How much more eco freindly is travelling by train than by plane?

Question

How much more eco freindly is travelling by train than by plane?

Answer 1

People like 'Yawn' make you wonder what planet they're on. I bet he/she only responded to get the points.

Here's an advantage for you:

Most modern electric trains use regenerative braking. That means that as they slow down from high speeds their traction motors are switched to being generators. The forward motion of the train is retarded by the energy used to make electricty in these. By ingenious gubbins on board the locomotive this current is converted back to the form and voltage which the train's power supply uses.

The current which is generated is fed back to the National Grid via the overhead lines/third rail. This not only reduces wear on the train's brakes but also reduces the net energy consumption.

Try that with an aeroplane.

Answer 2

If you add on the journey to and from the airport, the time wasted at the airport which has to be "fuelled" and the delays when circling the airfield waiting to land then a train is not only more fuel efficient by a wide margin but it is quicker too ( at least in Europe it is for journeys less than 1000 miles.)

Answer 3

A high speed train (recent French effort at ~350~ mph) will be using a lot of power, and probably won't be a lot better than a good aircraft. Of course if you add in the carbon costs of getting to the airport rather than the city centre station the train looks better for city to city travel.

Answer 4

below is an article from Greenpeace i found

Answer 5

About ten times as much as by plane, that is, a person travelling on a train creates on average about one-tenth of the carbon emissions of a person travelling on a plane. That goes for all types of train: electric, diesel, etc.

Answer 6

That is a really good question and I really don't have a clue about the answer. There would be a lot of factors to take into account when calculating this. For starters, in my area, a packed 12 carriage commuter train to London will be carrying well in excess of 1200 passengers (many more than the average 747). These particular trains are powered by 740V electrified third rail system so the pollution at the point of delivery is absolutely minimal (only brake dust, no exhaust emissions). However, the pollution created by the power stations which provide the electricity for these trains is something that many people don't take into account. I would have thought though that bearing in mind the huge passenger count that it is a cleaner mode of transport per head than a jet plane. Just guessing though :)

Answer 7

I think this is false that trains are many times better.

I agree if you fill a train, plane and car full of passengers and go from point A - B the train will use less fuel per passenger than any other.

However most plane flights are almost full, whereas cars and trains (rush hour exculded) are usually under occupied - maybe by 80%.

This makes it much less efficient in the long run.

Answer 8

A lot!

Answer 9

holds more people and lets out less gasses into the atmosphere.

Answer 10

If you add the fact that most train hubs are already in the center of population centers. It makes sense!

Answer 11

a lot more eco friendly, but you still have to be aware that the electricity powering the train is still being generated by fossil fuels

Answer 12

the  electricity  to  power  a  train  it  comes  from  liquid  gas  or  atomic  energy..

Answer 13

On a long-haul Amtrak train, I think it's 2-3x in favor of the Amtrak, based on the size of the fuel tanks and how often they fuel.  This is pretty amazing given the sheer weight of the train and how much space each person gets.

It also depends a lot on what's powering the train.  Trains have a few "trump cards".  One is that they can run electric, and that *can* be green power, but even if it's not:

http://www.electroauto.com/info/pollmyth...

They're also very suitable to biofuels.  Diesels were invented to run on vegetable oil.  It's too thick to work in a cold engine (which is why it's converted to biodiesel for cars and trucks) but that's not a problem for an engine that runs 24x7, and already needs shop assistance to start in cold weather.