Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...

Yes, and in fact most places don't have rail lines to them.

Because the Tories ripped them out to promote cars as their MPs had
interests in cars and roads, etc.

No, because that's what people wanted. The*people*, ****-for-brains. You
should learn to trust them. In fact Beeching should probably have had
more lines removed.

Railway anoraks need to understand, as I've said before, that no
mode of transport has an automatic right to exist. 150 years ago
trains were the bizz because there was no alternative. That ain't
true anymore.

Nothing has replaced the train. Look at the amount of passengers or
freight they carry in one train.

Don't be a sap. Cars, busses, and trucks replace the train for most
purposes.

Again.....for the hard of thinking..."Nothing has replaced the train.
Look at the amount of passengers or freight they carry in one train."

Again, for those unable to read: "some 80% of our freight goes by road".
As I said before, if we made that 60/40 that'd be a doubling of freight
on the railway. I'm still waiting for you to explain which lines you're
expecting that freight to travel on.

One train can take 50 trucks off the roads. One 6 car train can hold
~1000 people.

Yeah, we know this. And it often happens. Doesn't alter that fact that
most transport in the UK is *not* on the railway.

And the inter train distance at an sepped is at least 2 miles so the
issue resolves into whether a train and its expensive track or a
motorway 2 miles long is a better way of moving 1000 people or 60 lorries