What incentive is there to go by train?

[Bald Rick]

I think you could have chosen a better car to be almost certain of its emissions than a decade old Volkswagen!

Only using what I have to hand! My 10 year old Golf will do 65-70mpg with 4 on board on a long trip.

 

[py_megapixel]

That's often said, but where's the proof?

Obviously it depends on the exact circumstances, and as such that statement should probably have been prefixed by "can be"

For example if you are traveling into London, it's almost certainly cheaper to use the train because of the congestion charge, the ULEZ charge if you have an older vehicle, and then a huge amount of money to park in the city centre. However, if you are going walking somewhere in the middle of the countryside then it's probably cheaper to drive because your only costs realistically are going to be fuel, and the train might be quite expensive because it's not PTE subsidised.

Also there are fixed costs in running a car, including servicing, taxing and MOT testing the vehicle and if the trains are "good enough" then that might be why some people choose not to bother with owning a car and save those costs.

 

[py_megapixel]

Depends on the car, and the train. But 50 families of four in, say, 50 diesel decade old VW Golfs would almost certainly produce fewer pollutants and less CO2 than a fully loaded 4 car Voyager on a similar Journey.

50 families of 4 is 200 people which is a similar seating capacity to a 4 car voyager, but the voyager can also accommodate dozens of standing passengers as well...

 

[DerekC]

Only using what I have to hand! My 10 year old Golf will do 65-70mpg with 4 on board on a long trip.

So what? (sorry, bad habit caught from a former boss). The only conclusion I can draw (see the figures in post #178) is that train (even an ageing DEMU) is better from an emissions point of view if travelling by yourself or with one other, but with four-up there isn't much difference. Of course if you take a modern electric train the emissions will be a lot lower - as they will with an electric car. However the train will win in that situation because the losses in charging and discharging a battery are mvery significant

The fact is that most people already travelled by car (before Covid) because owning a car is convenient for short distance trips and once you have one, the marginal cost of a longer journey for more than one person is generally much less than the train fares. And the environmental argument isn't going to get people back on the train.

 

[al78]

The primary incentives for me to travel by train are:

1. If I am going out for a meal in a different town which is easily accessible by rail, I don't have to worry about parking and I can have a drink.

2. Long distance journeys are more pleasant by train if there are no major delays. When I go on holiday to Scotland, I will get a daytime train or the sleeper, and accept I have to plan my itinery around limited but useable public transport whilst there.

3. Travelling to London for anything work related, train is the only practical means and I am happy cycling across London (with a folding bike) to get to my destination.

 

[al78]

So what? (sorry, bad habit caught from a former boss). The only conclusion I can draw (see the figures in post #178) is that train (even an ageing DEMU) is better from an emissions point of view if travelling by yourself or with one other, but with four-up there isn't much difference. Of course if you take a modern electric train the emissions will be a lot lower - as they will with an electric car. However the train will win in that situation because the losses in charging and discharging a battery are mvery significant

I'm not convinced about the four in a car being as good or better than the train from an emissions perspective. Driving involves using another vehicle, whereas going the train doesn't, because the train is already transporting a load of other people. The more people that use trains, the less people are using roads, which reduces traffic congestion and increases free flowing traffic, which is more energy efficient that start-stop traffic.

 

[telstarbox]

Four of us drove from London to Sheffield and back earlier this year in a small petrol car. I used an emissions calculator which showed that this was better than the train emissions wise - possibly because it's a diesel route on the MML. For London to Manchester I would expect the train to win.

 

[trainmania100]

There are huge reasons to travel by train:
Most cities and towns now have a station
You don't have to worry about your drive belts snapping under your bonnet
You don't have to worry about having a road traffic accident in your expensive car
Buses are too slow and stop everywhere and trains are generally quicker for similar price or less (Preston park to Brighton - 1 stop on the train, 20+ stops on the bus - probably about £4 return, for both bus and train ) probably only takes a couple of minutes from Preston park to Brighton
No worries about pay and display unless you drive to the station

Trains are the way toward the only drawback is delays/crowding and overpriced Ringo carpark charges

My concessionary bus pass expired last month, I didn't bother renewing it because I'd rather travel by train than bus (and also due to the fact I've moved council districts, addressed and circumstances have changed)

 

[al78]

Four of us drove from London to Sheffield and back earlier this year in a small petrol car. I used an emissions calculator which showed that this was better than the train emissions wise - possibly because it's a diesel route on the MML. For London to Manchester I would expect the train to win.

How can driving a car be better than using the train and not driving a car? The train is still operating whether you use it or not.

 

[Bald Rick]

How can driving a car be better than using the train and not driving a car? The train is still operating whether you use it or not.

You can make the same argument for domestic flying...

 

[telstarbox]

How can driving a car be better than using the train and not driving a car? The train is still operating whether you use it or not.

An empty train will consume less fuel than a fully loaded one though.

 

[xotGD]

You can make the same argument for domestic flying...

But when the number wishing to fly gets below a certain threshold the route becomes uneconomic, the flight gets cancelled and the emissions are zero.

 

[Bald Rick]

But when the number wishing to fly gets below a certain threshold the route becomes uneconomic, the flight gets cancelled and the emissions are zero.

And same with the train, albeit via a more convoluted process.

 

[PeterC]

The incentive / disincentive to me is the availibilty door to door connections rather than the trunk haul taken in isolation.

 

[al78]

You can make the same argument for domestic flying...

Not really, trains can be made longer (theoretically), have spare capacity the majority of the time, and have a higher max passenger density. Airlines respond to increased passenger demand by putting on more flights.

 

[al78]

An empty train will consume less fuel than a fully loaded one though.

The marginal fuel consumption of an extra passenger is tiny. In addition, weight is only really significant when the vehicle is stopping and starting a lot, or climbing hills. For vehicles with long distances between stops (i.e. more than a couple of km), the vast majority of the fuel consumption goes into making air swirl around. Similar with cars, for motorway driving, the aerodynamics of the car matter much more than the weight for fuel efficiency. Stop-start driving in town, the weight matters more.

Trains are very aerodynamic when passenger load is taken into account because the frontal area of the train per passenger is very small (much smaller than for a car). If you want to make a passenger vehicle fuel efficient, make it long and thin.

 

[Purple Orange]

The incentive to me for using the train over the car is based in three different scenarios. Is the journey a regular weekly commute, a work related one-off journey to another congested city or a one-off journey with the family? If the first two it is defined by:

• Frequency
• Journey time vs crawling through a city in traffic
• Cost which has two forms:
  • If you can live without a second car as a family, the incremental cost of buying the 2nd car specifically for getting to and from work is prohibitive when factoring in finance costs, services and repairs, parking, petrol, insurance.

If the last, it is defined by whether it is to London (always on the train) or not. If not, then we will likely drive if we need to transport other items that are difficult to carry. If it is just to Manchester from Wilmslow, then we will likely get the train, purely down to the ease of navigating Manchester.

 

[BigCj34]

I'm not convinced about the four in a car being as good or better than the train from an emissions perspective. Driving involves using another vehicle, whereas going the train doesn't, because the train is already transporting a load of other people. The more people that use trains, the less people are using roads, which reduces traffic congestion and increases free flowing traffic, which is more energy efficient that start-stop traffic.

Unless demand gets so high from families that more rolling stock has to be procured. However the extra emissions from longer rolling stock will be far less than the equivalent number of car seats on the road.

Or they could do an XC and cram them all on short trains regardless!

 

[The Ham]

Whilst it's entirely possible to highlight that a well loaded car can be comparable to rail, all that does is highlight just how many cars only have one person in then as the overall average car occupancy is 1.6 people. Therefore for that to remain true for every car with 4 people people in there's four other cars with one person in.

The other problem with such comparisons is that often there's a lot of other miles undertaken which aren't undertaken by rail. Many of which are likely to be walking/cycling. Whilst it's much more tempting to jump in the car rather than walk 600m (from experience, I've seen someone take their kid that distance to school by car only to drive back home again and not just one but most days).

 

[corfield]

I must admit I’ve switched to the car almost entirely in the last few years. Mainly as I’m doing cross country E-W routes and the train requires “go via London terminals” at vast cost and time. Around or between towns, although I can mostly walk (living on the centre), the bus, even though they are good here, is still very slow and indirect plus bags/exact location.

It seems a lot less stressful to just sit in the car, warm/cool, radio, bags and stuff in the boot and all door to door. I find my car very relaxing, even the very longest journeys I get out and feel good.

I can however pick and choose times and so benefit from contra-flows.

Throw in young kids and their “support” kit, although of course they were free and loved trains so we have gone into London a lot. Now the cost vs a car is grossly prohibitive and time as well plus again, having to carry everything across 3-4 breaks in transport mode.

Covid is a pain, Id wanted to get them into London again to the museums plus some steam heritage places before that’s all “boring dad stuff”!

 

[broadgage]

That rather depends on how often the train stops, and how long for!

My point was more general - that the reality of train travel for many is not what is described: it's packed commuter trains where if you are lucky you get an ironing-board seat, but may well end up standing. Even on a long-distance train, you are inceasingly likely to have hard, uncomfortable seats and no buffet, so any catering is dependant on whehter / when the trolley puts in an appearance.

Surely not ! I have previously voiced dissatisfaction about the hard seats and absence of buffets on new trains. A trolley that is often hiding, or static, or in the other portion of the train is a very poor substitute for a proper buffet.
There seemed to be a widely held view that no one wants a buffet these days, and that only few old dinosaurs like me feel that intercity services should have a buffet, padded seats, and other luxuries.

 

[theironroad]

Surely not ! I have previously voiced dissatisfaction about the hard seats and absence of buffets on new trains. A trolley that is often hiding, or static, or in the other portion of the train is a very poor substitute for a proper buffet.
There seemed to be a widely held view that no one wants a buffet these days, and that only few old dinosaurs like me feel that intercity services should have a buffet, padded seats, and other luxuries.

Some padding in seats would definitely be an advantage, especially on long distance.

Not so worried about an actual buffet (though as a child used to love the thick breaded toast with loads of butter on a train out of London Victoria!), but the guarantee of a trolley to seat or guarantee of being served if I walk to the trolley would be useful. I must be getting old as I seem to carry a flask a lot more!

 

[miami]

Most cities and towns now have a station

Take Norwich. 1 station, 1-2 miles from much of the city. If you're heading for the 50 hectares around the station that's fine, if you're heading for the other 1200 it's not.

You don't have to worry about your drive belts snapping under your bonnet

It's not 1970. I've been on more broken down trains than cars in the last 20 years.

It makes sense to the country for the train to capture single-passenger journeys in a car - as has been pointed

Can the incentives be improved?

In my experience on the WCML, of single passengers

those travelling 500m of station to London for one off business travel will travel by train
those travelling 500m of station to 500m of station in city-centre for commuting in peak hours travel by train
those travelling 500m of station to London will travel by train
those commuting to London in peak hours will travel by train
those travelling to London from outside of the 500m range (or often inside it) of non-direct stations will drive to an intercity railhead (Wilmslow, Crewe, Wigan)

Cost isn't that much of a factor for those groups, although leisure passengers will travel on the busier trains as they are cheaper. The peak trains into Manchester/Liverpool are already full, so the railway can't really get more people onto those. Cancelling the peak cliff on the WCML would spread the load a little, but HS2 is the best thing for more capacity in general.

Aside from ensuring decent connections I'm not sure what more the railway can do to incentivize travellers without major capacity and service increases, and one person's "decent connections" doesn't work for another.

For couples, getting rid of the two-together and just issuing a ticket for two people would be helpful, but the 4 hour wait for a train on a Sunday evening before 4 hours of people cram onto a single-car 158 is also important. Maybe throw in "kids travel for free with parent off-peak" to capture parents, but I don't think the capacity is there.

 

[DerekC]

Take Norwich. 1 station, 1-2 miles from much of the city. If you're heading for the 50 hectares around the station that's fine, if you're heading for the other 1200 it's not.



It's not 1970. I've been on more broken down trains than cars in the last 20 years.

It makes sense to the country for the train to capture single-passenger journeys in a car - as has been pointed

Can the incentives be improved?

In my experience on the WCML, of single passengers

those travelling 500m of station to London for one off business travel will travel by train
those travelling 500m of station to 500m of station in city-centre for commuting in peak hours travel by train
those travelling 500m of station to London will travel by train
those commuting to London in peak hours will travel by train
those travelling to London from outside of the 500m range (or often inside it) of non-direct stations will drive to an intercity railhead (Wilmslow, Crewe, Wigan)

Cost isn't that much of a factor for those groups, although leisure passengers will travel on the busier trains as they are cheaper. The peak trains into Manchester/Liverpool are already full, so the railway can't really get more people onto those. Cancelling the peak cliff on the WCML would spread the load a little, but HS2 is the best thing for more capacity in general.

Aside from ensuring decent connections I'm not sure what more the railway can do to incentivize travellers without major capacity and service increases, and one person's "decent connections" doesn't work for another.

For couples, getting rid of the two-together and just issuing a ticket for two people would be helpful, but the 4 hour wait for a train on a Sunday evening before 4 hours of people cram onto a single-car 158 is also important. Maybe throw in "kids travel for free with parent off-peak" to capture parents, but I don't think the capacity is there.

I would have agreed with all of that pre-Covid, but how much of it will be true in (say) twelve months time? Will the traffic return? A lot of people I have spoken to in the past few weeks have seen the advantages of working at home, Zoom meetings etc and don't want to go back to the old travel patterns. I think incentivisation to use rail will become a big issue - either that or we will see major, permanent, cuts to services - this government won't think twice about doing that if they think it will be popular, and railways are an easy target for the propaganda machine.

 

[miami]

I would have agreed with all of that pre-Covid, but how much of it will be true in (say) twelve months time? Will the traffic return? A lot of people I have spoken to in the past few weeks have seen the advantages of working at home, Zoom meetings etc and don't want to go back to the old travel patterns. I think incentivisation to use rail will become a big issue - either that or we will see major, permanent, cuts to services - this government won't think twice about doing that if they think it will be popular, and railways are an easy target for the propaganda machine.

Given the growth of rail in the last 10 years this may buy us a little time before the trains are full again.

I work from home, have done for years, but I still travel, I just don't do the daily commute. During covid if I go somewhere I'm driving, far less stressful than a train, but that will pass, maybe in a year, maybe in 5 years.

It's possible that the daily commute decreases, but people will still need to travel. We rely on social interactions with customers, collegues, and suppliers. We can cope with covid because we have those relationships already, however we aren't making new relationships, and many of my collegues are feeling detached. As more people return to the office (our London HQ we went down to 10% occupancy, back upto 15% now)

Perhaps we'll end up with more parking at major stations and parkways as people move away from dormitory towns and accept a longer journey once a week. Many trains are full outside of peak hours though, and stopping commuting doesn't really impact on how busy the 0935 Manchester to London is.

 

[corfield]

Not really, trains can be made longer (theoretically), have spare capacity the majority of the time, and have a higher max passenger density. Airlines respond to increased passenger demand by putting on more flights.

Or putting on longer aircraft just as you advocate for trains. They also have spare capacity much of the time and the lower density is a strong attraction vs nose to nose standing trains.

 

[TUC]

I'm currenly looking at tickets for my daughter and two children to travel from Teesside to West Yorkshire. Even with Advance fares, the cheapest I can get for a return journey is £30 more than the cost of driving them both ways. Who wants trains with that cost differential?

 

[AlbertBeale]

I'm currenly looking at tickets for my daughter and two children to travel from Teesside to West Yorkshire. Even with Advance fares, the cheapest I can get for a return journey is £30 more than the cost of driving them both ways. Who wants trains with that cost differential?

The immediate financial cost isn't the real cost to society of choices like that. Some of us take broader issues into account when deciding on transport mode, not just what it costs us personally in £ at that time. My conscience being clearer is part of the incentive for me when travelling by rail.

 

[TUC]

The immediate financial cost isn't the real cost to society of choices like that. Some of us take broader issues into account when deciding on transport mode, not just what it costs us personally in £ at that time. My conscience being clearer is part of the incentive for me when travelling by rail.

That kind of incentive is the luxury of the relatively affluent. For most people it's a similar equation to which supermarket to use. Rail, offer the best deal and we'll use you. If not, we won't. Simple as that.

 

[dk1]

Four of us drove from London to Sheffield and back earlier this year in a small petrol car. I used an emissions calculator which showed that this was better than the train emissions wise - possibly because it's a diesel route on the MML. For London to Manchester I would expect the train to win.

That journey sounds like my idea of absolute hell.