Go to bed in Swansea, wake up in Paris

[Krokodil]

Wasn't the pod concept considered for Caledonian sleeper but discarded on fire safety grounds? I'm sure that I read something somewhere.

 

[popeter45]

Wasn't the pod concept considered for Caledonian sleeper but discarded on fire safety grounds? I'm sure that I read something somewhere.

afaik that pod concept was diffrent?, it was more like buisness class seat beds
and i think it was more about being lengthways so potential for neck injuries than fire escape

 

[Cloud Strife]

Where do these happen exactly? With passports checks on board, rather than standing in a station? With any quantity of passengers travelling?

In quite a lot of places. For instance, pre-Schengen, the Berlin-Warszawa-Express featured on-the-move identity checks. It's really not a big deal, it just requires an agreement between both countries that someone denied entry will immediately be taken back to the country that they came from.

 

[popeter45]

In quite a lot of places. For instance, pre-Schengen, the Berlin-Warszawa-Express featured on-the-move identity checks. It's really not a big deal, it just requires an agreement between both countries that someone denied entry will immediately be taken back to the country that they came from.

and thats the issue, EU already rejected such a idea for channel refugees. no way would they agree to a return agreement like this all for a sleeper train

 

[Cloud Strife]

and thats the issue, EU already rejected such a idea for channel refugees. no way would they agree to a return agreement like this all for a sleeper train

Yes, until there's such an agreement, it's a non-starter.

To be honest, I don't understand why there's a problem. Poland signed such an agreement with the Schengen signatories in 1991 to gain visa-free access, and it was never a problem.

 

[HSTEd]

To be honest, I don't understand why there's a problem. Poland signed such an agreement with the Schengen signatories in 1991 to gain visa-free access, and it was never a problem.

There were no serious migration flows at that time, certainly not ones that the EU was desperate to prevent.

Ultimately immigrants that get into the UK cease to be the EU's problem, they don't want them back. Very few immigrants move from the UK to the EU illegally, so the EU gains nothing from such an agreement.

 

[Cloud Strife]

There were no serious migration flows at that time, certainly not ones that the EU was desperate to prevent.

Oh there were. Poland was a major transit route at the time, particularly for people from the Soviet Union, Romania and Bulgaria. Poland continued to allow them visa-free access after the collapse of the Soviet Bloc, which meant that the Oder in particular became a really major focal point in illegal immigration to Germany.

 

[popeter45]

Oh there were. Poland was a major transit route at the time, particularly for people from the Soviet Union, Romania and Bulgaria. Poland continued to allow them visa-free access after the collapse of the Soviet Bloc, which meant that the Oder in particular became a really major focal point in illegal immigration to Germany.

that was people trying to get into schengen so schengen countries were happy for a return treaty to keep them out, poland wanted visa free entry with long term plan to join schengen so was happy to accept that, both got somthing out of it
between UK and EU what is the reason for such a deal?, EU dont want to keep migrants and UK doesnt have anything to offer in return. it would be a very one sided deal

 

[FormerBritInMe]

I was interested to read last night that post-9/11 security theatre was the death of the International train between the US and Canada.

To paraphrase Mark Twain the death of the US/CA international train has been greatly exaggerated. There are currently 2 such that are running (Seattle WA to Vancouver BC and New York to Toronto) while a third the Adirondack from New York to Montreal was suspended allegedly for "heat restrictions" that caused unacceptable running at 10 mph for some distance, the reality being that the host railroad did not want to fix its deplorable track for one train a day.

To be sure Security Theatre delayed the resumption of these trains post COVID and has resulted in unpleasant procedures e.g. turfing everyone out at Niagara Falls with their luggage to be inspected on the platform in all kinds of weather rather than doing on train checks.

 

[Pugwash]

I would think a business sleeper train from London to places such as Frankfurt, Geneva and Zurich would be very popular. You only have to see how many European Banks have offices in London.

Would save a many early trips to the airport and enable you to have a full day in the office and dinner meetings, just jump on the train afterwards.

 

[zwk500]

I would think a business sleeper train from London to places such as Frankfurt, Geneva and Zurich would be very popular. You only have to see how many European Banks have offices in London.

Cologne (for Frankfurt) and Geneva are certainly long term targets for London services. However is a sleeper enough to tempt business travellers away from the 5/6am taxi to Heathrow, where they may well have the fast track and lounge access to make the journey much less punishing that it would be if going with Ryanair?

 

[philg999]

Cologne (for Frankfurt) and Geneva are certainly long term targets for London services. However is a sleeper enough to tempt business travellers away from the 5/6am taxi to Heathrow, where they may well have the fast track and lounge access to make the journey much less punishing that it would be if going with Ryanair?

The competition on business flights to Geneva, Zurich and Frankfurt is from London City Airport. I commuted from Amsterdam to near Bank each week for 2 years using LCY (with fast track pass through AMS) and it was actually a speedy enjoyable experience, 4 hrs door to door most of the time. (Frankfurt is only 15 mins longer on a flight). I’m not sure how an overnight sleeper can compete unless airfares go significantly up and rail fares down, especially as the work disruption caused by not-sleeping (always a distinct possibility with the trains) is worse than having to get up early.

 

[RT4038]

Cologne (for Frankfurt) and Geneva are certainly long term targets for London services. However is a sleeper enough to tempt business travellers away from the 5/6am taxi to Heathrow, where they may well have the fast track and lounge access to make the journey much less punishing that it would be if going with Ryanair?

The competition on business flights to Geneva, Zurich and Frankfurt is from London City Airport. I commuted from Amsterdam to near Bank each week for 2 years using LCY (with fast track pass through AMS) and it was actually a speedy enjoyable experience, 4 hrs door to door most of the time. (Frankfurt is only 15 mins longer on a flight). I’m not sure how an overnight sleeper can compete unless airfares go significantly up and rail fares down, especially as the work disruption caused by not-sleeping (always a distinct possibility with the trains) is worse than having to get up early.

I think that those posting on this forum who think that business sleeper trains would be popular either (a) have never travelled by sleeper trains (other than a novelty) whilst on business, and/or (b) are railway enthusiasts who overlook the shortcomings and over emphasise the positives.

 

[Krokodil]

I think that those posting on this forum who think that business sleeper trains would be popular either (a) have never travelled by sleeper trains (other than a novelty) whilst on business, and/or (b) are railway enthusiasts who overlook the shortcomings and over emphasise the positives.

Indeed, business travel makes up a tiny minority of sleeper custom. It's generally leisure travel or weekly commuting (as in someone who has a flat in a city and a their main residence in the country).

The competition on business flights to Geneva, Zurich and Frankfurt is from London City Airport. I commuted from Amsterdam to near Bank each week for 2 years using LCY (with fast track pass through AMS) and it was actually a speedy enjoyable experience, 4 hrs door to door most of the time. (Frankfurt is only 15 mins longer on a flight). I’m not sure how an overnight sleeper can compete unless airfares go significantly up and rail fares down, especially as the work disruption caused by not-sleeping (always a distinct possibility with the trains) is worse than having to get up early.

Now that Eurostar is directly serving Amsterdam, would you do anything different these days?

 

[philg999]

Now that Eurostar is directly serving Amsterdam, would you do anything different these days?

Not with the current schedules or pricing. The last journey of the day from London is 1hr too early to make a meaningful working day possible. And the prices are way above what I’d pay for flights from the already-premium-priced city airport unless booking 6 months in advance (which really is not practical). But yes with better timed services and more competitive prices, sure. The current Eurostar offering to Amsterdam is, in my opinion, not fit for business travel purposes, only as a vacation travel novelty.

 

[30907]

Not with the current schedules or pricing. The last journey of the day from London is 1hr too early to make a meaningful working day possible.

If I were travelling on business I would expect to pay business premier to check in late - 1804 from London strikes me as quite reasonable departures, allowing one to leave a Central London/Canary Wharf office at 1700. 1847 from Amsterdam C is even better.

 

[Chester1]

that was people trying to get into schengen so schengen countries were happy for a return treaty to keep them out, poland wanted visa free entry with long term plan to join schengen so was happy to accept that, both got somthing out of it
between UK and EU what is the reason for such a deal?, EU dont want to keep migrants and UK doesnt have anything to offer in return. it would be a very one sided deal

This is only true for an agreement just on illegal migration. Any agreement may be part of a larger borders and mobility agreement. There is more interest from the EU for a Youth Mobility Agreement than there is from UK. I am not sure even a returns agreement would be enough for border controls on Eurostar etc to be relaxed. Its simpler to not allow the person in the first place, than remove them afterwards.

 

[zwk500]

This is only true for an agreement just on illegal migration. Any agreement may be part of a larger borders and mobility agreement. There is more interest from the EU for a Youth Mobility Agreement than there is from UK. I am not sure even a returns agreement would be enough for border controls on Eurostar etc to be relaxed. Its simpler to not allow the person in the first place, than remove them afterwards.

There's also the fact that the UK government (in response to public opinion) has zero interest in relaxing borders in any meaningful way. They might go for a student exchange scheme or youth mobility but that'll have very little impact on the need for border controls.
Also, the luggage security scan is separate to the border question.

 

[Bald Rick]

Indeed, business travel makes up a tiny minority of sleeper custom. It's generally leisure travel or weekly commuting (as in someone who has a flat in a city and a their main residence in the country).


Now that Eurostar is directly serving Amsterdam, would you do anything different these days?

Even though Eurostar has taken a decent chunk of the market (around 20% AIUI), there are still around 50 flights each way on a typical working day between Amsterdam and London. About a third of them are to/from London City. For a business traveller doing a trip of 1-2 days, flying is still much more attractive.

Last time I flew Amsterdam - London, I was 3 hours from the front door of Schiphol to my desk south of the Thames. And I flew into Southend!

 

[AlbertBeale]

The competition on business flights to Geneva, Zurich and Frankfurt is from London City Airport. I commuted from Amsterdam to near Bank each week for 2 years using LCY (with fast track pass through AMS) and it was actually a speedy enjoyable experience, 4 hrs door to door most of the time. (Frankfurt is only 15 mins longer on a flight). I’m not sure how an overnight sleeper can compete unless airfares go significantly up and rail fares down, especially as the work disruption caused by not-sleeping (always a distinct possibility with the trains) is worse than having to get up early.

Re " unless airfares go significantly up and rail fares down": if we live in a sane and rational and survivable world, this has to happen of course.

 

[HSTEd]

Ultimately the practical range of an electric airliner for the foreseeable future is likely to be 200 nautical miles or less.

But I'd suggest spending on fast day trains is far more likely than sleepers.

 

[Chester1]

Ultimately the practical range of an electric airliner for the foreseeable future is likely to be 200 nautical miles or less.

But I'd suggest spending on fast day trains is far more likely than sleepers.

For a A320 or 737 equivalent maybe. Hybrid planes the range will likely be much longer. The big challenge for expanding Eurostar is not cost of tickets but the amount of time people are prepared to spend travelling. The price of flying and taking train can be altered through taxes and subsidies.

I might be a bit cynical but I think a lot of the desire to forceable reduce flying is cultural. People want other people to primarily holiday in the UK and to have a worldview that is extremely eurocentric. Aviation will be the slower to decarbonise than land and sea transport but it will happen at least partially by 2050. Its realistic to ban flights from London to anywhere in England, Wales, the central belt, Paris, Brussels and Amsterdam. However, no politician that wants to get re-elected is going to force people to spend 1 or 2 days travelling to places a 3 hour flight away. I don't underunderstand the climate activist focus on aviation. There is so much lower hanging fruit that doesn’t lower living standards, cut people off from friends and family or change their lifestyles.

 

[Krokodil]

The big challenge for expanding Eurostar is not cost of tickets but the amount of time people are prepared to spend travelling.

No, the big challenge for Eurostar is the frontier farce. Until it is resolved they cannot carry the maximum number of passengers (a situation which is holding prices artificially high), and expansion to Cologne or Frankfurt is a non-starter.

 

[HSTEd]

For a A320 or 737 equivalent maybe. Hybrid planes the range will likely be much longer.

But Hybrid planes are barely better than attempting a brute force solution with electrically manufactured aviation fuel.
They don't achieve anything close to decarbonisation.

And the brute force solution would require the equivalent of all current UK electricity production.

I might be a bit cynical but I think a lot of the desire to forceable reduce flying is cultural. People want other people to primarily holiday in the UK and to have a worldview that is extremely eurocentric.

Or because something like 10% of the UKs (pre-coronavirus) entire territorial emissions are produced by flights serving a small fraction of the population.

Before coronavirus the median number of flights abroad taken by the population was zero.
It was zero in four of five income quintiles.

And most importantly, unlike most emissions sectors it was (pre coronavirus) still growing.

However, no politician that wants to get re-elected is going to force people to spend 1 or 2 days travelling to places a 3 hour flight away.

In the current political climate no politician is going to do anything necessary to keep us below 4C, but the political climate has been shifting rapidly in favour of concrete action for the past several years.

I don't think it safe to assume anything is sacred long term, especially as flights remain the domain of a comparatively privileged few.

I don't underunderstand the climate activist focus on aviation. There is so much lower hanging fruit that doesn’t lower living standards, cut people off from friends and family or change their lifestyles.

Really?
I do this for a living and I'm not aware of any.

Ten plus percent of emissions in such a compact sector is something not matched anywhere else.
Home insulation, for example, requires half a million workers (which don't exist) to cut domestic heating consumption by ten-fifteen percent! (once Jevons paradox is accounted for)

 

[zwk500]

No, the big challenge for Eurostar is the frontier farce. Until it is resolved they cannot carry the maximum number of passengers (a situation which is holding prices artificially high), and expansion to Cologne or Frankfurt is a non-starter.

There is no reason a sufficiently large departure lounge could not be built at the relevant stations to carry full trains from Amsterdam to London.
And Cologne/Frankfurt is certainly possible even with border controls, just extremely difficult.

 

[Roast Veg]

To paraphrase Mark Twain the death of the US/CA international train has been greatly exaggerated.

The named train "International" from Chicago to Toronto was terminated in 2003, with the new security theater cited as a principal driver of low ridership.

 

[popeter45]

There is no reason a sufficiently large departure lounge could not be built at the relevant stations to carry full trains from Amsterdam to London.
And Cologne/Frankfurt is certainly possible even with border controls, just extremely difficult.

Cologne and Frankfurt are rather dense stations that building a terminal would be challenging, honestly cant there of where to build on at each without messing with current domestic services massivley

 

[zwk500]

Cologne and Frankfurt are rather dense stations that building a terminal would be challenging, honestly cant there of where to build on at each without messing with current domestic services massivley

DB seemed to think they'd found a solution when they got very close to operating a while back. I think it did involve moving local trains around a fair bit but not sure on specifics.

 

[Chester1]

But Hybrid planes are barely better than attempting a brute force solution with electrically manufactured aviation fuel.
They don't achieve anything close to decarbonisation.

And the brute force solution would require the equivalent of all current UK electricity production.

Or because something like 10% of the UKs (pre-coronavirus) entire territorial emissions are produced by flights serving a small fraction of the population.

Before coronavirus the median number of flights abroad taken by the population was zero.
It was zero in four of five income quintiles.

And most importantly, unlike most emissions sectors it was (pre coronavirus) still growing.

In the current political climate no politician is going to do anything necessary to keep us below 4C, but the political climate has been shifting rapidly in favour of concrete action for the past several years.

I don't think it safe to assume anything is sacred long term, especially as flights remain the domain of a comparatively privileged few.


Really?
I do this for a living and I'm not aware of any.

Ten plus percent of emissions in such a compact sector is something not matched anywhere else.
Home insulation, for example, requires half a million workers (which don't exist) to cut domestic heating consumption by ten-fifteen percent! (once Jevons paradox is accounted for)

The fact that you work in the sector means that you and a lot of your social circle have a vested interest in transitioning away from fossil fuels.

Our governments current plan is:

Ban gas boilers in new homes in 2025
Ban all new oil boilers in 2026
Ban all new ICE cars in 2023
Ban all new hybrid cars on 2035
Ban all new gas boilers on 2035

We haven't opened a brand new fossil fuel power station since 2012 and are unlikely to do so again. If the rest of the developed world does that then temperature rise won't get close to 4C and if they don’t then us cutting our flying isn’t going to make any difference.

What I find utterly bizarre is how the loudest on carbon emissions generally support open borders. If I marry my girlfriend and have kids I am happy to pay extra for a plug hybrid or EV and have a house without gas heating. However, we will be doing 1-2 long haul flights a year to see her and my family. Our collectively family is split between the UK and two other continents. I will do my bit but its not a substitute religion for me. Seeing our families comes first, especially if we have kids. Its a direct result of immigration. I am happy to accept that more immigration means more aviation emissions.

There are reasonable measures like banning flights when trains are a reasonable alternative, banning private jets, limiting seat sizes and a frequent flyer tax. However, I very much doubt they would satisfy many environmentalists for long.

 

[AlbertBeale]

The fact that you work in the sector means that you and a lot of your social circle have a vested interest in transitioning away from fossil fuels.

Our governments current plan is:

Ban gas boilers in new homes in 2025
Ban all new oil boilers in 2026
Ban all new ICE cars in 2023
Ban all new hybrid cars on 2035
Ban all new gas boilers on 2035

We haven't opened a brand new fossil fuel power station since 2012 and are unlikely to do so again. If the rest of the developed world does that then temperature rise won't get close to 4C and if they don’t then us cutting our flying isn’t going to make any difference.

What I find utterly bizarre is how the loudest on carbon emissions generally support open borders. If I marry my girlfriend and have kids I am happy to pay extra for a plug hybrid or EV and have a house without gas heating. However, we will be doing 1-2 long haul flights a year to see her and my family. Our collectively family is split between the UK and two other continents. I will do my bit but its not a substitute religion for me. Seeing our families comes first, especially if we have kids. Its a direct result of immigration. I am happy to accept that more immigration means more aviation emissions.

There are reasonable measures like banning flights when trains are a reasonable alternative, banning private jets, limiting seat sizes and a frequent flyer tax. However, I very much doubt they would satisfy many environmentalists for long.

Well - if that (bit in bold) all happened very quickly, I imagine people wanting to maintain a human-survivable ecosystem would be prepared for scrapping remaining flying to be lower down the list of priorities. The problem is that most "live like there's no tomorrow" people [and if we carry on as now there won't be, of course] scream in horror at even those steps to rein in flying.

By the way, why would anyone not have "a vested interest in transitioning away from fossil fuels"? Vested interest doesn't only mean a financial one. My vested interest in that (and in consuming minimal amounts of animal-derived food, never buying things new if old ones can be repaired, not using a car, not breeding, etc etc etc) is on the basis that it would be good if our species was able to live on this planet in reasonable security and comfort for a few more generations yet.

I think we all know where the real financial vested interests are in this debate...

PS - I'm fascinated by the claim that "the loudest on carbon emissions generally support open borders". Where is that statistic from?