Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Transporting Goods by Train

How to save energy through both societal and individual actions.

Re: Transporting Goods by Train

Unread postby TommyJefferson » Mon 30 Jan 2006, 22:13:01

oilfreeandhappy wrote:If newer high speed rail systems are implemented, they may not use the existing tracks.


I'm wondering about that as well. Our new "Trans Texas Corridor" thing is going to be wild.

This statewide network of corridors will stretch 4,000 miles and measure up to 1,200 feet wide. In other words HUGE.

Each segment of the corridor will contain:

* Six 12-foot Passenger Vehicle Lanes (80mph).
* Four 13-foot Truck Lanes; 84-feet in aggregate width with shoulders.
* Two Tracks for 200mph High-Speed Passenger Rail.
* Two Tracks for 80mph Commuter Passenger Rail.
* Two Tracks for 80mph Freight Rail.
* A 200-foot Utility Zone for large underground water lines, natural gas and petroleum pipelines, telecommunication cables and overhead high-voltage electric transmission lines.
* Operational Maintenance Zone.
* Safety Zones sufficient to accommodate future roadway expansion.

pro: http://www.keeptexasmoving.com
con: http://www.corridorwatch.org

I still don't see how they could do away with all the old rail ways. Those right-of-ways are already established. They follow trade routes. They already have bridges.

My understanding is that rail is hugely more energy efficient than trucking.
Conform . Consume . Obey .
User avatar
TommyJefferson
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1757
Joined: Thu 19 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Texas and Los Angeles

Re: Transporting Goods by Train

Unread postby TommyJefferson » Mon 30 Jan 2006, 22:18:23

Here's a promotional video for the Trans Texas Corridor...

http://wmstream.company39.com/shared/tr ... e_2004.wmv

"We need more roads!"
Conform . Consume . Obey .
User avatar
TommyJefferson
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1757
Joined: Thu 19 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Texas and Los Angeles

Re: Transporting Goods by Train

Unread postby Daryl » Mon 30 Jan 2006, 23:33:10

That's really interesting.

As far as investing along old rail lines, Google "Atlanta Beltline" huge new urban development project based on old abandoned rail line right of ways.
User avatar
Daryl
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 927
Joined: Mon 10 Oct 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Transporting Goods by Train

Unread postby Wildwell » Tue 31 Jan 2006, 08:16:43

Starvid wrote:Often train transport is discounted on the basis it make just-in-time delivery impossible. This is a myth. Trains can and do work even with a just-in-time system.

Volvo is praised for punktlig 8 on the track
The transport company Volvo Logistics is praised of the the European transport organisation EIA for your transport investment off car parts on railway through five countries with a punktlighet [punctuality] on over 95 percents.
Punktligt on the track
Twice about the day, five days in the week go processions average Sweden and the Netherlands, with parts from factories in Olofström, Umeå and Gothenburg to the composition factory in direct.

The procession goes in a rutt that describes a 8, where the waist lies in Älmhult. Processions from the three Swedish towns meet in Älmhult, to be linked together to entire processions, and is transported of Green Cargo to Malmö. There takes Danish Railion over, crosses Denmark via the bridges, leaves over to German and finally to Dutch Railion.

In direct sees one to that the processions with stools and containers once more backspaces to Älmhult. In this “the eighth grade”, that is a part in Volvos Just-in - time - production, follows the goods trains the timetable to over 95 percents, which impressed on the organisation European Intermodal association, that gave Volvo Logistics pinch at the end of the previous year.

The price has now also been noticed of the German railway company Deutsche Bahn, owners to conveyance of goods island clean Schenker Automotive Rail Net, that is responsible for a big part of the transport.

Through transporting just over 50000 containers and 4800 vagnslaster a year on railway relieves Volvo the European road network. Also this impressed on EIA.

Volvo Logistics is an independent transport company that deals with transports to as well Fordägda passenger car producing clean Volvo Cars as the Swedish truck producer Volvo Ltd.

http://nyteknik.se/art/44248


Myths and Facts

Here you can check the facts about some commonly held misconceptions about rail freight.

Myth 1 – Rail freight is limited to long distance movements

It is a generally held misconception that rail freight is not viable for journeys under 200 miles. The truth is that break-even distances are market-specific. Cargoes such as aggregates and waste can be economic over distances as short as 12 miles. Here are some examples of short viable freight journeys currently operating on rail:

12 miles - Coal from Selby colliery to Ferrybridge power station in Yorkshire
19 miles - Aggregates from Greenwich to King's Cross
40 miles - Waste removal from Cricklewood to Bedfordshire
60 miles - Container traffic between Felixstowe and Tilbury

Myth 2 – Rail freight is only suitable for bulk cargoes

Rail carries a range of non-bulk cargoes, such as premium parcels, first class mail, high value car components and food stuffs. Rail is often the preferred mode of transport for fragile prestige goods that need to be delivered in perfect condition. Car makers Jaguar, BMW and MG Rover all use rail. Rail can also be integrated into the production line, moving semi-finished goods between factories to demanding time schedules, operating on a just-in-time basis.

Myth 3 – Doubling rail freight would drop road freight only by a few per cent

Rail freight can make a big impact on lorry movements by addressing the small number of of trips in big vehicles. These account for a majority of tonne kilometres and therefore affect the trunk road network. They also account for approximately 50 % of total lorry mileage.

Myth 4 – Increasing maximum lorry weight would cut lorry numbers

A common argument is that increasing the maximum lorry weight from 38 tonnes to 44 tonnes would cut lorry numbers. However, previous increases have not achieved this, (e.g. increase to 38 tonnes in 1983). Many of the biggest lorries already travel around half empty and almost a third are empty. The just-in-time delivery to supermarkets and shops means that a lorry makes a journey to wherever goods are needed, regardless whether it can be filled again. Many small road hauliers simply buy the biggest vehicle they can and use it whatever the load size.

Myth 5 – Road is faster than rail

Express freight trains travel at speeds up to 110 mph, and intermodal trains at 90 mph. This can offer timings and service reliability that can't be matched by road. Heavy goods vehicles are allowed the maximum speed of 60 mph on motorways, 50 mph on dual carriageways, and 40 mph on other roads. The following organisations use rail because it is faster:

* Securicor Omega sends internal and national premium parcels from West Midlands to Glasgow and Aberdeen on a high-speed rail freight service. The trains complete the journey in just seven hours, when the road journey takes nearly 13 hours.
* Safeway distribute food and drinks products in Scotland by intermodal train services that travel at 75 mph.
* A direct service between Scotland and Paris provides whisky producers a fast access to European markets.

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/freight/ab ... sfacts.htm
User avatar
Wildwell
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1964
Joined: Thu 03 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: UK

Re: Transporting Goods by Train

Unread postby Wildwell » Tue 31 Jan 2006, 13:28:58

TommyJefferson wrote:Here's a promotional video for the Trans Texas Corridor...

http://wmstream.company39.com/shared/tr ... e_2004.wmv

"We need more roads!"


I do think it's ironic that the state tax doesn't even cover the cost of maintaining the roads, let alone building more and the external costs of policing/accidents, pollution and so on. This must be one of the greatest socialist policies of all time! Meanwhile over in the 'socialist' state of France, they have Toll roads! Lol
User avatar
Wildwell
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1964
Joined: Thu 03 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: UK

Re: Transporting Goods by Train

Unread postby oilfreeandhappy » Mon 06 Feb 2006, 04:27:37

Tommy Jefferson,
I'm not from Texas, but I've visited quite a lot. I took the DART around Dallas, and enjoyed that. This movie clip seems primarily focused on asphalt solutions though, when it's clear that Texas needs more non-road solutions to ease the traffic on the roads. The film talks about raising the state gas tax $1 to keep road Maintenance expenses balanced. I agree with the tax increase, but it should fund Rail projects.
Jim
http://home.comcast.net/~oil_free_and_happy/

>http://wmstream.company39.com/shared/trans_texas/ttc_mobility_challenge_2004.wmv

"We need more roads!"


