This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I have been having thoughts about perhaps going to the Lakes for a few days and thought about going by train. However, when I looked at the fares, the cheapest I could get was circa £120 return from North Wales to Windermere.
My car does about 30-35 miles to the gallon so that the same return journey would cost me about £60. I would also have the convenience of having my car available for "local" running in the Lakes.
Even taking account of overheads such as tax, insurance(which have to be paid anyway) to me the train does not even start to look competitive.
No doubt I'll get slagged off by the tree huggers but I don't intend to pay that much over the odds for them to smugly tell me to do my bit to "save the planet"
My car does about 30-35 miles to the gallon so that the same return journey would cost me about £60. I would also have the convenience of having my car available for "local" running in the Lakes.
Even taking account of overheads such as tax, insurance(which have to be paid anyway) to me the train does not even start to look competitive.
No doubt I'll get slagged off by the tree huggers but I don't intend to pay that much over the odds for them to smugly tell me to do my bit to "save the planet"
8
3
In reply to mypyrex:
And put another 2-3 people in the car and the economics become even more convincing, (even allowing more for VED, servicing, tyres, insurance, depreciation etc that reflect the true cost of motoring)
And put another 2-3 people in the car and the economics become even more convincing, (even allowing more for VED, servicing, tyres, insurance, depreciation etc that reflect the true cost of motoring)
8
In reply to mypyrex:
I guess it depends on which bit of North Wales you're traveling from, and what times you want to travel, but from Rhyl to Windemere, you can get off peak open returns for £67.90 which doesn't seem to bad in relation to petrol, tax, wear and tear etc...
http://i.imgur.com/4VUCppA.jpg
I guess it depends on which bit of North Wales you're traveling from, and what times you want to travel, but from Rhyl to Windemere, you can get off peak open returns for £67.90 which doesn't seem to bad in relation to petrol, tax, wear and tear etc...
http://i.imgur.com/4VUCppA.jpg
In reply to mypyrex:
Well you might get slagged off for using such a lazy phrase as tree huggers. FFS.
> No doubt I'll get slagged off by the tree huggers but I don't intend to pay that much over the odds for them to smugly tell me to do my bit to "save the planet"
Well you might get slagged off for using such a lazy phrase as tree huggers. FFS.
19
5
In reply to mypyrex:
But in your car you will miss the following:
1) The gang of happy party goers getting merrily smashed, playing loud music on their tinny mobile phone speakers and being generally disruptive
2) The stench of the virgin trains (or whatever-they-are-now) where somehow the entire carriage stinks of the toilet
3) Constant noise from the vibration of bits of metal included in the train by some twit who seems to have forgotten all the lessons of the last 150 years of machine building
4) Having to sit in a vestibule because it's over booked
5) Being herded through ticket gates like cattle
6) &c. &c.
But in your car you will miss the following:
1) The gang of happy party goers getting merrily smashed, playing loud music on their tinny mobile phone speakers and being generally disruptive
2) The stench of the virgin trains (or whatever-they-are-now) where somehow the entire carriage stinks of the toilet
3) Constant noise from the vibration of bits of metal included in the train by some twit who seems to have forgotten all the lessons of the last 150 years of machine building
4) Having to sit in a vestibule because it's over booked
5) Being herded through ticket gates like cattle
6) &c. &c.
6
In reply to mypyrex:
Don't ever buy from the Trainline, they charge fees not chargeable if you book with the operator you are going to use.
Neil
Don't ever buy from the Trainline, they charge fees not chargeable if you book with the operator you are going to use.
Neil
5
In reply to mypyrex:
Have you thought about using a carshare service to try and get extra passengers to offset the guilt and cheapen the journey? Or the lifts and partners forum?
You're right though. For a society that really should be doing everything possible to break its car dependency, the cost and uselessness of trains coupled with the dangers of cycling really are appalling.
Have you thought about using a carshare service to try and get extra passengers to offset the guilt and cheapen the journey? Or the lifts and partners forum?
You're right though. For a society that really should be doing everything possible to break its car dependency, the cost and uselessness of trains coupled with the dangers of cycling really are appalling.
2
In reply to mypyrex:
I'm probably being thick here, but that still shows off peak returns for £79.30, and not £120?
If you buy 2 singles to get you to £120, you'll be fixed to particular trains and times, get an off peak return, and you're only fixed to a day of travel at the start, and return within one month. and you can use the tickets at any time classified as "Off Peak". I'm not sure why you'd want to restrict yourself at extra cost!
I'm probably being thick here, but that still shows off peak returns for £79.30, and not £120?
If you buy 2 singles to get you to £120, you'll be fixed to particular trains and times, get an off peak return, and you're only fixed to a day of travel at the start, and return within one month. and you can use the tickets at any time classified as "Off Peak". I'm not sure why you'd want to restrict yourself at extra cost!
Post edited at 13:15
In reply to mypyrex:
The prices seem to be all over the place.
Last month I did Hastings to Penrith for £80 return.
2 hours to London
1 hour to cross London including time to buy a bite to eat at Euston
3 hours from London to Penrith.
All very comfortable and fast.
Against that the car journewy would have taken 7 to 9 hours depeding on time of day and number of stops, and I estimate fuel would have been around £120 return - split between 2 of us £60 each, not to mention M6 toll and depreciation. Also arriving knackered instead of fresh at the end of the journey.
To me the train was a no brainer.
The prices seem to be all over the place.
Last month I did Hastings to Penrith for £80 return.
2 hours to London
1 hour to cross London including time to buy a bite to eat at Euston
3 hours from London to Penrith.
All very comfortable and fast.
Against that the car journewy would have taken 7 to 9 hours depeding on time of day and number of stops, and I estimate fuel would have been around £120 return - split between 2 of us £60 each, not to mention M6 toll and depreciation. Also arriving knackered instead of fresh at the end of the journey.
To me the train was a no brainer.
2
In reply to mypyrex:
It's the awfulness of local connections that always seems like the biggest barrier to me personally.
I enjoy travelling by rail. I must live in some alternative reality, but even using trains very regularly for work and personal trips I've found them to generally be less prone to disruption that car travel and very civilised. I've rarely been unable to find a sensible fare, and have never needed to make a long journey with so little notice that I've been unable to reserve a seat.
On the other hand, I often drive long distances (which is boring, tiring etc etc) because it's such a pain trying to complete the final leg from the major station to accommodation, climbing/hiking spots etc. Even when willing to suck up a cab ride or three, it can be very difficult to get around at either end of a major journey.
It's the awfulness of local connections that always seems like the biggest barrier to me personally.
I enjoy travelling by rail. I must live in some alternative reality, but even using trains very regularly for work and personal trips I've found them to generally be less prone to disruption that car travel and very civilised. I've rarely been unable to find a sensible fare, and have never needed to make a long journey with so little notice that I've been unable to reserve a seat.
On the other hand, I often drive long distances (which is boring, tiring etc etc) because it's such a pain trying to complete the final leg from the major station to accommodation, climbing/hiking spots etc. Even when willing to suck up a cab ride or three, it can be very difficult to get around at either end of a major journey.
3
In reply to mypyrex:
Is this how you actually think or is it some sort of provocative facade?
jk
> No doubt I'll get slagged off by the tree huggers but I don't intend to pay that much over the odds for them to smugly tell me to do my bit to "save the planet"
Is this how you actually think or is it some sort of provocative facade?
jk
4
In reply to hamsforlegs:
In my experience rail travel only really works out more convenient (Though usually not cheaper) if you are going from one large city to another. Though you still have to contend with the drunks, loud teenagers and screaming kid.
Any train not going from one large city to another isn't worth considering in my limited experience.
In my experience rail travel only really works out more convenient (Though usually not cheaper) if you are going from one large city to another. Though you still have to contend with the drunks, loud teenagers and screaming kid.
Any train not going from one large city to another isn't worth considering in my limited experience.
3
In reply to Trevers:
Buses too. Fares have, by and large, gone up *way* more than the costs of running a car over the last few years. But that's what you get for having public transport run by private companies for maximum profit.
> You're right though. For a society that really should be doing everything possible to break its car dependency, the cost and uselessness of trains coupled with the dangers of cycling really are appalling.
Buses too. Fares have, by and large, gone up *way* more than the costs of running a car over the last few years. But that's what you get for having public transport run by private companies for maximum profit.
3
In reply to mypyrex:
The cost of my train journey to work is, for me, a great incentive to cycle. Every cycle commute saves me £9.30, that's pretty tangible.
If I walk / cycle 2.5 miles to the next station it's £6.60. A friend of mine drives to the next station on (5 miles in) and it's suddenly only £5.70 return. Thank you train company for your mad costing ...
The cost of my train journey to work is, for me, a great incentive to cycle. Every cycle commute saves me £9.30, that's pretty tangible.
If I walk / cycle 2.5 miles to the next station it's £6.60. A friend of mine drives to the next station on (5 miles in) and it's suddenly only £5.70 return. Thank you train company for your mad costing ...
3
In reply to deepsoup:
Definitely. The cost of a return or daily pass in most towns and cities is criminal. Surprisingly London bucks the trend, £1 a journey on your Oyster is more than reasonable.
> Buses too. Fares have, by and large, gone up *way* more than the costs of running a car over the last few years. But that's what you get for having public transport run by private companies for maximum profit.
Definitely. The cost of a return or daily pass in most towns and cities is criminal. Surprisingly London bucks the trend, £1 a journey on your Oyster is more than reasonable.
1
In reply to mypyrex:
Generally I agree, but you should make the comparison fair by adding other running costs to fuel. To even own a car can cost between £2k-7k per year in insurance and capital depreciation, depending on the initial value. Assuming that you're not making a choice between public transport and actually owning a car, then the AA puts running costs at about 10p per mile (for an exact breakdown see their survey), which for the 340 mile round trip from Llanberis to Windermere is an additional £34.
Good grief, please don't spoil a perfectly good point with nonsense like this. It's like reading a post on "Comment is Free" that starts "No doubt the moderators will remove this...<unhinged ranting follows>".
> Even taking account of overheads such as tax, insurance(which have to be paid anyway) to me the train does not even start to look competitive.
Generally I agree, but you should make the comparison fair by adding other running costs to fuel. To even own a car can cost between £2k-7k per year in insurance and capital depreciation, depending on the initial value. Assuming that you're not making a choice between public transport and actually owning a car, then the AA puts running costs at about 10p per mile (for an exact breakdown see their survey), which for the 340 mile round trip from Llanberis to Windermere is an additional £34.
> No doubt I'll get slagged off by the tree huggers but I don't intend to pay that much over the odds for them to smugly tell me to do my bit to "save the planet"
Good grief, please don't spoil a perfectly good point with nonsense like this. It's like reading a post on "Comment is Free" that starts "No doubt the moderators will remove this...<unhinged ranting follows>".
4
1
In reply to cap'nChino:
There are some areas out of cities that have good rail links, but because the paring back of local networks was done in a bygone era, it can seem a bit arbitrary to the modern eye.
Generally I think you're right, but I've hardly ever had problems with 'drunks, loud teenagers [or a] screaming kid'. I normally enjoy the chance to have a coffee or a glass of wine, read a book and enjoy the countryside, and am sometimes happy to trade a certain amount of inconvenience and/or cost for that major advantage over driving. As you say, though, the level of faff is often too high once away from the major routes/cities.
> In my experience rail travel only really works out more convenient (Though usually not cheaper) if you are going from one large city to another. Though you still have to contend with the drunks, loud teenagers and screaming kid.
> Any train not going from one large city to another isn't worth considering in my limited experience.
There are some areas out of cities that have good rail links, but because the paring back of local networks was done in a bygone era, it can seem a bit arbitrary to the modern eye.
Generally I think you're right, but I've hardly ever had problems with 'drunks, loud teenagers [or a] screaming kid'. I normally enjoy the chance to have a coffee or a glass of wine, read a book and enjoy the countryside, and am sometimes happy to trade a certain amount of inconvenience and/or cost for that major advantage over driving. As you say, though, the level of faff is often too high once away from the major routes/cities.
2
In reply to Trevers:
This is basically because a) the entire place would be one giant tailback otherwise and b) unlike the rest of the country, the GLA still have enough regulatory control of the bus services that they can actually do something about this.
> Definitely. The cost of a return or daily pass in most towns and cities is criminal. Surprisingly London bucks the trend, £1 a journey on your Oyster is more than reasonable.
This is basically because a) the entire place would be one giant tailback otherwise and b) unlike the rest of the country, the GLA still have enough regulatory control of the bus services that they can actually do something about this.
Post edited at 14:49
1
In reply to mypyrex:
Yeh its completely illogical the cost of public teansport. Even with a rail card its about £100 from glasgow to swindon and vice versa (one way, not advanced fairs) yet i can do the drive on less than a full tank, so thats about £40. add a pasenger or 2 and the savings are astronomical. The train isnt even more convenient as driving takes about 5 and a half hours no stops, the train about 7 (plus getting to and from the station at each end which ads more time and cost).
another crazy thin about train fairs is that the journey costs the above when booked in full, yet if i buy a ticket from glasgow-cheltenham its about £60, then its only a fiver cheltenhamn to swindon, so thats £35 cheeper despite it being the same train! i often break fares up by buying multiple tickets like the above and can sometimes make massive savings, particularly if i am able to get an advance fair for segments of the journey but not the whole journey.
Yeh its completely illogical the cost of public teansport. Even with a rail card its about £100 from glasgow to swindon and vice versa (one way, not advanced fairs) yet i can do the drive on less than a full tank, so thats about £40. add a pasenger or 2 and the savings are astronomical. The train isnt even more convenient as driving takes about 5 and a half hours no stops, the train about 7 (plus getting to and from the station at each end which ads more time and cost).
another crazy thin about train fairs is that the journey costs the above when booked in full, yet if i buy a ticket from glasgow-cheltenham its about £60, then its only a fiver cheltenhamn to swindon, so thats £35 cheeper despite it being the same train! i often break fares up by buying multiple tickets like the above and can sometimes make massive savings, particularly if i am able to get an advance fair for segments of the journey but not the whole journey.
In reply to planetmarshall:
"To even own a car can cost between £2k-7k per year"
or maybe not.
Yes my car is old and battered but it costs me £300 for insurance, ~£200-300 MOT and servicing, £185 tax (whatever it's called now) and as it stands ~£200 depreciation.
That's ~£3.30 a day ~ fuel.
So consider the bus cost's £2.60 for single to Swansea centre (less than 2 miles away from home) and it doesn't take long to break even, especially considering how ridiculously early the last bus is.
Even when you do find a cheap route somewhere you add on all the extra connections required and it normally works out cheaper to drive. eg. To see my parents, The greyhound bus to Cardiff return is ~£10 or it costs me ~£10 in fuel, but then I need a bus or taxi to and from the stations at either end so that's £10-15 extra.
"To even own a car can cost between £2k-7k per year"
or maybe not.
Yes my car is old and battered but it costs me £300 for insurance, ~£200-300 MOT and servicing, £185 tax (whatever it's called now) and as it stands ~£200 depreciation.
That's ~£3.30 a day ~ fuel.
So consider the bus cost's £2.60 for single to Swansea centre (less than 2 miles away from home) and it doesn't take long to break even, especially considering how ridiculously early the last bus is.
Even when you do find a cheap route somewhere you add on all the extra connections required and it normally works out cheaper to drive. eg. To see my parents, The greyhound bus to Cardiff return is ~£10 or it costs me ~£10 in fuel, but then I need a bus or taxi to and from the stations at either end so that's £10-15 extra.
2
In reply to AlisonSmiles:
Don't forget to factor in the real costs of cycling. Capital depreciation, servicing, calories...
> The cost of my train journey to work is, for me, a great incentive to cycle. Every cycle commute saves me £9.30, that's pretty tangible.
Don't forget to factor in the real costs of cycling. Capital depreciation, servicing, calories...
1
In reply to gethin_allen:
I'm not denying this, just that the comparison should be fair, and the added inconvenience of actually having to do the driving should be factored in ( far better to be a passenger, then it's win-win ).
> Even when you do find a cheap route somewhere you add on all the extra connections required and it normally works out cheaper to drive.
I'm not denying this, just that the comparison should be fair, and the added inconvenience of actually having to do the driving should be factored in ( far better to be a passenger, then it's win-win ).
1
In reply to mypyrex:
Train>bus>driving is my preference when heading for the hills, although many places aren't that convenient without a car. I remember getting a train up to the Lakes a couple of years ago from Birmingham. Just over 2 hours from New Street to Burneside, and I was out walking by 8:30 am. Round trip was about £55 and way less tedious than sitting in the car up the M6.
Finding a decent price is hard work though. Advance tickets for a specific train are usually (just) cheaper than the equivalent cost of petrol, and sometimes if you split the journey in an odd place, you can save more that way. Not as convenient as just hopping on and off with an Anytime return though.
Now I don't have as many train-friendly options, but I'm quite happy to pay slightly more (than the petrol cost) for a slower journey out to Achnashellach or Strathcarron. One of the most scenic train journeys in the country and you can have a couple of pints at the Strathcarron Hotel after a walk
Train>bus>driving is my preference when heading for the hills, although many places aren't that convenient without a car. I remember getting a train up to the Lakes a couple of years ago from Birmingham. Just over 2 hours from New Street to Burneside, and I was out walking by 8:30 am. Round trip was about £55 and way less tedious than sitting in the car up the M6.
Finding a decent price is hard work though. Advance tickets for a specific train are usually (just) cheaper than the equivalent cost of petrol, and sometimes if you split the journey in an odd place, you can save more that way. Not as convenient as just hopping on and off with an Anytime return though.
Now I don't have as many train-friendly options, but I'm quite happy to pay slightly more (than the petrol cost) for a slower journey out to Achnashellach or Strathcarron. One of the most scenic train journeys in the country and you can have a couple of pints at the Strathcarron Hotel after a walk
In reply to mypyrex:
Is it just me but the phrase "public transport" seems wrong as these are more often than not run by private companies for a profit.
Real public transport is transport owned by the public surely and doesn't make profit, but makes enough to maintain and develop the networks.
Semantic I know.
OM
Is it just me but the phrase "public transport" seems wrong as these are more often than not run by private companies for a profit.
Real public transport is transport owned by the public surely and doesn't make profit, but makes enough to maintain and develop the networks.
Semantic I know.
OM
Post edited at 14:58
1
In reply to planetmarshall:
Investment in base layers and new lights (why, why, why?) numerous times a year. It did have new pedals and new tyres in the last 12 months, and I had to grease something. Yes, I see your point ...
Investment in base layers and new lights (why, why, why?) numerous times a year. It did have new pedals and new tyres in the last 12 months, and I had to grease something. Yes, I see your point ...
In reply to mypyrex:
It has gone backwards now as the government tax the motorist more and more to discourage use, those that have a car need to use it more and more to try and get some sort of value and justification for the tax and insurance and everything else that goes with it.
I'm extremely lucky as I'm one of the pre privatisation BR staff so I retain my free pass, not much use to me for climbing in Wales or the lakes but fantastic for the peak and I use it a lot, can be in Edale/hathersage in 3 hours from leaving my house with may seem a lot for saying it's only 75 miles but it's generally stress free vs driving the m6/61/60 and glossop, it's free and I'll just get my head in a book and switch off.
It has gone backwards now as the government tax the motorist more and more to discourage use, those that have a car need to use it more and more to try and get some sort of value and justification for the tax and insurance and everything else that goes with it.
I'm extremely lucky as I'm one of the pre privatisation BR staff so I retain my free pass, not much use to me for climbing in Wales or the lakes but fantastic for the peak and I use it a lot, can be in Edale/hathersage in 3 hours from leaving my house with may seem a lot for saying it's only 75 miles but it's generally stress free vs driving the m6/61/60 and glossop, it's free and I'll just get my head in a book and switch off.
In reply to mypyrex:
trains can be great if you're on a major commuter route, or are linking two major centres of commerce, but otherwise it's not worth it sadly. Manchester to London in 2hrs 10mins is amazing when you consider driving is more like 5 hours. From where I am in west yorkshire to Manchester city centre is about 50 mins drive (on a motorbike too...) but 37 mins on the fast train.
But get away from the commuter places and there's fewer services, meaning much slower to hit ever station.
The problems with pricing are :
+ tickets are subsidised by our taxes - which is an arguement in itself - but in awkward ways. If you're travelling wholly within one subsidy area (eg. Greater Manchester) that's fine,but if you go an extra mile outside then you're paying double the cost for the ticket because of that extra mile.
+ the above is also why you have routes where it's best to break the journey. the system the rail companies reservations work through is ancient so updates to cope with such things just doesn't happen.
+ there's no guide of distance v cost or time v cost. It's just how much the companies think they can get people to pay.
+ the fares aren't transparent enough. Most people haven't a clue why the fares are what they are and why they differ from day to day. There's all sorts of deals that aren't properly advertised as well (like the Duo fares where two people can travel on one ticket for 1/3rd off). Same with the rail and bus combined tickets.
trains can be great if you're on a major commuter route, or are linking two major centres of commerce, but otherwise it's not worth it sadly. Manchester to London in 2hrs 10mins is amazing when you consider driving is more like 5 hours. From where I am in west yorkshire to Manchester city centre is about 50 mins drive (on a motorbike too...) but 37 mins on the fast train.
But get away from the commuter places and there's fewer services, meaning much slower to hit ever station.
The problems with pricing are :
+ tickets are subsidised by our taxes - which is an arguement in itself - but in awkward ways. If you're travelling wholly within one subsidy area (eg. Greater Manchester) that's fine,but if you go an extra mile outside then you're paying double the cost for the ticket because of that extra mile.
+ the above is also why you have routes where it's best to break the journey. the system the rail companies reservations work through is ancient so updates to cope with such things just doesn't happen.
+ there's no guide of distance v cost or time v cost. It's just how much the companies think they can get people to pay.
+ the fares aren't transparent enough. Most people haven't a clue why the fares are what they are and why they differ from day to day. There's all sorts of deals that aren't properly advertised as well (like the Duo fares where two people can travel on one ticket for 1/3rd off). Same with the rail and bus combined tickets.
In reply to Scarab9:
It's actually quite recent - but it does work in a quite old-fashioned way.
Neil
> + the above is also why you have routes where it's best to break the journey. the system the rail companies reservations work through is ancient so updates to cope with such things just doesn't happen.
It's actually quite recent - but it does work in a quite old-fashioned way.
Neil
In reply to mypyrex:
Couldn't agree more, and it regularly annoys me how much public transport costs. The majority of the population won't make sacrifices in order to 'save the planet', unless financially motivated. Public transport being so expensive is not usually sufficient motivation for most people. I would like to use it a lot more, but it's simply too expensive to justify for the type/frequency of trips I'd need a car/bus/train for.
I used to live just outside Nottingham and the price of driving into town, paying for parking for an hour, and driving back was less than a return bus ticket. Perhaps not anymore.
More recently I was working in the central belt and commuting between two large towns about 20 miles apart, well connected by public transport routes. It was cheaper to buy an old car, tax, fuel, insurance and drive each day than it was to get the bus or train, averaged over a year. Driving was also a lot quicker than public transport.
Doesn't make sense to me at all. Public transport should be the no. 1 choice for most people to get around, but until there is a financial incentive to use it more, it just won't happen. Rant over!
Couldn't agree more, and it regularly annoys me how much public transport costs. The majority of the population won't make sacrifices in order to 'save the planet', unless financially motivated. Public transport being so expensive is not usually sufficient motivation for most people. I would like to use it a lot more, but it's simply too expensive to justify for the type/frequency of trips I'd need a car/bus/train for.
I used to live just outside Nottingham and the price of driving into town, paying for parking for an hour, and driving back was less than a return bus ticket. Perhaps not anymore.
More recently I was working in the central belt and commuting between two large towns about 20 miles apart, well connected by public transport routes. It was cheaper to buy an old car, tax, fuel, insurance and drive each day than it was to get the bus or train, averaged over a year. Driving was also a lot quicker than public transport.
Doesn't make sense to me at all. Public transport should be the no. 1 choice for most people to get around, but until there is a financial incentive to use it more, it just won't happen. Rant over!
3
In reply to NottsRich:
Is public transport the most environmentally friendly way to travel though? And is it any surprise that train travel is so expensive? Holyhead to Windermere will require at least 3 trains, 3 drivers, 3 "train managers", numerous signalmen, several train dispatchers, not to mention the raft of hidden cleaners and track maintenance staff that are involved on the periphery. And that doesn't include the fuel or power to make them move.
And then you have a small car engine going by the most efficient route from a-b in a steady manner. If you lift share you are almost guaranteed to be travelling by fossil fuel in the most efficient manner possible these days.
> Couldn't agree more, and it regularly annoys me how much public transport costs. The majority of the population won't make sacrifices in order to 'save the planet', unless financially motivated. Public transport being so expensive is not usually sufficient motivation for most people.
Is public transport the most environmentally friendly way to travel though? And is it any surprise that train travel is so expensive? Holyhead to Windermere will require at least 3 trains, 3 drivers, 3 "train managers", numerous signalmen, several train dispatchers, not to mention the raft of hidden cleaners and track maintenance staff that are involved on the periphery. And that doesn't include the fuel or power to make them move.
And then you have a small car engine going by the most efficient route from a-b in a steady manner. If you lift share you are almost guaranteed to be travelling by fossil fuel in the most efficient manner possible these days.
Post edited at 16:45
In reply to planetmarshall:
" far better to be a passenger, then it's win-win"
After so many years driving everywhere I've become a really bad passenger, sat in the front passenger seat everything seems to close on my left and sat in the back I get car sick really quickly. I need to find someone with a foreign car or better a McLaren F1 where the driver sits in the middle and then I can be a passenger in the right seat.
" far better to be a passenger, then it's win-win"
After so many years driving everywhere I've become a really bad passenger, sat in the front passenger seat everything seems to close on my left and sat in the back I get car sick really quickly. I need to find someone with a foreign car or better a McLaren F1 where the driver sits in the middle and then I can be a passenger in the right seat.
In reply to gethin_allen:
One of the main reasons I learned to drive in the first place was because almost everyone I accepted a lift from (mostly climbers, and all men - not drawing any conclusions) drove like complete lunatics. I am by no means a perfect driver, and have picked up some bad habits I am trying to rectify, but I have never, say, drove down the A82 through Glencoe at over 90mph while sending a text with one hand.
