Amtrak Energy Efficiency

[PRR 60]

I guess I am not above inciting a riot, so here goes.

In another thread a poster questioned claims made by an anti-Amtrak organization that Amtrak is not an energy-efficient mode of intercity transportation. This claim flies in the face of conventional wisdom. Trains have to be the most efficient, don’t they? Well, no. They used to be very good. Other modes, particularly air, used to be pretty bad. But Amtrak over the years has gotten worse while competing modes have gotten better. Amtrak is now arguably the among least energy efficient way to move between cities (although that claim is subject to some fine print as I will explain later). This sorry state is caused by one simple fact: Amtrak has all but neglected energy efficiency in its equipment purchase selections and in its operation.

Here are the facts as published by the US Department of Energy in the 2002 Transportation Data Book: All data is in energy consumed (BTU) to move one passenger one mile (passenger mile). Energy is all energy: gas, diesel, jet fuel, and electric (not run back to the source fuel for generation and not including source generation efficiency and utility distribution line losses).

In 1975

Amtrak: 2962 BTU

Commercial air: 7826 BTU

Automobile (US average 1.57 persons per car): 4733 BTU

Intercity bus: 988 BTU

In 1980

Amtrak: 3176

Commercial air: 5561

Automobile: 4279

Intercity bus: 1082

In 1985

Amtrak: 2800

Commercial air: 5053 <== see a trend developing?

Automobile: 4110

Intercity bus: 964

In 1990

Amtrak: 2609

Commercial air: 4875 <== see it now?

Automobile: 3856

Intercity bus: 962

In 1995

Amtrak: 2590

Commercial air: 4349

Automobile: 3689

Intercity bus: 964

In 2000

Amtrak: 3356 <== opps: what happended here?

Commercial air: 3952

Automobile: 3611

Intercity bus: 932

In 2002 (last year with data)

Amtrak: 4830 <== Yikes!

Commercial air: 3703

Automobile: 3581

Intercity bus: not available

Let me add two caveats: first automobile means just that: cars. SUV’s and pickups, which are gas guzzlers, are categorized as “light trucks”, so the auto mode data is low. Second, DOT itself warns that there are many, many variables involved in developing the tables that this data was lifted from. It is not really possible to get truly apples to apples comparisons for energy between modes. The tables are really estimates that are most useful in tracking how one mode changes year to year to year. So saying one mode is best or worst is not really possible. But what this data does show is that Amtrak in energy consumption has moved in a direction opposite from the rest of the transportation world.

Comparing the airlines and Amtrak is telling. Over the last 30 years, every new mainline commercial aircraft has been designed and sold with one main objective: lower operating cost. Air frames, wings, and engines have evolved dramatically with the goal to reduce the fuel consumed per passenger. The result: commercial air now moves passengers using about half the fuel required in 1975. Airline energy efficiency has improved steadily every single year.

Amtrak has moved the other direction with Acela being the poster child of not considering energy in design. That little train is an electric power guzzler of epic proportions (and my company is pleased to sell Amtrak a large portion of its electric power). It is heavy, it is very fast, and it has a high acceleration rate. To do all that takes power and lots of it. The huge jump in Amtrak energy consumption between 2000 and 2002 when Acela (and the HHP8 motors) were introduced is dramatic. That jump and the Acela introduction are no coincidence. Acela may not be the only cause, but it is certainly a major contributor. There were many fine attributes built into Acela, but energy conservation was certainly not one of them.

So there you have it. Amtrak, which should by rights be clearly the energy choice for intercity transportation, is not. Want to consider ways that Amtrak can reduce costs while retaining service levels? Let’s try emphasizing energy cost in equipment design and operation.

 

[battalion51]

Well with the new EPA standards for the next generation of diesels that should reduce things a lot, not to mention all the new technology they'll have.

 

[NewAmtrakEmployee]

I would also be willing to bet that the problems caused by slow orders and such on most of the long-haul routes (what with having to idle, etc.) have decreased efficiency in the past 25 years - if Amtrak were given any kind of priority, I think you'd see the BTU p/p mile drop radically, even with the existing equipment...

 

[George Harris]

I would also be willing to bet that the problems caused by slow orders and such on most of the long-haul routes (what with having to idle, etc.) have decreased efficiency in the past 25 years - if Amtrak were given any kind of priority, I think you'd see the BTU p/p mile drop radically, even with the existing equipment...

The multitude of temporary and permanent slow orders is also a major factor in the Acela's fuel consumption, and a huge contributing factor to their brake problems. In most of the world's high speed lservices a large portion of the distance is run on dedicated lines with no speed restricitions of any sort between designated stopping points. Therefore, you accelerate from your starting point, maybe all the way up or maybe with some intermediate holds at lower speeds then get up to your top speed and stay there until it is the point where you have to start braking for your stop. When you do this, weight is less an issue than it is when you have to accelerate and slow multiple times between stations. At a steady high speed, the major factor in train resistance, and hence power draw to maintain speed is aerodynamic resistance, to the weight based factors.

George

 

[~guest~]

Some of the anti-amtrak proponents also throw around the fact that because so much of the country is single tracked, overall fuel efficency is wasted when a heavy bulk train is stopped and put in a hole, to allow a light passenger train to pass by quickly. Is this also a valid argument?

 

[AmtrakWPK]

But if I understand the bottom line here, that report is another large plus for the LD trains, which are not Acelas, as being energy efficient beyond any other transportation medium except intercity bus. Also, I think I see the not too subtle hand of the administration here, because if it used what the average person actually drives, personal auto transport would have shown rock-bottom deplorable energy efficiency because of the profligate use of suvs, trucks, and hummers by the majority of drivers. The administration's bias is therefore self-evident in the results, and suggests we should perhaps apply two tons of salt to their report.

 

[PRR 60]

But if I understand the bottom line here, that report is another large plus for the LD trains, which are not Acelas, as being energy efficient beyond any other transportation medium except intercity bus.  Also, I think I see the not too subtle hand of the administration here, because if it used what the average person actually drives, personal auto transport would have shown rock-bottom deplorable energy efficiency because of the profligate use of suvs, trucks, and hummers by the majority of drivers.  The administration's bias is therefore self-evident in the results, and suggests we should perhaps apply two tons of salt to their report.

I appreciate your enthusiastic dislike of the current administration, but this report is issued by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, part of the Department of Energy. Oak Ridge is an energy research facility run by science professionals and has been remarkably immune from political shenanigans. The same methodology has been applied to the determination and presentation of these statistics since the Carter administration.

The inclusion of SUV's in the light truck category comes from a long-standing DOT classification. When that classification was originally developed, light trucks were only that, light trucks. Most early SUV's were built using the frame and body and power train of an existing truck line, so it made sense to simply keep them with their roots. Now, however, I would agree that since SUV's function as personal vehicles, they should be put into the auto category. Some calculations could crunch the existing numbers and come up with a reasonably accurate aggregate auto and SUV usage, and maybe I'll give that a shot when I need a math fix.

About the LD's: the P42 are not exactly energy misers either. The 4200hp locomotives replaced (with the P40) the former 3000hp FP40's. I think most LD's run with the same number of P42's as they had in the FP40 era (some do use less units), and those that do use more energy than was used in the FP40 time. The spike up in Amtrak useage that was evident in 2000 actually began in concert with the introduction of the P40's and later the P42's.

What would be interesting would be an passenger miles energy comparison of a 80% full 737-800 flying Chicago to LA verses a similarly loaded Southwest Chief. That would be fascinating. I must have too much time on my hands.

 

[Guest]

IIn 2000Amtrak: 3356 <== opps: what happended here?

Commercial air: 3952

Automobile: 3611

Intercity bus: 932

In 2002 (last year with data)

Amtrak: 4830 <== Yikes!

Commercial air: 3703

Automobile: 3581

Intercity bus: not available

What happened here is Warrington and his freight hauling. It grew into the Yikes! It should probably be better now. These numbers are developed by taking the fuel consumption of the diesels and dividing by passenger miles. So, add weight to the train and you increase the fuel consumption because you are hauling more tons of train for the same number of people. It makes you look worse when you are doing more.

This is also part of why trains look worse than busses. You are hauling more metal per passenger with the train, particularly for the sleepers. There are also no dining cars or baggage cars / crew cars on busses.

George

 

[PRR 60]

What happened here is Warrington and his freight hauling. It grew into the Yikes! It should probably be better now. These numbers are developed by taking the fuel consumption of the diesels and dividing by passenger miles. So, add weight to the train and you increase the fuel consumption because you are hauling more tons of train for the same number of people. It makes you look worse when you are doing more.
This is also part of why trains look worse than busses. You are hauling more metal per passenger with the train, particularly for the sleepers. There are also no dining cars or baggage cars / crew cars on busses.

George

Excellent point! I had not thought of the old express business and its effect on energy consumption. That would certainly account for some of that huge spike.

 

[x-press]

Not only the M/E program, itself, but the Warrington administration's practice of using two diesals on all or most LD trains, which Gunn discontinued where possible.

Frankly, the comparison to airlines doesn't bother me too much, except for the fact that it used to be so much better. Trains make dozens of local stops that would, if attempted by a jet, would cause its fuel consumption to go through the roof. Trains may be less efficient, but they also simply do things that airlines can't do. Contrary to Mineta/Vranich suggestions, long-distance does not mean transcontinental.

The comparisons to intercity bus and automobile are more troubling.

JPS

 

[AmtrakWPK]

PRR 60 - while I appreciate your belief in scientific veracity, I have seen probably close to a hundred stories now coming during this administration of scientists whose paycheck comes from public funds, who have let it be known that their "scienctific" opinions and results have to dovetail with the white house's view of reality or they are out of a job, and if their scientific opinions develop a history of not agreeing with the administration's view of reality, then anything they want to publish or any press person they want to speak to has to be pre-cleared with the administration. I.e., they get censored. So no, I don't trust anything "scientific" coming from this administration, which includes any person and any agency deriving it's financial sustenance from governmental funding. It's all tainted and untrustworthy. And it has richly earned that distrust. Whether Amtrak has weapons of mass confusion or not.