Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Waiting for an email from Mr. Blair

24

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    They cannot know everything- otherwise I'd be rotting in jail... ;)

    Same here. :p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    I was merely pointing out that in my experience, the buses were free for those who were a 40 minute walk away, people who lived closer than that (which is a reasonable walk in my opinion) could buy a school bus pass at a cheaper rate (£36 for a year, oh gosh!), or walk, or get a lift.

    You were actually bringing in a pointless argument about how long it takes to walk three miles. "I can walk faster than you". Big deal. I can walk faster than my gran. Who cares?

    The point is that three miles each way is a long walk for most people, and that is why most people drive to school. And yes, wor gramps will trundle on going about how he used to walk ten miles t'mine every day, but that isn't the point.

    Most school buses are operated by a commercial operator (e.g. First, Stagecoach) and charge commercial fares for the journey. My bus was £1.20 in each direction because I was 2.95 miles from my school (if I lived 250 yards up the street I'd have got it free), which adds up to a bloody fortune when you consider there was me and my sister going the same way. Being green costs a fiver a day, using the car costs a fiver a week.

    And then, of course you get all the shit that comes along with travelling on school transport- the bullying, the bad behaviour, the problem that the bus quite often comes early or doesn't come at all. It's like public transport but worse.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    migpilot wrote: »
    I am going to do a dissertation on the topic of "Building a high-speed rail network in the UK". I do believe that a fast, safe and RELIABLE public transport is the way to go.
    Anyway....

    We need a rail service like the Japanese shinkansen system. Its safety record is phenominal. The only deaths by these have been people commiting suicide by jumping in front of them.
    Only one has ever derailed and that was due to an earthquake in 2004. 8 of the 10 cars derailed and not 1 single person was seriously injured or killed out of 154 people. I call that safe:thumb:
    Isn't anyone else concerned that the government now have our email addresses?

    They probably have way more than that on you anyway so don't worry. I'll tell you something that a friend of mine told me. The government have certain tag words set up which when people search or post on a message board they have a file compiled on them.
    If you have ever typed the word Revolution on a message board or searched it they have a file on you. Even worse is typing Viva la Revolucion.
    If you've ever typed Seig Heil, Heil Hitler etc. even jokingly then they have a file on you.
    If you've ever researched Fascism or Communism on the web they have a file on you. Or even worse, If you've ever owned or borrowed a copy of the Communist Manifesto or Mein Kamph or typed it then you have been redflagged.
    I know most people won't have typed the last 3 example but the first one I bet most people have typed it at least twice. The U.K is the most watched group of countries in the world. We are already becoming the Big Brother state and all it needs now is a Totalitarian Leader in power and then you won't be able to even fart without the Government knowing. :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    lea_uk wrote: »
    Isn't anyone else concerned that the government now have our email addresses?

    How did you sign the petition?
    Electronically.
    Of course they have your emial address!!:thumb:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Ghost18 wrote: »
    We need a rail service like the Japanese shinkansen system. Its safety record is phenominal. The only deaths by these have been people commiting suicide by jumping in front of them.
    Only one has ever derailed and that was due to an earthquake in 2004. 8 of the 10 cars derailed and not 1 single person was seriously injured or killed out of 154 people. I call that safe:thumb:

    I will be comparing the ICE 5 generation and the Maglev trains being tried in Japan and Germany.
    The Maglev train in Japan, X something, has a speed record of 330mph or something....amazing
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It'd be cool to have something like either of those in Britain though wouldn't it??
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It would be cool, but I don't fancy stumping up the money to pay for it. The CTRL, which is only about 40 miles long, cost about £500m.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That's one of the things about it....cost viability. The world is looking at the trials in Germany really to see whether it will be cost viable to run maglev trains.
    In the long term though, it would pay out... Especially on short commuter distances up to 100 miles which a high speed train can do in half an hour and there's already a double decker TGV used in france...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Instead of tracking devices and such wouldn't it make more sense to make some of the busier motorways toll (a la M6)? You could charge different rates or none at all depending on time of the day etc.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    migpilot wrote: »
    That's one of the things about it....cost viability. The world is looking at the trials in Germany really to see whether it will be cost viable to run maglev trains.
    In the long term though, it would pay out... Especially on short commuter distances up to 100 miles which a high speed train can do in half an hour and there's already a double decker TGV used in france...

    That's what we need to think about though. Long term instead of the short term.
    I think that a double decker train is an insane idea, especially with our rail system the way it is. It would lead to more deaths in rail accidents, and that means more compensation to those families that lose loved ones in it or to injured passengers.

    All things cost but which would you rather have it cost, money or lives?

    On the one hand you shell out millions of pounds on a safer, better public service transport. This would put renewed faith into the rail system which would bring in more commerce. This then means fewer cars being used meaning fewer congestion charges and alot of happy people.

    On the other hand we don't do anything except spend millions on fixing damaged rails every year. It's still just as unsafe and the crashes would cost lives and cash as well on investigations and compensation. People would still use their cars and the congestion charges will come. Chances are this would continue to rise with the increase in cars until the charge becomes unbearable.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Instead of tracking devices and such wouldn't it make more sense to make some of the busier motorways toll (a la M6)? You could charge different rates or none at all depending on time of the day etc.

    And how would you tackle congestion outside the motorways?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Ghost18 wrote: »
    That's what we need to think about though. Long term instead of the short term.
    I think that a double decker train is an insane idea, especially with our rail system the way it is. It would lead to more deaths in rail accidents, and that means more compensation to those families that lose loved ones in it or to injured passengers.

    All things cost but which would you rather have it cost, money or lives?

    On the one hand you shell out millions of pounds on a safer, better public service transport. This would put renewed faith into the rail system which would bring in more commerce. This then means fewer cars being used meaning fewer congestion charges and alot of happy people.

    On the other hand we don't do anything except spend millions on fixing damaged rails every year. It's still just as unsafe and the crashes would cost lives and cash as well on investigations and compensation. People would still use their cars and the congestion charges will come. Chances are this would continue to rise with the increase in cars until the charge becomes unbearable.

    :yes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Ghost18 wrote: »
    On the other hand we don't do anything except spend millions on fixing damaged rails every year. It's still just as unsafe and the crashes would cost lives and cash as well on investigations and compensation.

    No offence, but this exactly the sort of ill-informed claptrap that gets spouted every time a discussion about railways comes up on these boards. It's nonsensical bollocks spouted by those who know nothing, and believe all the lies printed in the media.

    The railways are unsafe, are they? There have been a couple of crashes in recent years, one caused by a possible defective rail and two by driver error. Two more were caused by dangerous road users, and are no fault of the railways. In any case, one National Express coach crash last month killed and seriously injured as many people as the level crossing accident in Wiltshire, and coaches crash all the time.

    You propose a TGV-style line. Well that's great, but it isn't safer. About five years ago an ICE train left the tracks and hit a motorway bridge at 160mph, killing about 60 people on board as far as I recall.

    Rail continues to be the safest form of land travel in this country, and whilst a TGV may attract new custom, someone would have to pay for it. Safety is a non-issue amongst all those who know anything about the railways. Either the taxpayer pays or the passenger does. And £60bn is a lot of money to find.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    migpilot wrote: »
    And how would you tackle congestion outside the motorways?

    as we do at the moment, charge a punitive fee on using more fuel ie fuel duty since its lighter on people who drive less and use more effienct cars


    having increased road tax for people who own 2 cars
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Does that apply to cabs, buses, delivery trucks, government vehicles, ambulances, police cars, other emergency services, disabled people transports and other people that use the car for business? Should they all pay those things?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    No offence, but this exactly the sort of ill-informed claptrap that gets spouted every time a discussion about railways comes up on these boards. It's nonsensical bollocks spouted by those who know nothing, and believe all the lies printed in the media.

    The railways are unsafe, are they? There have been a couple of crashes in recent years, one caused by a possible defective rail and two by driver error. Two more were caused by dangerous road users, and are no fault of the railways. In any case, one National Express coach crash last month killed and seriously injured as many people as the level crossing accident in Wiltshire, and coaches crash all the time.

    You propose a TGV-style line. Well that's great, but it isn't safer. About five years ago an ICE train left the tracks and hit a motorway bridge at 160mph, killing about 60 people on board as far as I recall.

    Rail continues to be the safest form of land travel in this country, and whilst a TGV may attract new custom, someone would have to pay for it. Safety is a non-issue amongst all those who know anything about the railways. Either the taxpayer pays or the passenger does. And £60bn is a lot of money to find.

    Do you ride the train a lot?
    I do every day... I can't tell you how many times there was something wrong with the trains, or the line or the equipment but I can tell you how many times there wasn't anything wrong with it. ZERO.
    Few things about safety... Do I feel a 100% safe in a train? NO. Do I feel 90% safe in the train? NO. Sometimes these trains go a 100mph and swerve to hell and back you can't even sit properly in the seat, let alone read or write. They are old and stutter like a petrol car running on diesel. Something is always wrong with the signlas or other equipment. On many ocassions my train has broken down in the middle of nowhere and we had to wait for ages to move or even leave the train and find other means of getting home. Not once has the train got in the station on time. The seats are bloody uncomfortable and you get people bumping into you with elbows or worse, with their bags, into you if you are sitting in the aisle seat.
    The rail lines can be constructed better, the workmanship in this country is not good, just consider the safety record of our biggest rail infrastructure company, Balfour Beatty.
    As soon as some kind of bad weather hits us, the whole network grinds to a halt. Even with little snow!! The train stations outside the big cities are not covered and people can stand for hours and freeze their arses off. We pay a lot of money for this "privilige" and all we get is bullshit.
    £60 million, so what? Blair said the UK will spend over £400 billion on transport up to 2015. That's £40 billion a year. Surely £60 billion is not too much over that. And they won't even have to do any R&D because other countries are doing it for them.

    Honestly, I should just say FUCK OFF to the government and the environment and just use my warm, comfortable, gas gazzling, drive as fast as I want, where I want and when I want, car!!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    as we do at the moment, charge a punitive fee on using more fuel ie fuel duty since its lighter on people who drive less and use more effienct cars


    having increased road tax for people who own 2 cars

    Surely this discriminates against poorer people though?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Migpilot - which train service do you use?

    At the moment I get a lot of trains and so far the only delays have been caused by twats stealing parts of the signals (apparently they have a high scrap value), trespassers on the lines and a train delay being exacerbated by getting stuck behind a local stopper train.

    The only really bad service is the service you get on a Virgin Voyager.
    Trains really aren't that bad, and I feel 100% safer in them than getting the Coastliner bus, for example. Or any bus! Buses are awful.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Migpilot - which train service do you use?

    At the moment I get a lot of trains and so far the only delays have been caused by twats stealing parts of the signals (apparently they have a high scrap value), trespassers on the lines and a train delay being exacerbated by getting stuck behind a local stopper train.

    The only really bad service is the service you get on a Virgin Voyager.
    Trains really aren't that bad, and I feel 100% safer in them than getting the Coastliner bus, for example. Or any bus! Buses are awful.

    I use ONE and SouthWest trains predominately.

    Funnilly enough I was quite satisfied with the Voyager trains a few times I used them. You can imagine what the trains I use must be like then! ;)

    Oh and yes, buses are awful. And unsafe. They should not be used for long distances anymore. I remember my first rugby game this season, back in October, the driver was so bad, and the whole experience was so bad that we had motion sickness by the time we got to Guildford.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    migpilot wrote: »
    Do you ride the train a lot?

    Yep, a lot.

    You may even go so far as to say I'm a bit of a train buff.
    Few things about safety... Do I feel a 100% safe in a train? NO. Do I feel 90% safe in the train? NO.

    That's because of your attitude, not anything to do with the actual level of service on the railways.

    Do you feel 90% safe in a car? Probably. But you're about 25 times more likely, if not more, to die in a road traffic accident than you are in a train.

    It's all about media interpretation. Five people die in a road crash and nobody really cares. Five people die as a result of a train crash and its headline news the world over. Five lives lost is five too many, but at the end of the day the train is infinitely more safe than road transport. Especially as two of the biggest crashes in recent times have been caused by dangerous road drivers, not railway errors.

    Whilst people attack mistakes, quite rightly, the fact is that a train is serviced by a professional and is driven by a professional. A car can be driven by any old nobber without any checks at all. I don't think that things are the best they could be in this country, but you will never have 100% safety.

    I was actually wrong- the ICE (German TGV) that crashed the other year killed 102 people. And as this quite rightly points out, even after that, ICE is still much safer than driving in a car.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    Yep, a lot.

    You may even go so far as to say I'm a bit of a train buff.

    Good for you! :thumb: I wouldn't call myself a buff, but I am not ignorant either. And I have been on a train in a dozen countries or so.
    That's because of your attitude, not anything to do with the actual level of service on the railways.

    I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and let you explain to me what you mean by my "attitude" and then I'll respond accordingly.
    Do you feel 90% safe in a car? Probably. But you're about 25 times more likely, if not more, to die in a road traffic accident than you are in a train.

    It's not about feeling safe in my car... if you actually paid attention my main point is not about train safety or car safety... I am in control when I am in my car, and having a professional driving license makes me a "little" better than your average driver, and no, not arrogant at all. Also, I am no fan of statistics, you should know that if you gonna keep throwing them at me.
    It's all about media interpretation. Five people die in a road crash and nobody really cares. Five people die as a result of a train crash and its headline news the world over. Five lives lost is five too many, but at the end of the day the train is infinitely more safe than road transport. Especially as two of the biggest crashes in recent times have been caused by dangerous road drivers, not railway errors.

    You are making a big assumption that I am basing my opinion on the media, which honestly is slightly insulting.
    Whilst people attack mistakes, quite rightly, the fact is that a train is serviced by a professional and is driven by a professional. A car can be driven by any old nobber without any checks at all. I don't think that things are the best they could be in this country, but you will never have 100% safety.

    Again this is not about comparison of car vs train.
    This is about the trains, rail lines and the service value for the money.
    And frankly, value for money does not apply to the Uk Rail network.
    I was actually wrong- the ICE (German TGV) that crashed the other year killed 102 people. And as this quite rightly points out, even after that, ICE is still much safer than driving in a car.

    not about cars vs trains..... :rolleyes: :p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm sure you're a fantastic driver (as is every driver if you ask them, but I digress). You have lots of control over your car- you don't, however, have any control over the pilled-up charver in his Saxo, or the Bulgarian lorry driver who's been driving for 32 hours solid.

    What's your point about statistics? If you feel unsafe after something is proven statistically to be safe, it isn't that the thing is unsafe, its that your view is wrong. Maybe that's why you "don't like statistics"- they make you look irrational.

    It's got everything to do with car versus train, though, as for most people the car is the alternative to which public transport is compared. The car was also the original subject of this thread before a couple of people started cluelessly spouting off about the railways being extortionate and dangerous.

    How do you define "value for money"? Being as cheap as the car? The railways will rarely be as cheap as the motor car until car owners have to pay the true cost of the maintenance of the roads. The £130 or so car tax doesn't come close; nor does the price of petrol. At the same time people don't factor in the insurance and the car tax when they work out how much a journey would cost. They don't factor in how much of their income tax gets spent on the motorway. I know I couldn't drive to London for £20, though, which is what its costing me next month for a return.

    Or do you define "value for money" in deaths per mile? In which case the railways quite frankly piss all over every other form of transport. This is crucial seeing as how your post was all about safety. There are, on average, about 30 deaths a year on the railways, of which 28 are usually from suicide or tresspass. The others are usually railway staff who get hit by trains unfortunately. Ludicrously the car driver in Wiltshire was classed as a railway death, too.

    Or do you define "value for money" in terms of punctuality? It's not that common to arrive within 10 minutes of your exact intended when driving, yet nobody gets their balls in a knot if the car journey is six minutes longer than intended, it's just one of those things.

    The attitude towards the railways in this country is completely unrealistic, and always has been. Delays happen, that's a fact of life, and to get 90% of trains within 10 minutes of their intended time, on such an overcrowded network, is actually quite an achievement. You must be very very unlucky if every train you get is more than 10 minutes late at the destination. Machines break down, that's a fact of life, but the trouble is you can't overtake a broken down train, you can't shove it on the hard shoulder, you can't call out the RAC, and in the south-east you can't leave the train unless there's a danger because the rails are electrified. Trains are public and you'll have to deal with the general public on them; whingeing about people daring to walk past you is petty.

    I don't like the idea of tagging cars, but I do think car owners should pay the full cost of their damage, both physically and environmentally. We should start by increasing car tax tenfold.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    You must be very very unlucky if every train you get is more than 10 minutes late at the destination.

    Indeed. As you know Kermy, my dear friend works on a GNER train every single day and she arrives back home late about once a month, if that. Most of the delays she encounters are when some selfish sod decides to stick their head on the tracks.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It just happens that I am a fantastic driver!
    It's also a common view that you can't avoid an accident if you are not at fault. But you can pre-empt a lot of accidents. First thing my dad thought me ages ago was to pay attention well in advance of my car and everywhere else. Good drivers have much more chance of never having an accident. I had one accident when I was learning to drive on the left side of the road instead of the right and since then none. My best friend, she hasn't had an accident ever, not once, after 12 years of driving. Anyway, you can't know how good a driver I am anyway....

    Statistics are not a true representation of things, as everything in life has so many variables that statistics don't take into account. I would rather base my opinion on my experience and experience of those I talk to than statistics. However, next time I try to sell you an HD ready TV, I will let you know how many I've sold so far, how many I sell per month, what my average P&L is compared to a national average or whatever....
    I am not fucken irrational. If you are saying that statistics are the law and my opinion doesn't matter, you are irrational.

    Actually the discussion with trains was about whether a high speed rail line was viable in terms of costs compared to conventional trains, NOT cars. That's what I am talking about anyway.

    You live in Newcastle, and it's gonna cost you £20 for a return to London???
    I travel on the Ipswich-London line every day almost and it costs me £20 with a discount card, and i can't even use it in peak times, the standard return is £51!!!!
    And you are telling me that's not extortionate.
    It would cost me £15 max to go to London with my car. And I wouldn't be late, I promise you.
    Speed, doing an average 80mph it will take me just over an hour to get to London, yet with a train, I walk to train station for 30min, than the train takes anything from and hour and 15 to whatever if i am having a good day.
    In my car, I got my music, comfortable seat, comfortable environment, and if there are delays i can do something about it.

    A couple of years ago if that a saver return was £16 on any train (peak or off-peak), now it's £29 off-peak and £51 peak. What's happened in those 2 years to raise the prices so much.
    Where is the value for money.

    What are you on about car costs???? It's not enough to pay £50 for an MoT, £250 for a service, £180 almost for road tax, £30 for a parking permit, £50 for a full tank every couple of days, nearing £5k a year, £40 a week for CC in London, close to £2k a year, £300 for insurance, £300 for good tyres, and other little things...is it, is that not enough? What should a driver be charged for now?

    Unfortunately there are too many bad drivers and there's nothing I can do about that. I am all for more intensive learning programs and teaching people what to do in cases of emergencies, like skidding...

    You know why there are no more deaths on the railways, coz the average speed is so low!! Jesus, the average speed between Waterloo and Dover on Eurostar is 60mph (oops, statistic).
    And don't get me started with the TFL!!! I'll flip.
    Or the Heathrow Express!!
    The attitude towards the railways in this country is completely unrealistic, and always has been. Delays happen, that's a fact of life, and to get 90% of trains within 10 minutes of their intended time, on such an overcrowded network, is actually quite an achievement. You must be very very unlucky if every train you get is more than 10 minutes late at the destination. Machines break down, that's a fact of life, but the trouble is you can't overtake a broken down train, you can't shove it on the hard shoulder, you can't call out the RAC, and in the south-east you can't leave the train unless there's a danger because the rails are electrified. Trains are public and you'll have to deal with the general public on them; whingeing about people daring to walk past you is petty.

    So you are absolutely discounting the opinion of that many people???
    My point is about improving the network, you are getting hung up on the safety thing only!!! Maybe I am unlucky, I feel unlucky every time it happens, and then I miss the damn circle line by 2 seconds and wait another 10 minutes because of a points failure at Aldgate, then i get a Metropolitan line turn up which for some reason travels slower than the Circle line and I end being late by a lot....
    Of course, no one can get out on the tracks outside the station, there's a thing called towing...
    Trains are public and that's fine, but why can't the aisles be wider?
    Most days people from the back coaches rumble to the front of the train through all 10 coaches just so they can save time on the way out, sometimes it takes me 10 minutes just to walk to the exit gate from the last coach.
    It's also my right to whinge about anything and everything. Whether it's petty or not, is a point nui importante!

    Once the roads improve tenfold, maybe your argument about charging us tenfold for tax will work!!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    migpilot wrote: »
    It just happens that I am a fantastic driver!

    I'm sure you are, but it isn't relevant to the discussion. You can be the best driver in the world but if some berk pulls out on you you're gonna crash.
    Statistics are not a true representation of things, as everything in life has so many variables that statistics don't take into account.

    :confused:

    Either the fact that 89% of trains run to time is a "true representation of things", or is isn't. If you think the TOCs are lying prove it. If you don't think that they are lying then you have to accept what they say.
    I would rather base my opinion on my experience and experience of those I talk to than statistics...I am not fucken irrational. If you are saying that statistics are the law and my opinion doesn't matter, you are irrational.

    It is irrational.

    If I said that all muggers were black because I was mugged by a black man I would be rightly flamed for being bigoted and irrational. What's the difference?

    Have you been in a serious train crash? If you have been I can understand a certain wariness of rail, but if you haven't then you cannot possibly be basing your safety argument on personal experience.

    If you always get the one train in 8 that's more than 10 minutes late you must be very unlucky. Tell me what your lotto numbers are so I don't put them on.
    You live in Newcastle, and it's gonna cost you £20 for a return to London???

    Yep.

    The actual cost of the road is about ten times higher than what is charged, the rest is funded out of tax. So those who don't drive still get to pay a huge wedge to subsidise those who do.

    If you can get an "average 80mph" (which is illegal, by the way- imagine the fit if a train driver decided to speed) on the M25 or the M11 during the day then you're driving too fast. And I;d dispute just how good a driver you are if you base your timings on committing an illegal activity.
  • JsTJsT Posts: 18,268 Skive's The Limit
    migpilot wrote: »
    Of course, no one can get out on the tracks outside the station, there's a thing called towing...
    Trains are public and that's fine, but why can't the aisles be wider?

    The idea of towing is stupid, I'm sure the safety mafia would love it.

    Aisles cant be wider because trains have to fit the loading gauge, make trains much wider and trains will hit each other passing.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    If you can get an "average 80mph" (which is illegal, by the way- imagine the fit if a train driver decided to speed) on the M25 or the M11 during the day then you're driving too fast. And I;d dispute just how good a driver you are if you base your timings on committing an illegal activity.

    It takes 57 mins from Aylesbury to marylebone station in London. It takes me an hour to drive to "london" it'd never take me less time to drive into central london, and never cost me less money to drive and find a parking space for a day.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    I'm sure you are, but it isn't relevant to the discussion. You can be the best driver in the world but if some berk pulls out on you you're gonna crash.

    Except that I'd be on a lookout for that berk.
    Either the fact that 89% of trains run to time is a "true representation of things", or is isn't. If you think the TOCs are lying prove it. If you don't think that they are lying then you have to accept what they say.

    I can't prove it. As much as I can't prove anything else the government tells us is wrong.
    If I said that all muggers were black because I was mugged by a black man I would be rightly flamed for being bigoted and irrational. What's the difference?

    If you have to ask me what the difference is than ... :rolleyes:
    Have you been in a serious train crash? If you have been I can understand a certain wariness of rail, but if you haven't then you cannot possibly be basing your safety argument on personal experience.

    Why would I have to have had experience a crash to feel unsafe in a train?
    I can make my own mind whether I feel safe on a train or not, are you saying that I can't and that you can tell me how I feel?
    And for fucks sake, again, my point is not about the safety of the trains, if I didn;t think trains were safe enough for me to travel on them, I wouldn't fucken ride them every week, would I!!
    If you always get the one train in 8 that's more than 10 minutes late you must be very unlucky. Tell me what your lotto numbers are so I don't put them on.

    See, immediately the 1 in 8 statistics is wrong! It's more like 6 out of 10. And I would know as I ride the damn thing at least 10 times a week.
    The actual cost of the road is about ten times higher than what is charged, the rest is funded out of tax. So those who don't drive still get to pay a huge wedge to subsidise those who do.

    So those who don't have their own car don't use cabs, buses and such? I bet there is at least one person per household in the UK that drives.
    If you can get an "average 80mph" (which is illegal, by the way- imagine the fit if a train driver decided to speed) on the M25 or the M11 during the day then you're driving too fast. And I;d dispute just how good a driver you are if you base your timings on committing an illegal activity.

    Thank you, sherriff, ;) . I've been driving for a long time and not once have I been stopped for doing 80 on the motorway. I've passed police cars doing 80, even the speed cameras are set to go off at 75, unless there are roadworks in which case they go off at 70mph. Also my speedo is not digital, so it's naturally optimistic, so even if I am doing 80mph by my speedo, I am actually doing like 73 or something.
    You are hanging onto straws here.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote: »
    It takes 57 mins from Aylesbury to marylebone station in London. It takes me an hour to drive to "london" it'd never take me less time to drive into central london, and never cost me less money to drive and find a parking space for a day.

    It takes me half an hour to walk to the train station, an hour and 20 average for the train from Ipswich to Liverpool St, and vice versa, and another 25 minutes on the tube. That's 2 hours and 15 minutes. And it costs me (if I didn't use my discount card) £51, for the train and £3 for the tube.

    If I take the car, it takes me and hour and 10 minutes from my house to Wanstead in London (I leave the car there for free) where I take the central line which takes some 20-25 minutes and it all costs me a maximum of £20. And an hour and a half give and take in time.

    You do the math.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    If you always get the one train in 8 that's more than 10 minutes late you must be very unlucky. Tell me what your lotto numbers are so I don't put them on.
    And that's the problem. Less than ten minutes late is still late. I'd be interested to know what percentage of trains were more than two minutes late (and I'd also be interested to know whether if one train is delayed getting out of the station, the train it is blocking is also considered late if it is on time but waiting). When your changeover is ten minutes at one of the big stations (which was frequently the case with me), you are relying on the train being on time. And when your next train is one of the less frequent rural services (which was frequently the case with me), any efforts to reorganise your trip to allow for the unreliability of the trains can add about 2 hours onto a 6 hour journey. I would honestly never use a train service in it's present state, unless it involved no changeovers.
Sign In or Register to comment.