London to Glasgow via train or plane. Which is faster.

[FrozenPoints]

This is a tenuous thread to the demise of BMI.

I am wondering what is faster.

Say if you wanted to get to Central London, like Westminster.
And in Glasgow, somewhere central (never been myself) such as the main square if they have one.

If the fastest timing is 4h 10m and an average of 4h 25m (or thereabouts) + 15 minutes maximum for the tube from Westminster.

Say you add the plane timings.

From Central London to Heathrow: 30 minutes?
Arrive to check-in and or bag drop (plus recommended airport arrival time): 1h 20m
The flight itself: 1h 30m (Used BA timings)
Landing, airside to baggage reclaim: 15m - 20m
Glasgow Airport to Central Square: 20 - 25m

Add that up: 4h 05m roughly - compared to WCML fastest plus tube and walking of 4h 30m.

Is it really worth the hassle of a plane - or does expense still come into this?

 

[MCR247]

This again! Last time people were debating for ever

But anyway, the for business people, more of the time on the train is spent staying still, enabling more work to be done

 

[Geezertronic]

Not this again, if I could be bothered I would search for the older threads and post links to them...

 

[Marklund]

Is it really worth the hassle of a plane - or does expense still come into this?

If you're connecting, why would you want the hassle of getting the train to London, then another 2 changes to get out to Heathrow or Gatwick?

 

[wintonian]

If you're connecting, why would you want the hassle of getting the train to London, then another 2 changes to get out to Heathrow or Gatwick?

What about the hassle of airports; security restriction, baggage limits, fees for everything, turbulence, painful ear popping and not being able to stretch your legs or hop off en-route for a spot of lunch.

Traveling by train is far less stressful, for me anyway.

 

[Marklund]

What about the hassle of airports;

OK, lets look at them

security restriction,

What? Screening. Not really a hassle, water is available airside.

baggage limits,

23kg is usually enough for me. On BA? Oh, that's free.

fees for everything,

Not really.

turbulence, painful ear popping and not being able to stretch your legs

The domestic sectors are 1hour 30ish. And leg room on BA? if you're clever, 34". Plenty of room. As for ears popping, not a problem for me.

or hop off en-route for a spot of lunch.

The last thing on my mind if I'm away to connect on to a LH flight would be, Oh look, I can get off and have a bacon sarnie at the local greasy spoon, sod LA, it can wait.

Traveling by train is far less stressful, for me anyway.

Good for you.

It's easier for me to travel by train when I'm off to London only, while if I'm travelling onwards, dealing with suitcases on the Tube to Paddington for the HEX, or all the way to Heathrow? No chance. Plane all the way. And I'm Protected railstaff and would travel for free!

 

[starrymarkb]

What about the hassle of airports; security restriction, baggage limits, fees for everything, turbulence, painful ear popping and not being able to stretch your legs or hop off en-route for a spot of lunch.

Traveling by train is far less stressful, for me anyway.

Depends. If you are connecting then you can buy a through ticket for little more then the direct flight from Heathrow. Depending on the airport your case will be transferred and depending on the airport you are connecting in you'd take the transfer lane from inbound jetway to the departure lounge for your next flight bypassing security (you'd have been pre-cleared at the initial airport)

For me I'd probably fly from Bristol to Schiphol or Charles De Gaulle with Air France/KLM and avoid Heathrow and London all together.

 

[Bald Rick]

Slightly OT as not city centre to city centre, but 5 years ago I had to travel to central Glasgow for a conference. I live 15 miles from Luton.

Left home at 0600, just made check in before it closed for the 0715 flight which was then slightly delayed due to weather. Arriving at Glasgow I was first off the plane, no bags to collect so ran straight through the terminal into a waiting taxi (4 minutes from touchdown to taxi!) and got to the conference with a minute to spare at 0929.

It was one of those rare journeys where everything clicked and at 3 1/2 hours, I think, it was about as quick as it is possible to do it. I was bl**dy shattered.

Ironically, the conference was about the future of high speed rail in the UK.

 

[wintonian]

What? Screening. Not really a hassle, water is available airside.

Personally I consider it to be an invasion of privacy alit a necessary one. Water may be available airside but at a price.

23kg is usually enough for me. On BA? Oh, that's free.

Good for you if you can afford to fly with BA everytime. Budget airlines however genraly restict you to 10kg .

Not really.

Ok an exaggeration but go over the 10kg on Flybe and it's £12 for the first 3kg over. There are fees for choosing your seat, I don't but others do. Charges for arriving at the airport if you forget to checking online, not a problem with Flybe but an issue with most.

The domestic sectors are 1hour 30ish. And leg room on BA? if you're clever, 34". Plenty of room. As for ears popping, not a problem for me.

Again I'm glad you enjoy BA.
I have landed in Edinburgh from Southampton in turbulence as I also did on the return.

The last thing on my mind if I'm away to connect on to a LH flight would be, Oh look, I can get off and have a bacon sarnie at the local greasy spoon, sod LA, it can wait.

Fine it's not compulsory, I sometimes do to break up the journey.

Good for you.!

I'm glad you don't mind, of course you are also free to fly instead of using the train if you wish.

 

[me123]

I'm sure I've done this before, but let's go from George Square to Trafalgar Square using only public transport, and using the train/plane as the "main" mode of transport between Glasgow and London. I'll also compare the car journey. We're starting at 9am; results may vary at other times. I'm allowing 10 minutes for a transfer from Euston Station-Euston Tube Station, and following all other recommendations to the letter (eg, transfer times, check in times, service station stops etc etc)

TRAIN
Walk to Glasgow Central railway station
Rail: 09:40 GLC-EUS, a14:12
Tube: 14:23 Euston-Charing Cross a14:30
8 minute transfer/walk to Trafalgar square (as per TfL recommendations)
Arrive 14:38
5 hours 38 minutes end to end

AIR
Bus: 09:04 "500" bus service Glasgow Flyer to Glasgow Airport, a09:25
Air: 10:50 British Airways Glasgow-London City BA8725, a12:10
DLR: 12:45 London City Airport-Canning Town a12:52
Tube: 12:56 Canning Town-Waterloo a13:13
Tube: 13:20 Waterloo-Charing Cross a13:23
8 minute transfer/walk to Trafalgar square (as per TfL recommendations)
Arrive 13:31
4 hours 31 minutes end to end

CAR
I'm not going to write out the directions, but I'm taking the most direct route that appears on Google Maps. I'm also stopping about once every two hours

2hr 13 mins to Westmorland Services (a11:13)
15 min break (d11:28)
2hrs to Stafford Services (a13:28)
30 min lunch break (d13:58)
2hrs 15 mins to London Gateway Services (a16:13)
15 min break (d16:28)
35 mins to Trafalgar Square
Arrive 16:48
7 hours 48 minutes end to end

On the above, the plane is quite a bit faster than the train. Please note the following:

• Being able to use London City Airport has likely saved quite a bit of time when comparing the train to the plane
• There's a long wait in Glasgow for the first train South (40 minutes). If you were to set of from George Square at the right time, you may actually be quicker by train depending on the timetables (eg, if you had to wait a while for a flight to Heathrow)
• The car journey is very long, and doesn't account for rush hour traffic. But some people would drive faster and make fewer stops.

There's no doubt that this would do the railways few favours. However, as I've said, if you timed it right you could probably beat the plane. I don't have the time to do this just now, but there's no doubt in my mind that flying to a peripheral airport will add a significant amount of time to the journey, and this alone could shift the balance in favour of rail.

 

[wintonian]

On the above, the plane is quite a bit faster than the plane.

An interesting conclusion!

 

[starrymarkb]

You could probably get through City Airport a lot quicker then that. My view is Horses for Courses. Some modes are better suited to some journeys then others.

For me to go from here to Scotland I'd probably fly - worst case looking at 3-4hours (and 90 mins enduring a Dash 8) compared with 7-8 hours by train, a 10 hour drive or 15hr overnight coach!

Though I might drive to Bristol airport for cheaper flights with easyjet (even with having to pay for fuel and parking it would still be cheaper then flybe from Exeter), BRS is only about an hour up the M5/A38

 

[wintonian]

If you go by sleeper then you save quite a bit of time assuming you would be asleep anyway.

 

[starrymarkb]

Not really - I'd be travelling from Exeter, and there isn't a direct sleeper to Scotland

 

[Marklund]

Convenience is a price worth paying at times.
There's no danger I'm dragging the wife and kids across London from Euston to Paddington in the rush hour just to use the train instead of making use of a connecting flight.

 

[me123]

As I mentioned elsewhere, the main benefit of the Glasgow-London flights now is really the connections onto international destinations. If I were flying to, say, Australia, then there's no doubt in my mind that I would fly from either Glasgow or Edinburgh and connect at Heathrow. That's by far the best option.

But, unless you're going to City Airport, it's quite a lot of hastle fighting your way through London on public transport. To be honest, even City Airport isn't all that great. It's probably a lot easier to get the train to go to London itself.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

An interesting conclusion!

It's far too late; I need my sleep Edited appropriately.

 

[ph1985]

the plane is quicker as no-one adheres to minimum airport arrival times on domestic flights and its also quite a bit cheaper unless you're lucky enough to snag one of the handful of cheap advance train tickets. and those that you can find are at inconvenient times that would usually require an overnight stay.

i fly to glasgow/aberdeen/edinburgh quite often and would never entertain the idea of getting the train there - and id assume the reason bmi is pulling out of the route is because ba run a pretty good full service option to Scotland whilst easyjet cover the budget option - not because trains are almost as fast.

 

[RichW1]

yep, plane is by far the quickest still, but is fiddly and rather annoying with transferring to trains to get to the centre of anywhere and the whole baggage situation. A train is less hassle but very slow from Glasgow at 4hr9 fastest time now is it? But the rest are 4hr25 or so.....not time competitive so it just depends how much stress I want and would not be a decision made on time....sadly!

 

[me123]

i fly to glasgow/aberdeen/edinburgh quite often and would never entertain the idea of getting the train there - and id assume the reason bmi is pulling out of the route is because ba run a pretty good full service option to Scotland whilst easyjet cover the budget option - not because trains are almost as fast.

Don't dismiss rail. There's no doubt that it's clawed back a fair share of the market in the last few years. Since 2004, rail's share of the market has tripled from 6% to 18%.[1] People are being attracted onto the tracks by good advance fares, much better frequencies, higher speeds, and the ability to actually get on and do some work for the 4 and a half hours (which is impossible on any other mode of transport).

In the example above, if you were so start at a different time, you might not get into City Airport, you may go to Heathrow which takes a lot longer. Then you've got to fight your way into the city, which can be quite a challenge if you've got lots of bags!

And then there's the experience of air travel. If people think you're treated like criminals on the railways, they've clearly never boarded a plane. You are considered a terrorist until proven otherwise once you step into an airport. And I can hardly blame them for this; there's a risk that needs to be dealt with. It's a necessary evil.

We're not going to go the way of Liverpool (100% market share) for quite some time yet. There's still a significant role for the plane. As I've mentioned before, transferring at the London airports is a significant factor in air's success. Even I would fly for that purpose. But the proportion of air passengers who're flying to the even more peripheral airports of Gatwick, Luton and Stansted must be soaring as the budget airlines continue to prosper. These airports are pretty far away from London and, whilst there will be cases when they'll be the most convenient option, that's undoubtedly been a factor in air's recent decline.

Any significant further shift onto rail is going to need more than this. You'll need higher speeds, lower journey times and. I don't see Glasgow-London ever going to 100% rail, but I think it will continue to swing, and in my lifetime I think we're going to see >50% of passengers on rail as further improvements start to kick in (eg HS2).

[1]http://mediaroom.virgintrains.co.uk/2010/05/record-numbers-flock-to-trains-as-air.html

 

[Greenback]

Agreed. As we have discussed in previous threads, whether rail or air is quickest is just one of the factors people consider when choosing their travel options. Travellers also consider comfort, price and the chance to get some uninterrupted work done. Each of these factors will be be more or less important depending on the reasons for the journey.

It's also important to remember to factor in where you are actually starting your journey from, and where youw ant to go rather than just airport to airport or railway station to railway station!

 

[Failed Unit]

the plane is quicker as no-one adheres to minimum airport arrival times on domestic flights and its also quite a bit cheaper unless you're lucky enough to snag one of the handful of cheap advance train tickets. and those that you can find are at inconvenient times that would usually require an overnight stay.

i fly to glasgow/aberdeen/edinburgh quite often and would never entertain the idea of getting the train there - and id assume the reason bmi is pulling out of the route is because ba run a pretty good full service option to Scotland whilst easyjet cover the budget option - not because trains are almost as fast.

Plane is cheaper? Really, even if you have a suitcase. If I went to Glasgow Central I can buy a return ticket for £108 which I can use to return when I like. I doubt any airline will offer anything that cheap.

I have a 2 year old - the airlines have charged me since the day he was born. I know the circumstances favour me but with the family railcard rail is much cheaper, I would take the time penalty for that cost saving even if I was going to Northolt.

As for which is quicker. It is already done to death. Air should be but rail can be better if you have a flexible ticket and happen to finish you meeting early, hence get an earlier train. Likewise rails time keeping tends to be better. The combination of these facts pushes me to rail. That and I dont have a car and can't afford a taxi to Linlithgow so going to Edinburgh and back on public transport eats into time savings. If I could drive from the airport air would nearly always win. It is not so clear cut.

 

[At_traction]

This again! Last time people were debating for ever

Exactly... And guilty too.
Well, I'm not touching this one and the (mis-)calculated timings with a bargepole, except:

But anyway, the for business people, more of the time on the train is spent staying still, enabling more work to be done

If even then you'd really want to work, that is. Banish the thought of simply spending the taxi ride, lounging, flying and HX:ing (or taxing again) just contemplating the wonders of the Universe (and eyeing the latest Judge Dredd), but isn't that a marvellous excuse nevertheless.

*I'm off*

 

[cuccir]

Agreed. As we have discussed in previous threads, whether rail or air is quickest is just one of the factors people consider when choosing their travel options. Travellers also consider comfort, price and the chance to get some uninterrupted work done. Each of these factors will be be more or less important depending on the reasons for the journey.

It's also important to remember to factor in where you are actually starting your journey from, and where youw ant to go rather than just airport to airport or railway station to railway station!

Exactly, personal circumstance is most likely the deciding factor for most people, which depends on where they live, access to vehicles, time of travel etc. etc. etc. etc.

One thing that might help of course is if rail and plane didn't see each other as direct competitors - most of the time, they're not. With Swiss Air, for example, you can purchase tickets from British airports to many train stations in Switzerland: you get your flight, then a train. It covers you if there are delays either way, as its all on one ticket.

Such a scheme in the UK would get people off airport taxis or out of expensive car parks and on to trains, and airlines would benefit as many people would opt for the company providing the security of a through ticket from their local train station to wherever they are flying.

 

[Greenback]

A good idea. We never drive to airports, we always use the bus or train. It would be helpful if, particularly abroad, you could get the bus or train to the city included to save having to fiddle about with unfamiliar local ticket machines!

 

[Zoe]

One advantage the train always used to have was that you could simply turn up at the station, buy a ticket and just get on the train. With the plane in most cases you've always had to book in advance without paying through the roof. Unfortunately now the TOCs have moved to the same book in advance or pay through the roof model, this is not longer the case.

 

[DarloRich]

last time i flew from Teeside to Heathrow it took best parr of an hour to travel by tube to central london from the terminal

 

[Zoe]

last time i flew from Teeside to Heathrow it took best parr of an hour to travel by tube to central london from the terminal

That's not exactly the fastest way to get from Heathrow to Central London though.

 

[DarloRich]

But many people do choose that route, through ignorance or convenience as the tube deposits you right in the centre while the train drops you at Paddington

 

[Failed Unit]

But many people do choose that route, through ignorance or convenience as the tube deposits you right in the centre while the train drops you at Paddington

I tend to use the Piccadilly line myself for "the City". In many instance there isn't much different. I must admit however the changes in the Circle line have helped a lot - none of this "do you feel lucky punk" to if you go for Hammersmith and City / Circle.

I guess if you have loads of money the HEX / Taxi combo will always be the cheapest but the premium of the HEX does not justify it possible time saving over the tube.

 

[route:oxford]

The more I think about this, the less I like it.

There are 7 BMI return flights each day between Paisley & Heathrow - at around 130 seats per flight - that's 1820 seats.

You'd need to run 2 non-stop return Pendolinos between Glasgow and London every day to make up for the loss of seats...

So, questions...

Is there capacity to operate an additional 2 non-stop or limited stop Pendolinos between Glasgow & Euston?

Is there any chance of getting the new 11 Car Pendolinos in operation by April?

Should Transport Scotland bid to operate such a service and how would that go down with DfT?