MagsB

I'm sure we're not the only people facing this conundrum. Move back to London with the better prospects for work and also probably better salaries whilst paying a premium for rent, or stay in a commuter town and spend a fortune on commuting costs.

Would love to know the general thoughts here. We obviously don't consider central London, but were thinking about South Eastern areas like Bromley/Orpington.

christmasoompa

My husband commutes from Berkshire. Granted, his train fare isn't cheap, but as he earns double what he could anywhere locally, it more than makes up for it.

We wouldn't live in London anyway (country bumpkins that like being surrounded by fields and wildlife!) but even if we did want to I don't think we would as we'd have a tiny house there for the same money.

Good luck making your decision.

britwhore

I'm having the same issue too....

I'd be interested in hearing your opinions on places.

Good luck!

Pom_Chch

Hello!

I am currently in London and I do the opposite. I live in London (zone 3) and work in St Albans. Train fare for me is not too much of a problem. It costs me 7.50pounds for a return ticket at off peak times. I am self employed and have the luxury of being able to travel at off peak times. But please be warned that fares during peak times (before 9:30 and sometimes after 4:30 depending on route) are shockingly high. You can get yearly passes, but they cost a small fortune, so it depends on if you can fork out a few grand for a train ticket. And train fares are set to rise in January (yay), but hopefully I will be in NZ by then! There's a bit of an uproar about this at the moment because some of the increases are going to be ridiculous. If you want an idea of train fares have a look at www.virgintrains.co.uk.

St Albans is a lovely area. It takes 20 minutes to get into the centre of London by train or driving. It has a small English town feel to it, but it is expensive. It attracts families who want/need to work in London but don't want to live there. There's countryside near by, the town centre has everything you need and a market on a Saturday. There's also some nice buildings like the cathedral.

Other nice places just outside of London are Twickenham, Chiswick and Richmond.

Hello Britwhore (love the name btw!!!)

cheeky_monkey

Unless London has moved then those places are in fact in London.

MagsB

Thanks guys for your thoughts. Yeah, I obviously didn't mean living in Zone 1! We know the Kentish London boroughs fairly well, which is why we've been looking at Bromley/Orpington/Bexley areas. I've been reading so much about the cost of living in London, but from my calculations it seems that the saving made towards travel costs (living in Zone 5 for example and being able to make use of London transport, as opposed to living in a commuter town with the added travel costs) outweighs the extra rent. For example, we've looked at Tunbridge Wells, where you can get a 2 bed house for GBP800 pm, and exorbitant train fares into London. In Bromley you will pay 900 for a two bed flat, but travel costs (and time) will be quite a bit less.

Am I making sense?

Almo

Hi Mags

We are now considering this dilemma, despite vowing we would not move back to London. My partner is seriously considering a role in central London. I actually like London but I don't think we will be able to earn enough of a premium to cancel out the extra costs in rent and transport. The only reason we are even considering it is that this is a great opportunity for him and is likely to mean that he will be able to command a higher salary in his future roles (which might be outside London).

It's a tough choice for sure!

britwhore

MagsB - TOTALLY understand!!! I love Canterbury and yes, we could get a slightly cheaper house in the City walls (which would be AWESOME!!) BUT a yearly HS train ticket would be nearly £6000. ONce you start taking into consideration the extra ££ a month you're spending on transport it doesn't make sense to live so far away from London because you could just take that ££ and add it to rent or a mortgage (not to mention the time spent traveling)

I was in Bromley yesterday visiting family (London born and bred) and had a quick gander at Sydenham and Herne Hill. Obviously Bromley has the faster train but it can be a little bit more expensive to live there. Sadly we're now priced out of Dulwich which is really nice.

Anyway - good luck on the quest!!!!

Pom_Chch

Hi cheeky_monkey. Yes I'm aware that Richmond is London, it's zone 4 meaning less in train fares compared to an outside commuter town, which is why I mentioned it. Richmond also has a nice feel to it, kind of like having the convenience of living in London but without the overcrowded feel to it. Twikenham is Greater London and I believe Chiswick is part of Hounslow. I mentioned them as options to live slightly further out of London.

MagsB yes I understand what you mean! The outer zones (I guess anything from 4 onwards) can be a good option. I viewed a flat in Colliers Wood a while ago and although classed as London (zone 4) it really didn't feel like it. It was very spacious and green. Same with Wimbledon, which is also a lovely area in some parts. Except with these places you don't have to catch the train in meaning less in travel costs. I am not at all surprised that you'll be better off in an outer zone of London rather than a commuter town due to the cost of rail fares. It may also be a good option because train fares are set to rise, some routes up to 12%.

Pom_Chch

Oh just to add in - a colleague of my OH lives in Swindon and he catches the train to London every day. I think he added up how much the train has cost him over say 5/10 years and it came to something like £30,000. I guess that's why outer zones could be a good option. £30,000 extra on a mortgage is huge!

MagsB

Britwhore, our dream is to eventually go back to Canterbury. We've lived in Canterbury for 6 years and if I could have my way we'd go back. Unfortunately my hubby's is so much more likely to find a job in London. I'm working for a small tour operator in South Africa and at the moment my boss is thinking about opening an office in the UK, and his preference is London.

We've also looked at those GBP6000 p/a train fares to London! GBP500 per month. And that is only to get to St Pancras, you'd still need to pay tube/bus fares to get to the office too!

We both love London, but we wouldn't choose to actually live there if our circumstances were different. To be honest, I think we see London as a temporary place, a base if you will, from where we can start looking for more permanent work elsewhere.

steviedeluxe

I think your answer will be to live somewhere in the zones 4, 5 6 area and commute to work in central London (if that's where it is). If you choose the area wisely you'll be able to get a train to a centrally located station that only takes 15-30 minutes (for instance Croydon to either London Bridge or Victoria). You can then use the tube/bus for connecting services. A monthly travelcard for zones 1-6 costs £205 - remember that Oyster cards are valid for trains now I believe.

britwhore

If u use an oyster card it could be less than a travelcard depending on how many trains etc u have to take to get to work

christmasoompa

But I bet that the same house in London would be at least double the price! Plus higher insurance costs, council tax etc. So you may find that the money he spends on commuting actually saves him quite a bit in the long run.

As I said above, we're country bumpkins anyway so have no desire to live in London or the suburbs, but if we did then we'd have the choice of (a) buying a flat for the same money as our large house in 1.5 acres, or (b) robbing a bank to find the extra million or two we'd need for a comparable house in London! Both options would come with a higher cost of living too. Small price to pay for the £3200 a year my husband pays for his travel for us - although obviously others may feel differently and prefer to be closer to London in a smaller house.

Pom_Chch

[QUOTE=christmasoompa;10279441]But I bet that the same house in London would be at least double the price! Plus higher insurance costs, council tax etc. So you may find that the money he spends on commuting actually saves him quite a bit in the long run.

It's unlikely to be double the price in the outer zones. Perhaps if it was in zones 1, 2 or 3. Any further than that you can get some nice spacious places in the outer zones that wont cost the earth and you wont be landed with huge increases in train fares as you will still be able to get the tube.

magsb was asking thoughts on whether or not to live totally outside of London in a commuter town or within the outer zones of London and asking whether she'll be better of cost wise and train travel wise being outside or still in the zones, which is what I was giving my opinion on. I'm in agreement with steviedeluxe, mostly because train fares are increasing by shocking amounts. There will come a day when people will be re-mortgaging their houses just to be able to afford to get to work. I believe they are set to rise by up to 12% in January, which is why I would personally really think hard about getting trains to work. Unless you are on a huge salary and it's not much of an outgoing of course or you really don't mind paying the fees for a different lifestyle. I also find tubes much more reliable and having to only wait 2 minutes for the next tube if you miss the previous one is always a bonus! Also you can nearly always find a tube station that is walking distance to your office, which means not having to pay any more money to connect you from the train station.