American public transports

[Darth Wong]

And the funny thing is a jet plane will consume more fuel than a train at times.

At times?

Yeah. Any time the plane is moving under its own power

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I remember taking the train when I went to India 11 years ago. We were going from Punjab state to a state on the other side of the country (I actually didn't know this until a couple months ago). I was alright during the day, but I vomited the first two nights. On the way back I was fine.

I really want to take a trip across Canada on Via Rail. They have an engine with an observation lounge at the front, covered with windows (might actually be a car in front of the engine, not too sure). That would be a classy way to travel.

Be prepared to spend a shitload of money. I just looked up the cost for a double berth sleeper car from Ottawa to Vancouver. For two adults and two children: 10K and change.

Yes, Amtrak is MUCH cheaper with sleeping accommodations, though not quite as good. Round-trip from Washington, D.C. to Seattle (a comparable journey) would be only about $2,000 - $2,500 American with all the amenities I've described above for two children and two adults in a family compartment on the sleeper.

[ray245]

And the funny thing is a jet plane will consume more fuel than a train at times.

At times?

Yeah. Any time the plane is moving under its own power

Well...I am trying to be conservative in making my statement...just in case there are some relatively unknown trains which consume more fuel than a plane...which to my knowledge...doesn't exist.

[Ghost Rider]

At times?

Yeah. Any time the plane is moving under its own power

Well...I am trying to be conservative in making my statement...just in case there are some relatively unknown trains which consume more fuel than a plane...which to my knowledge...doesn't exist.

It's times like this you prove again and again that you are a fucking idiot.

[CmdrWilkens]

Looking at the Amtrak site you could do DC to LA for roughly $3200 to $4000 round trip while DC to Seattle runs about 2600. Those numbers could actually be skimmed down a bit by going with two small "roomette's" instead of one family bedroom.

As trips go it isn't cheap but it certainly, when you figure in the fact that it is basically 3 nights lodging and meals each way, isn't a bad deal for going cross country. It also definately beats car for the time and air for the quality but the middle option isn't for everyone.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Looking at the Amtrak site you could do DC to LA for roughly $3200 to $4000 round trip while DC to Seattle runs about 2600. Those numbers could actually be skimmed down a bit by going with two small "roomette's" instead of one family bedroom.

As trips go it isn't cheap but it certainly, when you figure in the fact that it is basically 3 nights lodging and meals each way, isn't a bad deal for going cross country. It also definately beats car for the time and air for the quality but the middle option isn't for everyone.

More to the point, this is what the trip of the future is going to look like--if you want to take your family to the other end of the country and back in the post-oil era, it is going to cost the equivalent of $2,500 for transportation in the here and now if you go by sleeper, and perhaps $1,000 or so by coach. Those figures are perfectly reasonable for the real cost of long-distance travel, and they indicate how oil going away is going to massively change American life.

[Uraniun235]

I realize it's because of cheap oil, but I'm still boggled that Amtrak wants $2500-3500 for a weeklong rail trip when my mother is currently looking at $1500 for a weeklong cruise.l

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I realize it's because of cheap oil, but I'm still boggled that Amtrak wants $2500-3500 for a weeklong rail trip when my mother is currently looking at $1500 for a weeklong cruise.l

How many for the cruise?

And water transportation is even more efficient than rail, so the only cost is the amenities, really.


I forgot the ratio but it's something like for the same gallon of gasoline you can move the same distance by rail seven semi-trailer loads, and the same distance by barge, eleven.

That gives you some idea of how staggeringly energy-inefficient truck transport is. The general rule is build canals and utilize rivers and coastal waters for barge traffic wherever possible (all bulk goods, pretty much, which will only be transported by rail when some kind of water solution isn't available), and use electrified railroads for everything else.

That will be the future, anyway. I imagine that tens of thousands of sail-powered coastal luggers will again proliferate as they did in the 19th century, hauling a couple dozen tonnes of coal or grain from coastal town to coastal town.

[Uraniun235]

Oh, barf, I missed the "family of two adults + two children" bit for Amtrak, so divided out that comes out to roughly ~$700 a head. The $1500 is just for a single cruise ticket. Never mind... makes much more sense now.

[Starglider]

I forgot the ratio but it's something like for the same gallon of gasoline you can move the same distance by rail seven semi-trailer loads, and the same distance by barge, eleven.

I suspect that trains would be a lot more energy efficient than barges if you ran them at the same speeds; 20mph or less. With trains and aircraft you're paying an energy premium for speed. With trucks you're paying an energy premium for convenience.

I would be interested to know the comparative J/kg/km figure for airships.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I forgot the ratio but it's something like for the same gallon of gasoline you can move the same distance by rail seven semi-trailer loads, and the same distance by barge, eleven.

I suspect that trains would be a lot more energy efficient than barges if you ran them at the same speeds; 20mph or less. With trains and aircraft you're paying an energy premium for speed. With trucks you're paying an energy premium for convenience.

I would be interested to know the comparative J/kg/km figure for airships.

I think the reason barges coming out 11 times more efficient than trucks versus 7 times more efficient than trucks for rail is that in the United States, most barge traffic is on the Mississippi system, which means for the downward portion of a barge's round-trip you use no fuel at all. Granted, you have to overcome the current on the way back up, but if you're shipping down, and returning in irons, it does in fact yield overall efficiencies. With the down-trip and the up-trip against the current cancelling each other, only the overage to maintain forward progress--say--three knots, is the amount, doubled, for the round trip. Barges travel much slower than you think. And, on the barge canals, at least, we could actually get away with still moving them by donkey teams.

Of course, this assumes diesel engines all around. If the railroads are electrified, they are even more efficient, and can get their power from a source other than hydrocarbons. And it is very easy electrify a railroad. For barges, you can drift downstream, and then use steam tugs to push up-stream, with specially designed boilers burning, say, farm waste plant material or something like that. A comparatively inefficient source of energy, but one that, unless we can convert it into bio-diesel, is otherwise totally useless.

[[R_H]]

I think the reason barges coming out 11 times more efficient than trucks versus 7 times more efficient than trucks for rail is that in the United States, most barge traffic is on the Mississippi system, which means for the downward portion of a barge's round-trip you use no fuel at all. Granted, you have to overcome the current on the way back up, but if you're shipping down, and returning in irons, it does in fact yield overall efficiencies. With the down-trip and the up-trip against the current cancelling each other, only the overage to maintain forward progress--say--three knots, is the amount, doubled, for the round trip. Barges travel much slower than you think. And, on the barge canals, at least, we could actually get away with still moving them by donkey teams.

Of course, this assumes diesel engines all around. If the railroads are electrified, they are even more efficient, and can get their power from a source other than hydrocarbons. And it is very easy electrify a railroad. For barges, you can drift downstream, and then use steam tugs to push up-stream, with specially designed boilers burning, say, farm waste plant material or something like that. A comparatively inefficient source of energy, but one that, unless we can convert it into bio-diesel, is otherwise totally useless.

Probably a complete retarded/insane/implausible etc idea, but what about a barge powered by overhead wires like a tram or a trolley bus instead of using steam tugs?

[Broomstick]

Of course, this assumes diesel engines all around. If the railroads are electrified, they are even more efficient, and can get their power from a source other than hydrocarbons. And it is very easy electrify a railroad.

I still think you're low-balling the infrastructure and maintenance costs of electric rail, which are significant.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Of course, this assumes diesel engines all around. If the railroads are electrified, they are even more efficient, and can get their power from a source other than hydrocarbons. And it is very easy electrify a railroad.

I still think you're low-balling the infrastructure and maintenance costs of electric rail, which are significant.

I'm referring to energy efficiency. Electrical generation via hydroelectric/nuclear is far more efficient than simply burning hydrocarbons.

[Broomstick]

But it takes energy to build and maintain the infrastructure. With electric rail you not only build and maintain rail, you build and maintain the energy delivery system. You also lock into the energy system.

Regular rail, on the other hand, you have the engine deliver the energy and it's much more adaptable. The same rails have carried wood-derived steam power, coal-derived steam power, and diesel - it's easier to upgrade engines than to change out a catenary system.

[K. A. Pital]

That is assuming there is an engine to which you upgrade. Centralized electricity is the only way if there's no viable combustion engines to replace the fleet of combustion-engine locomotives.

[CmdrWilkens]

But it takes energy to build and maintain the infrastructure. With electric rail you not only build and maintain rail, you build and maintain the energy delivery system. You also lock into the energy system.

Regular rail, on the other hand, you have the engine deliver the energy and it's much more adaptable. The same rails have carried wood-derived steam power, coal-derived steam power, and diesel - it's easier to upgrade engines than to change out a catenary system.

Not neccessarily true. Just because you do have catenary does not mean that you have to use it. Just locally MARC runs diesel locomotives on the NEC even though they have electric locomotives availabel (just not in sufficient numbers to run every trainset). So putting up catenary means that you have COMPLETE energy options available.

