New (fast) tilting trains, effect on air travel?

[Localiser Green]

Smiling Tony and Richard launched their new tilting trains today, with new timetables between Manchester and London to follow next week, reducing journey times by 35 minutes on the route, according to this

BBC News Online Report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3671680.stm)

With 38 daily flights between London and Manchester (18 BA, 10 VLM, 7 bmi, 3 Eastern) what is the likely end result of direct competition with a 02:05 hour train service straight to/from central London?

[MichaelJP59]

Surely most of those flights will be taken to connect with onward flights from Heathrow?

Even against the old slower trains you would struggle to beat the centre to centre times by using a shuttle flight, as it takes at least an hour to get to central London from LHR.

- Michael

[Stampe]

Very little whatsoever very few people travel city centre to city centre.Railways apart from commuter lines are relics of the 19th century heavily subsidised by the taxpayer to keep them in existence.Your 27 times more likely to die as a train passenger than as an air passenger high speed trains are noisier than illegal chapter 2 jet aircraft!!.The noise and enviromental pollution are very high but the tree huggers and new labour love them the rest of us subsidise their existence.A mile of railway track or road leads nowhere a mile of runway leads to the....... world.I,m not worried about my job being affected by trains and I certainly havn,t got the time or money to spare using them for serious transportation.They are also the new soft terrorist target and we don,t see any evidence of them having any security worth speaking of , massive potential for death and destruction all unguarded.

[Oshkosh George]

At the budget end of the scale,you could always use megabus.com.

Their fare is £1.50 each way(if you book early enough!),but takes 4.5 hours,and is aimed at the leisure market,with just one bus a day(testing the water?)

[jabird]

Stampe,

So I presume you fly everywhere, and never walk or use the roads, which kill about 100 times as many people each year as rail & air combined.

[unmanned transport]

Has anyone rode the Shanghai maglev ?
Comments......

[Stampe]

Well jabird seeing as you ask I fly for a living, own 2 light aircraft(hangared a mile from where I live),have the use of numerous others, own 3 cars ,live very near the sliproad to a dual carriageway which gives access to two good motorways.My journies nearly always invove unusual hours when the roads are clear of the hordes.So our disfunctional rail network is of no use to me at all having no desire to conduct my journies expensively via central London and the stations spread poorly connected at the respective corners of the city.The trip on my car shows the last 4000 miles have be at an average speed door to door of 57 mph and an average fuel consumption of 33mpg. No contest really public transport does not work for modern lifestyles!!.:ok:I,d love to own a helicopter tho!!maybe just maybe!!.

[jabird]

Stampe,

I'm glad you can avoid the hordes! I avoid them too, but by working from home rather than having to go through the daily commuting grind.

But I don't think either of us are "normal" in our transport habits. The trains clearly will never be any use to you, but our roads (and to a lesser extent airports) would be a lot more clogged without them.

Back to the original question, does anyone have figures on %age of o&d re: transit on routes such as MAN > LHR & LGW - I'd guess at least 50%?

MAN > LCY obviously appeals to a sizeable niche, presumably from suburban / south Manchester, and heading to the city / Docklands, but perhaps this route would be most under threat from the train, as there can't be much in the way of transit pax?

An article earlier in the year said market share on the route was something like 3% by air, 6% by train, and the rest by road, so it will be interesting to see how this changes, or whether there is room for all, as the market looks set to grow.

[Airbanda]

The air service is in the propaganda frame at least.
I'm one of the commuters from Milton Keynes who've had the minutes off Manchester trains added to our daily journey :* .

Reps of the SRA and the Regional pax commitee have entirely separately compared the MAN service with that to LBA and suggested that the fact that LBA has just 4 daily flights to LHR is down to it's superior train service ie 125 trains since 1979.

Suspect this is only for the consumption of the gullible public. Pointed out that site of LBA, its r/way, and poor surface connections plus BA/BD competition depressing fares at MAN. Stout party collapsed at least mildly.

[chiglet]

Was this record "service" completed at the expense of others?
Will subsiquent "services" be "as competitive"? [as fast?]
watp,iktch

[unmanned transport]

Actually here in France trains have a major impact in moving people. Can you imagine how Air Transport load factors would elevate if trains stopped moving.

But I love that Shanghai Maglev.
What a speed machine.

[HZ123]

Yesterdays BA moring flight from MAN-LHR actually took 4.5 hours due to tech & slot misses. Its is probably correct that the new trains will have little effect at present on the airlines. Train fares are still as expensive as the plane.

[MichaelJP59]

I'd like to know what % of pax on MAN-LHR are making onward connections as opposed to travelling to London for business.

Here in Sheffield we used to have a flight from Sheffield City airport ->LCY but it was not popular. The train is 2h20 and LCY is only convenient for Docklands really, it doesn't even have a rail link yet.

The main rule seems to be if you are travelling city centre to city centre on one of the main rail routes train is good, if it's over 250 miles air travel becomes more attractive, but if you need to get to anywhere that isn't a city the car is far better.

Light aircraft nearly always the most expensive, slowest and most inconvenient, but the most fun:)

- Michael

[eal401]

Did this super-duper train actually stop anywhere between London & Manchester? There is no doubt that it was a publicity stunt, I'd be more interested in real service times. And reliability!

The major problem with trains however is the cost. I personally would only ever use a train to go to London. Anywhere else in the UK and it's car all the way because for 2 or more people, the car will always be cheaper. I only use the train to London because it avoids the hassle of driving, parking, congestion charging etc.

[Flypuppy]

In France, the opening of a TGV line to the Northern areas of France effectively killed Air Liberte. As it stands high speed railway lines are being built between the Netherlands, Belgium, France and Germany.

I remember reading in the local newspaper about 18 months ago that KLM and Air France were planning to either buy or lease some Thalys/TGV trains and give them flight numbers, operating between AMS BRU and CDG. Not sure if that is still the plan, but the speed and efficiency of trains on the continent are a real threat to regional airlines. Fares are comparable (€270 return AMS - Paris on the Thalys first class for 2 people as opposed to €360 for economy)

I do remember the BBC's Holiday program had a race in the early 1990's from London to Edinburgh between train and air travel. It was city center to city center, and there was only 10-15 minutes difference in arrival times.

[MJR]

I agree with Flypuppy on this one, consistent with his comment you only have to look at the number of lo-cost airlines in France in comparison to the UK. Testimony to a fast and reliable rail network. UK rail has suffered over the last few years and airlines have taken business from them, however I think the tide will turn over the next 10 years for a number of reasons. Regional airlines will ultimately suffer at the hands of the railways, even for providing feeders into the big international airports. Possibly why Richard Bransons biggest airline business is long-haul.

cheers

MJR

[Big Tudor]

Hmm, not too sure about the pricing argument. Just compared BA (http://www.ba.com) with Train Fares (http://www.thetrainline.com) , not very impressed with BA.
Scenario, leave MAN early morning 21st Sep, returning same evening. BA coming back with fares of £275 inc tax, trains offering £106. Train takes 2 hrs 20 mins centre to centre, flight takes 55 mins, plus time to get to and from airports, check in, security, etc. For my money, if I was travelling city to city, then the train looks to be the better option, for both price and time.

[ManAtTheBack]

I travel between Manchester and London quite frequently and have used both the train and the plane. Which mode is the quickest depends upon my exact destination. However, the new timetable certainly makes the train more competitive.

The train now offers a much better frequency and an opportunity for a longer period of work or relaxation compared to the plane’s fragmented journey profile.

Unfortunately both modes have suffered from delays during recent journeys. If one mode manages to offer reliability and consistent customer service it will get my employer’s money.

[jabird]

The libdems have just put forward policies for a north south High Speed link.

Looks very ill conceived at this stage - LON-BHX-Leeds-NCL-EDI is hardly a direct route, and speeds of 225kph are no different to existing lines (I think they meant mph, but an error this basic shows an extreme lack of thought)

http://www.libdems.org.uk/index.cfm/page.news/section.conference/article.7500.

With the ECML upgraded / electrified in the early 90's, and billions already wasted on the WCML, surely the most "needy" routes would be London to BRS/CWL and London to the East Midlands region?

[surely not]

Jabird, I don't agree with your comment re 'billions wasted on the WCML' The line will benefit greatly from the improved signalling, faster speeds allowed, track realignments etc.

If the airlines are concerned about the effect of rail on MAN-LON then the effects in a years time of the improved services from GLA-LON will be even greater.

The train has to be more relaxing than the plane. Greater legroom; tables to work on that are much better than the seat back tables on an aircraft; more elbow room if the seat next to you is occupied; not so far to walk at either end to get from the train to the world outside the station.

The airlines operating domestic routes won't go under in the same way that the TGV affected airlines in France, but the new trains now coming on line are bound to make a big difference in the choice passengers have.

[jabird]

Surely not,

My comment was about the wastage, not the investment per se. I fully agree with you about supporting trains for short hop routes, and am massively looking forward to improved journeys to London from next week.

IIRC, the costs of the WCML started at £1.5bn, and ended up at £12.5bn - a price for which a completely new line could have been built. Much of this has been squandered on "safety" measures, which the government's own transport adviser has said will cause more loss of life than they will prevent.

JA

[lightbluetouchpaper]

From the current edition of Regeneration and Renewal

".....the amazing thing about Virgin Trains, apart from their prices – first class to Blackpool would take you economy on British Airways to Texas – is their monumental inability to sell you a ticket


Start the old-fashioned way: at the station. With Virgin at Euston, you’ll queue for about 20 minutes. Even if you show up at nine in the evening, they’ll still contrive to retain the queue by shutting down every ticket counter save one – and this on one of London’s busiest stations.


It’s no better the 21st-century way, via the web. The site is a masterpiece of incomprehensibility, with choices that prove not to be choices. (British Airways, which competes to Manchester, in contrast offers a model of user-friendly clarity.) But, assuming you make it before night’s end, that’s just the start.


Because, of course, you have to pick up the ticket. With British Airways at Heathrow, you insert your credit card and bingo! your e-ticket zooms from the slot. With Virgin, it’s pure Kafka: after typing in the seven-digit code you’ve been given, you’re told to press a button saying “confirm”. But, of course, there’s no such button."

full article

http://www.regenerationmagazine.com/news_story.cfm?ID=3926

[Airbanda]

The rail industry has the air service in its sights. Whether it has the capacity to handle significant growth is another matter. The fast line out of Euston can handle 13 departures every hour, split between service groups covering West Midlands, Manchester, Liverpool and Preston/Carlisle/Glasgow. Services to Holyhead and fast commuter services to Milton Keynes/Northampton shoehorn in around the margins. It’s already full. The Pendolino tilting train has, even after the late addition of an ninth carriage, fewer standard class seats than the old stock. Five BR mark three coaches accommodate 380. The Pendolino also has five standard coaches but the shop and oversize disabled lavs eat into the space for seats. Absurd Health and Safety regs mean that the first third of the leading coach is a crumple zone. Standard class seating therefore around 290. Thus three services an hour to Piccadilly represent a standard class capacity growth of only 15% on the current two.

I’d put the number of Manch/London pax not interlining at well over 50%. This is pure guesswork, nothing concrete. Would expect the interlines to be proportionally less than from say Leeds or Newcastle as Man has services to many more destinations business and leisure. While the rail fare has been pushed up year on year so that full standard fare is nearly the same as that to Edinburgh, excess capacity on the back of cut throat competition has depressed the air fares. I’m a Central London based Civil Servant and guess that if we have Manchester attendees at meetings its 50/50 whether they’d fly or rail. The culture of flying from Manch has grown in the last few years on the basis of it’s being as cheap as the train. It’s perceived as faster and more prestigious. For some reason 40 minutes in the Bovingdon hold upsets folks far less than the same delay just north of Watford on the train.

[DB6]

Oh dear, not a very good start. First train broke down at Carlisle. Ooops.

[LGS6753]

Trains are city centre to city centre, or at least the fast ones are. What proportion of pax want to travel this route? Surely most people want home to city centre, i.e. suburbs to city centre.
If times and airport accessibility are factored into that equation, air benefits enormously (except LHR!).
Take Hampstead to Glasgow.
M1 to Luton (against traffic), EZY to GLA, taxi to City.
Or Walk to tube, Tube to Euston (changes?), Virgin to Glasgow, walk/taxi to destination.

Just a thought..........

[WHBM]

In a few countries fast trains have had a significant difference. In both France (TGV) and Japan (Shinkansen) trains took very significant numbers of domestic passengers, both on opening and more in subsequent improvements. Also, if you want a lesson in British airline history the electric railway service started in 1966 from Liverpool to London killed the old British Eagle by attacking their only seriously profitable route.

The new British services will not succeed to the same extent because :

1. The focus of commercial life at both London and Manchester has moved towards the airports and away from the city centres. I visit many major and middle-sized businesses round the UK, virtually none have offices in city centres any more apart from specialist industries such as international banking.

2. Business travellers have moved towards longer days away and less overnight stays, favouring morning/evening journeys directly to the airport. Getting to the city centre for a train is no longer an option. City railway stations do not have new motorways built to them like airports do.

3. City centre parking for those taking the train is not well organised compared to airports and susceptible to crime and theft from vehicles.

4. Rail used to be significantly cheaper than air, nowadays the two are often the same or even reversed. Iinter-city railways used to at least break even 20 years ago if not be significantly profitable, whereas nowadays they all need substantial subsidies from the government, the exact opposite of what rail privatisation was meant to deliver, showing a complete lack of ability to control costs compared to airlines. This trend will continue.

5. The railways squandered their key advantage, cheap walk-up fares (what made the Liverpool trains such a success all those years ago), by making fares either walk-up but as expensive as full service airlines, or cheap but requiring booking further ahead than mose people plan their lives.

6. The track upgrade to the Manchester railway has delivered very little hard benefit and was mostly a like-for-like replacement dressed up as "investment". The new trains are less capable than those built by British Rail 20 years ago, and certainly more cramped with less efficient use of the space available.