I've actually had it with the press and...

[JamieLei]

... very unfairly comparing UK rail fares. I think this has to be the worst offender I've ever come across:

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/200 ... rvey_N.htm

"It frustrates many travelers that sometimes the trip to Paris is cheaper. Advance fares to the French capital on the high-speed Eurostar train start at 59 pounds ($85), 7 pounds ($9) cheaper than a standard off-peak return to the city in northwest England."

Well of course the fare to Manchester is bloody more expensive, not only are they comparing different types of fares (Advance vs. Walk up), they're also comparing a single versus a return!

(Edit: Just found out that is a return... - I've got so used seeing Advance synonymous with Single)

The thing is, comparing like-for-like happens very rarely in the press and media. A BBC news report complained about London - Edinburgh rail fares being ridiculous and proceeded to film a correspondent at Kings Cross buying an Anytime Return for £150 or so pounds, and then booking a budget flight for a tenner or so (obviously many months into the future). For a fair comparison with the Anytime Return, I'd expect the correspondent to turn up at Heathrow and attempt to buy a ticket for the next departing flight.

When was the last time the press had a moan at plane fares? Whilst I agree that walk-up fares are indeed a tad high, so is my plane ticket to Singapore. Sadly it seems to be an easy target for the press, relates to the moans of commuters and makes for some very nice unfair comparisons..

[/rant]

Interestingly though, it does commend that we have the most frequent services, which are excellent and useful. A 20 minute frequency to London is brilliant for those who use Off-Peak returns (I did last month) and the quality of our suburban stock is phenomenal (London vs Paris?)*. Even our oldest units, the FCC 315s are a pleasure to ride in.

*Before commenting about unfair comparisons, there are literally rakes of those lined up a Gare de Nord, all looking equally miserable.

[ostlandr]

Take a look at Amtrak fares sometime. And the trains are slower and less reliable than in 1900.

[Kevo00]

Ironic, as that report was published by a US website!

[JGR]

*takes the bait*

While there are stacks of that model of train at Gare du Nord (and Est, St. Lazare, Lyon and probably Montparnasse), they're actually reasonably nice and I've rarely seen one gratified up as badly as that one (ridden in them a fair few times, but I tended to use RER A old-style stock (EMUs) most of the time, which is arguably the crappiest on the network, but only slightly worse, and never really bothered me).

Some of the metro lines are a bit crappy, but they're a damn sight nicer than many of the London ones...
(lines like 2, 6, 8 and others with that model in particular).

If you want a pleasurable ride experience, try RER C

To get back on topic, media exists to sell itself. Unbiased and thorough reporting is often perceived as secondary...
Folks who look at a US website for serious comparisons of relative train/transport fares between European countries are doing it wrong... And in particular the US is not known for it's great emphasis on correct, thorough and unbiased reporting...

[ostlandr]

Boy, what I wouldn't give for a worn-out Budd DMU, or even a turn-of-the-century Doodlebug, running from anywhere close to home to anywhere close to work. The rail is there, so no billion-dollar new line needed. As long as the fare was reasonably close to the total cost of running a car 50+ miles a day, I am SO there.

[Kevo00]

Ah, but will your neighbors be there? And is the speed likely to be decent?