This blog has now moved. Please visit Zerochampion.com and update your bookmarks
Returned from an excellent weekend to Glasgow last night, which included plenty of cultural pursuits. Travelled there by train, trying not to feel too smug about it - on the way up we took a sleeper and the return was during the day. There are the usual comparisons you would make between rail and air - cost, comfort, time etc.
Cost clearly remains the major hurdle - I'm guessing it's anywhere around the quadruple factor for my Scottish trip. And add the hassle factor of trying to find deals and of getting two singles for my journey - there are no sleepers over the weekend and you have to use different train operators - and it's pretty obvious how consumers come to the conclusion that cattle class in the air for an hour or so is far preferable to the one on the ground. To add to my expense we purchased a weekend first class upgrade for the return trip yesterday, which given the unpleasantly cramped conditions in the rest of the train was well worth the investment. Lucky me, but no such fun for the unfortunate passengers sitting on floors or pungent
In spite of this, and perhaps from the comfort of First Class, you still feel that the fundamentals of rail do stand up, and moreover simply have to in the coming decades if we are to tackle growing transport emissions. Rail should compete on price and then beat air in terms of comfort and ease of access (from city centre to city centre, minus dispiriting taxi trips from the outer reaches).
Network Rail announced a study into building high-speed rail lines last week, probably one of many in previous decades that has tried to offer a new step forward for rail. This would cut the travel time from Glasgow to London by half. "One solution is new lines, perhaps taking Intercity services off those routes. For every Intercity service, we can put on two new commuter services," said chief executive Iain Coucher. This would seem the obvious solution, but raises the spectre of costs and environmental concerns in building new. Where could the land be found for an entirely new line?
We're in predictable territory of sustainable debates here - the greater good of creating infrastructure to improve energy creation/ public transport against its more micro-impact on places? It's a microcosm of the one that has swirled over the new planning bill. But new to me seems the only way to go forward - surely there is technology there for double decker shuttles that could relay passengers as speedily as planes with less of the ancillary hassle? Very tough decisions await.
Phil,
I recently got back from Spain, where I took the high speed AVE trains a couple of times. Now I know that much of the system is less than 15 years old and paid for with EU money, but they were absolutely fantastic. The prices are comparable to UK train fares (but expensive compared to the standard Spanish trains). However, cruising at nearly 200mph and so smooth that there were no ripples in a glass of water. The system directly competes with the airlines, particularly on the Barcelona to Madrid and Madrid to Malaga lines.
We suffer in the UK for have a system frequently part partially upgraded over the years. I for one would be in favour of a large wholesale re-investment.
Posted by: Nick Devlin | 02 July 2008 at 11:51 AM
Nick,
I've been planning a trip to Spain, so that's heartening to hear that the train system works so well over there . Some comfort for us, although you doubt there's the political will, or the coffers, for our present administration to put forward wholesale reinvestment.
Posted by: Phil Clark | 06 July 2008 at 10:46 PM