Wouldn’t dream of booking advanced tickets these days however cheap.
Unions like to have a day off on Saturdays
I didn't claim it was suitable for everyone. It isn't !
As I said, for myself, equal travel time and 8-10 minute walk each end. Less stress, Fine.
Cost about half of fuel.
SWMBO and sister going Colchester to york this weekend. A strike day so can travel friday instead of saturday at no extra charge. No problem there, or fully refundable. No problem there, either.
Where the figures add up, all good, where they don't, such as Colchester to Liverpool street on tickets bought on a weekend, (so off peak, even if 4 going,) not economical to drive and park and the cash for crash merchants hovering on the A11 or A12..
|
train makes an immediate saving in overall CO2
Not if the train is hauled by diesel locomotive!
After WFH became mainstream, I wonder why train companies and government do not reduce train fare so that more people would travel, seats are filled up and per person CO2 emission is reduced.
Or may be emission is secondary and profit margin of private companies is the primary goal.
|
train makes an immediate saving in overall CO2
Not if the train is hauled by diesel locomotive!
After WFH became mainstream, I wonder why train companies and government do not reduce train fare so that more people would travel, seats are filled up and per person CO2 emission is reduced.
Or may be emission is secondary and profit margin of private companies is the primary goal.
It still does, because the train is going anyway and that the carbon emitted by hauling the additional weight of one person is marginal if anything.
I'm sure the Government would quite like people to get the train and reduce carbon emissions. Sadly, they sold the railways off to private companies that need to make a profit. There isn't much money to be made running railways, so it's a race to the bottom for those companies.
If we want a good train service, it needs to be nationalised and subsidised. Any would rather our taxes are spent elsewhere, so.it isn't.
|
|
<< the train is going anyway and that the carbon emitted by hauling the additional weight of one person is marginal if anything. >>
At a rough guess, about one-twelfth of an additional ton in 200 or more, say about 0.04 % ?
|
|
|
|
train makes an immediate saving in overall CO2
Not if the train is hauled by diesel locomotive!
Logo - as I suggested, the train's CO2 will appear whether I am on it or not. If I drive I will add my own contribution !
Edited by Xileno on 22/08/2023 at 13:59
|
|
Interesting stats
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_rail_tr...e
UK has only 38% electrification where as countries which much longer route lengths have more e.g. China 67%, India 91%. Most of our EU friends are also ahead in electrification %.
|
Interesting stats
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_rail_tr...e
UK has only 38% electrification where as countries which much longer route lengths have more e.g. China 67%, India 91%. Most of our EU friends are also ahead in electrification %.
And?
|
And?
It would be better to focus on 100% railway electrification rather than tormenting common people with unrealistic/unnecessary net zero goals.
The government also planning to ban letting out properties worse than EPC = C rating from 2028. Trouble is, nearly half of rental stock in UK are so sold that they can't even qualify for EPC = A,B,C rating. This will affect landlords as well as tenants due to people having to force sell and tenants having to fight for fewer properties.
Heat pump is another failed attempt (replacing gas boilers).
Climate change may be real but the way of tackling it (mostly by shafting common people) is wrong.
|
|
It was recently disclosed that senior Network Rail staff had spent £17000 on air fares travelling from Birmingham to Glasgow "because it was cheaper".
More credible reasons are: flights aren't affected by strikes, we don't have to mix with the common hoi polloi who use trains, we are specially entitled.
Edited by galileo on 22/08/2023 at 16:07
|
It was recently disclosed that senior Network Rail staff had spent £17000 on air fares travelling from Birmingham to Glasgow "because it was cheaper".
More credible reasons are: flights aren't affected by strikes, we don't have to mix with the common hoi polloi who use trains, we are specially entitled.
MRS Hoi Polloi and sister are indeed mixing with the Hoi Polloi next month.
Ryanair Stansted to Edinburgh. £49. something return.
As said before, Horses for Courses. Can't take Blodwen (our mad Collie) to Europe by train, or plane so drive.
UK where feasible the best method of transport for the ease of travelling time and cost ratio.
Sister coming from Chester Thursday, Split tickets £64 return. and I don't have to drive A14 to Rugby services Junction on the M6 to meet her daughter halfway and then the return next week.
|
|
|
........................................................ we don't have to mix with the common hoi polloi who use trains, we are specially entitled.
You've obviously not taken a UK domestic flight recently!
|
........................................................ we don't have to mix with the common hoi polloi who use trains, we are specially entitled.
You've obviously not taken a UK domestic flight recently!
We fly a lot with Ryanair all over Europe, To Amman, when they did it, (not direct) Madeira. all from Stansted. (Copenhagen next month)
Again, If you are aware of the quixotic rules with Ryanair there is no problem.
If Ryanair a bit delayed the Pilot (s) are authorized to catch up..
I have had 1 single problem with them in 25 years and that was wind/storm, so diverted.
Coach transfer onward sorted fairly quickly.
|
|
|
|
<< Climate change may be real but the way of tackling it (mostly by shafting common people) is wrong. >>
You make it sound as if that was the main purpose of the exercise. I think if any big effort is made to reduce or slow down the increasing CO2, it is likely that poorer people will feel more pain, but in the end everyone stands to benefit. It's hard to think of a nationwide CO2-reducing initiative which could include levelling-up side-effects.
|
My problem with trains is motion sickness, I don’t get it when I’m driving or as a passenger in a car.
|
When combined with a bicycle to fill the gap between home>station or station>destination, then trains are brilliant. Especially if booked in advance.
I can regularly travel from Bradford/Leeds to London and then onwards to the South Coast for a Ferry to France, for as little as £20-£25 for both legs.
It would costs way more than that in my car and I would need to dismantle my bike to some extent and worry about parking too.
Turn up on the day and it would cost me near £200.
|
When combined with a bicycle to fill the gap between home>station or station>destination, then trains are brilliant.
That.
Exactly.
|
When combined with a bicycle to fill the gap between home>station or station>destination, then trains are brilliant.
That.
Exactly.
Perhaps, if you don't have much to carry with you, and/or the weather, terrain and roads there are conducive. Not so much otherwise, and especially on an already crowded train when you have nowhere to store said stuff, even a fold-up bicycle, paritcualrly at rush hour times on routes heavily used by students and holiday makers with bikes and luggage themselves.
many rural stations are poorly served and thus why so many people ironically drive to the nearest (often not that near) town (as many do my way) in order to stand a better chance in getting a seat and more services generally.
I recall on many occasions communting to Cambridge the train already being full of bicycles and people, often with no seats by the time I got on. Not so nice to have to endure a long journey standing up.
Not exactly safe either, given the are around the doors was regularly bloked by bicycles (even fold-up ones), etc. it also led to delays because of the extra time spent getting on/off the train.
The latest trains do have more space for such things (and don't have carpeted floors, so sitting on the floor down the centre aisle, as many used to, is now a no-no), but significantly at the expense of seating. Fine for the London Tube, not so good for the 1hr+ traveller wanting a bit of comfort.
|
Perhaps, if you don't have much to carry with you, and/or the weather, terrain and roads there are conducive. Not so much otherwise, and especially on an already crowded train when you have nowhere to store said stuff, even a fold-up bicycle, paritcualrly at rush hour times on routes heavily used by students and holiday makers with bikes and luggage themselves.
many rural stations are poorly served and thus why so many people ironically drive to the nearest (often not that near) town (as many do my way) in order to stand a better chance in getting a seat and more services generally.
I recall on many occasions communting to Cambridge the train already being full of bicycles and people, often with no seats by the time I got on. Not so nice to have to endure a long journey standing up.
Not exactly safe either, given the are around the doors was regularly bloked by bicycles (even fold-up ones), etc. it also led to delays because of the extra time spent getting on/off the train.
The latest trains do have more space for such things (and don't have carpeted floors, so sitting on the floor down the centre aisle, as many used to, is now a no-no), but significantly at the expense of seating. Fine for the London Tube, not so good for the 1hr+ traveller wanting a bit of comfort.
Like anything what you get for a given set of facts will vary with circumstance.
Peak trains into London, and probably other big cities too, ban full size bikes. So far as I know though folders, certainly those that fold small, are unrestricted.
The current trains serving Northampton are all variations on the Siemens Class 350. While most have 2+2 seating some have higher density 2+3. Never had an issue with my Brompton. Number of places it will go behind/between sets, otherwise it occupies space where the 'door sentries' would otherwise stand.
Except when I was at the last minute or the service was screwed up I pretty much never stood in well over 20 years. Roughly an hour each way.
A Brompton ain't cheap but there are ways of spreading the cost. Mine was acquired through Cycle to Work so paid in instalments and out of income before tax/NI to boot. Cost difference between a 'London Terminals' season and Travelcard I'd have had otherwise made it even better value. The front pannier, which can be carried like a briefcase, holds enough for a week's touring never mind a laptop and paper files.
Train on the bike with you is one option. A pair of cheap ones, the sort that have been abandoned at the tip, left at either end of the rail journey is another - very common in Milton Keynes.
Commuting to Cambridge, with students in the mix, may be a different ball game though I suspect that going towards London wasn't much different to Northampton.
Only time I've seen doors blocked has been suitcases the size of a fridge going to Birmingham Airport.
Still, it'd be a boring old world if everyone and all their experiences were identical.
|
|
Cars and trains run on very different financial models, reflected in the costs to the consumer and the choices they make.
The costs of running a rail network are 95%+ fixed in the short and medium term - the only change that can readily be made is the timetable.
Their aim is to maximise revenues to cover the fixed costs - better to fill a seat than leave it empty. Per mile peak fares are (broadly) 70-100p per mile, off-peak 15-30p (with conditions - off peak, advance booking, no flexibility etc).
Cars operate with a different financial model. The total cost per mile of running a car is typically in the range 35-50p per mile. Of this 15-20p is fuel, 5p tyres and servicing, 10-25p depreciation and fixed cost.
Conclusion - if you already have a car the variable cost per mile (20-25p) for a driver only is similar to off peak fares (15-30p). Two or more in the car and the financial choice is obvious. Convenience, alcohol, parking etc may impact.
Many live quite happily without a car (eg: city dwellers etc) and their simple choice for a journey is the level of compromise they make in journey timing etc to get a discounted fare.
|
better to fill a seat than leave it empty
After the pandemic, many trains run with many empty seats. Yet they have not reduced fare to fill more seats.
|
|
I have started to use the train more. I have a 15 mile/ 30 minute commute to work so the £8 train fare is not much more than I spend on petrol. I would use it every day but the train home is usually full and what puts me off is other passengers who have to occupy two seats and not let anyone sit next to them. They either sit on the aisle seat or sit on a window seat and leave coats/ bags on the seat next to them. If they get a table they have to claim the whole area with laptops and anything else they can use. What is it with these people who would rather see someone standing up than make a seat available for them? I prefer my car than to be with selfish, inconsiderate individuals.
|
|
You have to be less 'British' and perhaps go on an Assertiveness course. Just ask politely for the seat to be made available - or even ask to see the ticket for the luggage occupying it.
I only travel by train a few times a year, but certainly some people clamber on with colossal amounts of luggage which they just dump in the aisle, as the luggage spaces are often full. But that shouldn't often happen on commuter trains. You could offer to put the offending luggage on the rack ?
|
You have to be less 'British' and perhaps go on an Assertiveness course. Just ask politely for the seat to be made available - or even ask to see the ticket for the luggage occupying it.
I only travel by train a few times a year, but certainly some people clamber on with colossal amounts of luggage which they just dump in the aisle, as the luggage spaces are often full. But that shouldn't often happen on commuter trains. You could offer to put the offending luggage on the rack ?
You don't even need to do that. Normal commuter etiquette is just to point at the seat with raised eyebrows and the person sitting there will nod and remove their bag. They're not doing it out of laziness, they're doing it to signal that they would rather not have someone sat next to them. With the point and eyebrow lift you acknowledge that and explain that there are no other seats.
|
I have started to use the train more. I have a 15 mile/ 30 minute commute to work so the £8 train fare is not much more than I spend on petrol.
Or either of my two EV's would do that trip for 18pence.
Trains, a two hundred year old answer to yesterday's travel problems.
|
I have started to use the train more. I have a 15 mile/ 30 minute commute to work so the £8 train fare is not much more than I spend on petrol.
Or either of my two EV's would do that trip for 18pence.
Trains, a two hundred year old answer to yesterday's travel problems.
I like EVs, but they're not immune to traffic and you're really not supposed to read a book and have a coffee whilst you're driving.
|
|
Yes but I find being able to bypass jams etc and keep moving on smaller roads pretty easy. Trains can rarely go around obstructions or "incidents " on the line.
|
|
After you’ve spent 50K on an electric car
|
After you’ve spent 50K on an electric car
Vauxhall..and Fiat.. .not even close to 50k.
Edited by Ethan Edwards on 26/08/2023 at 21:05
|
I have started to use the train more. I have a 15 mile/ 30 minute commute to work so the £8 train fare is not much more than I spend on petrol.
Or either of my two EV's would do that trip for 18pence.
Trains, a two hundred year old answer to yesterday's travel problems.
LOL!
|
|
<< Climate change may be real but the way of tackling it (mostly by shafting common people) is wrong. >>
You make it sound as if that was the main purpose of the exercise. I think if any big effort is made to reduce or slow down the increasing CO2, it is likely that poorer people will feel more pain, but in the end everyone stands to benefit. It's hard to think of a nationwide CO2-reducing initiative which could include levelling-up side-effects.
The hypothesis that CO2 is causing global heating is not proved by live, daily updated, global temperature data.
temperature.global/
|
<< Climate change may be real but the way of tackling it (mostly by shafting common people) is wrong. >>
You make it sound as if that was the main purpose of the exercise. I think if any big effort is made to reduce or slow down the increasing CO2, it is likely that poorer people will feel more pain, but in the end everyone stands to benefit. It's hard to think of a nationwide CO2-reducing initiative which could include levelling-up side-effects.
The hypothesis that CO2 is causing global heating is not proved by live, daily updated, global temperature data.
temperature.global/
www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_...l
|
|
<< The hypothesis that CO2 is causing global heating is not proved by live, daily updated, global temperature data. >>
It certainly won't be proved, or disproved, by a string of recent daily data. Two proven (i.e.established) facts : [1] atmospheric CO2 has been measured for over 150 years, and has been rising steadily, accelerating after WW2 ; [2] CO2 is known (i.e. measured in the lab, not globally) to be a more effective 'blanket' (container of heat) than either nitrogen or oxygen, the main atmospheric gases.
But of course wishing it weren't true don't make it so ....
|
<< The hypothesis that CO2 is causing global heating is not proved by live, daily updated, global temperature data. >>
It certainly won't be proved, or disproved, by a string of recent daily data. Two proven (i.e.established) facts : [1] atmospheric CO2 has been measured for over 150 years, and has been rising steadily, accelerating after WW2 ; [2] CO2 is known (i.e. measured in the lab, not globally) to be a more effective 'blanket' (container of heat) than either nitrogen or oxygen, the main atmospheric gases.
But of course wishing it weren't true don't make it so ....
I'd like to know how many weather stations in the past were sited at the end of runways where the jet exhausts are at their most potent. Or next to major roads in very built-up areas rather than a mix of urban and non-urban areas, and away from significant point sources of heat such as exhausts (car, plane, etc).
Sadly, in my experience, too much of 'The Science' of the last few decades has been manipulated to fit the agendas in return for fame, fortune and patronage.
|
I'd like to know how many weather stations in the past were sited at the end of runways where the jet exhausts are at their most potent. Or next to major roads in very built-up areas rather than a mix of urban and non-urban areas, and away from significant point sources of heat such as exhausts (car, plane, etc).
I think you're clutching at climate sceptic straws there Andy.
It's pretty much a given that airports will carry out Meteorological observations. Accurate measurement of wind speed/direction, air pressure, temperature and humidity are fundamental to aviating safely. Sensors are likely to be at runway midpoint and placed so as not to be skewed every time a plane passes.
You only need to listen to the Shipping Forecast to grasp that, in the UK there are plenty of observations way, way distant from aviating, motoring or space heating.
If all weather stations, even those at airports or in the centre of cities, show temperatures increasing over time then what they're telling us is real.
|
Even IF temperatures are rising (not convinced) this by itself does not prove that it is man made. Correlation does not imply causation.
People/politicians arguing I should get out of my car because of the alleged environmental benefits of public transportation put me right off.
Fact is, public transportation is never going to be more convenient than the car in a natural sense, that’s why the government in its infinite wisdom decides to build-over parking spaces, block cars from going into certain lanes/roads (bus lanes, LTNs) and makes us pay an entry fee for the luxury of driving into a city.
|
Even IF temperatures are rising (not convinced) this by itself does not prove that it is man made. Correlation does not imply causation. People/politicians arguing I should get out of my car because of the alleged environmental benefits of public transportation put me right off. Fact is, public transportation is never going to be more convenient than the car in a natural sense, that’s why the government in its infinite wisdom decides to build-over parking spaces, block cars from going into certain lanes/roads (bus lanes, LTNs) and makes us pay an entry fee for the luxury of driving into a city.
Temperatures are rising, no need to convince you, it's a fact.
I really can't grasp why people don't believe humas - there are billions of us - can have an affect on climate. All I can think it's such a big, scary thing people stick their heads in the sand and pretend it is not happening.
|
Even IF temperatures are rising (not convinced) this by itself does not prove that it is man made. Correlation does not imply causation.
Why do you continue to deny the whole idea of global warming ? Surely the succession of increasingly warm summers, with floods and wildfires, in both hemispheres, must begin to suggest that climate is not what we are used to. And we aren't arguing about whether it is man-made (tho that is the most likely cause). As living conditions are becoming less pleasant, there seems little point in refusing to take any blame - it is getting hotter whoever or whatever is the cause, so trying to mitigate it may be a good idea ?
|
<< The hypothesis that CO2 is causing global heating is not proved by live, daily updated, global temperature data. >>
It certainly won't be proved, or disproved, by a string of recent daily data. Two proven (i.e.established) facts : [1] atmospheric CO2 has been measured for over 150 years, and has been rising steadily, accelerating after WW2 ; [2] CO2 is known (i.e. measured in the lab, not globally) to be a more effective 'blanket' (container of heat) than either nitrogen or oxygen, the main atmospheric gases.
But of course wishing it weren't true don't make it so ....
I'd like to know how many weather stations in the past were sited at the end of runways where the jet exhausts are at their most potent. Or next to major roads in very built-up areas rather than a mix of urban and non-urban areas, and away from significant point sources of heat such as exhausts (car, plane, etc).
Sadly, in my experience, too much of 'The Science' of the last few decades has been manipulated to fit the agendas in return for fame, fortune and patronage.
Very few I expect are in the wrong locations - meteorologists want good data and know how to measure so know how to site the weather stations as well.
Sadly in my experience people on the internet don't believe science and just believe what they want and fits their preconceived notions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
