New rail speed record ....

[teuchter]

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.

Not if it's subsidising the opportunity to arrive at your destination maybe an hour or two quicker (if at all), for those who happen to live nearer to an airport than a major train station, at the cost of causing ten times as much pollution.

And not if the same amount of money, spent on the bus/rail network could be used to bring greater benefits to a greater number of people.

 

[Tom A]

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(sic)

Why should anyone feel it's their right to travel by a means that is becoming the most rapid source of greenhouse gas emissions, just to travel between two points in this country, just because they can't handle the fact they live 200+ miles away from a major rail hub? Our obsession with "getting here yesterday" has got to stop, it is neither economically (oil is going to run out in the within this century, y'know) or envrionmentally.

 

[starfish2000]

The real reason we will never have high speed lines is cos it would shift a lot of real estate prices about. The winners would be the North & the Losers, places in the south that look shit, are shit but still have high property prices.

Thats the real reason you'll never have a High Speed Line in the UK going North to South.

 

[Cobbles]

Why should anyone feel it's their right to travel by a means that is becoming the most rapid source of greenhouse gas emissions, just to travel between two points in this country, just because they can't handle the fact they live 200+ miles away from a major rail hub? Our obsession with "getting here yesterday" has got to stop, it is neither economically (oil is going to run out in the within this century, y'know) or envrionmentally.

Try making that point in Xian or Mumbai - you wouldn't last 5 minutes.

Even if we throw ourselves back to the Middle Ages in transport terms, that'll only redress about 6 months of growth in the Asian air travel market so why bother?

 

[Cobbles]

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.

Exactly - it's not just that the bottles have travelled hurdreds of miles by road that matters but that they've been formed out of thermoplastic using energy and hydrocarbons that would be far better off powering a rorty V8 down a sunlit summer road.

The discarded bottles (1% of which may find their way back onto a ship to be "recycled" at a dump in Indonesia) then need to be carted off by diesel lorry to be ploughed into landfill. Total envionmental impact = shedloads but it doesn't matter, apparently.

The whole concept of bottled water being sold and bought by gullible twats in areas where perfectly drinkable stuff comes out of the tap is symptomatic of the rank hypocrisy that infects the whole green lobby - "you can't do what I disapprove of but no matter how wasteful my habits are, they don't matter".

 

[T & P]

Even if we throw ourselves back to the Middle Ages in transport terms, that'll only redress about 6 months of growth in the Asian air travel market so why bother?

A true high speed railway line between Scotland and the South would piss on air travel for the immense majority of the population of Britain.

Fact. End of.

 

[teuchter]

The whole concept of bottled water being sold and bought by gullible twats in areas where perfectly drinkable stuff comes out of the tap is symptomatic of the rank hypocrisy that infects the whole green lobby - "you can't do what I disapprove of but no matter how wasteful my habits are, they don't matter".

There is a fair point here but it doesn't affect the argument about whether or not certain activities, such as flying when there are viable alternatives, should be encouraged.

Of course there are a multitude of decisions that everyone of us makes every day which have an environmental impact. Many people concentrate on getting certain decisions right but fail to take action in other areas. You can call that hypocrisy but it's better than doing nothing at all.

As regards the Evian bottles ... actually I happen to agree that it's crazy to pay for water from abroad when it comes out of the tap for free. But isn't it worth getting this little extravagence in proportion?

Would you care to give me some figures which compare the carbon footprint of drinking, say, five bottles of Evian a week, with travelling 3-4 sectors by plane every week?

Here's my very crude estimation:

2.5 liters water = 2.5 kilograms x 500 miles = 1250 kg-miles

1 x cobbles = 85kg x (4 x 400-mile flights) = 136,000 kg-miles

Assuming that densely packed evian bottles travelling by diesel lorry use about 10 times less fuel per kg than humans transported by plane, I'm going to multiply your kg-miles by ten to give 1,360,000.

So it could be estimated that the impact of your activities might be in the region of 1,000 times greater than the evian drinkers.

Or to put it another way, you'd have to drink 5 thousand bottles of evian to match the impact of your weekly flying routine.

So even the Evian drinkers are perfectly justified in pointing their fingers at the serial aviators without risk of "rank hypocrisy".

 

[tim]

A true high speed railway line between Scotland and the South would piss on air travel for the immense majority of the population of Britain.

Fact. End of.

And building it would not only piss off all the NIMBY's on the route but also the green lobby. As is the case with the high speed freight line being built planned in Italy which despite all it's carbon saving potential is opposed by the Italian Greens.

Stiil consistency has never been a Green strength, as was seen in the last German Green/Red government.

 

[kyser_soze]

Tim's touched on the everso tiny subject of planning. The TGV network in France is considered a national priority, and the route planners are allowed a LOT more leeway in being able to draw straight lines through people's back gardens - plus there is about 3 times the land available for building railways in France, so the issues of noise pollution and having to negotiate the UK planning process where communities can hold up development by calling, and getting, public enquiries about routes. It's one of the reasons that the CTRL cost more per mile than it's equivalent in France - public enquiry followed by replanning which included building some exceptionally expensive tunnels so the link didn't wreck the Kent's 'Garden Of England' status. TVG planners have an easier, and cheaper, life in comparison to UK rail planners.

Not that I think the planning issue is an excuse - strategic rail planning should be able to take the same kind of priority over local objections as it does in France IMV but then I live in Zone 2 in London so it's not especially likely that I'll end up with a train producing over 150db of noise going past my garden every 20-30 mins.

 

[Crispy]

There's also the fact that investment in rail infrastructure is much more permanent than air travel. When the oil crunch comes, trains will still run. Hell, even if it all goes mad max, there'll still be trains. But regular air travel requires healthy economies and vast technical resources to operate the way it does. It's actually a very fragile system.

 

[Tom A]

I have a radical proposal. Dig up the M40, M42, and M6 Toll, and et volia! Space for high speed railways from London to Birmingham, and at least two-thirds of the way to Manchester and Liverpool. Additionally, the M6 north of Wolverhampton can be converted into high-speed line, with the A449 between Wolves-Stafford, and A34 and A50 north of Stoke upgraded to dual carridgeway trunk roads to take the strain of the loss of the motorways. It may be a inconveince to the road user, but it's the only way I can see high-speed rail having any chance in this country, and we use our cars way too much in this country. This would also mean that existing lines can be freed up for more local services and rail freight.

E2A: Orbitrail can use the route of the M25 as well.

 

[kyser_soze]

But would those railways have the capacity to handle the same level of traffic? How would you unbundle the last mile of logistics networks? PLus, ALL those motorways have curves in them that would mean HSTs have to slow down, limiting their efficiency (the TGV of this thread takes 15 mins to get up to top speed, which is why the lines have to be built as straight as possible)

 

[teuchter]

Not that I think the planning issue is an excuse - strategic rail planning should be able to take the same kind of priority over local objections as it does in France IMV but then I live in Zone 2 in London so it's not especially likely that I'll end up with a train producing over 150db of noise going past my garden every 20-30 mins.

The planning thing is a big issue and a difficult one, but it's one that also applies to new motorways and airport extensions, which are the alternatives.

 

[Tom A]

I am not suggesting that the railway lines follow the exact path taken by the motorway, but the land is there and it's already "ruined". I suggest a bit of NIMBY-bothering building to ease out the corners as well, and the bits of motorway that aren't used can be returned to nature.

 

[kyser_soze]

@ Teuchter: OH I agree, and it's why I think railways should be given priority to override local planning objections and be exempt from the public enquiry process. All I was doing was pointing out the differences between the UK and France - it's a lot easier to draw straight lines between major urban centres in France than the UK simply down to the greater land area available to build railways on - same goes for the péages and road network in France. More space = easier to plan.

 

[T & P]

I have a radical proposal. Dig up the M40, M42, and M6 Toll, and et volia! Space for high speed railways from London to Birmingham, and at least two-thirds of the way to Manchester and Liverpool. Additionally, the M6 north of Wolverhampton can be converted into high-speed line, with the A449 between Wolves-Stafford, and A34 and A50 north of Stoke upgraded to dual carridgeway trunk roads to take the strain of the loss of the motorways. It may be a inconveince to the road user, but it's the only way I can see high-speed rail having any chance in this country, and we use our cars way too much in this country. This would also mean that existing lines can be freed up for more local services and rail freight.

E2A: Orbitrail can use the route of the M25 as well.

*Waits for Cobbles' to see this*

 

[teuchter]

I am not suggesting that the railway lines follow the exact path taken by the motorway, but the land is there and it's already "ruined". I suggest a bit of NIMBY-bothering building to ease out the corners as well, and the bits of motorway that aren't used can be returned to nature.

Lovely as it would be to dig up all those motorways, I think anyone can see it just isn't going to happen.

However, I think that part of the proposals for a new high speed line involve the suggestion that much of it could run adjacent to existing motorways - this involves less disruption than trying to find an entirely new alignment.

It's also good advertising as those stuck in traffic jams can observe trains whisking past them without impediment. On the other hand, rail travellers are forced to look at ugly tarmac for much of their journey.

 

[Cobbles]

So even the Evian drinkers are perfectly justified in pointing their fingers at the serial aviators without risk of "rank hypocrisy".

Not so, in order to travel throughout the UK in reasonable timescales for business it is necessary to fly (just ask any Scottish Office Civil servant on an Edinburgh/London flight).

Evian etc. is totally unnecessary as taps are faster and cheaper.

 

[teuchter]

Not so, in order to travel throughout the UK in reasonable timescales for business it is necessary to fly (just ask any Scottish Office Civil servant on an Edinburgh/London flight).

Evian etc. is totally unnecessary as taps are faster and cheaper.

It's difficult to take the argument any further without knowing specifically what the "business" is.

No doubt the Cobbles Business is incredibly time-critical, for which reason we should all be grateful for the time you give to posting on here.

I'm certainly not convinced that an hour or two here and there is incredibly critical in the majority of cases. Any truly "busy" person would be able to use the slightly increased journey time by train to do something useful. 90% of a train trip from Edinburgh to London is useable time if you've got a laptop and a mobile. How much of a plane journey is actually any good for doing stuff?

In any case, if it all comes down to a time is money calculation ... all the more reason to whack some tax on aviation fuel to swing the balance away from the planes.

 

[tim]

Not so, in order to travel throughout the UK in reasonable timescales for business it is necessary to fly (just ask any Scottish Office Civil servant on an Edinburgh/London flight).

Evian etc. is totally unnecessary as taps are faster and cheaper.

Yes, but most travel is not between The South of England and Scotland or Northern Ireland. City to city travel between the main English and Welsh cities would be much faster and faster with a decent rail system and broader pblic transport system, we're talking after all about distances 0f 250 miles or less.

 

[kyser_soze]

He/she is talking a load of bollocks - there are very few mission critical things that are *that* reliant on time (transporting live organs would be one) that the hassle involved in getting to and from and airport would make such a huge difference. You're also right about the notion of usable time as well...

 

[Tom A]

Lovely as it would be to dig up all those motorways, I think anyone can see it just isn't going to happen.

I am aware of this. But realism can only get you so far until you are unwittingly embracing the status quo. People say that it will be impossible for the developed nations to cut their greenhouse gas emissions by 90% within a decade. Doesn't stop people from rightly demanding that they do so.

However, I think that part of the proposals for a new high speed line involve the suggestion that much of it could run adjacent to existing motorways - this involves less disruption than trying to find an entirely new alignment.

I certianly think that it would be a better use of space than widening the motorways!

It's also good advertising as those stuck in traffic jams can observe trains whisking past them without impediment. On the other hand, rail travellers are forced to look at ugly tarmac for much of their journey.

Practically the whole of the journey between Lancaster and Preston by train runs parallel to the M6, so that won't really be new to me. Also, you can think to yourself, "haha, pwned", while seeing all those idiots in cars nose to tail in gridlock while you are whizzing past them at 140 mph.

 

[Cobbles]

Tim's touched on the everso tiny subject of planning. The TGV network in France is considered a national priority, and the route planners are allowed a LOT more leeway in being able to draw straight lines through people's back gardens - plus there is about 3 times the land available for building railways in France, so the issues of noise pollution and having to negotiate the UK planning process where communities can hold up development by calling, and getting, public enquiries about routes. It's one of the reasons that the CTRL cost more per mile than it's equivalent in France - public enquiry followed by replanning which included building some exceptionally expensive tunnels so the link didn't wreck the Kent's 'Garden Of England' status. TVG planners have an easier, and cheaper, life in comparison to UK rail planners.

Not that I think the planning issue is an excuse - strategic rail planning should be able to take the same kind of priority over local objections as it does in France IMV but then I live in Zone 2 in London so it's not especially likely that I'll end up with a train producing over 150db of noise going past my garden every 20-30 mins.

Indeed, without the French "steamroller and be damned" approach to rural planning, any proposal for new high speed infrastructure will have to add in the cost of digging out hordes of workshy soapdodging "eco-warriors" - that plus the cost of real estate will doom any such project to dismal failure, otherwise it would have been done already.


Mind you, the M6 relief toll road seems to be reasonably successful.

 

[kyser_soze]

Ahh, the M6 Toll road...drove along that on the way to and back from Scotland over the bank hol...what a dreamy piece of road...empty, smooth, quiet, no cameras or old bill to take away the fun of driving at 120mph...TBH I'd be happy if most road traffic went to the railways and the motorways were all like that...or indeed, like the road system in France, which is equally empty, well maintained...and the péages are even emptier than the M6 (and about 6 times as expensive...)

 

[Tom A]

Ahh, the M6 Toll road...drove along that on the way to and back from Scotland over the bank hol...what a dreamy piece of road...empty, smooth, quiet, no cameras or old bill to take away the fun of driving at 120mph...TBH I'd be happy if most road traffic went to the railways and the motorways were all like that...or indeed, like the road system in France, which is equally empty, well maintained...and the péages are even emptier than the M6 (and about 6 times as expensive...)

The M50 and M180 are also pretty quiet as motorways go, although the former is essentially a glorified dual carriageway. However the reason why the M6 Toll is quiet is probably down to people still prefering to go down the M6 proper and risk getting caught in the jams around Brum than paying the tolls. Also anyone going from the north of Stoke to London can use the A500/A50 dual carriageway to get to the M1 without paying the toll either.

So the M6 Toll as a bit of a while elephant IMO, alhough in a decade's time it will probably be as busy as any other motorway.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

no cameras or old bill to take away the fun of driving at 120mph...

There are a lot of old bill on the M6T at times looking for people doing just this...

 

[guinnessdrinker]

Vive le tgv francais! A bas les merdes chemins de fer privatisees anglais. Les escargots sont plus vite.

privatises, vont.

 

[guinnessdrinker]

*mental note to self, there is life outside London and they're not all savages*

are you really so sure?

 

[guinnessdrinker]

Didn't they have something on Newsnight the other day that suggested that despite being state owned, SNCF got no subsidy at all. If so, all the more impressive.

they do get subsidies, actually, but a lot of them come from the regions for local trains, not necessarily centrally. SNCF runs the TGVs as a business and discourage the use of cheaper classic lines, a problem if you want to go to a smaller town on the line and not served by TGVs, unless you're prepared to use an out of town station somewhere in the middle of beetroot fields.

 

[guinnessdrinker]

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.

it can be 15 minutes if you prepared to buy an expensive ticket.