Ticket Value for Money

[penaltyfines]

Hi,

I'm just wondering if anyone can see any value in a fare for this journey:

London Waterloo to Bournemouth, for 2 people, Off-Peak Day Return is £89.20.

Driving costs circa £30-£40 and takes around the same time, plus use of the vehicle when you're there, plus far better comfort than the SWT services down that way.

I already have a car so there's no question of fixed costs coming into the equation.

I just can't see any value in spending more than double the cost to go by train? And therefore why on earth SWT can charge that much? It's outrageous...

 

[FGWman]

if going after 1000 network card will give you a third off

 

[Urban Gateline]

What about parking charges? And the hassle of driving, taking the train means you can sit back and relax, no traffic, no concentration needed!

Also, that off peak price is a walk up fare, if you planned the trip further in advance you could get Advance tickets from around £7.50 one way per person (£30 in total) and that doesn't include any railcard discounts which could further reduce the price. Also Megatrain fares could be even cheaper for that journey!

 

[penaltyfines]

We would be going tomorrow so there's no advance fares that offer better value for money.

True there is some value in the hassle, but I think that's far outweighed by the cost of taxis that would be needed in Bournemouth...

This also presumes that trains are preferred... if they're held in equal regard the stress/hassle of trains, sometimes problematic staff, other passengers, delays, faults, strikes, etc may equal the stress/hassle of driving...

 

[tony_mac]

Trains can't always be competitive, particularly if there is two people travelling or you need a car at your destination.

There are many journeys that I would not consider taking by public transport, and many others that I wouldn't consider taking by car!

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I already have a car so there's no question of fixed costs coming into the equation.

That's an interesting claim!

Fixed costs, overheads, wear and tear, accidents, recovery, spares, stress, minor injuries (back pain, fingers etc) and of course depreciation are normally apportioned across all use of an asset. Its hard to find satisfactory grounds to transfer these overheads from one journey onto another.

I realise that isn't exactly the point you were trying to make, but I strongly advise you to re-consider it even just to help you make informed decisions.

Even on journeys where I am satisfied that driving is significantly cheaper (I can cheat having access to a range of vehicles!) I still choose the train sometimes for a wide range of reasons, the most common one being the relaxed and comfortable environment in which I can chat, eat, deal with emails etc, speaks with lients and suppliers and doze - often at much higher speeds than the roads.
But we're all different and what suits some of us won't suit us all. In fact, I've changed, as I used to drive between Newcastle & London or Brighton or Newcastle & Edinburgh or Inverness most weeks. Now I choose the train; not on grounds of cost but simply on how I feel about it. (Though I think the real costs of motoring will now support my choice).

 

[penaltyfines]

That's an interesting claim!

Fixed costs, overheads, wear and tear, accidents, recovery, spares, stress, minor injuries (back pain, fingers etc) and of course depreciation are normally apportioned across all use of an asset. Its hard to find satisfactory grounds to transfer these overheads from one journey onto another.

I see your point, but as I need the car anyway for work... if I go by car or train on this occasion, my insurance, tax, breakdown cover etc etc stays the same.

So the cost of going by car is purely the variable costs above and beyond me not using the car...

 

[AlterEgo]

Why does everyone always insist that the train must cost less than the car?

Nobody in the industry or any government has ever said it would always cost less than the equivalent car journey!

Trains are quite successful. Witness the crowding situation on most TOCs, or try getting a seat back from the Lake District to London on a Sunday afternoon.

 

[penaltyfines]

I never said it should COST less. I just think it should offer some VALUE.

If a private company were to raise the price to £200 for that journey (even worse value), nobody would pay for it - but that's fine.

But as a taxpayer I'm forced to subsidise the railway, so they should be forced to offer value for money in return for that subsidy!

Same argument that the £279 return to Manchester is pretty appalling, but at least there is a potential argument it saves time...

 

[telstarbox]

Take the train and you can DRINK.

 

[AlterEgo]

Trains in general do offer value for money, or they wouldn't be crammed, would they?

Like I said, try getting a seat back from the Lake District to London tomorrow. Can't be done. And some of the off peak fares on that route aren't cheap!

Different people value different things. I for one place great value on being able to let someone else take control and save me the drive.

 

[exile]

Or, sleep. Or have a meal while moving (either bring your own or bought on the train). Or chat to strangers. Or read a book. Or do some work. Or play computer games. Or use your mobile.
(I appreciate some drivers do some or all of these anyway )

 

[penaltyfines]

Trains in general do offer value for money, or they wouldn't be crammed, would they?

I think there's some confusion or a misunderstanding here.

I'm not talking about any train on the network or trains in general!!

I'm talking about this specific fare on this specific route/journey. I'm pretty sure you won't find that packed!

And to be quite honest with you, pack trains = value for money is probably the worst thing I've ever heard. If you ask someone on a packed commuter train from Reading to Paddington for example if that represents value for money, I'd doubt the answer will be 'yes it's a bargain'!!!!!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Or, sleep. Or have a meal while moving (either bring your own or bought on the train). Or chat to strangers. Or read a book. Or do some work. Or play computer games. Or use your mobile.
(I appreciate some drivers do some or all of these anyway )

True I'm not trying to say driving is identical to taking the train. Equally you can have music on through speakers in a car, or not have to deal with other people snoring or eating smelly food, have strangers talking loudly, people talking on mobile phones, or sit next to a smelly toilet, stand up on a crowded train.

The point is there should be some value for money 'test' or just some sort of vague idea, or else you could use the same argument for tripling every fare on the network couldn't you?!

 

[All Line Rover]

Trains in general do offer value for money, or they wouldn't be crammed, would they?

I agree with your first point. If you are able to travel Off-Peak (and particularly if you are able to book in advance), trains do offer excellent value for money. For example, taking the car from Manchester to London costs about £60 return in fuel. The train costs about £70 return. That £60 figure does not take into account the congestion charge and other costs, so the train is definitely cheaper than the car. It is also faster than the car, and a lot less hassle compared to taking the car!

I would take issue with your second point, though. Crammed trains do not signify a successful railway! People commuting to/from London have no option but to take the train (taking the car is completely impractical), so they are likely to pay whatever the train fare is (within reason).

I wouldn't say that £3584 for a yearly Reading to London season ticket is bad value. A similar journey - Leeds to Manchester - costs £2556 for a yearly season ticket. London commuters do (on average) earn a higher salary compared to people in the "North" (such as Manchester), and furthermore, if the trains are already packed, why bother lowering the fare? It would make no sense. There is no spare capacity.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Trains in general do offer value for money, or they wouldn't be crammed, would they?

I think that is flawed logic though.
Many people can't drive (or driving is simply impractical or not possible), so have no option but to get the train (or the bus, or whatever). Value for money doesn't come into it, its the only option.

 

[AlterEgo]

I would take issue with your second point, though. Crammed trains do not signify a successful railway! People commuting to/from London have no option but to take the train (taking the car is completely impractical), so they are likely to pay whatever the train fare is (within reason).

If you saw a fast food restaurant with so many people in that some had to stand, you'd think it was successful, wouldn't you?

Full and standing trains indicate that demand outstrips supply. That is an inescapable fact.

 

[WelshBluebird]

If you saw a fast food restaurant with so many people in that some had to stand, you'd think it was successful, wouldn't you?

Full and standing trains indicate that demand outstrips supply. That is an inescapable fact.

Something being successful (and demand outstripping supply) does not have any indication at all about how much value for money it is.

 

[AlterEgo]

I think that is flawed logic though.
Many people can't drive (or driving is simply impractical or not possible), so have no option but to get the train (or the bus, or whatever). Value for money doesn't come into it, its the only option.

So why not charge three billion pounds a ticket?

The price of the ticket reflects the demand for the service. The railway doesn't create all of it's own successes, but don't deny that it provides value for money - people will pay the fare.

Many people will pay £5k for a season ticket. They don't have to - they choose to because for the money they pay there is no better way to travel.

 

[WelshBluebird]

So why not charge three billion pounds a ticket?

The price of the ticket reflects the demand for the service. The railway doesn't create all of it's own successes, but don't deny that it provides value for money - people will pay the fare.

Many people will pay £5k for a season ticket. They don't have to - they choose to because for the money they pay there is no better way to travel.

Again, that has nothing to do with being value for money or not.
Many people will pay £5k for a season ticket, because they don't really have a choice in how they travel (driving is either too expensive, not possible, or impractical). That says nothing at all about how good value for money the season ticket itself is.
Demand has nothing to do with value for money.

 

[AlterEgo]

I disagree entirely that the railway is the only option to travel between two places.

There are cars (don't drive? Learn! Can't due to disability? 34% off train fares), buses, airplanes, and walking.

People who moan about the train being the only way to travel are wrong! There is a plethora of other methods. If you're not happy with a £5k season ticket, don't get one next year and drive to work.

The overwhelming majority of people have a choice.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I disagree entirely that the railway is the only option to travel between two places.

There are cars (don't drive? Learn! Can't due to disability? 34% off train fares), buses, airplanes, and walking.

People who moan about the train being the only way to travel are wrong! There is a plethora of other methods. If you're not happy with a £5k season ticket, don't get one next year and drive to work.

The overwhelming majority of people have a choice.

Depends on your own circumstance doesn't it.
Certainly for many people, the train is the only option.
In terms of driving, it is cost prohibitive, especially for young males (over £2k to insure a £400 car - you have to be kidding!), and often not at all practical (see how long it'll take you to get through central london in a car in rush hour).
In terms of buses, quite often they take much much longer, are just as expensive and are less reliable.
And walking is only possible if it is a short distance.

Certainly for me to go home / to see my gf / to see football games, the train is the only realistic option. Now, Bath to south wales is quite good value really (and it helps I have a railcard). However, in other parts of the country, similar journeys are very expensive indeed.

 

[All Line Rover]

If you saw a fast food restaurant with so many people in that some had to stand, you'd think it was successful, wouldn't you?

Full and standing trains indicate that demand outstrips supply. That is an inescapable fact.

But people in a fast food restaurant (and you will never catch me in a fast food restaurant, by the way!) are there because they have chosen (optionally) to eat there.

For the average commuter, there is no other reasonable method of travelling to central London - fact. The train is the only option - people cannot choose to use an alternative method of transport. But because the trains are already packed, I see no reason to lower the fares, even if people complain that they are not getting "value for money."

 

[AlterEgo]

For the average commuter, there is no other reasonable method of travelling to central London - fact. The train is the only option - people cannot choose to use an alternative method of transport.

There are commuter buses to London, even from as far afield as Leighton Buzzard. There are many other services which mirror this. http://www.marshalls-coaches.co.uk/pages/commuter-travel.php

People can also drive into London. It's not terribly practical, but it can be done.

Many people also choose to fly from places like Manchester.

The railway really isn't the only choice, but it does rather seem to be the best, doesn't it?

 

[penaltyfines]

The fact is, if you say trains being packed = value, then you could keep doubling the price until they're not packed to say they don't offer value. That point is where people cannot possibly afford to go to work, they cancel their season ticket.

So therefore, fares are good value simply as long as they don't bankrupt people???

 

[WelshBluebird]

The railway really isn't the only choice, but it does rather seem to be the best, doesn't it?

But that does not mean it is good value for money.
Being the best does not at all equal being good value for money.
That is what we are disagreeing about.
I totally agree that in such cases the train is the best mode of transport, but that does not mean I think it is good value for money.

 

[shinkansen1966]

Hi,

I'm just wondering if anyone can see any value in a fare for this journey:

London Waterloo to Bournemouth, for 2 people, Off-Peak Day Return is £89.20.

Driving costs circa £30-£40 and takes around the same time, plus use of the vehicle when you're there, plus far better comfort than the SWT services down that way.

I already have a car so there's no question of fixed costs coming into the equation.

I just can't see any value in spending more than double the cost to go by train? And therefore why on earth SWT can charge that much? It's outrageous...

To some extent, a car's life expectancy is determined by mileage driven. Every time you use a train rather than adding mileage to your car, you defer the cost of buying another car.

 

[deltic]

I'm very confused by this conversation.

How do you define value for money? A product is value for money if the benefit you get from it is greater than its cost. This varies from person to person and trip to trip as shown by some of the points made above.

For commuting rail is often far cheaper than road - in the London Reading example mentioned above to drive according to the AA motoring cost calculator (using the cheapest car) works out at 6.368.49 (ignoring congestion charges).

 

[penaltyfines]

I'm very confused by this conversation.

So I am, further so by your post!

How do you define value for money? A product is value for money if the benefit you get from it is greater than its cost. This varies from person to person and trip to trip as shown by some of the points made above.

Yes, almost.

For commuting rail is often far cheaper than road - in the London Reading example mentioned above to drive according to the AA motoring cost calculator (using the cheapest car) works out at 6.368.49 (ignoring congestion charges).

No.

You've just compared COST ('cheaper'), not VALUE. Like I said, asking a Reading-London commuter that's missed 2 trains, finally made it onto the 3rd train which is packed, no seat, and are squashed up against the slam doors, if their journey is good value - I doubt they'll say it's a bargain!

Your cost comparison is purely based on distance travelled, if that was the only basis for value then we would all walk everywhere which is practically free!!

 

[deltic]

I wasn't saying commuting by rail from Reading is better or worse value for money than driving - I was just comparing costs and showing rail is often cheaper.

The fact that people take the train rather than drive suggests they perceive rail to be better value for money than coach or driving even taking into account overcrowding, delays etc.

 

[Deerfold]

Hi,

I'm just wondering if anyone can see any value in a fare for this journey:

London Waterloo to Bournemouth, for 2 people, Off-Peak Day Return is £89.20.

Driving costs circa £30-£40 and takes around the same time, plus use of the vehicle when you're there, plus far better comfort than the SWT services down that way.

I already have a car so there's no question of fixed costs coming into the equation.

I just can't see any value in spending more than double the cost to go by train? And therefore why on earth SWT can charge that much? It's outrageous...

I think you'll struggle to find value in it if you haven't already.

However, sadly, the rail companies aren't there to provide value for money - they're there to make as much money as they can - their first responsibility is to their shareholders.

If they can get 100x£100 fares or 200X£40 fares they'll probably go for the former.

Such is rail privatisation.