Ridiculously high rail fares for the UK

[Huge]

On 2009-02-19, Derek Geldard <impex@miniac.*************> wrote:

> There is currently a £16.50 fare from Glasgow to London.

So what? I went from Milton Keynes to Chester and back this week. £145. About
the same rate per mile as the mini-cab that took me to the station in the first
place.

--
"Please try to understand, the one you call Messiah is a lie."
[email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

[Conor]

In article <BL6dnS3JTYqpgzzUnZ2dnUVZ8vudnZ2d@bt.com>, Brimstone says...

> > Quite simple. Don't sell more tickets than the train has seats
> > available. >
> How would that work on a train making multiple stops?
>
You are joking, aren't you?

> >Every other mode of commercial passenger transport seems to
> > manage it with the exception of short journey buses.
>
> You mean coaches?
>
Taxis, planes, boats.

> Which is least worst (I realise there is no "best"), travelling standing or
> sitting on the floor, or not getting to your destination and being left
> stranded?

I doubt that'd occur.

[Richard2]

>
>> >The meaning of "first class" seems to escape the railistas.
>> Depends which company you travel with I just cannot fault Virgin Rail.
>
>Yes, your opinion being coloured by the cheap fares, the somewhat
>unusual nature of your journeys and the fact that you travel from the
>provinces.[/color]
Nothing unusual about the time of travel at all ,I would deem it very
unusual if I where to leave at say 06:00 am in order to catch an
onward connection from London at 16:25 pm .

[Richard2]

On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 20:40:49 +0000, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
wrote:


>I'd deem it pointless undertaking a journey to arrive in either London
>or Preston at 16:25pm.
Not when your outbound journey departs from either at 16:25 and check
in is at 16:05 . I would sooner depart earlier and arrive at my
destination sooner but my health dictates these days that I need to be
out of bed for at least three hours before I am in a fit state to
travel .

[Richard2]

>>
>>
>> >I'd deem it pointless undertaking a journey to arrive in either London
>> >or Preston at 16:25pm.
>> Not when your outbound journey departs from either at 16:25 and check
>> in is at 16:05 . I would sooner depart earlier and arrive at my
>> destination sooner but my health dictates these days that I need to be
>> out of bed for at least three hours before I am in a fit state to
>> travel .[/color]
>
>Yes, it's all about you, is it? Every traveller takes the same route as
>you, do they? All of these travellers are leisure travellers as you
>appear to be, are they?[/color]
I have often wondered why people in the south east chose to take up
employment in London that involves traveling from towns and cities on
or near the south coast could it be the very large pay packets that
London employers pay out each month I wonder !.
Personally I have never taken up employment further than a 10 minute
bus ride away from home could it be that the size of the size pay
packet far outweighs the travel cost involved in getting to their
places of employment ? .

[Eeyore]

Toommy wrote:

> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@***********m> wrote
>
> Are you sure they're actually propping them up or paying bonuses ? It's
> time
> for an end to this. It may even be bloody.
>
> Graham
>
> Nulabour like Maggies tories "knew" that private enterprise would run the
> trains better than a nationalised industry - the truth? For years the
> subsidies to these companies have been huge - more than the "losses"
> whilst being a nationalised industry.

BOLLOCKS !

The private train companies get the subsidies now.

How come the Swiss can run a decent train service btw that's vastly less
expensive ?

Graham

[Conor]

In article <49B358EB.951EE3F2@***********m>, Eeyore says...

> > Nulabour like Maggies tories "knew" that private enterprise would run the
> > trains better than a nationalised industry - the truth? For years the
> > subsidies to these companies have been huge - more than the "losses"
> > whilst being a nationalised industry.
>
> BOLLOCKS !
>
> The private train companies get the subsidies now.
>
How does this alter the fact that we've a worse service than when it
was nationalised despite £billions more being pumped into the system?

> How come the Swiss can run a decent train service btw that's vastly less
> expensive ?
>
Morals.

[Clive]

In message <1iw962w.1o1gka31ogszpcN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, Steve Firth
<%steve%@malloc.co.uk> writes
> Each time I use rail in the UK it's a shock.
Poor little flower.
--
Clive

[Clive]

In message <1iw9piv.kar63913kfrs2N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, Steve Firth
<%steve%@malloc.co.uk> writes
>Indeed not, because I'm talking about rail and customer service. I
>wouldn't expect any of the railistas to understand the concept of
>customer service.
That begs the question, do you? Oh, and what is a "railistas?
--
Clive

[Eeyore]

Conor wrote:

> Eeyore says...
>
> > > Nulabour like Maggies tories "knew" that private enterprise would run the
> > > trains better than a nationalised industry - the truth? For years the
> > > subsidies to these companies have been huge - more than the "losses"
> > > whilst being a nationalised industry.
> >
> > BOLLOCKS !
> >
> > The private train companies get the subsidies now.
>
> How does this alter the fact that we've a worse service than when it
> was nationalised despite £billions more being pumped into the system?

The reason for that is called GREED.


> > How come the Swiss can run a decent train service btw that's vastly less
> > expensive ?
>
> Morals.

And efficiency + competence.

Graham