General Von Clinkerhoffen wrote:
I pay £1648 annual season ticket from Aylesbury to Amersham, from
Stoke Mandeville it £300 cheaper, I call that expensive for a 15 mile
journey.


Assuming a 5 day week and 48 weeks per year that's less than 23 pence per
mile.

"Brimstone" wrote in message
...
General Von Clinkerhoffen wrote:
I pay £1648 annual season ticket from Aylesbury to Amersham, from
Stoke Mandeville it £300 cheaper, I call that expensive for a 15
mile
journey.


Assuming a 5 day week and 48 weeks per year that's less than 23
pence per
mile.


Not forgetting that the large difference in price between Aylesbury
and Stoke Mandeville is because the latter has a larger car park and
they want to encourage commuters to travel from there instead...
although obviously for commuters without cars it can be considered a
little unfair. That being said, a month or longer season from
Aylesbury gives you free travel on Arriva buses within Aylesbury.

Adrian Auer-Hudson wrote:
The diversion through Aylesbury is not an elegant solution. Wouldn't
it be great if there was an alternative?

Aylesbury through Verney Junction and Buckingham to Banbury would be so
useful right now.

As for Central Railway or the Great Central based HSL, Leicester
through Rugby, Woodford, Banbury and High Wycombe to London would be a
great route. Banbury would work well as interchange with local
traffic.

One can't imagine how the passenger feels, having reached Princess
Risborough to be going backward to Aylesbury. I guess as long as the
UK has politicians she will have a bizarre railway system.

Adrian, webmaster http://www.LosAngelesMetro.net
HOLLYWOOD, CA

The original reason was that politicians had nothing to do with it,
except to pass private Acts of Parliament to facilitate the haphazard
planning of dozens of private operators. The Settle-Carlisle route, now
a tourist attraction, was unnescessary even at the time, but the owner
of the comapny concerned just had to have a route to Scotland.

--
You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause. -Chico Marx

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955

Tony Polson wrote:
"Adrian Auer-Hudson" wrote:


The diversion through Aylesbury is not an elegant solution. Wouldn't
it be great if there was an alternative?

Aylesbury through Verney Junction and Buckingham to Banbury would be so
useful right now.

As for Central Railway or the Great Central based HSL, Leicester
through Rugby, Woodford, Banbury and High Wycombe to London would be a
great route. Banbury would work well as interchange with local
traffic.

One can't imagine how the passenger feels, having reached Princess
Risborough to be going backward to Aylesbury. I guess as long as the
UK has politicians she will have a bizarre railway system.



And as long as the US has politicians it will have an almost total
absence of passenger railroads.

It beggars belief that someone from the land of the gas guzzling
automobile, and especially from the home of permanent smog, should
have the temerity to criticise any European railway system.

;-)

There are politicians and ploiticians. Back in the days of President
Ford, he wanted to carve up Amtrack in a way that would probably ended
in its closure, but the House of Representatives stopped him. The Yanks
have some head bangers, but there are more checks and balances in their
system.

--
You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause. -Chico Marx

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955

Adrian Auer-Hudson wrote:

Nevertheless having grown up near a town (Aylesbury) with fine rail
links both north and south. Said routes having the potential for
development into a fine network, you will understand my disappointment
at the leftovers that Aylesbury has for it rail link today.

This is particularly strange in so far as Aylesbury was part of an area
that was expected to see, and did see, expanded housing and employment
as companies and individual were encouraged to relocate away from
London in the 1960s and 1970s.

This was typical of planning in the period, which assumed universal car
ownership. After all, we all watched Perry Mason, didn't we?
--
You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause. -Chico Marx

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955

"Martin Edwards" wrote in message
...
Adrian Auer-Hudson wrote:
The diversion through Aylesbury is not an elegant solution. Wouldn't
it be great if there was an alternative?

Aylesbury through Verney Junction and Buckingham to Banbury would be so
useful right now.

As for Central Railway or the Great Central based HSL, Leicester
through Rugby, Woodford, Banbury and High Wycombe to London would be a
great route. Banbury would work well as interchange with local
traffic.

One can't imagine how the passenger feels, having reached Princess
Risborough to be going backward to Aylesbury. I guess as long as the
UK has politicians she will have a bizarre railway system.

Adrian, webmaster http://www.LosAngelesMetro.net
HOLLYWOOD, CA

The original reason was that politicians had nothing to do with it, except
to pass private Acts of Parliament to facilitate the haphazard planning of
dozens of private operators. The Settle-Carlisle route, now a tourist
attraction, was unnescessary even at the time, but the owner of the
comapny concerned just had to have a route to Scotland.

--
You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause. -Chico Marx

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955
If anything, the US owes the form of its railway network to the politicians
of the 19th century, who offered very generous inducements (in the form of
land grants) in order to encourage the westward expansion of the railways
from St Louis etc. Nothing comparable existed in the UK at same period.
Brian

On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Martin Edwards wrote:

Adrian Auer-Hudson wrote:

I guess as long as the UK has politicians she will have a bizarre
railway system.

The original reason was that politicians had nothing to do with it,
except to pass private Acts of Parliament to facilitate the haphazard
planning of dozens of private operators.

I think there was a bit more order to it than that, even if only a bit
more. For example, i understand that the government required railway
companies to build connections to other companies' tracks wherever
possible; it's only thanks to that that we have a single network at all!

tom

--
Like Kurosawa i make mad films; okay, i don't make films, but if i did they'd have a samurai.

23p/mile I can do Aylesbury to Amersham cheaper in my car, I don't
because I like the option of walking to the station, or cycling.

Brimstone wrote:
General Von Clinkerhoffen wrote:

I pay £1648 annual season ticket from Aylesbury to Amersham, from
Stoke Mandeville it £300 cheaper, I call that expensive for a 15 mile
journey.



Assuming a 5 day week and 48 weeks per year that's less than 23 pence per
mile.

Arriva buses are crap, get off train, walk to bus station, look for next
bus, there are 5 that travel along my route, next one is 30 mins, give
up and walk, to cap it all those crooks decided to reduce the child
discount from 50% to 25%, didn't tell anyone and left children waiting
at bus stops, I wouldn't urinate on a director of Arriva if they were
being consumed by fire.

Matt Wheeler wrote:
"Brimstone" wrote in message
...

General Von Clinkerhoffen wrote:

I pay £1648 annual season ticket from Aylesbury to Amersham, from
Stoke Mandeville it £300 cheaper, I call that expensive for a 15
mile
journey.


Assuming a 5 day week and 48 weeks per year that's less than 23
pence per
mile.



Not forgetting that the large difference in price between Aylesbury
and Stoke Mandeville is because the latter has a larger car park and
they want to encourage commuters to travel from there instead...
although obviously for commuters without cars it can be considered a
little unfair. That being said, a month or longer season from
Aylesbury gives you free travel on Arriva buses within Aylesbury.

On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, General Von Clinkerhoffen wrote:

Aylesbury does still have good if bloody expensive rail connections with
Chiltern,

To London. Not so good to the north or Milton Keynes, right?

there are plans for an Aylesbury North station to be built along with a
big housing development,

Very true.

what we really need are links west to east, connecting us with Oxford,
MK, and Cambridge now that would be fantastic,

Milton Keynes, yes - i presume that's a reasonably big employment centre -
but i'm not sure about how much demand there is for trips to Oxford or
Cambridge. Still, if the line was there, it would have other uses!

with the planned expansion of the town with Mad Uncle Prescotts lets
cover the entire south east with homes idea, the amount of traffic is
going to go through the roof, parts of the town are already a pollution
hotspot! to have this rail link, along with a bypass would hopefully
sort out some of the chaos that we have now,

Where is the car traffic going?

In view of Mad Uncle Prescott's plans, which will surely lead to drastic
expansion of small towns and villages in the area, perhaps it would be a
good idea to bring the line continuing north from Aylesbury (and,
hopefully, Aylesbury North) up to standard, and use it to extend Aylesbury
commuter services to Waddesdon, Quainton, etc. That line already connects
to the (disused, i think) line to Milton Keynes, so commuter trains could
run there, too. If a curve the other way was built at that junction,
trains could also run to Bicester; with a connection to the existing
mainline there, this would be the alternate route to Birmingham. All
rather simpler than restoring the Quainton Road - Verney Junction route, i
think.

oh and don't get me started on Arriva busses (bunch of crooks).

Par for the course with bus companies.

tom

--
Like Kurosawa i make mad films; okay, i don't make films, but if i did they'd have a samurai.