Margaret Thatcher Dies at 87

[Stephen]

being nice gets you no where and also causes you to die young

so to add a few extra years to my life i bid the old lady farewell and hope she gets buttraped by hitler in the depths of hell

[Ardemax]

Italy doesn't have the same welfare bills to pay as we do so it's government can spend money on railways as opposed to a gigantic National Health Service like ours. You can't have both, and personally i'd have neither as I don't see why the state should be involved in running healthcare or the railways. I'm not under the illusion that I can vote myself seemingly 'free' things you see.



If the railway is operating at a profit then thats because there's enough customer demand for that service. If it's not and the company in question is recieving government payments then it's not really cheap is it? it just looks cheap on the surface, just as the NHS may appear 'free'.

As for tickets prices, again, are you calling for even more subsidies? if so, why should I pay to subsidise your fare?



Italy is different from us as it's on the continent and a lot more continent orientated. We are an island of 70m people, not a continent of 400m or an island like Japan of 160m. A lot of these railways were also built a few decades ago and have largely been made pointless with airline travel becoming ever more cheap. The newer lines have largely been wasteful vanity projects of the political class in each country (ie, Spain).

The fact is, people don't like using public transportation because it constricts you. If possible people prefer to use their own car (as opposed to a bus) and prefer to use flexible and reliable airlines (as opposed to more expensive railways). We're moving on from public transport to individual transport and it's a great thing, just as the explosion in the car industry was a great thing for people's ability to travel freely.

The Underground has HUGE demand. Yet ticket prices increases basically year on year. You can't tell me that the London Underground will be replaced by people using their cars because they see it as an alternative. It is not feasible. Nor is it feasible (or cheap) to travel cross-country by car. It is a lot easier and quicker to do it by train and if the ticket prices get sorted out (and catch up with the rest of Europe/the world) then the demand for trains will sky-rocket.

I don't think the train network will ever get out-dated nor should it be underestimated. It is a crucial part of infrastructure.

I agree though, travelling from place to place by airplane is a great thought, but even that is less convenient than the train (add together waiting times plus the distance from the airport to where you actually want to go).

[Southe,]

So talk of them now having 700 armed guards.. More money and they won't publish the total cost until after.

All i can say is if Scotland doesn't get the Yes vote and we stay united for god sake don't put the Tories in power again.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The Underground has HUGE demand. Yet ticket prices increases basically year on year. You can't tell me that the London Underground will be replaced by people using their cars because they see it as an alternative. It is not feasible. Nor is it feasible (or cheap) to travel cross-country by car. It is a lot easier and quicker to do it by train and if the ticket prices get sorted out (and catch up with the rest of Europe/the world) then the demand for trains will sky-rocket.

I don't think the train network will ever get out-dated nor should it be underestimated. It is a crucial part of infrastructure.

I agree though, travelling from place to place by airplane is a great thought, but even that is less convenient than the train (add together waiting times plus the distance from the airport to where you actually want to go).

I hardly think you can compare a railway line in a crowded city of 7m odd (London) is comparable to the concept that we should state fund railways and roll out brand new ones across this country. If the London Underground is state subsidised (I haven't checked) and struggles to be profitable despite the massive usage then I think that goes to prove my point on railways and the future of British transport.

But on the ticket prices being 'sorted' - again, what do you mean by that statement?

Yet ticket prices increases basically year on year.

Nearly everything increases year on year. That's what happens when you have a monetary system backed by nothing.

So talk of them now having 700 armed guards.. More money and they won't publish the total cost until after.

All i can say is if Scotland doesn't get the Yes vote and we stay united for god sake don't put the Tories in power again.

If staying in the Union is based purely on politics and economics to you then by all means leave. You belong to a country because you feel you share the same culture, language, history and are the same people - not the legacy of a Prime Minister or the return of a certain political party.

It's this sort of talk from those in the north that makes me think the Union really is dead.

[Chippiewill]

The fact is, people don't like using public transportation because it constricts you. If possible people prefer to use their own car (as opposed to a bus) and prefer to use flexible and reliable airlines (as opposed to more expensive railways). We're moving on from public transport to individual transport and it's a great thing, just as the explosion in the car industry was a great thing for people's ability to travel freely.

I swear you just have a hatred of Trains. Trains as a whole could be VASTLY more cost efficient than planes or cars and over short-medium distances quite a bit faster. Further, you can only fit so many cars onto the roads, far, far, far fewer if you even want to attempt to avoid serious congestion/traffic issues.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I swear you just have a hatred of Trains. Trains as a whole could be VASTLY more cost efficient than planes or cars and over short-medium distances quite a bit faster. Further, you can only fit so many cars onto the roads, far, far, far fewer if you even want to attempt to avoid serious congestion/traffic issues.

Then you don't know me, people have thrown the same accusations at me regarding the closing of the mines and industry in this country. My favourite period of Britain, romantic in a way, was when the railways snaked through our industrial towns and cities, when the mills churned out cotton by the load and the sky was dotted with the chimneys producing the smog that made the sunset seem blood red on the horizon. I love seeing the old steam engines in action, I love the grand bridges and tunnels - I feel sad seeing the old carriages sitting abandoned, when tunnels are overgrown with weeds and trees.

But the point is, that it's over. I'm not going to be a Luddite and sit here pretending that I can run a world class (and profitable) railway service from Whitehall and somehow change peoples minds that the hassle of a railway journey is preferable to travelling by car or air.

Trains as a whole could be VASTLY more cost efficient than planes or cars and over short-medium distances quite a bit faster.

Get private investors (who have knowledge of business and industry) to stump up cash and build it and your claim will be proved valid.

[Southe,]

If staying in the Union is based purely on politics and economics to you then by all means leave.
-I didn't say it was purely based on politics and economics did i? I merely made a point.

You belong to a country because you feel you share the same culture, language, history and are the same people
not the legacy of a Prime Minister or the return of a certain political party.

It's this sort of talk from those in the north that makes me think the Union really is dead.
The Union is dead. A year ago if you asked people about the Yes vote most people i know would have said no or undecided. Last week it was brought up and a large amount of the No's i knew have turned into Yes's and now that our tax money is being used to bury someone who is despised in Scotland is going to push people towards the Yes vote as well.

...

[-:Undertaker:-]

I didn't say it was purely based on politics and economics did i? I merely made a point.

Yes you did. You implied very clearly that your support for the continuted existence of your country was based on the premise that a certain political party (the Conservatives) were never returned to power because of the Thatcher legacy. I loathe the Conservative Party as much as the Labour Party, but never would I call into question the existence of my country based on two awful political parties. The country comes above politics, always.

The thought of 50 years of unbroken Labour rule is more preferable to me than the dissolution of my country.

The Union is dead. A year ago if you asked people about the Yes vote most people i know would have said no or undecided. Last week it was brought up and a large amount of the No's i knew have turned into Yes's and now that our tax money is being used to bury someone who is despised in Scotland is going to push people towards the Yes vote as well.

The Union retains majority support in the polling carried out.

[Chippiewill]

Then you don't know me, people have thrown the same accusations at me regarding the closing of the mines and industry in this country. My favourite period of, romantic in a way, was when the railways snaked through our industrial towns and cities, the mills churned out cotton by the load and the sky was dotted with the chimleys producing the smog that made the sunset seem blood red on the horizon. I love seeing the old steam engines in action, I love the grand bridges and tunnels - I feel sad seeing the old carriages sitting abandoned, when tunnels are overgrown with weeds and trees'.

But the point is, that it's over. I'm not going to be a Luddite and sit here pretending that I can run a world class (and profitable) railway service from Whitehall and somehow change peoples minds that the hassle of a railway journey is preferable to travelling by car or air.

Flying by air is hardly preferable since you're effectively rammed into a seat with zero leg room, a train cabin is substantially more spacious. Then for travelling across the country, well, by plane it's INCREDIBLY inconvinient, as you have to turn up at the airport quite a bit early so that you can queue for checking in, security, boarding - the whole deal, which takes a significant amount of time and of course you have to wait for your plane to taxi, take off, etc. The travelling bit, agreeably is speedy, of course at the other end you're waiting a while since inevitably you'll be stuck in a traffic stack circling for 20 minutes then landing, more taxiing, parking, walking, luggage pickup perhaps. Then after all that you're stuck in the countryside you I guess you thne have to catch a train, or public transportation into the city you were planning to visit, or if you have money to burn you could get a taxi - or a helicopter. Most of the time not actually spent flying on the speedy plane really.

Compare that to the train: get the ticket - board the train - leave - speed along at 200MPH with HS rail - arrive - you're already IN the city you were trying to get to.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Just to add up here from my reply down below, i'm all for more railway building provided it's all privately funded - indeed, i'd be for relaxing planning rules by a large degree (which I am for anyway) if private companies were willing to invest.

If it's such a good idea what you're proposing and it [the railway system] has such a bright future, then private companies should be coming forward in droves to invest in and build new railway lines. But the fact is, they aren't.

Flying by air is hardly preferable since you're effectively rammed into a seat with zero leg room, a train cabin is substantially more spacious. Then for travelling across the country, well, by plane it's INCREDIBLY inconvinient, as you have to turn up at the airport quite a bit early so that you can queue for checking in, security, boarding - the whole deal, which takes a significant amount of time and of course you have to wait for your plane to taxi, take off, etc. The travelling bit, agreeably is speedy, of course at the other end you're waiting a while since inevitably you'll be stuck in a traffic stack circling for 20 minutes then landing, more taxiing, parking, walking, luggage pickup perhaps. Then after all that you're stuck in the countryside you I guess you thne have to catch a train, or public transportation into the city you were planning to visit, or if you have money to burn you could get a taxi - or a helicopter. Most of the time not actually spent flying on the speedy plane really.

Compare that to the train: get the ticket - board the train - leave - speed along at 200MPH with HS rail - arrive - you're already IN the city you were trying to get to.

I think you're confusing the argument. I'm not asking your personal preferences or mine, i'm saying look at how people are increasingly choosing to travel and accept it - rather than making the void argument that if only we spent billions and billions on the railways (as we have done) that people would come flocking back. The Spanish regional governments most likely argued the same when they built the pointless and wasteful airports and high speed railway lines when there was no need to - the same for the US Federal Government who thought they would change transport habits by building the famous 'bridges to nowhere'. The state in action; complete failure, as usual.

Look at how people vote with their feet as they say, rather than believing everybody has the same personal preferences as you do.