6 ms·

> The UK has possibly the most overpriced railway in the world The UK railway is still subsidised by the tax payer -- while some routes like Manchester-London

> The UK has possibly the most overpriced railway in the world The UK railway is still subsidised by the tax payer -- while some routes like Manchester-London make a profit, this profit is reinvested into loss making routes like the Welsh Valleys which help keep communities alive (the operating companies take about 3%, so a £100 ticket without a private company taking money would at cheapest be £97) There is plenty of competition on the Glasgow-London route, including two Coach companies, Plane - multiple companies and routes, driving, two direct train companies (albeit with similar branding) and a third overnight. The $240 peak time one way fare comes out at 58 cents per mile. It's valid on any train, just walk up and go. For almost all trains it's actually $183 return, or 22 cents per mile - valid on any train other than the first arrival into London in the morning and the first couple out of London in the morning. A train from Washington to New York will set you back $1.14 per mile, with less flexibility.

briandear 9y ago
I could fly Glasgow-London for far cheaper than the train ticket. Yet an airplane is far more expensive to operate. I wonder why that is.
- pjc50 9y ago
  No, the railway "permanent way" is far more expensive to operate. That's the problem. The UK railway network has rather a lot of 100+ year old bridges in it, along with some less ancient but still pretty old signalling equipment. (extremely high detail PDF on costs: http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/4933/toc-benchmarking-report-2012.pdf http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/4933/toc-bench...)
- frereubu 9y ago
  That (plane operating costs > rail operating costs) may not be the case when you take into account the cost of maintaining the physical infrastructure (hundreds of miles of railroad) compared to that of airports (a few hundred metres of tarmac).
  - fastball 9y ago
    Not to mention that there are only two stopping points (London / Glasgow airports) where as a train needs to stations all over the place.
- Maarten88 9y ago
  The airplane gets tax-free fuel to burn and doesn’t have to pay for environmental damage it creates.
- sitepodmatt 9y ago
  True. But if Heathrow you'll pay 20gbp (or is it 25gbp now?) on Heathrow Express to get from central London to the airport unless you take the slow tube.
  - MaxBarraclough 9y ago
    > unless you take the slow tube. That's competition, no?
  - 24gttghh 9y ago
    Is the slow tube the one that takes an hour?
  - isostatic 9y ago
    From Heathrow the options are Heathrow Express - Heathrow Connect - Bus to Hayes+Harlington then train - Picadilly line - Coach - Uber - Taxi Only one of those options is for mugs, and it's not the Heathrow Express. However from Glasgow you can also fly to Gatwick, or City if you want to avoid thiefrow. However comparing the cost of a non-flexible ticket from Glasgow to London with a flexible train ticket is ingenuous at best.
sitepodmatt 9y ago
Im not sure I understand your 3% point, are you saying Virgin pay more into Network Rail on the WCL and this wouldnt happen if government owned/controlled? Interestingly, I can take a 3.5-4hr train from Penang to Kuala Lumpur for $12, made by Siemens I believe, traveling faster than the Pendolino/Voyagers, and with a similar level of comfort (I do think the seats are bit narrower though), so in comparison I consider the UK crazy priced unless you get some off-peak deal (still not great). I suspect if still subsidized then it's probably very inefficient, I dont know but I certainly dont feel good paying the train ticket prices in the UK even the off-peak saver.
- arethuza 9y ago
  I pay £11 per day for my 35 min commute into central Edinburgh (I work from home a lot so season tickets don't make much sense) and given that parking in Edinburgh would be £25 a day £11 a day looks like a bargain given that the station I commute from in Fife is 10 mins drive away from where I live and has free parking always available.
  - sitepodmatt 9y ago
    That doesn't sound too bad, but I don't think that's representational of most routes and hence most travelers, in that if you stand outside Euston, Glasgow or Edinburgh before 8.30am and ask people what they paid to get to work and if they considered it value for money you would likely get a lot of expletives
    - arethuza 9y ago
      I suspect I would be much less happy with the service if it wasn't for the fact that I am far enough out from Edinburgh so that the train is relatively empty so I can pretty much always get a seat (and a window seat on the side with the best views). Two stops in from where I get on the train fills up dramatically and there are often people standing.
    - isostatic 9y ago
      However they don't take commuter bus services, or drive, or ride a bike, or move closer to the office, or change job location, or change job times. The media has driven this culture of people believing in 'rip off Britain'. If people were commuting 100 miles a day for the cost of a cup of coffee they'd still say it was a rip off (although oddly it would be the commute, not the £4 latte)
IshKebab 9y ago
> the operating companies take about 3% I've heard this before but I'm not sure I believe it. They have a pretty huge incentive to make it seem like they aren't making a lot of profit, and it is easy for them to do so (just like Hollywood accounting).
- isostatic 9y ago
  Well if you believe that Labour, Coalition and Tory governments have all conspired with all the train companies to somehow hide profits from the public and from their shareholders, that's not really something I can argue with.
vonmoltke 9y ago
> A train from Washington to New York will set you back $1.14 per mile, with less flexibility. The trip is approximately 226 miles. With sufficient advance purchase, the Northeast Regional coach fare is $49 each way and the Acela is $168 each way. I have never seen an NER fare greater than $200 each way. How did you arrive at $1.14 per mile at all, let alone thinking it's typical?
- saalweachter 9y ago
  I was about to chime in similarly; a ten-ride ticket for NYP->POU is $0.38 per mile and you can take any train without reservations; an off-peak MTA ticket for the same leg costs $0.21 per mile. $1.14 per mile sounds high.
  - isostatic 9y ago
    Those prices are a bit high for typical UK season tickets. 85 miles Poughkeepsie to NY 90 minutes, similar distance + time and number of trains per day to Salisbury to London (88 miles). A weekly season there (so 10 trips) will set you back £131, or $175, 20c/mile, half the price of Poughkeepsie to New York.
    - saalweachter 9y ago
      $0.38 / mile is the long-distance rail (Amtrak); the commuter rail line is $0.20 / mile (off-peak 10-ride or 10 rides on a weekly pass anytime).
      - isostatic 9y ago
        "a ten-ride ticket for NYP->POU is $0.38 per mile" I'm only going on what you said. MTA.info says this ride is 247.50 for a 10 trip ticket, with a trip of 85 miles that would be 247.50 for 850 miles, or 30c/mile. From what I can see when doing a like-for-like comparison between the UK and the northeast US, the US is surprisingly pricier than the UK. Now to be fare the Salisbury weekly season is valid for 10 journeys (or even 40), but only over 7 days, where as the Poughkeepsie one is a carnet, you can do 3 days one week, 2 days the next, and that's better, but for the Monday-to-Friday person, I'd rather be paying the Salisbury-London fare than the Poughkeepsie-NYC fare. (I'd rather be going into NYC, just without the fare)

briandear 9y ago

I could fly Glasgow-London for far cheaper than the train ticket. Yet an airplane is far more expensive to operate. I wonder why that is.

pjc50 9y ago
No, the railway "permanent way" is far more expensive to operate. That's the problem. The UK railway network has rather a lot of 100+ year old bridges in it, along with some less ancient but still pretty old signalling equipment. (extremely high detail PDF on costs: http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/4933/toc-benchmarking-report-2012.pdf http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/4933/toc-bench...)
frereubu 9y ago
That (plane operating costs > rail operating costs) may not be the case when you take into account the cost of maintaining the physical infrastructure (hundreds of miles of railroad) compared to that of airports (a few hundred metres of tarmac).
- fastball 9y ago
  Not to mention that there are only two stopping points (London / Glasgow airports) where as a train needs to stations all over the place.
Maarten88 9y ago
The airplane gets tax-free fuel to burn and doesn’t have to pay for environmental damage it creates.
sitepodmatt 9y ago
True. But if Heathrow you'll pay 20gbp (or is it 25gbp now?) on Heathrow Express to get from central London to the airport unless you take the slow tube.
- MaxBarraclough 9y ago
  > unless you take the slow tube. That's competition, no?
- 24gttghh 9y ago
  Is the slow tube the one that takes an hour?
- isostatic 9y ago
  From Heathrow the options are Heathrow Express - Heathrow Connect - Bus to Hayes+Harlington then train - Picadilly line - Coach - Uber - Taxi Only one of those options is for mugs, and it's not the Heathrow Express. However from Glasgow you can also fly to Gatwick, or City if you want to avoid thiefrow. However comparing the cost of a non-flexible ticket from Glasgow to London with a flexible train ticket is ingenuous at best.

sitepodmatt 9y ago

Im not sure I understand your 3% point, are you saying Virgin pay more into Network Rail on the WCL and this wouldnt happen if government owned/controlled? Interestingly, I can take a 3.5-4hr train from Penang to Kuala Lumpur for $12, made by Siemens I believe, traveling faster than the Pendolino/Voyagers, and with a similar level of comfort (I do think the seats are bit narrower though), so in comparison I consider the UK crazy priced unless you get some off-peak deal (still not great). I suspect if still subsidized then it's probably very inefficient, I dont know but I certainly dont feel good paying the train ticket prices in the UK even the off-peak saver.

arethuza 9y ago
I pay £11 per day for my 35 min commute into central Edinburgh (I work from home a lot so season tickets don't make much sense) and given that parking in Edinburgh would be £25 a day £11 a day looks like a bargain given that the station I commute from in Fife is 10 mins drive away from where I live and has free parking always available.
- sitepodmatt 9y ago
  That doesn't sound too bad, but I don't think that's representational of most routes and hence most travelers, in that if you stand outside Euston, Glasgow or Edinburgh before 8.30am and ask people what they paid to get to work and if they considered it value for money you would likely get a lot of expletives
  - arethuza 9y ago
    I suspect I would be much less happy with the service if it wasn't for the fact that I am far enough out from Edinburgh so that the train is relatively empty so I can pretty much always get a seat (and a window seat on the side with the best views). Two stops in from where I get on the train fills up dramatically and there are often people standing.
  - isostatic 9y ago
    However they don't take commuter bus services, or drive, or ride a bike, or move closer to the office, or change job location, or change job times. The media has driven this culture of people believing in 'rip off Britain'. If people were commuting 100 miles a day for the cost of a cup of coffee they'd still say it was a rip off (although oddly it would be the commute, not the £4 latte)

IshKebab 9y ago

> the operating companies take about 3% I've heard this before but I'm not sure I believe it. They have a pretty huge incentive to make it seem like they aren't making a lot of profit, and it is easy for them to do so (just like Hollywood accounting).

isostatic 9y ago
Well if you believe that Labour, Coalition and Tory governments have all conspired with all the train companies to somehow hide profits from the public and from their shareholders, that's not really something I can argue with.

vonmoltke 9y ago

> A train from Washington to New York will set you back $1.14 per mile, with less flexibility. The trip is approximately 226 miles. With sufficient advance purchase, the Northeast Regional coach fare is $49 each way and the Acela is $168 each way. I have never seen an NER fare greater than $200 each way. How did you arrive at $1.14 per mile at all, let alone thinking it's typical?

saalweachter 9y ago
I was about to chime in similarly; a ten-ride ticket for NYP->POU is $0.38 per mile and you can take any train without reservations; an off-peak MTA ticket for the same leg costs $0.21 per mile. $1.14 per mile sounds high.
- isostatic 9y ago
  Those prices are a bit high for typical UK season tickets. 85 miles Poughkeepsie to NY 90 minutes, similar distance + time and number of trains per day to Salisbury to London (88 miles). A weekly season there (so 10 trips) will set you back £131, or $175, 20c/mile, half the price of Poughkeepsie to New York.
  - saalweachter 9y ago
    $0.38 / mile is the long-distance rail (Amtrak); the commuter rail line is $0.20 / mile (off-peak 10-ride or 10 rides on a weekly pass anytime).
    - isostatic 9y ago
      "a ten-ride ticket for NYP->POU is $0.38 per mile" I'm only going on what you said. MTA.info says this ride is 247.50 for a 10 trip ticket, with a trip of 85 miles that would be 247.50 for 850 miles, or 30c/mile. From what I can see when doing a like-for-like comparison between the UK and the northeast US, the US is surprisingly pricier than the UK. Now to be fare the Salisbury weekly season is valid for 10 journeys (or even 40), but only over 7 days, where as the Poughkeepsie one is a carnet, you can do 3 days one week, 2 days the next, and that's better, but for the Monday-to-Friday person, I'd rather be paying the Salisbury-London fare than the Poughkeepsie-NYC fare. (I'd rather be going into NYC, just without the fare)