Convince me to use the train

[Russel]

Something I've been thinking about recently, towards the end of January, myself, my partner and 6 year old son will be traveling from Lichfield to Wembley Uni, as we do a few times a year

Up until a couple of months ago, this is a journey I would have done by rail without really considering driving.

But the general state of the rail industry has made me weigh up the pros and cons and rail just doesn't feel like an attractive option any more, I've noted my main considerations below.

The only way rail would be a sensible option is if I was to travel alone, from a cost perspective.

Cost
Rail -
Tickets, £72 with a family and friends railcard Lichfield - Euston off peak returns, plus parking in Lichfield at, on average £10 for the day and then the tube tickets to Wembley Park and back, probably around another £10.
Total - £92 approx.

Road -
Petrol, at todays prices in a 2012 Hyundai hatchback, approx £40 plus parking in Wembley, probably around £10 for the day.
Total - £50 approx. (Ignoring wear and tear, insurance, tax etc as the car is used daily for work anyway so I'd be paying for this even if I got the train and left the car on the drive.)

Journey Time
Rail - 1hr 30m each way to Euston approx plus 30 minutes on the underground including connection time etc to Wembley Park, so lets call it 2 hours.

Road - 2 hours 17 minutes (Quoted by Google Maps)

Comfort
Rail - no guaranteed seat and the strong possibility of doing both out and back journeys on a 350/2 with no arm rests, no tables, no charging points. If it was a guaranteed double 350/1 or /3/4 then comfort would be irrelevant as they are actually comfortable units to travel on.

Road - the opposite of the above minus tables.

I doubt I'm alone in thinking this way and as someone that is an enthusiast and supporter of the railways, it's quite sad.

 

[142blue]

Just drive. At least it's more likely you will get there. Door to door pretty much, stop for a rest somewhere you've not been yet. No worrying about strikes

 

[Russel]

Just drive. At least it's more likely you will get there. Door to door pretty much, stop for a rest somewhere you've not been yet. No worrying about strikes

Exactly how I feel, but it shouldn't be like this.

Also, not sure why this has been moved to trip planning and reports as its more an observation of the state of the UK rail industry.

 

[lachlan]

Rail is much safer for yourself and more environmentally friendly as the train will run regardless of if you choose to take it. By driving you're contributing to congestion, making it more difficult for those who have no other choice but to drive, use the bus, or take a taxi to get about. You're also contributing to the air pollution crisis in London.

 

[yorkie]

You don't need to pay extra for 'tube tickets'; you can get a n inclusive Travelcard for about £72 covering your group. This would be valid to Wembley Central/Park/ Stadium or anywhere else you wanted to go .

These trains are usually 8 car; is it often the case that both unit types have 3+2 seating? I usually experience at least one of the sets has 2+2 seating (I typically travel on WMT Trent Valley services about once every month or two).

 

[mrmartin]

It really depends on the value of your time. Personally, I'd pay £20 extra to not have to drive for 5 hours.

 

[yorksrob]

I spent many years advocating for rail, although I don't tend to do so now because of the problems of the industry at the moment.

That said, there are still times when a rail journey can be very enjoyable.

You sound like experienced rail travellers. Assuming that you avoid strike days, do you think that you're likely to get a comfortable and stress free journey on the route ? My trips on LNWR have all been positive so far, so I'd be happy to use that service between Crewe and London, but my trips on the route are quite rare.

You can only go by your own knowledge, but if you generally have good experiences of those services, I'd say it's worth going for it.

 

[MisterSheeps]

Just because gogol maps claims you get there in 2h 17m does not mean you do so, whilst you stand a reasonable chance of doing so by rail. Also, claiming your car suffers the same wear & tear if it sits on the drive is ingenuous, true you have age deterioration, but journey deterioration is more significant ... tyres? suspension? stop start driving in congestion. Also, you may find better bargains than £72 depending on how far in advance you travel.

 

[class 9]

There's also the cost of actually buying the car, or leasing it.

 

[lachlan]

There's also the cost of actually buying the car, or leasing it.

In general yes, but in this case the OP already has a car.

 

[yorksrob]

I suspect that the lifetime cost of running the car and wear and tear etc has little relevance to the OP and their decision on how to travel. The family clearly has access to a car and they clearly enjoy using the train in the right circumstances.

The question is whether the railway can provide a good enough experience to justify not using the car on this occasion, which will be a judgement call on that route.

 

[Starmill]

There's also the cost of actually buying the car, or leasing it.

There isn't though, because if you read the opening post it's explained that the car is already paid for to use for regular travel. Therefore the cost is just fuel used, plus a tiny value for the maintenance costs incurred by the extra mileage.

 

[Starmill]

you stand a reasonable chance of doing so by rail

In general this might be true yes, although it wouldn't be if there's industrial action when the journey is taking place, or if there's a need to travel on West Midlands Trains on a Sunday.

 

[43096]

Just because gogol maps claims you get there in 2h 17m does not mean you do so, whilst you stand a reasonable chance of doing so by rail. Also, claiming your car suffers the same wear & tear if it sits on the drive is ingenuous, true you have age deterioration, but journey deterioration is more significant ... tyres? suspension? stop start driving in congestion. Also, you may find better bargains than £72 depending on how far in advance you travel.

But no one thinks like that, unless you're public transport policy wonk. What matters is the marginal cost of the journey, i.e. fuel and parking. Everything else any normal person takes as part of the cost of ownership i.e. it's a cost you're paying regardless.

 

[ComUtoR]

Take the train. Eat out and have a little tipple. Relatively less stress than stuck in a car for 4hrs+

 

[D365]

Rail is much safer for yourself and more environmentally friendly as the train will run regardless of if you choose to take it. By driving you're contributing to congestion, making it more difficult for those who have no other choice but to drive, use the bus, or take a taxi to get about. You're also contributing to the air pollution crisis in London.

FTFY

But I agree entirely, and this is what usually prompts me to take the train instead of driving. As long as I can work out the bus connections at each end.

Additionally, with a 16-25 railcard and by booking in advance, it's usually cheaper for me to go by train, when compared to current diesel prices at the pump.

 

[MisterSheeps]

But no one thinks like that, unless you're public transport policy wonk

or an enthusiast as the OP wrote ... if you like something, cost figures less, because you already have bias to doing what you enjoy.
Also, what price can you attach to several hours of enjoyable rail travel, compared to the stress of driving (constantly alert to potential accidents)?

 

[MisterSheeps]

In general this might be true

agree with your caveats, but the fact remains that the railway is a scheduled journey, whilst travel by road is anything but (journey time estimates by e.g. google are simply guesses) because of vast numbers of perturbations outside the drivers control e.g. accidents, breakdowns, congestion, events, weather, driver fatigue & attention, driving style (aggressive risk taking, or defensivee according to conditions & highway code), etc

 

[DannyMich2018]

I've been travelling by train for 20plus years now. I do enjoy travelling by train, its usually quick, comfortable and easy but the last six months of so with Strikes/cancellations has made it unpleasant.

I have a once a week journey from Hinckley to Kettering. Overcrowding can be very unpleasant and you worry particularly evening trains if they are cancelled, EMR 222s are very grotty inside with dirty windows outside, ticket checks rare especially XC between Leicester and Hinckley which are near non existent!

At least there are 2 trains an hour from Kettering to Leicester which means less waiting at Leicester, previously northbound services arrived Leicester just as Hinckley service was about to leave, so an hour wait.

 

[43096]

agree with your caveats, but the fact remains that the railway is a scheduled journey, whilst travel by road is anything but (journey time estimates by e.g. google are simply guesses) because of vast numbers of perturbations outside the drivers control e.g. accidents, breakdowns, congestion, events, weather, driver fatigue & attention, driving style (aggressive risk taking, or defensivee according to conditions & highway code), etc

And you can flip every one of those and come up with a list of reasons why the railway is as bad/worse...
- Can leave when you want
- Journey times are guesses depending on various factors (the road ones are NOT guesses, btw)
- Vast number of perturbations outside the passengers' control: strikes, engineering work, staff shortage, breakdowns, congestion, weather...
- Train company can just randomly cancel your train up to 10pm the night before with no comeback
I could go on here!

 

[neilmc]

As a general rule I would say the train is a viable option for a single person travelling IF

- you can walk, get a frequent bus to the starting station from home or can park in streets nearby for free
- you have a railcard and need to justify its purchase!
- where you are travelling to is horrific to drive into or extortionate to park
- it's a long distance you wouldn't fancy driving by yourself
- connections are reasonable and reliable

For example, I've tried travelling from my home to Leighton Moss bird reserve by train, but this means my wife has to drop me at a main line station, I have what may be quite a long connection at Lancaster and the car park at the reserve is free for members and I can drive there in well under an hour, so that option lapsed into disuse. Nothing but the car makes sense.

If there are two of you travelling together, the train is rarely a good option in any circumstances. For Manchester, where we go occasionally, we drive to a Metrolink station near a motorway, park for free and the tram is reasonable and frequent. So one form of efficient public transport has robbed another of any revenue!

London is a special case, I absolutely hate driving in London but when my son was in hospital there three of us drove down in one car, shared the driving, parked cheaply at somewhere in the outer Northern suburbs and travelled in by Tube saving a fortune over both rail fares or central parking. Just needed some thinking out.

A friend needs to travel spasmodically and at various times between Appleby and Penrith. Although both places are rail-connected, it's a tortuous trip with infrequent timings and possibly long connections, you wouldn't even take that option for free, and the bus is useless for anything except a daytime shop. So it's the car again, much as he'd rather not.

I assume by being on the forum most of us want to be "green" but the reality is that in so many cases rail is a slow, unreliable and expensive option. And living in Cumbria I can't recall the last time I was in a traffic hold-up, it's usually just a few sheep being moved from one field to another whereas the last time I showed my face at Penrith station to collect my wife the whole network was a sea of delays and cancellations.

 

[Russel]

You don't need to pay extra for 'tube tickets'; you can get a n inclusive Travelcard for about £72 covering your group. This would be valid to Wembley Central/Park/ Stadium or anywhere else you wanted to go .

These trains are usually 8 car; is it often the case that both unit types have 3+2 seating? I usually experience at least one of the sets has 2+2 seating (I typically travel on WMT Trent Valley services about once every month or two).

I'll admit I hadn't considered the inclusive Travelcard option, I'd forgotten they were a thing, though this would still leave the train around £30 more expensive. I know £30 isn't a huge amount, but it's still my weekly fuel bill.

Yes, usually 8 car, I used the Trent Valley service 3 or 4 times a year so this is only my observation but I've found at least 50% of the journeys are 350/2's which are really not a pleasant train to travel on.

I spent many years advocating for rail, although I don't tend to do so now because of the problems of the industry at the moment.

That said, there are still times when a rail journey can be very enjoyable.

You sound like experienced rail travellers. Assuming that you avoid strike days, do you think that you're likely to get a comfortable and stress free journey on the route ? My trips on LNWR have all been positive so far, so I'd be happy to use that service between Crewe and London, but my trips on the route are quite rare.

You can only go by your own knowledge, but if you generally have good experiences of those services, I'd say it's worth going for it.

I'm the same, I've always advocated rail travel until recently.

Stress free, generally yes, comfortable, as mentioned above, it really depends on the type of 350 that turns up.

Just because gogol maps claims you get there in 2h 17m does not mean you do so, whilst you stand a reasonable chance of doing so by rail. Also, claiming your car suffers the same wear & tear if it sits on the drive is ingenuous, true you have age deterioration, but journey deterioration is more significant ... tyres? suspension? stop start driving in congestion. Also, you may find better bargains than £72 depending on how far in advance you travel.

I disagree, Google Maps directions time estimates, from experience are generally accurate, okay there is the possibility of traffic and road works, but the train is also susceptible to delays and cancellations

As for wear and tear, the car is used daily for work and as a family run around, so a 250 (mostly) motorway mile round trip 3 times a year isn't going to add a noticeable increase to the annual cost of car maintenance, if I go by train and leave the car on the drive, I'm still going to have to replace the tyres before the next MOT and pay for an annual service.

Yes, I could get advance tickets, but don't usually know more than a month in advance when I'm going to travel and from experience of the Trent Valley service, advance tickets are usually only marginally cheaper than off peak tickets and I'd loose all flexibility.

My point is, these aren't issues contained to the Trent Valley line, they are more widespread, if I was to travel in the opposite direction, up to Manchester or Leeds, I'd be facing the same issues, the only difference would be the local accent when I get to my destination.

 

[philosopher]

Just because gogol maps claims you get there in 2h 17m does not mean you do so, whilst you stand a reasonable chance of doing so by rail. Also, claiming your car suffers the same wear & tear if it sits on the drive is ingenuous, true you have age deterioration, but journey deterioration is more significant ... tyres? suspension? stop start driving in congestion. Also, you may find better bargains than £72 depending on how far in advance you travel.

In terms of reliability I still think the train wins. Yes there is a fair chance the train will be delayed, but in my experience train delays are in the order of 5 to 10 minutes, so are relatively minor. The 2 hours 17 minutes won’t be 2 hours 17 minutes if there is a crash somewhere on the M1! Plus if the delay is more than 30 minutes you can claim compensation. You can’t get your petrol money back if you get stuck in traffic for more than 30 minutes.

 

[nanstallon]

I use public transport for preference, because of climate change concerns. I tolerate train travel being slightly more expensive, because it is worth paying a bit more to avoid the hassle of driving on crowded roads. However, there is a tipping point if rail services are stupidly expensive or unreliable. I have found cheap fares much harder to find of late, and the RMT or ASLEF strikes with their 'hangover' the next day, between them have put me off. But I'd rather go by train, all things being equal.

 

[Andy Pacer]

In terms of reliability I still think the train wins. Yes there is a fair chance the train will be delayed, but in my experience train delays are in the order of 5 to 10 minutes, so are relatively minor. The 2 hours 17 minutes won’t be 2 hours 17 minutes if there is a crash somewhere on the M1! Plus if the delay is more than 30 minutes you can claim compensation. You can’t get your petrol money back if you get stuck in traffic for more than 30 minutes.

I guess the biggest worry, particularly travelling with a child, is more the risk of the train being cancelled rather than a minor delay.
It's definitely a conundrum and I can empathise with the OP. I must admit I generally still use trains for longer journeys but when I consider my local(ish) journeys then I'm more likely to drive.

 

[nanstallon]

In terms of reliability I still think the train wins. Yes there is a fair chance the train will be delayed, but in my experience train delays are in the order of 5 to 10 minutes, so are relatively minor. The 2 hours 17 minutes won’t be 2 hours 17 minutes if there is a crash somewhere on the M1! Plus if the delay is more than 30 minutes you can claim compensation. You can’t get your petrol money back if you get stuck in traffic for more than 30 minutes.

Yes, the compensation regime for rail travel is generous. I am being refunded the full price of a ticket for being just over an hour late, when that lateness was not a personal disaster. But if my journey had been to get to a job interview,...?

I wouldn't deny that road congestion can cause problems, too. Transport is not totally reliable; at least not in Britain. Switzerland, maybe?

 

[Techniquest]

Just drive. At least it's more likely you will get there. Door to door pretty much, stop for a rest somewhere you've not been yet. No worrying about strikes

That was my first thought when reading the opening post, and assuming I had a full driving licence etc I'd be choosing to drive. Driving goes against all my environmental concerns, but I can't be dealing with the uncertainty of trains not running these days. The fact that I have a reliance on trains next week, and on a number of journeys I'm keen to do, is not great. If I could drive (only started learning again yesterday) then I'd go for that option much more.

It really depends on the value of your time. Personally, I'd pay £20 extra to not have to drive for 5 hours.

Also a valid point. Driving on an unknown route can lead to a less pleasant drive, I guess if the OP likes driving then it's all good. Although I agree with the person who pointed out it is not a good idea to rely on the estimated journey times on Google Maps. Treated as a general idea, then it's a useful tool for planning a day out but I'd always allow more than it says just to be sure.

I'd love to say that the OP should take the train, it is the logical choice for a journey into London, but the lack of faith in trains turning up or running even close to time is just too significant. I've allowed plenty of slack in my schedules for next week to allow for cancellations and delays, which I really shouldn't have to! I have zero faith in the 1227 Hereford-London Paddington actually running on Sunday, and not that much more faith in the 1327 either. Thankfully, it's a day just for positioning to London ahead of a Eurostar trip the next day, so if I'm delayed it's not too major an issue. As long as I am at the Premier Inn at a reasonable hour on Sunday, then it's OK.

 

[mrcheek]

I'm not even going to try. I use rail travel for leisure purposes only. I used to do a ALR every year, and two or three lesser rovers. But now I just cant be bothered. Too many strikes, and even when there isnt a strike, too many cancelled services. I am losing faith in rail. Usually at this time of the year I would be deep into planning my journeys for the year. But I havent even bothered with that.

Rail travel simply isnt worth the hassle at the moment

 

[BrianW]

I'm not even going to try. I use rail travel for leisure purposes only. I used to do a ALR every year, and two or three lesser rovers. But now I just cant be bothered. Too many strikes, and even when there isnt a strike, too many cancelled services. I am losing faith in rail. Usually at this time of the year I would be deep into planning my journeys for the year. But I havent even bothered with that.

Rail travel simply isnt worth the hassle at the moment

Me too; and it seems from this thread a lot of folk feeling much the same loss of faith in rail- just too unreliable; too much hassle

 

[stevetay3]

Just to many problems when travelling by trains at the moment

You could be stranded when they cancel the last train of the day

You could be forced to buy another ticket when you miss your booked train through no fault of your own

You could end up in court for miss understanding the crazy fares system

The price of the tickets are getting absolutely ridiculous at the moment

You could be forced to buy another ticket if operator ones train fails to turn up and you need to take a different operators service

With all the closed ticket offices you could end up being penalised for ticketless travel

A nightmare trying to get a refund or change a booking

Strikes being called all the time, they need to move into the 21st century from the 19th. Still arguing over who closes the doors on some lines.Other than that everything is fine on the trains.