https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transport
that table is thoroughly fascinating. i mean all of them, there’s more than one table on that article
apparently walking is the most energy-efficient transport mode of all?!?!? apart from bicycles
what i find mind-blowing is that airplanes consume approximately the same amount of energy as cars and trains. I mean i can easily see cars and trains being on the same level, but i always thought that airplanes consumed like an order of magnitude more fuel than cars. considering how everybody keeps saying that “airplanes consume so much fuel” and such. crazy.
and also boats are less efficient than i thought? boats consume 16 L/100 km while cars, trains and airplanes consume 6 L/100 km?
Maybe it’s the same for commuter rail. It’s weird seeing average 33 passengers, when they were always standing room only while I was riding
Yeah, I’ve lumped them together in my mind, because subway is typically not called ‘train’ in my language. But the situation is about the same. Just looked it up: a subway car here has the ‘full capacity’ of over 300 people, commuter cars around the same, but probably less in practice. And the numbers sure push toward that during rush hour.
I don’t even get the first train line if another is amtrak and another is commuter. is commuter like the chicago metra maybe then light/heavy is a metro?
So the problem is the term “light rail” and “heavy rail” are really technically meaningless. Historically they referred to how physically heavy the actual rails the trains ran on were because freight railroads used a much heavier rail for their mainlines while interurban transit services used cheaper lighter rails because they almost exclusively ran what would now be called an “electric multiple unit” with 1-3 car trains, thereby not requiring more heavy duty rails
Nowadays the actual rail is far from the largest cost and the operational simplicity of using the exact same grade and standards of rail as the freight railroads means they can move their equipment on the freight railroads’ tracks and freight can be moved on their tracks as needed. Because this shift happened to occur during the period of railroad disinvestment in the US nobody really bothered to update the nomenclature so now that we’re reinvesting in rail it completely makes no sense at all
Personally I like to use the terms “interurban” for frequent local services with equipment tuned for commuters that runs between cities (and I mean “cities” from a functional definition not a legal one. Just because Shuamberg is legally a separate city doesn’t mean it isn’t functionally part of Chicago. There really aren’t any remaining interurban services that fit this definition in the US anymore) “commuter rail” for passenger rail service within a sprawling metropolitan area and runs equipment tuned for commuters, “regional rail” for passenger service that goes further than a simple commute or a quick run to the store/museum, has equipment tuned for passengers spending more than an hour on the train. And “long distance rail” for passenger services that are tuned for travel of greater than 300 miles. To me “metro” refers to a grade separated urban rail transit system (so like Chicago’s L or the New York Subway) and “tram/trolley” refers to a ground level urban rail transit system functions like a higher capacity bus, potentially intermixing with car traffic
But this just demonstrates the problem which is that the US has so disinvested in rail transport that there’s no clear, consistent definitions in use anymore so people have to define what they’re talking about every dang time!
yeah see your definitions fit with what I have in my head. the metro compared to tram/trolley which I really just thing of as a bus on rails although I did not really have a good name for the greater city area but I guess commuter makes sense. when it comes to farther I start thinking it like shipping or airtravel when it comes to those long distances. since they are not an everyday or even everyyear type thing I just don’t think of them enough to have a real term for them. Oh man though I went to school downstate and was using a bus system and either they didn’t have any spots left or the place to get it was closed so I picked up an amtrack train and after that it was my first and prefered method to get back and forth from school even though it was a bit pricier. More comfortable and larger seats. Can actually get up and move around. Bathrooms you are not scared to use and a car selling stuff like gas station fare but it had tables which was nice.
I recently took my first Amtrak train (which is funny because I’ve been to countless railroad museums, I’ve been collecting model trains for most of my life, I’ve freaking driven a train, but you know the one thing I didn’t do before this month? Ride Amtrak.
Honestly it was a super wonderful experience that I absolutely want to do again. Even sleeping in the coach seat was way better than I’d expected! And $80 to go halfway across the country is hard to beat!
Maybe, but I’m not familiar with chicagos system
Here in Boston
I think “metros” are a combination of “heavy rail” and “commuter rail” over a larger metro area. Fast and longer distance like commuter rail, but regular service like “heavy rail”
ok yeah then it makes sense. over here you have metra which runs on the same cargo rail as amtrak just more geared around commuting and then we have a metro line so that is like heavy. I think we had light tram type things at times but as far as I know don’t have any currently.