Scotsman Train V Plane Challenge

[Greenback]

Well said Metroland, on both occasions!

 

[Metroland]

All forms of transport have their place. To state that one is automatically better than the others, is complete nonsense!

Quite so, there's very few people here, if any, that think the railways are the be all and end all and are perfect.

 

[jon0844]

What gets me is that rail operators don't pad out their timetables as much as some airline operators do - so if they're still not managing near 100% timekeeping, this suggests more delays than the stats show.

And, I am sick of landing at Heathrow about a mile from the terminal (which is when you are classed as having arrived), taking 20 minutes to get to a gate, waiting another 10 minutes for the ramp/steps, the time it actually takes to get off through one or maybe two doors (okay, business class people don't have this problem), a huge walk to the arrivals hall, stupid queues for passport control because of another load of planes that arrived at the same time, the long wait for your bags (because cost cutting means baggage handlers work multiple flights, and if they bunch up through delays then they have to work on a first come, first served basis) - and then you're still at Heathrow, ready to pay a fortune for HEX (or if you're sensible Heathrow Connect) and the onward journey from Paddington.. assuming you don't actually want to go to Paddington.

It can take longer for me to get from Heathrow to King's Cross than the flight I've been on! And that's not a lie, or even a one-off.

 

[Greenback]

I flew to Schipol from Luton once and it was less time in the air (we had a following wind apparently) than it was on the ground taxiing to and from the runway and waiting for the steps!

 

[jon0844]

It's crazy isn't it - and when you fly to huge airports, this is a problem that is always going to be there. I have been delayed at Heathrow well over 50% of the times I've flown from/to there.

Stansted is a better, but at night then you're at the mercy of the train to the terminal building (if you land right at the edge of the airport, as Ryanair likes to do to park planes overnight) and they're short formed and about 10 minutes apart at times. So, you can take 30-40 minutes to get to passport control. Fine if your bags have managed to get there by then, but a PITA if you had hand luggage.

Stepping off a train and walking out of the station in a few minutes, with or without baggage, can't be beaten. We always hear of the comparisons with check in times and clearing security, but I do wonder how many people seem to think that when the plane lands they're on their way.

Heathrow used to have signs saying to allow for 40 minutes for people to come through (for those waiting in arrivals) and that's pretty accurate as an average. Throw on 2-3 hours for check-in and that's quite a difference.

Yes, going business allows a number of ways to speed things up, but on the train - even those in standard get all the same speed benefits (bar a little extra check-in time for Eurostar). And, once you get on your train you can get the laptop out and 'get set up' as needed for your journey - and you won't be asked to put it away. You can go online for all but the tunnel (maybe Eurotunnel should seek to install Wi-Fi for use in the tunnel?) and continue to do so until the train has arrived! How's that for maximum work time?

 

[Greenback]

I have gone through arrivals quite quickly in Heathrow, and also very slowly. I think it;s to do with the time of day. My quickest was off a transatlantic flight arriving at 2205 on a Saturday night - IIRC it took about ten minutes before I was outside at the coach stop!

For international arrivals, even without picking up bags, I doubt it will be as qucik as walking out of a station.

 

[jon0844]

I did about 10 mins from plane to arrivals hall (landside) from Ireland, but we'd been delayed some 20 minutes in the air and put into a holding pattern, so swings and roundabouts.

And the only reason for it being so quick for me was that I had hand luggage only and there was no passport check. Even though I use IRIS, I still have to queue as they've invested in so few machines - and often one or more are out of service.

 

[Deerfold]

Yes, going business allows a number of ways to speed things up, but on the train - even those in standard get all the same speed benefits (bar a little extra check-in time for Eurostar). And, once you get on your train you can get the laptop out and 'get set up' as needed for your journey - and you won't be asked to put it away. You can go online for all but the tunnel (maybe Eurotunnel should seek to install Wi-Fi for use in the tunnel?) and continue to do so until the train has arrived! How's that for maximum work time?

Have you had much luck with 3G on Eurostar? I had a lot of trouble last time I went which is the only time I've had a dongle with me. I hadn't realised just how much tunnel there is within England!

 

[jon0844]

Never had any real problems, besides suddenly going from having 8GB of data on offer on the UK side, to paying £3 per MB on the French side!

If they introduced Wi-Fi on trains to Europe, it would save people a small fortune - and as such, I am sure people would willingly pay for it.

 

[shinkansen1966]

If they introduced Wi-Fi on trains to Europe, it would save people a small fortune - and as such, I am sure people would willingly pay for it.

Do Eurostar have any plans to add WiFi. Thalys have and DB ICE on some sections.

 

[At_traction]

With our friend named after a Rolls Royce turbofan engine gone, perhaps I'll comment something. Someone has to, that's what impartiality is all about...

And, I am sick of landing at Heathrow about a mile from the terminal (which is when you are classed as having arrived), taking 20 minutes to get to a gate, waiting another 10 minutes for the ramp/steps, the time it actually takes to get off through one or maybe two doors

All of these occurrences and time wasting can of course happen on the same flight, but I have rarely had even near such time wastages on any of these categories, especially on domestic flights with smaller capacities. Except for those dreaded with-bus(es)-from-tarmac-10-miles-away-from-terminal thingies, of course.

On the other hand, one can add sometimes considerable wastage on departure as the plane waits for its turn for takeoff (similarly to landing). But still, when added to a one-hour flight, there is still a lot of time to actually leave for various wastage...

a huge walk to the arrivals hall

Like the half a kilometer stroll from the northern end of a domestic train arriving at St. Pancras to the UndergrounD?

stupid queues for passport control because of another load of planes that arrived at the same time

Only on international flights, departure or arrival.

the long wait for your bags (because cost cutting means baggage handlers work multiple flights, and if they bunch up through delays then they have to work on a first come, first served basis)

The allowance in size for cabin baggage is in fact surprisingly large. Perhaps even on CattleJet(R) operators. Collecting a slew of luggage from the guard's compartment can be quite an undertaking too, involving perhaps a longish walk from the carriage. And likely no easily collectable trolleys a short distance away either. Someone will undoubtedly correct me on that one.

It can take longer for me to get from Heathrow to King's Cross than the flight I've been on! And that's not a lie, or even a one-off.

That I can believe, but that's in fact a rail travelling problem, I'm afraid...
Something that the City Airport was mainly built to deal with, as an LDDC scheme in connection with the future London Manhattan project a.k.a. Docklands development. As a better bet for international (includes Scotland ) connections for east of London (business) users than Heathrow.

 

[jon0844]

Do Eurostar have any plans to add WiFi. Thalys have and DB ICE on some sections.

I have no idea, but think I saw it mentioned for the new trains they've talked about.

It would need major infrastructure investment by making it possible to be online in the tunnel (and perhaps make/receive calls) but would probably be a worthwhile investment that would pay for itself.

Until the industry gets data roaming charges down to a decent level (and they're nowhere near doing that, even with EU price capping coming in over successive years), you could easily charge £10-20 for Wi-Fi access and save someone a small fortune.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

@At_traction,

I still fly quite regularly, so I am not trying to a win an argument on whether flying or going by train is better.. and you're right that the problem getting from airport to train is the railway problem - but it's all about time and these factors have to be considered. I've been delayed on a train from Edinburgh home, by almost an hour, but I can name multiple times where flying has had problems.

When I came back from Ireland, I was out of the airport in no time - but that's the only 'domestic' flight I've done in the last 5 years! When I fly, it's always international and requires the whole passport nightmare.

Of course, we all know that sometimes you'll arrive and there's no queue at all - and you walk straight through. If you're really smart, you can book flights to minimise all the potential problems (avoiding flights that can arrive really late at night are a good idea too) - but I usually book on price and can't be so choosy!

Believe me, I am of the opinion that every mode of transport has its purpose and you use the best method at the best time.. you don't need convince me. However, I'd prefer to go by train in most cases because of all the uncertainty with flying. To be honest, 95% of the problems are in fact down to the airport (and nearly always Heathrow) - not the actual plane itself.

And as for the walk from St Pancras - well I can arrive at xx:45, walk to platform 11 at King's Cross and get my train at xx:06, get to Hatfield at xx:27, jump in a cab and be home at xx:35! But, yes, I do have somewhat of an advantage because of where I live.

For flying, the best airport is Luton. A 9 minute drive to the long-stay car park from my house - but sadly no flights to anywhere I need to go!

 

[rb311]

Reading some of the posts since my last one gave me the overwhelming impression of relief that I hadn’t posted anymore.. “Epic win”, “school kid fights”, “to claim that one mode of transport is much better than the other is complete nonsense”... Umm, that’s exactly what the majority of you claim.

Then to read the trollish, I can use that word too, comments on air travel, showed how little is known about aviation on this site.

“I flew to Schiphol once”, oh well done. “and we had a following wind”, it’s not a sailing boat... “and we taxied longer than we flew...” What does that matter if you get there on time. Besides, taxiing is relatively essential.

Then there’s the comment on informed argument and debate, and mature writing. Well I actually talk from a very informed position. I am an aviation professional. How many of you are railway professionals, and not just enthusiastic amateurs?

Oh, but full marks to poster who could work out which train companies I travelled on, although why that should be relevant, they were both late.. And there was no exaggeration... I probably understated the shambolic nature of the journeys.

Regarding the debate about Heathrow, I have not once mentioned flying into LHR, I have been talking about London City airport, which is as unlike Heathrow as it is possible to be. My statements were either misquoted (I never mentioned 100%) or described as bizarre. What was bizarre? No one came back on that one.

On the other hand I have witnessed statements like “underground trains are not trains”, “no terrorist has ever attacked a train”, “and at least never in the UK...” Mmmm. Interesting viewpoints there. Get out more, would be my response.

So I will take no lessons on informed debate.

For what it is worth, the August 2010 stats for a Cityjet’s arrivals into London City from Edinburgh show 93% on time arrivals,(arrivals in Edinburgh 95%) and before you all go off on “airlines don’t work to the same rules”, the average delay was 5.34 minutes (3.89 in edi). Source: CAA. Let’s see the railway stats please, for the corresponding route, average on time arrivals, and average delay... Then we can compare eggs with eggs.

I am afraid that if you can’t take criticism of your specified cause, or defend it with cogent argument, instead of constantly moving the goal posts, then you shouldn’t say anything. This started as a debate about a race between Edinburgh and London, and as I stated at the start, if the competition rules are set out fairly, without bias, the aircraft traveller will win.

So come back with your histrionic replies, and self congratulatory tones, but there is no “epic win” here, and that’s a statistical fact.

 

[jon0844]

I accept London City is a lot different, but I am unsure how/why you'd say taxiing doesn't matter as long as you landed on time.

The problem with most airports, perhaps excluding City Airport and many other small airports around the world, is the time it takes to get OFF the plane and out of the airport. If you counted the time from the second you entered the airport building, to when you left the other airport building, with the time you entered the train station and exited - then we might have more of a fair comparison of the journey time.

Now, the bit about getting to that train station, or the airport, will vary because some people may live right next to St Pancras, while others may live in Hounslow right by the airport - or they want to go to somewhere near either of those locations and don't need to travel through town.

I do not ignore the time taken from boarding to flying, to landing and getting off the plane, nor the walk to the main arrivals building (which can be extremely long at Heathrow, and equally long at Stansted at night when there are few, short-formed, trains to the main building and you're twiddling your thumbs in one of the satellite terminals). How can you ignore that?

