quote:

And what do we call you folks on the other side of the pond? 'Americans' includes Argentines and Brazilians, as well as people from the USA. 'North Americans' still includes Mexicans and Canadians.

I don't think folks from the other countries call themselves Americans . . . do they? And Southerners would be offended by "Yanks" more than those of us in the North. I usually call myself an American.

British is safest as it includes most the inhabitants of the British Islands(though not the Irish). The Channel Islanders and Manx would not be upset, even though their countries are independent Crown protectorates.

As (I believe I am correct) all the British who post here are from England then for the moment you're sale enough calling us English. But don't use that appellation for a Scot, though!

It's parallel to the problem we briefly discussed earlier regarding the Hispanics ( ... Mexicans, meskins, spicks, beaners, ); a problem only if one needs to set that group apart from all others.

How do you Chicagoans feel about that?

.... you women? you wives? you mothers?

.... you nurses? you Jews?

,,,,, you educators?

Us beachcombers need to know !!!

I missed this post of Jerry's. He makes a good point. I shouldn't worry about labels, really. Yet, sometimes I do want to ask the British posters here how they use language differently from the Americans.

I love it when we discuss the ways that British and Americans use language differently. It always provokes a lively and engaging debate.

Perhaps the people don't call themselves Americans but I suspect that may be partly due to the fact that the term has been hijacked by citizens of the USA to describe themselves. Brazillian citizens are Americans but they are also Brazillians. Argentinians are, likewise, Americans in a broad sense but specifically they are Argentinians. Americans are generally Americans because they live on that continent though they don't appear to have any more specific identity than this. Could this be the ultimate irony, that a people who are so patriotic actually are only like that because they lack a sense of nation in the same way that other nations do. Perhaps this is because it is such a young country and is still searching for its identity. I see America and its people as very young and I think this is reflected in many of their attitudes and practices.

quote:

Originally posted by Doad:
I love it when we discuss the ways that British and Americans use language differently. It always provokes a lively and engaging debate.

It does in the other Forums I belong to as well. Strangely, though, it doesn't seem to get the Aussies as steamed up as it does the Brits and Yanks.

quote:

Perhaps the people don't call themselves Americans but I suspect that may be partly due to the fact that the term has been hijacked by citizens of the USA to describe themselves. Brazillian citizens are Americans but they are also Brazillians. Argentinians are, likewise, Americans in a broad sense but specifically they are Argentinians.

I've also noticed that we English are quite happy to be called "British", but some of the Irish, Scots and Welsh get quite upset about it. Most of their grouches are along the lines of "Whenever an English person does something notable, it's an 'English' achievement, but whenever a Welsh/Scottish/Irish person does something it's 'British'".

quote:

Americans are generally Americans because they live on that continent though they don't appear to have any more specific identity than this. Could this be the ultimate irony, that a people who are so patriotic actually are only like that because they lack a sense of nation in the same way that other nations do. Perhaps this is because it is such a young country and is still searching for its identity. I see America and its people as very young and I think this is reflected in many of their attitudes and practices.

It could very well be. When one of my American friends came to stay with me last year, I took him around my town and wherever we went, he kept saying "this building is hundreds of years older than my entire country!" As for our Cathedral, when he found it still has the crypt from the original 9th century Saxon building, it completely blew his mind that it's over 1,000 years old!

[

It could very well be. When one of my American friends came to stay with me last year, I took him around my town and wherever we went, he kept saying "this building is hundreds of years older than my entire country!" As for our Cathedral, when he found it still has the crypt from the original 9th century Saxon building, it completely blew his mind that it's over 1,000 years old![/QUOTE]

For me, the old buildings are one of the main attractions of Europe. Buildings in the U.S. are often torn down and replaced when they're 50 years old!!!!!! What a waste!

nah... it's because poms and septics both have frogs up their arses!

...or perhaps the brits have 'the queen's english' whilst americans 'have it their way'; as exemplified by macdonald's.

I once did a walking tour of Anchorage. The oldest building in the city is only five years older than my dad.

quote:

For me, the old buildings are one of the main attractions of Europe. Buildings in the U.S. are often torn down and replaced when they're 50 years old!!!!!! What a waste!

Well this person came from Los Angeles, so they don't have many old buildings . I went on a guided tour of the Nethercutt Collection at Sylmar (cars and player pianos) and the guide said "the Penthouse had to be closed because of the earthquake in 1994" and she also told us that various other rooms were damaged through earthquakes in different years.

I was rather worried at the fact that LA has a Metro Subway system. It isn't very large, compared to London or New York, but they do have one.

I feel like I keep saying this, but it's so very true. 200 years in America is a long time. 200 miles in England is too far to drive for a weekend. Go figure.

And just for the record, beans, "have it your way" was Burger King, not McDonalds.

Sunflower, I don't think that most buildings are torn down at the age of 50. Surely that's not true of Chicago buildings, and in the east there are a lot of wonderful older buildings.

We were recently in LA and realize that they don't have many tall buildings at all, compared to other big cities. The reason, we were told, is because of the earthquakes.

quote:

We were recently in LA and realize that they don't have many tall buildings at all, compared to other big cities. The reason, we were told, is because of the earthquakes.

I noticed that too. There's a cluster of very tall buildings "downtown" which is visible for miles and all the rest is very low-rise - the highest is not much above four or five storeys.

When I was there, there was a lot of construction underway and I was very interested to see how they build their houses. Over here, builders do the usual laying down of the foundations and then layering up brick (or cinderblock) courses. In LA, they fix both internal and external walls on to a timber framework. Some very impressive-looking houses are built that way.

quote:

Originally posted by Caterwauller:
I feel like I keep saying this, but it's so very true. 200 years in America is a long time. 200 miles in England is too far to drive for a weekend. Go figure.

Have you been on our roads ?

quote:

200 miles in England is too far to drive for a weekend.

I suspect this is more a question of habit than anything else. Our road network is much better than it was half a century ago and it would take us no longer to drive 200 miles than it would take to cover a similar distance in the USA. Indeed, since our national speed limit is 70mph as opposed to the lower limits on some US highways, it might take even less.

But I suspect that the average Briton doesn't embark on 200-mile journeys with quite the same abandon - although my wife and I often take weekend breaks and wouldn't worry too much about a 200 mile drive (about 3 to 3.5 hours). Of course, if the journey is much more than that we'd probably catch the train which is usually quicker and more comfortable.

quote:

200 miles in England is too far to drive for a weekend.

I suspect this is more a question of habit than anything else. Our road network is much better than it was half a century ago

But I suspect that the average Briton doesn't embark on 200-mile journeys with quite the same abandon

I remember as a kid, at the end of the 50s, when we used to drive down from just north of Peterborough (in the east) to just west of Winchester (in the south) click on this map to enlarge it in my father's Austin A35 (he had a green one).

In those days there were no motorways, so it took all day. We would start off at around 4 am to avoid the worst of the traffic and stop frequently. My mother can't drive, so my father had to do all the driving and also because I (and, later, my brother) was always horribly car-sick.

We would eventually arrive at my grandparents' house at around 4 pm.

quote:

Have you been on our roads

This is a fascinating comment which is appropriate to other threads.

As I said elsewhere, it is very common for the British (and especially the English) to denigrate what they have! Our roads are busy, of course; we live in a very crowded island with 60,094,648 of us in a country smaller than some US states (the entire UK is just 241,590 sq km.) That means that each one of us has just .004 of a square kilometer to call our own. To give a comparion, the USA has a population of 290,342,554 in an area of 9,158,960 sq km. That means that each American has .03 of a square kilometre to him or herself - around ten times the space.

But even allowing for this tenfold greater population density, it's reasonably easy to get around in the UK and I have not found that the traffic flow on the roads in US cities to be significantly different from that in the UK's.

Incidentally, appropos the British propensity for self-denigration, I have a story about my journey to London yesterday. The train was crowded, it being the rush hour, and, for the first time in many journeys, it was about 4 minutes late leaving Redhill. By the time we had reached East Croydon we were running about 7 minutes late, probably because the train had lost its timing slot. As we arrived at Clapham Junction, still about 7 minutes late, the woman opposite me, who had been complaining all the journey about how crowded the train was, said, in a loud voice, "This train is ALWAYS late. It's a disgrace. Why can't we run out trains on time like they do in other countries".

