In article , tim...
wrote:


"Capitol" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:


"Capitol" wrote in message
o.uk...
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , charles
wrote:
France is a lot bigger so benefits from high speed track, the UK
won't benefit much.

it would on the London to Edinburgh or Glasgow route, but that
hasn't been thought about. We could then stop using aeroplanes on
this comparatively short route.

If the train ran direct from London to Edinburgh etc, yes. But I
doubt enough people make that journey several times a day to fill a
train. So you make a few stops along the way. Making the difference
between high speed and normal less.

BTW, internal flights in the UK frequently take longer than ordinary
train. Door to door. And are far more likely to be delayed.


My experience of flying between Scotland and London was never
delayed and took far less time than the train. London to Birmingham
on the train takes longer than going by car IME as the time taken to
reach the centre of town adds up to 4 hours to the train journey time
between the cities.

if it take you 4 hours to reach the city center you aren't travelling
from London to Birmingham, are you?

tim




Do you live in a Railway station?

well no

but 2 hours to get to a London mainline station means that you must live
as far away as Brighton. I can't think of anywhere that you might
reasonably consider as London that is more than 45 minutes away from the
centre by the quickest route.

so you're hardly doing a London to Birmingham journey, are you?

tim

My train time to Waterloo is 45 minutes + 15 minutes to get to the station
(on foot) and buy a ticket. I've then got o cross London - allow 45 minutes
- and it's getting close to two hours.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England