5 ms·

The trains in the UK seem ok in terms of the number of services and reliability, but they're so expensive. It's almost always cheaper to fly or rent a car than

The trains in the UK seem ok in terms of the number of services and reliability, but they're so expensive. It's almost always cheaper to fly or rent a car than it is to use the train for anything approaching long distance.

AM1010101 5y ago
Yes this is the problem. Using the train is often a non-option. What’s costs £25 fuel will cost £70 for a rail ticket and often take longer if you are not going between major cities. It’s even worse if there are multiple people. I would love to commute on the train (use your time more effectively, lower CO2, less stress) but it’s just too costly as it is.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  > What’s costs £25 fuel will cost £70 for a rail ticket Where are you planning on parking when you get there though? I'd rather pay quadruple for a ticket to London, than drive into London and then try to park a car. I can't imagine driving into a city - seems insane.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - VBprogrammer 5y ago
    If visiting a city centre location then trains are great. If you need to get to a place near a city then trains are the worst, at least airports tend to be outside of the city near the arterial routes. I am originally from the outskirts of Glasgow and now live on the outskirts of London. For my partner and I to get to my parents house by train takes about the same time (assuming all 4 changes go according to plan), costs 6x as much and is far less flexible than driving. We tend to stop at a cheap hotel midway so we can set off after I finish work.
  - rjmunro 5y ago
    One trick to driving into London is finding a parking space at a station outside town and continuing on TfL services. E.g. if you are coming from the M40 park at Hillingdon Station. But often the reverse is true - if your meeting isn't in the middle of London, it's much easier to drive directly to the place than get there by changing trains. This applies even more if your destination is a smaller place.
vmateixeira 5y ago
They couldn't agree more. [1][2] [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20190912051032/https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/private-plane-to-newcastle-cheaper-than-train-claims-bargain-hunter-a3506926.html https://web.archive.org/web/20190912051032/https://www.stand... [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20210225224745/https://metro.co.uk/2017/06/27/man-flies-from-newcastle-to-london-via-spain-because-its-cheaper-than-the-train-6737975/ https://web.archive.org/web/20210225224745/https://metro.co....
de_keyboard 5y ago
It's very strange. In the UK you often pay a fortune to sit on a nearly empty train. This doesn't even seem like pricing optimized for profit, let alone general carbon reduction across all modes of transport.
- vmateixeira 5y ago
  And it's often cheaper to buy 2/3 separate tickets, for stops along the way of a long journey, than just simply buying straight from A to B.
  - Closi 5y ago
    This is to profit-maximise. Under the rail franchise agreement during the bid process, the terms might mandate that journeys from A to B cost £10, and that journeys from B to C cost £5. There might be no obligation to price travel from A to D via B & C at a particular cost, so a rail operator might make that more expensive. It’s silly from the consumer perspective, but it makes sense for the rail operators to do this in order to maximise profits.
    - vmateixeira 5y ago
      Thanks for the explanation. I had the wrong idea that it could be due to, for example, if A->B belonged to a different provider than B->C, providers not reaching an agreement on what % to take each, for the journey from A->C - hence increasing the overall cost for covering demands from both.
      - gsnedders 5y ago
        No, there's long been a centralised system to attribute the costs to different companies (IIRC, the system is ultimately the descendant of what the British Rail regions and later sectors used to split fare revenue between them). There's no negotiations between the companies here, though they could ask the regulator (the ORR) to intervene if they believed the algorithm gave unfair results.
      - 5y ago
hogFeast 5y ago
Prices fell with privatization (and efficiency went up). The ownership structure doesn't matter. The UK has lots of publicly-owned and privately-owned transport systems that work well. The problem has been management. This is unlikely to change that. I live somewhere in the UK that already has publicly-owned rail. Not as bad as the South-East, but it is still bad. I have no real idea how...but they manage it. EDIT: it actually hasn't transitioned yet...so we will see.
bsd44 5y ago
I drive to work because it's cheaper to pay for car insurance, road tax and diesel fuel than it is to purchase a season train ticket, not to mention it takes less time to get to work and the commute itself is more comfortable. UK trains are not a sane alternative to driving. Until the Gov steps in and fixes that only people who absolutely much use trains will continue to do so. With ever so popular and becoming the norm remote working, the train service companies are in for a big surprise. EDIT: Also I wouldn't call UK trains reliable. I see a lot of stations having a fleet of coaches ready or sometimes in use because the trains are out of service. That's very poor.

AM1010101 5y ago

Yes this is the problem. Using the train is often a non-option. What’s costs £25 fuel will cost £70 for a rail ticket and often take longer if you are not going between major cities. It’s even worse if there are multiple people. I would love to commute on the train (use your time more effectively, lower CO2, less stress) but it’s just too costly as it is.

chrisseaton 5y ago
> What’s costs £25 fuel will cost £70 for a rail ticket Where are you planning on parking when you get there though? I'd rather pay quadruple for a ticket to London, than drive into London and then try to park a car. I can't imagine driving into a city - seems insane.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- VBprogrammer 5y ago
  If visiting a city centre location then trains are great. If you need to get to a place near a city then trains are the worst, at least airports tend to be outside of the city near the arterial routes. I am originally from the outskirts of Glasgow and now live on the outskirts of London. For my partner and I to get to my parents house by train takes about the same time (assuming all 4 changes go according to plan), costs 6x as much and is far less flexible than driving. We tend to stop at a cheap hotel midway so we can set off after I finish work.
- rjmunro 5y ago
  One trick to driving into London is finding a parking space at a station outside town and continuing on TfL services. E.g. if you are coming from the M40 park at Hillingdon Station. But often the reverse is true - if your meeting isn't in the middle of London, it's much easier to drive directly to the place than get there by changing trains. This applies even more if your destination is a smaller place.

vmateixeira 5y ago

They couldn't agree more. [1][2] [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20190912051032/https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/private-plane-to-newcastle-cheaper-than-train-claims-bargain-hunter-a3506926.html https://web.archive.org/web/20190912051032/https://www.stand... [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20210225224745/https://metro.co.uk/2017/06/27/man-flies-from-newcastle-to-london-via-spain-because-its-cheaper-than-the-train-6737975/ https://web.archive.org/web/20210225224745/https://metro.co....

de_keyboard 5y ago

It's very strange. In the UK you often pay a fortune to sit on a nearly empty train. This doesn't even seem like pricing optimized for profit, let alone general carbon reduction across all modes of transport.

vmateixeira 5y ago
And it's often cheaper to buy 2/3 separate tickets, for stops along the way of a long journey, than just simply buying straight from A to B.
- Closi 5y ago
  This is to profit-maximise. Under the rail franchise agreement during the bid process, the terms might mandate that journeys from A to B cost £10, and that journeys from B to C cost £5. There might be no obligation to price travel from A to D via B & C at a particular cost, so a rail operator might make that more expensive. It’s silly from the consumer perspective, but it makes sense for the rail operators to do this in order to maximise profits.
  - vmateixeira 5y ago
    Thanks for the explanation. I had the wrong idea that it could be due to, for example, if A->B belonged to a different provider than B->C, providers not reaching an agreement on what % to take each, for the journey from A->C - hence increasing the overall cost for covering demands from both.
    - gsnedders 5y ago
      No, there's long been a centralised system to attribute the costs to different companies (IIRC, the system is ultimately the descendant of what the British Rail regions and later sectors used to split fare revenue between them). There's no negotiations between the companies here, though they could ask the regulator (the ORR) to intervene if they believed the algorithm gave unfair results.
    - 5y ago

hogFeast 5y ago

Prices fell with privatization (and efficiency went up). The ownership structure doesn't matter. The UK has lots of publicly-owned and privately-owned transport systems that work well. The problem has been management. This is unlikely to change that. I live somewhere in the UK that already has publicly-owned rail. Not as bad as the South-East, but it is still bad. I have no real idea how...but they manage it. EDIT: it actually hasn't transitioned yet...so we will see.

bsd44 5y ago

I drive to work because it's cheaper to pay for car insurance, road tax and diesel fuel than it is to purchase a season train ticket, not to mention it takes less time to get to work and the commute itself is more comfortable. UK trains are not a sane alternative to driving. Until the Gov steps in and fixes that only people who absolutely much use trains will continue to do so. With ever so popular and becoming the norm remote working, the train service companies are in for a big surprise. EDIT: Also I wouldn't call UK trains reliable. I see a lot of stations having a fleet of coaches ready or sometimes in use because the trains are out of service. That's very poor.