Trains "should replace planes" - says government "think tank"
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Inside the M25
Posts: 2,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason that (non-airline) public transport across the US is so bad is at least in part because the oil companies bought up city transit corporations to get them to fold, so that the car could reign supreme. The petrol price in the US also completely ignores the environmental impact - which biases everything even more heavily to the car.
I agree strongly that where surface public transport is a viable option, it ought to receive investment priority. Unfortunately, the UK govt is uninterested in investing public money in such projects.
In particular, I am amazed that anybody should fly to Brussels or Paris from London, given the public transport links even in their current state. But then, I understand that MEP's receive an allowance of £500 per flight taken on euro-business, regardless of the amount they pay for their ticket, so I guess that a lot of pointless flights are inevitable.
I also know that I'd rather live 10 miles from Heathrow on an approach or departure route than any distance from a railway station within 300 metres of the railway. Planning blight for a railway is considerably worse than that for an airport, and improvements in technology don't generally decrease noise along a railway line.
I agree strongly that where surface public transport is a viable option, it ought to receive investment priority. Unfortunately, the UK govt is uninterested in investing public money in such projects.
In particular, I am amazed that anybody should fly to Brussels or Paris from London, given the public transport links even in their current state. But then, I understand that MEP's receive an allowance of £500 per flight taken on euro-business, regardless of the amount they pay for their ticket, so I guess that a lot of pointless flights are inevitable.
I also know that I'd rather live 10 miles from Heathrow on an approach or departure route than any distance from a railway station within 300 metres of the railway. Planning blight for a railway is considerably worse than that for an airport, and improvements in technology don't generally decrease noise along a railway line.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southern england
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lazlo,
what's the betting that, if the UK govt did tax jet fuel, they would also pass a law to ensure that all aircraft leaving a UK airport had a minimum(large) amount of fuel in their tanks. Administrative nightmare? Hasn't stopped them before!
what's the betting that, if the UK govt did tax jet fuel, they would also pass a law to ensure that all aircraft leaving a UK airport had a minimum(large) amount of fuel in their tanks. Administrative nightmare? Hasn't stopped them before!
Last edited by newswatcher; 2nd Dec 2002 at 11:30.
According to the Guardian today, Ken Livingstone don't agree: he wants more rwys around London - as long as they are at LGW and STN - well outside the GLA's area of responsibility, off his budget and well away from his voters (except when they want to get on a plane). Ah...politics!
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Liverpool, England
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As my flying time amounts to ten minutes in a glider, I've always considered it unwise to post my opinions on this forum but, as you've touched on a subject I am very interested in, this time I couldn't resist.
As I live in Liverpool and travel fairly regularly to Birmingham and London by train, I am very well aware of the deficiencies of the railway system. In fact our train service to London is now appreciably slower than it was in the late 1960's.
The West Coast Route Modernisation aims to introduce 125 mph tilting trains that will cut the journey time down to just over two hours but we still have some years to wait.
Even so, the train service that we have at present amounts to 16 trains a day with a capacity equivalent to some 30 Boeing 747s and takes people from the centre of Liverpool to the centre of London.
What about the air service? Thats easy - there isn't one. We used to have a well-patronised service to Heathrow that was removed because the slots were required for other services. For several years, operators have been trying to relaunch the air link to the capital with little success - mainly due to the non-availability of peak time slots or the use of remote airports such as Luton.
At the same time, thanks to St. Stelios, we now have 5 services a day to Amsterdam Schipol, 3 a day to Paris CDG, 7 a day to Belfast,1 a day to Madrid etc. etc.
So if I were to give the two rival services between Liverpool and London a score out of 10, it would be 5 for rail and 0 for air.
Generally, rail can compete effectively with air where the journey time city-centre to city-centre is less than 3 hours. It, therefore, makes sense to concentrate resources on rail services where thay can reasonably achieve these times. London to Marseilles probably isn't a goer, London to Paris definitely is, as is London to Birmingham, Liverpool, Leeds, Manchester, Sheffield, Newcastle etc.
Remember also, that, with the exception of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, no new trunk railways have been built in Britain for almost a century. The West Coast Main Line, mentioned above, was built in the reign of King William IV. They are an accepted part of the environment.
I don't dispute BahrainLad's claim that the new Channel Tunnel Rail Link Tunnel Rail Link will take up almost as much space as Heathrow - I simply don't know. What I do know is that the CTRL follows existing lines of severance (motorways and other railways) and, in environmentally sensitive areas uses cuttings and tunnels.
By contrast, Heathrow is an environmental disaster which blights a vast area of South London and, if a third runway is approved, will cause dislocation and disturbance for thousands of people (although my back yard will be safe).
Correct me if I'm wrong but I wasn't under the impression that punctuality was a major feature of air travel. I've made about 30 flights in my lifetime of which at least 6 were seriously delayed - by which I mean by hours not minutes, including one delay of twelve hours! The greatest delay that I have ever experienced in thousands of train journeys is 3 hours - and that was 25 years ago!
Rail services in Britain have suffered from being a political football for decades. I'm hoping that Network Rail and more sensible franchise agreements will work to stabilise the situation and giving Britain the second to none railway system that it once had and should have. Modern railway systems, as proved by the TGV in France, the ICE in Germany, the Shinkansen in Japan and the AVE in Spain are more than equal to any airline competition.
As I live in Liverpool and travel fairly regularly to Birmingham and London by train, I am very well aware of the deficiencies of the railway system. In fact our train service to London is now appreciably slower than it was in the late 1960's.
The West Coast Route Modernisation aims to introduce 125 mph tilting trains that will cut the journey time down to just over two hours but we still have some years to wait.
Even so, the train service that we have at present amounts to 16 trains a day with a capacity equivalent to some 30 Boeing 747s and takes people from the centre of Liverpool to the centre of London.
What about the air service? Thats easy - there isn't one. We used to have a well-patronised service to Heathrow that was removed because the slots were required for other services. For several years, operators have been trying to relaunch the air link to the capital with little success - mainly due to the non-availability of peak time slots or the use of remote airports such as Luton.
At the same time, thanks to St. Stelios, we now have 5 services a day to Amsterdam Schipol, 3 a day to Paris CDG, 7 a day to Belfast,1 a day to Madrid etc. etc.
So if I were to give the two rival services between Liverpool and London a score out of 10, it would be 5 for rail and 0 for air.
Generally, rail can compete effectively with air where the journey time city-centre to city-centre is less than 3 hours. It, therefore, makes sense to concentrate resources on rail services where thay can reasonably achieve these times. London to Marseilles probably isn't a goer, London to Paris definitely is, as is London to Birmingham, Liverpool, Leeds, Manchester, Sheffield, Newcastle etc.
Remember also, that, with the exception of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, no new trunk railways have been built in Britain for almost a century. The West Coast Main Line, mentioned above, was built in the reign of King William IV. They are an accepted part of the environment.
I don't dispute BahrainLad's claim that the new Channel Tunnel Rail Link Tunnel Rail Link will take up almost as much space as Heathrow - I simply don't know. What I do know is that the CTRL follows existing lines of severance (motorways and other railways) and, in environmentally sensitive areas uses cuttings and tunnels.
By contrast, Heathrow is an environmental disaster which blights a vast area of South London and, if a third runway is approved, will cause dislocation and disturbance for thousands of people (although my back yard will be safe).
Correct me if I'm wrong but I wasn't under the impression that punctuality was a major feature of air travel. I've made about 30 flights in my lifetime of which at least 6 were seriously delayed - by which I mean by hours not minutes, including one delay of twelve hours! The greatest delay that I have ever experienced in thousands of train journeys is 3 hours - and that was 25 years ago!
Rail services in Britain have suffered from being a political football for decades. I'm hoping that Network Rail and more sensible franchise agreements will work to stabilise the situation and giving Britain the second to none railway system that it once had and should have. Modern railway systems, as proved by the TGV in France, the ICE in Germany, the Shinkansen in Japan and the AVE in Spain are more than equal to any airline competition.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Luton
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This topic interests me...but aren't we missing the point here?
If we look at it as objectively as we can;
1. Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth are notorious for scare-mongering, and in some cases out and out lying (the cases I know of are too many to list here).
2. Quango's don't go beyond their brief, which is detailed by the government of the day (and often not listened to, anyway, cos' they can be a way of giving some worthy a sinecure).
3. the public will do what the public want to do anyway.
Yes, we have a creaky, struggling rail service in the UK, yes it is subsidised, because of years of chronic underfunding and inefficient management, but it is going to needed in the next few years. after all how are people going to get to the airports?
What we really need is a nicely integrated transport policy that uses a mix of trains and planes...after all a decent rail network would be serious competition for internal flights, would mean that cars weren't necessary to get to airports and planes could do the stuff their best at.
If we look at it as objectively as we can;
1. Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth are notorious for scare-mongering, and in some cases out and out lying (the cases I know of are too many to list here).
2. Quango's don't go beyond their brief, which is detailed by the government of the day (and often not listened to, anyway, cos' they can be a way of giving some worthy a sinecure).
3. the public will do what the public want to do anyway.
Yes, we have a creaky, struggling rail service in the UK, yes it is subsidised, because of years of chronic underfunding and inefficient management, but it is going to needed in the next few years. after all how are people going to get to the airports?
What we really need is a nicely integrated transport policy that uses a mix of trains and planes...after all a decent rail network would be serious competition for internal flights, would mean that cars weren't necessary to get to airports and planes could do the stuff their best at.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Fantasy Island
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plainspeak a lot of what you're saying is good value. In an ideal world, the train is preferable to the plane for a number of routes, such as the city-centre to city-centre ones you mention.
However, in order to get our rail system up to an acceptable standard is an almost impossible task. The West Coast Route modernisation was originally planned to cost £3bn.....it will now cost £10bn and will not deliver the increase in performance (140mph) that was promised when the project was launched.
If the government were serious about rail travel they would bite the bullet and build at least 2 new high speed rail lines....one from London to the North (straight up the middle with branches to Manchester, York, Newcastle etc.) and one from London to the South West.
It is highly indicative of their spinlessness that both these concepts have been proposed by two private companies, the first by Virgin and the second by First Great Western. The first died becuase of the changing franchising regime which you support which basically makes investment in the railways pointless, as before your investment matures it gets taken away from you. The second died because the Strategic Rail Authority (one of the many organisations that now claims to run our railways) angrily told FGW that strategic planning was not their responsibility (even though FGW were willing to fund the project entirely on their own). Where is the government leadership? Nowhere. The government is sh*t scared of running the railways because the benefits will not bear fruit before the next election (or even the election after that). So they have cobbled together Network Rail which cannot raise money (who'd invest in a not-for-profit company!?) and will have political difficulty in getting money from the government.
Your point about the CTRL taking up existing transport corridor is accepted......however this is a consequence of us living in an increasingly crowded island. The same cannot be said of Northern France, where steel lines have effectively been drawn across an unspoilt landscape. There was also significant opposition to the CTRL from people in Ashford as they realised that high speed trains would be travelling through their back gardens.
Also, the catchment area of city-centre to city-centre services is limited. Anyone who has tried to cross London between Kings Cross and Waterloo with heavy luggage will tell you that Eurostar is a tricky option for a trip to Paris. This may change when the Stratford station opens on the CTRL but this is the exception rather than the rule. The market for city-centre services is actually limited - Eurostar envisaged the equivalent of 2 747s leaving London every hour for Paris.
You therefore have to increase the speed of the connections and provide train services from different parts of the country rather than London. This has been proved a non-started as the Regional Eurostars have never entered service (save being leased to GNER). A high speed (186mph) railway from London to Manchester would make Manchester-Paris competitive....but it would require massive investment.
So, for the forseeable future, the total cost is in favour of air travel. Although it is more costly in environmental terms, that's the only area where it is more expensive. The aircraft are there. The infrastructure is there. The market is there. The cost to expand LHR would be minimal compared to building hundreds of miles of high speed rail lines. The future of Britain as a trading nation depends on it!
However, in order to get our rail system up to an acceptable standard is an almost impossible task. The West Coast Route modernisation was originally planned to cost £3bn.....it will now cost £10bn and will not deliver the increase in performance (140mph) that was promised when the project was launched.
If the government were serious about rail travel they would bite the bullet and build at least 2 new high speed rail lines....one from London to the North (straight up the middle with branches to Manchester, York, Newcastle etc.) and one from London to the South West.
It is highly indicative of their spinlessness that both these concepts have been proposed by two private companies, the first by Virgin and the second by First Great Western. The first died becuase of the changing franchising regime which you support which basically makes investment in the railways pointless, as before your investment matures it gets taken away from you. The second died because the Strategic Rail Authority (one of the many organisations that now claims to run our railways) angrily told FGW that strategic planning was not their responsibility (even though FGW were willing to fund the project entirely on their own). Where is the government leadership? Nowhere. The government is sh*t scared of running the railways because the benefits will not bear fruit before the next election (or even the election after that). So they have cobbled together Network Rail which cannot raise money (who'd invest in a not-for-profit company!?) and will have political difficulty in getting money from the government.
Your point about the CTRL taking up existing transport corridor is accepted......however this is a consequence of us living in an increasingly crowded island. The same cannot be said of Northern France, where steel lines have effectively been drawn across an unspoilt landscape. There was also significant opposition to the CTRL from people in Ashford as they realised that high speed trains would be travelling through their back gardens.
Also, the catchment area of city-centre to city-centre services is limited. Anyone who has tried to cross London between Kings Cross and Waterloo with heavy luggage will tell you that Eurostar is a tricky option for a trip to Paris. This may change when the Stratford station opens on the CTRL but this is the exception rather than the rule. The market for city-centre services is actually limited - Eurostar envisaged the equivalent of 2 747s leaving London every hour for Paris.
You therefore have to increase the speed of the connections and provide train services from different parts of the country rather than London. This has been proved a non-started as the Regional Eurostars have never entered service (save being leased to GNER). A high speed (186mph) railway from London to Manchester would make Manchester-Paris competitive....but it would require massive investment.
So, for the forseeable future, the total cost is in favour of air travel. Although it is more costly in environmental terms, that's the only area where it is more expensive. The aircraft are there. The infrastructure is there. The market is there. The cost to expand LHR would be minimal compared to building hundreds of miles of high speed rail lines. The future of Britain as a trading nation depends on it!
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spot on Bahrain.
If politicians had had the spine to do what they should have done years ago, invest in transport, we wouldn't find ourselves in a situation where the time and money needed to take the environmental option just isn't available.
8 Years ago I wrote to the then Minister for transport and said that we were falling seriously behind in the provision of airport capacity (specifically runways) and that we would find ourselves left behind Europe and exposed on safety if we didn't act then. His response was to refute my suggestion, stating that we were well ahead of needs and cited T5 as an example.
It irriatates (rather than satisfies) me to see 8 years later that the arrogant know-alls were wrong. If we in our work were as incompetent as many of the "important" politicians are, we would have our licences removed. Why is there never any accountablilty in government, or come to think of it, management?
CJ
If politicians had had the spine to do what they should have done years ago, invest in transport, we wouldn't find ourselves in a situation where the time and money needed to take the environmental option just isn't available.
8 Years ago I wrote to the then Minister for transport and said that we were falling seriously behind in the provision of airport capacity (specifically runways) and that we would find ourselves left behind Europe and exposed on safety if we didn't act then. His response was to refute my suggestion, stating that we were well ahead of needs and cited T5 as an example.
It irriatates (rather than satisfies) me to see 8 years later that the arrogant know-alls were wrong. If we in our work were as incompetent as many of the "important" politicians are, we would have our licences removed. Why is there never any accountablilty in government, or come to think of it, management?
CJ
