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

Competition between different transport modes in the UK

Status
Not open for further replies.

railfan99

Established Member
Joined
14 Jun 2020
Messages
1,284
Location
Victoria, Australia
I saw an earlier discussion re National Express road coaches versus trains.

Forgetting about strikes such as Greater Anglia's today (hopefully temporary), how do you perceive rail operators in the UK are doing compared to competition from road coach operators and (on longer distance routes such as London - Glasgow) the airlines?

Do rail operators offer a wider variety of tickets (at various price points) compared with 2017 that was the date of the earlier discussion on this forum?

Is road traffic congestion that can affect road coach punctuality stagnant, or, post-COVID-19, is it showing signs of becoming even worse?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Horizon22

Established Member
Associate Staff
Jobs & Careers
Joined
8 Sep 2019
Messages
7,448
Location
London
Right now I wouldn’t say it’s road traffic congestion but fuel prices; a number of colleagues & friends seriously considering (or have already) switching their commute and leisure travel from car to train.

I don’t know how coach operators have responded to fuel rises.
 

Ken H

On Moderation
Joined
11 Nov 2018
Messages
6,272
Location
N Yorks
The big competitor is still the car. Even though its more expensive, its still highly prized by many, especially those who live outside large conurbations.
Most trips me and my wife travel together. Till public transport can compete for parties of 2 or more i dont see that changing.
 

PeterC

Established Member
Joined
29 Sep 2014
Messages
4,069
The big competitor is still the car. Even though its more expensive, its still highly prized by many, especially those who live outside large conurbations.
Most trips me and my wife travel together. Till public transport can compete for parties of 2 or more i dont see that changing.
Car usually wins for me too but cost of parking can tip the balance even for two if you have railcards.

Coach stops are even more inconveniently located for me than railway stations. For people outside of major urban centres Coaches are largely irrelevant.
 

Pugwash

Member
Joined
17 Nov 2011
Messages
321
It is usually easier and cheaper to travel by car ( central London / Manchester excepted ), certainly if there is more than one of you travelling and if you don't have a railcard.
 

miklcct

On Moderation
Joined
2 May 2021
Messages
4,327
Location
Cricklewood
It is usually easier and cheaper to travel by car ( central London / Manchester excepted ), certainly if there is more than one of you travelling and if you don't have a railcard.
It's hardly cheaper to travel by car if there are only 2 or 3 people. With group tickets the bus wins by a great margin even if there are 4. And that's in the West of England / South Wales, far away from big cities.

The situation when using a car is cheaper is that:
- The trip is short enough that the hire fee is low, for example, a trip just for a few hours such that the hire fee is only £20 shared by 4.
- Doing long motorway trips that the hire fee, when shared by 4, is much cheaper than railcard-discounted train tickets.
 

PeterC

Established Member
Joined
29 Sep 2014
Messages
4,069
It's hardly cheaper to travel by car if there are only 2 or 3 people. With group tickets the bus wins by a great margin even if there are 4. And that's in the West of England / South Wales, far away from big cities.

The situation when using a car is cheaper is that:
- The trip is short enough that the hire fee is low, for example, a trip just for a few hours such that the hire fee is only £20 shared by 4.
- Doing long motorway trips that the hire fee, when shared by 4, is much cheaper than railcard-discounted train tickets.
If you are hiring a car then it is a whole different ball game. The post that you are responding to and mine before it, relate to the marginal cost of using a car already owned.
 

miklcct

On Moderation
Joined
2 May 2021
Messages
4,327
Location
Cricklewood
If you are hiring a car then it is a whole different ball game. The post that you are responding to and mine before it, relate to the marginal cost of using a car already owned.
Then in this case, we will need to take the cost of owning a car into consideration. Living in a rural area it's a no brainer to own a car, but even in medium-sized settlements (one with 6-digit population), it can be much cheaper to rely on other modes of transport as the primary mean to get around depending on the usual journeys, and only hire a car when there isn't another appropriate mode of transport.

In such case, if most journeys are short journeys done alone, it's rare to justify owning a car.
 

stuu

Established Member
Joined
2 Sep 2011
Messages
2,729
In such case, if most journeys are short journeys done alone, it's rare to justify owning a car.
Economically perhaps, if you sit down with a spreadsheet and work it all out. Most people don't work like that, and have a car even if it doesn't make economic sense. Having a car outside you can just get into whenever you need it has a value, even if you can't quantify it. Likewise there is a "cost" of having to only do things when the buses are running or whatever
 

PeterC

Established Member
Joined
29 Sep 2014
Messages
4,069
Economically perhaps, if you sit down with a spreadsheet and work it all out. Most people don't work like that, and have a car even if it doesn't make economic sense. Having a car outside you can just get into whenever you need it has a value, even if you can't quantify it. Likewise there is a "cost" of having to only do things when the buses are running or whatever
True you buy the first car for a reason. It may be economically justified or it may be a lifestyle choice. Once you have one you lifestyle becomes moulded around the availability of instant travel.

Parking and congestion charges are what drives the choice to switch. That switch is as likely to be to a different destination as to a different mode.
 

miklcct

On Moderation
Joined
2 May 2021
Messages
4,327
Location
Cricklewood
Economically perhaps, if you sit down with a spreadsheet and work it all out. Most people don't work like that, and have a car even if it doesn't make economic sense. Having a car outside you can just get into whenever you need it has a value, even if you can't quantify it. Likewise there is a "cost" of having to only do things when the buses are running or whatever

True you buy the first car for a reason. It may be economically justified or it may be a lifestyle choice. Once you have one you lifestyle becomes moulded around the availability of instant travel.

Parking and congestion charges are what drives the choice to switch. That switch is as likely to be to a different destination as to a different mode.

When there is London-level public transport provision, a car isn't needed. The bus and tube provide much more convenience in terms of instant travel.

And now, with petrol costing £2 / L, there is a huge disincentive using the car for any substantial distance as well.
 

Ken H

On Moderation
Joined
11 Nov 2018
Messages
6,272
Location
N Yorks
When there is London-level public transport provision, a car isn't needed. The bus and tube provide much more convenience in terms of instant travel.

And now, with petrol costing £2 / L, there is a huge disincentive using the car for any substantial distance as well.
But there are huge social pressures in owning a car. Its prestige, its a pulling machine, you get kudos getting your mates home from the pub.
 

stuu

Established Member
Joined
2 Sep 2011
Messages
2,729
When there is London-level public transport provision, a car isn't needed. The bus and tube provide much more convenience in terms of instant travel.

And now, with petrol costing £2 / L, there is a huge disincentive using the car for any substantial distance as well.
Yes but your statement was that in medium sized towns you don't need a car. Very few, if any, medium sized towns have anywhere close to London levels of provision of public transport
 

miklcct

On Moderation
Joined
2 May 2021
Messages
4,327
Location
Cricklewood
Yes but your statement was that in medium sized towns you don't need a car. Very few, if any, medium sized towns have anywhere close to London levels of provision of public transport

Brighton is a medium-sized city yet it's perfectly feasible to get around without a car.
 

stuu

Established Member
Joined
2 Sep 2011
Messages
2,729
Brighton is a medium-sized city yet it's perfectly feasible to get around without a car.
Brighton is probably the city with the best bus service outside London though, and has the geography and density to support it
 

PeterC

Established Member
Joined
29 Sep 2014
Messages
4,069
When there is London-level public transport provision, a car isn't needed. The bus and tube provide much more convenience in terms of instant travel.

And now, with petrol costing £2 / L, there is a huge disincentive using the car for any substantial distance as well.
You don',t appear to have got beyond zone 3
 

DelayRepay

Established Member
Joined
21 May 2011
Messages
2,929
When there is London-level public transport provision, a car isn't needed. The bus and tube provide much more convenience in terms of instant travel.

And now, with petrol costing £2 / L, there is a huge disincentive using the car for any substantial distance as well.

When I lived in Zone 4 in South East London, I owned a car. It wasn't used often because my journeys into central London, whether for work or leisure were all made by train. However it was used at the weekend - trips to the supermarket with my housemate, days out (away from London), weekends away and visits to friends/family. Even for visiting people in other parts of South London I'd often use the car rather than having to travel into central London and out again, or use a series of buses.

There were also certain journeys where my housemate (who did not drive) relied on me to give him a lift because it wasn't practical to use public transport, e.g. when transporting larger items, or getting home from the hospital. Although I guess he could have used taxis for those journeys, which is what he used to do before I lived there.

I wouldn't say my car was needed, but it was desired. I could have saved money by not having the car, but I valued the flexibility it gave me.

I didn't live in a particularly rich area, but most of the houses had driveways, and most of the driveways contained at least one car.