I'm no profession in either aviation or the railway, but I fly around the world regularly (albeit somewhat less this year) and use the train regularly. I also drive a lot, including mainland Europe, walk to places, use buses and even cycle on occasion. I believe in the most appropriate method of transport at any given time, but would favour the train in any case where it was a viable option over flying. For the UK and, hopefully further into the EU come 2012/2013, I can't see how the plane is preferable in most cases. But, I am not planning any train journeys to China just yet.

 

[jopsuk]

“and we had a following wind”, it’s not a sailing boat...

A following wind can make a big difference- wind speeds are often much, much higher at altitude than at ground level. An aircraft's speed is limited by friction relative to the air in which it is moving- if it is in moving air, this alters the ground-speed accordingly.

 

[Metroland]

Reading some of the posts since my last one gave me the overwhelming impression of relief that I hadn’t posted anymore.. “Epic win”, “school kid fights”, “to claim that one mode of transport is much better than the other is complete nonsense”... Umm, that’s exactly what the majority of you claim.

Dunno about that, if you read the posts it's argued all transport has its place. Aviation is wholly inefficient for most train journeys, and rail would be inefficient for trips to Africa and so on.

Cars tend to be best for very rural areas, or where public transport is not frequent or very fast, or maybe when you have lots of items to move, or there is diffuse journey patterns. Buses are good where rail is not justified, Ships are good for heavy international freight and ferry work, Coaches are a good low cost alternative to rail where time is not important, Air good for high value freight or journeys over 300-500 miles, and rail good for intercity or regional travel under 300-500 miles, commuting, and bulk freight, or in the case of light rail a high quality, high throughput alternative to buses on dense corridors.

There are various crossovers, and that's really down to personal choice and many other factors, but at least we have a choice and long may that continue.

That's the sort of grown up conversation we should be having not X is better than Y, because the reality is no transport system is a panacea.

Then to read the trollish, I can use that word too, comments on air travel, showed how little is known about aviation on this site.

What an arrogant statement, there's a huge crossover between rail and aviation enthusiasts and many here that do know what they are talking about.

Then there’s the comment on informed argument and debate, and mature writing. Well I actually talk from a very informed position. I am an aviation professional. How many of you are railway professionals, and not just enthusiastic amateurs?

What do you do, clean the loos? No bias from you then?

In any case another arrogant statement, the forum is read by everyone, from the occasional volunteers on preserved railways right up to DFT officials and MPs, as well as managers and transport professionals.

On the other hand I have witnessed statements like “underground trains are not trains”, “no terrorist has ever attacked a train”, “and at least never in the UK...” Mmmm. Interesting viewpoints there. Get out more, would be my response.

Underground trains are trains, but it would be wholly impracticable and cause more death and injury if people had a 30 min security check before boarding. There are already checks, CTTV, face recognition and stop and search with a dedicated police force, as well as sniffer dogs on LUL, NR, and light rail networks.

If you applied similar checks to rail, you would need to apply them to buses, maritime, supermarkets, pubs, cinemas, football matches or any place where the public gathers, by that time the terrorists have won. Quite silly for such a very small risk.

Aviation is special insomuch as planes can be used as missiles (see 911) or if a bomb goes off it has every chance of crashing killing everyone on board. It's also, on the whole, pre-book, unlike most other public transport apart from coaches.

Moreover, further checks to incoming transport from airports is not the aviations interests, you will quickly find that many airports become much further time wise from the cities they serve, damaging business further. Or are you really paranoid about the very small crossover where completion does exist in the UK, such as London-Edinburgh, which makes up just 4% of traffic on one line?

For what it is worth, the August 2010 stats for a Cityjet’s arrivals into London City from Edinburgh show 93% on time arrivals,(arrivals in Edinburgh 95%) and before you all go off on “airlines don’t work to the same rules”, the average delay was 5.34 minutes (3.89 in edi). Source: CAA. Let’s see the railway stats please, for the corresponding route, average on time arrivals, and average delay... Then we can compare eggs with eggs.

The stats are all here, and they speak for themselves. Rail is, on the whole, much better than airlines for timekeeping. There is no getting away from that if you want an informed debate.

http://www.flightontime.info/londonedinburgh/index.html

http://www.flightontime.info/scheduled/scheduled.html

http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/nrt-ch2-railperformance.pdf

I am afraid that if you can’t take criticism of your specified cause, or defend it with cogent argument, instead of constantly moving the goal posts, then you shouldn’t say anything. This started as a debate about a race between Edinburgh and London, and as I stated at the start, if the competition rules are set out fairly, without bias, the aircraft traveller will win.

So come back with your histrionic replies, and self congratulatory tones, but there is no “epic win” here, and that’s a statistical fact.

Don't be silly, the site is non-stop criticism (some of it justified, some of it not) of the railways. As for the race (and frankly who cares) it depends on a number of factors, but the reality is, there's not much in it.

 

[LE Greys]

A following wind can make a big difference- wind speeds are often much, much higher at altitude than at ground level. An aircraft's speed is limited by friction relative to the air in which it is moving- if it is in moving air, this alters the ground-speed accordingly.

Quite right. If you remember that jetstream speeds can reach 300 knots, although around 150 is more common, that can increase ground speed by a considerable margin. A Boeing 777 would usually cruise at around 490 knots. Add 150 to that, and you get 640 knots (which is supersonic in still air, but not in the moving air she would be travelling in). On a JFK-LHR flight, that can cut 90 minutes from the time in cruise. OK, that's not applicable on UK domestic flights, which mostly go under any jetstreams if they can, meaning they avoid crosswinds and conflicting traffic. However, a 40-knot northerly or a jetstream 'kink' (which happens sometimes) would be very useful for saving a few minutes. Flying into a 40-knot northerly would probably increase time on LHR-ABZ by seven minutes (assuming an A-319 cruises at 450 knots, minus 40 equals 410 knots). That's not quite a rail-PPM delay, but close.

 

[Failed Unit]

Or are you really paranoid about the very small crossover where completion does exist in the UK, such as London-Edinburgh, which makes up just 4% of traffic on one line?

Stops playing with trainset But that is 4% of the traffic on one line is still 27% of the market share between Edinburgh and London and rising. As I have said before rail would not want 100% as it would not cope with demand, as anyone who has used the ECML in the even when volcano's go off or fog shuts the airports. Already in the summer peaks many trains are fully booked between London and Edinburgh - at least you can chose to stand should you want to still turn up on the day and travel. Now back to playing with my trainset. Tomorrow I am going to fly a remote control airplane - so I am now an air professional

 

[Metroland]

Did some calculations earlier, 3 million people fly between Edinburgh and London per year - that's a pretty substantial part of their business as 9 million people use Edinburgh airport per year over 363 days that's 8264 passengers per day both ways, or 4132 one way.

So it's about 8 extra trains per day (small fry if the railways are running 24,000 per day network wide and 100s on the ECML). But, I guess if the passengers are spending £80 each on average, one way, that's £240 million worth of business.

Be interesting to know, if you could path the trains non-stop, and maybe introduce 140mph timings, at average speeds of 110mph, getting the time down to 3hrs 38 mins, how many of those non-stoppers you could fill. Wasn't there a proposal like this that was denied?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platinum_Trains

 

[route101]

Did some calculations earlier, 3 million people fly between Edinburgh and London per year - that's a pretty substantial part of their business as 9 million people use Edinburgh airport per year over 363 days that's 8264 passengers per day both ways, or 4132 one way.

So it's about 8 extra trains per day (small fry if the railways are running 24,000 per day network wide and 100s on the ECML). But, I guess if the passengers are spending £80 each on average, one way, that's £240 million worth of business.

Be interesting to know, if you could path the trains non-stop, and maybe introduce 140mph timings, at average speeds of 110mph, getting the time down to 3hrs 38 mins, how many of those non-stoppers you could fill. Wasn't there a proposal like this that was denied?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platinum_Trains

But are them 3 million people flying between EDI and LON actually going to London rather than connecting mm Gets you thinking.

 

[networkrail1]

Yellow everyone.

I think after just reading all the posts i will put my 10p worth in.

firstly no mode of transport is better than the other, frankly i disagree with that statement.

My logic to back up this statement is the following.

(Option 1) I am a businessman who needs to get from Scotland to London in the fastest possible time, i do not have much money as the company is paying, i can get a cheap flight from the airport in Scotland to one of london's airports, i am not bothered about working on the plane as my company does not allow this.

(Option 2) I am a businessman who wishes to travel to London from Scotland, i have a fair bit of money because i am in a high paying business, i have no rush to get to London so i take the train , as my company allows me to use my laptop i can do some work whilst on the trip to London, i do not know what time i want to leave so the train is ideal for me unless i want advance fares.

So as i have pointed out above both modes of transport are actually the same the only reason one is better than the other is because of the person using that mode of transport.

For example the train wouldn't suit businessman 1 and the plane wouldn't suit businessman 2.

Everyone is different in this world one has loads of money to spend the other has hardly any, one is in a rush the other isn't.

So no matter what anyone says about stats or proof they mean nothing because everyone on gods green earth is different.

P.S. i may work for Network Rail but i personally love using the train, i have only ever once used the plane and i hated it.

PLEASE NOTE that is just my opinion for all i know the guy next to me could have the total opposite view to me but that is their right as a human being.

All the best.

Simon

 

[LE Greys]

Yellow everyone.

I think after just reading all the posts i will put my 10p worth in.

firstly no mode of transport is better than the other, frankly i disagree with that statement.

My logic to back up this statement is the following.

(Option 1) I am a businessman who needs to get from Scotland to London in the fastest possible time, i do not have much money as the company is paying, i can get a cheap flight from the airport in Scotland to one of london's airports, i am not bothered about working on the plane as my company does not allow this.

(Option 2) I am a businessman who wishes to travel to London from Scotland, i have a fair bit of money because i am in a high paying business, i have no rush to get to London so i take the train , as my company allows me to use my laptop i can do some work whilst on the trip to London, i do not know what time i want to leave so the train is ideal for me unless i want advance fares.

So as i have pointed out above both modes of transport are actually the same the only reason one is better than the other is because of the person using that mode of transport.

For example the train wouldn't suit businessman 1 and the plane wouldn't suit businessman 2.

Everyone is different in this world one has loads of money to spend the other has hardly any, one is in a rush the other isn't.

So no matter what anyone says about stats or proof they mean nothing because everyone on gods green earth is different.

You're absolutely right. Personally I'd rather be businessman 2 (the rich one) but who's to say what I'll end up having to do sometime.

 

[rb311]

Mr Metroland. Some interesting comments there.

This thread is not a general conversation between what mode is better for what. The clue is in the title. If you want a general modal debate then start another thread. In reality I think the thread drift towards more general modal comparisons is a diversionary tactic because the argument is lost.

There may well be

a lot of occasional volunteers on preserved railways right up to DFT officials and MPs, as well as managers and transport professionals

, but my point is now twofold. Firstly in your list transport professionals come last, and since when can MPs be considered a reference group worth mentioning??

Secondly, I am more interested in the actual posters who have replied on this thread and how they came to their informed opinions.

Le Greys, I regret you are revealing your lack of knowledge on aviation via your post on jetstreams. En route between London and Edinburgh we will always try to use jet streams, flying with them when they are beneficial, and above or below them when they are not, apart from the beneficial effect they have on time keeping, the greater advantage is fuel saving.

As to Network rail's comment on businessman 1 and businessman 2, I doubt there are many of the latter who would be rich if they didn't mind how long the journey took, could turn up and just pay whatever price, or didn't plan ahead.. But then again, as you said, it takes all sorts.

 

[flymo]

How is this challenge doing anyway?, it was mooted for the end on October, well today is the last working day of October and still no challenge. I did email the Scotsman paper a couple of days ago to ask when it would be but they must have taken the email off the hook as still no response.

Anybody have any inside info? Not bothered about the specifics, just curious as to the day.

 

[jon0844]

When does this new airport tax come in, and is that for internal/domestic flights too?

Is it seriously going to see another £200 per-person on a flight to Australia? Ouch!

 

[Failed Unit]

How is this challenge doing anyway?, it was mooted for the end on October, well today is the last working day of October and still no challenge. I did email the Scotsman paper a couple of days ago to ask when it would be but they must have taken the email off the hook as still no response.

Anybody have any inside info? Not bothered about the specifics, just curious as to the day.

Not sure but I would love the irony if it took place last Thursday and the person who took the plane lost because of all the issues on the Jubilee line.

 

[flymo]

The new tax comes in on Nov 1, 2010 Jon, some info here Page 4 for the amounts

 

[Metroland]

In reality I think the thread drift towards more general modal comparisons is a diversionary tactic because the argument is lost.
.

No the argument still stands that London-Edinburgh timings from typical points in either city are not that much different, and it depends where you are going to/from as to the overall transit timings, this was illustrated with examples by Failed Unit.

You've certainly not made any convincing case on punctuality, which you claimed was poor, a clear indication you did not do your homework before engaging in this debate.

The modal comparisons where made to get away from X is better than Y, because however much any of us like the designs of machines called transport, the aim it to move freight and passengers. Boyish "Top Gear" type arguments, while entertaining, are not a lucid understanding of transport.

The comparisons are perhaps a fig leaf on my part to explain that I think Rail/Air competition is a good thing, to a point, and moreover the rail traffic is actually made up of mostly intermediate traffic - a much forgotten point when debating trains from London-Edinburgh - which is just as time sensitive. This is why rather eccentric views such as decelerating trains (and timetables) would lead to less bums on seats, less economic development and more subsidy, more road congestion, more pollution, and poorly served airports, many of which are highly dependent on good rail connections.

It does of course lead to wider, more interesting points about competition: With the ECML being one of the most profitable lines, which is expected to pay premiums and cross subsidise the rest of the network, unlike airlines and coach companies, which can cream off revenue for their own shareholders, with no reference to this. Possibly why we have had two high profile franchise failures.

We've even seen companies that own rail franchises running coaches in competition with their own trains, completely outside any framework.

It also raises the issues of whether the franchise system is fit for purpose, insomuch prescriptive revenue raising is applicable in the face of such competition. It seems to me the railways have enough competition, without all the added costs of micro-management and the franchise system.

Moreover, questions have to be raised over open access. Clearly open access companies are going to want to compete on the busiest and most lucrative lines, such as the ECML. This is the innovative, commercial response. But as we have seen, many applications have been turned down because of the needs to balance all users: freight, stopping passenger trains, commuters and so on, even when there is solutions to the competition posed by other forms of transport, such as the proposals by Platinum trains. For all the costs and legal framework it imposes, is it worth having at all?

 

[At_traction]

Not sure but I would love the irony if it took place last Thursday and the person who took the plane lost because of all the issues on the Jubilee line.

Well, I guess that if (in this merely conversational scenario) he lost merely due to taking the wrong Underground line at the wrong time, it may tell more of the state of railways than the flying thingies themselves...

When the bl**dy competition is on anyway? Let's get it over with and for ever and for good solve the question for all time to come...

 

[Failed Unit]

Well, I guess that if (in this merely conversational scenario) he lost merely due to taking the wrong Underground line at the wrong time, it may tell more of the state of railways than the flying thingies themselves...

Yep hit the nail squarely on the head. A good flight down to London could be totally undone by getting on the wrong train on the wrong day from the airport. In the same way the person taking the train could fail because they pick the train that gets stopped by cows on the line.