Would you....

Status
Not open for further replies.

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,637
...pay £5 for a 15 minute trip on a Pacer if there was a £3.50 option of travelling on a modern bus but taking 30 minutes to get there? (Assume you don't have luggage or a bike and aren't making onward travel)

...consider doing a longer trip on a Pacer over a shorter trip on a more modern unit, if the price was lower for the Pacer route? An example where this is an option is Manchester-Chester: a Northern only ticket is £10.80 Off Peak Return but to use the ATW 175 option which is 20 minutes quicker you'd need a £14.50 return ticket. Although, saying that Manchester-Chester isn't as Pacer dominated as other routes so there may be a better example.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Greenback

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
9 Aug 2009
Messages
15,376
Location
Llanelli
As always, for me it would depend on several factors, such as my reason for travelling in the first place, my destination and origin points (how near I am to the bus stop or railway station) and how skint I am!

I doubt the saving of £1.50 would encourage me to take a bus instead of a train. If the saving was higher, and Mrs Greenback was also travelling, we might go for the bus, as we do when we go to Cardiff and use the First Greyhound if we can get tickets for £1-2! This can save us almost £10.
 

SS4

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2011
Messages
8,456
Location
Birmingham
It depends really on whether time is important, whether my destination is nearer the bus stop or train station and how likely each is to be full.

I'd sacrifice time if the bus was emptier
 

WestCoast

Established Member
Joined
19 Jun 2010
Messages
5,358
Location
Glasgow
I could take the bus for my daily commute, but the bus isn't any more modern that the Pacer (not low-floor e.t.c) and takes much longer. It's slightly cheaper, but it's not all that much.

When I'm not on my daily commute, I actively avoid Pacers, I get enough of them during the week!:lol:
 

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,637
I think I should have given a more detailed example for the first one. Assume the frequency of the bus isn't any less frequent than the train, the bus stops fairly close to both stations that you would use if you caught the train and you'd expect to get a seat on either the bus or train.

Relating to purpose of journey I imagine a lot of people will consider a slower bus more for a Saturday shopping trip than for a daily commute, so you can give two answers in reply.
 

Mojo

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
7 Aug 2005
Messages
17,546
Location
0035
Assuming that the train arrives at the same time and stops near to the bus, then I'd take the train. Not for the speed issue but because I'd have more confidence it will turn up and not be as delayed.
 
Joined
9 Apr 2011
Messages
278
Location
Over there
I think that I would travel on the Pacer, much as I dislike the things.

They are ok to get from A to B, as long as the two places are not more than about 15 miles apart.
 

Oliver

Member
Joined
17 Aug 2007
Messages
465
The point is that Pacers were a poor idea when they were built, and they haven't improved over the past 20 years. They set a very poor example for rail travel, and most alternative modes appear better to most people. The sooner they are replaced the better.
 

Techniquest

Veteran Member
Joined
19 Jun 2005
Messages
17,871
Location
Nowhere Heath
Indeed, but for me I'd get the Pacer so as to increase my rail mileage. With the amount of 142s and 144s I've had, there's also a good chance it would be required too (had all the 143s) so even better.

I spend a lot of time commuting to/from work on buses, as I don't have a choice where I live, so the more time I get to spend on the railway the better.
 

SS4

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2011
Messages
8,456
Location
Birmingham
The point is that Pacers were a poor idea when they were built, and they haven't improved over the past 20 years. They set a very poor example for rail travel, and most alternative modes appear better to most people. The sooner they are replaced the better.
Yes, but the fact the OP is asking on a rail forum kind of skews the results :lol:
 

142094

Established Member
Joined
7 Nov 2009
Messages
8,789
Location
Newcastle
The point is that Pacers were a poor idea when they were built, and they haven't improved over the past 20 years. They set a very poor example for rail travel, and most alternative modes appear better to most people. The sooner they are replaced the better.
This chestnut again. What would you have had BR do instead? Spend money they didn't have at the time or reduce services across the country?

As for 'poor example', depends on what you are comparing it against. Plus, were are you going to find the money to buy the replacements?
 

anthony263

Established Member
Joined
19 Aug 2008
Messages
5,452
Location
South Wales
Depends what Bus was being used, I would happily travel if it was a double decker (First cymru take note!!) or if it was a Mercedes-Benz Vario (Sorry but i do have a soft spot for them).

Otherwise it would depends does the bus stop closer to when I want to go and how often if the frequency of the service.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top