A further suggestion to replace short haul flights by trains

[whole diary]

[grahame]

Not sure where ... but I know this needs joining up to another topic ... will get back to it (of none of the other moderators / admins does)

From New Civil Engineer

How Britain could upgrade its rail network to replace domestic flights

Britain should “think along the same lines” as German and French transport planners who are aiming to drive a shift from domestic flights to rail, according to Expedition Engineering director Alistair Lenczner.

Last week French lawmakers voted in favour of a bill to end short-haul internal flights where the same journey could be made by train in under two-and-a-half hours. The planned measures will face a further vote in the Senate before becoming law.

Meanwhile, the German Aviation Association (BDL) and Deutsche Bahn (DB^» (Deutsche Bahn - German State Railway - about)) signed an agreement last month committing to improve connectivity between aviation and rail and offer faster connections between cities, which could lead to the discontinuation of some domestic flight routes.

“I applaud France and Germany for doing it and I think Britain needs to be thinking along the same lines,” Lenczner told NCE.

“It’s that sort of thinking you need to respond seriously to the climate situation but it needs concerted effort and coordinated thinking across sectors.”

[CyclingSid]

How far can you get from London in two and a half hours by train, or more importantly how many constituencies can you get to?

[TaplowGreen]

How far can you get from London in two and a half hours by train, or more importantly how many constituencies can you get to?

London to Manchester is just over 2 hours by train, can't really imagine it affecting any other domestic UK^▸ (United Kingdom) routes of any significance.

Glasgow/Edinburgh closer to 5 hours by train, against 80 minutes in the air.

[bradshaw]

This appeared on Twitter this morning, signs of a trend perhaps

German Aviation and Deutsche Bahn sign MoU to move 4.3 million domestic flights to rail

https://twitter.com/davidzipper/status/1384119582068154377?s=21

[Bob_Blakey]

Such a suggestion only works from a traveller's perspective if the end-to-end journey time and cost is considered and documented. On the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) mainland UK for distances up to 200-250 miles where an 'intercity' type service is available rail will frequently win on time but lose on cost.

I however do not use UK mainland domestic air services largely because of a preference for being deposited somewhere reasonably adjacent to my intended destination, regardless of cost or journey time.

[broadgage]

Meanwhile in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom), rail travel becomes ever more expensive whilst air transport is encouraged by various grants, subsidies, and tax breaks.

[stuving]

Meanwhile in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom), rail travel becomes ever more expensive whilst air transport is encouraged by various grants, subsidies, and tax breaks.

I can't think of any kind of grant, subsidy, or tax break that the air transport industry has benefited from that railways haven't. And then there's capital investment; central government has funded most of that for the railways, and none for airports - except perhaps for the road system, to some extent. Local government, and all those pseudo-local quangos we now have, contribute to both but mostly to rail.

So if you want an explanation for the railways' inability to compete on cost, you'll need to look elsewhere. 

[broadgage]

Her Majesty's Government (HMG) have announced that by 2035 that UK^▸ (United Kingdom) carbon emissions are to be reduced by 78%

Hard to see how this is to be achieved without drastic reductions in air travel. If the remaining 22% is to be used for heating of existing housing, and for limited electricity* production, and other high priority uses, then there might well be NOTHING left for aviation.

Or perhaps they propose not to reduce actual fuel used but simply to purchase indulgences, er sorry trade and offset.

*We should be able to produce MOST of our electricity from renewables, but significant natural gas will still be required when wind power is lacking, as has happened recently.


Edit: VickiS - Clarifying Acronym

[eightonedee]

How far can you get from London in two and a half hours by train, or more importantly how many constituencies can you get to?

London to Manchester is just over 2 hours by train, can't really imagine it affecting any other domestic UK^▸ (United Kingdom) routes of any significance.

Don't let the good folk who use Leeds/Bradford airport hear you say that......

[TaplowGreen]

How far can you get from London in two and a half hours by train, or more importantly how many constituencies can you get to?

London to Manchester is just over 2 hours by train, can't really imagine it affecting any other domestic UK^▸ (United Kingdom) routes of any significance.

Don't let the good folk who use Leeds/Bradford airport hear you say that......

.....how many significant domestic routes operate from Leeds/Bradford?

Can any of them be replaced by a train journey of less than 2.5 hrs?

[TonyK]

HMG have announced that by 2035 that UK^▸ (United Kingdom) carbon emissions are to be reduced by 78%

Hard to see how this is to be achieved without drastic reductions in air travel. If the remaining 22% is to be used for heating of existing housing, and for limited electricity* production, and other high priority uses, then there might well be NOTHING left for aviation.

Or perhaps they propose not to reduce actual fuel used but simply to purchase indulgences, er sorry trade and offset.

*We should be able to produce MOST of our electricity from renewables, but significant natural gas will still be required when wind power is lacking, as has happened recently.

Aviation accounts for about 2% of global emissions. Spend ten years and billions of pounds removing that, and you will only have 76% to go. Doing away with the need for back-up gas generators for the many days that wind power doesn't cover our consumption will save a lot more, and will be best achieved by having a reliable source of electricity that doesn't emit carbon dioxide to provide today's base load for the UK, plus extra to cover the needs currently met by 25 million gas boilers and 20 million+ fossil-powered vehicles. Wind turbines could then be used to produce synthetic aviation fuels and hydrogen should the wind blow hard enough, and if it doesn't, we can use the train. I am sure that HS3 and HS4 will be welcomed by all.

I reckon a rapid expanse in nuclear power will do the trick, hopefully using small modular plants while researching alternatives to uranium, such as thorium. This could be in France, with interconnectors, if they agree, so that we don't have to appease anyone local. I am open to other suggestions, with full explanations.

[Bmblbzzz]

Meanwhile in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom), rail travel becomes ever more expensive whilst air transport is encouraged by various grants, subsidies, and tax breaks.

I can't think of any kind of grant, subsidy, or tax break that the air transport industry has benefited from that railways haven't. And then there's capital investment; central government has funded most of that for the railways, and none for airports - except perhaps for the road system, to some extent. Local government, and all those pseudo-local quangos we now have, contribute to both but mostly to rail.

So if you want an explanation for the railways' inability to compete on cost, you'll need to look elsewhere. 

Trains in the UK run on "red diesel", which is taxed at a lower rate than the diesel used in cars and lorries. Aviation fuel has no taxes whatsoever. In fact the 1944 Chicago Convention makes it a criminal offence (in those countries which have signed up, which is most of the world) to tax aviation fuel.

[TonyK]

Trains in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) run on "red diesel", which is taxed at a lower rate than the diesel used in cars and lorries. Aviation fuel has no taxes whatsoever. In fact the 1944 Chicago Convention makes it a criminal offence (in those countries which have signed up, which is most of the world) to tax aviation fuel.

If you propose to remove the tax on red diesel altogether, I am sure the move would be welcomed by rail operators. It won't save any emissions though - we need an electrified railway to do that, and I haven't seen the Prime Minister's proposals for how that will be achieved.

[Bmblbzzz]

That was just an example of a tax break the aviation industry benefits from but rail does not, rather than a proposal.

[TonyK]

Then you didn't propose removing the tax from red diesel, which is good. As you point out, aviation fuel's tax free status, shared by a few other things, is a matter of international treaty. If it seems unfair, don't forget that train passengers don't pay Air Passenger Duty. Unilateral taxation by UK^▸ (United Kingdom) could well be counterproductive.

An answer to a question I have long pondered can be found in today's Times, concerning the potential of batteries. If our electricity was made entirely by wind and we had every battery made in the whole world within the last 10 years, and the wind stopped blowing, they would keep us going for about two days. If, of course, they were all fully charged. On the showing of recent days, that would have left us in the dark for some nine days as a minimum.