Are trains really that green?
Discussion
At the moment flying seems to be deemed as the travel of sinners and rail the transport of saints.
What got me thinking, surely there has got to be some kind of carbon footprint to rail travel? The way the twitter brigade are going another 10 years time airline pax will be green taxed to the hilt and Europe/Uk will be covered with railways?
What is the power source to most trains?
What got me thinking, surely there has got to be some kind of carbon footprint to rail travel? The way the twitter brigade are going another 10 years time airline pax will be green taxed to the hilt and Europe/Uk will be covered with railways?
What is the power source to most trains?
Rail travel is very green. Even a diesel train is way greener than a plane.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-493...
That said given how expensive and s
t HS2 is turning out to be domestic air travel isn’t going away. I can get from my house in the south of England to the centre of Glasgow or Edinburgh in about 3 hours by car and then plane. To do the same by car and then train would take over 7 hours. It’s also cheaper to fly, so even if they put the taxes up flying is still going to be the most sensible option.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-493...
That said given how expensive and s
t HS2 is turning out to be domestic air travel isn’t going away. I can get from my house in the south of England to the centre of Glasgow or Edinburgh in about 3 hours by car and then plane. To do the same by car and then train would take over 7 hours. It’s also cheaper to fly, so even if they put the taxes up flying is still going to be the most sensible option.Thanks for the link to the bbc article. So trains really do have a much reduced carbon footprint over flying. However they still do produce a carbon footprint. I see the airlines are starting to carbon offset sometimes at their own cost so wonder if train companies will offer the same or are they protected by their halo in light of the current media.
I really hope the aviation world find a viable alternative to the current state of play.
I really hope the aviation world find a viable alternative to the current state of play.
djc206 said:
Rail travel is very green. Even a diesel train is way greener than a plane.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-493...
That said given how expensive and st HS2 is turning out to be domestic air travel isn’t going away. I can get from my house in the south of England to the centre of Glasgow or Edinburgh in about 3 hours by car and then plane. To do the same by car and then train would take over 7 hours. It’s also cheaper to fly, so even if they put the taxes up flying is still going to be the most sensible option.
trouble is the figures will show whatever the guy commissioning wants to see.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-493...
That said given how expensive and s
t HS2 is turning out to be domestic air travel isn’t going away. I can get from my house in the south of England to the centre of Glasgow or Edinburgh in about 3 hours by car and then plane. To do the same by car and then train would take over 7 hours. It’s also cheaper to fly, so even if they put the taxes up flying is still going to be the most sensible option.HS2 is monumentally polluting as they're building tunnels and bridges etc etc. Other lines must be less so as they're built so there's only ongoing operating environmental impact, how do you reconcile, what's the "payoff" time of a railway line? How many ryanair flights do you need to displace for the train to eco out?
Moving freight by water is probably the cheapest and most carbon efficient form of transport.
https://www.greenbiz.com/article/future-freight-mo...
And that’s probably why we should look at moving more of our containers and bulk goods via coastal maritime methods by transhipping them from their large merchant ships to smaller coasters and then inland as far as possible via navigable rivers such as the Thames, Severn, Humber, Trent etc.
Once they got as far inland via water as possible, then they could be transferred to rail etc.
New port and inland port infrastructure would be required, and a different inter- modal model adopted but no new major roads or rail required and no complex signalling systems whilst taking freight off both road and rail except for more local journeys.
https://www.greenbiz.com/article/future-freight-mo...
And that’s probably why we should look at moving more of our containers and bulk goods via coastal maritime methods by transhipping them from their large merchant ships to smaller coasters and then inland as far as possible via navigable rivers such as the Thames, Severn, Humber, Trent etc.
Once they got as far inland via water as possible, then they could be transferred to rail etc.
New port and inland port infrastructure would be required, and a different inter- modal model adopted but no new major roads or rail required and no complex signalling systems whilst taking freight off both road and rail except for more local journeys.
Trains definitely aren’t ‘green’
On top of power consumption of electric trains and where the power comes from, the trains are also energy intensive in many other ways- as others had said - construction of the infrastructure needed is not good for the environment in terms of construction emissions, environment destruction etc. But on top of that - it’s maintenance intensive - steel running rails and electric current rails need to be replaced as they wear and become damaged, along with wheels sets on the trains themselves. Current collector shoes wear extremely quickly and are replaced often. The amount of metal particles deposited along the tracks is not insubstantial either. On top of this - deicing fluid is poured on the tracks gallons at a time when needed which will seep into the water table.
Also - look at any rail depot at night when trains are parked up for the night - u will normally find them left powered up - all lights on, heating in the saloons on, air compressors run cyclically.
Whether they are better or worse than other forms of transport - I don’t know - but they are definitely not green
On top of power consumption of electric trains and where the power comes from, the trains are also energy intensive in many other ways- as others had said - construction of the infrastructure needed is not good for the environment in terms of construction emissions, environment destruction etc. But on top of that - it’s maintenance intensive - steel running rails and electric current rails need to be replaced as they wear and become damaged, along with wheels sets on the trains themselves. Current collector shoes wear extremely quickly and are replaced often. The amount of metal particles deposited along the tracks is not insubstantial either. On top of this - deicing fluid is poured on the tracks gallons at a time when needed which will seep into the water table.
Also - look at any rail depot at night when trains are parked up for the night - u will normally find them left powered up - all lights on, heating in the saloons on, air compressors run cyclically.
Whether they are better or worse than other forms of transport - I don’t know - but they are definitely not green
Also. Like buses, trains spend a good deal of time rattling around empty or very lightly laden.
The train I take in the mornings at around 8am, so peak time, has very few passengers on the section of the route I use, as it is a stopping service so no London bound commuters take it. Plus the trains out of London to where I live are pretty empty at that time as well (once past the London suburbs).
The train I take in the mornings at around 8am, so peak time, has very few passengers on the section of the route I use, as it is a stopping service so no London bound commuters take it. Plus the trains out of London to where I live are pretty empty at that time as well (once past the London suburbs).
Elliot2000 said:
Trains definitely aren’t ‘green’
Also - look at any rail depot at night when trains are parked up for the night - u will normally find them left powered up - all lights on, heating in the saloons on, air compressors run cyclically.
Not everywhere - company policy does vary, but our locos are shut down whenever possible and only need running up every few days days, there are certain locations where we're not allowed to leave them running. They're also equipped with an auto shut down facility to save on wear and tear, pollution and fuel consumption. On some of the routes we drive on we can shut off power and coast for mile after mile, the engine is still idling of course but only at low revs, to keep the air-compressor and other equipment workingAlso - look at any rail depot at night when trains are parked up for the night - u will normally find them left powered up - all lights on, heating in the saloons on, air compressors run cyclically.
At some depots though where passenger units are stabled the lights and power are left on so the carriage cleaners can go about their job
As, in the link Andy97posted it says
"...A big ship will emit about 0.4 ounces of carbon dioxide to transport 2 tons of cargo 1 mile. That’s roughly half as much as a train, one-fifth as much as a truck and nearly a fiftieth of what an airplane would emit to accomplish the same task."
which does put it in perspective, and yes, construction of all the infrastructure...be it rail, road or canal will involve environmental impact.
"...A big ship will emit about 0.4 ounces of carbon dioxide to transport 2 tons of cargo 1 mile. That’s roughly half as much as a train, one-fifth as much as a truck and nearly a fiftieth of what an airplane would emit to accomplish the same task."
which does put it in perspective, and yes, construction of all the infrastructure...be it rail, road or canal will involve environmental impact.
Are trains greener than planes? At the moment yes. And you can say that with confidence because the current fleet of passenger aircraft burn loads of hydrocarbon fuel and there are fundamental limits to how much more fuel efficient they can become.
When you start comparing trains and cars the picture is a little more complicated because some trains were built in the 1950s, run on diesel and only carry 3 passengers, while some cars run on green electricity and carry families of six. And there are also plenty of cars achieving less than 25mpg while carrying one bloke, and modem electric trains carrying many hundreds of commuters past queues of stationary road traffic.
If the objective is to reduce our carbon emissions right now, then we should take whatever steps we can take right now given the options we have right now. Avoid flying is an obvious one, and for a lot of people that means "avoid going on foreign holidays". Use your ICE car less and try to switch to public transport as it's running anyway.
But we should be clear that there's a big difference between taking short-term, tactical steps like that, which are unpalatable, and the end goal we can strive for strategically. If we manage to generate cheap, low-emission electricity, then we'll no longer need to try to reduce our energy consumption at all costs. For example, the idea of using inland waterways for transportation (with all the infrastructure re-engineering required) goes out the window if you've got practical electric HGVs and freight rail and loads of electricity.
Similarly, if someone manages to make a long haul battery powered plane, then we can all start flying again for sts and giggles.
And if the battery technology never scales up sufficiently, then, if we've got an adequate supply of electricity, we could fall back on hydrogen vehicles.
It strikes me that a lot of the resistance to accepting that we need to reduce our carbon footprint is down to a fear of the short-term impact on our quality of life. Similarly some of the enthusiasm amongst the more militant greens for reducing carbon emissions comes from an aversion to technology and modernity and a wish to live "closer to nature" (in a mud hut). Both positions are pretty silly.
