Barbarian at the gate.

It would be foolish to start out with any optimism that a new government (or opposition for that matter) policy announcement would be especially sensible. However, the latest efforts regarding tuition fees have managed to fall below already low expectations. Specifically, the idea that universities might be forced to charge lower tuition fees for courses with lower earnings potential is absolutely barking, for the simple reason that making them cheaper will have the effect of making them more attractive. It’s a basic rule that if you want to discourage undesirable behaviour you have to make it more expensive. That’s far more effective, incidentally, than trying to subsidise the behaviour you wish to encourage.

The other big (geddit?) news is that we Britons are eating 50% more calories than we say we are. Apparently 34% of respondents to the National Diet and Nutrition Survey claimed to be eating so little that they wouldn’t survive. In one sense this might surprise nobody much but in another it matters: the idea that we consume fewer calories now than in the 1970s but are far more overweight has been used to support the argument that the problem is lack of activity, not food intake. This in turn has been used to support food industry propaganda that what we eat doesn’t matter; we simply need to move more. The one thing the industry really doesn’t want people hearing is that they should eat not only less, but also better.

For the first time this morning I made my bike commute to Cambridge North station rather than the main one. I needn’t have wasted my time, although I could have saved time by checking things carefully in advance. I made the crass error of assuming that those responsible for running the railway network and trains would have done their best to make the most out of an expensive new investment. Silly me.

Given the time I’d set the alarm for I would, using the route to the central station, have left the house at about 7:20. After a 2.4 mile journey and having parked my bike it would then be about 7:35 as I entered the station, giving me a choice of the 7:45 to King’s Cross or the 7:47 to Liverpool Street depending on inclination.

One thing I did know was that the rear four carriages of the 7:47 would have stopped at Cambridge North on their way to Cambridge. I also knew that the journey time between the two stations was six minutes. So I left the house on my bike at 7:20 as usual and it was about 7:30 by the time I’d parked it at Cambridge North after a journey of 1.8 miles.

Unfortunately, it turned out that the four carriages that would join the 7:47 to Liverpool Street had departed at 7:28. Ironically this was the only departure on the board that appeared to have left on time. The next train would not get me to Cambridge quickly enough to make the connection even if it had left at the scheduled time, which it did not. I ended up getting what was supposed to be the following departure, although it arrived first because of the delay to the previous one. At least I was then able to catch the 8:15 to King’s Cross.

Take a moment to consider: it makes more sense for me to take the longer journey to the main station, despite the traffic, leaving the house at the same time, because that gets me to work half an hour earlier. In case you are wondering this would also be true if I travelled by car.

With the railways it is not always possible to be certain who is to blame, although since both Cambridge North and Cambridge stations are operated by Greater Anglia it’s reasonable for suspicion to be directed firstly at them. Mind you, you can never be sure what Network Rail is up to.

Now, there are people travelling in from the north of Cambridge who might be tempted to give Cambridge North a go, despite these hassles, if the car parking at the station was cheap. I seem to remember noticing that it was free when the station first opened, although I could be mistake in that. What is currently the case is that a day’s parking costs £5 and this is a special introductory rate, due to go up to £8 soon. It currently costs £10 to park at the central station and I doubt that many people are going to put up with the other inconveniences for the sake of £2.

This is perhaps the greatest missed opportunity, since anyone who has driven through Cambridge knows how congested it is. Even a half-sane transport policy would try to do all it can to encourage people to avoid the city where possible. Bluntly, this would mean making the car parking at Cambridge North free. With the current pricing policy the park is mostly acres of empty space, hardly surprising since there is plenty of free parking nearby for those willing to take a short stroll.

I should point out that I am not a nostalgic for the days of British Rail. The service back then was unreliable and the trains scruffy if not downright dirty. It wasn’t significantly cheaper than it is now, in real terms, and currently  the network carries many more passengers. I remember the BR era and doubt very much that a new station would have got built at all given the financial shambles the network was in at the time. It seems that modernisation has allowed the operators of trains and network to come up with sensible innovations. Unfortunately they seem intent on making a right hash of them.

This morning I have been ruminating on the theme of sloth. This was triggered by observing the familiar habits of my fellow train passengers when boarding the King’s Cross service. It’s a twelve car service so by the standards of these things there’s quite a lot of room on it. However, there is a lemming* like tendency for everybody to try to get in the carriage nearest the entrance, rather than walking along the train. As a result that carriage is full to bursting and the passengers either have to stand or, in the case of the smarter ones, get out and walk further along to discover the (temporary) abundance of empty seats.

The odd thing about this behaviour is that they’re going to have to walk that distance to get out at King’s Cross anyway, so it’s not as if they’re saving themselves anything by getting in the first carriages of the train. Hence they’re not simply being lazy (or conserving energy if we wish to be kind), they are also being irrational in terms of effort when balanced against convenience.

Having turned this over in my mind, my thoughts drifted to the film The Seven Deadly Sins, the 1971 version that consists of sketches written by, and in some cases starring, British comedy figures. The section on sloth is written by Spike Milligan and in the part in which he appears he is crossing a field when he comes across a big tree in his path. Rather than walk round it he chops it down, expending enormous effort in the process. The interesting thing about this is that it portrays sloth as something very specific: avoiding making an effort in such a way as to make something harder or less convenient, as in the case of my train passengers.

But then I started musing as to whether this was the usual meaning of the word sloth. My Shorter Oxford defines it only as sluggishness or laziness. Incidentally the word derives from the adjective “slow”. To me that is interesting, since it is perfectly fair to refer to sloths as slow, whereas calling them lazy is libellous. They’re just sloths.

I digress. It strikes me that we need a word for the behaviour displayed by train passengers and Spike Milligan in the sketch. Shit for brains is accurate but not specific enough. Any suggestions?

For what it’s worth I prefer the portrayal of the seven deadly sins in the Peter Cook and Dudley Moore film Bedazzled:

Link (roll over me to see where I go)

*Unfair to lemmings, I know.