Gas Prices and Amtrak

[Green Maned Lion]

Hybrids are horrible for so many different reasons, I don't even care to go into it. Ten years is nowhere near long enough to keep a car. Keep it for 30 at least. Car companies have a lot of damn gall building cars that can't last that long. Its possible, easy, and frankly, cheaper. Just remove about 200 lb. of pointless electronic garbage from the car. Power seats? Do you adjust your seat so often you need this? Really?

Power drivers side mirror? Why on gods earth could you possibly want, let alone need this? A passenger side it semi-understandable, but a drivers side? Automatic climate control? I personally hate this feature, I'd pay good money to NOT have it- when I get around to it, my cars being converted to manual control. Do you really need 12 speakers? 2 is acceptable, 4 is more than enough. Power rear tailgate, sliding doors... WHY? The list goes on and on and on.

Then we can remove about 500 lbs worth of pointless pyrotechnical devices cars have- primarily front, front side, rear side, side curtain and knee airbags, as well as pre-tensioners. We can replace these devices with four point manual tightening harnesses- they are safer, anyway. Next, we can remove about 150 lbs of pointless systems known under the guise of "stability and traction control". You can learn how to drive, America, I know you can- you don't need this.

Ok, now, we have removed 850 lbs from the car that is not needed, while simplifying the whole set up improving reliability and durability, ok?

Fine, while we are at it, let me slay another sacred cow. You do not need to go 0-60 in 5.5 seconds. You never do except the first day you get the car and show your family how fast thing is. My car does it in 15 seconds, and with knowing how to drive, that works. But lets call 12 seconds the actual logical requirement. To move this car, a four-door family sedan (say, a Toyota Camry V6) previously weighing 3600 lbs, now weighing initially 2750 lb, to 60 in 12 seconds, we need about 115 horse power.

That would be a fairly simple four cylinder of about 2.2L displacement, or, a more complicated one such as Toyota's 1.6 litre VVT-i unit. That weighs about 100 lbs less than their 3.5 V6. So now we are down to 2650lb, and we are faster than our target. I could take this on ad infinitum, but lets stabilize power at their 1.6 l VVT-i four, ok?

Now with all this weight and power taken out, we can make many things less heavy. With the weight of the V6 gone, and the rest of the body, the engine compartment and front springing can be made much less beefy. We can take out lots of metal no longer needed. Plus, with the engine putting out 150 less HP and 170lb-ft less torque, we don't need as beefy a transmission. The general guidelines for this is a third of the weight saved, brining our car down to 2,337 lbs. I'd guess it would to 0-60 in about 10 seconds now. You, without the hybrid nonsense, are probably getting close to 40 mpg on the highway now.

Your car will last longer, be more reliable, and much more environmentally friendly. Lets actually do this, ok?

 

[Ryan]

The price of gas is certainly having an effect on lifestyles. I see Hummers parked for extensive periods of time - much more than in the past. My real hope is that Congress will develop some backbone and mandate MUCH higher fuel efficiency standards for all vehicles in this country. Not just the lukewarm increases they have so far managed to get past the oil and U.S. vehicle manufacturer's lobbyists. [snip]

One person driving a Hummer, one person driving a Ford Excursion or one person driving some huge inefficient pickup truck, all need to be penalized for doing so, because it is the cumulative effect of all of those wasteful folks that are at least partly responsible for the high fuel usage nationwide, which in turn increases the high fuel prices that we ALL pay.

Do not want!
I proudly drive a Chevy Tahoe on the weekends (weekday transportation is provided courtesy of MARC (Maryland Commuter Rail)). Sometimes it's just little old me in my SUV, but enough times it's me, 3 other adults and a load of crap that necessitates such a large vehicle. It was a personal choice to purchase a 15 MPG vehicle, knowing that the fuel costs would be greater. Now with the rise in gas prices, it's even more expensive, and I have modified my driving habits some (staying home, combining trips, etc). But, I would never in a million years want my government telling me to park my truck because it burns too much gas.

Now, if that isn't your cup of tea, that's fine. I'm not interested in legislating the type of automobile that you drive, and you shouldn't be about mine. I take public transport when available, and drive when it isn't. I'd love to see it more available so that I could take advantage of it more, but when it isn't, I don't shed a single tear about getting in the Tahoe and taking a trip. I will be taking the auto-train to Florida this winter, but you can bet that it'll be my Tahoe right there on the train with me.

Freedom to choose - live it, love it - it's what makes this country great.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

I dislike the requirement of higher miles per gallon. People have this fallacious idea that we can get better fuel economy from cars without significantly changing what we drive outwardly. Utter tommyrot. A better idea is leave it up to free market choice. However, gas is too cheap at $3.50 a gallon; far too cheap. Instead of mandating higher fuel economy, lets put a $3 a gallon tax on fuel. Commercial truckers are exempt. $.25 goes to funding Amtrak. $.75 goes to funding intercity and local mass transit. $1 goes to R&D for better technologies. $1 goes for human welfare.

You wanna drive your hummer, suburban, or whatever for $6.50 a gallon? Okie dokie, have fun. If you want something more efficient, may I direct you to Dodge Sprinter?

 

[RobertF]

The service has never been out of the red since its start in 1971, meaning it must rely on government handouts year after year.

But of course, highways (either Interstates or "Main Street" or "____ Road") or airlines (including airports, ATC and the FAA) require NO government funding at all!

Reason has been very vocal about the need to end subsidies (or at least reform the process) to highways (warning they do make another swipe at Amtrak). Personally, I believe that if highways and airline subsidies were reformed Amtrak could become self-sufficient. Since such reforms are unlikely, I think it makes sense to fund Amtrak and invest to improve its service. As a libertarian I'm always bothered when other libertarians only address one part of a perceived market failure, but fail to address the deeper underlying causes. Such as Amtrak can't compete, but fail to address the hand outs and intervention in the inter-city transportation market that prevents it from competing successfully.

As much as I live on the Libertarian side of the tracks, there is one big truth with respect to highways, rail and air, and that is the national security considerations. The truth is, personal travel aside, that all this infrastructure is needed for national security reasons. We must have an adequate highway system to move men and materials around, same with rail and air. The airlines provide an instantly available overseas mobility. As a result, it's important from a national security prospective that we support these infrastructures. Amtrak is a bit of an odd duck in this light. One could see it as a vessel for national security interests (moving troops) but the likelihood these days is buss or air.

So, can anyone make an argument for Amtrak on national security concerns alone? I would suggest it would be difficult as it's already an insignificant part of that overall picture.

 

[Ryan]

Amtrak alone? No.

Railways? Absolutely yes. If we need to go "real soon now", the quickest thing (after the Maritime Prepo guys) is long trains of tanks and trucks from Army bases to ports for loading and shipment overseas.

Air power is good and all, but you need ships at sea to keep the guys on the ground supplied with tanks, bullets and beans, and trains are an integral part in getting that material to the ports.

 

[Guest]

"We must have an adequate highway system to move men and materials around, same with rail and air"

Military wife speaking here: I cannot begin to tell you how easy it would be to put troops on a train considering the bases Amtrak stops nearby:

Camp Shelby, MS (Hattiesburg, MS)- Instead the troops arrive there by bus or airplane at Gulfport and are reimbursed personal mileage at a rate far greater than it would take to purchase an Amtrak ticket. Meanwhile, as Had8ley laments, the coaches go empty on the Crescent. It's a little more convoluted than this but a commander could release the troops at a time appropriate to meet the train and take them at a cheaper cost to a point nearest their home or departure point. The waste in the military system is phenomenol (read previous post about shrimp/lobster/crab legs/steak every Wednesday night at Camp Arifjan, Kuwait (you're not likely to get shot at in Camp Arifjan- my husband said the most dangerous thing there was crossing the road and watching out for the infrequently passing vehicle. (Please tell me why there are 2 military golf courses about 2 miles or less apart: one at Fort Bragg (Army),NC and the other at Pope Air Force Base, NC. These 2 places are back to back. Does the Air Force play golf differently than the Army? I rant.

Fort Jackson, SC (Columbia, SC)- Basic training.

Lackland AFB, TX (San Antonio)- Air Force Basic Training

Ft. Lewis, WA (Tacoma)

You add to the list. It's endless.

etc, etc.

A train could as easily move troops and equipment as well as anything else and doesn't have to stop for peepee and fritolay breaks.

 

[Ryan]

I'm going to have to put on my "former Naval Officer" hat and take great exception to the previous poster, with apologies to all for the off course diversion (having nothing to do with neither Gas Prices nor Amtrak).

Sadly, the realities of military life do not revolve around an Amtrak timetable. The job is done when it's done - releasing the troops in conjunction with once a day train service is going to inevitably lead to some pissed off troops sitting around for 18 hours waiting on a train, when they could be home via other means in less than that time.

"Surf and Turf" relates to a little thing called "morale" if our troops (including your husband on occasion) are halfway around the world from their families, do you think that they should live on PB&J's for every meal? Hot Dogs? What's wrong with feeding the guys (and gals) a decent meal once a week to let them know that their efforts and sacrifices aren't appreciated?

Based on your rant, I'm sure that you would be horrified to know that NAS Oceana has 2 golf courses on the same base! If there are the numbers of airmen and soldiers to support 2 courses, what does it matter that they're on separate bases or right alongside one another (as is the case in Virginia)? Or would you rather there only be one course, and if you're not lucky enough to schedule a tee time months in advance, too darn bad?

I'm not sure what you're getting at by listing the names of various bases, but be assured that they all have their reasons for being, or they would have been BRAC'd a long time ago.

Again, apologies to all the others for this off topic diatribe - our guest just touched a nerve with me. She calls it wasteful, I call it "taking care of my sailors", to the best of my ability. It's a hard and thankless job sometimes, something that I would expect a military wife to understand.

Back to your regularly scheduled train discussions.

 

[JxGx78]

Yea, I have to disagree as well. I spent 6 years as an Armor Officer with 3rd ID, and while rail heading tanks and Bradley's makes the most sense, shipping whole units would be difficult. A Heavy Bridge Combat Team is between 3000 an 4000 Soldiers, so moving the unit in mass by train is possible, but would be very difficult. As it is now it can takes over a week to fly a BCT into a training center in the US, I just don't see it being the best use of resources to move units by trains. Their would either be a lot of deadheading the passenger cars to make multiple trips, or passenger cars setting empty during month long training events.

Now the travel agencies the military uses might be able to schedule Soldiers on trains for individual travel, but then you get into travel days. Take RR from Iraq a Soldier takes 14 of leave, and gets a 15th (free/travel) day that starts the day after they reach one of the major airport hubs (Dallas or Atlanta). Often if the Soldier hustles in the airport, and with a little bit of luck they can get on stand-by for an earlier flight to their hometown. In my case I was able to get a flight that landed in Bham in the early afternoon instead of the late evening as I was scheduled. Giving me an extra few hours with my family. If the military pushed trains instead of planes the overall travel time would increase for most Soldiers so instead of 1 travel day 2 days might have to be used. This means an extra day worth of Soldiers would be in the system traveling, instead of being in the fight.

Now for MWR (Morale, Welfare and Recreation) stuff. Golf courses are almost always profitable, and usually put money into the MWR system which pays for unit cookouts, holiday parties, etc. So if there are two golf course near each other its most likely is because Soldiers and Airmen like playing golf and use the courses a lot.

As to the food in Arifjan I have no problem with it, eating MRE's, C-Rats, and UGRs gets old very quick and are very expensive. You also have to look at the number of Soldiers that are visiting Arifjan that are going to or coming from Iraq, many might be visiting from a camp that doesn't have good chow so a chance to get good food is a huge morale boost. Now most camps in Iraq have decent food if not great food. Now some of the Company outpost and smaller camps have use UGR's or MRE's and that sucks, but that is life in a line unit.

Now there is a moral question, the supply lines to bring in fresh food are a lot longer and requirer more convey runs over roads that have explosive devices planted on them, meaning more Soldiers will be killed then if MREs where used. This also goes for all the other MWR items in Iraq: IP Phones, computers with internet access, PX's and the goods they sell, heck even sending Soldiers on RR increase their chances of being killed. But the trade off is the quality of life the Soldiers have in country, which directly effects the combat Soldiers state of mind. It makes a huge difference, and I believe leads to less Soldiers being killed, but there is no way to prove this. But, I had plenty of friends that felt the complete opposite, and thought we should cut out some of the MWR stuff.

 

[AmtrakWPK]

(begin mil - subj comment ) Since my post in this thread got sandwiched by a couple of mil-oriented posts, I would have to agree, having been stationed (Navy) in "The Gulf" not terribly far from where those folks are talking about, that even (I hope) for those of us that think we shouldn't have been there to start with and shouldn't be there now, the troops that are there have no choice, and we HAVE to support them as well as we possibly can and that support includes not just what creature-comforts we can manage to supply them with in-country wherever they find themselves ordered to, but it also behooves us to provide them with the most expeditious travel that we can on leave. We're keeping them all away from their families far too long at a time, and far too frequently, and in far too much danger, as it is. Don't compound it by trying to scrunch thousands of military service members into a train system that's not equipped to handle that kind of movement, and, especially, don't make them take a train over a day or two when they could have been home with their families by flying them home a day earlier.

( end of mil comment portion )

( back to fuel efficiency )

cost per-unit-volume that varies according to the amount used is not unheard of. It is common, in fact. Your electric bill (i.e., energy use, just like gasoline is) typically costs you a smaller amount per kwh up to a certain number of kwh per month, then it costs you more per kwh above that amount per month. Same thing, typically, with your water bill. Why not do that with gasoline? It would reward those who use less and penalize those who use more. In all three cases, they are finite resources that we need to conserve.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

I don't think Amtrak Unlimited is the proper place to discuss military issues, although obviously it is not my position to make policy.

In anycase, I disagree with the stepped gas cost thing. I think that no matter how fuel efficient your car is, you should be paying the same. Also, that only involves tank size. Yes, Ford Excursions need 25 gallon tanks. But my car has a 23.8 gallon tank itself. Not because it is fuel inefficient- because it is intended to have a vast range (at over 800 miles, its a pretty vast range!). My car gets 34 miles to the gallon on the highway.

I think that the cost of gas for fuel efficiency should be arithmetic, so that it is simply your mileage that effects you, rather than geometric. We should force people to pay the costs of their actions- not direct them with what to do. I can do whatever I want, consume whatever I want, so long as I am willing to pay for it. That is democracy, lad.

 

[JxGx78]

I don't think Amtrak Unlimited is the proper place to discuss military issues, although obviously it is not my position to make policy.
In anycase, I disagree with the stepped gas cost thing. I think that no matter how fuel efficient your car is, you should be paying the same. Also, that only involves tank size. Yes, Ford Excursions need 25 gallon tanks. But my car has a 23.8 gallon tank itself. Not because it is fuel inefficient- because it is intended to have a vast range (at over 800 miles, its a pretty vast range!). My car gets 34 miles to the gallon on the highway.

I think that the cost of gas for fuel efficiency should be arithmetic, so that it is simply your mileage that effects you, rather than geometric. We should force people to pay the costs of their actions- not direct them with what to do. I can do whatever I want, consume whatever I want, so long as I am willing to pay for it. That is democracy, lad.

You're right sorry to go so far off topic. The best way I've have yet heard of to fix externalities is a carbon tax, it can be done is such a way that it could replace payroll taxes. Holisticpolitics.org has a great section on global warming and talks about a carbon tax in great detail, and make a very strong case for it. The section is very long, but it addresses many of the ways to address global warming and the shortcoming and strengths of some of the main ideas . A carbon tax would apply to coal, oil, natural gas, etc. and change the business calculus currently being used. A carbon tax would encourage people to use less fossil fuels, but allow them to make the best decisions given their situation. I'm still not completely sold on the idea, but its the clearest idea I have ever seen.

http://www.holisticpolitics.org/GlobalWarming/

 

[AmtrakWPK]

I can do whatever I want, consume whatever I want, so long as I am willing to pay for it. That is democracy, lad.

Yes and No. In the southeast (and a lot of other places, I believe), we are under watering restrictions. There is a realization that no matter how much money you have, that doesn't entitle you to waste a precious resource. Petrol ought to, and I expect eventually will, be run the same way. It is a finite resource. The more of it that is wasted, the higher it costs EVERYBODY per unit of fuel. In effect, those of us, including yourself, who drive a fuel-efficient vehicle are being financially penalized by the wastrels' Hummers, because the high fuel cost that we ALL pay is at least in part a direct result of those who waste it, making the already scarce resource less available and thereby increasing the cost per gallon that even we less-wasteful people have to pay. And my comment was on the efficiency with which you USE the fuel, not the amount it takes to fill the tank. Although I hope you realize that if you keep that large tank mostly full, it will lower your mpg because of the extra energy that is required to accelerate that extra mass, and you probably would go through brake linings/pads more frequently as well.

 

[Ryan]

I don't think that you can equate water shortages with petroleum quite yet - maybe in another 50 years. There is plenty of gas out there to be had, if you're willing to pay the price, but no rational amount of money is going to put more fresh water in the ground. The added mass of a full tank of fuel is so tiny compared to other things like driving style, that the effects on mpg and brake life are completely negligible.

Now having done my part to drag the discussion off topic, I'll try to "bring it back home", so to speak. (as an aside, a huge "THANK YOU" to the folks responsible for this site, for allowing discussions such as this to ramble and prosper - a HUGE contrast to the first train forum I found, seemingly overrun with grumpy old timers and mods that lock threads like they get paid hundreds of dollars per locked thread)

I've got 2 LD train trips booked at this point, the Crescent from WAS to ATL this weekend to visit family, and the Auto Train for an after Christmas vacation to see some friends, and BOTH of these trips were heavily influenced by the cost of gas. Commuting daily on the train, I would have been inclined to look towards the train for both of these trips, but the high cost of driving there myself certainly made taking the train much easier to justify from a financial perspective. Ridership numbers on the MARC are waaay, up, and I suspect that the large number of people being exposed to Union Station and Amtrak on a daily basis will continue to take folks down the same path I've been down. I've certainly talked up the train - gas prices are a hot topic everywhere, and I've certainly done my part to get the word out that modern train travel is a positive experience that becomes more and more economically feasible with each price hike at the pump.

 

[abqdave]

Now having done my part to drag the discussion off topic, I'll try to "bring it back home", so to speak. (as an aside, a huge "THANK YOU" to the folks responsible for this site, for allowing discussions such as this to ramble and prosper - a HUGE contrast to the first train forum I found, seemingly overrun with grumpy old timers and mods that lock threads like they get paid hundreds of dollars per locked thread)

I second this. I really enjoyed all the various points of view and ramblings in this post. Thanks moderator...by the way, who is the moderator? Alan?

I loved to read the military postings, as I have never been in it and don't know much about it. I liked the Libertarian philosophy, as I am not familiar with it either. And thanks to everyone for putting up with reading about what kind of car I drive, how I get to work, and what kind of light bulbs I use.

I think this POV was insightful...

Interesting. I think it all boils down to this: People hate people.

If they MUST be where they can see, hear or smell other humans, they want

it to be for the shortest time possible, and if those 'undesirables' must be allowed

aboard, they should at least be tied into their seats for the duration.

That means private cars or airplanes.

Having seen, heard and smelled some of those humans, I can see why

people feel this way.

I run into this attitude constantly with co-workers who think I am crazy for using public transportation. Especially with buses, there is a perception that people who use public transportation are poor, the elderly, the very young, or have something wrong with them. (BTW, there is also a fair amount of truth to this). However, now that a lot more people are using public transportation to get to work, go on vacations, out of concern for global climate change, etc....out of choice...I think this perception will change. And lead to more public support for mass transportation including Amtrak.

 

[MrFSS]

I second this. I really enjoyed all the various points of view and ramblings in this post. Thanks moderator...by the way, who is the moderator? Alan?

There are two administrators, Anthony, the founder of the board, and AlanB, who does most of the admin type work, and three of us moderators who try to assist and keep an eye on things to assist AlanB and Anthony.

 

[AlanB]

(as an aside, a huge "THANK YOU" to the folks responsible for this site, for allowing discussions such as this to ramble and prosper - a HUGE contrast to the first train forum I found, seemingly overrun with grumpy old timers and mods that lock threads like they get paid hundreds of dollars per locked thread)

I second this. I really enjoyed all the various points of view and ramblings in this post. Thanks moderator...by the way, who is the moderator? Alan?

Well first let me say on behalf of the staff, THANKS! Your thanks is the only pay that anyone on the staff gets.

Turning to the question at hand, it goes like this.

Anthony and I are the administrators of the board. It's up to us to ensure that backups are made to protect the information posted here, to create new forums, approve new members, perform other routine maintenance tasks, as well as to moderate the board too. Plus of course we often throw our own 2 cents in many times, especially me.

I should also point out that Anthony owns the board and aside from a small amount of revenue from the ads at the top of the forum, pays the costs of keeping things running. So if you click on one of the ads every once in a while, even if you don't buy anything, you still help to contribute financially to the board.

Then we have three moderators, Joe (AmtrakWPK), Eric (GG-1), and Tom (MrFSS). There duties include pretty much what one might expect, deleting any spam, on rare occasions deleting a topic or a post that either used foul language or was a direct insult to someone, moving topics to the correct forum, keeping the peace when occasionally necessary, and of course contributing their own 2 cents too.

Administrator names show up in red, moderators' show up in blue, both in their posts and at the bottom of the main forum page where the current active users are listed.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Interesting. I think it all boils down to this: People hate people.If they MUST be where they can see, hear or smell other humans, they want

it to be for the shortest time possible, and if those 'undesirables' must be allowed

aboard, they should at least be tied into their seats for the duration.

That means private cars or airplanes.

A Viewliner Roomette offers far more personal space than I've ever experienced on an airplane. It also offers more space than the driver's seat of any automobile I've driven.

Most of my subway commuting manages to be at off-peak times and/or near the northern end of the MBTA Red Line (there are two branches on the south end, and all of the trains for either branch run all the way to the north end), which tends to end up providing a decent amount of personal space. I can often take up multiple seats without really consuming more than my fair share of space.

About six months ago, I took a Red Line train most of the length of its route near the peak of the evening rush hour. The car I was in was pretty uncomfortably packed. Coming home from the July 4 festivities on the Green Line also tends to be unpleasant and/or inefficient (but I don't think I could make that better by using an automobile).

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

In effect, those of us, including yourself, who drive a fuel-efficient vehicle are being financially penalized by the wastrels' Hummers, because the high fuel cost that we ALL pay is at least in part a direct result of those who waste it, making the already scarce resource less available and thereby increasing the cost per gallon that even we less-wasteful people have to pay. And my comment was on the efficiency with which you USE the fuel, not the amount it takes to fill the tank. Although I hope you realize that if you keep that large tank mostly full, it will lower your mpg because of the extra energy that is required to accelerate that extra mass, and you probably would go through brake linings/pads more frequently as well.

A typical automobile probably weighs 3000-4000 pounds, and can hold about 100-150 pounds of fuel. I don't think the amount of fuel in the tank is likely to make as big a difference on fuel economy and brake wear as driving style.

How many miles one drives is also a huge issue in total fuel consumption. The difference between the length of my commute in miles (which I can walk in less than an hour) and some of my coworkers' commutes in miles (which can involve over an hour of train riding if they don't just drive the whole way) is probably a much larger ratio than the difference in fuel consumption between a Hummer and a Prius.

 

[George Harris]

How many miles one drives is also a huge issue in total fuel consumption.

Let's put this in bold and say it loudly. It is the biggest factor of all. If I have a 1970 Caddilac sitting in the garage (I don't) and leave it there while I walk or bicycle to the store and catch trains or buses for longer trips, my fuel usage is far less than that of the Prius driver who can't walk 10 steps to go somewhere.

How about the irony of the people that drive when they could walk and then go get on a treadmill because they need exercise? Stupidity is incurable and limitless in its possibilities.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

I can do whatever I want, consume whatever I want, so long as I am willing to pay for it. That is democracy, lad.

Yes and No. In the southeast (and a lot of other places, I believe), we are under watering restrictions. There is a realization that no matter how much money you have, that doesn't entitle you to waste a precious resource. Petrol ought to, and I expect eventually will, be run the same way. It is a finite resource. The more of it that is wasted, the higher it costs EVERYBODY per unit of fuel. In effect, those of us, including yourself, who drive a fuel-efficient vehicle are being financially penalized by the wastrels' Hummers, because the high fuel cost that we ALL pay is at least in part a direct result of those who waste it, making the already scarce resource less available and thereby increasing the cost per gallon that even we less-wasteful people have to pay. And my comment was on the efficiency with which you USE the fuel, not the amount it takes to fill the tank. Although I hope you realize that if you keep that large tank mostly full, it will lower your mpg because of the extra energy that is required to accelerate that extra mass, and you probably would go through brake linings/pads more frequently as well.

I fill it over the top and drive it until the light goes on or 470 miles goes onto the trip odometer, whichever comes second. (usually the light going on- it goes on with about 3.5 gallons to go.) If I race the engine all the time and slam on the brakes, and idle a lot, I can get it down to about 19 mpg, which is the worst I got. The best I got was a tad over 38 mpg. That being said, its a '95 Mercedes diesel with a few modifications added because the car was used primarily for towing and occasional light off-road work by its previous owner (there are few cars as hardy or durable as an old Mercedes!).

Among them is a switch primed, accelerator lift-off exhaust brake. I rarely use the primary brake for more than the last 5-10 mph or so. I usually lift my foot off the gas, then initiate manual downshifts until I get to 10 mph or so and then start braking. I accelerate on the engines torque rather than horsepower. Trying to get top performance out of a 138bhp diesel engine in a 3800 lb car is an exercise in silliness most of the time. If you drive a car like that you learn that the brakes are a bad thing, and avoid the pedal a lot.

First off a diesel has very high compression leading to considerable engine braking even without the exhaust brake. Second, you want to keep moving because regaining speed after slowing down is difficult. The W124 E-class is generally considered the most stable mechanical chassis ever devised, and I make use of that. My car will be on the road long after we pass on.

As for people's lack of conservation, it continues to amaze me. I once watched on TV a woman in a Ford SUV whining about fuel cost. This would be ironic in itself. But I distinctly saw the tach in an idling position. And she was sitting in a drive through line. I swear, you can't make this stuff up. I WALK whenever I can. I know people who drive across parking lots rather than walk to the next store!

 

[MrEd]

How many miles one drives is also a huge issue in total fuel consumption.

How about the irony of the people that drive when they could walk and then go get on a treadmill because they need exercise? Stupidity is incurable and limitless in its possibilities.

George, good point.

I know some people that would walk more if they got double agr points for doing it.

 

[frj1983]

How many miles one drives is also a huge issue in total fuel consumption.

Let's put this in bold and say it loudly. It is the biggest factor of all. If I have a 1970 Caddilac sitting in the garage (I don't) and leave it there while I walk or bicycle to the store and catch trains or buses for longer trips, my fuel usage is far less than that of the Prius driver who can't walk 10 steps to go somewhere.

How about the irony of the people that drive when they could walk and then go get on a treadmill because they need exercise? Stupidity is incurable and limitless in its possibilities.

Or watch people waste gas at the local Target, Grocery Store, or Mall as they endlessly drive around looking for that parking spot close to the front door. When they could have parked, walked (good for your health by the way), and been in with time to spare and saved some gas. We Indeed need to change the way we do things...all of us could probably examine our lives and make adjustments that could save gas and make us more healthy!

 

[AmtrakWPK]

I know some people that would walk more if they got double agr points for doing it

Where do I sign up?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

GML, as the Aussies would say, "Good On You" for your conservational driving behavior and not feeling the need to have something that runs through petrol like ---- through a goose. And the behavior of too many drivers is baffling, not just the idling but in a long stretch of highway with computer-controlled lights, it never seems to penetrate their skulls that no matter how fast they accelerate out of the present traffic light when it turns green, if they speed through the next segment, the light will be red when they get to it and they will have to apply a lot of brake, and then sit and wait for a green light. If they took it easy instead, the light would be green when they got to the next one and they wouldn't even have to slow down. And it would take a LOT less petrol (and cost them a lot less) to drive through that stretch of highway.

I have been looking at electric scooters and the like for my approx. 3 mile commute to the church, which I do probably 8 - 12 times a week. All but a 1/2 mile stretch of that is at 25-30mph max, which would be fine with a scooter, but the final 1/2 mile is on a very busy 45-50mph driving speed road, and that part of it scares me. I suppose I could just walk that part of it on the sidewalk with the scooter when traffic is heavy. Of course during the summer it would also be pouring rain fairly often in the afternoons. But with gas prices continuing to skyrocket, sooner or later I may do it. I carry usually about 20 - 25 lbs of music and calendars and so forth, so walking it with that from the house really isn't practical, being just a year or so shy of 60, with a hot Florida sun, very fair skin and frequently with heat indexes of well over 100F.

 

[Guest]

""Surf and Turf" relates to a little thing called "morale" if our troops "

This is in reference to the idea that troops should be moved by highways and airlines while trains are excluded from the group. The board has already had numerous discussions about the declining ontime performance of airlines. I've sat in a major airport USO lounge and noticed the troops sleeping in there for hours on end for a flight home while Amtrak is going in their direction NOW. Requiring the freights to honor their agreements with Amtrak would increase the ontime performance of Amtrak. I seriously doubt that Amtrak was ever considered as an option. In addition, military members are probably lugging over the weight limits for airlines. Mine does. Ching ching for the airlines. Who says that the government doesn't subsidize the airlines? Airlines can't carry injured troops as well as trains can...

The Surf and Turf ticks off the wives as do the cheerleaders being sexually suggestive in front of their husbands. When the wives are annoyed the servicemembers are distracted and get given the choice later of their family or the service. Guess which is a greater morale buster. As another wife said, where's my Chippendale dancer and MY babysitter so I can eat like that. (For the record, I've never seen a Chippendale and don't want to.) We now have a generation of people (soldiers included) that believe certain things are their right (unlimited gasoline- wasn't this rationed during WWII?) and not a blessing. The American people have been very supportive of the troops in sending them stuff. On some FOBs it sits in piles where soldiers walk by and pick out what has been discarded by other soldiers. Nothing wrong with that although I have a feeling that the soldiers on the farflung FOBs facing the most danger are missing some of these morale builders. Weren't the Vietnam soldiers still eating the equivalent of spam and c-rats. On drill weekends the troops may be put up in shared rooms (or single) at the local hotel instead of bunk beds in the armory. I know of at least one run down small town Best Western that has benefitted from this. Armories typically contain bathrooms and shower facilities. Young people have gotten so accustomed to space around them (large homes, rooms, etc) that the military has had to accomodate this tendacy by building accomodations more akin to apartments than to barracks. The point is that the waste is phenomenal and to fund these excesses while starving Amtrak is not right. I've seen it (the waste) over the course of 24 years. It stands to reason that if servicemembers are pulled from a population accustomed to excesses (credit included) that these habits will follow them. I crossed rank lines and spent the deployment counseling the young wife on financial matters. She lives about 101 miles from me. The Commander's wife who lived near to her stayed hidden. As a result the young marriage didn't fall apart and her husband came home to money in the bank and a more financially astute wife. They live in a housing project. He was the only member in his unit that did not earn a CIB. He stayed focused. No one in his squad was as fortunate. Consider the number of higher-ranked individuals who found the loophole to make their month's pay nontaxable by staying 1 day in the combat zone, that "combat zone" being the generally non-hostile Kuwait (where hostile fire pay is paid)... On another occasion my airline ticket cost $300. His cost $900 through the official channels. We are near a base with MAC flights as well, but commercial connections are used. The C130s fly overhead every night like clockwork. I know the drone... A bus was chartered to take the soldiers in the direction of their homes. To pick him up I (and others) still had to drive over 6 hours one way. Amtrak would have had him near 10 miles of our home within 8 hours at far less cost. The military maintains a travel agency contract or agency that could deal with these issues that is at the service of the leaders. Commanders are charged with the well-being of the families (hence the check-the-block Family Readiness Groups which seem to act more as a means to keep the families quiet or punish soldiers whose wives do speak) as well as the soldiers (which generally insures that we keep quiet)... There really is no rational excuse for side by side golf courses on adjoining military installations and when you hear defense of it you know you're hitting a personal perk. Run the retirees off of them and see exactly how many lower ranked/paid active service members are using them. The lower enlisted try to get away from uniforms and the ever present requirement to acknowledge their superiors in their spare time (morale building time). People speak about funding sources being separate. Years ago, the services were told to get their equipment to operate in conjunction with each other (it seems there was a major malfunction that cost lives- perhaps the Iranian hostage crisis or somewhere else) so that they could communicate with each other and cut down costs. Even though it is a law, they still maintain their turf, including golf courses.

