Loco-hauled train on Virgin Chiltern shuttle

>
> I would suggest to anybody who wishes to go to london to not use
> Virgin - i had to ensure a 2.5 hour train journey from Euston - B'ham
> International and it was so boring and tiresome with the train going
> so so slow all the dammned way!!!!  :(
>

As a regular traveller to and from Euston, it's easy to forget that,
of all the routes heading north from London, the WCML is easily the
most scenic and I would include the Cotswold line in that.

Rob wrote:

> I would suggest to anybody who wishes to go to london to not use
> Virgin - i had to ensure a 2.5 hour train journey from Euston - B'ham
> International and it was so boring and tiresome with the train going
> so so slow all the dammned way!!!! :(

What would you suggest instead?

Charlie

"Charlie Hulme" <info@davenportstation.org.uk> wrote in message
news:aj%pk.16074$N93.3418@newsfe25.ams2...
> Rob wrote:
>
> > I would suggest to anybody who wishes to go to london to not use
> > Virgin - i had to ensure a 2.5 hour train journey from Euston - B'ham
> > International and it was so boring and tiresome with the train going
> > so so slow all the dammned way!!!! :(
>
> What would you suggest instead?
>
Either Chiltern (from Snow Hill or Moor Street), or Cross-Country, changing
to FGW at Reading.

Peter

On 18 Aug, 10:32, Tony Polson <docnews2...@> wrote:

> We shouldn't try to kid ourselves that rail travel is something that
> the majority of people participate in.

No but are you suggesting we just accept that fact or should we be
trying to do something about it?

On Aug 18, 11:59 am, Tony Polson <docnews2...@> wrote:
>
> To the majority of people, rail will therefore remain irrelevant.

What a complete and utter load of clap-trap. Not every one wants to
run a car or travel by coach.

Tony Polson wrote:
> m1ss_wh1te <m1ss_wh1te.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Aug 18, 11:59 am, Tony Polson <docnews2...@> wrote:
>>> To the majority of people, rail will therefore remain irrelevant.
>> What a complete and utter load of clap-trap. Not every one wants to
>> run a car or travel by coach.
>
>
> On an average day, less than 7% of journeys are made by train.

You love that figure, don't you.

>
> 93% are made by other modes, including cars, buses, coaches,
> motorcycles, bicycles and a small proportion by air.
>

How about walking?

> In what way is 93% not a majority?
>

It's not a majority of _people_. Everyone in the
country might be making 7% of their journeys by train.
In that case they would not consider trains an irrelevance.

However, your original comment, in its context, was
sadly correct.

Charlie

In message <6o2ja4t3mnngmmjdgjjjfh9dcs61gqjc8q@>, at 15:59:37 on
Mon, 18 Aug 2008, Tony Polson <docnews2011@> remarked:
>In any given year, 70% of people don't use trains at all. To those
>people, rail is completely irrelevant.

Apparently (statistic in The Guardian last week) 90% of British children
have never been on a UK beach. So we should just close the seasides.

And that troublesome railway to Skegness :)
--
Roland Perry

On Aug 21, 8:35 pm, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message
> <bbf1f334-2987-4dd9-86dc-d27cc10a2...@79g2000hsk..com>, at
> 04:27:30 on Mon, 18 Aug 2008, m1ss_wh1te <m1ss_wh....uk>
> remarked:
>
> >> To the majority of people, rail will therefore remain irrelevant.
>
> >What a complete and utter load of clap-trap. Not every one wants to
> >run a car or travel by coach.
>
> And something like 90% of commuters into London use public transport, so
> they find it rather relevant.
>
> Of course, that statistic might explain why the network seems to be very
> London-centric at times. 90% of commuters elsewhere *don't* use public
> transport.

The thing about all this is that the statistics that were used to
prove relevance to people, by a certain poster, were actually about
numbers of journeys and mileage. When caught out, the person still
wanted to imply that people make only one journey per day.

In a given Friday, 25% of my journeys might involve national rail (eg
I got one train in the morning and three buses while winding my way
home via a couple of pubs).

But 100% of me used NR that day and I found it highly relevant to my
most important journey.

In message
<0cf8b1d3-a06d-4376-9e7f-8309ce4d2919@k13g2000hse..com>, at
13:53:07 on Thu, 21 Aug 2008, jeffworsnop <jeffworsnop@>
remarked:
>> >> In any given year, 70% of people don't use trains at all.  To those
>> >> people, rail is completely irrelevant.
>>
>> > Apparently (statistic in The Guardian last week) 90% of British children
>> > have never been on a UK beach. So we should just close the seasides.
>>
>> In some places, I think they already have....
>>
>> > And that troublesome railway to Skegness :)
>
>I should imagine it's 100% of children younger than one month!
>The Guardian statistic is useless as presented above out of context.

The context is an article about where families go on holiday (home or
abroad). It's possible the age range for "child" is 5-12 year olds,
because it also quotes that 78% of them have been on a seaside holiday
abroad. 81% of the parents had been on a UK beach when a child.
--
Roland Perry