Safe Speed Forums

Not safety related but, if true, another blow for the motoring-always-bad
ideology. Isn't Begg is a proponent of the twenty odd billion pound
London-Edinburgh rail link?

Link to the telegraph here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... wstop.html

Cars are more fuel-efficient than trains, claims study
By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
(Filed: 21/06/2004)


Encouraging travellers to switch from cars and airlines to inter-city trains brings no benefits for the environment, new research has concluded.



Challenging assumptions about railways' green superiority, the study finds that the weight and fuel requirements of trains have increased to the point where rail could become the least energy-efficient form of transport.

Engineers at Lancaster University said trains had failed to keep up with the motor and aviation industries in reducing fuel needs.

They calculate that expresses between London and Edinburgh consume slightly more fuel per seat (the equivalent of 11.5 litres) than a modern diesel-powered car making the same journey.

The car's superiority rises dramatically when compared with trains travelling at up to 215mph.

The Government is considering such a railway to provide extra north-south capacity in the next decade.

Assuming the continuing dominance of fossil fuel-based electricity, the study indicates that suitable French-style rolling-stock would require twice as much fuel per seat as a Volkswagen Passat, and more than a short-haul aircraft.

Prof Roger Kemp, who led the research, said that in its efforts to improve performance after privatisation, the rail industry had "taken its eye off the ball" environmentally.

Virgin's SuperVoyager rolling-stock is estimated to be 40 per cent heavier per seat than the ageing 125s it replaced.

Tilting Pendolino trains, due to come into full operation between London and Manchester in the autumn, are reckoned to weigh more per seat than the forthcoming Airbus A380 double-decker.

Roger Ford, of Modern Railways magazine, said one reason for declining energy efficiency was the impact of health and safety and disability access regulations.

The introduction of crumple zones, disabled lavatories and seating rules for trains travelling over 100mph had added weight and reduced capacity.

"I know this will generate howls of protest, but at present a family of four going by car is about as environmentally friendly as you can get."



The research casts doubt on the Government's conviction that boosting inter-city rail travel will help it meet its environmental targets.

It also undermines the case of those who oppose airport expansion in favour of improved high-speed rail links.

Friends of The Earth expressed surprise at the findings, which it said were not in line with previous studies.

Tony Bosworth, its transport campaigner, said: "Cars cause congestion, disrupt communities and are much less safe than trains.

"The main problem is not long-distance travel but the 25 per cent of car journeys which are less than two miles. Those are the least efficient and often the most polluting."

Friends of the Earth should be aware that diesel motors, unlike petrol, require no warm-up time to become efficient, so diesel cars ARE efficient for short journeys - and much more so than empty suburban buses.

_________________
Alan Wilkinson (at http://www.fastandsafe.org)

Does anyone else find the idea of crumple zones on trains a tad optimistic? What exactly are they expecting to hit for crying out loud?

Always wondered why there are seatbelts on planes yet not on trains as well...

Probably industry and/or political response to public worrying about safety after Ladbroke Grove, Potters Bar etc. Got to shut a stable door after the horse has done a runner, but not fussed if it's even the right door. Activity is more important that accomplishment.
Never figured out why planes have seatbelts either. It's not like they'll save your life if the whole shooting match drops out of the sky and hits the ground at 400 knots. Not too convinced that the 'crash position' would help much either. But if you've got to spend several hours at altitude trapped in a metal tube with 300 people's farts floating around you, they could at least have the decency to leave those oxygen masks out all the time!

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

I think they're to prevent people from being sucked out of a window in the case of an explosive decompression. Not sure that said decompressions are all that common though, the windows being small, triple glazed and incredibly tough. But it has happened. It'd be a nasty way to come to your end!



Every airline seems to have its own 'crash' or 'brace' position. A study was done into it a few years ago and it turned out that many of them were actually downright dangerous, leading to increase risk of broken bones! A 'correct' brace position was reccommended, but I don't think its been adopted as an industry standard. The only time I can see it's going to help is if you have to make a crash landing.. Certainly wouldn't be much use if you blew up at 40,000 ft

_________________
-mike[F]
Caught in the rush of the crowd, lost in a wall of sound..

The Royal Air Force, as it was Transport Command, VC10's had an excellent crash position, as you sat facing the tail, all you had to do was lean back into your seat.
Why do people insist they have to sit facing forwards, after all it isn't as though you can see where you are going.
Oh Yes, they had proper strength floors that had a chance of stopping seat breakaway, unlike out present passenger aircraft that don't

_________________
Semper in excreta, nur quantitat variat.

Yeah I think most forces transports have you facing backwards. Not sure, but I remember hearing something like that. Still not much use in a mid-air collision though

_________________
-mike[F]
Caught in the rush of the crowd, lost in a wall of sound..

Sounds good to me... I always prefer sitting with my back to the engine on a train; why not on a plane too?


Kaz

Someone asked about airline seatbelts. True enough it seems odd, but the main reason they get you to keep them on whilst in the cruise is in case of turbulence. Some passengers were killed a few years ago due to a sudden turbulence occurrence in a large passenger jet. People were thrown around in the cabin, although plane was ok - think it was things like broken necks... Passengers were milling about queuing for the loo and so on, I think it may have been a Japanese airline, but it can happen to any, very suddenly. 'Clear air turbulence' is what they call it, apparently, but I'm no expert and could be mistaken. Boring myself now.... Anyway I always keep keep the seatbelt on-just in case.

In the early years of railways, in a crash, coaches would "telescope" into each other, the heavy chassis of one riding up above the other and demolishing the light bodywork, with predictable carnage.

Then they made the ends of coaches so solid that this was prevented, but the result was that in an impact the coaches would tend to jack-knife, and spill over adjacent tracks.

So eventually they arrived at crumple zones, which hopefully in the event of a crash will allow coaches to stay on their own track and remain relatively upright.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed