Environmentally sustainable model railway exhibitions

[PMP]

1 hour ago, Nick C said:

I'll have to disagree with you there - they were able to fit in the Heathrow Express link into existing infrastructure, but made no provision as they did so for extending to Reading (which then has connections on to almost everywhere) or down towards Woking - either of which would have been much cheaper if done at the same time.

 

Of course having your principle airport upwind of the city is pretty bad from an environmental point of view anyway, but that is something that can't easily be changed! (unless they decided to demolish Watford and build a new one there...)

Well LHR rail link was originally a BR project to link Paddington and Heathrow to minimise journey times. That was its prime design function in the late 80’s so looking at it with today’s eyes is pretty unrealistic. Traffic levels and expectations are nothing like those of the time.

 

Had the Roskill Comission been followed Heathrow would now be at Cublington next door to Milton Keynes, but it wasn’t. Strategically for UK PLC it should have been. Successive Labour and Conservative governments have wasted years and billions of pounds in prevarication regarding London’s aviation requirements. No change there then. 

 The local development has grown around the airport, not the other way round.  Traffic levels and existing technology throughout its operating, have developed the airport into the two runway configuration of today.

[Kirby Uncoupler]

Heathrow (London Airport) is where it is, because it was already there. RAF Heathrow was built as a WW2 "Super-Bomber Airfield", with extra long runways for larger bomber aircraft, a few others were dotted around the country. RAF Heathrow was redundant after WW2, and tailor-made for peacetime passenger travel, within easy reach of London. Many people forget that there just wasn't the money around for grand projects, so in the 40s and 50s they adapted existing sites.    

                            Cheers, Brian.

[Geep7]

I am currently planning to go to the NEC by train for the Warley show, as my local railway station is 2 minutes walk away, and it only means 1 change of train at Reading. Travel time is roughly the same as by car. Obviously this all depends upon if there is / isn't any disruption to the rail services that weekend.

[APOLLO]

4 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

It's also no longer automatically the case that rail travel is less polluting than driving. Rail may be cleaner, it may not be, depending on type of train/car. If someone has a good solar and battery home set up and an EV then it'll emit less for the journey than a diesel train.

 

I live alongside the WCML just north of Wigan, the number of diesel hauled freights outnumbers electrically hauled ones, and that includes some Daventry - Mossends - both ends (and all in between) are electrified. I understand it's cheaper to run Diesel than Electric and sod the environment.

 

https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:H31646/2023-10-16/detailed

 

Brit15

[APOLLO]

I posted this on PMP's thread, perhaps better here.

 

Like many problems we have re energy, environment etc it's a matter of scale.

 

Compare the no of model railway exhibitions in the UK per year, with the number of visitors etc at sports events, football in particular. Matches are cross country affairs with hundreds if not thousands travelling long distances to watch away (and home) games. This happens many, many times per year, not just football either. Car parks at many stadiums are vast.

 

What's the carbon footprint of the UK sports scene ?

 

When that is addressed (and good luck with that) then look at our piddly insignificant model railway exhibitions carbon footprint.

 

Brit15

[APOLLO]

And don't forget the utter stupidity, loss of life, devastation and environmental impacts the two wars are creating.

 

I do hope both are quickly resolved and sanity returns. I feel so sad for the many ordinary folks suffering on all sides.

 

Brit15

[Coldgunner]

3 hours ago, PaulRhB said:

You could use a wooden boat with a sail, the Danes have been quite good at broadening their travel horizons for over 1000 years that way. Come to think of it we used to be quite good at it too until some bloke with a French dad started building these massive super steamships. 
I blame him . . .

 

😉

Getting to Brum might be a bit tricky tbf :p

[PaulRhB]

11 minutes ago, Coldgunner said:

Getting to Brum might be a bit tricky tbf :p

Canals?

[Mark Forrest]

3 hours ago, Coldgunner said:

Travel broadens the mind, restrict travel with a carbon allowance and you will end up with local villages for local people everywhere.

Maybe true in the past and to some extent now; but in the future who knows.  Technology could offer a solution to experience other countries and cultures without the need to leave home. 

More to the point, the same could be true of model railway exhibitions.  Imagine popping on a VR headset and finding yourself standing on the platform of that layout you've always wanted to see rather than leaning on the barriers in an exhibition hall somewhere.

[APOLLO]

23 minutes ago, Mark Forrest said:

Maybe true in the past and to some extent now; but in the future who knows.  Technology could offer a solution to experience other countries and cultures without the need to leave home. 

More to the point, the same could be true of model railway exhibitions.  Imagine popping on a VR headset and finding yourself standing on the platform of that layout you've always wanted to see rather than leaning on the barriers in an exhibition hall somewhere.

 

I see trees of green
Red roses too
I see them bloom
For me and you
And I think to myself
What a wonderful world !!

 

Brit15

[Michael Hodgson]

4 hours ago, Nick C said:

Except that the public transport options  for many airports are rubbish for anyone not travelling to/from the city centre - Until very recently, to get from here to Heathrow, for example, meant either an unreliable bus that's likely to get stuck in M25 traffic, or going via central London - there's a new more direct bus service just started that may be better, but we'll see how reliable that turns out to be...

Luton Airport is a pain by car - and not just because the car park burned down a few days ago.  Rip-off car parking prices (or use one of the independent ones 4 miles away!)

It's difficult to pick up/set down passengers

When I do fly from/into Luton, I catch a bus (something I very rarely do for any other reason).

And Stansted's not a lot better.

It's a pity, because before Easyjet took the place over, Luton Airport was a friendly place with adequate cheap parking.

[wombatofludham]

5 hours ago, Coldgunner said:

Travel broadens the mind, restrict travel with a carbon allowance and you will end up with local villages for local people everywhere.

As someone who has worked in local government in a mix of rural and urban authorities, I can assure you the UK is already well populated with paddlers in the shallow end of the gene puddle who shouldn't be allowed access to anything more complex than a wax crayon.  I recall reading something from a historian or geneticist which claimed the invention of the rural motorbus in the 1920s probably did more to reduce the incidence of inbreeding than anything else.  I suspect we might have moved backwards since then.

PS For the avoidance of doubt my headstone is going to read "People? Not a fan"

 

[MrWolf]

4 hours ago, APOLLO said:

And don't forget the utter stupidity, loss of life, devastation and environmental impacts the two wars are creating.

 

I do hope both are quickly resolved and sanity returns. I feel so sad for the many ordinary folks suffering on all sides.

 

Brit15

 

I did mention being on the verge of world war three might be of greater concern earlier, but received the expected patronising response from some quarters.

 

There was a time when distant wars were just column inches in the newspapers, the last hundred years has put them on our doorstep, whether we accept it or not.

 

3 hours ago, Mark Forrest said:

Maybe true in the past and to some extent now; but in the future who knows.  Technology could offer a solution to experience other countries and cultures without the need to leave home. 

More to the point, the same could be true of model railway exhibitions.  Imagine popping on a VR headset and finding yourself standing on the platform of that layout you've always wanted to see rather than leaning on the barriers in an exhibition hall somewhere.

 

Some of that could be a double edged sword with rather sinister implications. Something like:

"Everything you think do and say, is in the little pill you took today"

Although I have come across a surprising number of people who have seen India, Mexico, Peru and Thailand that haven't a clue what's five miles up the road.

 

1 hour ago, wombatofludham said:

As someone who has worked in local government in a mix of rural and urban authorities, I can assure you the UK is already well populated with paddlers in the shallow end of the gene puddle who shouldn't be allowed access to anything more complex than a wax crayon.  I recall reading something from a historian or geneticist which claimed the invention of the rural motorbus in the 1920s probably did more to reduce the incidence of inbreeding than anything else.  I suspect we might have moved backwards since then.

PS For the avoidance of doubt my headstone is going to read "People? Not a fan"

 

 

There's still many villages and small towns, cut adrift and isolated by the birth and the the death of the industries that created them and our cities have become home to new kinds of insular, closed communities because the world has shrunk.

 

"People? Not a fan" I'm all for equality, I don't like anyone. If you think that is a negative thing, it isn't. On my travels I've met many people who have made my life better just for meeting them. It balances out the number of A-Holes I've met. 

Far better than believing that everyone is inherently good and being bitterly disappointed! 🤣

[Pacific231G]

7 hours ago, Kirby Uncoupler said:

Heathrow (London Airport) is where it is, because it was already there. RAF Heathrow was built as a WW2 "Super-Bomber Airfield", with extra long runways for larger bomber aircraft, a few others were dotted around the country. RAF Heathrow was redundant after WW2, and tailor-made for peacetime passenger travel, within easy reach of London. Many people forget that there just wasn't the money around for grand projects, so in the 40s and 50s they adapted existing sites.    

                            Cheers, Brian.

Not quite true. Heathrow was never intended to be an RAF base but always London's main civil airport. Harold Balfour, who was a wartime air minister, admitted in his 1973 memoir that he deceived the War Cabinet with the claim that an RAF base was needed on Hounslow Heath, knowing that his ambitious plans for a large new post-war civil airport would probably not be accepted, not least because, as you say, there was a lack of money for major projects.

The  deception also meant that it could be pushed through during wartine without any normal planning process. The mistake was to not appreciate that aircraft would get heavier and faster and so need far longer runways nor the growth in air travel that would make its position so close to London, with a prevailng approach path over a heavily populated area with coresponding noise pollution and greater danger in the event of a crash highly undesirable. Though you would want a modest  RAF comunication transport facility near London (i.e. Northolt) there are very obvious reasons why nobody would plan a heavy bomber base with a flightpath over the capital city.  If you look at where the RAF actually built its aerodromes for large aircraft (its own and allies) you're looking at places like Fairford, Brize Norton, Greenham Common, or Upper Heyford. 

[jjb1970]

There's a case study for public transport and government intervention where I currently live.

 

Much of it is limited given it is a small urban city-state, but it's still interesting.

 

To buy a car you must have a certificate of entitlement, CoE. The CoE is a document which allows you to buy a car, it's valid for ten years and they are sold via auction so price floats with demand. Current prices are over S$100,000. That's before you buy a car and it only lasts ten years. After that, prices of cars are scary too. So if people think there's a war on motorists in Britain, they've taken it to a whole new level here.

 

However, public transport is superb. The MRT railway started in the 1980's and now has a route length of over 200Km with another two lines under construction and work to complete the circle line (at the moment it's not a circle) and covers much of the island. The bus network is extremely comprehensive, with frequent services. Many MRT stations have bus interchanges and the system is fully integrated. In both cases buses and trains are air conditioned, kept immaculate and anti-social behaviour is extremely rare. Importantly, it is very reliable. And it is cheap. For journeys where public transport doesn't work taxi's are pretty cheap and there are cars you can hire by the hour. So while being hostile to private cars the government has provided an alternative which means you don't need a car.

 

By contrast, British governments pay lip service to public transport, and in fairness have spent a lot of money on it at various points (which begs another question - is the issue a lack of money or that money is just squandered?) but public transport in most of Britain is not great. Now before people object, I'm fully aware a city-state is very different from a much larger country, but even if I look at large urban centres in Britain it's not great. And some things are independent of size, why is it trains and buses in places like Singapore and Japan are immaculate and pretty much devoid of anti-social behaviour? I think we need a mirror for that one.

[BachelorBoy]

12 hours ago, Nick C said:

Except that the public transport options  for many airports are rubbish for anyone not travelling to/from the city centre - Until very recently, to get from here to Heathrow, for example, meant either an unreliable bus that's likely to get stuck in M25 traffic, or going via central London - there's a new more direct bus service just started that may be better, but we'll see how reliable that turns out to be...

 

 

[BachelorBoy]

12 hours ago, wombatofludham said:

 I recall reading something from a historian or geneticist which claimed the invention of the rural motorbus in the 1920s probably did more to reduce the incidence of inbreeding than anything else. 

 

 

Geneticists say the bicycle started it all. Randy young men had to be both fit and adventurous to woo the ladies of the next village. The motor bus might have been a retrograde step, as lazy young men could then do the same.

 

[MrWolf]

That would be the most logical reason why I got so into cycling and running time trials when I was in my early teens then?

[PMP]

13 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Luton Airport is a pain by car - and not just because the car park burned down a few days ago.  Rip-off car parking prices (or use one of the independent ones 4 miles away!)

It's difficult to pick up/set down passengers

When I do fly from/into Luton, I catch a bus (something I very rarely do for any other reason).

And Stansted's not a lot better.

It's a pity, because before Easyjet took the place over, Luton Airport was a friendly place with adequate cheap parking.

Oh dear…

As previously explained, the Uk including the aviation industry has signed up to net zero, whether you agree with that or not. Reducing emissions is key for an airport as that is the biggest factor in their environmental impact. Part of this is encouraging and influencing people onto public transport (PT). To do this you need to get them out of their cars, those, your and my car, being one of the biggest pollutants at an airport. So the provision of good PT are major factors in the current developments at airports. Prior to the 90’s, they were a nice to have. So to minimise car usage, fees are set for drop off and short term parking that are high to discourage car use and switch people to PT modes. The revenue from these charges goes into community support, and airport environmental improvements. All reasonable size airports in the Uk operate a similar system, some have a recirculating charge to prevent people going out, round a roundabout and back in.

Luton in the mid 90’s was very lucky to survive, early 90’s they were moving something like 1.5m pax per annum. The recession and Ryanair moving Uk base to Stansted, massive reduction in charter holidays, Royal Mail hub closure, and Monarch engineering moving to Manchester left in real danger of closure. Myself and three others whom were training as Air Traffic Controllers were made redundant due to those circumstances. Luton took a chance by assisting the launch of the easyJet services, which surprised everyone with their success starting with only two aircraft. Without that, Luton today would be a housing estate.

Today Luton moves 18 million passengers per year. It’s the fifth busiest UK airport and they’re doing that though a very physically constrained site.

Some numbers for you for Luton.

17million pax/year immediately pre covid. NB they are already back to around 1m pax per month.

17million. Thats roughly 50,000 passengers per day, 25k arrivals and 25k departures.

8 million of those annual passengers use drop off. Roughly 12,000 private vehicles per day going to drop off, and roughly 12,000 vehicles going to collect. All in the ground space of a large retail park. So yes, it’s entirely reasonable to have discouraging drop off and car park fees.

The remaining 9 million are pretty much equal over car parks, bus, and rail access.

 

 

 

 

Edited October 17, 2023 by PMP

[BachelorBoy]

6 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

There's a case study for public transport and government intervention where I currently live.

 

Much of it is limited given it is a small urban city-state, but it's still interesting.

 

To buy a car you must have a certificate of entitlement, CoE. The CoE is a document which allows you to buy a car, it's valid for ten years and they are sold via auction so price floats with demand. Current prices are over S$100,000. That's before you buy a car and it only lasts ten years. After that, prices of cars are scary too. So if people think there's a war on motorists in Britain, they've taken it to a whole new level here.

 

However, public transport is superb. The MRT railway started in the 1980's and now has a route length of over 200Km with another two lines under construction and work to complete the circle line (at the moment it's not a circle) and covers much of the island. The bus network is extremely comprehensive, with frequent services. Many MRT stations have bus interchanges and the system is fully integrated. In both cases buses and trains are air conditioned, kept immaculate and anti-social behaviour is extremely rare. Importantly, it is very reliable. And it is cheap. For journeys where public transport doesn't work taxi's are pretty cheap and there are cars you can hire by the hour. So while being hostile to private cars the government has provided an alternative which means you don't need a car.

 

 

Singapore is a crowded island. It has a population density that makes public transport worthwhile economically. 

 

Around four-fifths of Singaporeans live in high-rise public housing.

 

I think we have to accept that in the countryside, cars will always be more attractive than public transport. 

 

Therefore, people in the country should pay extra property taxes to compensate society for the extra resources they consume by living remotely.

 

 

 

 

 

[PMP]

8 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

there are very obvious reasons why nobody would plan a heavy bomber base with a flightpath over the capital city.  If you look at where the RAF actually built its aerodromes for large aircraft (its own and allies) you're looking at places like Fairford, Brize Norton, Greenham Common, or Upper Heyford. 

The locations you’ve listed weren’t built with the late 40’s bomber deterrent, they were existing stations and primarily transport command. Heyford did go to USAFE fairly early on. The immediate post war bomber provision was from the Lincoln and also a batch of second hand B-29 superfortress aircraft. They were called the Washington by the RAF and were early underpowered variants, which were operated for around five years prior to the Canberra coming on line. They (B29’s) were based at Marham in Norfolk, and either Cottesmore or Coningsby and as a stop gap there were relatively few of them.

[jjb1970]

4 minutes ago, BachelorBoy said:

 

Singapore is a crowded island. It has a population density that makes public transport worthwhile economically. 

 

Around four-fifths of Singaporeans live in high-rise public housing.

 

I think we have to accept that in the countryside, cars will always be more attractive than public transport. 

 

Therefore, people in the country should pay extra property taxes to compensate society for the extra resources they consume by living remotely.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Indeed, but there are plenty of urban centres in the UK where public transport could be much better. Integrating bus and rail services isn't a population density issue. Even trains, some hub stations could greatly improve connectivity by better timetabling.

 

Another good case study is Belgium. Belgian trains are basic and not that impressive but the service is superb. A very well designed and logical service pattern which just works, providing superb connectivity.

 

I spent quite a bit of time travelling around Japan. People might not realise how much population thins out in small town Japan with small rural communities.  Yet I still found using public transport allowed me to get around without much inconvenience.  Yes, trains and buses are less frequent but they're still largely designed to offer a viable alternative to car use.

[APOLLO]

Problem this last year or so with PT to my local airport (Manchester) is the PITA rail services. Strikes, constant train cancellations (Northern and Trans Pennine Express), so very unreliable I had to drive there & back from Wigan 4 times this year (family & friends, I've not flown since 2019). The railway infrastructure is there and is (Castlefield Corridor apart) excellent, as are our new trains and new depot nearby at Springs Branch - we just want some on time, reliable services.

 

Wigan has no direct Airport services anymore since last December when Northern diverted the Windemere & Barrow - Airport services (Both DMU) to run via Bolton. A letter to Andy Burnham just produced a waffle reply regarding the Castlefield Corridor congestion, err, which both above services still transit !!. NO one I know catches the train to the airport anymore, so unreliable, A change of train now needed from Wigan = a double dose of check in time anxiety !!!

 

When the powers that be get serious and look deeply into public transport as a viable and reliable, affordable alternative to the car then most folk will look again.

 

By the way, Airport parking, drop off etc is nothing to do with the environment, just a money making scam.

 

As to the major polluters at Airports ----

 

 

Brit15

Edited October 17, 2023 by APOLLO
typo

[PMP]

4 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

 

By the way, Airport parking, drop off etc is nothing to do with the environment, just a money making scam.

 

As to the major polluters at Airports ----

 

 

Brit15

You’re obviously not an expert. Some of us have actually done this for a living, and deal with facts rather than knee jerk tropes. Please show your Nox diffusion tubes results to back up your statement. A picture that hasn’t been adjusted to high contrast would be nice too. I’ve watched thousands of B737NG departures and not one has ever left a trail like that.

 

[BachelorBoy]

16 minutes ago, jjb1970 said:

 

Indeed, but there are plenty of urban centres in the UK where public transport could be much better. Integrating bus and rail services isn't a population density issue. Even trains, some hub stations could greatly improve connectivity by better timetabling.

 

Another good case study is Belgium. Belgian trains are basic and not that impressive but the service is superb. A very well designed and logical service pattern which just works, providing superb connectivity.

 

I spent quite a bit of time travelling around Japan. People might not realise how much population thins out in small town Japan with small rural communities.  Yet I still found using public transport allowed me to get around without much inconvenience.  Yes, trains and buses are less frequent but they're still largely designed to offer a viable alternative to car use.

 

Does that mean taxpayers are subsidising people to live unsustainable lifestyles out in the sticks?