The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) - part of the Executive Office of the President of the United States - has issued draft guidance on consideration of the effects of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions in projects. An assessment is likely to be necessary if a proposed action is likely to cause emissions of 25,000 metric tonnes of CO2 or more.

The draft guidance is on the web-site of the White House (see the CEQ website).

So just in the interests of curiosity, I tried to work out the CO2 impact of Heathrow Express. I was helped by work some colleagues have been doing on the carbon impact of transport generally.

This gave me baseline statistics for fuel consumption (cars - 7 litres/100 km), emissions (petrol car 2.76 kg CO2/litre and diesel 3.17) and the conversion factor for kg of CO2/vehicle-km (0.19 petrol, 0.22 diesel). The emissions for electric trains are 0.05 kg CO2/passenger-kilometre.

The road distance from Paddington to Heathrow Terminal 5 is 29.8km: by rail it's 26.2.

OK, not all Heathrow Express users start from Paddington or go to Terminal 5, but it's a reasonable journey for the comparison.

Multiplying kg of CO2/km by distance gave the CO2 emissions/trip.
Heathrow Express carries 4.93m passengers a year: the emissions related to that amount to 6,461 tonnes of CO2.

Suppose Heathrow Express didn't exist? I assumed that those 4.93m people would access the airport by private car or taxi in the same proportions as other passengers do now. I also assumed the cars were petrol and the taxis diesel powered. Car mode share is 35% and cab 27%, so I allocated 56.5% of Heathrow Express trips to car and 43.5% to taxi.

I assumed that if people accessed the airport by car, the car would come back again - they'd be kiss and ride trips. If they came by taxi, the same cab would be used by different people in different directions. So I doubled the figure for car users.

Tonnes of CO2 emitted by the vehicles of road users hypothetically unable to use Heathrow Express came to 46,255 - about seven times the tonnage of Heathrow Express.

Wow!

Now ok, there are several heroic assumptions in all this - but it does give an order of magnitude figure.

Moreover, coming back to the original cause of this research, it shows that an airport express serving an airport under 30 km from the city carrying under 5 million passengers a year can save 40,000 tonnes of CO2 - significantly more than the CEQ guideline.

On the Thameslink route between Bedford and Brighton (and connecting Gatwick and Luton airports), the rolling stock is being changed. The old class 319s are being replaced by new class 377/5s.

The new trains have a better ride, and a more up-to-date (but quirky) information system.

What they don't have is more seats.

The 319s had 319 seats in a 4-car set - certainly as built. Some sets were changed subsequently, and there is much grousing among seasoned commuters when a train rolls in with Sunny South Special seating, complete with bar snug area and fewer seats, designed for non-stop London - Brighton trains.

The 377/5s, however, seem to have 241 seats in a 4-car set.
I say "seem to" because the plates on the end of the cars says there are 241 standard class seats - even though there are first class seats at each end.

Let's assume they do have 241 seats - that's about 75% of the seating of a 319 (75.549, if you must!).

Aha, say the Department for Transport, who control these things, just wait a few years and all of the stations on the route will accommodate 12 car trains.

Well, yes, but it's here and now!

And a 12 car 377/5 only has 723 seats - 85 (26%) more than an 8-car 319.

Progress?

There is some recent experience from Florida which is quite interesting - and quite telling.

The Tri-Rail system serves a swathe of the State of Florida, including three of its major airports. It runs from Miami through Fort Lauderdale to West Palm Beach.

Originally it was single tracked for much of its length: over the last few years a second track has been added, adding significant capacity. This cost $6.2m/km.

A recent road project in the State added a new lane. This cost $31m/km.

I'm planning a trip to Canada and the US. I need to go London - Montreal - Washington DC - London.

A constraint is that I don't like flying back by night - so there are relatively few places I can fly back from.

Coming back by day from either Chicago or Washington DC, flights arrive quite late in Heathrow - and I live two hours from the airport. So really, it's New York (EWR and JFK), Boston and Toronto.

I looked at American Airlines for fares, coming back through New York or through Boston (because, unlike JFK, there's a hotel on the airport). The difference in fare is considerable. For virtually identical flights - and, of course, a virtually identical distance - it costs 1233.57 to come back through Boston or 766.57 to come back through New York. 60% more. Curious.

Equally curious is the fact that I cannot enter a pounds sign in this post! Note that the figures above are in pounds sterling!

One theory is that New York - London is more a competitive market than Boston - London.

Other thoughts would be welcome!

Spanish Railways (RENFE) is to convert 15 of its Alvia high speed trains so that they can use both diesel and electric traction. They will have on-board power units for use when the train needs to run beyond the electrified network - in particular, to Murcia.

These trains were built so that they could run between the Iberian gauge (1668 mm) network and the growing standard gauge (1435 mm) network in the country.

Two gauges, two systems - is this the ultimate in flexibility?

I posted the last blog on Thursday afternoon, when my midday flight to Montreal via New York had been cancelled and I'd been re-booked on one at 7:55 Friday morning.

By 20:30 Thursday I knew that that wasn't going to go either: I stayed as planned in London and went into my office on Friday morning. American Airlines had rebooked me on a flight at 7:55 Saturday morning, so I booked another hotel in London for Friday night. After doing some work in the office, I went home. The news continued bad through Friday, and by mid-afternnoon I decided to cancel the trip.

I then found how difficult some hotel chains make it to cancel a reservation!

Some were easy.

Some, when phoned, gave me a recorded message with the usual 47 options: the Cancel option asked me to enter my 16 digit reservation number then the last 4 digits of my credit card! I wasn't certain which card I'd used for that particular booking, so I just emailed them instead.

Trying another hotel, I was told that the time for cancellation had passed so my credit card would be charged anyway. Moreover, since the person I was speaking to wasn't actually at the hotel and I'd booked on the web, would I please redial the international number I'd just called and ask for Front Desk. Now why would I bother to do that?

The American Airlines web-site offered a click-through link for people affected by the flight disruption. It said that if my flight was cancelled, I could request a refund. However, when I tried this I was told that my ticket was not refundable but I might be able to put the value towards another ticket.

Well, since I still need to go to both Montreal and Washington - my original trip - I may well try that.

Meanwhile a colleague, booked to fly on Virgin, had a much more friendly response and was offered an unconditional refund.

When I tried to check in for my flight to Montreal via New York JFK, I couldn't - and couldn't understand why.

The "Manage my booking" page said that American Airlines had all the information it needed for me to check in: I could, it said, check in from 24 hours to 60 minutes in advance. But I couldn't - I was trying off and on during the afternoon, within those times, and got the "Can't check in - go to the airport and see an agent". I still don't know why this happened - it may be the topic of another blog.

On the morning of my flight, I heard on the 7:00 news that a cloud of volcanic ash drifting in from Iceland had caused the closure of Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Glasgow airports.

I got to Heathrow at around 9:00, and was told that I couldn't yet check in - they were checking people in for earlier flights but not mine, leaving at 11:55. "Come back in an hour", they said.

BAA's Flying Messenger service kicked in to tell me that the flight was on time: American Airlines staff were then saying that they thought that the entire airport was likely to close shortly.

Ironically, one of the flights which was departing was a Boston flight. When I had booked originally, I had been offered this flight but rejected it - despite it being fifty pounds cheaper - because it involved changing at both Boston and LaGuardia.

The flight departure screens were still just giving information about the check-in areas: AA people said that the screens were unlikely ever to show the flight as cancelled.

The only source of information was the two people staffing the entrance to the check-in area - who were really doing a good job. The self-service machines had pieces of paper saying "Closed" taped over the screens: there was no other information apart from the two over-worked staff. No whiteboard, no tv screens, nothing. These two ladies were dependent on getting information from colleagues, which seemed a bit haphazard because they were so busy dealing with questions from passengers.

The television screens in the terminal, normally displaying news, were showing shots of the volcano and a streaming message, "All flights into UK airspace after noon cancelled".

At 10:30, Flying Messanger said, "Check with airline".

There are few generally available seats landside in Terminal 3, and none in sight of American Airlines' check-in area.

I returned to the office: as I was going past the flight information screens at Heathrow Express's Paddington ticket office it showed many flights cancelled - well done!

I phoned American Airlines and got through to a real person with commendable speed. Equally commendably, they had already re-booked me - on a flight at 7:55 next day via Chicago, unfortunately arriving 5 hours late for my meeting!

Also unfortunately, it meant being at Heathrow at 5:30 and all airport hotels were full. This meant staying a 20 minute bus ride from Paddington and catching the first Heathrow Express, at 5:10. Another downside was the lack of good seats on the plane: rather than staying with the centre of 5 I'd been allocated, I chose an aisle right at the back. Normally I go for a window: I'm a compulsive window viewer!

By lunch-time, London Underground had some very good posters and notices about the cancellation of all flights at stations (well done!): at Paddington, Network Rail had a rather more verbose one.

So Heathrow Express and London Underground both scored highly for disruption information, and American Airlines scored for good staff on the ground and for re-booking me.

And, at 16:00, I still couldn't check in for my flight at 7:55 next morning (although there was an aisle seat rather further forward than the one I'd booked!).

In the 1890s, public transport systems in the United States were often streetcars - trams. These, of course, were electrically powered rail vehicles drawing current from overhead wires. A very popular system of collection was a long pole with a small grooved wheel at the wire end: this was known as a trolley and, by extension, the vehicle and the system also became known as a trolley.

To generate traffic at weekends (when people were travelling less for work), the transit companies would create attractions - in particular, recreation areas at the ends of their lines where land was cheap. Over 100 of these Trolley Parks were opened.

Someone returning from that era would have a shock if they found a trolley park today - a place where self-help trolleys are stored in supermarkets or at airports!

How times change - and language with it!

The only thing you can be almost certain about with a forecast is that it'll be wrong.

Plans for infrastructure - particularly public transport infrastructure - have often been criticised for over-optimism.

There is a book - "Megaprojects and risk" - about some notable failures to get the forecasts reasonably right. In my view it damaged its credibility in particular by citing Channel Tunnel experience - that project was just so political that no forecasts were likely to be reliable. It also looked at the Oresund Fixed Crossing and added to the outturn costs the Malmo City Tunnel, a free-standing project (not yet completed) which is not part of the Oresund project at all.

Highway infrastructure projects have also been criticised recently for bad forecasting. In "Infrastructure Investor"'s review of the year 2009, Michael Dinham of ING Bank notes that only two of the 30 toll roads the bank has lent money to have met their original forecasts, and under-performance on the rest has averaged 40%. The range is 10% to 80%. Roads, he concludes, are the worst-performing sub-sector within infrastructure.

Sticker seen in the back of a car on Friday - "Not drunk - just dodging pot-holes!".

I won't embarrass Hertfordshire County Council by telling you which county I saw it in!

I went to withdraw some dollars from IARO's dollar account at lunchtime.

Normally I'm asked for a passport and a credit card as idnetification, so this time I had them ready and handed them over with my cheque. When the cashier saw my credit card she said, "That's Spanish!". I was so taken aback that all I did was explain that I was just giving her some identification!

I produced more credit cards, but fortunately just at that moment the cashier who I usually deal with turned up and was able to vouch for me. So I now have, "Known by Charlie" written on the back of my cheque!

I had had to wait a long time in the queue, and there was a queue behind me, so I didn't get round to asking what exactly was Spanish about them. OK, some of our banks are owned by Santander: OK, the first credit card I produced was a BAA Worldcard (and BAA is owned by Ferrovial, a Spanish company).

But so what? All I was doing was proving my identity: the fact that the card I was using to do so might or might not have Spanish branding on makes it no less good as identification, surely? I did wonder if what was really wanted was a Barclays-issued card, rather than one issued by American Express or MBNA - but that was never actually said. And if that's what they really want, we are going to have relationship problems in future!

But then, I really do expect the foreign exchange counter of an international bank - even one staffed by a lady with a Russian name - to take this kind of thing in their stride. Reasonable?

When railway privatisation started in Britain, potential operators were invited to bid to run bundles of train services in specific geographic areas. They had to operate a specified minimum timetable, but were free to run more trains if they wished. Indeed, on some inter-city lines, the minimum specified was half of the then current timetable: it was thought that new commercially minded private sector operators would of course fill the gaps to increase their revenue.

The former British Railways fleet of passenger rolling stock was sold to three rolling stock leasing companies - ROSCOs - and potential operators were free to lease what they wanted, or to buy their own.

This ideal needed dilution in practice because some stock is route specific and some routes are stock-specific. For example, the dual-voltage class 319 electric multiple units were the only trains capable of working the Thameslink route between Bedford and Brighton. Because they were also highly efficient for working either on AC services north of the Thames or DC services south, they were likely to be wanted by other operators too. Someone had to moderate things so that Thameslink got its trains.

Over time, things have changed - evolved is probably too strong a word!

The timetable specification is now significantly more prescriptive - not just the number and frequency of trains, but also the number of vehicles the operator is allowed to lease.

Franchises specify train frequencies over the life of the franchise, and also flavour-of-the-month issues like requiring station entrances and exits to be gated - to have automatic barriers. This was thought likely to reduce anti-social behaviour like vandalism and graffiti. The fact that the operator might wish to deter such things - and at the same time control revenue and increase passenger satisfaction - by putting on more staff at stations instead seems not to have affected any decision making processes. Nor does the fact that ticket barriers are rarely effective - stand at any station where there are unmanned barriers around 10 at night and either the barriers will be locked open, or passengers will be vaulting over them or sliding through the luggage gate with the ease of long practice.

As ever, a mix of civil servants and elected politicians playing trains has led to a less-than-satisfactory result in places.

The exact status of franchise requirements is unclear - to me, at least, and any light readers can shed would be appreciated.

Supposing a train operator fails to run the right number and length of trains? Some of this - train running and punctuality - is monitored through things like the Public Performance Measure, the PPM. But what about other infractions? Things like failure to install ticket barriers, for example? It is certainly possible that, at some historic stations, local planning authorities might object on conservation grounds to such things - so one authority would be insisting on installation when another was refusing permission. I've lost touch with the York story, but it was proceeding along those lines.

At one time, the former Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) named and shamed defaulting operators. It reported, in its best-selling annual report, the most minute failures to comply with franchise conditions - displaying ticket office opening times in the wrong size print and the like.

One sanction, of course, is the threat of non-renewal of franchises, or not granting franchises to awkward operators. When the SRA proposed withdrawal of Gatwick Express some years ago, they were taken aback by the very robust response they got from BAA - a strongly worded report entitled, "The Murder of the Gatwick Express" (in whose preparation I participated). The SRA were not accustomed to train operators opposing their suggestions: BAA could get away with it because they were not dependent on the SRA for the grant of future franchises.

The issue gets even more interesting with the advent of Route Utilisation Strategies, produced by the infrastructure owner Network Rail. These too can be prescriptive - or restrictive - and again their precise force is unknown.

For example, there is a franchise requirement to run four non-stop trains an hour between London Victoria and Gatwick Airport: the recently-published Sussex Route Utilisation Strategy proposes stopping between 2 and 4 of the high peak ones at Clapham Junction, despite numerous representations over the years from the aviation industry that a non-stop service is what is wanted.

There is a franchise requirement for two trains an hour between Reading and Gatwick - but Network Rail consistently argue that there are not enough paths to run these between Gatwick and Redhill.

I understand that, in such cases, it is up to Network Rail to formally tell the government that it cannot meet train operator requirements with the existing infrastructure and needs the money to fund some more: no-one is holding their breath waiting for results!

There is a strong suspicion that railway privatisation in Britain has been characterised by excess haste and a tendency to make up policy on the hoof. Conflicting and unnecessary requirements of the Department for Transport and Network Rail on train frequencies and other commercial details do not help.

"Runaway train travels through downtown Houston
by KHOU.com Staff

March 21, 2010

HOUSTON - Officials are trying to find out what went wrong after a Union Pacific train started moving Sunday morning with no one at the controls. The runaway train traveled through downtown Houston on its own for about 15 minutes before crews could get it to stop. The train traveled from 902 Washington to the 2000 block of Rothwell, where it stopped just south of Interstate 10 East. No one was hurt.

==================================

OF COURSE no one was hurt.

The reporter was all wrong. He saw an unoccupied locomotive on a train, appearing to push it. It was actually an unmanned helper engine, controlled via radio from the actual FRONT of the train.

KHOU pulled the story as soon as they found out. Don't know what happened to the reporter or to the unnamed "staff" who had taken the story and swallowed it hook, line and sinker."