>Here's a promotional video for the Trans Texas Corridor...

http://wmstream.company39.com/shared/tr ... e_2004.wmv

"We need more roads!"
User avatar
oilfreeandhappy
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 318
Joined: Sun 29 Jan 2006, 04:00:00
Location: Colorado Springs, CO

Re: Transporting Goods by Train

Unread postby dinopello » Mon 14 Aug 2006, 12:03:29

I've heard and believed in the efficiency benefit of rail for goods movement over trucking per ton/mile. Sometimes you see the ratio of 8:1 in terms of increased efficiency. Today, the Washing Post ran a story on the pollution caused by diesel trains and the author held a discussion. She has not answered my question about the efficiency of rail vs trucking but she did answer this one

Washington, D.C.: So if I live in DC's exurbs, I shouldn't drive because that's bad for pollution, and now I shouldn't take VRE or MARC because they idle and cause pollution? Maybe I should just walk. I think I'll get to work in about a day.

Juliet Eilperin: Well, you could move closer to DC so you could bike or walk, the revival of urban areas is really one of the keys to cutting down on pollution. (My colleague Michael Grunwald wrote about this in the Outlook section on August 6.) And trains are still more fuel effecient and less polluting than trucks and buses right now, it's just that once the new federal diesel rules take full effect in 2030, trains will be behind unless they, too, will be subject to stricter rules. I have a sense that they will be.


She claims that trains will fall behind trucks and busses in efficiency due to some new rules take effect. Anyone know what she is talking about? Does it seem plausible?

The discussion is here

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00736.html

Edit: An additional relevant question from the discussion:

Arlington, Va.: While electrified rail is probably the most clean (land-based) way for bulk goods movement, it has been widely cited that diesel-powered freight rail uses 1/8 as much diesel as 18 wheel freight per ton/mile. Does any recent findings refute this ratio? If so, what is the ratio of diesel-rail freight vs. diesel trucking per ton/mile?

Juliet Eilperin: The spokesman from the Association of American Railroads told me trains were three times as fuel efficient as trucks per ton/mile, not eight times as efficient. So those are the most up-to-date statistics I have on that issue, though again, that's a comparison under current conditions, not how trucks will be once the new federal diesel rules take full effect.
User avatar
dinopello
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6088
Joined: Fri 13 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: The Urban Village

Re: Transporting Goods by Train

Unread postby spudbuddy » Mon 14 Aug 2006, 13:32:49

I was in downtown Davenport, Iowa recently, for a couple of hours, and I swear I heard a freight train whistle every five minutes. Charmed.

One thing we have to consider about the idea of switching our transportation modes, is how we think about time.
In an altered economy, what will "just in time" mean?
What happens to the current state we exist in where everything shifts to frantic light-speed? (Instant demand creates its own expense.)

It's true that dedicated and well-designed rail can move quicker than any road route.
"Just-in-time" has outmoded warehousing, wholesaling and jobbing. Consequently, a lot of jobs disappeared.
Stockpiling can cause price-fixing, but it can also compile and amass wealth - as in commodities.
Personally, I don't mind the idea of commodities sitting in domestic depots, instead of halfway across the Pacific in supercargo freighters. (or in Wally's "rolling warehouse.")

Regional manufacture and distribution also promotes distinct regional acculturation and identification. I'm sure we're all sick to death of the same old same old icons and symbols found from northeast Maine to southwest Claifornia.

As has been pointed out here, a lot of the groundwork has been laid....rights of way, infrastructure, bridges, layouts of population centers, etc. It's a matter of finishing the design to accomodate our needs, changing the mode of transportation for both goods and people.

Sometimes I ponder this as a chicken and egg thing: If the means of transportation were in place, would we then use it? Conversely, if the public and political will demanded it, would it then be created?
It's easy to assume that cost-saving will play a huge role in this.
However, leaving it up to corporate planning always seems to lead to a horrific collection of skeletons found in the closet, sooner or later.
For that reason, I'd still place my bets on a nationally regulated system - one that each region can temper to its own needs.

Driving across the midwest - on a series of various interstate and secondary roads - I experienced the horrific decay of road quality, combined with massive chaos due to frantic attempts at road repair, widening, arterial confusion and sprawl, wanton destruction of much of the charm that gave certain places a distinct identity, and on and on. In short, driving is no fun anymore.

Quite awhile ago I stumbled on something that mentioned a 70% reduction in energy costs comparing rail and truck. That seems to fit the 1/8 model mentioned here.
We stand to gain a lot by considering rail seriously. Truly astounding that it's taken so long for this to happen. (and I'm still not holding my breath.)
User avatar
spudbuddy
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 150
Joined: Thu 28 Jul 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Transporting Goods by Train

Unread postby azreal60 » Mon 14 Aug 2006, 14:03:30

It's funny, but Daryl, I worry More about the debt structure and such than I do about some of the other things we talk about on this board.

You say interconnectedness is the new MAD, but think about it this way. The reason that we didn't do MAD nuclear is they didn't want to kill off millions of people. Launching a nuclear bomb is obviously going to cause that. On the other hand, financially cutting something off because you can't afford it anymore, that's just good business. If all the countrys in the world started walking on contracts, there is No one to enforce that. And all they'll say is just go somewhere else. They won't tie it into the deaths that would follow from the lack of basic nessesities.

I don't believe the die off will be that global and I don't believe it will be all at once either. But to ignore the reasons why it hasn't happened yet and at the same time say those reasons could never go away, well, that's just silly.
Azreal60
azreal60
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1107
Joined: Sat 26 Jun 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Madison,Wisconsin

Re: Transporting Goods by Train

Unread postby Denny » Tue 15 Aug 2006, 14:00:35

Some points about speed and fuel efficiency of trains:

1) Fuel efficiency. Rail industry action group claims rail is two to four times more efficient than trucking on a ton-mile basis.

2) Congestion. One double stacked container train can move the equivalent of 280 trailer rigs worth of volume. This will use up a five minute interval of track, including necessary safety gapping between trains. Just how wide a stretch of roadway would it take to get 280 trailer loads past one point on a road in five minutes? My rough arithmetic says it would take four lanes of roadway.

See Rail vs. Road

Also, regarding timeliness, United Parcel Service spends $1.5 billion a year for intercity rail frieght. In fact, they are such a big customer that railways cater to their time schedules. This is a far stretch from the normal view of railways as commodity carriers.

See Railway Age: Can intermodal ease the squeeze?

I see much growth in railway volumes, particularly the intermodal form, which permits the majority of the haul;ing distance to be done my rail, while permitting the flexibility of road conveyance for the beginning and end of the journey. It is just common sense.
User avatar
Denny
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1738
Joined: Sat 10 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Canada

Re: Transporting Goods by Train

Unread postby elocs » Tue 15 Aug 2006, 22:29:10

SpringCreekFarm wrote:In Southern Ontario, many of our local rural rail lines have been taken out of service and the rail lines torn up. All that exists now is a raised bed that kids on atv's ride on. What a waste. We said years ago that it was insanity. We'll see what happens to these deserted railways in years to come.


Maybe we will see a conversion of rails to trails back to rails.
elocs
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 268
Joined: Sat 04 Mar 2006, 04:00:00
Location: La Crosse, Wisconsin

Re: Transporting Goods by Train

Unread postby Denny » Wed 16 Aug 2006, 23:25:07

Speaking of Ontario, I just got a flier from our member of the legislative assembly and he boasted about how his party (the Liberals) have launched a new highway building spree for Southern Ontario. The tab is $6.5 billion. That for about 10 million people, give or take.

I thought our friends to the south were crazy when Bush announced their $260 billon highway program, but we are right there close to par with them at this rate.

Seems to me, our biggest congestion problems are in the cities, not the hghway connecting them. If Toronto could get $2 billion it would tranform a lot of public transit.

And, for the intercity connecting highway grid, if we could offload a lot of truck traffic to rail, it would sure help, mabye avoid the need to invest more in highways.

I just noted that one massive cloverleaf at hwy 410 and hwy 401 looks like it occupies the space of two typical farms. So, we are dispossessing future food growing capacity for our vehicle infatuation today.
User avatar
Denny
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1738
Joined: Sat 10 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Canada

Re: Transporting Goods by Train

Unread postby Doly » Thu 17 Aug 2006, 06:28:39

Denny wrote:So, we are dispossessing future food growing capacity for our vehicle infatuation today.


And it won't last very long, anyway (our vehicle infatuation). In 20 years time, there's going to be a lot less cars.

Oh, well... :(
User avatar
Doly
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 3880
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00

High oil prices increasing advantage of rail

Unread postby kublikhan » Mon 16 May 2011, 14:07:39

A little more than a year ago, Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A) Chairman Warren E. Buffett made his famous "all-in wager" on the economic future of the U.S. Berkshire spent $26.5 billion to buy the 77 percent of Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad the company didn't already own, essentially taking it private. It seemed a daring bet at the time, considering that the U.S. had fallen into a deep recession that had crushed consumer spending and created the highest unemployment in a quarter century. Yet in only 15 months the Burlington investment has played out better than even Buffett says he expected. The recovery from the recession, which ended in late 2009, continues to strengthen, unemployment has dipped, and even the unforeseen jump in oil prices has worked to railroads' advantage.

This year, Rose is boosting capital spending by 31 percent, triple the increase of other major rails. He's buying about 200 locomotives and building more huge transfer facilities where rail freight containers are switched to and from trucks before and after their transport by train. Rose's goal: to bolster the second-largest U.S. railroad's competitiveness relative to long-haul truckers.

About $500 billion is spent each year to haul U.S. freight by rail or highway. More than half—$300 billion—is spent on shipments between cities. Rails today get only about 13 percent of that business, Rose says. To expand rail's share, he pitches trains' greater fuel efficiency—railroads can carry a ton of freight two to four times as efficiently as trucks—and improved reliability, in part owing to heavy capital spending in recent years. A shortage of drivers and rising emissions standards are also eroding truckers' advantages, as is growing congestion on roads. Rail's sweet spot is for hauls longer than 750 miles. It would be $1,002 cheaper to transport a freight container by rail the 2,020 miles from Los Angeles to Chicago, with half the carbon emissions, says Burlington.

So far, Rose has received the hands-off management that Berkshire companies typically enjoy. Explains Buffett: "Every morning he can wake up and spend all day on Burlington and do whatever makes sense." Lately, that's meant expanding the intermodal business, part of the consumer-products unit that generated 31 percent of Burlington's $16.9 billion in 2010 sales. One recent win was FedEx (FDX), which, after years of being courted, in February started using Burlington for freight hauls of more than 500 miles in the western U.S., Lanigan says.
Warren Buffett's Ride on the Rails Is Paying Off
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 4672
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: PHILADELPIA - THE NEW CUSHING, OK?

Unread postby Tanada » Fri 31 May 2013, 23:23:25

ROCKMAN wrote:Tanada - Very interesting. The train is just hauling frac sand and such right now. Depending on the oil pipeline situation in the area maybe moving crude could be next. It might be just the cure for transport problems in areas where there isn't enough production to justify a pipeline. For all I know this is exactly how the rail movement started in the Williston Basin: taking old under or unused lines and connecting them into a bigger system.


On the topic of Rail traffic in general I found more youtube vids linked to the first one that I also thought were interesting, though not specifically related to either fracking or oil transport directly. These caught my eye because the line in question, all 51 miles of it, is within not too distant driving distance of my home. The kind of thing I might be tempted to drive over and see for myself on a boring empty afternoon, not the kind of thing I would see right next door. The Maumee and Western Railroad in these vids was bought out in December 2012 and is currently getting a major repair and refurbishment of its tracks, which pass through the swamps along the Maumee river in Ohio. The Wabash river in Indiana and the Maumee river in Ohio almost meet at the border between the two states. The Maumee is the westernmost river in Ohio that feeds into the Lake Eire basin. It appears nobody has done major maintenance on this stretch of track for decades, but since the cost of diesel fuel is so high it is back in the black shipping rail freight 51 miles between two major north-south rail lines. Stretches of the track are so distressed the trains can only creep along at very low speed, while in some of the swampier segments the trains actually tilt several degrees off center. The new owner is supposed to be spending several million to repair and replace bad sections and restore sound sections to full speed service. If you can afford to basically re-track 51 miles of route with the expectation that freight charges will repay the investment then freight shipping must pay a lot better than I thought. From the look of some of these sections they will have to add much new ballast, lay new ties, and then install new steel rails. That isn't as expensive as laying new track through the wilderness but it sure as heck isn't cheap either. Oh yeah, the railway in question was the Maumee and Western, MAW; the new owners have renamed it the Defiance, Napoleon and Western for the two easternmost cities on the line in Ohio south of Toledo. In its earlier years it went all the way into Toledo but that section has been torn out from Liberty Center on and parts of it are now walking/biking trails.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrvLK24VlEs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYHUTbyPUS0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUCU2GhG8zE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36JZL2z5k34

Liberty Center isn't that far from Toledo and Toledo isn't that far from me in the other direction. Before all the big consolidations of the railroads starting back in the 1950's this line went from Toledo, Ohio all the way to Fort Wayne, Indiana and was known as the Wabash line. All those thousands of times I heard the song Wabash Cannonball in my life are connected in my head at least, to this piece of track. Seeing it in such bad shape makes me kind of cringe inside.

Just listen to Johnny Cash :-D http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZiQ89_s67Q

Sorry about the side topic, I just love the heck out of trains in general so I couldn't resist this thread once you started it Rockman.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 16154
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Transporting Goods by Train

Unread postby Newfie » Sat 01 Jun 2013, 07:33:55

TRUE high speed rail is most often developed on a new rail bed. The old beds are not suitable because the sub ballest is inadequate and the tracks are too close together and the ROW has too many curves.

But you are mixing things up. High speed rail is a passenger service. In my opinion it is a subsidy for the well off and corporations.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 15805
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Transporting Goods by Train

Unread postby sparky » Sat 01 Jun 2013, 07:55:35

.
one of the consequence of the glut of crude at Cushing has been a differential price
between the mid West and the sea coasts , including Canada
there is a scramble for tankers wagons , either to rent or build .
rail usage fees are good too .
User avatar
sparky
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3586
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Sydney , OZ

Re: Transporting Goods by Train

Unread postby Tanada » Sat 01 Jun 2013, 10:11:55

sparky wrote:.
one of the consequence of the glut of crude at Cushing has been a differential price
between the mid West and the sea coasts , including Canada
there is a scramble for tankers wagons , either to rent or build .
rail usage fees are good too .



Absolutely! The latest data report I saw was that there is now an 18 month backlog on delivery of new tank cars. Every serviceable tank car is currently a valuable property, if I had one I would be leasing it out right now lol.

But Oil isn't the only thing getting hauled a lot more on the rails, there are a lot of deep well container cars now compared to using flat bed cars as they had to do not that many years ago. That lets them double stack containers, and you can put up to a mile long unit train together to haul them wherever you need them. There is also a lot more of any kind of general cargo that goes into Box Cars these days because one of them will replace four or more semi box units.
The volume of a 53 foot semi-trailer would be the product of V=(53)(8.5)(9) and expressed in cubic feet, so (53)(8.5)(9)=4,054.5 cubic feet of usable area.

Boxcar 60' Hi-roof design now in common use
Boxcar Specifications
Inside Length 60' 9"
Inside Width 9' 6"
Inside Height 10' 10"
Door Type plug slide and/or plug
Door Width 10'
Door Height 12'
Exterior Length 67' 7"
Exterior Width 10' 8"
Cubic Capacity 6,646 ft
Freight Capacity 100 tons

The real kicker is the last item on the list, while a Semi trailer can carry about 25 short tons of cargo before it breaks the road regulations and road bed as well the Boxcar carry's 61% more volume and 400% of the weight. Railroads have an enormous advantage in weight and durability. The "Worlds Worst Railroad" video's I put up from youtube earlier is creeping along on track that was laid between 1880 and 1905. Amateurs filming the trains who are knowledgeable hobbyists on the subject state unequivocally that the old track is 80# rail, i.e. eighty pounds per yard length. Given that they do this for fun and the stats are stamped into each piece of rail when it is forged and I presume they have no reason to lie about it I believe it is very old 80# rail :) Most modern freight lines have replaced the old rail like this antique 80# rail with modern heavy duty 130#+ rail, I can remember when they replaced the siding near the home I grew up in to hold heavier cargo without warping back around 1983 in Michigan. Modern 130#+ rail is not just thicker and heavier, the steel itself is also tougher than the steel they were making way back when this line opened its doors in the 1880's.

All that being said the line is still in use 6 days a week on 100 year plus old rails. Do you know any surface streets in the USA that can make the same claim without complete reconstruction every 20 to 40 years? All the Napoleon, Defiance & Western has had done to it is regular replacement of the cross ties and repairs from things like floods. Even a cobble stone street in a city would be hard pressed to match that performance. Since January 2013 the new owners have been replacing ties as quickly as the news ones arrive on the work site because the ones on the system now are all far past replacement age. From what I read online the first phase of the replacement is to replace the ties, that alone is a $740,000.00 project. Next will be Ballast improvements to level the track wherever it needs it. I didn't see any figures for what that will cost. Lastly, because both those have to be done first, will be replacing the existing 80# rail. There is some debate among those interested how soon that will start and if it will be replaced with modern 130#+ rail or salvaged serviceable 80# rail recovered from other job sites where rail has already been replaced. The new owner of the N,D&W is Pioneer Railcorp, in the last decade they have been buying up short line railways like this one and operating and maintaining them. From what I have gathered the N,D&W was by far the worst maintained section they have purchased and requires the most restoration before it can run at moderate speeds.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 16154
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Transporting Goods by Train

Unread postby Tanada » Tue 11 Jun 2013, 10:42:20

http://www.mydaytondailynews.com/news/n ... hio/nYHGM/
Deaths resulting from collisions between trains and automobiles at public railroad crossings in Ohio rose last year to the highest level since 2008, according to recently released data from the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio.

No one was killed in the 10 train-vehicle crashes in the region in 2012, but a few people were seriously injured, and it was the most local crashes in six years. Butler County had four crashes; only two other counties had more.

PUCO said it has ordered safety upgrades at more than 1,700 crossings statewide in the last 12 years, including 500 in 2012.

But more than eight in 10 train-vehicle collisions in the state occur at crossings with active warning devices.

Warning devices do not improve safety if drivers fail to notice or ignore signs of danger, authorities said.


To me it is a clear reflection of the fact that higher fuel prices for trucking puts more cargo freight back on the railroad where it belongs. As a result of more rail traffic complacent or distracted drivers collide more often with trains.

You will not win driving any road vehicle in a contest against a train, the train is a heck of a lot heavier and has a much bigger motor of some sort propelling it that alone is bigger than most trucks, let alone all cars.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 16154
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

PreviousNext

Return to Conservation & Efficiency

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests