5 ms·

The thing is, the majority of journeys aren't like that. Right now, the majority lose out to cater for people with your travel habits. The system should cater f

The thing is, the majority of journeys aren't like that. Right now, the majority lose out to cater for people with your travel habits. The system should cater for the majority first, who don't have time to look through terms and conditions to work out the cheapest prices. Also, people want to get from A to B the quickest. Taking longer, and possibly slower alternative routes is absolutely not an option, considering how our trains are already slow compared to most other nations anyway.

isostatic 8y ago
How do the majority lose out? > Also, people want to get from A to B the quickest Clearly that's not right. Some people want to travel the quickest. Some want to travel the cheapest. Some want to travel in the most comfortable way. (OK everyone wants to travel at 125mph non stop from their local station to their destination, with a service every 5 minutes, for free. These changes aren't going to do that, they'll simply remove the choices that people have, and removing choice gives no benefit to the traveling public.)
- amaccuish 8y ago
  I should have probably clarified, unless you're taking the train for fun, no one is going to divert for 6+ hours to get a cheaper ticket. I'm a student, none of us would, we'd just take the coach. We look to Europe and see how they have cheap, quick, comfortable, reliable trains, and then we look at ours... As multiple people have pointed out you seem to live in a dreamworld where everyone can sit down and work out pricing, and doesn't mind going slower or less comfortably. But here's a thought, what if it's possible to have all of those things at a reasonable price? That's the aim of such changes, by removing shareholders all profits can go back into improvements, just look at TfL. Travelling in London, while not 100% awesome, is still miles better than the rest of the country. I'm at uni in exeter, it's sometimes cheaper to fly from Yorkshire down there than take the train, that is absolutely ridiculous. You're the exception, not the rule my friend.
  - isostatic 8y ago
    Sure you're not going to do 6+ hours. However you may choose to take the 2h30 train rather than the 1h30 train to save 30%. We did this a few months ago when we went on a break to London. Most european countries spend far more per passenger-mile in subsidies for the rail network. This would allow cheaper tickets, but that would mean more students taking the train instead of the coach, and therefore even less room. Until we build more infrastructure we can't sensibly reduce ticket prices. The changes in discussion now are nothing to do with removing shareholders, it's about 'simplifying' the tickets. This will cause 1% of passengers to pay £50 more, and 99% of passengers to pay 50p less, all because that 99% value their time over buying their tickets from someone other than 'thetrainline' (which saves £1 a ticket straight up) However if you do remove shareholders, you'll save about 3% on the price of train tickets -- i.e. they'll cost the same next year that they do today. Whoppee. I went to Exeter Uni, I drove down from Warrington. The train is expensive, but the reason for that is that crosscountry trains are massively overcrowded, and the decision not to run longer trains on crosscountry routes is down to the government, not to Arriva (or whoever runs crosscountry) Last time I took the train to the south west I chose to travel on ATW and FGW rather than Cross Country. However if I were going to travel Leeds to Exeter tomorrow, I would go to 'trainsplit.com', type "Leeds", "Exeter", and select the date, and within 30 seconds find a fare for £62.61 (including the fee for using the service) Now if you were to buy it at the station it would cost £153, which is silly. Banning split ticketing ("simplifying") will not drop the price Renationalising the rail network may drop that price to £148 The reason that "simplifying" tickets and "removing anomolies" is again in the news is because more and more people are doing it, and this is harming profits.

isostatic 8y ago

How do the majority lose out? > Also, people want to get from A to B the quickest Clearly that's not right. Some people want to travel the quickest. Some want to travel the cheapest. Some want to travel in the most comfortable way. (OK everyone wants to travel at 125mph non stop from their local station to their destination, with a service every 5 minutes, for free. These changes aren't going to do that, they'll simply remove the choices that people have, and removing choice gives no benefit to the traveling public.)

amaccuish 8y ago
I should have probably clarified, unless you're taking the train for fun, no one is going to divert for 6+ hours to get a cheaper ticket. I'm a student, none of us would, we'd just take the coach. We look to Europe and see how they have cheap, quick, comfortable, reliable trains, and then we look at ours... As multiple people have pointed out you seem to live in a dreamworld where everyone can sit down and work out pricing, and doesn't mind going slower or less comfortably. But here's a thought, what if it's possible to have all of those things at a reasonable price? That's the aim of such changes, by removing shareholders all profits can go back into improvements, just look at TfL. Travelling in London, while not 100% awesome, is still miles better than the rest of the country. I'm at uni in exeter, it's sometimes cheaper to fly from Yorkshire down there than take the train, that is absolutely ridiculous. You're the exception, not the rule my friend.
- isostatic 8y ago
  Sure you're not going to do 6+ hours. However you may choose to take the 2h30 train rather than the 1h30 train to save 30%. We did this a few months ago when we went on a break to London. Most european countries spend far more per passenger-mile in subsidies for the rail network. This would allow cheaper tickets, but that would mean more students taking the train instead of the coach, and therefore even less room. Until we build more infrastructure we can't sensibly reduce ticket prices. The changes in discussion now are nothing to do with removing shareholders, it's about 'simplifying' the tickets. This will cause 1% of passengers to pay £50 more, and 99% of passengers to pay 50p less, all because that 99% value their time over buying their tickets from someone other than 'thetrainline' (which saves £1 a ticket straight up) However if you do remove shareholders, you'll save about 3% on the price of train tickets -- i.e. they'll cost the same next year that they do today. Whoppee. I went to Exeter Uni, I drove down from Warrington. The train is expensive, but the reason for that is that crosscountry trains are massively overcrowded, and the decision not to run longer trains on crosscountry routes is down to the government, not to Arriva (or whoever runs crosscountry) Last time I took the train to the south west I chose to travel on ATW and FGW rather than Cross Country. However if I were going to travel Leeds to Exeter tomorrow, I would go to 'trainsplit.com', type "Leeds", "Exeter", and select the date, and within 30 seconds find a fare for £62.61 (including the fee for using the service) Now if you were to buy it at the station it would cost £153, which is silly. Banning split ticketing ("simplifying") will not drop the price Renationalising the rail network may drop that price to £148 The reason that "simplifying" tickets and "removing anomolies" is again in the news is because more and more people are doing it, and this is harming profits.