Re the point about buses - it really is a “locals” form of transport. Information is usually so poor then you really have to be local to the area to know how to use it; which is probably why it seems local people know about them. In contrast information provision from the railway industry usually makes it more welcoming to irregular travellers.
Totally agree, it's a bit of a deregulated mess. The private sector generally hasn't done a good job of organising itself in this regard - although there are a few notable exceptions.
My experience in greater manchester is that the cost of public transport has very little to do with the distance and far more to do with how frequent a user you are and what mix of modes and operators you are using.
If you are making an off-peak day return journey and can make the whole journey by rail then it is indeed often cheaper than the bus. OTOH if you have to use a bus to get to the rail station at the start of your journey then it will probably be cheaper to make the whole return journey by bus. Even if you have to use multiple bus companies, an "any bus" day ticket is still cheaper than a "bus and train" day ticket.
Yeah. Unfortunately people are punished for changing modes, when the very fact they are changing modes is already inconvenient. I'd sure love to be able to take the Metrolink all the way to my destination, it's not like I'm just choosing to get on a bus for no reason, it's because I have to, so no need to charge me twice!
Cross Country is an undercapacitied overpriced aberration operating unsuitable smelly noisy trains over long distances and shouldn't be used as an example of anything.
I don't want to be rude to the OP, but I think that he needs to get out more - as we all do at the moment!
In normal circumstances I travel thousands of miles a year by rail for work, and in both First and Standard Class. What I see is that all sorts of people use all sorts of trains to make all sorts of trips in all sorts of places. You just can't generalise.
I completely agree, the trains are used by so many people. For those without cars who need a viable long distance option, they are absolutely invaluable!
Surprised how many people on a railway forum seem anti-train...makes for good debate I guess, hopefully I can change some minds!
Buses rarely offer decent value for money in comparison to the train because most of them do the "we don't do return tickets, you'll have to buy a day ranger" scam.
The one bus company I've found to be exceptional value is I think, East Yorkshire buses, based around Hull.
Oh god, flashbacks! It would be nice to have affordable single fares, with free changes included within the hour.
I think it's important to remember the railway is a public service, not a business. So in cases of lost first class revenue to help with overcrowded trains, the government should fund the difference.
I agree, although long term the focus should be on more capacity across the board.
No, it’s a business, and always has been.
More magic money tree funding, I see.
This isn't really true. A lot of railways were funded by speculative "bubbles", often with profitability being elusive. Other times, governments, especially in the United States, essentially gave away free land to railway operators, which by connecting to the railroads, had its value increased significantly.
Profits haven't always been a given on the railways, but the wider economic benefits they provide are undeniable. You could say the same about many things, I mean schools aren't really profitable, but they have a much wider social and economic benefit that makes them worthwhile.
"Magic money tree" ideology seems to miss the point that you can't support a modern economy on dirt roads and minecarts. There needs to be some form of leadership and strategy, in order to facilitate economic growth, growth which benefits everyone, not just those who happen to be rich/poor, urban/rural, northern/southern, etc, etc.
It is a business. Take a look at the 'public service' trains of Mumbai (Bombay) or Metrorail in Johannesburg or Cape Town to see what conditions are like when a subsidised public service ethos prevails. Our Government is not going to open-endedly fund the railways to some kind of mythical peak time comfort level.
If you can't afford to travel in the First Class carriages, rather than getting green with envy, just pretend that they are not there. There are many things in life that I can't afford, but if I could would make my life easier and more comfortable. That doesn't mean that I can just go and grab them from someone else.
I am not sure that these peaks of overcrowding are going to continue post covid anyway.
This sounds like another flavour of the "it's socialism and socialism is bad" argument. Let's be honest here and admit there could be wider social and economic forces at play that have lead to Mumbai, Johannesburg and Cape Town's rail systems being poor.
But yeah, first class carriages don't annoy me on the general. Like if rich people or business travellers want to subsidise the railway more then good on them...just because their seat is slightly bigger, doesn't mean mine is getting any smaller. There's room for everyone, and really the finger should be pointed at government for not dealing with our crippling capacity issues.
In terms of ‘public service’ or ‘service to the public’, we also need to consider the railway as a tool to keep the economy moving. It is a vehicle to enable private businesses to make money using its most important asset: people. Therefore while the tax payer needs to provide funding to the rail industry, the rail industry provides the human capital to facilitate business operations, which in turn provides tax revenue back to the treasury.
As I see it, funding of the railways is one side of the triangle. The beneficiaries are not just TOCS and passengers, but businesses up and down the country.
That as well as enabling people to get to work, which is a cost absorbed by the employee. The railway gives businesses the opportunity to position their offices in a location that can attract the most number of people to work for them.
Exactly, economic growth is expanded by good infrastructure, and hindered by bad infrastructure. Just take a look at cities across the country... all the people who lost or quit their jobs because they couldn't get to work on time due to persistent disruption. Not to mention quality of life, something a good economy is supposed to facilitate.
And if all those extra passengers (who may or may not exist) turned up wouldn't the trains be even more overcrowded ?
And you're entitled to your opinions but why shouldn't people be offered a range of services ? I use the trains a lot and I'm really not fussed if some people choose a more expensive facility, especially if it subsidises my ticket price !
Are you aware of the level of government debt ? Debt which has to be serviced by the public, many of whom rarely use the railway.
The key issue is really, that there is far too little capacity, and a lot of constrained demand. I would love to be able to see my friends more than once a year, but getting to them by train is increasingly costly and overcrowded, at least to go to the South West.
On the flip side though, with TPE's new trains, getting to Newcastle is a hell of a lot nicer, faster, cheaper and all around more convenient. So I'm more than happy to make those journeys, and I get to see my friend up there more!
I agree on the cross-subsidy point on first class tickets. I mean if you think about it, it's pretty "praxis" to be taking some extra cash from the rich, to give to the prols in standard class.
I.E. Government Debt - Capital investments generally aren't a burden to service - the infrastructure serves a long term purpose, which offsets the cost of paying it back. Expanding capacity on the rail network would be majority capital investment, and projects such as resignalling, lengthening trains and electrification should reduce per seat cost long term, so doing so would cut the amount of subsidy the network needs for OPEX.
I agree that railways are a public service, but I do believe that running them in a financially responsible manner is also sensible. These things aren't mutually exclusive. New infrastructure and rolling stock that allows the railways to run more efficiently, will help them to both keep up with demand, improve overall service and reduce per seat costs. The new economic growth (or reduction of economic recession) that these projects help to secure, will pay for them from a tax perspective, whilst the services can run more efficiently on new infrastructure, which will reduce costs to passengers. One big example I will bring up, is the South East. The infrastructure is fairly good and makes rail commuting a viable option for many - long, electrified trains, with good passenger loadings bring in net positive profits. Investment into other cities, which are also seeing this trend of population growth and increased commuting - will help them to follow the same trend.
