- Joined
- Feb 18, 2003
- Messages
- 8,510
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.
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.