Great Western Coffee Shop

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyw80v45jeo

Any repeatable response from Ed Milliband yet?

Very regrettable in my view for reasons of climate change, and local air pollution and noise nuisance.

Why is it that new railway schemes are endlessly talked about, postponed, and downgraded, but airport expansion goes ahead so readily.

Because even the dumbest politician can see that railways are a money "Black Hole" (ask Mr Starmer what that means  :)) Air travel makes money (generally) for all involved and provides lots of jobs.

Travelling by train is not a particularly pleasant experience nowadays - or cheap !  I pointed out in a post a while back that I flew from Heathrow to Denver and back (in Business Class) for far less, per mile, that I did travelling "Cattle Class" on a (tax payer subsidised too) return trip to Temple Meads.  A friend of mine recently got the Cardiff to Penzance train (1st Class) and was told there was no catering whatsoever on that route !!

Like it or not, someone with money to spend/invest is going to buy an Airbus A350 not a fleet of IETs.

This is undoubtedly true but would the situation change if airlines had to pay the same rate of fuel tax as TOCs / FOCs? Also it seems obvious (to me at least!) that airlines are on the hook for far less fixed infrastructure than train operators.

That is very true ... but should we acknowledge both strengths and weaknesses?   If I'm headed to Inverness,  infrastructure for air is limited to the two ends, to road is shared with many and can go up and down hills a lot reducing some of the infrastructure per unit costs, but rail needs to be much flatter and more heavily engineered.

This argument, I am afraid, is a well-worn red herring. I was told years ago by a BA Captain that his shiny new 757 had used 800 gals of fuel to move 200 people from Edinburgh to Heathrow - 4 gals a head (bum on seat ?), 20% VAT is peanuts. Even on long haul flights it will have minimal effect - with Ryanair now quoting ludicrously low fares people won't notice. The effect on the trains, of course, will be absolutely zero.

"Airlines are on the hook for far less fixed infrastructure than train operators".............really !!!  Exactly what ?? Heathrow doesn't shut down at the weekend and lay on buses to Glasgow or wherever, or shut down for a month to resurface the runways. One of my last jobs before I retired was with the replacement of the huge radar antennae used to control air traffic over the UK. NATS (National Air Traffic Services) paid my company - the airlines paid NATS - the passengers paid the airlines.................NO public money involved ! If you look on the Network Rail website under "income", the very first thing on there is "Government grants".


Sorry, but you are wrong there Grahame. There are lots of people from NATS watching flights to Inverness all the way - telling them where to go, and at what height. 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week. The infrastructure doesn't stop at the end of the runway.

Admittedly, the airlines do have some advantages. They can buy the model of airliner they want, they can put in what seats they want, they decide which places they want to serve. They are not told by some Government minion to buy what many passengers later come to look on as utter, uncomfortable junk ! (737 Max excluded)

NATS is 49% owned by the government (AKA taxpayers) so I would question the assertion that no 'public' money is involved in supporting the service.

What about fuel duty?....

True ..............but as you quite rightly say: "no 'public' money is involved in supporting (my highlighting) the service." I believe the MoD and other Governmental organisations pay NATS for services provided but this is done on a purely commercial basis.


OK, two bags of peanuts then.........Ryanair to Alicante is £24.99 - 3 bags of peanuts !  (That is the cost of buying 3 bags of peanuts on Ryanair too !)

Fuel duty per litre would almost buy you some peanuts alone. How many litres on a 4 hour flight?