> After so many years driving everywhere I've become a really bad passenger, sat in the front passenger seat everything seems to close on my left and sat in the back I get car sick really quickly. I need to find someone with a foreign car or better a McLaren F1 where the driver sits in the middle and then I can be a passenger in the right seat.
One of the main reasons I learned to drive in the first place was because almost everyone I accepted a lift from (mostly climbers, and all men - not drawing any conclusions) drove like complete lunatics. I am by no means a perfect driver, and have picked up some bad habits I am trying to rectify, but I have never, say, drove down the A82 through Glencoe at over 90mph while sending a text with one hand.
1
In reply to NottsRich:
For certain journeys I will pay the premium - for example, I will happily pay to take a train into Stockport, Manchester or Sheffield even if it costs up to twice what it does to drive (typically around £10 return from where I am), simply to avoid having to drive through city centres and find somewhere to park/pay parking charges.
> Doesn't make sense to me at all. Public transport should be the no. 1 choice for most people to get around, but until there is a financial incentive to use it more, it just won't happen. Rant over!
For certain journeys I will pay the premium - for example, I will happily pay to take a train into Stockport, Manchester or Sheffield even if it costs up to twice what it does to drive (typically around £10 return from where I am), simply to avoid having to drive through city centres and find somewhere to park/pay parking charges.
1
In reply to ByEek:
The efficiency of the internal combustion engine has come on by leaps and bounds in the last few years, now that the major manufacturers have made it a priority. Every new model of my car ( A Skoda Yeti 2.2 TDI ) seems to get a few extra miles per gallon - and who knows what future developments in hybrid and electric power will bring, and increased computer control will enable driving from A to B in the most efficient way possible.
By comparison, to bring our railways into line with state of the art offerings like the Shinkansen would take a massive investment in infrastructure which I don't think the public is willing to make ( or, more accurately, that the government is willing to push at the expense of other expensive projects ). I'd love to see 300mph trains levitating their way between Edinburgh and London, but I don't see it happening before I can do the same thing in a computer controlled car.
> And then you have a small car engine going by the most efficient route from a-b in a steady manner. If you lift share you are almost guaranteed to be travelling by fossil fuel in the most efficient manner possible these days.
The efficiency of the internal combustion engine has come on by leaps and bounds in the last few years, now that the major manufacturers have made it a priority. Every new model of my car ( A Skoda Yeti 2.2 TDI ) seems to get a few extra miles per gallon - and who knows what future developments in hybrid and electric power will bring, and increased computer control will enable driving from A to B in the most efficient way possible.
By comparison, to bring our railways into line with state of the art offerings like the Shinkansen would take a massive investment in infrastructure which I don't think the public is willing to make ( or, more accurately, that the government is willing to push at the expense of other expensive projects ). I'd love to see 300mph trains levitating their way between Edinburgh and London, but I don't see it happening before I can do the same thing in a computer controlled car.
In reply to mypyrex:
I think most people underestimate the cost of running a car, which is generally taken to be about 45p/mile for tax purposes. Unfortunately even at this rate the extra inconvenience of public transport rarely make it the option of choice.
I think most people underestimate the cost of running a car, which is generally taken to be about 45p/mile for tax purposes. Unfortunately even at this rate the extra inconvenience of public transport rarely make it the option of choice.
7
In reply to mypyrex:
Starting from Edinburgh, visiting my Dad in his chosen obscure corner of Herefordshire, taking the train is surprisingly convenient (just one change) and usually quicker than driving (unless you're happy putting your licence at risk). If it's just me travelling then the train fare is comparable with the cost of fuel for the car, especially if you split-ticket. Two of us can get the drive done in a shorter time then me on my own because we can take turns at the wheel, rather than me having to take longer breaks, but the train is still usually quicker. Cost-wise two sets of rail tickets suffers vs the car fuel, but if we did it a lot then the cost of the two together railcard would be spread over several trips and it would end up being quite a close call again.
The thing about the fixed costs of car ownership is that they actually encourage car use: as a basic rule, the more you drive, the lower the fixed costs work out per mile. That's why fuel taxation, ie a tax on use, is a better way to encourage people out of their cars than higher VED.
Other factors can obviously come in to play eg the distance between the station and you ultimate destination, but where possible I do prefer to take the train for long journeys within the UK. I find it a lot more relaxing than driving (try grabbing 40 winks at 70mph on the M6 - better still, don't), and flying which is just getting annoying what with all the security nonsense and other hanging around at airports.
Oh, and the term "public transport" refers to the people using it, not the ownership of the system. See Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_transport
Starting from Edinburgh, visiting my Dad in his chosen obscure corner of Herefordshire, taking the train is surprisingly convenient (just one change) and usually quicker than driving (unless you're happy putting your licence at risk). If it's just me travelling then the train fare is comparable with the cost of fuel for the car, especially if you split-ticket. Two of us can get the drive done in a shorter time then me on my own because we can take turns at the wheel, rather than me having to take longer breaks, but the train is still usually quicker. Cost-wise two sets of rail tickets suffers vs the car fuel, but if we did it a lot then the cost of the two together railcard would be spread over several trips and it would end up being quite a close call again.
The thing about the fixed costs of car ownership is that they actually encourage car use: as a basic rule, the more you drive, the lower the fixed costs work out per mile. That's why fuel taxation, ie a tax on use, is a better way to encourage people out of their cars than higher VED.
Other factors can obviously come in to play eg the distance between the station and you ultimate destination, but where possible I do prefer to take the train for long journeys within the UK. I find it a lot more relaxing than driving (try grabbing 40 winks at 70mph on the M6 - better still, don't), and flying which is just getting annoying what with all the security nonsense and other hanging around at airports.
Oh, and the term "public transport" refers to the people using it, not the ownership of the system. See Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_transport
2
In reply to ByEek:
More often than not, when I see busses, they are empty or have maybe up to four people in them. I'm not sure how many miles per gallon they do, but I think the 'environmentally friendly' argument is a spurious one.
> Is public transport the most environmentally friendly way to travel though?
More often than not, when I see busses, they are empty or have maybe up to four people in them. I'm not sure how many miles per gallon they do, but I think the 'environmentally friendly' argument is a spurious one.
1
In reply to Andy Morley:
Where do you see these buses, I work next to a bus station and most of the buses I see seem to be a least half full, many completely full.
Where do you see these buses, I work next to a bus station and most of the buses I see seem to be a least half full, many completely full.
In reply to Martin W:
Exactly. There are some tasks for which I require a car, and car hire isn't great when you're not in/near a decent sized city.
As I have the fixed costs, including road tax (come on UKC, correct me on terminology here, I dare you...) and insurance, there is a great incentive to get the most out of those, which reduces the value proposition of public transport significantly.
Once I can manage the logistics of switching to an electric car, say a 2nd hand Leaf, for my general runabout, that shifts significantly.
Another big one is depreciation - if cars didn't depreciate so much there would be less incentive to use them over the train, as they'd not be burning real money just sitting there.
> The thing about the fixed costs of car ownership is that they actually encourage car use: as a basic rule, the more you drive, the lower the fixed costs work out per mile. That's why fuel taxation, ie a tax on use, is a better way to encourage people out of their cars than higher VED.
Exactly. There are some tasks for which I require a car, and car hire isn't great when you're not in/near a decent sized city.
As I have the fixed costs, including road tax (come on UKC, correct me on terminology here, I dare you...) and insurance, there is a great incentive to get the most out of those, which reduces the value proposition of public transport significantly.
Once I can manage the logistics of switching to an electric car, say a 2nd hand Leaf, for my general runabout, that shifts significantly.
Another big one is depreciation - if cars didn't depreciate so much there would be less incentive to use them over the train, as they'd not be burning real money just sitting there.
In reply to Andy Morley:
You have to average it out though. I often use the first bus from Inverness to Fort William if I fancy a day out on the hills. It leaves at 5:30am and I can be the only person on it. However it probably comes back again with significantly more people on it. Since you can't magic vehicles around to where you need them, you have to accept that (eg at rush hour), public transport is going to be over-full in one direction and practically empty in the other. I don't know which routes are more environmentally friendly than driving, but it's harder to gauge than just noticing a few empty buses.
You have to average it out though. I often use the first bus from Inverness to Fort William if I fancy a day out on the hills. It leaves at 5:30am and I can be the only person on it. However it probably comes back again with significantly more people on it. Since you can't magic vehicles around to where you need them, you have to accept that (eg at rush hour), public transport is going to be over-full in one direction and practically empty in the other. I don't know which routes are more environmentally friendly than driving, but it's harder to gauge than just noticing a few empty buses.
1
In reply to Martin W:
My partner and I decided to take the train the last time we went sport climbing abroad, partly as an experiment but partly due to discomfort with our carbon footprint from foreign holidays. We walked to the train station by our house and 10 hours later were in Avignon. Slower than flying and a bit more expensive but we really enjoyed it, felt like the journey was part of the holiday ☺
> Other factors can obviously come in to play eg the distance between the station and you ultimate destination, but where possible I do prefer to take the train for long journeys within the UK. I find it a lot more relaxing than driving (try grabbing 40 winks at 70mph on the M6 - better still, don't), and flying which is just getting annoying what with all the security nonsense and other hanging around at airports.
My partner and I decided to take the train the last time we went sport climbing abroad, partly as an experiment but partly due to discomfort with our carbon footprint from foreign holidays. We walked to the train station by our house and 10 hours later were in Avignon. Slower than flying and a bit more expensive but we really enjoyed it, felt like the journey was part of the holiday ☺
2
In reply to mypyrex:
I am currently between cars.
It is cheaper to rent a car for 5 days and pay the petrol than getting a train ticket from Nottingham to Reading not to mention the convenience factor.
I am currently between cars.
It is cheaper to rent a car for 5 days and pay the petrol than getting a train ticket from Nottingham to Reading not to mention the convenience factor.
In reply to planetmarshall:
Wasn't aware they did the Yeti in a 2.2, what model have you got out of interest?
Wasn't aware they did the Yeti in a 2.2, what model have you got out of interest?
In reply to mypyrex:
Despite all the (justifiable) negatives about train pricing, railway use is higher than ever isn't it? Certainly, the last few times I have been inter city, the trains have been heaving. Commuter trains are also packed.
Despite all the (justifiable) negatives about train pricing, railway use is higher than ever isn't it? Certainly, the last few times I have been inter city, the trains have been heaving. Commuter trains are also packed.
In reply to Run_Ross_Run:
Sorry my bad, it's a 2.0 2013 'Adventure', TDI 4x4. As seen coasting to the top of the Ben track past numerous abandoned hatchbacks
Sorry my bad, it's a 2.0 2013 'Adventure', TDI 4x4. As seen coasting to the top of the Ben track past numerous abandoned hatchbacks
Post edited at 21:16
1
In reply to mypyrex:
We are doing Oxenholme to Holyhead return this Tuesday, back on Saturday for £55, both of us. You've got to book ahead and be a bit flexible. we've also got a 2 together railcard which gives you a 1/3 off. I far prefer the train but I know some people prefer to drive. I agree though, walk on prices are frustratingly high, and you do need a bit more time to travel.
Makes me laugh when people point out the down sides to trains. I can't imagine they are the ones I see in traffic jams sitting in their status symbols with their head resting on the window bored out of their brain........
We are doing Oxenholme to Holyhead return this Tuesday, back on Saturday for £55, both of us. You've got to book ahead and be a bit flexible. we've also got a 2 together railcard which gives you a 1/3 off. I far prefer the train but I know some people prefer to drive. I agree though, walk on prices are frustratingly high, and you do need a bit more time to travel.
Makes me laugh when people point out the down sides to trains. I can't imagine they are the ones I see in traffic jams sitting in their status symbols with their head resting on the window bored out of their brain........
In reply to malky_c:
True, but in the scheme of things, it's really not going to make any appreciable difference to CO2 emissions if a few of the people who tend to agonise about these matters decide to take the train or bus sometimes. Wind farms, tidal and nuclear power might help rather more and more efficient and cleaner engines have done something over recent years; those things have the capability of making some impact. But given that the internal combustion engine has been with us for over 100 years, and considering the rate of change in technology over the past two or three centuries, the chances of some new, cleaner and more efficient means of producing energy and driving transportation being developed are probably quite high. Hydrogen power in one shape or another looks good to me, given the abundance of sea water and the possibility of using solar power to produce hydrogen and oxygen by electrolysis. It's just a question of waiting for the economics to change, or of the economics being engineered by government policy.
> You have to average it out though. I often use the first bus from Inverness to Fort William if I fancy a day out on the hills. It leaves at 5:30am and I can be the only person on it. However it probably comes back again with significantly more people on it. Since you can't magic vehicles around to where you need them, you have to accept that (eg at rush hour), public transport is going to be over-full in one direction and practically empty in the other. I don't know which routes are more environmentally friendly than driving, but it's harder to gauge than just noticing a few empty buses.
True, but in the scheme of things, it's really not going to make any appreciable difference to CO2 emissions if a few of the people who tend to agonise about these matters decide to take the train or bus sometimes. Wind farms, tidal and nuclear power might help rather more and more efficient and cleaner engines have done something over recent years; those things have the capability of making some impact. But given that the internal combustion engine has been with us for over 100 years, and considering the rate of change in technology over the past two or three centuries, the chances of some new, cleaner and more efficient means of producing energy and driving transportation being developed are probably quite high. Hydrogen power in one shape or another looks good to me, given the abundance of sea water and the possibility of using solar power to produce hydrogen and oxygen by electrolysis. It's just a question of waiting for the economics to change, or of the economics being engineered by government policy.
In reply to Andy Morley:
Can't say I agonise about it from an environmental perspective - I just find the older I get, the less I drive and the less I want to drive. In fact I rather selfishly want more people to use some of the public transport routes (such as the Kyle of Lochalsh and Far North train lines) because they are underused and will probably be cut back eventually.
Having said that I looked at the cost and effort of getting to Mull for the weekend by bus. Far too awkward from where I live - drove there in less than half the time in the end
Can't say I agonise about it from an environmental perspective - I just find the older I get, the less I drive and the less I want to drive. In fact I rather selfishly want more people to use some of the public transport routes (such as the Kyle of Lochalsh and Far North train lines) because they are underused and will probably be cut back eventually.
Having said that I looked at the cost and effort of getting to Mull for the weekend by bus. Far too awkward from where I live - drove there in less than half the time in the end
In reply to AlisonSmiles:
Buy a direct ticket from Reading to Bath and get charged an arm and a leg. Split your journey at Didcot, and it's a lot cheaper, even excluding the NSE discount.
That can only be due to 'honeypot' pricing, rather than a simple scheme based on distance travelled.
Buy a direct ticket from Reading to Bath and get charged an arm and a leg. Split your journey at Didcot, and it's a lot cheaper, even excluding the NSE discount.
That can only be due to 'honeypot' pricing, rather than a simple scheme based on distance travelled.
In reply to ByEek:
Roads require maintenance too. Surely you've experienced 'roadworks'...? Or do you do all your driving in 'car advert land'?
Then there are traffic management centres, traffic police, traffic wombles, etc.
Roads require maintenance too. Surely you've experienced 'roadworks'...? Or do you do all your driving in 'car advert land'?
Then there are traffic management centres, traffic police, traffic wombles, etc.
1
In reply to mypyrex:
If you get on at Meols (on Merseyrail) you can nick through without buying a ticket to all destinations up to Birkenhead North. Which makes good financial sense. After that, you need to hop the barrier and exit the station going well, until you can mingle with the crowd outside Liverpool Central.
Other than that, I never ever, ever take the train. Filthy things, and you can never guarantee the honesty of your fellow passengers.
If you get on at Meols (on Merseyrail) you can nick through without buying a ticket to all destinations up to Birkenhead North. Which makes good financial sense. After that, you need to hop the barrier and exit the station going well, until you can mingle with the crowd outside Liverpool Central.
Other than that, I never ever, ever take the train. Filthy things, and you can never guarantee the honesty of your fellow passengers.
6
In reply to mypyrex:
Train travel in the UK is a nightmare. I've just done a 400 mile round trip in Belarus, where most things are about a third cheaper than in the UK. It cost a fiver, so relatively speaking about £15. It was bang on time, we were in a compartment for 4 people each with our own bed, your place is guaranteed and the fares are transparent. And you get to share with gorgeous girls. (I'm not sure if they guarantee the last bit...)
Train travel in the UK is a nightmare. I've just done a 400 mile round trip in Belarus, where most things are about a third cheaper than in the UK. It cost a fiver, so relatively speaking about £15. It was bang on time, we were in a compartment for 4 people each with our own bed, your place is guaranteed and the fares are transparent. And you get to share with gorgeous girls. (I'm not sure if they guarantee the last bit...)
In reply to mypyrex:
Public transport is very over priced.
The wife works 9 miles away, it takes 15 mins to drive there for very little cost considering we would own the car anyway.
Or she can use the bus, well I say bus but it's actually 2 busses from 2 different bus companies.
Total cost £5.40 return and 1 hour each way.
Public transport is very over priced.
The wife works 9 miles away, it takes 15 mins to drive there for very little cost considering we would own the car anyway.
Or she can use the bus, well I say bus but it's actually 2 busses from 2 different bus companies.
Total cost £5.40 return and 1 hour each way.
1
In reply to captain paranoia:
Fair point. But I think the level of maintenance on railways is much higher than on the roads. You certainly can't allow the equivalent of a pothole to develop on a railway. And of course without at least two on-board staff and dozens of controllers, no trains can travel at all.
> Roads require maintenance too. Surely you've experienced 'roadworks'...? Or do you do all your driving in 'car advert land'?
Fair point. But I think the level of maintenance on railways is much higher than on the roads. You certainly can't allow the equivalent of a pothole to develop on a railway. And of course without at least two on-board staff and dozens of controllers, no trains can travel at all.
Hmm, interesting replies on this one.
I occasionally use the French SNCF trains and I have to say I am always favourably impressed with their efficiency. They generally seem to be punctual and the fare structure seems to be a lot more transparent and with quite cheap journeys. Yes, I know they are subsidised.
On another point, it seems odd that it can cost more to travel 200 miles on the UK rail system that to travel a similar distance by air.
Post edited at 08:26
In reply to planetmarshall:
The problem with mentioning those costs is that they apply the moment you buy a car. If you have to for any reason then they actually add to the incentive to use it as much as possible as the usage then equals money saving.
> Generally I agree, but you should make the comparison fair by adding other running costs to fuel. To even own a car can cost between £2k-7k per year in insurance and capital depreciation, depending on the initial value.
The problem with mentioning those costs is that they apply the moment you buy a car. If you have to for any reason then they actually add to the incentive to use it as much as possible as the usage then equals money saving.
1
In reply to deepsoup:
Even when private companies aren't involved like the abusive monopoly called Transport for London you don't see reasonable pricing.
Also worth mentioning that OAP's 'free' travel massively distorts costs on bus's.
> But that's what you get for having public transport run by private companies for maximum profit.
Even when private companies aren't involved like the abusive monopoly called Transport for London you don't see reasonable pricing.
Also worth mentioning that OAP's 'free' travel massively distorts costs on bus's.
In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:
True, however in addition to standing charges there are running costs such as tyres and service costs. The AA puts these typically at about 10p per mile, which is significant for a long journey, though often still less than the cost of an equivalent journey by public transport.
http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/running_costs/
> The problem with mentioning those costs is that they apply the moment you buy a car. If you have to for any reason then they actually add to the incentive to use it as much as possible as the usage then equals money saving.
True, however in addition to standing charges there are running costs such as tyres and service costs. The AA puts these typically at about 10p per mile, which is significant for a long journey, though often still less than the cost of an equivalent journey by public transport.
http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/running_costs/
Post edited at 09:27
In reply to ByEek:
Where rail gets better is where fewer fossil fuels are in use. But we seem not to be too good at that in the UK.
Certainly a full, modern small car is very efficient, which is one reason there is no point in subsidising small group travel by rail to too much of an extent. The main type of car travel to be avoided environmentally is where one person drives alone.
Neil
Where rail gets better is where fewer fossil fuels are in use. But we seem not to be too good at that in the UK.
Certainly a full, modern small car is very efficient, which is one reason there is no point in subsidising small group travel by rail to too much of an extent. The main type of car travel to be avoided environmentally is where one person drives alone.
Neil
In reply to mypyrex:
They also operate very low frequencies off the TGV mainlines, and the spectre of heavy cuts is looming large. Not all is greener...
I'm not sure why that should surprise people all that much, as airports aside the infrastructure is free.
It's also worth bearing in mind that the pricing structure is totally different, with no "walk-up" unlimited-number fares, and lower frequencies meaning people are more amenable to advance booking. The only way you can properly compare is by an average per-head fare, but that's commercially sensitive so you won't get that.
Neil
> I occasionally use the French SNCF trains and I have to say I am always favourably impressed with their efficiency. They generally seem to be punctual and the fare structure seems to be a lot more transparent and with quite cheap journeys. Yes, I know they are subsidised.
They also operate very low frequencies off the TGV mainlines, and the spectre of heavy cuts is looming large. Not all is greener...
> On another point, it seems odd that it can cost more to travel 200 miles on the UK rail system that to travel a similar distance by air.
I'm not sure why that should surprise people all that much, as airports aside the infrastructure is free.
It's also worth bearing in mind that the pricing structure is totally different, with no "walk-up" unlimited-number fares, and lower frequencies meaning people are more amenable to advance booking. The only way you can properly compare is by an average per-head fare, but that's commercially sensitive so you won't get that.
Neil
In reply to Dax H:
The thing is, we do make choices about where we live and where we work and how the two connect to each other. I used to live 7 miles from work, but because I lived one side of town and work was two miles outside town the other side, every public transport option involved a change of bus / tram / train / a 2 mile walk, and the journey time on whichever of those was an hour and a half. The car on the other hand took 45 minutes and the bicycle 35 minutes, and with work having a) an enormous free car park and b) showers and changing rooms, I gave up on public transport. Working in the same place, I made a choice about moving house and actually thought about the travel options available rather than just the distance. I'm now 16 miles away from work but on the right side of town which means I have a train, which although somewhat infrequent so it needs organisation and planning to get to means the train journey including walking to and from train stations is about 1hr 15 mins, and the bike ride is about 1hr 10 mins. I don't know how long it takes to drive because I never do it.
It's interesting realising that our choices are often forced by so many different things - you may live two buses away for your wife because you need both of you to access work in two different directions, you may have children and school catchments to consider, aged parents you need to be near, disabilities, histories in your home patch, house prices may be a deterrent in an area which would be more convenient for work. Life's never simple, eh?
The thing is, we do make choices about where we live and where we work and how the two connect to each other. I used to live 7 miles from work, but because I lived one side of town and work was two miles outside town the other side, every public transport option involved a change of bus / tram / train / a 2 mile walk, and the journey time on whichever of those was an hour and a half. The car on the other hand took 45 minutes and the bicycle 35 minutes, and with work having a) an enormous free car park and b) showers and changing rooms, I gave up on public transport. Working in the same place, I made a choice about moving house and actually thought about the travel options available rather than just the distance. I'm now 16 miles away from work but on the right side of town which means I have a train, which although somewhat infrequent so it needs organisation and planning to get to means the train journey including walking to and from train stations is about 1hr 15 mins, and the bike ride is about 1hr 10 mins. I don't know how long it takes to drive because I never do it.
It's interesting realising that our choices are often forced by so many different things - you may live two buses away for your wife because you need both of you to access work in two different directions, you may have children and school catchments to consider, aged parents you need to be near, disabilities, histories in your home patch, house prices may be a deterrent in an area which would be more convenient for work. Life's never simple, eh?
In reply to wintertree:
As it is a *tax* paid for the use of a motor vehicle on the *road*, it seems an entirely reasonable generic term for it. I always think it's to the discredit of those who argue about the name of it rather than about the fundamental principles behind it.
Neil
> As I have the fixed costs, including road tax (come on UKC, correct me on terminology here, I dare you...)
As it is a *tax* paid for the use of a motor vehicle on the *road*, it seems an entirely reasonable generic term for it. I always think it's to the discredit of those who argue about the name of it rather than about the fundamental principles behind it.
Neil
1
In reply to Martin W:
VED does have its uses in its current form, but not to stop the use of cars, it's more to encourage the cars to be environmentally friendlier ones in the first place, by effectively imposing an annual penalty for the use of a less environmentally friendly model. While I'm someone who tends to go for big cars (I'm a big person) it certainly influences my choice away from the very worst polluters.
Neil
VED does have its uses in its current form, but not to stop the use of cars, it's more to encourage the cars to be environmentally friendlier ones in the first place, by effectively imposing an annual penalty for the use of a less environmentally friendly model. While I'm someone who tends to go for big cars (I'm a big person) it certainly influences my choice away from the very worst polluters.
Neil
In reply to malky_c:
Well at least you're being honest about it I think that a lot of the moral pressure to adopt public transport comes from people who can't afford cars, or who don't want to, and who would like to see everyone else in the same boat so that the trains and bus network would improve across the board. Nothing wrong with that - I would be the same were I in that position but it's when people get self-righteous about is that it p***es me off.
I'm often prepared to give hard-up climbing-partners a lift and to forget to charge them petrol money occasionally. But I gave short shrift to the acquaintance who wanted me to travel with him because he's hard up, and played the "it's more efficient" card instead of saying the real reason. Efficient my backside - taking him would have meant my missing the business appointment that was the main reason I was heading to the peaks where I also intended to go climbing, so far from being 'efficient' it would have screwed-up my day bigtime.
When I told him this, he tried to suggest that I should get two other people who had no interest at all in going there on that particular day to travel with him so they could subsidise his petrol. I don't really see how trying to persuaded people to travel when they don't want to is more 'efficient'.
It usually boils down to self-interest in the end, but if we can at least be honest about it, as you have been here, then we all know where we stand.
> Can't say I agonise about it from an environmental perspective - I just find the older I get, the less I drive and the less I want to drive. In fact I rather selfishly want more people to use some of the public transport routes (such as the Kyle of Lochalsh and Far North train lines) because they are underused and will probably be cut back eventually.
Well at least you're being honest about it I think that a lot of the moral pressure to adopt public transport comes from people who can't afford cars, or who don't want to, and who would like to see everyone else in the same boat so that the trains and bus network would improve across the board. Nothing wrong with that - I would be the same were I in that position but it's when people get self-righteous about is that it p***es me off.
I'm often prepared to give hard-up climbing-partners a lift and to forget to charge them petrol money occasionally. But I gave short shrift to the acquaintance who wanted me to travel with him because he's hard up, and played the "it's more efficient" card instead of saying the real reason. Efficient my backside - taking him would have meant my missing the business appointment that was the main reason I was heading to the peaks where I also intended to go climbing, so far from being 'efficient' it would have screwed-up my day bigtime.
When I told him this, he tried to suggest that I should get two other people who had no interest at all in going there on that particular day to travel with him so they could subsidise his petrol. I don't really see how trying to persuaded people to travel when they don't want to is more 'efficient'.
It usually boils down to self-interest in the end, but if we can at least be honest about it, as you have been here, then we all know where we stand.
In reply to Indy:
I don't consider London public transport fares *unreasonable* given the level of subsidy on the system, and the quality of service is light years ahead of regional cities. They could be reduced by increasing subsidy, but that is not the prevailing political leaning in the UK.
This is often calculated on the basis of the single adult fare, hence these have been jacked right up but the price of day/week/month tickets is often very reasonable. In most areas a day ticket is less than the price of two singles, which means free marginal extra journeys.
Neil
> Even when private companies aren't involved like the abusive monopoly called Transport for London you don't see reasonable pricing.
I don't consider London public transport fares *unreasonable* given the level of subsidy on the system, and the quality of service is light years ahead of regional cities. They could be reduced by increasing subsidy, but that is not the prevailing political leaning in the UK.
> Also worth mentioning that OAP's 'free' travel massively distorts costs on bus's.
This is often calculated on the basis of the single adult fare, hence these have been jacked right up but the price of day/week/month tickets is often very reasonable. In most areas a day ticket is less than the price of two singles, which means free marginal extra journeys.
Neil
In reply to Neil Williams:
Agreed - especially when that trip runs next to a railway line as many do.
> The main type of car travel to be avoided environmentally is where one person drives alone.
Agreed - especially when that trip runs next to a railway line as many do.
2
In reply to Neil Williams:
> the infrastructure is free.
Not quite sure what you mean by that?Post edited at 10:18
In reply to mypyrex:
With trains you have to maintain stations and railway lines. With buses and cars you have to maintain stops/stations/parking facilities and roads. With planes you have to maintain airports and....erm....
The air is free at the point of use, I mean, like the sea. Roads and railway lines are not.
Neil
With trains you have to maintain stations and railway lines. With buses and cars you have to maintain stops/stations/parking facilities and roads. With planes you have to maintain airports and....erm....
The air is free at the point of use, I mean, like the sea. Roads and railway lines are not.
Neil
Post edited at 10:22
In reply to mypyrex:
Guessing he means the sky is free.
Does air traffic control not count as infrastructure though?
> Not quite sure what you mean by that?
Guessing he means the sky is free.
Does air traffic control not count as infrastructure though?
2
In reply to ThunderCat:
I guess such ideas work fine for aircraft that don't need airports, transport networks to serve the airports, aircraft themselves and their maintenance regimes, the above-mentioned traffic controls etc. etc. I guess we're talking teleporters here as in 'beam me up, Scottie'... Now there's an idea to save the planet!
> Guessing he means the sky is free.
> Does air traffic control not count as infrastructure though?
I guess such ideas work fine for aircraft that don't need airports, transport networks to serve the airports, aircraft themselves and their maintenance regimes, the above-mentioned traffic controls etc. etc. I guess we're talking teleporters here as in 'beam me up, Scottie'... Now there's an idea to save the planet!
In reply to ThunderCat:
It does, but then the railway has signalling centres and signalboxes. Air still doesn't have the physical track. The air is free.
Neil
It does, but then the railway has signalling centres and signalboxes. Air still doesn't have the physical track. The air is free.
Neil
In reply to Andy Morley:
The railway needs all those things, *AND* the track. Planes don't need the track. Maintaining the track costs a small fortune.
Neil
> I guess such ideas work fine for aircraft that don't need airports, transport networks to serve the airports, aircraft themselves and their maintenance regimes, the above-mentioned traffic controls etc. etc. I guess we're talking teleporters here as in 'beam me up, Scottie'... Now there's an idea to save the planet!
The railway needs all those things, *AND* the track. Planes don't need the track. Maintaining the track costs a small fortune.
Neil
In reply to mypyrex:
I agree, I just don't understand how the UK can provide such an average service, on cramped dirty trains for the money they charge. Where is the money going.
In places that charge a comparable price to the UK, the service is better. Many countries charge far less and still provide a service streets ahead of the UK, even when you consider the subsidies.
> I occasionally use the French SNCF trains ..... Yes, I know they are subsidised.
I agree, I just don't understand how the UK can provide such an average service, on cramped dirty trains for the money they charge. Where is the money going.
In places that charge a comparable price to the UK, the service is better. Many countries charge far less and still provide a service streets ahead of the UK, even when you consider the subsidies.
1
In reply to Neil Williams:
https://www.eurocontrol.int/articles/what-are-route-charges
> With trains you have to maintain stations and railway lines. With buses and cars you have to maintain stops/stations/parking facilities and roads. With planes you have to maintain airports and....erm....
> The air is free at the point of use, I mean, like the sea. Roads and railway lines are not.
> Neil
Except that airline have to pay route charges etc., thus the air is not really free in that sense.https://www.eurocontrol.int/articles/what-are-route-charges
Post edited at 10:53
In reply to Neil Williams:
tracks can be multi use, for freight too, once in place. The same doesn't work for the sky.
Plus, whilst trains are cheap, I would argue planes cost more? Also training costs for pilots versus train drivers... Not all running costs are up front and visible.
Heathrow employs how many people, 100,000 or something like that. Yes, it's averaged out over a lot of pax, but a small rural station doesn't need anyone?
If UK trains, we cleaner, more efficient and cheaper people would use them. Especially business folk, as you can arrive one minute before your train and still make it, no security issues, no bag size limits..
> The railway needs all those things, *AND* the track. Planes don't need the track. Maintaining the track costs a small fortune.
tracks can be multi use, for freight too, once in place. The same doesn't work for the sky.
Plus, whilst trains are cheap, I would argue planes cost more? Also training costs for pilots versus train drivers... Not all running costs are up front and visible.
Heathrow employs how many people, 100,000 or something like that. Yes, it's averaged out over a lot of pax, but a small rural station doesn't need anyone?
If UK trains, we cleaner, more efficient and cheaper people would use them. Especially business folk, as you can arrive one minute before your train and still make it, no security issues, no bag size limits..
In reply to Neil Williams:
Don't runway construction or resurfacing is cheap either?
> The railway needs all those things, *AND* the track. Planes don't need the track. Maintaining the track costs a small fortune.
Don't runway construction or resurfacing is cheap either?
In reply to summo:
Don't be taken by SNCF. The service off the TGV lines is risibly bad. Same with FS and RENFE. The grass is not always greener.
Neil
> I agree, I just don't understand how the UK can provide such an average service, on cramped dirty trains for the money they charge. Where is the money going.
>> In places that charge a comparable price to the UK, the service is better. Many countries charge far less and still provide a service streets ahead of the UK, even when you consider the subsidies.
Don't be taken by SNCF. The service off the TGV lines is risibly bad. Same with FS and RENFE. The grass is not always greener.
Neil
In reply to Neil Williams:
In aviation there is, beyond the airport boundaries, an enormous infrastructure that has to be maintained and paid for. En route navigation aids(VOR etc) en route air traffic control(ATC is not confined to airports), meteorological services and communications etc.
In aviation there is, beyond the airport boundaries, an enormous infrastructure that has to be maintained and paid for. En route navigation aids(VOR etc) en route air traffic control(ATC is not confined to airports), meteorological services and communications etc.
In reply to summo:
Lots of people already do - try getting a train in to London in the morning, or taking any popular inter-city route. Arguably half the issues with the rail network in Britain have to do with capacity on popular routes at popular times rather than under-use of rubbishy ones. We're getting perilously close to the "if it was less crowded, more people might use it" argument, here...
> If UK trains, we cleaner, more efficient and cheaper people would use them. Especially business folk, as you can arrive one minute before your train and still make it, no security issues, no bag size limits..
Lots of people already do - try getting a train in to London in the morning, or taking any popular inter-city route. Arguably half the issues with the rail network in Britain have to do with capacity on popular routes at popular times rather than under-use of rubbishy ones. We're getting perilously close to the "if it was less crowded, more people might use it" argument, here...
Post edited at 11:09
One comment I will make in favour of trains, and I do so as somebody who spent thirty hellish, miserable years commuting in and out of London, is that certainly long distance trains have improved generally since those days(I started commuting in the early sixties)
In reply to Neil Williams:
Norway - not cheap, but a little cheaper than the UK for a comparable distance. Cleaner trains, more free bits added in like drinks/wifi etc.. booked seating, not standing. oslo to Trondheim, £70.
