Budget/Spending Review 2021 - Railways

[tomuk]

Are you saying that a Voyager is as polluting as a 737 or A320 per passenger?

A320 NEO family averaged 89.9 grams of Carbon per seat mile
Voyager 119.3 g CO2 per passenger mile

 

[357]

A320 NEO family averaged 89.9 grams of Carbon per seat mile
Voyager 119.3 g CO2 per passenger mile

That's mental. I'd never have thought that!

How does it compare to an IET running on its engines?

 

[yorksrob]

Surely the real reason for cutting this tax is because the Government are desperate to prop-up the Union of GB & NI?

The country could justifiably provide targeted support for flights between GB and NI if required.

 

[philosopher]

A320 NEO family averaged 89.9 grams of Carbon per seat mile
Voyager 119.3 g CO2 per passenger mile

Voyagers I always thought were the worst trains out there in terms of emissions, while the A320 NEO is going to be one of the cleanest planes, so it is not a fair comparison.

Plus planes you have to factor in the impact of the emissions occurring at altitude, which is thought to double the impact.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

A320 NEO family averaged 89.9 grams of Carbon per seat mile
Voyager 119.3 g CO2 per passenger mile

Class 180 and 185 will be similar, using the same diesel engine.

The country could justifiably provide targeted support for flights between GB and NI if required.

The measure does address Scotland's demand for lower/no APD.
In some ways England-Scotland is the key Union link, politically.
Wales only has the tiny Valley-Cardiff air service (which might qualify for zero APD anyway).

 

[JamesT]

Quite possibly. That being said Scotland is generally more "left" than England, and are more likely to want to support environmentally friendly measures that would encourage travelling by train rather than flying.

On the other hand, the Scottish Government nationalised Glasgow Prestwick airport to keep it going and previously had a policy to reduce and then scrap APD when devolved to them.

 

[Bald Rick]

But they both operate Bristol / Birmingham to Scotland, and occasionally London to Scotland too. So I’d say it is a fair comparison.

 

[Grimsby town]

A320 NEO family averaged 89.9 grams of Carbon per seat mile
Voyager 119.3 g CO2 per passenger mile

Do you have a source for that? I found a report from 2021 stating that a voyager emits 11kg of CO2 equivalent per mile. A class 220 has 200 seats which gives a figure of 55g per seat.

 

[Mikey C]

On the other hand, the Scottish Government nationalised Glasgow Prestwick airport to keep it going and previously had a policy to reduce and then scrap APD when devolved to them.

Scottish Highlands and Islands flights are exempt, maybe they should be charged APD also, and everyone forced to take a boat instead

 

[TravelDream]

Do you have a source for that? I found a report from 2021 stating that a voyager emits 11kg of CO2 equivalent per mile. A class 220 has 200 seats which gives a figure of 55g per seat.

ICAO (a UN body) has an emissions calculator on their website. https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/CarbonOffset/Pages/default.aspx
-My maths on this was completely wrong as I misread the website. Doing two things at once is never ideal. -

This excludes the effect of high-up emissions though. They are generally agreed to be more harmful than ground emissions as they affect the climate more and last longer. There is not universally agreed number to say how much worse they are though.

 

[ChrisC]

Why do people "need" to travel from Manchester to Newquay? Hardly socially or economically necessary. We shouldn't be subsidising frivolous travel on a polluting mode.

XC are doing their bit to deter people from using their Voyagers when travelling from the Midlands and the North to Newquay. In their current reduced timetable the one train a day which runs beyond Plymouth to Penzance is not stopping at Parr for the connection to Newquay!

 

[Norm_D_Ploom]

Poor decision re APD. Terrible message/ timing ahead of COP.

If COP 26 does nothing else I genuinely think that it should seek to ban internal flights when the journey can be made in 5 hours by alternative means.
It should also seek to apportion sensible rates of taxation onto aviation fuels.

 

[Grimsby town]

ICAO (a UN body) has an emissions calculator on their website. https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/CarbonOffset/Pages/default.aspx
It states the average fuel burn on the Heathrow to Edinburgh route is 3226kg of CO2 or 6kg per kilometer/ 9.8kg per mile. That's based on the three aircraft which fly the route - the A319, A320 and A320NEO.
If the plane is full, that equals 74kg per passenger or 22 grams per mile.

This excludes the effect of high-up emissions though. They are generally agreed to be more harmful than ground emissions as they affect the climate more and last longer. There is not universally agreed number to say how much worse they are though.

22g per mile would make domestic flying as carbon intensive as a eurostar and less so than the average domestic rail train. I think you've maybe taken the passenger CO2 figure as the total plane CO2 figure because my calculations give me 220g per mile per passenger. That would make it four times more polluting than a full class 220 or half full Pendolino. Of course rail requires more infrastructure than flying which has a CO2 cost but nowhere near enough to reduce the service emissions deficit.

Flying will always consume more resources than railways even if both are electrified. Planes will always have to carry their fuel source around with them making them heavier. Getting into the air is always going to be energy intensive. Planes probably need more energy to build than a train when considering seating capacity. The only area flights may eventually become the go to is for journeys which are far shorter by plane than rail and have relatively small flows. Something like Plymouth to Cardiff would be a good example.

 

[Llandudno]

Class 180 and 185 will be similar, using the same diesel engine.



The measure does address Scotland's demand for lower/no APD.
In some ways England-Scotland is the key Union link, politically.
Wales only has the tiny Valley-Cardiff air service (which might qualify for zero APD anyway).

I think that the Anglesey to Cardiff air service is currently suspended, don’t seem to be able to make a booking in it!

It is supposed to operate 11 times per week with no service on Saturdays or Sundays.

The Senedd subsidise the service at least £1.2million per annum, that’s before the politicians, WAG and council staff get their fares reimbursed!

 

[Bald Rick]

ICAO (a UN body) has an emissions calculator on their website. https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/CarbonOffset/Pages/default.aspx
It states the average fuel burn on the Heathrow to Edinburgh route is 3226kg of CO2 or 6kg per kilometer/ 9.8kg per mile. That's based on the three aircraft which fly the route - the A319, A320 and A320NEO.
If the plane is full, that equals 74kg per passenger or 22 grams per mile.

I’m afraid your maths is out.
3226kg is the amount of fuel burned. The amount of CO2 emitted is over three times that.

the 74kg per passenger is right though (assuming 140 passengers a flight), which is around 186g per mile, 115g/km. Most London - central belt flights in A320s have more passengers than this though.

 

[Starmill]

Aviation fuel is tax free under international treaty.

Again and again people say this unchallenged and I'm afraid it's not true! Fuel arriving in an aircraft is subject to treaty. It is not unlawful to aviation tax fuel sales on the ground.

In practice it's always been more practical to tax passengers or charge VAT or one of a handful of other means.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Oct 2021 ==

That's mental. I'd never have thought that!

How does it compare to an IET running on its engines?

As frustrating as it is the airlines are good at investing in aircraft which are more and more fuel efficient, because it's so important to their bottom line.

The railway by contrast has very little impetus to withdraw the oldest trains which are most polluting and least carbon efficient.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Oct 2021 ==

XC are doing their bit to deter people from using their Voyagers when travelling from the Midlands and the North to Newquay. In their current reduced timetable the one train a day which runs beyond Plymouth to Penzance is not stopping at Parr for the connection to Newquay!

The majority of people flying into Newquay Airport probably want St Austell, Truro, Bodmin, Falmouth, Redruth, Hayle or Penzance anyway though rather than Newquay itself. So the train is more convenient for most places people might actually be going. It's just slow.

 

[Skymonster]

When every long-distance domestic rail ticket attracts a £13.00 tax that makes no contribution to the industry but goes straight to treasury coffers, pro-rail campaigners can start to whinge about cutting domestic APD.

Rail is subsidised to the tune of billions each year, with even more going into projects like the great white elephant starting to take shape at Euston (rail really did have a chance with this, but blew it big time when it insisted on Old Oak rather than Heathrow, making plane-to-train / train-to-plane far less compelling). Meanwhile aviation gets nothing - infrastructure investment comes from the private sector and has to be recovered from users, while even the regulator has to return a profit (LMAO at the idea the rail equivalents, Network Rail and ORR, would ever be tasked with being profitable and funded from the fare box). The consequence of this is that airlines have invested in newer, more efficient and cleaner aircraft on an ongoing basis and continues to do so, while rail faffs around with projects that are going to take decades to reach fruition (if they ever do for large swathes of the north / northeast).

The cutting of APD is good news that addresses a fundamental injustice that it applies in both directions to domestic journeys while only one way on overseas flights. Air connectivity is vital to the UK regions, and will remain essential especially outside of the London market where rail dismally fails to provide reasonably expeditious alternatives. The bad news from the budget is that the chancellor, while cutting domestic APD, elected to increase taxation on long haul passengers in an era when we need overseas links more than ever before. Nevertheless its good that the chancellor has cut through all the climate change bolloxology and has finally done something for the aviation industry, even though its minor when compared to the support rail gets every year.

 

[TravelDream]

My apologies for misreading the ICAO website above.
The correct emissions is indeed 74kg per passenger in total or 0.13kg/ 130g per passenger km.

 

[Skymonster]

If COP 26 does nothing else I genuinely think that it should seek to ban internal flights when the journey can be made in 5 hours by alternative means. It should also seek to apportion sensible rates of taxation onto aviation fuels.

That would be utter madness that would destroy an industry that has already lost thousands of jobs over the last couple of years. If rail users pay equivalent taxation to air travellers and operators it’d be more understandable to argue for more taxation of domestic aviation - but sadly that’ll never happen. Meanwhile, the way past the climate change issue (if it really is an issue, which I don’t accept) is to invest all available resources to make travel more carbon efficient, not to tax people out of travel.

 

[Robertj21a]

Poor decision re APD. Terrible message/ timing ahead of COP.

If COP 26 does nothing else I genuinely think that it should seek to ban internal flights when the journey can be made in 5 hours by alternative means.
It should also seek to apportion sensible rates of taxation onto aviation fuels.

That will simply encourage more to use their cars.

 

[fishwomp]

That's mental. I'd never have thought that!

How does it compare to an IET running on its engines?

Running an IET on the A320 engines? I thought that could be pretty interesting - but I've looked up the internet and am not convinced. Apparently it's about 27,000lbf thrust per engine, whereas a Deltic's max tractive effort is 50,000lbf, so actually, it'd be not much better than putting a Deltic on the front. The noise would be less pleasant than Napier's finest.

 

[Grimsby town]

That would be utter madness that would destroy an industry that has already lost thousands of jobs over the last couple of years. If rail users pay equivalent taxation to air travellers and operators it’d be more understandable to argue for more taxation of domestic aviation - but sadly that’ll never happen. Meanwhile, the way past the climate change issue (if it really is an issue, which I don’t accept) is to invest all available resources to make travel more carbon efficient, not to tax people out of travel.

Even if you don't belive in climate change, it comes down to a matter of efficiency. Launching a vehicle a few kms into the air is always going to be power inefficient. Carrying your own power source around is always going to be power inefficient. Having large parts of the vehicle not used for carrying passengers is always going to be resource inefficient. You might not believe in man made climate change but you can't escape scarcity.

 

[CdBrux]

Why do people "need" to travel from Manchester to Newquay? Hardly socially or economically necessary. We shouldn't be subsidising frivolous travel on a polluting mode.

In which case we should not subsidise making such a journey via rail either? Anyone who has the horribly frivolous reason to travel to or from Cornwall to do business with or for a Cornish company shouldn't do so? And for sure we would prefer Mancunians to holiday once more in Blackpool rather than spending their dosh in Kernow?

 

[hwl]

I’m afraid your maths is out.
3226kg is the amount of fuel burned. The amount of CO2 emitted is over three times that.

Kg Fuel to kg CO2 varies depending on the carbon content and density of the fuel but UK diesel is usually *3.1 - 3.15 multiplier (* pi is good approximation), Jet A1 3.0 - 3.05 and Petrol (E0) *3.3.
The multipliers drop when biofuel content is added which has less carbon and more hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen.

 

[WilloughbyGC]

That would be utter madness that would destroy an industry that has already lost thousands of jobs over the last couple of years. If rail users pay equivalent taxation to air travellers and operators it’d be more understandable to argue for more taxation of domestic aviation - but sadly that’ll never happen. Meanwhile, the way past the climate change issue (if it really is an issue, which I don’t accept) is to invest all available resources to make travel more carbon efficient, not to tax people out of travel.

'if it really is an issue which i don't accept'. oh dear...

 

[Skymonster]

Even if you don't belive in climate change, it comes down to a matter of efficiency. Launching a vehicle a few kms into the air is always going to be power inefficient. Carrying your own power source around is always going to be power inefficient. Having large parts of the vehicle not used for carrying passengers is always going to be resource inefficient. You might not believe in man made climate change but you can't escape scarcity.

Oh I accept there is some change in climate going on - and has been since the ice age - but I don’t accept there’s much we can do about it, and what little we can do is best achieved through improving efficiency and using technology, and not by punitive taxation. Meanwhile, if you can’t accept aircraft climbing into the upper atmosphere where they are more efficient than lower down, best you also start lobbying to rebuild all major rail lines so they are flat and have no up grades. And if by scarcity you’re talking about fossil fuels, (a) again that’s best addressed by technology rather than restrictions / taxation and (b) the aviation industry has done far over the last few years to renew its fleets with newer more efficient vehicles than has the railway.

 

[Norm_D_Ploom]

That would be utter madness that would destroy an industry that has already lost thousands of jobs over the last couple of years. If rail users pay equivalent taxation to air travellers and operators it’d be more understandable to argue for more taxation of domestic aviation - but sadly that’ll never happen. Meanwhile, the way past the climate change issue (if it really is an issue, which I don’t accept) is to invest all available resources to make travel more carbon efficient, not to tax people out of travel.

Tou couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In the principle of "reduce, reuse, recycle" you do want to tax people out of travel.

Best: don't travel at all, or walk or cycle (I'd put those together)
E-bike/e-scooter/electric motorcycle/Public transport (similarly on the same level)
EV
Motorcycle
Car
Worst: fly

 

[Mikey C]

In the principle of "reduce, reuse, recycle" you do want to tax people out of travel.

Best: don't travel at all, or walk or cycle (I'd put those together)
E-bike/e-scooter/electric motorcycle/Public transport (similarly on the same level)
EV
Motorcycle
Car
Worst: fly

No way would a petrol motorcycle be worse than a massive 2 tonne electric SUV driven by one person

And public transport has to be split too. A high speed train uses a LOT more energy than a slower one.

And the environmental cost of manufacture has to be considered too. Keeping my near 20 year old car for the 3000 miles a year I do is probably more environmentally friendly (for the planet) than buying a new electric one, when you consider the energy required to make it, the mining required to find the rare elements needed, the transportation around the world etc

 

[Ediswan]

Aviation fuel is tax free under international treaty.

The international treaty only applies to international flights. The government could impose fuel taxes on domestic airlines. The reasons they do not are discussed here.

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