted elsewhere at stations where all trains call rather than building expensive accessible footbridges? Obviously on busy lines the crossing would not be open long enough to ensure pepole have time to use it but in those cases there should be a stronger case for investment in accessible footbridges anyway.

Is Swiss taxation significantly different to UK taxation and what is the Swiss road system like (eg. do they waste billions on counterproductive bypasses like the UK Government does, or do they support public transport properly by not feeding the competion)?

 
Taplow Green is exactly right.  Switzerland is generally a far more prosperous country, but like many other countries seems happy to pay for the railways out of the public purse (and therefore taxation) to a much greater extent.  Public transport is just that...paid for by everyone and used by a majority but because it is so extensive there is a virtuous circle of availability, high standards and desirability.  It is also a much more compact country with few long distances between settlements that can provide custom.  The lumpy bit in the middle offers such a tourist opportunity that even that part can sustain some railways and/or Post Buses.

I'm not sure that culturally the UK can ever emulate the transport standards of Switzerland only envy it.  I also believe there are some downsides to Swiss culture which I would not want to live with - and I'm not talking cuckoo clocks - but would be inappropriate to go into that in a transport forum.

 
In some respects, the superiority of Swiss railways is due to high taxation and greater public spending on railways.
Not however in all respects.

Allowing passengers to cross the track merely requires keeping the elfansafety under control, money would be saved if compared to building elaborate footbridges everywhere.
Windows that line up with seats need cost no more than widows that don't, if planned properly at the design and build stage.
Windows that open wide enough to throw a child out should be cheaper than non functioning air conditioning.

More leg room costs money, but need not be hugely costly. 10% more space per passenger should only increase cost per seat by about 10%. Maybe a bit less than 10%

 

Joking aside, I can never let that one pass without pointing out that there is very little of the British railway system that isn't either state-owned or state-controlled. Our privatised railway is as deep as a coat of paint.

 
Shouldn't it be trilingual in Switzerland? (Or even quadrilingual if you include Romansch.)

 
No bilingual (i.e. French/German) signage anywhere in the German speaking part we were in.  We didn't venture across the rostigraben to see what the norm is in the French speaking parts.

 

Indeed - you forgot to mention the timetable has nowhere near the number of services per hour on most routes that the UK generally does (in the south east, at least), so far easier to keep to time

 

If only it were that simple!

When I was in Biel/Bienne a few years ago (on business), I was told it was the only bilingual town in Switzerland. However, that uniqueness might be apply only to its name - which is officially Biel/Bienne. The town is also officially bilingual, though I heard little French when I was there. It is in the canton of Bern, though administratively semi-separate; Bern the canton is bilingual though the city is Germanophone.

Federal institutions are in principle tri-(or more) lingual, but in practice they seem not to try very hard to achieve that. If you remember the last major train accident we saw there, the report on that was in german only (it happened in a German-speaking area). Italian is often used only in names and letterheads, and Romansch/Ladin hardly at all.

 
I remember the wide opening windows when I was there back in the early 90s and thinking then that you would not get away with it in the UK, and of course since then we've got even stricter with H&S!

 
Well, on Saturday evening last (02/09/2017) I travelled on a UK train where the windows were big and dropped wide open and the seats lined up with them.  It was on the Welshpool and Llanfair narrow gauge railway

 
Ah, might be off up there soon. Recommended?

 
Well it was GALA weekend and I travelled both ways almost in the pitch black (no train lighting).  It was a fireworks special and apparently the first attempt in the UK to have fireworks let off at various sites along the line.  Seems a nice friendly line though 

...whoops; thread drift.  Moderators watching....

 

On certain other forums you would be shot down for doing such a thing.

Luckily we have very nice moderators who don't complain and quietly get on with any moving or merging that is required. 

 
Would it be correct to assume from the wide opening windows that the services are also slower than typical in UK? (This refers to Switzerland not Llanfair!)

 

 

In the Berner Oberland Bahn area, bilingual announcements were in German and English (although Wikipedia suggests that Portugese is the second most common native language after German in the locality)

Wilderswil Station (first stop outside Interlaken) had a ticket office signposted above the door simply "Rail Travel Office".

 
To illustrate some of John R's points, here (attached) is a picture of Wilderswil, with passengers disembarking from a train on the Schynige Platte Bahn and crossing the tracks of the BOB line, on which (on the day shown) there were half-hourly trains each way of 12 or 13 coaches.

The line on the left is actually set into the (rather low) platform. It is the passing loop for Wilderswil but isn't used as a crossing point in the regular timetable.

 
I hope that proper medical treatment is available for any UK health and safety managers who suffer fits, heart attacks, or mental distress as a result of viewing these arrangements.
I wonder if any such visitors from the UK have ever called the local police to report the "mass trespass" onto the tracks ! It would be a major incident in the UK, probably requiring closure of the line for some hours.

 
Thanks Trowres. That was indeed one of the locations I had in mind. One station further south is where the trains split, with the rather curious split platform I described, as shown in the photo. The speed of dividing/joining was very impressive.

 
Ahh the delightful Zweilutschinen .... Which is so much in shadow that you can get third degree frostbite in winter waiting if your scheduling goes arwy.

(Slight exaggeration)

 

I cannot pretend to understand the complexities of the Swiss railway structure - some of the "private" railways such as BOB are at least part-owned by the cantons. However, the spread of running railways by complex contracts can be identified in the following document:-
http://fsr.eui.eu/Documents/ResearchReport/Transport/Incentive-basedGovernanceSwissRailways.pdf

 

Trainer, I wish that you had expanded on this opinion. What do you think are the cultural problems? (others please chip in!!!)

 
I was referring to the whole idea that we should share responsibility, costs and the transport itself and not take the more individualistic approach so many of my friends have where the car is king.  In Switzerland there is (to my limited knowledge) no stigma to using public transport even when access to a car is available.  It is a strange thing that such a capitalist country keen on making money has such a socialist attitude towards transport.

Those who visit Switzerland - even non-train enthusiasts - often remark on the wonderful system, but as soon as you mention the word 'tax' in explaining why it's so good there is often a slight splutter as we don't trust our politicians with 'our' money, so the thought of handing more over for trains and buses has been (certainly since 1979) felt undesirable. In turn the decline in the ease of using public transport in the UK (most specifically buses connecting with trains) is seen as a reason not to proceed with more subsidy for it.

I think to pick out this particular aspect of British life and how we approach it fails to address the broader political differences between the us and some other countries which often arise out of cultural differences in attitudes.  I will find it difficult to succinctly express those differences without sounding like some abhorrent nationalist - subtlety is essential and can be lengthy.  Suffice it to say, some countries seem more socially minded than others (perhaps the Scandinavian countries stand out in this respect) and that is reflected in their politics. I hope these few comments will be enough to elucidate my initial comment and provoke others to 'chip in' - and disagree.

(I did say I wasn't sure this was solely a transport subject! )

 
Thanks, Trainer. You mention individualism and a reluctance to embrace collective funding (tax). But if I interpret correctly, you see these as symptoms of an ingrained national trait that affects a much wider range of issues.

This proposition raises interesting questions on the possible causes of such differences, and how stable these traits are. The population isn't homogeneous. If the "national trait" is due to some feedback mechanism, reinforcing the view of a small majority, there's the possibility of a rapid switch to a new situation given a sufficient nudge.

 
Hmm. NHS. Something the UK holds dear (too dear?) to its heart over and and above funding for absolutely anything else. The UK *would* in general, according to many polls, be quite happy to pay more tax for its funding. Probably to the detriment of anything else unfortunately

 

Given how much less we spend on our health service than other European Countries (let alone the USA), perhaps not too dear.  You don't get owt for nowt.

 
Ellendune, you've made me think...perhaps both National Rail and the NHS share the characteristics (compared with other countries mentioned) of meagre funding and patchy service quality...but maybe good value for money; at least compared with the US model. That would support Trainer's viewpoint (although why are we a heavy defence spender?).

 

Presumably you're referring to heathcare in the US.

The bastion of capitalism that is the US of A, where anything vaguely socialist is nearly always seen as abhorrent, has a federal and state subsidised passenger rail service.

 

Yes, I was thinking of healthcare. I have no idea about the value-for-money of USA passenger rail, and  comparisons with UK would be difficult due to the radically different geography.

 

Not to mention an oversized respect for authority and tolerance for intrusive rules and regulations that would have your average Britons up in arms - 55mph on a motorway, no booze until you're 21, draconian legal practices, interior decorators have to be licensed, chicken that has to be washed in chlorine because food standards are so dreadful etc.

In comparison with the US and much of the EU, we are a very liberal nation - no ID cards or legal obligation to tell the state where you live, tax and employment law are very simple and (relatively) easy to comply with, easy to rent and buy property, few "licenses to print money" like having to have documents notarised or having to use an estate agent. There's a reason why this country attracts hundreds of thousands of people every year despite having dismal weather, expensive property and a minimal welfare state.

 

It's 22 years since the federally enacted National Speed Limit was repealed. It was introduced by Nikon in 1974 in response to the oil crisis. In 1995 US states were again free to set their own speed limits, following many years of low enforcement and legal challenges by States against Federal government.

Interstate Highway speed limits are now up to 85mph (Texas), with the majority between 65-75mph. Just two states (Alaska, Delaware) and the District of Columbia have kept the 55mph limit on major roads.

 
The Most Reverend Nikon to you!
https://oca.org/holy-synod/bishops/the-most-reverend-nikon

 

Indeed, we had our own lowered speed limit of 50mph in the UK at this time.

The rest of Europe enjoys substantially higher motorway speed limits than we do, mostly 130kph (81mph), with Switzerland at 120kph and of course the legendary 'unlimited' sections of Autobahn in Germany.

 
From Yahoo! News:

 
This Autumn the Rhaetian Railway in Switzerland are to attempt to run a world record 1.9km long passenger service on it's network.

A 'rehearsal' was held earlier this month

https://www.suedostschweiz.ch/rhb-rekord?utm_campaign=so-auto&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social_page

Use Google Translate.

 
Completed today

https://twitter.com/FlywheelMedia1/status/1586338247785205760

 
Very impressive. Reported as 25 EMUs each of 4 cars, coupled together. Bit surprised that the OHLE could supply enough current for that lot, especially when considering that significant gradients were involved.

 

Indeed -  though reading suggests that the regenerative braking system software was modified to avoid too much power being put back into the system on downhill sections!

 
Presumably there must have been times when some of the train was going uphill while other parts were going downhill… does that mean some units were consuming power while others were regenerating?

 
BlickTV were the 'official' broadcaster of the event, their recorded livestream is currently online, Commentary in Schweizerdeutsch and Rumantsch

here -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjvz52iJafA

The line is predominately slightly 'uphill' (the direction of the attempt) but is conventional traction, there are no rack sections. From viewing the video I'd estimate only eight or nine of the units were pantograph up so the remainder were being pulled. The attempt couldn't have been in a more scenic area which has several overlapping twists and turns.

 
Several reports I've seen say this was a downhill run, working within an agreed limit of power sent to the  power grid. I saw part of a presentation by one of the railway's managers in which he was making a big thing of how many homes it was powering - odd, since this was only done for the RhB's benefit. An example from trains.com

 
11 february 2023,showing how two different gauges are used without passengers having to alight/change coaches

 
From Euronews