What are Trains for - and why am I paying for them?

Question

Coaches are cheap, planes are fast (and cheap).
Trains are relatively slow, unreliable and horribly expensive.
If I travel on a coach from Oxford to London it's about £10 and I am giving the taxman about £2 and making a profit for the company.
If I take the same journey by train it costs about £30, the taxpayer gives me about £10 in subsidy and the company makes a loss!
The less pollution argument looks good in theory, but in reality most Engines are quite old and very polluting.
Modern trains may look very clean per passenger mile when they are full, but a lot of the time they are trundling round the countryside almost empty and polluting far more than the small coach their passengers would otherwise fit into.
The "crowded roads" argument will not do either. If coaches and lorries had roads to themselves (e.g. converted railway tracks) they would move just as freely as the trains, and with a lot less breakdowns.

Emma P - if you want fast - fly. It's quicker, cheaper and not subsidised by the tax payer (bty, be nice).

1. There seems to be a story that road transport users do no pay for the infrastructure: they actually pay much, much more. Road tax and fuel taxes raise hugely more revenue than expediture on road transport.
2. Airlines not paying as much tax (as, say road transport) is NOT as subsidy. Subsidy is a handout from the taxpayer.
3. Electric trains create pollution - it's just back at the power station where you can't see it.
4. Any logical response must include all alternative modes of travel.
5. Your personal preference is irrelevant. I would prefer to travel everywhere in a private helicopter - that doesn't make it a viable transport policy.

Answer 1

idiot try driving a coach to glasgow in 4 hours trains are quicker.

Answer 2

Apart points made in other answers here, you do not compare like with like. You do not take into account the cost of roadbuilding and maintenance which is not charged to the user (other than through road fund taxes). You do not take into account the number of accidents on the road and the cost of this to the taxpayer in time lost from work, the cost to the NHS etc etc. Trains (not engines - you appear not to know the difference) in this country are modern, not old and pollutting. The rolling stock has been completely renewed since privatisation - whether or not that privatisation is seen as a good thing. As for trains 'trundling around the country half empty' try telling that to squashed commuters on the Great Western line, for example. Are you also aware that the railways in the UK last year carried more passengers than in any year since 1947?. As for the hoary old 'rails to road' argument is concerned, that just won't wash. The right of way of a railway is not wide enough to build more than a two lane road. And 1000s of miles of road have been built in this country in the past 25 years and they still get jammed. More roads = more traffic. Less breakdowns? I wonder why the RAC and AA proved so attractive to private investors?

Answer 3

Ok, I have no idea what railways are like in Britian/England, but I can counter every single reason you listed against trains up there based on what things in North America are like.

1.Yes, airplanes are fast, but they are NOT cheap. In the US an average round-trip airline ticket (medium distance) is $500- I don't call that cheap, & while trains are not ultra-cheap, they do cost less than flying in most cases.

2. Passenger trains are no slower than the buses (coaches) that you mentioned that travel on the highway. Most of Amtrak's long distance trains travel around 60mph, which is approximatly the same speed a bus traveling down the highways goes.

3. Trains ARE NOT unreliable. In fact, trains are very reliable in most cases- alot more reliable than airplanes are most of the time.

4. Most of the locomotives are old- FALSE! The locomotives Amtrak uses on its trains (mainly GE P42's) were built in the late 1990's through 2003. A single P42 by itself gets 14 mpg-which is very fuel efficient for a 16-cyl 4200hp diesel engine. Another locomotive series- GE's new evolution series locos (ES44DC's & ES44AC's)- emit 40% less polutants than their predesesors, & are the most fuel-efficient and environmentally compatible diesel locomotives in history. GE is currently working on a hybrid version, also.

5.A train can haul alot more people than an airplane- all you have to do is add on more passenger cars to the consist. Oh, & trains aren't just runing across the countryside virtaly empty- the times that I've ridden trains, there have been plenty of people riding.

6."The "crowded roads" argument will not do either."- Wrong again, yes it does. Roads would be alot more crowded if there were no trains. Did you know that just one double-stack intermodal train can take over 250 trucks (what you call "lorries") off the road? They can & they do. Also, it is alot more fuel-efficient to move it by rail. Just think- let's just say a truck is more fuel efficient than a locomotive (& it probably is), but once you add it up, which is using more fuel? The 2 big diesel locomotives used to pull the intermodal train, or the 250 individual trucks that would be needed to haul the same amount? The answer is the locomotives, because even though on a 1 to 1 comparison, a truck uses less fuel than a locomotive, but it takes 250 of them (trucks), while it only takes 2 of the less-effient locomotives. So, even though a locomotive is more effient.

Answer 4

The £30 you quote for an Oxford to London rail ticket sounds like the First Class fare. A standard class cheap day return or single with a rail card will cost around £12 or £13. A fast train which runs every half hour will take 55 minutes to London
as opposed to 1 hour 40 minutes on the bus/coach which also has to battle with traffic congestion that frequently extends that journey time. Most trains on the line are either relatively new or refurbished with lower emission engines, and of course many lines are electrified.. It is rare in Britain to find empty trains - passenger useage has risen 40 to 50% nationally in the past 10 years. As for air being cheaper than rail; this is only the case if you compare
rail tickets purchased on the day of travel with aeroplane tickets bought long in advance. Rail tickets bought in advance are extremely cheap and even the 'Saver' ticket bought on the day of travel is competitively priced as long as you travel after 09-30am Mon-Fri (anytime weekends). Practically everyone in Britain qualifies for a rail card (senior Citizens, Young Persons, Family etc), which gives a further discount of one third on many tickets.

Answer 5

Air is subsidised - Airlines don't pay tax on fuel.... Rail and Road do.

The rail company running Oxford to London is profitable and pays the governent £100million per year. They are installing new engines in half their fleet that meet all the current regulations (the rest is mostly 1990s) - Most of the rail subsidies are going to Network Rail to pay for the upgrades that were put off by British Rail under state ownership

Also there is a lot of competition between the coach companies, especially since the Oxford tube started every 10 min service

Answer 6

So when are you travelling? Starting from 06:50 next Tuesday, through to lunchtime, I could not find any trains from Oxford to London that cost more than £20.50 single unless you wanted to pay more!! Catch the First Great Western train at 12:05 on Tuesday 6th November and it will cost you £4 to Paddington - much cheaper than your bus ticket, and I'm not sure if it is possible for a bus to drive to London in an hour from Oxford other than in the wee small hours of the morning!
Make sure you book in advance, and train prices are quite cheap if you don't travel at peak times. There are also more people travelling by train now than ever before - the network is stretched to burstiing, with stations being lengthened to accommodate longer trains and so on.
Virgin Rail spent millions on new trains, as did other companies in the South East area, but still the crowds increase - they must be on to something!!!
Buy your tickets online and save even more in some cases.

Answer 7

I often wonder what fool dreamt up the equation cement over the railway tracks and put on buses it will be better.

An average train will carry between 800 to 1000 passengers, simple mathematics if a bus carries 50 passengers, you would need between 16 and 20 buses and that number of drivers of course. a train comes in to Liverpool St Stn in London, passengers disembark, driver walks to the other end of the train and passengers get in, train leaves in say ten minutes.

In the rush hour up to 30 trains will arrive and depart in an hour , can you imagine the requisite number of buses trying turn round and depart, could not be done, oh I forgot the trains are electric powered no pollution

Answer 8

An interesting statement... I'm sorry to hear you're not satisfied about the British railroad system, as are a number of folks I've heard from here.

Here in California, the trains go to VERY few places, but I would FAR rather take the train that a bus (coach) or drive.

My Commute is quick, relaxing, and inexpensive on the train, and yes, I'm concerned that it is tax subsidized. Then again, so are our roads and airlines.

An INTERESTING thing would be the return of SMALLER trains on shorter routes

Answer 9

I am with you.

So few people consider how many miles buses and trains travel empty or nearly so.

I live outside the capital city of California, USA. I see buses pass my home several times a day empty or with only one or two travelers. In addition, where I live they run on schedules and routes that would literally take me hours to accomplish a 20 minute car trip. Before I retired I started work every day at 6:00 AM. The first bus of the morning was at the nearest bus stop at about 6:05 AM. I was late before I got on the bus. Even if it had come early enough it would have taken me 2 hours and 45 minutes to get to work and the same to get home. No sane person would trade that for a car ride of less than 20 minutes.

As I said when we started, I am with you. The only thing trains are any good for is SOME freight and holding up auto traffic as they park across a major road for what seems like hours.

Answer 10

The ONLY reasons that planes are ever cheaper is that you are paying a LOT more to subsidize them than for trains.
dont think for a minute that airlines pay for even a fraction of building the airports.

Trucks and buses dont pay for the share of highways they use either, so you are wubsidizning everything,
thank you.

Answer 11

I never quite understood the privatisation of BR into franchises. They are not exactly private, since they get subsidies, and the former Railtrack, which manages the network, has effectively been re-nationalised since it was made a non-profit organisation.

I say re-nationalise it, this will simplify ticketing again and possibly make it cheaper. BR used to operate in profit.