Hawker From Australia, joined Aug 2004, 105 posts, RR: 0 Posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 3795 times:
The Guardian Newspaper has just provided details of a report demanding no additional runways at major British airports. The thrust is that the growth in air travel is producing too much greenhouse gas.
Maybe travelers wanting to fly to and from Britain will have to enter a lottery for available seats.
LY7E7 From Israel, joined Jun 2004, 2218 posts, RR: 21 Reply 2, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 3740 times:
Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 1): Perhaps if some internal flights are replaced by trains
Trains shoud be the future of intra-continental transportation systems anyway. How about channel tunnel #2? Or can the diameter of the exisiting one be enlarged?
FLVILLA From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2004, 394 posts, RR: 3 Reply 3, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 3731 times:
Seems like a lose-lose situation, build more runways and of course we would all choke to death on greenhouse gases !! Or force people off planes and tell them to drive to the continent, by which we must tarmac a good portion of the countryside to ensure greater road capacity. *
*Health Warning: Sarcasm may be dangerous.
I hope in life i can work to live, not live to work
VirginFlyer From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4502 posts, RR: 50 Reply 5, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 3704 times:
Quoting LY7E7 (Reply 2): Trains shoud be the future of intra-continental transportation systems anyway. How about channel tunnel #2? Or can the diameter of the exisiting one be enlarged?
I disagree. Railways still use up land, like an airport. They still create noise, except it goes right salong the route. They are expensive to build, and more importantly, they are expensive to operate. Railways are susceptible to disruption if the line is blocked, whereas aircraft can take an alternative route, and if need be, land at an alternate airport.
I am of the understanding that jet airliners are more efficient, and cheaper to operate. To my knowledge, there is no significant environmental advantage of a high speed train over a jet airliner.
That's not to say that there isn't a place for rail travel, but I don't think we'll see it replacing air travel any time soon.
On the subject of stopping construction of runways, I think that's a bit of a throwing out the baby with the bathwater reaction. There certainly should be encouragement for the aviation industry to be environementally friendly, however this encouragement would be better off in the form of tax advantages for operating less poluting aircraft (or tax disadvantages for operating more poluting aircraft). We are able to categorise aircraft by the noise and turbulence levels they create; I don't think it would be that difficult to categorise types by polution levels as well. If enviornmental friendliness can have an effect on the balance sheet, then airlines will sit up and take notice. We are already partly on the way there - a good (but not perfect) measure of pollution is how much fuel is burnt per passenger. Less fuel burn means less cost, and as the Sonic Cruiser/787 programme demonstrated, this is what the airlines want.
V/F
"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
LY7E7 From Israel, joined Jun 2004, 2218 posts, RR: 21 Reply 7, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3600 times:
VirginFlyer,
It seems to me that you disregard the disadvantages of the air travel on short distances. Consider following:
1) Airports are located in such way that it takes an average time of 30-40 minutes to get there, unlike the train stations that are centrally located and better accessed.
2) Airport procedures are time consuming: dealing with tickets and stubs all the time, luggage check-in (and waiting to get it back)
3) Immigration procedures can be done on trains without loosing any time, while traveling.
4)Boarding time : trains have doors through all of their length.
5)Planes do not leave immediately. They are subjects to lengthy taxiing (especially at busy , large airports) and , yes, ground (and air )traffic jams.
I've experienced such a jam a few month ago , sitting for 35 minutes in a LH plane in TLV due to a heavy traffic above Greece and Cyprus.
6) environmental issues: trains consume less energy, also , high speed trains do produce noise, however not that much noise. A high speed train passing at full speed (300km/h 186mph) is still quieter than a busy motorway or an a/c while landing or taking off.
Glom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2803 posts, RR: 10 Reply 8, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 3514 times:
Leaving aside what was discussed in the other thread, aviation is a slim minority contributor (<5%), especially when compared to what it delivers. Picking on it is purely opportunism because it is a politically easy and obvious target.
MD80fanatic From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2622 posts, RR: 11 Reply 9, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 3498 times:
Perhaps they "know" the future of aviation lies in VTOL?
WhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 3493 times:
A lot of verbal fencing which doesn't actually address what is needed.
The elimination of "silly shorthaul" routes. Namely under 200 to 400 miles.
Trains need to take up that market by running fast, reliable point to point services and also operating directly into airports to connect with medium and longhaul services. It cuts down on runway congestion and helps with the pollution. Short routes can still be operated with regional aircraft when trains wouldn't be feasible but the dozens of jets flying from places like London to Amsterdam or Paris would be chopped back.
Why have the hassle of using LHR, CDG and AMS when you can travel from St Pancras to Paris in less time with less hassle? Or board your train at Glasgow Central Station, running direct to LHR in three hours or less to connect with that QF flight?
Channel tunnel #1 has been such a financial disaster that I don't think anyone has the stomach for another one. The tunnel is far too limiting to be particularly practical for a sizeable amount of transport.
Intercontinental trains are limited by having to go on land for the vast majority of their journey. That's not good when trying to cross a planet covered two thirds by water. They don't go as fast and the increased speed is more than enough to account for the increased time at either end, especially on long haul, which is why high speed trains may take a sizeable portion of regional travel, but long haul will always be the realm of air or space travel.
HT From Germany, joined May 2005, 6471 posts, RR: 27 Reply 14, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 3238 times:
When talking about "trains replacing flights" the U.K. definitely is the wrong place to look at !
Actually flights on the sector MAN - LON have increased mainly due to the problems with the Westcoast Main Line (WCML). !
Quoting WhiteHatter (Reply 10): Or board your train at Glasgow Central Station, running direct to LHR in three hours or less to connect with that QF flight?
So how long does it take to go from Glasgow to London by train ? The best times I could find were between 4h40 and 5h45.
Trying to improve that situation substancially and make it a reliable (!) operations is almost impossible as everybody blames the problems to the other, with Railtrack playing a big part in that game ...
Unfortunately, the british rails-system was privatized before the necessary improvement were carried out.
Also look at that slow link for Eurostar from London to the british terminal of the ChannelTunnel: Trains litterarily are crawling along that very old tracks, while on the french side they continue with 300 kph/185 mph to Paris ...
-HT
Carpe diem ! Life is too short to waste your time ! Keep in mind, that today is the first day of the rest of your life !
Kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 11951 posts, RR: 37 Reply 15, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 3189 times:
Although I'm strongly in favour of a third runway at LHR, one of the key factors against that is that there are so many unnecessary short haul flights, particularly on short haul routes. LHR-MAN is an excellent example: lots of short haul sectors, but most operated by smaller aircraft like the 737 and A319/320. Far better, I think, to limit these flights, so that other short haul routes can benefit. That means that you will have optimum use of available runway capacity. Take a leaf out of Japan's book; instead of 20 flights a day to EDI or GLA, have about 10 or 12, but operated by charter airlines' A300s or 763s in a high density config; it's only a short haul flight anyway and it'll mean more connections for regional destinations, most of which have been cut off.
The problem is of course that the UK govt is scared of saying boo to airlines; it has to be done sometime. If it does this successfully and can prove that existing runway capacity is used as efficiently as possible, it will become easier to get a green light for R3.
Geoffm From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 2111 posts, RR: 7 Reply 16, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 3100 times:
Quoting HT (Reply 14): When talking about "trains replacing flights" the U.K. definitely is the wrong place to look at !
Actually flights on the sector MAN - LON have increased mainly due to the problems with the Westcoast Main Line (WCML). !
That is because of major infrastructure upgrades on the WCML. You can't improve a railway without affecting existing service. You take one step back to take 2 forward.
Quoting HT (Reply 14): Trying to improve that situation substancially and make it a reliable (!) operations is almost impossible as everybody blames the problems to the other, with Railtrack playing a big part in that game ...
I doubt it. Railtrack died 2 years ago.
Quoting HT (Reply 14):
Unfortunately, the british rails-system was privatized before the necessary improvement were carried out.
Improvements are a continual process. You simply cannot hold up privatisation to wait until improvements have finished because it would just never happen.
Quoting HT (Reply 14):
Also look at that slow link for Eurostar from London to the british terminal of the ChannelTunnel: Trains litterarily are crawling along that very old tracks, while on the french side they continue with 300 kph/185 mph to Paris ...
Again, you're way out of date. Trains travel at up to 100mph before they reach the 1st stage of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. From there they travel at the same speed as the French side, up to the portal of the Channel Tunnel. That's 77% of the UK journey at 186mph - hardly crawling on very old tracks is it? The remainder of the link will be open in the next year or two.
The fact that London-Paris flights have been reduced over the years shows that the train can replace the plane on short-to-medium journeys. It's getting the right route with the right infrastructure. The UK is not like Europe: we are so crowded that we simply cannot build a whole new railway link easily without the powerful NIMBYs blocking the plans.
Commavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 10189 posts, RR: 62 Reply 17, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 3090 times:
I find this whole question extremely sad. The UK is allowing itself to fall farther and farther behind their continental neighbors, particularly in regards to LHR vs. AMS/CDG/FRA.
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15870 posts, RR: 66 Reply 21, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2933 times:
Quoting VirginFlyer (Reply 5): Quoting LY7E7 (Reply 2):
Trains shoud be the future of intra-continental transportation systems anyway. How about channel tunnel #2? Or can the diameter of the exisiting one be enlarged?
I disagree. Railways still use up land, like an airport. They still create noise, except it goes right salong the route. They are expensive to build, and more importantly, they are expensive to operate. Railways are susceptible to disruption if the line is blocked, whereas aircraft can take an alternative route, and if need be, land at an alternate airport.
I am of the understanding that jet airliners are more efficient, and cheaper to operate. To my knowledge, there is no significant environmental advantage of a high speed train over a jet airliner.
