Fast Track To Public Rail Electrification

[Anonymous]

HarveyK400

The Eric A Morris article link referencing a Booze, Allen, Hamilton study for the UK DOT argues that construction emissions eliminates the advantage of HSR over air transport; but does this take into account alternative airport improvement and maintenance needs?  Or road improvements if auto travel is not diverted? 

 

The core purpose of HSR is the reduction of CO2 emissions by mankind.  Therefore, it does not follow that it is okay for HSR to emit CO2 because other forms of transportation emit CO2.  For HSR to be viable, it must emit significantly less CO2 than alternate forms of transportation.  To achieve that goal, wind-generated electricity is the only viable option.

 

Here is an article citing the Booz Allen Hamilton report:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/aug/17/high-speed-rail-environment

[blownout cylinder]

schlimm

Good questions.  Furthermore, given Booz Allen's connections primarily to DoD and CIA and electronic surveillance under SWIFT, I wonder how valid the report even is.

Who wrote these lines then considering the connections between Booz Allen and the DoD, CIA and this mmmm? I didn't ---

Oh---and nice sneakiness in assuming me being paranoid---

[schlimm]

blownout cylinder

Wonder if'n we don't have the tinfoil hat on a little too tight-----

Anything that disagrees with centralized government involvment with HSR, and the associated coordination under a national transportation policy has to be assumed as being suspect----

 

Insults are the last refuge of a fuzzy thinker.  The Booz Allen record speaks for itself.  Given its connections to the US federal government and your paranoid delusions (those old black helicopters are coming!), I should think you would automatically reject it.  In any case, what gives you sitting in Canada, the position to denounce "creeping federal takeovers"?

[blownout cylinder]

schlimm

Good questions.  Furthermore, given Booz Allen's connections primarily to DoD and CIA and electronic surveillance under SWIFT, I wonder how valid the report even is.

Wonder if'n we don't have the tinfoil hat on a little too tight-----

Anything that disagrees with centralized government involvment with HSR, and the associated coordination under a national transportation policy has to be assumed as being suspect----

[schlimm]

HarveyK400

The Eric A Morris article link referencing a Booze, Allen, Hamilton study for the UK DOT argues that construction emissions eliminates the advantage of HSR over air transport; but does this take into account alternative airport improvement and maintenance needs?  Or road improvements if auto travel is not diverted?  These are not all sunk investment, and meeting future road and air demand will be costly without diversion to rail, high speed or conventional.

 

Good questions.  Furthermore, given Booz Allen's connections primarily to DoD and CIA and electronic surveillance under SWIFT, I wonder how valid the report even is.

[blownout cylinder]

Bucyrus

In a context even larger than the national transportation system, there is intent to derive electricity for all applications from renewable energy sources, and rebuild the entire distribution grid with what is called the smart grid.  The smart grid will micromanage electricity use and encourage conservation.  The amount of electricity that will be saved by the smart grid and conservation will likely be more than enough to power the near universal electrification of railroads.    

There will then be some conservation. Note--SOME conservation because on balance the power needs will shift to large scale operations. The average consumer will conserve due to the price sting while some segments will get access to more energy--

[Anonymous]

wwhitby

One important question in the electrification debate is where is the additional electricity required going to come from?  Our current administrator is hostile to the coal industry.  Coal and natural gas fired plants will release CO2, which would be impacted by cap & trade.  Nuclear, no one wants.  That leaves hydro, geothermal, wind and solar, the total of which won't meet all our current needs now, much less so in the future.

IMHO, unless we either back away from cap & trade-type legislation, or start building more nuclear power plants, railroad electrification is a non-starter.

BTW, I never thought about EMD's F3 killing electrification as well as steam, but you're right.

While this thread focuses on rail electrification, that is only one small component of the larger plan, which is for a national transportation system.  The two most critical elements of the purpose of this plan are to abandon the use of oil, and to avert a climate catastrophe.  The latter requires that rail electrification power be derived from renewable energy sources, which will most likely be windmills.  However, electrification may commence with energy derived from non-renewable sources such as coal.

 

Windmill generators will need to be located in areas currently remote from the necessary power distribution grid capacity needed to carry the power to the points of use.  So, new power grid capacity will be needed in addition to the wind generators.  Aside from the distribution of electricity for rail electrification, railroad right-of-ways may play a key role in providing corridors for new grid capacity for non-rail electrical use. 

