Trains planes and automobiles - lowering carbon footprint?

A snowHead

The announcement of a new regular flight to Sion caught my attention - excellent, a means of flying to within 40 minutes of our place in CH. Then my carbon-conscience kicked in. The four of us usually drive to the Valais - a journey we do 6-8 times a year. Lower carbon footprint than flying. It's now long, tedious, and mind-numbing, even with DVDs, CD stories and music. Car to Dover, channel hop with food on the ferry, hotel about an hour from Calais, then a ten-hour slog to Crans Montana. Occasionally I fly, mainly for the 'boys' weekend' in March - 4 days on the hill, so leave work at lunchtime and be in the chalet via GVA, at 9pm. But why the hell can't the train compete? We could be Cambridge-KingsX-StPancras-Paris-Sierre and be only 20 mins from our place. And it's difficult to tell whether the carbon footprint of train is smaller or greater than four in a modern diesel - different analyses give different figures. Train fares just don't compete with flight prices, and it just feels like competition has not really penetrated the transnational train scene - too many established interests. And technology seems antique. Surely better control systems could increase the density of trains, reducing separation in the way in which us has been reduced in aviation? We have the advantage of never needing to take kit with us (we once forgot to put jackets in the car for the journey...) since it all lives up the hill in CH. It seems such a failing of the EU Commission - integrated ticketing, injection of genuine competition, better control systems - surely this would really help with the climate change which we see all around us in the Alps when climbing and skiing?

A snowHead

I drive a 5 litre petrol engined car, I am single handedly warming the environment.. Very Happy

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

Need an easyjet or ryanair to step in.

You need to Login to know who's really who.

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

My recent Flybe flight was apparently better for the environment than my fridge at home Very Happy

You'll need to Register first of course.

@boredsurfin, ...well perhaps quieter.

Note at 10kg of CO2 that's the equivalent volume of 20 bathtubs of CO2 per seat - just to get a visual fix on it

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

@valais2, Ironically quiet was the one thing it was not, probably the noisiest commercial airline cabin I have ever sat in!
As they fly over our house occasionally they are indeed quieter than jets from the ground...

After all it is free

@valais2, Here's a thought for you... if the flight is going anyway, any other form of non scheduled transport is merely adding to the CO2 output of the trip.

@valais2, a couple of additional thoughts for you:
1. Travelling by car is around 30% farther than travelling as the crow flies Cambridge to Sierre.
2. Diesel trains are not significantly better than a car with four people when it comes to CO2 emissions.
3. The CO2 emissions of a cross channel ferry must be truly horrendous.

On a different note, I'm not sure increased competition would bring about significant savings to trains. The fixed costs involved are absolutely massive and the inflexibility of railways is a huge burden for operators. One of the key ways that budget airlines have reduced fares is by using less popular/smaller airports. That doesn't really work for trains as everything still has to go down the same mainline before it branches off to Sierre or wherever. Some countries do have several operators running services on the same bit of track, but again it hasn't made much difference.

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

FTZ - indeed, that seems to be the research conclusion re diesel trains versus modern cars. Ferries are grim re CO2 and other emissions.

I've looked at a lot of the research on CO2 emissions of different modes of transport, and different analyses make different assumptions - and indeed often seem biased. Reaching sound conclusions is difficult but this is quite a good summary I think: Guardian 20 07 2007:

The report quotes Roger Kemp, professor of engineering at Lancaster University, in support of this statement. However, he disputes the claim. "No, actually that's completely untrue," he says. "France generates about 80% of its electricity using nuclear power, so if you wanted to go to the south of France, by far the best way to go is by TGV." But he goes on to say that plane travel is not always automatically the worst choice environmentally. "The worst way to get to the south of France is to take a car ferry then motorail, where you can end up with a diesel engine hauling a huge train with cars on wagons."

A full plane can sometimes compete with a car too. Paul Upham, a research fellow at the Tyndall Centre, calculated that travelling from Manchester to Guernsey on a full Saab 200 turbo-prop plane produced 103kg of carbon dioxide per person, compared with 226kg for a Nissan Micra carrying one person the same distance. He was quoted as concluding: "Planes aren't the evil things relative to cars that people imagine."

Ferries clearly cannot claim automatic green superiority. "I have to admit that I rather enjoy ferry travel," says Kemp. "But if you start to do the analysis of that, it starts to look rather unattractive too, because of the power used to move not only the people, but the cabin, space for their car, the bars, nightclubs, and so on. I don't think there's much in it between taking the plane and taking the ferry."

Analysing how modes of transport compare is fiendishly complex. Some trains are worse than others (faster trains consume up to four times as much energy, and diesels can emit more than twice the carbon dioxide of electric trains). Some high-speed ferries use double the fuel of conventional ships, making them several times worse than planes for carbon emissions. Ultimately, experts admit that given the right circumstances, any method of transport can be made to come out on top. On average, though, a car carrying several occupants is usually better than a plane and trains are almost always the best of all. The UK government's calculations suggest a long-haul plane emits 110g of carbon dioxide per passenger kilometre, a medium-sized car with two occupants the same, while the train emits 60g.

snow reports

The @foxtrotzulu, sorry didn't respond to your important reflections on the nature of the fixed infrastructure of the train system. Agree with your comments. Just a small detail, for us, Sierre is actually on the mainline from Paris to Milan, so the TGV goes from Paris to Sierre and then on to Italy. Which should be good, not least since the TGV trains frequently are half-empty as they pass. But the ticket prices are not good at all. Yes, planes just have relatively simple infrastructure at each end and then can use any permitted bit of sky. But in my criticism of the EU Commission I guess I am making the point that if the EU is bothered about emissions, and they say that they are, passing all sorts of regs in respect of passenger vehicles and aircraft, all of which is vastly costly, then they should consider the small issue of investment in higher tech rail, with the aim of pushing the volumes right up, and the costs right down. But I think rail has been seriously neglected - probably to do with the fact that when regulation hits the car and plane industry, the cost is born somewhat invisibly by customers, while rail is operating SO inefficiently that the immediate result would either be huge cost to taxpayer (HS2) or huge hike in prices of tickets in the short term (unpopular). So rail sits there moribund.

You know it makes sense.

@valais2, I agree with the vast majority of what you say above. I think the EU are serious about bringing down emissions, but they have to be serious about a great many things and it's the Devils own job to balance all these demands.

I understand that a great deal could be done to increase train density on any given line, but there are clearly limits. Most of them imposed by the infrastructure. If London to Birmingham was 12 tracks and the stations were doubled in size then competition could ensure maximum efficiency, but at what a cost. Building a small airport is peanuts by comparison. Fundamentally, I think most people prefer to travel by car than train. For me train would a be a pain. Drive to station, park car for the week and load suitcases onto train. Hopefully train is direct to Paddington. Trek across London to St P by underground or taxi. Train to wherever. Possibly changing once or twice. Unload at wherever and then car to resort. Regardless of cost it just doesn't make sense, and we are only 70 miles from London.

Trains are fundamental so inefficient (too much infrastructure, too many people) that I can't see how they could ever compete with rail travel effectively. I like the idea of a hyper loop. Perhaps one day you drive to your local station. Jump into your pre-booked pod. Just the four of you, perhaps. The pod then whisks you straight to the resort station having been programmed to change 'tracks' as necessary. Journey time of about 90 minutes Very Happy

Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:

@foxtrotzulu, ...now that's what I am talkin' about - vision. Bring on the hyper loop.

A snowHead

@foxtrotzulu, I am sure that will happen. It will happen first on motorways where the safety advantages of automatic speed regulation and the aerodynamic economies of regulated spacing will make it desirable. Then train technology and autonomous car technology will merge. Eventually the entire road network will be adapted to automatic control. I don't know what method of propulsion will be used. I might not live to see it. But I am pretty sure my grandchildren will live in such a world.

I think the attachment to owning your own vehicle, just to have your own space while travelling, is strong. So it is likely that road traffic will supplant rail traffic. Already you can see how the infrastructure can be made cheaper. I recently drove an up to date car, with lane departure warning, a rumble that was simulated through the speakers on one side, and realized that we did not need to lay down rumble strips, they could be simulated electronically; and then I thought, so could the lane markings, and road signs.

As for my environmental conscience, I have decided not to second guess the issues. I make my choices mainly on the basis of cost. People smarter than me have to adjust the costs, so that I make the best choices.

A snowHead

The train across France are electric so the carbon footprint would be very low, much lower than in the UK.

@foxtrotzulu, train signalling systems are indeed a fascinating area. Some modern lines such as the Docklands light Railway use moving block signalling where the trains "talk" to each and keep a respecful distance apart rather than fixed blocks which means any train enters the bloock no other train is permitted in. The blocks must be large enougth to permit the train to stop within it easily.

Help!!

Trains planes and automobiles - lowering carbon footprint?

snowHeads Forum Index >>> The Piste