Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Did the law of Physics suddenly change?
Bottom line : rail has a 20:1 advantage.
So what?
Energy efficiency under absolutely ideal conditions is not a useful metric.
When rail doesn't/can't serve the vast majority of the population it's irrelevant.
You also failed to address the more important issues:
Does the method of transport take you from where you are to where you want to go?
Does the method of transport meet your scheduling needs?
Is the method of transport economically viable for the user?
Does the method of transport allow the user to transport what the user needs to transport?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
Your rebuttal based on "ideal" doesn't recognize that the automobile is anything but ideal, nor frugal.
Based on what metric?
Compared to what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
Consider that without HUGE SUBSIDY at taxpayer's expense, the automobile would not have paved roads to travel upon, nor convenient fuel distribution stations, nor even relatively inexpensive fuel.
Irrelevant when you aren't a taxpayer...so what's your complaint?
On the other hand when the taxpayers drive cars - spending their tax payments on infrastructure that benefits them as opposed to something that doesn't (e.g. trains...) I don't see your complaint as having much merit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
But that's part of the whole issue - hidden costs that when considered, show that the automobile is an economic boat anchor.
... as opposed to trains? Get real.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
It's one of the reasons why Americans consume more fuel per capita than other developed nations.
Irrelevant!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
If you don't mind working a large portion of your life to support your automobile habit - that's your choice. But when you compel everyone, via government, to support your habit, then we have a problem.
Talking about the pot calling the kettle black.
1. Who do you believe is being "compelled"?
2. There is no "we" in this. You think you have a problem.
3. Your comments are really laughable when you are trying to promote railroad over car and complaining about "subsidies".
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
The automobile is "Wasteful" of a) fuel, b) surface area, c) resources, d) health, and e) safety.
How is the automobile "wasteful" of fuel?
How is the automobile wasteful of "surface area"?
How does the automobile waste resources?
How does is the automobile "wasteful" of health?
How is the automobile "wasteful" of safety?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
The number of traffic fatalities due to automobiles is staggering when compared to ALL OTHER FORMS of transportation.
Maybe because automobiles are more prevalent than "all other forms". Not surprising.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
The cost in infrastructure is huge, as well as the cost for maintenance and repair.
....and you'd have readers believe trains are free....and you've not mentioned the infrastructure costs for trains.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
The simple fact that population is growing is reason enough to transition back to rail. One track of rail has the potential carrying capacity of 9 lanes of a superhighway. The pre-automobile compact city design was predicated on efficient rail transportation. The finite amount of land needed by humans cannot sustain the ever growing amount of land needed for roads.
Maybe workable in some situations in some places in the country. Not a solution for the overwhelming number of citizens.
I'm not going to bother with your fuel analysis because it's irrelevant. Moreover the data is facially suspect (not that it's relevant) because your "passenger miles per gallon" column included an entry for the "Tesla Roadster" which is a battery only vehicle. No gallons involved at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
CONVENIENCE
The current automobile based design paradigm is NOT convenient for rail.
So?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
All arguments that rely on that point are not persuasive.
You mean you want to ignore reality because it is inconvenient not to.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
When / if all subsidies and penalties are removed from the economic equation, the obvious answer is 'get America back on track.'
Oh puhlease. Rail is highly subsidized in most places where it exists and it is not used by the vast majority of the population because it does not meet their transportation needs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
IN parallel with transitioning back to rail would be construction that was convenient to the rail network, just as it was in the 19th and early 20th century.
Finally, multi-modal transportation would include pneumatic tire on pavement vehicles but at a far smaller number (80% less).
So what?
<snipped>
I think I just saw a flying pig....
Apparently, you believe that your convenience is more important.
OK. That's your opinion.
However, with a finite budget, finite surface area, limited fuel / energy, electric traction rail is the most efficient means to move cargo and passengers on land. (Water transport is the most efficient, though slow)
(Note: All those previous links went into great detail, which deal with or answered your objections and questions raised.)
Since you resorted to personal slurs, you've capitulated, lacking any real facts to dispute what was already posted.
THANK YOU.
The Most Efficient Mode Of Transportation In America Isn't A Prius -- It's A Train
Think hybrids that go 60 miles on a gallon are efficient? Trains can go eight times as far with 2,000 pounds in their backseat. And they’re only getting smarter.
- - - - -
Based on the ever dwindling reserve of cheap petroleum, finite surface area, and population growth, transitioning to electric traction rail transportation will continue until it becomes the dominant form of land transport.
And with that change will come consolidation of population into compact cities, towns, and villages, as the cost to live in suburban sprawl (and the need for an automobile) becomes unsustainable.
All those sleepy railroad towns may be waking up in the coming years, once the railroads revive.
Sorry, but the railroads have already "revived"; the process began in the late Seventies and intensified after 1985. But changes in the basic market structure for transportation make it unlikely that they will ever regain the dominance they enjoyed a century ago.
The railroad network of 1920 dominated all freight transportation because, with the exceptions of inland waterways (barges, etc -- which would get a big boost from Federal development of the navigable rivers), coastal steamers and pipelines, it was the only game in town. Shippers understood that there was no alternative to the fully-interchangeable freight car, and business had to be adapted to it. Piers all over New York harbor were served by tugboats and car floats, and large warehouses, usually operated by the railroads, held huge inventories of basic consumer goods (which, BTW, commanded a much smaller potential market), and which could be delivered to local merchants by what were referred to as "dray lines" or "cartage companies".
But all this began to change with the development of the all-weather highway. Interestingly, livestock, a commodity NOT generally associated with urban life, was one of the first examples of high-value freight lost to trucking.
By 1960, truckers were making huge inroads on the freight which contributed the most toward the rail industry's huge burden of "overhead" for maintenance, property taxes, and indirect expenses such as dispatching and traffic control. And "the writing was clearly on the wall" with the impending completion of the Interstate Highway System. Dressed meat traffic from the Great Plains to the Eastern Seaboard, eroding for years, virtually disappeared within a few months after the completion of toll-free Interstate 80 across Pennsylvania in the summer of 1970, to cite a prominent example.
The railroads had fought back, and fought hard; special loading arrangements for high-value merchandise (Evans "DF" systems) cushioned under-frames, and the supposed panacea of Trailer-on-Flat-Car ("piggyback") all were tried, and bought some time, but didn't have much of an effect over the long run. The wide variations in the sizes and configuration of of TOFC systems heavily diminished their efficiency. Ironically, in the 1970's freight car builders resorted to a last shot of plain-Jane boxcars, usually leased to unknown short-lines and sporting very pretty paint jobs; a lot of them are still around today, performing very gritty duties -- the paint wore off years ago and was supplanted by "tagging" (graffiti), courtesy of self-appointed urbanite "artisans".
Ironically, in the middle of these long years of decline, a fresh approach was voiced. John G. Kneiling (1920-2000) was a semi-self-employed mechanical engineer who caught the attention of David P. Morgan (1925-1990), editor of the nation's most prominent rail hobbyist publication (Trains magazine): Morgan set Kneiling up with a monthly column in which he proposed a number of measures, many of which would have been illegal under the regulatory structure of the day, and which centered around jettisoning the separable-car technology in favor of solid trainloads between a single origin and destination. Depending upon your point of view, ol' JGK was either loved or hated, but he certainly wasn't silent.
By 1980 with virtually all Eastern railroads in bankruptcy and the disease spreading to Midwestern systems like the Milwaukee and the Rock Island, a handful of men, including several railroad CEO's, United Transportation Union President James Brunkenhoefer, and Rep Harley Staggers (D-WV) came to the realization that without deregulation measures similar to those which had shaken up the trucking industry post-1977, the entire rail network was slouching toward eventual nationalization. The combination of the Staggers Act of 1981 and serious work-rules reform -- reduction in crew sizes from five men per train to two, (with elimination of the once-familiar caboose), and a doubling of the average day's journey for freight service from 125 mile to 250 -- proved so successful that almost all of the trackage conveyed to Conrail was either returned to private ownership or abandoned as redundant, and there is no major North American railroad experiencing financial difficulties at present.
It was a revival experienced by no other major American industry, with the exception of natural gas, and it was a beautiful thing to witness from the inside, but the system that emerged from the ashes is not intended to haul anything, in any quantity, from anywhere to anywhere. Traffic has been loosely segregated into container trains, with most equipment of uniform and fully-interchangeable 28- and 53-foot lengths, long line-hauls and local pick-up and delivery by motor carrier, or movement of basic commodities in bulk (what Mr. Kneiling dubbed "boxes and rocks"). Whats left beyond that moves by rail only because no alternative has emerged. The concept of "self-driving" vehicles could one day deliver a possibly-fatal blow to what traffic remains, but I tend to thing there will be plenty of bumps in the road (or broken rails) along the way.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 04-26-2017 at 09:32 PM..
Reason: M
Apparently, you believe that your convenience is more important.
OK. That's your opinion.
Convenience?
More important than what, your belief as to how people should live?
How about fundamentals like base feasibility for 99% of the population?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
However, with a finite budget, finite surface area, limited fuel / energy, electric traction rail is the most efficient means to move cargo and passengers on land. (Water transport is the most efficient, though slow)
Fuel efficiency is already being addressed by development of hybrid and electric vehicles.
Water transport only works where you have water or manmade canals. Fuel efficiency is not relevant when the solution cannot be implemented throughout much of the country.
Whose budget are you referring to? I'd rather spend my money on a solution that works for me. You want to force everyone to live in a particular configuration so that your transportation dreams can be implemented. Who is really the unreasonable person here?
