Caledonian Sleeper

[Bletchleyite]

However I would expect that the particular emmisions for brakes, tyres and road wear would be much higher for EVs because they weigh a lot more.

For brakes you'd be wrong, because EVs use regen.

 

[option]

However I would expect that the particular emmisions for brakes, tyres and road wear would be much higher for EVs because they weigh a lot more.

Newest Tesla, the Model Y, weighs 1780kg. It's a 'Compact crossover SUV'. Biggest selling one of those is the Toyota RAV4, which weighs ~1720kg.
The Model 3 weighs about the same as a BMW 3series.


As said by Bletchleyite, EVs use regen braking first, so a lot less brake wear.
Tyre manufacturers are working on reducing tyre wear/particles.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Aug 2021 ==

Trying to get back on topic, a Luton to Glasgow flight will cause 130kg CO2e per passenger. A hire car with ICE will use about 10 litres of fuel, so another 26kg CO2e.

I wonder how much CO2e the sleeper emits between Edinburgh and Fort William per passenger for its 60 or so passengers in high season? I’d bet there’s not much in it. And in low season, flying will be better.

It's not just about the amount of CO2 emitted, what also matters is where. There are also non-CO2 emissions that are a concern. https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-challenge-tackling-aviations-non-co2-emissions

 

[najaB]

That's a flawed argument. It would apply if you were going to scrap the car. However, if you have an "existing car that works" you aren't going to scrap it, you are going to sell it. And someone will buy it and sell their older one, and so on down the chain until a very old, no doubt highly polluting and barely functional old car is scrapped.

If only that were the case. Quite often cars bought by dealers are just scrapped as its not worth the effort to try and sell them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If only that were the case.

It mostly is.

Quite often cars bought by dealers are just scrapped as its not worth the effort to try and sell them.

More often they offload them to auctioneers, sometimes in bulk.

 

[najaB]

It mostly is.



More often they offload them to auctioneers, sometimes in bulk.

I suppose it varies depending on market conditions, but were definitely a lot of relatively new cars going to scrap fairly recently. I just had a look and it seems that the pandemic has resulted in more, older vehicles (average age of a UK vehicle has increased to 8.4 years) but even then we're not talking about "very old, highly polluting" vehicles being the ones going to scrap, there will be a lot of relatively new ones as well. Up until 2019-ish the average age was only something like six and a bit years old.

 

[Mike395]

Whilst the discussion on EVs is interesting, please can this be continued in a new thread in General Discussion, as we're getting a bit off-topic here. Thank you!

 

[paul1609]

Newest Tesla, the Model Y, weighs 1780kg. It's a 'Compact crossover SUV'. Biggest selling one of those is the Toyota RAV4, which weighs ~1720kg.
The Model 3 weighs about the same as a BMW 3series.

Sorry but I'm afraid you're being taken in by the manufacturers green washing.
Taking your first example using the official EU figures the Tesla Y has an unladen weight of 2003 kg the RAV 4 with a petrol engine and manual gearbox is 1537 Kg the weight you quote is probably for the hybrid model. Adding a third of the weight is a good rough average for the difference between Petrol Manual and EV.

 

[haggishunter]

On the comparison between the sleeper on the West Highland Line vs flying, the aviation option has more impact per unit of co2 emitted because of the altitude it’s emitted at. Obviously you can’t fly to Fort William either.

This might be a completely stupid question, but could (or at least would be practicable to make the required mods) a class 73 on front not providing power control a class 92 on the rear so the 92 could push the WHL sleeper to Craigendoran detach and avoid the 73 powering under the wires?

 

[paul1609]

On the comparison between the sleeper on the West Highland Line vs flying, the aviation option has more impact per unit of co2 emitted because of the altitude it’s emitted at. Obviously you can’t fly to Fort William either.

This might be a completely stupid question, but could (or at least would be practicable to make the required mods) a class 73 on front not providing power control a class 92 on the rear so the 92 could push the WHL sleeper to Craigendoran detach and avoid the 73 powering under the wires?

I doubt the North Clyde Electrification can power a Class 92. On AC the locos rated at 5MW that's the equivalent of a 20 coach 385 train.

 

[najaB]

I doubt the North Clyde Electrification can power a Class 92. On AC the locos rated at 5MW that's the equivalent of a 20 coach 385 train.

While it's rated at 5WM it's not going to be drawing anything close to that. Going by Wikipedia, the Class 73/9 is rated at 1.9MW on diesel so it would be the same or less than that.

 

[Falcon1200]

This might be a completely stupid question, but could (or at least would be practicable to make the required mods) a class 73 on front not providing power control a class 92 on the rear so the 92 could push the WHL sleeper to Craigendoran detach and avoid the 73 powering under the wires?

Sounds a lovely idea, and would give the opportunity of Class 92 haulage between Edinburgh or Queen St and Craigendoran ! However sorry to be negative but what would happen to the 92 at Craigendoran; If returning LE to Edinburgh (and back to Craigendoran later) the environmental benefit might be minimal, plus of course additional traincrew would be required. Now, if an improved (on diesel) Class 88 variant was available.......

 

[paul1609]

While it's rated at 5WM it's not going to be drawing anything close to that. Going by Wikipedia, the Class 73/9 is rated at 1.9MW on diesel so it would be the same or less than that.

Whilst the train wouldn't need 5MW on the sleeper I think the issue is that transformer in rush when the pan goes up amongst other things may be seen as a fault by the electrification systems protection and signalling systems. I don't think Class 92s have universal clearance on all ac lines (but i could be wrong). Wasn't there an issue with 92s tripping the supply at Preston when they were first used on the sleeper?

 

[185143]

Whilst the train wouldn't need 5MW on the sleeper I think the issue is that transformer in rush when the pan goes up amongst other things may be seen as a fault by the electrification systems protection and signalling systems. I don't think Class 92s have universal clearance on all ac lines (but i could be wrong). Wasn't there an issue with 92s tripping the supply at Preston when they were first used on the sleeper?

I'm not sure exactly what the issue was, but it was caused by 331s being in the area with pans up. As such, there is now a limit to the amount of 331s that can be panned up stabled at Preston.

 

[D6130]

Now, if an improved (on diesel) Class 88 variant was available.......

There is....it is - or will be - called the class 93. Unfortunately it's been ordered by the wrong company in this particular case, but contracts can change over time.

 

[Bald Rick]

You have made me think. How about comparing the Carbon footprint of London to Glasgow by day-train, sleeper-train, coach, car and plane. After all the bit Northwards to Fort Wiliam is a different set of choices.

You have them in the correct order! Unless the day train is a double voyager, which quite a few are.

 

[HST274]

Southbound fort William delayed 73 mins at Rannoch. Wonder what happened there!!!

 

[Nova1]

No food or drink onboard tonight (again), and of course no prior communication.

And passengers turned up expecting lounge access at Edinburgh but instead got nothing due to "staff shortages"

 

[Merseysider]

“Apologies for the inconvenience” sounds so impersonal and almost dismissive to me. It goes back to the earlier comment someone made about communication - if they’d told customers passengers guests in advance about the lounge closure I doubt too many would have minded - it isn’t itself a big deal - plenty of fine pubs nearby for example.

 

[najaB]

No food or drink onboard tonight (again), and of course no prior communication.

And passengers turned up expecting lounge access at Edinburgh but instead got nothing due to "staff shortages"

View attachment 101672

Who staffs the lounge in the evening - CS or GR?

 

[Bill57p9]

Southbound fort William delayed 73 mins at Rannoch. Wonder what happened there!!!

Looking at RTT, it arrived Rannoch 74 late, however the ScotRail service it crosses there left at 2116 so presumably the sleeper was delayed at Tulloch (RTT shows arrival on time but departure not recorded).

Still the Highlander arrived at Euston only 18 late, so a decent recovery.

 

[paul1609]

You have them in the correct order! Unless the day train is a double voyager, which quite a few are.

I think both Megabus and Tesla would complain about that statement with some justification.
If you include whole railway infrastructure carbon costs I suspect the aviation will be a lot closer to rail than many people claim.

 

[Highlandspring]

Looking at RTT, it arrived Rannoch 74 late, however the ScotRail service it crosses there left at 2116 so presumably the sleeper was delayed at Tulloch (RTT shows arrival on time but departure not recorded).

73968 had ETH problems at Tulloch and was stopped on arrival at Craigentinny.

 

[Berliner]

I think both Megabus and Tesla would complain about that statement with some justification.
If you include whole railway infrastructure carbon costs I suspect the aviation will be a lot closer to rail than many people claim.

If you included the whole cost for the railway then you'd need to include the whole cost for every other mode too. If you're comparing all of that then you may as well compare the carbon cost of a hotel stay with a flight/car/bus/day train and the sleeper where the carbon from the hotel wouldn't be included.

How far down do you go? The employees of the said modes of transport are needed to run it, so you account for thier commute?

 

[35B]

If you included the whole cost for the railway then you'd need to include the whole cost for every other mode too. If you're comparing all of that then you may as well compare the carbon cost of a hotel stay with a flight/car/bus/day train and the sleeper where the carbon from the hotel wouldn't be included.

How far down do you go? The employees of the said modes of transport are needed to run it, so you account for thier commute?

Yes - which is what firms who take carbon accounting seriously are starting to do. There's a lot of averaging involved, and quite a few assumptions required to make the data manageable, but it's an activity that is already well underway.

 

[55002]

73968 had ETH problems at Tulloch and was stopped on arrival at Craigentinny.

Did the 66 work back on its own?

 

[paul1609]

If you included the whole cost for the railway then you'd need to include the whole cost for every other mode too. If you're comparing all of that then you may as well compare the carbon cost of a hotel stay with a flight/car/bus/day train and the sleeper where the carbon from the hotel wouldn't be included.

How far down do you go? The employees of the said modes of transport are needed to run it, so you account for thier commute?

Indeed, but I would suggest that as distance increases the carbon advantage of rail decreases, this will especially be so for the low passenger number lines in Scotland and elsewhere which I imagine are carbon basket cases.

 

[JonathanH]

Did the 66 work back on its own?

No. That isn't possible. Aberdeen empties didn't run.

RTT shows
66740+73967 to Fort William
66789+73971 to Inverness
Aberdeen cancelled

 

[Berliner]

Indeed, but I would suggest that as distance increases the carbon advantage of rail decreases, this will especially be so for the low passenger number lines in Scotland and elsewhere which I imagine are carbon basket cases.

True, so we have to realistic and accept that there will sometimes always be a higher carbon cost, but that's the price we pay for living Inna country with remote communities located on scattered islands, on the far side of peninsulas or mountain valleys, etc. Well, until we either electrify the whole railway network or invent some battery/solar/hydro powered trains that have the power capabilities needed for the terrain.and the distance.

We can't just cut people off and say thier place of abode or the place they do business or the place they wish to holiday is no longer compatible with modern life. It should not be a case of restricting ourselves to cut carbon, but more how can we continue to enjoy what we do now and have less of an impact. It does concern me that most of the green brigade talk about restrictions in the future rather eagerly and don't seem to put much thought into how we can develop tech to help us maintain what we have now. You'd think people would be sick of restrictions telling you where you can and cannot go after the last 18 months, but it seems some (not saying you do) see that as a good model.

 

[najaB]

Indeed, but I would suggest that as distance increases the carbon advantage of rail decreases, this will especially be so for the low passenger number lines in Scotland and elsewhere which I imagine are carbon basket cases.

ALARP. The principle that should guide our transition to a low-carbon economy.

 

[55002]

No. That isn't possible. Aberdeen empties didn't run.

RTT shows
66740+73967 to Fort William
66789+73971 to Inverness
Aberdeen cancelled

Ah yes forgot RTT would have been my friend, cheers