Britain was built on its railways... now we can't even run them

[Greenback]

As I said to start this off, I would prefer to see the dirt cheap fares go up and the walk on fares go down! Note that I often get the dirt cheap fares myself though!

 

[radamfi]

Sorry, that is absolute rubbish ! You can't just select which costs you consider to be valid or not.

As you say, you would pay tax and insurance regardless whether you take the train or not.

So if you take the train, you pay:

train fare + (tax/365) + (insurance/365) + non-mileage based servicing + non-mileage based depreciation

If you drive then you pay:

petrol + parking + (tax/365) + (insurance/365) + non-mileage based servicing + non-mileage based depreciation + mileage based servicing + mileage based depreciation

So the difference is

petrol + parking + mileage based servicing + mileage based depreciation - train fare

 

[Oswyntail]

But should you do that if you are going to own the car anyway? The comparison is only valid if you intend to dispose of the car. Only mileage based servicing and depreciation should be considered.

That is illogical. If you applied that reasoning to all the activities for which you use a car, then the only "activity" to which you could apply such costs would be "car ownership". This would leave you with an activity that has no benefit (as all other car-based activities have been discounted) but simply bears a cost. And that would be silly:roll:

 

[Capybara]

Crkey. Just to get back to my original 'gross generalisation/simplification' of the issue, how many car owners take a purely accountant's view of matters when considering whether to use their car or not? Isn't that simplification in itself?

Anyway, that wasn't the point. The main point was that if you make a spur of the moment decision to travel somewhere then it is expensive to do so. I quite often travel from London to Middlesbrough and back and the walk-up fare is in three figures these days. Off-peak. That's huge. And what do you get for that? A train full of people who reserved their seats weeks ago at a fraction of the price I paid and you sometimes struggle to find a seat. Most people I know who don't have the interest I have think it is the norm to book in advance to use the railway. Well it shoudn't be, that's the point. The railway should be a walk-up service as the norm foremost, not an enterprise whereby you travel according to the operator's wishes.

Oh, and if the spur of the moment walk-up traveller wants to find the likely cost of their travel from a rail website, they will do so with difficulty as those websites will do all they can to sell you an advance fare.

 

[asylumxl]

Oh, and if the spur of the moment walk-up traveller wants to find the likely cost of their travel from a rail website, they will do so with difficulty as those websites will do all they can to sell you an advance fare.

I've always found FGWs site shows the normal fares if they are cheaper than the advance fares.

 

[tbtc]

Crkey. Just to get back to my original 'gross generalisation/simplification' of the issue, how many car owners take a purely accountant's view of matters when considering whether to use their car or not? Isn't that simplification in itself?

Dunno

We recently got rid of our car as it was costing £700/year in tax/ insurance/ MOT/ service/ "typical annual repairs and maintenance".

If motorists actually looked at how all those little costs add up, they'd be surprised/ depressed!

 

[EM2]

But should you do that if you are going to own the car anyway? The comparison is only valid if you intend to dispose of the car. Only mileage based servicing and depreciation should be considered.

That wasn't the point. The question you asked was basically 'does it really cost that much per mile to run a 1.6 Ford?'
The answer is yes, it does, because those are all factors involved in running a car.
Whether or not those factors should be considered, when comparing the cost of using a car or a train for a particular journey, is a different matter.

 

[radamfi]

That wasn't the point. The question you asked was basically 'does it really cost that much per mile to run a 1.6 Ford?'
The answer is yes, it does, because those are all factors involved in running a car.
Whether or not those factors should be considered, when comparing the cost of using a car or a train for a particular journey, is a different matter.

If you look at my question again:

Are you sure it is really 52.48p per mile if you already own a car and it is already taxed and insured?

you can see I clearly indicated that you have already paid for tax and insurance so only the marginal cost is relevant.

 

[imagination]

You are very lucky indeed to live in an area where public transport is so good that a car is unnecessary for regular journeys to do the shopping, going to work, visiting friends and relations,a dn all the other things that we (reluctantly) need a car for!

almost everyone in this country lives in such an area...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

you can see I clearly indicated that you have already paid for tax and insurance so only the marginal cost is relevant.

Then you were asking "are you, in saying that it costs x to do y, really sure it costs x to do z?" which is nonsense.

You may as well say "given that I have a season ticket for my journey to work, I shouldnt consider the cost of the season ticket in working out how much it costs me to travel to work by train".

 

[moonrakerz]

Radamfi's logic means that my "living costs" are only what I spend in Morrisons's.
The Mortgage, Council tax, Electricity, Gas, House Insurance, etc, etc are all paid already .................

I just didn't realise I was so well off - and I suppose the sun rises in the West !!!!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Comparing the cost of a car journey with advance fares is not a fair comparison. Yes it is true that there some absolute dirt cheap advance fares available that would beat the car any time but many people like the flexibility to decide on the day and these days the car wins most times unless you can be very specific about the exact times you will be travelling.

Sorry ZOE - read my post - I DID NOT compare a car journey with advance fares - I stated that quite clearly at the outset! I decided to travel 3 hrs before I left - I also gave the full walk on fare in my example.

To say "the car wins most times" is deluding yourself ! IT DOES NOT ..........
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I've always found FGWs site shows the normal fares if they are cheaper than the advance fares.

Don't let the facts get in the way .................

 

[radamfi]

There used to be long arguments on uk.railway (and uk.transport before uk.railway was formed) years ago about whether you should take into account the whole cost of motoring or just the marginal cost when pricing an individual rail journey. I used to be very anti-car in those days and supported the 'whole cost' argument. Unfortunately I have realised that people simply aren't going to give up car ownership, no matter how good PT is, and even I've sold out myself by getting a car (albeit a relatively economical Smart car) so I now see the other side of the argument.

When considering season tickets, the argument is reversed, so if you already have a season ticket for work then extra 'unplanned' travel (say at the weekend) is effectively free.

Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland etc. have realised that paying a modest fixed cost giving you travel at lower cost generates extra travel and that's why they have national railcards. That puts rail on more of a level playing field with the private car.

 

[sheff1]

I agree entirley Greenback! Honestly, some people have no idea what train they are on. Recentley i got a Sunderland bound GC from KX. A lady was sat opposite me, the guard made at least 3 announcements wqith the ususal train information and then on the 4th (being the get of now if you dont want York, thirsk etc) she asked if it was the Leeds train! On finding it wanst she bolted for the platform! How many sources of infomation must she have passed to get on that train without realising it didnt go to Leeds? I was on the train at least 15 minutes before departue and she was already there!

This is my point exactly. Continual announcements seem not to register at all with those who might actually need them, whilst those who don't need them have to suffer them anyway
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

To all those bemoaning the constant announcements just think on - the railway has to dumb down to the lowest common demoninator.

Why ?
And if they really did, then eveyone would have to be escorted to their allocated seat by a personal travel assistant.

 

[Greenback]

There used to be long arguments on uk.railway (and uk.transport before uk.railway was formed) years ago about whether you should take into account the whole cost of motoring or just the marginal cost when pricing an individual rail journey. I used to be very anti-car in those days and supported the 'whole cost' argument. Unfortunately I have realised that people simply aren't going to give up car ownership, no matter how good PT is, and even I've sold out myself by getting a car (albeit a relatively economical Smart car) so I now see the other side of the argument.

When considering season tickets, the argument is reversed, so if you already have a season ticket for work then extra 'unplanned' travel (say at the weekend) is effectively free.

Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland etc. have realised that paying a modest fixed cost giving you travel at lower cost generates extra travel and that's why they have national railcards. That puts rail on more of a level playing field with the private car.

You are right. Unfortunately, it's simply not possible for the majority of people to go about their ordinary day to day business economically and efficiently without a car. Therefore, the cost of the capitla involved, the depreciation etc, is an irrelevance to most people when planning their travel. In doing that, people will think of the cost of fuel, wear and tear, oil and water, usually with a view to keeping the mileage reasonable for the age of the car, and compare that agaisnt the cheapest rail ticket they are able to get.

We are lucky, we live very close tot eh railway station, and we prefer to use the train whenever we can, but Mrs G simply cannot get to her places of work by bus or train. Neither is the train a viable option for going to the supermarket or popping over to visit our friends.

Not only that, but unless we happen to go somewhere that is on the railway line, or on the same bus route that passes our house, it can take two, three or even four times as long compared to using the car. Even to go across town in the bus is impossible if we need to return after 5.30, as that is the time the last bus stops at our local stop!

We need to be realistic here. Everyone who owns a car will weigh up the likely cost of using it on a journey, including the conveneince factor, and decide on a journey by journey basis whther it is better to use it or take public transport. The idea that the train is always better, or indeed that the car is always the best option, is completely wrong.

 

[Zoe]

almost everyone in this country lives in such an area...

If you can cope with one bus an hour with nothing after 8 PM and nothing at all on Sundays then good for you.

 

[90019]

I was looking into the costs of the car vs. the train a few days ago for getting between uni and home.


The train involves two buses as well, with the train fare costing £6.90 and the buses costing 90p and £1.20, giving a total of £9 each way. It takes 5 minutes to get to the first bus, then a wait of up to 10 minutes. It's a 15 minute journey to the station, give or take a couple of minutes depending on which bus has turned up first. The train journey takes just under 1 hour, but there's usually a 10-15 minute wait for the train. it's then a 1/2 mile walk from the station to catch the second bus, which is again usually a 5-10 minute wait, sometimes more. this takes about 25 minutes to get to the terminus, then it's another 1/2 mile walk back to my house.
Overall cost of the journey is £9. Total time between about 2 and 2 1/2 hours.

The car is a case of walking out the front door of the halls to the car park, get in the car, drive out of the campus, head along to the A91 and follow it up to the M9 which makes up the majority of the trip. My preferred route is to come off at junction 2 and head down the A902 then onto the A90 and into Edinburgh that way. The total distance for the journey is 39 miles. I did a few calculations the other day, and worked out that assuming fuel is at £1.20 a litre, if I managed to average 35mpg over the journey (I can get it over 40, so not a problem, especially as most of the journey is on the motorway), it would cost just over £5. Wear and tear won't count for much in this case and depreciation is minimal as the car is 8 years old, so these can be ignored in this case, and the car would be sitting in the car park taxed and insured whether I chose to take it or not.
So, overall cost for the car is £5, and the journey takes approx. 1 hour, give or take 10 minutes or so to allow for traffic.


Unfortunately my brother has the car with him just now, so the train is the only option. But when I get it back, I will be taking the car every time.
It is cheaper, more convenient, a nicer environment, more spacious, more comfortable, I don't end up sitting next to a stranger, it doesn't involve wating on trains and buses especially if it's cold and raining, and it's a much more fun journey overall
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

almost everyone in this country lives in such an area...

If I want to go and see my best friend, I could take a bus, but the terminus a couple of miles down the road from him only gets a service between 6.30pm and midnight, between 8 and 11 buses in total each day. The only other option is the car.

 

[jon0844]

If motorists actually looked at how all those little costs add up, they'd be surprised/ depressed!

I agree wholeheartedly, but if you accept that there are these costs and pay them for the benefit of being able to travel at times/places where there is no public transport alternative, or you're carrying lots of shopping/luggage, or you have a large family, or (insert many more quite obvious examples of why a car that you have total control of) then I do think it's possible to exclude these costs when making a comparison - and count only wear & tear and petrol.

I have a car, I am going to pay £xxxx (a lot!) over three years no matter what. Every journey I make reduces the cost per mile (even with wear & tear to consider, as more miles will mean new brakes/tyres etc). But, I don't have it to save me using the train - which I use more often than driving already.

However, if I was going with family to somewhere then I'd definitely compare prices against the car - and probably do that on the basis of the cost of fuel only. I'd regard the other things as a separate cost, that exists regardless.

Nobody makes money on cars (well, a few notable exceptions - if you bought a limited edition car that became a classic) and you make the choice whether to get a cheap runaround or a luxury car with features that will depreciate in value in an instant - but that's no different than buying designer clothing over George at Asda.

Nevertheless, once you've made that decision, you're stuck with it until you change vehicle - or sell the car and give up (perhaps opting to take taxis for those short-notice journeys).

For me, the choice won't just be cost but convenience (does it mean I can enjoy the journey by not driving, have a drink, not worry about finding parking etc)? Still, I believe in supporting every mode of transport so people have choices, and if you make the trains appealing enough you won't have to bump up fuel duty and VED to price people off the roads.

 

[Zoe]

if you make the trains appealing enough you won't have to bump up fuel duty and VED to price people off the roads.

That's a difficult one though, back in 2002 Virgin made the service more appealing by doubling the number of trains on the core route. The result was that they were too successful in encouraging people onto their new Voyagers and many ended up overcrowded and some people switched back to road.

 

[jon0844]

You are right. Unfortunately, it's simply not possible for the majority of people to go about their ordinary day to day business economically and efficiently without a car. Therefore, the cost of the capitla involved, the depreciation etc, is an irrelevance to most people when planning their travel.

The only way people would make a direct comparison would be if you saw the price to travel by train, then went out and bought a car, taxed it, insured it and filled it with petrol, to drive instead.

If you already have the car, you're not so likely to factor in the costs - and it's hard to calculate wear & tear. I had to change my front tyres after 16,000 miles (the rears will probably make it to 20,000) and I'm still on my original set of brakes. My tyres are expensive though (£200 each) but even then, the maintenance is relatively low (£300 annual service) - and the car is still under warranty for anything unexpected.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That's a difficult one though, back in 2002 Virgin made the service more appealing by doubling the number of trains on the core route. The result was that they were too successful in encouraging people onto their new Voyagers and many ended up overcrowded and some people switched back to road.

But, more passengers means more revenue - so the Government and the regulator at the time should have reinvested the money in new rolling stock, or even new lines/infrastructure. Instead, it seems that it was simply a case of trying to get more money into central funds.

So, the Government probably has ultimate responsibility for making the railways struggle to cope.

Of course, changes take time, but you're talking about an example that's eight years ago, so why are people still crying out for new rolling stock and capacity now?

 

[Clip]

All passengers need is a brief "the next station is xxxx" message shortly before arriving at a station (sorry.. arriving into a station stop).

We know where the train is going, because it said so on the platform indicator. We don't care what all the intermediate stations are. We know that smoking is not permitted in any part of the train (because it's the law). We know that an Advance ticket is only valid for a specific train. We know what sort of things the buffet car is likely to sell. We know that we should take our stuff with us when we leave the train. We know there might be a gap between the train and the platform. And, yes, we know that you're really sorry for the delay.

What about blind people? They dont know as they cant read the indicator screens... Actually i was going to continue but after thinking to myself its probably not worth the hassle.

Yeh YOU may not like them but for those who are less fortunate then you they are a help not a hinderance

 

[Greenback]

If you can cope with one bus an hour with nothing after 8 PM and nothing at all on Sundays then good for you.

Or nothing after 5.30/6pm, like around here!

The only way people would make a direct comparison would be if you saw the price to travel by train, then went out and bought a car, taxed it, insured it and filled it with petrol, to drive instead.

If you already have the car, you're not so likely to factor in the costs - and it's hard to calculate wear & tear. I had to change my front tyres after 16,000 miles (the rears will probably make it to 20,000) and I'm still on my original set of brakes. My tyres are expensive though (£200 each) but even then, the maintenance is relatively low (£300 annual service) - and the car is still under warranty for anything unexpected.

Precisely - the only people who seem to want to make a comparison are those who are saying how expensive motoring is. Those of us who need a car anyway due to the poor provision of buses and trains in our areas, really didn't have the opportunity to make such a considered decision in the first place.

It simply isn't feasible for us to exist without a car. And, since we have one, then rail fares have to be very competitive in comparison, even though we are happy to pay more for the enjoyment of not having to drive! Ultimately, as with the constantly recurring arguments about rail v air, everyone's circumstances mean they view transport quite diferently, often depending on the journey. I'm very happy, and envious, for those people who don't need a car, and for those who maintain that the fares system is excellent because they can get cheap tickets for their journeys. Sadly, i don;t believe that those views are shared by the majority of our fellow citizens!