Flightshaming to London from Dublin

trellheim

do people claim DUB-SFO (for example) flying time as holiday time ? How many of you claim the 0625-0800 DUB-LGW or knock off from work at 1400 in recompense ... not a lot I'd say.

If there was a sleeping option on the train I'd be much happier about taking it

Rowley Birkin QC

abitofacomedian wrote: »

If you want to go overnight, the 02:15 Stena sailing from Dublin port gets you in to Holyhead at 05:45. There is a 05:50 direct train to London which may be possible to get, but the 6:50 is more likely. That gets to Euston at around 10:30.

A rail and sail fare is €50 each way (€47 if prebooked by phone).

That sounds like an absolute nightmare tbh and in no way useful to anyone travelling to London for work. I travel over and back a few times a month and never travel in my own time, the options above would have me travelling almost exclusively in my own time.

Atlantic Dawn

More resources would be wasted doing sail and rail/bus, you would be creating congestion for others going to and from work.

Polar101

I often do the Sail & Rail, as it's much more relaxed than airports and flying. Leave Dublin Port eight-ish and be in London before 4pm. Sure, if you're in a hurry it's not great, but at least you don't have to visit 2 airports. Never thought I was shaming anyone, though.

G-Man

Nordics have it easy on their flightshaming....Did the Copenhagen to Hamburg across the Baltic stretch... Train from Copenhagen rolls onto the car deck of the ship and rolls off again after the crossing and continues to Hamburg... They have some high speed docking system, so it appears to just take minutes....

However they are now waiting for Fehmarn tunnel to be built so ferry will be eliminated... The biz case for tunnel, does not even appear good, but in terms of quality and reaching Brussels in one trip , the swedes want to pay big for this..

easypazz

Mr.S wrote: »

I travel every 3-4 weeks with work, no chance in hell would I take public transport in lieu of a plane. Why on earth would I spend 12 hours travelling to london when you can do it in 2 hours?

If your company is big into being eco warriors, then just focus on a decent VC system and cut out travel all together.

A bus, to London! Imagine. I’d laugh in my colleagues face whoever tried to “shame” someone else for that :pac:

Planes are public transport.

Dublin o'connell street to central london in 2 hours?

I doubt it.

Nermal

boardbeer wrote: »

But only about a 1/3 of that gets used to do useful work, so it's down to a 1:16 ratio. Still not great for batteries, but they are likely to improve significantly with all the money being thrown at the problem.

Too much certainty. If time and money were the only obstacles to technological progress my laptop would already be charged by a fusion reactor.

smelly sock

Fireball81 wrote: »

True, can't see many employers allowing so much time to get to London and back when it can be done so quickly by air though (climate issues aside)

Employers should cop on and put policies in place to use VC's rather than pointless needless travel.

endacl

easypazz wrote: »

Planes are public transport.

Dublin o'connell street to central london in 2 hours?

I doubt it.

In substantially less than 12 hours. And the time spent at risk of being seated next to somebody you'd rather not be stuck beside is still 2 hours.

ozmo

Ive done Dub Lon via boat and coach- awful - never again.

Has anyone done any real comparisons of the footprint difference - 12 hours of burning boat and coach dirty diesel is not exactly clean either.
Fewer capacity in a coach also.

Tomrota

easypazz wrote: »

Planes are public transport.

Dublin o'connell street to central london in 2 hours?

I doubt it.

Planes are private transport.

JoseJones

ozmo wrote: »

Ive done Dub Lon via boat and coach- awful - never again.

Has anyone done any real comparisons of the footprint difference - 12 hours of burning boat and coach dirty diesel is not exactly clean either.
Fewer capacity in a coach also.

I'd definitely be sceptical about how clean the ferry is compared to flying. Maybe if the ferry is full to capacity the emissions would be quite low per passenger, but it's never full. And I doubt burning all that dirty diesel is very clean at all... Haven't been able to find anything online where the ferry emissions are analysed, most things seem to compare flying with cars or trains.

markpb

Most of those ferries are primarily aimed at carrying RoRo freight. Passengers are just an aside. The passenger lounges could be deserted and the vehicle decks completely full.

Also, modern coaches are far cleaner than modern cars, in general and per-passenger. The idea of a dirty coach hasn’t been true for years.

Peregrinus

Tomrota wrote: »

Planes are private transport.

A private plane is private transport. But a scheduled flight on which tickets are sold to members of the public is public transport, just like a bus or a train. "Public transport" refers to who uses the service, not to who owns the conveyances employed in providing the service.

The world's population increased by a quarter of a million since OP posted. Just fly.

Peregrinus

JoseJones wrote: »

I'd definitely be sceptical about how clean the ferry is compared to flying. Maybe if the ferry is full to capacity the emissions would be quite low per passenger, but it's never full. And I doubt burning all that dirty diesel is very clean at all... Haven't been able to find anything online where the ferry emissions are analysed, most things seem to compare flying with cars or trains.

Ini terms of carbon emissions per tonne of payload per kilometre, shipping is vastly cleaner than any of the other major modes of transport - rail, road, air. In round figures, planes are about ten times worse than trains in this regard, and about twenty times worse than ships.

whisky_galore

There's a reason the coach services are being withdrawn, all the people not using them when a short hop flight is affordable. Who wants to spend hours on end stuck on a bus and perhaps a lumpy sea crossing?

magicbastarder

Peregrinus wrote: »

Ini terms of carbon emissions per tonne of payload per kilometre, shipping is vastly cleaner than any of the other major modes of transport - rail, road, air. In round figures, planes are about ten times worse than trains in this regard, and about twenty times worse than ships.

i believe sulphur is a big issue with shipping - possibly not with 'short hop' ferries of the likes that would be operating between ireland and britain, but certainly with cargo shipping, where they're allowed use sulphur rich heavy fuel oil. that said, a ship's captain was recently prosecuted for allowing his ship to breach the sulphur limits that are there. i think it was possibly the first such conviction.

loyatemu

overland travel from Dublin to London, Paris etc is unlikely to be a practical option in the foreseeable future. The real problem is people taking too many flights; how much "business travel" is actually necessary? The article below would suggest that some form of "carbon passport" would be a good idea, so the more flights you take, the higher the carbon taxes become.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/25/1-of-english-residents-take-one-fifth-of-overseas-flights-survey-shows

Brian CivilEng

I think some are misunderstanding the translation of "flygskam", it's supposed to mean "flight shame", or the shame some people feel when taking a flight, not "flight shaming" other people! It's a personal thing, it's not there to make others feel bad.

"Personally" I work in the aviation industry but really enjoy sail and rail when I'm not in a hurry. I see it as a more relaxing way to travel when feasible, and have travelled to London and Paris that way for holidays. I've taken many flights in the same period, getting to New York or even Norway isn't really that feasible by rail and sail.

I like that the option is there. It's not for everyone but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be available for anyone.

Rowley Birkin QC

easypazz wrote: »

Planes are public transport.

Dublin o'connell street to central london in 2 hours?

I doubt it.

I'm on a 15:20 flight to London City on Monday. Will leave my North Side house at 14:00 and be in my hotel in central London at about 17:30, all going well.

I'm on the 17:30 return flight the next day. Will leave the office in London at 16:00 and be in my house in Dublin at about 19:30.

A little over 28 hours total including a day's work and sufficient down time. Absolutely no way would I trade that for a 12hr one way trip.

easypazz

Tomrota wrote: »

Planes are private transport.

In that case is the ferry private transport?

Are the commercial train companies in the UK offering private transport?

easypazz

endacl wrote: »

In substantially less than 12 hours. And the time spent at risk of being seated next to somebody you'd rather not be stuck beside is still 2 hours.

Somebody on the previous page said Euston to his mothers house in Dublin used take 9 hours.

How long would the plane take

say getting to LHR (say 1 hour)
Security / transit / get to gate at airport say (1.5 hour)
Flight including holding / taxi / wait for gate etc. (1.5 hour)
Travel from flight into Dublin (1 hour)

Say 5 hours good day and on a bad day maybe 6.

I don't get your point about not wanting to be stuck beside somebody you don't like.

On a plane you are stuck beside them from the moment you board to the moment the door opens at the far side and all the passengers ahead of you disembark. Could easily be 2 hours. Maybe you can stand up on the flight for a few minutes to use the toilet.

At least on a train you can move around at all times and choose to sit elsewhere.

I am not saying sail rail is for everybody but it is potentially far less stressful than air travel, takes an extra ~3 hours and you can bring a lot of bags.

easypazz

JoseJones wrote: »

I'd definitely be sceptical about how clean the ferry is compared to flying. Maybe if the ferry is full to capacity the emissions would be quite low per passenger, but it's never full. And I doubt burning all that dirty diesel is very clean at all... Haven't been able to find anything online where the ferry emissions are analysed, most things seem to compare flying with cars or trains.

The point about the ferry is that they must sail anyway, and bring freight in and out of Ireland every day.

You could fit a lot of extra foot passengers on a ferry and I would expect the increase in emissions to be minimal.

Podge_irl

magicbastarder wrote: »

i believe sulphur is a big issue with shipping - possibly not with 'short hop' ferries of the likes that would be operating between ireland and britain, but certainly with cargo shipping, where they're allowed use sulphur rich heavy fuel oil. that said, a ship's captain was recently prosecuted for allowing his ship to breach the sulphur limits that are there. i think it was possibly the first such conviction.

Ships in Europe have generally already been using low sulfur fuel oil and IMO have updated regulations as of this year to more or less ban high sulfur fuel oil unless the vessels have scrubbers for cleaning the emissions. So should get even cleaner.


Dublin to London is not going to be a primary candidate for replacing air travel for various reasons. However, particularly within continental Europe, a lot of flights could be very reasonably replaced by train travel and that is the goal.

A sleeper bus would be ok from Dublin to London I reckon. I've been on a couple of nice ones before and they're grand.

Keyzer

While I understand the sentiment, practicalities need to be taken into consideration.

We live on an island and don't have the luxury of having the kind of rail network in place in mainland Europe. Example - I was in London this week with work and had to fly, there is no way I'm getting a coach for 12 hours. My colleague, based in Paris, got the Eurostar, took 2.5 hrs.

Another colleague in Munich travels to Paris on the over night train because he doesn't like airports (not flying) due to the amount of time it takes. He jumps on the train 10 mins before it leaves, has a bite to eat and a beer then sleeps in his cabin. Wakes up in Paris ready to go to work.

Moral of the story is this - we have limited options in this country due to our island status. Getting on a bus for 12 hours versus a 1 hour flight is simply not suitable for the vast majority of people.

PhilOssophy

JoseJones wrote: »

I'd definitely be sceptical about how clean the ferry is compared to flying. Maybe if the ferry is full to capacity the emissions would be quite low per passenger, but it's never full. And I doubt burning all that dirty diesel is very clean at all... Haven't been able to find anything online where the ferry emissions are analysed, most things seem to compare flying with cars or trains.

I don't know what it is but I know a cruise ship has the same carbon footprint per hour as 1m cars, so I'd say you could reckon on 1/2 of that at least for the Stena liner.

magicbastarder

"Carić estimates that the average CO2 emissions for a 3,000-passenger cruise ship is 1,200 kg/km"
https://daily.jstor.org/the-high-environmental-costs-of-cruise-ships/

the average CO2 output of a car is in and around 100g/km.

you're looking at a factor of 10,000 in the difference, not one million.

crisco10

The British government have a fairly comprehensive dataset of emission factors for various types of transport titled "UK Government GHG Conversion Factors for Company Reporting"

Here's a few highlights:

Emission Factor (kgCO2 e) per km Comment
Short Haul Flight 0.16 Accounts for CO2 being emitted at altitude
Ferry - Foot Passenger 0.02
Ferry - Car Passenger 0.13
Coach 0.03
National Rail 0.04


Cruise ships aren't listed, but are significantly worse than ferries because they carry around all the facilities that are unnecessary. E.g. multiple swimming pools!

easypazz

Keyzer wrote: »

While I understand the sentiment, practicalities need to be taken into consideration.

We live on an island and don't have the luxury of having the kind of rail network in place in mainland Europe. Example - I was in London this week with work and had to fly, there is no way I'm getting a coach for 12 hours. My colleague, based in Paris, got the Eurostar, took 2.5 hrs.

Another colleague in Munich travels to Paris on the over night train because he doesn't like airports (not flying) due to the amount of time it takes. He jumps on the train 10 mins before it leaves, has a bite to eat and a beer then sleeps in his cabin. Wakes up in Paris ready to go to work.

