How green are Caledonian Sleeper stock?

Bassman · 26 Apr 2019

[Mod note - split from this thread]

Does the sleeper have a higher carbon footprint than a flight? Does it have a higher footprint than normal seated rail travel ?

Government policy and subsidy should look to minimise carbon emissions and enable safe, timely travel through our rail infrastructure.
Overnight Sleeper trains, in the form of varied accommodation with couchettes, as well as seats, could lower low carbon emissions and offer more economical greener travel.
Like many upgrades to infrastructure, these sleeper trains while looking good to those who can afford them , benefits those with higher incomes at the expense of those who have less means. Many of us will be excluded by price and have to be crammed into cheap flights if we wish to travel. I dread the early morning call to get to the early morning flight, with the queueing, 'priority boarding', overhead locker space, the legroom, sitting beside obese fellow passengers, coughing and sneezing, the continual calls to spend for extras, transfers and travel into London, and ripping off the atmosphere with emissions, and increasing carbon footprints.

Personally I always prefer to travel by train and recently have gone all the way to Budapest. The Czech sleepers between Prague and Budapest are particularly outstanding and cheap, offering couchettes as well as seats and economical cabins. The costliest part by a considerable margin was the sleeper to London.
Comparison with London Hotel prices ( outrageously inflated by the market) are really another way we divide society between those who can afford such luxury and many who think it is ridiculous to spend such money. Edinburgh is going the same way as becoming a playground for the rich and middle class tourists.

Transport should be foremost a national strategic concern for all the population, and not one solely for the tourist or the elite.

There should have been a more rigorous insistence on Serco to provide the option of more choice and future growth in capacity of accommodation in the introduction of new trains.

RailUK Forums

alistairlees · 26 Apr 2019

Bassman said:
Does the sleeper have a higher carbon footprint than a flight? Does it have a higher footprint than normal seated rail travel ?

Government policy and subsidy should look to minimise carbon emissions and enable safe, timely travel through our rail infrastructure.
Overnight Sleeper trains, in the form of varied accommodation with couchettes, as well as seats, could lower low carbon emissions and offer more economical greener travel.
Like many upgrades to infrastructure, these sleeper trains while looking good to those who can afford them , benefits those with higher incomes at the expense of those who have less means. Many of us will be excluded by price and have to be crammed into cheap flights if we wish to travel. I dread the early morning call to get to the early morning flight, with the queueing, 'priority boarding', overhead locker space, the legroom, sitting beside obese fellow passengers, coughing and sneezing, the continual calls to spend for extras, transfers and travel into London, and ripping off the atmosphere with emissions, and increasing carbon footprints.

Personally I always prefer to travel by train and recently have gone all the way to Budapest. The Czech sleepers between Prague and Budapest are particularly outstanding and cheap, offering couchettes as well as seats and economical cabins. The costliest part by a considerable margin was the sleeper to London.
Comparison with London Hotel prices ( outrageously inflated by the market) are really another way we divide society between those who can afford such luxury and many who think it is ridiculous to spend such money. Edinburgh is going the same way as becoming a playground for the rich and middle class tourists.

Transport should be foremost a national strategic concern for all the population, and not one solely for the tourist or the elite.

There should have been a more rigorous insistence on Serco to provide the option of more choice and future growth in capacity of accommodation in the introduction of new trains.

You're saying that they are just not subsidised enough?

modernrail · 26 Apr 2019

Ha well this is where it gets interesting isn't it... Are people paying the real cost of their travel, electricity, gas etc. I suspect that debate is going to become more and more acute over the next few years. I hope bit am not convinced that over night trains come out well in that discussion.

Grandnat · 26 Apr 2019

Bassman said:
Does the sleeper have a higher carbon footprint than a flight? Does it have a higher footprint than normal seated rail travel ?

Government policy and subsidy should look to minimise carbon emissions and enable safe, timely travel through our rail infrastructure.
Overnight Sleeper trains, in the form of varied accommodation with couchettes, as well as seats, could lower low carbon emissions and offer more economical greener travel.
Like many upgrades to infrastructure, these sleeper trains while looking good to those who can afford them , benefits those with higher incomes at the expense of those who have less means. Many of us will be excluded by price and have to be crammed into cheap flights if we wish to travel. I dread the early morning call to get to the early morning flight, with the queueing, 'priority boarding', overhead locker space, the legroom, sitting beside obese fellow passengers, coughing and sneezing, the continual calls to spend for extras, transfers and travel into London, and ripping off the atmosphere with emissions, and increasing carbon footprints.

Personally I always prefer to travel by train and recently have gone all the way to Budapest. The Czech sleepers between Prague and Budapest are particularly outstanding and cheap, offering couchettes as well as seats and economical cabins. The costliest part by a considerable margin was the sleeper to London.
Comparison with London Hotel prices ( outrageously inflated by the market) are really another way we divide society between those who can afford such luxury and many who think it is ridiculous to spend such money. Edinburgh is going the same way as becoming a playground for the rich and middle class tourists.

Transport should be foremost a national strategic concern for all the population, and not one solely for the tourist or the elite.

There should have been a more rigorous insistence on Serco to provide the option of more choice and future growth in capacity of accommodation in the introduction of new trains.

You do have the option of a £45 Seat on the Sleeper.

Whilst I agree with you about horrible cramped short haul flights, the seats on the Sleeper are more akin to a Premium Economy Seat on a long haul plane (and look similar to a first class Seat on ECML.

I would have liked to have seen the originally suggested lie flat pod beds on the Sleeper - but we are where we are.

BRX · 26 Apr 2019

alistairlees said:
You're saying that they are just not subsidised enough?

That's not necessarily the conclusion of the point being made.

Bassman · 26 Apr 2019

alistairlees said:
You're saying that they are just not subsidised enough?

I think rail infrastructure needs more consistent investment along with an increase in taxation on air travel, even if that dents our love of cheap air travel. ( I personally find it not a lovely experience)
Trains should be subsidised as building for the future, with low emissions and increase options for low cost travel, not as creating a luxury elitist experience by default by government subsidy.
Certainly in the north we still need significant money to be spent in electrification and even new lines to improve reliability and journey times.
If rail is a more sustainable future, this is the direction government should be going.
This would make rail become a significantly more attractive proposition.
The original vision for new sleeper trains had in it, if i am correct, a broader future vision more than a hotel on wheels.

Bald Rick · 26 Apr 2019

Bassman said:
Does the sleeper have a higher carbon footprint than a flight? Does it have a higher footprint than normal seated rail travel ?

The sleeper unquestionably has a higher carbon footprint than normal seated rail travel for the same journey. Much more train for many fewer travellers, particularly in the beds.

Compared to air travel, that’s where it gets interesting. The sleeper will almost certainly be better, but not by a large margin. I’d quite like someone to do the calcs. I suspect someone has, but won’t publish them as they might be, ahem, not quite as good as expected.

Bassman · 27 Apr 2019

Bald Rick said:
The sleeper unquestionably has a higher carbon footprint than normal seated rail travel for the same journey. Much more train for many fewer travellers, particularly in the beds.

Compared to air travel, that’s where it gets interesting. The sleeper will almost certainly be better, but not by a large margin. I’d quite like someone to do the calcs. I suspect someone has, but won’t publish them as they might be, ahem, not quite as good as expected.

Yes I agree!
to me, the question of carbon footprint should be higher up the agenda in transport policy.
Are sleeper trains a good way forward ?
If you price and tax according to carbon footprint, I think there will be far more arguments to invest in a wider range of travel choices on rail, including sleeper trains.
The Scottish Government have subsidised a gentrification of the sleeper service to suit current business and tourism choices, rather than future proof the service with more choice of long distance economical travel.

33Hz · 28 Apr 2019

Bald Rick said:
The sleeper unquestionably has a higher carbon footprint than normal seated rail travel for the same journey. Much more train for many fewer travellers, particularly in the beds.

Compared to air travel, that’s where it gets interesting. The sleeper will almost certainly be better, but not by a large margin. I’d quite like someone to do the calcs. I suspect someone has, but won’t publish them as they might be, ahem, not quite as good as expected.

OK I'll have a crack at it.

For electric traction, assuming 250 passengers per train, 150 km/h average speed and 1 MW average power draw.

- 1 MWh to go 150 km -> 6.67 kWh/km (for the whole train)
- 6.67 kWh / 250 = 0.02667 kWh = 26.67 Wh/pkm (per passenger kilometre)

Average grid CO2 emissions per kWh for UK in 2018 were 225g/kWh (https://assets.publishing.service.g...1/fuel-mix-disclosure-data-2018-revised-2.pdf)

- 0.02667 kWh x 225g = 6 grammes/pkm CO2

By comparison the EU average for aviation is 99.2 grammes/pkm (derived from Table 1.1 and 1.3 in https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/publication/files/eaer-2019.pdf)

BRX · 28 Apr 2019

33Hz said:
OK I'll have a crack at it.

For electric traction, assuming 250 passengers per train, 150 km/h average speed and 1 MW average power draw.

- 1 MWh to go 150 km -> 6.67 kWh/km (for the whole train)
- 6.67 kWh / 250 = 0.02667 kWh = 26.67 Wh/pkm (per passenger kilometre)

Average grid CO2 emissions per kWh for UK in 2018 were 225g/kWh (https://assets.publishing.service.g...1/fuel-mix-disclosure-data-2018-revised-2.pdf)

- 0.02667 kWh x 225g = 6 grammes/pkm CO2

By comparison the EU average for aviation is 99.2 grammes/pkm (derived from Table 1.1 and 1.3 in https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/publication/files/eaer-2019.pdf)

Also have to take into account the journey legs at each end - whether they are made by car, etc: and of course it depends where each individual journey starts and ends.

33Hz · 28 Apr 2019

BRX said:
Also have to take into account the journey legs at each end - whether they are made by car, etc: and of course it depends where each individual journey starts and ends.

Probably closer to you than the nearest airport.

BRX · 28 Apr 2019

33Hz said:
Probably closer to you than the nearest airport.

Yes, especially for Highlander destinations.

Bassman · 28 Apr 2019

33Hz said:
OK I'll have a crack at it.

For electric traction, assuming 250 passengers per train, 150 km/h average speed and 1 MW average power draw.

- 1 MWh to go 150 km -> 6.67 kWh/km (for the whole train)
- 6.67 kWh / 250 = 0.02667 kWh = 26.67 Wh/pkm (per passenger kilometre)

Average grid CO2 emissions per kWh for UK in 2018 were 225g/kWh (https://assets.publishing.service.g...1/fuel-mix-disclosure-data-2018-revised-2.pdf)

- 0.02667 kWh x 225g = 6 grammes/pkm CO2

By comparison the EU average for aviation is 99.2 grammes/pkm (derived from Table 1.1 and 1.3 in https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/publication/files/eaer-2019.pdf)

Thanks
That's a great analysis and worthy of keeping in mind, though 250 passengers is high for the current sleeper runs.

Isn't Austrian railways pursuing them in their new sleeper stock? I guess we will find out soon enough (Personally I would love to try them).

With couchettes, and marketing and promotion of rail, to increase the passenger uptake, as well as taxing flights, this is the way forward.

BRX · 28 Apr 2019

Bassman said:
With couchettes, and marketing and promotion of rail, to increase the passenger uptake, as well as taxing flights, this is the way forward.

I agree with you but sadly I fear the opportunity is now gone. There could have been a couchette/pod option on the new coaches but for whatever reason there wasn't sufficient will to make it happen. It seems unlikely that money will appear for another newbuild coach type now. The best scenario I can think of is one where the new stock is so successful that, say, the highlander gets split into two portions and the train lengths can be increased. And as part of that, new couchette coaches brought in. Just wishful thinking though i think.

hwl · 28 Apr 2019

33Hz said:
Average grid CO2 emissions per kWh for UK in 2018 were 225g/kWh (https://assets.publishing.service.g...1/fuel-mix-disclosure-data-2018-revised-2.pdf)

- 0.02667 kWh x 225g = 6 grammes/pkm CO2
.

Traction electricity contract is nuclear baseload.

jagardner1984 · 28 Apr 2019

It would be interesting if the new stock was successful enough to make viable the financing of stock to further develop the environmental benefits of rail vs short haul flights.

Particularly for the highland destinations, there will be a good number of people who don't want to spend the best part of the day on a daytime train. So for them the choice is Air vs Sleeper (vs Night Coach).

It would be interesting to see if some form of higher density (and thus cheaper) sleeper coach was introduced, how much of the premium cabin sales were lost.

I wonder whether any feasibility has ever been done on making it 3 x Trains, perhaps Glasgow / Fort William, Edinburgh / Aberdeen, and Inverness. That setup would allow all sets to increase length, and perhaps make the Fort William Split happen at a slightly more human time !

Thinking of the drastic measures suggested by Greta Thunberg and various in the environmental movements in the last f, perhaps there could be some direct linking between an increased Scottish Air Passenger Duty and increased subsidy / investment in rail services ....

Certainly the statistics quoted above (6g/pkm CO2 vs 99g/pkm/CO2) should be prominent in CS / Scottish Government press releases on the new stock ...

Bald Rick · 28 Apr 2019

33Hz said:
OK I'll have a crack at it.

For electric traction, assuming 250 passengers per train, 150 km/h average speed and 1 MW average power draw.

- 1 MWh to go 150 km -> 6.67 kWh/km (for the whole train)
- 6.67 kWh / 250 = 0.02667 kWh = 26.67 Wh/pkm (per passenger kilometre)

Average grid CO2 emissions per kWh for UK in 2018 were 225g/kWh (https://assets.publishing.service.g...1/fuel-mix-disclosure-data-2018-revised-2.pdf)

- 0.02667 kWh x 225g = 6 grammes/pkm CO2

By comparison the EU average for aviation is 99.2 grammes/pkm (derived from Table 1.1 and 1.3 in https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/publication/files/eaer-2019.pdf)

6g/km is not consistent with the 30-50g/km usual range for long distance rail travel.

I think an average of 250 pax/train is optimistic on the electric section. Bear in mind that not all passengers travel the whole route, and there are a good number of passengers on the sleepers as ‘day’ services. 1MW average power draw similarly. Hotel power alone for the train isn’t far off that. And 150kph is very optimistic. The lowlander takes around 6h40 for around 630km.

Try 200 / 2MW / 100, and you get 22.5g. And that is still a long way short of what it is.

33Hz · 29 Apr 2019

Bald Rick said:
6g/km is not consistent with the 30-50g/km usual range for long distance rail travel.

What is the source for this? If it is a UK figure then we are talking a lot of long range, high-speed diesel traction which will drag that average up. Not only that but the UK grid has decarbonised significantly in the last 5 years, which is when I last saw those kind of numbers being thrown around.

I think an average of 250 pax/train is optimistic on the electric section. Bear in mind that not all passengers travel the whole route, and there are a good number of passengers on the sleepers as ‘day’ services. 1MW average power draw similarly. Hotel power alone for the train isn’t far off that. And 150kph is very optimistic. The lowlander takes around 6h40 for around 630km.

I seriously doubt that the hotel power *averages* 1 MW, especially not these days with LED lighting and heat pumps.

Try 200 / 2MW / 100, and you get 22.5g. And that is still a long way short of what it is.

Assuming you are right with these numbers, which is fine, I am not sure what justifies your last statement?

It totally depends on the choice of traction and what powers the grid. For example Alstom quoted 2.2 g/pkm for their AGV going at 320 km/h.

How?

Because for an AGV on the LGV Est in France it gives this:

Which on an 11 car 510 seat AGV gives 30 Wh/pkm and then on the French grid with 73 g/kWh CO2 (official number from RTE, the French national grid) equals 2.2 g/pkm CO2.

And now that has come down even more to 1.9 g/pkm CO2.

Now we do not have a 73 g/kWh grid in the UK, we have 225 g/kWh, so you need to multiply the numbers by about 3 to get the UK equivalent. 6.6 g/pkm CO2 still thrashes the average figure for an aircraft.

Anyway, kind of off-topic but it illustrates the point about long distance rail travel...

Bald Rick · 29 Apr 2019

33Hz said:
What is the source for this?

From a chart that was on another thread, can’t find it now but here is a link to the chart.

https://webarchive.nationalarchives...bepdf/187604/263473/relativecarbonperform.pdf

Of course that is Alstom promo material, so it will be showing the very best case, ie full train, simple journey (no stops), high speed etc etc. But I accept that on the figures presented the figures look right (and encouraging).

33Hz · 30 Apr 2019

Bald Rick said:
From a chart that was on another thread, can’t find it now but here is a link to the chart.

https://webarchive.nationalarchives...bepdf/187604/263473/relativecarbonperform.pdf

That is an update to 2 reports published in 2007. There is no date on it but as far as I can tell (from here) it was also published in 2007 as a correction.

Back in 2007 the UK Grid CO2 was 480 g/kWh by the same measure as the 225 g/kWh figure for 2018. Switching off the coal plants, going to gas and the large offshore wind farms has made a huge difference (in fact some nights on the real time trackers you can see it go under 100 g/kWh). See here.

So it is no wonder that the emissions per passenger km have fallen by a corresponding amount. If those reports were rewritten now they would tell a very different story.

Of course that is Alstom promo material, so it will be showing the very best case, ie full train, simple journey (no stops), high speed etc etc. But I accept that on the figures presented the figures look right (and encouraging).

The chart with the 2.2 g/pkm comes from a presentation they gave to the UIC here. The chart with the energy use on Paris - Strasbourg came from a presentation called "L’AGV, au service de l’écologie" at the 2009 SIFER conference which unfortunately is now a broken link, but I have attached it to the post.

Being high speed actually counts against it - as we know from the drag equation the power is proportional to the velocity cubed.

The fact that it only draws an average of 4 MW and hence 30 Wh/pkm is pretty impressive (by the way, the Siemens Velaro Novo is claiming ~24 Wh/pkm at the same speed).

So the train moving at an average of 3x less would take around 9x less energy - and all else being equal this more than offsets the extra weight (600 tonnes vs ~400 tonnes) of the longer train.

mikey9 · 30 Apr 2019

For years we have encountered significant negative comments about the carbon impact of the sleeper - much/all of which is based upon significantly out of date information on Grid emissions etc. Having some up to date info on elements of this is fascinating as a new service is launched.

BRX · 30 Apr 2019

It would also be interesting to know how the diesel-hauled sections affect the overall numbers.

33Hz · 30 Apr 2019

BRX said:
It would also be interesting to know how the diesel-hauled sections affect the overall numbers.

Finger in the air number...

Say the diesel is 100 g/pkm (seems about right from the link posted earlier) and the electric is 22.5 g/pkm as per the earlier calculations.

400 miles (643 km) under electric traction, about 120 miles (192 km) with diesel.

Mean emissions = ((643 x 22.5) + (192 x 100)) / (643+192) = 40 g/pkm.

RLBH · 30 Apr 2019

33Hz said:
Finger in the air number...

Say the diesel is 100 g/pkm (seems about right from the link posted earlier) and the electric is 22.5 g/pkm as per the earlier calculations.

400 miles (643 km) under electric traction, about 120 miles (192 km) with diesel.

Mean emissions = ((643 x 22.5) + (192 x 100)) / (643+192) = 40 g/pkm.

Then multiply by about three to allow for the fact that sleeping cars have about one-third the capacity of conventional coaches. That puts sleeper train travel as comparable to travelling by car, at least in terms of carbon dioxide emissions.

BRX · 30 Apr 2019

RLBH said:
Then multiply by about three to allow for the fact that sleeping cars have about one-third the capacity of conventional coaches. That puts sleeper train travel as comparable to travelling by car, at least in terms of carbon dioxide emissions.

The number was already calculated on the basis of 200 passengers per train I think. In other words a lot less than a full 16 coach day train would be.

33Hz · 30 Apr 2019

RLBH said:
Then multiply by about three to allow for the fact that sleeping cars have about one-third the capacity of conventional coaches. That puts sleeper train travel as comparable to travelling by car, at least in terms of carbon dioxide emissions.

BRX said:
The number was already calculated on the basis of 200 passengers per train I think. In other words a lot less than a full 16 coach day train would be.

As BRX says, it was already considering that.

BRX · 30 Apr 2019

The actual amount of electricity used per km by a class 92 on the sleeper must be recorded or at least estimated somewhere... because presumably that's how Network Rail send CS/GBRf the bill for it - or does it not work that way?

37201xoIM · 2 May 2019

Something missing (at least as far as I can see? I might have missed it myself in which case my apologies!) is that the figures for aviation look to be simple g/p-km numbers - but the climate-change impact (assuming that is our priority, as I'm sure it should be) of a gram of CO2 (its "radiative forcing" effect) is far greater at typical jet aircraft altitudes than at ground level. I've seen (Google will be your friend!) multipliers of between 2 and 4 used to reflect this - there is uncertainty, I think, over the best figures to use and some include different things.

In addition, as I understand it high-altitude NOx emissions are also nasty from a radiative forcing point of view: it is not just carbon dioxide from an aircraft. I think some of these multiplier numbers may also take account of the non-CO2 emissions, but not all do. I think even water vapour ("contrails") is believed to have a non-zero effect, though I can't pretend to understand the science at all!

The moral of the story is, of course, that the original poster's inclination is right: that a sleeper journey, while not as "good" as a daytime journey, is head-and-shoulders superior to anything involving flying.

This seems quite well written: https://www.carbonindependent.org/sources_aviation.html

supervc-10 · 2 May 2019

My understanding of contrails is that they actually have a positive effect during the daytime, due to reflecting sunlight back into space. IIRC there was a not insignificant effect seen following the grounding of US airspace after 9/11.

Having said that, I'm quite sure it pales in comparison to the damage done by aircraft emissions. Even an aircraft running on a carbon-neutral biofuel* will be pretty destructive due to things like NOx emissions.

*I do appreciate that such a thing is purely hypothetical!

rebmcr · 2 May 2019

supervc-10 said:
My understanding of contrails is that they actually have a positive effect during the daytime, due to reflecting sunlight back into space. IIRC there was a not insignificant effect seen following the grounding of US airspace after 9/11.

Having said that, I'm quite sure it pales in comparison to the damage done by aircraft emissions. Even an aircraft running on a carbon-neutral biofuel* will be pretty destructive due to things like NOx emissions.

*I do appreciate that such a thing is purely hypothetical!

An aircraft powered by mixing onboard Hydrogen with atmospheric Oxygen would not emit anything but water. A British company has been (for the last decade or so) steadily reaching milestones in the development and testing of the SABRE engine which promises just that.

How green are Caledonian Sleeper stock?

Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Attachments

Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member