BaltACDSo what do you back haul in a bulk commodity track back to the bulk commodity loading point besides air, in most cases. Maybe 1 in 100 can get some form of paying back haul.
Looking at some of the trains I see on the Deshler cam - coil cars, slab cars, auto racks, to name a few. Those cars are built to handle a specific commodity. Finding a reasonable backhaul for an open coil car will be a challenge.
Besides - many of those cars are in dedicated service. The EXWYEZEE Steel Company may not want to negotiate such an arrangement, and they'll certainly be upset if the railroad usurps their car(s) for something else, even if the railroad owns the car.
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...
Overmod Paul Milenkovic Returning empty is railroad industry thinking. The truckers have figures out how to carry something, sometimes anything, sometimes for little money, on the "back haul." Keep in mind we're discussing bulk shipment. Not too likely that truck bodies optimized for most bulk shipments will be easily adapted to general backhaul, which is probably ignored by those who think ton-miles are fungible.
Paul Milenkovic Returning empty is railroad industry thinking. The truckers have figures out how to carry something, sometimes anything, sometimes for little money, on the "back haul."
Keep in mind we're discussing bulk shipment. Not too likely that truck bodies optimized for most bulk shipments will be easily adapted to general backhaul, which is probably ignored by those who think ton-miles are fungible.
So what do you back haul in a bulk commodity track back to the bulk commodity loading point besides air, in most cases. Maybe 1 in 100 can get some form of paying back haul.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Paul MilenkovicReturning empty is railroad industry thinking. The truckers have figures out how to carry something, sometimes anything, sometimes for little money, on the "back haul."
tree68 Paul Milenkovic It turns out trucks carry more ton miles than trains, but not by much, so an immediate shutdown of the railroad industry would not be some small increase in trucks on the highway. I believe the rule of thumb is three trucks for every bulk rail car. That translates into 300 trucks on I75 from the Toledo docks to Middletown, OH five days a week. And 300 trucks likely returning empty on the same highway. Multiply as necessary.
Paul Milenkovic It turns out trucks carry more ton miles than trains, but not by much, so an immediate shutdown of the railroad industry would not be some small increase in trucks on the highway.
I believe the rule of thumb is three trucks for every bulk rail car. That translates into 300 trucks on I75 from the Toledo docks to Middletown, OH five days a week. And 300 trucks likely returning empty on the same highway. Multiply as necessary.
Returning empty is railroad industry thinking. The truckers have figures out how to carry something, sometimes anything, sometimes for little money, on the "back haul."
That is one thing that has clobbered railroads. Once trucks have a sizeable fraction of shipping, their back-haul is a substantial fraction of whatever railroads carry of any value, and trucking can way underbid.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul MilenkovicIt turns out trucks carry more ton miles than trains, but not by much, so an immediate shutdown of the railroad industry would not be some small increase in trucks on the highway.
ttrraaffiicc oltmannd So, will electric, self-driving trucks, or some other combo of new technology kill RRs? Maybe. It depends on if they are wise enough to peer more than 5 years into the future and mak a plan. If you wait for change to come and then react to it, you will be too late. Where is Baldwin now, for example? In this day and age, you have to be the leader of change, or you will be left behind. I think the answer to this question is yes. The trucking industry is far more competent and nimble. They provide a service that is quicker, more convenient and user friendly. They have the full weight ofthe tech industry behind them and the railroads are a massive underdog with almost no investment or technological development. When rail loses its environmental credentials and the cost gap narrows or disappears, you will have shippers wondering why they are using rail at all. Remember, as forum member Bruce Gillings has said, if the railroads disappeared tommorow, you would see a 20-30% increase in truck traffic at most. The disparity in freight transported is huge. Railroads have a pitifully small market share and have been waiting for a coupe de grace for decades. The rail industry doesn't have a way to fight back against any of this. They have exhausted most of their opportunities to cut cost and improve efficiency. Rail freight has reached its technological limit.
oltmannd So, will electric, self-driving trucks, or some other combo of new technology kill RRs? Maybe. It depends on if they are wise enough to peer more than 5 years into the future and mak a plan. If you wait for change to come and then react to it, you will be too late. Where is Baldwin now, for example? In this day and age, you have to be the leader of change, or you will be left behind.
I think the answer to this question is yes. The trucking industry is far more competent and nimble. They provide a service that is quicker, more convenient and user friendly. They have the full weight ofthe tech industry behind them and the railroads are a massive underdog with almost no investment or technological development. When rail loses its environmental credentials and the cost gap narrows or disappears, you will have shippers wondering why they are using rail at all.
Remember, as forum member Bruce Gillings has said, if the railroads disappeared tommorow, you would see a 20-30% increase in truck traffic at most. The disparity in freight transported is huge. Railroads have a pitifully small market share and have been waiting for a coupe de grace for decades. The rail industry doesn't have a way to fight back against any of this. They have exhausted most of their opportunities to cut cost and improve efficiency. Rail freight has reached its technological limit.
I am going to ask "reference, please."
I have the impression that railroading is biased towards the heavier, bulk commodities which doen't bring in, per ton-mile, anywhere near the revenue trucks do with what they ship.
I have to be convinced, however, if railroads went "poof", that our highways wouldn't be clogged beyond measure with excessive, road-surface busting tonnage taking an inordinate amount of fuel to move.
As to railroads being green or not green, no one cares about this apart from environmental advocates along with passenger-train advocates trying to get environmentalists to support favored projects. Or railroad companies engaged in "feel good" advertising about their industry.
OK, Bing is my friend and it found this link
U.S. Ton-Miles of Freight | Bureau of Transportation Statistics (bts.gov)
It turns out trucks carry more ton miles than trains, but not by much, so an immediate shutdown of the railroad industry would not be some small increase in trucks on the highway.
oltmanndSo, will electric, self-driving trucks, or some other combo of new technology kill RRs? Maybe. It depends on if they are wise enough to peer more than 5 years into the future and mak a plan. If you wait for change to come and then react to it, you will be too late. Where is Baldwin now, for example? In this day and age, you have to be the leader of change, or you will be left behind.
The requirement for some green changes the next few years may bring a profound push on certain industries to change. The RRs are one industry unfortunally that is a very visible target. Electrification of long streaches of track might be politicallly demanded. The Class 1s may offer an alternative that will reduce emissions the most without electrifying complete routes at first..
Have an electric loco that will mate with say a regular 4400 HP diesel(s). The diesel runs on relative flat track ( up to 1 - 1.5 % grades ). The diesels would even provide power transfer to the electric's traction motors on non electrified territory. That would reduce the wear on all traction motors (TMs) and the various gear trains.
Once approaching a steeper grade the electric motor would raise its PAN, then the CAT would power the electric motor and diesel taking over providing TM power to both the electric and diesel loco's TMs. Diesel's prime mover would go to idle. Going downhill the diesels and electric would provide regeneration thru the electric's pan. This power setup might require the electric's both pans engaging CAT or a thicker CAT contact wire ? Once out of the steep grades the diesels would again take over providing power to traction motors. 25 Kv AC might not ? This setup would allow for regeneration to put power back into the electric grid.
An operating example would be Horse Shoe. Going west bound a train would raise the electric's PAN approaching Altoona's Alto CP taking over and providing 14,800 HP ( 2 diesel 4400 each and electric 6000 ) . Climbing the grade a train would be able to maintain the 30+ MPH max freight speeds meeting adhesion limits instead of slowing down to 10 MPH or less up the grade.. For those trains with DPU either the CAT would start on the gentle slope or a method would be provided for the DPU to switch to electric at the beginning of the grade at Alto.
Once finishing climbing by Galliitzin the lead units would switch to idle then regeneration with DPU still pushing train through the tunnel until DPU exits tunnel. Engineer commands DPU to idle, train coasts down hill with lead units then regenerating then DPU regenerating. Regeneration would continue until Cresson or Portage where the diesels would take their slow loading times to return to required RPM diesel speed and then take over keeping the train moving.
East bound freights would do the reverse once passing Portage or Cresson. An added bonus might be for Amtrak be able to try use of an ALP-45 type DM to climb the Horse shoe at max passenger speeds.
These unit arrangements could remain on the trains to operate on various short locations needing the extra HP such as leaving a significant slow section going to a much higher speed but not exceeding max allowed drawbar pull. PTC can certainly have a program for DPUs to go electric and stop electric.
Although this example is Horse shoe there are many locations that can use this type operation such as the Sand patch, LAX - Bakersfield, Moffet & Cascade tunnel ( which would allow for a much greater number of trains ), Donner, parts of the BNSF transcon ( allow decrease in number of diesels on fast intermodals), northern transcon, BHM - ATL, Rathole, and so forth.
Some technical points. The RRs could easily transfer non equipped power by putting non equipped locos behind the units. They could be easily controlled to power or dynamic , but they would not be able to connect to electric motor power. Power transfer cabling and the extra control cables would be on the electric motor to connect to diesels.
Some locations would not use this at least at first such as FEC or the CSX NY water level route. It could be in the far future that electric might be required thru cities and urban areas to reduce emissions and more so the diesel noise. The RRs would balk but they should be careful. Look what happened to RRs intransiengence that brought on PTC. If the overhead CAT failed for any reason diesels could take over but with a major loss of speeds. The AC traction motors can survive very low speeds. RRs could get full diesel power with loss of electric CAT because the diesels providing would have somet power to electric unit that the diesels would not exceed rail adhesion low speed limits..
Priority of locations to implement this type of operation would be the tons per year over a segment. Start first with segments with the greatest tonage per year for each RR or those routes needing substained max speeds. Consideration that only a short segment needs such power would lower route on a priority list.
All thuogh the above electric unit might be a battery carrying unit the power density at present would not provide enough power to climb a hill such as listed above.
Murphy Siding MidlandMike .....The context of my original entry (from which you excerpted) was that like diesel engine technology which was scaled up for rail use, battery technology also could be scaled up to rail use including mainline engines. I wonder if where we are at with the technologies we're talking about is something like where the railroad industry was in the early 1900's? Diesel technolgy was just being developed for practical railroad use, but it was about 40 years before the technology turned into a game changing revolution. Diesels pushed out steam because it saved railroads money. For new technology to replace diesel, I think it has to do likewise. It's not there yet, maybe in 40 years? Or 30, or 20 years with the advancing speed of change. Now, get off my lawn!
MidlandMike .....The context of my original entry (from which you excerpted) was that like diesel engine technology which was scaled up for rail use, battery technology also could be scaled up to rail use including mainline engines.
.....The context of my original entry (from which you excerpted) was that like diesel engine technology which was scaled up for rail use, battery technology also could be scaled up to rail use including mainline engines.
I wonder if where we are at with the technologies we're talking about is something like where the railroad industry was in the early 1900's? Diesel technolgy was just being developed for practical railroad use, but it was about 40 years before the technology turned into a game changing revolution. Diesels pushed out steam because it saved railroads money. For new technology to replace diesel, I think it has to do likewise. It's not there yet, maybe in 40 years? Or 30, or 20 years with the advancing speed of change. Now, get off my lawn!
I remember seeing a promo for RRs from the late 1930's extolling the fact that the RRs were utilizing steam, diesel and electric locomotives as each fit in it's niche. It was as if there was this perfect status quo. That didn't last long. Diesels blew steam away and left only a trace of electrics. A good chunk of dieselization came in a big hurry in the 1950s as the RRs were desperate for operational cost savings to make up for the big hole trucking was blowing in revenue.
So, what now? The 1990s had the intermodal revolution brought on by double stacking. The RRs didn't initiate this, but grabbed it with both hands once APL et. al. showed them the way.
Now were in a new spot where the "status quo" is presumed to be the best it can be. PSR is merely the fine tuning of the status quo, not some "new" thing.
So, will electric, self-driving trucks, or some other combo of new technology kill RRs? Maybe. It depends on if they are wise enough to peer more than 5 years into the future and mak a plan. If you wait for change to come and then react to it, you will be too late. Where is Baldwin now, for example? In this day and age, you have to be the leader of change, or you will be left behind.
The industry has fallen back into it's "starve yourself rich" mode again, trying to hit OR targets by managing costs and has forgotten about being a transportation leader.
A leader will be the one that sees how all the new and emerging technology fits together to be greater than the sum of the parts and figures out a path to get there. One-off battery slug locomotives or other nibbling around the edges improvement equipment won't get the job done.
A leader will be the one that figures out how to get to that better place first. The one that puts their money where their ambition is. The one that sees how good it can be rather than worrying about what might go wrong if they try.
If you think "green" locomotives are only about some PR bragging rights in the carbon-neutral future, you are a shallow thinker. This is a big opportunity to get the RRs back up on their feet and ahead of the game. I hope they don't blow it.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
I am curious as to whether someone can provide an article in which these investors have claimed that switching fuels will reduce operating cost of trains. It might be out there, but I have not seen it.
Euclid For that cause, no price can be too high.
Ford. Pinto.
And "green" and ECP are two different "causes."
Even with that, do you think the railroads would be fielding Tier 4 locomotives without being forced to?
tree68 Given the huge number of environmental disasters as the result of derailments (not lessening the impact of those that have occurred, but, yes, I am being sarcastic) I suspect that investors will weigh in the balance dividends vs ECP and will opt for the fo the dividends. When ECP makes money for them, the investors will go for it. "Feel good" only feels good in their pockets.
Given the huge number of environmental disasters as the result of derailments (not lessening the impact of those that have occurred, but, yes, I am being sarcastic) I suspect that investors will weigh in the balance dividends vs ECP and will opt for the fo the dividends.
When ECP makes money for them, the investors will go for it. "Feel good" only feels good in their pockets.
I doubt that conclusion. If replacing fossil fuel with renewable energy would put more money in the investors' pockets, it would have already happened without the new push to position a change of fuel as being necessary to save the planet. For that cause, no price can be too high. And who says it takes environmental disaster to justify reducing polution?
Overmod Euclid I wonder if green investors will push for railroads to get ahead of the game by adopting ECP brakes to reduce derailments that spill environmentally toxic chemicals. They may try but the situation is different. ECP is primarily a safety and performance enhancement; its potential benefits occur only with widespread adoption (not incrementally as with distributed zero-carbon approaches) and any effect would be local or regional, not global as in the promoted perception of AGW. Meanwhile nearly the entire expenditure on quickly-adopted ECP would be dollar-for-dollar competitive with testing and implementing zero-carbon solutions, whether with carrier fuels, full electrification, beamed power or other methods that share high complex new infrastructure to work properly.
Euclid I wonder if green investors will push for railroads to get ahead of the game by adopting ECP brakes to reduce derailments that spill environmentally toxic chemicals.
They may try but the situation is different.
ECP is primarily a safety and performance enhancement; its potential benefits occur only with widespread adoption (not incrementally as with distributed zero-carbon approaches) and any effect would be local or regional, not global as in the promoted perception of AGW. Meanwhile nearly the entire expenditure on quickly-adopted ECP would be dollar-for-dollar competitive with testing and implementing zero-carbon solutions, whether with carrier fuels, full electrification, beamed power or other methods that share high complex new infrastructure to work properly.
The situation is different? Different than what? So far I see no limits to the suggestions for new fuels, better fuel efficiency, eliminating fossil fuels, electrification by wire and by battery, etc. I am sure their green mindedness also extends to reducing chemical spills as well as eliminating carbon.
I am not proposing what you refer to as incremental adoption of ECP. Do it fast. Convert to more captive rolling stock. But in any case, all of these other alternative fuels are not going to be instant transformations either, so do them all.
I might add hauling chemicals and crude oil in fully crash-breach-proof tank cars. If you are want to go all the way for saving the planet, who cares about the cost or the payback? Just go all the way now. Do everything possible.
EuclidI wonder if green investors will push for railroads to get ahead of the game by adopting ECP brakes to reduce derailments that spill environmentally toxic chemicals.
Perhaps the 'best' to be expected is to develop arguments about where ECP operation actually benefits a given zero-carbon development, and try to roll open-ended ECP implementation into the test equipment or protocols. As neither zero-carbon nor ECP will be factors in regular interchange until considerable work is done and development money expended, testing would be a 'bully pulpit' to show the advantages, particularly of the ECP equipment for freight cars that is easily convertible between one-pipe Westinghouse and the current form of ECP as marketed.
Are those green investors the same ones who think their food comes from a supermarket and their electricity comes from a plug on the wall?
kgbw49Would a dual mode freight version of something similar to an ALP-45DP have a role to play? Running on electric where catenary made economic sense, and then switching to alternate mode - whether diesel or hydrogen or propane, etc. on other sections?
As an adjunct to a hybrid locomotive with the battery on a separable road-slug chassis it would add comparatively little cost and greatly increase flexibility even where the electrification itself could not deliver full traction horsepower for high-speed heavy trains or is only intermittently supplied.
Use of a true dual-mode, with high continuous horsepower and optimized drivetrain, is certainly possible, but it makes comparatively little sense if there are few places to use that horsepower effectively.
I wonder if green investors will push for railroads to get ahead of the game by adopting ECP brakes to reduce derailments that spill environmentally toxic chemicals.
Here is a real lay-person question. Would a dual mode freight version of something similar to an ALP-45DP have a role to play? Running on electric where catenary made economic sense, and then switching to alternate mode - whether diesel or hydrogen or propane, etc. on other sections? Or would that just result in super-expensive locomotives the size of the UP Centennials?
Murphy Siding Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying being greener isn't a good thing for a business to strive for. In a very competitive business like transportation, how would a business justify spending money on something like that if the competition isn't and can therefore can offer lower pricing?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying being greener isn't a good thing for a business to strive for. In a very competitive business like transportation, how would a business justify spending money on something like that if the competition isn't and can therefore can offer lower pricing?
Should a railroad company not spend money to relocate a line at a lower gradient because a competing company isn't doing the same thing on their own lines? Apparent the CP/CN stockholders feel that spending money now on alternative energy sources will get them ahead of the game.
One point charlie hebdo is making is that, once the market cost of a fuel alternative has been lowered, it may -- and sometimes abruptly -- become desirable for adoption by for-profit businesses on absolute terms. Similarly if there are externalities -- benefits or costs from legislation, incentive programs, even activist-investor arguments in proxy fights -- these may affect the perceived price point at which responsible management would at least test alternatives.
We are certainly "there" in Canada with the current 'zero carbon' policy, no matter what we may think about the role of politics or the practical alternatives to pure zero-carbon as ways to address actual anthropogenic contribution to climate change.
It does remain to be seen if the Canadian efforts recognize what is required in a practical hydrogen design, or will produce a system with market advantages in the future world -- which may well come to value zero-carbon as a doctrine, too.
The various "Green" alternatives to carbon fuels are undergoing rapid development with costs dropping rapidly. My guess is that the economics will displace oil, just as they are increasingly displacing coal.
MidlandMike Murphy Siding charlie hebdo The economics are important but these days going green may be an even more important factor. I disagree. I'd say that going green may be seen as being important in the eyes of someone, but the reason that corporations exist is to make a profit- the economic factor. When that someone is a majority of stockholders, you better listen.
Murphy Siding charlie hebdo The economics are important but these days going green may be an even more important factor. I disagree. I'd say that going green may be seen as being important in the eyes of someone, but the reason that corporations exist is to make a profit- the economic factor.
charlie hebdo The economics are important but these days going green may be an even more important factor.
The economics are important but these days going green may be an even more important factor.
I disagree. I'd say that going green may be seen as being important in the eyes of someone, but the reason that corporations exist is to make a profit- the economic factor.
When that someone is a majority of stockholders, you better listen.
Murphy Siding charlie hebdo Image and public relations are also important and may contribute to stock values. They might, but profits certainly will.
charlie hebdo Image and public relations are also important and may contribute to stock values.
Image and public relations are also important and may contribute to stock values.
They might, but profits certainly will.
Not always - I have seen too many occurrences of a company reporting record profits and having their stock prices crater - at least in the short term.
Stock prices and what trigger them can be maddening. Everyone knows the saying 'buy low and sell high'. The problem is in knowing which is actually which.
An unanswered question is whether the "green" approach has less environmental impact than the "business as usual" approach.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.