Posted on 06/20/2004 10:43:53 PM PDT by MadIvan
Encouraging travellers to switch from cars and airlines to inter-city trains brings no benefits for the environment, new research has concluded.
Challenging assumptions about railways' green superiority, the study finds that the weight and fuel requirements of trains have increased to the point where rail could become the least energy-efficient form of transport.
Engineers at Lancaster University said trains had failed to keep up with the motor and aviation industries in reducing fuel needs.
They calculate that expresses between London and Edinburgh consume slightly more fuel per seat (the equivalent of 11.5 litres) than a modern diesel-powered car making the same journey.
The car's superiority rises dramatically when compared with trains travelling at up to 215mph.
The Government is considering such a railway to provide extra north-south capacity in the next decade.
Assuming the continuing dominance of fossil fuel-based electricity, the study indicates that suitable French-style rolling-stock would require twice as much fuel per seat as a Volkswagen Passat, and more than a short-haul aircraft.
Prof Roger Kemp, who led the research, said that in its efforts to improve performance after privatisation, the rail industry had "taken its eye off the ball" environmentally.
Virgin's SuperVoyager rolling-stock is estimated to be 40 per cent heavier per seat than the ageing 125s it replaced.
Tilting Pendolino trains, due to come into full operation between London and Manchester in the autumn, are reckoned to weigh more per seat than the forthcoming Airbus A380 double-decker.
Roger Ford, of Modern Railways magazine, said one reason for declining energy efficiency was the impact of health and safety and disability access regulations.
The introduction of crumple zones, disabled lavatories and seating rules for trains travelling over 100mph had added weight and reduced capacity.
"I know this will generate howls of protest, but at present a family of four going by car is about as environmentally friendly as you can get."
The research casts doubt on the Government's conviction that boosting inter-city rail travel will help it meet its environmental targets.
It also undermines the case of those who oppose airport expansion in favour of improved high-speed rail links.
Friends of The Earth expressed surprise at the findings, which it said were not in line with previous studies.
Tony Bosworth, its transport campaigner, said: "Cars cause congestion, disrupt communities and are much less safe than trains.
"The main problem is not long-distance travel but the 25 per cent of car journeys which are less than two miles. Those are the least efficient and often the most polluting."
Regards, Ivan
Ping!
I've never been so health since I stopped taking trains to work in the city as I now do working in my basement.
Efficiency has never been the issue with mass transit. The issue has always been elimination of personal vehicles and private property right.
Exactly!
One needn't have a Ph.D. in physics to appreciate the energy requirements of moving something as massive as a train in short haul (frequent stop-start) applications. This is something I have suspected of commuter rail - now finally demonstrated.
Nonsense. In and around crowded cities it's indispensible. I would never, for example, drive my car to Chicago if I can take a train. There's no "freedom" in driving in a situation like that.
There are so many holes in this report it's difficult to list them all.
- how much auto travel is London to Edinburgh vs. local?
- is fuel consumption the only measure of whether something is enviro friendly?
- are there lighter, lower-consumption trains available, and how would they stack up?
- supposedly the 2004 Passat gets 31 MPG highway. What's the average for those who drive passenger cars between London and Edinburgh?
etc. etc. etc.
But nobody takes the train for a journey of less than two miles. (Not talking about subways or buses or trams, etc, but full fledged trains.)
bttt
We've driven around London. Never again :) Do like the train, though.
Well, I should obviously drink my coffee before I start reading FR...
I just read this title as "Cats are more fuel-efficient than trains, claims study."
(Visions of hordes of harried commuters riding cats to work...)
Mewl train :)
Whoa! For your refutation, Willie.
If you believe in the global warming theory then yes. Burning hydrocarbons produces CO2. The more fuel you burn, the more CO2.
Prior to the global warming theory, the ideal was to burn fuel cleanly so that all of the exhaust was CO2 and H2O. Pollution was considered to be anything other than CO2 and H2O.
If I remember right fuel consumption goes up with the square of the speed - high speed is anything but efficient.
Ooh, Willie Green isn't going to like THIS one!
You can even download it in printable pdf format to show to any environmentalists you know. Just think of all the fun you can have undermining their doom mongering!
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
Nonsense. In and around crowded cities it's indispensible. I would never, for example, drive my car to Chicago if I can take a train. There's no "freedom" in driving in a situation like that.
I disagree. If the amount of money that was spent on public transportation was INSTEAD spent on roadway improvements, your experience traveling into Chicago would be much better.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.