• 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!

Sheffield to Shenfield Cheaper to Fly

Status
Not open for further replies.

me123

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2007
Messages
8,510
Thought you guys might be interested in this little trick to get a cheap fare.

Teenager saves £7.72 on his train journey from Sheffield to Essex… by taking a PLANE via Berlin
From the good old Daily Mail. If you don't want to subsidise Paul Dacre, you can look at the original article here on MoneySavingExpert.

The exact figures are slightly misleading because the £7.72 saving includes lunch, which was cheaper in Berlin, and there was no need for him to travel to Berlin for the day (although, let's face it, who wouldn't if they had seven hours to spare?). But in terms of the necessary travel expenses, he's still cheaper flying through Berlin (if you look at the necessary travel costs alone, he actually saved £11.23).

Of course, the DM's comments section has gone into overdrive about rail fares being extortionate (and some of the comments about Mr Cox are truly vile), whereas the reality is that it's Ryanair's fares that were exceptionally good value in this instance. The £47 rail fare was a good price IMO (it appears to be an Advance ticket without railcard, although interestingly Mr Cox does qualify for a 16-25 railcard).

If you look into the details, they guy has saved £7.72, but had a seven hour layover in Berlin. It worked out well for him - he got to visit a city he's wanted to go to. It was a genuinely good deal for this young man, and I certainly wouldn't say it was in any way miserly. He had the time to do it, and actually wanted to do it. If I had the time, I would certainly consider it. Although I'd need to have the free time to do such a journey, and would be doing it more for the pleasure than for the meagre savings.

Of course, there's caveats here. Your luggage allowances are tighter on any airline than on the trains - if you can't get away with a carry-on bag, you have to pay for checked luggage which may eliminate the savings. The trip was made in January which is usually the cheapest time of the year for air fares, whereas rail fares are not quite as seasonal in their nature. This may simply not be possible in Summer. Budget airlines don't offer connections, so you need to have plenty of time to make your unofficial transfer. The environmental impact of this is also pretty shocking.

Any thoughts about this from you guys? Could you find a fare anomaly that would beat Ryanair? Would you do something like this to save a few pounds?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
I've done that loads of times. For example, Gatwick to Manchester via Dublin. It was a no-brainer when they had 1p fares.
 

Kite159

Veteran Member
Joined
27 Jan 2014
Messages
19,266
Location
West of Andover
Might have saved money by flying via Berlin, but the time penalty would have easily outweighed the cost saving.

Breaking the journey at St Pancras probably could have saved some money (Sheffield - St Pancras advance, and then Oyster to Shenfield) rather than a single ticket
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,840
Location
Yorkshire
I recall D6700 did similar for Aberdeen-York, which if I recall correctly was via the Netherlands!
 

GatwickDepress

Established Member
Joined
14 Jan 2013
Messages
2,288
Location
Leeds
I'd say it doesn't really warrant an article though. Cheaper for me to get to Paris from MK and back to London by coach, but I wouldn't really go do that and claim it was cheaper than getting the train down to London!
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,394
Location
Bolton
This sort of thing is absolutely unacceptable. Air fares at those prices should not be permitted.
 

Searle

Established Member
Joined
4 May 2012
Messages
1,580
Location
Ladbroke Grove
Might have saved money by flying via Berlin, but the time penalty would have easily outweighed the cost saving.

Well, duh, of course. The idea isn't to do it quicker, it's just a bit of fun, and he got to see a city he wanted to.

This sort of thing is absolutely unacceptable. Air fares at those prices should not be permitted.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: are you serious?

Apparently a lot of people miss the point of this. It's just a bit of fun really.
 

RichmondCommu

Established Member
Joined
23 Feb 2010
Messages
6,912
Location
Richmond, London
Well, duh, of course. The idea isn't to do it quicker, it's just a bit of fun, and he got to see a city he wanted to.

I think that's the key thing here. Cheap air fares have allowed people on average incomes to see far more of Europe than they would have done 30 years a go, maybe even less than that. Clearly Starmill likes to travel so I don't understand why he has issues with any of this.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,394
Location
Bolton
How could I not be serious!?

B4awd31IMAEHT4R.jpg

To be honest, I'm disappointed I even have to post this. Should be blindingly obvious.
 
Last edited:

Starmill

Veteran Member
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,394
Location
Bolton
So how else do you expect people to travel to European destinations cheaply and quickly?

Was it a risk to life before this was possible?

And the answer to your question could be by rail. Unfortunately we are dragging out heels somewhat.

Or are you telling me you're fine causing vast environmental damage, billions of dollars of property damage and countless lost lives so you can go to Berlin for £10?
 
Last edited:

RichmondCommu

Established Member
Joined
23 Feb 2010
Messages
6,912
Location
Richmond, London
Was it a risk to life before this was possible?

Pardon? I'm pretty certain that air travel is the safest form of travel going.

And the answer to your question could be by rail. Unfortunately we are dragging out heels somewhat.

How could that be the answer when it takes too long for a weekend break (even a long weekend) and its too expensive for many people.

Or are you telling me you're fine causing vast environmental damage, billions of dollars of property damage and countless lost lives so you can go to Berlin for £10?

How is property being damaged? I ask this because I live under the Heathrow flight path. And how are countless lives being lost? My wife and I will be flying to Corsica for our holiday this summer. When we're on the beach I'll perhaps suggest that we never travel overseas again because Starmill thinks the two of us are destroying the planet.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Do you think the Maldivians are laughing?

I'm sure they laugh sometimes. Perhaps they see repeats of the Two Ronnies.
 

me123

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2007
Messages
8,510
This sort of thing is absolutely unacceptable. Air fares at those prices should not be permitted.

I briefly alluded to this above - a huge part of the reason he was able to achieve this was because he traveled in January. Airlines have a pricing model that adapts to demand, whereas rail doesn't do it to quite the same extent. This means that, in January (when generally very few people travel by air) fares will be dirt cheap to encourage people onto the services. There's little doubt in my mind that Ryanair offer these fares as a loss leader, making any money from these services through their ancillary revenue streams.

However, these sorts of fares will become increasingly difficult to find as we approach the Summer season, when fares will increase in line with demand. This simply will not be possible a few months down the line, when Ryanair's fares will increase quite significantly in line with demand, and rail fares won't. In fact, looking to do the same journey in April (15/4/16) is giving me an air fare of £100.75 before you add on transport to/from the airports (£75.99 EMA-SXF, €32.39 SXF-STN). By contrast, the £45 advance fare on the trains will still be available.

Basically, this is not the norm, contrary to the implication in the Daily Mail article. It's a fluke based on air fares fluctuating with demand and rail fares not doing so.

Airlines are a business, and in order to maintain services to important European destinations, they have to make their fares attractive. If FR couldn't sell seats this cheaply, they wouldn't sell them. If they don't sell seats, people don't fly and services such as East Midlands to Berlin wouldn't operate over winter. And that has potential negative impact on the local economy. I agree with you that incentivising people onto flights where an alternative is available is, generally, not a good thing. However, many air links are important to local economies and increasing fares won't always incentivise people onto more sustainable transport modes (a laudable aim) - it will often stop people traveling altogether.

Bear in mind that the actual number of people doing crazy things like this is miniscule. Even when the fares of traveling domestically via Europe are more attractive, most people are constrained by time and as such would not find this to be a suitable alternative for their needs! Besides, FR obviously have no intention of people doing this whatsoever.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,394
Location
Bolton
I'm perfectly happy to advocate short-term, minor economic losses resulting from "East Midlands to Berlin not operating over winter" (oh no, whatever will we do) in order to save the entire planet. Indeed I find this a quite uncontroversial position.
 

RichmondCommu

Established Member
Joined
23 Feb 2010
Messages
6,912
Location
Richmond, London
I'm perfectly happy to advocate short-term, minor economic losses resulting from "East Midlands to Berlin not operating over winter" (oh no, whatever will we do) in order to save the entire planet. Indeed I find this a quite uncontroversial position.

Have you any intention of ever travelling to Europe for a holiday? Do you not think that those "minor economic losses" might result in the loss of jobs? Or is this a case of "I'm alright Jack"?
 

me123

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2007
Messages
8,510
Believe me, simply not operating a modern 737-800 three times a week is hardly going to "save the entire planet". By contrast, if Germans investing in the East Midlands area cannot travel there, they won't invest and people lose out. FWIW, Ryanair have a very seasonal network and lots of their planes sit idle over the winter period. If there was no demand for the route, it wouldn't operate. But there clearly is demand.

If there is demand for travel between the two points, then this is a sensible way of providing it. In fact, it is currently the only sensible way of providing it. I'd agree with you that, for example, London to Edinburgh internal flights are not great and point-point traffic should be conveyed on the rails. East Midlands to Berlin does not fall into this category.
 
Last edited:

richw

Veteran Member
Joined
10 Jun 2010
Messages
11,233
Location
Liskeard
Easyjet, Ryanair and megabus have allowed me to see parts of Europe I could not have dreamt of getting to 10 years ago. My income is ok, but not massive, but thanks to budget carriers I've been able to visit new places cheaply.

At a quick glance, London-Alicante-Newquay for a random date in June is (a lot) cheaper than London- Newquay by train.
 

RichmondCommu

Established Member
Joined
23 Feb 2010
Messages
6,912
Location
Richmond, London
If there is demand for travel between the two points, then this is a sensible way of providing it. In fact, it is currently the only sensible way of providing it. I'd agree with you that, for example, London to Edinburgh internal flights are not great and point-point traffic should be conveyed on the rails. East Midlands to Berlin does not fall into this category.

However it does allow you to travel to London and back for the day.
 

miami

Established Member
Joined
3 Oct 2015
Messages
3,167
Location
UK
How could I not be serious!?

View attachment 25332

To be honest, I'm disappointed I even have to post this. Should be blindingly obvious.

The green factions put the "true cost of CO2" at $220 per tonne, over 50 times the level that most people put it at.

You mention 285g/pax-km, so EMA-SXF-SEN, 1,891km, would put out 538kg of CO2, or a total of $118, or £82, so I assume you would have no problem with people paying £110 return to travel to Berlin via air?

With a $220/tone your household fuel bill would increase by about £50 - £100 a month, you'd be happy with that too?
 

Searle

Established Member
Joined
4 May 2012
Messages
1,580
Location
Ladbroke Grove
I'm perfectly happy to advocate short-term, minor economic losses resulting from "East Midlands to Berlin not operating over winter" (oh no, whatever will we do) in order to save the entire planet. Indeed I find this a quite uncontroversial position.

It's not that much of an uncontroversial position, it's just the way you phrase it. If you came into this thread and said "I don't think it's very ethical that flights to the continent are so cheap, when they pump out so much CO2, it's very bad for the environment", people would agree with you. Instead, you come in with all these dramatics, claim things are "blindingly obvious" when they're not, and then you seem to play the victim when called out. You really should grow up.
 

me123

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2007
Messages
8,510
However it does allow you to travel to London and back for the day.
Agreed, in fact I'll be doing so on a Saturday in April for that very reason - rail has no feasible options for the day. I look forward to meeting Starmill at the London Challenge, having flown down courtesy of British Airways! But for a lot of people, rail is no slower when you factor in the obvious built-in delays in air travel (security etc), and day returns are more than possible during the week.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,394
Location
Bolton
Have you any intention of ever travelling to Europe for a holiday? Do you not think that those "minor economic losses" might result in the loss of jobs? Or is this a case of "I'm alright Jack"?

Why do you feel entitled to a holiday in another country? You're not denying air is unsustainable. So it's a case of "I know what I'm doing is wrong but I don't care and will continue to do it anyway?"

You mention 285g/pax-km, so EMA-SXF-SEN, 1,891km, would put out 538kg of CO2, or a total of $118, or £82, so I assume you would have no problem with people paying £110 return to travel to Berlin via air?

That sounds rather more sensible doesn't it. And if the aircraft can't be filled at that price then there's obviously insufficient demand and the route should end.

With a $220/tone your household fuel bill would increase by about £50 - £100 a month, you'd be happy with that too?

Yes. Why not? It would make green tarrifs cheaper.

It's not that much of an uncontroversial position, it's just the way you phrase it. If you came into this thread and said "I don't think it's very ethical that flights to the continent are so cheap, when they pump out so much CO2, it's very bad for the environment", people would agree with you. Instead, you come in with all these dramatics, claim things are "blindingly obvious" when they're not, and then you seem to play the victim when called out. You really should grow up.

I don't have to justify myself to you, but you should not be deliberately obtuse with the aim of winding people up. If you do (which is what you just did) then you're unlikely to receive the pleasure of my well-crafted and reasoned argument (which you haven't).

Anyway it isn't an argument I should have to make. It should be obvious that the negative externalities for air travel are huge at £10 for that journey. I'm very, very worried if it's not, and you and Richmond aren't trying to wind me up.
 
Last edited:

Searle

Established Member
Joined
4 May 2012
Messages
1,580
Location
Ladbroke Grove
I don't have to justify myself to you, but you should not be deliberately obtuse with the aim of winding people up. If you do (which is what you just did) then you're unlikely to receive the pleasure of my well-crafted and reasoned argument (which you haven't).

Anyway it isn't an argument I should have to make. It should be obvious that the negative externalities for air travel are huge at £10 for that journey. I'm very, very worried if it's not, and you and Richmond aren't trying to wind me up.

It's funny that you say I'm being "deliberately obtuse", because it's exactly what you're doing :roll: get off your high horse.
 

WestCoast

Established Member
Joined
19 Jun 2010
Messages
5,581
Location
Glasgow
I've done that loads of times. For example, Gatwick to Manchester via Dublin. It was a no-brainer when they had 1p fares.

I recently paid £12.90 for a Ryanair flight, cossidering that Air Passenger Duty alone is £13 I consider that the yield management model has worked in my favour.
 

Zamracene749

Member
Joined
11 Dec 2005
Messages
818
Location
East Durham
Turn your computer off Starmill. You don't need it to live and it's causing pollution. Unless your entertainment needs justify putting those poor Maldivians at risk.
 
Last edited:

WestCoast

Established Member
Joined
19 Jun 2010
Messages
5,581
Location
Glasgow
Have you any intention of ever travelling to Europe for a holiday? Do you not think that those "minor economic losses" might result in the loss of jobs? Or is this a case of "I'm alright Jack"?

If we take the European Union's view, mobility across Europe for leisure, work or business is to be encouraged. For many journeys, air is the most suitable option.

In Europe, we're quite fortunate to have less polluting options such as the train. When one compares the situation to the United States for example, domestic air travel is the only reasonable option for *most* longer-distance journeys.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,394
Location
Bolton
Turn your computer off Starmill. You don't need it to live and it's causing pollution. Unless your entertainment needs justify putting those poor Maldivians at risk.

I'm the one thinking about other people. I will put this plainly. Everyone who understands this argument recognises that they personally are being selfish and benefitting from underpriced air travel, damaging the environment in the process. Nothing I can say to you will make you less selfish. If you don't understand that, we do have a bit of a problem because I would have hoped by now it's been made clear to everyone. I can't differentiate between people who will try to wind me up (like the above and RichmondCommune), people who haven't heard the arguments and people who are too stupid for them. So I'm afraid there's precisely zero point in me setting out any of the arguments eloquently. You should just try to think about everyone else more in the future and that will help.

It's funny that you say I'm being "deliberately obtuse", because it's exactly what you're doing :roll: get off your high horse.

There's no point in me explaining the argument. I'm right and you're not trying to argue otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top