If Trains Were Lighter And Saved Fuel?

[seat38a]

On my last post regarding seating density in coach and revenue, most of the responses point to increasing seats would not help the LD trains become profitable as it does with the airlines but what about when it comes to making the trains lighter and save on fuel. My hobbies are trains and planes so this is a page from the plane part.

I have been reading on here that the FRA mandates that all passenger cars be "Built Like A TANK." What if this was not the case and the train cars went on a massive diet. Could say saving 20%+ in fuel make the LD routes profitable? It seems to be working with airplanes, could it also work with Amtrak if they had a 787 / A350 of trains?

 

[FriskyFL]

Isn't that the reason why the flowers are gone from the dining cars?

 

[Paulus]

I have been reading on here that the FRA mandates that all passenger cars be "Built Like A TANK." What if this was not the case and the train cars went on a massive diet. Could say saving 20%+ in fuel make the LD routes profitable? It seems to be working with airplanes, could it also work with Amtrak if they had a 787 / A350 of trains?

The onboard labor is the big issue for the long distance trains, not the fuel. A 20% savings in fuel & power is only 28 million dollars in savings. Where the built like a tank thing comes into play is really with acceleration, or rather, the lack thereof.

 

[VentureForth]

The crashworthiness directives from the FRA require the tank like build of the locomotives and various cars.

I work in the Aviation industry, and trust me. The FAA does the samething to aircraft. You'd be suprised how much lighter aircraft could be (and thus save weight) if it weren't for environmental issues, excessive stress margin redundancies, etc.

The biggest problem in the US passenger train world is that, quite frankly, we're not good enough at preventing accidents to begin with - whether signalling, grade crossings, driver error, etc.

One reason the Shinkansen hasn't had a single fatal accident (other than suicide or natural causes) in its 50 year history is because of state of the art signalling, isolated right of way (ONLY Shinkansen trains run on Shinkansen tracks), and no grade crossings.

The latter two have been compromised a wee bit with some of their new routes that go out Northwest from Tokyo like the Nagano line, with accompanying accidents. My reference is to the main Tokkaido line, although the Joetsu and Tohoku lines are built to pretty much the same standard as the Tokkaido.

Anyway, prevent accidents - or significantly reduce the probability of one - and the FRA may be convinced to reduce the crashworthiness standards.

Incidently, the FRA is also pretty dumb. Those famous Bombardier Bi-Level trains? They have some club seats with tables. In one of the Metrolink crashes, that was the cause of the only fatalities on board - blunt force to the gut. Passengers moved, but the tables didn't. NTSB made a recommendation to remove the tables or let them break away. But to my knowledge, they still exist and they are still dangerous.

Even in any Amtrak train, I prefer to sit at a table facing backward for that very reason.

The onboard labor is the big issue for the long distance trains, not the fuel. A 20% savings in fuel & power is only 28 million dollars in savings. Where the built like a tank thing comes into play is really with acceleration, or rather, the lack thereof.

I think it's more in the retirement pensions and station personell. You gotta have people onboard the trains. I mean seriously, some of the full service stations that serve three trains a week yet are open 72 hours a week is ridiculous.

 

[seat38a]

The crashworthiness directives from the FRA require the tank like build of the locomotives and various cars.

I work in the Aviation industry, and trust me. The FAA does the samething to aircraft. You'd be suprised how much lighter aircraft could be (and thus save weight) if it weren't for environmental issues, excessive stress margin redundancies, etc.

The biggest problem in the US passenger train world is that, quite frankly, we're not good enough at preventing accidents to begin with - whether signalling, grade crossings, driver error, etc.

One reason the Shinkansen hasn't had a single fatal accident (other than suicide or natural causes) in its 50 year history is because of state of the art signalling, isolated right of way (ONLY Shinkansen trains run on Shinkansen tracks), and no grade crossings.

The latter two have been compromised a wee bit with some of their new routes that go out Northwest from Tokyo like the Nagano line, with accompanying accidents. My reference is to the main Tokkaido line, although the Joetsu and Tohoku lines are built to pretty much the same standard as the Tokkaido.

Anyway, prevent accidents - or significantly reduce the probability of one - and the FRA may be convinced to reduce the crashworthiness standards.

