Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Railways, energy, CO2 - Part 1 | 30 comments (30 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)
Re: Railways, energy, CO2 - Part 1 (4.00 / 2)
A difficulty for passenger railroad enthusiasts (like me) is that a good car can compete with a train on a fuel economy basis.

On complicating factor is that people foolishly replace their cars quite frequently, so the automotive technology that is deployed in the fleet at a given time is perhaps only five years old on average, while trains represent large capital expenditures and are expected to last longer.

It will be very interesting to see how the cars-versus-trains competition plays out as fuel costs rise. As a baseline data point, my Honda Insight gets 3.3 l/100km, using 1999 car technology. With two passengers, that's 1.6 l/100km/passenger.

by asdf on Tue Jan 22nd, 2008 at 11:47:42 PM EST
Nope it can't (none / 1)
a good car can compete with a train on a fuel economy basis.

As trains don't use liquid fuels at all, their mileage is infinite.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 at 05:19:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
An uncomplicating factor is that ... (none / 1)
... electrifying the primary interurban freight grid for freight both increases the already existing energy efficiency gain for rail freight, and allows the replacement of diesel regional trains with electric, that are more energy efficient as well.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 at 10:58:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: An uncomplicating factor is that ... (none / 1)
I think what may happen is that the efficiency of cars--whether they be powered by electricity or hydrogen or flywheel or whatever--will continue to increase. Given the advantage to the user of the individualized point-to-point transportation provided by the car, it will be a competitive race. Trains have advantages in high traffic corridors, but cars are pretty good in lots of other ways.

I doubt that cars will go away unless there are formal policies put in place to punish their use. Congestion charges being one example...

by asdf on Thu Jan 24th, 2008 at 12:54:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: An uncomplicating factor is that ... (none / 1)
Cars are simply very useful, and the whole public transport system together doesn't offer anything close to it, except for people who live in quite large and dense cities. There are many routes where public transport can, in principle, be faster and easier than a car. But for 'non-standard' trips, cars offer an unmatched flexibility.

So most people will have a car, even if they can do most of their transportation completely fine by other means. And once someone has spend the money to buy a car ( and often paid more than really necessary, to buy a car nicer than absolutely needed), the marginal cost of using it for an extra trip is quite low.

If people think cars are in some way damaging the greater good, and public transport would be preferred, I think it is wise to pinpoint as good as possible how they think they are damaging. If it is the COs, tax the petrol. But if it is the existence of the cars themselves, through the parking lots they need and the roads they demand, then a per kilometer charge in any way won't help. People will still want a car for those trips that are absolutely horrible by public transport.

Congestion tax is another story again. After all, who is hurt by congestion other than the people causing it?  I f there is a rationale for congestion tax, it is to separate the people who need the road and are willing gto pay for it from the rest.

by GreatZamfir on Thu Jan 24th, 2008 at 06:23:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: An uncomplicating factor is that ... (none / 1)
There's a lot of truth there, but really what we're talking about are the services that owning a car provides (point-to-point transport, cargo capacity, schedule flexibility, status signalling). Of those four, the first three (for [sub]urban populations at least) can be addressed by car clubs like whizzgo or streetcar.

Regards
Luke

-- #include witty_sig.h

by silburnl on Thu Jan 24th, 2008 at 06:44:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: An uncomplicating factor is that ... (none / 1)
I know these car clubs, and indeed I think they might grow a lot more in the future. But your point about urban populations should not be neglected: at the moment the only places here in the Netherands were they are really working are the centres of old cities, where an apartment with parking space costs easily 50.000 euros more than one without. In other places, the amount of members needed to provide dense coverage is not reachable.

Also, I think your point on status signalling is too simple. It is a part of the much larger phenomenon that people just like to have a car. I know many people, usually men, who read car magazines and can spend hours talking about what car they would like to buy. My uncle enjoys nothing more than washing his car with his children. So he has a second-hand BMW. Some part of that is status, but he is also really attached to it, much more than to other things he owns. He made very sure he got the 6-cylinder engine he liked best, even though this is invisible on the outside. But he likes the sound.

And even apart from car lovers, most people just like that their car is their own, an extension of their house instead of public space. The major reason people are willing to spend hours in traffic jams instead of taking the train is that they prefer to be in their own personal space and not packed between loads of strangers.

Sure, it is possible to put this all in some category and call it 'consumerism' or 'status signalling'. But people are like that. Cars appear, quite universally, to hit a nerve that little other products or services do. Even people who don't feel this way themselves can't discuss transportation without taking this is into account.

by GreatZamfir on Thu Jan 24th, 2008 at 08:36:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
However, it would be misleading to treat ... (none / 1)
... this as a purely individual decision.

It was, of course, the railroads and the increase in personal travel and freight that created the demand for a "last mile" transport system that led to a substantial increase in horse drawn carriages and carts and, with their many disadvantages, drove the race to develop a horseless carriage. So there is no generic conflict between a substantial role for transport services on dedicated transport corridors and personal transport across a broad network of public rights of way.

However, new employment centers in the United States are located away from public transport routes because of a substantial system of subsidies and zoning controls that strongly encourages it and, in some cases, come close to demanding it. Changing that, changes the individual cost-benefit of Auto-And-Nothing-Else.

And personal vehicles that provide supplemental local transport, including to stops on dedicated transport corridors, are cheaper today, in total cost of ownership, than a car. Experience in many places has shown that with availability of effective services on dedicated transport corridors, combined with TOD, can result in a substantial change in the mode-split.

We do not know how close we are to a threshold where there is a positive feedback between the benefit to retailers to cater to those in non-freeway-speed vehicles and the increased appeal of local vehicles because of the range of those catering to local vehicles ... but if we hit that threshold, we will clearly leave an auto-centric transport system in the direction of a diversified system.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Fri Jan 25th, 2008 at 12:47:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Railways, energy, CO2 - Part 1 (none / 1)
As a baseline data point, my Honda Insight gets 3.3 l/100km

Is that factory data, or your experience? Is it an average, long-distance or city traffic? What it certainly isn't is primary energy consummption (though I guess the refinery correction would add only a few tenths). At any rate, even with two onboard it compares to the posted figure for trams and subways.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Jan 24th, 2008 at 08:51:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Railways, energy, CO2 - Part 1 (none / 0)
As a baseline data point, my Honda Insight gets 3.3 l/100km

Is that factory data, or your experience? Is it an average, long-distance or city traffic? What it certainly isn't is primary energy consummption (though I guess the refinery correction would add only a few tenths). At any rate, even with two onboard it compares to the posted figure for trams and subways.

That's my personal experience. It's 72.3 miles per gallon averaged over about 20,000 miles. Lots of 70 mph highway driving, air conditioning, winter snow, plus city traffic, etc. Mostly with only one occupant.

by asdf on Tue Feb 5th, 2008 at 12:03:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Railways, energy, CO2 - Part 1 (none / 1)
As a baseline data point, my Honda Insight gets 3.3 l/100km, using 1999 car technology. With two passengers, that's 1.6 l/100km/passenger.

Another datapoint for a conventional car. I've just run the numbers on the road trip we did at Xmas and the petrol-engined Honda Civic we got about 7l/100km (40mpg in old money) on the ~1100km London-Munich route.

Given there were three of us, that works out at 55 g CO2/pkm which is within spitting distance of the long-distance rail number DoDo gives. Add another passenger (or upgrade to diesel and/or hybrid) and a car starts to be the best option in carbon terms as well as price.

Regards
Luke

-- #include witty_sig.h

by silburnl on Thu Jan 24th, 2008 at 11:34:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Railways, energy, CO2 - Part 1 (none / 1)
If you compare cars above average load, compare to trains above average load. Those figures are for c. 50% loading.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Jan 24th, 2008 at 11:40:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Railways, energy, CO2 - Part 1 (none / 0)
For general comparisons of different modes then of course you are right.

However I don't think that's a valid approach when making a personal decision between car or rail - the train will probably* be averagely loaded irrespective of whether I buy train tickets or choose to take the car. If my particular circumstances mean that I know that the car will be full, then that's a relevant factor in my decision.

Regards
Luke

[*] However as it happens in this particular case the trains were highly loaded (it was Xmas after all, so the overnight services out of Paris were fully booked on the dates we wanted, dunno about the day trains - in any case we had too much luggage to make either train or plane practical).


-- #include witty_sig.h

by silburnl on Fri Jan 25th, 2008 at 01:22:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Railways, energy, CO2 - Part 1 (none / 1)
Do you include the difference in speed, and the work expanded by the driver, in the price ? You can do London-Munich on low speed trains, too, and then consumption becomes much better for the train (the old, ordinary lines are waaay less expensive to make)

Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Thu Jan 24th, 2008 at 01:23:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Railways, energy, CO2 - Part 1 (none / 0)
Do you include the difference in speed, and the work expanded by the driver, in the price ?

Nope and those are, of course, highly relevant factors (especially considering the contra-flow nightmare that is the autobahn between Stuttgart and Munich just now).

Price for the car should also include a mileage rate (which will be significantly more than the marginal expense of the fuel) and there are also accommodation costs along the way (I suppose it's possible to do London-Munich in one massive leg, but I wouldn't want to be sharing the road with you in the latter portion of the journey - in our case we turned the need for an overnight stop into a virtue and had a sight-seeing day in Trier on the way back).

Once you factor all those elements in then the car isn't actually a low cost option at all - but I don't think these sorts of marginal and ancilliary costs feed in to the 'purchasing decision' in many cases.

You can do London-Munich on low speed trains, too, and then consumption becomes much better for the train (the old, ordinary lines are waaay less expensive to make)

True that, and we did London-Munich via Eurostar and the sleeper service out of Paris last summer which was great. I'm keen to try the high speed option however, with the new high-speed Paris to Munich service that's just started I reckon it's possible for us to do the trip door-to-door in about 10-11 hours. This is about twice the time it would take by air - which, given how god awful the flying experience is these days, makes the train a very competitive option for us even without taking carbon into consideration.

Regards
Luke

-- #include witty_sig.h

by silburnl on Fri Jan 25th, 2008 at 01:43:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Railways, energy, CO2 - Part 1 | 30 comments (30 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: