• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Should taking a train be cheaper than driving a car?

Status
Not open for further replies.

PeterC

Established Member
Joined
29 Sep 2014
Messages
4,071
Paris to Lyon is 305 miles compared to 200 for London to Manchester.

There is a clear time advantage for the former by train as a TGV - but as I understand it TGV journeys are limited in that you have to travel on your booked train etc.

City centre to city centre makes sense by train - but most people aren't travellimg city centre to city centre - if you were travelling from somewhere like Hemel Hempstead to Ashton under Lyne - you'd end up with a much longer train journey than a simple Euston to Stockport / Piccadilly at which pointdriving it is more attractive.
I made a similar comment up-thread. In general the train simply doesn't compete on convenience until the journey is long enough to require a stop for a meal. Even then only if the journey involves limited lugguage.

To even think about competing on door to door journeys of up to three or four hours the off-peak walk up fare needs to beat the marginal cost of driving.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,541
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
To even think about competing on door to door journeys of up to three or four hours the off-peak walk up fare needs to beat the marginal cost of driving.

Yes, this. There is absolutely no point going on about using a car costing 45p a mile, because people simply do not model the cost in that way - for good reason, too, because by making a journey by train instead of by car you don't save the fixed costs (indeed, if you use a per-mile figure, if you use your car less you will get a higher figure). The 45p/mile figure only has any relevance if you are considering whether you should own a car or not.

This is why Railcards are a good idea, because you can make train more like car - a fixed cost plus a lower "per mile" cost. The mind boggles as to why the TOCs are so resistant to the idea.
 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,451
I made a similar comment up-thread. In general the train simply doesn't compete on convenience until the journey is long enough to require a stop for a meal. Even then only if the journey involves limited lugguage.

To even think about competing on door to door journeys of up to three or four hours the off-peak walk up fare needs to beat the marginal cost of driving.

But if you're carrying luggage and having to make multiple changes, cost may not be the deciding factor - convenience comes into it.
 

Llanigraham

Established Member
Joined
23 Mar 2013
Messages
6,074
Location
Powys
To even think about competing on door to door journeys of up to three or four hours the off-peak walk up fare needs to beat the marginal cost of driving.
One of our daughters lives near Penzance and we have looked at taking the train down, using my Disabled Card, so we both get the discount, and compared that with the car.
The car is quicker, at just over 5 hours, compared to anything over 7 by train.
The car is one journey, the train 4 changes.
The car is easier, as there is no lugging cases across platforms.
The car is cheaper, just costing the fuel. (I can easily get 60mpg driven sensibly)

And the biggest plus to the car is when we get there, as we then don't have to get a taxi to her house, and we have transport for touring whilst we are there.
 

cactustwirly

Established Member
Joined
10 Apr 2013
Messages
7,447
Location
UK
The premise that the cost of fuel = the cost of driving is flawed.
To give some context, alongside tracking my rail miles, I've been tracking the cost of each trip. My average cost per mile by rail is 15p. The average cost per mile of driving is 41p. It is worth considering this is with a railcard though, but also includes services like Metrolink & Tyne and Wear Metro, where I am not eligible for any specific discounts. So let's round it up to maybe 25p. Still comes in a decent amount cheaper than driving, although this figure will vary significantly depending on your car, insurance policy, parking, etc.

UK Transit Fares suffer from two major problems:
-The Price
-Integration

Integration needs to be much better, especially between modes like buses. Currently, poorly served communities are punished further by being charged more to change modes.

Part of the issue is that TOCs are incentivised to charge as much as they can in order to maximise farebox revenue & sometimes make repayments to the DaFT...
Limited capacity & bean-counting MBAs in government have also led to the increase in fares.

The whole thing is rather unfortunate really, especially as rail is so efficient. What it does mean though, is that even the underfunded, unreliable service is still more competitive than driving for many, so given some decent capacity and a proper fares system, there is potential for many more riders!

This is really the major overlooked issue, it's about service and convenience primarily.

Why is it flawed? I have a car to get to work, it's in effect a sunk cost. The costs for extra journeys for example leisure is in effect just fuel.
My car does 40 mpg on the motorway, at current prices (£1.16 per litre) that's 11p per mile.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,636
Why is it flawed? I have a car to get to work, it's in effect a sunk cost. The costs for extra journeys for example leisure is in effect just fuel.
My car does 40 mpg on the motorway, at current prices (£1.16 per litre) that's 11p per mile.

Because that undermines the argument that public transport fares are cheap.
 

Parham Wood

Member
Joined
13 Jun 2011
Messages
329
My initial reaction is yes train travel should be cheaper than car. In some case (advance tickets) it can be depending where you live (close to station, no need to park etc.) but in others even for an individual traveller it is not. When you consider families travelling together or even two people the balance moves quickly to favour using the car in terms of the cost of fares versus petrol. However you have the petrol costs, servicing, tyre wear and general depreciation in value against the car but with train travel you have the costs of getting to the station and the final bit to your destination to consider as well. It all depends where your starting point and destination point are in relation to the nearest station. Plus of course what you intend to do on arrival i.e. stay in one place or travel around which will incur more cost if you do not have a car to hand. For me at all times if I have to travel with my wife or family travelling by car comes out on top by a long way in the majority of cases. There should be some way for a family or group of up to five people to travel by train for no more that it would cost by car. That would be the environmental approach but it is unlikely with train companies being primarily in it for shareholder profit (in theory).
 

Jozhua

Established Member
Joined
6 Jan 2019
Messages
1,856
Why is it flawed? I have a car to get to work, it's in effect a sunk cost. The costs for extra journeys for example leisure is in effect just fuel.
My car does 40 mpg on the motorway, at current prices (£1.16 per litre) that's 11p per mile.
It should be cheaper than the overall cost of ownership of a car, rather than just the fuel.

For the majority of people who can already afford to own a car, their decisions on how to travel are driven by convenience rather than cost. Therefore it is more appropriate to focus on providing a good service, rather than on ticket price. Railcards can help reduce costs for the young, elderly, disabled and group travellers, there's no reason why this scheme shouldn't be extended.

Currently the DaFT runs railways like a bunch of penny-pinching, asset stripping, MBA's. Cutting capital investment and decreasing fare subsidies. There were a number of franchises (pre-covid) who were making re-payments to the DaFT. Now that they are "publically" owned, I doubt this will change - once passenger numbers begin to rise again.
Because that undermines the argument that public transport fares are cheap.
I don't think they're cheap - buses are certainly not cheap!
But I think more goes into fares and an overall feeling of value than purely the cost. Feeling like you are being charged fairly, and having a fare system that is relatively easy to understand is an important part of this.
 

Dryce

Member
Joined
25 May 2015
Messages
151
It should be cheaper than the overall cost of ownership of a car, rather than just the fuel.

It should.

In pactice it isn't for many journeys.

I don't use my own car for company trips - they book a rental car. The cost of the rental car + fuel often works out cheaper than the train for the whole journey.

There are tradeoffs depending on the exact route and the convenience of the station and hotel options for multi-night trips. Also door to door times by rail and car can both vary depending on time of journey (timetabling / congestion). Practicality of being able to work on a train also vary by timing.

I switch between both modes on the same route.
 

Dr Hoo

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2015
Messages
3,912
Location
Hope Valley
It should.

In pactice it isn't for many journeys.

I don't use my own car for company trips - they book a rental car. The cost of the rental car + fuel often works out cheaper than the train for the whole journey.

There are tradeoffs depending on the exact route and the convenience of the station and hotel options for multi-night trips. Also door to door times by rail and car can both vary depending on time of journey (timetabling / congestion). Practicality of being able to work on a train also vary by timing.

I switch between both modes on the same route.
A really helpful case study from part of the real world. Thanks for this post.
 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,451
I don't think they're cheap - buses are certainly not cheap!
But I think more goes into fares and an overall feeling of value than purely the cost. Feeling like you are being charged fairly, and having a fare system that is relatively easy to understand is an important part of this.

I think you have an unrealistic expectation of what it actually costs to run a bus or train service then. The operating cost per mile (outside London) is £ 3.59 - it was £ 2.02 in 2004 - most of which can be accounted for by inflation. (source gov.uk)

If you're expecting fares to be circa £ 1 / mile or some such measure, then somebody has to make up the remaining £ 2.59 - and that would be a massive subsidy for very little gain.
 

Fawkes Cat

Established Member
Joined
8 May 2017
Messages
2,943
I think you have an unrealistic expectation of what it actually costs to run a bus or train service then. The operating cost per mile (outside London) is £ 3.59 - it was £ 2.02 in 2004 - most of which can be accounted for by inflation. (source gov.uk)

If you're expecting fares to be circa £ 1 / mile or some such measure, then somebody has to make up the remaining £ 2.59 - and that would be a massive subsidy for very little gain.
Just trying to understand the figures here: is the operating cost of £3.59 per mile the cost for running the bus (so it would cost an operator £3.59 if there were no passengers, or if there were 50), or the cost per mile per passenger (so one passenger - cost of £3.59, fifty passengers, cost of £179.50)? It seems to me that the implications are very different depending on what the operating cost means.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
My car does 40 mpg on the motorway, at current prices (£1.16 per litre) that's 11p per mile.

Based on the above, people arguing that trains fares should be cheaper than driving (and, they seem to mean the marginal cost of driving, assuming that the vehicle purchase is a sunk cost that doesn't get used in the equation) then that would mean rail fares of no more than twenty quid for a single journey from Torquay/ Swansea/ Manchester/ Leeds to London (or single journey from Leeds/ Manchester to Bristol/ Cardiff or from Hull to Llandudno).

Is that what people are actually arguing in favour of? Or are we talking a rail fare of no more than the fuel required to drive a car, in which case the single rail fares for those journeys should be no more than a fiver (since you can get four in a car)?

It's easy to say that "fares should be cheaper" and "we should do more to attract people to swap cars for public transport" ... and I agree with the sentiment... but does "taking the train should cost less than driving" really mean "maximum Manchester to London fare of twenty pounds"? Because if it does then that's going to have significant problems for how we accommodate people onto the railway (and can't price them off at busier times, since that would make train travel more expensive than driving).
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,636
If you're expecting fares to be circa £ 1 / mile or some such measure, then somebody has to make up the remaining £ 2.59 - and that would be a massive subsidy for very little gain.

Are you really expecting less than four people on a bus on average?

It's easy to say that "fares should be cheaper" and "we should do more to attract people to swap cars for public transport" ... and I agree with the sentiment... but does "taking the train should cost less than driving" really mean "maximum Manchester to London fare of twenty pounds"? Because if it does then that's going to have significant problems for how we accommodate people onto the railway (and can't price them off at busier times, since that would make train travel more expensive than driving).
The same way we control crowding on the Northern Line in rush hour?
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,541
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I see no reason to forbid standees

Crush-loading IC services like the Northern Line in the rush hour is not the way to go. At present, price variation manages things so very few WCML services (say) are actually like that. With all Manchester-London trains at £20, you would have overcrowding like the Tube and lots left behind. The only other way to avoid that is "when it's full, it's full".

You could perhaps "overbook" by maybe 4-6 per vestibule, I suppose.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,636
Crush-loading IC services like the Northern Line in the rush hour is not the way to go. At present, price variation manages things so very few WCML services (say) are actually like that. With all Manchester-London trains at £20, you would have overcrowding like the Tube and lots left behind. The only other way to avoid that is "when it's full, it's full".

You could perhaps "overbook" by maybe 4-6 per vestibule, I suppose.

So instead you propose to leave far more people behind?

Forcibly preventing people from boarding trains they can board will not go down well
 

RT4038

Established Member
Joined
22 Feb 2014
Messages
4,180
Currently the DaFT runs railways like a bunch of penny-pinching, asset stripping, MBA's. Cutting capital investment and decreasing fare subsidies. There were a number of franchises (pre-covid) who were making re-payments to the DaFT. Now that they are "publically" owned, I doubt this will change - once passenger numbers begin to rise again.

No they don't - they operate it for the best value for the money that the taxpayer will contribute. It is called politics. There is not an unending supply of money for rail subsidies.
 

Jozhua

Established Member
Joined
6 Jan 2019
Messages
1,856
It goes down perfectly well in all the "Romance" style HS rail countries.
Because they have actual capacity...

Operators like XC have overcrowded trains off - peak, if you waited until seats were available, you'd be stuck in the station until 10pm.

Also, our high speed operators are responsible for local journeys. Try getting from Derby to Sheffield on a "local" train...
 

telstarbox

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
5,928
Location
Wennington Crossovers
Based on the above, people arguing that trains fares should be cheaper than driving (and, they seem to mean the marginal cost of driving, assuming that the vehicle purchase is a sunk cost that doesn't get used in the equation) then that would mean rail fares of no more than twenty quid for a single journey from Torquay/ Swansea/ Manchester/ Leeds to London (or single journey from Leeds/ Manchester to Bristol/ Cardiff or from Hull to Llandudno).

Is that what people are actually arguing in favour of? Or are we talking a rail fare of no more than the fuel required to drive a car, in which case the single rail fares for those journeys should be no more than a fiver (since you can get four in a car)?

It's easy to say that "fares should be cheaper" and "we should do more to attract people to swap cars for public transport" ... and I agree with the sentiment... but does "taking the train should cost less than driving" really mean "maximum Manchester to London fare of twenty pounds"? Because if it does then that's going to have significant problems for how we accommodate people onto the railway (and can't price them off at busier times, since that would make train travel more expensive than driving).
I would say that £50-70 for a train return from London to Manchester is good value. Some leisure users and and some businesses will be happy to pay even more, as it offers a significant productivity gain over driving. But obviously that's a journey between two city centres. But for a Watford to Stockport journey the distance isn't much shorter, but the road journey will be more competitive as it's nearly all motorway.

One of our daughters lives near Penzance and we have looked at taking the train down, using my Disabled Card, so we both get the discount, and compared that with the car.
The car is quicker, at just over 5 hours, compared to anything over 7 by train.
The car is one journey, the train 4 changes.
The car is easier, as there is no lugging cases across platforms.
The car is cheaper, just costing the fuel. (I can easily get 60mpg driven sensibly)

And the biggest plus to the car is when we get there, as we then don't have to get a taxi to her house, and we have transport for touring whilst we are there.
And this just shows that rail can't and shouldn't try to serve every possible journey in the UK. Presumably the convenience factors in this case are so significant, that you wouldn't take the train even if it was a fiver?
 
Last edited:

Llanigraham

Established Member
Joined
23 Mar 2013
Messages
6,074
Location
Powys
And this just shows that rail can't and shouldn't try to serve every possible journey in the UK. Presumably the convenience factors in this case are so significant, that you wouldn't take the train even if it was a fiver?
Probably not, unless there was a cheap and convenient car hire facility nearby.

The other main rail journey I do is to meetings in London and for that I never consider the car, other than to the station since we have no other public transport. Even without my 30% discount I still wouldn't take the car.
 

jfowkes

Member
Joined
20 Jul 2017
Messages
879
And this just shows that rail can't and shouldn't try to serve every possible journey in the UK. Presumably the convenience factors in this case are so significant, that you wouldn't take the train even if it was a fiver?
This is a scenario where decent car hire is a really good fit with the train. Cheap train to major-ish town/city, hire a car, spend a week on holiday, return car, train home.
 

Stewart2887

Member
Joined
29 Apr 2013
Messages
104
For three of us, train to Edinburgh is stupidly expensive, car cheaper for one person, never mind three. There should be a "one price for a family" rule. So Oxford-Edinburgh £150ish return for us all. And no age/disability/time restrictions. Otherwise, M6 here we come
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,541
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
For three of us, train to Edinburgh is stupidly expensive, car cheaper for one person, never mind three. There should be a "one price for a family" rule. So Oxford-Edinburgh £150ish return for us all. And no age/disability/time restrictions. Otherwise, M6 here we come

To be fair, a full or near-full efficient modern family car (provided you're not driving a Rangie or something) is an environmentally and road-space efficient way of travelling, so you could argue the railway shouldn't even bother going after that market and would be better off making the prices for individuals and groups of two better.

The cars we really want off the road are ones with one person in them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top