Rails More Efficent Than Trucks or Planes in Transporting Cargo Domesticlly??

[miniwyo]

I am writing a paper for my english class argueing for rails on a topic of weather rails are better than other methods of transprotation of cargo domestically. I would like everyone's opinion.
Plaese answer the question as a YES or NO, and then if you would like you can make a staement on it, If you have any facts that you can post a link to those would be greatly appriciated!!

Thanks!!


Question:
In your opinion are rails more efficent in transprotinng cargo domestically opposed to trucks or planes?

[jockellis]

They are for shipments of over 1,000 miles but through continuing improvements of using trailers as the "railcars" themselves, they are shortening the distance in which they can be competitive. However, with normal shipments, what would take a day or so by truck might take as long as 11 days and 21 hours as I found out when visiting the BNSF railyard in Fort Worth, TX and saw the shipping form, or whatever it is called, on one car. The rising cost of diesel fuel, up 65% in a year, might also give the edge to railroads. Remember to use spellcheck when you turn in your report. If your library takes Trains magazine, you might read some old ones because the topic is a recurring one as trucks and trains vie for traffic.
Jock Ellis

[Overmod]

There is no YES or NO on this issue. Depends on what you're shipping, and when you want or need it, and how much you pay.

Are you and your destination on a railroad line? Are you shipping bulk commodities that are easy to load into standard rail vehicles? Do you need assured delivery within a relatively tight window of time?

And where is your discussion of barge and water traffic?

You also need to establish precisely what is meant by "efficient"? Is that energy-efficient? Cost-efficient (which can be a very, very different thing particularly when capital-intensive factors for railroads are factored in on a pro rata basis!)? A more 'preferable' option for shippers?

Trains are much more fuel-efficient per ton-mile than airplanes, and even for high-efficiency trucks. Some of that advantage goes away, however, if the number of miles the train runs to make delivery is substantially higher than the distance required for the plane or the truck -- particularly the truck. Likewise, if the cargo being transported is small and light, or inherently a LTL or multiple-location-dropoff shipment, there are advantages to trucking.

Trains are generally NOT as fuel-efficient per ton-mile as barge tows or even fast ocean shipping. Note that while they have a nominal speed advantage, this quickly gets eaten up by yarding delays. It's simple to say that because there's little friction resistance on the railroad, and one crew can handle hundreds of loads, that mode is inherently more 'efficient' than other land modes. But that wouldn't be a fair assessment of the truth of the transportation industry...

[miniwyo]

ok, let me clarify this, when i say efficent i mea all round, i.e. fuel, time, cost, and any other factors.

I am not including barges nauticla shipping as that is not really avalable everywhere, as here in wyoming where all we have is trucking rails, and planes.

and i never forget to use spell checker, i just wish i could use one on here.

Thanks!

[Anonymous]

What Overmod says is largely true. To grossly oversimplify consider the following:

1. Most railroad cars carry 3 to 4 or more times the volume of a truck for the same commodity.

2. The average cost of trucking a single long distance truck shipment (truckload) is only slightly less than the cost of shipping a rail car between the same two points. There are many factors that can affect this such as routings, highway and rail access, etc, but as I said this is a gross overgeneralization.

3. Most railroad hauls begin to lose the competition with a truck in hauls under 300 miles or so.

4. Bulk materials tend to be more rail friendly.

So, essentially, bulk materials, especially those moving over 300 miles and/or in unit train movements are much more efficient than the equivalent trucking. If water transportation is available on the same route, it will be more efficent in terms of cost but will take significantly longer.

I'm not even gonna touch intermodal...

LC

[PNWRMNM]

Miniwyo,

You need to be very clear about the difference between efficient and effective.

Effecient has to do with the amount of input and output. In transportation tonmiles is a common measure of output, ie number of tons multiplied by number of miles. If you think of a 200 container stack train with a two man crew that averages 30 MPH compared with 200 trucks and two hundred drivers at 60 MPH, holding net loads constant, you would say the railroad was 50 times more effecient than the trucks in terms of tonmiles per labor hour. This is far too simplistic however as it ignores the total labor input in each system. That train crew also has to support the rest of the railroad, don't hold me to it but there are at least another 10 railroad employees supporting that crew, a gypo turcker has almost no support. If that is true, you have 12 railroaders, not two, versus 200 truckers and the rail labor effeciency drops to 8:1.

To answer your question you would have to look along several measures of effeciency. Rail's big area of ineffeciency is in revenue to capital. It takes $3 of assets to generate $1 of revenue. Look at a motor carrier annual report, they probably reverse this ratio.

More important than effeciency is effectiveness. This an economic issue. Broad bru***ruckers are a lot more effective. That is why they gross ten times what the railroad industry does while producing half the ton miles. This means the truckers get an average of 20 times the revenue per ton mile that the railroads do. In general they get higher rates for a higher level of service. Shippers are willing to pay more for service that meets their economic needs. The reason that most manufactured items go truck is that neither shipper nor receiver have rail sidings (effectiveness) and the reason they dont is that rail service is so poor they went to truck decades ago (effectiveness again).

The smart railroads (BNSF and NS) know they are way behind on effeciveness and at least give lip service to improving service so they can advance the rates on their now improved product. CSXT and UP have to get their service up to at least poor before they can even start to talk about making it better. Believe me the customers know what kind of service they are getting. Problem is there are 100's of things in the carriers' way as they try to improve service. The railroads have a long tough row to hoe.

Mac

[Anonymous]

Miniwyo,

Here's a link that provides some data on relative fuel efficiency of unit trains vs trucks and barge (from the Iowa Grain Quality Initiative).....

http://www.extension.iastate.edu/Pages/grain/publications/buspub/baumel01.html

That should get you started with some solid references.

[Paul Milenkovic]

For hauling a bulk cargo, obviously a plane uses more fuel than a truck which use more fuel than a train that uses more fuel than a barge.

But what about a truck trailer on a piggyback flatcar? On level ground the dominant effect is aerodynamics. The aerodynamics of TOFC are not particularly favorable -- does anyone know any figures on this?

For passenger haulage, things get more complicated. People are a relatively lightweight yet space-consuming "cargo." I would hazard to say that a plane can do a bit better than just one person in a Toyota Camry, but it depends on the plane and the trip length. Also, jet engines have the "UP Big Blow effect" where they use a lot of fuel at idle, and those lines of planes waiting to take off at O'Hare cannot have a positive effect on airline fuel usage.

My guess is that a long distance train like the Empire Builder is about even with a comparable capacity jumbo jet flown from Chicago to Seattle. The Empire Builder has "heavyweight cars" (compared to European rolling stock of this era), it has to climb and descend mountain ranges, it has diners and sleeping cars, etc. But what about a commuter train -- one Diesel pulling 10 high-density seating commuter cars. It probably depends on the density of stops and how much power is required to accelerate the train.