Hydrogen In Aviation Offers Potential For Growth And Deeper Emissions Reductions, New Study Shows
The title of this post, is the same as that of this press release from Rolls-Royce.
These five paragraphs compose the press release.
Rolls-Royce, easyJet, Heathrow and University College London Air Transportation Systems Lab (UCL ATSLab) published a report highlighting how hydrogen-powered aircraft could enable European and UK aviation to cut carbon emissions while supporting future growth.
The study, Enabling Hydrogen in the European Aviation Market, found that hydrogen in aviation offers a unique opportunity to achieve both emissions reduction and market expansion. The analysis shows that introducing hydrogen alongside Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) can accelerate progress towards net zero, particularly when policy incentives reward low-carbon fuels and if hydrogen were to be included within the EU’s SAF mandate.
The research also found that targeted hydrogen infrastructure at around 20 major European airports, including Heathrow, could deliver more than 80% of the emissions benefits of full hydrogen availability across the continent. Concentrating investment at key ‘hydrogen hubs’ would therefore provide a practical and cost-effective path to early adoption.
Further modelling indicates that the earlier novel technologies, such as hydrogen, can be introduced, the more opportunity they present for CO2 emission reductions, underscoring the value of early technological transition where it is financially and technically viable.
The study is underpinned by UCL ATSLab’s Airline Behaviour Model (ABM), which represents the complexity of airline decision-making through specific behavioural variables. Building on this, the research evaluates how fuel costs, incentives and new technologies shape airline responses. This provides a research-based, realistic picture of how hydrogen adoption could evolve, highlighting both opportunities and potential challenges for adoption.
Note, these two sentences recommending early adoption of hydrogen.
- Concentrating investment at key ‘hydrogen hubs’ would therefore provide a practical and cost-effective path to early adoption.
- Further modelling indicates that the earlier novel technologies, such as hydrogen, can be introduced, the more opportunity they present for CO2 emission reductions.
I also suspect, that introducing hydrogen early, feeds back to reduce Co2 emissions.
But what is Trump’s considered view on hydrogen aircraft?
Google AI gives this answer to my question.
Donald Trump’s view on hydrogen for transportation, including potential use in aircraft, is highly skeptical due to perceived safety risks and effectiveness concerns, which generally aligns with his broader opposition to green energy initiatives. He has specifically criticized hydrogen-powered vehicles as being dangerous and “prone to blowing up”.
Note.
- I used to work in a hydrogen factory and it’s still producing hydrogen.
- I doubt Trump gets on well with Jennifer Rumsey, who is CEO of Cummins, who are one of the world’s largest diesel-engine companies, who are following a zero-carbon route.
- Is Formula One Likely To Go To Hydrogen Fuel? This would set the Cat Among The Pigeons
I also feel that this University College London study will create a string of converts to hydrogen.
Ryanair Refuses To Refund Hero Passenger Injured During Cambridgeshire Train Stabbing
The title of this post, is the same as that of this article on Simple Flying.
These two paragraphs add details to the story.
Ryanair has doubled down on its decision not to issue a refund for a passenger injured while risking his life to stop a mass stabbing assailant. Stephen Crean, 61, suffered stab wounds as he fought a knife-wielding man attacking passengers on a train, leaving his unable to catch his Ryanair flight to Austria.
The Irish ultra-low-cost carrier has responded to the public outrage, insisting that all of its fares are non-refundable and advising customers to pay for travel insurance. However, many are calling on the airline to make an exceptional case for Crean.
I feel Ryanair have been very mean.
In fact, I feel Ryanair could have used the story for a bit of free advertising.
Because of the fact, that my ongoing medical condition; uncomplicated pancolonic diverticular disease could flare up at any time and I might need the toilet urgently, I wouldn’t fly Ryanair, as they might put restrictions on access to the facilities, between my booking and the flight.
CO2 to SAF: A One-Step Solution
The title of this post is the same as that of this article on the Chemical Engineer.
