The environmental costs of flying

[HST274]

aren't really making as many inroads into renewable energy sources as we could

I very much agree with you there. But I still feel that plane travel is still one of many things to target to diminish production of greenhouse gases, even if it is just targeting local flights and encouraging people to look at alternatives more like eurostar but first we have to diminish train costs.

 

[lachlan]

I very much agree with you there. But I still feel that plane travel is still one of many things to target to diminish production of greenhouse gases, even if it is just targeting local flights and encouraging people to look at alternatives more like eurostar but first we have to diminish train costs.

Exactly, and there are plenty of corridors were we should be looking at high-speed rail to replace flights.

Agreed that in the UK, cost is what needs to change to get people taking the train rather than flying - whether that's making rail cheaper, air more expensive, or both.

 

[Jozhua]

A fast but more fuel efficient ferry than the previous HSS is what is needed for UK-Ireland crossings. Currently the ship between Holyhead and Dublin Port takes nearly 4 hours and a lot of faffing around at either end, so this could be improved.

I've looked at taking the train/ferry from Manchester to Dublin, the key issue is that just the train to somewhere like Holyhead costs more than the entire flight. Trains are poorly timed/integrated with ferrys.

Exactly, and there are plenty of corridors were we should be looking at high-speed rail to replace flights.

Agreed that in the UK, cost is what needs to change to get people taking the train rather than flying - whether that's making rail cheaper, air more expensive, or both.

If you are going from anywhere outside London, Eurostar tends to be the more expensive option, including the need to travel down to London.

Hopefully HS2 will help by increasing capacity into London, but direct services from Birmingham/Leeds/Manchester would be nice to see. The best solution for customs would probably be to build an extra area in the airport interchange stations, where there is likely some more space to develop, and is a place people are used to going for international travel, especially if they want to park, etc.

Then ticket prices can be offered that don't have to include a demand premium for London.

 

[Bantamzen]

Exactly, and there are plenty of corridors were we should be looking at high-speed rail to replace flights.

Agreed that in the UK, cost is what needs to change to get people taking the train rather than flying - whether that's making rail cheaper, air more expensive, or both.

One problem here though is that HS in the UK isn't exactly joined up yet, HS2 should be linked to HS1 so as to at least allow through services beyond Euston. And we don't even have the eastern leg of HS2 anywhere near agreed so are probably still close to 2 decades away before HS can even begin to hope to better compete with even domestic flights, let alone further afield into Europe.

 

[NSEFAN]

One problem here though is that HS in the UK isn't exactly joined up yet, HS2 should be linked to HS1 so as to at least allow through services beyond Euston. And we don't even have the eastern leg of HS2 anywhere near agreed so are probably still close to 2 decades away before HS can even begin to hope to better compete with even domestic flights, let alone further afield into Europe.

Probably all the more reason to try and reduce the cost of rail (and/or increase the cost of domestic flying). If the price is right, people will take the train instead of the plane simply for cost reasons, and put up with a longer end-end journey for the saving. Indeed, doesn't this already happen on some rail routes?

 

[Bantamzen]

Probably all the more reason to try and reduce the cost of rail (and/or increase the cost of domestic flying). If the price is right, people will take the train instead of the plane simply for cost reasons, and put up with a longer end-end journey for the saving. Indeed, doesn't this already happen on some rail routes?

Providing you're not looking at long, complex rail journeys which is what HS networks are supposed to help with. I've only ever flown domestically once, and that was from LBA to LHR as we were booked on an early morning flight to LAX the following day. I had wanted to go by rail, but the price along with the hassle of getting to Heathrow with 2 heavy cases (for a 3 week holiday) didn't appeal. And I would probably do the same again with the same circumstances (assuming flights ever return on that route). However a HS service to Heathrow from Leeds (obviously that's not happening), and well I would definitely change mode. Even a fairly straightforward change at a London terminal from one service to another without using the tube or lugging cases along busy roads would appeal.

I would still consider using rail for a journey to Eurostar destinations, although Amsterdam might not be as appealing as a quick hop directly over the North Sea. But that is all with a easy connection in London. For places that don't have direct services to Kings Cross or St Pancreas the appeal swiftly falls away over more direct flights.

 

[neilmc]

I used to have to travel from Manchester to Bristol quite a lot.

The problem with the plane was that Bristol airport was a long way out of town (and you have to factor in all the security nonsense too) plus limited flights.
The problem with the train was that I resented being scammed by Cross Country for having to pay for Anytime early train journeys that didn't even go via London.

The compromise I came up with was to use the train but in the afternoons, and spend an extra night in a hotel in Bristol which was more or less the price difference between off-peak and peak travel, also I discovered trains which started at Temple Meads as opposed to somewhere in the South West which meant they departed on time and empty. And I was in the office bright-eyed at 8 a.m. sharp

So both modes of transport lost out, and Ibis hotels gained.

Of course, if the train fare was a flat fare for all journeys, which was substantially below what an airline could offer, it would have been no problem at all. But it wasn't.

 

[Jozhua]

I used to have to travel from Manchester to Bristol quite a lot.

The problem with the plane was that Bristol airport was a long way out of town (and you have to factor in all the security nonsense too) plus limited flights.
The problem with the train was that I resented being scammed by Cross Country for having to pay for Anytime early train journeys that didn't even go via London.

The compromise I came up with was to use the train but in the afternoons, and spend an extra night in a hotel in Bristol which was more or less the price difference between off-peak and peak travel, also I discovered trains which started at Temple Meads as opposed to somewhere in the South West which meant they departed on time and empty. And I was in the office bright-eyed at 8 a.m. sharp

So both modes of transport lost out, and Ibis hotels gained.

Of course, if the train fare was a flat fare for all journeys, which was substantially below what an airline could offer, it would have been no problem at all. But it wasn't.

I've done that journey, and others like it going from the midlands to south west.

XC is a poor experience, from Plymouth to Aberdeen. Expensive, perpetually overcrowded and not even that fast - especially between Manchester and Birmingham. The stuff north of Birmingham is almost unbearable, not to say things are great south of Birmingham either.

My flatmate in Manchester at the moment is originally from Southampton area and frequently chooses flying over the train (or mostly getting a lift by car these days). Flying is faster, but can often be cheaper, or just a more comfortable experience (which is saying a lot). Other people I know from the area fly if they are in a hurry, or just drive. I know my friend in Bristol has used the coach to come visit me, as it's much cheaper. Personally I take the train because I'm very susceptible to travel sickness, especially by road, plus I'd go insane on a coach for that long. Even XC beats a coach (barely!)

What doesn't make sense is the train could easily be cheaper, faster and more comfortable than these modes. It's the most energy efficient, capable of the highest speeds and should be able to provide the lowest cost, considering the number of drivers, etc.

From what I can tell, XC services are expensive to run because of the fuel requirements of thirsty Voyagers/HSTs, the trains are often just 4/5 carriages long, with fairly low capacity per coach. Plus, they are running over fairly congested bits of track, especially round Birmingham, where express running is virtually impossible (this also impacts journey times).

What is needed is rolling stock capable of 200mph, which will be "classic compatible" with HS2. Then electrify Plymouth - Bristol - Birmingham, Leeds-York, and Bournemouth - Birmingham. GWR should be electrified anyway, so that would tie in quite nicely. Have these trains be at least 8 cars long, running at 30 minute frequencies, I can't see a reason why they wouldn't be immensely popular.