Living Car Free - amtrak and fuel consumption

At least on the shorter routes, there is very little holding back a private organization from purchasing rolling stock and making runs on existing freight railroads' track.

The freight railroads don't willingly share their tracks. One could say there's evidence that they've been trying to force Amtrak off their tracks for years.

I'm an locomotive engineer for csx and i would love to see amtrak offer more high speed rail connections between more citys outside the northeast corridor and around chicago. The biggest problem that amtrak faces is that we(the freight railroads) control most of the track they run on. In the high profit markets they own their own track such as in the northeast and around chicago. As for fuel consumtion its unreal how much freight we can move for such little fuel, i bet amtrak can move a amazing amount of people per gallon

The real question now is when private passenger rail might make its return.

With aviation fuel prices pushing the airlines towards insolvency, it is a matter of time.

I want a bullet train. :D If we had trains that could do 300 mph with no unexpected stops then you'd be able to beat an airplane with all of the delays you have when trying to push back from the gate and actually take off.

One of the problems with America is that we feel that we need to live life at 1,000,000 mph. That is one thing riding a bicycle will do, it will show you that life can be more enjoyable at 20 mph.

-Nate

The real question now is when private passenger rail might make its return.

With aviation fuel prices pushing the airlines towards insolvency, it is a matter of time.

At least on the shorter routes, there is very little holding back a private organization from purchasing rolling stock and making runs on existing freight railroads' track.

The numbers already add up on a number of shorter routes.

Ultimately we will need more tracks so you can have something dedicated to passenger service. Otherwise passenger trains are at the mercy of the schedules of freight trains.

CSX has plans in the works for a major upgrade:

http://www.nationalcorridors.org/df2/df05142007.shtml


CSX, the transportation giant that was formed from the Baltimore & Ohio, Chesapeake & Ohio, Western Maryland, Louisville & Nashville, Seaboard Coast Line Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac and others, is proposing a 1,200 mile Miami-Washington super corridor that would greatly expand shipping and passenger rail capacity and, for the first time in the history of American railroads, eliminate 100% of at-grade crossings along the route, Trains Magazine reported this past week.

....

There would be four main tracks between Washington and Richmond, Va., on the former Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac, and three tracks between Richmond and Miami.

Some of the Amtrak routes don't make all that much sense. In the Midwest, the thing goes through at something like 3AM, which is hard to get excited about. For those routes with just 1 train per day, it might make sense to try and concentrate on regional service.

Ultimately we will need more tracks so you can have something dedicated to passenger service.

Are you suggesting that we return the rails-to-trails multi use paths back to rail service? rails-to-trails-to-rails? Some of the paths around DC were once used for passenger rail. It might be the cheapest way to gain right of way.

As for fuel consumtion its unreal how much freight we can move for such little fuel, i bet amtrak can move a amazing amount of people per gallon

Anything to get those damn 5>6 mpg fuel guzzling, soot emitting, driven buy a Delbert Dumbutt,
semi trucks off the highways would be a very good thing. Spending money on rail would require
monies be taken from the highway infastucture but with fewer ,and then only short trip, semi's
on the roads to damage them it would take less money for road maintance.

Right now America's money is going to the wrong infrastucture need to keep Big Oil profitable :mad::mad:

Are you suggesting that we return the rails-to-trails multi use paths back to rail service? rails-to-trails-to-rails? Some of the paths around DC were once used for passenger rail. It might be the cheapest way to gain right of way.

I think I have cycled nearly every mile of the WO&D at one point or another, and I was on it yesterday going to/from work. With regards to that specific trail, the patterns of development adjacent to the trail aren't ideal - lots of low-density housing and parkland, and lots of grade crossings. And given that we are getting Metro out to Dulles, it would seem redundant to try to reclaim that trail.

For long distance rail, there isn't any need to reclaim urban trails. Once Peak Oil hits with a vengeance, we can reclaim freeways for rails. How does that idea grab you :D?

What I really meant by my comment is that lots of rail lines only have two tracks, and some have been downgraded to just one track (to save on maintenance). This makes it hard for a passenger train to pass a slow freight train - they need to wait for the other track to clear before they can hop over and pass. With 3 tracks, you have a sort of passing lane in the middle. If the traffic levels are high enough, then they upgrade to 4 tracks (I presume that this would be treated such that each direction gets it's own passing lane).

Are you suggesting that we return the rails-to-trails multi use paths back to rail service? rails-to-trails-to-rails? Some of the paths around DC were once used for passenger rail. It might be the cheapest way to gain right of way.

Well, part of the purpose of turning the abandoned lines into multiuse paths was to preserve the rights-of-way in case they were needed later.

I think it would be a win/win situation if our foreign trade partners used some of the trillions of dollars they've accumulated to finance about $200 billion of rail improvement in the U.S. Maybe China could reconstruct the freight infrastructure and Japan could install a separate passenger rail system. Add some European designed and financed mass transit for good measure. Foreign dollar holders have run out of conventional places to productively invest their dollar assets, so why not?

~snip~

For long distance rail, there isn't any need to reclaim urban trails. Once Peak Oil hits with a vengeance, we can reclaim freeways for rails. How does that idea grab you :D?

What I really meant by my comment is that lots of rail lines only have two tracks, and some have been downgraded to just one track (to save on maintenance). This makes it hard for a passenger train to pass a slow freight train - they need to wait for the other track to clear before they can hop over and pass. With 3 tracks, you have a sort of passing lane in the middle. If the traffic levels are high enough, then they upgrade to 4 tracks (I presume that this would be treated such that each direction gets it's own passing lane).

I have been suggesting this for several years. Besides the government already owns the right of way;)

Aaron:)

I was at a transportation conference today with the Missouri Department of Transportation (MODOT)

They said that the world was coming to the end as far as road construction in missouri in 2009.

They also said that they will continue to use "practical design" standards when constructing or upgrading roads. That means that they will continue to reject all bicycle and pedestrian accomodations on any of their roads and (even worse) bridges.

I was at a transportation conference today with the Missouri Department of Transportation (MODOT)

They said that the world was coming to the end as far as road construction in missouri in 2009.

They also said that they will continue to use "practical design" standards when constructing or upgrading roads. That means that they will continue to reject all bicycle and pedestrian accomodations on any of their roads and (even worse) bridges.

What did they mean by the "world coming to an end"? That they would not build any more new roads? Did they give the reasoning for this?

What did they mean by the "world coming to an end"? That they would not build any more new roads? Did they give the reasoning for this?

Because they had a huge bond issue called "admendment 3" a few year ago where they borrowed a bunch of money to do a huge amount of road projects. Mo went from near the bottom in the rankings of maintained roads to an estimated 9th. That combined with the federal program geared for bankruptcy without an increase in fed gas tax and huge increases in road construction costs due to high metal and fuel costs spells huge changes.

Yes, they say they would not be able to build any roads and may not be able to maintain what they have.

I was at a transportation conference today with the Missouri Department of Transportation (MODOT)

They said that the world was coming to the end as far as road construction in missouri in 2009.

They also said that they will continue to use "practical design" standards when constructing or upgrading roads. That means that they will continue to reject all bicycle and pedestrian accomodations on any of their roads and (even worse) bridges.

I should note that they never actually said that "practical design" meant that they would reject all bike/ped accomodations but everyone here knows that to be true. We have seen it happen everywhere in Missouri except on those towns that are right by the Katy Trail.

As a former Amtrak employee I'll tell you that it is more efficient than driving alone, and more efficient than flying, but less efficient than stacking up with two or three other people in a compact car. Unless, of course, we're talking about electrified routes (i.e. Northeast Corridor, Keystone Corridor) in which case the train beats other modes of transport stone dead for efficiency.

Diesel locomotives are reasonably efficient but nowhere close to electric. By far the most efficient mode of transportation -- where you get the 600mpg per passenger numbers -- is high speed rail like the French TGV. Amtrak NEC, though much better than diesel, is not as efficient as the TGV because the trains are heavier to comply with the higher safety standards required when you're mixing passenger and freight.

As for fuel consumtion its unreal how much freight we can move for such little fuel,

just to put this in perspective, imagine somebody offers to ship one bicycle frame weighing 10 pounds (with packaging) for you from Los Angeles to New York City, ~2800 miles and all you have to cover is the fuel cost for that amount of freight. That's 0.035 a gallon of diesel, and will run you 13 cents or so. Make it a hundred bike frames and the freight company needs a whopping $13 worth of retail-priced diesel.

(see http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/policy/freight2004.pdf , stating that average USA freight railroads ship a ton 410 miles on one gallon)

I saw this on yahoo's front page this evening.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/transportation/4232548.html

I figured I'd post it since we were talking about trains.

-Nate

diesels are only about 15-20% efficient, eliminating that leaves only the electric motor losses and transmission loss of the electricity which with high voltage a/c isn't much

US trains are limited to 70,000lbs per axle, so a 6 axle diesel loco is normally ballasted to right at 420k lbs so it can apply as much of its 4-6000 hp as it can. Yes, they add weight to them, even with the motor and traction motors and a very strong chassis they still come in underweight. But the electrics have more power, typically the front and rear cars are powered and its substantial, a lot more than you'd think and with only a few cars they really boogie. Thats why they can perform like they do, big diesel freight loco's aren't geared to run like that. Reason they use electric to drive the wheels is control, easier to control than with a clutch or fluid coupling especially when potentially millions of pounds of rolling stock are involved.

Anyway, rail right behind ships is the most efficient way to move big loads, yet the world superpower has a rail system third world countries would laugh at.

I was at a transportation conference today with the Missouri Department of Transportation (MODOT)

They said that the world was coming to the end as far as road construction in missouri in 2009.

They also said that they will continue to use "practical design" standards when constructing or upgrading roads. That means that they will continue to reject all bicycle and pedestrian accomodations on any of their roads and (even worse) bridges.

lots of places are about to be faced with this:
existing roads are now too expensive to maintain as the price has shot up while incoming revenue has not
things like forced bussing will be looked at as obvious places to cut back on city costs
fleets of municipal cars will be less frequently replaced
anything to do with transportation infrastructure is gonna get looked at to be axed

price of asphalt and new road among other things has about doubled in just 2 years, tax revenues have not

Back to the subject at hand...

As others have noted most Amtrak interstate routes only travel at about 30% capacity. This, combined with antiquated locomotives makes long distance passenger train travel inefficient. If the trains were at 80% + capacity it would be much more efficient.

Traveling via rail seems to be appealing for relatively short trips (about 300 miles or less). But for long trips, well, spending an entire day or several days on a train isn't very pleasant. Several years ago I took Amtrak from Seattle to DC - never again.

diesels are only about 15-20% efficient*cough*higher*cough* ;)

*cough*higher*cough* ;)

It cracks me up when you do that *cough* thing. I think you're always right--so far anyway. I'm gonna tray and catch you. :D But pedex seems to be quite the train buff too.

I imagine that diesel locomotives are more that 15 % efficient. But when you think about it, the efficiency of the engine isn't really the important thing. They haul so much tonnage, the whole system is just plain efficient.

Did anybody read John McPhee's essay on the coal trains? He wrote that these huge trains--the largest construction ever built for moving things--are as sensitive as a bicycle. Like a bicyclist, the engineer can feel the slightest grade when he's piloting a coal train. Going over the crest of a tiny hill, the front engines will be braking hard on the descent, while the rear engines are still straining to push the back of the train up the other side of the hill. I'm glad I don't have to do that on my bike!

Sometimes I have to stop for a long freight train on my way home from work, late at night. These are "car trains," hauling shiny new Cadillacs, just built in Lansing a hundred yards from where I stand--14 cars per car, and 200 freight cars or more per train. Other times it's one of the coal trains from Wyoming, pulling up at the power plant that looms over me with stacks more than 600 feet high, unloading coal to run the auto plants. Coal goes in one end and Cadillacs come out the other end, it all moves in trains, and it's all happening right there, where I'm standing in the street by my little bike, watching those trains. Trains are ****ing cool!

^^ what makes them efficient is steel on steel is low friction and they never climb steep grades, which also makes interstate highway to rail conversion a problem, rail beds typically stay well under 3% grades, interstates attempt to stay under 6%

^^ what makes them efficient is steel on steel is low friction and they never climb steep grades, which also makes interstate highway to rail conversion a problem, rail beds typically stay well under 3% grades, interstates attempt to stay under 6%

I agree. It would take some re-engineering of the interstate to convert it to rail, but with the government already owning the ROW it eliminates the land acquisition portion of the equation. And with the exception of some overpasses and the mountains the bulk of the interstate could be converted pretty easily, and from some non-binding conversation with a couple of civil engineers, the newer interstates are built heavy enough that a track could be laid directly on top of the existing roadway with minimal additional requirements.

The article that Dr. nate referenced is interesting reading, especially the graphs on the impact of the different methods of travel.

Aaron:)

^^ what makes them efficient is steel on steel is low friction and they never climb steep grades, which also makes interstate highway to rail conversion a problem, rail beds typically stay well under 3% grades, interstates attempt to stay under 6%

I used to ride a train from Grenoble to Geneva, in the French Alps. It sure feels like those electric passenger trains are going up steeper grades, but I don't know if they really are.

Trains are ****ing cool!

I love trains too, more so the old steam locomotives of the past IMHO.

-Nate

I love trains too, more so the old steam locomotives of the past IMHO.

-Nate

Perhaps. But they produced unacceptable levels of pollution, not to mention being dangerous (boiler explosions.)

Perhaps. But they produced unacceptable levels of pollution, not to mention being dangerous (boiler explosions.)

Not only that, but from a thermodynamic point of view they were very inefficient. In practice, about 6% efficient. Plus the fact that if you start out with a stone-cold engine, it takes hours to build up a head of steam, and you need to stop for water all of the time. In museums the things are fine, but I doubt they will ever make a comeback.

Earlier someone was talking about the efficiency of a diesel - the thermodynamic efficiency can be as much as 40-45% with a diesel engine. That is typically only achieved in ideal circumstances with something like a genset. As it turns out a modern locomotive uses the diesel engine exactly as a genset - it generates electricity which then turns electric motors that turn the wheels. Still there are some losses in the generator/motor, so in real life you get around 30% overall efficiency.

Let's assume you had a need to move rail freight using coal as a fuel. Rather than burn coal in a steam locomotive, it would make far more sense to burn the coal in a power plant. With a combined-cycle design, you can have efficiencies close to 60% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycle). More conventional designes are somewhat less efficient. One would then feed the electricity to an electric locomotive via overhead wires. Plus you are set up to use electricity generated from non-carbon emitting sources as it becomes available.

It may sound kind of cumbersome to have all of these electrics in a diesel-electric locomotive, but this way you avoid the need for a clutch and gearbox. In a big heavy train, the engineer would need to ride the clutch to get the thing up to speed, and in the process burn the thing out - probably before getting out of the yard :eek:.

It cracks me up when you do that *cough* thing. I think you're always right--so far anyway. I'm gonna tray and catch you. :D But pedex seems to be quite the train buff too.

I imagine that diesel locomotives are more that 15 % efficient. But when you think about it, the efficiency of the engine isn't really the important thing. They haul so much tonnage, the whole system is just plain efficient.That's definitely true, but even then, they still try to squeek out every last bit. Peak efficiency for passenger car diesels around the mid seventies was 32.5%, as of the nineties it was ~41%, and currently it's probably a little better. Heavy duty diesel tend to be much better, so I would imagine the diesel on a train operates at around 40+% efficiency easily. Of course, if it isn't direct drive it has to go through the electrical system and motor, but it's still really efficient.

When I was searching for how much energy it would take to electrify rail, I also found out that the entire country switching to CFLs would save enough electricity each year to run all the freight that's currently carried by rail and truck, through electrified rail alone. Of course, it'd take a long time to set up the infrastructure, but like ya said...

Trains are ****ing cool!

:D

When I was searching for how much energy it would take to electrify rail, I also found out that the entire country switching to CFLs would save enough electricity each year to run all the freight that's currently carried by rail and truck, through electrified rail alone. Of course, it'd take a long time to set up the infrastructure, but like ya said...

another issue worth considering is that people are considering the possibility of large-scale coal-to-liquid fuel conversion. Not that switching trains over to electric will entirely remove the desire to do that, but using a higher efficiency coal plant burning a more plentiful fuel and using better filtration systems is a good thing, relative to a diesel train which due to size limits can't achieve quite as much energy efficiency and air-filtration.

Just let's not run our trains on liquid fuel that comes from coal via an inefficient conversion process! In the long term, electricity from coal and other sources is likely to be very plentiful, compared to liquid fossil fuels.

Just let's not run our trains on liquid fuel that comes from coal via an inefficient conversion process! In the long term, electricity from coal and other sources is likely to be very plentiful, compared to liquid fossil fuels.

Of course we can't ignore the carbon problem. Carbon capture and storage in liquid coal generators might be economical given a $30 per ton carbon tax, according to an article in Science last year.

This might be of interest:

http://www.charlotte.com/409/story/394913.html

Well, according to the EIA, you're really lining the pockets of that EVIL country to the north of us. That's right, CANADA!!! :D

Har har.

I read somewhere that this one run was the ONLY one in the entire USA that ever consistently turned a profit. ~

Which highways turn a profit?

Funny, that's the way I always look at it whenever I take any form of public transportation (bus, train, whatever), so I consider my personal environmental footprint to be neutral there. It uses up the same amount of fuel whether I take it or not.Partly true. But each rider is making the same individual decison and for every 50 or 100 riders, the rail service adds or subtracts a car or the bus line adds or subtracts a couple of busses on that route.

Are you suggesting that we return the rails-to-trails multi use paths back to rail service? rails-to-trails-to-rails? Some of the paths around DC were once used for passenger rail. It might be the cheapest way to gain right of way.
That is the plan. Those rails to trails corridors are held in trust for when they need to be used by trains again.

I agree. It would take some re-engineering of the interstate to convert it to rail, but with the government already owning the ROW it eliminates the land acquisition portion of the equation. The rails require a much narrower right of way than the roads, so digging a trench or building a berm or bridge to flatten out the rail line in rolling country won't be too expensive. Of course in the mountains it will be a different story.