Rationalising Railcards

[Farnborough]

It depends on if you own a car or own enough cars.

For example, if you need to own a second car to make a journey twice or even three times a week which you could otherwise do by train and owning one car it makes the cost of those other factors come into play.

Most of my rail journeys include me driving to/from the station...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Should they have removed the July-August concession for the 16-25 group? There really isn't any grounds for it to be available to the 26-30 group.

There isn't much grounds for it to be available to most people aged 21+ either, the idea of it is to stop students using it for commuting to uni/school instead of buying a season ticket. However as the minimum fares haven't kept pace with fare inflation and there's no reason to want to discourage that use case now (as tickets are not sold by people, by and large, specifically to that age group, and buying 5 x discounted Anytime Day Returns costs about the same in many cases as a weekly season - the classic reason was to stop long booking office queues) then personally I would just get rid of the minimum fare. It doesn't really serve much of a purpose now. Plus it doesn't apply to Advances, and a lot of tickets now are those, even over short distances.

I seem to recall someone stating in another thread with respect to the Network Railcard that the minimum fare should now be about £25 if it had kept with fare inflation.

With regard to the "middle aged Railcard" or whatever we might call it, we could even consider offering two versions, one for a lower price not valid to start a journey between 0431 and 0930 inclusive (keep it simple and standard) and another much more expensive one valid at all times including the peak, which could replace the clunky and awkward concept of flexi seasons. Perhaps £20 a month for the off peak one and £50 a month for the peak one? They would still be printed on the ticket as the same discount of course as the discount, if applicable, is the same.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Mar 2026 ==

The justification for the Network Railcard is becoming increasingly thin with the extension on Contactless PAYG around London. The argument you present above could just as easily be seen as one for its abolishment rather than its extension.

I think we really do need to be careful what we wish for when it comes to seeking rationalisation of railcard offers.

I half wonder if the idea with the NSE is that it will drift away as people switch to contactless for convenience.

I would like to see it replaced by a National Railcard for the middle aged though (at a much higher price than the demographic ones - for an off peak card £20-30 a month by direct debit with a minimum 12 month contract seems about the right sort of level to me). I suspect however I'll be eligible for the Senior card before that actually happens.

 

[JonathanH]

Perhaps £20 a month for the off peak one and £50 a month for the peak one?

That is flawed as well though, as all it becomes is a subsidy to the user on long distance commuting, and people doing that are more likely to have some degree of affluence? What justification is there for offering a discount on long distance commuting on top of the 'tapering pence per mile situation' that already applies?

I'm all for something which targets low income groups, but making train journeys cheaper for higher earners doesn't seem appropriate.

 

[HSTEd]

Given the very high price of rail tickets compared to the railcard, to the point that the savings can often be repaid with a single journey.... I think the railcard system has just degenerated into a special cut rate for selected demographics.

I have come to the conclusion that it should be abolished alongside a blanket reduction in fares and save the bureaucracy and opportunities for fraud (see railcards at ticket barriers).

 

[Bletchleyite]

That is flawed as well though, as all it becomes is a subsidy to the user on long distance commuting, and people doing that are more likely to have some degree of affluence? What justification is there for offering a discount on long distance commuting on top of the 'tapering pence per mile situation' that already applies?

I'm all for something which targets low income groups, but making train journeys cheaper for higher earners doesn't seem appropriate.

The "middle aged Railcard" isn't about equality/equity at all, it isn't in any country that has one (which is most European countries in some form or other, and in some of them it has no "off peak" restriction, e.g. Germany).

It's using the sunk cost theory to actually increase income (not income per journey, overall income by causing more journeys to be made). It should be priced at a level where, overall, it does do that.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Mar 2026 ==

I have come to the conclusion that it should be abolished alongside a blanket reduction in fares and save the bureaucracy and opportunities for fraud (see railcards at ticket barriers).

Much of this would be solved by moving a Railcard to become something you have in your online railway account and it is just checked at the time of purchase, and it causes the ticket to become named, with an occasional demand to show some sort of ID, with a railway ID card available on demand for those who have nothing else, but most people these days do.

 

[The Ham]

But nobody is doing this!

Do you drive?

The point is, more people should be looking at their true costs, especially if they are finding things financially difficult due to the cost of rising fuel costs and the like.

Whist this question wasn't pointed at me, yes I do drive, however not generally day to day. I walk my kids to school and then walk to work, my wife drives to work 3 days a week and we use the car a bit in the evening and weekends.

There are times when I travel home from the in-laws by train, it's far cheaper for us to travel in one car and me return by train then to pay for petrol for taking a second car (even before taking into account any other variable costs - including wear on tyres and brakes)

Most of my rail journeys include me driving to/from the station...

Can I ask why, why not use another mode? IIRC you've previously said that your local station is Frimley - that means that you can't be too far from it before another station becomes your local station (Farnborough Main, Farnborough North, Blackwater, Camberley, etc.)

For many getting an ebike would be cheaper than owning a car (especially if you also have to pay parking), even if you wouldn't be willing to use a normal cycle.

 

[AlterEgo]

The point is, more people should be looking at their true costs, especially if they are finding things financially difficult due to the cost of rising fuel costs and the like.

Should they? Do you think other people honestly don't know how expensive driving is, and should consider going carless?

I'm not on about people deciding not to get second or third cars, by the way - though I note your other points (We have one car in the household too).

 

[[.n]]

It still astonishes me that they kept those separate rather than just creating a 16-30.

The 26-30 is genuinely age restricted (as is the 16-17), the 16-25 railcard is only partially age restricted - so that's quite a major difference

 

[The Ham]

Should they? Do you think other people honestly don't know how expensive driving is, and should consider going carless?

I'm not on about people deciding not to get second or third cars, by the way - though I note your other points (We have one car in the household too).

I think that there definitely people who don't understand their full costs of car ownership when they mostly focus on only fuel costs.

For example if you replace tyres every 15,000 miles at £75 per tyre or every 25,000 miles at £125 per tyre that's an extra 2p per mile.

Even little things can add up quickly, for example paying just 50p in parking for 1 day a week is an extra £26 a year.

Most people these days would be paying out around £5,000 for a car in depression, over 4 years that's £3.40 every day regardless of if the car is used or not (the average is £5,250 over 4 years and equates to £110 a month).

That means that if the car is going less than 22 miles on that day (that's the same as about 8,000 miles a year) that puts the same cost as the cost of the fuel (15p per mile).

Also there's a lot of costs which people just pay because they are small amounts each month, even if they rise significant at the annual level. For example if an insurance payment goes from £62 to £70 a month that's basically an extra £100 and that can easily rise from £62 to £78 per month over three or four years without people potentially being fully aware that their annual costs have risen by about £200 a year over that time.

Yes your should be reviewing things like insurance each year, but sometimes rises are unavoidable.

Then there's all sorts of other small value items (screen wash, car accessories, washing equipment, etc.) however some will pay a lot more than others, for example some may wash their own cars, but take it to a car wash and those costs increase significantly.

That's before you consider the value of your time to do things like take the car to get it fixed (or fix it yourself), washing & cleaning the car, and the time taken to do all the car admin (including finding and buying your new car and potentially selling the old one).

 

[Russel]

But there are also things you can attempt to quantify - insurance, road tax, wear and tear on the vehicle and lease costs if you have that - as well as things which cannot necessarily be easily quantified - the cost of buying the car in the first place, cost of learning, cost of storage, your time lost while driving...

Theae are all costs I'd be covering anyway even if the car was sat on my drive as the car is used doe work, so they are irrelevant.

 

[flitwickbeds]

But nobody is doing this!

Do you drive?

Yes. 2 cars in the family.

I use one to drive to school breakfast club, then nursery, then 18 miles to work. There is no realistic train journey possible between home and work (the only option would be an hourly bus to the train station, then a 4tph train to another station, then another 1tph train to another station, then 2 buses to work). While I could walk child 1 to school easily, the bus from home doesn't go anywhere near nursery (and timings almost certainly wouldn't work). I do this routine 3 times a week, and 1 day I do the same home<>work journey without the kid drop-offs.

My wife uses the other to drive 3 miles to the station two or three times a week, pays £56 for a return ticket, and then in the evenings does the same nursery and school run (in the reverse order). While there is a bus between train station and nursery, there isn't between nursery and home/school.

So, yes, we absolutely do drive, and my wife regularly uses the train.

However.

When we lived in a different location with a train station within walking distance, before we had kids, and when we both worked on the train route - we sold our (at the time, one) car because even though petrol costs were cheaper for both home<>work journeys, we worked out that it was bigger-picture cheaper to get the train, and a taxi back from the supermarket once a week, than to continue driving. Looking at ONLY petrol vs train ticket price would have come up with the opposite answer. One of the factors was that renting a house without a parking space/driveway/garage was around £100 cheaper a month at the time.

 

[35B]

I think that there definitely people who don't understand their full costs of car ownership when they mostly focus on only fuel costs.

For example if you replace tyres every 15,000 miles at £75 per tyre or every 25,000 miles at £125 per tyre that's an extra 2p per mile.

Even little things can add up quickly, for example paying just 50p in parking for 1 day a week is an extra £26 a year.

Most people these days would be paying out around £5,000 for a car in depression, over 4 years that's £3.40 every day regardless of if the car is used or not (the average is £5,250 over 4 years and equates to £110 a month).

That means that if the car is going less than 22 miles on that day (that's the same as about 8,000 miles a year) that puts the same cost as the cost of the fuel (15p per mile).

Also there's a lot of costs which people just pay because they are small amounts each month, even if they rise significant at the annual level. For example if an insurance payment goes from £62 to £70 a month that's basically an extra £100 and that can easily rise from £62 to £78 per month over three or four years without people potentially being fully aware that their annual costs have risen by about £200 a year over that time.

Yes your should be reviewing things like insurance each year, but sometimes rises are unavoidable.

Then there's all sorts of other small value items (screen wash, car accessories, washing equipment, etc.) however some will pay a lot more than others, for example some may wash their own cars, but take it to a car wash and those costs increase significantly.

That's before you consider the value of your time to do things like take the car to get it fixed (or fix it yourself), washing & cleaning the car, and the time taken to do all the car admin (including finding and buying your new car and potentially selling the old one).

All true, but all effectively irrelevant. We have a car because it allows us to do things that my local public transport does not allow me to do. Some of that is about the places we go to, some about load - and quite a bit about convenience. We have a second car because my work requires me to be able to travel at no notice, and my wife and kids need flexibility - and that small car is also well suited for learning.

Our choice of car reflects a combination of family requirements (load carrying, ability to sit people behind me when I'm driving, upright posture because of my wife's back), and what we can reasonably afford. Once we have a car, additional running costs like those you list are not part of the planning process - whereas features like reliability are. The marginal cost, however, is important when deciding when or how to travel - but not the sole factor. Going to London last weekend, we took the car because we wanted to be able to carry stuff; in July, we'll go to Newcastle and Durham, and may well use the train rather than drive, because the train will work well for us. And going to a craftsman in a nearby village would simply be impossible by public transport.

I love playing with Excel more than many, but calculating the per mile costs of tyres, insurance, etc. fall into the "life's too short" category - the choice is to have a car or not, and then to a lesser extent whether to use it.

 

[redreni]

Not sure if related to the current bout of official hysteria about Railcard misuse, but there was a revenue block at Paddington Elizabeth Line gateline this afternoon where I was asked (for the first time ever at a gateline) to produce my Network Railcard, which was then scanned and found to be in order.

I was surprised the barrier rejected my paper Day Travelcard with error code 12, which as far as I know means it's the wrong time of day. 13:00 on a Saturday. Really?

I wonder if this type of activity aimed, presumably, at finding out what proportion of Railcard-discounted tickets are being used by people who aren't carrying a Railcard, should have been undertaken at scale *before* deciding on and announcing a policy intervention?

 

[Fawkes Cat]

I wonder if this type of activity aimed, presumably, at finding out what proportion of Railcard-discounted tickets are being used by people who aren't carrying a Railcard, should have been undertaken at scale *before* deciding on and announcing a policy intervention

Or it may have just been a revenue block.

 

[redreni]

Or it may have just been a revenue block.

Well, yeah, it was a revenue block alright, which is absolutely fine by me.

Let's not pretend TfL has been doing them at Elizabeth Line gatelines in the core section for any significant period of time, though, because they haven't. Or, indeed, that TfL has taken any previous interest in routinely checking Railcards at gatelines, because they absolutely haven't.

 

[JohnofWessex]

One idea might be to scrap the family & two together cards so on purchase of an adult ticket you can then get a reduced rate adult ticket and £1 child tickets.

Might encourage train usage in particular where people might only make one trip a year or less so it combines environmental and cost of living concerns

 

[Manutd1999]

Because driving costs the same (roughly) regardless of how many people travel. However I'd remove these Railcards and improve GroupSave in its place, basically giving 33% discount and kids for 2 quid (or similar, or maybe just 33% off child fares too) for any group travelling together of any number bar 1. Those wishing to have that travelling alone would purchase a Railcard of the relevant type.

