Carbon emissions from UK rail travel lower than previously thought

[Neil]

An interesting and positive article from today's Guardian on a new tool to measure carbon emissions from rail transport. It allows a more detailed picture to be presented and should be useful in pressing the case for greater electrification. We seem to lag behind continental Europe in this regard. Most years I holiday in Europe and travel by train, from home on the Cambrian coast the nearest electrified line is at Wolverhampton or Crewe however from London I can journey all the way to small towns in France, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands and Belgium without diesel haulage.

[Jeremy Cumberland]

The article is poorly worded, and quite likely is misleading, too.

 

Although the new figure of 12.5kg/CO2e per passenger-kilometre is given for a specific route (King's Cross to Edinburgh), we aren't told much about how it was arrived at nor what the numbers are for other routes.

 

On the other hand, we are told exactly how the old figure of 24kg/CO2e was reached, and the methodology looks almost perfect to me.

Quote

Previously the calculation had been based on the UK government’s annual “greenhouse gas conversion factors for company reporting” data which involves one simple calculation – total energy consumed by the national rail net work divided by total reported number of passenger kilometres travelled.

The only thing missing appears to be how freight kilometre-tonnes are factored in.

 

It's quite right that different routes should get their own calculations, but with only one number reported, which must be one of the best in the country (probably why it was chosen), we aren't given any picture of what effect electrification has. I wouldn't be at all surprised if London to Exeter (diesel) was also significantly below 24kg/CO2e as well, whereas something like Lichfield to Birmingham (electric) might well be higher.

 

Some things ought to ring alarm bells. We are told part of the methodology:

Quote

The calculator, developed by Thrust Carbon, a sustainability intelligence platform, uses seven sets of data – including engine and fuel type, occupancy and carriage layout, and exact journey distance – to more accurately measure the footprint.

But we are then told, in a very optimistic voice:

Quote

if a train runs but is completely empty, and you’re breaking down your emissions on a specific train then perhaps ticket prices should be lower to encourage more people to take those trains.

Or perhaps the train should be cancelled and the line closed.

 

I'm all in favour of better data, lower carbon emissions and electrification, but the statement “The more granular you can get with the data, the better decisions can be made,” is not necessarily true, for it removes the focus from the bigger picture of having an integrated public transport system. The less efficient parts might be needed to support the whole.

[Wickham Green too]

1 hour ago, Jeremy Cumberland said:

...  it removes the focus from the bigger picture of having an integrated public transport system. The less efficient parts might be needed to support the whole.

Beeching all over again !!?!

[Jeremy Cumberland]

8 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

Beeching all over again !!?!

Well, it did pass through my mind.

 

Clearly rail closures are not the objective of these people, but Beeching makes me wary of considring individual lines in isolation, and the person suggesting lower fares as the remedy for empty trains seems naive in the extreme.

[Wheatley]

The old calculation is simpler but made a lot of assumptions, some of which are heading into guesswork. Until recently, for example, no train operator knew what it's actual electric train power consumption was because electric trains didn't have meters on them so Network Rail's leccy bill was shared between operators based on miles run. Some of which were also guessed. Now I can log into a 331 and (should I be so inclined) see what setting the driver has got his cab fan on. 

 

It's only been released for passenger services so far, primarily for business users who have corporate carbon footprints to worry about. I presume freight will follow later. 

 

Train operators already know which services are running mostly empty, a significant number are because passenger flows vary by time of day and to get a train out of London (or wherever) in the peak you first need to get it into London. I suspect what was being badly expressed was a more refined version of starting off peak fares at 09.30 and stopping them at 15.30  so all the twirlies aren't getting under the feet of the commuters  

Edited July 1, 2023 by Wheatley

[ikcdab]

I do wonder how much of the other figures that been forced down our throats will also prove to be wrong.

I note, for example, the Irish government proposal to cull 200,000 cattle because cattle contribute "38% of Irish greenhouse gas emissions", a seemingly unbelievable figure and when no thought about how the lost milk and meat production will be made up...presumably by importing and therefore just moving the carbon emissions elsewhere.

One might imagine that the 38% will, in future, prove to be wrong.

Diesel emissions scandal?

Ian

[Wickham Green too]

1 hour ago, ikcdab said:

... no thought about how the lost milk and meat production will be made up...presumably by importing ...

But the lost production wouldn't necessarily just impact domestic supplies - beef & dairy are currently valuable EXPORT commodities ................. or is the thinking that if they don't export, they save on transport emissions, too ??!?

[KingEdwardII]

15 hours ago, Neil said:

electrification. We seem to lag behind continental Europe in this regard.

And some...

 

For me, this is a touchstone of how serious any government is about "NetZero". Railway electrification is in the government's hands - if they are serious, then they will devote the required billions to a major electrification program so that ALL the mainlines are electrified and also the majority of the busier local routes.

 

I see no sign of this happening - the only NetZero stuff that gets proposed are schemes that dump the costs directly on us as consumers, without the government spending anything.

 

Yours, Mike.

[JohnR]

12 hours ago, ikcdab said:

I do wonder how much of the other figures that been forced down our throats will also prove to be wrong.

I note, for example, the Irish government proposal to cull 200,000 cattle because cattle contribute "38% of Irish greenhouse gas emissions", a seemingly unbelievable figure and when no thought about how the lost milk and meat production will be made up...presumably by importing and therefore just moving the carbon emissions elsewhere.

One might imagine that the 38% will, in future, prove to be wrong.

Diesel emissions scandal?

Ian

Technically, there isn't even a government proposal to cull that many cattle.

 

There is a need to the agriculture sector in Ireland to reduce its emissions - it makes up about 35% of Ireland's carbon footprint. To meet their targets, that would be the equivalent of 200,000 cows. But that doesn't mean 200,000 cows will be shot overnight, as some manic conspiracy theorists, amplified by so-called serious news outlets would have you believe.

 

There's actually been a lot of research over how cattle emissions can be lowered, especially with things like diet supplements - remember these emissions come as a result of what they eat. Other reductions can be achieved by changing the way agriculture works.

[Guest]

The danger is that the data could be used by the DfT & Treasury to justify a reduction in service on diesel-worked branch lines where CO2 per passenger is higher. The data can highlight the sustainability of ECML services which are now mostly electric (notwithstanding the diesel engines on the Azuma bi-modes) and this show benefits compared to car & flights. The data might also be used to show that cutting rail services on lightly-used branch lines is a cheaper means to reduce carbon than procuring new trains with batteries etc and that electric or hydrogen buses will be a better means of providing a service. An eco-Beeching for the 21st century. 

[Flying Pig]

Railways are also a lot simpler because pretty much all their carbon emissions* are fossil carbon which was previously sequestered underground for tens or hundreds of millions of years.

 

The question of emissions from agriculture is a lot more complex.  How much of the carbon emitted is CO2 that was fixed from the atmosphere by plants within the last couple of years?  How much is methane generated from atmospheric CO2 by methanogenic bacteria?  How much is fossil carbon from fuels and agrichemicals?  How much is carbon released or not sequestered due to soil degradation or land use change? They all have different significance in terms of effect on climate.

 

The elephant in the Irish room is of course the destruction of their peat bogs.

 

*edit - I forgot the contribution of biomass to electricity production in the UK, which complicates matters (it's far from carbon-neutral).

Edited July 2, 2023 by Flying Pig

[Jeremy Cumberland]

The Irish example illustrates a common problem with carbon calculations: where should we assign responsibility? Should it be the producer (cattle farmers in Ireland), the consumer (beef and cheese eaters in Europe, perhaps), or someone else?

 

If the cattle are primarily for export (live animals or animal products), then we might assume that current consumers will simply buy their meat and dairy from somewhere else, doing nothing for CO2 emissions or for the Irish economy. There is an argument that if all producing countries addressed their own CO2 emissions then consumers would be forced to change their ways, and CO2 emissions would reduce. On the other hand, our knowledge of the world suggests that the gap in the market will readily be filled from South America, and that reducing the number of cattle in Ireland will actually result in another bit of Amazon rainforest being cleared to farm more cattle.

 

Even so, governments are expected to manage things that are under their control. The Irish government can't control deforestation in South America or the eating habits of Britons or Germans, but they can control the number of cattle farmed in Ireland, and it is only right that they should look at CO2 emissions from cattle farming. As I understand it, they have decided not to go ahead with the cull.

 

Railways are a lot simpler, because you can look at the whole picture, including, if necessary, the effect on CO2 emissions of switching transport from road to rail or vice versa, yet even here it is possible to use genuine data to present misleading arguments. CO2 emissions per passenger-kilometre is a useful metric, but it doesn't fit all situations. In the context of the original article, we are given no comparisons, apart from being told that emissions from Kings Cross to Edinburgh are about half the national average, which isn't really much of a surprise. If we are told that Aylesbury to London or  Machynlleth to Pwllheli are about double the national average (I have no idea what the actual values are), what conclusions ought we draw? A different newspaper, following the same pattern as the Guardian article, might run a piece saying that railway CO2 emissions are far higher than previously reported, and that railways aren't environmentally friendly after all.

[The Stationmaster]

12 hours ago, Wickham Green too said:

But the lost production wouldn't necessarily just impact domestic supplies - beef & dairy are currently valuable EXPORT commodities ................. or is the thinking that if they don't export, they save on transport emissions, too ??!?

The number of cattle on British farms has declined steadily since 1975 witha tital decline in numbers since them of roundly 30%.  Over recent years teh dairy herd has been fairy steady in numbers but beef cattle have declined ata. steady pace and thebreeding has shrunk.  

 

 

The number of cattle in Britain now is roughly the same as it was in 1955 - when teh human population was much lower.   the number of sheep declined by abour 10 million between 1985 and 2015.  So if consumption has increased then imports will have increased due to reductions in home animal production numbers.

 

So all the nonsense spouted about reducing the animal population to reduce greenhouse gas en missions is basically a load of hot air because it is lagging what has actually happened by several decades.

 

In our immediate vicinity all the dairy farms have gone.  There used to be five within 3-4 miles of where I live and everyone of them has gone.  One under housing and the others converted to arable crop use,    So we no longer have milk produced at a farm on our doorstep.  We do however now have two good vineyards within 5-6 miles of where we live but their products are massively more expensive than a pint of milk and probably don't work very well in a cup of tea.

 

[Flying Pig]

13 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

So all the nonsense spouted about reducing the animal population to reduce greenhouse gas en missions is basically a load of hot air because it is lagging what has actually happened by several decades.

 

Not entirely nonsense but certainly more nuanced than the current tiresome "animals bad" mantra.  And as you say, not taking into account actual recent changes.