The Oil Cans ran from Saco (Bakersfield, CA) to Dolores (Carson, CA) until 1996. The train then originated at Fleta (Mojave, CA) until 1999. It carried oil for Shell until 1992. After that the oil was for Tosco. The oil is now shipped by pipeline.
Another train has run from Wunpost (south of San Ardo, CA) to Dolores since 1996. The oil then goes by pipeline to the ExxonMobil refinery in Torrance.
As noted in a previous post, not all of the tanks are connected by hose.
As far as I know, the Bakken crude oil shipped by rail is shipped in regular tank cars. Also, over the past year it has become somewhat common for 30,000 gallon tank cars hauling crude oil to travel through the San Joaquin Valley.
"No soup for you!" - Yev Kassem (from Seinfeld)
Link to a great photo (so not mine !) of the TankTrain leaving one plant:
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=133704
For a few others, search that website for "TankTrain" or "Ultramar" - you should get 12 to 15 more. There may be others of the West Coast operation, and/ or the Montana Rail Link "Gas Local", but I don't have those links handy right now.
Thanks for digging up that thread, Jay - it was just 'before my time' here. I really miss Railway Man's insights and comments on subjects such as that one. . .
- Paul North.
This from a few years back has some discussion about movement of oil by rail and rough rail vs. pipeline cost info.
http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/forums/t/111860.aspx?PageIndex=1
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
Murphy Siding MidlandMike: BNSF has a route that crosses the Alberta border at Sweetgrass, MT, then heads for the Billings area, where it has a couple of choices of routes to Texas. True, but aren't those choice routes clogged with coal trains heading to Texas from the Pwder River Basin?
MidlandMike: BNSF has a route that crosses the Alberta border at Sweetgrass, MT, then heads for the Billings area, where it has a couple of choices of routes to Texas.
BNSF has a route that crosses the Alberta border at Sweetgrass, MT, then heads for the Billings area, where it has a couple of choices of routes to Texas.
True, but aren't those choice routes clogged with coal trains heading to Texas from the Pwder River Basin?
The choke point is the Denver-Pueblo joint line. Maybe this would be the final push to build the Front Range bypass BNSF and Colorado have been talking about for years.
WilliamKiesel I am aware that a "tank train" of interconnected tank cars has been used in revenue service. I do not recall where, how, why or when. Does anyone have answers? Examples. Regarding the "tank train" design, what kind of control is there for the interconnection? What kind of spill control valves? might there be in the "tank train" design?
I am aware that a "tank train" of interconnected tank cars has been used in revenue service. I do not recall where, how, why or when. Does anyone have answers? Examples.
Regarding the "tank train" design, what kind of control is there for the interconnection? What kind of spill control valves? might there be in the "tank train" design?
Steve Schmollinger's excellent book Tehachapi: Railroad on a Desert Mountain* has quite a bit of information and photos of the Shell Oil Company's oil train, which transported Kern River Basin crude to a refinery over the Tehachapi range near LA's Dolores Yard between 1983 and at least 1992...how much later I don't know. Building a pipeline was too expensive and would take too long, so they contracted with the Southern Pacific to transport the oil at the same speed as a pipeline - 10,000 tons at a time.
GATX built three 72-car trains based on their TankTrain, divided into 12 car sets with each car in the set connected by ten-inch hoses. Cars could be loaded and unloaded 12 at a time at three track loading/unloading facilities, with the crude heated to 140 degrees to allow it to flow. The cars were unloaded by pumping inert nitrogen gas through the cars.
Pull-aparts were uncommon as the knuckles were regularly changed, and in the rare times it did happen, only the oil left in the hoses spilled since valves prevented any from leaking out the car. One derailment did cause nine cars to derail and create a huge mess that spilled 66,000 gallons of crude and shut down the line for two days, but keep in mind this was 1980s technology. Tank car engineering has come quite a ways as far as safety is concerned.
I know the forum rules discourage linking to other forums, but this is one of the only resources on the web about this train and it's GREAT. Mods, feel free to delete if necessary...
http://sptco.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=sp&action=display&thread=881
*Incidentally, this was my first serious railroad book as a child, and not paying attention to the photo dates (almost all from the '80s), I was baffled years later at hearing that the Santa Fe and SP had been merged away for years!
William,
I do not think that rail capacity constraints are the major issue. Given a contracted volume and a compenstory rate the railroads can add the fixed plant capacity.
There are no approvals required to haul the oil. Why congress ever gave the president the power to stop this pipeline is beyond me, but they had to have done it somehow.
The real issue is the cost of transportation combined with Canada's other market operations. Oil trades on the world markets and the various sources carry premiums or discounts that seem to be based on ease of refining which may also affect the ratio of the various marketable products that each crude produces. We do not need to concern ourselves with that, since it is what it is. Lets make it simple and simply assume $100/bbl for illustrative purposes.
Also to simplify, lets immagine that Canada has two export markets; China and the US. For simplicity also assume a single origin point in Alberta. Since Keystone is the proposal on the table, we can assume that it is the cheapest transport option. Canada may also prefer to sell to us for political reasons, and I hope they do.
Lets assume that transport by Keystone would cost $10 per bbl. I have no idea what the real number is but you can bet the Keystone people do. In this case Canada gets $90 for their oil in Alberta.
The China case requires building a pipeline of the same capacity as Keystone to a pacific rim port. I suspect the short mile route would be to Prince Rupert, largely parallel with CN. This would also require oil storage and a deepwater port in Canada. For the ocean portion I assume the Chinese would use the largest ship they can, so ocean freight would be relatively modest. Lets assume cost of this system to be $15, so Canada gets $85 for their oil in Alberta.
The question they becomes can the railroads move the oil to the Gulf Coast for $14.95 per bbl, all costs in? The rails have the technology. I would use tank train if it were me. The real question is; is Keystone really dead, the cost of rail to the Gulf Coast, and the cost of Canada's next best alternative which is selling to China. I presume BNSF, CP, and CN are working on their spreadsheets.
Mac McCulloch
Thanks for the practical thoughts about operations.
Do you have any insights about the design of a "Tank train" of interconnected tank cars?
The "National Rail Freight Infrastructure Capacity and Investment Study" prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc for the Association of American Railroads in 2007 forecast railroad system constraints for the USA railroad system in 2035. Your concerns about capacity are valid. But, looking at the study, it could be argued that the railroad infrastructure you described could be built now for the "tank trains," but will be required at any rate.
Thoughts?
MidlandMike BNSF has a route that crosses the Alberta border at Sweetgrass, MT, then heads for the Billings area, where it has a couple of choices of routes to Texas.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
WilliamKiesel I recently ran across a study comparing modes as to BTU's required to move a ton of freight. I was surprised to learn that pipelines used slightly less BTU's than rail. So, why dig and build a pipeline when adequate railroad capacity exists?
I recently ran across a study comparing modes as to BTU's required to move a ton of freight. I was surprised to learn that pipelines used slightly less BTU's than rail.
So, why dig and build a pipeline when adequate railroad capacity exists?
As others have mentioned, there is more to the cost of moving oil than just the energy needed to move it. You have to compare the entire infrastructure cost and also the labor cost for both modes of transport.
There may indeed be some degree of spill containment advantage to rail transport. But in the big picture, objection to the pipeline is larger than just the worry about the potential for direct environmental damage such as spills. It is a deeper, philosophical objection to the use of the oil. So I am not convinced that our regulators would give an automatic green light to moving the oil by rail, even if it did prove to be a cost effective option.
Americans alwyas like to think that what they have is passe`, that trains run under the Chirstmas tree and not cross country. But, right, too, about there not being capacity. At this time. Looking outside the pipe, weighing the costs of more rail capacity against the proposed pipeline, is in order, with an eye toward what can be carried by the rail line at any given time especially after the foreign oil market dries up or other wise disappears and with an eye toward greater numbers of employed. Of course, "employees" is the major point of American investments; they would rather avoid employing anyone. Still, it should be explored. We've got to start thinking in terms of maintaining our economy and workforce for the strength for future of our country as a whole and not just the invsetors'' interests.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
I like the way you're thinking, William! I'd far rather see those jobs that have been "lost" for now used on creating the terminals necessary along railroads to ship the oil by rail.
Norris is right--there are no direct rail routes along the proposed path of the pipeline. But if the crude is routed east to the Twin Cities, it could then make its way south via Kansas City, via at least two different routes into Texas or wherever processing capacity exists.
But there's the rub...
First of all, I suspect that tank cars are a bit heavier than you're giving them credit for--crude is probably capable of being shipped in cars with a capacity of 26,000 to 28,000 gallons. That would probably add another daily train to the needs to ship the pipeline's capacity. So you now have seven trains per day of roughly 100 tank cars, each about 60 feet in length. Let's add another one for easy figuring...eight trains in 24 hours, or one every three hours. These eight trains would be met by eight empty trains. These meets would occur every 1.5 hours. So your trackage would have to have a decent-length passing siding every 1.5 hours--long enough to give a little flexibility, and not to slow the meeting trains down significantly.
Now, given an average speed of 25 m.p.h. for freight trains (I think UP's average speed last year was 26 or so, by its own accounting method, which provides a lower figure than AAR's method), that means you'll need a two-mile siding or so every 37 miles. Now, keep in mind that this is the infrastructure needed for just these oil trains--add the line's existing load, and you'll either need many more sidings or a second main track.
If these trains move at this 25-m.p.h. average speed for 24 hours, you're taking about two days to travel from one end of the line to the other. That means you'll need 24 trainsets constantly moving--2400 cars. But they aren't constantly moving--they require considerable time to load and unload. You have to ship a train out every three hours to meet demand. So for every three-hour stretch that it takes to load or unload a train (I doubt that it can be done in less time) you need yet another trainset. You're probably talking three more at each end--so that's 3000 tank cars.
Now, terminals: You need people to load and unload these trains...car by car, unless you have something like a TankTrain system that can speed up the process and reduce labor requirements (or both). Unless you can load a train in lengths of 100 cars, or whatever length constitutes the entire train, you have to factor in time for breaking apart and putting together the trains. I don't know how long it takes to load or unload a unit train of crude, but for every three hours that the process takes, your terminal will need a track or tracks capable of loading or unloading (not just storing) 100 tank cars. That's over a mile of tank cars, remember...or else it's the cost in time and tracks (and downtime) to assemble these trains or break them up for spotting.
It is likely that trains will originate at different points, so instead of one massive terminal there may be several smaller terminals adding a train or two per day to the rail route.
We're talking a lot of infrastructure, and one heck of a fine railroad (or railroads) to obviate the need of this pipeline (and thank Goodness it's only XL instead of XXL or more!). If this can be done on existing rights-of-way, the permits for such an undertaking shouldn't be hard--certainly not as hard as getting them to run a pipeline through aquifers and other sensitive areas.
So I'm sure an argument for rail transport could be shot down on many counts. But it could provide construction employment, just as a pipeline would, employment in the manufacture of thousands of tank cars (and a few locomotives more than what might otherwise be built), and permanent jobs in the form of people at the loading and unloading points, not to mention crews to handle these trains...each train would take at least three crews every day.
Wouldn't this be grand for railroads and their fans?(And where's the Midland Continental Railroad, now that we could really use it?)
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
I think they would use a tank train rather than indivdual tank cars. A tank train has a pipe running through it so the entire train can be filled up from one point. As to the presence of north south track, the train might have to take the long way around, maybe over CN. Incidently CN is trying to market their railroad to the oil company according to News Wire. Also, older readers will remember that John Knieling wrote a column in TRAINS in which he advocated building a railroad instead of a pipelinr in Alaska. He stood be that even after the pipeline was built.
George
WilliamKiesel So, why dig and build a pipeline when adequate railroad capacity exists?
I took a look at the Keystone XL controversy. I would appreciate your comments.I recently ran across a study comparing modes as to BTU's required to move a ton of freight. I was surprised to learn that pipelines used slightly less BTU's than rail. Apparently a column of crude oil within the confines of a pipe is a little less energy intensive than that column chopped up into separate tanks riding on steel wheels upon steel rails. The biggest advantage of chopping the crude oil into separate packages is that should an emergency happen, the contents of a tank car rather than a miles long column of crude is at risk to be spillled.
I did some guesstimates. A gallon of crude is about 7.48 pounds in weight. That means that 29,278 gallons can be loaded in today's tank car. That would be 697.09 barrels a car. The press reports the Keystone XL pipeline would be capable of 435,000 barrels a day.
At 697.09 barrels car, 624 tank cars could move the daily transport requirements. Six trains a day could get the job done.So, why dig and build a pipeline when adequate railroad capacity exists?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.