A bit like buffet cars !
I would pay good money to travel in a replica tavern car either on a railtour, or on a heritage railway.

In Portsmouth, a common way of obtaining a drink in the afternoon was to travel to the Isle of Wight and back in order to enjoy the bar on the ferry.
In my youth the well informed drinker had to know the "permitted hours" in three different licensing districts. I lived in New Malden which was in Surrey and kept the usual hours for that county, however just up the Burlington road London began giving another 30 minutes each lunchtime, and on Monday to Thursday evenings.
It was just too far to walk in time, and waiting for a bus not worthwhile, but if a 131 bus could be seen approaching ?
Just across Kingston bridge, Middlesex began where Surrey hours applied in the winter and London hours in the summer.
If arriving at the then Railway tavern in new Malden high street a bit late for lunchtime closing, it was possible to take a train to either Raynes park (London) or to Hampton Wick (Middlesex)

O/T trivia, all day opening was introduced on August 22, to mark my birthday. It proved so successful that they carried on with it !

As a reasonable approximation, it may be stated that air travel and driving produce ROUGHLY the same carbon emissions per Km travelled.
No great accuracy can be claimed as cars and aircraft vary a lot in fuel consumption and in load factor, but as an approximation it is so.

Driving is more convenient without reliance on flights that may not be available when you wish to travel. Driving is door to door.

Air travel is arguably less reliable, with frequent disruptions due to weather and strikes. Air travel is most unlikely to be door to door, but requires other transport at each end, this might be an electric train, but a diesel taxi is more likely.

Air is safer, despite the odd multi death disaster.

An electric car is much greener than an airliner. Electric planes do exist but seem unlikely to become viable for most flights.

Rail is almost certainly greenest but tends to be expensive and can be unreliable. For longer domestic journeys a sleeper train is a green choice, use of same may save a night in an hotel, saving both the cost thereof and also the energy used by the hotel.

No encouragement needed ! FOUR types of port is rather splendid, and verging upon decadent. I have only 3 types* at home
Four types of port, and a buffet, and padded seats, and a through gangway, and 12 coaches might well finish of the poor old fart due to over excitement.

*Some well aged vintage port, very expensive and being saved for special events.
Tesco own brand, everyday port/cooking port.
Cockburns special reserve port, purchased a good supply when it was reduced in price.

I also have some home made "port" made by my Ukrainian neighbours, this is not actually fortified as is real port, but is fermented using a new type of yeast and reaches about 17% ABV. Extra sugar is added, but the amount is critical. Too little sugar results in a dry red wine that tastes nothing like port, too much sugar produces a sickly sweet drink that also tastes nothing like port.

Yes, and not just the power source.
Probably had padded seats, through gangway, a buffet, and other features that are considered unreasonable to provide on new trains.

Thanks for the info.

Does anyone know what electricity supply failed ?

Traction current ? sounds a bit unlikely as such supplies are generally duplicated, and I do not recall any widespread National Grid problems. And of course IETS could still run in diesel mode, and other diesel trains.

Local DNO^▸ (Distribution Network Operator) supplies to key stations ?. I would expect that most stations could still be used, at least in daylight.

Local DNO supplies to a signalling center perhaps.

These batteries are invariably imported from places of doubtful reputation. The makers will apply whatever approval marks or certificates that are required for the intended market. including CE marking, UL listed, or any other standard.

In theory, I agree, but probably impossible in practice.
My proposed simplified regulations would be easy for the police or other authority to enforce. But how is a police officer to determine the difference between a safe battery and a dangerous one ? or between a correctly charged battery and a dangerously overcharged one ?

IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion), the rules need simplifying and then enforcing. I am in principle in favour of lightweight and relatively cheap electrically powered or electrically assisted vehicles. The carbon emissions are minimal as is the wear on roads and the road space taken up.
 The foolhardy  way in which many such machines are operated is a serious cause for concern, as are the number of dangerously modified vehicles.

I would suggest the following.

Type 1, pedal powered with battery assistance, and a maximum speed under battery power of 15 MPH. Treat as pedal cycles with no requirement for a helmet, formal training, or insurance. Maximum weight 35 kilos. No age limit.

Type 2, battery powered, with or without pedal assistance, maximum speed 30 MPH. Treat as petrol mopeds, moped licence needed. Helmet required and also insurance. Maximum weight 100 kilos. Rider must be at least 14.

Type 3, no limit on speed or weight. Treat as any other motorcycle full motorcycle licence and insurance required and a helmet.

I am increasingly in favour of electrifying branch lines and secondary routes by use of simpler and cheaper technology than used at present.
750 volts DC^▸ (Direct Current) OHLE Perhaps. More like tramway overhead and therefore relatively cheap. The equipment used is less obtrusive and this would partially placate the nimbys. Also the relatively modest power demand would reduce the need for expensive grid extensions. DC traction has the merit of being a balanced three phase load, unlike AC which is single phase and therefore disturbing to the rest of the network.
And yes, short dead or neutral sections under bridges or in other problematic locations. The train would normally coast through through such short dead sections but a battery would obviously be required for any unscheduled stop in a dead section.
If one accepts a maximum demand of say 1000 amps at 750  volts, that is of course 750 kilowatts or about 1000 horsepower.
That should be ample for reasonable performance of a 4 car train.
A longer train could be run at reasonable performance by use of a battery to supply say 375 kilowatts in addition to the 750 kilowatts available from the OHLE. This extra power would only be needed briefly, to make a good quick start after a stop.
A 6 car train could then run without any increase in peak power demand over a 4 car unit.
If desired, electric heating and cooling could be automatically disabled when accelerating hard, thus further reducing peak  power demand.

And yes I am well aware that this is a very old thread, but the points raised are still relevant today, arguably more so.

I have only used a pedal powered rickshaw once, better than walking is all that can be said in favour.

Not in my view a valid comparison, IETs are for longer journeys than would reasonably by made by rikshaw.
IETs do indeed seem safe, but are not either comfortable or reliable.

An electric rickshaw has been totally destroyed by fire, outside Buckingham Palace. Probably a lithium battery that was "over cooked" though even the much safer lead acid batteries can produce enough current to ignite defective wiring.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68700768

I believe that branch lines could be electrified at much lower cost than at present. New conductor rail installations are de facto banned.
A cheaper possibility would be OHLE at 750 volts DC^▸ (Direct Current). Already used for trams so the equipment is at least somewhat standard.
DC electric trains are a mature and well understood technology, and the train need not "know" that the current is from an overhead wire and not a live rail.
The move away from all 25 KV AC would be regrettable, but arguably a price worth paying for cheaper, simpler, and less obtrusive electrification of branch lines. Performance would be limited to keep down the current and the related costs, but remember we are talking of branch lines, not intercity.
A class 159 has reasonable performance with a power of about 900 kw,  something similar but electrically powered is probably about the sensible limit with 750 volt DC overhead.