It is clear to me that I have offended the motoring gods and yesterday they sent me a warning!
Rosie and I were travelling north on the M1 yesterday lunchtime; heading for Nottingham to collect more of her stuff to move into my flat. I was driving and just South of Leicester, as I pulled into the middle lane to overtake a horse box, I heard a loud bang. Looking round I saw dust and smoke coming from the right hand side of a white transit van that had just overtaken us in the right hand lane.
As we watched the van swung sharply to the left across in front of us at a complete right angle to the road as it crossed the the middle lane, sliding sideways at at least 60mph. It narrowly missed the rear of the horse box and continued to slide, somehow staying upright, and by the time it ploughed into the foliage beyond the hard shoulder it had turned a complete 180 degrees and was travelling backwards. The van was alongside us by this point, and must have been doing about 50mph at the moment of impact.
The whole thing was over so quickly and yet it happened in a kind of curious slow motion. It was incredibly cinematic, almost like watching a cinema screen, probably because it was so dramatic, so large, and so out of the ordinary. The crystal clarity of it all was surreal, and despite the fact it happened a mere 25m ahead of us we looked on with a strange sense of detachment. There wasn't even any need for me to take evasive action, even though I was ready to, the van cleanly missed us and everything else on the road to make possibly one of the softest 50mph crashes in history.
It is a fact that travelling in a car is one of the most dangerous things that most people do on a day to day basis. This isn't something that most people are inclined to believe however, probably because inside our metal boxes the danger seems so distant. Even as I watched this accident unfold and two tonnes of metal whirled across the road completely out of control in front of me I didn't feel afraid. The realisation that things could have come off much, much worse is one that's entirely rational.
Perhaps the most shocking thing that came from this whole episode, I believe, is what happened when we went to the police station to make a statement as witnesses to what had happened. We were greeted by a locked front door and a sign listing opening hours, saying that the police station was closed all day.
It seems that the police are closed on Sundays.
Monday, 24 August 2009
Friday, 21 August 2009
...and another thing!
Whilst I'm ranting about the RAC, I'll post another link to this.
Basically it's another demonstration of how they are able to, by choosing the numbers that represent only a small part of the picture, suggest that a great injustice is being done to motorists.
Who are these "motorists" anyway, are they a separate species? Are we not all just human beings trying to get from A to B using the best method made available to us?
Anyway, they will argue that the BCR, or "Benefit-Cost ratio" of road schemes is much higher than for public transport schemes, thus the money should be spent on roads.
They quote average BCRs for different types of projects undertaken:
First, road schemes never include the cost of vehicles in the calculations, because the user pays for them directly. This makes road schemes appear cheaper when in fact on an overall cost per user basis they are much more expensive.
Secondly, and most significantly, fuel duty is included in the calculations. This means that any analysis using this set of criteria will come out in favour of a scheme that puts more cars on the roads. Light rail schemes, for example, which are designed to reduce congestion by attracting motorists out of their cars, have to gain a high enough benefit cost ratio to get approval despite the loss of income to the treasury from fuel duty counting against them.
Numbers can be useful, but they should always be viewed in context.
Basically it's another demonstration of how they are able to, by choosing the numbers that represent only a small part of the picture, suggest that a great injustice is being done to motorists.
Who are these "motorists" anyway, are they a separate species? Are we not all just human beings trying to get from A to B using the best method made available to us?
Anyway, they will argue that the BCR, or "Benefit-Cost ratio" of road schemes is much higher than for public transport schemes, thus the money should be spent on roads.
They quote average BCRs for different types of projects undertaken:
- Highways Agency Roads - 4.66
- Local roads - 4.23
- Heavy rail schemes - 2.83
- Light rail schemes - 2.14
- Local public transport schemes - 1.71
First, road schemes never include the cost of vehicles in the calculations, because the user pays for them directly. This makes road schemes appear cheaper when in fact on an overall cost per user basis they are much more expensive.
Secondly, and most significantly, fuel duty is included in the calculations. This means that any analysis using this set of criteria will come out in favour of a scheme that puts more cars on the roads. Light rail schemes, for example, which are designed to reduce congestion by attracting motorists out of their cars, have to gain a high enough benefit cost ratio to get approval despite the loss of income to the treasury from fuel duty counting against them.
Numbers can be useful, but they should always be viewed in context.
"Transport Crisis"
In the news today were reports on the publication of a report by the think tank "Reform" on the UK's transport infrastructure. Link here.
My particular disagreements with this paper are generally related to the way in which they are ever so slightly massively skewed toward the road lobby. For example they trot out the RAC's old chestnut about how much poor old Mr Motorist pays £X in "motoring taxes" and yet how little of it is spent on the UK's roads.
"British drivers, for example, currently pay over £45 billion every year in the various motoring taxes and less than a fifth of this is invested back in the road network."
Let's consider this for a minute.
Firstly, the cost of motoring in the UK at the present time is at the lowest it has ever been at any time in history, so why complain?
Secondly, most of these so called "motoring taxes" are in the form of "duty". This is not a charge in exchange for a service, it is indirect taxation which is not in any way ringfenced. Duty is also paid on other items, such as alcohol, tobacco, import, and the paperwork for moving house (stamp duty), and yet it would be silly to suggest that, for example, alcohol duty should be ploughed back into the brewing industry.
Thirdly, what on earth would we do with £45bn a year on roads? Thankfully government now broadly recognises that it is impossible to build ones way out of road congestion, so we wouldn't be building more of them. Or would we? The RAC want to go back to a massive programme of road building. Thankfully this is now politically very unpopular.
I would, however advocate the prospect of spending a much greater proportion of the funding from this government cash cow on the UK's transport system as a whole. There is a difference.
The report then dusts off another of the RAC's favourites.
"Too much transport policy is a discussion about whether cars, trains or planes are 'good'. This results in irrational decisions. For example road travel constitutes over 90 per cent of all journeys, compared to less than 7 per cent for rail. Yet in 2006-07 the UK invested £5 billion in rail and only £4.8 billion in roads."
On its own of course this sounds like poor old Mr Motorist is being hard done by.
It's not that simple though, because these numbers do not say when and where these journeys are occurring.
For example, over 80% of people who enter central London do so by public transport. London, as a highly profitable global city, could not function without its mainline rail links and underground, even though neither of these generates a profit in itself. The same is true of other cities and urban areas across the country to some extent.
No amount of investment in roads will bend the laws of time and space to negate the physical impossibility of moving the huge numbers of people, that rail moves daily, in and out of major cities by car. There physically isn't space between buildings to accommodate the road lanes and junctions needed, even if the prospect was politically acceptable to those living in those areas.
It's complete folly in my opinion to bemoan spending however much on method A as opposed to method B on the basis of fairness if A works and B doesn't.
Having parroted the RAC's roads sales pitch for a while, the report then goes on to dismiss a future North-South high speed rail line as a "white elephant", and encourages investment in what it calls "value for money improvement" such as train lengthening. Take the short term view basically.
Given the fact that the trains on the West Coast Main Line, which would be relieved by the proposed "High Speed 2", are already being lengthened to 11 carriages and yet the line is still projected to be completely full within a decade, I cannot see how the high speed line would conceivably be anything like a "white elephant". Indeed, demand for services on High Speed 1, including the new "Javelin" commuter trains, has been well above projected levels. High speed rail is very popular with users and brings huge economic benefits with it.
I have mental images of George Stephenson being told, in the 1820s, not to bother with this "rail-way" scheme as it will clearly be a white elephant, and that the solution to the transport problems between Liverpool and Manchester lies with minor improvements to the turnpikes.
There is, however, one point that this obviously right wing think tank makes that I cannot help but agree with.
The UK currently spends £31bn a year on Social Services, £119bn on health, and a whopping £189bn on "Social Protection" - welfare basically. Transport spending is a mere £23bn a year.
Spending in some areas can provide massive boosts to the future economy of the country, such as capital investment in infrastructure, whilst spending in health and welfare does so far less. Yet, with spending cuts inevitable, where will the money be cut from? Pardon my cynicism but projects like Crossrail, the Nottingham tram extension, High Speed 2, etc are going to look like politically easy targets for cuts, much easier than, for example, trying to reduce the amount being handed out in benefits.
I will conclude with the statement the report opens with, which I agree with completely.
"Britain has an infrastructure shortfall and a cash shortage; the £23 billion transport budget is already being cut. This is despite the fact that infrastructure is one of the most productive parts of government expenditure and could help propel Britain out of the recession. A new policy is needed that frees up transport provision."
In my opinion government must appreciate the importance of transport and end its long history of being the Cinderella department that it is, because the transport problem in the UK is not going to go away, and in fact it is getting worse.
My particular disagreements with this paper are generally related to the way in which they are ever so slightly massively skewed toward the road lobby. For example they trot out the RAC's old chestnut about how much poor old Mr Motorist pays £X in "motoring taxes" and yet how little of it is spent on the UK's roads.
"British drivers, for example, currently pay over £45 billion every year in the various motoring taxes and less than a fifth of this is invested back in the road network."
Let's consider this for a minute.
Firstly, the cost of motoring in the UK at the present time is at the lowest it has ever been at any time in history, so why complain?
Secondly, most of these so called "motoring taxes" are in the form of "duty". This is not a charge in exchange for a service, it is indirect taxation which is not in any way ringfenced. Duty is also paid on other items, such as alcohol, tobacco, import, and the paperwork for moving house (stamp duty), and yet it would be silly to suggest that, for example, alcohol duty should be ploughed back into the brewing industry.
Thirdly, what on earth would we do with £45bn a year on roads? Thankfully government now broadly recognises that it is impossible to build ones way out of road congestion, so we wouldn't be building more of them. Or would we? The RAC want to go back to a massive programme of road building. Thankfully this is now politically very unpopular.
I would, however advocate the prospect of spending a much greater proportion of the funding from this government cash cow on the UK's transport system as a whole. There is a difference.
The report then dusts off another of the RAC's favourites.
"Too much transport policy is a discussion about whether cars, trains or planes are 'good'. This results in irrational decisions. For example road travel constitutes over 90 per cent of all journeys, compared to less than 7 per cent for rail. Yet in 2006-07 the UK invested £5 billion in rail and only £4.8 billion in roads."
On its own of course this sounds like poor old Mr Motorist is being hard done by.
It's not that simple though, because these numbers do not say when and where these journeys are occurring.
For example, over 80% of people who enter central London do so by public transport. London, as a highly profitable global city, could not function without its mainline rail links and underground, even though neither of these generates a profit in itself. The same is true of other cities and urban areas across the country to some extent.
No amount of investment in roads will bend the laws of time and space to negate the physical impossibility of moving the huge numbers of people, that rail moves daily, in and out of major cities by car. There physically isn't space between buildings to accommodate the road lanes and junctions needed, even if the prospect was politically acceptable to those living in those areas.
It's complete folly in my opinion to bemoan spending however much on method A as opposed to method B on the basis of fairness if A works and B doesn't.
Having parroted the RAC's roads sales pitch for a while, the report then goes on to dismiss a future North-South high speed rail line as a "white elephant", and encourages investment in what it calls "value for money improvement" such as train lengthening. Take the short term view basically.
Given the fact that the trains on the West Coast Main Line, which would be relieved by the proposed "High Speed 2", are already being lengthened to 11 carriages and yet the line is still projected to be completely full within a decade, I cannot see how the high speed line would conceivably be anything like a "white elephant". Indeed, demand for services on High Speed 1, including the new "Javelin" commuter trains, has been well above projected levels. High speed rail is very popular with users and brings huge economic benefits with it.
I have mental images of George Stephenson being told, in the 1820s, not to bother with this "rail-way" scheme as it will clearly be a white elephant, and that the solution to the transport problems between Liverpool and Manchester lies with minor improvements to the turnpikes.
There is, however, one point that this obviously right wing think tank makes that I cannot help but agree with.
The UK currently spends £31bn a year on Social Services, £119bn on health, and a whopping £189bn on "Social Protection" - welfare basically. Transport spending is a mere £23bn a year.
Spending in some areas can provide massive boosts to the future economy of the country, such as capital investment in infrastructure, whilst spending in health and welfare does so far less. Yet, with spending cuts inevitable, where will the money be cut from? Pardon my cynicism but projects like Crossrail, the Nottingham tram extension, High Speed 2, etc are going to look like politically easy targets for cuts, much easier than, for example, trying to reduce the amount being handed out in benefits.
I will conclude with the statement the report opens with, which I agree with completely.
"Britain has an infrastructure shortfall and a cash shortage; the £23 billion transport budget is already being cut. This is despite the fact that infrastructure is one of the most productive parts of government expenditure and could help propel Britain out of the recession. A new policy is needed that frees up transport provision."
In my opinion government must appreciate the importance of transport and end its long history of being the Cinderella department that it is, because the transport problem in the UK is not going to go away, and in fact it is getting worse.
Thursday, 23 July 2009
Sparks!
Good news today, very good news!
I was amazed to discover this morning this article on the BBC website: £1bn plan to electrify rail line - a £1bn plan to electrify the main rail route between London and Swansea has been announced by the government.
This is the government giving the go-ahead to electrify the Great Western Main Line, which, significantly for me, runs through Didcot Parkway and branches off to Oxford. The new policy, which one could argue should have been pursued decades ago, makes even more sense nowadays for a whole host of reasons. Electric trains are faster, quieter, cleaner, cheaper to build and maintain, more efficient, and can carry more passengers. There's even a name for the surge in patronage due to the improved performance on lines that are electrified, it's often referred to as the "sparks effect".
It seems that government has finally, in the context of transport, grasped the meaning of the old schoolboy question: "Option A costs £10 to start and £2 a year, Option B costs £20 to start but £1 a year. What is the better choice over 30-40 years?" The answer is blindingly obvious but it requires one to look beyond a 5-year time horizon, which is difficult for many politicians.
Indeed it seems that Andrew Adonis, Secretary of State for transport, has written this article in the Times today. Most notably he says:
"The nation that pioneered the train has squandered the legacy of Brunel and Stephenson. It’s time to say ‘all change’"
This coming from someone in government is unheard of in the last few decades! In the past we have always had individuals who have taken no particular interest in making real improvements and who have moved on at the first opportunity. What a change!
"At present rail accounts for only 6.3 per cent of journeys, half the proportion of Switzerland and a fifth of that in Japan. There is no good reason why Britain should not aim for much higher proportions."
Were this from another man it would be reminiscent of John Prescott's announcement about reducing car traffic that never stood up to the test of reality. The difference with Adonis is that he's already supporting his rhetoric with action, as anyone who has been following the story of high speed rail development in the UK and the huge leaps and bounds it has made in the last year will know well.
I think transport, especially public transport, has long been a Cinderella department in government and to have someone who is a visionary and a genuine enthusiast running the DfT making the case for change and improvement rather than seeking excuses for inaction and parroting the party line is absolutely brilliant.
It almost gives me a reason to hope that the otherwise long overdue general election doesn't come too soon. I want Adonis's pet projects like this and high speed rail to gain so much momentum so that it becomes incredibly difficult for a future Conservative government to pull the plug, which they will undoubtedly want to do.
I was amazed to discover this morning this article on the BBC website: £1bn plan to electrify rail line - a £1bn plan to electrify the main rail route between London and Swansea has been announced by the government.
This is the government giving the go-ahead to electrify the Great Western Main Line, which, significantly for me, runs through Didcot Parkway and branches off to Oxford. The new policy, which one could argue should have been pursued decades ago, makes even more sense nowadays for a whole host of reasons. Electric trains are faster, quieter, cleaner, cheaper to build and maintain, more efficient, and can carry more passengers. There's even a name for the surge in patronage due to the improved performance on lines that are electrified, it's often referred to as the "sparks effect".
It seems that government has finally, in the context of transport, grasped the meaning of the old schoolboy question: "Option A costs £10 to start and £2 a year, Option B costs £20 to start but £1 a year. What is the better choice over 30-40 years?" The answer is blindingly obvious but it requires one to look beyond a 5-year time horizon, which is difficult for many politicians.
Indeed it seems that Andrew Adonis, Secretary of State for transport, has written this article in the Times today. Most notably he says:
"The nation that pioneered the train has squandered the legacy of Brunel and Stephenson. It’s time to say ‘all change’"
This coming from someone in government is unheard of in the last few decades! In the past we have always had individuals who have taken no particular interest in making real improvements and who have moved on at the first opportunity. What a change!
"At present rail accounts for only 6.3 per cent of journeys, half the proportion of Switzerland and a fifth of that in Japan. There is no good reason why Britain should not aim for much higher proportions."
Were this from another man it would be reminiscent of John Prescott's announcement about reducing car traffic that never stood up to the test of reality. The difference with Adonis is that he's already supporting his rhetoric with action, as anyone who has been following the story of high speed rail development in the UK and the huge leaps and bounds it has made in the last year will know well.
I think transport, especially public transport, has long been a Cinderella department in government and to have someone who is a visionary and a genuine enthusiast running the DfT making the case for change and improvement rather than seeking excuses for inaction and parroting the party line is absolutely brilliant.It almost gives me a reason to hope that the otherwise long overdue general election doesn't come too soon. I want Adonis's pet projects like this and high speed rail to gain so much momentum so that it becomes incredibly difficult for a future Conservative government to pull the plug, which they will undoubtedly want to do.
Friday, 17 July 2009
Shiny Happy People
Okay, time for quite a light post after the heavy blogging of our Scotland trip. This quiz has been doing the rounds on facebook, but hey it can't hurt to put iTunes on "My Top Rated" and fill it out for a little light relief this lunchtime.
RULES:
1. Put Your iTunes, windows media player etc on Shuffle
2. For each question, press the next button to get your answer.
3. You must write that song name down no matter how silly it sounds!
IF SOMEONE SAYS "IS THIS OKAY" YOU SAY?
Never to Know
WHAT WOULD BEST DESCRIBE YOUR PERSONALITY?
Runaway
WHAT DO YOU LIKE IN A GUY/GIRL?
Last Port of Call
HOW DO YOU FEEL TODAY?
Like the Rose
WHAT IS YOUR LIFE'S PURPOSE?
Silver Strand
WHAT IS YOUR MOTTO?
Fear of Flying
WHAT DO YOUR FRIENDS THINK OF YOU?
Go West
WHAT DO YOU THINK OF YOUR PARENTS?
Game of Love
WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT VERY OFTEN?
The Turning Tide
WHAT IS 2+2?
Why does it always rain on me?
WHAT DO YOU THINK OF YOUR BESTIE?
Ten Feet High
WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE PERSON YOU LIKE?
Who's to say
WHAT IS YOUR LIFE STORY?
Robin Hood Theme
WHAT DO YOU WANT TO BE WHEN YOU GROW UP?
All You Wanted
WHAT DO YOU THINK WHEN YOU SEE THE PERSON YOU LIKE?
Bid Og Ni Mhaille
WHAT DO YOUR PARENTS THINK OF YOU?
Traffic
WHAT WILL YOU DANCE TO AT YOUR WEDDING?
Dimming of the Day
WHAT WILL THEY PLAY AT YOUR FUNERAL?
Our Farewell
WHAT IS YOUR HOBBY/INTEREST?
Intimacy
WHAT IS YOUR BIGGEST FEAR?
Gunmetal Grey
WHAT IS YOUR BIGGEST SECRET?
The Riverboat Song
WHAT DO YOU THINK OF YOUR FRIENDS?
So Young
WHAT DID YOU LAST SING IN THE SHOWER?
Unforgivable Sinner
WHAT SONG DO YOU LIKE TO MAKE LOVE TO?
Song for Ireland
WHAT WILL YOU POST THIS AS?
Shiny Happy People
RULES:
1. Put Your iTunes, windows media player etc on Shuffle
2. For each question, press the next button to get your answer.
3. You must write that song name down no matter how silly it sounds!
IF SOMEONE SAYS "IS THIS OKAY" YOU SAY?
Never to Know
WHAT WOULD BEST DESCRIBE YOUR PERSONALITY?
Runaway
WHAT DO YOU LIKE IN A GUY/GIRL?
Last Port of Call
HOW DO YOU FEEL TODAY?
Like the Rose
WHAT IS YOUR LIFE'S PURPOSE?
Silver Strand
WHAT IS YOUR MOTTO?
Fear of Flying
WHAT DO YOUR FRIENDS THINK OF YOU?
Go West
WHAT DO YOU THINK OF YOUR PARENTS?
Game of Love
WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT VERY OFTEN?
The Turning Tide
WHAT IS 2+2?
Why does it always rain on me?
WHAT DO YOU THINK OF YOUR BESTIE?
Ten Feet High
WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE PERSON YOU LIKE?
Who's to say
WHAT IS YOUR LIFE STORY?
Robin Hood Theme
WHAT DO YOU WANT TO BE WHEN YOU GROW UP?
All You Wanted
WHAT DO YOU THINK WHEN YOU SEE THE PERSON YOU LIKE?
Bid Og Ni Mhaille
WHAT DO YOUR PARENTS THINK OF YOU?
Traffic
WHAT WILL YOU DANCE TO AT YOUR WEDDING?
Dimming of the Day
WHAT WILL THEY PLAY AT YOUR FUNERAL?
Our Farewell
WHAT IS YOUR HOBBY/INTEREST?
Intimacy
WHAT IS YOUR BIGGEST FEAR?
Gunmetal Grey
WHAT IS YOUR BIGGEST SECRET?
The Riverboat Song
WHAT DO YOU THINK OF YOUR FRIENDS?
So Young
WHAT DID YOU LAST SING IN THE SHOWER?
Unforgivable Sinner
WHAT SONG DO YOU LIKE TO MAKE LOVE TO?
Song for Ireland
WHAT WILL YOU POST THIS AS?
Shiny Happy People
Tuesday, 7 July 2009
Day 17 - ...and home!
Today was another day, a whole one this time, spent on the train. Leaving the hostel at the early hour of 7:30 we caught the 7:55 direct service to London Kings Cross; the only direct train of the day, with a scheduled journey time of about 8 hours.
As we headed south we were treated to more beautiful mountain scenery. Were we not travelling first class I could see being train-bound for so long becoming quite uncomfortable, but as it was the seats were large and comfortable, we were plied with tea and biscuits, and the time simply flew by as our train wound its way through the highlands. I was glued to the window enjoying the scenery all the way, enjoying the landscape that was much like that we'd cycled through, and yet very different in terms of the actual shape of the mountains and valleys.
Rosie preferred to read her book.
As we approached Gleneagles the occasional showers turned to thunderstorms, and in fact quite soon the train came to a halt. We crawled forward one signal at a time for about half an hour, which we discovered later was due to lightning hitting one of the signals in that area!
We arrived into Edinburgh about 30 minutes late, but we were quickly on our way again, heading south along the coast past Berwick and Lindisfarne. Rosie persuaded me to play scrabble with her, which was a mistake as I once again lost horribly. There must be something about that bit of line!
When we reached york we were once again delayed, this time by a fault with one of the train's power cars. To be honest the prospect of arriving into Kings Cross an hour late didn't bother us; we would have had three hours to kill in London anyway before we could get a train from Paddington. Besides, we were comfortable and an hour delay on an 8 hour train journey didn't seem like much.
Arriving at Kings Cross we decided to go and find some dinner at St Pancras International. We found a nice little itallian restaurant and had a pleasant meal watching the Eurostar trains come and go. This was followed by a slightly manic ride across London to reach Paddington to catch the last train of our long journey home.
Over twelve hours after setting off from Inverness we finally made it back to my flat. A very good holiday, but nice to be home!
Monday, 6 July 2009
Day 15 & 16 - Inverness
An early start to the first day of our journey home. We were booked on an early train and if we missed it our tickets, and most importantly our bike reservations, wouldn't be valid on later services. We packed our bags, had some jam on toast for breakfast at the backpackers' hostel we'd been staying at and made our way up the hill to Thurso railway station.
The train was on time, and we joined 40 or so other passengers who were also joining the train here. We felt sorry for a couple of Australian cycle tourists who'd also stayed overnight at the hostel; they weren't allowed to board the train with their bikes because they didn't have a reservation.
The train for our ride to Fort William was equiped with 6 bicycle spaces and the guard ended up allowing 10 bicycles on the train in total. In spite of being at the end of the End2End cycle route the trains to Thurso only have space for 2 bikes, which I think is a bit crazy. I had to go to a lot of trouble to get our reservations, but they were certainly worth it!
The ride to Inverness took just under 4 hours. I thought "The far North line" as it is known - a name that could have been chosen by Philip Pullman - was less spectacular than the west highland line, but the scenery was still beautiful. Conditions started out a bit misty and gloomy, but brightened up later.
On arrival at Inverness at about lunchtime we dumped our stuff at the SYHA hostel and proceeded to kill the day and a half we had spare before our train home.
We had a KFC for lunch and then decided to go and watch a film. Inverness has no cinema in the city centre, so we spent a while trying to understand the incomprehensible bus timetables so we could reach the retail park on the far outskirts of the city - about two miles away. We saw "Night at the Museum 2", which was good fun, then went back to the city centre for dinner.
The following day dragged on a bit. We'd already sampled the delights of Inverness in an afternoon, but yet we still needed to find more to do. Bus and boat tours of Loch Ness were appealing but also expensive and frankly we were still too tired to be bothered with travelling to where they departed from. The Inverness museum was closed because it was Sunday, which we all know is the most unlikely day of the week for tourists to want to visit it... not.
In the end we wandered around all the shops and sat around in a pub for a lot of the afternoon. On any other holiday one would ask what would the point have been, but we didn't feel too bad given our need to recover from all that cycling.
An early start and a long train journey home tomorrow.
The train was on time, and we joined 40 or so other passengers who were also joining the train here. We felt sorry for a couple of Australian cycle tourists who'd also stayed overnight at the hostel; they weren't allowed to board the train with their bikes because they didn't have a reservation.
The train for our ride to Fort William was equiped with 6 bicycle spaces and the guard ended up allowing 10 bicycles on the train in total. In spite of being at the end of the End2End cycle route the trains to Thurso only have space for 2 bikes, which I think is a bit crazy. I had to go to a lot of trouble to get our reservations, but they were certainly worth it!
The ride to Inverness took just under 4 hours. I thought "The far North line" as it is known - a name that could have been chosen by Philip Pullman - was less spectacular than the west highland line, but the scenery was still beautiful. Conditions started out a bit misty and gloomy, but brightened up later.
On arrival at Inverness at about lunchtime we dumped our stuff at the SYHA hostel and proceeded to kill the day and a half we had spare before our train home.
We had a KFC for lunch and then decided to go and watch a film. Inverness has no cinema in the city centre, so we spent a while trying to understand the incomprehensible bus timetables so we could reach the retail park on the far outskirts of the city - about two miles away. We saw "Night at the Museum 2", which was good fun, then went back to the city centre for dinner.
The following day dragged on a bit. We'd already sampled the delights of Inverness in an afternoon, but yet we still needed to find more to do. Bus and boat tours of Loch Ness were appealing but also expensive and frankly we were still too tired to be bothered with travelling to where they departed from. The Inverness museum was closed because it was Sunday, which we all know is the most unlikely day of the week for tourists to want to visit it... not.
In the end we wandered around all the shops and sat around in a pub for a lot of the afternoon. On any other holiday one would ask what would the point have been, but we didn't feel too bad given our need to recover from all that cycling.
An early start and a long train journey home tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)