To think free wifi on trains is not a low priority for passengers?

[Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65673622

Being reported that the government thinks free wifi is a low priority for passengers so could be cut to save money. Maybe I am out of step, but I really appreciate it, especially on long journeys. I don't watch TV or films, just browse the net on and off and use Whatsapp. Is it really impossible to have a properly staffed train service running more or less to time and also offering free wifi?

What would it be defined as in your book @SerendipityJane? Just interested, not arguing

Huh? An hour plus commute is pretty common. You don’t live in SE England, do you?

I'm only here for the arguments 😀

I think the simplest way is to express your commute as a %age of the time you spend "not-not-working". Which is the time you don't have to do anything you want to.

So if you work (say) 40 hours a week, and your "commute" is an hour each way, so 2 hours a day, then for a 5-day in office week, that's 10 hours over your 40 or 25%.

I leave it to you to decide if that is acceptable, do-able, or desireable.

One thing I learned about how dim people are, is when I started treating that 25% time as being as precious as the 40 hours it was wrapping around. Because in the 1990s nobody could get that. Especially if not in particular recruiters. Yes, that job that you are going to get a wedge of commission for filling may pay £10,000 a year extra. But the 10 hours a week (so 480 hours a year) of my time that I lose happens to be worth £20,000 to me.

Yes, I'm odd.

In the afternoon of my life, my bugbear is long commutes that shouldn't be. I mean if it takes you over an hour to do 10 miles (which isn't rare around the Midlands) then something somewhere is somehow fucked up. Luckily us tech nerds can WFH. Which then affects the calculation I suggested. 2 days from home give you a "commute" of a mere 6 hours over 40, or 15%. Possibly less if you don't need to doll up to WFH.

Corporal punishment was pretty common once too. Didn't make that right either.

I normally travel for work so being able to work is a priority for me. In my ideal world this would be a quiet seat where I could focus on offline tasks. But I can't work when crammed next to someone and my work don't fund first class so emails on my phone is the next best thing. Its not my top priority but it is important.

I second this. It's really not secure at all. I'm surprised so many people use it.

I’m a bit confused by the analogy - are you suggesting that a longer commute is morally wrong? I think most of the time it’s a choice for a better standard of living. Plus I suspect it’s not actually physically possible for everyone who works in the City to live within 20 minutes.

Given this from pp

You really shouldn't be using public WiFi for work purposes. It's so unsafe

Is security an issue?

I'm just saying that what we regard as "normal" is only by contemporary standards.

Same way it's "normal" for women to end up doing most of the childcare. Which I don't think is particularly right either.

And something being "normal" is never a reason to accept it. Ever. Unless we all want to go back to what was "normal" in the 70s ?

<repeats>

That's what VPNs are for.

And if your work allows WFH and doesn't have such things then they probably aren't doing a lot of other stuff right either.

Ah fair enough @SerendipityJane. I only commute a couple of times a week and just work shorter days when in the office. Luckily it's a nice drive and I have a very flexible workplace

Most people have generous data allowances on their phones and unlimited data plans are dirt cheap.
If you want to use a laptop or other device that doesn't have built in cellular, then you can easily set your phone as a hotspot and connect via that.

Frankly I'd rather they focussed on trains running on time and providing adequate seating, but that's just me.

Train Wi-Fi uses the same transceivers that mobile phones use for data, so if your phone’s data signal is shit, the wifi will also be shit. If I want to watch or listen to stuff I download it ahead of time.

Isn’t that a function of the nature of modern jobs/the modern economy though, which is more based around the information economy and international services than local services and manufacturing etc? I’m sure that in the past blacksmiths, greengrocers etc didn’t need to have a long commute because they were based in every village. Isn’t having a wider choice of career and job location better for empowerment and social mobility?

My job is only done out of one location and it’s been based there since long before the 1970s. Now I’m wondering how long the average commute by horse-drawn carriage took back in the day 😆 Probably less comfortable than the train even without WiFi!

A "commute" should be a 20 minute journey at most.

Very few people in London could manage that on public transport (or car). I used to have a commute which was door to door 30 minutes on a good day, and by London standards that's amazingly short. Only manageable because we bought our house nearly 30 years ago when ordinary people on ordinary salaries could buy houses in Inner London. Nowadays people on our sort of salary level would be living a long way out of the centre and spending far more time on the train/tube.

The way to make commuting tolerable is to have something to do during that time, whether it's reading, daydreaming or browsing MN. It's not necessarily a bad thing.

Isn’t that a function of the nature of modern jobs/the modern economy though, which is more based around the information economy and international services than local services and manufacturing etc?

No quite sure why "information economy" demands a physical presence in a set location. It's almost - almost - as if the information isn't the important part. After all that can be accessed, processed and enhanced pretty much anywhere. A fact that some companies had to discover fucking quickly when lockdown hit. Either you find a way to do it remotely or you find a way to go bust.

Very few people in London could manage that on public transport (or car).

I was able to do door to door from South Harrow to Marble Arch in just under an hour in the 80s. 35 minutes of that was spent walking, so not a complete waste of time. And I had my Walkman (ask your parents ....)

An Anytime Return from Manchester to London is £369.40

Why has it reached such an extortionate level? Because there was absolutely no capacity on peak trains, even after Virgin added three coaches to the units and and increased the frequency to the maximum the infrastructure could cope with. Demand had to be priced off to stop peak trains from being swamped.

HS2 will treble the capacity out of Euston, benefitting everyone from long-distance passengers to those using London Overground. More capacity means that fares can be cut, which will encourage people out of their cars (a gain for the planet). Reduced journey times and lower fares between London and the Scottish Central Belt will also provide an attractive alternative to flying (another gain for the planet).

An Anytime Return from Manchester to London is £369.40

To be honest even if it was free, it would be too much. And that's the core of the problem. By the time I had got my sorry ass to the station at the time I need to be there and endured the longer-than-it-took-in-1945 journey and then made my way to the final destination to reverse the process at some early arbitrary time because I need to be back in time to be in bed before midnight, you'd have to pay me to go by train.

Especially if I could drive it door to door in 3 hours for £30 in fuel (£60 return) plus £40 parking.

And double especially when a cursory google throw up sub £100 flights.

As I previously wrote, no one could be a bigger fan of green sustainable transport than I am. I'd love to have a reliable affordable train network that could drive commuting, business travel and leisure journeys. However none of those criteria make money for the system the UK decided to go with when it gave up on society in the 80s. Much like the water and sewage system. Or the education system. Or the health system.

Because there was absolutely no capacity on peak trains, even after Virgin added three coaches to the units

And, there's the problem - units. They need to bring back proper locomotive hauled services that can manage any number of carriages within reason - as they had till about 20 years ago, but obviously built to modern safety standards. 12 coach trains were by no means unusual 30 years ago.

No, if you want it, just use mobile data which is now very cheap.

Public transport has a lot more important things to sort out, such as reliability, improving timetables, comfort, etc., without wasting time and money on something that passengers can make alternative arrangements for.

Firstly, coaches are longer now so a full length pendolino is similar in length to the old fashioned 12/13/14 coach trains made up of smaller coaches. Most stations wouldn't be capable of accepting a pendolino any longer than the current 11 coaches.

Secondly, locomotive hauled trains needed run arounds at terminal stations which were labour intensive, time consuming etc. The whole point of "multiple units" is that all the driver needs to do is walk the length of the train and it's ready to go the opposite direction. Most stations which used to have run arounds had them removed years ago, so would now need a loco at each end which is expensive.

There's no reason why a loco couldn't be put at each end, surely. Re. being longer, they don't seat any more per coach than a Mk 3 coach, so that's poor design.

The government's priority is to get the train service in order, more affordable for everyone and a service where women feel safe without fear of being harassed.

It's had 50 years. When will it start ?