geoffbeaumont Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 Has anyone been on the seminars run by Bio-Power, or know anyone else who has? If so, are they any good? As an aside, one of my lodgers is thinking about going down to London to the Campaign Against Climate Change rally weekend after next. I made a facetious comment about the irony of travelling down on a fossil fuelled train, which led to a bit of digging into the relative fuel efficiency of trains and cars... Rather alarmingly, considering we're all being told to use public transport to save the planet, there don't seem to be any published figures into how many passenger miles per gallon trains actually achieve - the nearest I could find was this research into US trains, written in 1998 but from research done in 1973, and only covering US trains between 1936 and 1963. It also makes it clear that the figures are rather difficult to calculate accurately due to the way the raw data is recorded. Anyway, headline figures; Passenger miles-per gallon peaked at 83 in 1945, but post war was around constantly around 40pmpg - 1950's and 60's figures, the latest in the set were 41pmpg. Note that these figures will be in US gallons, so corrected to UK measures 41pmpg becomes 49pmpg. It's also impossible to say how the differences between UK and US railways and rolling stock, newer technology, higher speeds and changing usage patterns affect these figures. However...it looks like a reasonably efficient modern diesel car with a single person it could be no worse than a train, and possibly even better, especially given that the car is running on cleaner fuel and will also travel directly from A to B, whereas the train journey is likely to involve additional transport at either end, therefore a greater distance travelled... Virtually any car - including a V8 Range Rover - with three people in it will at least match the train's fuel economy for extra-urban driving. Food for though... Passenger miles per gallon: Essentially, miles per gallon of diesel used by the train, divided by the number of passengers. The figures in the study are averaged over large data sets, so correct for situations such busy commuter trains going one way (very good pmpg), then having to return the other way virtually empty (very bad pmpg) and variations of capacity utilisation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonb Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 What you need for a real comparision is miles per gallon/per passenger or payload in kg/tonne vs distance travelled. The new version of the 747 due out in a few years is better than 100mpg per passenger for a 5000 mile journey. An A320 or 737 going from LHR to Paris will be a lot worse.. Also have to take into account co2 emissions. A train is still more efficent in terms of total fuel used to move 500 people than 500 people in 500 cars... There is a report from either Network Rail or the DTR which gives rail mpg/co2 for diesel and electric trains in the uk. It was in one of the railway mags a few months back. There was not much in it in terms of emissions between diesel and electric and overall "fuel" cost, but electric has higher capital cost. Both were considerably "better" than road. However trains are getting heavier in the UK due to aircon and increased safety features and structrual strength ( same as cars..) which is something the rail industry needs to keep an eye on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffbeaumont Posted October 25, 2006 Author Share Posted October 25, 2006 What you need for a real comparision is miles per gallon/per passenger or payload in kg/tonne vs distance travelled. Um....that's exactly what I was quoting... Not directly applicable figures, though. I would imagine a full train will always be considerably better than the equivalent number of single-occupancy cars, but you have to take into account that trains must be moved around often with very few passengers in order to get the capacity to where it's needed (unlike cars, which are generally pretty much where their owners are), so that needs to be taken into account. Looking at only a completely full train is like working the cars out based on them being fully occupied - it happens, but it's far from a realistic overall picture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonb Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 There is also a bigger picture here, trains often run at partial capacity as they are running a service for social needs. The commuting patterns of large cities also mean that a large number of seats need to be provided in the "peak" but are not needed for the rest of the day. There is also safety/accident stats to be looked at. If the million or so people who commute into London each day by train or tube went by road every day there would be a "large impact"...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffbeaumont Posted October 26, 2006 Author Share Posted October 26, 2006 There is also a bigger picture here, trains often run at partial capacity as they are running a service for social needs. The commuting patterns of large cities also mean that a large number of seats need to be provided in the "peak" but are not needed for the rest of the day. There is also safety/accident stats to be looked at. If the million or so people who commute into London each day by train or tube went by road every day there would be a "large impact"...... True - but even with the focus narrowed to just the impact on air pollution it's hard to get a clear picture. I was looking at it purely from the perspective that we're always being told that using public transport will save the planet - I'm not even saying it won't, just where's the evidence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill van snorkle Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 I believe that if everyone in Britain switched from public transport to private cars the country would grind to a halt due to traffic gridlock,but beyond the localised environmental impact of traffic congestion there would be little lasting impact on the overall environment.On Discovery channel the other night there was a program on the origins of life on earth. Scientists believe that life began in the most highly toxic, polluted conditions the earth has ever seen or will see again, short of an all out nuclear world war. Science can't have it both ways. If life began in that hostile environment I doubt it will be unduly affected by global warming, which they have now renamed ''climate change'' because the general public found out that global warming wasn't occurring. I believe climate change is part of a natural cycle of events that the earth goes through periodically, and that we humans have little affect. To claim otherwise I believe is a conspiracy between Government,Science and Big Oil to make us feel better about taking it up the ar$e every time we fill up our tanks, or pay our energy bills. Bill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turbocharger Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Geoff, don't know if this helps your calcs but the average number of people on the well-used bus system in London is around eight (well, our buses anyway) The biggest drag to this isn't the return journey for tidal flow - there's always peak loadings that will (should) fill the vehicle to capacity if our commercial boys have got their forecasts right. Our issue is that once we've made the peak vehicle requirement to achieve the service, say every six minutes in the peak, we've invested in that many vehicles so we might as well run them through the day, minus a few that head back to the workshop for maintenance. If fuel was more expensive (or the environment was a bigger issue for us!) we'd park them up and swallow the cost of sitting, watching it depreciate. I imagine the commercial issues are very similar for train operators (but with less latitude to alter their operations). John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
callum Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 I believe that if everyone in Britain switched from public transport to private cars the country would grind to a halt due to traffic gridlock,but beyond the localised environmental impact of traffic congestion there would be little lasting impact on the overall environment.On Discovery channel the other night there was a program on the origins of life on earth. Scientists believe that life began in the most highly toxic, polluted conditions the earth has ever seen or will see again, short of an all out nuclear world war. Science can't have it both ways. If life began in that hostile environment I doubt it will be unduly affected by global warming, which they have now renamed ''climate change'' because the general public found out that global warming wasn't occurring. I believe climate change is part of a natural cycle of events that the earth goes through periodically, and that we humans have little affect. To claim otherwise I believe is a conspiracy between Government,Science and Big Oil to make us feel better about taking it up the ar$e every time we fill up our tanks, or pay our energy bills.Bill. or feel good about ourselves by paying a tax to offset carbon. funny how governments can always solve the world's ills with a tax. they couldn't possibly give tax breaks to cleaner fuels, best to keep burning the bad stuff and tax it instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nas90 Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 I cannot see the point in taxing everyone. Are the politicians saying we will tax you to use your car / train / aircraft and then where do they use the tax? Less roads more public transport? With the modern day European family winter holiday sking and summer holidaying in the sun using air travel will they pay-up extra tax and continue their holidays or everyone stay at home and Ryan Air and the likes go-bust? There was a report saying that 75% of the freight traffic on our roads is carrying food, so road tax the likes of Tesco and Sainsbury and our food prices increase but their profits continue? Tax the big power generators for pumping CO2 into the atmosphere and the cost of heating goes up and 5 million pensioners die. I do not believe that the politicians have thought this one through, same as they thought through the chaos in Iraq, until we all take the situation seriously and change our life-styles with a climate change tax the only ones to suffer will be those that are on low incomes! <end of rant> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GBMUD Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 I would be happy to be able to buy British food. I spent the whole of the summer trying to buy British tomatoes in Tesco. Lots from Holland, Poland, Spain and the Canaries, almost none from the UK - other than organic or "Finest" - no standard toms. Gits, not only are we travelling but we are being forced to buy food which has come half way round the world. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRecklessEngineer Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 I wouldnt touch a bio-power seminar. Bio-power fuel is waste veggy oil with a solvent thrown in. This can cause serious long term problems to any Direct Injection engine (piston ring gumming, polymerisation of sump oil), and any engine with a lucas injection pump (2.25, 2.5 and 2.5TD) will fail catastrophically with the seizure of the rotor head within the pump due to reduced lubrication (the fuel is thicker than diesel, therefore cant lubricate correctely) John Nicholson (head of bio-power) is a very assertive chap and whilst in a lot of ways he means well, he can/is doing as much harm as he is good. In his favour, he has managed to help beat HMCE into taking veggy oil at the reduced tax rate. Have a look here: http://www.vegetableoildiesel.co.uk/forum/...d=1782#pid12141 The forum itself is a very valuble source of info for running a car on veggy and biodiesel. There is even a post in the archive section relating specifically to land rovers... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffbeaumont Posted October 31, 2006 Author Share Posted October 31, 2006 I wouldnt touch a bio-power seminar. Bio-power fuel is waste veggy oil with a solvent thrown in. This can cause serious long term problems to any Direct Injection engine (piston ring gumming, polymerisation of sump oil), and any engine with a lucas injection pump (2.25, 2.5 and 2.5TD) will fail catastrophically with the seizure of the rotor head within the pump due to reduced lubrication (the fuel is thicker than diesel, therefore cant lubricate correctely)John Nicholson (head of bio-power) is a very assertive chap and whilst in a lot of ways he means well, he can/is doing as much harm as he is good. In his favour, he has managed to help beat HMCE into taking veggy oil at the reduced tax rate. Have a look here: http://www.vegetableoildiesel.co.uk/forum/...d=1782#pid12141 The forum itself is a very valuble source of info for running a car on veggy and biodiesel. There is even a post in the archive section relating specifically to land rovers... Cheers - I'll give that a miss then... On the face of it his 'recipe' makes good environmental sense, at least. There had to be a reason no one else was doing it, though... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.