Built like a Mercedes (?)

Fuel use is well documented in the links I gave you or linked pages

Except using actual numbers, not the "fantasist" numbers that I have
debunked.

I used YOUR numbers at FULL capacity for the motorcoaches to prove that your
fantasy numbers are just that..... fantasy.

The fact is I've shown you GPH consumption rates, done the math using YOUR
GPH for the motorcoach, compared to figures for rail GPH and the rail beats
it by significant margins.

I have shown significant flaws in the validity, not just my disagreement
with it. What you seem to miss is that I am a diehard car person, I LIKE
automobiles. I delight in driving my truck, its FUN. But as much as I like
personal transport, the freedom it gives me with the independance to move as
I see fit as a less costly rate than rail, I am NOT deluded into thinking
that rail is less efficient or a better way to move mass quantities of
anything, be it freight, people or oatmeal.

And yet you persist in the name calling, a sure sign that your "facts" are
less than accurate.

--
Max

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)

 

I'll respond once only.

In other words, you got lit up like a pinball machine, and played like a
mechanized piano. You don't like anyones numbers but your own, and have NO
way to dispute our numbers, OR our rebuttals to your numbers.

Face it Huw, as if my numbers weren't enough to slam you, Clare SMOKED your
sorry ass.

Please do make this your "reply only once", as those of us in reality are
tired of your badly attempted claims.

--
Max

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)

 

Max you have been away from it too long. A passenger loco that drive's the

Roy, the figures were derived from a study that used a GP38, admittedly a 30
year old loco. The 170GPH figure was for notch 8 over an hour, something
that while I wasn't clear in noting it, I am aware would never happen. The
hope was that Huw would figure out that even outmoded loco technology was
more efficient than automobiles. With todays computer controlled engine
management, I've no doubt your numbers are more representitive.
--
Max

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)

 

Using real life figures then the UK network average fuel figure is 115
passenger miles to the gallon. One of my cars does an easy 70mpg so with two
people on board that is 140 passenger miles to the gallon. With four on
board that increases to 280 passenger miles to the gallon.
I prefer to use the Range Rover over long distances with four on board and
it averages 32mpg on such a long journey [yes its a diesel] so even the RR
actually betters the efficiency of the train with 122 passenger miles to
each gallon on such journeys.

20 people aboard a 55 seater coach at 10mpg gives a real life fuel
consumption of 200 passenger miles per gallon which is near double that
actually achieved by British railways.

The utilised capacity is representative of real life regular long distance
bus travel while a group chartering a bus for a special occasion would
endeavour to fill to at least 90% capacity giving [at 8mpg] just under
400pmpg.

Special occasions aren't really relevant here so we'll stick with real life
average of 200pmpg which trounces the real life train figure of 115.

These are actual real life figures.

Huw

 

These engines are at their most efficient between 1500 and 2000erpm where

Cummins lists this figure as 1800-1950RPM.

It'll run up to 3000RPM if manually shifted. The narrow RPM band has not
been a problem, and seems ideally suited to the gearing (3.55 rear axle
ratio) and travel at about 70MPH, which turns 1850-1900RPM on the engine
while in OD.

Max torque runs at 420ftlbs stock, from about 1200-2800RPM. No load redline
is 3400RPM or so, while loaded the PCM cuts it back to 3200 or so. Having
not needed to push it, I'm not as familiar with these figures as I am on my
gasoline powered vehicles.

I run an automatic trans, since the 6spd was back ordered when the truck was
ordered. I have never had a situation where I let automatic shifting occur
where it revved out farther than 2800RPM. This truck doesn't lack for power
at low RPM, and pulls well in all gears. Towing at highway speeds in OD is
easily done. If I manually shift while towing, I usually use 2100RPM or so,
since I'm not interested in acceleration at that point. I manually shift
prinicipally to hold gears longer than the PCM would via APPS readings. Thus
I can use part throttle and hold gear, since the PCM wants MPG, not power.
The PCM tries to upshift since the truck easily rolls most loads and looks
to upshift ASAP.

Under hard acceleration while empty, it'll rev to 2800 automatically, while
throwing the truck so hard the occupants are snugged into the seats. Do not
mistake this for being pinned as one might be in a sports car. However, for
moving 7000lbs, it is significant force.


--
Max

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)

 

This is obviously over your head. Read it again slowly

Using real life figures then the UK network average fuel figure is 115
passenger miles to the gallon with a best route average of 123pmpg. One of
my cars does an easy 70mpg so with two people on board that is 140
passenger miles to the gallon. With four on
board that increases to 280 passenger miles to the gallon.
I prefer to use the Range Rover over long distances with four on board and
it averages 32mpg on such a long journey [yes its a diesel] so even the RR
actually betters the average efficiency of the train with 122 passenger
miles to
each gallon on such journeys.

20 people aboard a 55 seater coach at 10mpg gives a real life fuel
consumption of 200 passenger miles per gallon which is near double that
actually achieved by British railways.

The utilised capacity of the bus is representative of real life regular long
distance
bus travel while a group chartering a bus for a special occasion would
endeavour to fill to at least 90% capacity giving [at 8mpg] just under
400pmpg.

Special occasions aren't really relevant here so we'll stick with real life
average of 200pmpg which trounces the real life train figure of 115.

These are actual real life figures of everyday use over a year, not some
theoretical optimised train filled to capacity.

As I said this is apparently beyond your comprehension because it is
abundantly obvious to man and beast that the 200 passenger miles per gallon
quoted for a coach is for 20 occupied seats out of 55 which is less than
half occupancy.

You show a fundemantal lack of ability to interpret comparitively simple
information.

What you have done is show significant flaws in your intellect. The figures
are really quite simple and are repeated in detail above. Read it again very
slowly and it might sink in.


not just my disagreement

And I admit that in very limited circumstances it can be the most efficient
means of transport. No need to repeat what these are is there.

They are not my facts. They are publicly verifiable facts from British Rail
and from actual coach use with a few figures for my own two vehicles thrown
in for comparison and interest. I can assure you that they are accurate.

Huw

 

It is obvious that you miss more than you think... see below.

I'm glad you said that, because that is how they work out how much
electricity is used per passenger mile. So you see the figures are accurate
and measured to your satisfaction. It is all explained in the fact sheets.
It is unfortunate that you are obviously unable to understand a great
proportion of it.

Huw

 

It revs significantly higher than I thought. I can see what you mean because
the diesel auto landcruiser has a similar feeling but I guess less so. From
only 4.2 litres it has 200hp. The Range Rover is a bit different and it has
been chipped from 185hp to over 200hp from the BMW 3.0l, which has also
improved the economy [from an average of 27 to just under 30mpg] but its
five speed is tuned so that the engine torque is not used as much and it
changes down early and so the engine revs more.

Huw

 

Using real life figures then the UK network average fuel figure is 115

Again, from an innacurate source.

A motorcycle doesn't get that MPG, and a car with four on board doesn't get
the same MPG as it does with one on board. Thus, your claim goes from
slightly outlandish to impossible.

Based on your innacurate rail figures again?

Once again, this is not the efficiency of the vehicle, but of the use. The
coach is capable of 550 passenger miles per gallon. However, a loco burning
70GPH moving at 50MPH and carrying 1000 passengers is 714 PM/G. This assumes
that the train is limited to ten cars. Couple on another 10 railcars,
increase fuel usage to 100GPH, and the train gets 1000PM/G.

Which is precisely the point Huw..... use the capacity, and be more
efficient.

No, they aren't. That you have to say they are, is representitive of the
flawed sources.


--
Max

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)

 

Is British Rail an inaccurate source? I do not believe they would
overestimate their fuel consumption.

The car easily exceeds 70mpg with two on board. Even hammering along on
difficult rural roads in our hilly area I have difficulty getting consumtion
below 65mpg. With one on board I have proved to my satisfaction that it is
entirely possible to achieve 90mpg.
I have provided a link which shows the car and its fuel consumption. You are
in denial if you challenge every figure that is plain as your face and claim
they are false.

They are not mine. They are not even those of the site where you read them.
They are supplied by the British railway network.

Yes it is capable but the reality of a service bus or non chartered coach is
that occupancy is far less. This is also true of the train except at peak
times but this has been taken account of in the figures for the train
because they count the number of passengers over the year.

However, a loco burning

You miss the point completely. The capacity will never be fully utilised
because both modes travel on set times and passenger density varies along
the route. Even if they are empty they must run.

They are certainly actual figures while you seem to wish to use figures for
theoretical fully utilised capacity which is impractical and inaccurate and
can never be the reality.

Huw

 

This is obviously over your head. Read it again slowly

I got it the first time Huw. Your numbers aren't realistic, and are based on
assumptions, not actual data. They are from a website with political bias,
meaning that not only are the figures inaccurate, but may be engineered to
be something they are not.

What you fail to understand is that is my point. If we utilized the most
efficient means of transit to its fullest, we would in fact save fuel. But
we continue to utilize inefficent means such as automobiles, which will
never match trains.

What you fail to grasp is that even at their best numbers, your motorcoaches
still don't match rail efficiency.

And you show a fundemental lack of ability to address the numbers I've
provided in ANY way, preferring instead to insult my intellect. Until you
address the numbers I've provided at least five times, your claims are
rubbish.

They are not verifiable, otherwise I would have agreed with them. Find any
car that gets 70-90 MPG as you claimed, and I'll be interested. Make it
reality, and you'll be a millionaire. Do that with four passengers as you've
claimed, and you should top Bill Gates in no time.

Meanwhile, the "fantasist" is you, if you think such a car exists.

--
Max

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)

 

His example of the recent diesel Panda ( 1.3l ) will indeed return something
around 70 British mpg as long as it's not urban use. Some of the small Puegeots
are very good in this respect too.

Note that he's using British gallons - 25% bigger than yours - lol ! ;-)

Graham

 

Is British Rail an inaccurate source? I do not believe they would

Your source isn't British rail, its a politcal activist group.

I'll say it again, its not a believable claim, since motorcycles that weigh
significantly less don't get that sort of MPG.

I haven't seen such a link, nor do I beleive your claims.

Then you should supply the link to the British rail site where they came
from. Until then, your figures are suspect.

Again, you miss the point, while proving it.

Yup, you failed to address my numbers AGAIN. This is getting old, Huw.

Sorry, but thats not true. Service is infinitely variable, just as ridership
is, particularly in heavy travel areas.

Had you a clue about rail transit, you would know that I'm not only on the
mark, but thats Clare's findings back my position. Yet, I doubt you'll ever
actually address my real numbers or anything that Clare posted.



--
Max

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)

 

I'm glad you said that, because that is how they work out how much

Terrific, now accurately convert gallons of fuel to kilowatts of power. And
no, I don't want a repost of your formula, since its impossible to convert
it that way.

Hint: Clare's BTU's are the ONLY method by which it can be done, and his
figures are the accurate ones you need. But I doubt you'll address anything
he said.

--
Max

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)

 

wow. just more make believe.

 

well, max you may want to pay attention now. i mean, when it comes to
being experts on reading slowly, the uk guys would be tops.

 

You are going to tell me with a straight facer a Panda will deliver
70mpg with 4 adults on board? Give your empty head a shake!!!

 

Which is clearly a liberals attempt to sway people to believe that
cars should be outlawed.

Near me is an intersection which used to be one of the top 10 accident
sites in Illinois. At the time, oh about 20 years ago or so, that
intersection had more than 300,000 cars pass per day. Clearly that is
a little more than 8000, and since the majority of that traffic was
not traveling at midnight, it is even higher than the average would
indicate. Oh, it is also the intersection of a side street from a
neighborhood onto US 30, which at that point is in the middle of Park
Forest Illinois, and so would not be in any way looked at as a
highway. It wasn't even a well made road until they improved that
area by making it 3 lanes each way. I am pretty sure that the day
time average is closer to 20,000 cars an hour.

The next thing to look at is the fact that the ICG rail line that the
Chicago Metra train uses to bring people from that intersection down
town, is only useful once people HAVE DRIVEN AS MUCH AS 30 OR MORE
MILES TO GET TO THE TRAIN. THEN THEY HAVE TO WALK, OR USE A CAB, OR A
BUS, OR ANOTHER FUCKING TRAIN, once they get down town.

Some people are so focused on showing the "superiority" of mass
transit that they have to ignore all the waste that is required just
to get people TO THE MASS TRANSIT. The only reason people use Metra
is because the COST of parking down town exceeds the value they would
get by driving. For those who drive down town, however, the cost of
driving to the Metra station, parking there, and then taking mass
transit once they get down town, far exceeds the cost of driving down
town.

*************************
Dave

 

some liberal publication that ignores all the true facts

Funny, my finance charges each year are zero. Fuel costs are $9 per
100 miles, maintenance is negligible since I refuse to waste money at
a dealer, and a Honda requires virtually no maintenance, but figure $3
for that, $2 for insurance, $0 depreciation. That comes out to $14.
Now, the fare for mass transit may only be $14, but that does not
include the cost of road taxes that go to the mass transit that should
be going to our roads, nor of gasoline taxes that are misdirected, and
other taxes such as income and sales taxes that go to support Metra.
Real cost, probably in the neighborhood of $75.

Clearly, mass transit is FAR MORE EXPENSIVE than autos, and does NOT
PROVIDE service to the vast majority of people who need to be able to
get to work and the store.

*************************
Dave

 

Funny, nobody I know has ever been to pluto.

More than 1/2 of Americans have to have both halves of the couple work
just to support the family because we keep shipping our jobs over to
third world countries like Canaduh, India and China.

*************************
Dave