I think says something about the sorry state of rail travel in Australia that train wasn't one of the options considered above. rendragon says it takes 8 hours and even then involves bus and train combined. Glasgow to London is about the same distance as Melb/Can (about 400 miles), and takes around 4.5-5 hours - not much less than flying, once you add in getting to airport, waiting time, possible delayed flights, etc. Also much less stressful (especially with a fencing bag!). CO2-wise, train appears to be well ahead of plane or car (according to this site, at least).
The thing is, it doesn't need to be a "super-fast rail" scheme which costs zillions and uses gee-whiz technology. It needs to be simple but well-engineered - ordinary trains can easily do 160km/h on well-maintained track. And it needs to run regularly. Trains from both Glasgow and Edinburgh run at least hourly to London, and every 15-30 minutes at peak times. Also, some trains are now providing wi-fi networks so workaholics (or LJ addicts) can do their thing en route.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-02-05 10:59 am (UTC)CO2-wise, train appears to be well ahead of plane or car (according to this site, at least).
The thing is, it doesn't need to be a "super-fast rail" scheme which costs zillions and uses gee-whiz technology. It needs to be simple but well-engineered - ordinary trains can easily do 160km/h on well-maintained track. And it needs to run regularly. Trains from both Glasgow and Edinburgh run at least hourly to London, and every 15-30 minutes at peak times. Also, some trains are now providing wi-fi networks so workaholics (or LJ addicts) can do their thing en route.
(ooops, I think I found a rantable topic !)