On a recent late evening train back from Leeds to Sheffield I overheard (not remotely difficult due to the decibel level of their conversation) two "over-refreshed" young "ladies" (complete with stinking takeaway "food") bemoaning the fact that they were in arrears with their rent, council tax and electric and had no means of paying same ...
Maybe it would help if (in your constrained financial circumstances) if you didn't regard it as acceptable to get p*ssed in Leeds all afternoon and evening (and act like knobs on the train home) then.
This seems unnecessarily judgmental, like your previous comment. Eating food and having a loud conversation on an evening train is irritating, but is hardly crime of the century, and you certainly seem to have taken a very keen interest in what they were saying.
Perhaps you should simply move seats or avoid public transport during the evening if people being a little merry bothers you to this level.
JL is a reasonable comparison to my non-London rail use. If they weren't there I would buy the stuff elsewhere or not at all. It isn't essential
It is essential for some people. Just because you drive everywhere and rarely visit London doesn’t mean everyone is the same.
Significant parts of the current railway have economic benefits worth subsidy. A fair amount around the edges gets subsidy for political reasons rather than economics.
But that doesn't mean any particular project for increasing rail services is worthy of subsidy
The railway as a whole is having subsidy frozen (ie reduced in real terms) for political reasons rather than economic, despite said subsidy already being low in international terms. Perhaps stop to consider that, unless you’re an older, wealthy property owner, or a very high earner, it is unlikely you will see any benefit from the current government’s approach to either politics or economics.
Intercity rail travel doesn't all need subsidy.
In which case subsidy will be reduced accordingly, and eventually premiums paid. It doesn’t follow that what subsidy there is should be withdrawn and spent on coaches, as you suggested previously.
It’s interesting (and revealing) that you refuse to accept figures showing the benefits of rail subsidy yet confidently assert, seemingly based on no evidence whatsoever, that rail subsidy would be better spent on bus and coach travel.