arj1 wrote:
What they are going to do in 20 years when some solution is found for carbon-neutral flight, but there are no runways left?
The same was done with the train travel in the UK 50 years ago, lots of stations were closed and lots of tracks were removed and now its “what have we done?!”.
I agree that closing down railways 50 years ago was stupid (we did that in Sweden, too) and closing down runways is also stupid. But that’s a different discussion.
Anyway, my dislike (relatively speaking) of airline travel would remain even with CO2-neutral flights.
Anyway, my dislike (relatively speaking) of airline travel would remain even with CO2-neutral flights.
Agree. I love aircraft but I hate being a passenger. It feels like punishment.
I live 30 miles north of Schiphol and in pre-COVID times regularly travelled to Biggin Hill. Eurostar takes me center to center in 4 hours, relaxed, clean travel. Airline for the same is at minimum 5 hours. No contest.
Peter_Mundy wrote:
Eurostar takes me center to center in 4 hours, relaxed, clean travel. Airline for the same is at minimum 5 hours. No contest.
Then why is it necessary to make airline travel on those routes illegal?
Seems to me like more practice legislation by 15 year old bureaucrats who have nothing better to do.
From the Guardian article posted above:
On average, the plane emits 77 times more CO2 per passenger than the train on these routes
That may be true in France and assumes (a) the train is electric so the CO2 is generated elsewhere (but that is somebody else’s problem) and (b) the electricity is generated with nuclear power.
No other country has so much nuclear power, and wind power does almost nothing for the wider picture of high speed electric trains which use an awesome amount of power. 16MW is a lot more than the 3MW from a wind turbine. Even allowing for slower trains it still doesn’t compute, for a national rail network, without nuclear.
Peter_Mundy wrote:
I live 30 miles north of Schiphol and in pre-COVID times regularly travelled to Biggin Hill. Eurostar takes me center to center in 4 hours, relaxed, clean travel. Airline for the same is at minimum 5 hours. No contest.
Sure, if you live relatively close by a train station and your destination is relatively close by also. Between central Paris and central London the Eurostar wins hands down (and I can’t even remember how often I have done that).
One reason the TGV works pretty well is that France is essentially empty with the population concentrated in few big(ish) agglomerations and everything centered on Paris. Just don’t try to get from one provincial city in France to another by train.
Silvaire wrote:
Then why is it necessary to make airline travel on those routes illegal?
Exactly. If the train is so superior, surely people will flock to it and vote with their wallets.
In any case, a lot intra-Europe short haul flights are feeders for long-haul and cannot realistically be replaced by a train. The only country where that works is Switzerland, where you can check you bags at the train station and then travel seamlessly. I am not aware of any other country where this is possible.
172driver wrote:
Sure, if you live relatively close by a train station and your destination is relatively close by also.
What is more likely? That your home and destination is relatively close to a train station or that they are relatively close to an airport. (Of course in a European context where we have an extensive passenger rail network.)
It appears that France is on the best way to become the first country to volontarilily embrace green fascism. Possibly Germany may follow in fall, seeing that their main parties have nobody electable to a majority to inherit the Chancellorship from “Mutti” Merkel. They might well end up with a Green chancellor and it is perfectly clear where that would lead: quotas and prohibitions all around.
Maybe it will take examples like this and the consequent drop of income and wealth to make it clear to other countries to beware of the same mistake.
“Exactly. If the train is so superior, surely people will flock to it and vote with their wallets.”
They do. Train travel in France is very popular, you get more personal space, its generally cheaper, and you don’t get some jobsworth trying to take your shaving foam off you.
It amazes me how people get so upset about something that has yet to happen and may never happen. I think the Citizens climate convention came up with over 1000 suggested actions, of which parliament accepted, I think ot was 10 for further discussion. I am not sure one has yet been accepted to put into law. Even the restrictions on air services bill, has so many holes in it as to change very little.
As for train travel, there are many routes where it is not necessary to go via Paris but you have to know where to look to find the timetables.
As for there only being 4 trains a day between Paris and Bordeaux, that might be the case in Covid times but normally there is one an hour.
Airborne_Again wrote:
What is more likely? That your home and destination is relatively close to a train station or that they are relatively close to an airport. (Of course in a European context where we have an extensive passenger rail network.)
That doesn’t help you if you’re on a little branch line. Again – it works very well if you live close to the center of the major cities.
@Gallois, if you quote me, then please quote me correctly. I wrote about the TGV to CDG, not to Paris. As I had family living along this line I know the timetable very, very well ;-))
