This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Well they are aren't they, so are cross channel ferries, Ok I know on CCF you can take your car so you save the cost of hiring one when you get there, but overall with petrol etc it's far cheaper to fly to Spain and rent a car, and much quicker too.
It's actually cheaper to fly to Scotland or even Manchester from London than catching the train. This can't all be put down to Ryanair, so why are trains so expensive or why is flying so cheap?
It's actually cheaper to fly to Scotland or even Manchester from London than catching the train. This can't all be put down to Ryanair, so why are trains so expensive or why is flying so cheap?
In reply to Al Evans:
There were 3 options:
1) Leave the railways in state control
2) Privatise the railways well
3) Privatise the railways badly
No prizes for guessing which one
There were 3 options:
1) Leave the railways in state control
2) Privatise the railways well
3) Privatise the railways badly
No prizes for guessing which one
In reply to Al Evans:
Partly because airlines are very good at hiding the true costs by for example
-Charging exorbitant rates for parking, papers, coffee etc at the airport
-"Forcing" (by threat of withdrawing flights) local authorities to give grants to airports so the full cost of running them isn't passed on the airlines.
Partly because airlines are very good at hiding the true costs by for example
-Charging exorbitant rates for parking, papers, coffee etc at the airport
-"Forcing" (by threat of withdrawing flights) local authorities to give grants to airports so the full cost of running them isn't passed on the airlines.
In reply to Sharp:
There are examples of each of those within Europe and they are all more expensive than low cost flights so that isn't it.
There are examples of each of those within Europe and they are all more expensive than low cost flights so that isn't it.
In reply to Al Evans:
A lot of the problems in Britain (other than the whole privatisation fiasco) is that much of our railway system (tracks and signaling etc) is very old and thus costly to maintain/replace, as well as being very extensive, whereas the air industry infrastructure (planes, airports, air traffic control etc) are much more modern and centralised and thus more efficient.
A lot of the problems in Britain (other than the whole privatisation fiasco) is that much of our railway system (tracks and signaling etc) is very old and thus costly to maintain/replace, as well as being very extensive, whereas the air industry infrastructure (planes, airports, air traffic control etc) are much more modern and centralised and thus more efficient.
In reply to MG:
Which has nothing to do with the airline. I don't think paying 50p, even £1 more for a coffee at an airport makes up for the difference in price.
Trains in the UK are abysmal; overpriced, complicated ticketing system and not very good. I don't know why and I don't know the solution (though many other nations, including Germany and Switzerland seem to do it better) but until it gets sorted it's not really surprising that we clog the roads each day with our cars.
> Partly because airlines are very good at hiding the true costs by for example
> -Charging exorbitant rates for parking, papers, coffee etc at the airport
Which has nothing to do with the airline. I don't think paying 50p, even £1 more for a coffee at an airport makes up for the difference in price.
Trains in the UK are abysmal; overpriced, complicated ticketing system and not very good. I don't know why and I don't know the solution (though many other nations, including Germany and Switzerland seem to do it better) but until it gets sorted it's not really surprising that we clog the roads each day with our cars.
In reply to Edradour:
It does because it means the cost of running the airport is partly covered by inflated retail prices, rather than price of the air ticket, so flying appears cheaper. I read somewhere that in fact airports make more money from car parking charges than from landing fees. If you add up parking, coffee, sandwich, magazine etc. for a family of four, it is quite significant.
> Which has nothing to do with the airline.
It does because it means the cost of running the airport is partly covered by inflated retail prices, rather than price of the air ticket, so flying appears cheaper. I read somewhere that in fact airports make more money from car parking charges than from landing fees. If you add up parking, coffee, sandwich, magazine etc. for a family of four, it is quite significant.
In reply to MG:
I don't think it is particularly more expensive to park at Manchester airport than at Manchester Piccadilly?
I don't think it is particularly more expensive to park at Manchester airport than at Manchester Piccadilly?
In reply to Al Evans:
I think because although there is supposed competition there is still only one line most places so they still have a monopoly.
I think although planes look cheaper and faster they often aren't if you factor in the transport to get to the out of town airport and the 2 hour wait between check-in and taking off the train is suddenly more viable.
I think because although there is supposed competition there is still only one line most places so they still have a monopoly.
I think although planes look cheaper and faster they often aren't if you factor in the transport to get to the out of town airport and the 2 hour wait between check-in and taking off the train is suddenly more viable.
In reply to Al Evans:
Maybe not but you wouldn't normally, would you? Whereas many people park at airports.
Maybe not but you wouldn't normally, would you? Whereas many people park at airports.
In reply to Al Evans:
Well a few reasons would be
1) Very little physical infrastructure to maintain, and little land ownership required.
2) Speed of travel means staff are employed for a shorter period of time, so are paid less per journey
3) Slightly more competitive industry
4) No tax on fuel, and as stated above, not paying the full costs of airports etc. due to pressuring councils and parking, retail etc.
Well a few reasons would be
1) Very little physical infrastructure to maintain, and little land ownership required.
2) Speed of travel means staff are employed for a shorter period of time, so are paid less per journey
3) Slightly more competitive industry
4) No tax on fuel, and as stated above, not paying the full costs of airports etc. due to pressuring councils and parking, retail etc.
In reply to Al Evans:
Just think how many people are required to drive a train from Manchester to London.
1. There is the driver and the all important "train manager"
2. There are the ticket office workers
3. Signalmen
4. Train / track maintenance people
5. Then there is the whole layer of bureaucracy that has to be in place to allow Network Rail and the train companies to fine each other for breach of contracts + the associated fines they incur on a daily basis of lateness.
And most of these jobs are now highly paid professional roles and no longer the domain of the working man.
When you think about it, it is a wonder it is as cheap as it is.
Just think how many people are required to drive a train from Manchester to London.
1. There is the driver and the all important "train manager"
2. There are the ticket office workers
3. Signalmen
4. Train / track maintenance people
5. Then there is the whole layer of bureaucracy that has to be in place to allow Network Rail and the train companies to fine each other for breach of contracts + the associated fines they incur on a daily basis of lateness.
And most of these jobs are now highly paid professional roles and no longer the domain of the working man.
When you think about it, it is a wonder it is as cheap as it is.
In reply to Al Evans:
Because trains are a monopoly whereas airlines compete. If we had one "national air service" covering all routes then they would be equally expensive.
Because trains are a monopoly whereas airlines compete. If we had one "national air service" covering all routes then they would be equally expensive.
In reply to Al Evans:
Very few people buy an air ticket at the last minute - most people shop around in advance. Buying a walkup or flexible train ticket is much more common in people's train experiences therefore skewing your perception.
When I lived in London I would often get the first off peak train to Oxford on a Friday night, often costing about £4 each way if bought in advance.
My flight to London from Lyon this Sunday is €380rtn as I booked too late for a bargain and not close enough to flight to get a true last minute bargain - and that's just economy class BA - I'm sure a Eurostar (economy) and TGV combination could give it a run for its money.
For long haul flights, the 30 people paying 4k+ per ticket at the front of the plane are subsidizing the 200 people sat in the back paying £250, so again the 'true' cost isnt represented.
Airlines and operators don't have to own or lease the air that they fly through - isn't Network Rail the largest property owner in the UK? All those tracks need maintaining.
Lots of regional airports with EU subsidies give generous incentives to the like of Ryanair to bring passengers in. I read an article in the Economist that stated one European airport actually paid about €12 per passenger that Ryanair brought.
Tax on aviation fuel is laughable.
Very few people buy an air ticket at the last minute - most people shop around in advance. Buying a walkup or flexible train ticket is much more common in people's train experiences therefore skewing your perception.
When I lived in London I would often get the first off peak train to Oxford on a Friday night, often costing about £4 each way if bought in advance.
My flight to London from Lyon this Sunday is €380rtn as I booked too late for a bargain and not close enough to flight to get a true last minute bargain - and that's just economy class BA - I'm sure a Eurostar (economy) and TGV combination could give it a run for its money.
For long haul flights, the 30 people paying 4k+ per ticket at the front of the plane are subsidizing the 200 people sat in the back paying £250, so again the 'true' cost isnt represented.
Airlines and operators don't have to own or lease the air that they fly through - isn't Network Rail the largest property owner in the UK? All those tracks need maintaining.
Lots of regional airports with EU subsidies give generous incentives to the like of Ryanair to bring passengers in. I read an article in the Economist that stated one European airport actually paid about €12 per passenger that Ryanair brought.
Tax on aviation fuel is laughable.
In reply to Al Evans:
They aren't necessarily.
I'm heading off to London in April for a short visit. For two of us we can travel Chester to London First Class return for just over £200.
A quick search online shows me that I can get flights from just over £400 PER PERSON from Manchester to London.
That's without any extras, and having to get to/from 2 different airports, all the waiting, checking in and faff.
I can turn up at chester 10 mins before the train leaves, get on. 2 hours later I'm at Euston... And with First Class I get comfort, free wifi and complimentary drinks and sandwiches.
My point is - depends on the situation.
They aren't necessarily.
I'm heading off to London in April for a short visit. For two of us we can travel Chester to London First Class return for just over £200.
A quick search online shows me that I can get flights from just over £400 PER PERSON from Manchester to London.
That's without any extras, and having to get to/from 2 different airports, all the waiting, checking in and faff.
I can turn up at chester 10 mins before the train leaves, get on. 2 hours later I'm at Euston... And with First Class I get comfort, free wifi and complimentary drinks and sandwiches.
My point is - depends on the situation.
Post edited at 13:36
In reply to Al Evans:
As well as everything else, I think there's also an element of what you think of as normal circumstances. To get ridiculously cheap air fares, you often have to book months in advance and travel at the time least convenient to you. A lot of the time you could do that with a train as well, but we tend to think of a "normal" train ticket as one where you just turn up at the station, buy a ticket on the day, and get on a train.
As well as everything else, I think there's also an element of what you think of as normal circumstances. To get ridiculously cheap air fares, you often have to book months in advance and travel at the time least convenient to you. A lot of the time you could do that with a train as well, but we tend to think of a "normal" train ticket as one where you just turn up at the station, buy a ticket on the day, and get on a train.
Post edited at 13:39
In reply to ByEek:
Not the best example... what about all the two pilots, air stewardesses, baggage handlers, air traffic control people, plane maintenance team... the list goes on.
> Just think how many people are required to drive a train from Manchester to London.
> 1. There is the driver and the all important "train manager"
> 2. There are the ticket office workers
> 3. Signalmen
> 4. Train / track maintenance people
Not the best example... what about all the two pilots, air stewardesses, baggage handlers, air traffic control people, plane maintenance team... the list goes on.
In reply to yorkshireman:
I think you would be surprised. Many businesses will not book flights months in advance and they are now big users of the likes of Ryanair and Easyjet. In fact Easyjet is aligning itself with the business market, offering flexible tickets and the like. I heard somewhere that the average cost of a plane journey across Europe is about £45. So if you bought your ticket for 99p, there will be others on the flight paying way over £45 to subsidise your place. I also heard somewhere that Ryanair make about £7 in profit for every seat sold which is pretty incredible if you think how complex their business is.
> Very few people buy an air ticket at the last minute - most people shop around in advance.
I think you would be surprised. Many businesses will not book flights months in advance and they are now big users of the likes of Ryanair and Easyjet. In fact Easyjet is aligning itself with the business market, offering flexible tickets and the like. I heard somewhere that the average cost of a plane journey across Europe is about £45. So if you bought your ticket for 99p, there will be others on the flight paying way over £45 to subsidise your place. I also heard somewhere that Ryanair make about £7 in profit for every seat sold which is pretty incredible if you think how complex their business is.
In reply to Al Evans:
The simple answer is that the pricing model is completely different.
On trains, even though there are some cheap advance tickets, most people pay "walk up" fares, where the only granularity is peak/off peak. When flying, usually the prices are much more granular and tied more closely to demand.
So if you're comparing an Anytime Return on the train (the most expensive peak ticket that almost nobody who isn't a business traveller will be buying), you should compare that with a fully-flexible return on the plane, and you'll find the prices are similar.
As for the off-peak return, there is no such product on the plane, though easyJet does offer a bit of flexibility in allowing you to take an earlier flight if there's a seat on the way home on a return booking.
Trains also do child fares, Family Railcards etc. Planes don't.
So, to get a proper idea you'd have to add up what everyone paid in a given time period and divide by the number of passengers. I would strongly suspect the train would come out either the same or cheaper.
Neil
The simple answer is that the pricing model is completely different.
On trains, even though there are some cheap advance tickets, most people pay "walk up" fares, where the only granularity is peak/off peak. When flying, usually the prices are much more granular and tied more closely to demand.
So if you're comparing an Anytime Return on the train (the most expensive peak ticket that almost nobody who isn't a business traveller will be buying), you should compare that with a fully-flexible return on the plane, and you'll find the prices are similar.
As for the off-peak return, there is no such product on the plane, though easyJet does offer a bit of flexibility in allowing you to take an earlier flight if there's a seat on the way home on a return booking.
Trains also do child fares, Family Railcards etc. Planes don't.
So, to get a proper idea you'd have to add up what everyone paid in a given time period and divide by the number of passengers. I would strongly suspect the train would come out either the same or cheaper.
Neil
In reply to Sharp:
Have a nose at mainland European privatisations, and consider again whether ours is *really* worst.
Compared with France (not privatised), we have very high frequency and very high flexibility, and a good quality of local services including rural areas. With France people don't look beyond TGV. They should (unless you're just going to compare TGV with Virgin Trains, and if you do, find me the French pair of cities 250 miles apart with 3 trains an hour all day - you won't!)
Compared with Italy, or German long-distance services, or Poland (semi-privatised), at least we have retained through ticketing and some measure of a coherent network. Crikey, the Cumbrian Coast train was held at Lancaster for me the other week on a delayed Virgin train!
(note: the DB network in Germany has retained through ticketing, I'm thinking of the InterConnex long distance services)
Neil
Have a nose at mainland European privatisations, and consider again whether ours is *really* worst.
Compared with France (not privatised), we have very high frequency and very high flexibility, and a good quality of local services including rural areas. With France people don't look beyond TGV. They should (unless you're just going to compare TGV with Virgin Trains, and if you do, find me the French pair of cities 250 miles apart with 3 trains an hour all day - you won't!)
Compared with Italy, or German long-distance services, or Poland (semi-privatised), at least we have retained through ticketing and some measure of a coherent network. Crikey, the Cumbrian Coast train was held at Lancaster for me the other week on a delayed Virgin train!
(note: the DB network in Germany has retained through ticketing, I'm thinking of the InterConnex long distance services)
Neil
Post edited at 13:58
In reply to Edradour:
Airline food's business model works because you have to have the cabin crew. On trains, you need a driver and a guard whatever the length of train, and sometimes you don't even need the latter.
Once you factor the staff in, train catering usually becomes a loss leader or at best makes a very small profit even though the charges aren't dissimilar to those on planes.
Neil
Airline food's business model works because you have to have the cabin crew. On trains, you need a driver and a guard whatever the length of train, and sometimes you don't even need the latter.
Once you factor the staff in, train catering usually becomes a loss leader or at best makes a very small profit even though the charges aren't dissimilar to those on planes.
Neil
In reply to Al Evans:
I find it infuriating. I had a meeting in London yesterday and a super-saver ticket (from Leicester) was £58, which I don't really mind (29p a mile compared to 45p/mile if I drove). However, because my meeting went on a bit, I missed the 3.20 cut-off time, and had to pay £80 for a single to get back on the 4.56pm train. This more than doubles the cost to 69p/mile. The overheads are exactly the same, so I fail to see how they can really justify this.
I find it infuriating. I had a meeting in London yesterday and a super-saver ticket (from Leicester) was £58, which I don't really mind (29p a mile compared to 45p/mile if I drove). However, because my meeting went on a bit, I missed the 3.20 cut-off time, and had to pay £80 for a single to get back on the 4.56pm train. This more than doubles the cost to 69p/mile. The overheads are exactly the same, so I fail to see how they can really justify this.
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
I agree plus lack of real competition.
> I think the short answer is hidden government subsidies.
> jcm
I agree plus lack of real competition.
In reply to ByEek:
I was referring to leisure travellers - I book about 20 business flights a year and rarely have more than 2-3 weeks notice. We're not allowed to use Ryanair (thankfully) as they're simply not flexible enough. Easyjet is allowed but only at a push.
My point was the general non-business user will normally book a trip or holiday months in advance - and that is most people's airline experience which isn't a fair comparison to how they use the trains.
With economy fares you get the bargain with advanced booking and the more notice I have, generally the cheaper the ticket. In my experience with business class fares I find they don't change much. I've just booked a business trip to the west coast of the US with a business class ticket and it leaves in 3 weeks. Its pretty much the same price as what I paid last October for the same trip with about 5 days notice - I know that's not a perfect comparison and there are other factors at play but my experience is you don't see such swingeing changes - but maybe this more dependable income from the business traveler allows more flexibility on discounting other fares.
> I think you would be surprised. Many businesses will not book flights months in advance and they are now big users of the likes of Ryanair and Easyjet.
I was referring to leisure travellers - I book about 20 business flights a year and rarely have more than 2-3 weeks notice. We're not allowed to use Ryanair (thankfully) as they're simply not flexible enough. Easyjet is allowed but only at a push.
My point was the general non-business user will normally book a trip or holiday months in advance - and that is most people's airline experience which isn't a fair comparison to how they use the trains.
With economy fares you get the bargain with advanced booking and the more notice I have, generally the cheaper the ticket. In my experience with business class fares I find they don't change much. I've just booked a business trip to the west coast of the US with a business class ticket and it leaves in 3 weeks. Its pretty much the same price as what I paid last October for the same trip with about 5 days notice - I know that's not a perfect comparison and there are other factors at play but my experience is you don't see such swingeing changes - but maybe this more dependable income from the business traveler allows more flexibility on discounting other fares.
In reply to Al Evans:
Car parking and coffee costs are not much different between airports and the "parkway" stations that a lot of folk use as a gateway to the rail network, my local train station is £8-10 a day and the coffee is £3 for crap.
Direct subsidy by local council or whoever for airlines is very unusual in the UK, to my knowledge only a couple of "public obligation" routes around Wales and the Scottish highlands qualify.
I would argue the reason flying costs less is that it has to, aviation is a ruthless private industry which gets basically no government support and therefore has to attract customers. To do that you have to be price competitive and it drives, in many cases, astonishing business efficiencies.
Put in context, if I wanted to go London to Glasgow by train in 2 hours time (off peak) it would cost me about £130 and the taxpayer would give the train operator another £25 in subsidy.
If I wanted to fly, it would cost £70 of which £25 would go in APD - a tax to the government
So when it comes to running the business the the train company has £155 to play with and the airline £45 or roughly a third.
As for "forcing' the airport to support a route, don't forget our airports are privately owned and operated as well (most) and also operate in a competitive market. Nobody is forcing anyone to freely enter a contract. If I am going to bring hundreds of people to your shopping mall, why shouldn't I expect a small cut of the profit from that. It's the same reason coach drivers get free cups of tea at motorway services...
-----
Subsidy stats come from the DfT figures that the average subsidy in 2012-13 was 6.8p per passenger mile. (the range of subsidy is fascinating, 3 (of 16) operators were actually negative, Northern Rail were 40p per pax mile.)
Car parking and coffee costs are not much different between airports and the "parkway" stations that a lot of folk use as a gateway to the rail network, my local train station is £8-10 a day and the coffee is £3 for crap.
Direct subsidy by local council or whoever for airlines is very unusual in the UK, to my knowledge only a couple of "public obligation" routes around Wales and the Scottish highlands qualify.
I would argue the reason flying costs less is that it has to, aviation is a ruthless private industry which gets basically no government support and therefore has to attract customers. To do that you have to be price competitive and it drives, in many cases, astonishing business efficiencies.
Put in context, if I wanted to go London to Glasgow by train in 2 hours time (off peak) it would cost me about £130 and the taxpayer would give the train operator another £25 in subsidy.
If I wanted to fly, it would cost £70 of which £25 would go in APD - a tax to the government
So when it comes to running the business the the train company has £155 to play with and the airline £45 or roughly a third.
As for "forcing' the airport to support a route, don't forget our airports are privately owned and operated as well (most) and also operate in a competitive market. Nobody is forcing anyone to freely enter a contract. If I am going to bring hundreds of people to your shopping mall, why shouldn't I expect a small cut of the profit from that. It's the same reason coach drivers get free cups of tea at motorway services...
-----
Subsidy stats come from the DfT figures that the average subsidy in 2012-13 was 6.8p per passenger mile. (the range of subsidy is fascinating, 3 (of 16) operators were actually negative, Northern Rail were 40p per pax mile.)
In reply to GridNorth:
The real competitor, ignoring London commuter services, is the car. The entire land-based public transport network needs to work together to compete with that. Petty squabbles between TOCs don't really benefit anyone long-term.
All that said, London Midland, Chiltern and Virgin may well compete, but when the wires come down on the WCML again after a slight breeze, cross-acceptance of tickets very quickly kicks in. Try that with air if you don't have a full-fare Y class ticket (very expensive and almost nobody does, and EZY/FR don't even do them).
Neil
The real competitor, ignoring London commuter services, is the car. The entire land-based public transport network needs to work together to compete with that. Petty squabbles between TOCs don't really benefit anyone long-term.
All that said, London Midland, Chiltern and Virgin may well compete, but when the wires come down on the WCML again after a slight breeze, cross-acceptance of tickets very quickly kicks in. Try that with air if you don't have a full-fare Y class ticket (very expensive and almost nobody does, and EZY/FR don't even do them).
Neil
In reply to Daysleeper:
Don't forget that it would cost £130 for a single, but £131 for a return. Another difference in the pricing models.
Some legacy airlines even charge more for a single than a return! Very rare for the railway to do that, if it does it's usually because of a mistake in the fare definitions, and you can always buy a return and bin the return half.
Neil
Don't forget that it would cost £130 for a single, but £131 for a return. Another difference in the pricing models.
Some legacy airlines even charge more for a single than a return! Very rare for the railway to do that, if it does it's usually because of a mistake in the fare definitions, and you can always buy a return and bin the return half.
Neil
In reply to FrankBooth:
Yes that's annoying. Single journey peak-service pricing is massively disproportionate to off-peak & season ticket pricing (the later two are regulated).
Yes that's annoying. Single journey peak-service pricing is massively disproportionate to off-peak & season ticket pricing (the later two are regulated).
In reply to JMGLondon:
There is a project to change this which will be allocated to an InterCity TOC in the coming future. Logic would say East Coast as this is about to change hands.
First Great Western tried making a single half a return, but it hit revenue too much. So the downside is that for it to be revenue neutral if single fares decrease, returns must increase. They weren't allowed to do that as off peak returns are regulated, so the project failed and singles went back up.
So we shall see.
Neil
There is a project to change this which will be allocated to an InterCity TOC in the coming future. Logic would say East Coast as this is about to change hands.
First Great Western tried making a single half a return, but it hit revenue too much. So the downside is that for it to be revenue neutral if single fares decrease, returns must increase. They weren't allowed to do that as off peak returns are regulated, so the project failed and singles went back up.
So we shall see.
Neil
Post edited at 14:51
In reply to FrankBooth:
plan to get the later off peak train back - you can get a nice meal and bottle of wine for the difference in cost.......
> I find it infuriating. I had a meeting in London yesterday and a super-saver ticket (from Leicester) was £58, which I don't really mind (29p a mile compared to 45p/mile if I drove). However, because my meeting went on a bit, I missed the 3.20 cut-off time, and had to pay £80 for a single to get back on the 4.56pm train. This more than doubles the cost to 69p/mile. The overheads are exactly the same, so I fail to see how they can really justify this.
plan to get the later off peak train back - you can get a nice meal and bottle of wine for the difference in cost.......
In reply to MG:
Trains charge equally high prices for consumables too. £3.20 for a can of lager at the last check (which is why I buy 4 cans at the little off-licence just round the corner from Euston when I go home on a friday...)
> Partly because airlines are very good at hiding the true costs by for example
> -Charging exorbitant rates for parking, papers, coffee etc at the airport
Trains charge equally high prices for consumables too. £3.20 for a can of lager at the last check (which is why I buy 4 cans at the little off-licence just round the corner from Euston when I go home on a friday...)
In reply to Al Evans:
I have just recently booked both flights and train tickets for the same week
Manchester to Belgium return including hold luggage £60
Train Liverpool to Derby return £50 (off peak travel)
> Well they are aren't they, so are cross channel ferries, Ok I know on CCF you can take your car so you save the cost of hiring one when you get there, but overall with petrol etc it's far cheaper to fly to Spain and rent a car, and much quicker too.
> It's actually cheaper to fly to Scotland or even Manchester from London than catching the train. This can't all be put down to Ryanair, so why are trains so expensive or why is flying so cheap?
I have just recently booked both flights and train tickets for the same week
Manchester to Belgium return including hold luggage £60
Train Liverpool to Derby return £50 (off peak travel)
In reply to Al Evans: We moved to Stirling from Coventry in 2005 and when it came to working out how to bring the family up for a visit we looked at flying them up. This was the hey day of Flybe vs BMI so the prices were low - I could bring 2 daughters & 3 grandchildren up for under £100. This was about the same cost as me driving down to pick them up - plus their journey time house to house including check in etc was less than 3 hours - there was no competition. As for railways forget it. Over the last couple of years BMI exitted and Flybe pushed up prices and extras so to do the same flights now costs nearer £300. The car is much more economical though it can be a horrid 6hour M6 crawl. Our current solution is to fly them up and drive them back giving me some time down south with the family. For several people the car wins on cost every time.
I love train journeys so I occasionally visit the family that way - booking early allows 1st class travel for a little more than a flight with a slightly longer door to door time. Apart from a big freeze epic of 12 hours (4 spent outside Wigan) I always enjoy the trip - perhaps it is the dreams of being hauled by a Coronation Class Stanier Pacific like 'Duchess of Hamilton' that enhance this! I can smell the steam now. Cue Old git moment.
I love train journeys so I occasionally visit the family that way - booking early allows 1st class travel for a little more than a flight with a slightly longer door to door time. Apart from a big freeze epic of 12 hours (4 spent outside Wigan) I always enjoy the trip - perhaps it is the dreams of being hauled by a Coronation Class Stanier Pacific like 'Duchess of Hamilton' that enhance this! I can smell the steam now. Cue Old git moment.
In reply to Daysleeper:
Airlines do not run the airports, they pay to use them.
> Car parking and coffee costs are not much different between airports and the "parkway" stations that a lot of folk use as a gateway to the rail network, my local train station is £8-10 a day and the coffee is £3 for crap.
Airlines do not run the airports, they pay to use them.
In reply to Al Evans:
Sometimes I find its more expensive not to fly London to Manchester (or vice versa) than to do so.
Flight to London with connection to Manchester cheaper than flight to London only!
I assume its all to do with airport charges.
Sometimes I find its more expensive not to fly London to Manchester (or vice versa) than to do so.
Flight to London with connection to Manchester cheaper than flight to London only!
I assume its all to do with airport charges.
In reply to Al Evans:
The thing that gets me is that it's cheaper or comparable for me, on my own, to drive from Swansea to Sheffield return than take the train. This is especially so when you have buses and taxis to catch to and from the station and add numerous small local journeys while you are away.
And for this I get to travel at sensible times, listen to my own music, set the temperature, get to my destination without stopping half way to stand in the cold for a connection, I can take multiple bags of climbing gear and bouldering mats etc etc.
Put two people in the car and you're laughing.
The thing that gets me is that it's cheaper or comparable for me, on my own, to drive from Swansea to Sheffield return than take the train. This is especially so when you have buses and taxis to catch to and from the station and add numerous small local journeys while you are away.
And for this I get to travel at sensible times, listen to my own music, set the temperature, get to my destination without stopping half way to stand in the cold for a connection, I can take multiple bags of climbing gear and bouldering mats etc etc.
Put two people in the car and you're laughing.
In reply to Al Evans:
It's more expensive to build and staff and fuel two railway stations, a railway and a train than it is to two airports and an aero plane.
It's more expensive to build and staff and fuel two railway stations, a railway and a train than it is to two airports and an aero plane.
In reply to gethin_allen:
Is it though, after you've paid for your car and what ever portion of your tax goes two the roads?
> The thing that gets me is that it's cheaper or comparable for me, on my own, to drive from Swansea to Sheffield return than take the train.
Is it though, after you've paid for your car and what ever portion of your tax goes two the roads?
In reply to duchessofmalfi:
I think if you take all tax and subsidies into account trains are better off.
Unions probably add a bit though
I think if you take all tax and subsidies into account trains are better off.
Unions probably add a bit though
In reply to Al Evans:
I don't know but in April:
Sheffield > Stansted by train (2 hrs - 120-ish miles) £105
Stansed > Kos (4 hrs - 1700-ish miles) £25
Chris
I don't know but in April:
Sheffield > Stansted by train (2 hrs - 120-ish miles) £105
Stansed > Kos (4 hrs - 1700-ish miles) £25
Chris
In reply to Donnie:
Accounting for any direct costs yes, I've no idea about general taxation that goes towards roads but I'd be paying that anyhow.
Accounting for any direct costs yes, I've no idea about general taxation that goes towards roads but I'd be paying that anyhow.
In reply to Alan M:
"Manchester to Belgium return including hold luggage £60
Train Liverpool to Derby return £50 (off peak travel)"
That's a classic example of my point.
Here are the train fares for Liverpool to Derby (ignore the silly ones at the bottom, £999.99 is normally used to prevent a fare being sold, not because it would actually be sold for that, though it doesn't stop the Press liking these things).
http://www.brfares.com/#!fares?orig=LIV&dest=DBY
You will notice there are no Advance fares. So everyone who travels (let's ignore single fares, Railcards and child fares to keep it simple as these don't detract from my point) pays either £49.20 or £63.40, the latter being if you have to go before 9am or if you really want to dawdle and take 5 days over your outward journey.
So let's take a typical off-peak train you'll use for some of the journey, 4 coaches, about 75 seats per coach, 300 seats total, let's say it's full, let's say everyone's doing the same journey. The railway gets £7380, and the same again going back.
Let's now take an aircraft of comparable size operated by a low-cost, an A330 would seem to fit the bill (yes, I know most low costs use 200 seat-ish aircraft, this again doesn't detract from the point). They would yield manage along the following kind of model:-
First 10 seats £1
Next 10 seats £2
...
Last 10 seats £500 (or something)
They still get their £7380, and the average fare per seat is still £49.20, but instead of everyone paying the same (near enough), some people get a very cheap deal and some get a raw deal.
Some train fares work a bit like that (e.g. on InterCity routes) but that's only the Advance fares - the legally-regulated Off-Peak fares top these out to the point I almost never find them worth buying.
Hopefully that makes sense. The other thing to watch out for with the railway is that advance fares are usually only released a month or two in advance of travel, so you can end up paying more if you book *too* far in advance. brfares.com is useful because it means you can check out if there *would* be any.
This being the case, I'm surprised you bothered booking that train ticket in advance, when you could have rocked up to the ticket office and bought it on the day.
Neil
"Manchester to Belgium return including hold luggage £60
Train Liverpool to Derby return £50 (off peak travel)"
That's a classic example of my point.
Here are the train fares for Liverpool to Derby (ignore the silly ones at the bottom, £999.99 is normally used to prevent a fare being sold, not because it would actually be sold for that, though it doesn't stop the Press liking these things).
http://www.brfares.com/#!fares?orig=LIV&dest=DBY
You will notice there are no Advance fares. So everyone who travels (let's ignore single fares, Railcards and child fares to keep it simple as these don't detract from my point) pays either £49.20 or £63.40, the latter being if you have to go before 9am or if you really want to dawdle and take 5 days over your outward journey.
So let's take a typical off-peak train you'll use for some of the journey, 4 coaches, about 75 seats per coach, 300 seats total, let's say it's full, let's say everyone's doing the same journey. The railway gets £7380, and the same again going back.
Let's now take an aircraft of comparable size operated by a low-cost, an A330 would seem to fit the bill (yes, I know most low costs use 200 seat-ish aircraft, this again doesn't detract from the point). They would yield manage along the following kind of model:-
First 10 seats £1
Next 10 seats £2
...
Last 10 seats £500 (or something)
They still get their £7380, and the average fare per seat is still £49.20, but instead of everyone paying the same (near enough), some people get a very cheap deal and some get a raw deal.
Some train fares work a bit like that (e.g. on InterCity routes) but that's only the Advance fares - the legally-regulated Off-Peak fares top these out to the point I almost never find them worth buying.
Hopefully that makes sense. The other thing to watch out for with the railway is that advance fares are usually only released a month or two in advance of travel, so you can end up paying more if you book *too* far in advance. brfares.com is useful because it means you can check out if there *would* be any.
This being the case, I'm surprised you bothered booking that train ticket in advance, when you could have rocked up to the ticket office and bought it on the day.
Neil
Post edited at 23:48
In reply to duchessofmalfi:
I don't think railway fuel is completely untaxed, but the tax on it is very low indeed. And much of it is electric anyway.
Perhaps of interest...fuel is probably the biggest cost to an airline. To the railway, it's miniscule (steel wheel on steel rail is very efficient) - the big cost is staff.
Neil
I don't think railway fuel is completely untaxed, but the tax on it is very low indeed. And much of it is electric anyway.
Perhaps of interest...fuel is probably the biggest cost to an airline. To the railway, it's miniscule (steel wheel on steel rail is very efficient) - the big cost is staff.
Neil
Post edited at 00:01
In reply to Neil Williams:
what you say makes perfect sense though I personally find that I generally get better deals flying with the same notice period than I do with the train even within the UK. My issue with the train is that I usually get to know that I need to travel maximum 5 days before travelling but usually a day or two or three before. It's rare that I can take advantage of the advanced fares. plus even for social things im not a very organised person its rare that I even know what im doing in three weeks time to contemplate booking a train ticket.
I booked the train ticket as im not one to hang around at stations I normally just turn up 5 mintues before the train departs and get on it. I prefer to pick my tickets up from the self service desk before hand as I pass through quite often plus the ticket office at Lime Street is too slow for my liking (generally speaking).
what you say makes perfect sense though I personally find that I generally get better deals flying with the same notice period than I do with the train even within the UK. My issue with the train is that I usually get to know that I need to travel maximum 5 days before travelling but usually a day or two or three before. It's rare that I can take advantage of the advanced fares. plus even for social things im not a very organised person its rare that I even know what im doing in three weeks time to contemplate booking a train ticket.
I booked the train ticket as im not one to hang around at stations I normally just turn up 5 mintues before the train departs and get on it. I prefer to pick my tickets up from the self service desk before hand as I pass through quite often plus the ticket office at Lime Street is too slow for my liking (generally speaking).
In reply to Neil Williams:
But that doesn't explain that, like in my case, its cheaper to fly X to London to Manchester than it is to fly X to London and not move on at all!
Airports charge airlines a landing fee, but some airlines offset this by quick turnaround times, use of steps rather than those conveyor things, less hold baggage so less use of baggage handlers etc. Ryanair being the obvious example.
Some airports tell these airlines to get stuffed, but then miss out on thousands of passengers and potential business buying duty free, coffee, water at inflated prices etc.
Seems a very complicated business model, but which works generally a lot more efficiently than the trains were it really is a no brainer most of the time whether to use it or a family car.
But that doesn't explain that, like in my case, its cheaper to fly X to London to Manchester than it is to fly X to London and not move on at all!
Airports charge airlines a landing fee, but some airlines offset this by quick turnaround times, use of steps rather than those conveyor things, less hold baggage so less use of baggage handlers etc. Ryanair being the obvious example.
Some airports tell these airlines to get stuffed, but then miss out on thousands of passengers and potential business buying duty free, coffee, water at inflated prices etc.
Seems a very complicated business model, but which works generally a lot more efficiently than the trains were it really is a no brainer most of the time whether to use it or a family car.
In reply to Neil Williams:
Most of what I have read in answer to this post suggests that rail fares need to be more standardised, OK there could be a few quid off for booking in advance, I can see that being beneficial to railway companys I suppose, knowing how many carriages to put on etc, but really the pricing needs to be more streamlined. A fare from x to x is this amount, you get 20% off if you book in advance, cheaper fares for supervised children, period.
The air fare lottery, mainly Ryanairs fault would then be at odds with the clarity of rail fares and trains might come back to being a viable alternative. though air fare anomalies need to be regulated more too.
Most of what I have read in answer to this post suggests that rail fares need to be more standardised, OK there could be a few quid off for booking in advance, I can see that being beneficial to railway companys I suppose, knowing how many carriages to put on etc, but really the pricing needs to be more streamlined. A fare from x to x is this amount, you get 20% off if you book in advance, cheaper fares for supervised children, period.
The air fare lottery, mainly Ryanairs fault would then be at odds with the clarity of rail fares and trains might come back to being a viable alternative. though air fare anomalies need to be regulated more too.
In reply to Al Evans:
I'd be inclined to agree (given that I almost never buy Advance fares) - but beware that if you remove the "you might as well have someone in the seat for a quid than not at all" quota-controlled Advance fares it will lead to some people paying more, and those people will shout, particularly as many of them are the highly-valued elderly voters.
Neil
I'd be inclined to agree (given that I almost never buy Advance fares) - but beware that if you remove the "you might as well have someone in the seat for a quid than not at all" quota-controlled Advance fares it will lead to some people paying more, and those people will shout, particularly as many of them are the highly-valued elderly voters.
Neil
In reply to Thickhead:
What, why X-London-Manchester can be cheaper than X-London?
The reason is twofold (and has little to do with trains). It's that air fares are a relatively unregulated open market, and it's much easier for them to ensure (if you check a bag in[1]) that you do actually do the journey you booked and not cut it short by some means to save money.
There is more demand for direct flights, and more demand for flights to London, and those in London will pay more, so you charge more. That's the reason. Fare market pricing has little to do with operating costs.
The railway have been copying on occasions of late with there being more stations with barriers than there used to be. On Advance tickets, the T&Cs state that you must do the journey specified, not a shorter one. If you do a shorter one, you get a Penalty Fare or full single charged at the barrier. Not every TOC enforces this, but some definitely do - notably South West Trains and East Coast but possibly others.
[1] In the US sometimes not that, even. Frequent flyer schemes are huge in the US, and I have heard of cases where passengers breaking the T&C of a fare by stopping short have had their frequent flyer points cancelled. They also reserve the right to charge your card the difference, but I never heard of that actually being done.
Neil
What, why X-London-Manchester can be cheaper than X-London?
The reason is twofold (and has little to do with trains). It's that air fares are a relatively unregulated open market, and it's much easier for them to ensure (if you check a bag in[1]) that you do actually do the journey you booked and not cut it short by some means to save money.
There is more demand for direct flights, and more demand for flights to London, and those in London will pay more, so you charge more. That's the reason. Fare market pricing has little to do with operating costs.
The railway have been copying on occasions of late with there being more stations with barriers than there used to be. On Advance tickets, the T&Cs state that you must do the journey specified, not a shorter one. If you do a shorter one, you get a Penalty Fare or full single charged at the barrier. Not every TOC enforces this, but some definitely do - notably South West Trains and East Coast but possibly others.
[1] In the US sometimes not that, even. Frequent flyer schemes are huge in the US, and I have heard of cases where passengers breaking the T&C of a fare by stopping short have had their frequent flyer points cancelled. They also reserve the right to charge your card the difference, but I never heard of that actually being done.
Neil
Post edited at 09:09
In reply to Al Evans:
Build me one mile of railway track and I'll transport you one mile.
Build me one mile of runway and I'll take you to anywhere in the world
Build me one mile of railway track and I'll transport you one mile.
Build me one mile of runway and I'll take you to anywhere in the world
In reply to imkevinmc:
What happens at the other end?
> Build me one mile of runway and I'll take you to anywhere in the world
What happens at the other end?
In reply to Neil Williams:
I think they would be on a legal sticky wicket if they did, from what I read following the other recent related thread.
What would happen if you refused to pay at the barrier? I for one would refuse.
I have little sympathy for airlines (or train companies) that have people throwing tickets away because it was cheaper to buy it than not to.
But it at least explains why I have been on "completely full" flights, and trains, with empty seats.
> What, why X-London-Manchester can be cheaper than X-London?
> The reason is twofold (and has little to do with trains). It's that air fares are a relatively unregulated open market, and it's much easier for them to ensure (if you check a bag in[1]) that you do actually do the journey you booked and not cut it short by some means to save money.
> There is more demand for direct flights, and more demand for flights to London, and those in London will pay more, so you charge more. That's the reason. Fare market pricing has little to do with operating costs.
> The railway have been copying on occasions of late with there being more stations with barriers than there used to be. On Advance tickets, the T&Cs state that you must do the journey specified, not a shorter one. If you do a shorter one, you get a Penalty Fare or full single charged at the barrier. Not every TOC enforces this, but some definitely do - notably South West Trains and East Coast but possibly others.
> [1] In the US sometimes not that, even. Frequent flyer schemes are huge in the US, and I have heard of cases where passengers breaking the T&C of a fare by stopping short have had their frequent flyer points cancelled. They also reserve the right to charge your card the difference, but I never heard of that actually being done.
> Neil
I think they would be on a legal sticky wicket if they did, from what I read following the other recent related thread.
What would happen if you refused to pay at the barrier? I for one would refuse.
I have little sympathy for airlines (or train companies) that have people throwing tickets away because it was cheaper to buy it than not to.
But it at least explains why I have been on "completely full" flights, and trains, with empty seats.
In reply to imkevinmc:
Ok, but most of the railway lines in UK and even Europe were built years ago, we can't still be paying for them?
> Build me one mile of railway track and I'll transport you one mile.
> Build me one mile of runway and I'll take you to anywhere in the world
Ok, but most of the railway lines in UK and even Europe were built years ago, we can't still be paying for them?
In reply to Al Evans:
TGV from Sette to Paris, Eurostar Paris to Ashford last summer
Journey time 7 hours (including RER across Paris and drive home from Asford) Total cost just under £400 each return
Our friends Who live nearby) flew same journey to Gatwick. We left the hotel at the same time as them
Total time 8 hours (including train to airport, pre-check in, flight, baggage reclaim and drive home from Gatwick). Total cost £190 each return)
So same journey by plane approx half the cost of train, travel time almost the same.
TGV from Sette to Paris, Eurostar Paris to Ashford last summer
Journey time 7 hours (including RER across Paris and drive home from Asford) Total cost just under £400 each return
Our friends Who live nearby) flew same journey to Gatwick. We left the hotel at the same time as them
Total time 8 hours (including train to airport, pre-check in, flight, baggage reclaim and drive home from Gatwick). Total cost £190 each return)
So same journey by plane approx half the cost of train, travel time almost the same.
In reply to Thickhead:
"I think they would be on a legal sticky wicket if they did, from what I read following the other recent related thread."
I don't see why they would be. As long as it's in the T&Cs and made clear to you when you buy - you're gaining a deep discount in exchange for a restriction. But I don't know if there has been a test case. And I think you would be in with a very high chance of being prosecuted. (Note: railway fare evasion is *not* a contractual matter, it is a criminal matter, unlike all other modes of transport, mainly for historical reasons).
At least the railway doesn't cancel your return half if you don't take the outward. Many "legacy airlines" (not low-costs, not even Ryanair) do that, even if it is by accident. This is another such sanction as often returns on such airlines are cheaper than singles.
Neil
"I think they would be on a legal sticky wicket if they did, from what I read following the other recent related thread."
I don't see why they would be. As long as it's in the T&Cs and made clear to you when you buy - you're gaining a deep discount in exchange for a restriction. But I don't know if there has been a test case. And I think you would be in with a very high chance of being prosecuted. (Note: railway fare evasion is *not* a contractual matter, it is a criminal matter, unlike all other modes of transport, mainly for historical reasons).
At least the railway doesn't cancel your return half if you don't take the outward. Many "legacy airlines" (not low-costs, not even Ryanair) do that, even if it is by accident. This is another such sanction as often returns on such airlines are cheaper than singles.
Neil
In reply to Al Evans:
It's a bit like the question as to how old I am. All of the bones I was born with have regenerated in the last 10 years. I'm a different person.
Victorian sleepers, ballast, lines, communications etc are constantly being replaced - at least according to my late night viewing on Dave.
It's a bit like the question as to how old I am. All of the bones I was born with have regenerated in the last 10 years. I'm a different person.
Victorian sleepers, ballast, lines, communications etc are constantly being replaced - at least according to my late night viewing on Dave.
In reply to Al Evans:
Like roads, they wear out and need maintaining. And they do get improved from time to time - the West Coast Main Line 4-tracking[1] and speed increase project perhaps being the most visible of these in recent years, but there are incremental improvements going on all the time.
[1] In the Trent Valley, allowing the hourly Trent Valley local service which is the best service stations like Atherstone have ever had, though Polesworth did lose out a bit.
Neil
Like roads, they wear out and need maintaining. And they do get improved from time to time - the West Coast Main Line 4-tracking[1] and speed increase project perhaps being the most visible of these in recent years, but there are incremental improvements going on all the time.
[1] In the Trent Valley, allowing the hourly Trent Valley local service which is the best service stations like Atherstone have ever had, though Polesworth did lose out a bit.
Neil
Post edited at 10:00
In reply to imkevinmc:
Not to mention millions of pounds spent on getting bits of the network damaged by flooding back in operation ASAP. While this year's have probably had the most publicity partly due to their extent and partly (cynically perhaps) because they affected London commuters rather than rural backwaters, but this happens somewhere every year near enough.
Neil
Not to mention millions of pounds spent on getting bits of the network damaged by flooding back in operation ASAP. While this year's have probably had the most publicity partly due to their extent and partly (cynically perhaps) because they affected London commuters rather than rural backwaters, but this happens somewhere every year near enough.
Neil
Post edited at 10:14
In reply to Neil Williams:
I live in Aberdeen and it is by far easier, quicker and cheaper to fly to London than get the train. It would take 8hours each way on the train and costs around £110 with a rail card, flying costs a £110 with virgin and only takes about 1.5 hours including check in time.
This also applies to fly back down to the midlands, trains should be scrapped in my opinion they are just an unpleasant waste of money. It is normally more convenient and cheaper to drive somewhere than get the train.
I live in Aberdeen and it is by far easier, quicker and cheaper to fly to London than get the train. It would take 8hours each way on the train and costs around £110 with a rail card, flying costs a £110 with virgin and only takes about 1.5 hours including check in time.
This also applies to fly back down to the midlands, trains should be scrapped in my opinion they are just an unpleasant waste of money. It is normally more convenient and cheaper to drive somewhere than get the train.
Post edited at 12:50
In reply to Al Evans:
Subsidised air fuel?
https://fullfact.org/factchecks/airline_industry_subsidies_green_taxes-3256
Subsidised air fuel?
https://fullfact.org/factchecks/airline_industry_subsidies_green_taxes-3256
Post edited at 12:52
In reply to Smithy_P:
"I live in Aberdeen and it is by far easier, quicker and cheaper to fly to London than get the train. It would take 8hours each way on the train and costs around £110 with a rail card, flying costs a £110 with virgin and only takes about 1.5 hours including check in time. "
That's because it's a long way, and trains travel at 125mph at best in theh UK, while planes can go at 500mph, way faster than even the 186mph typical of high speed lines. Funnily enough, flying is also the most efficient way to get to southern Spain or similar. People forget how big the UK is.
"This also applies to fly back down to the midlands, trains should be scrapped in my opinion they are just an unpleasant waste of money. It is normally more convenient and cheaper to drive somewhere than get the train."
I take it you have never tried driving in London and the South East, nor around Birmingham, in the rush hour? No, thought not.
And can you imagine what all the extra cars would do to the M1 if everyone on all of the 10 or so packed 8-12 coach commuter trains from Milton Keynes into London every morning drove instead? Completely ignoring all the other stations?
Don't be silly.
Neil
"I live in Aberdeen and it is by far easier, quicker and cheaper to fly to London than get the train. It would take 8hours each way on the train and costs around £110 with a rail card, flying costs a £110 with virgin and only takes about 1.5 hours including check in time. "
That's because it's a long way, and trains travel at 125mph at best in theh UK, while planes can go at 500mph, way faster than even the 186mph typical of high speed lines. Funnily enough, flying is also the most efficient way to get to southern Spain or similar. People forget how big the UK is.
"This also applies to fly back down to the midlands, trains should be scrapped in my opinion they are just an unpleasant waste of money. It is normally more convenient and cheaper to drive somewhere than get the train."
I take it you have never tried driving in London and the South East, nor around Birmingham, in the rush hour? No, thought not.
And can you imagine what all the extra cars would do to the M1 if everyone on all of the 10 or so packed 8-12 coach commuter trains from Milton Keynes into London every morning drove instead? Completely ignoring all the other stations?
Don't be silly.
Neil
Post edited at 12:54
In reply to Smithy_P:
The overlooked fact about the train, certainly for business travellers is that it allows you to easily work while travelling so you're not wasting your time.
I often go to Paris from near Lyon - I can get the TGV from the airport at Lyon and it takes two hours. I can also fly from the same airport in about the same amount of time (and usually more cheaply) including check-in, disembarking etc.
In those two hours on the plane though, I'd be 45 mins between checkin and boarding, have to board, turn off laptops etc for takeoff, maybe 30 mins work on the flight, turn off again. Disembark, get taxi into town. You get the picture.
On the train I've just got 2 straight hours of uninterrupted working time if I need it, with a mobile signal and plenty of room to work.
Equally, driving is sometimes quicker/cheaper - but its more tiring and stressful much of the time.
Basically the decision to get from A-B is not always based on time and cost.
Strange, I invariably find the train more pleasant than the plane. Obviously if the train was going to take 8 hours that would be a different story.
> It is normally more convenient and cheaper to drive somewhere than get the train.
The overlooked fact about the train, certainly for business travellers is that it allows you to easily work while travelling so you're not wasting your time.
I often go to Paris from near Lyon - I can get the TGV from the airport at Lyon and it takes two hours. I can also fly from the same airport in about the same amount of time (and usually more cheaply) including check-in, disembarking etc.
In those two hours on the plane though, I'd be 45 mins between checkin and boarding, have to board, turn off laptops etc for takeoff, maybe 30 mins work on the flight, turn off again. Disembark, get taxi into town. You get the picture.
On the train I've just got 2 straight hours of uninterrupted working time if I need it, with a mobile signal and plenty of room to work.
Equally, driving is sometimes quicker/cheaper - but its more tiring and stressful much of the time.
Basically the decision to get from A-B is not always based on time and cost.
> they are just an unpleasant waste of money
Strange, I invariably find the train more pleasant than the plane. Obviously if the train was going to take 8 hours that would be a different story.
In reply to Al Evans:
As someone pointed out, jet fuel is tax free, which substantially reduces the operating costs of airlines...
Another reason is that airlines only run services that make them money. Train companies are required to run a service pattern that is good for people to travel rather than being purely for commercial benefit (e.g. late night trains).
If the trains were run in the same fashion, the British rail network would look more like this (bold lines only):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Beeching2.svg
and there would only be a few (probably very large) trains a day between major cities.
As someone pointed out, jet fuel is tax free, which substantially reduces the operating costs of airlines...
Another reason is that airlines only run services that make them money. Train companies are required to run a service pattern that is good for people to travel rather than being purely for commercial benefit (e.g. late night trains).
If the trains were run in the same fashion, the British rail network would look more like this (bold lines only):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Beeching2.svg
and there would only be a few (probably very large) trains a day between major cities.
In reply to Neil Williams:
Don't get me wrong, I love trains, far prefer them to air tavel, but I think it would be better if it were a nationalised network and the fare structure was sorted out nationally.
Don't get me wrong, I love trains, far prefer them to air tavel, but I think it would be better if it were a nationalised network and the fare structure was sorted out nationally.
In reply to MG:
You have to leave the car somewhere when you get on the train!
Are you viewing things from an urban perspective?
> Maybe not but you wouldn't normally, would you? Whereas many people park at airports.
You have to leave the car somewhere when you get on the train!
Are you viewing things from an urban perspective?
In reply to Al Evans:
I'm not sure I actually agree, even though I'm very pro-rail. Beeching saved the railway from bankruptcy in a day when the car was the future and public transport subsidy was not something on the agenda.
Now that's sorted, it's time to start reopening. But there are some routes he closed that were genuine basket cases, and it'd be cheaper to include a taxi in the rail fare than reopen them.
Then again, back then things like station destaffing weren't considered, let alone driver-only operation. Had they been, some of the lines could viably have been saved.
As for nationalisation, having grown up in latter-day BR I'd be interested to see what we would have ended up with. Had we got Deutsche Bahn I'd be happy, but I would rather our system than SNCF, RENFE or Nederlandse Spoorwegen, all of which have massive faults that people with rose-tinted spectacles don't see.
Neil
I'm not sure I actually agree, even though I'm very pro-rail. Beeching saved the railway from bankruptcy in a day when the car was the future and public transport subsidy was not something on the agenda.
Now that's sorted, it's time to start reopening. But there are some routes he closed that were genuine basket cases, and it'd be cheaper to include a taxi in the rail fare than reopen them.
Then again, back then things like station destaffing weren't considered, let alone driver-only operation. Had they been, some of the lines could viably have been saved.
As for nationalisation, having grown up in latter-day BR I'd be interested to see what we would have ended up with. Had we got Deutsche Bahn I'd be happy, but I would rather our system than SNCF, RENFE or Nederlandse Spoorwegen, all of which have massive faults that people with rose-tinted spectacles don't see.
Neil
In reply to Al Evans:
The fare structure *is* sorted out nationally, though not most of the prices themselves[1] (I guess you're after a kilometric scale, perhaps?). It's also rather simpler than in latter day BR. For instance in BR days you could only have an Advance type ticket for a return journey, and then only if the right quota level existed on *both* trains you planned to use. This made them very hard to get.
[1] For long-distance fares, the Off-Peak Return is regulated, TOCs can reduce the price but not increase it beyond the regulated amount. They also can't restrict it beyond specified times, as a result of which all tend to be restricted for precisely the prescribed period. For short-distance and commuter fares, it's season tickets and Anytime Day Returns.
Neil
The fare structure *is* sorted out nationally, though not most of the prices themselves[1] (I guess you're after a kilometric scale, perhaps?). It's also rather simpler than in latter day BR. For instance in BR days you could only have an Advance type ticket for a return journey, and then only if the right quota level existed on *both* trains you planned to use. This made them very hard to get.
[1] For long-distance fares, the Off-Peak Return is regulated, TOCs can reduce the price but not increase it beyond the regulated amount. They also can't restrict it beyond specified times, as a result of which all tend to be restricted for precisely the prescribed period. For short-distance and commuter fares, it's season tickets and Anytime Day Returns.
Neil
Post edited at 18:09
In reply to Al Evans:
That's the problem with a nationalised monopoly of course. One bloke gets it wrong and we're all stuffed. Never should have been privatised should it Al?
> Beeching should have been crucified for what he did to British Rail.
That's the problem with a nationalised monopoly of course. One bloke gets it wrong and we're all stuffed. Never should have been privatised should it Al?
In reply to Neil Williams:
"Perhaps of interest...fuel is probably the biggest cost to an airline. To the railway, it's miniscule (steel wheel on steel rail is very efficient) - the big cost is staff."
It would be interesting to know how "miniscule" (or otherwise) railway fuel costs are if you have a link. Steel wheels on steel rails are indeed very efficient, but trains are big heavy things and use a lot of fuel to get going.
I should lay my cards on the table here: I'm a train driver. The trains I drive are fairly modern diesel ones. The train management computer can tell me my exact fuel consumption for any journey. My most recent journey was from Preston back to my home depot at Barrow in Furness, stopping at all eleven stations. For this one hour and seventeen minute journey I burnt 179 litres of diesel.
Now I'm not a heavy handed driver (having won awards for 'ECO' driving), so most colleagues will be burning fuel at a greater rate than that. That 179 litres doesn't include fuel burnt with one engine just idling prior to departure (essential for various reasons), or the shunting movement to the sidings on arrival at Barrow. Across the network a lot of fuel will be burnt for non revenue earning purposes, eg powering air conditioning systems, shunting to/from sidings, empty train movements, freight engines left idling for hours where it is actually preferable to leave big diesel engines running rather than shutting them down/restarting them.
I've no idea what the rail industry pays for fuel, but it strikes me that that 179 litres I mentioned above is going to be quite a substantial cost for a relatively short journey. More than the staff costs for an hour and a quarter? Add in all that fuel burnt for non revenue earning purposes. Are railways really that efficient? I honestly don't know and would be happy to be educated on that particular subject. In the meantime, I'm not sure I'd describe fuel costs as "miniscule" compared to staff costs.
Andrea Collins
"Perhaps of interest...fuel is probably the biggest cost to an airline. To the railway, it's miniscule (steel wheel on steel rail is very efficient) - the big cost is staff."
It would be interesting to know how "miniscule" (or otherwise) railway fuel costs are if you have a link. Steel wheels on steel rails are indeed very efficient, but trains are big heavy things and use a lot of fuel to get going.
I should lay my cards on the table here: I'm a train driver. The trains I drive are fairly modern diesel ones. The train management computer can tell me my exact fuel consumption for any journey. My most recent journey was from Preston back to my home depot at Barrow in Furness, stopping at all eleven stations. For this one hour and seventeen minute journey I burnt 179 litres of diesel.
Now I'm not a heavy handed driver (having won awards for 'ECO' driving), so most colleagues will be burning fuel at a greater rate than that. That 179 litres doesn't include fuel burnt with one engine just idling prior to departure (essential for various reasons), or the shunting movement to the sidings on arrival at Barrow. Across the network a lot of fuel will be burnt for non revenue earning purposes, eg powering air conditioning systems, shunting to/from sidings, empty train movements, freight engines left idling for hours where it is actually preferable to leave big diesel engines running rather than shutting them down/restarting them.
I've no idea what the rail industry pays for fuel, but it strikes me that that 179 litres I mentioned above is going to be quite a substantial cost for a relatively short journey. More than the staff costs for an hour and a quarter? Add in all that fuel burnt for non revenue earning purposes. Are railways really that efficient? I honestly don't know and would be happy to be educated on that particular subject. In the meantime, I'm not sure I'd describe fuel costs as "miniscule" compared to staff costs.
Andrea Collins
In reply to Blizzard:
Mainly due to international treaty, the 1944 Chicago Convention which set out the basic rules for how air travel would be regulated between states. It's been a very successful treaty and one of its points was we all agreed not to tax fuel.
Ultimately it's an international business, difference in cost of fuel between countries is taken into careful consideration when planning flights. Any more than a couple of percent difference and airlines start "tanking" fuel in, in other words carrying more than you need in order not to buy any (or less) at your destination.
> Why is there no tax on this item???
Mainly due to international treaty, the 1944 Chicago Convention which set out the basic rules for how air travel would be regulated between states. It's been a very successful treaty and one of its points was we all agreed not to tax fuel.
Ultimately it's an international business, difference in cost of fuel between countries is taken into careful consideration when planning flights. Any more than a couple of percent difference and airlines start "tanking" fuel in, in other words carrying more than you need in order not to buy any (or less) at your destination.
In reply to andreadawn:
My understanding is that they pay very little (but not no) tax on it. A bit of Googling suggests it's red diesel, but I don't know if it is *actually* that.
The price of red diesel today (Googles) seems to be 66.98p/litre which means the fuel for that trip cost £120 ish. If you assume a train driver is paid £40K and works a 35 hour week with 6 weeks holiday a year (which I think is about average for that job?) that's just shy of 25 quid an hour. But the cost of employing permanent staff is said to be roughly twice their salary, so 50 quid an hour. So the cost just for the driver is 66 quid.
But there's not just you. There's the guard, there's the guy pushing the trolley (self employed in some but not all cases), there's the station staff, there's the signallers. Then there is buying the trains, maintaining them, fixing the track when it floods....
So it's not quite as significant a difference as I thought (fuel has of course gone up a lot more in the past 5-10 years than wages have), but it's still a fairly low cost in the scheme of things.
To be fair the TOC you drive for did modify those trains to run only 2 engines at a time (very pleasant when the one in your coach switches out) so they must be thinking about it a bit.
Neil
My understanding is that they pay very little (but not no) tax on it. A bit of Googling suggests it's red diesel, but I don't know if it is *actually* that.
The price of red diesel today (Googles) seems to be 66.98p/litre which means the fuel for that trip cost £120 ish. If you assume a train driver is paid £40K and works a 35 hour week with 6 weeks holiday a year (which I think is about average for that job?) that's just shy of 25 quid an hour. But the cost of employing permanent staff is said to be roughly twice their salary, so 50 quid an hour. So the cost just for the driver is 66 quid.
But there's not just you. There's the guard, there's the guy pushing the trolley (self employed in some but not all cases), there's the station staff, there's the signallers. Then there is buying the trains, maintaining them, fixing the track when it floods....
So it's not quite as significant a difference as I thought (fuel has of course gone up a lot more in the past 5-10 years than wages have), but it's still a fairly low cost in the scheme of things.
To be fair the TOC you drive for did modify those trains to run only 2 engines at a time (very pleasant when the one in your coach switches out) so they must be thinking about it a bit.
Neil
Post edited at 23:04
In reply to andreadawn:
Interestingly that appears to be about 1.5 miles per gallon, working it out. Which given the size of the thing isn't so bad.
I once (on an experience day, it's not my job) drove a 2-car Class 101 set, about half the size, and I was told that did about 2mpg per engine, with 4 engines, so 0.5mpg overall. So modern kit has improved a lot...
Neil
Interestingly that appears to be about 1.5 miles per gallon, working it out. Which given the size of the thing isn't so bad.
I once (on an experience day, it's not my job) drove a 2-car Class 101 set, about half the size, and I was told that did about 2mpg per engine, with 4 engines, so 0.5mpg overall. So modern kit has improved a lot...
Neil
In reply to Neil Williams:
He schedueled the Hope Valley line for closure, goddamit, it is now millions of Sheffield and Manchester outdoor enthusists the gateway to the Peak every year. Thankfully he go stopped on that one, though he did manage to cut Hayield off the rail network. You now have to walk along the old railway line from New Mills to Hayfield (The Sett Valley Trail) to access Kinder.
> I'm not sure I actually agree, even though I'm very pro-rail. Beeching saved the railway from bankruptcy in a day when the car was the future and public transport subsidy was not something on the agenda.
He schedueled the Hope Valley line for closure, goddamit, it is now millions of Sheffield and Manchester outdoor enthusists the gateway to the Peak every year. Thankfully he go stopped on that one, though he did manage to cut Hayield off the rail network. You now have to walk along the old railway line from New Mills to Hayfield (The Sett Valley Trail) to access Kinder.
In reply to Al Evans:
Or go to Edale!
The really bizarre choice was keeping Manchester-Buxton and Derby-Matlock but closing the 15 miles in between Buxton and Matlock. Which means there is no way of getting from Manchester to Derby/Nottingham which doesn't take about 3 hours.
Or go to Edale!
The really bizarre choice was keeping Manchester-Buxton and Derby-Matlock but closing the 15 miles in between Buxton and Matlock. Which means there is no way of getting from Manchester to Derby/Nottingham which doesn't take about 3 hours.
In reply to Al Evans:
I travel in Northern Europe by rail a lot. I suspect the system is heavily subsidised and it's comprehensive and efficient. I makes me wonder what the system in the UK could have been like if we'd continued to support rail, rather than the road/ motorway network. (In Holland for example, the road system is a bit of nightmare in my experience, heavy congestion etc. Rail is favoured)
What is the rail system like in Spain Al?
I travel in Northern Europe by rail a lot. I suspect the system is heavily subsidised and it's comprehensive and efficient. I makes me wonder what the system in the UK could have been like if we'd continued to support rail, rather than the road/ motorway network. (In Holland for example, the road system is a bit of nightmare in my experience, heavy congestion etc. Rail is favoured)
What is the rail system like in Spain Al?
In reply to MG:
A few years ago there was a study to see if it might be viable to re-open the (Monsal trail) line. I didn't hear any more so I suppose the answer was 'not'
A few years ago there was a study to see if it might be viable to re-open the (Monsal trail) line. I didn't hear any more so I suppose the answer was 'not'
In reply to MG:
You mean liabilities, these cost lots of money.
> But cuttings, tunnels, bridges haven't. And the land is owned.
You mean liabilities, these cost lots of money.
In reply to MG:
Yes, liabilities, they cost money. Bridges, tunnels etc huge liabilities, huge costs. Stuff you already have isn't free to own if you want to use it.
> No, the existing ones and land already owned.
Yes, liabilities, they cost money. Bridges, tunnels etc huge liabilities, huge costs. Stuff you already have isn't free to own if you want to use it.
In reply to The New NickB:
Well OK but vastly less than building new ones. One of the reasons HS2 is so expensive is the need to buy loads of expensive land. And the new Borders rail link is only viable because many of the bridges are still intact and don't need building from scratch.
Well OK but vastly less than building new ones. One of the reasons HS2 is so expensive is the need to buy loads of expensive land. And the new Borders rail link is only viable because many of the bridges are still intact and don't need building from scratch.
Post edited at 08:36
In reply to MG:
Yes, but they are still expensive. Rail and road are inherently expensive because of the need to maintain and upgrade the infrastructure all the time. Air travel doesn't have quite the same issues.
> Well OK but vastly less than building new ones. One of the reasons HS2 is so expensive is the need to buy loads of expensive land. And the new Borders rail link is only viable because many of the bridges are still intact and don't need building from scratch.
Yes, but they are still expensive. Rail and road are inherently expensive because of the need to maintain and upgrade the infrastructure all the time. Air travel doesn't have quite the same issues.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...