Talking on Trains
Created | Updated Jan 29, 2006
Talking on trains is a uniquely English problem. That is, we can't. We're hopeless at it. Even practically in the 21st Century, when we should be an open minded, free spirited, go ahead society, this curious, deathly silence between adjacent passengers on trains is maintained. Whereas alone, you spread out to cover as much of both seats as possible, with someone next to you you don't even use the centre armrest on the assumption that they might want to use it (it goes without saying that they are assuming the same thing with regards you). Just think of the number of famous couples / partnerships that wouldn't have happened had the people in question met on a train - John Cleese and Connie Boothe, Torvill and Dean, Paul and Linda McCartney, Pierre and Marie Curie. Though, of course, the last couple would avoid this problem by not being English. Which could provide a solution to our problem - if English trains were sent at random through the Channel Tunnel rather than to their correct destination then we could see how continental Europeans deal with train journeys and we could, as a society, be, well, more sociable.
Even better would be random trips to America. A case study could be the journey the taken by a young Englishman which provided the inspiration for this article. Sat next to him was, from what was assumed from her attire, luggage, unfamiliarity with London and journey time, a fellow student. Throughout the entire 170 mile journey not one word was passed between the two parties, despite them both catching the same three trains quite independently of each other, a coincidence which, had this young Englishman been American, would no doubt have been picked up on. By the journey's end both parties, had one or both been American, would know each other's name, home city, course, favourite colour, pet's tricks, musical skills, inside leg length and blood type.
To digress for a moment, mobile phones are a similar problem. While in most countries typically they are recognised for their invaluable addition to the social fabric, in England we are designing trains that have windows which bar phone signals. The purpose of this is unclear - is it to make journeys more boring by taking away all those half conversations we like listening to or is it a genuine attempt to get train users to talk to each other by taking away other distractions? If this is the case, it's failed. At least with a hum of phone conversations in the background, two or four strangers sitting together won't have the additional hurdle of a complete silence to overcome if they find something to talk about and what better to give you (or someone else, if they don't mind admitting to being a bit nosy) inspiration for a conversation with a stranger than a phone call you've just had with someone you know? No. The only way, it would appear, of getting the English to talk to strangers on trains is to remove all distractions ie. chairs, carpets, conductors, windows, buffet car and perhaps even the engine. Only then would the passengers talk to each other, comfortable in the knowledge that, if they did make a faux pas, they could be excused on the grounds that they were gallantly and happily battling against what could only be called 'a bad day' (which it would be if they were sitting on a train with no engine).
Is this too harsh on the English? Possibly, but not without good cause. It's an age-old argument which sadly still rings true and which can be proven - on a recent journey, the only conversation noted between the various strangers on the train occurred when the train had been waiting at a station for 15 minutes - it didn't have a driver. And for those of you who still don't realise the gravity of the situation, you should listen to Michael Bentine's sketch 'Conversation on a train' - it should provide a sobering insight to the calamitous pitfalls awaiting a society of rail bound silence.
a reference
