Trains Cleaner Than Planes; Uh, Not So Fast

Why The Times could not pay for a Roomette for their Environmental Reporter escapes me, but they didn't.

Shame on you, Gray Lady.

However, the conclusion this reporter reached is not going to draw many raves around here:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/04/clim ... =url-share

Fair Use:

Recently, I did something I’ve long dreamed of. I took the train across America.

The views were majestic, particularly as we swayed through the West. The Wi-Fi was bad, and the food not much better. But I wanted to do it partly because trains are cleaner than flying.

But when I got back home and crunched the numbers, I discovered something surprising: it would have been less polluting for me to have flown.

I don't know where they did their math and on what assumptions but there is a large body of research that shows trains are more efficient per passenger mile than planes by a lot. Not that I trust a word that comes out of the NY Times these days, it is clickbait garbage like the rest of them.

The vast majority of emissions generated by air travel are during take-off and climb to cruising altitude. For a long distance trip, it could well be that the plane ends up being the more efficient choice, once you spread that initial burst across the entire distance. But the vast majority or rail trips are just a few hundred miles, and significantly better environmentally than a similar distance flight.

When you take into account the immense weight of an Amtrak long-distance train compared to the weight of the cargo (passengers and their luggage) being carried, the energy efficiency of an Amtrak long-distance train is actually comparable to a standard mid-sized SUV.

Amtrak and its' fanboi supporters love to tout that "Amtrak moves X number of tons on one gallon of fuel", except that 95% of that weight is that of the train itself. Whereas, a standard mid-sized SUV is closer to 70%. (This is using an apples to apples comparsion assuming a 100% load factor for both modes of transport, which we know is not realistic, but to maintain apples to apples comparison.) When you take the occupant's weight as a percentage of the total mass being moved and apply that percentage to the fuel consumption, the end result is Amtrak's non-tare weight and a SUV's non-tare weight fuel economy is within 1 MPG of each other.

Of course that is specific to a standard Amtrak long-distance Superliner equipped train consist, but I don't consider it reasonable to compare a plane to a commuter or regional train. The more appropriate comparison would be a bus...and...numerous studies actually peg the bus as the winner, or again the results are so close.

So, you mean passenger cars built to a 1940s weight requirement , right?
I imagine the replacements will be lighter, and thus more efficent.

A B-727 has fuel consumption each engine when at altitude is 2400 pounds / hour. 3 engines = 7200 # / hour. 2010 # = 300 gallons. That equals 1074 gallons per hour. 1 hour discounting all wind is ~ 500 miles. Note fuel aircraft weight is calculated on standard temp of 59 degree F; 15 C,

2 loco that uses ~ 2 gallon per mile per loco for 500 miles = ~~2000 Gallons. Max capacity for regular 727s =~ 149 passengers. So, 300 passengers on a 2 loco Amtrak train equals cruise consumption. 1st hour takeoff and to cruise fuel is over 12,000 # of fuel. Now a single loco regional and short haul reduces fuel burn in half.

Cannot remember other aircraft but Short haul trains with one loco certainly is more fuel efficient. Just needs 150 passengers or more likely 100 due to aircraft's take off and climb. Now more recent aircraft cannot remember fuel consumptions but still think that LD trains with 300 passengers using 2 locos will be somewhat less fuel used. Take off and climb of aircraft engines are fuel hogs compared to cruise. Remember that even the heavily loaded aircraft at MAX gross take off weight will burn more fuel when the aircraft has to initially cruise at 27,000 - 28,000 feet.

west point wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2024 1:22 pm A B-727 has fuel consumption each engine when at altitude is 2400 pounds / hour. 3 engines = 7200 # / hour. 2010 # = 300 gallons. That equals 1074 gallons per hour. 1 hour discounting all wind is ~ 500 miles. Note fuel aircraft weight is calculated on standard temp of 59 degree F; 15 C,

There hasn't been a commercially operated passenger 727 in almost 20 years.... what's the consumption on an A320 or B737NG? Probably 20-40% less?

west point wrote:A B-727 has fuel consumption

Now compare to a long haul train with three E-units (that's 6 prime movers)...

Let's do apples to apples, shall we? 737-800? A320?

scratchyX1 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2024 10:57 am So, you mean passenger cars built to a 1940s weight requirement , right? I imagine the replacements will be lighter, and thus more efficent.

That'd be a great marketing slogan.

"Amtrak: When the federal government gets around to giving us a blank check to buy new equipment in possibly 20-30 years, we'll FINALLY be more efficient than your five seat gasoline fueled internal combustion engine SUV is, today. Until then, remember that our windows flew out during a derailment and four people died two years before someone survived a Boeing 737-MAX 8 door plug flying off, but at least we didn't make international news headlines despite the NTSB recommending retiring those cars."

wigwagfan wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2024 10:06 pm That'd be a great marketing slogan.

"Amtrak: When the federal government gets around to giving us a blank check to buy new equipment in possibly 20-30 years, we'll FINALLY be more efficient than your five seat gasoline fueled internal combustion engine SUV is, today. Until then, remember that our windows flew out during a derailment and four people died two years before someone survived a Boeing 737-MAX 8 door plug flying off, but at least we didn't make international news headlines despite the NTSB recommending retiring those cars."

With all due respect, that is completely false. The NTSB did NOT recommend retiring those cars. They recommended implementing standards for window retention. People survived the Door plug incident because it happened during ascent when everyone was required to be strapped in and there were no occupants in the seats adjacent. Pure dumb luck. If this had occurred during cruising altitude when fasten seatbelt signs were off and people were walking about the cabin or had their seatbelts unfastened this incident could have been FAR worse. Obviously you have the right to your anti Amtrak views and I'm not going to attempt to change your mind on that, but much of what you said there is kind of ridiculous and vastly obscures the actual facts. I realize it was largely sarcastic, but it's sarcasm that's not really based in the facts.

It's pretty well known that the P42s are not the most clean machines emissions wise at only T0. But with the ALC 42 units that are coming at tier 4 and reducing emissions around 90%, the "cleanliness" will be vastly improved.

lordsigma12345 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 9:43 pm

With all due respect, that is completely false. The NTSB did NOT recommend retiring those cars. They recommended implementing standards for window retention.

The whole Talgo situation has been the biggest boondoggle and the worst example of why government sucks at running a business. If BNSF owned those Talgos and ran them for Amtrak or WSDOT under contract, you can be they wouldn't have thrown them out "because crash".

I suspect there was something else at play here. Maybe they were tired of paying a tech to ride all the trains and the novelty of fast curves wore off.

I think he was referring to the Joplin derailment of the Builder (given he said two years) which involved Superliner windows flying out. The NTSB did not condemn the Superliners as they did the Talgos in the derailment you’re referring to. But they did recommend Amtrak develop a solution to improve window retention.

lordsigma12345 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 9:43 pm With all due respect, that is completely false. The NTSB did NOT recommend retiring those cars. They recommended implementing standards for window retention.

Excuse me. The NTSB recommended changes, that would be largely impractical and certainly not cost-effective with the existing fleet of cars given their age and construction. Better?

lordsigma12345 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 9:43 pmObviously you have the right to your anti Amtrak views and I'm not going to attempt to change your mind on that, but much of what you said there is kind of ridiculous and vastly obscures the actual facts. I realize it was largely sarcastic, but it's sarcasm that's not really based in the facts.

Nice ad hominem attack. You state no argument against my facts but focus your argument on, and I quote you:

lordsigma12345 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 9:43 pmyou have the right to your anti Amtrak views and I'm not going to attempt to change your mind on that, but much of what you said there is kind of ridiculous and vastly obscures the actual facts.

Guess the rules have changed here at Railroad.Net, and these kinds of attacks are allowed here, like in the rest of society where facts don't matter, just who can scream the loudest and who wins the popularity contest.

The Burlington had no problem banning equipment because of derailments (they prohibited the SDP40F), so I'd think they would also withdraw or prohibit other equipment "because crash".