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

westv

laird wrote: »

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.

Interestingly enough my journey will be quicker by car. The last time I did the journey by car it took 2 1/4 hours for 130 miles (260 there and back). The quickest train journey is about 2 1/2 hours partly due to two train changes (not via London).

movilogo

If you are driving alone, train might be an option. However, if carrying any passenger, car is often far cheaper.

UK train tickets are horrendously expensive.

You cannot read newspapers while driving, but you can hear news on radio or listen to audio books.

If you commute on weekends, you can usually keep an average speed of 75-80 MPH on motorway too.

laird

Its difficult to find the full figures for subsidies and premiums, particularly since they have probabably been adjusted as a result of the economic downturn but in January of 2009 there is a public quote:

"the eight largest (rail) franchises received a total of more than £800 million from the taxpayer (2008). By 2012, they are due not only to receive no subsidy but pay a combined premium to the Government of more than £300million. "

The argument that rail passengers receive significant subsidies appears to be something that is perhaps valid but is to be short lived.
I'm sure we recognise that the smaller franchises will continue to receive subsidies. Notionally this is to prevent services which provide regional socio-economic benefits being lost and is in common with the funding of rural bus services which give the same benefit to our more remote corners of the island.

Perhaps it would help if we think of VED and fuel duty and so forth are in essesnce a reparations on the part of the motorist for the enviornmental damage associated with the burning of fossil fuels.
Perhaps in another way the contribution of VED and fuel duty offsets some of the caring for and repairing the damaged pedestrians and motorists which arise from all the road traffic accidents.

smitchy73

I suffer with the same thoughts too, I've been travelling down to Wembley from nr Glasgow to see the American Football over the past few years and am doing so again this year, I've wanted to go down on the train, however, can never get a decent price, even checking at the 12 week release of tickets, and checking for several weeks after this can never get anything remotely as cheap as taking the car.
I'm hoping this year will be different, I don't like the bus though done it before, and wouldn't do it again, so it's hopefully a cheaper train ticket for two or it'll be several hundred mile round trip to MK in the car, then train into Wembley for the game.

Lum

wealdroam wrote: »

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

That's the same plan as what road use pricing was supposed to do (note that Labour are allegedly still planning to introduce this as the latest camera roll out will have support to add this feature later) but it doesn't work.

People use the trains (and roads) at that time because, guess what, they have to be in work by 09:00. Flexitime is a joke that companies pay lipservice to at best* and is only seriously implemented in the public sector.

I guess it does at least discourage leisure travelers from using the trains at those times, but that's a small number of people anyway.

*my company allows 15 minutes each way, you have to specify a preference when you first start and then it's fixed at that start/finish time and can be changed only with management approval.

thescouselander

I think you have to ask yourself why is the train so expensive. The train requires a lot of infrastructure to run and the actual running of the train isn't cheap either. To me that suggests a lot of inefficiency and I cant believe for a second that the train is better for the environment than the car. If the train was more efficient than the car it would use less resources overall and the journey should cost less - its as simple as that. The fact the train is so expensive is just an admission of how damaging the train actually is - perhaps we should be encouraged to drive instead.

Lum

I suspect that purely in terms of direct* CO2 emissions, the only "pollutant" anyone in government gives a crap about any more, the train will be more efficient purely because the surface on which they ride has much much lower friction than asphalt as there is no real need for them to be able to stop in a hurry and the general shape of a train can be built for aerodynamic efficiancy without any real need to have any sort of styling to make it look good and thus sell.


* direct emissions doesn't include eg. the emissions generated in laying or repairing the track, or the emissions at the coal power station that provides power for your "green" all electric train.

thescouselander

Yes, the direct emissions may be less with the train although when you consider the weight of a train and the fact you have to accelerate it up to speed and then slow it down it could be a close thing.

My thinking is that if the cost per passenger mile is so high the money must be going somewhere. The train companies don't exactly rake it in so that means the money must be going to pay for work somewhere (maintaining infrastructure etc) - if someone is doing work they are using energy therefore the emissions are likely to be high. But as Lum says the government probably don't consider this.

Lum

Of course they don't consider indirect emissions. You just have to look at the epic waste of money that was the scrappage scheme to see that! (total environmental cost of building a new modern city car that will likely be uneconomical to repair in 6 years vs the extra emissions from driving around in a 10+ year old Focus or something)

robt_2

thescouselander wrote: »

Yes, the direct emissions may be less with the train although when you consider the weight of a train and the fact you have to accelerate it up to speed and then slow it down it could be a close thing.

I think you need to check back to secondary school level physics, and research regenerative braking for electric trains.

Of course an empty train is more polluting than a car with one passenger - how many empty trains do you see?