The Great Train VS Plane debate

[Vinnie-Winnie]

Hi All,

Due to the amount of replies to aviation posts where railways are mentioned, I would like to introduce a new topic where people can nicely discuss trains and their effect on aviation in general.

This will avoid off-topic replies which I often see when I read the numerous amounts of strategic discussions there are on this forum.

Just to give you all a few facts and things to talk about, here are a few events I noticed which could be of some interest:

High speed trains seem to be sure competitors of planes on some routes in Europe:

- HST’s have done great damage to airlines between Brussels and Paris and Paris and Marseille. Air France has therefore loudly complained about the unfair competition of High speed Trains on its domestic routes.

- They happily seem to co-exist between Brussels, Paris and London, Other potential routes where I think they are both even are London to Edinburgh, Munich to Frankfort, Paris to Nice and Amsterdam to Paris.

-But trains don’t always win! Think of the Thalys between Paris and Koln, or the ICE link between Brussels and Frankfurt…

Another tendency that one can notice is their close partnership in some cases: Dedicated train lines to the airport, such as the Heathrow Express, Air France picking up passengers in Brussels-midi to take them to Charles de Gaulle by train to enable them to catch a plane there. Also big train stations at the airport, like the ones you can see at Frankfurt Airport or Schiphol and the soon to be created one at Brussels Airport!

(sorry for ùy examples which aére maybe a bit too "middle-European")

So: Friends or foes?

[chornedsnorkack]

High speed trains seem to be sure competitors of planes on some routes in Europe:

- HST’s have done great damage to airlines between Brussels and Paris and Paris and Marseille. Air France has therefore loudly complained about the unfair competition of High speed Trains on its domestic routes.

- They happily seem to co-exist between Brussels, Paris and London, Other potential routes where I think they are both even are London to Edinburgh, Munich to Frankfort, Paris to Nice and Amsterdam to Paris.

-But trains don’t always win! Think of the Thalys between Paris and Koln, or the ICE link between Brussels and Frankfurt…

Another tendency that one can notice is their close partnership in some cases: Dedicated train lines to the airport, such as the Heathrow Express, Air France picking up passengers in Brussels-midi to take them to Charles de Gaulle by train to enable them to catch a plane there. Also big train stations at the airport, like the ones you can see at Frankfurt Airport or Schiphol and the soon to be created one at Brussels Airport!

(sorry for ùy examples which aére maybe a bit too "middle-European")

So: Friends or foes?

Hm. What are the extra burdens either of them bears?

Say, on a purely domestic flight. What is the minimum time from walking up to the ticket desk to buy a ticket to the plane, to pushback - being in a plane with doors shut?

Compare that with train.

Or the sheer location of stations. Do you want to live and do business within a walking distance of an airport? A railway station?

Plus the comfort. You are supposed to stay seated and strapped down in a plane. In a train, you are allowed to walk, and do not have a safety belt at all.

But trains are excellent as feeder lines to the airport...

Actually, it would be interesting if TGV and AVE link up. That would be a big competition to planes!

[Comet]

If I had the choice between plane and train, I would choose plane. OK, sometimes there may not be a vast advantage time wise when you calculate getting to the airport, checking in a while before you are due to leave etc, but there is a big comfort advantage to flying, as anyone familiar with standing for hours on a packed UK train will tell you! At least on a plane you are going to have a seat and not be standing for the entire journey like can happen on trains.

[regi]

Trains? Is that not something with wheels and steam?
Seriously, the last time I took a train it was in combination with a flight.
I just had finished a long but good overseas trip by BA. The last stretch to come home was a 1 hour trip by train. Oh. Not good. It lasted just 5 minutes before a serious argument started between a passenger - who worked at the airport and was going home after his shift - and the train conductor-annex-local gestapo-off spring. The conductor was rude without any reason. He even threatened the passenger to call the train police- despite nothing had happened. Two other passengers immediately interfered. One started to record by mobile phone camera. The other one assured the insulted passenger he would testify if necessary. The conductor walked off as a beaten dog. Or: the beaten dog walked off as a train conductor.
The difference between style, attitude, service, cleanlyness, ...is so big between air and train travel. We are so used to the high standards of air travel that we don't realize that zillions of people are humiliated, mistreated, every day again and again by that lousy bunch of rail humanoids. If they don't strike (on a Friday to get at last that prolonged weekend) , they are sick. If by accident they end up on a train and have to perform some duties, these inbreads insult passengers. Being asked questions is the ideal opportunity to tell people to look at the shedule themselves ("can't you read?). If some of these creatures meet eachother on or off duty (off duty is more likely because they hardly are at work) the only subject of conversation is how many years to go before retirement.
What this has to do about the comparison? Well, rail travel is always fixed to nations and thereby to local politics and unions. The moment a train crosses the border, you are in danger to undergo strikes, new regulations, local standards of cleanlyness, language,...Air travel has a much higher standard. Just read those websites about air travel. The really bad companies are the state owned , or the companies where the unions still have power.
My last bad experience happened in Belgium. But I am not happy about the smelly TGV toilets and weird personel of the french railroads. And an experience 2 years ago on a completely run down vehicle of Brittish Rail between Kent and London was so horrofying that I felt sorry for all those english commuters who can't do otherwise.
"Beam me up Scotty! "

[regi]

The fact that the train industry tries ( to try means "doesn't succeed) to copy the benefits of air transportation says enough.
The strategic mentality is also negative, conservative and defensive. The high speed trains were introduced after that a lot of market share was lost to international short to medium distance air travel. Who still takes the train to Italy these days?
The train transport can be revitalised. Privatisation in a good way (no, not Railtrack way). Unions out. 50% of the personnel out. International crews, english language on international trains. Good connections just like the cargo transport, see inter modal transport. Meaning: subway, regionnal train, airport, international train connections all standarised.

[Vinnie-Winnie]

Whilst researching internet to answer chornedsnorkack comment I fell on this very very interesting report here is a summary of what it says:


-Steady decline of the rail market share: from about 9,8% in 1970 to 5,8% even though high speed travel has increased fivefold.

-The relative proportion of rail declines continuously in favour of air
traffic: The traditional modalsplit rail/air around 800 km or 5 hours seems to be questionable with the emergence of low cost air services (look at the graph Page 19!!)

It's a slide so very summarised but i found this a great addition to this debate!


Oh and btw chornedsnorkack would you travel from Amsterdam to madrid by HST? Not feasible both money wise and time-wise! I'll keep you posted can't find the time that would involve once All Hst's are up and running!

[chornedsnorkack]

Oh and btw chornedsnorkack would you travel from Amsterdam to madrid by HST? Not feasible both money wise and time-wise! I'll keep you posted can't find the time that would involve once All Hst's are up and running!

Not sure about money - but as for time... I should think that planes are only better than trains where train trip time exceeds 16-18 hours.

You see:

In a plane, what you get is a seat. It can fold down to a flat bed - in some First Class or super-Business layouts. You are supposed to keep on the safety belt. Even when sleeping, even in flat beds. And put it over the blanket - otherwise the stewardesses will take off the blanket to see whether the belt is on under the blanket. No privacy - even the privacy screens in some super First layouts do not extend to ceiling and do not incorporate a closable door.

You are supposed to sit up for all landings and takeoffs and leave the plane while tanking.

The compartments and beds in sleeping carriages are much better! Walk in the station, wave your ticket, have a dinner in the dining carriage, sleep in the privacy of your compartment (between real sheets and undressed, possibly not alone), sleep undisturbed through any intermediate stops and next morning, after a breakfast, walk out in your destination. You cannot do so in a plane, unless you own or rent the whole frame, with a specialized interior.

The Spaniards are building an AVE branch from Cordoba (on Madrid-Sevilla line) to Malaga. And they are working towards Barcelona.

If they get past the Figueras tunnel and link up with the French railways then, even if there is no LGV to Montpellier, after reaching Arles with slow rail line and continuing on TGV, it would be possible to travel from Malaga to London and arrive by the Channel Tunnel Rail Link in 13 hours.

You could try to estimate the time to Amsterdam... how do the TGV times Paris-Amsterdam and Paris-London compare now? And does Amsterdam have direct trains continuing to Lyon, Marseilles or Nice?

So, what is better to do on a Friday evening? Try to reach Schiphol, check in an Ryanair plane, fly to Malaga, get out of the airport and find a hotel all in one evening? Or catch a train, wake up in Spain on Saturday and walk out on Costa del Sol?

[Airbus330lover]

Personally, I travel on regular basis from Brussels to Nimes.
Two solutions :
TGV Brussels to Nimes 5 hours + travel from Rixensart (25 km of Brussels) Total time 1 hour to Brussels Midi + 5 hours to Nimes Total 6 hours.
Train to BRU 1 hour, check in 1 hour (security reasons see other topics) flight to MRS 1 hour 50 car to Nimes 1 hour Total 5 hours.
You find a big difference in confort, and in different changes in travel methods.
In summer season, the Thalys operate Brussels Avignon in 3 hour 58 minutes, in this case.... best the best solution sill be the train.

Please don't compare TGV or ACE to commuter trains like in other replies. It's not the same !!

Everything can change if RYANAIR plan a flight CRL Nimes, the difference will be significant.
The total travel should be 3 hours !

[Vinnie-Winnie]

Not sure about money - but as for time... I should think that planes are only better than trains where train trip time exceeds 16-18 hours.

Well it all depends whether your are a travelling for Leisure or for Business!

-As a businessman you want to get to your destination as quickly as possible, do your job and come back home. You don't want to be stuck let's say for 7or 8 hours in a train. That is both a waste of money and time.
-As a leisure traveller you also want to get to your destination as quickly as possible! Never heard anyone complaining about having too many days off

To give 2 examples here are 2 personal experiences which contradict each-other:

-In June I travelled by train from Brussels to Manchester and back: Cost 110 euros return and around 5 hours travel each way. (About 180 euros if I had taken the plane)
-In August I travelled from Florence to brussels by train again: Cost 150 euros single and a hell of a journey taking 17h and 30 minutes. (100 euros if I had taken the plane)

Time-wise and boredom wise (on certain bits of the journey at least) I would have been better off if I had taken the plane I would say. But yeah I'm a true geek which is another matter.

TGV Brussels to Nimes 5 hours + travel from Rixensart (25 km of Brussels) Total time 1 hour to Brussels Midi + 5 hours to Nimes Total 6 hours.

We around Rixensart are indeed very poorly served by train if we want to go to Bruxelles-Midi: It takes about 50 minutes, it's slow and the worse thing is that before brussels north station we actually do a U turn just to get on right track! Brussels Airport is far easier to reach by motorway if you have a car!
Going back to trains though: At the mo we coming from the south of Belgium have to change trains at brussels north to go to the Airport! Imagine in about 7 years we will have a direct connection to the airport! My estimated travel time from Rixensart: 30 Minutes!

[chornedsnorkack]

Not sure about money - but as for time... I should think that planes are only better than trains where train trip time exceeds 16-18 hours.

Well it all depends whether your are a travelling for Leisure or for Business!

-As a businessman you want to get to your destination as quickly as possible, do your job and come back home. You don't want to be stuck let's say for 7or 8 hours in a train. That is both a waste of money and time.

But it is also bad to be stuck for 7-8 hours, or more, in a hotel room in your destination. This also is a waste of time and money!

[HorsePower]

Hi All,

Due to the amount of replies to aviation posts where railways are mentioned, I would like to introduce a new topic where people can nicely discuss trains and their effect on aviation in general.

Finally, you decided to open this topic yourself, good! Also you can post the revelant part of the PM I sent you.
(On n'est jamais mieux servi que par soi-même, isn't it?)

This will avoid off-topic replies which I often see when I read the numerous amounts of strategic discussions there are on this forum.

Was I off-topic?

- They happily seem to co-exist between Brussels, Paris and London, Other potential routes where I think they are both even are London to Edinburgh, Munich to Frankfort, Paris to Nice and Amsterdam to Paris.

Hum, since AF doesn't fly anymore to BRU from CDG, as well as KLM from AMS, they have agreements with Thalys. Concerning PAR-LON and BRU-LON, The Eurostar wins market share little by little. I will come back on this one...

So: Friends or foes?

They are competitors, definitely.

Plus the comfort. You are supposed to stay seated and strapped down in a plane. In a train, you are allowed to walk, and do not have a safety belt at all.

I have to agree on that. Furthermore, the train is more environmental friendly.

But trains are excellent as feeder lines to the airport...

Agree on that, even if they are still competitors. AF had an agreement with SNCF (national french train company) to sell tickets wich comprise train + aircraft trip. AF finally noticed they were loosing shares in favor of the train and then, dropped the agreement.

The high speed trains were introduced after that a lot of market share was lost to international short to medium distance air travel. Who still takes the train to Italy these days?

On a side note, SNCF has plans to prolong the MRS line to NCE (60kms IIRC) and then to northen Italy...

Whilst researching internet to answer chornedsnorkack comment I fell on this very very interesting report...

Nice report BTW. Thanks!

-Steady decline of the rail market share: from about 9,8% in 1970 to 5,8% even though high speed travel has increased fivefold.

Unfortunately, it stops in 2000... I'm much interrested by the 2000-2005 period rather than the 1970-2000 one! It is comonly admited, here in Europe, that any trip under 4 hours belongs to the train. The HST has the advantage to go further than a classic train in the same 4 hours. Therefore, the HST can compete with plane on lots more destinations.

Regards

Seb.

[sn26567]

there is a big comfort advantage to flying, as anyone familiar with standing for hours on a packed UK train will tell you! At least on a plane you are going to have a seat and not be standing for the entire journey like can happen on trains.

You should compare what is comparable. The Eurostar seats are much more comfortable than plane seats, even in business class. Same applies for Thalys and ICE and all HSTs. And on these trains you have the guarantee of a seat if you book içn advance.

[earthman]

Who still takes the train to Italy these days?

Actually, from the Netherlands in the summer there are special trains to (southern) Fance and Italy: car sleeper trains. They consist of sleeper cars, and car transport cars, so you drive your car onto the train, go to sleep in the sleeper car, and wake up the next morning at your destination, with your car! (Obviously this is mainly interesting for people going there on holidays)

[bigjulie]

The ICE trains(Germany) & the TGV's(France) are very fast comfortable trains; I like them.
I don't like the Zug (overnight) trains as they can get a bit crowded during the summer months, although they do save on accomadation for that night. :laugh:

[HorsePower]

Another factor that is difficult to estimate: aircraft fuel is free of tax, whereas train operators buy power just like any company or private individual.

You have to take into account the high fuel costs and the additional taxes due to security increase (post 2001).

This effectively means a state subsidy to air travel.

I wonder who is subsidied here... A little hint (OCT 2004):

Le patron d'Air France- KLM attaque le TGV :

« Je pense que, sur le TGV, il est temps d’ouvrir un débat européen de fond ». Les propos offensifs de Jean-Cyril Spinetta prononcés lors du Cannes Airlines Forum ont le mérite de la clarté. Le patron d’Air France dénonce en fait le régime de faveur dont bénéficie le rail en France au regard des subventions perçues. Ce qui a pour conséquence de désavantager la compagnie qu’il préside. Le dirigeant du numéro un européen du ciel s’est également attaqué aux projets d’extension en Europe du TGV qui obligeraient ainsi à terme les transporteurs aériens à ne se concentrer que sur le long courrier et à abandonner de facto le court et moyen courrier au réseau ferré. Il s'en est enfin pris au système des charges et des redevances imposées aux compagnies. Devant leur envolée, il plaide pour un moratoire.

In accordance with Vinnie-Winnie, I join here the PM I sent to him on SEP 18th, concerning the interest of building a HST line in the east coast of the US:

Sorry to disagree, but that's a crap idea!

They cost huge amounts to build, and their effectiveness goes down as the distance goes up! So very not appropriate for such a huge country!

Time to introduce world-wide fuel permits, which fairly reflect the cost of pollution! Much more efficient and cost effective!

Seb being french doesn't surprise me that U favour the idea of high speed trains
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Vinnie,

Since the topic is now closed, I answer you directly:

That's true to say the cost of building the line is expensive, a lot more than buying the trains themself. I know US is a big country, that's why I limited the area within the east coast. In fact, there is already a railroad between Boston and Washinton, and it splited then (one goes to New Orleans, the other to Florida), but is not suited for high speed train.

Passengers prefer taking the train under 4 hours of travel, because it's cheaper than plane. There is aproximately 300 km between Boston and New York, 150 km between New York and Philadelphia, 150 km between Philadelphia and Baltimore and 75 km between Baltimore and Washington.

Of course, you won't have a lot of passengers interrested by Boston -Washington (aprox. 675 km) but between let's say Washington -New York (aprox. 375 km) a lot of people could be interrested.

The fact I'm french can help effectively, coz I'm well placed to understand that high speed train is a fucking good idea! As you probably know, I work for a french airlines, and our main competitor isn't Ryanair nor Easyjet but the TGV!

Regards

Seb.

Concerning PAR-LON and BRU-LON, The Eurostar wins market share little by little. I will come back on this one...

Here it is:
London to Paris......Aug 05....Aug 04
Eurostar.................71.03%....67.87%
BA...........................09.91%...11.82%
Bmi.........................04.38%....04.47%
Air France...............11.69%....11.21%
Easyjet...................02.99%....04.39%
Other......................00.00%....00.23%

London to Brussels..Aug 05....Aug 04
Eurostar...................64.36%...63.38%
BA / SN B..................20.36%...21.34%
Bmi...........................12.95%...13.18%
VLM / VE...................02.01%....01.86%
Other........................00.32%...00.23%

These datas have to be compared with those on the report kindly provided by Vinnie-Winnie:
London to Paris........2002
Eurostar...................64.60%

London to Brussels..1994......2001
Eurostar...................24.00%..52.00%

As you can see, the Eurostar is more and more attractive:

Traveller numbers up 4.3 percent in first 9 months of 2005
Sales revenues up 10 percent during same period
London-Brussels market share up 30 percent in last two years
Business travellers continue to switch from short-haul airlines

Add to that the fact that the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (HS line) to London will be completed by 2007, saving 20 more minutes on your trip... You have a winner here!

Regards

Seb.

[Comet]

there is a big comfort advantage to flying, as anyone familiar with standing for hours on a packed UK train will tell you! At least on a plane you are going to have a seat and not be standing for the entire journey like can happen on trains.

You should compare what is comparable. The Eurostar seats are much more comfortable than plane seats, even in business class. Same applies for Thalys and ICE and all HSTs. And on these trains you have the guarantee of a seat if you book içn advance.

I am comparing what is comparable - UK domestic flights with UK domestic trains!!!! On my recent return from Birmingham International, we waited for a train bound for Edinburgh which was to call in York. The train had technical problems, was very full and had to be replaced at Birmingham New Street. Not everyone got a seat and some were standing. The journey to Edinburgh would take several hours.

Now - if you were to catch a BA flight from BHX-EDI you would be guaranteed a seat and would not have to stand, and the journey would only take around one hour rather than several hours.

And also, I seem to remember in the Luchtzak News a few weeks ago, a report saying that a Fokker 50 of VLM had beaten a Virgin Pendolino train on the London - Manchester route. I know that the first class service on the Virgin Pendolino is unrivalled by any UK train company - free drinks and food etc, but on VLM you would get that service anyway at no extra cost, and, as I said earlier, you would not be having to stand on the Fokker 50. I know which I would rather choose if I lived in easy access of an airport.

And reserving a seat on a UK train is no guarantee becuase they often get pinched by someone else anyway and you have no comeback if they do get pinched.

[Airbus330lover]

I am comparing what is comparable - UK domestic flights with UK domestic trains!!!! On my recent return from Birmingham International, we waited for a train bound for Edinburgh which was to call in York. The train had technical problems, was very full and had to be replaced at Birmingham New Street. Not everyone got a seat and some were standing. The journey to Edinburgh would take several hours..

As you say, the problem is more the bad quality of the UK trains.
NL, B, D, F,DK and others have a better quality of trains for the moment.
The big difference in travel by air or train resides in the so called "rupture of travel"
See Paris with the change of station.