In theory passenger trains are more energy efficient than cars, light trucks, and jet airplanes. But are they in practice?
On Wednesday I rode the Trinity Railway Express (TRE) from Dallas to Fort Worth and back. Approximately 30 per cent of the 3:05 p.m. train seats appeared to be occupied, which squares with some numbers that I had gotten from the TRE in 2006. The returning rush hour train appeared to have a 50 to 60 per cent load factor, which is a bit lower than the average 80 per cent rush hour load factor that I calculated from the 2006 numbers, but it is in line with the Fort Worth numbers, which are lower than the Dallas numbers.
It is 33 rail miles from Dallas to Fort Worth. It takes the TRE approximately 55 minutes to make the run. The trains have two to four cars. Each train lays over at its end point for an approximate average of 25 minutes. Thus, 45 per cent of each run is spent idling, which clearly uses less fuel than running, but I wonder how much of the running energy efficiency is lost because of the end points dwell time.
When I was in Albuquerque in May, I popped by the transit center on several occasions to observe Numbers 3 and 4. Number 3 is scheduled for a 50 minute service stop in Albuquerque; Number 4 is carded for a 43 minute stop. On both days Number 3 was early by an average of 25 minutes, thus making the average dwell time 75 minutes, whilst Number 4 was early by an average of 30 minutes, thus making the average stop 73 minutes. The trains were pulled by at least two locomotives, although on one occasion Number 3 had three locos. Again, I wonder how much of the running energy efficiency of the trains is negated by the relatively long layovers in Albuquerque.
During FY08 the Southwest Chief had an average load factor of 63.1 per cent. Overall, Amtrak's trains had an average load factor of 52.3 per cent, which brings me to these questions. What criteria were used by those who claim that trains are more energy efficient than personal vehicles and airplanes to come to their conclusion? And did they consider average load factor, dwell times, etc.?
Sam: With your accounting background, you're very skilled at digging through these statistical reports. I think the answer is in this one:
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Sam, with your statement it become clear that 1) the inherent efficiencies of rail are there and 2) would be maximized if more people would use rail. So, my conclusion is that we should encourage the use of passenger rail to maiximize its efficiencies. And remember, when operating a transit system, measurements are based on total service rather than individual trains or stations. Those that are bad enogh to be a drag on the sevice efficiency or its costs, will get weeded out, however.
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.
An article in July Trains uses information from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics to compare carbon emissions per passenger mile:
There are many other economic and environmental factors which may influence a determination of efficiency. A mode of transportation that carries only a fraction of its capacity is one that can be easily expanded as population increases.
"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood." Daniel Burnham
Who cares about how effcient?
Passenger service is a SERVICE, intercity or commuter, provided by a Non-Profit government, Fed or State, or City.
You can have the government build roads and parking garages or run passenger trains, it's the peoples choice. Cars, trucks, airplanes mean more air polution. It takes time and traffic jams to switch people to trains.
A between 3:45 and 8:15 each week day, Boston Commuter Rail (MBTA) trains will make the 44 mile trip to Providence RI with local stops. Eight, fully loaded, double deck coaches moving at 80 mph to the Rhode Island capitol. Then back to Boston nearly empty. (the later trains stay over in Pawtucket RI storage for the next morning runs.
Don U. TCA 73-5735
The questions can be broken down into two parts: overall TRE energy efficiency, and the cost of the extended dwell time at certain stations.
Don't get bogged down in the details unless you feel compelled to verify consumption. The easiest way to figure the approximate p-m/gal is to ask for the annual Trinity Rail Express diesel fuel consumption and compare that to the passenger-miles from estimated from ticket sales. As with autos and buses, some energy is used for lighting and air-conditioning.
Actually, if two sets go back and forth more frequently, the high utilization mitigates the long layovers and idling between peaks of more typical commuter operations. While consumption is higher, more passengers are served which I assume is a policy goal and cost.
Worst case is that 30% utilization of a 2-car train still comes to about 90 passengers, more than filling seats in two buses and contributing to diverting some peak travel from driving.
Albuquerque is interesting; but not entirely unique, in long-distance operations. Occasional long station stops are built into long-distance schedules in part to allow making up for delays in route, and in part to provide smoking breaks for passengers. Albuquerque is longer than usual to allow shopping at the Native American art and craft vendors. The long stop is possible because of the low volume of freight traffic on this part of the route. Considering that the train is cruising along most of the day with the notable exception of terminal layovers, enegy efficiency for transportation is as close to ideal as it gets.
The problem of added weight for baggage, dormitory, diner, and lounge cars on long-distance trains becomes apparent. While Superliners weigh more than single level cars, the increased capacity results in less weight per space.
Load factors are perhaps the greatest factor in fuel efficiency.
DMUinCT Who cares about how effcient? Passenger service is a SERVICE, intercity or commuter, provided by a Non-Profit government, Fed or State, or City.
But that's the determining factor of who get the money to build and expand! And, while once the domain of private enterprise, it is now under governments controls by default: big business didn't want to deal with dealing with governments. Could it become private and/or for profit? Time will tell. Railroads someday just might want the traffic whether for income or to get something else from government.
DMUinCTWho cares about how effcient? Passenger service is a SERVICE, intercity or commuter, provided by a Non-Profit government, Fed or State, or City. You can have the government build roads and parking garages or run passenger trains, it's the peoples choice. Cars, trucks, airplanes mean more air polution. It takes time and traffic jams to switch people to trains....
You can have the government build roads and parking garages or run passenger trains, it's the peoples choice. Cars, trucks, airplanes mean more air polution. It takes time and traffic jams to switch people to trains....
If trains do not offer energy efficiency, reduced emissions, and more effective peak capacity, rip out the tracks and add expressway lanes and parking garages. Emissions are related to energy efficiency and fuel consumption. Buses can provide the service.
Of course the issue of layovers with idling engines wouldn't be an issue if we had more electrified lines using low and/or non-carbon power generation sources.
Maglev An article in July Trains uses information from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics to compare carbon emissions per passenger mile: Transit--0.25 Amtrak--0.45 Toyota Prius--0.55 Aircraft--0.97 Average Car--1.10 SUV--1.57 There are many other economic and environmental factors which may influence a determination of efficiency. A mode of transportation that carries only a fraction of its capacity is one that can be easily expanded as population increases.
Don't know if electrically powered modes (part of Amtrak, much of rail transit) get any bonus points in these calculations of CO2, but I was under the impression that electric power was a negative with respect to CO2 on account of coal power, although the electric car could make up for it by using less overall energy than a gasoline car that has to keep an engine warmed up and turning at all times.
The most credible numbers for BTU/passenger mile, in my opinion, are on David Lawyer's Web site. I have mentioned it before (just Google David Lawyer -- it is perfectly safe as he is not funded by the Cato Institute, has no known ties to the Concrete Lobby (he asserts that he is an environmentalist), and his site has no advertising). His hypothesis is that the automobile was on a per passenger mile basis an energy-saving mode compared to the trains the automobile replaced, steam powered trains or electric interurbans powered by stationary power plant steam. He asserts that the reason we are using so much more energy is that we are using many times more automobile passenger miles than the peak of rail passenger miles back in the day.
The reason we are driving so much is that the automobile offers such flexibility and convenience that we can. Back in the day when rail was king, people by and large didn't travel very much on average because travel was inconvenient. Perhaps with automobiles we travel too much because automobiles are too convenient, permitting living arrangements that are wasteful sprawl that would be unworkable if travel were rationed to what trains could provide.
David Lawyer's numbers are at variance with what Trains is reporting, and his numbers suggest (different sources vary and Amtrak reporting has varied over time, with a large spike in recent times that had been corrected wtih revised statistics) that Amtrak is somewhat more energy efficient than planes and cars, but certainly not by the factor of two Trains is claiming. I question whether a Prius is twice as efficient as an average car, especially in intercity highway driving that is the comparison to Amtrak. If you are talking about a non-SUV car, the sales leader for many years has been the Toyota Camry, and at steady highway speeds, a Prius offers perhaps a 20 percent saving in fuel use (25 percent increase in gas mileage), certainly not a 50 percent saving (double the gas mileage). I average 35 MPG in a Camry at 65 MPH highway speed, which is confirmed with a computer model I have for converting car aero drag, weight, engine displacement, and gearing into gas mileage. I defy anyone to tell me they get 70 MPG at 65 MPH in a Prius -- this does not happen unless they are feet from the back bumper of a truck. So, the Trains people have some 'splainin' to do on their numbers.
David Lawyer also offers credible explanations why trains may not be as fuel efficient as some may think. On one hand, trains have low rolling resistance per ton, they can benefit from the economy of scale of a large engine in a locomotive compared to the many small engines in a large number of cars, and train cars offer some aerodynamic advantage by blocking the wind of one another. On the other hand, there are a variety of reasons why trains are heavier per seat than cars and certainly airplanes -- the vibration environment of steel wheel on steel rail contact that provides low rolling resistance requires a stouter coach structure for an equivalently smooth ride to a rubber tire vehicle, the train of coaches that lowers air resistance in turn requires greater buff and draft strength for safe operation of the individual coaches within that train, also the amenities of increased leg room, wider seats, the getting-up-and-stretching-your-legs room that is expected of rail travel along with non-revenue baggage, lounge, dining car, low-density sleeping cars, all add to weight.
The other thing about trains is that whatever amenities -- baggage, lounge, crew dorm to have on-board staff, dining car, individual room sleeping cars, leg rest coach seats -- that reduce the number of seats per train car also increase energy consumption. There is nothing inherent about having these amenities, which to many railfans and passenger advocates are the whole essense of train travel. What is so "1950's" about those amenities is they were made more widely available at that time in a vain attempt to prevent the loss of business to planes are cars, and here in the 21'st century we believe these amenities to be essential if not intrinsic to trains.
Load factor, or low load factor, should not be viewed as a failing of train travel but as another amenity. If you have 50 percent load in coach, you can sprawl out across two seats for overnight sleep in some imitation of the open section, conductor permitting this -- with 100 percent load factor, you would have a seat mate. With lower load factors, there are plenty of free seats; with high load factors, you may not get to chose a convenient time to travel. Amtrak could increase its energy efficiency several fold by using the same seating density, absence of getting-up-and-walking-around room, no lounge car for chatting with strangers from across America, same fare structure and reservation system to occupy every seat as the airlines. Amtrak travel would also become unpleasant as air travel, perhaps much more unpleasant because you would be occupying your cramped seat with knees jammed against someone's seat recline for longer periods of time.
One of the interesting questions is not just the system-wide average of Amtrak fuel usage, but how much fuel is used by the different services. How much fuel is used by the Empire Builder per seat compared with the Hiawatha? How much fuel is consumed by the heavy and aerodynamically mismatched NPCC (Cabbage Car) -- there are corridor trains with and without for comparison? How does fuel efficiency increase if there are more cars per locomotive -- a kind of economy of scale trains are supposed to be good at?
These questions can be answered if fuel data were somehow released; they could also be estimated by doing detailed engineering calculations. Engineering is just like accounting, only one deals with physical quantities such as mass, prime mover fuel usage at different power levels, aerodynamic drag coefficients, line profile and number of station stops, operating speeds and speed restrictions, instead of simply with money. Counting locomotives and assuming a certain gallons-per-hour or gallons-per-mile usually doesn't do the job.
Why do we need to know this, and why does this matter? Because if we are advocating trains, it would help our cause if we had firm numbers on current fuel usage along with increases in energy efficiency with certain changes or improvements. Every other mode has worked hard at gains in fuel efficiency when trains have been coasting as it were on this question.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul Milenkovic One of the interesting questions is not just the system-wide average of Amtrak fuel usage, but how much fuel is used by the different services. How much fuel is used by the Empire Builder per seat compared with the Hiawatha? How much fuel is consumed by the heavy and aerodynamically mismatched NPCC (Cabbage Car) -- there are corridor trains with and without for comparison? How does fuel efficiency increase if there are more cars per locomotive -- a kind of economy of scale trains are supposed to be good at? These questions can be answered if fuel data were somehow released; they could also be estimated by doing detailed engineering calculations. Engineering is just like accounting, only one deals with physical quantities such as mass, prime mover fuel usage at different power levels, aerodynamic drag coefficients, line profile and number of station stops, operating speeds and speed restrictions, instead of simply with money. Counting locomotives and assuming a certain gallons-per-hour or gallons-per-mile usually doesn't do the job. Why do we need to know this, and why does this matter? Because if we are advocating trains, it would help our cause if we had firm numbers on current fuel usage along with increases in energy efficiency with certain changes or improvements. Every other mode has worked hard at gains in fuel efficiency when trains have been coasting as it were on this question.
Excellent post.
I suspect that Amtrak does not keep good actual fueling data. The frt RRs generally don't keep good data and Amtrak is generally in a worse position.
Engineering simulations would give good results provided you had a handle on the aerodynamic drag of the various consist configurations. You'd have to get these from testing, preferably with a dyanmometer car or with some good wind tunnel testing on models.. Amtrak had (has?) a pretty good engineering test group, but I don't know if they've been into this.
You are right in that counting locomotives and assuming gal/hr just doesn't work. It's not what's pulling the train that counts, it's how hard the train pulls back that determines fuel economy.
At $1.50/gallon and 79 mph, it probably doesn't matter much, but at $4/gal and 110 mph, it matters a lot. I think there probably is a lot of room for improvment on the aerodynamic side of things. Weight doesn't matter much unless you are constantly burning off energy to reduce speed for curves, etc., only to have to accerate back up to speed. A mild hybrid locomotive would take care of this problem.
Now is the time to get busy. The low hanging fruit might be to test matched train consists, replace cabbage cars with cab cars, test the effect of simple skirting and underbody aerodynamic modifications.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmannd I suspect that Amtrak does not keep good actual fueling data. The frt RRs generally don't keep good data and Amtrak is generally in a worse position. .
.
I wouldn't be too sure about that....railroads were always issuing instructions and admonishing firemen and engineers on how to better use coal to get the most power for the least amount of fuel. Same with diesel. Units that shut off when not needed, gensets, matching horsepower to use, using minimum number of units per train, using electric power where and when available (for the most part, don't go the Conrail story here), rules of accleration, etc. Railroads are keenly aware of thier power bills!
henry6 I wouldn't be too sure about that....railroads were always issuing instructions and admonishing firemen and engineers on how to better use coal to get the most power for the least amount of fuel. Same with diesel. Units that shut off when not needed, gensets, matching horsepower to use, using minimum number of units per train, using electric power where and when available (for the most part, don't go the Conrail story here), rules of accleration, etc. Railroads are keenly aware of thier power bills!
I am sure of it. They are keenly aware of how much fuel they buy and how much fuel is dispensed, but they have no idea of how much they put in each locomotive where or when. Really. I'm not making this up.
The only exception is direct to locomotive fuel from a vendor. They won't pay the vendor w/o a locomotive number.
Most fuel racks have a meter upstream of all the nozzles, not at each nozzle.
A comment on electricity: on a tour of the Maui Electric Company Maalaea power station, we saw a combustion turbine which is essentially an airplane jet engine hooked to a generator. But power plants are held to different emissions standards than airplanes, so a comparison of jets to electric powered trains must take that into consideration. I also believe that high-altitude pollution from airplanes is a unique problem, although there is not much research to support this (there was one study conducted during plane groundings of 9-11 which showed dramatic effects...)
Efficiency is also influenced by initial costs and impacts, as well as expandability. Thus, for example, an under-utilized transit line might be a better investment than work on a highway which is already near capacity.
The Trains carbon emission figures are for one person in an automobile.
And one last thought--how about electronic brakes to improve passenger train fuel efficiency? I suspect there is much more benefit on freight trains.
oltmannd....I suspect that Amtrak does not keep good actual fueling data. The frt RRs generally don't keep good data and Amtrak is generally in a worse position. Engineering simulations would give good results provided you had a handle on the aerodynamic drag of the various consist configurations. You'd have to get these from testing, preferably with a dyanmometer car or with some good wind tunnel testing on models.. Amtrak had (has?) a pretty good engineering test group, but I don't know if they've been into this. You are right in that counting locomotives and assuming gal/hr just doesn't work. It's not what's pulling the train that counts, it's how hard the train pulls back that determines fuel economy. At $1.50/gallon and 79 mph, it probably doesn't matter much, but at $4/gal and 110 mph, it matters a lot. I think there probably is a lot of room for improvment on the aerodynamic side of things. Weight doesn't matter much unless you are constantly burning off energy to reduce speed for curves, etc., only to have to accerate back up to speed. A mild hybrid locomotive would take care of this problem. Now is the time to get busy. The low hanging fruit might be to test matched train consists, replace cabbage cars with cab cars, test the effect of simple skirting and underbody aerodynamic modifications.
