Trains.com

Ethanol, and the unit train vs carload conundrum

8904 views
69 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    September 2002
  • From: Rockton, IL
  • 4,821 posts
Posted by jeaton on Sunday, June 4, 2006 1:23 AM
I read the article and since I don't have paranoid delusions that the Class 1 railroads are out to completely eliminate the small shipper, I do not see any directive by the writer that an ethanol producer "must" ship the product in unit trains. The word "imperative" is used but it is pretty clear to me that the writer is speaking of the need to use unit trains if the producer wants the best price and service for rail transport. I don't see anything that says such use is mandatory to be in the ethanol production business.

The first sentence of the third paragraph reads as follows: "Currently, however, there are only four nationwide DESTINATIONS that can handle unit trains." (capitals mine)So you tell me. What would be the point of building units trains if the consignee is going to have to dink around getting the cars unloaded.

Beyond the unloading capacity issue, I also have to question whether all blending facilities actually have the throughput volumn that would be conducive to receipts in trainload quantities. If I understand the problem correctly, ethanol blends can't be transported through the petroleum pipeling system and I assume is is blended in to the gasoline just before the truck delivery to retail outlets. I don't have any idea of the number of delivery terminals nationwide, but it seems to me that they would come in different sizes depending on the gasoline consuption of the market territory served. Would a facility that uses a carload a day actually want to keep an inventory of say 60-100 days of product?

Beside that, suppose the industry evolves to a point that that all the receivers do take trainloads of pretty good size for prompt unloading. I don't know much about ethanol production, but I would guess that a plant can't be shut down with just a flip of a switch. If that is the case, it would probably be a pretty good idea to have some tanks for storage of finished product for the day when there are no empty tanks cars in the yard. So if there is going to be tank storage, why wouldn't the 100 million gallon facility build storage for maybe eight to ten day's production. That would be enough product to load an 80+ car unit train all at once, and the desired transport efficiency could be realized.

On the inbound grain movement, unless an ethanol plant is built on cheap desert land in Arizona, don't expect much inbound carload movement of corn. A 100 million GPY plant in the corn belt could find all the grain needed growing in a radius of maybe 12-15 miles of the plant. Want to get really big? A one billion GPY plant might have to go out 35-40 miles to get the corn. If anybody on the forum knows how railroads could haul that corn at less cost than trucks, let me know. I'll line up the investors.

"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

  • Member since
    September 2002
  • From: Rockton, IL
  • 4,821 posts
Posted by jeaton on Sunday, June 4, 2006 1:34 AM
For the record I was writing my post and didn't see RRKen until I refreshed my screen. Nice to see a post from someone who obviously works in the business and can present the facts.[tup][tup]

"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

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 2,593 posts
Posted by PNWRMNM on Sunday, June 4, 2006 4:44 AM
I think the shortline president likely got misquoted. I am sure that he and the Class I connections would prefer unit trains but it is clear the customers can not handle them today. The railroads can not force a square peg into a round hole. The question should be "What is the future of this business?"

Ethanol is relatively light so IIRC cars will be about 30,000 gallons and 100 tons net. These cars will cost about $70,000 each or $700 per month. Shippers and consignees may use the tank cars as storage but they will be much more expensive than in plant fixed storage tanks. The railroad will quote rates either with mileage payment or without. This makes the railroad indifferent to car cycle time. Whoever supplys the cars will not be indifferent, however.

Taking the figures from the article, I doubt that anyone will want to wait 10 days to accumulate a unit train and switch 10 car cuts to do it. On 100 cars that is 1000 car days or 33.3 car months. At $700 per month someone spent over $21,000 in car cost just sitting around at origin.

I think the railroads will offer block rates on 10, 20, or 25 car blocks and unit trains. Producers, marketers and users will size their facilities as they will and pay the rate for the service they choose. In short, I do not think the railroads are going to force anyone to do anything. They will offer choices and customers will choose.

Take anything in any press with a grain of salt.

