Rail fares to rise by 5.9% from January
Moderator: Peak Moderation
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14290
- Joined: 20 Sep 2006, 02:35
- Location: Newbury, Berkshire
- Contact:
- RenewableCandy
- Posts: 12777
- Joined: 12 Sep 2007, 12:13
- Location: York
-
- Posts: 1104
- Joined: 02 May 2011, 23:35
- Location: Nottingham UK
Rail could be perfect for cargo if the loading gauge was altered to allow easier container movement or proper loading facilities were built. Without that it'll struggle. As a lorry driver I'd be much happier doing shorter runs.DominicJ wrote:Feather
Rail has never profitably moved people
Costs have always been greater than ticket sales and required subsidy.
Rail is great for moving cargo, not people.
A few exceptions exist, the longer the distance, the more chance of it breaking even.
Rail could be better than internal flights if a full plan of high speed lines was built, we're very similar to Japan and their system seems to work OK.
Surely the best big picture would be long distance people on HS rail, cargo on current network with short distance people, roads for short cargo and local people. A lot fewer internal flights. Works for me
Scarcity is the new black
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14290
- Joined: 20 Sep 2006, 02:35
- Location: Newbury, Berkshire
- Contact:
High speed rail uses more fuel than a fully loaded plane. The air resistance is much greater at ground level than at 35,000 ft. We should stick to fast rail or go to Maglev which has less friction and is more fuel efficient. As Mobbsey has asked, why do we bother about saving a few minutes in travel time. Better to use that time profitably.
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
SS
Pretty much yeah.
Trains are, or should be, a great way to get from Glasgow to London on a certain day.
But they are an extremely poor way of moving two miles at a certain minute.
A network of 20 or so cargo terminals, that shifted ISO boxes would probably work, but rail networks have nailed themselves to providing commuter services, which only exists for two hours twice a day.
A Train from Manchester to Costa Del Sol?
Pretty much yeah.
Trains are, or should be, a great way to get from Glasgow to London on a certain day.
But they are an extremely poor way of moving two miles at a certain minute.
A network of 20 or so cargo terminals, that shifted ISO boxes would probably work, but rail networks have nailed themselves to providing commuter services, which only exists for two hours twice a day.
A Train from Manchester to Costa Del Sol?
I'm a realist, not a hippie
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14290
- Joined: 20 Sep 2006, 02:35
- Location: Newbury, Berkshire
- Contact:
- emordnilap
- Posts: 14815
- Joined: 05 Sep 2007, 16:36
- Location: here
That sounds fairly reasonable. And fun.kenneal - lagger wrote:I looked at going to Greece by train a few years ago and it would have taken nearly two days and cost over £400. That oes include a ferry from Italy to Greece.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
I went to Italy by train a few months ago. It was about £350 return. That included return trains from Bristol to London, from London to Paris, to Paris to Verona (sleeper), from Verona to Bolzano and Bolzano to Merano. It took pretty much bang on 24 hours door to door. It stated with a very civilised train from Bristol at noon, and I was in the Alps in time for lunch the following day. On the return leg we left a few hours earlier than we needed and had a nice evening in Verona before getting the sleeper back to Paris.kenneal - lagger wrote:I looked at going to Greece by train a few years ago and it would have taken nearly two days and cost over £400. That oes include a ferry from Italy to Greece.
Flying would only have worked out around £100 cheaper, and was virtually impossible to do in a day. The only way to do it in a day was to get something like a 6am flight from Stansted. Which would mean leaving Bristol before 4am!
- emordnilap
- Posts: 14815
- Joined: 05 Sep 2007, 16:36
- Location: here
Half a holiday is the travelling. The above sounds reasonable and fun again.clv101 wrote:I went to Italy by train a few months ago. It was about £350 return. That included return trains from Bristol to London, from London to Paris, to Paris to Verona (sleeper), from Verona to Bolzano and Bolzano to Merano. It took pretty much bang on 24 hours door to door. It stated with a very civilised train from Bristol at noon, and I was in the Alps in time for lunch the following day. On the return leg we left a few hours earlier than we needed and had a nice evening in Verona before getting the sleeper back to Paris.kenneal - lagger wrote:I looked at going to Greece by train a few years ago and it would have taken nearly two days and cost over £400. That oes include a ferry from Italy to Greece.
Of course, you could give Michael O'Leary yet more money to trash the planet with. Flying sounds 'cheap' compared to travelling by train but of course you have both journeys to pay for, with all the added extras and surcharges, you can only take a small amount of luggage, you have to pay for trips to and from airports, etc etc and you're not paying for even the tiniest fraction of your impact on the environment, nor your taking into account your support of an ultimately stupid way of shifting bodies round the planet.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
- emordnilap
- Posts: 14815
- Joined: 05 Sep 2007, 16:36
- Location: here
<jealousy>re wrote:My girlfriend and I went to Greece in September by train and ferry. It cost £232 each return and was a fantastic trip. Met lovely people along the way. And we got the chance to see Paris and Venice on the way.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
- RenewableCandy
- Posts: 12777
- Joined: 12 Sep 2007, 12:13
- Location: York
Quite.emordnilap wrote: Of course, you could give Michael O'Leary yet more money to trash the planet with. Flying sounds 'cheap' compared to travelling by train but of course you have both journeys to pay for, with all the added extras and surcharges, you can only take a small amount of luggage, you have to pay for trips to and from airports, etc etc and you're not paying for even the tiniest fraction of your impact on the environment, nor your taking into account your support of an ultimately stupid way of shifting bodies round the planet.