Because not all electricity is generated from fossil fuels. A significant amount comes from nuclear and renewable sources. And that amount is going to increase rapidly in the coming decades.
Correct. And even if it was all generated from fossil fuel, the emmisions would still be less than burning said fossil fuel directly on board trains. The smaller individual engines would likely be less efficient than a power station and then have to shift their own weight as well as that of the train, requiring more power and therefore more fuel.
Gangways improve the ability for trains to work in multiple, increasing flexibility. Given that loco rakes are only remarshalled when in the depot nowadays, MUs are more flexible.
I agree. However, a non-gangwayed unit is less-flexible than a LHCS rake, and since you probably can't get a gangwayed unit up to 125mph LHCS remains more flexible for such trains. I think an IC225 might work out cheaper to run than for a 9-car Pendo too.
Rather like the private v public debate, the consensus seems to be that MU operation is the only way. There is no real debate on this any longer, because it has become so accepted in the industry. I would like to see a proper discussion about the costs, benefits and drawbacks of each method of operation over different types of route.
Agreed, more attention needs to be paid to what is the most suitable stock for each service.
Nowt wrong with nuclear energy. Just manage it right and it'll be the gift that keeps on giving.
Thankfully these new reactors seem to have been given the green light.
The nuclear waste is an issue, so I don't think nuclear fission power can continue to be used forever. However, I am pleased that the current new generation has been given the go-ahead, as I belive it is a necessary stop-gap to replace fossil fuels as we are not going to be able to build enough renewable plants fast enough.
New is not necessarily a synonym for Better.
This is where the Voyager / Meridian family of trains have it right. They look good, are a MU but a single train at the same time. Unusual workings mean the trains can couple together (I say unusual as if the trains were ALWAYS going to be coupled at some point, gangway units would have been far more suitable and cheaper to run). It is win win win for these types of units.
They look good yes, but they drink fuel like there's no tommorow (that's what comes if you try to make a DMU with EMU-style acceleration) and are cloustriphobic and cramped inside. There's also the issue of multiple working without corridor connections, meaning one unit could be nearly full and the other almost completly empty.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Somebody made a point about rock-hard seats a few posts back - just thought I'd chip in that as someone who's only in their twenties and grew up on modern stock, a trip on a first-gen DMU or EMU or a mark 1/2 coach is like luxury to me - the seats have physical springs in them and that makes them so much more comfortable than anything that's around today. I don't get why new stock can't have that.
Agreed. I grew up with Havant as my nearest station when stock was slammers and 5-WESes. However, I was too young then to remember much of that, so when I heard there were slammers still running on the Lymington branch but about to stop I had to take a trip down there. And the seats were wonderfully soft, why can't new stock have seats that soft?
The FGW 158 seats are not too bad, but my comfort is runined in airline seating by insufficent legroom. The 175s are the opposite, good legroom but rock-hard seats.