New Trains in East Anglia - is the Future Really that Bad?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 вер 2024
- Hello everyone,
As you likely know by now, Lawrie is not a fan of modern trains, but today he decided to go have a ride and see if it is as bad as he thinks.
A video featuring, shot, and edited by Lawrie.
Want more info on us and the stuff in The Shed, or want to get in contact? Check out our Website!
lawriesmechani...
Fancy supporting us on Patreon and receiving extra bits of LMM? Have a look at our Patreon here:
/ lawriesmechanicalmarvels
Get more of what we're up to with Instagram! - / lawries_mechanical_mar...
Want to some LMM Merch? Check out our teespring store!
teespring.com/...
Chat with us and other like minded people on our discord - / discord
Follow us for video alerts and other updates on Facebook - / lawriesmechanicalmarvels
I think you are being a bit harsh. Remember, the train is much safer than a car, less congested than the roads. As for costs, yes they are far too high, however when you take into account the extras when driving, Insurance, tyres, general wear and tear I think you will see it actually costs a lot more than you think. It would be far better if we had a subsidised Integrated transport policy that actually encouraged us to go by rail. Brilliant video as always.
I agree. And in the UK trains are especially expensive, for example there is a ticket in Austria wich costs around 800€ and allows you to use the whole transit in the country for a year.
I partially agree, though because you have to pay for the insurance either way, you don't really gain much benefit from taking the train unless you manage to cut cars entirely out of your life. I'm not sure what the solution is though. Maybe free transit passes for anyone who lives in a zero car household?
Or bring the prices down and fund public transit by taxing car owners, to encourage people to take transit and not own cars.
Technically the prices and managment is down to politics.
Government can make the trains good and cheap if they wanted to, but they choose not... Instead they want to make service worse...
@@davidty2006 you are right and basically it is the road lobby which stops that happening
@@Sir_Rheilffordd so the Austrians who drive pay through their taxes to subsidise transport for those who do. I quite like this but the annual cost is not 800 Euros.
As for price Ipswich to London you can do for 20 pounds with train split and even cheaper with a rail card for those who travel more regularly
But you shouldn't have play around splitting tickets. Rail cards are no use for peak travel unless you are young, old, disabled or veteran.
I used to be big into the railways but now I only really pop out for the odd railtour or so. I agree that in the past 3-4 years everything has become rather samey and sterile what with the mass arrivals of Hitachis/Stadlers/CAFs made by committee for the average public and they do the job fine.
The railways are very flawed, especially today, and the tickets unless you're scheduled out to the minute and book in advance, there's no flexibility which doesn't result without a hole in your pocket. Having said that, I do prefer to take the train when needs must.. though I can drive a car, I sometimes don't like to. It stresses me out and particularly if I'm going where I don't know the lay of the land.
If you want an example of what happens when people rely on cars too much, come to the States. Here, most cities have such poor inter and intraurban transit that you HAVE to take a car everywhere - and I do mean EVERYWHERE. Then, the cities themselves have highways built right through downtown, making them dangerous and noisy places from where people move away, leading to poverty and higher crime. The "need" for parking lots further contributes to urban sprawl by turning most individual buildings into islands adrift in an ocean of asphalt. People are then virtually forced to drive not only TO each city but between EVERY destination WITHIN each city, meaning anything that doesn't earn money (say, ornamental streetlights, fountains, and shrubbery) is seen as superfluous and bulldozed. It gets to the point where you are practically encouraged to stay in your little domicile, and not go anywhere or do anything that doesn't involve spending money and going straight back home: no tight-knit communities, no town squares, and very few non-franchised shops that rely on spontaneous walk-in customers to stay afloat. As the cherry on top, the need to drive has made licensing requirements loose, and the sheer number of poor drivers who could otherwise be forced off of roads skyrockets, meaning car crashes are EXTREMELY common. So while I agree that train ticket prices do need to be more competitive, NEVER make the mistake of thinking car-oriented lifestyles are superior. My country made that mistake in the mid 20th century and has been paying for it ever since.
We've already gone down that road, but the infrastructure is worse
These are just like modern cars made so no one will care at end of life to save them. Very like say a used MacDonalds carton.
We have seen lots of Mk3 crashes over the years and when they do they all look the same and people die. The most recent was that in Scotland using high-speed trains after a landslide. The rear engine collides in the carriages in front. So, it's great to see these new trains have the center fixed couple first seen on the Eurostar. When these trains crash they stay together rather than end up on the farm land around.
I'll take boring and safer any day of the week
that's the problem with coaches which are designed to have crumple zones being pulled by things which do not. you should see the crashes with the paces and modern day DMU the locomotive always Winns. a 43 or 90 its all the same.
@@jaywatchtravel6146 I'm not sure where you got that idea but i think you should keep in mind that safety standards for trains have really improved over time. If you crash a Class 43 or class 90 into a old dmu yeah okay then it will fare better but have you read the details of the Stonehaven crash for example? There the cab of the HST actually broke off the rest of the power car and at least one of the coaches was actually crushed almost flat on one side.
Compare that to Grayrigg where a Class 390 derailed at a slightly higher speed and suffered much less damage. At Stonehaven 3 people died on a train with only 9 people on board. At Grayrigg 1 person died while the other 108 people survived. And yes a locomotive with coaches might appear safer in a head on collision but telescoping and the coaches being crushed into each other is a higher risk and likely to cause more deaths than a multiple unit with fixed couplings and shared bogies, which mostly functions as a rigid object when crashing.
In fact we had a train crash in the Netherlands in 2020 where two coupled passenger emu's with shared bogies crashed into a tractor with a loaded trailer at possibly around 75 to 80 mph. Although the sadly driver was killed in the crash and the front cabin was crushed the rest of the train actually fared really good, with no crumbling or telescoping.
Safer? Dear lord, save us from a world ruled by people who want to be saaaaffffe (read in italics). With how frequent rail accidents are in the UK (i.e. very, very rare), saying any one particular type of train is "not safe" is just absurd
@@formercrow5242 I drive a Citroen 2CV so no.
Hi Lawrie , I've worked on the railway for nearly twenty years as traincrew & I agree even working on a scud was fun except when it was busy , but the new units are great in winter & summer alike where as the old units were freezing or boiling hot even the 170's, where as the commuters love the convenience of the new stock even if they're a little bland , but this seems to be the way of the world from burgers to overpriced coffee. The short hauled set was a nostalgic treat for many , but awful to work & the 37's were always having problems had to run round the rear loco & tie on when the front 37 died several times! This may sound great on a preserved railway, but when folks are just trying to get to work or home after a long day its just miserable .
Driving to Diss from Ipswich or back on the 140 is also a miserable experience too , 50mph max & 50 mins one way is not great even without roadworks on single carriageway where as it's 25 mins on the train where you can edit videos , chat & not drop a cup of hot coffee in your lap as you drift unceremoniously into a ditch or telegraph pole.
I do miss the 90's & mk3's ,but even they'd reached a point where it was getting uneconomical to keep them in regular service after millions of miles traversing our great nation. I've worked 47's , 20's , 57's , 37's mk2's/3's & all sorts of DMU'S & EMU's which I've thoroughly enjoyed🎉 , but things always change just like when the end of steam reared it's ugly head , progress & change are not easy bedfellows. Ticket prices are set by the government not the rail companies always have been. 😢
PS love your channel & looking forward to more restoration shenanigans 😂
Thanks for your input as a professional.
As I said - these units are obviously better, and lots has been done to the design to make them a nice as possible place to be.
They're just not what I'm interested in, I like the railways for the sound and the excitement of proper traction.
I'm aware that on the continent the railways are state owned or heavily subsidised to make travelling by train a more attractive option.
Right now the tickets are too expensive, combined with a lack of regular cheap, usable public transportation from stations.
@@lmm Thanks Lawrie , I do miss the old stock & enjoy steam traction too , been on the footplate of many grand old ladies visiting Norwich from A4's to the Brittanias & many inbetween however the new stock doesn't have the same feel or appeal as traction of days gone by although it does a good job , but who's to say there won't be enthusiasts in the future for what we have here now ,we'll have to see 😉
Of course the Cl.90s + Mk3s were amazing and the feeling they give really cant be replaced. But I can't lie I absolutely adore the new GA FLIRTs, not something I can really explain, for me like the 158s and 159s.
Now the GA Aventras on the other hand...
The Stadler units are generally the better unit compared to the bombardier 345 or 720 units
One thing I don't think you mentioned is that the fare you quoted is for one passenger. The wife and I usually travel together - double that fare. In the car the cost doesn't change. Having said that, though, at 78 with less than perfect eyesight I don't like driving and travel the 400 or so km to Sydney from my regional New South Wales home by train, even though it takes twice as long as driving. Or I fly - less than an hour but a lot more expensive!
Does Australia not have concessionary discounts for the elderly and the disabled? We in the UK have Railcards, which knock a third off of your fares.
Personally, I'm not with you here. I've been Norwich/ Wymondham based for all my life and I'm so glad these trains have replaced the old sprinters & mk3's, the sprinters especially were knackered, horrible things were falling apart. And with regards to trains vs car, you forget one important thing, you can't legally booze & cruise! There's also ways around, 2 together railcards, booking advance etc. I do agree it is expensive and it needs to be less so, but there are plenty of other reasons as to why youd rake it as an alternative to driving
Advance booking is cheaper, but not always convenient. I say that the FLIRTs are much more pleasant to travel on.
I can't really think of many more reasons that the train beats car though
@lmm sure there's plenty of other reasons. I'll always do long distances via train than car & it's always worked out less expensive than driving, that is of course advanced mind you, but then again if it were for a holiday it wouldn't exactly be spontaneous.
It's significantly cheaper than getting a taxi after a night out
It often costs a comparable amount for my to say get the train from Wymondham to Norwich than it would be to pay for parking, plus I don't have to worry about parking spaces (which is worth potentially a couple extra quid imo if it comes to that)
Also having to walk a bit extra to your final destination is a net positive, I've shedded pounds before when I had to commute into the office & walk a bit extra at the end of my journey, saved on gym membership!
Train travel is also a lot safer & easier for those with physical impairments
You can also multitask whilst on the move, how many emails can you send whilst driving?
Again, I'm not saying it's not too expensive, it is, but I feel your looking at it from a very narrow personal perspective, and let's face it were both from one of the worse connected areas in the country so ofc your perspective is going to be slightly biased
See, that is the big problem in public rail transport, the spontaneous trip is super expensive. On everyday commuting it's usually cheaper than car but for a single trip it is horendously expensive, and it should really be lots cheaper. It's mass transportation with a medium that has significantly less roll resistance than a car or a bus per tone.
Usually cheaper so long as you get a season ticket is simply not good enough.
The physics of a train say they should be significantly cheaper because there is much less wear and tear per passenger mile along with much reduced energy consumption.
The trade off is inconvenience but when prices are similar or in a lot of cases more (especially when you factor in getting to/from the station/s for most people) then there is pretty much no incentive.
It does help if you have a Railcard though.
In NSW, the maximum cost for a train trip is $11.20 (> 65km). We also have the following caps:
- No more than $16.80 in a day
- No more tham $50 in a week
- No more than $8.40 on Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays
Thats great for the end user but where do you think the subsidies come from to pay for that?
If its not viable on its own its probably not the correct solution.
@@siraff4461 Subsidies pay for roads too, and not just from drivers. Trains are actually a very cost-effective way to move large amounts of people. Make them cheaper, more people ride them, less need for subsidies.
@@JackOfHarts96 "make then cheaper"?
You're going to have to send a letter to the government. I bet they never thought of that one.
Show me one time in the UK when a main railroad has paid its own way with passenger only traffic.
Trains are certainly not a cost effective way to move people unless you happen to have thousands of people who want to go on exactly the same journey. If everyone lived around one station in a city and they all wanted to go to another station in another city which was a great distance away at the same time then possibly but in reality its never happened.
What trains are excellent at is moving great amounts of mass very large distances at speed and that is exactly what they should be prioritised for.
What is the point of taking a few cars off the road only to need connecting transport each end of the journey when there are multiple trucks going up and down motorways to the same places day after day at around five times the consumption as if it was on a train?
Anywhere there is more than about 30 miles to cover the trucks would be better off using a eurostar style ro-ro train instead and yet people continue thinking trains are best used for bloomin commuters - the vast majority of whom could easily work from home in the first place.
This time (ish) last year I travelled from Wick to Northampton by rail, the Scotrail part of the journey was wonderful. The Total price was £130 so much cheaper than by car. When you break the journey down the parts in Scotland were much cheaper than those in England. I wonder if that has anything to do with Scotrail being public owned?
I would consider myself an enthusiast (in both vintage and modern railways) and I can understand where you're coming from, but the fact is that 'modern travellers' are who the railway is for, not enthusiasts. I would imagine that most people aren't looking to 'enjoy' a train ride in the same sense, they're looking to get from A to B easily/cheaply/quickly. Heritage is extremely important of course but that's why preservation societies and the like exist. And frankly I enjoy modern electric (and some diesel) MUs a lot, I feel the same sort of excitement being on a newly-introduced class as I would on a steam railtour.
As for the value of railways in the modern age, in all honesty I think your assessment is a bit pessimistic. You argue that with the existence of cars there's no benefit to taking the train, but passenger journeys have been steadily growing for the past three decades (lockdown period notwithstanding) so it's clear that many people do see the value, and while the issue of 'last-mile journeys' from station to final destination is a valid point, it's one that can be solved in any number of ways - bikes, buses, trams/light rail, even simply walking. I absolutely agree that ticket prices are absurd and more must be done to make train travel more attractive over driving, but blaming "the railways not moving with the times" misses a lot of important context (in particular, successive governments treating railways as a for-profit business over a public service). The concept of railways is not outdated, it's the mindsets of certain people (and politicians) that's the problem in my opinion.
I think this video is very confused in what it's trying to say.
Are we talking about the trains themselves?
Are we talking about the railway as a system?
or are we talking about the neglected status of our railways at the hands of successive governments?
because I really don't think seeing a pendolino soar through a station at 125mph is boring at all.
The diesel-electric or dual mode Flirts are some of the most interesting modern trains, i think, with the twin Deutz V8's in the central power module
It's sort of reminiscent of the APT-E prototype with the gas turbine power units in the centre of the train.
The power pack has 4x 16 litre diesel V8 engines and you can walk through it. They are certainly not only futuristic but also the current scene too. I could understand if it was Alstom/Bombardier 720 or 345, but Stadler products are exceptional stock
Four of them! That's trick
I've not travelled on the Greater Anglia FLIRTs but have used their Swiss equivalents. They are comfortable, with level boarding and smooth running. Customers seem to like them as well. OK, so for enthusiasts they might be less interesting than Mk3s and Class 90s, but this is the way forward. The Swiss SBB original FLIRTs have been around for many years now and wear well.
Seeing train ticket that expensive is just weird to me, I'm used to seing 10€ for a TER and like 20€ for an intercity
You're right in some countries in europe trains are far cheaper
The tickets are subsidised by taxation. We used to do this until George osbourne flipped the cost onto the traveller.
I like the flirts and im glad Transport for Wales has got 36 of these flirt units to be used in South Wales in the future. Ive only been on a class 231 and I love them they are spacious quiet and smooth. I agree with the ramp its just something extra to go wrong and also takes a job off the guard and ill miss the Sprinters when they are gone.
Maybe they need an open-air upper deck you can be strapped into like a roller coaster. That'd be more exciting. I suppose asking for motorized seats that go up and down to make it feel like a roller coaster would be asking too much.
FLIRT also stands for the Fen Line Incident Response Team, who go out to incidents between Cambridge and Kings Lynn.
Interesting video and you make valid points. I had heard that the train fares in the UK were incredibly expensive and it seems to be true. I live in the state of Victoria in Australia which is roughly the same size as Britain. I often travel to a friend's place in the country 48 miles from Melbourne. Starting 31 March 2023, no matter where you live in Victoria, it will cost you the same amount to travel. The most you’ll pay is the same as a daily capped fare, which is currently $10 full fare, or $5 for concession. Yes, it is subsidised by the Government but without the subsidies, it would be unaffordable to a lot of people and cause an increase in car usage. In recent decades trains have never made money due to the uptake of car ownership since the 1960s. Victoria's population is 6.6 million and Britain is 67 million. How can they charge so much for train fares over there, it's crazy. I also agree with you that the train you travelled in is very bland.
Well I do understand your thoughts but I think you're too pessimistic. Even if that's hard to believe: the normal commuter doesn't care about heritage and old locomotives. I think it's inevitable that all trains (in regular service)need to be updated to make them fit for the future. Trains can be good and they are, just not where you live :/ I personally think that it's the job of the politicians to make trains as convenient and efficient as the tube or the trains in Switzerland.
Bingo! it's all up to the politicians who have been dictating things like ticket prices and timetables since the start, they are also the ones that have been woefully underinvesting in the railways compared to many countries across europe that do it more efficiently if not at least cheaper.
I love a train journey. Or rather I did pre pandemic. You are absolutely correct regarding the ticket prices, they are way to expensive. The vagaries of buying tickets and the prices charged need urgent attention as well as the policies on 'reserved' seats or trains. A few issues :-
1. Wolverhampton-Ely day return £82.90 Wolverhampton-Cambridge which is one stop FURTHER ON, ON THE SAME TRAIN going through Ely is £80.80 go figure.
2. Reserved seat tickets that are sold for trains which do not have the ability to show when a seat is actually reserved, and I'm looking at you Cross Country.
3.Reserved train ticket for a specified train that the TRAIN OPERATOR had cancelled and so getting on the next available service to be told my ticket was invalid and I would have to buy another ticket even though it was the same operator, I refused!
I could go on. I am talking from an enthusiast point of view, I want to use the train, I like to use the train (mostly) but if using them is just an expensive pain in the butt for me then what hope have they got of attracting people out of their cars.
One more thing, sort out the strikes.
Yes, nothing beats the classics from the golden age of steam.
Why are UK modern train seats so uncomfortable? Aside from ironing board hard, they are almost upright which makes sleep impossible as the head falls forward.
The only trains with correctly angled backrests are on Transport for Wales services from Manchester Airport (sorry, not sure of class numbers!)
Otherwise bland, characterless, with agitated ride quality and truly atrocious liveries - are just a few of the reasons I've gone from always loving rail travel - to being glad to get to the destination as soon as possible. Not to mention the ridiculous fares system!
I assume a thinner upright seat takes up less room, so more seats?
I can't really compile thoughts right now, but suffice to say that you make a bunch of excellent points and despite that, if I had the time and could afford it, i'd be riding the rails a lot more than I do now.
In Northern Ireland we had all of the cool older trains turned to these modern Spanish made trains, quite similar to in this video. I only used the older ones for a brief stint back in the late 2000s, but what a difference! You could feel the inertia from the engine strokes in the carriages on the old ones, not to mention an almighty rumble from them. The 80 class mainly (there was also the quieter 450 class). Completely get what you described by the news ones seeming lifeless!
I agree... Mainly the cost of a train ticket is a issue and modern trains are boring
Here in Norway we have used FLIRTS (although we use the most powerful 200 km/h version with a different reinforced front end called the Type 74/75.) They have been very reliable in service compared to the older, more "characterful" stock, and the fabric seats are still fine. In fact, their introduction have significantly boosted passenger numbers. I get why you think they are boring, but to me they are amazing pieces of engineering.
The Norwegian and British railway networks are quite different, but some of your points still stands. The car, while its obviously the most convenient option, sadly leads to the tragedy of the commons by using a lot of land area to transport a single person. (In the US, this led to them basically demolishing all their cities to make room for parking and motorways).This is why trains and public transit are really the only sensible option to move large amounts of people, especially into a city, and its sad to see the UK having such expensive ticket prices. If everything worked on the basis of least cost to society, train tickets would be much cheaper.
To be fair to the car in the US, there is a LOT of sparsely populated land, where trains don’t really make economic sense at all
@@andrewreynolds4949 Of course, the car will always be necessary in some places. But the problem in the US (and some places in Europe) is that the cities were demolished to make enough space for the cars, which leads to urban sprawl and even more car dependency. It's not really about how "big" or small the country is. You are much more dependent on owning a car if you live in Belgium compared to the Netherlands for example.
While passenger trains rarely make sense from a pure business perspective, in a socioeconomic sense they are very profitable because the cost of car dependency to society is extremely high.
4:26 diss! That's my local station
As far as new trains go i think the flirts are amongst the better ,not like 800s.
Essentially New trains are utilitarian and standardised so they will mean..boring ,Train fares ,for more people to travel it needs to be cheaper,it needs to be green ,it needs to be faster and be a stress free as possible.
The FLIRTs are fine, I'm just not excited by them, but you're most correct.
With a power car in the middle and cars with articulated bogies, all they need to do is tilt and you've got a baby APT-P :)
although haven't trains throughout been painted the same livery in there respected decade, br black, br green, 80s 90s 2000s etc in there company liveries all the same unless its a livery to celebrate something which is an expection as for shapes, every class looked all the same in its day more noticable in diesels and electric, pricing more of a company problem privatisation than the train itself, great documentary on it ua-cam.com/video/ZHjPeC1dGv4/v-deo.html , when dr bitching took up the tracks to small towns/ places that you can only drive to now ow yeah shouldn't of taken them away, you add not take away.
In Poland we have all the issues you've just mentioned plus the bonus of rattly old EN57's built in the 1960's still in regular service. Though ridership is on the rise due to the price, regional rail is incredibly cheap, for example I went to visit my friend who lives 80km away and I didn't even pay 10zł. He get's an even better deal since he uses the train to commute to school and has a regular user's card so he can get anywhere by just paying a fiver.
It is because of those old EN57s they are not footing you the bill for new train sets. If I could go 80 kilometers for 10 zł = 17 kr = 2£ I would gladly do so in an EN57
The Polish railways seems to be doing the right thing! Plus re vamping the old stock with wifi and occasional new interior costs a fraction of developing a new train set.
You said it yourself "Ridership is on the rise du to the price" That is effectively what counts! The rail road has a future in your place. unlike where ridership is in decline, regardless of the novelty of their roll stock.
I note that Poland is resisting EU interference in its Railway. Good! I wish our government had stood up to them, but the DfT were useless. I hope your referendum shows that Brussels should not interfere in Polish affairs.
EN57 was being manufactured since 1993. Modernised many times until then. The newest version is EN57ALd. Still good train but the oldest classic ones will be phased out until 2027.
I agree on many points raised mate, price and added inconvenience...
The cost needs to be on par with the car so to speak...
There are however times where I can think of the train as a better alternative. For example.
If you have work to be done and a journey or 6 hours to undertake, then being able to work whilst traveling is a massive plus - Also for health reasons, you don't have a car etc etc
Considering that difference between a Mk3 to the Pacer and sprinter series of trains this seems comfortable but I love the compartmental Mk 1s and even older
You are right. The comfort of those mk1 seats, the legroom, the way they were sprung and upholstered, was way superior to any current seats, though it has to be acknowledged that there have been great improvements in suspension and air conditioning. However, the fact remains that comfort level improvements to the average family car have advanced greatly over the same period. The railway industry has let itself down there.
I like the interior of the 755s and 745s but despise the exterior of them
this is a good question if modern trains are electric and electric is at a stage where it can be generated by wind turbines, solar panels endless electric source why are the prices super high hmmmmmmmmmmmmm as a expec puts money in his back pocket, if modern electric trains dont have a electric generator unit, electric from lines go in, as it moves along creates electric stored in unit then can run on that so its not reliing on the cables to save electric resulting in a self efficent running machine they need that asap
I think the latter half of the video hits the issue with the UK rail network right on the head. The Train Operating Companies just aren't in touch with reality.
All I have to say is it's not a steam locomotive but it has potential
Its always that last mile from the station to the place you want to be. Which costs extra time and money. The only way passenger rail can "work" these days is if its highly subsidized by taxpayers that don't use it, or "forced use". The one exception is very dense population areas to other very dense population areas (Japanese cities) or like is being done in Florida from cities and air ports to entertainment hubs where you don't need your car for days and even weeks.
Lawrie u should go back and do another episode on the bredgar wormshill light railway i really enjoyed them.
There's one to be released
@@lmm Oooo thank you for replying !
The ticket prices in the UK are really exorbitant compared to most other countries.
The privatisation of rail transport didn't promote competition in the market as thought, the competition is only in the tenders to get the concession but not in the prices the customers pay for their travel.
Not to mention the current government is wanting to make the railways worse by getting rid of still useful ticket offices.
Here here,
I see where you're coming from the car is much more cheaper but there is people that don't have cars like myself and it keeps the roads from being overloaded with traffic
The roads are completely over crowed, and the train should be a good option. It's just too expensive.
@@lmm the road further up north near the top of England thay are doing on I've bin on a coach on them
I agree with you on the cost, from 2 station away from Ipswich (I won't say which one of course) a single costs £7.70, for the same price I can drive to Ipswich and back 8 times
The cost of rail travel is now extortionate, as you have found but why?
It is true that advance tickets can be cheaper, but this distorts the market so a turn up and go ticket is a higher price than it would otherwise need to be.
The cost of rail travel in Britain is affected by many factors:-
1. Infrastructure built to over-the-top specifications, The GW electrification being a prime example. (DfT responsible).
2. Infrastructure maintenance costs. American railroads can replace pointwork quicker and cheaper. (Network Rail responsible).
3. Using or looking for high tech solutions for simple problems. Hydrogen, batteries, or bi-mode where a simple electrification infill would solve the problem of joining 2 electrified areas. The North Downs line, and Marshlink are examples (DfT will not sanction 3rd. rail, despite most of Southern England being on that system.
4. Rolling stock years late, often because of "software" problems. Older trains did not have that problem. (DfT loves new trains with all the bells and whistles, even if it means replacing rolling stock with years of life left)
5. High Speed 2. The money pit which is sucking up money that could be usefully applied elsewhere. (This was long ago predicted and always denied, but now admitted by the DfT).
6. Every line has to be fenced, yet European railways are often unfenced without problem.
7. Privatisation. The only success has been freight. Everything else is an expensive mess with track and train being separated. The hiatus in steady orders with manufacturers led to the loss of British train builders, so that apart from Clayton, it is all foreign owned or built. ( This seems to apply also to every other industry that was privatised with costs to the consumers going through the roof).
I used to get the train from Diss to London Liverpool Street when I lived in Long Stratton and Diss was more accessible to use. Mind you I do like the Class 745 and Class 755 FLIRTs and they are very nice trains.
In Melbourne, public transport is cheap, but if you have to use connecting services, it takes aaaages.
As an experiment, I compared my commute to my old work - 10 min drive, versus 30 min commute via foot & train.
My current work? 45min drive vs 2+ hr commute. No thanks.
And I like public transport.
BUT you fail to mention the costs of MOT, tax camaras, road works and POT HOLE britain. I'm a van driver and have to strongly disagree and can blame every pot hole in the road plus congestion on DR beeching. It's the labour party that lie and has never spent the money to invest in rail! Boris and sunak have commited to HS2 and I can see it being built around the M6 - M40 - M42 near the burton-on-trent area and it will work with an extremly straighter track and they arent messing about. Beaching wrecked the capacity of the railways and labour refused to let them make a profit so they can pay for new high speed passenger / horse power fright trains. As for closeing all the a and b roads on the railway that means it's impossible for civil engineers to divert trains as you can on the over built crappy roads. Also try driving a 3.5 ton van on country single track roads in hills and mountainous areas💩💩💩💩💩💩 Let spend our tax money rebuilding our railways and make them profitable for buiness and jobs not politics of envy socialist lies and corbyn. It was intercity 125 HST that got the trains back into a profit BUT welfare state spending Labour would rather lie about the tax spending and have never once commited to the railways.
I don't think railways don't work in today's world, in fact I think we need to move to using the railways over personal automobiles on medium/long distance journeys due to the advantages like environmentally friendly and stress free travel that allows you to take in more of the scenery. However, I understand your frustration since the modern British railway network is in a very bad spot right now. But take a look at somewhere like Tokyo or its directly neighbouring prefectures. Taking a train is seen as a viable option, built through frequent service and ease of travel with the use of an IC card (kind of like an oyster card but a far larger range). And with a lot of trains being spacious with level boarding, bikes can be used to complete the last leg of your journey (mind you the bike culture is very big in Japan). I think the best approach to achieve an efficient, usable system in the UK is to nationalise the railways or at least rework the structure of the privatised railway system (Japan has a privatised railway system where each company owns all track and equipment) and then improve the 'last mile' options whether that's through the building of new lines, implementation of bus routes or bike lanes.
You’re not too harsh. Trains and pricing, our general belief in “efficiency” and “growth” (at the same time) is *very* strange. I’m obviously terrible at math.
If my economy is efficient and growing at the same time, there must be huge benefits, right? More spare time? Fewer bills? Lower bills? Lower prices? Less work to do? Fewer plans and appointments to make? Tighter knit families? Less worrying?
No…? If I didn’t get such benefits from all the efficiency and growth put together, where did it go…? I must be dreadfully stupid by not getting it… 🤣
Most modern trains are total rubbish, never enough carriages, not enough direct nor express routes (Manchester Victoria to Holyhead being one example) not enough luggage space and not enough first class carraiges, with or without lockable compartments (for young girls and women travelling on their own late at night) - I’ve written so many times to the TOC’s and the other official rail bodies, including Network Rail and the ORR about various issues over the years and they are totally unreceptive to all feedback - the entire U.K. rail system needs a complete overhaul and one external body needs to come in and take complete and direct control of the entire U.K. rail network with no other interference being permitted and the law needs to be changed to make this happen - given the huge success of the Chinese railways, I favour the CCP being brought in to take complete and direct control of the U.K. railways with no interference being allowed - we might even get the high speed rail tunnel from Holyhead to Dublin getting finally built under the Irish Sea at long last
Totally agree with your views… I occasionally travel to London using the mainline service which used to be Intercity 125 (Class 43) sets which enjoyed the Mk3 coaches which were genuinely quiet, smooth and comfortable and besides that had some personality.
Travelling today utilises the Hitachi 800 series sets which are noisier, rattly and have started to look dirty and used very early; complaining further, the seats and armrests are way harder which detracts from the enjoyment of the journey! Yes, the toilets, automatic doors and information systems are better, but the Mk3’s could have been upgraded or remanufactured to match so the new trains have not represented a significant move forward in passenger comfort and seem likely to be shorter lived.
As to cost, it is extortionatly expensive to travel at peak times and if it were easier to access and park in London, the car would be way cheaper.
Guess I could be living in the past, but it just doesn’t seem right when something designed and manufactured during the 1970’s appears better than modern manufacturers can provide.. Happy to hear opposing views!
You are lucky,
Living in the north of the country train often not arrive, and You are cramped into next one.
And strikes...
And 2 car 'intercity' trains! (Leeds-Sheffield-Nottingham by Northern)
So We avoid rail as a plague now. Lot cheaper and convinient go by car to P+R.
Current rail system should collapse! And we need to build one to serve the people - not generate profit!
I would imagine a similar reaction to the class 43, 90 and 91 when they were first introduced. Now they're leaving the network we look back on them with fondness. Rolling stock has to be replaced with the rolling stock companies making a fortune from the train operating companies.
I can understand your arguments for the car. However I wouldn't drive in Central London as it's congested and stressful. I'd rather take the train to Euston and the underground.
We expect railways to run at a profit and subsidise roads. Roads are maintained through taxes, railways aren't. If roads and railways alike were both maintained through taxes rail travel would become cheaper and more attractive. Rail is my favourite form of travel but I don't use it very much. The problem is not the inconvenience, it is the cost. Costs don't have to be as high as they are. Rail travel in Europe is much cheaper than it is here.
A week tomorrow I am visiting my sister in Sandy Bedfordshire. I live in Truro in Cornwall. It is at least 330 miles each way. The return fare is just over £90 with a senior rail card, booked in advance. From that perspective, trains now more resemble airlines in their economic model. Really looking forward to the trip despite the hideous GWR class 800s.
Feel lucky you CAN drive - Us blind people drivers don't give a sh1t about are stuck..
Maybe that's what drivers want - Grind blind people into the dirt...
1) I believe Architecture as well as industrial design affecting all vehicles is suffering from the same malaise! 70 years of dogmatic focus on fashion rather than culture and absolute austerity minimalism over craftsmanship has created an alienating aesthetic environment that don't really attracts anyone for anything than the sheer value of going from point A to point B.
2) Rail services are not designed by the people who use them but by an upper class for a whole different market of people who the railway already lost to cars and planes. Private discount railway, some of which in Germany and Sweden operates much older roll stock at a discount is carving a share of DB as well as SJs revenue plus are priced at a level that actually competes with busses and cars.
1) Can be solved by an aesthetic renaissance. There is a reason other than historical interest that brings people, including families with kids to travel long distances to experience heritage railways,
In short the journey must be made a spectacle of its own in comfort and aesthetically pleasing surroundings.
2) Rail services must dedicate themselves to push for the lowest ticket prices possible, lobby for legislation that helps de bureaucratize the industry and make railways cheaper to maintain and operate so they in turn can make the journey cheaper. Novelty for the sake of novelty must take a back seat in favor of reliability.
I concur with your assessment, for the most part, but I actually agree with a lot of your underlying premise. Remember that public transit isn't meant to replace private transit. It's meant to it, for those who, for whatever reason, either can't use private vehicles or actively choose not to. The two are meant to coexist. The fact that most people either forget this, or never bothered to work it out in the first place, is responsible for a lot of the ills of public transit in its various current incarnations across the globe.
Yes, the trains need to be more accessible. You should not have to drive to a train station. Yes, it should be cheaper than private vehicle ownership. But the proper reasons for these are not the ones you present. The train needs to be more accessible because people who are too disabled to drive can't use public transportation they can't physically access, and because in this day and age, having a manservant (or the nearest public attendant) wheel you about simply is not a socially-acceptable option. (As much as those of us who are rabid fans of steampunk would like to forget, not all aspects of the Victorian lifestyle are all that lovely -- and the attitudes of the public at the time towards those with physical and mental ailments were unsavory, in fact, when viewed through a modern lens.) This also includes station location -- pardon the unintended rhyme -- not because driving and parking to ride a train is pointless, but because having to walk for an hour to get between a train and one's home or destination is equally devoid of use. It's not even good exercise, there are far more entertaining and enjoyable places to go for a long walk, regardless of given location, other than beside a motorway or an endless string of shops and whatnot.
As for fare costs -- is a simple matter of efficiency. A bus is, by nature, more efficient than a car, simply because a car is not generally capable of routinely carrying, say, forty people at once. The more people on a given vehicle, vs fuel burnt and distance traveled, the more efficient it is. No, a bus will never hit the mpg (UK/EU: l/100km) of a car, but considering that a well-planned bus route will have between thirty and fifty people on that bus most of the time, vs a maximum capacity of... five, really, for a typical sedan (UK/EU: saloon), that rather more than makes up for it... yes, a train has to move a LOT more, especially since just as a baseline it has to be quite heavy just to generate enough friction to move literally at all, but a diesel MU with any meaningful design work to it at all, unless it's filled with sleeper suites for whatever reason, ought to reasonably carry at least a hundred people at a time, per car, and with modern tech being as efficient as it is in regards to things like engines, generators, electric motors, there's just no legitimate excuse for a train to cost more than bus fare. (Of course, there's all-too-often the unfortunate question of who's lining who's pockets with what money, but, as I said -- there's no excuse... and, really, it saddens me that public corruption of that sort persists so strongly. We humans should have more shame.)
...so, ultimately -- "Well, yes, but actually, no." You ride the train for the same reason that, if you're a tourist, you ride the Tube throughout London and make up the difference with buses, should you need to, and a bit of walking -- because there are simply some situations in which having a car of your own simply isn't viable. There are many, many, such situations -- physical or other disability, income or financial matters, unfortunate life choices ( call for a cab, or take a bus or the Underground home, if you've had a few at the pub... or just stagger off into the night, if that's truly viable -- I really hope I needn't say more), or just personal preference.
I'm actually an example of that. I have mild physical issues stemming from a chronic pain and energy disorder complex that I'm having quite a time getting diagnosed, simply because my doctors like to take their time figuring things out, and are quite busy besides. I also have a number of "below the neck" issues that stem from having Asperger's Syndrome, a form of autism spectrum disorder, amongst other mental troubles. Some of these "below the neck" effects are actually related to coordination and the like. I have very, very poor motor planning and coordination, severe balance issues on nearly anything other than a pair of feet or a chair or bench, almost no muscle memory, and when I move I'm fairly slow at it. Further, the pain and energy matters have left me with the motive profile of a small lizard on a large rock, for the most part, so I've very little strength or stamina and, erm, plenty to move around with it, despite that. (Sadly.) My reaction timing is somewhere above half a second, which is somewhere between patently atrocious and "dude, I don't know how, but you're part sloth". Worse, my reactions tend toward the paralytic: I freeze. On top of all of that, my ADD and some sort of sensory integration/processing disorder means that I'm easily overwhelmed if I have to track multiple sources of information at once (FFS two online conversations going at the same time is incredibly hard, three is nearly impossible... never mind a whole dashboard of gauges and blinkenlights and whatnot!) and the usual way my brain 'handles' overload is to just give up entirely and zone out. I am by no means a suitable person to have at the controls of moving vehicle beyond perhaps a motorized shopping trolley aka Mart Kart, and even I would openly question.
Yet, were I to somehow magically achieve my dream of living in London, I'd be the happiest daft bloke lost in the fog. Why? Because you don't a car to live in London. There's the Tube and the bus system for most of it, and if I can't hobble from there to my destination, a few pence to one of the famous Black Cabs solves that problem instantly. That's how public transit is supposed to work -- those who prefer to drive and have the option, can, and for the rest of us, there's a perfectly viable set of replacement options. (Yes, people will always grumble because they have to go through a Tube Station with a three-minute delay owing to a signal lamp somewhere with an acute case of the Mondays. The term for that is "can't see the forest for the trees" and those people need a mug of chocolate, a hug, and a promise that everything's going to be just fine.)
Sorry but pay your money ride the train.....or don't 😅 classic traction and stock not liked by the general public who travel every day...go to preserved railway and ride there you might find cost per mile not to different to main line thats with volunteers and some paid staff! I just went up Snowden 50quid return for 9.5 miles ....so modern rail is value for money😮...
Stop bleating and promote rail .😅
Tbh on this point, you can just go to USA and move there because you like car so much and feel the "freedom" you dream of, I'm just going to tell you that USA now start to have problems on their city because they are so in debt from car infrastructure and many cities still don't know how to pay up those debt. Not to mention because not all people can afford a car and maintain properly, I'm going to give you some scenarios her, so if you on a place that the only mode of transport is by car, you have to be having extensive car infrastructure, very wide road, very wide parking space, etc. All of that infrastructure need space, guess what happens back then on most of USA city? They intentionally demolished their city to make way for car infrastructure, many housing, apartment even school and business are demolished. Now everyone must have car to travel there, then came the problems for the people that cannot afford a car, they obviously have to drive but if they don't have car, they cannot travel, and because they cannot travel they can't get to work or even find a job, and if you don't work you don't have any money to spend for your daily or even pay bill on housing or even rent, and then you become homeless. Car is great for travelling and exploring place, but I don't think car should be the number one mode of transport.
I think the purpose of your report highlights the simple fact that, unlike our European (or even American) cousins, train fares in this country are extremely high. Successive governments have smothered us in green legislation but the underlying hypocrisy is that if they wanted the public to use the railways , they would make it far more affordable. It's completely backwards thinking and doesn't add up. Whilst I agree the old stock is far more interesting, maintaining it after it's useful life would prove expensive compared with starting anew. But these new trains use lighter materials and lack the solid build of the former units, hence the rattles, as I experienced on one of the LNER 800 units recently.
Hmmm. CAF trains. "Cheap As F**K". Modern stock is flimsy and as you noticed on the verge of falling apart from new. The problem is some places are inaccessible by car. Bristol for example. The Swiss system where a train season is also valid on almost all busses, trams, boats and cablecars all integrated is the way forward. However set times on a normal person walking, not a teenager wearing running shoes. Switzerland is the only place where I have shouted at a woman struggling with a pushchair to get "Out of the effing way" as I have 90 seconds to get right across a railway station to the connecting bus that will leave on time.
As a railway fan myself, living in South Africa, the railway and public transport in general is far worse than you will ever experience in the UK. As a local comuter, the trains are few and far between, and there are no shops or canteens the stations are filthy. As you foumd out it can be cheeper and more convenient (probably even quicker) to take your car to London the same would be for me to visit Santon which is 15 minutes by car from my home.
The problem with ticket prices isn't the fault of the train itself. It's the private companies trying to maximise profits over a necessary public transport. It's also worth noting that not everyone can afford to buy a car in the first place, never mind insurance. If we really want rail travel to be more appealing, we need to support the strikes and bring them back into public ownership - or even better, have the companies be owned by the drivers and staff themselves, collectively.
Like it or not, the problem with modern trains isn't the rolling stock, it's all political. It's the greedy Capitalists prioritising profit.
I used to travel this commute route to london regularly and the MK3 carriages rode smoother, were more comfortable and more spacious. The toilets were awful i guess but i cannot stand the new carriages in all honesty. Plus slam doors! Also those jacob bogeys have prpven unreliable in service; the other week one of the bogeys was rattling around like all heck!
In the past you didn't have a car you could jump into make the same journey, so trains are stuck in their past locations which is inadequate compared to what have now, ( unless 15 mins cities come in.)
But my last experience of a train from Glasgow to Manchester was an over crowded unorganized mess, with the only toilets swimming in liquid. 🤢
I think the BR Mk 3 coach was the zenith of coach design on UK railways and since then it has gone downhill. New trains feel plasticky and shodily built. I also don't like the lack of a proper catering car that can make a full English Breakfast, which has long been the best meal served on the railways. A micro-waved bacon roll is just not the same.
You’re right, these new trains are garbage. They’re here in the US too. Each new stock we’ve purchased has already been pulled out of service and replaced with older models. I don’t suspect the quality of these won’t make it 10 years.
I've been on the flirts a few times tend to think there not actually that bad in all fairness.
Plus the safety aspect the shared bogie setup is to keep bulk of the train level should it derail. One other thing I was thinking why stick with clapped out class 156's and 153's with mahoosive gaps to the platform? The step under the doors are actually quite a nice touch something most toc's should consider at least.
I personally would rather travel by National Express than by train, from where I live in the South West to Skipton in North Yorkshire cost me around £190 by train and you were lucky if you got a seat and somewhere to put your luggage, by coach it cost £60 and you are guaranteed a seat and somewhere to put your luggage only downside is that it takes a few hours longer but you have to bear in mind you have an hour in Birmingham which atleast gives you time to find something to eat( great cafe around the corner) and stretch your legs and use a clean proper toilet should you need to do so.
I'm a bit of a tall one, and no modern train has knee room. You just end up with a geometric lock between your pelvis and knee caps.
Give me a Mk I any day.
Travel on a train here in Devon. Its a million times different than anywhere else in the UK. We still use DMUs for a start which is automagically more exciting and betterer. XD
I mean, boring sure, but this is (at least supposed to be) a public service. If I want an exciting trai I'll book an excursion or go to a herritage railway. If i'm to visit gran or something. I just want to get there. As for the price. Yup, it's been a long standing issue sadly. I think integation with local busses and other transit sould be a priority so you can go from the train to the bus.
In all honesty, you're the only one (As far as I know) to be true on the matter of modern rail travel.
The rail fares are prohibitively expensive in this country.
Take this for example, It is far cheaper to take a plane from London to Glasgow than it is to take a train, and the plane is much faster than the train.
What’s going on?
I take the train when I need to go into London, not much thankfully, 'cos I HATE driving in London. Everywhere else I use the car.
