Rail alternatives to Heathrow expansion

e10rifles Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 04:28:34 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

Let's listen to those who really know...



http://www.rmt.org.uk/shared_asp_files/GFSR.asp?NodeID=107758

And get your MP to sign http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=36191&SESSION=891

tags: , , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Rail alternatives to Heathrow expansion | 3 comments (3 topical)

Re: Rail alternatives to Heathrow expansion (#1)

by Prbo on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 04:45:16 PM GMT

There's no question that high-speed rail would be of great benefit, and could eliminate a number of short-haul flights.  The problems come with cost.  The reason that people fly rather than go by rail is because it's a darn sight cheaper - I would, for one. 

For many UK destinations, particularly those in Scotland, even with a high-speed line air travel is quicker.  For business, that's imperative, and is unlikely to be addressed in the short or medium term.


Re: Rail alternatives to Heathrow expansion (#2)

by e10rifles on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 04:55:45 PM GMT

Not necessarily quicker. By the time you have got to Heathrow, checked in, flown and got from the airport into town, I personally have found London to Glasgow quicker by train sometimes.

And the question of price doesn't exist in a vacuum. Both air and rail travel are subject to government policies on subsidies, taxes etc. If we believe in one over the other then it's up to the government to make that one more attractive to the passenger.


[ Parent ]

Maybe not TGV-style high speed rail (#3)

by rwendland on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:14:15 PM GMT

While I oppose a third runway, it is not clear TGV-style high speed rail is the best alternative within the UK. In per passenger-km CO2 emissions, high speed rail has several times the emissions of Inter-City trains, and nearly as much as car travel - by some studies.

Even if you put investment costs and finding an acceptable route aside, TGV-style high speed rail in the UK doesn't seem to be a no-brainer environmentally best solution.

One issue is that a Edinburgh/Glasgow- London high speed rail link would have much more capacity than all current flights, so its economics might well depend on increasing travel demand - and its not clear this would be an environmentally good thing. (But this is a complex issue, which needs careful study.)

The recent white paper "Delivering a Sustainable Railway" view on handling future rail traffic growth is "At present the balance of advantage would appear to favour new services running at conventional speeds and operating on an existing disused alignment."  The proponents of TGV-style high speed train  have to make a good case before we set about reversing a recent white paper.

Fig 11.1 of the white paper offers a nifty comparative CO2 per km table, which shows up the problems as you make high speed trains faster, e.g. the old InterCity 125 HST are nearly twice as CO2 efficient as the latest faster Virgin Super Voyager. Electrifying lines seems a good win though - regenerative braking maybe.

If we are most concerned about green issues, we should be considering funding tracks that suit wide bodied, double deck trains at more modest speeds, on shorter routes, rather than flagship high speed rail.

More on this in a thread we had 6 months ago. 


Rail alternatives to Heathrow expansion | 3 comments (3 topical)