Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#141
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 2014-09-04 11:40:56 +0000, David Cantrell said:
It doesn't matter how they're reached. Almost all places from where Gatwick is preferable to Heathrow, Gatwick is also preferable to Luton and Stansted. The exceptions being places on the Thameslink line north of, roughly, Blackfriars. Or the WCML where we have the "via Kensington Olympia" options. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the @ to reply. |
#142
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#143
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 2014-09-04 11:11:35 +0000, Roland Perry said:
The "personality" of the ECML operation has changed very little since privatisation so it would be interesting to see if it changed. I suppose the difference with the WCML is that it *is* a completely different operation to what it was before privatisation. The other lines like the ECML less so. It was a hotch potch of knackered Mk3s operating unpunctually on a basically hourly service with a few peak extras and a rather random stopping pattern. It's now a 3tph operation on the key flows with newer rolling stock (easy to forget the Pendolinos are now over 10 years old, they are wearing very well), hugely reduced journey times and a largely consistent Taktfahrplan. If BR did that it'd have changed the feel as well. It would have been interesting to see what the APT might have made it. How much has XC mainline changed since Arriva took over (I've only used XC-lite, the ex-Central Trains services, and they remain very much in that rut). Don't really know, TBH. I never used it heavily. The impression I have of it is of a relatively downmarket National Express coach replacement with a severe overcrowding problem which started in VT days but was never completely solved. It'd have to do a lot to lose that reputation. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the @ to reply. |
#145
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#146
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 04 Sep 2014 15:23:53 +0100
JNugent wrote: On 04/09/2014 12:10, d wrote: Thats not a need , its a desire. Its not even in the same ballpark. Needs - in the sense implied by what you say - are very basic and are satisfied by a medieval economy. That really can't be what you mean, but it's what you are saying. There needs to be a balance of desires against consequences. Currently wrt air travel its baised way too far to the former. I'm not saying ban air travel but I am saying that the presumption that constant growth must always trump anything else is ********. There are enough aircraft flying into and through the southeast already. If the air industry isn't satisfied with that then tough ****. Screw them. When if ever there are street protests and riots about people not being able to book a last minute break to Ayia Napa for a hundred quid I might change my mind. But somehow I don't see that happening. -- Spud |
#147
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#148
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#149
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 4 Sep 2014 21:18:00 +0100
Neil Williams wrote: On 2014-09-04 16:33:29 +0000, d said: When if ever there are street protests and riots about people not being able to book a last minute break to Ayia Napa for a hundred quid I might change my mind. But somehow I don't see that happening. People aren't taking those kinds of holiday from Heathrow. They're going with the orange and blue teams from Luton, Stansted and Gatwick, and all three have spare capacity already. So Heathrow expansion has nothing to do with cheap holidays in the sun (or cheap anything). That was in response to it being suggested that flying is a necessity. It might be for the military and a few other assorted professions, but for the average person in the street it is not and with video conferencing now pretty good neither is it for business a lot of the time. Anyway , plenty of flights to north america leave from heathrow no doubt with a lot of tourists on board. -- Spud |
#150
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 05/09/2014 09:21, d wrote:
On Thu, 4 Sep 2014 21:18:00 +0100 Neil Williams wrote: On 2014-09-04 16:33:29 +0000, d said: When if ever there are street protests and riots about people not being able to book a last minute break to Ayia Napa for a hundred quid I might change my mind. But somehow I don't see that happening. People aren't taking those kinds of holiday from Heathrow. They're going with the orange and blue teams from Luton, Stansted and Gatwick, and all three have spare capacity already. So Heathrow expansion has nothing to do with cheap holidays in the sun (or cheap anything). That was in response to it being suggested that flying is a necessity. It might be for the military and a few other assorted professions, but for the average person in the street it is not and with video conferencing now pretty good neither is it for business a lot of the time. Anyway , plenty of flights to north america leave from heathrow no doubt with a lot of tourists on board. The obvious innocent retort would be to ask whereabouts in the USA Ayia Napa is. But you raise an interesting point. I can travel to Europe by train or by car. NL is fairly cheap by car (part of the cheapness being avoidance of the need to hire a car locally), but Italy is expensive in time and in fuel, tolls, overnight stay en-route, etc. OTOH, how do I get to the USA or Canada (let's not even mention the Antipodes) except by flying? Or is it your thesis that because you don't accept that I need to go to those places (on your own definition of "need"), nothing should be done which might facilitate my getting there? |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Mayor's Boris Island plan killed off TfL takeover of SoutheasternMetro services | London Transport | |||
Olympic Water Chariots - sunk .. | London Transport | |||
Boris Island feasibility study published | London Transport | |||
Euston Island | London Transport | |||
Oyster PAYG Island Gardens via Bank to Liverpool Street | London Transport |