I thought we could start a new thread on this.
Amtrak now has a 30% advantage on auto w.r.t. fuel economy. This may be short lived.
The reason is the tricks the auto industry can use are not generally available to the railroad.
Reduced weight - auto industry continues to make smaller, lighter vehicles while keeping interior roomy. Railroad passenger cars bound by FRA regs -new specs being written are for traditional equipment no lighter than what we have now.
Braking energy recover - aka Hybrids. Technology is state of the art. Amount of energy to be stored is fairly small. GE has messed with a hybrid demo unit. Nothing near production. Amount of energy to be stored is great - batteries are heavy. Auto technology not directly transferable. Specs for new high speed locomotives do not include energy recovery.
Diesel engines - RRs already have them. Auto industry market share of diesels is growing. VW TDI machines get 40-50 mpg right now. (Jetta, Golf, Passat)
So, it is quite likely that by 2025, when the CAFE for new cars will be 50 mpg, autos will be "greener" than passenger trains for intercity travel.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Maybe this will be the time for electrification. Yes it is expensive, but with high density routes it might be
possible. If the power comes from hydroelectric or nuclear sources, maybe renewables, that would make trains
greener.
A. McIntosh Maybe this will be the time for electrification. Yes it is expensive, but with high density routes it might be possible. If the power comes from hydroelectric or nuclear sources, maybe renewables, that would make trains greener.
That's one way - mostly because you can do regenerative braking. Another would be to adopt off the shelf light weight European equipment.
The high density Amtrak route is alread electrified.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
"Amtrak now has a 30% advantage on auto w.r.t. fuel economy". I don't doubt this statement. But it raises a few questions based on my Texas observations.
The Texas Eagle arrives in San Antonio at 9:55 p.m., and departs the next morning at 7:00 a.m. During the night the locomotive pushes two cars around, but for the most part, as far as I can tell, the engine idles all night. In addition, the Eagle has some significant dwell times in Fort Worth and St. Louis, during which the engines idle.
The Trinity Railway Express trains between Dallas and Fort Worth have end point dwell times of 25 minutes for each trip. The engines idle during these dwell times.
How are these dwell times factored into the fuel consumption and pollution per passenger or passenger mile. Also, how are the average load factors for the various modes of transportation factored into the calculations?
Sam1 "Amtrak now has a 30% advantage on auto w.r.t. fuel economy". I don't doubt this statement. But it raises a few questions based on my Texas observations. The Texas Eagle arrives in San Antonio at 9:55 p.m., and departs the next morning at 7:00 a.m. During the night the locomotive pushes two cars around, but for the most part, as far as I can tell, the engine idles all night. In addition, the Eagle has some significant dwell times in Fort Worth and St. Louis, during which the engines idle. The Trinity Railway Express trains between Dallas and Fort Worth have end point dwell times of 25 minutes for each trip. The engines idle during these dwell times. How are these dwell times factored into the fuel consumption and pollution per passenger or passenger mile. Also, how are the average load factors for the various modes of transportation factored into the calculations?
Idle fuel is really small potatoes. About 2-3 gal/hr compared to ~200 gal/hr in notch 8.
Freight RRs have shutdown policies in place along the lines of idling >1 hr above 35 deg F you must shut down. They also have been installing autostart systems/APUs, etc that handle this automatically.
It is really surprising Amtrak would allow idling like that at San Antonio. That's 1970s behavior. I wonder if it's to keep the HEP going. Perhaps they haven't had a chance to install the standby power stations yet so they can plug in the cars and shut down the locomotive.
The study is cited on Amtrak's web site. http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=AM_Content_C&pagename=am%2FLayout&cid=1241245661727
Sam1 How are these dwell times factored into the fuel consumption and pollution per passenger or passenger mile. Also, how are the average load factors for the various modes of transportation factored into the calculations?
The calculation is how much fuel Amtrak buys divided by the number of passenger miles. Covers all the dwell and all the other uses Amtrak has for fuel. Factor in the electicity used on the electrified lines and the passenger miles done under the wires.
BaltACD Sam1 How are these dwell times factored into the fuel consumption and pollution per passenger or passenger mile. Also, how are the average load factors for the various modes of transportation factored into the calculations? The calculation is how much fuel Amtrak buys divided by the number of passenger miles. Covers all the dwell and all the other uses Amtrak has for fuel. Factor in the electicity used on the electrified lines and the passenger miles done under the wires.
Does not sound like a very sophisticated algorithm. There are no passengers on the train during the end point dwell periods. Also, it assumes that the engine is consuming the same amount of fuel per unit of time while it is idling as when it is running. And how does the calculation account for the load factor?
"It is really surprising Amtrak would allow idling like that at San Antonio. That's 1970s behavior. I wonder if it's to keep the HEP going. Perhaps they haven't had a chance to install the standby power stations yet so they can plug in the cars and shut down."
Amtrak has installed an external power station for the "protect cars", but I did see one for the Eagle's through cars. The Eagle arrives in San Antonio at 9:55. Number 1 arrives from Houston at 12:05 a.m. and departs for Del Rio at 2:45 a.m. The through cars are transferred from the Eagle to the Sunset Limited sometime between 12:05 a.m. and 2:45 a.m. I did not see any external power sources for the through cars, so I presume that the locomotives stay powered up to provide power for the through cars.
I wonder if anyone at Amtrak told Boardman about the additional costs, i.e. protect cars, when the decision was made to abandon the idea of making the Eagle a through train with a connecting coach train from NO and Houston. I don't know why they could not have run the Eagle through on a three day a week basis, which would have added no addition strain on the UP, until they could have worked out a suitable arrangement for daily service. A connecting coach train would require no through cars and no protect cars.
oltmannd It is really surprising Amtrak would allow idling like that at San Antonio. That's 1970s behavior. I wonder if it's to keep the HEP going. Perhaps they haven't had a chance to install the standby power stations yet so they can plug in the cars and shut down the locomotive.
I am thinking that supplying HEP can be a big energy use. This is especially true of using a Diesel genset to make electricity for electric heat, which takes place at, what, 30 percent efficiency? And then how well insulated is a railroad passenger car compared to a static building?
The problem with Amtrak is that everything with them is this big, lumped aggregate and not broken out by route segment. Also, there is that loop track at Pueblo, Colorado. Has anyone taken different types of passenger consists around that track and measured the fuel consumption?
Back to HEP, last time I went by airplane, the flight attendants asked the passengers to close the window shades before leaving the aircraft. Hah! The airlines are trying to save on standby HEP! It is amazing how a profit-and-loss statement focuses the mind whereas if you are getting subsidy, you follow the tried-and-true procedures.
That is why me and some others are suggesting that some "system boundary" should be drawn around Amtrak -- let the gummint pay for the tracks or trackage rights and maybe also the stations, or maybe even provide capital money for new equipment purchases on some schedule, but have some entity try to at least break even on paying the "above the contact patch" costs from passenger fares. I cannot figure out why there is such vehement disagreement with that manner of subsidy model.
Were there some system boundary, where the entity involved could profit from its money saving ideas, maybe you would see those layover passenger cars parked with the HEP running, but with the shades drawn?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Sam1 BaltACD Sam1 How are these dwell times factored into the fuel consumption and pollution per passenger or passenger mile. Also, how are the average load factors for the various modes of transportation factored into the calculations? The calculation is how much fuel Amtrak buys divided by the number of passenger miles. Covers all the dwell and all the other uses Amtrak has for fuel. Factor in the electicity used on the electrified lines and the passenger miles done under the wires. Does not sound like a very sophisticated algorithm. There are no passengers on the train during the end point dwell periods. Also, it assumes that the engine is consuming the same amount of fuel per unit of time while it is idling as when it is running. And how does the calculation account for the load factor?
It is not sophisticated, but it relates the fuel efficiency per passenger mile - the fuel consumption per engine hour and per throttle notch are items that manufacturers of locomotive provide to the buyers - just like the data sheets that come on the side windows of new cars, except they don't put a sticker on the locomotives - they provide the documentation in the shop manuals.
A train that is off locomotive supplied air for more than 4 hours must receive a complete initial terminal air test in conformance with the Power Brake Law. The 8 hour or so dwell would require at least one locomotive to be running to supply air to the train. While the train could receive 'Hotel' electric power from the terminal site, it must retain the integrity of the air line and supply from the locomotive to maintain the validity of it's 'Air Slip'.
Paul Milenkovic I am thinking that supplying HEP can be a big energy use. This is especially true of using a Diesel genset to make electricity for electric heat, which takes place at, what, 30 percent efficiency? And then how well insulated is a railroad passenger car compared to a static building?
Maybe better than 30%. The latest locomotive engines are good for better than 40% thermal efficiency and the alternators are probably at least 95% efficient. I've read that the early HEP equipped UP Streamliners used less fuel to heat the trains with resistance heating than similar trains equipped with steam generators. The two earliest UP Streamliners attempted to use engine heat for heating the train.
A large genset aboard the locomotive seems to be a more efficient (and safer) way of providing hotel power for the train than individual ca mounted gensets.
- Erik
P.S. Closing the window shades on an airliner may be more about keeping the seat fabric from fading than keeping the interior cool. For trains, storing them under some sort of roof could dramatically reduce the cooling needs during storage.
Paul MilenkovicBack to HEP, last time I went by airplane, the flight attendants asked the passengers to close the window shades before leaving the aircraft. Hah! The airlines are trying to save on standby HEP! It is amazing how a profit-and-loss statement focuses the mind whereas if you are getting subsidy, you follow the tried-and-true procedures.
Because the nickel you save comes from the subsidy - and nobody is rewarded for getting the subsidy cut!
Paul MilenkovicThat is why me and some others are suggesting that some "system boundary" should be drawn around Amtrak -- let the gummint pay for the tracks or trackage rights and maybe also the stations, or maybe even provide capital money for new equipment purchases on some schedule, but have some entity try to at least break even on paying the "above the contact patch" costs from passenger fares. I cannot figure out why there is such vehement disagreement with that manner of subsidy model.
If ever there was a win-win...! It would take almost all the heat out of the issue, for it is more important for ideologues declare victory than to actually be right.
For the rapid "free marketers", they could declare victory because passenger train operation would be competitive and "profitable".
For the "why can't we do it like Europe?" crowd, they could declare victory because, it would be a lot like Europe does it.
For the "fairness" bunch, it would be passenger rail on the same footing as aviation and highways. Gov't supplies infrastructure with private operators.
For us railfans, we get to keep passenger rail service. It might even be better and there might even be more of it.
Of course, each of these comes with a very large asterisk - and there would still be minorities on the extremes of each position screaming in the wilderness, but the vast middle would accept it as reasonable and move along to other things.
Best of all, the whole deal would be a lot more transparent. If the operation of a particular train was deemed desirable for reasons of social justice, state tourism, nostalgia, etc., the states or Feds would be free to subsidize to their heart's content - but we'd know exactly what we're spending for what we're getting.
BaltACDA train that is off locomotive supplied air for more than 4 hours must receive a complete initial terminal air test in conformance with the Power Brake Law. The 8 hour or so dwell would require at least one locomotive to be running to supply air to the train. While the train could receive 'Hotel' electric power from the terminal site, it must retain the integrity of the air line and supply from the locomotive to maintain the validity of it's 'Air Slip'.
Not quite as long to perform on a 1000' passenger train as on a 6000' freight train. I'd think the shutdown fuel savings would more than pay for it.
Those who toute the comparative fuel consumption and pollution reduction advantages of one mode of transport (rail, air, water, highway, etc.) compared to another might want to keep the following phraseology in mind. It is taken from the Transportation Energy Data Book that Amtrak references.
"Great care should be taken when comparing modal energy intensity data among modes. Because of the inherent differences among the transportation modes in the nature of services, routes available, and many additional factors, it is not possible to obtain truly comparable national energy intensities among modes. These values are averages, and there is a great deal of variability even within a mode."
The data book provides limited information on the statistical methodologies used to determine the outcomes, but it is silent regarding statistical confidence levels, ANOVA outcomes, etc. It is possible that the differences between the modes, especially where the differences are relatively small, are a function of statistical chance.
"That is why I and some others are suggesting that some "system boundary" should be drawn around Amtrak -- let the gummint pay for the tracks or trackage rights and maybe also the stations, or maybe even provide capital money for new equipment purchases on some schedule, but have some entity try to at least break even on paying the "above the contact patch" costs from passenger fares. I cannot figure out why there is such vehement disagreement with that manner of subsidy model."
"Best of all, the whole deal would be a lot more transparent. If the operation of a particular train was deemed desirable for reasons of social justice, state tourism, nostalgia, etc., the states or Feds would be free to subsidize to their heart's content - but we'd know exactly what we're spending for what we're getting."
Paul M and Don: Certainly seems like a more fruitful approach than the all-or-nothing perspectives heard so often.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
This supporter of properly regulated, competitive markets, has a slightly different perspective, although I don't disagree with the idea of the government owning and/or paying for the rail infrastructure and the users paying for the operating costs through the farebox.
Without government support most of the nation's transport infrastructure would not have been built. The key question, then, is how to pay for it? The best answer, from my perspective, is for the users to cover all of the costs. This includes highway users, airways users, waterways users, etc. It means eliminating all subsidies, requiring the users of each mode to pay their proportional share of the operating and capital costs. If this model were implemented, passenger rail probably could be a winner in relatively short, high density corridors.
Subsidies hide the true cost of goods and services, thereby frequently motivating buyers to sub-optimize the use of them. Because Americans have not seen the true cost of driving at pump, they have opted for gas guzzling SUVs and pick-ups, long distance commutes, and under utilization of alternative modes of transport, all of which are examples of outcomes when people don't see the true cost at the price point.
The problem with government involvement in transport projects is politics. The federal transportation bill is a big opportunity for the politicians to bring home the pork. They are not likely to give it up. As a result, a significant amount of money is wasted on marginal transport projects. Here are three examples: U.S. 87 from Eden, TX to San Angelo, TX is a four lane highway with light traffic through the middle of nowhere. The Georgetown, TX airport has a control tower that is staffed from 7 a.m. until 11 p.m. It handles very few flights. Amtrak runs the Cardinal, which should be re-named the Senator Byrd Express, loses heaps of money. It was included in Amtrak's schedule because of pressure from the late Senator Byrd. There are many more examples like these.
Perhaps in some ideal world, your modest proposal might have traction. But attempting to figure out what each sector is currently receiving in subsidies, much less change the system is bound to fail, and thus nothing would happen. Building the infrastructure in a rational way for a passenger rail system and then exacting fees on operators is much simpler and largely accomplishes the same purpose - a viable passenger rail network.
schlimm Perhaps in some ideal world, your modest proposal might have traction. But attempting to figure out what each sector is currently receiving in subsidies, much less change the system is bound to fail, and thus nothing would happen. Building the infrastructure in a rational way for a passenger rail system and then exacting fees on operators is much simpler and largely accomplishes the same purpose - a viable passenger rail network.
Figuring out how the subsidies flow is doable. Getting the politicians to give up one of their biggest handouts is not doable. So we will muddle through with a process of hidden subsidies and cross subsidies, which very few people can figure out, which are likely to lead to sub-optimum outcomes, i.e. running long distance trains that are used by less than one per cent of intercity travelers.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.