Southampton to be part of UK's £9bn rail electrification upgrade

Daily Echo: Southampton Central Train Station, south entrance Southampton Central Train Station, south entrance

Southampton could be part of a new “electric spine” from the city centre to Yorkshire as part of government plans for the biggest investment in Britain's railways since the Victorian era.

Ministers will today unveil the £9.4 billion package of rail projects, including £4.2 billion worth of new schemes designed to kickstart the economy.

David Cameron and Nick Clegg will today seek to get the coalition to back the programme which will switch rail travel to more reliable and cleaner electric power.

By the end of the decade, they propose around three quarters of passenger miles to be travelled on electric trains, compared to 58 per cent today.

As well as boosting the economy the project is designed to ensure trains run more frequently and to time.

More than 850 extra miles of electrified line will be added to the rail network.

Plans include the creation of a high-capacity “electric spine” running from Yorkshire and the West Midlands to South Coast ports including Southampton.

This comprises an £800 million electrification and upgrade from Sheffield - through Nottingham, Derby and Leicester - to Bedford, completing the full electrification of the Midland Main Line out of London St Pancras and electrification of the lines from Nuneaton and Bedford to Oxford, Reading, Basingstoke and Southampton.

The plans also include the electrification of the Midland Main Line in what was hailed by Prime Minister David Cameron as the ''biggest modernisation of our railways since the Victorian era''.

Sections of the Midland Main Line from London to the East Midlands and Sheffied will also be electrified as well as part of the Great Western line from the capital to Swansea and the Welsh valleys.

Upgrades to the main East Coast Line from London to Leeds and Newcastle, as well as the first stage of a new 'varsity line' linking Oxford and Cambridge are also part of the plans.

Campaigners said this morning they feared the investment would be paid for by higher rail fares, while transport union the RMT said the projects announced today ''had been talked about for years''.

The announcement today covers the period 2014-19 and will be released in a dossier called the High Level Output Specification.

Comments (56)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:06am Mon 16 Jul 12

derek james says...

all very well but i can see an already overpriced railway system getting even more expensive, even with fuel prices the way they are now it's often cheaper for businisess to travel by car
all very well but i can see an already overpriced railway system getting even more expensive, even with fuel prices the way they are now it's often cheaper for businisess to travel by car derek james

11:07am Mon 16 Jul 12

Over the Edge says...

This is all good, however the train travel prices will increase to pay for it, we are all in this together.
This is all good, however the train travel prices will increase to pay for it, we are all in this together. Over the Edge

11:16am Mon 16 Jul 12

chunky_lover says...

Title says "to be part", Body says "could be" - so which is it?

Since, pretty much anything "could be" - let's just make up stuff shall we?
Title says "to be part", Body says "could be" - so which is it? Since, pretty much anything "could be" - let's just make up stuff shall we? chunky_lover

11:18am Mon 16 Jul 12

Totton Ric says...

New's Flash,Who's not done there home work then Echo !Electrification came to Southampton/Bournemo
uth in 1967 & on to Weymouth in 1988 !
New's Flash,Who's not done there home work then Echo !Electrification came to Southampton/Bournemo uth in 1967 & on to Weymouth in 1988 ! Totton Ric

11:29am Mon 16 Jul 12

Shoong says...

Over the Edge wrote:
This is all good, however the train travel prices will increase to pay for it, we are all in this together.
I'm going to assume you are happy with the current situation then?

Probably not, if we want an improved system we're going to have to chip in.
[quote][p][bold]Over the Edge[/bold] wrote: This is all good, however the train travel prices will increase to pay for it, we are all in this together.[/p][/quote]I'm going to assume you are happy with the current situation then? Probably not, if we want an improved system we're going to have to chip in. Shoong

12:09pm Mon 16 Jul 12

X Old Bill says...

So does that mean that the line from Basingstoke to Southampton might have BOTH 3rd rail and overhead wires?

That would draw 'anoraks' from all over the world!
So does that mean that the line from Basingstoke to Southampton might have BOTH 3rd rail and overhead wires? That would draw 'anoraks' from all over the world! X Old Bill

12:14pm Mon 16 Jul 12

Boatman says...

X Old Bill wrote:
So does that mean that the line from Basingstoke to Southampton might have BOTH 3rd rail and overhead wires?

That would draw 'anoraks' from all over the world!
Totally inconceivable!
[quote][p][bold]X Old Bill[/bold] wrote: So does that mean that the line from Basingstoke to Southampton might have BOTH 3rd rail and overhead wires? That would draw 'anoraks' from all over the world![/p][/quote]Totally inconceivable! Boatman

12:15pm Mon 16 Jul 12

Condor Man says...

Until it's cheaper to take a family on the train than it is to go by car people will only use the network for commuting. 2 adult and a child to London was over £80 by train, less than half if you drove and came in from the suburbs.
Until it's cheaper to take a family on the train than it is to go by car people will only use the network for commuting. 2 adult and a child to London was over £80 by train, less than half if you drove and came in from the suburbs. Condor Man

12:57pm Mon 16 Jul 12

Zeo says...

If they 'did' offer a passenger service from Southampton to Bedford, I can kick my other half on a train and she can see her parents, and it's half the cost of driving is well... it's a Win-Win if it happens!
If they 'did' offer a passenger service from Southampton to Bedford, I can kick my other half on a train and she can see her parents, and it's half the cost of driving is well... it's a Win-Win if it happens! Zeo

1:04pm Mon 16 Jul 12

Totton Ric says...

Condor Man wrote:
Until it's cheaper to take a family on the train than it is to go by car people will only use the network for commuting. 2 adult and a child to London was over £80 by train, less than half if you drove and came in from the suburbs.
Agree but we have a Family Rail Card,Super off peak is £60 from Totton to Waterloo (2 adults 2 kids),even better if there's 4 adults as you can get group save 4 where you only get charged for 2 adults @ £71 & kids go for a quid each !
[quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: Until it's cheaper to take a family on the train than it is to go by car people will only use the network for commuting. 2 adult and a child to London was over £80 by train, less than half if you drove and came in from the suburbs.[/p][/quote]Agree but we have a Family Rail Card,Super off peak is £60 from Totton to Waterloo (2 adults 2 kids),even better if there's 4 adults as you can get group save 4 where you only get charged for 2 adults @ £71 & kids go for a quid each ! Totton Ric

1:41pm Mon 16 Jul 12

Condor Man says...

Totton Ric wrote:
Condor Man wrote:
Until it's cheaper to take a family on the train than it is to go by car people will only use the network for commuting. 2 adult and a child to London was over £80 by train, less than half if you drove and came in from the suburbs.
Agree but we have a Family Rail Card,Super off peak is £60 from Totton to Waterloo (2 adults 2 kids),even better if there's 4 adults as you can get group save 4 where you only get charged for 2 adults @ £71 & kids go for a quid each !
Ric, for about £25 in petrol and £15 for the travel cards we are still making a saving going by car. The cheapest way to London is by coach but that would still be more for more than one person.
[quote][p][bold]Totton Ric[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: Until it's cheaper to take a family on the train than it is to go by car people will only use the network for commuting. 2 adult and a child to London was over £80 by train, less than half if you drove and came in from the suburbs.[/p][/quote]Agree but we have a Family Rail Card,Super off peak is £60 from Totton to Waterloo (2 adults 2 kids),even better if there's 4 adults as you can get group save 4 where you only get charged for 2 adults @ £71 & kids go for a quid each ![/p][/quote]Ric, for about £25 in petrol and £15 for the travel cards we are still making a saving going by car. The cheapest way to London is by coach but that would still be more for more than one person. Condor Man

1:56pm Mon 16 Jul 12

Over the Edge says...

Shoong wrote:
Over the Edge wrote:
This is all good, however the train travel prices will increase to pay for it, we are all in this together.
I'm going to assume you are happy with the current situation then?

Probably not, if we want an improved system we're going to have to chip in.
Yes in fact I am pleased with the situation as it stands, as a frequent traveller to London I find the current service very good it is however a bit overpriced but I book well in advanced to get bigger discounts.
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Over the Edge[/bold] wrote: This is all good, however the train travel prices will increase to pay for it, we are all in this together.[/p][/quote]I'm going to assume you are happy with the current situation then? Probably not, if we want an improved system we're going to have to chip in.[/p][/quote]Yes in fact I am pleased with the situation as it stands, as a frequent traveller to London I find the current service very good it is however a bit overpriced but I book well in advanced to get bigger discounts. Over the Edge

1:58pm Mon 16 Jul 12

Over the Edge says...

Shoong wrote:
Over the Edge wrote:
This is all good, however the train travel prices will increase to pay for it, we are all in this together.
I'm going to assume you are happy with the current situation then?

Probably not, if we want an improved system we're going to have to chip in.
Why should passengers pay increased prices, why don't the rail operators pay for the improvements?

Maybe the answer is less of a pay out to shareholders
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Over the Edge[/bold] wrote: This is all good, however the train travel prices will increase to pay for it, we are all in this together.[/p][/quote]I'm going to assume you are happy with the current situation then? Probably not, if we want an improved system we're going to have to chip in.[/p][/quote]Why should passengers pay increased prices, why don't the rail operators pay for the improvements? Maybe the answer is less of a pay out to shareholders Over the Edge

2:04pm Mon 16 Jul 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

As long as they stick a rolling sorting office in the middle of trains that pick up mail and parcels from the stops the trains make to make the postal service faster then I don't care since I rarely use the train to go anywhere, i mean it's like £20 return to portsmouth from southampton by train but it's less than £10 by bus and then the hovercraft service from southsea is cheaper than our red funnel ferries.
As long as they stick a rolling sorting office in the middle of trains that pick up mail and parcels from the stops the trains make to make the postal service faster then I don't care since I rarely use the train to go anywhere, i mean it's like £20 return to portsmouth from southampton by train but it's less than £10 by bus and then the hovercraft service from southsea is cheaper than our red funnel ferries. Ginger_cyclist

2:15pm Mon 16 Jul 12

cantthinkofone says...

Railways are so last century. It's all about the cable cars now.
Railways are so last century. It's all about the cable cars now. cantthinkofone

2:22pm Mon 16 Jul 12

Shoong says...

Over the Edge wrote:
Shoong wrote:
Over the Edge wrote:
This is all good, however the train travel prices will increase to pay for it, we are all in this together.
I'm going to assume you are happy with the current situation then?

Probably not, if we want an improved system we're going to have to chip in.
Why should passengers pay increased prices, why don't the rail operators pay for the improvements?

Maybe the answer is less of a pay out to shareholders
9 Billion.

Yes, I'm sure it's just jangling around in the change purse! ;)
[quote][p][bold]Over the Edge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Over the Edge[/bold] wrote: This is all good, however the train travel prices will increase to pay for it, we are all in this together.[/p][/quote]I'm going to assume you are happy with the current situation then? Probably not, if we want an improved system we're going to have to chip in.[/p][/quote]Why should passengers pay increased prices, why don't the rail operators pay for the improvements? Maybe the answer is less of a pay out to shareholders[/p][/quote]9 Billion. Yes, I'm sure it's just jangling around in the change purse! ;) Shoong

2:37pm Mon 16 Jul 12

dopplershift says...

Southampton to Woking is around £25 return on the train. I did it with a friend the other day as we thought it would be easier to use the train. We were right it was easy but it cost us £50. Then last weekend we did it by car and it took the same time and just over £10 in diesel. You can almost drive and get a hotel for the night for the same cost to put perspective on it.
Southampton to Woking is around £25 return on the train. I did it with a friend the other day as we thought it would be easier to use the train. We were right it was easy but it cost us £50. Then last weekend we did it by car and it took the same time and just over £10 in diesel. You can almost drive and get a hotel for the night for the same cost to put perspective on it. dopplershift

2:57pm Mon 16 Jul 12

Inform Al says...

I'm currently in Kent having got here by car at a fraction of the cost I would have incurred if I was stupid enough to consider making the journey by train, and at travel time of 90 minutes far quicker.. When I travel to London I usually go by coach, even cheaper than the car and quite speedy. Financially the trains are history until we get a government brave enough to re-nationalise the whole shebang.
I'm currently in Kent having got here by car at a fraction of the cost I would have incurred if I was stupid enough to consider making the journey by train, and at travel time of 90 minutes far quicker.. When I travel to London I usually go by coach, even cheaper than the car and quite speedy. Financially the trains are history until we get a government brave enough to re-nationalise the whole shebang. Inform Al

3:28pm Mon 16 Jul 12

Torchie1 says...

Over the Edge wrote:
Shoong wrote:
Over the Edge wrote:
This is all good, however the train travel prices will increase to pay for it, we are all in this together.
I'm going to assume you are happy with the current situation then?

Probably not, if we want an improved system we're going to have to chip in.
Why should passengers pay increased prices, why don't the rail operators pay for the improvements?

Maybe the answer is less of a pay out to shareholders
If you reduced the payout (Dividends) to Shareholders, would it be a total surprise if they opted to invest their money in an enterprise that gave a better return? The money for the investment would have to still be found and the commuters using the service would be the obvious source. I thought it was only cyclists that couldn't understand the concept of paying for what they willingly use.
[quote][p][bold]Over the Edge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Over the Edge[/bold] wrote: This is all good, however the train travel prices will increase to pay for it, we are all in this together.[/p][/quote]I'm going to assume you are happy with the current situation then? Probably not, if we want an improved system we're going to have to chip in.[/p][/quote]Why should passengers pay increased prices, why don't the rail operators pay for the improvements? Maybe the answer is less of a pay out to shareholders[/p][/quote]If you reduced the payout (Dividends) to Shareholders, would it be a total surprise if they opted to invest their money in an enterprise that gave a better return? The money for the investment would have to still be found and the commuters using the service would be the obvious source. I thought it was only cyclists that couldn't understand the concept of paying for what they willingly use. Torchie1

3:36pm Mon 16 Jul 12

Shoong says...

Torchie1 wrote:
Over the Edge wrote:
Shoong wrote:
Over the Edge wrote:
This is all good, however the train travel prices will increase to pay for it, we are all in this together.
I'm going to assume you are happy with the current situation then?

Probably not, if we want an improved system we're going to have to chip in.
Why should passengers pay increased prices, why don't the rail operators pay for the improvements?

Maybe the answer is less of a pay out to shareholders
If you reduced the payout (Dividends) to Shareholders, would it be a total surprise if they opted to invest their money in an enterprise that gave a better return? The money for the investment would have to still be found and the commuters using the service would be the obvious source. I thought it was only cyclists that couldn't understand the concept of paying for what they willingly use.
Yes, it's called economics, but if you're looking for a great understanding of it here then you won't get far..!
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Over the Edge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Over the Edge[/bold] wrote: This is all good, however the train travel prices will increase to pay for it, we are all in this together.[/p][/quote]I'm going to assume you are happy with the current situation then? Probably not, if we want an improved system we're going to have to chip in.[/p][/quote]Why should passengers pay increased prices, why don't the rail operators pay for the improvements? Maybe the answer is less of a pay out to shareholders[/p][/quote]If you reduced the payout (Dividends) to Shareholders, would it be a total surprise if they opted to invest their money in an enterprise that gave a better return? The money for the investment would have to still be found and the commuters using the service would be the obvious source. I thought it was only cyclists that couldn't understand the concept of paying for what they willingly use.[/p][/quote]Yes, it's called economics, but if you're looking for a great understanding of it here then you won't get far..! Shoong

4:31pm Mon 16 Jul 12

loosehead says...

Totton Ric wrote:
New's Flash,Who's not done there home work then Echo !Electrification came to Southampton/Bournemo

uth in 1967 & on to Weymouth in 1988 !
They're saying it's not going to be the track type but overhead cables powering the trains & all electric trains will have to be modified
[quote][p][bold]Totton Ric[/bold] wrote: New's Flash,Who's not done there home work then Echo !Electrification came to Southampton/Bournemo uth in 1967 & on to Weymouth in 1988 ![/p][/quote]They're saying it's not going to be the track type but overhead cables powering the trains & all electric trains will have to be modified loosehead

4:51pm Mon 16 Jul 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

Torchie1 wrote:
Over the Edge wrote:
Shoong wrote:
Over the Edge wrote:
This is all good, however the train travel prices will increase to pay for it, we are all in this together.
I'm going to assume you are happy with the current situation then?

Probably not, if we want an improved system we're going to have to chip in.
Why should passengers pay increased prices, why don't the rail operators pay for the improvements?

Maybe the answer is less of a pay out to shareholders
If you reduced the payout (Dividends) to Shareholders, would it be a total surprise if they opted to invest their money in an enterprise that gave a better return? The money for the investment would have to still be found and the commuters using the service would be the obvious source. I thought it was only cyclists that couldn't understand the concept of paying for what they willingly use.
Cyclists do pay for the roads, it's called general taxation, road tax was gotten rid of in 1937 by Churchill, motorists pay a tax on pollution they cause called Vehicle Excise Duty, it's not based on how much they use the road, that's why electric cars and most hybrids don't pay it along with cyclists and very little to none of the V.E.D money goes towards road upkeep, you going to go round trying to kill cyclists and electric/hybrid car drivers now just because they don't pay for your emissions?
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Over the Edge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Over the Edge[/bold] wrote: This is all good, however the train travel prices will increase to pay for it, we are all in this together.[/p][/quote]I'm going to assume you are happy with the current situation then? Probably not, if we want an improved system we're going to have to chip in.[/p][/quote]Why should passengers pay increased prices, why don't the rail operators pay for the improvements? Maybe the answer is less of a pay out to shareholders[/p][/quote]If you reduced the payout (Dividends) to Shareholders, would it be a total surprise if they opted to invest their money in an enterprise that gave a better return? The money for the investment would have to still be found and the commuters using the service would be the obvious source. I thought it was only cyclists that couldn't understand the concept of paying for what they willingly use.[/p][/quote]Cyclists do pay for the roads, it's called general taxation, road tax was gotten rid of in 1937 by Churchill, motorists pay a tax on pollution they cause called Vehicle Excise Duty, it's not based on how much they use the road, that's why electric cars and most hybrids don't pay it along with cyclists and very little to none of the V.E.D money goes towards road upkeep, you going to go round trying to kill cyclists and electric/hybrid car drivers now just because they don't pay for your emissions? Ginger_cyclist

5:07pm Mon 16 Jul 12

Inform Al says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Over the Edge wrote:
Shoong wrote:
Over the Edge wrote:
This is all good, however the train travel prices will increase to pay for it, we are all in this together.
I'm going to assume you are happy with the current situation then?

Probably not, if we want an improved system we're going to have to chip in.
Why should passengers pay increased prices, why don't the rail operators pay for the improvements?

Maybe the answer is less of a pay out to shareholders
If you reduced the payout (Dividends) to Shareholders, would it be a total surprise if they opted to invest their money in an enterprise that gave a better return? The money for the investment would have to still be found and the commuters using the service would be the obvious source. I thought it was only cyclists that couldn't understand the concept of paying for what they willingly use.
Cyclists do pay for the roads, it's called general taxation, road tax was gotten rid of in 1937 by Churchill, motorists pay a tax on pollution they cause called Vehicle Excise Duty, it's not based on how much they use the road, that's why electric cars and most hybrids don't pay it along with cyclists and very little to none of the V.E.D money goes towards road upkeep, you going to go round trying to kill cyclists and electric/hybrid car drivers now just because they don't pay for your emissions?
Trying to mow down the 'orrible non tax paying cyclist these days has got very tricky. The Old Bill get a bit shirty when I drive my car onto the pavement to get them. They're too rare on the roads to waste petrol looking for them.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Over the Edge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Over the Edge[/bold] wrote: This is all good, however the train travel prices will increase to pay for it, we are all in this together.[/p][/quote]I'm going to assume you are happy with the current situation then? Probably not, if we want an improved system we're going to have to chip in.[/p][/quote]Why should passengers pay increased prices, why don't the rail operators pay for the improvements? Maybe the answer is less of a pay out to shareholders[/p][/quote]If you reduced the payout (Dividends) to Shareholders, would it be a total surprise if they opted to invest their money in an enterprise that gave a better return? The money for the investment would have to still be found and the commuters using the service would be the obvious source. I thought it was only cyclists that couldn't understand the concept of paying for what they willingly use.[/p][/quote]Cyclists do pay for the roads, it's called general taxation, road tax was gotten rid of in 1937 by Churchill, motorists pay a tax on pollution they cause called Vehicle Excise Duty, it's not based on how much they use the road, that's why electric cars and most hybrids don't pay it along with cyclists and very little to none of the V.E.D money goes towards road upkeep, you going to go round trying to kill cyclists and electric/hybrid car drivers now just because they don't pay for your emissions?[/p][/quote]Trying to mow down the 'orrible non tax paying cyclist these days has got very tricky. The Old Bill get a bit shirty when I drive my car onto the pavement to get them. They're too rare on the roads to waste petrol looking for them. Inform Al

5:10pm Mon 16 Jul 12

Torchie1 says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Over the Edge wrote:
Shoong wrote:
Over the Edge wrote:
This is all good, however the train travel prices will increase to pay for it, we are all in this together.
I'm going to assume you are happy with the current situation then?

Probably not, if we want an improved system we're going to have to chip in.
Why should passengers pay increased prices, why don't the rail operators pay for the improvements?

Maybe the answer is less of a pay out to shareholders
If you reduced the payout (Dividends) to Shareholders, would it be a total surprise if they opted to invest their money in an enterprise that gave a better return? The money for the investment would have to still be found and the commuters using the service would be the obvious source. I thought it was only cyclists that couldn't understand the concept of paying for what they willingly use.
Cyclists do pay for the roads, it's called general taxation, road tax was gotten rid of in 1937 by Churchill, motorists pay a tax on pollution they cause called Vehicle Excise Duty, it's not based on how much they use the road, that's why electric cars and most hybrids don't pay it along with cyclists and very little to none of the V.E.D money goes towards road upkeep, you going to go round trying to kill cyclists and electric/hybrid car drivers now just because they don't pay for your emissions?
Is that Road Tax or Road Tacks?
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Over the Edge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Over the Edge[/bold] wrote: This is all good, however the train travel prices will increase to pay for it, we are all in this together.[/p][/quote]I'm going to assume you are happy with the current situation then? Probably not, if we want an improved system we're going to have to chip in.[/p][/quote]Why should passengers pay increased prices, why don't the rail operators pay for the improvements? Maybe the answer is less of a pay out to shareholders[/p][/quote]If you reduced the payout (Dividends) to Shareholders, would it be a total surprise if they opted to invest their money in an enterprise that gave a better return? The money for the investment would have to still be found and the commuters using the service would be the obvious source. I thought it was only cyclists that couldn't understand the concept of paying for what they willingly use.[/p][/quote]Cyclists do pay for the roads, it's called general taxation, road tax was gotten rid of in 1937 by Churchill, motorists pay a tax on pollution they cause called Vehicle Excise Duty, it's not based on how much they use the road, that's why electric cars and most hybrids don't pay it along with cyclists and very little to none of the V.E.D money goes towards road upkeep, you going to go round trying to kill cyclists and electric/hybrid car drivers now just because they don't pay for your emissions?[/p][/quote]Is that Road Tax or Road Tacks? Torchie1

5:40pm Mon 16 Jul 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

Inform Al wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Over the Edge wrote:
Shoong wrote:
Over the Edge wrote:
This is all good, however the train travel prices will increase to pay for it, we are all in this together.
I'm going to assume you are happy with the current situation then?

Probably not, if we want an improved system we're going to have to chip in.
Why should passengers pay increased prices, why don't the rail operators pay for the improvements?

Maybe the answer is less of a pay out to shareholders
If you reduced the payout (Dividends) to Shareholders, would it be a total surprise if they opted to invest their money in an enterprise that gave a better return? The money for the investment would have to still be found and the commuters using the service would be the obvious source. I thought it was only cyclists that couldn't understand the concept of paying for what they willingly use.
Cyclists do pay for the roads, it's called general taxation, road tax was gotten rid of in 1937 by Churchill, motorists pay a tax on pollution they cause called Vehicle Excise Duty, it's not based on how much they use the road, that's why electric cars and most hybrids don't pay it along with cyclists and very little to none of the V.E.D money goes towards road upkeep, you going to go round trying to kill cyclists and electric/hybrid car drivers now just because they don't pay for your emissions?
Trying to mow down the 'orrible non tax paying cyclist these days has got very tricky. The Old Bill get a bit shirty when I drive my car onto the pavement to get them. They're too rare on the roads to waste petrol looking for them.
Like I said, cyclists do pay tax, even the ones who are out of work or made redundant, even if it is just the tax we pay on everything you can buy and you just don't want to chase cyclists down the bus lane because your precious little cage on wheels needs £5 of petrol just to go a mile, I bet you or another cager here who thinks road tax still exists is the **** who told me to get off the road down Northam on Saturday, even though i was in the lane I needed which was the one to go straight and into the bus lane, the **** mentioned didn't even get 50 yards on me before I caught up and passed them and before you mention insurance, no I don't have any yet that covers my bike for damage but I am covered for any claim against me worth well in excess of £1,000,000 also with that liability insurance I also get free legal help so if you or anyone else knocks me down and I'm not at fault then you WILL be prosecuted.
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Over the Edge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Over the Edge[/bold] wrote: This is all good, however the train travel prices will increase to pay for it, we are all in this together.[/p][/quote]I'm going to assume you are happy with the current situation then? Probably not, if we want an improved system we're going to have to chip in.[/p][/quote]Why should passengers pay increased prices, why don't the rail operators pay for the improvements? Maybe the answer is less of a pay out to shareholders[/p][/quote]If you reduced the payout (Dividends) to Shareholders, would it be a total surprise if they opted to invest their money in an enterprise that gave a better return? The money for the investment would have to still be found and the commuters using the service would be the obvious source. I thought it was only cyclists that couldn't understand the concept of paying for what they willingly use.[/p][/quote]Cyclists do pay for the roads, it's called general taxation, road tax was gotten rid of in 1937 by Churchill, motorists pay a tax on pollution they cause called Vehicle Excise Duty, it's not based on how much they use the road, that's why electric cars and most hybrids don't pay it along with cyclists and very little to none of the V.E.D money goes towards road upkeep, you going to go round trying to kill cyclists and electric/hybrid car drivers now just because they don't pay for your emissions?[/p][/quote]Trying to mow down the 'orrible non tax paying cyclist these days has got very tricky. The Old Bill get a bit shirty when I drive my car onto the pavement to get them. They're too rare on the roads to waste petrol looking for them.[/p][/quote]Like I said, cyclists do pay tax, even the ones who are out of work or made redundant, even if it is just the tax we pay on everything you can buy and you just don't want to chase cyclists down the bus lane because your precious little cage on wheels needs £5 of petrol just to go a mile, I bet you or another cager here who thinks road tax still exists is the **** who told me to get off the road down Northam on Saturday, even though i was in the lane I needed which was the one to go straight and into the bus lane, the **** mentioned didn't even get 50 yards on me before I caught up and passed them and before you mention insurance, no I don't have any yet that covers my bike for damage but I am covered for any claim against me worth well in excess of £1,000,000 also with that liability insurance I also get free legal help so if you or anyone else knocks me down and I'm not at fault then you WILL be prosecuted. Ginger_cyclist

5:44pm Mon 16 Jul 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

Torchie1 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Over the Edge wrote:
Shoong wrote:
Over the Edge wrote:
This is all good, however the train travel prices will increase to pay for it, we are all in this together.
I'm going to assume you are happy with the current situation then?

Probably not, if we want an improved system we're going to have to chip in.
Why should passengers pay increased prices, why don't the rail operators pay for the improvements?

Maybe the answer is less of a pay out to shareholders
If you reduced the payout (Dividends) to Shareholders, would it be a total surprise if they opted to invest their money in an enterprise that gave a better return? The money for the investment would have to still be found and the commuters using the service would be the obvious source. I thought it was only cyclists that couldn't understand the concept of paying for what they willingly use.
Cyclists do pay for the roads, it's called general taxation, road tax was gotten rid of in 1937 by Churchill, motorists pay a tax on pollution they cause called Vehicle Excise Duty, it's not based on how much they use the road, that's why electric cars and most hybrids don't pay it along with cyclists and very little to none of the V.E.D money goes towards road upkeep, you going to go round trying to kill cyclists and electric/hybrid car drivers now just because they don't pay for your emissions?
Is that Road Tax or Road Tacks?
Road TAX was abolished in 1937, not road tacks... though I should buy some road TACKS and use them on knob jockey motorists.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Over the Edge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Over the Edge[/bold] wrote: This is all good, however the train travel prices will increase to pay for it, we are all in this together.[/p][/quote]I'm going to assume you are happy with the current situation then? Probably not, if we want an improved system we're going to have to chip in.[/p][/quote]Why should passengers pay increased prices, why don't the rail operators pay for the improvements? Maybe the answer is less of a pay out to shareholders[/p][/quote]If you reduced the payout (Dividends) to Shareholders, would it be a total surprise if they opted to invest their money in an enterprise that gave a better return? The money for the investment would have to still be found and the commuters using the service would be the obvious source. I thought it was only cyclists that couldn't understand the concept of paying for what they willingly use.[/p][/quote]Cyclists do pay for the roads, it's called general taxation, road tax was gotten rid of in 1937 by Churchill, motorists pay a tax on pollution they cause called Vehicle Excise Duty, it's not based on how much they use the road, that's why electric cars and most hybrids don't pay it along with cyclists and very little to none of the V.E.D money goes towards road upkeep, you going to go round trying to kill cyclists and electric/hybrid car drivers now just because they don't pay for your emissions?[/p][/quote]Is that Road Tax or Road Tacks?[/p][/quote]Road TAX was abolished in 1937, not road tacks... though I should buy some road TACKS and use them on knob jockey motorists. Ginger_cyclist

6:08pm Mon 16 Jul 12

Inform Al says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Over the Edge wrote:
Shoong wrote:
Over the Edge wrote:
This is all good, however the train travel prices will increase to pay for it, we are all in this together.
I'm going to assume you are happy with the current situation then?

Probably not, if we want an improved system we're going to have to chip in.
Why should passengers pay increased prices, why don't the rail operators pay for the improvements?

Maybe the answer is less of a pay out to shareholders
If you reduced the payout (Dividends) to Shareholders, would it be a total surprise if they opted to invest their money in an enterprise that gave a better return? The money for the investment would have to still be found and the commuters using the service would be the obvious source. I thought it was only cyclists that couldn't understand the concept of paying for what they willingly use.
Cyclists do pay for the roads, it's called general taxation, road tax was gotten rid of in 1937 by Churchill, motorists pay a tax on pollution they cause called Vehicle Excise Duty, it's not based on how much they use the road, that's why electric cars and most hybrids don't pay it along with cyclists and very little to none of the V.E.D money goes towards road upkeep, you going to go round trying to kill cyclists and electric/hybrid car drivers now just because they don't pay for your emissions?
Trying to mow down the 'orrible non tax paying cyclist these days has got very tricky. The Old Bill get a bit shirty when I drive my car onto the pavement to get them. They're too rare on the roads to waste petrol looking for them.
Like I said, cyclists do pay tax, even the ones who are out of work or made redundant, even if it is just the tax we pay on everything you can buy and you just don't want to chase cyclists down the bus lane because your precious little cage on wheels needs £5 of petrol just to go a mile, I bet you or another cager here who thinks road tax still exists is the **** who told me to get off the road down Northam on Saturday, even though i was in the lane I needed which was the one to go straight and into the bus lane, the **** mentioned didn't even get 50 yards on me before I caught up and passed them and before you mention insurance, no I don't have any yet that covers my bike for damage but I am covered for any claim against me worth well in excess of £1,000,000 also with that liability insurance I also get free legal help so if you or anyone else knocks me down and I'm not at fault then you WILL be prosecuted.
That brings up an interesting point, if I knock you down I'm sure someone will take my registration plate details. When some plank on a bike mows me down on the pavement, how will I know who to sue?
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Over the Edge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Over the Edge[/bold] wrote: This is all good, however the train travel prices will increase to pay for it, we are all in this together.[/p][/quote]I'm going to assume you are happy with the current situation then? Probably not, if we want an improved system we're going to have to chip in.[/p][/quote]Why should passengers pay increased prices, why don't the rail operators pay for the improvements? Maybe the answer is less of a pay out to shareholders[/p][/quote]If you reduced the payout (Dividends) to Shareholders, would it be a total surprise if they opted to invest their money in an enterprise that gave a better return? The money for the investment would have to still be found and the commuters using the service would be the obvious source. I thought it was only cyclists that couldn't understand the concept of paying for what they willingly use.[/p][/quote]Cyclists do pay for the roads, it's called general taxation, road tax was gotten rid of in 1937 by Churchill, motorists pay a tax on pollution they cause called Vehicle Excise Duty, it's not based on how much they use the road, that's why electric cars and most hybrids don't pay it along with cyclists and very little to none of the V.E.D money goes towards road upkeep, you going to go round trying to kill cyclists and electric/hybrid car drivers now just because they don't pay for your emissions?[/p][/quote]Trying to mow down the 'orrible non tax paying cyclist these days has got very tricky. The Old Bill get a bit shirty when I drive my car onto the pavement to get them. They're too rare on the roads to waste petrol looking for them.[/p][/quote]Like I said, cyclists do pay tax, even the ones who are out of work or made redundant, even if it is just the tax we pay on everything you can buy and you just don't want to chase cyclists down the bus lane because your precious little cage on wheels needs £5 of petrol just to go a mile, I bet you or another cager here who thinks road tax still exists is the **** who told me to get off the road down Northam on Saturday, even though i was in the lane I needed which was the one to go straight and into the bus lane, the **** mentioned didn't even get 50 yards on me before I caught up and passed them and before you mention insurance, no I don't have any yet that covers my bike for damage but I am covered for any claim against me worth well in excess of £1,000,000 also with that liability insurance I also get free legal help so if you or anyone else knocks me down and I'm not at fault then you WILL be prosecuted.[/p][/quote]That brings up an interesting point, if I knock you down I'm sure someone will take my registration plate details. When some plank on a bike mows me down on the pavement, how will I know who to sue? Inform Al

6:24pm Mon 16 Jul 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

Inform Al wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Over the Edge wrote:
Shoong wrote:
Over the Edge wrote:
This is all good, however the train travel prices will increase to pay for it, we are all in this together.
I'm going to assume you are happy with the current situation then?

Probably not, if we want an improved system we're going to have to chip in.
Why should passengers pay increased prices, why don't the rail operators pay for the improvements?

Maybe the answer is less of a pay out to shareholders
If you reduced the payout (Dividends) to Shareholders, would it be a total surprise if they opted to invest their money in an enterprise that gave a better return? The money for the investment would have to still be found and the commuters using the service would be the obvious source. I thought it was only cyclists that couldn't understand the concept of paying for what they willingly use.
Cyclists do pay for the roads, it's called general taxation, road tax was gotten rid of in 1937 by Churchill, motorists pay a tax on pollution they cause called Vehicle Excise Duty, it's not based on how much they use the road, that's why electric cars and most hybrids don't pay it along with cyclists and very little to none of the V.E.D money goes towards road upkeep, you going to go round trying to kill cyclists and electric/hybrid car drivers now just because they don't pay for your emissions?
Trying to mow down the 'orrible non tax paying cyclist these days has got very tricky. The Old Bill get a bit shirty when I drive my car onto the pavement to get them. They're too rare on the roads to waste petrol looking for them.
Like I said, cyclists do pay tax, even the ones who are out of work or made redundant, even if it is just the tax we pay on everything you can buy and you just don't want to chase cyclists down the bus lane because your precious little cage on wheels needs £5 of petrol just to go a mile, I bet you or another cager here who thinks road tax still exists is the **** who told me to get off the road down Northam on Saturday, even though i was in the lane I needed which was the one to go straight and into the bus lane, the **** mentioned didn't even get 50 yards on me before I caught up and passed them and before you mention insurance, no I don't have any yet that covers my bike for damage but I am covered for any claim against me worth well in excess of £1,000,000 also with that liability insurance I also get free legal help so if you or anyone else knocks me down and I'm not at fault then you WILL be prosecuted.
That brings up an interesting point, if I knock you down I'm sure someone will take my registration plate details. When some plank on a bike mows me down on the pavement, how will I know who to sue?
No idea but I do know one person it won't be and that's me, I don't even ride on shared use paths because most are just not wide enough for pedestrians to share with cyclists, especially when a trio of mums with pushchairs walk along it almost side by side to chat but I will use them if I think it's safer to do so, like while I was riding my backup bike which was a bmx or to save time since i have a shared use at the end of my road that leads out onto the main road, though it's completely useless since at the end where the main road is, you have to get off to wheel it at least a foot to the road but if I did ever hit a pedestrian and it was my fault, I would admit it, apologize, ask if they're okay, if they're not then I'd give them first aid, if they're badly hurt (which would be possible but not likely) then I would phone for an ambulance and hope to hell that my regret and acknowledgement of it being my fault would be enough that they didn't sue me.
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Over the Edge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Over the Edge[/bold] wrote: This is all good, however the train travel prices will increase to pay for it, we are all in this together.[/p][/quote]I'm going to assume you are happy with the current situation then? Probably not, if we want an improved system we're going to have to chip in.[/p][/quote]Why should passengers pay increased prices, why don't the rail operators pay for the improvements? Maybe the answer is less of a pay out to shareholders[/p][/quote]If you reduced the payout (Dividends) to Shareholders, would it be a total surprise if they opted to invest their money in an enterprise that gave a better return? The money for the investment would have to still be found and the commuters using the service would be the obvious source. I thought it was only cyclists that couldn't understand the concept of paying for what they willingly use.[/p][/quote]Cyclists do pay for the roads, it's called general taxation, road tax was gotten rid of in 1937 by Churchill, motorists pay a tax on pollution they cause called Vehicle Excise Duty, it's not based on how much they use the road, that's why electric cars and most hybrids don't pay it along with cyclists and very little to none of the V.E.D money goes towards road upkeep, you going to go round trying to kill cyclists and electric/hybrid car drivers now just because they don't pay for your emissions?[/p][/quote]Trying to mow down the 'orrible non tax paying cyclist these days has got very tricky. The Old Bill get a bit shirty when I drive my car onto the pavement to get them. They're too rare on the roads to waste petrol looking for them.[/p][/quote]Like I said, cyclists do pay tax, even the ones who are out of work or made redundant, even if it is just the tax we pay on everything you can buy and you just don't want to chase cyclists down the bus lane because your precious little cage on wheels needs £5 of petrol just to go a mile, I bet you or another cager here who thinks road tax still exists is the **** who told me to get off the road down Northam on Saturday, even though i was in the lane I needed which was the one to go straight and into the bus lane, the **** mentioned didn't even get 50 yards on me before I caught up and passed them and before you mention insurance, no I don't have any yet that covers my bike for damage but I am covered for any claim against me worth well in excess of £1,000,000 also with that liability insurance I also get free legal help so if you or anyone else knocks me down and I'm not at fault then you WILL be prosecuted.[/p][/quote]That brings up an interesting point, if I knock you down I'm sure someone will take my registration plate details. When some plank on a bike mows me down on the pavement, how will I know who to sue?[/p][/quote]No idea but I do know one person it won't be and that's me, I don't even ride on shared use paths because most are just not wide enough for pedestrians to share with cyclists, especially when a trio of mums with pushchairs walk along it almost side by side to chat but I will use them if I think it's safer to do so, like while I was riding my backup bike which was a bmx or to save time since i have a shared use at the end of my road that leads out onto the main road, though it's completely useless since at the end where the main road is, you have to get off to wheel it at least a foot to the road but if I did ever hit a pedestrian and it was my fault, I would admit it, apologize, ask if they're okay, if they're not then I'd give them first aid, if they're badly hurt (which would be possible but not likely) then I would phone for an ambulance and hope to hell that my regret and acknowledgement of it being my fault would be enough that they didn't sue me. Ginger_cyclist

6:43pm Mon 16 Jul 12

Torchie1 says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Over the Edge wrote:
Shoong wrote:
Over the Edge wrote:
This is all good, however the train travel prices will increase to pay for it, we are all in this together.
I'm going to assume you are happy with the current situation then?

Probably not, if we want an improved system we're going to have to chip in.
Why should passengers pay increased prices, why don't the rail operators pay for the improvements?

Maybe the answer is less of a pay out to shareholders
If you reduced the payout (Dividends) to Shareholders, would it be a total surprise if they opted to invest their money in an enterprise that gave a better return? The money for the investment would have to still be found and the commuters using the service would be the obvious source. I thought it was only cyclists that couldn't understand the concept of paying for what they willingly use.
Cyclists do pay for the roads, it's called general taxation, road tax was gotten rid of in 1937 by Churchill, motorists pay a tax on pollution they cause called Vehicle Excise Duty, it's not based on how much they use the road, that's why electric cars and most hybrids don't pay it along with cyclists and very little to none of the V.E.D money goes towards road upkeep, you going to go round trying to kill cyclists and electric/hybrid car drivers now just because they don't pay for your emissions?
Is that Road Tax or Road Tacks?
Road TAX was abolished in 1937, not road tacks... though I should buy some road TACKS and use them on knob jockey motorists.
Clearly not seeing the humorous reference to Bradley Wiggins in his bicycle race. Why do cyclists go off on one as soon as they sense a challenge to their chosen way of transport? Is it the exhaust fumes that you chose to inhale as you glide serenely through the roads of Southampton on your way to hug a tree?
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Over the Edge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Over the Edge[/bold] wrote: This is all good, however the train travel prices will increase to pay for it, we are all in this together.[/p][/quote]I'm going to assume you are happy with the current situation then? Probably not, if we want an improved system we're going to have to chip in.[/p][/quote]Why should passengers pay increased prices, why don't the rail operators pay for the improvements? Maybe the answer is less of a pay out to shareholders[/p][/quote]If you reduced the payout (Dividends) to Shareholders, would it be a total surprise if they opted to invest their money in an enterprise that gave a better return? The money for the investment would have to still be found and the commuters using the service would be the obvious source. I thought it was only cyclists that couldn't understand the concept of paying for what they willingly use.[/p][/quote]Cyclists do pay for the roads, it's called general taxation, road tax was gotten rid of in 1937 by Churchill, motorists pay a tax on pollution they cause called Vehicle Excise Duty, it's not based on how much they use the road, that's why electric cars and most hybrids don't pay it along with cyclists and very little to none of the V.E.D money goes towards road upkeep, you going to go round trying to kill cyclists and electric/hybrid car drivers now just because they don't pay for your emissions?[/p][/quote]Is that Road Tax or Road Tacks?[/p][/quote]Road TAX was abolished in 1937, not road tacks... though I should buy some road TACKS and use them on knob jockey motorists.[/p][/quote]Clearly not seeing the humorous reference to Bradley Wiggins in his bicycle race. Why do cyclists go off on one as soon as they sense a challenge to their chosen way of transport? Is it the exhaust fumes that you chose to inhale as you glide serenely through the roads of Southampton on your way to hug a tree? Torchie1

7:13pm Mon 16 Jul 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

Torchie1 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Over the Edge wrote:
Shoong wrote:
Over the Edge wrote:
This is all good, however the train travel prices will increase to pay for it, we are all in this together.
I'm going to assume you are happy with the current situation then?

Probably not, if we want an improved system we're going to have to chip in.
Why should passengers pay increased prices, why don't the rail operators pay for the improvements?

Maybe the answer is less of a pay out to shareholders
If you reduced the payout (Dividends) to Shareholders, would it be a total surprise if they opted to invest their money in an enterprise that gave a better return? The money for the investment would have to still be found and the commuters using the service would be the obvious source. I thought it was only cyclists that couldn't understand the concept of paying for what they willingly use.
Cyclists do pay for the roads, it's called general taxation, road tax was gotten rid of in 1937 by Churchill, motorists pay a tax on pollution they cause called Vehicle Excise Duty, it's not based on how much they use the road, that's why electric cars and most hybrids don't pay it along with cyclists and very little to none of the V.E.D money goes towards road upkeep, you going to go round trying to kill cyclists and electric/hybrid car drivers now just because they don't pay for your emissions?
Is that Road Tax or Road Tacks?
Road TAX was abolished in 1937, not road tacks... though I should buy some road TACKS and use them on knob jockey motorists.
Clearly not seeing the humorous reference to Bradley Wiggins in his bicycle race. Why do cyclists go off on one as soon as they sense a challenge to their chosen way of transport? Is it the exhaust fumes that you chose to inhale as you glide serenely through the roads of Southampton on your way to hug a tree?
No, it's because there are many people who drive that are out to get cyclists just because they're there.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Over the Edge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Over the Edge[/bold] wrote: This is all good, however the train travel prices will increase to pay for it, we are all in this together.[/p][/quote]I'm going to assume you are happy with the current situation then? Probably not, if we want an improved system we're going to have to chip in.[/p][/quote]Why should passengers pay increased prices, why don't the rail operators pay for the improvements? Maybe the answer is less of a pay out to shareholders[/p][/quote]If you reduced the payout (Dividends) to Shareholders, would it be a total surprise if they opted to invest their money in an enterprise that gave a better return? The money for the investment would have to still be found and the commuters using the service would be the obvious source. I thought it was only cyclists that couldn't understand the concept of paying for what they willingly use.[/p][/quote]Cyclists do pay for the roads, it's called general taxation, road tax was gotten rid of in 1937 by Churchill, motorists pay a tax on pollution they cause called Vehicle Excise Duty, it's not based on how much they use the road, that's why electric cars and most hybrids don't pay it along with cyclists and very little to none of the V.E.D money goes towards road upkeep, you going to go round trying to kill cyclists and electric/hybrid car drivers now just because they don't pay for your emissions?[/p][/quote]Is that Road Tax or Road Tacks?[/p][/quote]Road TAX was abolished in 1937, not road tacks... though I should buy some road TACKS and use them on knob jockey motorists.[/p][/quote]Clearly not seeing the humorous reference to Bradley Wiggins in his bicycle race. Why do cyclists go off on one as soon as they sense a challenge to their chosen way of transport? Is it the exhaust fumes that you chose to inhale as you glide serenely through the roads of Southampton on your way to hug a tree?[/p][/quote]No, it's because there are many people who drive that are out to get cyclists just because they're there. Ginger_cyclist

7:15pm Mon 16 Jul 12

solomum says...

Condor Man wrote:
Until it's cheaper to take a family on the train than it is to go by car people will only use the network for commuting. 2 adult and a child to London was over £80 by train, less than half if you drove and came in from the suburbs.
Try trainline.com. We regularly go to Devon for less than £16 return for the whole family using a friends and family railcard. Even tickets purchased from national rail are a lot cheaper with a railcard. Megatrain also do £1 each way tickets to London.
[quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: Until it's cheaper to take a family on the train than it is to go by car people will only use the network for commuting. 2 adult and a child to London was over £80 by train, less than half if you drove and came in from the suburbs.[/p][/quote]Try trainline.com. We regularly go to Devon for less than £16 return for the whole family using a friends and family railcard. Even tickets purchased from national rail are a lot cheaper with a railcard. Megatrain also do £1 each way tickets to London. solomum

8:02pm Mon 16 Jul 12

S Pance says...

Great move and much overdue!

By electrifying the line it will mean cheaper, faster more efficient trains.
Great move and much overdue! By electrifying the line it will mean cheaper, faster more efficient trains. S Pance

8:17pm Mon 16 Jul 12

Fatty x Ford Worker says...

Ah so thats why they made the bridges higher then!
Ah so thats why they made the bridges higher then! Fatty x Ford Worker

8:18pm Mon 16 Jul 12

Velleity says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Over the Edge wrote:
Shoong wrote:
Over the Edge wrote:
This is all good, however the train travel prices will increase to pay for it, we are all in this together.
I'm going to assume you are happy with the current situation then?

Probably not, if we want an improved system we're going to have to chip in.
Why should passengers pay increased prices, why don't the rail operators pay for the improvements?

Maybe the answer is less of a pay out to shareholders
If you reduced the payout (Dividends) to Shareholders, would it be a total surprise if they opted to invest their money in an enterprise that gave a better return? The money for the investment would have to still be found and the commuters using the service would be the obvious source. I thought it was only cyclists that couldn't understand the concept of paying for what they willingly use.
Cyclists do pay for the roads, it's called general taxation, road tax was gotten rid of in 1937 by Churchill, motorists pay a tax on pollution they cause called Vehicle Excise Duty, it's not based on how much they use the road, that's why electric cars and most hybrids don't pay it along with cyclists and very little to none of the V.E.D money goes towards road upkeep, you going to go round trying to kill cyclists and electric/hybrid car drivers now just because they don't pay for your emissions?
Trying to mow down the 'orrible non tax paying cyclist these days has got very tricky. The Old Bill get a bit shirty when I drive my car onto the pavement to get them. They're too rare on the roads to waste petrol looking for them.
Like I said, cyclists do pay tax, even the ones who are out of work or made redundant, even if it is just the tax we pay on everything you can buy and you just don't want to chase cyclists down the bus lane because your precious little cage on wheels needs £5 of petrol just to go a mile, I bet you or another cager here who thinks road tax still exists is the **** who told me to get off the road down Northam on Saturday, even though i was in the lane I needed which was the one to go straight and into the bus lane, the **** mentioned didn't even get 50 yards on me before I caught up and passed them and before you mention insurance, no I don't have any yet that covers my bike for damage but I am covered for any claim against me worth well in excess of £1,000,000 also with that liability insurance I also get free legal help so if you or anyone else knocks me down and I'm not at fault then you WILL be prosecuted.
That brings up an interesting point, if I knock you down I'm sure someone will take my registration plate details. When some plank on a bike mows me down on the pavement, how will I know who to sue?
No idea but I do know one person it won't be and that's me, I don't even ride on shared use paths because most are just not wide enough for pedestrians to share with cyclists, especially when a trio of mums with pushchairs walk along it almost side by side to chat but I will use them if I think it's safer to do so, like while I was riding my backup bike which was a bmx or to save time since i have a shared use at the end of my road that leads out onto the main road, though it's completely useless since at the end where the main road is, you have to get off to wheel it at least a foot to the road but if I did ever hit a pedestrian and it was my fault, I would admit it, apologize, ask if they're okay, if they're not then I'd give them first aid, if they're badly hurt (which would be possible but not likely) then I would phone for an ambulance and hope to hell that my regret and acknowledgement of it being my fault would be enough that they didn't sue me.
Whereas, if I hit you, I'll be sure to reverse over you to make sure the job's done properly.

Do you have a sense of humour? Oh, of course not, you're a cyclist.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Over the Edge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Over the Edge[/bold] wrote: This is all good, however the train travel prices will increase to pay for it, we are all in this together.[/p][/quote]I'm going to assume you are happy with the current situation then? Probably not, if we want an improved system we're going to have to chip in.[/p][/quote]Why should passengers pay increased prices, why don't the rail operators pay for the improvements? Maybe the answer is less of a pay out to shareholders[/p][/quote]If you reduced the payout (Dividends) to Shareholders, would it be a total surprise if they opted to invest their money in an enterprise that gave a better return? The money for the investment would have to still be found and the commuters using the service would be the obvious source. I thought it was only cyclists that couldn't understand the concept of paying for what they willingly use.[/p][/quote]Cyclists do pay for the roads, it's called general taxation, road tax was gotten rid of in 1937 by Churchill, motorists pay a tax on pollution they cause called Vehicle Excise Duty, it's not based on how much they use the road, that's why electric cars and most hybrids don't pay it along with cyclists and very little to none of the V.E.D money goes towards road upkeep, you going to go round trying to kill cyclists and electric/hybrid car drivers now just because they don't pay for your emissions?[/p][/quote]Trying to mow down the 'orrible non tax paying cyclist these days has got very tricky. The Old Bill get a bit shirty when I drive my car onto the pavement to get them. They're too rare on the roads to waste petrol looking for them.[/p][/quote]Like I said, cyclists do pay tax, even the ones who are out of work or made redundant, even if it is just the tax we pay on everything you can buy and you just don't want to chase cyclists down the bus lane because your precious little cage on wheels needs £5 of petrol just to go a mile, I bet you or another cager here who thinks road tax still exists is the **** who told me to get off the road down Northam on Saturday, even though i was in the lane I needed which was the one to go straight and into the bus lane, the **** mentioned didn't even get 50 yards on me before I caught up and passed them and before you mention insurance, no I don't have any yet that covers my bike for damage but I am covered for any claim against me worth well in excess of £1,000,000 also with that liability insurance I also get free legal help so if you or anyone else knocks me down and I'm not at fault then you WILL be prosecuted.[/p][/quote]That brings up an interesting point, if I knock you down I'm sure someone will take my registration plate details. When some plank on a bike mows me down on the pavement, how will I know who to sue?[/p][/quote]No idea but I do know one person it won't be and that's me, I don't even ride on shared use paths because most are just not wide enough for pedestrians to share with cyclists, especially when a trio of mums with pushchairs walk along it almost side by side to chat but I will use them if I think it's safer to do so, like while I was riding my backup bike which was a bmx or to save time since i have a shared use at the end of my road that leads out onto the main road, though it's completely useless since at the end where the main road is, you have to get off to wheel it at least a foot to the road but if I did ever hit a pedestrian and it was my fault, I would admit it, apologize, ask if they're okay, if they're not then I'd give them first aid, if they're badly hurt (which would be possible but not likely) then I would phone for an ambulance and hope to hell that my regret and acknowledgement of it being my fault would be enough that they didn't sue me.[/p][/quote]Whereas, if I hit you, I'll be sure to reverse over you to make sure the job's done properly. Do you have a sense of humour? Oh, of course not, you're a cyclist. Velleity

8:34pm Mon 16 Jul 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

Velleity wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Over the Edge wrote:
Shoong wrote:
Over the Edge wrote:
This is all good, however the train travel prices will increase to pay for it, we are all in this together.
I'm going to assume you are happy with the current situation then?

Probably not, if we want an improved system we're going to have to chip in.
Why should passengers pay increased prices, why don't the rail operators pay for the improvements?

Maybe the answer is less of a pay out to shareholders
If you reduced the payout (Dividends) to Shareholders, would it be a total surprise if they opted to invest their money in an enterprise that gave a better return? The money for the investment would have to still be found and the commuters using the service would be the obvious source. I thought it was only cyclists that couldn't understand the concept of paying for what they willingly use.
Cyclists do pay for the roads, it's called general taxation, road tax was gotten rid of in 1937 by Churchill, motorists pay a tax on pollution they cause called Vehicle Excise Duty, it's not based on how much they use the road, that's why electric cars and most hybrids don't pay it along with cyclists and very little to none of the V.E.D money goes towards road upkeep, you going to go round trying to kill cyclists and electric/hybrid car drivers now just because they don't pay for your emissions?
Trying to mow down the 'orrible non tax paying cyclist these days has got very tricky. The Old Bill get a bit shirty when I drive my car onto the pavement to get them. They're too rare on the roads to waste petrol looking for them.
Like I said, cyclists do pay tax, even the ones who are out of work or made redundant, even if it is just the tax we pay on everything you can buy and you just don't want to chase cyclists down the bus lane because your precious little cage on wheels needs £5 of petrol just to go a mile, I bet you or another cager here who thinks road tax still exists is the **** who told me to get off the road down Northam on Saturday, even though i was in the lane I needed which was the one to go straight and into the bus lane, the **** mentioned didn't even get 50 yards on me before I caught up and passed them and before you mention insurance, no I don't have any yet that covers my bike for damage but I am covered for any claim against me worth well in excess of £1,000,000 also with that liability insurance I also get free legal help so if you or anyone else knocks me down and I'm not at fault then you WILL be prosecuted.
That brings up an interesting point, if I knock you down I'm sure someone will take my registration plate details. When some plank on a bike mows me down on the pavement, how will I know who to sue?
No idea but I do know one person it won't be and that's me, I don't even ride on shared use paths because most are just not wide enough for pedestrians to share with cyclists, especially when a trio of mums with pushchairs walk along it almost side by side to chat but I will use them if I think it's safer to do so, like while I was riding my backup bike which was a bmx or to save time since i have a shared use at the end of my road that leads out onto the main road, though it's completely useless since at the end where the main road is, you have to get off to wheel it at least a foot to the road but if I did ever hit a pedestrian and it was my fault, I would admit it, apologize, ask if they're okay, if they're not then I'd give them first aid, if they're badly hurt (which would be possible but not likely) then I would phone for an ambulance and hope to hell that my regret and acknowledgement of it being my fault would be enough that they didn't sue me.
Whereas, if I hit you, I'll be sure to reverse over you to make sure the job's done properly.

Do you have a sense of humour? Oh, of course not, you're a cyclist.
Then you'd be done for murder and yes I have a sense of humor but killing people or hurting them for any reason is no laughing matter.
[quote][p][bold]Velleity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Over the Edge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Over the Edge[/bold] wrote: This is all good, however the train travel prices will increase to pay for it, we are all in this together.[/p][/quote]I'm going to assume you are happy with the current situation then? Probably not, if we want an improved system we're going to have to chip in.[/p][/quote]Why should passengers pay increased prices, why don't the rail operators pay for the improvements? Maybe the answer is less of a pay out to shareholders[/p][/quote]If you reduced the payout (Dividends) to Shareholders, would it be a total surprise if they opted to invest their money in an enterprise that gave a better return? The money for the investment would have to still be found and the commuters using the service would be the obvious source. I thought it was only cyclists that couldn't understand the concept of paying for what they willingly use.[/p][/quote]Cyclists do pay for the roads, it's called general taxation, road tax was gotten rid of in 1937 by Churchill, motorists pay a tax on pollution they cause called Vehicle Excise Duty, it's not based on how much they use the road, that's why electric cars and most hybrids don't pay it along with cyclists and very little to none of the V.E.D money goes towards road upkeep, you going to go round trying to kill cyclists and electric/hybrid car drivers now just because they don't pay for your emissions?[/p][/quote]Trying to mow down the 'orrible non tax paying cyclist these days has got very tricky. The Old Bill get a bit shirty when I drive my car onto the pavement to get them. They're too rare on the roads to waste petrol looking for them.[/p][/quote]Like I said, cyclists do pay tax, even the ones who are out of work or made redundant, even if it is just the tax we pay on everything you can buy and you just don't want to chase cyclists down the bus lane because your precious little cage on wheels needs £5 of petrol just to go a mile, I bet you or another cager here who thinks road tax still exists is the **** who told me to get off the road down Northam on Saturday, even though i was in the lane I needed which was the one to go straight and into the bus lane, the **** mentioned didn't even get 50 yards on me before I caught up and passed them and before you mention insurance, no I don't have any yet that covers my bike for damage but I am covered for any claim against me worth well in excess of £1,000,000 also with that liability insurance I also get free legal help so if you or anyone else knocks me down and I'm not at fault then you WILL be prosecuted.[/p][/quote]That brings up an interesting point, if I knock you down I'm sure someone will take my registration plate details. When some plank on a bike mows me down on the pavement, how will I know who to sue?[/p][/quote]No idea but I do know one person it won't be and that's me, I don't even ride on shared use paths because most are just not wide enough for pedestrians to share with cyclists, especially when a trio of mums with pushchairs walk along it almost side by side to chat but I will use them if I think it's safer to do so, like while I was riding my backup bike which was a bmx or to save time since i have a shared use at the end of my road that leads out onto the main road, though it's completely useless since at the end where the main road is, you have to get off to wheel it at least a foot to the road but if I did ever hit a pedestrian and it was my fault, I would admit it, apologize, ask if they're okay, if they're not then I'd give them first aid, if they're badly hurt (which would be possible but not likely) then I would phone for an ambulance and hope to hell that my regret and acknowledgement of it being my fault would be enough that they didn't sue me.[/p][/quote]Whereas, if I hit you, I'll be sure to reverse over you to make sure the job's done properly. Do you have a sense of humour? Oh, of course not, you're a cyclist.[/p][/quote]Then you'd be done for murder and yes I have a sense of humor but killing people or hurting them for any reason is no laughing matter. Ginger_cyclist

10:18pm Mon 16 Jul 12

ChandlersFordKev says...

solomum says...
7:15pm Mon 16 Jul 12
Try trainline.com. We regularly go to Devon for less than £16 return for the whole family using a friends and family railcard. Even tickets purchased from national rail are a lot cheaper with a railcard. Megatrain also do £1 each way tickets to London.”


Sorry quote seems to not to be working.

Quite agree with you Berwick-Upon-Tweed, single on Thursday to Southampton £45!!!!
solomum says... 7:15pm Mon 16 Jul 12 Try trainline.com. We regularly go to Devon for less than £16 return for the whole family using a friends and family railcard. Even tickets purchased from national rail are a lot cheaper with a railcard. Megatrain also do £1 each way tickets to London.” Sorry quote seems to not to be working. Quite agree with you Berwick-Upon-Tweed, single on Thursday to Southampton £45!!!! ChandlersFordKev

10:20pm Mon 16 Jul 12

ChandlersFordKev says...

Should have said via London as well, so not the long route.
Should have said via London as well, so not the long route. ChandlersFordKev

10:32pm Mon 16 Jul 12

IronLady2010 says...

As and when I use a train, I always stand in the door areas. I've seen so many greasy haired folk rubbing their hair over the seats I refuse to sit on them.
As and when I use a train, I always stand in the door areas. I've seen so many greasy haired folk rubbing their hair over the seats I refuse to sit on them. IronLady2010

10:59pm Mon 16 Jul 12

Velleity says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Velleity wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Over the Edge wrote:
Shoong wrote:
Over the Edge wrote:
This is all good, however the train travel prices will increase to pay for it, we are all in this together.
I'm going to assume you are happy with the current situation then?

Probably not, if we want an improved system we're going to have to chip in.
Why should passengers pay increased prices, why don't the rail operators pay for the improvements?

Maybe the answer is less of a pay out to shareholders
If you reduced the payout (Dividends) to Shareholders, would it be a total surprise if they opted to invest their money in an enterprise that gave a better return? The money for the investment would have to still be found and the commuters using the service would be the obvious source. I thought it was only cyclists that couldn't understand the concept of paying for what they willingly use.
Cyclists do pay for the roads, it's called general taxation, road tax was gotten rid of in 1937 by Churchill, motorists pay a tax on pollution they cause called Vehicle Excise Duty, it's not based on how much they use the road, that's why electric cars and most hybrids don't pay it along with cyclists and very little to none of the V.E.D money goes towards road upkeep, you going to go round trying to kill cyclists and electric/hybrid car drivers now just because they don't pay for your emissions?
Trying to mow down the 'orrible non tax paying cyclist these days has got very tricky. The Old Bill get a bit shirty when I drive my car onto the pavement to get them. They're too rare on the roads to waste petrol looking for them.
Like I said, cyclists do pay tax, even the ones who are out of work or made redundant, even if it is just the tax we pay on everything you can buy and you just don't want to chase cyclists down the bus lane because your precious little cage on wheels needs £5 of petrol just to go a mile, I bet you or another cager here who thinks road tax still exists is the **** who told me to get off the road down Northam on Saturday, even though i was in the lane I needed which was the one to go straight and into the bus lane, the **** mentioned didn't even get 50 yards on me before I caught up and passed them and before you mention insurance, no I don't have any yet that covers my bike for damage but I am covered for any claim against me worth well in excess of £1,000,000 also with that liability insurance I also get free legal help so if you or anyone else knocks me down and I'm not at fault then you WILL be prosecuted.
That brings up an interesting point, if I knock you down I'm sure someone will take my registration plate details. When some plank on a bike mows me down on the pavement, how will I know who to sue?
No idea but I do know one person it won't be and that's me, I don't even ride on shared use paths because most are just not wide enough for pedestrians to share with cyclists, especially when a trio of mums with pushchairs walk along it almost side by side to chat but I will use them if I think it's safer to do so, like while I was riding my backup bike which was a bmx or to save time since i have a shared use at the end of my road that leads out onto the main road, though it's completely useless since at the end where the main road is, you have to get off to wheel it at least a foot to the road but if I did ever hit a pedestrian and it was my fault, I would admit it, apologize, ask if they're okay, if they're not then I'd give them first aid, if they're badly hurt (which would be possible but not likely) then I would phone for an ambulance and hope to hell that my regret and acknowledgement of it being my fault would be enough that they didn't sue me.
Whereas, if I hit you, I'll be sure to reverse over you to make sure the job's done properly.

Do you have a sense of humour? Oh, of course not, you're a cyclist.
Then you'd be done for murder and yes I have a sense of humor but killing people or hurting them for any reason is no laughing matter.
QED
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Velleity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Over the Edge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Over the Edge[/bold] wrote: This is all good, however the train travel prices will increase to pay for it, we are all in this together.[/p][/quote]I'm going to assume you are happy with the current situation then? Probably not, if we want an improved system we're going to have to chip in.[/p][/quote]Why should passengers pay increased prices, why don't the rail operators pay for the improvements? Maybe the answer is less of a pay out to shareholders[/p][/quote]If you reduced the payout (Dividends) to Shareholders, would it be a total surprise if they opted to invest their money in an enterprise that gave a better return? The money for the investment would have to still be found and the commuters using the service would be the obvious source. I thought it was only cyclists that couldn't understand the concept of paying for what they willingly use.[/p][/quote]Cyclists do pay for the roads, it's called general taxation, road tax was gotten rid of in 1937 by Churchill, motorists pay a tax on pollution they cause called Vehicle Excise Duty, it's not based on how much they use the road, that's why electric cars and most hybrids don't pay it along with cyclists and very little to none of the V.E.D money goes towards road upkeep, you going to go round trying to kill cyclists and electric/hybrid car drivers now just because they don't pay for your emissions?[/p][/quote]Trying to mow down the 'orrible non tax paying cyclist these days has got very tricky. The Old Bill get a bit shirty when I drive my car onto the pavement to get them. They're too rare on the roads to waste petrol looking for them.[/p][/quote]Like I said, cyclists do pay tax, even the ones who are out of work or made redundant, even if it is just the tax we pay on everything you can buy and you just don't want to chase cyclists down the bus lane because your precious little cage on wheels needs £5 of petrol just to go a mile, I bet you or another cager here who thinks road tax still exists is the **** who told me to get off the road down Northam on Saturday, even though i was in the lane I needed which was the one to go straight and into the bus lane, the **** mentioned didn't even get 50 yards on me before I caught up and passed them and before you mention insurance, no I don't have any yet that covers my bike for damage but I am covered for any claim against me worth well in excess of £1,000,000 also with that liability insurance I also get free legal help so if you or anyone else knocks me down and I'm not at fault then you WILL be prosecuted.[/p][/quote]That brings up an interesting point, if I knock you down I'm sure someone will take my registration plate details. When some plank on a bike mows me down on the pavement, how will I know who to sue?[/p][/quote]No idea but I do know one person it won't be and that's me, I don't even ride on shared use paths because most are just not wide enough for pedestrians to share with cyclists, especially when a trio of mums with pushchairs walk along it almost side by side to chat but I will use them if I think it's safer to do so, like while I was riding my backup bike which was a bmx or to save time since i have a shared use at the end of my road that leads out onto the main road, though it's completely useless since at the end where the main road is, you have to get off to wheel it at least a foot to the road but if I did ever hit a pedestrian and it was my fault, I would admit it, apologize, ask if they're okay, if they're not then I'd give them first aid, if they're badly hurt (which would be possible but not likely) then I would phone for an ambulance and hope to hell that my regret and acknowledgement of it being my fault would be enough that they didn't sue me.[/p][/quote]Whereas, if I hit you, I'll be sure to reverse over you to make sure the job's done properly. Do you have a sense of humour? Oh, of course not, you're a cyclist.[/p][/quote]Then you'd be done for murder and yes I have a sense of humor but killing people or hurting them for any reason is no laughing matter.[/p][/quote]QED Velleity

11:14pm Mon 16 Jul 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

Velleity wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Velleity wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Over the Edge wrote:
Shoong wrote:
Over the Edge wrote:
This is all good, however the train travel prices will increase to pay for it, we are all in this together.
I'm going to assume you are happy with the current situation then?

Probably not, if we want an improved system we're going to have to chip in.
Why should passengers pay increased prices, why don't the rail operators pay for the improvements?

Maybe the answer is less of a pay out to shareholders
If you reduced the payout (Dividends) to Shareholders, would it be a total surprise if they opted to invest their money in an enterprise that gave a better return? The money for the investment would have to still be found and the commuters using the service would be the obvious source. I thought it was only cyclists that couldn't understand the concept of paying for what they willingly use.
Cyclists do pay for the roads, it's called general taxation, road tax was gotten rid of in 1937 by Churchill, motorists pay a tax on pollution they cause called Vehicle Excise Duty, it's not based on how much they use the road, that's why electric cars and most hybrids don't pay it along with cyclists and very little to none of the V.E.D money goes towards road upkeep, you going to go round trying to kill cyclists and electric/hybrid car drivers now just because they don't pay for your emissions?
Trying to mow down the 'orrible non tax paying cyclist these days has got very tricky. The Old Bill get a bit shirty when I drive my car onto the pavement to get them. They're too rare on the roads to waste petrol looking for them.
Like I said, cyclists do pay tax, even the ones who are out of work or made redundant, even if it is just the tax we pay on everything you can buy and you just don't want to chase cyclists down the bus lane because your precious little cage on wheels needs £5 of petrol just to go a mile, I bet you or another cager here who thinks road tax still exists is the **** who told me to get off the road down Northam on Saturday, even though i was in the lane I needed which was the one to go straight and into the bus lane, the **** mentioned didn't even get 50 yards on me before I caught up and passed them and before you mention insurance, no I don't have any yet that covers my bike for damage but I am covered for any claim against me worth well in excess of £1,000,000 also with that liability insurance I also get free legal help so if you or anyone else knocks me down and I'm not at fault then you WILL be prosecuted.
That brings up an interesting point, if I knock you down I'm sure someone will take my registration plate details. When some plank on a bike mows me down on the pavement, how will I know who to sue?
No idea but I do know one person it won't be and that's me, I don't even ride on shared use paths because most are just not wide enough for pedestrians to share with cyclists, especially when a trio of mums with pushchairs walk along it almost side by side to chat but I will use them if I think it's safer to do so, like while I was riding my backup bike which was a bmx or to save time since i have a shared use at the end of my road that leads out onto the main road, though it's completely useless since at the end where the main road is, you have to get off to wheel it at least a foot to the road but if I did ever hit a pedestrian and it was my fault, I would admit it, apologize, ask if they're okay, if they're not then I'd give them first aid, if they're badly hurt (which would be possible but not likely) then I would phone for an ambulance and hope to hell that my regret and acknowledgement of it being my fault would be enough that they didn't sue me.
Whereas, if I hit you, I'll be sure to reverse over you to make sure the job's done properly.

Do you have a sense of humour? Oh, of course not, you're a cyclist.
Then you'd be done for murder and yes I have a sense of humor but killing people or hurting them for any reason is no laughing matter.
QED
What? "QED"? What the hell does that mean?
[quote][p][bold]Velleity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Velleity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Over the Edge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Over the Edge[/bold] wrote: This is all good, however the train travel prices will increase to pay for it, we are all in this together.[/p][/quote]I'm going to assume you are happy with the current situation then? Probably not, if we want an improved system we're going to have to chip in.[/p][/quote]Why should passengers pay increased prices, why don't the rail operators pay for the improvements? Maybe the answer is less of a pay out to shareholders[/p][/quote]If you reduced the payout (Dividends) to Shareholders, would it be a total surprise if they opted to invest their money in an enterprise that gave a better return? The money for the investment would have to still be found and the commuters using the service would be the obvious source. I thought it was only cyclists that couldn't understand the concept of paying for what they willingly use.[/p][/quote]Cyclists do pay for the roads, it's called general taxation, road tax was gotten rid of in 1937 by Churchill, motorists pay a tax on pollution they cause called Vehicle Excise Duty, it's not based on how much they use the road, that's why electric cars and most hybrids don't pay it along with cyclists and very little to none of the V.E.D money goes towards road upkeep, you going to go round trying to kill cyclists and electric/hybrid car drivers now just because they don't pay for your emissions?[/p][/quote]Trying to mow down the 'orrible non tax paying cyclist these days has got very tricky. The Old Bill get a bit shirty when I drive my car onto the pavement to get them. They're too rare on the roads to waste petrol looking for them.[/p][/quote]Like I said, cyclists do pay tax, even the ones who are out of work or made redundant, even if it is just the tax we pay on everything you can buy and you just don't want to chase cyclists down the bus lane because your precious little cage on wheels needs £5 of petrol just to go a mile, I bet you or another cager here who thinks road tax still exists is the **** who told me to get off the road down Northam on Saturday, even though i was in the lane I needed which was the one to go straight and into the bus lane, the **** mentioned didn't even get 50 yards on me before I caught up and passed them and before you mention insurance, no I don't have any yet that covers my bike for damage but I am covered for any claim against me worth well in excess of £1,000,000 also with that liability insurance I also get free legal help so if you or anyone else knocks me down and I'm not at fault then you WILL be prosecuted.[/p][/quote]That brings up an interesting point, if I knock you down I'm sure someone will take my registration plate details. When some plank on a bike mows me down on the pavement, how will I know who to sue?[/p][/quote]No idea but I do know one person it won't be and that's me, I don't even ride on shared use paths because most are just not wide enough for pedestrians to share with cyclists, especially when a trio of mums with pushchairs walk along it almost side by side to chat but I will use them if I think it's safer to do so, like while I was riding my backup bike which was a bmx or to save time since i have a shared use at the end of my road that leads out onto the main road, though it's completely useless since at the end where the main road is, you have to get off to wheel it at least a foot to the road but if I did ever hit a pedestrian and it was my fault, I would admit it, apologize, ask if they're okay, if they're not then I'd give them first aid, if they're badly hurt (which would be possible but not likely) then I would phone for an ambulance and hope to hell that my regret and acknowledgement of it being my fault would be enough that they didn't sue me.[/p][/quote]Whereas, if I hit you, I'll be sure to reverse over you to make sure the job's done properly. Do you have a sense of humour? Oh, of course not, you're a cyclist.[/p][/quote]Then you'd be done for murder and yes I have a sense of humor but killing people or hurting them for any reason is no laughing matter.[/p][/quote]QED[/p][/quote]What? "QED"? What the hell does that mean? Ginger_cyclist

11:15pm Mon 16 Jul 12

IronLady2010 says...

"US security agents are to be based at Heathrow and some other UK airports for the duration of the ‪Olympic‬ Games, according to Sky sources."

Is this part of the upgrades to Rail services too? We'll have Yanks checking our rail tickets next!
"US security agents are to be based at Heathrow and some other UK airports for the duration of the ‪Olympic‬ Games, according to Sky sources." Is this part of the upgrades to Rail services too? We'll have Yanks checking our rail tickets next! IronLady2010

11:16pm Mon 16 Jul 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
As and when I use a train, I always stand in the door areas. I've seen so many greasy haired folk rubbing their hair over the seats I refuse to sit on them.
It's worse when they're drunk too.
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: As and when I use a train, I always stand in the door areas. I've seen so many greasy haired folk rubbing their hair over the seats I refuse to sit on them.[/p][/quote]It's worse when they're drunk too. Ginger_cyclist

11:19pm Mon 16 Jul 12

IronLady2010 says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
As and when I use a train, I always stand in the door areas. I've seen so many greasy haired folk rubbing their hair over the seats I refuse to sit on them.
It's worse when they're drunk too.
Is it? Early mornings, I don't see many drunks on the train?
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: As and when I use a train, I always stand in the door areas. I've seen so many greasy haired folk rubbing their hair over the seats I refuse to sit on them.[/p][/quote]It's worse when they're drunk too.[/p][/quote]Is it? Early mornings, I don't see many drunks on the train? IronLady2010

11:28pm Mon 16 Jul 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
As and when I use a train, I always stand in the door areas. I've seen so many greasy haired folk rubbing their hair over the seats I refuse to sit on them.
It's worse when they're drunk too.
Is it? Early mornings, I don't see many drunks on the train?
It is, coming back from London a few times when i was younger there were always drunks at about 5 or 6 in the evening on the train.
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: As and when I use a train, I always stand in the door areas. I've seen so many greasy haired folk rubbing their hair over the seats I refuse to sit on them.[/p][/quote]It's worse when they're drunk too.[/p][/quote]Is it? Early mornings, I don't see many drunks on the train?[/p][/quote]It is, coming back from London a few times when i was younger there were always drunks at about 5 or 6 in the evening on the train. Ginger_cyclist

11:48pm Mon 16 Jul 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

Fatty x Ford Worker wrote:
Ah so thats why they made the bridges higher then!
No that was done so that they could get larger containers of Ford parts on to the wagons.
[quote][p][bold]Fatty x Ford Worker[/bold] wrote: Ah so thats why they made the bridges higher then![/p][/quote]No that was done so that they could get larger containers of Ford parts on to the wagons. OSPREYSAINT

11:49pm Mon 16 Jul 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
As and when I use a train, I always stand in the door areas. I've seen so many greasy haired folk rubbing their hair over the seats I refuse to sit on them.
It's worse when they're drunk too.
Is it? Early mornings, I don't see many drunks on the train?
It is, coming back from London a few times when i was younger there were always drunks at about 5 or 6 in the evening on the train.
... and that was only the crew?
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: As and when I use a train, I always stand in the door areas. I've seen so many greasy haired folk rubbing their hair over the seats I refuse to sit on them.[/p][/quote]It's worse when they're drunk too.[/p][/quote]Is it? Early mornings, I don't see many drunks on the train?[/p][/quote]It is, coming back from London a few times when i was younger there were always drunks at about 5 or 6 in the evening on the train.[/p][/quote]... and that was only the crew? OSPREYSAINT

11:51pm Mon 16 Jul 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
As and when I use a train, I always stand in the door areas. I've seen so many greasy haired folk rubbing their hair over the seats I refuse to sit on them.
Pubic hair?
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: As and when I use a train, I always stand in the door areas. I've seen so many greasy haired folk rubbing their hair over the seats I refuse to sit on them.[/p][/quote]Pubic hair? OSPREYSAINT

11:55pm Mon 16 Jul 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
As and when I use a train, I always stand in the door areas. I've seen so many greasy haired folk rubbing their hair over the seats I refuse to sit on them.
Pubic hair?
Sorry I was getting confused here, was it people doing handstands and rubbing their heads on the seat, and I assume you meant you wouldn't sit on the seats rather than on the hairy people?
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: As and when I use a train, I always stand in the door areas. I've seen so many greasy haired folk rubbing their hair over the seats I refuse to sit on them.[/p][/quote]Pubic hair?[/p][/quote]Sorry I was getting confused here, was it people doing handstands and rubbing their heads on the seat, and I assume you meant you wouldn't sit on the seats rather than on the hairy people? OSPREYSAINT

12:22am Tue 17 Jul 12

Inform Al says...

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
OSPREYSAINT wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
As and when I use a train, I always stand in the door areas. I've seen so many greasy haired folk rubbing their hair over the seats I refuse to sit on them.
Pubic hair?
Sorry I was getting confused here, was it people doing handstands and rubbing their heads on the seat, and I assume you meant you wouldn't sit on the seats rather than on the hairy people?
Think I'll go to bed now, this thread is getting too hairy for me!
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: As and when I use a train, I always stand in the door areas. I've seen so many greasy haired folk rubbing their hair over the seats I refuse to sit on them.[/p][/quote]Pubic hair?[/p][/quote]Sorry I was getting confused here, was it people doing handstands and rubbing their heads on the seat, and I assume you meant you wouldn't sit on the seats rather than on the hairy people?[/p][/quote]Think I'll go to bed now, this thread is getting too hairy for me! Inform Al

10:32am Tue 17 Jul 12

Beer Monster says...

ChandlersFordKev wrote:
solomum says...
7:15pm Mon 16 Jul 12
Try trainline.com. We regularly go to Devon for less than £16 return for the whole family using a friends and family railcard. Even tickets purchased from national rail are a lot cheaper with a railcard. Megatrain also do £1 each way tickets to London.”


Sorry quote seems to not to be working.

Quite agree with you Berwick-Upon-Tweed, single on Thursday to Southampton £45!!!!
Precisely, I book up my travel from Edinburgh to London well in advance (usually around £30-£40 each way) and supplement the journey with the Megatrain tickets when they become avaliable.

Unfortunately it seems that Megatrain won't be available during the Olympics, so I'll be paying full whack :-(
[quote][p][bold]ChandlersFordKev[/bold] wrote: solomum says... 7:15pm Mon 16 Jul 12 Try trainline.com. We regularly go to Devon for less than £16 return for the whole family using a friends and family railcard. Even tickets purchased from national rail are a lot cheaper with a railcard. Megatrain also do £1 each way tickets to London.” Sorry quote seems to not to be working. Quite agree with you Berwick-Upon-Tweed, single on Thursday to Southampton £45!!!![/p][/quote]Precisely, I book up my travel from Edinburgh to London well in advance (usually around £30-£40 each way) and supplement the journey with the Megatrain tickets when they become avaliable. Unfortunately it seems that Megatrain won't be available during the Olympics, so I'll be paying full whack :-( Beer Monster

12:46pm Tue 17 Jul 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
As and when I use a train, I always stand in the door areas. I've seen so many greasy haired folk rubbing their hair over the seats I refuse to sit on them.
It's worse when they're drunk too.
Is it? Early mornings, I don't see many drunks on the train?
It is, coming back from London a few times when i was younger there were always drunks at about 5 or 6 in the evening on the train.
... and that was only the crew?
No, passengers, normally football fans, they weren't aggressive or anything, it was just the smell of cheap booze and body odor mixed together along with them dripping sweat.
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: As and when I use a train, I always stand in the door areas. I've seen so many greasy haired folk rubbing their hair over the seats I refuse to sit on them.[/p][/quote]It's worse when they're drunk too.[/p][/quote]Is it? Early mornings, I don't see many drunks on the train?[/p][/quote]It is, coming back from London a few times when i was younger there were always drunks at about 5 or 6 in the evening on the train.[/p][/quote]... and that was only the crew?[/p][/quote]No, passengers, normally football fans, they weren't aggressive or anything, it was just the smell of cheap booze and body odor mixed together along with them dripping sweat. Ginger_cyclist

1:30pm Tue 17 Jul 12

Shoong says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
OSPREYSAINT wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
As and when I use a train, I always stand in the door areas. I've seen so many greasy haired folk rubbing their hair over the seats I refuse to sit on them.
It's worse when they're drunk too.
Is it? Early mornings, I don't see many drunks on the train?
It is, coming back from London a few times when i was younger there were always drunks at about 5 or 6 in the evening on the train.
... and that was only the crew?
No, passengers, normally football fans, they weren't aggressive or anything, it was just the smell of cheap booze and body odor mixed together along with them dripping sweat.
Hypocrite & closet bigot then.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: As and when I use a train, I always stand in the door areas. I've seen so many greasy haired folk rubbing their hair over the seats I refuse to sit on them.[/p][/quote]It's worse when they're drunk too.[/p][/quote]Is it? Early mornings, I don't see many drunks on the train?[/p][/quote]It is, coming back from London a few times when i was younger there were always drunks at about 5 or 6 in the evening on the train.[/p][/quote]... and that was only the crew?[/p][/quote]No, passengers, normally football fans, they weren't aggressive or anything, it was just the smell of cheap booze and body odor mixed together along with them dripping sweat.[/p][/quote]Hypocrite & closet bigot then. Shoong

3:49pm Tue 17 Jul 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
OSPREYSAINT wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
As and when I use a train, I always stand in the door areas. I've seen so many greasy haired folk rubbing their hair over the seats I refuse to sit on them.
It's worse when they're drunk too.
Is it? Early mornings, I don't see many drunks on the train?
It is, coming back from London a few times when i was younger there were always drunks at about 5 or 6 in the evening on the train.
... and that was only the crew?
No, passengers, normally football fans, they weren't aggressive or anything, it was just the smell of cheap booze and body odor mixed together along with them dripping sweat.
They probably didn't like your After shave but I bet they didn't complain!
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: As and when I use a train, I always stand in the door areas. I've seen so many greasy haired folk rubbing their hair over the seats I refuse to sit on them.[/p][/quote]It's worse when they're drunk too.[/p][/quote]Is it? Early mornings, I don't see many drunks on the train?[/p][/quote]It is, coming back from London a few times when i was younger there were always drunks at about 5 or 6 in the evening on the train.[/p][/quote]... and that was only the crew?[/p][/quote]No, passengers, normally football fans, they weren't aggressive or anything, it was just the smell of cheap booze and body odor mixed together along with them dripping sweat.[/p][/quote]They probably didn't like your After shave but I bet they didn't complain! OSPREYSAINT

1:13pm Mon 23 Jul 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

Shoong wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
OSPREYSAINT wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
As and when I use a train, I always stand in the door areas. I've seen so many greasy haired folk rubbing their hair over the seats I refuse to sit on them.
It's worse when they're drunk too.
Is it? Early mornings, I don't see many drunks on the train?
It is, coming back from London a few times when i was younger there were always drunks at about 5 or 6 in the evening on the train.
... and that was only the crew?
No, passengers, normally football fans, they weren't aggressive or anything, it was just the smell of cheap booze and body odor mixed together along with them dripping sweat.
Hypocrite & closet bigot then.
No, I generally don't drink or go to football matches.
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: As and when I use a train, I always stand in the door areas. I've seen so many greasy haired folk rubbing their hair over the seats I refuse to sit on them.[/p][/quote]It's worse when they're drunk too.[/p][/quote]Is it? Early mornings, I don't see many drunks on the train?[/p][/quote]It is, coming back from London a few times when i was younger there were always drunks at about 5 or 6 in the evening on the train.[/p][/quote]... and that was only the crew?[/p][/quote]No, passengers, normally football fans, they weren't aggressive or anything, it was just the smell of cheap booze and body odor mixed together along with them dripping sweat.[/p][/quote]Hypocrite & closet bigot then.[/p][/quote]No, I generally don't drink or go to football matches. Ginger_cyclist

1:14pm Mon 23 Jul 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

Shoong wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
OSPREYSAINT wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
As and when I use a train, I always stand in the door areas. I've seen so many greasy haired folk rubbing their hair over the seats I refuse to sit on them.
It's worse when they're drunk too.
Is it? Early mornings, I don't see many drunks on the train?
It is, coming back from London a few times when i was younger there were always drunks at about 5 or 6 in the evening on the train.
... and that was only the crew?
No, passengers, normally football fans, they weren't aggressive or anything, it was just the smell of cheap booze and body odor mixed together along with them dripping sweat.
Hypocrite & closet bigot then.
No, I generally don't drink or go to football matches.
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: As and when I use a train, I always stand in the door areas. I've seen so many greasy haired folk rubbing their hair over the seats I refuse to sit on them.[/p][/quote]It's worse when they're drunk too.[/p][/quote]Is it? Early mornings, I don't see many drunks on the train?[/p][/quote]It is, coming back from London a few times when i was younger there were always drunks at about 5 or 6 in the evening on the train.[/p][/quote]... and that was only the crew?[/p][/quote]No, passengers, normally football fans, they weren't aggressive or anything, it was just the smell of cheap booze and body odor mixed together along with them dripping sweat.[/p][/quote]Hypocrite & closet bigot then.[/p][/quote]No, I generally don't drink or go to football matches. Ginger_cyclist

1:15pm Mon 23 Jul 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
OSPREYSAINT wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
As and when I use a train, I always stand in the door areas. I've seen so many greasy haired folk rubbing their hair over the seats I refuse to sit on them.
It's worse when they're drunk too.
Is it? Early mornings, I don't see many drunks on the train?
It is, coming back from London a few times when i was younger there were always drunks at about 5 or 6 in the evening on the train.
... and that was only the crew?
No, passengers, normally football fans, they weren't aggressive or anything, it was just the smell of cheap booze and body odor mixed together along with them dripping sweat.
They probably didn't like your After shave but I bet they didn't complain!
Why would I wear aftershave before i was 11?
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: As and when I use a train, I always stand in the door areas. I've seen so many greasy haired folk rubbing their hair over the seats I refuse to sit on them.[/p][/quote]It's worse when they're drunk too.[/p][/quote]Is it? Early mornings, I don't see many drunks on the train?[/p][/quote]It is, coming back from London a few times when i was younger there were always drunks at about 5 or 6 in the evening on the train.[/p][/quote]... and that was only the crew?[/p][/quote]No, passengers, normally football fans, they weren't aggressive or anything, it was just the smell of cheap booze and body odor mixed together along with them dripping sweat.[/p][/quote]They probably didn't like your After shave but I bet they didn't complain![/p][/quote]Why would I wear aftershave before i was 11? Ginger_cyclist

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree