Fuel always a concern for the railways..

[Anonymous]

As we all know fuel is an enormous expense for the railways, and I was just wondering what kind of taxes railways pay on their diesel fuel?

Are they paying the exact same taxes on fuel that truckers pay?

Here's a thought.... since railways pay for 100% of their own infrastructure, and trucks get a free ride, why don't the US and Canadian governments offer tax breaks on fuel to the railways....

It seems like it would at least make things a little bit more fair between trucks and trains, and offer the railways a large savings in diesel prices...

Even if the governments would only offer savings of 10 - 20 cents a gallon, that would still leave the railways with a pile of ca***hat they could put towards infrastructure....

If the government isn't going to help the railways directly with their infrastructure, why not at least subsidise them indirectly through a fuel discount...

Surely the railways would have a pretty good argument.

[?]

[kevarc]

No, they do not pay the same as truckers. I think we had a thread on this not to long ago, so you may want to look around for it.

They use off-road diesel and do not have to pay all the taxes a trucker would. They also use a lower grade of diesel, higher sulphur content, which casts less also.

They have always had pushes for fuel consumption on the RR's. I remenber reading articles and stories from the steamer days (On Time Tyner - a series from the 70's (?) that was covered in Trains Mag) of them running steam to heat the fuel oil in the tender to show a lower fuel consumption.

[Anonymous]

What was the name of the thread? Thanks.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by macguy

What was the name of the thread? Thanks.

Go to the "Search the forums..." box at the top of the page and look for diesel fuel, diesel taxes, etc.

You're welcome!

[egmurphy]

QUOTE: ...and stories from the steamer days ...... of them running steam to heat the fuel oil in the tender to show a lower fuel consumption...

I thought the steam heating was because they had to heat the fuel oil to get it to flow well, or was that only at very low temperatures?

Regards

Ed

[dldance]

UP used to burn "residuals" in their steamers and early turbines. That stuff has a freeze point of about 120 degrees so every one of their tenders has both steam lines to heat the tank and steam tracing on the oil pumbing. I know it sometimes gets hot in Wyoming - but I've only seen 120 once. Those engines needed the steam even on the hottest summer days.

Note: when plastics became an industrial commodity in the 1950's - the prices of "residual" oil shot up. All the long molecules that cause the high freeze point are very desirable to the plastics people - so UP converted to #2 diesel - which seriously impacted the economics of their turbines.

dd

[adrianspeeder]

At low temps, diesel gels.

Off road diesel is like a buck cheeper back home. I cant even seem to find reg diesel around here though. Man, i just cant get used to the city.

Adrianspeeder

[dehusman]

Actually the railroads pay an extra fuel tax which is being phased out (after legislation this year), so no they don't pay what truckers pay.

Dave H.

[oltmannd]

RRs pay no fuel tax other than the 4.3 cent "deficit reduction" tax which, as previously noted, is being phased out.

[edbenton]

there costs will be going up though the EPA is requiring a 90% reduction in sulpher content in all diesel fuel by 2009 which means all engines on the railroad will be running on low sulpher fuel and that stuff does not like rubber eats it up back when the trucking companies switched in the early 90's they had all kinds of fuel system problems with injector seals failing and fuel contamination in the oil one company I worked for as a mechanic had to rebuild 4 engines in a month due to the new low sulpher fuel out to be nice to see how the 710 series will last on the new formula the GE engine is already designed for low sulp[her fuel

[Anonymous]

I remember grumbling about lubricity in the early nineties when sulfur levels were reduced. Fuel injection components fit to micron tolerances, and manufacturers were at first worried, but then later reassured owners.

If in fact sulfur levels are going to be reduced even further, could lubricity then truly become a problem?

[route_rock]

Last I looked trucks dont get a free ride. They pay road use taxes plus god knows how many other fees taxes and etc.(who do you think pays for the roads you are on?Not your everyday car driver.) Look at the IFTA sticker on a truck next time you see one.Thats the state of residence basiclly if you could see the cab card to know which states that truck is authorized to operate in you would see where all that one units money goes.Anytime you are in a state you must report it and any fill ups and if you were loaded or empty.Wyoming gits you coming in the state.New Mexico makes you show your special fuel permit.Dont even get me started about Cali! Anyhow thats enough of my rant.

[Overmod]

jruppert -- how does sulfur level in the fuel affect lubricosity?

I've always used the Stanadyne additive, TD4 or whatever to put the 'right' lubricosity in the injection system. I had thought that the sulfur removal was similar to what's used in the synfuel industry (etc.) and the appropriately lubricating mix of chains would be restored in subsequent refining. Can't think of anything that removing sulfur would do that would make diesel #2 eat rubber. So tell!

I would presume that it's not a 'big deal' to improve lubricosity with zero sulfur, via nothing more complicated (or expensive) than an additive package. Doesn't seem to have hurt the objective cost of gasoline fuel to put detergents, friction modifiers, etc. in there in required quantities. We're not talking Howes or Power Service profit margins here. I, personally, would pay a few cents more per gallon for assured high cetane and lubricosity, just as I now do for 'high-octane' gas for the cars that benefit from it.

The day I see a trucker who pays their fair share of road damage via taxes, I'll be surprised. And yes, we everyday car and light truck drivers pay a considerable amount for the roads we're on -- and unlike truckers, many automobile drivers can't deduct the amount from their income tax or pass it along to the marks, er, customers. Moreover, If truckers had to support even the maintenance expenses for the Interstate system by themselves, it would be interesting to see what our highway system would resemble today. Those slabs on I-20 didn't get tilted like that from cars, did they?

Having said that, I concur that it's pathetic to watch the states soak the truckers for every cent they can. At least in the old days, you didn't need to see the cab card -- you could tell by all the little stickers and permits on the rig itself what states it was licensed to operate in. Nothing quite as sad as politicians who see a cheap revenue source coming from people who can't vote 'em out!

I presume the enforcement for overloading is still enthusiastically in place, even with rising and uncertain fuel cost. Correction: some of the folks who equate to 'weed weasels' are sadder than politicians...

[adrianspeeder]

The sulfur content in diesel in america is sky high compared to every other country that has laws banning sulfur in diesel fuel. I will gladly make any changes to my truck to say it is twice as powerful, twice as efficient, and TWICE AS CLEAN as any gasser motor.

Im not exactly sure how the sulfur content has to do with the lube qualities of diesel fuel, but it is working in europe where most passenger cars are diesel. (clean diesel i might add)

Adrianspeeder

[Junctionfan]

Where is the thread about the proposal of the railroads using ethanol or ethanol laced diesel?

[Overmod]

Don't wait too long. Ethanol is, how can I put this gently, not meaningfully compatible with fuels for compression-ignition engines.

[Anonymous]

Don't you get reduced milage out of ethanol blended gasoline?

I know they sell it for cars at a lot of gas stations here in Canada, but I was hearing that you don't actually get as good milage on an ethanol blended gasoline?

True?

[Junctionfan]

All it requires is some tinkering with the technology. It will obviously work at some point in the near future otherwise industries wouldn't waste their time trying to market it as a viable fuel source.

[Anonymous]

But for the price Diesel now a days do the RR;s have a set price as the prices of today keep going up for the trucking companys,in other words the RR's pay a flat rate? Right?
Because the truckers have to pay more as the price goes up.

[Overmod]

Macguy: Yes, lower mpg in a gasoline engine when ethanol is mixed:

1) Lower heat content per mole (look at the formulas, bond energies, etc.)
2) Higher heat of vaporization for the alcohol -- requires more of the heat energy of combustion/expansion. (Fringe benefit: ethanol blend acts like a higher-octane gasoline)

This is part of the reason so little ethanol is incorporated in the 'consumer' blended fuels.

[Anonymous]

Then why are the governments trying to push for ethanol so much?

[Anonymous]

Agricultural subsidies? research grants (institutional subsidies) ?

[Anonymous]

Well, it's supposed to be more environmentally friendly, but I can't see how it's too much better when you just end up using more of it.

[Anonymous]

Overmod - I really don't know how removing sulfur affects lubrosity (?) (lubricosity?). I just remember it was a concern in the early nineties when low sulfur fuel first appeared.

I don't remember any concern about rubber seals, and imagine any problem with sealing materials would more likely be caused by volatile components. At any rate, a high pressure system with metering and delivery done in the pump and injection done at a seperate injector like a Bosch or Stanadyne system has all metal to metal sealing. Some unit injector systems use O-rings to separate delivery and return sides like Cummin's PT injection, or Detroit's Series 50 & 60 electronic unit injectors, but this is for low pressure delivery in the cylinder head cavity and also a low difference in pressure from one side to the other of an injector.

Whether metering and delivery is done in an injection pump or in a unit injector, the mechanism is the same - a barrel with a reciprocating plunger inside. The plunger has a short groove that connects the swept volume to a helical groove whose shape determines filling time as well as start and end of injection times. As long as the helical groove does not encounter the spill port, hydraulic lock pressurizes the fuel past the delivery check valve. Rotating the the plunger axially as it moves up and down changes the timing of its coincidence with the the spill port. This is done with a gear quadrant and a rack - fuel rack, controlled by the governor.

These two pieces are not the only pieces with very close tolerances but are ones with the most movement. They must have a very close tolerance fit because of the pressures required for diesel fuel injection, and this is where the concerns for lubrosity arose that the service life of injection components would be affected.

You could very well be right that any variation of lubricosity could be corrected with additives.

Oh, the one system that is unique from the above description is the Cummin's PT injection system which, among other traits, is why I compare Cummins to Trolobytes (unchanged for millions of years), because the PT system has features that go all the way back to the earliest "solid" fuel injection systems of Vickers in the 1920's and even from earlier blast air injection systems when manufacturing tolerances did not make "solid" fuel injection possible !

[Overmod]

jruppert, the thing about rubber was addressing Ed Benton's comment at 10:17. Darned if I can figure it out.

Don't you love Clessie Cummins' story about how he 'discovered' how to make the precise parts of the injection pump work without the little ball bearing? That's the 'right' kind of lubricosity in action!

The push for ethanol is partly political and partly based on 'renewable resources'. There has been a sizable body of discussion (on slashdot and elsewhere) as to whether ethanol is a net benefit in hydrocarbon consumption; it may take more than a gallon of refined oil products, overall, to make a gallon of ethanol. I am biased on this subject and therefore will say nothing.

Another interesting point is that ethanol, technically, is an oxygenated fuel (with, I believe, more oxygen per kilogram than MTBE) which means that its inclusion can... theoretically,,, improve air quality in certain circumstances.

You'll have to decide for yourself how much of the ethanol 'initiative' is a scam, and how much of it is legitimate.

[daveklepper]

To reduce pollution.

[Junctionfan]

I don't see how removing sulfur loose it's lubrication either. Oil is still oil isn't it? I don't think that vegetable oil has sulfur but still is slippery when you spill some on the floor.

I wonder if there are additives in the work for ethanol if it's not good for fuel right now.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Overmod

Don't wait too long. Ethanol is, how can I put this gently, not meaningfully compatible with fuels for compression-ignition engines.

O, you are correct, which is why it would be more prudent for alcohol fuel proponents to focus instead on higher chain alcohols like isoproponol and butanol, which are compatible with both spark ingnition and compression ignition engines. There are processes now commercially available which can produce these higher chain alcohols from both grains and biomass, so in that respect ethanol is old hat, being pushed solely for political reasons.

Of course, the bigger picture is that such renewables can never amount to more than a small fraction of the nation's fuel supply. Which is why if we get to the point of petroleum unavailability, the next logical energy sources for railroads is in coal/coal derivatives and/or direct electricity via catenary.

[Junctionfan]

It sounds to me than that the automakers and locomotive makers needs to develop an engine that can be more capatable with ethanol and other bio-fuels. It would definately help out the world if they didn't need to depend on foreign terrorist loving nations to make our run. Do we really want to be tough on the war on terrorism?; make the oil industries bankrupt-at least the ones that depend on operations in the middle east. Best way to do that is non-fossil fuels.

[Overmod]

FM -- my understanding, perhaps incorrect (but I doubt it is ;-}) is that one of the principal drivers of the ethanol process is that it's biologically driven. Are there 'safe' microorganisms that can catalyze generation of the higher alcohols directly, or are we looking at synthesis from natural gas via the same general processes used for methanol?

Can you provide direct links to references for the production methods you mentioned? I, for one, would like to see their protocols...

Junctionfan, there is little point in designing locomotives to use high-dollar, lower-efficiency fuel... even oxygenated fuel... particularly if some form of assisted ignition is necessary. Imho, the way the fuel issue is going to play out is 'diesel' vs. some form of 'natural gas' -- probably CNG. The biodiesel/biomass side will likely resemble the former, and synthesis methods (e.g. using tar sands or coals as feedstock) favor the latter.

Both CNG and LNG require some fuel heating to work properly -- LNG more, of course, which I believe is a principal reason it's trailing CNG in popularity for locomotive work. But once the gas is up to pressure, it will turbocharge and burn quite nicely with high enthalpy, unlike methanol/ethanol which absorb considerable compression heat when injected. The last place you want to start losing heat is at the time you expect large numbers of injected molecules to be boosted over their transition temperature in close proximity to oxygen molecules (diatomic), or to have their complex molecular bonds broken in ways that minimize potential pollution (or in ways which optimize aftertreatment, such as NH3 injection or catalyst traps)...