Reduce your carbon footprint - let the train take the strain

[jonny777]

Sorry Mike. 

 

My brain has died by this time in the evening, and I find that I just interpret everything as serious and factual. 

[Mike Storey]

33 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

 

 

I wish the Greens would get real though. Walk / Cycle to work ?, most folks I know (many with old cars) HAVE to drive to work and can't afford new efficient or electric vehicles. Public transport is not viable for many, and is a joke in many places (Northern Rail up here for one).

 

Then we have the useless government (all parties) with regard to transport policy. Recently cancelling many electrification projects (and actually scrapping  brand new unused infrastructure purchased for it (O/H masts etc), new trains not fit for purpose, Our railways are a joke and they're getting worse - and bl**dy expensive also. Thank god for my GMPTE bus / rail / tram pass.

 

 

 

I get your cynicism, about the aspirations and politik-speak not matching real action.

 

But, for rail, count yourself, relatively, lucky. My nearest station, with a catchment about the same size as Malton, North Yorks, has four trains a day, (Malton has at least one an hour, with more in the peaks). You have brand new and refurbished trains coming with the promise (not empty according to the figures) of more seats and some increases in frequency in some parts of North, West and South Yorkshire, Lancashire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside. Here, we have some brand new trains (very nice ones) but no increases in capacity and no increases in frequency, and no promises, just "studies", into doing anything differently. We have a (real) promise of 1.5 billion extra euros across the whole of France, over four years, to re-generate rural transport (bus, train, taxi services). That is the equivalent to one year's extra expenditure on rail in the UK in the last Control Period.

 

UK railways are not a joke, not when looking at them from here. "Useless governments" of all parties are highly constrained by the contractual arrangements that the Tories set up, and have continued since. The biggest surprise has been the continuation of huge levels of investment on the rail system, by a Tory government (even ignoring HS2). Just beware the more recent edict placed upon the ORR, in that the affordability of the next CP settlement must be a factor. "Affordability" is code for Treasury control, and that is exactly where BR were, when they bought Pacers. Goodness alone knows why people keep pushing for re-nationalisation.

 

 

[wombatofludham]

On the food production issue, I recently read an interesting article about the potential to re-use redundant underground coal mines for food production.  By using artificial light, the constant temperature and humidity (especially where mines were known to be "wet", which could provide a source of water for irrigation) would allow all year round food production, probably market-garden type salad produce.  Whilst not entirely green, you could imagine a scenario where food is grown underground, bought to the surface for processing, the waste organic material used in a bio-digester to generate electricity, which would help to offset the energy needs of the artificial lighting.  Given a lot of redundant minefields are quite close to the major conurbations (a legacy of the cost of transporting coal for the factories) if we need to use surface land for other purposes, such as carbon capturing trees, or if the change in the climate affects surface level agriculture, you could see how redundant coal mines could become the food basket of many cities with drastically reduced food-miles.  it could also help regenerate a lot of old mining areas which still, some 30 years on from the mass closure programme, lack decent employment opportunities in many cases.

 

Apparently the Coal Residuary Body, responsible for the ongoing liabilities related to our coal mining past, is quite interested.

[APOLLO]

All the old coal mines here in South Lancashire are flooded, intentionally so I was told by an ex miner. 

 

Food grown in coal mines = Mushrooms (Magic!!!).

 

There is quite a lot of of good farmland not being used at the moment for food production. West Lancashire (Wigan - Southport) and the Fylde are very fertile farming areas. Lots more exist throughout the UK. We just need better management / government.

 

We are all slowly being brainwashed and are sleepwalking into an Orwellian (Corbinystic McDonaldesque) future. Beware.

 

Brit15

 

 

 

 

 

 

[APOLLO]

Mike the Joke about Northern Rail is the dismal service, strikes, months and months of no Saturday services, unrealistic new timetables etc etc. It DOES now get worse year on year. I don't commute, but off peak services are not what they were a couple of years ago.

 

Brit15

 

 

[Mike Storey]

13 hours ago, APOLLO said:

 

 

 

 

Deleted - repeated from above for some reason.

 

 

 

Edited June 14, 2019 by Mike Storey

[Mike Storey]

1 hour ago, APOLLO said:

Mike the Joke about Northern Rail is the dismal service, strikes, months and months of no Saturday services, unrealistic new timetables etc etc. It DOES now get worse year on year. I don't commute, but off peak services are not what they were a couple of years ago.

 

Brit15

 

 

 

You live there, I don't, so accept what you say. But, at least since February, when the strikes stopped, all the reports I have read show a vastly improving picture, with no disruption this May, over 100 trains refurbished, with c.150 more being done, 101 new trains now arriving and in crew training, 2,000 extra services running since 2017, etc. It was ironic that the Mayors of Liverpool and Manchester called for the mass hanging of Northern's management, just as it was reported that their performance had improved dramatically in the previous quarter. But that has some way to go of course, and short formations are still a problem. Hey ho.

 

[Reorte]

19 minutes ago, Mike Storey said:

 

You live there, I don't, so accept what you say. But, at least since February, when the strikes stopped, all the reports I have read show a vastly improving picture, with no disruption this May, over 100 trains refurbished, with c.150 more being done, 101 new trains now arriving and in crew training, 2,000 extra services running since 2017, etc. It was ironic that the Mayors of Liverpool and Manchester called for the mass hanging of Northern's management, just as it was reported that their performance had improved dramatically in the previous quarter. But that has some way to go of course, and short formations are still a problem. Hey ho.

 

On my local line (Buxton branch) after everything settled down the service seems to be running smoothly, more of the trains appear to be 4 car instead of 2, and the timetable is more frequent (not that I had a problem with hourly but I'm not going to grumble about two an hour - used to only be that at rush hour). The only downside is that I really, really don't like the refurbished trains - stark, plasticky interiors, scrolling text displays that flicker badly out of the corner of the eye, really screeching beeps when the doors open and very loud automatic announcements has all made using them rather more unpleasant. It's put me off using them, and the ticket machines have put me off even more for off-peak travel.

Edited June 14, 2019 by Reorte

[Catkins]

13 hours ago, wombatofludham said:

On the food production issue, I recently read an interesting article about the potential to re-use redundant underground coal mines for food production.  

it could also help regenerate a lot of old mining areas which still, some 30 years on from the mass closure programme, lack decent employment opportunities in many cases.

 

Apparently the Coal Residuary Body, responsible for the ongoing liabilities related to our coal mining past, is quite interested.

The last deep Mine in england - Kellingley, closed December 2015 - was going to be filled with concrete. The site has been cleared of all but two buildings, and it looks like the land will become another housing estate.
With regards to the "decent" employment opportunities, as a nation we rely on the service industries to earn money and they do not generate the amount of income that supports a reasonable wage, neither do they generate the same levels of career progression that heavy industry and engineering would provide.

 

But none of this has any relevance to the increasing carbon footprint, as has been mentioned before a growing world population is increasing the output of carbon dioxide and other environmentally harmful actions.

[APOLLO]

As time passes old coal mines that are not maintained (all of them ?) become very dilapidated and dangerous. main shafts are  filled in, no headgear etc etc. It would cost a fortune to reinstate those. Better to till the arable land we have.

 

Brit15

[jjb1970]

One of the things I find interesting in this whole debate is the difference in profiles between those who do and those who are into virtue signalling. I know of a shipping company which is funding multiple technology development schemes, is trialling hydrogen fuel and developing a technology to use methanol in a way which is carbon free and various other clever things. With the exception of Mark C I suspect nobody else on the board will have heard of them. On the other hand, a former employer of mine is constantly in the media for saying all the right things (they're one of the few shipping companies whose name is more widely known) and telling us all how they'll save the world yet they've actually done pretty much diddly squat. I saw a similar dynamic in the energy sector and see a similar dynamic in many individuals.

