[HN Gopher] How I got 100% off my train travel
___________________________________________________________________
How I got 100% off my train travel
Author : pavel_lishin
Score : 117 points
Date : 2025-03-16 12:44 UTC (3 days ago)
(HTM) web link (readbunce.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (readbunce.com)
| celticninja wrote:
| There is a slightly less ethical way to do this, you buy a ticket
| that mows you to travel at any time of day. Then when you have
| made your trip log on to realtimetrains to find a train on your
| route that was delayed and then claim that as your journey.
|
| Now your ticket is sometimes scanned when you enter or leave a
| station but this is rare and even less likely to be scanned on
| the train by a conductor.
|
| Anyway that is something that someone could do
| ColinWright wrote:
| I know people who have done this, but in my mind this is not
| simply slightly less ethical, is is active fraud.
| celticninja wrote:
| Your mind is correct.
| rtkwe wrote:
| Reminds me of the "Chase Infinite Money Glitch" micro fad
| from last year. Turns out fraud really is pathway to many
| forms of free goods the law would consider illegal.
|
| Wonder how many people wound up getting hit with check fraud
| charges off of that...
| edh649 wrote:
| You could do, but might be caught as 2 were in 2016
|
| https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/commuters-ordered-to-repa...
| bonobocop wrote:
| The DR system doesn't look at ticket scans alone. It also
| builds a profile per customer based on a number data points.
|
| It will flag up quite quickly if you are "sniping" delayed
| trains at different times.
| switch007 wrote:
| IANAL but that is 100% straight up fraud. It's the most common
| accusation I believe regarding delay repay (and the train
| companies allege it is indeed fraud)
|
| Do not mess with the railways and their revenue in England.
| dlcarrier wrote:
| Where I live, in the US, the income from light rail fair payers
| is a laughably small portion of the operating budget, so all
| rides are effectively discounted by 90%+. The fares really only
| exist to keep homeless people from sheltering on the trains, but
| they do that anyway, without a ticket.
|
| Somehow the prices are still high enough that it's cheaper to buy
| a cheap used car and drive it instead.
| WaxProlix wrote:
| > Somehow the prices are still high enough that it's cheaper to
| buy a cheap used car and drive it instead.
|
| Cars are even more heavily subsidized, maybe?
| dbspin wrote:
| Find this curious. Surely factoring in the cost of tax and
| insurance greatly increases the cost of the used car? I'm based
| in Europe so perhaps things are radically different in the US.
| add-sub-mul-div wrote:
| The difference is that in America we have politicians who
| cultivate a fear of cities, public transportation, and not
| owning a bigger car than you need.
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| ...there's also the kind of housing uncertainty where
| "maybe I'll have to live in that car for a bit" is often a
| consideration. You might get away with living on the train
| for a little while, but a car is a much better bet.
| hansvm wrote:
| Trains and buses in the US, where they exist, have ticket
| prices on par with the amount of gas a single person would
| use driving a used car. For very long trips they're a bit
| cheaper (up to 2x). For very short trips they're often a lot
| more expensive (up to 5x). For trips more than an hour or
| two, the one-way cost usually has no significant discount on
| a round-trip ticket, and you can pay 10x more if you don't
| buy well in advance and go on the cheapest days.
|
| The effects of that vary. Relating to TFA, if you were making
| this trip 6x per year, could plan the dates, were always
| travelling alone, and didn't need any transportation anywhere
| the rest of the year beyond what walking and biking could
| provide, you'd expect the train to be about break-even with
| gas+maintenance. It wouldn't be worth having the car.
|
| As soon as any of those assumptions change though, that logic
| goes out the window.
|
| Suppose you have to get to work (and that rent/housing is
| enough higher near work that it's worth commuting _somehow_
| by a substantial margin). The markup for short trips is very
| high for public transit, Uber, and all your other normal
| alternatives. You'll be money ahead on a decent used car
| (clean, no body damage, new enough to easily last 100k miles
| even if you know nothing about cars) in a year, even counting
| the entire purchase price, taxes, insurance, and everything
| else.