This is the sub-heading,
Oxford spinout OXCCU has launched a demonstration plant at London Oxford Airport to trial its one-step process of turning CO2 into sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). Aniqah Majid visited the plant to investigate the benefits of its “novel” catalyst
One word in this sub-heading caught my eye.
When I was a young engineer in the Computer Techniques section in the Engineering Department at ICI Plastics Division, I did a small mathematical modelling project for this chemical engineer, using the section’s PACE 231-R analogue computer.
He was impressed and gave the 23-year-old self some advice. “You should apply that beast to catalysts.”
I have never had the chance to do any mathematically modelling of catalysts either at ICI Plastics or since, but I have invested small amounts of my own money in companies working with advanced catalysts.
So when OXCCU was picked up by one of my Google Alerts, I investigated.
I like what I found.
The three raw ingredients are.
- Green Hydrogen
- Carbon dioxide perhaps captured from a large gas-fired powerstation like those in the cluster at Keadby.
- OXCCU’s ‘novel’ catalyst, which appears to be an iron-based catalyst containing manganese, potassium, and organic fuel compounds.
I also suspect, that the process needs a fair bit of energy. These processes always seem to, in my experience.
This paragraph outlines how sustainable aviation fuel or (SAF) is created directly.
This catalyst reduces CO2 and H2 into CO and H2 via a reverse water gas shift (RWGS) process, and then subsequently turns it into jet fuel and water via Fischer-Tropsch (FT).
The Wikipedia entry for Fischer-Tropsch process has this first paragraph.
The Fischer–Tropsch process (FT) is a collection of chemical reactions that converts a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen, known as syngas, into liquid hydrocarbons. These reactions occur in the presence of metal catalysts, typically at temperatures of 150–300 °C (302–572 °F) and pressures of one to several tens of atmospheres. The Fischer–Tropsch process is an important reaction in both coal liquefaction and gas to liquids technology for producing liquid hydrocarbons.
Note.
- I wouldn’t be surprised that to obtain the carbon monoxide and hydrogen or syngas for the Fischer-Tropsch process, excess hydrogen is used, so the OXCCU process may need a lot of affordable hydrogen, some of which will be converted to water in the RWGS process.
- The high temperatures and pressures for the Fischer-Tropsch process will need a lot of energy, as I predicted earlier.
But I don’t see why it won’t work with the right catalyst.
The Wikipedia entry for the Fischer-Tropsch process also says this.
Fischer–Tropsch process is discussed as a step of producing carbon-neutral liquid hydrocarbon fuels from CO2 and hydrogen.
Three references are given, but none seem to relate to OXCCU.
OXCCU have a web site, with this title.
Jet Fuel From Waste Carbon
And this mission statement underneath.
OXCCU’s mission is to develop the world’s lowest cost, lowest emission pathways to make SAF from waste carbon, enabling people to continue to fly and use hydrocarbon products but with a reduced climate impact.
It looks like they intend to boldly go.
Conclusion
My 23-year-old self may have been given some good advice.
Is It illegal To Read Your Phone While Cycling In London
I was just trying to cross the road and saw a young lady about twenty, riding towards me on a bicycle reading her mobile phone which was held in one hand and balanced on the handlebars. She was wearing a helmet and steering with one hand.
I asked Google AI, the question in the title of this post and received this answer.
No, it’s not explicitly illegal to read your phone while cycling in London, as the specific law prohibiting phone use while driving doesn’t apply to bicycles. However, it is very dangerous and you can still be prosecuted for the offense of careless cycling if your actions endanger yourself or others, with potential fines of up to £2,500.
In the past, I’ve used mobile phones, in ways that might become illegal.
- Several times, I’ve exercised a horse with a Nokia 6310i phone in my pocket, so that, if I fell off, I could call for help. I must admit, that I have received and made a few calls from the back of a horse. But in all cases, it was a well-behaved horse, that would stand quietly in a safe place.
- I once with prior arrangement of UK Air Traffic Control requested an Airways Join on a mobile phone at Ipswich Airport. But my second pilot that day, was a fully-qualified airline pilot.
I used to enjoy flying light aircraft and I do wonder sometimes, if I could still do it, after a gap of thirty years and a serious stroke? Obviously, I’d make it legal with an instructor in the right-hand seat.
Rolls-Royce To lead EU’s New Clean Aviation project UNIFIED To Transform And Decarbonise Aviation
The title of this post the same as that of this press release from Rolls-Royce.
These two opening paragraphs add a few details.
Rolls-Royce has been selected by the European Union’s Clean Aviation programme to lead one of 12 groundbreaking new projects aiming to decarbonise aviation. These initiatives, which include new aircraft concepts and innovative propulsion technologies, will receive funding of about €945 million.
The Clean Aviation Joint Undertaking (CAJU) is the European Union’s leading research and innovation programme for transforming aviation towards a sustainable and climate neutral future.
I asked Google AI about the European Union’s Clean Aviation programme and received this reply.
The European Union’s Clean Aviation programme, part of the Horizon Europe research initiative, is a public-private partnership aimed at developing disruptive, climate-neutral aviation technologies, including hydrogen-powered, hybrid-electric, and ultra-efficient aircraft, to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. Launched in 2022, it has a budget of €4.1 billion (€1.7 billion from the EU, €2.4 billion from private partners) and focuses on technologies that will be integrated into a new generation of short- to medium-range aircraft with a target entry into service by 2035. Key goals include a 30% reduction in CO2 emissions and energy efficiency compared to 2020 standards for new aircraft by 2030, with a long-term objective of climate-neutral aviation by 2050.
Note.
- Only someone like Trump would think that the key goals in the last sentence were not worthwhile.
- €4.1 billion in the right place could be a very good start.
- There is a Clean Aviation web site.
The press release says this about the UNIFIED project.
UNIFIED – Ultra Novel and Innovative Fully Integrated Engine Demonstrations
The UNIFIED consortium is led by Rolls-Royce and contains key industrial, academic and research partners across France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain and the United Kingdom. Subject to successful completion of grant preparation, the project will enable ground testing of an UltraFan® technology demonstrator at a short to medium range thrust class for future narrowbody aircraft and also enable the preparation of key activities towards future flight test of the UltraFan architecture.
I am not surprised Ultrafan is mentioned.
The Wikipedia entry for the Rolls-Royce Trent has a section about the UltraFan, which starts with these two paragraphs.
The UltraFan is a geared turbofan with a variable pitch fan system that promises at least 25% efficiency improvement. The UltraFan aims for a 15:1 bypass ratio and 70:1 overall pressure ratio.
The Ultrafan keeps the Advance core, but also contains a geared turbofan architecture with variable-pitch fan blades. The fan varies pitch to optimise for each flight phase, eliminating the need for a thrust reverser. Rolls-Royce planned to use carbon composite fan blades instead of its usual hollow titanium blades. The combination was expected to reduce weight by 340 kg (750 lb) per engine.
Note.
- 25 % is a very good efficiency improvement.
- No thrust reverser.
- A saving of 340 kg. in weight per engine.
It should also be noted that October 2028, will see the hundredth anniversary of Henry Royce sketching the R-type engine in the sand on the beach in Sussex.
The R-type was the engine that won the Schneider Trophy outright and enabled Rolls-Royce’s engineers to design the unrivalled Merlin engine that powered Hurricanes, Spitfires, Mosquitos, Mustangs and Lancasters in World War Two.
Gatwick Second Runway Plan Approved By Transport Secretary
The title of this post is the same as that of this article on the BBC.
This is the sub-heading.
Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander has approved plans for a second runway at London Gatwick Airport, as the government looks for economic growth opportunities.
These four introductory paragraphs add some detail.
The £2.2bn privately-financed project involves in effect moving the current Northern Runway 12 metres to bring it into regular use, as well as other developments, including extending the size of terminals.
The airport says its plans will bring jobs and boost the local economy. But there has long been opposition from campaigners and groups worried about the impact on the surrounding area.
Gatwick currently handles about 280,000 flights a year. It says the plan would enable that number to rise to around 389,000 by the late 2030s.
A government source has described the plans as a “no-brainer for growth,” adding that “it is possible that planes could be taking off from a new full runway at Gatwick before the next general election.”
Over the last fifty years, I’ve been involved in many large projects, as I used to write project management software and at one period in the 1980s, half of all the world’s major projects, were being managed by the Artemis software, that I wrote in a Suffolk attic.
I am starting this post by asking Google AI, when Gatwick’s Northern Runway was built. This was the answer I received.
Gatwick’s Northern Runway was built in 1979 by widening an existing taxiway to serve as an emergency runway. While the main runway is known as 08R/26L, the standby or emergency runway is designated as 08L/26R and is located just to the north of the main runway.
Note.
- 08 means that the runway is aligned at 080 degrees, which is almost due East.
- 26 means that the runway is aligned at 260 degrees, which is almost due West.
- Normally, when landing and taking off at Gatwick, your aircraft will use the Southern runway, which points to the West or Runway 26L.
This Google Map shows the layout of the airport.
Note.
- The longer Southern 08R/26L runway.
- The shorter Northern 08L/26R runway.
- The station in the North-East corner of the map is Horley.
- The station to the East of the runways is Gatwick Airport station.
- Both stations are on the Brighton Main Line, which runs North-South past the Airport.
- As when it was built, the Airport envisaged that the Northern runway would be turned into a runway that would meet all standards, I doubt there will be any problems rebuilding the Northern Runway, the required twelve metres to the North.
It was a cunning plan, when it was executed in the late 1970s and worthy of Baldrick at his best.
I do wonder, if it had been developed using Artemis!
US Interior Secretary: ‘No Future For Offshore Wind Under This Administration’
The title of this post, is the same as that of this article on offshoreWIND.biz.
This is the sub-heading.
US Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said at a press conference on 10 September that offshore wind has no future in the US under the Trump administration and that the government was reviewing five offshore wind projects that are now under construction.
There is also this quote from Burgum.
Offshore wind was too expensive and not reliable enough.
Many of those projects weren’t really about electricity, they were about tax subsidies
I think the fact that the subsidies have been either cut back or limited means that it is likely that there will not be future offshore wind built in America.
He also added that there were concerns that wind turbines interfered with whales and radar systems.
I asked Google AI a few questions.
Is Offshore Wind Extremely Expensive?
Google AI replied.
No, offshore wind is not considered extremely expensive when compared to other energy sources, particularly gas-fired power stations, and its costs are projected to fall further. While initially more expensive to construct than onshore wind due to the marine environment, the higher and more consistent wind speeds offshore generate more power, leading to a competitive or lower overall levelised cost of energy (LCOE) in many regions. Recent economic challenges like inflation and supply chain disruptions have increased costs temporarily, but the sector’s financial position is recovering, and cost reductions are expected to continue.
That looks pretty fair to me.
Is Offshore Wind Reliable?
Google AI replied.
Yes, offshore wind is a reliable energy source because it generates power more consistently than onshore wind due to higher, more dependable wind speeds at sea, and can be integrated with other renewables and energy storage to provide continuous power. Offshore wind turbines operate almost all the time, and the power can be backed up by grid-level storage to ensure a steady electricity supply, even when the wind isn’t blowing.
That looks pretty fair to me.
Are Subsididies And Tax Breaks Important For Offshore Wind?
Google AI replied.
Yes, subsidies and tax breaks are important for the offshore wind industry, which faces high upfront costs and inflationary pressures, to make it more cost-competitive with fossil fuels and secure financing for projects. These incentives help reduce costs for developers, de-risk investments, and ensure the technology can meet climate targets by fostering investment and ensuring long-term viability.
That looks pretty fair to me, but if you were in the oil and gas industry you might think differently.
On the other hand some countries like Norway and the UK, are encouraging the linking of offshore wind farms to offshore oil and gas production to decarbonise offshore operations.
Does Offshore Wind Kill Whales?
This article on the BBC is entitled Fact-Checking Donald Trump’s Claim That Wind Turbines Kill Whales.
It goes into detail about Trump’s claims about wind turbines and marine life.
These are four paragraphs.
“We know what the main threats are to humpback whales: it’s very much the impact from things like fishing and ship strikes,” says Rob Deaville from the Zoological Society of London’s Cetacean Strandings Investigation Programme.
“To talk about wind farms being a problem takes away discussion around the very real threats that are a problem for those species.”
Many other areas with high numbers of wind farms have not seen an increase in whale mortality.
For example, the UK is home to the world’s four largest wind farms, but no humpback whale strandings there have been conclusively linked to the impact of those farms.
That looks pretty fair to me.
But because of our massive portfolio of offshore wind farms and top universities, who research the marine environment, the UK is in a unique position to expose fake science, that was made up on the back of a used envelope.
Does Offshore Interfere With Radar?
Google AI replied.
Yes, offshore wind farms can interfere with radar by reflecting radar signals, causing “radar clutter” or false echoes that can obscure real targets, like aircraft or ships, or create phantom images on a radar display. This interference, also known as a “blade flash,” can negatively impact air defense, air traffic control, and maritime navigation, leading to reduced accuracy and potential safety risks.
That looks pretty fair to me.
Have Wind Turbines Caused Any Air Accidents?
Google AI replied.
Yes, wind farms have caused air accidents, though they are rare. These incidents primarily involve light aircraft colliding with wind turbines or experiencing loss of control due to turbulence from turbine wakes. Examples include a pilot crashing near a wind farm due to turbulence and another fatal crash involving an aircraft hitting a turbine blade.
That looks pretty fair to me.
I learned to fly light aircraft in the 1970s and I remember being told about wake turbulence from airliners, which has been strong enough in some cases to flip an aircraft like a Cessna 150 upside down or into a spin.
What Are The CAA’s Rules For Flying Near Wind Turbines?
Google AI replied.
The primary CAA rule for flying near wind turbines is related to their visibility and safety, focusing on lighting requirements and potential hazards like turbulence. Structures 150 meters or higher require medium-intensity red lights. Pilots must avoid dazzling lights with their own, and wind turbine developers must assess and mitigate risks such as turbulence, radar interference, and impact on Instrument Flight Procedures (IFPs).
That looks like what I would have expected.
Conclusion
I have tried not to be selective with my evidence, but if you are there are reasons that could be used to ban wind turbines.
I am also happy to add any other questions.
Shell Pulls Plug On Rotterdam Biofuels Plant
The title of this post, is the same as that of this article on The Times.
This is the sub-heading.
Retreat from green energy continues as facility that was earmarked to produce sustainable aviation fuel and renewable diesel will not now be built
These first three paragraphs add some details.
Shell has scrapped construction of one of Europe’s biggest biofuels plants as it continues its retreat from green energy
The move by the FTSE 100 oil and gas group represents a further setback for efforts to cut aviation emissions.
Shell said it would not restart construction of the biofuels facility at its Rotterdam energy and chemicals plant, which was due to produce sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) and renewable diesel.
When I wrote Centrica Secures Investment Stake In Gasrec Helping Boost UK Bio-LNG Ambitions, I took a look at the use of liquified natural gas (LNG) in transport.
This paragraph from the Centrica press release about the stake, gives the thoughts of Chris O’Shea, who is Group Chief Executive, Centrica.
Chris O’Shea, Group Chief Executive, Centrica plc, said: “Demand for bio-LNG for transport is growing fast as more HGV operators make the switch – drawn by a clean, ready-to-use fuel which slashes CO2 emissions by up to 85 per cent in comparison to diesel*. This investment in Gasrec enhances our collaboration with the leading company in the sector, and puts us in a strong position to energise a vital sector of the industry on its journey to net zero.”
Chris O’Shea of Centrica appears to feel that bio-LNG is a good alternative to diesel, so have Shell come to a similar decision, about satisfying the demand for diesel?
I asked Google AI if LNG has advantages over diesel as a truck fuel and received this answer.
Yes, LNG offers advantages over diesel, including significantly lower emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx), and particulate matter (PM), which improves local air quality. It can also be more economically efficient, with fuel costs potentially lower than diesel depending on market conditions. However, the overall greenhouse gas (GHG) benefits are mixed; while LNG has a lower carbon content, it can result in higher lifecycle GHG emissions due to energy losses in its production and transport, as well as methane slip.
Note.
- If it drops emissions by up to 85 percent for bio-LNG, surely, it would do the same for LNG.
- I also think with tight regulations, the use of LNG could improve air quality in cities like London.
- LNG would probably be a more affordable fuel than hydrogen.
It should also be noted, that several major diesel engine makers, now make families of engines, which can handle, diesel, hydrogen and natural gas.
LNG would also be a convenient stepping stone between current fuels and hydrogen, that might give a few extra years for the transition.
Could LNG Be Used In Aircraft?
Consider.
- LNG would certainly give some reduction in carbon emissions.
- Handling LNG in aircraft could have similar problems to hydrogen, so companies like Airbus might have already solved them.
- In addition, LNG doesn’t have the fearsome reputation, that hydrogen seems to have gained because of the Hindenburg.
- It would be easier to provide LNG fuel at airports all round the world.
- Airbus have said availability of hydrogen at airports, could be a problem.
Out of curiosity, I asked Google AI if LNG could be used to power an airliner and received this answer.
Yes, liquefied natural gas (LNG) can theoretically be used to power airliners, offering a potential reduction in CO2 emissions compared to conventional jet fuel, but significant challenges exist. These challenges include the need for entirely new, larger, and heavier cryogenic fuel tanks, modifications to aircraft engines and fuel systems, and the development of a new global infrastructure for LNG supply. While experimental tests have been conducted, such as on the Soviet Union’s Tupolev Tu-155 in 1989, LNG is not currently in normal service due to these practical and infrastructural hurdles.
I would prefer it was a purpose-designed Airbus, than a Soviet-era Tupolev.
Could London And Central Scotland Air Passengers Be Persuaded To Use The Trains?
How Many Passengers Fly Between London And Edinburgh?
Wikipedia gives these figures for 2024 for passengers from Edinburgh to London
- London City – 334,873
- London Gatwick – 476,152
- London Heathrow – 1,148,634
- London Luton – 338, 729
- London Stansted – 693,953
This gives a total of 2,992,341.
As Wikipedia doesn’t give complete figures for from London to Edinburgh, for the purpose of this analysis, I’ll assume they are the same.
How Many Passengers Fly Between London And Glasgow?
Wikipedia gives these figures for 2024 for passengers from Glasgow to London
- London City – 208,405
- London Gatwick – 456,002
- London Heathrow – 954,027
- London Luton – 255,095
- London Stansted – 225,110
This gives a total of 2,098,639.
As Wikipedia doesn’t give complete figures for from London to Glasgow, for the purpose of this analysis, I’ll assume they are the same.
How Many Passengers Fly Between London And Scotland’s Central Belt?
Adding the two figures gives 5,090,980. in both directions.
Which is an average of 97,903 per week or 13,948 per day.
How Many Train Seats Run Between London And Scotland’s Central Belt?
These figures are for Friday the 1st of August.
- Aventi West Coast – London Euston and Glasgow Central – 5 x 9-car Class 390 train – 2,345 seats
- Aventi West Coast – London Euston and Glasgow Central – 16 x 11-car Class 390 train – 6,677 seats
- LNER – London King’s Cross and Edinburgh – 26 x 9-car Class 801 train – 15,886 seats
- Lumo – London King’s Cross and Edinburgh – 5 x 5-car Class 803 train – 2,010 seats
Note.
- All services are all-electric.
- All services are fairly new or have recently been refurbished,
This gives a total of 26,918 train seats.
Adding Lumo’s Service To Glasgow
In Lumo Will Extend Its King’s Cross And Edinburgh Service To Glasgow, I suggested that the Glasgow service would be run as follows from December 2025.
- Two existing Lumo services will leave London as pairs of five-car trains.
- The pairs will split at Edinburgh.
- The leading train will go on to Glasgow Queen Street calling at Edinburgh Haymarket and Falkirk High stations.
- The trailing train will return to London King’s Cross.
- At the end of the day, the two trains in Glasgow will do a fast run back to London King’s Cross as a pair of 5-car trains.
This will add 804 seats per day between London and Glasgow Queen Street in both directions.
The daily total would now total 27,722 train seats, which compares with a daily average of 13,948 passengers per day, who travel by air.
Adding Lumo’s Service To Stirling
In Lumo To Expand Scotland’s Rail Network With New London-Stirling Rail Route From Spring 2026, I talk about Lumo’s new service to Stirling.
- There will be five trains per day (tpd) in each direction.
- Lumo’s new route will link London Euston directly to Stirling, also calling at Milton Keynes, Nuneaton, Crewe, Preston, Carlisle, Lockerbie, Motherwell, Whifflet (serving Coatbridge), Greenfaulds (serving Cumbernauld) and Larbert.
- The service will use 6-car Class 222 trains, which in the linked post, I estimate will have a similar one-class capacity to the Class 803 trains between London King’s Cross and Edinburgh.
- If the capacity of the two train types is similar, this should give operational advantages and allow some more Class 803 trains to run the Euston and Stirling route.
This second Scottish route will add 2010 train seats per day between London Euston and Stirling in both directions.
The daily total would now total 29,732 train seats, which compares with a daily average of 13,948 passengers per day, who travel by air.
Could More Capacity Be Added Between London And Scotland’s Central Belt?
I believe some of the Lumo services between London King’s Cross and Edinburgh could be doubled up to a pair of trains.
There would have to be no platform length issues at London King’s Cross, Stevenage, Newcastle and Morpeth stations.
If three trains could be doubled up, that would add 1,206 train seats per day between London and Edinburgh in both directions.
The daily total would now total 30,938 train seats, which compares with a daily average of 13,948 passengers per day, who travel by air.
I also suspect, that some of the Stirling services could be doubled up.
Connectivity Of England’s Northern Airports To London And Central Scotland
Birmingham Airport
Consider.
- There are easyJet flights to Edinburgh and Glasgow
- There are 1.5 trains per hour (tph) between Birmingham New Street and Edinburgh.
- There are 6 tpd between Birmingham New Street and Glasgow.
You would make your choice and pay the money.
East Midlands Airport
There are no flights or trains to Edinburgh and Glasgow.
Leeds Airport
Consider.
- There are no flights to Edinburgh or Glasgow.
- There is one tph between Leeds and Edinburgh
- There is one tpd between Leeds and Glasgow
Could Leeds and Glasgow get better connectivity?
Liverpool Airport
Consider.
- There are no flights to Edinburgh or Glasgow.
- There is one tph between Liverpool Lime Street and Edinburgh
- There is three tpd between Liverpool Lime Street and Glasgow
The Liverpool area is well connected to Crewe, Warrington Bank Quay, Wigan North Western and Preston stations on the West Coast Main Line for alternative services to Glasgow.
Manchester Airport
Consider.
- There are no flights to Edinburgh or Glasgow.
- There is one tph between Manchester Airport and Scotland via Manchester Piccadilly and Manchester Oxford Road, which alternates between Edinburgh and Glasgow.
The Manchester area is well connected to Crewe, Warrington Bank Quay, Wigan North Western and Preston stations on the West Coast Main Line for alternative services to Glasgow.
Omio gives this summary of flights between Heathrow and Manchester airports.
Flights from Manchester Airport to London Heathrow Airport depart on average 8 times per day, taking around 1h 6m. Cheap flight tickets for this journey start at £63 but you can travel from only £16 by coach.
Wrightbus and others will be producing mouse-quiet hydrogen-powered coaches in a couple of years. I suspect these will give short flights a good kicking.
Newcastle Airport
Consider.
- There are no flights to Edinburgh or Glasgow.
- There is three tph between Newcastle and Edinburgh with an additional 5 tpd from Lumo.
- There is two tpd between Newcastle and Glasgow.
- There is one tpd between Newcastle and Stirling.
- From December 2025, Lumo will add two tpd from Newcastle to Glasgow and one tpd from Glasgow to Newcastle.
- In Lumo Will Extend Its King’s Cross And Edinburgh Service To Glasgow, I stated that I believe that Lumo’s Glasgow to Newcastle service will be a late evening ten-car train, so travellers can have a long day in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Newcastle and still return to London.
Lumo would appear to fill in the gap between Newcastle and Glasgow.
Google AI gives this summary of flights between Heathrow and Newcastle airports.
There are usually 5-6 direct flights per day between Newcastle and Heathrow airports. These flights are operated by British Airways. The average flight time is around 1 hour and 10 minutes.
Note.
- In 2024, 497, 469 passengers flew between between Heathrow and Newcastle airports, which is an average of 681 passengers in each direction every day.
- This was an increase of 13.6 % on 2023.
- From December Lumo will be running extra London King’s Cross and Newcastle services, with each train having 402 seats.
- The improvements in rail services in and around Newcastle in recent months, will surely bring more passengers to use trains from Newcastle station.
- Will Lumo also target adverts at airline passengers?
London and Newcastle could be another route for mouse-quiet hydrogen-powered coaches.
Conclusion
These numbers summarise my calculations.
- Currently an average of 13,948 passengers per day fly between London and Central Scotland.
- Currently, there are 26,918 train seats available per day between London and Central Scotland.
- In December 2025, Lumo will add another 804 low-cost train seats between London King’s Cross and Glasgow Queen Street.
- In Spring 2026, Lumo will add 2010 low-cost train seats between London Euston and Stirling.
- From Spring 2026, there will be 29,732 train seats available per day between London and Central Scotland.
- This represents a 10 % increase of seats on the trains between London and Central Scotland.
How many passengers, who normally fly, will switch to using the train?
- Lumo may only offer one class, but you get a trolley and can order food from M & S and others to be delivered to your seat.
- Both LNER and Lumo accept dogs. I don’t know about Avanti.
- All services will be all-electric, when Lumo gets its new electric trains for Stirling, in a few years.
- It looks to me like Lumo could be offering a late train back to London from Edinburgh and Glasgow.
- Digital signalling on the East Coast Main Line should speed up services.
If Lumo to Glasgow and Stirling works out, it could also cut the total carbon footprint of travel between London and Central Scotland.
Hotel Tycoon Reveals Heathrow Expansion Proposal
The title of this post is the same as that of this article on the BBC.
This is the sub-heading.
Hotel tycoon Surinder Arora has announced he is submitting a Heathrow expansion plan which rivals a proposal from the airport’s owners.
These three paragraphs add more details.
The billionaire’s Arora Group said the “primary benefit” of the plan it submitted to the government was a shorter new runway which would avoid the costly and disruptive need to divert the M25 motorway.
Building a 2,800-metre (9,200 ft) third runway instead of the full-length 3,500-metre (11,500 ft) runway planned by the airport would result in “reduced risk” and avoid “spiralling cost”, the company said.
The airport declined to comment on the Arora Group’s proposal.
Note.
- In Heathrow Willing To Build Shorter Runway After Airline Outcry Over Cost, I proved to my satisfaction, that a shorter third runway would work.
- Any scheme that involves diverting the M25, is not fit to get to be on the short list, as construction will be too disruptive.
- I also remember the problems of the M 25, during the construction of Terminal 5.
The last paragraph is the most important, as it illustrates Heathrow’s attitude to outside ideas.
- Was HS4Air, that I talked about in Ambitious £10bn Plans For Gatwick Heathrow HS4Air Rail Service Rejected properly considered?
- Was Heathrow Southern Railway, that I talked about in Why I Like The Heathrow Southern Railway Proposal, properly considered?
Perhaps, Heathrow’s management suffers from Not-Invented-Here Syndrome?
Conclusion
I suspect that Surinder Arora’s project will be a non-starter.
The Anonymous Widower 