You obviously haven't taken trains in Europe. Modern electric railroads are much cleaner than airports. But more importantly, they're much more convenient. No security, no check-in. Just get on and get off. Also, if you're talking routes of about an hour to an hour and a half flying time, high-speed trains are faster at getting you from city centre to city centre.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
DCrawley From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 371 posts, RR: 1 Reply 22, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2923 times:
Quoting LY7E7 (Reply 7):
It seems to me that you disregard the disadvantages of the air travel on short distances. Consider following:
1) Airports are located in such way that it takes an average time of 30-40 minutes to get there, unlike the train stations that are centrally located and better accessed.
2) Airport procedures are time consuming: dealing with tickets and stubs all the time, luggage check-in (and waiting to get it back)
At SEA QX operates SEA-PDX every 30 minutes. This flight takes no longer than 30 minutes max and sure beats the 2 hour drive or 3 hours in traffic on I-5. There is a major niche market that business travelers love! At both SEA and PDX there is an express line through security just for that flight. I've found it very effiecent and know many business travelers who love it. If you are making that flight several times a week, there is no hassle with baggage because most people taking that flight know to just bring a carry-on or two and you can check-in from your home computer! Convenience at its best..
On the 3rd runway topic, here in SEA, they have started contructing the massive dirt mound of which will be the 3rd runway. Do we really need it? No. Do we really need a second airport more north of Seattle? Yes. It has been a debate that's lasted 10 years and the self-governed POS (Port Of Seattle, lol) won.. oh well!
Just my thoughts, whether right or wrong!
-D.K. Crawley
"Weather at our destination is 50 degrees with some broken clouds, but they'll try to have them fixed before we arrive."
Legacy135 From Switzerland, joined May 2005, 1052 posts, RR: 29 Reply 24, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2874 times:
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 21): You obviously haven't taken trains in Europe. Modern electric railroads are much cleaner than airports. But more importantly, they're much more convenient. No security, no check-in. Just get on and get off. Also, if you're talking routes of about an hour to an hour and a half flying time, high-speed trains are faster at getting you from city centre to city centre.
This is very true. We lost our two daily flights from Bern to Paris CDG exactly because of the competition from the French TGV (Train Grande Vistesse) a train that goes with 250 Km/h and links the two cities in somewhat like 4 hours. If you travel citycenter to citycenter by plane it will be at least this.
Same for a Bern - Milan. There is a big demand but as trains are that fast and convenient....
On the other side don't forget the connecting passengers. I prefer to continue on a flight after a transatlantic. Finally one thing the airlines are still better or at least some of them is if something goes wrong. All the train companies normally know to do is driving the train. This they know very good, but the rest..... Changing a reservation, having a lost bag or whatever I prefer the airline. This is at least my experience.
26 Gigneil: If its runways you want, move to Denver. They have 6 and room for 12. Or Dallas, perhaps. N
27 RJ111: I read the very same article in the Observer today, on a train leaving Euston coincidently. The debate about which is more efficient, the plane or the
28 N844AA: Right. Because there are no geographic/demographic/distributional differences between the UK and the US. Rolleyes, etc. Besides, Amtrak does fine whe
29 LY7E7: Yes I have, many, many times (especially on the Deutsche Bahn). Not to mention the fact that the IR (Israeli railways) operate German made electric t
30 Centrair: Over here, we have Japan Rail doing most of the traffic between Tokyo, Nagoya and Osaka. One Nozomi shinkansen leaves every 30 minutes with 1200 seats
31 DCrawley: You know what's interesting is I did read it and that is why I posted on it. It was not negative critisism, yet just another view on regional travel.
32 Ikramerica: Wasn't there a highspeed rail test up there that was discontinued? one problem the US has at least is the low rail speed limit. back in the day, train
33 Abba: Are you sure about this? I wonder if indeed airplane are more energy efficient than trains. I believe that I have read something to that effect not s
34 MD11Engineer: Interestingly there was an article in last weeks Spiegel magazine describing some surprises found by glaciologists in the Alps. They have been observi
35 LY7E7: D.K. Crawley, No harm intended. It's just that Amtrack is in the stone age of rail development. If you try to do the same comparison for ICE or TGV ra
36 YukonTrader: But now, that is also true for an airplane... Planes are built more "weight-consciously" than trains, I agree, but on the other hand, the couple hund
37 Abba: I even believe to have seen on TV not so long ago that global warming is also taking place on Mars! Abba
39 DCrawley: LY7E7, Ah yes, Amtrak is very much so stuck in the stone age in terms of speed! I must say I could see how in Europe the train could be much quicker w
Sponsor Message: 
From Australia, joined Aug 2004, 105 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 6357 posts, 
From Israel, joined Jun 2004, 2218 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4502 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 1200 posts, 
From Germany, joined May 2005, 6471 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 11951 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15870 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined May 2005, 1052 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