[Mike Storey]

This is interesting! 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jun/15/climate-crisis-aviation-industry-hears-clamour-for-electric-planes

 

I must admit I had not heard of "electrofuels", which apparently use CO2 in their fabrication? (mentioned near the end of the article).

 

[jjb1970]

Electrofuels are quite a happening thing, they're one of those things which have immense potential provided certain production issues can be resolved. Biofuel is a complex one as depending on how you calculate carbon intensity they can be very promising or part of the problem (particularly existing FAME type biodiesel is of very questionable value in climate change terms) but gassified biomass used to produce gas to liquid fuel could be very promising.

[phil-b259]

On 13/06/2019 at 11:19, Mark Saunders said:

 

The double standards involved are amazing!

 

Park car in Airport long term expensive.

Get from car park to terminal

check in

get to security check

get to departure gate

if lucky you get strait on aircraft or get a bus to other side of airport

get on aircraft and go to destination

if lucky you are put off at terminal or catch a bus again

find luggage reclaim and wait for it

passport control

find transfer coach to hotel

 

However the same people can't change trains as its too confusing!

 

 

What rot.

 

Most airlines do online check in where you print your own boarding passes etc these days - you only need to visit the ‘check in desk’ to drop off your luggage otherwise it’s straight through passport control.

 

Yes security is annoying - but that’s largely due to some nutcases flying planes into Skyscrapers a decade ago. If you come prepared (coins all in a separate bag, no liquids, etc then it’s a relatively painless experience (apart from the queues at busy times - but it’s not as if trains don’t suffer from overcrowding at peak times).

 

Most people do not live in close proximity to a station (let alone one providing a direct service to their holiday destination) so a car journey of some description will probably be needed (unless you feel like luging all your luggage around local bus services.

 

Most popular holiday destinations (particularly those with families) can be reached by a single plane journey - which is not true of trains.

 

Also when you get to the airport check in you get to dump all your heavy luggage with the airline and don’t have to worry about it until you get to the other end. If you need to change plans they will transfer it for you (and can be made to pay compensation if they don’t).

 

On a train you have to haul all your luggage round with you at all times and try and hope it fits in the passenger accomadation - on a plane it can go in the hold and not get in the way of others nor need you to keep a close eye on it at every station in case someone walks off with it (happens more often than you might think with stuff that has to be put in luggage holders near doors rather than directly adjacent to where you are sitting).

 

Finally most holiday resorts are not next door to stations so a taxi / bus trip will still be needed at the other end even if you don’t fly.

 

 

Ultimately holidaying by train is only really a viable option for adults who can ‘travel light’ and where the destination is easily avessable by train. This typically means visits to city centres where all areas you may wish to visit are close at hand and easily accessible. If you plan on exploring further afield then things get a bit more tricky and the train loses its appeal - I have previously taken the train for a weekend break in York (staying in the city centre) but the next time I drove (staying in a hotel outside the city easily accessible from the motorway network) so I could explore Yorkshire more widely without the need to worry about relying on rural public transport.

 

So all this talk about swapping planes for trains is a load of nonsense spouted by folk who don’t live in the real world - particularly when you factor in the availability of cheap airfares for those able to book well in advance.

 

Trains work well for adults doing city breaks or students willing to take chances over onward connections (e.g. Interailing)

 

Cars work well for families with children who inevitably have large amounts of luggage.

 

Planes work well for long distances / overseas locations where multiple train changes would be required or long drives would be necessary (e.g. UK - Spain / Italy).

 

 

Edited June 15, 2019 by phil-b259

[mwrosebury2000]

The problem with reducing our net carbon to zero is we need a joined up approach to using resources. We would need all political parties to agree on a long term position (which would be almost impossible when you look at the infighting for starters), then we would break the push pull effect of the political cycle. We need to reduce the population of the UK (not even going to open that debate).

Improve transport infrastructure to reduce internal air demand and have better freight distribution. Think about internet shopping I order now for delivery tomorrow, next door orders next day delivery tomorrow and so on... your post code area gets online deliveries 2 / 3 times a week and how much more efficient could the system be?

All factories required to have south facing roofs with windows and PV panels.

Maximum width on pavements determined by foot traffic with the rest turned over to wild flowers, I have roads near me with a footpath on both sides and no houses, why when they are rarely used.

24 hr use of offices / hot desk / home working. We cant ring payroll we have to email them, they could use the sales desks at night and cut down on the office floor space.

Tax none working horses due to the amount of farm land they take up that could be used to grow food / plant trees.

Ban plastic lawns, they don't look good and are bad for the environment.

A few ideas, but then ideas are cheep.

 

As for the amount of animal feed grown in the UK I have not looked at the figures but it could well be that we produce more animal feed than human food per year by weight but a lot of animal feed is waste. eg. from the grains used in the brewing industry or straw from cereal crops.

 

I think I will still fly once every 2-5 years, eat what I like, drive my car and use plastic on my layout for now but I will also support local farmers, use public transport / walk to the shop and do little things to reduce my impact on the environment.

[PMP]

Aviation fuel ‘duties’ or levies will be impractical unless every country agrees to abide and enforce them. If not universal, to remain competitive airlines would ‘tanker’ fuel to minimise fuel uplift at more expensive destinations. This is already done to a degree, just based on standard fuel prices, and whilst you burn fuel to carry fuel, a tax/levy would just accentuate the process.

[Neil]

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

 

......

 

Trains work well for adults doing city breaks or students willing to take chances over onward connections (e.g. Interailing)

 

Cars work well for families with children who inevitably have large amounts of luggage.

 

Planes work well for long distances / overseas locations where multiple train changes would be required or long drives would be necessary (e.g. UK - Spain / Italy).

 

 

 

Mrs R and I are firmly into late middle age and over recent years have taken the train from our home in mid Wales to Spain, Italy, the south of France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Portugal. Admittedly Belgium or Paris is as far as I would want to travel in a day from home, but the journey becomes part of the holiday experience. There are some fantastic sights to be seen along the way; last autumn one of the highlights was seeing flocks of flamingoes in the etangs between Montpellier and Perpignan.  On that journey we stayed overnight in Lille, then onward to Montpellier by TGV, locaql to Perpignan and then even more local to Collioure. Connections work just as well on the continent as they do in the UK. For those minded to try the train rather than the plane then the Man in seat 61 is your starting point. It is a practical and enjoyable way of travelling to your holiday destination.

[PatB]

On 14/06/2019 at 00:18, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

 

 

If all the above is done right there may be a surplus, and we can all have a share allocated as 'personal luxury allowance' to be used as the owner desires. Perhaps a fillet steak annually, one return trip to the Med. in your lifetime, or a small trainset.

 

 

 

Sounds suspiciously like my luxury allowance as it is :(. 

[phil-b259]

8 minutes ago, Neil said:

 

Mrs R and I are firmly into late middle age and over recent years have taken the train from our home in mid Wales to Spain, Italy, the south of France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Portugal. Admittedly Belgium or Paris is as far as I would want to travel in a day from home, but the journey becomes part of the holiday experience. There are some fantastic sights to be seen along the way; last autumn one of the highlights was seeing flocks of flamingoes in the etangs between Montpellier and Perpignan.  On that journey we stayed overnight in Lille, then onward to Montpellier by TGV, locaql to Perpignan and then even more local to Collioure. Connections work just as well on the continent as they do in the UK. For those minded to try the train rather than the plane then the Man in seat 61 is your starting point. It is a practical and enjoyable way of travelling to your holiday destination.

 

When striped down to the facts we get 

 

(1)Two adults = not that much luggage to cart around.

 

(2) Heading to a city centre destination (even if that’s only for one night) = no need to worry too much about onward connections to the place you are staying (nor resuming the journey later).

 

(3) Not on a tight budget (an overnight stay bumps up traveling costs)

 

(4) Not in undue haste to get to your ultimate destination.

 

(6) You were not traveling with children which makes a big difference.

 

These distinctions mean you cannot translate your personal experiences into a model for the wider travel market in which airlines operate in with respect to holiday traffic. Yes traveling by train certainly makes the journey part of the experience (I have fond memories of taking French monorail from Boulogne / Calais to Avignon, Narbone, Frejus and Milan when I was a child) but that doesn’t blind me to the fact that for family holidays abroad (or even domestically) flying / taking the family car will be far more effective both on cost and logistics than a long train journey (Motorail was expensive but roughly broke even once you totted up hotel rooms, motorway tolls and the stress of 2/3 kids in the car).

 

If however you are adults, are traveling light and have sufficient disposable income then the website ‘Man in seat 61’ shows holidaying by train instead of by plane is certainly possible - just don’t be fooled into thinking it suits the majority of plane users.

 

 

[Neil]

 

On 13/06/2019 at 12:50, APOLLO said:

4 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

When striped down to the facts we get 

 

(1)Two adults = not that much luggage to cart around.

 

(2) Heading to a city centre destination (even if that’s only for one night) = no need to worry too much about onward connections to the place you are staying (nor resuming the journey later).

 

(3) Not on a tight budget (an overnight stay bumps up traveling costs)

 

(4) Not in undue haste to get to your ultimate destination.

 

(6) You were not traveling with children which makes a big difference.

 

These distinctions mean you cannot translate your personal experiences into a model for the wider travel market in which airlines operate in with respect to holiday traffic. Yes traveling by train certainly makes the journey part of the experience (I have fond memories of taking French monorail from Boulogne / Calais to Avignon, Narbone, Frejus and Milan when I was a child) but that doesn’t blind me to the fact that for family holidays abroad (or even domestically) flying / taking the family car will be far more effective both on cost and logistics than a long train journey (Motorail was expensive but roughly broke even once you totted up hotel rooms, motorway tolls and the stress of 2/3 kids in the car).

 

If however you are adults, are traveling light and have sufficient disposable income then the website ‘Man in seat 61’ shows holidaying by train instead of by plane is certainly possible - just don’t be fooled into thinking it suits the majority of plane users.

 

 

Some of what you say is true, train instead of plane isn't to everyone's taste (at least for the moment) but I need to take issue with you on:

 

Luggage, yes there are just two of us but if we want by car, ship, plane, bus or rickshaw we would still need to take the same amount of stuff.

 

City centre destinations, our trips sometimes take us to city centres but even then there are changes of train to take into account. St Pancras to Utrecht requires changes at Brussels and Rotterdam (likewise Leiden). Not all trips have been to city centres, Italy (Desenzano) and Collioure are by no means cities. Our nearest miss came on our last holiday to Hamburg where our train in the UK became stuck behind one which had expired on the way to London, the Eurostar was caught by the skin of our teeth.

 

Budget, yes overnight stops cost but they're part of the holiday. It's all a matter of attitude, if your holiday doesn't start till the final destination then yes it's an extra expense, if the holiday starts at your local station or St Pancras then it's just as much value for money as the hotel/apartment at your final destination.

 

Haste, why would you be?

 

Children, agree it's harder with children and we didn't take ours abroad by train but we had a good number of UK holidays by rail and it can't have been too gruesome an experience as my daughter and her husband take the grandchildren on holiday by train.

 

Obviously (to reiterate my first sentence) the train won't be for everyone at the moment, but with my crystal ball/tea-leaves/runes/magic seaweed I foresee a growing trend. I think it'll really take off when air travel is priced to take into account the pollution it generates. Of course I could be wrong but I'd be surprised if in ten to fifteen years time we don't see an increase in rail and a decrease in flight for holiday travel.

 

EDIT: Apologies, somehow I've managed to surround Phil's quote with Appolo's header. Just to clarify it's Phil I was replying to.

Edited June 15, 2019 by Neil

[The Stationmaster]

On 13/06/2019 at 22:00, Mike Storey said:

 

I get your cynicism, about the aspirations and politik-speak not matching real action.

 

But, for rail, count yourself, relatively, lucky. My nearest station, with a catchment about the same size as Malton, North Yorks, has four trains a day, (Malton has at least one an hour, with more in the peaks). You have brand new and refurbished trains coming with the promise (not empty according to the figures) of more seats and some increases in frequency in some parts of North, West and South Yorkshire, Lancashire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside. Here, we have some brand new trains (very nice ones) but no increases in capacity and no increases in frequency, and no promises, just "studies", into doing anything differently. We have a (real) promise of 1.5 billion extra euros across the whole of France, over four years, to re-generate rural transport (bus, train, taxi services). That is the equivalent to one year's extra expenditure on rail in the UK in the last Control Period.

 

UK railways are not a joke, not when looking at them from here. "Useless governments" of all parties are highly constrained by the contractual arrangements that the Tories set up, and have continued since. The biggest surprise has been the continuation of huge levels of investment on the rail system, by a Tory government (even ignoring HS2). Just beware the more recent edict placed upon the ORR, in that the affordability of the next CP settlement must be a factor. "Affordability" is code for Treasury control, and that is exactly where BR were, when they bought Pacers. Goodness alone knows why people keep pushing for re-nationalisation.

 

 

SNCF rural lines are very often a joke - in very poor taste - with utterly abysmal services.  A really good example is the 12.5 mile branch from Lille to Comines which boasts three departures a day from Lille with none between 07.20  and 16.20.   Comines straddles the Franco-Belgian border so all you need to do is walk up the street from the SNCF station and you enter Belgium and if you keep going you reach the SNCB station, which has an hourly service in each direction throughout the day.  The French part has a population of c.12,500 while the Belgian has a population of 17,200.   I live at the end of a branchline in the Thames Valley. The local population was estimated at 11,770 in 2016 so slightly fewer than Comines (Fr) but similarly served by a branchline.  On weekdays we have a basically half hourly interval service from 06.00 until midnight (albeit the frequency is a consequence of pressure by the Branch User Group who managed to get it pushed up from a 45 minute interval to half hourly a couple of years ago).

 

So anybody who thinks that France, in particular, gets a wonderful rail service to every station is  gravely misled.  French rural services in particular tend to be poor and as often as not run for the convenience of SNCF rather than for that of any putative passengers. 

[Fenman]

5 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

....

Most people do not live in close proximity to a station (let alone one providing a direct service to their holiday destination) so a car journey of some description will probably be needed (unless you feel like luging all your luggage around local bus services.

...

 

I travel a lot, but the idea of taking all my bags on a luge is terrifying. Even having to use a slow-speed toboggan to dodge busses would give me pause for thought. 

 

Paul

[royaloak]

On 13/06/2019 at 21:37, jonny777 said:

 

 

A day in the UK when green energy supplied more to the NG than carbon-based power has already happened. One example was last week (as long as nuclear is counted as 'green' energy) on a sunny but windy day; when coal was contributing 0%, and gas was about 45%. The other 55% was made up by nuclear, wind and solar, with a small contribution from hydro. 

Remember that most solar is un-metered so wont show on the stats for solar, but will 'show' as a reduction in demand.

[caradoc]

8 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

What rot.

 

Most airlines do online check in where you print your own boarding passes etc these days - you only need to visit the ‘check in desk’ to drop off your luggage otherwise it’s straight through passport control.

 

Yes security is annoying - but that’s largely due to some nutcases flying planes into Skyscrapers a decade ago. If you come prepared (coins all in a separate bag, no liquids, etc then it’s a relatively painless experience (apart from the queues at busy times - but it’s not as if trains don’t suffer from overcrowding at peak times).

 

Most people do not live in close proximity to a station (let alone one providing a direct service to their holiday destination) so a car journey of some description will probably be needed (unless you feel like luging all your luggage around local bus services.

 

Most popular holiday destinations (particularly those with families) can be reached by a single plane journey - which is not true of trains.

 

Also when you get to the airport check in you get to dump all your heavy luggage with the airline and don’t have to worry about it until you get to the other end. If you need to change plans they will transfer it for you (and can be made to pay compensation if they don’t).

 

On a train you have to haul all your luggage round with you at all times and try and hope it fits in the passenger accomadation - on a plane it can go in the hold and not get in the way of others nor need you to keep a close eye on it at every station in case someone walks off with it (happens more often than you might think with stuff that has to be put in luggage holders near doors rather than directly adjacent to where you are sitting).

 

Finally most holiday resorts are not next door to stations so a taxi / bus trip will still be needed at the other end even if you don’t fly.

 

 

Ultimately holidaying by train is only really a viable option for adults who can ‘travel light’ and where the destination is easily avessable by train. This typically means visits to city centres where all areas you may wish to visit are close at hand and easily accessible. If you plan on exploring further afield then things get a bit more tricky and the train loses its appeal - I have previously taken the train for a weekend break in York (staying in the city centre) but the next time I drove (staying in a hotel outside the city easily accessible from the motorway network) so I could explore Yorkshire more widely without the need to worry about relying on rural public transport.

 

So all this talk about swapping planes for trains is a load of nonsense spouted by folk who don’t live in the real world - particularly when you factor in the availability of cheap airfares for those able to book well in advance.

 

Trains work well for adults doing city breaks or students willing to take chances over onward connections (e.g. Interailing)

 

Cars work well for families with children who inevitably have large amounts of luggage.

 

Planes work well for long distances / overseas locations where multiple train changes would be required or long drives would be necessary (e.g. UK - Spain / Italy).

 

 

 

I agree with some of your points phil-b259, but not the bit about airport security being relatively painless - To use your own words, what rot !

 

My experience; Queue up, finally get to the front of the line, find a plastic tray, take off jacket, belt and shoes and put in tray, empty pockets (not just metal objects, paper tissues as well !), watch tray disappear, wait to go through scanning gate in socks, go through again if security officer not happy, wait for tray to reappear, hopefully with all contents intact, refill pockets and put jacket, belt and shoes back on. An absolute pain in the posterior.

 

I appreciate the need for security, and of course there are journeys for which rail cannot compete with the plane, but for internal trips within a small country such as the UK, rail should be preferred. Getting the message through might be hard however; I read a recent newspaper travel section article on Glasgow, and the only transport option from London suggested was BA; No mention of an hourly centre to centre train service !

 

[APOLLO]

Read these -

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jun/15/climate-crisis-coal-asia-power-generation-fossil-fuels

 

Asia’s appetite for coal-fired electricity is keeping coal production alive too. Indian mining group Adani last week announced plans to start work on a A$2bn (£1bn) coal mine in Australia after a decade of opposition from climate campaigners.

The Queensland mine is expected to produce coal that, once burned in power plants, will emit 700 million tonnes of carbon dioxide every year for more than 50 years.

 

Linked from above https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jun/13/adani-cleared-to-start-carmichael-coalmine-work-as-groundwater-plans-approved

 

We in the UK are / about to shoot ourselves in the foot, WHY ? - What do we emit - 1% ?

 

I'm slowly getting to the point of not giving a ****

 

Brit15

Edited June 15, 2019 by APOLLO