<Peak Oil and Economic Growth: Where Do We Go From Here?The Oil DrumAndris Piebalgs : getting a sense of proportion>
<DrumBeat: March 28, 2008DrumBeatDrumBeat: March 30, 2008>

197 comments on DrumBeat: March 29, 2008

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

AlanfromBigEasy on March 29, 2008 - 2:00pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I would argue we need a 30:1 gain with equivalent scale in order to transition the infrastructure into something that can use renewables

Ed Tennyson estimated that it would take $250 billion (current $) to electrify and improve speed & reliability of the US rail system enough to displace 67% of current and future US truck traffic.

I estimated $400 billion to displace 85%.

Better (but not TGV) passenger rail would come as a byproduct.

I figured 8,000 miles of "CSX"# type rail (grade separated, 2 tracks regular freight at 60 to 70 mph, one track pax & express freight at 100 to 110 mph). About 24,000 miles of double tracking, better signals, etc. About 65,000 miles electrified of 177,000 miles (80/20 rule).

# CSX has "on the table" a plan to do this from Washington DC to Miami.

Add $20 to $60 billion/year for Urban Rail.

Building new renewables (or nuke) to run this would be trivial.

Best Hopes,

Alan

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
R W Reactionary on March 29, 2008 - 8:46pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Hi Alan.

When you target 85% are you referring to inter city trucking? [Makes a lot of sense -- most long haul trucking does not involve truly time critical cargoes and it is difficult to believe that long haul trucking is less labor intensive -- other than the initial investment which is born by the railroad, most long haul trucking seems to make very little sense on any basis -- if the cargoes can be delivered to the customer's location!] Short haul -- probably not ever customer is going to relocate so as to have their own siding.

Also, is there work underway on getting a better inter modal hand off between rail and truck for the final delivery? I have not studied this question to any degree, but I have in recent years watched a massive switching yards more or less stripped of track. If we are going to transfer cargo the old way, it seems to me that the switching yards are going to be very busy places.

Thoughts?

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
AlanfromBigEasy on March 29, 2008 - 9:31pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

The goal is to make express rail time and reliability competitive with trucks for those shippers that require that. Canadian National type operations are assumed (scheduled trains several times/day).

An 8,000 mile network (mainly Texas, Kansas City, Minneapolis and to the East plus San Francisco to Tuscon) of 100 to 110 mph express freight trains will add speed and reliability. Even if only a portion of s trip can be scheduled on a semi-High Speed rail line, delivery times improve considerably. 60 to 79 mph service could become "normal" on regular mainlines.

Highway congestion in major cities and 62 mph governors lowers the bar a tad in competing with trucks on speed and reliability.

Until (and it will happen !) customers relocate to a rail spur (or build new ones), intermodal will be required. The number of intermodal locations will increase, and many will be quite small operations. (Does Tuscaloosa Alabama get it's own, or does it uses the intermodal center in Birmingham ?).

In the first years, with diesel only $9/gallon, it will be Birmingham. Later, having it's own intermodal center will make sense.

Ed is working on a model for EMUs# carrying passengers and less than truckload freight (like old days of Railroad Express). Charge sky high freight rates (in comparison to unit cars of coal), but "affordable" to get appliances, small packages, fruit, etc. delivered at the railroad depot of smaller town. Say $21 to deliver refrigerator from big city 200 miles away to RR depot. Merchant or individual takes it from there.

Combine one or two EMUs with less than truckload freight with basic passenger service (decent seats & bathroom, but no dining car, sleepers or lounge) in one or two EMUs and one can make money today in his opinion, if done right. Service 2 to 6 times/day "depending on demand".

# EMU = Electric Multiple Units, self propelled electric rail cars that can operate singly or in trains of any length. Passenger seating could be 66 to 88/EMU.

Basic passenger service, several times a day, going to "big cities" on either end (including airports) as well as small twons along the way could be quite attractive for trips of 80 to 300 miles for a good % of the population (perhaps not a majority).

Best Hopes for Non-Oil Transportation,

Alan

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
WNC Observer on March 30, 2008 - 9:44am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Alan:

Now here's a thought - I wonder if intermodal shipping containers could be retrofitted to carry passengers? This could be a way to ramp up passenger capacity quickly, and to integrate freight and passenger traffic.

Not ideal, by any means. But it reminds me a little bit of the Cuban contraptions pulled by a semi - whatever works.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
AlanfromBigEasy on March 30, 2008 - 11:28am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

FRA would have a seizure ! *SO* far from current regs, etc.

A few years after TSHTF, who knows ?

Alan

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.