Sheffield to Shenfield Cheaper to Fly

[Greenback]

It's got to be a balance for me. If a train is overcrowded, as many of the trains I used to commute on were and probably still are, then I'm willing to put up with that for a faster journey than would be available by other means.

We're heading off topic, though. I think we need to remember that this is a light hearted story that doesn't stand up well to a great deal of analysis!

 

[miami]

But some people *don't* find sitting on a busy motorway in one lane stressful. I find it boring, personally. And when you are a regular commuter you don't have "the stress of finding a parking place in an unfamiliar city centre", you know where you park daily.

I wouldn't commute from MK to London by car, but the only reason why not is the long journey time unless you leave at 4am, and secondarily the high cost.

On the other hand I did commute from LBZ to London by car, 4 days a week, because for two of us it cost about £50 a day, £200 a week, or £9000 a year on the train.

Now some will say our £900 car, £300 insurance, £300 MOT/servicing/tyres/etc, £2000/year in petrol and £800 a year parking, coming out at an average 17p per mile, or £2150 per person per year meant we were deluding ourselves over the cost, and spending £4k a year each on a train would be far cheaper. I'd rather have an extra £500 a month personally.

Once you accept you drive to work, you can live anywhere. No need to have a house in Linslade, you can live in Hockliffe, or Heath and Reach, or Wing, the car gives you the freedom the railway doesn't.

Time wise you're talking about 210 minutes a day by car, 150 minutes a day by train, so I guess it's how much you value the extra hour and how useful that hour is. 210 minutes talking to each other, or 2 lots of 30 minutes standing on a train, 30 standing on a tube, 15 walking.

The train makes sense in a lot of cases, but there's no general case (like "commuting into London") where it always applies.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I wouldn't commute from MK to London by car, but the only reason why not is the long journey time unless you leave at 4am, and secondarily the high cost.

As Greenback says, every journey on its own merits. I wouldn't have driven from Hemel to Islington, where I worked, for all the tea in China, because of the aggravation of getting that close into the centre and the fact that it would be a bit slower. Though given London Midland charge an offensive £26.40 per day for the same journey, I'm not sure I'd argue that the car is a "high cost", especially if there's more than one of you working in roughly the same part of town.

Cost isn't the deciding factor for me, but then again, I have enough money to be able to consider other factors. I'll consider the train, even where it is slightly more expensive, because it's nicer to have a glass of wine and read a book than concentrate on the road for hours at a time. I'll consider first class where it's slightly more expensive than first class.

But more often than not rail is not the cheapest option, the car is, and rail is often not even any quicker than the car.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Once you accept you drive to work, you can live anywhere. No need to have a house in Linslade, you can live in Hockliffe, or Heath and Reach, or Wing, the car gives you the freedom the railway doesn't.

To be fair, a combination of the car and the train can offer that as well. The busy car park at Tring (population: two men and their dog) shows that quite clearly.

 

[miami]

To be fair, a combination of the car and the train can offer that as well. The busy car park at Tring (population: two men and their dog) shows that quite clearly.

But you then have the cost of the car and parking to consider, so you're only really saving about £10 in petrol. If you work in zone 1 I suspect that park and ride makes more sense, but out in zone 2 or 3 things can easilly change.

 

[kevinwaltets]

Starmill

Stop forcing your climate change point of view onto everybody.

For the record the climate has been changing since earth has begun. It is still doing this and still will continue to do this

I have yet to see any proper evidence that man has made a difference.

Tell me where all the Co2 that came out of the volcanoes gas gone. I know the answer.

This climate change (global warming) thing is used as an excuse to charge green taxes and invent an industry to keep people in jobs around the globe supported by multiple governments.

Wake up !

 

[exile]

Starmill

Stop forcing your climate change point of view onto everybody.

For the record the climate has been changing since earth has begun. It is still doing this and still will continue to do this

I have yet to see any proper evidence that man has made a difference.

Tell me where all the Co2 that came out of the volcanoes gas gone. I know the answer.

This climate change (global warming) thing is used as an excuse to charge green taxes and invent an industry to keep people in jobs around the globe supported by multiple governments.

Wake up !

Stop forcing your climate change denial woohoo onto everybody. I'd like to see your qualifications in subjects relevant to climate change (I admit I have none myself which is why I accept the scientific consensus).

 

[Mojo]

Stop forcing your climate change denial woohoo onto everybody. I'd like to see your qualifications in subjects relevant to climate change (I admit I have none myself which is why I accept the scientific consensus).

Agreed. Even to those that don't believe the co2 argument, there are many other issues, such as noise pollution, breathing difficulties and blight to properties that are all caused.

 

[yorkie]

I have yet to see any proper evidence that man has made a difference.

Oh come on!

Wake up !

Well, some people need to, and it aint us...!

 

[kevinwaltets]

Well I thought I might get this reaction because generations have been brainwashed in schools and by governments and their sponsored institutions like the Met Office by this propaganda. It seems like it is almost a crime to question the so called scientific evidence (if it can actually be called that).

It's very convenient that we can all be persuaded to pay extra tax and green tariffs. Who is going to complain when we've been told that we have to do this or we are all going to die.

I realise that on my own I am not going to convince many of you [emoji3]

I am not for one minute denying the fact that man kind may well kill himself off and that breathing in diesel particulates for example is good for us.

But the planet needs to have a certain level of Co2 to survive. 100 million years ago there was far more Co2 in the atmosphere than today. Where is it? It's been converted into Chalk and Limestones and other Carboniferous rocks. Chalk or Calcite is calcium carbonate or CaCO3. It forms under reasonably deep marine conditions from the gradual accumulation of minute calcite shells (coccoliths) shed from micro-organisms called coccolithophore.

These creature use the Co2 to form their shells and it is the planets natural way of dealing with excess Co2.

Now as temperatures rise more chalk is formed as these creatures flourish.

Because so much of the planets Co2 has been turned to chalk and because we have reduced the burning of fossil fuel drastically we are in danger of starving the planet from this essential building block of life.

At least the wind turbine industry has at last been found out to waste more energy than it actually ever produces and the subsidies have been stopped for onshore development.

 

[anme]

But the planet needs to have a certain level of Co2 to survive. 100 million years ago there was far more Co2 in the atmosphere than today. Where is it? It's been converted into Chalk and Limestones and other Carboniferous rocks. Chalk or Calcite is calcium carbonate or CaCO3. It forms under reasonably deep marine conditions from the gradual accumulation of minute calcite shells (coccoliths) shed from micro-organisms called coccolithophore.

These creature use the Co2 to form their shells and it is the planets natural way of dealing with excess Co2.

Now as temperatures rise more chalk is formed as these creatures flourish.

Because so much of the planets Co2 has been turned to chalk and because we have reduced the burning of fossil fuel drastically we are in danger of starving the planet from this essential building block of life.

Please provide some source for your theory. You will appreciate that otherwise no-one is going to give any credibility to something appearing on the thirteenth page of a thread on an internet forum.

Also my understanding is that CO2 levels are rising, so your concern seems unnecessary. And a bit bizarre. After all, the planet survived for many millions of years without anyone burning fossil fuels.

 

[miami]

But the planet needs to have a certain level of Co2 to survive. 100 million years ago there was far more Co2 in the atmosphere than today. Where is it? It's been converted into Chalk and Limestones and other Carboniferous rocks. Chalk or Calcite is calcium carbonate or CaCO3. It forms under reasonably deep marine conditions from the gradual accumulation of minute calcite shells (coccoliths) shed from micro-organisms called coccolithophore.

I have no doubt the planet will survive whatever mankind can throw at it -- even if we were to deliberatly crash asteroids into the planet it would survive, and life would thrive, I don't think we're technically able to transform Earth into a Venus or Mars, at least at the moment.

I don't care about the planet. I care about my family, and to a lesser extent the rest of the human race.

There is strong evidence that CO2 levels are rising
There is strong evidence that global temperatures are increasing
There is strong evidence that this is linked to water shortages
There is strong evidence that great swathes of land will be under water

Correlation is not causation, however I don't want water shortages, refugees escaping flood water, and failed whisky crops, all that costs money, none of it affects the planet.

Will reducing manmade CO2 emissions reduce the impact? Well it will reduce the levels that CO2 is rising by, perhaps that will lead to global temperatures not increasing as much.

Because so much of the planets Co2 has been turned to chalk and because we have reduced the burning of fossil fuel drastically we are in danger of starving the planet from this essential building block of life.

Where does the calcium come from? How quickly do you think that chalk is produced?

If CO2 levels did start dropping, that will be an easy fix, we simply start burning coal and oil again to raise them. In the meantime we'll have separated our industries from the reliance on the middle east.

 

[me123]

I have yet to see any proper evidence that man has made a difference.

Let me enlighten you.

 

[Retorus]

What a brilliant thread.

 

[talldave]

What a brilliant thread.

I was thinking the opposite! The CO2 arguments are all a bit tenuous since all the planes, trains and buses involved ran regardless of whether Mr Cox was on them or not. His weight has a miniscule impact on fuel consumption but that's the delta that should be argued about.

But getting back on topic, he had a cheap day out, which is fine.

 

[misterredmist]

You've got to hand it to the article , it's caused one hell of a debate on here !!!!

 

[tony_mac]

Well I thought I might get this reaction because generations have been brainwashed in schools and by governments and their sponsored institutions like the Met Office by this propaganda. It seems like it is almost a crime to question the so called scientific evidence (if it can actually be called that).

Another possible reason, other than brainwashing, is that you are wrong and the scientific evidence is actually pretty compelling!

(BTW, how long is 'generations'? - because I don't recall it being mentioned when I was in school!)

 

[jon0844]

What a brilliant thread.

It certainly didn't go the way I expected, namely people upset about the way the railway was being slated because someone found a way to save a few quid by flying to and from another country!

I wonder if people would be so against flying if they took the 442s and put wings on them?

 

[CaptainHaddock]

Let me enlighten you.

Hardly am impartial site that, is it? I don't want to take this thread off topic into the unresolveable climate-change arguments, but in the interests of balance, it should be pointed out that the much-quoted "97% of scientists agree on global warming" is a myth.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

 

[me123]

Hardly am impartial site that, is it?

That site presents scientific facts, based on evidence. Whilst bias is an issue in all of science (and life), the data and the arguments are sound and are presented (in part) on that website. Other resources do exist - go ahead and read them!

In the interests of "balance", we can always turn away from science. Here are some people who think that global warming must be a myth because it's snowing in Boston.

I cannot appraise the WSJ article. You've posted a link to a headline and one-and-a-half paragraphs of vague introductory text. To see their argument, I have to subscribe. I'm not doing that.

 

[coppercapped]

A point about the scientific consensus. A proper 'scientific' statement on any subject of research should be prefaced with the words 'With the knowledge we now have, a good working hypothesis is...'

It is not possible to prove anything absolutely.

That there is a 'scientific consensus' on any subject does not necessarily mean that it is complete or correct. There was a consensus that the Earth was the centre of the universe until Galileo and Kepler showed otherwise and Newton explained it.

The bit Newton's mathematics couldn't predict about the path of the planet Mercury was then explained by Einstein and the odd behaviour (in classical terms) of 'black-body' radiation was explained by Max Planck and (again) Einstein leading to the whole body of quantum mechanics, without which there would be no semiconductors or any modern electronics.

In each case the 'scientific consensus' had been overturned by a maverick and it then often took a generation or more for the new findings to become the new 'consensus'.

I write with some knowledge of the subject as I have am a physicist. I also do not claim to know whether or not the 'scientific consensus' regarding climate change is wrong, but I am prepared to bet that it is incomplete. But I do wonder whether, at least in the information that is readily available to the public, it has been made clear that there is more thermal energy contained in the top couple of meters of the oceans than is contained in the whole atmosphere (the atmosphere delivers the climate and the weather but it is powered by the sea and the spinning globe) and that there is more carbon dioxide dissolved in sea water than is free in the air.

Now, back to the winged 442s...!

 

[TheEdge]

Wait to see how the deniers will start to act when global warming brings Northern Europe colder winters. Their minds will burst.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

That site presents scientific facts, based on evidence. Whilst bias is an issue in all of science (and life), the data and the arguments are sound and are presented (in part) on that website. Other resources do exist - go ahead and read them!

In the interests of "balance", we can always turn away from science. Here are some people who think that global warming must be a myth because it's snowing in Boston.

I cannot appraise the WSJ article. You've posted a link to a headline and one-and-a-half paragraphs of vague introductory text. To see their argument, I have to subscribe. I'm not doing that.

Like I say, I don't want to get into a debate about global warming as both sides are too deeply entrenched in their beliefs to keep an open mind. All I will say is that it's important to remember that scientists don't work altruistically for the good of mankind, they work because someone is funding their research! So rather than just accepting their conclusions, we should instead ask who is funding them and what do they hope to gain.

Oh and, are people who think that global warming must be a myth because it's snowing in Boston any different to people who think the recent floods in North West England are conclusive proof of climate change?

Now, back to the question of whether it's cheaper to fly or take the train....

 

[Crossover]

Wait to see how the deniers will start to act when global warming brings Northern Europe colder winters. Their minds will burst.

Global cooling then - we're being misinformed

 

[urbophile]

I'm certainly not a climate change denier. Nor am I a scientist. But surely an overwhelming consensus must count for something, and the fact that the deniers represent very largely groups with a financial interest in maintaining the status quo.

The question I take from the OP, which has been largely ignored, is not so much why air fares can be so much cheaper than train ones (which of course as has been pointed out isn't always the case), but why are British train fares in general so much higher than in the rest of Europe? And why can other countries not only have efficient nationally owned rail networks but also bid to run our trains and make a profit from them?

 

[richw]

There is strong evidence that global temperatures are increasing

The strong evidence being the ice age melting? The earliest global warming long before industry was creating CO2

 

[island]

I'm flying on British Airways next month from Newcastle to London because it is £30 cheaper than travelling on Virgin Trains East Coast.

Of that £110 fare, about £70 of it is tax. It was booked last week.

I'd double-check that one. In amongst the taxes you may find "carrier-imposed surcharge", which is just another part of the fare.

 

[miami]

I'd double-check that one. In amongst the taxes you may find "carrier-imposed surcharge", which is just another part of the fare.

BA no longer include the cost of fuel in the "taxes" field, on shorthaul anyway. They do include the cost of landing the aircraft in the "taxes" field, and the £12 each way of actual tax (APD).

 

[coppercapped]

I'm certainly not a climate change denier. Nor am I a scientist. But surely an overwhelming consensus must count for something, and the fact that the deniers represent very largely groups with a financial interest in maintaining the status quo.

This deserves a longer answer, but it is waaay off topic!

The question I take from the OP, which has been largely ignored, is not so much why air fares can be so much cheaper than train ones (which of course as has been pointed out isn't always the case), but why are British train fares in general so much higher than in the rest of Europe? And why can other countries not only have efficient nationally owned rail networks but also bid to run our trains and make a profit from them?

While there is an element of truth here, in fact it is much more nuanced.

Because, with the exception of Paris and the surrounding Ile de France, there is no other country on the mainland of Europe which has the same combination of population size, population density, geography and a capital city which is so predominant.

As a result the demand for travel in the peak periods, especially to and within the south east, is much more intense than elsewhere. To control demand peak travel prices are higher and off-peak prices lower. Other countries, and France and Germany are the ones I know best having lived and worked in both, don't tend to distinguish by time, but by train type. Thus cheap tickets in Germany are often limited to regional and local trains or are time limited to weekends and are not valid in long distance (ICE and IC) trains, except of course for special promotions. If one buys one of the various denominations of the BahnCard then one can save up to 50% of the ticket price, so it is possible to get cheaper tickets, but only if one has parted with money in advance.

In France if one works in the Ile de France there is an extra 3% (in my day) charge on one's income tax to help pay for 'transport en commun'. So the tickets weren't quite as cheap as it appears.

As to whether these other networks are 'efficient' lies in the eye of the beholder. The German railways have huge problems at the moment - financial, technical and operational - and there is a strong feeling that DBAG should drop all its foreign adventures and concentrate in getting the home network to function properly. France is not very good in allowing its state supplied services to be supplied by foreign organisations but Germany has a more open economy and as a result National Express now operates franchises in Nord-Rhein Westfalen and at least part of the S-Bahn network in Nurnberg. So it is not only a one-way street.

 

[TheEdge]

The strong evidence being the ice age melting? The earliest global warming long before industry was creating CO2

Ice Age is a term that has two distinct meanings. The popular one is of the giant ice sheets covering North America and Europe. The scientific one defines an ice age as any period where there is a permanent ice cap at the North and South poles.

Global warming is a natural process, yes. Its seen throughout geological history and on other planets. However anthropomorphic activities are impacting it and speeding it up. And it isn't just the climate. Some now propose we are in a new geological epoch, the Anthropocene, where human activity is markedly impacting the geology itself of the Earth. Heavy metals and radioactive elements brought about by industrial activity and nuclear weapons are now actually showing up distinctly in sample cores. Geologists believe that any future civilisation in millions of years will be able to identify the sedimentary rocks laid down during our civilisation by a layer of plastic within them!

We are really having a serious impact on the Earth.