For those who are relative newcomers:
Comparing Amtrak to Norfolk Southern:
Amtrak has about 350 locomotives and 2000 passenger cars.
Norfolk Southern has about 3500 locomotives.
A passenger car is about as complex as a locomotive - new ones cost about the same.
Norfolk Southern has about 160,000 freight cars to look after each day, on top of this.
Amtrak runs about 300 trains a day. Norfolk Southern runs about 500 road trains and an equal number of locals a day.
Norfolk Southern has about 30,000 employees. About 12,000 of NS's are T&E employees, about 3500 are management.
Amtrak has about 20,000.
One more comparison.
In 1980, after Conrail got rid of commuter service, they had about 60,000 employees. At the end in 1998, they had 18,000 employees. Traffic was pretty close to flat over this time period.
Amtrak, in 1980, had about 20,000 employees and the same number in 1998. Traffic was pretty much flat over this time period.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
And this comparison of apples and oranges proves what? NS is a freight railroad, owns the track it runs on, is basically limited to the track it owns, is a stockholder business, it is a business that has changed in size by acquiring and merging with other railroads, has had changes in make up of traffic as well as traffic patterns. Amtrak is a government owned entity which owns some of its track but runs on private enterprise railroads for much of its mileage, it is in the business of moving people instead of freight, because it is a passenger operation it is also more labor intensive, it is a nationwide operation and not confined to its owned tracks. It would be more fair to compare Amtrak to Greyhound bus or American Airlines than to a regional freight railroad. And more fair to compare NS to any other regional freight railroad in the country.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
What jumps out at me in looking at Amtrak and any freight railroad is that Amtrak is unique in our history. It is an attempt at a cooperative venture between our government which operates a national passenger railroad and a whole bunch of private for profit companies, the freight railroads. As Amtrak reminded us on its 40th anniversary, so far it has worked. And it has worked despite changes in political priorities for the last 40 years. I believe that is a significant accomplishment for both Amtrak and the host railroads. For all of that I would like to see it work even better.
There are people who call for us to abandon Amtrak So argue that we should let the private sector run our passenger railroads; that argument is ridiculous. If the private sector wanted to run passenger railroads private companies would still be doing that. No company was forced to join Amtrak and some held out but all of the private companies ultimately did give over their rail operations to Amtrak.
Short of freight railroads wanting to take back passenger service we need to work to improve the relationship between Amtrak and our freight railroads. Today freight railroads are facing new challengers. Coal which has been a mainstay almost since they begin is drying up. But they are moving more and more into general freight in containers which they can move long distances far more cheaply than motor trucks do. And this is their oldest function: To be a bridge from tidewater to consumers. And consumers are precisely the people who might all be railroad passengers. Serving consumers is the common goal of Amtrak and freight railroads. We should not forget it.
It's a fair comparison because NS does more than double the work of Amtrak with more than double the amount of equivalent equipment with more than double the track miles...
With only 50% more people.
It's also fair because, while the rail industry got productive - Amtrak's productivity stayed flat.
It's not apple to oranges. More like Granny Smith to Red Delicious.
John WRWhat jumps out at me in looking at Amtrak and any freight railroad is that Amtrak is unique in our history. It is an attempt at a cooperative venture between our government which operates a national passenger railroad and a whole bunch of private for profit companies, the freight railroads. As Amtrak reminded us on its 40th anniversary, so far it has worked.
"Worked" is pushing it. Outside of the NEC and it's extensions and some state supported stuff, "Survived" is probably a better description.
Another thing to consider... Right now, Amtrak is claiming a modest "green" advantage over autos - their main competitor. But, what will things look like in 10 years? The CAFE standards will double the fuel efficiency of cars which will flip the advantage to autos. What is Amtrak doing to improve train fuel economy? Are they pushing for lighter weight equipment? Anything?
Two entirely different animals...neither is a reflection of the other, two different products and services. Amtrak doesn't haul coal and NS doesn't haul people, etc. You might just as well compare NS to any city transit system or commuter agency. and you'd be closer to comparison because at least it would be regional.
Amttak reports that at present--not years down the road but right now--it uses fuel 30 per cent more efficiently than automobiles and it is working of ways to improve the efficiency.
Of course many of Amtrak's trains are electric trains which would be comparable to plug in electric cars. However, at present we don't have many plug in electric trains.
In an interesting note Amtrak points out that freight trains use fuel about 11 times more efficiently than motor trucks. If you know anything at all about the physics of friction the idea that a rubber tire on a road can compete with a steel wheel on a steel rail makes no sense.
Here is the link: http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am%2FLayout&cid=1246041983245
henry6 Two entirely different animals...neither is a reflection of the other, two different products and services. Amtrak doesn't haul coal and NS doesn't haul people, etc. You might just as well compare NS to any city transit system or commuter agency. and you'd be closer to comparison because at least it would be regional.
Got numbers to go with this argument?
Amtrak needs 2000+ mgt employees to operated 300 trains a day. NS needs 3500 to operate 1000 trains a day. How does what's in the train matter that much in this regard?
John WR Amttak reports that at present--not years down the road but right now--it uses fuel 30 per cent more efficiently than automobiles and it is working of ways to improve the efficiency. Of course many of Amtrak's trains are electric trains which would be comparable to plug in electric cars. However, at present we don't have many plug in electric trains. In an interesting note Amtrak points out that freight trains use fuel about 11 times more efficiently than motor trucks. If you know anything at all about the physics of friction the idea that a rubber tire on a road can compete with a steel wheel on a steel rail makes no sense. Here is the link: http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am%2FLayout&cid=1246041983245
Well, I should know a bit about physics. I am a Mechanical Engineer by education and have done quite a few diesel engine efficiency and locomotive fuel consumption tests in my day.
And, you'd be right about the rolling resistance if we were comparing trains with rubber tires to trains with steel wheels. But, we're not.
The problem is weight. The FRA says, that in order to operate in a mixed environment, you have to build your passenger cars to withstand 800,000 buff force without deformation, plus a few other requirements like collision posts that make US passenger cars much heavier than contemporary high speed train sets in Europe, for example. An Amfleet car is about 55 tons empty. It holds 76 passenger in short haul configuration. That's 1500 # per seat. For a six car train with a P42 on one end and a cabbage on the other and a 60% load factor, that comes out to 4500# per passenger. Three people in a Camry comes out to 1100# per passenger.
And, the trend is not going Amtrak's way. The current set of specs (http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Pages/Section305Committee.aspx ) out there for new, standard single and bilevel equipment are for equipment just as heavy as Amfleet and Superliner cars. The FRA doesn't seem to want to budge and adopt a Eurporean crash avoidance/crash energy managment spec any time soon - and it doesn't appear that Amtrak is pushing it. Washington State pushed it a bit, getting a waiver for their Talgo equipment years ago, but there's been no push since.
Amtrak's 30% fuel advantage will vaporize by 2016. The CAFE standard for fuel economy increases by 35% between now and then.
This is a battle Amtrak can win, but they have to take it on.
P.S. Amtrak would be wrong about the 11X benefit for freight trains over truck. It's in the 3-4 fold range. The net to tare weight ratio for trucks and trains is fairly close, so the train gets all the advantage of the lower rolling resistance.
For openers, I would safely state that most NS freights have a two-man crew. A short-haul Amtrak train will have at least a three-man operating crew plus those providing on-board services. If you are a very good labor negotiator, you MAY be able to reduce the crew requirements for Amtrak, but I doubt it.
CSSHEGEWISCH For openers, I would safely state that most NS freights have a two-man crew. A short-haul Amtrak train will have at least a three-man operating crew plus those providing on-board services. If you are a very good labor negotiator, you MAY be able to reduce the crew requirements for Amtrak, but I doubt it.
Amtrak has never had a reason to bargain very hard. In fact, allowing expensive "NY Dock" style labor protection gives Amtrak's LD trains an effective "poison pill". You have to pay the labor whether or not the train still runs - for years. This also gives Amtrak mgt a measure of job security - the more people there are to manage, the more managers you need.
Gotta start somewhere, sometime....
oltmannd henry6 Two entirely different animals...neither is a reflection of the other, two different products and services. Amtrak doesn't haul coal and NS doesn't haul people, etc. You might just as well compare NS to any city transit system or commuter agency. and you'd be closer to comparison because at least it would be regional. Got numbers to go with this argument? Amtrak needs 2000+ mgt employees to operated 300 trains a day. NS needs 3500 to operate 1000 trains a day. How does what's in the train matter that much in this regard?
Yes. 100% of Amtrak employees work for a passenger railroad and 100% of NS employees work for a freight railroad.. 100% of the territory covered by Amtrak is the entire country. 100% of the territory coverd by NS is about 1/3 of the country. 100% of the stock in Amtrak is owned by the Federal government. 100% of the stock of NS is owned by private individuals. I don't understand your not understanding the differences between these two and why you cannot compare the two on an even basis.
Reading some further posts this is just a thread to slam Amtrak and not giving it a defense.
henry6 And this comparison of apples and oranges proves what? NS is a freight railroad, owns the track it runs on, is basically limited to the track it owns, is a stockholder business, it is a business that has changed in size by acquiring and merging with other railroads, has had changes in make up of traffic as well as traffic patterns. Amtrak is a government owned entity which owns some of its track but runs on private enterprise railroads for much of its mileage, it is in the business of moving people instead of freight, because it is a passenger operation it is also more labor intensive, it is a nationwide operation and not confined to its owned tracks. It would be more fair to compare Amtrak to Greyhound bus or American Airlines than to a regional freight railroad. And more fair to compare NS to any other regional freight railroad in the country.
Comparing the efficiency of NS to other railroads or the commercial freight hauling business in general is relatively easy. Investors do it every day. It is called the stock market.
Greyhound, Megabus, Boltbus, etc. have to cover their costs or go out of business. The same applies to the nation's airlines.
Amtrak does not have to cover its costs. It just has to convince the taxpayers to underwrite it. Having said that, if Amtrak could drop the long distance trains, rationalize it management and organizational structure, align its services to what people are willing to pay for, it probably could cover its operating costs. Moreover, if it were placed on a level playing field, which would require some radical changes, it probably could cover its capital costs.
I am keen to see if the proposed private operators, i.e. Texas, Florida, Italy, can show that there is another way than the Amtrak mode.
henry6 oltmannd henry6 Two entirely different animals...neither is a reflection of the other, two different products and services. Amtrak doesn't haul coal and NS doesn't haul people, etc. You might just as well compare NS to any city transit system or commuter agency. and you'd be closer to comparison because at least it would be regional. Got numbers to go with this argument? Amtrak needs 2000+ mgt employees to operated 300 trains a day. NS needs 3500 to operate 1000 trains a day. How does what's in the train matter that much in this regard? Yes. 100% of Amtrak employees work for a passenger railroad and 100% of NS employees work for a freight railroad.. 100% of the territory covered by Amtrak is the entire country. 100% of the territory coverd by NS is about 1/3 of the country. 100% of the stock in Amtrak is owned by the Federal government. 100% of the stock of NS is owned by private individuals. I don't understand your not understanding the differences between these two and why you cannot compare the two on an even basis.
From memory I believe the Federal Government controls the preferred stock of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation. Some of the common stock is still held by the railroads or investors. More than 70% of NS shares are held by institutional investors, i.e. pension funds, mutual funds, etc. The percentage of the stock held directly by individuals is relatively small.
I honestly don't care who runs inter-city passenger trains service in this country, Amtrak or someone else, public or private. Given the limitations Amtrak is burdened with (mandated routes based on political clout, Irrational and outdated service model, overstaffing, inept management) it actually does pretty well on the whole. But if we want real improvements so that we have a modern service, radical changes will be needed. The problem with train advocacy is that there remains a zealous faction who desire a model that hasn't existed for over 60 years and denounce as bus shills or anti-train any and all who desire a different outcome. Good luck with the former. However, the rest of us will not be silenced..
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
henry6 Reading some further posts this is just a thread to slam Amtrak and not giving it a defense.
Yeah, I know the Feds hold a major % of NRP stock and the initial railroads the rest, someting like 7% or less. And I know insutiturions, etc, own a majority of the private railroad stock and individuals less. ANd i know Amtrak has to deal with freight railroads and NS has to deal with Amtrak and commuter agencies. But the fact is that Amtrak is so different from NS that there is no way to campare except for the guage of the track and the fuel in the non electric locomotives are the same.
Because of running passenger trains, Amtrak is by its nature more labor intensive than a freight only line. That said, running an engine is pretty similar, whether passenger or freight. So are many other jobs. And NS must maintain far more miles of track than Amtrak does. The point is that Amtrak has not been able to implement many operating efficiencies of the past 20 years that NS and other railroads have. Why not? Efficiencies would allow Amtrak to offer more service where that was a rational course of action without depending on an appropriation.
For many years railroads faced a special problem with government regulation which almost regulated them out of business. The Staggers Act in 1980 was supposed to do away with that. But I guess there is still problematic regulation for Amtrak. I would like to see regulations revised to more reasonable standards but the point here is that if Amtrak does go out of business the reason is that it has been regulated out of business and not because of anything Amtrak did or did not do.
As far as engine standards go, it is hard for me to understand why we can improve efficiency in engines that go into automobiles but we cannot improve efficiency in engines that go into locomotives.
Amtrak has a different mission than the investor owned, freight carriers. Nevertheless, meaningful comparisons about some aspects of the organizations can be made. The management structure could be compared to a variety of criteria. Also, the IT, finance and accounting, treasury, customer service, HR, purchasing, etc. functions could be compared. They tend to be generic.
Amtrak is a government owned monopoly. It cannot be benchmarked easily in the U.S., and cross boarder comparisons are notoriously difficult. The only other inter-city passenger rail operation that I can think of is the Trinity Railway Express, which is a commuter railroad that runs from Dallas to Fort Worth. However, Amtrak apologists might not want to go there inasmuch as the FY11 subsidy for the TRE was 17.31 cents per passenger mile compared to 19.12 cents per passenger mile for Amtrak.
Comparing Amtrak to the Great Southern Railway, which operates three long distance routes in Australia, and is an investor owned corporation could be meaningful, but I have not been able to get the Great Southern Railway numbers.
John WR What jumps out at me in looking at Amtrak and any freight railroad is that Amtrak is unique in our history. It is an attempt at a cooperative venture between our government which operates a national passenger railroad and a whole bunch of private for profit companies, the freight railroads. As Amtrak reminded us on its 40th anniversary, so far it has worked...... There are people who call for us to abandon Amtrak Some argue that we should let the private sector run our passenger railroads; that argument is ridiculous. If the private sector wanted to run passenger railroads private companies would still be doing that. No company was forced to join Amtrak......
What jumps out at me in looking at Amtrak and any freight railroad is that Amtrak is unique in our history. It is an attempt at a cooperative venture between our government which operates a national passenger railroad and a whole bunch of private for profit companies, the freight railroads. As Amtrak reminded us on its 40th anniversary, so far it has worked......
There are people who call for us to abandon Amtrak Some argue that we should let the private sector run our passenger railroads; that argument is ridiculous. If the private sector wanted to run passenger railroads private companies would still be doing that. No company was forced to join Amtrak......
It has worked only because of the largest per passenger and per passenger mile federal and state subsidies of any form of commercial transportation. Through the end of FY11 Amtrak had accumulated loses of $28 billion. Outside of the NEC, Amtrak is a skeleton passenger rail system, augmented by state supported corridors, that is used by less than one per cent of intercity travelers. This is not my definition of "it has worked".
Amtrak is a broken business model. However, those of us who are calling for a different model are not saying that passenger rail does not have a place in America. The question is whether there are better alternatives to the Nation Railroad Passenger Corporation. Clearly, I believe there are. Moreover, just because a person has a different view than your does not mean that it is ridiculous. It is different. There are heaps of legitimate, differing views on most subjects.
Hopefully the private funded efforts in Florida, Texas, and Italy will be successful. I suspect that they will require some subsidies, but I would be surprised if they cannot offer a better outcome than what we are getting or likely to get from a government run monopoly.
For years people in the utility businesses (telecommunications, gas, electric, etc.) said that regulated, monopolistic utilities were the only model that would work. They were wrong. Deregulating the utilities gave use much better outcomes. Those who cling to failed business models are likely to have sub-optimum outcomes. Those who are willing to experiment and compete are likely to produce better outcomes.
Sam1 Amtrak has a different mission than the investor owned, freight carriers. Nevertheless, meaningful comparisons about some aspects of the organizations can be made. The management structure could be compared to a variety of criteria. Also, the IT, finance and accounting, treasury, customer service, HR, purchasing, etc. functions could be compared. They tend to be generic. Amtrak is a government owned monopoly. It cannot be benchmarked easily in the U.S., and cross boarder comparisons are notoriously difficult. The only other inter-city passenger rail operation that I can think of is the Trinity Railway Express, which is a commuter railroad that runs from Dallas to Fort Worth. However, Amtrak apologists might not want to go there inasmuch as the FY11 subsidy for the TRE was 17.31 cents per passenger mile compared to 19.12 cents per passenger mile for Amtrak. Comparing Amtrak to the Great Southern Railway, which operates three long distance routes in Australia, and is an investor owned corporation could be meaningful, but I have not been able to get the Great Southern Railway numbers.
You can also benchmark Mechanical against the frt and commuter agnecies. (a locomotive is a locomotive. A passenger car is about as complex as a locomotive).
You can benchmark food service against restaurant chains and cruise ship companies, or even dinner trains - how much does it cost to feed a guest? How do you do it?
You can benchmark the operation of sleepers against hotel chains and cruise ship lines. A room is a room. What's it cost to keep one clean and get guests in and out of it?
You can benchmark ticketing and revenue collection against any passenger carrier in the world - any and all modes. Tickets are tickets. How's the web site work? How about e-tickets? Fare collections? Who does it when?
The comparisons may not be pure, but the process should show you a lot about what you do well and what you don't. I get the idea that Amtrak does things the way they do them because that is how they have done them.
They do seem to have caught up the the rest of the world on E ticketing, though. Has anyone tried it.
People voice complaints about the service they receive on a train. Freight doesn't.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD oltmannd henry6 Two entirely different animals...neither is a reflection of the other, two different products and services. Amtrak doesn't haul coal and NS doesn't haul people, etc. You might just as well compare NS to any city transit system or commuter agency. and you'd be closer to comparison because at least it would be regional. Got numbers to go with this argument? Amtrak needs 2000+ mgt employees to operated 300 trains a day. NS needs 3500 to operate 1000 trains a day. How does what's in the train matter that much in this regard? People voice complaints about the service they receive on a train. Freight doesn't.
Shippers and receivers complain, plenty! And, there's a whole army of people whose job it is just to keep track of where the shipments are.
oltmannd BaltACD oltmannd henry6 Two entirely different animals...neither is a reflection of the other, two different products and services. Amtrak doesn't haul coal and NS doesn't haul people, etc. You might just as well compare NS to any city transit system or commuter agency. and you'd be closer to comparison because at least it would be regional. Got numbers to go with this argument? Amtrak needs 2000+ mgt employees to operated 300 trains a day. NS needs 3500 to operate 1000 trains a day. How does what's in the train matter that much in this regard? People voice complaints about the service they receive on a train. Freight doesn't. Shippers and receivers complain, plenty! And, there's a whole army of people whose job it is just to keep track of where the shipments are.
When people are the 'freight' the entire equation changes. One clerk can handle the complaints of many shippers. One complaining passenger can tie up the efforts of multiple clerks and managers.
oltmannd John WR Amttak reports that at present--not years down the road but right now--it uses fuel 30 per cent more efficiently than automobiles and it is working of ways to improve the efficiency. Of course many of Amtrak's trains are electric trains which would be comparable to plug in electric cars. However, at present we don't have many plug in electric trains. In an interesting note Amtrak points out that freight trains use fuel about 11 times more efficiently than motor trucks. If you know anything at all about the physics of friction the idea that a rubber tire on a road can compete with a steel wheel on a steel rail makes no sense. Here is the link: http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am%2FLayout&cid=1246041983245 Well, I should know a bit about physics. I am a Mechanical Engineer by education and have done quite a few diesel engine efficiency and locomotive fuel consumption tests in my day. And, you'd be right about the rolling resistance if we were comparing trains with rubber tires to trains with steel wheels. But, we're not. The problem is weight. The FRA says, that in order to operate in a mixed environment, you have to build your passenger cars to withstand 800,000 buff force without deformation, plus a few other requirements like collision posts that make US passenger cars much heavier than contemporary high speed train sets in Europe, for example. An Amfleet car is about 55 tons empty. It holds 76 passenger in short haul configuration. That's 1500 # per seat. For a six car train with a P42 on one end and a cabbage on the other and a 60% load factor, that comes out to 4500# per passenger. Three people in a Camry comes out to 1100# per passenger. And, the trend is not going Amtrak's way. The current set of specs (http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Pages/Section305Committee.aspx ) out there for new, standard single and bilevel equipment are for equipment just as heavy as Amfleet and Superliner cars. The FRA doesn't seem to want to budge and adopt a Eurporean crash avoidance/crash energy managment spec any time soon - and it doesn't appear that Amtrak is pushing it. Washington State pushed it a bit, getting a waiver for their Talgo equipment years ago, but there's been no push since. Amtrak's 30% fuel advantage will vaporize by 2016. The CAFE standard for fuel economy increases by 35% between now and then. This is a battle Amtrak can win, but they have to take it on. P.S. Amtrak would be wrong about the 11X benefit for freight trains over truck. It's in the 3-4 fold range. The net to tare weight ratio for trucks and trains is fairly close, so the train gets all the advantage of the lower rolling resistance.
I think this pretty much sums it up. Many in the advocacy community start with a steel wheel on steel rail having about one tenth to rolling resistance of an automobile tire on concrete, maybe the advantage is a little bit less for a bus or OTR truck tire inflated to much higher pressure. Ergo, trains use one tenth the energy of cars, don't they?
A lot of the drag at passenger trains speeds, and especially at HSR speeds, is aerodynamic. A train can help with that because each train car is in the wind shadow of the train car ahead, kind of like stock car racers "drafting" by driving inches from the next car's bumper. But the minute you assemble coaches into a train, you have the potential for train cars "telescoping" in a derailment or collision, leading to horrific loss of life. So to get the aero drag reduction from running a passenger train, you have to add weight. Now the added weight should not be too much a problem, the 4 times higher weight for the Amfleet train compared to the Toyota Camry per passenger, because the rolling resistance is 10 times lower. But then you need to brake to make your stops and then accelerate where weight incurs a penalty, and then there are railroad lines with substantial grades to tote all of that weight.
A number that sticks in my mind is that a locomotive with a 6 car train operated at 79 MPH uses about 1.75 gallons #2 Diesel per mile. That number was told to me over the phone by WisDOT as the benchmark for the Vision Report and the claim that intercity trains in corridor service would use about half the fuel as automobiles. That suggests that an Amfleet car gets 3.5 miles per gallon whereas I talked to the driver of a motorcoach bus who was waiting for member of the football team to board for an "away game", and he claimed 8 miles per gallon on the highway. If you count the locomotive as two passenger cars, for its greater weight and also for its aerodynamic mismatch between the roof line of a Genesis with that of an Amcoach, that works out roughly 4.5 miles per gallon per rail passenger car equivalent.
So, guess it stands to reason that a passenger-railroad-car-equivalent amounts to about two motorcoach buses. The bus is a somewhat lighter than half a rail passenger car (the motorcoach bus has 2 front wheels, 6 more wheels between a pair of "tandem" axles in the rear or 8 wheels. An 18-wheel OTR truck is allowed, what, 80,000 lbs gross? So the motorcoach grosses at 35,000 lbs (17.5 lbs -comparable to a Talgo coach without including the locomotive)? But the bus doesn't benefit from the wind shadow effect, although on the other hand, the bus appears to have better streamlining than an Amcoach that has all of thoses high-drag "boxes" hanging from the underside for the A/C, toilet retention, and other services.
So maybe the problem isn't weight as the Amcoach is only about 60 percent heavier than either a Talgo or a motorcoach bus, and the bilevels are about the same increase as they are somewhat heavier but are the space equivalent of 3 Talgo cars or motorcoach buses? But then I am not counting the weight of the locomotive, or the locomotive plus a heavy cab car converted from a locomotive and ballasted to the weight of a locomotive? Or running a pair of locomotives on a 6-car corridor train as I have seen?
But then why doesn't the train beat the bus by offseting its increased weight with the 10-fold advantage in rolling resistance (maybe 5-fold advantage because buses use a high tire pressure)? Again, look at the underbody of an Amcoach. Maybe the bilevel has an aerodynamic advantage owing to increased seating space per car, the underbody filled with the streamlined lower level, and less height mismatch with the locomotive?
The Talgo also fills the space between the wheels with streamlined carebody rather than the purposeful clutter of train car accessories. But on the new Talgo for Wisconsin that may or may not run, it looks like the cab car has a bluff front "in response to input from Amtrak engineers" (I presume train operators, not mechanical engineering people?). The European Talgo cab car has a streamlined front. So much for fuel economy. One of the selling points of the Wisconsin Talgo was saving fuel. How much fuel does the Wisconsin-ized Talgo use? Does anyone even know?
So then, a "conventional" passenger train operating at "conventional" speeds, for better or worse, has roughly the fuel economy of an intercity motorcoach bus per linear foot of equivalent passenger car. But the football team motorcoach bus has seats for 56, whereas the Amfleet coach using at least double the fuel only seats 76 in a "corridor" configuration. And you start derating rail fuel economy when you add that heavy, aerodynamically mismatched cab car. Or a second locomotive. Or the baggage car, crew dorm, lounge car, and diner on a long-distance train. And the provision of lower-density seating in coach and even lower density in the sleeping cars.
When the dust settles, Amtrak is saving, on average, 30 percent in fuel compared to people taking cars. That is a Good Thing, but that by itself does not justify the 20 cents/per passenger mile average subsidy, which works out to about 18 dollars per gallon of fuel saved.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
BaltACD When people are the 'freight' the entire equation changes. One clerk can handle the complaints of many shippers. One complaining passenger can tie up the efforts of multiple clerks and managers.
Passenger trains are either the thing that the advocacy community says they are. Or they are not.
On one hand, passenger trains are supposed to be 10 times more energy efficient, only that applies only to freight, and the figure is maybe 3-5 times more energy efficient. When it comes to passenger, Amtrak is only a 30 percent savings, but 30 percent savings is a lot. Isn't it?
On one hand, passenger trains subsidy are no big deal because everybody is getting subsidy in one form or another, only the subsidy rate per passenger mile is indeed high. But what about those motorists in rural Montana, someone on the highways must be getting a high rate of subsidy, aren't they?
Railroad passenger trains have all of these advantages over other modes of transportation, that is, until someone suggests changes to realize those advantages, and it becomes "Son, passenger trains have always required subsidy to operate, back in the day, cross subsidy from the freight operation, and there are all these special things you need to do to carry passengers that cannot change."
On one hand, passenger trains are supposed to have labor productivity advantages because one engine driver can move hundred of people whereas a bus driver moves only 80 on one of those new double deckers that crash a lot. But a bus driver is a "one man band" of driver, passenger service agent, ticket taker, and baggage loader (and food service director by deciding when and where to stop at MacDonalds) whereas a train requires multiple workers to carry out those functions. And these functions cannot be combined or reassigned or simplified because of the special requirements of providing railroad passenger service.
The "freight railroads" wanted to get out of the passenger business because passengers complain because you can't load them up in stock cars, hose them down when they get warm, and toss in slop to feed them, and passenger trains require priority over other trains that gums up the network. Only it seems that the railroad companies have gotten out of hauling livestock because livestock present special needs -- you need to hose them down on hot days, you have to feed them, and there are Federal hours limits on livestock in transit so you have to give stock trains priority over other trains that gums up the network. And when animals die in transit or come out the worse for the wear, oh boy do you hear about it!
While CAFE standards are mandating more fuel efficient cars, the total number of cars on the road is expected to
increase, so the result could be a wash with regards to fuel use. I would also expect that many train riders are fed up with the overall hassle of driving. The days of carefree motoring of the 1950's is a thing of the past.
Thank you for a lot of fascinating information, Paul. When I was young, well over half a century ago, and I first became interested in trains my father taught me that the most efficient land transportation we have is a steel wheel on a steel rail. You show that it isn't quite as simple as that; there are a lot of other things to consider. Like the weight of a railroad car.
It has been pointed out that passenger car weights are set by government employees who believe our heavy standards are needs for passenger safety. In Europe other government employees set different, lighter standards and presumably they believe they do not compromise passenger safety. If we adopted European standards our passenger trains would be more efficient.
I assume government employees also set standards for our buses. In March of last year 13 people were killed when, on the New England Thruway, a truck rear ended a bus. Here is a link to a description: http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/12/13-dead-as-bus-overturns-on-bronx-highway/
Perhaps we need heavier buses to better protest passengers. Of course that would cause buses to be less efficient.
Cars too are involved in accidents, all kinds of accidents and more accidents than any other kind of transportation. I don't know if the government mandates weight standards for auto safety. Today we hear about efficiency, getting more miles per gallon, but there seems to be a trade off between weight and efficiency. I don't pretend to know the answer.
But I do travel between New York and Providence from time to time. I hope the safety of train travel will continue to be available to me.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.