R J Corman Dies

[Ryan]

So it's cool when you drag the thread off topic giving a dead man unsolicited and incorrect business advice, but when the topic turns anti-bus, you cry foul?

 

[rrdude]

I for one am GLAD that te admins have NOT jumped in and censored / locked thread. It takes two to Tango. This thread was about a 20th century shortline RR Pioneer, who did just about everything "right", and built a profitable RR business, DT, Railcar Repair, Locomotive rebuilding, etc, etc. How this topic got switched over to motorcoaches, hmmmmmm, me thinks you doth protest too much!

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

Hey now, don't you accuse me crying foul! All I don't want is another thread to turn into "Discontinue the Auto Train."

But if you insist to continue the debate, then if 42% of highway maintainence are really covered with direct revenue, then I'm sure a lot more will be covered with more tolls roads.

And the bus is not that inefficient, a MCI 102DL3 gets 5.5 mpg with a max load of 51 passengers. A P42DC burns about 170 gallons of diesel per-hour at 70% power with HEP, which is probably nessasary to keep a 800,000 pound consist running at 79 mph. That would mean about 0.45 mpg. An 800,000-pound consist should be able to carry around 300-350 passengers. So I still don't understand why the train is touted as very efficient unless it crusies at less than 70% power.

My previous post was in response to people saying that this thread has gotten too much off-topic. So first you guys tell me to stop arguing OT then you ridicule me for crying foul, eh?

Next thing I know, I'm gonna get a PM from an Admin or Monderator telling me to stop causing trouble. It's not really my fault because after all, it's true that Interstate get paid for with taxpayer money, so you might as well take advantage. Sure, their bridges fall down and stuff, but Interstates are still pretty safe and pricate operators don't have to pay for them directly.

 

[AlanB]

Since NARP-supported studies would use the same "selective data" as the ABA-supported studies, let's just leave this argument alone.

Where did I cite anything from a NARP study?

The only stats that I provided in this topic came from the National Transit Database (NTD). They have no affiliation with NARP, nor do they accept funding from NARP or any other private entity. The NTD is Federally funded and their job is to collect, compile, and if need be audit the data from any public transit agency in the US.

And while I didn't cite any energy data, the US Department of Energy puts out the Energy Handbook that shows the energy efficiency of all modes of travel, except for the Intercity buses. They don't provide any data to the DOE.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

Since NARP-supported studies would use the same "selective data" as the ABA-supported studies, let's just leave this argument alone.

Where did I cite anything from a NARP study?

The only stats that I provided in this topic came from the National Transit Database (NTD). They have no affiliation with NARP, nor do they accept funding from NARP or any other private entity. The NTD is Federally funded and their job is to collect, compile, and if need be audit the data from any public transit agency in the US.

And while I didn't cite any energy data, the US Department of Energy puts out the Energy Handbook that shows the energy efficiency of all modes of travel, except for the Intercity buses. They don't provide any data to the DOE.

I didn't say you did, I meant that the NARP is basically the train equivelent to the ABA. Or maybe the NARP is more like the AIBRA, I'm not sure.

I can only base any fuel-efifciency argument on what I know. I know that a 'DL3 gets 5.5 mpg, according to drivers, even though MCI touts its 45-foot buses as "up to 8 mpg." I have the figures for how much fuel a P42DC uses at each power setiing, but I'm not sure what exact power setting is needed to run a typical load at 79 mph. Until someone provides that info, I can't make an accurate assesment for train efficiency. Possibly George Harris or the engineer himself that provided the info could enlighten me.

Another important factor to consider is how much loads the different vehicles are actually carrying in service. Out in the deserts around here, Amtrak often runs less than half empty, while Greyhound has decent loads around 60-80%. Greyhound has very few passengers getting off at the stops in the desert, so it's very easy to get the data just by assessing loads at the origin of the bus.

The electric trains on the NEC obviously pollute much less than anything else, but they indirectly pollute through the power stations, most of which still burn coal.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

During the weekend, I thought of a new way to calculate the efficiency. We'll just compare it a car. It won't be very accurate, but reasonable enough. So I looked up the average sedan fuel cosumption here: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byclass/Midsize_Cars2012.shtml. According to that site, the average sedan gets about 23 mpg and I know they sually have 5 seats. I know a 102DL3 gets 5.5 mpg with 51 seats.

Thus, a car can get up to 115 passenger-miles per gallon. And the 'DL3 can get up to 280.5 passenger-miles per gallon. Of course both of these are rarely filled, but we'll have to calculate based on maximum capacity. Based on the above info, a 102DL3 is about 2.44 times more efficient than the average sedan. And the 'DL3 can surely be considered the average intercity bus, since its use is widespread everywhere in the US and Canada.

So, if you take the DOE Energy Handbook info for efficiency of the automobile and times it by 2.44, then you should get the efficiency of the average intercity bus. Unfortunately, I could not find the efficiency tables in the DOE Energy Handbook, so I had to rely on this: http://www.amtrak.com/whistle-stop/energy-efficiency-rail-travel-uses-less-fuel-than-cars-planes.

According to Amtrak itself, a train uses 2,435 BTUs per passenger-mile and cars use 3,538. Since the bus is about 2.44 time more efficient than the car, it uses only 1,450 BTUs per passenger-mile.

Another release shows that buses use 4,235 BTUs per passenger-mile. However, it is virtually impossible for a bus to be less efficient than a car (3,538). So I find these figure to be unbelievable.

 

[AmtrakBlue]

Swadian, why don't you start a new topic to discuss this rather than continue the conversation here?

 

[Ryan]

That's some henryj-esque "analysis" there.

 

[rrdude]

Look, I freely admit, I SUCK at statistics: reading them, using them, or generating them.(I had to take stats class twice in college to pass)

.

But even an idiot like me has read enuff of them to know that rail transportation, by it's very nature, is without a doubt more fuel-efficient than rubber-tire-on-road transportation......Wait

.

What was the topic here......?

.

Oh yeah, R.J. Corman. RIP

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

That's some henryj-esque "analysis" there.

What's wrong with Henry J? He's a very experienced railfan and should deserve some respect to his conclusions, even if he's wrong.

And the last time I tried to stop this current discussion, I got called out for crying foul, so I am obliged, but not forced, to continue the argument even though I know it's going to be a dead-end fight since this is a train forum.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

OK, ok, my own explanation for the bus being seemingly more efficient than the train is probably because train seats are usually a lot bigger. This dosen't apply in many other countries, but in the US, Amtrak seats take up a lot more floor space than Greyhound seats. The hard part is due to Amtrak having so many different Coach seats and Sleeper rooms. So I will just use Amtrak's LD Coach seats for this comparison, since the Sleeper rooms take up more space per-passenger, and the Regional Coach seats take up less space per-passenger.

An Amtrak Long-Distance Coach seat have a pitch of about 50" and a width of about 22", using a total floor space of 1100 sq. inches. Greyhound 102DL3 seats have a pitch of 34" and a width of 17", using a total floor space of 578 sq. inches. This means an Amtrak LD seat takes up about twice the floor space of a Greyhound 'DL3 seat. So the BTU figures for the train should be divided by 2 to make a fair comparison with the bus.

That means if the train had the same seats as the bus, it would use about 1218 BTUs per passenger-miles. The bus uses about 1460. So the train is more efficient than the bus, but not by much. The plane, OTOH, has smaller seats than the bus, yet uses much more BTUs, so it's terribly inefficient.

 

[AlanB]

Swadian,

Page #14:

http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb32/Edition32_Chapter02.pdf

 

[Ryan]

That's some henryj-esque "analysis" there.

What's wrong with Henry J? He's a very experienced railfan and should deserve some respect to his conclusions, even if he's wrong.

They both have in common the "I have a conclusion, how can I make up the numbers to prove that conclusion is true" factor going for them.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

Swadian,
Page #14:

http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb32/Edition32_Chapter02.pdf

Apparently there's no data available for intercity buses except total energy use.

Transit buses use 4,240 BTUs per-passenger mile, but that's even higher than cars! The only way that would be true is because transit buses often run near empty. Note that intercity buses are often much fuller than transit buses.

 

[AlanB]

Apparently there's no data available for intercity buses except total energy use.

Yes, the bus companies don't provide that info. Makes one wonder what they want to hide.

Transit buses use 4,240 BTUs per-passenger mile, but that's even higher than cars! The only way that would be true is because transit buses often run near empty. Note that intercity buses are often much fuller than transit buses.

Yes, transit buses do lose efficiency as they near the outer end of their runs and late a night. On the other hand, I also wouldn't expect too much variance in the number despite intercity buses running with more seats sold. The reason, intercity buses have fewer seats to sell. And they never sell standing room. So a jam packed transit bus during rush hour helps to negate the empty transit buses where and when they occur. And that helps to counterbalance the fact that an intercity bus runs largely full.

If anything helps an intercity bus, it's going to be the fact that the bulk of their run is on open highways and not stuck in stop & go traffic with lots of traffic lights.

 

[Slasharoo]

RIP Mr. Corman

 

[jebr]

Transit buses use 4,240 BTUs per-passenger mile, but that's even higher than cars! The only way that would be true is because transit buses often run near empty. Note that intercity buses are often much fuller than transit buses.

Yes, transit buses do lose efficiency as they near the outer end of their runs and late a night. On the other hand, I also wouldn't expect too much variance in the number despite intercity buses running with more seats sold. The reason, intercity buses have fewer seats to sell. And they never sell standing room. So a jam packed transit bus during rush hour helps to negate the empty transit buses where and when they occur. And that helps to counterbalance the fact that an intercity bus runs largely full.

If anything helps an intercity bus, it's going to be the fact that the bulk of their run is on open highways and not stuck in stop & go traffic with lots of traffic lights.

Does transit buses include demand/response service? If so, I can imagine that skewing the results quite a bit...a lot of rural areas have demand/response service that is more for social welfare than to preserve the environment.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

Transit buses use 4,240 BTUs per-passenger mile, but that's even higher than cars! The only way that would be true is because transit buses often run near empty. Note that intercity buses are often much fuller than transit buses.

Yes, transit buses do lose efficiency as they near the outer end of their runs and late a night. On the other hand, I also wouldn't expect too much variance in the number despite intercity buses running with more seats sold. The reason, intercity buses have fewer seats to sell. And they never sell standing room. So a jam packed transit bus during rush hour helps to negate the empty transit buses where and when they occur. And that helps to counterbalance the fact that an intercity bus runs largely full.

If anything helps an intercity bus, it's going to be the fact that the bulk of their run is on open highways and not stuck in stop & go traffic with lots of traffic lights.

Does transit buses include demand/response service? If so, I can imagine that skewing the results quite a bit...a lot of rural areas have demand/response service that is more for social welfare than to preserve the environment.

Not sure about this, but transit buses often run very empty so obviously they are inefficient. In fact, in another transport anaysis I saw (forgot the link), transit buses were rated as most inefficient because they burn lots of fuel while having an average load of only 8.8 passengers. Greyhound and other intercity buses obviously have a lot more loads because they run for profits.

For example, if you start seeing a Greyhound route with less than 15 passengers regularly, then it's probably going to get axed soon.

Until someone explains why the transit buses appear to use more BTUs than cars, then the DOE figures must be taken with a big grain of salt. In all fairness, how can a bus be less efficient than a car?

And I don't know where my other post went unless it got deleted.

 

[MikefromCrete]

Swadian, you're the best thread hijacker since D.B. Copper.

 

[George Harris]

Swadian, you're the best thread hijacker since D.B. Copper.

You're showing your age. How many people here do you think have any idea who D B Cooper is?

 

[JayPea]

Ah, yes! DB Cooper! Perpetrator of the only unsolved hijacking in US history! Dan Cooper's (DB is a misnomer) name is ressurected again!

 

[Ryan]

Swadian, you're the best thread hijacker since D.B. Copper.

You're showing your age. How many people here do you think have any idea who D B Cooper is?

I'm 33 and I do...

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

I know DB Cooper and I'm the about the same age as Ryan. But DB Cooper is no excuse for weird BTU figures.

Might as well go OT all over the place, since those Rhodoks need some lessons.....