My experience of commuting between Ewell West and London Waterloo for around 35 years is that people tend to enter the train where they want to get off. So, if you are heading for Waterloo you want to be at the front of the train, for Wimbledon or Vauxhall, towards the rear. On the way home, for Epsom at the rear, Ewell West third from the rear, Stoneleigh near the front. This all corresponds with where the exits are at the destination stations.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Persistent railway myths, misunderstandings etc.
- Thread starter Journeyman
- Start date
- Status
My experience of commuting between Ewell West and London Waterloo for around 35 years is that people tend to enter the train where they want to get off. So, if you are heading for Waterloo you want to be at the front of the train, for Wimbledon or Vauxhall, towards the rear. On the way home, for Epsom at the rear, Ewell West third from the rear, Stoneleigh near the front. This all corresponds with where the exits are at the destination stations.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
43096
On Moderation
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2015
- Messages
- 15,268
Cricketer8for9
Member
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2015
- Messages
- 683
Absolutely the case for commuters, but much less so for non-regular passengers for example at school holiday time.
Even Glasgow/Edinburgh to Bristol takes a lot longer than it ought to - six and a half to seven hours, as opposed to four to five hours to get to London. To get to Plymouth takes nine hours changing in London, or about ten hours going direct.
The argument that few passengers on the Cross-Country Route are actually going long distances, therefore there's no need to treat it as an intercity route, seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy to me. Given the choice between an overcrowded all-shacks stopper and a change in London, a lot of people are going to go for the option which is faster and more comfortable.
kristiang85
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Jan 2018
- Messages
- 2,656
I get on the train where I expect to find a quiet, spacious coach. So that means, as a commuter to Waterloo, I go to the exact opposite end of the train. I don't mind the 12-coach walk at the final stop, its free exercise.
It does always stagger me how people are happy to squeeze in like sardines at the front of the train for 30-60 mins just to save a minute at the other end.
RPM
Established Member
Experience at Marylebone bears this out. Services arriving in the morning peak tend to be heavily front loaded. Departing services at almost any time of the day load from the back, with few pax seeming to realise they can get a quieter carriage or more choice of seats by walking a little further up the platform.
kristiang85
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Jan 2018
- Messages
- 2,656
Indeed. It is funny when you see on Twitter people posting photos complaining of the 'horrendous overcrowding' of their train, and I realise its the same on as I'm on when I'm sat in comfort at the back.
tbtc
Veteran Member
One “myth” that I think needs to be mentioned on here (because it seems to be accepted by enthusiasts, media and the general public as being true) is that “DOO means only one member of staff on board”.
Driver Only Operation just means the operation of the train (e.g. control of the doors, ultimate responsibility for safety) being done by the driver – it doesn’t necessarily mean “only a Driver on board” – it just means that any additional members of staff on board aren’t responsible for such duties.
Too much attention paid to the “Driver Only” part, and not enough to the “Operation” part.
Unions and politicians are happy to conflate the two and give the impression that opposition to DOO is about “keeping the Guard on the train” (when it’s more about “keeping the Guard being a safety critical role, rather than a ticket collector”).
I’ve heard a few ordinary people in South Yorkshire describe the Northern strikes as being about them trying to operate with only one person on board (which is a whole separate debate), so I think it’s worth repeating this as a “myth” (if I can do so without getting into an argument with anyone about the rights and wrongs of DOO – I’m trying to avoid that).
Driver Only Operation just means the operation of the train (e.g. control of the doors, ultimate responsibility for safety) being done by the driver – it doesn’t necessarily mean “only a Driver on board” – it just means that any additional members of staff on board aren’t responsible for such duties.
Too much attention paid to the “Driver Only” part, and not enough to the “Operation” part.
Unions and politicians are happy to conflate the two and give the impression that opposition to DOO is about “keeping the Guard on the train” (when it’s more about “keeping the Guard being a safety critical role, rather than a ticket collector”).
I’ve heard a few ordinary people in South Yorkshire describe the Northern strikes as being about them trying to operate with only one person on board (which is a whole separate debate), so I think it’s worth repeating this as a “myth” (if I can do so without getting into an argument with anyone about the rights and wrongs of DOO – I’m trying to avoid that).
tsr
Established Member
You may be interested to know that in other areas, depending on traction types, the opposite myth applies - that crew can't do anything about it when, in fact, they can (and fleet controllers in some places even actively encourage it!).
I think people are reading from the timetable for XC through services, routed via the ECML and Sheffield and also a sub-detour to Leeds.
OrangeJuice
Member
- Joined
- 4 Jun 2018
- Messages
- 181
I think to make the Bristol /Exeter /Plymouth train you have to change at Wolverhampton to the Bournemouth Cross County train then again at New Street. So two changes for minimum connection time which might not be as appealing as the direct service (although the same as via London)
RPM
Established Member
I thought that might be the case, hence the qualification at the beginning of my statement
Last edited:
philthetube
Established Member
- Joined
- 5 Jan 2016
- Messages
- 3,762
Or they think that all trains are automated.
If you try running a car purely for business relying on the 45p per mine you will not make anything.
Dr Hoo
Established Member
Sorry, is that another ‘myth’ that you are postulating or a rebuttal?
Surprised nobody has mentioned the RMT's favourite bit of propaganda, trotted out at every opportunity, and rarely challenged by the media:
Directly Operated made a huge (several £100m) profit on the East-coast route when compared to the failed National Express East Coast that preceded them.
This one has been thoroughly debunked in Roger Ford's column in Modern Railways a few years back. The comparison is an invalid one: As part of their franchise agreement NXEC agreed to pay a premium to the government - it was the miscalculation of the size of this (when compared to actual ticket sales) that caused their demise. DOR, on the other hand, took no revenue risk and returned any profit after operating expenses to the government as profit. The size of that profit was far short of the premium NXEC had promised to pay.
It's worth pointing out that cross-subsidisation of routes was always a feature from the beginning of Intercity under British Rail, and the premium scheme in franchises achieved exactly the same thing - it is redistributed as revenue support and outright subsidy to less profitable parts of railways (think Northern Rail, in particular, and regional railways in general).
Directly Operated made a huge (several £100m) profit on the East-coast route when compared to the failed National Express East Coast that preceded them.
This one has been thoroughly debunked in Roger Ford's column in Modern Railways a few years back. The comparison is an invalid one: As part of their franchise agreement NXEC agreed to pay a premium to the government - it was the miscalculation of the size of this (when compared to actual ticket sales) that caused their demise. DOR, on the other hand, took no revenue risk and returned any profit after operating expenses to the government as profit. The size of that profit was far short of the premium NXEC had promised to pay.
It's worth pointing out that cross-subsidisation of routes was always a feature from the beginning of Intercity under British Rail, and the premium scheme in franchises achieved exactly the same thing - it is redistributed as revenue support and outright subsidy to less profitable parts of railways (think Northern Rail, in particular, and regional railways in general).
Last edited:
That there is a prize at Euston for the first person though the gateline
Not the first through the gateline, but the prize for being among the first is that there will be space for your luggage in the inadequate luggage provision on Pendolinos.
This persistent shouty beligerence from the RMT serves no favours to anyone. Everything is a national scandal and it's all about fat cats that nationalising will fix. What is nationalising going to fix for the RMT anyway?
LOL The Irony
On Moderation
And also forgetting that it usually includes flying to another country in europe first, therefore, taking hours longer.
Last edited:
Techniquest
Veteran Member
Well I've sadly no myths to contribute myself, but I was very much in agreement on a few of these that most people believe. The 'Virgin Voyagers' thing I've heard too many times with XC, and I actually never knew that about the 180s before. I had always for 15 years and 1 month been of the belief they were ordered specifically for FGW at the time. I'm sure there's other things I learnt and agreed with too, but those were the major ones while I read all 11 pages of this thread today.
Now it's widely known I've left the railway almost 100% (I have a log on my phone of what trains I travelled on last week, which I still find surprising to note I've now had all the 168s again, as well as being shocked I noted the journeys, so I've still not fully got the railway out of my head) and that I have a love of aviation. I really feel the need to comment on the flying haters in this thread, and to provide a former railway nut's view on the topic:
I fly domestically happily over the train. Yes it can take longer overall compared to the train, depending on the actual journey made, but by no means is the train always cheaper! It depends totally on the individual situation a lot, and I have an example from a couple of years ago. It might have been 2017, I'm not sure:
So I was looking up fairly short notice flights (less than 10 days notice) for a London to Scotland journey and back again. Or was it just one way, I can't remember as I seem to have blacked out that part of my UK rail enthusiasm era from the memory banks! Either way, short notice and my love of Ryanair found fares with hand luggage only for £14.99 per person on the Edinburgh to London Stansted journey. In this case, I was flying to London with Blindtraveller, so the airport bus fares didn't come into play, but even with the coach fare into London the whole thing was MUCH cheaper (maybe a third of the train fare) and I won't lie, I loved the flight apart from waiting in the cold to board the plane while the crew arrived. Still, that wait would have been the same at Edinburgh Waverley.
As it was hand luggage only, the whole trip was still much quicker than the train. Even if it had been with hold luggage, it would have been faster as in my experience airports are pretty quick with dealing with bags. I have had a few exceptions with that, obviously. Even if the rail fare had been cheaper, even if by a couple of pounds, in this case the journey would probably have been a 91+MK4s+DVT consist, and I absolutely despise 91s. Especially when they're pushing...Ironically though, I love travel with Virgin but not on the ECML. I hate travelling on that line!
Flying domestically, for me, even back in my heyday as a rail nut, was fun and often chosen over the train. I mean, why travel on a 170 Hereford to Birmingham (or whatever ATW would put out on a trip to Crewe) for travel onwards aboard a 221 (this was before Virgin combined Birmingham to Scotland with one train an hour from London to Birmingham) when I could endure a 170 to Birmingham, enjoy a 390 to Birmingham (again, back before Voyagers infected that route) and fly on a Dash 8 to Glasgow? For me there was zero decisions to be made! Train fare nice and cheap but airfare too expensive? I simply wouldn't go!
As an almost-totally norm person these days, no matter what the railway does the likes of myself and the majority of us will choose flying for the Midlands and south thereof to Scotland. I do however disagree with BA flying Airbus planes from Heathrow to Leeds-Bradford Airport, Manchester Airport and a couple of other rather silly routes. On the flipside, London City to Cardiff/Manchester makes a bit of sense, given its connectivity to central London and how quick and easy LCY is to use.
I could go on for far longer about domestic flying versus the railway! However to do so would rather distract me even further from my very enjoyable beverage...
Now it's widely known I've left the railway almost 100% (I have a log on my phone of what trains I travelled on last week, which I still find surprising to note I've now had all the 168s again, as well as being shocked I noted the journeys, so I've still not fully got the railway out of my head) and that I have a love of aviation. I really feel the need to comment on the flying haters in this thread, and to provide a former railway nut's view on the topic:
I fly domestically happily over the train. Yes it can take longer overall compared to the train, depending on the actual journey made, but by no means is the train always cheaper! It depends totally on the individual situation a lot, and I have an example from a couple of years ago. It might have been 2017, I'm not sure:
So I was looking up fairly short notice flights (less than 10 days notice) for a London to Scotland journey and back again. Or was it just one way, I can't remember as I seem to have blacked out that part of my UK rail enthusiasm era from the memory banks! Either way, short notice and my love of Ryanair found fares with hand luggage only for £14.99 per person on the Edinburgh to London Stansted journey. In this case, I was flying to London with Blindtraveller, so the airport bus fares didn't come into play, but even with the coach fare into London the whole thing was MUCH cheaper (maybe a third of the train fare) and I won't lie, I loved the flight apart from waiting in the cold to board the plane while the crew arrived. Still, that wait would have been the same at Edinburgh Waverley.
As it was hand luggage only, the whole trip was still much quicker than the train. Even if it had been with hold luggage, it would have been faster as in my experience airports are pretty quick with dealing with bags. I have had a few exceptions with that, obviously. Even if the rail fare had been cheaper, even if by a couple of pounds, in this case the journey would probably have been a 91+MK4s+DVT consist, and I absolutely despise 91s. Especially when they're pushing...Ironically though, I love travel with Virgin but not on the ECML. I hate travelling on that line!
Flying domestically, for me, even back in my heyday as a rail nut, was fun and often chosen over the train. I mean, why travel on a 170 Hereford to Birmingham (or whatever ATW would put out on a trip to Crewe) for travel onwards aboard a 221 (this was before Virgin combined Birmingham to Scotland with one train an hour from London to Birmingham) when I could endure a 170 to Birmingham, enjoy a 390 to Birmingham (again, back before Voyagers infected that route) and fly on a Dash 8 to Glasgow? For me there was zero decisions to be made! Train fare nice and cheap but airfare too expensive? I simply wouldn't go!
As an almost-totally norm person these days, no matter what the railway does the likes of myself and the majority of us will choose flying for the Midlands and south thereof to Scotland. I do however disagree with BA flying Airbus planes from Heathrow to Leeds-Bradford Airport, Manchester Airport and a couple of other rather silly routes. On the flipside, London City to Cardiff/Manchester makes a bit of sense, given its connectivity to central London and how quick and easy LCY is to use.
I could go on for far longer about domestic flying versus the railway! However to do so would rather distract me even further from my very enjoyable beverage...
TrainTube
Member
- Joined
- 24 Sep 2018
- Messages
- 487
David Souffle he likes a good pastry !
LOL The Irony
On Moderation
More than ticketing cars.
kristiang85
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Jan 2018
- Messages
- 2,656
Their ability to strike over the whole country rather than just one route I guess...
There might be an argument for flying if going first class, have lounge access and fast track security, but a 30-60 minute time saving and cost (though not always) is the only argument I can see in favour of a budget airline over rail. I certainly dont find it more comfortable, but each to their own I guess!
Drogba11CFC
Member
- Joined
- 15 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 868
The ability to cause misery among Cornish passengers over the wrong type of coffee in the mess room at Inverness.
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 31,384
The bus and coach industry primarily exists to deal with engineering overruns.
Any timetabled public service, or pre-booked contract is just a sideline and will be abandoned if a TOC calls at 0600 on a school day.
Any timetabled public service, or pre-booked contract is just a sideline and will be abandoned if a TOC calls at 0600 on a school day.
Techniquest
Veteran Member
See I watch a lot of aviation trip report videos on YouTube, many of them involve Business or First Class journeys. Now while a lot (by far not all!) of the accommodations of those classes look nice, the cost in my eyes is not justified. I'm really not personally into all this fancy-looking food, and I find it almost impossible to sleep on a plane, so such expenditures would be a waste for me.
Fast track security? My longest security queue time was less than 30 minutes at JFK in 2016, actually no nearer 40 minutes in peak summer at the Jet2 area in Manchester was my longest. On average though, my security clearance time is 9.5 minutes, hardly worth getting Fast Track passes. The one time I did that, it wasn't much quicker than my usual time at Stansted's security anyway.
Lounges, I really don't get the obsession people have with those. I did one once, wasn't worth the money. To be fair, I'm a little odd in that the overall airport experience is one I don't mind. It feels more 'real' that way somehow, and I know that doesn't make sense but I can't describe it better other than say I like exploring busy cities so perhaps a busy airport is only naturally going to appeal to me.
Personally, going back to my Edinburgh to London example, if I'm given a £15 option on Ryanair or a £50 option on the railway, even with the extras like luggage and airport buses, I'd go for flying without question. It does help Ryanair sell decent coffee on board, not something I've found on the ECML. Put it another way, given the choice of a 737-800 or a 91 and MK4s, I'd jump at the chance to have a 737. No question!
Should aviation become electric then even the carbon footprint argument will go out of the window. I won't lie, the lower CO2 emissions is a key factor in opting for rail even if I don't mention it to people so much. However it is more likely electric aviation will, um, take off sooner than we will have high speed railways taking us to all corners of Europe, let alone the world.
duffield
Established Member
All-electric planes for other than short hops or small aircraft is a long way off, and will probably need a big step-change in battery technology. Currently the plans are mainly for hybrid designs where you avoid local pollution at takeoff/landing by using electric power, but the rest of the journey would be conventionally powered.
- Status