In article ,
Dan Gravell wrote:
Sorry Roland, but I really cannot believe how an individual would
possibly think driving into central London would be quicker than getting
a train in.

I've driven from Leytonstone to Paddington on a number of occasions.
Certainly more convienent when meeting She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named
and her luggage. It was probably quicker than the Tube (the PT
alterantive), but it's hard to be sure. Certainly not much slower.

I guess a few are novices and might not have tried the
train. But if that were the case there must be a hell of a lot of
novices around (given your figures).

We did that too; frankly the biggest turn-off is carting the bags
rather than the time.

Are we even talking about London? The picture you paint is not one I
recognise. Although I do agree about the ridiculous labelling of 15-min
frequency trains as such things as "metro" services. Need to double at
least before they're that.

Lets say that for something to be a metro service, it needs to be
frequent enough that a timetable is pointless. Comparing the number
of people arriving at the station per minute over the course of the
day would be an interesting way to find out if the passengers bother
with learning the timetable.

My guess is that there will be little variation at Camden Road -
about as many passengers will arrive at the platform looking to
catch a train the minute before the train is due as the minute after
- indicating that 15 mintute wait between trains is "metro", while
at Upper Holloway, there will be a vast difference - indicating
that 30 minute waits are not "metro".

But I'm guessing; hard figures would be interesting.

What's "long"? There are very large numbers who drive more than 50 miles.

I think you answered above - I'd consider long to be a journey where
rail becomes the best bet.

That can be remarkably short, sometimes.

--
Mike Bristow - really a very good driver