I agree, if the aim is to increase cost effectiveness of rail vs cars for groups then there are better ways to do this than the existing railcards. Group discounts, free or discounted child fares etc. would be simpler and would benefit more people (i.e. those travelling occasionally).

Once you get rid of these anomalies, merging all the other railcards into a single "concession" type national card becomes a lot easier.

 

[The Ham]

All true, but all effectively irrelevant. We have a car because it allows us to do things that my local public transport does not allow me to do. Some of that is about the places we go to, some about load - and quite a bit about convenience. We have a second car because my work requires me to be able to travel at no notice, and my wife and kids need flexibility - and that small car is also well suited for learning.

Our choice of car reflects a combination of family requirements (load carrying, ability to sit people behind me when I'm driving, upright posture because of my wife's back), and what we can reasonably afford. Once we have a car, additional running costs like those you list are not part of the planning process - whereas features like reliability are. The marginal cost, however, is important when deciding when or how to travel - but not the sole factor. Going to London last weekend, we took the car because we wanted to be able to carry stuff; in July, we'll go to Newcastle and Durham, and may well use the train rather than drive, because the train will work well for us. And going to a craftsman in a nearby village would simply be impossible by public transport.

I love playing with Excel more than many, but calculating the per mile costs of tyres, insurance, etc. fall into the "life's too short" category - the choice is to have a car or not, and then to a lesser extent whether to use it.

Clearly reducing car ownership isn't for everyone and some will be aware of what their costs are.

The point I was making was that many don't, they do things just accept that £75 to £200 a tyre is something that they pay without considering that that's directly related to how much they drive (not that people should be logging how many miles they travel on each tyre and working out the cost per mile of that tyre).

Also it's easy for car upgrades to happen, they start off paying the equivalent of £90 a month in purchase costs and then each time they get a new car they pay a little more for something a little nicer or a little faster or a little bigger. "What's an extra £12 a month for whatever the extra thing is and we can afford it.". The thing is do that 4 times and that's basically an extra £600 a year (probably more as the insurance is likely to have increased too).

It's not uncommon for people with work vans too also still have two cars in their household, or even for couples to have 3 cars (I know of one family who's daughter - can't drive & isn't having lessons - has a car as does both parents and they often drive fairly short distances to the detriment of their personal health, they could easily reduce to 2 cars until a third car was actually useful).

Likewise, I knew a couple where her job was 100% work from home, they both owned a car, even though her car was hardly used.

Clearly not everyone is the same, but there's likely to be more than zero who have more cars than they need but justify the ownership on things like "this trip I do one a month would cost me £10 more to go by train than the fuel in my car" even though they hardly use the car the rest of the time.

Of course there are others who do have the correct number of cars, and that's fine.

 

[35B]

Clearly reducing car ownership isn't for everyone and some will be aware of what their costs are.

The point I was making was that many don't, they do things just accept that £75 to £200 a tyre is something that they pay without considering that that's directly related to how much they drive (not that people should be logging how many miles they travel on each tyre and working out the cost per mile of that tyre).

Also it's easy for car upgrades to happen, they start off paying the equivalent of £90 a month in purchase costs and then each time they get a new car they pay a little more for something a little nicer or a little faster or a little bigger. "What's an extra £12 a month for whatever the extra thing is and we can afford it.". The thing is do that 4 times and that's basically an extra £600 a year (probably more as the insurance is likely to have increased too).

It's not uncommon for people with work vans too also still have two cars in their household, or even for couples to have 3 cars (I know of one family who's daughter - can't drive & isn't having lessons - has a car as does both parents and they often drive fairly short distances to the detriment of their personal health, they could easily reduce to 2 cars until a third car was actually useful).

Likewise, I knew a couple where her job was 100% work from home, they both owned a car, even though her car was hardly used.

Clearly not everyone is the same, but there's likely to be more than zero who have more cars than they need but justify the ownership on things like "this trip I do one a month would cost me £10 more to go by train than the fuel in my car" even though they hardly use the car the rest of the time.

Of course there are others who do have the correct number of cars, and that's fine.

I know people who make extravagant choices too. They're not rational, and seem absurd to me, but I don't assume they don't know what they're doing - or that their stated reasons are necessarily a full explanation of a deeper psychological need.

