Could you give up flying? Meet the no-plane pioneers

[whole diary]

[4064ReadingAbbey]

I wish them luck.

But don't forget that DB^» (Deutsche Bahn - German State Railway - about) got out of the sleeper business because it was being faced with ever increasing losses and the need for some serious capital expenditure on updating or replacing coaching stock. A similar problem faced SNCF^▸ (Societe Nationale des Chemins de fer Francais - French National Railways). Austrian Railways had some more modern stock than DB so wasn't facing quite such a financial quandary.

The sleeper business remains one where the fare income does not cover the costs of operation. I read this announcement as meaning that the Governments are at least discussing the possibility of covering the costs of an extended operation in order to emphasise their commitment to saving the planet.

My wife and I were hoping to take the sleeper from Brussels to Vienna when it restarted this year. Covid saw the end of that plan but we are still hoping to make the trip and we are grateful to the taxpayers of continental Europe for making the journey affordable.

[TonyK]

I wish them luck.

But don't forget that DB^» (Deutsche Bahn - German State Railway - about) got out of the sleeper business because it was being faced with ever increasing losses and the need for some serious capital expenditure on updating or replacing coaching stock. A similar problem faced SNCF^▸ (Societe Nationale des Chemins de fer Francais - French National Railways). Austrian Railways had some more modern stock than DB so wasn't facing quite such a financial quandary.

The sleeper business remains one where the fare income does not cover the costs of operation. I read this announcement as meaning that the Governments are at least discussing the possibility of covering the costs of an extended operation in order to emphasise their commitment to saving the planet.

My wife and I were hoping to take the sleeper from Brussels to Vienna when it restarted this year. Covid saw the end of that plan but we are still hoping to make the trip and we are grateful to the taxpayers of continental Europe for making the journey affordable.

Me too. Even if it doesn't work, though, the railway has tried. The only reason it could fail is if not enough of the people who protest against flying and demand sleeper services actually use them.

I didn't consider Japan by train, but I did arrive there by sea once. I did fly home, though - four weeks is a long time for a busy man. I also went from New York to Canada by rail, which is very enjoyable. The upgrade to first class wasn't huge, I think only about 10%, and well worth the cost. I've done some long rides on the continent, too, but time and cost can mitigate against doing so fo a week's holiday, or when the entire family, in effect four families, is travelling as a unit.

[Bmblbzzz]

Austrians as a nation are some of the keenest on 'being green' so that makes it easier and more electorally profitable for the government to subsidise sleepers and rail in general.

[TonyK]

Austrians as a nation are some of the keenest on 'being green' so that makes it easier and more electorally profitable for the government to subsidise sleepers and rail in general.

Austria's geographic position helps achieve international travel overland, too. The transition into Hungary was a bit a bit of a shock 20 years ago, though. The road changed abruptly from a smoothed metalled surface to a rough concrete, shiny Mercedes saloons gave way to Trabants and various vehicles formed of corrugated steel, and the railway looked like a museum. No doubt things have improved since. Fascinating place.

[broadgage]

Austrians as a nation are some of the keenest on 'being green' so that makes it easier and more electorally profitable for the government to subsidise sleepers and rail in general.

I agree, and would rather see public money spent on railways than on air travel. Much of mainland Europe is becoming more pro rail and less keen on promoting, subsidising or otherwise encouraging air travel.

Meanwhile in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom), our efforts at going green are largely confined to renewably generated electricity. We have made considerable progress in wind and solar generation of electric power. Such progress is commendable, but we are largely ignoring the fossil fuel used by air and road transport.
IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion), we need more and better trains, inluding sleepers, both within the UK and to mainland Europe.

[TaplowGreen]

Austrians as a nation are some of the keenest on 'being green' so that makes it easier and more electorally profitable for the government to subsidise sleepers and rail in general.

IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion), we need more and better trains, including sleepers, both within the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) and to mainland Europe.

I do sometimes think the plaintive cry for more sleepers in the UK is based on whimsy rather than reality  - where is the demand for all these sleeper services? Who is actually going to use them?

[Bmblbzzz]

Austrians as a nation are some of the keenest on 'being green' so that makes it easier and more electorally profitable for the government to subsidise sleepers and rail in general.

Austria's geographic position helps achieve international travel overland, too. The transition into Hungary was a bit a bit of a shock 20 years ago, though. The road changed abruptly from a smoothed metalled surface to a rough concrete, shiny Mercedes saloons gave way to Trabants and various vehicles formed of corrugated steel, and the railway looked like a museum. No doubt things have improved since. Fascinating place.

I wonder how old that concrete was? There's a motorway in southwest Poland from the German border to Wroclaw which used to be concrete slabs, tiny hard shoulder and cobbled slip roads. Wroclaw of course was Breslau till 1945 and I'm sure the only attention the motorway had received since then was to install a central crash barrier and change the road signs into Polish. It's all EU^» (European Union - about)-approved smooth tarmac now but the art deco service station buildings survive.

[4064ReadingAbbey]

At this point some statistics may be in order.

The Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy publishes a time series called Digest of UK^▸ (United Kingdom) Energy Statistics (DUKES) (https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/energy-chapter-1-digest-of-united-kingdom-energy-statistics-dukes) which is a treasure trove of numbers - for those who like numbers, that is.

Table 1.1 gives the Aggregate Energy Balance in thousands of tonnes of oil equivalent for the ?supply? and ?consumption? of energy[1] in the country as a whole.

Total energy consumption in the country in 2019 for all industrial and domestic sectors was 150 million tonnes of oil equivalent.

In the same year for a selection of sectors the quantities, in terms of the mass of oil consumed for the same energy, are:

• Domestic: nearly 27 million tonnes of the oil equivalent of natural gas and about 2.5 million tonnes each of petroleum products and biogas and waste. Together with some 9 miilion tonnes consumed as electricity and some smaller sources the total was  some 41 million tonnes.
• Industry: Total consumption from all sources 22 million tonnes
• Air transport: 14 million tonnes, but see my note below.
• Road Transport: 41 million tonnes, of which petroleum products make up 39 million tonnes, the rest is from bio sources and electricity.
• Rail transport: 1.1 million tonnes, of which 688,000 tonnes is oil and 438,000 tonnes as electricity. (And 11,000 oil equivalent tonnes of coal!).

So, a couple of things. In the area of reducing CO2 emissions we are all in this together - if the UK reduces its production of CO2 to zero tomorrow that will make two tenths of not much difference in the great scheme of things as long as India, China and Indonesia continue to burn coal and the Brazilians burn the Amazon.

Secondly, road transport and domestic energy consumption are practically identical at 41 million ?oil equivalent? tonnes per year. If one wants to reduce CO2 emissions these are the places to start. Even if rail converted to all-electric tomorrow the drop in oil consumption wouldn?t even be noticed, rail?s oil usage is less than 0.5% of the country?s total consumption.

Thirdly, air transport. When one lives on an island separated by some hours of sailing time from one?s neighbours, some of whom live several hundred if not thousands of kilometres from the ports, air travel is the most practical way of travel for many purposes. For Great Britain, the island of Ireland, Malta and Cyprus as well as for long thin countries such as Norway and Italy, air transport will remain important. Spending several hours getting to the port, more hours on the boat and then many more hours in a train to one?s destination is probably not a good use of one?s time - unless the journey is the experience - and has a higher ?carbon footprint? than is apparent at first sight as I have tried to point out in earlier posts.

As I have written in other posts, Eurostar is competitive for journey of up to about 3 hours from London, that means to and from Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam and, possibly, Cologne. The unsurmountable issue for other areas in Britain is that the fixed link is in the very southeastern corner of the country which means dogs-leg routing for many other origin/destinations such as Bristol-Bordeaux or Edinburgh-Hamburg or Newcastle-Copenhagen.

I have seen statistics which show that in the case of Great Britain and Northern Ireland domestic air travel makes up some seven or eight per cent of aviation fuel use with a similar quantity used by the military. Three quarters of the fuel consumption is for international traffic; in the case of Cyprus or Malta this is 100%.

In mainland Europe air travel is mainly for longer distances, and to islands such as the Canaries or the Balearics. Because the countries share long land borders international traffic patterns are very, very different to those seen here. It?s easy to drive from France to Germany or from Austria to northern Italy on a multitude of routes. One is not constrained to travel via pinch-points such as Heathrow or Dover. And I would point out that Berlin Brandenburg airport is now open offering a considerable increase in capacity compared to Tegel.

Neither air transport nor the private car can be un-invented. They are here to stay - and technology developments will continue to make them more energy efficient.


[1] Of course, in truth, energy is neither ?supplied? nor ?consumed? but merely converted from one form to another, not forgetting that energy equals mass (multiplied by a (very large) constant?). 

[stuving]

You may have seen coverage of the Climate Change Committee's latest blockbuster, and I've put links for it in another thread. Its subtitle is "the UK^▸ (United Kingdom)'s path to net zero" by 2050, and they don't predict a drastic reduction in flying as part of that. Aviation is in section 7 (page 176), and here are a few short extracts from a very, very, long document:

Aviation is one of the sectors in which we expect there to be significant remaining positive emissions by 2050, given the limited set of options for decarbonisation. Remaining residual emissions will need to be offset by greenhouse gas removals (see section 11) for the sector to reach Net Zero.

This is their central projection:

This gradual reduction in emissions is due to demand management, improvements in efficiency and a modest but increasing share of sustainable aviation fuels:
? Demand management. The Balanced Net Zero Pathway does allow for some limited growth in aviation demand over the period to 2050, but considerably less than a ?business as usual? baseline. We allow for a 25% in growth by 2050 compared to 2018 levels, whereas the baseline reflects unconstrained growth of around 65% over the same period. We assume that, unlike in the baseline, this occurs without any net increase in UK airport capacity, so that any expansion is balanced by reductions in capacity elsewhere in the UK.
? Efficiency improvements. The fuel efficiency per passenger of aviation is assumed to improve at 1.4% per annum, compared to 0.7% per annum in the baseline. This includes 9% of total aircraft distance in 2050 being flown by hybrid electric aircraft.
? Sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) contribute 25% of liquid fuel consumed in 2050, with just over two-thirds of this coming from biofuels* and the remainder from carbon-neutral synthetic jet fuel (produced via direct air capture of CO2 combined with low-carbon hydrogen, with 75% of this synthetic jet fuel assumed to be made in the UK and the rest imported).

[TonyK]

I wonder how old that concrete was? There's a motorway in southwest Poland from the German border to Wroclaw which used to be concrete slabs, tiny hard shoulder and cobbled slip roads. Wroclaw of course was Breslau till 1945 and I'm sure the only attention the motorway had received since then was to install a central crash barrier and change the road signs into Polish. It's all EU^» (European Union - about)-approved smooth tarmac now but the art deco service station buildings survive.

I couldn't say for sure. We crossed the border at Sopron, probably the closest point to Vienna. I wish it had been in the days of digital photography, but now I work it out, it was probably about 1993. Not far into Hungary, we passed what I assumed was a scrapyard siding until I saw on of the rusting steam locos start to move, and noticed a rake of tankers behind it. I also saw a tram of sorts on the mainline, which looked to have been cobbled together from soviet minibus parts. These were apparently used to ferry people from villages to main stations.

[eightonedee]

Secondly, road transport and domestic energy consumption are practically identical at 41 million ?oil equivalent? tonnes per year. If one wants to reduce CO2 emissions these are the places to start. Even if rail converted to all-electric tomorrow the drop in oil consumption wouldn?t even be noticed, rail?s oil usage is less than 0.5% of the country?s total consumption.

Looking at this statement again, surely the point is that relatively modest increase in rail usage by passengers or freight could make a dent in those substantial figures for carbon production by road and air transport, even if it starts off by being diesel powered? I expect too that a substantial proportion of air passengers take road transport to travel further to their nearest airport than they would to their nearest station.

[stuving]

For comparison with the CCC Transportation(CCC), you might like to look at the plan "Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy" that the EU^» (European Union - about) Commission published last week. Obviously they are more government than advisor, though what they propose still has to be legislated for or approved by member states.

There are several levels of introductory stuff, as well as the formal proposals (only 25 pages!).


Edit:VickiS - Clarifying Acronym

[Bmblbzzz]

• Rail transport: 1.1 million tonnes, of which 688,000 tonnes is oil and 438,000 tonnes as electricity. (And 11,000 oil equivalent tonnes of coal!).

So 1 per cent of rail's total energy use is on preserved lines (and maybe one or two steam shunters in MoD yards or industrial areas). I find that quite surprising!

[4064ReadingAbbey]

• Rail transport: 1.1 million tonnes, of which 688,000 tonnes is oil and 438,000 tonnes as electricity. (And 11,000 oil equivalent tonnes of coal!).

So 1 per cent of rail's total energy use is on preserved lines (and maybe one or two steam shunters in MoD yards or industrial areas). I find that quite surprising!

I don't understand it either! Are there any waiting rooms with coal fires? I can't find the conversion factor that was used in the DUKES statistics so I can't say what the equivalent is in actual tonnes of coal.

But don't forget that steam traction is amazingly inefficient - a study made in the early 1950s showed that only 3% of the energy inherent in the coal supplied to the railways was used for hauling trains. The rest was lost through the chimney as latent heat, as start up and stand-by losses and so on. Heritage railways have a lot of stand-by losses...!

[TonyK]

Meanwhile, the Supreme court has decided that there is nothing unlawful about building a third runway at Heathrow. This was decided despite a Christmas backdrop of twelve drummers drumming, and lots of other stuff happening out side. The BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) reported:

Supreme Court lifts ban on Heathrow third runway
By Roger Harrabin
BBC environment analyst


Heathrow sign and plane
IMAGE COPYRIGHTREUTERS
The Supreme Court has breathed new life into plans for a third runway at Heathrow Airport.

The scheme was previously blocked by the Court of Appeal, who said the government?s airports strategy didn?t meet up-to-date UK^▸ (United Kingdom) climate targets.

But the Supreme Court has ruled the strategy was legitimately based on previous, less stringent, climate targets at the time it was agreed.

The firm behind Heathrow can now seek planning permission for the runway.

But it still faces major obstacles, including having to persuade a public enquiry of the case for expansion.

And if planning inspectors approve the scheme, the government will still have the final say.
(Continues at source

Not the end of the matter, then, but a step towards it. There could be a few more years of protest, lobbying and litigation until the next government but one cancels it twice, leaving it to the one after that to finally allow building to start. After that, arguments can begin on the need for a fourth runway. Whatever your view on the airport matter, the people living in the villages most affected must be absolutely fed up to the back teeth already. They have had 25 years of uncertainty, with all that means for home owners wanting to move and the like.