Freightliner's environmental credentials down the pan

[Titan]

6 hours ago, kevinlms said:

Hey, don't blame me. I wasn't the one who brought church/religion into this topic, I was merely responding to someone else who thinks that Climate Change is a religion - a not uncommon viewpoint.

 

I was not blaming you for bringing it in to the topic, I was blaming you for trying to use it for cheap point scoring, a lesson which you do not seem to have understood, and now ironically you are mentioning it more than the post you are complaining about in order to continue doing so!

Edited October 14, 2021 by Titan

[phil-b259]

On 13/10/2021 at 18:04, Gibbo675 said:

Hi Kevin,

 

Have you not yet noticed that Climate Change IS the new religion ? It is part of a process that is known as Hypernormalisation.

 

Should you not get any sort of reply from me it is because I have gone against, Guardian-BBC-Daily Mail-RMweb- Woke Mentality editorial and have been booted off yet another thread for not engaging in hive mind-group think !

 

Gibbo.

 

Human induced climate change is a FACT backed up by every single reputable scientific study ever done!

 

We see its effects in the erratic weather the UK has experienced over the past few years so it most definitely is a problem for us - not just low lying pacific island nations that face being wiped off the face of the earth.

 

Its got nothing to do with 'woke mentality' - and it needs to be tackled as a priority. To do anything else is the ultimate in selfishness and 'Im all right jack so sod the others' mentality.

 

Climate change is most emphatically NOT a belief / Religion - the only way such things come into it is when people who don't want to face the truth that the current cushty lives (and all that flows from it)  are a problem so seek to elevate the debate into one of belief / religion on the basis that its a lot harder to deal with religious beliefs scientific ignorance.

Edited October 15, 2021 by phil-b259

[Ron Ron Ron]

32 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

Climate change is most emphatically NOT a belief / Religion - ....

 

There are issues with the terminology.

The Climate has always changed.

First it was Global Warming, then Climate Change. Now it's Climate Emergency.

 

As most of us are only too aware, what is happening is that the average temperatures have been steadily rising at a faster rate than we've experience over the last century.

The issues raised are very real and action is needed, but unfortunately there is most definitely a cult like or religious panic being induced in some quarters.

That's not to deny or decry the need for action, but the sheer idiocy we are witnessing needs to be seriously challenged.

 

Creating panic amongst young people is irresponsible, if not evil.

Circulating doomsday predicting material to children and young people, like photoshopped images of Buckingham Palace under water is also irresponsible.

The IPCC report warns of possible serious rises in sea levels by 2100 of between 60cm to 1.1 metres.

That would be devastating for some heavily populated coastal communities around the planet, but it isn't going to turn Buck House into Venice or come anywhere near.

 

There's enough nonsense being pedalled that it seriously undermines the relative importance and urgency of the situation.

...and yes, it has created a cult like religious fervour amongst some people (mostly young) who blindly recite dogmatic statements and talk about "the science" when they don't actually understand what "the science" is actually saying.

 

 

 

.

 

[Mike Storey]

28 minutes ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

 

Circulating doomsday predicting material to children and young people, like photoshopped images of Buckingham Palace under water is also irresponsible.

The IPCC report warns of possible serious rises in sea levels by 2100 of between 60cm to 1.1 metres.

That would be devastating for some heavily populated coastal communities around the planet, but it isn't going to turn Buck House into Venice or come anywhere near.

 

 

 

According to at least one, peer-reviewed, report recently, yes it may well, although perhaps not by 2100 exactly. That is, if nothing is done more than is planned currently. Denying it, whilst laudable for children's mental health, is not necessarily helpful overall.

 

https://news.sky.com/story/climate-change-projection-shows-buckingham-palace-and-other-world-sites-surrounded-by-water-12431537

 

[Ron Ron Ron]

9 minutes ago, Mike Storey said:

.....Denying it, whilst laudable for children's mental health, is not necessarily helpful overall.

 

 

It's not about denial, Mike, but about sticking to rational debate and not falling into mass hysteria.

It's too serious a matter to allow baseless lies to be circulated and for the discussion to be dominated by clueless cult ideology.

 

.

 

[Ron Ron Ron]

Back to the subject....there clearly needs to be something done to address the issue of incentives and disincentives working against the use of the electric traction.

 

Similar craziness is occurring elsewhere.

A discussion on business rates on the TV today, highlighted how investment in making businesses more energy efficient, or adopting "green technologies", can feed directly into those companies being subjected to higher rateable values. Those higher business rates then have to be paid year after year.

 

The BBC News channel covered the Freightliner story yesterday afternoon.

From the sense of bafflement in her voice, it sounded like the newsreader clearly hadn't a clue about what the words on the teleprompter actually meant.

 

 

.

Edited October 14, 2021 by Ron Ron Ron

[Dava]

On 11/10/2021 at 14:43, phil-b259 said:

 

Freightliner is a private company and primarily answerable to its SHAREHOLDERS - not environmentalists, pressure groups or Governments.

 

If it starts providing lower profits / lower dividends then those shareholders will DEMAND action to cut costs. Yes it would be nice to think that shareholders would be a bit more altruistic - but the bottom line (as any city share trader / broker / etc knows) is MONEY.

 

Its long been the case that UK freight companies have preferred diesel traction - primarily because THEY control the fuel costs and engage in all sorts of complex financial 'hedging' deals to drive down the price they pay.

 

By contrast they cannot 'shop around' for electricity - they have to pay whatever it is Network Rail want to charge and although it is ultimately regulated by the ORR you cannot escape that fact a having monopoly supplier removes any ability for the consumer to get a cheaper deal.

 

There is also the fact that if you slim down the types of traction used then there will be cost savings associated with training as drivers no longer need as much traction knowledge. Similarly the bare bones / passenger oriented 25KV network (which is mainly confined to radial routes serving London) that has non existent east -west links (you have to be in Scotland or London to get between the WCML and ECML on electric power.

 

The only reason electric freight traction continues to be used is simply down to performance - on busy or steeply graded main lines like the northern reaches of the WCML where using electric traction allows 3 freight paths per hour where as their is only enough space for 1 slow diesel hauled service (that has to be looped far more often to let passenger services past) and which therefore takes a lot longer to get to its destination.

 

So if you want freight companies to switch to electric traction then the GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO ACT by:-

 

Subsidise NRs electricity charges so that they become much lower than diesel fuel can be bought for.

 

Or

 

Buying a controlling stake in the Freight companies where they can force it to do things which act against the core requirement of private sector companies (maximise shareholder returns)

Freightliner is wholly owned by Genesee Wyoming Group. Electric haulage makes up a tiny proportion of their global (mainly US) rail operations, diesel haulage is the norm.

 

Dava

[D410Monarch]

37 minutes ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

Back to the subject....there clearly needs to be something done to address the issue of incentives and disincentives working against the use of the electric traction.

 

Similar craziness is occurring elsewhere.

A discussion on business rates on the TV today, highlighted how investment in making businesses more energy efficient, or adopting "green technologies", can feed directly into those companies being subjected to higher rateable values. Those higher business rates then have to be paid year after year.

 

The BBC News channel covered the Freightliner story yesterday afternoon.

From the sense of bafflement in her voice, it sounded like the newsreader clearly hadn't a clue about what the words on the teleprompter actually meant.

 

 

.

this is exactly why green issues are being slated as a money making scam, more green and energy efficient businesses means the councils charge more business rates ,surely that is the complete opposite of what should be going on and will make businesses think twice about going greener ? time this was redressed I feel and companies,councils and Network Rail (to keep this on topic !) etc should be reigned in with this before it gets completely out of control

[beast66606]

[phil-b259]

10 hours ago, D410Monarch said:

this is exactly why green issues are being slated as a money making scam, more green and energy efficient businesses means the councils charge more business rates ,surely that is the complete opposite of what should be going on and will make businesses think twice about going greener ? time this was redressed I feel and companies,councils and Network Rail (to keep this on topic !) etc should be reigned in with this before it gets completely out of control

 

Have you ever considered that the underlying mechanism of business rates is at fault? 

 

Local councils regularly get a bashing for things which they have no control over and I sense this is yet another one!

 

Business rates are set by central Government and go to HM Treasury NOT local authorities*

 

While addressing climate change should in theory end up with 'green' business paying less tax - that comes into conflict with the way the UK Treasury mandates tax rates are calculated and which are still basically based on the 'higher value the business the more you pay basis'

 

Similarly Network Rail is required to do what the DfT and HM Treasury tell it to - and subsiding / capping electricity costs for business is not something that will NOT be permitted.

 

As I have said before its about time the Westminster mob started governing properly and leading from the front with reform of HM Treasury policy needing to be high on the agenda. If it needs taxes to rise then have the guts to do it and stop this pandering to certain sections of the press / society who value money more than anything else.

 

* Some places like London have been trying to get control of business rate receipts for a while now, not sure if thats gone through although that was supposedly why London was stripped of all transport grant funding a couple of years back leading to the farcical situation where Tube receipts are having to be spent on arterial roads like the A40

Edited October 15, 2021 by phil-b259

[kevinlms]

17 hours ago, Titan said:

 

I was not blaming you for bringing it in to the topic, I was blaming you for trying to use it for cheap point scoring, a lesson which you do not seem to have understood, and now ironically you are mentioning it more than the post you are complaining about in order to continue doing so!

You really have a thing about this don't you? Cheap point scoring is exactly what you are choosing to do and one that stands out, so understanding is not an issue!

[kevinlms]

4 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

There are issues with the terminology.

The Climate has always changed.

First it was Global Warming, then Climate Change. Now it's Climate Emergency.

 

As most of us are only too aware, what is happening is that the average temperatures have been steadily rising at a faster rate than we've experience over the last century.

The issues raised are very real and action is needed, but unfortunately there is most definitely a cult like or religious panic being induced in some quarters.

That's not to deny or decry the need for action, but the sheer idiocy we are witnessing needs to be seriously challenged.

 

Creating panic amongst young people is irresponsible, if not evil.

Circulating doomsday predicting material to children and young people, like photoshopped images of Buckingham Palace under water is also irresponsible.

The IPCC report warns of possible serious rises in sea levels by 2100 of between 60cm to 1.1 metres.

That would be devastating for some heavily populated coastal communities around the planet, but it isn't going to turn Buck House into Venice or come anywhere near.

 

There's enough nonsense being pedalled that it seriously undermines the relative importance and urgency of the situation.

...and yes, it has created a cult like religious fervour amongst some people (mostly young) who blindly recite dogmatic statements and talk about "the science" when they don't actually understand what "the science" is actually saying.

 

 

 

.

 

But there must be an element of truth, because even the Murdoch media empire is now saying it's real.

So that means either it is actually real, or Murdoch sees Climate Change as a way for him to make more money!

Plenty of debate possible on that one!

[Titan]

7 hours ago, kevinlms said:

You really have a thing about this don't you? Cheap point scoring is exactly what you are choosing to do and one that stands out, so understanding is not an issue!

 

Unfortunately, if you keep responding it proves you don't understand, as it is the inappropriate responses you keep giving, and the lack of understanding of what "Cheap point scoring" actually is, which again the above post also proves that you don't understand.  So if understanding is not an issue for you, prove it by understanding this post, and make the above post the last you make on this matter.

Edited October 15, 2021 by Titan

[ruggedpeak]

Mostly diesel operations around the globe, here's Down Under:

 

 

and North America

 

 

I don't think their credentials have taken much of a hit for those who understand the business. Still better than lots of lorries. Their business is just part of the global supply chain that keeps us fed, clothed and provided with "stuff" to keep us entertained.

 

https://www.gwrr.com/

 

[Northmoor]

59 minutes ago, ruggedpeak said:

I don't think their credentials have taken much of a hit for those who understand the business. Still better than lots of lorries. Their business is just part of the global supply chain that keeps us fed, clothed and provided with "stuff" to keep us entertained.

 

https://www.gwrr.com/

 

Indeed, diesel seems to have suddenly become the Bogeyman for many who have just joined the environmental bandwagon (new converts are always the most fundamentalist).  Diesel engines aren't the problem, it is using them in duty cycles for which they are suboptimal that is the problem; family cars in cities doing 5k a year, because people thought they'd "save a lot of money on fuel", when fuel cost is trivial to most people running cars less than five years old.

 

Converting GWRR operations to electric traction in most parts of the world is never going to be even vaguely economic; electrification is justified by traffic density, not load or speed, except for very high speeds when you run out of room for the radiators on diesel traction (which is why no-one is likely to build a faster diesel than the IC125).

[corneliuslundie]

There is also the issue that it is also not environmentally friendly to waste physical resources by scrapping things prematurely. Both energy and materials will have been used in their manufacture.

That is why I am annoyed at those who think that local authorities etc should immediately switch to electric vehicles - especially as currently a large proportion of our electricity is generated using gas. Yes, replace them at the right time, The same applies to diesel traction on the railway.  And as Nearholmer says, in may cases diesel is the only practical fuel.

And I laugh at those who are promoting hydrogen. That takes an enormous amount of electricity to produce. Fine if the electricity is "free" but it is not and will not be for some time.

I have also read comments of wind farms being abandoned rather than maintained in the USA  because it is cheaper to build new ones given the subsidy regime.

Jonathan

[Ron Ron Ron]

10 hours ago, kevinlms said:

But there must be an element of truth, because even the Murdoch media empire is now saying it's real.

So that means either it is actually real, or Murdoch sees Climate Change as a way for him to make more money!

Plenty of debate possible on that one!

 

I'm not suggesting the issue of global warming isn't true.

The negative effects mankind is having on the environment are real.

 

The issue is the stupid hysteria that's been created by extreme factions and being used to hijack a very serious set of issues.

It's not a conspiracy theory to suggest that extreme political groups have latched onto this movement and intend to use it for their own nefarious purposes.

It's in plain view.

 

Anyway, I think we should stick to the specific subject of the OP and not meander off in this particular direction.

 

 

 

.

Edited October 15, 2021 by Ron Ron Ron

[Arpster]

As someone who has worked in climate change research for almost 15 years, I'd love to know what aspects of climate change you think are "stupid hysteria". If you look at the reports by the IPCC, which synthesise the world's scientific knowledge on climate change, you'll see that they are pretty alarming. And us scientists tend to be quite conservative in our language, trying to avoid over-stating things. The scientific community has been trying to raise public awareness about the seriousness of the situation for many years now. The IPCC's 1.5 Degrees special report made it pretty clear that about that level of global warming things start to get pretty scary. What has happened recently is that others in 'civic society' have started to shout about the urgency of change too, not just the world's scientists. People like Extinction Rebellion, love them or loathe them, have done a service in making this something that is at least being talked about.

 

Many well-respected scientists and engineers have written and published on the need to radpidly decarbonise society. Some argue that developed nations like ours need to be cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 10-15% per year, every year, starting last year. The 'net zero' date of 2050 isn't as important as the rate of decarbonisation achieved over the next 10 years. If we're to follow a science- and evidence-led approach to tackling climate change, then these are the cuts we need to acheive, regardless of whether we think it's doable or not. It's the job of politicians, shareholders, business owners, engineers, economists, and planners to find ways to achieve that without destroying people's livelihoods. That's what I think is failing to happen.

[Nick C]

3 hours ago, Northmoor said:

Diesel engines aren't the problem, it is using them in duty cycles for which they are suboptimal that is the problem; family cars in cities doing 5k a year, because people thought they'd "save a lot of money on fuel", when fuel cost is trivial to most people running cars less than five years old.

This is why we have two cars, one Diesel and one petrol - the latter for shorter, town journeys where the oil-burner wouldn't be appropriate. Sure an EV would be better still, but that's still out of our financial reach until they start coming onto the secondhand market in greater numbers.

[Ron Ron Ron]

23 minutes ago, Arpster said:

As someone who has worked in climate change research for almost 15 years, I'd love to know what aspects of climate change you think are "stupid hysteria". If you look at the reports by the IPCC, which synthesise the world's scientific knowledge on climate change, you'll see that they are pretty alarming. And us scientists tend to be quite conservative in our language, trying to avoid over-stating things. The scientific community has been trying to raise public awareness about the seriousness of the situation for many years now. The IPCC's 1.5 Degrees special report made it pretty clear that about that level of global warming things start to get pretty scary. What has happened recently is that others in 'civic society' have started to shout about the urgency of change too, not just the world's scientists. People like Extinction Rebellion, love them or loathe them, have done a service in making this something that is at least being talked about.

 

Many well-respected scientists and engineers have written and published on the need to radpidly decarbonise society. Some argue that developed nations like ours need to be cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 10-15% per year, every year, starting last year. The 'net zero' date of 2050 isn't as important as the rate of decarbonisation achieved over the next 10 years. If we're to follow a science- and evidence-led approach to tackling climate change, then these are the cuts we need to acheive, regardless of whether we think it's doable or not. It's the job of politicians, shareholders, business owners, engineers, economists, and planners to find ways to achieve that without destroying people's livelihoods. That's what I think is failing to happen.

 

I agree with most of that, apart from the reference to XR and other affiliated organisations, but I don't think we should go there on this forum.

 

 

.

 

 

[kevinlms]

3 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

I'm not suggesting the issue of global warming isn't true.

The negative effects mankind is having on the environment are real.

 

The issue is the stupid hysteria that's been created by extreme factions and being used to hijack a very serious set of issues.

It's not a conspiracy theory to suggest that extreme political groups have latched onto this movement and intend to use it for their own nefarious purposes.

It's in plain view.

 

Anyway, I think we should stick to the specific subject of the OP and not meander off in this particular direction.

 

 

 

.

The 'stupid hysteria' comes from both sides.

 

Earlier it was mentioned about the doctored photo of water lapping up to Buckingham Palace, which is plain nonsense.

It is equal nonsense, to be suggesting that it's a wonderful bit of salesmanship, to open up a new huge coal mine in Australia and be subsidised by the taxpayer, so that one of the richest men in India will create new jobs in Australia. It was originally stated that about 10,000 jobs would be created, now the estimates are for a few hundred. There is simply nothing in it economically, let alone the pollution and greenhouse gases.

[brushman47544]

5 hours ago, ruggedpeak said:

Mostly diesel operations around the globe, here's Down Under:

 

 

and North America

 

 

I don't think their credentials have taken much of a hit for those who understand the business. Still better than lots of lorries. Their business is just part of the global supply chain that keeps us fed, clothed and provided with "stuff" to keep us entertained.

 

https://www.gwrr.com/

 

 

Undoubtedly for the major part, diesel operations will be the mainstay of freight by rail, not least because it will be uneconomic to electrify much of the rail network both here and abroad. For me it is the use of diesels for long distances under the wires that needs to be avoided as much as possible and in that respect infrastructure charges should be adjusted as necessary so as not to favour diesel haulage. If the Government was really serious it would allow Network Rail to price accordingly.

 

I cannot imagine other countries in Europe with most main lines being electrified allowing operators to switch from electrics to diesels. We need a continuous long-term electrification programme and pricing incentives to encourage operators to buy new electric locos and keep diesels for unelectrified lines. The trouble is I can't see it happening while the age profile of those in government is so high. If more younger MPs with longer term interests were elected and appointed to ministerial posts there might at least be a better acceptance of the need for action.

[Fat Controller]

4 minutes ago, brushman47544 said:

 

Undoubtedly for the major part, diesel operations will be the mainstay of freight by rail, not least because it will be uneconomic to electrify much of the rail network both here and abroad. For me it is the use of diesels for long distances under the wires that needs to be avoided as much as possible and in that respect infrastructure charges should be adjusted as necessary so as not to favour diesel haulage. If the Government was really serious it would allow Network Rail to price accordingly.

 

I cannot imagine other countries in Europe with most main lines being electrified allowing operators to switch from electrics to diesels. We need a continuous long-term electrification programme and pricing incentives to encourage operators to buy new electric locos and keep diesels for unelectrified lines. The trouble is I can't see it happening while the age profile of those in government is so high. If more younger MPs with longer term interests were elected and appointed to ministerial posts there might at least be a better acceptance of the need for action.

'Diesels under the wires' seems pretty common in France; the limestone trains from Caffiers to Grande Synthe, for example, are diesel-hauled, despite the route having been recently upgraded and electrified (including the sidings at both ends)

[black and decker boy]

22 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

There are issues with the terminology.

The Climate has always changed.

First it was Global Warming, then Climate Change. Now it's Climate Emergency.

 

As most of us are only too aware, what is happening is that the average temperatures have been steadily rising at a faster rate than we've experience over the last century.

The issues raised are very real and action is needed, but unfortunately there is most definitely a cult like or religious panic being induced in some quarters.

That's not to deny or decry the need for action, but the sheer idiocy we are witnessing needs to be seriously challenged.

 

Creating panic amongst young people is irresponsible, if not evil.

Circulating doomsday predicting material to children and young people, like photoshopped images of Buckingham Palace under water is also irresponsible.

The IPCC report warns of possible serious rises in sea levels by 2100 of between 60cm to 1.1 metres.

That would be devastating for some heavily populated coastal communities around the planet, but it isn't going to turn Buck House into Venice or come anywhere near.

 

There's enough nonsense being pedalled that it seriously undermines the relative importance and urgency of the situation.

...and yes, it has created a cult like religious fervour amongst some people (mostly young) who blindly recite dogmatic statements and talk about "the science" when they don't actually understand what "the science" is actually saying.

 

 

 

.

 

A sea level rise of 1.1m will be pretty terminal to many parts of the U.K. not just coastal areas but swathes of the east and Somerset which are already below sea level and the defences of which would be overwhelmed. Adding 1.1m to those defences would make the current budget deficit look like a child’s piggy bank

 

when working on rebuilding current flood defences in recent years, the climate change projections for 2050 were adding about 300mm so any acceleration in global temperature increase as the century advances will swamp them let alone older ones. 

Such a rise in sea level also compounds our ability to discharge storm run off (storm intensity is increasing) when combined With high tides and strong winds.

 

it isn’t going to be pretty. I’ll be buying a house on a hill and a boat when I retire next decade 

 

whilst I may be branded a doom monger but a combination of global warming and sea level rises with peak oil and the impact on food production, land mass and cost of living could well see an increase in country aggression and territorial land grabs.

[ruggedpeak]

3 hours ago, Fat Controller said:

'Diesels under the wires' seems pretty common in France; the limestone trains from Caffiers to Grande Synthe, for example, are diesel-hauled, despite the route having been recently upgraded and electrified (including the sidings at both ends)

GM EMD has sold lots of Euro 66's and they regularly operate under wires.