Derailed - An open article on the UK rail networks written by Thomas

You would think that the train companies would have learnt by now. 

Reinvest, reinvest, reinvest or better still communicate, communicate, communicate.
I only travel on a monthly season ticket, but I still pay £2,000 a year. Where does that money go? Certainly not on the signals, which have seen two faults in two working days. Or on train improvements, where faults develop at an alarming rate. Even better is the staffing - where trains are cancelled as they are waiting for a staff member. Probably the staff is late because of another delayed trains. 

It is a given nowadays that the train is delayed or cancelled. It is to be expected like the sun is expected to rise. There is probably more chance of the sun not rising, and the trains being delayed. "We regret to inform you that this train will terminate at nowhere because there is no sun."

What do the commuters get for this? A measly lump sum of, in my case, £2.40. Hey big spender. £2.40, that barely gets me to end of the platform with the ticket costs these days. Sorry for making you late to work, again, maybe you can buy a chocolate bar with this because it certainly won't help against the costs of our astronomical ticket fares. 

Only last week, I had the amusing journey of going from my home station, via 2 different coaches and then a train to get to my destination. And this is deemed an acceptable detour. Of course it is, from my measly £160 a month, they only have to give me £2.40 back. They are laughing all the way to their profit margins and not doing much about it. Meanwhile I am left red faced, explaining to my bosses why I am late again. There seems to be zero accountability.

The whole system lacks something, and that something is common sense. The 17.14 from Birmingham to London Euston is a four car service. The 17.33 from Birmingham to London Euston is a four car service. Rush hour trains, with no room to do anything. Of course I got the penultimate train the other week around 11pm, an eight car train just for me. I felt like royalty, I was the king of the train.


I was recently stuck at my station for about 30 minutes, train arrives, gets two stops up the line and then we are informed the train will be terminating at Birmingham International, this was because of a loss of power and a broken down train. Of course the other reason for the delay? The train is so far behind its schedule they have chose to terminate it. That speaks volumes for the service we are provided with. As is to be expected these days, there was no other information available, a conductor walking the train advising people? nope. Just the typical announcement "sorry for any inconvenience caused" that's great, but what are we supposed to do now? This was summed up by a conversation I overheard between some staff members at the platform, they had no idea what was going on. The lack of communication is staggering.

Of course, of all of this is in the hope they can say 'we are brilliant' continue to give us the franchise, and in fact most still do. My franchise is running at 86% satisfaction, I suspect they didn't ask the recent commuters on my train to take part in that survey. Oh the sweet and delicious irony, when network rail tweeted about Birmingham New Street being voted the best station, only for 12 hours later the reality is far from the truth for us, the fed up commuters. Maybe an award for most point’s failures, it is worse than Aston Villa at the moment. Of course, for some reason, the franchise has been extended for a few years because they have promised to improve the lines and services. Sitting where we are, normally outside a station awaiting a platform to be available, these seem like empty promises. Also it feels a bit like, they keep getting wrong but come on, have another go, you'll get it right eventually. These commitments feel as empty as when they say "yep the delay repay is in the post" yet nothing arrives, which actually sounds like the majority of trains.

Just once, wouldn't it be great if, instead of London Midland apologising or retweeting a thanks from a customer for a member of staff doing their job, they say "sorry, a three hour detour isn't acceptable, please accept better compensation than the £2.40 we give you" it seems to be blame and blame alike, sorry doesn't update the app, or explain why it says everything is great in the world of the trains and yet when you arrive at the station it has been closed.


Behind the scenes it seems no better, every delay repay is a new claim apparently. I was therefore extremely surprised to get an apology for sending my claims to my old address. It has not been used in a while, but we will send everything there. Of course given we have to fill out a form every single time, and that information won't really change I can't help but feel that getting someone's address wrong is a bit of lame excuse.

What all commuters want is the information in black and white, with realistic estimations on when services will be up and running. Because, that is what we pay for, a service. Frankly it is nowhere near a good service at the moment. We pay for a service, and when that services doesn't work, we are left picking the pieces. Heaven forbid they pay out for things such as additional parking, petrol to enable us to get to another station or even a day's wages. It is a bit like an oppressive regime. They take all the pounds and give back pennies. Marx would not be impressed. 

