Neither a private contract operator nor a government operator is perfect. From time to time both fail to meet the required performance standards. If a private contractor fails to deliver, he frequently pays a performance penalty. If a government operator fails to deliver, the taxpayers are stuck with the outcomes, including any extra costs. I'll take the private operator any day of the week.
Connex is owned by Veolia Transportation. In 2006 it had more than 5,000 contract operations in 27 countries. Its operations carried more than 2.7 billion passengers, and it had 81,897 employees.
It is the largest private transportation company in the United States. It operates commuter rail services in Massachusetts and California. It manages a variety other transit activities in New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, Washington DC, North and South Carolina, Texas, California, Colorado, Arizona, Georgia and Canada. It runs bus rapid transit systems in Las Vegas and York, Ontario. And it owns Super Shuttle, which is arguably one of the best run services of its kind.
Any outsource contractor, especially one as large as Veolia, will lose a contract from time to time. But overall, given the breath and depth of its operations, as well as the demand for its services, Veolia appears to be doing a good job.
Samantha
The cynic would argue that your comments regarding Connex and the like paying millions for not making performance targets is a reason why privitization has failed as all what has happened is that the operator will raise fares from the taxpayer to reward the taxpayer in the first place. And if Private operators are so blazingly efficent why the hell are they paying performance related fines in the first place? And speaking to the good citizenry of Frankston, I am not sure that Crapex, sorry Connex are covering themselves in glory. However I shall let that pass.
As for Amtrak and performance, well if you had a monopoly on your own row then you could understand having penalties and the like, but since the company is at the mercy of a 3rd party it is rather self defeating, especially if those 3rd parties seem to have scant regard for the law in the first place.
I am not against privitisation (having worked for a private freight firm in the UK), but I am totally astounded by the mess made in the UK (where incidentally Connex had their franchise removed for being useless) and where the subvention to the railway system has basically doubled from the bad old days of the state owned deeply inefficent (Major, J) British Rail (which actually managed to turn a few profits now and then) to the complete screw up of the system which we have now where the costs of running the railway has doubled (in private hands except for the infrastructure). However I dont see it as money drained. That $30bn is over 30 yrs right, and how many other transport projects have drained the Treasury over that time and does high speed on the NEC count as a drain, or investment?
n.b. - you want a country where privitisation has been a failure -try New Zealand. The government purchased the infrastructure back for $1 (NZ) and have now bought back the operations off Toll.
martin.knoepfel wrote: France is generating most of it's electricity from nuclear power-plants, and all the HST are electric trains. So you have a transportation-system that is independent from oil-supplies.
Which is why they are well prepared for high oil prices and shortages unlike the USA with its over-reliance on short-haul air travel.
Samantha wrote:I understand the Boeing 787, for example, will be 40 per cent more fuel efficient and, therefore, emit fewer pollutants than the airplanes that it is designed to replace. And this is just the first of a new generation of airplanes that will take to the skies over the next decade or so.A lot of the discussions comparing the energy efficiency of trains to other modes of transport seem to ignore the technological changes that are taking place in the other modes. Maybe it is me, but I don't see advocates for more passenger rail recognize that airplanes are more efficient and cleaner now than they were a decade or so ago, as are road vehicles, and that they are likely to be much cleaner in the future.
I understand the Boeing 787, for example, will be 40 per cent more fuel efficient and, therefore, emit fewer pollutants than the airplanes that it is designed to replace. And this is just the first of a new generation of airplanes that will take to the skies over the next decade or so.
A lot of the discussions comparing the energy efficiency of trains to other modes of transport seem to ignore the technological changes that are taking place in the other modes. Maybe it is me, but I don't see advocates for more passenger rail recognize that airplanes are more efficient and cleaner now than they were a decade or so ago, as are road vehicles, and that they are likely to be much cleaner in the future.
My understanding is that there are three factors involved in improving efficiency of airliners.
One is to improve the efficiency of the engine - for jets this has been going on since the first turbojets had been replaced by turbofans. Since then, improvements have come from increasing bypass ratio and improving thermodynamic efficiency (by increasing compressor isentropic effciency and increasing turbine inlet temperature). There's still some room for improvement, but nothing anywhere near a factor of two.
The next is to improve aerodynamics - a first step was the extended wingspan on later L-1011's and the next step was the introduction of winglets. Since most airliners have an L/D ratio of around 20 and sailplanes can have L/D ratios of around 50, there is a possibility of considerable improvement in aerodynamics (I'm not holding my breath).
The most recent step is to use composite materials to reduce weight per passenger. In addition to weight reduction, the use of composites may lead to better L/D ratio. The reduce weight also reduces the amount of energy needed to climb to cruising altitude. The weight of passengers (and luggage) is a pretty significant chunk of the gross weight of an airliner, so further structural weight reductions are not going to be a huge advancement over the 787.
As Paul M. has been pointing out in a couple of other threads, there is a lot that could be done to reduce energy consumption of non-commuter passenger trains. Lighter weight (composites?) and better aerodynamics can go a long ways in improving passenger train efficiency (which doesn't do much for the current generation of pssngr cars).
One other difference with passenger trains is that they are much easier to convert to non-petroleum based fuels, if the line is electrified. Airliners are unlikely to run on anything but liquid hydrocarbon fuels - with the possible exception of liquid methane or even less likely, liquid hydrogen.
martin.knoepfel wrote:On the other hand, at least for France, the rationale behind building HSR seems reasonable: France is generating most of it's electricity from nuclear power-plants, and all the HST are electric trains. So you have a transportation-system that is independent from oil-supplies.
On the other hand, at least for France, the rationale behind building HSR seems reasonable: France is generating most of it's electricity from nuclear power-plants, and all the HST are electric trains. So you have a transportation-system that is independent from oil-supplies.
Considering that France never had any petroleum reserves worth mentioning, that ended being a powerful incentive to electrify. It is also a strong incentive to favor electric HSR over air traffic.
Cogloadreturns
Several articles on Railpage Australia discuss the burgeoning ridership on the Melbourne commuter and tram lines. None of them, however, expressed displeasure with privatization per se.
The public transit system is strained for many of the same reasons that public transit systems in the U.S., as well as elsewhere, are strained. The high cost of petrol has caused many people to give up driving and jump on the train or tram. They have come in such numbers as to put a heavy strain on the system.
The key question is whether a government operated system could handle the situation better than the private operators. I don't see any evidence that they could. Neither, apparently, does the Victoria Government.
The tram and commuter rail operating contracts expire in 2009. Bids for new ones are being accepted. According to The Age, more than 19 companies, some from overseas, want to wrestle the existing contracts from Connex and Yarra Trams. Soliciting bids periodically helps keep the operators sharp and, if justified, replace them with operators who can do a better job.
Connex, Yarra Trams, and V Line have paid the state tens of millions of dollars for failure to meet performance standards. This is another example of the virtues of privatization. I am hard pressed to see a government body, e.g. Amtrak, paying for failure to meet its punctuality and reliability standards. It would be broke in six months.
I don't see any hard data that privatization is not working. It has its challenges, just like the government run systems in many other countries.
In the U.S. the barriers to starting a rail line are high. So too are the barriers for intercity passenger rail service, since the government granted Amtrak a virtual monopoly on intercity passenger rail, although there is a small window for some competition. However, the barriers to starting bus, trucking, or airline operations are not unduly high. Witness the numerous comings and goings over the past 25 years.
Amtrak has survived as a political entity because of indifference on the part of the body politic and the dedicated support of a small number of enthusiastic supporters. Most intercity passenger trains were retained for political and sentimental reasons as opposed to meeting a market need. Had the free market place been allowed to function, most passenger trains in the U.S. would have died in the 60s and 70s. The NEC might have survived and served as a model for new corridors as changing conditions warranted. Amtrak also survives because most voters, including many of their elected representatives, don't understand how it is financed. Nor do they understand that since its inception Amtrak has drained the federal treasury of nearly $30 billion.
JT22CW
The U.S. has one of the lowest tax burdens of any OECD countries. If one uses the median per capita tax burden or median household tax burden, the burdens shift somewhat; but the trends stay nearly the same.
Cross border comparisons are difficult because of the significant variances in the tax codes. If one country places a heavy reliance on regressive taxes, i.e. sales, property, excise, etc., the median tax burden tends to shift down the income distribution ladder, whereas the burden in a country that relies more heavily on progressive taxes sees a different pattern.
In a country as large and diverse as the U.S., with multiple taxing jurisdictions, getting an in-country comparison is challenging. In the U.S. the state/federal tax burden, before the application of pass through taxes, ranges from 38.3 per cent of median income in Connecticut to 27.8 per cent in Oklahoma.
Cultural differences between the U.S. and the other OECD countries, including the English speaking countries, are greater than most Americans realize. Having lived in Australia, Canada, and Japan, as well as seven states of the U.S. and the District of Columbia, I have some insight into these differences. They have a significant impact on each society's values, which amongst other things determines how much they spend on public transport.
Since its inception Amtrak has received approximately $30 billion from the U.S. Treasury to cover its operating loses and capital expenditures. Had it not been supported by the federal government, with the possible exception of the NEC, it would not have survived. If a commercial enterprise cannot generate sufficient revenues to cover its costs, it is being propped up or subsidized, which are synonymous.
Had the average annual federal subsidy received by Amtrak since its inception been invested at the ten year Treasury note rate, it would have grown to $85.2 billion by the end of FY 2007. Had it been invested in an S&P 500 Index Fund, it would have ballooned to $248.1 billion. Moreover, if the future Amtrak subsidies, assuming the same average annual amount received from 1971 to 2007, were invested under the same parameters, they would reach $817.6 billion to $1.3 trillion by 2050. If the long distance trains were dropped today, using the same investment guidelines, the savings would grow to $59 billion by 2050. As seen by these examples, relatively small subsidies ($1 billion a year) can grow into a lot of money over time.
Railroads are a mature industry. They consolidated to compete against new technologies and alternative transport providers. Had they not done so they would have gone bankrupt.
In the 1960s the CEO's of America's passenger railroads told the Congress that the continued operation of passenger trains was not sustainable. The federal government responded with the National Railroad Passenger Corporation. It is a political solution. The government did not rush into the passenger railroad business. It formed Amtrak because of a perception, perhaps rightly so, that Americans, although they did not ride them very often, wanted to keep their passenger trains.
Transport modes have a natural or inherent advantage in certain markets. Airplanes, for example, have an inherent advantage for long distance travel or shipping because of their speed. Surface bound vehicles cannot compete with them.
The airlines probably did do better under regulation. The question is whether you believe the airlines should be guaranteed a return, as was partially the case under regulation, or whether the market should work for the people, which is what deregulation has brought about, frequently to the chagrin of airline executives who could not figure out how to compete.
Connex, which is owned by Veolia Transport, is a contract operator. It is not expected to put anything back into the infrastructure. But because it operates transit systems better, faster, and cheaper than government operators, the state has more resources to plow back into equipment and a facility, which is what happened in Melbourne.
If you look at a map - same scale, of course - you will see how small Western Europe is compared to the US and CDN. This favours high-speed-trains over airplanes on fuel-efficiency, becaus, as beaulieu wrote in an earlier post, starting and landing are much more fuel-consuming than cruising at altitude.
The developent of HSR in Western Europe is in part a political decision, for example the HS-line to Eastern France, a region hit hard by the crisis of the textile, coal and steel-industry. HSR would not sprawl the way it does in Western Europe if the taxpayers did not shoulder part of the bill. On the other hand, at least for France, the rationale behind building HSR seems reasonable: France is generating most of it's electricity from nuclear power-plants, and all the HST are electric trains. So you have a transportation-system that is independent from oil-supplies.
Re: Tax - which is outside this forum - I was sourcing my figures from the Economist. However I will conceed the point and am suitably admonished. As to your point regarding competition - having studied economics and currently undertaking a degree in railway operations and economics - yes I understand that so perhaps tone down the patronising remarks?
However when talking about competition, we could also point to the imperfections in the transport marketplace in terms of high barriers to entry etc etc and then have a debate on whether the competition should be intramodal (as it is with the freight market over here) or just mere modal. Interestingly the Conservative Party when "privatising" the railways here under the 1994 Act wanted intramodal competition on the railways in the form of paths being bid for by operators every 8 weeks in an auction. Fortunately it was shelved during the all too infrequent reality checks. And the intramodal freight operators over here fail to make, what I would call a decent return and are in the most part reliant on central government support and EU legislation in what they are charged for track access which is favourable. So the phrase "competition were introduced in the marketplace"...hmmm....The transport marketplace overall; or the passenger marketplace?
As for Melbourne - look at the pages on railpage Australia. I had a nice ride down to Stony Point recently - not all sweetness and light. As for the elctricity supply industry - well I can't comment re: Australia but I can over here - fixed markets, weak regulation, profiteering and short termisim rule. And the taxpayer is picking up the bill.
As for the the "WASTED" money on long distance trains. That is not a political problem is it, that is surely a flaw in democracy is it not? As those who elect their representatives who have on their manifestos a programme to keep the passenger train are obviously greater who wish to axe them. Perhaps a spot of totalitarianism would be useful to help remove the "waste"? So following that is the price of a democratic process, looking from outside one would be logically forced to conclude that as Amtrak has survived several attempts to kill it society in terms of its electorate has decided that it is worth paying that price to keep those trains going and would not term that money "wasted".
Samantha wrote:According to the Organization Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which includes many of the most highly developed countries in Europe, the tax burden as a per cent of national income in 2006 ranged from 18.5 to 50.7 per cent. This is the latest year for complete statistics. Mexico had the lowest burden; Sweden had the highest. The United States was third from the bottom at 25.4 per cent. The burden for the UK was 36.1 per cent. Other examples included Hungary at 37.7 per cent, the Netherlands at 38.3 per cent, France at 43.7 per cent and Norway at 44.3 per cent. Of course, it is possible that some of the European countries, especially those in Eastern Europe, had a lower burden than the U.S., but everything that I have read says the U.S. has one of the lowest tax burdens amongst the world's advanced economies, although trying to convince most Americans of that would not be easy.Comparisons are difficult. Cross cultural comparisons are even more so. In America there are many taxing jurisdictions (federal, state, county, city, school district, etc.). It is difficult to determine who pays the taxes in the U.S. and how much they pay. Nevertheless, the data consistently shows the taxpayers in the U.S. shoulder a lighter load than in most other developed countries. Whether the U.S. should spend more money on social programs or quality of life initiatives is a political problem that is outside the scope of this forum. Whether it should spend more money on passenger rail is ripe for discussion.
Mexico had the lowest burden; Sweden had the highest. The United States was third from the bottom at 25.4 per cent. The burden for the UK was 36.1 per cent. Other examples included Hungary at 37.7 per cent, the Netherlands at 38.3 per cent, France at 43.7 per cent and Norway at 44.3 per cent.
Of course, it is possible that some of the European countries, especially those in Eastern Europe, had a lower burden than the U.S., but everything that I have read says the U.S. has one of the lowest tax burdens amongst the world's advanced economies, although trying to convince most Americans of that would not be easy.
Comparisons are difficult. Cross cultural comparisons are even more so. In America there are many taxing jurisdictions (federal, state, county, city, school district, etc.). It is difficult to determine who pays the taxes in the U.S. and how much they pay. Nevertheless, the data consistently shows the taxpayers in the U.S. shoulder a lighter load than in most other developed countries.
Whether the U.S. should spend more money on social programs or quality of life initiatives is a political problem that is outside the scope of this forum. Whether it should spend more money on passenger rail is ripe for discussion.
Cultural differences are minimal. Much of modern society in the West is quite homogenized, via the media, via uniformity of technology, et cetera. About the most definite things that can be pinned down are Europe's VAT and higher motor fuel taxes, which is why gasoline over there averages $8-9 per US gallon (and fees on stuff like issuing licences for TVs).
You're quite right about the long distance trains. If they were not propped up by the federal government via Amtrak, they would go out of business in a heartbeat
But all passenger rail in the country is thus funded. Shall we cut all forms of passenger rail loose? After all, how do you define what "deserves" spending in terms of passenger rail and what does not?
And the money that is wasted on them could be redirected to passenger rail that meets a legitimate societal need, i.e. high density corridors, commuter rail (prevent CBD gridlock), etc., or it could be spent on other transport modes
If all transport subsidies were eliminated, which is politically unrealistic, and competition was introduced into the market place, those modes with a natural market place advantage would rise to the top. Freight would still move, people would still travel, etc. Some people would win; some would lose. But most of the waste found in the current scheme would drop by the wayside. Competition has a marvelous way of doing that. It forces organizations to perform efficiently, or they go out of business. Witness the birth and death of numerous airlines, bus operators, and trucking firms in the U.S. Witness the changes in freight railroads in the U.S. Only passenger rail runs to the government (federal, state, and local) to be propped up
"Changes in freight railroads" are not due to competition at all. They are due to regulation making it impossible to compete, resulting in a bare minimum of Class I railroads due to the need to concentrate capital in as few hands as possible. That is anti-competition, and may even be a reversal of trust-busting, leading to monopolization. For every supposed "breakthrough" like the Staggers Act, a new slew of FRA regulations came rushing in, destroying efficiency. Used to be that even trainsets like the Alstom TGV Sud-Est or Siemens Velaro (ICE 3) would have passed AAR/FRA crashworthiness specs with minimal modification. Nowadays, those would barely pass FTA muster for light rail.
And it's not just passenger rail. Bus services are thus "propped up" as well. The very bus services that National City Lines initially claimed would be self-sufficient, to boot, especially by freeing the routes to be more "flexible" supposedly than streetcar routes, i.e. in terms of being able to change on a whim to serve different markets (but that leads to confusion and abandonment of public transit, as was later discovered).
By "all transportation subsidies", do you mean all taxation applicable to all roads, plus all taxation applicable to airports and waterways? What country has done that with their transportation infrastructure? Historically, the USA has preferred free roads over tolled, besides. Do you know the story of how the Northeast Corridor in New Jersey became a railroad out of a toll road...?
What is meant by "natural market advantage"? I do not see any meaning in that phrase. Human transportation systems are by definiton unnatural.
As for airlines, they did better under regulation than under "deregulation"-is that an anomaly? We have lots of parked planes due to the highest jet fuel prices ever. Those planes are really parked and not carrying passengers.
(Incidentally, what do you think of US toll roads being sold to foreign companies?)
Privatization is not a panacea. And in some areas, like Western Australia, the population is not large enough to give it a shot. Moreover, as is true with everything, it needs to be tweaked. But when I was in Melbourne last year, visiting with friends, many of whom are in the electricity business; most agreed that privatization has led to many improvements, especially compared to how things were before it took hold. Public transit in Victoria is still being run by private operators. I would be keen to learn what is mean by reigning in.
All of this is off-topic for this thread, though. High speed rail has not been hit by the current fuel crisis as badly as other forms of transportation that operate over the same expanse, due to running on electricity and being the most heat-efficient form of transportation out there.
According to the Organization Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which includes many of the most highly developed countries in Europe, the tax burden as a per cent of national income in 2006 ranged from 18.5 to 50.7 per cent. This is the latest year for complete statistics.
You're quite right about the long distance trains. If they were not propped up by the federal government via Amtrak, they would go out of business in a heartbeat. And the money that is wasted on them could be redirected to passenger rail that meets a legitimate societal need, i.e. high density corridors, commuter rail (prevent CBD gridlock), etc., or it could be spent on other transport modes.
If all transport subsidies were eliminated, which is politically unrealistic, and competition was introduced into the market place, those modes with a natural market place advantage would rise to the top. Freight would still move, people would still travel, etc. Some people would win; some would lose. But most of the waste found in the current scheme would drop by the wayside. Competition has a marvelous way of doing that. It forces organizations to perform efficiently, or they go out of business. Witness the birth and death of numerous airlines, bus operators, and trucking firms in the U.S. Witness the changes in freight railroads in the U.S. Only passenger rail runs to the government (federal, state, and local) to be propped up.
If you know the train weight, the aerodynamic drag coefficient, have a "Davis Formula" model for the steel-on-steel rolling friction, and if you have numbers on the top speed and numbers of stops, you can pretty much straight-out calculate the energy requirements, knowing the energy-conversion efficiency of on-board Diesels or of catenary-supplied electric power. Complicating factors are making speed reductions for line restrictions -- knowing the frequency and speeds of those -- along with the power consumption of HEP, which could be a substantial element of train fuel consumption, especially with electric heat obtained from genset electricity, and something that I am not sure is well quantified.
I have done this exercise over on another thread http://cs.trains.com/forums/1468342/ShowPost.aspx. The air drag formulas are well-known, but the drag coefficient often needs to be known from real-world data. My source (S F Hoerner, 1965, Fluid-Dynamic Drag) quotes a C_D of 1.8 for a steam locomotive with 6 passenger cars and a C_D of .5 for a hypothetical streamlined train based on Dr. Hoerner's aviation-informed knowledge of drag coefficients for basic shapes. The C_D of course is the number you multiply the projected frontal area of the vehicle to get the effective area for the drag calculations. An unstreamlined train can have a C_D greater than 1 because following train cars have unstreamlined contours that add to the overall drag. I used Hoerner's C_D of 1.8 to get an estimate of the Hiawatha train. Whereas Hoerner's unstreamlined train had a steam locomotive, my assumption is that the mismatch in height between the P42 and the Horizon cars and another mismatch to the NPCC at the trailing end along with the unfaired underbodies with boxy underfloor accessories on the Horizon cars made this is a similarly unstreamlined train.
Another "known unknown" is the proper Davis Formula rolling friction. The Davis Formula gives friction for journal bearings and of course everything is on roller bearings, and I haven't seen reliable roller bearing corrections to the Davis Formula. Dr. Hoerner speaks of a "wheel ventilation" drag that may not be insignificant for HSR. The spinning wheels of the consist act as inefficient centrifugal blowers, and wheel sizes and numbers (articulated or guided-axle offers a reduced wheel count) need to be considered.
The drag coefficient is the other "known unknown." There had been various attempts at streamlining from the Pioneer Zephyr to the shrouded steam locomotives to the United Aircraft TurboTrain, but US "streamline" equipment is hardly streamlined owing to an unfaired trucks, axles, and train car underbody. There has developed a certain resistance to streamlining by railroad maintenance people -- that the advantages are minor at what have been low fuel costs, and the shrouds are a headache (think Pennsy T1 -- we had that debate about steam locomotive maintenance costs, but the stories I have read was that the T1 was not typical of steam and a real pain to work on).
All of the Japanese and European HSR is properly streamlined, with rounded noses and faired underbodies and level rooflines. Compare this with the original Metroliner -- the Metroliner had rounded corners of the A-ends with cabs, contrasted with the squared-off corners of the Silverliner commuter MUs, and this rounding off helps a lot according to Hoerner's formulas, but it is nowhere near the bullet nose of the Bullet Train.
On the other hand, even with shrouds and fairings, a train still has wheels contacting the ground. Virtually all commercial airliners have retractable landing wheels and also fly at altitudes with reduced air pressure -- contrast with HSR requiring wheels and travelling at the speeds of some prop planes but at ground level.
Anyway, I am curious if anyone has any hard numbers on drag coefficients for any of the European trains. Trains with those drag coefficients don't have to be operated at 200 MPH -- they could also be operated at 79 MPH and get considerable advantage over current Amtrak equipment.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Samantha wrote: Last ChanceAmericans should adopt the transport solutions that best meet their needs. They may take the best of breed practices from other countries, but at the end of the day the solutions need to be crafted to meet American needs.What is missing in the discussions about the virtues of Europe's rail systems is an in-depth discussion of the taxes paid by Europeans. If the level of taxation extant in Europe, which is used amongst other things to build and operate HST, was laid on Americans, I would wager that we would have a huge political, if not physical, revolution on our hands.More than 200 years ago our forefathers decided that they were not real keen on European solutions. So they stage a revolution. And it led to the United States of America. Not the United States of Europe!
Last Chance
Americans should adopt the transport solutions that best meet their needs. They may take the best of breed practices from other countries, but at the end of the day the solutions need to be crafted to meet American needs.
What is missing in the discussions about the virtues of Europe's rail systems is an in-depth discussion of the taxes paid by Europeans. If the level of taxation extant in Europe, which is used amongst other things to build and operate HST, was laid on Americans, I would wager that we would have a huge political, if not physical, revolution on our hands.
More than 200 years ago our forefathers decided that they were not real keen on European solutions. So they stage a revolution. And it led to the United States of America. Not the United States of Europe!
The levels of taxation extant in some countries in Europe is way lower than the US; yet they still choose to invest in the railways. And arguably in terms of living standards, education, social mobility and equality some of the evil "statist" and "high tax" economies lead the way on the planet. Sure, let themarket sort it out - but I will bet a decent sum if Amtrak disappeared then there would be no LD passenger trains as no other operator would get a look in. Incidentally, if you are to elimate all subsidy then a lot of the freight hauliers would be looking rather naked in terms of capital investment as press release after press release trumpets the "public element" as the taxpayer shells out. If you class mobility as a glue to social progress than the trade off is public investment in the transport system.
As for Australia and the likes it is interesting to view what is going on there now; the State governments have taken steps to rein in the operators (Melbourne); or are investing themselves (WA) and in New Zeland they have given up on the private sector altogether and renationalised.
n.b - In Europe the train builders are constantly looking toward fuel efficency and the likes - simple things like regenerative braking help; the tender process for the new Thameslink Units has lower weights and regen as part and parcel. Boeing have shelved a replacement for the 737 as they cannot meet the customers requirements in terms of environmental impact and as for the motor car - sure it maybe more efficient in future but if you have 100000 cars trying to fit into a CBD it doesnt matter if they are run on bionic duckweed the external costs in terms of congestion, land take, accidents and sheer time wasted stuck in 2hour jams just add up.....
gardendance, the safety benefits from articulation come from the additional connections between the coach bodies which limit the amount of deflection from straight the two sections can be from each other. This limits how tight a curve the trainset can take in terminals and shop areas as a tradeoff.
I have limited time to search right now for the energy consumption figures, but I know I found them last time on a European website, obviously conparing a European Highspeed train rather than Amtrak. I'll check this weekend. If someone else wants to look, search these two websites
European Department of Transport and Energy (DG TREN)
Or
European Environment Agency (EEA)
You'll have to look through older reports.
Paul Milenkovic wrote: This is interesting, as the fuel efficiency of a high speed transportation system on the ground exceeds by several times the fuel efficiency of air travel. Ordinarily I am OK with people having their sources of information and dont' go around demanding a "citation or bibliographic reference", but perchance, do you or anyone else have such a reference on this one?
This is interesting, as the fuel efficiency of a high speed transportation system on the ground exceeds by several times the fuel efficiency of air travel.
Ordinarily I am OK with people having their sources of information and dont' go around demanding a "citation or bibliographic reference", but perchance, do you or anyone else have such a reference on this one?
Well, next week I can look around. The observation was based on personal research experience while I worked for the government in R&D, and we had to test and model drag effects of modifications to aircraft for air tanker and chemical weapons applications and how this affected the power performance or requirements of individual aircraft types. The conclusion is what I recall. That's 35 years ago, and I did not bring the equations or models with me as the work required a security clearance. But, I am sure the equivalent formulas are out there somewhere, just a matter of finding them.
beaulieu wrote: Paul, you also need to be careful with the airline figures for fuel efficiency, as an airplane cruising at altitude is fairly efficient, what hurts airplane efficiency is the climb and descent, so flight distance matters. What also helps European trains and hurts Amtrak trains is the collision strength requirements. Compare the train weight of a TGV Duplex to an Acela, on a per seat basis. The TGV Duplex comes in at 1626 lbs. per seat.
Paul, you also need to be careful with the airline figures for fuel efficiency, as an airplane cruising at altitude is fairly efficient, what hurts airplane efficiency is the climb and descent, so flight distance matters. What also helps European trains and hurts Amtrak trains is the collision strength requirements. Compare the train weight of a TGV Duplex to an Acela, on a per seat basis. The TGV Duplex comes in at 1626 lbs. per seat.
Do we know for sure how much of the weight difference we can attribute to collision strength requirements? For example, the TGV is articulated with a shared truck at the articulation joint, so 3 trucks per pair of cars, while Acela, while cars are semi-permanently joined, has otherwise standard double truck cars. I don't see how shared trucks vs double trucks relate to collision strength, but I can believe all other things being equal that losing the 4th truck would make the train lighter. Do 2 double truck cars have any other safety aspects, for example is it more or less likely to remain upright, jacknife, or derail than a comparable 2 car 3 truck set?
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
Paul, you also need to be careful with the airline figures for fuel efficiency, as an airplane cruising at altitude is fairly efficient, what hurts airplane efficiency is the climb and descent, so flight distance matters.
Yes, the train will have a definite advantage on shorter stages. But is it percentage differences or multiples? The claim is that it is multiples, is there anything out there to support this?
I love it when HST's kill off short haul aircraft.
I hate it when Europe has done this for years while we only have one rusting Corridor.
MichaelSol wrote: cogloadreturns wrote:A journey on high-speed train Eurostar between London and Paris generates one-tenth of the carbon dioxide produced by an equivalent flight, according to independent research commissioned by Eurostar. This is interesting, as the fuel efficiency of a high speed transportation system on the ground exceeds by several times the fuel efficiency of air travel. This requires enormous taxpayer support, but if fuel efficiency is a key driver in the decision making process, it now seems that government investment in high speed rail service makes far more sense than further expansion of the air transportation system.
cogloadreturns wrote:A journey on high-speed train Eurostar between London and Paris generates one-tenth of the carbon dioxide produced by an equivalent flight, according to independent research commissioned by Eurostar.
This is interesting, as the fuel efficiency of a high speed transportation system on the ground exceeds by several times the fuel efficiency of air travel. This requires enormous taxpayer support, but if fuel efficiency is a key driver in the decision making process, it now seems that government investment in high speed rail service makes far more sense than further expansion of the air transportation system.
Will this still be true with the introduction of new, more fuel efficient airplanes?
Having said that, I am a strong advocate of rapid corridor rail where there is a market for it, preferably one that can be funded with private monies or at least a private/government partnership.
I think the average person does not give a hoot about the energy efficiency of one mode of transport over another, except to the extent that he sees it come out of his pocket in the ticket price. Most people want to get from point A to point B quickly, safely, dependably, comfortably, and economically. For the most part they don't care about the underlying technology.
Of course, if there is a significant gap between the energy efficiency of one mode compared to the alternatives, it will show up in the cost, but I suspect the gap would have to be quite large for it to make a large price point difference.
oltmannd wrote: CSSHEGEWISCH wrote:At the risk of having my head handed to me, I have come to the conclusion that Amtrak would do a lot better if it gave up on long-haul service entirely and concentrated its assets and energy on the short- to medium-haul market, no runs longer than 400-500 miles with reasonably frequent service, not unlike what's evolved in California. Work on operating a reasonably frequent service (3-4 trips a day in each direction) at first, and increase the average speed and frequency once a viable market has been established. Welcome to the headless bunch! The LD trains seem to be a political necessity. Wouldn't it be nice, though, if enough corridors emerged and grew such that the LD trains only had to pay their way incementally and became a relatively insignificant portion of the over network?Seems like Amtrak is going to get a chance to become relevant. Hope they don't blow it.
CSSHEGEWISCH wrote:At the risk of having my head handed to me, I have come to the conclusion that Amtrak would do a lot better if it gave up on long-haul service entirely and concentrated its assets and energy on the short- to medium-haul market, no runs longer than 400-500 miles with reasonably frequent service, not unlike what's evolved in California. Work on operating a reasonably frequent service (3-4 trips a day in each direction) at first, and increase the average speed and frequency once a viable market has been established.
Welcome to the headless bunch!
The LD trains seem to be a political necessity. Wouldn't it be nice, though, if enough corridors emerged and grew such that the LD trains only had to pay their way incementally and became a relatively insignificant portion of the over network?
Seems like Amtrak is going to get a chance to become relevant. Hope they don't blow it.
Amen!
Amtrak should get out of the long distance train business. And in time the feds should get out of the passenger railroad business, which means Amtrak, as well as all forms of transport, should be required to stand on their own. The users should tote the note at the pump or the ticket counter.
If there is a market for long distance trains, the Great Southern Railway model in Australia is the way to go. They get some subsidies from the Australian government. I would modify the model. No subsidies for long distance trains!
Paul Milenkovic wrote:This is interesting, as the fuel efficiency of a high speed transportation system on the ground exceeds by several times the fuel efficiency of air travel. Ordinarily I am OK with people having their sources of information and dont' go around demanding a "citation or bibliographic reference", but perchance, do you or anyone else have such a reference on this one?It is generally assumed that trains and even high-speed trains have energy efficiencies that are multiples of air transport, but in many cases and upon closer examination, trains can have superior energy efficiency but it is not multiples.Amtrak's energy efficiency is not multiples of airlines -- it is maybe 30 percent better at best. If there are documented cases of European or Japanese high-speed train services with efficiencies documented to be multiples of airlines, that is something I need to know about, to make the case with respect to what Amtrak should be doing differently to save large amounts of energy.
It is generally assumed that trains and even high-speed trains have energy efficiencies that are multiples of air transport, but in many cases and upon closer examination, trains can have superior energy efficiency but it is not multiples.
Amtrak's energy efficiency is not multiples of airlines -- it is maybe 30 percent better at best. If there are documented cases of European or Japanese high-speed train services with efficiencies documented to be multiples of airlines, that is something I need to know about, to make the case with respect to what Amtrak should be doing differently to save large amounts of energy.
Air France / KLM is actually considering to enter the HST-market after 2010. They negotiate with Veolia, which would run the trains for them. Most probably, they would concentrate on a few connections, for example Paris to Brussels.
As for the plans for further HST-ROWs in the U.K., it will be interesting to see how much Network Rail will realize. After all, they still have a lot of upgrading to do on the existing system. But rising fuel-costs certainly favour trains over cars or airplanes.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.