Here's a pretty interesting article from the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal about how Toyota plans to move all of the Priuii that will be built in Mississippi and the infrastructure that goes into a project like this. Nice to see rail being used for something. djournal.com
Diesel is a carcinogen. It is more cost effective and efficient to ship goods and services by rail (even though trains are diesel - electric). We need to get away from "warehouses on wheels" traveling back and forth across the country. Diesel trucks are appropriate for short-term hauls between rail and nearby cities. Toyota is on the right track.
Wouldn't it be ironic? A bunch of Priuses on the rail train.... Railroad to revolutionize mass movement of hybrids....
Diesel costs will most likely make rail more and more popular ... Warren Buffett must think so since in the past year he's bought almost 20% of Burlington Northern Santa Fe's (BNI) outstanding stock. It's currently trading $6-7 less than what he bought it for ... if you're so inclined.
Gasoline and Gasoline emissions are also carcinogenic, I invite you to read the warnings on the gasoline pump. Rail is by far the way to go, moving a ton of cargo ~200 miles per gallon of fuel. Of course a tractor trailer is as efficient as a Prius moving a ton of cargo 57 miles per gallon of fuel. We need trains to move people not just cargo across the US.
What's more ironic is that almost half of the locomotives on U.S. railroads used to be built by.... General Motors! GM's Electromotive Division (EMD) was known as the face of American railroads since the 1940s when EMD's FT diesel locomotive first killed off the Steam Locomotive. Electrical braking was first used on diesel-electrics too back then. They use the traction motors as generators to slow down the train, but instead of storing that regenerated electricity into battery banks like our Prius does, the locomotives dissipate it through a Dynamic Brake heating grid. Of course GM had to sell off EMD back in 2005 to generate some cash. All this time they had regenerative braking technology, but wasn't used until very recently with the RailPower GG20 Green Goat small yard-switcher locomotives, and General Electric's P32AC-DM passenger locomotives (currently used by Amtrak and Metro-North here in New York) and later their Hybrid GEVO heavy-freight locomotives. What took them so long!
Excellent, parts in, Prii out, all by rail! And don't forget that regenerative braking on rail in the US goes back at least as far as the Milwaukee Road's electric operation in the Rockies and Pacific Northwest, built in the 1910s. GE-Westinghouse boxcab electric locomotives used locally generated power to get up the grades, then went into regen on the way down, feeding power back into the grid. It's a shame that's all gone now. Jim
actual cost effectiveness on a weight per dollar ratio is one way to look at it. lower congestion, less accidents, a better "just in time" delivery system which also reduces cost also plays a factor. going back to rail to move most of the goods in this country (along with passengers) is a win-win all the way around.
Excellent leading by example. Rail was the most efficient and cost effective means for moving cargo in the U.S. before Big Oil and Big Auto managed to tear up the rails we had. We need to move to put as much of the rail infrastructure back into place and haul more by rail. Then let the trucks do short run hauling from the depot to delivery. I'd also like to see passenger use increase. I'd like to be able to buy a summer pass and travel by rail up the west coast to Canada, stopping periodically along the way for a few days here and there. It would make a nice leisurely vacation. I'd like to be able to do the same thing across the country. I can do this in Europe. I can't do this here. Not everyone wants or needs to get from point A to point B in the quickest time possible. It would do our country and our economy good to take some slower, more introspective vacations in our own country.
i agree, one of the best times of my life was a month on a Eurail pass when i was in my late teens. you could literally go anywhere you wanted...around here, i have a choice of 3 destinations, limited schedules and no real stops in between.
I've always said this is what should be done in this country, but wondered why it wasn't done. Truck drivers stay localized, hell I'm sure at the very least their families appreciate it more. It's been a while since I've checked prices, but last I did it cost the same if not more to take rail, and it gets you someplace a lot slower.
In the US yes. I looked into taking AmTrak from Birmingham, Al to Raleigh, NC. AmTrak was $300 and took 23 hours! I can drive it in 8 hours or fly in 5 to 6. In Europe it is completely different. I travelled by rail quite a bit and it was fast and cheap. Frankfurt to Prague, $120 and 6 hours compared to 3-4 hours by air at a cost of $500.