The problem is not calculating drag. That has been tested and factored for various streamlining elements by Davis and others; and is still relevant today for Amtrak.
I also would use the high end of rolling resistance to more accurately reflect modern deeply ballasted track structure and heavier rail. The weight of the cabbage is significant for rolling resistance as well as for acceleration, even though this pales more in comparison to aerodynamic drag as higher speeds are reached. A Cabbage is roughly equivalent to two coaches.
The time spent modeled for acceleration, cruising, dynamic braking, and idling will provide a pretty close estimate of fuel consumption. Fuel consumption by throttle setting and output power cannot be calculated without access to railroad or manufacturer information. Acceleration builds to Run 8 so as not to slip; but once track speed is attained, the power needed is less to maintain speed and depends on the track gradient. This build-up is sufficiently congruent with the power needed and throttle position/fuel consumption (gal/hr) without exceeding the limit of adhesion. I don't recall if fuel consumption rates have been shared for the Genesis P42. Dynamic braking and recovering speed after a permanent restriction can be modeled with track chart or map information.
The wild cards are the speed reductions and stops for temporary restrictions and signal indications. With respect to irregular delays, logging fuel consumption by run might provide some insight, however, this includes non-revenue consumption for deadhead moves in and out of yards and to and from fuel racks, and idling during layovers. Arguably, this too is part of the service.
The resistance of the train may affect the relative consumption of each unit; but efficiency comprises both the weight of the load(s) or number of passengers and the gallons of fuel consumed. How hard the train pulls back is not a strictly accurate relationship. If the Empire Builder weighs 2.5 times more than a Hiawatha but averages 2.5 times the number of passengers, that seems to be pretty bad for the latter.
Hybrid locomotives would seem to be worthwhile for intercity services. That's as close as I'll go in agreeing with you. A 3,200 hp diesel may be adequate to maintain track speed with a corresponding reduction in fuel consumption instead of one rated at 4,200 hp.
As for streamlining, this could be ignored at 79 mph; but I don't think so at 110 and above. Tests by SNCF (Peters, RGI, Oct, 1982) indicate that as much as 56% of un-streamlined drag comes from under-floor equipment. One suggestion was to pack equipment close together. The lower level of Superliner cars also affords an effective improvement. The next significant source of drag, as much as 21%, comes from the open space between the trucks of adjacent non-articulated cars. Having a mix of locomotives, Amfleet, and Horizon cars affects the "skin friction," probably being effectively more comparable to heavyweight cars. The suggestion for matched train sets is a good one. Maybe surprising to some readers are the relatively small affects of front and tail design, full diaphrams, and faired trucks.
Why does all this matter when we are living in the Passenger Railway Stone Age in America?
"In detail, the primary advantages of the new Alstom AGV train regard all aspects of performance: weight/power ratio, onboard space and comfort, energy consumption, safety and maintenance."
http://www.ntvspa.it/en/nuovo-trasporto-viaggiatori/37/3/high-speed-train-agv-italy-description
Pretty impressive!! Of course, some will claim that cannot work in the US.
HarveyK400The problem is not calculating drag. That has been tested and factored for various streamlining elements by Davis and others; and is still relevant today for Amtrak.
Davis says a P42 can pull 30 Superliners at 75 mph on the level. Maybe it can, but we wouldn't be astonished if it fell short. (Or did better.)
Here's one data point on fuel burn: around 1977 Amtrak #4 burned 7310 gallons on one run LA to Chicago. The usual three SDP40Fs LA to La Junta, the usual two east from there; 14 cars LA to KC, 12 east from there.
schlimm Pretty impressive!! Of course, some will claim that cannot work in the US.
Yes, I am that someone who will claim that it cannot work in the U.S.. It cannot work in France either, or in Germany, UK, Italy, Croatia, Taiwan, China, Korea, or any such place. I think it can be made to work on the surface of the planet Mars.
The claim is for 2.2 gm CO2/passenger-km (some calculation on the bus and airplane figures will demonstrate the claim is actually in CO2/seat-km, your carbon footprint will vary depending on the "load factor" of the train). Using power generated by Diesel fuel combustion as a reference, a gallon of Diesel burns to 10,000 gm CO2. The train has 430 seats. Thus the train runs at a Diesel fuel equivalent of 6.6 MPG (yes, the entire 11-car articulated train) at its rated speed of 300 kph (187 MPH). The train is using energy (at cruising speed) in the equivalent of 28 gallons/hour, 198 pounds of fuel/hour, assuming .4 lb Diesel/hp-hr, the drag of the train is thus 500 lb.
On Earth, my estimate of the rolling resistance of the train is about 1000 lb, assuming a lightweight train. In the countries listed, well outside the Tibetan Plateau, there is considerable air drag to be added, especially at 300 KPH, even for a highly streamlined train. Owing to the lighter gravity on Mars and the very thin atmosphere, my estimate is that the train would require 500 lb of tractive effort at 300 KPH and would meet the published specification.
Yes, the engineers in Europe are doing advanced work on railroads. But Europe also has, how do you say, "marketing managers", "writers of glossy brochures", "sales people", and other occupations of people who wear "suits" as we have in the U.S., and sometimes the technical figures from the Engineering Department get lost and extravagant claims get made.
None of the tedious hand or programmed computer calculations I've made in the past with Davis formulas would suggest a P42 could get 30 Superliners up to 75 mph; or that the resulting calculations are too inaccurate, inadequate, and unreliable. I might believe 20 superliners. Subtracting the power for auxiliaries, an F40 poops out after 75 mph with 11 loaded PS gallery suburban cars according to my calculations, taking 9 miles to accelerate to that speed and 16 miles to attain 80 mph on the dead level. This coincides with my experience as a commuter and is little better than an E8. A P42 has almost twice the horsepower available for traction as the F40.
We don't need to duplicate tests just because they were done a long time ago - neither the physics or Amtrak trains have changed beyond the scope of past work. More recent tests reported by Peters were for high speed trains, in this case the TGV and the effects of certain components.
The anecdotal information for Amtrak #4 is problematic with the changing numbers of locomotives and cars.
Paul, if you had any idea how much NASA struggles to get their rovers moving a few feet, you would not use Martian comparisons!
http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA12101
The efficiency of the highway itself must be considered also. Just look at the picture on page 29 of July Trains (a ten-lane highway next to a BART train).
There must be something wrong with the way we evaluate efficiency. Pope Benedict refers to this in his new encyclical, Caritas in veritate (Charity in Truth). "..Locating resources, financing, production, consumption and all the other phases in the economic cycle inevitably have moral implications. Thus every economic decision has a moral consequence..."
The encyclical seems rather thin on environmental science, and the news report I read from Washington Post didn't mention railroads at all. But the following is how I feel about our over-reliance on automobiles:
"...the human race is a single family working together in true communion, not simply a group of subjects who happen to live side by side..."
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/georgetown/2009/07/pope_benedict_on_economic_justice.html?hpid=talkbox1
HarveyK400 neither the physics or Amtrak trains have changed beyond the scope of past work
Well, maybe sorta kinda. The Davis equation certainly gets you to church, but it probably doesn't get you in the right pew.
What has changed is the understanding of vehicular aerodynamics - at least on the automotive side. And, the cross section and placement of underbody equipment on passenger trains has changed, too.
It would be useful to what the penalty for mixing Horizon and Amfleet equipment, for example. Is it 5% at 100 mph? That would be 5% you could go get almost for free - don't mix. How about some sheetmetal fairing on the underbody? How about full width diaphragms? A few more percentage points for a very small investment, perhaps? Or, even some small stuff - how about those Acela roof humps? Could they be improved?
Maglev Paul, if you had any idea how much NASA struggles to get their rovers moving a few feet, you would not use Martian comparisons! http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA12101 The efficiency of the highway itself must be considered also. Just look at the picture on page 29 of July Trains (a ten-lane highway next to a BART train). There must be something wrong with the way we evaluate efficiency. Pope Benedict refers to this in his new encyclical, Caritas in veritate (Charity in Truth). "..Locating resources, financing, production, consumption and all the other phases in the economic cycle inevitably have moral implications. Thus every economic decision has a moral consequence..." The encyclical seems rather thin on environmental science, and the news report I read from Washington Post didn't mention railroads at all. But the following is how I feel about our over-reliance on automobiles: "...the human race is a single family working together in true communion, not simply a group of subjects who happen to live side by side..." http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/georgetown/2009/07/pope_benedict_on_economic_justice.html?hpid=talkbox1
Yes, the BART line parallels 10 free lanes. What this says is that we should concentrate resources on transit and commuter trains and short corridor trains rather than the Sunset Limited.
I am thoroughly familiar with Bishop Ratzinger's exortation to consume fewer resources. Have you looked yet at David Lawyer's Web site? They are not working to cross purposes. The problem is not overreliance on the automobile. The problem is that the automobile is so flexible and convenient that it permits us to be overreliant on moving about and going different places. Back in the Golden Age of passenger trains and interurbans, people just didn't get out much. You are never going to provide passenger miles with rail on the scale we do in the U.S. with automobiles. Japan doesn't do it, Europe doesn't do it, China and Russia don't do it, the U.S. never came close to doing it "back in the day."
Rail may be part of the pattern of allowing people to return to higher density living arrangements, that in combination with social restrictions on driving, perhaps gasoline taxes well beyond the European level, restrictions on parking, taxes on vehicle ownership, London-style congestion tax zones, could effect the sort of rollback on automobile use that the likes of James Howard Kunstler is agitating for and maybe the Most Reverend Joseph Ratzinger is hinting at.
Do you seriously want to advance the cause of passenger rail in the U.S. by setting up tables at model train shows, farmer's markets, and civic gatherings the way I do and put up banners and hand out literature saying that your objective is to tax people out of their cars on account of Global Warming, Peak Oil, the Farmland Crisis, and General Overreliance on the Automobile and substitute trains so people can move about at 10 percent of the level they do now, say at the level accessible to the average person today in China? I have a colleague in my local advocacy group who participates in the literature tables who advocates just that, but only privately within our board meetings but is not ready to make that the emphasis of our public outreach.
As Judeo-Christian-Islamic ethics have entered into the discussion, last I heard, no one has repealed the Commandment against "bearing false witness", which I believe is the Eighth Commandment according to the Roman Catholic numbering. Claiming that a train that operates at 187 MPH has an order-of-magnitude less energy-consumption environmental impact than an intercity bus is a case of bearing false witness. Passenger train advocacy would be more successful if we avoided fantasy claims easily shot down by critics and we carefully followed the Eighth Commandment.
Paul--
I distinctly do not want to become one of those people who sets up tables at the Saturday market, whose only followers are those reading my bumper stickers. Locally, we are barely able to keep the ferries running; the Cascade rail corridor is at least alive but not bustling. Light rail is finally returning to Seattle.
A survey in my last Costco flyer solicits opinions on trains that might go 65 mph. Wow, we've really lowered our standards! My great grandfather worked for the L & N, which improved efficiency from 181 in 1923 to 130 in 1936 (pounds of coal per one thousand gross ton miles). Such improvements are no longer possible; and for now the challenge is solving the bankrupt Highway Trust Fund. We need to keep options open, including Amtrak.
Here is an example of an efficiency buster: on a 2006 Northbound Coast Starlight, we were more or less on time at Klamath Falls; but were delayed two hours while the replacement engineer got his required time off duty. Everyone (but not the HEP) cooled their heels while he sipped his coffee. A bus carried away the Empire Builder passengers. But if there were a bigger system with more trains and crews, or freight engineers available, such inefficiency might be avoided.
Maglevwhich improved efficiency from 181 in 1923 to 130 in 1936 (pounds of coal per one thousand gross ton miles). Such improvements are no longer possible;
Sure they are. There's been at least a 20% improvement in diesel locomotive efficiency since 1980 through a whole array of engineering and technical improvments. On top of that add, elimination of stretch braking, reduction in HP/ton and AutoStart to eliminate most idling. That's another huge chunk.
On the horizon, there's optimized train handling which appears to be worth another 10% and hybrid locomotives which will recycle braking energy for another big chunk of change.
And that's just off the top of my head.
Such improvements are no longer possible; and for now the challenge is solving the bankrupt Highway Trust Fund. We need to keep options open, including Amtrak.
OK, I am missing something here. Bankrupt Highway Trust Fund? What bankrupt Highway Trust Fund -- I thought that and everything else is getting ARRA money.
Again, suppose the Highway Trust Fund has a significant shortfall from gas tax money and it needs general revenue. We need to consider Amtrak as an option to that problem? Wake me up when the Highway Trust Fund General Revenue contribution reaches 20+ cents/passenger mile.
I guess I still consider myself a passenger train advocate, but the advocacy community is grasping at straws with all manner of weak arguments in support of trains, and I begin to wonder about things. WisARP sends out its newsletter proclaiming that the gas price crisis resulted in a 5 percent decline in automobile trip miles. Yeah, what are trains supposed to do about that? If you are really concerned that people taking a few less trips constitutes some crisis of mobility that important work is not getting done, and that fewer vacations are taken, bankrupting the hospitality industry, making up that 5 percent with trains would require a 50 billion dollar a year expenditure based on the formulas of the Vision Report. That's right, pretty much the entire Federal Highway Budget and more, all taken from general revenue. That's pretty much what they do in Europe, by the way. Try selling that idea to people on these shores.
"trains that might go 65 mph. Wow, we've really lowered our standards!"
Lowered standards? We have lowered auto speeds (and then raised them in places) in pursuit of energy efficiency and safety. Planes fly somewhat slower than at the start of the jet age for saving fuel. They don't fly the Concorde Supersonic anymore. What is so magical about one speed or some other speed, provided one serves a need at a reasonable cost? Do commuter trains need to go 300 KPH? Does the Hiawatha train or Pacific Surfliner need that kind of speed. Our new Amtrak CEO spoke of moderate speed increases on a multiplicity of corridors as a worthwhile near-term goal, and now we are back to this "national shame" argument again?
HarveyK400None of the tedious hand or programmed computer calculations I've made in the past with Davis formulas would suggest a P42 could get 30 Superliners up to 75 mph
Which won't be tedious. Davis says tractive resistance (in pounds) at speed V (in miles/hour) is A + BV + CV^2, where
A = 1.3 times total tons, plus 29 times total axles
B = 0.03 times total tons
C = 0.041 times number of cars (plus maybe 0.3 for the P42 if you want to include it)
(Edit: I blew the calculation-- according to Davis, 67-68 mph would be a better guess for a P42 with 30 Superliners, assuming no HEP.)
HarveyK400...or that the resulting calculations are too inaccurate, inadequate, and unreliable.
The statement that the Highway Fund is bankrupt was from my Senator, Patty Murray, chair of the Senate Transportation Appropriations Committee. If there is possibility of improving train efficiency and capacity, then that is all the more reason why a national rail network needs to tbe preserved.
I am not alone in this view. Don Phillips in August Trains mentions his frustrations with continued decline of Amtrak. I started posting here because I believe in passenger trains, and have gotten the impression that advocay groups are so disillusioned that they can barely support maintenance of the current Amtrak system.
My local Ferry Advisory Council is disillusioned, but they are a quasi-official body. They are volunteers who try to interface between the community and government. They celebrate small victories such as an intermodal connection from ferry to bus to train (from selected islands, southbound train only).
Advocates need to "think nationally, and act locally." But the prevailing attitude is to get as much stimulus money as possible for local roads, and forget about even "shovel ready" (ie, 50-year overdue) nationwide rail projects. What is wrong with this? Go back to the beginning of my post--the Highway Trust Fund is bankrupt!
Maglev"shovel ready" (ie, 50-year overdue) nationwide rail projects.
Name one.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.