Whoever's budget you are referring to isn't large enough to run a rail network with the granularity of the existing road network - and we already have an existing road network.
So now you need to get people to your rail station - which means at least two modes of transportation (and accompanying transfer and costs) each direction when you are trying to promote this as a solution for commuting, for example. That works only for larger cities and only to address some commuters that work near a transit station.
People work to live, not the other way around. You've attempted to denigrate people as being selfish or self-centered for wanting to live in their preferred living arrangements instead of your preferred arrangement and form of housing - which is selected to promote your preferred transportation solution for everyone else. Who is really the unreasonable/self-centered person in this discussion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
(Note: All those previous links went into great detail, which deal with or answered your objections and questions raised.)
No they really didn't.
Fuel efficiency is not a worthy metric when the solution does not meet the needs of the prospective users. Individual transport is much more practical for the vast majority of the population. It's okay to have a disagreement on this but it's better to let those folks to make the decision rather than for you to impose your whims on them and charge them for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
Since you resorted to personal slurs, you've capitulated, lacking any real facts to dispute what was already posted.
THANK YOU.
Nope - just got tired of the same repeated mantra.
The Most Efficient Mode Of Transportation In America Isn't A Prius -- It's A Train
Think hybrids that go 60 miles on a gallon are efficient? Trains can go eight times as far with 2,000 pounds in their backseat. And they’re only getting smarter.
- - - - -
Same mantra. It's not "efficient" if it does not solve a transportation problem and does not meet the needs of those you are trying to impose it on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
Based on the ever dwindling reserve of cheap petroleum, finite surface area, and population growth, transitioning to electric traction rail transportation will continue until it becomes the dominant form of land transport.
More mantra. If you weren't aware, as a result of technology and exploration oil reserves in the U.S. alone have increased at least 90% over what was believed to be the available reserves about a decade ago.* So they've expanded not diminished. Moreover, there's even more natural gas available and CNG is advancing as a fuel in a few states. Finally hybrids and electric vehicles have become more prevalent (thus reducing consumption rate of petroleum-based fuels) Your gloom and doom boat is sinking and you're the only one on it.
And with that change will come consolidation of population into compact cities, towns, and villages, as the cost to live in suburban sprawl (and the need for an automobile) becomes unsustainable.
All those sleepy railroad towns may be waking up in the coming years, once the railroads revive.
Instead of transitioning to 19th century transportation models, it is more likely that technology will advance to render much of your rationalization as moot - certainly over the timeframe required to implement your vision. Not everyone wants to live the way you want them to live nor to be transit-dependent. "Suburbs" are not going away and I doubt any city would survive long without them.
Last edited by IC_deLight; 04-27-2017 at 10:04 AM..
We're watching a TV show about trains in Denver right now. I just learned this factoid: By 1958, Stapleton Airport (the old Denver airport) had more passengers than Union Station. It's a pipe dream that rail travel is going to come back in a big way.
We're watching a TV show about trains in Denver right now. I just learned this factoid: By 1958, Stapleton Airport (the old Denver airport) had more passengers than Union Station. It's a pipe dream that rail travel is going to come back in a big way.
Denver is the most isolated population center in the lower 48. There is no good way of accessing it other than plane. Where most people live, train travel can, is, and will come back in a big way.
Convenience?
More important than what, your belief as to how people should live?
How about fundamentals like base feasibility for 99% of the population?
Most people care about getting somewhere quickly, affordably, and comfortably. A well-built rail system can provide for this for 90% of the populace better than a well-built road system can.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight
Fuel efficiency is already being addressed by development of hybrid and electric vehicles.
A 40 MPG Prius (or more accurately, millions of 40 MPH Priuses) does not approach the fuel efficiency of a train. Furthermore, a lot more carbon per user is emitted from the construction of cars and roads than railways and trains.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight
Whose budget are you referring to? I'd rather spend my money on a solution that works for me. You want to force everyone to live in a particular configuration so that your transportation dreams can be implemented. Who is really the unreasonable person here?
Most people don't want to live in a car-dominated world. They just want to get places quickly, comfortably, and affordably, and a rail system can deliver that for less money than a road system can.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight
Whoever's budget you are referring to isn't large enough to run a rail network with the granularity of the existing road network - and we already have an existing road network.
That doesn't matter. Two-thirds of America's population lives in just 100 metro areas, so a rail system within and between them is all that is needed. Besides, that's where the population growth is, so new capacity will be needed, and it is more cost-effective for that capacity to be rail rather than road.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight
So now you need to get people to your rail station - which means at least two modes of transportation (and accompanying transfer and costs) each direction when you are trying to promote this as a solution for commuting, for example. That works only for larger cities and only to address some commuters that work near a transit station.
Most people live in larger cities, and its absolutely feasible to put effective rail service near most residences and jobs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight
People work to live, not the other way around. You've attempted to denigrate people as being selfish or self-centered for wanting to live in their preferred living arrangements instead of your preferred arrangement and form of housing - which is selected to promote your preferred transportation solution for everyone else. Who is really the unreasonable/self-centered person in this discussion?
There is little evidence to believe most people want to live in a car-centric suburban neighborhood. That's just what is currently available. As evidenced in many other countries, people prefer living in urban cores provided they're safe with good schools. Even in America, urban cores are the most expensive places to live because of the high demand and limited supply, forcing people who would otherwise not to live in the suburbs and drive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight
No they really didn't.
Fuel efficiency is not a worthy metric when the solution does not meet the needs of the prospective users. Individual transport is much more practical for the vast majority of the population. It's okay to have a disagreement on this but it's better to let those folks to make the decision rather than for you to impose your whims on them and charge them for it.
It isn't more practical or desirable for most of the population when presented with the option to use high-quality transit instead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight
More mantra. If you weren't aware, as a result of technology and exploration oil reserves in the U.S. alone have increased at least 90% over what was believed to be the available reserves about a decade ago.* So they've expanded not diminished. Moreover, there's even more natural gas available and CNG is advancing as a fuel in a few states. Finally hybrids and electric vehicles have become more prevalent (thus reducing consumption rate of petroleum-based fuels) Your gloom and doom boat is sinking and you're the only one on it.
That doesn't mean it is a good idea to burn that oil, and a lot of pollution from cars isn't directly from fuel.
Instead of transitioning to 19th century transportation models, it is more likely that technology will advance to render much of your rationalization as moot - certainly over the timeframe required to implement your vision. Not everyone wants to live the way you want them to live nor to be transit-dependent. "Suburbs" are not going away and I doubt any city would survive long without them.[/quote]
Most people want to live in the most comfortable and cost-effective way possible, and well built cities with well-built transit can deliver that better than any suburb.
Basic rationality explains that to move people quickly and efficiently, you need a high capacity vehicle with little interference, and logically, a rail line provides that better than any highway. Techno-utopianism doesn't change geometry and urban patterns.
At the same constant speed, on level ground, drawing the same load, any steel wheeled railway vehicle already in motion, will use only 5% (1/20) of the energy consumed by any large pneumatic tire road vehicle already in motion. Upon starting and initial acceleration, any steel wheeled railway vehicle will only use 10% (1/10) of the energy demanded by any large pneumatic tire road vehicle.
Theoretical maximum saturation flow rate per lane? – 1900 vehicles per hour per lane.
....
At 1.2 people per car during rush hour commute, that’s 2280 passengers per hour per lane.
By contrast, light rail vehicles can travel in multi-car trains carrying a theoretical ridership up to 20,000 passengers per hour in much narrower rights-of-way, not much more than two car lanes wide for a double track system.
More advanced systems with separate rights-of-way using moving block signaling can exceed 25,000 passengers per hour per track.
1 track has the capacity of 11 lanes of superhighway.
2 tracks have the capacity of 22 lanes of superhighway.
4 tracks have the capacity of 44 lanes of superhighway... in the same space of four car lanes.
Bottom line - to move the most cargo and passengers in the least amount of surface area, rail is the champion.
....
SPEED
Unlike pneumatic tires that cannot sustain high speeds without disintegrating (as evident in car races, where tires are replaced during the race), steel wheels on steel rail can maintain high speeds for long periods, as shown by various high speed rail systems in Europe and Asia.
The slow speed of American railroads (under 79 MPH) has more to do with Federal regulations and taxes than with engineering or Physics.
The slow average speed of urban rail is due, in part, to distances between stops, not lack of acceleration or inherent speed limits.
In 1905, St. Louis Car Company built a railcar for the traction magnate Henry E. Huntington, capable of speeds approaching 160 km/h (100 mph). Once it ran 32 km (20 mi) between Los Angeles and Long Beach in 15 minutes, an average speed of 130 km/h (80 mph).
In 1935, the Milwaukee Road introduced the Morning Hiawatha service, hauled at 160 km/h (100 mph) by steam locomotives.
*** The bottom line - electric traction rail can carry more passengers and cargo, faster and within less surface area, with 20 times less fuel (if regenerative braking is used) than any pneumatic tire on pavement vehicle, regardless of its fuel or configuration. ***
For maximum efficiency and convenience, population consolidation around stations / stops is recommended.
Denver is the most isolated population center in the lower 48. There is no good way of accessing it other than plane. Where most people live, train travel can, is, and will come back in a big way.
Always, always, ALWAYS "that's different". Too funny!
I grew up in the Pittsburgh area. In 1958, I had barely heard of Denver. Yet train travel was off there, too. It was just an example. I can remember my parents talking about how many fewer trains there were than back in the "good old days".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
