"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
HoustonChronicle.com

April 19, 2006, 10:21PM

ENERGY
Rising crude oil prices splash over $72 a barrel
Fuel inventories fall, but consumer demand may slip
By BRAD FOSS
Associated Press



During my recent trip out to Denver and back, I started taking note of the
number of tractor trailers hauling stuff all over the country. In the early
mornings, every rest area, highway off and on ramp where full of trucks.
Several thousand of them all told, I would guess just on the route I took.
I can't imagine how many are running everyday, nationwide.

I started thinking about this, given that they average about 6 or 7 mpg. I
don't know, but I suspect the amount of fuel used per day in one of these
rigs would probably fuel a family car for a month or more.

We need a more efficient system for transporting goods, like railroads, but
to make a drastic change to the trucking industry would result in massive
unemployment and screaming in Washington by the trucking industry lobbiests.
So, again, you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't.

RCE

"Ignatius Thistlewhite" wrote in message
.9...
You wrote:

I started thinking about this, given that they average about 6 or 7
mpg. I don't know, but I suspect the amount of fuel used per day in
one of these rigs would probably fuel a family car for a month or
more.

We need a more efficient system for transporting goods, like railroads

The transportation system already uses railroads to transport goods. Just
because you do not see them doesn't mean they aren't there. In fact many
rail cars are designed to precisely fit the cargo holds of 18wheelers.
The train travels from the port to a distribution center and the truck
goes from distribution to the final destination.

The truck is a more recent invention than the train - I'm not sure how
regressing from a 20th century technology to a 19th century one could be
called more efficient.

What is more efficient in terms of fuel usage; driving a loaded 18 wheeler
across country or putting the trailer on a railroad train along with 100
others and transporting them across country? I don't know and am curious.

My guess is the railroad is far more efficient, fuel-wise. If it is, we
should be doing more of it. But then, we'll have a problem with employment
in the trucking industry.

RCE

RCE wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
HoustonChronicle.com

April 19, 2006, 10:21PM

ENERGY
Rising crude oil prices splash over $72 a barrel
Fuel inventories fall, but consumer demand may slip
By BRAD FOSS
Associated Press



During my recent trip out to Denver and back, I started taking note of the
number of tractor trailers hauling stuff all over the country. In the early
mornings, every rest area, highway off and on ramp where full of trucks.
Several thousand of them all told, I would guess just on the route I took.
I can't imagine how many are running everyday, nationwide.

I started thinking about this, given that they average about 6 or 7 mpg. I
don't know, but I suspect the amount of fuel used per day in one of these
rigs would probably fuel a family car for a month or more.

We need a more efficient system for transporting goods, like railroads, but
to make a drastic change to the trucking industry would result in massive
unemployment and screaming in Washington by the trucking industry lobbiests.
So, again, you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't.

RCE

Railroads currently haul over 40% of all intercity freight.
There is, of course, existing capacity for more.
The problem with rail isn't capacity, it's flexibility. This country
was allowed to grow for
the last 80-90 years based on the theory that a town needed to be near
a highway, but not necessarily a railroad. This theory really pickup up
steam in the 1950's, when air travel became more popular and railroads
were no longer the primary mover of passengers between large cities. I
once wrote an article about Tacoma, and in my research on the remodeled
Union Station I learned that in the late 1940's there were more than 40
passenger trains per day originating, terminating, or continuing
through Tacoma. Today there are 2.

Here in the Pacific NW, we get thousands upon thousands of containers
offloaded at our ports each year, (mostly from Asia). In Seattle, these
containers are put on a truck immediately and then hauled to a rail
yard for long distance transport or hauled to their destination if
efficiency or lack or rail service to the destination makes that the
more prudent choice. Tacoma has an "intermodal" yard, where some
containers are unloaded onto trucks for direct local or regional
transport but most are unloaded directly onto railcars without the
intermediate use of a tractor.

If we had the infrastructure to support it, and we don't, high speed
passenger rail service would easily replace many short-distance airline
flights. Take Seattle to Spokane, as an example. It's 230 miles from
Seattle to Spokane, and a high speed passenger train from
Seattle could make that run in two hours if it were able to average 120
mph. A flight in a little
prop jet takes maybe 45 minutes to an hour; but it takes half an hour
to an hour (depending on traffic) to get from downtown Seattle to Sea
Tac airport, you are supposed to be there an hour before your flight
takes off so they can X-Ray your shoes and be sure you're not a
terrorist, and when you arrive in Spokane you aren't exactly in the
business district, either. Total travel and waiting time is actually
longer by commuter air than it would be on a 120-mph train. A train
goes from downtown to downtown, saving the time and expense of two cab
rides.

Specific comparisons of fuel efficiency, rail vs truck: (from CSX
website)


Railroads now move a ton of freight nearly 410 miles for each gallon of
diesel fuel used, up from 235 miles in 1980 and 332 miles in 1990. A
truck, on average, moves a ton of freight about 100 miles for each
gallon of diesel fuel.

