Environmentally sustainable model railway exhibitions

[APOLLO]

31 minutes ago, PMP said:

Please show your Nox diffusion tubes results to back up your statement.

 

I would but unfortunately the old girl blew up the NOX meter !!!!!!!!!!!!

 

She has depleted a few oil fields in her time !!!!!

 

 

 

Brit15

Edited October 17, 2023 by APOLLO

[NBL]

On 15/10/2023 at 13:40, NBL said:

In the 2 city centres that I'm most familiar (which are Glasgow and Edinburgh, even though they are over 100 miles away from me), I don't think there is anywhere that could host a show the size of Model Rail Scotland, and if there was, the costs would be horrendous. 

 

I know from work the costs of renting out venue space in Glasgow CC, places that could accommodate possibly a third to half of the average Model Rail show cost more for 1 day than a hall for the whole weekend (Thursday to Sunday) at the SEC.  Edinburgh is even more expensive.

 

Model Rails location in the SEC is pretty good, a couple of miles outside the centre with great transport links to the CC, plus it's walkable along the river or through charing cross.  It's also very well positioned for the road network.

 I've quoted myself above from another thread in which I responded to @Nearholmer

On 15/10/2023 at 16:03, Nearholmer said:

Having slightly “gone off on one” about the subject of the environmental (non) sustainability of the “big out of town show” paradigm that larger model railway exhibitions have settled into over the past couple of decades, and seem to be comfortably returning to post-pandemic, and having been told that anything other than that model is “impractical”, here is a place for us to chew over the issues.

 

My proposition is that:

 

- the “big out of town” approach leads to an environmentally unsustainable amount of car travel by attendees. In the case of GETS, which set me off on this, people report having travelled many hours by car in each direction, and raise many gripes about car parking, and certainly the former seems very typical of the result of choosing “out of town venues”;

 

- that by choosing venues that are readily accessible by public transport, and cutting car parking to the bare bone, making it available only to those who cannot use public transport, car use, and with it resource consumption, and pollution, notably CO2 emissions, could be sliced back very markedly (even with four people on board, a petrol car emits slightly more CO2 per passenger km travelled than does rail travel, 48g/pass.km vs 41g/pass.km, and the comparison gets worse the fewer people are in the car);

 

- that with creative thought, and use of “non traditional” venues, very worthwhile model railway exhibitions could be organised in many places within easy walking distance of good public transport facilities;

 

- model railway exhibitions might not be the biggest cause of optional car travel, and thereby optional pollution and contribution to climate change, but they are very much optional activities, and therefore a much less painful place to change our habits than many others.

 

Not so much part of the proposition, but more an observation/opinion, I wonder whether some clubs have got trapped into the “big out of town show” paradigm, with organising and delivering the show becoming almost the raison d’etre of the club. With that in mind it would be worth thinking about what the actual purpose of the big shows is for big clubs: is it the profit fed back into other club activity (I don’t know how much these shows “make” or how the profits benefit the clubs); or, is it the “social service to fellow hobbyists”, creating places for people to meet, share, and enjoy themselves?

 

So, am I completely off with the fairies, or is environmental sustainability something we ought to factor much more into thinking about exhibitions, and have we become blinded to other ways of tackling it because the “big out of town” model is so comparatively easy?

 

 

 

- 

Re the cost of venues, as I touched on above, city centre costs are huge, and for an update, yesterday I was costing up a venue in central Edinburgh for a Saturday and Sunday event that size wise could take half a typical model rail Scotland show.  It was just short of 7 figures.  

 

Driving in central Edinburgh is  nothing short of a nightmare although the public transport is very good, including linking out of town car parking.

 

I live in a semi-rural area, after moving from living and working in london in 2005.  Nearest train station is a 20 minute drive.  The bus service is actually pretty good although the nearest stop is 15 mins walk away.  But I absolutely refuse to use buses.

 

Despite having a prosthetic leg, I'm active and quite fit.  I enjoy various hobbies, some are solitary (model aircraft and cars), others group (model railways, motor racing and hillwalking).  My group activities are impossible without a car. Would I give up my car? Zero chance.

 

I have a mild hybrid car, which I use practically every day, fuel consumption is brilliant and it gets me where I want to go. 

 

I drove a 400 mile round trip to GETs, paid for parking next to MK station and was able to spend around 6 hours at the show.  Getting the train would have given me around a 90 mins at the show.   Using the bus I wouldn't be able to get back home the same day.  Cost wise I used around £30 of petrol, train would have been well over £100.

 

I have no local club, nearest is around 30 miles away, went a few times but the were the most inbred group of people I've ever met in my life.  Even if they were decent people and I joined, I'd still have to drive to get there.  They don't have a local show and infact don't exhibit any of their layouts.  

 

Even thought I drive most places, I probably have a more sustainable/environmently friendly lifestyle than I did when I lived in London.  I grow a lot of my own veg, and buy locally sourced meat and dairy products.

 

Should I give up my hobbies and interests in order to save the planet?

 

Not a chance in hell.  The benefits to my mental health and maintaining friendships far outweigh whatever my carbon footprint is.

[Nick C]

16 minutes ago, BachelorBoy said:

 

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

 

No. People in the country pay just as much tax, but have less access to services. 

 

Traditional country lifestyles are much more sustainable than urban ones - yes, there are a lot of people these days who want to live an urban lifestyle in the country, but don't tar everyone with the same brush.

[BachelorBoy]

1 minute ago, Nick C said:

No. People in the country pay just as much tax, but have less access to services. 

 

Traditional country lifestyles are much more sustainable than urban ones - yes, there are a lot of people these days who want to live an urban lifestyle in the country, but don't tar everyone with the same brush.

 

Thinks like water, electricity, mail are much less efficiently delivered in areas where fewer people live

 

Further, trips to supermarkets are lengthier. School children have to travel a long way to school.

 

Traditional country lifestyles might be more sustainable. But very few people are agricultural labourers or plough fields by horse.

 

[jjb1970]

27 minutes ago, BachelorBoy said:

 

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

 

Define unsustainable. They may be subsidizing rural transport, whether they subsidize unsustainable lifestyles is completely dependent on what unsustainable means. Food production tends to be largely rural and humankind would be largely unsustainable without it. A lot of industries are sighted in less populated areas for a variety of reasons. I suspect many rural people consume less than urban dwellers too.

[Nick C]

16 minutes ago, BachelorBoy said:

 

Thinks like water, electricity, mail are much less efficiently delivered in areas where fewer people live

 

Further, trips to supermarkets are lengthier. School children have to travel a long way to school.

 

Traditional country lifestyles might be more sustainable. But very few people are agricultural labourers or plough fields by horse.

 

But city dwellers, in my experience, consume a lot more stuff - and tend to recycle and reuse less. 

 

Plus as @jjb1970 says, food is grown in the country! We need to be getting more of our land into food production to reduce our need for imports, and that needs people. 

[BachelorBoy]

11 minutes ago, jjb1970 said:

Define unsustainable. They may be subsidizing rural transport, whether they subsidize unsustainable lifestyles is completely dependent on what unsustainable means. Food production tends to be largely rural and humankind would be largely unsustainable without it. A lot of industries are sighted in less populated areas for a variety of reasons. I suspect many rural people consume less than urban dwellers too.

Sustainable is a slippery term. How about "appropriate environmental impact" 

 

I have no problem with people who work in rural areas on things like food production living rurally. That's better than them living in cities and commuting out.

 

But people who live in the country and drive 50 miles to work in the city in SUVs?

 

Perhaps people who want to live in the country should be made to apply for permits 

 

 

 

[BachelorBoy]

5 minutes ago, Nick C said:

But city dwellers, in my experience, consume a lot more stuff - and tend to recycle and reuse less. 

 

Plus as @jjb1970 says, food is grown in the country! We need to be getting more of our land into food production to reduce our need for imports, and that needs people. 

 

And in my experience, people will drive for miles in the country to drop off stuff for recycling ....

 

[NBL]

35 minutes ago, BachelorBoy said:

 

Thinks like water, electricity, mail are much less efficiently delivered in areas where fewer people live

 

Further, trips to supermarkets are lengthier. School children have to travel a long way to school.

