Friends of the Rail Forum

Air France looking into launch of high-speed rail service in partnership with Veolia Transport
The Associated Press - International Herald Tribune
Published: July 4, 2008

PARIS: With the high price of fuel raising the cost of flying, Air France is looking into replacing some of its short-haul European flights with high-speed rail service in partnership with a French train operator, a move that analysts said could lead to significant savings.

Air France spokeswoman Brigitte Barrand said the French flag carrier and Veolia Transport "are examining the possibility of concluding a strategic partnership aimed at introducing a new player in the European high-speed rail sector."

She declined to provide details on when the service could be launched, or what routes would be concerned. The earliest possible launch date would be Jan. 1, 2010, when the European Union opens its international passenger rail market to competition.

Veolia Transport spokesman Jerome Simon said talks were in the early stages and that the two companies were studying the potential synergies of a deal.

Veolia Transport is a unit of French utility Veolia Environnement. It runs passenger and freight rail services in 27 countries and transports more than 2 billion passengers annually, according to the company's web site.

Kepler Equities analyst Pierre Boucheny said the benefits for Air France would be twofold: improved customer service thanks to faster transport times and few hassles during connections and lower costs.

Other European airlines could also be interested in starting rail services, Boucheny said. "As long as the offer makes sense, why not?"

Exane BNP Paribas' Nick Van den Brul predicted that "a lot of short haul flights are going to become redundant over the next five to ten years."

The main advantage for the airlines would be improved profitability, Van den Brul said.

"More than half of all flights are connections, and in effect long-haul is where the value is. Short haul is just way for Air France to get passengers to Charles de Gaulle" airport in Paris, Van den Brul said.

Shifting passengers onto trains from planes would result in "significant" cost savings, a particular concern for airlines struggling to cope with record high oil prices.

Energy accounts for about 40 percent of an airline's total costs, against only around 10-15 percent for rail.

Last month The International Air Transport Association said it expects the industry as a whole to report a loss of US$2.3 billion (€1.48 billion) — down from a projected US$4.5 billion (€2.85 billion) profit it announced in March — because of record-high oil prices.

It was the second time IATA has lowered its forecast this year.

Air France eyes move to railways
BBC
Page last updated at 10:21 GMT, Friday, 4 July 2008 11:21 UK

Air France is holding talks on a joint venture that could lead to it offering high-speed rail travel.

The airline confirmed reports it was discussing a possible tie-up with Veolia, a French utility firm that also runs several rail services.

Commentators suggest such a deal would enable the airline to cut fuel costs by moving some services onto the railways.

Under the plans Veolia would run trains from Air France's hub airport in Paris to other European destinations.

"We are reviewing the feasibility and possibility of such a project, but it is too early to discuss its terms," an Air France spokesman told the Reuters news agency.

Competition plans

The joint venture is likely to remain focused on international travel as, under European Union plans, legislation is set to free up the international rail passenger market in 2010.

Veolia has previously run public rail franchises in several countries worldwide under the now-defunct Connex brand. It now runs continental Europe's largest private freight service and several rail connections.

With significant improvements being made to the network of high speed rail routes in Europe the potential of such services is improving.

As it confirmed reports of the talks, Air France added it had been looking at launching its own rail links over the past four years as it had been unhappy with the service provided when it had bought rail seats off existing train operators.

This is a route that Lufthansa took in the 70s'. I remember 'flying' from London to Frankfurt via Dusseldorf, and the last sector was on-board a 'Donald Duck' train, It took longer but was really worth the trip as we glided down the banks of the Rhine sipping or should that be quaffing the white bubbly. The train had been repainted in Lufthansa colours and was called 'The Lufthansa Express' ! I still have the brochure from that 'flight'. I have no idea why Lufthansa gave up the train service, which comprised Br 103s and coaches and the Donald Ducks [ cannot remember the type number for these trains ].

Apart from the fact that I am a rabid supporter of the railways, I think that this really is the way to go for some short haul flights if only to avoid the long waits at the airport of departure and at the destination trying to find your luggage. It must surely be more friendly to the environment.

At present I always fly to Amsterdam from Aberdeen and then on the ICE to Zürich. The food is better - I despise the KLM sticky bun - the comfort is streets ahead of the flight and the scenery is fantastic, What more could you ask for?

Malcolm

It is friendlier to the environment - providing of course your electricity is generated (as it is in Europe - via differing methods) in a manner not detrimental to the extreme to the environment. Aircraft via their fuels usage (and the reining process to produce the fuel) are very detrimental to the environment.

In South Africa it is less friendly to the environment - the electricity here is generated via coal stations which wreck the environment - the Witbank Area is one of the worlds top 10 environmental hot spots as a result, and anyone driving between Witibank and Waterfall Bouven can see the result as all the confers have been killed by acid rain. Its is going to get interesting when the acid rain hots the paper forests around Nelspruit. Strangely enough the use of a coal burning steam engine would per se have a lesser effect in South Africa then an electric engine. In Europe the reverse would be true - but the effect of a steam engine is not worth worrying about anyway in terms of environmental impact.,

I saw a report recently that one of the main reasons a third runway is "needed" at Heathrow is to cope with domestic connecting flights. It makes absolute sense to build high-speed railway lines to replace these domestic flights. This is especially true in a small country like the UK where new 300 kph railway lines could bring almost all major population centres within two or three hours of Heathrow, a time frame which compares very favorably with air travel (one hour to get from city centre to regional airport, one hour check-in,45 minute flight, 30 minutes to get your baggage, etc).

Recently a test was carried out with two people trying to get to London from Edinburgh. One had to go by air and the other by rail. I believe the result was almost a tie, but the air passenger felt just about all-in whereas the passenger who had arrived by train was quite relaxed. I would say that as far as the UK is concerned the point for comparison would have to be around Edinburgh.
I recently travelled by train to visit my daughter in Aberdeen and the journey from London took 7.25 hours, that was acceptable as I enjoyed the views but the part I got quite heated about was the fact that the restaurant car was closed as it was Saturday and according to National Express there is NO demand for cooked food from the restaurant car during the weekends. On the return journey the coach was open but did not serve food until after 12 noon, by which time the train was almost into London. The result is that I now propose to travel in the UK by air. Please excuse my carbon footprint!

If the UK trains wish to compete with air travel, they have to get rid of slow [by comparison] diesel powered trains and convert to electricity. How that power is generated is another matter. Coal fired station can be made to be efficient and less polluting with the right sort of engineering design and planning.

In Switzerland a high degree of the traction power comes from hydro-electric stations mainly owned by the Swiss Federal Railways themselves. The Reuss river when it leaves the Gotthard mountain range near Göschenen passes through 7 [3 operated by the SBB] power stations before it reaches Lake Luzern just 35 kms later. There is of course a major snag with electric power, which was demonstrated earlier this year when the whole of the Swiss railway network came to a halt. The reason was believed to be a feeder problem from Italy that caused all the switching station trips to lift in a domino effect. Not pleasant standing on Zürich station late in the evening, wondering not when but if a train would arrive to take you home. All adds to life's tapestry!

Malcolm

Sufficient to say SA is not efficient in electricity generation - the world ranking for CO2 emission ranks SA as 13th (after all the major industrial nations) - Switzerland ranks at 57. Most of this comes from power generation emission - we generate more CO2 emissions in a year from power generation then the worlds largest oil does company from total operations, including refining!

On Swiss railway mishaps, one of my favourite experiences was when I tried to buy a rail ticket for the next day at Geneva Station and they couldn't sell it to me because their computer system was down. I was so pleased to see that things did occasionally go down in super-efficient Switzerland! But normally my experience with Swiss trains has been superb.