Her words were obviously audible to all in the carriage, including a number of visitors travelling to London from Gatwick Airport, who would probably have believed that our trains are chronically late and chronically overcrowded - which is just not true. I suspect that the woman had never even been on any other country's trains - ler alone on a peak-time commuter service.

quote:

We would eventually arrive at my grandparents' house at around 4 pm.

Of course, had you gone by train you could have left far later or arrived far earlier! Trains are not significantly different in timings now than they were then and the timing now would be to leave Peterborought at 1154, change at Birmingham) and arrive in Winchester at 1624.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:

quote:

We would eventually arrive at my grandparents' house at around 4 pm.

Of course, had you gone by train you could have left far later or arrived far earlier! Trains are not significantly different in timings now than they were then and the timing now would be to leave Peterborought at 1154, change at Birmingham) and arrive in Winchester at 1624.

We were stationed at Wittering (about 13 miles from Peterborough), so we would have had to have driven four miles to Stamford to catch the train in the first place and my grandparents lived out in the countryside - several miles from the nearest station. My grandfather could drive tractors, but they didn't have a car.

quote:

This is a fascinating comment which is appropriate to other threads.

As I said elsewhere, it is very common for the British (and especially the English) to denigrate what they have!

... our trains are chronically late and chronically overcrowded - which is just not true. I suspect that the woman had never even been on any other country's trains - ler alone on a peak-time commuter service.

I can't drive and so I've been on a lot of trains in my time (right from the old days of British Rail and steam locomotives) and I've had more than my fair share of late, overcrowded and downright awful journeys on filthy old rattletrap trains.

When my kids were small, we'd been up to my husband's parents' 40th wedding anniversary. They lived way "up north" (not far from Newcastle) and we were returning home (a journey of over four hours). The train was not only overcrowded, with people sitting in the corridors, but one of the carriages was lit only by emergency lighting because the main lights had failed. We tramped up and down the train and couldn't find any empty seats at all. It was late and the kids were grumpy so I decided that, since there were only about three people in the 1st class compartment and there were no more stops till our destination, we would sit in there. So there we were ensconced (the kids were asleep by then) when the ticket collector came round. He, obviously, queried our tickets and I told him that, if he could find any seats in 2nd class, we would happily move. He returned about 20 minutes later and said we could stay where we were - and he also sent a few more families to join us .

I could also tell you about the time when I was at University and I and my (by then) estranged husband were heading off for our daughter's 16th birthday party (she was staying with friends). The journey should have taken an hour, but it actually took three. We set off, stopped, moved another few hundred yards and then the driver came through the train (no PA system on that one) and announced that we would have to take the long way round because of a broken-down train between us and our destination. By the time we finally arrived, the party was over and everyone had gone home .

To be fair, I've also had a lot of good train journeys, but the bad ones do tend to hang around in the memory.

quote:

But I suspect that the average Briton

Aha! I see our discusson of "Brits" has affected you. I don't think you've used "Briton" here before, but I could be wrong.

As I said elsewhere, it is very common for the British (and especially the English) to denigrate what they have!

I don't think that is only characteristic of the British. We all tend to do that, don't you think?

My train rides have been pleasant. My first long trip was from Florida to Indiana in the early 60's, then I rode from Chicago to Los Angeles as a teenager. My last long ride was from Indiana to Washington D.C. when my son was about 7.

I ride the BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit - I think) from the San Francisco Airport to my son's house when I visit.

Interestingly, there's a program on PBS right now about old steam trains in New England. It makes me want to ride one! I did ride one of those old trains in Ohio about 25 years ago. Fun!

quote:

Interestingly, there's a program on PBS right now about old steam trains in New England. It makes me want to ride one! I did ride one of those old trains in Ohio about 25 years ago. Fun!

There are several steam railway lines preserved by enthusiasts all over the country. I took my American visitor on the Isle of Wight Steam Railway. It's not the nearest one to me, but it's much more accessible because I can't drive.

When my kids were small, we used to have a day out on the Nene Valley Railway which was very close to us. If you've ever seen the James Bond movie "Octopussy", that was filmed there.

We used to go to the special events there, especially the International Days, like a German Weekend, with a German band playing and people walking up and down the platforms in German national costume handing out free Frankfurters and other German food and drink .

Just after I moved out of the area, the NVR succeeded in their bid to extend their line to connect to the "mainline" railway station.

The Bluebell Line http://www.bluebell-railway.co.uk/bluebell/bluebell.html is just down the road from the house I'm moving to in Partridge Green. It's one of our longer and more active preserved lines. Our new back garden actually backs onto the Downslink http://homepages.pavilion.net/nmarchant/downslink.htm which used to be the Itchingfield Junction to Shoreham branch before Beeching closed it in the 1960s.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
The Bluebell Line http://www.bluebell-railway.co.uk/bluebell/bluebell.html is just down the road from the house I'm moving to in Partridge Green. It's one of our longer and more active preserved lines. Our new back garden actually backs onto the Downslink http://homepages.pavilion.net/nmarchant/downslink.htm which used to be the Itchingfield Junction to Shoreham branch before Beeching closed it in the 1960s.

A few miles from where I currently live is the Watercress Line.

It was called that because Hampshire is famed for its watercress, which is grown in the clear chalk streams of this area. The watercress was picked, bundled and packed into boxes and then put on the train to London to be used in top hotels like the Ritz and the Savoy.

Unfortunately, like many lines in Britain it, too, was a victim of Beeching's cuts back in the 60s and only the few miles of the enthusiast-maintained line survive today.

If I had the money, I'd love to do this .

When I was first married, we lived in a rental about 3 doors down from the railroad tracks. Usually those tracks just carried cargo trains. The windows in the house would rattle, but after a week or so we were quite used to that.

One morning, however, in August we were awakened at 7 am by a VERY LOUD steam whistle. We found out that once a year a group of train enthusiasts would hire a vintage steam train to take a trip. That particular year they were going up to Windsor Canada for some kind of play or something. We never grew used to the sound of that whistle. It scared the bejesus out of us every time!

I just love trains... and happen to live in a county WITHOUT them.. bah, humbug.. but I grew up with train whistles in the countryside.. and picking up family members coming in on the train...

I think we all need to pitch in and help Dianthus learn to be an engineer! Toot! Toot!

quote:

A few miles from where I currently live is the Watercress Line.

Some years ago my younger son was gamekeeper for Lord Asburton, whose estate surrounds New Arlesford, the western end of the Watercress Line. We often used to take the train from there to Alton and have a few beers and take the train back, dozing to the rhythm of the wheels and the puff of the exhaust.

We are very fortunate in the UK, having many preserved lines and retaining also a good mainline railway network.

quote:

Originally posted by Caterwauller:
When I was first married, we lived in a rental about 3 doors down from the railroad tracks. Usually those tracks just carried cargo trains. The windows in the house would rattle, but after a week or so we were quite used to that.

I have the main railway line to London about 100 yards from my apartment. There's a road at that end of my road which crosses my road as a T junction and the houses there back onto the line. It must be very noisy for them - especially at night when all the goods trains go by - but, as you say, you get used to it after a while. I'd rather have a railway line than a busy road and I've had both in my time.

I'm also under the flight path for Southampton Airport but, although it's International (flights to Europe), it's not that large.

quote:

One morning, however, in August we were awakened at 7 am by a VERY LOUD steam whistle. We found out that once a year a group of train enthusiasts would hire a vintage steam train to take a trip. That particular year they were going up to Windsor Canada for some kind of play or something. We never grew used to the sound of that whistle. It scared the bejesus out of us every time!

We get that here too. Back in the 80s, when the kids were small, there was a railway line about half a mile from us and we took them down to it and joined the crowds to see The Flying Scotsman go by on its way to York Rail Museum.

We also took the kids on a trip on a mainline steam train. A group of rail enthusiasts used to run trains all over the country on mainline tracks. On this particular trip, we went all the way to Scotland on a steam train and then joined up with the single line Fort William to Mallaig line. The kids loved it and it goes through some spectacular scenery too.

quote:

Originally posted by KHC:
I just love trains... and happen to live in a county WITHOUT them.. bah, humbug.. but I grew up with train whistles in the countryside.. and picking up family members coming in on the train...

You can always come over here . Despite Doctor Beeching's best efforts to kill off the railways in the 60s and subsequent attempts by Maggie Thatcher's government to finish the job in the 80s and 90s, we still have a good rail network in this country. I know we complain, but it is slowly improving (although we still have a lot of rolling stock that's over 40 years old in regular use in my area - on local routes, if not to London ).

quote:

I think we all need to pitch in and help Dianthus learn to be an engineer! Toot! Toot!

Yes, yes, yes !!! I'll go along with that ! All donations gratefully received !

English better than British

1 One country not three
We don't refer to you Yanks as Mexican, Canadian or American, so why refer to us English as English, Welsh or Scottish.

2 Right-wing politics
eg The British National Party (who sponsor the French tennis open, you will note).

Alright then, Graham, English.

This hasn't been easy!

In today's Chicago Tribune, Ian Caplin, an English lawyer, wrote a column about the EU proposal that people should only work 48 hours/week. I noted that not only did he call the English people "Brits," but he said something that I think could annoy some who live in England:

"The American Dream, after all, an ideal that points to success based on hard work, has sometimes required more than a 48-hour workweek."

Isn't there an English Dream?

If this guy was writing for an American audience, it is likely that he used 'Brits' as the word is commonly used over there to describe us. It is even possible that an American sub-editor inserted the word.

No, there, isn't an English Dream, certainly not in the same way as the American Dream is well-known, at least.

The 48-hour week is something that was dreamt up by the French in a (failed) attempt to cut their unemployment figures. We opted out when it was first brought in, but, since various constitutional changes have taken place since then, may now end up having it forced down our throats, like it or not.

quote:

may now end up having it forced down our throats, like it or not.

But fortunately, since the law does not apply to firms employing fewer than 7 people (or so I understand) it will not affect most English organsisations.

Around 80% of English firms are small businesses and a large number of those are sole traders.

I'd love a 48-hour week!

Is that more or less than you are required to work now?

Working weeks vary according to the industry, the employer, the worker and many other factors. Some in the UK will work fewer than 48 hours; others more.

However, the contractual hours have always been a matter between the employer and the employee - which is as it should be, to my mind.

However, the faceless and unelected bureaucrats of the EC, most of whom are earning quite obscene amounts of money for very short working weeks, have decided that nobody in the EC is to be allowed to work for more than 48 hours - even if he or she wants to and his or her employer has the work. In the UK we have had exemption from this legislation since we are a hard-working nation and won't like to be told by a load of idle foreigners how long we can work in our own country.

Now the exemption is to be withdrawn but I suspect than most employers and employees will simply go on as before and let the EC bureaucrats whistle for compliance.

quote:

Originally posted by Caterwauller:
Is that more or less than you are required to work now?

I teach, so 48 hours is practically a week off.

quote:

have decided that nobody in the EC is to be allowed to work for more than 48 hours - even if he or she wants to and his or her employer has the work.

Yes, we have heard here about how England dislikes that nasty EU!

We Americans would like some of the vacation days those of you in Europe get...though, again, we've talked about that before, too.

quote:

We Americans would like some of the vacation days those of you in Europe get...though, again, we've talked about that before, too.

I've heard a lot recently about how Britain has "the longest work hours in the EU" and how we're "behind only the US and Japan", but we could be (and have been) a lot worse off.

I found these figures which compare the hours worked and holidays taken by men and women from 1856-1981.

This is an Australian Trade Union article bemoaning the rising trend in working hours there. These tables look interesting (the ones at the foot of the page compare 15 different countries).

In my last job as a Civil Servant, I was a typist. I transferred details of people from printed paper forms into a computerised database - all day and every day, with a few letters and some filing thrown in for variety .

I should have worked a 39 hour week (from 8.30 to 4.30 each day for 5 days per week). However, I always worked from 8 to 5 and at certain times of year when we were really inundated, I would often be still working at 5.30 or later - with no extra pay. I was the lowest paid person in the place - on a take-home pay of £159 per week (which had to cover everything including my rent, bills and all other living expenses). Unlike the popular view of Civil Servants, we had no tea breaks (we drank it at our desks while working) and my boss frequently sniped at me for insisting on leaving the building completely for my one hour lunch break. I cited "Health and Safety Regulations" and carried on doing so!

I stuck it for over four years till I had an accident and had to give up work altogether and, despite the pain, it was so wonderful to be able to get out of there!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Dianthus,

Many people in Latin America resent those in the United States calling themselves “American.” Because to them it implies that they are not American when, in fact, they are.
As a follow-up, this is from AWADmail Issue 169:

quote:

From: Ana Justo (anavjustoATyahoo.com.ar)
Subject: America

I despise the use of the word America to mean the United States of America. It is unfortunate that the latter country has no other name than the United States of America. America is a continent, North, Central and South
America. Ask Amerigo Vespucci who thus named it. People in the U.S. of A. should learn to refer to their homeland as the United States, not America. It should be taught in schools: America is the continent, not a country

.
Tinman

This message has been edited. Last edited by: tinman,

quote:

The United Mexican States (Mexico), the United States of America (America), and Canada are three separate countries on the North American continent. Many people in Latin America resent those in the United States calling themselves “American.”

I didn't know that, Tinman. Interesting! I agree with you about the term "Yank." The southerners wouldn't like it!

quote:

Yank , or Yankee , usually applies to a person from New England, someone from the Northern U.S., or generally to any U.S. citizen. I’m not particularly fond of the term, but it doesn’t bother me. Many Southerners would bristle at being called a Yank; they would find it very insulting, as would the Mexicans and, I think, the Canadians.

But, we’re a tolerant lot and can overlook the idiosyncrasies of our neighbors across the pond. For the record, I was born in Kansas; that makes me a Kansan. I live in Washington; that makes me a Washingtonian. I’m a citizen of the United States; that makes me an American. I live on the North American continent; that makes me a North American (Norteamericano to the Mexicans). But you can call me a Yank.

Tinman

I note that Sunflower's location is "Hoosier Heartland, USA". Where's that, and why?

Please click for information on the word "hoosier."

quote:

Originally posted by jerry thomas:
Please click for information on the word "hoosier."

Ah, right. Thanks, I know now . Very interesting article.

Di, there are a lot of regional descriptions here in the U.S. For example, in my home state of Wisconsin, people are sometimes called "cheese heads" because cheese is made in Wisconsin. I don't think Illinois really has anything, though Chicago is called either Chi-town (pronounced "shy") or the "Windy City."

quote:

The British rail system probably isn't as bad as many people think when compared to many other countries but that doesn't mean it isn't terrible.

I'm sorry, but this is the sort of statement that people make with a lack of knowledge of the facts.

Let me take some of your comments:

"...I have never travelled by train since in this country...."

I travel by train several times a week; to condemn the whole network on the basis of one experience is not fair. The last time I had a delay was when a temporary signalling fault had delayed my train by about 8 minutes. This meant it lost its slot through the heavily-used London commuter lines. We arrived in London about 12 minutes late but this was enough for one of my fellow passengers to announce, to the concern no doubt of the foreign visitors travelling up from Gatwick airport and doubtless experiencing our public transport for the first time, that this service is "always late" and to ask "Why can't we run our railways properly like they do in America?" All complete nonsense, of course, but what an impression to make!

"...The last time I took a train journey here it was so packed that it was like being on a railway in Calcutta!..."

That is simply not true. Our trains (like the trains in every country in the world in rush hour) get crowded. They are never crowded to levels that affect safety although, of course, heavily crowded trains are not comfortable. In Calcutta (and many other countries that allow low standards of safety) trains are far more overcrowded with passengers being allowed to travel on the roof and clinging to the outside of the doors; on our railways a train is not even allowed to move unless everyone is inside and the doors all properly closed.

"...I don't think we should be content or satisfied until we have something that can match the Japanese system...."

In spite of the massive subsidies paid by the Japanese Government to JNR (far, far, greater than anything paid to our railways) most Japanese commuter lines are even more packed than are our own. Major commuting stations employ "pushers" whose job it is to force people onto trains that are so crowded that travellers are unable to force themselves on unaided. People tend to judge JNR by its famous Bullet Trains which are very good. They are not as comfortable inside as our own long-distance trains but they do travel very fast. The Bullet Train lines are (like the French TGV) a closed network that is not connected to, or used by, other services. Our own tracks are used by all services (even including steam excursions) and have to accommodate both high and low speed traffic. Furthermore, unlike the Bullet Train and the TGV, our own tracks were built by the Victorians and were designed for service speeds of up to about 80 mph. That we now have trains running at around 150 mph is a tribute both to our Victorian engineers and to modern train designers. Incidentally, although the world speed record for rail is held by the French (on a specially built track using a specially tuned electric train) the spead record for diesel, third-rail electic and steam traction are all held by slow old Britain. Using ordinary trains on ordinary tracks.

"...concerned about how many people would be injured or killed in even a minor accident ...

Although there are very few accidents on our railways, even the very rare accidents that happen usually involve no loss of life or even injury (although they attract massive publicity). More people are killed and injured on our roads in a single day than are killed or injured on our railways in a year.

Our railways and most of our other public transport is excellent, and it does our reputation in the world no good at all when we keep denigating our public services.

That realy needed saying RE many thanks.
I do not own a car so use a variety of public transport regularly. Train journeys are invariably relexing and pleasant. I find the ticket booking and pricing highly vexing but the service itself is good. The National Coach Service is equely slick in it's opperation and extreemly good value. It is much slower than rail however.

quote:

I find the ticket booking and pricing highly vexing but the service itself is good.

The pricing or rail tickets, like air tickets these days, is very complex since the advent of computers has meant that prices can be varied to suit market demand and thus to maximise load factors. The old system of payment per mile (which still existed when I started to sell rail tickets as a travel agent) is now well gone. We are heading towards greater complexity, I fear, as the use of variable pricing systems to control demand and load factors, becomes ever more sophisticated.

I find that National Rail online http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/ is very good for checking times and fares and it is, of course, now possible to buy tickets online as well.

I think the problem here is that everyone is right. We have a rail service that is a thing of extremes. When it's good it's very good and when it's bad it stinks.
I commute to work by Metro and train and when my train runs on time it's relaxing and comfortable as it's on a little used route (going out of the city at a time of day when most people are heading in.)
However as I've said before it misses, forcing me onto the bus on average about once every six days. That's unacceptable but has been the average over the three years that I've had to use the service.

I also used to commute on a much busier service and that was horrible. Doad is quite right. It was overcrowded well beyond safety levels. Many times I have seen it packed so solid that the doors wouldn't shut even though half the waiting passengers were still left standing on the platform. I once saw a passenger who couldn't get on because of the overcrwoding stand with one foot on the train and one foot on the platform wedging the door open refusing to budge until he could see another train on the line that he could get onto. Obviously that was a stupid thing to do but as one of the others on the platform I could sympathise with his frustration.

Privatisation of the trains was a massive mistake in my view as it changes the function of the service from shifting passengers to making a profit for the shareholders so that the little used but comfortable routes become less cost effective and are cut while the greatly overused but horrible ones are profitable and kept - kept that is at their existing levels as the addition of extra services at peak times would hit profits.

In my opinion a commercial imperative is wholly incompatible with a public transport service.

The most recent proposals to make things "better" have been to cut the service - on some routes by as much as 30% - in the alleged belief that by running fewer trains they will be better able to run them on time. My, admittedly cynical view, is that cutting services won't cut the number of passengers - just make them even more crowded and uncomfortable - so the income will remain constant, but will cut the costs so that the profit to shareholders will rise. And the service? Won't do a damned thing to help.
I also believe that the railway authorities know this as well as I do and are trying to pull the wool over our eyes in the name of their profits.