I think this is the beginnings of an economy based on perpetual growth and fossil fuel energy running headlong into geological energy constraints. Basically I see an undulatory downward path for the rest of my life. From here out, I think any rallies in our economic condition are going to be met with spiking commodity prices that knock us right back down.
In 2000 avg automobile mileage was 32 passenger / miles / gallon
By air = 38 p/m/g
Best diesel rail mileage during WWII (gas rationing leading to high occupancy) was 85 p/m/g, but: “Due to the increase in the fuel-efficiency of the auto after 1970 intercity rail today is unfortunately even worse than the auto in fuel efficiency.”
I assume that modern engines would be better…
Modern electric train only 25% more efficient than autos
Here is a surprise:
“intercity buses are the most energy-efficient mode of travel and get over 125 pass-mi/gallon.”
--
With a 30% increase in passenger KMs in the last 10 years, the UK fleet is now 2-3 as efficient as it was.
The US passenger fleet is MILES behind everyone else and is fuel inefficient. The fact is electric trains have a 90% plus efficient in any case. Modern Diesel multiple units are far more efficient than they used to be.
Very few if any studies conclude passenger rail is less efficient. Buses are marginally more efficient compared to an intercity train, but then the train is traveleling 2-3 times as fast in Europe, so it’s to be expected.
The trouble with buses is they are cross subsidised by car drivers, same with trucks. Once you take cars out of the picture you get a very different situation.
There is been a lot of spurious arguments by the road lobby on these matters, the fact is virtually every serious study concludes rail is far more efficient. This is evident from energy numbers in Britain.
The equivalent oil energy per year of rail is 0.64 million barrels of oil. That’s for light rail, metro, London underground and National rail plus freight services. The road total is 42 million barrels or nearly 66 times as great consumption for around 11 times more traffic – so rail is aprox 6 times more efficient than road. Air consumption is 12 million barrels and only has a 1% market share internally.
Private transport can never be more fuel efficient in any case because of psychological factors.
I can't say that I agree with everything that the above site says. I think that they tend to jump to a lot of conclusions and omit contributing factors. I also find it to be a difficult site to follow, maybe it's just me, but it seems to be poorly written and disjointed.
They also have picked a very poor time period to use to compare railroads to other means of transport. 1900 was still the infancy of rail, engines were not by any means efficeint because there was little actual need to be fuel efficeint up to that time.
A much better starting point to compare fuel efficeincy would have been around WWI with the advent of the USRA standards which greatly increased fuel efficeincy and safety. But an even better place to start would have been the 1945-1955 period. Much innovation and improvement was going on at that time to try to stem the tide of transition from steam to diesel by at least some steam locomotive manufacturers and even some railroads.
In reality the difference in efficeincy between a late model steam engine and a modern diesel locomotive is very small.
A steamer can achieve fuel efficeincy of about 5%-6% using technology from the 1950's, whereas today a modern diesel-electric loco only tends to run around 10%-12% or less.
With the advances in computers and modern technology the steam engine could become nearly as efficeint as the diesel-electric.
The main reason that diesel-electric engine replaced steam engines was not because of efficeincy but rather costs.
Maintence costs are lower, fewer people are needed to service deisels and less infastructure.
Fuel costs were much lower for diesel than coal by 1900 and oil was much cleaner to burn than coal. That is why many railroads began to switch from coal burning steam engines to oil burners by the 1890's especially on the east coast and near the bigger cities.
And steam engines are more dangerous then diesels. Diesels don't generally explode due to a wreck or someone not watching the water level closely enough.
All in all, I have to agree with Wildwell as far as efficeincy between buses and rail concerning the subsidies by car drivers and to add to that by taxes paid by everyone here in the US that are redistributed by the Federal Gov in the form of highway funds. If it wasn't for these subsidies buses, especially intercity buses, and trucks would be net losers.
Regardless of fuel efficeincy, the major determining factor of future transportation will be cost efficeincy not fuel efficeincy. By this I mean that if the cost of fuel is low relative to the amount needed and the cost of building and maintence compared to the amount work is accomplished, it will be more cost effective than a means that has high fuel costs, lower fuel consumption and higher build and maintence costs.
Obviously the most efficeint means of personal transportation is and always has been by foot, however foot travel is limited by many factors such as terrain, weather, distant, cargo capacity and physical condition just to name a few.
