Trains V Planes
Discussion
Greta Thinberg made a point that she travels across Europe by train and we are told how more efficient a train is, so was thinking of going to Portugal end of May, airfare is £87. I tried to look up the cost and time of doing the journey by train; and failed. Google maps suggests it takes just over 24 hrs with 5 changes.
So I tried Prague instead 27 of May, cheapest ticket I could find to go by train is £129 out, takes 34 hrs 20 min, there are three changes to make. For £133.50 it only takes 25 hrs 11 min but there are five change of trains. Now a plane ticket direct flight takes 2 hrs 10 min and costs £81 on Jet2 from Manchester or if I am willing to do a stop over the journey costs £58 and takes 12 hrs 40 min.
The question is if trains are so much more efficient why does it cost so much more to travel by train and while most train routes are subsidised by governments airlines make profits!
Second question is, people who tell us we should travel by train rather then fly, people like Greta Thunberg, Vince Cable, Caroline Lucas, how do they find the time to travel by train. It must take forever to get to Sweden by train from the UK and maybe Vince and Caroline don't go abroad?
So I tried Prague instead 27 of May, cheapest ticket I could find to go by train is £129 out, takes 34 hrs 20 min, there are three changes to make. For £133.50 it only takes 25 hrs 11 min but there are five change of trains. Now a plane ticket direct flight takes 2 hrs 10 min and costs £81 on Jet2 from Manchester or if I am willing to do a stop over the journey costs £58 and takes 12 hrs 40 min.
The question is if trains are so much more efficient why does it cost so much more to travel by train and while most train routes are subsidised by governments airlines make profits!
Second question is, people who tell us we should travel by train rather then fly, people like Greta Thunberg, Vince Cable, Caroline Lucas, how do they find the time to travel by train. It must take forever to get to Sweden by train from the UK and maybe Vince and Caroline don't go abroad?
dvs_dave said:
Trains only make sense for distances less than around 250-300 miles, with no significant bodies of water or major metro areas in between that would impede progress.
Planes all the way for anything beyond that.
That's why the ferry between Portsmouth and Accra lost out to airlines to Ghana Planes all the way for anything beyond that.
these Eco types are the "do as I say, not as I do" brigade with lots of gullible followers.Years ago, got the train to Denmark (Liverpool Street - Harwich - 16 hours on a boat, then several more train hours to Copenhagen) because of my dad was an Eco type who didn't like flying. First two days in Denmark spent trying to get the motion of the boat out of your system. Would have been an hour or so from Stansted and a lot more convenient. Even now, dad would have my brother drive him to Milan from west London in an attempt to save the planet. This was not a Seen Through Glass jaunt in a Jaguar or Ferrari, but hours in an aging Nissan Serena, which would surely cause more harm to the environment
It really makes no sense at all to try and reason with such people. You will find you are talking at cross purposes. You are looking for the most efficient way to travel a certain distance while she is evangelizing salvation through self denial.
It's no coincidence that environmentalism took hold as Christianity lost its ability to inspire and bind people, or that it gained momentum when communism failed.
It's no coincidence that environmentalism took hold as Christianity lost its ability to inspire and bind people, or that it gained momentum when communism failed.
Edited by JuanCarlosFandango on Monday 29th April 06:58
Isn't a jet more efficient than a high speed train anyway?
JuanCarlosFandango said:
It really makes no sense at all to try and reason with such people. You will find you are talking at cross purposes. You are looking for the most efficient way to travel a certain distance while she is evangelizing salvation through self denial.
It's no coincidence that environmentalism took hold as Christianity lost its ability to inspire and bind people, or that it gained momentum when communism failed.
^^^pretty much this, applies to much of the environmentalism argument today.It's no coincidence that environmentalism took hold as Christianity lost its ability to inspire and bind people, or that it gained momentum when communism failed.
PositronicRay said:
Some rail routes work.
London to paris
London to brussels
Paris to marseille
Paris to Rome
Linking them up
London to marseille for instance doesn't
I'd be interested to see just how viable they were with both the subsidies removed and the penalties imposed on cars removed. I imagine busy commuter routes would be just about economical given they have existing infrastructure, and even then the opportunity cost of having all that prime land locked up for a 19th century charabanc that's used twice a day is madness.London to paris
London to brussels
Paris to marseille
Paris to Rome
Linking them up
London to marseille for instance doesn't
As far as I can see trains have simply had their day in almost all cases and no amount of concerned teenagers or strange political shenanigans can save them, anymore than they can save oil lamps or medicinal leeches.
We should either get out of the rail business all together and let them go, or keep them as a grand romantic folly and fund them out of general taxation as a sort of social services for Tories.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
PositronicRay said:
Some rail routes work.
London to paris
London to brussels
Paris to marseille
Paris to Rome
Linking them up
London to marseille for instance doesn't
I'd be interested to see just how viable they were with both the subsidies removed and the penalties imposed on cars removed. I imagine busy commuter routes would be just about economical given they have existing infrastructure, and even then the opportunity cost of having all that prime land locked up for a 19th century charabanc that's used twice a day is madness.London to paris
London to brussels
Paris to marseille
Paris to Rome
Linking them up
London to marseille for instance doesn't
As far as I can see trains have simply had their day in almost all cases and no amount of concerned teenagers or strange political shenanigans can save them, anymore than they can save oil lamps or medicinal leeches.
We should either get out of the rail business all together and let them go, or keep them as a grand romantic folly and fund them out of general taxation as a sort of social services for Tories.
PositronicRay said:
I'm a fan of high speed rail, I've used the TGV many times. Convenience, speed, comfort, cost (may well be subsidised) all suit me fine. It does have it's place though.
If properly integrated and considered without bias all forms of transport have their place. Much like all forms of generating power do.The problem is the hobby-horseists can't let go of their particular preferences and it all becomes a black and white fight to the death. Usually in the name of taxation (if you uncover the facade).
JuanCarlosFandango said:
PositronicRay said:
Some rail routes work.
London to paris
London to brussels
Paris to marseille
Paris to Rome
Linking them up
London to marseille for instance doesn't
I'd be interested to see just how viable they were with both the subsidies removed and the penalties imposed on cars removed. I imagine busy commuter routes would be just about economical given they have existing infrastructure, and even then the opportunity cost of having all that prime land locked up for a 19th century charabanc that's used twice a day is madness.London to paris
London to brussels
Paris to marseille
Paris to Rome
Linking them up
London to marseille for instance doesn't
As far as I can see trains have simply had their day in almost all cases and no amount of concerned teenagers or strange political shenanigans can save them, anymore than they can save oil lamps or medicinal leeches.
We should either get out of the rail business all together and let them go, or keep them as a grand romantic folly and fund them out of general taxation as a sort of social services for Tories.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
I'd be interested to see just how viable they were with both the subsidies removed and the penalties imposed on cars removed. I imagine busy commuter routes would be just about economical given they have existing infrastructure, and even then the opportunity cost of having all that prime land locked up for a 19th century charabanc that's used twice a day is madness.
As far as I can see trains have simply had their day in almost all cases and no amount of concerned teenagers or strange political shenanigans can save them, anymore than they can save oil lamps or medicinal leeches.
We should either get out of the rail business all together and let them go, or keep them as a grand romantic folly and fund them out of general taxation as a sort of social services for Tories.
As far as I can see trains have simply had their day in almost all cases and no amount of concerned teenagers or strange political shenanigans can save them, anymore than they can save oil lamps or medicinal leeches.
We should either get out of the rail business all together and let them go, or keep them as a grand romantic folly and fund them out of general taxation as a sort of social services for Tories.
There speaks someone who knows as much about railways as I do about quantum mechanics...
Try having a look at these links to see how under-utilised that prime land is (all today's planned services):
London Bridge http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/LB...
Euston http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/EU...
Manchester Piccadilly http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/MA...
Cardiff http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/CD...
Newcastle http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/NC...
Even f
king Shrewsbury: http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/SH...Yeah, "twice a day"...
Have some more
The Li-ion King said:
That's why the ferry between Portsmouth and Accra lost out to airlines to Ghana these Eco types are the "do as I say, not as I do" brigade with lots of gullible followers.
Years ago, got the train to Denmark (Liverpool Street - Harwich - 16 hours on a boat, then several more train hours to Copenhagen) because of my dad was an Eco type who didn't like flying. First two days in Denmark spent trying to get the motion of the boat out of your system. Would have been an hour or so from Stansted and a lot more convenient. Even now, dad would have my brother drive him to Milan from west London in an attempt to save the planet. This was not a Seen Through Glass jaunt in a Jaguar or Ferrari, but hours in an aging Nissan Serena, which would surely cause more harm to the environment
Norwegian on their transatlantic routes average around 125mpg. these Eco types are the "do as I say, not as I do" brigade with lots of gullible followers.Years ago, got the train to Denmark (Liverpool Street - Harwich - 16 hours on a boat, then several more train hours to Copenhagen) because of my dad was an Eco type who didn't like flying. First two days in Denmark spent trying to get the motion of the boat out of your system. Would have been an hour or so from Stansted and a lot more convenient. Even now, dad would have my brother drive him to Milan from west London in an attempt to save the planet. This was not a Seen Through Glass jaunt in a Jaguar or Ferrari, but hours in an aging Nissan Serena, which would surely cause more harm to the environment
Ryanair used on average 30kg per passenger with an average flight distance of 1250km which works out at roughly 95mpg if my maths is correct. So driving pretty much anything is going to be worse.
Aren’t ferries horribly polluting? I know Southampton has terrible air quality thanks to the number of cargo and cruise ships that come and go.
How is the optimal speed / track occupancy derived for trains?
I read that no more trains could be put on the network (in some places) without slowing them all down. More trains equals slower trains, which I understand. However, slower trains does not equal slower journeys. If there's a train every 15 minutes, rather than every half hour, but the journey takes fine minutes longer (because of the more intensive service), then I've saved ten minutes. Also the trains could be shorter. Or less cramped/more comfortable. Either way I be happier with a slower train that got me there at the advertised time in comfort, rather than one I have to wait around for, is cramped, but takes ten minutes less time to do the journey.
I read that no more trains could be put on the network (in some places) without slowing them all down. More trains equals slower trains, which I understand. However, slower trains does not equal slower journeys. If there's a train every 15 minutes, rather than every half hour, but the journey takes fine minutes longer (because of the more intensive service), then I've saved ten minutes. Also the trains could be shorter. Or less cramped/more comfortable. Either way I be happier with a slower train that got me there at the advertised time in comfort, rather than one I have to wait around for, is cramped, but takes ten minutes less time to do the journey.
djc206 said:
Aren’t ferries horribly polluting? I know Southampton has terrible air quality thanks to the number of cargo and cruise ships that come and go.
Yes and no. The engines themselves are quite efficient in terms of energy recovery, but at the moment they burn very heavy fuel oil which is cheap but nasty stuff. From 2020 (?) marine engines will have to use a low sulphur fuel which will be better for air quality. LNG tankers simply burn the LNG which boils off the cargo and the exhaust is pretty much only carbon dioxide and water. Macski said:
Second question is, people who tell us we should travel by train rather then fly, people like Greta Thunberg, Vince Cable, Caroline Lucas, how do they find the time to travel by train. It must take forever to get to Sweden by train from the UK and maybe Vince and Caroline don't go abroad?
I was on a BA flight from Heathrow to Aberdeen in 2013. Vince Cable was sat just behind me with his PA. He was Business Secretary at the time. Maybe he would have preferred to share an overnight sleeper compartment with her? For the sake of the environment, of course.Condi said:
Yes and no. The engines themselves are quite efficient in terms of energy recovery, but at the moment they burn very heavy fuel oil which is cheap but nasty stuff. From 2020 (?) marine engines will have to use a low sulphur fuel which will be better for air quality. LNG tankers simply burn the LNG which boils off the cargo and the exhaust is pretty much only carbon dioxide and water.
Interesting, thanksGassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff