She is pulling a full load.
| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Economy |
| Railroads Seeing Surge in Freight Business |
| 2004-11-04 |
| The convergence of an improving economy, increased international trade, bumper crops and higher fuel prices has led to a record-setting year for U.S. railroads. During one week last month, the rail industry moved the most freight volume in its history -- 33.1 billion ton-miles, just eclipsing the 32.7 billion ton-miles mark set a week earlier, according to the Association of American Railroads. Through the end of October, railroads had moved 1.3 trillion ton-miles this year, or 4 percent more than at the same period last year. A ton-mile is an industry standard measurement of one ton of goods moving one mile. Companies said they've had to scramble to buy new locomotives, schedule more trains and hire more people. |
| Posted by:Mark Espinola |
| #26 ..although if you ship via UPS there's a good chance it will go by rail. Especially from the midwest/east to out here in CA. Santa Fe runs those UPS trailers from Chicago to Richmond in about three days. Pretty amazing, considering how busy its transcon racetrack is. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2004-11-04 9:13:15 PM |
| #25 Dar: "Part of the railroads' problem in competing effectively with trucks is that they have to pay for their own infrastructure, while truckers use highways paid for with tax dollars from everybody." A significant portion of the taxes you mention are paid by the Trucking Industry by way of fuel and use taxes. Not to mention a whole bunch of other taxes and tariff's etc. In fact, if it wasn't for the various fees and taxes paid by the transportation industry, we would not have the road system we have. AR |
| Posted by: Analog Roam 2004-11-04 6:29:09 PM |
| #24 How can you get around one of these 'road train' montrosities - I used to find meeting them headon on one lane roads more unnerving. At least you can pass them at a time/place you choose. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2004-11-04 6:25:01 PM |
| #23 One thing with moving freight by rail over long ditances is that it is much less man power intensive. A unit train moving coal from the Powder River Basin or containerized freight from port facilities with the prime movers today can move 100+ car trains at least a 1000 kilometers with only 2 to 3 crew men. But short ditances trucks are abetter way to go not so much from the fuel standpoint but from the flexibility of the system. As far as passenger traffic goes up to a certain didstance and if the volume of people using the system is great enough city center to city center it would be hard to beat a dedicated true high speed (300+KPH)rail system that did not have to share the right of way with freight traffic. An airplane might get you there faster but what about all the time spent getting into and out of the airport. This will continue to grow more attractive in my opinion as the number of people trying to fly goes up and the air traffic system grows more burdened. We could see a time when travel out to 1000KM might shift more to rail systems and longer distances being more the norm for air travel. Plus look at the major political battles that take place when an airport is constructed or even expanded. Plane, trains and automobiles (plus buses) are all part of the transportation mix we need in this country. |
| Posted by: Cheaderhead 2004-11-04 5:49:08 PM |
| #22 Phil--I agree as far as regular rail being less suited for passenger service. Light rail might be more suitable. I'd be interested to see if the report specified between the two. If you don't need to build such heavy and strong passenger cars to survive the forces freight cars experience that's a huge savings in tonnage and fuel expenditure right there. My God! How can you get around one of these 'road train' montrosities on the highway? If I ever got stuck behind one of these, I would go out of my skull! Getting behind one of them on a hilly, curvy, 2-lane highway with no passing zones would be a justifiable case of road rage if I ever saw one. |
| Posted by: Dar 2004-11-04 5:42:51 PM |
| #21 Dar, I wasn't suggesting rail is not good (energy efficient) for moving bulk goods long distances. My issue is governments pushing rail for transporting people on the grounds that it is 'energy efficient'. In many and perhaps most cases its less energy efficient than buses. And BTW, in some circumstances trucks can be made more energy efficient. Where I live 'road trains' can be over 50 meters long. Link |
| Posted by: phil_b 2004-11-04 4:49:21 PM |
| #20 My family worked for Central of Georgia and the famous LOP&G, The Live Oak, Perry & Gulf aka the Loping Gopher or Living Off Protctor and Gamble. My uncle is an ACL/Seaboard lifer. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-11-04 4:11:18 PM |
| #19 Thank you for all the info and recommended books, Dar. |
| Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever) 2004-11-04 4:11:12 PM |
| #18 She is pulling a full load. |
| Posted by: Mark Espinola 2004-11-04 3:14:42 PM |
| #17 Um...Looks like it's the same Dee Brown, per the Amazon links. |
| Posted by: Dar 2004-11-04 1:14:02 PM |
| #16 Dar? Same Dee Brown as "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee"? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-11-04 12:53:41 PM |
| #15 tw--I *think* we could get away from the oil dependency if we used more nuclear power for electricity generation and then used that electricity to power trains. Of course, if nothing else, we can always go back to steam as a last resort as long as we have coal or even wood for fuel! Even as recently as WWII nearly all locomotive power in the US (and the world) was steam-powered, although it's not nearly as efficient and requires much more maintenance than diesels and electrics. Anon5032--Not sure I understand your question. Do you mean shipping as in ships, or something else? I'm not very familiar with ships. I'm mostly a railfan. A great book for understanding how railroads work is Railroad: What it is, what it does by John Armstrong. That explains a lot about how the railroads work and why they do the things the way they do. For example, why using a longer, less straight route may be more efficient because of grading and braking concerns. Or how "humping" cars is done in a marshalling yard, using a small hill and gravity to sort cars. For more on the history of railroads and less on the day-to-day operations, I'd recommend Hear that Lonesome Whistle Blow by Dee Brown. As I mentioned earlier, it was the railroads that created the suburbs, allowed Northerners to enjoy fresh fruits and veggies year round, and pushed dairy cattle and other livestock out of downtown New York City. It also introduced the traveling salesman, a new architecture, traffic signals, time zones, and many other concepts. For example, before time zones every city and town had its own time--it could have been noon here in Pittsburgh; 11:37 in Columbus, OH; 12:24 in Philadelphia, etc. The railroads, after many scheduling headaches, finally imposed their own time zones on the country in 1883 to standardize their schedules, which Congress later passed into law in 1918. That's enough rambling for now... |
| Posted by: Dar 2004-11-04 12:51:15 PM |
| #14 No one has mentioned yet that logistical role the RR played in WWII where all troops and material were moved by rail. The RR infrastucture was completely beaten up pulling the load in the war effort, and we could not have managed the world wide mobilization without the RR here at home. After the war, it was RR taxes that funded not only he interstate system but also the many airport projects. Quite frankly I wouldn't mind funding RR projects with toll money, rather than letting my state continue to toll road projects that have paid themselves off 3X over... |
| Posted by: Capsu78 2004-11-04 12:09:39 PM |
| #13 Dar, thanks for the info on railroads. How does shipping compare today? |
| Posted by: Anonymous5032 2004-11-04 11:49:53 AM |
| #12 V, I believe the RR's were in trouble at the end of WWI as a result of a nationalization from which they did not recover until the Staggers act that Dar mentioned. It is interesting that all forms of transportation except car/truck require substantial subsidy by government. I do not know that it has been demonstrated that trucks do not pay their fair share for the road infrastructure and would be interested to read any links that address the issue one way or the other. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2004-11-04 10:18:05 AM |
| #11 I posed the question to find out if trains are a good defence against the oil weapon held at our throats. It sounds like the answer is yes, although an incomplete one, and our economy is wielding it. Thanks, all! |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2004-11-04 10:14:18 AM |
| #10 Some random thoughts and observations--excuse the rambling 'cause railroads are one of my favorite topics: Part of the railroads' problem in competing effectively with trucks is that they have to pay for their own infrastructure, while truckers use highways paid for with tax dollars from everybody. Only by getting rid of so many ridiculous restrictions on the railroads (via the Staggers Act) have railroads been able to bounce back in recent years to compete. As far as energy efficiency, on level track it only takes 1HP to move 1 ton along at 60mph. That's like putting a riding lawn mower engine in your car. Trains are heavy because of the forces that are exerted on them and the forces they are required to exert. Locomotives are very heavy not only because they contain giant diesel engines and alternators, but they are the sole tractive force for the entire train and need that weight to help establish traction without wheel slippage. Freight cars are very heavy (typically 20 tons empty) because they not only need to be able to support their own load but need to be strong enough to pull all the cars behind them when accelerating and withstand the weight of those cars crushing it when decelerating. Also, when empty you want the cars to be heavy enough they won't be bouncing off the track. Ebbavith--Trains aren't efficient for getting those goods distributed on a small scale to get to you directly, but they are excellent for moving them in bulk to distribution centers where they can be transferred to truck. The railroad is a big part of the transportation chain that gets that stuff to you one way or another. The mail is the only thing you mentioned that probably didn't get to you by rail--although if you ship via UPS there's a good chance it will go by rail. It was the railroads that helped this country become the consumer society it is today by removing so many boundaries between consumers and goods. It allowed Northerners to enjoy Florida oranges in winter. It allowed farms to move out of the cities so city dwellers could enjoy fresh milk and meat without keeping their own livestock. It supported the development of the suburbs so people didn't need to live within walking distance of their workplace. Phil B--That report about moving people doesn't reflect the railroads' efficiency in moving bulk things like coal, chemicals, timber, automobiles, electronics, etc. People are an entirely different cargo with their own needs and aren't well suited to move along the same lines as heavy freight. Part of the inefficiency comes from the need for heavy passenger cars able to exert and withstand the same forces freight cars experience. Dedicated light rail with lighter cars is much more efficient than the traditional rail model. I'm still holding out for a successful maglev line to get built in this country--that could really help rail travel come back in the US and alleviate airport congestion by competing with short- and medium-distance flights (e.g. Chicago to NYC). Last I knew, there were only two candidates left (Pittsburgh and the Baltimore/D.C. area) for some major federal funding to develop a maglev line, but I haven't heard anything more about it in 3 years. 9/11 may have delayed or nixed it altogether. |
| Posted by: Dar 2004-11-04 10:04:47 AM |
| #9 Railroads declined when the US gov decided to fund interstate highway construction following WWII. |
| Posted by: V is for Victory 2004-11-04 8:53:06 AM |
| #8 Who's trying to drink from a gun? who's claiming trains deliver to your local grocery shop? trailing wife and Ptah were obviously not claiming trains to be a universal transport solution. Just that they are rather efficient for their purpose. Or are you claiming that trains are always less efficient than trucks? |
| Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever) 2004-11-04 8:28:54 AM |
| #7 So you'll die of thirst if you try to drink from a gun. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2004-11-04 7:22:53 AM |
| #6 Nothing more efficient than rolling steel on steel True in the right circumstances, but far from true in all circumstances. I recall a study from the UK that measured the relative energy efficiency of medium range transport (for people). Buses won hands down. Planes and trains were about the same. Trains are heavy and take a lot of energy to stop and start and then there is the energy required to make all that steel. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2004-11-04 7:20:29 AM |
| #5 Guns have 0% efficiency milking cows. So what? |
| Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever) 2004-11-04 6:59:48 AM |
| #4 Trains have 0% efficiency getting gas to my local gas station, mail to my local postoffice, antibiotics to my local drug store, or food to my local grocery, none of which is next to railcar sidings. |
| Posted by: Ebbavith Angang9747 2004-11-04 6:41:23 AM |
| #3 Unles timely delivery has an economic value. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2004-11-04 6:33:13 AM |
| #2 quite correct: Nothing more efficient than rolling steel on steel. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2004-11-04 5:29:46 AM |
| #1 I am under the impression that trains are more energy-efficient than trucks. Am I correct? |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2004-11-04 3:43:13 AM |