Earlier quoted context omitted.
The richest americans are very rich, yes. Most americans aren't rich.
Which is better than the alternative of nobody being rich.
Sorry, but what?
Trains are more efficient and less polluting than other transportation modes
301–310 of 334 posts
Re: Trains are more efficient and less polluting than other transportation modes
#302Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I dearly hope not. A 1 GWh battery stores 1/10th the energy of the Hiroshima nuclear bomb, and will release it incredibly spectacularly should it ever catch fire.
I don't want that thing anywhere near a train... Or where I live.
Re: Trains are more efficient and less polluting than other transportation modes
#303Earlier quoted context omitted.
I normally live in Europe. At the moment I'm in Baltimore. The city's downtown area (around the inner harbor) is perfectly walkable. Nearby DC is also perfectly walkable, while driving is a nightmare. These two cities should be well connected by rail but they're not. People would drive to a parking lot beside a metro station and get into the city that way. Two cities can only be linked effectively by rail when there…
Washington-Baltimore is actually a very good connection by rail--you'll have a train at least once an hour--except that the station for Baltimore is in the wrong location. Baltimore Penn Station is located far to the north of the city, well outside the Inner Harbor that's going to be the center of tourism and visitors. What happened is that, historically, Baltimore-Washington was mainly served by the B&O, whose Balti…
Baltimore resident who commutes by train here. There's actually a line that goes to DC right by inner harbor- the Camden Line as opposed to Penn Line at Penn station.
As a consequence trains from Baltimore run a bit more often then once an hour - though I don't take Camden Line (It's for losers) so I don't know what the overlap is exactly.
Re: Trains are more efficient and less polluting than other transportation modes
#304Earlier quoted context omitted.
Washington-Baltimore is actually a very good connection by rail--you'll have a train at least once an hour--except that the station for Baltimore is in the wrong location. Baltimore Penn Station is located far to the north of the city, well outside the Inner Harbor that's going to be the center of tourism and visitors. What happened is that, historically, Baltimore-Washington was mainly served by the B&O, whose Balti…
Baltimore resident who commutes by train here. There's actually a line that goes to DC right by inner harbor- the Camden Line as opposed to Penn Line at Penn station. As a consequence trains from Baltimore run a bit more often then once an hour - though I don't take Camden Line (It's for losers) so I don't know what the overlap is exactly.
> I don't take Camden Line (It's for losers)
Why is this? Full of tourists?
Re: Trains are more efficient and less polluting than other transportation modes
#305Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another issue is the local public transportation in most US cities isn’t adequate so travelers want to transport their vehicle with them. Although, rideshare services help alleviate this issue.
Motorail? ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorail )
I've had visions of this but in a subway / hyperloop tunnel below the ground. Getting stops every 30 miles or so, just tracking along the interstates.
Re: Trains are more efficient and less polluting than other transportation modes
#306Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I dearly hope not. A 1 GWh battery stores 1/10th the energy of the Hiroshima nuclear bomb, and will release it incredibly spectacularly should it ever catch fire. I don't want that thing anywhere near a train... Or where I live.
[deleted]
Re: Trains are more efficient and less polluting than other transportation modes
#307Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be kinda cool to see a long train split in half , front and back taking different routes. That happens all the time here, in Spain. Some trains from Madrid to Andalusia travels to Seville with two locomotives, one in the front, another one in the rear. Then half the train goes on to Cádiz, half to Huelva. Oh, and it's sometimes very long, forty passengers cars + 2 locom. + several restaurant cars. I guess th…
Fast yes, cheap not at all. Conventional (not high speed) trains in Spain are cheap, but there are fewer and fewer of those. If you want to travel cheaply you mostly have to take a bus. Most trains here are now only for the rich.
I guess your definition for "the rich" is "not poor":
57€ for a 700 km travel is cheap compared to a car that will take x2 the time, unless you are OK with burning double the money on fuel and ignoring speed limits, of course risking fines and license suspension.
A full car will be cheaper if you ignore the cost of the car itself + maintenance and saved time. Families use to travel by car on holidays only because they need the car for short trips during the holidays, not because it's cheaper.
Buses were dirty cheap, I haven't even looked at the prices in the last twenty years, I had enough unconfortable eight hours travels when I had no alternative.
Re: Trains are more efficient and less polluting than other transportation modes
#308Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are correct to point out that governments subsidize roads, making this an unfair compare. Trucking is built on the highway system, a massive capital expenditure which is completely paid for by taxpayers as a gift to the trucking industry. Massive capital expenditures are often part and parcel of transportation infrastructure; what's different here is the political will to fund it.
Calling it a gift to the trucking industry implies there wasn't originally a strategic motivation to getting it done and that individuals don't also greatly benefit. Trucking is a business with razor thin margins so that "gift" very much gets spread around. Sure cars are bad for the environment but pretending that the interstate system doesn't greatly benefit basically everyone in the country is foolhardy.
Nobody said the interstate system doesn’t benefit people. I merely pointed out it invalidates the argument that investing in green transportation infrastructure is too costly 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.”
Re: Trains are more efficient and less polluting than other transportation modes
#309Earlier quoted context omitted.
The experimental locomotive discussed in that link has 2400kwh of battery (probably significantly less in practice; you don't want full discharges). The diesel-electric locomotives they'll be working with generate about 3,000kw for as many hours as they have fuel in the tank. Maybe (hopefully) batteries will get better, but I wouldn't go dumping my money into electric locomotive startups just yet.
The point they were making is that the train would go on batteries for the bits of the route which can't be electrified (e.g. too low tunnels), the track would otherwise be normally electrified, the battery would only be necessary to cross between electrified sections of the track. Similar to the battery-equipped dual-mode trolleybuses increasingly getting developed / deployed[0] allowing both point-charging at stops…
That is basically my entire argument, hybrid battery units remove a bunch of pain points with electrification. Like having over-head lines in you switching yard, lines through tunnels, on curves, bridges and grade crossings.
I think someone else brought up that with electrification you could also put traction motors in rail cars like is done often with commuter rail systems. And there is actually no need for the battery to be part of the locomotive either. Think old steam trains with a coal car.
Re: Trains are more efficient and less polluting than other transportation modes
#310Earlier quoted context omitted.
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/Pe…
Oh, my bad. I don't know how I managed to live a year in the city and not know about the second line. I've only ridden the BWI/Hunt Valley trains.