Rail travel vs. air travel - fair comparisons?

[Bletchleyite]

Thought it worth a thread in itself on fairness of comparison between rail and air for long journeys rather than it just being an aside in the LNER fare increase trial thread...

When considering what you are prepared to pay compared to air, do you factor in the full door-to-door cost/convenience? I ask that not knowing whether the stations or airports are more or less convenient for your origin/destination.

At least you note that - a lot of people go "but the airport is out of town" ignoring that most journeys are suburb (home) to city centre and very few are actually city centre to city centre. For me for instance, Luton Airport is hugely more convenient than Kings Cross. And similarly for swathes of rich South Manchester, Ringway* is hugely more convenient than Piccadilly, though Stockport does act as a "posh parkway" and is often busier than Piccadilly for London trains as a result.

It thus probably evens out in most cases. Home to airport is very often easier than home to intercity railway station because most people live in suburbs and most airports are in suburbs (most people don't make connections for a long distance journey, they go direct by car/taxi to the mainline station) but the destination is likely to be in a city centre so with odd exceptions like Edinburgh the airport tends to be a long way out, but the faster journey time probably compensates for that?

* Not heard Manchester Airport called that for a while so why not

 

[Tetchytyke]

As always, depends on exactly where you're starting and where you're finishing.

Take Newcastle to London. If you are in Newcastle city centre and heading to central London, the train is faster. But if you're in suburban Newcastle and heading to suburban London, somewhere like Uxbridge or Watford, and you can get picked up, the plane will be quite a bit faster.

I used to do Newcastle to north-west London quite frequently and so I actually chose flying or train based on price. Under East Coast there wasn't much in it so I chose on convenience, which usually meant the train as I didn't need someone to come get me from Heathrow. But once VTEC took over and David Horne's price gouging was in full swing, BA were nearly always cheaper. I certainly wasn't going to pay £25 each way more to go by train.

It's the same with other modes of transport, tbh. From Douglas to Liverpool on the ferry it is 2h45, call it 3h30 by the time you've had the fannying around at the ports at either end. From the airport to Liverpool airport it is about 40 minutes in the air, but it is 20 minutes on the bus to the airport here, an hour for check-in/security, then at least another hour at the other end by the time you've got your bags, waited for the bus, and then got the bus into the centre of Liverpool. But if you live by the airport here and are heading to near the airport there...

 

[zwk500]

It thus probably evens out in most cases. Home to airport is very often easier than home to intercity railway station because most people live in suburbs and most airports are in suburbs (most people don't make connections for a long distance journey, they go direct by car/taxi to the mainline station) but the destination is likely to be in a city centre so with odd exceptions like Edinburgh the airport tends to be a long way out, but the faster journey time probably compensates for that?

It's only likely to be significantly faster if you're on the correct side. E.g. for most of the Black Country, getting to a station served by Avanti is probably easier than getting to Manchester or Birmingham airports by road. However, if you live in Coleshill or Nuneaton, I'd imagine driving to Birmingham airport wins every time.

Service levels also have a factor in this - if you're flying with lower-cost airlines who book the cheap runway slots, or deliberately flying early & late to maximise time at the destination, then you might drive despite public transport being a theoretically better option, because nobody wants to get out of security to find the last trains have already departed. However, if you're flying out of Luton, Gatwick or Heathrow and live on the Thameslink or Crossrail lines with near-24hr service, you'll be a lot less worried about getting stuck.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Service levels also have a factor in this - if you're flying with lower-cost airlines who book the cheap runway slots, or deliberately flying early & late to maximise time at the destination, then you might drive despite public transport being a theoretically better option, because nobody wants to get out of security to find the last trains have already departed. However, if you're flying out of Luton, Gatwick or Heathrow and live on the Thameslink or Crossrail lines with near-24hr service, you'll be a lot less worried about getting stuck.

If you live in the more dense, more anti-car parts of London yes, but then the train may be better for you anyway.

Most other people get to airports by car in some form (be that their own, kiss and ride or a taxi).

 

[A S Leib]

Take Newcastle to London. If you are in Newcastle city centre and heading to central London, the train is faster. But if you're in suburban Newcastle and heading to suburban London, somewhere like Uxbridge or Watford, and you can get picked up, the plane will be quite a bit faster.

I used to do Newcastle to north-west London quite frequently and so I actually chose flying or train based on price. Under East Coast there wasn't much in it so I chose on convenience, which usually meant the train as I didn't need someone to come get me from Heathrow. But once VTEC took over and David Horne's price gouging was in full swing, BA were nearly always cheaper. I certainly wasn't going to pay £25 each way more to go by train.

Whilst I get your point, in the north London / Herts to Newcastle case, I'd imagine most people able to drive or to be driven to Luton Airport could get to Hatfield or Stevenage stations without much more difficulty, especially now with hourly LNER services.

(One of my most frequent routes has been via Watford and Carlisle or Glasgow instead, but that's largely due to using Club Avanti tickets and wanting to see other places on the way rather than being time-sensitive.)

