Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

Railways, energy, CO2 - Part 1

by DoDo Mon Jan 21st, 2008 at 04:05:04 PM EST

The energy consumption and CO2 emissions of railways, in particular high-speed, and especially in comparison to other transport modes, came up on ET repeatedly. I promised a long time ago to collect together some data, on which I now shall deliver.

I will post in two parts. This first one is about consumption and emissions from operating railways (and rival transport modes), the next (in a few days) will attempt to also deal with construction.

This post will largely take the form of a data dump, data to be used for reference, interlaced with some notes on interpreting the data.

This is also an open project: if you have links to or data from other studies, post them.



1.1 Precedents – prior ET coverage


1.2 Precedents – the main source of the data below

All the data in tables below was extracted from the German Railways (DB) 2004 energy report [pdf!] and the 2006 sustainability report [pdf!] (the latter also includes modal split diagrams, showing growing trends for rail). Figures from the latter are also displayed on HTML pages on energy efficiency, energy consumption and climate protection [emissions].

I tried to check on some data, and it appears they used national statistics. The benefit of this data is that we can evaluate (almost) entire industry averages: the usual ad-hoc comparisons (say one Paris–Brussels TGV or one Frankfurt–London A320) may not be representative and usually ignore non-ideal consumption (e.g. waiting on the taxiway, snowstorm etc.).

There is some extra data I wrote up at a time, but am not sure from where, shall check.


2.1. Energy consumption – total, sources

Even just considering traffic, the meaning of the term 'energy consumption' is not straightforward. You can count the energy withdrawn from the catenary (electric locomotive) resp. the energy in the power output of a combustion engine (Diesels, cars). Or you could go back to the production of fuel, and take into account losses (power plant efficiency, grid loss, refinery loss & fuel transport). DB published evaluations of both of these measures.

Note that these figures include all operations necessary for railway traffic: beyond the trains themselves, the energy use of signals, stations, depots and such.

End-use energy consumption of DB AG's rail traffic in 2006,
total (traction and stationary installations)
End-use energy source Consumption [GJ]
Electricity 41,862,167
Distance heating 2,000,700
Natural gas 1,545,840
Heating oil 1,242,000
Diesel oil 13,343,504
Coal 52,325
Sum 60,046,536

Primary energy consumption of DB AG's rail traffic in 2006,
total (traction and stationary installations)
Primary energy source Consumption [GJ]
Natural gas 18,597,401
Heating oil 3,947,282
Diesel oil 14,894,459
Coal 56,509,154
Renewables 5,318,834
Nuclear 38,234,073
Sum 137,501,203

Most of this total is traction: about 130,000 TJ, stationary installations are only around 22,000 TJ. Of traction, the supply of electricity alone comes in at around 110,000 TJ.

As can be seen, fossil fuels still dominate in the mix. Given that practically all of traction and a good part of the fixed installations can be switched to electric, and we could move to renewables in electricity production, there is significant potential for reduction: both in the ratio of fossil fuels in primary energy, and the loss ratio from primary to end-use energy.


2.2. Energy consumption – railway branches

The specific figures in the first table should be seen as pretty solid indicators of magnitude.

On a smaller scale: a move away from fossil-fuel-generated electricity would significantly reduce the power plant part of primary-to-end-use loss accounted for here, so (check primary vs. end-use in 2.1) these figures could be reduced by up to 50%.

But the annual reduction shown is mostly an indicator of not this, but that there is some energy saving potential in technology and traffic organisation.

Primary energy consumption* of traction, specific
Sector 2004 2003 change
Long-distance train
[including high-speed]
0,88 0,92 -4.8%
Local train 1,60 1,76 -9.8%
Rail freight 0,47 0,49 -3.4%
Data in Megajoule / passenger- resp. ton-kilometre
(MJ/pkm resp. MJ/tkm)
Primary energy consumption* of traction, absolute
Sector 2004 2003 change
All of DB AG 125,727 132,594 -5.0%
Long-distance trains
[including high-speed]
28,597 29,391 -2.7%
Local trains 60,657 67,248 -9.8%
Rail freight 36,473 35,956 +1.4%
Data in Terajoule (TJ)
Primary energy consumption* of stationary installations**
Sector 2004 2003 change
Stationary processes 23,566 24,476 -3.7%
of this heating 7,631 7,956 -4.1%
of this electricity 15,935 16,520 -3.5%
Data in Terajoule (TJ)

* including energy consumption in production, transport and transformation
** Database change compared to 2003, see www.db.de/umweltbericht


2.3. Energy consumption – comparison of transport modes

Now the following section is where one has to be very cautious about interpretation.

What follows is a translation of primary energy use into equivalent car fuel use. In effect, that means that we imagine a virtual oil-burning power plant to supply electric trains. But, not all of this is fossil-fuel-produced in reality, and the up to 50% reduction potential mentioned in the previous section also applies here.

I also note that airline traffic considered was domestic flights only. On one hand, reliable and country-for-country data exists only for that. On the other hand, given the typical transport distances of the other modes, that's also the sensible comparison.

Freight transport
l Diesel / 100 tkm equivalent
Mode 2006 2004
Rail freight 1.3 1.3
River barge 1.3 1.3
Trucks >3.5t- 3.6
Trucks 40t 2.4 -
Air cargo 25.3 25.3

Above, you see a change in the standard for truck comparison: instead of a big average, a number for heavy trucks, which should also be the most energy-efficient (even if worst for roads).

Local passenger transport
l gasoline / 100 pkm equivalent
Mode 2006 2004
Local bus 3.3 3.1
Local train 4.7 5.1
Average car 6.1 6.5

I add some more specific figures for local transport in Germany from another source, which has slightly different overall numbers. (I believe these are from 2005.)

  • All local trains: 4.2
  • Suburban trains [these are mostly electrified trainsets]: 3.8
  • Regional trains [these include lots of diesels and locomotive-pulled]: 4.6
  • Local (city) buses: 2.7
  • Subways and trams: 1.7

Long-distance passenger transport
l gasoline / 100 pkm equivalent
Mode 2006 2004
Long-distance bus - 1.4
Long-distance train
[including high-speed]
2.9 2.8
Average car 6.2 6.4
Airplane 8.1 8.0

Again I amend more specific figures from the above other source, and a third:

  • express trains up to 160 km/h: 1.6
  • express trains above 160 but below 250 km/h: 2.3
  • high-speed trains above 250 km/h (includes less efficient ICE-1 and ICE-2; average occupancy was as low as 48%): 3.2
  • ICE-3 (latest distributed-traction type) on Ingolstadt–Nuremberg (last-opened line): 2.75

I emphasize again that these aren't fossil fuel consumption but energy consumption figures; and that fossil fuel use that is a part of this, can be moved to other source by simultaneous reduction of even the energy figure.


3.1 CO2 emissions – uses and energy carriers

Absolute CO2 emissions of DB's rail traffic in 2006, in t
Source of energy Traction Stationary
installations
Sum
Electricity 5,965,004 963,922 6,928,926
Distance heating 0 216,092 216,092
Heating oil 0 102,591 102,591
Natural gas 0 98,480 98,480
Diesel oil 1,094,221 0 1,094,221
Sum 7,059,225 1,386,398 8,440,310

Total CO2 exhausts connected to stationary installations were 1.52 million tons in 2004 (and 1.58 million in 2003).

Again we see the strong domination of electricity, and that both for traction and stationary installations – and thus an even stronger further reduction potential than for energy use. Something not possible for airplanes or cars.


3.2 CO2 emissions – comparison between transport modes

Freight transport, g CO2 / tkm
Mode 2006 2004
Rail freight 24 29
River barge 35 35
Trucks >3.5t - 96
Trucks 40t 89 -
Air cargo 665 665

Local passenger transport, g CO2 / pkm
Mode 2006 2004
Local bus 74 77
Local train 81 98
Average car 141 148

Long-distance passenger transport, g CO2 / pkm
Mode 2006 2004
Long-distance bus 31 33
Long-distance train
[including high-speed]
47 52
Average car 143 147
Airplane 191 183

I suspect the increase of airplane specific emissions has to do with increased air congestion, and possibly also a reduction of average domestic flight distance with the boom of low-budget airlines.

Combining data in three tables, one can calculate the 2004 total of CO2 emissions caused by running long-distance trains at 2.5 million tons.

:: :: :: :: ::

I shall use some of the above numbers for a calculation in the next part.

:: :: :: :: ::

Check the Train Blogging index page for a (hopefully) complete list of ET diaries and stories related to railways and trains.

Display:
I seem to recall someone linking to official French transport energy use statistics, but can't find it, nor recall who was it. (linca? Jérôme? afew? Pierre? Laurent Guerby?) Would be an interesting comparison.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Mon Jan 21st, 2008 at 04:07:20 PM EST
Maybe here (scroll down)

"Dieu se rit des hommes qui se plaignent des conséquences alors qu'ils en chérissent les causes" Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet
by Melanchthon on Mon Jan 21st, 2008 at 05:28:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Sorry, it's the total electric energy transported!

"Dieu se rit des hommes qui se plaignent des conséquences alors qu'ils en chérissent les causes" Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet
by Melanchthon on Mon Jan 21st, 2008 at 05:31:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You will find some figures from SNCF here

"Dieu se rit des hommes qui se plaignent des conséquences alors qu'ils en chérissent les causes" Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet
by Melanchthon on Mon Jan 21st, 2008 at 05:43:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Dodo, my boss once told me the statistics about the spanish AVE.. I have no way to corroborate it (he assure me that it had taken into account the origin of the spanish pool energy).

An one person average diesel car prodcued roughly three times more thant a 60-80% filled Ave per person.

So basically, if you can fill the car up to 4 it is  better to take the car.. if you do not .. the fast train.

A  60-80% long-dsitance bus is far more efficient with the present pool of energy.

that's what he said.. no way to check... only autoritas, no data.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Tue Jan 22nd, 2008 at 06:14:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You might like this:
http://konzern.lufthansa.com/en/downloads/presse/downloads/publikationen/lh_sustainability_2007.pdf

Its a sustainability report from lufthansa. On page 3 they show total fuel burn and fuel burn per paxkilometer, plus some other stats about CO2, NOx etc.

From what I know, Lufthansa is pretty reliable in this respect. They put fuel consumption at 4.38 litre/(100 paxkm), and CO2 emissions at 11 kg/(100 paxkm), so that's
110 g/paxkm.

That's less than your figures, but these are fleet averages, and I think they will somewhat higher when focussed on short-range flights only.

by GreatZamfir on Tue Jan 22nd, 2008 at 05:46:31 AM EST
A quick reply without looking into the Lufthansa report:

  • Distsance is indeed a main factor, figures for airplanes reduce once we move out to international connections

  • Seat occupation is another, maybe Lufthansa's are above average

  • Tricky part 1: is fuel production involved in Lufthansa's figures, or only end-use?

  • Tricky part 2: is it l gasoline, or l kerosene?

  • DB may have been tricky too: those figures might involve emissions from airplane production, but not from train production (will check for a third part of this diary series)


*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Jan 22nd, 2008 at 10:33:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It surprises me that river barges come out worse than rail,firstly when you look at the power consumption

Road vs Rail vs Water

I know the source Association has an axe to grind, but experiments involving horses, railway wagons, barges etc proved the point hundreds of years ago.

There isn't much infrastructure needed for barge traffic either.


"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Tue Jan 22nd, 2008 at 05:53:29 AM EST
... will be the number of locks and the energy consumption of locks. River barges on systems where no locks are required, or where locks are self filling and require only gate operation, will show up better than on systems where water must be pumped.

OTOH, that is one area that not only can be electrified but in many cases already is, so it can directly tap renewable electric power sources as those come on line ... electrifying the river barges themselves is a substantially more difficult proposition.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Tue Jan 22nd, 2008 at 10:37:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Ummm...being pedantic, rivers flow, and as far as I know locks on rivers don't usually have pumps.

So for "river barges" that factor doesn't really apply.

On the other hand, there's a lot of canals about, where in dry conditions especially, pumping is a factor in energy consumption.

But there is some new technology out there that's pretty efficient in energy terms.....

I've always loved those Thames river barges. There were loads in St Katherine's Dock which my office looked out over back in my days in the Belly of The Beast.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 at 04:47:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, its the lock to go from a river to an inter-river canal that is the one that would normally need pumping ... a bypass canal can almost always be built to simply fill up with the flow of the river ... but unless you are nominating a more energy efficient way for river barges can go from one river system to another, I am puzzled as to how that is not what I just said.

River boats have enough energy efficiency per ton of freight that we can readily consider home-grown biodiesel as a sustainable liquid fuel source ... as opposed to the fantasy of using biodiesel as a plug and play for petrodiesel for the existing truck-based freight system ... and having wind assist like above makes it an even better prospect.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 at 10:54:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Most interesting, thanks Dodo.

Are the figures based on 1 passenger cars, or any other number ?

by balbuz on Tue Jan 22nd, 2008 at 03:21:06 PM EST
... figure for US long distance car travel is an average of about 1.5 pax/car.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Tue Jan 22nd, 2008 at 10:23:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I saw similar figures here.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Jan 24th, 2008 at 08:46:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I look forward to Part II.

paul spencer
by paul spencer (spencerinthegorge AT yahoo DOT com) on Tue Jan 22nd, 2008 at 11:42:06 PM EST
A difficulty for passenger railroad enthusiasts (like me) is that a good car can compete with a train on a fuel economy basis.

On complicating factor is that people foolishly replace their cars quite frequently, so the automotive technology that is deployed in the fleet at a given time is perhaps only five years old on average, while trains represent large capital expenditures and are expected to last longer.

It will be very interesting to see how the cars-versus-trains competition plays out as fuel costs rise. As a baseline data point, my Honda Insight gets 3.3 l/100km, using 1999 car technology. With two passengers, that's 1.6 l/100km/passenger.

by asdf on Tue Jan 22nd, 2008 at 11:47:42 PM EST
a good car can compete with a train on a fuel economy basis.

As trains don't use liquid fuels at all, their mileage is infinite.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 at 05:19:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
... electrifying the primary interurban freight grid for freight both increases the already existing energy efficiency gain for rail freight, and allows the replacement of diesel regional trains with electric, that are more energy efficient as well.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 at 10:58:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think what may happen is that the efficiency of cars--whether they be powered by electricity or hydrogen or flywheel or whatever--will continue to increase. Given the advantage to the user of the individualized point-to-point transportation provided by the car, it will be a competitive race. Trains have advantages in high traffic corridors, but cars are pretty good in lots of other ways.

I doubt that cars will go away unless there are formal policies put in place to punish their use. Congestion charges being one example...

by asdf on Thu Jan 24th, 2008 at 12:54:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Cars are simply very useful, and the whole public transport system together doesn't offer anything close to it, except for people who live in quite large and dense cities. There are many routes where public transport can, in principle, be faster and easier than a car. But for 'non-standard' trips, cars offer an unmatched flexibility.

So most people will have a car, even if they can do most of their transportation completely fine by other means. And once someone has spend the money to buy a car ( and often paid more than really necessary, to buy a car nicer than absolutely needed), the marginal cost of using it for an extra trip is quite low.

If people think cars are in some way damaging the greater good, and public transport would be preferred, I think it is wise to pinpoint as good as possible how they think they are damaging. If it is the COs, tax the petrol. But if it is the existence of the cars themselves, through the parking lots they need and the roads they demand, then a per kilometer charge in any way won't help. People will still want a car for those trips that are absolutely horrible by public transport.

Congestion tax is another story again. After all, who is hurt by congestion other than the people causing it?  I f there is a rationale for congestion tax, it is to separate the people who need the road and are willing gto pay for it from the rest.

by GreatZamfir on Thu Jan 24th, 2008 at 06:23:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There's a lot of truth there, but really what we're talking about are the services that owning a car provides (point-to-point transport, cargo capacity, schedule flexibility, status signalling). Of those four, the first three (for [sub]urban populations at least) can be addressed by car clubs like whizzgo or streetcar.

Regards
Luke

-- #include witty_sig.h

by silburnl on Thu Jan 24th, 2008 at 06:44:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I know these car clubs, and indeed I think they might grow a lot more in the future. But your point about urban populations should not be neglected: at the moment the only places here in the Netherands were they are really working are the centres of old cities, where an apartment with parking space costs easily 50.000 euros more than one without. In other places, the amount of members needed to provide dense coverage is not reachable.

Also, I think your point on status signalling is too simple. It is a part of the much larger phenomenon that people just like to have a car. I know many people, usually men, who read car magazines and can spend hours talking about what car they would like to buy. My uncle enjoys nothing more than washing his car with his children. So he has a second-hand BMW. Some part of that is status, but he is also really attached to it, much more than to other things he owns. He made very sure he got the 6-cylinder engine he liked best, even though this is invisible on the outside. But he likes the sound.

And even apart from car lovers, most people just like that their car is their own, an extension of their house instead of public space. The major reason people are willing to spend hours in traffic jams instead of taking the train is that they prefer to be in their own personal space and not packed between loads of strangers.

Sure, it is possible to put this all in some category and call it 'consumerism' or 'status signalling'. But people are like that. Cars appear, quite universally, to hit a nerve that little other products or services do. Even people who don't feel this way themselves can't discuss transportation without taking this is into account.

by GreatZamfir on Thu Jan 24th, 2008 at 08:36:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
... this as a purely individual decision.

It was, of course, the railroads and the increase in personal travel and freight that created the demand for a "last mile" transport system that led to a substantial increase in horse drawn carriages and carts and, with their many disadvantages, drove the race to develop a horseless carriage. So there is no generic conflict between a substantial role for transport services on dedicated transport corridors and personal transport across a broad network of public rights of way.

However, new employment centers in the United States are located away from public transport routes because of a substantial system of subsidies and zoning controls that strongly encourages it and, in some cases, come close to demanding it. Changing that, changes the individual cost-benefit of Auto-And-Nothing-Else.

And personal vehicles that provide supplemental local transport, including to stops on dedicated transport corridors, are cheaper today, in total cost of ownership, than a car. Experience in many places has shown that with availability of effective services on dedicated transport corridors, combined with TOD, can result in a substantial change in the mode-split.

We do not know how close we are to a threshold where there is a positive feedback between the benefit to retailers to cater to those in non-freeway-speed vehicles and the increased appeal of local vehicles because of the range of those catering to local vehicles ... but if we hit that threshold, we will clearly leave an auto-centric transport system in the direction of a diversified system.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Fri Jan 25th, 2008 at 12:47:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
As a baseline data point, my Honda Insight gets 3.3 l/100km

Is that factory data, or your experience? Is it an average, long-distance or city traffic? What it certainly isn't is primary energy consummption (though I guess the refinery correction would add only a few tenths). At any rate, even with two onboard it compares to the posted figure for trams and subways.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Jan 24th, 2008 at 08:51:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
As a baseline data point, my Honda Insight gets 3.3 l/100km

Is that factory data, or your experience? Is it an average, long-distance or city traffic? What it certainly isn't is primary energy consummption (though I guess the refinery correction would add only a few tenths). At any rate, even with two onboard it compares to the posted figure for trams and subways.

That's my personal experience. It's 72.3 miles per gallon averaged over about 20,000 miles. Lots of 70 mph highway driving, air conditioning, winter snow, plus city traffic, etc. Mostly with only one occupant.

by asdf on Tue Feb 5th, 2008 at 12:03:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
As a baseline data point, my Honda Insight gets 3.3 l/100km, using 1999 car technology. With two passengers, that's 1.6 l/100km/passenger.

Another datapoint for a conventional car. I've just run the numbers on the road trip we did at Xmas and the petrol-engined Honda Civic we got about 7l/100km (40mpg in old money) on the ~1100km London-Munich route.

Given there were three of us, that works out at 55 g CO2/pkm which is within spitting distance of the long-distance rail number DoDo gives. Add another passenger (or upgrade to diesel and/or hybrid) and a car starts to be the best option in carbon terms as well as price.

Regards
Luke

-- #include witty_sig.h

by silburnl on Thu Jan 24th, 2008 at 11:34:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If you compare cars above average load, compare to trains above average load. Those figures are for c. 50% loading.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Jan 24th, 2008 at 11:40:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
For general comparisons of different modes then of course you are right.

However I don't think that's a valid approach when making a personal decision between car or rail - the train will probably* be averagely loaded irrespective of whether I buy train tickets or choose to take the car. If my particular circumstances mean that I know that the car will be full, then that's a relevant factor in my decision.

Regards
Luke

[*] However as it happens in this particular case the trains were highly loaded (it was Xmas after all, so the overnight services out of Paris were fully booked on the dates we wanted, dunno about the day trains - in any case we had too much luggage to make either train or plane practical).


-- #include witty_sig.h

by silburnl on Fri Jan 25th, 2008 at 01:22:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Do you include the difference in speed, and the work expanded by the driver, in the price ? You can do London-Munich on low speed trains, too, and then consumption becomes much better for the train (the old, ordinary lines are waaay less expensive to make)

Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Thu Jan 24th, 2008 at 01:23:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Do you include the difference in speed, and the work expanded by the driver, in the price ?

Nope and those are, of course, highly relevant factors (especially considering the contra-flow nightmare that is the autobahn between Stuttgart and Munich just now).

Price for the car should also include a mileage rate (which will be significantly more than the marginal expense of the fuel) and there are also accommodation costs along the way (I suppose it's possible to do London-Munich in one massive leg, but I wouldn't want to be sharing the road with you in the latter portion of the journey - in our case we turned the need for an overnight stop into a virtue and had a sight-seeing day in Trier on the way back).

Once you factor all those elements in then the car isn't actually a low cost option at all - but I don't think these sorts of marginal and ancilliary costs feed in to the 'purchasing decision' in many cases.

You can do London-Munich on low speed trains, too, and then consumption becomes much better for the train (the old, ordinary lines are waaay less expensive to make)

True that, and we did London-Munich via Eurostar and the sleeper service out of Paris last summer which was great. I'm keen to try the high speed option however, with the new high-speed Paris to Munich service that's just started I reckon it's possible for us to do the trip door-to-door in about 10-11 hours. This is about twice the time it would take by air - which, given how god awful the flying experience is these days, makes the train a very competitive option for us even without taking carbon into consideration.

Regards
Luke

-- #include witty_sig.h

by silburnl on Fri Jan 25th, 2008 at 01:43:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]