Transwatch “Fact Sheet” No

Transwatch “Fact Sheet” No. 5 – Fuel consumption

This tries to compare ‘National rail fuel consumption in the UK with equivalent road transport’, and adds: ‘The rail data depends primarily on information provided by Network Rail for the year 2002/3’.

Ø When I asked for the source, he wrote that he obtained it from ‘a former Network Rail employee, who provided it in respect of InterCity, Network SouthEast and Regional railways’ (NB all of which ceased to exist in 1995). No meaningful 1995 figure would be feasible in 2002. Moreover, like road operators, BR did not publish that data in 1995 or earlier.

Ø No reduction is made for trains travelling to maintenance & fuelling points, or for engineers’ trains & rolling stock test trains for which he ignores road equivalents.

He bemoans the lack of national rail fuel consumption for passenger services

Ø There is no equivalent road fuel data to compare to total rail fuel consumption if he had it. He tries to compare the consumption of one PSV with these ‘national averages’.

The freight ‘comparison’, assumes that all rail freight incurs a 10 mile road journey at each end of its journey.

Ø This inaccurate assumption has a major bearing on relative costs advanced in the Fact sheets.

Ø BR Accounts for 1976 (the last with such data) shows about 85% of traffic was from private sidings at docks, factories, collieries, quarries, power stations, oil terminals, etc.

Ø Colliery and dock to power station does not use roads at both ends.

Ø Some quarry traffic involved no road transport at both ends.

Ø BRB Accounts did not include road miles statistics. Neither did Hauliers’ Accounts.

Ø The earlier 1963 Reshaping Report states that 23% required some road transit. The only reference to distance was coal delivered by coal merchants up to a maximum radius of 2.5 miles. The Report stated that if the existing 5030 stations involved in coal traffic were reduced to 250, the radius would be 10 miles. That was never achieved, due to most merchants resisting change, smokeless legislation & colliery closures. Coal was only moved by road at the destination end, so it moved a maximum of 2.5 miles, not an average of 20 miles.

Ø From personal experience of goods depot operation, most other traffic was carted up to 3 miles radius and both it and coal was on the ‘ghost’ roads that he excludes from his road comparisons!

He then goes on to ‘compare’ his useless rail consumption figure with a hypothetical lorry fully loaded by weight on its outward journey.

Ø He tried to claim that his one lorry (‘compared’ to the average of all freight trains), which had no owner, no registration, no consignment, & no journey – was not hypothetical !

Ø Until I drew attention to it, he had not realised that some freight fills a lorry or rail wagon by volume, before reaching weight capacity.

Ø The DfT told me that road freight tonne-km is based on estimates. These are inflated by multiple collections & deliveries. These are counted as travelling the maximum distance covered by the lorry. When informed of this, he claimed that it would only account for a small percentage. As there is no data; no one could possibly know that.

Ø His hypothetical lorry excludes non productive mileage to depots, test stations, body shops, or to transfer traffic from roadside breakdowns. By definition, rail fuel consumption is all embracive of these activities.

Ø Road freight includes road maintenance materials, whereas railfreight doesn’t include track materials.

He says his passenger figures are consistent with an academic study.

Ø That study compares a car with a load 50% above average, travelling London-Glasgow (at a potential average of 55-60mph, excluding comfort stops) with a 125mph train. Such ‘comparisons’ are invalid.

Ø The DfT told me bus/coach data from operators is sparse: none for long distance, contract or excursion coaches and little for local services outside London.

Fuel figures are untenable.

‘Fact sheet 5’ is based on inaccuracies & is worthless.