Love it. Only on here could a thread that started as an observation about a train seat double booking degenerate into a peeing contest about the state of the UK privatised rail operators!
Quality.
I blame the French!
Indeed you can.....Connex was French and that is where it all started to go wrong
Love it. Only on here could a thread that started as an observation about a train seat double booking degenerate into a peeing contest about the state of the UK privatised rail operators!
Quality.
I blame the French!
Most things are their fault and they are easy to hate so a good call.
Plus French trains are said to be quicker than flying.
Comforting to know that our planes still rule the roost on speed and boast about it too! Check out the claim made on the propeller case of this ‘speed merchant’ that I took to Dublin.
@RugbyAddick Computer error I guess. Did you complain to the train manager? Then what you should then do is complain to GWR and explain the situation. Hopefully they can compensate you.
Are you seriously saying that population growth of under 20 per cent is responsible for passenger growth of 100 per cent?
Nope. Although if rail is a minority player in the market (I think long distance rail accounts for about 20% of such journeys , and it would be good to know how much that has increased), then the arithmetic says that if population growth grows by 10%, rail grows by 20% all other things being equal.
These are the main possible components of rail growth:
1. Market growth due to population growth
2. Market growth due to greater economic activity, both work and leisure
3. Increased supply of rail (generally, higher frequency, as we haven't built new lines)
4. Increased share of rail because more people opt for it versus car, bus or air (and then the question is, was it a positive choice)
We don't learn anything at all from that article about what proportion of the increase in passengers boasted about by the train operators can be attributed to each one of the above. But they can only take credit for (4), and even then only if research proves people positively chose train travel. So their claim is what is "just silly".
I agree that trains are more frequent now on many routes than 20 years ago. However, what we read from the OP of this thread, is that it does not seem to be any where near enough, and IMO for the reasons I have set out: Lack of political will, including from your lot; with the honourable exception of Andrew Adonis, whom Labour has shunted into a siding in the Lords
Already had my little rant Len, towards the bottom of page three.
Trying to distance myself from this one. It's stressful enough concerning myself with the travails of Cirque du SouthEastern Trains. If I start worrying about the entire UK rail network I think that would invoke a level of rage that I just couldn't control.
Let's face it the whole rail network is a national embarrassment. Trains full and rarely get above 60 mph.
Yesterday we were on train between Plymouth and Totnes and a duck was flying parallel to the train and slowly overtook us.
At least it's cheap and good value for money.
HS1 is excellent. I didn't travel to Plymouth by train as we drove to Exeter on Tuesday and stayed down there, but had numerous good train trips last season - Chesterfield, Fleetwood (Blackpool), Peterborough, Walsall, Rochdale. I think we all tend to base our views on bad experiences and forget they are not the norm.
Comments
Comforting to know that our planes still rule the roost on speed and boast about it too! Check out the claim made on the propeller case of this ‘speed merchant’ that I took to Dublin.
and it's absolutely pissing down here.
@Airman Brown
Are you seriously saying that population growth of under 20 per cent is responsible for passenger growth of 100 per cent?
Nope. Although if rail is a minority player in the market (I think long distance rail accounts for about 20% of such journeys , and it would be good to know how much that has increased), then the arithmetic says that if population growth grows by 10%, rail grows by 20% all other things being equal.
These are the main possible components of rail growth:
1. Market growth due to population growth
2. Market growth due to greater economic activity, both work and leisure
3. Increased supply of rail (generally, higher frequency, as we haven't built new lines)
4. Increased share of rail because more people opt for it versus car, bus or air (and then the question is, was it a positive choice)
We don't learn anything at all from that article about what proportion of the increase in passengers boasted about by the train operators can be attributed to each one of the above. But they can only take credit for (4), and even then only if research proves people positively chose train travel. So their claim is what is "just silly".
I agree that trains are more frequent now on many routes than 20 years ago. However, what we read from the OP of this thread, is that it does not seem to be any where near enough, and IMO for the reasons I have set out: Lack of political will, including from your lot; with the honourable exception of Andrew Adonis, whom Labour has shunted into a siding in the Lords
Trying to distance myself from this one. It's stressful enough concerning myself with the travails of Cirque du SouthEastern Trains. If I start worrying about the entire UK rail network I think that would invoke a level of rage that I just couldn't control.