At the moment, I am using my car for long distances, despite the fuel costs. I do this because it's more reliable. My car doesn't go on strike and doesn't cancel its self on a regular basis at weekends due to a staff shortage. Provided I can afford the fuel (which I can), it will get me to where I want to be. The same cannot be said of the railway service at this point in time.
 

roversfan2001

Established Member
Joined
19 Feb 2016
Messages
1,666
Location
Lancashire
And now, with petrol costing £2 / L, there is a huge disincentive using the car for any substantial distance as well.
...until public transport fares catch up, which rest assured they will. It's very rare that public transport is cheaper than my car when there's more than just me travelling. And even when it is cheaper, it's not viable for any number of reasons. The car is king in the UK and will be for the foreseeable.
 

miklcct

On Moderation
Joined
2 May 2021
Messages
4,327
Location
Cricklewood
You don',t appear to have got beyond zone 3
I have been to zone 4 for a few times, although nearly everything interesting in London is inside zones 1-3.

When I lived in Zone 4 in South East London, I owned a car. It wasn't used often because my journeys into central London, whether for work or leisure were all made by train. However it was used at the weekend - trips to the supermarket with my housemate, days out (away from London), weekends away and visits to friends/family. Even for visiting people in other parts of South London I'd often use the car rather than having to travel into central London and out again, or use a series of buses.

There were also certain journeys where my housemate (who did not drive) relied on me to give him a lift because it wasn't practical to use public transport, e.g. when transporting larger items, or getting home from the hospital. Although I guess he could have used taxis for those journeys, which is what he used to do before I lived there.

I wouldn't say my car was needed, but it was desired. I could have saved money by not having the car, but I valued the flexibility it gave me.

I didn't live in a particularly rich area, but most of the houses had driveways, and most of the driveways contained at least one car.

At the moment, I am using my car for long distances, despite the fuel costs. I do this because it's more reliable. My car doesn't go on strike and doesn't cancel its self on a regular basis at weekends due to a staff shortage. Provided I can afford the fuel (which I can), it will get me to where I want to be. The same cannot be said of the railway service at this point in time.
When I start to think about how many train tickets I can buy with the cost I need to pay to put a car on the road, I have been put off already.

However, I value the flexibility so I have bought a bike instead which doesn't go on strike and doesn't cancel on a regular basis, and it doesn't need fuel to run.
 

stuu

Established Member
Joined
2 Sep 2011
Messages
2,729
there’s a PhD thesis in there somewhere.
You would of course have to define interesting first. If "interesting" means 12 inch gauge railways around lakes, there isn't much choice in zone 1. Interesting is very much in the eye of the beholder
 

BingMan

Member
Joined
8 Feb 2019
Messages
137
Then in this case, we will need to take the cost of owning a car into consideration. Living in a rural area it's a no brainer to own a car, but even in medium-sized settlements (one with 6-digit population), it can be much cheaper to rely on other modes of transport as the primary mean to get around depending on the usual journeys, and only hire a car when there isn't another appropriate mode of transport.

In such case, if most journeys are short journeys done alone, it's rare to justify owning a car.
IME most people who think car is cheaper than rail only consider the cost of fuel when pricing the car journey
 

TPO

Member
Joined
7 Jun 2018
Messages
346
When there is London-level public transport provision, a car isn't needed. The bus and tube provide much more convenience in terms of instant travel.

And now, with petrol costing £2 / L, there is a huge disincentive using the car for any substantial distance as well.

Both petrol and diesel are below £2 a litre, price has dropped the past week or two.

Depends on what sort of traveling you do. If you have a lot of kit, are going to an out of town location or the alternative railway trip would be on a line involving less good types of train (jammed 170 or 20 for example) then the car might well be a better option.

Not sure what you mean by "substantive distance" but my diesel estate car gets over 70mpg door-to-door on a typical trip with the cruise control set to 70mph, if I trundle along at 60-65mph I can get 75mpg. It may be distinctly unfashionable but it's fuel efficient, comfortable, has a good music system and swallows a surprising amount of kit. It's also Euro 6 engine so exempt from the ULEZ charge should I need to travel in the Greater London area (and one site that I visit on occasion is just inside the North Circular, so that's quite handy).

Even at 45p/mile rate the train fare is invariably more costly for the trips I would do, often much more so. Whereas my car is faster (door-to-door) and much more comfortable than a high-density seating XC 170 unit that in all honesty needed a refurb several years ago, rattles like a bag of spanners and often is ram-loaded so getting a seat is usually out of the question. Then, if I took the train I'd have to pay for parking at the start and a taxi at the end, and lug all my kit.

Once you are out of Greater London (and parts of the SE/south of London), the rail coverage gets much sparser and a car is often a good bet. West-East journeys are particularly difficult by rail as the GB rail network has historically had a big focus on connecting major cities with London.

TPO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top