In 2004, railroads consumed 3 billion fewer gallons of diesel and
emitted 34 millions fewer tons of carbon dioxide than they would have
if their fuel efficiency were unchanged from 1980 levels.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Administration has estimated that a
typical truck emits approximately three times more pollution than a
locomotive for every ton-mile.

Railroads carry 42 percent of the nation's intercity freight ton-miles
but are responsible for just 9 percent of all transportation-related
nitrous oxide transmissions and 4 percent of transportation-related
particulates emissions, according to the EPA.

"RCE" wrote in message
...

"Ignatius Thistlewhite" wrote in message
.9...
You wrote:

I started thinking about this, given that they average about 6 or 7
mpg. I don't know, but I suspect the amount of fuel used per day in
one of these rigs would probably fuel a family car for a month or
more.

We need a more efficient system for transporting goods, like railroads

The transportation system already uses railroads to transport goods.
Just
because you do not see them doesn't mean they aren't there. In fact
many
rail cars are designed to precisely fit the cargo holds of 18wheelers.
The train travels from the port to a distribution center and the truck
goes from distribution to the final destination.

The truck is a more recent invention than the train - I'm not sure how
regressing from a 20th century technology to a 19th century one could
be
called more efficient.

What is more efficient in terms of fuel usage; driving a loaded 18
wheeler
across country or putting the trailer on a railroad train along with 100
others and transporting them across country? I don't know and am
curious.

My guess is the railroad is far more efficient, fuel-wise. If it is, we
should be doing more of it. But then, we'll have a problem with
employment
in the trucking industry.

RCE

And when it is effiecient, rail is used. Rail is effiecient for high
volume bulk goods.....coal, lumber, cars, etc.
It is not effiecient for odd lot items, and produce that needs quick
shipment to market.

Lots of goods are shipped as odd lots, from truck terminal to truck
terminal. I bought a commercial grade stove a couple of years ago,
shipped by truck. The truck was filled with a wide assortment of
goods......furiture, car parts, etc. which would not make efficient rail
transport.

"Ignatius Thistlewhite" wrote in message
.9...
You wrote:

What is more efficient in terms of fuel usage; driving a loaded 18
wheeler across country or putting the trailer on a railroad train
along with 100 others and transporting them across country? I don't
know and am curious.

My guess is the railroad is far more efficient, fuel-wise. If it is,
we should be doing more of it.

My guess is that the beancounters at WalMart, Sears, etc. have already
done the calculations and are using the most efficient methods
available.


Big box stores like that use distribution centers, often on rail lines,
where large bulk quanities are loaded on trucks for delivery to individual
stores. Other goods, arrive by truck as mix lots, and is further broken
down for delivery.

wrote:
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 15:35:31 GMT, Ignatius Thistlewhite
wrote:


That would lead one to believe railroads aren't efficient.


The railroad itself is very efficient fir hauling freight. Steel
wheels on steel track use a lot less energy than rubber tires on bumpy
roads. The Train only has to poke one hole in the air and every other
car is "drafting". Post war (WWII, the big one) locomotives are diesel
electric "hybrids" that get great mileage considering the load.
The inefficiency comes with handling the load a few extra times and
that may involve a union where, otherwise, there was none.
There is also the time element. Freight trains are not bullet trains.
A truck will average 2-3 times the speed end to end.
Those realities are reflected in the freight operatoions on SW
Florida. The "Snooze Press" gets their paper by train, all of the
concrete and rock places along Metro and South Street get their
material by freight and Miller brands used to get their beer by rail
but this "freshness dating" thing pushed them back to trucks.
Rail is a great way to move freight you are not in a hurry on and is
handled in bulk. It sucks for smaller loads that need more handling
and routing, particularly if there is a time constraint.
That is the reason why people don't travel by rail. We get ****ed if
we have a 2 hour layover in Atlanta. Nobody is going to ride on a
train for 3 days to go somewhere. The places where we have
destinations like Europe, a couple hundred miles apart, Amtrack is
doing OK. If I was going from DC to NYC I would take the Metroliner,
but I am not taking the train from DC to Orlando sanford.

I've taken the train across Canada... (Vancouver to Halifax) 5 days on a
coach seat.... in the middle of winter.
Loved the trip but would rent a sleeper if I did it again.

wrote:
On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 03:12:58 GMT, Don White
wrote:


I've taken the train across Canada... (Vancouver to Halifax) 5 days on a
coach seat.... in the middle of winter.



Lose a bet?


Naw... my student loan money ran out so I had to come home.
Had $65.00 left in Vancouver so I bought one last decent meal there and
a coach train ticket ...lasted me 1.5 days till we stopped in Calgary
for a couple of hours, where I bought a loaf of bread, package of cheese
slices and couple cans of apple juice.
This got me to Montreal a couple of days later where I was forced to
spend a night at the Salvation Army due to overnight train stop... dined
with the street people 7 winos the next morning..that lasted me to Halifax.