The other thing is that any non-catenary or other pre-built energy delivery system rail lines require that you haul your fuel with you. Whatever the fuel may be you are going to pay an energy price to haul it with you which reduces you efficiency in hauling actual freight. By going with remotely delivered energy you only push (or pull) the actual freight itself and the weight of the engine.

I can only see it being more sensible to go without catenary if the energy loss due to transmission saps more energy than it costs to haul a fuel source with the locomotive. With any fuel source other than hydrocarbons the energy/weight ratio suggests that catenary would have to be incredibly inefficient for that case to exist.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

But it takes energy to build and maintain the infrastructure. With electric rail you not only build and maintain rail, you build and maintain the energy delivery system. You also lock into the energy system.

Regular rail, on the other hand, you have the engine deliver the energy and it's much more adaptable. The same rails have carried wood-derived steam power, coal-derived steam power, and diesel - it's easier to upgrade engines than to change out a catenary system.

Not neccessarily true. Just because you do have catenary does not mean that you have to use it. Just locally MARC runs diesel locomotives on the NEC even though they have electric locomotives availabel (just not in sufficient numbers to run every trainset). So putting up catenary means that you have COMPLETE energy options available.

The other thing is that any non-catenary or other pre-built energy delivery system rail lines require that you haul your fuel with you. Whatever the fuel may be you are going to pay an energy price to haul it with you which reduces you efficiency in hauling actual freight. By going with remotely delivered energy you only push (or pull) the actual freight itself and the weight of the engine.

I can only see it being more sensible to go without catenary if the energy loss due to transmission saps more energy than it costs to haul a fuel source with the locomotive. With any fuel source other than hydrocarbons the energy/weight ratio suggests that catenary would have to be incredibly inefficient for that case to exist.

And it's not true anyway, as, as the Milwaukee demonstrated in the early 20th century with its massive electrification projects out west, not only is it much cheaper in the long-term--remember, the same cantenary is being used on the NEC as was there 90 years ago, plenty of time to gain an incredible return on investment--but it also gained another energy source: Full use of regenerative brakes. Regenerative braking allowed trains braking downhill to pump electricity directly back into the wires, where it could be used to provide almost all of the power for trains climbing uphill on the other side of the pass.

[Sea Skimmer]

I think the reason barges coming out 11 times more efficient than trucks versus 7 times more efficient than trucks for rail is that in the United States, most barge traffic is on the Mississippi system, which means for the downward portion of a barge's round-trip you use no fuel at all.

If you didn’t use any fuel at all your barge would run aground within about a mile or two, you must use propulsion to go faster then the current or you have no course control. In fact the towboats tend to push pretty hard as they go downstream, so that they can maintain momentum in the Mississippi’s many sharp turns and slalom run like sets of bridges. They push as hard as they can going upstream, but even with empty barges the current cuts the speed of advance in half compared to going downstream.

The reason trains are less efficient is because they must deal with gradients all the time, and the rolling resistance of steel wheels on steel track is typically higher then the fictional resistance of a barge hull hauling the same load. The price of this is of course that river barges are slow as hell and utterly incapable of significantly higher speeds.

The bigger the better BTW, a larger barge is more efficient then a small one because its payload will grow faster then its hull area which creates drag. This is true of trains too, a heavier train, once rolling, will lose less speed dealing with gradients owing to its huge momentum, but unfortunately trains have to actively slow down to deal with downgrades and turns, while this is rarely an issue for water traffic.

[Lusankya]

Getting out of the suburbs would be nice. However - without a car, I have no means of moving my possessions to another home.

Gee, if someone had ever invented, hmm, let's say, a rent-a-car business or something. They could even rent vans there! It would be so great!

I don't yet have a license - and if I'm going to get a driver's license anyway, it makes more sense to get a car (even if I use it only when absolutely necessary) than not.

I don't like driving. I'm fairly well convinced that we're all fucking insane for trusting ourselves to them in the first place. But I need a license in case of emergency, and it's always possible that I'll get over that impression.

How could the convenience of a car that you only use when absolutely necessary possibly be worth the cost? Here, public tarnsport would cost about $22/week = $1144/year (and if you use a bike, etc, then it would cost less), and a new corolla would cost you $92/year in registration and $1200 a year in devaluation. So that's already more expensive than PT if you never use the car at all. If you add in $100/year for a very cheap service, and a very modest $20/week = $1040 in petrol, then really, you're probably better off taking a taxi if you only rarely use the car.

A large number of people, I think, never realise how much their car costs.

[Sea Skimmer]

Probably a complete retarded/insane/implausible etc idea, but what about a barge powered by overhead wires like a tram or a trolley bus instead of using steam tugs?

