why do people only ever include the fuel costs when calculating a car journey ? There are numerous additional costs involved even if having 5 people in the said car would make it cheaper than rail .
Because they view the rest of the costs as inconsequential? If you buy a car and insure it, it doesn’t really matter how many miles you do, the cost is the same throughout the year, so in a sense, you get better value the more you use it… I agree people rarely factor in services, tyres etc, but so many new cars these days come with a number of “free” services people may just not think about it.
The only problem there is you likely need a pretty big car for 5 people on a long trip, for comfort reasons, and to have any room for their luggage.
Yes, and it’s still cheaper using it than the train, and we have the opportunity to stop/divert if we choose to.
My last trip with the family (2021) was with Avanti to London, and despite booking early and off peak was still knocking on for £600 for two adults and three kids, with a railcard. We couldn’t get reservations together or find space in the unreserved coach, so ended up spread through the train with the kids sat next to random strangers, one of whom I’d like to apologise to unreservedly as my 5 year old chattered to him nonstop from Carlisle to Euston.
In the car, we could have sat together, so the train definitely wins there
In terms of fuel, maybe £150 would have done it, so that still leaves £450 to chip away at service/tyres/insurance/parking (which would have been free at our hotel anyways).
To be fair, it’s not much better for short journeys either - five of us to Carlisle is around £40, fuel would be a tenner, parking a few quid, so plenty left for all the other on costs. As a result, we use the train once in a while to keep the kids entertained, but the majority of our transport is in the car.
(When I’m away for work, I’ll use the train in preference, as someone else is paying and I can sit and watch the world go by!)