nfitz
Superstar
Four hours is less than flying?
|
|
|
General railway discussions
- Thread starter Urban Sky
- Start date
crs1026
Superstar
Depends how you measure it. But from the front door of Kings Cross - to any of the London airports, then thru security, then wait and boarding times, then taxiing time, then flight time (which is about an hour), then taxiing time, then debarkation, baggage time (if any), then ground travel to Waverley.... four hours at least seems reasonable.
PS - the trains run hourly, the flights not so much, at least from London City Airport, which is the closest to Kings Cross.
- Paul
Last edited:
nfitz
Superstar
I've never taken that long flying door to door from Montreal to Toronto. And it's not like the front door of Central Station and Union Station are my destinations! (other than the occasional big delay ... but that happens on trains too!)
Allandale25
Senior Member
I was able to snag a full version:
London to Edinburgh train will be faster than flying
Line upgrades and quicker vehicles will shave 20 minutes off the journey, fuelling fierce competition for passengers
Edinburgh Waverley was draped in snow last weekend. The trip to King’s Cross will take an average of four hours and seven minutes
LESLEY MARTIN/REUTERS
Nicholas Hellen, Transport Editor
Sunday December 01 2024, 12.01am GMT, The Sunday Times
Travelling from London to Edinburgh could be faster by rail than air for the first time next year, as 20 minutes is shaved off the train journey.
The breakthrough, which will bring the time down to just over four hours and is due to be announced this month by the transport secretary, is likely to unleash fierce competition as LNER and Lumo seek to coax passengers from airlines including British Airways, easyJet and Ryanair.
While the train between the two capitals used to take an average of four hours and 32 minutes, it will now take four hours and seven minutes.
People travelling by plane are only airborne for an hour and a half, but they must allow for check-in time and travel to and from airports.
People flying into Edinburgh airport face the additional cost of getting into town
EMILY MACINNES/BLOOMBERG/GETTY IMAGES
LNER said its figures show more people make the journey between London and Edinburgh by air rather than by rail (54 per cent to 46 per cent). Flying is often cheaper, though there are additional costs involved in travelling into the city centre.
Labour is reaping the benefit of a ten-year programme of improvements begun under the Conservatives, which involved a £1.2 billion upgrade to the east coast main line and the purchase of faster Azuma trains costing £2.7 billion.
Although the upgrade was completed in 2022, no new services could be launched because of fierce disagreements about which operator would take which new slot. The passenger operators include Grand Central, GTR, LNER, Lumo and TransPennine Express, and freight trains also use the line.
Now Network Rail, the train operators and the Department for Transport have finally reached an agreement, however, a new timetable, and the new Azuma trains, operating at their full capability, will be in place by December 2025.
The most eye-catching improvement will be in the time it takes to travel from London King’s Cross to Edinburgh Waverley. A journey on LNER currently takes an average of four hours and 32 minutes, according to the company — longer if the train stops at more stations along the route.
The track upgrades mean that the 125mph services that have been running on the line since 1978 will no longer be held up as often by slower-moving local or freight trains. The new fleet of Azuma trains have the same top speed of 125mph but are faster because they accelerate quicker out of stations.
The east coast main line runs from London to Edinburgh, with stations the length of the country, including Peterborough, Doncaster, York, Durham and Newcastle. Some services also extend beyond the Scottish capital towards Stirling, Aberdeen and Inverness. From next December, there will be an additional train every hour from London to Newcastle, adding an extra 8,400 seats per day.
But there will also be benefits to other towns and cities that have been left behind for decades. Bradford, which has a population of 560,200, has the worst rail connections of any major city in Europe. From next December, it will have a train to London every two hours instead of once a day.
There will be more frequent services between Leeds and Sheffield, as well as Leicester and Nottingham, which lost out when Boris Johnson scrapped the eastern leg of HS2 from the Midlands to Leeds in 2021.
Extra capacity could also open the way for the first direct service from Sheffield to King’s Cross since 1968, rather than just St Pancras, and give Worksop in Nottinghamshire a direct service to London for the first time in decades.
One industry source said the decision to give priority to faster intercity trains would come at the expense of freight, and of local and regional services north of York. They added that the new timetable would pack in so many extra services there would be no slack in the system to cope with any problems, which could lead to poor performance and worse delays.
Michael Solomon Williams, from the Campaign for Better Transport, welcomed the prospect of faster train services, saying: “It’s hugely important that train travel, not flying, is made the more attractive option for domestic travel, and cutting journey times plays a big role in that.
“Already in many cases, it is faster and more economically productive to travel inter-city by train, but more must be done, especially around ticket prices, to help encourage more people to choose green train over polluting plane.’”
London to Edinburgh train will be faster than flying
Line upgrades and quicker vehicles will shave 20 minutes off the journey, fuelling fierce competition for passengers
Edinburgh Waverley was draped in snow last weekend. The trip to King’s Cross will take an average of four hours and seven minutes
LESLEY MARTIN/REUTERS
Nicholas Hellen, Transport Editor
Sunday December 01 2024, 12.01am GMT, The Sunday Times
Travelling from London to Edinburgh could be faster by rail than air for the first time next year, as 20 minutes is shaved off the train journey.
The breakthrough, which will bring the time down to just over four hours and is due to be announced this month by the transport secretary, is likely to unleash fierce competition as LNER and Lumo seek to coax passengers from airlines including British Airways, easyJet and Ryanair.
While the train between the two capitals used to take an average of four hours and 32 minutes, it will now take four hours and seven minutes.
People travelling by plane are only airborne for an hour and a half, but they must allow for check-in time and travel to and from airports.
People flying into Edinburgh airport face the additional cost of getting into town
EMILY MACINNES/BLOOMBERG/GETTY IMAGES
LNER said its figures show more people make the journey between London and Edinburgh by air rather than by rail (54 per cent to 46 per cent). Flying is often cheaper, though there are additional costs involved in travelling into the city centre.
Labour is reaping the benefit of a ten-year programme of improvements begun under the Conservatives, which involved a £1.2 billion upgrade to the east coast main line and the purchase of faster Azuma trains costing £2.7 billion.
Although the upgrade was completed in 2022, no new services could be launched because of fierce disagreements about which operator would take which new slot. The passenger operators include Grand Central, GTR, LNER, Lumo and TransPennine Express, and freight trains also use the line.
Now Network Rail, the train operators and the Department for Transport have finally reached an agreement, however, a new timetable, and the new Azuma trains, operating at their full capability, will be in place by December 2025.
The most eye-catching improvement will be in the time it takes to travel from London King’s Cross to Edinburgh Waverley. A journey on LNER currently takes an average of four hours and 32 minutes, according to the company — longer if the train stops at more stations along the route.
The track upgrades mean that the 125mph services that have been running on the line since 1978 will no longer be held up as often by slower-moving local or freight trains. The new fleet of Azuma trains have the same top speed of 125mph but are faster because they accelerate quicker out of stations.
The east coast main line runs from London to Edinburgh, with stations the length of the country, including Peterborough, Doncaster, York, Durham and Newcastle. Some services also extend beyond the Scottish capital towards Stirling, Aberdeen and Inverness. From next December, there will be an additional train every hour from London to Newcastle, adding an extra 8,400 seats per day.
But there will also be benefits to other towns and cities that have been left behind for decades. Bradford, which has a population of 560,200, has the worst rail connections of any major city in Europe. From next December, it will have a train to London every two hours instead of once a day.
There will be more frequent services between Leeds and Sheffield, as well as Leicester and Nottingham, which lost out when Boris Johnson scrapped the eastern leg of HS2 from the Midlands to Leeds in 2021.
Extra capacity could also open the way for the first direct service from Sheffield to King’s Cross since 1968, rather than just St Pancras, and give Worksop in Nottinghamshire a direct service to London for the first time in decades.
One industry source said the decision to give priority to faster intercity trains would come at the expense of freight, and of local and regional services north of York. They added that the new timetable would pack in so many extra services there would be no slack in the system to cope with any problems, which could lead to poor performance and worse delays.
Michael Solomon Williams, from the Campaign for Better Transport, welcomed the prospect of faster train services, saying: “It’s hugely important that train travel, not flying, is made the more attractive option for domestic travel, and cutting journey times plays a big role in that.
“Already in many cases, it is faster and more economically productive to travel inter-city by train, but more must be done, especially around ticket prices, to help encourage more people to choose green train over polluting plane.’”
Attachments
drum118
Superstar
I did Edinburgh to King Station back in 2012, but cannot comment on travel time as it was a disaster trip, but based on getting to/from the airport to the city centre it will be faster using trains.
My first attempt to get to London got turn back north of Liverpool due to the line been flooded. By time we got back to Edinburgh, we had to spend the night at the station with no information when we could get out as well accommodation for the night. There were no airplanes seats from Edinburgh to London for the next 2 days. This made a mess on my end as I was to pickup the wife at London airport the next day. Been off line for the last 18 hours, I contacted the son to informed his mother of my delay and it would be better for her to go to the hotel. Since would be lost taking transit from the airport to the hotel, she too the cab at a cost of 75euros
At 4 am, we were told we maybe going to London by a different route at 8am. The train pull in on time, but it was a short train and not everyone going to get on it. I was lucky to get a seat and we left with full standing riders. Haft way along the line, it was announced that another longer train was to meet our train and the standing folks could transfer to it.
Since that time, Network Rail has been upgrading the lines as well dealing with the flooding zones that train will travel even faster than the plan travel time increase in the future years were travelling by rail will be the best way to travel..
nfitz
Superstar
From the city centre? Looks like 46 minutes to Heathrow Central, and 25 minutes to Euston, and having to change trains!
The only reason that such comparisons come close to working, is that the airport estimates here include last mile, and the rail one's don't. Most don't even check bags anymore.
Urban Sky
Senior Member
I’m not sure now whether you’ve ever been in London and Edinburgh, but Euston, Kings Cross and Waverley Stations are all as close to downtown as it gets and with excellent transport links into most parts of the cities, which are both things which can be said neither about Heathrow nor Edinburgh Airport.
For what it’s worth, Heathrow Airport recommends passengers to arrive 2 hours before the scheduled departure time:
nfitz
Superstar
I'm not sure you've been in London, but there's no real downtown. The business centre these days is Canary Wharf, and that's the station I used for the calculation. One could also argue Bank station, or more traditionally Charing Cross. None of which are that that close to Euston - which isn't that central. I doubt that the journey from the other two would be 20 minutes faster. Though then you do have a transfer to Heathrow - on the other hand the Heathrow Express becomes an option, that it really isn't from Canary Wharf.
It's 4.3 km from Bank, 9 km from Canary Wharf, and even 2.4 km from Charing Cross. Wellesley to Union, by comparison, which I can't imagine a train passenger would walk, is about the same distance as Charing Cross to Euston.
There are mainline stations in central London that are very convenient for the airport. Tottenham Court Road, Farringdon, Liverpool Street. Not to mention Canary Wharf station in Canary Wharf! All have a direct train to the airport.
Yes, I have been to London. I was born there, and have visited, many, many times. My transit experience goes back to being annoyed that they'd closed Strand station on the Northern Line during tube construction! (not to mention the Strand station on the Piccadilly line permanent closure - though it had a different name by then). In one of these threads you read, I even discussed shopping at Kings Cross station!
drum118
Superstar
Where one use a start or end point depends on where they live or going with the travel time being all over the place to/from the airport. I use a city centre as start and stop point and then add or subtract the time that will get me to/from the airport.
Been common for years to be at the airport 2-3 hours before your flight is to depart to deal with scrutiny and long line up. Coming home in 2022, we were at the airport 2.5 hours before departure and made it to the gate with 10 minutes to spare before they started to load the plane in Europe.
Need to add the wait time for your luggage to arrive before you can leave.
The longest trip by train I will accept is 4-5 hours and will look at flying when it gets close to 5 hours or more Cost to fly in Europe is a lot cheaper than NA as well in Australia.
nfitz
Superstar
Though not all of us live downtown - so cherry picking the starting point to favour a mode. If you wanted to do it properly, you'd pick a dozen points, and average. Though I doubt the worst point for air, would be faster than rail for Toronto-Montreal or Toronto-Ottawa. Or for Edinburgh to London.
We are discussing domestic short-haul, not international long-haul. I don't think anyone is taking the train from here to Europe!
And regular short-haul passengers on frequent services don't arrive at the airport 2-3 hours early. If I'm at the airport 3-hours early, I try and change to an earlier flight. And if it looks like I've screwed up, I try and switch to a later flight (well I would, if it'd ever happened ... though I did miss a YYZ to LHR once; oh well, had to wait 12 hours for the next one).
I've travelled a fair bit domestically since Covid. I've seen no security line-ups of note. The worst took 10 minutes or so. And those who fly a route regularly, know which times the airport can be difficult. Even Vancouver has been a breeze lately.
Even pre-Covid I don't think I ever checked luggage on flight to Toronto or Montreal! And when I returned to international flights last year, I stopped checking luggage for even flights to Europe! Which anyone flying Air Canada should do if they want to keep their sanity.
It feels you are taking what should be an easy apples-to-apples comparison, and choosing what outcome you want, then weighing down the scale by coming up with all sorts of non-issues.
I've taken the plane, and train, many times from Toronto to Montreal. I know very well that the plane is faster (even though the train station is quicker to get to for me). The only time that the train would have been a better choice in the first place was in white-out conditions.
Time is not the factor that one takes the train. And I do prefer the train, and do take it by choice. The factors are comfort (look at the seating comparison!), less stress, simplicity, etc.
Though I'm sure with VIA's mis-management they can make the train more unpleasant. Good grief, I don't know how many times they checked my ticket before I got on my train the last time I took the train from Union. Isn't once as you go through the stairs more than enough? I've only seen such pedantic stupidity in Europe on Eurostar (and even then, I think there may have been less checks!). Amtrak from Seattle to Vancouver last year had less checks to get on the train! And so difficult to actually get food on the train without a buffet car.
micheal_can
Senior Member
The problem is the general public does not usually think of the travel time between where they live and where they catch a train/plane. They also do not think of the time they need to be at an airport early for. They will after the have bought their ticket, but at the time of the reservation, they are only thinking of how long the flight or train ride is.
DSC
Superstar
Member Bio
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2008
- Messages
- 19,979
- Reaction score
- 29,202
- Location
- St Lawrence Market Area
If we had a FANTASY RAIL THREAD this might fit there but ...
www.thestar.com
This state senator wants to see high-speed rail connect New York City and Toronto. How likely is it to happen?
N.Y. Sen. Jeremy A. Cooney has been public about his hopes for a high-speed rail line connecting Toronto and New York City, but MTO and Transport Canada say they haven’t been filled in.
www.thestar.com
Urban Sky
Senior Member
Not really a fantasy rail discussion, but extending that project beyond Buffalo really adds an entire new level of complexities. I maintain that the only realistic place for seamless border processes would be Buffalo (just like it would be Detroit for Toronto-Chicago)…If we had a FANTASY RAIL THREAD this might fit there but ...
This state senator wants to see high-speed rail connect New York City and Toronto. How likely is it to happen?
N.Y. Sen. Jeremy A. Cooney has been public about his hopes for a high-speed rail line connecting Toronto and New York City, but MTO and Transport Canada say they haven’t been filled in.
Bordercollie
Senior Member
The Oakville sub already is rated for LRC+ so could you not upgrade the Grimsby sub to the same standard? You would be able to go Toronto to Niagara in 90min?
micheal_can
Senior Member
Connecting the largest city in Canada to the largest city in the USA with HSR is a fantasy? How is it a fantasy?If we had a FANTASY RAIL THREAD this might fit there but ...
This state senator wants to see high-speed rail connect New York City and Toronto. How likely is it to happen?
N.Y. Sen. Jeremy A. Cooney has been public about his hopes for a high-speed rail line connecting Toronto and New York City, but MTO and Transport Canada say they haven’t been filled in.