14 ms·

As a Brit, personally, I reckon it's because the train system lost the ball significantly last century. Train tickets now are often more than the cost of petro

As a Brit, personally, I reckon it's because the train system lost the ball significantly last century. Train tickets now are often more than the cost of petrol to drive across the country. So if you'd spend more on a train ticket, why not drive? Sometimes it even cheaper to get a flight from Glasgow to London than it is to get the train. To get a ticket, a week in advance, to go from Carlisle (where I live) to London costs roughly 120 pounds (that's 180 USD, ish). It's crazy expensive, and the benefit really isn't there any more. Goods wise, trains could / should have taken the same kind of approach that the shipping industry did, with containers. If our company (live events A/V stuff, mainly) is doing an event down south, we should be able to call a train company, have them deliver a container (or pick up one that we own) at our warehouse on a flat bed truck, we load it, they take it to the train station, it get craned on, and then we minibus down there the next day and have it delivered to the location. But no, it's easier and cheaper for us to run our own bunch of trucks. If there was a service like that, we'd use it.

fit2rule 11y ago
Sounds like you Brits need to learn a few things from the Germans about trains ...
- chestnut-tree 11y ago
  Deutsche Bahn actually runs train services in the UK (as do Dutch operator Abellio and French operator SNCF). Sadly, their arrival hasn't brought with it the cheap, reliable travel that we view enviously on the continent. Instead, we get the same expensive, poor-to-mediocre service as every other train operator. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/12/rail-privatisation-dutch-and-german-companies-took-uk-for-ride http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/12/rail-privati...
  - morsch 11y ago
    From the article: A similar inversion has been taking place in the transport arena, which is now dotted with fiefdoms carved out by state-owned European bus and rail operators whose domestic governments lock up their own markets to outsiders while availing themselves of opportunities here. Great research by the author there. Private operators have a market share of 25% urban/regional transport in Germany, ie. those railway routes that are co-financed by the public. The biggest private operators are French and British. As long as I don't have to buy a special ticket when I ride their trains -- and I do ride them all the time --, it's all the same to me.
- justuk 11y ago
  Our rail system is set up to be mediocre and expensive. Much of it was built privately long ago, then it was nationalised, cut down and improved. Then is was 'privatised' - I use quotes because the train operators don't really have a say in what they do. The banks own the trains. The network is run by a non-profit. The government funds it, decides on the rules but takes no responsibility when it goes wrong.
- xioxox 11y ago
  Really? I live in Munich. Whenever I want to travel to other large German cities, I've found flying to be much cheaper than going by train. The only reasonably priced tickets seem to be the local ones. I don't understand how people can afford train prices unless they have a discount or someone else paid.
  - tsotha 11y ago
    That was my impression as a tourist. I loved the German train system, but I couldn't afford to travel like that on a regular basis.
    - fit2rule 11y ago
      When I lived in Germany I just purchased myself a DB card, which cost at the time about 200Eu and gave me so many discounts on train-rides it paid for itself in a month. I was very happy to see Germany by train - very comfortable, fast, efficient, clean trains with a beautiful country rolling by outside .. not so in England, where I have had the worst rides in my life on crappy, unmaintained, overcrowded trains run by rude conductors and full of unhappy people. Was really shocking, to be honest ..
  - rmk2 11y ago
    A BahnCard 25 gives you 25% off journeys, can be combined with saving offers and costs ~60€ per year. A BahnCard 50 gives you 50% off journeys but cannot be combined with savings. I think it costs ~200€ per year. A BahnCard 100 gives you 100% off journeys, i.e. the only extra cost a journay may occur are either seat reservation costs or the "Sprinter" extra for the fast train Frankfurt<->Berlin, which is not included (and technically a seat reservation anyway). This option costs ~3600€ per year or some such. The point is, if you want to take the train, either book ahead (and maybe get a BahnCard 25), or get one of the other two. I used to do a mere 2h journey a bunch of times a year (as returns), and the BahnCard 50 easily paid for itself in just 2 or 3 trips, while also offering fantastic flexibility, since it's always 50% off the regular price, which is static. That's how people afford trains. Also, with the BahnCards, you usually get a free ticket for central public transport zones at your destination, for example for Zone A in Berlin. Just for your example, a single from Munich->Berlin costs 65€ with a BahnCard 50, i.e. 130€ return, booked right now. The booked ticket lets you ride at any time within the next two days, so you are also not tied to a specific train and it's no big deal if you arrive later at the station etc. (which is not the case for special offers, which tie you to a specific train). 130€ return from München Hbf to Berlin Hbf is really not that bad.
arethuza 11y ago
"the benefit really isn't there any more." Going from city centre to city centre on business I find trains to be much more pleasant than flying or driving - even going to London from here in Edinburgh is worth it - the trip is fairly scenic (e.g. going through Durham) and not that much longer than flying. Mind you - I agree it's not a cheap option!
- IshKebab 11y ago
  > On business I guess it's fine if you're not paying...
  - bunderbunder 11y ago
    Even there I think it depends on how you value your time. If I take the train to visit my mother it's about a 3 hour trip, door to door, and costs about 50% more. But I have all that time available to work on other things that matter to me: homework, hobby projects, even pleasure reading. The net cost to me in terms of time I couldn't spend doing anything else is relatively small, and mostly consists of walking which isn't all bad since it counts toward the ol' daily 10,000. If I drive it's only 2 hours' transit time, but in terms of actually getting stuff done with my precious time that's 2 hours of complete uselessness. From my perspective it's easily worth a measly 20 bucks to avoid that. Heck, I pay more than that just to get out of having to spend time cooking dinner more often than I care to admit.
    - akshat_h 11y ago
      There are audio books and podcasts, so it is not completely useless to drive. But compared to trains, you do lose the freedom. In a train, if I listen to an audiobook, it will be by choice, unlike driving. I guess there will be some point where time difference versus productivity would be worth it
      - bunderbunder 11y ago
        I think that's a "you forgot Poland" response, though. I'm an avid audiobook listener. I particularly like listening to them while I'm exercising or doing housework. But the occasions when the thing I'd most like to do is just sit there and passively listen to an audiobook while staring off into space are few and far between. And I don't feel that doing it while sitting in a car is a significant improvement over doing it while sitting on the sofa.
jsprogrammer 11y ago
>Goods wise, trains could / should have taken the same kind of approach that the shipping industry did, with containers. In the US, containers are transferred from ships directly to trains. A train may have hundreds of cars, each single, double, or triple stacked with standard shipping containers.
- morsch 11y ago
  That's nuts. Double stacking doesn't seem viable with Central Europe's more thoroughly electrified rail network. Not that it's inherently incompatible, just that we'd have to rebuild it all. Also, the tunnels. A curious case of technological leapfrogging (in a sense; I rather prefer the electrified network even at the cost of no double stacked freight trains).
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    They don't have to be double stacked and often aren't. However, I have seen a number of double stacked trains and I'm sure it is highly dependent on the route (no short tunnels, etc) and shipping demand.
  - tsotha 11y ago
    The American rail network is optimized for freight. Outside of a few lines in the Northeast it's not really an option for intercity travel. If you want to take a train from Los Angeles to San Francisco (a 6-7 hour drive) there's only one train per day, it's expensive, and it takes twelve hours to make the trip. It's more of an amusement park ride than a way to get somewhere. But if you want to get something shipped rail is cheap and reliable (if not particularly fast).
  - mrbabbage 11y ago
    The presence of overhead equipment for electrification is orthogonal; the real issue is loading gauge, a cross-section profile that defines the minimum car size that the most restrictive segment of a line must support. Usually, tunnels end up being the limiting factor, since these tend to be much costlier to design to accommodate larger cars. For instance, CSX carries double-stack containers on Northeast Corridor between Philadelphia and Washington under catenary, with a vertical clearance above top of rail of 5.54 m [1]. Compare with UIC G2 gauge, which only offers 4.65 m ATOR [2]. I don't know why parent is talking about triple stacking containers. That's completely infeasible; the tallest common loading gauge in America (AAR Plate H, or 6.3 m) doesn't even come close to fitting 7.8 m = 3 × 2.6 m (about the height of a container). [1] http://www.csx.com/share/wwwcsx_mura/assets/File/Customers/Services_and_Partners/Dimensional-Clearance/Doublestack.pdf http://www.csx.com/share/wwwcsx_mura/assets/File/Customers/S... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lademass_EBO.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lademass_EBO.png
zero_iq 11y ago
Last year, I went to Edinburgh from Oxford. It was slightly cheaper for me to: * Drive to Birmingham airport * Pay for airport parking * Fly to Edinburgh * Get the bus to/from Edinburgh center ...than to get the train, booked about a month in advance. And of course, I got the best part of a whole extra day in Edinburgh with the time saved. Crazy.
- matthewowen 11y ago
  Oxford to Edinburgh takes about 6 hours on the train, going via London. The bulk of that is on the London - Edinburgh train (a nice 4.5 hour block). Oxford to Birmingham is about 1hr15 if everything goes to plan. Parking, going through security, boarding, etc is, generously, at least an hour. The flight is about 1hr15. It takes 30 minutes to get from the airport to the city centre (but you'll also have to navigate your way through the airport to get to the bus. Adding that up comes to at least four hours, and could well be closer to five. So you actually saved at most two hours, and possibly as little as one. However, you probably had a pretty miserable journey (whereas on the train you could have relaxed for four hours with a good book and a nice cup of tea).
  - zero_iq 11y ago
    Well, OK not technically a day, but practically speaking it bought me around 7 extra hours in Edinburgh, which felt like an extra day in comparison to having to spend 8 hours+ on the return train journey. There are many other practical factors about my specific journey your comparison doesn't include, such as the fact that I don't actually live in Oxford, so I need to get the bus to Oxford station (in which time I can get 90% of the way to Birmingham Airport by car), the times of day I was travelling, connection times, and travel time at the other end of the train journey. (And if you factored in Oxford's marvelous road works, that's probably another 4 hours saved right there ;-) As for a miserable journey... last time I went to Edinburgh by train it was so overcrowded they simply cancelled all the seat reservations altogether, because people couldn't get to their seats. So I stood/squatted/sat on luggage in a crowded hot train for hours. Not fun at all. I knew would be busy. That's why I bought a "reservation"! The plane journey was a doddle by comparison.
m-i-l 11y ago
According to thetrainline.com you can get a train from Carlisle to London a week from now (Thu 30 Jul) for £35 if you are prepared to go at one of the less popular times (e.g. depart 14.49 and arrive 18.10).
morsch 11y ago
Train tickets now are often more than the cost of petrol to drive across the country. So if you'd spend more on a train ticket, why not drive? Avoiding depreciation of the car or the cost of having one in the first place; lower risk of accidents; you get to use the time to work, read, or take a nap; you don't have to worry about parking. It's not all downsides.
- to3m 11y ago
  My car's TCO is £0.64/mile. Easily beaten by the train. Assuming I'd have a car already, though, I'd already have paid for the car, insurance, MOT, tax, blah blah. So for a journey I'm contemplating taking, where the choice is car vs train, the train is competing against the marginal per mile cost: roughly, fuel+repairs. For this my car's cost has been £0.28/mile - a figure that usually turns out to be pretty close to the cost of the train. (In fact, this comparison is being unduly generous to the train, because most of my driving is short trips. For longer trips the car is more fuel efficient, making the marginal cost more like £0.20/mile.) I'm also not taking into account the cost of travel to the station. But then again, I'm also assuming there will be free parking at your destination...
  - manarth 11y ago
    Just as an example, Bristol to Paddington is 118 miles. 118 * £0.28 = £33.04 for the marginal cost of driving. An anytime ticket is £98.50. An off-peak ticket is £43.00. UK train travel seems to only be cheaper if you can buy an advance ticket (restricting you to the one particular train you've bought for), or with a season ticket (where the price is regulated).
- vacri 11y ago
  > you don't have to worry about parking Swings and roundabouts there, though; the train doesn't give you door-to-door service.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
Scoundreller 11y ago
While in Germany, I found it cheaper to do a 1-way car rental on a Mercedes, a 2nd driver premium, and pay for gas (not diesel!) than to buy 2 train tickets from Munich to Berlin.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
jdietrich 11y ago
Our rail network just doesn't have the capacity to support significantly greater passenger volumes. A large proportion of peak-time services are severely overcrowded. Inherent signalling limitations mean that we can't fit any more trains into the schedule on those services, and we can't make the trains any bigger without spending billions on infrastructure improvements. Building more lines in a country as densely populated as ours is astoundingly expensive, as we have seen with HS1/HS2; the IEA estimates that HS2 will cost £670m per mile. Demand-based ticket prices accurately reflect the availability of seats. The cheapest advance fares from Carlisle to London are £24 each way; the most expensive open single is £239. It doesn't make sense for rail operators to offer cheap fares on trains that will be filled at a higher price.
- venomsnake 11y ago
  I think that UK is not that densely populated. Like at all. If Japan and China are expanding their rails networks (in their densest parts) the UK could probably do to.

fit2rule 11y ago

Sounds like you Brits need to learn a few things from the Germans about trains ...

chestnut-tree 11y ago
Deutsche Bahn actually runs train services in the UK (as do Dutch operator Abellio and French operator SNCF). Sadly, their arrival hasn't brought with it the cheap, reliable travel that we view enviously on the continent. Instead, we get the same expensive, poor-to-mediocre service as every other train operator. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/12/rail-privatisation-dutch-and-german-companies-took-uk-for-ride http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/12/rail-privati...
- morsch 11y ago
  From the article: A similar inversion has been taking place in the transport arena, which is now dotted with fiefdoms carved out by state-owned European bus and rail operators whose domestic governments lock up their own markets to outsiders while availing themselves of opportunities here. Great research by the author there. Private operators have a market share of 25% urban/regional transport in Germany, ie. those railway routes that are co-financed by the public. The biggest private operators are French and British. As long as I don't have to buy a special ticket when I ride their trains -- and I do ride them all the time --, it's all the same to me.
justuk 11y ago
Our rail system is set up to be mediocre and expensive. Much of it was built privately long ago, then it was nationalised, cut down and improved. Then is was 'privatised' - I use quotes because the train operators don't really have a say in what they do. The banks own the trains. The network is run by a non-profit. The government funds it, decides on the rules but takes no responsibility when it goes wrong.
xioxox 11y ago
Really? I live in Munich. Whenever I want to travel to other large German cities, I've found flying to be much cheaper than going by train. The only reasonably priced tickets seem to be the local ones. I don't understand how people can afford train prices unless they have a discount or someone else paid.
- tsotha 11y ago
  That was my impression as a tourist. I loved the German train system, but I couldn't afford to travel like that on a regular basis.
  - fit2rule 11y ago
    When I lived in Germany I just purchased myself a DB card, which cost at the time about 200Eu and gave me so many discounts on train-rides it paid for itself in a month. I was very happy to see Germany by train - very comfortable, fast, efficient, clean trains with a beautiful country rolling by outside .. not so in England, where I have had the worst rides in my life on crappy, unmaintained, overcrowded trains run by rude conductors and full of unhappy people. Was really shocking, to be honest ..
- rmk2 11y ago
  A BahnCard 25 gives you 25% off journeys, can be combined with saving offers and costs ~60€ per year. A BahnCard 50 gives you 50% off journeys but cannot be combined with savings. I think it costs ~200€ per year. A BahnCard 100 gives you 100% off journeys, i.e. the only extra cost a journay may occur are either seat reservation costs or the "Sprinter" extra for the fast train Frankfurt<->Berlin, which is not included (and technically a seat reservation anyway). This option costs ~3600€ per year or some such. The point is, if you want to take the train, either book ahead (and maybe get a BahnCard 25), or get one of the other two. I used to do a mere 2h journey a bunch of times a year (as returns), and the BahnCard 50 easily paid for itself in just 2 or 3 trips, while also offering fantastic flexibility, since it's always 50% off the regular price, which is static. That's how people afford trains. Also, with the BahnCards, you usually get a free ticket for central public transport zones at your destination, for example for Zone A in Berlin. Just for your example, a single from Munich->Berlin costs 65€ with a BahnCard 50, i.e. 130€ return, booked right now. The booked ticket lets you ride at any time within the next two days, so you are also not tied to a specific train and it's no big deal if you arrive later at the station etc. (which is not the case for special offers, which tie you to a specific train). 130€ return from München Hbf to Berlin Hbf is really not that bad.

arethuza 11y ago

"the benefit really isn't there any more." Going from city centre to city centre on business I find trains to be much more pleasant than flying or driving - even going to London from here in Edinburgh is worth it - the trip is fairly scenic (e.g. going through Durham) and not that much longer than flying. Mind you - I agree it's not a cheap option!

IshKebab 11y ago
> On business I guess it's fine if you're not paying...
- bunderbunder 11y ago
  Even there I think it depends on how you value your time. If I take the train to visit my mother it's about a 3 hour trip, door to door, and costs about 50% more. But I have all that time available to work on other things that matter to me: homework, hobby projects, even pleasure reading. The net cost to me in terms of time I couldn't spend doing anything else is relatively small, and mostly consists of walking which isn't all bad since it counts toward the ol' daily 10,000. If I drive it's only 2 hours' transit time, but in terms of actually getting stuff done with my precious time that's 2 hours of complete uselessness. From my perspective it's easily worth a measly 20 bucks to avoid that. Heck, I pay more than that just to get out of having to spend time cooking dinner more often than I care to admit.
  - akshat_h 11y ago
    There are audio books and podcasts, so it is not completely useless to drive. But compared to trains, you do lose the freedom. In a train, if I listen to an audiobook, it will be by choice, unlike driving. I guess there will be some point where time difference versus productivity would be worth it
    - bunderbunder 11y ago
      I think that's a "you forgot Poland" response, though. I'm an avid audiobook listener. I particularly like listening to them while I'm exercising or doing housework. But the occasions when the thing I'd most like to do is just sit there and passively listen to an audiobook while staring off into space are few and far between. And I don't feel that doing it while sitting in a car is a significant improvement over doing it while sitting on the sofa.

jsprogrammer 11y ago

>Goods wise, trains could / should have taken the same kind of approach that the shipping industry did, with containers. In the US, containers are transferred from ships directly to trains. A train may have hundreds of cars, each single, double, or triple stacked with standard shipping containers.

morsch 11y ago
That's nuts. Double stacking doesn't seem viable with Central Europe's more thoroughly electrified rail network. Not that it's inherently incompatible, just that we'd have to rebuild it all. Also, the tunnels. A curious case of technological leapfrogging (in a sense; I rather prefer the electrified network even at the cost of no double stacked freight trains).
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  They don't have to be double stacked and often aren't. However, I have seen a number of double stacked trains and I'm sure it is highly dependent on the route (no short tunnels, etc) and shipping demand.
- tsotha 11y ago
  The American rail network is optimized for freight. Outside of a few lines in the Northeast it's not really an option for intercity travel. If you want to take a train from Los Angeles to San Francisco (a 6-7 hour drive) there's only one train per day, it's expensive, and it takes twelve hours to make the trip. It's more of an amusement park ride than a way to get somewhere. But if you want to get something shipped rail is cheap and reliable (if not particularly fast).
- mrbabbage 11y ago
  The presence of overhead equipment for electrification is orthogonal; the real issue is loading gauge, a cross-section profile that defines the minimum car size that the most restrictive segment of a line must support. Usually, tunnels end up being the limiting factor, since these tend to be much costlier to design to accommodate larger cars. For instance, CSX carries double-stack containers on Northeast Corridor between Philadelphia and Washington under catenary, with a vertical clearance above top of rail of 5.54 m [1]. Compare with UIC G2 gauge, which only offers 4.65 m ATOR [2]. I don't know why parent is talking about triple stacking containers. That's completely infeasible; the tallest common loading gauge in America (AAR Plate H, or 6.3 m) doesn't even come close to fitting 7.8 m = 3 × 2.6 m (about the height of a container). [1] http://www.csx.com/share/wwwcsx_mura/assets/File/Customers/Services_and_Partners/Dimensional-Clearance/Doublestack.pdf http://www.csx.com/share/wwwcsx_mura/assets/File/Customers/S... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lademass_EBO.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lademass_EBO.png

zero_iq 11y ago

Last year, I went to Edinburgh from Oxford. It was slightly cheaper for me to: * Drive to Birmingham airport * Pay for airport parking * Fly to Edinburgh * Get the bus to/from Edinburgh center ...than to get the train, booked about a month in advance. And of course, I got the best part of a whole extra day in Edinburgh with the time saved. Crazy.

matthewowen 11y ago
Oxford to Edinburgh takes about 6 hours on the train, going via London. The bulk of that is on the London - Edinburgh train (a nice 4.5 hour block). Oxford to Birmingham is about 1hr15 if everything goes to plan. Parking, going through security, boarding, etc is, generously, at least an hour. The flight is about 1hr15. It takes 30 minutes to get from the airport to the city centre (but you'll also have to navigate your way through the airport to get to the bus. Adding that up comes to at least four hours, and could well be closer to five. So you actually saved at most two hours, and possibly as little as one. However, you probably had a pretty miserable journey (whereas on the train you could have relaxed for four hours with a good book and a nice cup of tea).
- zero_iq 11y ago
  Well, OK not technically a day, but practically speaking it bought me around 7 extra hours in Edinburgh, which felt like an extra day in comparison to having to spend 8 hours+ on the return train journey. There are many other practical factors about my specific journey your comparison doesn't include, such as the fact that I don't actually live in Oxford, so I need to get the bus to Oxford station (in which time I can get 90% of the way to Birmingham Airport by car), the times of day I was travelling, connection times, and travel time at the other end of the train journey. (And if you factored in Oxford's marvelous road works, that's probably another 4 hours saved right there ;-) As for a miserable journey... last time I went to Edinburgh by train it was so overcrowded they simply cancelled all the seat reservations altogether, because people couldn't get to their seats. So I stood/squatted/sat on luggage in a crowded hot train for hours. Not fun at all. I knew would be busy. That's why I bought a "reservation"! The plane journey was a doddle by comparison.

m-i-l 11y ago

According to thetrainline.com you can get a train from Carlisle to London a week from now (Thu 30 Jul) for £35 if you are prepared to go at one of the less popular times (e.g. depart 14.49 and arrive 18.10).

morsch 11y ago

Train tickets now are often more than the cost of petrol to drive across the country. So if you'd spend more on a train ticket, why not drive? Avoiding depreciation of the car or the cost of having one in the first place; lower risk of accidents; you get to use the time to work, read, or take a nap; you don't have to worry about parking. It's not all downsides.

to3m 11y ago
My car's TCO is £0.64/mile. Easily beaten by the train. Assuming I'd have a car already, though, I'd already have paid for the car, insurance, MOT, tax, blah blah. So for a journey I'm contemplating taking, where the choice is car vs train, the train is competing against the marginal per mile cost: roughly, fuel+repairs. For this my car's cost has been £0.28/mile - a figure that usually turns out to be pretty close to the cost of the train. (In fact, this comparison is being unduly generous to the train, because most of my driving is short trips. For longer trips the car is more fuel efficient, making the marginal cost more like £0.20/mile.) I'm also not taking into account the cost of travel to the station. But then again, I'm also assuming there will be free parking at your destination...
- manarth 11y ago
  Just as an example, Bristol to Paddington is 118 miles. 118 * £0.28 = £33.04 for the marginal cost of driving. An anytime ticket is £98.50. An off-peak ticket is £43.00. UK train travel seems to only be cheaper if you can buy an advance ticket (restricting you to the one particular train you've bought for), or with a season ticket (where the price is regulated).
vacri 11y ago
> you don't have to worry about parking Swings and roundabouts there, though; the train doesn't give you door-to-door service.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

Scoundreller 11y ago

While in Germany, I found it cheaper to do a 1-way car rental on a Mercedes, a 2nd driver premium, and pay for gas (not diesel!) than to buy 2 train tickets from Munich to Berlin.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

jdietrich 11y ago

Our rail network just doesn't have the capacity to support significantly greater passenger volumes. A large proportion of peak-time services are severely overcrowded. Inherent signalling limitations mean that we can't fit any more trains into the schedule on those services, and we can't make the trains any bigger without spending billions on infrastructure improvements. Building more lines in a country as densely populated as ours is astoundingly expensive, as we have seen with HS1/HS2; the IEA estimates that HS2 will cost £670m per mile. Demand-based ticket prices accurately reflect the availability of seats. The cheapest advance fares from Carlisle to London are £24 each way; the most expensive open single is £239. It doesn't make sense for rail operators to offer cheap fares on trains that will be filled at a higher price.

venomsnake 11y ago
I think that UK is not that densely populated. Like at all. If Japan and China are expanding their rails networks (in their densest parts) the UK could probably do to.