The Student Room Group

Rail fares going up

even though rail fares are going up at least still cheaper than air travel, and more better than air travel

what do you think

and at least with rail, you can get up and go

with air travel, you need to go through security, wait at gate, immigration checks and passport control, baggage collection etc

rail is still better to travel only within the UK

plane is too expensive within the UK, taxes included

rail is still cheap
more better?

Oh dear :facepalm:
Reply 2
I think rail travel in the UK is extortionally expensive; in order to get decent prices you have to book weeks in advance and get a very restrictive ticket. If I wanted to go to London at the weekend for some reason, then it would cost me (with railcard) £65 for a single, and about £85 for a return. Quite a while ago, my brother and I wanted to go to London to see an exhibition about Jimi Hendrix. The total cost of tickets came to over £150!

The government is trying to get people to use their cars less for less congestion/CO2/etc., even with the equally ridiculous cost of fuel it's usually cheaper to drive (not to mention more convenient). Consider families: take two adults and two children to Scotland from York for a short holiday and you're looking at £200-£300, without bring lots of stuff, bikes, etc., and they won't have a car when they get there.

Rant over. Sorry about that!
Original post by 01jtiong
even though rail fares are going up at least still cheaper than air travel, and more better than air travel

what do you think

and at least with rail, you can get up and go

with air travel, you need to go through security, wait at gate, immigration checks and passport control, baggage collection etc

rail is still better to travel only within the UK

plane is too expensive within the UK, taxes included

rail is still cheap


Plane is stronger then train.
Reply 4
I wouldnt expect anything differnt in already the most expensive country for trains in Europe, and the worst service.
But I dont think you can compare train and plane travel, since most commuters dont commute from, say, Glasgow to London.
Reply 5
Woooshy-flying mobile go faster though.
It's already expensive enough. It's not fair how many commuters pay extortionate rail fares and are then expected to stand for all or part of their journey during rush hours. There is a significant lack of investment in our domestic rail services and the investment that does occur is usually confined to London and the South-East. If we are to pay these excessive fares then there should at the very least be seat provision for every passanger on mainline rail services.
(edited 12 years ago)
Reply 7
Original post by ultimate mashup
It's already expensive enough. It's not fair how many commuters pay extortionate rail fares and are then expected to stand for all or part of their journey during rush hours. There is a significant lack of investment in our domestic rail services and the investment that does occur is usually confined to London and the South-East. If we are to pay these excessive fares then there should at the very least be seat provision for every passanger on mainline rail services.


Not gonna happen. They dont even use doubledeckers.
Reply 8
Although National Rail services are bad, can't complain about London Underground :biggrin:.
Original post by T-ros
Not gonna happen. They dont even use doubledeckers.


I know but they could make trains more frequent on mainline services or alternatively add more coaches - its not hard to turn a three coach trian into a five coach train. Its not a lot to ask for given the prices we pay.
Reply 10
Meh it's still pretty cheap for long distances if you book waaaay ahead, and the service really isn't all that bad, it's just one of those things that everyone has had drilled into them that the Brittish rail system is ****e, while everywhere else runs like clockwork. It's not really that true.
Reply 11
Original post by Wisham
Meh it's still pretty cheap for long distances if you book waaaay ahead, and the service really isn't all that bad, it's just one of those things that everyone has had drilled into them that the Brittish rail system is ****e, while everywhere else runs like clockwork. It's not really that true.


Because it is. Look at the Netherlands. Highest % of trains on time, busiest network and if the train is 30 minutes delayd u get half the money returned, if its 60 minutes or more late u get fully refund.
Going up even more? They are already pretty darn expensive
Original post by ultimate mashup
I know but they could make trains more frequent on mainline services or alternatively add more coaches - its not hard to turn a three coach trian into a five coach train. Its not a lot to ask for given the prices we pay.


A lot of our tracks are already at maximum capacity. Having more coaches would mean more time that train needs to be on a certain segment. Thus it would lead to other delays elsewhere due to the knock on effect. More trains? Again the line capacity is already quite full and it is difficult to have any more.

No idea why we don't use double decker trains considering it would solve a lot of the problems we are facing now of crowded trains.
In what sense are they better? I can fly to Paris and it would be both cheaper and faster than catching the train to Bristol, even though it's about twice as far away.
Original post by Erich Hartmann
A lot of our tracks are already at maximum capacity. Having more coaches would mean more time that train needs to be on a certain segment. Thus it would lead to other delays elsewhere due to the knock on effect. More trains? Again the line capacity is already quite full and it is difficult to have any more.

No idea why we don't use double decker trains considering it would solve a lot of the problems we are facing now of crowded trains.


I think its because of the many Victorian tunnels dotted around the country that can only accept single deck trains. I think there would be a case for more frequent trains. For example the train service between Nottingham and London is every 30 minutes - I can't see why this couldn't be upgrades to every 20 minutes or even every 15 minutes. London underground trains manage to run within minutes of each other so why can't mainline trains do the same?
Reply 16
Original post by ultimate mashup
I think its because of the many Victorian tunnels dotted around the country that can only accept single deck trains. I think there would be a case for more frequent trains. For example the train service between Nottingham and London is every 30 minutes - I can't see why this couldn't be upgrades to every 20 minutes or even every 15 minutes. London underground trains manage to run within minutes of each other so why can't mainline trains do the same?


I agree witth the tunnels point.
On some lines of the London Underground the drivers dont drive themselves, they just press the button and then the train drives itself to the next station.
And tube trains have far more doors allowing quicker stops etc.

Quick Reply