Living Car Free - amtrak and fuel consumption

Hi guys,

I am heading from central missouri to washington dc in March and I want to take the train for what I hoped would be just slightly less money in Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad pockets.

However as I searched the internet last night I discovered that its less energy efficient than either a personal car or a commercial airplane. Do you agree or have you found any information that counters that information.

Regardless I think I am going to take it because I will get to see the countryside as I travel and we are not going to have ANY mass transit in this country unless people use it.

I don't think it's accurate that Amtrak is less energy efficient than cars and planes. There's a study from 2000 using data from the 1990s that makes this claim, but it seems only to compare fuel use per mile divided by passengers (not taking into account the enormously larger energy cost of road construction and car manufacturing compared to rail construction and train manufacturing). In any event, there's more current data (http://www.narprail.org/cms/index.php/resources/more/fact_sheet_energy_efficiency/) that suggests the simpler fuel use comparison now tilts in Amtrak's favor.

Of course, comparing Amtrak to the efficiency of a modern country's rail system is another story . . .

Bring your bike along. March is cold rain time in DC but who knows, with global warming and all 2008 might be different.

Rail travel is the second most efficient transportation system, after the bicycle. A train full of people gets close to 600 MPG per passenger mile. A 747 gets 70 MPG PPM. A loaded Prius is only good for 150 MPG PPM. So, rail it away pal.

Rail travel is the second most efficient transportation system, after the bicycle. A train full of people gets close to 600 MPG per passenger mile. A 747 gets 70 MPG PPM. A loaded Prius is only good for 150 MPG PPM. So, rail it away pal.

Source for amtrak please?

Trains are all different from each other.

Here are the two sources that claim amtrak less efficient than a auto and a airplane.

I wonder how efficent al Gores private jets are? I bet he gets 899999999999999999999999999 miles per passenger per gallon because he "cares."

http://www.lafn.org/~dave/trans/energy/fuel-eff-20th-3.html#ss3.21

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

Source for amtrak please?

Trains are all different from each other.

Here are the two sources that claim amtrak less efficient than a auto and a airplane.

I wonder how efficent al Gores private jets are? I bet he gets 899999999999999999999999999 miles per passenger per gallon because he "cares."

http://www.lafn.org/~dave/trans/energy/fuel-eff-20th-3.html#ss3.21

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

If the route you use is busy it will get better than average and if not you'll get worse than average mileage. Here on the North East Corridor as they call it, the trains are often full. I've heard on the radio, that there are links out west that aren't used much.

I could hop aboard a freight train.

My 155#'s plus bike and suitcase probably would not cause 1 additional gallon of diesel to be burned the whole trip.

If they still had boxcars AND I knew where in the hell the train was headed I might try it. I dont feel like sitting on a tanker car or on a car full of coal.

In the movies the people are always in a box car full of scattered hay!!! I doubt its like that in real life.

I could hop aboard a freight train.

My 155#'s plus bike and suitcase probably would not cause 1 additional gallon of diesel to be burned the whole trip.

If they still had boxcars AND I knew where in the hell the train was headed I might try it. I dont feel like sitting on a tanker car or on a car full of coal.

In the movies the people are always in a box car full of scattered hay!!! I doubt its like that in real life.

What about the cows that the scattered hay was put there for???

Bring your bike along. March is cold rain time in DC but who knows, with global warming and all 2008 might be different.

Yeah, no kidding. Today it was sunny and in the 70's. I had put away the summer riding gear for the winter, only to dig it out again :D. If that's not good bike riding weather, tell me what is. No telling what March will be like, so be prepared to bring your bike.

Regarding the rail vs fly question, I would come down in favor of rail. In general rail has the potential to be far more energy efficient, and in the NE corridor, the lines are electrified, so they don't burn any diesel at all.

Now if you were the only passenger on the train it would be seen as a waste of energy, but the same would hold true for a plane with one passenger.

In any event, with rail you don't have the inevitable security lines to deal with.

Rail only suffers when it isn't used, so if everyone won't use it because if others won't it'll be inefficient, it'll always be inefficient.

It's always easy to point the finger at Amtrak because they can't afford to buy modern energy saving locomotives. In addition, Amtrak can't run at higher speeds in many parts of the country due to the fact they are using fright lines.

Come to New Jersey and stand at the Princton station and watch as Amtrak BLASTS past at over 80 mph! It's incredible to see this two story buiding roar past you just 30 feet away.

I am heading from central missouri to washington dc in March and I want to take the train for what I hoped would be just slightly less money in Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad pockets.


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

Chavez still gets a nice cut though. Check it out:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

Their socialist *******s as well.

: )

Interesting topic, I actually planned on taking trips with Amtrak to a lot of places in the country I haven't been before when I made my move... I still see that happening.

For what you get from Amtrack the prices are pretty out of control (off of the eastern corridor anyway). As far as fuel consumption my guess has been that Greyhound is probably still the best. Every intercity bus I've ever been on was full, as in no empty seats full. They also throw a bunch of US Postal mail in the empty spaces in the cargo compartment. My guess would be that they are making an incredibly good use (in terms of passenger miles and freight miles) for every gallon of diesel they buy. To top it off they are still the least expensive way of moving across the country and in my experience will get you there at about the same speed or maybe a little slower than amtrak, but almost always on time.

As car fee methods of travel I really like the bus and train as they typically drop you in the middle of a cities downtown which is often near where you are going anyway.

It's always easy to point the finger at Amtrak because they can't afford to buy modern energy saving locomotives. In addition, Amtrak can't run at higher speeds in many parts of the country due to the fact they are using fright lines.

Come to New Jersey and stand at the Princton station and watch as Amtrak BLASTS past at over 80 mph! It's incredible to see this two story buiding roar past you just 30 feet away.
Well now,,,,
the only Amtrak run that is "good" is the Boston-DC Acela express. And by strange coincidence, I read somewhere that this one run was the ONLY one in the entire USA that ever consistently turned a profit.

Living in the midwest I can tell you--when most of the coal mining stopped (due to regulations against high-sulfur coal) many of the rail lines were torn up or abandoned, and many of the unprofitable Amtrak train routes became outright impossible. When you "go Amtrak" now, in most of the USA it means you're riding a bus.
~

CSX ad's say that a train can move one ton of freight 440 miles on one gallon
of diesel fuel. Amtark should be about the same.

CSX ad's say that a train can move one ton of freight 440 miles on one gallon
of diesel fuel. Amtark should be about the same.

The thing is though that rail can easily be electrified by hanging overhead wires, and using electric locomotives. They do this all over Europe, and in the end can move freight without burning any diesel fuel.

Mag-Lev :D

For what you get from Amtrack the prices are pretty out of control (off of the eastern corridor anyway). As far as fuel consumption my guess has been that Greyhound is probably still the best. Every intercity bus I've ever been on was full, as in no empty seats full. They also throw a bunch of US Postal mail in the empty spaces in the cargo compartment. My guess would be that they are making an incredibly good use (in terms of passenger miles and freight miles) for every gallon of diesel they buy. To top it off they are still the least expensive way of moving across the country and in my experience will get you there at about the same speed or maybe a little slower than amtrak, but almost always on time.

As car fee methods of travel I really like the bus and train as they typically drop you in the middle of a cities downtown which is often near where you are going anyway.

The newer interurban buses get about 11 miles per gallon of diesel fuel. Divide that by a capacity of 56 passengers (or more, depending on configuration), and the figures are impressive.

*cough*Multiply*cough*

Mag-Lev :D

Yeah, that's one of those cool ideas that is just too expensive to deploy.

Yeah, that's one of those cool ideas that is just too expensive to deploy.

If you told me I could cut my commute from one hour to ten minutes, I would glady play...and so would most of the residents who live on the West Side of Houston. :D Plus, it makes a really cool "whoosh" sound at 200 mph when it goes by.

-Nate

*cough*Multiply*cough*

Right. I was mixing my units. (Fuel consumed per passenger mile vs. passenger miles per gallon)

Anyhoo, the fuel figures for newer buses are impressive, when calculated correctly. The next generation is using ultra-low sulphur diesel fuel and hybrid technology to reduce pollution even more. And I believe you were the one who explained to me why trains are inherently efficient, using the analogy of cyclists in a paceline.

A train (particularly if longer) is roughly 4-8x as efficient as a bus for moving passengers, due to less frontal area relative to volume, the reduced rolling resistance of steel wheels on steel rails, and the minimal grades that trains deal with.

Anyhoo, the fuel figures for newer buses are impressive, when calculated correctly. The next generation is using ultra-low sulphur diesel fuel and hybrid technology to reduce pollution even more. And I believe you were the one who explained to me why trains are inherently efficient, using the analogy of cyclists in a paceline.

Houston's METRO has a few of those hybrid buses, they run quieter, don't belch black smoke out, and you can't even tell it is a hybrid!

-Nate

I've ridden Amatrak and Greyhound and there's no comparison. Amtrack is much more comfortable even though but travel at the same speeds. I feel this way about Lightrail and commuter buses. The lightrail is just a better way to commute and this is the reason I moved 3 blocks away from a stop. It's too bad most people on this forum will never understand this because they lack the experience.

Amtrak can run far more efficient but this is going to require money.

And I believe you were the one who explained to me why trains are inherently efficient, using the analogy of cyclists in a paceline.I did? That sounds exceptionally rational, not something i usually do... :eek:

P.S. Yes, hybrid HDVs are 101% great for lots of stop and go, ala city buses, garbage trucks, yard hostlers, etc...

I've ridden Amatrak and Greyhound and there's no comparison. Amtrack is much more comfortable even though but travel at the same speeds. I feel this way about Lightrail and commuter buses. The lightrail is just a better way to commute and this is the reason I moved 3 blocks away from a stop. It's too bad most people on this forum will never understand this because they lack the experience.

Amtrak can run far more efficient but this is going to require money.

Just don't ride amtrak between montreal and New York City. The seats are as comfortable as anywhere else but the scheduled run is slower than greyhound, and more often than not it runs 2-4 hours behind schedule.

I also avoid amtrak these days because I find the buses comfortable enough and I can't really afford the extra cost of amtrak.

Just don't ride amtrak between montreal and New York City. The seats are as comfortable as anywhere else but the scheduled run is slower than greyhound, and more often than not it runs 2-4 hours behind schedule.

I also avoid amtrak these days because I find the buses comfortable enough and I can't really afford the extra cost of amtrak.

Between DC and NYC greyhound's scheduled runs are shamefully slow and to add insult to injury the drivers don't seem to give a hoot about keeping the schedule.

Amtrak>ChinatownBus>Flying>Greyhound

In any case, I'm guessing the poor Amtrak fuel numbers are due to the empty diesel trains running in some parts of the country.

I agree that trains are more comfortable and more romantic than buses, but I think the snob factor is pretty high in favor of trains also. They do cost twice as much as a bus in many cases, and the service is much more limited. I'm just saying, don't write off Greyhound if you're carfree. It can be a rgeat way to go.

BTW, a lot of the regional bus lines beat Greyhound hands down for comfort and convenience. For example, Indian Trails in the Great Lakes area is a great bus company--business-class type seats, free bottled water, helpful divers and clean buses.

I've ridden Amatrak and Greyhound and there's no comparison. Amtrack is much more comfortable even though but travel at the same speeds. I feel this way about Lightrail and commuter buses. The lightrail is just a better way to commute and this is the reason I moved 3 blocks away from a stop. It's too bad most people on this forum will never understand this because they lack the experience.

Amtrak can run far more efficient but this is going to require money.

My problem with Amtrak is that for the cost of an airline ticket you should get there at a relatively fast speed and with comparable accuracy to the schedule. Arriving 12 hours behind schedule at your destination is just unacceptable at an airline price point. I work hard for my money and I expect others to work hard to get my money and amtrak just isn't interested. (Now granted alot of it isn't their fault but they should fix the problems rather than looking for excuses).

Now with greyhound I can travel at a 10th or less the expense of amtrak arrive at about the same time and arrive on schedule. Okay so I'm _more_ uncomfortable for the 24 hours of the journey, but frankly I was pretty uncomfortable after 36 hours (12 more than I had signed up for) on an amtrak journey. Basically what I'm saying is that until either the trains travel at 100+ mph or the prices come down 90 percent I'm not going to be using amtrak.

Again: I've never been on a greyhound bus with more than a couple of empty seats and a full cargo compartment. The trains I've been on (in the west/midwest) have been empty (think echo) maybe a dozen people in a car that could hold a hundred. Seems like a waste of fuel (and money) hauling all the steel that makes up those empty cars.

The thing is though that rail can easily be electrified by hanging overhead wires, and using electric locomotives. They do this all over Europe, and in the end can move freight without burning any diesel fuel.

And where does all the "extra" electricty come from?

I've ridden Amatrak and Greyhound and there's no comparison. Amtrack is much more comfortable even though but travel at the same speeds. I feel this way about Lightrail and commuter buses. The lightrail is just a better way to commute and this is the reason I moved 3 blocks away from a stop. It's too bad most people on this forum will never understand this because they lack the experience.

Amtrak can run far more efficient but this is going to require money.

Houston has finally decided to expand it's light rail program from a single seven mile stretch to include more lines now. The problem with our light rail is that you don't actually have to pay to board the train; one can simply walk on. It is up to METRO PD to be police the trains for non-payers. However, I know of several people who are fed up with the smell of homeless people, all of those who don't pay, and a lack of police presence on the trains. I'm hoping METRO can improve their service, I ride it as part of my commute and like the train.

I wish we had a transportation system that used rail to the point of DC, New York, or Chicago.

I have to agree with the other post, Amtrak was actually more expensive for a ticket to Cincinnati then a plane ticket when I went last spring. I would rather spend half a day dealing with airports and airlines then spend 24+ hours dealing with a train.

-Nate

Um, unless I'm misunderstanding the original question...

gosmsgo is one person, talking about taking one trip. The Amtrak train will run with or without him on it, and will be as efficient weather he rides it or not (unless he weighs like 7000 lbs). If he drives, the train still runs.

gosmsgo, you will use less fuel if you take the train. You'll be "using" fuel that was going to be used anyway.

And where does all the "extra" electricty come from?The extra electricity needed to run rail is ~20 billion kWh/year (http://railrunner.com/blog/index.php), which is about .5% of demand since we produce ~4 trillion kWh/year. I'm pretty sure we could scrounge up that electricity if we really needed to though demand side policy alone....

Um, unless I'm misunderstanding the original question...

gosmsgo is one person, talking about taking one trip. The Amtrak train will run with or without him on it, and will be as efficient weather he rides it or not (unless he weighs like 7000 lbs). If he drives, the train still runs.

gosmsgo, you will use less fuel if you take the train. You'll be "using" fuel that was going to be used anyway.

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.

Houston has finally decided to expand it's light rail program from a single seven mile stretch to include more lines now. The problem with our light rail is that you don't actually have to pay to board the train; one can simply walk on. It is up to METRO PD to be police the trains for non-payers. However, I know of several people who are fed up with the smell of homeless people, all of those who don't pay, and a lack of police presence on the trains. I'm hoping METRO can improve their service, I ride it as part of my commute and like the train.

I wish we had a transportation system that used rail to the point of DC, New York, or Chicago.

I have to agree with the other post, Amtrak was actually more expensive for a ticket to Cincinnati then a plane ticket when I went last spring. I would rather spend half a day dealing with airports and airlines then spend 24+ hours dealing with a train.

-Nate

Every light rail system I've ever been on is like that.

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.

I agree, which is why I fly (its quicker and cheaper on my last trip them Amtrak). I am personally a fan of trains...more so the old steam locomotives. I finally got to ride on one last year, my fiancee thought I was the biggest dork...I made her take my pictures in front of it. :o

Back on topic...

-Nate

I agree, which is why I fly (its quicker and cheaper on my last trip them Amtrak).

-Nate

That's not necessarily true though. Flights frequently get canceled or combined if the passenger count is low. One person just might make that difference.

That's not necessarily true though. Flights frequently get canceled or combined if the passenger count is low. One person just might make that difference.

In addition they base the number of planes they fly on a particular route next year on that routes performance this year. Every passenger counts.

However amtrak may be different. They seem willing to run trains with negative numbers of passengers. So regarding the original poster go ahead and take the train guilt free.

I bought a ticket on Greyhound to take me from New Orleans to Los Angeles and back for $169.00 in 2002 just before Thanksgiving. It took 48 hours to do the trip (one way) with several bus changes. It was my first very long bus trip. It was horrible.

The bus was crowded and the passengers were noisy. Parents wouldn't control their children, some people smelled bad, and some of the drivers seemed to have a death wish. Only one bus had a comfortable seat.

Despite all of that, I arrived on schedule.

I dreaded the return trip.

I have used Amtrak a couple of times in my life. Trains are more comfortable especially if you get a sleeper compartment. I wouldn't use Amtrak today for any trip outside the Northeast Corridor because that is the only place Amtrak keeps to its schedule. Amtrak doesn't deserve your money if it can't get you where you need to be on time. I wonder how many thousands of people loose money on hotel reservations and meeting connecting flights or busses due to Amtrak being so late all the time?

If you want to take a train to experience train travel it will be an economical way to travel from a fuel perspective. Whether it will be economical from a time and money perspective is another story. Call the train station for a few days and inquire about the route you will take to find out if the train is ever on time. Maybe they have that information online.

The thing is though that rail can easily be electrified by hanging overhead wires, and using electric locomotives. They do this all over Europe, and in the end can move freight without burning any diesel fuel.
And where does all the "extra" electricty come from?

Coincidentally, I was talking to the conductor on my NJTransit train the other day. He says NJTransit and Amtrak use electric locomotives because they're more powerful; diesels just cannot get up to comparable speeds. People think diesels are inefficient because they are slower and smell bad but, he said, they're actually more efficient. Disclaimer: what do I know, I'm only reporting a conversation with a NJTransit employee.

Um, unless I'm misunderstanding the original question...

gosmsgo is one person, talking about taking one trip. The Amtrak train will run with or without him on it, and will be as efficient weather he rides it or not (unless he weighs like 7000 lbs). If he drives, the train still runs.

gosmsgo, you will use less fuel if you take the train. You'll be "using" fuel that was going to be used anyway.

If policy makers looked at it the same way then there wouldn't be any train at all. After all, most people are going to drive whether the train runs or not; So, by the same reasoning, having a train run at all is just wasting energy.

No, the important thing is which is more efficient per passenger mile.

Besides, if you don't drive then whose to say that someone else isn't going to fill your spot due to reduced traffic and reduced demand for gas? Then you might think that a car is still going to be using the fuel whether you're the one driving it or not.

I also avoid amtrak these days because I find the buses comfortable enough and I can't really afford the extra cost of amtrak.

Also, AmTrak hardly goes anywhere, and where it does go the schedule has one there at oh-dark-hundred.

The thing is though that rail can easily be electrified by hanging overhead wires, and using electric locomotives....
This is true, and trains are basically the only thing it is true for.

Trains are the only commonly-used vehicles worldwide that are often electric--and the reason is that by using overhead lines to supply power, they are free of the restrictions of current battery technology.

Any time some nut-job tells you that "car companies can build good cheap electric cars but they just refuse to", feel free to ask them what example they are basing this conclusion on.
~

Any time some nut-job tells you that "car companies can build good cheap electric cars but they just refuse to", feel free to ask them what example they are basing this conclusion on.It's just use and cost compared to design. Efficient vehicles, be it gas, electric, diesel, etc... Only serve to end the reason why they came about in the fist place, which is high fuel prices, so a manufacturer can easily loose out when it comes to making fuel efficient vehicles if fuel prices dive just like they can loose out when it comes to making fuel inefficient vehicles if fuel prices jump. That being said, oil companies own controlling interests in the big three IIRC, so even if the stock they own takes a dive because GM is cranking out inefficient vehicles, if their stock/profits increase more because of gasoline's inelasticity, it's a win/win situation for them. Not that this is anything new, creating "opportunities" is a key part of a business' profitability.

In short, we don't have readily available cost-effective forms of transportation because it ain't profitable for anyone big to make 'em. You can put one together yourself if ya get an itch to, and it'll be cheaper than anything short of an older deesul on veggie, so it would definitely be cheaper for the consumer if a larger auto maker put out a short to moderate range EV, but the auto maker's controlling interests wouldn't make money of it, they would actually loose a significant amount. And while the automaker/dealer may be able to make a decent amount off of each sale, they would likely loose way more in service work/parts. Ever try to buy a car piece by piece? That should give you a good idea about the mark ups present. The worst par imo is that the automaker still makes a good chunk off of new sales, s the profit margins on parts are obscene.

I have used Amtrak a couple of times in my life. Trains are more comfortable especially if you get a sleeper compartment. I wouldn't use Amtrak today for any trip outside the Northeast Corridor because that is the only place Amtrak keeps to its schedule. Amtrak doesn't deserve your money if it can't get you where you need to be on time. I wonder how many thousands of people loose money on hotel reservations and meeting connecting flights or busses due to Amtrak being so late all the time?

If you want to take a train to experience train travel it will be an economical way to travel from a fuel perspective. Whether it will be economical from a time and money perspective is another story. Call the train station for a few days and inquire about the route you will take to find out if the train is ever on time. Maybe they have that information online.

What is largely unknown by the general public is that Amtrak is forced to share rail on freight company
owned rails. Amtrak doesn't 'own' any rails of it's own. That said,Amtrak is forced to wait on all fright
trains using the same rails which rips up any on time chances.

In order to get more funding to rebuild passenger rail service in America more people need to ride
Amtrak and raise hell with their Congressmen/Senators to get passenger rail upgraded to at least
the same standards that work so well in Europe and Japan. America's passenger rail service is a
disgrace to America on a grand scale.

Coincidentally, I was talking to the conductor on my NJTransit train the other day. He says NJTransit and Amtrak use electric locomotives because they're more powerful; diesels just cannot get up to comparable speeds. People think diesels are inefficient because they are slower and smell bad but, he said, they're actually more efficient. Disclaimer: what do I know, I'm only reporting a conversation with a NJTransit employee.

I'm pretty sure the NJTransit conductor was wrong. Diesel locomotives are a type of electric locomotive with a diesel power plant onboard. There is no gain in efficiency by carrying the power plant on the train, since you can't use a high-efficiency giant-size power plant. It also takes up space and increases weight but that's no big deal (though a locomotive of limited size should provide more power if all of the space is devoted to converting electricity to motion and none devoted to converting diesel=>motion=>electricity first.)

The energy losses in long distance transmission wires are very small.

However, it costs lots of money to put wires over the tracks, and diesel trains are already ridiculously fuel-efficient compared to cars and trucks.

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.