The Glasgow Underground, aka the Clockwork Orange, is the third oldest subway line in the world behind London’s Underground and Budapest’s Metro. It is also fiercely popular in Glasgow, in part due to its sheer simplicity – one train goes clockwise around the numerous stops and the other goes anti-clockwise. Dead easy.
I wonder, and have wondered for a while, if there isn’t a way to take this concept wider, and to a higher altitude.
Let’s start with a little bit of local topgraphy.
Scotland consists of 790+ islands, the vast majority of which are not reachable by foot, car or underground. That leaves flying or ferry, unless one wishes to swim to Stromness.
So what are the options?
Well, one can currently fly from Islay to Glasgow, Colonsay or Oban; from Barra to Benbecula, Kirkwall or Glasgow; from Stornoway to Aberdeen, Inverness, Edinburgh, Glasgow or Benbecula; Sumburgh (Shetland) to Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Fair Isle, Foula, Glasgow, Inverness, Kirkwall, Lerwick, OutSkerries or Papa Stour and Dundee to, well, London, Jersey, Belfast or Birmingham apparently.
The list goes on and on, there are after all 38 airports in Scotland, all sending planes hither and thither across the nation throughout each week in a myriad of directions.
My question is – why do we send planes criss-crossing each other across Scotland when, taking Glasgow’s underground as an example, the most efficient way to service all stops is to go round in a circle? Is there not a way to have two domestic routes for Scotland, one clockwise and one anti-clockwise?
For example, a route could be: Edinburgh – Glasgow – Islay – Tiree – Stornoway – Kirkwall – Sumburgh – Aberdeen – Edinburgh. You could mix up some stops every other round trip, Benbecula instead of Stornoway for example, or Dundee instead of Aberdeen. You could even bring into play Fife airport or build one on Mull to really spread the Scottish pound. Moving the ideas into overdrive, there could be a Government-sponsored cycle scheme at the more rural airports so that tourists can hit the ground pedalling when they touch down, spending their Euros and Dollars more easily in our farthest flung parts. I also can’t imagine anyone minding having to go via Scotland’s beautiful West (or East) Coast to get to where they’re going, particularly if it includes the world’s most popular airport for landing – Barra.
The opportunities are endless but there must be a quicker, more convenient way of mixing rural Scotland with the nation’s cities to aid business and tourism. An improved boarding system that would make flying on these flights more like catching the train would make it more workable too; pre-cleared passengers standing by the runway in a bus shelter at Tingwall waiting to hop on before the Scottish Flyer takes off again. Why not?
The other option is ferry of course. Many of them may now sail on Sundays but it’s not the most modern and convenient way to travel for would-be tourists or business people, as romantic and other worldly as they are for the rest of us. Even the excellent suggestion in The Herald yesterday, to give every Scot a free ferry ride a year, would struggle to get travel off the ground. How many of us have looked at Harris or Jura or Orkney and longed to travel there but balked at the driving distance and logistical nightmare of boarding ferries? It can’t just be me, and this free ticket won’t boost passenger numbers for those flying into Scotland from afar.
Nonetheless, we have two fine options on the table – to use our ferries more, including giving each Scot a free ferry ride each year or to rejig how we fly domestically and bringing our highlands and islands closer to the relatively richer central belt.
Which would you choose?
#1 by Ged Mitchell on January 6, 2012 - 9:22 am
I think it is a brilliant idea to have an airline doing a circuit. Not too sure about the cycling bit; too many braes for us older folk.
However, there is always a however, who is going to pay for all this when the Scottish Government’s pocket money from Westminster has been slashed? When there is so much demand on the ‘pocket money’ it may be nearly impossible to subsidise such a route until the travelling public use the route(s) enough so that it is a profit making scheme. Definitely worth considering post independence.
#2 by Jeff on January 6, 2012 - 11:12 am
Thanks Ged, I think it makes a lot of sense too. I only really added the cycling bit because this thought crystallised as a result of my planning and organising a cycling trip in Orkney and it’d be mighty handy to have a ‘Boris bike’ style scheme to use at Kirkwall, Westray, Papa Westray etc.
In terms of financing it, I really don’t see why a private company couldn’t finance it alone if it will involve less flights (so less costs, less fuel etc) but can ensure profits by having fuller planes for most flights. Even still, if there are demonstrable benefits for Scottish tourism and rural Scotland, and a price tag can be put on that, then the SG would know how much it is worth putting forward to fund any such scheme.
#3 by An Duine Gruamach on January 6, 2012 - 12:59 pm
*Fewer* flights 😉
#4 by commenter on January 6, 2012 - 9:31 am
Well, you don’t check in luggage on the subway and you don’t get to stand in the aisle on the plane when it’s busy.
#5 by Jeff on January 6, 2012 - 11:07 am
Luggage could be an issue but it could be hand luggage only or perhaps there is a quicker way to put luggage in the hold while still meeting regulations and keeping it a fast enough service. For example, the plane’s luggage could be set up so that bags for each individual airport are separated in order to make it very easy to pull off (and put on) bags at each stop.
I don’t envisage these being terribly big planes so it is a manageable problem.
As for standing in the aisles, that would of course not be an option but if we can easily reserve seats online for trains without any fuss despite there being many stops, surely we can do it for planes?
#6 by Iain Menzies on January 6, 2012 - 11:14 am
UNless you go hand luggage only (which would mean you still need other air services for people that want to leave for prolonged periods of time) i think you seriously underestimate how big a problem this is. You have finite hold space, what your suggesting would mean subdividing that. it would also mean that each section would have to be accessible when the plane lands, so as to get more on and off. which would most likely reduce further the space, and up the empty weight of the plane. which means more feul use. And possible a situation where the hold space alocated to one destination is filled and you have people wanting to go to that place with more bags, which would cause all sorts of problems. Unless you went for a bigger plane, which you say you dont want to do, and if you did there are problems/costs along with that option.
#7 by Iain Menzies on January 6, 2012 - 10:56 am
One if tempted to ask what have you been smoking?
But taken seriously….im not sure how but lets try.
This cant work. Now im not an areospace expert but, as i understand it, the point of travel where a plane makes most use of fuel (this part would be worst in certain ways for the environment) is when it is gaining altitude to its most fuel efficient cruising altitude. What you are suggesting is planes that go up and down ALOT more. so more fuel, which means more cost which means bye bye any possible business case for this. (ditto issues with therefore inflated public subsidy. And thats before you get to the environmental problems.
and thats before you get to teh question of the stops.
if your talking about a circular route, it makes no sense unless there are stops at both glasgow and edinburgh (assuming no monopoly) which then means you have frequent airflights between glasgow and edinburgh of commerical aircraft. now i dont know what this would do to air traffic control in scotland (tho as someone who lives smack bang between said cities i would be a fan….) but is this seriously the most sensible way to get between these two places?
Beyond that, you have an issue with capacity. the plane in the pic is a ditty little thing. but if you assume any kind of passenger growth yu are then talking larger planes. possibly up to the size of the once great comet or potentially a modern 737. Which has all sorts of issues.
1) infrastructure at island air strips.
2) capacity (excess there of)
the second point might seem silly, but for this to work you need enough capacity, thats not a small part of the reasons i would wager that for much of the day the glasgow under ground isnt even half full.
The GU is an interesting way to look at this. I use it maybe 3-4 times a week. SO we arent talking commute which is probably not something your looking to promote for your, shall we call, Scottish Overground(?). I have NEVER gone south of the river on the underground.
What I think you would end up with is a busy stretch between Aberdeen, Dundee and the central belt. So lots of half empty (at best) planes in the air burning fuel.
Again looking at the GU (and on similar principles) the M25 what makes those work is that they ring places you want to go where it’s easier to take a longer route round that then direct route. Airtravel (obv not ryanair et al) work by direct routes.
What might work better than you suggest (not objecting to the general aim) is ignoring the wheel, and looking to the hub and spokes. What we have for island travel is essentially 3/4 hubs. So reduce that. Assume air is only one part of the journey and look for the best hub. SO you would want somewhere central. Easy to get to glasgow, Edinburgh and even dundee. If it needs to use an existing airport this probably wont work, but if you are willing to add a small airport what about somewhere like falkirk. With decent access to the train station you fly into falkirk, and then you can get directly to the center of most of the major scottish cities. (
#8 by Ged Mitchell on January 6, 2012 - 11:13 am
I was under the impression, correct me if I am wrong, that the idea of the circuit was to increase travel to and from the outlying parts of Scotland. It would increase tourism and aid in bringing more income to those places. The transport links between the cities and large towns in Scotland are fairly well served. It is the other areas which need help.
#9 by Jeff on January 6, 2012 - 11:30 am
Yes, that was one of the two main reasons – boost tourism to far flung Scottish destinations and boost business links between rural Scotland and city Scotland. There’s bound to be other benefits though (as well as disadvantages)
#10 by Jeff on January 6, 2012 - 11:25 am
Thanks for the reply Iain. You’re right to raise the fuel consumption at take off & landing as an issue.
