Another price hike for rail users

[TW]Fox;26774790 said:
Now lets compare like with like.

Your £69.30 return ticket is a flexible return ticket - you can cancel it for an almost complete refund. You can use any train you wish. You can come back on any day you want, with zero notice, within a 30 day period. You can take a nice big bag.

You can do none of these things with an £80 return air fare on FlyBe. You will need a ticket costing more than £200 if you wish to have more flexibility, thought it's still restrictive.

Restrictive Advance Purchase fares between Southampton and Manchester start at £19.20 in Standard Class (Before your 30% off) and £48 in First Class, each way.

So no, the plane isn't cheaper.
Click to expand...

:confused:

I never said it was cheaper, and I know all of that? Not sure how you're getting those prices for Advance tickets either (via London? No thanks), but thanks anyway.
 
Last edited:
They are the lowest tier Advance tickets. The First Class is a via London, the Standard is a Cross Country.

Though I'd always opt for Via London on that route - a far better journey.
 
Not to bothered as i only use the train twice a year.

One thing that did get my back up is the lack of ticket inspectors,i went to southend on sea and back and not one person asked for my ticket.
 
schizo said:
One thing that did get my back up is the lack of ticket inspectors,i went to southend on sea and back and not one person asked for my ticket.
Click to expand...

Cut backs mate, so called trying to save money but yet the prices go up every year for the same crappy service. Glad work pay for my train journey.
 
[TW]Fox;26774913 said:
They are the lowest tier Advance tickets. The First Class is a via London, the Standard is a Cross Country.

Though I'd always opt for Via London on that route - a far better journey.
Click to expand...

Good for you?

I don't need flexibility since I always plan my journeys well in advance, and I'd rather pay the relatively small increase to (sometimes) fly and make the journey in a quarter of the time. If I know I need more than my laptop bag, I'll get the train and change at Wolverhampton or otherwise because it's the quickest and less faff than changing 2 or more times.
 
Last edited:
I'm just trying to ensure we are accurate really - which you are very much not being. It's generally not cheaper to fly and it's also not a quarter of the time, nor is it '45 minutes' - you say yourself you then need a 40 minute train journey after flying.

So, 60 minutes of pre-boarding faff. Plane takes off. Lands 45 minutes later. 30 minutes to get out of the airport to the station and wait for a train. 50 minutes to Warrington. Best case scenario for the plane then is 3 hours, not 45 minutes.

Southampton to Warrington by train is 4 hours. So the plane is actually, best case, about an hour quicker. A useful saving - and if you prefer it then great - but not a quarter of the time.

Just make sure we deal with facts rather than fiction, thats all :)

There is much about about rail network that is crappy and unacceptable but if we are going to beat it with a stick lets just make sure we get our facts straight first and make sure we are comparing like with like.
 
Are you bored or something?

Best case scenario for the plane is more like 2 and a half hours, since I get to airport 40 mins before departure, not an hour, and it doesn't take half an hour to get from the plane to train at the other end (Quite often I'll have to run to catch it, so call it 15 mins).

Train is 4 hours roughly, not via London, and then I have to get another one which is waiting time (can be an hour) plus 10 minutes. If I go via Manchester (sometimes works out cheaper), it's even longer depending on the time of day.

So in the best circumstances, the plane can be twice as quick. Which for someone who quite often gets travel sickness is a God send, and well worth the £20 extra.
 
MichaelAwkward said:
Are you bored or something?
Click to expand...

Well no, but this is a thread on an internet discussion forum so you'd kinda expect to discuss things in it :confused:

So in the best circumstances, the plane can be twice as quick.
Click to expand...

I'm glad we clarified it actually takes twice as long as you said a few posts ago ;)

Which for someone who quite often gets travel sickness is a God send, and well worth the £20 extra.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it's not worth the extra for you. I'm saying its probably not cheaper (which it usually isn't, and which was the purpose of the post you replied to originally) and it's not 'a quarter' of the time.
 
Last edited:
You chimed in with a rant which nobody asked for in response to my post which didn't even say that it was cheaper. I was simply pointing out that the difference between plane and train, north to south, isn't that great and can be well worth it. I know you've got a reputation to uphold on these forums but you're just being annoying.
 
Cant wait.

Get the dreaded arriva train into Brum each day....standing room only or they send two carriages instead of 4 etc...well worth the 200 quid amonth i pay for my reduced ticket for west midlands travel (usual is like 10 quid more) guess thats 100 less a year.
 
Why are Labour so outraged by the the formula? And then make out they are the champions of the people by pledging to scrap it? Didn't they introduce the damn thing?
 
Also known as "being the opposition".

This is inconvenient but what's the alternative? I'd rather put the time spent worrying about it into moving to a new job that covers the increase.

estebanrey said:
You could always move closer to where you work you know.

I have sympathy for people who need to use a train as a one off to get to a hospital appointment but little for those that choose to work in high paying areas like London whilst living in lower cost areas.
Click to expand...

I haven't checked for a while, but I'm not sure there's any room left for the people who work in London to physically live there. The commuter belt around London doesn't have noticeably lower living costs.
 
Who exactly do people want to pay for the railways?

I don't mind strategic investment which builds infrastructure as the private market wouldn't be able to build it otherwise.

However ongoing running needs to break even.

Caged said:
I haven't checked for a while, but I'm not sure there's any room left for the people who work in London to physically live there. The commuter belt around London doesn't have noticeably lower living costs.
Click to expand...


The main living cost is rent/house prices. They aren't even close.
 
Last edited:
how about the profits from the franchise holders being pumped back in to their operations rather than to share holders. that would be a nice start rather than them crying about needing hand out's to fund new rolling stock.
 
I priced up tickets from Carlisle to Manchester last week for 2 of us, £96 return (£48 each) (that was advanced purchase too.) It costs me £30 in petrol to drive there and back, and another £10 to park overnight in Ancoats. Where's the advantage in getting the train when it's over double the price!
 
On the plus side, some routes have become quicker. E.g. Stafford to London is now 1h 20m instead of 2h (2007 vs 2014), and Stafford to Nottingham is now 1h 45m instead of 3h 15m (again 2007 vs 2014).

However, I thought that the gov't was trying to get less cars on the road? Above inflation hikes year-on-year isn't exactly helping here is it? So we're paying more on petrol and more on rail tickets, so it's more regardless. What message is the gov't trying to send us?! Oh yes, benefits claimants who don't have to use transport to work at all :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom