Trains Are All Over,So Why Can't We Use Them & Save Gas?

Question

With all the train tracks all across the USA & Not used much where I'm from,I wondered if we went back to using them if it would help Our Oil Crisis? I would Love to be able to jump on a train and get to where I needed to go,then I could get rid of my car once & for all....Would You mind going bye train,those of you who don't have access to them???

Answer 1

Crimson rambler must be a First Capital Connect traveler if he get crammed into trains.

Anyway, if you use electric trains then trains won't have to run on gas so it will be even better. Here in brittain, the majority of trains are electric, but in the USA they are almost all deisel. Deisel ones emmit loads of tonnes of carbon, so its not much better than cars, if the world goes to electric trains, where thay can (not in poor countries, where they really dont need to), then it will be much better.

In US, some people live miles and miles away from a train station darling, so it is very hard for them to use trains. In brittain the network is very dense, with no one more than 7 miles away from a station in england. Dont know about wales or scottland though.

But still it is hard for a lot of people to do so, howver if you can, you should!

Answer 2

Tasha-

Gotta love questions like this.  You will always find one fool in the crowd!  Katrina just needs to take a Damnital and nominate herself for a Darwin Award!

Yep, your thinking is on the right track.  Its a matter of like, Skidderback said, getting people to give up their fuel hungry vehicles and place pressure on our politicians to better the public transportation systems.

But before you start jumping the gun and compairing Japanese and European Rail travel to ours, I have to point out a few major differences.

In the other countires, passenger rail services are mainly government controlled.  This includes the property on which their services are operating.  They may use the same routes, but the rails on which they travel are quite different.

According to my wife in Germany, Freight Traffic is not allowed to use Passenger Rail, and the lines are actually seperated.  I think the same is to be said for the UK, France and many other countries.

Here in the USA, the railroad property is owned, operated and maintained by each individual railroad company.  This means that any passenger companies, (IE: Amtrak), will be paying "Rent" to use their Right of Way.

In my area, (Santa Clara County), a company called Cal-Train, (Valley Transportation Authority), owns the property between San Francisco and Gilroy, so Union Pacifc pays "Rent" to operate their equipment on that rail.  However, I think Union Pacific has an agreement of some type because I always see their Maintenance Of Way Equipment doing all of the work.

However, my point is to have the same type of system operating nationwide, would require the purchase of new real-estate in order to build such a system.  As nice as this would be, its probably not going to happen unless a miracle happens in congress.

The sad reality is that our children are probably going to be left with the burden of the errors of our ways.

As for getting rid of your car, well I'm not sure that is going to totally be the correct answer either.  There are many issues surrounding this oil crisis issue our government has placed us in.  One of those issues is switching to Nuclear Power.

Oh, I can feel the ground shaking over this subject.

Here is a look into the crystal ball from 1994 when I graduated with an A/S Degree in Automotive Technology.

Back then, my instructor told us in class this day was coming, (today's crisis).  This problem was created back in the 70's when we became dependant on Arab Oil.  Everyone was frightened of Nuclear Power, and with the accident at 3 Mile Island, were suddenly justified in its termination from full scale operation.

Then Chernobyl.  Again another justification for not using it.  Here is the issue though.  Nuclear power plants produce clean electicity.  The waste can, and is now recyclable.  Hydro-Electric Power, Wind, Solar, Geo-Thermal, and Natural Gas are also all excellent options!  All are green, and enviro-friendly.  Nuclear Power is too.  Huh??

Nuclear Power Plants offer us a source of clean and re-newable fuel for our cars.  HYDROGEN!  

Here is a little Chemistry Lesson.  Water is made up on Hydrogen and Oxygen, (Di-Hydrogen Mono-Oxide).  When water, (H20) is placed into a container and an electrical charge is placed into the water, the Hydrogen and Oxygen molecules seperate into their respective gasious forms.

The Hydrogen can then be collected, as too the Oxygen.

Now here is the Chemistry part.  When hydrogen is used as a fuel and mixed with oxygen, then burned, the remaining gas is water vapor.  

Hmm, guess our government does not want you to know that little tid-bit.

As for the remaining answer to your question.  Believe it or not, the railroads are, (in my opinion), doing their very best to obtain the most efficent equipment possible.  As for the passenger part, its just going to be a matter of getting people to accept there are alternate means of travel to get from point A to point B.  

Case and point.  My wife and I use Amtrak every chance we can get for out long trips.  Do they always get there on time?? No!  But we have never been injured or in a wreck.  So I would say they have done a pretty good job making sure folks get to their destinations safely!

Good Luck!

Answer 3

With current oil prices, you'd think every Amtrak train would have people riding on the roof or anywhere else where you can hang on as is usually the case when seeing photos or videos of trains in India or Africa.

What will it take, here?  I dunno...  $12 a gallon, maybe?  But it's not just about fuel...  

How about a $2500 a year national vehicle registration fee on top of state fees to upgrade the Interstate system?  Did you know 30% of the bridges are meeting only the minimal standards of integrity owing to deferred maintenance?  That'll get a lot of people out of their cars, which will result in less demand on bridges, thereby allowing for further deferred maintenance, thereby freeing up all that cash for the beginning of improvements to the rail infrastructure.  DC oughtta be able to see that...  It's the stuff bureaucratic dreams are made of...

How about a $4500 a year nation-wide levy on each car for protection against un-insured drivers on top of all?  You've got over 11,000,000... "temporary residents," shall we say, driving around without any coverage.  Best of all, any surplus can go to fund Hillary's health care reforms, or new rail infrastructure !  

Maybe a stiff luxury tax on all the SUVs and two story 4x4s that will never see a day off road runnin' around?  More cash for more track...

The proposed moratorium on Fed fuel tax for the summer is absolutely the wrong way to go.  

Quadruple it!  

That'll keep people out of their cars!  Except for the true die hards, so we can use the windfall to get rid of the national debt and invade Alaska !   Wait a minute.  They belong to us.  Anyway... we get THEIR oil.  Isn't there a pipeline or something there?  I seem to remember everyone paying a sheeit-load of money to have it built more than 30 years ago...  "North Slope" seems to ring a bell.  But the same yuppies driving around in all the gas guzzling c**p forbid any drilling there even though that's the reason why we built the flippin' pipeline in the first place.

From where I sit at this moment, 'bout 200 miles to my left, lies HUGE oil reserves, as well as fantastic quantities of clean natural gas.  But it's gonna stay right there, so the people can have a better guarantee of a perpetual pristine view as they cuise up and down Highway 1 in their dinosaur fueled Hummers....  Speaking of which, if they're legal to own and drive, why can't we get 'em fully loaded when ordering, as is our God given right?    "Oooooh...  Make mine blue with a roof mounted 50 cal. !"

And none of it matters.  Until people are willing to give up what they perceive to be access to the "personal freedom" guaranteed by the Constitution via automobile ownership, the trains will continue to run with empty seats...  and the only way for anyone to force that hand is from implementation of one or all of the above...

Addendum:  I will agree with those, that actions (more apprpriately said, in-actions) on the part of the denizens of DC have contributed directly to the transportation mess we are experiencing today.  But, as any politician knows, if you want to stay in office you either "give 'em what they want or tell 'em what they need."

In this case, what we wanted for the last five decades, at least in so far as transportation systems are concerned, is exactly what we got.  The failing is on both sides of the aisle.  But I would argue that, at the root, it's a people problem as much as it is a political problem.

Answer 4

I dont have access to a train but if I did, I would love to take one all the time.  Closest Amtrak is over 100 miles away

Answer 5

Above answerers (most of them) are right on the point

Ridership is up in every sector of amtrak, all we need to do is convince our elected representatives that we need and want a better rail transportations system. When can get our elected representatives to see beyond their own next election and actually do somehting good for the country (for a change) then we can have a system that is not an embarrasment.

Public transport will never replace the private automobile, it is not trying to, but why do some people have such a thing against giving people reasonable viable choices.

In Europe many people choose not to own cars, not because they cant, simply because the dont want ot and their public transportation system is good enough that it is not necessary.

Good question.

Answer 6

You asked a great ?  And dont worry about people like Katrina- she doesnt know anything about the world around her!!  The reason is politics and speed.  A train can move 250 plus semi trailers with a fraction of the fuel.   I work for a RR and it takes about 250 gallons of diesel to move an average train 130 miles.....highly efficent given it would take 250 semis getting 8 mpg 4062 gallons....if Katrina cant think outside the box, maybe she can do some math!!!  All we have to do is think to ship by rail and THEN shorthaul by truck where trains cant deliver!!

Answer 7

Or we could all use horses and wagons ... why not?

And trains run on gas genius it wouldn't solve a thing they'd just need more gas to run because everyone uses it.

Get a bike if you want to get rid of your car

Answer 8

The conservative political movement in the USA over the last 30 years or so has attempted to completely dismantle rail travel because it is not profitable for the oil companies.  But the American people are getting smarter, and the conservative period is coming to an end.

One of the benefits of political change will be improved and expanded rail service.  And really we have no choice.  People who live "too far away" from the railroad station will not always live too far away--the rail service will come back to them, in ways similar to the way railroads used to serve every small town in the country.

The ideal system will be one in which every citizen can lease a small electric car to drive around town, and when you want to go further than, say, 40 miles, you will drive down to the station and jump on a train.  When you reach your destination, you check out another electric car and go about your business.  When you are ready to go home, you turn in the electric car and jump back on the train home.  And so on.

This system will not be as profitable for the rich, but it sure will help out the average American.  So you know how to vote.

To the answerer who insulted the asker:  Yes, some trains run on fossil fuels, but MUCH more efficiently.  Rail freight service gets about 450 ton-miles per gallon of diesel fuel, as opposed to about 2-1/2 ton-miles per gallon for the standard 18-wheeler.  Also, trains can be powered by electric lines, and so run on solar, hydroelectric, and nuclear, as well as fossil fuels.  And rail service lends itself to hybrid technology to save even more fuel.

So yes--improved rail service is coming back, like we once had it.  And the benefits will be enormous.  Only oil company executives and their dupes will disagree.

Have fun!

Answer 9

yeah we need more trains.  but Ignorant Americans still love our cars to much and we are unwilling make a change. and they same can be said about our government it's pulling teeth to get some money for Amtrak. and in my own region to get money for the CTA, RTA.

yeah going back to the train system would help for those who ride it and for the environment it's most fuel efficient way to travel.

Answer 10

You are correct, making an investment in our rail network would decrease our dependency on gas.  Unfortunately, in some parts of the country the rail network is not comprehensive, and it becomes inconvenient.  People are also very stubborn and don't want to change their habits.

Answer 11

they cant stop by my house and have to stay on track

Answer 12

Red or blue party lines are not at fault here, individually, as to why passenger rail travel has not been more properly funded since the 1971 startup of Amtrak.

Why don't we have a better passenger rail system? To be completely honest I have no idea (sarcasm), ask your local congressman/woman. Actually, I think the people have spoken for some time now (a recent Harris Poll found nearly 70% of citizens think we should have a better rail system) but getting the government to act is another thing.

Ever since Amtrak was created in 1971 (under the Nixon Administration), unfortunately, it has been meant to fail. What has kept it going is the overwhelming support of the people, and Congress, to keep it going, albeit just enough to survive year-to-year.

So, to make a long story short, if we could get a unified Washington to back a dedicated, high-speed, passenger rail system (preferably with its own routes instead of using the private freight rail system) it would work wonders in this country to reduce congestion, fuel usage, and in the process cut down on emissions (but, unfortunately, none of the upcoming Presidential nominees have said a word about developing such). Per-fuel-mile nothing is more efficient at moving people or freight than railroads...

Answer 13

i am hoping that they will build a maglev train to disney world in florida and other places.. i am tired of the airport security.. they take your posessions and sell them on e bay i had enough  how about you..

Answer 14

In Britain the railways are sadly in need of overhaul. Many people use the trains, but many more would use them if they were cheap to travel on and reliable.

So while people who need to travel by rail get crammed like sardines into the few train carriages available, many more drive and clog up the roads to the point of gridlock.

Yes, Britain's transport is in crisis and you don't have to be a rocket scientist to realise that the answer is nationalisation and more investment in public transport..... but will our thicko politicians realise this?

Answer 15

Katrina have you been ignorant all your life or is it a recent development?The lady asked a good question and you insult her and call her a genius. trains run on diesel fuel not gas.And if all the people that sit in traffic jams going to work riding one person per car getting 0 mpg were riding a train to work we would save millions of gallons of gas a year.So before YOUR genius mind starts answering questions you'd do well to have a clue about what your talking about!

Answer 16

You can.  But you have to choose to live somewhere trains work well.   Everybody goes "It doesn't come to my house" - well, right, your house was built around the private automobile.  When you (or your parents) picked the house you rent or bought, you drove to it.  You wanted to drive everywhere, and you got exactly what you wanted!  Congratulations.  

Now if you want something else, pick it.  There are lots of places in America where you can live nicely with trains instead of cars.

Answer 17

I'd have to spend about 40 minutes on a bus to get to the train station ... It's not practical at this point .

Answer 18

Tashathayer, have you even LOOKED around? Where do you live that "tracks are all over"? I live in Virginia, and tracks are around ( I live near CSX line , VRE and AMTRAK passenger service on the same mainline ), but they're not "all over". Do you see any tracks to your mall? your gas station? to Wal-mart? Seriously, girl, to place tracks where streets are would take SERIOUS coin.

  And, trains ARE making a comeback, far as freight is concerned....they're actually laying NEW TRACK, instead of just tearing up old unused lines for scrap. Mostly due to diesel and gas costs, it's getting cheaper to ship by train now, in bulk.

  As to why there aren't more...land costs. Taxes cost. Here's the reason - truckers pay over-the-road taxes, but railroads pay REAL ESTATE taxes...which are much higher, considering how many MILES of track they have. It's a LIABILITY to own the land, not a blessing! It's one reason railroads declined after WWII, and trucking took off - the ICC ( Interstate Commerce Commission ) gave truckers a free pass on roads, but taxed the h**l out of railroads with all their "assets"...so the railroads couldn't compete effectively. And the railroads had to petition to remove unprofitable lines, they couldn't just stop service ( politics again)  Partly due to the railroads blatant past arrogance due to their virtual monopoly on long-distance travel...but that's another story. Bottom line is, the ICC was not into helping Rail compete with trucks or airplanes, due to the former monopolitistic attitudes ( and politics ), so passenger service faded out ( mostly due to the Interstate highway and losing money ), and only high-volume bulk traffic kept the railroads alive, and several innovations like the tri-level auto rack and trailer-trains ( now container trains ) that could haul pure bulk alot cheaper, invented in the 60's and 70's, saved their butts.  Combining rail lines increased the efficiency some, too, which is why there are only 8 major railroad lines left, and some smaller ones.

  Also, getting land to lay rail would be prohibitively expensive these days, and in convenient locations so people would use them, so it's not feasible to do. Street cars faded out, some of that was due to GM buying up the companies, and replacing them with their buses. Erase the competition. :)

  Bottom line is, unless the train runs RIGHT to your house, are you willing to walk a mile to get to the nearest station? ..... Ha, didn't think so. Not our obese and lazy culture! Nope. So it won't happen.

- The Gremlin Guy - model train enthusiast ( has LOADS of small trains of all scales )