|
Post by capitalomnibus on Jun 13, 2022 10:58:44 GMT
The entire railway would need a total rebuild for me to consider the train as a realistic competitor to air travel at all. Manchester is probably the furthest I'd travel happily by rail, but even then I'd fly if I was the only one travelling. I went to Scotland by rail a couple of months ago and was kicking myself as to why I didn't fly there. It was a total shambles of a journey and I'm certainly going to be flying the next time I head up there, chances are it'll be cheaper anyway. It's very hard to match the convenience and speed provided by air travel and research should be pumped more into making air travel greener as opposed to flogging a dead horse. Rail need drastic reform and it's more than any government anytime soon will be willing to work towards. If any pilots join the RMT, then air travel would be just as unreliable as the train the speeds need increasing from 125 to 150 at least, the problems for rail stem back to track dating back to the Victorian era with a lot of curves... France, Germany, Italy all built dedicated high speed routes from the early 60s which don't have to share with slower services. I can fly from UK to Madrid in a couple of hours, compared to several hours on a train to Edinburgh or Glasgow. We are struggling to finish HS2, which is only High Speed up to Birmingham before joining existing infrastructure. Elizabeth Line was 3 years late, but an airline could get a new flight path established in a relatively short time LMFAO
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jun 13, 2022 12:29:47 GMT
For journeys to Scotland the length of the train journey means it isn't a viable option for many. Even though you can work on the train and things like that people prefer the convenience of a short flight rather than a long train journey even though the airport is outside the city centre. In West London with Heathrow so close people prefer the convenience of going there to fly up to Scotland rather than going to King's Cross to get the train and understandably so. Even the Caledonian Sleeper which is a train option for going to Scotland and means you don't lose a large chunk of your day travelling is ridiculously expensive especially if you want a bed, I struggle to see why anyone travelling from London-Scotland would buy a seat on a sleeper train instead of a seat on a plane. Signalling upgrades on the ECML to increase line speed to 140mph will cut train journey times. I understand Lumo's aim was to take on the airlines by providing faster London-Edinburgh trains but I suspect its probably just taken passengers away from LNER rather than the airlines. Anyone know how successful its been? I would actually argue that the train is far more convenient than flying. When you factor in the time it takes to transfer between the airport and city at each end, plus security/check in etc, there is little different in journey time compared to the train. Obviously it will vary in each case depending on the exact start and end points of each journey, but many passengers will favour sitting on one train for the majority of the journey, compared to airport transfers as well. There will some exceptions if someone lives particularly close to an airport, but generally Euston and Kings Cross are well connected to other parts of London, particularly with Thameslink at St Pancras, and now the Elizabeth Line not far away at TCR and Farringdon. Similarly, I would also prefer to use the Eurostar from London to places like Paris or Amsterdam, on the basis of stations being in the city centre, and probably Ireland too travelling via the ferry from Holyhead. Generally if there is a direct train available for longer distances, there will be a lot of demand to use the train for such journeys rather than flying - likely why Eurostar hasn't expanded much beyond the core destinations. Regarding Lumo specifically, I expect it will take some time to properly establish itself as a rival to flying, but it now means that for any future passengers travelling between London and Edinburgh, the train may seem a more attractive option than with just LNER available.
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Jun 18, 2022 5:46:28 GMT
For journeys to Scotland the length of the train journey means it isn't a viable option for many. Even though you can work on the train and things like that people prefer the convenience of a short flight rather than a long train journey even though the airport is outside the city centre. In West London with Heathrow so close people prefer the convenience of going there to fly up to Scotland rather than going to King's Cross to get the train and understandably so. Even the Caledonian Sleeper which is a train option for going to Scotland and means you don't lose a large chunk of your day travelling is ridiculously expensive especially if you want a bed, I struggle to see why anyone travelling from London-Scotland would buy a seat on a sleeper train instead of a seat on a plane. Signalling upgrades on the ECML to increase line speed to 140mph will cut train journey times. I understand Lumo's aim was to take on the airlines by providing faster London-Edinburgh trains but I suspect its probably just taken passengers away from LNER rather than the airlines. Anyone know how successful its been? I lived in Edinburgh for a few years and flew more often than I caught the train. The occasions I used trains for London journeys most were when I travelled down on an overnight coach and back on the 18.00 from King's Cross. As you might imagine, I usually had a good snooze on that train. I did occasionally use the Sleeper train down and catch a flight back. A simple occasion was after Ealing in 2004 when I caught a flight home from Heathrow. A more subtle example was after Harrow in 2005, when I caught the (then novel) train from Harrow & Wealdstone to Gatwick and a flight home from there! For my journey home from Edinburgh in September, I plan to try Lumo as far as Newcastle and other trains from there.
|
|
|
Post by rugbyref on Jun 23, 2022 8:15:26 GMT
Fly every time. More comfortable, shorter journey time, cheaper.
|
|
|
Post by joefrombow on Jun 24, 2022 15:30:25 GMT
Drop the prices it's cheaper to fly to Amsterdam for example than to use Eurostar , in these times especially everything is about cost .
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jun 24, 2022 16:19:42 GMT
Drop the prices it's cheaper to fly to Amsterdam for example than to use Eurostar , in these times especially everything is about cost . I think notably prices need to be considerably low, not just slightly lower. If the plane was £90 but the train was £85 the plane is still very much the no brainer. Far superior transport mode for only £5 more. I'd really only consider the train to Amsterdam if the difference was more pronounced. People will always be willing to pay a premium to fly due to the fact convenience is often unmatched, but it's a case of how big the premium is and this depends on each destination. Personally do think air travel will be the ultimate winner eventually. This country is far too behind to make rail attractive.
|
|