York to Geneva journey

[Bletchleyite]

As my analysis attempted to persuade, ten or more weekends in Geneva by IC225, E320 and TGV could be had for the carbon cost of one by EasyJet. So what's your point? People shouldn't be travelling? Shouldn't try to travel responsibly?

On the basis of the adage "reduce, reuse, recycle" the first aim should indeed be to reduce travel, yes. Doesn't have to mean back to the dark ages, but it perhaps should mean a slightly more common-sense reduction such as back to the levels of the 1990s before the low-cost airlines came about.

In particular quite a lot of business travel is entirely avoidable. Companies don't stop functioning during the inevitable "quarter 4 travel bans", therefore logic is that this should actually be the default state.

 

[BRX]

As my analysis attempted to persuade, ten or more weekends in Geneva by IC225, E320 and TGV could be had for the carbon cost of just one by EasyJet. So what's your point? People shouldn't be travelling? Shouldn't try to travel responsibly?

A visit to a city only 900 or so miles away for just a few days is hardly something we can persuade people they should quit.

I don't know how to set a number for what's "responsible" but probably many people should try to travel a bit less, yes.

To be clear, I'm completely on side that rail is much better than air. I'm not sure I'm convinced about the ten times better bit - whenever I try and look at the numbers objectively, I tend to come to the conclusion that the difference is often a bit overstated.

And carbon emissions are not the only negative effect of any transport mode - there is also noise pollution and congestion to consider, and the impact of building all the infrastructure necessary to keep large numbers of people on the move. I think the impacts are in general much worse for air travel but they still exist for rail.

I don't think it's realistic to persuade people that they should never go 900 miles for a weekend. But maybe not do that ten times a year. As it happens, I think the travel time by rail, once a journey's more than about 5 hours or so, is probably a rather effective disincentive to most people. I quite like the idea of fairly high prices being applied to air travel, whilst keeping long distance rail affordable, so that those without great financial resources aren't completely priced out of long distance travel.

 

[Starmill]

On the basis of the adage "reduce, reuse, recycle" the first aim should indeed be to reduce travel, yes.

While you're right that unnecessary travel ought to be reduced this principle needs to be kept in proportion.

For many years of my life I've travelled exclusively in Great Britain. I've never flown long-haul and I never drive. If I want to go to Geneva by land, that doesn't need to involve much more energy or carbon than any of my regular journeys (e.g. London to Manchester). The idea that I need to reduce my journeys is a little bit silly.

I'm not currently planning any travel at all outside of Britain and Ireland, as it happens. This is unlikely to be changing.

 

[Starmill]

I don't think it's realistic to persuade people that they should never go 900 miles for a weekend. But maybe not do that ten times a year.

For some people, 10 such trips a year would be a huge reduction. If it were up to me I would rebalance the market by restricting airport capacity expansion and introducing some form of carbon pricing. This would reward the airlines who are most carbon-efficient and thus help to meet the needs of the travellers on them while also increasing prices compared to rail. The way I would tackle pan-european rail would be worthy of its own new thread but we can rest assured it wouldn't involve the cheapest fare of £260 one way for York to Lyon.

 

[Bald Rick]

Back to the OP, which I’m sure the moderators will approve of

Being slightly controversial, I’m a little surprised that @yorkie is surprised at the Eurostar fare. £120 return for London to Paris Thursday-Sunday seems entirely reasonable to me. This is set against an absolute cheapest fare of £58 (available to a small proportion of seats on selected trains only), and an average return fare for Eurostar trips of £184 (all class to all destinations). London-Paris is the busiest route, with weekend travel from early spring to late summer being the busiest.

Perhaps more controversially, if the reason you want to use the train is to reduce your carbon footprint, then the best thing to do is fly Easyjet. All Easyjet flights are now fully carbon offset; whilst some of the offsetting may not be to everyone’s taste, it does meet the highest standards for such schemes.

If however you want to do the trip for the sake of the journey, then it’s £220 (which I still think is a reasonably decent price for travelling 1600 miles by train).

 

[BRX]

Easyjet's offsetting does not mean that you reduce your carbon footprint. It's not a matter of taste, it's a matter of science.

 

[Starmill]

Perhaps more controversially, if the reason you want to use the train is to reduce your carbon footprint, then the best thing to do is fly Easyjet. All Easyjet flights are now fully carbon offset; whilst some of the offsetting may not be to everyone’s taste, it does meet the highest standards for such schemes.

These sentences are filled with climate science-related holes. As otherwise a contributor of strong scientific and economic analysis I'm slightly disappointed to see you describe it this way.

I think inside you know that this is not really true, but would prefer to believe that it is because it's so very much easier than facing reality.

 

[Starmill]

If however you want to do the trip for the sake of the journey, then it’s £220 (which I still think is a reasonably decent price for travelling 1600 miles by train).

You're right (broadly speaking) that the price is what the price is. I might even agree with your clause in brackets if the tickets were flexible (they're not), guaranteed through booking were available (it's not), connections were protected contractually including overnight accommodation if necessary (absolutely definitely not) and service comfort onboard were top-notch (generally rather variable).

As it is I think the reality is just as easily that people won't pay so much more to use the train (both proportionally and absolutely) and they also won't be giving up the nicer things in life (such as weekends in Geneva).

 

[30907]

Back to the OP:

Six weeks ago I booked TGV/ES for Lyon to London travelling tomorrow for £66.50 each in Second/Standard. It was cheaper than from Paris through not from Brussels. Geneva to Lyon is a TER service (ex Corail stock today) and not dirt cheap but flexible.

The other TGV destination to check is Strasbourg (via Lille or Paris) plus a DB Sparpreis Kehl-Offenburg-Geneva, which I would guess is also reasonable.
I haven't compared either with the obvious split in Paris, but would use Loco2-as-was not ES to check.

 

[Starmill]

Among the other off-the-wall options:

Thursday 21 May
0730 London Victoria > Paris Gallieni 1655 by Flixbus €18.99
1908 Paris Gare de Lyon > Geneva 2221 by SNCF €64.00

also, slightly bizarrely

Thursday 21 May

0716 London St Pancras > Amsterdam Centraal by Eurostar £35.00
Leave the train at Brusxelles Midi at 1019
1225 Bruxelles Midi > Koln Hbf 1415 by DB
1455 Koln Hbf > Basel 1847 by DB
1903 Basel > Biel/Bienne 2010 by SBB
2016 Biel/Bienne > Morges 2116 by SBB
2124 Morges > Geneve 2154 by SBB €59.90

Both options massively more low-carbon than EasyJet, although about as inconvenient as they could be and still be possible in one travel day. Obviously the risk of the missed connection with both options (in the 2h 15 in Paris in the former and the 2h05 at Brussels Midi in the latter) lies entirely with the traveller, and the Amsterdam ticket on Eurostar would probably violate your travel insurance policy too. You also can't connect to the 0701 Eurostar if arriving from York, although you could take a late train on Wednesday potentially. Also, the bus terminal for Flixbus is located around an hour out of town and doesn't seem to have any direct services to Gare de Lyon.

Unless you're an enthusiast for bus travel, the lower price for the former option is quite unlikely to be worth it. The second option could work out nicely if you've appetite for risk.​

 

[Bletchleyite]

While you're right that unnecessary travel ought to be reduced this principle needs to be kept in proportion.

I agree, which is why I'm suggesting 1990s levels as reasonably sensible - back then, people would mostly take one international holiday a year or so, none of the "multiple weekend city breaks a year" thing that seems to have become more common. We used to do so every other year as a family when I was a kid, usually by ferry and car[1] to the South of France. In the opposite year it'd be a UK holiday.

[1] A full family car is a reasonably carbon-efficient way of travelling and so doesn't really need to be discouraged to the extent of flying, whose emissions are roughly the same as if each family member had driven said car alone.

 

[Starmill]

Another possibility
Elephant & Castle to Calais by Thameslink, Southeastern and P&O £34.80
1436 Calais Ville > Paris Nord 1736 by SNCF €15
1908 Paris Gare de Lyon > Geneva 2221 by SNCF €64.00

When you add up all of the little bits, you're nor particularly saving money over just paying Eurostar's very high prices.

I recall paying €70 for London to Brussels; the journey was so poor that I thought that was absolutely appalling value for money after I had travelled!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

A round-trip flight from Manchester to Geneva would release appropriately 310kg of atmospheric carbon equivalent, plus a train journey on a diesel train.
1700 miles round-trip by electrically-powered high speed rail would be unlikely to release more than about 25kg. It might actually be slightly less than that.

I would happily consider the all-rail alternative, but the complications just consume too much time, cost and energy.
I am actually doing the Manchester-Geneva run in September, as the first leg in a rail trip through the Alps (Covid-19 permitting), returning from Munich.
Manchester-Geneva by rail involves juggling the timetables and pricing structures of Avanti, Eurostar and SNCF.
I haven't found a way of getting the single-leg cost much below £200, and it takes several hours longer (and loses a whole day on the return trip).
Avanti's fares are sky-high, even the CIV ones, which puts prospective northern passengers at a disadvantage compared to London starters (in terms of how far you can get in a day).
The short advance purchase horizons by rail TOCs are also off-putting when you are trying to put a package together at 6-9 months' range.
I can be sure of an air fare/seat and usually hotels up to 11 months in advance, but rail can't think that far ahead - sometimes not even a month.

The return leg from Munich using DB/Eurostar/Avanti would be another £200 and cost an extra hotel night (I don't do sleepers), so another £100.
Thus the two positioning runs (separate from the rail trip in the middle, the object of the exercise) would cost about £500.
I have booked the round trip by air (MAN-GVA, MUC-MAN) for £90 - a no brainer really. Plus £15-20 at each end for local transport.

easyJet, like Ryanair, makes a decent profit on their fare structure (and add-ons), so I'm not sure my air journey is "unsustainable".
Their in-flight service can be endured for a couple of hours without too much discomfort, though I don't like airline security/passport/immigration at Manchester.
I also avoid messing about on the Paris RER and at Brussels Midi, also avoiding multiple passport checks en route (getting worse next year).
I will also be spending money with TfW, SBB, SNCF, Trenitalia, ÖBB and DB on the rail part of my trip, so I'm spreading the benefit.
Greta might not be impressed, but I can't think of a more efficient way to organise a short break to explore the Alps by train.

 

[Bletchleyite]

easyJet, like Ryanair, makes a decent profit on their fare structure (and add-ons), so I'm not sure my air journey is "unsustainable".

Environmentally unsustainable, most notably it is viable because aviation pays no tax on its fuel.

 

[Bald Rick]

These sentences are filled with climate science-related holes. As otherwise a contributor of strong scientific and economic analysis I'm slightly disappointed to see you describe it this way.

I think inside you know that this is not really true, but would prefer to believe that it is because it's so very much easier than facing reality.

Well, I know that offsetting is not a panacea for our carbon ‘problem’ although it clearly does have some benefit over not offsetting. But, if you trust that some offsetting is better than none at all (as I do), it’s fair to say that an Easyjet flight is better than just about any other airline for flying to Geneva., as not many other airlines do it. Whether an offset Easyjet flight will cause more or less net carbon than a train trip all the way I don’t know.

Putting carbon to one side, and looking at pure economics, it simply has to be the case that a train trip of 800 odd miles, with 7-8 hours on the train(s), with a load of expensive infrastructure, must be more expensive to provide than a flight of 90 minutes or so. Which is why longer distance high speed rail travel (5hrs+) isn’t really going to be competitive with air, with a handful of exceptions that either have no realistic air alternative (because of low flows) or where the flow is so high that the train is the only realistic provider of the capacity (eg Beijing - Shanghai).

 

[Starmill]

so I'm not sure my air journey is "unsustainable".

It's entirely unsustainable to be flying for these sorts of journeys. As an accommodation to people, the message is to keep flights down to one long haul or two short haul trips a year, and to choose wisely (economy class, direct flights, greenest airlines, offset wherever possible), rather than to give it up completely. Lots of people resist even this, however.

 

[Starmill]

But, if you trust that some offsetting is better than none at all (as I do), it’s fair to say that an Easyjet flight is better than just about any other airline for flying to Geneva., as not many other airlines do it.

Again, this is fiction.

EasyJet have committed to spend about £25 million in the coming year on projects that they say will reduce atmospheric carbon, but about half will do nothing at all because they're not actually offset schemes, they're just generic green energy investments. Those don't remove any atmospheric carbon at all, and they're re-packaged as 'offsetting' to make them something useful for a cheap soundbite. These energy schemes would only work if they shut down carbon emissions from fossil fuel energy as a part of them - which they just don't do. The rest of their schemes are things like planting trees today in Madagascar. Even if oversight and efficiency on such projects were good, the flight is going now, while the trees will take decades to grow. That atmospheric carbon will therefore still be up there for a long time to come.

Please don't kid yourself that you're adding real value by choosing EasyJet (as you probably would have done anyway...) when you could do that yourself, rather better than they have, using your own cash to fund tree-planting schemes in Britain and Ireland. If you're prepared to pay.

 

[Bald Rick]

Again, this is fiction.

EasyJet have committed to spend about £25 million in the coming year on projects that they say will reduce atmospheric carbon, but about half will do nothing at all because they're not actually offset schemes at all, they're just generic green energy investments. Those don't remove any atmospheric carbon at all, and they're re-packaged as 'offsetting' to make them something useful for a cheap soundbite. These energy schemes would only work if they shut down carbon emissions from fossil fuel energy as a part of them - which they just don't do. The rest of their schemes are things like planting trees today in Madagascar. Even if oversight and efficiency on such projects were good, the flight is going now, while the trees will take decades to grow. That atmospheric carbon will therefore still be up there for a long time to come.

Please don't kid yourself that you're adding real value by choosing EasyJet (as you probably would have done anyway...) when you could do that yourself, rather better than they have, using your own cash to fund tree-planting schemes in Britain and Ireland. If you're prepared to pay.

Yes I understand all this, hence my qualifyng what I said about the offset scheme. But are you saying that carbon offsetting (of the type Easyjet are doing) is not better for the environment than not offsetting at all? And surely green energy schemes do remove high(er) carbon forms of energy generation, all else being equal?

Anyway, we’re offtopic, and I can sense the originator of the post getting twitchy fingers on the ‘delete post’ button.

 

[Starmill]

Yes I understand all this, hence my qualifyng what I said about the offset scheme. But are you saying that carbon offsetting (of the type Easyjet are doing) is not better for the environment than not offsetting at all? And surely green energy schemes do remove high(er) carbon forms of energy generation, all else being equal?

No - because there's no way that even the best schemes that are carbon negative could result a lower carbon footprint than going by rail within the timeframe left to us now to keep the global average temperature increase below 1.5 degrees, let alone EasyJet's choices of the cheapest and easiest, least effective, ones. I'm really surprised you of all people don't get this.

The Commission's report was quite conclusive that the majority of schemes do not succeed in actual net reductions - although it is within your gift to choose the small proportion that actually do.

https://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/clima/files/ets/docs/clean_dev_mechanism_en.pdf

 

[BRX]

But are you saying that carbon offsetting (of the type Easyjet are doing) is not better for the environment than not offsetting at all?

Your original post had implied that easyjet's offsetting made it a better option than going by rail.

 

[FQTV]

Eurostar has just announced the release of more lowest-tier tickets:

Paris or Brussels with seats from £29 each way based on a return at £58.
Amsterdam or Rotterdam from £35 each way based on a return at £70.

Book before 11 March to travel:

• Between London and Paris or Brussels between
23 March and 17 June 2020
• from London to Amsterdam or Rotterdam between
23 March and 17 June 2020
• from Amsterdam or Rotterdam to London between
18 May and 17 June 2020

There are also Standard Premier seats from £70 each way valid from London St Pancras International, Ebbsfleet International or Ashford International to Paris Gare du Nord, Lille Europe, Calais Fréthun or Brussels-Midi.

Standard Premier seats are from £79 per person one way based on a return trip of £158, valid from London St Pancras International, Ebbsfleet International or Ashford International to any Belgian station (outside Brussels metropolitan area).

• There are 16,000 seats in Standard and 3,500 seats in Standard Premier available from London to Paris.

• There are 24,000 seats in Standard and 6,000 seats in Standard Premier available from Paris to London.

• There are 10,000 seats in Standard and 2,000 seats in Standard Premier available from London to Brussels, Calais, Lille and any Belgian station.

• There are 10,000 seats in Standard and 2,500 seats in Standard Premier available from Brussels, Calais, Lille and any Belgian station to London.

Perhaps this could assist @yorkie.

 

[30907]

I haven't found a way of getting the single-leg cost much below £200, and it takes several hours longer (and loses a whole day on the return trip).
Avanti's fares are sky-high, even the CIV ones, which puts prospective northern passengers at a disadvantage compared to London starters (in terms of how far you can get in a day).
I also avoid messing about on the Paris RER and at Brussels Midi, also avoiding multiple passport checks en route

Not much you can do about travel time, but this actual Northern customer is using Interrail. Basic 4-day cost including 2xES and 2x TGV under £300 in standard around £350 in 1st. Using Lyria services is a bit more expensive especially in 1st.

Incidentally, Avanti CIV fares are priced at SVR level with almost no restrictions. And the only regular passport check is to/from UK.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Not much you can do about travel time, but this actual Northern customer is using Interrail. Basic 4-day cost including 2xES and 2x TGV under £300 in standard around £350 in 1st. Using Lyria services is a bit more expensive especially in 1st.
Incidentally, Avanti CIV fares are priced at SVR level with almost no restrictions. And the only regular passport check is to/from UK.

I would start/end at Chester, and the CIV single fares are £30 (off peak) and £100.
The only decent daytime schedule Chester-Geneva requires an Avanti arrival at Euston at 0939.
The off-peak CIV fare is valid for Euston arrival after...0940!
No matter what you do, you end up on somebody's peak service.

I haven't seriously considered Interrail before, mainly because my trips are quite short, and the local fares (Sparpreis etc) are significantly cheaper.
I'm mostly now normally aiming quite far into Europe (Ukraine, the Balkans, Sicily etc), and the time element is significant.
I have used a one-country pass before, but as I cross borders often on my trips that doesn't work.

If only the rail operators would cooperate with through fares things would improve a great deal.
In the 1970s I was able to walk into New Street's travel centre and buy a return ticket to Gotha in East Germany (behind the iron curtain then) with no problems at all.
That included the Harwich-Hoek ferry and travel on 4 rail operators.
We haven't progressed very far in cross-border ticketing since then.

 

[williamn]

Remember that Eurostar have to pay a fee to Eurotunnel per passenger they transport through the tunnel. If memory serves me correctly it’s about £30. So it’s never going to get much cheap than that for the public price.

 

[Bald Rick]

Remember that Eurostar have to pay a fee to Eurotunnel per passenger they transport through the tunnel. If memory serves me correctly it’s about £30. So it’s never going to get much cheap than that for the public price.

£22 each way. It’s been that for a long time; it was £19 when it opened, so in real terms it’s the best value it’s ever been!

 

[swissrailpassion]

I used to do York Geneva by train in the 00s on one ticket via Eurostar - it was around £95 back then with Eurostar add on and Lyria throughbooking. Breakfast in York, lunch in the Gare de Lyon and dinner in Geneva.