Go to bed in Swansea, wake up in Paris

[Chester1]

Well - if that (bit in bold) all happened very quickly, I imagine people wanting to maintain a human-survivable ecosystem would be prepared for scrapping remaining flying to be lower down the list of priorities. The problem is that most "live like there's no tomorrow" people [and if we carry on as now there won't be, of course] scream in horror at even those steps to rein in flying.

By the way, why would anyone not have "a vested interest in transitioning away from fossil fuels"? Vested interest doesn't only mean a financial one. My vested interest in that (and in consuming minimal amounts of animal-derived food, never buying things new if old ones can be repaired, not using a car, not breeding, etc etc etc) is on the basis that it would be good if our species was able to live on this planet in reasonable security and comfort for a few more generations yet.

I think we all know where the real financial vested interests are in this debate...

PS - I'm fascinated by the claim that "the loudest on carbon emissions generally support open borders". Where is that statistic from?

I mean an immediate financial interest because if someones income is dependent on energy transition they are naturally going to be strong advocates for any measure that supports their job.

The Green parties immigration policy is essentially open borders. They object to visas being used to limit economic migration and to visas assessing people based on skills and experience. Their refugee policy is essentially that the UK takes as many people as we can cope with. They don't appear to have a policy that refugees should move back home if their country becomes safe. When their home country becomes safe that means flying home for visits. I can understand the appeal of these policies but seems to have been no analysis of the effect this will have on aviation emissions. This is an astonishing level of ideological blindness. Mass migration and low or zero aviation emissions are not compatible for a generation or more. New technology will lower emissions but not elimiate them prior to 2050. Sometimes governing involves trade offs and this is one of them. People like to see their families in person and that for many (myself included) involves long haul flights. Its bonkers to issue visas to someone who lives a 10 or 12 hour flight from the UK and then tell them they shouldn't fly or in the case of my family for another country to do the same. Train and sea travel is only viable for our near neighbours and a large proportion of our current and historic migration is to and from countries outside of Europe.

 

[AlbertBeale]

I mean an immediate financial interest because if someones income is dependent on energy transition they are naturally going to be strong advocates for any measure that supports their job.

The Green parties immigration policy is essentially open borders. They object to visas being used to limit economic migration and to visas assessing people based on skills and experience. Their refugee policy is essentially that the UK takes as many people as we can cope with. They don't appear to have a policy that refugees should move back home if their country becomes safe. When their home country becomes safe that means flying home for visits. I can understand the appeal of these policies but seems to have been no analysis of the effect this will have on aviation emissions. This is an astonishing level of ideological blindness. Mass migration and low or zero aviation emissions are not compatible for a generation or more. New technology will lower emissions but not elimiate them prior to 2050. Sometimes governing involves trade offs and this is one of them. People like to see their families in person and that for many (myself included) involves long haul flights. Its bonkers to issue visas to someone who lives a 10 or 12 hour flight from the UK and then tell them they shouldn't fly or in the case of my family for another country to do the same. Train and sea travel is only viable for our near neighbours and a large proportion of our current and historic migration is to and from countries outside of Europe.

I'd be surprised if an official Green Party policy on other matters (such as migration) was necessarily representative of the views of those who shared that party's view over the need to slash carbon emissions. It might be, but I know of no evidence of that correlation, hence my question above [you alleged the connection in general, and didn't specify meaning official party policies]. Political parties involve tiny numbers of people compared to the numbers who sympathise with various combinations of their policies [even the views of the 7-figure mass membership of the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn could have been unrepresentative of the views of those voting for him]. Parties - not excluding the Greens - will sometimes go with what they think will appeal to their core, since they rely on membership and active support, even before they rely on being voted for.

The logical point you make about the incompatibility of large-scale intercontinental travel with rapid emissions cuts is perfectly obvious - as is the implication of that for all sorts of things, such as long-distance holiday travel, and migration if people want to retain physical (travel) links with their country of origin. It's so obvious that I'm sure lots of people realise this.

But our discussion here is losing contact with the topic of the thread, so I won't say more about this matter (ie the wider implications of emission cuts) here; though the environmental reasons for overcoming the difficulties of expanding sleeper train travel, to help cut plane travel, are of course highly relevant to this thread.

 

[FormerBritInMe]

The named train "International" from Chicago to Toronto was terminated in 2003, with the new security theater cited as a principal driver of low ridership.

Sorry I didn't realize you were referring to a specific train "the International" rather than international trains from the US in general. You are correct, that train was suffering already due to funding issues during the late 1990's into 2001 and then the post September 11 security theatre was the nail in the coffin.

 

[Snow1964]

I would think a business sleeper train from London to places such as Frankfurt, Geneva and Zurich would be very popular. You only have to see how many European Banks have offices in London.

Would save a many early trips to the airport and enable you to have a full day in the office and dinner meetings, just jump on the train afterwards.

And only have to look at number of 2 week (or longer) cruises that start at Southampton, to know some people would rather not fly and still visit Canaries or Med.

There ought to be a market for jumping on a train to Barcelona, Marseille or Trieste and picking up the ship there, instead of getting train or coach to Southampton.

More stuck by our crazy immigration rules and lack of through trains to Midlands and North, than anything, especially as could do many of these journeys in under 8 -10 hours on daytime trains with changes.

 

[Chester1]

And only have to look at number of 2 week (or longer) cruises that start at Southampton, to know some people would rather not fly and still visit Canaries or Med.

There ought to be a market for jumping on a train to Barcelona, Marseille or Trieste and picking up the ship there, instead of getting train or coach to Southampton.

More stuck by our crazy immigration rules and lack of through trains to Midlands and North, than anything, especially as could do many of these journeys in under 8 -10 hours on daytime trains with changes.

"Our crazy immigration rules" are the norm for international travel. It seems to be a very common view that the EU is normal, when in reality there is nothing remotely comparable. Other regional border and passport agreements involve border controls. For instance citizens of South East Asia have visa free travel to each others countries, no fees etc but they still have their passports checked at borders. The UK - EU travel arrangements are broadly similar to US - Canada.

There isn't a market for very long distance journeys from St Pancras. There are through tickets available to various places and the numbers will be regularly assessed. There has been no interest by Eurostar or another operator for anything longer than the pre covid London - Marseille summer services. This should return in 2025, once the EU and UK have launched their electronic travel authorisation systems. Frankfurt, Geneva and Bordeaux (summer only) are the only new services that have generated serious interest and all would have journey times of approximately 5 hours.

 

[zwk500]

And only have to look at number of 2 week (or longer) cruises that start at Southampton, to know some people would rather not fly and still visit Canaries or Med.

There ought to be a market for jumping on a train to Barcelona, Marseille or Trieste and picking up the ship there, instead of getting train or coach to Southampton.

The attraction of a cruise is that the journey itself is part of the holiday, so why would you spend a extra day travelling to join the cruise when you can get started on the bar/pool/dining from Southampton?

 

[AlbertBeale]

The attraction of a cruise is that the journey itself is part of the holiday, so why would you spend a extra day travelling to join the cruise when you can get started on the bar/pool/dining from Southampton?

Perhaps because the attraction of holiday travel by train is also that the journey itself is part of the holiday?

There isn't a market for very long distance journeys from St Pancras. There are through tickets available to various places and the numbers will be regularly assessed. There has been no interest by Eurostar or another operator for anything longer than the pre covid London - Marseille summer services. This should return in 2025, once the EU and UK have launched their electronic travel authorisation systems. Frankfurt, Geneva and Bordeaux (summer only) are the only new services that have generated serious interest and all would have journey times of approximately 5 hours.

But how do we know that [there isn't a market for very long distance journeys from St P]? Given the very limited range of destinations bookable as "though" tickets with Eurostar, it can't be known how many passengers to Brussels or Paris are continuing on to elsewhere in Europe by train. Since Eurostar services started, I've travelled by train to many places in central, north, east and south Europe - in most cases starting with a St P to Brussels or Paris leg; but I doubt any of these journeys show up as other than a Eurostar point-to-point trip in Eurostars' statistics!

 

[zwk500]

Perhaps because the attraction of holiday travel by train is also that the journey itself is part of the holiday?

Only for a very, very tiny part of the market. Trains don't have Swimming pools and sun loungers.

But how do we know that [there isn't a market for very long distance journeys from St P]?

We can have a fairly educated guess by looking at Paris, which is a very comparable city to London and seeing that there are lots of far-flung destinations that barely manage 1 train a week. There would be some market for long-distance train travel from London. The question is whether this market is big enough to bridge the commercial obstacle that is the cost of operating through the Channel Tunnel with UK border security.

Given the very limited range of destinations bookable as "though" tickets with Eurostar, it can't be known how many passengers to Brussels or Paris are continuing on to elsewhere in Europe by train.

The air market gives a very good idea, then there's hotel bookings, not to mention the fact that Eurostar have previously run longer distance services and found them to be unsustainable since COVID. Also journey planner searches on trainline et al, google searches, linked bookings for reward points...

 

[Chester1]

Perhaps because the attraction of holiday travel by train is also that the journey itself is part of the holiday?



But how do we know that [there isn't a market for very long distance journeys from St P]? Given the very limited range of destinations bookable as "though" tickets with Eurostar, it can't be known how many passengers to Brussels or Paris are continuing on to elsewhere in Europe by train. Since Eurostar services started, I've travelled by train to many places in central, north, east and south Europe - in most cases starting with a St P to Brussels or Paris leg; but I doubt any of these journeys show up as other than a Eurostar point-to-point trip in Eurostars' statistics!

The through ticket sales for France and Germany that have run in various forms on and off since Eurostar began give a good indication of how much demand there is. As @zwk500 has said the size of the number of flights is a solid indicator for the overall market.

Geneva and Frankfurt have been mentioned publicly by Eurostar. HS1 owners are pushing for an operator for London - Bordeaux. The South of France service should come back in 2025. The next nearest flight destinations are Barcelona and Milan. Those are highly seasonal flows and would be 9-10 hour journey times. Its easy to see that Eurostar and other ToCs have looked at through ticket sales and flights and have come to the conclusion that nothing apart from Frankfurt, Geneva and Bordeaux have a hope of being economic. Barcelona and Milan might be viable for seasonal services when the routes are fully high speed. They key to making a service like that work is the journey time being sufficiently low for the train to leave at not awful time in morning, get to destination, off load, board and then get back to London at a sensible time at night. The south of France services managed this but only just. If a return journey isn't viable in one day then the rolling stock and staffing costs jump up massively. The longer the journey the lower demand will be too.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

All this talk of longer journeys by Eurostar is completely irrelevant to those of us who live any distance away from London. For us an awful lot of journeys to Europe are simply much quicker, and therefore for the most part more convenient, by flying.

I went through a process of elimination more than 25 years ago when making trips to various parts of Europe for rail based holidays. Initially I went the traditional rail-boat-rail route via Dover or Harwich: very slow. Then I tried out Eurostar, including one use of the EurostarLink HST from Manchester to Waterloo, and while this was fine when Paris or Brussels were part of the holiday it was little use for anywhere else. Eventually I tried flying from Manchester to Dusseldorf and never looked back. Reality is that even if you are determined to use rail as much as possible there comes a point when the time factor overwhelms any thought of putting environmental considerations above all else. With so many airports being rail connected these days I have no qualms about using them and their local train connections.

 

[AlbertBeale]

All this talk of longer journeys by Eurostar is completely irrelevant to those of us who live any distance away from London. For us an awful lot of journeys to Europe are simply much quicker, and therefore for the most part more convenient, by flying.

I went through a process of elimination more than 25 years ago when making trips to various parts of Europe for rail based holidays. Initially I went the traditional rail-boat-rail route via Dover or Harwich: very slow. Then I tried out Eurostar, including one use of the EurostarLink HST from Manchester to Waterloo, and while this was fine when Paris or Brussels were part of the holiday it was little use for anywhere else. Eventually I tried flying from Manchester to Dusseldorf and never looked back. Reality is that even if you are determined to use rail as much as possible there comes a point when the time factor overwhelms any thought of putting environmental considerations above all else. With so many airports being rail connected these days I have no qualms about using them and their local train connections.

It's not "completely irrelevant" for those living at a distance from London - it's a matter of personal choice/convenience/conscience etc. A colleague of mine in Edinburgh routinely travels to mainland Europe via KX / St P / Eurostar as the first two legs of the journey. For him, better through connections via Eurostar would be a boon. (As they would for me of course, though I only start from London.)

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

It's not "completely irrelevant" for those living at a distance from London - it's a matter of personal choice/convenience/conscience etc. A colleague of mine in Edinburgh routinely travels to mainland Europe via KX / St P / Eurostar as the first two legs of the journey. For him, better through connections via Eurostar would be a boon. (As they would for me of course, though I only start from London.)

IOW my "personal choice/convenience/conscience" is worth less than yours. Sadly all too typical of the London-centric attitude which pervades so much political discourse in this country. Doing the right thing environmentally may well require a degree of sacrifice (give up the helicopters Rishi!) but forever lecturing people without offering alternatives (or leadership by example) will not achieve the desired changes in people's attitudes and expectations.

 

[AlbertBeale]

IOW my "personal choice/convenience/conscience" is worth less than yours. Sadly all too typical of the London-centric attitude which pervades so much political discourse in this country. Doing the right thing environmentally may well require a degree of sacrifice (give up the helicopters Rishi!) but forever lecturing people without offering alternatives (or leadership by example) will not achieve the desired changes in people's attitudes and expectations.

Sorry, I don't understand "IOW". No-one has suggested anyone's choice is "worth less" than anyone else's - it depends on what you're measuring!

I'm not lecturing anyone - just pointing out that others make different decisions; it's up to anyone to decide how the undeniable fact that others do behave differently makes them feel and whether it affects any qualms they have.

I'm not sure whether you're accusing me of being London-centric because it's where I happen to live? For the record, if I lived in northern England or in Scotland, it would still never cross my mind to use planes to travel to mainland Europe. I'm not sure whether that's the "leadership by example" you refer to - I don't assume anyone will be "led" by me! But I do challenge statements implying that "there is no alternative" when others demonstrate that there actually is.

 

[30907]

I assume IOW = I only wish?

Travelling to mainland Europe from Manchester or Leeds adds around 3 hours to the time from Central London, so of course air is quicker (if less frequent) for more destinations, and the time penalty for living up North becomes much less, at least if you live near Manchester Airport.

If your schedule (or your health) doesn't permit long days then by rail you are limited to the present Eurostar destinations and perhaps Koeln.
But a full day still gets you to pretty much any major city in Germany, France, Switzerland and perhaps Northern Italy.

 

[AlbertBeale]

I assume IOW = I only wish?

Travelling to mainland Europe from Manchester or Leeds adds around 3 hours to the time from Central London, so of course air is quicker (if less frequent) for more destinations, and the time penalty for living up North becomes much less, at least if you live near Manchester Airport.

If your schedule (or your health) doesn't permit long days then by rail you are limited to the present Eurostar destinations and perhaps Koeln.
But a full day still gets you to pretty much any major city in Germany, France, Switzerland and perhaps Northern Italy.

Yes - from London at least, I've travelled as far as various parts of France, Germany and Switzerland, and to northern Italy, during one day, and found it fine and quite stress-free. And by adding a sleeper at the far end, I've gone onwards to central Europe and southern Italy to arrive 24 hours or so after leaving London with only a couple of changes of train overall. (Though Lisbon in 24 hours is a very frustrating gap in coverage now, with the Hendaye-Lisbon sleeper route no longer operating.)

I've yet to use any of the recently revived sleeper routes from Paris and Brussels - but they add yet more flexibility, and also enable a lot of European destinations to be reached in 24 hours from much further north in Britain..