Cincinnati Streetcars (Edison, Wilson: appointed, unemployed, public schools)

[jjakucyk]

The coefficient of rolling resistance for steel railroad wheels on steel rails is 0.0002 to 0.0010 whereas for rubber automobile tires on concrete it is 0.010 to 0.015. Thus there is rubber tired vehicles have more than 10 times the rolling resistance of steel on steel.

Overhead electric is expensive infrastructure, no doubt about that. However, the transmission losses are minimal. The entire US electrical grid experiences about 6.5% transmission/distribution loss. That's more than made up for by the more efficiently scaled power generating equipment at power plants versus in locomotives. Also, even if the same diesel fuel were used at a power plant as in the locomotive, there are much better pollution controls at the plant. Don't forget also that there's no pollution along the rail line itself.

Despite how heavy trains may be (and there is a big problem with the FRA here in the US requiring passenger trains to be excessively heavy to meet ridiculous crash standards on shared freight lines), they still beat out most other modes. According to the US Department of Energy's Center for Transportation Analysis (table 2.12) (http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb29/Edition29_Chapter02.pdf - broken link) the energy use per passenger in BTU's is lowest for trains compared to cars, trucks, buses, and airplanes, with the exception of motorcycles. Cars and personal trucks use about 3,500 BTU per passenger mile, Motorcycles 1,900, buses 4,300, domestic airlines 3,000, and trains 2,500. Yes, trains (and especially airplanes) have a very high energy consumption per vehicle, but per passenger energy use is still low, even when not full. Keep in mind that passenger cars are also very much underutilized as well, with an average of 1.6 occupants per vehicle I believe.

There are plenty of reasons not to like petroleum. Yes, it is a highly dense fuel that is readily available and easy to use. That doesn't mean it's perfect. It is cheap, for now, but it will not continue to be cheap if we keep using it the way we do, nor if we keep meddling in the political affairs of unstable nations who supply it. It is most certainly not clean. Despite all the efforts made to better refine it and to control its emissions, we're still plagued with smog in many areas of the world. Spills from tankers, or from underground storage tanks cause huge contamination issues. Petroleum yields many volatile and highly complex compounds, most of which are highly poisonous, and must be carefully controlled when burned.

To say the most efficient people mover is the subcompact car is such a broad and inaccurate generalization I shouldn't even have to explain it. Nobody is trying to say cars are useless, or that they have no place in the world, but they're also not the single perfect solution to all transportation needs either. A car, no matter how subcompact it may be, is not the most efficient (which you don't define anyway) for a major city with no parking and lots of traffic. Walking or taking transit or riding a moped or bicycle would be more "efficient" in that instance. There is no black-and-white situation where all trains are bad and all cars are good, or vice versa. Wilson, honestly, you're the one showing prejudice and non-analytical thinking here.

[Wilson513]

Originally Posted by jjakucyk

The coefficient of rolling resistance for steel railroad wheels on steel rails is 0.0002 to 0.0010 whereas for rubber automobile tires on concrete it is 0.010 to 0.015. Thus there is rubber tired vehicles have more than 10 times the rolling resistance of steel on steel.

Then, the big problem is holding those train cars back. Every time they head downhill, geez, they just roll forever. Unlike trucks which bring themselves to a stop on account of all that friction.

Originally Posted by jjakucyk

Wilson, honestly, you're the one showing prejudice and non-analytical thinking here.

Yea, that's why I am rejecting a technology that has already been rejected by the marketplace 60 years ago. Oh, yea, I forgot, GM bought up all the trains and killed off that great technology for moving people. Or, was it GE. I can't keep those conspiracy theories straight.

Horse and buggy I'd consider. Passenger trains? No thanks.

[DarkWolf]

Since these are Streetcars they don't have to be heavy like Passenger Railway cars , same with Light Rail and Subway cars......hench why its easier and cheaper to build Streetcars as opposed to Commuter Rail.

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by wilson1010

Yea, that's why I am rejecting a technology that has already been rejected by the marketplace 60 years ago. Oh, yea, I forgot, GM bought up all the trains and killed off that great technology for moving people. Or, was it GE. I can't keep those conspiracy theories straight.

"Rejecting a technology" based on sound reasoning is one thing. Rejecting it on opinion unsupported by facts is quite another.

Between 1890 - 1920, the U.S. was leading in track mileage and utilization.
Taken for a Ride - How General Motors (GM) Conspired to Destroy Rail Trolley Systems
The Streetcar Conspiracy - How General Motors Deliberately Destroyed Public Transit (http://saveourwetlands.org/streetcar.htm - broken link)

In 1921, GM lost $65 million, leading GM to conclude that the auto market was saturated, that those who desired cars already owned them, and that the only way to increase GM's sales and restore its profitability was by eliminating its principal rival: electric railways.
At the time, 90 percent of all trips were by rail, chiefly electric rail; only one in 10 Americans owned an automobile. There were 1,200 separate electric street and interurban railways, a thriving and profitable industry with 44,000 miles of track, 300,000 employees, 15 billion annual passengers, and $1 billion in income. Virtually every city and town in America of more than 2,500 people had its own electric rail system.

There was no "rejection" of the technology by the masses.

But by the determined effort of GM's National City Lines, to first get control over urban rail, discredit it (firing staff, rescheduling routes, and making it appear that streetcars were causing traffic jams, etc), then substituting buses, they "drove" people into buying automobiles (Buses were NOT an acceptable substitute for the trains).
Another factor was the increase in taxes (income taxes, property taxes, etc), that chipped away at the profitability of urban rail, while subsidizing road based transit (trucks, buses, automobiles).
And let us not forget the "progressives", like Mayor LaGuardia, who were determined to "take over" privately owned mass transit - and whose mismanagement stifled any growth or improvement.
In addition, America was Queen of Oil for the first half of the 20th century. So cheap and plentiful oil was a selling point. But after 1970, that excuse was no longer sufficient.

The conspirators destroyed the rail rights of way, and now, we're stuck with a mode of transportation that is most wasteful of fuel, of resources, of surface area, and of our environment. That is something to weep about.

An overhead electric train is marginally better than a diesel electric.

The Oil Drum | Multiple Birds
Simply electrifying existing (diesel) rail freight would trade 2.6 to 3 BTUs of diesel for one BTU of electricity.

2.6 to 3:1 is not "marginally better" - it is phenomenally better.
Unless you consider a 61% drop in energy consumption to be "marginal".
(*And that's just for switching from diesel-electric to electric locomotives. Switching cargo from diesel trucks saves 17 to 21 BTUs of oil, per BTU of electricity - a 94% drop in energy consumption!)

Paved roads filled with vehicles are not the solution to the transportation needs of the 21st century. They have a bottleneck (2000 - 2050 vehicles per hour), while rail is far more scalable. By some estimates a single track has the equivalent carrying capacity of nine lanes of superhighway. A four track urban rail system (like NYC's subway - train) is the equivalent of 36 lanes of superhighway.

[Cincy-Rise]

Wilson, the sad part is ... Everything jetpack is posting for you here, I've already (apparently) wasted my time explaining some months back.

If this were pure speculation with no sound reasoning and if it hadn't already proven itself as a sound resolution (yes, resolution as in, we currently have a major problem on our hands) then I and many others would probably be open to the automobile.

Whatever solution we come up with, one thing is for sure... We need to get off of our current oil addictive state where we rely on a system that puts our current need for foreign oil from a country we don't get along with too well and create our own method of transportation that we have control over and is easy to maintain.

What we know:
Oil will continue to rise in price and many families won't be able to afford to commute to work and back.
Our current infrastructure is crumbling and sucking our resources to repaid and rebuild to an out of reach state. Some cities cannot even afford to repaid damaged bridges and potholes now.

With all-electric vehicles and 40+MPG vehicles becoming a reality our Highway Trust fund won't make it a decade - meaning we'll be moving to a tax on a per-mile tax ... in other words, we're back to where we started.


Btw, Wilson ... I don't mind your hurling insults at me or anyone else directly or indirectly ... just don't try to call me out on it when you do the same. It's hard to take a hypocrite seriously. You know what I'm saying?

[deg1114]

^
You notice Cincy-Rise, that I had to give up. Maybe too late in the game - should have done it long ago. Even when presented with overwhelming facts, some do not get it.

It reminds me of an article I read not too long ago that seems to be fitting for some posting in this thread:

How facts backfire - The Boston Globe

[Cincy-Rise]

^ It doesn't matter to Wilson, because:
1. He has a short commute in his black Mercedes.
2. He'll be dead in twenty to thirty years so he won't see the results of our poor choices.

He's out of touch with reality and he has no desire for alternative options.

[progmac]

Originally Posted by Cincy-Rise

^ It doesn't matter to Wilson, because:
1. He has a short commute in his black Mercedes.
2. He'll be dead in twenty to thirty years so he won't see the results of our poor choices.

Can we argue without personal attacks? I want the streetcar too, but certainly understand that there are legitimate reasons for feeling different about it.

[kjbrill]

Originally Posted by progmac

Can we argue without personal attacks? I want the streetcar too, but certainly understand that there are legitimate reasons for feeling different about it.

Unfortunately, apparently NO. The polarization appears to be too great. Those who believe some great conspiracy among large US automotive companies to drive the railroads out of business are very smug in their beliefs. These same people must believe there was a government conspiracy behind the JFK assassination, plus who knows what else which affected our lives, including the 9/11 bombings. These same people likely believe the local German population ran amonk with German sympathizers during the two world wars.

Our own distrust of our local neighbor is going to be our undoing. If you cannot trust your neighbor, who are you going to trust?

[Sarah Perry]

I don't know about a great conspiracy, but from the history I've read, the early car manufacturers exerted a powerful influence on federal legislation and policy making. Kind of like Big Oil and Big Pharma and Big Whatever do now. All it really took was a public policy commitment to abandon rail in favor of interstate highways and suburban sprawl, and as they say, the die was cast. Or, we were started hurtling at breakneck speed down the road to the untenable place we now find ourselves.