CSSHEGEWISCH Tracking may be well nigh impossible if the container is being shipped under a "Freight All Kinds" classification.
Tracking may be well nigh impossible if the container is being shipped under a "Freight All Kinds" classification.
Exactly.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Ulrich you order a new couch from Leons for delivery to your home for example..
But a good many items of that sort do get carried at some point by rail. Your new TV likely travelled in a container to a warehouse, where the TVs were broken down into regional destinations, etc, to which they travelled by truck.
But, yes, the markets are different for probably most cargoes. The problem is identifying what those cargoes are. TVs are a case in point. There may only be a couple of containers on a 200 can train that are loaded with TVs. They're still travelling by rail, but as a commodity, they would be hard to track.
Sure -- no point in comparing the fuel efficiencies of a coal train and a FedEx delivery van. So we won't try to do that. But the carriage of identical containers between the same two points, by rail and by truck, would be a useful comparison. (Anyway, it's the one the original questioner asked about.)
timz Ulrich The two modes, truck and rail, really only intersect on about 10% of all freight. Thus a fuel efficiency comparison between the two is for the most part meaningless. Apparently your definition of "meaningless" is different from the usual. Sounds like you're saying 90% of all freight always goes by truck, or always goes by rail. Or something like that. Who cares what's in each container? The very meaningful question is: given 300 containers, each weighing 25 tons, to be moved from LA to Chicago, how much fuel would 300 trucks burn, and how much fuel would a train carrying the same containers burn?
Ulrich The two modes, truck and rail, really only intersect on about 10% of all freight. Thus a fuel efficiency comparison between the two is for the most part meaningless.
Apparently your definition of "meaningless" is different from the usual.
Sounds like you're saying 90% of all freight always goes by truck, or always goes by rail. Or something like that. Who cares what's in each container? The very meaningful question is: given 300 containers, each weighing 25 tons, to be moved from LA to Chicago, how much fuel would 300 trucks burn, and how much fuel would a train carrying the same containers burn?
I'm saying that truck and rail freight really only overlaps on about 10% of the overall freight market. Alot of freight cannot go by truck... coal.. iron ore.. crude oil etc.. and conversely, alot of freight cannot go by rail.. you order a new couch from Leons for delivery to your home for example.. that's not going rail. The overlap.. where freight is equally amenable to truck or rail is about 10% of the total freight market. That's why truck to rail fuel efficiency comparisons are for the most part a nice theoretical exercise with almost no practical value... fun stuff for engineers to contemplate.
UlrichThe two modes, truck and rail, really only intersect on about 10% of all freight. Thus a fuel efficiency comparison between the two is for the most part meaningless.
BaltACD tree68 CSX touts 520 ton miles per gallon overall. For trucks, several sources I found cite around 160 ton miles per gallon. So a factor of ~3.5 would be a decent starting point. That's for a box van semi. Auto haulers get atrocious mileage. CSX is calculating that figure from all the fuel they buy and all the freight they bill
tree68 CSX touts 520 ton miles per gallon overall. For trucks, several sources I found cite around 160 ton miles per gallon. So a factor of ~3.5 would be a decent starting point. That's for a box van semi. Auto haulers get atrocious mileage.
That's for a box van semi. Auto haulers get atrocious mileage.
CSX is calculating that figure from all the fuel they buy and all the freight they bill
If I remember correctly, the claim was 'CSX: moving a ton of freight 520 miles on a gallon of fuel.' I always took it as a carefully worded way of saying: 'Once we figure out how many gallons it takes to move an empty train 520 miles, we can add a ton of freight and get it there for only a gallon more'.
Based on the reply from Balt, it seems I'm wrong, but it would definitely make it a different comparison.
The two modes, truck and rail, really only intersect on about 10% of all freight. Thus a fuel efficiency comparison between the two is for the most part meaningless. For example, if you need a fridge delivered to your home is it meaningful to know that the flanged wheel is more efficient than rubber on asphalt? Of course not. Now extrapolate that to most freight, and bingo, that's why nobody really cares about fuel efficiency comparisons. Rail isn't an option for most freight..thus rail efficiency, however wonderful it may be, is irrelevant i.e. meaningless.
In my opinion, it's ridiculous to think that you can't compare efficiency of two modes of freight transportation in the same lane with a simple-in-principle comparison of cost per ton-mile.
The complexity starts to come in if you average the cost per mile to account for things like grade, wind, congestion etc, that affect one mode differently from another, but those are reasonably readily determined or approximated. The trouble comes when you have advocates for a particular mode who start fudging the assumptions or data to get what they want to see, or want others to believe or agree to.
UlrichRail verses truck fuel efficiency is a meaningless comparison.
charlie hebdo Overmod improvements in proper... wheel grinding maintenance If you listen to trains, even intermodal container trains along the UP mainline, you will easily and frequently hear considerable evidence of an appalling lack of the above maintenance. Deferred maintenance redux, ala Penn Central days?
Overmod improvements in proper... wheel grinding maintenance
If you listen to trains, even intermodal container trains along the UP mainline, you will easily and frequently hear considerable evidence of an appalling lack of the above maintenance.
Deferred maintenance redux, ala Penn Central days?
Nope. Wheel replacement is an AAR-billable repair. Unless that car is owned by the railroad that you saw it on, there is zero economic incentive for the RR to leave a condemnable wheel defect in place instead of replacing it and sending a bill to the owner. But conversely if the defect is not condemnable, they are not going to spend their money to fix someone else's car. This is how it has been since AAR interchange rules were established a Long Time Ago.
When the Wheel Impact Load Detectors (WILD) network got built out 15-20 years ago, car owners gained the ability to repair trending wheels prior to condemnable flat spots if they wish to. The advantage to that is they can get the work done in home or contract repair shops at less-than-AAR rates. But the WILDs mostly only catch flat spots, not hollow wheels, thin flanges, or other defects.
Dan
Rail verses truck fuel efficiency is a meaningless comparison. We may as well ask which is more efficient.. a power drill or a rice cooker. Not being a power engineer, I would go with the rice cooker if its a rice dinner I'm after. And I would go with the power drill if I needed a hole in a wall (I guess throwing the rice cooker against the wall would work too if you're not fussy about the size of the hole). But the point is that any tool's efficiency is always closely correlated to the job at hand.
Overmodimprovements in proper... wheel grinding maintenance
tree68CSX touts 520 ton miles per gallon overall. For trucks, several sources I found cite around 160 ton miles per gallon. So a factor of ~3.5 would be a decent starting point. That's for a box van semi. Auto haulers get atrocious mileage.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
CSX touts 520 ton miles per gallon overall. For trucks, several sources I found cite around 160 ton miles per gallon. So a factor of ~3.5 would be a decent starting point.
Perry BabinI'll take it that only 4x is total garbage and leave it at that.
Yeah, it would be interesting to know how many gallons a stack train burns between LA and Chicago, and how many gallons trucks would burn pulling the same containers. Maybe twice as much?
Overmod Hopefully one of our Caterpillar mavens will have a similar 'state-of-the-art' reference from the yellow side.
Hopefully one of our Caterpillar mavens will have a similar 'state-of-the-art' reference from the yellow side.
UlrichIf you make your living dragging heavy loads of lumber and steel through the mountains of WV then you're likely not going to get anywhere close to that number.
(Not to mention the fun when some of the 'heat conserving' features on the amazing wonder engine turn out to have "issues" in the field. Note for example the precise methods Cummins would be using to drain condensate in the EGR system, and where the EGR valve itself is placed...)
Much more significant would be the introduction of what corresponds to 'dual-mode-lite' for trucks: short-term electric boost on critical grades, true regenerative braking, downsized peak-power and hence engine displacement and physical weight and dimensions...
Overmod greyhounds What make and model of over the road tractor gets 12.5 MPG running at 80,000 pounds Gross Vehicle Weight? What engine are they using? Note I said 'capable of' -- the examples I saw were experimental configurations and not 'production' tractors or chassis. As noted above, much of that is through very careful, very diligent, very accurate control of throttle and transmission, and of course correct true aero. To a certain extent it would reflect predictive control (e.g. from GPS/GIS on the Carnegie Mellon model, which should have been widespread by now but the opportunity was missed by AAR. But I digress). One example of engine that would give you an entry point to a 'best-practices' engine design would be one incorporating the features that Kocher (of Cummins) described in the OSTI "55% BTE" paper from 2018. Hopefully one of our Caterpillar mavens will have a similar 'state-of-the-art' reference from the yellow side.
greyhounds What make and model of over the road tractor gets 12.5 MPG running at 80,000 pounds Gross Vehicle Weight? What engine are they using?
Note I said 'capable of' -- the examples I saw were experimental configurations and not 'production' tractors or chassis.
As noted above, much of that is through very careful, very diligent, very accurate control of throttle and transmission, and of course correct true aero. To a certain extent it would reflect predictive control (e.g. from GPS/GIS on the Carnegie Mellon model, which should have been widespread by now but the opportunity was missed by AAR. But I digress).
One example of engine that would give you an entry point to a 'best-practices' engine design would be one incorporating the features that Kocher (of Cummins) described in the OSTI "55% BTE" paper from 2018. Hopefully one of our Caterpillar mavens will have a similar 'state-of-the-art' reference from the yellow side.
Absolutely possible. But here again results will vary based on real world applications and conditions. If you make your living dragging heavy loads of lumber and steel through the mountains of WV then you're likely not going to get anywhere close to that number.
greyhoundsWhat make and model of over the road tractor gets 12.5 MPG running at 80,000 pounds Gross Vehicle Weight? What engine are they using?
Ulrich We average 6.5 mpg pulling flatbed mostly..
We average 6.5 mpg pulling flatbed mostly..
It's more like 8-9mpg. I've seen accounts of Freightliner Cascadias with the DD15 engine with an automated transmission using the cruise control for acceleration and cruising can do it.
OvermodA fully modern Class 8 OTR truck is capable of getting upward of 12.5mpg average over a large percentage of many routes, loaded (to about 40T - those in the industry can flesh out with much better numbers than I have).
What make and model of over the road tractor gets 12.5 MPG running at 80,000 pounds Gross Vehicle Weight? What engine are they using?
Keep in mind also that the use of any of the containers 40' or larger will only imperfectly replace local or last-mile trucking. Their 'fuel' advantage in between distribution points like Rotterdam, NY, or perhaps organized cross dock facilities as in Cedar Rapids or organized lanes from intermodal facilities to truck-line warehouses. The 'competitive' truck technology is therefore more limited than just something with rubber tires at pavement-busting pressure vs. steel-on-steel flanged wheels.
it's an apples to oranges comparison..efficiency is determined largely by the job at hand..i.e. if you're in the business of delivering home appliances to people's homes then certainly the basic 24 ft box delivery truck is most efficient. If, on the other hand, you're moving millions of tons of coal then obviously rail is the way to go. Sure, the flanged wheel on guided rail is far more efficient than rubber on tarmac, but that's only one criterion that factors in to overall efficiency.
Gotcha! It's not something that could be answered in any reasonable amount of time (for my curiosity level). I'll take it that only 4x is total garbage and leave it at that.
Perry BabinPart of the problem is me not knowing what is and what isn't reliable
Part of the problem is me not knowing what is and what isn't reliable, hence the post here.
One example:
https://www.freightera.com/blog/train-vs-truck-transportation-efficiency-cost-advantages-disadvantages-infographic/
Page 10, item#8:
https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/fra_net/16332/1991_RAIL%20VS%20TRUCK%20FUEL%20EFFICIENCY%20-%20THE%20RELATIVE%20F%282%29.PDF
I realize that there are MANY variables so general information would be appreciated.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.