Railways and the environment

[Oscar]

It was suggested in the Northern restrictions thread that this topic would merit a new thread so I will start one for anyone wishing to discuss this. This topic of course covers most aspects of rail planning, so it's very difficult to define what should be covered. I will mainly focus on greenhouse gas emissions in this post, but other environmental damage is very relevant. Trains have the potential to carry many hundreds of people in a much more resource-efficient way than cars, but are often not achieving this at the moment. Coaches are very efficient in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and don't require so much infrastructure investment, but it is hard to imagine most current car drivers travelling long distances by coach.

Current limitations to the railway's environmental performance include:
- safety legislation (e.g. regarding the design of rolling stock - lots of metal may save some lives in a crash but increases fuel use, Alan Williams has written about this in Modern Railways).
- the fuel inefficiency of certain rolling stock e.g. Voyagers (about 200 l / 100 km I believe), class 185s. I imagine Pacers are fairly bad in terms of the emissions which affect public health (e.g. NOx and particulates).
- political concerns about where rolling stock should be used (3-car class 185s are used on the Kyle and Far North lines but could provide more capacity and more modal shift elsewhere).
- the pace of electrification and uncertainty about the rate of future progress. We're only planning a few years into the future. No new diesel stock is being built for the UK and this may limit the supply of rail travel available. What are the prospects like for battery-powered trains? What is the environmental impact of producing the batteries? Electrification is beneficial even if the electricity is still produced through the burning of fossil fuels as it is more efficient to burn them in a power station than in a train engine.
- using subsidy to run 2/3-coach trains rather than investing in the upgrades required to run much longer trains which would have the capacity to deliver modal shift.
- a lack of concern about whether new travel is generated by the promotional activities of the TOCs or whether it comes from modal shift and a reluctance to look at which journeys are socially beneficial. Long-distance trains may be largely full of fairly well-off leisure travellers who were tempted by cheap Advance fares while someone who has to travel at short notice to visit his/her dying parents may not be able to afford the fare and travel by car (or may not travel, which would of course have a lower environmental impact - everything has an ecological impact to some extent - but wouldn't be what we want).
- walk-up fare levels largely historical and so don't maximise use of capacity and encourage modal shift.
- the lack of timetable and fare integration with other modes of public transport and poor and inconsistent information makes modal shift difficult to achieve.
- operation of trains rather than buses on routes / at times where there is low demand, often less frequently than the buses could run - this is fuel efficient and doesn't maximise more shift. Calls at some minor stations also come into this category.

I'd be interested in your analysis of these and the (many) other problems and possible solutions as well as any figures you have seen. The pricing of road travel is also relevant: paying most of the costs of running a car upfront gives cars an unfair advantage to those who have one; there is no congestion charging outside of London meaning it costs the same to drive 10 km through a big city as 10 km through the countryside, despite the obvious air pollution and space issues - the latter has a big social impact (see the failed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Manchester_congestion_charge and http://www.unclogcambridge.com/benefits/).

 

[PaxVobiscum]

... there is no congestion charging outside of London meaning it costs the same to drive 10 km through a big city as 10 km through the countryside...

Small point, but
Only in the unlikely event of the average speeds being the same. Realistically, urban fuel consumption for motorists is likely considerably higher than rural, unless your countryside route is peppered with traffic lights.

 

[edwin_m]

Small point, but
Only in the unlikely event of the average speeds being the same. Realistically, urban fuel consumption for motorists is likely considerably higher than rural, unless your countryside route is peppered with traffic lights.

One reason why fuel taxes are environmentally relatively sound, since they penalise having a more fuel-hungry vehicle and driving it further or less economically. Despite vehicle duty being tied to emissions, this and other motoring costs are largely fixed and there is a temptation, having spent all that money, to make some return by driving more.

There's an interesting debate to be had regarding emissions regulations on railway diesel engines. These focus on nitrogen and sulphur oxides not CO2, which are local emissions and arguably less important for a train which doesn't get so close to people's houses than a road vehicle does. Complying with them usually increases CO2 emissions, fuel consumption and other costs and therefore could actually be counterproductive.

Tradeoffs like this are important to understanding environmental impacts, but there doesn't seem to be much information about them (for example how many tonnes of CO2 are as "bad" as a tonne of NOx) and they certainly aren't well understood by the general public.

 

[brianthegiant]

Interesting point about Nox limits pushing up C02 emissions -what is the mechanism there? Nox does contribute to smog and acid rain. But yes I would agree that buses/taxis/vans should be a higher priority in tackling the urban air quality problem.

I believe more recent stock procurement has tight limits on weight and fuel efficiency eg IEP, though the overarching concept of IEP is a disaster on weight.

Network rail is I suppose one of the largest owner of rural uncultivated land alongside the MOD, RSPB and highways agency. Rail lines form substantial wildlife corridors as do trunk roads. Like NR, the Highways Agency has many pockets of land around junctions and land of low value leftover from CPOs for major projects. the HA and its main contractors employ ecologists to manage these areas, I suppose network rail have similar operations.

Lineside trees are of course a difficult compromise. Widespread use of weedkiller to control growth on ballast isn't like to stop anytime soon, though hopefully this is done during periods of low windspeed.

 

[yorksrob]

- using subsidy to run 2/3-coach trains rather than investing in the upgrades required to run much longer trains which would have the capacity to deliver modal shift.

This is a very important point. We have a situation where the Ministry complains about high subsidy levels, yet uses this as an excuse not to invest in those improvements such as longer trains and electrification, which are likely to bring down the level of subsidy per passenger.

- a lack of concern about whether new travel is generated by the promotional activities of the TOCs or whether it comes from modal shift and a reluctance to look at which journeys are socially beneficial. Long-distance trains may be largely full of fairly well-off leisure travellers who were tempted by cheap Advance fares while someone who has to travel at short notice to visit his/her dying parents may not be able to afford the fare and travel by car (or may not travel, which would of course have a lower environmental impact - everything has an ecological impact to some extent - but wouldn't be what we want).

This is a tricky one. For example, is it socially acceptable to prioritise and encourage the journey of a motorist who would have traveled anyway, one way or another, over somebody who may be on a lower income and may not own a car, simply because one is a result of a modal shift and the other isn't. The other thing that must be remembered is people attracted by offers are indulging in optional travel, which may well generate an economic benefit to those areas served by the train. We shouldn't forget that for some people, the alternative to taking the train is staying in front of the telly, rather than taking the car, so this may not be economically desireable.

- operation of trains rather than buses on routes / at times where there is low demand, often less frequently than the buses could run - this is fuel efficient and doesn't maximise more shift. Calls at some minor stations also come into this category.

With the phrase "at times where there is low demand" I assume you mean where having a train service at peak times but bus at others ?

The most obvious problem with this would be having to have two sets of vehicles available and two sets of drivers etc.

Then there are the problems of tailoring what you're running to demand. For example rather than just an evening and morning peak, you have varying times throughout the day when there are higher loadings, certainly on my local route. You'd have to work out what trains and buses were where at any given time, and more importantly so would passengers. Trying to second guess whether to go to the bus stop or platform all the time would put me right off travelling !