How much is YOUR time worth when travelling?

[crispy1978]

Something which I was thinking about when discussing a long train journey

If you could go from A to B and it cost say £50 and took 4 hours, but there was an alternative to go from A to B via C which costs £40 but takes 5 hours, which would you go for?

At which point does a monetary saving win over additional time? Do you have a magic "rate per hour", or a formula you use?

There will be some people who would spend an extra 4 hours travelling for a saving of 20p, whereas there will be some people who will happily save 20 minutes but it cost them an extra £30.

Purely for interest, and there will be a diverse range of answers!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Just to explain why I am asking as well.

I'm going to Thurso in September (from Scarborough). Train, which is considerably cheaper, takes 12 hours. However, I could fly from Manchester to Inverness, which would cost more, but probably save a few hours.

 

[Muzer]

I know when going up to Macclesfield (from Andover) to visit my grandparents, my parents always bought the cheaper CrossCountry tickets and so we always went via Oxford (apart from one memorable incident where there was some disruption of some sort so we were advised to take the (faster) route via London with Virgin on the WCML )

 

[pinguini]

For me, it depends why I'm travelling. I don't have a 'per hour' price formula used.

Take for instance a few weeks ago I had a leisurely day out in London, purely because I could get tickets for £2.95/£3.95 each way on the very slow London Midland service from Coventry. I could have paid £10-£20 more to travel faster on Virgin, but the price was the main factor determining my travel. Likewise, a few months ago I travelled down to Heathrow to catch an evening flight. I took a slower train down at for a saving, because I had several hours to get there and was in no hurry.

In a couple of weeks I'm travelling to London for an assessment centre and have paid more to travel on Virgin because I have time limitations and need to travel faster. Price is not so important in this circumstance.

It's all very subjective to me, it depends upon whether the saving 'feels right' given the situation.

 

[jb]

In my experience, the assumption that "time is money", specifically that trading more money for less time is a good deal, often does not hold.

This may even be the case when one is travelling for work. I used to fairly regularly traverse the country by train when I could have flown.

If I were in your specific shoes, it's a bit doubtful I'd want to fly to Inverness at any price, even though it's really from Inverness onwards that the train becomes the compelling option.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

For me there are a few variables, one of those is time saving, but there is also stock type, facilities, frequency of service and time constraints.

When I visit a friend in London I can get the return fare down from £75 to £20 (priv rate) at the cost of an extra two hours journey time and a third of the service frequency, however, not going direct on a Pendolino means I get free wifi for more than half the journey.

That said, I could get to London in a little under an hour longer, not have to pay at all (staff travel card) and get roughly the same wifi access, however frequency of service is reduced from one every hour to two every four hours.

 

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

If I were in your specific shoes, it's a bit doubtful I'd want to fly to Inverness at any price, even though it's really from Inverness onwards that the train becomes the compelling option.

What's wrong with Inverness Airport? As airpports go, it's relatively pleasant, great views of the Highlands and Moray Firth coast as you descend. The only drawback used to be (I left that area nearly 7 years ago) that public transport between the airport and the town was poor (no appetite to create a halt on the railway line which runs right past the airport!), but there was a plan to improve the bus service.

it's really from Inverness onwards that the train becomes the compelling option.

Why's that? You can fly to Wick from either Edinburgh or Aberdeen (not that the latter will be much use to the OP!).

 

[jb]

Why's that? You can fly to Wick from either Edinburgh or Aberdeen (not that the latter will be much use to the OP!).

To my mind the Far North is much better from a little over 0 feet than from 30,000.

 

[SS4]

Bugger all. 90% of times I will go with whichever is cheaper and because most of my trips are to London that means London Midland (or Chiltern if necessary)

 

[ert47]

Depends on the journey for me and whether I need to be somewhere by a certain time.

When travelling between Lincoln and London, there where times when I would avoid getting the service that went through Spalding - even if it cost more to go through Newark.

The thought of being trapped on a 153 for longer than an hour really doesnt appeal to me.

 

[F Great Eastern]

If traveling to Heathrow, I'd always pick Connect over Express, as it's much cheaper and I object to paying the scandalous rates on Heathrow Express.

 

[Simon11]

I think that everyones time, is very similar to what they are paid per hour.

For someone on £6 an hour, they would value their time at a similar amount and similarlly for someone on £20 an hour.

This of course excludes the external factors, but could be used as a base.

 

[broadgage]

In my case the value placed on my time depends on the type of train !
If travelling first class on an HST, then I put very little value on my time as the journey is pleasant and I wont pay much to make it shorter.

If sitting in a high density bus seat on a new or modernised train I would pay a bit more to shorten the time spent thus.

If the choice was standing on a new, shorter, crush loaded train then I might be tempted to spend more on avoiding this or at least minimising the time spent.
In some cases I would be willing to spend more on a SLOWER train if it was more comfortable.

For shorter trips that could be made by FCC I sometimes take the slower bus, not to save money but to avoid standing on a half length crush loaded train, that might well not turn up at all !

2 hours on a proper HST (not the sort with high density bus seats) at a cost of say £50 would be preferable to an hour and a half on a modern DMU at a lower fare.

I often use the 18-03 from Paddington because it has Pullman restaurant, when I could have travelled earlier and cheaper on a preceeding service.

 

[AndrewP]

The true consultant's answer

It depends on whether its being paid for by a client or not

Generally its not as I think its wrong to charge travelling time within the UK but reasonable to charge sensible ticket costs up to the value of an open standard return

 

[yorksrob]

I would very rarely pay more to get somewhere faster as I generally count travelling time as leisure including the commute. Occasionally work pays more for me to be somewhere on time but I only pay extra for more comfort or preferred rolling stock.

 

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

To my mind the Far North is much better from a little over 0 feet than from 30,000.

That's fine if you can spare the time! The quickest train from Edinburgh to Thurso takes over 8 hours...the flight to Wick is about one hour! Even allowing for check-in and transfer from Waverley to the Airport (which doesn't take long on the express bus; I hear there's a plan to build a tram line along the same route?!), that's an enormous saving in time. Cost is double (approx £120 vs £61 for the Edinburgh to Thurso journey by train). So is a saving of 5-6 hours worth £60? Many people would say yes...

 

[Greenback]

That's fine if you can spare the time! The quickest train from Edinburgh to Thurso takes over 8 hours...the flight to Wick is about one hour! Even allowing for check-in and transfer from Waverley to the Airport (which doesn't take long on the express bus; I hear there's a plan to build a tram line along the same route?!), that's an enormous saving in time. Cost is double (approx £120 vs £61 for the Edinburgh to Thurso journey by train). So is a saving of 5-6 hours worth £60? Many people would say yes...

Of course, to some or even many people would say that it is worth £60 to save 6 hours. But it all depends on their reason for travelling. If my reason is leisure or pleasure then that puts a different perspective on things compared to if I want to get somewhere as quickly as possible.

Also to add further complexity, some journeys are not viable by air, and others are not viable by rail. So I think there cna be no other answer to the original question than 'it depends'!

 

[Goatboy]

I would take the train to Thurso even if the plane was half the price. I can't think of many reasons why I'd be going to Thurso in the first place other than sightseeing, and what better way to sightsee than from the window of the train?

 

[Essexman]

I'll nearly always go by train but am prepared to take longer for a better train where I can work and eat as I travel
eg.

I used Wrexham & Shropshire rather than quicker Virgin / ATW or LM option from London to Shrewsbury.

In GNER days I'd travel from Glasgow to London via Edinburgh, enjoying lunch on the way rather than direct Pendolino.

 

[Be3G]

I think that everyones time, is very similar to what they are paid per hour.

For someone on £6 an hour, they would value their time at a similar amount and similarlly for someone on £20 an hour.

This of course excludes the external factors, but could be used as a base.

That's exactly what I did when I was working in the centre of London and commuting from the edge of the city. I decided to think of the time I spent commuting as ‘work time’ for my own purposes, and to take my travel costs off that daily wage. So, for example, if I was being paid £50 for 8 hours' work, but then had to travel an hour each way and spend £10 to do so, I actually thought of myself as being paid £40 for 10 hours' work, or £4/hour. This then provided a basis for comparing the cost/time value of alternative routes. If a route took twice as long (so a 12-hour day including travelling) but saved me £5 in travel expenses, that'd equate to £45 for 12 hours' work, which would be less than the base £4/hour so not worth considering.

In leisure time however, I tend to opt for train over road transport as I find it more comfortable, but beyond that I'll stick to whatever's cheapest – e.g. circuitous non-zone-1 Oyster PAYG routes that take twice as long!

 

[Greenback]

In leisure time however, I tend to opt for train over road transport as I find it more comfortable, but beyond that I'll stick to whatever's cheapest – e.g. circuitous non-zone-1 Oyster PAYG routes that take twice as long!

There is a limit for me in looking for the cheapest price. I have flown to Verona and taken a train to Venice form there in order to save £150 on the flight costs, but I don't know if I would consider it to save £10!

On the rails, I usually go from South Wales to the north or Scotland via Manchester/Crewe, as it avoids XC Voyagers and the high fares that XC charge via Bristol Parkway and Birmingham. The price difference is almost always substantial, and well worth a journey that is only slightly longer, and in those circumstances I might even be tempted to pay a little more to avoid XC!

I consider each journey on its merits, there are just so many factors to think about!

 

[DiscoStu]

I drove from London to Sydney in 2007, at a cost of over £20,000, instead of flying. It took eight months lol.

The flight home cost just £600, and took 22 hours.

That's one example where the quicker option was by far the cheapest! Haha

 

[crispy1978]

I've done the train from Scarborough to Thurso once before - and it was a VERY LONG DAY!! It's cheap enough on the train, especially as my wife has a disabled railcard, so that reduces the cost of the train fare by 1/3.

However, she is visiting her best friend (she used to live up there), so to spend 2 whole days travelling is 2 days lost really. If we could be up there for mid afternoon, then that would be a much better alternative.

Add to that she has never flown before, and we're hoping to go on an European beach holiday in 2014, and I thought it would be a good first short flight.

Even if we flew up and got the train back, I think it might be a viable trip, even if only to save time and get the experience of flying.

Got to admit, the scenery is spectacular!!!

 

[JGR]

Unless I have a schedule to meet, I am quite happy to take a longer journey to reduce costs. On a similar front, I have been known to take a longer route to avoid over-crowded areas (this is mainly when travelling around London).

As for trains vs.. planes, having to get half-undressed, walk along miles of corridors, queue endlessly, and generally muck about in a squalid airport is quite easily "worth" a fair few extra hours by train.

 

[ModernRailways]

To me, it all depends. I mostly travel Newcastle to Kings Cross and so there isn't may cheaper options since East Coast have lots of cheap advances and even the day before travel you can buy a super off peak return at £80 (16-25 railcard, East Coast website only).
There aren't many other 'cheaper' routes for me. If there were depending on what it was then I would possibly take the longer route as I tend to know the ECML too well now.

 

[Beveridges]

If the journey takes an hour longer and it saves considerably less than what my hourly rate is for my job then I'm not going to bother. I also consider other things as well like what sort of rolling stock it is. 6 hours on a 142 is not going to appeal regardless of what money saves or how much quicker it is than any other alternative.

 

[ert47]

I drove from London to Sydney in 2007, at a cost of over £20,000, instead of flying. It took eight months lol.

The flight home cost just £600, and took 22 hours.

That's one example where the quicker option was by far the cheapest! Haha

Did your car get back?

 

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

As for trains vs.. planes, having to get half-undressed, walk along miles of corridors, queue endlessly, and generally muck about in a squalid airport is quite easily "worth" a fair few extra hours by train.

Although at least one gets a seat when flying! I will usually pick the train if the time taken and cost is similar to or slightly more than to flying, but in this case the massive time penalty would tip the scales in favour of flying.

The loss of restaurant cars removes another trump card which long-distance rail used to hold - until four years ago I worked in north Northumberland, and the time taken from Alnmouth direct to King's Cross was virtually identical to going to Newcastle Airport, checking in, flying, then getting the Stansted Express into Liverpool Street. Given the chance to dine on the way, which effectively meant you spent half the journey in First Class for free, the train was very attractive! I'd still go by train now for that particular journey, but other people might do differently, especially those doing the full Edinburgh - King's Cross journey.

 

[starrymarkb]

At work I once had someone who had tried to save a few quid on Ryanair by returning to a different airport. They were complaining that there were no coaches from EMA to BHX at 2am. The taxi more than cancelled out their saving on the flight.

 

[Michael.Y]

I worked out that if I'd wanted to travel NWP - Glasgow RTN for the Scotland-Wales match, I would have had to pay nearly £200 on XC for a direct(ish) ticket standard class, as opposed to £90 ATW+TPE 1stClass RTN. OK it took longer and was a 185 not a HST, but £110 would have meant more money for beer and deep fried Mars bars.

 

[VauxhallandI]

I worked out that if I'd wanted to travel NWP - Glasgow RTN for the Scotland-Wales match, I would have had to pay nearly £200 on XC for a direct(ish) ticket standard class, as opposed to £90 ATW+TPE 1stClass RTN. OK it took longer and was a 185 not a HST, but £110 would have meant more money for beer and deep fried Mars bars.

Are you going to watch it on TV in Glasgow