Because Scotland has been willing to invest in high speed rail infrastructure, people are willing to use it. In fact, a new report from Transform Scotland (and sponsored by Virgin Rail) has found a growth from 20% to 33% in market share for rail between 2005 and 2015 on routes between London and central Scotland (Edinburgh and Glasgow).
This shift alone has saved 681,064 tonnes of carbon emissions, and further savings are expected as demand continues to grow and as new, lower emission trains are introduced.
“Further emissions savings can be expected through the introduction of the new ‘Azuma’ trains on the East Coast route. We estimate that while a flight from Edinburgh to London emits 177kg CO2 per passenger, and existing trains (‘HSTs’) emit 34kg per passenger, that an Azuma will emit only 28kg — 84% less than a flight.”
Journalists have a reputation for writing badly about the railways, but this really takes the biscuit.
“Because Scotland has been willing to invest in high speed rail infrastructure, people are willing to use it.”
Just WHAT high speed rail infrastructure has Scotland invested in which might make a difference to the London – Scotland modal split?
Reading the article in full, “And because the country has been willing to invest in high speed rail infrastructure, people are willing to use it. ” gives a link to an article entitled “UK Considering London to Glasgow High-Speed Rail Link”. Don’t journalists know that “considering” means FUTURE and therefore cannot be the cause for something which HAS ALREADY happened.
The Scottish Government and local authorities are doing good things with rail, and are to be encouraged. But reopening Borders Rail, the rail electrification across the central belt, and the Edinburgh Trams have nothing to do with a modal shift London – Scotland in the last ten years.
It’s just a post of a Virgin press release, because that’s where we are with journalism.
Perhaps the biggest reason for the modal share change is that air has been concentrating on the more lucrative international routes. Using Virgin’s years, but picking data, Edinburgh Airport went from 6.1 vs 2.3 million Domestic vs International passengers in 2005 to 2015’s 5.2 vs 7.1. That’s huge, whilst Airbus and Boeing are allowing backlogs of single-aisle aircraft to balloon.
@Tom Hawtin
But the shift from domestic to international flights is a good thing on a number of fronts, is it not? More people taking less polluting and more energy efficient trains, and more international flights can be accommodated without having to expand airport terminals or add runways.
LBM: the said air shift (from dom to intenational) may well be a “good thing”. But the goodness of that is no justification for the erroneous writing (or pasting) about which Notts Railman commented, with its absurd attribution of an (already occurred) modal shift to an “investment” which has not yet been made (and quite probably never will).
High Speed in the U.S. really is just about anything over 60mph… Hence a difference in perception!
Part of the shift from air to rail domestically can probably also be attributed to the increased security measures now in place at airports. They make flying less attractive and reduce the speed advantage of flying…
Just look at the almost complete elimination of flights from Brussels to Paris since the Thalys was introduced.
This also holds for Eurostar… Even though security measures are in place on the Eurostar, they are still much less onerous than those on airplanes.
I’m intrigued by the CO2 calculations. I wonder what a Class 91 and Mk4s emit on the same journey? The cynic in me wonders if the lack of figures means they emit less CO2 than an Azuma…