|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Chris TolleyChris Tolley Date: Jul 21, 2008 06:32
John B wrote:
> There's a false belief that occasionally rears its ugly head here,
> fuelled by a newspaper's misunderstanding of a rigged study, that cars
> and planes are more environmentally friendly than rail.
Only as a result of a crosspost from The Other Place. People in uk.r are
far too clear-headed to fall for any of that rubbish.
> From this month's Informed Sources e-preview [on fitting an
> electricity meter to a Pendolino, and working out actual consumption
> per actual passenger]:
>
> [begin quote]
> At current load factors...
|
| Show full article (1.41Kb) |
|
| | 41 Comments |
|
|
Author: Mike PMike P Date: Jul 21, 2008 06:49
"Chris Tolley" supanet.com> wrote in message
news:c60ejt4shc7.mxghk4pumb6l$.dlg@40tude.net...> John B wrote:
>
>> There's a false belief that occasionally rears its ugly head here,
>> fuelled by a newspaper's misunderstanding of a rigged study, that cars
>> and planes are more environmentally friendly than rail.
>
> Only as a result of a crosspost from The Other Place. People in uk.r are
> far too clear-headed to fall for any of that rubbish.
>
>> From this month's Informed Sources e-preview [on fitting an
>> electricity meter to a Pendolino, and working out actual consumption
>> per actual passenger]:
>>
>> [begin quote]
>> At current load factors the Pendolino generates 35gm of CO2 per
>> passenger km on the current electricity generation mix. If you ignore
>> load factors and go for per seat km the Pendolino is responsible for
>> 16.6 gm CO2, half that produced by 47 mpg Honda Jazz. ...
|
| Show full article (1.13Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: Roland PerryRoland Perry Date: Jul 21, 2008 06:46
In message 40tude.net>, at 13:32:50 on
Mon, 21 Jul 2008, Chris Tolley supanet.com> remarked:>> There's a false belief that occasionally rears its ugly head here,
>> fuelled by a newspaper's misunderstanding of a rigged study, that cars
>> and planes are more environmentally friendly than rail.
>
>Only as a result of a crosspost from The Other Place. People in uk.r are
>far too clear-headed to fall for any of that rubbish.
Also the (given the failing economy now presumably dead) constant
proposals for new High-Speed lines, where the energy consumption will be
much higher, and air travel comparatively not so bad.
I predict a day when no trains travel at more than 50mph because of
energy issues, and people are happy just to be travelling at all,
irrespective of the speed.
--
Roland Perry
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Roger ThorpeRoger Thorpe Date: Jul 21, 2008 07:09
Chris Tolley wrote:
> John B wrote:
>
>
>>There's a false belief that occasionally rears its ugly head here,
>>fuelled by a newspaper's misunderstanding of a rigged study, that cars
>>and planes are more environmentally friendly than rail.
>
>
> Only as a result of a crosspost from The Other Place. People in uk.r are
> far too clear-headed to fall for any of that rubbish.
If you look around you'll find that there are some on uk.t who believe
that walking or cycling use more primary energy than motoring......
Roger Thorpe
|
| |
| 3 Comments |
|
|
Author: Neil WilliamsNeil Williams Date: Jul 21, 2008 07:23
Mike P wrote:
> FWIW, I'd still rather travel 5 up in a Jazz than on a train. With luggage.
> and yes, I have done it.
I assume you are both short and slim, then. Some of us aren't (well,
I'm not fat these days, but I'm wide enough that I would not be
comfortable "3 up" in any small or medium car, though a large one
would probably be OK).
Neil
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ConorConor Date: Jul 21, 2008 07:30
In article wisteria.csv.warwick.ac.uk>, Roger Thorpe
says...
> If you look around you'll find that there are some on uk.t who believe
> that walking or cycling use more primary energy than motoring......
>
It's been proven when you consider the overall expenditure from growth
to consumption.
--
Conor
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: EE507EE507 Date: Jul 21, 2008 07:31
On Jul 21, 2:46 pm, Roland Perry perry.co.uk> wrote:>
> I predict a day when no trains travel at more than 50mph because of
> energy issues, and people are happy just to be travelling at all,
> irrespective of the speed.
> --
> Roland Perry
Do you really think that? If so, why single out trains for such
draconian action? I would hope to see cars limited to 50 mph (20 mph
in urban areas) first. The triple dividend of lower casualties,
reduced energy consumption / CO2 and lower demand means it should be
the number one transport policy priority.
A surface transport speed limit of 50 mph does make one think again
about the optimum size of cities and travel-to-work city regions.
London would surely cease to function...
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Mike PMike P Date: Jul 21, 2008 07:34
> Mike P wrote:
>
>> FWIW, I'd still rather travel 5 up in a Jazz than on a train. With
>> luggage.
>> and yes, I have done it.
>
> I assume you are both short and slim, then. Some of us aren't (well,
> I'm not fat these days, but I'm wide enough that I would not be
> comfortable "3 up" in any small or medium car, though a large one
> would probably be OK).
>
13 or so years ago, I used to use the trains a lot. I'd just moved back from
Greece, I lived up North and all my mates were down south. I had a driving
licence but no car, just a motorcycle, So, it was a weekly trip on the train
to Oxford every Friday without fail. The seats weren't comfy then, and it
was always crowded. It was just warmer and dryer than the 'bike.
|
| Show full article (1.22Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Peter MassonPeter Masson Date: Jul 21, 2008 07:47
"EE507" yahoo.co.uk> wrote>
>A surface transport speed limit of 50 mph does make one think again
>about the optimum size of cities and travel-to-work city regions.
>London would surely cease to function...
Would it? It would cease to be viable to live well outside Greater London
and work in London, but people who live and work within Greater London
rarely travel above 50 mph - LUL, London Buses, DLR and Tramlink manage with
speeds no higher than this, while National Rail stopping services within
Greater London rarely go above 60 mph, and would not be greatly affected if
permitted speeds were reduced to 50 mph.
Peter
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Roger ThorpeRoger Thorpe Date: Jul 21, 2008 07:48
Conor wrote:
> In article wisteria.csv.warwick.ac.uk>, Roger Thorpe
> says...
>
> >> If you look around you'll find that there are some on uk.t who believe
>>that walking or cycling use more primary energy than motoring......
>>
>
> It's been proven when you consider the overall expenditure from growth
> to consumption.
>
>
I think you'll find it hasn't. See my post on the other thread.
Roger Thorpe
|
| |
| no comments |
|
RELATED THREADS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
