Are modern trains as bad for the environment as cars are?

Question

I know that steam trains are ok, but what about todays trains, my sister says they run off electricity so they still negatively affect the environment, but are they just as bad as cars? Do they use petrol (trains)?

Answer 1

Heavens NO, a train moves 4 times as much freight than a truck for each gallon of fuel.

Consider passenger trains, they will be moving hundreds of people and using about the same amount of energy that a bus would to move 30 or 40 people. You cant get any more efficient or safer land transportation than trains unless you walk.

If trains were taken away it would be an ecological nightmare.

Another thing to consider, when a peice of track needs rebuilding, it takes the RR company a few days, and it is done between trains with just a few pieces of equipment, and almost every bit of the discarded track is recycled also, even most of the ties are re-sold for landscaping and fencing.

When a peice of interstate highway needs rebuilding, it takes months and thousands upon thousands of gallons of feul with huge earth movers tearing up the highway and hauling it away.

A Railroad right of way takes about 1/4 the space a highway needs and moves more freight so less trees are cut down to make the roadbed.

Locomotive deisel engines operate at a more even throttle setting, sometimes going miles and miles without changing rpm's, this is a much cleaner way for deisels to operate than the constant up and down changing of automotive deisels.

The personal automobile is about the worst thing that could have happened to this planet, the future world will have to move toward more mass transit (busses, subways, trains etc) and get people off the roads. Think of all the resources that are being used just to build and rebuild highways when the train systems have been in place for over a hundred years.

There is always room for improvement, and as a former engineer on an electrified railroad I would love to see the day when they make a retrun but dont hold your breath.

For now, unless everyone stays home and lives like cavemen (and women) trains are the best thing we have going for transporting people and the things people need.

Answer 2

Here are my two cents.  Well, when it comes down to it, modern locomotives are extremely clean and can move much more over a longer distance for ultimately less cost than trucks can.  Current locomotives are also superbly effecient, much more so than a semi tractor could ever be.  Period!  As for the trains that run off electricity, how does your sister know what goes into the power plant to provide electricity for the train?  What's more, modern power plants are also high peforming and can provide more power for fuel than ever before.  Also, the pollutant output by power plants has come down drastically in the past ten years and most certainly in the past twenty.  Your sister needs to study up.

Answer 3

Hey Saz. We have to move products, metals, and minerals around the country. We can't stop doing that. A train requires only 7 horsepower per ton to move. A train car typically carries 100 to 130 tons. A cross-country train usually has a consist of 100 to 110 cars. A truck max's out at 40 tons. So, a train car can carry 2.5 times as much as a truck. One train takes the place of 250 trucks. That's 250 fewer trucks on the roads. Times many hundreds of trains per day. If there weren't any trains, we couldn't build enough roads for all the trucks, or supply all the fuel for them either. And secondly. The engines are classified as "Diesel Electric". They have a V-10, V-12, or a V-16 cylinder diesel engine, (depending on the model) and that engine powers a generator (about half the size of a mini van), which in turn provides electricity to electric motors at the axles. The Diesel Electric concept was first put to use in U.S. WW II submarines.

Answer 4

Well, first off, you're sister is wrong.  I don't know how they rank among "diesel-users", but in contrast, they are more efficient then motorized vehicles. A single train can carry up to 17,000 tonnes, (there may have been more, but this is getting HEAVY) with anywhere from four-nine locomotives. (This can vary, there's never a set amount.) Think of how many vehicles would be needed to transport that weight. A lot. Sure, they pollute, but they also haul alot. You can't simply think of how much fuel the locos use. In contrast to how much they carry, they don't pollute very much.

Answer 5

As far as the transportation of people and goods are concerned, especially when considering ton/miles per gallon of fuel consumed, pollution from air borne particulates is far less from railroad operations than other means of surface transportation.

What was overlooked for decades, was the pollution that occurs as a result of leaking oil or fuel spills and/or leaking contents from freight cars, or, the worst case scenario, a train wreck or derailment.

Today, engine service facilities, in particular those smaller ones at outlying points, where in some cases a private contractor delivers fuel for local freight power, are either equipped with drip pads with reclaiming apparatus, or at the least, absorbent material laid beneath the ballast or around the area where the refueling takes place.

However, crankcase oil leakage, which is not uncommon, along the rights of way that criss-crosses the nation, can be problematic.  However, the ballast along the right of way is a very efficient filter and reduces the impact from this to a high degree.

A more significant contributer to ground pollution is the large number of "flange lubricators" or "curve greasers" that are found everywhere.  These apply grease to the wheels of the trucks to reduce the amount of flange bind in curvature, which improves fuel efficiency by reducing drag, as well as extending useful rail life.  But, they do produce a significant amount of pollution.  Here again, absorbant material is laid underneath to mitigate, to some degree, the effects of the pollutants.

Even so, our highway systems and the vehicles that use them are the most significant contributers to pollution of all kinds.  When compared to railroad operations, the circumstances described above are a mere drop in the pollutant bucket.

Answer 6

What makes you think steam trains are okay?   They have very inefficent open combustion of fuel, and quite a lot of particulate emissions.

I wouldn't say diesel locomotoves are bad for the environment, because the amount of freight moved on the railroad per fuel use is advantageous vs trucks.  Traditionally, the emission controls on both diesel trucks and locomotives was nothing, so they were basically equal.  They're not at a disadvantage vs. the alternative.  Electric locomotives are a big step ahead of their competition.

There is some progress going on in both areas, so I think we'll see low emission trucks and trains both at some point.

Answer 7

Your sister is wrong. Look at the hp a diesel or an electric engine has, look what it pulls, look how many trucks (for freight trains) or private cars are replaced by the seats in a passenger waggon. Take the fuel, trucks or private cars burn, take the fuel a diesel engine burns/what an electric engine needs and compare. it yourself. Look into the pages of US-railways if thy have an enviroment report (BR, if you are from GB) or even look into www.db.de. This is German Rail. I think theyr enviroment report exists in English too. Most of their pages do.

Your sinter is def wrong, but don´t call her something.

Answer 8

Today's trains run off of some electricity if you are talking about cargo trains. They are the 2nd largest diesel users in the world, navy being the first. So to answer your question they are very bad for the environment.

Answer 9

http://www.uprr.com/she/emg/index.shtml

Answer 10

Rango's answer was brilliant: including the advantages of the smaller right-of-way and speed and economy of construction and repair.

I'm alittle shocked to see someone claiming that car's only put out CO and CO2... cars ARE cleaner burning than the

1970's... but Diesels are also becoming cleaner.

AND, diesel trains would put out FAR less emissions than the number of trucks required to move comparable freight or passengers.

California is looking to run an electrified train from San Diego to Sacramento soon.... I'd love to see it as I commute by train, and visit my lil brother on the train.

Answer 11

The short answer is no.  Per fuel mile nothing is more efficient at moving people and freight than railroads.  Also, at least in the United States, diesel-electric locomotives (which are powered by diesel fuel) are becoming more and more environmentally friendly as the EPA requirements for fewer emissions increases near-annually.  For instance, a few examples of this include General Electric's new GEVO locomotive, Electro-Motive Diesel's new SD70ACe, and RailPower's new Green Goat switcher locomotive (a hybrid powered by only batteries).  Lastly, I believe biofuel is now also being tested for use in the future.

Electric locomotives technically produce no emissions and are thereby the most environmentally friendly although indirectly emissions are given off from the power plants which supply the electricity, of course.

Answer 12

There are 2 main types of modern trains, electric and diesel (petrol driven).

Electric is the best for the environment as it can be produced by several clean methods, even by other trains such as those in Switzerland, they produce electricity going down-hill by using the motors as generators that feed the electric line to help the trains going up-hill so a minimal amount of external energy is used.  In fact, they sychronize the trains to do exactly that.

Coal burning steam engines are not as clean as we'd like them to be.  Burning coal produces emissions such as sulfur, nitrogen oxide (NOx), and mercury that can pollute the air and water.  If you are referring to the old wood burning engines, that is better, but they are not efficient, in fact, steam engines are not efficient at all, but Germany had a model of steam engine that was the most efficient in the world, but alas, it has been retired like all the other out-moded locomotives of its day.

Diesel locomotives are really bad!  Shortly after I left the Soo Line in Minnesota they installed automatic shut-down devices that killed the diesel when it was not being used.  However, this does not help much with the toxicity of diesel exhaust as it is breathed by all of us who are directly exposed to it.

Particulate carbon in diesel exhaust is the most abundant component of atmospheric particulate matter.  It causes visibility reduction, promotes chemical reactions, and works as a carrier of mutagenic or carcinogenic compounds.  Organic matter extracted from diesel soot was first reported to be mutagenic in bacteria in 1978 and diesel engine exhaust contains high concentrations of these particles. These particles consists of carbonaceous soot and organic compounds such as carcinogenic benzo(a)pyrene.

It also contains highly mutagenic chemicals including 1-nitropyrene (1-NP), nitroacetoxypyrenes, nitrohydroxpyrenes and other nitropolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (1-3). Recently, Japanese scientists discovered in diesel 3-Benzoanthon, a very highly toxic substance.  They described that 3-Benzoanthon is carcinogen and like Dioxin, PCP and PAH poses a serious challenge to human health and nature.

The only really bad output of gasoline run automobiles is CO and CO2, which in itself is bad enough but is not terribly carcinogenic like diesel exhaust is.

Hope this help you with your question.

Sincerely,

Kevin Kaas

Answer 13

First off, you're wrong about steam.  Steam engines had to burn coal or wood to create the steam.  So, they put out emissions.  

As to your question, today's engines do burn petroleum products but, at a rate that make using them for public transportation of passengers or moving freight far superior to the amount of cars and trucks needed to accomplish the same goal.  They also help improve public safety by removing the excess traffic from the highways.