On Jul 23, 12:12*pm, David Cantrell wrote:

On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 10:47:17AM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
That then only really leaves Scotland, which for the numbers involved
might as well stay with air.

ITYM might as well stay with the east coast main line. *London to
Edinburgh by train is *already* faster than going by plane, once you
take into account travel time to/from airports and pointless hanging
around.

And nowhere else in Scotland matters (apart from Glasgow, which has the
west coast line) because so few people live there.

Especially not those insignificant coastal places which deal in that
unknown substance they call black gold...

In message , at 12:12:42
on Fri, 23 Jul 2010, David Cantrell remarked:
London to Edinburgh by train is *already* faster than going by plane,
once you take into account travel time to/from airports and pointless
hanging around.

Even GNER could barely make a case for London-Newcastle being as fast by
train.
--
Roland Perry

"Mizter T" wrote in message

On Jul 23, 12:12 pm, David Cantrell wrote:

On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 10:47:17AM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
That then only really leaves Scotland, which for the numbers
involved might as well stay with air.

ITYM might as well stay with the east coast main line. London to
Edinburgh by train is *already* faster than going by plane, once you
take into account travel time to/from airports and pointless hanging
around.

And nowhere else in Scotland matters (apart from Glasgow, which has
the west coast line) because so few people live there.

Especially not those insignificant coastal places which deal in that
unknown substance they call black gold...

Realistically, trips from London to Aberdeen are going to be by air, not
train, whether or not HS2 is ever completed. I had to do this flight
quite often around 30 years ago, and remember the panic when BA had a
sudden strike and my colleague and I had to drive to from Aberdeen to
Edinburgh, from where we did manage to get the last flight to London.
It was a reminder of just how convenient flying is.

I had another reminder a few years later when I had to drive from Sydney
to Melbourne for the same reason (when I also discovered that the train
wasn't a viable option).

On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 12:36:18 +0100
"Recliner" wrote:
Realistically, trips from London to Aberdeen are going to be by air, not
train, whether or not HS2 is ever completed. I had to do this flight

Realistically for who? I've been up in northern jockland a few times , none of
which involved flying.

B2003

wrote in message

On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 12:36:18 +0100
"Recliner" wrote:
Realistically, trips from London to Aberdeen are going to be by air,
not train, whether or not HS2 is ever completed. I had to do this
flight

Realistically for who? I've been up in northern jockland a few times
, none of which involved flying.

Someone who wants to get to Aberdeen reasonably quickly. If they just
want a scenic ride that lasts a couple of days, then car/train/ship may
be preferred.

On Jul 23, 12:30*pm, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 12:12:42
on Fri, 23 Jul 2010, David Cantrell remarked:

London to Edinburgh by train is *already* faster than going by plane,
once you take into account travel time to/from airports and pointless
hanging around.

Even GNER could barely make a case for London-Newcastle being as fast by
train.

What?

On Jul 23, 1:01*pm, "Recliner" wrote:

wrote:

On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 12:36:18 +0100
"Recliner" wrote:
Realistically, trips from London to Aberdeen are going to be by air,
not train, whether or not HS2 is ever completed. *I had to do this
flight

Realistically for who? I've been up in northern jockland a few times,
none of which involved flying.

Someone who wants to get to Aberdeen reasonably quickly. If they just
want a scenic ride that lasts a couple of days, then car/train/ship may
be preferred.

You can get from Aberdeen to London by rail in between 7 and 8 hours,
including by direct train, so saying it'd take a couple of days is
simply exaggeration. Additionally there's the sleeper between Aberdeen
to London, so you can do it when your asleep too (if you can sleep etc
etc).

"Mizter T" wrote in message
...

You can get from Aberdeen to London by rail in between 7 and 8 hours,
including by direct train, so saying it'd take a couple of days is
simply exaggeration. Additionally there's the sleeper between Aberdeen
to London, so you can do it when your asleep too (if you can sleep etc
etc).

It's not that long ago there was an open access operator trying to get on
the route. Presumably they thought there was a rail market to tap, but the
ORR turned them down...

Paul S

"Paul Scott" wrote in message

"Mizter T" wrote in message
...

You can get from Aberdeen to London by rail in between 7 and 8 hours,
including by direct train, so saying it'd take a couple of days is
simply exaggeration. Additionally there's the sleeper between
Aberdeen to London, so you can do it when your asleep too (if you
can sleep etc etc).

It's not that long ago there was an open access operator trying to
get on the route. Presumably they thought there was a rail market to
tap, but the ORR turned them down...

There may well be a small rail market, but it's going to be mainly
leisure travellers. Someone in the oil business is not going to waste a
whole day travelling by train when they can do the same journey in not
much over an hour by plane. Ineed, day returns to Aberdeen are perfectly
feasible by air, with plenty of time for a meeting or two (I did it
often enough).

On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 14:22:24 +0100
"Recliner" wrote:
There may well be a small rail market, but it's going to be mainly
leisure travellers. Someone in the oil business is not going to waste a
whole day travelling by train when they can do the same journey in not
much over an hour by plane. Ineed, day returns to Aberdeen are perfectly
feasible by air, with plenty of time for a meeting or two (I did it
often enough).

Given recent events I don't think oil company employees are really up there in
the top 10 of people whose examples we should follow.

B2003