3 ms·

surprisingly flying is not that much worse per passenger mile, really depends on occupancy. A full flight can be just as efficient as a half empty train. (EDIT:

surprisingly flying is not that much worse per passenger mile, really depends on occupancy. A full flight can be just as efficient as a half empty train. (EDIT: consider how many passenger miles you get from one flight from NYC to LA, vs running two 1000hp diesel engines for 4 days for a similar number of passengers) pollution is a different story, the new amtrak fleet is very clean burning, and doesn’t dump jet fuel into the ocean, so that’s a plus.

laurencerowe 5y ago
Where are your figures from? For electrified lines like the NEC emissions will depend a lot on the grid’s generation mix. For various routes from London the train emits 10-15% per passenger of an equivalent flight: https://www.seat61.com/CO2flights.htm https://www.seat61.com/CO2flights.htm
- jazzyjackson 5y ago
  You're right, electrified lines are very good. The majority of Amtrak's routes are diesel. I don't keep notes on where I read what, but this BBC article is fairly thorough, and puts electric trains at 40 grams carbon per passenger mile, diesel trains at 90g, long haul flights at 102g, and short flights at 133g. It mentions that occupancy is a factor but doesn't say if those numbers assume full occupancy or are averaged out over actual ridership. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566
  - laurencerowe 5y ago
    Routes but not passenger trips. The NEC has 260M passenger rail trips per year. Amtrak has 32M on its entire system 17M of which are on the electrified NEC. The diesel routes compete with cruise ships. They’re lovely but they’re not a transportation solution.
  - Symbiote 5y ago
    That's a typical BBC mess of statistics. "Some" diesel trains as as high as 90g, but you haven't quoted the "some" electric trains being as low as 6g.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
namdnay 5y ago
I guess it depends where the power comes from. The French TGV is close to 0 Co2

laurencerowe 5y ago

Where are your figures from? For electrified lines like the NEC emissions will depend a lot on the grid’s generation mix. For various routes from London the train emits 10-15% per passenger of an equivalent flight: https://www.seat61.com/CO2flights.htm https://www.seat61.com/CO2flights.htm

jazzyjackson 5y ago
You're right, electrified lines are very good. The majority of Amtrak's routes are diesel. I don't keep notes on where I read what, but this BBC article is fairly thorough, and puts electric trains at 40 grams carbon per passenger mile, diesel trains at 90g, long haul flights at 102g, and short flights at 133g. It mentions that occupancy is a factor but doesn't say if those numbers assume full occupancy or are averaged out over actual ridership. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566
- laurencerowe 5y ago
  Routes but not passenger trips. The NEC has 260M passenger rail trips per year. Amtrak has 32M on its entire system 17M of which are on the electrified NEC. The diesel routes compete with cruise ships. They’re lovely but they’re not a transportation solution.
- Symbiote 5y ago
  That's a typical BBC mess of statistics. "Some" diesel trains as as high as 90g, but you haven't quoted the "some" electric trains being as low as 6g.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

namdnay 5y ago

I guess it depends where the power comes from. The French TGV is close to 0 Co2