 

In a context even larger than the national transportation system, there is intent to derive electricity for all applications from renewable energy sources, and rebuild the entire distribution grid with what is called the smart grid.  The smart grid will micromanage electricity use and encourage conservation.  The amount of electricity that will be saved by the smart grid and conservation will likely be more than enough to power the near universal electrification of railroads.    

[HarveyK400]

Bucyrus

I agree that speed is not irrelevant.  Some degree of speed is essential just to accomplish transportation.  The question is all about how much speed destroys the mission.  I also agree that the higher the speed, the more it will entice people to take the train rather that flying or driving.  But the whole point of doing that is not a private

 

investment wager that high-speed trains will become profitable.  On the contrary, it is a government sector, publicly financed response to a crisis on behalf of the U.S. citizens.  Specifically, the most critical purpose for HSR, which is the reduction of CO2, is intended to avert an incredibly dire catastrophe.  It is not even asked to make a profit, let alone expected to do so.  It is intended to save our lives. 

 

There are three possible ways to power HSR:

 

1)      Diesel.

2)      Electricity generated from coal or other fossil fuels.

3)      Electricity generated from renewable sources such as wind and solar.

 

With method #3, no CO2 is produced regardless of train speed, so there is no conflict between speed and CO2 emissions.  With methods #1 and #2, there are CO2 emissions, which rise with train speed.  At the highest speeds contemplated for HSR, trains produce, per passenger mile, CO2 emissions similar to that of flying and driving.  So what would be the point of fossil fueled HSR running at those highest speeds if it fails to reduce the earth’s CO2?

 

With fossil fueled HSR, to the extent it attracts travelers away from air and highway, it succeeds in its mission.  But to the extent that it increases its speed, it fails in its mission.  But then again, to the extent that HSR is fueled by renewable energy, it succeeds at its mission

 

The objective should be to get people to trade air and highway for rail and then to produce as little CO2 as possible.  It is true that rail speed is an enticement for people to ride it, and the train speed needs to be exceptionally high in order to get people to choose it over flying.  High train speed is the carrot all right.  But the government has sticks as well as carrots to get people to behave properly.  The government can give the people the new train as a carrot, and get them to ride it by raising the price of gasoline, as the stick.    

   

Here is a New York Times blog piece that is critical of the green claims for HSR, and it is followed by lots of interesting comments. 

 

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/high-speed-rail-and-co2/

I agree with Bucyrus on the energy and emissions goals for HSR being problematic.

First, have we forgotten the discussion on the recouperated gas-turbine for light weight HSR traction for a 4th alternative?  Emissions are still a problem; but bio-fuels may offer a solution to an oil shortage.

The Government isn't the only Big Stick - an expected future shortage and scarcity/supply-sensitive pricing and profiteering will affect oil costs regardless of the relatively constant, slow rising, cost of oil production.

The Eric A Morris article link referencing a Booze, Allen, Hamilton study for the UK DOT argues that construction emissions eliminates the advantage of HSR over air transport; but does this take into account alternative airport improvement and maintenance needs?  Or road improvements if auto travel is not diverted?  These are not all sunk investment, and meeting future road and air demand will be costly without diversion to rail, high speed or conventional.

Next, moving HSR seats produces as much emissions as autos and considerably more than intercity bus; but this is a comparison to normal highway speeds.  While the prospect for clean electric energy is acknowledged, the article focuses on emissions from the continued use of fossil fuels for HSR.

I do agree that HSR should be evaluated thoroughly.

 

[blownout cylinder]

schlimm

 Bucyrus:  A very good article with lots of thought-provoking comments.  Thanks for the link!

I'll second this comment!! Thanks!!

[schlimm]

 Bucyrus:  A very good article with lots of thought-provoking comments.  Thanks for the link!

[Anonymous]

HarveyK400

I don't think speed is irrelevant, even in the sustainability mode.  That is the carrot enticing travel mode choices if energy cost is not wildly excessive and rationing is not involved.  The point is achieving a balance that saves some energy overall by diversion to rail, notwithstanding the small proportion of rail.

 

I agree that speed is not irrelevant.  Some degree of speed is essential just to accomplish transportation.  The question is all about how much speed destroys the mission.  I also agree that the higher the speed, the more it will entice people to take the train rather that flying or driving.  But the whole point of doing that is not a private investment wager that high-speed trains will become profitable.  On the contrary, it is a government sector, publicly financed response to a crisis on behalf of the U.S. citizens.  Specifically, the most critical purpose for HSR, which is the reduction of CO2, is intended to avert an incredibly dire catastrophe.  It is not even asked to make a profit, let alone expected to do so.  It is intended to save our lives. 

 

There are three possible ways to power HSR:

 

1)      Diesel.

2)      Electricity generated from coal or other fossil fuels.

3)      Electricity generated from renewable sources such as wind and solar.

 

With method #3, no CO2 is produced regardless of train speed, so there is no conflict between speed and CO2 emissions.  With methods #1 and #2, there are CO2 emissions, which rise with train speed.  At the highest speeds contemplated for HSR, trains produce, per passenger mile, CO2 emissions similar to that of flying and driving.  So what would be the point of fossil fueled HSR running at those highest speeds if it fails to reduce the earth’s CO2?

 

With fossil fueled HSR, to the extent it attracts travelers away from air and highway, it succeeds in its mission.  But to the extent that it increases its speed, it fails in its mission.  But then again, to the extent that HSR is fueled by renewable energy, it succeeds at its mission

 

The objective should be to get people to trade air and highway for rail and then to produce as little CO2 as possible.  It is true that rail speed is an enticement for people to ride it, and the train speed needs to be exceptionally high in order to get people to choose it over flying.  High train speed is the carrot all right.  But the government has sticks as well as carrots to get people to behave properly.  The government can give the people the new train as a carrot, and get them to ride it by raising the price of gasoline, as the stick.    

   

Here is a New York Times blog piece that is critical of the green claims for HSR, and it is followed by lots of interesting comments. 

 

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/high-speed-rail-and-co2/

[wwhitby]

One important question in the electrification debate is where is the additional electricity required going to come from?  Our current administrator is hostile to the coal industry.  Coal and natural gas fired plants will release CO2, which would be impacted by cap & trade.  Nuclear, no one wants.  That leaves hydro, geothermal, wind and solar, the total of which won't meet all our current needs now, much less so in the future.

IMHO, unless we either back away from cap & trade-type legislation, or start building more nuclear power plants, railroad electrification is a non-starter.

BTW, I never thought about EMD's F3 killing electrification as well as steam, but you're right.

[dinwitty]

 I haven't tried to read this whole thread, but heres my angle. Probably 80-100 years ago we didnt have this oil problem, but we didnt have all the cars out there, technology was at steam and electric, what was useful and viable at the time. In comes oil, cars and diesel engines causing an upheaval in motive power use.  We did have a large interurban system which by the sake of business competiton drove off the interurbans leaving a select few surviving. 

Nobody is trying to kill off the automobile or its needs or those who have to have its use, but the method of propulsion is changing already with electric cars and hybrids and higher mpg. Thats the push today.

Its simple dispite how many gazillion years we have of coal/oil is packed away underground you must make the alternatives should you run out, when that happens you will be forced the other direction.

That is why now what is going on.

60-80 years ago Detroit had their oil guzzling push and even got Los Angeles to trash their streetcar system.

Now its become turnabout and economics, the same reason steam and electric got nosed off, you're looking at it again.

As far as all the complaints about electrification and wrecks and so on, you just have to be prepared for it, just go look at the South Shore today who deal with all this on a daily basis. Any wreck requires cleanup and thats costly anyways, whooppee. 

Recently a UP coal train had a car's trucks damage sevral miles of South Shore track dragging its damaged truck along. South Shore had that track fixed in one day, it was a massive repair with outside contract help, but dang, that was an impressive repair job!!

I don't want to hear about the crybabying against it, its practical about electrification.

UP has had a test track of overhead forever at one of their facilities so its not unknown to them.

Even with electrification I don't think you will eliminate the diesel locomotive, especially in areas of an accident, the diesel engine will get traffic moving again till overhead is repaired, then your back to the electrics. (or as you reroute traffic away while repairs are done)

Just remember if the automobile didnt come around we would be intertwined today with interurbans and streetcars. As time goes solutions will be found and adaptations to the daily lives will be made.

cheers.

 

 

[HarveyK400]

blownout cylinder

Bucyrus

Sustainability, when applied to the U.S., is all about sacrifice and reduction of consumption, which will be brought about by higher priced, sustainable energy alternatives.     

That would be the key there. Sustainability. This would not coincide with HSR precisely because of the increase in electricity usage.

Sustainability is kind of counter to HSR in that speed is of no importance in the scheme of things. One cannot attain sustainability if the average person does all the cutting back so that a wild HSR scheme--electrified--can be had. Some proponents seem to think that it can be done however---

In a recent McLeans Magazine I came across an article that mentioned a Alberta consultants report that looked into a HSR link proposed between Calgary and Edmonton AB. This report ruled out any HSR precisely on the basis of cost and the issue of low demand for this HSR link. There was a demand for a rail link but low demand for the HSR portion.

And thanks for all the research you put out here, Bucyrus

 

I don't think speed is irrelevant, even in the sustainability mode.  That is the carrot enticing travel mode choices if energy cost is not wildly excessive and rationing is not involved.  The point is achieving a balance that saves some energy overall by diversion to rail, notwithstanding the small proportion of rail.

[blownout cylinder]

Bucyrus

Sustainability, when applied to the U.S., is all about sacrifice and reduction of consumption, which will be brought about by higher priced, sustainable energy alternatives.     

That would be the key there. Sustainability. This would not coincide with HSR precisely because of the increase in electricity usage.

Sustainability is kind of counter to HSR in that speed is of no importance in the scheme of things. One cannot attain sustainability if the average person does all the cutting back so that a wild HSR scheme--electrified--can be had. Some proponents seem to think that it can be done however---

In a recent McLeans Magazine I came across an article that mentioned a Alberta consultants report that looked into a HSR link proposed between Calgary and Edmonton AB. This report ruled out any HSR precisely on the basis of cost and the issue of low demand for this HSR link. There was a demand for a rail link but low demand for the HSR portion.

And thanks for all the research you put out here, Bucyrus

[Anonymous]

While this thread is not about high-speed rail per se, HSR is one component of the national transportation system, which is the thread focus.  And HSR does happen to be the one component that is moving forward with some funding in place.  Oddly enough, however, there is an interesting dichotomy between the “green” or sustainability motive of the national transportation system proposal, and the concept of high speed. 

 

Sustainability is a buzzword that refers to limiting consumption to a level that can be renewed by the natural earth processes.  It can be illustrated by an example of a small universe consisting of one person and an apple tree.  The tree only makes apples once a year, and if it happens to make 365 apples, that means the person can eat one a day.  If the person decides to eat two a day, that is not sustainable.  If you burn oil, you must not burn it faster than the earth can produce it, or your consumption is unsustainable.  In poor countries, consumption is likely to be less than what is available on a sustainable basis.  But most rich countries are said to be consuming at a rate that is not sustainable.  The United States has generally been labeled as having the most unsustainable lifestyle of all.  So the prescription for the U.S. is twofold:

 

1)      Improve the natural yield of energy and resources (develop apple trees that make more apples)

2)      Reduce consumption of energy and resources (eat fewer apples)

 

High speed rail succeeds at item #1, but fails item #2.  Shifting people off of rubber tires and highways, and onto steel wheels and rails increases the fuel efficiency.  However, pushing the speed higher decreases fuel efficiency.  To make transportation sustainable, we should shift people onto rail and haul them as slowly as we can.

 

The same is true for freight.  Corresponding to the HSR component of the national transportation system is the “Rapid Freight Rail” (RFR) component, which is lighter weight freight trains running on improved track at 100 mph.  The higher speed is deemed necessary to attract freight transportation away from trucking.  Even with a truck pickup at the origin and a truck delivery at the destination, RFR is said to be capable of a higher overall speed than an all-trucking alternative.  However, the truly sustainable solution would be to shift truck traffic to rail and to lower the speed.  If it takes longer to ship the goods, that just amounts to eating fewer apples.     

  

Here is a piece in The Guardian by John Whitelegg of the Stockholm Environment Institute arguing against HSR for the reasons I have mentioned:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/29/high-speed-rail-travel-europe-uk

 

He says:

 

“The HSR plan is a large and expensive sledgehammer to crack a modestly sized nut.”

 

“HSR does not reduce the fuel consumption of domestic aviation or reduce annual carbon emissions from aircraft.  And it produces twice as much CO2 per passenger kilometer as a non-high speed train.”

 

***

 

This article from the Wall Street Journal mentions that building all ten potential HSR routes in the U.S. would cut 3 million tons of CO2 emissions per year, which is roughly half the output of one coal fired power plant per year.

 

It mentions the $8 billion committed to HSR plus an additional $5 billion promised = $13 billion.  According to the article, the total price tag for a U.S. system will be $250-500 billion.

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/04/16/working-on-the-railroad-obamas-green-pitch-for-high-speed-trains/

 

***

 

Here is the U.S. national HSR strategic plan, which cites the 3 million tons of CO2 reduction per year:

 

http://www.fra.dot.gov/Downloads/RRdev/hsrspfacts.pdf

 

***

[Anonymous]

BNSFwatcher

Date:  20 Nov 2019  Memo from:  BNSF Railway  To:  J. B. Hunt Transportation  Cc:  Schnieder Transportation, United Parcel Service

Dear Ms. Hunt;  in response to your inquiry, we must say "Yes!"  Your trailers and containers will arrive on-time, provided the wind blows and the sun shines.  Thank you for your faith in 'renewable' energy. 

                                                                  Matt Rose, CEO, BNSF Railway

 

What Rose will tell J.B. Hunt is that the trailers will be on time, but the bill will be higher.

 

Wind-generated electricity will pull trains just as reliably as electricity from other sources if the wind generation is sufficiently backed up with redundant wind energy capacity.  However, this is an extra “hidden” cost of wind energy.  There needs to be sufficient surplus capacity to support a given level of use, in case of wind fluctuations. 

 

Sustainability, when applied to the U.S., is all about sacrifice and reduction of consumption, which will be brought about by higher priced, sustainable energy alternatives.     

[BNSFwatcher]

Date:  20 Nov 2019  Memo from:  BNSF Railway  To:  J. B. Hunt Transportation  Cc:  Schnieder Transportation, United Parcel Service

Dear Ms. Hunt;  in response to your inquiry, we must say "Yes!"  Your trailers and containers will arrive on-time, provided the wind blows and the sun shines.  Thank you for your faith in 'renewable' energy. 

                                                                  Matt Rose, CEO, BNSF Railway

[Anonymous]

jclass

Why would electrification and HSR be seriously considered to be part of the new purpose (other than for use as a political bargaining chip)?  I don't see where either would increase political support for those pushing sustainability.  Railroads in the general public's perception are a liability.

I am not sure I understand your question.  What I call the new purpose is basically the new reason to electrify, and that new reason is for the achievement of sustainability.  In this case, sustainability will be boosted by the use of renewable energy in the form of wind-generated electricity.  The use of renewable energy will accomplish the following two objectives:

 

1)      It will eliminate the use of oil, which will insure against a crisis of oil shock, should foreign sources of oil be interrupted

2)      It will eliminate CO2 emissions, which will help avert a climate crisis.

  

The previous main reasons or purpose for electrification was as follows:

 

1)        It would lower operating cost. 

2)        It would eliminate smoke during the steam age. 

 

The elimination of smoke during the steam age was an emissions issue similar to the CO2 emissions issue of the new purpose, but the objectives are quite different.  Up until a couple years ago, CO2 had never been considered to be nuisance or hazardous emission, so no previous objective of smoke abatement was based on the desire to eliminate the CO2 component of smoke emissions.  So the two reasons that make up the new purpose for electrification have never been part of the rationale of any previous analysis, proposal, or execution of railroad electrification. 

 

Because rail is low friction, it is inherently more energy efficient than either air or highway transportation.  So there is an economic attraction to shifting as much air and highway transportation to rail as possible.  And by shifting that present non-rail transport to rail, it can be powered by renewable electricity instead of oil-based, non-renewable fuels.  So electrified rail is the centerpiece of this sustainable transportation vision, not only for the traditional rail shipments of today, but for future shipments of much of what is today shipped by truck.  Likewise, passengers from air and highway will be diverted to rail and be thus powered by renewable energy. 

[schlimm]

schlimm

In his response, htgguy went on to state several misrepresentations. 

"So, are we to conclude that air travel should be banned? Or is the proper conclusion that persons wishing to travel from London to Los Angeles should instead drive or take the train (I guess the crossing of the Atlantic would be by SUBway)?"

 

Look again.  I cited htgguy.

[blownout cylinder]

htgguy

schlimm

Saw this in the New York Times, 11/18/2009:

"A recent study in Britain concluded that one flight from London to Los Angeles produced more carbon dioxide per person than the average British commuter produces in a year by traveling by train, subway or car."

So, are we to conclude that air travel should be banned? Or is the proper conclusion that persons wishing to travel from London to Los Angeles should instead drive or take the train (I guess the crossing of the Atlantic would be by SUBway)?

And how many people were on the flight that produced more carbon dioxide than ONE commuter?

What is the point of your post in this discussion? If I posted statistics that showed how much more carbon dioxide was emitted as a result of travelling by rail versus bicycle, would that be the basis of an open and shut case to eliminate rail travel? Why not?

Again. This is where the comment came from.

[blownout cylinder]

schlimm

"So, are we to conclude that air travel should be banned? Or is the proper conclusion that persons wishing to travel from London to Los Angeles should instead drive or take the train (I guess the crossing of the Atlantic would be by SUBway)?"

I did NOT say that. Try attributing that to someone else---

[schlimm]

blownout cylinder

The 'Straw Man' in this case was this long distance flight .

I realize Wikipedia is not the greatest source and this is getting rather far from the original point, but... 

"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

Example:   Person A claims: Sunny days are good.Argument Person B: If all days were sunny, we'd never have rain, and without rain, we'd have famine and death. You are obviously wrong.  Problem: B has falsely framed A's claim to imply that A says that only sunny days are good, and has argued against that assertion instead of the assertion A has made." 

In his response, htgguy went on to state several misrepresentations. 

"So, are we to conclude that air travel should be banned? Or is the proper conclusion that persons wishing to travel from London to Los Angeles should instead drive or take the train (I guess the crossing of the Atlantic would be by SUBway)?"

[blownout cylinder]

schlimm

 Saw this in the New York Times, 11/18/2009:

"A recent study in Britain concluded that one flight from London to Los Angeles produced more carbon dioxide per person than the average British commuter produces in a year by traveling by train, subway or car."

 

I read the whole report on this and can see why there is a confusion here now. This sentence,when taken out of the context of the article, is very mangled. The 'Straw Man' in this case was this long distance flight . A commuter in England--especially in the London vicinity does tend to travel a fair bit hence his/her total mileage is pretty close to equal. But why it wasn't couched in those terms is kinda weird--

I would like to know why short hop flights were not questioned in the first place.

[schlimm]

htgguy

So, are we to conclude that air travel should be banned? Or is the proper conclusion that persons wishing to travel from London to Los Angeles should instead drive or take the train (I guess the crossing of the Atlantic would be by SUBway)?

 

Sorry, but the "straw man" reference was to your sarcastic speculations cited above.  I assume you are being funny/sarcastic, and not serious.  Since we were talking about electrification and one of the points raised by proponents was "green" issues, I thought this article was appropriate.  Sorry I didn't give the link.

I am as entitled to advance a viewpoint as anyone.  I try to give as many facts in support as most, more than some, less than some of the mechanical gurus in this forum.  I also try to avoid the "flaming" that seems so common here.

[jclass]

Why would electrification and HSR be seriously considered to be part of the new purpose (other than for use as a political bargaining chip)?  I don't see where either would increase political support for those pushing sustainability.  Railroads in the general public's perception are a liability.

[htgguy]

schlimm

htgguy

So, are we to conclude that air travel should be banned? Or is the proper conclusion that persons wishing to travel from London to Los Angeles should instead drive or take the train (I guess the crossing of the Atlantic would be by SUBway)?

And how many people were on the flight that produced more carbon dioxide than ONE commuter?

What is the point of your post in this discussion?

 

Apparently the point was missed.  The article is only saying that air travel produces a lot of CO2, not any of the "straw man" points you interjected.

Now I have to say, just a minute. Let's look back over this discussion. You and I have had a bit of back and forth. You have posted some things that I have responded to. I have tried to do it in a spirit of goodwill, even if I have challenged you a few times. You've requested some clarification. You've asked questions. I've gone out and dug up information to support my position. I have, in return, asked some questions of you. This is at least the second time you have re-directed the conversation.

I think it was fair to ask what your point was when you post a reference to an article, without even including a link, that compared the CO2 emissions of flying from London to Los Angeles, which happens to be about 5500 miles, with the CO2 emissions of a British commuter. I get the point about the airplane, but the article raised other issues. The excerpt of the article you posted is the one that mentions trans-Atlantic flights and commuters. I didn't mix the two. They are not "staw men". So I posed some questions.

You know, schlimm, people are pretty much up to speed on the fact that air travel produces a lot of CO2. I enjoy intelligent debate and discussion on this message board when people can keep it fact based. I come here looking for new information. What you posted earlier about German rail commuters was a great piece of info and prompted me to do some research of my own, which may in some small part help someone else learn something.

If you have a viewpoint to advance, find some pertinent facts to use to support it and share them with the board.

[Anonymous]

HarveyK400

A couple things have occurred to me since reading the recent Trains article on electrification.......................

Harvey, Thanks for your comments, but when you respond within my quote, it may be confusing to others to as to what you are saying versus what I said.  You could go back and edit your post to change the color of your text and leave mine black.  You just click EDIT. 

[Anonymous]

schlimm

Just reread the Trains article this thread concerns.  To read some of the posts here, you'd think they were talking about some other article.

 

How so?