Out walking last night I got to see an empty Dakota & Iowa Railroad train roll by. It was a unit train of empty rock cars heading home from Sioux City iowa to homebase at the quarry in Dell Rapids S.D. Right behind the 4 locomotives were 2 loaded tank cars. I deduced that they were probably hauling diesel fuel for the railroad. I presume that any good sized shortline railroad would consume enough diesel fuel to warrant shipping it in by rail. That makes sense. On average, the D&I uses 4-5 old Geeps and SD-40s to haul 2 unit trains of rock about 110 miles out and empties back home every day. Adding in the work trains in the yard to put together trains and such, how much fuel could a railroad of that size go through in month? Any thoughts?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy,
This is VERY rough. May vary a bunch if average grade is ascending. I will assume average flat but actually rolling (undulating) grade.
Your 110 car train will weigh 14,450 tons assuming fully loaded nominal 100 ton cars, 263,000 gross weight on rail. That means your SD 40 is rated at not less than 7,250 tons, which implies maximum grade against the loads of about .5%, a nice line in terms of grade.
I will assume 25 MPH which is about 5 hours travel time. Add 1 hour to load, one to unload and one to run around and switch out bad order cars. Have 5 hours under heavy load, 5 hours light load, and 3 hours basically run 1. Somewhat arbitrarily I will assume 100 GPH per unit heavy load, 50 GPH light load and 25 GPH Run 1. Actual consumption rate as function of throttle is available but since the duty cycle is a guess, I did not bother to look it up.
With SD 40 per unit, we have 5x100, plus 5x50, plus 3x25 or 825 gallons per unit per trip. Two units 1,650 gallons per trip.
With Geeps you have smaller engines but more of them. Horsepower hours will be in same ballpark so assume 4 geeps have same fuel consumption as two SD 40s, another 1,650 gallons per trip, or 3,300 gallons per day.
It would take 7.5 working days to go through a 25,000 gallon tank car, or about 8 for a 28,000 gallon car. If the RR saves 10 cents per gallon that is $330 per day. That will buy about three new wood ties installed per work day.
Mac
Much more data is needed to provide a better estimate than Mac has above.
Aside from the distance you've provided, most important is about how long those locomotives are running in each throttle position. That in turn depends mainly on the grade(s) and/or the rises and falls of the profile over that distance; curve resistance would also be a minor factor, as is the speed at each location.
Once those are known - Al Krug's calculator may be helpful ( http://hm.evilgeniustech.com/alkrug.vcn.com/rrfacts/RRForcesCalc.html ) - then you can start figuring throttle positions and fuel usage. Again, Al has provided some useful webpages with good data for that:
For many models of locomotive: http://hm.evilgeniustech.com/alkrug.vcn.com/rrfacts/fueluse.htm
For SD40's specifically: http://hm.evilgeniustech.com/alkrug.vcn.com/rrfacts/fuelSD40.htm
- PDN.
Murphy SidingRight behind the 4 locomotives were 2 loaded tank cars. I deduced that they were probably hauling diesel fuel for the railroad.
Maybe they were buffer cars to protect the locomotives from the rock cars.
But seriously, shouldn't there be a buffer car between the locomotive and the tank cars? Could they have been carrying something other than fuel?
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Dang! I read the thread title and thought there was going to be a party in SD.
Norm
I thought buffer cars were only required on units trains of flammable stuff?
It's certainly possible that the tank cars had something else in them. The only other tank car traffic further up the line would have been maybe fertilizer to either of the small elevators up the line. I just figured diesel fuel because that seemed like the only thing anybody would need in quantity up the line. Thanks to Mac’s figures above, it looks like they use perhaps 40-50 carloads a year. The fertilizer might be a carload a year to each elevator. Who knows, since there was 2 cars together, maybe that was this year’s shipment?
Norm48327 Dang! I read the thread title and thought there was going to be a party in SD.
Murphy Siding Norm48327 Dang! I read the thread title and thought there was going to be a party in SD. I said "What's your sign?"She said "Aquarium."I said "Me too! Let's get tanked!"
Norm48327 Dang! I read the thread title and thought there was going to be a party in SD. I said "What's your sign?"She said "Aquarium."I said "Me too! Let's get tanked!"
Dang! I read the thread title and thought there was going to be a party in SD. I said "What's your sign?"She said "Aquarium."I said "Me too! Let's get tanked!"
Somethin' sounds fishy there. Or was Froggy Courtin'?
Aren't you supposed to say, "Yur Wlcome" after you get "Tanked"?
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
Diesel fuel is combustible so I believe it does not need buffer cars. If they were carrying diesel fuel they should have been placarded 1202 or 1993.
Besides quantity of fuel used another factor is distance to the nearest pipeline terminal. Both UP and BNSF probably use more fuel around here than D&I but refuel their locomotives from trucks since the yards are close to a pipeline terminal.
"No soup for you!" - Yev Kassem (from Seinfeld)
If there is a pipeline terminal 25 miles from the D&I homebase, would that suggest that it would be more cost efficient to ship it in by truck?
Murphy Siding If there is a pipeline terminal 25 miles from the D&I homebase, would that suggest that it would be more cost efficient to ship it in by truck?
That would be my guess. Take a look at satellite photographs of the terminal. If there are no tank car loading facilities, it is probably almost guaranteed they get fuel by truck but there are almost always exceptions.
Are they using biodiesel?
ericsp Diesel fuel is combustible so I believe it does not need buffer cars. If they were carrying diesel fuel they should have been placarded 1202 or 1993. Besides quantity of fuel used another factor is distance to the nearest pipeline terminal. Both UP and BNSF probably use more fuel around here than D&I but refuel their locomotives from trucks since the yards are close to a pipeline terminal.
1203 is flammable
1993 is combustable
both are diesel fuel
Randy
1203 is gasoline, NOT diesel fuel. Taken from the "little orange book" (Emergency Response Guidebook).
Diesel fuel is 1202.
1202 is gasoline that has been mixed with water normally you get that from old storage tanks that are being removed from an abandoned gas station when they do tank removals and have to suction out any gas in the tank. 1187 is denatured alchohal or how they ship ethanoal long distances in a tank car or trailer. 1993 is for all grades of fuel oil. 1203 is for gasoline of all types. Oh yeah however the one you never want to go bang around you is a 1075 LPG tank car. However the ones marked poison gas would be the ones that do scare me the most and we do handle crap like that on a regular basis.
I typed 1202 (diesel fuel, fuel oil, gas oil, or heating oil), not 1203 (gasoline).
The 2012 ERG does not list any kind of gasoline as 1202.
Also, denatured alcohol is 1987, not 1187.
Shadow the Cats owner1202 is gasoline that has been mixed with water normally you get that from old storage tanks that are being removed from an abandoned gas station when they do tank removals and have to suction out any gas in the tank.
Where in God's name do you get this? It certainly wasn't the Orange Book.
1202 has been a 'fuel oil' code since forever (note that this can apply to even bottom grades of fuel oil, from #1 or #2 diesel right to #6 residual). It has nothing whatsoever to do with gasoline (1203), admixed or not.
1187 is denatured alcohol or how they ship ethanol long distances in a tank car or trailer.
1187 is deprecated in my version of the book. Denatured (modern) alcohol would be 1987, "alcohol not otherwise specified" and it has nothing to do with "ethanol" being shipped over any particular distance; in fact, it would likely not be ethanol at all (which is 1170) but isopropyl (rubbing) alcohol. Denaturing refers to adding a chemical such as denatonium benzoate that makes the substance extremely unpalatable. (Note that if methanol were being added as the denaturant, as was common for ethyl alcohol during Prohibition, the placard would have to be 1986, as the result would be a toxic methemoglobinuria hazard.)
1993 is for all grades of fuel oil.
I am beginning to think that the use of 1993 for "fuel oil" (it is nominally a catchall for flammable liquid, just as 1992 is for toxic flammable liquid) is related to whether it is flammable vs. combustible. Some light Bakken crude oil in unit trains might have a flash point in the flammable range (100F or below) and not combustible like the usual diesel/gas oil (100-200F) and therefore IDing it as a fuel stock with lower-than-normal-fuel-oil flashpoint might explain some of the 'double coding'.
Tree68 or one of the others familiar with the practical use of these codes will know more about the 1202-1993 difference ... whatever it is.
I can't say that I've ever encountered 1202 on the road or on rails. Searching for "fuel oil" in the ERG (2016 edition) on my phone gives 1993 and 1202 as possible ID's, but I suspect 1993 is generally used.
1203 is usually used for gasoline, and it's also listed as gasohol, motor spirit, and petrol in the ERG.
You'll often see 1993 used for local fuel delivery trucks, where they might be carrying fuel oil, kerosene, and maybe even gasoline in the various compartments. It's kind of a catch-all ID.
1187 doesn't come up on my phone. The hard copy of the ERG (also 2016) is out in the truck, so I'll just go with what the phone tells me.
IIRC, ethanol by rail is usually placarded as 1987. Seems like I've heard that it is denatured using gasoline. In those quantities, it's going to get mixed with gasoline anyhow, so that's perfect.
Found this link that explains it all very nicely...
http://www.ndpetroleum.org/Document.aspx?Id=52
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
tree68I can't say that I've ever encountered 1202 on the road or on rails. Searching for "fuel oil" in the ERG (2016 edition) on my phone gives 1993 and 1202 as possible ID's, but I suspect 1993 is generally used.
The link you provided explains it nicely (with a little additional reference). 1202 is the UN (United Nations ECOSOC) code; 1993 is the NA (North American) code. (It might be interesting to speculate whether there is intent to phase in 1202 for 1993 as the years go by and the hand of globalism, Agenda 21 and whatnot reaches out further. Perhaps same as we transitioned out 'ethyl alcohol' in favor of IUPAC 'ethanol')
ethanol by rail is usually placarded as 1987. Seems like I've heard that it is denatured using gasoline. In those quantities, it's going to get mixed with gasoline anyhow ...
Again in the link you provided, the UN and NA codes for up to 5% gasoline denaturant in alcohol are code 1987, but the specific UN code for gasohol, 3475, can be applied even to very low (the document specifically references "up to 5% Gasoline Content) admixtures of gasoline in alcohol, the logical purpose of which would be to save on 'bitterant' by using gasoline (effectively!) as ethanol denaturant. Here again the PHMSA puts the distinction solely in the description ("Ethanol and Gasoline Mixture, 3, PGII)
Note that we only go to placarding ethanol mixtures as UN 1203 from E-10 down (in other words, 90% or more gasoline). (Most gasoline going to service stations is 10% ethanol, so it makes a certain sense to have E-10 procedures be those for straight gasoline formulations in practice from a responder's standpoint, right?)
PHMSA saw no need to give a special code callout to anything between E-20 and E-85 (I don't think any of those are used in extensive practical commerce); those are all probably 3475, and it would be interesting to find a reference or policy document that indicates precisely where 3475 would fringe over or transition to 1987 at 95% or greater EtOH. I suspect that the procedure for 1987 is likely to be less rigorous than that for 3475, so that would be more than mere semantics.
For the record, there is no practical distinction in the UN or NA code used for biodiesel in any admixture (1202 and 1993 respectively), with the exception that the description (not the placard code) becomes "diesel fuel solution" or "gas oil solution" instead of just diesel fuel or gas oil when the biodiesel content is over B-5. Again, it would be interesting to know if there is a practical difference in the way 'diesel fuel' and 'diesel fuel solution' would be handled when encountered.
Whose job is it to decide which is the correct placard to display, and who physically puts it on a tank car?
RMEFor the record, there is no practical distinction in the UN or NA code used for biodiesel in any admixture (1202 and 1993 respectively), with the exception that the description (not the placard code) becomes "diesel fuel solution" or "gas oil solution" instead of just diesel fuel or gas oil when the biodiesel content is over B-5. Again, it would be interesting to know if there is a practical difference in the way 'diesel fuel' and 'diesel fuel solution' would be handled when encountered.
One simple method is to look at the guide referenced for a given substance. In this case, both 1202 and 1993, as well as 1203, all use guide 128. So from my frame of reference as a responding firefighter, they all get handled the same.
Ethanol, in its various forms, uses guide 127.
Both are the same for evacuation, etc.
Guide 127 calls for alcohol resistant foams, guide 128 does not (AFFF is fine).
Murphy Siding Whose job is it to decide which is the correct placard to display, and who physically puts it on a tank car?
The shipper must classify his material for all modes. By rail, the shipper applies placards.
Mac McCulloch
PNWRMNM Murphy Siding Whose job is it to decide which is the correct placard to display, and who physically puts it on a tank car? The shipper must classify his material for all modes. By rail, the shipper applies placards. Mac McCulloch
Big fines can be levied if contents are identified or placarded improperly.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
RME Again in the link you provided, the UN and NA codes for up to 5% gasoline denaturant in alcohol are code 1987, but the specific UN code for gasohol, 3475, can be applied even to very low (the document specifically references "up to 5% Gasoline Content) admixtures of gasoline in alcohol, the logical purpose of which would be to save on 'bitterant' by using gasoline (effectively!) as ethanol denaturant. Here again the PHMSA puts the distinction solely in the description ("Ethanol and Gasoline Mixture, 3, PGII) Note that we only go to placarding ethanol mixtures as UN 1203 from E-10 down (in other words, 90% or more gasoline). (Most gasoline going to service stations is 10% ethanol, so it makes a certain sense to have E-10 procedures be those for straight gasoline formulations in practice from a responder's standpoint, right?) PHMSA saw no need to give a special code callout to anything between E-20 and E-85 (I don't think any of those are used in extensive practical commerce); those are all probably 3475, and it would be interesting to find a reference or policy document that indicates precisely where 3475 would fringe over or transition to 1987 at 95% or greater EtOH. I suspect that the procedure for 1987 is likely to be less rigorous than that for 3475, so that would be more than mere semantics.
I'd also wonder how clean the EtOH would have to be to get the 1170 classification. It does make a bit of sense to classify "pure" ethanol (contains nothing but EtOH and water) differently from denatured alcohol. 100ppm of ethanol in water would likely be perfectly safe to drink (0.01%), where 5ppm of gasolene would be cause for concern.
My chem major co-workers have mentioned that any ethanol with less than 5% water by volume is likely to have some rather nasty stuff left over from the de-watering process.
erikemI'd also wonder how clean the EtOH would have to be to get the 1170 classification.
I doubt you're going to see "pure" ethanol in carload quantities. I don't know that you'd find it in truckload quantities - other than perhaps barrels in a box truck.
If it was "pure" ethanol, I suspect you'd encounter vandalism. Ever heard of "Everclear?"
Some years back I went on a tour of an ethanol plant in Mason City, Iowa (out by Flint siding for you UP railroaders). Of course the topic of moonshine and drinking the product produced at the plant came up. Our host mentioned that the stuff was denatured with unleaded gasoline before shipping, but that the un-denatured product was no good for drinking anyway as it still had some aldehydes that cause some nasty hangovers. For beverage use ethanol is refined further to remove the aldehydes and other non-ethanol compounds.
Kurt Hayek
RME For the record, there is no practical distinction in the UN or NA code used for biodiesel in any admixture (1202 and 1993 respectively), with the exception that the description (not the placard code) becomes "diesel fuel solution" or "gas oil solution" instead of just diesel fuel or gas oil when the biodiesel content is over B-5. Again, it would be interesting to know if there is a practical difference in the way 'diesel fuel' and 'diesel fuel solution' would be handled when encountered.
The reason why I asked about biodiesel is that I see many tank cars with logos for biodiesel around here (none have placards). I suspect it may not be suitable for shipment by pipeline. If so, it is much more likely that the tank cars could have been carrying fuel for the railroad (or perhaps quarry) than if they are using diesel.
I would suspect it's more a consideration of quantity of use, and the sources of biodiesel vs conventional fuel.
At this point, moving biodiesel in the quantities needed may just be getting up to the point that even tank cars are needed, vs highway tankers.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.