Freight Trains Get 436 Miles Per Gallon of Fuel?

BPSCG · 12th February 2009, 06:25 AM

Link

Quote:

A freight train can move a ton of freight an average of 436 miles on a single gallon of fuel. That’s close to four times as far as it could move by truck.

I'm confused.

Nearest I can come up with is that they figure it takes x gallons of fuel to make an empty train go 436 miles, and if you add a ton of freight to that empty train, it will take x + 1 gallons of fuel to go that same 436 miles.

I guess by that logic, I could say my Ford Taurus can move Mrs. BPSCG 436 miles on half a pint of gasoline.

Sounds like deceptive advertising, close to being downright dishonest.

NobbyNobbs · 12th February 2009, 06:27 AM

I keep hearing a figure close to that quoted on an ad here in Virginia/Maryland for CX Freight, or something like that. It's always bothered me. Doesn't seem like it could possibly be right.

Mojo · 12th February 2009, 06:27 AM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

I guess by that logic, I could say my Ford Taurus can move Mrs. BPSCG 436 miles on half a pint of gasoline.

What does Mrs. BPSCG weigh?

Stimpson J. Cat · 12th February 2009, 06:33 AM

I can't say for sure (not enough info in the link), but I suspect that what they mean is that X tons of freight are shipped Y miles by train per year, and Z gallons of fuel are used, such that Y / XZ = 436 miles / gallon x ton.

If this is the case, then assuming that fuel use is proportional to both the weight of freight carried, and the distance it moves, this would be a reasonable measure of fuel efficiency. And assuming that the figure for truck shipping is computed the same way, that would be a fair comparison.

Dr. Stupid

kbm99 · 12th February 2009, 06:35 AM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

Link

I'm confused.

Nearest I can come up with is that they figure it takes x gallons of fuel to make an empty train go 436 miles, and if you add a ton of freight to that empty train, it will take x + 1 gallons of fuel to go that same 436 miles.

I always assumed it was more along the lines of "It takes 1 gallon of fuel to move a fully-loaded train carrying 436 tons of freight 1 mile." - or some value for fuel and tons that works out to 436 "mile-tons" of freight per gallon of fuel.

Still deceptive.

rwguinn · 12th February 2009, 06:43 AM

Each car on a train can weigh more than 100000 lb. A typical trrain (out west, not talking East, here) will haul well over 10 million lb, or over 10000 tons.
That works out to 11 gallons/mile. (100000 lb/car*100 Cars/(2000lb/ton)/(436 ton*miles/gallon)
My numbers are just guesses, and could be off by a large factor--probably on the light side, but it's ball-park, since the engines on a train run at optimum RPM, unlike those in your car, or in a truck.
So its not as outrageous as you think...

gdnp · 12th February 2009, 06:47 AM

Originally Posted by Stimpson J. Cat

I can't say for sure (not enough info in the link), but I suspect that what they mean is that X tons of freight are shipped Y miles by train per year, and Z gallons of fuel are used, such that Y / XZ = 436 miles / gallon x ton.

If this is the case, then assuming that fuel use is proportional to both the weight of freight carried, and the distance it moves, this would be a reasonable measure of fuel efficiency. And assuming that the figure for truck shipping is computed the same way, that would be a fair comparison.

Dr. Stupid

This has always been the way that I interpreted the statement. Doesn't mean it's right, obviously....

cj.23 · 12th February 2009, 06:48 AM

Sure, trains are a massively more efficient means of hauling large amounts of freight at low cost. Think about rails, resistance, and how much actual freight can be hauled. Trucks are restricted in size by the need to actually travel on public roads, and turn corners etc. So yes, trains will always get a massive amount more mpg. I suspect canals and shipping are even more efficient.

cj x

madurobob · 12th February 2009, 06:48 AM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

Link

I'm confused.

Nearest I can come up with is that they figure it takes x gallons of fuel to make an empty train go 436 miles, and if you add a ton of freight to that empty train, it will take x + 1 gallons of fuel to go that same 436 miles.

I guess by that logic, I could say my Ford Taurus can move Mrs. BPSCG 436 miles on half a pint of gasoline.

Sounds like deceptive advertising, close to being downright dishonest.

I wondered the same thing when I heard the CSX ad. Best I could figure was they were telling their customers to negotiate MUCH better transit rates since the incremental cost of them moving a ton of freight was amazingly low.

shadron · 12th February 2009, 06:53 AM

It's probably right, if you are only talking about the payload weight. A diesel tractor/trailer hauls about 20 net tons (plus another 20 in empt weight) at roughly 6 miles per gallon; that's 120 ton-miles/gal. A train has much less air friction and much less rolling friction to fight, and can run the diesels in a better part of their power curve, since they just generate electricity for the traction motors.

And we ignore infrastructure costs.

A train is the way to go, if you are moving more than, say, 10 tens, you don't care about acceleration damage (things are packed really well or are oblivious to 3g accelerations), are conveniently loaded and unloaded (or else you get a truck anyway, plus possible handling damages at either end), and you're willing to wait up to two weeks for the goods. Otherwise, it's going to be trucks. No (or at least not many) rail refrigerator cars anymore, either.

maxpower1227 · 12th February 2009, 06:55 AM

Originally Posted by rwguinn

Each car on a train can weigh more than 100000 lb. A typical trrain (out west, not talking East, here) will haul well over 10 million lb, or over 10000 tons.

...5,000 tons?

bruto · 12th February 2009, 07:02 AM

Like others, I've always assumed it's "ton miles per gallon," which may or may not be deceptive, depending on how you look at it. So a truck that gets seven miles per gallon, if it hauls ten tons, gets 70 ton miles per gallon, etc. I suppose if you are actually shopping for different ways of moving the same freight, it makes some sense, and it does point up the overall efficiency of rail transport, which is real enough, and if we take as our base an ordinary passenger vehicle or pickup truck, the ton miles per gallon will be approximately the actual miles per gallon of the vehicle, so the figure has a natural reference that is easy to picture.

Still, you have to watch out for this kind of calculation. For one thing, it is almost certainly the optimal cargo density that is being measured, and unlikely to apply to lighter cargo or to passengers.

And this kind of thinking can be misapplied altogether. You see the same idea in estimates of airline safety, which is usually measured in passenger miles. A jumbo jet on a long route could probably blow up on every tenth flight, and still deliver an impressive enough number of passenger miles to come up with one of those "safer than driving to the airport" statements.

soylent · 12th February 2009, 07:08 AM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

Sounds like deceptive advertising, close to being downright dishonest.

Not if you're interested in hauling large quantities of junk.

If you're interested in hauling people, look at people*miles/gallon at average occupancy, time taken and convenience instead.

rwguinn · 12th February 2009, 07:17 AM

Originally Posted by maxpower1227

...5,000 tons?

Duh!
I ripped a ball-park figure off the top of my head in a hurry.
That's why we do loads committees, to catch the obvious....
You're right...
So sorry!

BenBurch · 12th February 2009, 07:18 AM

The only more efficient mode of transport is a ship.

Not a deceptive ad whatsoever - literally true that one gallon moves a ton over 400 miles.

And this is why the golden age of railroading was not the 1920s, but NOW.

BenBurch · 12th February 2009, 07:23 AM

BTW, 300,000+ pound freight cars are getting to be pretty much normal... And 10,000 foot trains are pretty normal too.

MRC_Hans · 12th February 2009, 07:27 AM

Originally Posted by Stimpson J. Cat

I can't say for sure (not enough info in the link), but I suspect that what they mean is that X tons of freight are shipped Y miles by train per year, and Z gallons of fuel are used, such that Y / XZ = 436 miles / gallon x ton.

If this is the case, then assuming that fuel use is proportional to both the weight of freight carried, and the distance it moves, this would be a reasonable measure of fuel efficiency. And assuming that the figure for truck shipping is computed the same way, that would be a fair comparison.

Dr. Stupid

True. That is the usual way to calculate fuel costs over a whole transport sector.

It has some caveats. For instance, the mileage between truck transport and rail ditto may not be quite comparable; a train goes straighter trough the landscape, but a truck can go door to door.

Hans

gdnp · 12th February 2009, 07:55 AM

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

True. That is the usual way to calculate fuel costs over a whole transport sector.

It has some caveats. For instance, the mileage between truck transport and rail ditto may not be quite comparable; a train goes straighter trough the landscape, but a truck can go door to door.

Hans

I assume this is why we see a fair number of truck trailers loaded on freight trains coming through my town. Load up the trailer at one end, have a truck drive to the train depot, have the train handle the long haul, then hitch the trailer to a truck at the other end to get it to the final destination without multiple loadings and unloadings of the individual items.

The manpower productivity advantages of trains must also be huge. A few engineers driving a train 24/7 vs. individual truck drivers who can only haul a small fraction of the freight and who are limited by mandatory rest periods.

Originally Posted by Shadron

And we ignore infrastructure costs.

Are infrastructure costs for rail maintenance higher than those for highways?

Mojo · 12th February 2009, 08:15 AM

Originally Posted by cj.23

Sure, trains are a massively more efficient means of hauling large amounts of freight at low cost. Think about rails, resistance, and how much actual freight can be hauled. Trucks are restricted in size by the need to actually travel on public roads, and turn corners etc. So yes, trains will always get a massive amount more mpg.

Originally Posted by shadron

It's probably right, if you are only talking about the payload weight. A diesel tractor/trailer hauls about 20 net tons (plus another 20 in empt weight) at roughly 6 miles per gallon; that's 120 ton-miles/gal. A train has much less air friction and much less rolling friction to fight, and can run the diesels in a better part of their power curve, since they just generate electricity for the traction motors.

Trains also don't have to deal as much with gradients - the tracks are generally planned to follow contours where possible, or use cuttings/tunnels/viaducts where not.

BPSCG · 12th February 2009, 09:18 AM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

The only more efficient mode of transport is a ship.

Not a deceptive ad whatsoever - literally true that one gallon moves a ton over 400 miles.

I think you're saying the same thing I was saying - that it takes one more gallon to move a train with a ton of freight on it 400 miles than it takes to move an empty train that same distance.

But how many gallons does it take to move that empty train that 400 miles? A lot more than it takes to move an empty truck.

Really, the fair measure is not how many extra gallons of fuel it takes to move only the ton of freight, or how many gallons of fuel it takes to move only the vehicle, be it train or truck, but how many gallons of fuel it takes to move the ton of freight and its carrier.

It seems to me that the statistic presented is cherry-picking of a sort. Again, my Ford Taurus could move Mrs. BPSCG from Washington DC to New York City on only half a pint of fuel. It takes considerably more to get the Ford itself there.

BTW, Mojo, Mrs. BPSCG weighs about 18-20 pounds.*

*On the moon.

Mojo · 12th February 2009, 09:36 AM

I can't afford exotic holidays like that.

ponderingturtle · 12th February 2009, 09:40 AM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

I think you're saying the same thing I was saying - that it takes one more gallon to move a train with a ton of freight on it 400 miles than it takes to move an empty train that same distance.

Not at all. You see that number includes the base effeciency of the train.

If you have a Train with 10,000 tons of freight and it moves 436 miles, you would expect it to use 10,000 gallons of fuel.

It is not about calculateing the loss of moving the vehical with out said freight and then with said freight.

roger · 12th February 2009, 09:43 AM

In 2007, trains moved 1,770,545,245,000 ton-miles of freight. They consumed 4,062,025,082 gallons of fuel. That's fuel to move not just the freight, but the train as well. It includes fuel consumed in train yards, it excludes passenger trains.

That's an average of 435.88, and as explained it includes the fuel expended to move the train itself.

cite

gdnp · 12th February 2009, 09:53 AM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

I think you're saying the same thing I was saying - that it takes one more gallon to move a train with a ton of freight on it 400 miles than it takes to move an empty train that same distance.

But how many gallons does it take to move that empty train that 400 miles? A lot more than it takes to move an empty truck.

Really, the fair measure is not how many extra gallons of fuel it takes to move only the ton of freight, or how many gallons of fuel it takes to move only the vehicle, be it train or truck, but how many gallons of fuel it takes to move the ton of freight and its carrier.

It seems to me that the statistic presented is cherry-picking of a sort. Again, my Ford Taurus could move Mrs. BPSCG from Washington DC to New York City on only half a pint of fuel. It takes considerably more to get the Ford itself there.

On what basis do you claim that the calculation was done that way?

Were I to calculate the gallons per pound of transporting Mrs. BPSCG to Washington, I would figure out how many gallons of fuel would be required and divide by her weight. One would arrive with different numbers depending on whether she is driving alone or with companions, or depending on the vehicle, but regardless the calculation would be the same:

(gallons of fuel)/(weight of cargo)

IXP · 12th February 2009, 10:01 AM

I recall from many years ago, an article (I believe in Sci Am) about the energy efficiency of various forms of transport. The metric used was energy / mass / distance. The mass includes the entire weight of the vehicle and it's contents. The results were surprising:

The most effiecient: a man on a bicyle
Second: C5A miltary cargo transport jet

I have failed to google this up, so my memory may be wrong.

IXP

BPSCG · 12th February 2009, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by roger

In 2007, trains moved 1,770,545,245,000 ton-miles of freight. They consumed 4,062,025,082 gallons of fuel. That's fuel to move not just the freight, but the train as well. It includes fuel consumed in train yards, it excludes passenger trains.

That's an average of 435.88, and as explained it includes the fuel expended to move the train itself.

cite

Bear with me while I work through some speculative math...

1,770,545,245,000 ton-miles = moving one ton 1,770,545,245,000 miles, or 1,770,545,245,000 tons one mile.

If they could move one ton of train plus freight 1,770,545,245,000 miles, then, presumably, they could move one ton of train-only 1,770,545,245,000 miles.

Okay, here's where I get the wild-ass numbers.

Assume a train = 200 cars + engine.
Assume each car weighs 4 tons (a WAG - wild-ass guess) and the engine weighs 20 tons.

That means the train weighs 820 tons.

So if one gallon of fuel can move one ton 436 miles, one gallon of fuel would move 820 tons 436/820 = .53 miles.

So is it fair to say that while the 436 ton-miles per gallon is accurate, it's also fair to say that (assuming my WAG numbers are more or less in the ballpark) that an empty freight train gets what we commonly think of as mileage - about half a mile per gallon, disregarding the freight carried?

Ziggurat · 12th February 2009, 10:25 AM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

So is it fair to say that while the 436 ton-miles per gallon is accurate, it's also fair to say that (assuming my WAG numbers are more or less in the ballpark) that an empty freight train gets what we commonly think of as mileage - about half a mile per gallon, disregarding the freight carried?

Not necessarily: per-weight fuel efficiency while empty may be different than per-weight fuel efficiency when loaded, because many factors involved don't scale linearly with the weight of the train. Air resistance is one (though maybe not a big one). Engine friction is another (possibly considerable). I'm sure there are others. If you've got nothing else to go on, this sort of calculation is not an unreasonable way to get a rough estimate, but it could easily be off, possibly a lot.

Psi Baba · 12th February 2009, 10:39 AM

The Texas Transportation Institute's Center for Ports & Waterways published a report in 2007 called A Modal Comparison of Domestic Freight Transportation on the General Public. Similar reports have been published by the EPA, but the data and methodologies had not been updated since the early 90s. This report published new figures using more recent data regarding fuel efficiencies, emissions, and cargo capacities. The chapter on Energy Efficiency explains how these kinds of statistics are derived and what they mean:
http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/TTI-2007-5.pdf
This report has been a useful reference for the work I do, so I was already familiar with it. I noticed that shortly after the report was published, those CSX ads started to appear. While the ads are not actually dishonest, spouting the numbers like that with no frame of reference can be confusing to the general public. The agency I work for uses the counterpart numbers for barge transportation in promotional endeavors, but mainly within circles of those would be likely to understand the context. I'm not sure whether I would say to CSX, "Shame on you" or "Well played." Or maybe it should be, "Good luck with that." I laughed when I saw this thread.

Dilb · 12th February 2009, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

So is it fair to say that while the 436 ton-miles per gallon is accurate, it's also fair to say that (assuming my WAG numbers are more or less in the ballpark) that an empty freight train gets what we commonly think of as mileage - about half a mile per gallon, disregarding the freight carried?

True, and that's why you shouldn't trade in your car for a 200-car train.

rwguinn · 12th February 2009, 10:49 AM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

Bear with me while I work through some speculative math...

1,770,545,245,000 ton-miles = moving one ton 1,770,545,245,000 miles, or 1,770,545,245,000 tons one mile.

If they could move one ton of train plus freight 1,770,545,245,000 miles, then, presumably, they could move one ton of train-only 1,770,545,245,000 miles.

Okay, here's where I get the wild-ass numbers.

Assume a train = 200 cars + engine.
Assume each car weighs 4 tons (a WAG - wild-ass guess) and the engine weighs 20 tons.

That means the train weighs 820 tons.

So if one gallon of fuel can move one ton 436 miles, one gallon of fuel would move 820 tons 436/820 = .53 miles.

So is it fair to say that while the 436 ton-miles per gallon is accurate, it's also fair to say that (assuming my WAG numbers are more or less in the ballpark) that an empty freight train gets what we commonly think of as mileage - about half a mile per gallon, disregarding the freight carried?

The secret is to never have an empty train.
While, for example, coal cars must be returned to the mine empty, box cars work both ways--so you mix 'em up...generally.

