Efficiency of rail shipping vs. truck

Factual Questions
21

[QUOTE=wevets]
How much does rail transport cost vs. truck transport? Would you ever use trucks for large volumes of frieght as opposed to rail (assuming the facilities for both already exist)?
Is there a hidden subsidy for trucks over rail? I always thought that rail would be more efficient, but maybe I’m just flat-out wrong.
[/QUOTE]

The emerging science of logistics would seem to be the area concerned with these matters.
I recall seeing automobiles being unloaded from boxcars long ago! Today by both rail and truck depending on source-reseller locations, and sometimes a combination.
In the 19th century it was rail for the long haul. As roads improved and linked up a lot of commerce began moving by truck. Bulk materials like coal are best shipped by rail for long distances. Trucks for short. Small packages by plane.
Its not so much the cost but the relative costs of which method or combination is to be scheculed for best or adquate delivery times and minimum overall cost.

22

[QUOTE=Architeuthis]
As far as more technical questions go, such as fuel to weight ratio’s, fuel savings, taxes, savings compared to the trucking industry I have no clue. I simply operate the train.
[/QUOTE]

Toss me in as a vote to see Archoteuthis Sign up!

You may actually be able to help us out if you could tell us approximately how much fuel you carry and how far you go between refuelings. We can probably extrapolate some fairly close numbers from that combined with your existing loadout data.

23

I should point out that generally, it’s not required to ship 1000 tons of anything that isn’t some commodity like coal, steel or lumber.

It’s not a matter of one vs the other. People have already hit most of the high points, but there is a very complex transportation network in place that allows goods to get from point A to point B using a variety of transportation methods - air, ship, long and short haul truck, train, etc. Which type of transportation is used is dependent on many factors - time, cost, location, volume, weight, and others.

One thing you’ll notice is the more extensive use of standardization. Companies can save time and costs by using standard size cargo containers and filling them with standard sized pallets (the wooden forklift things) of goods. The containers can easily be transferred from one transport medium to another.

24

[QUOTE=Spartydog]
Not only that but there is currently a shortage of truck drivers and it is expected to get worse. The industry is trying to recruit people that have been laid off or lost their retirement and benefits from other jobs.
[/QUOTE]
Your ideas intrigue me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

25

[QUOTE=Hari Seldon]
Here is one factor that was not mentioned. I think things have improved since I first read about it, but it accounts for the large early growth of trucking over established trains. When I was growing up, all trains (by then virtually all diesel) had firemen and water handlers. More importantly, a full day’s work was defined to be 100 miles, probably 2 hours work. After that a complete change of crew was required. Trucks, on the other hand, are often individually owned or anyway competing with individually owned drivers. They are often on the road for 15-18 hours every day. That is how they outcompete trains whose crews are working 2 hours a day.

Routes were often laid out in the 19th century and have not kept up with huge population shifts since then. New rail lines are hardly ever built and the old ones seem to be disappearing gradually or, for lack of maintenance, required to run at very slow speeds. Passenger trains have nearly disappeared (except in the NE corridor).
[/QUOTE]

Here are a few corrections.

I work on what is called the engineers extra board. That means I must be ready for work 24/7.

‘’ Only 2 hours a day’’ ? ( I WISH ! )

I finish my run from Barstow to LA and ‘‘tie up’’ at 6pm. (By Federal law I am entitled to 8 hrs off for rest. If I work over 12 hrs I am entitled to 10 hrs off for rest.) For all intents and purposes lets say I was on duty for 12 hrs and I get 10 hrs off for rest.

I leave the crew lobby at 6pm and it takes me 1 hr to get home. ( I’m now down to 9hrs rest)

I get home eat dinner and visit with my family for lets say 1 hr ( I’m down to 8 hrs rest)

I go to bed and then get my call at 1am to be back on duty at 4am . ( I have only been sleeping for 5 hrs.) Note: We get a three hour call from the crew caller)

I doze off to sleep for one hour. Now I have got 6 hrs sleep.

I pull myself out of bed get a bite to eat, shower and arrive at the terminal at 4am.
The conductor and I go over our paper work, our train makeup and any other info we will need for our trip.
We then taxi to our train. The conductor goes over his train list while I inspect the locomotive consist and make sure that all locomotives are in working order.
The ‘‘herder’’ and I do the required air test and ‘‘blast off’’ to Barstow.
The average trip to Barstow takes 8-12 hrs. Depending on train congestion at San Berdoo and on ‘‘the hill’’ ie; Cajon. Another factor is comuter traffic. During the week days we have to contend with over 30 passenger trains daily. ie; Amtrak and Metrolink trains.
Lets say our 12 hrs is up and we are on the mainline near Victorville, Calif. We then have to wait on the train for the ‘‘dog catch’’ crew to show up and relive us. This can take anywhere from 1-2 hrs. Once they show up we hop in the taxi and van to Barstow. The taxi ride takes 1hr. We then arrive at Barstow and tie up at the crew lobby.
Remember I have been up since 1am. The time is now 7pm by the time I arrive at the motel to get my ‘‘rest’’ and start the cycle all over again.

New tracks are being laid down all over the country. Both frieght and passenger service has increased by over 200% in the last five years. Since 1989 frieght and passenger service has increased over 500%. Yes the 60’s, 70’s and early 80’s were indeed a dark time for the railroads but they have come back and will continue to grow in decades to come. Come to Cajon Pass. You will be surprised on the amount of rail traffic.

Take Care, Mike

26

[QUOTE=drachillix]
Toss me in as a vote to see Archoteuthis Sign up!

You may actually be able to help us out if you could tell us approximately how much fuel you carry and how far you go between refuelings. We can probably extrapolate some fairly close numbers from that combined with your existing loadout data.
[/QUOTE]

A Dash-9 holds approx 5,000 gal.
Older loco’s such as SD-40-2’s hold about 4,000
Older switch engines hold approx 2,500-3,000gal

Fuel tanks are almost always kept full to aid in tractive effort and rail adhesion. Adds weight to the loco.

When I get back to work I’ll have a talk with the diesel shop guys and get some more technical answers for you folks. Any questions, just post and I’ll try to answer them.
Take Care,
Mike

27

[QUOTE=GaryM]
I see that containers and piggyback trailers have been mentioned. But nobody brought up the RoadRailers of Triple Crown. http://www.triplecrownsvc.com/Bimodal.html

I see a lot of these running along I-70 in Eastern Missouri.
[/QUOTE]

Here in Los Angeles we (BNSF) used to run two RoadRailer trains per day. These trains were phased out a few years ago. Reason? Perhaps they will return.

28

The average semi can move approximately six to seven miles on a gal. of fuel, I seem to recall reading that the average frieght train only moves around 30-40 feet on the same gallon.The road vs. rail comparison is a lot more complicated than the basic cost to move x miles on y fuel. Rail can obviously move freight much cheaper than trucking it. There are many more variables involved. Here are two big ones: A truck can p/u at the point of production and deliver to the point of use. W/ rail the product must usually be moved from the production point to the rail and then from the rail to the point of use, w/ all the additional facilities, equipment and manpower required for the additional handling. End users rarely want an entire train car load of a specific product, so you have to add in the logistics of moving partial carloads. Many end point users are geared up to handle a truckload, but if a mixed truckload is required, the logistics are fairly simple. (remember my JiT scenario from above?) I don’t have the data available, but I believe that the average truckload of freight moves somewhere in the 4-500 mile range in one to two days. Seem pretty difficult to do that by rail.
Don’t get me wrong, I think there are far too many trucks on the road and that the system, as a whole, could be much more efficient. I also believe that rail should play a larger roll in moving produts in the U.S., but it’s a very complex problem, or series of problems.

29

Wow. This is really awesome - I never expected such great and detailed responses! You all are amazing folks.

So it seems that there are a lot of factors I didn’t take into account in my OP - that should hardly be surprising, since I know about this —>. much about the transport industry.

So would it be fair to say that if I want 2 days’ worth supply of sneakers for my Wal-Mart store to be shipped from the port of Oakland, CA to Amarillo, TX, then truck is likely to be my best option. And if I want 57 tons of molten sulfur shipped from Richmond, CA to Amarillo, TX, then rail or some truck/rail combination is likely to be my best option? (Inspired by seeing a truck labeled “Molten Sulfur” in Richmond the other day)
Also, an addition question for Architeuthis, if s/he’s inclined to be so kind: How has the drastic reduction in freight train crews affected you and rail operations? Has it affected safety? Is automation able to keep up with it or has it vastly increased your workload?

30

[QUOTE=Robot Arm]
Your ideas intrigue me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t have a newsletter, I only have a vast store of useless knowledge.

I became aware of the shortage of truck drivers through a CNN International report. Following is a link to an article by the ATA that goes in depth into the matter:

Shortage of 20,000 drivers may increase to 111,000 by 2014

Take the stats as mathmatical projections but the fact is that there are good jobs out there and a lot of the current long haul drivers are looking to retire.

31

[QUOTE=gotpasswords]
Those 8360 containers would require one driver each if they were carried on the highway. A typical freight train crew these days is what, 3 or 4? (I’m ignoring support staff for either mode like locomotive or truck mechanics, track and road workers, dispatchers, etc.)
[/quote]

[Emphasis added]

You absolutely cannot do this. The large infrastructure required to operate a railroad compared to a truck cannot be ignored, if you have any hope of meaningful comparison.

As AR Cane has said, this is invalid because you are ignoring the truck drivers needed to move the containers from door to train and from train to door. You are also ignoring the yard workers required to shift the containers at change of mode.

No question that rail has it all over road for moving large quantities of bulk goods to and from depots that have their own sidings (coal terminal to power station, say).

Small volume goods, it’s a whole other story.

32

[QUOTE=Spartydog]
I don’t have a newsletter, I only have a vast store of useless knowledge.

I became aware of the shortage of truck drivers through a CNN International report. Following is a link to an article by the ATA that goes in depth into the matter:

Shortage of 20,000 drivers may increase to 111,000 by 2014

Take the stats as mathmatical projections but the fact is that there are good jobs out there and a lot of the current long haul drivers are looking to retire.
[/QUOTE]

There are certainly a lot of truck driving jobs available, but I would serious question calling them “good” jobs. The vast majority of long haul drivers are paid by the mile, and trust me when I tell you, a driver will spend many hours not moving, for one reason or another, not moving means no pay and most of that lost time will be far from home.
The ATA is notorious for pretending to represent drivers concerns, but in practice always siding w/ the big trucking companies. So, if they acknowledge that compensation is the main issue, you can bet that it’s even more of an issue than they say. I would discouage a person w/ a family to avoid a long haul trucking job. If you’re single, really into driving a big rig and don’t expect big money for all the time your going to put into it, if you want to see N. America through a windshield, then you might make a good trucker.
I made good money in the 80’s and early 90’s, but trucking, as a job, has been going downhill for over a decade.
As an independent I would be on the phone looking for my next gig as soon as I had a delivery time for the load on my truck. As a company driver, you have to depend on your company to keep you moving, despite the logic of that being to their benefit, it doesn’t happen as often as you might expect. Their equipment may be sitting idle, but they don’t have to worry about wages, because you don’t get paid unless the wheels turn and, even then, only if the company authorizes those wheels to turn. So if you find yourself a few hours from home, on a friday evening, knowing there’s no chance of loading before monday, you can’t just decide to go home without being penalized for your decision.

33

[QUOTE=wevets]
Wow. This is really awesome - I never expected such great and detailed responses! You all are amazing folks.

So it seems that there are a lot of factors I didn’t take into account in my OP - that should hardly be surprising, since I know about this —>. much about the transport industry.

So would it be fair to say that if I want 2 days’ worth supply of sneakers for my Wal-Mart store to be shipped from the port of Oakland, CA to Amarillo, TX, then truck is likely to be my best option. And if I want 57 tons of molten sulfur shipped from Richmond, CA to Amarillo, TX, then rail or some truck/rail combination is likely to be my best option? (Inspired by seeing a truck labeled “Molten Sulfur” in Richmond the other day)
Also, an addition question for Architeuthis, if s/he’s inclined to be so kind: How has the drastic reduction in freight train crews affected you and rail operations? Has it affected safety? Is automation able to keep up with it or has it vastly increased your workload?
[/QUOTE]

Excellent question!
As previously mentioned, in the early days and up until around 1985 each train consisted of 5 crew members. They were the-
Conductor
Engineer
Fireman
Head Brakeman
Rear Brakeman

Each crew member had specific duties. First of all the conductor was ‘‘lord paramount’’ he was (and still is to some degree) the undisputed hands down ‘‘number one’’ boss of the entire crew including even, the engineer. (of course there were and still are ‘‘traditional’’ ways for an engineer to get back at a conductor if there happened to be any riff between the two, ie rough train handling, spilt coffee, broken freight car knuckles…well you get the idea, heh,heh )
ANYWAY, the conductor is responsible for the administration of the train. He would fill out all nessasary switching list, ‘‘clic’’ in cars that were to be pulled and spotted to industries. Brief the entire crew on how certain moves were to be performed such as tricky (and now illegal) moves such as ‘‘dropping cars’’, ‘‘kicking cars’’, ‘‘dutch drops’’, ‘‘flying drops’’ and other works of art that are now sadley a thing of the past. He is also responsible for getting track warrants, track bullitins from the train dispatcher via radio or phone. In the old days before radio, clerks would ‘‘hoop up’’ orders to a train on the fly.

The ‘‘Hoghead’’ or engineer is responsible for safely operating the train. Obeying the conductor, all signals, speed restrictions and rules of the road. An engineer must have a good reputation for smooth running or he will be ‘‘black-balled’’ by his peers. An engineer known to be rough can cause a crew member to be thrown off a cut of cars and cause injury or death (it still happens). Rough train handling can also cause derailments.------------To be continued.

34

[QUOTE=Architeuthis]
Here in Los Angeles we (BNSF) used to run two RoadRailer trains per day. These trains were phased out a few years ago. Reason? Perhaps they will return.
[/QUOTE]

I saw one heading West over the weekend. This was in St. Charles County Missouri. According to the Triple Crown website they apparently run service between KC and St. Louis. But nothing West of Dallas TX. I wonder why that is the case?

35

I have nothing to contribute to this thread except to say that Architeuthis, I see that you are posting as a guest. I hope that you give some thought to spending the money to become a full-fledged Doper. I’ve learned from your posts in this thread, and I’m a railfan from way back myself (thanks to my Dad, who used to work for the Canadian National Railways), so if you do stick around, I’ll look forward to your insights as to railways.

'Nuff said for now.

36

[QUOTE=Spoons]
I have nothing to contribute to this thread except to say that Architeuthis, I see that you are posting as a guest. I hope that you give some thought to spending the money to become a full-fledged Doper. I’ve learned from your posts in this thread, and I’m a railfan from way back myself (thanks to my Dad, who used to work for the Canadian National Railways), so if you do stick around, I’ll look forward to your insights as to railways.

'Nuff said for now.
[/QUOTE]

Hey, thanks!
Yeah I’ll probably join up. What did your dad do at CN?
If ya have any railroad questions give em a post!
Thanks aqain!
Mike

37

'nother railfan checking in here. Just to echo what Spoons said, welcome Architeuthis. Great posts. Good to hear about US railroad practice. On the other hand, anything you want to know about Australian railways, do let me know.

C’mon Doper railfans. there must be more of us. Come out and stop lurking in Two Notch. :smiley:

38

Also, for bulk transportation (coal, grain, lumber) I believe the king is barge.
Of course, this only works if you are trasporting on a water route (Minneapolis to St Louis) and mostly for low cost, high volume commadities (I don’t think computer chips or jewelry is often transported by barge)

Brian

39

[QUOTE=Architeuthis]
Excellent question!
As previously mentioned, in the early days and up until around 1985 each train consisted of 5 crew members. They were the-
Conductor
Engineer
Fireman
Head Brakeman
Rear Brakeman

Each crew member had specific duties. First of all the conductor was ‘‘lord paramount’’ he was (and still is to some degree) the undisputed hands down ‘‘number one’’ boss of the entire crew including even, the engineer. (of course there were and still are ‘‘traditional’’ ways for an engineer to get back at a conductor if there happened to be any riff between the two, ie rough train handling, spilt coffee, broken freight car knuckles…well you get the idea, heh,heh )
ANYWAY, the conductor is responsible for the administration of the train. He would fill out all nessasary switching list, ‘‘clic’’ in cars that were to be pulled and spotted to industries. Brief the entire crew on how certain moves were to be performed such as tricky (and now illegal) moves such as ‘‘dropping cars’’, ‘‘kicking cars’’, ‘‘dutch drops’’, ‘‘flying drops’’ and other works of art that are now sadley a thing of the past. He is also responsible for getting track warrants, track bullitins from the train dispatcher via radio or phone. In the old days before radio, clerks would ‘‘hoop up’’ orders to a train on the fly.

The ‘‘Hoghead’’ or engineer is responsible for safely operating the train. Obeying the conductor, all signals, speed restrictions and rules of the road. An engineer must have a good reputation for smooth running or he will be ‘‘black-balled’’ by his peers. An engineer known to be rough can cause a crew member to be thrown off a cut of cars and cause injury or death (it still happens). Rough train handling can also cause derailments.------------To be continued.
[/QUOTE]

Continuing on!

Back in the steam era the fireman had many duties. The most basic and classic of duties was of course to shovel coal or throw wood into the firebox and keep the fire hot–but not too hot as to blow up the whole damn boiler. Steam engines of this type were known as ‘‘muzzle loaders’’. The shovel loads of coal or cords of wood had to be evenly dispersed within the firebox as to keep an even fire. The fireman didn’t just simply dump in the coal or wood. It had to be flung in with a lot of force to reach the front of the firebox.
On the old Santa Fe here in California from I belive the early 20’s until the end of steam in 1953 all steam engines were ‘‘oil burners’’. Coal was simply not abundant here in Southern California and to use coal simply would not have been cost effective. Another reason was pollution. Oil was simply cleaner burning than coal. Historically railroads west of New Mexico burned oil whereas railroads east of NM burned coal as well as oil.
The fireman on oil burners used a valve to operate injectors which in turn would feed the fire. This was known as a ‘‘firing valve’’. Muzzle loaders were a thing of the past and with '‘good riddance I imagine.
Besides oil, coal and wood the other most important item was water. Without water there could not be steam. It was quite a job for a fireman back in those days. Number one he had to keep the grumpy ol’ hoghead happy, he had to keep the boiler at I belive around 220 psi on most steamers, a full head of steam and a good even fire. In addition he also had to verbally call out signals and restrictions to the engineer around curves when vision was obscured by the long boiler.
Once the diesels took over steam power there was of course no longer a need for the fireman. Some early diesels on passenger trains did in fact have steam generators located in the rear of the locomotive for heating and the fireman operated that or so I have been told by the ''old heads at work. Due to union contracts the position of fireman was not abolished until the early 80’s and unless he was getting ready for the engineers exam he was just along for a well paid joy ride.----------To be continued

40

[QUOTE=N9IWP]
(I don’t think computer chips or jewelry is often transported by barge)
[/QUOTE]

Although they do carry big aircraft parts and rockets on barges… (I assume that’s because they don’t fit in railcars or truck.)

Slight hijack, but there’s a new and interesting bi-modal transport in Japan: the M250 “Super Rail Cargo” train　(photos here). It’s just a container train but it’s designed like a high-speed passenger train, with motive power distributed among many cars. It has a max speed of 80mph and scheduled average speed of 56 mph, which makes it the fastest “conventional” train in Japan (i.e. excluding bullet trains which run on dedicated tracks). It’s operated exclusively for Sagawa Kyubin (a package delivery company) and runs every night between Tokyo and Osaka. They claim it replaces 16,000 truck trips per year, reducing CO2 emission by 12,000 tons annually.