UKC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35424393



Wonder what sandwich he had.

In reply to Run_Ross_Run:

Just highlights the perverse levels to which air travel is subsidized (only starting with tax free aviation fuel).

CB

In reply to cb294:


Or highlights just how inefficient and expensive the monopoly our railway system is?

In reply to ByEek:

I agree that the UK railway system in the UK is a bit shit, but would contest that this is because it is a monopoly. In contrast, I would think that the disorganization is at least partly caused by splitting one service in many different franchises.
Compare that to Switzerland, where the entire system is integrated from the international trains down to the local bus services (and even taxis) waiting at the stations to provide connections to the more remote valleys.

Splitting an ideally integrated service also has indirect effects, as it forces franchise holders to focus on short term profits rather than invest (e.g. in more attractive rolling stock) to create stable, long term profits, as they have no idea whether any investment would continue to repay following the next tender.

CB

In reply to Run_Ross_Run:

The ticketing was probably simpler as well with the airlines. The bewildering range of tickets and prices for rail travel is theses days a mystery to me.

In reply to ByEek:


Yes, we pay among the highest in the EU for our rail travel, and there are stake holders in eg Holland who get a share of any profits. The whole model needs changing.

In reply to cb294:

I agree completely. But I don't hold with the argument that because flying is cheaper than getting the train, the very nature of physics is somehow skewed.

Why shouldn't flying be cheaper than the train?

In reply to ByEek:

Fuel costs are a large fraction of the operational costs of both airplanes and trains. Physics dictates that planes fly fast, this is by necessity less energy efficient than a train (at least if measured in emissions per passenger am km).

The price of transportation should reflect its true cost, including costs for the environment etc...

If travelling from Yorkshire to Essex is cheapest by plane via Berlin, the pricing mechanism is defective.

To blame this on "the market" also falls short, as the market is biased through subsidies and structural frameworks (low to no taxation for air fuel, exemption from carbon trading for aviation, enforced splitting into several franchises all seeking their independent profit for rail travel).

CB

In reply to cb294:

But I still question this. Such sentiment doesn't take into account demand. If this chap flew from East Midlands to Germany and then on to Stansted on full planes, there could be a plausible argument for better fuel efficiency. But to start from the premise that train travel is always better than anything else is surely missing the point. What he should actually have done is hitch hiked. Much cheaper and he would have been sharing a journey that was happening anyway.

In reply to ByEek:

It doesn't say either. The only thing it highlights is that the railway and budget airlines operate totally different pricing models, while if he wanted to get there both cheaper and quicker he should have gone by coach.

In reply to cb294:


Physics does not dictate that aircraft fly fast. Some aircraft fly at speeds lower than a fit person can cycle.

Necessity does not dictate that a plane is less fuel efficient than a train because it is faster. In making this conclusion you neglect the rolling resistance faced by the train but not the plane, and you neglect the change in air density affecting the air resistance - which is much lower for a plane at altitude. Although there are wings...

That's before you consider the occupancy ratio of the average aircraft compared to the average train.

Aircraft can cover phenomenal distances with reduced or no fuel consumption by exploiting weather - commercial aircraft in the jet stream, plans to take a glider almost to the edge of space.

All these counter examples demonstrate that it is not possible to draw a simple assumption that planes are less fuel efficient.

Then there's the CO2 cost of maintaining the rail network, and the significant area usage reducing CO2 removal by plant life. I suspect airports build on less land in total?

In reply to Timmd:


The price of the ticket quoted was £47, that is not much more than 20p a mile. Doesn't seem too bad to me. The East Midlands to Berlin flight was £11.33, I wonder which had better availability.

In reply to Timmd:


One of the reasons we pay more for rail travel in the UK is due to smaller subsidies. Foreign stakeholders do get a share of the profits from most of the franchises now but that is due to allowing competition (and following the rules that this entails).

Whilst I agree that the 'Rail' model needs changing, I'd argue strongly against anyone saying a wholesale re-nationalisation is the best solution.

In reply to wintertree:
Yes and you can build an aircraft that carries one person if they are not too heavy and is entirely solar powered, but that is beside the point.

On practical terms, any airplane that will fly at about 650 km/h for the short hop from Midlands to Berlin will definitely use more fuel per passenger and km than a high speed train (never mind the extra distance):

According to the German Environmental Agency travelling by train requires about 0.2 kWh per passenger and km, car travel about 3 times that, and airplanes around 2kWh / person / km. Numbers for 2012, all values for average, actual occupancies.

Of course, from a certain distance on flying is the only practicable means of transportation. However, that flying Midlands to Stansted via Berlin is even remotely comparable just shows that flying in general is too cheap relative to other means of transport because the pricing mechanism fails for the reasons outlined above.


CB

In reply to ByEek:

Sorry, the above comment was also meant as a reply to your post: Real numbers show, not surprisingly, that overall flying is the least fuel efficient means of transportation, and hence can only compete with trains and cars on price because the playing field is not level.

CB

In reply to cb294:


I was not arguing with your points that aircraft use more energy, but was taking issue with your assertions that aircraft are "by necessity" faster which is simply not true for any capacity from one person to hundreds, or that simply going faster uses more energy because of physics. Both totally baseless.

Aircraft are made faster because they currently are the only viable way of travel for most people for distances of over 500-1,000 miles because people want journeys shorter than 12 hours.

I also am wary of stats like those you quote if they discount average fractional occupancy as airlines then to keep that very close to 1.0, trains - over the course of 24 hours - nowhere close.

But yes aircraft use more energy when seating is maxed out elsewhere. If we didn't have them perhaps we'd have faster, less energy efficient, longer distance rail.

It's going to be interesting to see how maglev - now very real - and hyper loop - lots of momentum - eat away at the shorter range side of air travel in the next 25 years, and how hypersonic extra-atmospheric "flight" eats away at the long end off air travel in the next 50 years or so.


Indeed - aircraft do not have the financial or commercial costs of maintaining staggeringly massive networks and infrastructure like bridges and tunnels... Gosh darned unfair that.

In reply to wintertree:

OK, I should have restricted myself to aircrafts designed for the purposes they are currently used for. No doubt e.g. blimps could be much more fuel efficient, but no one would want to travel that slowly anymore.

Anyway, the figures I quoted were derived from the actual occupancies achieved by the train and aircraft operators in Germany in 2012, so no need to correct them afterwards.

I doubt that airports are that much cheaper to run than rail networks, even though they are smaller. Certainly, they can charge the airlines loads for their use. Other differences are IMO more important, but the contributions of different factors will vary between countries. In the UK, splitting into different franchises that all need to recover their overhead (and of course make a profit) from their leg of a multi train journey will certainly be more relevant than in France or Germany, where most travel goes via a single, national operator. However, the low or nonexistent taxation of aircraft fuel, and the exemption of airlines from emission charging is a major factor (although I cannot point you at a citable source for this, have to run...).

CB

In reply to The New NickB:

It's the idea of overseas stake holders getting a share of the profits more particularly. I know there was under-investment when it was run as BR, but at the same time, if we pay more due to lower subsidies, I wonder if there's something we're missing that other countries aren't, in that lower fares (through tax funded subsidies) could be good for the economy by making it more affordable for people to travel to a bigger range of places of work, so that peoples' abilities could be utilised more effectively.

Just a thought really.

In reply to Timmd:

We basically do do that outside of London, though - local public transport for commuting purposes is not expensive. Bus weekly and monthly tickets are excellent value, costing per day far less than parking in any city let alone fuel, and in the Northern and Midlands Passenger Transport Executive areas train fares get a whacking subsidy as well (Merseyrail having, apart from the historical curiosity nobody can quite bring themselves to close on the Isle of Wight, the highest subsidy per passenger mile on the network).

Encouraging discretionary long distance travel and the likes isn't quite as important, really, nor is London commuting because people will pay the going rate for that. It does make it easier for high-value consultants to weekly commute, but that doesn't really need subsidy as there's enough money there to start with.

In reply to Run_Ross_Run:

Has to be a Currywurst. I would travel to Germany for one of those.