|
|
Post by wirewiper on Jun 8, 2022 10:54:04 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jun 8, 2022 19:12:25 GMT
The entire railway would need a total rebuild for me to consider the train as a realistic competitor to air travel at all. Manchester is probably the furthest I'd travel happily by rail, but even then I'd fly if I was the only one travelling. I went to Scotland by rail a couple of months ago and was kicking myself as to why I didn't fly there. It was a total shambles of a journey and I'm certainly going to be flying the next time I head up there, chances are it'll be cheaper anyway.
It's very hard to match the convenience and speed provided by air travel and research should be pumped more into making air travel greener as opposed to flogging a dead horse. Rail need drastic reform and it's more than any government anytime soon will be willing to work towards.
|
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Jun 8, 2022 22:32:19 GMT
The entire railway would need a total rebuild for me to consider the train as a realistic competitor to air travel at all. Manchester is probably the furthest I'd travel happily by rail, but even then I'd fly if I was the only one travelling. I went to Scotland by rail a couple of months ago and was kicking myself as to why I didn't fly there. It was a total shambles of a journey and I'm certainly going to be flying the next time I head up there, chances are it'll be cheaper anyway. It's very hard to match the convenience and speed provided by air travel and research should be pumped more into making air travel greener as opposed to flogging a dead horse. Rail need drastic reform and it's more than any government anytime soon will be willing to work towards. I would rather take the train. It might take longer but when you weigh the time it takes to get to an airport, through security and waiting at the gate it should work out roughly the same. Also there is the added benefit of arriving right in the heart of the destination city when airports can often be out of town with an expensive taxi or rail connection to get to the city. I’ll stick to the train because I find it more convenient for me. |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Jun 8, 2022 23:27:24 GMT
The entire railway would need a total rebuild for me to consider the train as a realistic competitor to air travel at all. Manchester is probably the furthest I'd travel happily by rail, but even then I'd fly if I was the only one travelling. I went to Scotland by rail a couple of months ago and was kicking myself as to why I didn't fly there. It was a total shambles of a journey and I'm certainly going to be flying the next time I head up there, chances are it'll be cheaper anyway. It's very hard to match the convenience and speed provided by air travel and research should be pumped more into making air travel greener as opposed to flogging a dead horse. Rail need drastic reform and it's more than any government anytime soon will be willing to work towards. I would rather take the train. It might take longer but when you weigh the time it takes to get to an airport, through security and waiting at the gate it should work out roughly the same. Also there is the added benefit of arriving right in the heart of the destination city when airports can often be out of town with an expensive taxi or rail connection to get to the city. I’ll stick to the train because I find it more convenient for me. My opinion is, is since the government has nationalised some franchises, and taken the fare risk on the others, there is no need for TOCs to offer good value to the customer, so why should they care. Since carrying passengers is of no benefit to them, they are in exactly the same position as the London bus operators, so unless thing change, it will be a steady downward spiral, as we have seen in the TfL bus market. If public transport is to exist, there has to be a benefit for attracting custom/revenue, otherwise what incentive is there other than the ever gradual decline. Deals on advanced rail fares are not any way shape of form near where they were when ticket sales equalled profit for operators |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 9, 2022 0:41:28 GMT
The entire railway would need a total rebuild for me to consider the train as a realistic competitor to air travel at all. Manchester is probably the furthest I'd travel happily by rail, but even then I'd fly if I was the only one travelling. I went to Scotland by rail a couple of months ago and was kicking myself as to why I didn't fly there. It was a total shambles of a journey and I'm certainly going to be flying the next time I head up there, chances are it'll be cheaper anyway. It's very hard to match the convenience and speed provided by air travel and research should be pumped more into making air travel greener as opposed to flogging a dead horse. Rail need drastic reform and it's more than any government anytime soon will be willing to work towards. I would rather take the train. It might take longer but when you weigh the time it takes to get to an airport, through security and waiting at the gate it should work out roughly the same. Also there is the added benefit of arriving right in the heart of the destination city when airports can often be out of town with an expensive taxi or rail connection to get to the city. I’ll stick to the train because I find it more convenient for me. Having been to Glasgow three times to visit my Auntie and all on a train, the experience was twice great with no issues and once being the worst journey I've ever done due to a combination of weather closing the WCL in Lancaster and Avanti's incompetence at telling passengers to board a particular carriage on a train at King's Cross that was meant to be unreserved only to then be kicked out of seats and multiple arguments along the train erupting as a result. The two good times I went (once under Virgin and once under Avanti, the latter being not long after most restrictions were lifted) would echo exactly what you say regarding getting a flight in that it leaves you in the city centre and you don't have the faff of going through airport checks and security. Also, it's pretty easy to get reasonable priced tickets to Glasgow with Avanti |
|
|
|
Post by Green Kitten on Jun 9, 2022 7:20:59 GMT
I wish I could train it to Corsica. I would. I loathe airports. (I always will have a soft spot for Nice airport though <3 )
|
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Jun 9, 2022 7:24:00 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Jun 9, 2022 20:46:44 GMT
The entire railway would need a total rebuild for me to consider the train as a realistic competitor to air travel at all. Manchester is probably the furthest I'd travel happily by rail, but even then I'd fly if I was the only one travelling. I went to Scotland by rail a couple of months ago and was kicking myself as to why I didn't fly there. It was a total shambles of a journey and I'm certainly going to be flying the next time I head up there, chances are it'll be cheaper anyway. It's very hard to match the convenience and speed provided by air travel and research should be pumped more into making air travel greener as opposed to flogging a dead horse. Rail need drastic reform and it's more than any government anytime soon will be willing to work towards. Maybe it is time we went back to the railways being financed in the way how they started. I know some companies went bankrupt, but it seems there was more growth over hundred years ago than there is now. Over the past 50 years we have had drips and drabs in terms of railways in London and the only true full new line we have had within that time is the Victoria line. A lot of the others have taken over other existing underground line with only small section of brand new tunnel or track. Or taken over National rail lines. Even many of the other projections are just extensions or takeovers of parts of the National rail network like crossrail 2. I do like trains, but also like aeroplanes and do see your point in why you would take the plane over the train. When we have situations like this, it is madness. I really cannot understand why trains should be so expensive. |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jun 11, 2022 10:27:15 GMT
The entire railway would need a total rebuild for me to consider the train as a realistic competitor to air travel at all. Manchester is probably the furthest I'd travel happily by rail, but even then I'd fly if I was the only one travelling. I went to Scotland by rail a couple of months ago and was kicking myself as to why I didn't fly there. It was a total shambles of a journey and I'm certainly going to be flying the next time I head up there, chances are it'll be cheaper anyway. It's very hard to match the convenience and speed provided by air travel and research should be pumped more into making air travel greener as opposed to flogging a dead horse. Rail need drastic reform and it's more than any government anytime soon will be willing to work towards. Maybe it is time we went back to the railways being financed in the way how they started. I know some companies went bankrupt, but it seems there was more growth over hundred years ago than there is now. Over the past 50 years we have had drips and drabs in terms of railways in London and the only true full new line we have had within that time is the Victoria line. A lot of the others have taken over other existing underground line with only small section of brand new tunnel or track. Or taken over National rail lines. Even many of the other projections are just extensions or takeovers of parts of the National rail network like crossrail 2. I do like trains, but also like aeroplanes and do see your point in why you would take the plane over the train. When we have situations like this, it is madness. I really cannot understand why trains should be so expensive. The cost is by far the reason I think the railways are failing. British Airways really should not be money milking a route from Heathrow to Manchester, especially out of Terminal 5 with the amount of time it can sometimes take to get out of the terminal. But no doubt the sheer comfort the plane has for a lower price is a no brainer to many people. The prices Avanti have are totally ridiculous and it's no surprise half the time people don't even bother looking at train prices before going straight for the websites of airlines. I've said it before, but the railways in this country are a total disaster. Operators aren't being forced to innovate, and in cases that they do they are bottlenecked by dated infrastructure that nobody wants to invest in. Coming back from Edinburgh there was an issue on the overhead wires, which quite frankly would have never been an issue on the plane if I'd bothered to take it. Planes have their own issues, although these are nowhere near as common bar the temporary mess at airports. Not to mention the state of train stations in this country is appalling. While I did slate LHR T5 earlier in this post, it is by far superior to any train station in this country. Would much rather wait for a plane in there rather than get bombarded by every pigeon on the planet at King's Cross Station. HS2 has run into far more opposition than it really should have, these climate fools don't want it but they don't want people to fly either. If this was any of the Middle Eastern countries, or even some European ones the line would have been built anyway and the opposing people forced out of their homes. In the end the country benefits far more than just keeping 10 people happy. |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Jun 11, 2022 12:52:51 GMT
Maybe it is time we went back to the railways being financed in the way how they started. I know some companies went bankrupt, but it seems there was more growth over hundred years ago than there is now. Over the past 50 years we have had drips and drabs in terms of railways in London and the only true full new line we have had within that time is the Victoria line. A lot of the others have taken over other existing underground line with only small section of brand new tunnel or track. Or taken over National rail lines. Even many of the other projections are just extensions or takeovers of parts of the National rail network like crossrail 2. I do like trains, but also like aeroplanes and do see your point in why you would take the plane over the train. When we have situations like this, it is madness. I really cannot understand why trains should be so expensive. The cost is by far the reason I think the railways are failing. British Airways really should not be money milking a route from Heathrow to Manchester, especially out of Terminal 5 with the amount of time it can sometimes take to get out of the terminal. But no doubt the sheer comfort the plane has for a lower price is a no brainer to many people. The prices Avanti have are totally ridiculous and it's no surprise half the time people don't even bother looking at train prices before going straight for the websites of airlines. I've said it before, but the railways in this country are a total disaster. Operators aren't being forced to innovate, and in cases that they do they are bottlenecked by dated infrastructure that nobody wants to invest in. Coming back from Edinburgh there was an issue on the overhead wires, which quite frankly would have never been an issue on the plane if I'd bothered to take it. Planes have their own issues, although these are nowhere near as common bar the temporary mess at airports. Not to mention the state of train stations in this country is appalling. While I did slate LHR T5 earlier in this post, it is by far superior to any train station in this country. Would much rather wait for a plane in there rather than get bombarded by every pigeon on the planet at King's Cross Station. HS2 has run into far more opposition than it really should have, these climate fools don't want it but they don't want people to fly either. If this was any of the Middle Eastern countries, or even some European ones the line would have been built anyway and the opposing people forced out of their homes. In the end the country benefits far more than just keeping 10 people happy. Competitively priced rails tickets is key to getting motorists off the road. When you can drive an equivalent inter city journey as a single person and it be cheaper than rail, what hope is there for attracting a family of 4. You need to make it cheaper for a family of 4 to travel by rail than by car before they will even think of changing modes. 3 hour inter city ticket £100. 80 tickets per coach, £8000 per coach. 10 coaches per train, £80,000 for 3 hour journey. OK, that is a return, but if £80k does not make an exorbitant profit, there is something intrinsically wrong in UK rail. |
|
|
|
Post by ServerKing on Jun 11, 2022 20:14:59 GMT
The entire railway would need a total rebuild for me to consider the train as a realistic competitor to air travel at all. Manchester is probably the furthest I'd travel happily by rail, but even then I'd fly if I was the only one travelling. I went to Scotland by rail a couple of months ago and was kicking myself as to why I didn't fly there. It was a total shambles of a journey and I'm certainly going to be flying the next time I head up there, chances are it'll be cheaper anyway. It's very hard to match the convenience and speed provided by air travel and research should be pumped more into making air travel greener as opposed to flogging a dead horse. Rail need drastic reform and it's more than any government anytime soon will be willing to work towards. If any pilots join the RMT, then air travel would be just as unreliable as the train  the speeds need increasing from 125 to 150 at least, the problems for rail stem back to track dating back to the Victorian era with a lot of curves... France, Germany, Italy all built dedicated high speed routes from the early 60s which don't have to share with slower services. I can fly from UK to Madrid in a couple of hours, compared to several hours on a train to Edinburgh or Glasgow. We are struggling to finish HS2, which is only High Speed up to Birmingham before joining existing infrastructure. Elizabeth Line was 3 years late, but an airline could get a new flight path established in a relatively short time  |
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Jun 12, 2022 21:29:23 GMT
For journeys to Scotland the length of the train journey means it isn't a viable option for many. Even though you can work on the train and things like that people prefer the convenience of a short flight rather than a long train journey even though the airport is outside the city centre. In West London with Heathrow so close people prefer the convenience of going there to fly up to Scotland rather than going to King's Cross to get the train and understandably so. Even the Caledonian Sleeper which is a train option for going to Scotland and means you don't lose a large chunk of your day travelling is ridiculously expensive especially if you want a bed, I struggle to see why anyone travelling from London-Scotland would buy a seat on a sleeper train instead of a seat on a plane. Signalling upgrades on the ECML to increase line speed to 140mph will cut train journey times. I understand Lumo's aim was to take on the airlines by providing faster London-Edinburgh trains but I suspect its probably just taken passengers away from LNER rather than the airlines. Anyone know how successful its been?
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 13, 2022 1:10:24 GMT
For journeys to Scotland the length of the train journey means it isn't a viable option for many. I'm bemused by this as well as the comment in an earlier post about it being expensive - Avanti do sell many low cost tickets to Glasgow as I've experience of getting some outside of any sales and have a lower wage than most on here so I can't see how it's not viable. Where I find journeys are expensive are actually other mainlines and services frequenting part of these mainlines - take the recently withdrawn Brighton to Bristol GWR service which cost £60 and around £55 with split tickets whereas I've had Avanti return tickets cheaper than from Scotland on a longer service. Even compare more sedate affairs like Chiltern journeys to Bicester or Oxford and the Brighton Mainline which has long been expensive. |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jun 13, 2022 7:26:27 GMT
For journeys to Scotland the length of the train journey means it isn't a viable option for many. I'm bemused by this as well as the comment in an earlier post about it being expensive - Avanti do sell many low cost tickets to Glasgow as I've experience of getting some outside of any sales and have a lower wage than most on here so I can't see how it's not viable. Where I find journeys are expensive are actually other mainlines and services frequenting part of these mainlines - take the recently withdrawn Brighton to Bristol GWR service which cost £60 and around £55 with split tickets whereas I've had Avanti return tickets cheaper than from Scotland on a longer service. Even compare more sedate affairs like Chiltern journeys to Bicester or Oxford and the Brighton Mainline which has long been expensive. I think you also do need to remember people are always going to be willing to pay a slight premium for the train. For tomorrow I can see Avanti charging £76 and British Airways charging £100. I'd say the extra £24 is worth it for the quicker journey, extra comfort and added convenience of the plane. EasyJet are £64, which is cheaper than the train so that will be a no brainer to many. |
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Jun 13, 2022 9:12:29 GMT
For journeys to Scotland the length of the train journey means it isn't a viable option for many. I'm bemused by this as well as the comment in an earlier post about it being expensive - Avanti do sell many low cost tickets to Glasgow as I've experience of getting some outside of any sales and have a lower wage than most on here so I can't see how it's not viable. Where I find journeys are expensive are actually other mainlines and services frequenting part of these mainlines - take the recently withdrawn Brighton to Bristol GWR service which cost £60 and around £55 with split tickets whereas I've had Avanti return tickets cheaper than from Scotland on a longer service. Even compare more sedate affairs like Chiltern journeys to Bicester or Oxford and the Brighton Mainline which has long been expensive. I didn't say it wasn't a viable option for everyone I just said many don't see it as a viable option. This is especially apparent in West London when Heathrow is closer to King's Cross. Even though the airports in Edinburgh and Glasgow aren't in the city centre the convenience of having an airport nearby in London trumps arriving in the city centre up in Scotland. |
|
the speeds need increasing from 125 to 150 at least, the problems for rail stem back to track dating back to the Victorian era with a lot of curves... France, Germany, Italy all built dedicated high speed routes from the early 60s which don't have to share with slower services. I can fly from UK to Madrid in a couple of hours, compared to several hours on a train to Edinburgh or Glasgow. 