Electrification of GWML: some uncomfortable truths

[thegrich37423]

Many of you have supported the latest incentive to electrify part of the Great Western Main Line. In theory, this will provide a complete, western, electric rail corridor for the first time between Paddington and destinations in South Wales and South West England. As usual however, the Department for Transport, and the government, have failed to provide key and crucial information in why they are determined to get the project completed so quickly, and more importantly, why they feel the time is right to electrify a route which hasn't seen OHLE west of Airport Junction ever in its history. These facts have evidence and proof which are available on request:
Firstly, there's the climate change/global warming problem. Many MPs believe that the Earth will face catastrophe on a global scale by the year 2050, again, this is backed up by flawless evidence. By reducing our carbon emissions, the 2050 catastrophe can be postponed another 250 years, based on the latest scientific model which hypothesises what could happen if we offset our carbon emissions by a certain percentage. The key ingredient in ensuring this is cutting down on our reliability of non-renewable energy sources such as coal, oil, gas etc. Diesel, of course, is in the line of fire here, and whilst major countries such as China and the USA are the culprits in ensuring we have a steady stream of carbon dioxide being pumped into the atmosphere every second due to their high usage of diesel and their high reliability on non-renewable energy sources, we are third in the list of developing countries contributing significantly to climate change. The Department of Transport has therefore identified 2 causes of the high amount of carbon emissions produced by the UK: road traffic and rail traffic which use diesels as their prime locomotion. Therefore, the most cost-effective solution is to electrify part of the UK's rail network. But hang on, if the other culprit responsible for the large amount of carbon being pumped into the atmosphere is the car/lorry/van, why aren't the government investing massively in electric road haulage, or electric cars? It's simple: the electrification of the GWML will have NO effect whatsoever in reducing our carbon emissions. It's yet another expensive way of solving a non-existent problem which will do nothing but cause misery for the travelling public.
Second, is the HST. The MTU engine is designed to give the HST locomotive(locomotives, NOT power cars) an extra lease of life. What the government and designers failed to tell Joe Public is that the MTU is built on a system which uses compressed air, forcing more power into the engine and therefore utilising more diesel whenever the locomotive accelerates and even decelerates. Instead of coming up with an engine which they claim is greener and extends the longevity of the HST locomotive, the MTU actually increases the locomotive's carbon footprint and REDUCES significantly, the lifespan of the engine due to the compressed air intake. There therefore is no need to invest in electric locomotion whatsoever as the problem lies with the MTU engine and its design. But the government realise this, and chose to ignore the design flaws, claiming that the AGE of the HST locomotive is reason enough for moving forward into electric traction. The age of the HST is irrelevant, since shortcomings due to its long life can easily be fixed using systems which don't have flaws. Clearly, this is not solved by continuing to invest in MTU technology.
Thirdly, there's the geography of the GWML. Beyond Didcot at least, the route passes through significant cuttings and prohibitive gradients. And then there's Bristol. Inner city geography is one full of complex topography and difficult terrain. The planning of electrification around these areas need to take these things into account. It isn't as simple as putting in some gantries etc. There is the human factor, the environmental factor for one thing. But since the geography of the GWML involves passing through at least 3 inner city geographical zones, how will placing gantries in these areas lessen the impact to the environment? It won't. Again, the government and the DfT realise this but choose to make the information private. There is no sign of public studies done to assess the impact to the public in places such as Bristol. Instead, the government have assumed that such areas will benefit from the electrification in the long term, but failing to take into account the short term problems and flaws.

Some uncomfortable truths.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Many of you have supported the latest incentive to electrify part of the Great Western Main Line. In theory, this will provide a complete, western, electric rail corridor for the first time between Paddington and destinations in South Wales and South West England. As usual however, the Department for Transport, and the government, have failed to provide key and crucial information in why they are determined to get the project completed so quickly, and more importantly, why they feel the time is right to electrify a route which hasn't seen OHLE west of Airport Junction ever in its history. These facts have evidence and proof which are available on request:
Firstly, there's the climate change/global warming problem. Many MPs believe that the Earth will face catastrophe on a global scale by the year 2050, again, this is backed up by flawless evidence. By reducing our carbon emissions, the 2050 catastrophe can be postponed another 250 years, based on the latest scientific model which hypothesises what could happen if we offset our carbon emissions by a certain percentage. The key ingredient in ensuring this is cutting down on our reliability of non-renewable energy sources such as coal, oil, gas etc. Diesel, of course, is in the line of fire here, and whilst major countries such as China and the USA are the culprits in ensuring we have a steady stream of carbon dioxide being pumped into the atmosphere every second due to their high usage of diesel and their high reliability on non-renewable energy sources, we are third in the list of developing countries contributing significantly to climate change. The Department of Transport has therefore identified 2 causes of the high amount of carbon emissions produced by the UK: road traffic and rail traffic which use diesels as their prime locomotion. Therefore, the most cost-effective solution is to electrify part of the UK's rail network. But hang on, if the other culprit responsible for the large amount of carbon being pumped into the atmosphere is the car/lorry/van, why aren't the government investing massively in electric road haulage, or electric cars? It's simple: the electrification of the GWML will have NO effect whatsoever in reducing our carbon emissions. It's yet another expensive way of solving a non-existent problem which will do nothing but cause misery for the travelling public.
Second, is the HST. The MTU engine is designed to give the HST locomotive(locomotives, NOT power cars) an extra lease of life. What the government and designers failed to tell Joe Public is that the MTU is built on a system which uses compressed air, forcing more power into the engine and therefore utilising more diesel whenever the locomotive accelerates and even decelerates. Instead of coming up with an engine which they claim is greener and extends the longevity of the HST locomotive, the MTU actually increases the locomotive's carbon footprint and REDUCES significantly, the lifespan of the engine due to the compressed air intake. There therefore is no need to invest in electric locomotion whatsoever as the problem lies with the MTU engine and its design. But the government realise this, and chose to ignore the design flaws, claiming that the AGE of the HST locomotive is reason enough for moving forward into electric traction. The age of the HST is irrelevant, since shortcomings due to its long life can easily be fixed using systems which don't have flaws. Clearly, this is not solved by continuing to invest in MTU technology.
Thirdly, there's the geography of the GWML. Beyond Didcot at least, the route passes through significant cuttings and prohibitive gradients. And then there's Bristol. Inner city geography is one full of complex topography and difficult terrain. The planning of electrification around these areas need to take these things into account. It isn't as simple as putting in some gantries etc. There is the human factor, the environmental factor for one thing. But since the geography of the GWML involves passing through at least 3 inner city geographical zones, how will placing gantries in these areas lessen the impact to the environment? It won't. Again, the government and the DfT realise this but choose to make the information private. There is no sign of public studies done to assess the impact to the public in places such as Bristol. Instead, the government have assumed that such areas will benefit from the electrification in the long term, but failing to take into account the short term problems and flaws.

Some uncomfortable truths.

West of Didcot? it varies between 1-750 and 1-800 until well West of Swindon, hardly unfavorable gradients by anyones definition. Even if it was, the economics work out better, part of the reason why the GWR planned at electrifying South Devon first. You can put energy back into the grid from when a locomotive/EMU goes downhill, then take it back when it goes up. Hardly a reason not to electrify therefore.

I love HSTs, I think perhaps they are the most sensible investment made on the railway since dismissal of Broad Gauge. But there is only so many times you can zero something, no matter how good it is. Metal gets tired. Ultimately if you take that argument to its conclusion GWML would be ringing to the sound of oil fired Castles and Kings. Not a bad choice IMHO, but hardly a modern railway. The other alternative is to build NEW HSTs, but the capablity to do that went away some time ago. If you do down that road, you may as well design a new train entirely, which takes a lot of government money that wont be forthcoming. Why not spend some of that money and electrify and cascade the pendalinos?

Ultimately I think Electrification is being pushed through on a green ticket, but its only half the story. Fuel prices rose alarmingly at least twice in the past 15 years. Even if you dont believe a lot of the hype about peak oil, the fact remains that India and China are rapidly industrializing, and it will take a great optimist to believe that it can't happen again, particularly with the middle east a hardly peaceful place. The last time we got caught in an energy crisis was in 1973. It would be nice to believe a Government might try to prempt it next time.

Rather than argue about whether or not to electrify the GWML, IMHO it would be money well spent to electrify the whole flipping lot. If it was, nobody would be talking about Diesels except for freight haulage and branch lines. 20 years from now when we are all back on bikes, a lot of people are going to wonder why we didnt do it when we had the chance. I know, we dont have the money now. But we certainly did at various points over the past 30 years, why wasnt it done then?

 

[Nick W]

I'm sorry to tell this to you but you might want to check the facts before you declare what you say as "uncomfortable truths"

But hang on, if the other culprit responsible for the large amount of carbon being pumped into the atmosphere is the car/lorry/van, why aren't the government investing massively in electric road haulage, or electric cars?

Firstly, they are investing a fair amount in such technologies, ! Secondly, it is far more practical to invest in well-established technologies than less well-established technologies.

It's simple: the electrification of the GWML will have NO effect whatsoever in reducing our carbon emissions.

Electric traction is much more efficient than diesel-electric traction, and a vast proportion of our electricity comes from nuclear and renewables. That which comes from gas also results in less CO2 emissions due to the higher efficiency of the combined gas cycle even when accounting for distribution losses.

What the government and designers failed to tell Joe Public is that the MTU is built on a system which uses compressed air, forcing more power into the engine and therefore utilising more diesel whenever the locomotive accelerates and even decelerates.

Indeed, the device which uses compressed air is called a diesel engine. The higher the compression ratio (ie the more the air is compressed) the more efficient the engine. This is why the original engines had a big beefy Napier Turbocharger which you could hear on departure.

The age of the HST is irrelevant, since shortcomings due to its long life can easily be fixed using systems which don't have flaws.

Given the flaws are of "lack of efficiency", the only practical solutions apart from electrification would appear to be to replace the diesel engine with a gas-turbine or go back to the days of diesel-mechanical traction. Which do you propose?

Beyond Didcot at least, the route passes through significant cuttings and prohibitive gradients. And then there's Bristol. Inner city geography is one full of complex topography and difficult terrain. The planning of electrification around these areas need to take these things into account. It isn't as simple as putting in some gantries etc. There is the human factor, the environmental factor for one thing. But since the geography of the GWML involves passing through at least 3 inner city geographical zones, how will placing gantries in these areas lessen the impact to the environment? It won't.

Planning the construction of the OHLE will of course require close examination of the earthworks. Where the foundations are unsuitable, the earthworks will be strengthened. This will be required at some point in the future in any case in order to preserve the integrity of the line. I presume you're talking about the effect of the OHLE as an eyesore. We already have a lot of over-ground electric cables, particularly within cities, so I don't see this being a significant problem.

 

[yorksrob]

To add to the previous two posts, I think the negative visual impacts of overhead catenary are greatly over-estimated. The works on the Royal Border Bridge show how this can be done sensitively if the area is one which is particularly attractive.

Bearing in mind the HST's will eventually become life expired and need replacement anyway I suppose the point is how to make the most efficient use of the new infrastructure. The answer would seem to be more electrification of feeder routes and infill schemes. So perhaps instead of going straight to the Midland Mainline afterwards, additional HST's could be moved there until life expiry and secondary routes around the Great Western area eg through Oxford towards Birmingham etc could be wired. This would of course provide more opportunities for DMU cascades, rather than releasing a load of Mk 3's in one go which won't be life expired just yet, and are difficult to cascade anyway.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Second, is the HST. The MTU engine is designed to give the HST locomotive(locomotives, NOT power cars) an extra lease of life. What the government and designers failed to tell Joe Public is that the MTU is built on a system which uses compressed air, forcing more power into the engine and therefore utilising more diesel whenever the locomotive accelerates and even decelerates. Instead of coming up with an engine which they claim is greener and extends the longevity of the HST locomotive, the MTU actually increases the locomotive's carbon footprint and REDUCES significantly, the lifespan of the engine due to the compressed air intake. There therefore is no need to invest in electric locomotion whatsoever as the problem lies with the MTU engine and its design. But the government realise this, and chose to ignore the design flaws, claiming that the AGE of the HST locomotive is reason enough for moving forward into electric traction. The age of the HST is irrelevant, since shortcomings due to its long life can easily be fixed using systems which don't have flaws. Clearly, this is not solved by continuing to invest in MTU technology.

WHAAAAT??

Turbo compression of fuel intake increases the efficiency of an engine.
That's not "MTU technology" , as Nick W has said, the earlier engines had similar turbos. In fact, just about all industrial diesel engines will use turbos. That's NOT the same as using more diesel - by pre-heating and compressing the fuel-air mixture, the engine delivers more power for the same amount of fuel consumed. There's no additional "compressed air" which also increases fuel consumption.

Turning to your broader issue of fuel-type comparisons, please remember to include all fuel uses and losses between the extraction at source and the place of consumption (There is a lot of fuel used in extracting and transporting many of the fuels used in electricity generation)

 

[jon0844]

With regards to cars, there is already a lot of work on making electric cars affordable and usable. The big improvements will come from better battery technologies, which will

a) Get more power for the same size/weight
b) Be able to charge quicker

At the moment, the average electric car (and they're now starting to come as normal looking cars with modern creature comforts like air con - such as the Citroen C1 or the new Nissan to be built in the UK soon) has a fairly limited range - well under 100 miles, often nearer 40-50. That in itself isn't a major issue, as any car needs to be refuelled. The problem is the TIME to 'refuel' an electric car. It can take 8 hours to recharge and you're not going to sit in a service station for 8 hours!

However, the £85k Tesla Roadster has a range of 240 miles, and if you can get the range up to 250-300 miles between charges then you might just be able to go without charging so regularly. But, when you can get a decent charge from, say, an hour - enough to have some lunch or a meeting - then I really do think electric cars will take off.

Okay, not everyone will buy one - but those that do will help those that do not. Those that drive long distances, with regular fill-ups, are probably never going to buy into electric (until we can do 'instant' charges) but if everyone else - like the average family - gets one to do the weekly shopping, driving kids to school, going to/from work then we will have really made a difference.

How that electricity gets generated will be an issue, but - as said above - we've got nuclear generation and renewable energy. If we can improve battery design, we may even be able to generate our own energy to charge the car at home via solar/wind power. There is another battery type, based on existing Lithium Ion technology, that I believe will take things on to the 'next level'. I also read about some chemical modifications to get a battery to charge quicker and hold up to 10 times more charge for the same size. I have to say that I don't know anything about this, or when we'd see them, or the cost, but plenty of people are working on it.

Diesel won't disappear - but far better to keep it only for those that need it (e.g. lorries or freight trains) and reduce demand elsewhere to keep pricing down, and availability up.

 

[the sniper]

And then there's Bristol. Inner city geography is one full of complex topography and difficult terrain. The planning of electrification around these areas need to take these things into account. It isn't as simple as putting in some gantries etc. There is the human factor, the environmental factor for one thing. But since the geography of the GWML involves passing through at least 3 inner city geographical zones, how will placing gantries in these areas lessen the impact to the environment? It won't.

I really don't understand the point your making here. Electrifying a railway in a city is hardly something new to the world, it's nothing new to us either. We've even got plenty of experience of electrifying 'historic' cities. I assume your complaint is purely based on whether it won't look pretty...

Again, the government and the DfT realise this but choose to make the information private.

What? You know it, we know it, anyone with any common sense will know what electrification entails, it's hardly a conspiracy!

There is no sign of public studies done to assess the impact to the public in places such as Bristol. Instead, the government have assumed that such areas will benefit from the electrification in the long term, but failing to take into account the short term problems and flaws.

Hmm, maybe they've looked at London, Edinburgh, Glasgow, York, Newcastle, Darlington, York, Leeds, Manchester, Preston, Carlisle, Birmingham, ect, and saw how little effect electrification had on these cities. But I suppose a multi-million pound report would help to prove this...

Some uncomfortable truths.

If you say so.

 

[90019]

this is backed up by flawless evidence.

Ah, these would be government statistics then, those well known fountains of truth.

Instead of coming up with an engine which they claim is greener and extends the longevity of the HST locomotive, the MTU actually increases the locomotive's carbon footprint and REDUCES significantly, the lifespan of the engine due to the compressed air intake.

Methinks you need to learn about how a (turbo)diesel engine works before posting cr*p.

It's simple: the electrification of the GWML will have NO effect whatsoever in reducing our carbon emissions.

So... running more efficient trains, that use less overall energy in propelling themselves, by moving the fuel source elsewhere - so they aren't carrying the extra weight of it - and using fuel sources that are less polluting and more efficient to create the electricity is less efficient and more polluting? :?
Yes, there is the overall environmental cost of producing and disposing of the trains, but when the current, and previous, generation of diesels become obsolete and life expired, that's going to have to happen anyway.

Similar to many of your other posts, this seems like a very bad attempt at trolling, by essentially talking b*llocks, either that or you've been reading too many conspiracy theories. But it's generated soem good discussion despite most of the original post being rubbish.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

How that electricity gets generated will be an issue, but - as said above - we've got nuclear generation and renewable energy.

And hopefully, with the ongoing research and testing, nuclear fusion is getting closer to becoming mainstream for power generation.

If we can improve battery design, we may even be able to generate our own energy to charge the car at home via solar/wind power.

I think the issue is less the batteries and more the solar and wind power in this case. Wind isn't that reliable, and even when it is, you'd need a pretty big turbine to charge a car. The problem with solar is that photovoltaic cells are currently very inefficient (currently only about 30% efficient). However, in time, solar should become more efficient. Wind I'm not so sure about. There will be advances, but I do wonder how effective we can really make it.

 

[tbtc]

I'm not in favour of GWML electrification as a high priority, but for none of the reasons the OP has stated. In fact, his curious argument about it almost leaves me thinking electrification would be a good thing to start on.

I mean, if your argument boils down to...

the route passes through significant cuttings and prohibitive gradients. And then there's Bristol. Inner city geography is one full of complex topography and difficult terrain. The planning of electrification around these areas need to take these things into account. It isn't as simple as putting in some gantries etc

...then I wonder how the WCML was wired up all those years ago, or any other electrified line that passes through inner cities and climbs hills!

And that's not even starting on the "carbon" side of the argument...

 

[j0hn0]

The original post is the biggest pack of lies passed off as Al Gore "inconvenient truths" I have ever seen on this website.

Everyone has already debunked your "facts" about the trains themselves, just proving that it is only ill informed ranters like you that believe the anthropogenic climate change cr@p.

I can't imagine how long it took you to write that absolute pile of drivel as clearly no research was done at all.

 

[Zoe]

why aren't the government investing massively in electric road haulage, or electric cars?

The plan is to use road pricing to force people off the road and onto public transport.

 

[j0hn0]

I wouldn't bother replying any more to this guy, he is simply a troll, and a really close minded, ill-informed one at that.

 

[Metroland]

why aren't the government investing massively in electric road haulage, or electric cars? It's simple: the electrification of the GWML will have NO effect whatsoever in reducing our carbon emissions.

They are investing in low carbon transport technology, although to my knowledge there is no replacement for diesel trucks, which is why I support more freight (where appropriate) on rail.

Another uncomfortable truth is the UK is pretty much the only country in the world to run high speed diesel trains. The prime reason for electrification is electric trains offer better acceleration and cheaper running costs (overall), and potentially higher power. Journey time savings often result in more passengers and greater connectivity for urban centres on the route.

You are completely wrong about the GWML being hilly, only west of Exeter is there any significant gradients, much of the rest is extremely flat, which is why the Great Western railway ran the fastest steam train in the world: The Cheltenham Spa Express, not much slower time wise than today's HSTs.

 

[mumrar]

The OP may want to make some money by suing MTU, after all, it's them who claim that the newer engines are 40% more fuel efficient and have 60% less carbon emissions. Obviously they've been lying to us, and the OP is right to point this out. No doubt this will be backed up by speaking to anyone at FGW fleet who will see the range and fuel consumption calculations for MTU fitted HSTs. What's worse is that Grand Central have fallen in to this trap and will have to increase fares to pay for fuel.

 

[Geezertronic]

Some uncomfortable truths.

Probably more like some of your own points of view as you have interpreted them?

 

[gordonthemoron]

thegrich37423's 2010 mileage is 0.

Make of that what you like

 

[The Planner]

As much as the bloke is a troll, the amount of miles he has done on a train this year is hardly worth bringing up or relevant. I have no intention of adding up how many miles Ive travelled this year or in the last week, I dont see the point.

 

[thegrich37423]

What would you have me do? Record the number of times I have tried and failed to travel on the train?
I can assure you that I'm very happy for my mileage to be flat zero. It is more than double than that on the buses to and from where I live.
Anyway, that point aside, I can see that my points have raised some eyebrows. It is an issue which is only certain to be proven correct as time goes by.

 

[Geezertronic]

Record the number of times I have tried and failed to travel on the train?

I would love to know how many times you have tried and failed to travel on a train

 

[Donny Dave]

I'll not go over the rest of your post, as everyone else is picking it apart ....

Firstly, there's the climate change/global warming problem. Many MPs believe that the Earth will face catastrophe on a global scale by the year 2050, again, this is backed up by flawless evidence. By reducing our carbon emissions, the 2050 catastrophe can be postponed another 250 years, based on the latest scientific model which hypothesises what could happen if we offset our carbon emissions by a certain percentage.

What a load of utter bull**** !

The only evidence there will be a dramatic change in the global climate this century is from reports that various governments have very carefully chosen to hightlight. Even then they only use selected quotes from said reports to reinforce their point.

There is a lot of data out there (perhaps too much), and the truth of the matter is that no one knows what the climate will be like in 2020, let alone 2050 .....

Girch, read State of Fear by Michael Crichton. While the plot is extremely far fetched, there is a lot of links to reports and data to suggest global warming and climate change is not a big of a problem that the governments of the world want us to believe.

 

[thefab444]

Is it only me that suspects the OP is just a NIMBY who doesn't want catenary on the GWML, either for photographic or visual reasons.

 

[starrymarkb]

What's this about electrification being poor on hills? Have you endured the slow trudge up the Devon banks on an HST?

If you need proof about electric trains climbing abilities have a look at Switzerland - 99% Electrified (the routes that are unwired are heritage steam hauled/pushed!)

That train has in the last 30 miles climbed from 1500 to over 5000 feet for the 9 mile Lotschberg mountain tunnel and is now descending to Brig in the valley floor (approx 2000ft) for the Simplon Tunnel - IIRC the average Gradient is something like 1in60 on the tunnel approaches. The locomotives put out about 9000hp each (BLS Re465 - uprated version of the SBB Re460 for use on this route) - how much power does the most powerful diesel have?

 

[Metroland]

Or even Shap in this country which required 2 x class 50 before electrification or a Duchess.

 

[Aictos]

I'm sorry guys but I've got a sudden urge to go all Nelson Muntz and go "Ha-ha!".

Don't know why, probably just this thread!!!

Still, I don't believe it won't happen - Electrification will come, it's just a matter of time.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

I'm sorry guys but I've got a sudden urge to go all Nelson Muntz and go "Ha-ha!".

Don't know why, probably just this thread!!!

Still, I don't believe it won't happen - Electrification will come, it's just a matter of time.

At the risk of sounding overly cynical, GWR enthusiasts were saying that in 1938.

 

[tbtc]

I can assure you that I'm very happy for my mileage to be flat zero. It is more than double than that on the buses to and from where I live

Twice 'nothing' is, erm... :roll:

You fail, even at being a troll

 

[ChrisCooper]

I have to admit I am always a bit cynical about reduced fuel comsumption claims for more modern train engines, as I know for a fact that the bus industry has seen rising fuel consumption for engines over recent years due to tougher emmision standards. The emmision standards are based around particulates (clag), Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx), Carbon Monoxide and Unburnt Hydrocarbons. Particulate filters increase exhaust back pressure so reduce power, so more fuel is burned to give the same output. Exhaust Gas Recirculation also increases fuel consumption. Selective Calalytic Reduction does give a slight reduction in fuel consumption compared to other methods, but this requires the addition of a Urea based agent into the exhaust (in the road industry it's branded as "AdBlue"). I don't know of any trains that do that. The only engine technology I know is used in railway engines is Common Rail fuel injection, which is where fuel injection timing and quantity is controlled to best suit the given conditions, as opposed to occuring at the same time in the engine cycle. They might have electronic valve timing too. Both can give slightly better fuel consumption as they make sure the fuel that goes in is all burned, and the latter particularly reduces the losses from the engine driving the camshafts and valves. Nothing major though. The only way I can see train engine manufacturers are managing to get significantly better fuel consumption out of their engines is if their emmision standards are a lot different and allow them to concentrate more on fuel consumption and less on emmisions. Reduced fuel consumption doesn't mean less CO2 either. Where savings on fuel use are made it's usually by making sure that the fuel burns more compleatly, and that means more CO2. That fuel that gets exhausted from the engine unburnt, or partially burned (smoke or CO) isn't making CO2.

Then again, when we're looking at emmisions with Internal Combusion engines as opposed to Electric, there is one thing that is often missed. A big source of particulate from motor vehicles is not from the exhausts but from the brakes. Look at how quick a disk braked cars wheels will get dirty with brake dust. Electrics of cource nearly always have rheostatic or regenerative braking, which reduces brake use and therefore the production of brake dust. Of cource some Diesel Electrics have rheostatic brakes, but not many (22Xs and 70s in the UK).

 

[90019]

I would love to know how many times you have tried and failed to travel on a train

Perhaps he hasn't grasped how the doors work yet?

 

[TGV]

The original post was easily the biggest load of bollocks I've read all year. Well done sir. A fine work of fiction. It was uncomfortable alright - uncomfortable to read.

First up this: "the Earth will face catastrophe on a global scale by the year 2050, again, this is backed up by flawless evidence"

What flawless evidence? Where? From whom? What date in 2050? I must make sure I'm ready for it. Is it something the DfT are keeping from the rest of the world for their own benefit?

Then there's the mysterious device that MTU fitted to their engines to make them less efficient. I am degree educated engineer with over 10 years of industry experience, I can't even begin to pick holes in this one technically as I suspect it'd be like educating pork - in any case, many people here have a basic working knowledge of a diesel engine and they're doing a good enough job of taking the post apart, so I'll not wade in, other than suggest you google "turbocharger"...

It's a powercar. Numbered as a loco, but in my book - it's the definition of a power car. It only has a cab at one end, it is designed to pull a very specific type of carriage and train in a specific type of passenger operation and it's tractive effort is pretty miserable compared to a proper loco of the same power output. It may be numbered as a loco, but in every real sense - it's a power car.

Oh and since when were we, the UK a "developing country"???!?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'll not go over the rest of your post, as everyone else is picking it apart ....


Girch, read State of Fear by Michael Crichton. While the plot is extremely far fetched, there is a lot of links to reports and data to suggest global warming and climate change is not a big of a problem that the governments of the world want us to believe.

Good book - I enjoyed reading it - and I confess to also reading up on his research into the novel as well. Eye opening stuff indeed.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

What annoyed me the most wasn't the unneccessary "conspiracy" factor (the government has concealed the awful truths), nor the ill-informed pseudo-technical errors of fact (the terrible threat of hills in the West Country, and how turbocharging an engine reduces fuel efficiency), but the error of logic

It's simple: the electrification of the GWML will have NO effect whatsoever in reducing our carbon emissions. It's yet another expensive way of solving a non-existent problem which will do nothing but cause misery for the travelling public.

Where is the reasoning which leads from his evidence to that conclusion?

Sure, I am probably of the same view as most on here, that electrification will reduce fuel consumption and will do so at several points in the supply chain, but I would be eager to consider any counter-evidence. However, thegrich37423 hasn't come up with any counter-evidence, so we should probably just let this thread just fade away . . . .

. . . fade away . . .

. . . fade away . . .