From Newsgroup: uk.media.radio.archers

Before I start can I make a point that I do not support Tony Blair in
any shape or form.

A few days ago it became clear that the Government is asking Avanti West
Coast to cut services to and from Euston to save money.

Today the Government announced -u57m to provide better wifi on trains.

Now I realise this may be a minority opinion (sorry) but I would rather
have a decent rail service rather than having better wifi. If the basic service is right then wifi is a nice to have luxury (and difficult to
deliver to trains in tunnels and so on anyway) whereas knowing that the timetabled trains are there and running on time is what the railways
exist to do.

Am I the only person who thinks someone somewhere has the wrong priorty?
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.media.radio.archers

On Wed, 27 May 2026 09:29:35 +0100, Kosmo <krw@whitnet.uk> wrote:

Before I start can I make a point that I do not support Tony Blair in
any shape or form.

A few days ago it became clear that the Government is asking Avanti West >Coast to cut services to and from Euston to save money.

Today the Government announced u57m to provide better wifi on trains.

Now I realise this may be a minority opinion (sorry) but I would rather
have a decent rail service rather than having better wifi. If the basic >service is right then wifi is a nice to have luxury (and difficult to >deliver to trains in tunnels and so on anyway) whereas knowing that the >timetabled trains are there and running on time is what the railways
exist to do.

Am I the only person who thinks someone somewhere has the wrong priorty?

I agree.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.media.radio.archers

On 27/05/2026 09:29, Kosmo wrote:

Before I start can I make a point that I do not support Tony Blair in
any shape or form.

A few days ago it became clear that the Government is asking Avanti West Coast to cut services to and from Euston to save money.

Today the Government announced -u57m to provide better wifi on trains.

Now I realise this may be a minority opinion (sorry) but I would rather
have a decent rail service rather than having better wifi.-a If the basic service is right then wifi is a nice to have luxury (and difficult to deliver to trains in tunnels and so on anyway) whereas knowing that the timetabled trains are there and running on time is what the railways
exist to do.

Am I the only person who thinks someone somewhere has the wrong priorty?

I don't use trains these days but I absolutely agree with you.
--
Jenny M Benson
Wrexham, UK
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.media.radio.archers

On 27/05/2026 11:25, Jenny M Benson wrote:

On 27/05/2026 09:29, Kosmo wrote:

Before I start can I make a point that I do not support Tony Blair in
any shape or form.

A few days ago it became clear that the Government is asking Avanti
West Coast to cut services to and from Euston to save money.

Today the Government announced -u57m to provide better wifi on trains.

Now I realise this may be a minority opinion (sorry) but I would
rather have a decent rail service rather than having better wifi.-a If
the basic service is right then wifi is a nice to have luxury (and
difficult to deliver to trains in tunnels and so on anyway) whereas
knowing that the timetabled trains are there and running on time is
what the railways exist to do.

Am I the only person who thinks someone somewhere has the wrong priorty?

I don't use trains these days but I absolutely agree with you.

I used a train for the first time in over 20 years the other day. I was
very happy with the onboard entertainment: A documentary about farmers
tending their fields, cows going about their business, pretty little
rural stations and people coming and going on their way to work,
university and holiday. All without narration.
--
Ric
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.media.radio.archers

Joe Kerr wrote:

I used a train for the first time in over 20 years the other day. I was
very happy with the onboard entertainment: A documentary about farmers >tending their fields, cows going about their business, pretty little
rural stations and people coming and going on their way to work,
university and holiday. All without narration.

;-)

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham
'48/33 M B+ G++ A L(-) I S-- CH0(--)(p) Ar- T+ H0 ?Q
chris@cdixon.me.uk @ChrisJDixon1
Plant amazing Acers.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.media.radio.archers

On 27/05/2026 09:29, Kosmo wrote:

Before I start can I make a point that I do not support Tony Blair in
any shape or form.

A few days ago it became clear that the Government is asking Avanti West Coast to cut services to and from Euston to save money.

Today the Government announced -u57m to provide better wifi on trains.

Now I realise this may be a minority opinion (sorry) but I would rather
have a decent rail service rather than having better wifi.-a If the basic service is right then wifi is a nice to have luxury (and difficult to deliver to trains in tunnels and so on anyway) whereas knowing that the timetabled trains are there and running on time is what the railways
exist to do.

Am I the only person who thinks someone somewhere has the wrong priorty?

Would that -u57M[1] be enough to make significant service improvements?
I assume the -u57M is to be spread across all services, not just that
Avanti west coast service?

[1] You would know far better than me, but I understand there are many occasions when a Ministry trumpets a headline figure which is somewhat fantastical, once the fine print has been examined.
--
Sam Plusnet
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.media.radio.archers

On 27.5.26 22:09, Sam Plusnet wrote:

On 27/05/2026 09:29, Kosmo wrote:

Before I start can I make a point that I do not support Tony Blair in
any shape or form.

A few days ago it became clear that the Government is asking Avanti
West Coast to cut services to and from Euston to save money.

Today the Government announced -u57m to provide better wifi on trains.

Now I realise this may be a minority opinion (sorry) but I would
rather have a decent rail service rather than having better wifi.-a If
the basic service is right then wifi is a nice to have luxury (and
difficult to deliver to trains in tunnels and so on anyway) whereas
knowing that the timetabled trains are there and running on time is
what the railways exist to do.

Am I the only person who thinks someone somewhere has the wrong priorty?

Would that -u57M[1] be enough to make significant service improvements?
I assume the -u57M is to be spread across all services, not just that
Avanti west coast service?

[1] You would know far better than me, but I understand there are many occasions when a Ministry trumpets a headline figure which is somewhat fantastical, once the fine print has been examined.

Hard to say. The savings from not running 58 timetables services for 6
weeks will be recognised in some minor maintenance savings and power consumption. It is the holiday season and if Avanti are fully staffed (probably not due to their own incompetence) there will be some savings
on overtime costs. However I personally doubt that the savings add up
to -u57m. The problem is that Andy Mellor has failed as a TOC CEO
previously so is probably trying to curry favour with his future owner
before the transfer. A decent CEO would tell the DfT that the contract
is the contract and to get stuffed. Obviously in the mind of the
Treasury these are two different budget headings and cannot be confused.
I just see it as -u57m flowing to Musk (the solution is Starlink based
I believe) at a time when maintaining a service and filling it with
passengers is more important.
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.media.radio.archers

On 2026/5/27 9:29:35, Kosmo wrote:

Before I start can I make a point that I do not support Tony Blair in
any shape or form.

(Me neither - but was that connected with the following? I'm confused.)

A few days ago it became clear that the Government is asking Avanti West Coast to cut services to and from Euston to save money.

Today the Government announced -u57m to provide better wifi on trains.

Now I realise this may be a minority opinion (sorry) but I would rather
have a decent rail service rather than having better wifi. If the basic

[]
I tend to agree with you.

But I tend to ignore such announcements, as no _proportion_ or
percentage is mentioned; the media have, as usual, just latched onto the
word "millions" (or "m").

I have no idea what the _current_ budget is for providing wifi on
trains; therefore, being told an extra 57m - even if that turns out to
be the genuine figure, which is of course unlikely - is being provided
(or rather "announced"), is completely meaningless to me.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Sometimes I believe we made up god just to have someone to blame for our mistakes - "Sarah Sidle" (Jorja Fox), CSI
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.media.radio.archers

On Wed, 27 May 2026 09:29:35 +0100, Kosmo <krw@whitnet.uk> wrote:

Before I start can I make a point that I do not support Tony Blair in
any shape or form.

A few days ago it became clear that the Government is asking Avanti West >Coast to cut services to and from Euston to save money.

Today the Government announced u57m to provide better wifi on trains.

Now I realise this may be a minority opinion (sorry) but I would rather
have a decent rail service rather than having better wifi. If the basic >service is right then wifi is a nice to have luxury (and difficult to >deliver to trains in tunnels and so on anyway) whereas knowing that the >timetabled trains are there and running on time is what the railways
exist to do.

Am I the only person who thinks someone somewhere has the wrong priorty?

Rather than upgrade the Wi-fi, wouldn't it have been easier to run the
services as "ghost trains" without any passengers? <https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/dec/01/manchester-london-7am-train-will-now-carry-passengers-after-outcry-over-regulators-decision>

Nick
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.media.radio.archers

On 29.5.26 20:08, Nick Odell wrote:

On Wed, 27 May 2026 09:29:35 +0100, Kosmo <krw@whitnet.uk> wrote:

Before I start can I make a point that I do not support Tony Blair in
any shape or form.

A few days ago it became clear that the Government is asking Avanti West
Coast to cut services to and from Euston to save money.

Today the Government announced -u57m to provide better wifi on trains.

Now I realise this may be a minority opinion (sorry) but I would rather
have a decent rail service rather than having better wifi. If the basic
service is right then wifi is a nice to have luxury (and difficult to
deliver to trains in tunnels and so on anyway) whereas knowing that the
timetabled trains are there and running on time is what the railways
exist to do.

Am I the only person who thinks someone somewhere has the wrong priorty?

Rather than upgrade the Wi-fi, wouldn't it have been easier to run the services as "ghost trains" without any passengers? <https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/dec/01/manchester-london-7am-train-will-now-carry-passengers-after-outcry-over-regulators-decision>

Nick

There are many civil servants and some railway managers who would prefer
that to happen. That train did end up being put back into passenger
service but the civil servant at the ORR who could not see the wood for
the trees was clearly a "modern" civil servant who does not think he or
she exists to serve the population - only political masters.
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.media.radio.archers

On 29/05/2026 22:18, Kosmo wrote:

On 29.5.26 20:08, Nick Odell wrote:

On Wed, 27 May 2026 09:29:35 +0100, Kosmo <krw@whitnet.uk> wrote:

Before I start can I make a point that I do not support Tony Blair in
any shape or form.

A few days ago it became clear that the Government is asking Avanti West >>> Coast to cut services to and from Euston to save money.

Today the Government announced -u57m to provide better wifi on trains.

Now I realise this may be a minority opinion (sorry) but I would rather
have a decent rail service rather than having better wifi.-a If the basic >>> service is right then wifi is a nice to have luxury (and difficult to
deliver to trains in tunnels and so on anyway) whereas knowing that the
timetabled trains are there and running on time is what the railways
exist to do.

Am I the only person who thinks someone somewhere has the wrong priorty?

Rather than upgrade the Wi-fi, wouldn't it have been easier to run the
services as "ghost trains" without any passengers?
<https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/dec/01/manchester-
london-7am-train-will-now-carry-passengers-after-outcry-over-
regulators-decision>

Nick

There are many civil servants and some railway managers who would prefer that to happen.-a That train did end up being put back into passenger service but the civil servant at the ORR who could not see the wood for
the trees was clearly a "modern" civil servant who does not think he or
she exists to serve the population - only political masters.

The public can't fire a civil servant, whilst those political masters
may find it convenient to do exactly that.
--
Sam Plusnet
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2