A few years ago Great laker/Seaway Review magazine did an article on the costs financially and environmentally to ship a given item on the Great Lakes via lake boat, train or truck. The numbers/ratios of fuel use/btu's per ton mile were similar to what has been previously mentioned. Essentially water ways where available are cleaner and more fuel efficient than trains and trucks are the worst. No one has mentioned air shipping let alone lighter than air movement of goods. I say, lets get along with the water boys and get the trucks off the roads!
Railway Man Decline in the domestic water traffic has a large component due to the low-hanging fruit being plucked. In a developing economy, resource extraction and industry initially concentrates where the resources are the richest, the population is first centered, and the transportation in between the cheapest. Thus many of the first coal, iron ore, row crop, and forestry resources first attacked were as close to water as possible. An illustrative example was the first-pass trees extracted from the Puget Sound watershed, which quite literally were the trees that when cut down would fall directly into the water, resulting after a short time of a sort of bathtub ring around the sound. Next, the timber industry went after the trees that could be easily dragged downhill into the water, then the trees that could be carried by rail to tidewater, and so forth, ever further back into the hills, until eventually the haul to water was so far that the total land-water haul cost was so circuitous that it became cheaper to forgo the water portion altogether. Looking now from the perspective of 200 years of industrial-level resource extraction in the U.S., the problem from the domestic water point of view is that much of the traffic it once hauled no longer exists in absolute terms (the coal or ore has been mined, or the forests cut-over), and since it was a simple, low-cost technology to begin with, there's very little opportunity to change technologies or reduce costs to compete with all-rail via longer truck or rail hauls from source to water. Also, the large industrial base once centered around the Great Lakes and the upper Ohio-Illinois rivers has both dispersed throughout the U.S., following population growth and economic development elsewhere, and declined in overall volume as the demand for steel per capita has declined. Since the water bodies can't shift location, or repurpose themselves as readily as rail can shift between commodities and shipment size, water transportation declines. This is not to take away from what Greyhounds has said about rate reductions since rail deregulation. What deregulation accomplished was not so much as to take traffic away from water, as to enable rail to solicit new traffic that never would have been available to domestic water to begin with. That was the fundamental concept that Washington understood in 1980, which is how Congress could turn back protests against rail deregulation from the domestic water industry. Where it's a head-to-head competition from a source near water and a destination near water, and the water is deep enough, and the lock tolls few in number and size, water transportation will usually get the business. But those sorts of O-D pairs are declining, and so long as rail transportation isn't crippled by rate regulation designed to protect the poorly located shipper against the competition of the well-located shipper, then the trend will continue. RWM
Decline in the domestic water traffic has a large component due to the low-hanging fruit being plucked. In a developing economy, resource extraction and industry initially concentrates where the resources are the richest, the population is first centered, and the transportation in between the cheapest. Thus many of the first coal, iron ore, row crop, and forestry resources first attacked were as close to water as possible. An illustrative example was the first-pass trees extracted from the Puget Sound watershed, which quite literally were the trees that when cut down would fall directly into the water, resulting after a short time of a sort of bathtub ring around the sound. Next, the timber industry went after the trees that could be easily dragged downhill into the water, then the trees that could be carried by rail to tidewater, and so forth, ever further back into the hills, until eventually the haul to water was so far that the total land-water haul cost was so circuitous that it became cheaper to forgo the water portion altogether.
Looking now from the perspective of 200 years of industrial-level resource extraction in the U.S., the problem from the domestic water point of view is that much of the traffic it once hauled no longer exists in absolute terms (the coal or ore has been mined, or the forests cut-over), and since it was a simple, low-cost technology to begin with, there's very little opportunity to change technologies or reduce costs to compete with all-rail via longer truck or rail hauls from source to water.
Also, the large industrial base once centered around the Great Lakes and the upper Ohio-Illinois rivers has both dispersed throughout the U.S., following population growth and economic development elsewhere, and declined in overall volume as the demand for steel per capita has declined. Since the water bodies can't shift location, or repurpose themselves as readily as rail can shift between commodities and shipment size, water transportation declines.
This is not to take away from what Greyhounds has said about rate reductions since rail deregulation. What deregulation accomplished was not so much as to take traffic away from water, as to enable rail to solicit new traffic that never would have been available to domestic water to begin with. That was the fundamental concept that Washington understood in 1980, which is how Congress could turn back protests against rail deregulation from the domestic water industry. Where it's a head-to-head competition from a source near water and a destination near water, and the water is deep enough, and the lock tolls few in number and size, water transportation will usually get the business. But those sorts of O-D pairs are declining, and so long as rail transportation isn't crippled by rate regulation designed to protect the poorly located shipper against the competition of the well-located shipper, then the trend will continue.
RWM
Yep.
Coal to power Chicago used to come up the Illinois River by barge. Now it comes out of Wyoming and there just ain't no barges going to Wyoming. Things changed and the barges couldn't change with 'em. Somebody moved the cheese.
In any event, while talking to my very accomplished farmer friend (See the current ethanol thread for a brief bio.) I was informed that "A Loop" was being installed near Macomb, IL. "A Loop" aparently is farmer talk for a shuttle train grain loading facility. This fact tells us something.
Macomb, IL is home of Western Illinois University (The "Leathernecks") and is located approximatly equidistant between the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. Both rivers have been dredged, damed and locked by the Federal government and convey commercial barge traffic. Macomb is right around 40 miles from the Mississippi River grain terminal at Keokuk, IA and the same distance from the Illinois River grain terminal at Havana, IL. Before the loosening of rail rate regulation (barge rates were not regulated) it would have been beyond belief that the railroads could haul significant amounts of grain (Illinois being known for its grain production.) out of an area this close to a commercially navigable river. The government simply wouldn't allow it. The Feds protected the barges by holding rail rates high. It's better now. The farmers can reach new markets and the railroads can compete for the grain. The "Loop" will be on the BNSF.
On another front, there was a steel mill on the east side of the Mississippi near St. Louis. It was an early casualty of the current economic unpleasantness. But before it shut down it drew its iron ore from Minnesota. The iron rode the BNSF all the way to St. Louis. It rolled right alongside the mighty Mississippi from St. Paul to St. Louis. The railroad could compete with the barge rates. This wouldn't have been allowed under strict regulation and the ore would have gone into something that floats as soon as possible.
I agree that much of the decline in waterborne freight has been the result of shifts in production that the barges can not accomodate. I also maintain that much of the decline in waterborne freight has been the result of deregulation which has allowed the railroads to compete for this tonnage.
We all benifit from the change. Let's hope it doesn't change back. From what I'm hearing, I don't believe we're going back to the dark ages of price regulation. (There will be execptions!) But with politicians you never know.
.
Frankly, I found yesterday's obscenity easier on my mind than the wisdom of all the new posts today!
Draft #2 of letter-to-the-editor:
"Dear Mr. Wrinn,
Don Phillips' article is an over-simplification of a complex issue."
"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood." Daniel Burnham
A concern I have in how the article caculates railroad fuel efficientcy. Does drayage and container lifts count? In 1980 there would have been alot more switching of boxcars then todays 10%. Also more branch lines for pickup/delivery wich would both have increased fuel consumtion by railroads.
Dray and lift are both part of a rail shipment and must consume fuel. Is the truck delivery of containers count as railroad fuel or truck fuel ? This matters even though we are comparing to barges, because this may make the railrod look more fuel efficient then it realy is.
Alan Robinson and greyhounds - Thanks for restating my point reluctantly acknowledging the inherent energy efficiency of barges, and too many locks & dams negating that efficiency, in ways that make it far clearer and concrete than I did with my generalized statement.
greyhounds - Thanks much ! for the link to that report. (But I won't let on that I was unaware of it until now . . . ) The good news; Lots of interesting new reading material. The bad news: Not much time for it, either.
From the Table that you handily referenced, here's a summary:
In 1980, rail and domestic water had about the same share - 27 % each - of the total ton-miles - 3.404 Million T-M (that's the figure that's in the Table, but I'm sure that another "000" was inadvertently omitted and that it should be Billion instead).
By 2005, the total T-M had increased 33 % to 4.538 Million (same qualification), of which the rails had 38 %, but the barges had decreased - both in absolute and relative terms - to only 13 % = about 1/3 of the rails' volume.
- Paul North.
It is important to know that domestic waterborne ton miles have declined greatly since 1980. See table ES-1 if you've a mind to. (Just look for table "ES-1" on page "ES-7")
http://www.lrca.com/railroadstudy/Executive_Summary.pdf
During that same period, both rail and truck ton miles increased significantly.
Not only were the barges being subsidized, they were being protected from railroad competition by Federal economic regulators who held rail rates artificially high. When the regulations were relaxed beginning around 1980 the railroads were able to take a lot of freight off the rivers.
Some river systems, such as the Mississippi south of St. Louis, are wonderful, natural, highly efficient transport systems. But when you have to put 25 or so locks and dams between St. Louis and St. Paul you've lost that efficiency.
If one alters a river system, or constructs an artificial canal, to permit barge transportation on a virtually still (non-flowing) body of water, the transportation cost can indeed be low. This is because doing so relieves the barge operator of the necessity of overcoming the energy requirement of surmounting the grade. The still water of a canal or the backwater behind a dam allows the barge to proceed with no grade penalty. The work of lifting the barge and its cargo is done for "free" by the work of the water flowing in the lock itself. This is equivalent of removing all the resistance of the railroad (or the truck, for that matter) that is due to grade.
We all know that a dead level railroad could haul a tremendous freight load at high speed with relatively modest energy input. But real-life railroads have to pay the penalty of surmounting grade themselves. They receive no subsidy from anyone for doing so. If the barge operator had to actually pay for the full cost of the canal or the dam and lock structure, and add that to the fuel costs the barge operator now pays, there would be no contest in terms of the total cost of transportation.
Don't get me started on the subsidies that airlines receive because they don't pay for the cost of airports and only partially pay for the cost of the air traffic control system.
Concerning the comments about railroads taxes going toward the building of locks and dams. In NJ in the 1940s and 50s' the NJ Association of Railroads charged that they were being taxed unfairly because roads like the NJ Turnpike were built on thier properties and then they were taxed for having improved properties!
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
Bruce Kelly mentions "clean power generation," but that's another complex issue: I have a hard time accepting that damming rivers is "green and renewable" (as my local electric power cooperative contends). There was a study that found salmon in the Fraser River, which has no dams, were not as healthy as salmon from the Columbia, but it was more of a comment on levels of pollution in the former than dams in the latter. Just from looking at what dams do to rivers and the countryside, I think they are environmentally unfriendly. But then again, given half a chance and opposable thumbs, who knows what kinds of structures the salmon would build...
And then there's the highways which accompany the dams. I can think of the North Cascade Highway, in conjunction with Seattle City Light's dams on the Skagit River, as an example; although it is not frequently used by trucks so it does not take away railway freight...
You're right, I didn't make the connection or correlation between railroads' taxes and the funding of the Lock & Dam projects, but I wouldn't rule that out, either. My thought was more along the lines of, "If it takes that much of an alteration or disruption to the river system for the barge to seem to be more energy-efficient, is it then still really so ? Or is that an artificially-induced perception or illusion, by not counting all of the energy and effects that go into the final product ?" Either way, it seesm that we both have an aversion to ignoring the large-scale L&D projects, as they are a necessary and inescapable component to the purported fuel-efficiency of most barges.
Your rationale of the letter as a constructive criticism of the editorial function, process, and output is "Right on !". Now let's see if they'll disclose why they thought that essay was appropriate or something we needed to know as "The Truth."
Thanks for your efforts in that regard, as I was kind of having trouble choking that one down, too.
First, to carnej1, I am sort of "betwixt and between" because I indeed have a great deal of respect for Mr. Phillips, for the reason you mention. And to Tomcat09, whose "illustrative" comment has been removed, I welcome your written opinions.
To Mr. North, one additional point is that, at the time modern locks and dams were built, railroads were a major source of tax revenue for our government. Railroads subsidized barges. This is one reason it is painful for me to concede that trains are not the "champions of fuel efficiency."
I view a letter to the editor as constructive criticism of the editing of a publication. (Many view such letters as a forum for whatever they want to say.) So part of what I want to say is, "Why did you ask Mr. Phillips to write this article?"
Instead, I suggest revising it to add "freight transportation and", so that it reads:
" . . . how our government invests in freight transportation and passenger transportation because of . . . "
Though I'm not sure which uses more fuel/ energy in the aggregate - passenger or freight - the concern is the same. Qualitatively, government invests in freight at least to roughly the same extent as passenger. The instant example - barges - is one: They're all for freight - none carry passengers.
Though it pains me to concede it, there may be a place for barges in the transportation system network where they have a clear advantage over railroads, such as where the waterway is navigable without needing huge Corps of Engineers "Lock & Dam" projects or out-of-basin diversions of water, etc., as on the lower Ohio and Mississippi Rivers, etc. In such cases government investment may be appropriate as the optimal taking advantage of the efficiency of each mode of freight transportation, which will ultimately maximize the benefit to society. In the end, isn't that what we all really want ?
Uhh, perhaps I should revise this and leave out comments on passenger rail?
Maglev How's this? "Dear Mr. Wrinn, The subtitle in July 2009 Trains, "Railroads are the champions of fuel efficiency: FALSE" (by Don Phillips, p. 31), is only correct in a very limited sense, mainly because barges serve limited markets. Fuel efficiency per se is a minor factor when a shipper decides how to move freight. However, efficiency should be a factor in deciding how our government invests in passenger transportation because of the political, social, and environmental implications of fossil fuel dependency."
How's this?
The subtitle in July 2009 Trains, "Railroads are the champions of fuel efficiency: FALSE" (by Don Phillips, p. 31), is only correct in a very limited sense, mainly because barges serve limited markets. Fuel efficiency per se is a minor factor when a shipper decides how to move freight. However, efficiency should be a factor in deciding how our government invests in passenger transportation because of the political, social, and environmental implications of fossil fuel dependency."
Maglev,
Given that Don Phillips and yourself seem to hold similiar political views and positions on transportation issues do you really want to criticize his column to the Magazine's editor? Just asking...
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
The loudest screams about slurry pipelines have been their adverse impact on water availability/use. The local Native Americans were complaining that the slurry line from the Black Mesa mine was using up groundwater that they wanted to keep on their land. Likewise, the biggest negative brought up when that Powder River-to-Arkansas slurry pipeline was being discussed was the screams from the communities farther down the Missouri River. They saw it as a diversion of their irrigation water, and even made the claim that moving coal was just an excuse for shipping water to Arkansas!
The absolutely most efficient form of transportation is by water, and the bigger the ship, the more efficient it is. HOWEVER, I don't believe that I'll ever see a post-Panamax container ship cruising through the Mojave Desert to dock at Las Vegas. I'm equally sure that I'll never see a towboat pushing a string of barges along the Colorado River. Therefore, the only competitor to rail traffic here in Sin City is running on rubber tires, and the railroad wins that fuel efficiency contest hands down.
Chuck
Kootenay Central Pertaining to above. Here is a photo of one of the three-track Proctor barges with one of two MLW FA2s that hit a snow slide and slid into deep water in 1956. http://www.basininstitute.org/home/search/details.html?id=13225 Steam Tug 'Grant Hall' along side.
Pertaining to above.
Here is a photo of one of the three-track Proctor barges with one of two MLW FA2s that hit a snow slide and slid into deep water in 1956.
http://www.basininstitute.org/home/search/details.html?id=13225
Steam Tug 'Grant Hall' along side.
Was there a time when a train and crew would be gone for a week making the rounds of this and other barge operations? I have a memory of an account of such a trip by E. M. Frimbo.
Johnny
If I recall correctly, Kennecott Copper has an ore slurry pipeline from the Bingham mine to the smelter in Magna. This replaced haulage on KCC's line (which was a 3KV DC electrification) - the pole line for the catenary was still standing in 1995-96 when I working on a contract at ATK's Bacchus plant.
Murphy Siding Are there coal slurry pipelines out there? I know they made the news in the early 80's, with the railroads opposing a coal slurry pipeline from the Powder River Basin to Arkansas. I thought the idea died then.
Are there coal slurry pipelines out there? I know they made the news in the early 80's, with the railroads opposing a coal slurry pipeline from the Powder River Basin to Arkansas. I thought the idea died then.
There were two commercial coal slurry pipelines in the U.S.:
There are/were also slurry pipelines in the U.S. carrying phosphate ore (Vernal, Utah, to Green River, Wyoming, in operation), limestone rock (Calaveras, California), and gilsonite (Bonanza, Utah, to Mack, Colorado). There are dozens elsewhere in the world carrying iron ore, uranium ore, bauxite, copper ore, and other minerals. The major deficit is high construction and operating cost, the requirement for a very substantial water source, and the issue of water treatment upon discharge. They are not in the U.S. competitive with rail for long distances except in areas where there is no rail system in place, and given the water appetite and environmental problems both from consuming that much water as well as the discharge treatment, they are probably not competitive with rail even then.
An interesting thought--almost all domestic and industrial water and wastewater moves by pipeline. Obviously, the quantity of a commodity being transported is a primary consideration. Certainly model train manufacturers do not consider using bulk barges or pipelines for domestic freight, although most of that stuff is imported from overseas by container ship!!
This whole "Barges vs. Trains" thing just seems to me like comparing apples to oranges. Industries choose the mode of transportation based on many economic factors; fuel efficiency is just one of many variables to consider (for reasons cited by Railwayman, post on 6-3-2009, 1:08 pm).
On the other hand, fuel efficiency should be considered separately for passenger transportation, because our government makes infrastructure decisions without regards to initial cost. (Why else would we spend $30 million on the Washington-British Columbia border "Peace Arch," while a second daily Vancouver to Seattle train is not running due to a $1,500 per train customs fee? $30 million would pay the fee for 20,000 trains!)
Although I have great respect for Don Phillips, soon I will condense the comments here into a "Letter to the Editor" of Trains...
Railway Man Pipeline energy efficiency varies wildly depending upon diameter, operating pressure, input energy source, terrain en route, and commodity(s) transported. The larger the diameter, the better the energy efficiency. 600-400 BTU/ton-mile is common for crude and refined petroleum products. Coal slurry pipelines are much worse, in excess of 1,200 BTU/ton-mile. RWM
Pipeline energy efficiency varies wildly depending upon diameter, operating pressure, input energy source, terrain en route, and commodity(s) transported. The larger the diameter, the better the energy efficiency. 600-400 BTU/ton-mile is common for crude and refined petroleum products. Coal slurry pipelines are much worse, in excess of 1,200 BTU/ton-mile.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
MaglevThe photo of a barge in the Trains article shows a (gas?) pipeline crossing the canal. Any comments on the fuel efficiency of pipelines? It would seem that if a comparison of trains and barges is warranted (despite the geographical limitations of barges), why not also compare pipelines (which can transport a very limited variety of commodities)?
The photo of a barge in the Trains article shows a (gas?) pipeline crossing the canal. Any comments on the fuel efficiency of pipelines? It would seem that if a comparison of trains and barges is warranted (despite the geographical limitations of barges), why not also compare pipelines (which can transport a very limited variety of commodities)?
Just as information, Caterpillar has exited the business of making engines for over the road trucks. Their last such engines were built around the end of February 2009,
Some of the new engines are certainly still avaialbe for purchase and installation, but no new ones are being produced. The manufacturing plant, north of Peoria, IL, was shut down a few days early due to sabotage.
How are you going to keep 40K gallons of PIG PEE from freezing in an outdoor storage tank. Pig pee is the SCR either Man Made or Natural that the engineers at Cat Cummins Detroit and the EPA have found that along with a diesel particulate Filter lowers the Emmisons out the stack of the Diesel engine by 98%. Trouble is it has a couple drawbacks. One is it STINKS about as bad as being sprayed by a skunk if you get any on you. Second it FREEZES at 55 degrees they have found and once it does will not work again. So how are the RR's going to keep it liquid when they are going to be buying it by the tankcar lot and the normal load for a truck is 6 gallons per 300 so were are the Engineeres going to shove 100 gallons of this were it can not freeze were the fuel pad crews will have easy acess to it and also WERE IT WILL NOT GET SPILLED.
edbenton You turn a Cat Cummins or Detroit 3-4000 RPM and all you have under your hood is a 4,000 LB BOMB wanting to GO OFF with you as its FIRST TARGET. Max RPM on an OTR motor is 2100 and that is PUSHING IT and you better be coming down hill or have a runaway governor. [snip]
edbenton - OK, thanks for making that clear enough. So it seems that truck RPM might be 2 x loco RPM, but no more.
But, since the loco cylinders are much larger = longer stroke, even at half the RPM they have to cover a much longer distance - probably more than twice as much - per stroke or revolution, as the truck engine. In other words, the cylinder speed against the liner in ft./ sec. is probably the same or higher in the loco as in the truck. So as ed said, the lubrication and wear problems may well show up there too.
Unless, the various fuel additives - see the ads in every RR trade magazine - are effective to prevent that. Railroads would have an easier time with that, with only a few fueling facilities and small, well-managed fleets, as compared to tens of thousands of diesel truck stops.
- PDN.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.