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/).
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/).