On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 09:56:32 -0800 (PST), NM
wrote:
Four people traveling to work in London and returning home at the
end
of the working day would find it cheaper to hire a minicab than use
the train.

Cheaper yes, but vastly slower. You can argue about whether trains
make sense for a lot of journeys, but going to London and back in the
peak by car (or taxi) is nuts.

Neil

--
Neil Williams, Milton Keynes, UK

On Mar 12, 6:46*pm, Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 12/03/2011 17:56, NM wrote:

Four people traveling to work in London and returning home at the end
of the working day would find it cheaper to hire a minicab than use
the train.

And do they?

Some do according to the local paper and others charter a coach.

On Mar 12, 7:15*pm, Neil Williams wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 09:56:32 -0800 (PST), NM
wrote:

Four people traveling to work in London and returning home at the
end
of the working day would find it cheaper to hire a minicab than use
the train.

Cheaper yes, but vastly slower. *You can argue about whether trains
make sense for a lot of journeys, but going to London and back in the
peak by car (or taxi) is nuts.


Well that isn't really true is it? You assume that these theoretical
punters want to travel from station to station, if you look at the
real world not the rose tinted failway enthusiasts version and account
for the door to door times then a different story emerges.

Assuming you are in a comfortable climate controlled taxi the stress
of driving it does not rest with you there is plenty of time to work
on the famous laptop that all train enthusiasts claim they carry for
use in transit so they can show their journey is more productive than
driving, or you could read the paper, view a DVD, watch television in
fact everything you can do on the train but you are going door to door
and can stop wherever you want for toilet breaks plus all varieties of
refreshment from hamburger stands to five star restaurants are
available at your whim.

I really don't understand why people use the train it's far too
expensive for what you get unless you can book light years in advance
and be specific about travel times. In the seventies if I had to go
anywhere I had a rule of thumb, one person alone, cheaper by train,
more than one, take the car, that's gone completely out of the window
these days.

On Mar 12, 6:43*pm, Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 12/03/2011 17:53, NM wrote:



On Mar 6, 2:18 pm, Neil *wrote:
On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 07:22:21 -0600, (Roy Badami)
wrote:

I'm not sure I can think of any mode of transport that combines
*all*
of those (clearly desirable) elements.

A car can, though it misses the "arrives at a predictable time" one
on occasions.

Train? Punctuality? I would expect the car to be considerably more 'on
time' going by my own experience, trains are not even classed as late
until they are 10 minutes behind, this causes the punctuality figures
to look a lot better than they are, some people would say that is
lying.

Whereas cars don't have a scheduled arrival time, so whatever happens at
the Dartford crossing/M25/traffic lights they can never be "late". But
they can be unpredictable, going by the number of times I pick up the
office phone in the morning to hear "I'm stuck in a traffic jam at xxx".

--
Arthur Figgis * * * * * * * * Surrey, UK

And train arrivals are predictable? they can be 10 minutes late before
it even counts as officially late, built in cushion to mask their poor
performance. You remind me of the old Reggie Perrin (Leonard Rossiter
RIP) with the daily standing joke about his late arrival down to the
railways, I don't think he arrived on time even once, comedy, yes but
based on reality.

On 14/03/2011 03:07, NM wrote:

I really don't understand why people use the train it's far too
expensive for what you get unless you can book light years in advance
and be specific about travel times.

If work is paying, train wins.

Train is also a better environment to read/use a laptop/whatever in -
some people can do that in a car, but many including me can't.

On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 20:07:45 -0700 (PDT), NM
wrote:
Well that isn't really true is it?

It is. Have you *seen* the traffic on the M1 and M25 in the morning
peak?

Neil

--
Neil Williams, Milton Keynes, UK

On 14/03/2011 03:14, NM wrote:
On Mar 12, 6:43 pm, Arthur wrote:
On 12/03/2011 17:53, NM wrote:



On Mar 6, 2:18 pm, Neil wrote:
On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 07:22:21 -0600, (Roy Badami)
wrote:

I'm not sure I can think of any mode of transport that combines
*all*
of those (clearly desirable) elements.

A car can, though it misses the "arrives at a predictable time" one
on occasions.

Train? Punctuality? I would expect the car to be considerably more 'on
time' going by my own experience, trains are not even classed as late
until they are 10 minutes behind, this causes the punctuality figures
to look a lot better than they are, some people would say that is
lying.

Whereas cars don't have a scheduled arrival time, so whatever happens at
the Dartford crossing/M25/traffic lights they can never be "late". But
they can be unpredictable, going by the number of times I pick up the
office phone in the morning to hear "I'm stuck in a traffic jam at xxx".

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

And train arrivals are predictable? they can be 10 minutes late before
it even counts as officially late, built in cushion to mask their poor
performance.

How many people wait for the PPM stats to be published before working
out whether their train last month was late?

If a train is 30 sec late there is a big LED display on the platform for
everyone to see. Whereas you never know a car is late, because they
don't have an arrival time.

You remind me of the old Reggie Perrin (Leonard Rossiter
RIP) with the daily standing joke about his late arrival down to the
railways, I don't think he arrived on time even once, comedy, yes but
based on reality.

If you get your information from sources like that, do you think
everyone in Yorkshire get around by sliding down hills in bathtubs, or
civil servants get to work with silly walks?


--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On 14/03/2011 02:48, NM wrote:
On Mar 12, 6:46 pm, Arthur wrote:
On 12/03/2011 17:56, NM wrote:

Four people traveling to work in London and returning home at the end
of the working day would find it cheaper to hire a minicab than use
the train.

And do they?

Some do according to the local paper and others charter a coach.

So everyone is happy.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Greetings.

In article news:0411b4ce-76ae-4e60-9e20-
, NM wrote:
Assuming you are in a comfortable climate controlled taxi the stress
of driving it does not rest with you there is plenty of time to work
on the famous laptop that all train enthusiasts claim they carry for
use in transit so they can show their journey is more productive than
driving,

In my experience it's impossible to use a laptop in a car in a city -- the
stops, accelerations, and sharp turns are of such a frequency that you are
gripping your laptop more often than you're typing on it. That sort of
jerky movement also tends to cause motion sickness in a lot of people,
including myself, if they don't keep their eyes out the window.

On the other hand, I can and do use my laptop on trains (even commuter
trains and the Underground) with relative comfort, provided I can get a
seat. At rush hour this is easier on some trains than on others.

Regards,
Tristan

--
_
_V.-o Tristan Miller Space is limited
/ |`-' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- In a haiku, so it's hard
(7_\\ http://www.nothingisreal.com/ To finish what you

In message , at 08:20:18 on Mon, 14 Mar
2011, Huge remarked:

Train is also a better environment to read/use a laptop/whatever in -

Not on a rush hour commuter train - which is the only place that trains
make sense.

Some say that they also make sense as a substitute for domestic flights
(from say Edinburgh to London).

But I agree that the "laptop on a rush hour train" scenario is far from
ideal.
--
Roland Perry