UK rapidly expands high speed rail network

[Dukasaur]

Travelling is a luxury if you have no family and no job, maybe.

I think I know why you think that. The low cost Euro carriers like Ryan Air, have cut prices and service to the point, that riding in their planes almost seems like a chore.

I think 9/11 did that. All the constant going through multiple checkpoints, being poked and prodded and measured and scanned, happens whether you're flying low-cost or high-cost. Makes you feel like you're auditioning for The Andromeda Strain.

Although I'll admit the high-priced carriers will at least make you look forward to a few rum-and-cokes when the free proctology exam is done.

[bigtoughralf]

Travelling is a luxury if you have no family and no job, maybe.

I think I know why you think that. The low cost Euro carriers like Ryan Air, have cut prices and service to the point, that riding in their planes almost seems like a chore.

First you were saying travelling is a luxury. Now you're saying it's a chore.

[2dimes]

Ok JP.

[bigtoughralf]

Ok JP.

EXCUSE ME. I deliberately refrained from comparing you to jp because that I considered that too disrespectful. Be kind this Ramadan.

[2dimes]

It's feeling kind of like you don't read most of what I write.

First you were saying travelling is a luxury. Now you're saying it's a chore.

No, I'm still saying it's a luxury. I did write..

I think I know why you think that.

Responding to your opinion it's not.

Travelling is a luxury if you have no family and no job, maybe.

There are millions of people that have more than one job and can barely afford to eat after paying the rest of their bills. Just because you have no mortgage or dependants and can afford it, travel is still a luxury.

Ryan Air and others that copy them are the chore. Choosing a dreadful airline is an error that can ruin part of a trip.

Every time we have travelled with my Mrs dimes family we take a different carrier because we would rather listen to what happened to them than be subjected to it.

I think 9/11 did that... ...whether you're flying low-cost or high-cost..

Yeah the security charade is annoying but that part's unavoidable for most. I do believe it's set up to make travel worse for the general population.

You can skip the x-Ray, if you can afford to charter and avoid the stockyard experience of modern airport passenger terminals.

Or take a train.

[bigtoughralf]

There are millions of people that have more than one job and can barely afford to eat after paying the rest of their bills. Just because you have no mortgage or dependants and can afford it, travel is still a luxury.

Are you taking 'travel' to mean 'going on holiday'? I'm just talking about 'physically going from one place to another'. Travelling for work, attending family events etc.

Either way its beside the point. All I was saying was that there is no point building a bullet train to cover a route that can already be travelled by plane for less money and in the same amount of time.

Ryan Air and others that copy them are the chore. Choosing a dreadful airline is an error that can ruin part of a trip.

Every time we have travelled with my Mrs dimes family we take a different carrier because we would rather listen to what happened to them than be subjected to it.

I've generally found people like Ryanair, Wizz etc. to be fine tbh. They only serve short hop routes, where all you need is a seat to sit in anyway. I've flown with people like BA, AF, KLM etc. on similar routes and there's been fairly little difference in in-flight experience that I've noticed. The main difference is that if you fly to a city with multiple airports, the cheap airlines will usually fly to a less convenient airport.

[2dimes]

Now you're suggesting most people take a plane to work?

When I flew to Norman Wells the company bought the ticket. So I can't honestly say I care how much it was but I suspect it wasn't inexpensive.

So you have stopped believing burning fossil fuel is bad for the environment? I'm just wondering, since bullet trains can carry more people and run on electricity which can be provided by solar panels and wind or hydro powered generators.

Airplanes? Kerosene baby!

[bigtoughralf]

Now you're suggesting most people take a plane to work?

Time for your nap.

[saxitoxin]

There are millions of people that have more than one job and can barely afford to eat after paying the rest of their bills. Just because you have no mortgage or dependants and can afford it, travel is still a luxury.

Are you taking 'travel' to mean 'going on holiday'? I'm just talking about 'physically going from one place to another'. Travelling for work, attending family events etc.

Either way its beside the point. All I was saying was that there is no point building a bullet train to cover a route that can already be travelled by plane for less money and in the same amount of time.

Ryan Air and others that copy them are the chore. Choosing a dreadful airline is an error that can ruin part of a trip.

Every time we have travelled with my Mrs dimes family we take a different carrier because we would rather listen to what happened to them than be subjected to it.

I've generally found people like Ryanair, Wizz etc. to be fine tbh. They only serve short hop routes, where all you need is a seat to sit in anyway. I've flown with people like BA, AF, KLM etc. on similar routes and there's been fairly little difference in in-flight experience that I've noticed. The main difference is that if you fly to a city with multiple airports, the cheap airlines will usually fly to a less convenient airport.

I took Frontier a few months ago to visit family in Kentucky.

The seats were like sitting on plywood. And before we even took off some guy got into a fight with the stewardess and had to be ejected from the plane. It was like a flying Appalachian trailer park. Though I believe I took RyanAir once and it was just fine.

I think European budget carriers benefit from customer self selection. You can always go by train so if you know you travel with all the drama and chaos of a prole you'll likely choose that instead. Whereas train travel in the U.S. and Canada is for railroad enthusiasts and 10 year old boys; not an actual method to get somewhere.

[saxitoxin]

That reminds me of this video I saw like a year ago. It's a pretty good travelogue by this Harry Potter-lookalike Britisher with a very nice and lowkey personality and subtle Big D energy who decided to go from New York to Los Angeles without flying. He used just trains! I guess he's either unemployed or insane, maybe both.

Somehow he got to Chicago and, from there, rode the California Zephyr to SFO then the Coast Starlight to LA. As miserable as this trip looks by about 15 minutes in, it's intriguing to see some guy travel this way on our run-down Amtrak carriages with porters constantly screaming random instructions into the PA system. And yet he's perfectly cheerful throughout.

[bigtoughralf]

I took Frontier a few months ago to visit family in Kentucky.

The seats were like sitting on plywood. And before we even took off some guy got into a fight with the stewardess and had to be ejected from the plane. It was like a flying Appalachian trailer park. Though I believe I took RyanAir once and it was just fine.

I think European budget carriers benefit from customer self selection. You can always go by train so if you know you travel with all the drama and chaos of a prole you'll likely choose that instead. Whereas train travel in the U.S. and Canada is for railroad enthusiasts and 10 year old boys; not an actual method to get somewhere.

I think with the European carriers it's the route you're flying that'll make all the difference when it comes to passengers. I've been on a flight from the UK to a Spanish party resort town and there was a group of loud annoying drunk guys making a nuisance of themselves the whole way up until boarding (at which point the stewards told them to shut up, and they did). Every other route I've flown has been to places that drunk party people aren't really visiting, and those flights have been fine.

Trains are usually fine in the UK, especially the longer-distance routes that don't stop very often. As with planes, it's only really the trains that people catch when they're on their way to get drunk in their nearest city that can be a bit of a pain to travel on.

Public transport in general isn't considered a poor person's thing here, not like it seems to be in the US. To a lot of people public transport is the better option because it helps you keep your carbon footprint down.

[2dimes]

Oh, "keep your carbon footprint down." Eh? Excellent point.

Travelling is a luxury if you have no family and no job, maybe.

There are millions of people that have more than one job and can barely afford to eat after paying the rest of their bills. Just because you have no mortgage or dependants and can afford it, travel is still a luxury.

Are you taking 'travel' to mean 'going on holiday'? I'm just talking about 'physically going from one place to another'. Travelling for work, attending family events etc.

One of us expressed something that looks like, "People have to travel. It's just business."

Therefore even if it's correct to suggest, I believe more people currently do it for leisure.

If a person needs to get from Southhampton to Manchester to visit their gran or attend a critical carbon reduction meeting. They can pack a vegan bag lunch and drive a Nissan Leaf, ride a coach (bus) or take some trains.

No need for a nasty environmentally damaging airplane there.

Maybe, rather than discouraging people from using domestic air services for any reason in the UK, by making it more expensive, they should just ban it all together.

Now you're suggesting most people take a plane to work?

Time for your nap.

https://tenor.com/view/how-dare-you-gre ... f-15130785

Perhaps it was. At any rate...

I can't nap on a plane. Yet I have been lead to believe while traveling on a train people can get access to an area with a bed in it.

Welcome to the future!!!

Let's explore modern aircraft seat pitch and changes in atmospheric pressure...

Sure, I out weigh you but I'm also not five feet tall or less, like Dukasaur tells us you are. I have short legs for my height but last year on the newest plane in the fleet of Air Canada, our "finest" air carrier, my knees hit the seat in front of mine before it was reclined.

Many people younger and "healthier" than me experience problems such as their feet and legs puffing up on flights longer than two hours. Sometimes leading to serious medical problems.

But I expect you might use your extensive knowledge of long distance air travel and human physiology to correct me and explain how, it's the best choice for everyone. Whether, using it for the necessary function of travelling from places like Denver to New York for business or for getting from places like Florida to Chicago to visit their family.

[bigtoughralf]

I mean none of my comments have been advocating in favour of people making domestic flights. All I said was, building a high speed rail line wouldn't fill any demand that isn't already met by regular rail or planes.

I just googled it and high speed rail from London to Edinburgh would reduce the existing rail journey between the two cities from 4.5 hours to 3.5 hours, which makes no real practical difference. And would cost about £150-200 billion to build.

So going back to my original point, the one high speed rail line through UK is building will be ending up over budget, late, and useless once completed, and the same would be true for any other high speed rail lines the government decided to build.

[2dimes]

And for the most part that's fair to say, when a bureaucracy does anything there will usually be some extra money getting diverted to someone's friends.