Rail travel - a luxury?

[Philip]

I was thinking earlier about what I sometimes hear rail passengers say from time to time even in the present era, that 'this is their first time on a train in umpteen years' and 'why don't British Rail do this or that', or 'I'd like to reserve near the buffet car, facing the engine' etc. Is rail travel becoming a luxury form of travel nowadays, or has it been for many years already, possibly not helped by the Beeching cuts?

Some of the public don't seem anywhere near as well-read about the railway system as they do about the buses for example. And as I say it surprises me the number of people who say they haven't been on a train for a long time. Then there are the fares, not exactly priced to attract the average working person onto the train instead of the bus; are rail fares high because the government see the railway as a middle-upper class kind of transport, so they feel they can get away with it and make revenue? There is still a big thing about first class too on the UK railways which really harks back to the Victorian era.

Would you say the railway is a transport of luxury and is it time it was taken down a peg or two (and made cheaper)?

 

[StephenHunter]

It was arguably kind of a luxury for many inner-city dwellers in the old days as well.

 

[yorkie]

It's not a luxury; I invite you to travel on the Bishop Auckland to Saltburn line and tell me it's a "luxury".

Or the Hallam line (aka the @yorksrob line ). Or perhaps closer to home, let's say the Hadfield line.

Where fares are affordable you will find so-called "working class" (I really dislike this class terminology you wish to use!) people using them.

I wonder how you would define me? I don't own a car.

 

[yorksrob]

It's not a luxury; I invite you to travel on the Bishop Auckland to Saltburn line and tell me it's a "luxury".

Or the Hallam line (aka the @yorksrob line ).

And that's not just because I use it

 

[ivorytoast28]

It's all relative. Being able to afford to travel at all isn't something everyone can afford, but most can. And most people just using transport to get to lower paid jobs could probably use the bus cheaper than the train, often at a significant time expense. Those who commuter further distances that make using a bus impossible tend to be those commuting to higher paid jobs, as simply put season tickets in the £1000s are not viable options for the lowest paid.
And again, should you need to travel longer distances, coaches are almost always cheaper, but far slower and not at all comfortable.
I wouldn't call it a "luxury" per se but for most rail users there is a cheaper option if they really don't mind spending significant amounts of time on buses.

I think your point about people not using the train is more likely because for many people/families cars do take you door to door and carry multiple passengers so are often cheaper and more convenient and reliable. This is not the case for longer journeys (100 miles+), but most people probably don't make long journeys more than a few times a year.

It also probably depends on where in the country. In London, i don't understand why anyone would use a car to get around, but in the northeast its another story

 

[Dr Hoo]

I was thinking earlier about what I sometimes hear rail passengers say from time to time even in the present era, that 'this is their first time on a train in umpteen years' and 'why don't British Rail do this or that', or 'I'd like to reserve near the buffet car, facing the engine' etc. Is rail travel becoming a luxury form of travel nowadays, or has it been for many years already, possibly not helped by the Beeching cuts?

Some of the public don't seem anywhere near as well-read about the railway system as they do about the buses for example. And as I say it surprises me the number of people who say they haven't been on a train for a long time. Then there are the fares, not exactly priced to attract the average working person onto the train instead of the bus; are rail fares high because the government see the railway as a middle-upper class kind of transport, so they feel they can get away with it and make revenue? There is still a big thing about first class too on the UK railways which really harks back to the Victorian era.

Would you say the railway is a transport of luxury and is it time it was taken down a peg or two (and made cheaper)?

I'm not sure that you have justified your various premises.

Surely many people don't use any form of public transport (regularly) simply because it doesn't meet their needs as well as a car, e.g. because of timetables, changes, luggage, disability and so forth.

I also fail to see what the 'big thing' about first class is. The majority of trains/routes don't seem to have it.

As has been discussed at various times on these forums the actual overlap between train and 'bus' in terms of meaningful journey offers is quite small.

I am also not clear where the Beeching reference is relevant. Although some commercial freedom was allowed under the Transport Act 1962, fares back then were mileage related and the basis didn't change for quite a few years.

 

[Philip]

It's not a luxury; I invite you to travel on the Bishop Auckland to Saltburn line and tell me it's a "luxury".

Or the Hallam line (aka the @yorksrob line ). Or perhaps closer to home, let's say the Hadfield line.

Where fares are affordable you will find so-called "working class" (I really dislike this class terminology you wish to use!) people using them.

I wonder how you would define me? I don't own a car.

This is exactly the point, the railway seems to encourage the class system; as an example why take 4 coaches of an 11 coach train out of use for standard fare paying passengers and make it exclusive only for those who can afford the premium fare?

Until very recently much of the poorest areas of the UK (the North and the South Wales Valleys) have been lumbered with the worst kind of train in the Pacers. There's another example.

 

[tbtc]

I was thinking earlier about what I sometimes hear rail passengers say from time to time even in the present era, that 'this is their first time on a train in umpteen years'

I suspect that there must be quite a few people who's last trip on a train was on a steam locomotive (rail tour on the national network or a jaunt on a preserved line) - whilst rail use has gone up significantly over the past decade, that usage has been concentrated on certain types of person (e.g. the relatively affluent for whom a season ticket is the price they have to pay to be able to live in somewhere nicer with spare rooms and a garden whilst being able to earn a wage in a large city).

Meanwhile 90% of people don't use trains at all or more than a couple of times a year. And what use there is is dominated by travel to/from/in London (so the numbers are probably a lot lower in other parts of the UK).

Whilst, given the millions of journeys that do take place, there are obviously going to be many examples of demand through all strands of society (particularly in heavily subsidised PTE areas, or where ticket checks take place less often), I'd argue that the average train passenger is better off than the average person in society (which makes the socialist obsession with rail nationalisation seem strange, given previous little noise made about nationalising buses).

But it's not necessarily a bad thing if rail is used by people on above average incomes - that ensures that it is well looked after by the treasury (compared to the cuts in funding that other things have had over the past decade!) - and since a large proportion of rail use is the everyday commuters travelling into our larger cities, of course those people are going to earn more than average - that's one of the markets that heavy rail does best - it can't penetrate housing estates as well as buses/ light rail but it can shift larger numbers more efficiently, where such markets exist.

Also worth mentioning that, whilst rail fares may be higher than the cost of driving/ buses (although not always the case in PTE areas where train tickets are well subsidised but bus routes have to charge a commercial fare), it's only reasonable that rail fares relate to the fact that you are paying for a driver, a conductor, signalling staff, track maintenance etc - whereas with a bus you are only paying for a driver and in the case of motorists, they are doing that job themselves - I think that heavy rail is a quality product and the quality obviously costs more money than paying a bus driver to transport you or doing that job yourself.

 

[yorkie]

As for First Class, I wouldn't disagree that the notion of 1st on TOCs such as GTR or Southeastern is, for the most part, pointless; you could argue the reasoning of this sort of provision harks back to the Victorian era.

But to make the same suggestion about (say) LNER First Class is simply untrue; they are competing with airlines, which are hardly 'Victorian' in nature. As it happens I've just booked my first 1st class ticket on LNER since the 20th February, when I travelled from Hamburg to York in 1st. In my defence I'll point out that it's nothing at all related to the concept of "class" referred to in the original post, and is simply a question of some people being prepared and able to pay a bit more for a genuinely better quality.

I've paid about £12 extra for the guarantee of a table and plenty of space to myself (OK admittedly on my next trip I'd probably get that in Standard anyway, but that's not the norm), I'll get lunch provided, and I'll guarantee being able to work (or use the forum!) on the train.

This is exactly the point, the railway seems to encourage the class system; as an example why take 4 coaches of an 11 coach train out of use for standard fare paying passengers and make it exclusive only for those who can afford the premium fare?

Except it's not for the exclusive use of those who pay a premium fare.

TOCs such as LNER charge a relatively small premium for 1st class, and a much greater premium for a fare that has flexibility and/or enables travel at premium times.

So I'll be in 1st on my £26 ticket (admittedly that is with a discount, but the point remains) while someone else may be paying over £100 to do the exact same journey in Standard.

Until very recently much of the poorest areas of the UK (the North and the South Wales Valleys) have been lumbered with the worst kind of train in the Pacers. There's another example.

There are many counter-examples though, where poor areas have had high quality trains, and also of wealthy areas being served by poor quality trains. I don't think there is that much of a correlation in this regard.

 

[Philip]

I'm not sure that you have justified your various premises.

Surely many people don't use any form of public transport (regularly) simply because it doesn't meet their needs as well as a car, e.g. because of timetables, changes, luggage, disability and so forth.

I also fail to see what the 'big thing' about first class is. The majority of trains/routes don't seem to have it.

As has been discussed at various times on these forums the actual overlap between train and 'bus' in terms of meaningful journey offers is quite small.

I am also not clear where the Beeching reference is relevant. Although some commercial freedom was allowed under the Transport Act 1962, fares back then were mileage related and the basis didn't change for quite a few years.

Beeching closed many local lines and small stations which, while they may not have been money-makers, were very convenient for townspeople making short hops as they do on the buses now. It seems the train acted a bit more like the bus up until the 1960s, now it is feared for semi or long distance travel for commuting or leisure, not for convenience.

As for First Class, I wouldn't disagree that the notion of 1st on TOCs such as GTR or Southeastern is, for the most part, pointless; you could argue the reasoning of this sort of provision harks back to the Victorian era.

But to make the same suggestion about (say) LNER First Class is simply untrue; they are competing with airlines, which are hardly 'Victorian' in nature. As it happens I've just booked my first 1st class ticket on LNER since the 20th February, when I travelled from Hamburg to York in 1st. In my defence I'll point out that it's nothing at all related to the concept of "class" referred to in the original post, and is simply a question of some people being prepared and able to pay a bit more for a genuinely better quality.

I've paid about £12 extra for the guarantee of a table and plenty of space to myself (OK admittedly on my next trip I'd probably get that in Standard anyway, but that's not the norm), I'll get lunch provided, and I'll guarantee being able to work (or use the forum!) on the train.

Except it's not for the exclusive use of those who pay a premium fare.

TOCs such as LNER charge a relatively small premium for 1st class, and a much greater premium for a fare that has flexibility and/or enables travel at premium times.

So I'll be in 1st on my £26 ticket (admittedly that is with a discount, but the point remains) while someone else may be paying over £100 to do the exact same journey in Standard.

There are many counter-examples though, where poor areas have had high quality trains, and also of wealthy areas being served by poor quality trains. I don't think there is that much of a correlation in this regard.

For the reasons I stated initially, the railway in this country does feel like 'the Rolls Royce' of public transport, hence the reference to class.

 

[Gloster]

As a non-car owner I would say that many automatically use the car and the idea of using the train never even occurs to them. If you did suggest that the train might be an alternative, it is something that they are unfamiliar with and don’t want to risk. From the media or friends they have a vague belief that it is expensive and difficult to use, so they stick to the familiar.

 

[yorkie]

Beeching closed many local lines and small stations which, while they may not have been money-makers, were very convenient for townspeople making short hops as they do on the buses now.

Or, perhaps more accurately, there were more lines which acted like the Bishop Auckland to Saltburn does today. Except with much lower frequencies.

It seems the train acted a bit more like the bus up until the 1960s, now it is feared for semi or long distance travel for commuting or leisure, not for convenience.

In many cases the train just couldn't compete with the bus, but that's a whole new topic.

For the reasons I stated initially, the railway in this country does feel like 'the Rolls Royce' of public transport, hence the reference to class.

Problem is you are talking about a huge range of services and routes as if they were one homogenous entity.

I still don't really get what you are saying, nor the reference to class; is decision not to own a car makes me more middle or upper class or something?

 

[the sniper]

Some of the public don't seem anywhere near as well-read about the railway system as they do about the buses for example.

What do you actually mean by this? I don't know anyone (other than a bus driving relative) who knows anything about buses, other than perhaps where their local route goes and the operator of it (at some point in the last 5 decades...). Though they'd also know of local train stations, even if they never caught a train.

I certainly know many people who haven't caught a train for many years, maybe only a few times in their life. Though it's largely because they haven't had need to or it hasn't been the most convenient option. I think I know the same number of people who have never or equally rarely caught a bus. The difference is though, of these people, from conversations I've had, far more have expressed a desire to catch a train if they haven't, whereas those who don't catch the bus expressively wish to never catch a bus!

 

[yorkie]

As a non-car owner I would say that many automatically use the car and the idea of using the train never even occurs to them. If you did suggest that the train might be an alternative, it is something that they are unfamiliar with and don’t want to risk. From the media or friends they have a vague belief that it is expensive and difficult to use, so they stick to the familiar.

I think this is true for many medium distance journeys for which there isn't a high speed line.

People from York tend to be confident using the train to go to somewhere like Leeds, Scarborough or Newcastle; equally for somewhere like London the train is the most sensible choice nearly always (but is more like booking a flight in that its something you plan in advance for!). But if they were going to somewhere like Stoke-on-Trent, they'd be far more likely to exactly what you say and think this is too expensive, too slow, and just drive.

 

[Philip]

Or, perhaps more accurately, there were more lines which acted like the Bishop Auckland to Saltburn does today. Except with much lower frequencies.


In many cases the train just couldn't compete with the bus, but that's a whole new topic.


Problem is you are talking about a huge range of services and routes as if they were one homogenous entity.

I still don't really get what you are saying, nor the reference to class; is decision not to own a car makes me more middle or upper class or something?

I haven't mentioned car ownership in the thread. I am comparing rail travel to bus travel and if you take Manchester as an example, a much bigger proportion of people use the bus to get from the suburbs to the centre of town than the train, even if there is a station close by. It may be the other way round in places like Wilmslow or Heald Green, but these are much wealthier areas.

 

[NoRoute]

I think the evidence points to rail users typically being in the higher income brackets - commuters, business travellers. Though like all averages that hides significant variation.

Whereas buses typically have much lower fares and dominate local public transport provision because they have far greater coverage and more routes. Outside of London and the big cities, most small cities and towns have so few rail stations that rail is only useful for regional or national travel and even then it's very dependent on where you want to go, as to whether rail is a viable option. For day to day travel, getting around a town, rail has little to offer in most of the country.

On the costs, well the big difference mostly reflects the significantly higher running costs of rail as compared to buses. It isn't a particularly economically efficient form of transport because it's expensive, inflexible and has a very high costs base so relies on a combination of higher fares and public subsidies to exist. Buses have much lower costs and receive less subsidy, while still managing much lower fares but they benefit from using a road network infrastructure they don't have to pay for.

If the buses ran on their own network, used solely by the buses with only a few using each section of road every hour then the buses would cost a lot as well.

 

[Jozhua]

I was thinking earlier about what I sometimes hear rail passengers say from time to time even in the present era, that 'this is their first time on a train in umpteen years' and 'why don't British Rail do this or that', or 'I'd like to reserve near the buffet car, facing the engine' etc. Is rail travel becoming a luxury form of travel nowadays, or has it been for many years already, possibly not helped by the Beeching cuts?

Some of the public don't seem anywhere near as well-read about the railway system as they do about the buses for example. And as I say it surprises me the number of people who say they haven't been on a train for a long time. Then there are the fares, not exactly priced to attract the average working person onto the train instead of the bus; are rail fares high because the government see the railway as a middle-upper class kind of transport, so they feel they can get away with it and make revenue? There is still a big thing about first class too on the UK railways which really harks back to the Victorian era.

Would you say the railway is a transport of luxury and is it time it was taken down a peg or two?

I don't know what magic buses ya'll are catching, but my experience in Manchester and the Midlands has been they are typically more expensive than the trains, especially per mile.

The reason certain people use trains vs buses is very little to do with pricing, rather the routes they serve. Taking the train is still significantly cheaper than owning a car, and buses are frankly a tossup, in my experience, most bus trips are more expensive than comparable rail journeys.

The reason "working class" people tend to take busses, whereas "middle/upper classes" tend to use the trains is because our rail network most often serves city centres with white collar jobs, vs the buses which serve a wider range of destinations.

The focus on fares is a bit of a misnomer. The main issue is coverage, journey times, reliability.

It's also worth noting the UK rail system has a very commercially competitive price system, similar to airline tickets. Prices have perticularly risen for places like London, due to the fact demand is so high, yet capacity has not kept up. You can see this on many operators who have suffered capacity issues for a while now, especially XC. So if you really want to reduce prices, you should start by investing in the network a bit, so it can keep up with demand.

I think the evidence points to rail users typically being in the higher income brackets - commuters, business travellers. Though like all averages that hides significant variation.

Whereas buses typically have much lower fares and dominate local public transport provision because they have far greater coverage and more routes. Outside of London and the big cities, most small cities and towns have so few rail stations that rail is only useful for regional or national travel and even then it's very dependent on where you want to go, as to whether rail is a viable option. For day to day travel, getting around a town, rail has little to offer in most of the country.

On the costs, well the big difference mostly reflects the significantly higher running costs of rail as compared to buses. It isn't a particularly economically efficient form of transport because it's expensive, inflexible and has a very high costs base so relies on a combination of higher fares and public subsidies to exist. Buses have much lower costs and receive less subsidy, while still managing much lower fares but they benefit from using a road network infrastructure they don't have to pay for.

If the buses ran on their own network, used solely by the buses with only a few using each section of road every hour then the buses would cost a lot as well.

I mean this isn't really true. Rail is a pretty economically efficient form of transport, especially when you compare it to private vehicles.

The rolling stock is used all day, every day for the best part of 30-40 years, with low friction, reducing fuel costs. Each train can use a relatively small number of staff to move a significant number of passengers.

Let's also not forget the speed. The train was the only way I could acess a good college from the small town I lived in - offering comparable journey times with driving at an affordable price. The two carriage train was full and standing every morning - with a pretty consistent number of passengers during the day and quite a few on weekends.

And like you say, bus operators don't have to pay for the road network, which considering the weight of the vehicles I'm sure they have quite an impact. (remember, road wear increases with a square of the weight.)Not to say they should, they do more than enough in providing a public service, but it isn't a good argument against rail. Plus, the road infrastructure is typically of much poorer quality than even the oldest railways, full of congestion and constant stopping/starting.

 

[Randomer]

As others have posted I think it is heavily dependent on the characteristics of the line in question. Some of the lines in various parts of Yorkshire or South Wales have a patronage that wouldn't consider being a commuter a luxury or even be in a high income bracket. Yet I think these people still consider it a part of a daily routine getting to and from work like any commuter going towards London.

As a small example when I still lived in Yorkshire, at the first place I moved to, the return train journey into the city centre was slightly more expensive as a single to the bus but much cheaper as a return (the bus company only offered an all day rover type return.) The bus was more popular because you could generally get a seat and was far more frequent not because the train was viewed as a luxury. Now the train is considerably cheaper than the bus as a monthly season or at parity with a PTE season which allows you to use either. I can't see it being the luxury option at that point (and Pre-Covid still no chance of a seat if you were aiming to get into work at 0900 and often no chance of getting on the train at all due to crowding).

Its difficult to view the difference between who prefers bus travel over train when comparing London and the rest of the UK, which is kept somewhat artificially low priced by the fare structure, than it is in other parts of the country. Now in some PTE areas or where real competition exists the situation might be similar. Otherwise bus travel has from my experience in various parts of the UK gotten considerably more expensive than even the above inflation rail fare rises of the past few years. In others travel costs between train and bus are close or not particularly more expensive to get the train.

I suspect most people who don't or can't drive to some extent choose jobs, lifestyle and home location influenced by what transport is available, I certainly do. If a train is the only route you can use getting into work it is not a luxury. I do agree it could always be cheaper though.

 

[LdnNiko]

If I may give a passenger, rather than a high-level industry perspective?

Used to use the train every couple of weeks to visit family living only 25 miles away.
The wife and I would go from fairly central London to North Herts on a Saturday morning, return Sunday evening.

The journey was really nothing special on prime commuter rolling stock (700). And then there was always the possibility that the Saturday morning travel might involve standing after changing at KGX.
Before the recent lockdown, the journey by car is slightly quicker than by train and lift to/from the station at the other end.
And that's without the faff of (now) 2 changes despite being on GTR's network, an hour wait (not including when a service was cancelled) for the Sunday evening stopping service and £30 for the priviledge, including discount of a Two Together railcard.

It certainly doesn't feel like a luxury.

Surely many people don't use any form of public transport (regularly) simply because it doesn't meet their needs as well as a car, e.g. because of timetables, changes, luggage, disability and so forth.

Exactly. The convenience of travelling at whenever we preferred rather than per a timetable, plus the £60 a month (£720 a year) made getting a car a simple decision.

 

[charley_17/7]

Most motorists wouldn't be seen dead on a bus, but some might consider the train/tram.
Thatcher once said if you were over 30 and still catching the bus you were a failure in life? In London and the South East kids get into the public transport habit, which sometimes continues into adulthood, I see that in few other cities, perhaps bar Manchester, Nottingham, Brighton which have a different attitude towards public transport/cycling/walking.

Trains are far too expensive without Railcard, GoldCard or GroupSave discounts the car will win on comfort, speed and cost, which unfortunately discriminates against the young and old who can't drive.

 

[Gloster]

Most motorists wouldn't be seen dead on a bus, but some might consider the train/tram.
Thatcher once said if you were over 30 and still catching the bus you were a failure in life?

Loath as I am to defend Margaret Thatcher, there appears to be no record of her saying this. It has been credited to Loelia, Duchess of Westminster, but it seems that she was quoting the poet Brian Howard.

 

[Jozhua]

As others have posted I think it is heavily dependent on the characteristics of the line in question. Some of the lines in various parts of Yorkshire or South Wales have a patronage that wouldn't consider being a commuter a luxury or even be in a high income bracket. Yet I think these people still consider it a part of a daily routine getting to and from work like any commuter going towards London.

As a small example when I still lived in Yorkshire, at the first place I moved to, the return train journey into the city centre was slightly more expensive as a single to the bus but much cheaper as a return (the bus company only offered an all day rover type return.) The bus was more popular because you could generally get a seat and was far more frequent not because the train was viewed as a luxury. Now the train is considerably cheaper than the bus as a monthly season or at parity with a PTE season which allows you to use either. I can't see it being the luxury option at that point (and Pre-Covid still no chance of a seat if you were aiming to get into work at 0900 and often no chance of getting on the train at all due to crowding).

Its difficult to view the difference between who prefers bus travel over train when comparing London and the rest of the UK, which is kept somewhat artificially low priced by the fare structure, than it is in other parts of the country. Now in some PTE areas or where real competition exists the situation might be similar. Otherwise bus travel has from my experience in various parts of the UK gotten considerably more expensive than even the above inflation rail fare rises of the past few years. In others travel costs between train and bus are close or not particularly more expensive to get the train.

I suspect most people who don't or can't drive to some extent choose jobs, lifestyle and home location influenced by what transport is available, I certainly do. If a train is the only route you can use getting into work it is not a luxury. I do agree it could always be cheaper though.

For me, using buses is a "luxury" as they cost so much, but often get me closer to where I want to go with less walking.

Rail also typically provides a higher degree of reliability and consistency, even through bottlenecked areas like Manchester.

Rail's biggest issue right now is capacity. Investment in new rolling stock and infrastructure will likely bring costs down long term, as the same number of staff can transport more passengers, with less energy usage and maintenance requirements. Electrification is massively needed on intercity routes, because the fuel costs of running DMUs at 125mph all day is probably not helping either!

But ultimately, both buses and rail are complimentary. Rail does longer trips better, whereas buses are good at coverage and frequency. Integrate fares and timetables, and you have a killer combination!

 

[Purple Orange]

By the same token, you could say car ownership is a luxury, and a far bigger one than train travel.

 

[Gloster]

By the same token, you could say car ownership is a luxury, and a far bigger one than train travel.

But to the great majority of people, having a car is seen as a basic necessity, almost a right. For some may it be a necessity, but to others it is an automatic assumption that it is one.

 

[yorkie]

I don't know what magic buses ya'll are catching,...

The 147?

But to the great majority of people, having a car is seen as a basic necessity, almost a right. For some may it be a necessity, but to others it is an automatic assumption that it is one.

It really shouldn't be, but that's another story.

By the same token, you could say car ownership is a luxury, and a far bigger one than train travel.

I completely agree, though it's not a luxury I find particularly appealing personally, but there is no denying it is a luxury.

Most motorists wouldn't be seen dead on a bus, but some might consider the train/tram.

Good point; it's cropped up before on this forum.

Thatcher once said if you were over 30 and still catching the bus you were a failure in life?

This has cropped up before; there is no evidence she said that, and it's unlikely she did. It's a bit bonkers really.

In London and the South East kids get into the public transport habit, which sometimes continues into adulthood, I see that in few other cities, perhaps bar Manchester, Nottingham, Brighton which have a different attitude towards public transport/cycling/walking.

This is true; we should do more to address this at source.

Trains are far too expensive without Railcard, GoldCard or GroupSave discounts

This can be very true in many, if not most, cases. But not always.

the car will win on comfort, speed and cost,

Not always but often, particularly for door to door journeys, yes.

which unfortunately discriminates against the young and old who can't drive.

Agreed

 

[Gloster]

This has cropped up before; there is no evidence she said that, and it's unlikely she did. It's a bit bonkers really.

See #21, which took a while to dig out a year or two ago.

 

[johntea]

At the moment any chance to do some actual commuting to work feels like a luxury compared to a few steps to the spare room and back!

I always consider a trip from Wakefield to London a luxury, not just the initial trip but then the completely different 'feel' of life and modes of transport around London, it can be quite a strange feeling to be zooming around on the Underground then a few hours later back on a pacer at Wakefield Kirkgate for example!

I'm perfectly happy in standard though for any form of transport, unless the price to upgrade is the sake of a few pounds (or in some rare cases cheaper!), as long as it gets me from A to B eventually

Due to WY Metro PTE for £169.90 a month you can travel anywhere you want as often as you want by bus or train in West Yorkshire (or £92 if you can live without the trains), not a driver but I think a car would struggle to compete with those sort of prices!

 

[Mojo]

Re the point about buses - it really is a “locals” form of transport. Information is usually so poor then you really have to be local to the area to know how to use it; which is probably why it seems local people know about them. In contrast information provision from the railway industry usually makes it more welcoming to irregular travellers.

 

[Ianno87]

Re the point about buses - it really is a “locals” form of transport. Information is usually so poor then you really have to be local to the area to know how to use it; which is probably why it seems local people know about them. In contrast information provision from the railway industry usually makes it more welcoming to irregular travellers.

Although I think that is being redressed in some places - e.g. Google's journey planner, plus bus company Apps like Stagecoach's.

 

[yorksrob]

I have the option of a frequent bus from the end of my road to the centre of Leeds (which takes an hour and ten minutes depending on traffic) or a mainly hourly train service which takes half an hour and has fifteen minutes walk at each end. The train station in Leeds is much better sited than the bus station.

I nearly always take the train to Leeds as the hour + bus journey would be tedious as much as anything else.