Sweden - less than half the cost of the UK, you book a seat not standing on most trains. Cleaner, pretty prompt, wifi... 1st class is usually only 10% or so more. Kids tickets are nominal rate of about £4, but they still get seat. So taking the train for a family of 4 is certainly cheaper than driving. Just checked a 400mile journey next week, would cost about £30-35 for an adult (not a pensioner or student...)
I would never use France as template for anything. I've always found the Austrian trains pretty good, but not sure on pricing or their funding.
The facts are UK trains suck!!
> Don't be taken by SNCF.
Norway - not cheap, but a little cheaper than the UK for a comparable distance. Cleaner trains, more free bits added in like drinks/wifi etc.. booked seating, not standing. oslo to Trondheim, £70.
Sweden - less than half the cost of the UK, you book a seat not standing on most trains. Cleaner, pretty prompt, wifi... 1st class is usually only 10% or so more. Kids tickets are nominal rate of about £4, but they still get seat. So taking the train for a family of 4 is certainly cheaper than driving. Just checked a 400mile journey next week, would cost about £30-35 for an adult (not a pensioner or student...)
I would never use France as template for anything. I've always found the Austrian trains pretty good, but not sure on pricing or their funding.
The facts are UK trains suck!!
In reply to summo:
As the UK rail system is huge and diverse, I think that statement is an unfair and inaccurate rant. Some of it is bad, but some of it does what it does remarkably well.
Neil
> The facts are UK trains suck!!
As the UK rail system is huge and diverse, I think that statement is an unfair and inaccurate rant. Some of it is bad, but some of it does what it does remarkably well.
Neil
In reply to summo:
My partner is doing Edinburgh to London return at the end of the month for £50. Much better than driving or flying. Some UK trains are crap, some are terrific.
> The facts are UK trains suck!!
My partner is doing Edinburgh to London return at the end of the month for £50. Much better than driving or flying. Some UK trains are crap, some are terrific.
1
In reply to mypyrex:
The problem is a lot of the costs of motoring are external costs, if you had to pay those, then you would be more likely to use the train.
The problem is a lot of the costs of motoring are external costs, if you had to pay those, then you would be more likely to use the train.
In reply to summo:
I think the original point being made has been lost. Someone asked how planes could be cheaper than trains and the point was made that one of the biggest costs, maintenance of tracks (not to mention the huge capital costs of building them), was a big item taken out of the equation.
I think the original point being made has been lost. Someone asked how planes could be cheaper than trains and the point was made that one of the biggest costs, maintenance of tracks (not to mention the huge capital costs of building them), was a big item taken out of the equation.
1
In reply to malky_c:
Rail diesel essentially isn't either. (Well, it is, but it is a very small figure - it is basically red diesel)
Neil
Rail diesel essentially isn't either. (Well, it is, but it is a very small figure - it is basically red diesel)
Neil
In reply to Neil Williams:
The fact that it's diverse is part of the problem! We're not a big country ffs we should have a national system, at least on mainland Britain. We could call it, oh I dunno, "Rail Britain" or something like that.
> As the UK rail system is huge and diverse
The fact that it's diverse is part of the problem! We're not a big country ffs we should have a national system, at least on mainland Britain. We could call it, oh I dunno, "Rail Britain" or something like that.
In reply to deepsoup:
Agree, but I think Neil's point was that "the UK rail system" covers everything from the London to Manchester intercities to the West Highland Line to London commuter trains to bumbly local services in East Anglia, and as such it doesn't really make sense to talk about it as a homogeneous thing with homogeneous issues.
Agree, but I think Neil's point was that "the UK rail system" covers everything from the London to Manchester intercities to the West Highland Line to London commuter trains to bumbly local services in East Anglia, and as such it doesn't really make sense to talk about it as a homogeneous thing with homogeneous issues.
Post edited at 15:10
In reply to Ramblin dave:
Yes, that was what I meant. Even when it was BR (I am old enough to remember) it was still just as diverse. The Far North Line to Thurso and Wick has long had little in common with the West Coast Main Line, or a London commuter route. The franchising system hasn't changed it in that sort of way - indeed, in some ways it has promoted local management dealing with local issues. It isn't all good, but it isn't all bad either.
Neil
Yes, that was what I meant. Even when it was BR (I am old enough to remember) it was still just as diverse. The Far North Line to Thurso and Wick has long had little in common with the West Coast Main Line, or a London commuter route. The franchising system hasn't changed it in that sort of way - indeed, in some ways it has promoted local management dealing with local issues. It isn't all good, but it isn't all bad either.
Neil
In reply to summo:
Two countries that have a population less than London. One of those has a sovereign wealth fund almost as big as the total UK debt. Can you really compare?
> Norway - not cheap, but a little cheaper than the UK
> Sweden - less than half the cost of the UK,
Two countries that have a population less than London. One of those has a sovereign wealth fund almost as big as the total UK debt. Can you really compare?
In reply to ByEek:
perhaps the population is directly proportional to the number of train users? Or the fact that the cities and towns that they provide train services to are much farther apart, therefore more track miles per customer, yet it still pays.
In fact the argument is, the UK because of it's population and density, the service there should be much better than any other larger country?
As for Norway's funds, the oil revenue goes in the fund, they only spend something like 3% of the annual oil tax revenue, the rest goes into the fund , otherwise there wouldn't be one full of money?
> Two countries that have a population less than London. One of those has a sovereign wealth fund almost as big as the total UK debt. Can you really compare?
perhaps the population is directly proportional to the number of train users? Or the fact that the cities and towns that they provide train services to are much farther apart, therefore more track miles per customer, yet it still pays.
In fact the argument is, the UK because of it's population and density, the service there should be much better than any other larger country?
As for Norway's funds, the oil revenue goes in the fund, they only spend something like 3% of the annual oil tax revenue, the rest goes into the fund , otherwise there wouldn't be one full of money?
Post edited at 15:57
In reply to Neil Williams:
actually that's not true. You can turn up at the airport and pay the 'full' fare just the same as on a train. Thre's no 'unlimited' as you can't stand up on a plane, but you can book them right up to when the gate closes. In fact the work very similarly to a train, allowing x number of tickets at each fare bracket, with fares with more flexible fares costing more as standard.
Also on major routes such as Manchester-london they're very common.
I've currently got the flight schedule from Heathrow to Paris CDG on screen and they're roughly once an hour (watching someone so I can't grab domestic flights at mo but they're v common)
> It's also worth bearing in mind that the pricing structure is totally different, with no "walk-up" unlimited-number fares, and lower frequencies meaning people are more amenable to advance booking. The only way you can properly compare is by an average per-head fare, but that's commercially sensitive so you won't get that.
> Neil
actually that's not true. You can turn up at the airport and pay the 'full' fare just the same as on a train. Thre's no 'unlimited' as you can't stand up on a plane, but you can book them right up to when the gate closes. In fact the work very similarly to a train, allowing x number of tickets at each fare bracket, with fares with more flexible fares costing more as standard.
Also on major routes such as Manchester-london they're very common.
I've currently got the flight schedule from Heathrow to Paris CDG on screen and they're roughly once an hour (watching someone so I can't grab domestic flights at mo but they're v common)
In reply to Ramblin dave:
Yeah, fair point.
Yeah, fair point.
In reply to tony:
Your partner must have got a good deal. It's typically £100+ for that journey. For me it's cheaper to drive, and more convenient. Does take a bit longer though, but when I factor in getting through London and a train out the other side to the south, it's not actually that far off, a few hours at most. I've not been very lucky at getting cheaper tickets.
> My partner is doing Edinburgh to London return at the end of the month for £50. Much better than driving or flying. Some UK trains are crap, some are terrific.
Your partner must have got a good deal. It's typically £100+ for that journey. For me it's cheaper to drive, and more convenient. Does take a bit longer though, but when I factor in getting through London and a train out the other side to the south, it's not actually that far off, a few hours at most. I've not been very lucky at getting cheaper tickets.
In reply to summo:
I don't think it works like that, simply because infrastructure severely lags behind population growth in a particular area. To take your argument and apply it to the roads, you would be saying that high population density would see a reduction in traffic congestion.
> In fact the argument is, the UK because of it's population and density, the service there should be much better than any other larger country?
I don't think it works like that, simply because infrastructure severely lags behind population growth in a particular area. To take your argument and apply it to the roads, you would be saying that high population density would see a reduction in traffic congestion.
In reply to Scarab9:
Yep, I had to fly back from Geneva early a few years ago, rocked up at the airport and bought a ticket for a flight four hours later. Cost me about 4 times as much as the original flight though.
Yep, I had to fly back from Geneva early a few years ago, rocked up at the airport and bought a ticket for a flight four hours later. Cost me about 4 times as much as the original flight though.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...