People should avoid domestic flights (comparison with Caledonian Sleeper)

[enginedin]

Moderator note: Split from

Caledonian Sleeper

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

www.railforums.co.uk

I’ve taken to flying down

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.)

 

[Peter Sarf]

It is amazing that it costs less to send a seat via the sky and then a hotel room in London than a bed moving along terra firma. Certainly a day train should be a lot cheaper.

 

[driverd]

(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.)

Hear what you're saying completely, but asking people to pay more (often substantially more), for what they perceive as a lower quality service (and possibly a ruined day at their destination if you don't fuction well on little sleep) is always going to be a tough sell.

 

[JamesT]

It is amazing that it costs less to send a seat via the sky and then a hotel room in London than a bed moving along terra firma. Certainly a day train should be a lot cheaper.

It’s not that surprising. A plane can do multiple trips per day from London to Scotland spreading the costs of their standard vehicles unlike the sleeper with its bespoke rolling stock.

 

[Bill57p9]

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).

41g per seat or (potential) passenger km will be for a day train. I recall there was a discussion about it earlier in this thread: Do we have a figure for the sleeper? It will be far higher than this given the low passenger density and, in the case of the highlander, the collection of diesel traction north of Edinburgh.

 

[alistairlees]

41g per seat or (potential) passenger km will be for a day train. I recall there was a discussion about it earlier in this thread: Do we have a figure for the sleeper? It will be far higher than this given the low passenger density and, in the case of the highlander, the collection of diesel traction north of Edinburgh.

See https://sleeper.scot/business-travel/sustainability/

Complete journey calculations​

The calculations below show the total kgCO2e/pmi for a complete journey including a stay for a night in a hotel.
London Euston to Edinburgh

-	Distance (miles)	Travel kgCO2e/pmi	Hotel kgCO2e/pmi	Total kgCO2e/pmi
Caledonian Sleeper	400	17.8	n/a	17.8
Car Diesel	378	90.9	13.9	104.8
Car Petrol	378	94.1	13.9	108.0
Domestic Flight	332	146.1	13.9	160.0
National Rail	332	22.9	13.9	36.8

London Euston to Glasgow Central

-	Distance (miles)	Travel kgCO2e/pmi	Hotel kgCO2e/pmi	Total kgCO2e/pmi
Caledonian Sleeper	400	17.8	n/a	17.8
Car Diesel	403	91.6	13.9	105.5
Car Petrol	403	94.8	13.9	108.7
Domestic Flight	346	152.2	13.9	166.1
National Rail	401	27.6	13.9	41.5

London Euston to Aberdeen

-	Distance (miles)	Travel kgCO2e/pmi	Hotel kgCO2e/pmi	Total kgCO2e/pmi
Caledonian Sleeper	531	38.1*	n/a	38.1*
Car Diesel	548	124.6	13.9	138.5
Car Petrol	548	129.0	13.9	142.9
Domestic Flight	398	175.1	13.9	189.0
National Rail	523	36.0	13.9	49.9

* – Calculated using the specific distance ratio between diesel and electric for the Aberdeen journey.​

London Euston to Inverness

-	Distance (miles)	Travel kgCO2e/pmi	Hotel kgCO2e/pmi	Total kgCO2e/pmi
Caledonian Sleeper	588	47.0*	n/a	47.0*
Car Diesel	550	125.0	13.9	138.9
Car Petrol	550	129.4	13.9	143.3
Domestic Flight	600	264.0	13.9	277.9
National Rail	568	39.1	13.9	53.0

* – Calculated using the specific distance ratio between diesel and electric for the Inverness journey.​

London Euston to Fort William

-	Distance (miles)	Travel kgCO2e/pmi	Hotel kgCO2e/pmi	Total kgCO2e/pmi
Caledonian Sleeper	570	44.2*	n/a	44.2*
Car Diesel	519	118.0	13.9	131.9
Car Petrol	519	122.1	13.9	136.0
Domestic Flight	345	151.8	13.9	169.1**
Bus from Glasgow	100	3.4**	n/a	**
National Rail	522	36.0	13.9	49.9

* – Calculated using the specific distance ratio between diesel and electric for the Fort William journey.​

**- Domestic flight is calculated based on a flight from London to Glasgow and a connecting bus service to Fort William​

Source: SNC Lavalin Rail & Transit Ltd, November 2022​

 

[Falcon1200]

It’s not that surprising. A plane can do multiple trips per day from London to Scotland spreading the costs of their standard vehicles unlike the sleeper with its bespoke rolling stock.

And the flight has minimal infrastructure to provide, maintain and renew, just at the start and end of the journey; Very much unlike the railway!

 

[Bald Rick]

41g per seat or (potential) passenger km will be for a day train. I recall there was a discussion about it earlier in this thread: Do we have a figure for the sleeper? It will be far higher than this given the low passenger density and, in the case of the highlander, the collection of diesel traction north of Edinburgh.

I‘ve posted previsouly, that the carbon emissions per passenger in a sleeper bed London - Inverness on the CS will not be that different to a flight from London to Inverness on an A320neo.

(Notwithstansing the CS evidence, which averages many things).

 

[enginedin]

I‘ve posted previsouly, that the carbon emissions per passenger in a sleeper bed London - Inverness on the CS will not be that different to a flight from London to Inverness on an A320neo.

I'm not disputing this, but do you have a reliable source for that? The link that @alistairlees shared would disagree with this

 

[Bald Rick]

I'm not disputing this, but do you have a reliable source for that? The link that @alistairlees shared would disagree with this

Not reliable, no. I worked it out myself a couple of years back, it‘s somewhere on the forum!

Essentially, an A320neo burns about 3-4 tonnes of fuel to get from start up at the gate at Luton to shut down at the gate at Inverness, and will carry around 170 passengers (average annual load factor of c90% of 186).

The CS on the Inverness portion when operating with its usual 66+73/9 pairing will use around 2 tonnes of fuel from Edinburgh to Inverness, including the shunting moves either end and sat idling well before departure providing the hotel load to the coaches. (Along with the 187 mile journey, the locos also have to lift 600 tonnes of train+themselves from near sea level at Perth to 450m at Drumochter and then again from 210m at Aviemore up to 400m at Slochd. Plus another 150m+ just between Stirling and Perth). This train has 56 rooms for two people (so max 112 bed passengers) plus 31 seated passengers; my guess is average loading around 110 across the year, of whom around a quarter are in the seats.

So, simply on fuel burnt it is (say) 4 tonnes / 170 passengers vs 2 tonnes / 110 passengers, or 24kg air vs 18kg CS; ie CS wins, but not by that much.

But, obviously, the seats are much more carbon efficient, ie just one coach weighing around 45t gross carries about a quarter of the passengers, the other 350 tonnes of coaches carries the other 3/4. It would be reasonable to assume that the passengers in the beds effectively cause more carbon emissions than those in the seats and the difference will be much closer, and possibly in favour of flying.

This is all very simplistic, with assumptions, and there are plenty of other factors not considered (eg how you get to the airport / station, the carbon impact of the electric leg of the CS, not all CS Inverness passengers travelling to/from London etc). However all I am suggesting is that for London - Inverness, the Carbon difference between a typical flight and using the sleeper is broadly in the same ballpark.

 

[enginedin]

I worked it out myself a couple of years back, it‘s somewhere on the forum!

Essentially, an A320neo burns about 3-4 tonnes of fuel to get from the gate at Luton to the gate at Inverness.

The CS uses about

your calculation is here https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/caledonian-sleeper.176365/post-5280063

 

[Bald Rick]

your calculation is here https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/caledonian-sleeper.176365/post-5280063

Glad to see I’m fairly consistent!

 

[BRX]

Not reliable, no. I worked it out myself a couple of years back, it‘s somewhere on the forum!

Essentially, an A320neo burns about 3-4 tonnes of fuel to get from start up at the gate at Luton to shut down at the gate at Inverness, and will carry around 170 passengers (average annual load factor of c90% of 186).

The CS on the Inverness portion when operating with its usual 66+73/9 pairing will use around 2 tonnes of fuel from Edinburgh to Inverness, including the shunting moves either end and sat idling well before departure providing the hotel load to the coaches. (Along with the 187 mile journey, the locos also have to lift 600 tonnes of train+themselves from near sea level at Perth to 450m at Drumochter and then again from 210m at Aviemore up to 400m at Slochd. Plus another 150m+ just between Stirling and Perth). This train has 56 rooms for two people (so max 112 bed passengers) plus 31 seated passengers; my guess is average loading around 110 across the year, of whom around a quarter are in the seats.

So, simply on fuel burnt it is (say) 4 tonnes / 170 passengers vs 2 tonnes / 110 passengers, or 24kg air vs 18kg CS; ie CS wins, but not by that much.

But, obviously, the seats are much more carbon efficient, ie just one coach weighing around 45t gross carries about a quarter of the passengers, the other 350 tonnes of coaches carries the other 3/4. It would be reasonable to assume that the passengers in the beds effectively cause more carbon emissions than those in the seats and the difference will be much closer, and possibly in favour of flying.

This is all very simplistic, with assumptions, and there are plenty of other factors not considered (eg how you get to the airport / station, the carbon impact of the electric leg of the CS, not all CS Inverness passengers travelling to/from London etc). However all I am suggesting is that for London - Inverness, the Carbon difference between a typical flight and using the sleeper is broadly in the same ballpark.

There's an impact of a night in a hotel of course. Seems to be reckoned to be something in the 6-12kg range.

 

[Bald Rick]

There's an impact of a night in a hotel of course. Seems to be reckoned to be something in the 6-12kg range.

Of course, but not every air passenger will be using a hotel.

 

[Peter Sarf]

See https://sleeper.scot/business-travel/sustainability/

Something wrong there.

How can a day train produce more carbon emissions than the sleeper train ?.

London - Edinburgh
Sleeper 17.8KgCO2e/pmi
Day Train 22.3 KgCO2e/pmi

London - Glasgow
Sleeper 17.8KgCO2e/pmi
Day Train 27.6 KgCO2e/pmi

I assume pmi means Passenger Mile ?.

 

[RT4038]

Of course, but not every air passenger will be using a hotel.

nor are Sleeper trains that comparable to a hotel, in terms of comfort and sleeping!

 

[JamesT]

Something wrong there.

How can a day train produce more carbon emissions than the sleeper train ?.

London - Edinburgh
Sleeper 17.8KgCO2e/pmi
Day Train 22.3 KgCO2e/pmi

London - Glasgow
Sleeper 17.8KgCO2e/pmi
Day Train 27.6 KgCO2e/pmi

I assume pmi means Passenger Mile ?.

They're including indirect routes where you use a diesel Voyager somewhere along the way?

 

[Bald Rick]

Possibly something wrong, or, possibly, that it assumes the sleepers are largely full, but that the day trains are not.

pmi isnt passenger mile, the numbers are way too big for that.

 

[AlterEgo]

Interesting calculation given the sleeper is vastly less densely packed with passengers, has a full dining car, lounges, linen service, hot showers etc.

 

[Starmill]

It doesn't really matter if the Caledonian Sleeper is £25 or £250 (and it's usually more than that nowadays) it's neither use nor ornament if you can't get a good night of sleep while it rattles and bounces along, is shunted with abandon, and makes door alarms at you. That's assuming your arrival is punctual and your coach has correctly functioning lavatories and showers, with some hot food available. Great for the relevant pass holders and all, sure, but hardly a top priority service for a public subsidy. And that's from me who is strongly opposed to flying and usually keeps to a limit of one short haul round trip a year (with most of the last ten years being flight zero).

Too turn all of the above on its head, CS is easier to decarbonise than a jet is. Shame both CS' diesel portions and the 230neo in Bald Rick's example have not had a stronger push towards decarbonising their respective energies. However, there's time... Hopefully...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Apr 2025 ==

Hear what you're saying completely, but asking people to pay more (often substantially more), for what they perceive as a lower quality service (and possibly a ruined day at their destination if you don't fuction well on little sleep) is always going to be a tough sell.

Personally, and I know some people are different, but I can't really work if I've had a really poor night of sleep. Even though my job is overwhelmingly just using a computer in an office, I may as well not bother if I'm running on barely any sleep.

 

[styles]

For me I actually prefer to sleeper experience to flying.

I find airports somewhat soul destroying places, even more so at early hours of the morning when everyone is half asleep still.

The end to end travel time for say London to Edinburgh or London to Glasgow, assuming you need city centre to city centre, is about the same with a daytime train as it is with flying, so the time aspect of train vs plane doesn't quite stack up for me. With the exception of London City Airport, the time taken to get from city centre to airport, possibly check bags if you have luggage, security queues, doors on planes closing half an hour before or more with budget airlines, possibly waiting for hold luggage at other end, waiting for stairs to arrive before you can alight from the plane, travel from airport to city centre again, etc etc. Different for say London to Aberdeen probably. Of course the sleeper takes longer but the advantage is it doesn't take so much time out of your /day/, assuming you're not a night worker etc.

I find the comfort of the CS better. I have more legroom even in seated coach, a laptop sized table, can get up and walk around, WiFi, take more luggage, take my own flask of decent coffee, etc. I normally book rooms now as I'm travelling for work, so I get a comfy seat/bed, sink to refresh with, a proper work space in the club car, sit down meals with decent quality food, usually free tea/coffee, plug sockets, and a private shower.

That said, I sleep very well at night as long as I have a surface to lie down on. I've never been woken up by the ride quality or joining cars on the sleeper services in the UK. If I was the kind of light sleeper to be woken up by such things, I could see why it wouldn't be the preferred option. I can't sleep well on planes or seat-only trains because I don't sleep well sat upright.

Cost-wise, yes berths on the sleeper are more expensive than cheap flights. But often there's not too much in it if you need to be somewhere in central London at 9am, as the cheapest flights are off peak times, which then means going the night before and staying in a hotel. Depends how far in advance you book, availability, etc of course.

The environmental impact is a bonus. If we wanted to reduce that, we'd need cheaper couchette shared sleepers, higher taxes on domestic flights, or both.

 

[Howardh]

I recently flew Manchester to Newquay. Could have taken the train, but it's an extortionate price for a cramped full day trip. So I flew instead.

Maybe if the train journey was the equivalent of Avanti's standard plus with 2+1 searing I'd have been interested.

 

[styles]

I recently flew Manchester to Newquay. Could have taken the train, but it's an extortionate price for a cramped full day trip. So I flew instead.

Maybe if the train journey was the equivalent of Avanti's standard plus with 2+1 searing I'd have been interested.

There are certainly some journeys I would consider flying domestically mainland to mainland. I live in east Scotland, and going down to southwest England can become prohibitively expensive by train, even with split tickets. The travel time can be a mare if you can't work from a train also. I am fortunate in that I can work remotely, so last time I did Inverkiething to Exeter, I took the Caledonian Sleeper to Euston, spent the day at WeWork, drinks with a few pals, then the Night Riviera to Exeter St David's. But a lot of people don't really have that flexibility, compared to a 1h45m flight.

 

[3141]

The recent posts in this thread have discussed various scenarios comparing rail with domestic flights. But the OP stressed the environmental argument for the Caledonian Sleeper. He then attempted to strengthen his case by saying '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".'

Some people do say that, as an attempt to justify why they take the more environmentally-damaging option. But I think many people don't truly feel the importance of making the choice that protects the environment*. We want to travel, and we want to do it in the quickest way possible, or the one that suits us best. Back in the early nineteenth century the road from Southampton to London had been much improved, and wealthy young men would ride up to London and back in a day. I doubt that anyone worried about carbon dioxide or methane emissions. When the Bristol to Exeter Railway opened Sir Thomas Acland [I think I have the right name] dashed excitedly into the House of Commons late in the evening, and announced that he had been in Exeter that morning. My granddaughter attends Peter Symonds Sixth Form College in Winchester. It's a good college. It's about 12 miles from her home and she goes by bus with about 70 others. But some students come from Portsmouth, from places in the New Forest, and even the Isle of Wight. The length of the journey ought to be seriously off-putting, but it can be done, it's a good college, so do it. I'm saying this to show that the desire to travel the way we want has a long pedigree and a strong motivation.

*I admit I don't truly feel that. I recognise the point theoretically. But it doesn't motivate me. That's where the real issue is.

 

[Will Mitchell]

I just got off a flight from Edinburgh to Bristol. I hate myself. But it was a choice between (at least) seven hours on an XC Voyager, vs. a total of five hours comprising transfers, airport faff and flight time.

Had there been a German ICE-style train with full bar/restaurant facilities, comfortable seats, warm lighting and a relaxed ambience, I would have opted for the train, even at twice the price.

I am confident many others (including ‘normies’) would do the same. But 7-8 hours on a 4 coach Voyager, stopping everywhere, without proper catering? No thanks.

Other routes are available of course: Avanti to Crewe - TfW to Newport - GWR to BRI, for one.

But there really should be a proper InterCity service between major UK cities that aren’t London. The demand is there, rail just doesn’t offer a viable product.

 

[styles]

There is another massive factor at play here - where the burden of responsibility lies.

I don't disagree that people ought to recycle where they can, or take environmentally-friendly transport where feasible. But ultimately if you are genuine about wanting to achieve ambitious climate goals, these things simply have to come from 'the top', which includes both government and business.

That's not to eradicate any sense of personal responsibility, but we will simply not get the change needed by relying on people paying more money for a service which is more environmentally-friendly. There's an awful lot of people making journeys who do not have the luxury of paying £100 extra to do their Edinburgh to London trip by rail instead of flying.

You either need to make trains cheaper, domestic flights more expensive, or both. As a compromise you could try carbon offsetting and put the burden on the airline instead but, ignoring some of the green washing which goes into carbon offsetting, they'll just pass it onto consumers anyway.

 

[maniacmartin]

I've only taken the Caledonian Sleeper once, and vowed never to do so again. First, there was no catering due to a technical issue, which I didn't know about in advance. No apology from the staff of course. Then, when we were being shunted, the staff were all loudly shouting instructions to each other down the platform, waking everyone up - why they couldn't use walkie talkies I don't know. Then the people in the adjoining room had a very loud conversation well into the early hours of the morning, which carried straight through the walls. I got no sleep at all.

I've flown every time since, for significantly less money too. If we want to make people choose the railway as the environmentally friendly option, then we've got to put a bit of effort in and not provide the absolute minimum service levels. It should feel like a hotel on wheels, not a prison cell on wheels. Airlines get that's its partly about psychology, thats why they offer airmiles, lounges, status for frequent flyers, snacks etc, it's all things to make people think they're valued.

Also, regarding the comparison with day trains, I suspect that one reason that the sleeper fares so well on emissions is because it is travelling at a slower speed which is probably more efficient. Things like air resistance and friction don't go up linearly with speed.

 

[styles]

While that sounds unfortunate, I feel like some of it is just par for the course with travel and with hotels.

I've been on flights before where catering has been off due to technical issues, staff issues, etc.

Been in hotel rooms, budget to 5*, where someone next door has been having a slinging match at some unsociable hour.

Agree that walkie talkies could be used for orange vesters to communicate when joining units mind.

Basically, I wouldn't let one experience put you off. I've had atrocious experiences with some airlines and if I took the same approach I'd never fly BA, EasyJet, RyanAir, KLM, IndieGo, or Turkish Airlines ever again.

 

[Starmill]

I feel like some of it is just par for the course with travel and with hotels.

I've stayed at many hundreds of static hotels in my life. I can count on one hand the number of times the advertised catering offer wasn't available. In one case Premier Inn called and emailed a number of weeks in advance to advise me directly of the likely absence of catering - a personal touch. I've never experienced staff shouting nor noise from other guests through walls. No hotel I've ever stayed at had door alarms going off at you in the middle of the night nor harsh jolting from shunting. I accept there's always possibility of disturbance to sleep happening, but the reality is that Cal Sleeper isn't a reliable or quality service on these objective metrics.

Air travel is well known to be quite unreliable and variable, although very few people take flights that go overnight and expect to be well-rested. Perhaps if you're in Air France La Premiere or similar... EasyJet, Ryanair and so on as you mention are, well, budget. Their customer care comes accordingly. Cal Sleeper market and price more like a super luxury cabin.

 

[Bald Rick]

I've stayed at many hundreds of static hotels in my life.

Me too.

I've never experienced staff shouting nor noise from other guests through walls.

I have, most recently last week. Over the years I have had staff entering the room uninvited and unannouced, staff making a racket outside, and other guests making rackets ranging from drunk perambulation bouncing off walls and my door (as happened last week) to “discussing the situation in Uganda”*, sometimes quite vigourously, and in one memorable occaison literally all night. (When the “discussions” concluded, I gave them a very loud round of applause).

No hotel I've ever stayed at had door alarms going off at you in the middle of the night nor harsh jolting from shunting.

I have had four hotel stays in the last decade with fire alarms going off, 2 in the middle of the night, another just after I had woken, and one very inconveniently as I was halfway through a shower.

Meanwhile on my 30 or so trips on the sleepers I have never had any of that. I don’t sleep well on the sleepers (or sometimes, at all) simply because the beds are too small for me and I am sensitive to movement. Despite being able to use them at ‘staff rates‘ I will always avoid them unless there is no other option for the journey / timing I need to make. But it is not because of unreliability of their offer.

I suppose the point is that expereinces vary.


* see Private Eye for definition.