Tim Worstall

Michael Palin on Transport.

Michael Palin on CO2, cars and the like:

But as fast as car commuting schemes are
cutting private car journeys, the ever-increasing numbers of shopping
malls and out-of-town retail parks are increasing them. We live in a
country that gets steamed up about increased fuel prices yet has the
highest proportion of four-wheel-drive SUVs in Europe. Do people just
not make the connection? I would advise the owners of some of the great
tanks that I see toiling up to the 132- metre summit of Highgate Hill
in London to send them to Pakistan, where they’re actually needed, and
take a bus instead.

Commercial sense and common sense demand continuing and
generous investment to increase the capacity of the railways. Longer,
more frequent trains, longer platforms, more user-friendly and
well-staffed stations, and continued improvements in signalling, will
pay off handsomely, both commercially and environmentally.

One small fact that rather harms this idea. With the dual developments of larger and heavier trains and smaller and lighter cars with higher fuel efficiency, cars now emit less CO2 per mile travelled per passenger than trains do. Yes, really, trains emit more.

Which brings me to the development of clean,
fuel-efficient, environmentally friendly vehicles. I can’t believe
we’re taking so long to get round to this. Could it be that the
internal combustion engine has hypnotised us all for so long that it
will require not only engineering expertise but also the creation of a
whole new mindset to come up with effective and commercial alternatives?

Lots of people working on it. Lots of money being spent. In fact, (I think this is true) the largest investor in Ballard Systems, which is struggling to make fuel cells viable, is GM. The sad truth is that engineering takes time, we cannot simply wish for something to appear.

In

11 responses

  1. Tim Newman Avatar
    Tim Newman

    Yeah, engineering takes time and they don’t pay us enough.

    Reply
  2. Rub-a-dub Avatar
    Rub-a-dub

    No-one doubts that a big heavy train emits more per mile than a car. Do you mean per mile per person?
    If so, there’s an interesting parallel to high-intensity computing, where it is now much cheaper to link together a huge number of PC’s (a very competitive market with huge sums invested in research) rather than buy a specialist supercomputer to do the same job.
    Tim adds: The latter and that is an interesting analogy, hadn’t thought of it that way.

    Reply
  3. Rub-a-dub Avatar
    Rub-a-dub

    Oops, missed where you said per passenger!

    Reply
  4. embutler Avatar
    embutler

    certainly was astonished to find out that trains use more co2 per mile per passenger ..
    have you told her majesty’s government..
    they might be surprised
    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds04/text/40705w04.htm
    Tim adds: It is indeed a surprising number:
    http://timworstall.typepad.com/timworstall/2004/06/planes_trains_a.html
    “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. ”

    Reply
  5. embutler Avatar
    embutler

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds04/text/40705w04.htm

    Reply
  6. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    I don’t think the link is very conclusive on whether trains produce more CO2 per passenger than cars. For a start it is per seat, so you would need to know the average capacity utilisation.
    You would also need to know how a VW diesel Passat compares with the average car (I imagine it’s rather better) and how short distances affect the levels.
    These could all work both ways, but having a full VW Passat travelling a long distance is probably biasing it towards the car.

    Reply
  7. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    Actually there’s an interesting discussion of te train and car CO2 emissions by the Telegraph-quoted scientist.
    http://www.engineering.lancs.ac.uk/research/download/Transport%20Energy%20Consumption%20Discussion%20Paper.pdf
    It depends is the shorter version.
    Tim adds: I had a version of that paper somewhere around actually, forgot to link it.
    But yes, I agree, it’s all a little extreme and ït depends” is the right answer. But that does mean that Palin’s “Build more trains now!” isn’t the solution either.

    Reply
  8. embutler Avatar
    embutler

    mathew: they did it with typical passenger loads as you can see they have 1 and a fraction car passengers
    cramming 4 to the car would probably make the car a better user of fossil fuels
    a car is certainly more convenient

    Reply
  9. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    No, you’re wrong. It’s per seat, no mention of passenger numbers in the original study. The report I linked to makes some points about this and how it affects the comparision.

    Reply
  10. Rob Read Avatar
    Rob Read

    Did they remember to include the Taxi ride at the end of the train journey?

    Reply
  11. George Avatar
    George

    My apologies for the long post:
    The concept of cars being more developed does seem to side-step one fairly obvious conclusion: develop trains further. It is quite likely that simply transferring existing technology developed for cars to trains will swing the balance dramatically. Ultimately, well-designed trains experience far fewer frictional losses per passenger than a cars do.
    As for actual utilisation of seats, surely that really isn’t a fair comparison. Firstly, if the train network were cheaper and more developed, utilisation would be greater. Secondly, saying a fully loaded passat is more efficient, though true, misses the point. Most cars on the road are commuting, with one passenger. Car shares are wonderful idea, but people are far more amenable to sharing a train than their own precious fortress on wheels.
    Another factor, certainly applicable to the UK, is traffic. Traffic is worsening despite any counter-measures, as it worsens so to does the case for the car. Currently, most road building schemes fail to reduce traffic levels to less than those before construction started. The current rail network operates at less than capacity (based on the fact that more frequent train services exsted before Beeching). For local traffic to ever be reduced, people will have to leave cars.
    It should also be noted, that the impact of cars upon the environment is not solely due to tailpipe emission. The material used per seat per mile, is far greater in cars. Vast amounts of carbon dioxide are released in the manufacture of cars and also in disposing of them at the end of their life. Road building and maintenance is heaviliy reliant upon concrete production – an industry which produceds more carbon dioxide than other. Whereas concrete is also needed by the rail network, far less is used in creating two tracks on a new route than for adding an extra lane to a motorway in order to increase its capacity.
    One final failure of the comparison, is that cars and trains are not equivalent modes of transport. Trains are designed lond-distance, high-speed travel – try comparing the efficiency of a domestic flight to the same train journey. Cars are designed for convienence. They cannot compete either in terms of safety or efficiency with trains at high speeds. With a well developed transport network, the final short leg of a journey should ideally by made by bicycle or on foot. It is actually possible to walk for more than 5 minutes. Or if your bags are too heavy, use a bus. Yes cars do provide a door-to-door solution, but so does a fully integrated transport system of which trains should form a valuable part.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Tim Worstall

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading