Flying vs sailing Dublin-London

D.L.R.

Which is a greener journey to take from Dublin to London. The ferry/rail combination, or a direct flight? Ignoring local issues.

Carawaystick

Aer Lingus is probably greener than Irish Ferries, they're both greener than Ryanair or Stenna (Apart from that green Jaguar painted 737 ryanair had.... )

If you mean environmentally friendly, it depends on how much you care about the radioactive waste generated by british nuclear power plants. The rail line from Chester to London is electrified and some of the power is from nuclear. the british companies/state running their nuclear power scheme aren't the most confidence inspiring lot.

If you only care about carbon dioxde, I'd imagine the surface transport would cause the lower amount to be emitted.

highlydebased

Carawaystick wrote: »

Aer Lingus is probably greener than Irish Ferries, they're both greener than Ryanair or Stenna (Apart from that green Jaguar painted 737 ryanair had.... )

If you mean environmentally friendly, it depends on how much you care about the radioactive waste generated by british nuclear power plants. The rail line from Chester to London is electrified and some of the power is from nuclear. the british companies/state running their nuclear power scheme aren't the most confidence inspiring lot.

If you only care about carbon dioxde, I'd imagine the surface transport would cause the lower amount to be emitted.

Why are Ryanair not green? Not taking their side or anything, but most their recent fleet is considerable younger (less than a year old) in comparision to most of Aer Lingus' short haul fleet...!

crushproof

Neon-Circles wrote: »

Why are Ryanair not green? Not taking their side or anything, but most their recent fleet is considerable younger (less than a year old) in comparision to most of Aer Lingus' short haul fleet...!

The word sarcasm springs to mind :rolleyes:

But seriously, sail and rail is much more environmentally friendly and can be quite cheap compared to flying if you're bringing alot of luggage. And in fairness it doesn't really take that long. I've been meaning to try it out myself for a while now!

L1011

I thought that the fast ferries put out similarly huge amounts of CO2 to flying? Both are slowed well down from their peak speeds when oil was cheaper admittedly.

Run_to_da_hills

MYOB wrote: »

I thought that the fast ferries put out similarly huge amounts of CO2 to flying? Both are slowed well down from their peak speeds when oil was cheaper admittedly.

The HSS will soon be a thing of the past, one sitting idle in Belfast and the Dunlaoghaire one on its last legs and just down to one return trip a day. I don't know how they survived this long.

Cookie_Monster

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The HSS will soon be a thing of the past, one sitting idle in Belfast and the Dunlaoghaire one on its last legs and just down to one return trip a day. I don't know how they survived this long.

The one "sitting idle in Belfast" is now employed in Venezuela.

I was walking past the loading bay yesterday in DL yesterday and it was full, they had to turn half dozen people away so it's still a popular option. It's been slowed by about 20 mins and saves a reasonable %age of fuel as a result.
That said Stena are quoted saying that the reason they withdrew Discovery was that it was using as much fuel as the 7 other ferries on that route combined.

The Swift still does 2 sailings a day also so not doing too bad.

The HSS is a bit like concorde, hopefully though it'll be kept on.
Could always convert it to nuclear in the future:P

KevR

crushproof wrote: »

But seriously, sail and rail is much more environmentally friendly and can be quite cheap compared to flying if you're bringing alot of luggage. And in fairness it doesn't really take that long. I've been meaning to try it out myself for a while now!

I have used sail & rail a couple of times when I had huge amounts of luggage. On both occasions I would have got flights cheaper if I had little or no luggage. It takes a lot longer than flying and is a lot more tiring in my opinion.

It's a good option if you have loads of luggage but other than that I wouldn't really consider it.

Alun

KevR wrote: »

I have used sail & rail a couple of times when I had huge amounts of luggage. On both occasions I would have got flights cheaper if I had little or no luggage. It takes a lot longer than flying and is a lot more tiring in my opinion.

It's a good option if you have loads of luggage but other than that I wouldn't really consider it.

I've used it a few times. It depends a lot on where you're going to be honest. If it's close to an airport, then flying will generally be cheaper, but if you're taking the train to your final destination anyway, then rail/sail will generally work out a lot cheaper. Also as you said, if you have lots of luggage.

Run_to_da_hills

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

The one "sitting idle in Belfast" is now employed in Venezuela.

I was walking past the loading bay yesterday in DL yesterday and it was full,

It is mid August

L1011

The Swift has been slowed down too has it not? Don't remember it taking as long when I first used it (which when it was brand new admittedly)

I use it (and Ulysses) fairly often still and while there are always the odd busy loading it can be utterly dead at times too. I think they bought the Ulysses at just the wrong time.

Chris_533976

Bear in mind that the plane and boat will both be running anyway, so its only your weight or the cars weight thats going to add to the pollution that will be generated whether you go or not.

Getting to and from the airport/boat is where you'll pollute, but then again global warming is a bit of a farce anyway so just use whichever you want

Cookie_Monster

MYOB wrote: »

I use it (and Ulysses) fairly often still and while there are always the odd busy loading it can be utterly dead at times too. I think they bought the Ulysses at just the wrong time.

Well you do have a 3 to 4 year build time built in:) And it has been around for quite a while now. There was no way to foresee the current situation going this adverse 8/9 years ago.

Stena are in the process of building the 2 (twins) largest ferries afloat, slightly larger than Ulysses, due 2010/11 iirc. I wonder how they feel about these now?

L1011

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Well you do have a 3 to 4 year build time built in:) And it has been around for quite a while now. There was no way to foresee the current situation going this adverse 8/9 years ago.

I more meant the death of mass tourist traffic due to Ryanair, which should have been apparent 8/9 years ago.

I've never seen Ulysses packed to the gills, and I travel at all sorts of times / days / months. Come to think of it wasn't there a franchised fast food joint (Burger King?) on it when it opened thats gone due to lack of trade...

Big football match on and the Swift can be packed but I've never had the same on the big boat.

Cookie_Monster

MYOB wrote: »

I more meant the death of mass tourist traffic due to Ryanair, which should have been apparent 8/9 years ago.

Well she is built for freight. Swiftie is more for the leisure types.

Vic_08

MYOB wrote: »

I more meant the death of mass tourist traffic due to Ryanair, which should have been apparent 8/9 years ago.

I've never seen Ulysses packed to the gills, and I travel at all sorts of times / days / months. Come to think of it wasn't there a franchised fast food joint (Burger King?) on it when it opened thats gone due to lack of trade...

They are not required or even designed to be packed with passengers, cars and more importantly freight is where ferry companies on the Irish Sea get the bulk of their revenue. In that aspect the design and size of ships such as Ulysees and Stena Adventurer are spot on.

The St. Columba built in 1977 which operated for BR/Sealink/Stena on Dun Laoghaire to Holyhead for nearly 20 years until the HSS replaced it weighed 12,000 tonnes and could carry 1700 passengers. Ulysees weighs 51,000 tonnes and is only registered for 1875 passengers. The only reason for building a ship 5 times bigger is for it's freight capacity, Ulysees has nearly 10 times more vehicle space than the older ship.

Capt'n Midnight

http://www.seat61.com/Ireland.htm

London to Dublin for £29 each way...

This is the price you pay, even on the day of travel, it's not a 'starting at...' price.

The ticket covers the train & the ferry, for a journey without airports or flights.

No baggage fees, no airport taxes, no costly train fare to the airport...

Children under under 5 go free, under 16's go for half price.

The price from any rail station in Britain is the same or less:

Mailman

If there is an ATR72 or Bombardier Dash on a route between Dublin and London then that's probably the most environmentally friendly way of getting there.

Sesshoumaru

D.L.R. wrote: »

Which is a greener journey to take from Dublin to London. The ferry/rail combination, or a direct flight? Ignoring local issues.

I guess there would be a lot of CO2 generated in the building and maintenance of the rail infrastructure in the first place. So when you add that on I'd say flying is greener. But I do like to travel by rail and ferry as well for some reason.

Capt'n Midnight

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

I guess there would be a lot of CO2 generated in the building and maintenance of the rail infrastructure in the first place. So when you add that on I'd say flying is greener. But I do like to travel by rail and ferry as well for some reason.

£29 for ferry and train so it can't be using all that much fuel.
Ferry will be travelling anyway same with trains, plane route will be dropped if they don't have very high occupancy

over VERY long distances planes are more efficient , but not over short flights

L1011

Vic_08 wrote: »

They are not required or even designed to be packed with passengers, cars and more importantly freight is where ferry companies on the Irish Sea get the bulk of their revenue. In that aspect the design and size of ships such as Ulysees and Stena Adventurer are spot on.

The St. Columba built in 1977 which operated for BR/Sealink/Stena on Dun Laoghaire to Holyhead for nearly 20 years until the HSS replaced it weighed 12,000 tonnes and could carry 1700 passengers. Ulysees weighs 51,000 tonnes and is only registered for 1875 passengers. The only reason for building a ship 5 times bigger is for it's freight capacity, Ulysees has nearly 10 times more vehicle space than the older ship.

Cars, generally, have passengers... The passenger decks are over-sized for the loads they do carry.

Mailman wrote: »

If there is an ATR72 or Bombardier Dash on a route between Dublin and London then that's probably the most environmentally friendly way of getting there.

Aer Arann fly to City and Luton using ATR72's.

A Dub in Glasgo

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

I guess there would be a lot of CO2 generated in the building and maintenance of the rail infrastructure in the first place. So when you add that on I'd say flying is greener. But I do like to travel by rail and ferry as well for some reason.

I would also guess that there would be a lot of CO2 generated in the building and maintenance of the aviation infrastructure in the first place