The classic is the example of occasional travel - I've known several elderly people cling tightly to that mantra when they've had more than enough money to be able to afford a taxi instead. What the explanation doesn't state, but is actually the key dimension, is the sense of flexibility that having a car gives, and with it the lack of dependence.

 

[redreni]

I know people who make extravagant choices too. They're not rational, and seem absurd to me, but I don't assume they don't know what they're doing - or that their stated reasons are necessarily a full explanation of a deeper psychological need.

The classic is the example of occasional travel - I've known several elderly people cling tightly to that mantra when they've had more than enough money to be able to afford a taxi instead. What the explanation doesn't state, but is actually the key dimension, is the sense of flexibility that having a car gives, and with it the lack of dependence.

Motorists may have a sense of a lack of dependence. It's entirely illusory, of course. They wouldn't get 50 yards through a wood, thicket or ploughed field. Nor would they get very far on the road network as it was before the horseless carriage.

 

[35B]

Motorists may have a sense of a lack of dependence. It's entirely illusory, of course. They wouldn't get 50 yards through a wood, thicket or ploughed field. Nor would they get very far on the road network as it was before the horseless carriage.

I'm not saying that it's rational, or even reasonable. But anyone who assumes that their fellow humans will make decisions purely rationally is irrational and foolish.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Motorists may have a sense of a lack of dependence. It's entirely illusory, of course. They wouldn't get 50 yards through a wood, thicket or ploughed field. Nor would they get very far on the road network as it was before the horseless carriage.

And how well would railway passengers do with these scenarios?

 

[redreni]

And how well would railway passengers do with these scenarios?

I don't understand the question. Has anybody suggested travelling by rail gives one a sense of self-reliance?

 

[Fawkes Cat]

I don't understand the question. Has anybody suggested travelling by rail gives one a sense of self-reliance?

If it doesn't, then how is it relevant that motorists' sense of a lack of dependence (sic) wouldn't work in a ploughed field?

 

[redreni]

If it doesn't, then how is it relevant that motorists' sense of a lack of dependence (sic) wouldn't work in a ploughed field?

My point is that if it is true that some people have this view, as 35B asserted, which makes them prefer the private car over other modes because this somehow makes them self-reliant, then while that may be the case even though motorists are wrong to think that, it is not a state of affairs to which we have to be resigned. People who hold fallacious views are normally persuadable. The automotive and petrochemical industries took a great deal of trouble, in the 20th century, to create and then perpetuate these myths about motoring, but it is perfectly possible to change people's minds.

 

[35B]

My point is that if it is true that some people have this view, as 35B asserted, which makes them prefer the private car over other modes because this somehow makes them self-reliant, then while that may be the case even though motorists are wrong to think that, it is not a state of affairs to which we have to be resigned. People who hold fallacious views are normally persuadable. The automotive and petrochemical industries took a great deal of trouble, in the 20th century, to create and then perpetuate these myths about motoring, but it is perfectly possible to change people's minds.

You may be right that we shouldn't be resigned, but better by far to show than to tell. My grandmother learned to give up her car as she recovered from a fall, and realised that she could rely on her local taxi driver to take to do all that she'd want to. She did not gain that understanding from what my father and aunt tried to tell her, no matter how accurate they were.

As a driver, I have the impression that I am more in control of my destiny than as a passenger in a car on the same road. On any given journey, that may or may not be true - but it is a hard impression to shake.

I also think that the focus on advertising is misdirected, and fundamentally ahistorical. The railways came about in a period where transport was slow, and the loads that could be carried very limited. Expansion was rapid, and gave the railways an effective monopoly on all except short distance transport.

That growth slowed to a crawl as the internal combustion engine became available, and broke the monopoly power of the railway. It also gave new expression to an age old dream, that of travelling from door to door, which had previously only been available to the very richest. The railways had also made themselves unpopular due to their limited service and lack of competition; an unpopularity expressed in the legal restrictions placed upon them long before Grouping, let alone nationalisation, and which fundamentally undermined their competitiveness in this new world.

I know someone who has given up having a car. He lives within easy reach of Tube, train and bus, so can get around easily. He is also single, without child care or similar responsibilities. And, finally, he has easy access to a work van more or less on demand.

 

[yorksrob]

I think you need two. One for disadvantaged groups which includes peak travel and can help with getting to work. The other for everyone else, aimed at off peak leisure travel.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Mar 2026 ==

That is flawed as well though, as all it becomes is a subsidy to the user on long distance commuting, and people doing that are more likely to have some degree of affluence? What justification is there for offering a discount on long distance commuting on top of the 'tapering pence per mile situation' that already applies?

I'm all for something which targets low income groups, but making train journeys cheaper for higher earners doesn't seem appropriate.

This is a misconception. Inter city trains aren't all full of high earning commuters. They tend to be full of ordinary people visiting friends, going to events etc.

There's no justification for making the railway a "rich man's toy" as some in the DfT/railway establishment would have it, especially when middle aged working class people contribute so much towards its running through taxation.

 

[Farnborough]

Can I ask why, why not use another mode? IIRC you've previously said that your local station is Frimley - that means that you can't be too far from it before another station becomes your local station (Farnborough Main, Farnborough North, Blackwater, Camberley, etc.)

Well...

1. First, it's my choice - I have a car, so I use it when appropriate
2. Second, because I'm usually carrying an amount of stuff;
3. Third, it's a 30+ minute walk to FNM/FNN; a bit less to FML - which is fine if luggage free on a nice day;
4. Fourth, other public transport alternatives (ie bus) are no better - getting to the nearest bus stop is nearly as long as getting to the station, and are not especially reliable! Plus, that's another £24 (return) for the family... even as a solo, the car-park is usually cheaper than the £6 return bus ticket.
5. Fifth, given the service patterns on all three local lines, you don't want to just-miss the train...
6. Sixth, since you've mentioned eBikes - in the past, I've had two bikes stolen from Farnborough Main, and local social media suggests this is still a significant problem.

Contrary to city dwellers' expectations, public transport is not a panacea, and you wouldn't call my location "out in the sticks"!

Even as a solo, a car works out... as a family of four, definitely so!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Mar 2026 ==

Of course there are others who do have the correct number of cars, and that's fine.

The only people to decide the "correct number of cars" are the individuals.

When Citizen Khan and other London politicians and technocrats no longer have access to a vehicle for their official duties, I'll listen... when other local politicians surrender their personal and official vehicles, I'll pay attention.

In the meanwhile, I'll follow their lead, and use my car.

 

[JonathanH]

There's no justification for making the railway a "rich man's toy" as some in the DfT/railway establishment would have it, especially when middle aged working class people contribute so much towards its running through taxation.

There isn't, and you will notice that I have less of a problem with low earners being given greater access than a reduction in fares for all. However, as I have noted before a railcard is a blunt instrument and risks more overcrowding on services that already have problems, in oarticular exacerbating the 'Saturday morning problem" that exists on many routes, rather than encouraging the use of services that have spare capacity.

 

[The Ham]

Well...

1. First, it's my choice - I have a car, so I use it when appropriate
2. Second, because I'm usually carrying an amount of stuff;
3. Third, it's a 30+ minute walk to FNM/FNN; a bit less to FML - which is fine if luggage free on a nice day;
4. Fourth, other public transport alternatives (ie bus) are no better - getting to the nearest bus stop is nearly as long as getting to the station, and are not especially reliable! Plus, that's another £24 (return) for the family... even as a solo, the car-park is usually cheaper than the £6 return bus ticket.
5. Fifth, given the service patterns on all three local lines, you don't want to just-miss the train...
6. Sixth, since you've mentioned eBikes - in the past, I've had two bikes stolen from Farnborough Main, and local social media suggests this is still a significant problem.

Contrary to city dwellers' expectations, public transport is not a panacea, and you wouldn't call my location "out in the sticks"!

Even as a solo, a car works out... as a family of four, definitely so!

The sixth point is the reason why rather than banning cycles on trains, extra capacity should have been delivered 25 years ago rather than just trying to cram in a few extra people people by removing the bikes from the trains.

It's why it railways are the way they are, there's too little investment in the big projects which could well actually reduce the overall costs of running the railways.

This is because the lines into cities (like London) are massively busy, but once you get past certain points on the network the lines are significantly more lightly used.

By adding more lines in the very busy areas (especially if they serve different areas) you could easily add more services on the quieter sections.

For example, of the Southern Approach to Heathrow was built, the extra infrastructure cost to running 2tph each way between Basingstoke and the junction and 2tph Guildford and the junction would be almost nothing, however would add a significant number of extra people to the rail network.

Do the same with the Crossrail 2 and other schemes across other towns and cities around the country and the financial situation for the railways gets much better.