Persistent railway myths, misunderstandings etc.

[johnnychips]

With a railcard, I have never encountered a situation where flying has worked out cheaper than flying.

Not surprised!

 

[AndrewE]

well if the bus industry is anything to go by er.... no... due to all the legislation on emissions and extra weight due to more stringent safety requirements a modern DD returns 4-5 mpg compared to a typical late 50's/ early 60's figure of between 8-10 mpg

When I went to school on an RT in the 1960s someone told me (an engineer making the same journey, maybe) that a diesel [bus] engine would consume 1/2 pint of fuel per brake-horsepower per hour! It could have been true then, maybe things have improved since, but it's a good point that any improvement will have been swallowed up by things like a/c, heavier (safer) build, the added weight of double glazing, maybe even automatic gearboxes...

 

[TRAX]

Here's a misconception I've heard several times recently: That the refurbished 185s are new trains.

So it’s a successful refurbishment.

 

[al78]

That generally its cheaper to fly domestically rather than take the train. Utter nonsense usually based on comparing Ryanair prices with those of a full price return which isn't exactly fair...

Sometimes it may be cheaper. It all depends on if you can get an advance rail fare. London to Inverness flying compares favourably with the train just including the station to station and airport to airport journey, but there is the additional cost of getting from home to the station/airport then getting to your destination at the other end. It tends to be cheaper to get too and from a railway station, which tend to be located near where people live, than getting too and from an airport, which are mostly located away from population centres. If you have the flexibility to choose travel times that are price optimal, there may not be much in it sometimes. For me, the train has the advantage of it being much easier to bring my bicycle with me.

I agree that the quotes which try to make rail travel sound as expensive as possible are highly misleading. I have seen them compare peak time first class rail tickets to a standard economy class flight, well of course the train is going to be more expensive if you cherry pick ticket types to support an agenda, but it is not compulsary to travel first class or at peak times, it is possible to get very reasonably priced long distance rail tickets with a bit of research, effort and flexibility.

 

[Meerkat]

If you go by train you don’t get touched up by security or have to take your shoes off, and you can take whatever liquids you like on (there is a saving right there even if you only drink water....)

 

[Journeyman]

I agree that the quotes which try to make rail travel sound as expensive as possible are highly misleading. I have seen them compare peak time first class rail tickets to a standard economy class flight, well of course the train is going to be more expensive if you cherry pick ticket types to support an agenda, but it is not compulsary to travel first class or at peak times, it is possible to get very reasonably priced long distance rail tickets with a bit of research, effort and flexibility.

I've found that getting a cheap flight is at least as much effort, if not more effort, than getting a cheap train fare, especially because finding the best deal on the Edinburgh to London route involves having to check at least three airlines, if not more, whereas all train fares can be viewed in the same place.

The cheapest Edinburgh to London first class fare is £62.50, and with all the extras factored in with flying, it's very rare that I can beat that.

 

[Cricketer8for9]

One myth not yet mentioned is that, on a 12 coach train at a London Terminus, all the seats are in the rearmost carriage. This is often linked to the myth that the red signal blazing down the platform is just for decoration and that, even though it is 17:32 for a 17:35 departure, the train is about to leave.

 

[Kite159]

One myth not yet mentioned is that, on a 12 coach train at a London Terminus, all the seats are in the rearmost carriage. This is often linked to the myth that the red signal blazing down the platform is just for decoration and that, even though it is 17:32 for a 17:35 departure, the train is about to leave.

Didn't you know (for some) there is only one set of doors on a 12 coach train?

 

[RLBH]

London to Inverness flying compares favourably with the train just including the station to station and airport to airport journey, but there is the additional cost of getting from home to the station/airport then getting to your destination at the other end.

Comparing X to London, rail and air do tend to be reasonably competitive, provided that X is a regional centre that has an airport and a convenient connection for London.

If travelling from X to Y, where both X and Y are regional centres, it tends to be pretty clear cut. It's either too short a distance for the airlines to be interested in, so rail is the only option (despite often taking longer than getting to London), or else it's a long distance route where there's a direct flight but the railway expects you to travel via London. I encounter this often enough for it to be really annoying: Scotland to south-west England is totally impractical by rail since the journey takes an entire day.

 

[DelW]

I've found that getting a cheap flight is at least as much effort, if not more effort, than getting a cheap train fare, especially because finding the best deal on the Edinburgh to London route involves having to check at least three airlines, if not more, whereas all train fares can be viewed in the same place.

Have you tried Skyscanner? There you can get all flights, include any combination of London airports, and filter by departure and arrival times. I don't know if it will always find the cheapest (and price sometimes varies slightly when you're transferred to the actual booking website) but it's always my first point of call for any flight. You can also deselect any airlines, so I can make sure Ryanair doesn't appear (since I aim never to fly on it again).

 

[DelW]

When I went to school on an RT in the 1960s someone told me (an engineer making the same journey, maybe) that a diesel [bus] engine would consume 1/2 pint of fuel per brake-horsepower per hour! It could have been true then, maybe things have improved since, but it's a good point that any improvement will have been swallowed up by things like a/c, heavier (safer) build, the added weight of double glazing, maybe even automatic gearboxes...

A few years ago I worked out fuel consumption vs engine power for construction plant based on values from the Caterpillar handbook, and it was a surprisingly linear graph and very similar across most categories of plant. Average value was about 1lit per 6bhp-hours, so about 0.3pints per bhp-hour. So it looks as though efficiency has improved since the 1960s, but it's not that far from your figure.

 

[al78]

One myth not yet mentioned is that, on a 12 coach train at a London Terminus, all the seats are in the rearmost carriage. This is often linked to the myth that the red signal blazing down the platform is just for decoration and that, even though it is 17:32 for a 17:35 departure, the train is about to leave.

I have heard before on here that passengers have a tendency to head for the first available door and cram into the rear carriages whilst the front ones are empty. I even used that information to always board the train further along the platform at peak time to board a carriage that isn't rammed full. I have to say that when I have boarded a train at Victoria heading for Horsham, passengers do tend to use the full length of the train to board, so boarding further down doesn't really give much of an advantage, other than I walk faster than most people.

 

[Carntyne]

It is always the control's fault.

 

[BigCj34]

Comparing X to London, rail and air do tend to be reasonably competitive, provided that X is a regional centre that has an airport and a convenient connection for London.

If travelling from X to Y, where both X and Y are regional centres, it tends to be pretty clear cut. It's either too short a distance for the airlines to be interested in, so rail is the only option (despite often taking longer than getting to London), or else it's a long distance route where there's a direct flight but the railway expects you to travel via London. I encounter this often enough for it to be really annoying: Scotland to south-west England is totally impractical by rail since the journey takes an entire day.

Also London to Inverness's rail journey time of 8 hours does not compare well with flying at all, even when factoring in transfers and security. It's attractive to to those who genuinely prefer the train over flying, the environmentally conscious and occasions when the train is cheaper.

The train competes well for London to Edinburgh / Glasgow routes as the additional 30 - 60 minutes travel time is a worthy trade-off for a seamless travel experience. As for London to almost any English or Welsh city, flying is a minority sport as it takes longer.

 

[underbank]

I have heard before on here that passengers have a tendency to head for the first available door and cram into the rear carriages whilst the front ones are empty.

I used to go to Euston a lot in the 80s. There were a couple of Mk3 coach sets that had a half brake/half second the wrong way round at the Northern end. Nearly every time, I'd have the half coach to myself as I'd walk to the end of the platform (and eventually, I learned the coach numbers at the other end so I knew which set it was!) - others would walk up to the end, either on the platform or in the coaches, see the last coach was a brake and then not go any further to see the empty half!

 

[HaggisBotherer]

Also London to Inverness's rail journey time of 8 hours does not compare well with flying at all, even when factoring in transfers and security. It's attractive to to those who genuinely prefer the train over flying, the environmentally conscious and occasions when the train is cheaper.

The train competes well for London to Edinburgh / Glasgow routes as the additional 30 - 60 minutes travel time is a worthy trade-off for a seamless travel experience. As for London to almost any English or Welsh city, flying is a minority sport as it takes longer.

Let's take a real world example, from my local airport (Aberdeen) to London (assuming everything runs to time and my arrival on the platform coincides with the arrival of the necessary trains/Underground, etc).

Flying:
My house to airport: 1 hour drive
Get there well in time to negotiate queueing for baggage dropoff, queueing for security, etc: 1.5hrs
Time between boarding and departure: 30 min
Flight time: 1hr 10 min.
Wait for baggage at reclaim: 15-30 min.
Exit airport and head for station: 15-20 min
Train to London: 30 min (if train arrives at platform at the same time as me)
Underground to nearest station to my destination: 20-30 min.
Walk to my destination: 10 min
----
Total time: 6hrs, give or take 10 minutes

Train:
My house to nearest station: 20 minute drive
Train to King's Cross: 5.5hrs
Walk to destination: 10 min
---
Total time: 6hrs.

So... time-wise there's nothing in it. However, let's factor in that much of the train journey is time in which I can sit and work, whereas a lot of the time on the air journey is standing around getting hot and bothered in queues, dicking around with security or running around airports and for trains.

In addition, I'm saving up to £60 on airport parking and there's no fare to get from the airport into London.

Then you factor in that the headline prices of 'cheap' flights on the likes of Skyscanner look really cheap... except once you book you have to pay extra to choose your seat, have hold baggage and all the rest of it.

I maintain that, in terms of time there's nothing in it, but in terms of the entire cost for the full journey (especially if you book in advance), factoring in money, comfort and best use of time... the train wins.

 

[43096]

That Class 91 + Mark 4s were derived from the APT.

 

[Journeyman]

I maintain that, in terms of time there's nothing in it, but in terms of the entire cost for the full journey (especially if you book in advance), factoring in money, comfort and best use of time... the train wins.

Very much inclined to agree with that. The only reason I sometimes fly over getting the train is that, for me, getting to Edinburgh Airport is easier than getting to Waverley or Haymarket, but the final decision is usually down to where I'm going at the other end. I agree that four and a half hours on a train in which you're free to read, snooze, work etc. is far better than hanging around in airports for ages.

 

[mrcheek]

One myth not yet mentioned is that, on a 12 coach train at a London Terminus, all the seats are in the rearmost carriage. This is often linked to the myth that the red signal blazing down the platform is just for decoration and that, even though it is 17:32 for a 17:35 departure, the train is about to leave.

to which we could add "Im allowed to travel in First Class because t̶h̶e̶r̶e̶'̶s̶ ̶n̶o̶ ̶r̶o̶o̶m̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶S̶t̶a̶n̶d̶a̶r̶d̶ ̶C̶l̶a̶s̶s̶ I can't be bothered to walk down the platform or carriages"

 

[scotraildriver]

That Class 91 + Mark 4s were derived from the APT.

The class 91 traction package was pretty much an APT power car though.

 

[43096]

The class 91 traction package was pretty much an APT power car though.

Thank you for proving my point!

It wasn't. APT was designed by BR and built by BREL, with an ASEA traction system (BREL and ASEA heritage is now part of Bombardier). Class 91 was designed and built by GEC-Alsthom (now Alstom) in response to a BR tender. They are totally different.

 

[BigCj34]

Let's take a real world example, from my local airport (Aberdeen) to London (assuming everything runs to time and my arrival on the platform coincides with the arrival of the necessary trains/Underground, etc).

Flying:
My house to airport: 1 hour drive
Get there well in time to negotiate queueing for baggage dropoff, queueing for security, etc: 1.5hrs
Time between boarding and departure: 30 min
Flight time: 1hr 10 min.
Wait for baggage at reclaim: 15-30 min.
Exit airport and head for station: 15-20 min
Train to London: 30 min (if train arrives at platform at the same time as me)
Underground to nearest station to my destination: 20-30 min.
Walk to my destination: 10 min
----
Total time: 6hrs, give or take 10 minutes

Train:
My house to nearest station: 20 minute drive
Train to King's Cross: 5.5hrs
Walk to destination: 10 min
---
Total time: 6hrs.

So... time-wise there's nothing in it. However, let's factor in that much of the train journey is time in which I can sit and work, whereas a lot of the time on the air journey is standing around getting hot and bothered in queues, dicking around with security or running around airports and for trains.

In addition, I'm saving up to £60 on airport parking and there's no fare to get from the airport into London.

Then you factor in that the headline prices of 'cheap' flights on the likes of Skyscanner look really cheap... except once you book you have to pay extra to choose your seat, have hold baggage and all the rest of it.

I maintain that, in terms of time there's nothing in it, but in terms of the entire cost for the full journey (especially if you book in advance), factoring in money, comfort and best use of time... the train wins.

Aberdeen to Kings Cross takes 7 hours. Don't get me wrong, I will take the train if it is at least financially comparable and practical time wise. I would rather travel 6 hours door to door on the train than save an hour or so by flying. If you need hold luggage than the cost of a flight shoots up, as does parking (I never drive to airports when by myself).

I am on business in Scotland right now, opted to take the 7 hour train ride, add an extra 10 mins for walking, than the 5+ hours it would take to fly door to door. However there are enough people who would rather save a couple of hours.

 

[Doomotron]

That BR still exists - one of my mother's friends who lives in Honiton said "It's all British Rail's fault anyway" during the SWR strikes. Didn't even bother to correct her.
That HS2 will not benefit the country in any way whatsoever and we should spend the money on the WCML and buying new trains for it instead.
That because the seats look a bit different, despite the lack of signage, antimacassars and different seat moquette (on some trains), it's First Class.
That nationalization will solve everything.
That the HST is the greatest train ever and should be kept in service forever and anybody who even shows a hint of liking the IEP is an anti-patriotic Nazi. (This website is full of this)
That anything from overseas is crap. (ditto)
That LNER is run by the government.
That Southeastern is the worst operator. (People do believe this)
That third rails are only active when a train is going over it. (While this has been tested as said earlier, the amount of people who still think this is sad)
That refurbishments are new trains.
That sticking your head out of an HST's door is completely safe and it isn't at all like somebody got decapitated while doing that (probably not on an HST but still an issue).
That slam door trains are completely safe and never has a door been opened at speed, whether it was a fault with the train or a passenger doing it.
That mashing a door button before it turns on will make the door open instantly. Similarly, that the doors will open themselves. (Repeated many a time, but still extremely annoying)

 

[43096]

That the HST is the greatest train ever and should be kept in service forever and anybody who even shows a hint of liking the IEP is an anti-patriotic Nazi. (This website is full of this)

Please provide evidence that this website is "full" of people describing anyone who hints at liking IEPs as an "anti-patriotic Nazi".

Bet you can't.

 

[Doomotron]

Please provide evidence that this website is "full" of people describing anyone who hints at liking IEPs as an "anti-patriotic Nazi".

Bet you can't.

The Nazi bit was an hyperbole. I was basically saying that generally people don't like trains from aboard and are very 'close' to the HSTs.

 

[aar0]

Sainsbury’s use the vacuum pipes for bundles of notes and definitely do it during the day.
Might possibly be only the till supervisors that use them though

Any cashier can and will, I was doing about 3 an hour at during the Christmas rush when I worked there. Look at the columns that drop down to the checkouts.

 

[Johncleesefan]

Leaves on the line is a made up excuse.

Rail staff actively go out of their way at every opportunity to irritate passengers.

There are extra coaches lying about everywhere that we refuse to use in service.

Haha the guard on my train the other day put out an announcement along the lines of

“Apologies for the extremely slow progress but this is actually due to, and people take the mick out of us in the papers for it, leaves on the line. The train can’t get any grip/traction in the rails due to leave residue thus we can’t gain any form of acceleration “

He went on to explain the particular section we were in was notoriously bad, he was very right. Almost to the point of being REPORTABLE to quote the new lingo

 

[PeterY]

I have heard before on here that passengers have a tendency to head for the first available door and cram into the rear carriages whilst the front ones are empty. I even used that information to always board the train further along the platform at peak time to board a carriage that isn't rammed full. I have to say that when I have boarded a train at Victoria heading for Horsham, passengers do tend to use the full length of the train to board, so boarding further down doesn't really give much of an advantage, other than I walk faster than most people.

That there is a prize at Euston for the first person though the gateline

 

[TrainTube]

I think the whole "Thameslink" scheme is a myth, it was appropriate for services through blackfriars but can someone tell me exactly how a service from Kings Cross to Peterborough links anyone to the Thames. It doesn't even go across it let alone take people to it.

 

[al78]

Comparing X to London, rail and air do tend to be reasonably competitive, provided that X is a regional centre that has an airport and a convenient connection for London.

If travelling from X to Y, where both X and Y are regional centres, it tends to be pretty clear cut. It's either too short a distance for the airlines to be interested in, so rail is the only option (despite often taking longer than getting to London), or else it's a long distance route where there's a direct flight but the railway expects you to travel via London. I encounter this often enough for it to be really annoying: Scotland to south-west England is totally impractical by rail since the journey takes an entire day.

I have just checked this and yes, to get from Penzance to Inverness takes over 14 hours. It takes nearly 10 hours for me to get from Horsham to Inverness. SW England is rather tucked away in a corner and anyone wanting to travel north on ground has to go a fair distance east first thanks to the presence of the Bristol Channel. It is similar to Australians having to endure long distance flights to get to almost any other country.