Passenger Trains > Amtrak 16% more energy-efficient than airliners

According to the 2013 USDOE Transportation Energy Data Book, intercity passenger rail
travel is 16% more energy-efficient than travel by commercial airliner. Figures are
given in BTU per passenger-mile.

Intercity passenger rail is 34% more energy-efficient than automobiles.

As in the prior year's report, there is no statistic for intercity buses. In the last
Government report that did include that mode, it was far more energy-efficient than cars,
air or Amtrak...240% more efficient than intercity rail (2007) and by far the
most energy-efficient of all modes.

---

That sounds low. Environmentally speaking, burning 44 tons of kerosene in the upper atmosphere has to be causing more damage than a couple tons of diesel fuel at ground level.

Also gotta wonder about all the pointless travel that has to take place with hub and spoke airline systems. How many folk go 1000's of miles out of their way because they gotta go to Atlanta or Dallas first to make connections.

I don't understand the Amtrak line....lists passengers per vehicle as 22.5, which would seem to be light even if "vehicle" refers to a single passenger car rather than complete train, given that most Amtrak cars are coaches seating 60-90 passengers. Then it lists the number in service as 300 (0.3 thousand) - Amtrak has somewhere in the area of 1500 cars in service.

Dave

NewRiverGeorge Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That sounds low. Environmentally speaking,
> burning 44 tons of kerosene in the upper
> atmosphere has to be causing more damage than a
> couple tons of diesel fuel at ground level.


It did to me, which was why I researched the original document...but Amtrak's own
claims on their website are just about the same. NARP's, too.

This isn't a "spin" document like someone on here likes to claim...it is a direct
scan from the original USDOE report.

GenePoon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NewRiverGeorge Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------> -----
> > That sounds low. Environmentally speaking,
> > burning 44 tons of kerosene in the upper
> > atmosphere has to be causing more damage than a
> > couple tons of diesel fuel at ground level.
>
>
> It did to me, which was why I researched the
> original document...but Amtrak's own
> claims on their website are just about the same.
> NARP's, too.
> This isn't a "spin" document like someone on here
> likes to claim...it is a direct
> scan from the original USDOE report.

Remember though that much of the energy expended by an airliner is getting up to altitude where it cruises in thinner air with less friction. Also the particular type plane and stage length has a big impact on energy usage per passenger.

More later. We have had these discussions in the past. I think comparative energy efficiency between modes is all pretty much a wash depending on the particular circumstance (put two people in an automobile on a long vacation and you beat the train in energy efficiency). If anyone did a truly objective analysis, Amtrak would look a little foolish with some of its claims. Amtrak should focus on something else.

Airliners have also become substantially more efficient in the past two decades, and
utilization of more efficient regional airliners has improved performance of the
lower-density routes in hub/spoke operations. A current Brazilian or Canadian
regional jet is much more efficient than the equal-sized DC-9-30 that it replaced.

Meanwhile, Amtrak's diesels are still 1980s technology. Even the freights have moved on.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/24/14 10:18 by GenePoon.

DavidP Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't understand the Amtrak line....lists
> passengers per vehicle as 22.5, which would seem
> to be light even if "vehicle" refers to a single
> passenger car rather than complete train, given
> that most Amtrak cars are coaches seating 60-90
> passengers. Then it lists the number in service
> as 300 (0.3 thousand) - Amtrak has somewhere in
> the area of 1500 cars in service.
>
> Dave

You also have sleeping cars, diners, lounges and baggage cars. It does seem that the DOE is adjusting the vehicle to be a train in some columns but not all. I'll take a closer look later.

Also you can't be shot down on a train (well, literally at least).

nicknack Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Also you can't be shot down on a train (well,
> literally at least).

Yeah, you can just be derailed or blown up. Potentially much less damaging than getting shot down.

ts1457 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> DavidP Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I don't understand the Amtrak line....lists
> > passengers per vehicle as 22.5, which would
> seem
> > to be light even if "vehicle" refers to a
> single
> > passenger car rather than complete train, given
> > that most Amtrak cars are coaches seating 60-90
> > passengers. Then it lists the number in
> service
> > as 300 (0.3 thousand) - Amtrak has somewhere in
> > the area of 1500 cars in service.
> >
> > Dave
>
> You also have sleeping cars, diners, lounges and
> baggage cars. It does seem that the DOE is
> adjusting the vehicle to be a train in some
> columns but not all. I'll take a closer look
> later.

I considered the non-rev cars, but the number still strikes me as low. Only the LD trains have more than one non-rev car per train - many if not most trains have only a partial car dedicated to food service.

Dave

NewRiverGeorge Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That sounds low. Environmentally speaking,
> burning 44 tons of kerosene in the upper
> atmosphere has to be causing more damage than a
> couple tons of diesel fuel at ground level.
>
> Also gotta wonder about all the pointless travel
> that has to take place with hub and spoke airline
> systems. How many folk go 1000's of miles out of
> their way because they gotta go to Atlanta or
> Dallas first to make connections.

Nah, we fly thousands of miles out of our way on purpose, so as to qualify for free upgrades the following year. LOL It's looking like I'll have to make another LAX to London turn this November as a result of such nonsense. But well worth it to avoid economy on long international flights which is about all I do these days.

Do you think most passengers even consider the "energy-efficiency" of the travel mode they chose? If we did, the automobile, being the least efficient, would not be THE most choosen mode by a wide margin.

Most travelers realize that fuel is only ONE of many costs that make up his ticket price. And sometimes ticket prices are set at levels that are not strictly related to costs at all--for example the "Demand Pricing" model used by airlines and Amtrak as well, (the modern version of "charging what the traffic will bare").

Yes, "energy-efficiency" figures are interesting; but I'm afraid they won't help anybody sell more tickets. I doubt if Amtrak would ever run an ad which says: "Hay, don't take the airlines--take our Empire Builder--it's 16% more energy-efficient!"

Joe

PS: don't misunderstand. energy-efficiency is important; but I highly doubt most people consider it when, for example, deciding to fly or take Acela

floridajoe2001 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I doubt if Amtrak would ever run an ad
> which says: "Hay, don't take the airlines--take
> our Empire Builder--it's 16% more
> energy-efficient!"


But they put this graphic on their own website. The numbers differ from those in
the chart above, because Amtrak's are from an earlier report...the same one that
identified the most energy-efficient mode by far as intercity bus: 240% more
efficient than Amtrak.

True, I wouldn't take an intercity bus on a long trip just because it's 240% more
energy-efficient than the train, but that also means I wouldn't take Amtrak over air just
because it's 16% more energy-efficient, not even counting time efficiency which rears
its head even on the NEC, in Acela vs. air comparisons over longer distances such
as Boston-Washington.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/24/14 16:19 by GenePoon.

---

DavidP Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I considered the non-rev cars, but the number
> still strikes me as low. Only the LD trains have
> more than one non-rev car per train - many if not
> most trains have only a partial car dedicated to
> food service.

OK, vehicles appear to be passenger cars. The number in the first column is bogus, but that fact is not noticed because it is not part of the calculations. Table 9.10 on page 9-11 has more summary statistics for Amtrak. The number of locomotives, 287, curiously works out to be 0.3 (thousands). Table 9.10 gives car-miles as 296,315 (thousands), so there is your vehicle-miles in Table 2.12. Something useful in Table 9.10 that is not in Table 2.12 is train-miles, 37,090 (thousands). Using car-miles and train-miles, you can calculate the cars/train @ 8.0 (rounded off). Multiplying persons/vehicle (22.5) times vehicles/train (8.0) gives a much more sensible average passengers on a train at any given time of 180.

Hope this clears up a few things around here.

GenePoon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> According to the 2013 USDOE Transportation Energy
> Data Book, intercity passenger rail
> travel is 16% more energy-efficient than travel by
> commercial airliner. Figures are
> given in BTU per passenger-mile.
>
> Intercity passenger rail is 34% more
> energy-efficient than automobiles.
>
> As in the prior year's report, there is no
> statistic for intercity buses. In the last
> Government report that did include that mode, it
> was far more energy-efficient than cars,
> air or Amtrak...240% more efficient than intercity
> rail (2007) and by far the
> most energy-efficient of all modes.

You should have not cut off the disclaimer in a big, heavy line box from the top of the page. It reads:

"Great care should be taken when comparing modal energy intensity data among modes. Because of the inherent differences among the transportation modes in the nature of services, routes available, and many additional factors, it is not possible to obtain truly comparable national energy intensities among modes. These values are averages, and there is a great deal of variability even within a mode."

Amtrak does use these gross figures from time to time, and based on the above, the way Amtrak uses them is inappropriate.

A few years ago when I was slicing and dicing the energy data, I broke out Amtrak's electric powered trains from the diesel powered ones. Much to my surprise, the electric trains were less energy efficient.

Well, forgive me if it strikes me as odd.

You get up at 3 AM to drive 200 miles to Chicago, where they have conveniently covered several thousand acres with asphalt so you have somewhere to park your car. Old vans or busses with badly tuned engines go around in circles all day for your "convenience." You eventually fly thousands of miles out of your way so you can get "free" upgrades to fly thousands of miles out of your way two rows farther up than anybody else. Then you take a bus, which runs around in an endless circle all day, to go to another 1000 acre paved area to pick up another car at LAX. You sit in traffic for 2-3 hours to drive to the suburbs, and check into an overpriced hotel.

In the morning you sit in a conference room for 2-3 hours listening to somebody you either don't understand, or could care less about, while you doodle on a note pad or play games on an iphone that you will throw away in about six months when a newer version comes out.

In the afternoon you repeat the process, again hoping you can sit one row further up in front of the rabble.

Just think, instead of this you could take a week off, eating cheese and crackers, sipping wine, and be riding in a vista dome through the (fill in the blank) canyon, along the ( )river, or looking at the ( ) mountains.

ts1457 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> A few years ago when I was slicing and dicing the
> energy data, I broke out Amtrak's electric powered
> trains from the diesel powered ones. Much to my
> surprise, the electric trains were less energy
> efficient.

==================================================

Good point.

There are also some who mindlessly tout the "clean air" benefits of smokeless electric
locomotives on the Northeast Corridor, forgetting that nearly all the electricity
comes from fossil fuel power plants.

GenePoon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ts1457 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > A few years ago when I was slicing and dicing
> the
> > energy data, I broke out Amtrak's electric
> powered
> > trains from the diesel powered ones. Much to my
> > surprise, the electric trains were less energy
> > efficient.
>
> ==================================================
>
>
> Good point.
>
> There are also some who mindlessly tout the "clean
> air" benefits of smokeless electric
> locomotives on the Northeast Corridor, forgetting
> that nearly all the electricity
> comes from fossil fuel power plants.

The "nearly all from fossil fuel" is not accurate for most of the supply to the NEC ET system. Much of the power produced in the northeast, particularly that supplied to Amtrak's major converter stations in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, comes from nuclear plants. In addition, Amtrak inherited the capacity of the two 25hz hydro generators at the Safe Harbor Dam (Susquehanna River south of York, PA) from the PRR. Those generators still provide much of the power to the southern section of the NEC through the extensive Amtrak 138kV transmission network. Even the fossil fuel component has all but abandoned old coal and oil power plants and is now heavily supplied by new combined-cycle natural gas generators - about as clean as burning fuel can get.

This discussion brings up an issue that I’ve puzzled over – how do you measure the energy consumption of an electrically powered train? Do you measure it at the locomotive, at the point where power is injected into the catenary, at the point where the power is sourced into the railroad system by the supplier, or do you go all the way back to the generators and measure the energy used to originally produce the power? Each of those steps back through the electric distribution, transmission and generation process has efficiencies and resulting losses. Providing a kw of power at the pantograph of an electric locomotive takes more than a kw of energy, with that source value increasing as you move back through the system.

This kind of measurement issue would seem to be among the reasons to heed the recommendation by DOE to not use the provided values for each mode as an exact comparison mode-to-mode. There are simply too many variables and multiple ways to measure and process the data. Looking at the DOE tables and saying that this mode is 16% more energy efficient than that mode is not a supportable conclusion.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/25/14 10:00 by prr60.

prr60 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This discussion brings up an issue that I’ve
> puzzled over – how do you measure the energy
> consumption of an electrically powered train? Do
> you measure it at the locomotive, at the point
> where power is injected into the catenary, at the
> point where the power is sourced into the railroad
> system by the supplier, or do you go all the way
> back to the generators and measure the energy used
> to originally produce the power? Each of those
> steps back through the electric distribution,
> transmission and generation process has
> efficiencies and resulting losses. Providing a kw
> of power at the pantograph of an electric
> locomotive takes more than a kw of energy, with
> that source value increasing as you move back
> through the system.
>
> This kind of measurement issue would seem to be
> among the reasons to heed the recommendation by
> DOE to not use the provided values for each mode
> as an exact comparison mode-to-mode. There are
> simply too many variables and multiple ways to
> measure and process the data. Looking at the DOE
> tables and saying that this mode is 16% more
> energy efficient than that mode is not a
> supportable conclusion.

DOE used figures supplied by Amtrak (TEDB ed. 32, Table A.16, P. A-23). For 2011, diesel fuel consumed was 63,450 (thousand gallons) and for electricity, 555,425 (thousand kWhr). How Amtrak came up with this allocation between commuter and intercity use on the NEC, who knows?

One thing that should be pointed out though is that higher speeds require high expenditures of energy. Some of the difference in efficiency between diesel and electric might come from the speed of the service. The takeout there is that you should not use the DOE figures when you are comparing the energy efficiency of HSR with other modes or even with other trains.