Train v Plane

Shapstormer · Post by **Shapstormer** » Sat Nov 30, 2002 1:24 am

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2525041.stm

Post by **martinhodgson** » Sat Nov 30, 2002 10:05 am

Yeah I've read that. People may change, but then the plane is a lot more flexible overseas, and in my case much more exciting!

Oh, and the 'A3XX' they mentioned as a planned project? It's officially designated the A380 and I believe the prototype is currently having work begun on it.

spinemaligna · Post by **spinemaligna** » Sat Nov 30, 2002 11:35 am

In the planes v trains arguement I have yet to hear the plane lobbies answer to what happens when the oil runs out as it surely will. The short sighted deciscion not to modernise the WCML will come home to roost. It has to be said that the French have led the way in Europe by investing in a sustainable high speed transport system which does not depend on limited fuel reserves.

Ross

37057 · Post by **37057** » Sat Nov 30, 2002 1:50 pm

oh erm,
I wold like to book a flight from Aldershot to Ash.

they will never take over the tains.

If they do i will strap myself to the front of the 15:34 aldershot to waterloo stopper.

Stooopidperson · Post by **Stooopidperson** » Sat Nov 30, 2002 3:00 pm

I like Planes more than trains. And they say it is causing polution! What about the diesel/steam trains? For the Electric trains, where does the electricity come from? Power stations! And most power stations burn fossil fuels so trains cause pollution as well!

Shapstormer · Post by **Shapstormer** » Sat Nov 30, 2002 3:24 pm

I think the argument goes that planes cause an awful lot more pollution because the energy needed to move them. Steel wheel and rail is one the of most efficient methods of transport known to man....29 times more effecient than road.

To put it in perspective British airways as a company produces 1-2% of ALL the CO2 emissions in the UK.

As a whole, road transport, power stations and air cause most (over 90%) of all pollution.

True, electrical power does come from power stations that produce emissions...in some cases. In France, where 90% plus of the power comes from nuclear installations obviously air pollution is virtually nil. Although obviously you have the problem of radioactive waste.

Airports also take up huge land spaces. With the main Paris airport taking up nearly twice as much land space as TGV Nord. Railways can also access the very centre of cities if so required, whereas airports are on the outskirts. This can cause extra pollution and congestion with heavy road use needed to access facilities. For example The M4/M25 near Heathrow.

Rail is also quicker city centre- city centre. London-Newcastle or Birmingham and London Manchester or Paris are good examples.

Indeed I saw an advert recently for a ticket from Newcastle-London by air. However it was London Stanstead, which is near Cambridge!

Stooopidperson · Post by **Stooopidperson** » Sat Nov 30, 2002 3:28 pm

Shapstormer wrote:Airports also take up huge land spaces. With the main Paris airport taking up nearly twice as much land space as TGN Nord. Railways can also access the very centre of cities if so required, whereas airports on on the outskirts.

Have you been to Hong Kong before 1997? That airport(now closed) was built in the centre of the country. So the planes fly super low and they look like they are going to crash into the buildings!

spartacus · Post by **spartacus** » Sat Nov 30, 2002 3:36 pm

That airport was built there because they had nowhere elso to built one, until recently when Hong Kong itself was literally enlarged. The airlines have two things the railways will never have. 1) Free 'track', cant do much about it, i know, but 2) something that something can be done about, tax free fuel!

bjdick · Post by **bjdick** » Sat Nov 30, 2002 4:12 pm

Very hard to put a tax on air fuel,as most of their flights are in international airspace.The same goes for ships,all fuel is tax free there too.

The reason is so that an equal competative scenario is in place,and unless all aviation\shipping nations agree,it'll stay duty free.

You can only tax if you have a captive audience,motorists,heating fuel,electricity,gas etc,so that an individual country can set taxes at the level they want.

Of course as rip off Britain,we could do it alone.I'm sure we'd all go along with that.That would solve the congestion problem at Heathrow.
The other solution would be to make jet engines exhaust ozone at high altitudes,thus fixing the polar ozone holes,and becoming "Green".

Stooopidperson · Post by **Stooopidperson** » Sat Nov 30, 2002 4:17 pm

bjdick wrote: The other solution would be to make jet engines exhaust ozone at high altitudes,thus fixing the polar ozone holes,and becoming "Green".

Wow! Suck in O2 and breaks the molecues down and reunite them to get O3 ! I think that's impossible!

basildd · Post by **basildd** » Sat Nov 30, 2002 4:42 pm

Shapstormer wrote: Airports also take up huge land spaces. With the main Paris airport taking up nearly twice as much land space as TGV Nord.

I bet you heard that from GoingNorth....

bjdick · Post by **bjdick** » Sat Nov 30, 2002 5:50 pm

The products of combustion produce ozone at ground level,hence the Los Angeles smog,as it's trapped in a natural temperature inversion.

Having jets produce it at high level is easier that squirting out of monster sized aerosol sprays using freon 12 as the propellant.

Shapstormer · Post by **Shapstormer** » Sat Nov 30, 2002 6:45 pm

basildd wrote:
Shapstormer wrote: Airports also take up huge land spaces. With the main Paris airport taking up nearly twice as much land space as TGV Nord.
I bet you heard that from GoingNorth....

No he fell under a pacer at Middlesborough...allegedly!

(bum)

basildd · Post by **basildd** » Sat Nov 30, 2002 6:57 pm

Shapstormer wrote:
basildd wrote:
Shapstormer wrote: Airports also take up huge land spaces. With the main Paris airport taking up nearly twice as much land space as TGV Nord.
I bet you heard that from GoingNorth....
No he fell under a pacer at Middlesborough...allegedly!

(bum)

Ouch!

what a sad end - not even a 158.....

Shapstormer · Post by **Shapstormer** » Sat Nov 30, 2002 7:03 pm

It was booked a 158 but ATN messed up the diagrams again...

But he was going for a 66 just to make sure, but sadly that was cancelled rescuing another failed Voyager...