Train rant

Tobster86

A return journey from Worcester to Manchester, travelling late evenings (i.e. when the M6 isn't completely stationary)

Absolute cheapest (off-peak only, selected trains) return train ticket: £58.80. Includes a change in Birmingham, and takes 2hrs 35min each way. Also would require a bicycle to be taken on the train, if that's even allowed or practical, for a 30 minute stint across Manchester to reach the destination.

BMW 540i with a stupidly large engine (216 miles at 26mpg, £1.20/l): £45.26. Takes 1hr 48min each way, assuming an average of 60mph. Door to door. Guaranteed comfortable leather seat and no chavs.


This is ludicrous. Clearly anyone (especially given that most people have a sensible car that would only cost about half as much) would not opt to use the train.

And this is for a single adult; the situation is even stupider when you consider the relative costs of additional passengers.

Why are things like this? Are trains intended as an expensive necessity only for those without driving licences now?

macman

But the fuel cost is not the only of running a car. You are ignoring road tax, insurance, servicing and repairs, loss of return on capital, and (the big one) depreciation. Factor those in and the train may look more competitive.

zaax

Not really. A car is must unless you are living in a really big city, so all the other stuff has to be paid anyway. Anyway a car is very nearly always quicker.

Tobster86

But another way of looking at it is that long distance journeys are a special case, where this situation excludes the option of the train for someone that for other practical reasons, already owns a car.

In the described situation, those additional costs of vehicle ownership would still be incurred even if the train were chosen.

lulu_92

I went from a two and a half hour commute each day on the train for £263.50 per month to a 40 minute commute by car which costs me about £120 per month to fuel.

Including insurance (an overestimate to account for any rises, plus that's spare funds for repairs), tax, MOT and annual service I'm a couple of hundred up every year now.

esuhl

Tobster86 wrote: »

This is ludicrous. Clearly anyone (especially given that most people have a sensible car that would cost about half as much again) would not opt to use the train.

And this is for a single adult; the situation is even stupider when you consider the relative costs of additional passengers.

I completely agree. It's crazy. It means more cars on the road, more congestion and delays, more pollution, hostile roads that are unattractive to cyclists (resulting in more people driving).

Public transport should be well-funded and subsidised to provide an attractive alternative to car owners. If it can be made attractive and more people use it, it will become more viable to expand the network with more frequent services and greater coverage.

Another issue that drives me crazy is the insane system of ticket pricing (and ticket choices) on trains. Bizarre time and route restrictions, randomised pricing, advance tickets for £10 and "standard" ones for £200. They don't make it easy.

missbiggles1

Tobster86 wrote: »

A return journey from Worcester to Manchester, travelling late evenings (i.e. when the M6 isn't completely stationary)

Absolute cheapest (off-peak only, selected trains) return train ticket: £58.80. Includes a change in Birmingham, and takes 2hrs 35min each way. Also would require a bicycle to be taken on the train, if that's even allowed or practical, for a 30 minute stint across Manchester to reach the destination.

BMW 540i with a stupidly large engine (216 miles at 26mpg, £1.20/l): £45.26. Takes 1hr 48min each way, assuming an average of 60mph. Door to door. Guaranteed comfortable leather seat and no chavs.


This is ludicrous. Clearly anyone (especially given that most people have a sensible car that would cost about half as much again) would not opt to use the train.

And this is for a single adult; the situation is even stupider when you consider the relative costs of additional passengers.

Why are things like this? Are trains intended as an expensive necessity only for those without driving licences now?

Why would a "sensible" car cost half as much again as one with a "stupidly large " engine?

Tobster86

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Why would a "sensible" car cost half as much again as one with a "stupidly large " engine?

It wouldn't, and I have edited the post to correct the anomaly.

Do let me know if you spot any more errors; I'd hate to think that my negligent posting had lead to someone buying an inappropriate vehicle for their requirements.

missbiggles1

Tobster86 wrote: »

It wouldn't, and I have edited the post to correct the anomaly.

Do let me know if you spot any more errors; I'd hate to think that my negligent posting had lead to someone buying an inappropriate vehicle for their requirements.

I think you mean "mistake".;)

modsandmockers

missbiggles1 wrote: »

I think you mean "mistake".;)

It's Tobster - he doesn't make mistakes!

johnjp

Interesting article on World Service today about 'Beeching cuts'The point made about road versus rail is that road travel has lower fixed costs, so, although I hate to have to say it, motorised transport is cheaper overall for the state. The fixed cost systems usually require a public subsidy and that, of course, comes from tax. If we are driving everywhere we are paying more tax for using a system that has lower fixed costs!