Sheffield to Shenfield Cheaper to Fly

[richieb1971]

I am of the opinion that 2 train fares should equate to the cost of going by car.

At the moment it is about 1 train fare for the cost of going by car.

So in other words as soon as you add a single passenger to a car your going for half price than the train. The only benefit is that you don't have to drive and you have a high speed toilet coming with you.

 

[CheekyBandit]

£8.20 for train and bus.

Could have been £7.20 if he got the bus from Long Eaton instead of Derby.

 

[jayah]

I think that's the key thing here. Cheap air fares have allowed people on average incomes to see far more of Europe than they would have done 30 years a go, maybe even less than that. Clearly Starmill likes to travel so I don't understand why he has issues with any of this.

Easyjets fuel bill alone is well over £1bn, many times that of the UK rail industry. Aviation is grossly undertaxed and highly polluting relative to road transport .

Most of the 'frequent fliers' are actually the affluent, though the moderate incomes myth is peddled by airlines when the lack of Avgas duty or the subject of APD rears its head.

Those on moderate incomes are more likely found driving, contributing to the £30bn fuel duty take, rather than £3bn raised from APD.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But what that of course does is price-differentiates. Those who have time or inclination will save money by searching online, and maybe delay their journey to a cheaper train. Those who don't will walk up to the TVM or ticket office and buy an Anytime ticket at a far higher price.

There must be more bets against Ladbrokes for Corbyn becoming PM in 2020 than people that think reserving a seat while a 'higher paying' customer is actually sitting in it is somehow a good policy..

 

[miami]

Easyjets fuel bill alone is well over £1bn, many times that of the UK rail industry. Aviation is grossly undertaxed and highly polluting relative to road transport .

Yet massively taxed compared with other carbon emmissions -- Easyjet customers pay about £120/ton of CO2 emitted on a Manchester-Berlin flight. Electricity costs about 10p/kwh, of whih 5% is tax, which is about 0.5kgco2 per kwh, or £10 per ton in tax. High speed trains produce CO2 and yet are subsidised by the tax payer, effecivly getting paid to generate CO2!

The "no true scotsman // no true cost of carbon" brigade will of course claim that it's not £20 a ton, or £100 a ton, it's £whatever a ton to make it look like taking a flight is like burning babies for fuel.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There must be more bets against Ladbrokes for Corbyn becoming PM in 2020 than people that think reserving a seat while a 'higher paying' customer is actually sitting in it is somehow a good policy..

That's because it is half a policy. Said higher paying customer could also reserve one; the logical extension of it is for it to be offered at purchase and at TVMs.

 

[miami]

I am of the opinion that 2 train fares should equate to the cost of going by car.

At the moment it is about 1 train fare for the cost of going by car.

So in other words as soon as you add a single passenger to a car your going for half price than the train. The only benefit is that you don't have to drive and you have a high speed toilet coming with you.

The cost of going by car is arguable. Some will say it's the immediate marginal cost of the petrol (so about 10p/mile), others will say it's the HMRC rate (so 45p/mile). After 10,000 miles HMRC only allow 25p, which is probably the most accurate figure for the marginal cost assuming you already have a car.

Cardiff to Brum return on train will cost £55-90 depending on how flexible you are. The car costs £58.50 return at 25p/mile and take a similar amount of time. Parking in Birmingham city centre is £11.40 for the day. Parking at Cardiff (assuming you need to drive to the station) is £9.50.

Ignoring the peak time ticket, you're looking at a similar cost for one person, although the train is probably more comfortable (although perhaps not on XC services where even if you have a seat you may find yourself kicked out of it halfway through your journey), the car is far more flexible.

 

[ExRes]

It makes me smile the way most people consider the cost of travelling by car is the cost of fuel at the pump, ie I did 60 miles therefore it only cost me the price of two gallons of fuel, I'm sure that reputable comparison makers take into account the cost of insurance, vehicle tax and wear and tear to both vehicle and roads which is, obviously, included within the price of a train ticket

 

[Tetchytyke]

Easyjets fuel bill alone is well over £1bn, many times that of the UK rail industry. Aviation is grossly undertaxed and highly polluting relative to road transport .

I'm flying on British Airways next month from Newcastle to London because it is £30 cheaper than travelling on Virgin Trains East Coast.

Of that £110 fare, about £70 of it is tax. It was booked last week.

That doesn't sound "undertaxed" to me.

What it does go to show is just how expensive rail travel is, and how privatisation is causing most of the problems.

I'll start concerning myself about the environmental impact of flying just as soon as the Department for Transport concern themselves about the price gouging rip-off merchant fleecing passengers on their flagship railway line.

 

[me123]

The cost of going by car is arguable. Some will say it's the immediate marginal cost of the petrol (so about 10p/mile), others will say it's the HMRC rate (so 45p/mile). After 10,000 miles HMRC only allow 25p, which is probably the most accurate figure for the marginal cost assuming you already have a car.

It's very variable between cars and drivers, so a broad brushstroke of xp/mile simply doesn't mean anything.

My Toyota Aygo gets 55-60mpg, is Category 1 for insurance, pays the bottom rate of VED and cost little in the first place. By contrast, a 4x4 Jeep will have cost more to purchase, have higher rates of VED, will cost more for insurance and be less fuel efficient. The lower running costs of my car make driving a more attractive option compared to the train, whereas if I owned a gas-guzzling Jeep perhaps the train would be more attractive in some situations.

Of course, fuel prices being at a low at the moment (99.9p/l - never thought I'd see that again!) means that the cost of driving has markedly decreased again compared to just two years ago.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I'm sure that reputable comparison makers take into account the cost of insurance, vehicle tax and wear and tear

The trouble is most of the cost of a car- the purchase price, the insurance cost, the vehicle excise duty- are fixed overheads. You pay these overheads if you leave the car parked on the driveway and, conversely, using them every day reduces the cost per mile of these overheads.

The simple fact of the matter is that a train ticket for one person is broadly equivalent to the petrol used for a journey. If you're travelling as a couple or as a family then the car will win on cost every single time, primarily as a result of price gouging from the fat cat TOC executives. The train will only win if there is a time or stress-reduction benefit over using the car.

We are at the stage where it is significantly cheaper to fly from London to Newcastle or Scotland, because the railways are so prohibitively expensive.

We talk about flying "only being for the affluent" but the truth is that airlines are often cheaper; the railways are fast becoming the preserve of only the desperate and the hyper-rich.

 

[coppercapped]

Ryanair has not had a fatal accident in the last ten years, or indeed, ever. They operate one of the youngest fleets in Europe, all bought brand new, unlike British Airways which has bought second hand Airbuses for its Gatwick operations and operates some very old aircraft.It is not Ryanair that fails to latch engine cowlings or taxis aircraft into buildings.

Exactly! Thank you.

 

[infobleep]

The trouble is most of the cost of a car- the purchase price, the insurance cost, the vehicle excise duty- are fixed overheads. You pay these overheads if you leave the car parked on the driveway and, conversely, using them every day reduces the cost per mile of these overheads.

The simple fact of the matter is that a train ticket for one person is broadly equivalent to the petrol used for a journey. If you're travelling as a couple or as a family then the car will win on cost every single time, primarily as a result of price gouging from the fat cat TOC executives. The train will only win if there is a time or stress-reduction benefit over using the car.

We are at the stage where it is significantly cheaper to fly from London to Newcastle or Scotland, because the railways are so prohibitively expensive.

We talk about flying "only being for the affluent" but the truth is that airlines are often cheaper; the railways are fast becoming the preserve of only the desperate and the hyper-rich.

I'm not super rich and I use the train far more than I fly and that's even if you only take into account my leisure trips.

 

[tony_mac]

It makes me smile the way most people consider the cost of travelling by car is the cost of fuel at the pump, ie I did 60 miles therefore it only cost me the price of two gallons of fuel, I'm sure that reputable comparison makers take into account the cost of insurance, vehicle tax and wear and tear to both vehicle and roads which is, obviously, included within the price of a train ticket

When I was looking to go from Liverpool to Hull for the weekend - 3 days car hire + fuel + parking was still cheaper than an off-peak return for 1 person.

