How to make the railway cheaper than the car?

[MacB]

Two weeks ago, my wife and myself needed to go from Ely to Bristol for the weekend. We needed to be in Bristol by 8pm on the Friday. A train fare was going to be £209 ... each! We opted to spend the roughly £60 it cost in diesel in our 55mpg Focus instead, but out of interest I went to Avis car rental for a quote. They would have rented us an Astra for the weekend for £56 - obviously that covers insurance, depreciation and enough for Avis to make a profit ... add on your £60 diesel and you're still comfortably under £209, let alone the £418 it would have cost for the both of us!

This is an interesting side that many don't consider, I know a few people that don't own a car but rent one when the need arises. Ok, they don't live in a rural area and a couple live in London, but it's still surprising how rarely the need arises. The big hurdle seems to be committing to doing without the 'comfort blanket' sitting on the drive/road. Once that's overcome the reality seems to be far cheerier than the expectations.

But cars are so much more, to many people, than just a means of getting from A to B.

 

[Dan B]

When I didn't have a car, getting one made no economic sense (I live in London). Now I do have (the use of) a car, taking the train instead makes no economic sense (I still live in London).

 

[DrSquirrel]

Isn't the public transport network already heavily subsidised... so it COULD be much worse.

A lot of the extras, like insurance and GVED, are fixed costs, so don't count. I won't be selling the car - it's really not practical to carry my daughter's cello on a bicycle, and impossible for my son's drum kit! I suppose we could get a cargo bike like so many Dutch people, but it just seems a step too far at the moment.

Or a hire car, or a taxi.

Obviously depends on how much you need to move it around.

Maybe you shoudl tell your daughter that a Violin is more envriomentally friendly

 

[400bhp]

But for most people outside of a decent-sized metropolis, you may as well mentally discount depreciation and all the other fixed costs because unless you can find a way to ditch the car you're going to be paying them whether you make this extra journey or not.

I think you need to look up the definition of marginal cost

 

[tuffty]

I don't know where you got your quotes from. I've just looked up on www.nationalrail.co.uk, and the cheapest return fare would be about £50.00 each, depending on when you travel. Yes, these are apex fares, so I'm assuming that you knew in advance that you wanted to go to Bristol etc.

I knew about a week before, but the Apex etc is only valid at certain times. To get to Bristol before 8 the cheapest option on thetrainline was £109 .. and still is now on nationalrail for a similar journey.

 

[400bhp]

There are reasons why 45p per mile was chosen by HMRC as car cost allowances.

Fixed costs (broadly speaking)

Insurance
MOT
Tax
Depreciation (not mileage related)
perishables(not mileage related)

Variable costs
fuel
Depreciation (mileage related)
wear on moving parts (tyres, brakes etc)


At the moment fuel alone costs me about 45p per mile

 

[Dan B]

I think you need to look up the definition of marginal cost

I know what a marginal cost is: that was exactly my point. To encourage people to use PT instead of a car, given that they own a car, you have to make train travel cheaper than the marginal cost of motoring, or you have to make it it possible for them to lose the car (and take into account all the other uses to which they may put it). You might think that's it's not fair to compare marginal to total cost, but in the OP's situation and many others it's the only comparison worth making

 

[400bhp]

I know what a marginal cost is: that was exactly my point. To encourage people to use PT instead of a car, given that they own a car, you have to make train travel cheaper than the marginal cost of motoring, or you have to make it it possible for them to lose the car (and take into account all the other uses to which they may put it). You might think that's it's not fair to compare marginal to total cost, but in the OP's situation and many others it's the only comparison worth making

Marginal cost <> fuel

Marginal cost = fuel + depreciation (mileage related) +wear on moving parts (tyres, brakes etc)

 

[tuffty]

This is an interesting side that many don't consider, I know a few people that don't own a car but rent one when the need arises. Ok, they don't live in a rural area and a couple live in London, but it's still surprising how rarely the need arises. The big hurdle seems to be committing to doing without the 'comfort blanket' sitting on the drive/road. Once that's overcome the reality seems to be far cheerier than the expectations.

But cars are so much more, to many people, than just a means of getting from A to B.

I think that's it, it depends where you live. When I lived in London, commuting to the centre was only practical by Tube and for the once or twice a month I'd head out of London, paying for a train or hiring a car for the weekend made more sense than the long term costs of car ownership. Living rurally with a commute that would take 2 hours each way by public transport (30 mins in car) there's no real option but to own a car, and once you have bought one and are paying for the depreciation etc anyway then its very rare that taking the train works out cheaper.

 

[400bhp]

4 x 4's - ugh. No way.

 

[Dan B]

Marginal cost <> fuel

Marginal cost = fuel + depreciation (mileage related) +wear on moving parts (tyres, brakes etc)

At 2010 prices, and for a car that cost less than 12000 new, the AA says 13p for fuel, 0.98p tyres, 3.6p servicing, tuppence for parts, plus parking and tolls. So OK, fuel is less than marginal cost but it still represents about two thirds of it, and factoring in the other bits is unlikely to make any difference to the OP

 

[mgarl10024]

We had a recent meeting as a team near London. By the time we'd got buses to the train station, the train from Bristol to London, the tube, the train to where we wanted to go, then a taxi from the station to our destination, we ended up spending well over £800 for just 4 people (there are nearer 10 of us).

Alternatively, hiring a car and a bit of petrol would have meant that the same four people could travel door to door, and we would have arrived over an hour earlier.

I really want to support the rail network, but right now it's just not cost effective.

 

[steve52]

on the topic of trains? cheaper tickets is the way to go, but midland main line dont understand this!!! i brought an off peak ticket in addvance, it cost £22, i found out befor i used it that i needed a later train still off peak, and unless i missunder stand the meaning of in advance, as in befor i get on the train lol they wanted £49 to change my ticket ,thats on top of the £22 i had allready paid, i changed my plans and came home on the earlyer train and had to share the carridge with 2 other passengers? its not the workers its the managers overpaid morons, in my humble oppion!!

 

[JamesAC]

If you live in a rural area you will need a car to get to the station, so while on the train you are still paying all the standing costs of car ownership. For me the car is quicker, more convenient and far far cheaper.

.. or taxi?

 

[JamesAC]

I knew about a week before, but the Apex etc is only valid at certain times. To get to Bristol before 8 the cheapest option on thetrainline was £109 .. and still is now on nationalrail for a similar journey.

£33.50 (each) will get you to Bristol by 2004.
£27.00 (each) will get you home by 21:19 Sunday eve. Each of these is an Apex ticket.

But even if you walk up and buy an off-peak fare, it will only(!) cost you a total of £186, there and back, for the two of you.

According to the transport direct website, the fuel alone costs would be £60.00 (for the round trip), but taking into account the "true" costs of motoring, it would be £222.

Going by train could save you ~£40.00, and lots of hassle.