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

#201

Post by kzrdude » Tue, Apr 02, 2019, 5:57 AM UTC

stickfigure wrote: post #197

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…

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…

420 tons of batteries sound like an insane resource consumption in terms or metals and rare earth metals.

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

#202

Post by phire » Tue, Apr 02, 2019, 6:04 AM UTC

xupybd wrote: post #186

Why are they so expensive then? Here in New Zealand, I can drive most places cheaper than I can take a train. That's one person per vehicle vs a train car full of people. I just can't figure that one out.

Kiwirail is mandated to make a profit.

The cost of a train ticket will include the proportional cost of maintaining the rail network, the deprecation cost of the train and the passenger cars, staff to run it, along with a tidy profit.

You are most likely comparing it to the cost of petrol, which is not the full costs of driving a car.

Everyone always forgets to take into account the deprecation on your car, running costs, fixed costs (WoF, rego). For tax purposes, IRD estimates the true costs per km (including fuel) to be 76c.

Using that 76c per km rate, your car trip is suddenly costing way more than the train ticket.

Additionally, there is construction and the maintenance cost of the road network itself. That's all paid for by the government out of your rego and income taxes. Kiwirail is required to include that in their ticket costs, but it's hidden from drivers.

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

#203

Post by masklinn » Tue, Apr 02, 2019, 6:13 AM UTC

jcranmer wrote: post #182

chungleong wrote: post #160

Earlier 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…

> Washington-Baltimore is actually a very good connection by rail--you'll have a train at least once an hour

That's really not a lot, especially between major cities.

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

#204

Post by thomasmg » Tue, Apr 02, 2019, 6:18 AM UTC

jcranmer wrote: post #103

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…

> 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…

Longer term, Hydrail [1] (Hydrogen) might replace Diesel-electric. I guess this will start with cities, where pollution is a problem.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrail

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

#205

Post by kwhitefoot » Tue, Apr 02, 2019, 6:22 AM UTC

honopu wrote: post #145

abalone wrote: post #79

Earlier 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.

Trucking pays for fuel costs in addition to a road use tax I believe, I know they tear up roads, especially overloaded dump trucks etc, but without an alternative there’s really no better option. If and when they go electric, then you’ll start to see some legislation around miles driven etc which I believe California has looked into since they aren’t getting the federal or state tax rev share off of the fuel itself c…

Trucks should pay for the damage they cause to the roads but that would put prices up which would be unpopular even though it should result in lower general taxation.

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

#206

Post by daurnimator » Tue, Apr 02, 2019, 6:29 AM UTC

stickfigure wrote: post #197

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…

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.

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

#207

Post by fyfy18 » Tue, Apr 02, 2019, 6:29 AM UTC

masklinn wrote: post #203

jcranmer wrote: post #182

Earlier 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…

> Washington-Baltimore is actually a very good connection by rail--you'll have a train at least once an hour That's really not a lot, especially between major cities.

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.

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

#208

Post by barry-cotter » Tue, Apr 02, 2019, 6:39 AM UTC

nicoburns wrote: post #63

gruez wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, but it's still relevant to note whether something is successful on its own accord, or whether it's being propped up by the government. If something can't be profitably done in a country as dense as China, there's no hope of it ever working in the US. At that point you might as well go with planes and spend the savings on carbon sequestration methods instead.

Rail is publically funded pretty much everywhere (i.e. it doesn't make a direct profit if you factor in infrastruture costs). Just because the market won't pay for it doesn't mean that it isn't worthwhile.

Japanese rail is almost all privately owned and operated, to the best of my knowledge. It makes its profits off of capturing the increase in land value by being the landlord around its rail stations. That model is illegal in the US so rail has to be subsidised.

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

#209

Post by tonyedgecombe » Tue, Apr 02, 2019, 6:42 AM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #36

shereadsthenews wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you think of an American state with a growing population you can take the existing infrastructure as a given and plan for rail for your new capacity. Unless you are willing to say we're just not going to add transportation capacity for our new citizens, you face a choice of road, rail, or air. Rail is often a good choice. As for "far apart" this seems irrelevant. Ohio has a greater population density than does S…

I'm curious how long Europe's famous rail infrastructure will continue to be cost-effective in the era of Ryanair.

Ryanair rarely flies directly to or from cities, you nearly always need to make additional connections which makes it pretty useless for business travel.

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

#210

Post by philwelch » Tue, Apr 02, 2019, 6:43 AM UTC

luckydata wrote: post #154

philwelch wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are dozens of countries in the Western Hemisphere that were built on "a large swath of largely unexploited land".

In the last three centuries? Let me know which ones once you figure it out.

Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina...shall I continue?