 

[Krokodil]

Where I grew up, Bristol Airport was a 20 mile drive away (public transport connections being quite poor too) whereas Bristol Parkway was only three miles - 15 minutes on a bike. Where my parents now live on the other side of Bristol, Bristol Airport is now a 7 mile drive, but the nearest railway station (that gets a frequent regional service and a roughly two-hourly direct London service) is but a four minute walk.

Ok, so take Manchester. If you live in Altrincham you are five miles from Manchester Airport, or nine miles from Stockport with an hourly train if you don't want to drive. OK, so the airport is possibly more convenient here if you don't want to drive. Mind the drop-off charges though. If you live in Bury the airport is 22 miles away. Piccadilly is 12 miles away with the option of a tram that only takes 9 minutes longer if you want to avoid driving in the city centre. If heading north, Bolton is six miles away and the trains to/from Scotland now call.

In Liverpool, the airport is 15 miles from Kirkby. Lime Street however is only 8 miles and South Parkway 13 miles.if heading north, St Helens Central is 9 miles away.

Cardiff airport meanwhile is further from the nearest Cardiff suburbs than those suburbs are to Central, let alone any of the South Wales Metro stations.

You see the issue? Most cities do only have one airport, which means that for half of the suburbanites it's on the wrong side of the city anyway. Whereas most cities in the UK (among those big enough to have an airport) will often have multiple suburban stations covering several angles, including ones which are directly served by intercity services.

Birmingham? The airport has an intercity railway station so no matter where you live it can only equal, not exceed the driveability from a suburban home. If you live anywhere that New Street, Coventry, Wolves or any of the Trent Valley stations are close to then train wins every time for domestic journeys.

And no one lives right next door to an airport terminal. Whereas most railway stations in cities offer direct pedestrian access to housing, shops and places of employment.

 

[Zomboid]

One advantage that rail can offer have is a wider choice of departure times. Even for advance tickets where you pick a single train in advance, you can choose on price and timing.

Very few air routes offer rail level frequency. So whilst it might be faster and/or cheaper by air, you may have to get up at 4am to make the flight and then be 3 hours early for whatever the appointment is at the other end.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In Liverpool, the airport is 15 miles from Kirkby. Lime Street however is only 8 miles and South Parkway 13 miles.if heading north, St Helens Central is 9 miles away.

It's not just crow-flies distance, though. Many people simply will not drive into a city centre under any circumstances as it's too stressful. I know my mother won't. Airports are typically designed for easy road access with dual carriageways right up to the door and are typically much nicer to drive to than city centre railway stations.

It is certainly MUCH nicer to drive to Speke from Kirkby (or indeed anywhere else on the Merseyrail map) than to Lime St. More people will I suppose be willing to take the train to connect with London trains if they've got Merseyrail, but once you get into Northern's woeful hourly services that quickly drops away - Wigan North Western is where a lot of West Lancs people head by car rather than a train into Liverpool, for instance.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Whilst I get your point, in the north London / Herts to Newcastle case, I'd imagine most people able to drive or to be driven to Luton Airport could get to Hatfield or Stevenage stations without much more difficulty, especially now with hourly LNER services.

I used to do Newcastle to Hemel Hempstead, and lived within walking distance of the station there. But even taking that into account, the plane was often quicker- if I could get a lift.

In Liverpool, the airport is 15 miles from Kirkby. Lime Street however is only 8 miles and South Parkway 13 miles.if heading north, St Helens Central is 9 miles away.

It is, but from Kirkby or St Helens it is a fast run down the M57 and along Speke Boulevard, whereas into the centre of Liverpool it is a slow trudge through Anfield and Walton. Same from the Chester area, the Airport is right next to the Mersey Gateway bridge whereas you have to battle through the tunnels and the Liverpool one-way system to get to Lime Street.

And Liverpool Airport has lots and lots of parking.

 

[styles]

I think there's often a large city bias in the air travel scenarios. Obviously a lot of people live in or near cities, but something like north Wales to Edinburgh (a journey I do regularly), would just be a bit silly by plane.

End-to-end it can be done in under 5 hours with 2 trains.

Driving would be about 5.5 hours.

To take a plane well it would be 2-2.5 hours to Liverpool or Manchester Airport, then 3.5-5 hours flying. Plus getting to the airport early for gates closing, waiting for bags at the other end, then getting from Edinburgh Airport to somewhere useful.

Even with today's diesel prices, driving would probably be cheapest (~£40), especially once there's 2+ people. Closely followed by train (~£40 with split tickets). Followed by train+flying (~£17 to Liverpool Airport with split tickets + £44 for Ryanair transferring in Dublin).

It just doesn't add up if you don't live near an airport. There's far more bus and railway stations than airports.

Then when you get north of the Central Belt in Scotland you find you can be close to an airport but the flights cost a fortune. Inverness to Manchester a week today the cheapest direct flight is £153; the cheapest indirect £130 changing in Brussels and Dublin Split tickets for trains on the other hand - £75. Non-split - £117. Obviously flying is significantly quicker for this journey so people will pay a premium for that. I checked the flights for Wednesday though and you're looking at £330. At that point if I had the time on my hands I might well take the ~£110 split ticket train option and treat myself to an 11-course Michellin star meal and 5* hotel at the other end

 

[Bletchleyite]

To take a plane well it would be 2-2.5 hours to Liverpool or Manchester Airport, then 3.5-5 hours flying. Plus getting to the airport early for gates closing, waiting for bags at the other end, then getting from Edinburgh Airport to somewhere useful.

