How green are Trains ?

[edwin_m]

I presume the chart takes into account average load factors (Megabus is efficient because it is pre-booked and so the average occupancy is higher than the service busses also on the chart). This means the private car will contain more than one person to achieve the quoted efficiency. Drive alone and your mileage is probably worse than the plane.

From the post with the chart:

Data assumes the following load factors: urban bus 20%, intercity coach 60%, intercity rail 40%, all other trains 30%, domestic airlines 70%, and cars 30%. Road, air and diesel-powered rail vehicles’ emissions have been increased to take account of refinery losses and electric powered vehicles take into account losses in the grid.

These figures are probably percentage of seats occupied (but could be percentage of total seats plus standing space, but this uncertainty doesn't affect the car figures). Most cars have 4 seats, a few have several more and some have only 2, but the average is probably around 5. This would make the 30% equal to 1.5 people per car, which is about what surveys normally give.

A whole new can of statistical worms is opened if you consider people collecting and dropping off. For example collecting a student from college might involve a parent driving alone from home to college and returning with the student. But if the student had taken public transport both those journeys would have been avoided.

 

[najaB]

They don't pay fuel duty or road tax which given the roads cost money to maintain unless road pricing or a electric car surcharge is introduced to an electricity bill the government would face a £27bn black hole in their budget for fuel duty alone if we all switched to electric cars.

There's no such thing as 'road tax'.

True, EVs don't pay fuel duty but you pay VAT on electricity so it's not true to say that there will be a £27B black hole. However, the costs of not reducing CO2 emissions will be much more than £27B a year.

 

[thenorthern]

There's no such thing as 'road tax'.

True, EVs don't pay fuel duty but you pay VAT on electricity so it's not true to say that there will be a £27B black hole. However, the costs of not reducing CO2 emissions will be much more than £27B a year.

Fair enough Vehicle Excise Duty, commonly called road tax.

You do indeed pay VAT on electricity although you also pay VAT on fuel after the fuel duty has been calculated and I doubt the extra VAT coming from electricity when people switch to electric cars will be greater than the amount currently generated from fuel. Also consumer solar powered chargers for cars seem to be a new thing which generates no tax revenue for the treasury.

There are other things as well like the Congestion Charge which was originally was designed to reduce congestion and electric cars are exempt from and while they don't pollute like petrol and diesel cars do they still cause just as much congestion.

 

[DerekC]

The most interesting thing that could be added to this thread is some more up to date CO2 emissions data (for both rail and road) than is in that (very interesting and useful) DfT report, which is over 10 years old, quoted up thread. Technology has moved on very significantly since then, in both transport and power (electricity) generation.

Fact-free rants about stuff don't really add anything.

I have put in an FoI request to DfT for up to date information, but they now have 20 working days to reply - so don't hold your breath!

 

[alistairlees]

I have put in an FoI request to DfT for up to date information, but they now have 20 working days to reply - so don't hold your breath!

Thanks. I was thinking of doing the same. Let's see what info there is.

 

[Adsy125]

I have put in an FoI request to DfT for up to date information, but they now have 20 working days to reply - so don't hold your breath!

Is it on What do they know or privately? Hopefully it will be interesting and not just 'we don't have this data'!

 

[Bald Rick]

I have put in an FoI request to DfT for up to date information, but they now have 20 working days to reply - so don't hold your breath!

They’ll only provide an answer if they have it!

 

[Bald Rick]

There's no such thing as 'road tax'.

True, EVs don't pay fuel duty but you pay VAT on electricity so it's not true to say that there will be a £27B black hole. However, the costs of not reducing CO2 emissions will be much more than £27B a year.

It’s actually a £40bn black hole, as VAT on road fuels (and the duty itself) is another c£13bn. You can expect smart road pricing to fill the gap, within the next 10-15 years.

 

[najaB]

You can expect smart road pricing to fill the gap, within the next 10-15 years.

Can't come soon enough. Those who drive more will contribute more to the upkeep of roads - as long as the Government sticks to the commitment to ring-fence revenue from drivers for roads post 2020. I just hope that road haulage doesn't continue to receive a massive hidden subsidy.

 

[Deepgreen]

Something I have noticed more and more recently is the inefficiency that the railway has imposed on itself through the lack of a proper rolling stock and traction policy. This manifests itself in very non-'green' workings where a 'dead' loco is towed around because not enough multiple units are available. 'Top and tailing' may excite the loco haulage enthusiasts but it is very inefficient. The current Windermere branch operation is a case in point - a class 47 at both ends of a three coach train! This means that the leading 47 in each direction is hauling half of its load as a dead loco rather than passenger accommodation.

 

[Deepgreen]

Can't come soon enough. Those who drive more will contribute more to the upkeep of roads - as long as the Government sticks to the commitment to ring-fence revenue from drivers for roads post 2020. I just hope that road haulage doesn't continue to receive a massive hidden subsidy.

I agree, but I don't hold out much hope for this, with pro-road powers continuing to hold sway. As for Governments sticking to commitments, well...

 

[387star]

Can't come soon enough. Those who drive more will contribute more to the upkeep of roads - as long as the Government sticks to the commitment to ring-fence revenue from drivers for roads post 2020. I just hope that road haulage doesn't continue to receive a massive hidden subsidy.

These policies are blindingly obvious

Look at supermarkets once ridden with plastic bags now plastic free
Change can happen with policy change

 

[387star]

George Monbiot's arresting article

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...cars-killing-us-driving-environment-phase-out

In other sectors, greenhouse gas emissions have fallen sharply. But transport emissions in the UK have declined by only 2% since 1990. The government’s legally binding target is an 80% cut by 2050, though even this, the science now tells us, is hopelessly inadequate. Transport, mostly because of our obsession with the private car, is now the major factor driving us towards climate breakdown, in this and many other nations

 

[LOL The Irony]

They’ll only provide an answer if they have it!

They still have 20 days regardless to reply.

 

[Bald Rick]

Some interesting stats, in no particular order.

Since 2007, Carbon emmissions from electricity generation in the U.K. have roughly halved; partly through the ‘dash for gas’ and partly through significantly increased renewable generation (principally wind and solar).

The latest Airbus A320neo is 14% more efficient than its predecessor the A320ceo.

Passengers per flight on all UK domestic air services has increased from 65 to 72 between 2014 and 2018 (big caveat, no adjustment for size of plane).

GB rail passenger kilometres have increased by 33% since 2007.
GB passenger train km has increased by 5.5% since 2010 (first year of data on ORR website)
Taken together, this implies an increase of around 25% in terms of passengers per train, with the huge caveat that average train lengths are higher.

Average road fuel consumption has improved, both through better efficiency and more use of hybrids / pure electrics. But not much. Very little in the case of long distance coach.

Taken together I’d say that since 2007:

electric rail has got significantly better
Domestic air has got better
Road has got slightly better, except long distance coaches
Diesel rail is broadly unchanged.

 

[AM9]

Can't come soon enough. Those who drive more will contribute more to the upkeep of roads - as long as the Government sticks to the commitment to ring-fence revenue from drivers for roads post 2020. I just hope that road haulage doesn't continue to receive a massive hidden subsidy.

There's no need to 'ring fence' tax/duty collected from drivers, the roads are provided for all (including pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicles) and paid for with the public purse, (i.e. from general taxation). Charges for using the roads are collected according to the type of use that is made of them, and currently additional charges based on the environmental damage that hydrocarbon powered vehicles cause. Whatever is collected is fed back into the public purse. Generally, tax hypothecation is not practiced in the UK.
Differential charges for electricity based on its end use is neither practical nor helpful because in a largely renewable power economy, the concept of pollution is largely irrelevant yet the road use if very important to account for. Thus road charging will be the basis of charging certain types of road usage. Factors used for charging will likely be:

vehicle licensed weight, (as a factor of wear and tear)
speed of travel, (as a factor of road quality required for higher speeds)
vehicle causing/adding to congestion, (based on traffic density at the time of use)​

There are systems that would be mandatory for every vehicle being proposed that can provide anonymous records of usage reckoning the above factors. Charging would be transparent to the user at the time of use but recoverable by some automated collection method.

 

[najaB]

There's no need to 'ring fence' tax/duty collected from drivers, the roads are provided for all (including pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicles) and paid for with the public purse, (i.e. from general taxation). Charges for using the roads are collected according to the type of use that is made of them, and currently additional charges based on the environmental damage that hydrocarbon powered vehicles cause. Whatever is collected is fed back into the public purse. Generally, tax hypothecation is not practiced in the UK.

The Government's commitment is to ring-fence funds for the trunk road network. Taking this to mean divided highways (motorways and major A roads) there is very little in the way of cyclist or pedestrian usage. As long as road charging is confined to these roads I don't see any harm in using the money raised primarily to maintain/improve the network.

 

[thenorthern]

Can't come soon enough. Those who drive more will contribute more to the upkeep of roads - as long as the Government sticks to the commitment to ring-fence revenue from drivers for roads post 2020. I just hope that road haulage doesn't continue to receive a massive hidden subsidy.

That is why there is fuel duty whereby people who use their car more consume more use more fuel and therefore pay more in duty.

 

[Bald Rick]

Factors used for charging will likely be:
vehicle licensed weight, (as a factor of wear and tear)
speed of travel, (as a factor of road quality required for higher speeds)
vehicle causing/adding to congestion, (based on traffic density at the time of use)

I’m sure you meant it, but I would add distance travelled as well, with discounting factors applied where longer routes are actually ‘better’ in the big picture.

I’m not so sure about speed, as that might encourage people to avoid empty high quality roads, and go via built up areas instead.

I can see a system where some roads in remote areas are effectively free (or nearly so), most roads are very cheap overnight, but peak time into towns and cities will be expensive.

If all road vehicle miles were charged for, there would need to be an average charge of approx 7.5p/km across all vehicles.

 

[hwl]

Some interesting stats, in no particular order.

Since 2007, Carbon emmissions from electricity generation in the U.K. have roughly halved; partly through the ‘dash for gas’ and partly through significantly increased renewable generation (principally wind and solar).

The latest Airbus A320neo is 14% more efficient than its predecessor the A320ceo.

Passengers per flight on all UK domestic air services has increased from 65 to 72 between 2014 and 2018 (big caveat, no adjustment for size of plane).

GB rail passenger kilometres have increased by 33% since 2007.
GB passenger train km has increased by 5.5% since 2010 (first year of data on ORR website)
Taken together, this implies an increase of around 25% in terms of passengers per train, with the huge caveat that average train lengths are higher.

Average road fuel consumption has improved, both through better efficiency and more use of hybrids / pure electrics. But not much. Very little in the case of long distance coach.

Taken together I’d say that since 2007:

electric rail has got significantly better
Domestic air has got better
Road has got slightly better, except long distance coaches
Diesel rail is broadly unchanged.

And did the 2007 work take account of NR having a nuclear baseload traction electricity contract...

The most noticeable impact on rail CO2 is almost the level of stopping that rolling stock typically does.

 

[najaB]

That is why there is fuel duty whereby people who use their car more consume more use more fuel and therefore pay more in duty.

The thing about fuel duty is that it's a bit of a blunt tool. Dynamic smart road pricing can be used to encourage people to use slightly longer, but less congested routes thereby using less fuel overall.

 

[Bald Rick]

And did the 2007 work take account of NR having a nuclear baseload traction electricity contract....

Probably not. But then as you know, notwithstanding what your electricity supply contract says, electrons are ambivalent* as to where they get their energy.

*I was going to say neutral. Thought better of it.

 

[hwl]

Probably not. But then as you know, notwithstanding what your electricity supply contract says, electrons are ambivalent* as to where they get their energy.

*I was going to say neutral. Thought better of it.

The carbon accounting rules to allow sourcing to be taken into account even if it doesn't align with physics! (To help encourage a shift to lower carbon sources)

 

[AM9]

I’m sure you meant it, but I would add distance travelled as well, with discounting factors applied where longer routes are actually ‘better’ in the big picture.

I’m not so sure about speed, as that might encourage people to avoid empty high quality roads, and go via built up areas instead.

I can see a system where some roads in remote areas are effectively free (or nearly so), most roads are very cheap overnight, but peak time into towns and cities will be expensive.

If all road vehicle miles were charged for, there would need to be an average charge of approx 7.5p/mile across all vehicles.

Effectively distance would be charged by time. The proposal that I am recalling was mentioned in ISTR either Saturday's Telegraph, or today's Times. In essence, all vehicles will have a unit that emits an anonymous beacon signal regularly. When travelling, vehicles will receive these beacon signals from other vehicles, the number of replies indicating how busy the road is. That together with each vehicle's speed will give an indication of whether each is contributing to congestion. The recording of that would generate a certain charge for the period. Actual speed in traffic density on certain roads would produce a profile of the typoe of flow adding to the model. Distance could then be calculated from speed and time, but might not be a primary parameter. The vehicle's owner would not have any access to this system so (hopefully) tampering would be eliminated orkept to an absolute minimum.
It was stated that the push to devise such a system was anonymity, which might become a major political issue with any road charging system.

The cost per mile I suspect might need to rise a lot because once drivers realise that they are being charged directly for that, there might be a tactical reduction in total mileages. Environmentally that would be a good thing but unless the overall tax system was adjusted to compensate, there would be a shortfall.

 

[route:oxford]

http://transformscotland.org.uk/a-green-journey-to-growth/

We estimate that while a flight from Edinburgh to London emits 177kg CO2 per passenger, and existing trains (‘HSTs’) emit 34kg per passenger, that an Azuma will emit only 28kg — 84% less than a flight.

That seems quite a high figure for the flight. Looking at the Flybe website, it's 42Kg per passenger for a 500km flight on their Q400s. So probably closer to 45Kg for the EDI to LHR which is slightly further.

https://www.flybe.com/corporate/media/news/1612/Q400-BOMBARDIER-BROCHURE-LHR.pdf

According to the ICAO calculator, it's 70Kg each way on average.

https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/Carbonoffset/Pages/default.aspx

 

[najaB]

Not directly related to the discussion, but very interesting none the less (since we're talking about data):

 

[HSTEd]

In carbon dioxide terms diesel rail is quite good.

In air pollution terms, no so much - due to the rather huge age of much of the diesel fleet.

 

[notverydeep]

So after you've added all of the CO2 and pollutants of all NR's 'yellow trains' to the total UK rail environmental impact and see what the increased impact per passenger/tonne km is. I doubt that it makes a noticeable difference. The smoke from all of the the worst locos/DMUs is probably less than that emitted from every passenger aircraft or all the badly adjusted IC road vehicles. The picture is irrelevant to this thread.

The emissions from this train are incurred in order to support the passenger operation (and freight of course) and so do count as emissions per passenger or perror tonne km. I agree that they will be only a small proportion of the total, but much as I appreciate the sight and especially sound of a pair of 37s being opened up, sights like this don'the help make the environmental case.

Overall greenness must account for the average load factor. All public transport has both fully loaded legs and nearly empty legs and often the first cannot be operated without the second having to operate as well, at least in order to have a service proposition that is attractive enough in totality.

 

[notverydeep]

When looking at public transport emissions there is always the issue that if that passenger hadn't travelled on that day the vehicle would still have made the journey, with only a small reduction in emissions due to the reduced weight. So the "marginal" emissions of carrying the extra passenger will be much smaller, although still bigger for the aircraft as extra weight on an aircraft uses more fuel than the same amount of extra weight on a train. However if total passenger numbers changed over time then the operators would start changing the capacity or frequency of their services so the emissions would change accordingly - this will generally happen more quickly with an aircraft as most train operators are obliged to maintain roughly the same services for the duration of their franchises.

The importance of marginal emissions was sharply illustrated (in a non rail context) by a round the world trip I took in 2009. I crossed the Pacific aboard MV Hansa Flensburg, a 23,000 tone container ship. My weight and that of my rucksack and the food I would consume over the three weeks were less than 5% of an empty container. In this context 'my' marginal emissions are pretty trivial.

However, I only had a few weeks crossing North America by train to polish my halo. This is because on arrival in New York, I boarded RMS Queen Mary 2. This carries no freight, so all the ships emissions must be divided between the 2620 passengers. With 149,215 tonnes to divide, this is 57 tonnes per passenger with full occupancy which is unlikely. The amount of energy and hence emissions to keep 57 tonnes moving at 26 knots for 6 days straight is rather non-trivial and I suspect, several times the value for a flight!!

Sorry, my attempt to combine the last two posts on an Android tablet hasn'the suceeded...

 

[edwin_m]

That is why there is fuel duty whereby people who use their car more consume more use more fuel and therefore pay more in duty.

But it's effectively impossible to levy fuel duty on electric cars unless it is levied on all electricity.

The most noticeable impact on rail CO2 is almost the level of stopping that rolling stock typically does.

That's probably true because the resistance to motion of the train is lower (per passenger) than for road vehicles. However the weight per person is likely to be greater, and comes into play when the train has to be started from a stop. Regenerative braking reduces but doesn't eliminate this penalty.

The thing about fuel duty is that it's a bit of a blunt tool. Dynamic smart road pricing can be used to encourage people to use slightly longer, but less congested routes thereby using less fuel overall.

I'm a bit doubtful that the fine-tuning of road user charges in response to multiple factors will be effective, particularly if it is done in real time. People need to know the cost of different modes before they choose which one to use, which could be several weeks before if one of the choices is an advance train ticket. With real time adjustment people don't know how much the journey will cost until it is completed; just as today they won't usually be able to abandon the car mid-journey and take a train if the congestion and its costs turns out to be worse than they expected.

So I think what is needed is a fairly simple set of published rates and the times and places when they apply. For example the peak and off-peak rates across all urban routes could be the same except for a "super-charge" for inner cities. This would allow online and in-vehicle software to calculate the charges for a particular journey with reasonable certainty well in advance if necessary, and to compare the prices as well as journey times for different driving routes and public transport alternatives.