[Albion] Less trains to/from Falmer

[Gazwag]

Going to be a warm day, suddenly the drivers who can drive 8 car trains will be down the beach with just the 4 car driver available.

 

[Invicta]

Indeed

Agree

 

[Cotton Socks]

I might be wrong here but i rarely am. There seems to be a norm of less trains to and from Falmer on match days. Add to that short carriages and use fans are treated more like sardine fish.

For example tomorrow for Weedy United Brighton to Falmer 1311 then 1331 then 1341 then 1401
Wasnt there a 1331 and 1351 in past? Any train spotters on here?

Getting away Falmer to Brighton 1709 then 1722 then 1741. Have we lost a service inbetween 1709 and 1722 also 1722 and 1741? Anyone getting connecting trains it compounds.

As the club snookered fans playing at the stadium with poor rail service do they have a moral obligation to improve this shoddy rail service? Or maybe they already are? Theres naff all at the ground to keep fans there to stagger an exit so the rail cram sardines in a tin goes on.

Have you thought about volunteering for the Bluebell Railway? You seem to have a slight obsession with the trains so perhaps u can redirect it in a productive manner? No one has a moral obligation to do anything about the trains, although I completely agree that the service is shoddy! If it annoys you so much, along with everything else about your 'matchday experience' don't f**ing go! Although I strongly suspect that you've never been anyway!!

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

This thread is going well

 

[faoileán]

I might be wrong here but i rarely am. There seems to be a norm of less trains to and from Falmer on match days. Add to that short carriages and use fans are treated more like sardine fish.

For example tomorrow for Weedy United Brighton to Falmer 1311 then 1331 then 1341 then 1401
Wasnt there a 1331 and 1351 in past? Any train spotters on here?

Getting away Falmer to Brighton 1709 then 1722 then 1741. Have we lost a service inbetween 1709 and 1722 also 1722 and 1741? Anyone getting connecting trains it compounds.

As the club snookered fans playing at the stadium with poor rail service do they have a moral obligation to improve this shoddy rail service? Or maybe they already are? Theres naff all at the ground to keep fans there to stagger an exit so the rail cram sardines in a tin goes on.

Pure White? More like pure sh*te...

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

I might be wrong here but i rarely am. There seems to be a norm of less trains to and from Falmer on match days. Add to that short carriages and use fans are treated more like sardine fish.

For example tomorrow for Weedy United Brighton to Falmer 1311 then 1331 then 1341 then 1401
Wasnt there a 1331 and 1351 in past? Any train spotters on here?

Getting away Falmer to Brighton 1709 then 1722 then 1741. Have we lost a service inbetween 1709 and 1722 also 1722 and 1741? Anyone getting connecting trains it compounds.

As the club snookered fans playing at the stadium with poor rail service do they have a moral obligation to improve this shoddy rail service? Or maybe they already are? Theres naff all at the ground to keep fans there to stagger an exit so the rail cram sardines in a tin goes on.

The matchday service has been loaded now. Trains every 10 minutes more or less, both before and after the match

 

[The Optimist]

Fewer

Well, taken from Wikipedia:

Fewer versus less is the debate revolving around grammatically using the use words fewer and less correctly. According to some modern proponents of prescriptive grammar, fewer should be used (instead of less) with nouns for countable objects and concepts (discretely quantifiable nouns, or count nouns).[1] According to this rule, less should be used only with a grammatically singular noun (including mass nouns). However, many other grammarians point out that this rule does not correctly describe the most common usage of today or the past, and in fact arose as an incorrect generalization of a personal preference expressed by a grammarian in 1770.

 

[Titanic]

Well, taken from Wikipedia:

Fewer versus less is the debate revolving around grammatically using the use words fewer and less correctly. According to some modern proponents of prescriptive grammar, fewer should be used (instead of less) with nouns for countable objects and concepts (discretely quantifiable nouns, or count nouns).[1] According to this rule, less should be used only with a grammatically singular noun (including mass nouns). However, many other grammarians point out that this rule does not correctly describe the most common usage of today or the past, and in fact arose as an incorrect generalization of a personal preference expressed by a grammarian in 1770.

Interesting, thank you. I have always been a bit 'hot' on this one. In future I may be fewer so.

 

[BrightonCottager]

I'm walking to Lewes this afternoon and getting the train back so thanks for this.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

The matchday service has been loaded now. Trains every 10 minutes more or less, both before and after the match

View attachment 151216

View attachment 151217

You have not only praised the travel arrangements but you have done so using a massive cellphone-unfriendly attachment. I utterly salute you

 

[beorhthelm]

Well, taken from Wikipedia:

Fewer versus less is the debate revolving around grammatically using the use words fewer and less correctly. According to some modern proponents of prescriptive grammar, fewer should be used (instead of less) with nouns for countable objects and concepts (discretely quantifiable nouns, or count nouns).[1] According to this rule, less should be used only with a grammatically singular noun (including mass nouns). However, many other grammarians point out that this rule does not correctly describe the most common usage of today or the past, and in fact arose as an incorrect generalization of a personal preference expressed by a grammarian in 1770.

its funny, we have so many arbitrary rules and irregularities in our language, some get picked up on so vigorously while others let go.

 

[BN9 BHA]

its funny, we have so many arbitrary rules and irregularities in our language, some get picked up on so vigorously while others let go.

It’s

 

[McTavish]

its funny, we have so many arbitrary rules and irregularities in our language, some get picked up on so vigorously while others let go.

I know that it is nonsense - if it were so important, why isn't there an alternative to 'more' - but I can't help myself saying 'fewer' in my head. At least I'm not actually saying it aloud any more...

 

[Bodian]

Interesting, thank you. I have always been a bit 'hot' on this one. In future I may be fewer so.

its funny, we have so many arbitrary rules and irregularities in our language, some get picked up on so vigorously while others let go.

I know that it is nonsense - if it were so important, why isn't there an alternative to 'more' - but I can't help myself saying 'fewer' in my head. At least I'm not actually saying it aloud any more...

It is fascinating - which is why the English language is so great. But to my mind it isn't a grammatical thing, but what the actual words mean - as emphasised by [MENTION=36]Titanic[/MENTION] really. Less means 'not as much', whereas fewer means 'not as many'. Distinctly different things to my mind.

 

[SeagullsoverLondon]

It is fascinating - which is why the English language is so great. But to my mind it isn't a grammatical thing, but what the actual words mean - as emphasised by [MENTION=36]Titanic[/MENTION] really. Less means 'not as much', whereas fewer means 'not as many'. Distinctly different things to my mind.

It is great how a thread about whether there will be enough trains to Falmer has been "derailed" by a grammar issue. Hopefully once Liz has brought back the grammar schools, at least some of our children will know how to write properly again!

 

[jcdenton08]

Southern are shit and always have been. We all know it. It’s the same guys running the show since the bloody Connex days.

They are hampered by an underfunded Network Rail, but they are still shit in their own right. They constantly **** up even the most simple of tasks, whether it’s logistics, scheduling or staffing rotas.

Southern will never not be shit, so we must accept their abject incompetence and move on. They will never, ever improve.

 

[beorhthelm]

It is fascinating - which is why the English language is so great. But to my mind it isn't a grammatical thing, but what the actual words mean - as emphasised by [MENTION=36]Titanic[/MENTION] really. Less means 'not as much', whereas fewer means 'not as many'. Distinctly different things to my mind.

there is a difference between "less" and "fewer". in some cases it matters, in most conversation the difference is neglible, anyone will understand what is meant in context. many other words we infer meaning from the context, great example noted of "more" being used as opposite for both.

 

[McTavish]

It is fascinating - which is why the English language is so great. But to my mind it isn't a grammatical thing, but what the actual words mean - as emphasised by [MENTION=36]Titanic[/MENTION] really. Less means 'not as much', whereas fewer means 'not as many'. Distinctly different things to my mind.

They mean exactly the same thing when being used as adjectives, it's just that one is supposedly reserved for countable nouns and one for non-countable. Titanic's example uses fewer in place of the adverbial less which is why it seems (and is) grammatically incorrect.

You can always use less instead of fewer without altering the meaning or syntax of the sentence but not vice versa as less has many more uses than fewer (or should I say that fewer has fewer than less?)

 

[McTavish]

Hopefully once Liz has brought back the grammar schools, at least some of our children will know how to write properly again!

Or more non-Grammar school pupils will be tripped up by arbitrary and pointless grammatical conventions.