"Low Carbon Transport" policy announced (including rail electrification plans)

[editor]

An hst can take 500 - 600 people.

I initially read that 8mpg as per person though?

That can't be right otherwise planes would burn up unbelievable amounts of fuel by comparison if you consider these figures:

London to Edinburgh
plane: 3.5 hours, 193 Kg/CO2, train: 4.5 hours, 24 Kg/CO2
http://www.seat61.com/CO2flights.htm

 

[Crispy]

The Class 43 loco has a 990 gallon tank. There are two locos per train, so that's 1980 gallons. At 8mpg, that lets you go 15,480 miles between fuelling. That doesn't seem right At 8mpg/passenger, that lets you go 38.7 miles (assuming 400 passengers). That doesn't seem right

 

[teuchter]

The Class 43 loco has a 990 gallon tank. There are two locos per train, so that's 1980 gallons. At 8mpg, that lets you go 15,480 miles between fuelling. That doesn't seem right

I think that is right actually.

See the bottom of this table:

http://www.railway-technical.com/statistics.shtml

 

[editor]

This site says suburban trains manage around 50 - 150 miles per gallon per passenger, with high speed trains consuming around 40 - 80 miles per gallon per passenger.


http://www.epsom-ewellenergy.org.uk/page.aspx?id=16

 

[editor]

I think that is right actually.

See the bottom of this table:

http://www.railway-technical.com/statistics.shtml

That site says, "1 car uses 50% of the energy of a whole High Speed Train", which seems a remarkable claim.

 

[teuchter]

And yet that table I linked to says that a car uses 50% of the energy of an entire HST.

 

[Oswaldtwistle]

I wonder if it is a mis print of 8 gallons per mile?

 

[Crispy]

And yet that table I linked to says that a car uses 50% of the energy of an entire HST.

That's a ridiculous claim! The HST has two 2250 bhp engines, that's way more than twice as powerful as a car.

 

[Roadkill]

That's a ridiculous claim! The HST has two 2250 bhp engines, that's way more than twice as powerful as a car.

Just a bit. The average family saloon produces maybe 150bhp...

Some more info on fuel consumption and energy use of different forms of transport here.

 

[teuchter]

Just a bit. The average family saloon produces maybe 150bhp...

Some more info on fuel consumption and energy use of different forms of transport here.

Interesting to see in that report that a Voyager uses nearly 50% more fuel per passenger-km than an HST.

Not exactly progress is it!

 

[Crispy]

I'm going to fork the GWR-specific posts onto this thread:http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=9452626

 

[teuchter]

"Fork"?

 

[Crispy]

not really fork. move then.

fork is a term for pruning off a diverting topic from a main thread. eg. if conversation gets wildly off-topic, but still worth contributing to, the OT posts can be moved to a new thread of their own. The hread is said to have 'forked' at this point. It's an old Usenet term, as usenet readers show topics in a tree arrangement. Substantial offtopic cascades of replies 'Fork' the thread like a for in a road.

 

[Roadkill]

not really fork. move then.

fork is a term for pruning off a diverting topic from a main thread. eg. if conversation gets wildly off-topic, but still worth contributing to, the OT posts can be moved to a new thread of their own. The hread is said to have 'forked' at this point. It's an old Usenet term, as usenet readers show topics in a tree arrangement. Substantial offtopic cascades of replies 'Fork' the thread like a for in a road.

Ah, so it's a technical term.

I was having rustic visions of you with a pitchfork, chucking threads about like hay.

 

[davesgcr]

Its nearer a gallon a mile actually .....(too tired to get actual consumption figures for trains - but its pretty modest really)

 

[Oswaldtwistle]

Thanks Dave- a gallon a mile is still OK, but a heck of a difference between that and 8 mpg, so dunno where that comes from.


So still beats a even thrifty car hands down if you've got 50 people on there. 250 peeps needed to beat a 5 occupant car, although not many cars that seat 5 comfortably will give 50 real-world MPG.

 

[Cobbles]

And yet that table I linked to says that a car uses 50% of the energy of an entire HST.

I suppose that depends on the car

Statisticians - such larks they have.

 

[roryer]

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/sustainable/carbonreduction/

While there are some nice media friendly aspects in this report such as electrification of rail lines, there are also some very big fundamentals that need to be questioned.

The BBC's environment analyst Roger Harrabin points out that transport will have to reduce emissions 14% from current levels by 2022 - less than the overall government total of an 18% cut two years earlier.

The projected transport emissions cuts will come almost entirely from promoting controversial bio-fuels, and by improving the performance of new vehicles under EU rules whose results can't be guaranteed.

What's more if the measures do succeed, there will be an unfortunate side-effect. According to the government's own projections, there will be more traffic, noise, air pollution, accidents and congestion as people drive further in their more efficient cars.

The government should do much more to jolt people out of cars on to walking, cycling and public transport - and reverse the trend in which driving is getting cheaper compared with public transport.

The Department for Transport says it does want to coax people out of their cars but couldn't bank on its measures succeeding so it hasn't relied on any emissions savings that way in its document.

The truth is that the DfT is so scared of the Daily Mail that they will do anything in order not to appear anti-car.

The unfortunate relaity is however in order to meet emissions targets we need fewer people driving, shorter distances in more effiencient vehicles.

We need to combine behaviour change strategies, reduce road space for cars, fit cycle lanes and bus lanes to imrpove speeds and saftey for alternatieves, increase parking charges, introduce road pricing, improve public transport, increase the costs of driving, reduce the cost of pt.

 

[Cobbles]

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/sustainable/carbonreduction/

While there are some nice media friendly aspects in this report such as electrification of rail lines, there are also some very big fundamentals that need to be questioned.

The BBC's environment analyst Roger Harrabin points out that transport will have to reduce emissions 14% from current levels by 2022 - less than the overall government total of an 18% cut two years earlier.

The projected transport emissions cuts will come almost entirely from promoting controversial bio-fuels, and by improving the performance of new vehicles under EU rules whose results can't be guaranteed.

What's more if the measures do succeed, there will be an unfortunate side-effect. According to the government's own projections, there will be more traffic, noise, air pollution, accidents and congestion as people drive further in their more efficient cars.

The government should do much more to jolt people out of cars on to walking, cycling and public transport - and reverse the trend in which driving is getting cheaper compared with public transport.

The Department for Transport says it does want to coax people out of their cars but couldn't bank on its measures succeeding so it hasn't relied on any emissions savings that way in its document.

The truth is that the DfT is so scared of the Daily Mail that they will do anything in order not to appear anti-car.

The unfortunate relaity is however in order to meet emissions targets we need fewer people driving, shorter distances in more effiencient vehicles.

We need to combine behaviour change strategies, reduce road space for cars, fit cycle lanes and bus lanes to imrpove speeds and saftey for alternatieves, increase parking charges, introduce road pricing, improve public transport, increase the costs of driving, reduce the cost of pt.

Thankfully when the Consservatives sweep to power next year, the first thing that'll be dropped after the "caring sharing" mask will be the "Gween" mantle so that we can get on with a decent road building and airport expansion programme.

 

[London_Calling]

Thankfully when the Consservatives sweep to power next year, the first thing that'll be dropped after the "caring sharing" mask will be the "Gween" mantle so that we can get on with a decent road building and airport expansion programme.

Not going to happen. No Government is going to invite the kind of on going opposition the last road building policy provoked from local protests to national campaign groups to the European Court and various points in between. The cost in terms of political capital, money, police resources, etc makes it impossible. And, of course, it's old, redundant thinking.

Fwiw, if you haven't been paying attention the present Government does have a runway building strategy - it faces a similar scale of opposition.

 

[Cobbles]

No Government is going to invite the kind of on going opposition the last road building policy provoked from local protests to national campaign groups to the European Court and various points in between. The cost in terms of political capital, money, police resources, etc makes it impossible. And, of course, it's old, redundant thinking.

Nonsense, dragging a few unwashed hippies out of trees and sticking them in jail for a while is way cheaper than having them lounging about on benefits.

 

[Crispy]

Oh cobbles

 

[London_Calling]

That's true. Twyford Down:

 

[david dissadent]

Thankfully when the Consservatives sweep to power next year, the first thing that'll be dropped after the "caring sharing" mask will be the "Gween" mantle so that we can get on with a decent road building and airport expansion programme.

Its about national security dimwit.

 

[London_Calling]

Not to mention British roads for British drivers!

 

[Cobbles]

Its about national security dimwit.

All we need to do is persuade the US to invade Saudi and Russia and then we'll have access to all the oil and gas that we could ever need.

 

[Crispy]

All we need to do is persuade the US to invade Saudi and Russia and then we'll have access to all the oil and gas that we could ever need.

For a short while. All signs point to us having passed the peak of oil production now, so supplies are only going to get more scarce. Decreasing reliance on oil makes economic and political sense.

(PS: Russia is already in decline)

 

[david dissadent]

All we need to do is persuade the US to invade Saudi......

Eh? Saudi trades directly into the world market. We already have total access to the Saudi oil production. And the US had a massive pressence in Saudi from 1991-2003 so again Im missing your point.....

 

[oneflewover]

Its nearer a gallon a mile actually .....(too tired to get actual consumption figures for trains - but its pretty modest really)

The 14x and 15x fleets do approx 1mile/litre per vehicle. For a 2car that works out about 2mpg.

 

[oneflewover]

Some more information here on the type of units and the cascade down of the old. The new trains for Bristol will be a combined Diesel and Electric so they can go forward to the south west. The new electrics for Thameslink will allow 319s to go Manchester - Liverpool (with air con, why?) and the old diesels in the Bristol area going up Leeds area.

So looks like the North is missing out on new trains again.