Train franchises have been in place since 1993, which is 23 years. Still, they can't get it right. The worst thing is they all blame each other. "Well it is not our fault, we just take your money. Network rail should be fixing that" If I adopted a child and that child was misbehaving, does that mean I can simply pass the buck "sorry for that kid kicking you, I adopted it so it is not my problem" I suspect that attitude won't get me very far. Yet, this seems to be the acceptable attitude in place with my train franchise.

Maybe it is time to have one franchise to solely run the rail system. At least then the communication should be loud and clear. An obvious benefit to this the ability to organise the trains, so they leave on time and arrive on time. If I had a £1 for every time I was sat waiting for a platform to be free. If we are going to be stuck with having multiple franchises, then that franchise should only be allowed to run for a certain amount of time before it has to pass the torch to someone else. And delay repay should be rewritten. Why is a delay of 30minutes acceptable? The rest of the world must be laughing, and for one of the most developed countries in the world, it is downright shocking. It provides carte blanche to run a shoddy service, and provides no real effort to get better. "Hey, we have 30 minutes, these poor saps can wait" a kick up the proverbial, and taking delays down to 1 minute or longer, now that would be revolutionary. Viva la revolution. Core, they would get it so wrong at times, but the service should at least improve. It would have to.

They have narrowed down the future operator of the train line I use down to three. One of them is part owned by a Japanese company, they seem to know a bit about trains and moreover customer services. In Japan, if the train is late (which is probably only 1 or 2 minutes late), there is not only a sincere and personal apology from the train conductor, delay slips are provided by the train company so that workers needn't be embarrassed when having to tell their bosses they are late again. Because at the end of the day, being late is embarrassing and disrespectful in any circumstances - work or not. But alas, we will probably be stuck with 86% customer satisfaction, and these dreams will fade along with the dreams of the passengers. Stuck with the obvious realisation that nothing will change.


All aboard the ostrich line. The constant apologies we get are muffled by layers of sand after burying their heads.

The worst of this, is the realisation that in the space of a few weeks, I have turned into my father. A grumpy man, and I have reached the end of the line.

Look Who's Back - Timur Vermes

The modern history's most taboo subject must be Hitler and the Nazis - it is no laughing matter.

But does that mean this book is not funny? Oh, it certainly is. I never laughed this much reading a book.

The most controversial debut novel written by a Jew originated author, Timur Vermes, is based in Berlin 2011.
The country is run by a woman (Merkel, of course) and full of immigrants. One morning, Hitler wakes up in the middle of the field - the last thing he remembers is talking to his wife Eva at home (supposedly it is the moment Hitler committed suicide). He quickly become aware of it being 2011, and he is a little shaken, but then composes himself quickly - he does not do shaken, he is the Fuhrer, at the end of the day. After suffering from a slight dizziness, he "realises" that his awakening was his fate as the country and his "Volk" needed a leader like him back to straighten German politics.
Although no-one believes that he is the real Hitler, he becomes an media sensation as an avant-garde "Hitler impersonator/comedian" who is outrageous and not scared to speak out the most tabooed subject. Hitler's appearances in the media such as YouTube takes off in no time - the history repeats again, Hitler gains many followers. He is portrayed as a well-mannered, well-spoken and respectable as any leader should be. The young characters in the story takes him as a joke to start with, but they start to sympathise with him and his views.

The book is narrated by Hitler. The extraordinary thing about this book is that, as bizarre as it sounds, the it will enable you to peak into Hitler's thoughts and mindsets, you become Hitler.
There has been a great amount of research done, and the book is almost semi-educational in the sense that what Hitler talks about is of course based on what really happened during World War Two (and building up to the war).
Obviously I was reading the English translated version, but I think Jamie Bulloch did an extremely good job at translating it. Bulloch's "Translator's note" at the end of the book is also well worth a read. Jokes and wits can easily be lost in translation, but Bulloch's style made it totally believable the way Hitler would have spoken if he was English. Although sometimes the writing becomes too formal and boring in a way, but I suppose it is suited for the style of this book.

All in all, I can understand why there was a split opinion about this book, especially when it was published in Germany. I really enjoyed reading it - I read it in 3 or 4 sittings. Rather entertaining to read, and very funny in a slightly nihilistic sort of way... and you'd be glad that this is only a story.

The Little Prince - Antoine de Saint-Exupery

When I first encountered this book, I was about 10 or 11 and it was a Japanese translated version. I think I read it as a children's book - and it certainly is the size of a children's book, but it is definitely not just for children.

I had forgotten most of the story line until I started reading it again almost 2 decades later - apart from the charming drawing of the Little Prince, and a little more striking drawing of a "boa constrictor from outside/inside" which is basically a drawing of a whole elephant in a snake's stomach. They are very unforgettable illustrations. It is lovely that all the illustration are done by the author, and they seem to be kept in any editions or translated versions. Almost every time you turn the page, you are greeted by the little (sometimes a whole page size) drawings.

The story line is in the style of children's book narrated by a pilot whose plain had crushed in the Sahara Dessert (the author was a pioneering aviator as well as a writer and a poet, hence the connection). He comes across a golden haired prince one day, and they build up a friendship through the Little Prince talking about his home planet and his journey. The Little Prince lived on a tiny asteroid with one flower and three volcano and nothing else, but he decides to embark on a journey to visit other planets.

The Little Prince meets (very briefly) various characters on different asteroids before arriving on the Earth, and every one of those characters represent the adulthood we all dread; A king, a conceited man, a tippler, a businessman, a lamplighter and a geographer. The encounters between the Little Prince and the characters look to carry the message to remind you about the nature of humans and how we all grow up forgetting what is actually important.

When the Little Prince arrives on Earth, he meets a fox, and he gives the Little Prince the most important lesson in life.

The book is philosophical and thought provoking as well as being very charming, very French, I would say. I know this might not make much sense, but I associate French culture as rather philosophical, romantic, dreamlike and rather bizarre... like watching Amelie!

Very easy to read but it portraits the ideas of the beauty of simplicity in everyday things, and feelings we share as a human such as love, compassion, care, loneliness and sadness.

Here is one of my favourite quote by the Little Prince from the book...;
'If someone loves a flower, of which just one single blossom grows in all the millions and millions of stars, it is enough to make him happy just to look at the stars. He can say to himself "Somewhere, my flower is there..." But if the sheep eats the flower, in one moment all his stars will be darkened... And you think that is not important!'

There are more quotes I love, but some of them might be spoilers, so I shall let you read the story and find your own favourite quotes and passages.

I recommend reading this book at any age and at any situation, but if you are a grown up feeling a little tangled with life, this book will give you another perspective on life (In my case, I am in the middle of writing my thesis, and I should actually be doing that rather than reading a book and writing a review, but never mind!)

The Little Prince will leave you with a not-so-little impression, that is for sure.

On Writing - Stephen King reviewed by Thomas

The Kindle has been seen to revolutionise the publishing world, by allowing aspiring authors (hopefully myself included at some point) the opportunity to self publish their work, cutting out the middle man in the publishing industry. What this has seen is an influx of DIY books providing the magic formulas, and general bull that you can write a book in 48 hours and then retire. Of course that might be a slight exaggeration but I don't see it being too far from the truth. Now for certain items such as the formatting, a few helpful guidelines to get it right is fine. Especially if this is a dream, you don't want to be making silly errors in the formatting. However, I am a fan of the saying "stick to what you know" (maybe that's why there is a lack of writing on my behalf).

After it was recommended I decided to read 'On Writing' by Stephen King, a man well qualified in telling me the truths behind wanting to write more. No magic formulas, no guaranteed success plan to follow, just a blunt realisation of what the path to being a successful author entails.

The book contains a small C.V. to show a few aspects of his life which helped shape the man and author today. There is a lot to take away from the book, and it easy to follow and it contains small bite size chunks. A few of the pointers include "writing with the door closed" i.e. just blasting down what you want to say, not stopping to get side tracked or allowing pesky readers the chance to critique it before it is finished. Also of note is the formula 2nd draft = 1st draft - 10%. It is as simple as that. It covers areas such as vocabulary, grammar and story, right through to examples for editing and lists of books to read, which Stephen recommends. The grammar section is interesting, and an area where most people have forgotten the basics (guilty as charged) and the book makes you think more about what grammar to use and also highlights grammar to avoid.
Overall, it is a fascinating incite in to the mind of successful author with a few pointers to help you on the way. It is worth reading for general work purposes, if you are a Stephen King fan and of course aspiring authors.

Review on Dan Brown novels by Thomas

Ah, Dan Brown. I suspect that he will split people down the middle, you either like him, or you don't. There will be no middle ground. No thinking that books was good, that other one not so much

But I quite like him.

It is autumn, and I have four weeks off work on gardening leave. And in one of those weeks, I was able to get through the majority of Dan Brown's books. I read reasonably quickly, depending on the book. But I was able to get through a book a day. That in truth says a bit about the books. They follow a similar pattern and are easy going. Easy to follow and easy to read.

His books are also well researched. He has put some thought into them and what he is ultimately writing about. The mocked Da Vinci code (the film certainly) is a good example of this, and makes the story more rounded because of this.

The characters are not tricky to understand, they follow a uniform 1 boy and 1 girl and the rest falls in to place. The main focal point on the majority of the novels is Robert Langdon, the symbolical professor from Harvard with his Micky Mouse watch. A good character with a little bit of depth, but also a good upstanding and moral compass. Not necessarily relatable but a nice guy that you like.

In terms of the books, I really liked Deception Point. A non Langdon book, it contains a good sense of suspense with the Arctic setting and with the various twists is a good story. 

But if you only read one, make it Inferno. It seems to really empathise the underlying themes and also plot and characters. It also provides a cliffhanger ending. A what now? Which in my opinion proves very strong. It gets you thinking. Apparently there is film due out in late 2016. That will make interesting watching.

War and Peace - Leo Tolstoy reviewed by Thomas

Let us get really obvious out of the way first, War & Peace is epic. It is one of the longest novels ever written. You are looking at 587,000 words, give or take. It is not for the faint hearted.

Set to the backdrop of 19th century Russia (specifically Moscow, St.Petersberg and a couple of family estates inbetween) which is under the threat of attack from Napoleon, who wants to unite Europe. The story follows five families as their livesand stories intertwine. 

Of course certain family's are in the book slightly more than others, but that is down the role they play within the story. All have quirks and characteristics that keep you entertained. Personally I like Pierre Bezukhov, with wealth and women thrust upon him, watching his decent into madness is quite enjoyable.

Some of the passages were a bit heavy going, but given it is being translated from Russian and also it is reasonably old now, I think that is understandable. It has stood the test of time well, and is rightly refered to as the giant of Russian literature. Tolstoy draws upon his experiences from his past. The old addge of writing what you know about is highlighted here.

Therefore, revel in the charms of young Natasha Rostov, the horrors of war that Count Bezukhov encounters,the madness of Prince Bolkonsky and immerse yourself into the midst of battle with Napoleon. You won't be disappointed, and upon completion, it is a nice achievement to say you have finished it.

Batman vs Superman - The Dawn of Justice reviewed by Thomas

If there was ever going to be a film that split opinions, it was always going to be the epicly titled Batman vs Superman (BVS).  Arguably the most iconic characters from the realm of comic books, these are the heavyweights of the genre.  In my red & blue tinted glasses the film could never fail and it didn't.

Of course it was going to be doing things the hard way. Christian Bale's Batman was fresh from saving Gotham, and Man of Steel had that ending.  Whereas Marvel have spent years planning and integrating characters so that we are familiar with them, BVS did it with a few clicks, and I think it worked.  A few hints of excitement at the various logos for the other metahumans was all I needed.  It worked because instead of people sitting there watching two Thor films or two Captain America films, DC have teased them.  One question I heard being asked, who was the guy with half a body?!  People seem to be intrigued.  Outside of Batman and Superman, the remaining members of the Justice League might not be as well known.

Henry Cavill, he was very good in Immortals, and since those first musical blasts from the teaser trailer for Man of Steel I was sold on him being Superman.  Man of Steel didn't disappoint, and is a really good film.  Henry Cavill is built like Superman, he looks like Superman, he acts like Superman, he is Superman.  I hope they green light some more standalone films.  Ben Affleck, the surprise announcement as Batman, nailed it.  As the older, grumpier Batman, he was great.  He seems to have broken from his moral code, and accepts that he is as much of a criminal now as the criminals themselves.  Given the training montage, Batman goes old school with pull-ups and tire smashes, a subtle nod to his hard work yet slightly more rough and ready approach.  Jesse Eisenberg is an interesting take on Lex Luthor, and he pulls it off.  Literally mental, and scheming, we all know he is up to no good.  I will blame his youth on going about things in a roundabout way and causing a bit of confusion.  All in all he was a good vilian of the piece, and he will be a welcome addition int he coming films.  The rest of cast do their jobs well, and there isn't a bad turn amongst them.  The only criticism was the senator, Mrs Incredible, that was all I could think of and I struggled to take her seriously because of it. Sorry. Oh, and Lois Lane, of course she is important but he she feels like a loose wheel and just in the way all the time.

Wonder Woman is the other main character of note from the film, and plays an understated but important role.  Diana Prince oozes class and sophistication, but in her amazonian gear, I wouldn't be picking a fight with her.  The subtle grim on her face when Doomsday knocks her back, is a bit terrifying, and hints at a darker side to her, given she has avoided mankind for a while.  Her standalone film will prove very interesting, especially with the teaser picture that Lex had, it echos a bit of Captain America.

Hans Zimmer is a genius, lots of the score is based on Man of Steel, but that is fine with me.  What better way to stir the sense and rouse the interest than with some epic music.  Fair play for not using a mix of 'Supermans March' for the films, these newer films have their own identity, and their own questions.  The score fits them perfectly.  Wonder Woman gets her own theme, and it supported her well, a bit bad ass.

Kudos as well for picking one of the strongest foes in the Superman back catalog.  Doomsday is to Superman, what the Joker is to Batman (but given the story, maybe Bane).  Doomsday is a wrecking ball, and in the comics neigh on unstoppable to all but a few.  Using Batman as an example, he possesses nicknames such as "The Caped Crusader" and the "The Great Detective" Doomsday posses a title of sorts, and its a title not many bad guys ever come close to getting.  Marvel had six superheros fighting Loki on a scooter, and they also had nine superheroes fighting one robot, and his robot minions.  BVS pits only two of them against Doomsday (Batman was hiding under a rock at the time)  I am not sure why people are complaining of it being overly complicated and bringing in too many characters.  With Doomsday comes the story from the comics and they don't shirk it.  But here in lies the problem.  Superman.  Superman gets a raw deal in this film, and I understand what they were doing, but they missed the target.  One part of the film is significant, and those who have seen the Giant Iron might realise what it is, but I still felt more empathy for a metal robot than for Superman.

Because Superman gets a raw deal, the film does have number of "why did they do that?" moments, which is shame, because it was dark and gritty, and it went to a place where Marvel have yet to go.  It was refreshingly different.  People don't like different, hence the backlash to BVS and Man of Steel.

Overall it was great, even with a few question marks,  The Dawn of Justice has risen,and the 'seids' have been sown for what should be a rival the dominance of Marvel.

Stardust - Neil Gaiman reviewed by Ayane

Fairly tales are not usually what I go for when I am choosing a book to read or a film to watch. Unicorns, witches and sword fights are not really my cup of tea, so when Thomas suggested to watch the film "Stardust" at home on a DVD, I was skeptical about watching it. To be perfectly honest, I did not know anything about the film that came out in 2007. Furthermore I did not know that the film was based on the book of the same name "Stardust" by Neil Gaiman until Thomas bought me a copy as a present about 3 months ago.

I enjoyed the film, as it was more a love story than a fairy tale (what girl does not enjoy watching a bit of love story?) so I started reading the book pretty soon after Thomas gave me it, but I struggled. I struggled to get used to Gaiman's writing style in the first chapter. It could also be because it was long after I had watched the film, that I forgot how the story started in the film, and I could not picture what was going on. Anyway, I put the book away after about 10 short paragraphs, for a couple of months up until this weekend when I came back to it and decided that I wanted to tackle it again.

Once I restarted the book (Still with a slight struggle at the opening chapter), it was much easier for me to jump into the world of Faerie that Gaiman presented...
The story consists of three main interests, and they intertwine cleverly.
In the village of Wall in England, Tristan Thorn, much like his own father Dustan Thorn, embarks on a journey over to the other side of the Wall that separates the ordinary England and the extraordinary world of Faerie -  To, of course, gain his Hearts' Desire, Victoria Forester, by bringing back the fallen star. Tristan travels far into Faerie before finding the star, and finally when he finds it, much to his surprise, the star is in a human form named Yvaine. He temporarily "captures" the star by a binding chain, and starts travelling back to the village of Wall much against Yvaine's will.
It was, however, not only Tristan's interest to capture the fallen star. The Witch-queen and her two sisters also wanted the star, and more to point, the star's glowing heart to restore their youth. So the Witch-queen also sets off to seek the fallen star.
The third interest of the story is the Lordship of the Stormhold in the land of Faerie. Before the death of the Lord of Stormhold, he sets a task to his three remaining sons (out of seven, four have already been killed by their own siblings). He explains to them - to become the Lord of Stormhold, one must have the ownership of the topaz which is the Power of Stormhold which was worn by the Lord. Then, he throws the topaz out of the balcony, then he falls to his death. So the three sons sets off to find the topaz, although what they don't know is the topaz had hit the star and was the reason it fell from the sky - and in fact, Yvaine is in possession of the topaz since she fell...

It was interesting to compare the novel with the film (which I also re-watched over the weekend). Funnily, I thought the development of feelings and growth of the characters are portrayed much more in depth in the film, in comparison to Gaiman, who captures other senses such as colours, smells, and the touch more vividly and poetically in his book. This, I feel, is because Gaiman focused more on discovering and exploring the magical world of Faerie than the character emotions in the book. So in the sense, I enjoyed the descriptive side of Gaiman's writing more than the actual story line. When stripped down, the story line in the book is rather linear in the sense that everything happens one by one whereas the film made it more all rounded - then I suppose that is the beauty of any film. Obviously the film was based on the story line of the book, but the film maker did very well to convert Gaiman's tale to a more emotional, comical and  humane theatrical piece.
It is not to say the film version of Stardust was better than the book. They seem to hold a very different purpose. The book definitely evoked imagination as there are pages full of senses which we can relate to, but not at all ordinary. The film focused and expanded on the theme of love - although Gaiman's story was based on Tristan and his love, I did not think it was the main focus at all. The theme of love was much more intense at the start of the book than the end, whereas in the film, love is a almost constantly prominent throughout.

Stardust is a relatively short book, and there are more creatures, characters and events that happen when compared to the film. Maybe Gaiman could have focused more on each event so that we could emotionally engage with the characters as in places, the character interactions seemed a little shallow (especially the part where Tristan and Yvaine are on the Free Ship Perdita which in the film is called "Caspertine" (named after the film director's two sons) - although in the book Tristan describes the experience on the ship as one of his best in the whole journey, it was nowhere near as expanded as the film version. And I must admit I was a little disappointed as that was the best part of the film, and the captain in the film had much more significance in the film carrying a moral message and becoming the bond between the ordinary world and the Faerie. Maybe the film version tried to incorporate two of the book characters - the captain of the ship as well as the hairy gentleman, who did not make an appearance in the film)

The book is indeed magical. It will enable to travel you to the land of Faerie if you wanted to escape from the reality. Having said that, in Gaiman's world of Faerie, there are lots of things you can relate to. It is a classic fairy tale for the modern world.