Why are rail fares so high?

On Mon, 01 May 2006 02:30:40 +0100, asdf <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>You should really be comparing
>them with the advance purchase rail fares, which have similar
>restrictions, and you'll probably find the prices are competitive.

The problem I find with Advance Purchase rail returns is that you have
to know when you will be returning to the exact time before you even
start the outward journey and that's not always possible depending on
what happens when you get to your destination. With air travel, you
book one way and then you book again coming back by which time you
know your return plans.

--
Alasdair.

"Alasdair" <mail@bobaxter.coo.uk> wrote in message
news:ogta525roif90et3dnrs1e1h2fdto46a3p@...
> On Mon, 01 May 2006 02:30:40 +0100, asdf <invalid@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>You should really be comparing
>>them with the advance purchase rail fares, which have similar
>>restrictions, and you'll probably find the prices are competitive.
>
> The problem I find with Advance Purchase rail returns is that you have
> to know when you will be returning to the exact time before you even
> start the outward journey and that's not always possible depending on
> what happens when you get to your destination. With air travel, you
> book one way and then you book again coming back by which time you
> know your return plans.


Just checked these wonderful cheap flights from Birmingham to Glasgow today
at 15.40 on BA1735. Flight duration is 70 min's and all for the minimal
price of £159.20p. Of course you can book on line and Pay off line for an
extra £15.00. BTW don't turn up with more than 6Kg. of hand luggage or you
will be further fleeced.

Now where were we up to?
--
Ken Ward

"Society for the production of Maritime Reefs using MerseyRail 142's"

In message <ogta525roif90et3dnrs1e1h2fdto46a3p@>, at 03:47:42 on
Mon, 1 May 2006, Alasdair <mail@bobaxter.coo.uk> remarked:
>The problem I find with Advance Purchase rail returns is that you have
>to know when you will be returning to the exact time before you even
>start the outward journey and that's not always possible depending on
>what happens when you get to your destination. With air travel, you
>book one way and then you book again coming back by which time you
>know your return plans.

Why can't you also do that with the train? Is it because the route you
want has a minimum book-ahead period, or do all the cheaper fares sell
out?

fwiw, the routes I fly inside Europe seem to effectively sell out
anything up to two or three weeks ahead - I just had to alter my plans
(for a trip in two weeks time) because one leg was priced at £130,
whereas going the day before was £30.
--
Roland Perry

Alasdair wrote:

> If I want to travel from the Midlands to Glasgow or Edinburgh, I can
> go by air for anything from about £60 down to £2 depending on my
> flexibility of time and what fares are available on that day. I'm
> quoting single fares.

> I can go by car taking one and a half tons of metal with me and it
> will cost me about £60 in fue for the return journeyl

> Yet, if I go by rail, it costs the thick end of £100 to transport all
> 16 stones of me and probably 30 pounds of baggage there and back if I
> pay full fare.

So what you actually mean is that - on a fair comparison - it costs
you £120 return to fly and £100 return to travel by train.

You can travel by train for £34 return from Birmingham to Glasgow,
which seems like a fair price for a 600-mile round trip, which would
cost you the best part of £100 in real costs to drive. (The cost of
running your car is roughly 1.5 – 2 times the cost of the fuel).

The cheapest return flight that I found in May was £49, which I assume
includes taxes but you can never be sure what extras they will sting
you for when it actually comes to the transaction.

Yes, trains are expensive - but they can be a very economical way to
travel if you are prepared to play the system.

The reason the railways receive a subsidy is because, unlike airlines,
they have an obligation to run even on routes with very low patronage.
If Easyjet had a requirement to run regular flights to Whitby and
Aberystwyth and Skegness, they would need a subsidy as well. Instead
they cherry pick the routes they want to run - which is, funnily
enough, precisely those ones which will turn a profit. The railways do
not have the luxury of that choice.

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

Alasdair wrote:

> The problem I find with Advance Purchase rail returns is that you have
> to know when you will be returning to the exact time before you even
> start the outward journey and that's not always possible depending on
> what happens when you get to your destination.

Not any more. As all Apex tickets are now sold as two singles rather
than a return, you only need to book the outward leg initially, and
book the return at a later date - if there are any left available -
when you know what your plans will be.

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

"Stevie D" <stevieinyork.uk> wrote in message
news:ag0i52dik60ge1vncu2e0d3g96thiak72n@...
>
> So what you actually mean is that - on a fair comparison - it costs
> you £120 return to fly and £100 return to travel by train.
>
> You can travel by train for £34 return from Birmingham to Glasgow,
> which seems like a fair price for a 600-mile round trip, which would
> cost you the best part of £100 in real costs to drive. (The cost of
> running your car is roughly 1.5 - 2 times the cost of the fuel).

Probably at least that.

> The cheapest return flight that I found in May was £49, which I assume
> includes taxes but you can never be sure what extras they will sting
> you for when it actually comes to the transaction.

I've just had cause to test that as I've got to go to Dublin in June.
Headline price for the return trip was £20.13, but the actual total
(including a credit card fee of £3.50 and £5 for actually having the
temerity to want to bring a piece of luggage) was £58.70.

Regards

Jonathan

Alan J. Flavell wrote:

> That's the catch, isn't it? If there aren't any available by then,
> your choice is severely limited, given that SVS is almost the same
> price as SVR (if they're even on offer for the journey in question).
>
> If you're in the fortunate situation of wanting to do the same trip
> within a month, you could then buy an SVR, and hope to sort things out
> later. But if not, you're stuck.

Agreed. That's why the SVS is such a bloody waste of space, especially
with the "singles only" model that the TOCs have taken for Apex
tickets.

Not that this makes the railways any worse than the airlines in this
regard, but it certainly doesn't make them any better.

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

Jonathan Morton wrote:

> "Stevie D" wrote:
>
>> The cost of running your car is roughly 1.5 - 2 times the cost of the
>> fuel).
>
> Probably at least that.

Obviously it depends on your car. The newer and more expensive the
car, the more significant a role depreciation plays. For a "high risk"
driver, a proportionate rise in insurance will have a disproportionate
effect on their running costs.

My running cost works out at:
Diesel @ 9p/mile
Depreciation @ 3p/mile additional
Insurance @ 1p/mile additional
Tyres @ 1p/mile
Service and maintenance @ 2p/mile additional

Total actual running cost: 16p/mile = 1.75 × fuel cost.

> I've just had cause to test that as I've got to go to Dublin in June.
> Headline price for the return trip was £20.13, but the actual total
> (including a credit card fee of £3.50 and £5 for actually having the
> temerity to want to bring a piece of luggage) was £58.70.

How is it that the airlines get away with such dishonest advertising?
If anyone else was to advertise a £60 product or service as on sale
for £20 they would - quite rightly - be hauled over the coals by the
ASA, Office of Fair Trading and Watchdog ... yet the airlines seem to
lie about their prices with total impunity.

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

"Stevie D" <stevieinyork.uk> wrote in message
news:3vci5298gpi8l21cffsceoq8ufg50nc8vm@...

> How is it that the airlines get away with such dishonest advertising?
> If anyone else was to advertise a £60 product or service as on sale
> for £20 they would - quite rightly - be hauled over the coals by the
> ASA, Office of Fair Trading and Watchdog ... yet the airlines seem to
> lie about their prices with total impunity.

Yes. What in the US is known as "bait and switch".

Regards

Jonathan

In message <Pine.LNX.4.64.0605032143100.2676@ppepc87.ph.gla.a c.uk>, at
21:48:28 on Wed, 3 May 2006, Alan J. Flavell <flavell@physics.gla.ac.uk>
remarked:
>>As all Apex tickets are now sold as two singles rather
>> than a return, you only need to book the outward leg initially, and
>> book the return at a later date - if there are any left available -
>
>That's the catch, isn't it? If there aren't any available by then,
>your choice is severely limited, given that SVS is almost the same
>price as SVR (if they're even on offer for the journey in question).
>
>If you're in the fortunate situation of wanting to do the same trip
>within a month, you could then buy an SVR, and hope to sort things out
>later. But if not, you're stuck.

It also means that the penalty for missing your AP train back home is
quite steep. Not only is the ticket wasted but the SOS or SVS (whichever
is most appropriate for the time of day) is a substantial extra cost.
--
Roland Perry