New rail speed record ....

[oneflewover]

Office to Leeds railway station 45 minutes, train to edinburgh 3 hours 20 mins. 20 minutes to destination - 4 and a half hours.

Taxi to Leeds Bradford airport 20 minutes (no loony everything-but-buses-total-exclusion-zone to circumvent) Through airport 20 minutes flight 48 minutes car at other end 17 minutes - under 2 hours - no contest.

If it came to it, first class Virgin at £29 with free drinks and sandwiches or cramped 737 at £142 I know which I would take. If i wished to travel by air to Edinburgh by BMI I would have to wait until tuesday for that single flight.

 

[Cobbles]

If it came to it, first class Virgin at £29 with free drinks and sandwiches or cramped 737 at £142 I know which I would take. If i wished to travel by air to Edinburgh by BMI I would have to wait until tuesday for that single flight.

There's usually plenty of availability in business class and it's not a 737 it's an Embraer feeder jet - cramped but at least the toilets always work unlike Virgin's Voyagers in first class is appalling coffee.

if you travel throughout the UK regularly (2/3 times a week every week) as opposed to just occasionally then you'd realise that the convenience and sheer speed of air travel will never be beaten by rail in the UK for any journey longer than about 150 miles. Time costs money so price is a tiny factor.

 

[bigbry]

Ok then....

Oxford St, London to Princes St, Edinburgh:

Oxford Circus tube - Heathrow T3 tube: 1:08 hrs
Walk to check-in desk: 0:10
Check-in time: 0:30
Flight time: 1:30
Get off plane and out of airport: 0:15
Taxi to Princes St: 0:30
=
Total time: 4:03

QUOTE]

Like I said heathrow express - 15 minutes, Preprinted boarding voucher 0 minutes, airports transit 10 minutes pre board 20 minutes flight 1 hour 15 walk to car 5 minutes into town 17 minutes total 2 hrs. 30 max.

NB most trains take at least 4 hours 45. so it's still twice the length of time.

Another example:

Office to Leeds railway station 45 minutes, train to edinburgh 3 hours 20 mins. 20 minutes to destination - 4 and a half hours.

Taxi to Leeds Bradford airport 20 minutes (no loony everything-but-buses-total-exclusion-zone to circumvent) Through airport 20 minutes flight 48 minutes car at other end 17 minutes - under 2 hours - no contest.

Edinburgh to Southampton - car to airport half an hour from just about anywhere, airport transit 20 minutesflight 1 hour 30 taxi 15 minutes - By train all day.

Internal airlinks have hugely benefitted travel for all sorts of purposes and any attempt to cripple such travel is just London centric Little Enger-lander-ism.

But what are you doing with all these cars you're going to the airport in - parking them ? Don't forget to include that cost ! And the carbon footprint !

 

[bigbry]

To all the people supporting airplanes the French TGV has 'killed' the domestic air travel market in France. Air France's Paris-Brussels 'flight' carries an Air France number and passengers have an Air France ticket - but it leaves from Gare Nord and never leaves the ground - it looks like a train as well !

 

[T & P]

Whereas nowadays it is possible to check in online and print your own boarding card with some airlines and in certain circumstances, in the majority of cases people can't or won't do that.

Going to a train station in the centre of a city takes far less time than going to an airport. And more to the point, you only need to arrive 5-10 minutes before departure for your train. Try arriving at the airport 10 minutes before your flight is scheduled to leave...

Total journey times door to door are no worse for trains than for planes in most domestic routes. Certainly in the Continent, and to some extent in Britain as well.

Hell, even with the Eurostar which requires 30 minutes check in (or is it 20 min?) the train pisses all over air travel between London and Paris/Brussels.

 

[Cobbles]

Whereas nowadays it is possible to check in online and print your own boarding card with some airlines and in certain circumstances, in the majority of cases people can't or won't do that.

Going to a train station in the centre of a city takes far less time than going to an airport. And more to the point, you only need to arrive 5-10 minutes before departure for your train. Try arriving at the airport 10 minutes before your flight is scheduled to leave...

Total journey times door to door are no worse for trains than for planes in most domestic routes. Certainly in the Continent, and to some extent in Britain as well.

Hell, even with the Eurostar which requires 30 minutes check in (or is it 20 min?) the train pisses all over air travel between London and Paris/Brussels.

However, for the vast majority who don't live within the M25, air travel is an absolute blessing.

The existence of the Channel Tunnel and the fact that trains run through it are an absolute irrelevance to anyone living North of Watford.

I I wish to travel to Lyons from Edinburgh or Manchester, why would I want to spend 5 hours getting to and across London, followed by the Eurostar to Pairs, then a TGV across France when I can fly direct in a couple of hours.

We live on a long thin Island. Planes are ideal.

 

[teuchter]

The existence of the Channel Tunnel and the fact that trains run through it are an absolute irrelevance to anyone living North of Watford.

All the more reason to develop a proper high speed network within the UK to link in with it. And regional Eurostar (including overnight) services as were originally planned. At least the opening of the new CTRL terminal at St Pancras will make interchange a bit easier for those coming from North of London.

I I wish to travel to Lyons from Edinburgh or Manchester, why would I want to spend 5 hours getting to and across London, followed by the Eurostar to Pairs, then a TGV across France when I can fly direct in a couple of hours.

From a totally selfish point of view, there's not much motivation, unless one enjoys rail travel for the sake of it. The train option would look more attractive if Edinburgh or Manchester were linked to a proper high speed network.

From a less selfish point of view, considering the environmental and other impacts of excessive air travel might persuade some people to go by rail. Given that many people can't stretch themselves that far, they need a bit of an extra kick and ramping up tax on aviation fuel would be one of the ways to do this.

 

[Meltingpot]

When someone told me a TGV had been running at 356mph today, I was about to tell them off for mixing up mph and kph - but it's true, France has just set a new speed record for trains running on conventional steel rails:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6521295.stm

Awesome. I can still remember the excitement of passing 100 mph when a passenger on an InterCity 125 in the 1970s, so I can barely imagine what 300+ mph feels like on a train. Just one thing though; we could have had Maglev technology too (developed by the Lancashire-born engineer Eric Laithwaite) which still holds the all-comers speed record, but we didn't invest the necessary money to make it happen.

 

[Cobbles]

But what are you doing with all these cars you're going to the airport in - parking them ? Don't forget to include that cost ! And the carbon footprint !

A Taxi is £20 each way - up to 3 days it's cheaper to drive and park otherwise taxis are cheaper - easy calculation. The carbon footprint's not relevant but if I gave a toss, I could offset it for about 20p.

 

[Cobbles]

All the more reason to develop a proper high speed network within the UK to link in with it. And regional Eurostar (including overnight) services as were originally planned. At least the opening of the new CTRL terminal at St Pancras will make interchange a bit easier for those coming from North of London.

Arrant nonsense - why travel overnight to get from Leeds to Brussels - how very 19th. century.

You can fly there in an hour.

 

[teuchter]

Arrant nonsense - why travel overnight to get from Leeds to Brussels - how very 19th. century.

You can fly there in an hour.

You wouldn't need to go overnight.

Once St Pancras opens, the journey time to Brussels will be under two hours.

At present you can get from Leeds to London in about 2hrs 15.

So even at present it would be feasible to run a direct service from Leeds to Brussels in around 4hrs. With proper high speed track within the UK, it could be even less. That would be perfectly competitive (whether or not you "give a toss" about carbon footprints) - as previously discussed, the idea of a flight to anywhere taking one hour is a nonsense once you add on all the time taken getting to and from airports, however optimistic you want to be in your calculations.

The TGV and Eurostar have both demonstrated that high speed rail can compete with air on routes of this length.

And overnight services ... that could allow you to get from say Glasgow to Paris, and arrive for an 8am start without having to get up any earlier than 7.45. You can argue that overnight services reduce travel time to something approaching zero if you regard sleeping time as "unusable" anyway.

 

[mauvais]

...and you can't do the same by air, since the first flight out is about 7am, and you have a two hour wait for check-in, plus all the extra time either side.

 

[Cobbles]

So even at present it would be feasible to run a direct service from Leeds to Brussels in around 4hrs.

Plus the time taken to hack through Leeds' plethora of incomprehensible one way routes, choked with 90% empty bendy buses, never mind the appallingness of having to lug baggage between the two stations (as bad as the "walk" between terminals1 and 3 at Heathrow).

Quicker to fly, always (unless you live in Lunnun, closer to Kings cross than an airport).

The investment in cross channel services will only benefit those within the M25 until someone decides to build some nice shiny new sets of ultra high speed rails for the North East and West. It would be nice if these could actually connect with existing stations but unlikely as urban property values are too high to build new lines and if the new routes as much as went within 5 miles of a patch of lesser spotted twat weed, it'd be deluged with morons living down holes simply wasting public money by getting in the way.

If it was worth doing, someone would have made the investment but as there's clearly no prospect of any financial return, investors have stayed away in droves.

 

[Sunray]

...
If it was worth doing, someone would have made the investment but as there's clearly no prospect of any financial return, investors have stayed away in droves.

That's the reason why the French government picks up the tab. Railways are never directly cost effective as a single entity. They probably lose money.

Their indirect value is never put into the calculation as its very hard to quantify. Its like Mars putting a figure on the Mars brand.

 

[teuchter]

Plus the time taken to hack through Leeds' plethora of incomprehensible one way routes, choked with 90% empty bendy buses,

Well, I don't know Leeds so I can't comment on the relative ease of getting to the station or airport. Presumably being stuck in a traffic jam made of cars is more acceptable to you than being stuck behind a bus. Perhaps you could try using one of those buses to get to the station. Seeing as they're 90% empty you wouldn't even have to go too near to any of the other passengers.

never mind the appallingness of having to lug baggage between the two stations (as bad as the "walk" between terminals1 and 3 at Heathrow).

It is appalling to have to walk all the way from one station to ... another station right next door. Lord knows how you manage to deal with airports. Don't you have a porter?

Anyway, if you read my post - the bit you quoted - you'll notice the word "direct" which means that the train would go... direct, so that you wouldn't even have to change. This was part of the original proposal, that some services would run on through to cities north of London.

Quicker to fly, always (unless you live in Lunnun, closer to Kings cross than an airport).

There will always be some journeys that will be significantly quicker by plane. There are some at present which are only marginally quicker, which with some investment in the rail network could become quicker by rail. There are many that are currently significantly quicker by plane but, with investment in a proper high speed network, could see rail journey times come close enough to be properly competitive.

The investment in cross channel services will only benefit those within the M25 until someone decides to build some nice shiny new sets of ultra high speed rails for the North East and West.

I'm glad you're now agreeing that some proper high speed lines within the UK would be a good thing.

It would be nice if these could actually connect with existing stations but unlikely as urban property values are too high to build new lines

You don't have to build new lines right into city centres. You build the high speed bits where you can (ie the bits in the countryside where you cover most of the mileage), and where it becomes impractical to build a totally new alignment, the train slows down and travels on normal track. This works perfectly well in Germany, France and other countries. This is how Eurostar has been working until the new terminal opens; the trains are to be seen snaking through various commuter stations in the suburbs of south London in between regular services.

and if the new routes as much as went within 5 miles of a patch of lesser spotted twat weed, it'd be deluged with morons living down holes simply wasting public money by getting in the way.

This would be no more of an issue than it would be if you were trying to build a new motorway or airport extension. And a two or four track rail line takes up a good deal less space than a six lane motorway so there'd be more space left over for the lesser spotted twat weed.

If it was worth doing, someone would have made the investment but as there's clearly no prospect of any financial return, investors have stayed away in droves.

See post above by sunray. Projects on this scale have to be initiated by government.

 

[Tom A]

(double post)

 

[Tom A]

ncomprehensible one way routes, choked with 90% empty bendy buses, never mind the appallingness of having to lug baggage between the two stations (as bad as the "walk" between terminals1 and 3 at Heathrow).

Not if you changed at Sheffield and then got a train to St Pancras (this is for when the Eurostar runs from St Pancras of course). There were actually plans for regional Eurostar services to Manchester, and possibly Scotland, but that was scrapped, as were the plans for "Nightstar" sleeper services (this was after they had built the coaches, and built new or converted existing locomotives for use on the service). According to Wikipedia (which I admit isn't the sole authority on life), Richard Branson was moaning about how the regional Eurostar service would compete with Virgin Trains. If they actually upgraded the signalling on the ECML and WCML so that 140+ mph became a reality, and then somehow connected the two lines with the CTRL, a regional service could actually be fesiable. Additionally I would suggest upgrading the Reading-Waterloo line so that the West of England can also be connected to the Channel Tunnel.

 

[Cobbles]

Not if you changed at Sheffield and then got a train to St Pancras

Go by train - hang around on 3 platforms.

Go by plane, no need to change.

No contest.

 

[mauvais]

Oh no, not having to wait on three platforms. What ghastly horror could possibly be more dreadful than that? Apart from having to wait on four platforms, obviously, whereupon one might as well just immediately kill oneself than have to suffer such a gruesome ordeal.

 

[T & P]

Go by train - hang around on 3 platforms.

Go by plane, no need to change.

No contest.

Go by plane:

Arrive at airport after travelling for more than an hour from the city you work or live in, on account of the airport being miles away from anywhere.

Find screen that tells you were to check in.

Walk a quarter of a mile to right check in desk.

Wait 10-20 minuts to check in.

Present paperwork and passport. Get asked stupid security questions.

After checking in, find departure gate.

Spend 20 minutes queuing to clear security. Hot. Bothered. Be asked 100 times whether you're carrying any liquids and offered bags to put them in.

Remove belt and shoes as you go through security.

Walk (in practically all cases at UK airports) into a depressing, ugly as fuck, crammed hall with few windows and no view to the outside world, little natural light, tacky carpets, thousands of hot and bothered travellers sitting wherever they can and every last inch of available space taken up by shops, shops and more shops selling overpriced shite that is actually more expensive than in the high street, "duty free prices" or not.

Try to find somewhere decent to eat. Desist due to the lack thereof. Spend 15 minutes deciding whether Garfunkels or McDonalds are the lesser of two evils.

Flight is delayed. Try to find somewhere to sit after crap meal. Think you'd have been well into your journey for hours if you'd taken the train, comfortably reading at your seat or taking a stroll to the bar/restaurant coach.

Once the gate is finally asigned, locate the route to it avoiding the women offering shots of Baileys and the young men wanting you to buy a ticket for the chance win a Ferrari.

Walk for 15 minutes through endless corridors.

Find passport and boarding card again when you get to the gate.

Sit and wait for the announcement to board.

Watch in despair and contempt for the human race as fellow travellers vulture around the gate entrance jockeying for position.

Show passport and boarding card again.

Queue for another couple of minutes on the jetway.

Show boarding card again.

Queue patiently as passengers in front of you put their luggage on the overhead bins.

Take your seat and watch the scheduled departure time pass as the plane waits for the inevitable tosser who's enjoying his drink at the terminal's pub.

Finally, start taxiing towards the runway.




If you really think waiting at three platforms is worse than 99% of all air travel experiences, my guess is that you have not flown much (or possess your very own private jet).

 

[Cobbles]

Go by plane:
Arrive at airport after travelling for more than an hour from the city you work or live in, on account of the airport being miles away from anywhere.

Edinburgh airport (the one that I use most is about 12 minutes away, a bit longer if there's a few empty buses parked across box junctions.

Find screen that tells you were to check in.

Check-in at home and print your own boarding pass - this interweb thingy is so useful.

Walk a quarter of a mile to right check in desk.

Not if you've already checked in

Wait 10-20 minuts to check in.

You've printed your boarding pass, remember (if you find something like this problematic, I assume that you're also the kind of person who's had to have someone label your shoes "left" and "right". You could also use the handy BMI/BA auto check in machines to avoid queueing or use your privilege card to access the rapidly moving business class queue. Even Sleazyjet let you print out your boarding pass in advance.

If I have time to book a train trip ahead, then I have to carry a stupid 10 digit reference to retrieve my ticket from a machine that also uses my credit card for ID anyway. as these are usually mainly hors de combat, this necessitates a lengthy delay at any train station so there's absolutely no difference.

Present paperwork and passport. Get asked stupid security questions.

Not if you follow any one of the methods above. Only the budget airlines demand photo ID.

After checking in, find departure gate.

Not a Herculean task, anyway, I invariably head for one of the Airline lounges for a quick coffee (there's no need to get to the airport hours ahead) and the gates are delineated there.

Spend 20 minutes queuing to clear security. Hot. Bothered. Be asked 100 times whether you're carrying any liquids and offered bags to put them in.

They really should have security for any mass transit system. Whilst you can't ram a train into anything other than a platform, it'd be a bit nasty if terrorists exploited the total lack of security.

Remove belt and shoes as you go through security.

Not all airports work the same - Edinburgh is painless and dear old Leeds Bradford has a priority queue for privilege card holders (you pay more airport tax on business seats so you should expect better facilities).

Walk (in practically all cases at UK airports) into a depressing, ugly as fuck, crammed hall with few windows and no view to the outside world, little natural light, tacky carpets, thousands of hot and bothered travellers sitting wherever they can and every last inch of available space taken up by shops, shops and more shops selling overpriced shite that is actually more expensive than in the high street, "duty free prices" or not.

The airline lounges are usually conveniently situated so you can avoid the hoi polloi easily. There's little of beauty to be seen standing on a windswept Victorian platform, embellished with a WH Smith and a happy eater....

Try to find somewhere decent to eat. Desist due to the lack thereof. Spend 15 minutes deciding whether Garfunkels or McDonalds are the lesser of two evils.

That's funny, I haven't seen any starred Michelin eateries in UK railway stations - why do you want food? - we're only talking about an hour's flight- I could understand the need to stock up before a totally unnecessary 8 hour train trek from Edinburgh to Southampton.

Flight is delayed. Try to find somewhere to sit after crap meal. Think you'd have been well into your journey for hours if you'd taken the train, comfortably reading at your seat or taking a stroll to the bar/restaurant coach.

The business lounges are perfectly pleasant to hang around in, as opposed to a windswept platform - I've had more rail delays than flight delays in the last 10 years.

Once the gate is finally asigned, locate the route to it avoiding the women offering shots of Baileys and the young men wanting you to buy a ticket for the chance win a Ferrari.

Refer to discussion on shoe marking - it's not difficult (try finding platform 10B at Waverley).

Walk for 15 minutes through endless corridors.

Or a similar distance through a chewing gum and pigeon shit scarred environment.

Find passport and boarding card again when you get to the gate. Sit and wait for the announcement to board.

Why - you're in the business lounge waiting for the priority boarding call.

Watch in despair and contempt for the human race as fellow travellers vulture around the gate entrance jockeying for position.

Doesn't matter, you're on first (even on Sleazyjet for an extra fiver).

Show passport and boarding card again.

Only on some airlines.

Queue for another couple of minutes on the jetway.

Never - not when you're at the head of the queue - settle down and have a read.

Show boarding card again.

Heavens forfend - don't they come round incessantly on the train checking tickets? I don't mind as it catches out the fraudsters.

Queue patiently as passengers in front of you put their luggage on the overhead bins.

Nope I was on first.

Take your seat and watch the scheduled departure time pass as the plane waits for the inevitable tosser who's enjoying his drink at the terminal's pub.

Finally, start taxiing towards the runway.

Looking forward to a max. one hour's incarceration with a nice G&T and selection of canapes, as opposed to 5 or 6 toiletless hours on a filthy relic.

If you really think waiting at three platforms is worse than 99% of all air travel experiences, my guess is that you have not flown much (or possess your very own private jet).

I only fly 3/4 sectors/week - does that qualify as "much"? (NB similar amount of train travel).

 

[T & P]

Meanwhile, in the real world...

 

[teuchter]

I want a number damnit! ie. what is the 'true' cost of flying, with the missing tax taken into account?
Oh and do the rail companies pay full whack for their electricity and diesel?

Resurrecting this question from earlier in the thread ...

There is an article here which covers this question in some part:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,,1099739,00.html

They put the "missing" tax at around 10 billion pounds, which works out to the equivalent of £557 in income tax for a single person on £25,000,000 a year.

Ie. that is the amount of income tax you are effectively paying in order to keep fares down for the likes of cobbles and his fellow aviators.

 

[Cobbles]

Resurrecting this question from earlier in the thread ...

There is an article here which covers this question in some part:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,,1099739,00.html

They put the "missing" tax at around 10 billion pounds, which works out to the equivalent of £557 in income tax for a single person on £25,000,000 a year.

Ie. that is the amount of income tax you are effectively paying in order to keep fares down for the likes of cobbles and his fellow aviators.

If VAT is to be chargeable on air Travel then it should also be applied to rail and bus travel.

If you're going to tax aviation fuel (it's not an exemption - it's never been payable), then you'd also have to be fair and use some of the money to subsidise air travel in the same way that every seat sold on a train attracts government subsidy.

It's not a matter of an "extra" £557 per taxpayer as this is simply something that has never been taxed (like Insurance policies used not to be taxed until it was spotted as a new target for stealth taxes).

As an example, it'd be stupid to aver that pre1998, diesel car drivers were taking money out of other taxpayers pockets - the Government only ratcheted up fuel duty on diesel as it was an easy target, not to address some imbalance......

Even if Gordo had a brain fart and decided to introduce such taxes unilaterally, most airlines would simply re-route their flights to take advantage of tax free fuel in other jurisdictions that's why it's impractical and asinine to consider such a move.

 

[teuchter]

If VAT is to be chargeable on air Travel then it should also be applied to rail and bus travel.

If you're going to tax aviation fuel (it's not an exemption - it's never been payable), then you'd also have to be fair and use some of the money to subsidise air travel in the same way that every seat sold on a train attracts government subsidy.

This depends on whether you see air travel having equivalent social or environmental benefits to rail or bus travel. I don't. I'm sure you have different views.

In any case, if you were to apply the subsidy at an equivalent per seat rate, I doubt it would make such a big dent in the £10 billion.

It's not a matter of an "extra" £557 per taxpayer as this is simply something that has never been taxed (like Insurance policies used not to be taxed until it was spotted as a new target for stealth taxes).

This is true. However, the point is that if such a tax were to be applied, it would allow for a reduction in the income tax burden of that amount without government income decreasing. Or, the money could be used for soomething useful. The figure is quoted to illustrate the amount of money that is involved. And also as a way of illustrating that cheap flights aren't actually as "cheap" as they appear to be.

Even if Gordo had a brain fart and decided to introduce such taxes unilaterally, most airlines would simply re-route their flights to take advantage of tax free fuel in other jurisdictions that's why it's impractical and asinine to consider such a move.

Yes, there is a difficulty in imposing fuel duty on aviation fuel because of the simple fact that airlines can decide to purchase it elsewhere. But I'm sure there would be ways around this, if there was the will. For example, you could refuse to let planes land at UK airports unless they could prove they'd paid the appropriate tax on the proportion of the fuel they had used while flying over UK territory.

 

[Tom A]

If they could arrange it so that flying to the Continent is more expensive than either coach or train, and maybe make it a slightly bit faster (I don't need it to be mega fast, but maybe get me there in 5 hours instead of 10, 10 hours instead of 20), then it would be a good step in the right direction IMHO. Oh and yes, I know there a lot of practitcal reasons why speeding up trains and especially may be a problem, particulary in the UK, although if we got proper high speed lines going north-south, getting from the Midlands to Central Europe by train should be no more difficult than getting to the far reaches of Wales or Scotland by train.

 

[Cobbles]

This is true. However, the point is that if such a tax were to be applied, it would allow for a reduction in the income tax burden of that amount without government income decreasing. Or, the money could be used for soomething useful. The figure is quoted to illustrate the amount of money that is involved. And also as a way of illustrating that cheap flights aren't actually as "cheap" as they appear to be.

Great - so as it's simply all about generating extra tax revenue to reduce the income tax burden rather than clawing back "missing" tax, then let's slap £2 on every bottle of poseur-water sold in the UK - it's even more environmentally indecorous that flying as it's totally unnecessary and purely a "lifestyle" luxury item.

I reckon that Evian drinkers by themselves must be costing the Treasury a billion or so a year, never mind thecost to local authorities of all those bottles having to be swept up and shovelled into landfill.

 

[Cobbles]

if we got proper high speed lines going north-south, getting from the Midlands to Central Europe by train should be no more difficult than getting to the far reaches of Wales or Scotland by train.

But then if you live in the "far reaches of Wales or Scotland", it's going to take hours just to get to these theoretical high speed lines running from the Midlands.

Why should those who live away from St Pancras/Waterloo/Kent International be discriminated against by having to spend a whole day travelling to destinations that are a couple of hours away from London by train and everywhere else by pland - answer they shouldn't.

Just as the government subsidises occasional air travel from the Isles to the Mainland for island dwellers, so too it should subsidise air travel for those who've paid for but cannot benefit from new cross Channel trains and termini.

That's only fair.

 

[tim]

Twat.

Even so, 357mph.

I'd love to see the bearded twat's leaning trains do that.

.

 

[teuchter]

Great - so as it's simply all about generating extra tax revenue to reduce the income tax burden rather than clawing back "missing" tax, then let's slap £2 on every bottle of poseur-water sold in the UK - it's even more environmentally indecorous that flying as it's totally unnecessary and purely a "lifestyle" luxury item.

I reckon that Evian drinkers by themselves must be costing the Treasury a billion or so a year, never mind thecost to local authorities of all those bottles having to be swept up and shovelled into landfill.

It all depends how the Evian is transported, doesn't it? Train, lorry or airfreight? I don't support in any way the current excessive transportation of foodstuffs around the globe. The cost of a bottle of Evian presumably already includes a certain portion which is attributable to transport costs, and therefore related to fuel tax (if it's come by lorry for example). So the treasury is already gaining something from each bottle of Evian, unless it has come by air. Perhaps diesel fuel for road vehicles should be taxed more.

It's all about the "polluter pays" principle in the end.