I not sure about leading. Most, if not all domestically manufactured autos are shipped by rail outside a fixed local zone surrounding the plant where they are manufactured.
Yep.. The Europeans did invest heavily in high-speed rail, with the TGV, Eurostar, and ICE train systems.. Those bullet trains all average 180mph, with their own dedicated rail lines and other infrastructure. Here in the U.S. we are stuck with old infrastructure, with our Amtrak passenger service at the mercy of the freight rail companies on whose track Amtrak runs its trains. The only place where Amtrak has a dedicated rail line was the Northeast Corridor so it can run its Acela Express.. Even though it's not especially fast by European standards (average speed less than 100mph from Washington DC to Boston), it nevertheless does offer a great alternative to travelling by air between those cities. Basically if you factor the time it takes to trave to and from the airports, time to clear airport security and the time in flight, it works out to about the same amount of time as taking the Acela (which takes you directly from city center to city center). The Northeast Corridor model I think is a viable one for intercity routes about 500 miles long. For those distances it would be very competitive against airlines. I'm hoping they might consider doing something like that for LA to SanFran.
23 hours?? is that a sightseeing tour?? we have those... it runs a circular route that covers the pacific coast along with a run along the foothills of the Cascades... runs from Vancouver BC to Portland and takes most of a weekend. other than that, i think you will find trains do not take a significant more amount of time than planes. check the commuter from NY to DC.... it takes like what??? 5-6 hours (dont remember now its been over 15 years since last trip)... but it takes you from downtown to downtown... sure a flight would take less than 2 hours. but its a MINIMUM 45 mins to the airport before takeoff. another 30 minutes at the airport after landing to check out (i have actually done this in as little as 10 mins at San Jose CA...but actually average around 30) then it can be nearly an hour to get from airport to town. the train was show up 15 minutes early (with savings usually of $20 or more from not having to pay for shuttle to airport) get on, arrive at destination, get off, pick up bag. and out.
No, that is normal train service. Amtrak is not a viable means of transportation useless you live on the coast. Here is a typical example: Amtrak: Birmingham to Chicago $305 (one-way) Depart 26-Nov 2:45 pm Arrive 27-Nov 8:45 pm That is 32 hours Greyhound Bus $109 (one-way) Birmingham to Chicago Depart 26-Nov 11:55 pm Arrive 27-Nov 3:30 pm 15 hrs 35 min Driving $411 (one way based on my companies rate of $0.57 per mile) Birmingham to Chicago 10 hrs 17 min Even if you add 3 hours for rest stops it is more than twice as fast as Amtrak United Airlines $386 (roundtrip) 2 hrs 8 min Add 3 hours for travel to and from the airport = 5 hours
we have major issues around here due to lack of tracks, and lack of maintenance on the tracks we have. there has been so much emphasis on truck traffic we even had the spur that took the tracks thru Olympia taken out... we still have Amtrak and other freight lines that skirt along the edge of town, but the de-emphasis of the rail system has been quite drastic. i live less than 2 blocks from the Amtrak station here and can say its very busy, but most of it is the shuttle to Seattle which services daily commuter traffic. (I-5 traffic is a total nightmare) but i think that is the whole point of this thread. we need to go back to trains to do most of our hauling. that will put enough into the infrastructure that will also help passenger traffic as well.
Web Extra: High-Speed Rail on the Ballot - KQED QUEST Television Story The US is 100 years behind Europe in transportation and energy efficiency. We have substituted oil for knowledge for too long. California has begun the transition to high speed rail. It is more cost effective (energy, money, air quality, convenience) to begin now rather than wait until later. Industrial and passenger rail need to be upgraded nationwide as part of the current infrastructure effort. Energy efficiency is the driving force. Individual vehicles are very inefficient as to use of energy, space, transportation corridors, noise and cost. The Interstate Highway system is in place and provides right-of-way in almost every state and city. Rational politicians will think and act long-term by emphasizing light and high speed rail.