Danish trains topped with the MA of sixties...the ic3/er4 are worse and the failed ic4 are crap, even if it wasn't a reliability failure so it has gone down hill since the late sixties....same with the local trains Lynnette and MR trains replaced with various crappy drafty units with poor seating
Be thankful you have the option of trains. Even if it is less convenient that you would like. My job requires me to got to the city every day and the only train that runs near here is freight. So 500km a week in the car and over a $1000 a month in fuel and parking.
For me, It doesn’t work because our network was butchered and scrapped by you know who. If we still had all our old lines I’d never drive anywhere
Maybe some acknowledgement to Mick Lynch is appropriate.
The fat private company cats raking off too much profit.
I have a visual impairment so train and bus are the only option. OK I get a third off with a rail card. If you have four people in the car that makes the car option cheep. But then you can buy a group 3 or 4 thicket which gives a discount still expensive.
I live an hour’s drive from Melbourne, Australia which I feel very much you are insane if you choose to drive instead of get on a train that takes you right into the CBD, and then a number of teams going everywhere will get you where you are going
That said, where I live is a minimum 15 minute drive from one of the end of line stations, and getting to that is inconvenient without a car. I definitely agree that how accessible each end of your journey is is the main problem with trains
I agree with this, modern locomotives don't really make me excited, luckily where I live in America my local railroad uses old locomotives from the 70s still.
Most of the new stock isn’t fit for purpose. The new hitatchi on the Bristol-London are like sitting on planks of wood, always breaking down and then cancelled.
What on earth was the idea behind using a jacobs bogie between every pair of carriages? I know the Jacobs are unpowerd, but it seems like either a drastic cost saving measure or some daft safety regulation.
I think the train is a different mode of travel that fits between the car and the plane. It works when there are dense flows of traffic, especially those of a bit of distance and journey time by car. Higher speed trains can cut journey time, but at lesser distances than the plane. We have seen trains pull some traffic back from air and road more recently but it’s far from the monopoly they once held.
I do agree with the sentiment of not wanting to tie yourself to the schedule of the train. There’s a lot of rabidly pro-rail, anti-road people out there on the internet that don’t understand that
A lot of what you describe as drama of the old railstock was back in it’s day simply annoying.
If people didn’t mind all the problems and hick-ups they would have stopped improving.
Nostalgia is a hell of a drug, it is great for clouding judgement.
And yes I fully agree, a modern train has nowhere near as much impact and elegance as a steam locomotive, but we all know that keeping it driving is a hard and dirty job that can be miserable even when done as a hobby.
Imagine it being your daily job, yes many drivers took great pride in their job, as it’s closer to magic than simply following instructions to keep such a finicky and temperamental machine working. But it also was a hard and litteraly back breaking job, especially if you where the fireman. There is a reason why back in the day the fireman usually was way younger than the driver/engineer.
These men where swallowing and breathing in coaldust, lubricants and all kinds of steam with lubricants and coalsmoke on a daily basis, working on hot machines with all kinds of sharp and metal edges, handles, pipes and other surfaces that are perfect to hurt yourself on.
Doing something as a hobby or as a job is such a world of difference.
Oh yes, and I say how nice the units are, they're just not what I'm passionate about.
The price stops me using trains. I've been to Exeter and back today and it was cheaper than the train in the car. Why would I ever want to use a more expensive way to travel???
I like using the railway but the cost is silly. for me and my wife to go to Sheffield from Winchester return. It would work out the same to take two cars and back...
fortunately we have access to some discount via someone who works there. railways are good to use if they were cheaper
Interesting =\= efficient
Sure, they're boring. But they work well for whats needed
It's really sad to see that the change is international. In the Czech Republic, where I live a nearly identical change is happening. Instead of Stadler the units that are taking over in the UK, there are the so called Panters by Škoda Transportation. There are regional units like Moravia or the Panters of IDPK, they have 2/3 carriages. Then there is the InterPanter that has 3/5 carriages and just like you say here. They are open, modern, quiet, have wifi, air-conditioned, bike spaces and so on. But nothing interesting, you hop on in one place and arrive in another and you have no thrill of the journey. I agree with you on every point you have in the video, I'm not kidding. We just have a few things better here, but it depends on how you look at it. For example no barriers so you can go trainspotting to a station without a ticket, but as a return there can be homeless people hanging around. Its not a win/win situation, but I like it. To summarise, we still have very interesting machines in operation on everyday services, but they are slowly disappearing and in a few years I dont think it will be as fun to travel as it is now.
I am reminded of when I was talking to a past partner about what I liked in cars, and specifically about how I preferred cars with character. And, after several conversations along those lines, she pointed out that it seemed that "character" was synonymous with "something wrong with it". Which ... she had a point.
As for the railway -- I think the root of the problem is that we don't treat the railways as a public good as much as we should. If it is better for the environment (both the natural environment and the man-made environment of traffic and parking) for people to take the train rather than driving, then we should be spending public money to make that happen. Meanwhile, at least in the U.S., we are instead spending enormous amounts of public money to make driving easy -- for instance, there are nicely-paved multi-lane well-maintained highways anywhere I want to go and it usually costs me nothing to use them because they are entirely paid for with public funds.
Why is this video presented as a review of a particular set of rolling stock, but the major complaints are about ticket prices and the journey not being adventurous enough? People want reliable transit that gets them from A to B, not some fancy steam train. Calling useful safety features "another thing to break" is simply dismissive of the work that goes into trying to make a network built over a century ago accessible to more people.
I would happily take a brand new, reliable train, with better safety and crashworthiness, and accessible information systems over a lousy 60s steam or diesel train that adds a bit of "adventure "to my morning commute.
There are many reasons to take a train instead of a car, with many of those listed in the video itself. You want to sit back and relax, especially during a commute. You want something where you can work while travelling, especially in today's world of hybrid working. You want to have a night out and drink alcohol without worrying about being safe for a drive home. You want to visit a city like London where transit is better than a car.
Bike storage on trains isn't just to be green, but a big part of many people's commute, too, or the idea of simply getting the train to a nature reserve and cycling around it.
Cause that's the problem with it?
They're nice enough units, but the biggest issue is the cost of using them.
The line after 'another thing to break' was me saying how good they are.
We love we have NOW them AS OUR railway in south wales valleys & city , are been terrible. but these trans our trains have been the worst in the uk....... so lasts have nice trains.....
Not only is it way more expensive,but the rail companies receive subsidies,so,in practice,it's even more expensive.
I hate using the rail network, but find I have to as I dont drive and buses/coaches also have naff routes too.