 |
Re: Rail most efficient, not no 2 continuing earlier thread.
Author: Dave Smith
Date: 12-15-2007 - 11:45
Marc,
Some of what I have offered is based on personal conversations with barge company folk, supplemented with simple "what if" math. Other data I reference comes from the Iowa Grain Quality Initiative study of a few years back. I'll give you links to what I can.
Suffice it to say the old USACE standard of "59 ton/miles for truck, 212 ton/miles for rail, and 512 ton/miles for barge" just doesn't apply anymore, as all modes have gotten more fuel efficient. Railroads have made the biggest actual gains, while barge lines have the greatest potential for gain. However, if railroads electrified (and assuming they could power their wires with cheap hydro or coal-fired power plants) they would win the multimodal fuel efficiency contest hands down, as railroading is the only mode that can string catenary. Again, that's just my two cents.
Iowa Grain Quality Initiative
[www.extension.iastate.edu]
In this study from a few years back, metered data shows trucks getting 186 gross ton miles and 90 net ton miles per gallon of fuel.
Unit grain trains from Iowa to West Coast ports averaged 437 net ton-miles per gallon (the study doesn't elaborate, but BNSF via Marias Pass and the Gorge was by far the most fuel efficient rail corridor from Iowa to PNW)
Unit grain trains from Iowa to New Orleans averaged 640 net ton-miles per gallon.
Mississippi barges averaged 544 net ton miles, with downriver barges getting up to 1290 net ton miles but upriver barges only getting 185 ton/miles on the backhaul.
Thus, Mississippi-parallel railroads are more fuel efficient than Mississippi barge lines.
The reason Columbia/Snake barges are more fuel efficient in general than Mississippi barges is that they are allowed 14 feet of draft compared to 12 feet max for Mississippi barges, and of course the Mississippi has more natural current to fight upstream as well as a lot more curvature to navigate while the Columbia/Snake waterway is mostly slack water and navigation is relatively simpler. (Yes, river curvature does affect barge fuel efficiency just like rail curvature affects rail fuel efficiency.)
Other links and contact info:
Foss Maritime of Portland OR
[www.foss.com]
info@foss.com 1-800-882-4243
I was able to get actual fuel use data right over the phone for one round trip barge tow trip from Portland to Lewiston and back, albeit this was before 9/11 so they might be reticent to giving out such info now.
As far as I know, there is no public data available for Columbia/Snake waterway, at least I couldn't find it via net searches. Hopefully someone else can help out with that?
Some of what I have offered is based on personal conversations with barge company folk, supplemented with simple "what if" math. Other data I reference comes from the Iowa Grain Quality Initiative study of a few years back. I'll give you links to what I can.
Suffice it to say the old USACE standard of "59 ton/miles for truck, 212 ton/miles for rail, and 512 ton/miles for barge" just doesn't apply anymore, as all modes have gotten more fuel efficient. Railroads have made the biggest actual gains, while barge lines have the greatest potential for gain. However, if railroads electrified (and assuming they could power their wires with cheap hydro or coal-fired power plants) they would win the multimodal fuel efficiency contest hands down, as railroading is the only mode that can string catenary. Again, that's just my two cents.
Iowa Grain Quality Initiative
[www.extension.iastate.edu]
In this study from a few years back, metered data shows trucks getting 186 gross ton miles and 90 net ton miles per gallon of fuel.
Unit grain trains from Iowa to West Coast ports averaged 437 net ton-miles per gallon (the study doesn't elaborate, but BNSF via Marias Pass and the Gorge was by far the most fuel efficient rail corridor from Iowa to PNW)
Unit grain trains from Iowa to New Orleans averaged 640 net ton-miles per gallon.
Mississippi barges averaged 544 net ton miles, with downriver barges getting up to 1290 net ton miles but upriver barges only getting 185 ton/miles on the backhaul.
Thus, Mississippi-parallel railroads are more fuel efficient than Mississippi barge lines.
The reason Columbia/Snake barges are more fuel efficient in general than Mississippi barges is that they are allowed 14 feet of draft compared to 12 feet max for Mississippi barges, and of course the Mississippi has more natural current to fight upstream as well as a lot more curvature to navigate while the Columbia/Snake waterway is mostly slack water and navigation is relatively simpler. (Yes, river curvature does affect barge fuel efficiency just like rail curvature affects rail fuel efficiency.)
Other links and contact info:
Foss Maritime of Portland OR
[www.foss.com]
info@foss.com 1-800-882-4243
I was able to get actual fuel use data right over the phone for one round trip barge tow trip from Portland to Lewiston and back, albeit this was before 9/11 so they might be reticent to giving out such info now.
As far as I know, there is no public data available for Columbia/Snake waterway, at least I couldn't find it via net searches. Hopefully someone else can help out with that?
