Fuel Efficiency: Barges over Trains

[Maglev]

I appreciate your thorough replies and additional insight.  I gather that it is correct that most river freight travels downstream, but the responses above are not definitive on whether this has much impact on fuel efficiency. 

I don't mean to re-kindle the 150-year-old war between trains and barges, but I have some problems with the title proclaiming that trains are not the champion of fuel efficiency; mostly because (as is stated above) barges are extremely limited in their geographical flexibility.  Yet as Don Phillips mentions in his concluding paragraph, fuel efficiency is not an overwhelming concern of the barge operators; they could re-engine and improve.  Likewise for trains, there are many efficiency innovations (such as Electronically Controlled Pneumatic Brakes) which are not economical now due to the relatively low cost of fuel.

[jrbernier]

  Most grain moves 'down stream' on the Mississippi.  Coal/Salt/Chemicals do get moved 'up stream'.  Barge operation can be very fuel efficient, and I suspect that even going against the current, it is cheaper to use a barge operation.  I see a lot of grain loaded at Winona, MN and barged south for export.

  However, barge operation has some severe limitations:

• Weather - The Upper Missisppi does freeze over between late November and March/April
• Low Water - a good head of water is needed in the pools above the lock & dams so that barges can be locked through.  Droughts do not help.
• The river does not go everywhere.  Railroads tracks can be built to areas where there is not a navigation channel.  Building canals is very expensive.

Jim

 

[Bruce Kelly]

On the Snake and Columbia rivers, the vast majority of loaded barges move downstream. Grain from the Palouse region of eastern WA/northern ID, Camas Prairie of north central ID, Columbia Basin of eastern WA, and even parts of Montana (trucked over the Mountains to Snake River terminals) makes up most of the bulk barge traffic, but there's also woodchips, containers moving both directions, and fertilizers and fuels moving upstream. Upstream travel is eased by the slackwater conditions from numerous dams. Lewiston, ID, ranks as the "most inland of western seaports" and the majority of its barge traffic is indeed outbound grain or wood products (including containerized grain) which is destined for Pacific Rim customers. Comparing trains to barges along the Snake and Columbia is like watching the race between the tortoise and the hare, especially if you watch how long it takes a barge/tow to navigate each of the dam locks. But in the end, the barge comes out the winner from a price, fuel efficiency, and emissions standpoint according to published data. Tidewater, a major player in Snake/Columbia barge service, says they can float goods at an average 514 ton-miles per gallon of fuel, compared with trains at 202-ton miles per gallon, and trucks at 59-ton miles per gallon. I don't know if Tidewater derived these figures from actual local barge, rail, and truck operations or just pulled them from a generic nationwide source. When I have time, I'll plow through my files of Northwest transportation studies and see if there are locally-generated statistics which differ widely from the above.

[desertdog]

After reading the article I thought the whole premise was pretty lame.  Granted, barges are important in some areas of the U.S. and for shipping certain bulk commodities, but they only go where rivers / improved waterways go, so fuel efficiency vs. railroads (or trucks) is a non-issue if you are shipping, say, furniture from North Carolina to Denver.

John Timm

[Maglev]

The July Trains has a comparison of river, rail, and highway freight by Don Phillips (page 31).  Just one quick question: does some of the higher efficency of river travel stem from the fact that more freight moves downstream, and empties move upstream?