Sheffield to Shenfield Cheaper to Fly

[miami]

The story is all over. Not just the BBC and Daily Mail. I assume MSE sent out a press release to get maximum coverage, as well as taking full advantage of social media.

And the followup.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-35482102

A money-saving blogger made international headlines when he travelled from Sheffield to Essex via Berlin because it was cheaper than taking the train. "Coupon kid" Jordon Cox is on a quest to share his money-saving tips with the nation - but where did his own story start?
...
A few months later, Mr Cox was hosting couponing seminars in his hometown of Brentwood, Essex, teaching shoppers how to save as much money as possible.
...
In the coming months, he hopes to be on the road delivering seminars teaching people how to making savings on shopping and other aspects of financial life.

 

[me123]

If he's traveling frequently, he might want to consider investing in a 16-25 railcard.

However, the moral of the story is that free advertising (thank you tabloid newspapers!) works wonders.

 

[LAX54]

And the followup.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-35482102

thought it was funny where he said he had been watching Extreme Couponing on TV, and the started collecting coupons, in his first week he had saved £10 !

How much is it they save on the TV show?? ....$1500 - $2000 and more !

 

[Mojo]

BA no longer include the cost of fuel in the "taxes" field, on shorthaul anyway. They do include the cost of landing the aircraft in the "taxes" field, and the £12 each way of actual tax (APD).

I'd double-check that one. In amongst the taxes you may find "carrier-imposed surcharge", which is just another part of the fare.

http://matrix.itasoftware.com/ shows the breakdown of the cost to be

Fare 1: Carrier BA LV1RO NCL to LON
Passenger type ADT, one-way fare, booking code L
Covers NCL-LHR (Economy)
£88.00

United Kingdom Passenger Service Charge (UB)
£8.68

United Kingdom Air Passengers Duty (GB)
£13.00

 

[deltic08]

Believe me, simply not operating a modern 737-800 three times a week is hardly going to "save the entire planet". By contrast, if Germans investing in the East Midlands area cannot travel there, they won't invest and people lose out. FWIW, Ryanair have a very seasonal network and lots of their planes sit idle over the winter period. If there was no demand for the route, it wouldn't operate. But there clearly is demand.

If there is demand for travel between the two points, then this is a sensible way of providing it. In fact, it is currently the only sensible way of providing it. I'd agree with you that, for example, London to Edinburgh internal flights are not great and point-point traffic should be conveyed on the rails. East Midlands to Berlin does not fall into this category.

I don't believe you. Some of you can't see beyond the end of your noses. Why do you think we have had all the flooding in the last few months? It is because CO2 is causing the planet to warm up. Even one degree increase allows clouds to hold 10% additional moisture and that is billions of gallons. (Keilder Water holds 40 billion gallons and that is the amount that fell on Cumbria on Boxing Day) Ryanair should be made to a pay for the damage to property in this area that day then see how much their airfares would be compared to rail.

There wasn't a demand otherwise the fares would have been much higher and Mr Cox would not have travelled. Mr Cox didn't really want to go to Berlin that day, he just wanted to go to Shenfield but the attractive fare was creating an unnecessary demand.

Utter rubbish to say that Germans wouldn't invest in the East Midlands if Ryanair didn't provide unrealistically priced flights to/from Berlin.

Unnecessary travel burning fossil fuel just makes global warming worse and this was unnecessary travel.

Sheffield-East Midlands airport one way by taxi is not exactly eco-friendly either as the return journey is unproductive.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't believe you. Some of you can't see beyond the end of your noses. Why do you think we have had all the flooding in the last few months? It is because CO2 is causing the planet to warm up. Even one degree increase allows clouds to hold 10% additional moisture and that is billions of gallons. (Keilder Water holds 40 billion gallons and that is the amount that fell on Cumbria on Boxing Day) Ryanair should be made to a pay for the damage to property in this area that day then see how much their airfares would be compared to rail.

Now look at the emissions of a heavy high speed DMU like a Voyager, and think again.

I'm not fundamentally opposed to a carbon tax, indeed I can see it being a good idea, but "air bad, train good" or indeed "car bad, train good" is far too simplistic. For instance, a small family car with 5 people in it is probably the most carbon efficient form of motorised transport there is unless the UK was to go to a system of nuclear and renewables only for electricity generation.

 

[anme]

For instance, a small family car with 5 people in it is probably the most carbon efficient form of motorised transport there is unless the UK was to go to a system of nuclear and renewables only for electricity generation.

Of course, small family cars also maim and kill a lot more people than trains do - which is a different problem but also worth considering.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Of course, small family cars also maim and kill a lot more people than trains do - which is a different problem but also worth considering.

Indeed they do, but as you correctly say that has nothing to do with carbon, and as such has no relevance to a carbon tax in and of itself.

 

[jon0844]

And the followup.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-35482102

And boom goes the dynamite.

Said seminars will now come with the 'as seen on national/international TV' to boost sales.

Well played son!

 

[Lee_Again]

I don't believe you. Some of you can't see beyond the end of your noses. Why do you think we have had all the flooding in the last few months? It is because CO2 is causing the planet to warm up.

Really?

Even IF climate change is happening there is no proof that humans are causing it. Afterall, the climate has been changing since the dawn of time and humans weren't around for 99.99% of that.

The main reason more people are affected by 'weather events' is simply because there are more people around.

Before I stop enjoying the wonder of travel I want to see some pretty hard proof. And that means a lot more than a few politicians flying around the world telling everybody else not to enjoy the same pleasure.

 

[tbtc]

I know that the consensus on here seems to be to blame the railways whenever a story like this comes along (with posters taking the chance to throw in digs about “foreign governments”, the “DafT” and Brian Souter)...

...but I don’t think that the railway is the bad guy here. £44 to get from Yorkshire to Essex doesn’t sound a terrible price to me. It’s not the cheapest “per mile” journey in the UK, but it’s not a bad fare for a journey of over a hundred miles (presumably nearly two hundred, though I don’t know which way is a valid route?).

Whilst it’s generally been presented in the media as “TRAINS ARE EXPENSIVE”, this is really a story about *air* fares (where Ryanair essentially dump spare capacity onto the market because of their market elasticity). I know that the Forum does have a disproportionate number of posters who have the leisure time and nous to take advantage of dirt cheap fares (and therefore moan about “normal” fares), I think that £44 is an okay fare.

It’s not so cheap that it’ll spur me to visit Essex for a day out on a whim, but if we want to pay for things like guards and signal boxes and final salary pensions and rural branch lines and decent staff wages (that go up each year by more than ticket prices) then we can’t always have fares that compete with Megabus

If you want to use this thread as an excuse to blame privatisation for the fact that it costs £44 to get from Yorkshire to Essex then please tell me what would be an acceptable fare (for that length of journey)? £25? £10?

Why is it the railway’s fault if an alternative is sometimes cheaper? For some journeys, rail is the answer. But not all. Some people seem stuck in a mindset where rail must always be cheaper/ faster/ better than the alternatives (driving, flying), and if rail can’t be the winner then it must be the fault of privatisation (or politicians or that Beeching bloke).

Given that the rail costs include a driver/ guard/ signalling staff etc (compared to driving yourself, where you are taking on those roles), it’s hardly surprising that it’s sometimes cheaper to drive.

Given that the air costs don’t require much infrastructure in between airports (no track to maintain in the sky), it’s hardly surprising that it’s sometimes cheaper to fly.

And, since air fares are just as quirky as (and even more volatile than) rail fares, I’m not too put out that such things happen. Rail isn’t always the best option for catering to a particular flow, rail isn’t always the best option for dealing with a certain distance, rail isn’t always cheaper. Rail is a relatively inflexible means of mass transportation. Great for central London to central Manchester. Less suited to serving quant little villages or distances of over five hundred miles (which don’t have significant flows between them).

So, if air companies are going to give away seats on their flights for pennies, rail is going to cost more. Not the end of the world. I’m relaxed about that. Trains are busier than they've ever been, so I don't think the railway industry needs to be desperate.

Personally, I don’t want to have a railway fighting a race-to-the-bottom with the likes of Ryanair, so I’m not bothered about this story. What does annoy me is the way that even railway enthusiasts will use such stories as reason to berate the industry – we’ve enough external critics without adding to the volume of complaints!

As we’ve recently discussed, a TOC would be stupid to offer £1 fares from Tweedbank to East Kilbride/ Nairn (:roll, as these could easily be used by people doing journeys like Edinburgh – Glasgow/ Inverness (rather than restricted to those going all the way from Tweedbank to East Kilbride/ Nairn). So there’s little incentive for TOCs to “dump” cheap tickets as people might use them on busier sections (e.g. a "Sheffield to Shenfield" ticket for a rock bottom price could also be used for Nottingham to London journeys where different price elasticities apply).

With planes, it’s different. You can’t “stop short” on a Ryanair flight to Berlin and get off as it passes over Amsterdam, so Ryanair know that selling an East Midland – Berlin seat for a penny won’t see people passengers for intermediate places buy that ticket instead of their more expensive one.

It’s possibly also a reason for HS2 to plan it’s network as it has – as they can sell a London – Newcastle ticket for a quid knowing that (since the train doesn’t stop at Birmingham or Leeds) people wanting intermediate stations won’t be taking advantage. Market segmentation. Probably dirty words on here...

There seems to be a lot of Four Legs Good, Two Legs Bad attitude at the moment, when it comes to other modes of transport. I know it’s a “rail” forum, but the blinkered attitude that some people have does go beyond mild-bias...

For example, a new railway is great because it caters for suppressed demand and encourages people to travel more. A new road is terrible because, erm, it encourages people to travel more (witness the frequent “there’s no point in building new roads, because people will just use them” argument). Trains pollute too, remember. All those new DMUs that enthusiasts are clamouring for... what do you think they are fuelled by? I think it was Bald Rick who explained the numbers where a DMU is less efficient than if every passenger drove themselves? What was it? A hundred passengers? Fifty? Something in that ball-park?

Horses for courses. Sometimes the answer is light rail, sometimes the answer is a guided busway, sometimes the answer is a dial-a-ride minibus, sometimes the answer is the private motor car (however much that might wind people on here up...).

 

[me123]

I don't believe you. Some of you can't see beyond the end of your noses. Why do you think we have had all the flooding in the last few months? It is because CO2 is causing the planet to warm up. Even one degree increase allows clouds to hold 10% additional moisture and that is billions of gallons. (Keilder Water holds 40 billion gallons and that is the amount that fell on Cumbria on Boxing Day) Ryanair should be made to a pay for the damage to property in this area that day then see how much their airfares would be compared to rail.

Excuse me?!? How dare you accuse me of ignorance? Have you actually taken the time and effort to look at my postings in this thread on this subject? If you had you would be aware that

• I accept climate change is scientific fact
• I accept that burning of fossil fuels by humans is contributing significantly to climate change.
• I accept that we are seeing, and will continue to see, an increase in adverse weather conditions as a direct result of burning fossil fuels - there is no doubt in my mind that the floods at the start of this year were worse due to the effects of climate change.
• I vociferously criticise those who deny climate change.

There wasn't a demand otherwise the fares would have been much higher and Mr Cox would not have travelled. Mr Cox didn't really want to go to Berlin that day, he just wanted to go to Shenfield but the attractive fare was creating an unnecessary demand.

Utter rubbish to say that Germans wouldn't invest in the East Midlands if Ryanair didn't provide unrealistically priced flights to/from Berlin.

Unnecessary travel burning fossil fuel just makes global warming worse and this was unnecessary travel.

Unlike you, I'm also very much aware that today we have a demand for travel. There are significant economic benefits to direct flights into regions - even if you have the audacity to say that it is "nonsense". These links do encourage investment and tourism on both sides of the link. As much as I don't like Ryanair, they do have a business model that works well for them and they know their markets very well. Ryanair would have been quick to cancel the flight if there was no chance of profit or no chance of demand, as they do with many of their seasonal routes - but they did fly and most likely made a profit (spurred on largely by ancillary revenue streams). Most of the passengers on that flight would have been making an essential journey.

This may have been unnecessary travel, but the plane was going to fly whether or not Mr Cox was onboard. And the train he could have taken was also still running.

The airline industry is not alone in emitting fossil fuels, and it is fair to point out that the railways do also contribute to climate change. Indeed, TOCs operate numerous services that are very lightly loaded - I presume you also insist that they withdraw these services as, of course, this leads to unnecessary emissions of fossil fuels? In fact, on many services, rail companies offer dirt cheap "Advance" fares to encourage travel on lightly loaded services - is this not exactly the same business model as Ryanair?

Indeed, it's not just the transport industry, but also industrial sources and generation of energy that are largely responsible for greenhouse gas emissions.

Indeed, the airline industry is improving significantly, albeit they are driven largely by cost and not environmental concerns. Newer aircraft (such as Ryanair's 737-800 fleet) have lower emissions than their predecessors, and the average load factor onboard these flights is higher than it was in days gone by. Air travel is becoming continually more efficient.

Really?

Even IF climate change is happening there is no proof that humans are causing it. Afterall, the climate has been changing since the dawn of time and humans weren't around for 99.99% of that.

Climate change is happening. There is scientific proof. It is scientific fact. Here's a fantastic link that I posted not too long ago. We can look at CO2 levels historically, and demonstrate that there is a significant and unprecedented change in CO2 levels which correlates with increased human burning of fossil fuels. We also have evidence that burning fossil fuels produces by products that contribute to climate change.

There are, of course, numerous factors that influence the climate. But the evidence suggests that human activity is having a real and significant impact.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Whilst it’s generally been presented in the media as “TRAINS ARE EXPENSIVE”, this is really a story about *air* fares (where Ryanair essentially dump spare capacity onto the market because of their market elasticity). I know that the Forum does have a disproportionate number of posters who have the leisure time and nous to take advantage of dirt cheap fares (and therefore moan about “normal” fares), I think that £44 is an okay fare.

I completely agree. £44 from Yorkshire to Greater London is good value for money, and a perfectly acceptable fare. The real story here, as you've said, is that Ryanair offer really cheap flights. Particularly in January.

 

[DarloRich]

I know that the consensus on here seems to be to blame the railways whenever a story like this comes along (with posters taking the chance to throw in digs about “foreign governments”, the “DafT” and Brian Souter)...

...but I don’t think that the railway is the bad guy here. £44 to get from Yorkshire to Essex doesn’t sound a terrible price to me. It’s not the cheapest “per mile” journey in the UK, but it’s not a bad fare for a journey of over a hundred miles (presumably nearly two hundred, though I don’t know which way is a valid route?).

Whilst it’s generally been presented in the media as “TRAINS ARE EXPENSIVE”, this is really a story about *air* fares (where Ryanair essentially dump spare capacity onto the market because of their market elasticity). I know that the Forum does have a disproportionate number of posters who have the leisure time and nous to take advantage of dirt cheap fares (and therefore moan about “normal” fares), I think that £44 is an okay fare.

It’s not so cheap that it’ll spur me to visit Essex for a day out on a whim, but if we want to pay for things like guards and signal boxes and final salary pensions and rural branch lines and decent staff wages (that go up each year by more than ticket prices) then we can’t always have fares that compete with Megabus

If you want to use this thread as an excuse to blame privatisation for the fact that it costs £44 to get from Yorkshire to Essex then please tell me what would be an acceptable fare (for that length of journey)? £25? £10?

Why is it the railway’s fault if an alternative is sometimes cheaper? For some journeys, rail is the answer. But not all. Some people seem stuck in a mindset where rail must always be cheaper/ faster/ better than the alternatives (driving, flying), and if rail can’t be the winner then it must be the fault of privatisation (or politicians or that Beeching bloke).

Given that the rail costs include a driver/ guard/ signalling staff etc (compared to driving yourself, where you are taking on those roles), it’s hardly surprising that it’s sometimes cheaper to drive.

Given that the air costs don’t require much infrastructure in between airports (no track to maintain in the sky), it’s hardly surprising that it’s sometimes cheaper to fly.

And, since air fares are just as quirky as (and even more volatile than) rail fares, I’m not too put out that such things happen. Rail isn’t always the best option for catering to a particular flow, rail isn’t always the best option for dealing with a certain distance, rail isn’t always cheaper. Rail is a relatively inflexible means of mass transportation. Great for central London to central Manchester. Less suited to serving quant little villages or distances of over five hundred miles (which don’t have significant flows between them).

So, if air companies are going to give away seats on their flights for pennies, rail is going to cost more. Not the end of the world. I’m relaxed about that. Trains are busier than they've ever been, so I don't think the railway industry needs to be desperate.

Personally, I don’t want to have a railway fighting a race-to-the-bottom with the likes of Ryanair, so I’m not bothered about this story. What does annoy me is the way that even railway enthusiasts will use such stories as reason to berate the industry – we’ve enough external critics without adding to the volume of complaints!

As we’ve recently discussed, a TOC would be stupid to offer £1 fares from Tweedbank to East Kilbride/ Nairn (:roll, as these could easily be used by people doing journeys like Edinburgh – Glasgow/ Inverness (rather than restricted to those going all the way from Tweedbank to East Kilbride/ Nairn). So there’s little incentive for TOCs to “dump” cheap tickets as people might use them on busier sections (e.g. a "Sheffield to Shenfield" ticket for a rock bottom price could also be used for Nottingham to London journeys where different price elasticities apply).

With planes, it’s different. You can’t “stop short” on a Ryanair flight to Berlin and get off as it passes over Amsterdam, so Ryanair know that selling an East Midland – Berlin seat for a penny won’t see people passengers for intermediate places buy that ticket instead of their more expensive one.

It’s possibly also a reason for HS2 to plan it’s network as it has – as they can sell a London – Newcastle ticket for a quid knowing that (since the train doesn’t stop at Birmingham or Leeds) people wanting intermediate stations won’t be taking advantage. Market segmentation. Probably dirty words on here...

There seems to be a lot of Four Legs Good, Two Legs Bad attitude at the moment, when it comes to other modes of transport. I know it’s a “rail” forum, but the blinkered attitude that some people have does go beyond mild-bias...

For example, a new railway is great because it caters for suppressed demand and encourages people to travel more. A new road is terrible because, erm, it encourages people to travel more (witness the frequent “there’s no point in building new roads, because people will just use them” argument). Trains pollute too, remember. All those new DMUs that enthusiasts are clamouring for... what do you think they are fuelled by? I think it was Bald Rick who explained the numbers where a DMU is less efficient than if every passenger drove themselves? What was it? A hundred passengers? Fifty? Something in that ball-park?

Horses for courses. Sometimes the answer is light rail, sometimes the answer is a guided busway, sometimes the answer is a dial-a-ride minibus, sometimes the answer is the private motor car (however much that might wind people on here up...).

I commend this post to the house! Insert hand clap icon here.

 

[Philip C]

I don't believe you. Some of you can't see beyond the end of your noses. Why do you think we have had all the flooding in the last few months? It is because CO2 is causing the planet to warm up. Even one degree increase allows clouds to hold 10% additional moisture and that is billions of gallons. (Keilder Water holds 40 billion gallons and that is the amount that fell on Cumbria on Boxing Day) Ryanair should be made to a pay for the damage to property in this area that day then see how much their airfares would be compared to rail.

There wasn't a demand otherwise the fares would have been much higher and Mr Cox would not have travelled. Mr Cox didn't really want to go to Berlin that day, he just wanted to go to Shenfield but the attractive fare was creating an unnecessary demand.

Utter rubbish to say that Germans wouldn't invest in the East Midlands if Ryanair didn't provide unrealistically priced flights to/from Berlin.

Unnecessary travel burning fossil fuel just makes global warming worse and this was unnecessary travel.

Sheffield-East Midlands airport one way by taxi is not exactly eco-friendly either as the return journey is unproductive.

Among other snippets I found this at #1039 on the Ordsall Chord thread also from Deltic08 (dated 30/1/16):

My nearest railhead is ten miles away. Using public transport to reach Manchester Airport would require a taxi to the bus station, bus to Harrogate, train to Leeds and another train to MIA and that is assuming flight times are sensible.

My wife flew to Australia last year. I couldn't go at the last minute due to a heart attack. Not being allowed to drive, I couldn't take her to the airport and collect her. She chose to drive and leave her car at the airport for a month as this was the most convenient for her. A new £85m chord would not have made any difference to her. She would still have gone by car.

In all the years it has been possible to travel to MIA by train, we have never used it once and not likely to in future.

................

Considering Leeds/Bradford is rapidly expanding with International flights, a rail connection from Horsforth is proposed and former RAF Church Fenton right next to the York-Leeds line has just been bought to create a new Yorkshire airport, traffic from Yorkshire to MIA may even decline long term.

I do have the same problem myself. It is often difficult to reconcile the desire to do the right thing by the planet with my desire to visit interesting places. We are all human.

 

[Greenback]

I commend this post to the house! Insert hand clap icon here.

I agree

 

[MancMetro]

Now look at the emissions of a heavy high speed DMU like a Voyager, and think again.

The following figure shows the energy costs of various methods of transport. The high speed diesel train (full) is 10 kWh/(100 p-km) whilst the Boeing 747 (full) is 42 kWh/(100 p-km), so will result in 4.2X higher CO2 emissions.

With the train there is also the future prospect of it becoming electrified and powered by nuclear power/wind farms (virtually zero CO2 emissions), whilst the plane does not have that option.

In addition the Sheffield-Shenfield blogger will have covered a very large number of km by going via Berlin, which multipled with the plane's moderately high 42 kWh/(100 p-km) value will have resulted in much larger CO2 emissions than if he'd taken the train.

Source: Sustainable Energy - without the hot air
David JC Mackay FRS
Shared under Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share-Alike 2.0 UK: England & Wales Licence
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

This may have been unnecessary travel, but the plane was going to fly whether or not Mr Cox was onboard. And the train he could have taken was also still running.

For a counter-argument to that I again quote from the SEWTHA book:

The plane was going anyway, so my flying was energy-neutral.

This is false for two reasons. First, your extra weight on the plane
requires extra energy to be consumed in keeping you up. Second, airlines
respond to demand by flying more planes.

Of course flying makes much more sense for certain journeys, but the science is telling us that emissions from flying are going to cause enormous damage in the future. That's why it's an inconvenient truth.

If the public are serious about tackling climate change (and I accept that many people may not be - fair enough) they are going to have to accept significant carbon taxes on things like flying that will make it unaffordable except for essential travel. That would have made the blogger's Berlin journey cost several hundred pounds.

Trains on the other hand produce significantly lower emissions, and have the option of being electrified, which planes in their current incarnation cannot be.

 

[miami]

The APD on a Manchester-Berlin flight more than covers the cost of the CO2 on global CO2 $/kg estimates - An easyjet A319 produces about 12 tonnes of carbon in each direction. International figures put CO2 costs at $40 per ton, so the total for a Manchester to Berlin flight is $960 or £600.

APD on an 85% loaded A319 in one direction (as it's charged out of the UK but not in) is £1723.80, 3 times the value of the cost of carbon used for the 98% of CO2 emissions that aren't caused by the airline industry.

Want to tackle CO2 emissions, move freight onto trains and run more flights with 90% loading, and fewer high speed trains with 50% loading, build more nuclear power plants, stop rural bus services, and create a tax on meat.