Where on earth do you get that? Actual time in the air would be about half an hour. Arrive an hour before (plenty with hand luggage only), 90 minutes if you want to be really conservative and account for road delays. Half an hour at most for getting out at the other end, but again with hand luggage only it'd probably be less than that (almost nobody is going to check bags for a short trip like that, and most such trips are fairly short). And as to what happens next, it depends on where you're going. For an Edinburgh business trip you might be as likely to be heading for one of the business parks near the airport as the city centre, and even if it's the city centre that's only half an hour on the tram.

Your 3.5 hours from stepping out of the car at the airport is probably your worst case. 5 hours is fanciful.

It probably is one that's largely better overall by train, but I find it amazing how rail advocates tend to overinflate air travel overall journey times to the extent they do (while not taking into account the need to get to a station early if like most you're on an Advance fare). It sits alongside the tendency to quote city centre to city centre journey times when the vast majority of long distance journeys are suburb/commuter town to city centre or vice versa.

 

[styles]

Where on earth do you get that? Actual time in the air would be about half an hour.

There's no direct flight from Manchester or Liverpool to Edinburgh.

I did check Skyscanner as part of my research!

Arrive an hour before (plenty with hand luggage only), 90 minutes if you want to be really conservative and account for road delays. Half an hour at most for getting out at the other end, but again with hand luggage only it'd probably be less than that. And as to what happens next, it depends on where you're going. For an Edinburgh business trip you might be as likely to be heading for one of the business parks near the airport as the city centre, and even if it's the city centre that's only half an hour on the tram.

Your 3.5 hours from stepping out of the car at the airport is probably your worst case. 5 hours is fanciful.

It's really not. You have to xfer, often in Dublin. If it's a self-xfer, even worse.

It probably is one that's largely better overall by train, but I find it amazing how rail advocates tend to overinflate air travel overall journey times to the extent they do (while not taking into account the need to get to a station early if like most you're on an Advance fare). It sits alongside the tendency to quote city centre to city centre journey times when the vast majority of long distance journeys are suburb/commuter town to city centre or vice versa.

I mean, I haven't. You don't have to get to a railway station that early for an Advance fare. Doors may close a couple of minutes before departure but that's a far cry from failing to get to an airport gate 30-45 minutes before departure because the gates get closed or your seat gets reallocated. Not to mention security, EES is self-xfer in an EU country now, passport country for the self-xfer in EU countries, bag drop if you have hold luggage, etc.

Edit: trying for some different days, I have found you can do Liverpool-Edinburgh airport in 2h55m changing at Belfast. It is self-xfer though so if you've got hold luggage you'll need the time in Belfast to get luggage and check it back in. Doable with the 1h10m xfer time.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There's no direct flight from Manchester or Liverpool to Edinburgh.

I did check Skyscanner as part of my research!

Ah. Surprised there isn't one from Manchester - I'm sure there has been in the past. Must have been a flyMayBe route lost when they collapsed. If there isn't a direct flight it's probably not worth it as a comparison to be honest, nobody would even consider a connectional air journey for that, if they didn't want to go by rail they would drive.

It's really not. You have to xfer, often in Dublin. If it's a self-xfer, even worse.

See above. It's not really a relevant comparison if there's no direct service (I thought there was) as nobody would even consider flying it. The only people who do connectional flights for that kind of journey are enthusiasts, people seeking to prove a point ("I flew from London to Manchester via Malaga for less than a direct train" type stuff) and mileage runners seeking to gain air miles to keep their status.

Maybe a better comparison is mid Wales to Edinburgh, as there are flights from Birmingham.

I mean, I haven't. You don't have to get to a railway station that early for an Advance fare. Doors may close a couple of minutes before departure but that's a far cry from failing to get to an airport gate 30-45 minutes before departure because the gates get closed or your seat gets reallocated.

You do need to take into account cancelled buses, no-show taxis and road delays just like you do at an airport. Only if the whole journey is by train and on foot to your local station (or you have travel insurance covering domestic trips, which hardly any of it does unless they're quite long ones) do you have connection protection. It is more likely there's a suitable later train than flight, to be fair, but if you have to fork out for a new ticket then that can be quite costly. That doesn't mean you need to get to stations an hour before, but the amount of additional slack that is required in addition to the minimum publicised time is basically the same because the consequences of missing it are similar.

It's often stated that part of the reason for concourse overcrowding at Euston and the likes is the move towards Advance tickets. Before you could cut it much finer as if you missed it you'd just take the next one.

 

[styles]

Ah. Surprised there isn't one from Manchester - I'm sure there has been in the past. Must have been a flyMayBe route lost when they collapsed.

Yeah possibly. Flybe used to operate East Midlands Airport to Edinburgh which I used when I was a poor student visiting my girlfriend. I was so poor that I cycled from Derby to East Midlands Airport and locked my bike up in what I assume is really a staff cycle stand. It didn't get nicked thankfully as my insurance wouldn't have covered it. They may well have had a Manchester/Liverpool to Edinburgh route.

If there isn't a direct flight it's probably not worth it as a comparison to be honest, nobody would even consider a connectional air journey for that, if they didn't want to go by rail they would drive.

Possibly but the point I'm making is that there are ~2500 railway stations in the UK but only a few dozen airports, and apart from the London group of airports, many of them don't have direct flights to where you want to go. It's all well and good people talking about London to Edinburgh or London to Newcastle, but if you take say Newcastle airport, the only mainland domestic flights they do are to the SW or SE of England.

Basically there's only a certain number of journeys where flying even makes sense. Then when the fares are compared, there's often not that much in it. For example London to Newcastle or Edinburgh is about the same price as Lumo or LNER with roughly the same end-to-end time. Of course for the people who happen to live near Stansted, flying may well be cheaper and quicker, but an awful lot of ->London journeys are for people having work meetings in, or tourists wanting to visit, central London. At which point, London City Airport is the main contender time-wise, but then you lose the price advantage.

See above. It's not really a relevant comparison if there's no direct service (I thought there was) as nobody would even consider flying it. The only people who do connectional flights for that kind of journey are enthusiasts, people seeking to prove a point ("I flew from London to Manchester via Malaga for less than a direct train" type stuff) and mileage runners seeking to gain air miles to keep their status.

See above also. I find the problem with much of the domestic flying promotion is that it's focussed on a small number of journeys where there happens to be direct domestic flights and the traveller happens to live and need to get to somewhere near both airports, not usually in city centres.

Maybe a better comparison is mid Wales to Edinburgh, as there are flights from Birmingham.

So Machynlleth to Birmingham Airport is 3 hours; 1 hour early for checkin, bag drop, gate closing, etc; 1h10m flight time (call it an hour); half an hour waiting for bags; ~45m bus journey to Edinburgh centre (call it an hour to account for scheduling). That's 6h30m.

Train is 6h15m.

Train fare for a week today is £69.80.

Air fare is £13.63 train + £88 direct easyJet flight = £101.63. That air fare assumes no checked luggage which is an extra £58.

So in this example, train is both quicker and cheaper also.

You do need to take into account cancelled buses, no-show taxis and road delays just like you do at an airport. Only if the whole journey is by train and on foot to your local station (or you have travel insurance covering domestic trips, which hardly any of it does unless they're quite long ones) do you have connection protection. It is more likely there's a suitable later train than flight, to be fair, but if you have to fork out for a new ticket then that can be quite costly. That doesn't mean you need to get to stations an hour before, but the amount of additional slack that is required in addition to the minimum publicised time is basically the same because the consequences of missing it are similar.

Yes of course. But the point is that you need to account for those things in both rail and air examples. The difference is you only need to be at even large railway stations 10 minutes before departure really, compared to, as you say, an hour for an airport (or longer with bag drop or EU xfers).

All this is really to say that I think there's solid reasons that the number of domestic flights in the UK half more than halved in the past 20 years.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The difference is you only need to be at even large railway stations 10 minutes before departure really, compared to, as you say, an hour for an airport (or longer with bag drop or EU xfers).

On an Advance or where it'll mess your plans up if you miss the train (e.g. last of the day, which it often is for me going long distance on a Friday evening) 10 minutes is pretty risky. In general a good plan if you're reaching the station by bus is to plan to allow one journey to be cancelled, so typically you're on a minimum of half an hour but it could be over an hour. By taxi it'll depend on time of day as to how easy it will be to get one.

10 minutes is loads on a walk up, yes, but most long distance passengers use Advances these days. It might be that you have a higher appetite for self-insured risk than me, but Mavis on her annual hollibobs won't share that with you and will probably aim for half an hour before even if being dropped off by her daughter. And Mavis won't probably be technically adept enough to get her phone out and change her e-ticketed Advance to the next train while sat on the bus if it looks a bit tight, she'll have it printed out instead and probably not know how to do that, or if she's a business traveller (can't think of a more stereotypical name) it might not even be possible if it'd have to involve contacting the corporate travel agency and it'd be really embarrassing or potentially career limiting to have to explain why the full value of that 200 quid First Advance had been lost.

 

[styles]

On an Advance or where it'll mess your plans up if you miss the train (e.g. last of the day, which it often is for me going long distance on a Friday evening) 10 minutes is pretty risky.

I disagree. I've operated on this basis all my life and I've never missed a train having got to the station 10 minutes before departure. The only regular exception is when I travel with a family member who's an electric wheelchair user. I would probably give myself 15 for the hellhole of Birmingham New Street.

In general a good plan if you're reaching the station by bus is to plan to allow one journey to be cancelled, so typically you're on a minimum of half an hour but it could be over an hour. By taxi it'll depend on time of day as to how easy it will be to get one.

But this is the same for the airport scenario.

10 minutes is loads on a walk up, yes, but most long distance passengers use Advances these days. It might be that you have a higher appetite for self-insured risk than me, but Mavis on her annual hollibobs won't share that with you.

Maybe, but it's still not going to be an hour as you suggested for an airport, unless you're really into train-spotting

 

[Bletchleyite]

I disagree. I've operated on this basis all my life and I've never missed a train having got to the station 10 minutes before departure. The only regular exception is when I travel with a family member who's an electric wheelchair user.

You aren't typical at all - you clearly have a high appetite for risk (even if you've been lucky so far) and are of course an expert user.

Maybe, but it's still not going to be an hour as you suggested for an airport, unless you're really into train-spotting

I suspect most people will aim for about half an hour before. It's unlikely to be less unless by private car and knowing that there is never traffic on the route.

If going to MKC by bus I would usually aim for it to be the fast walking time (45 minutes roughly) plus 10 minutes from the departure time of the bus I intend to take (basically leaving home an hour ish before), so if it doesn't show up after a reasonable time for it being a bit late I can walk. If I have luggage that makes the walk infeasible (e.g. a trolley case - a fair chunk of the shortest route on foot is unsurfaced path) then a bit more than that to allow for a taxi to be available.

I'll cut it far finer on a walk-up, but again most long distance trips these days are not on walk-ups, so it's probably an unfair comparison to use them for that.

 

[styles]

Mavis on her annual hollibobs won't share that with you and will probably aim for half an hour before even if being dropped off by her daughter. And Mavis won't probably be technically adept enough to get her phone out and change her e-ticketed Advance to the next train while sat on the bus if it looks a bit tight, she'll have it printed out instead and probably not know how to do that, or if she's a business traveller (can't think of a more stereotypical name) it might not even be possible if it'd have to involve contacting the corporate travel agency and it'd be really embarrassing or potentially career limiting to have to explain why the full value of that 200 quid First Advance had been lost.

I'll address this added edit.

All of these things also apply to airports. And arguably even more so as there's usually more walking involved, more directions to follow, Ryanair only issuing mobile tickets now, etc.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'll address this added edit.

All of these things also apply to airports. And arguably even more so as there's usually more walking involved, more directions to follow, Ryanair only issuing mobile tickets now, etc.

They absolutely do, yes. But they do need applying to both equally, as the consequences of missing the flight and train are basically the same.

If we say that you need to be at the airport an hour before minimum when flying domestic* and a major station ten minutes before minimum to deal with formalities if not delayed, which I think is entirely fair in both cases (the airport one is often overstated, but then to be fair Mavis will probably go for three hours before at the airport and be surprised the check-in desk isn't open yet) then your additional time for flying is 50 minutes. You need to arrive similarly early for both as the implications and likelihood are the same.

* Assuming no checked bag; Ryanair's check-in desks now close an hour before so if it's them it'd need to be 90 minutes. But others are still less than that, and most Ryanair passengers don't check bags.

 

[styles]

You aren't typical at all - you clearly have a high appetite for risk (even if you've been lucky so far) and are of course an expert user.

Why is it lucky? Railway stations don't have things like bag drop, security where passes might not scan or there's long queues, passport control, EES, etc. That's why minimum connection times at railway stations are so small, usually single digit minutes. Is Birmingham New Street the longest at 12 minutes?

I suspect most people will aim for about half an hour before. It's unlikely to be less unless by private car and knowing that there is never traffic on the route.

I really doubt this, especially given the number of commuters. Half an hour is very early to get to a railway station. I've never really known people to regularly do this, even abroad. Yes the very occasional traveller might be this conservative but they would do the exact same thing at an airport. My partner is like this - she gets to the airport 3 hours in advance, even for domestic flights. But it still scales down, as in she'll get to the railway station about 20 minutes before if it's a larger interchange station, or 10 minutes before at a local station.

If going to MKC by bus I would usually aim for it to be the fast walking time (45 minutes roughly) plus 10 minutes from the departure time of the bus I intend to take, so if it doesn't show up after a reasonable time for it being a bit late I can walk.

Yes but as mentioned above, this isn't anything to do with the railway station - you'd add the same buffer on to an airport bus connection.

I'll cut it far finer on a walk-up, but again most long distance trips these days are not on walk-ups, so it's probably an unfair comparison to use them for that.

While the impact of missing an Advance fared service of one's own doing is greater than that on a flexible ticket, it doesn't really change the railway station experience that much; as mentioned further up, they're generally very small compared to the size and walking involved in an airport, security, bag drop, passport control, etc. If there's ticket irregularities you're also more likely to be waived through the barriers than if your boarding pass doesn't scan for whatever reason, etc.

 

[enginedin]

Same from the Chester area, the Airport is right next to the Mersey Gateway bridge whereas you have to battle through the tunnels and the Liverpool one-way system to get to Lime Street.

except there's absolutely no reason for someone to drive to Lime Street to get a train so this isn't a fair comparison. At worst, they'd drive to Crewe if they didn't want to change trains and were going somewhere on the WCML.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why is it lucky? Railway stations don't have things like bag drop, security where passes might not scan or there's long queues, passport control, EES, etc. That's why minimum connection times at railway stations are so small, usually single digit minutes. Is Birmingham New Street the longest at 12 minutes?

Because the risk of your journey by bus, taxi or car to the station being disrupted is exactly the same. The extra slack isn't for airport processes (that's included in your hour minimum if you're on hand luggage). It is about getting to the station or airport and the risk of a high cost of a new ticket.

If you arrive at the station on foot or by connecting mainline train then you are unlikely to be delayed (on foot doing the same journey from one day to the next is typically consistent in journey time to seconds) or have protection, but as I point out above most people don't reach intercity trains in that way.

