I see some are talking about lowering the speed limit again, in the name of gasoline conservation. Perhaps, it won't be the dreaded 55 m.p.h., like in the 70's, but I keep reading a lot about 65 m.p.h. speed limits being bandied about. Without starting some kind of flame war:
How would a lower highway speed limit effect railroad operations and business?
Could the same mindset used to mandate a lower highway speed limit be used to justify slower speeds on airplanes? Trains? Barges?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
THandB wrote:Lower speed limits just mean more speeding ticket revenue. People will slow down themselves if it saves themselves some gas money.
Yup. I am all for a free economy. Them with the bucks spends 'em or saves 'em....the wise invest 'em. Why would I want to tell you to slow down to my speed if I can't keep up? Yuch!
A vehicle moving at 55 can cover 440 miles in 8 hours (assuming no stops).
The same vehicle moving at 65 can cover 520 miles - a difference of 80 miles.
Put another way, it will take the vehicle doing 55 8.67 hours to cover the same distance the vehicle doing 65 can cover in 8.
What's that .67 hour worth? Is it more than the difference in the cost of fuel?
What's the national implication of this? Do we lose billions in productivity to save millions on fuel?
Somebody else can do the math. I may be way of base, but I gotta believe we're talking some serious moola here.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
selector wrote:Yup. I am all for a free economy. Them with the bucks spends 'em or saves 'em....the wise invest 'em.
Yup. I am all for a free economy. Them with the bucks spends 'em or saves 'em....the wise invest 'em.
Gee, I don't know about the "invest" advice. In the last year the tax assessed value of my house has dropped over $60k (and I am confident I couldn't even sell it for that much), a certain bank stock I had money sitting in has dropped from $45 per share to less than $4 per share. At this point I am assuming its a goner. My 401k and mutual funds....well lets not even go there.
But I am sure it will all bounce back.
I should have gone on a really nice trip around the world. I am going to have to work until I am 95 after this market is finished anyway. Might as well have some fun along the way.
And after all the one thing that would make me go crazy is having to drive 55 mph! Can you imagine trying to drive through Wyoming or Nebraska on a cross country trip at 55 mph?
....Yes, I agree the speed limit @ 55 is a drag....We did that back a ways and it was really not fun.
If for all the reasons we're pretty familiar with it is decided to lower the national speed limit...please....let's at least try 60 mph. I'd say that would not be as punishing and one would still make decent time and save fuel. I don't mind trying to save fuel. Example: Earlier this late Spring on our trip over to Pennsylvania I decided to voluntarily lower my speed about 2 mph....running about 68 mph on the interstate and we arrived in fine time and I'm sure it did up the mpg a bit too. In fact I know it did.
Quentin
Seeing where we are headed, I don't see how we can avoid having the 55 mph speed limit brought back. I have heard of trucks slowing down to save fuel, but not all of them. Some must feel that their cost of time outweighs the cost of the fuel they would save if the slowed down. But a 55 mph limit slows them all down whether they want to or not. How much of the trucking industry would oppose slowing down to 55?
Assuming that some of the trucking industry would object to 55, might they demand that the government also slow down the trains of their railroad competition to keep a level playing field?
something to keep in mind that during the 70s when the speed limit was droped to 55 in the first place...car and truck engins where not as efficient as they are today.. major progress has been made in EFI as well as other eletronics and the duel overhead cam designs to help boost power out of smaller block 4 cylinder engins and incresse fuel efficiency as well as the larger sized engins... the model car i have gets around 30mph highway... i have made a 600 mile round trip on only 12 gallons of gas and that was driveing between 70 and 80mph depending on traffic density and when the trucks would slow down for cops at speed traps... now as far as trucks and trailer trucks.. im sure there have been advances made to there engins as well to increse fuel efficincy too...
csx engineer
Murphy Siding wrote: How would a lower highway speed limit effect railroad operations and business?
As tree68 pointed out, the lower speed limit would (in theroy, at least) cause longer transit times. Multiply the additional time-needed-per-hour by the number of hours involved in a cross-country run, and there are significant times involved.
So, to actually attempt to answer your question, I would surmise that there might be SOME interstate traffic diverted to rail due to the longer highway travel times, but I do not believe the move would involve all that many more loads.
....One more improvement in automobiles....Since the 70's, a lot more cars now employ an overdrive transmission. So again, to accomplish similar to what we did back then....I'd say 60 mph would be sufficient.
I think there would be howls of protest from the trucking industry if the national speed limit were lowered. It would then be echoed by industry. All those truck runs that would suddenly require two drivers to stay under the new hours of service laws for drivers would send costs up without an increase in productivity. Service commitments would be missed and manufacturing would suffer increased disruptions as they rely on just-in-time delivery of materials. It would be an anchor on the economy that will slow the recovery and possibly reverse the upward trend (if there is one). Eventually adjustments would be made and things would return to some semblance of normal, but by that time normal may not be good enough.
Will the railroads benefit from all of this? Only if they can deliver (on-time).
Namerifrats wrote:Who cares really. 55 or 60. What difference is 5 minutes gonna make? If you're worried about being late, leave earlier.
If you're driving 60 miles, you're spot on. If you're driving 600 miles, it's an hour. That can be significant.
As for reducing speeds on various modes of transportation, I can just see some egghead in an ivory tower someplace telling the airlines they need to fly below stall speeds...
On a related matter, which I was going to start a topic on...
I have been overhearing scanner conversations between CN Mechanical Dept and crews. One recent conversation (I heard only one side) asked the crew if they had shut down a unit for fuel conservation. Further, the mechanical dept indicated he had received an email indicating the train was planned for 1hpt and the power was for 2.5hpt. I didnt hear if the train had indeed shut down the second unit or not. They were instructed to unless they couldnt make "road speed".
Is this occuring more and more these days?
Is there a way of temporarily shutting down and unit and then restarting in order to use the hp when needed for a specific section of track based on grade or curves?
ed
Murphy Siding wrote: I see some are talking about lowering the speed limit again, in the name of gasoline conservation. Perhaps, it won't be the dreaded 55 m.p.h.
I see some are talking about lowering the speed limit again, in the name of gasoline conservation. Perhaps, it won't be the dreaded 55 m.p.h.
Regarding aviation, slower is not necessarily more fuel efficient. Aircraft flight manuals indicate two specific speeds: best range and best economy. The former gives you the most miles per gallon. A slower speed decreases fuel efficiency and may even require a refueling stop, which would further decrease efficiency. The latter is the speed that gives you the most time in the air. You would use that speed, for example, if you were delayed entry to your destination and need to conserve fuel until you are cleared to proceed to landing. The point here is that arbitrarily cutting aircraft speeds will not necessarily result in fuel economy. I just isn't that simple.
It isn't that simple for trains, either. Fast trains are fast because goods have to be moved quickly. Think of the Tropicana Juice Train. Or the BNSF Z trains. Slow them for greater fuel economy and you might as well not run them at all. Saving fuel is nice, but again, it isn't that simple.
tree68 wrote: Namerifrats wrote:Who cares really. 55 or 60. What difference is 5 minutes gonna make? If you're worried about being late, leave earlier.If you're driving 60 miles, you're spot on. If you're driving 600 miles, it's an hour. That can be significant.As for reducing speeds on various modes of transportation, I can just see some egghead in an ivory tower someplace telling the airlines they need to fly below stall speeds...
True, but besides maybe truckers, who drives 600 mile trips on a daliy or weekly basis? Average 15-30 minute commute from home to work or around town wouldn't really be any big differences.
I had a 1976 Pinto with a 4 speed stick that got 26 MPG at 55 MPH.
Now I have a 1991 Grand Prix with a 4 speed automatic overdrive that gets 30 MPG at 65 MPH.
Plus, when I pull out to pass, my life doesn't flash before my eyes like it did in that bleeping Pinto.
Reality TV is to reality, what Professional Wrestling is to Professional Brain Surgery.
Namerifrats wrote:True, but besides maybe truckers, who drives 600 mile trips on a daliy or weekly basis? Average 15-30 minute commute from home to work or around town wouldn't really be any big differences.
You're absolutely right there - the speed limit on all the roads I use during my 20 mile commute to work is already 55 or less. That's often true of the interstates in built-up area as well.
It's the over-the-road folks, both in trucks and cars, that will suffer the effects of a reduced speed limit.
tpatrick wrote: Fast trains are fast because goods have to be moved quickly. Slow them for greater fuel economy and you might as well not run them at all.
Fast trains are fast because goods have to be moved quickly. Slow them for greater fuel economy and you might as well not run them at all.
Wouldn't that also apply to some truck runs? Can we force some trucks to slow down and let other ones run fast if they need to?
l wonder if you drove 10mph for 100 miles you would get bad gas milage, or would you get realy good milage?
The best way to save gas is not to drive slower everywhere, but to drive LESS, or drive a more efficient vehicle. Same goes for trucking, buy your egg cartons closer to where your chickens are.
Good old American ingenuity should overcome the gas prices, not more regulations, taxes or limits.
[\quote]
Your best gas mileage comes at just above the speed when your vehicle goes into it's final overdrive/highest gear. Not so slow as to bog down the engine, but just fast enough to stay in overdrive. For my vehicle, the most efficient speed is 50mph (it goes into overdrive at about 48).
....If we must reduce speed {an agreement possibly forthcoming}, to save fuel, going all the way down to 55 would not be necessary and desirable because of changes listed below.
Since roughly 30 years ago when we did it before:
Most automobiles and small SUV's and Crossovers {many trucks too}, have a power train that runs in overdrive ratio...{roughly 30% less rpm's}
Advances in Cd's in the upper 0.20 range....{Less resistance slipping thru the air at speed}
More advanced and efficient engines...{at any speed}
Many cars and smaller SUV's with less weight.
Better tires with less rolling resistance...{rolls easier down the highway}
And I'm sure other differences from the cars back when....we were mandated to 55.
Add to that a little common sense....and bingo, with just a little speed reduction...{my contention, down to 60}, we should see some real possitive results in fuel usage......My humble
Modelcar wrote: ....If we must reduce speed {an agreement possibly forthcoming}, to save fuel, going all the way down to 55 would not be necessary and desirable because of changes listed below.Since roughly 30 years ago when we did it before:Most automobiles and small SUV's and Crossovers {many trucks too}, have a power train that runs in overdrive ratio...{roughly 30% less rpm's}Advances in Cd's in the upper 0.20 range....{Less resistance slipping thru the air at speed}More advanced and efficient engines...{at any speed}Many cars and smaller SUV's with less weight.Better tires with less rolling resistance...{rolls easier down the highway}And I'm sure other differences from the cars back when....we were mandated to 55.Add to that a little common sense....and bingo, with just a little speed reduction...{my contention, down to 60}, we should see some real possitive results in fuel usage......My humble
It is true that we might not need to go down to 55 to save as much as we saved by doing it back in the 1970s because efficiency has gone up. But this assumes that the need to save gas was the same in the 1970s as it is today. What if the need has gone up? We might have to drop down to 45.
Bucyrus wrote: We might have to drop down to 45.
Or 35, or 25. And while you're at it, mandate that buildings be heated to only 50 degrees.
Zero is the appropriate speed where feasible, and the key to reducing consumption.
As I said before, and has been repeated, there is a break where reducing speed gets more expensive when you factor in labor, etc.
We're entering a dangerous conundrum. If I cut my motor fuel consumption by half, my contribution in the form of taxes drops by half. Ditto for my home heating fuel. Taxes provide the funding for a lot more than pork barrel projects. If we don't deal with that part of the puzzle, 45 will seem like high speed over what's left of the highways.
And if you're flexable enough to reduce your fuel comsumption, then they'll just raise the taxes on fuel, you do all the work and they still get their tax money. Why is it again we gotta lower the speed limit?
On the German autobahn freeway, roughly 50% of it has no top speed limit, many cars travel over 120mph but the minimum limit is 60km, that's 35mph. lf you can keep the speed above 35mph you are allowed to share the road with cars going 220km+.
Buy big, good for the economy, go slow , better gas economy :-(
Buy small and keep on movin' ;-))
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.