Trains are more efficient and less polluting than other transportation modes • Hacker News Board

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

#281

Post by ghaff » Tue, Apr 02, 2019, 1:00 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #236

mabbo wrote: 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…

Yes and no; as a Brit I would probably have chosen a car for that trip, because local buses are infrequent and unreliable. Trips other than via London are often easier by car. The UK never really had the space to develop US-style suburban sprawl, even in its designed car-centric new towns like Milton Keynes.

Yeah. People I know in the UK outside of London generally own cars. And my personal recent experience with doing long distance walks in England over the past few years is that, while it's mostly been possible to get to the beginning and end of routes with public transit (because the routes are chosen with that in mind), busses can start to get scarce and, in practice, I've ended up taking taxis at times. I've also had to take a taxi when I've needed to skip a day walking for some reason--or gotten a ride from an inn owner.

The UK is certainly better than the US in general for having transport options but you get outside of cities and it starts getting a lot harder to efficiently travel around without a car.

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

#282

Post by bartimus » Tue, Apr 02, 2019, 1:08 PM UTC

apexalpha wrote: post #251

bartimus wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not just comparing the Shinkansen. I'm comparing the whole Japanese network in its entirety. It isn't just a fish-grate network. It expands deep into the rural areas where it's highly integrated. Indeed they have multiple forms of trains and railways optimized for each purpose. If you take the train in Japan you might pass through numerous operators and types of railways. It's why it's so complicated to buy a tic…

You are allowed to compare it but just make sure to compare the right numbers. The stereotype 'apology for 20 seconds delay' and stuff are all from high speed trains. Not from regular tracks. >In the Netherlands the railway system still needs state funding every year. I don't see how we could ever transition to the Japanese model. Which is a shame. Other than that you seem to see the Japanese system as some end goal…

It's also a cultural thing in Japan to be honorable with the service you provide. If a critical connection in Japan gets delayed it can have huge impact. Thanks to the vertical split of ownership you can always blame a specific operator for some outage. In Holland we often see a blame game where the operator blames the network owner. The network owner pretty much has a monopoly here.

> the Dutch system is already in the top 3 of punctuality

I've oftentimes tried to find such numbers but have never been successful. There's some efforts that attempt to compare European countries (I think Holland is not 3rd here). But not worldwide comparisons. The problem is also that countries have different ideas on what constitutes a train being "on time".

Meanwhile in Europe 76% of all freight transport is still happening on the road. In Holland 72% of all private person-kilometers are happening on the road. Switzerland has an amazing rail network which is state owned (although it started out from privately owned companies). But also in Switzerland 75% of all person-kilometers are on the road.

Let's say we'd want to get those trucks off the road and onto our wonderful railway network. I think it wouldn't even be possible. Could we run all those freight trains on the same railways as the passenger trains? We'd probably need separate specialized lines. Then we need to quadruple its capacity to accommodate for all the road kilometers.

How much would that cost? Perhaps it's cheaper to subsidize electric vehicles.

I'm not particularly against trains. Fine if it's viable. But I don't see how it will become the answer to the global warming problem. Also because of the other arguments mentioned in this thread (The hub and spokes model being inefficient).

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

#283

Post by helen___keller » Tue, Apr 02, 2019, 1:17 PM UTC

kylek wrote: post #135

jackcosgrove wrote: post #90

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…

I think this also has to do with EU cities being much older, and "grew up" prior to automobiles even existing/being wide-spread. American cities/sprawls are designed around the automobile (and maybe some sick idea of "the american dream" pushed by early industrialists)

You are correct but there are also plenty of case studies in automobile-dependent cities that went all-in on transit, but that was usually due to a crushing and unbearable level of crowding thats simply not legal in any US city.

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

#284

Post by iggldiggl » Tue, Apr 02, 2019, 1:38 PM UTC

creato wrote: post #194

Robotbeat wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ca…

Can you even transfer close to 3000 kW through any overhead wires or third rail systems? It seems like 25 kV is the max voltage overhead lines run at. That's 120 A that you need to transfer through a sliding conductor. That sounds problematic to me, but I don't really know for sure...? And if you are proposing using batteries to reduce the amount of overhead wires you need, then the average power you need to transfer…

To give some ball park figures, this is the default maximum current permitted per train according to national regulations:

- UK conventional lines: 300 A @ 25 kV

- UK third rail network: 6800 A @ 750 V

- German conventional lines: 600 A @ 15 kV

- German high speed lines: 1500 A @ 15 kV

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

#285

Post by johnwalkr » Tue, Apr 02, 2019, 1:40 PM UTC

wongarsu wrote: post #31

anarchop wrote: post #24

Deisel freight trains are huge poluters with regard to particulate matter (PM). This actually causes cancer as opposed to CO2. Reducing PM without impacting fuel efficiency significantly is possible but requires investment. https://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/-/media/epa/corporate-site/resour... Same goes for diesel trucks / busses. This type of change throughout the world would really improve people’s lives immediately.

However PM is a fairly localized pollution that doesn't spread far. I don't think diesel trains that drive through the middle of nowhere are that bad. Near population centers it would be preferable to switch to electric locomotives.

There's a handful of hybrid trains in Japan that are electric in urban areas and use a diesel generator in rural parts of the route.

A quick search didn't reveal any running North America but considering diesel locomotives have mostly used diesel generators and electric motors since the 70s, it's not a stretch to think about implementation there.

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

#286

Post by ceejayoz » Tue, Apr 02, 2019, 1:41 PM UTC

stevejb wrote: post #159

ceejayoz wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Let me know when we invent something that can affordably and reliably take me to the base of mountains for hikes (real hikes, not shitty crowded garbage like Lake 22 or Mount Tam). If you visit Switzerland, you'll find this is an extremely solved problem.

http://www.travelersdigest.com/7381-how-big-is-switzerland-i... Getting to a particular mountain is solved. This isn't a comparison of some tourist experience in a country the size of the Dallas-Fort Worth metro area. Its about the freedom to explore our great national parks, etc.

> Its about the freedom to explore our great national parks, etc.

No one's getting rid of that freedom. Cars are still legal and commonly used in Switzerland.

The point is that effective public transportation networks can reduce the need for cars (and the resulting pollution, congestion, noise, etc.), particularly in populated areas. Instead of a family needing to own two cars because reaching the grocery store and kids' school requires a drive, a family might need just one, or even be able to just rent one for a weekend of camping.

One of the best things about the Swiss system is the close integration between different modes of transport, even across different operators. Bus schedules are set up so they drop you off right before the train comes, and they leave just after it drops off its passengers, so you're not sitting around for an hour awaiting a connection.

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

#287

Post by brianzelip » Tue, Apr 02, 2019, 1:44 PM UTC

chungleong wrote: post #278

brianzelip wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re wrong about the Baltimore light rail not reaching Penn Station. See the Camden Yards - Penn Station light rail line, it runs a few times/hour. https://www.mta.maryland.gov/schedule

Half a mile walk is not what I'd calling reaching. You can't even see Penn from the light-rail stop.

Sounds like you're referring to the University of Baltimore/MICA light rail stop[0], where you have to get off if heading south or heading north but not on the Penn line, to catch the 'Penn Station - Camden Yards' line. I mean, it's in the name of the light rail line...it lets you off right at the station[1].

[0] https://www.google.com/maps/place/University+of+Baltimore+-+...

[1] https://www.google.com/maps/place/Penn+Station/@39.3071436,-...

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

#288

Post by dsq » Tue, Apr 02, 2019, 1:51 PM UTC

michaelt wrote: post #234

jcranmer wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably a bigger factor is that, in the early 1940s, virtually the entire infrastructure of Europe was destroyed. In March 1945, there were no operational bridges across the entire length of the Rhine river. All of that infrastructure was rebuilt in the late 1940s and the 1950s to then-modern high speed standards; by contrast, the US has to make do with infrastructure upgraded at great cost around the 1910s.

Europe also had a big military imperative to build railways pre-WW1: Trains let you move your forces faster, so you can build up a concentration of forces in one location to attack or reinforce a defensive line. So no state in continental Europe wanted to be on the losing side of a railway gap.

This is probably a much bigger factor than usually thought. Military necessity will trump budget constrictions and property rights. Railways pre WW1, roads during and after WW2 and in preparation for the Cold War.

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

#289

Post by Ericson2314 » Tue, Apr 02, 2019, 2:01 PM UTC

temp-dude-87844 wrote: post #8

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…

I like that repeating rhetoric.

The US fundamentally doesn't understand investment.

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

#290

Post by perfmode » Tue, Apr 02, 2019, 2:01 PM UTC

kortilla wrote: post #84

luckydata wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Coming from Europe and stealing a large swath of largely unexploited land has done great things for the American economy. Unfortunately the majority of my fellow americans insist in believing it's all due to hard work and superior moral fiber, because everywhere else people are just lazy and corrupt :)

Land has been completely irrelevant to the success of the entire information economy and the US still dominates that. It has nothing to do with a “superior moral fiber”, it’s about having an environment that promotes innovation and businesses based on new innovations.

Give people privilege long enough and they’ll begin to believe they’ve earned it.