wrote:

wrote:

...but don't let's get hung up on it - it *was* only a
suggestion to show how ridiculous a rail fare of £175 for such a
journey really is. I wouldn't suggest a taxi for that sort of
journey (at least, not for just one passenger, except ias a distress
purchase).

Is 175.00 such an outrageous price to pay for a train journey to
London from Manchester ? when you think of all the people on very high
wages (thanks to the unions) who are involved for someone to be able
to make that journey train staff booking clerks platform staff signal
men not to mention all the expense of maintaining the permanent way
these things don't come cheap .

I think we all have some idea of why the fares are so high, but that has to
be the secondary point. With fares that high, not many people could afford
to pay them out of their own pockets (especially not for a multiplicity of
passengers - like a family). It might be OK - perhaps - for someone on
expenses, but not for many others. Others either have to hunt for the lower
fares (by - I dunno - booking in advance on a Tuesday when there's no R in
the month or something) or go some other way - or not go at all.

"Grant Crozier" wrote in message
...

Is 175.00 such an outrageous price to pay for a train journey to
London from Manchester ? when you think of all the people on very high
wages (thanks to the unions) who are involved for someone to be able
to make that journey train staff booking clerks platform staff signal
men not to mention all the expense of maintaining the permanent way
these things don't come cheap .

Perhaps not, but 80 pounds per passenger-hour should
be enough to provide personal service all the way.

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 11:11:53 +0100, "Nick Finnigan"
wrote:
Perhaps not, but 80 pounds per passenger-hour should
be enough to provide personal service all the way.
Maybe not rail travel always was expensive due to perks
given to rail staff amugst other things . Back in the days of British
Rail did you know that a railway man and his whole family where given
free optical tests and free spectacles curtesy of British rail, I
don't know if this perk is still in existance now or not but I do know
that it is true two members of my family worked for BR one a driver
the other a guard .
Grant .

"Grant Crozier" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 11:11:53 +0100, "Nick Finnigan"
wrote:
Perhaps not, but 80 pounds per passenger-hour should
be enough to provide personal service all the way.
Maybe not rail travel always was expensive due to perks
given to rail staff amugst other things . Back in the days of British
Rail did you know that a railway man and his whole family where given
free optical tests and free spectacles curtesy of British rail, I
don't know if this perk is still in existance now or not but I do know
that it is true two members of my family worked for BR one a driver
the other a guard .

That's outrageous that a train driver should have eye test! Also if you are
in any job that requires you to spend more than a certain amount of time using a
VDU your employer is required to provide free eye tests.

"Grant Crozier" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 22:51:47 +0100, "JNugent"
wrote:
driving - but don't let's get hung up on it - it *was* only a suggestion to
show how ridiculous a rail fare of £175 for such a journey really is. I
wouldn't suggest a taxi for that sort of journey (at least, not for just one
passenger, except ias a distress purchase).
Is 175.00 such an outrageous price to pay for a train journey to
London from Manchester ?

Considering the SRA's report describing conditions on many trains as intolerable
£175 sounds rather like an insult.

Paul Weaver wrote:

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 09:08:45 +0100, JohnB wrote:
Ride a bike, walk, take a bus or a train and you are immediately branded as
the arch demon out to purge the world of peoples freedoms.

I certainly don't think that. Preach that others should follow your
lifestyle though and you are the arch demon. Goes both ways too.

Unfortunately trying to encourage others to consider at other modes of transport
is often denigrated by those whose eyes are firmly closed as 'preaching'.

Presently the final choice rests with the individual but when their actions
become considered unnacceptable by a significant number of people (not
necessarily a majority) then some control action is necessary.
It may be by local authority or other agency.
Parking that restricts road use by others is one example.

have. I live in a semi-rural area with relatively poor bus and train
services - hourly at most to the nearest town of any size, and a handful
in the evenings and Sundays.

How do you do your weekly shopping then? 4 people in a house can total 20
bags - wouldnt like to carry them 5 miles home. Wouldn't like to carry
them on the bus either!

Well, Tuesday I cycled into the nearest town with a trailer and brought back
about 30kg of goods. We also use the local shops for fresh produce - we have a
good local butcher and greengrocer, and we make a lot of use of internet
shopping, using two main suppliers who have proved to be very reliable.
I also ride up to an organic farm about two miles north of here that has a farm
shop and another farm supplies eggs etc. I can get the latter within walking
distance but its a pleasant trip;-)

That must be an extreme situation. Where is it? And how many people live

Of course it's an extreme situation, just wanted to see if you would agree
that sometimes a car is neccersary.

Of course I do. Much to the disdain of several petrolheads on this ng who brand
anyone who rides a cycle or walks as anti-freedom.

Heres some anecdotal evidence:

Isnip examples of travel

Yes there are some inconveniences with choosing not to run a car, but IME they
are far far outweighed by the improved quality of life, with the quite pleasant
side benefit of much lower financial outlay.

John B

In article ,
says...

Considering the SRA's report describing conditions on many trains as intolerable
£175 sounds rather like an insult.

The sad part is that there are laws about overcrowding when
transporting animals but not, it would appear, for rail passengers.

--
Conor

Hi. This is my friend, Jack ****, and you don't know him.

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
wrote:

But none of this is novel - it has been argued over many times here.

You could even take a taxi...

It would be a horrendous journey.

About the same as the car, but less stressful because you wouldn't be
driving

A 10 year old Nissan Bluebird with plastic seat covers or a Metrocab flat
out at 50mph less stressful than driving a modern, fast, comfortable car -
no chance!!

"Stimpy" wrote in message
...
"JNugent" wrote in message
...
wrote:

But none of this is novel - it has been argued over many times here.

You could even take a taxi...

It would be a horrendous journey.

About the same as the car, but less stressful because you wouldn't be
driving

A 10 year old Nissan Bluebird with plastic seat covers or a Metrocab flat
out at 50mph less stressful than driving a modern, fast, comfortable car -
no chance!!

I did 200 miles in a 30 year old 4 speed not that long ago, less stressful than
5 in a modern Merc driven my a taxi driver.

In
Grant Crozier wrote:

Is 175.00 such an outrageous price to pay for a train journey to
London from Manchester ?

Yep. You can go to Brussels, at mostly 180mph, in a
comfortable seat, for £75 -- and that would be a return fare.

You can fly for cheaper still.

--
kedron