When you start comparing trains and cars the picture is a little more complicated because some trains were built in the 1950s, run on diesel and only carry 3 passengers, while some cars run on green electricity and carry families of six. And there are also plenty of cars achieving less than 25mpg while carrying one bloke, and modem electric trains carrying many hundreds of commuters past queues of stationary road traffic.
If the objective is to reduce our carbon emissions right now, then we should take whatever steps we can take right now given the options we have right now. Avoid flying is an obvious one, and for a lot of people that means "avoid going on foreign holidays". Use your ICE car less and try to switch to public transport as it's running anyway.
But we should be clear that there's a big difference between taking short-term, tactical steps like that, which are unpalatable, and the end goal we can strive for strategically. If we manage to generate cheap, low-emission electricity, then we'll no longer need to try to reduce our energy consumption at all costs. For example, the idea of using inland waterways for transportation (with all the infrastructure re-engineering required) goes out the window if you've got practical electric HGVs and freight rail and loads of electricity.
Similarly, if someone manages to make a long haul battery powered plane, then we can all start flying again for s
ts and giggles.And if the battery technology never scales up sufficiently, then, if we've got an adequate supply of electricity, we could fall back on hydrogen vehicles.
It strikes me that a lot of the resistance to accepting that we need to reduce our carbon footprint is down to a fear of the short-term impact on our quality of life. Similarly some of the enthusiasm amongst the more militant greens for reducing carbon emissions comes from an aversion to technology and modernity and a wish to live "closer to nature" (in a mud hut). Both positions are pretty silly.
Flying Phil said:
As, in the link Andy97posted it says
"...A big ship will emit about 0.4 ounces of carbon dioxide to transport 2 tons of cargo 1 mile. That’s roughly half as much as a train, one-fifth as much as a truck and nearly a fiftieth of what an airplane would emit to accomplish the same task."
which does put it in perspective, and yes, construction of all the infrastructure...be it rail, road or canal will involve environmental impact.
The issue with shipping isn’t so much CO2 as the stuff that actually harms us like NOx, SO2, CO and particulates. They burn really grubby fuel. But like everything it has its place and we need shipping so it’s best we find a way of cleaning it up as best we can."...A big ship will emit about 0.4 ounces of carbon dioxide to transport 2 tons of cargo 1 mile. That’s roughly half as much as a train, one-fifth as much as a truck and nearly a fiftieth of what an airplane would emit to accomplish the same task."
which does put it in perspective, and yes, construction of all the infrastructure...be it rail, road or canal will involve environmental impact.
djc206 said:
Flying Phil said:
As, in the link Andy97posted it says
"...A big ship will emit about 0.4 ounces of carbon dioxide to transport 2 tons of cargo 1 mile. That’s roughly half as much as a train, one-fifth as much as a truck and nearly a fiftieth of what an airplane would emit to accomplish the same task."
which does put it in perspective, and yes, construction of all the infrastructure...be it rail, road or canal will involve environmental impact.
The issue with shipping isn’t so much CO2 as the stuff that actually harms us like NOx, SO2, CO and particulates. They burn really grubby fuel. But like everything it has its place and we need shipping so it’s best we find a way of cleaning it up as best we can."...A big ship will emit about 0.4 ounces of carbon dioxide to transport 2 tons of cargo 1 mile. That’s roughly half as much as a train, one-fifth as much as a truck and nearly a fiftieth of what an airplane would emit to accomplish the same task."
which does put it in perspective, and yes, construction of all the infrastructure...be it rail, road or canal will involve environmental impact.
ATG said:
Sounds like the demand for cleaner shipping is already driving change in the industry according to a bloke I chat with on the train who is a shipping analyst. The emissions characteristics of individual ships are a major part of their pricing models. The demand for disclosure of that information and the preference for low emissions vessels seems to be driving change. Market forces are rather better at this than a shouty bloke in a kaftan.
Absolutely.I read an article a while back about ships slowing down in order to reduce emissions. It wasn’t being forced by anyone just an industry practice designed to reduce costs and emissions hand in hand.
At the end of day fuel costs money and everyone wants to save money be they airlines buying more efficient planes, shipping companies slowing their roll or us as individuals buying electric or more efficient ICE cars. It all boils down to money, it’s the biggest motivator for most and it doesn’t require any shouting.
Johnnytheboy said:
If you were designing a high-speed mass transport system from scratch, with no heritage system in place, would it look like trains do now?
Steel wheels on steel wheels have a very low friction co-efficient and so require relatively little energy to maintain a reasonable constant speed. aerodynamic drag will depend upon surface area, speed and shape.Hyperloop is probable not suited to any complex transport system which has multiple routes......as Brunel found out with his "Atmospheric Railway", some time ago......
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff