stp via train?

[georgejas]

Wondering why the train is so much more than driving. For one person, it's about $70 one way, round trip $140, and it takes five hours, plus the cost of transportation to the train station on both ends (if any... Probably negligible.). To drive there and back is about a tank and a half of gas max, about $50, and takes about 2 hours less each

Comments

[angelbob]

I'm not entirely sure, but the train that I have data on uses *huge* amounts of fossil fuels. The only reason they run it (this is the "skunk train" in north-ish coastal CA, in the Redwoods) is because they run it on tons and tons (literally) of used motor oil, which isn't good for much.

If that's common, then the train's probably less efficient than a car. Coal was pretty cheap for handling that, but these days you don't want to burn a lot of coal for a train... It's very smokey.

[talldean]

Trains, at least in other countries, are massively more efficient than a car. Freight trains started getting 400 ton-miles per gallon of diesel in America in 2003; that's moving eight hundred thousand pounds a mile per every gallon burned. A fully loaded tractor trailer gets around 200 ton-miles (40 tons at 5 mpg), and a 4000 pound car at 25 mpg is 50 ton-miles.

That said, passenger trains don't pack together as well as freight.

[angelbob]

That makes sense. The Skunk Train is more of an old historical curiosity, so it makes a great deal of sense that modern freight trains would beat the stuffings out of it for fuel efficiency.

[talldean]

I'm wondering what it's pollution footprint is, if it's burning used motor oil.

Then again, with a decent enough filter on the exhaust, that's probably the best way to get rid of it?

[georgejas]

Yup, I did. :-)

[genuinekfc]

Another point: In America, the freight transportation lines get priority over the passenger trains. The contributes to less efficient passenger trains -> less usage -> higher cost per person. The gov't can subsidize passenger trains, but it doesn't help the overall issues with that mode of transportation.

[mh75]

It is a stupid thing about trains. I always want to take one, and it never makes sense.

(Although, i did take the train to Portland once, and i really don't remember it being close to that expensive.)

[angelbob]

We were recently, briefly, in Seattle, and paid $200 for two people and a (free? I think?) baby, train round-trip between Portland and Seattle.

[pauldf]

Personally, I take the train because I can get there without having to drive for 3 hours straight.

I think that the train cost varies; like airplanes, you pay more if the trip is already mostly full or other random criteria like that, but Amtrak isn't as good as airlines at doing the relevant pricing optimizations. At any rate, out of curiosity, I just priced out a round trip for 5-11 November; it was $28 each way.

I was actually just about to post about train development in general. The Eugene-to-Vancouver stretch is one of five corridors designated by some federal agency for high-speed passenger rail development. It's not clear how much of that will get funded. WSDOT's end goal is to cut the Seattle-Portland travel times from 3:30 to 2:30 and to run 13 trains per day. They think that that'll attract enough passengers to generate enough revenue to not increase prices (except presumably for inflation), and have operating subsidies be the same as they are now. It just takes lots of capital funding for projects in places like

[georgejas]

Dude, that's encouraging. Perhaps the $70 fare includes a bucket of caviar and a mud bath. I'll look around some more. Thanks!