Fuel Efficiency: Barges over Trains

[Kootenay Central]

.

[Kootenay Central]

.

[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.  I had one motor lose a Governor on me in the shop it made it to 2400 and let loose.  We recovered one of the heads from a Big Cam 4 they have 3 one for every 2 cylinders thru the roof and 100 feet away in the cornfield.  The crankshaft on that one thru a journal that went thru a double wall of concrete blocks that were each 12 inches thick with 4 inchs of poured concrete and rebar in it.  That tell you how much damage that engine did when she let loose.

[tree68]

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

Kinda off-topic, but...   A number of years ago I read an account of a natural gas leak and the fire department response thereto.  At some point the fire apparatus and the plume of NG from the leak found each other, resulting in the Diesel engines in the apparatus running away, blowing, and consequently igniting the gas. 

[bubbajustin]

I'm not skilled at this, but will add my thoughts. You guy's tell me what you think.

 A barge is a very efficant way to ship freight. Cool. A freight train is also a very efficant way to ship freight.

Barge requirements:

• A deep enough water way when fully loaded with a commodaty.
• Massive barge loading centers.
• Well, the obuis, a water way that goes where you need to go.
• For local delivery, a road or rail system to get the commodaty to the local processing plant/store.  

Rail requirements:

• The obuious, railroad tracks.
• A loading center(in most cases) that wont be as land consuming as a barge loading facility.
• In most cases (industrally speaking) the railroad can drop the cargo off right there.

See if you ask me, in the areas that where barges ship goods, the rail industry will have another transport mode to compete with. On the other hand, if the local feed mill needs a delivery taken 70 mi. to the north, thay will probably choose rail or truck over barge if thay have a rail facility ner by or a truck facility. In some cases, rail just makes sence. I don't think that rail will be much impacted in say, centrall Illinois by this much as rail trasport in Louisiana. As soon as somebody comes up with a cheap and efficant way to build water channels to the local steel mill in Attica IN, or a local grain facilty. I think rail will be the most efficant way to go for now in this aspect, and other's like it. NOW, for mass shipments going to LONG distance over seas ports, well, trains don't float well, so I think we will stick with shipping for that!

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

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.

[edbenton]

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. 

[greyhounds]

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.

 

[Maglev]

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)?

[Railway Man]

Maglev

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)?

 

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

[Murphy Siding]

    

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

  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.

[Maglev]

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]

 

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.

There were two commercial coal slurry pipelines in the U.S.:

1. Cadiz, 108 miles from Cadiz, Ohio, and Cleveland, Ohio, owned and operated by Consolidation Coal Co. for Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company.  The 10" line operated from 1957 to 1963 when the ICC authorized the institution of unit train rates that could deliver coal at a lower cost.
   
2. Mohave, 273 miles from Peabody Western's Black Mesa Mine in northwest Arizona to the 1,580 mW Mohave Station near Laughlin, Nevada.  The pipeline, constructed and owned for many years by the Southern Pacific Transportation Co. (as in the Southern Pacific Railroad), was the lower-cost alternative to 150 miles of rail line extensions from the Santa Fe main line near Gallup, New Mexico to Black Mesa, and Needles, California, to Laughlin.  It operated from 1970 to 2005, when the power plant shut down due to its air-quality, water-quality, water-use, mine reclamation, and discharge permits expiring.  The pipeline would need reconstruction to resume use.  The 18" line carried 5.4 million tons per year.   

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.

RWM

[erikem]

 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.

[Deggesty]

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.

Kootenay Central, I have really enjoyed your accounts and pictures of the barge operations. I remember seeing the article in Trains some thirty-two years ago, and your accounts have given me more information.

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

[tomikawaTT]

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

[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."

[carnej1]

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."

 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...

[Maglev]

Uhh, perhaps I should revise this and leave out comments on passenger rail?

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

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 ?

- Paul North.

[Maglev]

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?"

 

 

 

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

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.

- Paul North.

[Bruce Kelly]

To add another twist, on that bit about government subsidies for barges, check out the history of the lower Columbia River and Snake River dams. Their construction during the 1950s, 60, and 70s allowed barge traffic into the interior Northwest and created new clean power generation, but also resulted in massive improvements to adjacent railroads at government (taxpayer) expense. Everywhere that river levels got raised by the backpools, existing track and facilities were going to be submerged. So affected sections of UP, SP&S, and I believe even CSP properties were moved to higher ground, on generally better-engineered alignments. Faster running on broader curvature, despite a few new areas of moderate grade increase where needed to get trains stair-stepped between water levels at each dam. Not only did these sections of railroad get a "modern era" physical upgrade, there were areas of CTC installed on trackage that had previously been ABS. Hence the alternating segments of ABS/TWC and CTC on UP's Ayer Subdivision between Hinkle, OR, and Joso, WA.

[Maglev]

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...

[Bruce Kelly]

I too have heard of the Fraser being dirty, but the one comparison between the Fraser and Columbia that frequently comes up is with regard to seasonal salmon runs, in that the Fraser, which as you point out has no dams, has experienced similar seasonal declines in salmon runs as the Columbia, which has dams. More blame has been placed on the caspien terns and other migratory birds that have been devastating salmon runs at the mouth of the Columbia in recent years than on the dams themselves. Then you have the native fishermen who are still allowed to harvest wild and hatchery salmon virtually unlimited, and others who fish heavily upstream from there. And the fact that some of the highest record-setting returns of salmon up the Columbia and Snake have happened during a couple of recent years, long after the dams have been in place. Yes, the dams have taken their toll on many of the former grain-hauling branch lines that once flourished in the Inland Northwest, and I'd love nothing more than to see some of those lines return. But not at the cost of losing all that renewable, emissions-free power generation. With all the windmills popping up in the Blue Mountains foothills, perhaps the day will come when river-driven electricity will no longer be a bargaining chip in favor of the dams. It'll be some time before we reach that point.

[henry6]

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!

[Alan Robinson]

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.

[greyhounds]

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. 

 

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

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.

[TH&B]

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.