I can identify family members that fought in most every war going back to the Revolutionary War. This includes the Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korean, Vietnam, this one and those other squabbles that occurred (Spanish-American, etc), so this isn't a case of being anti-military. I've also been attendant at the unloading of a front line soldier's body and will never forget that and hope to live long enough to witness to his children about the honor that was given their father. I'm very much anti-waste in government spending while Amtrak remains underfunded. To the ex-servicemember member officers, gentlemen, please remember that the family members (1) did not sign on the dotted line and (2) do not sign away their 1st Amendment rights. You know that what I have written on here is true.

Money exists to fund Amtrak or can be found in the same manner as is found to fund these excesses.

 

[Ryan]

Having not logged in, I'm going to assume you're the same wife as before? I'll try to limit my disagreement with your post to the transportation relevant portions (although I find as much, if not more lacking in the parts I ignore (and bordering on offensive in some parts)).

This is in reference to the idea that troops should be moved by highways and airlines while trains are excluded from the group. The board has already had numerous discussions about the declining ontime performance of airlines. I've sat in a major airport USO lounge and noticed the troops sleeping in there for hours on end for a flight home while Amtrak is going in their direction NOW.

Despite this, the plane may well get them home sooner, seeing as there is a significant difference in speed between the two modes, not to mention that there are many, many more airports than there are train stations. Not all soldiers live on the doorstep of a train station, and you've got to account the driving time between the terminal and home, too. While there may be some instances where door to door travel is faster by train, this is the exception, rather than the rule.

On another occasion my airline ticket cost $300. His cost $900 through the official channels. We are near a base with MAC flights as well, but commercial connections are used. The C130s fly overhead every night like clockwork. I know the drone

Due to the changing nature of government/military travel, tickets bought on the .gov contract are refundable up until the time the plane leaves the ground, and that price is guaranteed regardless of whether you buy the tickets 6 months or 6 minutes in advance. To get those features, the government rightly pays the airline more money.

A bus was chartered to take the soldiers in the direction of their homes. To pick him up I (and others) still had to drive over 6 hours one way. Amtrak would have had him near 10 miles of our home within 8 hours at far less cost

As I mentioned before, this is the exception, rather than the rule, not to mention that I'll bet you my next paycheck that a charter bus is cheaper than 50 Amtrak tickets purchased at the time of departure.

To the ex-servicemember member officers, gentlemen, please remember that the family members (1) did not sign on the dotted line and (2) do not sign away their 1st Amendment rights.

Yes, but you did marry that service member, and knew full well what you were getting into. I began dating my fiancee while I was still on active duty, and I ensured that she was well aware of what being a military wife invloved. Even though she was willing to sign on, my family is certainly one of the reasons that I'm on the outside looking in today. (sorry, that's the one non-transportation related item I can't let slip).

You know that what I have written on here is true.

No, much of it was false.

Money exists to fund Amtrak or can be found in the same manner as is found to fund these excesses.

Just as soon as it becomes a matter of national security.