Charlie Hulme  wrote:

>Tony Polson wrote:
>
>> 
>> Agreed.  It isn't as if use of the train will be restricted to MWAs
>
>'AM' is the normal abbreviation.


Sorry.  Thanks, I will try to remember that.  ;-)


>> and their officials. 
>
>Who else from North Wales wants to go to Cardiff?


Who from Northern England wants to go to London?

Lots of people, actually.  The capital is a big draw.  And lots more
people will want to go if there is a faster train service to take them
there.  


>> The more attractive journey times could turn it
>> into quite a popular service.  
>
>With railfans, for sure. Do you know the ATW proposed 
>timings? I don't.
>
>> Hopefully, the provision of the train service will also put a stop to
>> the Assembly subsidising the far from environmentally friendly air
>> service between Caerdydd and RAF Valley.
>
>I wonder...


I hope.  It's time such nonsenses were stopped.  From a CO2 point of
view, it's bad enough that such a service exists, but far worse that
it is subsidised with public funds.

darkprince66  wrote:
>On Sep 26, 11:38 pm, Tony Polson  wrote:
>> Charlie Hulme  wrote:
>> >Tony Polson wrote:
>>
>> >> Hopefully, the provision of the train service will also put a stop to
>> >> the Assembly subsidising the far from environmentally friendly air
>> >> service between Caerdydd and RAF Valley.
>>
>> >I wonder...
>>
>> I hope.  It's time such nonsenses were stopped.  From a CO2 point of
>> view, it's bad enough that such a service exists, but far worse that
>> it is subsidised with public funds.
>
>I have stated this in another thread, but it's worth repeating that
>every journey on this wretched air service is subsidised by the
>taxpayer to the tune of £84.


Yikes.  I didn't look for a figure, but that is appalling.


>How many useul projects could that money fund instead? One thing is
>for sure, ATW will not get £84 in subsidy for every passenger on the
>WAG express...


That's true.  But exactly the same argument can justifiably be used
against rail services elsewhere that have very high subsidies per
passenger-journey.  There have to be better places to spend the money.


>I have not heard yet if it is to stop at my local station,but the
>potential users from Wrexham have every right to be angry, capacity
>isn't really an issue between Wrexham and Shrewsbury, and you can't
>blame WSMR for capacity issues on the single line from Wrexham to
>Chester as ATW tried to...they don't operate north of Wrexham.


I'm sure it's only a matter of time before Wrexham-Chester is restored
to double track.

Tony Polson wrote:
> Who from Northern England wants to go to London?

Probably not many WANT to go there... but a lot more have to go there 
for one reason or another, because England is so London-centric.

-- 
Jeremy Double  {real address, include nospam}
Rail and transport photos at
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmdouble/collections/72157603834894248/

Jeremy Double  wrote:

>Tony Polson wrote:
>> Who from Northern England wants to go to London?
>
>Probably not many WANT to go there... 


On the contrary, the principal rail leisure market is from the
provinces to London.  Always has been, always will be.  And the
founding principle of a leisure market is that it is something that
people WANT to do.

The principal rail business market is also from the provinces to
London, but I accept that not all those people WANT to travel.  

;-)

Tony Polson wrote:
> Jeremy Double  wrote:
> 
>> Tony Polson wrote:
>>> Who from Northern England wants to go to London?
>> Probably not many WANT to go there... 
> 
> 
> On the contrary, the principal rail leisure market is from the
> provinces to London.  Always has been, always will be.  And the
> founding principle of a leisure market is that it is something that
> people WANT to do.

I occasionally take leisure trips to London, not because I want to go to 
London, but because the exhibitions I want to see are only shown in 
London.  Thus I am participating in the leisure market for travel to 
London, although I don't really want to go there.

Also, in the past, I have travelled to London by train to start a 
holiday, either from Heathrow or via the Channel Tunnel.  In the 
statistics, these journeys would count as leisure trips to London, but 
again London is only incidental, and I would rather not have to go there.

-- 
Jeremy Double  {real address, include nospam}
Rail and transport photos at
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmdouble/collections/72157603834894248/

Jeremy Double  wrote:
>
>I occasionally take leisure trips to London, not because I want to go to 
>London, but because the exhibitions I want to see are only shown in 
>London.  Thus I am participating in the leisure market for travel to 
>London, although I don't really want to go there.


This isn't about *you*.

Tony Polson wrote:
> Jeremy Double  wrote:
>> I occasionally take leisure trips to London, not because I want to go to 
>> London, but because the exhibitions I want to see are only shown in 
>> London.  Thus I am participating in the leisure market for travel to 
>> London, although I don't really want to go there.
> 
> 
> This isn't about *you*.
> 
I was just using myself as an example to disprove, when it comes to 
leisure travel, the principle you stated that leisure travellers 
necessarily WANT to go to their travel destination.

Obviously, the leisure activity itself is usually something that that 
the participants want to take part in (although not inevitably, if 
dragged along by a partner or friend).

However, travel, and even the destination of travel, can be something 
that is incidental to the leisure activity.  Thus it is not necessarily 
true that leisure travellers always WANT to go to their travel 
destination.  They want to take part in the leisure activity, but the 
travel, and even the destination of travel, may be a necessary evil.

-- 
Jeremy Double  {real address, include nospam}
Rail and transport photos at
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmdouble/collections/72157603834894248/

Jeremy Double  wrote:
>
>I was just using myself as an example to disprove, when it comes to 
>leisure travel, the principle you stated that leisure travellers 
>necessarily WANT to go to their travel destination.


This still isn't about *you*.

Tony Polson wrote:
> Jeremy Double  wrote:
>> I was just using myself as an example to disprove, when it comes to 
>> leisure travel, the principle you stated that leisure travellers 
>> necessarily WANT to go to their travel destination.
> 
> 
> This still isn't about *you*.
> 
I could equally have used the example of a Newcastle United supporter 
who wants to see all of their matches: she has to travel to London to 
see them play Arsenal, even though she doesn't really want to go to 
London...

-- 
Jeremy Double  {real address, include nospam}
Rail and transport photos at
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmdouble/collections/72157603834894248/

Jeremy Double  wrote:

>Tony Polson wrote:
>> Jeremy Double  wrote:
>>> I was just using myself as an example to disprove, when it comes to 
>>> leisure travel, the principle you stated that leisure travellers 
>>> necessarily WANT to go to their travel destination.
>> 
>> 
>> This still isn't about *you*.
>> 
>I could equally have used the example of a Newcastle United supporter 
>who wants to see all of their matches: she has to travel to London to 
>see them play Arsenal, even though she doesn't really want to go to 
>London...


I wish them luck in persuading Arsenal to play all their "home" games
at a stadium in Gateshead.

On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 18:45:39 +0100, Tony Polson put finger to keyboard
and typed:

>Jeremy Double  wrote:
>
>>Tony Polson wrote:
>>> Jeremy Double  wrote:
>>>> I was just using myself as an example to disprove, when it comes to 
>>>> leisure travel, the principle you stated that leisure travellers 
>>>> necessarily WANT to go to their travel destination.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> This still isn't about *you*.
>>> 
>>I could equally have used the example of a Newcastle United supporter 
>>who wants to see all of their matches: she has to travel to London to 
>>see them play Arsenal, even though she doesn't really want to go to 
>>London...
>
>
>I wish them luck in persuading Arsenal to play all their "home" games
>at a stadium in Gateshead.

Well, precisely.

There are more Premiership football clubs in london than in any other
city in England. That means that away supporters are more likely to
have to travel to London than to any other city in order to watch
their team on the road. But that doesn't mean that any of them
particularly want to go to london, per se.

Mark
-- 
"We do what we like and we like what we do"
http://mark.goodge.co.uk - my pointless blog
http://www.good-stuff.co.uk - my less pointless stuff

Jeremy Double wrote:

> 
> I occasionally take leisure trips to London, not because I want to go to 
> London, but because the exhibitions I want to see are only shown in 
> London.  Thus I am participating in the leisure market for travel to 
> London, although I don't really want to go there.
> 

Surely the same applies to 99% of all journeys? I go to 
London for a business meeting, not because I want to go 
to London, but because that's where the meeting is. I 
go to Accrington to install a computer system because 
that's where the people are that have ordered it. I go 
to Llanberis to climb Snowdon because Snowdon doesn't 
happen to be in my back garden. I visit Newcastle to 
see my aunty Fanny in hospital, because that's where 
she is in hospital.  I go to Holyhead because there's a 
loco-hauled train service.

The only exception I can think of is that I might go to 
  a place just to see what it's like, and even then I 
might say that's where there is a place I have never 
been to.

Charlie

jones_bangor@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> On Sep 27, 12:26 am, Tony Polson  wrote:
>> I'm sure it's only a matter of time before Wrexham-Chester is restored
>> to double track.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
> 
> I'd suggest restoring the junction at Shotton 

Restoring?

Charlie

Charlie Hulme wrote:
> Jeremy Double wrote:
> 
>>
>> I occasionally take leisure trips to London, not because I want to go 
>> to London, but because the exhibitions I want to see are only shown in 
>> London.  Thus I am participating in the leisure market for travel to 
>> London, although I don't really want to go there.
>>
> 
> Surely the same applies to 99% of all journeys? I go to London for a 
> business meeting, not because I want to go to London, but because that's 
> where the meeting is. I go to Accrington to install a computer system 
> because that's where the people are that have ordered it. I go to 
> Llanberis to climb Snowdon because Snowdon doesn't happen to be in my 
> back garden. I visit Newcastle to see my aunty Fanny in hospital, 
> because that's where she is in hospital.  I go to Holyhead because 
> there's a loco-hauled train service.
> 
> The only exception I can think of is that I might go to  a place just to 
> see what it's like, and even then I might say that's where there is a 
> place I have never been to.

Yes, but in some cases you are travelling for a particular reason and 
also want to go to the destination. In other cases you are ambivalent 
about the destination, and in a few cases you would rather not go to the 
  destination but other considerations apply.

Even if you're travelling for a particular reason you might also want to 
visit the destination... for instance I've been lucky enough to have to 
travel to Prague and Heidelberg on business recently.  Or when I was on 
holiday I travelled to Bad Doberan, primarily to ride on the "Molli" 
narrow gauge railway, but I was also interested to visit the town of Bad 
Doberan.

My point was that you can't say that because a trip is made for leisure 
purposes the traveller _necessarily_ wants to go to the destination of 
the travel.  People's motives for travel are more complicated than that.
-- 
Jeremy Double  {real address, include nospam}
Rail and transport photos at
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmdouble/collections/72157603834894248/

The message <LlJDk.69145$KV1.53011@newsfe25.ams2>
from Charlie Hulme  contains these words:

> > I'd suggest restoring the junction at Shotton 

> Restoring?

I think some confusion with the junction of the Buckley line with the
N.W Coast line at Connah's Quay has crept in there, Charlie.

-- 
Dave,                                     
Frodsham