Diesel versus electric trains

[s2art]

Saw an article in the Grauniad about the electrification of the Great Western mainline. Also this was quoted;

'According to Network Rail, the diesel trains that travel on the Great Western route emit at least double the carbon dioxide output per mile of an electric train.'


How can this be possible?

[tank slapper]

It depends how they have calculated it, but I would imagine that a power station is more efficient than a small diesel engine due to economies of scale. Whether they have included things like transmission losses I don't know.

Most diesel trains are electrically propelled anyway, but they produce that electricity with the engine coupled to a generator. Some smaller trains are mechanically driven though.

Edited by tank slapper on Wednesday 22 July 10:27

[NoelWatson]

s2art said:

Saw an article in the Grauniad about the electrification of the Great Western mainline. Also this was quoted;

'According to Network Rail, the diesel trains that travel on the Great Western route emit at least double the carbon dioxide output per mile of an electric train.'


How can this be possible?

Well to wheel efficiency I guess

[s2art]

tank slapper said:

It depends how they have calculated it, but I would imagine that a power station is more efficient than a small diesel engine due to economies of scale. Whether they have included things like transmission losses I don't know.

Edited by tank slapper on Wednesday 22 July 10:27

Nope. Modern diesels are approx 40% efficient. By the time the grid electricity reaches the track its low 30%. I dont know if there are further losses from grid to track. I imagine transmission losses will be similar for diesels or electric.

[s2art]

NoelWatson said:

s2art said:

Saw an article in the Grauniad about the electrification of the Great Western mainline. Also this was quoted;

'According to Network Rail, the diesel trains that travel on the Great Western route emit at least double the carbon dioxide output per mile of an electric train.'


How can this be possible?

Well to wheel efficiency I guess

Cant see it.

[Busa_Rush]

Says 20% to 30% here . . . http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/Content/De...

[s2art]

Busa_Rush said:

Says 20% to 30% here . . . http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/Content/De...

AHA! 'Electric vehicles, on average, emit 20% to 30% fewer CO2 emissions than diesel'

A completely meaningless and misleading statement. Absolutely nothing to do with trains. FFS, what is wrong with these people.

[NoelWatson]

s2art said:

NoelWatson said:

s2art said:

Saw an article in the Grauniad about the electrification of the Great Western mainline. Also this was quoted;

'According to Network Rail, the diesel trains that travel on the Great Western route emit at least double the carbon dioxide output per mile of an electric train.'


How can this be possible?

Well to wheel efficiency I guess

Cant see it.

http://www.teslamotors.com/efficiency/well_to_wheel.php

Not sure of accuracy of this??

[s2art]

NoelWatson said:

s2art said:

NoelWatson said:

s2art said:

Saw an article in the Grauniad about the electrification of the Great Western mainline. Also this was quoted;

'According to Network Rail, the diesel trains that travel on the Great Western route emit at least double the carbon dioxide output per mile of an electric train.'


How can this be possible?

Well to wheel efficiency I guess

Cant see it.

http://www.teslamotors.com/efficiency/well_to_wheel.php

Not sure of accuracy of this??

Completely certain that it is complete bollux. For starters they quote a 52% well to station efficiency. We know damn well that grid electricity is delivered at approx low 30%'s efficiency, and thats before any losses from grid to track.(or in the case of Tesla before charging and discharging losses)

[Dunk76]

So would an electric train fed by electrickery from a coal fired power station be more or less energy efficient than a steam locomotive?

[Parrot of Doom]

pfft. What you want is atmospheric railways. The future (if you can get rid of the rats, that is).

[s2art]

Dunk76 said:

So would an electric train fed by electrickery from a coal fired power station be more or less energy efficient than a steam locomotive?

Probably not much difference.

[Dunk76]

??

Vacumn tubes?

[acf8181]

Regardless of the environmental debate.....leccy trains are better as they don't wake you up when they go past (used to live near a line)

[Einion Yrth]

acf8181 said:

Regardless of the environmental debate.....leccy trains are better as they don't wake you up when they go past (used to live near a line)

The amelioration of noise pollution IS an environmental issue - rather more so than CO2 IMHO.

[nonegreen]

Nuclear power produces no emissions, so connect them to the grid and electric trains are infinately less polluting than desiesal trains. Also leccy trains do not produce 3nba which lies around our homes and workplaces causing lung and liver cancer. There is a very good case for banning the desiesal engine altogether. Also, f its in the Sandalist then it must be wrong, monbigot writes for them and he is a .

[s2art]

nonegreen said:

Nuclear power produces no emissions, so connect them to the grid and electric trains are infinately less polluting than desiesal trains. Also leccy trains do not produce 3nba which lies around our homes and workplaces causing lung and liver cancer. There is a very good case for banning the desiesal engine altogether. Also, f its in the Sandalist then it must be wrong, monbigot writes for them and he is a .

Not much Nuke power these days in the UK, and declining fast.

[BrassMan]

s2art said:

Dunk76 said:

So would an electric train fed by electrickery from a coal fired power station be more or less energy efficient than a steam locomotive?

Probably not much difference.

I seem to remember that unsuperheated steam locos were ~ 9% efficient between the boiler and the atmosphere. Modern materials and engineering could improve on that (Fury was promising but risky), but the real limit is the lack of space for a vacuum condenser. Anyway, electric is a whole lot cleaner.

[nonegreen]

s2art said:

nonegreen said:

Nuclear power produces no emissions, so connect them to the grid and electric trains are infinately less polluting than desiesal trains. Also leccy trains do not produce 3nba which lies around our homes and workplaces causing lung and liver cancer. There is a very good case for banning the desiesal engine altogether. Also, f its in the Sandalist then it must be wrong, monbigot writes for them and he is a .

Not much Nuke power these days in the UK, and declining fast.

Yep and it will have to be replaced because windmills are no good and unlike SA we are not used to power cuts every day. Greens will not be safe in their beds when the power cuts come.

[mechsympathy]

Einion Yrth said:

acf8181 said:

Regardless of the environmental debate.....leccy trains are better as they don't wake you up when they go past (used to live near a line)

The amelioration of noise pollution IS an environmental issue - rather more so than CO2 IMHO.

That and particulates. It's what really annoys me about local councils getting on the CO2 bandwagon, they're local and should be sorting local problems IMO.