• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Flybe problems - did they take rail improvements into account?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Something like the various Scottish island flights could be an early application for electric aircraft, as they are short and the Scottish government could make the subsidy conditional on zero emissions.

Remember, though, that...

1. Aircraft pollution at the point of use isn't a great concern because people don't live around the point of use. The "killer app" of electric cars is cities, where the pollution does affect people directly.

2. Batteries are heavy.

3. Therefore, for this to make sense, the electricity used needs to be generated in a sustainable way for it to have any real value.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,419
1. Aircraft pollution at the point of use isn't a great concern because people don't live around the point of use

Surely it is at the airports, or is the main problem the surface transport attracted to them?
Very interesting issue about landing planes - the whole set up is based on them being much lighter when they land. Batteries don’t get lighter, so runways might have to be longer and plane structures stronger (therefore heavier)
How does the damage compare on crashing - the explosive power of fuel vs the dense mass of batteries with their worrying fire characteristics (and you can’t dump batteries before crash landing!)
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Surely it is at the airports, or is the main problem the surface transport attracted to them?

Is pollution around airports that much of an issue? They mostly aren't in the middle of residential areas. In my understanding it's carbon emissions that are the primary issue with aviation.

How does the damage compare on crashing - the explosive power of fuel vs the dense mass of batteries with their worrying fire characteristics (and you can’t dump batteries before crash landing!)

I suspect Li-ion batteries in the sort of quantities needed would be far worse as, as you say, you can't dump them or (for aircraft that don't have dump valves) burn them off before attempting the landing.
 

RLBH

Member
Joined
17 May 2018
Messages
962
If someone is in the wrong part of the country to be able to attend a meeting at 9am then chances are they could use a sleeper service (certainly true of Cornwall and much of Scotland) to be able to do so.
Okay - which train do I, in Glasgow, use to get to a meeting in Bristol for 10am?

That's not purely hypothetical - it's a journey that my colleagues and I frequently make in one direction or the other. Central Scotland to Bristol is also the heaviest non-London air passenger flow on Great Britain. It's also a distance comparable to reaching London.
ships are some of the worst polluters
A ship, individually, may be a horrendous polluter, but by virtue of carrying a lot of stuff isn't actually all that bad. The problem is that there's so much seaborne freight that multiplying a very small number by a very large number gets a merely large one. Theoretically, all the ships between China, Europe and the Middle East could be replaced by a succession of freight trains, which would make shipping emissions look worse but rail emissions look better.

The IMO resolution which came in this year is requires use of either low-sulphur fuel or flue gas desulphurization. What that will do is push up costs, making manufacturing nearer the point of use that much more attractive.
I suspect Li-ion batteries in the sort of quantities needed would be far worse as, as you say, you can't dump them or (for aircraft that don't have dump valves) burn them off before attempting the landing.
You could, in principle, put the batteries in some kind of droppable pod, at least if they aren't structural batteries. But then you'd have to designate suitable drop zones for them, and provide ways of ensuring that they are only dropped in those zones and under the right circumstances. Some problems are better off not solved!
 

BigCj34

Member
Joined
5 Apr 2016
Messages
761
Okay - which train do I, in Glasgow, use to get to a meeting in Bristol for 10am?

That's not purely hypothetical - it's a journey that my colleagues and I frequently make in one direction or the other. Central Scotland to Bristol is also the heaviest non-London air passenger flow on Great Britain. It's also a distance comparable to reaching London.

A ship, individually, may be a horrendous polluter, but by virtue of carrying a lot of stuff isn't actually all that bad. The problem is that there's so much seaborne freight that multiplying a very small number by a very large number gets a merely large one. Theoretically, all the ships between China, Europe and the Middle East could be replaced by a succession of freight trains, which would make shipping emissions look worse but rail emissions look better.

The IMO resolution which came in this year is requires use of either low-sulphur fuel or flue gas desulphurization. What that will do is push up costs, making manufacturing nearer the point of use that much more attractive.

