Flybe problems - did they take rail improvements into account?

[Meerkat]

Seems to me the obvious thing is to scrap APD, scrap Vehicle Excise Duty, and tax fuel on Aviation, Rail and Road more.

i disagree - fuel costs are marginal and I don’t think many people consider them unless they are pondering buying a really thirsty car or drive a long long way.
Whereas I think people take notice of lumpy stuff, particularly if they have to pay it straight away.
If a Focus costs £200 a year more to tax than a Ka they really notice.
We need a Ka to be default single person car, a Fiesta a default family car (families used to drive Escorts and they were Fiesta sized), and anything bigger than a Focus to be taxed so you REALLY had to need it to justify the cost.
Would help the railways if people were comparing the train against 400 motorway miles in a Ka!

 

[BigCj34]

Two problems spring to mind here. Firstly any kind of travel rationing will almost always hit the poorer in society, which in turn will lead to more of a social division, which in turn will lead to malcontent, which will eventually lead to violence, possibly even war. Secondly, limiting travel will make countries, cities, towns, rural areas more isolated. This in turn will lead back to people being more & more suspicious of people from outside their communities, which in turn will lead to more of a social division, which in turn will lead to malcontent, which will eventually lead to violence, possibly even war. See a pattern forming yet?

Believe it or not, but travel brings human beings together, helps people better understand each other & our individual ways of life, customs, even religions. Without that we are far more likely to wage war, and with the weapons available to quite a few nations now, that could bring then end of the world, not in decades but in minutes. And if this sounds overly dramatic, its meant to be because history is full of the devastation caused by human beings fighting because they didn't trust or like another nation. So travel, the ability to reach beyond our own pre-set boundaries is good, maybe even essential for the human race to survive.

If you really want to tackle man-made climate change, & man-made pollution (something that seems to have taken a back seat these days) then take for example a real bug-bear of mine, food waste. In the west in general we throw away a third of all the food we produce (closer to 40% in the US), often without it even coming out of it's packaging. So we could, for no real cost to personal budgets, reduce our wasted food to as close to zero as possible, feed the homeless with what was left unsold, and still reduce of food carbon footprint by 30%. Plus as a bonus we would also reduce of need for packaging by a third, reducing the amount of plastics made & therefore associated pollutants, and reduce by the same the amount of plastic that we either throw away into the oceans or have to recycle.

Now that would make a real difference. And all it needs is for people to understand how to buy just enough, and when & how to use the food available effectively. It is the ultimate first world no-brainer.

That's where we need to emphasise quality travel. Going on an Internal trip for a month is probably more eye-opening than flying to a city on the odd weekend here and there. Certain continents are impossible to reach using a greener mode of transport than flying, so once you're there, by all means spend some time there, explore the area and take surface transport rather than flying between the main sights. As we are seeing with certain cities in Europe such as Venice, Barcelona and Amsterdam, cruise visits, cheap flights and abundant Airbnb's are strangling them.

Having travel as the preserve of the rich would be a shame and it is a positive that travel is more democratic. However does someone who makes 15 return trips a year for short breaks and business gain a better enrichment than someone making 1-2 return trips but slowly exploring the area around it?

 

[paddington]

i disagree - fuel costs are marginal and I don’t think many people consider them unless they are pondering buying a really thirsty car or drive a long long way.
Whereas I think people take notice of lumpy stuff, particularly if they haveto pay it straight away.
If a Focus costs £200 a year more to tax than a Ka they really notice.
We need a Ka to be default single person car, a Fiesta a default family car (families used to drive Escorts and they were Fiesta sized), and anything bigger than a Focus to be taxed so you REALLY had to need it to justify the cost.
Would help the railways if people were comparing the train against 400 motorway miles in a Ka!

If people don't consider the fuel cost then that would seem to be a more palatable way of introducing a carbon tax,

A tax on vehicle mileage would affect me more than the aggressive drivers who slam on the accelerator as soon as the lights turn green, then wait for me to catch up at the next red. We travel the same distance but they use a lot more fuel.

However does someone who makes 15 return trips a year for short breaks and business gain a better enrichment than someone making 1-2 return trips but slowly exploring the area around it?

I understand and agree with your point, but I personally feel more enriched from my short visits to 40 different countries over the past 2 years than spending a month in the same country. But I don't go to a new country and just do the same thing I would have done at home.

 

[RLBH]

What would be scary about a mileage-based vehicle tax? The DVLA already keeps a record of vehicle mileage as part of the annual MOT. Extending some form of MOT-type check to all cars and linking it to annual vehicle tax wouldn’t be that radical. Just take the car to an approved garage once a year to have them log the mileage with the DVLA and pay the tax bill - most people are doing these already, the only difference would be the bill being linked to mileage. The more complex location/time-based congestion charges already exist. Compared to the countless ANPR cameras we pass on the roads, mileage-based tax doesn’t seem much of an intrusion.

I keep suggesting this - it's straightforward to implement and transparent. People who advocate road pricing normally insist on something complex to implement and difficult to understand instead, which will be a very difficult sell.

I'd actually advocate this being the main tax on motoring, with fuel duty dropped to a lower rate based on the 'carbon price' and similar prices for other fuel-based emissions. In theory, it should probably be per kilogram rather than per litre, though volumes are easier to measure. That rate would be applied across all users of hydrocarbon fuels, which would result in a major rate increase for industrial and agricultural uses, rail transport, and general aviation. Commercial aviation is difficult because of international treaties - but in principle it should be liable for the same fuel duty.

A flat tax wouldn't be very effective though. If you drive a mile in a city in rush hour it's more damaging than driving a mile in the countryside on a Sunday night.

A flat rate per mile would be a heck of a lot better than the current system of paying a set amount per year whether you do fifty miles or fifty thousand.

 

[edwin_m]

A flat tax wouldn't be very effective though. If you drive a mile in a city in rush hour it's more damaging than driving a mile in the countryside on a Sunday night.

The mileage tax could be supplemented by London-style emissions and congestion charges in sensitive areas, which could depend on vehicle type and time of day.

i disagree - fuel costs are marginal and I don’t think many people consider them unless they are pondering buying a really thirsty car or drive a long long way.
Whereas I think people take notice of lumpy stuff, particularly if they have to pay it straight away.
If a Focus costs £200 a year more to tax than a Ka they really notice.
We need a Ka to be default single person car, a Fiesta a default family car (families used to drive Escorts and they were Fiesta sized), and anything bigger than a Focus to be taxed so you REALLY had to need it to justify the cost.
Would help the railways if people were comparing the train against 400 motorway miles in a Ka!

That's true when buying a car, but when choosing whether to use it for a particular journey people will think about the cost of the fuel they will use, plus parking.

 

[BigCj34]

Unfortunately the idea of travel rationing is a good way to turn people against each other, arguing over who is more deserving to travel. Not saying this is an argument here, but it could lead to the general public arguing over it.

 

[Meerkat]

That's true when buying a car, but when choosing whether to use it for a particular journey people will think about the cost of the fuel they will use, plus parking.

Parking yes, but rarely fuel.
I reckon most people considering popping into town would compare the fare to parking and ignore fuel costs. For a start I reckon you would struggle to find anyone who has even a vague idea of the marginal cost of driving their car ten miles. I only really think about it when the journey gets to a whole tankfull or multiples thereof!
This is a reason public transport needs contactless - it’s psychologically very different to handing over cash, or even buying a ticket for a set amount.

 

[edwin_m]

Parking yes, but rarely fuel.
I reckon most people considering popping into town would compare the fare to parking and ignore fuel costs. For a start I reckon you would struggle to find anyone who has even a vague idea of the marginal cost of driving their car ten miles. I only really think about it when the journey gets to a whole tankfull or multiples thereof!
This is a reason public transport needs contactless - it’s psychologically very different to handing over cash, or even buying a ticket for a set amount.

Not so much if popping into town I agree. But for a longer journey where a train or plane might be considered as an alternative (which is the topic for this thread), they will probably estimate the consumption or at least assume the price of a full tank - but not servicing, insurance or depreciation which are probably sunk costs for most people anyway.