First of all, I did state that each circle would stop at Glasgow AND Edinburgh but I actually think that the more workable way to do this is to stop at alternating cities on each circle. You don’t need to get from Edinburgh to Kirkwall or Glasgow to Barra every hour, or even every few hours, so it’s not so important that both cities are included on every circuit. Similarly, a circle could take in as few as 4 or 5 cities on a rotation and mix it up throughout the day/week. I may have exaggerated the number of stops in the blog post in order to capture the imagination a bit more (and also because I was having fun learning about where airports are!)
Either way, the quicker way to join up all of Scotland’s airports is to have two planes going round in circles rather than regular back and forths between many of the individual points. That’s straightforward gemoetry. (I was planning on drawing a diagram for the blog post to prove it but my Paint skills let me down) The airline industries would have to work it out but I’d wager that circular routes would save money on fuel due to less planes needing to be in the skies, even with the take off/landing consideration that you rightly raised. Neither of us can prove that either way without considerable effort though.
You’re right about capacity but I don’t see why a medium-sized plane wouldn’t be reasonably full all the way round the circle. Maybe at certain times of day/week, only a semi-circle is required or, as you say, for certain times we even move back to hubs and spokes but the highland and island airports are struggling and thinking outside the box to bring them more into play is what seems to be what is required.
And, I think ‘Scottish Overground’ is a winner.
#11 by Iain Menzies on January 6, 2012 - 11:52 am
In terms of a medium sized plane being full. All i can say is maybe, If you look at something like a 737, even the smallest, the 100, is 80 -120. depending on single or multi class seating. Now considering that only about 1000 people live in somewhere like barra….
Also your talking $30m for a new one.
Other issue is the fuel use, as in running out of it. the 737-100 has less than 3000km, now you might get round once, but i wouldnt want to try twice. which means you need a hub as a base. assume (for sake of argument that you make that glasgow so you have the infrastructure in place to refuel etc.
This is fine unless your on the run from dundee to skye via glasgow and you have to get off one plane and on another. So unlessyou want to take two planes, you dont have two routes to take you have one.
also you have issues with frequent refueling of planes at glasgow airport and the impact on operations there.
alternativly you just refuel when you need to. which means lots more infrastructure at small airports, and fuel stocks. which rockets costs, and you get alot of people having the hassle of getting off a plane, waiting, and getting on again. unless you have more than two planes in the air.
I dont want to sound disrespectful, but well planes aint trains. (sorry)
also I think you would have issues unless you stopped at all the routes. The joy of the GU, as you yourself pointed out, is that you jump on it and go. Then watch for your stop….you dont ever see the sign for Partick pass you by as the train doesnt stop. If the GU did do that thats one thing, get off at hillhead and walk to partick, if you get on the wrong plane for barra and it doesnt land there, well i dont think either of us would fancy the swim.
#12 by Jeff on January 6, 2012 - 12:04 pm
Well, not every circuit would stop at Barra so I wouldn’t get too fixated on population size of certain islands.
A fuelling base makes sense and if that’s Edinburgh or Glasgow (or both as I would have it), then that would ensure that a minimal number of people would be waiting for a refuel as most people would get off and get on at these cities. The timetable can be flexed to meet the needs of Scots and tourists and people would be savvy enough to know that the route won’t always stop at the airport you want so you just have to check the timetable and plan your trip accordingly. That’s not the same as the Glasgow Underground but it’s not possible to have, as you seem to be suggesting at the end there, a plane that flies around 38 airports on every loop.
#13 by Alexander Belic on January 6, 2012 - 11:22 am
I’m not really sure where to start with this, but if I were a Leodhasach, and I was told that now instead of flying straight to Edinburgh in an hour, I’d have to either spend at least 2 and a half hours to Barra, Tiree, Islay, Campbeltown and Glasgow, or even longer to Sumburgh, Kirkwall, and Aberdeen, I would not be happy.
I think you might also end up with problems with flights between the Northern isles and Edinburgh as the planes fill up with Aberdonians taking advantage of the short haul flight.
And I don’t know a huge amount about aviation but I’m not sure one wee Loganair plane could do a full circle of ten take off and landings before getting back to base for petrol/the pilot’s tea break. It sounds to me as if Loganair would have to buy a new fleet of chinooks.
#14 by Jeff on January 6, 2012 - 11:29 am
The economically viable direct routes, Edinburgh-Aberdeen/Inverness, could remain in theory. That said, my understanding was that most Inverness routes were not economically viable and only survive on generous handouts from the Government.
I don’t know the detail, but if there’s enough people willing to fly direct, there’s no reason why a ‘chord’ within the circle can’t also be a route, albeit on a reduced basis. It’s an option.
Fair point about the Loganair planes; I’m no engineer but it doesn’t sound like an insurmountable problem.
#15 by Iain Menzies on January 6, 2012 - 11:40 am
OOOHHH!!!!
(sorry)
Now placing the issue of actual costs etc aside (cos i dont have them) Mr Belic may just have solved what i think is a big problem with your idea. If you are willing to accept a time penalty, then this could work, but you have to accept certain things.
1) That this does asmuch to link island communities to each other as it oes (if not more so) to the central belt.
2) That you arent looking at this as an alternative to whats in place but as a supliment to.
and 3) that you ditch the idea of using planes.
Using a large commerical air travel outfitted plane, like a chinook could well be the way forward.
If it maintains the rear loading ramp, then you have much of the added ease of the getting on and off. A helicopter allows you to get into and out of city centre locations (imagine it landing on Glasgow Green) and so doesnt take away capacity at the major airports (which when you think of glasgow are hardly handy.
Oh helicopters im begining to like your idea.
#16 by Jeff on January 6, 2012 - 11:48 am
‘The Island Hopper Chopper’ – it has potential.
Helicopters are considerably dirtier than planes (I think).
As for the 1-3 points:
(1) I don’t think bringing cities closer to the islands is so bad, and it’s win-win alongside bringing the islands closer to the cities
(2) I am viewing this as more of a replacement than a supplement to what we currently have
(3) I don’t see ditching aeroplanes as a go-er or we’d have commercial helicopter flights already
#17 by Iain Menzies on January 6, 2012 - 11:58 am
the helicopters v planes on evironmental grounds. this may be a situation where your policy suggest is just bad for the environment, so maybe we should plant some trees.
1) i think it might be actually. IM Central belt always have been, even the 5 years i lived in dundee. But i think on a wider point scotland needs to ask if we really want to focus near everything between glasgow and edinburgh. I believe, tho may be wrong, that there are real issues with depoulation in the islands, this may well make that worse.
3) possibly, but if your looking at a degree of public subsidy the business case might make sense. again depending on the cost.
#18 by Alexander Belic on January 7, 2012 - 12:52 am
There is no current Aberdeen/Inverness to the central belt route to “remain in place”. When I went to Inverness for SNP conference I had considered trying to get a flight back to Glasgow and found there weren’t any. Loganair plan on introducing an Inverness/Edinburgh flight from July this year and currently operate an Aberdeen/Edinburgh mail plane but you can’t buy seats on it.
With the exception of Islay which I’ve been to at least once a year for the past 6 years, I’m not really familiar with any of the other communites and whether or not there’s a huge number of people in Lerwick who need to get to Stornoway or folk in Tiree who need to get to Aberdeen for whom the current set up isn’t good enough. It’s not really a case of “if there’s enough people willing to fly direct” but if there’s enough people willing to fly a circuitous route.
You’ve got about 30 seats on the Glasgow-Islay plane and I’ve never been on a flight that didn’t have at least 20 passengers (compared to say Glasgow/Birmingham where I once flew with only 4 other passengers). There’s usually 3 flights a day at present, so if you had a circular route, how many more planes would have to land at Islay to accommodate what I’d assume would be similar numbers flying from Tiree/the Western Isles to Glasgow?
#19 by Ron Preedy on January 6, 2012 - 3:31 pm
Have a look at the Faroe Islands. They have a helicopter service to the islands not reachable by car. Smaller distances, though.
#20 by Jeff on January 6, 2012 - 5:07 pm
Fair play; I wasn’t aware of that service. I’ll have a look.
#21 by Craig on January 6, 2012 - 9:08 pm
Firstly, you can divide the island airports with scheduled services into two groups.
Those that have a direct link to one or more of Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen or Inverness:
Stornoway, Kirkwall, Sumburgh, Barra, Benbecula, Tiree, Islay, Campbeltown, Wick (plus Oban and Tobermory if you count the Loch Lomond Seaplane)
These are all served by Loganair under FlyBE without subsidy AFAIK.
The second group of airports are served by council-subsidised inter-island services :
Orkney: Westray, Papa Westray, Eday, North Ronaldsay, Stronsay, Sanday
Shetland: Foula, Fair Isle, Out Skerries, Papa Stour (plus Lerwick)
Oban: Coll, Colonsay (also a flight to Tiree).
These islands have a combined population of just over 2,000. They can hardly handle a huge influx of tourists.
So all our major islands already have regular direct flights to the central belt. In addition, some of our smaller islands have daily flights to the main island airports from which onward flights to the central belt are available.
It is worth noting that even the second group of islands is usually served by direct links to their main airport rather than round robin flights. Because by and large people want to go to the main centre of population (whether that is Kirkwall, Lerwick or the Central belt) rather than one of the other smaller islands. We should also bear in mind that these flights also provide vital small cargo and mail services for the islanders (hence twice daily flights to Kirkwall can be more useful than any other destination).
Pretty much everyway you look at it, the Highlands and Islands are already closer to the Central Belt than any round robin flight would promise – airlines around the world have adopted hub and spoke for a reason.
Aside from passengers from Stornoway who only want to go to Glasgow being fed up with detours through Benbecula, Barra, Tiree and Islay or wherever, there is an issue of weather and sunlight. If the clockwise aircraft gets stuck at Stornoway, that’s going to have huge knock-on effects for Okrney and Shetland. Many of these airports lack runway lighting and instrument landing systems so are daylight-only. You won’t be able to visit many of them in one circle in winter!
I’m not sure how much you could change the boarding procedure! Most of these airports are little more than 500m of tarmac. You get grander bus shelters! The boarding procedure basically consists of a hand written ticket and the pilot (there usually isn’t any other crew) putting your luggage into the cargo hold. The longest part of the process is probably the various pre-flight checks and safety demonstration. Now considering these are small aircraft, with no cabin crew and flying over remote regions, particularly overwater – you can’t really skimp on this part. Flying will always and should always be treated as different to travelling by rail.
You can forget about the talk of aircraft like Boeing 737s. These require good quality runways longer than 2,000m. Even modern jets like those from Embraer want over 1,600m. Bearing in mind that Sumburgh Airport, which is one of the bigger island airports has a max length of 1500m – you’d essentially be limited to ex-RAF bases that were extended to handle jet aircraft (Stornoway, Campbeltown, etc). Meanwhile many of the small island strips are very austere – graded hardcore or even grass. Not only do they limit the weight of the aircraft that operate from them, they also pose serious Foreign Object Debris risk to most jet aircraft, especially those with low slung engines. Hence why the most popular aircraft for remote area services like this are the high-wing turboprop de Havilland Canada DHC-6 Twin Otter and Britten-Norman BN-2 Islander. They have the necessary rough-field performance to operate from the likes of Barra.
Fuel efficiency isn’t particularly important – many of these flights are so short that the aircraft will never reach optimal cruising height before they descend for landing. Westray-Papa Westray usually takes less than 2 minutes! On the plus side it also means many of these flights were unaffected by the volcanic ash at higher altitudes in 2010. But what you do need to take into account when talking about an aircraft’s range is the need for fuel reserves to deal with contingencies – the legal minimum is usually to have enough fuel to circle above the destination airport for 30 minutes, divert to another airport and then hold for another 30 minutes before landing with fuel still in the plane. In the Highland and Islands, the named diversion usually means returning to the point of departure or one of the other major airports. That considerably reduces the range of an aircraft, especially if the aircraft has to carry fuel for the return journey (since no fuel is available at the small islands).
The suggestion of helicopters introduces new issues. Aside from the Chinook being withdrawn from UK civil service following the 1986 Sumburgh disaster, they represent a higher risk. If you consider that the oil industry insists that all North Sea passengers wear dry suits and undergo Helicopter Underwater Escape Training courses – it seems a bit of a non-starter for even more remote regions (at least the North Sea has plenty of shipping and platforms that could assist in any rescue).
In terms of aviation policy and opening the Islands up, the best things the Scottish Government could do are:
1) Take Oban and Glenforsa away from Argyll & Bute Council who don’t have a clue how to run airports. Put Highlands and Islands Airports Limited in charge of them or hand Glenforsa over to the Glenforsa Hotel.
2) Do much more to encourage and support general aviation in Scotland. Flying does not have to be for the rich only – especially with modern 3-axis microlights. Not only can it serve as a useful form of transport for islanders (as it does in many similar remote communities around the world) but it can also attract touring pilots – there are few better ways to visit the Western Isles than to fly into various airstrips and camp under the wing of your own aircraft. Unfortunately, HIAL often tries to make life more difficult than it needs to be. The Scottish Government could learn a lot from the United States where there are few charges and fees at airports that already received subsidies from the government. They could also make it easier for farmstrips to be set up and maintained – even Fife Airport is under threat from encroaching wind turbines and noise complaints.
Who knows we could even go back to days when we built aircraft in Scotland and had proper airlines.
#22 by Barbarian on January 6, 2012 - 9:56 pm
Nice idea, but you have to consider the current flight schedules in place. It would be a logistical nightmare to rejig these, since you would almost certainly have to reduce some services to accommodate.