3r5d runway @ Heathrow and electrifying the gw Mianline

[anthony263]

Just read on the evening post website, that DFT have given the go ahead to elctrify the great western mainline, although i dont remember that being annouced on the news yesterday.

here is the link , but does anyone have any further info:

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/home...-expansion/article-619021-detail/article.html

if it is true, the myabe they will scrap the IEP project and just build elctric versions of the adelantes or mark 3/mark 4 stock coaches and have elctric loco's & DVT'S

 

[Mojo]

He hasn't given the go-ahead for electrification, he merely said that it is being looked at and that a statement will be made in due course

Electrification is advantageous on heavily used parts of the rail network. Electric trains are lighter, accelerate faster, are quieter and emit less carbon dioxide. We are well advanced in procuring replacement trains for the intercity routes, but before we finalise our plans we need to decide whether new parts of the network should be electrified.

Initial work suggests that the case for electrification appears strongest on the most heavily used parts of the Great Western mainline from Paddington, and the Midland mainline north of Bedford. Alongside the work on our new Intercity trains we will analyse the value for money, affordability and financing options of the electrification proposals which Network Rail will put to me shortly. I intend to make a further statement later this year.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/press/speechesstatements/statements/infrastructure

 

[anthony263]

looks like the Bristol eveing post have made a mistake then, anywa thanx for the clarification.

 

[metrocammel]

They haven't really got it wrong, that article mentions the electrification very briefly- it doesn't really mention any details about the electrification go-ahead- it's just a comment in passing. An 'announcement' by the government doesn't mean it's set in concrete!

 

[Mojo]

It would appear to be another of New Labour's favourite announcements about an announcement. Twice the publicity!

 

[devon_metro]

They haven't really got it wrong, that article mentions the electrification very briefly- it doesn't really mention any details about the electrification go-ahead- it's just a comment in passing. An 'announcement' by the government doesn't mean it's set in concrete!

Unless of course it has something to do with road expansion/airport expansion.

 

[5872]

I wish they would hurry up and build these places and other things.

 

[PhilipW]

He hasn't given the go-ahead for electrification, he merely said that it is being looked at and that a statement will be made in due course

While this is technically true that no statement has been made, it is in effect a governement pre-announcement -- which is the way that Governments do things. Strange but true. So this can be treated as a firm intention that the GW Mainline will be electrified.

What may not have been decided yet (and indeed probably has not) is the extent of the electrification. London to Bristol (via Bath and Parkway) and to Cardiff will be the core. I would also assume that Didcot-Oxford will be wired.

Discussions are probably still taking place about Reading-Exeter (or even onto Plymouth) and Cardiff-Swansea. If the Exeter route is included, I also expect Bristol-Taunton to be included as a diversionary secondary route.

Also when the proposed HS2 line is developed from Heathrow to West Midlands, I would anticipate that Oxford-Banbury-Birmingham will be wired as a key diversionary route.

This may all seem like a low-key announcement, but it is really good news.

 

[16CSVT2700]

I wish they would hurry up and build these places and other things.

And kick all the families out of their homes on land requiredby the 3rd runway in times like these, early? Are you a complete fool or what?

 

[class 313]

And kick all the families out of their homes on land requiredby the 3rd runway in times like these, early? Are you a complete fool or what?

Going to be honest with you, yes. He is. Quite obviously with that post.

You need time on these things Fred. I'm sure you would agree if it was you being kicked out.

 

[devon_metro]

I wish they would hurry up and build these places and other things.

When it is a ridiculous idea that needs scrapping. Funny how it only seems to be the top Labour ministers that suuport it along with BAA. Next election might be interesting.

 

[Metroland]

Funny how it only seems to be the top Labour ministers that suuport it along with BAA. Next election might be interesting.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/18/heathrow-third-runway

 

[mumrar]

While this is technically true that no statement has been made, it is in effect a governement pre-announcement -- which is the way that Governments do things. Strange but true. So this can be treated as a firm intention that the GW Mainline will be electrified.

What, like the statement when British Rail built the HST and said it was a stop-gap before the wholesale electrification of Britains railways? Because that hasn't happened, and they said over 30 years ago! People will always glean what information thay are looking for from speeches such as this, and always will do.

 

[34067James]

And kick all the families out of their homes on land requiredby the 3rd runway in times like these, early? Are you a complete fool or what?

I would Kick them out of there homes for the 3rd runway , but I would not leave them on the streets but give them new homes and if they dont like it tough.

I am supporting for a 3rd runway at LHR ,

I think a 3rd runway is a good idea and I think LHR needs it, its the 3rd busiest airport in the world and all over the world big city airports have 4 or 5 runways so why cant heathrow

What annoys me is greenpeace and protesters protest about Kingsnorth power station or Heathrow airport but they should be out in brazil trying to stop the killing off the rainforest , if they are still there when they start to build the runway i say cover them with the runway materals


But as I am into Planes I would support anything to do with avaition

James

 

[Metroland]

I think a 3rd runway is a good idea and I think LHR needs it, its the 3rd busiest airport in the world and all over the world big city airports have 4 or 5 runways so why cant heathrow

Perhaps because London has four other airports: Stansted, Luton, Gatwick and City - and 4 others: East Midlands, Birmingham and Southampton, Southend around 1 hour away on the train as well as business airports at Biggin Hill, Farnborough and Manston.

A lot of these slots are taken by planes serving places served perfectly well by train.

There is no justification in millions of people having to put up with additional noise, or Government running adverts to tell us to cut back on CO2 or recycle, to allow expansion and running half empty trains. It also undermines the case for HSR, which could allow the railways to be cleared for freight and commuters removing millions of trucks and cars off the road, with further savings and a real improvement in internal transport and quality of life.

I don't think you have to be pro or anti-aviation, a lot of people I speak to in the industry think its madness to have everything concentrated at one airport and flying such short distances.

I just absolutely fail to see the logic, or the technology on the horizon to save CO2 and alternative fuels, that's why I'm against it. If the airline industry had any sense they could see the PR disaster they are creating. You don't have to take my word for it, almost everyone else that looks at the issue concludes the same thing.

========

Geoff Hoon has wrapped himself in intellectual knots in his justification for a third runway at Heathrow (We can have hundreds of extra flights a day and still be green - ministers, 16 January).

Obviously we cannot build long-lasting infrastructure that locks us into a high-emissions future and drastically cut carbon dioxide emissions. This is scientific fact. It has been clearly shown by Professor Anderson of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research that explicit and significant demand management is a prerequisite of any measures designed to put aviation on an emission-reduction pathway compatible with avoiding dangerous climate change.

Moreover, why haven't supporters of a third runway learned from recent events? The financial crisis highlights the problems stemming from policymakers and business leaders being seduced by short-term profits for the few (financial services companies), which then lead to serious long-term problems for the many (the credit crunch, job losses, massive taxpayer bail-outs). Avoiding similar profits-now-catastrophe-later policies in relation to climate change is probably humanities most pressing task. No wonder there is such widespread anger at the decision.

Dr Simon Lewis

Earth and Biosphere Institute, University of Leeds

In the present debate over Heathrow expansion, which is predicated on a three-fold expansion of demand by 2050 (Letters, 14 January), we have seen little discussion about whether such demand could even be met by the fuel industry.

Supporters of growth cannot gloss over the probability that global oil supply will peak within the next decade. It follows that growth will be entirely impossible unless passengers are willing and able to pay very much more for a rising share of a decreasing resource.

The Society of British Aerospace Companies has one briefing paper on alternatives to conventional kerosene aviation fuels. It concludes that there is currently no commercially available alternative. It also finds that liquids produced from gas or coal have CO2 emission problems, and liquids produced from biomass are a very long way off from either commercial production or a resolution of land-use issues. Unless supporters for expansion can demonstrate a high probability that sufficient fuel at an acceptable price will remain available for the next 40 years, it seems likely that a third runway would soon be redundant - a divisive and expensive white elephant.

Dr Richard Miller

Trustee, The Oil Depletion Analysis Centre

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/19/heathrow-third-runway

 

[paul1609]

Personally I'm in favour of the 3rd runway as well. I believe that the establishment of LHR as a major hub in the transatlantic- europe-middle east air route is essential for the British Economy. I believe without it Heathrow will deminish in favour of hubs such as Frankfurt and Paris CDG.
I believe that even if a case could be made for a network of high speed lines the capacity released by removing domestic flights would delay the need for the 3rd runway by at best 7 or 8 years and at worst by 2 years.
A successful LHR probably strengthens the case for GWML electrification.

 

[34067James]

I would count City,Stansted,Luton and Gatwick as London hubs, Not all slots from LHR you can reach by train I would say at least 8 or 9 by plane it be quicker though .But I think its up to you if you want to fly to Manchester or catch the train ,I would fly The thing that annoys me about peple moaning about the noise is it only last 8 seconds plus Heathrow was there first so why move to an area where there be noise and when you know in years to come it expand and there be extra noise.

An airline called VLM found out that there planes on a London City route to Brussels were more green then the a eurostar service to the same place. aswel as London City to Scotland. At the moment all are recycle is being stored in big warehouse's so thats just sitting there .Though I am with you there about taking the lorry off the road and use rail freight more

My reason behind the 3rd runway at LHR is because well for a start it needs it , it will help take of the long queues from the other two runways and if they build a T6 it will come very useful other wise you have angry passagers sitting on the tarmac waiting to take off.

 

[Metroland]

An airline called VLM found out that there planes on a London City route to Brussels were more green then the a eurostar service to the same place. aswel as London City to Scotland. At the moment all are recycle is being stored in big warehouse's so thats just sitting there .Though I am with you there about taking the lorry off the road and use rail freight more

Funny that

http://www.eurostar.com/UK/uk/leisure/about_eurostar/environment/greener_than_flying.jsp

http://www.virgintrains.co.uk/gogreener/tandc.aspx

Won't expand though, I bet you, to much opposition. No need no anyway, traffic way down through the floor.

http://www.baa.com/portal/page/Corp...___/a22889d8759a0010VgnVCM200000357e120a____/

 

[paul1609]

I reckon you will see Eurostar reporting traffic losses this year.
The increase for last year was only just over 10% despite the completion of HS1.

 

[devon_metro]

I reckon you will see Eurostar reporting traffic losses this year.
The increase for last year was only just over 10% despite the completion of HS1.

I'm not really sure how you can say that? The tunnel should be back to normal soon, and Eurostar is far faster/more comfortable/suitable for business/cheaper that the plane. I've flown Heathrow - Paris CDG before and quite frankly the amount of waiting around was ridiculous! Not to mention the total dump that is Heathrow.

 

[Mojo]

I'm not really sure how you can say that? The tunnel should be back to normal soon, and Eurostar is far faster/more comfortable/suitable for business/cheaper that the plane. I've flown Heathrow - Paris CDG before and quite frankly the amount of waiting around was ridiculous! Not to mention the total dump that is Heathrow.

Unfortunately, the state of the economy affects all sorts of transport, not just air.

"There is a very close relationship between use of transport and the state of the economy, according to Stephen Glaister, professor of transport and infrastructure from Imperial College."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7833080.stm

 

[Metroland]

Perhaps, but its actually a bit more complex than that right now.

The credit crunch means cheap loans for cars/holidays are not so readily available, which is obviously going to affect road and air more. Few people can afford to buy cars up front - especially if they are at risk of losing their jobs. Where rail is at risk is commuting into large cities, especially London and some of the higher premium business traffic.

10% growth on Eurostar is impressive given that several services have been withdrawn and travel times have been extended due to the Eurotunnel fire. Air has dropped 6.5% in that period.

Almost always when rail services are introduced to compete with air (under 400 miles) the latter travellers drop due to superior timekeeping, frequency, compensation arrangements and convenience of rail.

I believe video conferencing and the internet will diminish long distance business travel in the future (over 400 miles) especially when it involves travelling to a distant location abroad - which involves large costs, hotels, and sometimes language problems and jet lag. Face-to-face is still superior, but companies will look to save costs and employee time. I run a business were we sell almost 1/3 of our goods abroad, and I never set foot on a plane.

The latest round of innovation comes from Hewlett-Packard, with its Halo product, and Cisco’s telepresence technology. Both innovations enable people around the globe to meet in an environment that looks, sounds and feels as if they’re sitting across the same table - no plane required. This will severly affect airlines who use business travel to cross subsidise cheaper economy fares. The British Airways of the world - the chief user of Heathrow.

Road congestion will continue to help rail in the sub 300 mile market, which is the vast majority of business. The deregulation of international rail travel from 2010 will also severely hit air travel as will high fuel costs when the economy starts to return to normal in 2-3 years.

====

Video killed the passenger numbers’ declared a headline in The Scotsman newspaper recently. It’s enough to send a shudder down the spine of any business travel agent.

The check-in queues at Scotland’s three biggest airports – Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen – shortened earlier this year as business travellers cut back on flights. And for the first time, technology was cited as one of the reasons for the decline.

http://www.travelweekly.co.uk/Artic...ss-travel-the-rise-of-video-conferencing.html

'When an Appleton insurance company added 15 video conference rooms in less than a year, the rooms were booked solid with meetings that normally would have required thousands of miles of air travel.

"Now if we doubled the number of video conferencing units, it still wouldn't be enough," said Mike Shetter, media productions manager for Aid Association for Lutherans/Lutheran Brotherhood.

The cost benefits of video conference meetings can be huge with savings on flights, taxis, hotels and, not least, unproductive hours spent traveling. '

http://www.ivci.com/international_videoconferencing_news_videoconferencing_news_19.html

The Travel Industry Association says deep frustration among air travelers caused them to avoid an estimated 41 million trips over the past 12 months at a cost of more than $26 billion to the U.S. economy. With fuel prices as high as they are, fares will have to rise. That is going to hit air travel even harder.

An easy prediction: Video, audio and multi-media conferencing is going to get a boost.

http://www.tmcnet.com/channels/hd-v...travel-down-video-conferencing-will-be-up.htm

The global financial meltdown and resulting cost-cutting by companies have hit the business travel industry hard - and unsurprisingly providers of video conferencing services have been major gainers.

Travel industry sources told Emirates Business that the volume of business travel around the world was coming down.

http://zawya.com/story.cfm/sidZAWYA20081105054352

 

[34067James]

Funny that

http://www.eurostar.com/UK/uk/leisure/about_eurostar/environment/greener_than_flying.jsp

http://www.virgintrains.co.uk/gogreener/tandc.aspx

Won't expand though, I bet you, to much opposition. No need no anyway, traffic way down through the floor.

http://www.baa.com/portal/page/Corp...___/a22889d8759a0010VgnVCM200000357e120a____/

Thats from LHR, LGW so that be a jet which eurostar would be green but VLM use tuboprob planes which are green.

Oh see here you will be shocked : http://www.greenaironline.com/news.php?viewStory=275

James

 

[Metroland]

Not really, I've only spent at least 4 years looking into it, speaking to people with PHDs in the subject and various professionals - its rubbish. Eurostar is mostly nuclear powered, that's why its low CO2.

The report done for Eurostar by consultants looked at power generation and losses, which are included in the figures, plus load factors*. They also fail to mention radiative forcing there - which even by their figures would turn their argument on their head. The land use/material use has been debuked many times, see the general discussion. Airports use more space than rail - surprisingly (227 km 2 v around 800 km2, with the main airports in the UK taking up 125km2). To cite the carbon cost of building lines is ridiculous considering most were built by hand, 150 odd years ago. A direct comparison is difficult, as the ECML is used by lots of freight and local services, not just high speed. Most of the track there is from the 70s, and the signalling on the southern half- which runs on 12 volt bulbs. Rail can also be recycled, which concrete runways cannot. There must be huge energy costs in running terminals as well, maintaining runways and dragging baggage and aircraft around, plus expanding road networks and the congestion caused by air terminals. Most of the cost of maintenance of rail is included, because the infrastructure trains are included in the industry figures, which then get averaged. Leaving that aside you have a few people driving around in vans, and the odd road railer, which I bet is no more carbon inefficient than dragging huge aircraft around by tractor units at airports.

If it was true, it still no excuse. By law we have to limit carbon emissions, for expansion, as I said this means the rest of the economy has to de carbonise, which currently isn't technically possible. Then there is still the small matter of congestion and noise.

For further info you might want to see an independent report here

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/business/envrp/pdf/passenger-transport.pdf

and ATOC produce an independent report from the TOCs here

http://www.atoc-comms.org/admin/userfiles/Energy & Emissions Statement - web version.pdf


*The source

The research was carried out by a consortium of Paul Watkiss Associates and AEA Technology Environment. It uses detailed data on electricity supplies, power station emissions and transmission losses; Eurostar and airline load factors; and the range of aircraft and engine types and emissions.

 

[paul1609]

I think that if you believe that Eurostar is mostly nuclear powered there are serious shortcomings in how you understand the British Electrical Supply to operate. So much so I suggest that it undermines the rest of your arguments (some of which I occasionally agree with!). A lot of what you are quoting is pure pr spin and has no technical backing whatsoever. i imagine this statement may cause you some distress but its true.

 

[Metroland]

They aren't my figures? All this has been concluded by people far more qualified than me. I'm just the messenger.

Can't be any worse than the spin you and the other plane spotters on the forum keep coming out with. That's up to you, but if you want to keep rubbing people's nose in it, expect some resistance. (return for calling Grand Central a train spotters dream - they are doing quite well I hear despite the negativity!)

Most of the CTRL runs in France, so I would suggest it has nothing to do with the UK supply.

The Eurostar report was done by the principal scientists who do the CHG emissions reports for the government, so you might like to take your argument up with them and not me as you feel you have a better understanding.

How they worked it out is partly explained here

http://www.eurostar.com/UK/uk/leisure/about_eurostar/environment/processes.jsp

and accredited here

http://www.eurostar.com/pdf/treadlightly/statement.pdf

Work on embedded carbon is bound to be extremely complex. Some work as already been done here

http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=EV02033_7331_FRP.pdf

There are especially concerned about

The second study by Helm et al. (2007) presents a consumption account of UK greenhouse gas emissions including indirect emissions from overseas tourism, international aviation and shipping and embedded emissions in the UK's trade balance.3 The latter estimate was derived by multiplying values of imports and exports with average carbon dioxide intensities by country. The study finds a steep increase in emissions embedded in imports (from below 300 Mt CO2-e in 1992 to almost 1000 Mt CO2-e in 2006) while emissions embedded in exports increase much more modestly. The greenhouse gas trade deficit has reportedly increased six-fold from 110 Mt CO2-e in 1990 to 620 Mt CO2-e in 2006. Overall, the consumption-based estimations of Helm et al. (2007) indicate a rise of 19% in total for UK GHG emissions between 1990 and 2003.

 

[j0hn0]

blah blah co2 blah blah, qualified scientists, blah blah.

qualified scientists also claim this to be a bunch or cr@p, so really you're just choosing one particular side which suits your own personal agenda.

To say one qualified scientist is right and the other is not is myopic and ignorant.

I would just suggest verifying how each of these scientists are funded

 

[Metroland]

so really you're just choosing one particular side which suits your own personal agenda.

And nobody else is? No agenda, a personal opinion based on weighing up evidence from all sides. Without opinions forums die, whereas myself and Paul (for example) often disagree, I kinda welcome his input and different viewpoint. For the record, I'm not 100% either way, I look to have my viewpoints challenged (as long as they are challenged, not I'm told I'm wrong because someone has a gut feeling I am or doesn't like what I'm saying) so I can weigh things up further and hopefully learn from it.

You might disagree with it, in fact I'm glad you do, long as you can't argue your point without resorting to denial and weigh up the evidence from all sides too.

Lastly, I'm certainly not going to apologise on a rail forum for supporting the railways.

 

[j0hn0]

And nobody else is? No agenda, a personal opinion based on weighing up evidence from all sides. Without opinions forums die, whereas myself and Paul (for example) often disagree, I kinda welcome his input and different viewpoint. For the record, I'm not 100% either way, I look to have my viewpoints challenged (as long as they are challenged, not I'm told I'm wrong because someone has a gut feeling I am or doesn't like what I'm saying) so I can weigh things up further and hopefully learn from it.

You might disagree with it, in fact I'm glad you do, long as you can't argue your point without resorting to denial and weigh up the evidence from all sides too.

Lastly, I'm certainly not going to apologise on a rail forum for supporting the railways.

I wouldn't expect that you do

And I expect you not to assume any denial on my part just because I don't agree with you. I'm not going to debate it because it has been done to death and contrary to your assumption, I have weighed up all both sides.

I just think that railways should use the environmental arguments merely for a process of efficiency improvement and minimisation of waste, not for bowing to half-baked political ideals.

 

[Metroland]

I'm not aware its political at all. Lets hope you are right, because otherwise where you are is finished.