As a non driver at the moment, I do make good use of the railways and of course it's the usual round of fare hikes with the average fare going up by 6%. The railways are never going to pay for themselves and the price rises are pretty much expected.
But with inflation fast turning into deflation and more people perhaps thinking about commuting, is this really the best idea? I find it amusing the line behind the dearer fares is to "reduce the taxpayers burden". Well if it doesn't get spent on the railway, where else will it go? Are all you drivers suddenly going to find yourself with a rebate next year? I think not.
I've always believed in "no politics at the bar" and I usually bring that restriction to myself here as well, but this seems like a smack in the face for those that spend could potentially spend thousands on getting to work each year.
Rail - it's cheaper than the car. Apparently
I've heard two different arguments supporting the above inflation rise. Firstly in previous years the rises have been pegged at below inflation and secondly because the fairs are linked to inflation the argument is that if we reach deflation, or as inflation is likely to remain low then next years fare hike will be lower when we may start to see inflation rising. It is all due to the rise being set according to July's inflation rate for implementation in January.
-
JonathanEx
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Tue 25 Mar, 2008 18.41
Knowing Rail companies, they're probably counting the cost of buying a car in the equivalent car journey.
Yes, I'm new here. Hello then.
-
Steve in Pudsey
- Posts: 200
- Joined: Fri 02 Jan, 2004 09.45
I would love to be able to use to train to get to work, but it's just not practical for most people, since that nice Dr Beeching closed lots of the convenient stations meaning that getting to the station is a journey in itself.
The problem we have is that public transport is run as an opportunity to relieve people of money in order for attempting to get them from A to B at a time which is convenient to the operator, rather than necessarily at a time which is useful to the traveller.
An example - there is a bus which leaves the stop near here at approx 08:25, which gets you into town nicely in time for a 9:00 start. But they "nick" that bus for a school run and so it is timetabled to only run in the school holidays, meaning you have to arrive stupidly early or stupidly late. (they seem to have managed a get out in their claim that it's an every 15 minutes service to cover this anomoly).
So given that the railway no longer has a station within walking distance, and the buses run to a ridiculous timetable, it's a very easy decision to take the car. Plus, on every occasion when I do need to take the bus (eg an after work piss-up or the car being in the garage) they manage to screw up somehow.
The problem we have is that public transport is run as an opportunity to relieve people of money in order for attempting to get them from A to B at a time which is convenient to the operator, rather than necessarily at a time which is useful to the traveller.
An example - there is a bus which leaves the stop near here at approx 08:25, which gets you into town nicely in time for a 9:00 start. But they "nick" that bus for a school run and so it is timetabled to only run in the school holidays, meaning you have to arrive stupidly early or stupidly late. (they seem to have managed a get out in their claim that it's an every 15 minutes service to cover this anomoly).
So given that the railway no longer has a station within walking distance, and the buses run to a ridiculous timetable, it's a very easy decision to take the car. Plus, on every occasion when I do need to take the bus (eg an after work piss-up or the car being in the garage) they manage to screw up somehow.
-
all new Phil
- Posts: 2020
- Joined: Sun 13 Feb, 2005 00.04
- Location: Next door to Hell
IMHO it's quite plain that there are 2 problems with trains - they're unreliable a lot of the time, and they're too expensive. I made a return train journey a few weeks back that set me back £64.40. The first train was late, meaning that I missed the next connection and had to fanny about working out how the hell I could get where I wanted to go (and for someone that doesn't use the train very often, that is a challenge!). Factor into the equation how bloody cold and miserable the stations are, and it's just not a pleasant way to travel.
Last week I made the same trip, but by car. It cost me about £50 in petrol to get there and back, and I was straight there, door to door, in a nice warm car with some good music on.
Why on earth would I want to go by train again if it's as quick, comfier, warmer and cheaper to drive there?
As an aside, for anyone that's ever used The Trainline website - why does it list all the available prices for a particular journey and not just the cheapest? I mean, who's going to select £250 when there's a £60 one available?!
Last week I made the same trip, but by car. It cost me about £50 in petrol to get there and back, and I was straight there, door to door, in a nice warm car with some good music on.
Why on earth would I want to go by train again if it's as quick, comfier, warmer and cheaper to drive there?
As an aside, for anyone that's ever used The Trainline website - why does it list all the available prices for a particular journey and not just the cheapest? I mean, who's going to select £250 when there's a £60 one available?!
-
Ebeneezer Scrooge
- Posts: 326
- Joined: Tue 23 Sep, 2003 13.53
- Location: Scrooge Towers
Somebody who wants the flexibility of a £250 ticket or who's employer's are stupid enough to pay those prices?
Snarky