Spain's New High-Speed Rail Service Challenges the Airlines
by Sami Grover, Carrboro, NC, USA 
on 02. 2.08
It’s not just Eurostar, the rail service between London and mainland Europe, that is challenging the aviation industry in terms of both emissions and convenience. In fact, high-speed rail networks are expanding all over Europe. Now we hear from The Guardian that the new electrified rail link between Madrid and Barcelona is set to launch later this month, with the super-fast Ave S103 service set to reach speeds of 220mph, covering the journey of 410 miles in 2 hours and 35 minutes. And the offering looks set to make a serious dent in the aviation market.
While flying will still be marginally faster, the evidence is strong that many people will choose to stay firmly on the ground, given the choice. On a similar route between Madrid and Seville that is already in operation, more than 80% of travelers choose the train. And there is, of course, also the environmental argument:
There is also the environmental question: trains produce at least four times less carbon dioxide per mile than planes, and even less when compared with short-haul flights. Spain is preparing itself for a future in which there may be limits on the number of flights a person is allowed to take, particularly within the EU.
And let's not forget that electric trains can be run on renewable energy too! In terms of comfort and convenience the operators are not skimping either. Each train features a conference room, upgraded cooling and air conditioning, internet access and a restaurant car – and passengers are refunded their entire fare if the train is more than 5 minutes late. Sheesh – we sure hope someone at Amtrak is watching closely… ::The Guardian::via site visit::
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Travel Green and Save Money without Giving Up Anything (Except Your Carbon Footprint)
- Why Do Some States Have Significantly Lower Carbon Emissions Than Others?
- 7 Ways the Troubled Automotive Industry Could Change Your Car and Your Commute
- Avoid Evaporating Gas: Park in the Shade and Buy Gas When it's Cool
- Compost Stink? Add Cardboard!
- How to Cool Your Vehicle Quickly During the Intense Summer Heat and Reduce Your Carbon Emissions
But I read in Monbiot's book "Heat" that high-speed trains actually emit just as much as an airplane covering the same distance. I forgot the actual figures, but after a certain speed (the speed at which the time it takes to travel by train is comparable to the time it takes to travel by airplane) the emissions are just as bad.
-------
Author's Comment:
I have read that too Lyndsey, and considered mentioning it in the article. However, when writing I was under the impression that the problem was principally around trains powered by their own engine, as opposed to by electricity. I'm now checking up on that in the book, and note I had that slightly wrong - according to the study which Monbiot quotes (which is only one study - so caution is needed), it does look like high-speed trains have relatively high emissions, even if they are run on electricity. Not quite as high as planes, especially when contrails etc are taken into account, but high nonetheless.
I'd be interested to know if the study Monbiot quotes is generally accepted - I'll see what I can find out (I certainly know alot of people who question his figures on radiative forcing from aviation, among other sections of the book). But, even if the fuel efficiency is equivalent to an airplane's, and I have my doubts, that doesn't mean they can't play a role in a greener future, as Monbiot himself points out:
"Ultra-high speed trains, in other words, can be part of the solution only if they run on electricity and it is provided by renewable power and fossil fuel power with carbon capture and storage. As they are likely to be only a small percentage of a nation's power, this should be possible, within the limits set by this book."
Fantastic. And at 220mph, it'll beat out the TGV Est (200mph) as the fastest rail service in the world.
Eurostar have some statistics here:
http://www.eurostar.com/UK/uk/leisure/about_eurostar/environment/greener_than_flying.jsp
From London, it's 122kg CO2 for a return trip to Paris by plane, or 11 by train.
I've seen some statistics where they've compared mostly-empty trains to full planes, or the oldest train and the newest plane, so you have to be careful.
The S103 series is a really nice train: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=445711
The only fair comparison of emissions and fuel consumption is not the train versus the plane, but the passenger mile of the train versus the passenger mile for the plane.
A fully loaded plane will beat a nearly empty train always. But a mile long passenger train would certainly blow away a jumbo jet no matter how many they crammed onto it.
(Yeah, I know they don't make mile long trains for passengers, but the point is the same. And they do make mile long freight trains, probably not enough of them what with our reliance now on long haul trucking.)
Even if ultra high-speed trains have the same energy intensity per mile (what you call emissions per mile, it's the wrong way to look at it) the important thing to note is that they are not hostile to a liquid fuel.
Indeed, electric high speed trains could very well be powered by wind and solar power. Most of these trains require that some sort of an "earth dam" be built around them to prevent unwanted intrusions. This area could easily be used for solar panels (instead of grass, would deter mammals/birds from nesting near the tracks).
Long haul ultra high-speed trains could also be used as a load leveling mechanism. France has plenty of off peak capacity nuclear power that could readily be used to power trains with no (substantial) additional infrastructure investment or fuel usage. Customers would just have to travel at odd hours... like in the middle of the night.
Even if ultra high-speed trains have the same energy intensity per mile (what you call emissions per mile, it's the wrong way to look at it) the important thing to note is that they are not hostile to a liquid fuel.
Indeed, electric high speed trains could very well be powered by wind and solar power. Most of these trains require that some sort of an "earth dam" be built around them to prevent unwanted intrusions. This area could easily be used for solar panels (instead of grass, would deter mammals/birds from nesting near the tracks).
Long haul ultra high-speed trains could also be used as a load leveling mechanism. France has plenty of off peak capacity nuclear power that could readily be used to power trains with no (substantial) additional infrastructure investment or fuel usage. Customers would just have to travel at odd hours... like in the middle of the night.
Emissions from what? Electrical power supplied from nuclear power plants?
Please tell Amtrac they're doing a lousy. Our president already told them that. Next time a beggar asks you for a dime, don't ignore him. Tell him he's doing a lousy job. I'm sure he'll try harder.
We really do live in a third world country. It just plain sucks ass, and we only have ourselves to blame. Our US culture is akin to that trailer park person who wins the lottery. They spend all that money in the most tasteless and stupid ways. Then they end up broke, just as we are realizing now.
I really do hope Amtrak is reading, but I don't hold out much hope. The U.S. could really take some tips from the European transportation systems. So many people I know that live in Europe don't own a car, and don't need to. If I could get rid of my car, I would! Instead I'm stuck doing what I can...
Meredith
AttemptGreen.com
Unfortunately, I don't think that high speed trains will go faster than 350km/h in commercial service. There are too many obstacles to overcome to allow safe, reliable service at this speed outside the controlled environment of tests. We will have to switch to maglev if we want to go faster than this.
Flying is marginally faster, but considerably slower when you factor all the non-flight time.
As an example closer to home for me, it's a one hour flight between San Francisco and Los Angeles, but it works out to be 4 hours out of your life once everything is factored in. A train running at 220mph would provide the same service in 2 hours.
The carbon dioxide is produced on the surface, not in the delicate sphere, so that is a plus on it's own. A high-speed train crash is a devastating as a planecrash, so no benefits there, even I believe there is more people fear flying, than riding a train. So for on soil transportation I like high speed trains the most (here in germany the ICE is about 250-300km/h max.) The real frontier are the oceans.
The answer is in a chart from an Economist article, here.
In terms of emissions, a *full* car is competitive with high-speed trains (remembering that exhaust pollution is also a direct health hazard). Short-haul flights, however, are by far the worst for carbon emissions.
I wish we had this kind of infrastructure in the US. Flying is horrific now, with all the security circus. "Give me your toothpaste!"
For those who want the background to material referred to in the
article/comments:
article which is reworked in his book Heat
quoted in the Monbiot article/book from Roger Kemp of the
university of Lancaster
If you don't have the time to wade through the study it's important to
note that the author makes a strong distinction between diesel and
electric trains. For electric trains he puts the emissions figure at
around 50gCO2/passenger-km ( see Figure 42 on pg 51 of metrics
part of the report ) while diesel is up around the 110gCO2/km
( this depending stongly on the type of diesel engine. The high-speed
trains in Spain are all-electric. Note also that the study assigns
455gCO2/kWh to UK electricity. I haven't been able to get my
hands on Spanish data yet but the UK figure is close to the EU average.
If anyone gets the Spanish figures post it up please.
My summary of the study is that electric trains, high speed or
otherwise, are significantly cleaner ,in emissions terms, than any form
of airtravel, even the less-polluting turbo-props mentioned in previous
treehugger articles.
For all the brothers out there who bemoan the lack of this stuff in the USA, get your passports in order and come on over this side of the pond.
/ Colm
As an aside, I have *never* ever heard of a high speed train that is diesel powered (though I imagine such a thing is, at least, technically possible).
- Japan Shinkansen is electrically powered.
- France TGV is electrically powered.
- France/UK Eurostar is electrically powered.
- France/Belgium/Netherlands Thalys is electrically powered.
- The newest Spain AVE is also electrically powered.
- Germany's high-speed InterCity Express is also electrically powered.
It makes sense, from a design point of view, since getting rid of the (polluting) Diesel engine also allows the train to get rid of its fuel... which is heavy and restricts the maximum speed a train can reach.
Please note that Eurostar and Thalys are nothing more than slightly different TGV design. AVE is also built by a French company, based on its experience with France's TGV.
I live in Salt Lake City. I am happy to see we are finally getting commuter train service up and running. Nice years ago when I moved here from souther California, I could not believe how nice my drive was. Each day the traffic congestion only grows worse. A ten minute commute nine years ago, now takes 25 (yes, I am sure 25 is better than most). Having lived in Europe and Asia, I could never understand why the US has not embraced public transportation. I had no need for a car in South Korea or in Spain. I hope people will see the value in the commuter rail system and expand it.
I live in Salt Lake City. I am happy to see we are finally getting commuter train service up and running. Nice years ago when I moved here from souther California, I could not believe how nice my drive was. Each day the traffic congestion only grows worse. A ten minute commute nine years ago, now takes 25 (yes, I am sure 25 is better than most). Having lived in Europe and Asia, I could never understand why the US has not embraced public transportation. I had no need for a car in South Korea or in Spain. I hope people will see the value in the commuter rail system and expand it.
now for some idle musing.... I wonder whet the efficiency would be of high speed, train sized vacuum tubes of the sort they use for geting internal mail around some hospitals.. would reduce the chance of crashes & save hedgehogs...
People...HOW did we (USA) allow corporations and politicians to ruin our cities and country's infrastructure, while the rest of the world passes us by.
It really is tragic how the US is falling apart, and falling behind.
We should have had bullett trains racing across the country decades ago.
Europe and Asia leaps into the 21st century while we choke on pollution...stuck in cars and buses, or better yet, at a nasty over crowed airport.
In Spain, there are plans to connect all major cities with High-Speed trains. Several lines (Madrid-Seville, Madrid-Zaragoza-Barcelona, Madrid-Segovia-Valladolid, Madrid-Toledo) has been completed, and several more are been constructed.
Renfe (Spanish rail operator) use several types of high-speed trains:
AVE S100 (derived from the french TGV, made by Alstom)
AVE S103 (ICE, made by Siemens)
AVE S102 (Talgo 350, aka "Pato" ( "Duck" in English ), made by the spanish-canadian consortium Talgo-Bombardier)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talgo
http://www.talgo.com
The links above have more information about high-speed trains of Talgo.
This enterprise (Talgo) is present in the USA in the line Amtrak Cascades that uses its "natural tilting cars".
(My english is not perfect. Excuse my mistakes)
Felix, from Madrid (Spain)
lol at the yanks
Sometimes I wonder if many people who comment here ever think beyond the dual explanations of "Americans are stupid" and "corporations are evil" for many of our problems. It's intellectually lazy and it only hardens our internal cultural divisions. You're the reason ridiculous charges of elitism are effective against any Democrat who dares to eat something better than grits and grade F meat.
Fortunately, the State of California has decided to do its own high speed train service. It makes Amtrak that much less relevant in this state at least. Amtrak's service has in California, much as the rest of the US, been overpriced, over-subsidized, under-featured and under performing. In short, it seems, for lack of a cohesive national transportation system, the states and private sectors are all having to pick up the slack. Now combine the certainty of the California high speed train service with the proposed (and still in the works?) "Desert Xpress" high speed desert train service and extension from Souther California to Las Vegas and the region will finally have decent transit options between all the major cities here.. Amtrak or not.