|
| Under the assumption you have a car already and only have to
| consider unit costs (depreciation, gas, maintenance), trips
| like TFA can start to make a lot of sense to drive, depending
| on your personal preferences. Every long bus trip I've taken
| in the US has been so rattly and bumpy that I couldn't sleep
| or type anyway, and by the end of a trip they've been so full
| that I couldn't type anyway (tall, broad shoulders, the
| geometry doesn't work out in narrow seats with so little
| space to the seat in front of me that I already have to angle
| my legs just to fit). I'd much rather listen to my own music
| or a cooking show or something, keep the temperature exactly
| where I'd like it, have the flexibility to carry a few extra
| items, and get to my destination in half the time without
| stopping 20 places to pick up more passengers. When the
| money's a wash, I'll pick the car every time.
|
| If you're willing to make tweaks to your life to save
| money/fuel/..., it's also worth looking at the possibility of
| carpooling. If you can go with one other coworker, you're
| already a lot of money ahead on the train. If you
| additionally didn't know your return date in advance
| (variable length job, which you're staying at for a small but
| undetermined number of days), the difference in ticket prices
| would be enough to completely pay for insurance and taxes for
| the year, on top of depreciation, gas, and maintenance. Those
| 6 trips would justify owning a used car for any other part of
| your life where the unit economics made sense.
|
| If you work remotely, live in a nice climate close to
| groceries, or have any number of other nice properties to
| your life, a car doesn't necessarily make sense. Our
| infrastructure doesn't often make the alternatives pleasant
| though. E.g., I was pretty adamant about biking through
| college. The city wouldn't plow the bike paths till days
| after any major snowstorm though, the snow was always falling
| into the edges of the road, and there was a zero percent
| chance I was going to bike out in the middle of an icy 45mph
| road in front of pickup trucks who think it's sane to
| tailgate in those conditions. 6+ months each year, the only
| non-car option was walking. I did that a couple winters, but
| 5 miles each way is a bear when you're trudging through snow,
| and the one semester I had an evening class I always thought
| long and hard about whether I'd stay at school an extra 8
| hours or add an extra 10 miles to my day.
|
| Details vary, but _most_ Americans are in some sort of
| similar situation where cars are the only realistic option if
| you can possibly afford it. Trudging through the snow when
| it's <-10F the entire month of January is fine if you're
| young and single, but I wouldn't want to carry a kid to their
| doctor in that environment. Tons of people just live too far
| from town for non-car options to be practical. Roads poorly
| designed for rain and pedestrians limit the safety and
| practicality of biking in other huge swathes of the country.
| And so on.
|
| Mind you, I'm not against public transport or anything. The
| BART trains here in the Bay are something I use a few times a
| year, and they're perfectly fine. You can even get work done
| on them if you'd like. My point is that cases where trains
| and buses are the best option (or even any option) are so
| rare that for most Americans you can assume that the cost of
| insurance and taxes for a car have already been taken care
| of, so that only the unit economics of a given trip play into
| whether you'd drive or not (when considering it financially).
| bombcar wrote:
| Insurance on a beater can be quite low if you're not a young
| male or bad driver. Like $1-200/yr.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| > Somehow the prices are still high enough that it's cheaper to
| buy a cheap used car and drive it instead.
|
| City streets and roads are paid for through property taxes, so
| they are subsidized 100%.
| Tade0 wrote:
| You could say the same about rail infrastructure, but you
| cannot use private vehicles there (legally).
| bombcar wrote:
| You actually can, but the hassle is expensive. You have to
| coordinate it with the railroad and the controller and you
| have to provide a locomotive and an engineer and on and on
| and on, but you can do it.
| toast0 wrote:
| For heavy rail, yes. For light rail, that is more likely
| to have been built with local funds, is this actually a
| thing --- I'm sure if you work with the film commission,
| but I would be surprised if any light rail systems have a
| plan for private vehicles.
|
| Amtrak will pull your private rail car in the right
| conditions, too https://www.amtrak.com/privately-owned-
| rail-cars
| Tade0 wrote:
| Over here we only have rogue motor trolley riders like
| these guys:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0B4MI08HWro
|
| At the time of making the video this line had been closed
| for over 20 years, which is why it's so overgrown and why
| nobody bothered to disturb the riders.
| bombcar wrote:
| All light rails either operate like heavy rail
| (controlled from a central control area, receive
| clearances and obey rail signals) or they are just busses
| on tracks and operate by the rules of the road. Some are
| both.
|
| The second are easy, and you just need permission in
| general. The first you need communication with the
| central office.
|
| This is all done for maintenance vehicles for the tracks,
| which are often contractors.
