Most Expensive "treat"?

[Puffer]

As to flying, I have no particular liking for it, although one cannot deny the advantages of time and directness.   The bugbear (and it is getting worse, as we know) is the time wasted in getting to an airport a couple of hours before take-off, going through all the intrusive formalities and then (assuming the plane leaves on time) very often passing above my own house some four hours after leaving it, usually at an unearthly hour!

Gatwick is 24 miles away and my wife and I usually use it for holidays, sometimes getting a lift there and back from family or friends.   If not, we have used a 'park-and-minibus' outfit quite conveniently placed on our route to the airport, which typically costs about £5 per day over 7 - 14 days if pre-booked with every discount taken, but the cost is still resented.   In September, my wife went away with one of her sons and I had the opportunity to travel (alone) to spend a week with friends in Spain, before they sold their villa.   There was no-one who could give me a lift to Gatwick (although the wife could and did collect me on my late-evening return*) and the parking outfit wanted more than £60 - an unacceptable sum (almost half my air-fare).   As I had to check-in by about 7.30am latest, my options were limited: the cheapest was to leave home at about 5.25am, trundle my case 0.7m to the nearest station (in bad weather?) and then catch three trains for the otherwise fairly direct run to Gatwick at a cost of £12.90, to arrive about 7.15.   These were almost the first trains of the day and I was a little worried about the two connections working out.   In the end, I booked a taxi (£12) at 5.30 to another station (saving the 'trundle' and the first train) and took the other two trains (£11.60).   All went very smoothly and I was checking-in just after opening time at 7.15.   But the plane was then delayed by about 80mins by a 'technical issue' ...!

*Wifey could hardly refuse the pick-up; I had taken her to Heathrow (dreadful place) at a very early hour for her trip a few days before mine - and then had to return there the next day to pick-up another son and his girl-friend.   Fortunately, the M25 was not misbehaving on either occasion. 

[Shyheels]

I loathe the airport trip which is considerably farther for me (Heathrow 100 miles, Gatwick 65 mikes) than it is for you. Long, stressful with only the tedium of check-in to look forward to. I am always hugely relieved once I am past security and can head to the lounge. It is at that point I start to (almost) enjoy travellng once more.

[FastFreddy2]

I can't say that I entirely agree about the advantages of travelling by car (at least into London) and I guess I am a similar distance from central London as is Freddy.   In my experience, going in by car at any time other than mid-evening or on a Sunday will not only be slow and fraught with traffic delays but also likely to be less economic than the train - especially if only the driver is carried.   Quite apart from the possibility of the congestion charge and the probability of absurd costs of parking, the actual running cost of any car is not just the marginal one of the fuel consumed.

I am about 25 miles from the West End, depending on my departure point. I have the benefit of a friend with a Blue Badge (I have mentioned before) so Congestion Charge and parking fees don't always influence a decision in the direction of public transport. If I live long enough to get a bus pass, I'm sure that will change.

Even when I travel into London with Mrs Freddy, we would be 'landing' after 6.30pm weekdays/Saturday when parking is free, or Sunday when it is also free (in Westminster anyway). I've recently found a spot in Camden where Sunday parking doesn't produce a charge either, so I've been back there once or twice after a long absence.

The two other places I frequent are Brent Cross, and Westfield. Both are a complete nightmare to get to using trains and the Underground. Parking is free at Brent Cross anyway, and is barely 30 minutes away by car. Parking in Westfield is prohibitively expensive on an hourly basis. The day rate is much better at around £8 weekdays. I do tend to price my journeys using marginal costing. Insurance/tax/maintenance costs the same whether I do 10 miles or 10,000. My car depreciates very little now as it's not that new. Consumables are mostly tyres, and fuel. I don't know what a 50 mile trip would cost against 2 off £60 tyres that will last 25-30,000 miles but it won't be much. Same with front brake pads.

Almost all, though not all, of my homewards journeys are made in the late evening. A good night would have me home between 12 midnight and 1am. Using public transport at that time, if it were possible, would be fairly unattractive.

A couple of years ago our family group of 4 used the trains/Underground system for trip into London because we got the benefit of a 4 for 2 deal, and it was a very good offer. I've also spotted a very attractive rail offer to go to Birmingham on a £15 return ticket. I've never been, and would like to. In heels of course. I can't remember why I didn't go, possibly I just forgot to take up the offer.  

 

[Puffer]

... I do tend to price my journeys using marginal costing. Insurance/tax/maintenance costs the same whether I do 10 miles or 10,000. My car depreciates very little now as it's not that new. Consumables are mostly tyres, and fuel. I don't know what a 50 mile trip would cost against 2 off £60 tyres that will last 25-30,000 miles but it won't be much. Same with front brake pads. ...

Not strictly true, Freddy - and certainly not if you use the 10 - 10,000 comparison.   Insurance premium is mileage-sensitive and servicing/repair costs likewise (although also time-sensitive, e.g. oil change each year regardless of mileage).   Your tyres and brake pads (and I hope you have four of each) will possibly last 25,000 miles but I wouldn't count on it - and the brake discs too are likely to need renewal these days; I would guess 2p - 3p per mile for that lot.   Depreciation, and interest on capital etc, may be low but it is never zero and a replacement car will be needed sooner if the mileage is increased.

Yes, the marginal cost is relevant, but really only for 'marginal use'.   The more you use the car, the cheaper it is per (extra) mile, but there is a big wodge of standing or recurrent costs to absorb for even low mileage usage.   There is no magic solution; it always comes down to preference and convenience and I'm certainly not suggesting you are 'wrong' to prefer the car.   (Only yesterday, I travelled an extra two miles to fill up with diesel (before it is banned totally in the UK!) because the pump price was several pence cheaper, but inevitably wasted at least 30p in direct costs in doing so.  I am now doing penance - forcing myself to wear flat shoes for a whole day.)

Brum is worth a visit; I know it quite well from many trips over the years.   Quite a good place for a heely jaunt, I guess.   And a cheapo train ride would be relaxing; I've seen them from Marylebone but doubtless there are others.

 

Edited October 26, 2015 by Puffer

[FastFreddy2]

Not strictly true, Freddy - and certainly not if you use the 10 - 10,000 comparison.   Insurance premium is mileage-sensitive and servicing/repair costs likewise (although also time-sensitive, e.g. oil change each year regardless of mileage).   Your tyres and brake pads (and I hope you have four of each) will possibly last 25,000 miles but I wouldn't count on it - and the brake discs too are likely to need renewal these days; I would guess 2p - 3p per mile for that lot.   Depreciation, and interest on capital etc, may be low but it is never zero and a replacement car will be needed sooner if the mileage is increased.

 

You are right that insurance premium is mileage sensitive. Mine is set at 10,000 which is why I mention 10-10,000 miles made no difference.

The car gets serviced once a year whether it likes it or not. I would prefer 6 monthly oil changes, but am too idle to do it twice (sadly). I know for sure, frequent oil changes improves the longevity of the engine.

My car is front wheel drive, and often only has one occupant. The original front tyres lasted almost 34,000 miles. The back ones still look new-ish. The biggest two chunks of depreciation took place (i) when I drove it away from the garage, and (ii) while it sat in my garage -unused- for the first 16 months of its working life. In fact I'm pretty sure its "value" had dropped by 50% by the time I finally got around to driving it. While mileage does have an effect on value, it has low miles considering its age. Every additional 50 miles on the clock would remove an undefinable amount from its overall value.

The 'fixed' running cost I forgot to mention, was MOT. At this time, I've not encountered any age/use related additional costs.

Of course 'wear and tear' will be costing me money, but we are talking residual value since the purchase money was spent/lost at the point of purchase. Since I don't don't have the inclination to burden myself with concerns over cost of miles per set of tyres, nor cost of miles per set of brakes, and most other expenses are fixed, I use fuel costs as a guide. The difference between £1.06 per litre verses £1.46 per litre is more significant from the cost-per-mile point of view.