One gallon of fuel in your lawnmower will mow about half your yard.

[techs]

(you have to download it and play, at least on my computer)
http://www.csx.com/share/media...eGallon30-REF24555.mp3

One gallon of fuel in your lawnmower will mow about half your yard.
One gallon of fuel in a CSX train will move one ton of freight about 423 miles
From the CSX website.

Why is America so anti-train? By my figures, using an average of 150 pounds per person, that's about 13.3 people, 423 miles on a gallon of fuel.
That seems pretty efficient to me.
How does that stack up to an airplane?
And why aren't we expanding intercity rail links? Seems it could really cut down our dependence on foreign oil, plus help our balance of payments.

 

[mizzou]

the rail system should be integral to grading the infrastructure of an advanced society

we fail miserably in that category

I think only until now when fuel prices for gasoline have surged so high that we are finally looking back to trains and finally deciding that if we simply put the effort at revitalizing our sometimes CENTURIES old rail system, it will provide an immense payback.

Moving freight by Truck long distances in my opinion should be a logistic nightmare.




Why aren't we expanding intercity rail links? A lack of public support, a lack of public sentiment to increase taxes to fund this new system, and a lack of interest.

Well that all changed this last year though didn't it =)

*EDIT* high speed rail trains will come eventually, but keep in mind the countries which have integrated them in their societies are MUCH smaller then us or their governments have much more control vs. public sentiment

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: techs
(you have to download it and play, at least on my computer)
http://www.csx.com/share/media...eGallon30-REF24555.mp3

One gallon of fuel in your lawnmower will mow about half your yard.
One gallon of fuel in a CSX train will move one ton of freight about 423 miles
From the CSX website.

Why is America so anti-train? By my figures, using an average of 150 pounds per person, that's about 13.3 people, 423 miles on a gallon of fuel.
That seems pretty efficient to me.
How does that stack up to an airplane?
And why aren't we expanding intercity rail links? Seems it could really cut down our dependence on foreign oil, plus help our balance of payments.

Because it's not worth the investment. Also it's slow. We already have an incredibly efficient highway system. If freight were as great a solution as that makes it out to be, then more companies would be lobbying congress to build more railroads so they could save the money on gas. Might happen later if gas ever hits $10/gallon (won't happen), but not now.

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: mizzou
the rail system should be integral to grading the infrastructure of an advanced society

we fail miserably in that category

I think only until now when fuel prices for gasoline have surged so high that we are finally looking back to trains and finally deciding that if we simply put the effort at revitalizing our sometimes CENTURIES old rail system, it will provide an immense payback.

Moving freight by Truck long distances in my opinion should be a logistic nightmare.




Why aren't we expanding intercity rail links? A lack of public support, a lack of public sentiment to increase taxes to fund this new system, and a lack of interest.

Well that all changed this last year though didn't it =)

*EDIT* high speed rail trains will come eventually, but keep in mind the countries which have integrated them in their societies are MUCH smaller then us or their governments have much more control vs. public sentiment

It's not worth the cost either. The taxes on their gas that fund things like the rail system (Great Britain I'm looking at you) don't help the rail system much. For the cost of riding Britrail, if we were in the states, we could have just payed for the untaxed US gas ourselves and driven there, and come out about $200 ahead. What's worse, buying tickets with a student discount (and not getting a traveler's pass), cost as much as just flying directly there at the last minute would have cost here in the states.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: mizzou
the rail system should be integral to grading the infrastructure of an advanced society

we fail miserably in that category

I think only until now when fuel prices for gasoline have surged so high that we are finally looking back to trains and finally deciding that if we simply put the effort at revitalizing our sometimes CENTURIES old rail system, it will provide an immense payback.

Moving freight by Truck long distances in my opinion should be a logistic nightmare.




Why aren't we expanding intercity rail links? A lack of public support, a lack of public sentiment to increase taxes to fund this new system, and a lack of interest.

Well that all changed this last year though didn't it =)

*EDIT* high speed rail trains will come eventually, but keep in mind the countries which have integrated them in their societies are MUCH smaller then us or their governments have much more control vs. public sentiment

It's not worth the cost either. The taxes on their gas that fund things like the rail system (Great Britain I'm looking at you) don't help the rail system much. For the cost of riding Britrail, if we were in the states, we could have just payed for the untaxed US gas ourselves and driven there, and come out about $200 ahead. What's worse, buying tickets with a student discount (and not getting a traveler's pass), cost as much as just flying directly there at the last minute would have cost here in the states.

You aren't factoring in other costs like roadbuilding, and the subsequent sprawl that destroys quality of life.

 

[ProfJohn]

Trains work in Europe because they have a much higher density than us Americans. We are spread out all over the place, they live in tightly packed cities.

Pop per km2
Europe 112
US 31

Now if you took Alaska out of the equation our density would jump dramatically, but I am sure we would be way behind Europe.

 

[GoPackGo]

I use about 3 gallons of gas for all sumer of mowing.

 

[Moonbeam]

I can mow my lawn on less than one tank and a gallon fills it many many times.

 

[Vic]

How big is your yard? A gallon of gas should be able to mow at least an acre.

Anyway, it appears that people are still unaware that much of necessary investment in improving our rail system is already done or underway by the major private railways (BNSF, CSX, UP, etc). Most any freight mainline in the US could run passenger trains above 100 mph as long as Amtrak had the right cars. Not bullet train speeds, but still moving.

Cost per mile and trains win. But even the fastest trains won't get across the country in even a quarter the time as jet plane can.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: mizzou
the rail system should be integral to grading the infrastructure of an advanced society

we fail miserably in that category

I think only until now when fuel prices for gasoline have surged so high that we are finally looking back to trains and finally deciding that if we simply put the effort at revitalizing our sometimes CENTURIES old rail system, it will provide an immense payback.

Moving freight by Truck long distances in my opinion should be a logistic nightmare.




Why aren't we expanding intercity rail links? A lack of public support, a lack of public sentiment to increase taxes to fund this new system, and a lack of interest.

Well that all changed this last year though didn't it =)

*EDIT* high speed rail trains will come eventually, but keep in mind the countries which have integrated them in their societies are MUCH smaller then us or their governments have much more control vs. public sentiment

California voters will be voting on whether to sell new bonds for the construction of a high-speed train. I'm voting yes. It will pay for itself 100 times when people realize how much faster and cheaper it is to travel by high speed rail (so long as the prices remain competitive - one thing the Europeans don't understand is how to sell those last few seats on a train at a discount price. Empty seats is missed profit!)

 

[badnewcastle]

I'm a Transportation Broker (I'm basically a stock broker for freight), so I'm only explaining this from experience.

They don't mention the truck that pulls the container from the shipyard or depot (wherever) to the train loading station. That truck is going to be hard pressed for 5 gallons/mi since they are usually older and run down since they operate in on city usually. There is a truck for ever container at loading and unloading for the most part. Very few distribution centers/points have rail spurs and are capable of taking containers directly off of trains. It is still better from a fuel stand point then a truck taking it cross country.

There are several reasons why we don't use trains more:

1.) Access points (limited number of spurs to pull containers)

2.) Time - this is huge but getting better... your looking at 3 weeks (down considerably from not that long ago, 6-8 weeks) from west to east coast just for line haul, not including unloading or loading OTR or Over the road (by truck) its 4-6 days max.

3.) Planning the shipper and consignee need to be able to plan at least 4 weeks ahead in advance of shipment. Otherwise the economic costs are comparable or even more the OTR. So those that don't plan well can't use it. And planning is often based on demand and hard to predict.

4.) Time sensitive items must ship by truck or air.

5.) Because of time things, produce and perishable goods are hard to ship because they only have so long before they perish. Though the rails are making an effort to mover more of this.

6.) The rates between intermodel and OTR are not enough for a lot of shippers and consignees to choose intermodel (rail).

There are more... There is a lot of freight that goes intermodel (rail), but it can't all go rail and there is at this point only so much capacity... no the trains aren't full right now because things are slow but it when it's busy capacity is an issue. It comes down to costs and time mostly if the shippers pick what works best for their particular situation.

edit:Another thing is that rail companies want you to commit to contracts with them that have stringent volume goals and other goals that if you miss can get you in trouble and you'll be paying all kinds of market rates and penalties... so you need to be pretty sure of your volume before you get in a contract.

 

[Billb2]

CSX is trying to get approval to buy another train line that will allow them to bypass Chicago....and tie up traffic at 10s of rr crossings in the surrounding suburbs.

They're running numerous "Trains are great" commercials all over northern Illinois.

 

[CycloWizard]

I have proposed updating the rail system many times. However, the numbers you quoted are shentastic.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
I use about 3 gallons of gas for all sumer of mowing.

Finally. I use about one gallon and I have a pretty darn big yard, actually. One gallon for half your yard is complete bullsh*t. It's not even close. You'd need to be using a ride-on to go through that much gas and own a multi-acre plot.

It never occured to the OP that perhaps people aren't spending $7-8 (two gallons) to mow their yard? Lawls.

 

[Zedtom]

The fuel efficiency of trains should encourage the public to support passenger railroads, but this is not the case. Amtrak is a mess, with the possible exception of the northeast corridor.

CSX, as well as other freight movers, are anti-passenger. They own a lot of valuable real estate and many use their rights of way for pipelines and fiber optic networks.

The demand for better mass transportation by rail in urban areas is always a battle between the railroads and the local districts.

 

[andy04]

That fuel efficiency is just 1/2 the story, trains and tracks require a LOT of maintenance, especially in USA where the distances are simply HUGE much much greater that anywhere in the world. Also running trains is not a lucrative business, none of the rail industries anywhere in the world, including the subways and NY and commuter trains in LA, have shown constant decent profits. It sure saves lot of fuel for costs more than other modes of transport in the long run. In USA nothing that does not show constant and lucrative gains are popular.

 

[Genx87]

We werent anti-train when trains were the best way to cross the country. The other option was 3 months in a wagon fighting the wild life, indians, and disease.

When the airplane and automobile was invented it was only a matter of time until the trains fell from grace. And they did, because time is money as well.

I have looked at going on Amtrak and it is simply amusing. If I want to get to Colorado I was forced to go to Seattle and back track. Total time spent was something like 3 days one way. I dont have enough time to do such a venture. Secondly the cost was more than an Airplane. My flight time to denver is about 80-90 mins.

 

[piasabird]

We had some actual Commuter Rail Lines put in that we call Metro Link in St Louis,MO. However, the referendum to extend it to my area in the Metro East and to St Charles, MO, failed. It is believed that it failed primarily due to a money issue. However, it is quite possible that it failed because the outlying municipalities did not want to import crime from the city.

The last city to approve the extension was a spur that went to East St Louis, IL and one other location. Lately in the news there have been reports of youths from East St Louis riding into St Louis, MO like gangs and committing crimes in different areas like a pack of roving criminals. There has been some pieces on the news about this locally and some talk as to what is the best way to deal with this.

If you wonder why rail has been turned down by municipalities, this is one example of the problems it can cause. Rail makes it easier for criminals to commit crimes and then escape. A city can not just put in a rail line like this without installing more security forces to fight this infux of new mobile criminals.

I think this is just a case of a need for law enforcement to target crime in different and new ways. While Metro Link is making money, it also increased the crime rate.

 

[TheSlamma]

I use about 1 gallon of gas to mow my entire lawn the entire spring, summer and fall... what drugs is CSX using? Techs drugs?

 

[waggy]

that ad is bs.

i have used less then 5 gallons of gas to mow 3 acres at least once a week.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I have looked at going on Amtrak and it is simply amusing. If I want to get to Colorado I was forced to go to Seattle and back track. Total time spent was something like 3 days one way. I dont have enough time to do such a venture. Secondly the cost was more than an Airplane. My flight time to denver is about 80-90 mins.

Yep, trains as a way to get anywhere are an exercise is comedy. It takes like damn near five months to get across the country vs a flight or two in an airport. I honestly didn't know until recently that people actually used them for this method of transport. I used them a bit in college to travel a couple of hours (was nicer, albeit slower than the bus), but when I found out people used them to travel long distances more suitable for a plane it barely computed and still barely computes.

 

[vi edit]

Even though it may be 1/20th(out of my ass statistic) the fuel used, it's still not 1/20th the price.

Until there is a fiancial incentive to use it, it simply won't be used.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
I use about 3 gallons of gas for all sumer of mowing.

Finally. I use about one gallon and I have a pretty darn big yard, actually. One gallon for half your yard is complete bullsh*t. It's not even close. You'd need to be using a ride-on to go through that much gas and own a multi-acre plot.

It never occured to the OP that perhaps people aren't spending $7-8 (two gallons) to mow their yard? Lawls.

Agreed. I have a hilly 3/4 acre yard...I used 3 gallons tops to mow it all summer. I only remember filling my 2 gallon gas can once.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: techs
(you have to download it and play, at least on my computer)
http://www.csx.com/share/media...eGallon30-REF24555.mp3

One gallon of fuel in your lawnmower will mow about half your yard.
One gallon of fuel in a CSX train will move one ton of freight about 423 miles
From the CSX website.

Why is America so anti-train? By my figures, using an average of 150 pounds per person, that's about 13.3 people, 423 miles on a gallon of fuel.
That seems pretty efficient to me.
How does that stack up to an airplane?
And why aren't we expanding intercity rail links? Seems it could really cut down our dependence on foreign oil, plus help our balance of payments.

Because it's not worth the investment. Also it's slow. We already have an incredibly efficient highway system. If freight were as great a solution as that makes it out to be, then more companies would be lobbying congress to build more railroads so they could save the money on gas. Might happen later if gas ever hits $10/gallon (won't happen), but not now.

WRONGO

Trucking companies don't have to pay for the highway infrastructure, railways do. Rail has been increasing the share of cargo load since the 70s, just due to the marginal cost per ton.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Eeezee
.



one thing the Europeans don't understand is how to sell those last few seats on a train at a discount price. Empty seats is missed profit!)

One thing you don't understand about European Rail is that seats aren't all sold in advance, and that anyone can walk into a station and buy a ticket for the next train. That is one convenience of rail vs air travel.

You may see empty seats, but at the next stop new passengers may get on and there may be standing room only.