| colechristensen wrote:
| Gas taxes and toll revenue account for about 1/3 of road
| infrastructure spend these days. This is significantly less
| than years past as the fixed gas tax hasn't kept up with
| inflation or adjusted upwards enough to match efficiency
| gains.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| I was careful to say "city road & street" because those
| aren't generally subsidized by gas taxes, usually only
| inter-city roads and highways are.
| bombcar wrote:
| The street in front of a house is often installed by the
| developer of the neighborhood, maintenance provided by
| the city or county.
|
| But bigger roads in and out of town often have federal
| and state co-payments when built, depending on what and
| where they are.
|
| Bridge replacements, for example, often involve federal
| funds.
| colechristensen wrote:
| And still, you're incorrect.
|
| My state gathers money for a highway fund from gas taxes,
| vehicle registrations, vehicle sales taxes, etc. They
| have a program called "Municipal State Aid Street" where
| they reallocate some highway funds for city and rural
| streets. There's even a map. [1] I'm quite sure that
| everywhere has some similar program.
|
| There's this public transit chauvinist myth that roads
| are, "100% subsidized" as you say, and it's wrong. Stop
| making things up or just accepting vague collective
| wisdom. Roads are paid for in significant portions by
| road users. Not 100% because that would be an undue
| burden on the poor.
|
| Trains, despite being crazy expensive and heavily
| subsidized, are more expensive to use than owning a car
| for a lot of people or they are enormous money sinks that
| are paid by non-users. They _can_ be incredibly useful
| and a worthwhile investment, but I 've definitely run the
| numbers in the past and found the train to be more
| expensive and much more unpleasant than driving (for me
| it was a Caltrain+BART commute).
|
| 1. https://mndot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.
| html?i...
| timewizard wrote:
| Roads allow goods and services to be imported and exported
| from an area. The subsidy brings public benefit.
| comte7092 wrote:
| > Somehow the prices are still high enough that it's cheaper to
| buy a cheap used car and drive it instead.
|
| I find this claim to be incredibly dubious.
|
| More convenient? A practical necessity? Sure.
|
| _Cheaper_? Gonna need to see some receipts.
|
| Edit: since at least one person appears to be grumpy about my
| comment, here is an example of a large system with light rail:
|
| https://www.dart.org/fare/general-fares-and-overview/fares
|
| For less than $200/month you can ride however much you want,
| with reduced price options for local fares and other groups of
| riders like low income, etc.
|
| If you have a problem with my comment, please explain how you
| can but and operate a used car for less than that price when
| you factor in gas, tires, maintenance, insurance, etc. it's
| just BS.
| stego-tech wrote:
| This seems the perfect setup for malicious compliance of
| arbitrary RTO policies.
|
| * You may very well be more productive on a quiet train than a
| noisy office
|
| * Inconsistent WiFi coverage could let you focus on work instead
| of video conferencing meetings
|
| * Arriving late means you don't have to stay long - not your
| fault the train was delayed, after all!
|
| Your employer gets the badge data showing you technically showed
| up, you have the receipts on why you were late, and you get a
| partial or full refund on the delayed train fare for good
| measure.
| thi2 wrote:
| Does it work that way where you are from? Here in Germany it is
| entirely the workers responsibility to arrive on time, being
| repeatedly late can lead to being fired. Usually everyone knows
| how bad the trains are and it's not enforced strictly but thats
| just the employers good will.
| stego-tech wrote:
| I'm from the States, but it generally varies from employer to
| employer and role to role. If you're sitting on a support
| queue in a specific time zone then yes, there's often an
| expectation of consistent hours; for more general office work
| (especially since COVID), there's often an understood degree
| of flexibility in most cases.
|
| As for transit delays, yes, those are also often excused
| within reason so long as there's not a recurring pattern.
| Still, hybrid work policies give workers wiggle room to
| reasonably challenge these requirements, especially if
| they're already completing all assigned work from home
| without issue, and that's the main point I was trying to make
| with my comment.
|
| Labor is ultimately a negotiation, and this is one such
| tactic to take if it's available to you.
| sarreph wrote:
| The UK train system is a dire, expensive mess. Attempting to
| avoid getting directly political here, but I strongly believe
| it's one of the lowest hanging fruit a political party could act
| on to curry favour with the electorate.
|
| Would be amazing to see this productised a la the way split
| ticketing works.
| controlledchaos wrote:
| As a North American who travels in the UK multiple times per
| year, I really need you to elaborate. My experience has been
| nothing less than amazing, in comparison to the complete lack
| of rail options at home.
| djhworld wrote:
| If you travel in and around the South East, inc. London the
| service is pretty good, regular although still very very
| expensive.
|
| In the north though it's a mixed bag, frequently delayed,
| huge underinvestment, expensive etc.
| Moomoomoo309 wrote:
| You have to remember what public transit is like in NA.
| What in Europe is unacceptable, late frequently, and
| problematic, is probably the best public transit someone
| from NA has ever been on, except maybe the NYC subway. It's
| a really, really low bar. NJTransit is considered one of
| the best in the US (and it is, unfortunately), and it's
| worse than anything I saw in Europe when I visited.
| drstewart wrote:
| From NA
|
| The UK definitely does not have the best public transit
| I've ever seen. ESPECIALLY for the price.
| thebruce87m wrote:
| Note that when an English person says the north, they
| expect everyone to know they are talking specifically about
| the north of England, not the north of the UK even if
| everyone else is talking about the UK.
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| Though Scotrail was just as bad for many years, so it was
| a bit of a moot point until a few years ago.
| pjc50 wrote:
| It's a very moveable dividing line depending on where the
| speaker is from, there's no Mason-Dixon line here. Can
| mean anywhere north of London.
|
| No normal person refers to Scotland as "north UK" when
| they could say Scotland, though.
| twic wrote:
| You do occasionally see "North Britain" for Scotland:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Britain
|
| It was once common, and in modern times it's occasionally
| used as a deliberate affectation.
| naming_the_user wrote:
| Every country does this, the US south, midwest etc are
| nonsense geographically.
| dendodge wrote:
| Similarly, Americans expect people to be aware that
| California is not "the South", despite being on the
| southern border, and that the Midwest is actually in the
| eastern half of the country.
|
| Basically the names of geographical regions don't always
| make sense.
| reedf1 wrote:
| Did you know that most people outside the US do not
| intuitively understand the arbitrary US delineations for
| North, South, West, Midwest? And yet, "they expect
| everyone to know they are talking specifically about..."
| moomin wrote:
| America has much more serious problems with rail, but the UK
| experience still isn't great. The broad root cause is that
| back in the day we had the genius idea of paying multiple
| private companies to run trains on shared lines. We set up
| metrics to measure their performance that, bluntly, do not
| work. They underinvest and when there's any sign they're not
| making money, they hand the contract back. All in all, we get
| all the disadvantages of a nationalised system with all the
| disadvantages of a privatised system with a couple of
| original problems thrown in for good measure.
|
| But the train near my house still runs.
| graemep wrote:
| The infrastructure privatisation was reversed a long time
| ago, and most of the delays, in my experience, are due to
| problems with tracks.
|
| The biggest problems recently (for me) have been strikes
| and inadequate services. The rot really goes back to pre-
| privatisation (it was not great in the 1990s) and arguably
| started with the Beeching cuts of the 1960s, based on the
| decision not to subsidise rail in the face of increasing
| road use.
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| >The broad root cause is that back in the day we had the
| genius idea of paying multiple private companies to run
| trains on shared lines.
|
| Train travel has doubled since the privatisation.
|
| The main problem is we don't know how to build out
| infrastructure in a cost effective manner (see HS2 and the
| electrification of the Great Western Main Line). This isn't
| surprising as we do it in a stop/start manner rather than a
| continual process.
| graemep wrote:
| Low bar? British people tend to compare with rail travel
| experienced on holidays in places like France. Those systems
| do seem to be better (I do not have recent experience myself)
| and this then feeds the usual British tendency to take a rosy
| tinted view of the rest of the world and pessimism about the
| UK.
|
| It also varies a lot in different places. Costs vary with
| types of tickets, who you are, and whether you have various
| discounts.
|
| Local train services are very weak where I live (Cheshire) so
| while I can get to major cities quite easily its difficult to
| travel between towns in the county on trains (or buses).
| spxcxlxxs wrote:
| I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Japan. Wait till you try
| the trains there!
|
| They're so punctual that delays issue a certificate for
| employees to present to employers*
|
| * Source: random article
| prmoustache wrote:
| I have lived in Switzerland for year and my very limited
| experience with trains in Scotland has been great. Trains
| were on time, and personel at the railway stations were very
| polite and helpful with us.
|
| But maybe we were just lucky.
| oniony wrote:
| I often travel intercity to London and a ticket travelling
| out early, say, Monday and returning after peak hours, say,
| Wednesday costs upwards of PS75. I have to book well in
| advance to get this price. I have just priced such a journey
| and the cheapest I can get for the days I chose next week is
| PS105, for example. The journey time is about 2:20 but often
| it takes 10 minutes longer.
|
| Quite often (maybe 1 in 6) my train to London would get
| cancelled. I would be able to get a refund no problem, but
| there is no compensation for the fact I have driven to the
| station and am now stuck without any travel plans.
|
| Conversely I would have to arrive at the station early, for
| if I missed my train I would forfeit that half of the ticket
| and would have to pay again to travel on the later train. As
| such my journey would actually also include an extra 15
| minutes of slack time in case the car didn't start and I
| needed to wake the wife for a lift, for example. It would
| also be quite stressful on the way home, where a meeting
| might overrun, putting my chances of getting my booked train
| at risk.
|
| A year or two ago they opened a new "parkway" railway station
| (basically park-and-ride) and now the earliest train no
| longer stops at my local station. It would take me 30 minutes
| to drive to the parkway station, plus cost me PS6 a day
| parking there, so my only option now is the later train which
| arrives in London at 8:30, if it is on time, making it
| impossible for me to start work before 9am.
|
| The trains are supposed to have eight carriages, of which one
| is first class. On the outward journey I could often get a
| seat but the return journey would be standing only for the
| first hour. Quite often the train would arrive with only five
| carriages meaning it would be absolutely rammed the whole
| way. This leaves you very exhausted and sweaty for the start
| of the work day. And forget first class: it is twice the
| price of standard class.
|
| So I've given up with the long distance train and now drive
| down to a commuter town near London and get the train just
| the final bit. I can also get into London much earlier and I
| don't have to pre-book specific trains. It's actually cheaper
| too, with the fuel and train tickets coming in at about PS65,
| though obviously there's car depreciation, tyres, &c. on top.
|
| So between PS75-PS130 for a prebooked ticket on an
| inflexible, specifically timed, intercity train, with a total
| journey time of about 3:00, or PS65 for a drive down in my
| own car whatever times I want with a total journey time of
| about 3:30.
| sksksk wrote:
| I agree that it's a dire , expensive mess. But it doesn't seem
| like low hanging fruit at all...
|
| Anything that will improve the situation will be expensive
| and/or take a long time to achieve.
| HPsquared wrote:
| And "short-term cost, long-term benefit" is kryptonite to the
| average politician. "We get the blame, the next guy takes the
| credit"
| mattigames wrote:
| One of the reasons China gets things done.
| tehjoker wrote:
| china has elections you know
| crowselect wrote:
| I mean there's pretty low hanging fruit mentioned in the
| article. If rail strikes are frequent enough to feature in
| the formula, end the strikes by paying the workers well.
| sksksk wrote:
| Paying train workers what they are demanding is expensive
| Symbiote wrote:
| British train drivers are the best paid in Europe by a
| staggering amount.
|
| https://www.euronews.com/travel/2022/12/23/train-strikes-
| the...
| oniony wrote:
| And the average UK citizen seems to have a huge problem
| with that, but seems to be completely happy with private
| train company executives getting paid obscene amounts and
| train companies paying out huge dividends when the
| services are so bad.
|
| Why do people resent train drivers getting paid well?
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| Because the media tells them to.
|
| When train workers demanded inflationary pay maintenance
| the highest train driver pay was splashed all over the
| media in an attempt to get workers to hate one another
| and ignore the execs and shareholders walking off with
| all the money.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| This is 2021 figures. Wondering how this would change for
| cost of living and especially rent/housing inflation.
| amiga386 wrote:
| It's harder than it looks. Excluding special cases like HS1 and
| TfL, we have three players:
|
| - Network Rail, who maintain the entire country's track,
| signalling, etc. Also owns and runs some major stations. Run at
| arms length by government, centrally funded.
|
| - Train Operating Companies (TOCs), who won a bid held every
| few years on _how much they 'll pay the government_ to be
| allowed a monopoly on running a particular regional service
| franchise. Government sets the rules of the franchise, e.g.
| customer compensation, punctuality targets, etc. TOCs have no
| control over the network. They lease trains from ROSCOs. They
| pay and schedule drivers, guards/ticket inspectors, ticket
| desks, customer support, station staff (they're also
| responsible for running most stations), and get money in by
| selling tickets to the public.
|
| - Rolling Stock Companies (ROSCOs), who own (commission and
| maintain) the trains and lease them out to TOCs for exhorbitant
| prices. ROSCOs extract most of the value of the railway. ROSCOs
| exist because trains are so expensive that neither government
| nor TOCs can afford them.
|
| Many of these TOCs are other countries national rail operators
| in disguise, e.g. the Scotrail franchise was recently run by
| Abellio which was actually the Dutch national railway company
| (NS). So all profits (not that there are many) leave the
| country and subsidise other countries' rail networks.
|
| The current government has committed to taking back ownership
| of all TOCs at the end of their franchise terms, so in future
| both Network Rail and all TOCs will be publicly owned.
|
| But at the same time, that might not make anything cheaper;
| most of the value is sucked out by ROSCOs, so unless the
| government commits to buying its own trains too, the ROSCOs
| will just charge more for the same trains if they see the
| government finding any efficiencies, ensuring tickets don't get
| cheaper.
|
| Some fuming about ROSCO dividend payments:
| https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/rail-rolling-stock-company-turns...
|
| And to add to that, much of the cost (or cost savings) the TOCs
| were pursuing were effectively industrial relations - can they
| get away with having driver-only or driverless trains, in order
| to have just 1 or 0 paid staff member per train? Unions say
| "no". Union members start working to rule and suddenly you have
| no trains on Sunday, even if you're the government.
|
| So... it's tricky.
| blibble wrote:
| there is no doubt that the early ROSCO deals were
| outrageously tilted against taxpayers/passengers (they pay
| PS1 for old BR trains the state paid for, then we pay them to
| rent them back)
|
| however the newer ones are significantly better
|
| funding the capital cost of a billion pounds of new trains
| isn't free (even for a government), and there is risk on that
| investment
|
| they also maintain the trains (to varying levels of quality)
| blibble wrote:
| it's not dire and it's not expensive compared to the next
| reasonable alternatives
|
| if you compare the cost of a London commuter belt season ticket
| compared to the cost of driving+parking, it is still very much
| a bargain
| Symbiote wrote:
| It's expensive for irregular users.
|
| If I want to visit friends in Derby, coming from London,
| that's PS81. For no good reason, a return ticket is PS84.
|
| If I need to travel at peak times, that's PS123.
|
| Booked months in advance it might be PS20, roughly what a bus
| ticket costs.
| nprateem wrote:
| There is a good reason the return is only PS3 more. It's so
| fare dodgers who buy a single have still basically paid the
| full fare.
| blibble wrote:
| the return is 30p/mile, which is still considerably cheaper
| than driving
|
| (HMRC rate is 45p/mile, which constitutes insurance,
| capital cost, wear, petrol, etc)
|
| the single pricing is because they don't want to sell
| singles at all, but remember that return lets you come back
| upto a month later (your choice when)
| secondcoming wrote:
| All the train drivers recently got massive pay increases so we
| can expect efficiency and cost to improve sometime soon!
| sebtron wrote:
| > Avanti West Coast offers customers:
|
| > 15 minutes -- 25% off
|
| > 30 minutes -- 50% off
|
| > 1 hour + -- 100% off
|
| To me they look like very generous refund policies. I checked
| Italy's Trenitalia and what they offer is[1]:
|
| > 30-119 minutes: 25%
|
| > 120+ minutes: 50%
|
| I suppose anything below 30 minutes is consideres "on time".
|
| [1]
| https://www.trenitalia.com/it/informazioni/indennizzo_per_ri...
| dylan604 wrote:
| > I suppose anything below 30 minutes is consideres "on time".
|
| sounds about right for the stereotype. it's the 'murikans that
| are the ones so uptight about time
| ikawe wrote:
| I think by and large this doesn't play out with trains.
| American trains tend to be much less frequent, slower, and
| less comfortable than most European trains.
|
| I road a swiss train a couple years ago that was something
| like 5 minutes late. To me (American) it was "on time" but
| the conductor came on the PA and apologized. He did make a
| point to clarify the delay was because they'd been stuck
| behind an off schedule German train.
| worldsayshi wrote:
| It would be so great if the rest of the world could take
| inspiration from Switzerland and Japan regarding train
| management.
|
| Also perhaps Ukraine. I heard they had stepped up during
| war time to the point of being more punctual than many
| other European countries.
| dan-robertson wrote:
| Swiss trains are often on time because they are
| deliberately slow, and so they can speed up a bit if
| things are delayed. They are sometimes deliberately slow
| because the Swiss system is designed to have trains
| arrive and leave interchange stations at the same time to
| make changing trains easier. Some are also slow because
| they take routes that wind along mountainsides which are
| scenic but not particularly direct.
| worldsayshi wrote:
| Interesting. I wonder if this goes further than just
| allowing trains to catch up. Like, does going slower
| lower the chances of failures and failure cascades in the
| first place?
|
| Maybe trains in many/most systems are running faster than
| they should for optimal performance?
| cyberax wrote:
| Ukraine and most of the xUSSR countries have always had
| timely service. Trains are usually on time, although they
| are not always very fast.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _American trains tend to be much less frequent, slower,
| and less comfortable than most European trains._
|
| Exception: the New York regional rail system. Its on-time
| stats are comparable to Switzerland.
|
| We love to talk about subways and intercity high-speed
| rail. But in America, it doesn't make sense in most cases
| without subsidies. Drive-on / drive-off regional rail, on
| the other hand, trades pursim for pragmatism and could
| really work in our car-dependent metros.
| Suppafly wrote:
| >He did make a point to clarify the delay was because
| they'd been stuck behind an off schedule German train.
|
| That's hilarious.
| kevinventullo wrote:
| Japan would like to have a word.
| dylan604 wrote:
| I think there's a difference from being uptight about time
| and obsessively punctual
| criddell wrote:
| Have them talk to the Swiss.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41189834
| 1024core wrote:
| Oh yeah? https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-
| way/2018/05/17/611860169...
| tdeck wrote:
| FWIW Amtrak's policy is 15 minutes, but they're not known for
| being on time:
|
| https://www.amtrak.com/on-time-performance
|
| It's interesting how much effort here is dedicated to
| explaining that it's the freight rail companies' fault.
| sensen wrote:
| I commuted via train for years when I lived in Chicago and a
| refund policy like Italy's definitely would've been amazing.
| Perhaps the trains would be more reliable with refunds, all we
| received was a late slip when the train was delayed by 2
| hours..
| Tomte wrote:
| Deutsche Bahn: 1hr+ --> 25%, 2hr+ --> 50%
| eCa wrote:
| I believe that's the level EU requires for long distance
| trains.
| chgs wrote:
| So 80% of journeys have a 50% refund?
| chgs wrote:
| This is standard U.K. policy
| tecleandor wrote:
| When high speed trains started operating on Spain in 1992 (AVE
| [0]) they offered 100% refund in any delay higher than 5
| minutes (here a TV ad with very happy passengers because the
| train is arriving six minutes late [1])
|
| But nowadays and after some mismanagement and also private
| operators coming to share lines it's:
|
| For all high speed and other long distance trains: 60min delay,
| 50% refund. 90min delay, 100% refund.
|
| This and other policies [2]
|
| -- 0: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVE
| 1: https://youtu.be/Djv91oHkj4k 2:
| https://www.renfe.com/es/es/ayuda/compromiso-puntualidad
| diffuse_l wrote:
| This reminds me that I once worked in one city, and attended
| university in another city.
|
| At some point, there were train lines works that lasted for a few
| years, which meant that almost any train ride was delayed. You
| got a ticket back for half an hour delay, and two for a full
| hour.
|
| In addition, my workplace paid me a set amount of money to cover
| ttain travel expenses for each work day.
|
| I think that for most of my studies I effectively didn't pay for
| train travel, and had time to work while on the train.
|
| You did have to wait in line to get the ticket after the train
| ride, and the train officer wasn't too happy about giving out
| tickets, bit it usually worked...
| weinzierl wrote:
| In Germany you can use
|
| https://bahnvorhersage.de
|
| It is meant to be used to find _reliable_ connections, but of
| course you can use it to save money as described in the article.
|
| Here is the 38c3 talk about the project from one the creators:
|
| https://media.ccc.de/v/38c3-wann-klappt-der-anschluss-wann-n...
| switch007 wrote:
| I'd heavily caution people against this. The railway operators
| are both litigious and invested in fraud detection technology.
| And they love going on fishing exercises
|
| Consistent 100% delay repay will absolutely get flagged
| monkey_monkey wrote:
| What's fraudulent about this?
| bonobocop wrote:
| I don't think it's fraud on the DR side if you actually take
| the trains and intend to travel.
|
| If you didn't actually intend to travel, then claiming DR is
| fraud.
| underyx wrote:
| What's fraudulent about traveling without intending to
| travel?
| bonobocop wrote:
| Claiming delay compensation if you don't have intent to
| travel is the fraud part.
|
| Easiest example is if you have a season ticket, but you
| have the day off. You weren't going to take the train to
| work that day, so no intent to travel. If you claim DR,
| then that's fraud for the compensation.
| underyx wrote:
| But you end up hundreds of miles away from home, who
| could possibly argue that you moved halfway across the
| country without intent?
| Nextgrid wrote:
| I wonder how this works if you intend to travel should the
| train be on time, but become aware of the delay (or
| likelihood of it) and change your plans - what counts as
| proof of intent?
|
| It would be better if the law was changed so that any
| transport company selling a ticket is forced to refund if
| they couldn't fulfil their obligation, regardless of
| whether the ticket was used or intended to be used. Can't
| provide the service? Then don't sell it!
| bonobocop wrote:
| If you choose not to travel, then you are eligible for a
| refund, rather than Delay Repay:
| https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/help-and-
| assistance/compensat...
|
| There's differences in consumer rights effectively
| between a refund and compensation (like DR)
| switch007 wrote:
| I didn't claim it was fraudulent, as IANAL (but I probably
| agree that it isn't). I should have put "fraud" in quotes as
| they are not too strict when claiming that.
| "fraud"/"abuse"/"irregularity" detection systems
|
| It doesn't have to meet a legal definition of fraud for them
| to be able to shake you down either. They do plenty of
| fishing exercises and allegations without much of a strong
| case, hoping you'll pay up.
|
| The government is very very hands off when it comes to the
| railway - law unto their own (except for the operators owned
| by the government - no escaping blame there!).
|
| A lot of railway legislation offences are strict liability
| offences - ie there is no excuse and no proof of intent
| required. It is from there comes a lot of their bullying
| behaviour and a belief of what they say goes.
| sksksk wrote:
| I expense all my work travel, and get to keep delay repay
| payments for myself.
|
| My number one trick to getting the payments: get the tightest
| connection possible.
|
| For the journey I take frequently, the train arrives into the
| main station at 8:52pm, my connection is at 9pm; picking up just
| 8 minutes of delays means I'll miss the connection. The next
| train is at 10pm, which triggers delay repay.
| joshstrange wrote:
| Maybe I've underestimating the amount of money we are talking
| about but I'd much rather be where I'm headed on time than
| travel for free, especially on a regular basis.
| declan_roberts wrote:
| GP's comment sounds like hell for a few bucks. I'll avoid
| making any other observations.
| satyamkapoor wrote:
| Omg! Wait till you see the German railways reliability.
| cammikebrown wrote:
| I missed seeing Mt. Fuji from my Shinkansen window seat because
| the train was ahead of schedule and my alarm went off after we
| had passed it.
| declan_roberts wrote:
| Nihongo problems.
| bobnamob wrote:
| Ironic read given I'm currently sat on a half hour delayed,
| hopelessly overcrowded (due to 2 prior cancellations) Avanti west
| coast service.
|
| I'll be happy to claim my delay repay on my employer's dime for
| the 5th time this year. My only regret is that I booked off-peak
| bobnamob wrote:
| Oh it gets so much worse. Train is now parked up just outside
| Manchester with zero power. Another 10mins is worth PS35 at
| this point
| zfnmxt wrote:
| > if the baseline chance of delay is 10%, engineering works add
| 25%, strikes add 35%, and bad weather adds 20%, then when all
| these problems happen, there's a 90% chance your train will be
| delayed.
|
| What if signal failures "add" 15%? Then all factors combined
| would mean that there's a 105% chance your train will be delayed!
|
| Adding up probabilities like this doesn't make sense. If you
| simplify these things as independent events, the probability of
| delay is just the 1 minus the product of all the probabilities of
| each event not happening (i.e., 1 - P(event)).
|
| As for the article---I think you really undervalue your time and
| the price of inconvenience. I can see how you can romanticize it
| as a nice way to get things done, but (dealing with) train delays
| is hardly distraction free and is full of forced setting changes
| and (very) shit working environments (like waiting on a
| platform). This is a bad deal, even if it's free. Money is there
| to to be spent; this is a instance in which to spend it,
| moral/ethical/fraud concerns aside.
|
| But hey maybe you're a Von Neuman type and thrive in cacophony
| and chaos.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-03-19 23:00 UTC)