Live data from Hacker News

Trains are more efficient and less polluting than other transportation modes

citylab.com

171–180 of 334 posts

Re: Trains are more efficient and less polluting than other transportation modes

#171
post #112

My wife and I took a trip to the middle of nowhere in Wales last fall. Train to Cardiff from London, then from Cardiff to our little cottage in the Pembrokeshire coast, I drove for 2+ hours in a rental car, learning to drive on the left. The day after we arrived, we learned we could have caught a train to Fishguard, a tiny village nearby, and then the local bus would have gotten us within a ten minute walk from our r…

And perhaps that London to Cardiff is 150 miles, less than New York to Baltimore, and that Wales is about as big as New Jersey.

It's a whole culture that says places are really close.

Re: Trains are more efficient and less polluting than other transportation modes

#172

Most of the US freight rail system isn't electrified because the capital expenditures of doing so would be very large, and its return on investment in terms of direct monetary savings wouldn't materialize for many, many years. Since externalities aren't priced in, diesel-electric locomotives haul most trains in the US. More passenger rail isn't really being built in the US, because the capital expenditures of doing s…

> Most of the US freight rail system isn't electrified because the capital expenditures of doing so would be very large, and its return on investment in terms of direct monetary savings wouldn't materialize for many, many years. There's a decent amount of mainline freight rail that was electrified 100 years ago but has since been ripped out. It turns out that electrification has a lot of operational constraints that…

Peak electrification in the US was in the 1930s and began falling in the 40s, but the Class I railroad route miles were almost 2.5x that of today. Electrification generally came about to reduce the impacts of steam traction (e.g. in cities and tunnels), to gain more power on grades, or to reduce the opex on high-traffic routes vs. steam.

In the decades after WW2, diesel-electric propulsion boomed, viable again after wartime shortages were over, simpler to maintain than steam, and more flexible than electric. This was well before double-stack trains got started in the 80s, but now that double-stack is widespread in the US, overhead electrification does present another operational hurdle.

Re: Trains are more efficient and less polluting than other transportation modes

#173

I’ve visited Europe many times and I do like how the region is so easily accessible without a car, largely because of trains, but there are many more factors outside of just having trains. European cities are far more walkable and accessible without a car. For decades the US has just not been built up in this way so just dropping trains in doesn’t suddenly make them preferred and thus viable. The reason people drive…

Excuse my ignorance, but my foreigner layman's opinion is that your cities ain't broke, the US is the richest nation on Earth. Y'all just need to tax better and spend wiser.

Part of it is the US has a lot of land. Japan is one of the more extreme examples but they have ~8.7x people per unit of land. That makes a big difference on the kind of buildings and transportation you build.

Re: Trains are more efficient and less polluting than other transportation modes

#174

The main reason US cities rely on automobiles is because the "job watershed" of a private automobile exceeds the job watershed of train systems everywhere in the US, even New York City. The job watershed is the number of jobs within commuting distance, whatever your tolerance for a commute is, given a transportation modality. In some cities the automobile job watershed is 100x larger than the transit job watershed. T…

The problem with buses is that they're typically slow compared to even subway/metro rail (let alone inter-city). That doesn't mean they're not the right fit in a wide variety of scenarios (for example, they're about perfect for small/medium cities that can't afford to invest a whole lot in intra-city rail, and they're the only viable option for smaller cities/towns that aren't already stops on a larger inter-city rail line), but they're not necessarily the right fit for a large city with more ground to cover (even with dedicated bus lanes, buses can only - safely - drive so fast, and that speed is typically less than rail). The phrase "bus rapid transit" is kinda nonsensical/oxymoronic; there's not really much that's "rapid" about buses.

Ridesharing is slightly more promising, since the smaller vehicles can drive a bit faster and don't have to stick to specific routes. Unfortunately, because they're smaller, they don't carry as many people, so they're less suited for heavy load (i.e. lots of passengers trying to go from the same place to the same place).

Rail is probably the most efficient, but also the least flexible and the most expensive (the expense can be mitigated somewhat if you're proactive about building tram rails into your roads, but not all roads warrant that, and by the time they do it's likely already too late; plus, that doesn't do much for older cities).

The ideal would be something like the following:

- High-speed rail between cities - Metro rail between major parts of cities (and/or between cities and suburbs/satellites) - Full buses on fixed (or at least firm) routes to transit centers in neighborhoods/suburbs/satellites that don't have metro connections of their own (connecting to nearby metro stations, the high-speed rail hub, and/or other bus stations) - Minibuses on more flexible routes for intra-(neighborhood/suburb/satellite) transit (between neighborhood minibus stops, to nearby macrobus/metro/rail stations, or to specific minibus stops outside that particular "zone" in rare cases where a point-to-point really is faster and enough people are trying to do it)

All this would be controlled by a rider walking up to some sort of kiosk (or using a smartphone app), picking a destination, and getting a route calculated on-the-fly (for kiosk users: probably printed, or if we wanna be real slick, dispensed on an e-ink display that'll update if the route changes).

Re: Trains are more efficient and less polluting than other transportation modes

#175

The main reason US cities rely on automobiles is because the "job watershed" of a private automobile exceeds the job watershed of train systems everywhere in the US, even New York City. The job watershed is the number of jobs within commuting distance, whatever your tolerance for a commute is, given a transportation modality. In some cities the automobile job watershed is 100x larger than the transit job watershed. T…

The reason of automobile dominance is more that unlike other countries, we went all in on highways and just actively dismantled existing rail infrastructure. And then to salt the wounds, our parking requirements are so high that in many suburbs I've been in, the ten minute walk from the front door of Walmart to the bus stop is ridiculous. Rail does better when congestion is high and density is high, but in most of Am…

"Developers do not need to be told a minimum to build, they will build what the market will bear because if they underpark their buildings no one will rent units or office space."

The problem with this boils down to

1) That ain't exactly true; in sufficiently-dense cities people will still rent spaces in underparked buildings

2) If you underestimate the demand for parking, it's way more difficult to add parking after-the-fact

I do agree that parking lots are absurd wastes of space, though. They're cheaper than parking garages, sure, but they suck on pretty much every other metric. Parking garages are much more space-efficient, and if every building was built atop a parking garage (even just one or two levels), that'd cut down significantly on both the need for parking lots and the need for street parking.

Re: Trains are more efficient and less polluting than other transportation modes

#176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you elaborate on how my feet would help get me to remote trailheads? Even if buses took me directly to the dirt roads, it's often another 20 miles to the trailhead itself. Are you suggesting I take unreliable 3 to 5 hours one way buses and then walk for 6 hours on a dirt road just to get to a good mountain climb?

Yes. Or you could just keep using personal vehicles and complain about the lack of alternatives. The only issue I have with your plan is that while walking on that dirt road I'd have to deal with people that don't care for pedestrians using their roads meant for vehicles.

[deleted]

Re: Trains are more efficient and less polluting than other transportation modes

#177
post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One possibility is a diesel-electric locomotive that also has a pickup on the top. That way part of the lines can be electrified, and the diesel fills in the gaps.

Batteries are now a viable option. They can pull power from the overhead lines or third rail when available and run on batteries when power isn't available. The LiFePO4 batteries are a drop-in replacement for existing diesel generators, so producing them is easy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9s4heZe7ChM

For a single small passenger car without any grade, maybe.

From that video: 90kw/hr of battery. At peak power output of 180kw, you could run that for 30 minutes.

The ubiquitous GE Dash-9 used in freight service here in the US generates >3000kw and can run all day. They're also usually run in multiples to pull long heavy trains.

I wouldn't expect to see battery powered trains in the US anytime soon, except maybe short passenger-only lines on the east coast (which are probably viable for electrification anyway).

Re: Trains are more efficient and less polluting than other transportation modes

#178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most of the US freight rail system isn't electrified because the capital expenditures of doing so would be very large, and its return on investment in terms of direct monetary savings wouldn't materialize for many, many years. There's a decent amount of mainline freight rail that was electrified 100 years ago but has since been ripped out. It turns out that electrification has a lot of operational constraints that…

Thing that solves those issues are battery powered locomotives. This idea generally invites disbelief but when you run the numbers it works because the power to weight requirements drop as vehicles get larger. The result you can use overhead lines where safe, cheap and convenient and avoid them where they are not, like rail switching yards. https://www.railjournal.com/regions/north-america/bnsf-and-g...

It's crazy to me that people still scoff at the idea of batteries being a serious power source for things, but you're right, they do, even though there are 100MWh batteries deployed already with 1GWh batteries being approved and nearing deployment.

Re: Trains are more efficient and less polluting than other transportation modes

#179
post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Batteries are now a viable option. They can pull power from the overhead lines or third rail when available and run on batteries when power isn't available. The LiFePO4 batteries are a drop-in replacement for existing diesel generators, so producing them is easy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9s4heZe7ChM

For a single small passenger car without any grade, maybe. From that video: 90kw/hr of battery. At peak power output of 180kw, you could run that for 30 minutes. The ubiquitous GE Dash-9 used in freight service here in the US generates >3000kw and can run all day. They're also usually run in multiples to pull long heavy trains. I wouldn't expect to see battery powered trains in the US anytime soon, except maybe short…

You, strangely, ignored the parent's point that you would just be using the batteries to reduce the amount of overhead wires you need, i.e. one would have opportunity to recharge several times a day.

(It's not helpful to focus on the specifics of a proof of concept--unimportant in this discussion about what is feasible--versus the fundamental figures of merit of the technology... Unless one is prepared to make the case that the specifics are the limits of the technology.)

There are 100MW power, 100MWh energy lithium ion batteries installed already (with 1GWh on the way). There's no technical reason you couldn't have battery powered trains. The "batteries are too weak" argument is dead.

Re: Trains are more efficient and less polluting than other transportation modes

#180
post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Trains are a messy, loud and dangerous way of moving stuff. How so?

> How so? You've obviously never lived next to a railroad. Trains can't stop. I mean, they can eventually stop, but when it comes down to it, the train is not stopping. Trains are relatively clean compared to trucks, but they still burn crap and spew ash and smoke. Trains are loud. That's... I really can't say it any other way. Trains. Are. Loud.

You also need a lot fewer trains than say cars or trucks, so on the whole they might be better off.
Post reply on HN