David Howdon wrote:
Dave Newt wrote:

Can anyone please tell me how counting the total number of stations
one could theoretically go to on one's journey can in any way be
related to the journey's cheapness?


I suspect it was done as a light hearted (I've not read the article so
cannot tell its tone) item.

I've quoted the entire article verbatim. (There were no other captions
or illustrations either - you have the full text here.)

[snip]

Likewise, how can a £1.35 fare be called "more expensive" simply
because there aren't as many stations you could go to than a £3.50
fare with a wider choice of destinations?


It cannot literally. However if there are less stations in a given area
then, ceteris paribus, I would likely need to spend more time walking
for a given journey. If I valued my time sufficiently highly that might
make the whole commute "more expensive" even if the train fair were less.

True, but without mentioning that at all, it's pushing the boundaries a
little to think that's what they could possibly have meant.

If someone could define the extra-bizarre phrase "in real terms" in
this context, I'd be delighted!


I suspect it is just nonsense. Possibly the prices from other countries
have been adjusted for inflation (the usual meaning of "in real terms").
Possibly it could mean that prices were converted into £ using a PPP
exchange rate (although this would be an oddish usage of "real terms").

I prefer your interpretation in the first sentence in this paragraph :-)