Noggin
|
|
« Reply #60 on: February 03, 2022, 14:20:33 » |
|
I didn't expect that!
It occurred to me that this will also have big implications on getting these increased numbers of passengers to and from the airport. How will this be addressed?
Whether we like it or not, the reality is that Bristol is the main airport for the South West of England, and is likely to be so for a long time to come. People want and need to fly for business and personal reasons. Yes, we shouldn't be flying it willy-nilly or where a good rail alternative exists, but should we deny air travel to those who happen to be located in Cornwall, Devon, Somerset and Exeter because we disapprove of it. Surely the way to make the best of the situation would be to build a decent heavy-rail connection into the airport, particularly one that supports direct services to Exeter and beyond? If the public sector played its part to clear the regulatory issues and perhaps electrified the mainline, I'm sure some kind of creative financier could think up a way to fund it through some kind of long-term bond offering.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
TonyK
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Posts: 6438
The artist formerly known as Four Track, Now!
|
|
« Reply #61 on: February 03, 2022, 16:06:12 » |
|
I can not agree that more airport capacity is any way good for the environment, or even neutral as is stated in the report. A lot of people struggled with that concept, including North Somerset Council. I didn't, and neither did the inspector and his colleagues. All their years of learning have not been wasted. This decision, and the approved expansions of Stansted and Luton, should bring a slight measure of relief to anyone fighting the expansion of Heathrow. The purpose of increased capacity is to handle more flights so as to enable more people to fly. Airlines are virtually 100% fossil fuel powered and likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. To quote my friend the inspector, himself quoting someone on the airport team: As BAL put it, “people don’t fly because there are airports; rather, there are airports because people want to fly.” Transport to/from the enlarged airport is better by bus than by car, but that is ignoring the underlying problem of the amount of fuel used by the aircraft.
A short drive to Bristol airport will use less road fuel than a longer drive to a London airport, but again that is ignoring the underlying problem of the amount of fuel used by the aircraft. And of course the shorter drive to Bristol will encourage MORE flying in total. I'm with you on the first point, and will take the bus when I go there next month. A short drive from Bristol would use a lot less fuel than the schlep to Gatwick and back, passing Bristol airport on the way home. Multiplied by 50 or so cars, it is not insignificant. Nor is the saving in aircraft fuel in flying the extra miles, then stacking over Ockham. I have spent half an hour on a Boeing 747 going in slowly descending circles before finally heading out to the Thames estuary to join the queue on finals to land at Heathrow. Only once have I circled close to Bristol airport because of traffic, and I was driving. It wasn't a 747. On the encouragement of more flying overall, I refer you to the quote by my learned friend above. He has studied the topic, and knows more than you or I do. And to those who argue that future aircraft will use either a lot less fuel or something other than fossil fuel, I would say "Fine, simply prohibit ALL increased airport capacity, and reverse ALL tax breaks until this is achieved" Given that aviation counts for under 2% of the UK▸ 's output of greenhouse gases, you would achieve far more by charging VAT▸ at 20% on gas until all homes have electric heat pumps, stopping all road building and removing the freeze on petrol and diesel duty until all cars are electric, charging proper duty on diesel used for transport until all trains and buses are powered by clean electricity, and good luck at the next election. Growing crops or using energy to make aviation fuel is just posturing, at least until we have abundant clean energy to do it with. Once our nuclear fleet is up to speed, maybe that would be a good use for surplus renewable energy as it isn't time constrained in the way the grid is. Aircraft will use less fuel per passenger mile - the progression has been steadily downwards since the Wright Brothers' first flight, but I accept that aviation, and possibly shipping, will be the last to abandon fossil fuels. When they do, there will still be campaigns against flying. Whether we like it or not, the reality is that Bristol is the main airport for the South West of England, and is likely to be so for a long time to come.
People want and need to fly for business and personal reasons. Yes, we shouldn't be flying it willy-nilly or where a good rail alternative exists, but should we deny air travel to those who happen to be located in Cornwall, Devon, Somerset and Exeter because we disapprove of it.
Exactly. Which is not to knock Exeter Airport - I flew to Naples once, and very good it was too - but Bristol's catchment area makes it the horse to back for trips abroad from the region. It's 180 miles from Penzance, to put the area into perspective. It's 110 miles from Plymouth, but there's a bus from there to Bristol Airport. I fully approve of your campaign to upgrade the railway from Cornwall.
|
|
« Last Edit: February 03, 2022, 16:15:48 by TonyK »
|
Logged
|
Now, please!
|
|
|
Surrey 455
|
|
« Reply #62 on: February 03, 2022, 20:31:53 » |
|
AIUI▸ it’s the 2-car Class 456s that have been withdrawn, along with a few 455s, but the majority are staying for the time being.
I don’t know enough about passengers loadings on the SWR» inner suburban routes (and I suspect you don’t either) to know whether there is a significant capacity crisis as a result, but on the face of it, it’s a very commuter biased route and I suspect 10-car trains are well in excess of what’s currently needed. At off-peak times they always were anyway.
Without the 456s the 455s are down to 8 cars. In the peaks I always get someone sitting next to me and there's a few standing in the vestibules. As much as I hate having an hourly service, I have to admit I don't often see overcrowding. When I do, I have to assume an earlier train has been cancelled.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
TonyK
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Posts: 6438
The artist formerly known as Four Track, Now!
|
|
« Reply #63 on: February 09, 2022, 20:03:49 » |
|
Bristol Airport Ltd has asked for a full award of their costs in relation to the appeal. Reading the full application won't make for easy reading for councillors. If I were a councillor, I would be starting work on planning cuts to pay the bill.
|
|
|
Logged
|
Now, please!
|
|
|
broadgage
|
|
« Reply #64 on: February 10, 2022, 05:25:55 » |
|
If Bristol airport get their way and council taxpayers DO have to pay then that in my view is wrong.
The message sent out is that "there is no point in opposing airport expansion, because any decision made by the local authority can be overuled and said local authority then have to pay the costs"
Democracy ? not applicable to airport expansion, vote how you want, but airport expansion will go ahead anyway. Climate emergency ? not applicable because more flying is actually OK.
It is not surprising that calls for what is politely called "direct action" are growing. The people of Bristol voted for a local authority that opposed airport expansion, they did the "right thing" by voting rather than by use of violence. And look how that ended.
And of course in London, an apparently watertight undertaking that there would be no third runway at Heathrow turned out to actually mean "well a third runway is OK in fact"
|
|
|
Logged
|
A proper intercity train has a minimum of 8 coaches, gangwayed throughout, with first at one end, and a full sized buffet car between first and standard. It has space for cycles, surfboards,luggage etc. A 5 car DMU▸ is not a proper inter-city train. The 5+5 and 9 car DMUs are almost as bad.
|
|
|
Bob_Blakey
|
|
« Reply #65 on: February 10, 2022, 13:05:08 » |
|
.....but Bristol's catchment area makes it the horse to back for trips abroad from the region..... TUI▸ are currently flying out of Exeter to/from other European destinations 6 days a week (nothing on Wednesdays) and by May there will be services 7 days a week. I assume this is a commercial decision and that a significant proportion of their custom originates from west of Exeter. In terms of environmental damage is it better for these people to reduce their road trips by around 130 miles and then hop on a plane which is very unlikely to have to join a queue for take-off or landing? Ideally, of course, Exeter Airport would be rail connected but I think we all know that is not going to happen.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
broadgage
|
|
« Reply #66 on: February 10, 2022, 21:18:12 » |
|
.....but Bristol's catchment area makes it the horse to back for trips abroad from the region..... TUI▸ are currently flying out of Exeter to/from other European destinations 6 days a week (nothing on Wednesdays) and by May there will be services 7 days a week. I assume this is a commercial decision and that a significant proportion of their custom originates from west of Exeter. In terms of environmental damage is it better for these people to reduce their road trips by around 130 miles and then hop on a plane which is very unlikely to have to join a queue for take-off or landing? Ideally, of course, Exeter Airport would be rail connected but I think we all know that is not going to happen. If ALL of the passengers flying from Bristol or Exeter airports were so doing instead of driving to a London airport, then yes there would be a saving in road fuel. So no problem in reducing capacity at Heathrow then ! Hardly likely is it, indeed expansion at Heathrow is being called for in ADDITION to the expansion at Bristol. The real purpose of expanding capacity at Bristol, Heathrow, and at other airports is to enable MORE flights in total, in order that MORE people can fly MORE conveniently, to MORE destinations. Any savings in road fuel resulting from some passengers driving to a local airport instead of driving to a more distant airport will be completely swamped by an overall total increase in flying. If we are serious about the climate emergency we need to fly a lot less, and not be adding capacity for more flights.
|
|
|
Logged
|
A proper intercity train has a minimum of 8 coaches, gangwayed throughout, with first at one end, and a full sized buffet car between first and standard. It has space for cycles, surfboards,luggage etc. A 5 car DMU▸ is not a proper inter-city train. The 5+5 and 9 car DMUs are almost as bad.
