|
Eusless
In message . li, at
11:31:49 on Sun, 14 Mar 2010, Tom Anderson remarked: if there's, say, 1 tph from Heathrow total, that means 0.25 tph to people's actual destinations. Lots more than that is needed. I think you'd be hard pressed to serve an arc of destinations from Amsterdam to Madrid with four trains, let alone places further away. I sort of dream of some sunlit uplands of the future where we have a proper international service from London, rather than just trains to Paris, Brussels, and EuroDismal. I'd quite like it too - but we have to be realistic that the only way to do this is to use the same hub-and-spoke system that traditional airlines do. You are never going to get Bristol-Berlin through-trains as well as a Cambridge-Rome, Glasgow-Nice and a Derby-Amsterdam (etc), even at 1t-p-day. I was deliberately vague about Europe because the trains could be going to all sorts of places - a small number now, but hopefully more in the future. Perhaps never as many as that airport, in which case Of course, the airport I mentioned was a small regional one. Lots more places to try to serve if you are attempting to replace flights from Heathrow. Replacing all of them would be impossible - replacing 50% of the actual flights might be possible, if most of the passengers are going to a small number of destinations. I have no numbers to suggest that's the case, but most things are that way, power-law distributions and all that. Surprisingly enough, the low-cost airlines fly to a large number of destinations one or twice a day, and seem to exactly fill the planes all the time! The only exception I can think of quickly is Geneva, where I have seen almost hourly flights by Easyjet at weekends during the skiing season. perhaps HS2 should serve that too. Apparently it will - East Midlands Interchange will be a a couple of miles away. Aha, not in my version of the plan it won't! Going to build EMI under the airport? There have been some kites flown about connecting it directly to the rail system. -- Roland Perry |
Eusless
In message , at 18:19:02 on Sun,
14 Mar 2010, Paul Terry remarked: Of course, the airport I mentioned was a small regional one. Lots more places to try to serve if you are attempting to replace flights from Heathrow. However, Paris is (by a considerable margin) the most popular destination from Heathrow, with 60 flights a day (despite Eurostar). Second most popular are Amsterdam and Dublin (50 flights), after which comes Frankfurt (40 flights), New York (42 flights), Edinburgh (40 flights), Manchester (36 flights), Brussels (30 flights), Glasgow (28 flights) and Aberdeen (also 28 flights). Looking at the continental destinations, this emphasises the hub-and-spoke nature of airline operations. Apart from Brussels (are you sure of that figure - it seems very high), they are all places where people routinely catch onwards flights. But what is really needed to reduce flights from Heathrow is a direct train service (HS2) to Edinburgh, Manchester, Glasgow and possibly Aberdeen, since a very large amount of Heathrow's traffic is actually domestic. About half of BA's domestic passengers to Heathrow are catching an onward flight, so you need to make sure the through-ticketing and baggage is as painless as when flying. -- Roland Perry |
Eusless
In message , at 20:49:41 on Sun, 14 Mar
2010, tim.... remarked: For most destinations Brussels is a better connecting point, even if only because you don't have to change stations But with 3hr gaps between trains at some times of day, it's not picking up the traffic. -- Roland Perry |
Eusless
In message . li, at
11:24:49 on Sun, 14 Mar 2010, Tom Anderson remarked: The second thing that's obvious is that we need a high-speed service from Heathrow to Europe, so we can cut out lots of short-haul connecting flights. No, it's not obvious at all. He's not very clear what these "connecting flights" are, but if it's short-haul to places like CDG (which isn't served by Eurostar, although it passes the end of the runway), Amsterdam, Frankfurt, to get an onward long haul, then you could have the same effect by regulating prices so it's economic to fly direct from London. Apologies, i should have been clearer. I was thinking of passengers arriving at Heathrow from outside Europe, and then heading on to places in Europe. I understand from this business about Heathrow being a 'hub' that there is quite a lot of these passengers. As I hinted above, you need to look carefully at the price model for flight combinations like that. -- Roland Perry |
Eusless
In message , at 21:38:35 on Sun, 14 Mar
2010, Roland Perry remarked: However, Paris is (by a considerable margin) the most popular destination from Heathrow, with 60 flights a day (despite Eurostar). Second most popular are Amsterdam and Dublin (50 flights), after which comes Frankfurt (40 flights), New York (42 flights), Edinburgh (40 flights), Manchester (36 flights), Brussels (30 flights), Glasgow (28 flights) and Aberdeen (also 28 flights). Looking at the continental destinations, this emphasises the hub-and-spoke nature of airline operations. Apart from Brussels (are you sure of that figure - it seems very high), they are all places where people routinely catch onwards flights. re Brussels... I make it 11 flights. And a AR8 isn't exactly the biggest plane in the world. I think I demand a re-count for the other destinations! (Are you perhaps being fooled by codeshares - but that only brings LHR-BRU up to 22 "flights"??) SN 2104 Brussels Airlines 6:50 AM AR8 BA 388 British Airways 6:55 AM 319 SN 2092 Brussels Airlines 8:30 AM AR8 AA 108 American Airlines 8:30 AM 763 BA 392 British Airways 8:55 AM 320 SN 2094 Brussels Airlines 10:50 AM AR8 BA 396 British Airways 12:50 PM 319 UA 938 United Airlines 1:20 PM 777 BA 398 British Airways 3:50 PM 319 BA 404 British Airways 5:40 PM 319 SN 2102 Brussels Airlines 8:15 PM AR8 -- Roland Perry |
Eusless
In message , Roland Perry
writes re Brussels... I make it 11 flights. And a AR8 isn't exactly the biggest plane in the world. I think I demand a re-count for the other destinations! (Are you perhaps being fooled by codeshares - but that only brings LHR-BRU up to 22 "flights"??) The figures are from a HACAN report of 2006. I think you're right in suspecting that they include codeshares - no doubt to bolster their case :( However, in general terms, BAA themselves state that the most popular destinations from Heathrow are Paris, Dublin and New York. (Rather like deciding the longest bus route in London, a lot of this seems to depend on how terms are defined, of course). -- Paul Terry |
Eusless
In message , at 06:25:39 on Mon,
15 Mar 2010, Paul Terry remarked: re Brussels... I make it 11 flights. And a AR8 isn't exactly the biggest plane in the world. I think I demand a re-count for the other destinations! (Are you perhaps being fooled by codeshares - but that only brings LHR-BRU up to 22 "flights"??) The figures are from a HACAN report of 2006. I think you're right in suspecting that they include codeshares - no doubt to bolster their case :( They are so wrong that all they do is invalidate the argument of anyone relying upon them. However, in general terms, BAA themselves state that the most popular destinations from Heathrow are Paris, Dublin and New York. (Rather like deciding the longest bus route in London, a lot of this seems to depend on how terms are defined, of course). Those are pretty obvious candidates, being the Capitals (or major trade centres) of the three "closest" partners. -- Roland Perry |
Eusless
In message , Roland Perry
writes In message , at 06:25:39 on Mon, 15 Mar 2010, Paul Terry remarked: The figures are from a HACAN report of 2006. I think you're right in suspecting that they include codeshares - no doubt to bolster their case :( They are so wrong that all they do is invalidate the argument of anyone relying upon them. I wouldn't go that far: numerous other authorities give much the same list of destinations as the most popular from Heathrow, even though the precise order depends on the counting system used (just departures, or departures and arrivals, and whether by number of flights or by passenger numbers). The point is that, of the most popular destinations, many are domestic, hence the need for HS2 to serve Heathrow. Of the rest (and excluding Dublin and New York that obviously can't be served by rail), a direct or easy connection to Eurostar would be useful for Paris and Brussels, plus possibly Amsterdam and Frankfurt. But airline traffic to other European cities that could instead be potentially reached by rail from Heathrow is relatively small scale. -- Paul Terry |
Eusless
In message , at 09:04:03 on Mon,
15 Mar 2010, Paul Terry remarked: The figures are from a HACAN report of 2006. I think you're right in suspecting that they include codeshares - no doubt to bolster their case :( They are so wrong that all they do is invalidate the argument of anyone relying upon them. I wouldn't go that far: I would. The only figure I'd previously researched (last time the issue of E* replacing LHR-BRU flights came up) was overstated by *three* times. Therefore I have lost all confidence in the remaining figures (until someone confirms them in the manner I did for BRU). numerous other authorities give much the same list of destinations as the most popular from Heathrow, I'm not disputing that, but the volume of flights. even though the precise order depends on the counting system used (just departures, or departures and arrivals, and whether by number of flights or by passenger numbers). "Number of aircraft" would be a good start. The point is that, of the most popular destinations, many are domestic, hence the need for HS2 to serve Heathrow. It's not as simple as that, you have to know where people are going next - is it another plane, or into Central London. If the former, will the train adequately replace a flight (guaranteed through booking and baggae, "CIV-like" delay protection). Of the rest (and excluding Dublin and New York that obviously can't be served by rail), a direct or easy connection to Eurostar would be useful for Paris and Brussels, plus possibly Amsterdam and Frankfurt. Again, if people are connecting from long-haul onto those flights - see my comments above. But airline traffic to other European cities that could instead be potentially reached by rail from Heathrow is relatively small scale. Comprehensive passenger figures are published, perhaps it would help if someone did a summary. -- Roland Perry |
Eusless
On Mar 12, 4:46*pm, wrote:
Theres more to it than price though. A lot of people don't like flying and find the whole airport and security experience unpleasent. You still get the security "experience" with E*, though. And flying from UK regional airports is mostly *far* nicer than from Thiefrow or Gatwick. e.g. this morning, left home 0425, arrived Luton long-term car park 0505ish, short wait for bus, in terminal 0515, checked bag in and through security, in cafe enjoying breakfast 0525, boarding 0600, departure around 0630 (slightly late). Tons of time, and a bit of slack had it been required. And I find the Luton security bods to be quite friendly. Neil |
Eusless
On Mar 14, 7:19*pm, Paul Terry wrote:
But what is really needed to reduce flights from Heathrow is a direct train service (HS2) to Edinburgh, Manchester, Glasgow and possibly Aberdeen, since a very large amount of Heathrow's traffic is actually domestic. Do you have figures? That would surprise me. Neil |
Eusless
On 15 Mar, 09:04, Paul Terry wrote:
In message , Roland Perry writes In message , at 06:25:39 on Mon, 15 Mar 2010, Paul Terry remarked: The figures are from a HACAN report of 2006. I think you're right in suspecting that they include codeshares - no doubt to bolster their case :( They are so wrong that all they do is invalidate the argument of anyone relying upon them. I wouldn't go that far: numerous other authorities give much the same list of destinations as the most popular from Heathrow, even though the precise order depends on the counting system used (just departures, or departures and arrivals, and whether by number of flights or by passenger numbers). The point is that, of the most popular destinations, many are domestic, hence the need for HS2 to serve Heathrow. If the passengers on the flights to Heathrow are for connections to further afield, then the proposed solution of changing at Old Oak Common will actually be as quick as wandering around the airport especially if it includes changing terminals. Any Heathrow HS2 station would have to have a second form of transport to get to the terminals, so most of the 'advantage' would be lost at the cost of delaying services into central London. The difficult bit will be getting HS2 into the airline booking system to give seamless ticketing. DB seem to have managed this at Frankfurt for connections from Koln and Stuttgart. If the passengers are flying to Heathrow in order to get to London, then diverting the HS2 through Heathrow will be of no advantage. |
Eusless
On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 03:56:02 -0700 (PDT)
Neil Williams wrote: On Mar 12, 4:46=A0pm, wrote: Theres more to it than price though. A lot of people don't like flying an= d find the whole airport and security experience unpleasent. You still get the security "experience" with E*, though. And flying True, but to me it seems far less oppressive than what you get at the airport. e.g. this morning, left home 0425, arrived Luton long-term car park 0505ish, short wait for bus, in terminal 0515, checked bag in and through security, in cafe enjoying breakfast 0525, boarding 0600, departure around 0630 (slightly late). Tons of time, and a bit of slack had it been required. And I find the Luton security bods to be quite friendly. Yes, Luton is a nice place to fly from. B2003 |
Eusless
On Mar 15, 10:56*am, Neil Williams wrote: On Mar 12, 4:46*pm, wrote: Theres more to it than price though. A lot of people don't like flying and find the whole airport and security experience unpleasent. You still get the security "experience" with E*, though. *And flying from UK regional airports is mostly *far* nicer than from Thiefrow or Gatwick. e.g. this morning, left home 0425, arrived Luton long-term car park 0505ish, short wait for bus, in terminal 0515, checked bag in and through security, in cafe enjoying breakfast 0525, boarding 0600, departure around 0630 (slightly late). *Tons of time, and a bit of slack had it been required. *And I find the Luton security bods to be quite friendly. FSVO enjoying breakfast at 0525! (I'm not a natural early morning person!). By the by, my recent trips through Gatwick have been ok. |
Eusless
On Mar 15, 12:24*pm, wrote: On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 03:56:02 -0700 (PDT) Neil *Williams wrote: On Mar 12, 4:46pm, wrote: Theres more to it than price though. A lot of people don't like flying and find the whole airport and security experience unpleasent. You still get the security "experience" with E*, though. *And flying True, but to me it seems far less oppressive than what you get at the airport. Agreed. |
Eusless
In message
, at 03:56:02 on Mon, 15 Mar 2010, Neil Williams remarked: e.g. this morning, left home 0425, arrived Luton long-term car park 0505ish, short wait for bus, in terminal 0515, checked bag in and through security, in cafe enjoying breakfast 0525, boarding 0600, departure around 0630 (slightly late). Tons of time, and a bit of slack had it been required. And I find the Luton security bods to be quite friendly. Yesterday afternoon I arrived at the station (by car [1]) and got on a bendy-bus which left a few minutes later. I'd checked in online and there were only two people ahead of me in the security queue. The longest wait was at the airside bar where the tender was going for a world record how-long-does-it-take, to make two cups of coffee for the only other customer. At East Midlands airport it's routine for me to arrive an hour before departure, five minutes walk from the mid-term carpark to security, then anything from zero to twenty minutes [2] for x-ray, and another couple of minutes walk (much less than Luton) to the gate. But I would allow two hours if flying on a charter airline and needing to check luggage. [1] I'm flying back to Stansted, then arriving at the airport station by train from London. [2] And if necessary £3 would get a "fast-track" pass. -- Roland Perry |
Eusless
In message
, at 04:44:29 on Mon, 15 Mar 2010, Andy remarked: If the passengers on the flights to Heathrow are for connections to further afield, then the proposed solution of changing at Old Oak Common will actually be as quick as wandering around the airport especially if it includes changing terminals. Any Heathrow HS2 station would have to have a second form of transport to get to the terminals, Well spotted! So OOC is really "Heathrow East" and whatever Crosslink/HEx/Connect is called by then is your shuttle to the appropriate terminal. -- Roland Perry |
Eusless
On Mar 15, 3:55*pm, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 04:44:29 on Mon, 15 Mar 2010, Andy remarked: If the passengers on the flights to Heathrow are for connections to further afield, then the proposed solution of changing at Old Oak Common will actually be as quick as wandering around the airport especially if it includes changing terminals. Any Heathrow HS2 station would have to have a second form of transport to get to the terminals, Well spotted! So OOC is really "Heathrow East" and whatever Crosslink/HEx/Connect is called by then is your shuttle to the appropriate terminal. Yes, I recall someone suggesting that OOC would in effect be Terminal 6. |
Eusless
On Mar 15, 4:50*pm, Roland Perry wrote:
But I would allow two hours if flying on a charter airline and needing to check luggage. Currently, people largely haven't realised that you can now check in online and check in luggage on easyJet, and so the "bag drop" queue is always short. But, once they do, Speedy Boarding offers you a dedicated check-in desk that pretty much allows you to arrive at Luton at the same time you would with hand luggage only and still check a bag in. Another hour in bed when going for an 0625 is *definitely* worth 8 quid (or whatever it costs now). LTN has its faults, but it's definitely a better experience than Heathrow, Gatwick or Stansted (though the latter is the lesser of the 3 evils). The only thing that tends to cause big delays is passport control, and the auto gates are likely to help that somewhat once they are in reliable operation. Neil |
Eusless
In message
, at 02:14:07 on Tue, 16 Mar 2010, Neil Williams remarked: On Mar 15, 4:50*pm, Roland Perry wrote: But I would allow two hours if flying on a charter airline and needing to check luggage. Currently, people largely haven't realised that you can now check in online and check in luggage on easyJet, and so the "bag drop" queue is always short. That may not last long (if the airport is generally busy - when I was at Luton on Sunday the massive check-in hall was virtually empty, with just two desks open and a handful of people checking in; I've also seen it almost full!) which has been my experience with BA, their "fast" bag drop being anything but. But, once they do, Speedy Boarding offers you a dedicated check-in desk that pretty much allows you to arrive at Luton at the same time you would with hand luggage only and still check a bag in. Another hour in bed when going for an 0625 is *definitely* worth 8 quid (or whatever it costs now). I agree, if you can predict it's busy. I obviously have a little cloud following me around... only used Speedyboarding check-in once, at Gatwick, and it had a longer queue than the regular check-ins. LTN has its faults, but it's definitely a better experience than Heathrow, Gatwick or Stansted (though the latter is the lesser of the 3 evils). The only thing that tends to cause big delays is passport control, and the auto gates are likely to help that somewhat once they are in reliable operation. The autogates are quite slow. I have a fear that all they will do is allow the employment of fewer people (they've been striking over cuts recently) without reducing the waiting times. Similarly, the IRIS gates are a bit of a sideshow - so unreliable it takes about a minute per person, and even then quite a few rejects. If there are more than a handful of people waiting it's quicker to use the normal channels. -- Roland Perry |
Eusless
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 09:27:45PM +0000, Arthur Figgis wrote:
Paris Nord - Est is not too dissimilar to Euston - St Pancras. London even avoids stairs. Paris Nord - Est is a rather more pleasant walk though. -- David Cantrell | Enforcer, South London Linguistic Massive Repent through spending |
Eusless
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 02:14:07PM +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
The other day I posted a list of ten separate destinations served in a couple of hours from the much smaller airport, East Midlands. You might delight everyone with 2tph to Paris, but what of the dozens of other places they might want to be going instead? Paris is an excellent place to change trains. But there's very little point in running direct services from London to cities all over Europe - the unavoidable constraint that high speed trains *must* pass through Kent and the Channel Tunnel means that the only way to do that would be to run lots of half-empty trains to lots of places, with none (or perhaps just one) of them getting a frequent service. This is why there's bugger-all service from Norwich to Penzance, Cardiff, Bangor, Liverpool, Carlisle, Newcastle and Edinburgh - it's more efficient to use a central hub: London. Likewise, it's more efficient to go from London to Copenhagen, Berlin, Warsaw, Prague, Geneva, Pisa and Barcelona via a central hub: Paris. And consequently, it's more efficient to offer service from Norwich or Newcastle to Prague or Pisa via two hubs: London and Paris. -- David Cantrell | Minister for Arbitrary Justice When a man is tired of London, he is tired of life -- Samuel Johnson |
Eusless
In message , at 13:57:08
on Tue, 16 Mar 2010, David Cantrell remarked: On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 02:14:07PM +0000, Roland Perry wrote: The other day I posted a list of ten separate destinations served in a couple of hours from the much smaller airport, East Midlands. You might delight everyone with 2tph to Paris, but what of the dozens of other places they might want to be going instead? Paris is an excellent place to change trains. I'm sure about that, but let's park that thought for now. But there's very little point in running direct services from London to cities all over Europe - the unavoidable constraint that high speed trains *must* pass through Kent and the Channel Tunnel means that the only way to do that would be to run lots of half-empty trains to lots of places, with none (or perhaps just one) of them getting a frequent service. Exactly, that's what I've been saying. However it's what you'd need to do if you want to replace the point-point flights from Heathrow (or further afield) with trains, if has been suggested a change is a big turn-off for many travellers. This is why there's bugger-all service from Norwich to Penzance, Cardiff, Bangor, Liverpool, Carlisle, Newcastle and Edinburgh - it's more efficient to use a central hub: London. Likewise, it's more efficient to go from London to Copenhagen, Berlin, Warsaw, Prague, Geneva, Pisa and Barcelona via a central hub: Paris. And consequently, it's more efficient to offer service from Norwich or Newcastle to Prague or Pisa via two hubs: London and Paris. Yes, a hub and spoke system is what would work best for rail, as I said a few days ago. But don't expect it to abstract very large proportion of point-to-point flights. -- Roland Perry |
Eusless
On Mar 16, 2:57*pm, David Cantrell wrote:
This is why there's bugger-all service from Norwich to Penzance, Cardiff, Bangor, Liverpool, Carlisle, Newcastle and Edinburgh^ Er, there is a service from Norwich to Liverpool, once an hour. The demand for it, other than operational convenience of combining a load of regional services into one[1], is to avoid crossing London, which is generally a nasty place to change trains and has a habit of taking an hour out of your journey. And it can be used in part to travel to those other places with less nasty changes than London. That wouldn't be quite the same with HS2, though, as Euston and St Pancras are pretty close together. [1] Which could be done with HS1/HS2 were it not for the security and immigration nonsense. Neil |
Eusless
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 02:51:39PM +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
Exactly, that's what I've been saying. However it's what you'd need to do if you want to replace the point-point flights from Heathrow (or further afield) with trains, if has been suggested a change is a big turn-off for many travellers. I'd think it depends on the change. Brussels is a great place to change, because there's just one station involved for most journeys. Paris is less good because there are several stations, but at least you can plan your journey so that you have a decent meal in between stations. Euston to St Pancras sucks right now, because you have to walk along the ghastly Euston Road, in the winter, at night, when it's raining. And it's *always* a rainy winter's night on the Euston Road. Betcha that if HS2 ever happens the connection between the two will be improved somehow - maybe another entrance to Euston Square, or an enclosed walkway. Trains might be able to replace at least some *domestic* flights, because there's more routing flexibility - no Kent and Pas de Calais bottleneck. There's no reason that trains can't go straight between the small number of cities that have significant airports for domestic flights - London, Birmingham, Manchester, East Midlands (wherever the hell that is - Nottingham?), Bristol, Edinburgh etc. But that's still a hub and spoke network, with low-speed rail providing the spokes radiating out from those hubs. -- David Cantrell | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david I hate baby seals. They get asked to all the best clubs. |
Eusless
In message , at 12:14:40
on Wed, 17 Mar 2010, David Cantrell remarked: There's no reason that trains can't go straight between the small number of cities that have significant airports for domestic flights - London, Birmingham, Manchester, East Midlands (wherever the hell that is - Nottingham?), It's a mile or two from East Midlands Parkway station. Bristol, Edinburgh etc. But that's still a hub and spoke network, with low-speed rail providing the spokes radiating out from those hubs. I'm not sure that this vendetta against domestic flights is all that productive. You might just as well bash away at any other easily describable modal shift: eg get people to abandon any car that costs more than £50k, in favour of the train. -- Roland Perry |
Eusless
In message
, at 01:08:34 on Wed, 17 Mar 2010, Neil Williams remarked: This is why there's bugger-all service from Norwich to Penzance, Cardiff, Bangor, Liverpool, Carlisle, Newcastle and Edinburgh^ Er, there is a service from Norwich to Liverpool, once an hour. And from my observations, minimal numbers of passengers using it to pass through (rather than to/from) Nottingham. Its sister service, Stansted to Liverpool, used to go via Birmingham, and was split into two separate services with barely a whimper of protest. -- Roland Perry |
Eusless
|
Eusless
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 04:52:10PM +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
I'm not sure that this vendetta against domestic flights is all that productive. You might just as well bash away at any other easily describable modal shift: eg get people to abandon any car that costs more than £50k, in favour of the train. It would free up valuable slots at the airports for the sort of flights that rail can't realistically replace, such as to Ireland, Scandinavia, northern Germany etc. It also has the "benefit" of pushing people away from a mode of transport whose fuel isn't taxed to one where it is. *I'm* in favour of high-speed rail because trains are far more civilised than planes these days, more comfortable, more convenient, faster ... I've travelled first class (or whatever it's called) on domestic flights. Second class train seats are more comfortable and cheaper. FIRST class train tickets are also cheaper. -- David Cantrell | Cake Smuggler Extraordinaire Just because it is possible to do this sort of thing in the English language doesn't mean it should be done |
Eusless
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 01:08:34AM -0700, Neil Williams wrote:
On Mar 16, 2:57=A0pm, David Cantrell wrote: This is why there's bugger-all service from Norwich to Penzance, Cardiff, Bangor, Liverpool, Carlisle, Newcastle and Edinburgh^ Er, there is a service from Norwich to Liverpool, once an hour. But if you were to add services to all the others, then they'd all (including the one to Liverpool) run once a day, if you were lucky. -- David Cantrell | Official London Perl Mongers Bad Influence Longum iter est per praecepta, breve et efficax per exempla. |
Eusless
In message , at 11:59:12
on Fri, 19 Mar 2010, David Cantrell remarked: On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 04:52:10PM +0000, Roland Perry wrote: I'm not sure that this vendetta against domestic flights is all that productive. You might just as well bash away at any other easily describable modal shift: eg get people to abandon any car that costs more than £50k, in favour of the train. It would free up valuable slots at the airports for the sort of flights that rail can't realistically replace, such as to Ireland, Scandinavia, northern Germany etc. Freeing up the slots is useful, but there comes a point of diminishing returns where some other carrot is required. I've suggested that this carrot should be making sure fares don't encourage the use of short feeder flights over direct flights. It also has the "benefit" of pushing people away from a mode of transport whose fuel isn't taxed to one where it is. Airline travel is taxed quite high enough, thanks. About half the (cheapest economy) fare to the USA is tax. *I'm* in favour of high-speed rail because trains are far more civilised than planes these days, more comfortable, more convenient, faster ... I've travelled first class (or whatever it's called) on domestic flights. Second class train seats are more comfortable and cheaper. FIRST class train tickets are also cheaper. That all depends on the specific train and plane. I was shocked what a rattly rough-riding old rust bucket was provided for the Stansted Express when I used it earlier this week. And some short haul business class is very civilised (eg hops to Paris/Amsterdam from Birmingham). 2+2 seating rather than 3+3, free lounge, quite acceptable food/drink on plane. -- Roland Perry |
Eusless
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 02:06:56PM +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:59:12 on Fri, 19 Mar 2010, David Cantrell remarked: I've travelled first class (or whatever it's called) on domestic flights. Second class train seats are more comfortable and cheaper. FIRST class train tickets are also cheaper. That all depends on the specific train and plane. I was shocked what a rattly rough-riding old rust bucket was provided for the Stansted Express when I used it earlier this week. The Stansted "Express" is just a local commuter train with a fancy name. Does it even *have* first class? And some short haul business class is very civilised (eg hops to Paris/Amsterdam from Birmingham). 2+2 seating rather than 3+3, free lounge, quite acceptable food/drink on plane. You speak of the "lounge" as if it were a benefit, but in reality it's just a way of papering over the hideousness that is having to turn up at the airport six weeks before flying so there's time to strip-search everyone and post the videos to Youtube. -- David Cantrell | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david |
Eusless
On 22/03/2010 14:26, David Cantrell wrote:
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 02:06:56PM +0000, Roland Perry wrote: In o.uk, at 11:59:12 on Fri, 19 Mar 2010, David remarked: I've travelled first class (or whatever it's called) on domestic flights. Second class train seats are more comfortable and cheaper. FIRST class train tickets are also cheaper. That all depends on the specific train and plane. I was shocked what a rattly rough-riding old rust bucket was provided for the Stansted Express when I used it earlier this week. The Stansted "Express" is just a local commuter train with a fancy name. Does it even *have* first class? It does. |
Eusless
In message , at 14:26:36
on Mon, 22 Mar 2010, David Cantrell remarked: And some short haul business class is very civilised (eg hops to Paris/Amsterdam from Birmingham). 2+2 seating rather than 3+3, free lounge, quite acceptable food/drink on plane. You speak of the "lounge" as if it were a benefit, The airline lounges at Birmingham are comfortable places to wait (with free drinks and snacks). but in reality it's just a way of papering over the hideousness that is having to turn up at the airport six weeks before flying If you are flying FC you get a "Fast Track" pass for security and your own check-in desk. At Birmingham there's absolutely no need to be there for FC more than an hour before departure. And even flying economy, the only time I've ever encountered a problem queue there was in the week or two after the "liquids ban" was originally brought in (and the equivalent queue at Gatwick was truly awesome). so there's time to strip-search everyone and post the videos to Youtube. This is getting a bit off topic. -- Roland Perry |
Eusless
On Mar 22, 3:26*pm, David Cantrell wrote:
You speak of the "lounge" as if it were a benefit, but in reality it's just a way of papering over the hideousness that is having to turn up at the airport six weeks before flying so there's time to strip-search everyone and post the videos to Youtube. Twaddle. One hour beforehand is plenty of time for a short-haul flight with hand luggage[1] from any civilised[2] airport. [1] Actually, it's plenty at Luton with checked luggage as well. But that depends on the airline. [2] Heathrow and Gatwick are, of course, excluded from this by default. Neil |
Eusless
"David Cantrell" wrote in message
k On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 04:52:10PM +0000, Roland Perry wrote: I'm not sure that this vendetta against domestic flights is all that productive. You might just as well bash away at any other easily describable modal shift: eg get people to abandon any car that costs more than £50k, in favour of the train. It would free up valuable slots at the airports for the sort of flights that rail can't realistically replace, such as to Ireland, Scandinavia, northern Germany etc. It also has the "benefit" of pushing people away from a mode of transport whose fuel isn't taxed to one where it is. *I'm* in favour of high-speed rail because trains are far more civilised than planes these days, more comfortable, more convenient, faster ... I've travelled first class (or whatever it's called) on domestic flights. Second class train seats are more comfortable and cheaper. FIRST class train tickets are also cheaper. I don't think any airline offers first class on UK domestic flights. In the US, first class domestic seats are much wider than even first class train seats on UK trains, and of course some food and unlimited drink is usally included. |
Eusless
David Cantrell wrote:
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 02:14:07PM +0000, Roland Perry wrote: The other day I posted a list of ten separate destinations served in a couple of hours from the much smaller airport, East Midlands. You might delight everyone with 2tph to Paris, but what of the dozens of other places they might want to be going instead? Paris is an excellent place to change trains. But there's very little point in running direct services from London to cities all over Europe - the unavoidable constraint that high speed trains *must* pass through Kent and the Channel Tunnel means that the only way to do that would be to run lots of half-empty trains to lots of places, with none (or perhaps just one) of them getting a frequent service. How you looked at the figures for air travel? During August UK - rest of the EU amounts to 25 Eurostar trains per hour, 24 hours a day. Likewise, it's more efficient to go from London to Copenhagen, Berlin, Warsaw, Prague, Geneva, Pisa and Barcelona via a central hub: Paris. Their is easily enough demand for a daily sleeper service, and distance is long enough. And consequently, it's more efficient to offer service from Norwich or Newcastle to Prague or Pisa via two hubs: London and Paris. If the railways are to make a major dent in air travel, London and Paris won't have enough capacity. LGV Nord-Europe might lack capacity for that. Of course I suspect a restriction on air travel will be needed. |
Eusless
In message , at 00:36:44
on Tue, 6 Apr 2010, Timothy Baldwin remarked: How you looked at the figures for air travel? During August UK - rest of the EU amounts to 25 Eurostar trains per hour, 24 hours a day. Can you point us at the figures - I'd like to see how much is the to mainland, for example, (rather than various holiday islands) and how much is to places like Portugal and Greece, which aren't currently viable rail destinations from UK. -- Roland Perry |
Eusless
On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 00:36:44 +0100, Timothy Baldwin
wrote: Of course I suspect a restriction on air travel will be needed. "We'll only get people to choose an inferior, slower, expensive option by restricting the superior, faster, cheaper option"? I'm all in favour of rail, but air travel is a more effective way (for the passenger) to cover long distances. You may be right in a way, but restricting air travel would basically be restricting travel in general, and that's something we should think very carefully about rather than slipping it in as "of course". Neil -- Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK To reply put my first name before the at. |
Eusless
On Apr 6, 10:09*am, Neil Williams wrote: On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 00:36:44 +0100, Timothy Baldwin wrote: Of course I suspect a restriction on air travel will be needed. "We'll only get people to choose an inferior, slower, expensive option by restricting the superior, faster, cheaper option"? I'm all in favour of rail, but air travel is a more effective way (for the passenger) to cover long distances. *You may be right in a way, but restricting air travel would basically be restricting travel in general, and that's something we should think very carefully about rather than slipping it in as "of course". Air travel is a rather effective way of polluting the atmosphere as well of course, though many other things do that as well quite prodigiously. But given that climate change has now been cancelled (as per the Daily Mail et al after the UEA email leaks) or the planet is f**ked anyhow (Lovelock), I suppose that can be discounted. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:33 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk