"Who ships by rail today? It's so archaic. It's limited to where that track goes."

[eolafan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by HighIron2003ar

QUOTE: Originally posted by eolafan

Last time I looked, eighteen wheel trucks can't go accross deserts, mountains, rivers, etc. without roads, so where is the difference...tracks, good roads, no difference. We need both railroads and truck lines with the proper use of each in a balance.

Wanna bet?? A big old Diamond Reo with the walking beams probably is capable of getting to the logging road with a load where there aint no roads.

You need to consider ground pressure per inch and the solidity of the ground.

I have gone off road many times in a 18 wheeler. Thank god for the ground clearence and the really low gear ratios (and dry weather too)

[:)]OK, let's see if our friends on this forum agree with me or you. I will wagner that there are many more places where it is more logical and economical for trains to go than for trucks. Nevertheless, I still believe we need both trucks and trains. Comments from the peanut gallery[?]

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by HighIron2003ar

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds

QUOTE: Originally posted by HighIron2003ar

At a meat plant in Liberal Kansas I have to negotiate a forest of railcars.

It may not have been touched by a railroad but wherever you live you can bet a trucker brought it to you.

Can't argue with the last sentence HighIron.

Do you fee comfortable talking about those meat loads out of Liberal? East coast or west coast? What was the transit time by truck. You probably didn't get a load back to Liberal. Where did you load to on the return trip? What kind of freight would you haul on the return? I'd guess pulling out of Farmland, you were an owner operator. Do you know what the truck charges were for delivery on either, or both, coasts?

The movement of freight is facinating to me. I know the railroad end of things. I'd like to learn more about trucking. You seem to be someone who could educate me.

Nothing went back to Liberal except cattle and perhaps gasoline/merchandise and what not for the support of the city.

You went up there empty and you hauled beef out Some to the west, most to the east. The company would try to stay ahead of the plant's shipping by keeping a pool of empties being loaded so you dont have to wait.

If I remember correctly we had major areas to the north and south of liberal where you could deliver a revenue load to like walmart distribution etc and then dead head a few hours to liberal. With a reefer you can also function as a "box" if needed. Ill post more but need to recollect my thoughts.

Thank you - I appreciate it.

[Anonymous]

Regarding the relative efficiency of trucks vs trains, in the old days the average ton/miles per gallon of fuel for trucks was about 60, for rail was about 225. Over the last two decades, fuel efficiency per ton/mile has gone up dramatically for both modes. Trucks now can achieve 125 to 150 ton/miles per gallon, with a correlation between increasing GVW and increasing fuel efficiency. Some of those 140,000+ GVW Canadian rigs are approaching 200 ton/miles per gallon, close to the original railroad figure! Most of these increases can be traced to improved engine performance corresponding to increasing the load factor with larger GVW.

Of course, average rail fuel efficiency has increased to 600 ton/miles, with some unit trains approaching 1000 ton/miles net. Railroads have achieved this not only through improved engine performance, but also by eliminating branch lines and locals which tend to have lesser economics. The increase in axle loadings also has increased the load factor. And an increase in unit trains operations including intermodals has eliminated switching costs. But it is the elimination of branch lines and locals that has acheived the most.

Since trucks are approaching the ton/mile fuel economy numbers inherent in branchline operations, it makes sense in most cases to allow these branchlines to be lopped off in favor of truck. If the remaining carload commodities like chemicals and lumber are ever shifted to containerization, we'll see alot more branchlines eliminated.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ironken
[As far as effeciency goes, trains have trucks beat hands down. Consider horsepower per ton. A figure that is very important to the RR. We often run as little as 1 HPT on the flatter runs. Correct me if I'm wrong, but, aren't the newer semis pushing 500 hp? and hauling around 50 tons? If so that equates to 10 hpt to move that freight. Our most powered up trains on steep grades rarely use even half of that. Food for thought.

That's not really comparable. Is this truck HP's on the engine shaft? With or without parasitic loads (air conditioning, cooling etc)?

Assume it is 500 hp without parasitic loads. Now: typical gear has efficency about 0.97. Count:
clutch (0.97) - gearbox (0.97) - cardan shaft (2*0.97) - differential (2*0.97) - cardan shaft (2*0.97) - wheels
total efficency - 0.78. Total of 390 hps actually reaches the wheels. But 0.78 is much less actually since we assimed perfect rigidity of the system (no twisting shafts etc) and perfect lubing. In reality it is probably about 0.7 so from 500 hps actually 350 finds it place on the road.

But note - rubber while getting better grip, also gets higher rolling resistance - about twice of steel wheel on steel rail. So 350 truck hps is reduced to 175 'railroad' equivalent. Or 4.375 hppt. That is a value of a hot intermodal last I heard.

But - trains - especially uniform unit ones - get also much lower aerodynamic drag - since each car rides in aerodynamic shadow of the car before it. Each truck must fight its way against the air by itsself. This further reduces effective the hppt for trucks.

500 hp 40 ton truck is no different then 11500 hp (three sd70m) with 4500-5000 tons trailing.

[Anonymous]

Effective horse power to the pavement on a Detroit 470 using a Freightliner FLD120 cab with a Eaton 10 is about 225 or so at 60 mph by dyno. This was what is availible if the throttle should be increased. There is ALOT consumed by everyting associated with loads on the driveline, transmission, air compressor, air conditioning, watper pump etc etc etc.

Railroads dont seem to suffer much in the way of parasitic loads. Those locomotives when they are idling in my town they seem capable of running the town's power grid. But I am not a electrician and am not qualified to say anything about locomotive motive power and the loads it may be under during runs.

[jockellis]

If a coupler breaks, the cars are going to stop - at least if the brakes are not so hot that they will not hold - because the air compressor on the locomotive pumps air into the braking system which pushes the brake shoes away from the wheels.
If railroads are to educate the population, they need to start with school children. I don't know about UP's ad campaign, but Norfolk Southern's doesn't seem, to me, to do anything toward making people understand the role of the railroad. Actually, railroads do have the basis for a good advertising campaign, the flat sides of its rail cars. Unfortunately, there are so few grade crossings where people have to wait for over a few seconds for a train to pass that it would get little readership.
Jock Ellis

[Anonymous]

uzurpator, why would it not be comparable? Locos have parasitic loads, aux generators, compressors, waterpumps (big ones) too. Both machines are using the same type of fuel to move freight. Wind resistance and all factors apply. And don't kid yourself, you can feel the wind resistance of the containers, m/t coal cars, etc. on a train. A locos HP is also rated at the crank as well. On the RR a gallon of diesel will move more tonnage than on the hiway. that's why a carload of commodity will ship for approximately what one semi load of the same commodity will ship for. A carload of grain will net around 100 tons +or-. Also, we aren't supposed use 3 big jacks all cut in on a 5000 ton drag unless we wanted to chat with the RFE. We have a HPT schedule to comply with and the newer locos can be tracked by the eye in the sky in Ft. Worth to see which are cut in, etc. You can't win this debate. Rolling on steel is more effecient than on rubber.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

That statement tells me several things about this person or persons.

1/ They know jack $%#$ about anything having to do with rail for starters.

2/ They are using rail as a scape-goat for their own agenda and not considering others. A typical selfish response from someone who obviously has nothing better to do than complain and engage in negative smearing likely.

3/ They are probably stupid and don't are are incapable of using logic. Any intelligent person who has read studies or for that matter looked at the roads can tell you that trucks cause increase wear on the roads and so having a rail user will reduce costs to the taxpayer. It is also more space efficient to have a single track line go through town then a double or quadruple lane road for truck use. It is even better because unlike a road, the rail upkeep is up to the railroad and not average Joe-taxpayer. The more roads you have and more trucks using existing road, add to maintainance cost and also decrease amount of land available for development.

4/ Trucks are archaic, they only carry one or two loads per 28 to 57 feet in length. The only reason why they exist still is because sometimes they are cheaper, easier and quicker then rail but not always. They certainly don't do wonders for industries that requires large quantities or bulk commodities either for importing or exporting.

I wi***he government would undertake in a rail awearness program for basic understanding of the railroad. They do it for safety (Operation Lifesaver) why don't they do so people would be more educated and informed about the benefits of a railroad?

Your point is well made, but let's do keep a bit of decorum in the forum.

[dldance]

just got back from a trip between Austin and Dallas and it looks like the new freeway interchange at Hillsborough - where 35E and 35W split is having all the rock and gravel hauled in by train - so even highways come by train!

dd

[daveklepper]

It is a lot faster and more efficient to unload a container ship directly to container flat cars on the dock and have strings of these cars pulled out when loaded and replaced by empty strings (reverse for loading the ship) than any kind of ship to truck transfer.

[spbed]

How about all the chemicals shipped by rail that are not on our Hways & Bways? [:D]

[Anonymous]

ironken: they are not directly comparable because the physics is different. Locomotive engines are rated at generatorm shaft minus parasitic loads. SD40 dishes something about 3300-3400 hp, but is rated at 3000 hp - of which about 2600 actually reaches the rails.

As Highiron shoowed that the dynamics of a truck is simply different.

[BaltACD]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edbenton

I know for a Fact the Coors brewary in Memphis TN recives all of there water via train in tank cars the recive on avarage 35 a day. The reason I know this is I used to haul the finished product out of there and while waiting to load would see the BNSF bring cuts of tankers marked CORX into the brewary. One time I asked the train crew what was in those same cars and was told all it is is rocky mountain spring water.

Saw a news article yesterday that Coors will be closing the Memphis Brewery in 2007, there goes the water shipments.