I read this article, and whilst the guy doubtless had a crap journey, we have just another textbook hysterical railway rant by somebody who would have gained far more credibility if only he could have been bothered to consult somebody with some knowledge before submitting his 'work'. Hence, the valid point he may have is lost in the nonsensical ramblings he has spouted in order to bulk out the piece.
He does the usual 'dangerously overcrowded' dance all the way through, but then also criticises the Guard for not coming through the train, before observing that he 'probably would have been lynched 100 times if he had'. Was the train packed solid or wasn't it? If it was, was it really likely that the Guard was going to crowd surf his way through eight carriages of standing passengers? And, if the mood was as described, would it have been a productive thing to have done even if he could have made it through? No, it wouldn't. We then sink to third rate 'journalism' by name calling; the Guard is described as both 'hapless' and 'gormless', without any further comment to justify or qualify either of those rather unpleasnt remarks.
We have the suggestion that there should be a 'cut off point' for train loadings, unsurprisingly without any suggestions of how such a system would actually work. Load passengers one at a time and count them on perhaps? We have the usual crying babies, pregnant women and of course elderly people - many of whom survived a world war but, according to low rent hacks, are left on the brink of death by any sort of delayed train journey.
All in all, just a crap page filler from a ranting passenger who happens to have a job as a small time journo. The sort of thing that anybody who has any railway knowledge or just plain old common sense will read, tut at, and then forget.
taff ratio is about 33:1
I don't know how you typed that with a straight face 