The fuel efficiency of trains

[just Warren]

If you can come up with something like this you've got it made.

http://www.tulsaport.com/

That is awesome. I never knew it existed.

[RoadKingLarry]

It's a pretty impressive facility. Wife's grandpa owned 200 acres of it before they bought him out to build it.

[French G.]

Intermodal is where it is at. Trucks are the convenience store of freight, get what you want now, but pay convenience store prices.

And the thing that I'd love to see but will never come to be. Nuclear powered train. I'm pretty sure we can make mobile containment that is impervious to wrecks and terrorists.

[birdman]

Intermodal is where it is at. Trucks are the convenience store of freight, get what you want now, but pay convenience store prices.

And the thing that I'd love to see but will never come to be. Nuclear powered train. I'm pretty sure we can make mobile containment that is impervious to wrecks and terrorists.

Not quite worth it due to capital requirements.  What would be better would be synthetic fuel generation by large nuclear plants, and then use of conventional high efficiency gas turbine or diesel engines.

Also, making small (4-5MW) nuclear reactors is extremely difficult, and they don't scale cost effectively to small sizes due to a minimum amount of ancillary equipment required.

[RevDisk]

Not quite worth it due to capital requirements.  What would be better would be synthetic fuel generation by large nuclear plants, and then use of conventional high efficiency gas turbine or diesel engines.

Also, making small (4-5MW) nuclear reactors is extremely difficult, and they don't scale cost effectively to small sizes due to a minimum amount of ancillary equipment required.

This.  Reactors get much more economical as you scale up.  Small reactors would only be good for niche markets. 

Batteries still have not reached any huge breakthrough.  Plus the energy density makes it interesting when it does go.  If the train did have the battery specs to be useful...  If it went, it'd be an interesting day. 

[Perd Hapley]

Intracontinentally, barge shipping offers the lowest cost, if one is moving vast amounts of weight, if you don't mind the wait, and if the river/canal is conveniently located.

Rail is next, if the rail is convenient, and railroad construction is cheaper than canal. Railroads are doing better freight business than they ever did, especially when the trains are "unit trains" a mile long, moving one type of product on a regular route between specialized, high-volume loading/off-loading facilities (between a coal mine and a power plant, for example).

Trucks are faster and more flexible, but cost more.

Air is fastest and most expensive.

Pipelines are in the mix, too, but I don't recall where they fit on the cost/weight/speed/convenience curve.

[birdman]

Intracontinentally, barge shipping offers the lowest cost, if one is moving vast amounts of weight, if you don't mind the wait, and if the river/canal is conveniently located.

Rail is next, if the rail is convenient, and railroad construction is cheaper than canal. Railroads are doing better freight business than they ever did, especially when the trains are "unit trains" a mile long, moving one type of product on a regular route between specialized, high-volume loading/off-loading facilities (between a coal mine and a power plant, for example).

Trucks are faster and more flexible, but cost more.

Air is fastest and most expensive.

Pipelines are in the mix, too, but I don't recall where they fit on the cost/weight/speed/convenience curve.

For liquids or gasses, pipelines are far cheaper than anything else for distribution to fixed points of consistent volumes.

[zahc]

My friend used to do import/export brokering, and ship a lot of stuff by boat. He told me that the rates depended partly on the "dollar value per unit weight" of the cargo, and if your cargo was considered 'high value' based on this metric then you got charged more. Since they regularly only needed to ship a partial pallet, they would add cement blocks until the pallet was the maximum weight, and actually get charged less that way.

[roo_ster]

This.  Reactors get much more economical as you scale up.  Small reactors would only be good for niche markets. 

Batteries still have not reached any huge breakthrough.  Plus the energy density makes it interesting when it does go.  If the train did have the battery specs to be useful...  If it went, it'd be an interesting day. 

This.  Stored chemical energy, when the reactions slip the reins, can get pretty damned exciting. 

[Tallpine]

railroad construction is cheaper than canal

Especially over the Rockies 

[Scout26]

As someone who both ran the logistics for a company that import the vast majority of it's product, then worked for a Customs Bonded Warehouse/Freight Consolidator/Trucking Company, and finally logistics manager for a manufacturing company, I have a wee bit of experience in this area.

+1000 to Rev's "invest in railroads" strategy.  Their largest capital expense (land and tracks) has been paid off long, long ago.  Now it's simply rolling stock, and railcars last dozens of years.  If you don't think so, look at reporting marks on some of the boxcars.  It's not uncommon to still see "NYC" and "PC" even though the Penn New York Central went Tango Uniform in 1976.  And the vast majority of rolling stock these days are either shipper owned or leased to shipper equipment.  (Railbox and TTX "TrailerTrain" cars)  So really all the railroad have to buy these days are the locomotives and fuel.   

[just Warren]

Does this article change anything in the relative competitive advantages of rail over other forms?

I've never been a believer in Peak Oil and I'm sure most members here are the same, but if the public at large and the folks that are involved in the various markets (direct sales, futures etc.) change their attitudes en masse then will prices will drop so much that the percentage that fuel plays as a cost become so low as to make the cost difference between rail and other transportation inconsequential? 

[RevDisk]

As someone who both ran the logistics for a company that import the vast majority of it's product, then worked for a Customs Bonded Warehouse/Freight Consolidator/Trucking Company, and finally logistics manager for a manufacturing company, I have a wee bit of experience in this area.

+1000 to Rev's "invest in railroads" strategy.  Their largest capital expense (land and tracks) has been paid off long, long ago.  Now it's simply rolling stock, and railcars last dozens of years.  If you don't think so, look at reporting marks on some of the boxcars.  It's not uncommon to still see "NYC" and "PC" even though the Penn New York Central went Tango Uniform in 1976.  And the vast majority of rolling stock these days are either shipper owned or leased to shipper equipment.  (Railbox and TTX "TrailerTrain" cars)  So really all the railroad have to buy these days are the locomotives and fuel.   

Well, plus new axles, POL, maintenance personnel, etc. But still a drop in the bucket. But yes, the supermajority of the rail is run and only needs to be overhauled once in a great while. Spar lines are often mostly paid by the customer.  They have a pretty good rate of return, but tend to be conservative. It's impressively hard to screw up long haul freight rail, unless you skimp on safety and maintenance. Of course, it's also hard to really drive up new business as well. The market is pretty well set, and you can only snag volume from competition. Spread your cash around all of the railroads, and you'll make steady returns. I'm partial to CSX, but it's not entirely for financial reasons.  I was always fond of Chessie.

 

[MillCreek]

We resurrect this thread:

I just watched the Amtrak 'Cascades' train go by.  Immediately after the locomotive is a low-profile car that clearly carries no passengers or tremendous volumes of cargo.  I would imagine that this is where they carry the fuel for the locomotive? 

[Boomhauer]

I would imagine that this is where they carry the fuel for the locomotive?

doubtful. Sounds like a slug or a weighted car for added traction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slug_(railroad)

[Perd Hapley]

That's odd. You typed the link correctly, but it doesn't consider the close parenthesis to be part of the address unless you put it in the brackets, as below.

doubtful. Sounds like a slug or a weighted car for added traction. Wiki link.

[Angel Eyes]

doubtful. Sounds like a slug or a weighted car for added traction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slug_(railroad)

Slugs are mainly used in yards for additional tractive effort.  I doubt there would be one on an Amtrak train.

Did the car have doors on the side?  Amtrak baggage cars do have a lower roofline than the Superliner coaches.

[Perd Hapley]

I believe right after the locomotive is the traditional location for a baggage car. (Except on a steam locomotive, where there might be a separate tender right behind the engine.)


misspelled tender. 

[MillCreek]

This picture represents what I saw leaving the Everett railyard heading south.  Except it had about six passenger cars attached. So is this a baggage car?  It was perceptibly shorter in height than the single-deck passenger cars.

[Scout26]

Mt Baker is an Amtrak Baggage car.

http://www.railcarphotos.com/PhotoDetails.php?PhotoID=13249

God bless Railfans.  

[Angel Eyes]

Mt Baker is an Amtrak Baggage car.

http://www.railcarphotos.com/PhotoDetails.php?PhotoID=13249

God bless Railfans. 

Ah, a Talgo trainset: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talgo#Trains   (specifically, the Talgo Pendular)

They are considerably more low-slung than typical American passenger trains.