How green are some of these efficiency drives?

Regarding FirstGroup’s possible replacement of the current Pendolino stock by non-tilting replacements ( Analysis, RAIL 886): travel in the current rolling stock tends to be comfortable, since there is no real sensation of acceleration and deceleration.

I understand the suggestion is that the new trains should be the equivalent of sports cars, with high-speed dashes over the short straight stretches available on the West Coast Main Line, followed by severe braking for the next curve and then another vigorous acceleration.

While I appreciate that this might save the cost of maintaining the pendulation gear, one asks how much extra fuel costs would be involved, especially with the drive to ‘green energy’?

Such examples are already before us, with hydrogenpropelled trains costing three times as much as electric trains for a considerably lesser fuel efficiency.

Examples of this abound: what is the total overall cost and energy consumption involved in shipping woodchips from the Appalachian Mountains to Drax power station, compared with burning coal from a local colliery?

People talk as if hydrogen, wind power and other yet-to-bedeveloped sources of energy come free, but they have to be produced and transported from somewhere. One might ask: ‘what are the total emissions involved in this?’

Even wind power involves energy in the construction and shipping-in of propeller blades (I believe they are mostly made in Denmark), and their maintenance - I understand some of the wind farms located out to sea are beginning to demonstrate rust problems.

What we need is a complete assessment of the benefits of different power sources, be it electricity or fairy dust, and for decisions to be made on that basis rather than to grab publicity about how green one’s efforts are.