Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Trains are more efficient and less polluting than other transportation modes

citylab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 334 posts

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

#221

Post by apexalpha »

bartimus wrote: post #220

What I found interesting is that in the US the government had a huge role with developing the rail network while in the UK it was entirely done by the private sector. I'm from the Netherlands where the rail network started out as a state owned company. It then got privatized by splitting ownership horizontally. Meaning one company owns the rail network while other companies provide train services on top of that netwo…

You are now comparing a star-form rail network in the Netherlands that runs in a country of 300km by 400km to a fish-grate network that runs in Japan.

Also, the famous punctuality comes from the Japanese High Speed train network, a network purpose built for a single model of train. There are no intersections, road crossings or freight or slow trains on that network.

Obviously any Dutch train would also fare well on a purpose built track.

But our tracks are shared with trains from the NS (Dutch Rail) as well as trains from the German (Arriva) and French (Veolia) operators, the German (ICE), French (TGV) and British (EuroStar) High Speed trains, thousands of tons of freight from DB Cargo and several other regional players.

You're just comparing Apples and Oranges when you compare our open, star shaped rail grid to the Japanese purposebuilt Shinkansen

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

#223

Post by evgen »

gsanghera wrote: post #187
bronco21016 wrote: post #62

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…

Didn't the US car companies actively lobby against and destroy the budding streetcar transport in most cities? I admit its not exactly rail, but you do have trams / streetcars in many European cities too - like Amsterdam. I would think they would be a much preferred public transport option than everyone driving their own car. Culture is not something which happens automatically - sometimes its driven by corporates, a…

This is a rather popular lie that ignores the facts on the ground at the time. No, the US car companies did not lobby against or destroy the streetcar industry, the growth of the suburb and government policies that promoted such growth managed to do that all on their own. The auto manufacturers just set themselves up to take advantage of this decline and the shifting of subsidies to road construction.

In this case culture (the shifting demographics that led to the initial growth of the suburb and the self-perpetuating cultural enshrinement of same) is what led and government/corporations followed.

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

#224

Post by Gibbon1 »

daurnimator wrote: post #206
stickfigure wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you've run the numbers. A tesla powerpack is 50kw, 210kwh, and weighs 3500lbs. A freight train that would normally be pulled by four 3,000kw diesel electric locomotives would need 240 powerpacks, and could run for four hours before needing a full recharge. Those powerpacks would weigh 420 tons - the equivalent of say, four fully loaded freight cars, and cost around $25M (plus whatever the locomotives co…

Why assume 4 hours with a recharge? I'm thinking closer to max 15 mins without a recharge. This would allow skipping electrification in some tunnels; in rail yards; on track segments shared with non-electrified trains; and anywhere that it's too hard to run electric lines.

Far as I can tell he's also off by a factor of 4.

Tesla 85hw battery pack 1200 lbs.

3000 kw X 4 hours = 1200 kwh.

1200kwh/85kw*1200 = 170,000 lbs.

A GE/NS Dash 8 weighs in at about 390,000lbs

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

#225

Post by ovi256 »

mikekchar wrote: post #219
fyfy18 wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For comparison, in the UK there are around 8 trains per hour during peak times between London and Cambridge (around twice the distance of DC-Baltimore). I'd imagine there are cities that have even more per hour in central Europe.

Although according to Google Washington DC has 700,000 people and Baltimore 600,000. Probably a more realistic comparison would be Bristol and Southampton/Portsmouth where there is realistically 1 train an hour (technically 2, but the second one has a change and runs 8 minutes after the first one). Comparing trains from London is not really fair because virtually every train in the south ends up in London eventually.…

>Washington DC has 700,000 people and Baltimore 600,000

You really have to look at the metro population.

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

#226

Post by narag »

TylerE wrote: post #218
narag wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IIRC it was bandied back and forth but you'd only get a few hours of peak load, vs a diesel which can run at peak power for days before running out of fuel. The USA have very long distances, unusual for other countries. A few hours are more than enough for short travels. Anyway, recharge times are irrelevant if you could change them easily.

No they’re not. Availability. A locomotive that’s charging isn’t pulling a train. They’re like airliners, they don’t sit around idle for long periods. Too much capital tied up in them.

A locomotive that’s charging...

Charging? I wrote about changing them, not charging.

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

#227

Post by mikekchar »

ovi256 wrote: post #225
mikekchar wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although according to Google Washington DC has 700,000 people and Baltimore 600,000. Probably a more realistic comparison would be Bristol and Southampton/Portsmouth where there is realistically 1 train an hour (technically 2, but the second one has a change and runs 8 minutes after the first one). Comparing trains from London is not really fair because virtually every train in the south ends up in London eventually.…

>Washington DC has 700,000 people and Baltimore 600,000 You really have to look at the metro population.

London has a population of over 8 million and 14 million for the metro population. I was trying to pick something that had even close to a similar population density of of Washington Baltimore in the UK. Comparing to London is like comparing to NYC.

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

#229

Post by maccard »

My biggest issue is train costs. I live in Edinburgh, and I can fly to London in 6 weeks for £19, or I can get the train for £160. The overall travel time is roughly the same, but at 6 times the price it can be very hard to justify. Especially when you have to travel with more than one person.

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

#230

Post by mostlystatic »

maccard wrote: post #229

My biggest issue is train costs. I live in Edinburgh, and I can fly to London in 6 weeks for £19, or I can get the train for £160. The overall travel time is roughly the same, but at 6 times the price it can be very hard to justify. Especially when you have to travel with more than one person.

Fares 6 weeks in advance seem to be around £50, starting from £30 for a slower train.
Post reply on HN