Moral of the story is this - we have limited options in this country due to our island status. Getting on a bus for 12 hours versus a 1 hour flight is simply not suitable for the vast majority of people.

While I get of what you are saying it does not take 1 hour to fly to London. I make it about 5 or 6

You are not on a bus for 12 hours, you are on a boat for a lot of it, and you can avoid the bus completely, and it takes about 9 hours, based on what others have said here.

I had a quick look and next Friday 7th is €100 with Aer Lingus to LHR with a bag, then probably €10 more to get to central London or €50 to central London via sail rail unlimited bags.

Thelonious Monk

easypazz wrote: »

Somebody on the previous page said Euston to his mothers house in Dublin used take 9 hours.

Yeah that was me. It's absolutely grand and far less stressful than flying, of which I'm not a big fan of anyway.

Thelonious Monk

Really what we should have going forward are high speed rail links all over Europe, of which there already are many, especially in Spain. This would mean less flights needed to regional airports and less internal European flights. I have taken a train from Madrid to Murcia area a couple of times, it's 5 hours absolutely belting along in a comfortable train with a bar etc and gorgeous scenery. Also have taken an overnighter from Lisbon to Madrid which is great too, try it if you ever get a chance. It's the best way to travel.

Clareman

I used to work for a company that pre-booked 2 seats on the daily Aer Lingus Shannon to London route, out around 7.45 back at 6, they got the seats at the lowest fare and because they were such good customers they could change the name of the flight. It wasn't unusal for a email to go around to a few of us asking if we'd any need to be in London the next day as the seats were going empty. They reckon they saved a lot of money by doing it as they had a few offices and clients in London so it was rarely there wasn't a need to have someone go over and it was cheaper than booking hotels, I once did a week's work in London going over and back daily, it was torture.

Dom75

I tried this recently using the Monday 9.10am from Euston, arriving in Dublin port after 5pm. I was able to book a quiet coach on the train and got a few hours work done, which I cannot do whilst flying. Overall, it was very comfortable and stress free.

I was interested to try the overland option as I believe there will be restrictions in aviation in the future.

All the details you need are on the excellent seat61 website. London to Dublin has it's own page.

easypazz

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Yeah that was me. It's absolutely grand and far less stressful than flying, of which I'm not a big fan of anyway.

You would think if they worked at it then 8 hours would be doable, with tight connections, direct trains timed to meet boat, and streamlining of security etc.

Fireball81

smelly sock wrote: »

Employers should cop on and put policies in place to use VC's rather than pointless needless travel.

Oh ours do but its nothing to do with saving the environment, it's all about saving €€€€€

magicbastarder

my ratio of actual face to face meetings vs. VCs is less than 1 to 99. i usually only travel once, maybe twice a year for work.

PhilOssophy

crisco10 wrote: »

The British government have a fairly comprehensive dataset of emission factors for various types of transport titled "UK Government GHG Conversion Factors for Company Reporting"

Here's a few highlights:

Emission Factor (kgCO2 e) per km Comment
Short Haul Flight 0.16 Accounts for CO2 being emitted at altitude
Ferry - Foot Passenger 0.02
Ferry - Car Passenger 0.13
Coach 0.03
National Rail 0.04


Cruise ships aren't listed, but are significantly worse than ferries because they carry around all the facilities that are unnecessary. E.g. multiple swimming pools!

If those figures are right, then there's little or no difference between a flight and a ferry/coach.

magicbastarder

are you adding the 0.13 for ferry car passenger to the 0.03 of coach, to get the same value as 0.16 of a short haul flight?

PhilOssophy

magicbastarder wrote: »

are you adding the 0.13 for ferry car passenger to the 0.03 of coach, to get the same value as 0.16 of a short haul flight?

No. I just noticed the error in how I read it, I thought it was over the entire journey rather than per km.

bk

That is interesting that the coach is cleaner per km then rail. It certainly puts a dent in the argument for WRC or that we should be doing intercity rail on an environmental basis.

easypazz

bk wrote: »

That is interesting that the coach is cleaner per km then rail. It certainly puts a dent in the argument for WRC or that we should be doing intercity rail on an environmental basis.

I assume that figure is for diesel locomotives and obviously electric is the way to go.

Rowley Birkin QC

easypazz wrote: »

While I get of what you are saying it does not take 1 hour to fly to London. I make it about 5 or 6

.

So you're completely ignoring the real life example I gave where I can be from my house in Dublin to hotel room in London in about 4 hours?

bk

easypazz wrote: »

I assume that figure is for diesel locomotives and obviously electric is the way to go.

I'd assume so, though even the generation of Electricity outputs C02. Actually they have London Underground down as .03 and light rail tram at .034, compared to .027 for Coach. So it seems to also include some electric too.

Interestingly a Diesel VW Golf sized car comes it at .14 and a BMW 3 Series sized car at .16, much the same as flying.

So if you are worried about the environment, it is probably better to focus on your car and your daily commute, then flying. Consider an EV car for your next car or walking/cycling/public transport if that is an option.

Of course fly less often if you can too would help.

magicbastarder

bk wrote: »

So if you are worried about the environment, it is probably better to focus on your car and your daily commute, then flying.

or your house insulation/home heating.
there are plenty of people who think it's just a fact of life that they burn one and a half tanks of kerosene - or more - per year heating their house.

it's the equivalent of a decent fill of petrol or diesel in your car every two weeks (and that's averaged out over the year)

crisco10

bk wrote: »

I'd assume so, though even the generation of Electricity outputs C02. Actually they have London Underground down as .03 and light rail tram at .034, compared to .027 for Coach. So it seems to also include some electric too.

Interestingly a Diesel VW Golf sized car comes it at .14 and a BMW 3 Series sized car at .16, much the same as flying.

So if you are worried about the environment, it is probably better to focus on your car and your daily commute, then flying. Consider an EV car for your next car or walking/cycling/public transport if that is an option.

Of course fly less often if you can too would help.

Yeah, the reason I had those figures to hand was I had done an exercise only last week. For a trip to South of France, near Bordeaux, would it be better to fly/drive or ferry/drive?

Outcome was that there is a significant dependence on your car choice for the drive from Cherbourg to Bordeaux. If you did it in an Xtrail or similar SUV, your carbon footprint was worse than fly/drive. But if you did it in more reasonable "compact" family car, then the boat was better.

And yes, the national rail figure was based on Diesel locomotives. If you were using electric rail, the number is different (smaller) again.

loyatemu

magicbastarder wrote: »

or your house insulation/home heating.
there are plenty of people who think it's just a fact of life that they burn one and a half tanks of kerosene - or more - per year heating their house.

it's the equivalent of a decent fill of petrol or diesel in your car every two weeks (and that's averaged out over the year)

I think most people are aware of how badly insulated old Irish houses are, but don't have the money to fix it. It's one thing to find 2k a year to heat your house, another to find 20k up front to fully insulate it.

easypazz

Rowley Birkin QC wrote: »

So you're completely ignoring the real life example I gave where I can be from my house in Dublin to hotel room in London in about 4 hours?

Sorry I missed that post, 4 hours, as you said "all going well", I assume you do that route regular so know how to cut down on any potential delays / hiccups along the way and have everything optimised. I also assume you are not bringing a suitcase.

I would still estimate 5-6 hours to be about average, versus 9-10 on sail rail, with potentially less stress taking the sail - rail route.

Exact start and end points will be a factor too, Dublin port is closer for some for sure.

rivegauche

crisco10 wrote: »

The British government have a fairly comprehensive dataset of emission factors for various types of transport titled "UK Government GHG Conversion Factors for Company Reporting"

Here's a few highlights:

Emission Factor (kgCO2 e) per km Comment
Short Haul Flight 0.16 Accounts for CO2 being emitted at altitude
Ferry - Foot Passenger 0.02
Ferry - Car Passenger 0.13
Coach 0.03
National Rail 0.04


Cruise ships aren't listed, but are significantly worse than ferries because they carry around all the facilities that are unnecessary. E.g. multiple swimming pools!

I'm not sure these figures are correct for Ryanair and to a lesser extent Aer Lingus.
Even if their claimed figures .069kg per passenger don't include Radiative forcing the multiplier is 1.9 so they are considerably below the .16 mentioned in the table and radiative forcing should be reduced as they would never reach FL41 or stay at high altitudes for any long period of time.