Trains.com

Freight pricing

3556 views
50 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Richland WA
  • 361 posts
Posted by kevarc on Sunday, April 10, 2005 4:52 PM
And do not forget, the Bush Administration wants to float public hydro generated power at market rates. Yeah, let us see what other industries we can kill.
Kevin Arceneaux Mining Engineer, Penn State 1979
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, April 10, 2005 11:09 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by kevarc

And do not forget, the Bush Administration wants to float public hydro generated power at market rates. Yeah, let us see what other industries we can kill.


That was never going to happen anyway, it was just a political bargaining chip to put the fear of God in the Upper Left Coast congressional delegation, and it seems to have worked so far. BTW, the BPA does sell it's electricity at market rates, it's just at the natural hydro market rate, not the Enron adjusted market rate.
  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Monday, April 11, 2005 2:30 AM
Suppose the transmission lines used railroad rights of way and paid for the electrification with the railroads buying power at the pantograph. IF (of course) the $/horsepower-hour were lots less than diesel fuel.
  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Richland WA
  • 361 posts
Posted by kevarc on Monday, April 11, 2005 8:42 AM
Dave be a help, as far as land costs, but a transmission ROW is quite a bit wider than a RR one. A bouble track ROW is what - 25-35 feet wide? A transmission line for Very High Voltages can be a 100 feet wde.

NOTE: The higher the voltage, the more electricity that can be pushed along the wires. Electricity flowing is different than water - water flows - electricty is pushed. Amother thing - in an earlier post loses were mentioned. One thing about loses - the end users pays for them. Say you contract for 150 megawatts. But to get that 150 megs, they have to put 160 megs into the transmission to cover the loses. You pay for 160, not the 150. This is covered in the purchase agreement.
Kevin Arceneaux Mining Engineer, Penn State 1979
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 8:54 AM
An alternative to transmission towers is underground DC. More expensive than towers, but less loss.

Almost certainly less NIMBY.

I don't know what the ROW width for underground DC is - likely to be less than towers.

And, possibly a consideration for sharing a RR ROW.

Best...
CAS
  • Member since
    October 2003
  • 1 posts
Posted by BABetts on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 9:42 AM
Interesting, Limestone which rarely moves more than 100 miles, seems to move at around $0.03 per ton/mile (30 mills) in multiple private car units. Almost twice as much as coal. But the railroads call it low profit freight. BNSF has more than doubled that rate on recent quotes (ie $0.07 ton/mile) and says this is because of conjestion (everywhere they operate?). Yet railroads in general refer to coal as one of the primary and most profitable commodities moved. This, as they go tipping merrily down the path to re-regulation.
  • Member since
    January 2005
  • From: Ely, Nv.
  • 6,312 posts
Posted by chad thomas on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 10:10 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Elsinore660

An alternative to transmission towers is underground DC. More expensive than towers, but less loss.

Almost certainly less NIMBY.

I don't know what the ROW width for underground DC is - likely to be less than towers.

And, possibly a consideration for sharing a RR ROW.

Best...
CAS


DC ???? less loss ???? must be super wire. Is the dialectric sheeth measured in feet ???
  • Member since
    August 2003
  • From: Antioch, IL
  • 4,371 posts
Posted by greyhounds on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 10:58 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by BABetts

Interesting, Limestone which rarely moves more than 100 miles, seems to move at around $0.03 per ton/mile (30 mills) in multiple private car units. Almost twice as much as coal. But the railroads call it low profit freight. BNSF has more than doubled that rate on recent quotes (ie $0.07 ton/mile) and says this is because of conjestion (everywhere they operate?). Yet railroads in general refer to coal as one of the primary and most profitable commodities moved. This, as they go tipping merrily down the path to re-regulation.


This is a bogus comparison, similar to what some folks here were trying to do with the Montana wheat.

If you compare the "ton mile" charge on a short haul move, such as limestone, with the "ton mile" charge on a long haul move, such as Powder River Basin Coal, you're making an invalid comparison.

Each move has certain common cost components that do not vary with the mileage. These are going to be the same for each move. Since there are fewer miles in the limestone haul to spread these charges over, they are going to produce a higher per mile, or per ton mile, charge on the shorter haul. It's math.

The most efficient thing a railroad does is run a freight train down the track. It's everything else they have to do to get the trains togehter and take them apart (along with such things as billing the shipper) that drive up the costs. Many of these costs do not relate to the distance the shipment actually moves. So shorter hauls have higher unit costs than longer hauls. Again, it's math.
"By many measures, the U.S. freight rail system is the safest, most efficient and cost effective in the world." - Federal Railroad Administration, October, 2009. I'm just your average, everyday, uncivilized howling "anti-government" critic of mass government expenditures for "High Speed Rail" in the US. And I'm gosh darn proud of that.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 11:25 AM
Earlier message from Chad: "DC ???? less loss ???? must be super wire. Is the dialectric sheeth measured in feet ???"

I'm no expert on electricity. The issue was raised locally some years back when the State Power Authority wanted to string 782kW towers through our little town. We already have two lines of lower wattage towers!

Further south, they convert to DC, to run through the tonier sections of Westchester County and into NY City.

As I understand it, DC is run using shielded cable, which probably reduces radiation loss substantially. Somewhat like why your cable TV (and Internet) uses shielded cable.

At our town meeting, I suggested they run underground DC all the way from Niagara Falls, and connections to Canadian hydro-power. I thought they could use an existing ROW - the median of the NY State Thruway. Then, maybe at least some of the towers would no longer be needed. Which could return the ROW to private ownership, and reduce that portion of existing costs.

I was simply told, "That can't be done."

Well, then maybe RR ROWs could be used.

It's all economics, and I don't know the cost-benefit numbers. As with everything, it's also "all politics!"

Best...
Chris
  • Member since
    January 2005
  • From: Ely, Nv.
  • 6,312 posts
Posted by chad thomas on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 11:59 AM
I don't have the time to get into this too deep.

DC has about the same loss at the VERY low frequency of 60 cycles. It's basicaly the loop resistance of the wire. The thing is you can't step up DC with a transformer. So you can only go so far with DC before it peters out.

Sheilding for DC will not keep the voltage from radiating out, this is an AC thing. It will actualy provide more admittance between pos & neg taking away from the delivered voltage. If shielding is used (I've never heard of this) it is most likley to protect the inner conductor. Or more accuratly protect people / animals from the voltage.

  • Member since
    May 2004
  • From: Valparaiso, In
  • 5,921 posts
Posted by MP173 on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 2:10 PM
I just started reading my Form 10k from Ameren last night. So, this is great timing.

Although I must admit, it is like a foreign language.

ed
  • Member since
    February 2012
  • 257 posts
Posted by nobullchitbids on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 3:00 PM
Query: Everyone has been talking, assuming the transmission will be with wires; however, I read somewhere that the way to do it in the future is to convert electricity at site to microwaves, then send it via satellite to where it is needed. Certainly, that would allow locating the combustion plant closer to the coal. I assume it also would eliminate much of the NIMBY problem since only the origin and destination would be affected. Any comment on this?
  • Member since
    January 2005
  • From: Ely, Nv.
  • 6,312 posts
Posted by chad thomas on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 3:34 PM
Sending the kind of current that you need through microwaves is light years away from happening, if ever.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 8:50 PM
Carload prices now available on CN website
(CN issued the following news release on April 11.)

MONTREAL -- CN announced today that its customers can now obtain instantaneous carload prices 24 hours a day, seven days a week from the railway's website, www.cn.ca.

James Foote, CN's executive vice-president, sales and marketing, said: "This new pricing tool significantly increases the speed at which we can quote rates for our customers, and makes it much easier for shippers to do business with us. In years past, the manual, time-intensive methods of quoting single-line and interline prices could take days or even weeks. That's something CN and the rail industry can no longer afford in today's fast-paced business environment."

Prices are available on CN's website for all carload traffic moving anywhere on the company's North American rail network; all destinations on CSX Transportation; and for selected carload commodities to destinations served by BNSF Railway Company, Union Pacific Railroad and Norfolk Southern Railway. Prices to Canadian Pacific Railway destinations are expected to be available by mid-August 2005. All railroads are continuing to work together to expand universal coverage for this new pricing tool.

To obtain access to this new instantaneous pricing tool, customers should contact their CN Account Manager.

Canadian National Railway Company spans Canada and mid-America, from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans to the Gulf of Mexico, serving the ports of Vancouver, Prince Rupert, B.C., Montreal, Halifax, New Orleans, and Mobile, Ala., and the key cities of Toronto, Buffalo, Chicago, Detroit, Duluth, Minn./Superior, Wis., Green Bay, Wis., Minneapolis/St. Paul, Memphis, St. Louis, and Jackson, Miss., with connections to all points in North America.


Tuesday, April 12, 2005


  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 9:20 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds

QUOTE: Originally posted by BABetts

Interesting, Limestone which rarely moves more than 100 miles, seems to move at around $0.03 per ton/mile (30 mills) in multiple private car units. Almost twice as much as coal. But the railroads call it low profit freight. BNSF has more than doubled that rate on recent quotes (ie $0.07 ton/mile) and says this is because of conjestion (everywhere they operate?). Yet railroads in general refer to coal as one of the primary and most profitable commodities moved. This, as they go tipping merrily down the path to re-regulation.


This is a bogus comparison, similar to what some folks here were trying to do with the Montana wheat.

If you compare the "ton mile" charge on a short haul move, such as limestone, with the "ton mile" charge on a long haul move, such as Powder River Basin Coal, you're making an invalid comparison.

Each move has certain common cost components that do not vary with the mileage. These are going to be the same for each move. Since there are fewer miles in the limestone haul to spread these charges over, they are going to produce a higher per mile, or per ton mile, charge on the shorter haul. It's math.

The most efficient thing a railroad does is run a freight train down the track. It's everything else they have to do to get the trains togehter and take them apart (along with such things as billing the shipper) that drive up the costs. Many of these costs do not relate to the distance the shipment actually moves. So shorter hauls have higher unit costs than longer hauls. Again, it's math.


Greyhounds, you just stated that it is carload switching that ups the costs of single carloads vs unit loads such as coal. We already established that BNSF charges higher unit train rates for Montana grain shipments than comparative PNW or Midwest unit train rates, e.g. it's got nothing to do with switching costs or distance.

What you have inadvertently stumbled across is that switching "costs" are responsible for half the total carload rate. This is where railroads are losing it. The push for greater economies of scale via longer train consists is eroding the benefits of rail transport for single and multi carload lots. The D&RGW model of shorter more frequent trains was the ideal for truly efficient customer responsive business relations. With D&RGW now a fallen flag, this rather expansive niche between truckload and unit trains economics goes wanting.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 9:26 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by nobullchitbids

Query: Everyone has been talking, assuming the transmission will be with wires; however, I read somewhere that the way to do it in the future is to convert electricity at site to microwaves, then send it via satellite to where it is needed. Certainly, that would allow locating the combustion plant closer to the coal. I assume it also would eliminate much of the NIMBY problem since only the origin and destination would be affected. Any comment on this?


Have you ever read the legend of Tesla's experiments with sending electricity in concentrated beams through the air? Supposedly the first time he and his team ran this experiment, a large bird flew through the path of the beam and was instantly pulverized. This affected Tesla so much he abandoned further experiments in concentrated beams. Or something like that.
  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Richland WA
  • 361 posts
Posted by kevarc on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 9:06 AM
I wish I could remember the name of a book I read a couple of years ago aobut the birth of the electric industry. But I can't. Telsa was brilliant, like Einstein, Hawking and a few others, they think on a different plane than most of us. Telsa also had theory that you could charge the planet and take it out where you needed it. Tleso did not write things down, but kept them in his head, he was a tad paranoid, and when he died, his ideas died with him.

There was a competition between Westinghouse, who was an AC proponent, and Edison, who backed DC, to move power to the Worlds Fair and to tranmit the power from Niagra Falls. Westinghouse's AC equipment was much more proficient at moving power from Point A to Pont B. DC just has problems moving long distances. That is not to say that DC is not used. One of the major California paths is DC. Also most interconnects between regions are DC. It smooths the power flow between regions and protects them if there is a major failure in one region. Texas is isolated from most of the country by DC interconnects. THis is done because of Texas's interconnection with Mexico.

THe BPA pricing is lower than market. Much Federal Hydro power is below market rates.
Kevin Arceneaux Mining Engineer, Penn State 1979
  • Member since
    January 2005
  • From: Ely, Nv.
  • 6,312 posts
Posted by chad thomas on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 9:28 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by kevarc

I wish I could remember the name of a book I read a couple of years ago aobut the birth of the electric industry. But I can't. Telsa was brilliant, like Einstein, Hawking and a few others, they think on a different plane than most of us. Telsa also had theory that you could charge the planet and take it out where you needed it. Tleso did not write things down, but kept them in his head, he was a tad paranoid, and when he died, his ideas died with him.

There was a competition between Westinghouse, who was an AC proponent, and Edison, who backed DC, to move power to the Worlds Fair and to tranmit the power from Niagra Falls. Westinghouse's AC equipment was much more proficient at moving power from Point A to Pont B. DC just has problems moving long distances. That is not to say that DC is not used. One of the major California paths is DC. Also most interconnects between regions are DC. It smooths the power flow between regions and protects them if there is a major failure in one region. Texas is isolated from most of the country by DC interconnects. THis is done because of Texas's interconnection with Mexico.

THe BPA pricing is lower than market. Much Federal Hydro power is below market rates.



Is this conversion (AC-DC-AC) done with motor /generators? Like AC motor turns DC generator then DC motor turns AC alternator.

Or is it rectified then DC motor - AC alternator?

If not how is this done?


I am a huge fan of Nikola Tesla. I have built many of his devices and found them all to work (don't ask how much effort building them sometimes took). None the least of which were a few Tesla coils. Tesla coils are truly bizzare devices for many reasons. And to this day I have several "cosmic energy" battery chargers. And for anyone that has read the story about bringing a multi-story building to wild vibrations with a small viberator, I can tell you it is true, I've done it with 160' towers.
  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Richland WA
  • 361 posts
Posted by kevarc on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 9:54 AM
I am not an electrical engineer, so this is what I have learned from being in the business. I did a google search and here are a few link that will explain things better than I can.

http://www.geni.org/energy/library/technical_articles/transmission/AdvancedElectricPwrTrans.html
http://www.bpa.gov/corporate/pubs/Keeping/00kc/kc1000.pdf
http://www.greatachievements.org/greatachievements/ga_1_2.html
http://www.ce.cmu.edu/~hsm/im2004/lnotes/lec8-04-energy-2.ppt
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/14726?fulltext=true&print=yes
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3aa93f74210a.htm
and finally,
http://www.howstuffworks.com/power.htm

That should keep you busy a while! :)
Kevin Arceneaux Mining Engineer, Penn State 1979
  • Member since
    January 2005
  • From: Ely, Nv.
  • 6,312 posts
Posted by chad thomas on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 10:19 AM
Thanks kevarc, I'll check em' out.
  • Member since
    March 2002
  • 37 posts
Posted by Roger38 on Saturday, April 16, 2005 12:03 PM
Regarding RR right-of-way width, as a utilities engineer it is necessary to obtain a crossing permit to place electric or telephone lines under or over the right-of-way. In rural areas most of the RR property measures 100 feet wide. There are variations of course, especially in cities, where additional property is owned, and many local businesses lease the land from the RR.

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy