> Also, a nominal hour to cover 93 miles by rail, and just three trains a week, is just laughable. The service frequency is laughable but an hour to cover 93 m

> Also, a nominal hour to cover 93 miles by rail, and just three trains a week, is just laughable. The service frequency is laughable but an hour to cover 93 miles doesn't sound too bad. Plenty of intercity train services in the UK are slower than that. e.g. London Waterloo to Brockenhurst is 92 miles and takes about 1hr30 making three stops