Trains Save Fuel

WGIL -- Galesburg Radio 14 ^ | Thursday, October 14, 2010 | Illinois Radio Network

[Willie Green]

(IRN)-An environmental group is touting the fuel saving benefits of the train.

In particular, the savings are measured based on the use of the Metra commuter rail system in the Chicago area: 34.8 million of gasoline a year, assuming all the train riders would have made all the same trips by car, with 1.3 people in the car each time, according to the group Environment Illinois.

Metra served 77 million passengers in 2008, with ridership increasing an average of 1 percent per year since 2000. Its busiest line, the BNSF line between Aurora and Chicago, carries an average of 63,200 passengers each weekday.

Environment Illinois is calling for an adjustment of the federal transportation funding formula to support rail as much as roads. Field associate Sophie Huckabay says the current formula rewards states that adopt transportation policies that promote fuel consumption, a perverse incentive, she says.

The train related fuel savings would accrue, Huckabay says, on expanded Metra service further into the hinterlands, to places such as Johnsburg, Rockford, DeKalb and Kankakee, and high-speed rail Downstate.

[EQAndyBuzz]

“And now we’re suffering an anemic economy due to excessive hemorrhaging of money spent on foreign oil.”

No, we’re suffering an anemic economy due to excessive government intervention forcing us to take our business elsewhere.

Like everything the Libs touch, the unintended consequence is always worse then the original problem.

[mountainlion]

Nuclear steel mills would be clean and as safe but eco-terrorists shut down nuclear power industry. Peak oil is a red herring since there are several times more oil found since 1970 than they thought existed before 1970. Peak oil only exists as long as we have anti- American politicians in office.

[EQAndyBuzz]

“Actually there was an article on the boards earlier in the week about a new process that could turn coal into gasoline cheaper than refining crude oil into gasoline. So the answer might not be “Drill baby Drill” but “Dig baby Dig”.”

I believe that was University of Texas Arlington.

[GonzoGOP]

I didn’t realise about the speed/maintenance variation, but in retrospect I guess it’s obvious.

Sure at low speeds you are dealing with mostly compression stress, easy enough to deal with. But as speed goes up a train going around a curve starts to impart twisting and bending stresses. Much harder on the roadbed. And wooden ties are out at those speeds, they just can't hold the spikes. So not you have to pop for the more expensive concrete ties.

Also the stress of the train going onto a bridge isn't a slow rolling motion, but at 150 it hits the bridge like a thousand ton sledge hammer. So you have to do a lot more inspections for metal fatigue.

The other problem with speed is the signaling system. The faster you go the longer lead time you need on your signals. At high speeds trains just don't stop particularly well. There is only so much friction a steel wheel can put onto steel rail. So you have to put in a much more complex signal system. The more trains you run the more complex it gets. When you are going faster than two miles a minute and need over a mile to stop life can get very interesting for the dispatchers.

And at anything over 70 mph you can't have grade crossings. Unless you like hitting trucks at 150 miles per hour. So now you have to build the entire railway up on an embankment or in a tunnel. Lots of extra expenses there. That is something that people forget when the say just convert existing rail lines to high speed. There is a limit as to how fast you can go before you end up rebuilding the entire railroad.

Here in Chicago the railroads are heavily patronized and relatively successful. But not because they save gas. They stay under the 70 mph limit so they can use existing freight railroads, reducing the cost to METRA considerably. They avoid the traffic on the highways, which is horrible. And they function as remote parking lots. It only costs $3.00 to park in the suburbs and around $20.00 a day to park in the city.

[Jim Robinson]

Had nothing but good things to say about Weyrich in the past, but if he said anything like that, then obviously he was off track on this one.

I’ll put it this way so there is no misunderstanding. If you continue pushing leftist clap-trap on this website, you get the zot.

It’s not wanted here. Drop it or leave. The choice is yours and I’m not going to argue with you about it. Zip it or zot it.

[Mr. Lucky]

There are a whole bunch of weaknesses in this self-serving comparison. The most obvious is the assumption that everyone in Auora or Naperville who commutes by train to Chicago would choose to drive by him or her self rather than car pool with neighbors. If the assumption is made that there would be, say, three riders in each car, commuting by automobile would be more efficient than by mass transit. Almost as obvious is that the energy expended in maintaining, heating and cooling train stations hasn't been accounted for. I wonder what Union Station's energy bill is for the month of January.

[Paladin2]

I found a great potential benefit of rail in Massechusetts today:

[King Moonracer]

Last time I took a train, there was a parking garage, with a damn long line entering and leaving. More union jobs, manning the booths and who probably built the damn thing.

[Paladin2]

"But if coal crashes at 30 mph, you just pick it up"

I saw some BNSF aluminum coal cars that wrecked last winter near Bozeman Pass. The picked up the coal AND sent a few cars back to the smelter. I took them at least 24 hr to get the traffic going again over the single track.

[libstripper]

As a former Chicagoan who was born there in 1942 and left the area in 1971, I can say it is and has always been uniquely suited to public rail commuting, as much as or more than any other city in the country.

Starting in the 1920s or earlier, it had an extensive commuter rail system, with the Illinois Central running into the far south suburbs, the Burlington serving many of the western suburbs, and the Northwestern going to many of the western and northern suburbs. Just about everybody who lived outside of the central business district, the “Loop,” commuted either by suburban commuter rail or CTA mas transit. This is because there are large, compact surrounding population centers in the suburbs and the city, and everything focused and focuses on the Loop, making rail transit commuting highly efficient. Indeed, it’s far better and easier for most Chicago commuters than driving over congested freeways and paying massive parking fees, which explains its great popularity and success.

Having also lived and worked in Detroit, MI; Milwaukee, WI; and Knoxville, TN, starting in 1971, I can also say, from direct personal commuting experience, that none of those three cities had the centralization that makes Chicago-style suburban commuter rail and mass transit economically and logistically feasible. I commuted by car in all three of those cities, while I commuted by either commuter suburban rail or CTA while in Chicago.

From all of these experiences my conclusion is the Chicago situation is unique. It cannot be used as an argument for either suburban commuter rail or rapid transit in any city that’s not geographically similar to Chicago.

[jazusamo]

ROFL!!

Now that’s a keeper. I see Bwaney even has his house slippers on.

[GladesGuru]

Wee Willie Green is just a train “advocate”. Train mania strikes many, but few become as monomaniacal as our Willie.

Whatever he may be, stupid he clearly isn’t.

However, trains are not something that anything other than commodities and cattle should use for transportation. And, I have ridden the best of them, including the California Zephyr. All in all, a long, less than optimal ride.

But, in their time, trains were a great improvement on the stage coach. Now, ....

[mountainlion]

Bad news OPEC just elected Iran to be president. Hold on to your wallets.

[GladesGuru]

“I didn’t know Socialist had a sense of humor.”

But, since socialists are walking, talking jokes, can it not be said that they might also have a sense of humor?

[Buckeye McFrog]

it’s called the Coefficient of Friction (some of us did stay awake during high-school physics class)

[GladesGuru]

“And convert to alternate sources of energy like nuclear power.”

Willie, nuclear power is the ONLY achievable form of “alternative energy”.

Congratulations! You got one right.

PS How about repossessing the stolen oil fields “nationalized” away from us?

[Responsibility2nd]

I thought when he asked if you had a source for that (B/S) you would have linked him here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/~williegreen/

lol. You are a tolerant man, Jim Robinson. You really are. But he’s from the class of ‘98. So you are nice as you take that into consideration as well.

[Paladin2]

Telecommuting, the new transportation form of the 21st Century, does save fuel and gov’t infrastructure costs.

[Reeses]

Yes, in theory trains save fuel, in the very same theoretical way that empty buses running up and down the street can save fuel.

Cost is an excellent measure of total energy use. If one item costs more than another it is almost always because more total energy was expended in its production. And energy use is an excellent measure of total environmental damage.

Passenger trains cost astronomically more than other options, so much they need tax subsidies to even operate. This can only mean one thing: more total energy use and more environmental damage.

[bert]

saving fuel is not really a worthwhile objective.