You’d need to build a 200ft high steel tower on each side of the river every 1000ft or so for about 3000 miles, with most towers being located on unstable floodplain without levee protection. It could be done, but it would have so many practical problems as to make it an insane proposition.

[Pu-239]

Gee, if someone had ever invented, hmm, let's say, a rent-a-car business or something. They could even rent vans there! It would be so great!

I don't yet have a license - and if I'm going to get a driver's license anyway, it makes more sense to get a car (even if I use it only when absolutely necessary) than not.

I don't like driving. I'm fairly well convinced that we're all fucking insane for trusting ourselves to them in the first place. But I need a license in case of emergency, and it's always possible that I'll get over that impression.

How could the convenience of a car that you only use when absolutely necessary possibly be worth the cost? Here, public tarnsport would cost about $22/week = $1144/year (and if you use a bike, etc, then it would cost less), and a new corolla would cost you $92/year in registration and $1200 a year in devaluation. So that's already more expensive than PT if you never use the car at all. If you add in $100/year for a very cheap service, and a very modest $20/week = $1040 in petrol, then really, you're probably better off taking a taxi if you only rarely use the car.

A large number of people, I think, never realise how much their car costs.

Not to mention insurance costs, so buying a shit used car and rarely using it doesn't save money compared to public transport either if your insurance costs are high.

However, depending on where you need to go and how bus systems are set up, the time wasted if the public transport is a factor too. For example, it takes me 2 hours and 3 buses to get from Fairfax to Alexandria, and that's only 18 miles. That's 30 minutes by car. Public buses are terrible if you need to go anywhere farther than 5-10 miles, and then if it's only that much it's possible to bike (I do both since I'm lazy at times, folding bikes FTW).

I've been avoiding cars since last summer due to an accident (fell asleep behind the wheel ), but I'll have to get one for summer internships though, depending on who employs me over the summer (if it's in Washington DC I can use light rail (DC Metro) which should be faster, often faster than cars due to extremely heavy traffic).

[Broomstick]

Gee, if someone had ever invented, hmm, let's say, a rent-a-car business or something. They could even rent vans there! It would be so great!

I don't yet have a license - and if I'm going to get a driver's license anyway, it makes more sense to get a car (even if I use it only when absolutely necessary) than not.

I don't like driving. I'm fairly well convinced that we're all fucking insane for trusting ourselves to them in the first place. But I need a license in case of emergency, and it's always possible that I'll get over that impression.

How could the convenience of a car that you only use when absolutely necessary possibly be worth the cost? Here, public tarnsport would cost about $22/week = $1144/year (and if you use a bike, etc, then it would cost less), and a new corolla would cost you $92/year in registration and $1200 a year in devaluation. So that's already more expensive than PT if you never use the car at all. If you add in $100/year for a very cheap service, and a very modest $20/week = $1040 in petrol, then really, you're probably better off taking a taxi if you only rarely use the car.

A large number of people, I think, never realise how much their car costs.

While I agree with the last statement to a large degree, public transit where I live was costing me $1680 per year. My car, on the other hand, spreading the purchase cost over 10 years (though I expect to own it longer) is $1400 per year. Registration/licensing this year is, I believe costing me $41 (goes down every year I own it in this state). The biggest cost difference is in fuel - $20 lasts me 3-4 weeks. Yes, even now. There is also the cost of auto insurance. But if I had not had PT when working in the Chicago Loop my transit costs would have been MUCH higher due to increased fuel usage and wear and tear on the car - 450 miles per week, 22,500 miles per year just to get to and from work as opposed to a total of 50 miles per week or 2,500 per year on the car to and from the train station.

Of course, if I still lived in Chicago itself, the cost of owning a car in registration and parking fees would be higher, as would the cost of fuel (up to a dollar more per gallon right now), and using PT would be less per month making car ownership more expensive. Which might be why quite a few Chicago residents don't own cars and either take taxis (which are FAR more plentiful in Chicago than out where I live) or rent a car as needed.

[CmdrWilkens]

I've been avoiding cars since last summer due to an accident (fell asleep behind the wheel ), but I'll have to get one for summer internships though, depending on who employs me over the summer (if it's in Washington DC I can use light rail (DC Metro) which should be faster, often faster than cars due to extremely heavy traffic).

Small point of fact DC Metro is actually Heavy Rail. The complete grade seperation and grade limitations classify it as such even though the trains themselves are not truly suitable for long distance runs. Light Rail would not be able to accomodate the train size and loads that DC Metro has.