Mac
  • Member since
    May 2004
  • From: Mason City, Iowa
  • 901 posts
Posted by RRKen on Sunday, June 4, 2006 6:13 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

For the record I was writing my post and didn't see RRKen until I refreshed my screen. Nice to see a post from someone who obviously works in the business and can present the facts.[tup][tup]


For the record, I am a hogger with UPRR in Mason City, Iowa. Have been following the Ethanol industry since we got our first plant in Glenville, MN (1998). Thousands of TILX covered hopppers later, we now service five plants directly. Watching the branch lines in Iowa being converted from 10 mph all day affairs to 49 mph pipelines has been amazing. Our terminal alone has been working at 85% capacity since 2003, will still continue to grow. Along with it, new jobs, and equipment. Talks with investors, farmers, and people inside the industry has been quite interesting.
I never drink water. I'm afraid it will become habit-forming.
W. C. Fields
I never met a Moderator I liked
  • Member since
    October 2004
  • 3,190 posts
Posted by MichaelSol on Sunday, June 4, 2006 10:39 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard
Oh, and Dave, the days of one and two car load railroading by the class 1 roads is gone...been gone for quite a while.

QUOTE: Originallyt posted by RRKen
The reality is right now, it is not that way. When I look at a list of cars billed out, I see lots and lots of singles. Out of 215 last night, none were units, none.

An interesting difference of opinion.

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, June 4, 2006 12:55 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by RRKen

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

Thirty-five miles north of me,at Wentworth, S.D. is an ethanol plant built about 5 years ago. It is near the end of a little used brach line to the grain elevators at Madison, S.D. It was built there, knowing full well, that there would never be any unit train loads in or out. And yet, they still chose that location. What do you suppose they know that we (and Dave) don't. Oh.....it's also in the center of about 10,000 square miles of cornfields, and 10 miles from Interstate 29,and 30 miles from Interstate 90.[;)]


Did you even read the article? The gist of the article is that future growth in ethanol production facilities must conform to unit train dynamics, both for inbound corn and outbound products. Thus, the "all unit train or nothing" spector.


The reality is right now, it is not that way. When I look at a list of cars billed out, I see lots and lots of singles. Out of 215 last night, none were units, none.

It is some customers and marketers who want the units. Right now, there are only three terminals in the U.S. that can handle them; Watson, CA; Sewaren, NJ, and Albany, NY. (yes I know the aricle says four, if you count Pipola, AZ, which ADM has to itself last I looked) Otherwise, you are just parceling up trains at one end then parcelling them out at the destination.

There are a few locations that can take unit trains of DDGs. Pixley, Ca comes to mind as one of them. Otherwise all those cars are singles as well.

Although more large terminals will be in the future, you cannot have them in some small location in Michigan or Ohio where they may use only five tank cars a month. So there will always be singles running. I am thinking of places like Richmond, VA, or Spartensburg, SC in particular.


I will also dispute the gentleman from Iowa Interstate about inbound corn shipments by rail. Since the first plant here opened in 1998 until now, I have yet to see one inbound train of corn to their facilities. In fact, this area used to send ADM in Clinton, IA trains about once or twice a week. ADM had five or six commited trainsets of cars and power to fulfill the commitiment. This year, only one elevator has shipped to ADM from this area. And the reason is the competition from local ethanol plants. Why get a lower price for your grain at ADM because of transport, when you can get a better price in your county? And that is exactly what the producers here feel. ADM and Cargill in Eddyville for that matter, must seek out other markets, and in the past three or four years have. The only folks this does not really effect is the cattlemen, who now use DDGs as a feed instead of whole grain.

An example is the feed lot in Maracopia, AZ. They get multiple unit trains of corn for feed. But now they are building their own ethanol plant. While they will see better prices on local DDGs, they will not see much savings on whole grain as they still must trainsport it from places like Iowa or Nebraska, who has a surplus. Same goes with the California feedlots. I think the term becomes non-competitive.

Lastly single car cycle times. I will not dispute that a unit train gives excellant car cycle. All the trains we have sent to Albany have turned in ten days from shipper siding to shipper siding. But Albany can unload 100 cars in 24 hours. Not all end terminals can do that kind of capacity. Surely the ethanol plants cannot load that fast, so they must accumulate cars about a week or more before they can ship a unit. One way around it the marketers have been using is to line up two plants to fill out a unit. Works out rather well since the second plant is right on the way to the destination.

In the last few years, I have watched as single cars get about 12 to 15 day cycles to the West Coast and back. Now that the West Coast is not a market we serve, the times get shorter. However, it has always depended on the terminal to unload them. And they tend to be the biggest part of delays of cars. Marketers ship cars based on unloading schedules. But they do not control the end terminal, just sell to them. If Ozul, CA for example gets backed up, those cars they cannot handle have to sit somewhere. And that somewhere is a railroad yard or siding. Meantime, there is more on the way already.

Don't get me wrong, the ethanol industry is changing and will continue to. Average plant size in 2002 was 40 mmg/y, now the norm is 100 mmg/y. Production process has also changed. Marketers will meld both rail with barge and truck to deliver the product to the racks. But you will not eliminate the single car shipments, and ethanol plants will not be competitive if they need to ship in whole grains by rail, no matter the economy of scale.



RRKen, may I assume that you work for UP? If so, UP's current commitment to serve carload requests is not suprising. Up here in the PNW, while BNSF is committed to doing whatever it takes to get grain growers to truck their grain to the Ritzville shuttle loader and end carload requests at smaller elevators on BNSF's system and shortline connections, UP is doing just the opposite. They are allowing their shortline connections to distribute and collect carload lots of grain, then bringing them all to a logical UP connection to run 'em as an abreviated unit train to either one of the Lower Columbia deep water ports, or (depending on congestion conditions in the Gorge) short hauling the semi unit train to the Wallula barge port.

What is occuring because of this willingness to serve carload grain loading facilities is that UP's share of grain shipments out of Eastern Washington is growing compared to BNSF's. There have even been instances where elevator operators on BNSF or former BNSF served elevators have trucked their grain to an elevator served by a UP shortline.

Amazing what a little customer service can accomplish!

(Oh look Ed! I just complimented a railroad![;)])

As for Mr. Miller at IAIS, I would not take his prophecy lightly. Economies of scale are a priority when considering investment in production facilities. He states that a 100m gallon plant is considered small in his view, so what does he envision for a normal large scale plant? 1 billion gallons a year? If so, it is unlikely that all the grain needed for such a plant can be trucked in from the surrounding region. A 1 billion gallon ethanol plant would require 400 million bushels, or 114,000 carloads, or about 400,000 truckloads! Under this scenario, such a plant would have to bring in most of it's grain requirement from longer distances away, at least a few hundred miles even in corn country. Therefore, such a plant would require unit trains of grain coming in. The question then is if the economies of scale outweigh the increased transportation costs for the inputs, even if it's only half that size (500m g/yr).
  • Member since
    March 2002
  • 9,265 posts
Posted by edblysard on Sunday, June 4, 2006 1:19 PM
Not really...
Read what he wrote, not what you imagine.
Ten cars do not make a unit train, nor do they constitute a single car load.
We do switch out a lot of single..as in 1 car...into blocks...but again, you will only see or read what you choose to...
Local yards indeed cut out singles to a customer...but the class 1 roads are not activly looking for that kind of business.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard
Oh, and Dave, the days of one and two car load railroading by the class 1 roads is gone...been gone for quite a while.

QUOTE: Originallyt posted by RRKen
The reality is right now, it is not that way. When I look at a list of cars billed out, I see lots and lots of singles. Out of 215 last night, none were units, none.

An interesting difference of opinion.


23 17 46 11

  • Member since
    May 2004
  • From: Valparaiso, In
  • 5,921 posts
Posted by MP173 on Sunday, June 4, 2006 2:20 PM
rrken
Thanks for your input on this subject. You not only work for UP but you study the industry you work for and your customers.

I work for an industry which supplies products for railcars, particularly tank cars. Those folks are really excited right now. Tank car manufacturers are looking at big production over the next several years, partially thanks to ethanol.

A customer of mine is lADM. A recent conversation with my contact indicated that:
A. They are building 1billion gallons of manufacturing capacity.
B. They will be purchasing 2500 tank cars in the next 3 years.


Add to that their new CEO is an energy experienced executive and that their stock has soared to enormous gains, and it seems they are positioning themselves for future growth.

rrken...do you know where the new ADM plants are going to be located?

ed
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, June 4, 2006 5:48 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by beaulieu

QUOTE: Originally posted by up829


Small ethanol plants are popping up like wildflowers as venture capitalists see a great investment opportunity, but in terms of volume, ADM is by far the dominant player and also has the resources and political clout to build large scale plants and a distribution network.


As well as the other large agribusiness companies like Cargill, Lyle & Tate, etc.
There are a lot of smaller Ethanol producers but they are finding it better to market their product through ADM or Cargill as the lack marketing leverage with the major Oil Companies like ExxonMobil.

QUOTE:
Ethanol may run into some of the same problems as MBTE. Wisconsin has already or is the process of outlawing E10 outside of the Milwaukee air quality region due to concerns about what it will do to the states many fresh water lakes. It was also causing major problems in boats with molded-in fiberglass gas tanks and that may become an issue in other states with large numbers of registered boats.


Still selling E10 here in the NW part of Wisconsin as of a few hours ago,


John Beaulieu


I spoke too soon. An E10 ban did not pass, however the statewide E10 mandate was defeated in the state Senate. In south central Wisconsin, name brand regular has been labeled 'Up to E10', but has typically been E5 likely due to the demands of Milwaukee metro, while Mid grade and Premium in the area have not contained Ethanol and that will continue, at least for the time being. The 2 gas docks and one marina I'm familiar with sell Ethanol-free 89 octane midgrade or both midgrade and premium. There's some additional information at the following state Senator's site. There was also some on the DNR site, but I am unable to find it.

http://www.widigest.com/html/lazich_042806.htm

Regarding ADM, perhaps it was the distribution network being refered to, but the new CEO in a very recent interview on CNBC claimed an 80% market share.
  • Member since
    October 2004
  • 3,190 posts
Posted by MichaelSol on Sunday, June 4, 2006 6:05 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard
We do switch out a lot of single..as in 1 car...
QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard
Oh, and Dave, the days of one and two car load railroading by the class 1 roads is gone...been gone for quite a while.

QUOTE: Originallyt posted by RRKen
The reality is right now, it is not that way. When I look at a list of cars billed out, I see lots and lots of singles. Out of 215 last night, none were units, none.


An interesting turnaround ....
  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Sunday, June 4, 2006 6:38 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard
We do switch out a lot of single..as in 1 car...
QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard
Oh, and Dave, the days of one and two car load railroading by the class 1 roads is gone...been gone for quite a while.

QUOTE: Originallyt posted by RRKen
The reality is right now, it is not that way. When I look at a list of cars billed out, I see lots and lots of singles. Out of 215 last night, none were units, none.


An interesting turnaround ....

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Ed doesn't work for a class 1/

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    October 2004
  • 3,190 posts
Posted by MichaelSol on Sunday, June 4, 2006 8:53 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard
We do switch out a lot of single..as in 1 car...
QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard
Oh, and Dave, the days of one and two car load railroading by the class 1 roads is gone...been gone for quite a while.

QUOTE: Originallyt posted by RRKen
The reality is right now, it is not that way. When I look at a list of cars billed out, I see lots and lots of singles. Out of 215 last night, none were units, none.


An interesting turnaround ....

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Ed doesn't work for a class 1/

No, he doesn't, that's why it was interesting to contrast his comments on what Class I's are doing with someone who actually does work for a Class I.
  • Member since
    May 2004
  • From: Mason City, Iowa
  • 901 posts
Posted by RRKen on Sunday, June 4, 2006 11:26 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173

rrken
Thanks for your input on this subject. You not only work for UP but you study the industry you work for and your customers.

I work for an industry which supplies products for railcars, particularly tank cars. Those folks are really excited right now. Tank car manufacturers are looking at big production over the next several years, partially thanks to ethanol.

A customer of mine is lADM. A recent conversation with my contact indicated that:
A. They are building 1billion gallons of manufacturing capacity.
B. They will be purchasing 2500 tank cars in the next 3 years.


rrken...do you know where the new ADM plants are going to be located?

ed



Cedar Rapids, Iowa and Columbus, Nebraska. Each will be dry mill types with nameplate capacity of 275 mmg/y. Those plants will have the advantage of co-gen energy , which will give them a slight advantage to single plant locations. ADM by the way is the only producer to own it's own cars, not leased like the other marketers.
I never drink water. I'm afraid it will become habit-forming.
W. C. Fields
I never met a Moderator I liked
  • Member since
    September 2002
  • From: Rockton, IL
  • 4,821 posts
Posted by jeaton on Sunday, June 4, 2006 11:59 PM
RRKen

On my long post, I suggested that a 100 million GPY plant in the middle of the corn belt could find enough corn growing in a 10 to 15 mile radius of the plant to meet annual needs. Even if a plant could buy the closest corn, there is still the matter of storing the crop until consumed. That suggest the possibility of a small shuttle rail movement from storage to plant. Just generally from your observation, where is the corn coming from and how is it shipped in?

"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

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: K.C.,MO.
  • 1,063 posts
Posted by rrandb on Sunday, June 4, 2006 11:59 PM
The largest difficulty in receiving the tank trains may well be rail access to the tank farms(i.e. fuel storage facilities). If unit trains can get there they should be able to unload their capacity as they are used to recieving 100's of thousands of gallons of product at a time thru their pipelines. They just are not used to it arriving by rail. I wonder how long it takes to unload a unit train of tank cars into tank trucks?[?] As always ENJOY
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 2,593 posts
Posted by PNWRMNM on Monday, June 5, 2006 2:23 AM
If you want to know what BNSF is really doing, go to thier webiste and select Markets, Agricultural, Ethanol. It opens a page that touts a 95 car "Ethanol Express". At the top of the page is a link to Single Car Rates, which in fact gives both single car and unit train rates. You can print them out and study them minutely if you wish.

Evidently there is no demand for block rates as I previously speculated. Funny how the facts quell speculation.

Mac
  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Monday, June 5, 2006 7:17 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by RRKen
Those plants will have the advantage of co-gen energy , which will give them a slight advantage to single plant locations.

What does co-gen energy mean?

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    September 2002
  • From: Rockton, IL
  • 4,821 posts
Posted by jeaton on Monday, June 5, 2006 8:51 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by RRKen
Those plants will have the advantage of co-gen energy , which will give them a slight advantage to single plant locations.

What does co-gen energy mean?

I'll take a stab at that Q. It is making productive use of energy, usually in the form heat, that would otherwise just go out to the environment.

In other words, recovery heat that would otherwise go up the stack.

In the cited case, use is probably being made of heat that is either generated by the reactions in the production of other products or is left over from heat used in making other products.

Genearlly, there has to be a fairly convenient place to use the excess energy. That is why about the only use made of the excess heat generated by a railroad locomotive is to warm up the sandwich packed for lunch.

"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

  • Member since
    August 2003
  • From: Antioch, IL
  • 4,371 posts
Posted by greyhounds on Monday, June 5, 2006 10:26 AM
http://www.bnsf.com/media/news/articles/2006/06/2006-06-05a.html
"By many measures, the U.S. freight rail system is the safest, most efficient and cost effective in the world." - Federal Railroad Administration, October, 2009. I'm just your average, everyday, uncivilized howling "anti-government" critic of mass government expenditures for "High Speed Rail" in the US. And I'm gosh darn proud of that.
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: NW Wisconsin
  • 3,857 posts
Posted by beaulieu on Monday, June 5, 2006 12:19 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by RRKen
Those plants will have the advantage of co-gen energy , which will give them a slight advantage to single plant locations.

What does co-gen energy mean?


In this case ADM generates steam from the heat and has turbines to generate electricity with the steam.
  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Monday, June 5, 2006 12:30 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by beaulieu

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by RRKen
Those plants will have the advantage of co-gen energy , which will give them a slight advantage to single plant locations.

What does co-gen energy mean?


In this case ADM generates steam from the heat and has turbines to generate electricity with the steam.

Bummer![:)] I was hoping someone was trying to *cook* ethanol using coal. Now that would make sense to me.

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    February 2006
  • 344 posts
Posted by chicagorails on Monday, June 5, 2006 1:04 PM
EXXON today, ADM tomorro.
thus the rub.......
  • Member since
    May 2004
  • From: Mason City, Iowa
  • 901 posts
Posted by RRKen on Monday, June 5, 2006 1:17 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding
Originally posted by RRKen
Those plants will have the advantage of co-gen energy , which will give them a slight advantage to single plant locations.

What does co-gen energy mean?


In this case ADM generates steam from the heat and has turbines to generate electricity with the steam.

Bummer![:)] I was hoping someone was trying to *cook* ethanol using coal. Now that would make sense to me.


Actually, the plants at Goldfield, IA; Nevada, IA (just coming on-line); and Heron Lake, MN are coal burners. ADM in Clinton is also a coal burner.
I never drink water. I'm afraid it will become habit-forming.
W. C. Fields
I never met a Moderator I liked
  • Member since
    May 2004
  • From: Mason City, Iowa
  • 901 posts
Posted by RRKen on Monday, June 5, 2006 1:29 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

RRKen

On my long post, I suggested that a 100 million GPY plant in the middle of the corn belt could find enough corn growing in a 10 to 15 mile radius of the plant to meet annual needs. Even if a plant could buy the closest corn, there is still the matter of storing the crop until consumed. That suggest the possibility of a small shuttle rail movement from storage to plant. Just generally from your observation, where is the corn coming from and how is it shipped in?


Farmer has grain in bins, also takes grain to county elevator who either is agent for ethanol plant, or has a bulk contract with them to deliver. This all depends on if the ethanol plant is a co-op, or limited partnership with producers owning shares, or not. Producer/owners require them to sell a certain quantity to the plant at the going rate and time proscribed.

In the case of Golden Grain in Mason City, the farmer will sell to the ethanol plant, and haul it to a Five-Star Co-op location, and Five Star will then truck it to the ethanol plant when needed. Farmers may use a semi, tractor and bins, or grain truck to get it to the co-op. Five-Star uses semi's from the elevators to the plant. Almost no grain comes from outside the Five-Start area of elevators. And with all that, they (Five Star) still loads unit trains for other uses such as Gulf export or Chicken farms (Tyson), as well as, yes, ADM (they are loading 75 cars today at Rockwell on the old M&St.L).
I never drink water. I'm afraid it will become habit-forming.
W. C. Fields
I never met a Moderator I liked
  • Member since
    May 2004
  • From: Mason City, Iowa
  • 901 posts
Posted by RRKen on Monday, June 5, 2006 1:40 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

The largest difficulty in receiving the tank trains may well be rail access to the tank farms(i.e. fuel storage facilities). If unit trains can get there they should be able to unload their capacity as they are used to recieving 100's of thousands of gallons of product at a time thru their pipelines. They just are not used to it arriving by rail. I wonder how long it takes to unload a unit train of tank cars into tank trucks?[?] As always ENJOY


Albany, NY, which transloads to barge mostly, can unload 100 cars in 24 hours. Same with Watson, CA which BNSF serivces.

Here is the catch, if ethanol is sent to a tank farm, where the truck rack is, fine, if not it has to be hauled to the rack itself for blending. Ethanol cannot run via pipelines of any sort, unless that pipeline is dedicated to only ethanol and no other product.

Since Iowa has no refineries, we get all our product via pipeline. Each rack along the pipeline blends the gasoline at that location while loading it into the trucks, including ethanol.
I never drink water. I'm afraid it will become habit-forming.
W. C. Fields
I never met a Moderator I liked
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: K.C.,MO.
  • 1,063 posts
Posted by rrandb on Monday, June 5, 2006 2:32 PM
Yes and each fuel rack/tank farm must be able to receive enough ethanol to equal 10% of all the gasoline they dispense. It is replacing the MBTE that is being phased out. Virtually none of these facilities are set up to receive any rail cars much less unit trains. At best the tank cars/ barges will need to transfer to a lot of rubber tired tankers at some point to reach the fuel racks all over America. [2c] As always ENJOY
  • Member since
    September 2002
  • From: Rockton, IL
  • 4,821 posts
Posted by jeaton on Monday, June 5, 2006 2:46 PM
RRKen Quote: "Ethanol cannot run via pipelines of any sort, unless that pipeline is dedicated to only ethanol and no other product."

Question: Is it Is it necessary to have a special grade of steel or some sort of lining to hold ethanol in a pipe, rail tank car or storage tank or is it the ethanol/gasoline blend that is the problem? I suppose it could also be another problem. I understand that a petroleum product pipeline will handle different products using various colored dies to mark the transition from one product to another. Does the problem have to do with the possibility of ethanol straight or from a blend contaminating other products that follow?

Thanks for your comments.

"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

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: K.C.,MO.
  • 1,063 posts
Posted by rrandb on Monday, June 5, 2006 3:49 PM
One of the problems with ethonal is it blends readilly with both gasoline and water. There are traps that catch water etc. in these piplines and help prevent it from contaminating the gasoline. The ethanol sucks it all up and mixes it with the product even when blended at only 10%. It is also considered corrosive. [2c] As always ENJOY
  • Member since
    October 2004
  • 3,190 posts
Posted by MichaelSol on Monday, June 5, 2006 4:08 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM

If you want to know what BNSF is really doing, go to thier webiste and select Markets, Agricultural, Ethanol. It opens a page that touts a 95 car "Ethanol Express". At the top of the page is a link to Single Car Rates, which in fact gives both single car and unit train rates. You can print them out and study them minutely if you wish.

Evidently there is no demand for block rates as I previously speculated. Funny how the facts quell speculation.

BNSF quotes single car rates, 30-94 cars if gathered from no more than three plants, and 95 cars and up.
  • Member since
    September 2002
  • From: Rockton, IL
  • 4,821 posts
Posted by jeaton on Monday, June 5, 2006 4:38 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

One of the problems with ethonal is it blends readilly with both gasoline and water. There are traps that catch water etc. in these piplines and help prevent it from contaminating the gasoline. The ethanol sucks it all up and mixes it with the product even when blended at only 10%. It is also considered corrosive. [2c] As always ENJOY


Oops! Forgot about that mixing with water thing. Maybe just as well. That first sip off a really "dry" martini would put one on the floor.[:D][:D][:D]

"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

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy