My annual ticket is £3,140 but I would never commute by car.
Rail fares rise above inflation rate.
- Thread starter gothic_hobbit
- Start date
My annual ticket is £3,140 but I would never commute by car.
Soldato
You realise there is also part of the UK outside of London?
Lucky you. Unfortunately I can't afford to live 5 minutes from my work - and I would imagine the majority of people who are FORCED to take the train are in the same position.
I would gladly pay the extra increase in rent rather than train fair if I could, as it would mean an extra 90 minutes in bed in the morning, and an extra 90 minutes with my family at the end of the day - however house prices in the area are more than 50% higher than where I am at the moment. So it's simply not an option.
The only positive to come out of this is that it's rapidly decreasing the cost gap between driving to work and getting the train, meaning I have far more incentive to clog up the motorway, meaning a shorter journey, I actually get a seat rather than a train which is usually packed anyway turning up 2 carriages short and having to squash up against people who don't even know what a shower is, never mind ever experiencing one. I actually get to work and home on time rather than having to sit and wait in the rain for a train which probably wont turn up anyway, and if I have to work late, I can actually get home at a decent time rather than having to wait 2 hours when the "service" frequency drops.
Soldato
if you don't like it get on a bike and cycle ?
Why is there an assumption that people who commute by train are not motorists?
I spend over £2K per year on a train ticket, but still need a car as well.
At the end of the day I choose to live where I do and work where I do as it pays more than I would get living and working outside of London though, and I wouldn't want to do my current commute in my car.
You do know why averages are misleading, right? Just because the average salary is higher doesn't actually mean that rent and property prices are any more affordable.
Soldato
The whole rail system is a joke, Im not surprised Bransons on his way out and im sure the recent news of the god awful FG taking over his line was just the icing on the cake. Christ even investors don't want to know, FG share price just sank 7% this morning.
and Theresa Villiers needs a brain transplant if she thinks the increase is down to upcoming improvements.
and Theresa Villiers needs a brain transplant if she thinks the increase is down to upcoming improvements.
Last edited:
Down the m69? I do drive sometimes and that costs less if its a 1 hour lecture but a 11 hour day costs to much in parking so the only way is to cycle to train station jump on train gwt off train and cycle to uni... Its a 1 hour journey allready.
There is no excuse for my fair being 13 quid when the next stop 5 mins down the line is inly 7 quid return to leicester.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
Wow, freaky. I had been dismissing the train as too expensive for a while now but frankly, had been putting off a true working out of what my car costs me to run. I just worked out train cost vs car cost.
Per month TRAIN season ticket 20 miles each way = £186.70
Per month CAR = £187.02
Car includes MOT, Tax, Insurance and Fuel costs over the year including in the monthly cost, but no repair bills.
So basically for me, the car is the same as the train. The thing is with the car I get flexibility the train will never have like the ability to go other places. My commute is quicker slightly with the car on average. I do have a second car, but I still feel overall that running two cars is better. The train costs would have to be significantly lower than the car for me to turn permanently to the train. This will never happen because fuel costs will rise probably about on par with train costs.
In terms of the actual quality of the trains. I find them totally fine. Yes they can get packed which is annoying. But they are on time and reliable in my area, and perfectly adequate in terms of cleanliness etc.
Per month TRAIN season ticket 20 miles each way = £186.70
Per month CAR = £187.02
Car includes MOT, Tax, Insurance and Fuel costs over the year including in the monthly cost, but no repair bills.
So basically for me, the car is the same as the train. The thing is with the car I get flexibility the train will never have like the ability to go other places. My commute is quicker slightly with the car on average. I do have a second car, but I still feel overall that running two cars is better. The train costs would have to be significantly lower than the car for me to turn permanently to the train. This will never happen because fuel costs will rise probably about on par with train costs.
In terms of the actual quality of the trains. I find them totally fine. Yes they can get packed which is annoying. But they are on time and reliable in my area, and perfectly adequate in terms of cleanliness etc.
Train prices are very dependent on where you travel and when. I find them cheaper than even my bike and more convieniemt. But then I don't use them to commute.
Did newton Abbott to Plymouth last weekend and that was obscenely cheap.
It is what it is, but they do need to decide where they are heading and get there. It seems to be this tangle of public and private that doesn't really work. As there's no real competition. No one can set their prices and initial investment is insanely high to buy trains/carriages which isn't going to happen often, when they know they can be kicked out in a few years.
Did newton Abbott to Plymouth last weekend and that was obscenely cheap.
It is what it is, but they do need to decide where they are heading and get there. It seems to be this tangle of public and private that doesn't really work. As there's no real competition. No one can set their prices and initial investment is insanely high to buy trains/carriages which isn't going to happen often, when they know they can be kicked out in a few years.
Last edited:
And, as a society, we decide just how much to subsidise certain goods and services. For rail travel it is a balance between those that actually use the service and those that don't. I just find it amusing you think it selfish that people won't subsidise rail travel yet think those people wanting their rail travel subsidised more aren't selfish.
Why not food too which is arguably more important than all the above?
il give it 18 months before firstgroup end up crawling back to the gov saying they cant handle what they have taken on.
and from this american chief exec they have he sounds like just another pr muppet expecting all the figures they have guesstimated to happen.
and from this american chief exec they have he sounds like just another pr muppet expecting all the figures they have guesstimated to happen.
Caporegime
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Well it does for the average person. Cost of living and wage levels aren't mutually exclusive, they follow each other otherwise you'd have cities with no one living there, just business parks.
I have lots of friends in London, many of whom have 'low paid' jobs and yet can still afford to live there. One person I knows works in Iceland yet can afford to rent an apartment from those wages so I don't understand people who commute saying they simply couldn't afford to live where they work.
The fact is many people saying they can't afford to move closer to work actually mean they don't want to see a drop in their disposable income.
I hope FG go down within a month. They supply our bus service here in Stoke and to say it's **** is an understatement, and now i'm going to be forced to use them for my train journeys to Mancester. Utter ******** 
FG in Stoke is nicknamed the graveyard. This is because FG sends it's old buses from other cities here to die. Our newest buses are probably 10~ years old, recently plastered with ironic 'reducing carbon emissions' banners and are some of the most expensive FG buses in the country to use.
I hate FG so much!
FG in Stoke is nicknamed the graveyard. This is because FG sends it's old buses from other cities here to die. Our newest buses are probably 10~ years old, recently plastered with ironic 'reducing carbon emissions' banners and are some of the most expensive FG buses in the country to use.
I hate FG so much!
Last edited:
Permabanned
Isn't there a union that can stop this? I'm considering working more local to me now as these prices are getting ridiculous and so is the state of the economy.
probably donate money to certain politicians thats how
Ironically this is one aspect of rail transport operation which has been hampered by rail privatisation, and in the decade preceding it due to geographical and functional sectorisation (in preparation of privatisation).
Prior to being split into independent business units, resources such as rolling stock, motive power, staff, buildings/maintenance depots/crew facilities could be shared universally across the different areas of railway operations ; passenger and freight operation etc.
We now have a situation where passenger operations are split by different functional and geographical specialisations, each requiring it's own dedicated fleet of rolling stock, staff, and maintenance facilities.
Freight is an entirely different ball game and is run on a completely private basis, with numerous freight operating companies in existence, each with their own staff, facilities, locos and rolling stock.
The combination of the above has resulted in a number of issues ;
- Lack of flexibility to cater for increased/seasonal traffic flows
- Lack of interoperability between rolling stock
- Reduced ability to change power source when travelling over electrified/non electrified lines
- Increased costs due to duplication of resources and facilities across each Train Operating company
Prior to sectorisation/privatisation, it was common practice for locomotives to be used universally across passenger and freight operations, rolling stock was interoperable, and it was possible to source spare motive power and rolling stock at short notice.
It was also common practice to swap diesel locos for electrics when travelling over electric lines and vice-versa. It was also in many cases possible to transport mail/parcel/newspaper traffic via rail by coupling an appropriate vehicle to the end of a passenger train. Due to the divisive nature of the railway system this is no longer possible, and it is not financially viable to run dedicated trains to transport traffic of this nature.
The above no longer takes place. We have reduced cohesiveness, resiliency and economy of scale across the network. Different types of rolling stock lack compatibility and interoperability, and in many cases it is difficult to increase/decrease train lengths at short notice.
Diesel hauled trains travel for many miles over electrified lines due to it not being cost effective for smaller entities to make provisions for mid journey traction changes. Diesel trains (especially freight) are slower than electric trains, particularly with regard to acceleration etc.
Although the privatised rail network costs significantly more to run (even accounting for inflation) than it did as a nationalised entity, there have been improvements. The average age of rolling stock has reduced significantly, with reliability and customer satisfaction increasing commensurately.
It would be interesting to see what a properly run nationalised railway system could achieve with the level of funding received by all the privatised entities currently in operation.
Last edited:
Soldato
you might want to look at this thread: http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18028196
finding a job is stupidly difficult right now. there are more people looking for jobs than there are jobs available, so most dont, as you said "CHOOSE to work miles and miles away from where they live" but are forced to because their "choice" is either work far away or starve