4 ms·

But don't trains run on electricity in a lot of places? So doesn't that make a comparison to diesel truck efficiency bogus? It's like that 400 mpg plug in hyb

But don't trains run on electricity in a lot of places? So doesn't that make a comparison to diesel truck efficiency bogus? It's like that 400 mpg plug in hybrid we heard about a while back.

jrockway 17y ago
There are a few commuter lines in the US that are electrified, but I don't think there is any electrified freight service. The diesel that diesel engines burn is converted to electricity to power the traction motors, however.
- catzaa 17y ago
  > , but I don't think there is any electrified freight service. Are you sure. I live in a third world country and most freight tracks are electrified.
  - coryrc 17y ago
    The United States does not have electrified freight service. Yes, our trains are worse than many third world countries.
    - jrockway 17y ago
      Not sure how diesel trains are "worse". When you have a 1000-mile line through the middle of nowhere, it's probably better to bring the power-plant with the train, instead of having 1000 miles of wire and electrical substations sitting idle most of the time. (Overhead wires also interfere with tall railcars, like double-stack container trains.) For commuter trains, though, I am not sure why we use diesel. Lower upfront cost is my guess, which is kind of a shame. (The US has big problems with buying proper infrastructure. Much better to spend $100 million over 10 years and provide mediocre service than to spend $50 million in one year and provide excellent service for 10 years. Funding anything other than roads is politically unpopular; trains are "noisy" and we don't want more of them. Yeah... some day I will move to Europe or Japan...)
    - pyre 17y ago
      Depends on what you mean by 'worse.' Electricity isn't automatically good. An electric train could be vastly more inefficient than a diesel train, and the way that the electricity is generated is also called into play.
      - coryrc 17y ago
        Electricity comes from: Nuclear, Hydro, Solar, Wind, Gas, Coal, and more If using electricity, it is FREE to change fuel source. How much to convert all trains to nuclear/solar/electricity/... if all oil imports are blocked?
        pyre 17y ago
        I wasn't saying that. I debunking the statement, "Our trains are on electricity, so we're 'greener' than you with your diesel trains." Neither fuel efficiency nor the ratio of pollution to energy produced have anything to do with the cost to convert to different energy methods. On a side note, I doubt that the amount of money it takes to convert a fleet of locomotives to electricity is even in the same ballpark as the cost to build a nuclear power plant. This also doesn't take into account any loss of power due to transmission distance, heat generated in the lines due to resistance, etc.
    - msisk6 17y ago
      Yes, the US does indeed have some electrified freight service. But it's not much -- 4 short lines with a total of 159 miles. All are closed loop lines linking coal loadouts and power plants. FWIW, the November 2009 issue of Trains magazine has an article on US rail electrification.
  - ubernostrum 17y ago
    In the United States, where this railroad operates, there isn't electrified freight rail. Whether railroads in other countries are electric is irrelevant to this acquisition of a US railroad.
raquo 17y ago
It's not the engine that makes difference. Internal combustion engines don't vary by orders of magnitude in efficiency. It's less friction, higher scale and constant speed that make trains more efficient. Diesel or electrical, does not matter. They spend less energy per ton per mile. // I'm not entirely sure that what I said is 100% truth, so take it with a grain of salt.
- tocomment 17y ago
  There should be a lot of things that make trains more efficient. Here are some of my guesses: Hard tracks and wheels = less rolling friction? Less air resistance since one leading car breaks the air for 100+ other cars? Engine can run at a constant speed Less changes in speed Less starts and stops Slower acceleration
  - potatolicious 17y ago
    Dramatically less labor per ton hauled also - how many employees are on a freight train pulling 100 cars? vs. how many drivers in 100 semis?

But don't trains run on electricity in a lot of places? So doesn't that make a comparison to diesel truck efficiency bogus? It's like that 400 mpg plug in hybrid we heard about a while back.

jrockway 17y ago

There are a few commuter lines in the US that are electrified, but I don't think there is any electrified freight service. The diesel that diesel engines burn is converted to electricity to power the traction motors, however.

catzaa 17y ago
> , but I don't think there is any electrified freight service. Are you sure. I live in a third world country and most freight tracks are electrified.
- coryrc 17y ago
  The United States does not have electrified freight service. Yes, our trains are worse than many third world countries.
  - jrockway 17y ago
    Not sure how diesel trains are "worse". When you have a 1000-mile line through the middle of nowhere, it's probably better to bring the power-plant with the train, instead of having 1000 miles of wire and electrical substations sitting idle most of the time. (Overhead wires also interfere with tall railcars, like double-stack container trains.) For commuter trains, though, I am not sure why we use diesel. Lower upfront cost is my guess, which is kind of a shame. (The US has big problems with buying proper infrastructure. Much better to spend $100 million over 10 years and provide mediocre service than to spend $50 million in one year and provide excellent service for 10 years. Funding anything other than roads is politically unpopular; trains are "noisy" and we don't want more of them. Yeah... some day I will move to Europe or Japan...)
  - pyre 17y ago
    Depends on what you mean by 'worse.' Electricity isn't automatically good. An electric train could be vastly more inefficient than a diesel train, and the way that the electricity is generated is also called into play.
    - coryrc 17y ago
      Electricity comes from: Nuclear, Hydro, Solar, Wind, Gas, Coal, and more If using electricity, it is FREE to change fuel source. How much to convert all trains to nuclear/solar/electricity/... if all oil imports are blocked?
      - pyre 17y ago
        I wasn't saying that. I debunking the statement, "Our trains are on electricity, so we're 'greener' than you with your diesel trains." Neither fuel efficiency nor the ratio of pollution to energy produced have anything to do with the cost to convert to different energy methods. On a side note, I doubt that the amount of money it takes to convert a fleet of locomotives to electricity is even in the same ballpark as the cost to build a nuclear power plant. This also doesn't take into account any loss of power due to transmission distance, heat generated in the lines due to resistance, etc.
  - msisk6 17y ago
    Yes, the US does indeed have some electrified freight service. But it's not much -- 4 short lines with a total of 159 miles. All are closed loop lines linking coal loadouts and power plants. FWIW, the November 2009 issue of Trains magazine has an article on US rail electrification.
- ubernostrum 17y ago
  In the United States, where this railroad operates, there isn't electrified freight rail. Whether railroads in other countries are electric is irrelevant to this acquisition of a US railroad.

raquo 17y ago

It's not the engine that makes difference. Internal combustion engines don't vary by orders of magnitude in efficiency. It's less friction, higher scale and constant speed that make trains more efficient. Diesel or electrical, does not matter. They spend less energy per ton per mile. // I'm not entirely sure that what I said is 100% truth, so take it with a grain of salt.

tocomment 17y ago
There should be a lot of things that make trains more efficient. Here are some of my guesses: Hard tracks and wheels = less rolling friction? Less air resistance since one leading car breaks the air for 100+ other cars? Engine can run at a constant speed Less changes in speed Less starts and stops Slower acceleration
- potatolicious 17y ago
  Dramatically less labor per ton hauled also - how many employees are on a freight train pulling 100 cars? vs. how many drivers in 100 semis?