Should it be More Expensive To Travel By Train Rather Than Car

westv

Just wondering as I sit here thinking of whether to have another cup of tea before I pop out for a stroll.
I'll be going up to Yorkshire this weekend which will involve a trip of around 260 miles round trip. The journey can be made by rail or road.

The cost of the train ticket is around £55 return. There are no AP tickets available from my station but they are available from the next major station.
The cost of the petrol for the journey will be very roughly £35. If you factor in the cost of insurance, repairs etc (assuming an average 10,000 miles a year) that adds, I don't know, let's say another £15 to the journey. Total cost £50 which is still £5 cheaper than the train.

You would have thought using public transport where you have the inconvenience of having to change trains, wait for connections and travel to a set timetable would have a financial advantage. Yes, I know that AP tickets are available (not from my station though) which can make the journey even cheaper but you then have further restrictions about the time you travel and these have to be purchased sometimes weeks in advance to get the best price.
I know this situation isn't going to change but, like I said, I was just thinking about it.

mickeypops

The Inland Revenue allowance for motoring expenses is 40p per mile (up to 10K per year) which isn't particularly generous, I don't think. On that basis, the "true" cost of using the car is £104. (I imagine there is an element of depreciation - the hidden car cost - in this.)

Of course, the main difference is that your car can take 4 or 5 people for the same cost. And of course you start and end exactly where you like.

I agree with you - public transport is far too expensive.

I've never been able to work out the sense in premium pricing people's commute to work and back (as rail prices tend to go down after 0900) Surely we should do the opposite and cut prices at commuter times to encourage more people off the road?

wealdroam

westv wrote: »

The cost of the train ticket is around £55 return. There are no AP tickets available from my station but they are available from the next major station.

You do realise that you can buy that Advance ticket and buy a seperate ticket to/from your local station?

This is called split ticketing. See the Cheap Train Tickets article... particularly the video towards the top.

wealdroam

mickeypops wrote: »

I've never been able to work out the sense in premium pricing people's commute to work and back (as rail prices tend to go down after 0900) Surely we should do the opposite and cut prices at commuter times to encourage more people off the road?

Good idea in theory.

That would encourage more people onto the trains at peak time. The problem is that the trains are already full to bursting at those times of day.

The 'plan' seems to be to try and 'price' people onto the less crowded trains.
Not working though, is it?

westv

wealdroam wrote: »

You do realise that you can buy that Advance ticket and buy a seperate ticket to/from your local station?

This is called split ticketing. See the Cheap Train Tickets article... particularly the video towards the top.

Yes I do realise that although technically if I'm delayed on the first train (different TOC) and I miss my AP train I will have to buy another ticket. In reality I know of instances where a polite word to the guard has allowed the person to continue on the same ticket.
However, I was comparing the same journey by train and car and with the car you don't book weeks in advance so I was using the equivalent train ticket.

laird

At the very least for a car you would normally be expected to book it a day in advance, most rental companys outside of an airport would be expecting that and if buying a car it is on average bought with far more notice - I suspect there are many people that have owned a car for years before deciding to use it to set out on a 260 mile round trip to Yorkshire ;-)

With the car you also need to add on your share of the roadbuilding and maintaining cost which at present isn't passed on to the motorist but should be if a level playing field is to be established.

Sadly the rail passenger is expected to make contributions toward maintenance of both vehicle and infrastructure.

The selling point of the railway has to be three fold under these circumstances, safety, speed and convenience.

Safety - The journey can be expected (statistically) to be significantly safer than driving the same distance, the accident record for the railways is excelent when compared to the road network.

Speed - Typically the upper speed limit on a London - York road trip will be 70mph, the train will spend a good portion of the journey at 100-125mph and so over the longer distance should offset the intial time, don't forget since your 260 mile journey will take in excess of four hours you should budget for a stop, food and water for the driver.

Convenience - Try reading a newspaper while driving a car, the drivers around you will become increasingly upset and will probably end up reporting you to the police, read a newspaper as a passenger on the train and you will be considered normal. With the train you will get to appreciate some of the spectacular views from the train window or can use the time productively to eat, work or be entertained.
Wifi, seatback tv and powerpoints are now present on many of the long distance services so the train acts as an extension to your living room.
If you want that same service for all your party in a car budget to add a chauffeur is perhaps less significant.


Ultimately though we need something done with our public transport network over and above the proposed high speed rail link, that is we need to invest to ease the overcrowding and introduce higher capacity trains so that the punitive ticket prices which are present to discourage peak time travel become a thing of the past.

vaio

laird wrote: »

……….With the car you also need to add on your share of the roadbuilding and maintaining cost which at present isn't passed on to the motorist but should be if a level playing field is to be established.

Sadly the rail passenger is expected to make contributions toward maintenance of both vehicle and infrastructure……..

I think you’ll find that rail passengers are hugely subsidised by central government whilst drivers pay about 4 times more tax/duty etc than is actually spent on the roads

Tempt lots of drivers onto the trains and there is going to be a big cash shortfall

DaveMacD

The main problem with the rail network is that many areas are running at near capacity, certainly during the rush hours. Like it or not, most people still work 9-5, and as a consequence require to do their commute 7-9 and 3-7. It's fine saying "put more trains on", but this is not always possible for a range of reasons. There are limits to how many trains can run on a line at any one time, there are limits to platform sizes, and consequently the length of train, and of course, there are breakdowns and failures in any given day.

While there are schemes under way to try and increase capacity in various areas, these all require monetary investment that must come from somewhere. Disregarding the whole franchise argument for now, the simple matter is that a railway that properly services local communities will NEVER accrue enough money to afford the huge capital investments required to pay for those improvements.

goldspanners

laird wrote: »

With the car you also need to add on your share of the roadbuilding and maintaining cost which at present isn't passed on to the motorist but should be if a level playing field is to be established.

Sadly the rail passenger is expected to make contributions toward maintenance of both vehicle and infrastructure.

so what does VED pay for then?
what about the huge amounts of fuel tax drivers have to pay on top of VAT?

as vaio says taxes collected from the motorist pay for a hell of a lot more things than just road building and maintenance. and the vehicle maintenance is paid for by the vehicle owner. if you choose the hire a car then maintenance costs will be factored in there somewhere aswell.

DaveMacD

goldspanners wrote: »

so what does VED pay for then?
what about the huge amounts of fuel tax drivers have to pay on top of VAT?

Don't you remember Tony Blair telling us all that Fuel Tax paid for the NHS, and the baybeees. VED and fuel tax long ago stopped paying for road building and maintenance, in the same way that NI contributions long ago stopped funding the health service or any sort of 'pension fund' All govt. generated income goes into a big pot, then gets distributed as and how they see fit. :think:

topgearfan08

goldspanners wrote: »

so what does VED pay for then?
what about the huge amounts of fuel tax drivers have to pay on top of VAT?
QUOTE]


Bailing out the banks & MP's expenses...?:think: