Elon Musk’s Hyperloop is Probably as Good an Idea as High-Speed Rail

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 18th, 2013

Week in Review

We transport heavy freight over land by train.  And transport people over land by plane.  Have you ever wondered why we do this?  Especially you train enthusiasts who would love to travel by train more often?  Here’s why.  Cost.  Railroads are incredibly expensive to build, maintain and operate.  Because there is rail infrastructure from point A to point B.  And at their terminus points.    Whereas planes fly through the air between point A and point B.  Without the need for infrastructure.  Except at their terminus points.  Making railroading far more expensive than flying.

If planes are so much cheaper to operate than trains then why don’t we use planes to transport all our freight?  Here’s why.  Price.  Trains charge by the ton of freight they transport.  And they can carry a lot of tons.  An enormous amount of tons.  Which makes the per-ton price relatively inexpensive.  A plane can carry nowhere near the amount of freight a train can carry.  It’s not even close.  Which makes the per-ton price to ship by plane very, very expensive.  So only high priority freight that has to be somewhere fast will travel by plane.  Heavy bulk items all travel by train.

We may be having an obesity problem but in the grand scheme of things people are very light.  But take up a lot of volume for their given weight.  The space their body physically occupies.  And the greater space around them containing the air they must breathe.  That holds the food and drink they must consume.  And the toilets they need to relieve themselves.  Now let’s look at a 747-400 with 450 passengers on board.  Let’s say the average weight of everyone comes to 195 pounds.  So the total flying weight of the people comes to 87,750 pounds.  Assuming flying costs for one trip at $125,000 that comes to $1.42 per pound.  If we add 15% for overhead and profit we get a $1.64 per-pound ticket price.  So a 275-pound man must pay $451 to fly.  While a 120-pound woman must pay $197 to fly.  Of course we don’t charge people by the pound to fly.  At least, not yet.  No, we charge per person.  So the per-person price is $224, where the lighter people subsidize the price of the heavier people.

The 747-400 is one of the most successful airplanes in the world because it can pack so many people on board.  Reducing the per-person cost.  Now let’s look at that same cost being distributed over only 28 passengers.  When we do the per-person cost comes to $4,464.  Adding 15% for overhead and markup brings the per-person price to $5,134.  A price so high that few people could afford to pay for it.  Or would choose to pay for it.  And this is why we transport people by plane.  That can carry a lot of people.  And we transport heavy freight by train.  That can carry a lot of tons.  And why this idea will probably not work (see Elon Musk Is Dead Wrong About The Cost Of The Hyperloop: In Reality It Would Be $100 Billion by Jim Edwards posted 8/16/2013 on Business Insider).

Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s plan for a space-age Hyperloop transport system between Los Angeles and San Francisco would cost only $7.5 billion, he said in the plans he published recently…

But the New York Times did us all a favor by calculating the true cost of the Hyperloop: It’s going to be ~$100 billion…

The Hyperloop is a pressurized tube system in which passenger cars zoom around on an air cushion, at up to 800 miles an hour.

There is no greater infrastructure cost between point A and point B than there is for high-speed rail.  Because these rails have to be dedicated rails.  With no grade crossings.  All other traffic either tunnels underneath or bridges overhead.  These tracks are electrified.  Adding more infrastructure than just the tracks.  All of which has to be maintained to exacting standards to allow high-speed trains to travel safely.  Which is why high-speed rail is the most costly form of transportation.  Why there are no private high-speed rail lines as only taxpayer subsidies can pay for these.  And for all these costs these trains just don’t transport a lot of people.  Making high-speed rail the most inefficient way to transport people.

The Hyperloop will be more costly than high-speed rail as this is an elevated tube system of exacting standards.  Requiring great costs to build, maintain and operate.  While transporting so few people per trip (28 per capsule).  Not to mention high-speed travel is very dangerous.  Unless it is up in the air separated by miles of open air.  But on the ground?  When a high-speed train crashes it is pretty catastrophic.  And it can tear up the infrastructure it travels on.  Shutting the line down.  So traveling 800 miles an hour inside a narrow tube is probably not the safest thing to do.

Of course the biggest fear in a system like this is some politician will pass legislation to build it.  Because of all the taxpayer-subsidized union jobs it will create.  As they are constantly trying to build high-speed rail for the same reasons.  For the politics.  Not because it’s a good idea.  For any idea requiring taxpayer subsidies is rarely a good idea.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Air Transport vs. Rail Transport

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 29th, 2013

Economics 101

Trains require an Enormous Amount of Infrastructure between Terminal Points whereas a Plane does Not

Trains and jets are big and expensive.  And take huge sums of money to move freight and passengers.  Each has their strength.  And each has their weakness.  Planes are great for transporting people.  While trains are best for moving heavy freight.  They both can and do transport both.  But pay a premium when they are not operating at their strength.

The big difference between these two modes of transportation is infrastructure.  Trains require an enormous amount of infrastructure between terminal points.  Whereas a plane doesn’t need anything between terminal points.  Because they fly in the air.  But because they fly in the air they need a lot of fuel to produce enough lift to break free from the earth’s gravity.  Trains, on the other hand, don’t have to battle gravity as much.  As they move across the ground on steel rails.  Which offer little resistance to steel wheels.  Allowing them to pull incredible weights cross country.  But to do that they need to build and maintain very expensive train tracks between point A and point B.

To illustrate the difference in costs each incurs moving both people and freight we’ll look at a hotshot freight train and a Boeing 747-8.  A hotshot freight gets the best motive power and hustles on the main lines across the country.  The Boeing 747-8 is the latest in the 747 family and includes both passenger and freighter versions.  The distance between Los Angeles (LA) and New York City (NYC) is approximately 2,800 miles.  So let’s look at the costs of each mode of transportation moving both people and freight between these two cities.

Railroads are so Efficient at moving Freight because One Locomotive can pull up to 5,000 Tons of Freight

There are many variables when it comes to the cost of building and maintaining railroad track.  So we’re going to guesstimate a lot of numbers.  And do a lot of number crunching.  An approximate number for the cost per mile of new track is $1.3 million.  That includes land, material and labor.  So the cost of the track between LA and NYC is $3.6 billion.  Assuming a 7-year depreciation schedule that comes to $1.4 million per day.  If it takes 3 days for a hotshot freight to travel from LA to NYC that’s $4.3 million for those three days.  Of course, main lines see a lot of traffic.  So let’s assume there are 8 trains a day for a total of 24 trains during that 3-day period.  This brings the depreciation expense for that trip from LA to NYC down to $178,082.

So that’s the capital cost of those train tracks between point A and point B.  Now the operating costs.  An approximate number for annual maintenance costs per mile of track is $300,000.  So the annual cost to maintain the track between LA and NYC is $840 million.  Crunching the numbers the rest of the way brings the maintenance cost for that 3-day trip to approximately $278,671.  Assuming a fuel consumption of 4 gallons per mile, a fuel cost of $3/gallon and a lashup of 3 locomotives the fuel cost for that 3-day trip is approximately $100,800.  Adding the capital cost, the maintenance expense and the fuel costs brings the total to $566,553.  With each locomotive being able to pull approximately 5,000 tons of freight for a total of 15,000 tons brings the cost per ton of freight shipped to $37.77.

Now let’s look at moving people by train.  People are a lot lighter than heavy freight.  So we can drop one locomotive in the lashup.  And burn about a gallon less per mile.  Bringing the fuel cost down from $100,800 to $50,400.  And the total cost to $516,153.  Assuming these locomotives pull 14 Amtrak Superliners (plus a dining car and a baggage car) that’s a total of 1,344 passengers (each Superliner has a 96 passenger maximum capacity).  Dividing the cost by the number of passengers gives us a cost of $384.04 per passenger.

Passenger Rail requires Massive Government Subsidies because of the Costs of Building and Maintaining Track

A Boeing 747-8 freighter can carry a maximum 147.9 tons of freight.  While consuming approximately 13.7 gallons of jet fuel per mile.  At 2,800 miles that trip from LA to NYC will consume about 38,403 gallons of jet fuel.  At $3/gallon that comes to a $115,210 total fuel cost.  Or $778.97 per ton.  Approximately 1,962% more than moving a ton of freight from LA to NYC by train.  Excluding the capital costs of locomotives, rolling stock, airplanes, terminal infrastructure/fees, etc.  Despite that massive cost of building and maintaining rail between point A and point B the massive tonnage a train can move compared to what a plane can carry makes the train the bargain when moving freight.  But it’s a different story when it comes to moving people.

The Boeing 747-8 carries approximately 467 people on a typical flight.  And burns approximately 6.84 gallons per mile.  Because people are a lot lighter than freight.  Crunching the numbers gives a cost per passenger of $123.11.  Approximately 212% less than what it costs a train to move a person.  Despite fuel costs being almost the same.  The difference is, of course, the additional $465,753 in costs for the track running between LA and NYC.  Which comes to $346.54 per passenger.  Or about 90% of the cost/passenger.  Which is why there are no private passenger railroads these days.  For if passenger rail isn’t heavily subsidized by the taxpayer the price of a ticket would be so great that no one would buy them.  Except the very rich train enthusiast.  Who is willing to pay 3 times the cost of flying and take about 12 times the time of flying.

There are private freight railroads.  Private passenger airlines.  And private air cargo companies.  Because they all can attract customers without government subsidies.  Passenger rail, on the other hand, can’t.  Because of the massive costs to build and maintain railroad tracks.  With high-speed rail being the most expensive track to build and maintain.  Making it the most cost inefficient way to move people.  Requiring massive government subsidies.  Either for the track infrastructure.  Or the electric power that powers high-speed rail.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Dirigibles may do the Heavy Lifting in Alaska

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 28th, 2013

Week in Review

If you’ve watched Ice Road Truckers you’ve learned that it isn’t easy to move freight in Arctic regions.  Like Alaska.  Because there aren’t a lot of roads or bridges in Arctic regions.  Hence the ice roads.  Crossing rivers, lakes and oceans in the winter when they’re frozen over.  But even these roads cover only a fraction of Alaska’s sprawling country.  Which is why the airplane dominates in Alaska.  To move freight.  And people.  Making for some really high transportation costs.  Raising the costs of everything the good people of Alaska buy (see Hometown U: Could blimps find a place in Alaska skies? by Kathleen McCoy, Hometown U, posted 7/27/2013 on Anchorage Daily News).

Rob Harper at AUTC [Alaska University Transportation Center] pointed me to a new study the Center and UAA’s Institute for Social and Economic Research (ISER) partnered on, looking at the effect of higher transportation fuel prices. He called it a true eye-opener on the ever-rising cost of moving goods to and around Alaska. Every household and business is affected. No one thinks fuel prices will go down again.

ISER economists have often looked at spiking heat and electricity costs, but this was a first attempt to document higher transportation costs rippling through Alaska’s economy. In 2010, economist Ginny Fay and her study colleagues reported, Alaska’s per capita energy consumption was triple the national average.

Alaska fuel prices increased more than 25 percent between 2009 and 2010. Consumers responded by buying fewer cars and airplane tickets. They also paid higher prices for everything they did buy, from food to clothing…

Industries that use the most fuel are the hardest hit. In Alaska, that’s aviation, which uses 90 percent of it, Fay wrote.

And this in a state that exports oil.  But while they may be rich in oil reserves they have no refinery capacity.  Which means refined aviation fuel, diesel and gasoline has to be brought into Alaska.  And unlike the lower 48, that get their refined petroleum products via pipelines, Alaska must rely on more costly modes of transportation.  Shipping it over land or over water in smaller batches at greater prices.

Here’s where those slow, graceful dirigibles wedge their way back into our conversation. Being lighter than air thanks to nonflammable helium, and moving much slower than planes, they consume a lot less fuel. One research study for the military in 2009 compared an hour of flight time in an F-16 ($8,000) to an hour of flight time in a dirigible (less than $500).

Traditional air cargo is the most expensive way to move freight on a fuel-cost-per-ton-mile basis. Fay’s analysis showed that rail is cheapest, followed by trucks, then barge, ships and ferries. But Alaska only has 500 miles of rail. Our ships and barges often leave the state less than full, raising the cost per ton-mile. And we only have two roads, one north and one south. Most of Alaska is nowhere near a road or a coastline. So we’re back to air cargo.

Rail is the cheapest way to move heavy freight because of steel wheels on steel rails.  There’s very little friction so locomotives can pull a very long train consist full of heavy freight.  And they move fast.  Day or night.  In any kind of weather.  So they can quickly carry revenue-producing freight nearly around the clock.  Trucks are fast like trains but carry far less per load.  And whereas railroads change out train crews to keep trains rolling around the clock most long-haul trucks are privately owned.  And when the driver reaches his legal limit of driving time per day he or she has to park their rig and rest for a mandatory rest period.  Thus reducing the revenue-miles of trucks compared to trains.

Barges, ships and ferries can carry larger loads than trucks but loading and unloading takes time.  Time they can’t earn revenue.  Also, they travel slower than trains or trucks.  Limiting the amount of revenue-earning trips they can make.  Whereas air cargo is the fastest way to move cargo.  Allowing many revenue-earning trips.  But the planes flying in Alaska carry a fraction of the cargo trains, trucks, barges, ships and ferries can carry.  Greatly increasing the fuel-cost-per-ton-mile.  Which makes the dirigible such an attractive alternative in Arctic regions like Alaska.

The dirigible doesn’t need a road or waterway.  It can travel year round weather permitting.  It’s slow but because it burns so little fuel the cost per trip is nothing compared to an airplane.  It can’t carry as much as a train, barge or ship but it can go where a train, barge or ship can’t.  And it can travel as the crow flies.  A straight line between two points.  Something that only an airplane can do.  But it can do it for a far lower fuel-cost-per-ton-mile than an airplane.

There is little downside of using a dirigible to ship freight in these inhospitable Arctic regions.  Unless you’re a fan of Ice Road Trucking.  For a dirigible could probably carry anything a truck can carry.  And without a road, paved or ice, to boot.  Putting the ice road truckers out of business.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Obama’s Rejection of the Keystone XL Pipeline raises Food Prices and makes the World a more Polluted Place

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 13th, 2013

Week in Review

President Obama yielded to the environmentalists in his liberal base on the Keystone XL pipeline.  Who opposed it on environmental grounds.  Ironic as the environment will be at greater risk if the president doesn’t let them build the pipeline.  And to make matters worse the price of gasoline will go up also.  Making one of the worst economic recoveries in U.S. history worse.  By leaving less money in consumers’ pockets.  While at the same time raising the price of everything that uses refined oil to get to market (see Killing Keystone Seen as Risking More Oil Spills by Rail by Rebecca Penty & Jim Efstathiou Jr. posted 4/9/2013 on Bloomberg).

A rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline by President Barack Obama would push more of Canada’s $73 billion oil exports onto trains, which register almost three times more spills than pipelines…

Shipping more supplies by rail would lead to higher costs for oil producers because train shipments are more expensive than pipelines…

Without Keystone, designed to carry 830,000 barrels a day of oil, shipments of Canadian crude by rail would rise an additional 42 percent by 2017, according to RBC Capital Markets.

“One of the unintended consequences of delaying Keystone XL is that more oil has been getting to markets in Canada and the United States using rail, truck and water-borne tankers,” Shawn Howard, a spokesman for TransCanada, said in an e-mail. “None of those methods of transportation are as safe as moving it by pipelines,” he said.

Trains are one of the most efficient ways to transport heavy freight.  Bulk freight carriers on the Great Lakes can ship heavy freight cheaper but they don’t travel as fast as trains.  And they can only travel on water.  A train can travel almost anywhere.  Over, under and around bodies of water.  Something a ship just can’t do with land.  But the benefit of train transport comes with a cost.  Rail infrastructure is very costly.  And you have to have it wherever a train travels.  Unlike a ship.  Still, rail is the best way to transport bulk freight.  Except that kind of bulk freight that we can push through a pipeline.

To think of the immense advantage of moving things by pipeline consider the hot water in your house when having a bath.  Without the pipeline system in your house you would have to heat water outside over a fire.  Then carry it in small containers and pour it into your bathtub.  Container after container you would have to fill with cold water.  Carry it to where you converted it into hot water.  Then carry the hot water by foot where you could stumble or fall, spilling your converted cold water.  Leaving you a mess to clean up.  And the need to burn more fuel to convert more cold water into hot water.

Now imagine having a bath by simply opening the hot water tap at your bathtub and letting it fill your tub.  It’s a whole lot easier.  Less chance to spill water.  And you burn less fuel.  So which would you rather do?  Clearly moving anything by pipeline is the best way to move anything.  You reduce the chance of spills because the only moving part is the oil in the pipeline.  And there are no loading and unloading costs to factor into the price of gasoline.  As the refineries basically have a hot water tap to turn on when they want to refine oil.  It just doesn’t get simpler than that.

Keystone XL pipeline doesn’t put the people or the environment first.  Just those people who oppose businesses and capitalism.  Who don’t care that people have to spend more to put gasoline into their cars.  Or have to spend more at the grocery store thanks to higher fuel costs passed along in higher food prices.  For if it were up to them people wouldn’t even have cars.  Or enjoy eating anything that came from an animal.  That’s the world the environmentalists have in mind for the American people.  Where the people sacrifice.  So the animals can enjoy a pristine environment.  Where they can happily eat each other.  And crap all over the place.  The way Mother Nature meant it to be.  Before God created man.  Who the environmentalist hate.  And blame for making a mess of everything.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Static Friction, Kinetic Friction, Wheel, Axle, Roads, Steel Wheels, Steel Track, Coefficient of Friction and Intermodal Transportation

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 28th, 2012

Technology 101

Friction Pushes Back against us when we try to Push Something

Have you ever done any landscaping?  Buy some decorative rocks to cover the ground around your flowers and shrubs?  If you go to a home improvement store with a garden center you probably bought your decorative rocks by the bag.  And those bags are pretty heavy.  Say you have a pickup truck.  And the good people at the garden center bring out a pallet of stone bags on a pallet jack.  Placing it down next to your truck.  Before loading it in your tuck do this experiment.

Don’t really do this.  Just imagine if you did.  Squat down behind the pallet.  Place your hands on the pallet.  And push with all of your might.  What do you think would happen?  Would you send that pallet sliding across the pavement?  Or would you fall on your face as your feet slipped out from underneath you?  You’d be kissing the pavement.  And possibly giving yourself a good hernia.  Now if they had put that pallet of stone into your pickup truck and you put the truck into neutral and tried pushing that what do you think would happen?  You may still get a hernia but that truck would probably move.

A pallet of stone may be too heavy to push.  But a pickup truck with a pallet of stone in it may not be too heavy to push.  How can that be?  In a word, friction.  It’s that thing that pushes back when we try to push something.  The heavier something is and the more surface area in contact with the ground the more friction there is.  Which is why that pallet is hard to push.  The force of friction is so great that we can’t overcome it.  But something that can be almost 10 times heavier sitting on 4 rubber tires bolted onto a greased axle?  That’s a different story.

The Two Basic Types of Friction are Static Friction and Kinetic Friction

There are two basic types of friction at play here.  Static friction.  Which prevents us from pushing that pallet of stone.  And kinetic friction.  Which we would have experienced with that pallet of stones if we were able to overcome the static friction.  Kinetic friction is what we encounter when sliding something across the ground.  Static friction is greater than kinetic friction.  As it takes more effort to get something moving than keeping something moving.

Now here’s why we are able to push a pickup truck easier than a pallet of stones.  With a pallet there is 48″X40″ of surface area in contact with the ground producing a large amount of static friction to overcome.  Whereas on the pickup truck the only thing that slides are the axles in highly greased bearings.  Which offer very little static friction.  The rubber tires offer some static friction due to the immense weight of the truck pushing down on them, flattening the bottom of the tires somewhat.  Once the resistance of the flattened tires is overcome the rubber tires offer kinetic friction in the direction of travel.  While offering static resistance perpendicular to the direction of travel.  Keeping the truck from sliding away from the direction of travel.  Which works most times on dry and wet pavement.  But not so good on snow and ice.  As snow and ice offer little friction.

The wheel and axle changed the world.  Allowing people to move greater loads.  People could grow wheat and other food crops in distant areas and load them onto carts to transport them to cities.  Which is what the Romans did.  Using their roads for their wheeled transportation.  Which increased the speed and ease they could pull these large loads.  Sections of Roman roads have survived to this day.  And in them you can see centuries old wheel ruts worn into them.

Intermodal Transportation combines the Low Cost of Rail and the Convenience of Trucking

The basic wooden-spoke wheel remained in use for centuries.  From Roman times and earlier.  To 19th century America.  While we were still using the wooden-spoke wheel we began using something else that offered even less friction.  Iron wheels on iron rails.  Allowing great loads to be transported over great distances. The friction of an iron wheel on an iron track was so low that the drive wheels would slip when starting to pull a heavy load.  Or going up any significant grade.  To prevent this slip trains carried sand and deposited it on the track in front of the drive wheels.  To increase the friction of the drive wheels for starting and travelling on inclined grades.   Iron wheels and iron track gave way to steel wheels and steel track.  Allowing trains to pull even greater loads.

There is no more cost-efficient way to move heavy freight over land than by train.  Thanks to exceptionally low coefficients of friction.  And the less friction there is the less fuel they need to pull those heavy loads.  Which is the reason why so many of our roads are pocked with potholes.  Roads are only so strong.  They can only carry so much weight before they break apart.  Which is why the heavier load a truck carries the more axles they must distribute that weight over.  Putting more tires on the pavement.  Increasing the friction to overcome.  Requiring greater fuel consumption.  Which is why a lot of truckers cheat.  And try to get by on fewer axles.  Increasing the weight per axle.  Which hammers potholes into the pavement.

The reason why we use trucks to transport so much freight is that there aren’t railroad tracks everywhere.  But we can still make use of the railroad tracks that are near our shipping points.  By combining rail and truck transportation.  We call it intermodal.  Using more than one means of conveyance.  Putting freight into containers.  Then putting the containers onto truck trailers.  Then driving them to an intermodal yard.  Where they take the containers from the truck trailers and put them onto rail cars.  Where they will travel great distances at low friction.  And low costs.  Then at another intermodal yard they’ll transfer the containers back to truck trailers for a short ride to their final destination.  Getting the best of both worlds.  The low-cost of rail transport thanks to the low friction of steel wheels on steel rail.  And the convenience of truck transportation that can go where the rails don’t.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

India seeking Private Railway Investment to fund Modernization and Capacity Addition face Union Opposition

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 24th, 2012

Week in Review

India had an explosion of economic growth as they unleashed free market activity.  So much that their infrastructure is struggling to keep up with it.  Especially their railways (see Union Cabinet okays private sector investment in railways by Mahendra Kumar Singh posted 11/23/2012 on The Times of India).

Desperate to attract private investment in the cash-strapped railways, the Cabinet on Thursday cleared the state-run transporter’s plan to rope in the private sector for building new rail lines and plants, and augment capacity, a move that was red-flagged by the unions.

With the policy in place, the railways will be able to get the private sector to connect ports, mines and industrial plants with the rail network by allowing them to invest in laying the tracks for last-mile connectivity. The move is expected to lower the transportation cost and help evacuate minerals, coal and finished products from the production centres…

The move comes as the railways, in the absence of fare increase, has failed to generate resources for funding modernization, leave alone capacity addition despite successive rail ministers adding new trains to appease their constituency. In fact, it has repeatedly failed to meet the targets…

Even this time, the unions are opposing any attempt to hand over operation and maintenance to private players, which could deter investors looking to enter the BOT space for building new lines.

That’s a pity.  For it’s those operation and maintenance costs that consume the capital that they otherwise could use to fund modernization and capacity addition.

In the US there are two types of railways.  Those that make money.  And those that lose money.  Those that make money are privately owned.  Those that lose money are publicly owned.  Every subway, commuter train and Amtrak train loses money because of high operating and maintenance costs.  For the usual reasons.  High pay, pensions and health care costs for active workers and retirees.  While the heavy freight railways make money.  Despite their high operating and maintenance (all union) costs.  For there is no better alternative to moving heavy freight across land.  While every other way to move people (bicycle, motorcycle, car, bus, ship, plane, etc.) is a more cost efficient way to move people than by train.

The freight railways in the US are a modern marvel.  Moving so much freight that main line rails are like polished chrome.  While the best passenger train still pulls onto a siding to let a money making freight train pass.  Clearly showing who makes money.  And who doesn’t.  As well as the difference between a private sector union and a public sector union.  One has accountability.  The other doesn’t.  Customers moving freight have choice between rail shippers.  While people traveling by train have no choice.  The freight railroads have to be able to stay in business by being competitive.  While the passenger railways just keep raising fares.  Or beg for more taxpayer subsidies.  Which is why public sector workers don’t want to privatize their industries.  Because they don’t want to be accountable.  Or work within budgets.  Like everyone in the private sector does.  Including their union brethren in the private sector.  Who often don’t live as comfortably as their public sector brethren live.

If India is to continue her move into a free market economy she needs to privatize her freight railways.  Which could easily become and stay state of the art.  While biting the bullet on her passenger rail that probably will never make enough money to fund modernization or capacity addition.  But at least the money-making private railways can help bolster the economy.  Producing greater tax revenue for investment in the black hole that is passenger rail.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Steam Locomotive, Diesel Electric Locomotive, Interstate Highway System, Airplane, Air Travel, Refined Petroleum Products and Pipelines

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 21st, 2012

Technology 101

The Diesel Electric Locomotive could pull a Train Cross Country and into the Heart of a City with Minimal Pollution

The 1920s were transformative years.  The Roaring Twenties.  It’s when we moved from animal power to mechanical power.  From the horse and plow to the tractor.  From steam power to electric power.  From the telegraph to the telephone.  From the gas lamp to the electric light.  From crowded mass transit to the freedom of the automobile.  From manual labor to the assembly line. 

You can see a glimpse of that world in 1920’s Steam Train Journey Across the United States – Westward Ho!  The beginning of the modern city.  With modern street lighting.  Electric power and telephone overhead wiring.  Streets crowded with automobiles.  Tractors and mechanical harvesters on the farm.  And, of course, the steam locomotive.  Connecting distant cities.  Transferring the freight to feed the modern industrial economy.  And shipping the finished goods.  As well as all that food from the farm to our grocer’s shelves.  Proving the 1920s were vibrant economic times.  With real economic growth.  And not a speculative bubble.  For there was nothing speculative about all of this technology becoming a part of our way of life.

Of course the technology wasn’t perfect.  The coal-burning locomotives belched black smoke and ash wherever they went.  Which wasn’t all that bad in the open country where a train or two passed.  But it was pretty dangerous in tunnels.  Which had to be short lest they suffocated their passengers.  (One of the reasons why all subways use electric trains).  Making for some long and winding railroads in mountainous terrain.  To go around mountains instead of under them.  Slowing trains and increasing travel time.  And they were pretty unpleasant in the cities.  Where the several rail lines converged.  Bringing a lot of coal-burning locomotives together.  Creating a smoky haze in these cities.  And leaving a layer of ash everywhere.  The cleaner diesel-burning locomotives changed that.  The diesel electric locomotive could pull a train cross country and into the heart of a city with a minimal amount of pollution.  As long as they kept their engines from burning rich.  Which they would if they operated them with dirty air filters.  Reducing fuel efficiency by having the air-fuel mixture contain too much fuel.  And causing these engines to belch black smoke.  Similar to diesel trucks running with dirty air filters.

Airplanes can travel between Two Points in a Direct Line at Faster Speeds than a Train or Bus with Minimal Infrastructure

Trains shrunk our country.  Brought distant cities together.  Allowing people to visit anywhere in the continental United States.  And the railroads profited well from all of this travel.  Until two later developments.  One was the interstate highway system.  That transferred a lot of freight from the trains to trucks.  As well as people from trains to buses and cars.  And then air travel.  That transferred even more people from trains to airplanes.  This competition really weakening railroads’ profits.  And pretty much put an end to passenger rail.  For people used the interstate highway system for short trips.  And flew on the long ones.  Which was quicker.  And less expensive.  Primarily because airplanes flew over terrain that was costly to avoid.

Highways and railroads have to negotiate terrain.  They have to wind around obstacles.  Go up and down mountainous regions.  Cross rivers and valleys on bridges.  Travel under hilly terrain through tunnels.  And everywhere they go they have to travel on something built by man.  All the way from point A to point B.  Now trucks, buses and cars have an advantage here.  We subsidize highway travel with fuel taxes.  Trucking companies, bus lines and car owners didn’t have to build the road and infrastructure connecting point A to point B.  Like the railroads do.  The railroads had to supply that very extensive and very expensive infrastructure themselves.  Paid for by their freight rates and their passenger ticket sales.  And when there were less expensive alternatives it was difficult to sell your rates and fares at prices high enough to support that infrastructure.  Especially when that lower-priced alternative got you where you were going faster.  Like the airplane did.

Man had always wanted to fly.  Like a bird.  But no amount of flapping of man-made wings got anyone off the ground.  We’re too heavy and lacked the necessary breast muscles to flap anything fast enough.  Not to mention that if we could we didn’t have any means to stabilize ourselves in flight.  We don’t have a streamline body or tail feathers.  But then we learned we could create lift.  Not by flapping but my pushing a curved wing through the air.  As the air passes over this curved surface it creates lift.  Generate enough speed and you could lift quite a load with those wings.  Including people.  Cargo.  Engines.  And fuel.  Add in some control elements and we could stabilize this in flight.  A tail fin to prevent yawing (twisting left and right) from the direction of flight.  Like a weathercock turns to point in the direction of the wind.  And an elevator (small ‘wing’ at the tail of the plane) to control pitch (nose up and nose down).  Ailerons correct for rolling.  Or turn the plane by rolling.  By tipping the wings up or down to bank the airplane (to turn left the left aileron goes up and the right aileron goes down).  And using the elevator on the take-off roll to pitch the nose up to allow the plane to gain altitude.  And in flight it allows the plane to ascend or descend to different altitudes.  Put all of this together and it allows an airplane to travel between points A and B while avoiding all terrain.  In a direct line between these two points.  At a much faster speed than a train, bus or car can travel.  And the only infrastructure required for this are the airports at points A and B.  And the few en route air traffic controllers between points A and B. Which consisted of radar installations and dark rooms with people staring at monitors.  Communicating to the aircraft.  Helping them to negotiate the air highways without colliding into other aircraft.  And air travel took off, of course, in the 1920s.  The Roaring Twenties.  Those glorious transformative years.

Refined Petroleum Products have Large Concentrations of Energy and are the Only Fuel that allows Air Travel

The most expensive cost of flying is the fuel cost.  The costlier it is the costlier it is to fly.  Not so for the railroads.  Because their fuel costs aren’t the most expensive cost they have.  Maintaining their infrastructure is.  They can carry incredible loads cross country for a small price per unit weight.  Without swings in fuel prices eating into their profits.  Making them ideal to transfer very large and/or heavy loads over great distances.  Despite dealing with all the headaches of terrain.  For neither a plane nor a truck can carry the same volume a train can.  And heavier loads on a plane take far greater amounts of fuel.  This additional fuel itself adding a great amount of weight to the aircraft.  Thus limiting its flight distance.  Requiring refueling stops along the way.  Making it a very expensive way to transport heavy loads.  Which is why we ship coal on trains.  Not on planes.

Trains are profitable again.  But they’re not making their money moving people around.  Their money is in heavy freight.  Iron ore.  Coke.  And, of course, coal.  To feed the modern industrial economy.  Stuff too heavy for our paved roads.  And needed in such bulk that it would take caravans of trucks to carry what one train can carry.  But even trains can’t transport something in enough bulk to make it cost efficient.  Refined petroleum.  Gasoline.  Diesel.  And jet fuel.  For these we use pipelines.  From pipelines we load gas and diesel onto trucks and deliver it to your local gas station.  We run pipelines directly to the fuel racks in rail yards.   And run pipelines to our airports.  Where we pump jet fuel into onsite storage tanks in large fuel farms.  Which we then pump out in another set of pipelines to fueling hydrants located right at aircraft gates.

These refined petroleum products carry large concentrations of energy.  Are easy to transport in pipelines.  Are portable.  And are very convenient.  Planes and trains (as well as ships, busses and cars) can carry them.  Allowing them to travel great distances.  Something currently no renewable energy can do.  And doing without them would put an end to air travel.  Greatly increase the cost of rail transport (by electrifying ALL our tracks).  Or simply abandoning track we don’t electrify.  Making those far distant cities ever more distant.  And our traveling options far more limited than they were in the 1920s.  Turning the hands of time back about a hundred years.  Only we’ll have less.  And life will be less enjoyable.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,