 

Traditional country lifestyles might be more sustainable. But very few people are agricultural labourers or plough fields by horse.

 

Reservoirs and water treatment works are generally in the countryside, as are powerplants, whether fossil, nuke or renewable. 

 

Trips to supermarkets are generally less often because you need to make sure you get what you need, and bulk buy rather than just nipping to Tesco for that mid week too up.

 

Mail deliveries to rural locations are way more efficient than in towns and cities.  The majority of accommodation in rural locations are houses, with neighbours who would take parcels in if you are out, or have safe spaces to leave items, rather than living in flats with restricted access and neighbours who are completely disinterested.  The effect of this is a lot less redeliveries or trips to the sorting office.

Edited October 17, 2023 by NBL

[PMP]

19 minutes ago, Nick C said:

But city dwellers, in my experience, consume a lot more stuff - and tend to recycle and reuse less. 

 

Plus as @jjb1970 says, food is grown in the country! We need to be getting more of our land into food production to reduce our need for imports, and that needs people. 

Don't be silly, you cover the land with solar panels to generate electricity for all the townees, there's so much nutritional value! At least thats what they are doing round here, and there are plenty of planning applications for more. 

 

You also need to define what's unsustainable and 'in the sticks' they're lovely glib statements to roll out as required. I live in a town or village depending on what official criteria you use of 3,000 people. We have shops and primary and secondary schools, pretty much self sufficient. However we can still get out packet of Peco fishplates next day from Amazon just like our urban dwelling amigo's can, that's our human right or something innit? The secondary school actually has pupils travelling by bus to our school from a town 7 miles away of 23,000 people. Surely they should go to school there, or pay an extra fee to use ours, its not our fault our school is better. 

Edited October 17, 2023 by PMP
spelling

[Nick C]

2 minutes ago, PMP said:

You also need to define what's unsustainable and 'in the sticks' they're lovely glib statements to roll out as required. I live in a town or village depending on what official criteria you use of 3,000 people. We have shops and primary and secondary schools, pretty much set sufficient. However we can still get out packet of Peco fishplates next day from Amazon just like our urban dwelling amigo's can, that's our human right or something innit? The secondary school actually has pupils travelling by bus to our school from a town 7 miles away of 23,000 people. Surely they should go to school there, or pay an extra fee, its not our fault our school is better. 

 

I know people in cities who expect deliveries within an hour or less, not next day. They also live off takeaways and restaurants, never cooking for themselves, drive SUVs despite having perfectly good public transport, always have the latest iPhone, and fly long-haul multiple times a year. They're also utterly insufferable!

 

You can't just apply a blanket "cities are better", because it's all down to indivduals. I'm sure there are city dwellers living very sustainable lifestyles, but there are plenty who don't, just as there are both sustainable and unsustainable country dwellers. 

[PMP]

16 minutes ago, BachelorBoy said:

Sustainable is a slippery term. How about "appropriate environmental impact" 

 

I have no problem with people who work in rural areas on things like food production living rurally. That's better than them living in cities and commuting out.

 

But people who live in the country and drive 50 miles to work in the city in SUVs?

 

Perhaps people who want to live in the country should be made to apply for permits 

 

 

 

So you want to financially cleanse the countryside of people, and make it so its like Cornwall where the rich can afford local houses just for holidays, and locals can't afford to live there. Locals who don't work on the land, they presumably move to larger settlements, which become even larger, putting extra strain on those local infrastructure requirements.

 

So what size of settlement are you using to determine your policy? What is the minimum number of residents  you need before you cross into your extra rural tax band?

[BachelorBoy]

7 minutes ago, PMP said:

So you want to financially cleanse the countryside of people, and make it so its like Cornwall where the rich can afford local houses just for holidays, and locals can't afford to live there. Locals who don't work on the land, they presumably move to larger settlements, which become even larger, putting extra strain on those local infrastructure requirements.

 

So what size of settlement are you using to determine your policy? What is the minimum number of residents  you need before you cross into your extra rural tax band?

 

Far from it. People how live and work locally would be a priority. Second homes would be clearly unsustainable! 

 

As for what size, etc: that needs to be worked out. 

 

 

[009 micro modeller]

1 hour ago, BachelorBoy said:

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

This seems a silly argument, especially for those who don’t choose to live there, or grew up living there (bit different for those who move out to the countryside and then complain about everything, which might be more the sort of thing that you’re getting at - I might have misunderstood). The resources used to provide frequent public transport etc. are not used in the countryside, for instance.

 

To be clear, I also don’t like the counter-argument that some people would probably advance, that people living in big cities should pay more tax because they enjoy improved access to public transport and services. Public transport is generally better in cities simply because it’s responding to the demand that is there.

 

Where I currently live (south-east but outside London, rural-urban mix) the problem with local public transport (and I’m mostly directing this at local buses - some of the points apply to trains as well, but they are generally much better as they form part of suburban commuter routes) isn’t always that it’s not frequent enough but sometimes that it doesn’t continue running until late enough, or is too unreliable and fragmented. Locally there are a lot of routes where more people would probably use the buses if they were more reliable, or ran at more sensible times. There are some more rural villages that will probably always need cars because they are too remote and not densely populated, so the environmentally sustainable option is probably electric cars with car-share schemes etc., rather than trying to provide a massively increased frequency of bus service (given that some of them only get two each way each day at the moment).

[009 micro modeller]

43 minutes ago, NBL said:

The majority of accommodation in rural locations are houses, with neighbours who would take parcels in if you are out, or have safe spaces to leave items, rather than living in flats with restricted access and neighbours who are completely disinterested.

But isn’t this (especially the bold bit) also a bit of a sweeping generalisation?

[APOLLO]

Rural folk / lifestyle is a very, very small % of the environmental (etc) problem. Barking up the wrong tree.

 

I'm not a Climate Change / Global Warming denier, indeed the ever increasing millions (billions) of tons of CO2 (etc) we worldwide shove into the atmosphere since the dawn of the industrial revolution certainly does no good (Though CO2 is a plant food and a %PPM in our atmosphere is necessary). I do feel the subject is way over egged, being constantly rammed down our ears at every opportunity by folk who don't know the difference between Gas and Paraffin (old gas mans saying !!). 

 

But we are where we are. Environment / energy is a world wide problem needing worldwide solutions, and some TRUTH telling is desperately needed, especially regarding oil and natural gas reserves and supply. We here in the UK cannot and should not Champion the world on this whilst the USA, China, India, Russia etc just do not seem to care.

 

The developed west is rapidly running out of sustainable & affordable energy, especially oil and gas. Just look at Germany who has shot itself in the foot energy wise (getting rid of nuclear) - but still burns large amounts of dirty coal (Lignite), we in the UK increasingly have a gun pointed at ours (especially gas). Yes renewables are a good thing, but they just don't have the clout or reliability that oil & gas does.

 

Real time UK electricity generation. 35% gas right now, 24% wind, 7% solar etc etc. (Varies by the minute)

 

https://electricinsights.co.uk/#/dashboard?&_k=xqz5bd

 

The blowing up of the two Nord Stream pipelines from Russia has certainly caused many problems in Europe, with many more to come as winter approaches. Similar trouble with a gas pipeline to Finland this week also. Energy is being weaponised.

 

I've spent 40 odd years planning / managing gas main replacement, development of the gas network etc. Our gas transmission and distribution networks have being sold off recently by the National Grid (who took over after British Gas was split up). Indeed the (once) Jewel in the crown, the National gas transmission system just being sold to overseas venture vulture capitalists of dubious intentions.

 

Gas (and oil) is being increasingly demonised etc by the climate change mantra, weaponised by various nations. There is NO affordable alternative to gas (especially for home heating) here in the UK. (Please don't mention heat pumps !!).

 

And finally I must mention the push to 15 minute cities, the World Economic Forum, ULEZ, you name it.

I'm increasingly of the thinking that the powers that be (the REAL ones with clout) full well know what is happening regarding  energy etc and are adjusting and introducing policies they deem appropriate, and brainwashing us accordingly.

 

Brit15 

 

 

[Reorte]

1 hour ago, Nick C said:

Plus as @jjb1970 says, food is grown in the country! We need to be getting more of our land into food production to reduce our need for imports, and that needs people. 

We've already got pretty much all of our land that's really suitable for agricultural production used for agricultural production, often to an overall quite detrimental level (intensive agriculture's not particularly great or sustainable for where it occurs). Despite how unpleasantly overdeveloped the UK is even if that was reversed it wouldn't make a significant difference to food production levels. It certainly wouldn't change the number of people required to any remotely significant degree, modern agriculture being so heavily mechanised.

 

The largest areas of land without significant agricultural use are upland areas where not much would grow (and tend to be national parks).

Edited October 17, 2023 by Reorte

[MrWolf]

2 hours ago, BachelorBoy said:

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why? People who live in the countryside (I have, but live in the city now due to the increased property prices in the country.) already pay more because of the fuel requirements to access what is not available in the country. 

Those who live and work in the countryside would be penalised unnecessarily and without people living and working in the countryside all the fifteen minuters in the city don't get to eat.

Not everyone living in the countryside is a chartered surveyor that's bought a barn conversion. 

[BachelorBoy]

3 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

 

 

But we are where we are. Environment / energy is a world wide problem needing worldwide solutions, and some TRUTH telling is desperately needed, especially regarding oil and natural gas reserves and supply. We here in the UK cannot and should not Champion the world on this whilst the USA, China, India, Russia etc just do not seem to care.

 

 

 

When other countries are failing to do the right thing, then championing such issues are precisely what the UK should do. 

[APOLLO]

1 minute ago, BachelorBoy said:

 

When other countries are failing to do the right thing, then championing such issues are precisely what the UK should do. 

 

Fine - YOU pay for it then, not me. 

 

Other countries are not even remotely interested in listening, such virtue signalling is a waste of time (and costly to all).

 

Brit15

 

 

[BachelorBoy]

1 minute ago, MrWolf said:

 

Why? People who live in the countryside (I have, but live in the city now due to the increased property prices in the country.) already pay more because of the fuel requirements to access what is not available in the country. 

Those who live and work in the countryside would be penalised unnecessarily and without people living and working in the countryside all the fifteen minuters in the city don't get to eat.

Not everyone living in the countryside is a chartered surveyor that's bought a barn conversion. 

 

Everybody who wants to live in the countryside should be made to apply for a permit to do so.

 

The people who live and work there, especially for vital industries such as food production, would be granted them without problem

 

The chartered surveyors in barn conversions would have to justify in environmental terms whey they need to live in the countryside.

 

If they can't, then either they do not get the permit, or they should be taxed extra in proportion to the excess detrimental environmental effects they produce.

 

 

 

[Coldgunner]

Holy thread creep Batman! lol

 

I think for the next 16mm show, as its no longer local I think our club is going to do a car-pool. Saves unnecessary expenditure as the new location isn't so easy for public transport for us. With a few of us being infirm it makes sense to get 4/5 people in the one car and chip in for fuel.

[NBL]

29 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

But isn’t this (especially the bold bit) also a bit of a sweeping generalisation?

In a way, yes, however it's based on 30+ years of dwelling in various cities.

[NBL]

7 minutes ago, BachelorBoy said:

 

Everybody who wants to live in the countryside should be made to apply for a permit to do so.

 

The people who live and work there, especially for vital industries such as food production, would be granted them without problem

 

The chartered surveyors in barn conversions would have to justify in environmental terms whey they need to live in the countryside.

 

If they can't, then either they do not get the permit, or they should be taxed extra in proportion to the excess detrimental environmental effects they produce.

 

 

 

So by your reckoning, I should have applied for a permit?

 

Tell me why.  Tell me what excess detrimental effects I produce.

Edited October 17, 2023 by NBL

[BachelorBoy]

3 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

 

Fine - YOU pay for it then, not me. 

 

Other countries are not even remotely interested in listening, such virtue signalling is a waste of time (and costly to all).

 

Brit15

 

 

 

The comforting moral fallacy of "two wrongs make a right"

 

Sometimes you have to do the right thing, even if it's difficult, especially in times of great danger when inaction makes things worse for everyone.

 

Was the UK " virtue signalling" when it told Germany not to invade Poland?