£400 tax needed for airtravel
Buddenbrooks
journey.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8340561.stm
As the above article points out you can fly across Europe for �30, it is
ridiculous that air travel is subsidized to such an extent that
it is impossible for rail to compete. How can we expect the English holiday
maker to go to the beaches of Scotland when he can get to the
meditarainian for a fraction of the price.
Roland Perry
Nov 2009, Buddenbrooks <knights...@budweiser.com> remarked:
There isn't a subsidy, it's just that airlines cost less to run than the
railways.
If I cycled to the beach for free, would you prefer I was charged a �400
tax to "level the playing field" and encourage me to use a train
instead?
--
Roland Perry
Neil Williams
<knights...@budweiser.com> wrote:
>As the above article points out you can fly across Europe for �30
You can also do much of the length of the country by train for about
the same. A first class open return, which is what is being
described, is a fully-flexible ticket that can only reasonably be
compared with a fully-flexible business class air ticket. Indeed, the
air ticket would be *less* flexible because there's pretty much always
a seat available in First Class on a train, and if there isn't you can
always stand.
It is a sign that things have got out of hand, as I don't believe a
domestic business class ticket (if there was such a thing) would cost
quite that much, but it's not as different as is being proposed.
Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.
Buddenbrooks
"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3oZdDXs9...@perry.co.uk...
>
> There isn't a subsidy, it's just that airlines cost less to run than the
> railways.
>
> If I cycled to the beach for free, would you prefer I was charged a �400
> tax to "level the playing field" and encourage me to use a train instead?
> --
:) I was not serious.
Actually I suspect it is impossible to work out what the true base cost of
rail or Air is with all the hidden cross subsidies.
The legacy contribution to rail from land purchase in Victorian times and
the use by Ryan Air of airports like Hahn which were paid for by the
American tax payer when it
was a military airport.
I believe if you do true cost analysis that air transport becomes cheaper
after around 1000 miles, possibly less if you are in the UK and have to
cross the sea.
The example on the bbc news site of a rail trip costing over �1000 just
illustrates how ineffective rail transport in the UK has become. Certainly
if the green movement wants to stop air travel in favour of rail then most
of us will have to just cycle to the beach.
Buddenbrooks
"Neil Williams" <wensl...@pacersplace.org.uk> wrote in message
news:4af098af....@news.individual.net...
First Class carriages.
Which airline offers first class fares on non segregated flights?
Yes sir, you asked for a first class ticket and we sold you one, it is up to
you to check the service is available.
Roland Perry
>illustrates how ineffective rail transport in the UK has become.
It's a very odd example because there's a �550 (approx) ticket that's
just as good - while ostensibly off-peak, you'd always qualify on that
route. And it's First Class, and any train (no advance notice required
at all), and you can break the journey on the way.
To that extent it would be better to compare it with a scheduled airline
ticket, bought on the day. If I want to fly from East Midlands to
Brussels tomorrow with BMI, the fare is �295 each way Economy, and a
barely more expensive �329 each way Business.
In this case the train would be cheaper (but take so long it's not
viable for a day trip).
--
Roland Perry
Neil Williams
<knights...@budweiser.com> wrote:
> Ah yes but the rail company charges First Class, where there are no
>First Class carriages.
It might sound like a joke in the context of the �1000 ticket, but
First Class fares tend to be scaled down a bit (!) from what they
would otherwise cost if First Class is absent.
>Which airline offers first class fares on non segregated flights?
I think KLM does sell "Europe Select" tickets (which I think are not
only their business class offering, but also the only proper fully
flexible option) on Fokker 50s out of LCY, which are not segregated.
Roland Perry
>> domestic business class ticket (if there was such a thing) would cost
>> quite that much, but it's not as different as is being proposed.
>>
> Ah yes but the rail company charges First Class, where there are
>no First Class carriages.
>Which airline offers first class fares on non segregated flights?
>Yes sir, you asked for a first class ticket and we sold you one, it is
>up to you to check the service is available.
We covered that in the other thread: First Class on a lot of internal
European flights is barely different from Economy. The train's lack of
First Class is only on a small section of the trip.
--
Roland Perry
Buddenbrooks
> In message <U61Im.49320$F%2.1...@newsfe19.ams2>, at 21:18:46 on Tue, 3
> First Class is only on a small section of the trip.
Indeed. However I am unsure what rail transport is supposed to be.
It is subsidized so presumably meant to be a public service, but �1000 fares
are not that.
It has introduced a complex fare structure that stop it from being a simple
mass transit system.
I am planning a trip from Somerset to Melbourne and the quickest simplest
and cheapest option is going to be flying Bournemouth to East Midlands via
Dublin.
Which is ridiculous from a carbon footprint point of view.
pete
first class, requires 3 different train companies and no-one has ever bought
one.
The article goes on to say that you could buy the same ticket online for
about half the cost.
On a similar vein, you could buy a zone 1 London underground ticket and
go round and round the Circle Line all day - all for £4 - should that be
taxed at the same rate, too?
Maybe if you started to compare like with like (i.e. first class, bought
on the day, same number of changes etc.) the price to fly from the bottom
of England to the top of Scotland (if you even could on scheduled flights)
you'd discover that the flying price would at least match that fare.
Roland Perry
>news:lN+J6m1j...@perry.co.uk...
>> In message <U61Im.49320$F%2.1...@newsfe19.ams2>, at 21:18:46 on Tue, 3
>. The train's lack of
>> First Class is only on a small section of the trip.
>
>Indeed. However I am unsure what rail transport is supposed to be.
>It is subsidized so presumably meant to be a public service, but �1000
>fares are not that.
First of all it's not a �1000 fare, as has been explained. While it's a
bit of an own goal for them to have this on the pricelist, people will
be buying a fare at half the price which is just as useful.
>It has introduced a complex fare structure that stop it from being a
>simple mass transit system.
It's a very complex network, and with loads of customers trying to "beat
the system" (and drive down what they pay), they also have to weigh in
with lots of rules.
>I am planning a trip from Somerset to Melbourne and the quickest
>simplest and cheapest option is going to be flying Bournemouth to East
>Midlands via Dublin.
Is there a Melbourne near EMA? There's no flights to Australia from EMA.
>Which is ridiculous from a carbon footprint point of view.
Oddly enough I was wondering if I could get from EMA to LGW via maybe
AMS, to pick up a mid-range flight in a couple of week's time. But only
because there appear to be strikes on FCC, and I don't want to miss my
plane because of that.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
2009, pete <no-...@unknown.com> remarked:
>The article goes on to say that you could buy the same ticket online for
>about half the cost.
If it says that, they are confused. What's available (at a ticket office
as well as online) is an Offpeak ticket at half the price, valid on all
trains after 9.30am.
The online journey planner only offers trips starting in the afternoon
(it's almost a 24hr trip, so presumably they have to fit this around the
trains that happen to be running in the middle of the night).
--
Roland Perry
Neil Williams
wrote:
>Oddly enough I was wondering if I could get from EMA to LGW via maybe
>AMS, to pick up a mid-range flight in a couple of week's time. But only
>because there appear to be strikes on FCC, and I don't want to miss my
>plane because of that.
Hmm - as EMT and Gatwick Express aren't affected, I'd just allow a bit
of extra time and go that way instead.
Buddenbrooks
>
> Is there a Melbourne near EMA? There's no flights to Australia from EMA.
>
Indeed, about 5 miles down the road. Presumably you come from the East
otherwise you would drive through it on the way to the airport.
It is the home of Lord Melbourne and has existed long before anyone in the
UK had heard of Australia.
EMA by the way is an ex RAF airfield. So another example of a 'hidden
subsidy' airport.
Buddenbrooks
"pete" <no-...@unknown.com> wrote in message
news:slrnhf1ddo...@corv.local...
>
> Maybe if you started to compare like with like (i.e. first class, bought
> on the day, same number of changes etc.) the price to fly from the bottom
> of England to the top of Scotland (if you even could on scheduled flights)
> you'd discover that the flying price would at least match that fare.
>
The fare structure for flying reflects some of the practicalities of
flying. Features like number of passengers having to be no more than the
seating capacity.
Rail is naturally more 'open' with multiple routes of getting from A to B
and generally many times during the day when travel is possible.
So the old tariffs of basically 'any sensible route' and any 'off peak'
train was a natural ticketing option. The current system is unnecessary
complex and puts restrictions which are mainly to extract extra money.
Privatizing the rail was not a good move if we are supposed to reduce air
travel and go by train.
I used to be a heavy user of the train but I have a disabled son and cycle.
The affordable fares require travelling on specific trains which is too
restrictive for my son who would
not easily organize himself to be at the station for a totally fixed time.
Similarly I cant easily organize a days cycling and be sure of being back at
the station for a fixed time.
Of course flying is no better for this so it is not travelling or using the
car. Prior to privatization it was not a problem.
On the bit above, yes it would be possible to be at the station for fixed
times but that requires added 'safety margins' which in practice means less
cycling and more sat
waiting for the train. Not a good use of recreational time.
Roland Perry
>subsidy' airport.
Although it's been entirely rebuilt, in stages, since then. Yet another
runway extension announced yesterday, in fact.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
>o...@corv.local...
>>
>> Maybe if you started to compare like with like (i.e. first class, bought
>> on the day, same number of changes etc.) the price to fly from the bottom
>> of England to the top of Scotland (if you even could on scheduled flights)
>> you'd discover that the flying price would at least match that fare.
>
> The fare structure for flying reflects some of the practicalities of
>flying. Features like number of passengers having to be no more than
>the seating capacity.
>
> Rail is naturally more 'open' with multiple routes of getting from A
>to B and generally many times during the day when travel is possible.
>So the old tariffs of basically 'any sensible route' and any 'off peak'
>train was a natural ticketing option.
Now embodied in the "Anytime" tickets.
>The current system is unnecessary complex and puts restrictions which
>are mainly to extract extra money.
All of the "extra" or "more complex" fares are cheaper. So they aren't
extracting extra money as a result of that.
It's possible that some people will now use the train, rather than
bus/car/etc, if cheaper fares are available. But it's obvious that the
cheaper tickets have to include restrictions otherwise "everyone would
use them" and the core revenue that comes from Anytime tickets will be
lost.
>Privatizing the rail was not a good move if we are supposed to reduce
>air travel and go by train.
People seem to forget how dreadful BR was at customer service.
>I used to be a heavy user of the train but I have a disabled son and
>cycle. The affordable fares require travelling on specific trains which
>is too restrictive
...
My own approach is to regard:
Offpeak (used to be "Saver" or "Cheap Day return" fares,
depending on the route) as the "regular fare" which don't
require advance purchase nor tied to a particular train,
Anytime (used to be "open" fares) as a "premium product" for
travel during the rush hour" and
Advance (used to be Apex) as the "discount product" when I can
trade a cheaper fare for having to specify the exact train -
much as one generally specifies the exact plane.
One size can't fit all, which is why there are three (or four if you
include super-off-peak).
--
Roland Perry
Buddenbrooks
>
> My own approach is to regard:
>
> Offpeak (used to be "Saver" or "Cheap Day return" fares,
> depending on the route) as the "regular fare" which don't
> require advance purchase nor tied to a particular train,
>
> Anytime (used to be "open" fares) as a "premium product" for
> travel during the rush hour" and
>
> Advance (used to be Apex) as the "discount product" when I can
> trade a cheaper fare for having to specify the exact train -
> much as one generally specifies the exact plane.
>
An useful summary. However I am a reluctant driver and derive no enjoyment
from using a car, but the complexities make me go by car far more than
the train.
I do travel quite a bit in Germany and find it easier to understand than the
UK system, even allowing that they use a middle ages version of English over
there.
Simple rules like, if you stay within a single Lander and travel after 9.30
up to five can travel unlimited for 28E Excludes Inter City Express
tim....
"Buddenbrooks" <knights...@budweiser.com> wrote in message
news:W8jIm.30124$df2....@newsfe06.ams2...
how can "travelling within a lander" be a simple rule to a foreigner? I bet
you can't take a map and draw the boundary of Baden Wuttenburg! (I doubt
that most people would even get it in the correct quarter of then country)
tim
>
Neil Williams
<tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>how can "travelling within a lander" be a simple rule to a foreigner? I bet
>you can't take a map and draw the boundary of Baden Wuttenburg! (I doubt
>that most people would even get it in the correct quarter of then country)
And away from the Laender-Tickets, the Schoenes-Wochenende-Ticket and
the new Quer Durch's Land Ticket (basically a slightly more expensive
SWT valid during the week after the morning peak), which are not valid
on IC or ICE, things get more complicated.
You have to deal with validity within Verkehrsverbuende (one thing
that can be said for the UK approach is that you can always ask for a
return to X and get one!), with routeing rules that are rather more
specific than the UK[1], and with a different price for regional, IC
and ICE. This basically means that you can only really buy a ticket
for a specific timed journey or you'll end up overpaying.
It *used* to be nice and simple. These days, the UK and Germany are
probably equal in complexity, if in different ways.
[1] Yes, there's the Routeing Guide. But staff on the ground tend to
operate on the basis that if it sounds reasonable, it goes.
Neil Williams
<knights...@budweiser.com> wrote:
> Rail is naturally more 'open' with multiple routes of getting from A to B
>and generally many times during the day when travel is possible.
>So the old tariffs of basically 'any sensible route' and any 'off peak'
>train was a natural ticketing option.
Those tickets still exist, and ignoring the issue of overpriced
Anytime tickets (airlines are just as good at this!) they're still a
reasonable option and still the one I use the most.
I tend to find the cost of these around the same as the cost of using
my car, though admittedly it isn't the most fuel-efficient of
vehicles.
Being more practical, though, assuming your son is an adult he could
perhaps avail himself of a Disabled Person's Railcard, which would
offer him and a companion travelling with him on the same trip (e.g.
you) 1/3 off most off-peak tickets, which will tip the balance back
somewhat. Reading the website, even a child could hold such a
Railcard to allow an adult to travel with them at a discounted fare,
though if it's a specific adult (or two) who normally travels it would
make more sense to purchase a Family Railcard as this discounts the
child fare as well.
Buddenbrooks
"tim...." <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7le3u9F...@mid.individual.net...
> how can "travelling within a lander" be a simple rule to a foreigner? I
bet
> you can't take a map and draw the boundary of Baden Wuttenburg! (I doubt
> that most people would even get it in the correct quarter of then country)
>
Friedrichshafen.
I often travel from Stuttgart to Konstance. A month ago I was in Memmingen
which although in Bavaria counts as Baden W�rttemberg (I can spell it too
:) )
for rail purposes.
And before you comment on spelling ue is the same as u with an umlaut.
I like the Bodensee, so visit the bottom bit on the left often.
Buddenbrooks
> It *used* to be nice and simple. These days, the UK and Germany are
> probably equal in complexity, if in different ways.
>
The staff seem more helpful, I only learnt about the lander tickets when
Ryan Air cancelled my return flight from Baden Baden and I had to get to
Friedrichshafen to pick up the alternative. The Bahn staff were considerably
more helpful than Ryan Air. I had expected to pay considerably more to get
me and my wife there than 28E. A pretty view all the way too.
Buddenbrooks
> Being more practical, though, assuming your son is an adult he could
> perhaps avail himself of a Disabled Person's Railcard, which would
> offer him and a companion travelling with him on the same trip (e.g.
> you) 1/3 off most off-peak tickets, which will tip the balance back
> somewhat. Reading the website, even a child could hold such a
> Railcard to allow an adult to travel with them at a discounted fare,
> though if it's a specific adult (or two) who normally travels it would
> make more sense to purchase a Family Railcard as this discounts the
> child fare as well.
>
Thank you, useful information.
Neil Williams
<knights...@budweiser.com> wrote:
>I often travel from Stuttgart to Konstance. A month ago I was in Memmingen
>which although in Bavaria counts as Baden W�rttemberg (I can spell it too
>:) )
>for rail purposes.
It's on the boundary so counts as both B-W and Bavaria. (I checked
this out as I'm going to be flying there with Ryanair at the end of
the month and using a Bayern-Ticket to get to Munich).
Buddenbrooks
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 22:57:22 -0000, "Buddenbrooks"
> this out as I'm going to be flying there with Ryanair at the end of
> the month and using a Bayern-Ticket to get to Munich).
>
Memmingen is small but worth walking around.
If you get the bus from the airport it is 18E single. It seems to be timed
to meet the flight.
The bus into Memmingen centre is badly timed. You need to hope the flight is
on time rush straight and go to the bus at the end to the right, past the
first which is for Munich.
You will probably miss it and have to wait an hour or catch a taxi.
Sundays the bus service is very poor.
The bus does go to the station via housing estates. The ticket office and
ticket machines are at the far end of the terminal building from the bus
terminus end.
I think you will find the bus from the airport to Munich cheaper and quicker
than going by rail.
Neil Williams
<knights...@budweiser.com> wrote:
>I think you will find the bus from the airport to Munich cheaper and quicker
>than going by rail.
As there are 4 of us travelling, I suspect that it won't be cheaper
even if we do use a taxi to the station (the Laender-Tickets are
extremely good value for groups), and it certainly would be less
enjoyable. But for a single traveller I imagine you'd be right.
Thanks for the suggestion to walk round Memmingen itself.
Buddenbrooks
> As there are 4 of us travelling, I suspect that it won't be cheaper
> even if we do use a taxi to the station
The bus journey is quite long because it takes a winedy route to cover more
stops. The fare as around E2.50 single so I would imagine E10 for 4 people
would go a long way towards a taxi fare.
Theo Markettos
> In message <slrnhf1ddo...@corv.local>, at 22:59:04 on Tue, 3 Nov
> 2009, pete <no-...@unknown.com> remarked:
> >The article goes on to say that you could buy the same ticket online for
> >about half the cost.
>
> If it says that, they are confused. What's available (at a ticket office
> as well as online) is an Offpeak ticket at half the price, valid on all
> trains after 9.30am.
And, to compare with budget airlines, if you split your journey into legs
and book them separately in advance (as you have to do with low-costs), you
get each way (starting prices):
Kyle-Inverness: Standard Advance Single 11.00
Inverness-Edinburgh: 1st Anytime Return 81.10
Edinburgh-Newquay: 1st Advance Single 55.50
Total for return 206.10
If you broke this down further you could probably reduce the cost some more.
Theo
the_niner_nation
>A trip on the British rail system can now cost over �1000 for a return
>journey.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8340561.stm
>
> As the above article points out you can fly across Europe for �30, it is
> ridiculous that air travel is subsidized to such an extent that
> it is impossible for rail to compete. How can we expect the English
> holiday maker to go to the beaches of Scotland when he can get to the
> meditarainian for a fraction of the price.
>
>
>
I expect the residents of costal scotland would be delighted that the
english won't be using their towns and communities as brothels, alcohol dens
, a play ground for drunken rampaging and such like whilst they go on '
holiday ' .
Buddenbrooks
"the_niner_nation" <the_nine...@sf49ers.com> wrote in message
news:7mbigtF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> the english won't be using their towns and communities as brothels,
> alcohol dens , a play ground for drunken rampaging and such like
Indeed, a very upstanding and moral nation.
Andy Davidson
> A trip on the British rail system can now cost over �1000 for a return
> journey.
> As the above article points out you can fly across Europe for �30, it is
> ridiculous that air travel is subsidized to such an extent that
> it is impossible for rail to compete.
Rail travel is already very subsidised - one article I found suggests
�6.3bn a year http://www.railway-technology.com/features/feature1159/
On the other hand, private motoring is heavily taxed, but is still much
cheaper than the railways.
I do not know what the fix is, but it would involve a more efficient
railway rather than punishing the air industry for becoming more efficient.
--
Regards, Andy Davidson
Buddenbrooks
"Andy Davidson" <"$andy$"@nosignal.org> wrote in message
news:7mojvcF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> On the other hand, private motoring is heavily taxed, but is still much
> cheaper than the railways.
>
Cars are constantly evolving with new and improved parts every year.
So many are made that changes offering only small incremental improvements
are economically viable.
Apart from a level safety and pollution issues the design process has little
interference from outsiders.
So a 10 year old car is considererd old and eligable for scrapping.
Trains last for decades so a train diesel engine is far less 'evolved' than
a car one. Constant interference from polititions, unions and local interest
groups make design and infrastructure improvements slow and leaves
'efficiency' as a minor consideration.
In the extreme consider occasional articles on the possibilities of fully
autonomous cars, the main objections are technical issues related to 'if it
is possible'.
Similar articles for rail just fall foul of 'unions would not allow it'. the
London Underground would probably be safer as an unmanned system, it will
never happen.
It would be interesting to see an analysis of 'true cost' for rail travel
verses air travel, with tax and subsidies removed from the equation.
Jeff Hacker
>
> "Andy Davidson" <"$andy$"@nosignal.org> wrote in message
> news:7mojvcF...@mid.individual.net...
>
>>
>> On the other hand, private motoring is heavily taxed, but is still much
>> cheaper than the railways.
>>
>
> Cars are constantly evolving with new and improved parts every year.
> So many are made that changes offering only small incremental improvements
> are economically viable.
> Apart from a level safety and pollution issues the design process has
> little interference from outsiders.
>
> So a 10 year old car is considererd old and eligable for scrapping.
>
> Trains last for decades so a train diesel engine is far less 'evolved'
> than a car one. Constant interference from polititions, unions and local
> interest groups make design and infrastructure improvements slow and
> leaves 'efficiency' as a minor consideration.
Trains (and airplanes as well) are designed to be used for extended time
periods and are also constantly updated with new features during regular
maintainance. So a 10 year old locomotive might be quite a bit advanced
compared to that same locomotive when it was new.
>
> In the extreme consider occasional articles on the possibilities of fully
> autonomous cars, the main objections are technical issues related to 'if
> it is possible'.
>
The technology already exists. It is the roads which haven't kept up. Look
at cars like several new models (Lexus comes to mind) that can park
themselves, and others that have radar enhanced cruise control (Mercedes,
for example).
> Similar articles for rail just fall foul of 'unions would not allow it'.
> the London Underground would probably be safer as an unmanned system, it
> will never happen.
That's a union issue, but note that there are numerous cities now using
unmanned systems, including some of the newer trains in Paris, and many of
the people mover systems at airports around the world (Atlanta, Dallas,
Madrid). Many of these cities have strong unions so it can be worked out,
although painfully and over time.
Buddenbrooks
"Jeff Hacker" <jha...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:ilTNm.5990$kY2....@newsfe01.iad...
>
>
> Trains (and airplanes as well) are designed to be used for extended time
> periods and are also constantly updated with new features during regular
> maintainance. So a 10 year old locomotive might be quite a bit advanced
> compared to that same locomotive when it was new.
>>
Engines and basic rolling stock frame will not be upgraded, so efficiency
of engine will not change and the power to weight ratio
will not change significantly over the life of the unit.
The point I was trying to say is that car diesel engines are subject to
radical development which is possible by the large numbers made and the
competition.
I would guess that it is likely that the number of diesel engines made for
cars in a year exceeds the number made for trains ever. Obviously innovation
in car engines will flow over
into train engines but a large lag and less focused.
An article I was reading recently pointed out that between London and
Aberdeen a Mercedes diesel car with 5 passengers will use less fuel per
person than a fully loaded train.
Partly due to engine efficiency and partly due to the much lower weight per
passenger of the vehicle.
Jeff Hacker
series, etc.), 5 passengers would be as uncomfortable as if they were flying
with Ryanair :-( and a lot less comfortable than in even second class on a
train.
>
Buddenbrooks
>
> I don't disagree with you, but if the Mercedes is a "normal" model (300
> series, etc.), 5 passengers would be as uncomfortable as if they were
> flying with Ryanair :-( and a lot less comfortable than in even second
> class on a
> train.
>>
If you could design a train and track using optimum modern technology and
without difficulties in buying the land for the track
then I would expect Train travel to be cheaper and faster point to point
than any other transport option.
Also features like tables, an opportunity to walk and stretch lags and a
toilet make it a preferable method over others.
Sadly the current UK implementation fails on all fronts.
Roland Perry
Nov 2009, Jeff Hacker <jha...@usa.net> remarked:
>> An article I was reading recently pointed out that between London and
>>Aberdeen a Mercedes diesel car with 5 passengers will use less fuel
>>per person than a fully loaded train.
>> Partly due to engine efficiency and partly due to the much lower
>>weight per passenger of the vehicle.
>>
>I don't disagree with you, but if the Mercedes is a "normal" model (300
>series, etc.),
300 would be an engine size, not a series.
>5 passengers would be as uncomfortable as if they were flying with
>Ryanair :-( and a lot less comfortable than in even second class on a
>train.
I used to have a diesel Mercedes (E series), the sort used as a taxi,
and five people could travel in comparative luxury. Got around 40mpg as
well, iirc.
--
Roland Perry
Neil Williams
<knights...@budweiser.com> wrote:
>Similar articles for rail just fall foul of 'unions would not allow it'. the
>London Underground would probably be safer as an unmanned system, it will
>never happen.
Heading OT, but I doubt it. The safest option for LUL is probably for
it to be an automatically-controlled system with a person there as
well "just in case" (and to do the doors). This is exactly how the
Central and Victoria lines operate (said person is in the cab), as
well as the DLR (where they can walk around the train).
Similarly, unstaffed Tube stations might end up being badly
vandalised. Having staff on hand helps reduce this.
Neil Williams
<knights...@budweiser.com> wrote:
> Engines and basic rolling stock frame will not be upgraded, so efficiency
>of engine will not change
Rubbish. For example, First Great Western has recently fitted newer,
lower-pollution and more efficient engines to its entire fleet of
30-odd-year-old HSTs.
The rolling stock "frame" is solid, so why bother replacing it?
Modern stock isn't lighter-weight, indeed some of it is heavier due to
greater crashworthiness requirements.
>An article I was reading recently pointed out that between London and
>Aberdeen a Mercedes diesel car with 5 passengers will use less fuel per
>person than a fully loaded train.
This is most probably true, and if you chose a smaller car it would be
even more pronounced. The problem with it is that most cars carry one
or two passengers only, and this tips the balance.
The other side of it is that most people are (to a point) willing to
travel by train, but most would not accept travelling with strangers
in the far more "closed-in" and intimate environment of a car, even a
luxury one. Were this not the case, I expect we'd see a lot of
premium shared-car services in the UK. Such services, however, only
seem to exist to any great extent in less developed countries without
a substantial rail or coach network, and to a slight extent to or from
UK major airports.
Thus, if you're going to put 5 people in a car, the car is the best
environmentally, and also economically. But if travelling alone,
unless you choose a very small car or a motorcycle, the train is
likely to win[1] in the environmental stakes, and may well win on
price if a cheap advance-purchase ticket is used.
[1] Long-distance coach is usually yet better, but for similar reasons
to the lack of shared-car services people don't usually choose these
other than where price is the only consideration.
Neil Williams
wrote:
>I used to have a diesel Mercedes (E series), the sort used as a taxi,
>and five people could travel in comparative luxury.
I'd say four, as the "middle seat problem" tends to occur if a fifth
is inserted. (The fact that on long-distance trains there usually
isn't a middle seat is a consideration in their favour).
Buddenbrooks
> Rubbish. For example, First Great Western has recently fitted newer,
> lower-pollution and more efficient engines to its entire fleet of
> 30-odd-year-old HSTs.
>
Well my point was that engine updates are in decades rather than annual.
The fact that GW gives extra life to tired rollong stock does not impress
me.
> The rolling stock "frame" is solid, so why bother replacing it?
> Modern stock isn't lighter-weight, indeed some of it is heavier due to
> greater crashworthiness requirements.
>
Indeed, but I was commenting that it is heavy and not subject to the
improvements in technology updates that cars have.
Composites etc
>>An article I was reading recently pointed out that between London and
>>Aberdeen a Mercedes diesel car with 5 passengers will use less fuel per
>>person than a fully loaded train.
>
> This is most probably true, and if you chose a smaller car it would be
> even more pronounced. The problem with it is that most cars carry one
> or two passengers only, and this tips the balance.
>
But I was illistrating that a full car gives better fuel per passenger
mile than a full train.
, because of the more modern design of a car compared with a 30 year old
referbished GW train.
> The other side of it is that most people are (to a point) willing to
> travel by train, but most would not accept travelling with strangers
> in the far more "closed-in" and intimate environment of a car, even a
> luxury one. Were this not the case, I expect we'd see a lot of
> premium shared-car services in the UK. Such services, however, only
> seem to exist to any great extent in less developed countries without
> a substantial rail or coach network, and to a slight extent to or from
> UK major airports.
The fuel efficiency of a modern car is not effected by any of these
points.
>
> Thus, if you're going to put 5 people in a car, the car is the best
> environmentally, and also economically. But if travelling alone,
> unless you choose a very small car or a motorcycle, the train is
> likely to win[1] in the environmental stakes, and may well win on
> price if a cheap advance-purchase ticket is used.
>
The cost of running a train per mile does not change by type of ticket.
> [1] Long-distance coach is usually yet better, but for similar reasons
> to the lack of shared-car services people don't usually choose these
> other than where price is the only consideration.
>
Coaches will inherit design improvements from car development and can
only loose on staffing ration to number of passengers and delays from having
to share
the road.
From here I have a choice of two coaches a day to and from London, rail
offers about 16. That is the main deciding factor for me.
Buddenbrooks
Indeed. Perhaps automation would release staff to help passengers and
police the system.
Neil Williams
<knights...@budweiser.com> wrote:
>Well my point was that engine updates are in decades rather than annual.
Most people do not change their car every year.
>The fact that GW gives extra life to tired rollong stock does not impress
>me.
Why not? There is nothing wrong with it, and it's built to last 40
years plus, which is better than scrapping it and starting again.
> But I was illistrating that a full car gives better fuel per passenger
>mile than a full train.
> , because of the more modern design of a car compared with a 30 year old
>referbished GW train.
You were, but it's an irrelevant situation, as most cars do not
contain a full passenger load.
> The cost of running a train per mile does not change by type of ticket.
An over-simplistic comment. Ticket types are a model for maximising
revenue. They have little to do with the cost of running a specific
train at a specific time.
>From here I have a choice of two coaches a day to and from London, rail
>offers about 16. That is the main deciding factor for me.
I think there are good reasons for that relating to the demand for
various types of transport. For example, a commuter coach from MK to
London was tried, and failed miserably as people just weren't
interested.
Commuter coach services are quite popular and intensively-operated in
the areas south-east of London, though. So if the demand is there,
the services will materialise.
Neil Williams
<knights...@budweiser.com> wrote:
> Indeed. Perhaps automation would release staff to help passengers and
>police the system.
That, as I stated, is what they *already* do on the DLR, and to some
extent (with regard to safety issues) already do on the Vic and
Central lines.
Roland Perry
22 Nov 2009, Neil Williams <wensl...@pacersplace.org.uk> remarked:
>>I used to have a diesel Mercedes (E series), the sort used as a taxi,
>>and five people could travel in comparative luxury.
>
>I'd say four, as the "middle seat problem" tends to occur if a fifth
>is inserted. (The fact that on long-distance trains there usually
>isn't a middle seat is a consideration in their favour).
The E Series is wide enough that there's no problem with having someone
sat in the middle. It's unusual, I agree, but that model is especially
wide inside.
--
Roland Perry
Buddenbrooks
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 20:30:50 -0000, "Buddenbrooks"
>
> An over-simplistic comment. Ticket types are a model for maximising
> revenue. They have little to do with the cost of running a specific
> train at a specific time.
>
This sub thread started with the question on how trains could compete with
other transport systems.
I was trying to point out that as fuel is a major input to the ticket cost
that trains are trying to compete while running with out-of-date hardware.
My comparison of a new Mercedes E type verses up to 40 year old rolling
stock says it all. Consider a Modern Mercedes with its 1960s equivalent.
Apart from the engine there is the structure of the train itself. The
Mercedes design has significantly improved safety and crash survivability
while reducing weight.
Trains are as solid and heavy as ever.
Obvious trains attract millions of passengers so there are other reasons to
use trains than fuel efficiency.