Living Car Free - The reality of it all......

This is the reality of life now.......

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0125-01.htm

This could also be a problem for cyclists on this forum. If we become carfree, we have to remember that the autmobile (purportedly) consumes 32% of a average household's total energy usage. 39% comes from electricity/heating.

Seems like we really need to have a societal discussion about where all this energy is being used. It is a shame to conserve it on one side and waste it on the other. We probably need to break usage down to a finer grain. For example, how much energy gets used if you consistently forget to turn off your coffee machine.

I've thought of this myself. All my commuting over the last year and then I take an airplane trip to visit my mother.

Do what you can, then do some more. Don't obsess about it. Yes, I still have a car, and still drive it. But I drive it 9000 miles a year instead of 15000 as I used to. That's significant. That's 200 gallons of gas per year, 2000 over the life of the car. 2000 gallons would make one hell of a bang if it all went off at once.

I've thought of this myself. All my commuting over the last year and then I take an airplane trip to visit my mother.

But wait ...... if you bike vs car commuted for a year and would have flown over to see your mother either way, does that not result in a net savings?

If I change out all my light bulbs for flourescents, but still take a hot bath (instead of a shower) most nights anyway, just like I did before the change, is this not still a net savings?

Sure, we ALL (me included) could do better, but the point is to get people at least thinking about it and doing something even if it's little. Any little number times a big number is a big number. If people get started thinking in terms of little things they can do to make things better, the amounts of savings will start to add up pretty fast.

But, if we're all going to wait for our next door neighbor to do something first, well ...... any savings at all will be a long time coming

Do what you can, then do some more. Don't obsess about it. Yes, I still have a car, and still drive it. But I drive it 9000 miles a year instead of 15000 as I used to. That's significant. That's 200 gallons of gas per year, 2000 over the life of the car. 2000 gallons would make one hell of a bang if it all went off at once.

and because gas prices increase it's probably more, and because you aren't driving your car as hard it might last longer, and because you don't rely on it as much you might not feel the need to replace your car as soon even when gas prices are higher as well.

But wait ...... if you bike vs car commuted for a year and would have flown over to see your mother either way, does that not result in a net savings?

If I change out all my light bulbs for flourescents, but still take a hot bath (instead of a shower) most nights anyway, just like I did before the change, is this not still a net savings?


A litte OT question: Does the shower use less water? I ask because, like ya'll, I'm doing my best to reduce consumption but those hot showers are my downfall!

Now back to the topic; I don't think an airplane trip to see ones family constitutes any sort of gross over-usage of facilities, power, etc. But if you're flying off, willy nilly, for pleasure trips.... I think that is a problem. And I think there are some folks out there who have worked hard and earned their financial success and so they feel entitled to reap the rewards. Somehow, the attitude that recycling and less consumption DOES NOT equal depriving oneself of the 'good life' has to be changed.

I gather jetliners get 20 mpg/seat (full; 10 mpg/seat if half capacity, scale out as needed). Has anybody heard estimates that are different, or better-sourced? I guess that would give a guide for deciding whether to fly vs roadtrip (rent a car if you don't have one) depending on how many people are making the trip with you (if fuel consumption is your one concern above all others).

When we lived 3-400 miles from a lot of people we spent time with it wound up taking a very similar time to drive as fly (get to the airport, go through all the lines, wait for the delays, do all that on landing, and then get to wherever we were headed from the airport). So time alone was no real savings for trips of that length, plus driving would only be 10-15 gal each way for (then) 3 of us in a car vs 40-60 gal jet fuel each way (if the 20 mpg/seat figure is correct, and the plane was full, which it always was). But it was the airport hassles (and cost), not the emissions, that shifted us toward driving rather than flying.

And then there was the train...

A litte OT question: Does the shower use less water? I ask because, like ya'll, I'm doing my best to reduce consumption but those hot showers are my downfall!

Next time you take a shower, close the drain off. When you're done showering, compare the amount of water in the tub to the amount you would have used if you took a bath.

When you take a shower, turn the water on for a little trickle, get wet and then turn the water off. Soap up, then turn the water back on and rinse off. This is how my dad taught us to take showers. He called it a "navy shower."

I gather jetliners get 20 mpg/seat (full; 10 mpg/seat if half capacity, scale out as needed). Has anybody heard estimates that are different, or better-sourced?

I read from a couple sources that jetliners got something closer to 60 passenger-miles per gallon when full (which I think puts the average flight's fuel economy at 45 passenger-miles per gallon). I believe howstuffworks.com was one source, and some airline industry group (?) was the other source.

Showers can consume a very large amount of water, but baths are often worse. If you want to save hot water you should have a showerhead that puts out no more than 2.5 gallons per minute. You should also turn your water heater down until your shower and dishwashing water come out at about the right temperature without using water from the "cold" tap. That will save heat loss through the walls of your pipes and heater-tank.

Also, driving long distances is much less safe than flying. Hundreds of additional people died in traffic accidents in the days after 9/11 when the planes were not flying!!!

You dying is also a big waste of energy... all the energy you've consumed since birth. Thrown into the grave.

My showers use less water than a bath...about 50% less, if I went with Navy showers (no thanks been there done that!) I could probably cut the 50% to about 80%. I think flying is efficient for longer distances compared to driving, as well as safer. I wish we had better bus and passenger train service. Personally I think they need to start raising taxes on fuel until it hits $5-$7 a gallon and then use the taxes to improve the mass transit infrastructure. Other things we do to save...swapping out various bulbs with compact fluorescents, turn off all unnecessary lights and equipment. We just swapped out 60 150 watt flood lights at my wife's bridal shop with compact fluorescents. That should make a major difference come summer with the cooling bill.

Aaron:)

I read from a couple sources that jetliners got something closer to 60 passenger-miles per gallon when full (which I think puts the average flight's fuel economy at 45 passenger-miles per gallon). I believe howstuffworks.com was one source, and some airline industry group (?) was the other source.


Cerewa, I didn't believe you, so I googled some sites and found this


According to British Airways, a 747-400 plane cruises at 576 mph (927
km/h), burns 12,788 liters (3378 US gallons) of fuel per hour, and
carries 409 passengers when full:
http://www.britishairways.com/flights/factfile/airfleet/docs/7474.shtml

If the plane is 75% full, one passenger is carried 22.2 km for each
liter of fuel burned (52.2 miles for each US gallon of fuel burned).
This fuel efficiency exceeds that of almost all cars, when the driver
is travelling alone.


which proves that you would be better off flying than driving alone. If you have a 2nd passenger and a reasonably gas-economical car, the car wins... Although, staying home would have the least CO2 damage. :)

http://www.strato.net/~he/photos/amtrack.jpg

http://www.strato.net/~he/photos/amtrack.jpg

What is that?

Aaron:)

What is that?

Aaron:)

:roflmao:

Point taken.

:roflmao:

Point taken.
:D
What is sad we have a double mainline that runs thru our small town. We get 10-12 trains a day thru there, including Amtrak. The sad part is if we want to ride a Amtrak we have to drive at least 25 miles to the nearest station, ditto commercial bus service. I am old enough to remember when buses and trains were the way to travel....now they don't go anywhere and cost as much as it does to drive or fly.

Aaron:)

One can thank GM for the dismantling of the rail system
in America to sell more cars. It on the net so google
to see how greedy GM got in the 50's & 60's with NO
consideration to the future at all.

greedy ba$tards.:mad: :mad:

The miles per gallon of an airliner varies with the distance of the flight, since takeoff uses so much fuel.

The miles per gallon of an airliner varies with the distance of the flight, since takeoff uses so much fuel.
Then consider this note from Mark Lynas in his book "High Tide: the truth about our climate crisis":
"The warming effects of the actual carbon emissions from a jet engine are tripled because of vapour contrails and the fact that pollutants are injected high up into the Earth's atmoshere where they can do the most damage." His advice is "take the slow train."

Then consider this note from Mark Lynas in his book "High Tide: the truth about our climate crisis":
"The warming effects of the actual carbon emissions from a jet engine are tripled because of vapour contrails and the fact that pollutants are injected high up into the Earth's atmoshere where they can do the most damage." His advice is "take the slow train."

He must not plan on getting/going anywhere...I have tried numerous times to route my self somewhere using ground based mass transit. Basically impossible if you are going anywhere with a population base of under 25k or so, and even at that it still may not go there.

Aaron:)

One can thank GM for the dismantling of the rail system
in America to sell more cars. It on the net so google
to see how greedy GM got in the 50's & 60's with NO
consideration to the future at all.

greedy ba$tards.:mad: :mad:
Did you mean to say the streetcar system?

Did you mean to say the streetcar system?

They not only dismantled the street car system but systematically destroyed the passenger rail system too, buy purchasing and dismantling them.

Aaron:)

He must not plan on getting/going anywhere...I have tried numerous times to route my self somewhere using ground based mass transit. Basically impossible if you are going anywhere with a population base of under 25k or so, and even at that it still may not go there.

Aaron:)
Well, he' s British and was kind of talking about an European solution. In another section he did talk about the US style of working in one city while living (weekends...) in another. I see a lot of this going on and was partly involved in it myself at one point until I realized that it was all a bit silly... spent way too much time in airports or on freeways. Basically, the only solution for domestic travel in the US would be Grayhound.... which exists and is cheap, but using it is considered too "low class" for most people.

Well, he' s British and was kind of talking about an European solution. In another section he did talk about the US style of working in one city while living (weekends...) in another. I see a lot of this going on and was partly involved in it myself at one point until I realized that it was all a bit silly... spent way too much time in airports or on freeways. Basically, the only solution for domestic travel in the US would be Grayhound.... which exists and is cheap, but using it is considered too "low class" for most people.
Even that doesn't work well. The small town I live in doesn't have a bus station anymore...we have to travel at least 30 miles to the nearest Greyhound station and about the same for Amtrak. Our town has a population of around 10k and we are right on I-95 and have two major US highways coming thru as well as a double mainline carrying CSX and Amtrak...but they don't stop! Many years ago we used to travel from college to home via Trailways or Greyhound, it was about a 2.5 hour trip by bus or 2 hours by car. It was convienent. Now the routes have changed to the point that that same trip takes 4-6 hours and only runs once a day. It used to run 3-4 times a day. In fact if you attempt to book on Carolina Trailways the only way to do it is in person or via telephone...they don't schedule via the internet... in fact as far as I can tell they don't even HAVE a website. I also recall traveling in the early 70's from Florida to Iowa when my dad was in graduate school, we would go "home" to Iowa for the summer.

Aaron:)

Even that doesn't work well. The small town I live in doesn't have a bus station anymore...we have to travel at least 30 miles to the nearest Greyhound station and about the same for Amtrak. Our town has a population of around 10k and we are right on I-95 and have two major US highways coming thru as well as a double mainline carrying CSX and Amtrak...but they don't stop! Many years ago we used to travel from college to home via Trailways or Greyhound, it was about a 2.5 hour trip by bus or 2 hours by car. It was convienent. Now the routes have changed to the point that that same trip takes 4-6 hours and only runs once a day. It used to run 3-4 times a day. In fact if you attempt to book on Carolina Trailways the only way to do it is in person or via telephone...they don't schedule via the internet... in fact as far as I can tell they don't even HAVE a website. I also recall traveling in the early 70's from Florida to Iowa when my dad was in graduate school, we would go "home" to Iowa for the summer.

Aaron:)Well Greyhound and the other interurban bus carriers have pretty strange business plans. They seem to think that they can increase profitability by cutting service, especially feeder runs. Like I said before, in order for any mass transit company to attract passengers, they have to put up with losses in their feeder lines and in off-hour runs. People won't take the bus at all if it doesn't offer convenient times and locations.

BTW, you can book tickets on Carolina Trailways through the Greyhound Web site. (http://www.greyhound.com/home.asp?crcat=payperclick&crsource=google_ads&crkw=greyhound) I looked up a sample of schedules between Charlotte and Winston-Salem. There are 8 trips a day, 5 on Carolina Trailways and 3 on Greyhound. Each is 1:30 hours, so the service between those two cities is excellent on the face of it.

I'm ashamed to admit that I just now read the article linked by Tightwad in the OP (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0125-01.htm). :o It's a fantastic article and we should be discussing it! Here it is:







Published on Thursday, January 25, 2007 by the Independent / UK
Saving The Planet: Empty Gestures
Do you recycle - and then fly to New York for the weekend? It's the inconsistency of our attempts to save the planet that really bugs Nigel Pollitt
by Nigel Pollitt


At Christmas I was given a copy of the book of the film An Inconvenient Truth, by the American politician Al Gore. It was from two people. One of them drives an SUV and both are frequent fliers. I was given the present at a gathering under recessed halogen spotlights, a popular system that, typically, doubles the electricity consumed by a room's lighting and greatly increases ceiling heat-loss. Few in the room were wearing anything that, by the standards of earlier ages, could have been considered winter clothing. Some of the food on the table - figs and blueberries - originated several thousand miles away. And, while tap-water in the area is quaffable, bottled mineral water from France accompanied our celebration.

The six adults and two children present were people who, if cornered, would probably say that Something Should Be Done about rising carbon emissions. As well as this, all the adults were cooks, and cooks are the people most likely to understand that doubling a very small but potent ingredient can have a very big effect on a result. Carbon dioxide is less than 1 per cent of the atmosphere. Yet doubling it, which is what we're heading towards, is sending the planet to the emergency room.

This month, the EU's environment commissioner, Stavros Dimas, called the struggle to halt climate change a "world war". The Tories are pitching for an 80 per cent cut in UK carbon emissions by 2050. Even the Confederation of British Industry has a task force on it.

But we, in our homes and on holiday, go on as before. The friend who raved about the Al Gore film whacks up the heat and wears a T-shirt indoors. I bang on about halogen downlights but do nothing about the picturesque but colossally leaky wooden sash windows in my picturesque but colossally leaky Victorian house. If my 1880s stained glass was under threat, I'd get a handgun. What's going on?

"People see it as such a big, difficult problem. They ask how on Earth can they influence it in their day-to-day behaviour," says Nick Pidgeon, a professor of applied psychology at Cardiff University, and the co-author of several studies on attitudes to climate change. "They say overwhelmingly that the Government or international community should be responsible for action, but are not changing their own behaviour because it all seems too much."

It's also about connecting, he says. "We understand the consequences of climate change, but there's a disconnect with our actions. People don't think about climate change when they get in the car. And when taking a risk [of damaging the climate] has personal benefits, there's much less pressure to change behaviour. Getting in the car has an immediate benefit."

And although Commissioner Dimas talks of world war, Hitler hasn't invaded Poland yet. There has been Katrina and some extra drought, but the Gulf Stream still pumps Caribbean warmth to Europe. We haven't seen crop failure in Hampshire. Bread still comes from the supermarket.

There's also that tic that psychologists call cognitive dissonance. If reality has square edges, you file them down. You buy a diesel car. Then you read about the dangers of unburnt nanoparticles, but brighten up when a friend says that diesel cars have lower CO2 emissions.

Last year I was invited to India by a friend. I felt awful about burning, in a few hours, the equivalent of a couple of years of my normal carbon output and, for this among other reasons, did not go. But I could have filed down those square edges, couldn't I? Reduced the dissonance. After all, as one friend said, we only produce 2 per cent of global carbon in Britain. China and India are the problem. The friend who invited me commented: "I think the plane is going to fly that day whether you are on it or not."

My own response was to say, if there were rationing of long-haul flights to a globally sustainable level, I would go. There isn't, and I didn't.

The point is that, bizarrely, dealing with climate change is, so far, presented to us as a lifestyle choice. The current ads from the Energy Saving Trust urging us to switch off are the equivalent of wartime posters saying how it would be really helpful if you could black out your windows during air-raids. Accordingly, our response to the threat of climate change is lost in complex and contradictory individual responses. There's the sense too, of the futility of boycott. Why should I stop flying if no one else does?

As Mike Childs, a climate campaigner at Friends of the Earth, points out: "At the moment the economic signals [to the individual] are that climate change doesn't really matter. The economic signals don't suggest you should do the right thing. So there may have to be punitive taxes on flying to India or Prague, so you say, 'that's a ridiculous amount of money, I can't afford to fly there'."

Should there be rationing? Coupons for carbon? "The idea of a trading scheme, with tradeable quotas, say in aviation, has its attractions," says Childs. "Then it's not all down to the individual." He accepts, however, that there may have to be "catastrophe that creates a groundswell of public pressure" for drastic action.

In the past, wars were won using the brutality of conscription. Cities were defended and populations fed through regulations and rationing. If human populations are to survive against a far bigger threat than Hitler or al-Qa'ida or avian flu, won't governments have to be brutal? Turn off the power, perhaps? It's been done before, so surely it's do-able. We won't fly for our holidays and we won't drink Evian and maybe we'll even enjoy the spirit of the carbon blitz. If we're lucky, the Gulf Stream won't turn off and we won't end up with the climate of Newfoundland.

But according to Professor Pidgeon, we're just not going to change our behaviour enough voluntarily. "We could all end up with low-energy lightbulbs but still flying to the Alps for the weekend. Under those circumstances, a government is going to have to take some pretty tough action."

We are challenged, morally, to change our behavior, as individuals, but the bigger challenge is for our leaders to come up with a proper coordinated survival plan. They'll need our backing.

© 2006 Independent News and Media Limited

###

Speaking of air travel, what I'm curious about is if the old piston-engine planes like the Lockheed Constellation and the McDonnell-Douglass DC-4 were more fuel-efficient and had less CO2 output than jets and if a modern piston-engine plane (or even a turboprop) with today's engine technology would be a viable alternative to jets for domestic and short-haul flights.

I know they would be slower and maybe less smooth than a jet but still much faster than a train.

An expeimental "unducted fan" engine (counter-rotating jet fans outside of the engine nacelle) has been proven in trials to be 77% more fuel efficient than a similar sized jet but is unfortunately horribly noisy.

A cycling club riding buddy of mine is a jet engine mechanic so I pick his brains on some of this stuff!

I am old enough to remember when buses and trains were the way to travel....now they don't go anywhere and cost as much as it does to drive or fly.

Considering the cost/speed/convenience of rail systems in Europe and Asia, it's a crying shame we don't have similar high speed rail linking the West Coast. We can get across France via the TGV faster than plane or automobile, now why can't we do the same between the desert communities and LA/OC/SD regions, or Las Vegas/SoCal/NorCal/PNW? It's the same greedy BS we've seen since god knows when. :rolleyes:

I've thought of this myself. All my commuting over the last year and then I take an airplane trip to visit my mother.

At least you weren't driving all year AND flying out to see your mother. Let's say that hypothetically, the plane used as much fuel as you might have had you driven a car all of last year instead of cycled. Then by riding you cut your potential fuel use in half, that seems like a positive thing to me. At least that's how I look at it, you make some sacrifices and can enjoy some other things because of it.

Considering the cost/speed/convenience of rail systems in Europe and Asia, it's a crying shame we don't have similar high speed rail linking the West Coast. We can get across France via the TGV faster than plane or automobile, now why can't we do the same between the desert communities and LA/OC/SD regions, or Las Vegas/SoCal/NorCal/PNW? It's the same greedy BS we've seen since god knows when. :rolleyes:
Why stop there? They should have high speed trains on the eastern seaboard between DC-Balt-Philly-New York-Boston. And how about the central corridor Toronto/Buffalo-Cleveland-Detroit-Chicago-St. Louis. Do you know anything about Maglev trains?

Why stop there? They should have high speed trains on the eastern seaboard between DC-Balt-Philly-New York-Boston. And how about the central corridor Toronto/Buffalo-Cleveland-Detroit-Chicago-St. Louis. Do you know anything about Maglev trains?

I take the train about once a year from Toronto to Montreal. It takes less time and is far easier than driving, and although it takes longer than flying, it is so much more relaxing for being non-fragmented. Flying, you have all these jerky edits. Get to the airport. Check in. Wait. Board. Wait for the seatbelt sign. Get a pop and a sesame turd pack. Seat belt sign back on. Land. Deplane. Wait for cab. Ride downtown. The train is downtown to downtown and you can book a hotel within walking distance of the station. En route you can doze in your seat, or read, or use wireless internet in first class, and the scenery is great. You arrive relaxed, not exhausted.

Why stop there? They should have high speed trains on the eastern seaboard between DC-Balt-Philly-New York-Boston. And how about the central corridor Toronto/Buffalo-Cleveland-Detroit-Chicago-St. Louis. Do you know anything about Maglev trains?

Definitely. I don't know much about the Atlantic coast transportation corridors, but if they're anything like the Pacific coast, maglevs, or even conventional high speed rail would be a godsend. I've googled a bit, and found that while maglevs don't offer much of an energy efficiency advantage compared to ICE trains at high speeds, they are supposedly more flexible, reliable, and perform better. If you look at the table on page 176 of this pdf (http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sustainable/book/tex/cft.pdf), current transportation efficiency seems nothing less than pathetic. Even a Prius at 50mpg with four people uses twice as much energy per passenger*km as a train going almost three times faster, and something closer to four times more energy at the same speeds. The rest of the document seems to be interesting, even if the current draft was only completed five days ago. ;)

The whole paper is good. Very good actually. Especially the last paragraph...

This recipe delivers a total electricity of 79 kWh per day per person (including 1 kWh per day per person from hydro) – more than four times our current electricity consumption. The new electricity production should be enough to cover the requirements of electric-powered transport and electric-powered heating and cooling systems – two of the biggest forms of current fossil fuel consumption.
The point I suppose, being, that in current context, renewable energy sources cannot account for our energy habits. But, our energy habits are needlessly wasteful, so much so that alternatives, that are more efficient, faster, and cleaner, can pick up any and all slack that comes from a transition away from fossil fueled power. Which, imo, isn't something that's happening because we need it in any sense of the word, but is because it's profitable for a select few.

I take the train about once a year from Toronto to Montreal. It takes less time and is far easier than driving, and although it takes longer than flying, it is so much more relaxing for being non-fragmented. Flying, you have all these jerky edits. Get to the airport. Check in. Wait. Board. Wait for the seatbelt sign. Get a pop and a sesame turd pack. Seat belt sign back on. Land. Deplane. Wait for cab. Ride downtown. The train is downtown to downtown and you can book a hotel within walking distance of the station. En route you can doze in your seat, or read, or use wireless internet in first class, and the scenery is great. You arrive relaxed, not exhausted.

This really makes me want to make a train trip to Montreal. I hear the cycling is pretty good there too.
Of course, I'd have to fly to Toronto... can I take the Grayhound? :)

Speaking of air travel, what I'm curious about is if the old piston-engine planes like the Lockheed Constellation and the McDonnell-Douglass DC-4 were more fuel-efficient and had less CO2 output than jets and if a modern piston-engine plane (or even a turboprop) with today's engine technology would be a viable alternative to jets for domestic and short-haul flights.


The last generation piston engine planes were in fact far more fuel efficient than the first-gen jet planes (707, 727, DC8, DeHavilland Comet, and others). However, the wide public appeal of jet travel, and the longer life and lower maintenance of jet engines more than made up for their higher fuel costs. Typical piston airline engines of the time were complex beasts; 18 cylinders (or as many as 28 in some designs), with superchargers AND turbochargers both on many of them.

Both piston and jet engines have seen large gains in efficiency since then, so it's hard to tell how they'd compare now. Would seem that a modern diesel engine pushing a high efficiency propeller would be hard to beat, though.

Why stop there? They should have high speed trains on the eastern seaboard between DC-Balt-Philly-New York-Boston. And how about the central corridor Toronto/Buffalo-Cleveland-Detroit-Chicago-St. Louis. Do you know anything about Maglev trains?
Roody, they do have high speed trains between DC and Boston. Here is a quote from Wikipedia:

Acela Express (often called simply Acela, leading to early confusion with the Acela Regional and Acela Commuter) is the name used by Amtrak for the high-speed tilting train service operating between Washington, D.C. and Boston via New York City and Philadelphia along the Northeast Corridor (NEC) in the Northeast United States. The tilting design allows the train to travel at higher speeds on the sharply curved NEC without disturbing passengers by lowering lateral G-forces. Acela Express trains are the only true high-speed trainsets in the United States. This has made the trains very popular, and by some reckoning, Amtrak has captured over half of the market share of travelers between Washington and New York.[1] Outside of stations, Acela runs at speeds between 75 mph (120 km/h) and 150 mph (241 km/h), depending on track conditions. On the average, however, it is significantly slower than most other high-speed trains elsewhere in the world (e.g., Shinkansen, Eurostar, ICE, TGV).

Two years ago I found myself at some function sharing a table with a driver of one of these Acela Express trains. He bikes to work. Amtrak lets him keep his bike in an inside room while we passengers have substandard bike parking outside the station. The Wikipedia article mentions the sharply curved tracks. This train driver mentioned that the trains cannot stop in time to avoid hitting some idiot walking on the track. He said that by the time he sees someone on the track he doesn't have time to stop. Maybe the curves explain why. When I take the train I don't take the Acela Express because the fares are so much higher than the regular trains. The downtown to downtown feature makes it competitive with air travel.

He said that by the time he sees someone on the track he doesn't have time to stop. Maybe the curves explain why.

That's always been true of trains...they need huge distances to stop. You can't just jam on the brakes and skid to a halt like in a car...you'd risk a derailment and huge disaster.

I take the train about once a year from Toronto to Montreal. It takes less time and is far easier than driving, and although it takes longer than flying, it is so much more relaxing for being non-fragmented. Flying, you have all these jerky edits. Get to the airport. Check in. Wait. Board. Wait for the seatbelt sign. Get a pop and a sesame turd pack. Seat belt sign back on. Land. Deplane. Wait for cab. Ride downtown. The train is downtown to downtown and you can book a hotel within walking distance of the station. En route you can doze in your seat, or read, or use wireless internet in first class, and the scenery is great. You arrive relaxed, not exhausted.

VIA is definitely my premier choice when going T.O. - MTL. The car only has an advantage if either we have 4 people in the car (in that case it's waaay cheaper) and if we are going directly to the cottage (not in mtl, and not accessible by bus or bike or other means). Flying makes little sense as it is more expensive and takes longer (as we are generally going from downtown to downtown). You only have to make the train on time - no check in required, and retrieving luggage takes no time. For me flying takes 45 min (1.25 h depending on traffic) to get to the airport + you have to get there 1h before the flight takes off + 1h flight + 15 min or more to get your luggage + 30-45 min to get to destination depending on traffic. Total 3.5 + h with a lot of changes of transport mode whereas the express train takes 4h and is more comfortable and is about half the cost. Being able to use cellphones/laptops/internet the whole way on the train is bonus...

When you take a shower, turn the water on for a little trickle, get wet and then turn the water off. Soap up, then turn the water back on and rinse off. This is how my dad taught us to take showers. He called it a "navy shower."
My mom always told us to do this, but I can't bring myself to. Especially in the winter, I shower as much for the warmth as to get clean. (We have a leaky old house that we maintain lower than 65*F and still use more heating oil that we'd like to or can easily afford.) I know it wouldn't kill me, but I just couldn't bring myself to turn off the water to soap up because it would make me so chilly.

However, I have gone to an every other day shower schedule for the past few winters now. It's cold enough outside that I don't sweat much if at all on the 5-mile commute, so hopefully I'm not too gross on the off days! :eek:

Especially in the winter, I shower as much for the warmth as to get clean. (We have a leaky old house that we maintain lower than 65*F and still use more heating oil that we'd like to or can easily afford.) I know it wouldn't kill me, but I just couldn't bring myself to turn off the water to soap up because it would make me so chilly.

However, I have gone to an every other day shower schedule for the past few winters now. It's cold enough outside that I don't sweat much if at all on the 5-mile commute, so hopefully I'm not too gross on the off days! :eek:
Similar for me. I haven't used heat in the winter for many years. Not so bad in AZ, but it still leads to 55-58F inside temps in the morning (outside 25-40F this January). Fortunately I don't often shower at home in the morning, but do so at work. In the winter evenings I like a warm shower as house never gets over 60-62F. I wear wool socks and fleece, my wife too plus a wool hat.

Al

Roody, they do have high speed trains between DC and Boston. Here is a quote from Wikipedia:


Two years ago I found myself at some function sharing a table with a driver of one of these Acela Express trains. He bikes to work. Amtrak lets him keep his bike in an inside room while we passengers have substandard bike parking outside the station. The Wikipedia article mentions the sharply curved tracks. This train driver mentioned that the trains cannot stop in time to avoid hitting some idiot walking on the track. He said that by the time he sees someone on the track he doesn't have time to stop. Maybe the curves explain why. When I take the train I don't take the Acela Express because the fares are so much higher than the regular trains. The downtown to downtown feature makes it competitive with air travel.