In my opinion, the next most efficeint means of land transport for people and belongings, as oppossed to freight, is by animal power.
Horses, mules, oxen, goats, dogs & etc., are efficeint but do contribute logistical difficulties. Namely the need for feed, tack and harness, shoes, manure disposal (especially in the city), vet care & etc. but they also contribute much more than a mechanical vehicle since they can reproduce themselves, some can quickly be taught to do repiticous jobs such as returning to the barn hauling a load by themself. And in the end they can even be food and materials. And don't forget they can be great companions too.
Next in efficeincy would be bicycles or non-powered scooters with the more complex drive (gearing) being the most personal energy efficeint and the most costly in terms of energy cost to build.
Bicycles can move a person and a small amount of goods over great distances quickly with less personal effort than walking and with less logistical resources during use than animal power. But they are more energy consuming to build at first although maintence can be minimal during its lifetime of many years depending on how it is used and taken care of.
My vote for the next most fuel efficeint vehicle would have to be the motorscooter or small motorcycle. Light weight, small engine, high miles per gallon. I'm not talking Harley, I'm meaning more like 30-150cc engine.
Of course it costs more to build than a bicycle and more to maintain but the mpg can be quite high and it can run on alternative fuels, such as alcohol, distilled at home or acquired from unusual sources (in highschool a friend of mine would freeze a couple of his Dad's bottles of scotch and drain off the alcohol to use as fuel in his Moped. It worked until his Dad gave up drinking, he thought he had become an alcoholic because he could drink a whole fifth and didn't even get a buzz).
Once we get beyond this point the efficeincy question revolves around four things.
1. Cost of fuel compared to amount of work produced. Including rolling friction.
2. Mass of vehicle and the cost in energy to build it and maintain it.
3. Number of people who can be moved at one time. The more the merrier.
4. And the distance traveled. Longer distance, fewer stops, the better.
I think at this point I have to vote for railroads as being the most efficeint means to move more than a few people at a time. A train of 16 passenger cars, carrying 60 passengers each, can haul almost 1000 people over long distances very cost effectively. The most energy expended is during start up and climbing grades, but due it the low friction of steel wheels on steel rails, once you get it moving it will continue to move with little effort.
Compare that to the amount of friction produced by either a car's rubber wheels on a concrete road or the friction generated by an airplane that must not only move through the air but also the friction of staying aloft.
Trains are ideal for moving people (or freight) long distances over relatively flat areas, across the great plains, the midwest and the southwest, for example.
The main factor in determining the fuel for any means of transport will be cost of the fuel and infastructure, in this respect I beleive that electric trains for shorter distances, intracity and intercity (US) and steam (coal, wood, biomass generated) for longer distances (US interstate) will rule again.
Of course all of this is probably moot to even discuss because sooner or later all nonrenewable energy forms will run out, whether it is oil, gas, uranium, coal, it really doesn't matter once they are gone, they are gone but we will still have our feet.
Short term as oil peaks, I see our transport situation going back to what it was from 1950-1990 with some exceptions while yet still advancing.
A return to smaller fuel efficeint cars, increased use of public transport in the cities and train and bus use between cities, alternative fuel vehicles of which some will work and some won't.
Mid-term, I think we will return to a time in transportation like we had in the period of 1870-1940. Long distance travel will be limited for most people. Some people again may never travel more than 20-100 miles from home again, others may make a great trek to see the Pacific Ocean or to go to Florida at least once in their lifetime.
Transport will be limited to trains, boats, animal power, buses, bikes and maybe small amounts of other fuels (hydrogen, solar, biomass???)
In the long term, I think we will see a return to transportation that is very similar to what we had prior to 1860, again with some advances and new technology but for the most part I think we will be homebodies again just struggling to survive as our forefathers did.
I really doubt that we will find some sort of magic cure for our energy needs, oil was it and now it is going fast. Once the oil is gone, our world of transportation will go back to normal.
Ok, I did it again.
I just can't write a simple reply, I just have to much bouncing around in my head to do so.
Sorry if I bore you! I just hope that my ramblings will help some people to think of the alternatives that are possible, instead of thinking like everyone else.
Joined: May 24, 2004 Posts: 3429 Location: California, USA
Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2005 4:25 am Post subject:
Very interesting stuff.
Some folks here still owe Wildwell an apology for dumping on him about perpetual motion when he was in fact talking about regenerative braking.
RidgeRunner's scenario strikes me as obviously practical and as a highly probable outcome. Long distance goods transport by rail, combined with local delivery by truck. For moving humans long distances, some combination of buses and trains, and perhaps minibuses or van-pools for specialized applications.
Economic opportunities: motels and niche-market minibus lines. In fact a corporation that owns both, and can provide both as part of a travel package, could do quite well. You book your ride from New York to San Francisco, and board a minibus with perhaps twenty other passengers. The trip takes four or five days, and you stay overnight at the company's motels.
Full-sized buses will still cater to large market share, but the point of the minibuses is to deal with the niche markets. A minibus with ten passengers that gets 15 miles per gallon, is getting 150 pmpg. At present the most sigificant cost input is the driver's labor, but over time, as the cost of energy increases, labor will be a smaller percentage of overall costs, and this will make the smaller buses more feasible.
Ride share networks may also spring up for long distance transport. Right now we see this informally, for example among college kids looking to get home during school holidays. Craig's List presently has about 50 listings per day for ride-share around California, and I think this will expand.
David S. Lawyer's site on the history of transport is interesting, though I don't particularly agree with his tendency toward quasi-socialistic solutions.
Re. steam locomotives: There is some very interesting material on the web about the proposed devlopment of a new-generation steam loco that could be powered by coal. This, to my mind, is a perfectly viable case for the use of coal. Coal is almost ideal for rail, and the CO2 emissions are tolerable if they can be offset by moving the electric grid toward greater reliance on nuclear fission, wind, and solar.
Re. automobiles: a plug-in hybrid that is fueled by an 85-15 ethanol blend, could get effectively 500 miles per gallon of gasoline in its fuel mix. This is not wild speculation, it's supported by a bunch of conservative hawks seeking to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil sources.
Something I found out at the weekend: After asking someone in the know about a wartime poster, about the war effort in Britain and the amount of horses the rail system had, I think 11,000 or something. Anyway, it turned out that horses were used for shunting freight trucks at many freight yards. By all accounts this has been going on from day one right until the 1950s. Because rail is pretty frictionless, it’s no problem for horses to move wagons about and form trains to send out on the main line. Another advantage of the system and another way to save energy.
Well, I have pointed this out before, but here I go again, after Wildwell pointed out that horses can pull heavy rail cars.
Rails are energy efficient, bicycles are energy efficient. Combining the two is even more efficient. Bicycles built for running on rails were used up to the 1950s by railroad maintenance people to run their part for inspection and repairs. Today such bicycles are used for recreational purposes on railroads without train traffic (which in itself is a sad state of affairs).
When energy becomes real scarce, human powered trains will can still be used. Of course they will be built much lighter, and will not go as fast - but 30 km/h is not bad compared to walking - or even compared to some congested "freeways" today!
I am not visualizing a heavy train looking like today, but more like a row of those bicycle-type things that easily get to 30 km/h, and can keep going at that speed with little effort. You can put like a "tent" over for protection for rain and sun. People can pedal - an oxen or horse can not. It might be possible to make animals thread on something, but that seems more involved that getting people do it. Horses are slow in comparison, oxen very slow, if you figure that they pull by trotting on the ground instead of riding on the "train".
Horses eat a lot, oxen eat less, but are slower. People of course need to eat more when doing physical work than when sitting still, but if the choice is walking, biking or pedalling on rail, that latter will use the least calories. And the extra food for travelling will certainly be less than feeding a large animal.
You get more efficient travelling by bike on rail than by biking on a road, so if there is a choice between going by bike and by pedalled rail, the latter will win. And it is still easy to have "true" passengers onboard, people who do not pedal. People get ill and old. And cargo of course.
Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2005 12:15 pm Post subject: rail
"Long trains
Short trucks"
There it is right there...
Long-haul by rail, regional and local delivery by truck, smaller. lighter, more fuel efficient.
Sometimes I get the feeling that what clouds and confuses this issue is the idea or assumption that we go from maximum to minimum available fuel resources instantly. This of course, will not happen.
What we do long before the fuel runs out will make all the difference in the world, in how much we get from what is left.
Trains can move people and goods far cheaper than fleets of eighteen-wheelers and one-passenger cars and trucks.
Trains will make travel a far more social exercise than it is now. Driving is such a solitary thing.
I wonder sometimes...at the general public sensibilty surrounding the private automobile. I happen to use mass transit all the time. The social aspect of it can be incredibly affirming. (Also - this is where I do a lot of reading.)
Almost every day I travel by subway, in my city, over a huge ravine high above a parkway which brings suburban traffic downtown and back again.
I look down at the gridlock, while I glide by above. I travel about 3 miles in the same time it takes them to cover 30 feet. And I ponder why they're down there, conducting their lives in that manner.
The choice of rail, tramway, streetcar, and much light rail that existed at one time, was taken away from us. The big car manufacturers bought it all up the the 20's and 30's and replaced it first with buses, and eventually with highway infrastructure.
It will cost a fortune to replace. However, it will move people and goods far longer into the future, than what we employ now.
If the same research and development were put into building an efficient rail system on all levels (national, regional, state-wide, inter-city and urban) as is employed to keep America motorized, I believe we'd come up with something remarkably workable.
The entire interstate highway system is already laid out, landscaped and graded. This system added to the rail lines that are already there, would give us a grid that could be the envy of the world.
Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 12:18 pm Post subject: Re: The Future of Railroads
Pretty ironic...the airlines and GM are going bankrupt and the freight roads are posting record profits. Fifty years ago it was the complete opposite...we've come almost full circle. It was cheap energy that put the RR's on the out...now the tide is really turning.
Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2005 8:32 pm Post subject: Re: The Future of Railroads
Government tax breaks, credits and other financial benefits for oil companies help keep the cost of gas at the pump artificially low (see the excellent reports by the International Center of Technology Assessment on this). We Americans pay for these every April 15th, rather than at the pump. If we did pay for this at the pump (either in gas taxes or by cutting the government incentives to oil companies, thereby increasing their costs of production), the cost of a gallon of gas would rise more than $5.
What affect do you think that would have on driving versus using transit, trains, biking, walking and telecommuting? A very big difference!
If you all want a pretty informed and unbiased appraisal of fuel efficient for each mode of transportation, I suggest reviewing the data from the Union of Concerned Scientists. There appraisal is that, based on BTUs per average passenger-mile of use, there are only three modes of travel that are more fuel efficient than intercity, urban and regional commuter passenger trains (diesel or electric) -- bicycle, walking and vanpools. Passenger trains are more than twice as efficient as airplanes, six times more energy efficient than cars and eight times more efficient than sport-utility vehicles, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists.
But I encourage to look up this information for yourself. Another good source is the Oak Ridge National Laboratories.
In the coming months, a lot of disinformation is going to be thrown around by auto and aviation industry lobbies, seeking to protect themselves from losing market share to rail and transit. Be sure to have your "common sense radars" on full power. The information they will present will be done smoothly and attractively to assure us that everything will be OK again. If we use our brains and don't succumb to placing our faith in the self-interest of powerful corporations and their elected puppets, then we will see through their arguments for what they really are...a major CYA endeavor.
Posted: Sat Aug 13, 2005 10:22 am Post subject: Re: The Future of Railroads
It depends on the kind of rail service, and which highways you're talking about, as some are quite flat. If it's intercity or regional, the grades likely too steep. But, urban rail transit can take some pretty steep grades. Baltimore's north-south line has some grades as steep as 7 percent (meaning it climbs or descends seven feet for every 100 feet of distance). That's comparable to grades on interstates and other limited-access highways.
One thing we're overlooking here though, is the accessibility of the rail system. For urban rail transit systems, more than half of their ridership comes from pedestrians, called "walk-in trade." Such walk-in trade is generated from land uses within a 1,000-foot radius of stations. Thus, the the more densely developed an area around a station is, the more ridership that station will have. If you build rail in the medians of highways, the land having the greatest traffic generation potential (that which is nearest to a station) is of no use to a station. The first 200 feet or more on either side of a four-lane highway is taken up by the highway itself.
That situation is worsened if the station is at a highway interchange, where hundreds more feet are used up by the intersections of the on/off ramps. And, typically, land uses just beyond the on/off ramps are of an auto-centric design, with everything spread out to allow cars to manuever, park and what not.
In other words, building rail in highway medians isn't the best way to go. It might avail a right of way quickly and relatively cheaply, but quick and cheap often doesn't result in greater productivity. In fact, it usually means the opposite.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
