jamesontheroad
OBS Chief
Last edited by a moderator:
Virgin Trains launch biodiesel trains
- Thread starter jamesontheroad
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
Brian UK
Train Attendant
Hmmm, all very well and politically correct of Sir Dick, but political bollocks from Gordy Brown. This is the man who has held the purse strings of this country for the past 10 years and who therefore is behind the cancellation of all the urban light rail schemes that would have made a huge contribution to CO2 emissions in Leeds, Liverpool, Bristol and Portsmouth. So while we deforest the planet to plant fuel-plants, everyone has forgotten the obvious - string up more 25kv overheads. Its a scandal that this diesel Virgin Voyager travelled the first 158 miles of its journey under the wires just because the remaining 68 miles are not wired.
G
Guest
Guest
The last time I traveled on Virgin, they switched the engine at Crewe from a Pendolino to a diesel on the North Wales Coast Line, but on the way back, the entire route was a Voyager, which saved almost thirty minutes. So those last 68 miles are a good reason to use Voyagers all the way through.
Brian UK
Train Attendant
A good point in terms of operating convenience, but when there is a choice, I hardly think burning diesel is better than burning electricity. Even where there are wires all the way, such as Birmingham to Glasgow/Edinburgh, Virgin plan to use Voyagers for self contained journeys. It just isnt right. That would be like running self contained trips on the NEC with diesels.
Joel N. Weber II
Engineer
The MBTA trains that run between Boston South Station and Providence do normally run with diesels, as far as I know, even though those trains normally run on the same track over which Amtrak relies on overhead power. (If the tracks via Back Bay etc happen to be unavailable, the MBTA could skip those stops between Readville and South Station and take the Fairmount line, and the satellite photos suggest that the Fairmount line lacks overhead power.) I believe all MBTA commuter rail trains run diesels, and I believe the Providence line is the only MBTA commuter rail line that happens to have overhead power available.
Given that most electricity (in the US, at least) is currently produced by burning fossil fuels, it's not clear to me that the overhead lines really save much polution at the moment. (Bigger plants may be more efficient at generating than a diesel locomotive, but the flip side of that is that the overhead lines do lose a bit of the energy they're trying to transmit.)
Given that most electricity (in the US, at least) is currently produced by burning fossil fuels, it's not clear to me that the overhead lines really save much polution at the moment. (Bigger plants may be more efficient at generating than a diesel locomotive, but the flip side of that is that the overhead lines do lose a bit of the energy they're trying to transmit.)
Last edited by a moderator:
It could be not enough power to supply the MBTA electric locomotives if that happens.
I've felt that Amtrak should make the effort to run one line -- such as #42/43/44 -- on biodiesel.
Problem is the EPA, and of course the cash to make whatever needed mechanical changes to the locomotives. I understand NOx emissions are greater under biodiesel, but CO2 emissions are less.
Problem is the EPA, and of course the cash to make whatever needed mechanical changes to the locomotives. I understand NOx emissions are greater under biodiesel, but CO2 emissions are less.
The Fairmount line does indeed lack overhead power. However the main reason that the MBTA doesn't have electric motors isn't so that they can run down the Fairmount line when problems occur, it's simply because they don't want the extra expense of maintaining two types of engines. I also don't believe that the Fairmount line has much excess capacity, so even in an emergency, the T can't divert all that many trains that way.