 

[jayah]

20,000 per year for Aberdeen to Cardiff/Bristol sounds impressive but it's under 70 per day so could be carried by one flight with a medium-sized aircraft. 200,000 per year is two or three 737s per day or equivalent (assuming the above figures are per direction). So the non-London flows where rail is totally uncompetitive on speed (say over 4hr train journey) are a small part of domestic aviation, let alone of the total long-distance travel market.

I am not sure what your expectations are of how much long distance travel there actually is.

Those numbers are bi-direction per route so 1,100 per day, 550 each way.

In other words Birmingham to Lowland Scotland is a 10 car Voyager in each direction each day. That is a lot to be missing out on given both are direct by rail and ought to be reasonably competitive on time.

How many are flying purely for cost?

 

[jayah]

If the line from Brum to Bristol was electrified , then west coast services could be extended , fantasy i know. Edinburgh has hourly XC to Bristol does it not?

That is exactly why rail is failing at these markets today. Fares are sky high £bn is being spent electrifying poor alignments and replacing 125mph diesel with 125mph electric.

Cross Country needs longer trains, bi-mode, lower fares, less pathing time and a tunnel under Birmingham.

Then you need a tax system on pollution that means a flight from Bristol to Inverness costs more than the taxi to the airport.

 

[BigCj34]

That is exactly why rail is failing at these markets today. Fares are sky high £bn is being spent electrifying poor alignments and replacing 125mph diesel with 125mph electric.

Cross Country needs longer trains, bi-mode, lower fares, less pathing time and a tunnel under Birmingham.

Then you need a tax system on pollution that means a flight from Bristol to Inverness costs more than the taxi to the airport.

We can electrify and not charge the earth (railways are a subsidised public service) but we need to do away with this feast and famine approach and quietly get on with it.

 

[jayah]

We can electrify and not charge the earth (railways are a subsidised public service) but we need to do away with this feast and famine approach and quietly get on with it.

It has been feast for years. The money is gushing but you need a microscope to see the difference.

Electrification costs big bucks and somebody has to pay.

Birmingham to Edinburgh is already electric but if you call at Sandwell & Dudley, spend 10mins at Wolverhampton and trickle around the junctions at Carstairs, it isn't high speed.

 

[BigCj34]

It has been feast for years. The money is gushing but you need a microscope to see the difference.

Electrification costs big bucks and somebody has to pay.

Birmingham to Edinburgh is already electric but if you call at Sandwell & Dudley, spend 10mins at Wolverhampton and trickle around the junctions at Carstairs, it isn't high speed.

So what is to come then? There is the Transpennine route but will that genuinely go from Manchester to York? I am guessing Scotland has some in the pipeline too. But isn't confidence inspiring when projects get cancelled either.

As far as I understand it are bimodes not going to be heavier on the tracks than purely electric units?

 

[Tetchytyke]

don't think anyone doubts that lifestyle changes will have to be imposed on the "man on the Clapham omnibus".

But, it appears, not on the megarich elites who don't use Flybe and don't use the train.

Funny that.

Never mind our esteemed leaders jetting around the world- Boris Johnson just took a private jet to get from Doncaster to Darlington- the issue is us proles having a cheap weekend away. Naturally the government's answer is tax; amazingly, no matter the question, the answer is always more tax.

"Carbon emissions" are just the new excuse for the megarich to keep us proles in our place.

As for Greta Thunberg, the carbon footprint she's generated by stamping across Europe for the past two years, pouting and looking sullen at a succession of big political events, could have kept me in flights to Ibiza or Newquay for 20 years*

(*I've not actually done the maths, if you can be chewed be my guest).

 

[jayah]

So what is to come then? There is the Transpennine route but will that genuinely go from Manchester to York? I am guessing Scotland has some in the pipeline too. But isn't confidence inspiring when projects get cancelled either.

As far as I understand it are bimodes not going to be heavier on the tracks than purely electric units?

Heavier on the tracks? The engines on diesel trains weigh less than the passengers. By some margin.

I have just outlined how to make significant reductions in Intercity journey times without spending £trillions and taking decades.

 

[BigCj34]

But, it appears, not on the megarich elites who don't use Flybe and don't use the train.

Funny that.

Never mind our esteemed leaders jetting around the world- Boris Johnson just took a private jet to get from Doncaster to Darlington- the issue is us proles having a cheap weekend away. Naturally the government's answer is tax; amazingly, no matter the question, the answer is always more tax.

"Carbon emissions" are just the new excuse for the megarich to keep us proles in our place.

As for Greta Thunberg, the carbon footprint she's generated by stamping across Europe for the past two years, pouting and looking sullen at a succession of big political events, could have kept me in flights to Ibiza or Newquay for 20 years*

(*I've not actually done the maths, if you can be chewed be my guest).

It would be wrong to chastise someone for making a couple of flight trips a year. I try to take the train or ferry when I can, but I am going transatlantic in the autumn. It is perfectly understandable that someone might want to take a £20 flight somewhere (Or even £50 with transfers) over a train trip that costs £250 return and takes 15 hours.

Perhaps those who have the deepest pockets should be the ones getting the train considering how expensive it is! I know a friend's boss who runs a solar farm company and took a train to Slovenia. Fair play, but he could afford it.

 

[BigCj34]

Heavier on the tracks? The engines on diesel trains weigh less than the passengers. By some margin.

I have just outlined how to make significant reductions in Intercity journey times without spending £trillions and taking decades.

As I understand it there are long term electrification benefits, diesel trains are heavier and cause more wear and tear, and electric acceleration is superior generally speaking. So for a heavily used route it would make sense.

Bimodes are good but they shouldn't be a substitute to electrifying lines that could do with it.

 

[frodshamfella]

It isn't faster unless the trains go faster. If Voyagers can keep up on the WCML and 180s on the ECML why is electrification seen as being a panacea for slow journey times?

Even the express 5 3/4hr Newcastle - Southampton paths have 19min pathing and 10min excess station time in them.

Nobody concerned by noise is likely to be flying, especially on a Flybe plane.

How much co2 does a voyager burn compared to a Flybe Q400 I wonder?

 

[frodshamfella]

Let's not forget as well, Flybe did very well out of the last Dawlish extended closure when the line was washed away, by increasing capacity on the Newquay route to poach passengers from rail.

But the Flybe service is not just for Newquay, as a Cornwall resident, unless you use the Sleeper, if you need to be in London before 10am, flying is the only option. Even if you are happy with the 10am arrival, you need to get to one of the stations on the main line as the branch lines do not run at this time to meet the first train from Cornwall. So unless you live within easy reach of a main line station, you may just as well go to Newquay airport and have a bit longer in your own bed. Don't get me wrong here, I'm all for rail travel, but if you live in Cornwall and need to be in London early, the sleeper is your only option other than flying. I have also seen fares for the first train from Cornwall to London being more than a return airfare, making it a no brainer.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for train travel, but in the case of Newquay, and Cornwall as a whole, flying to London is often a far easier and cheaper option, especially if you are then travelling on by air.

It can be the same from the North to Cornwall. Travelling on Cross Courntry is far from a joy and its not cheap.

 

[edwin_m]

I am not sure what your expectations are of how much long distance travel there actually is.

Those numbers are bi-direction per route so 1,100 per day, 550 each way.

In other words Birmingham to Lowland Scotland is a 10 car Voyager in each direction each day. That is a lot to be missing out on given both are direct by rail and ought to be reasonably competitive on time.

How many are flying purely for cost?

Given they manage to fill a 10-car Voyager or the Pendolino equivalent on that route every hour (yes that includes other flows, but the plane might too) I'd say the air share was fairly small in comparison. Nevertheless that route doesn't deserve any subsidy by air and it ought to be paying for the environmental consequences.

My point was more about the longer flows where rail is less competitive but the numbers flying are even smaller.

 

[sheff1]

We have two options: drastic lifestyle changes with measures such as population control and travel rationing or recognise that the target was never achievable.

The first option might work in places like China (who have just banned travel by public transport in & from Wuhan for a different reason) but not in a democracy.

 

[TrafficEng]

So the best start is reducing the M1/M6 to 2 lanes each way.

How would that help?

It would just displace a lot of traffic onto other roads, and increase the CO2 g/km of all the vehicles sat in congestion.

And no point saying they should be going on the train instead, because it will be 10+ years before HS2 is built and for the railways to have the additional capacity required for a fraction of the movements on the M1/M6. (a lot of which would be wagon load freight)

 

[johnnychips]

I do wonder how many posters on here have not taken a flight or do not intend to take a flight in the past or coming year. If you haven’t I sincerely respect you.
However, with a massive increase in flights in places like China and India instead of their people’s taking long and slow and uncomfortable trains, I’m afraid I’ll still be taking my short holiday in Barcelona and long one in Asia without any guilt about flying. Yes I know it’s selfish, but I suspect most people are like me. Tomorrow never comes.

 

[TrafficEng]

What would be scary about a mileage-based vehicle tax? The DVLA already keeps a record of vehicle mileage as part of the annual MOT. Extending some form of MOT-type check to all cars and linking it to annual vehicle tax wouldn’t be that radical.

Recording vehicle mileage is the easy bit.

The difficult bit is working out a system of differential charging depending on where people live and the necessity of the journey. And then applying that differential charging based on nothing more than total mileage and the address the vehicle is 'kept' at.

A flat charge per mile is regressive and would severely penalise some communities, and is unlikely to act as much of a deterrent in some others.

It has the makings of being the 21st century Poll Tax. In principle it sounds like a good idea that everybody pays, and pays the same. But then you need to add in protections for those who cannot afford to pay, and those who find themselves paying more through no fault of their own. Then the system gets so complicated that everybody hates it and politicians start losing their jobs.

 

[w1bbl3]

Problem there is that electric cars won't be paying fuel tax, other than the 5% VAT on electricity. If most people switch to electric without a reduction in mileage, congestion will be just as bad, pollution is less but not zero, and road maintenance will probably increase as EVs tend to be heavier. So how is this paid for?


That's a very good idea. Could maybe even just self-declare it with some sort of random check.

The difficulty with simple annual mileage or self declared schemes is that their already is a cottage industry in clock wind back services for both resale and lease / finance mileage under reporting. Adding tax to the mix will result in wider percentage of population using such services to underreport.
More logical is a simple roads pricing system, the technology for which already exists in the form of telematics boxes used by some insurance companies to report back trips for central processing and analysis. Previously when roads pricing has been discussed the concepts have all been around complex, expensive London congestion charge type systems using entry and exit camera but lots and lots of them.
The difficulty as TrafficEng has pointed out is the political one of who and how pricing is set.

i disagree - fuel costs are marginal and I don’t think many people consider them unless they are pondering buying a really thirsty car or drive a long long way.
Whereas I think people take notice of lumpy stuff, particularly if they have to pay it straight away.
If a Focus costs £200 a year more to tax than a Ka they really notice.
We need a Ka to be default single person car, a Fiesta a default family car (families used to drive Escorts and they were Fiesta sized), and anything bigger than a Focus to be taxed so you REALLY had to need it to justify the cost.
Would help the railways if people were comparing the train against 400 motorway miles in a Ka!

Electrification of private vehicles is likely to see the average vehicle grow in both size and weight to accommodate the battery packs. A Telsa model 3 is 1700 to 1800kg vs 1400kg to 1500kg for the same sized ICE vehicle. Assuming that in the longer term the electric grid de-carbonises then actually trains and particular trains on more rural branch lines which aren't economic for OLE become somewhat problematic in terms of emissions.

 

[furnessvale]

Heavier on the tracks? The engines on diesel trains weigh less than the passengers. By some margin.

I have just outlined how to make significant reductions in Intercity journey times without spending £trillions and taking decades.

It's not either or, it's both.

 

[Butts]

I think the bottom line is everyone claims to be concerned about the environment and approves of measures to reduce carbon footprints as long as...

They don't have to pay for it either materially or in terms of inconvenience to themselves.

Their "eco warrior" credentials don't extend to their wallets or "precious time"

I include myself and 99% of posters on here in the above.

 

[The Ham]

Surely the problem is that if you are serious about for a net carbon target of zero its not good enough just to promote a mode change to a lower polluting method such as rail, you have to be reducing or eliminating leisure and non essential altogether. you certainly shouldn't be building high speed rail lines.
The days of mode change have passed.It should now be travel rationing.

I'm all for that, given that we a household we do circa 1/2 the national average for the same number of people chances are we could sell the extra travel which we don't do to those who do.

In fact with about 1/5 of our travel being done by walking/cycling (which is unlikely to be counted in any such rationing) then we'll be fine thank you very much.

Who will offer me £50 for an extra 100 miles of travel? (I'll see how that goes in terms of sale before offering further amounts).

The tighter the cap the more which I reckon that I could get. The above would probably be of the cap was set at 6,000 miles per year (average miles traveled per person 7,000). However if it fell to 4,000 miles I could probably get £250 (if not more) for that same 100 miles. As fewer people would be below the cap and therefore more people want the extra milage allowance.

 

[edwin_m]

The difficult bit is working out a system of differential charging depending on where people live and the necessity of the journey. And then applying that differential charging based on nothing more than total mileage and the address the vehicle is 'kept' at.

A flat charge per mile is regressive and would severely penalise some communities, and is unlikely to act as much of a deterrent in some others.

It has the makings of being the 21st century Poll Tax. In principle it sounds like a good idea that everybody pays, and pays the same. But then you need to add in protections for those who cannot afford to pay, and those who find themselves paying more through no fault of their own. Then the system gets so complicated that everybody hates it and politicians start losing their jobs.

People effectively pay a flat charge per mile today in the form of fuel tax. Assuming EVs become as popular as some people predict, there will be a big hole in the government's finances because the costs of road repair, congestion and accidents won't fall and may actually rise. And it's only reasonable that people whose lifestyles involve a lot of driving should pay more for the damage they cause to the rest of society.

So I'm seeing three elements:

• Mileage charge paid by all vehicles, probably varying by vehicle type/weight.
• Fuel taxes to continue, as an incentive for people to shift to zero emission vehicles.
• Congestion and emissions charges to enter particularly sensitive areas, perhaps only to be imposed if there is a good park and ride alternative for people coming from outside the area.

The difficulty with simple annual mileage or self declared schemes is that their already is a cottage industry in clock wind back services for both resale and lease / finance mileage under reporting. Adding tax to the mix will result in wider percentage of population using such services to underreport.

If mileage recording truly isn't secure on modern vehicles, then maybe a telematics system is more appropriate.

 

[underbank]

What would be scary about a mileage-based vehicle tax? The DVLA already keeps a record of vehicle mileage as part of the annual MOT. Extending some form of MOT-type check to all cars and linking it to annual vehicle tax wouldn’t be that radical. Just take the car to an approved garage once a year to have them log the mileage with the DVLA and pay the tax bill - most people are doing these already, the only difference would be the bill being linked to mileage. The more complex location/time-based congestion charges already exist. Compared to the countless ANPR cameras we pass on the roads, mileage-based tax doesn’t seem much of an intrusion.

It's too much of a blunt instrument and doesn't take account of local factors. Why should a bloke in London who ignores their fantastic/expensive public transport system and drives a couple of miles to the gym be charged the same as a woman in Cumbria who drives 2 miles to her GP surgery because there's no bus?

If you want mileage tax, then it has to be based on GPS with a satnav or insurance black box fitted to all cars. "Per mile" taxes could then be higher in areas with good public transport and lower/zero in areas without. It could also trigger congestion charges, tolls, etc. Could also be fine tuned to have a lower "per mile" tax on quiet runs and higher on busy motorways. The possibilities are endless. Far simpler and more efficient than having cameras/ANPR everywhere (which are easy to avoid by false plates or not washing your car and letting the road much build up to obscure the number plate).