Trains...why?

[100%JR]

100%JR: I'm not suggesting you really should do it (a lot depends on the age of your children) but I do want to challenge your assumptions - if only for the fun of it. Lots of people camp with just bicycles and that includes camping with children (I've done it). It's worth thinklng about how that pans out, from the POV of a better experience.

BTW, most people are adequately tented at around 2 kg per person. Yes, travelling by train, with children and camping is difficult but not impossible (I recall the delightful French couple travelling with their child on a South West Trains service during the summer, complete with camping gear, child trailer and bikes).

BTW No.2: the cost of motoring is estimated at 45 ppm (that's the HMRC figure, not mine). The idea that motorists always look at the marginal cost and rail travel pricing is based on whole cost underpins much of what this thread is about. So that's 140 x 2 (return I presume) x 45p = £126.00. Children travel at half price less advance deduction less one third family rail card.

I've done plenty of camping by bike but for a two week holiday we want a bit of comfort hence the Tent(we also have a 20ft extension but not many UK sites will allow it.I have a little 2-man tent too.My wife and daughter don't ride anyway and there's noway they'd go in a smaller tent!
The HMRC figure is stupid.It costs nowhere near £126 in fuel.The other costs are irrelevant as we run the vehicle daily anyway.The car uses 6 gallons of fuel maximum.That is nowhere near £126.
£1.35ltrx4.54=£5.94 per gallon.
£5.94x6=£35.68
£126

Two hours, average 70 mph?
Penrith is the best station for Keswick, plus bus

I said around 2 hours.If we don't stop and use M1/A1/A66(158miles) it's usually about 2hrs 10min-2hrs 20 mins.70 mph? Cruise control is set at 85 on the M1/A1 and apart from when passing through Villages on the A66 we will be doing 70-80mph.Does anyone really do 70mph?Not judging by the cars/vans passing me they don't
If we go the "scenic route" through the Dales(136miles) it's about an hour longer.....still FAR quicker than by Train.
(I have done it in just over an hour and a half on a motorbike but I might have been going a bit quicker than 85mph )

[Cyril Haearn]

Yes there are plenty of drivers who do not exceed the maximum limit

Going too fast is a crime/offence like travelling without a ticket for example

[horizon]

The HMRC figure is stupid.It costs nowhere near £126 in fuel.The other costs are irrelevant as we run the vehicle daily anyway.The car uses 6 gallons of fuel maximum.That is nowhere near £126.
£1.35ltrx4.54=£5.94 per gallon.
£5.94x6=£35.68
£126

100%JR: I'm sticking my neck out a bit suggesting that train fares would be comparable but let's take this slowly ((that's friendly sarcasm by the way ): 45ppm is the average cost taking into account the cost of the car (aka depreciation), insurance etc. Of course, if you didn't make the journey by car, you wouldn't save on the tax, insurance etc and this is where the problem lies - it actually pays you to take the car (Bangladeshis turn away now please).

BTW, I'm not really suggesting you don't take the car but it's still worth discussing IMV (and I appreciate your sportsmanship in replying). So one further point is that with bikes (especially for children) the holiday starts the moment you leave the house (or even earlier in fact). You don't have to "get" anywhere - you are already cycling! I accept that YMMV (enormously by the sound of things ).

[horizon]

The train in this instance can't compete for convenience,speed or cost for someone who already has a car, as it wouldn't for 100%JR's journey to Keswick.

While that's true, hidden away in all these calculations that we make is an assumption: that we will go by car. We then look at what's feasible. The OP may wish to take his family to South Africa but suddenly the car isn't so useful so they go somewhere in the UK instead. I reckon most children under the age of 14 would rather go on a local cycle camping holiday than spend any amount of time trapped in the back of a car on the M6, no matter how beautiful the grown-ups think the destination. (unless of course they're hoping to go to the Maldives when they are older in which case they will definitely opt for the local trip by bike ).

[Cyril Haearn]

R2: if you want to go to the NEC next year you could try booking train tickets far in advance, the date will be known in good time, should get a top (low) price

[RickH]

........BTW No.2: the cost of motoring is estimated at 45 ppm (that's the HMRC figure, not mine). The idea that motorists always look at the marginal cost and rail travel pricing is based on whole cost underpins much of what this thread is about. So that's 140 x 2 (return I presume) x 45p = £126.00. Children travel at half price less advance deduction less one third family rail card.

The thing is though owners already have the car which they use for other things too,so hopping in it is easier.

Harping back to the Crewe to NEC posts above,the journey time by train was 1hr.44mins.We live just off the M6 j23 30miles North of Crewe,despite lots of road works on the M6 our journey time by car was 4hrs total there and back.
We would've needed to first get to Crewe by car or train,then onward by train,total journey time would've been 4hrs(?) possibly more one way.
The train in this instance can't compete for convenience,speed or cost for someone who already has a car, as it wouldn't for 100%JR's journey to Keswick.

I've done Manchester to NEC by train for a £5 each way advance fare before now. (I usually reckon on no more than £20 each way to get anywhere by train. I've got £10 advance tickets to Glasgow from Wigan before now, even only booking a couple of days ahead. Ironically going north from Wigan is often cheaper than going from Preston!)

Our youngest daughter was working in Birmingham in the summer & drove up on a day off while her brother was back on a visit from Canada. It took her over 3 hours each way because of slow traffic.

You can't always guarantee it is either quicker or cheaper by car. (although I'll admit the trains can be delayed - probably the worst thing about train travel is the sadness of the delays because of "a fatality on the line"!)

[reohn2]

The train in this instance can't compete for convenience,speed or cost for someone who already has a car, as it wouldn't for 100%JR's journey to Keswick.

While that's true, hidden away in all these calculations that we make is an assumption: that we will go by car. We then look at what's feasible. The OP may wish to take his family to South Africa but suddenly the car isn't so useful so they go somewhere in the UK instead. I reckon most children under the age of 14 would rather go on a local cycle camping holiday than spend any amount of time trapped in the back of a car on the M6, no matter how beautiful the grown-ups think the destination. (unless of course they're hoping to go to the Maldives when they are older in which case they will definitely opt for the local trip by bike ).

I've been out all afternoon on the tandem with my 11yearold grandson,had an ice cream played conkers,checked out the wildlife showed him some new local trails,never went near a car(though a couple came too near us )or a train.
The fact is if you want to go somewhere far away in the UK today more often than not the car is,however we wish it were otherwise,the most convenient way to travel,if you've got a bike with you(unless it's a folder) public transport becomes even less attractive.
That said,if I were heading for say the Lake District for a few days touring on my own I'd be looking at the train for a convenient station,perhaps Carnforth or Penrith,to set out from.A party of four with bikes,as in 100%JR's case,it becomes a logistical nightmare,which comes down to the line of least resistance,which is convenience and cost,that means the cars wins.

[RickH]

Thinking a bit further on this...

The danger is that because a particular trip is difficult & /or expensive to do by train you automatically assume the same must be true of all trips by train and you therefore don't investigate the possibilities any further.

[reohn2]

Thinking a bit further on this...

The danger is that because a particular trip is difficult & /or expensive to do by train you automatically assume the same must be true of all trips by train and you therefore don't investigate the possibilities any further.

That's a distinct possibility.

[100%JR]

Yes there are plenty of drivers who do not exceed the maximum limit
Going too fast is a crime/offence like travelling without a ticket for example

That is correct but there are also plenty of drivers who do exceed the limit.The limit is wrong and years out of date but that's another topic It is a fact that if I were to sit in the outside lane of a motorway at 80mph I would be holding traffic up!I cycle occasionally with a Motorcycle Police Officer.According to him they will leave drivers alone up to 90mph if the traffic is flowing and that is sensible.He also says that congestion has gotten much worse on the M1 since the "smart" motorways went live between Sheffield and Leeds as drivers are constantly speeding up/slowing down as they get near the matrix boards fitted with cameras for fear of getting a speeding fine!This was obviously always going to be the case.Smart motorways are a bad idea.
I like driving.I drive to the South of France every year.I'm often asked at work why I don't fly there and the simple answer is I like to drive.I would much rather be sat driving my car than looking out of a plane(or train) window.I do fly/cycle to Mallorca and that 2hrs-ish on the plane is just so boring!(Don't get me started on check-in/waiting times at Manchester airport!)

[Cyril Haearn]

Yes there are plenty of drivers who do not exceed the maximum limit
Going too fast is a crime/offence like travelling without a ticket for example

That is correct but there are also plenty of drivers who do exceed the limit.The limit is wrong and years out of date but that's another topic It is a fact that if I were to sit in the outside lane of a motorway at 80mph I would be holding traffic up!I cycle occasionally with a Motorcycle Police Officer.According to him they will leave drivers alone up to 90mph if the traffic is flowing and that is sensible.He also says that congestion has gotten much worse on the M1 since the "smart" motorways went live between Sheffield and Leeds as drivers are constantly speeding up/slowing down as they get near the matrix boards fitted with cameras for fear of getting a speeding fine!This was obviously always going to be the case.Smart motorways are a bad idea.
I like driving.I drive to the South of France every year.I'm often asked at work why I don't fly there and the simple answer is I like to drive.I would much rather be sat driving my car than looking out of a plane(or train) window.I do fly/cycle to Mallorca and that 2hrs-ish on the plane is just so boring!(Don't get me started on check-in/waiting times at Manchester airport!)

I like driving too

I think 70mph is plenty, there are still many fatal "accidents", it is a perverse situation when those who obvey the law are an abnormal minority, but I do not know what else I could do. Got a new used car, it would not like exceeding 70mph (37 kW )

I often break the law when cycling, I cycle slowly on footways, no-one complains, using the road is too terrifying. But I do not commit theft, crimes of violence, fraud, traffic crime when driving, I never break the law when driving

If you think breaking traffic law is ok, what other laws do you break?

[RickH]

3 hour delays in the M6 near Knutsford today while they removed a lorry that had crashed into (& onto) the central reservation! According to Google it is currently taking over 20 minutes to do the 6 miles up the M6 between the M56 & M62 junctions!

I do a regular trip to Chester & back. Bike & train is definitely my preferred option which takes about 2 hours, sometimes only 1 1/2 hours. In the car I can do the trip in an hour, but only if I'm travelling early on a weekend morning. More usually it takes 1 1/2 to 2 hours. At least on the train I can do stuff like read or watch the world go by, plus I get some cycling in too.

[reohn2]

3 hour delays in the M6 near Knutsford today while they removed a lorry that had crashed into (& onto) the central reservation! According to Google it is currently taking over 20 minutes to do the 6 miles up the M6 between the M56 & M62 junctions!

That's the worst section of the M6 with current roadworks.

I do a regular trip to Chester & back. Bike & train is definitely my preferred option which takes about 2 hours, ksometimes only 1 1/2 hours. In the car I can do the trip in an hour, but only if I'm travelling early on a weekend morning. More usually it takes 1 1/2 to 2 hours. At least on the train I can do stuff like read or watch the world go by, plus I get some cycling in too.

I always take the train to Chester or North Wales from N-le-W it's a two mile ride to the station from where I live as you know

[100%JR]

I think 70mph is plenty,?

I think 70mph should be the minimum.I think all things considered 120mph should be the limit.My car is an "average" family estate and is capable of 140mph so 100-120mph is sensible.My brother has(amongst others) a "family" estate(Audi RS6) that is capable of 180mph+.We have Super cars capable of 200mph+ so 70mph is really,really stupid.Really stupid
70mph is outdated and ridiculous in the modern era.In fact it was outdated and ridiculous 40 years ago

[mjr]

I think 70mph is plenty,?

I think 70mph should be the minimum.I think all things considered 120mph should be the limit.My car is an "average" family estate and is capable of 140mph so 100-120mph is sensible.My brother has(amongst others) a "family" estate(Audi RS6) that is capable of 180mph+.We have Super cars capable of 200mph+ so 70mph is really,really stupid.Really stupid
70mph is outdated and ridiculous in the modern era.In fact it was outdated and ridiculous 40 years ago

It ain't the cars as much as the roads. Firstly, you fit far fewer cars on a road at higher speeds because the stopping distances increase so much. Secondly, all the run off areas and fences and so on have to be so much bigger to absorb the kinetic energy of a 120mph crash, else you're just condemning those who live and work near motorways and fast carriageways to a life in the firing line of car-shaped missiles.

One way it is the cars is energy efficiency. Moving things faster obeys a roughly square law. Twice the speed above a threahold means four times the energy.

For both space and energy efficiency, speed limits should be cut. Maybe automated convoy systems could be allowed to use the innermost lanes at 70ish still, but the days of letting minimally-trained humans do it might not last much longer.