they are allowed 70,000 lbs per axle in weight, the coefficient of friction of steel on steel runs around .3, they cant stop or climb well, traction is a big problem

a 420,000 lb loco that has 6 axles can theoretically at that weight and traction coefficient generate 126,000 lbs of pull, connect that to a whole bunch of cars weighing in at 250,000 lbs each for example and you can see why they dont change speeds very quickly and grades are a huge huge problem for them

they are also drawbar limited, the coupling at the business end of a loco has a limit to what it can take before it snaps, how much that is I dont recall at the moment, but they still break them from time to time

they are allowed 70,000 lbs per axle in weight, the coefficient of friction of steel on steel runs around .3, they cant stop or climb well, traction is a big problem

a 420,000 lb loco that has 6 axles can theoretically at that weight and traction coefficient generate 126,000 lbs of pull, connect that to a whole bunch of cars weighing in at 250,000 lbs each for example and you can see why they dont change speeds very quickly and grades are a huge huge problem for them

they are also drawbar limited, the coupling at the business end of a loco has a limit to what it can take before it snaps, how much that is I dont recall at the moment, but they still break them from time to time
It must be the weight and speed or momentum requiring extra force to slow down. I'm getting coefficients of friction ~.7 in the same range as rubber on asphalt (.5-.8) from :

http://www.engineershandbook.com/Tables/frictioncoefficients.htm

The rails on the tracks are used enough that there isn't much oxidation on the contact surfaces.

I think the driver was saying that the extra speed meant it took longer to slow the train and the train traveled further during his reaction time. The wikipedia article seemed to say that the new technology
allowed these higher speed trains to run on tracks with lower design speeds making the stopping problem more severe than what we should have been taught as children about the inability of trains to stop for us. You need to be careful when smashing pennies under train wheels.

the acela's can lean into turns I believe, the cars are on hydraulic or pneumatic ram type suspensions with active control so they can go a bit faster and not jump off the tracks, been in use in europe for quite awhile, although I cant remember which country got a little carried away and had a bad accident and eventually gave it up I think

http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/frictionrolling.htm

http://science.howstuffworks.com/diesel-locomotive3.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_adhesion

according to the third link, your .78 is for optimum conditions, expected is about .25, and under bad conditions as low as .05

I know the bigger 6 axle diesels are limited to about .45 by the computers controlling the drivetrain which also help them get a bit better traction by keeping the power right at the adhesion limit when accelerating or climbing a hill. They have to keep all that power under tight control, you can break stuff pretty easy, like rip up the track or break some couplings.

First of all there are high speed trains all the way from boston-wasington dc. And a connector to take you into newport news,va.

http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Amtrak/am2Route/Vertical_Route_Page&cid=1080772074490&c=am2Route&ssid=134


I've heard anecdotal estimates that every mile of airline travel is 10 times more "destructive to the environment" than a mile by car travel..thus 3,000 miles in an airplane is equivalent to 30,000 miles in a car in terms of emissions, pollution, and carbon dioxide output.

http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/acela.html

acela specs

we need more and better rail service in this country

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/0202frilets024.html

See, if you drive an empty SUV most of the day its OK since you make up for it by recycling!

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/0202frilets024.html

See, if you drive an empty SUV most of the day its OK since you make up for it by recycling!
Well, I don't see many SUVs loaded up with 8 passengers. I see quite a few with just the driver. I asked a friend a while back why he was buying a Ford F-250 and driving it back and forth to his computer programming job. He told me he and his Dad like to fish on the weekend and I kept thinking, "Man, you must have a big fishing rod cause mine fits on my bike."

http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/acela.html

acela specs

we need more and better rail service in this country

I liked the third wikipedia link. I never knew about coning of the wheels. It had this blurb about why
it will be difficult to get more and better rail service. Around here, prime railroad right of way has been taken by various rails-to-trails projects. In a more car free future the resulting multi use paths might be reconverted to rail but it appears that the curves won't accomadate high speed rail. Around here the multiuse path has increased adjacent real estate values so increase curve radii will be expensive.


The constraints on gradient and radius of turn impose severe limitations on the choice of routes. This problem is compounded in developed countries by the difficulty of acquiring the land needed for new routes. Evidently, legacy track designed to accommodate steam traction is unlikely to be adequate for the current generation of high speed train.