So what are the chances of high speed luxury train like this in US? 0.0% , 0.01%?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Momma buy me THAT!
I would say the chances are around a googolplex to one.
...but we can dream.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Could someone with a broadband Internet connection let me in on the joke?
The deal is that any mode of transportation can be made luxurious and perhaps even pleasant when enough resources are applied to it. Any mode of transportation can be made unpleasant when enough cost-cutting is applied.
Any mode of transport can be made green when you cram in enough seats. Any mode of transportation that provides a high level of comfort (and privacy) becomes un-green.
Yeah, yeah, all modes of transport are (heavily) subsidized. The question then becomes where are we as individuals and we as a society getting the most value? Just because we rely on government funding for many things in our society doesn't mean we have to just throw up our hands and say that everthing government gives money to is being done in the best way possible.
One of the arguments for HSR (that is, primarily, purpose-built passenger-only railroad lines) is that the Japanese, "Europeans", more recently the Chinese, and some others have built or are planning these things. I put "Europeans" in quotes because the British, the people who started the modern railroad era, have been holdouts on HSR, putting their effort into equivalents to the US NEC and proposed 110-MPH "high-speed rail" corridors. I guess it means that HSR has some goodness that just about everyone else around the world appreciates but Americans are too auto-loving, too government mega-project hating, and too stupid to catch on.
One of the things about Europe (and Great Britain) is that they tax the heck out of motor fuel (and their auto share of passenger miles is at the 80 percent level instead of the 90 percent level as in the U.S.). Another thing you notice is that opposite to what we have in the U.S. right now, the U.S. taxes Diesel fuel at a higher rate so that truckers pay their "fair share" of road maintenance whereas the Europeans tax Diesel at a proportionately lower rate to their tax on gasoline, and Diesel is substantially cheaper at the pump.
It was explained to me by an engineering professor organizing a scientific conference "over there" that Diesel costs less at the pump, but that Diesel cars pay a higher annual registration fee, and this system was such a sensible plan as people who need to drive a lot, salespeople, people with long commutes, etc., overall had an incentive to operate Diesel autos whereas people who drove much less had the incentive to drive gasoline-fueled autos. The implication is that this pattern of taxation was evidence of how rationally planned everything is in Europe.
Well, that was an interesting account, but I heard another story when I watched some TV and got the BBC's take on a debate in Germany regarding efforts to raise the Diesel fuel tax. It turns out that the trucking lobby is behind reduction in the high motor fuel tax for the Diesel fuel that they use, and then motorists turn to smelly Diesel cars to cash in, and then the gummint' turns around and raises the registration fee on Diesel cars to stanch the loss in tax revenue. So whether the policy is so sensible or not, it is the result of the interplay of lobbies and interest groups in politics, just as politics happens in the cultural backwater of the U.S.A., and efforts to tinker with this policy -- I guess there as a need for more tax revenue as tax revenue is needed in all places in the world -- those efforts were running into the buzz saw of the interest groups who had carefully staked out their positions and now the painstakingly arrived-at political balance was being upset.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul: If you check, I think you will find that Diesel fuel is cheaper to refine and is cheaper at the pump almost everywhere in the world than gasoline, except here. Cheaper in Germany and Europe, cheaper close to home in Canada as well.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm Paul: If you check, I think you will find that Diesel fuel is cheaper to refine and is cheaper at the pump almost everywhere in the world than gasoline, except here. Cheaper in Germany and Europe, cheaper close to home in Canada as well.
This is a classic instance of what the legendary Nobel-laureate physicist Richard Feynman called the "Gell-Mann" effect after his Nobel-laureate colleague Murray Gell-Mann, of whom he must have been "goofing on" as being, in Feynman's opinion, somewhat less than properly skeptical according to Dr. Feynman's high standards.
Like Dr. Gell-Mann, I don't have first-hand industry-insider knowledge on many topics and end up accepting as being factual things that are told to me. But this is not the case with respect to the question of Diesel fuel vs gasoline given my work experience in the automotive industry and in the specific place in the automotive industry where this question was being decided. The answer, in case you are interested, is that cars burn unleaded gasoline in engines with much higher compression ratio than generally thought possible at the time I was there, and as a consequence, the gap between gas and Diesel cars is much narrower.
This business of whether Diesel is cheaper to refine or somehow are lower-demand lower-value petroleum product is a kind of moving target.
One of the rationales for oil-burning steam as an alternative to coal-burning steam or even to Diesel locomotives is that whereas steam locomotives operate at a pretty low thermal efficiency and go through tender-fulls worth of fuel, the Bunker C or "residual oil" used in oil burners was as much a "waste product" of the petroleum economy where primarily gasoline and to a lesser extent the "light distilates" (i.e. jet airplane fuel and Diesel fuel) are the products of value. This was also pretty much the reasoning behind the Union Pacific "Big Blow" gas turbine locomotives, especially since the UP wanted high horsepower on its freight trains and the building-block concept of consists with large numbers of 1500 HP locomotive units was viewed as expensive on maintenance.
That Bunker C fuel, however, may have even caused problems with turbine blades and UP experimented with propane, which at one time was also a kind of lower-value lower-demand fraction of crude oil. I read that heavier fuels than #2 Diesel were tried in Diesel locomotives to mixed results -- the increased maintenance offseting the savings in fuel cost. And it is said, although I don't have corroboration or primary sources, that the "plastic's industry demand for Bunker C along with increase in road-unit Diesel horsepower brough to an end turbines on the UP."
That said, whether Diesel is cheaper to refine than gasoline may be a "moving target." I remember attending conference meetings of the SAE in Detroit, where there were scientific talks given on how the petroleum industry could meet the needs of a fleet of Diesel cars, if that were the direction we were going in pursuit of higher fuel economy. Attending those meetings gave me the impression that given refinary technology -- catalytic cracking and other methods -- the days when there were petroleum fractions apart from "pet coke" not usable in making gasoline are gone, and hence Diesel sells on a per-BTU basis at pretty much the same price as gasoline.
Diesel is also 10 percent heavier than most gasoline blends and roughly has 10 percent more BTU's/gallon -- the percentage is even higher now that much gasoline is "watered down" with ethanol.
Again, some may argue that the EROEI of Diesel is better, that it takes more "refining" to get a gallon of gasoline than a gallon of #2, hence the slightly higher BTU content of Diesel should not be used to de-rate Diesel car fuel mileage when deciding on CAFE standards or deciding on energy conservation or oil-conservation policy.
But, it is factual that Diesel has a higher per-gallon road tax in the U.S. than gasoline, and I am sure the trucking lobby fought that as unfair, and I am also sure that this road tax bump had been driven by the sentiment that "heavy trucks are what is tearing up the roads."
It is also factual that Diesel is taxed at a lower rate in comparison to the very high rates of gasoline taxation in much of Europe -- that is factual of the BBC is to be believed. Also, the newly independent Slovenia had nearly equal pump prices for Diesel and gasoline on account of equalized tax rates -- I had experienced this first hand driving a Fiat Diesel rental car from Munich to Ljubljiana.
So, I am pretty certain that places where Diesel is lower at the pump these days than gasoline are places that tax gasoline at a much higher rate than the U.S. (also true of Canada), which many people believe to be a sensible social policy and the U.S. is "behind the times." In doing that, a tax break is offered on Diesel on accounting of the "trucking lobby" as the high motor fuel taxes that fund transit and provide economic incentives to use common carrier modes have the consequences of making all of the goods received by truck more expensive, and trucking may be even a larger share of freight in Europe on account of short hauls and the more troublesome railroad coupler.
And that the tax break on Diesel provides incentives for Diesel cars, which may or may not be good social policy depending on whether slightly lower GHG emissions are desired or the avoidance of smelly, sooty cars is your goal, and in any event, Germany and Austria seek to recoup the windfall enjoyed by Diesel car drivers with hundreds of Euros in extra yearly registration fees.
Again, the point of this, "those people over in Europe" may not be smarter than us dumb 'Mercans -- the politics of interest group lobbies are as much in play there as here in the U.S. in shaping the way things are.
By the way, the guy behind the Hertz counter of the Munich airport simply handed me the keys to a Fiat Diesel, told me I was getting a Diesel and asked if I had any problem with that without being given any further instructions. Dad and I got into the car and I preceded to crank the car to little effect. Just as I was about to continue cranking this thing and run down the battery, I remembered that twenty years prior I had worked "in the automotive industry and in the specific place in the automotive industry where (the matter of gas vs Diesel engines) was being decided" and I remember my Uncle Laszlo telling me about . . . glow plugs! (My Dad's Diesel light-utility farm tractor is direct injection and did not have them, but this Fiat was not direct injection and did) This time I held the ignition key for several seconds in the on position until the red glow-plug icon light went out, and got a start and we were on our way.
Regardless of Gell-Mann effect, I was told Diesel is cheaper (i.e., costs are lower to refine one gallon of Diesel than gasoline) to refine by an Exxon Operations VP who probably ought to what it costs Exxon.
The tax rates on Diesel are lower: Fuel taxes in Germany are €0.4704 per litre for ultra-low sulphur Diesel and €0.6545 per litre for conventional unleaded petrol, plus Value Added Tax (19%) on the total of fuel and the Fuel Tax.
trainsBuddy So what are the chances of high speed luxury train like this in US? 0.0% , 0.01%?
That high speed luxury train is being marketed to run on existing high speed lines..in the US you'd have to buld the lines first...
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
I'm going to monkey-wrench this and suggest that we don't need high-speed luxury trains, but frequent luxury trains of any type.
Let me tighten that wrench a little tighter:
Fast, frequent, and on time.
Fast does not necessarily mean 250-300 MPH. 110 MPH would work.
schlimm I was told Diesel is cheaper (i.e., costs are lower to refine one gallon of Diesel than gasoline) to refine by an Exxon Operations VP who probably ought to what it costs Exxon.
However, things have changed over time. Catalytic cracking enabled refineries to convert the heavier fractions into lighter ones, reducing the yield of heavier fuels and increasing the lighter ones. (Ever wonder why the UP stopped running the gas turbines? The refineries were turning a surplus of heavy fuel oil that they pretty much had to give away, into valuable gasoline.) This also made some of the lesser varieties of crude oil more valuable since their hydrocarbon content could be more flexibly converted into products in demand.
More recently, the combining process allows lighter molecules to be combined into gasoline or diesel, rather than flaring them off. And, the the remaining waste gas that used to be flared off in great volumes is now captured and sold as LPG and propane.
In the past, refineries were designed to handle one type of crude and produce product in line with the hydrocarbons native in the fuel. In the past few decades, the trick has been to make refineries flexible so that they can handle a variety of crude stock and produce product in volumes that matches the market. But refineries are not infinitely flexible and cannnot make all gasoline or all number 2 diesel from a any old barrel of crude. So, we still get swings in prices between the different fuels based on demand. A cold winter will run up the price of diesel fuel (home heating oils is identical to No. 2except it has not been rated for cetane). The relative prices we see at the pump these days between gasoline and diesel have more to do with demand and refining capacity than cost to produce.
OK, Don. What or who are you going to believe, your reasoned narrative regarding the modern refining industry or an Exxon Operations VP?
Seriously now, the "Peak Oil crisis" is really a "hydrogen crisis" as you can use coal in power utility boilers and even in railroad steam locomotives (yeah, I know about your railroad Master Mechanic friend who thinks the best thing you can do with a locomotive boiler is to pour cement into it so someone doesn't get the idea of operating it and causing a boiler explosion). Where you need liquid fuels is in transportation -- rail, auto, ship, and air -- and to get liquids, carbon needs to be combined with hydrogen to form hydrocarbons.
One place you can get the hydrogen is from water, and there are a number of "paths" to doing this. One path is making "water gas" (a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen) from coal, but to do this, you have to get energy to free the hydrogen from the oxygen in water, burning up a lot of the coal and turning it into CO2, which is a big no-no in this day and age. This is not restricted to coal -- you could use heavy oil or "pet coke" for this process, and yes even natural gas. There are technical reasons to turn natural gas into CO and H2 -- the so-called "stranded gas" that would otherwise be flared because there is no pipeline long enough to bring it to market, but that is another issue.
Another place to get H2 to make liquid fuels is to use solar energy to generate electricity and then use electrolysis -- although everyone keeps talking about that as a practical use for solar energy, I get the feeling that scaling up electrolysis to the necessary level is harder than people let on. Yet another way is the solar energy of photosynthesis, such as using "switch grass" as a source of ethanol or other motor fuels. Also, there was once talk about high temperature "pellet bed" reactors using heat to dissociate H2 from water -- to do this directly and thermally.
In place of combining C with O2 to form CO2 and liberating H2 in the process, a process I call "up converting" of hydrocarbon feedstock, you can "down convert", extract the H2 fraction of petroleum into lighter, more valuable fractions, which would be gasoline and #2 Diesel, and have reduced carbon as your "waste" or "byproduct." Refinaries must be doing this because of "pet coke" (pure carbon residue from petroleum refining after you have done all of the boojum Don was talking about to meet the demand for gas and Diesel and jet fuel). Pet coke has found use as coke in steelmaking and also to supplement the fuel load for coal-fired steam power plants.
So "Peak Oil" probably means "Peak Light Crude Oil", and whether we are truly running out of oil or not, it pretty much looks like we are "moving downward on the food chain" to heavier crude oils, to shales and tar sands, and to even coal.
Just as you can do this refining boojum with various types of crude oil, you can do the same thing with coal. Coal, depending on what kind and what mine, is still a hydrocarbon and has a substantial "volatile" fraction that makes for a liquid or even gas fuel -- it just has much less of the volatiles than what passes for crude oil these days. As coal is in reality just "a very heavy crude oil", you could get a larger fraction of a liquid fuel by "up converting" it -- turning it into CO2 and H2 and using the H2 to make liquid fuels. The other thing you could do is "down convert it" -- retort it in ovens to turn it into coke, saving the volatile fractions that cook off as transportation fuels or chemical feedstocks.
"Back in the day" (1840's England), coke was used as a steam locomotive fuel on account of anti-smoke regulations, but traditionally, coke was considered too valuable a substance for its use in steel making to simply use as boiler fuel. I also understand that conventional coke ovens are not exactly the cleanest industrial process.
But . . .
I am thinking that at nearly $80/barrel crude oil, maybe coal is "too valuable a fuel to burn in steam boilers." Maybe up-converting coal, which was the "energy crisis the moral equivalent of war" approach to synthetic (liquid) fuels and also the German WW-II process emits too much CO2. How about we consider taking all of the coal that would go to electric power plants and down-converting. You get, maybe, a barrel of oil per ton of coal and then a whole bunch of coke. The electic power plants, and maybe even steam locos like the ACE-3000 could burn coke, and that may even burn cleaner, or at least with less smoke. The oil you extract would not replace all of the petroleum we are importing, but the amount of oil you would get is still large compared to even the most ambitious plans for bio-ethanol.
Phoebe Vet Momma buy me THAT! I would say the chances are around a googolplex to one. ...but we can dream.
You know what this reminds me of? The A-380 super jumbo jet.
When these things are in the design stage, there is all manner of lounges (what is the deal with providing ash trays anyway?), reservable conference rooms, and state rooms or bed rooms for overnight travel.
When these things are built, it is a matter of "cram as many passengers as you can into this thing."
One of the things we keep returning to in these discussions is that "trains have room to get up an walk around" whereas planes, are just planes, and even for those of us who think planes are kind of cool, airline travel has gotten to be something we all dread.
But there is nothing intrinsic to trains that makes them spacious with every manner of amenity and makes planes cramped. I suppose trains are low rolling resistance and all more space for a certain amount of cost in capital expenditure or in fuel, but that advantage may not be as large as you think when you take into account the proposed 225 MPH operation of the Mercury Train.
What is different about trains and planes is that the trains have a more visible form of subsidy that pays for sleeping cars, diners, and lounge cars. Planes have a more hidden form of subsidy, where the "above the tarmac" part of the operation has to show some semblance of a profit, hence the squeeze on the passengers to squeeze profit out of the operation.
Paul MilenkovicWhen these things are built, it is a matter of "cram as many passengers as you can into this thing." One of the things we keep returning to in these discussions is that "trains have room to get up an walk around" whereas planes, are just planes, and even for those of us who think planes are kind of cool, airline travel has gotten to be something we all dread. But there is nothing intrinsic to trains that makes them spacious with every manner of amenity and makes planes cramped. I suppose trains are low rolling resistance and all more space for a certain amount of cost in capital expenditure or in fuel, but that advantage may not be as large as you think when you take into account the proposed 225 MPH operation of the Mercury Train. What is different about trains and planes is that the trains have a more visible form of subsidy that pays for sleeping cars, diners, and lounge cars. Planes have a more hidden form of subsidy, where the "above the tarmac" part of the operation has to show some semblance of a profit, hence the squeeze on the passengers to squeeze profit out of the operation.
Paul Milenkovic When these things are built, it is a matter of "cram as many passengers as you can into this thing."
Don and Paul M: How correct you both are. My experiences in the airline industry is "if the passengers come we will stuff them into the airplane". The only things that stops more seats in airplanes are number of emergency exits (1 per 25 seats) and 90 second evacuation requirements (only 50% exits allowed on tests). Trains do not have those limitations.
We already have this happening on the NEC as Regional cars have more seats than LD cars. Could it be sometime in the future a car with 3&2 (or even worse 3&3) seating & 1 restroom and call it 2nd class (horrors)(commuter class?) ?
Paul Milenkovic OK, Don. What or who are you going to believe, your reasoned narrative regarding the modern refining industry or an Exxon Operations VP? Seriously now, the "Peak Oil crisis" is really a "hydrogen crisis" as you can use coal in power utility boilers and even in railroad steam locomotives (yeah, I know about your railroad Master Mechanic friend who thinks the best thing you can do with a locomotive boiler is to pour cement into it so someone doesn't get the idea of operating it and causing a boiler explosion). Where you need liquid fuels is in transportation -- rail, auto, ship, and air -- and to get liquids, carbon needs to be combined with hydrogen to form hydrocarbons. One place you can get the hydrogen is from water, and there are a number of "paths" to doing this. One path is making "water gas" (a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen) from coal, but to do this, you have to get energy to free the hydrogen from the oxygen in water, burning up a lot of the coal and turning it into CO2, which is a big no-no in this day and age. This is not restricted to coal -- you could use heavy oil or "pet coke" for this process, and yes even natural gas. There are technical reasons to turn natural gas into CO and H2 -- the so-called "stranded gas" that would otherwise be flared because there is no pipeline long enough to bring it to market, but that is another issue. Another place to get H2 to make liquid fuels is to use solar energy to generate electricity and then use electrolysis -- although everyone keeps talking about that as a practical use for solar energy, I get the feeling that scaling up electrolysis to the necessary level is harder than people let on. Yet another way is the solar energy of photosynthesis, such as using "switch grass" as a source of ethanol or other motor fuels. Also, there was once talk about high temperature "pellet bed" reactors using heat to dissociate H2 from water -- to do this directly and thermally. In place of combining C with O2 to form CO2 and liberating H2 in the process, a process I call "up converting" of hydrocarbon feedstock, you can "down convert", extract the H2 fraction of petroleum into lighter, more valuable fractions, which would be gasoline and #2 Diesel, and have reduced carbon as your "waste" or "byproduct." Refinaries must be doing this because of "pet coke" (pure carbon residue from petroleum refining after you have done all of the boojum Don was talking about to meet the demand for gas and Diesel and jet fuel). Pet coke has found use as coke in steelmaking and also to supplement the fuel load for coal-fired steam power plants. So "Peak Oil" probably means "Peak Light Crude Oil", and whether we are truly running out of oil or not, it pretty much looks like we are "moving downward on the food chain" to heavier crude oils, to shales and tar sands, and to even coal. Just as you can do this refining boojum with various types of crude oil, you can do the same thing with coal. Coal, depending on what kind and what mine, is still a hydrocarbon and has a substantial "volatile" fraction that makes for a liquid or even gas fuel -- it just has much less of the volatiles than what passes for crude oil these days. As coal is in reality just "a very heavy crude oil", you could get a larger fraction of a liquid fuel by "up converting" it -- turning it into CO2 and H2 and using the H2 to make liquid fuels. The other thing you could do is "down convert it" -- retort it in ovens to turn it into coke, saving the volatile fractions that cook off as transportation fuels or chemical feedstocks. "Back in the day" (1840's England), coke was used as a steam locomotive fuel on account of anti-smoke regulations, but traditionally, coke was considered too valuable a substance for its use in steel making to simply use as boiler fuel. I also understand that conventional coke ovens are not exactly the cleanest industrial process. But . . . I am thinking that at nearly $80/barrel crude oil, maybe coal is "too valuable a fuel to burn in steam boilers." Maybe up-converting coal, which was the "energy crisis the moral equivalent of war" approach to synthetic (liquid) fuels and also the German WW-II process emits too much CO2. How about we consider taking all of the coal that would go to electric power plants and down-converting. You get, maybe, a barrel of oil per ton of coal and then a whole bunch of coke. The electic power plants, and maybe even steam locos like the ACE-3000 could burn coke, and that may even burn cleaner, or at least with less smoke. The oil you extract would not replace all of the petroleum we are importing, but the amount of oil you would get is still large compared to even the most ambitious plans for bio-ethanol.
This is very off topic, but one problem with that idea is the difficulties with transporting coke long distances, which is so fine it will blow out of open hoppers in significant quantities..
Maybe a "mine mouth" coke and liquids extraction/conversion facility with integrated powerplant would be a possibility?
How about coal gasification with upgrading of the Syngas to Synthetic Natural Gas? That can then be used for power generation, home heating, and even transportation fuel..
South Shore experimented with 3-2 seating in one coach in the mid-1960's. Metro North (M-1A and M-2) and LIRR (M-1) MU cars in the 1980's were all equipped with 3-2 seating, a bit tight but then these cars were in suburban service.
CSSHEGEWISCHSouth Shore experimented with 3-2 seating in one coach in the mid-1960's. Metro North (M-1A and M-2) and LIRR (M-1) MU cars in the 1980's were all equipped with 3-2 seating, a bit tight but then these cars were in suburban service.
Lets revisit what has worked in the U.S.A.
Aimed at the Frequent Traveling members of the public (not the general public), comfort, reasonable speed, less hassel, frequent service and less than 500 miles.
The "Acela" does it all, Boston to Washington by way of New York, Philadelphia, Wilmington, and Baltimore. Cruise at 135mph with some 150mph stretches. Business Class 2+2 seating rows and Ist Class 2+1 seating rows ONLY, leather seats. No Coach Class, no Standing Room ! Amtrak owns 20 "Acela Train Sets" and run them every hour. More people now ride the "Acela" than fly the Corridor.
The "Acela" is a Heavy, Crash Tested train meeting American Safety Standards. Any overseas train set design will also have to meet that standard as did the "Bombardier Alstom Consortium".
Don U. TCA 73-5735
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.