Cars and trains

From Peeve Farm comes this quote from the Telegraph:

Encouraging travellers to switch from cars and airlines to inter-city trains brings no benefits for the environment, new research has concluded.

Challenging assumptions about railways' green superiority, the study finds that the weight and fuel requirements of trains have increased to the point where rail could become the least energy-efficient form of transport.

Engineers at Lancaster University said trains had failed to keep up with the motor and aviation industries in reducing fuel needs.

They calculate that expresses between London and Edinburgh consume slightly more fuel per seat (the equivalent of 11.5 litres) than a modern diesel-powered car making the same journey.

The car's superiority rises dramatically when compared with trains travelling at up to 215mph.

Brian Tiemann adds:

There's still the question of traffic congestion if everyone drives, and rail is still cheaper. But rail is also way slower, way less flexible, and (at least in places like, say, San Jose) you still have to drive to the station ten miles away, park, ride, work, ride back, get in your car, and drive home. Which I daresay would add a fair amount to the equation, yet more in favor of four wheels.

I don't think it's true that rail is cheaper. Bear in mind that Top Gear recently went out and bought 3 used cars and drove them to and from Manchester. Including the purchase of a car it cost less than £100 each*, while a rail ticket is £150. They also drove a diesel Audi to (and, I believe, back from) Edinburgh from London on one tank.

Of course, they do say per seat in the article, but consider how empty most buses and trains are outside of peak times.

It's certainly cheaper for me to drive to Reading each day (just under £5 in my luxury saloon, listening to my own music, to my door) than it would be to take the train (around £7 for the train, plus £2 on the buses, plus walking, plus waiting). If I switched to something like a diesel Honda Civic, or a Civic Hybrid (thus doubling my fuel-efficiency), I'd be spending vastly less to have a faster, more comfortable journey.

Car-sharing, it costs the same £5 to take 2 people, rather than £18 on public transport. There is no competition at all.

Why on earth would I take the train? Why would anybody?

* Much, much less, I think, but I don't want to be wrong. I recall something like £50, and one of the cars only cost £1.

Posted at 2004-06-22 02:53:33 by Richard • Link to Cars and trains
Comments, trackbacks.