IXP · 12th February 2009, 10:53 AM

That depends on how much cargo you carry!

BenBurch · 12th February 2009, 10:55 AM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

...
So is it fair to say that while the 436 ton-miles per gallon is accurate, it's also fair to say that (assuming my WAG numbers are more or less in the ballpark) that an empty freight train gets what we commonly think of as mileage - about half a mile per gallon, disregarding the freight carried?

That was TOTAL for all tons moved and all gallons consumed.

It includes deadhead miles against the fuel, but obviously no ton-miles accrue with deadheads.

Deadheading is common for things like unit coal trains where the cars themselves are specialized.

I don't think it includes maintenance of way trains, but those are far less than 1% of all fuel used.

I read the Trains magazine monthly, and have been a rail fan since I was a sprout, so I know what I am talking about here...

BenBurch · 12th February 2009, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by rwguinn

The secret is to never have an empty train.
While, for example, coal cars must be returned to the mine empty, box cars work both ways--so you mix 'em up...generally.

Not quite.

Coal trains tend to be unit trains, cars in a string that are never separated unless one needs to be put in the RIP track.

Many tank trains are like this too, with the cars piped together so that they can all be drained/filled from on hose connection rather than being spotted for emptying/filling and multiple connections made and broken.

Box cars are a getting scarce. The modern equivalent is the container car, an those too are usually in unit trains and often are in 3-4 car sets that share bogies between the sets.

Yes, you will see trains still with mixed cargoes, because some customers generate or consume small shipments of as little as a single car, but those are expensive customers to service, and railroads would really rather run only unit trains to intermodal yards or to power plants or steel mills or similar producers and consumers of multi-car shipments of the same thing.

What you almost never, ever find is a railroad willing to take LCL freight, that is Less Than Carload. Usually now one will deal with a freight consolidator who will load a trailer or a container with your goods and those of others and then deliver them at the other end. (Think UPS.)

BPSCG · 12th February 2009, 11:21 AM

Duplicate post because everything I say is worth reading twice...

BPSCG · 12th February 2009, 11:25 AM

Originally Posted by Dilb

True, and that's why you shouldn't trade in your car for a 200-car train.

Okay - you wouldn't believe the mistake I was about to make until you stopped me.

Corsair 115 · 12th February 2009, 12:37 PM

In terms of the general efficiency of rail travel, let me offer for discussion the following passage from the book, How To Make War - A Comprehensive Guide To Modern Warfare, by James F. Dunnigan. In Chapter 23, Logistics, it says the following:

Quote:

When supply is moved by sea or rail, the fuel required is not a significant factor. To move a ton of material 100 km by train requires 14 ounces of fuel. A large ship uses about half that amount. When material is moved by truck or air, it's a different story. By truck, 1 percent of the weight moved will be consumed as fuel for each 100 km traveled. By air, the cost will range from 2 to 5 percent, depending on the type of aircraft. Large commercial cargo jets are the most efficient. Helicopters are notorious fuel hogs and can consume 10 percent of their cargo weight for each 100 km traveled. Moving supply by animal, including humans, will have the same fuel cost as aircraft because of the food required. A recent innovation is the portable fuel pipeline, quicky laid alongside existing roads. It is twice as efficient as trucks, but is more vulnerable to attack.

I would expect if there's any one group which would be quite familiar with the fuel costs and relative advantages and disadvantages of different transportation systems, it'd be the military, given its reliance on timely and adequate supplies.

rwguinn · 12th February 2009, 12:52 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Not quite.

Coal trains tend to be unit trains, cars in a string that are never separated unless one needs to be put in the RIP track.

Many tank trains are like this too, with the cars piped together so that they can all be drained/filled from on hose connection rather than being spotted for emptying/filling and multiple connections made and broken.

Box cars are a getting scarce. The modern equivalent is the container car, an those too are usually in unit trains and often are in 3-4 car sets that share bogies between the sets.

Yes, you will see trains still with mixed cargoes, because some customers generate or consume small shipments of as little as a single car, but those are expensive customers to service, and railroads would really rather run only unit trains to intermodal yards or to power plants or steel mills or similar producers and consumers of multi-car shipments of the same thing.

What you almost never, ever find is a railroad willing to take LCL freight, that is Less Than Carload. Usually now one will deal with a freight consolidator who will load a trailer or a container with your goods and those of others and then deliver them at the other end. (Think UPS.)

I bow to your expertise.
I tried to figure all that kinda thing out once. That's why I now just build mountans and tunnels and stuff and simply run the trains around

BenBurch · 12th February 2009, 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by rwguinn

I bow to your expertise.
I tried to figure all that kinda thing out once. That's why I now just build mountans and tunnels and stuff and simply run the trains around

I am planning a live steam garden railway. :-)

rwguinn · 12th February 2009, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

I am planning a live steam garden railway. :-)

Despite the fact that you are obviously a bleedin' heart, wierdo pinko commie Democrat, and pro'ly long-haired, too, I LIKE you...

Dr. Trintignant · 12th February 2009, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by IXP

The most effiecient: a man on a bicyle

This seems totally implausible, unless one excludes food requirements on the basis that we should be losing weight anyway.

Doing some basic math:
http://www.nutristrategy.com/fitness/cycling.htm

Calories burned per hour for a 140 lb rider, 10-11.9 mph: 381.

The rider is 0.07 tons, and we'll assume goes 12 miles an hour, giving an efficiency of 454 C/ton-mi.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NG3PHRU681.DTL

The important bit: According to researchers at the University of Michigan's Center for Sustainable Agriculture, an average of more than 7 calories of fossil fuel is burned up for every calorie of energy we get from our food. This means that in eating my 400-calorie breakfast, I will, in effect, have consumed 2,800 calories of fossil fuel energy. (Some researchers claim the ratio is as high as 10 to 1.)

Going with the 7:1 rate, then, the efficiency in terms of fossil fuel is 3178 C/ton-mi.

Of course, these are really kilocalories, since we started talking about food. In joules, we're talking about 13.3 MJ/ton-mi.

Diesel has an energy content of 36.4 MJ/liter. So our diesel-equivalent efficiency is 0.365 liters/ton-mi. Converting to ton-mi/gal, we get 10.37. Compared to the 436 that trains get, this is no contest (even if I'm off by a factor of 10 or so in my calcs...).

- Dr. Trintignant

12th February 2009, 06:25 AM	#1
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Freight Trains Get 436 Miles Per Gallon of Fuel? Link Quote: A freight train can move a ton of freight an average of 436 miles on a single gallon of fuel. That’s close to four times as far as it could move by truck. I'm confused. Nearest I can come up with is that they figure it takes x gallons of fuel to make an empty train go 436 miles, and if you add a ton of freight to that empty train, it will take x + 1 gallons of fuel to go that same 436 miles. I guess by that logic, I could say my Ford Taurus can move Mrs. BPSCG 436 miles on half a pint of gasoline. Sounds like deceptive advertising, close to being downright dishonest.
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

12th February 2009, 06:27 AM	#2
NobbyNobbs Gazerbeam's Protege Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: The Mended Drum Posts: 5,630	I keep hearing a figure close to that quoted on an ad here in Virginia/Maryland for CX Freight, or something like that. It's always bothered me. Doesn't seem like it could possibly be right.
	__________________ I wish someone would find something I wrote on this board to be sig-worthy, thereby effectively granting me immortality.--Antiquehunter The gods do not deduct from a man's allotted years on earth the time spent eating butterscotch pudding. AMERICA! NUMBER 1 IN PARTICLE PHYSICS SINCE JULY 4TH, 1776!!! --SusanConstant

12th February 2009, 06:27 AM	#3
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 22,066	Originally Posted by BPSCG I guess by that logic, I could say my Ford Taurus can move Mrs. BPSCG 436 miles on half a pint of gasoline. What does Mrs. BPSCG weigh?
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

12th February 2009, 06:33 AM	#4
Stimpson J. Cat Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Oxford, UK Posts: 1,833	I can't say for sure (not enough info in the link), but I suspect that what they mean is that X tons of freight are shipped Y miles by train per year, and Z gallons of fuel are used, such that Y / XZ = 436 miles / gallon x ton. If this is the case, then assuming that fuel use is proportional to both the weight of freight carried, and the distance it moves, this would be a reasonable measure of fuel efficiency. And assuming that the figure for truck shipping is computed the same way, that would be a fair comparison. Dr. Stupid
	__________________ A poke in the eye makes Baby Jesus cry.

12th February 2009, 06:35 AM	#5
kbm99 Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 271	Originally Posted by BPSCG Link I'm confused. Nearest I can come up with is that they figure it takes x gallons of fuel to make an empty train go 436 miles, and if you add a ton of freight to that empty train, it will take x + 1 gallons of fuel to go that same 436 miles. I always assumed it was more along the lines of "It takes 1 gallon of fuel to move a fully-loaded train carrying 436 tons of freight 1 mile." - or some value for fuel and tons that works out to 436 "mile-tons" of freight per gallon of fuel. Still deceptive.
kbm99 Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 271

12th February 2009, 06:43 AM	#6
rwguinn Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes Posts: 8,416	Each car on a train can weigh more than 100000 lb. A typical trrain (out west, not talking East, here) will haul well over 10 million lb, or over 10000 tons. That works out to 11 gallons/mile. (100000 lb/car100 Cars/(2000lb/ton)/(436 tonmiles/gallon) My numbers are just guesses, and could be off by a large factor--probably on the light side, but it's ball-park, since the engines on a train run at optimum RPM, unlike those in your car, or in a truck. So its not as outrageous as you think...
	__________________ "Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." "I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275

12th February 2009, 06:47 AM	#7
gdnp useless idiot Join Date: May 2008 Location: New Jersey-You gotta problem wit dat? Posts: 4,999	Originally Posted by Stimpson J. Cat I can't say for sure (not enough info in the link), but I suspect that what they mean is that X tons of freight are shipped Y miles by train per year, and Z gallons of fuel are used, such that Y / XZ = 436 miles / gallon x ton. If this is the case, then assuming that fuel use is proportional to both the weight of freight carried, and the distance it moves, this would be a reasonable measure of fuel efficiency. And assuming that the figure for truck shipping is computed the same way, that would be a fair comparison. Dr. Stupid This has always been the way that I interpreted the statement. Doesn't mean it's right, obviously....

12th February 2009, 06:48 AM	#8
cj.23 Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Kadath in the Cold Waste Posts: 2,822	Sure, trains are a massively more efficient means of hauling large amounts of freight at low cost. Think about rails, resistance, and how much actual freight can be hauled. Trucks are restricted in size by the need to actually travel on public roads, and turn corners etc. So yes, trains will always get a massive amount more mpg. I suspect canals and shipping are even more efficient. cj x
	__________________ I'm an Anglican Christian, so I declare my prejudice here. Please take it in to account when reading my posts. "Most people would rather die than think: many do." - Betrand Russell My dull life blogged http://jerome23.wordpress.com

12th February 2009, 06:48 AM	#9
madurobob Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Blue Heaven, NC Posts: 5,516	Originally Posted by BPSCG Link I'm confused. Nearest I can come up with is that they figure it takes x gallons of fuel to make an empty train go 436 miles, and if you add a ton of freight to that empty train, it will take x + 1 gallons of fuel to go that same 436 miles. I guess by that logic, I could say my Ford Taurus can move Mrs. BPSCG 436 miles on half a pint of gasoline. Sounds like deceptive advertising, close to being downright dishonest. I wondered the same thing when I heard the CSX ad. Best I could figure was they were telling their customers to negotiate MUCH better transit rates since the incremental cost of them moving a ton of freight was amazingly low.
	__________________ Insert witty phrase or out of context post by another member here.

12th February 2009, 06:53 AM	#10
shadron Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Colorado Posts: 5,717	It's probably right, if you are only talking about the payload weight. A diesel tractor/trailer hauls about 20 net tons (plus another 20 in empt weight) at roughly 6 miles per gallon; that's 120 ton-miles/gal. A train has much less air friction and much less rolling friction to fight, and can run the diesels in a better part of their power curve, since they just generate electricity for the traction motors. And we ignore infrastructure costs. A train is the way to go, if you are moving more than, say, 10 tens, you don't care about acceleration damage (things are packed really well or are oblivious to 3g accelerations), are conveniently loaded and unloaded (or else you get a truck anyway, plus possible handling damages at either end), and you're willing to wait up to two weeks for the goods. Otherwise, it's going to be trucks. No (or at least not many) rail refrigerator cars anymore, either.
	Last edited by shadron; 12th February 2009 at 07:41 AM.

12th February 2009, 06:55 AM	#11
maxpower1227 Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,012	Originally Posted by rwguinn Each car on a train can weigh more than 100000 lb. A typical trrain (out west, not talking East, here) will haul well over 10 million lb, or over 10000 tons. ...5,000 tons?
	__________________ Warning. If you don't want to see your treasured "evidence" completely pwned in public, don't show it to the posters at JREF. - Rolfe

12th February 2009, 07:02 AM	#12
bruto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy Posts: 11,180	Like others, I've always assumed it's "ton miles per gallon," which may or may not be deceptive, depending on how you look at it. So a truck that gets seven miles per gallon, if it hauls ten tons, gets 70 ton miles per gallon, etc. I suppose if you are actually shopping for different ways of moving the same freight, it makes some sense, and it does point up the overall efficiency of rail transport, which is real enough, and if we take as our base an ordinary passenger vehicle or pickup truck, the ton miles per gallon will be approximately the actual miles per gallon of the vehicle, so the figure has a natural reference that is easy to picture. Still, you have to watch out for this kind of calculation. For one thing, it is almost certainly the optimal cargo density that is being measured, and unlikely to apply to lighter cargo or to passengers. And this kind of thinking can be misapplied altogether. You see the same idea in estimates of airline safety, which is usually measured in passenger miles. A jumbo jet on a long route could probably blow up on every tenth flight, and still deliver an impressive enough number of passenger miles to come up with one of those "safer than driving to the airport" statements.
	__________________ "Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding.(Samuel Johnson) The gods are less for their love of praise....(Wendell Berry)

12th February 2009, 07:08 AM	#13
soylent Muse Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Posts: 962	Originally Posted by BPSCG Sounds like deceptive advertising, close to being downright dishonest. Not if you're interested in hauling large quantities of junk. If you're interested in hauling people, look at people*miles/gallon at average occupancy, time taken and convenience instead.
	__________________ "A lot of those lobbyists genuinely like people. But then, fleas like people too." - Mike Munger.

12th February 2009, 07:17 AM	#14
rwguinn Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes Posts: 8,416	Originally Posted by maxpower1227 ...5,000 tons? Duh! I ripped a ball-park figure off the top of my head in a hurry. That's why we do loads committees, to catch the obvious.... You're right... So sorry!
	__________________ "Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." "I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275

12th February 2009, 07:18 AM	#15
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,078	The only more efficient mode of transport is a ship. Not a deceptive ad whatsoever - literally true that one gallon moves a ton over 400 miles. And this is why the golden age of railroading was not the 1920s, but NOW.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

12th February 2009, 07:23 AM	#16
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,078	BTW, 300,000+ pound freight cars are getting to be pretty much normal... And 10,000 foot trains are pretty normal too.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

12th February 2009, 07:27 AM	#17
MRC_Hans Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Whithin earshot of the North Sea Posts: 16,600	Originally Posted by Stimpson J. Cat I can't say for sure (not enough info in the link), but I suspect that what they mean is that X tons of freight are shipped Y miles by train per year, and Z gallons of fuel are used, such that Y / XZ = 436 miles / gallon x ton. If this is the case, then assuming that fuel use is proportional to both the weight of freight carried, and the distance it moves, this would be a reasonable measure of fuel efficiency. And assuming that the figure for truck shipping is computed the same way, that would be a fair comparison. Dr. Stupid True. That is the usual way to calculate fuel costs over a whole transport sector. It has some caveats. For instance, the mileage between truck transport and rail ditto may not be quite comparable; a train goes straighter trough the landscape, but a truck can go door to door. Hans
	__________________ Don't. Just don't.

12th February 2009, 07:55 AM	#18
gdnp useless idiot Join Date: May 2008 Location: New Jersey-You gotta problem wit dat? Posts: 4,999	Originally Posted by MRC_Hans True. That is the usual way to calculate fuel costs over a whole transport sector. It has some caveats. For instance, the mileage between truck transport and rail ditto may not be quite comparable; a train goes straighter trough the landscape, but a truck can go door to door. Hans I assume this is why we see a fair number of truck trailers loaded on freight trains coming through my town. Load up the trailer at one end, have a truck drive to the train depot, have the train handle the long haul, then hitch the trailer to a truck at the other end to get it to the final destination without multiple loadings and unloadings of the individual items. The manpower productivity advantages of trains must also be huge. A few engineers driving a train 24/7 vs. individual truck drivers who can only haul a small fraction of the freight and who are limited by mandatory rest periods. Originally Posted by Shadron And we ignore infrastructure costs. Are infrastructure costs for rail maintenance higher than those for highways?
	Last edited by gdnp; 12th February 2009 at 07:56 AM.

12th February 2009, 08:15 AM	#19
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 22,066	Originally Posted by cj.23 Sure, trains are a massively more efficient means of hauling large amounts of freight at low cost. Think about rails, resistance, and how much actual freight can be hauled. Trucks are restricted in size by the need to actually travel on public roads, and turn corners etc. So yes, trains will always get a massive amount more mpg. Originally Posted by shadron It's probably right, if you are only talking about the payload weight. A diesel tractor/trailer hauls about 20 net tons (plus another 20 in empt weight) at roughly 6 miles per gallon; that's 120 ton-miles/gal. A train has much less air friction and much less rolling friction to fight, and can run the diesels in a better part of their power curve, since they just generate electricity for the traction motors. Trains also don't have to deal as much with gradients - the tracks are generally planned to follow contours where possible, or use cuttings/tunnels/viaducts where not.
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

12th February 2009, 09:18 AM	#20
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Originally Posted by BenBurch The only more efficient mode of transport is a ship. Not a deceptive ad whatsoever - literally true that one gallon moves a ton over 400 miles. I think you're saying the same thing I was saying - that it takes one *more* gallon to move a train with a ton of freight on it 400 miles than it takes to move an *empty* train that same distance. But how many gallons does it take to move that empty train that 400 miles? A lot more than it takes to move an empty truck. Really, the fair measure is not how many extra gallons of fuel it takes to move only the ton of freight, or how many gallons of fuel it takes to move only the vehicle, be it train or truck, but how many gallons of fuel it takes to move the ton of freight and its carrier. It seems to me that the statistic presented is cherry-picking of a sort. Again, my Ford Taurus could move Mrs. BPSCG from Washington DC to New York City on only half a pint of fuel. It takes considerably more to get the Ford itself there. BTW, Mojo, Mrs. BPSCG weighs about 18-20 pounds.* *On the moon.
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

12th February 2009, 09:36 AM	#21
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 22,066	I can't afford exotic holidays like that.
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

12th February 2009, 09:40 AM	#22
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,417	Originally Posted by BPSCG I think you're saying the same thing I was saying - that it takes one *more* gallon to move a train with a ton of freight on it 400 miles than it takes to move an *empty* train that same distance. Not at all. You see that number includes the base effeciency of the train. If you have a Train with 10,000 tons of freight and it moves 436 miles, you would expect it to use 10,000 gallons of fuel. It is not about calculateing the loss of moving the vehical with out said freight and then with said freight.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

12th February 2009, 09:43 AM	#23
roger Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2002 Location: Mountain View, CA Posts: 11,021	In 2007, trains moved 1,770,545,245,000 ton-miles of freight. They consumed 4,062,025,082 gallons of fuel. That's fuel to move not just the freight, but the train as well. It includes fuel consumed in train yards, it excludes passenger trains. That's an average of 435.88, and as explained it includes the fuel expended to move the train itself. cite
	__________________ May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view. May your mountains rise into and above the clouds. - Edward Abbey Climb the mountains and get their good tidings. Nature's peace will flow into you as sunshine flows into trees. The winds will blow their own freshness into you, and the storms their energy, while cares will drop off like autumn leaves. - John Muir

12th February 2009, 09:53 AM	#24
gdnp useless idiot Join Date: May 2008 Location: New Jersey-You gotta problem wit dat? Posts: 4,999	Originally Posted by BPSCG I think you're saying the same thing I was saying - that it takes one *more* gallon to move a train with a ton of freight on it 400 miles than it takes to move an *empty* train that same distance. But how many gallons does it take to move that empty train that 400 miles? A lot more than it takes to move an empty truck. Really, the fair measure is not how many extra gallons of fuel it takes to move only the ton of freight, or how many gallons of fuel it takes to move only the vehicle, be it train or truck, but how many gallons of fuel it takes to move the ton of freight and its carrier. It seems to me that the statistic presented is cherry-picking of a sort. Again, my Ford Taurus could move Mrs. BPSCG from Washington DC to New York City on only half a pint of fuel. It takes considerably more to get the Ford itself there. On what basis do you claim that the calculation was done that way? Were I to calculate the gallons per pound of transporting Mrs. BPSCG to Washington, I would figure out how many gallons of fuel would be required and divide by her weight. One would arrive with different numbers depending on whether she is driving alone or with companions, or depending on the vehicle, but regardless the calculation would be the same: (gallons of fuel)/(weight of cargo)

12th February 2009, 10:01 AM	#25
IXP Muse Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 832	I recall from many years ago, an article (I believe in Sci Am) about the energy efficiency of various forms of transport. The metric used was energy / mass / distance. The mass includes the entire weight of the vehicle and it's contents. The results were surprising: The most effiecient: a man on a bicyle Second: C5A miltary cargo transport jet I have failed to google this up, so my memory may be wrong. IXP
IXP Muse Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 832	__________________ "When reason sleeps, monsters are produced" -- Goya, title of etching that is my avatar

12th February 2009, 10:14 AM	#26
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Originally Posted by roger In 2007, trains moved 1,770,545,245,000 ton-miles of freight. They consumed 4,062,025,082 gallons of fuel. That's fuel to move not just the freight, but the train as well. It includes fuel consumed in train yards, it excludes passenger trains. That's an average of 435.88, and as explained it includes the fuel expended to move the train itself. cite Bear with me while I work through some speculative math... 1,770,545,245,000 ton-miles = moving one ton 1,770,545,245,000 miles, or 1,770,545,245,000 tons one mile. If they could move one ton of train plus freight 1,770,545,245,000 miles, then, presumably, they could move one ton of train-only 1,770,545,245,000 miles. Okay, here's where I get the wild-ass numbers. Assume a train = 200 cars + engine. Assume each car weighs 4 tons (a WAG - wild-ass guess) and the engine weighs 20 tons. That means the train weighs 820 tons. So if one gallon of fuel can move one ton 436 miles, one gallon of fuel would move 820 tons 436/820 = .53 miles. So is it fair to say that while the 436 ton-miles per gallon is accurate, it's also fair to say that (assuming my WAG numbers are more or less in the ballpark) that an empty freight train gets what we commonly think of as mileage - about half a mile per gallon, disregarding the freight carried?
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

12th February 2009, 10:25 AM	#27
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,175	Originally Posted by BPSCG So is it fair to say that while the 436 ton-miles per gallon is accurate, it's also fair to say that (assuming my WAG numbers are more or less in the ballpark) that an empty freight train gets what we commonly think of as mileage - about half a mile per gallon, disregarding the freight carried? Not necessarily: per-weight fuel efficiency while empty may be different than per-weight fuel efficiency when loaded, because many factors involved don't scale linearly with the weight of the train. Air resistance is one (though maybe not a big one). Engine friction is another (possibly considerable). I'm sure there are others. If you've got nothing else to go on, this sort of calculation is not an unreasonable way to get a rough estimate, but it could easily be off, possibly a lot.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

12th February 2009, 10:39 AM	#28
Psi Baba Homo Skepticalis Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Occupying my barstool Posts: 3,177	The Texas Transportation Institute's Center for Ports & Waterways published a report in 2007 called A Modal Comparison of Domestic Freight Transportation on the General Public. Similar reports have been published by the EPA, but the data and methodologies had not been updated since the early 90s. This report published new figures using more recent data regarding fuel efficiencies, emissions, and cargo capacities. The chapter on Energy Efficiency explains how these kinds of statistics are derived and what they mean: http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/TTI-2007-5.pdf This report has been a useful reference for the work I do, so I was already familiar with it. I noticed that shortly after the report was published, those CSX ads started to appear. While the ads are not actually dishonest, spouting the numbers like that with no frame of reference can be confusing to the general public. The agency I work for uses the counterpart numbers for barge transportation in promotional endeavors, but mainly within circles of those would be likely to understand the context. I'm not sure whether I would say to CSX, "Shame on you" or "Well played." Or maybe it should be, "Good luck with that." I laughed when I saw this thread.
	__________________ Save Caribbean Rum! (seriously)

12th February 2009, 10:45 AM	#29
Dilb Muse Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 738	Originally Posted by BPSCG So is it fair to say that while the 436 ton-miles per gallon is accurate, it's also fair to say that (assuming my WAG numbers are more or less in the ballpark) that an empty freight train gets what we commonly think of as mileage - about half a mile per gallon, disregarding the freight carried? True, and that's why you shouldn't trade in your car for a 200-car train.
Dilb Muse Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 738

12th February 2009, 10:49 AM	#30
rwguinn Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes Posts: 8,416	Originally Posted by BPSCG Bear with me while I work through some speculative math... 1,770,545,245,000 ton-miles = moving one ton 1,770,545,245,000 miles, or 1,770,545,245,000 tons one mile. If they could move one ton of train plus freight 1,770,545,245,000 miles, then, presumably, they could move one ton of train-only 1,770,545,245,000 miles. Okay, here's where I get the wild-ass numbers. Assume a train = 200 cars + engine. Assume each car weighs 4 tons (a WAG - wild-ass guess) and the engine weighs 20 tons. That means the train weighs 820 tons. So if one gallon of fuel can move one ton 436 miles, one gallon of fuel would move 820 tons 436/820 = .53 miles. So is it fair to say that while the 436 ton-miles per gallon is accurate, it's also fair to say that (assuming my WAG numbers are more or less in the ballpark) that an empty freight train gets what we commonly think of as mileage - about half a mile per gallon, disregarding the freight carried? The secret is to never have an empty train. While, for example, coal cars must be returned to the mine empty, box cars work both ways--so you mix 'em up...generally.
	__________________ "Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." "I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275

12th February 2009, 10:53 AM	#31
IXP Muse Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 832	That depends on how much cargo you carry!
IXP Muse Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 832	__________________ "When reason sleeps, monsters are produced" -- Goya, title of etching that is my avatar

12th February 2009, 10:55 AM	#32
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,078	Originally Posted by BPSCG ... So is it fair to say that while the 436 ton-miles per gallon is accurate, it's also fair to say that (assuming my WAG numbers are more or less in the ballpark) that an empty freight train gets what we commonly think of as mileage - about half a mile per gallon, disregarding the freight carried? That was TOTAL for all tons moved and all gallons consumed. It includes deadhead miles against the fuel, but obviously no ton-miles accrue with deadheads. Deadheading is common for things like unit coal trains where the cars themselves are specialized. I don't think it includes maintenance of way trains, but those are far less than 1% of all fuel used. I read the Trains magazine monthly, and have been a rail fan since I was a sprout, so I know what I am talking about here...
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

12th February 2009, 11:05 AM	#33
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,078	Originally Posted by rwguinn The secret is to never have an empty train. While, for example, coal cars must be returned to the mine empty, box cars work both ways--so you mix 'em up...generally. Not quite. Coal trains tend to be unit trains, cars in a string that are never separated unless one needs to be put in the RIP track. Many tank trains are like this too, with the cars piped together so that they can all be drained/filled from on hose connection rather than being spotted for emptying/filling and multiple connections made and broken. Box cars are a getting scarce. The modern equivalent is the container car, an those too are usually in unit trains and often are in 3-4 car sets that share bogies between the sets. Yes, you will see trains still with mixed cargoes, because some customers generate or consume small shipments of as little as a single car, but those are expensive customers to service, and railroads would really rather run only unit trains to intermodal yards or to power plants or steel mills or similar producers and consumers of multi-car shipments of the same thing. What you almost never, ever find is a railroad willing to take LCL freight, that is Less Than Carload. Usually now one will deal with a freight consolidator who will load a trailer or a container with your goods and those of others and then deliver them at the other end. (Think UPS.)
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

12th February 2009, 11:21 AM	#34
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Duplicate post because everything I say is worth reading twice...
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia. Last edited by BPSCG; 12th February 2009 at 11:23 AM.

12th February 2009, 11:25 AM	#35
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Originally Posted by Dilb True, and that's why you shouldn't trade in your car for a 200-car train. Okay - you wouldn't believe the mistake I was about to make until you stopped me.
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.