Eternal Sunshine wrote:I usually have 2 or 3 each journey because my car is mainly a taxi for my children! Today there would be either 2 or 3 of us on the trip to Manchester.
How many people do you have to have in your car for it to become less carbon intensive than the train? It's an economical car, and I don't drive like a lunatic.
There is no simple answer to that one I am afraid.
Cars vary a lot in fuel consumption according to model, how driven, traffic, and weather.
Trains vary even more, with the modern diesel railbuses about the worst.
Also with a train, should one consider simply ones own share of the fuel used by the train ? or should one take take the view that the train was running anyway, and burning fuel, and that only the extra fuel burnt by carrying an extra passenger should be counted.
For example, consider a train with 100 passengers that uses 50 L of fuel, it could be argued that this is 0.5L per person.
OTOH it could be considered that the train was running anyway, and burning 50L of fuel. Carrying an extra passenger would only increase this minutely.
Assume that the empty train weighs 90 tons, and that each passenger weighs 100KG (with luggage) Adding an extra passenger has added 0.1 ton, to an existing weight of 100 tons (train plus the original 100 passengers) This is an increase of 0.1 % in weight.
If one assumes that fuel use inceases in proportion to the weight, 0.1% more fuel will be burnt, which is 0.05L.
In fact the extra fuel used would be even less, since the wind resistance and the energy used for heating, cooling and lighting remain unchanged.
Only the rolling resistance, the energy used in accelerating, and that used to ascend inclines would increase.
I agree though that rail fares are excessive, and in many cases rising at many times the government inflation figures.
Driving is often cheaper than a standard class ticket, first class is becoming comparable with taxi fares.
"Installers and owners of emergency diesels must assume that they will have to run for a week or more"