Rail travel vs. air travel - fair comparisons?

[The exile]

Because of its high number of commuters I'd agree with regard to local services and inbound commuting (and returning in the evening). However for those travelling on intercity services (i.e. to London, mostly, but also XC) most will not arrive by foot or connecting train. Due to the typical early start of day trip business travellers, the majority will probably be by taxi. I'd expect fewer of the XC passengers to arrive by private car though

It’s worth remembering that for a very large proportion of those who would drive to the station and park, Parkway is a more than viable alternative.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It’s worth remembering that for a very large proportion of those who would drive to the station and park, Parkway is a more than viable alternative.

Yes, true, didn't think of that. It also has a faster London service if I recall?

 

[enginedin]

Non-CO2 emissions (particulates, mainly)

I was considering water vapour - which *is* is major emission of aircraft and a problem in the atmosphere but not at ground level. Particles are also a major issue in the atmosphere because of their role in nucleation

 

[The exile]

2. We are living in an era of the man-made acceleration of climate change. Especially between London and cities like Exeter, Manchester, or Bristol, the government, in my opinion, needs to face up to the realities of the disastrous emissions of <1h domestic flights and work with TOCs in the short term to upgrade Main Line capacity to seriously dis-incentivise flying on routes served by direct, frequent trains, and incorporate this into the operation of GBR .

Well, only one of the three examples you give has flights to London anyway.

 

[enginedin]

The kg/seat km figures I've given before, search the Forum if you want to find them. Air is higher, but they are remarkably close. Since I learnt that I've been even more resolute in my view that Classes 220-222 have no medium or long term future on the railway.

Caledonian Sleeper

Today's (Wed 18th Feb) northbound Aberdeen portion has 37403 in charge

www.railforums.co.uk

I made a post here, was there any reply to it?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I was considering water vapour - which *is* is major emission of aircraft and a problem in the atmosphere but not at ground level. Particles are also a major issue in the atmosphere because of their role in nucleation

Either way I'm all for favouring rail over air for reasons of pollution - it just has to be electric rail. Not filthy, stinking DMUs from another age when we genuinely thought diesel was the clean fuel of the future.

 

[The exile]

Yes, true, didn't think of that. It also has a faster London service if I recall?

It does indeed.

 

[Leogilbert007]

Either way I'm all for favouring rail over air for reasons of pollution - it just has to be electric rail. Not filthy, stinking DMUs from another age when we genuinely thought diesel was the clean fuel of the future.

absolutely. and electrification must not prioritise London routes at the expense of others - although as an Enthusiast I love a good diesel train and will, without a doubt, moan when the last one goes

Well, only one of the three examples you give has flights to London anyway.

oh ok, thanks for correcting this - it was an example formed on the basis of distance from both London and other population/economic regional hubs

 

[AndrewP]

I live in Durham but travel all over and some journeys are train, some are air - it's horses for courses

For Bristol the plane from Newcastle is a no brainer even allowing for the hassle of the bus to Bristol city centre

For London it's more complex as the Lizzie line has made LHR viable in a way that wasn't possible before so it boils down to cost as both train or plane can be shockingly expensive or surprisingly cheap (even with LNER's nationalisation increases). I have been known to go out one way and back another

One thing that is certain is that life is too short to drive

As for the environmental impact, I have and do save so much carbon in other areas that this is not significant for me

 

[LAX54]

Saw a YT video a few months ago, guy did air and rail from a cafe in Edinburgh to the same cafe in Holborn London, the end result was air was 4 mins quicker, but the train was overall a bit cheaper, and far less stressful ! (Train up to London, Air down to Edinburgh)
He did add that had he not got help with the ticket at for the trip from Edin Airport into Town, he would have missed the train, and thus taken longer.

 

[Bikeman78]

It's not just crow-flies distance, though. Many people simply will not drive into a city centre under any circumstances as it's too stressful. I know my mother won't. Airports are typically designed for easy road access with dual carriageways right up to the door and are typically much nicer to drive to than city centre railway stations.

I think the fear is often worse than the reality. The M25 near Heathrow is often more stressful than Cardiff city centre. The two nearest airports to me are Cardiff and Bristol; both are a bit of a pain to get to. Departing now, Google says 45 minutes to Cardiff and 82 minutes to Bristol. Cycling to Cardiff Central takes 20 minutes; driving to Newport is 25 minutes departing now.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Sorry - I meant driving to Lime Street from Chester, when (as others have pointed out) Chester has its own regular London service and good connections to Crewe and Warrington (and many other) places for longer distance journeys.

I did say Chester area, I more had in mind Ellesmere Port and the area around the bottom of the Wirral.

But it depends where you're going- Liverpool doesn't actually have any flights to other locations in GB (the domestic flights are to NI and IOM).

Not in large stations. The largest car park in a Category A station that I can think of is at Bristol Temple Meads. And that's not huge. People from the suburbs use local services to access these stations, massive car parks are something provided for stations located out of town.

The fact a lot of the main city centre stations don't have big car parks rather underlines my point that it can often be more convenient to drive to the local airport. Takes me back to my original point: depends where you're going, and why.

Anecdote isn't data and all that, but stand outside Newcastle or Leeds station in an evening after the later London trains have arrived. People aren't using public transport to get home. They're getting picked up. Certainly in Newcastle, Neville Street becomes a car park.

I suppose the whole answer to the question is "it depends." I lived 20 minutes from Newcastle airport and 20 minutes from Newcastle station, so it really was horses for courses when heading to London. It was a no-brainer to fly to Bristol or Exeter though.

But if I lived in Darlington I wouldn't drive to Newcastle Airport to then fly to London, that would be ridiculous. I might drive to Newcastle to then fly to Bristol or Exeter or Southampton, though...

 

[Krokodil]

Since I learnt that I've been even more resolute in my view that Classes 220-222 have no medium or long term future on the railway.

We've just had a long thread on why Voyagers should be replaced with 7 car 80x. Not only do they have lower emissions and better particulate filters but also the capacity would be much greater and the running costs lower, allowing lower fares. Making XC a less unattractive option when compared with a Newcastle-Southampton flight.

Unfortunately the DfT is less easily persuaded of these clear benefits.

It’s worth remembering that for a very large proportion of those who would drive to the station and park, Parkway is a more than viable alternative.

Indeed, and Parkway's catchment is the well-off suburbs of South Gloucestershire rather than the council estates of St Paul's. Which is why I don't believe that Temple Meads is big on railheading.

Yes, true, didn't think of that. It also has a faster London service if I recall?

Yes, so much so that even if starting from Temple Meads it would be ten minutes quicker to go via Parkway if it weren't for the 15 minutes between connecting trains.

 

[Bikeman78]

I disagree. I've operated on this basis all my life and I've never missed a train having got to the station 10 minutes before departure. The only regular exception is when I travel with a family member who's an electric wheelchair user. I would probably give myself 15 for the hellhole of Birmingham New Street.

It used to take seven minutes to walk from the door of my parents house to the platform. I would typically depart the house eight or nine minutes before the train was due. If the train was coming up the Arun valley, it would be clattering over the pointwork at the south end of the station as I walked down the stairs. That predates barriers. These days I tend to allow an extra three minutes. For Cardiff, it's a 20-25 minute bike ride. I normally leave home 30-35 minutes before train time, assuming I don't need to stop at the ticket office. If a tyre explodes on the way, then I'm stuffed, but I've never missed a train yet.

 

[KGX]

I now prefer to fly. Especially after a recent experience of being stuck on a train overnight with a 7 hour + delay. Only problem is the pick-up process at the airport is more of a hassle/expense. Ticket price - not much in it.

 

[enginedin]

a recent experience of being stuck on a train overnight with a 7 hour + delay

I wonder if an overnight experience on an airport floor would reverse that sentiment

 

[styles]

I wonder if an overnight experience on an airport floor would reverse that sentiment

Can confirm, I've had this in Switzerland, when the trains were still running.

After the first night spent in Zurich airport, I managed to convince my travel insurer to let me take the train, which was still running, back to the UK, and got home a whole day earlier than if I'd waited for the winds and snow to die down for flights to resume.

 

[Krokodil]

But it depends where you're going- Liverpool doesn't actually have any flights to other locations in GB (the domestic flights are to NI and IOM).

Which in itself is an indicator that air travel is uncompetitive with rail for most places within GB that one might go.

The fact a lot of the main city centre stations don't have big car parks rather underlines my point that it can often be more convenient to drive to the local airport.

If you're living in a central location in the city you probably wouldn't drive to the station, you'd use local transport, walk or cycle. If you're living out in the suburbs there is probably a more convenient station for you to use. Bristol Parkway, Nailsea etc. for Bristol.

On the flows where there is still significant domestic air travel, 99% of people won't be choosing to fly because the airport is conveniently located for them. Most will choose to fly because rail doesn't have the capacity to take them, and therefore prices have been hiked. Air is often cheaper on these routes. The other main reason will be because certain flows require someone to spend seven hours on a Voyager if they go by rail.

 

[styles]

On the flows where there is still significant domestic air travel, 99% of people won't be choosing to fly because the airport is conveniently located for them. Most will choose to fly because rail doesn't have the capacity to take them, and therefore prices have been hiked. Air is often cheaper on these routes. The other main reason will be because certain flows require someone to spend seven hours on a Voyager if they go by rail.

Last time I flew domestically it was because I had a hospital appointment in London, I was staying in Scotland, and the railways were on strike.

I then had a terribly awkward airport experience because I had medical staples which set off the metal detector. And then I started bleeding through my clothes during the flight, presumably something to do with the air pressure.

 

[Krokodil]

Last time I flew domestically it was because I had a hospital appointment in London, I was staying in Scotland, and the railways were on strike.

Strikes will be a factor too of course, but they're a lot rarer than they were a few years ago.

 

[styles]

Strikes will be a factor too of course, but they're a lot rarer than they were a few years ago.

It wasn't a full closure of the ECML but it was a severely-reduced service and the Advance fares had pretty much all been snapped up. Flying was the only reasonable way of getting there on time in the end.

That was a bit of an extreme exception though.

And I still felt bad about flying for the environmental impact.

 

[Krokodil]

I was coming back from Europe when there were ASLEF strikes happening. Rather than spending an extra night in London I quickly (as soon as the strike was announced) booked a berth to Carlisle on the sleeper and doubled back to Warrington in the morning.

 

[John R]

For Bristol the plane from Newcastle is a no brainer even allowing for the hassle of the bus to Bristol city centre

Is it a hassle? It runs every 8 mins during the day, and the new transport interchange at the airport is much more pleasant than before.

 

[Dave_D]

Went from the London suburbs to Edinburgh, £63 by air return. Looked at the train, the cheapest fair I could find with Lumo was £75 one way.

Saved an hour and a half in each direction.

Whilst in the city centre went to Waverley to use the toilet. I heard an announcement saying that due to a broken rail there were no trains to London.

So the plane was cheaper faster and in this case more reliable.

Worth noting that of the £63 about £20 would have been air duty.

 

[BayPaul]

This thread has shown that on journeys to/from the middle of the country (area between Birmingham and York) flying is rarely competitive.

On journeys between London and places north of around York, flying and rail are fairly well matched.

On cross country journeys (from the south and southwest to the north) , flying really out competes rail, mainly because of the slow speed and high price of Crosscountry trains.

From London to Edinburgh is around 400 miles and takes around 4 hours by train.

From Bristol to Edinburgh is around 375 miles but takes around 6.5 hours by direct train.

It's perhaps a decent subject for its own thread, but is there no reasonable way of knocking an hour or two off that time?

 

[Zomboid]

Just looking at Bristol to Edinburgh, a quick check on Skyscanner shows 4 departures a day. I don't know what type of aircraft they use but it's easyJet so it'll be between 156 and 235 seats per flight. So not nothing, but less than 1000 seats per day - not actually a huge market for rail to chase.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Just looking at Bristol to Edinburgh, a quick check on Skyscanner shows 4 departures a day. I don't know what type of aircraft they use but it's easyJet so it'll be between 156 and 235 seats per flight. So not nothing, but less than 1000 seats per day - not actually a huge market for rail to chase.

If rail in the UK is going to chase growth, overall the car is probably what to chase. As you say, overall numbers by air and indeed coach are tiny in comparison - all the passengers who go by coach from London to Manchester in a day would probably fit in one 11 car Pendolino, for example.

 

[styles]

This thread has shown that on journeys to/from the middle of the country (area between Birmingham and York) flying is rarely competitive.

On journeys between London and places north of around York, flying and rail are fairly well matched.

On cross country journeys (from the south and southwest to the north) , flying really out competes rail, mainly because of the slow speed and high price of Crosscountry trains.

From London to Edinburgh is around 400 miles and takes around 4 hours by train.

From Bristol to Edinburgh is around 375 miles but takes around 6.5 hours by direct train.

It's perhaps a decent subject for its own thread, but is there no reasonable way of knocking an hour or two off that time?

If only we had some 'high speed' railways. I know we have one in the SE but maybe we could have more.

Not sure what we'd call them of course.

Also though, if fares were much cheaper, that would help because people do make a cost-time tradeoff when deciding how to travel. I would love to travel to mainland Europe by train more often and in many cases I'd be happy with the extra journey time, but the costs often just don't stack up, even more so if you don't live in the SE of England.

 

[Lloyds siding]

Where I grew up, Bristol Airport was a 20 mile drive away (public transport connections being quite poor too) whereas Bristol Parkway was only three miles - 15 minutes on a bike. Where my parents now live on the other side of Bristol, Bristol Airport is now a 7 mile drive, but the nearest railway station (that gets a frequent regional service and a roughly two-hourly direct London service) is but a four minute walk.

Ok, so take Manchester. If you live in Altrincham you are five miles from Manchester Airport, or nine miles from Stockport with an hourly train if you don't want to drive. OK, so the airport is possibly more convenient here if you don't want to drive. Mind the drop-off charges though. If you live in Bury the airport is 22 miles away. Piccadilly is 12 miles away with the option of a tram that only takes 9 minutes longer if you want to avoid driving in the city centre. If heading north, Bolton is six miles away and the trains to/from Scotland now call.

In Liverpool, the airport is 15 miles from Kirkby. Lime Street however is only 8 miles and South Parkway 13 miles.if heading north, St Helens Central is 9 miles away.

Cardiff airport meanwhile is further from the nearest Cardiff suburbs than those suburbs are to Central, let alone any of the South Wales Metro stations.

You see the issue? Most cities do only have one airport, which means that for half of the suburbanites it's on the wrong side of the city anyway. Whereas most cities in the UK (among those big enough to have an airport) will often have multiple suburban stations covering several angles, including ones which are directly served by intercity services.

Birmingham? The airport has an intercity railway station so no matter where you live it can only equal, not exceed the driveability from a suburban home. If you live anywhere that New Street, Coventry, Wolves or any of the Trent Valley stations are close to then train wins every time for domestic journeys.

And no one lives right next door to an airport terminal. Whereas most railway stations in cities offer direct pedestrian access to housing, shops and places of employment.

South Parkway is certainly not 13 miles from Liverpool Airport..as it says on the totems ...For Liverpool John Lennon Airport...

 

[enginedin]

South Parkway is certainly not 13 miles from Liverpool Airpor

you're misinterpreting the text they're referring to the distance from Kirkby:

Kirkby -> Lime Street: 8 miles
Kirkby -> South Parkway: 13 miles
Kirkby -> LPL: 15 miles

This seems to be about right - it is ~2 miles from LPY to the airport