You could, in principle, put the batteries in some kind of droppable pod, at least if they aren't structural batteries. But then you'd have to designate suitable drop zones for them, and provide ways of ensuring that they are only dropped in those zones and under the right circumstances. Some problems are better off not solved!

Bristol to Glasgow flows could be helped by hourly WCML trains from Birmingham to both Glasgow and Edinburgh. Could another London - Birmingham service be extended to achieve that? Don't know if a Bristol-Scotland service via the WCML is feasible, though if such a service ever came to fruition it would make sense to connect to Cardiff as well (connecting two capitals!).

International rail freight on that scale can nowhere near match shipping capacity. Though while rail freight is king in USA and Canada, there is no way to do move goods by freight ship and also fewer bureaucratic hurdles in crossing 0-1 international borders.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Aircraft pollution at the point of use isn't a great concern because people don't live around the point of use. The "killer app" of electric cars is cities, where the pollution does affect people directly.
Surely it is at the airports, or is the main problem the surface transport attracted to them?
I read somewhere the main cause of the high pollution at Heathrow is the road traffic accessing it and passing by on nearby motorways. However pollution at altitude is believed to have a greater impact on climate than at ground level, so other things being equal a tonne of CO2 avoided in an aircraft should have more benefit than in a car.
Very interesting issue about landing planes - the whole set up is based on them being much lighter when they land. Batteries don’t get lighter, so runways might have to be longer and plane structures stronger (therefore heavier)
How does the damage compare on crashing - the explosive power of fuel vs the dense mass of batteries with their worrying fire characteristics (and you can’t dump batteries before crash landing!)
I don't think the runways are an issue because with very rare exceptions a runway used for landing is also used for the same type of plane to take off. As the rate of braking is greater than that of acceleration the length needed for landing will always be shorter even if the plane is the same weight when it lands.
I suspect Li-ion batteries in the sort of quantities needed would be far worse as, as you say, you can't dump them or (for aircraft that don't have dump valves) burn them off before attempting the landing.
If a liquid-fueled plane can safely fly for long enough to use most of the fuel, then a battery plane can do the same to use up most of the charge in the batteries.

The damage caused by release of energy from either source is broadly proportional to the stored energy remaining at the time of the accident - which is is probably similar if it's an aircraft designed for the same duty and crashes at the same stage in its journey. Speculating here, I think a battery would take a bit longer to go up than the equivalent amount of jet fuel, and heat would be more concentrated around the battery instead of burning fuel being spread all around. Although the battery may be harder to extinguish once help arrives, I think on balance evacuation would be less compromised than with fuel.
You could, in principle, put the batteries in some kind of droppable pod, at least if they aren't structural batteries. But then you'd have to designate suitable drop zones for them, and provide ways of ensuring that they are only dropped in those zones and under the right circumstances. Some problems are better off not solved!
There would then be a spate of batteries being dropped in unsafe places, closely followed by the plane which no longer has any power! Agreed best not to go there.
 

Edders23

Member
Joined
22 Sep 2018
Messages
549
I was stood waiting for ages this morning for passengers at BHX and was watching Flybe flights getting loaded they all seemed to be pretty full so they obviously have a lot of trade and used to be profitable. With the right management I'm sure they can again

I think the choice between train and flying is a personal one and for many people what they want is the quickest which is usually by air

The other thing is that only a part of flybe's trade is in direct competition with rail and if anything probably generate a fair bit of trade for the railways particularly out of Birmingham so I doubt the railway has had much effect on the current situation
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,419
Is pollution around airports that much of an issue? They mostly aren't in the middle of residential areas. In my understanding it's carbon emissions that are the primary issue with aviation.

Heathrow is very much in a residential area in one direction. And the stacks can’t be great for pollution either.

I don't think the runways are an issue because with very rare exceptions a runway used for landing is also used for the same type of plane to take off. As the rate of braking is greater than that of acceleration the length needed for landing will always be shorter even if the plane is the same weight when it lands.

Valid point, however you take off from the end of a runway but don’t land on the end of one - does that affect the safety margins. Also, if your point is true why do planes that abort early circle for hours to burn off fuel before landing?

The damage caused by release of energy from either source is broadly proportional to the stored energy remaining at the time of the accident
Is that right (my chemistry is dubious) - is the battery burning the stored energy rather than its materials?
I was actually thinking in ballistic terms - batteries are pretty dense things and would take some stopping in a crash. Big holes.
 

GrimShady

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2016
Messages
1,740
In particular, shipping needs an incentive to pack in burning bunk oil.
I believe it now is banned, since the start of the year. I'm sure someone else will know.

Incertain areas yes that is correct. The North Sea for example has regulations where you can either burn a low sulphur fuel or use scrubbers to remove the sulphur from the heavy fuel emissions.
 

route101

Established Member
Joined
16 May 2010
Messages
10,594
Bristol to Glasgow flows could be helped by hourly WCML trains from Birmingham to both Glasgow and Edinburgh. Could another London - Birmingham service be extended to achieve that? Don't know if a Bristol-Scotland service via the WCML is feasible, though if such a service ever came to fruition it would make sense to connect to Cardiff as well (connecting two capitals!).

International rail freight on that scale can nowhere near match shipping capacity. Though while rail freight is king in USA and Canada, there is no way to do move goods by freight ship and also fewer bureaucratic hurdles in crossing 0-1 international borders.

VXC used to go that way , cant remember the freq. Still think its a fair bit longer timewise than the train. Easyjet usualyy cheaper than the train too.
 

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,558
1. Aircraft pollution at the point of use isn't a great concern because people don't live around the point of use. The "killer app" of electric cars is cities, where the pollution does affect people directly.
I'm not so certain about that. At the time that the volcano erupted in Iceland and caused all aircraft in the UK to be grounded for days, the sky was never clearer.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Valid point, however you take off from the end of a runway but don’t land on the end of one - does that affect the safety margins. Also, if your point is true why do planes that abort early circle for hours to burn off fuel before landing?
They start the takeoff run far enough back that they've got enough runway to stop before the end if they abort the takeoff - so it's enough distance to accelerate to (almost) takeoff speed and to stop again. Landing only involves stopping from about the same speed, sometimes leaving the runway before the end. A heavier electric plane might have to use more of the runway, but there should be enough runway to do that.

I believe burning off (or dumping) fuel is mainly about reducing landing weight. They can land at more than the normal maximum landing weight if they have to but I think this involves extra checks or maintenance of the landing gear afterwards. If there's a more serious problem I imagine they would prefer to get rid of as much fuel as possible to reduce the hazard if a crash landing is expected.
Is that right (my chemistry is dubious) - is the battery burning the stored energy rather than its materials?
I was actually thinking in ballistic terms - batteries are pretty dense things and would take some stopping in a crash. Big holes.
From what I remember one cell can go short circuit, generating heat which similarly affects adjacent cells and the whole thing goes into runaway. Just checking on Wikipedia I find they also have a pressurized flammable electrolyte, but unlike a fuel fire it would continue to generate heat even if denied oxygen for example by spraying with foam.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I'm not so certain about that. At the time that the volcano erupted in Iceland and caused all aircraft in the UK to be grounded for days, the sky was never clearer.

Wasn't that more about contrails (which are just water vapour despite what the tin-foil hat brigade like to think) rather than pollution? You can see them in the skies but they aren't pollution per-se.
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,419
Wasn't that more about contrails (which are just water vapour despite what the tin-foil hat brigade like to think) rather than pollution? You can see them in the skies but they aren't pollution per-se.
Yep, and it made the planet warmer so not all gain on reduced carbon.
It was beautiful though, so much quieter and gorgeous blue skies - had never realised how the planes created overcast conditions.
 

BigCj34

Member
Joined
5 Apr 2016
Messages
761
VXC used to go that way , cant remember the freq. Still think its a fair bit longer timewise than the train. Easyjet usualyy cheaper than the train too.

Could be an opportunity for another Scotland-Brum service then, if it is extended to Bristol (or even Cardiff!). So Glasgow and Edinburgh each have 1tph to Brum, and 1tp2h to Bristol. I know this is fantasy at this stage, but if it is the most popular non-London flying route in GB it could be worth a look. While a possible 5h30 journey time is still notably more than flying, the extra 2 hours isn't a huge inconvenience to deter leisure travellers who would sacrifice the time for a smoother ride. It's certainly how the Eurostar service to the south of France works.
 

w1bbl3

Member
Joined
6 Mar 2011
Messages
325
Could be an opportunity for another Scotland-Brum service then, if it is extended to Bristol (or even Cardiff!). So Glasgow and Edinburgh each have 1tph to Brum, and 1tp2h to Bristol. I know this is fantasy at this stage, but if it is the most popular non-London flying route in GB it could be worth a look. While a possible 5h30 journey time is still notably more than flying, the extra 2 hours isn't a huge inconvenience to deter leisure travellers who would sacrifice the time for a smoother ride. It's certainly how the Eurostar service to the south of France works.

The leisure traveller just isn't going to pay £150 - £160 one way when easyjet have tickets for as little as £25. The Birmingham > Bristol, Manchester > Bristol flow prices are a problem in terms of trying price a Glasgow > Bristol flow competitively against easyjet. I've actually done Bristol > Edinburgh and Bristol > Glasgow by train honestly it wouldn't be my first choice and for me is only a fall back for the odd occasion when easyjet don't have seats available, and means the return trip can't be done in the same day.

Eurostar services to south of France focus on Avignon and Marseilles where there aren't direct flights from London so flying involves further onward travel, by car, bus, taxi or train vs a direct train and the longer term pricing is very competitive.
 

GrimShady

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2016
Messages
1,740
Which is a bad thing. Shipping stuff half way round the world (and ships are some of the worst polluters) when it could be produced locally instead is to be deprecated. Unless of course we could see a resurgence of sail?

You need to look at the cargo tonnage per ton of fuel that only marine vessels can do. There is no form of transport on earth that can match it
 

Butts

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Jan 2011
Messages
11,323
Location
Stirlingshire

There would then be a spate of batteries being dropped in unsafe places, closely followed by the plane which no longer has any power! Agreed best not to go there.

Hilarious....:E

I have been using BA, BA Connect, BMI Baby and Flybe between Edinburgh/Glasgow and Birmingham for over 10 years.

In that time the fares have hardly moved in price at the lower end of the spectrum - around £50 - £60 return. You can't say the same about Rail Prices.

It was best during the genesis of low cost carriers with cheap fares on proper BA Services with seat bags and catering included. Today for the same price you get less than you used to in terms of service.

Forget the Train there is nothing better than an Embraer 195 hammering down in 45 minutes. It is already in Birmingham before the Train has crossed the border. For Aberdeen/Inverness/Wick to somewhere like Southampton don't even go there - it's like an Azuma v Pacer
 
Last edited:

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,669
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
Yep, and it made the planet warmer so not all gain on reduced carbon.
It was beautiful though, so much quieter and gorgeous blue skies - had never realised how the planes created overcast conditions.

One thing you have to remember, the amount of water vapour over our skies is increased due to our position in the North Atlantic. Most of the daily set entry points for the trans-Atlantic routes from European, Middle Eastern & Asian departure flights lie off the cost of our isles (including Ireland). So we get a lot of non-UK traffic in our skies, but is not necessarily representative of how all the Earth's skies look.

However, the kind of markets that companies like Flybe serve may well be better served by high speed networks rather than by flying. And this is where we should be, but are not investing in. Connectivity by public transport is going to be a vital part of how we go forward in making ourselves more energy efficient. More than 80% of UK kilometres travelled in 2017 where not using public transport, this cannot go on, we need the infrastructure to take a significant proportion of that 80% off the roads and onto public transport.

The problem is in this country is that urban / suburban planning is the wrong way around. First we build houses, then we release that there is no infrastructure to effectively service them (they are always talked about in planning stages, but often get finally overlooked). It should be the other way, planning should be purely on the basis that the infrastructure is in place, i.e. effective public transport, retail facilities, schools, medical services etc. But moreover how we build is going to have to change. Whilst many people's aspirations may be that lovely detached 4-5 bedroom house on the edge of suburbia, in reality we need to make better use of brown field spaces closer into urban areas. This may well mean much shared housing areas, albeit with the hindsight of more effective insulating / soundproofing methods to afford people's privacy.

We need to do this because we need to make better use of our green spaces, not only for more farming but also for carbon fixing. So the steady march of UK housing further into the countryside will not only need to be curtailed, but eventually scaled back. But we will only be able to do that with the right public transport infrastructure in place first, in other words we need to start building additional capacity now, not wait until existing capacity is overwhelmed. The government is making all the right noises about this, but living as I do in a river valley that is seeing a lot of new developments going up, as well as a lot of jobs soon to move down the valley into Leeds in the next couple of years, the actual capacity growth doesn't seem to be matching the housing growth. So I remain deeply cynical that they will deliver.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,224
Location
Bolton
TBH I think flight delay compensation should operate more along the lines of Delay Repay based on the fare (the headline price, not removing taxes etc) than a fixed sum. A rare occasion on which I wholly agree with Michael O'Leary!
The law was changed as it was purely because airlines used dirty tricks to get out of paying the compensation until the new legislation removed these avenues.

They've only themselves to blame. If they'd treated customers they'd let down fairly it might have been different.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Could be an opportunity for another Scotland-Brum service then, if it is extended to Bristol (or even Cardiff!). So Glasgow and Edinburgh each have 1tph to Brum, and 1tp2h to Bristol. I know this is fantasy at this stage, but if it is the most popular non-London flying route in GB it could be worth a look. While a possible 5h30 journey time is still notably more than flying, the extra 2 hours isn't a huge inconvenience to deter leisure travellers who would sacrifice the time for a smoother ride. It's certainly how the Eurostar service to the south of France works.
I'm assuming your 5h 30 is a Bristol-Scotland time. Birmingham-Glasgow is 4hr by the direct route, so not totally uncompetitive with air today. It is planned to use part of HS2 phase 2 if built.
Forget the Train there is nothing better than an Embraer 195 hammering down in 45 minutes. It is already in Birmingham before the Train has crossed the border. For Aberdeen/Inverness/Wick to somewhere like Southampton don't even go there - it's like an Azuma v Pacer
That is of course 45min plus the time to, in and from the airport. You could equally say the train has crossed the border before you've cleared security...
 

Butts

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Jan 2011
Messages
11,323
Location
Stirlingshire
That is of course 45min plus the time to, in and from the airport. You could equally say the train has crossed the border before you've cleared security...

Also time to and from the station if you are not going to or starting nearby. When did you last wait an hour to get through security 5/10 mins is the norm at EDI/BHX.

Try your timings on Inverness to Southampton !!
 

adamello

Member
Joined
9 Nov 2016
Messages
230
That is of course 45min plus the time to, in and from the airport. You could equally say the train has crossed the border before you've cleared security...

you do know that you don't have to get to the airport 2 hours before the flight, right?

especially when, a) domestic, b) checked in online and c) only have hand luggage

couple of mins through security then walk to the gate
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Also time to and from the station if you are not going to or starting nearby. When did you last wait an hour to get through security 5/10 mins is the norm at EDI/BHX.

Try your timings on Inverness to Southampton !!
you do know that you don't have to get to the airport 2 hours before the flight, right?

especially when, a) domestic, b) checked in online and c) only have hand luggage

couple of mins through security then walk to the gate
Yes I'm aware of all that, and I didn't suggest that the train would be quicker for that sort of journey. But equally it's misleading to talk about the flight time versus the time on the train without recognizing that flying invariably involves additional time.
 

BigCj34

Member
Joined
5 Apr 2016
Messages
761
The leisure traveller just isn't going to pay £150 - £160 one way when easyjet have tickets for as little as £25. The Birmingham > Bristol, Manchester > Bristol flow prices are a problem in terms of trying price a Glasgow > Bristol flow competitively against easyjet. I've actually done Bristol > Edinburgh and Bristol > Glasgow by train honestly it wouldn't be my first choice and for me is only a fall back for the odd occasion when easyjet don't have seats available, and means the return trip can't be done in the same day.

Eurostar services to south of France focus on Avignon and Marseilles where there aren't direct flights from London so flying involves further onward travel, by car, bus, taxi or train vs a direct train and the longer term pricing is very competitive.

Then that's a pricing issue. With a railcard and split tickets I have found the pricing to be slightly cheaper, but without one the equation changes completely.
 

sheff1

Established Member
Joined
24 Dec 2009
Messages
5,459
Location
Sheffield
Eurostar services to south of France focus on Avignon and Marseilles where there aren't direct flights from London so flying involves further onward travel, by car, bus, taxi or train vs a direct train and the longer term pricing is very competitive.

2 BA flights a day from Heathrow to/from Marseille and 1 a day from/to Stansted with Ryanair. Less than £50 single on the former last time I used it. Eurostar wanted 3 times that with a change (no through train in winter).
 

BigCj34

Member
Joined
5 Apr 2016
Messages
761
2 BA flights a day from Heathrow to/from Marseille and 1 a day from/to Stansted with Ryanair. Less than £50 single on the former last time I used it. Eurostar wanted 3 times that with a change (no through train in winter).
The through services have good headline prices, the changeovers do not. Same as with the Amsterdam services.
 

jagardner1984

Member
Joined
11 May 2008
Messages
666
The reality is surely until there is competition on price, for many people who travel for work and have to use the cheapest route, rail will mostly (currently) lose.

If you want someone to take a 3-4 hour time penalty of a greener method (not even taking the most extreme examples, but a straightforward Bristol / Cardiff to Scotland journey), then the least you can do is shape taxation to give people making the better choice a financial advantage.

As we know, rail fares, especially on cross country, have a lot to do with suppressing demand as much as anything else (services often close to capacity on the XC core in particular) and until capacity is dramatically increased, it will always be cheaper, easier, faster and arguably better to just shove in another Q400 or A319 flight from X regional airport to Y.

I’m really trying to use rail on my leisure trips Scotland - South England for environmental reasons, but I must say the many extra pounds disappearing out of my pocket for the privilege of those extra hours on a Pendolino trundling into Preston does rather grate every time I do it.

Your move, politicians ...
 

BigCj34

Member
Joined
5 Apr 2016
Messages
761
The reality is surely until there is competition on price, for many people who travel for work and have to use the cheapest route, rail will mostly (currently) lose.

If you want someone to take a 3-4 hour time penalty of a greener method (not even taking the most extreme examples, but a straightforward Bristol / Cardiff to Scotland journey), then the least you can do is shape taxation to give people making the better choice a financial advantage.

As we know, rail fares, especially on cross country, have a lot to do with suppressing demand as much as anything else (services often close to capacity on the XC core in particular) and until capacity is dramatically increased, it will always be cheaper, easier, faster and arguably better to just shove in another Q400 or A319 flight from X regional airport to Y.

I’m really trying to use rail on my leisure trips Scotland - South England for environmental reasons, but I must say the many extra pounds disappearing out of my pocket for the privilege of those extra hours on a Pendolino trundling into Preston does rather grate every time I do it.

Your move, politicians ...
Agrees. Even having an all age railcard would tip the scales financially for many, with the discount journeys often workout cheaper than flying (albeit with split tickets, another matter) but don't without the discount.

One may argue that those over 30 would typically earn more than an 18 year old so should pay more for rail travel. However all adults pay the same fare when flying regardless of age, which is what the railway is competing with long distance. The railway is probably losing custom when people lose their railcard.

And yes sort XC out. Is no-one wanting to bid for it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top