Train rant

Tobster86

timbo58 wrote: »

£42.14 if you split the tickets on advance purchase ones for a return.

https://raileasy.trainsplit.com/fares.aspx

Well found.

Although still it only just beats the... erm... engine arrangement Mods doesn't like me to mention, and is still quite a bit more than fuel for most cars, so the original rant stands!

yorkie2

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

That's the cheapest flexible off peak return through ticket, yes. It allows travel on any train after 0930.

A flexible off peak return to Stafford is £19, and allows travel on any train after 0900. A flexible off peak return from Stafford to Manchester is £22.00, and is valid to depart Stafford any time after 0930. The total for these tickets is £41. (The train must call at Stafford. Nearly all of these trains to Manchester do; I can only find one in the current timetable that doesn't!)

The reason Worcester to Manchester is so expensive, is because the rail industry charges a premium for longer distance passengers on cross-country routes. It's seen as too far to drive, too short to fly, and therefore Arriva CrossCountry want to absolutely milk the market as much as possible. Our Government allows them to do this, and is happy for them to do it. You could try contacting your MP about this ludicrous fare.

Booking clerks are not allowed to tell you about the saving, and none of the booking sites will, either. Except for one: Trainsplit.

timbo58

You could try contacting any Tory mp and ask them to justify why the privatised it?

CKhalvashi

missbiggles1 wrote: »

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

I got 47mpg from a similarly sized diesel Execmobile to OP's car the other week on a 420mi round trip, so taking into account the difference in the cost of fuel and the cost of servicing, I'd say that depreciation not taken into account (about £500/month), mine would cost about half as much to run.

Train travel is expensive, however IMO it should never have been privatised in the first place, much like British Gas, BT, Royal Mail, NHS if the Tories are elected again etc etc.

Voyager2002

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 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?

Firstly: agreement with your main point.

However, lots of quibbles about your costings... For the road journey, look at the figures for the average cost per mile published by the AA and similar organisations, and you will see that the cost of driving is very much more than the cost of fuel (of course there are many fixed costs, and the black art of accountancy is involved in deciding how you apportion those fixed costs to journeys such as this).

On the train journey: if you are able to book in advance and willing to commit to travel at fixed times in both directions you can often find some very reasonable fares. Not to mention the savings possible by journey-splitting. Flexibility is expensive, however.

And don't forget the value of your time: a train journey is a good opportunity to catch up with reading and paperwork, finish off work assignments and so forth, while there is little or no scope to do anything useful while driving. Most people who can afford to run a decent car would value their time at something in the range 50 to 500 pounds per hour, so the value of the time saved will make rail the most cost-effective choice for all but the unskilled and unemployed.

giraffe69

Train travel is expensive, however IMO it should never have been privatised in the first place, much like British Gas, BT, Royal Mail

And, of course, all of these industries were great successes as nationalised bodies. Rail travel certainly has some problems but it is a great deal more popular in the last 20 years. For sure we need to improve things like ticketing and its ridiculous complexity but one large nationalised body with no incentive to improve is a discredited model in most peoples eyes.

[Deleted User]

About 20 years ago I had to go from Essex to Yorkshire and back in one day for a funeral, and I wasn't feeling that well so I considered using the train instead of the car. The fare was £54 return. If the funeral had been half an hour earlier a rush hour ticket would have been £108, and if there had been four of us in the car £432. The petrol cost £27.

I've long been puzzled by the preoccupation with knocking a few minutes off train journey times, when a large proportion of the total time is not spent on the train anyway. My journey home from work used to take about 40 minutes by car, and the train journey took about the same. Except that it didn't:

I finished work at 5pm and the trains departed at 17:05 and 17:07, but the station was 12 mins walk away, so I had to wait until 17:56 for the next one. Adding a 15 minute walk from the station at the other end, that's about an hour later home even though the "journey time" is the same. The story was much the same in the morning, taking nearly twice as long. The shorter your commute the bigger the proportion of "wasted" time spent waiting and walking.

It's the same story getting to the hospital from here, it takes 2h 12m to do just 20 miles using a total of four different trains, out of which 68 mins is spent on the train, and 39 mins standing on platforms, and 25 mins walking. You're not actually on the train for half the journey time. On three out of four journeys I have had trains cancelled, adding up to an hour each time. I used to be able to cycle 20 miles in 2 hours, never mind drive it (but if I still could I wouldn't be needing the hospital).

Last year on holiday, public transport cost 43% of the total, more than the cost of the accommodation, and four times the cost of the food.

Altarf

jack_pott wrote: »

About 20 years ago I had to go from Essex to Yorkshire and back in one day for a funeral, and I wasn't feeling that well so I considered using the train instead of the car. The fare was £54 return. If the funeral had been half an hour earlier a rush hour ticket would have been £108, and if there had been four of us in the car £432. The petrol cost £27.

I agree, it is utterly ridiculous.

It is just like the Ritz in London charging £1,000 a night for a suite, when I can stay in my £10,000,000 house in Mayfair nearby for the 50p cost of the electric for the lights.

How do they justify it.

[Deleted User]

Altarf wrote: »

I agree, it is utterly ridiculous.

It is just like the Ritz in London charging £1,000 a night for a suite, when I can stay in my £10,000,000 house in Mayfair nearby for the 50p cost of the electric for the lights.

How do they justify it.

You're either being obtuse or you don't understand the difference between fixed and variable costs.

Petrol is about the only significant variable cost in making a car journey, all the other costs like tax and insurance are fixed, so they're only saved in the unlikely event that someone gives up running a car altogether, rather than leaving it in the drive whilst they use the train.

People always trot out the same nonsense when they're costing a car, they tot up the total cost and divide by the total mileage. If someone is considering making some journeys by train instead of car, which is probably the best we can hope for, then the relevant price is the marginal cost for those journeys, ie. mostly just petrol.

I save money by not running a car, but that's because I do a tiny fraction of the mileage that I did in the car, not because public transport is cheaper.

esuhl

What gets me is the time it takes to travel by train. For most journeys round here, it's a lot quicker to cycle than it is to get the train -- even over reasonable distances.

A 30-mile (as the crow flies) journey by train takes 3.5hrs door-to-door. But I can cycle it in 3hrs or less.

An 8-mile journey takes me 35 minutes to cycle... but double that by train. And it costs £7 for a single.

And at least you feel like you're getting somewhere on a bike. Spending half the journey standing on windy platforms as you gradually zig-zag across the country is soul-destroying!