|
|
|
TaplowGreen
|
|
« Reply #67 on: February 11, 2022, 08:19:41 » |
|
.....but Bristol's catchment area makes it the horse to back for trips abroad from the region..... TUI▸ are currently flying out of Exeter to/from other European destinations 6 days a week (nothing on Wednesdays) and by May there will be services 7 days a week. I assume this is a commercial decision and that a significant proportion of their custom originates from west of Exeter. In terms of environmental damage is it better for these people to reduce their road trips by around 130 miles and then hop on a plane which is very unlikely to have to join a queue for take-off or landing? Ideally, of course, Exeter Airport would be rail connected but I think we all know that is not going to happen. If ALL of the passengers flying from Bristol or Exeter airports were so doing instead of driving to a London airport, then yes there would be a saving in road fuel. So no problem in reducing capacity at Heathrow then ! Hardly likely is it, indeed expansion at Heathrow is being called for in ADDITION to the expansion at Bristol. The real purpose of expanding capacity at Bristol, Heathrow, and at other airports is to enable MORE flights in total, in order that MORE people can fly MORE conveniently, to MORE destinations. Any savings in road fuel resulting from some passengers driving to a local airport instead of driving to a more distant airport will be completely swamped by an overall total increase in flying. If we are serious about the climate emergency we need to fly a lot less, and not be adding capacity for more flights. I'm not quite sure why, and this could be a wild stab in the dark, but I'm starting to think you're not too keen on aviation, as well as IETs▸ ?
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
TonyK
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Posts: 6438
The artist formerly known as Four Track, Now!
|
|
« Reply #68 on: February 11, 2022, 12:13:50 » |
|
TUI▸ are currently flying out of Exeter to/from other European destinations 6 days a week (nothing on Wednesdays) and by May there will be services 7 days a week. I assume this is a commercial decision and that a significant proportion of their custom originates from west of Exeter. In terms of environmental damage is it better for these people to reduce their road trips by around 130 miles and then hop on a plane which is very unlikely to have to join a queue for take-off or landing? Ideally, of course, Exeter Airport would be rail connected but I think we all know that is not going to happen.
Thank you for the heads up - it will be handier for me than Bristol. It will indeed save fuel all round for Exeter to cater to a lot more of the population of Devon and Cornwall. The list of destinations is extremely limited in comparison to Bristol, and the prices are a lot more than easyJet, but hopefully this is just the first step towards a much bigger range of flights out of Exeter. As an aside, airlines don't like using fuel on the ground either. Sir Branson himself was at one point proposing that aircraft are tugged to their place in the queue by electric tugs, using only the APU until it is almost time for them to go. I can see practical problems there, such as what happens if an engine refuses to start, but pilots often taxi with only one engine running and start the other on the way to the holding point, and shut one down after landing before heading for the stand. Starting a modern engine is fast and simple - I saw a small boy almost start an Airbus engine at an open day before a pilot rushed forward to intervene. My one trip out of Exeter was a joy because of the lack of other traffic. The pilot may have been given "Clear for take-off" before reaching the runway, rather than two minutes after lining up behind a landing big jet. If Bristol airport get their way and council taxpayers DO have to pay then that in my view is wrong.
The message sent out is that "there is no point in opposing airport expansion, because any decision made by the local authority can be overuled and said local authority then have to pay the costs"
Democracy ? not applicable to airport expansion, vote how you want, but airport expansion will go ahead anyway. Climate emergency ? not applicable because more flying is actually OK.
It is not surprising that calls for what is politely called "direct action" are growing. The people of Bristol voted for a local authority that opposed airport expansion, they did the "right thing" by voting rather than by use of violence. And look how that ended.
And of course in London, an apparently watertight undertaking that there would be no third runway at Heathrow turned out to actually mean "well a third runway is OK in fact"
Whilst I am sure that your views will be held by anyone against aviation, the main message is one that was loud and clear before north somerset DC▸ refused planning permission. Local authorities are there to make local decisions, but are bound by law and by a national planning framework as well as their own local policies. If they don't abide by those, their decisions will be overturned, and if the other party is put to unnecessary expense because they acted perversely in reaching their decision, they are entitled to recover their costs. Had it been a matter of interpretation of policy, it would have been different, but the airport's case is that this is much more profound. The inspector will sort it all out, I'm sure. Did the people of Bristol vote for a council that opposes airport expansion? Certainly, the 24 green councillors could be assumed to tick that box, but I don't know the views of the other 66% of the members of the council. It was not their decision to make anyway, but the current transport plan has the provision of improved public transport to the airport as a priority, so they aren't getting in the way. The people of Bristol voted for a council wanting to reintroduce trams three times, but ended up with a few bus lanes and a special expressway for the airport instead. As for Heathrow, we can agree that no undertaking to not build a third runway can ever be watertight or cast iron, although more regional capacity will water down the case for it. Expansion to the north of Heathrow was first cancelled in December 1953, and it has been on and off ever since. The only final result possible is that it is built. Whether or not that happens will be a matter for my grandchildren to discuss in all likelihood.
|
|
« Last Edit: February 11, 2022, 13:20:17 by TonyK »
|
Logged
|
Now, please!
|
|
|
broadgage
|
|
« Reply #69 on: February 11, 2022, 14:00:55 » |
|
I'm not quite sure why, and this could be a wild stab in the dark, but I'm starting to think you're not too keen on aviation, as well as IETs▸ ?
You are correct. I am opposed to any growth in or expansion of aviation due primarily to the fuel consumed, indeed I would like to see a reduction. The fuel used per mile, per passenger, is broadly similar to that used in driving. No great accuracy may be claimed in this as both cars and aircraft vary in fuel use and in load factor. The problem is that the speed of air transport encourages greater use. Few people would drive a thousand miles for a short break, but flying that distance is routine. I am not alone in such views, there is growing concern about climate change. I dislike IETs for the reasons given elsewhere, and again I am not alone in such views. Some people like them, but most consider them a backward step in terms of comfort, facilities, and train length.
|
|
|
Logged
|
A proper intercity train has a minimum of 8 coaches, gangwayed throughout, with first at one end, and a full sized buffet car between first and standard. It has space for cycles, surfboards,luggage etc. A 5 car DMU▸ is not a proper inter-city train. The 5+5 and 9 car DMUs are almost as bad.
|
|
|
IndustryInsider
|
|
« Reply #70 on: February 11, 2022, 16:04:56 » |
|
You really must stop taking the bait every time, Broadgage!
|
|
|
Logged
|
To view my GWML▸ Electrification cab video 'before and after' video comparison, as well as other videos of the new layout at Reading and 'before and after' comparisons of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/
|
|
|
TonyK
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Posts: 6438
The artist formerly known as Four Track, Now!
|
|
« Reply #71 on: February 11, 2022, 20:14:58 » |
|
Few people would drive a thousand miles for a short break, but flying that distance is routine.
You got me there, broadgage. I didn't have enough annual leave to drive home from Alaska or Tokyo. The Falklands may have proven tricky too. They weren't really short breaks though, and I did some of the journeys by sea.
|
|
|
Logged
|
Now, please!
|
|
|
Robin Summerhill
|
|
« Reply #72 on: February 11, 2022, 21:13:36 » |
|
is growing concern about climate change.
I dislike IETs▸ for the reasons given elsewhere, in terms of ... and train length.
Yup Those barstewards running 9 and 10 car trains to replace the longer HSTs▸ (if you include some fresh air at each end...)
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
grahame
|
|
« Reply #73 on: February 12, 2022, 04:58:01 » |
|
Few people would drive a thousand miles for a short break, but flying that distance is routine.
You got me there, broadgage. I didn't have enough annual leave to drive home from Alaska or Tokyo. The Falklands may have proven tricky too. They weren't really short breaks though, and I did some of the journeys by sea. I suspect the concern starts at extreme cases, such as flights for a day in Lapland to meet Santa and his reindeer. Not sure if they've done those from Bristol, but certainly from a number of other regional airports.
|
|
|
Logged
|
Coffee Shop Admin, Acting Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, Option 24/7 Melksham Rep
|
|
|
TonyK
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Posts: 6438
The artist formerly known as Four Track, Now!
|
|
« Reply #74 on: February 12, 2022, 09:38:52 » |
|
Yup
Those barstewards running 9 and 10 car trains to replace the longer HSTs▸ (if you include some fresh air at each end...)
Powered by electricity for part of the way, produced by wind (if it's windy) or sun (if it's sunny), or carbon-free nuclear and gas most of the time. Still cleaner than filthy diesel. If National Rail signed up to a 100% renewable electricity tariff like London Underground did, the amount of fossil fuels used in making electricity throughout the land would be cut dramatically overnight. If one is going to embrace the fight against climate change and exhort others to do so, one must accept with good grace whatever slight discomfort the fight may cause along the way.
|
|
|
Logged
|
Now, please!
|
|
|
|