Lumo's green image

[styles]

Non they get power from the wires.

I think their point is - where does the electricity in the wire come from?

Right this minute, it's 35.7% from gas, 26.9% from renewals, 13.3% nuclear, and 10.5% biomass: https://grid.iamkate.com/

Over the course of the last year, it was 37.4% renewables, 29.8% fossil fuels, 21.7% other sources. While the UK could do better, I don't think we're doing terribly. Around a third of all our power year-round comes from wind.

To me it's not a reason to avoid electrifying trains - it's a reason to decarbonise the national grid.

 

[Russel]

Non they get power from the wires.

Yes, I know that, I was referring the the gas that is burnt to generate the power that goes to the wires...

To me it's not a reason to avoid electrifying trains - it's a reason to decarbonise the national grid.

This is very true, my point wasn't to suggest avoiding electrification, simply that although clearly better than diesel, electric traction isn't a silver bullet as things stand as it still requires burning fossil fuels to generate power, amongst other sources.

 

[physics34]

I think while the rest of the world pumps out carbon at such a phenomenal rate we should stop worrying about these figures here in the UK so much and just get on with our lives, with the eventual aim of leaving diesel behind, of course.
However, i have to say theres has been significant improvement over the years to breathable air at stations like Paddington and St Pancras. Plumes of smoke used to fill those places and they are much better now.

 

[edwin_m]

This is very true, my point wasn't to suggest avoiding electrification, simply that although clearly better than diesel, electric traction isn't a silver bullet as things stand as it still requires burning fossil fuels to generate power, amongst other sources.

The same carbon mix does of course also apply to the power that's charging the batteries of the competing EV.

 

[Noddy]

How much gas is burned to generate the electricity to power Lumos IETs?

Yes, I know that, I was referring the the gas that is burnt to generate the power that goes to the wires...



This is very true, my point wasn't to suggest avoiding electrification, simply that although clearly better than diesel, electric traction isn't a silver bullet as things stand as it still requires burning fossil fuels to generate power, amongst other sources.

Gas is far better than king coal, and at the current time the choice for rail is between electrification or diesel (or not existing). Electrification also has the advantage that there are no localised fumes that staff, passengers and near by residents have to breath. Obviously zero gas would be better but as I said earlier the CO2 per kWh level for electricity production has dropped from about 450 in the mid 2000s to 132 this year. This year so far gas is at 29.8% of production and AIUI NESO are still planning on turning it off for the first time this year (I suspect dependent of Dogger Bank opening). Gas production will continue to fall over the next few years.

If you take the 70% reduction in CO2 emissions since the mid-2000s and apply it directly (this may not be entirely accurate due to other factors but it’s indicative) to the CO2 passenger figures a 9 car class 390 goes from about 55g CO2 per passenger km to 16.5. An EV car is at about 50, the Airbus A320 at 54. Meanwhile the Lumo 222s are in the 85 to 105 range and producing toxic fumes at ground level for anyone nearby to breath in.

 

[Adrian1980uk]

This environmental argument is a distraction for trains, there is no other means of getting the volumes of passengers into the city centres for the commute. The fact remains that most passengers don't care how the train is powered as long as it runs at a convenient time and frequency (anything less than hourly becomes inconvenient in my view) and is reliable/ comfortable/ value for money then passengers will use them.

 

[FrontSideBus]

Biodiesel still a thing these days?

 

[Noddy]

This environmental argument is a distraction for trains, there is no other means of getting the volumes of passengers into the city centres for the commute. The fact remains that most passengers don't care how the train is powered as long as it runs at a convenient time and frequency (anything less than hourly becomes inconvenient in my view) and is reliable/ comfortable/ value for money then passengers will use them.

Apart from the fact that the railway industry has long promoted its green credentials. And with reference to this thread Lumo is one of the companies that has explicitly promoted this, and it isn’t in the volume commuter market but rather the long distance Intercity market.

I quote the first two paragraphs of their original press release below. As @Bletchleyite has pointed out it would be better from a low carbon perspective (which they explicitly tout in the press release) to fly rather than use their new service.

Published 25 Oct 2021​

A new, 100% electric rail service is to start running between London and Edinburgh in a bid to encourage greener and more affordable travel between the capitals.
Called Lumo, it will provide low-carbon, affordable long-distance travel for over 1 million passengers per year. Over 74,500 passengers currently fly between Edinburgh and London each month.

 

[Falcon1200]

Long distance coaches/buses are the greenest form of transport and much more environmentally friendly than any train.

Does that take into account the environmental cost of providing the roads on which those vehicles operate, especially if their proliferation, and that of EVs, necessitates more road space to accommodate them?

Their overall lighter weight re in a very beneficial power to weight ratio allowing road coaches to outperform any diesel-powered train and just about any electric train too.

No road coach can or ever will outperfom a long distance train of any type of traction in terms of speed and journey time. Therefore a Pendolino, for example, can work far more miles, and therefore transport far more people in a given tine, than a road coach.

EVs are also generally more efficient than trains

As above, regarding the road space requirements.

 

[notadriver]

Yes indeed. I would like to see a top gear style race between a coach and a train.

The race in question will be between London and Edinburgh. 5 Yutong GTE14 coaches (with their super duper power to weight ratio that will out perform any train) carrying 354 seated passengers vs a single class 803 capable of seating 400.

As of 1007 this morning

FlixBus - 1230 arriving 2135 : £78.99
Lumo 1218 arriving 1641 : £84.90

FlixBus journey time : 9h 05 fastest 7h 50.
Lumo : 4h23

But wait there’s a problem. The electric coach must stop to charge as it has a 300 mile maximum range. That’s ok that can be done on a 45 minute break assuming it can be charged enough in that time.

I would like to see the energy consumed and carbon emitted for 5 coaches that took over double the time (because despite having an amazing power to weight ratio they’ve are limited to 100 kph) and in Scotland there are many single carriageway sections requiring a reduction to the 80 kph speed limit for buses. Meanwhile Lumo has a top speed of 200 kph.

 

[Noddy]

Yes indeed. I would like to see a top gear style race between a coach and a train.

The race in question will be between London and Edinburgh. 5 Yutong GTE14 coaches (with their super duper power to weight ratio that will out perform any train) carrying 354 seated passengers vs a single class 803 capable of seating 400.

As of 1007 this morning

FlixBus - 1230 arriving 2135 : £78.99
Lumo 1218 arriving 1641 : £84.90

FlixBus journey time : 9h 05 fastest 7h 50.
Lumo : 4h23

But wait there’s a problem. The electric coach must stop to charge as it has a 300 mile maximum range. That’s ok that can be done on a 45 minute break assuming it can be charged enough in that time.

I would like to see the energy consumed and carbon emitted for 5 coaches that took over double the time (because despite having an amazing power to weight ratio they’ve are limited to 100 kph) and in Scotland there are many single carriageway sections requiring a reduction to the 80 kph speed limit for buses. Meanwhile Lumo has a top speed of 200 kph.

I thought this thread was about Lumos use of 222, not 803s? About the company building a brand based on promoting low carbon travel and then using trains that have some of highest carbon footprint, higher even than air travel.

 

[notadriver]

I thought this thread was about Lumos use of 222, not 803s? About the company building a brand based on promoting low carbon travel and then using trains that have some of highest carbon footprint, higher even than air travel.

A claim was made : Their overall lighter weight re in a very beneficial power to weight ratio allowing road coaches to outperform any diesel-powered train and just about any electric train too.

 

[Noddy]

A claim was made : Their overall lighter weight re in a very beneficial power to weight ratio allowing road coaches to outperform any diesel-powered train and just about any electric train too.

I think everyone, including myself, has disputed the electric part of the claim and the author hasn’t returned to back it up with any evidence. Folk are only continuing to focus on it because they want to avoid the actual problem that the thread is about.

 

[Davester50]

Sorry if this has already been mentioned somewhere but as we know lumo are getting class 222's for the Stirling service. This is interesting as lumo brands themselves as a green operator so I wonder what there plan is now

Do enough people who matter actually care about Lumo's green image, or do they care about getting somewhere cheaper?
It's just cheap convenient marketing that's meaningless to the majority.

Plenty of businesses have used convenient marketing when it suits, and long forgotten when that convenience disappears.
Virgin Atlantic's "4 Engines 4 Long haul" sticks in my mind.

 

[Noddy]

Do enough people who matter actually care about Lumo's green image, or do they care about getting somewhere cheaper?
It's just cheap convenient marketing that's meaningless to the majority.

Plenty of businesses have used convenient marketing when it suits, and long forgotten when that convenience disappears.
Virgin Atlantic's "4 Engines 4 Long haul" sticks in my mind.

I think the question is better framed as does Lumo care about Lumo’s green image. As the answer appears to be no, it leads me to believe all the promotion around offering a low carbon service was simply greenwashing by FirstGroup.

More generally though a number of posters on this thread have claimed:

most people in 2025 accept that public transport, especially InterCity trains, are greener than most other alternatives.

Against this Lumo is really competing with air rather than the car, so is still likely to be winning out on emissions.

It’s still greener than the plane

Besides, Lumo's Stirling operation is competing mainly with air - which the 222's will stack up favourably against.

There are assumptions being made by all these posters which are factually incorrect, yet they are still promoting them, because for years the railway industry has promoted them. Even today National Rail is in on it (I’ve linked to it below) but their own data shows that an ‘average’ diesel train journey is over twice as polluting as an EV, and on top of this we know average car occupancy is not 1 person so the diesel train is even worse per passenger km. As has been shown an Airbus A320 Neo carbon produces almost half the carbon per passsenger km as the diesel train. I don’t doubt that an electric coach would be massively less than a diesel train as well, possibly close to electric trains. Yet how often do we see the ‘especially InterCity trains, are greener than most other alternatives’ narrative repeated.

Greener | National Rail

One train journey at a time. It helps cut your carbon footprint, improves air quality and makes things better for you, the environment, and the future.

www.nationalrail.co.uk

 

[Chester1]

Lumo seems to inspire an irrational dislike. There are no 125 mph EMUs or bi modes coming off lease soon, their rights only last 5 years and there is insufficient electricity supply on the northern section of the WCML. Starting the service with diesel trains and ordering new EMUs as part of the first extension contract makes sense.

 

[Davester50]

I think the question is better framed as does Lumo care about Lumo’s green image. As the answer appears to be no, it leads me to believe all the promotion around offering a low carbon service was simply greenwashing by FirstGroup.

I don't think it was greenwashing per se, more using a feature of it's rolling stock as a marketing feature, as Virgin did with the 4 engine aircraft.

 

[MattRat]

Lumo seems to inspire an irrational dislike. There are no 125 mph EMUs or bi modes coming off lease soon, their rights only last 5 years and there is insufficient electricity supply on the northern section of the WCML. Starting the service with diesel trains and ordering new EMUs as part of the first extension contract makes sense.

How many places can you actually go 125 mph on the WCML without tilt though? And since they don't have many stops, 110 mph should be sufficient for the timetable. And oh look, 350s are being made more and more available by the day.

Of course the power supply is an issue, but it still doesn't look good on Lumo, even if it is ultimately the government's fault. In an ideal world, they'd be using those 350s

 

[Falcon1200]

Are Lumo actually promoting their Stirling service as the green alternative? As opposed to the ECML trains, which are currently their only operation and which can surely, and fairly, be described as green.

 

[Noddy]

Are Lumo actually promoting their Stirling service as the green alternative? As opposed to the ECML trains, which are currently their only operation and which can surely, and fairly, be described as green.

Interestingly, Lumo make no mention of it being low carbon or sustainable in the press release, so they do appear to be dropping it from their marketing. But at the bottom of the release is this quote:

Rob Dickson, VisitScotland Director of Industry and Events, said: “The launch of Lumo’s new Stirling to London service is a strong addition to Scotland’s rail network. It is exciting to see more travel routes into Scotland available for visitors from south of the border as well as for those international travellers flying into London and connecting to Scotland.

“Over recent years there has been a rising interest in rail travel and Scotland is a destination which delivers some of the most awe-inspiring journeys by rail. And Stirling sits in the heart of the country with excellent connections to explore beyond the historic city.

“Travelling by train is also a fantastic way for visitors to experience Scotland in a more sustainable way which helps to protect our natural and cultural heritage for generations to come.”

Again factually untrue. This chap is buying into the narrative that trains are more environmentally friendly, which simply isn’t true when it comes to diesel. It would be more sustainable for me to drive my EV than catch the new diesel service. It would produce far less CO2, NO2 and SO2 (damaging both public heath and natural and cultural assets) overall and there are zero tailpipe emissions.

It will be interesting to see how they update their sustainability page (which I link to below). I note it claims that their trains produce about 20 times less CO2 than car and 25 times less than air. But their figure doesn’t appear to tally with what is publicly available elsewhere, or (less likely) the 5 car 800s are somehow massively more efficient than a 9 or 11 car 390.

Sustainability Matters - Lumo

Read about why sustainability matters here.

www.lumo.co.uk

Lumo seems to inspire an irrational dislike. There are no 125 mph EMUs or bi modes coming off lease soon, their rights only last 5 years and there is insufficient electricity supply on the northern section of the WCML. Starting the service with diesel trains and ordering new EMUs as part of the first extension contract makes sense.

I have zero issues with Lumo. I have a lot of issues with the railway continuing to promote itself on being green when vast parts of the network rely on diesel. Other transportation methods are rapidly decarbonising, but rail seems to be stuck in the past, while still promoting itself as green. Electric trains are undoubtedly one of the greenest, but diesel trains are rapidly becoming one of the worst.

 

[yorksrob]

Interestingly, Lumo make no mention of it being low carbon or sustainable in the press release, so they do appear to be dropping it from their marketing. But at the bottom of the release is this quote:



Again factually untrue. This chap is buying into the narrative that trains are more environmentally friendly, which simply isn’t true when it comes to diesel. It would be more sustainable for me to drive my EV than catch the new diesel service. It would produce far less CO2, NO2 and SO2 (damaging both public heath and natural and cultural assets) overall and there are zero tailpipe emissions.

It will be interesting to see how they update their sustainability page (which I link to below). I note it claims that their trains produce about 20 times less CO2 than car and 25 times less than air. But their figure doesn’t appear to tally with what is publicly available elsewhere, or (less likely) the 5 car 800s are somehow massively more efficient than a 9 or 11 car 390.

Sustainability Matters - Lumo

Read about why sustainability matters here.

www.lumo.co.uk

I have zero issues with Lumo. I have a lot of issues with the railway continuing to promote itself on being green when vast parts of the network rely on diesel. Other transportation methods are rapidly decarbonising, but rail seems to be stuck in the past, while still promoting itself as green. Electric trains are undoubtedly one of the greenest, but diesel trains are rapidly becoming one of the worst.

As a whole, trains are a more environmentally friendly form of transport.

 

[Falcon1200]

Again factually untrue. This chap is buying into the narrative that trains are more environmentally friendly, which simply isn’t true when it comes to diesel

Perhaps Lumo's slant is that one train, even diesel-powered, carrying hundreds of passengers, is more sustainable than the number of EVs needed to transport the same number of people?

 

[Noddy]

As a whole, trains are a more environmentally friendly form of transport.

This is exactly the narrative I’m pointing out is lazy at best and simply untrue at worst. No one catches a train ‘as a whole’. If you’re doing a single journey you’re likely either on an electric train (very environmentally friendly) or a diesel train (pretty environmentally unfriendly). If you’re doing a mixed journey (bimode or differently powered) it may be more environmentally friendly but it may not. You need to work it out, not make assumptions.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jul 2025 ==

Perhaps Lumo's slant is that one train, even diesel-powered, carrying hundreds of passengers, is more sustainable than the number of EVs needed to transport the same number of people?

But the train produces more CO2, NO2 and SO2. And these are produced at source so directly damaging people’s health and the fabric of natural and cultural assets the VisitScotland chap is talking about. In reality it’s even worse in Scotland as the grid is so green in that part of the UK.

 

[yorksrob]

This is exactly the narrative I’m pointing out is lazy at best and simply untrue at worst. No one catches a train ‘as a whole’. If you’re doing a single journey you’re likely either on an electric train (very environmentally friendly) or a diesel train (pretty environmentally unfriendly). If you’re doing a mixed journey (bimode or differently powered) it may be more environmentally friendly but it may not. You need to work it out, not make assumptions.

As a passenger, I've little interest in whether this or that train happens to be more or less environmentally friendly than another. I'm interested in how environmentally friendly the system is as a whole.

 

[Noddy]

As a passenger, I've little interest in whether this or that train happens to be more or less environmentally friendly than another. I'm interested in how environmentally friendly the system is as a whole.

Given that electric trains are around 40% and 60% are diesel I’m not sure the system ‘as a whole’ is more environmentally friendly. Even if this is true today given the rapid electrification of the road passenger fleet (car and bus/coach), unless there is a rapid increase of electrification/battery it certainly won’t remain so for long. And if you want to make comparisons to transportations modes as a whole that is understandable (lazy though IMO) but most folk (if they are considering their personal CO2 output) don’t.

 

[yorksrob]

Given that electric trains are around 40% and 60% are diesel I’m not sure the system ‘as a whole’ is more environmentally friendly. Even if this is true today given the rapid electrification of the road passenger fleet (car and bus/coach), unless there is a rapid increase of electrification/battery it certainly won’t remain so for long. And if you want to make comparisons to transportations modes as a whole that is understandable but most folk (if they are considering their personal CO2 output) don’t.

The railway network certainly needs to continue to de-carbonise. This is why we need rolling electrification.

According to ORR, 71% of rail vehicles on the network are electric:

Rail infrastructure and assets | ORR Data Portal

The good old Southern third rail network has a lot of carriages !

 

[Adrian1980uk]

This is exactly the narrative I’m pointing out is lazy at best and simply untrue at worst. No one catches a train ‘as a whole’. If you’re doing a single journey you’re likely either on an electric train (very environmentally friendly) or a diesel train (pretty environmentally unfriendly). If you’re doing a mixed journey (bimode or differently powered) it may be more environmentally friendly but it may not. You need to work it out, not make assumptions.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jul 2025 ==



But the train produces more CO2, NO2 and SO2. And these are produced at source so directly damaging people’s health and the fabric of natural and cultural assets the VisitScotland chap is talking about. In reality it’s even worse in Scotland as the grid is so green in that part of the UK.

This is very nuanced, it is unlikely you are going to Stirling to London/South of England in an electric car let alone 100 people driving that far in an EV, most people would almost certainly on current tech use petrol or hybrid if driving and therefore a diesel train is more environmentally friendly provided enough people are on it.
Having said that, the railways need electrification to ensure that continue being the green option - particularly on local routes as you rightly say if just looking at day to day CO2 emissions the it becomes less attractive on diesel trains, other factors do need to take into account like 100 extra cars an hour om a road with break dust/ tire particles etc. make trains still an attractive opinion and is the only method of transport that moves large numbers of people efficiently and effectively.

 

[Chester1]

How many places can you actually go 125 mph on the WCML without tilt though? And since they don't have many stops, 110 mph should be sufficient for the timetable. And oh look, 350s are being made more and more available by the day.

Of course the power supply is an issue, but it still doesn't look good on Lumo, even if it is ultimately the government's fault. In an ideal world, they'd be using those 350s

Tilting is of limited benefit south of Crewe and the signalling set up is being altered to reflect removal of Voyagers and introduction of 80X. The ideal solution isn't 350s, it is having appropriate intercity EMUs as part of its first rights extension.

I have zero issues with Lumo. I have a lot of issues with the railway continuing to promote itself on being green when vast parts of the network rely on diesel. Other transportation methods are rapidly decarbonising, but rail seems to be stuck in the past, while still promoting itself as green. Electric trains are undoubtedly one of the greenest, but diesel trains are rapidly becoming one of the worst.

The railways are not stuck in the past on decarbonisation. There is a struggle to electrify lines at a remotely viable cost and battery trains are in the early stages of roll out. Its slow but its clearly a big priority and we are unlikely to see any DMUs built for the UK market again.

Not introducing a new service because of a lack of appropriate electric stock and insufficient power supply would be making the perfect the enemy of the good. Both are easily resolvable in the medium term.

 

[Lewisham2221]

It's all well and good comparing rail with EVs if the overwhelming majority of vehicles on the roads were EVs. But they're not. I don't know how a 22x compares, per passenger, with a mid-10s ICE car with 2 passengers - I wouldn't be surprised if it was still worse - but that that would certainly be a fairer comparison.

 

[notadriver]

How about safety ? EVs driven by the average driver are far more likely to be involved in an accident than a professionally driven psv or train?