Fact? What’s your evidence for that, please.
Well, the likes of the class 220, 221 and 222 have computer engine management that help to make sure that they are more fuel efficient than say an HST that yes was re - engined back in the late 1990's to 2000, but even with that re - engine I believe that there still was not any computer management added?
Also, if you look at sites such as
https://www.quora.com/Is-an-Interci...ctive-than-a-DMU-If-yes-is-the-difference-big you get a few replies such as:
"An Intercity 125 train, also known as a High Speed Train (HST), is less fuel-effective than a Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU). The difference in fuel efficiency between the two types of trains can be significant. According to data from the UK's National Rail, HSTs have a fuel consumption rate of around 3.16 liters per 100 kilometers, while DMUs have a rate of around 2.5 liters per 100 kilometers. This means that a DMU would consume around 20% less fuel per 100 kilometers compared to an HST. Keep in mind that these figures may vary depending on the specific models of trains and the conditions under which they operate."
"Since I have been operating locomotives and trains for a living on a daily basis for over 25 years, and have to regularly check the fuel readings on the locomotive fuel tanks, I have a good idea of how much fuel they burn each day depending upon the tonnage being hauled and the work being done in a typical day.
The four axle low horsepower locomotives that I operate on local and switching jobs typically burn around 100 gallons of diesel fuel every 24 hours, if running for an entire 24 hour day, this is with some heavy pulling and with just idling. It seldom deviates from that amount.
The big road units like an EMD SD70 for example, burn more fuel due to heavy pulling of loaded trains during the entire day, However, it is subjective, I took over a train from another engineer with 10,000 tons of weight back when the railroads first started to pay more attention to fuel conservation.
He had operated the train for 130 miles on virtually flat, level grades for 8 hours, and burned 900 gallons of fuel using only one locomotive of the four available on the train. I had some hills to climb on my run, and used two of the locomotives pulling the train, and only burned 600 total gallons of fuel, 300 gallons per locomotive to cover the same distance, in about the same amount of time.
This proved the fallacy of the railroad’s fuel conservation plan of using fewer locomotives to pull loaded trains, since one locomotive burned 1/3 more fuel than two identical locomotives pulling the same train for the same distance, and same amount of time. The reason being that the single locomotive was operating at much higher throttle settings than the two locomotives required for the trip.
Newer locomotives have become more fuel efficient through computer engine management systems, and trip optimization systems designed for fuel savings and would only burn around 500 gallons of fuel per locomotive on a typical trip verses 750 gallons on older locomotives, again depending upon the tonnage being hauled and the grades encountered during the trip."
Yes, it is depends on whether the HST engines are hauling 3, 4 or 8 coach trains with more coaches consuming more fuel. But if we take the XC HST sets, they are 7 coach trains.
You also have the comments within the thread
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/hst-fuel-consumption.202463/ where you have the comment from
@GLC where the following comparison was found:
Overall then:
5364hp HST: 944L/h
1266hp 170: 225.3L/h
I have not been able to find comparisons between HST 4 coach or say a class 221 either in these forums or anywhere in the Internet. The only place that I have found is
https://www.atob.org.uk/are-trains-really-green/ which says that HST trains are more fuel efficient, but does not state any figures or over what distance either trains where measured. It just says that the Voyager trains being 40% more heavier are less fuel efficient.
If the above is the case that would mean that my 16 year old Honda Civic 1.8i is more efficient than my Mum's 67 reg Hyundai I20 1.6, which can actually do more miles per gallon than my Honda Civic can, even though the Hyundai has a smaller fuel tank.
If you have true details of both HST 7-car and class 221 travelling over 200 miles, as to what fuel usage they have used I would love to read and be proved wrong. But when there has been comments even from GWR that it would be more fuel efficient to be running their IET trains in place of the Castle sets between Penzance and Cardiff, then what else is the public meant to believe?
