Live data from Hacker News

I spend £8,500 a year to live on a train

metro.co.uk

231–240 of 526 posts

Re: I spend £8,500 a year to live on a train

#231
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never understood why trains are so expensive in England: when I lived in Bristol I liked to spend time in Bath, it's just a ~10 minutes ride but it costed 10 pounds each way if I remember correctly... but at least you could bring your bike for free :p

Because the government decided to stop subsidising the railways. Everywhere you see very cheap train fares it's because they are subsidised.

Also in the UK the way the railway system is set up is incredibly inefficient and bureaucratic so it costs us a lot more to run our system and build improvements than comparable EU countries. The railways were privatised for ideological reasons seemingly by people who didn't actually understand free markets. The privatisation was done in way that generated a lot of complicated contractual interfaces between a network of various private companies most of which can only make a profit with government subsidy.

As Boeing is finding out now with the 737 max and their Spirit subcontractor, every time you need to organise something across a contractual boundary, like who's responsible for making sure the doors don't fall off your aeroplane, it adds a lot of cost and time in contract negotiations, paperwork, inspections and inflexibility if you want to enforce what you have asked the other party to do and to understand what still remains your responsibility. Therefore when you go to a subcontractor for something you try to make sure it is very clearly defined what they are responsible for. For example, when an architect designs a skyscraper, they will try to design the cladding in a way that makes sure that watertightness is solely the responsibility of the one cladding subcontractor. If it leaks they are on the hook, simple. If you create complicated interfaces between systems then subcontractors can get out of responsibility for problems by blaming each other or the design of the interface.

So back to the railways. The government specifies where, when and how many seats a train service should have, they let contracts to train operating companies who then pay another (now government owned after it went bankrupt) company, Network Rail, to access the track. These train operating companies don't own the trains, they lease them from one of three other government created private (and now highly profitable) companies that provide all rolling stock. The train operating companies are generally responsible for light maintenance while the leasing companies are responsible for heavy maintenance. The train operating companies also provide staff for stations and branding but they don't own or maintain the stations although they are responsible for some maintenance and keeping them clean (or they used to be, it's complicated). All the money for this comes from the government as subsidy and from fare revenue paid to the train operating companies through a central clearing house. Train fares are for the most part dictated by government. Train operating companies have a little bit of freedom to sell discounted tickets to fill spare capacity, but there isn't really any on our main intercity routes and on commuter routes when people need to travel so most people are paying the government capped fares.

Here's an example of why this system is crazy. If we want to upgrade a rail line to electronic moving block signalling to increase the number of trains that can run per hour there are negotiations between the department of transport, the track owner, all the train operating companies that run on that route and their leasing companies about who is paying for the equipment to be fitted to the track and the trains, the specification to make it all compatible, when this will happen and who is responsible if things go wrong. On a complicated route like the West Coast mainline, this could involve multiparty negotiations between say 10 operators, 4 leasing companies, network rail and the department of transport. It could involve hardware and software modifications to more than 20 different types of train, some of which are up to 40 years old. Guess who is actually paying for all this anyway? The taxpayer and government dictated fares from rail passengers. There is no real free market incentive operating anywhere here to drive cost efficiencies in providing these modifications and all these negotiations need to be documented, have responsibility assigned and have procedures agreed. Guess who you need to do this? Lots of corporate lawyers... Guess how long this takes, fucking ages.

That is why we have a system where a ~350 mile journey from London to Glasgow takes more than twice as long and typically costs more than twice as much for half the legroom compared to a ~350 mile journey from Paris to Bordeaux.

A train network is like the mechanism of a clock, the trains are like the teeth on the cogs; they have a place they should be and they need to move in sync with perfectly with each other. We've designed a system that makes organising this insanely complicated with no overall coordinated strategy for improvements. A densely populated country like ours can't function properly without an efficient train network to allow its workforce to be flexible and move around easily and it affects our productivity and our ability to remain competitive globally.

