Trains V Planes

[JuanCarlosFandango]

The Mad Monk said:

I like that sentence. May I borrow it?

Thanks, you may use it when arguing for good ideas.

PositronicRay

It can be a nice way to travel, but so can hot air balloons. It still requires subsidies and always will.

Flying Phil
Yes, so it would make sense to have a train in a mine or hauling coal from a port to a power station. I suspect the cost of laying and maintaining steel rails outweighs any savings for much beyond that.

rs1952
Oh yeah, loads of planned services. Then they'll all break down or be late, or have to be replaced by a bus because it's too hot or too cold or something.

Even when they do get through vaguely on time they are either empty or overcrowded with people complaining about the cost of their ticket and the state of the railways.


It's not that I especially dislike trains, I just don't think we should be taxing people for driving then paying other people to use trains. Not to mention paying Richard Branson a load of money at the same time.

[Flying Phil]

JuanCarlosFandango said

"Flying Phil
Yes, so it would make sense to have a train in a mine or hauling coal from a port to a power station. I suspect the cost of laying and maintaining steel rails outweighs any savings for much beyond that."

But once you have the rails, then it makes sense to use them more often - say to take a few hundred people into a city with one driver and a train supervisor several times between freight trains....
Exactly how much is a motorway to build and maintain these days?
I think there are good reasons for having a mix of road/rail/air and sea transport, but economics, politics, pride and passion all influence that mix!

[rs1952]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

rs1952
Oh yeah, loads of planned services. Then they'll all break down or be late, or have to be replaced by a bus because it's too hot or too cold or something.

Even when they do get through vaguely on time they are either empty or overcrowded with people complaining about the cost of their ticket and the state of the railways.

It's not that I especially dislike trains, I just don't think we should be taxing people for driving then paying other people to use trains. Not to mention paying Richard Branson a load of money at the same time.

There is an old saying "when you're already in a hole, stop digging." It's worth remembering sometimes...

On your first sentence, if you click on any of those links I posted yesterday you will, today, see what actually happened, warts and all. Arrival and departure times, both planned (ie timetabled) times and actual times, are now shown. If a train was cancelled, then clicking on the link on that line (which is in the reporting number eg 1A01) it will say why it was cancelled. (Note - if you come across one that shows as cancelled and has (Q) against it, that is a conditional train that only runs when required, but the path that it would take when running appears in the timetable anyway) The merest cursory glance at the information that is at your fingertips will show you how misinformed, bordering on the lunatic, your statement is.

The rest of your response isn't worth commenting on, other than to say you would be better off doing a buit of basic research so you didn't look like an idiot when you spout off about things of which you know nothing.

Have a nice day

[JuanCarlosFandango]

Which is fascinating I'm sure, but they still need a great chunk of government money to run.

[Yertis]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

Which is fascinating I'm sure, but they still need a great chunk of government money to run.

Perhaps any organisation which the government funds should be considered a strategic asset, and operated accordingly. The railways, run with military precision, would be a marvellous thing. (That's assuming the military are precise – I suspect people who have served will indicate otherwise )

[rs1952]

Yertis said:

Perhaps any organisation which the government funds should be considered a strategic asset, and operated accordingly. The railways, run with military precision, would be a marvellous thing. (That's assuming the military are precise – I suspect people who have served will indicate otherwise )

I never served in the military but my elder brother did.

"The winning army in any war is usually the one that makes the least mistakes"

[rs1952]

Lentilist said:

Let's imagine a scenario where you want to move something (goods or people) from Glasgow to Exeter

Road haulage operator - diesel/petrol at full rate of 57.95ppl

Rail operator using a diesel locomotive (more or less all freight). Marked Gas Oil (aka Red Diesel) at a partially rebated 46.81ppl

Aviation operator using jet aircraft. Zero rated Avtur.

And when you factor in that you've got, say, 3000 tons of aggregate to shift?

[Yertis]

Lentilist said:

Let's imagine a scenario where you want to move something (goods or people) from Glasgow to Exeter

Road haulage operator - diesel/petrol at full rate of 57.95ppl

Rail operator using a diesel locomotive (more or less all freight). Marked Gas Oil (aka Red Diesel) at a partially rebated 46.81ppl

Aviation operator using jet aircraft. Zero rated Avtur.

Now, there are obviously various deferment regimes, and excise duty costs would ultimately be recovered through pricing to end customers, but that all comes with a time and administrative cost (staff, guarantees etc) that the comparable aviation operator doesn't have to consider. I accept it's only one area of comparison, but in terms of fuel use, the aviation operator benefits from lower immediate fuel costs and administrative overheads due to the government deciding to forego the duty on their fuel, so are receiving a subsidy, albeit an indirect one.

An alternative perspective is that they (the airlines) are not being unfairly penalised for providing what is actually an identical service (i.e. getting somebody or something from point a to point b). Surely the green thing to do is untax the rail freight operators and instead put the levy on the aviation.

What is the logic behind that aviation tax exemption? (Genuine question.)

[Teddy Lop]

ralphrj said:

Teddy Lop said:

Isn't a jet more efficient than a high speed train anyway?

Efficient as in kg of CO2 per passenger per km? No, not even nearly.The plane will emit roughly 10 times as much CO2.

what are the comparisons like? The claim was in relation to the 200mph and upwards trains that if you were going to seriously compete with airliners you'd need. Less that that is fine (and can be a nicer way to travel in my experience) for short hops like London to Edinburgh or Paris.

[anonymous-user]

Yertis said:

An alternative perspective is that they (the airlines) are not being unfairly penalised for providing what is actually an identical service (i.e. getting somebody or something from point a to point b). Surely the green thing to do is untax the rail freight operators and instead put the levy on the aviation.

What is the logic behind that aviation tax exemption? (Genuine question.)

Wasn't necessarily presented as an argument for or against one system or another, just intended to show the subsidy debate is a lot more nuanced than the binary position some are presenting. Airlines also have reduced/zero VAT on international flights, whereas other sectors are standard rated, but then they are also captured by EU ETS, which other sectors don't have to deal with. It's a whole maze of exemptions, reliefs and rebates that's oddly fascinating, although professionally nightmarish given the "B" word...

Regarding Avtur being zero rated, don't know for sure, but I suspect the logic is that were we to levy a non-zero excise rate, even a small one, airlines would simply cease fueling here, as they are in a position to simply fly to the closest zero/lowest revenue regime. The zero rating therefore just sort of emerges due to nobody wanting to make the first move regarding an increase.

[djc206]

Yertis said:

An alternative perspective is that they (the airlines) are not being unfairly penalised for providing what is actually an identical service (i.e. getting somebody or something from point a to point b). Surely the green thing to do is untax the rail freight operators and instead put the levy on the aviation.

What is the logic behind that aviation tax exemption? (Genuine question.)

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN00523/SN00523.pdf

Worth a read on the subject.

Short answer is it’s very difficult