Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
I’m not, but it’s largely irrelevant anyway because thankfully the chancellor has elected to cut domestic APD. The sad thing is rail passengers are not taxed to the same extent as air passengers.
Ultimately Aberdeen to Newquay (to use an example) is about 620 miles and takes ~13 hours by train.
The train system can't even manage 50mph average!
I'm really concerned by how quickly people want to resort to eliminating long distance travel entirely (with all the societal and civil liberties impacts that generates) than deal with the fact that surface public transport options are absurdly unattractive.
It can't even beat driving - especially if two licenced drivers are in the car and take shifts.
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.
Its not just fossil fuels. Its the greater use of metals which need to be dug out of the ground and the greater use of power.You can try to trivialise how much energy is used to get into the air but comparing it to going up down on a railway is nothing and you have the option for retentive breaking on a train.
The rail routes that compete with in the largest domestic air flows from the Central Belt to London are profitable anyway and subsidise other local services so they essentially are taxed.
All well and good, but every single one of them relies on burning fossil fuel so they can't match a 40 year old electric train when it comes to low carbon transport, so pretty irrelevant
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.
For anyone interested in the maths for the CO2 - I used the example of Octane which most people are familiar with. Diesel is different - no question - as is Jet A. However here goes:
When you say "to use an example", what you really mean is "to use a very extreme, very obscure example".
The answer is variable duty depending on the route and the time it would take to make the same journey by train, maybe 3 bands.
Firstly a steep, punitive tax on shorter distance flights which are barely any faster than travelling by train, e.g. Manchester, Liverpoool or Leeds/Bradford to London. At the other end of scale you have flights where the time penalty for land based public transport is huge, such as your Aberdeen - Newquay example and flights from mainland Britain to NI, Orkney or Shetland, for these I would be happy to accept a lower tax. Between the two extremes are flights such as Edinburgh/Glasgow to London for which I would retain current levels or taxation, at least until HS2 is complete.
All well and good, but every single one of them relies on burning fossil fuel so they can't match a 40 year old electric train when it comes to low carbon transport, so pretty irrelevant
Last I checked, there’s still plenty of trains running on fossil fuel, and a heck of a lot of electricity used by any electric train still involves burning of either fossil fuels or biomass that produces CO2.
The rail routes that compete with in the largest domestic air flows from the Central Belt to London are profitable anyway and subsidise other local services so they essentially are taxed.
Huh? Maybe they are profitable but they are certainly not taxed - the profit might go to subsidise other routes and thus reduce the overall tax burden of the railways but that’s about all (note the railway industry involves heavy subsidy by government through taxation while the aviation industry is not taxation funded but contributes to the treasury coffers). On this basis alone, any “evening up” should involve lower taxation and / or greater government funding for aviation, not the other way around. Thankfully the chancellor has chosen to reduce domestic aviation’s tax burden (although sadly he chose to penalise international aviation which is an easy target with which rail will never compete).
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
So tell me when this great white elephant starting at Euston is going to make meaningful inroads into the time it takes to get to Glasgow or Edinburgh by train - and thus make A meaningful abstraction from the domestic aviation activities so many on this forum seem to loath… When? When is HSx going to cut journey times to the central belt of Scotland to any significant extent?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Firstly a steep, punitive tax on shorter distance flights which are barely any faster than travelling by train, e.g. Manchester, Liverpoool or Leeds/Bradford to London.
There are no domestic air services from London to Liverpool or Leeds, mainly because the train has become the mode of transport of choice. This has happened because the train offers a better solution for most, not through punitive taxation. Manchester is a different case as it still carries a lot of connecting air traffic.
For destinations further north, if rail offered a competitive solution for other routes it would happen on them too but at present it doesnt for everyone, and the opportunity for proper connectivity between air and rail at Heathrow was squandered when the rail industry acling in its own lobbied for Old Oak.
Again the answer is better rail solutions rather than punitive taxation of air travel, but they are both decades into the future and less convenient (and thus less attractive) than they could have been due to the aforementioned mistake over the route of the new rail line.
So tell me when this great white elephant starting at Euston is going to make meaningful inroads into the time it takes to get to Glasgow or Edinburgh by train - and thus make A meaningful abstraction from the domestic aviation activities so many on this forum seem to loath… When? When is HSx going to cut journey times to the central belt of Scotland to any significant extent?
Calling it a white elephant is by definition your bias talking. A 20% cut in journey times between London and the Central Belt is more than sufficient sufficient to make "meaningful inroads", especially because the capacity is so much greater.
It's not going to end the market for air travel by itself. The government will by then use other tools to decarbonise aviation.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
It's likely to shrink permanently yes. Same with oil and gas. The responsibility isn't to save those jobs however. It is to support the people not the roles.
Calling it a white elephant is by definition your bias talking. A 20% cut in journey times between London and the Central Belt is more than sufficient sufficient to make "meaningful inroads", especially because the capacity is so much greater.
You still haven’t told me when I’ll be able to get to the central belt in 20% less time. If - if - that is achieved at some time decades into the future, at that point it may be the time to discuss taxation of domestic aviation. For now though, rail journey time reductions are just wishful thinking.
Thankfully the treasury is taking a more realistic and pragmatic view, and is lowering domestic APD which will help the aviation industry, potentially lower fares and go a little way to redressing the current taxation bias that heavily favours rail.
You still haven’t told me when I’ll be able to get to the central belt in 20% less time. If - if - that is achieved at some time decades into the future, at that point it may be the time to discuss taxation of domestic aviation. For now though, rail journey time reductions are just wishful thinking.
Thankfully the treasury is taking a more realistic and pragmatic view, and is lowering domestic APD which will help the aviation industry, potentially lower fares and go a little way to redressing the current taxation bias that heavily favours rail.
The same Treasury is providing funding for the construction of the route that will generate the journey time reduction. By the time of the next General Election the powers will be in place to construct the route between London Euston and Golborne. They're already in place between London Euston and Crewe. It's not really an if.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
It's likely to shrink permanently yes. Same with oil and gas. The responsibility isn't to save those jobs however. It is to support the people not the roles.
Aviation isn’t going to shrink permanently - it’s going to continue to grow. Innovation will continue to reduce emissions per passenger (as has been the case for decades), while the other motivating factor is that aviation contributes the treasury whereas rail is a burden. Crippling aviation now through the sort of punitive taxation some on this forum advocate would risk stifling such innovation, and thankfully the government is effectively aware of the benefits (to treasuring income and the overall economy) a thriving aviation sector represents and won’t try to kill it off.
Aviation isn’t going to shrink permanently - it’s going to continue to grow. Innovation will continue to reduce emissions per passenger (as has been the case for decades), while the other motivating factor is that aviation contributes the treasury whereas rail is a burden. Crippling aviation now through the sort of punitive taxation some on this forum advocate would risk stifling such innovation, and thankfully the government is effectively aware of the benefits (to treasuring income and the overall economy) a thriving aviation sector represents and won’t try to kill it off.
Yes, it’s one in the eye for the knuckle-draggers who’ve jumped on the climate change bandwagon in the hope we’ll all ultimately end up living in caves and eating grass.
Huh? Maybe they are profitable but they are certainly not taxed - the profit might go to subsidise other routes and thus reduce the overall tax burden of the railways but that’s about all (note the railway industry involves heavy subsidy by government through taxation while the aviation industry is not taxation funded but contributes to the treasury coffers). On this basis alone, any “evening up” should involve lower taxation and / or greater government funding for aviation, not the other way around. Thankfully the chancellor has chosen to reduce domestic aviation’s tax burden (although sadly he chose to penalise international aviation which is an easy target with which rail will never compete).
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
But you are not comparing like for like. The area of rail that is subsidised tends to be rural and commuter rail services. Intercity rail, especially to London, tends to be profitable and therefore contributes in a similar way to air travel contributes with far less externalities. Regional air travel has subsidised routes too. I doubt many people are saying cut international air services or air routes where there is no alternatives. For example I can see the need for air travel from Aberdeen to London. However, flying between England and the Central belt should be heavily tax because more efficient alternatives exist although I would probably wait until HS2 is built. Reducing tax on these routes is certainly a stupid decision.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Aviation isn’t going to shrink permanently - it’s going to continue to grow. Innovation will continue to reduce emissions per passenger (as has been the case for decades), while the other motivating factor is that aviation contributes the treasury whereas rail is a burden. Crippling aviation now through the sort of punitive taxation some on this forum advocate would risk stifling such innovation, and thankfully the government is effectively aware of the benefits (to treasuring income and the overall economy) a thriving aviation sector represents and won’t try to kill it off.
I imagine safety regulations and physics have more chance of stifling innovation than anyone on this forum. Electric air craft will have to go through rigorous safety processes. Think how long it takes to get a train fleet in service and the safety implications are far lower.
The answer is variable duty depending on the route and the time it would take to make the same journey by train, maybe 3 bands.
Firstly a steep, punitive tax on shorter distance flights which are barely any faster than travelling by train, e.g. Manchester, Liverpoool or Leeds/Bradford to London.
Precisely . From my UK home in Preston I am certainly not driving to London and taking a plane from either Liverpool or Manchester to London would be crazy. Train is sensible. But to go to Newquay for a weekend break/holiday I would absolutely consider flying.
You’d be surprised, as I was I when I researched it. Larger motorbikes have CO2 figures worse than many cars (some are well over 100gCO2/km). Even average bikes with a 125cc engine produce 30-40gCO2/km. A typical EV using average Grid electricity will produce 40-60gCO2/km, and this is falling as the grid use more renewables.
So tell me when this great white elephant starting at Euston is going to make meaningful inroads into the time it takes to get to Glasgow or Edinburgh by train - and thus make A meaningful abstraction from the domestic aviation activities so many on this forum seem to loath… When?
When you say "to use an example", what you really mean is "to use a very extreme, very obscure example".
The answer is variable duty depending on the route and the time it would take to make the same journey by train, maybe 3 bands.
Firstly a steep, punitive tax on shorter distance flights which are barely any faster than travelling by train, e.g. Manchester, Liverpoool or Leeds/Bradford to London. At the other end of scale you have flights where the time penalty for land based public transport is huge, such as your Aberdeen - Newquay example and flights from mainland Britain to NI, Orkney or Shetland, for these I would be happy to accept a lower tax. Between the two extremes are flights such as Edinburgh/Glasgow to London for which I would retain current levels or taxation, at least until HS2 is complete.
As said above there are no flights between Liverpool or Leeds and London, and the only flights from Manchester to London are really for connecting passengers. Abolish those, and much of that traffic will instead fly to Dublin, Amsterdam or Dubai for onwards connections
Indeed the same could be said about domestic flights to Edinburgh and Glasgow, maybe making them cheaper will slightly shift the balance between people in Scotland taking BA flights via Heathrow to connect there, instead of connecting via other countries
Indeed - through tickets are often available with KLM and likely others. Things like Norwich to Inverness are tiny niches in market, but an interchange in Amsterdam is highly time competitive.
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.
Climate change is happening, whether or not you accept it. It is superimposed on the natural variability of the earth's climate, so there will be some years that are cooler than average. But the overall trend is rising temperatures. That means a tendency for worsening weather** - more rain, more storms, more floods - and rising sea levels.
** - Higher temperatures raise the vapour pressure of water; that increases the evaporation rate from the oceans, putting more water into the atmosphere -- and more water to come down when it rains. Meanwhile, other areas will become hotter - and drier -- increasing the number of wildfires The only uncertainty is how long it will take before earth can grow enough food crops to feed everybody.
Many non-believers have vested interests to explain their behaviour. Many individuals have big shareholdings in fossil fuel companies; others receive "donations" either to their own, or their political party funds from such organisations.
Climate change is happening, whether or not you accept it. It is superimposed on the natural variability of the earth's climate, so there will be some years that are cooler than average. But the overall trend is rising temperatures. That means a tendency for worsening weather** - more rain, more storms, more floods - and rising sea levels.
** - Higher temperatures raise the vapour pressure of water; that increases the evaporation rate from the oceans, putting more water into the atmosphere -- and more water to come down when it rains. Meanwhile, other areas will become hotter - and drier -- increasing the number of wildfires The only uncertainty is how long it will take before earth can grow enough food crops to feed everybody.
Many non-believers have vested interests to explain their behaviour. Many individuals have big shareholdings in fossil fuel companies; others receive "donations" either to their own, or their political party funds from such organisations.
Higher humidity is possibly one of the more noticeable effects in the UK the mean Relative humidity in the UK has risen by 4 percentage points in the last 50 years. Warmer certainly = wetter in the the UK.
Its not, it just says EDF will "match" NR requirements with nuclear generation in overall output. The power comes off the grid from wherever, not a specific Nuclear to NR cable.
Given how quickly things are moving on the decarbonisation of other modes of transport, I wonder if the lack of commitment to a rolling electrification programme could be a fatal blow to the railway network in the longer term.
Given how quickly things are moving on the decarbonisation of other modes of transport, I wonder if the lack of commitment to a rolling electrification programme could be a fatal blow to the railway network in the longer term.
Given how quickly things are moving on the decarbonisation of other modes of transport, I wonder if the lack of commitment to a rolling electrification programme could be a fatal blow to the railway network in the longer term.
I doubt it will be fatal because much of the rail system is already electrified, but it does somewhat reduce the green shine on traveling by diesel train.
UK electricity carbon intensity is now, averaged across the year, down below 200g/kWh, EV efficiency varies but many return 4+ miles per kWh, so 50g CO2 per mile for the vehicle. Already below the 55g/mile figure quotes earlier for the Voyager, put 2 or 3 people in the EV and it wins.
The best argument for the diesel train is probably the marginal carbon intensity, if someone makes an additional journey in an EV then 100% of that energy is used in the journey. If someone makes a journey by train, then the train is still travelling that route hauling the carriages, propulsion system. The marginal carbon emissions from the train are that extra little bit of fuel it burns to haul the extra person, has this ever been measured?
Given how quickly things are moving on the decarbonisation of other modes of transport, I wonder if the lack of commitment to a rolling electrification programme could be a fatal blow to the railway network in the longer term.
The best argument for the diesel train is probably the marginal carbon intensity, if someone makes an additional journey in an EV then 100% of that energy is used in the journey. If someone makes a journey by train, then the train is still travelling that route hauling the carriages, propulsion system. The marginal carbon emissions from the train are that extra little bit of fuel it burns to haul the extra person, has this ever been measured?
I think that this is a really good point. Unfortunately at the moment we seem to have a number of diesel trains that emit an awful lot of atmospheric carbon without being able to actually practically carry many people.
If you take the standard class seated capacity of a four car Voyager or a two car class 170 and divided that by their carbon emissions it would still look quite poor because their capacities are so low.
Its not, it just says EDF will "match" NR requirements with nuclear generation in overall output. The power comes off the grid from wherever, not a specific Nuclear to NR cable.
Climate change is happening, whether or not you accept it. It is superimposed on the natural variability of the earth's climate, so there will be some years that are cooler than average. But the overall trend is rising temperatures. That means a tendency for worsening weather
Who cares? The majority of the population don’t, and will care even less if punitive taxation in the name of climate change really starts to hurt their wallets. The majority who have jumped on the climate change bandwagon are using it as part of a socialist agenda to level everyone up by pricing them away from “elitist“ forms of transportation such as private cars and aeroplanes. The great news is that - whatever the climate change groupies think - as part of this week’s budget the chancellor has chosen to invest in aviation by reducing domestic flight APD and in personal road transport by freezing fuel duties again.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.