Train GraphicClick on the map to explore geographics
 
I need help
FAQ
Emergency
About .
Travel & transport from BBC stories as at 15:15 28 Mar 2024
- Man held over stabbing in front of train passengers
- How do I renew my UK passport and what is the 10-year rule?
- Jet2 launches first flight from Liverpool airport
* Easter travel warning as millions set to hit roads
Read about the forum [here].
Register [here] - it's free.
What do I gain from registering? [here]
 02/06/24 - Summer Timetable starts
17/08/24 - Bus to Imber
27/09/25 - 200 years of passenger trains

On this day
28th Mar (1988)
Formal end to carrying coffins by BR (link)

Train RunningCancelled
13:26 Weston-Super-Mare to London Paddington
13:28 Weymouth to Gloucester
13:30 London Paddington to Bristol Temple Meads
14:13 Par to Newquay
15:10 Newquay to Par
15:14 Swindon to Westbury
15:16 London Paddington to Cardiff Central
15:30 Bristol Temple Meads to London Paddington
16:04 Bristol Temple Meads to Filton Abbey Wood
16:51 Filton Abbey Wood to Bristol Temple Meads
17:04 Bristol Temple Meads to Filton Abbey Wood
17:51 Filton Abbey Wood to Bristol Temple Meads
17:54 Cardiff Central to London Paddington
17:57 London Paddington to Worcester Foregate Street
19:33 London Paddington to Worcester Shrub Hill
20:56 Worcester Foregate Street to London Paddington
Short Run
11:23 Portsmouth Harbour to Cardiff Central
11:48 London Paddington to Carmarthen
12:03 London Paddington to Penzance
13:03 London Paddington to Plymouth
13:10 Gloucester to Weymouth
14:05 Salisbury to Bristol Temple Meads
15:10 Gloucester to Weymouth
15:23 Portsmouth Harbour to Cardiff Central
15:30 Cardiff Central to Portsmouth Harbour
16:19 Carmarthen to London Paddington
16:54 Cardiff Central to London Paddington
Delayed
10:04 London Paddington to Penzance
12:30 Cardiff Central to Portsmouth Harbour
13:57 Exmouth to Paignton
14:30 Cardiff Central to Portsmouth Harbour
PollsOpen and recent polls
Closed 2024-03-25 Easter Escape - to where?
Abbreviation pageAcronymns and abbreviations
Stn ComparatorStation Comparator
Rail newsNews Now - live rail news feed
Site Style 1 2 3 4
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
March 28, 2024, 15:16:03 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most recently liked subjects
[142] West Wiltshire Bus Changes April 2024
[80] would you like your own LIVE train station departure board?
[56] Return of the BRUTE?
[46] If not HS2 to Manchester, how will traffic be carried?
[43] Infrastructure problems in Thames Valley causing disruption el...
[34] Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the...
 
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
Author Topic: Heathrow expansion  (Read 3961 times)
Red Squirrel
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5190


There are some who call me... Tim


View Profile
« on: February 27, 2020, 11:36:51 »

Quote
Climate campaigners win Heathrow expansion case

Heathrow Airport's controversial plans to build a third runway have been thrown into doubt after a court ruling.

The government's Heathrow's expansion decision was unlawful because it did not take climate commitments into account, the Court of Appeal said.

Heathrow said it would challenge the decision, but the government has not lodged an appeal.

The judges said that in future, a third runway could go ahead, as long as it fits with the UK (United Kingdom)'s climate policy.

The case was brought by environmental groups, councils and the Mayor of London.

The Court of Appeal found that the government had not followed UK policy when backing the controversial expansion plans.

[...continues]
Source: BBC» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page)
Logged

Things take longer to happen than you think they will, and then they happen faster than you thought they could.
Phil
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2042



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: February 27, 2020, 12:45:34 »

Although I was once a paid-up "frequent flyer" I haven't flown for nearly ten years now and have no plans to do so in the immediate future, so I shouldn't really express an opinion on this I suppose.

I really do strongly feel though that democratically accountable politicians, and not judges, should be making big decisions such as this though.

And yes I am aware that "democratically accountable" is probably an oxymoron when applied to politicians....
Logged
broadgage
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 5398



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: February 27, 2020, 12:55:07 »

I am pleased by the verdict of the court.
I would not go so far as to prohibit flying, but cant support any expansion thereof.
The purpose of increased airport capacity is to accommodate more flights and more passengers.
If we are serious about the climate emergency, then we need fewer flights and less passengers, not more.

And if long distance rail services were better, including international services to the nearer bits of Europe, then more people would travel by train rather than by air.
Existing airport capacity would then more than suffice.
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 (Diesel Multiple Unit) is not a proper inter-city train. The 5+5 and 9 car DMUs are almost as bad.
Clan Line
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 858



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: February 27, 2020, 13:53:02 »


I really do strongly feel though that democratically accountable politicians, and not judges, should be making big decisions such as this though.


I totally agree with that comment - this is yet another "suicide note" from the judiciary. However to some extent, they may have a point, as it was the Government who introduced the Laws !!   
The management at CDG, Schipol and Frankfurt must be rubbing their hands with glee.  There is a growing number of very important business centres (mainly in the far east) which have NO direct airlinks with the UK (United Kingdom), but plenty from the previously mentioned European cities. If our business men have to take 4 hours/days/weeks longer to get there, I am afraid they will be at the back of the queue for business.
It seems even more perverse as it looks remarkably like a rerun of the bitter campaign to improve (or not improve) rail links between London and the the North (of England!).

PS: As I posted this I noticed a bit further down this board the title of a previous topic: Could Calne, Malmesbury and Marlborough become "transport deserts"?  ...............QED !
« Last Edit: February 27, 2020, 13:58:38 by Clan Line » Logged
Red Squirrel
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5190


There are some who call me... Tim


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: February 27, 2020, 14:05:50 »

...yet another "suicide note" from the judiciary.

I doubt it. The prime Minister said in 2015 that "it is just not going to happen"; it is fair to assume that he still opposes the expansion. Why would the government be angry with a judiciary that helps it do what it wants?
Logged

Things take longer to happen than you think they will, and then they happen faster than you thought they could.
Robin Summerhill
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1145


View Profile Email
« Reply #5 on: February 27, 2020, 15:03:02 »

- this is yet another "suicide note" from the judiciary. ......QED !

It would be a very grave day for the UK (United Kingdom) justice system if it could be controlled by politicians.

It is sometimes tried in "banana republics" and often ends with rather fatal results, as when the South Afican Aparthied government tried it back in the 1960s.

The procedure we have is a simple one. The goverment introduces laws and, in case of doubt or injustice, it is for the courts to apply it and/or interpet it.
Logged
Thatcham Crossing
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 793


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: February 27, 2020, 15:54:12 »

Quote
I am pleased by the verdict of the court.
I would not go so far as to prohibit flying, but cant support any expansion thereof.
The purpose of increased airport capacity is to accommodate more flights and more passengers.
If we are serious about the climate emergency, then we need fewer flights and less passengers, not more

Please try to take into account that despite all the bad press, commercial aviation contributes about 2.5% of global "man-made" CO2 emissions. And that will probably reduce, as commercial aircraft are getting cleaner and more fuel-efficient all the time.

This sort of decision makes the UK (United Kingdom) look like a global laughing stock.

This decision will also hamper the efforts of airports like Southampton, where a very small runway extension is needed to improve the airport's future viability (and maybe it's survival). The City Council are opposed, although they are quite happy for cruise ships to sit in port (not on "shore power") all day belching far worse pollution into the atmosphere.

 
« Last Edit: February 27, 2020, 22:36:08 by Thatcham Crossing » Logged
broadgage
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 5398



View Profile
« Reply #7 on: February 27, 2020, 16:33:53 »

I appreciate that aviation is only responsible for a relatively small proportion of climate changing carbon dioxide emissions.

That however can be said of most sectors if considered individually.
Advocates of diesel trucks, petrol cars, coal burning power stations, domestic gas heating, cruise ships, and other sectors, can ALL say "don't worry that is only a small proportion of total emissions"

If we are serious about climate change, we need to reduce use of fossil fuels, not to encourage greater use.

Air transport is virtually 100% fossil fuel powered and likely to remain so. Improvements in fuel efficiency of aircraft have helped only very slightly.
Under present conditions, and under reasonably foreseeable future conditions, we need to fly less, not more.
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 (Diesel Multiple Unit) is not a proper inter-city train. The 5+5 and 9 car DMUs are almost as bad.
TaplowGreen
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 7743



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: February 27, 2020, 18:14:39 »

Quote
I am pleased by the verdict of the court.
I would not go so far as to prohibit flying, but cant support any expansion thereof.
The purpose of increased airport capacity is to accommodate more flights and more passengers.
If we are serious about the climate emergency, then we need fewer flights and less passengers, not more

Please try to take into account that despite all the bad press, commercial aviation contributes about 2.5% of global "man-made"
CO2 emissions. And that will probably reduce, as commercial aircraft are getting cleaner and more fuel-efficient all the time.

This sort of decision makes the UK (United Kingdom) look like a global laughing stock.

This decision will also hamper the efforts of airports like Southampton, where a very small runway extension is needed to improve the airport's future viability (and maybe it's survival). The City Council are opposed, although they are quite happy for cruise ships to sit in port (not on "shore power") all day belching far worse pollution into the atmosphere.

 

It's a triumph for the environmental lobby, but a potential economic disaster for the UK, especially post Brexit.

I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say that it makes us a global laughing stock, but certainly Amsterdam, Frankfurt and others will be smiling quietly tonight.
Logged
Adrian
Transport Scholar
Sr. Member
******
Posts: 171


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: February 27, 2020, 19:34:56 »

This year, more than any other, Britain needs to be leading by example on climate change.
I will be interesting to see how this ruling is viewed with hindsight, in years to come.
Logged
Thatcham Crossing
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 793


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: February 27, 2020, 22:44:43 »

Quote
This year, more than any other, Britain needs to be leading by example on climate change.

I would contend that, as a nation, we already punch well above our weight on this issue.

It's a pity that other Countries, who have far more capability to positively influence the outcome, don't seem to want to.

Quote
but certainly Amsterdam, Frankfurt and others will be smiling quietly tonight.

They already are as they have more runways and capacity to expand at the expense of Heathrow's (and thereby the UK (United Kingdom)'s) competitiveness:

Paris CDG - 4 runways
Frankfurt - 4 runways
Amsterdam Schipol - 6 runways

.....London Heathrow - 2 runways (down from 3, when the useful cross-wind runway 23/05 was closed, ultimately  to make way for the expanded Terminal 2)
 
« Last Edit: February 28, 2020, 08:15:17 by Thatcham Crossing » Logged
CyclingSid
Data Manager
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1918


Hockley viaduct


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: February 28, 2020, 07:00:00 »

I think it is necessary that there are checks and balances with the government system. If the courts question something parliament can legislate to make adjustments they see fit.

News this morning https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51665682 might cause the government to reconsider its decision not to appeal the Heathrow case. Can railways schemes also fall foul of this?
Logged
mjones
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 408


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: February 28, 2020, 07:24:15 »




Please try to take into account that despite all the bad press, commercial aviation contributes about 2.5% of global "man-made" CO2 emissions. And that will probably reduce, as commercial aircraft are getting cleaner and more fuel-efficient all the time.




Actually that share is forecast to increase,  because air travel is expanding more quickly than efficiency is improving,  while other sectors are easier to decarbonise.
Logged
mjones
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 408


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: February 28, 2020, 07:30:11 »




I really do strongly feel though that democratically accountable politicians, and not judges, should be making big decisions such as this though.




It is the politicians who make the decisions; however they have to comply with their own laws when doing so.  If the government wants to go ahead then it has to modify the proposals to make them comply with the laws they have passed; or they have to modify the laws to permit those plans. It is not democratically accountable to pass laws and then ignore them.
Logged
ellendune
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4452


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: February 28, 2020, 08:24:11 »

The judges were at pains to say that they were not stopping the government from authorising Heathrow expansion it is just requiring them to show how they have taken account of their climate change commitments in making the decision in accordance with their own laws.

I suspect they won't change their minds and appeal the decision, but leave it to Heathrow to do that as that gets them out of the  internal party opposition to the scheme with many local MP (Member of Parliament)'s opposed to the scheme (including the pm). 

As for the impact on road schemes I suspect they will wait for that to happen and then try and show how they have taken it into account. 
Logged
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by customers of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules (email link to report). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page