Edit: corrected missing word

Re: I spend £8,500 a year to live on a train

#232
post #112

There are so many possible perspectives for such story but in this day and age the focus is on how much this cost. So let's talk about cost: I don't know how often he sleeps in this way[0] but clearly at £8500/year no one is discussing the externalized cost of taking up (arguably empty) seats he didn't pay for and setting the stage for future "nomads" to do the same and turning first class night trains into a substan…

Some of the older posts (https://leben-im-zug.de/howto-nachtreise-im-ice/) explain that when he was travelling second class, he was able to sleep on a luggage rack most of the time. That practice actually appears to consume a negative number of seats!

This is clearly also something you can only do when you're seventeen. I think if I tried to sleep on a luggage rack then (a) I would wake up in a claustrophobic panic attack, and (b) the rack would break.

Re: I spend £8,500 a year to live on a train

#234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Public transport in the UK is trapped in a vicious cycle. The system is poor, so people buy cars, which means fewer people use the system, which means less investment, which means the system gets even worse, so more people buy cars. Despite all its ills, driving is, for enough people, a more pleasant experience than tackling strikes, standing on a train for two hours, or being unable to travel at certain times at all…

More people use trains than in the 1990s.

More people are alive than in the 90s.

Re: I spend £8,500 a year to live on a train

#235
post #217
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never understood why trains are so expensive in England: when I lived in Bristol I liked to spend time in Bath, it's just a ~10 minutes ride but it costed 10 pounds each way if I remember correctly... but at least you could bring your bike for free :p

Indeed, Bath to Oldfield Park was (is?) the most expensive train journey on a per-mile basis possible in the UK.

I always thought it was Covent Garden to Leicester Square on the underground. It's about 250 metres.

Re: I spend £8,500 a year to live on a train

#236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is less than half of my rent in London. For exchange of no fixed location, and just a single tiny sleep room, though.

And no facilities most of us take for granted: a shower when you want; a washing machine; a kitchen with exactly what you want in it; private space; an actual bed....

Yeah, like for 1/5th of the rent price, it would make more sense...

Re: I spend £8,500 a year to live on a train

#237

If I was his age a $2.5K on a years interrail ticket for unlimited travel across Europe (admittedly 2nd class and there may seat reservation charges) would be very tempting https://www.eurail.com/en

When I was interrailing I'd try and do some across Europe night trains as it meant I saved on hostel costs and I'd wake up somewhere new. The choices are somewhat limited though

We did that a lot as well. Night trains are the closest mankind has to teleportation. Hop on a train in Berlin, have a beer, sleep, wake up in the centre Paris or Rome with a coffee and a croissant.

Re: I spend £8,500 a year to live on a train

#238
post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds expensive, are you coming from afar? A few years ago a monthly ticket within the London zones 1-6 (or perhaps it was 1-4) was only 150 pounds per month.

Certainly outside London - shortest journey time is 1h9m, 3rd stop.

still, its an insane price hike

Re: I spend £8,500 a year to live on a train

#240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More people use trains than in the 1990s.

More people have cars too though. Working on gut here rather than having checked any figures, but I'd wager that the proportion of rail journeys compared to car/bus journeys, for any given distance long/med/short, has fallen.

I thought this was an interesting question, so I looked it up. I don't have figures going back to the 1990s, but I've looked at the DfT's dataset on modal share NTS0409 [1] which has data 2002-2018.

Looking at number of trips/head, surface rail was 13 in 2002, rose to a pre-pandemic peak of 22 in 2018 and fell back to 15 in 2022. Bus (London + non-London local + long-distance) was 74, 48, and 37 respectively; motoring (car driver + car passenger + motorbike + taxi) was 694, 614, 512. Overall was 1074, 986, 862. So rail had a modal share of 1.2%, 2.2%, and 1.7% in 2002, 2018 and 2022.

The distance measure looks similar for rail: 482, 683, 493, from 7193, 6530, 5373. Modal share 6.7%, 10.5%, 9.2%. (I haven't done separate sums for buses and motoring.

So at least since 2002, it looks like rail has had a small but growing modal share of a steadily declining travel market, until disrupted by Covid to a place below peak but still considerably ahead of where it started.

Caveats: I haven't included the tube, and these data don't disambiguate light rail systems from 'other' (including flights). Rail remains dominated (like bus travel) by London & South East commuting, at least in number of trip terms.

[1]: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/tsgb01-m...

Post reply on HN