Eikie
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2018 1:15 pm

Re: KLM calls for people to fly less

Mon Jul 15, 2019 5:22 pm

WayexTDI wrote:
767333ER wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
Do you have any statistical data??? Because train accidents in Europe are extremely rare, and deadly ones even more so.

Typical response, let’s pull out or geeky calculators and compute some numbers. The point is flying is still statistically safer and you can’t deny that, but I also feel safer flying. And who knows whack job will hop on the train and do something stupid with all the dangerous nationalism on the rise in Europe.

So, you're saying flying is statistically safer, but cannot pull said statistics...

You might feel safer flying, but, when all hell breaks loose, chances of survival are much greater in a train...
I do feel safe flying, have no problem with it; I feel safer on a train.

Do you really believe that dangerous nationalists haven't done anything to airplanes? Ever heard of MH17?

According to the European railway agency, the number of fatalities per billion passenger km are 0.16 for trains and .010 for planes, but these figures are from 2008-2010, not sure if those are still comparable.

https://international-railway-safety-co ... tatistics/
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1173
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: KLM calls for people to fly less

Mon Jul 15, 2019 5:57 pm

Eikie wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
767333ER wrote:
Typical response, let’s pull out or geeky calculators and compute some numbers. The point is flying is still statistically safer and you can’t deny that, but I also feel safer flying. And who knows whack job will hop on the train and do something stupid with all the dangerous nationalism on the rise in Europe.

So, you're saying flying is statistically safer, but cannot pull said statistics...

You might feel safer flying, but, when all hell breaks loose, chances of survival are much greater in a train...
I do feel safe flying, have no problem with it; I feel safer on a train.

Do you really believe that dangerous nationalists haven't done anything to airplanes? Ever heard of MH17?

According to the European railway agency, the number of fatalities per billion passenger km are 0.16 for trains and .010 for planes, but these figures are from 2008-2010, not sure if those are still comparable.

https://international-railway-safety-co ... tatistics/

That's very interesting data; might be skewed by the huge number of very short trips that some trains take (subways and city trains), and by the much greater distance flown by airplanes.

Actually, it's 0.16 for train and 0.10 for planes; so, basically, 60% greater risk.
Plane is safer; train is still very safe.
 
birdbrainz
Posts: 493
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 6:57 am

Re: KLM calls for people to fly less

Mon Jul 15, 2019 6:42 pm

AirFiero wrote:
This carbon dioxide reduction bogeyman is turning out to be the biggest scam in human history.


Amen, but you're a brave soul to say it.

The reason for the fixation on CO2 is that you can weaponize it to push renewables and control fossil fuel usage, and at the end of the day, it's all about global control and telling anyone, anywhere what they can and cannot do. The global control folks would be deeply distraught if climate change was shown to be driven by ocean currents, solar cycles, or volcanoes because they can't control them with legislation. Ironically, those folks are going after the airlines in a big way, all while flying private jets to meetings like COP21.

Anyhow, back to airplanes...
A good landing is one you can walk away from. A great landing is if the aircraft can be flown again.
 
leghorn
Posts: 880
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 9:13 am

Re: KLM calls for people to fly less

Mon Jul 15, 2019 7:45 pm

My conspiracy theory is that the powers that be in Europe want to get away from highly politicized Oil products but rather than offending the Arabs and Russians they are claiming to be against CO2 so that their oil suppliers don't take offence.
The monied in the Arab states and Russian will still buy their luxury products and armaments until the money runs out or those places implode.
US can still stoke those wasp nests but Europe wants out because it is all more trouble than it is worth.

There are some very clear CO2 reduction targets for European Countries and that will lead to or is caused by a reduction in demand for Oil from Europe. How best not to offend those Countries which has been shown to take offence easily.
 
User avatar
andrefranca
Posts: 882
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2011 4:10 am

Re: KLM calls for people to fly less

Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:27 pm

Sokes wrote:
andrefranca wrote:
not going to fly less, or recycle or anything, there is 60% less of animals now because of us, humans HAVE to go...

I don't understand. Can you give an example?


https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... port-finds

What I mean is: we should speed up current life extinction, for a new rebirth of life on earth as we have failed.
Andre F. :blockhead:
 
TObound
Posts: 311
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

Re: KLM calls for people to fly less

Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:49 pm

Boy is this thread embarrassing.
 
windy95
Posts: 2749
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:11 pm

Re: KLM calls for people to fly less

Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:04 am

MIflyer12 wrote:
spinotter wrote:
And everyone and everything needs to be refashioned so that less CO2 emissions are produced.


You're going to find a lot of people in this forum who do not accept the science behind that position.


Because it is mostly political science behind that position.
 
Sokes
Posts: 239
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: KLM calls for people to fly less

Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:07 am

767333ER wrote:
I’d rather fly because it’s safer than the train will ever be.


Do you have a car?

767333ER wrote:
And who knows whack job will hop on the train and do something stupid with all the dangerous nationalism on the rise in Europe.


I take the risk. But maybe I should stop putting sugar in my tea.

Eikie wrote:
According to the European railway agency, the number of fatalities per billion passenger km are 0.16 for trains and .010 for planes, but these figures are from 2008-2010, not sure if those are still comparable.

https://international-railway-safety-co ... tatistics/


Thanks for adding facts.
Why is the safety of the different modes of transport measured in fatalities/ billion passenger km?
Considering that suburban rail carries massive amounts of people for 10 km or so a statistic in which trains are similar save as planes is impressive.
What about comparing modes of transport for below 800 km and include the risk of travel to the airport?
What about fatalities/ travel? All the suburban commuters will put planes into shame. Statistically speaking, as planes are of course perfectly save.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
Sokes
Posts: 239
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: KLM calls for people to fly less

Tue Jul 16, 2019 2:33 am

NASA pictures of the lights at night on earth:
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/30028
If one scrolls down to Europe it becomes clear that KLM's interest in rail is not caused by CO2 or traffic safety concerns, but by profit motive.
I quote again some posts concerning intermodal transport. Maybe we can discuss from there.

post 34:
PHLCVGAMTK wrote:
KLM's fortress hub has excellent integrated rail service, and a long-haul catchment monopoly that's bigger than the country itself. Does KLM want its marginal slot going to a Cityhopper E175 to the Midlands, or a 767 to the Midwest?


post 67:
GianiDC wrote:
ME720 wrote:
A smart PR move. Free publicity, without them having to take any measures to reduce air travel. Had they been serious they could have taken this opportunity to announce axing their ridiculous AMS-BRU route. 1h30’ by train between both cities.


I guess most of the pax onboard the BRU-AMS flights are connecting passengers to all over the world. So if KL would axe the route connecting passengers will use CDG, LHR, FRA, etc..
That´s the problem with these short haul flights and what many people not that interested in aviation forget. The O&D demand by air on these routes is close too 0. It is basically all connecting traffic.
In germany there is quite a lot of discussion of the NUE-MUC route operated by LH. It´s extremly short haul and nobody who really wants to travel between the 2 cities flies it. Again all connecting traffic.
...



post 73:
afcjets wrote:
Since AMS is constrained, I think KL is going to launch ground transportation, sorta like CO or UA did at EWR with buses that they gave flight numbers. Hopefully it won't be that bad though.



post 120:
Jetty wrote:
The Dutch railways are the most congested in Europe; currently there is no capacity for a true feeder network. KLM has consistently called for investments in high-speed rail infrastructure to neigboring countries. In that sense this add is nothing new, KLM has even participated in a high-speed train company already more than a decade ago.
...
KLM has said it will ditch the BRU route as they've already done with national routes when that rail-line becomes more reliable, currently there are many trains but reliability is bad.


post 139:
Chasensfo wrote:
Connections at AMS are a huge part of KLM's market. Maybe someone who lives in AMS has no desire to deal with the airport to get to BRU for example, but I'm sure the person who already came off another flight and is at the airport would much rather hop on the next flight than leave the airport and get on a train. Look up how many local pax at SFO fly to FAT, SMF, STS, ect and it is next to nothing. Yet, the flights fill up. If KLM drops BRU, people won't say "Well I'm still going to fly SFO-AMS on KLM then take the train", they'll simply connect elsewhere on another carrier.


post 160:
VSMUT wrote:
They are only rough numbers, but CO2 emissions per km per passenger are:
Plane: 223 grams
Ferry: 170 grams
Diesel car: 160 grams
Train: 37 grams
Bus: 27 grams


post 180:
jetfan wrote:
The governments should stop subsidizing ridiculous small regional airports and invest all the saved money in fast and affordable train connections. Indeed for a country like Germany maybe 4-5 airports are sufficient if well linked to the high speed rail system.
Small regional airports can only offer a very limited number of destinations, but very short local connections in a small country make little sense and clog up the airspace, causing delays and even more pollution from waiting and circling regional flights.
KLM is right here, connect to an efficient airport by train and fly the routes which make sense to fly.

You yourself say the numbers are rough. To keep in mind:
CO2/ (passenger km) of a 500 km vs 4,000 km vs 10,000 km flight
CO2/ (passenger km) of a light train with 140 km/ h vs heavy train with 230 km/ h

To travel 120 km:
4 hours at 30 km/ h
3 hours at 40 km/ h
2 hours at 60 km/h
1h 20m at 90 km/ h
1 hour at 120 km/ h
45 min at 160 km/ h
36 min at 200 km/ h
30 min at 240 km/ h
24 min at 300 km/ h
20 min at 360 km/ h

In reality one can't save 10 min between 240 km/ h and 360 km/ h as the train has to accelerate out of the stations. In Germany old high speed trains have a possible max speed of 330 km/ h. The new ones have 230/ 250 km/ h. We are again going back on speed.
The French had problems when in winter ice fell from trains. Gravel shot up and damaged the floor of trains. Bigger gravel solves that problem.
To build a bridge the train weight is not the problem. The horizontal forces when a train breaks at 300 km/ h are.
Trains in Germany are allowed to drive "on sight" only till 160 km/ h. Faster trains requires technology to look behind the curve.
At high speeds crosswinds become a problem. The track Munich- Nuernberg was built for high speed. If one isn't in tunnels one looks at embarkments which protects the train from winds. Anti-romanticism.
People love their car as long as the road is free. Getting stuck in a traffic jam sucks. Metros/ suburban trains speed up average travel time at low speeds which lead to an enormous amount of time saved and nerves spared. I think people get too excited about high speed rail. Time saved beyond 160 km/ h becomes small and costs increase. However if the journey is the destination to look out of the window 140 km/ h is comfortable.

Here the discussion about airports with train connections:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1358631

I find it annoying if airports don't have train/ bus connections to nearby cities. I think hubs require bus connections to all cities within 500 km or so.
I remember I was among the last on one flight because the local bus from the city center to the airport took more than one and a half hours. I was young and assumed a much shorter time.

How much influence does the taxi lobby have?
What are your experiences?
Anybody is aware of plannings for bus connections to far away cities which were dropped for financial reasons?
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 1676
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Re: KLM calls for people to fly less

Tue Jul 16, 2019 3:27 am

What he really meant to say is....”AMS is capacity limited, no one will let us build another airport, so please stop flying on all these low cost carriers”.
Welcome to Nothingburgers. May I take your order?
 
CityRail
Posts: 57
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 1:26 am

Re: KLM calls for people to fly less

Tue Jul 16, 2019 3:59 am

I think if KLM is serious, they should advocate for LCCs in Europe to be shut down, and that passengers who cannot afford to fly Premium Economy or Business Class should not be flying.

我從使用 Tapatalk 的 SM-A7050 發送
 
Sokes
Posts: 239
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: KLM calls for people to fly less

Tue Jul 16, 2019 5:03 am

About intermodal transport at the new Peking airport:
"The new airport is to serve passengers from 28 cities, who would be able to reach the airport within three hours via high-speed rail."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/as ... 1c34c91d9e

From the Indian newspaper "Economic Times", 1.7.19:
"The project cost 120 billion Yuan ($17,5 billion), or 400 billion, if rail and road links are included."

I assume the cost of high speed railway which was to be built anyway was included in that. It's all not precise enough. Anybody has a railway map or a number how many inhabitants live within three hours train ride from the airport?
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
VSMUT
Posts: 2912
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: KLM calls for people to fly less

Tue Jul 16, 2019 6:00 am

Sokes wrote:
In Germany old high speed trains have a possible max speed of 330 km/ h. The new ones have 230/ 250 km/ h. We are again going back on speed.


Not quite true. The original ICE 1 and ICE 2 has a top speed of 250. ICE 3 increased that to 320 and Velaro D at 330.

ICE 4 will do 250, which seems like a step in the wrong direction, but it is the replacement of not just ICE 1 and ICE 2, but also the older IC trains which did no more than 200. ICE 4 is actually going to increase the speed somewhat on the IC lines it is replacing, while matching the ICE 1.
 
Planetalk
Posts: 410
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 5:12 pm

Re: KLM calls for people to fly less

Tue Jul 16, 2019 11:21 am

767333ER wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
767333ER wrote:
I’d rather fly because it’s safer than the train will ever be.

Do you have any statistical data??? Because train accidents in Europe are extremely rare, and deadly ones even more so.

Typical response, let’s pull out or geeky calculators and compute some numbers. The point is flying is still statistically safer and you can’t deny that, but I also feel safer flying. And who knows whack job will hop on the train and do something stupid with all the dangerous nationalism on the rise in Europe.


Actually I believe trains are statistically safer. Especially on a per journey basis on which they're vastly safer than planes. So for shortish journeys where they are a genuine choice, they're the safer option.

As for geeky calculators, im more bothered about pollution which already kills 9 million people globally a year, than a whackbobv on a train. But humans are emotional rather than rational so they get far more scared of the actually far lesser threat.

Even if climate change didn't exist we should still be doing something about pollution. Its incredible how completely ignorant people seem to be of our privilige to have been given this one planet, and have no qualms about destroying it. I do feel liknd of sorry for people who are unable to appreciate the beauty of our world, and would rather lose that, than have to fly a little less.

Then again there are also people who call measles a 'harmless disease' and don't understand even if there is a tiny risk the vaccination causes autism (which it doesn't) that's still far preferable to the greater risk of kids dying and being crippled for life again by the diseases the vaccine prevents.

If you don't trust science you probably shouldn't get on a plane. And put down that phone that is definitely giving you cancer.
 
User avatar
N14AZ
Posts: 3774
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:19 pm

Re: KLM calls for people to fly less

Tue Jul 16, 2019 11:47 am

VSMUT wrote:
Sokes wrote:
In Germany old high speed trains have a possible max speed of 330 km/ h. The new ones have 230/ 250 km/ h. We are again going back on speed.


Not quite true. The original ICE 1 and ICE 2 has a top speed of 250. ICE 3 increased that to 320 and Velaro D at 330.

ICE 4 will do 250, which seems like a step in the wrong direction, but it is the replacement of not just ICE 1 and ICE 2, but also the older IC trains which did no more than 200. ICE 4 is actually going to increase the speed somewhat on the IC lines it is replacing, while matching the ICE 1.

There are some sections where the ICE 1 drives up to 280 km/h:
Seit Mitte 2006 verkehren auf der Neubaustrecke Nürnberg–Ingolstadt und seit 2008 auch zwischen Hannover und Würzburg wieder einzelne ICE-1-Züge mit 280 km/h. Zum Fahrplanwechsel am 13. Dezember 2009 wurde die fahrplanmäßig zulässige Geschwindigkeit auf der Neubaustrecke Nürnberg–Ingolstadt sowie auf Teilabschnitten der Schnellfahrstrecken Hannover–Würzburg und Mannheim–Stuttgart generell wieder auf 280 km/h angehoben.

Source: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICE_1#Regelbetrieb

I learned this when DB replaced the ICE 1 on my daily route with an ICE 4. I have 14 minutes time to change train to get onto my regional train, which in 80% of all cases was sufficient to change train. But since DB changed from ICE 1 to ICE 4 I regularly miss my connection. So I started to investigate why and I learned that the ICE 4 has a lower maximum speed of 250 km/h only whereas the good old ICE 1 often drove faster to compensate the usual delays.

This has been confirmed to me by DB employees.

VSMUT wrote:
ICE 4 will do 250, which seems like a step in the wrong direction

There are considerations to increase the top speed from 250 to 260 but I don't know the state of the approval process...
Intern bereitet die Bahn deshalb nach Informationen des SPIEGEL eine neue Pünktlichkeitsoffensive vor: Sie will in den kommenden Monaten die Spitzengeschwindigkeit ihrer neuen ICE-Züge der 4. Generation von 250 auf 265 km/h anheben. Nach Informationen des SPIEGEL sollen die Siemens-Züge dadurch Verspätungen einholen können.

Source: https://www.spiegel.de/reise/aktuell/de ... 20515.html
 
Sokes
Posts: 239
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: KLM calls for people to fly less

Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:18 pm

VSMUT wrote:
Sokes wrote:
In Germany old high speed trains have a possible max speed of 330 km/ h. The new ones have 230/ 250 km/ h. We are again going back on speed.


Not quite true. The original ICE 1 and ICE 2 has a top speed of 250. ICE 3 increased that to 320 and Velaro D at 330.

ICE 4 will do 250, which seems like a step in the wrong direction, but it is the replacement of not just ICE 1 and ICE 2, but also the older IC trains which did no more than 200. ICE 4 is actually going to increase the speed somewhat on the IC lines it is replacing, while matching the ICE 1.

As the topic is KLM recommending railways I feel free to speak about railways. Those not interested in trains please don't read it.

Is 250 km/h top speed railway policy?
"Starting 29 May 1995, ICE 1 trains were allowed to travel at their top speed of 280 km/h ..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICE_1#Further_Development

ICE 2 are also 280km/ h top speed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICE_2

Another question is if one wants to see the ICE 4 as a replacement of ICE 1 and ICE 2 or as a replacement for max 200 km/ h IC trains.
The track gauge of ICE 1 and ICE 2 are the same as all other trains. However the structure gauge is not. High speed rail was built with more space between the tracks (and side) and ICE 1 and ICE 2 are broader than ICs. Strange that German railways replaces them with a "one size fits all" approach.

While top speed decreased, power didn't:
ICE 1: 10,6 kW/ t
ICE 2: 9,5 kW/ t
ICE 4: 13,1 kW/ t
Suburb train class 423: 19,7 kW/ t, top speed 140 km/ h
(all weights taken as during operations)

ICE 1 and ICE 2 are not Multiple Electrical Units. ICE 1 is long and powered at both ends. ICE 2 is shorter and powered only at one end. ICE 2 has some issues with wind at high speed, ICE 1 doesn't.
ICE 2 will be replaced. Because of the wind issues?
ICE 1 will be shortened, but not replaced. Apparently 10 kW/ t or so is not considered enough to get back to speed after the many stops the German rail network has. So what influence does power/ weight and what influence does maximum speed have on travel time?

I forgot to mention that new high speed tracks usually shorten travel time quite a lot. Distances are shorter.
What makes me suspicious: I am not aware that it was ever tried on a high speed track to send one train with 300 km/ h and another immediately after with 200 km/ h. What would be the price difference people are willing to pay between these two trains?
There are slower trains on Munich-Nuernberg. But they make more stops. They also don't proceed beyond Nuernberg. Therefore not a good experimental setup. Shouldn't politics try something like this first before committing to a full high speed network?
Contradicting reasoning:
Most taxes are paid by few people who wish to travel fast. Even though I think high speed rail is a waste of money, I admit society owes to these main taxpayers.
As long as I don't have to travel through embarkments.
I suppose a track for 230-250 km/ h allows those who need to save a few minutes to do so and others to enjoy the view from a slower and cheaper train.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
Sokes
Posts: 239
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: KLM calls for people to fly less

Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:42 pm

N14AZ wrote:
I have 14 minutes time to change train to get onto my regional train, which in 80% of all cases was sufficient to change train. But since DB changed from ICE 1 to ICE 4 I regularly miss my connection. So I started to investigate why and I learned that the ICE 4 has a lower maximum speed of 250 km/h only whereas the good old ICE 1 often drove faster to compensate the usual delays.

This has been confirmed to me by DB employees.

I suppose the regional train is willing to wait a few minutes for people to change if both trains arrive at the same time.
(14min + time) x 250 km/ h = time x 280 km/h
time = 116,6 min
You would have to drive nearly two hours at 280 km/ h which means 546 km or so to save 14 minutes. That is if the train doesn't stop in between.
However as the ICE 4 has more power/ weight and accelerates faster 556 km wouldn't be enough.

It's theoretical. I assume your train is more like half hour delayed and the regional train can't wait more than a certain time.
Why is this train so often delayed? Is there a part of the track where the train has to share track with regional and suburban trains?
I don't know the circumstances, but it sounds to me that more tracks are required somewhere.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
User avatar
CFM565A1
Posts: 385
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 7:19 pm

Re: KLM calls for people to fly less

Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:52 pm

Planetalk wrote:
767333ER wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
Do you have any statistical data??? Because train accidents in Europe are extremely rare, and deadly ones even more so.

Typical response, let’s pull out or geeky calculators and compute some numbers. The point is flying is still statistically safer and you can’t deny that, but I also feel safer flying. And who knows whack job will hop on the train and do something stupid with all the dangerous nationalism on the rise in Europe.


Actually I believe trains are statistically safer. Especially on a per journey basis on which they're vastly safer than planes. So for shortish journeys where they are a genuine choice, they're the safer option.

As for geeky calculators, im more bothered about pollution which already kills 9 million people globally a year, than a whackbobv on a train. But humans are emotional rather than rational so they get far more scared of the actually far lesser threat.

Even if climate change didn't exist we should still be doing something about pollution. Its incredible how completely ignorant people seem to be of our privilige to have been given this one planet, and have no qualms about destroying it. I do feel liknd of sorry for people who are unable to appreciate the beauty of our world, and would rather lose that, than have to fly a little less.

Then again there are also people who call measles a 'harmless disease' and don't understand even if there is a tiny risk the vaccination causes autism (which it doesn't) that's still far preferable to the greater risk of kids dying and being crippled for life again by the diseases the vaccine prevents.

If you don't trust science you probably shouldn't get on a plane. And put down that phone that is definitely giving you cancer.


How absolutely bloody naive! A few jets flying around vs trains is the pinnacle of pollution in your mind?

I guess you’re the type who tucks tail and doesn’t go after the real problems like India, China, and the Alberta Oil sands, or even the American coal industry. Those are the real problems accelerating the climate change crisis.

Planes vs trains is the absolute tip of the iceberg and a very convenient cop out to stopping the real polluters!
Flown: C172-M/N/P/R/S , P2006T, PA-34-200T, DH8A/C Been on: B1900D, DH8A/C ERJ-145, CRJ-100/200, DH8D, CRJ-700/705/900, E-175/190, A319/320/321, 737-200/300/400/600/700/800/900ER/M8, MD-82/83, 757-200/300, 767-300, A330-300, 787-9, 777-300ER, F28-4000.
 
User avatar
767333ER
Posts: 969
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:14 am

Re: KLM calls for people to fly less

Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:56 pm

Planetalk wrote:
767333ER wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
Do you have any statistical data??? Because train accidents in Europe are extremely rare, and deadly ones even more so.

Typical response, let’s pull out or geeky calculators and compute some numbers. The point is flying is still statistically safer and you can’t deny that, but I also feel safer flying. And who knows whack job will hop on the train and do something stupid with all the dangerous nationalism on the rise in Europe.


Actually I believe trains are statistically safer. Especially on a per journey basis on which they're vastly safer than planes. So for shortish journeys where they are a genuine choice, they're the safer option.

As for geeky calculators, im more bothered about pollution which already kills 9 million people globally a year, than a whackbobv on a train. But humans are emotional rather than rational so they get far more scared of the actually far lesser threat.

Even if climate change didn't exist we should still be doing something about pollution. Its incredible how completely ignorant people seem to be of our privilige to have been given this one planet, and have no qualms about destroying it. I do feel liknd of sorry for people who are unable to appreciate the beauty of our world, and would rather lose that, than have to fly a little less.

Then again there are also people who call measles a 'harmless disease' and don't understand even if there is a tiny risk the vaccination causes autism (which it doesn't) that's still far preferable to the greater risk of kids dying and being crippled for life again by the diseases the vaccine prevents.

If you don't trust science you probably shouldn't get on a plane. And put down that phone that is definitely giving you cancer.

Flying on KLM’s E90 and 737 isn’t what’s killing our world. China, India, and the filthy tar sands a few hours north of where I live is what’s doing it. Science would indicate this as well, the leading cause of world pollution is not intra European air travel and cutting that out is a drop in the bucket so why bother telling us how to live our lives. Until the place where I live quits generating power with coal and many other places follow, it’s a waste of time, but that ain’t gonna happen soon because we keep electing conservatives and now Europe is doing the same but pulling even harder to the right. Flying jets isn’t the difference between destroying our world and not, burning coal, drilling for oil, and oh yes mining lithium for Elon's Plastic cars is as well.

Climate change exists and I’m not denying that, but this ultra-green movement is pointing at many of the wrong things. It’s basically a let’s punish the average person rather than go after the real polluters move because that’s what that movement really seems to be about as far as I can tell.

And I can’t believe how anyone could thing a cellphone’s radio waves will contribute to cancer, I sure don’t. Anyone who does think so doesn’t know much about EM radiation.
Been on: 732 733 734 73G 738 752 763 A319 A320 A321 CRJ CR7 CRA/CR9 E145 E175 E190 F28 MD-82 MD-83 C172R C172S P2006T
 
Sokes
Posts: 239
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: KLM calls for people to fly less

Tue Jul 16, 2019 1:09 pm

andrefranca wrote:
Sokes wrote:
andrefranca wrote:
not going to fly less, or recycle or anything, there is 60% less of animals now because of us, humans HAVE to go...

I don't understand. Can you give an example?


https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... port-finds

What I mean is: we should speed up current life extinction, for a new rebirth of life on earth as we have failed.


I assume for most readers here on a-net your idea is too radical. Therefore recommended reading for the more conservative among us:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Po_(lateral_thinking)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking_outside_the_box
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
SeoulIncheon
Posts: 58
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2018 4:52 am

Re: KLM calls for people to fly less

Tue Jul 16, 2019 1:25 pm

birdbrainz wrote:
AirFiero wrote:
This carbon dioxide reduction bogeyman is turning out to be the biggest scam in human history.


Amen, but you're a brave soul to say it.

The reason for the fixation on CO2 is that you can weaponize it to push renewables and control fossil fuel usage, and at the end of the day, it's all about global control and telling anyone, anywhere what they can and cannot do. The global control folks would be deeply distraught if climate change was shown to be driven by ocean currents, solar cycles, or volcanoes because they can't control them with legislation. Ironically, those folks are going after the airlines in a big way, all while flying private jets to meetings like COP21.

Anyhow, back to airplanes...


Every dictator, even the most horrendous ones, has excuses to make. For Hitler, it was for the "greater community of Germans", for Japanese Imperialism(Hideki Tojo) it was "liberation of Asians from the tyranny of West". For Stalin, "eqality and paradise of the proletariat", for Kim of North Korea and Mao of PR China, "liberation of Koreans/Chinese people from the threat of Western Imoerialism."
For the so-called environmentalists (many of whom have affiliations with communists), it is "threat of climate change."
 
User avatar
N14AZ
Posts: 3774
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:19 pm

Re: KLM calls for people to fly less

Tue Jul 16, 2019 1:30 pm

Sokes wrote:
N14AZ wrote:
I have 14 minutes time to change train to get onto my regional train, which in 80% of all cases was sufficient to change train. But since DB changed from ICE 1 to ICE 4 I regularly miss my connection. So I started to investigate why and I learned that the ICE 4 has a lower maximum speed of 250 km/h only whereas the good old ICE 1 often drove faster to compensate the usual delays.

This has been confirmed to me by DB employees.

I suppose the regional train is willing to wait a few minutes for people to change if both trains arrive at the same time.
(14min + time) x 250 km/ h = time x 280 km/h
time = 116,6 min
You would have to drive nearly two hours at 280 km/ h which means 546 km or so to save 14 minutes. That is if the train doesn't stop in between.
However as the ICE 4 has more power/ weight and accelerates faster 556 km wouldn't be enough.

It's theoretical. I assume your train is more like half hour delayed and the regional train can't wait more than a certain time.
Why is this train so often delayed?

How much time do you have? ;-) I am afraid we are going off-topic. But that being said, it’s about trains as an alternative to short flights so maybe it’s acceptable for the moderators. Often enough, I see passengers who want to drive to Frankfurt airport with horror in their face when they make the first delay announcements in the train…

One reason is that Frankfurt is one main traffic hub and my high speed train never departs on time. It’s usually five to ten minutes later than scheduled departure time. After the late departure additional delays accumulate (see next points). With the old ICE 1 this was no problem as reported above.
Sokes wrote:
N14AZ wrote:
I have 14 minutes time to change train to get onto my regional train, which in 80% of all cases was sufficient to change train. But since DB changed from ICE 1 to ICE 4 I regularly miss my connection. So I started to investigate why and I learned that the ICE 4 has a lower maximum speed of 250 km/h only whereas the good old ICE 1 often drove faster to compensate the usual delays.

I suppose the regional train is willing to wait a few minutes for people to change if both trains arrive at the same time.

Nope, "he" is very intolerant. Often enough I can even touch the regional train but then it already leaves without me since the doors are already closed. I think regional operations and high speed trains are like two different deparments that do not cooperate well.

Sokes wrote:
Is there a part of the track where the train has to share track with regional and suburban trains?
I don't know the circumstances, but it sounds to me that more tracks are required somewhere.

Yes, this seems to be one of the problems. The high speed train shares the tracks with regional trains between Frankfurt and Fulda and often he has to drive slowly due to a regional train ahead.


Again, I hope this is not considered as being off-topic but it illustrates that it‘s not so easy with switching from airplane to train.
 
Planetalk
Posts: 410
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 5:12 pm

Re: KLM calls for people to fly less

Tue Jul 16, 2019 4:23 pm

SeoulIncheon wrote:
birdbrainz wrote:
AirFiero wrote:
This carbon dioxide reduction bogeyman is turning out to be the biggest scam in human history.


Amen, but you're a brave soul to say it.

The reason for the fixation on CO2 is that you can weaponize it to push renewables and control fossil fuel usage, and at the end of the day, it's all about global control and telling anyone, anywhere what they can and cannot do. The global control folks would be deeply distraught if climate change was shown to be driven by ocean currents, solar cycles, or volcanoes because they can't control them with legislation. Ironically, those folks are going after the airlines in a big way, all while flying private jets to meetings like COP21.

Anyhow, back to airplanes...


Every dictator, even the most horrendous ones, has excuses to make. For Hitler, it was for the "greater community of Germans", for Japanese Imperialism(Hideki Tojo) it was "liberation of Asians from the tyranny of West". For Stalin, "eqality and paradise of the proletariat", for Kim of North Korea and Mao of PR China, "liberation of Koreans/Chinese people from the threat of Western Imoerialism."
For the so-called environmentalists (many of whom have affiliations with communists), it is "threat of climate change."


Well one scientific law has been proven to hold in this discussion, Godwin's law ;)

If environmentalism is a communist belief, it's strange the theory and requirement for environmental regulation is included in every orthodox Microeconomics textbook out there. People's complete ignorance of what capitalism is, and that regulation is actually a core part of making it work is astounding. And that's what leads to the 737-MAX.

If so-called environmentalists are dictators, they're not very good at it are they? Since as others have noted, most countries are blindly ignoring the need to do anything. And yes I agree there are far bigger and more urgent issues, that doesn't mean aviation gets a free pass. Again, nuance, it doesn't have to be one or the other.

Someone mentioned something about punishing the average person. I don't see how suggesting considering whether you take a train rather than a plane occasionally is punishing anyone. No-one with any power is trying to stop any of you doing anything so just calm down. A lot of people are probably ingrained in old habits and might well try it and find the train is actually better.
 
User avatar
BN727227Ultra
Posts: 612
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 7:15 pm

Re: KLM calls for people to fly less

Tue Jul 16, 2019 4:37 pm

In the US at least, if a CEO or other corporate official was bad-mouthing his own company, he'd be in breach of his duties and should be shown the door. Larger shareholders would hire a hit man.

And on the subject of green-washing and similar virtue-signalling, BP in the US was cited as spending more money on proclaiming their backing of alternative fuels, than they actually spent on R&D and production of same. And this was before Deepwater Horizon, BTW.
 
THS214
Posts: 218
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2017 4:01 pm

Re: KLM calls for people to fly less

Tue Jul 16, 2019 5:10 pm

spinotter wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
spinotter wrote:

In Europe this is more often the case. Listen people, either we are serious about the measures we adopt to lessen the harmful effects of travel, or we are not. I know it's a heartbreaking realization on a website like a.net, but human beings, do you want your descendants to live and prosper or not? If so, there are a lot of current habits which need to be changed, including LESS travel altogether - less airline travel, less train travel, less automobile travel, more bicycling and mor walking - and for people to fashion their lives so that MUCH less travel is necessary.

In Europe, this is not often the case.

Businesses are usually on the outside of city centers; because the cost of offices within city centers have skyrocketed and because there was not enough space to put more offices.

Yes, measures need to be taken to lessen the effects of travel, I agree. Not sure people traveling by train vs planes will have that great of an impact; start putting trucks and merchandise on trains, this will have a much greater impact.


And everyone and everything needs to be refashioned so that less CO2 emissions are produced. And even beyond that, so that people in general can all live a life where no automobile, train, or airplane travel is necessary. It can be done. Just as the production of these mountains of plastics and other human polluting agents can be controlled. It is a question whether we have the wisdom to choose that path. If not, then sayonara human race.


Been tried where I live and its a nightmare. Plenty of apartments but no services as its not profitable.Sure if you like living isolated with one grocery store that is great. Local traffic doesn't work. A local railroad station is close but all buildings have to be tall to get apartments there and then there are no sunlight. It is proven that 1 km is the limit. When people live further away from services, transport etc. its getting difficult if you don't have a car.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 2912
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: KLM calls for people to fly less

Tue Jul 16, 2019 5:32 pm

N14AZ wrote:
There are some sections where the ICE 1 drives up to 280 km/h:

I learned this when DB replaced the ICE 1 on my daily route with an ICE 4. I have 14 minutes time to change train to get onto my regional train, which in 80% of all cases was sufficient to change train. But since DB changed from ICE 1 to ICE 4 I regularly miss my connection. So I started to investigate why and I learned that the ICE 4 has a lower maximum speed of 250 km/h only whereas the good old ICE 1 often drove faster to compensate the usual delays.


Interesting. They never exceed 250 on my line.

Sokes wrote:
Another question is if one wants to see the ICE 4 as a replacement of ICE 1 and ICE 2 or as a replacement for max 200 km/ h IC trains.
The track gauge of ICE 1 and ICE 2 are the same as all other trains. However the structure gauge is not. High speed rail was built with more space between the tracks (and side) and ICE 1 and ICE 2 are broader than ICs. Strange that German railways replaces them with a "one size fits all" approach.


They aren't. The IC trains are being replaced by 2 new trains. The faster services by ICE 4, but on slower routes they replaced it with the 160 km/h IC2, which are Bombardier Twindexx carriages pulled by a locomotive. Even the ICE 4 will come in 2 variants.

Sokes wrote:
While top speed decreased, power didn't:
ICE 1: 10,6 kW/ t
ICE 2: 9,5 kW/ t
ICE 4: 13,1 kW/ t
Suburb train class 423: 19,7 kW/ t, top speed 140 km/ h
(all weights taken as during operations)


More power means faster acceleration and the ability to climb steep inclinations, even without losing any speed. The really fast line between Frankfurt and Köln supposedly can't service the ICE 1 and ICE 2, because it is too steep. Of interesting note, ICE 4 also uses less energy than the 1 and 2.
You would also naturally get more power from going with the multiple-unit approach, than with the old locomotive drawn method.



Sokes wrote:
ICE 1 and ICE 2 are not Multiple Electrical Units. ICE 1 is long and powered at both ends. ICE 2 is shorter and powered only at one end. ICE 2 has some issues with wind at high speed, ICE 1 doesn't.
ICE 2 will be replaced. Because of the wind issues?


ICE 1 and 2 will be phased out because of age.

Sokes wrote:
ICE 1 will be shortened, but not replaced. Apparently 10 kW/ t or so is not considered enough to get back to speed after the many stops the German rail network has. So what influence does power/ weight and what influence does maximum speed have on travel time?


I haven't heard of this. There were shorter ones in the past, but when the ICE 2 came they turned them all into 12-carriage sets.
ICE 1s are very, very long, and thus more inflexible. DB seems to prefer smaller trains that can be coupled together for the same capacity or more flexibility depending on time of days.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 3894
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: KLM calls for people to fly less

Tue Jul 16, 2019 6:00 pm

Spoken by an Airline with very little domestic content. Were they speaking for Air France as well??
 
Absynth
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2019 5:37 pm

Re: KLM calls for people to fly less

Tue Jul 16, 2019 7:06 pm

blockski wrote:
We do, in fact, have scientific evidence of what's necessary to avert catastrophe. For example, the IPCC's most recent report looked into what would be require to limit warming to 1.5 deg C; the report looked at several pathways to that goal.



This is exactly what the alarmists fail to understand. We know to a certain extent what X amount of carbon emmissions causes an Y amount of temperature rise. But what hasn't been proven is the effects of said temperature rise.

The whole climategate scandal has effectively been wiped under the rug, but anyone quoting IPCC reports has serious egg on their face regarding the effects of 1.5 degrees global warming. Can you point me to the exact critical temperature that averts catastrophe? Can you state what the exact effects are of 1.5 degrees versus 1.3 degrees or 1.8 degrees? The medieval warming period - which on all accounts before climategate was warmer then global temperature nowadays - has been effectively erased from history by fraud so IPCC can claim we are already in unchartered territories.

This comic by XKCD effectively denies the medieval warming period by calling it a 'local event' when there is proof from China and other places they witnessed the exact same rise in temperature. Not so local anymore then, and that global temperature timeline falls to shambles. Just check consecutive IPCC reports from 1990 (1st) - 2007 (4th) and you can see the MWP gradually being erased from science through 'selective', no make that proven fraudulent usage of temperature markers. I have yet to see any alarmist address climategate.

Now, back to KLM. As a dutchman very familiar with Amsterdam, Schiphol, Brussels I have to agree this is textbook corporate virtue signalling. I've missed planes myself by using trains (a suicide jump had my trip delayed by 90 minutes - enough to miss my flight), never again. So I echo others that KLM needs to put their money where their mouth is: cancel those short haul feeders, BXL-AMS being the most offending flight there is and replace it with combined train-flight tickets that allow you the same privileges (caused by delays) and offers a better seamless experience. Until I see concrete actions in this direction, this is just a cynical play for the hearts and minds of all those people that suffer from 'flight shame'.
 
blockski
Posts: 512
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:30 pm

Re: KLM calls for people to fly less

Tue Jul 16, 2019 7:55 pm

Absynth wrote:
blockski wrote:
We do, in fact, have scientific evidence of what's necessary to avert catastrophe. For example, the IPCC's most recent report looked into what would be require to limit warming to 1.5 deg C; the report looked at several pathways to that goal.



This is exactly what the alarmists fail to understand. We know to a certain extent what X amount of carbon emmissions causes an Y amount of temperature rise. But what hasn't been proven is the effects of said temperature rise.

The whole climategate scandal has effectively been wiped under the rug, but anyone quoting IPCC reports has serious egg on their face regarding the effects of 1.5 degrees global warming. Can you point me to the exact critical temperature that averts catastrophe? Can you state what the exact effects are of 1.5 degrees versus 1.3 degrees or 1.8 degrees? The medieval warming period - which on all accounts before climategate was warmer then global temperature nowadays - has been effectively erased from history by fraud so IPCC can claim we are already in unchartered territories.


We're already feeling the effects, we know this is true. We also know that we've locked in a certain amount of warming due to the carbon we've already burned - this is just the basic physics and chemistry of combustion.

Based on that basic physics, we also know that more warming will be worse and less warming will be better. No one can state the exact effects of 1.3 vs. 1.5 vs. 1.8 degrees, but that's not the point: the directionality is clear, and all of the evidence we have shows that even 1.5 degrees of warming will carry tremendous costs. Not to mention that we're not even close to achieving 1.5 degrees, we're more on target for 4, 5, or 6 degrees of warming.

Each additional degree of warming is a dramatic increase in risk to human civilization. Not to mention that the clock is ticking, as we approach tipping points that cannot easily be stabilized (like melting of ice sheets).

There's a reason why 'climategate' has been swept under the rug, and that's because there's simply no there there. References to the Medieval Warm Period are a canard, mainly because we know a) it wasn't that warm, b) it wasn't uniformly warm across the globe, and c) we know what caused it - and it's not the same as what we're seeing today. The Medieval Warm Period was caused by a combination of higher solar activity and below-average volcanic activity on Earth. Add in the potential for different ocean currents and you can see why a place like Europe was much warmer than usual.
 
Absynth
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2019 5:37 pm

Re: KLM calls for people to fly less

Tue Jul 16, 2019 8:53 pm

blockski wrote:
Absynth wrote:
blockski wrote:
We do, in fact, have scientific evidence of what's necessary to avert catastrophe. For example, the IPCC's most recent report looked into what would be require to limit warming to 1.5 deg C; the report looked at several pathways to that goal.



This is exactly what the alarmists fail to understand. We know to a certain extent what X amount of carbon emmissions causes an Y amount of temperature rise. But what hasn't been proven is the effects of said temperature rise.

The whole climategate scandal has effectively been wiped under the rug, but anyone quoting IPCC reports has serious egg on their face regarding the effects of 1.5 degrees global warming. Can you point me to the exact critical temperature that averts catastrophe? Can you state what the exact effects are of 1.5 degrees versus 1.3 degrees or 1.8 degrees? The medieval warming period - which on all accounts before climategate was warmer then global temperature nowadays - has been effectively erased from history by fraud so IPCC can claim we are already in unchartered territories.


We're already feeling the effects, we know this is true. We also know that we've locked in a certain amount of warming due to the carbon we've already burned - this is just the basic physics and chemistry of combustion.

Based on that basic physics, we also know that more warming will be worse and less warming will be better. No one can state the exact effects of 1.3 vs. 1.5 vs. 1.8 degrees, but that's not the point: the directionality is clear, and all of the evidence we have shows that even 1.5 degrees of warming will carry tremendous costs. Not to mention that we're not even close to achieving 1.5 degrees, we're more on target for 4, 5, or 6 degrees of warming.

Each additional degree of warming is a dramatic increase in risk to human civilization. Not to mention that the clock is ticking, as we approach tipping points that cannot easily be stabilized (like melting of ice sheets).

There's a reason why 'climategate' has been swept under the rug, and that's because there's simply no there there. References to the Medieval Warm Period are a canard, mainly because we know a) it wasn't that warm, b) it wasn't uniformly warm across the globe, and c) we know what caused it - and it's not the same as what we're seeing today. The Medieval Warm Period was caused by a combination of higher solar activity and below-average volcanic activity on Earth. Add in the potential for different ocean currents and you can see why a place like Europe was much warmer than usual.


You obviously ignore the falisified graphs and the correspondance that shows they deliberately ignore rings post 1960, and exclude all other climate change markers for the period prior to 1960 in the fourth report in order to remove the medieval warming period.

This has literally been written in correspondance between the authors as the purpose of their actions.

Fact is above a certain carbon treshold tree rings aren't useful as a climate marker. That's why they cease to use it post 1960 as it doesn't behave how it should behave, yet use it exclusively to prove there was no significant MWP. It's fraud as clear as fraud gets. And the later reports simply refer to the results of the fourth report, it has never been corrected or retracted.

This has nothing to do with science, and your reply just solidifies how climate alarmism abuses science to further its political agenda.
 
DFW17L
Posts: 154
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2015 2:53 am

Re: KLM calls for people to fly less

Tue Jul 16, 2019 9:53 pm

Stepping aside from politics for a moment...this deutschophile looks forward to landing at FRA and boarding an ICE 4 train to Munich. Awesome technology.
 
Sokes
Posts: 239
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: KLM calls for people to fly less

Tue Jul 16, 2019 11:00 pm

SeoulIncheon wrote:
Every dictator, even the most horrendous ones, has excuses to make. For Hitler, it was for the "greater community of Germans", for Japanese Imperialism(Hideki Tojo) it was "liberation of Asians from the tyranny of West". For Stalin, "eqality and paradise of the proletariat", for Kim of North Korea and Mao of PR China, "liberation of Koreans/Chinese people from the threat of Western Imoerialism."
For the so-called environmentalists (many of whom have affiliations with communists), it is "threat of climate change."


So what can be done to prevent these communists from establishing an eco-dictatorship?

BN727227Ultra wrote:
In the US at least, if a CEO or other corporate official was bad-mouthing his own company, he'd be in breach of his duties and should be shown the door. Larger shareholders would hire a hit man.

And on the subject of green-washing and similar virtue-signalling, BP in the US was cited as spending more money on proclaiming their backing of alternative fuels, than they actually spent on R&D and production of same. And this was before Deepwater Horizon, BTW.


The last American civil war was , among other things, about slavery. I predict the next one will be about CO2 and climate change.
To prevent Californication.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
Sokes
Posts: 239
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: KLM calls for people to fly less

Wed Jul 17, 2019 2:20 am

N14AZ wrote:
Often enough, I see passengers who want to drive to Frankfurt airport with horror in their face when they make the first delay announcements in the train…

One reason is that Frankfurt is one main traffic hub and my high speed train never departs on time. It’s usually five to ten minutes later than scheduled departure time. After the late departure additional delays accumulate (see next points). With the old ICE 1 this was no problem as reported above. ...
Often enough I can even touch the regional train but then it already leaves without me since the doors are already closed. I think regional operations and high speed trains are like two different deparments that do not cooperate well.

Sokes wrote:
Is there a part of the track where the train has to share track with regional and suburban trains?
I don't know the circumstances, but it sounds to me that more tracks are required somewhere.

Yes, this seems to be one of the problems. The high speed train shares the tracks with regional trains between Frankfurt and Fulda and often he has to drive slowly due to a regional train ahead.


For the sake of definition:
Suburban trains are meant to stop every 1-5 km. They have high power/ weight. To reduce time at stations they have a lot of big doors. In Munich per hour 30 such trains pass through the tunnel in each direction.
Regional and long distance trains are not that powerful and use more of their area for seats, so capacity/ track is greatly reduced. However usually different speeds, not capacity is the problem.

Everybody knows how it feels to get stuck behind a truck. Assume now that the truck is slow and you can't overtake for 30 km or so.
Similar charming:
Imagine to do away with bus stops. The bus simply stops on the road and all traffic behind has to wait till the bus starts again. It would be nerving to drive behind that bus for more than 10 stations.
How nerving a regional train is for a high speed train depends on the number of stops. If there are few stops at which the high speed traffic can overtake it's ok. But what's the point of overtaking if a few minutes later a goods train is in the way?

Traveling behind a suburban train is as nerving for a high speed as for a regional trains. Therefore suburban trains may run only every 20 minutes. The high speed train can leave four minutes and the regional train two minutes before the next suburban train. How to increase frequency of suburban trains?
What if any one of these trains is three minutes delayed?

Your ICE may start 10 min delayed because a suburban or regional train which uses the same track is in the way. Better to wait in the station and give delayed connections a chance than to drive slow behind a train.

Mixed traffic is not good. Too complicated to plan and delay of one train affects other trains.
Your ICE is a Ferrari driving on a rural road with a lot of trucks and few places to overtake.
I don't think the solution is in increasing top speed. The solution are more tracks.



VSMUT wrote:
Sokes wrote:
Another question is if one wants to see the ICE 4 as a replacement of ICE 1 and ICE 2 or as a replacement for max 200 km/ h IC trains.
The track gauge of ICE 1 and ICE 2 are the same as all other trains. However the structure gauge is not. High speed rail was built with more space between the tracks (and side) and ICE 1 and ICE 2 are broader than ICs. Strange that German railways replaces them with a "one size fits all" approach.


They aren't. The IC trains are being replaced by 2 new trains. The faster services by ICE 4, but on slower routes they replaced it with the 160 km/h IC2, which are Bombardier Twindexx carriages pulled by a locomotive. Even the ICE 4 will come in 2 variants.

You are right.
If I may add: Twinndex are double deck.



VSMUT wrote:
Sokes wrote:
While top speed decreased, power didn't:
ICE 1: 10,6 kW/ t
ICE 2: 9,5 kW/ t
ICE 4: 13,1 kW/ t
Suburb train class 423: 19,7 kW/ t, top speed 140 km/ h
(all weights taken as during operations)


More power means faster acceleration and the ability to climb steep inclinations, even without losing any speed. The really fast line between Frankfurt and Köln supposedly can't service the ICE 1 and ICE 2, because it is too steep. Of interesting note, ICE 4 also uses less energy than the 1 and 2.
You would also naturally get more power from going with the multiple-unit approach, than with the old locomotive drawn method.


A train has to be able to start by itself after a stop. If the tracks are wet and have a steep climb a power car doesn't have enough weight/ axle to pull the full train.
The wheels slip. However several engines distributed along axles of the coaches can.

VSMUT wrote:
Sokes wrote:
ICE 1 and ICE 2 are not Multiple Electrical Units. ICE 1 is long and powered at both ends. ICE 2 is shorter and powered only at one end. ICE 2 has some issues with wind at high speed, ICE 1 doesn't.
ICE 2 will be replaced. Because of the wind issues?


ICE 1 and 2 will be phased out because of age.


In this case ICE 2 would likely be phased out first.
In the German Wikipedia article about replacement it says ICE 1 are replaced by ICE 4, however the ICE 1 are then used on other lines. It also talks about removing three of the twelve coaches. I assume this is done to improve pickup.
If required capacity is low, Multiple Electrical Units (MEUs) are better. They have the engines distributed under the coaches.
However if high capacity is desired, it's more economical to have a power car at one/ both ends.
Contradicting evidence: ICE 4 are MEUs and are ordered 12 coach also. Probably most tracks don't like the high axle load of the ICE 1 power car.
So any train which uses a stretch of weak tracks or has a strong climb somewhere shouldn't be ICE 1.
Intended replacement is 2030, long after the now ordered ICE 4 are delivered. If welds ... allow, I wouldn't be surprised if life will again be extended.


VSMUT wrote:
Sokes wrote:
ICE 1 will be shortened, but not replaced. Apparently 10 kW/ t or so is not considered enough to get back to speed after the many stops the German rail network has. So what influence does power/ weight and what influence does maximum speed have on travel time?


I haven't heard of this. There were shorter ones in the past, but when the ICE 2 came they turned them all into 12-carriage sets.
ICE 1s are very, very long, and thus more inflexible. DB seems to prefer smaller trains that can be coupled together for the same capacity or more flexibility depending on time of days.


The idea of the ICE 2 was to have a train with less capacity than ICE 1, six coaches instead of twelve. One power car was enough for the train. The other end got a control car. It looks the same, but no engine. It was also intended to join two trains and split them in two on the way.
The short train however couldn't handle wind alone. Joining two of them solved the problem. However it means driving with two power cars and two control cars as opposed to two power cars only in ICE 1.
Of course one can use the six coach train for slower speeds. I assume other trains can do the same for less maintenance.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
Sokes
Posts: 239
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: KLM calls for people to fly less

Wed Jul 17, 2019 3:27 am

DFW17L wrote:
Stepping aside from politics for a moment...this deutschophile looks forward to landing at FRA and boarding an ICE 4 train to Munich. Awesome technology.

Always good to come across people with positive thinking.

Sokes wrote:
SeoulIncheon wrote:
Every dictator, even the most horrendous ones, has excuses to make. For Hitler, it was for the "greater community of Germans", for Japanese Imperialism(Hideki Tojo) it was "liberation of Asians from the tyranny of West". For Stalin, "eqality and paradise of the proletariat", for Kim of North Korea and Mao of PR China, "liberation of Koreans/Chinese people from the threat of Western Imoerialism."
For the so-called environmentalists (many of whom have affiliations with communists), it is "threat of climate change."


So what can be done to prevent these communists from establishing an eco-dictatorship?


I apologize for that remark.
It sounds strange to a German/ European ear what you said about communism. But then concluding from your name your reality is different than ours and I'm too ignorant of Korean affairs to pass judgement.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
L410Turbolet
Posts: 6071
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 9:12 am

Re: KLM calls for people to fly less

Wed Jul 17, 2019 7:41 am

Planetalk wrote:
Wow, real classy. Already in her life 'that autist Greta' has achieved more than any of us here ever will, despite the difficulties she has had to overcome. Her name will be written somewhere as part of human history. Will yours, mine? I doubt it.

She convinced teenagers to skip school on Fridays. What an achievement!

MartijnNL wrote:
In my opinion the CEO has the responsibility to ensure that the business is sustainable in the long run.

Then he should focus on KLM getting itself rid of the Air France millstone tied around KL's neck. That would be far more effective undertaking.
 
Planetalk
Posts: 410
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 5:12 pm

Re: KLM calls for people to fly less

Wed Jul 17, 2019 2:11 pm

BN727227Ultra wrote:
In the US at least, if a CEO or other corporate official was bad-mouthing his own company, he'd be in breach of his duties and should be shown the door. Larger shareholders would hire a hit man.

And on the subject of green-washing and similar virtue-signalling, BP in the US was cited as spending more money on proclaiming their backing of alternative fuels, than they actually spent on R&D and production of same. And this was before Deepwater Horizon, BTW.


Are people actually talking about eco-dictatorships because someone suggested thinking about using a train? Listen to yourselves. The world is pumping out CO2 like never before, you've got nothing to worry about guys. And you say the left are the snowflakes! And talking about eco-communist dictatorships, man you guys really brainwashed into believing in communists under you bed aren't you? It really is infuriating how impossible it is to have a sensible discussion about anything on the internet, everyone jumps to absurd extremes that will never happen and stick their fingers in their ears.

A guy mentioned considering using the train rather than plane for some journeys, and people talk about 'punishing everybody' and 'dictatorships'. Ask yourselves whether that is at all rational? And is it really sobad some people would like to protect the environment? Why des that make you angry? It's just part of a culture war we're al being sucked into. The right and left are both at it, though I feel the right is being more successful at using the culture war to further its agenda. The right is winning, nationalism is rising everywhere, look at the UK elections, nationalist parties do far better than the green party. So calm down eh? And consider if talking about Hitler and dictatorships in a discussion like this is really advancing our society?

Again clearly some of you have the faintest clue about economics or capitalism if you think environmental regulation is anti-capitalism. But the elite have brainwashed you into this nonsense to protect their interests ad wealth, and hold the rest of us down. Well done for falling for it. Go and read some stats about 'the american dream' and see how you've been lied to all your lives. There isn't one. America is among the worst countries in the world to make it unless you are born privileged.
 
NZ321
Posts: 1072
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: KLM calls for people to fly less

Wed Jul 17, 2019 3:13 pm

Moderators - this thread is full of unsafe and blatantly off topic discussion and I suggest it is shut down.
Plane mad!
 
User avatar
SQ22
Moderator
Posts: 1327
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:29 am

Re: KLM calls for people to fly less

Wed Jul 17, 2019 3:41 pm

Thread went off topic and will be locked.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos