Fuel.....Time For An Update?

YES , back to Amtrak , as i think fuel use and efficency is about to become alot more important to it . I have started a thread regarding hep power efficenency sometime ago , but there are alot of other areas / questions that need to be discussed .
Is funding for amktrak likely to come unstuck when it is more widely known that Amtrak is not that fuel efficent ?. what happens when someone points out a bus could carry the same number of people further at a lot less cost ? . or a small car with 4 people in it , is more fuel efficent than 4 people sharing 2 bedrooms on a long distance trip .
I am sure energy and resource use are going to become bigger issues in the future , and the question must be asked , how does Amtrak stack up ???
Better it is asked and answered by people sympathethic to amtraks cause , rather than its enemies ...

I feel like if you pile on some more cars you will work the locomotive harder,

Loco hauled trains are dying out. Most trains have distributed power. In slack times you use a three or four car unit; in busier times you put them together in longer trains. Obviously the power used depends on the length of the trains. The same is true whether they are EMUs or DMUs.

george matthews wrote:

I feel like if you pile on some more cars you will work the locomotive harder,

Loco hauled trains are dying out. Most trains have distributed power. In slack times you use a three or four car unit; in busier times you put them together in longer trains. Obviously the power used depends on the length of the trains. The same is true whether they are EMUs or DMUs.

That is true even for loco hauled trains - especially for electric locos. It is not like the loco just consumes some constant high amount of power irrespective of what the load placed on it is.

David Benton wrote:YES , back to Amtrak , as i think fuel use and efficency is about to become alot more important to it . I have started a thread regarding hep power efficenency sometime ago , but there are alot of other areas / questions that need to be discussed .
Is funding for amktrak likely to come unstuck when it is more widely known that Amtrak is not that fuel efficent ?. what happens when someone points out a bus could carry the same number of people further at a lot less cost ? . or a small car with 4 people in it , is more fuel efficent than 4 people sharing 2 bedrooms on a long distance trip .
I am sure energy and resource use are going to become bigger issues in the future , and the question must be asked , how does Amtrak stack up ???
Better it is asked and answered by people sympathethic to amtraks cause , rather than its enemies ...

Many, many good points, but comparing "a small car with 4 people in it" with a 2-bedroom long-distance trip is an extreme "apples to oranges." I could travel very efficiently if I stuff myself in a box and mail myself to the city I'm going to, but that doesn't make it a fair comparison with any other mode of transportation. Not that I would put it past Wendell Cox types to make an apple/orange comparison, which may have been your point.

Long distance bedrooms would have to compared to . . . er . . . I don't know what. An RV would be too big, any automobile too small . . .

In any case, a very, very small percentage of Amtrak passengers travel by bedroom. While I am very strongly in favor of keeping that option open, it will never represent a "typical Amtrak trip."

I think something that Amtrak and more importantly commuter agencies should do is stop running diesel trains in electrified territory. This doesn't happen too much with amtrak, the only scenarios I can think of is LD trains running w/ a diesel from WAS-PHL, but if you look @ SLE(which runs Stamford-New London) and MBTA(which operates from Boston-Providence) it seems stupid that these commuter agencies continue to use diesels underneath the wires.

Mr. HI, the "T" can be excused in that their equipment "couplets" often will include, in addition to a Boston-Providence turn along the electrified Amtrak Corridor, a turn, say, to Greenbush over the non-electrified Old Colony.

However i am in complete agreement regarding your thoughts as they relate to Shore Line East; why acquisition of electric locomotives is not high on SLE's wish list escapes me.

Finally, when there is to be scheduled maintenance of the caternary, 66 & 67 will be assigned Diesel locomotives New Haven-Boston. The Phila engine change for trains operating through Wash is usually brought about if too mane AEM-7's and HHP-8's have "called in sick".

hi55us wrote:I think something that Amtrak and more importantly commuter agencies should do is stop running diesel trains in electrified territory. This doesn't happen too much with amtrak, the only scenarios I can think of is LD trains running w/ a diesel from WAS-PHL, but if you look @ SLE(which runs Stamford-New London) and MBTA(which operates from Boston-Providence) it seems stupid that these commuter agencies continue to use diesels underneath the wires.

I hate that too. British Rail used to be very careful about that and changed locos as soon as a diesel hauled train arrived at the wires but the new "private" Train operating companies don't care and often run diesel trains in electrified lines.

The Shore Line East is a bad example. They ought to use the same kind of EMUs as MTA does. (I think the diesel runs only from New Haven to Old Saybrook - at least that is how I have experienced it).

Ah, I have just remembered why they don't use EMUs. It's because of those ridiculous little platforms suitable only for one door of a train. That is carrying parsimony to an extreme.

This is a really interesting discussion, with a lot of issues and a lot of information. It seems like the thing we know the least about is what people will do in five or ten or twenty years, and the next least is what they are willing to do right now.

Take this quotation: "While I acknowledge that there has been a reverse migration to urban areas during this century, and I have a Niece and two Nephews who reside in 'trendy' (so they tell me) Brooklyn (and have wondered why their bachelor Uncle Gil has never lived within a city), most people, again myself included, want their own stand alone domicile, and no warnings of 'warming' "carbons" "$5ga' are going to reverse that sentiment." And then the prediction of dense urban settlement as an energy conservation measure that this is in response to. You may both be right, but there are all sorts of issues:

Is it reasonable to think that people will switch to apartment-house life in response to energy costs? Is it reasonable to think that most people will stick with matching giant houses in car-only subdivisions even in the face of energy costs? Fortunately Brooklyn and car-oriented suburbs are not the only choices.

How dense is dense enough? Millions of city people live in freestanding houses in the old streetcar suburbs of the older cities (I grew up in Roslindale, Mass., for example). They have enough space to play catch out back, but they don't have a half or a quarter acre to mow. They can often walk to parks, buses, trains, subway lines, etc. The streets tend to go all the way through, instead of dead-ending at the edge of the subdivision the way so many new streets do, so you can usually walk or ride or drive pretty directly to where you are headed. Many of them do own cars and drive often, but they may drive shorter distances than people in the post-interstate suburbs. Would 4 or 5 dollar gas and appropriate infrastructure entice people to go back to building and maintaining and restoring neighborhoods like that? If they did, how much energy would it save?

Look at Denver: housing companies bought up nearly all the land some years back and then decided what limited choices of houses to offer. Just because people bought the oversized houses in cul-de-sac subdivisions doesn't mean some of them wouldn't have bought some other kind of house in some other kind of neighborhood if it had been built. And after the housing collapse maybe people will want smaller lots and smaller houses again, or at least cheaper ones: That would favor denser neighborhoods and public transportation as an important side effect.

Not everyone has to change. Just enough people have to.

Several people have pointed out that equally big changes have happened in the last half century or so. Here are a few more: How may parents drove their kids to school fifty years ago, when school was under a mile away? How many do now? What could change that habit? How many people got exercise by doing yard work by hand, instead of doing it by machine and then driving to the gym? What could change that habit? Walking to school and pushing a reel mower are both easier in denser neighborhoods, where you're also more likely to be near a train station or bus stop. Those neighborhoods could be healthier as well as more efficient. Maybe people could be motivated to choose a less expensive, less energy intensive way of life if it would also keep them thin. "Stay fit with the MBTA/CTA/Portland Streetcar etc etc etc!"

D.Carleton wrote: A lot of big money is going toward wind farms because, on paper, they look like a real power plant. You have high capitol investment, huge amounts of design and engineering. But every joke has a punch line. You don't have to be a mechanical engineer to know that rotating equipment eventually wears out. But instead of repairing a machine bolted to the floor it's hundreds of feet in the air. And, chances are if one has worn out the rest of the farm will fail about the same time. The amount of time and resources expended to effect repairs should easily trump any perceived cost savings. Besides, the places where wind farms are built, vast windswept desolate areas, are far from population centers thus further reducing the value of the power they generate due to line losses.

Actually, there are wind farms that are built very near to large population centers. The Altamont Pass in the San Francisco Bay Area is one, as well as the wind generators in the Palm Springs area, east of Los Angeles (which used to be "out in the desert", but that is no longer true). I am not disputing the cost of maintaining the equipment (mostly because I don't know about that, one way or the other). What I can say is that the wind farms of California are built in areas where the wind blows virtually all of the time (it is hard to explain the never ending strong winds to people who have never been there). I know the California High Speed Rail Commission includes wind energy in their media stuff....although that does not mean that wind will be a major producer of the needed electrical power.

Arborwayfan wrote:How dense is dense enough? Millions of city people live in freestanding houses in the old streetcar suburbs of the older cities (I grew up in Roslindale, Mass., for example). They have enough space to play catch out back, but they don't have a half or a quarter acre to mow. They can often walk to parks, buses, trains, subway lines, etc. The streets tend to go all the way through, instead of dead-ending at the edge of the subdivision the way so many new streets do, so you can usually walk or ride or drive pretty directly to where you are headed.

When we examine the above scenario and study its genesis we realize it’s a product of its time. This pre-war settlement was founded at a time when energy was not as easy to obtain as it is today. Most heat was accomplished by burning coal and air-conditioning was opening a window. The most efficient use of energy dictated mass transit such as streetcars and trains. If those denizens had been given a choice of suburbs or the status quo, what would they have chosen? After the war we were a nation flush with prosperity including cheap and abundant energy. Now given the choice many fled the walkups and row-houses for the “country.”(Yes, this is a gross oversimplification, but I'm not writing a novel here.)

Arborwayfan wrote:Maybe people could be motivated to choose a less expensive, less energy intensive way of life if it would also keep them thin.

We are entering an era more resembling the pre-war age than the post. The age of avarice is over and the era of austerity is here. As a result things will naturally shrink: the size of domiciles, cars, travel, etc. Personal preference shall cede to thermodynamic reality. Concentrated populations around well defined centers will naturally benefit from efficient steel wheel transportation enterprises such as streetcars, commuter rail and intercity rail. There would also be intrinsic health benefits.

There is one potentially ugly unknown, human emotion. We have always had the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots.’ But now we see a growing number of ‘used-to-haves’ who shall lose, or never attain, their ‘house in the country.’ Their reaction to reality may not be based on acceptance and if the last century taught us anything, there is no limit to human-induced suffering.

D.Carleton wrote: When we examine the above scenario and study its genesis we realize it’s a product of its time. This pre-war settlement was founded at a time when energy was not as easy to obtain as it is today. Most heat was accomplished by burning coal and air-conditioning was opening a window. The most efficient use of energy dictated mass transit such as streetcars and trains. If those denizens had been given a choice of suburbs or the status quo, what would they have chosen? After the war we were a nation flush with prosperity including cheap and abundant energy. Now given the choice many fled the walkups and row-houses for the “country.”(Yes, this is a gross oversimplification, but I'm not writing a novel here.)

There is one potentially ugly unknown, human emotion. We have always had the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots.’ But now we see a growing number of ‘used-to-haves’ who shall lose, or never attain, their ‘house in the country.’ Their reaction to reality may not be based on acceptance and if the last century taught us anything, there is no limit to human-induced suffering.

I'll admit to being totally biased: I hated "the burbs" when I grew up in them, and I hate them now that I've left them long behind, at least the modern, auto-oriented ones. My grandparents despise cities even more than I hate the suburbs. It's not just generational, either, as many friends my age mirror both viewpoints. My point? I think it's truly just a personal preference. Yes, there was a huge migration to the suburbs post World War II, but there were many factors other than cheap energy leading people to the (somewhat fictional, anyway) "house in the country for everyone." It was the more efficient harnessing of energy during the industrial revolution that led many off the farms and into the cities to begin with.

- Government-built Interstate Highways
- Racial tensions
- "New" suburban development vs "old" urban houses (refurbishments done on the older row homes in my neighborhood now make many of them "nicer" than many suburban dwellings)

To add to Arborway's rational post:

- "Denser, more transit-oriented development" doesn't mean you live next to City Hall. Never has.
- "More emphasis on local produce" doesn't mean you live on your city-garden-grown rutabagas. Never did.

These are decades-long trends, and in the case of urban renewal, it's been going on for 20+ years without much complaint. It's a GOOD thing, even for those who don't care to live there. Fuel prices may curtail some travel, but will likely make the trips you do take more enjoyable by relieving congestion and spurring transit alternatives. People may be inclined to live closer to work than they have, but many will decide they like the shorter commute, anyway. Note that transit ridership stayed steady and grew even as fuel prices were dropping.

I dont think this discussion is exclusive to Amtrak if we're talking about forms of propulsion. Off to the Equipment Forum this goes...