Train rant

Altarf

jack_pott wrote: »

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

Gosh, irony is lost on the stupid, isn't it.

hugheskevi

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.

Agree this is the case, although back in 2009 I didn't have a car and was travelling with my partner from London to the South West, going out on a Saturday, staying with friends and returning on the Sunday. Even booking in advance on the train, it was cheaper (and far more convenient once I had reached the South West) to hire and fuel a car for the weekend :mad: [Even this isn't quite a true cost comparison, as there is risk of an at-fault accident and consequential loss, however, it does cover most average cost elements]

A recent trip to Brighton, only about 50 miles, which involved car park fees of £11 for the day was considerably cheaper by car than it would have been using the train for two people.

Given the low probability that train will be in any way competitive with the cost of using a car, combined with the amount of effort to source the most competitive price (eg ensuring book in advance at the optimal time, check for split ticketing, check to see if using Oyster for last leg of journey reduces cost, exchange Clubcard points to halve cost albeit incurring a processing fee, wait a few days for them to be credited, etc) I now rarely consider the train for anything aside from work travel and travel within Oyster zones. If I'm travelling alone then rail might be a viable option, not otherwise.