I really doubt this, especially given the number of commuters.

We aren't talking about commuters here. Commuters (ignoring the very niche activity of weekly commuting and people who live on Scottish islands) don't use planes. Commuters are utterly irrelevant to this thread, aside from that newspapers tend to call all rail travellers that.

Half an hour is very early to get to a railway station. I've never really known people to regularly do this, even abroad. Yes the very occasional traveller might be this conservative but they would do the exact same thing at an airport. My partner is like this - she gets to the airport 3 hours in advance, even for domestic flights. But it still scales down, as in she'll get to the railway station about 20 minutes before if it's a larger interchange station, or 10 minutes before at a local station.

By what mode? If it's by bus having one journey in slack for a cancellation or delay is very prudent.

Yes but as mentioned above, this isn't anything to do with the railway station - you'd add the same buffer on to an airport bus connection.

Yes, the bus in that case is part of getting to the airport, when you park your car at a remote bus-connected car park you are not at the airport, you are part way there. The longer journey time and added risk are why these car parks are cheaper.

What I'm saying is that you need the same amount of slack in addition to the stated minima for both modes if in both cases you are travelling on an inflexible ticket, which these days for long distance almost everyone is.

While the impact of missing an Advance fared service of one's own doing is greater than that on a flexible ticket, it doesn't really change the railway station experience that much; as mentioned further up, they're generally very small compared to the size and walking involved in an airport, security, bag drop, passport control, etc. If there's ticket irregularities you're also more likely to be waived through the barriers than if your boarding pass doesn't scan for whatever reason, etc.

Again, that's taken account of by the one hour minimum for the airport vs. the ten minutes minimum for the railway station. This is time in addition which is to take account of travel delays on the way to the airport or station, which only don't apply if you're going by foot or you're driving your own car through residential back streets which are never congested.

 

[styles]

They absolutely do, yes. But they do need applying to both equally, as the consequences of missing the flight and train are basically the same.

But they negate each other, so are not really part of the consideration. If you have to allow extra time for a bus to a railway station and extra time for a bus to an airport, they're irrelevant because it adds on an equal amount of pre-departure time to both journeys (discounting scheduling/frequency differences in railway station and airport buses ofc).

If we say that you need to be at the airport an hour before minimum when flying domestic* and a major station ten minutes before minimum to deal with formalities if not delayed, which I think is entirely fair in both cases (the airport one is often overstated, but then to be fair Mavis will probably go for three hours before at the airport and be surprised the check-in desk isn't open yet) then your additional time for flying is 50 minutes.

Exactly - that 50 minutes for the airport needs to be accounted for.

You need to arrive similarly early for both as the implications and likelihood are the same.

You cannot arrive at a UK airport 10 minutes before departure and get onto your plane. At a real push, you might manage this at London City Airport because it's largely business travellers who know how to get through security quickly rather than faffing about removing laptops and liquids (though the recent rule changes and new scanners should improve this!). In any case doing so would be an absolutely incredibly risky move. That is not true of arriving at a railway station.

* Assuming no checked bag; Ryanair's check-in desks now close an hour before so if it's them it'd need to be 90 minutes. But others are still less than that, and most Ryanair passengers don't check bags.

Yes, checking bags means even longer than our 1 hour before departure working basis.

This is I believe part of the reason Lumo does so well. In their early days they had luggage stacked up in toilets, because their ECML operation basically connects airports and city centres where flying would otherwise be an attractive option. But once you factor in the cost of hold luggage and the time needed at the airport dropping it, doing security etc, on easyJet and Ryanair, Lumo usually makes more sense; and they're actually in city centres rather than out in the sticks.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But they negate each other, so are not really part of the consideration. If you have to allow extra time for a bus to a railway station and extra time for a bus to an airport, they're irrelevant because it adds on an equal amount of pre-departure time to both journeys (discounting scheduling/frequency differences in railway station and airport buses ofc).

Yes, they can equally be taken out of the comparison (i.e. use ten minutes for rail and one hour for domestic air) or added to both. But what you cannot do, and you appear to be doing I'm afraid, is say you need that extra slack for an airport but not a railway station.

Exactly - that 50 minutes for the airport needs to be accounted for.

Agreed, I'm not saying it doesn't.

You cannot arrive at a UK airport 10 minutes before departure and get onto your plane. At a real push, you might manage this at London City Airport because it's largely business travellers who know how to get through security quickly rather than faffing about removing laptops and liquids (though the recent rule changes and new scanners should improve this!). In any case doing so would be an absolutely incredibly risky move. That is not true of arriving at a railway station.

Again, I'm not saying otherwise.

Yes, checking bags means even longer than our 1 hour before departure working basis.

It does yes, but most people don't check bags for domestic trips, which are what is under discussion. If we bring in Eurostar as a comparison (which does have airport like features, e.g. I think now 1 hour minimum checkin?) that might lengthen it, but the discussion is primarily domestic at the moment.

This is I believe part of the reason Lumo does so well. In their early days they had luggage stacked up in toilets, because their ECML operation basically connects airports and city centres where flying would otherwise be an attractive option. But once you factor in the cost of hold luggage and the time needed at the airport dropping it, doing security etc, on easyJet and Ryanair, Lumo usually makes more sense; and they're actually in city centres rather than out in the sticks.

Hold luggage is irrelevant to any comparison with Lumo as their maximum bag size is basically an IATA carryon. (Slightly smaller in one dimension and slightly bigger in another, but in reality they aren't checking that closely so a standard 56x45x25 carryon would be fine, but a typical checked trolley or packed-full large rucksack would not, though my 65l if not packed full will just about fit the size). Or if you mean people did take hold luggage before, yes I guess they did. I still think Lumo are missing the point a bit by not offering a limited number of prebookable chargeable hold sized bags though.

 

[styles]

Because the risk of your journey by bus, taxi or car to the station being disrupted is exactly the same. The extra slack isn't for airport processes (that's included in your hour minimum if you're on hand luggage). It is about getting to the station or airport and the risk of a high cost of a new ticket.

But that's all pre-arrival at the departing station or airport. It's the exact same with flying and training.

In fact there are greater protections for rail if you also get to that main railway station by rail as you'll be able to use your Advance fare on a later train and get delay repay. Whereas multi-modal to the airport, you'd have to have travel insurance to cover you.

If you believe the airport offers more "slack" then you don't actually believe 1h early is required at an airport, otherwise it would be increased?

If you arrive at the station on foot or by connecting mainline train then you are unlikely to be delayed (on foot doing the same journey from one day to the next is typically consistent in journey time to seconds) or have protection, but as I point out above most people don't reach intercity trains in that way.

Do they not? Do you have a source for this?

We aren't talking about commuters here. Commuters (ignoring the very niche activity of weekly commuting and people who live on Scottish islands) don't use planes. Commuters are utterly irrelevant to this thread, aside from that newspapers tend to call all rail travellers that.

You said most people. Some 40%+ of rail users are commuters. They're not irrelevant at all, as you were talking about arrival times at railway stations. The context matters.

By what mode? If it's by bus having one journey in slack for a cancellation or delay is very prudent.

Yes, but you need that for the airport as well as the railway.

Yes, the bus in that case is part of getting to the airport, when you park your car at a remote bus-connected car park you are not at the airport, you are part way there. The longer journey time and added risk are why these car parks are cheaper.

What I'm saying is that you need the same amount of slack in addition to the stated minima for both modes if in both cases you are travelling on an inflexible ticket, which these days for long distance almost everyone is.

Exactly - so the airport option requires 50 minutes extra slack as you suggested earlier.

Again, that's taken account of by the one hour minimum for the airport vs. the ten minutes minimum for the railway station. This is time in addition which is to take account of travel delays on the way to the airport or station, which only don't apply if you're going by foot or you're driving your own car through residential back streets which are never congested.

But it can't be. If you're allocating an hour at an airport to include slack but 10 minutes at a railway station without slack then you're comparing apples and oranges.

The extra time at the airport is required because getting through an airport and onto a plane, even domestically, takes way longer than getting onto a train; and short of being easier for Mavis, it's actually worse at an airport for her as the process is more difficult, the walking involved is longer, the opportunity for mistakes is greater, and the impact of a mistake is greater.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 May 2026 ==

As an aside, I think this has strayed off-topic from fares to journey times a bit much.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Do they not? Do you have a source for this?

You seriously think most people arrive at the station for a long distance intercity journey on foot or by National Rail? Really?

I don't have stats, but at the London end it is going to be well below 10% - most will be Tube which offers no protection though some will be Thameslink. The Liz may have skewed it up a bit recently. Elsewhere it's mostly going to be car and taxi.

You said most people. Some 40%+ of rail users are commuters. They're not irrelevant at all, as you were talking about arrival times at railway stations. The context matters.

The context is a thread whose title is "Rail travel vs. air travel - fair comparisons?"

I don't think it's a fair comparison to consider journeys which cannot be made by air in such a discussion.

Exactly - so the airport option requires 50 minutes extra slack as you suggested earlier.

Yes.

But it can't be. If you're allocating an hour at an airport to include slack but 10 minutes at a railway station without slack then you're comparing apples and oranges.

The hour includes only slack for airport processing. The ten minutes at the railway station includes slack for what happens at railway stations, e.g. an inexperienced person looking for a platform or waiting for a lift.

The extra time at the airport is required because getting through an airport and onto a plane, even domestically, takes way longer than getting onto a train; and short of being easier for Mavis, it's actually worse at an airport for her as the process is more difficult, the walking involved is longer, the opportunity for mistakes is greater, and the impact of a mistake is greater.

That's the 60 minutes vs. 10, yes. To arrive at the airport or station you still need the same slack in your car/taxi/bus journey in addition to that. (You may need more if it's further, which is a factor on there being fewer airports, but rail starts to win if the airport is a long way away anyway).

 

[8ace]

You seriously think most people arrive at the station for a long distance intercity journey on foot or by National Rail? Really?

I don't have stats, but at the London end it is going to be about 0% - most will be Tube which offers no protection. Elsewhere it's mostly going to be car and taxi.

For journeys from KGX, STP or EUS I arrive by Thameslink, I'm sure I'm not the only one.

 

[styles]

You seriously think most people arrive at the station for a long distance intercity journey on foot or by National Rail? Really?

I don't have stats, but at the London end it is going to be well below 10% - most will be Tube which offers no protection though some will be Thameslink. The Liz may have skewed it up a bit recently. Elsewhere it's mostly going to be car and taxi.

I missed the word 'mainline' in your other comment, but including TfL services yes I believe a very significant number of people arrive at large interchange stations by rail.

On TfL specifically - you can claim compensation from TfL for delays, just not under the capitalised Delay Repay scheme. Your statutory rights are not affected by their non-participation in the national Delay Repay scheme. But also the reason most people don't claim delay compensation from TfL is because Tube services are often every couple of minutes, so people don't look at the Central Line timetable for Shepherd's Bush Market to King's Cross St Pancras and pick a particular train - they just mentally go well it's a 20 minute train and I'll get to the Tube station 10 mins before, and get there when I get there. If there's line blockages then jump in a cab for the same amount of time.

The context is a thread whose title is "Rail travel vs. air travel - fair comparisons?"

I don't think it's a fair comparison to consider journeys which cannot be made by air in such a discussion.

Journeys which can't be made by air, yes.

But the point is that a lot of journeys can be made by air and they're more expensive because of things like the extra time required at airports, the drop off charges, parking charges, or indeed the limited number of domestic routes.

It's quite a London/SE England-centric thing I find to try and highlight how flying can be marginally cheaper. That's because if the London group of airports are excluding, the domestic flying options, even where they exist, are not actually that cheap. Partly because people don't actually live near Newcastle Airport or Bristol Airport. They require both extra time and extra money getting to somewhere useful.

The hour includes only slack for airport processing. The ten minutes at the railway station includes slack for what happens at railway stations, e.g. an inexperienced person looking for a platform or waiting for a lift.

You get inexperienced people at airports looking for checkin desks, then faffing at security, then finding their departure gate. It's worse.

That's the 50 minutes vs. 10, yes. To arrive at the airport or station you still need the same slack in your car/taxi/bus journey. (You may need more if it's further, which is a factor on there being fewer airports, but rail starts to win if the airport is a long way away anyway).

It's 1h10m vs 10m, so 50m difference.

Yes the slack is the same, hence it's not relevant.

 

[Shimbleshanks]

These days, quality of time matters a lot more to me than door-to-door journey time. Once I get to Euston, Kings Cross etc I know I can have 4-5 hours to work, sleep, read etc as opposed to shuffling about in security, queuing to get on and off planes and so on. That's why I mostly take the train everywhere these days, the only exceptions being routes involving ferry crossings.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I missed the word 'mainline' in your other comment, but including TfL services yes I believe a very significant number of people arrive at large interchange stations by rail.

TfL (other than the Liz and Overground) is the same as bus/taxi etc in requiring slack, because if you miss a train due to a delayed Tube you don't have rights to journey continuation or Delay Repay.

On TfL specifically - you can claim compensation from TfL for delays, just not under the capitalised Delay Repay scheme. Your statutory rights are not affected by their non-participation in the national Delay Repay scheme. But also the reason most people don't claim delay compensation from TfL is because Tube services are often every couple of minutes, so people don't look at the Central Line timetable for Shepherd's Bush Market to King's Cross St Pancras and pick a particular train - they just mentally go well it's a 20 minute train and I'll get to the Tube station 10 mins before, and get there when I get there. If there's line blockages then jump in a cab for the same amount of time.

Compensation isn't the issue, it's the lack of guarantee of carriage for free on a later train that requires the slack to be introduced.

Journeys which can't be made by air, yes.

But the point is that a lot of journeys can be made by air and they're more expensive because of things like the extra time required at airports, the drop off charges, parking charges, or indeed the limited number of domestic routes.

It's quite a London/SE England-centric thing I find to try and highlight how flying can be marginally cheaper. That's because if the London group of airports are excluding, the domestic flying options, even where they exist, are not actually that cheap. Partly because people don't actually live near Newcastle Airport or Bristol Airport. They require both extra time and extra money getting to somewhere useful.

For vast swathes of people in south Manchester, getting to Manchester Airport is more convenient than to Piccadilly, and about the same as getting to Stockport. (This is why HS2 2B going ahead without "Manchester Airport Parkway" would have been a bad thing by the way).

It's 1h10m vs 10m, so 50m difference.

1h vs 10m, so 50 minutes difference, yes. You can either disregard added slack for getting to the airport/station or you can add it for both (though the amount may vary depending on which station/airport you're going to). You can't add it for one and not the other unless making a personal comparison where you can arrive on foot at one but not the other.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 May 2026 ==

These days, quality of time matters a lot more to me than door-to-door journey time. Once I get to Euston, Kings Cross etc I know I can have 4-5 hours to work, sleep, read etc as opposed to shuffling about in security, queuing to get on and off planes and so on. That's why I mostly take the train everywhere these days, the only exceptions being routes involving ferry crossings.

The counter to that is that for many people sitting in one place for 4 hours is boring. I tend to find I break up long rail journeys to avoid that (I tend to do MKC to north WCML via Manchester in order to do that). Might be different if I wanted to work though.