I got 100% off my train travel
66 comments
·March 16, 2025stego-tech
thi2
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
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.
null
sarreph
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 à la the way split ticketing works.
sksksk
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
And "short-term cost, long-term benefit" is kryptonite to the average politician. "We get the blame, the next guy takes the credit"
crowselect
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
Paying train workers what they are demanding is expensive
controlledchaos
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.
graemep
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).
djhworld
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.
thebruce87m
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.
Moomoomoo309
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.
moomin
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.
tonyedgecombe
>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
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.
amiga386
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.
sebtron
> 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...
sensen
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..
dylan604
> 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
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
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.
tdeck
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.
kevinventullo
Japan would like to have a word.
dylan604
I think there's a difference from being uptight about time and obsessively punctual
Tomte
Deutsche Bahn: 1hr+ --> 25%, 2hr+ --> 50%
dlcarrier
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.
bryanlarsen
> 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
You could say the same about rail infrastructure, but you cannot use private vehicles there (legally).
bombcar
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.
colechristensen
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
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.
WaxProlix
> 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
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
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.
hansvm
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).
comte7092
> 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.
diffuse_l
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...
sksksk
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.
weinzierl
In Germany you can use
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
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
What's fraudulent about this?
bonobocop
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.
Nextgrid
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!
underyx
What’s fraudulent about traveling without intending to travel?
celticninja
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
I know people who have done this, but in my mind this is not simply slightly less ethical, is is active fraud.
rtkwe
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...
celticninja
Your mind is correct.
edh649
You could do, but might be caught as 2 were in 2016
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/commuters-ordered-to-repa...
bonobocop
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.
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.