Incidently, the FRA is also pretty dumb. Those famous Bombardier Bi-Level trains? They have some club seats with tables. In one of the Metrolink crashes, that was the cause of the only fatalities on board - blunt force to the gut. Passengers moved, but the tables didn't. NTSB made a recommendation to remove the tables or let them break away. But to my knowledge, they still exist and they are still dangerous.

Even in any Amtrak train, I prefer to sit at a table facing backward for that very reason.

So carbon fiber panels won't help here I see.

 

[VentureForth]

So carbon fiber panels won't help here I see.

Heck, they can't even make aluminum car bodies.

 

[jis]

So carbon fiber panels won't help here I see.

Heck, they can't even make aluminum car bodies.

Say what? What do you think the bodies of the NJT Comet (I, II, III and IV), MNRR Shoreliner and Amtrak Horizon cars are made of?

 

[seat38a]

So carbon fiber panels won't help here I see.

Heck, they can't even make aluminum car bodies.

Shucks, I was hoping for my sleeper car to be gold plated! No Good?

 

[Shortline]

Maybe they could save a ton or two, if passengers would become more streamliner like ourselves! Easily shave (conservative low ball estimate) 4000-6000 #'s off each coach that way!

 

[afigg]

On my last post regarding seating density in coach and revenue, most of the responses point to increasing seats would not help the LD trains become profitable as it does with the airlines but what about when it comes to making the trains lighter and save on fuel. My hobbies are trains and planes so this is a page from the plane part.

I have been reading on here that the FRA mandates that all passenger cars be "Built Like A TANK." What if this was not the case and the train cars went on a massive diet. Could say saving 20%+ in fuel make the LD routes profitable? It seems to be working with airplanes, could it also work with Amtrak if they had a 787 / A350 of trains?

Fuel costs are a small part of the total cost of operating LD trains. In 2010, Antrak released PIP reports on the Capitol Limited and California Zephyr with detailed cost breakdowns. The fuel cost for the CL in FY10 was $3.0 million out of a total direct and shared operating cost of $40.1 million or 7.5%. For the CZ which hasa longer route over 2 days, fuel cost was 11.9% of the total operating cost. The operating cost is dominated by the cost of the onboard crew & staff and maintenance & ownership of the equipment.
Lighter rolling stock and more efficient locomotives would help to trim operating costs of the LD trains. But it would trim costs by a few percent at best, far short of the gap in making the LD trains to break even in their operating cost.

Fuel costs make up a far higher percentage of the total operating costs for the airlines, IIRC typically running in the 30% ballpark range, so trimming fuel consumption and using fuel hedges is a big deal to the airline industry.

 

[tricia]

Isn't that the reason why the flowers are gone from the dining cars?

 

[neroden]

Lighter trains mean better acceleration, which means shorter runtimes, which is a very big deal in many many ways (starting with higher ridership and revenue, and continuing with better staff utilization)... if the dispatcher doesn't put the train in the hole to let a coal train pass it. :angry2: So on the routes which are passenger-primary, lighter trains would be a very big deal, but on the routes run by freight operators, there are other problems which have to be dealt with first.

 

[neroden]

Regarding staffing costs, there are three issues:

(1) Keeping a station open and staffed for one train a day (or less). Expensive! Same station for 30 trains works out a lot better.

(2) George W. Bush explicitly gave the Amtrak unions everything they wanted and more, in what was probably a deliberate sabotage move (given that Bush was not known for his support of unions). Therefore Amtrak is stuck overpaying its staff -- overpaying compared to other railroads which had fair arbitration boards -- at least until the next contract round.

(3) There are quite a lot of staff on the trains. This is honestly the least of the problems.

 

[RTE_TrainGuy]

My assumption is that fuel is a much larger percentage of airline's costs vs Amtrak. Does anyone have data on what percentage of Amtrak's expenses are for fuel/electric?

 

[WoodyinNYC]

Regarding staffing costs, there are three issues:

(1) Keeping a station open and staffed for one train a day (or less). Expensive!

Same station for 30 trains works out a lot better.

(2) . . .

(3) . . .

I always say it isn't corridors vs long distance. More corridor trains

will share the station costs of the LD trains. When the Lynchburger

came along it cut the station costs for the Crescent and the Cardinal

at Charlottsville and three or four smaller stops. A second Lynchburger

(or a Roanoker) would further cut the assigned costs. If the Cardinal

would go daily it would cut its own costs at every station on the route,

as well as for the Crescent and Lynchburger at their shared stations.

A daily Cardinal would pick up the costs of the Hoosier State. But if

the Hoosier State then became a twice daily corridor train, Indianapolis

to Chicago, or better, Cincinnati-Indianapolis-Chicago, it would cut

the station costs assigned to the Cardinal.

More trains on a given route also allows saturation marketing. Every time

you drive by a certain burger outlet, the golden arches market the brand

so you are reminded of it next time you want to grab something to eat.

Every time you pass a branch of TooBigToFail bank, you are reminded

of the bank. So if Amtrak moves its trains beside a highway leading into

Indianapolis six times a day instead of just twice, it is a stronger reminder

of the passenger train option. The train itself is like a big moving billboard.



And when TooBigToFail bank spends on TV advertising, the advertising

costs are divided by a large number of branches. If Amtrak runs a TV ad,

(or sponsors an event,) it gets more bang for its buck when viewers can

choose to patronize more frequencies than just a once-a-day product.

I don't see how Amtrak can cut it way to prosperity. It could grow its way

out of many of its problems with more and better equipment, more frequencies,

more interlocking and overlapping routes.

 

[Paulus]

My assumption is that fuel is a much larger percentage of airline's costs vs Amtrak. Does anyone have data on what percentage of Amtrak's expenses are for fuel/electric?

Look at the second reply.

 

[oldtimer]

Nathanael, your point #2 is totally wrong as I was a labor representative highly involved in the negotiation process.

Amtrak did not make an offer that was anywhere near what the standard railroad rate of pay, benefits or work rules were. The pay for the shop craft unions was much below what the freight railroads was during the GWB administration. It was tremendously below the rate of the shopcraft union workers on commuter railroads! From 2001 until Oct 2007 no good faith bargaining occurred. GWB appointed a Presidential Emergency Board as set forth in the Railway Labor Act to hear both side and provide a decision that if not accepted will be imposed on both parties. In March of 2008 the organization I worked for ratified the results of the Board's decision. The decision brought Amtrak shopcraft workers to the level of pay and benefits that the national freight carriers were paying. (For the first time since 1981)

As I was part of the process I know that GWB DID NOT give Amtrak unions everything they wanted and more, shopcraft unions (they only ones that I can speak for were underpaid and less benefits than freight workers) suffered under GWB. These are the facts not opinions as I represented Amtrak, freight and commuter rail shopcraft workers.

Oldtimer

 

[cirdan]

Maybe they could save a ton or two, if passengers would become more streamliner like ourselves! Easily shave (conservative low ball estimate) 4000-6000 #'s off each coach that way!

I though you were going to suggest that Amtrak mandate male passengers and employees shave every day to save weight.

 

[cirdan]

(1) Keeping a station open and staffed for one train a day (or less). Expensive! Same station for 30 trains works out a lot better.

Maybe a solution here would be to pool facilities. So maybe if Amtrak could rent out the station to a travel agency or other related business under the agreement that the tenant offers sales of Amtrak tickets, does baggage handling, replies to enquiries etc. Of course this would require Amtrak providing training to the necessary staff but it would saves costs over all. It's maddeningly wasteful to have full time staff twiddling their thumbs and waiting for a once a day train.

 

[neroden]

Nathanael, your point #2 is totally wrong as I was a labor representative highly involved in the negotiation process.

I can't speak to the "shopcraft" unions, and I apologize for my implication. I remember reading that the OBS and T&E union reps said that they'd gotten more than they expected and everything they asked for. Obviously they don't have anything to do with the behind-the-scenes unions.
Anyway, what you tell me fits with the numbers I've seen. Amtrak's maintenance costs are pretty much in line with what I'd expect. It's the on-board costs which are somewhat out of line with what I'd expect from looking at other passenger railroads (not that there are a huge number to compare to.)