People should avoid domestic flights (comparison with Caledonian Sleeper)

[Starmill]

The United States of America covers around forty times the area of the United Kingdom and the distances for domestic journeys are many times greater than for domestic journeys within Great Britain. For this reason flying is a normal way making domestic journeys within the United States of America.

Erm, are you sure you haven't looked at how many domestic flights there are between London airports and Central Scotland ones? Are you seriously saying flying is "not normal" to those who use these routes regularly? There's a wide choice of flights every day... Then add the ones from Aberdeen and Inverness and the small selection from Northern England...

There are a meaningful number of other pairs between airports in Great Britain which all run several weekly services. This is a far lower intensity, of course, especially since Flybe collapsed (twice), but the way you describe it is as if this is rare. It's not...

 

[AlterEgo]

The United States of America covers around forty times the area of the United Kingdom and the distances for domestic journeys are many times greater than for domestic journeys within Great Britain. For this reason flying is a normal way making domestic journeys within the United States of America.

And yet it functions as a country despite people needing to fly places. Which undermines your argument. The important thing is people can get across the country quickly and easily; it doesn’t matter how they do it. It’s why high speed rail specifically is such a good idea.

Your idea that flying is a thing people do “when they go to foreign countries” is…a bit daft? It’s a thing lots of people do to visit the same country.

 

[backontrack]

Moderator note: Split from

Caledonian Sleeper

Personally I find the gangway squeaking quite nostalgic! Yep me too

www.railforums.co.uk

Sorry for picking on you in particular, but...

I really really wished there was a bit more collective responsibility for environmental concerns. Humans are screwing up the planet, and short-haul flights are just about the worst thing that individuals can do: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49349566 (254g emissions per km for internal flights, vs 41g for train).

Yes, I totally get the general apathy of "well, me taking a flight instead of a train won't change anything given the actions <pick your favourite evil country> are doing", but the more that individuals do, I really do believe that humanity at every level would change for the better, if only because of the economics would drive larger corporations (and countries) of doing the more environmental approach because that's what the majority of consumers want.

(And yes, for some people, there's the cost argument, but most people here seem to fly + hotel, at which point the cost difference is a bit of a moot point.)

The climate emergency is truly dire and doesn't bear thinking about it! Transport emissions are the UK's most stubborn emissions, so rail becomes very important.

All the same, though, as much as collective action can shift the dial, we really need action from our politicians and from businesses first and foremost. That means investment in rail so that it can handle increased capacity. I do think that people will opt for the train if it's priced more competitively. We've seen LNER regain pre-COVID patronage and then grow further, and Lumo come in alongside them with their idiosyncratic offering too. Further modal shift is possible. Electric rail is our best means of moving people en masse without harming our environment and biosphere. But there are substantial barriers to that process, like the fact that you need to essentially know how to work the system to get (barely) affordable fares half the time. The Balkanisation process of the 90s has made everything so much more complicated, and now that TOCs take different approaches on, for example, m-tickets, it's just made even harder.

The public conception is that railways are effort and hassle, to the extent that people will travel out of town to airports - then travel back into town using the railway - to avoid travelling to city centre to city centre by rail. I agree with you that those who can afford to take the train should be accepting more environmental responsibility, but it's also the responsibility of those responsible for rail to make rail competitive. We'll get there with a bit of both approaches.

Our rail system needs an overhaul to make it fit for the future (if there's going to be one). Unfortunately railways are the part of governing ministers typically care about least of all...

 

[weeklycommuter]

Erm, are you sure you haven't looked at how many domestic flights there are between London airports and Central Scotland ones? Are you seriously saying flying is "not normal" to those who use these routes regularly? There's a wide choice of flights every day... Then add the ones from Aberdeen and Inverness and the small selection from Northern England...
There are a meaningful number of other pairs between airports in Great Britain which all run several weekly services. This is a far lower intensity, of course, especially since Flybe collapsed (twice), but the way you describe it is as if this is rare. It's not...

Flying accounts for only 0.25% of passenger journeys using public transport and 1% of the total distance travelled within Great Britain. International flights carry more than ten times the number of passengers carried by domestic flights.

Transport Statistics Great Britain: 2023 Domestic Travel

www.gov.uk

Of the 799 billion passenger kilometres travelled in Great Britain in 2023:
road modes accounted for 90% of distance travelled, which includes:
cars, vans and taxis (85% of total distance travelled)
buses and coaches (4% of total distance travelled)
motorcycles and pedal cycles (1% of total distance travelled each)
rail accounted for 9%
air accounted for 1%

In the year ending (YE) March 2024 in Great Britain, a total of 7 billion passenger journeys were completed using public transport vehicles, of which:
4 billion passenger journeys were completed using local buses
2.8 billion journeys were completed by rail, of which:
1.6 billion journeys were on National Rail
1.2 billion journeys were on the London Underground and Glasgow Subway
0.2 billion passenger journeys were completed on light rail and tram systems
0.018 billion (18 million) passenger journeys were completed on domestic flights

Transport Statistics Great Britain: 2023 International Travel

www.gov.uk

Headline figures in 2023
240.9 million passengers travelled internationally to or from UK airports
18.1 million passengers travelled internationally by sea (including cruise and ferry passengers)
18.3 million passengers travelled internationally via rail (Channel Tunnel)
71% of international air passengers at UK airports travelled to or from Europe
All short sea (ferry) routes are to and from Europe with the majority (72%) of passenger movements between France and the UK

 

[Starmill]

Flying accounts for only 0.25% of passenger journeys using public transport and 1% of the total distance travelled within Great Britain. International flights carry more than ten times the number of passengers carried by domestic flights.

It would sound small when you count driving 5 minutes to your supermarket of choice as one journey, or going 60 miles to another city for a day, and same for going for a few days work from Stirling to London. Are you suggesting it's noteworthy that air isn't an option for the former two?

Doesn't change the fact that if you live in Stirling and need to go to places in the South East, you will be considering flights on a regular basis. Nor does it change the fact that your argument that flying is only for going over the sea makes no sense. If it'd be an irrelevant point opposed by very few people to click your fingers and ban these flights that don't cross an ocean why hasn't it simply been done already? Or why do the airlines continue to run such an intensive service if its an irrelevance as people can easily drive from Stirling to London for a similar cost to flying?

 

[enginedin]

Flying accounts for only 0.25% of passenger journeys using public transport and 1% of the total distance travelled within Great Britain. International flights carry more than ten times the number of passengers carried by domestic flights.

- this thread so far has only compared train vs air: given that 85% of journeys are made via car, saying that 1% of journeys are made by air significantly changes the debate
- the distance isn't weighted by transport type: imagine the millions of people who commute relatively short distances by rail. To make a fair comparison you need to compare rail journeys of a similar distance. You can probably infer a lot of this from the stats: https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/media/voqeicwn/passenger-rail-usage-oct-dec-2024.pdf

 

[Starmill]

- this thread so far has only compared train vs air: given that 85% of journeys are made via car, saying that 1% of journeys are made by air significantly changes the debate
- the distance isn't weighted by transport type: imagine the millions of people who commute relatively short distances by rail. To make a fair comparison you need to compare rail journeys of a similar distance. You can probably infer a lot of this from the stats: https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/media/voqeicwn/passenger-rail-usage-oct-dec-2024.pdf

Indeed. Most flows can't take advantage of an air service because they're too short, and even if there were an air service, security and airport access time would be prohibitive. They would take longer than driving. Where air travel really saves time and can exploit the economy of scale, such as Edinburgh - London, there is a choice of flights.

 

[Tetragon213]

If the Cally didn't charge borderline extortion, I would happily use it instead of flying. I find it absolutely insane that a plane which carries fewer passengers and burns literal tonnes of kerosene is more expensive than a service under the wires.

Indeed, I would quite happily travel by train anywhere, if money was no object. In fact, I have used the environmental justification many a time to travel by train, when on company time and company money. But if my own money is on the line, and the choice is between a £285 moving room with no amenities at all vs a quick flight and a stay in a hotel with showers and breakfast included, it's really a no brainer.

I would wager the public would happily take the train, if it wasn't so painfully expensive. Bring the prices down to a level below that of driving, and they will come.

 

[Starmill]

If the Cally didn't charge borderline extortion, I would happily use it instead of flying. I find it absolutely insane that a plane which carries fewer passengers and burns literal tonnes of kerosene is more expensive than a service under the wires.

Indeed, I would quite happily travel by train anywhere, if money was no object. In fact, I have used the environmental justification many a time to travel by train, when on company time and company money. But if my own money is on the line, and the choice is between a £285 moving room with no amenities at all vs a quick flight and a stay in a hotel with showers and breakfast included, it's really a no brainer.

I would wager the public would happily take the train, if it wasn't so painfully expensive. Bring the prices down to a level below that of driving, and they will come.

Does the Sleeper portion carry more people than a mid sized aircraft?

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I would wager the public would happily take the train, if it wasn't so painfully expensive. Bring the prices down to a level below that of driving, and they will come.

Since it regularly sells out surely there isn't any point in reducing the fares?

 

[zero]

Since it regularly sells out surely there isn't any point in reducing the fares?

Indeed, or fares on dates that are predicted to sell out could even be increased.

 

[AlterEgo]

I would wager the public would happily take the train, if it wasn't so painfully expensive. Bring the prices down to a level below that of driving, and they will come.

The public already comes. The train is full or nearly full nearly all of the time.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Apr 2025 ==

Does the Sleeper portion carry more people than a mid sized aircraft?

Aberdeen to Heathrow: Airbus A320, 180 passengers

Sleeper: 20-40 in the sleepers depending on season, and maybe 30 in the seats (people don't tend to take the seats overnight unless they are really on a budget).

 

[Bald Rick]

Indeed, or fares on dates that are predicted to sell out could even be increased.

It’s fair (fare!) to say that has already happened. Prices on popular* days seem to be noticeably higher this year than last. Where they are available!

*Summer dats witha “y” in them.

 

[Starmill]

It’s fair (fare!) to say that has already happened. Prices on popular* days seem to be noticeably higher this year than last. Where they are available!

*Summer dats witha “y” in them.

And prices on all dates year-round are easily double or triple what they were ten years ago. To say nothing of the higher classes of accommodation now introduced which are already effectively double the size of the old berths, or triple for the double bed, and charged accordingly.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Apr 2025 ==

Aberdeen to Heathrow: Airbus A320, 180 passengers

Sleeper: 20-40 in the sleepers depending on season, and maybe 30 in the seats (people don't tend to take the seats overnight unless they are really on a budget).

Indeed. It's a service which:

• Costs a bomb in public money that could be being used to subsidise the Scottish bus industry or ScotRail
• Charges outrageously high prices to its users, other than its own staff
• Has such a small capacity that even sold out is negligible when it comes atmospheric carbon savings or wider economic benefits

Time for CS to go.

 

[styles]

And prices on all dates year-round are easily double or triple what they were ten years ago. To say nothing of the higher classes of accommodation now introduced which are already effectively double the size of the old berths, or triple for the double bed, and charged accordingly.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Apr 2025 ==


Indeed. It's a service which:

• Costs a bomb in public money that could be being used to subsidise the Scottish bus industry or ScotRail
• Charges outrageously high prices to its users, other than its own staff
• Has such a small capacity that even sold out is negligible when it comes atmospheric carbon savings or wider economic benefits

Time for CS to go.

Or.. time for an additional service which has couchettes in shared rooms. Get more people on board, charge less for the fares, could likely pay for itself if run as a proper budget option.

I really enjoy the CS but it is pricey.

 

[enginedin]

To say nothing of the higher classes of accommodation now introduced which are already effectively double the size of the old berths

Time for CS to go.

this almost reads like you want to get rid of CS because its accommodation provision has massively improved over the last 10 years

 

[Starmill]

this almost reads like you want to get rid of CS because its accommodation provision has massively improved over the last 10 years

Has it improved? It's noisy and rides poorly, which are not the basic criteria for sleeping. The old stock didn't fare much better.

 

[enginedin]

Has it improved? It's noisy and rides poorly, which are not the basic criteria for sleeping. The old stock didn't fare much better.

I was equating "higher classes" as "improvement"

 

[BlueLeanie]

If the Cally didn't charge borderline extortion, I would happily use it instead of flying. I find it absolutely insane that a plane which carries fewer passengers and burns literal tonnes of kerosene is more expensive than a service under the wires.

That train will carry a maximum of 40 passengers a night.

The aircraft will carry a maximum of 180 passengers on every diagram. And most domestics are very busy indeed, so the aircraft will be carrying over 1,000 passengers every day.

Or.. time for an additional service which has couchettes in shared rooms. Get more people on board, charge less for the fares, could likely pay for itself if run as a proper budget option.

I really enjoy the CS but it is pricey.

Couchettes are simply not suitable for a modern environment or the UK loading gauge. I can't imagine ordering a colleague to spend two nights away from their family in a six bed hostel bay when they could fly safely there and back in a day.

 

[enginedin]

Couchettes are simply not suitable for a modern environment or the UK loading gauge. I can't imagine ordering a colleague to spend two nights away from their family in a six bed hostel bay when they could fly safely there and back in a day.

In my opinion, that wouldn't be for the business traveller - in the same way that Youth Hostels are full every night, but you wouldn't ask someone to stay in one for a work trip.

 

[Tetragon213]

Indeed. It's a service which:

• Costs a bomb in public money that could be being used to subsidise the Scottish bus industry or ScotRail
• Charges outrageously high prices to its users, other than its own staff
• Has such a small capacity that even sold out is negligible when it comes atmospheric carbon savings or wider economic benefits

Time for CS to go.

It's really quite obscene that the Cally charges the amounts that they do, and still claim a gigantic subsidy from the taxpayer while claiming their service is at capacity. Iirc their subsidy is something on the order of £20 million per year, which just feels ridiculous to me; that's £20 million a year in taxpayer money which could be better put to use on conventional services elsewhere.

Aberdeen to Heathrow: Airbus A320, 180 passengers

Sleeper: 20-40 in the sleepers depending on season, and maybe 30 in the seats (people don't tend to take the seats overnight unless they are really on a budget).

From RTT, a usual formation on the CS is 2 seated coaches, 2 Club Cars, two PRM-compliant coaches, and 10 normal sleeping coaches.
From CS's website section "Our Trains", the seated coach carries 30, the PRM-compliant coaches have 6 cabins, and the normal coaches have 10 cabins (all cabins have room for 2). A bit of maths later and you arrive at 284 max capacity. 288, if you also have 4 wheelchairs on board (2 per seated coach).

Does the Sleeper portion carry more people than a mid sized aircraft?

About 3 times what a Dash-8 carries.

In my opinion, that wouldn't be for the business traveller - in the same way that Youth Hostels are full every night, but you wouldn't ask someone to stay in one for a work trip.

I've always wondered whether or not adapting the Austrian Nightjet/Japanese Capsule style cabin would work in the UK, as an intermediate between a chair and a full size cabin.

 

[BlueLeanie]

From RTT, a usual formation on the CS is 2 seated coaches, 2 Club Cars, two PRM-compliant coaches, and 10 normal sleeping coaches.
From CS's website section "Our Trains", the seated coach carries 30, the PRM-compliant coaches have 6 cabins, and the normal coaches have 10 cabins (all cabins have room for 2). A bit of maths later and you arrive at 284 max capacity. 288, if you also have 4 wheelchairs on board (2 per seated coach).

Yes, but why not have another look, and you'll find that the full train doesn't go to Aberdeen. It splits at EDB. With a portion going to Aberdeen, a portion to Inverness and a portion to Fort Bill.

So really you're comparing your formation with an A320 going to Aberdeen, another A320 going to Inverness, and a further A320 going to Glasgow or Edinburgh with passengers using local services to reach Fort Bill or Perth, Dundee etc.

Plus, you wouldn't share a cabin with a stranger, so mostly solo use.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Apr 2025 ==

In my opinion, that wouldn't be for the business traveller - in the same way that Youth Hostels are full every night, but you wouldn't ask someone to stay in one for a work trip.

My employer expects me to use the lowest cost flight or rail fare.

 

[AlterEgo]

From RTT, a usual formation on the CS is 2 seated coaches, 2 Club Cars, two PRM-compliant coaches, and 10 normal sleeping coaches.

Sure, but how many of those go to Aberdeen as per the question about the sleeper portion?

Realtime Trains | 1A25 2115 London Euston to Aberdeen | 30/04/2025

Real-time train running information for 1A25 2115 departure from London Euston to Aberdeen on 30/04/2025. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

There are eight BA flights alone to London, which is in the region of 1500 seats a day.

Same goes for Inverness on the loadings, a route which has 500+ seats a day on the airlines.

From RTT, a usual formation on the CS is 2 seated coaches, 2 Club Cars, two PRM-compliant coaches, and 10 normal sleeping coaches.
From CS's website section "Our Trains", the seated coach carries 30, the PRM-compliant coaches have 6 cabins, and the normal coaches have 10 cabins (all cabins have room for 2). A bit of maths later and you arrive at 284 max capacity. 288, if you also have 4 wheelchairs on board (2 per seated coach).

And even if you do want to compare with the full sleeper which serves two other routes, these numbers are well off. The seats are almost never sold out - because they are a horrid option - and many (some days - most) berths are booked for solo use, especially on the business-heavy Aberdeen portion.

My employer expects me to use the lowest cost flight or rail fare.

Change employer if they want you to use a stinky youth hostel on rails. Eek!

 

[enginedin]

My employer expects me to use the lowest cost flight or rail fare.

I expect there's also something in your travel guidance about expected to use hotels that are value for money, but you still wouldn't be expected to use a youth hostel

 

[Starmill]

I was equating "higher classes" as "improvement"

Apologies for confusion. I should have said cabins which are larger, and accordingly which cost more.

 

[Tetragon213]

I expect there's also something in your travel guidance about expected to use hotels that are value for money, but you still wouldn't be expected to use a youth hostel

For where I work, while we have a limit on how much money we can spend per night, as long as it's below that amount, it automatically gets approved. Obviously it's suggested that we pick the cheapest option, though.
I've used environmental reasons to justify travelling by train over driving, but even a Classic fare on the Caledonian is well above what my company is willing to pay per night without special authorisation and dispensation.

 

[enginedin]

even a Classic fare on the Caledonian is well above what my company is willing to pay per night without special authorisation and dispensation.

I think too many organisations don't think holistically about travel and accommodation. By default, CS is well above what I'm allowed to spend on travel, but because of the combination of "travel + hotel + time saved" we've got an automatic right to use it without any appoval

 

[styles]

Couchettes are simply not suitable for a modern environment or the UK loading gauge. I can't imagine ordering a colleague to spend two nights away from their family in a six bed hostel bay when they could fly safely there and back in a day.

Given how many people are content to pay £50-80 for just a seat on the existing Caledonian Sleeper, resulting in sleeping in a seat next to strangers, I think the couchettes in a shared room would be sufficiently popular with leisure travellers.

I don't think I've ever had an employer which has had a travel policy which is so inflexible that I'd be forced to sleep in a room with strangers purely because it's the cheapest. In fact, the only organisation I've known to basically requires the cheapest population at all costs was a students' union, and that was 13 years ago, and very much not the norm among students' unions generally.

If travel policies were that inflexible, colleagues would always be sharing, or youth hostels would be rammed with business travellers.

The CS is my go-to for work trips, but I'm self employed so it's my own profits on the line. I'm not sure I'd book couchettes for work travel unless options were limited.

For leisure trips, if there was a locker for values, and somewhere to bike lock a suitcase to, like the lockers on the current CS, I'd book the couchette if the price was right for sure though.

 

[Bald Rick]

Given how many people are content to pay £50-80 for just a seat on the existing Caledonian Sleeper, resulting in sleeping in a seat next to strangers, I think the couchettes in a shared room would be sufficiently popular with leisure travellers.

Not at the price they would have to be sold at to deliver the same revenue as the sleepers.