If you want to include the full annual cost of owning a car in the comparison, then you would also have to compare with the full cost of not owning a car - i.e; a proportion of all the extra bus / taxi spend you would have to make without a car.

 

[Dave1987]

Ryanair has not had a fatal accident in the last ten years, or indeed, ever. They operate one of the youngest fleets in Europe, all bought brand new, unlike British Airways which has bought second hand Airbuses for its Gatwick operations and operates some very old aircraft.It is not Ryanair that fails to latch engine cowlings or taxis aircraft into buildings.

Ryanair operate very new aircraft simply because it enables them to keep them in the air longer. Their turnaround times are so fast and they fly so many sectors a day the only way they could get away with it is by having a young fleet. If they had anything other than brand new aircraft they would not be able to operate as they do without risk. Wonder how many pressurisation cycles a Ryanair 737 does compared to a BA A320?

 

[Tetchytyke]

I'm not super rich and I use the train far more than I fly and that's even if you only take into account my leisure trips.

I'd say most people on a railway enthusiasts' forum would be the same.

I'd say people don't always expect domestic airlines to be cheaper- I was surprised at how good value British Airways usually are- but the wider point stands.

People on modest incomes are now largely priced off the railways, so either they don't travel at all or they drive. I'm on a good wage and I'm struggling to keep up with the cost of travelling to London 1-2 times a month, especially as fares on Virgin Trains have gone up £30-£40 return compared to what I was paying this time last year.

I'm looking at travelling to a wedding in June in Ilfracombe and, judging by the fares being charged are over £220, my choices are driving or flying to Exeter. It's ridiculous.

 

[miami]

I'm flying on British Airways next month from Newcastle to London because it is £30 cheaper than travelling on Virgin Trains East Coast.

Of that £110 fare, about £70 of it is tax.

No, tax is £13 each way.

Assuming a one way fare, you'd be on an L class ticket for £109.68, the breakdown would be

£13.00 - APD
£8.68 - Passenger Service Charge (i.e the cost to use the airport which goes to Newcastle Airport Inc and Heathrow Airport Inc, private companies)
£88.00 - to BA.

The cheapest one-way fare I can see is £62.68, with the same breakdown as above, but only £41 to BA.

If it's a return fare, I see one for £113.49, O class in both direction (specifically OLAP3V1R)

£26 - APD
£38.49 - Passenger Service Charge (i.e the cost to use the airport which goes to Newcastle Airport Inc and Heathrow Airport Inc, private companies)
£49 - to BA.

If you found a £110 O class return BA would get £45.50 rather than £49.

What it does go to show is just how expensive rail travel is, and how privatisation is causing most of the problems.

How does it show that privatisation is the problem? BA is a monopoly on the Newcastle-London route, and is a private company. TOCS make about 5% profit, so your £100 fare could be £95 if profit was removed from the equation.

I'll start concerning myself about the environmental impact of flying just as soon as the Department for Transport concern themselves about the price gouging rip-off merchant fleecing passengers on their flagship railway line.

What's the WCML got to do with Newcastle?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It makes me smile the way most people consider the cost of travelling by car is the cost of fuel at the pump, ie I did 60 miles therefore it only cost me the price of two gallons of fuel, I'm sure that reputable comparison makers take into account the cost of insurance, vehicle tax and wear and tear to both vehicle and roads which is, obviously, included within the price of a train ticket

Yes, hence using 25p/mile rather than 10p/mile for a typical 45mpg car.

It's very variable between cars and drivers, so a broad brushstroke of xp/mile simply doesn't mean anything.

Of course it is, hence using the figure that the tax people think is a good general figure for people who have a car. They allow £2k a year in overhead, then 25p per mile. Drive 20,000 miles in a year and HMRC reckon it costs £7000, or 35p/mile.

The reality when people decide "should I train or should I drive" is they'll think "how much is the petrol", which for Cardiff to Birmingham will be about 234 miles, or 5 gallons, or 24 litres, or £25. If you have two people needing to go to Birmingham for 0930 you drive and it costs £25 + £10 parking, or you train and it costs £180 + £10 parking.

Only the rich will chose the train. Rail is generally more comfortable, you can read a book on most routes, but you pay for the privilige.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Only the rich will chose the train. Rail is generally more comfortable

Unless you drive an old banger or travel First Class this is very rarely the case. Rail needs to seriously buck its idea up to match the standard of an average family car, in particular in terms of seat width and legroom. Bus even more so.

Only if one sits in the back of a car with the middle seat taken is one pushed up against other passengers (and the middle rear seat of most cars is intended very much for occasional use only). On trains this is very common.

 

[Tetchytyke]

If you found a £110 O class return BA would get £45.50 rather than £49.

The website doesn't really break down the difference between tax and airport charges, that's interesting.

My basic point still stands, though: the operator is getting a small amount of the cake, yet it must still be profitable for them.

BA is a monopoly on the Newcastle-London route, and is a private company.

It isn't, FlyBe go to Stansted.

TOCS make about 5% profit, so your £100 fare could be £95 if profit was removed from the equation.

That 5%, should it be an accurate figure, is an industry average. Given that GoVia reckon they only make 1.1% profit on their routes, simple mathematics dictates the Blessed Brian must be making more on his two Virgin franchises.

Rail travel is a very expensive luxury these days. And that is if we're charitable enough to call spending hour after hour on a Voyager a "luxury".

I stand by what I said: only the very wealthy or the very desperate will consider rail their first choice for travel these days.

 

[coppercapped]

Railways are an inherently high-cost operation.

Think about it. There are some 1,568 miles of rail in the fast lines between Kings Cross and Waverley. Each pair of rails has to be maintained to millimetre accuracy to allow safe operation and a smooth ride at 200kph speeds - in spite of the effects of the weather and the wear-and-tear caused by passing trains. Bridges have to be maintained as do tunnels, drains and earthworks over a 400 mile route - every last yard of it. All the electrical and electronic gubbins for the signalling is spread out at ground level, a lot exposed to the elements, to permit safe operation and regulation of the trains - over every yard of those 400 miles.

Motorway and road surfaces are a lot rougher and do not permit such high speeds as railways. The guidance system and all the control intelligence is contained within the car and is essentially paid for by the owner. There is no equivalent of the expensive signalling system.

Aircraft use signalling, but it is radio based - only the ground transmitters are exposed to the elements. The only fixed pieces of infrastructure required are a couple of miles of tarmac at each end of the journey - given suitable foundations the surface roughness can be relatively easily controlled. Think of them as short, wide and smooth motorways - no track circuits or insulated block joints or axle counters.

Jet aircraft are remarkably well developed and reliable machines - Boeing have built nearly 9,000 737s and Airbus some 7,000 of the A320 family. Compared to these numbers the railways operate a small set of prototypes, compare the number of Pendolinos built, or the TGV family or the ICEs. Aircraft despatch reliability is at least as good, if not better than, that for railways.

Until railways can get their cost base down dramatically, there will continue to be arguments about pricing. Perceived high railway fares have nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with profit gouging by the TOCs.

 

[6Gman]

I stand by what I said: only the very wealthy or the very desperate will consider rail their first choice for travel these days.

That would explain all those empty trains then ...

 

[The Ham]

Rail travel is a very expensive luxury these days. And that is if we're charitable enough to call spending hour after hour on a Voyager a "luxury".

I stand by what I said: only the very wealthy or the very desperate will consider rail their first choice for travel these days.

I fall into neither of those categories.

It is cheaper to get to work by train than it is to run a second car (even before factoring in buying a car in the first place). Journey time wise there's not a lot in it and I can sit back and not worry about much (other than ensuring I get on/off at the right time) rather than fighting my way through rush hour traffic.

I find comfort levels on trains to be fairly reasonable, although occasionally there are times when standing can be a problem. On longer distance journeys it is possible to nap on trains, which I couldn't do as a driver in a car, not is it as comfortable to do as a passenger in a car.

Even for work I use the train a lot to get to meetings, again I find it less stressful and I have the opportunity to deal with emails on the go. Times wise there tends not to be a lot in it and cost wise (in terms of expenses claimed) there's not much in it, although normally the train can work out cheaper (even going at peak time).

 

[jon0844]

Its costing me £270 to fly to Berlin and back, leaving from Sheffield at the end of March. Not checked prices but I'm fairly certain it'd be cheaper for me to travel to Shenfield by train then.

I'm going to Munich on Thursday. €280 one way with BA from Heathrow! (I'm not paying).

 

[miami]

The website doesn't really break down the difference between tax and airport charges, that's interesting.

My basic point still stands, though: the operator is getting a small amount of the cake, yet it must still be profitable for them.

The airport charges are a basic cost of business. On long haul BA also filter out the fuel charges as a "tax".

If you found a £110 return, £26, or 23%, is tax. That's a 30% tax ontop of the basic fare, which isn't much more than VAT.

It isn't, FlyBe go to Stansted.

That's not London!

But either way, just because East Coast has a sort-of monopoly on the train, and BA have a sort-of monopoly on the plane, they still compete with each other.

That 5%, should it be an accurate figure, is an industry average. Given that GoVia reckon they only make 1.1% profit on their routes, simple mathematics dictates the Blessed Brian must be making more on his two Virgin franchises.

But renationalising the railway would mean using the profits from WCML and ECML to subsidise things like the far north line. Overall prices would be able to drop by 5%. Unless you propose massive cuts to the non-profitable lines.

Stagecoach annual report states £3.2bn revenue and £185m profit - 5.8%

Rail travel is a very expensive luxury these days. And that is if we're charitable enough to call spending hour after hour on a Voyager a "luxury".

I stand by what I said: only the very wealthy or the very desperate will consider rail their first choice for travel these days.

Speed is a big thing too. I'd drive to London, but driving to the station and taking the train and tube takes 3 hours door to door. Driving takes 4 hours. That's an extra 2 hours a day. Driving is wasted time too, you can listen to a poor selection of radio stations, but it's not the same as reading a book, or watching youtube videos of cats.

The physical comfiness of the average car or plane is far better than the average train I agree, but the utility of the time makes the train and plane win.

However with multiple people that changes, as you've got someone to talk to, so the utility of time of the car increases, the price doesn't change

Add in a couple of kids into the mix though and it changes again -- what 2 year old wants to be couped up in a car seat for 6 hours?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That would explain all those empty trains then ...

On the WCML loading is about 20% at peak time. Off peak in First class it's even worse.

 

[urbophile]

The reality when people decide "should I train or should I drive" is they'll think "how much is the petrol", which for Cardiff to Birmingham will be about 234 miles, or 5 gallons, or 24 litres, or £25. If you have two people needing to go to Birmingham for 0930 you drive and it costs £25 + £10 parking, or you train and it costs £180 + £10 parking.

Only the rich will chose the train. Rail is generally more comfortable, you can read a book on most routes, but you pay for the privilige.

But the comparison should be between train and a chauffeur driven car. If you are prepared to put up with the considerable stress of driving on busy motorways, of finding a parking place in unfamiliar city centres, then I suppose you deserve a cheaper ride. I'm far from rich (though I do have a Senior Railcard) but I will only consider driving if the journey by public transport is impossible or difficult. That goes for local as well as long distance journeys.

Another point is reliability. I don't mean the actual vehicle: cars have become a lot more reliable in recent years. But the chances of being delayed for a couple of hours by an unpredictable hold-up on a motorway are not slight, whereas, even if your train is delayed it is unlikely to be for more than a few minutes or half an hour at most.

 

[jon0844]

I am of the opinion that 2 train fares should equate to the cost of going by car.

At the moment it is about 1 train fare for the cost of going by car.

So in other words as soon as you add a single passenger to a car your going for half price than the train. The only benefit is that you don't have to drive and you have a high speed toilet coming with you.

I am not sure prices need to be directly comparable. Like most things in life, you have a choice of the level of convenience/comfort and other factors - like finding parking, being able to have a drink, and likewise having the freedom to jump in a car at 3am and go anywhere.

People can always make comparisons. Buy a really small, cheap, economical car and you'll beat anything - even for one person on a train. But for a long journey, it may not be particularly comfortable. Or you buy a luxury car for the ultimate comfort and pay a lot more per mile.

And on the train, what type of train do you take? How busy? Reserved seats? First class? A meal to enjoy whilst in transit, instead of having to stop at a rip off service station..

So many parameters that these comparisons usually fail and what generally happens is that someone pro-rail cherry picks what suits that argument, the pro-car fan points out all the benefits of the private space and ability to listen to what they like on the radio and so on.

I like to think I choose the best mode of transport for the particular journey I need to make. Cost isn't always the determining factor.

 

[Groningen]

On fuel for planes there is no tax added. Ha; Robin Hood Airport (nice name), but it more the Doncaster area. From Sheffield to the airport it is 45 kilometers.

Where is that Shenfield Airport; i see a London Southend, but not in Shenfield. For example it is Southend, than 1 has to travel 36 kilometers to reach Shenfield.

And the hammer is: Berlin-Schönefeld (ends 22 February 2016)!! Ha, ha, ha!

So to conclude:
Sheffield - Doncaster Airport 1 hour (with train and bus 15 minutes extra)
1 hour check in
1 hour flight to Berlin
1 hour stay in Berlin (or longer)
1 hour back to the UK (Southend)
1 hour to Shenfield (including exit plane and airport)

So at least 6 hours and extra money for getting to and from the airport.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But the comparison should be between train and a chauffeur driven car. If you are prepared to put up with the considerable stress of driving on busy motorways, of finding a parking place in unfamiliar city centres, then I suppose you deserve a cheaper ride. I'm far from rich (though I do have a Senior Railcard) but I will only consider driving if the journey by public transport is impossible or difficult. That goes for local as well as long distance journeys.

But some people *don't* find sitting on a busy motorway in one lane stressful. I find it boring, personally. And when you are a regular commuter you don't have "the stress of finding a parking place in an unfamiliar city centre", you know where you park daily.

I wouldn't commute from MK to London by car, but the only reason why not is the long journey time unless you leave at 4am, and secondarily the high cost.

 

[richw]

It's very variable between cars and drivers, so a broad brushstroke of xp/mile simply doesn't mean anything.

My Toyota Aygo gets 55-60mpg, is Category 1 for insurance, pays the bottom rate of VED and cost little in the first place. By contrast, a 4x4 Jeep will have cost more to purchase, have higher rates of VED, will cost more for insurance and be less fuel efficient. The lower running costs of my car make driving a more attractive option compared to the train, whereas if I owned a gas-guzzling Jeep perhaps the train would be more attractive in some situations.

Of course, fuel prices being at a low at the moment (99.9p/l - never thought I'd see that again!) means that the cost of driving has markedly decreased again compared to just two years ago.

I own a gas guzzler, and I have found myself using the car more with petrol so cheap. I still cant get to London whether I had a eco car or not for cheaper than Megabus whom I am quite happy travelling with. The timings are only around 15% slower than driving which isn't worth worrying about.

 

[Greenback]

So many parameters that these comparisons usually fail and what generally happens is that someone pro-rail cherry picks what suits that argument, the pro-car fan points out all the benefits of the private space and ability to listen to what they like on the radio and so on.

I like to think I choose the best mode of transport for the particular journey I need to make. Cost isn't always the determining factor.

I totally agree with you. I'd always choose to drive from Llanelli to Tenby if I could, because it's quicker, cheaper and more comfortable to do so. That isn't the case for every journey, though. Every trip must be looked at on its merits.

But some people *don't* find sitting on a busy motorway in one lane stressful. I find it boring, personally. And when you are a regular commuter you don't have "the stress of finding a parking place in an unfamiliar city centre", you know where you park daily.

I wouldn't commute from MK to London by car, but the only reason why not is the long journey time unless you leave at 4am, and secondarily the high cost.

Further evidence that people's likes and dislikes will vary , and so will their preferences. Some people find driving stressful and unpleasant (so I don't drive), others, like my brother, seem to find it pleasant even in heavy traffic!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Further evidence that people's likes and dislikes will vary , and so will their preferences. Some people find driving stressful and unpleasant (so I don't drive), others, like my brother, seem to find it pleasant even in heavy traffic!

Indeed. I personally find it pleasant if not to the clock and where roads are not congested (I use a sat-nav to avoid congestion and am happy generally to take a longer and slower route to avoid it).

I prefer rail but *not* where rail is overcrowded.