Is there Freight that HAS to move by rail?

[rearedevice]

CURE is talking about about captive shippers and recievers. I cant think of anything that has to move by rail. Many power plants are near bodys of water and could get there coal in barges. Powder River Coal could be moved by a US Army Canal or by conveier. http://www.railcure.org/ CURE complains that the cost of many comedities shipped by rail is more then the cost of the comodity at the mine or the field. This is not new. When I worked in recyclibles the cost of USED Tires or Concreate to ship was always more then the price of the product whether it was by truck or by train or even water. Many power plants get there coal by truck even when there is rail in there backyard. The Power plant in Cumberland MD (home of a hughe CSX Yard) gets there coal in by truck. Other then dimensional loads what has to go by rail?

[Cowford]

That depends on how you define "has to." Considering rail as the only viable option may be the result of one (or more) of the following transportation issues unique to that particular movement in question: 1) economic considerations; 2) safety; 3) "logistics;" and/or 4) dimensions.

Example of (1): Coal moving from the PRB. There are no canals, nor are there conveyors/slurry pipelines to provide modal competition. Leaving aside canals and conveyors (both impractical in this example), a slurry pipeline has enormous cost and environmental ramifications... the idea has been bandied about, but it's doubtful you'd ever see that happen in the PRB or any other large coal reserve area. You could move the coal by truck, LTL, or even air freight... but the cost to transport to power plants becomes prohibitively expensive on an absolute basis, i.e. compared with other energy production methods, and on a relative basis, i.e., compared against other coal sources.

Example of (2): Shipments of "ultra-hazardous" materials are sometimes restricted from air and road. An example would be hydrocyanic acid.

Example (3): Shipping and/or receiving plant is designed for rail. In such cases, it can be prohibitively expensive to modify the plant to receive alternate modes... going back to (1)

Example (4): Dimensional loads may "have to" go by rail due to cost (see [1]) or clearance limitations on competing mode rights-of-way, e.g., road bridge heights.

PS: While some shippers are captive and some pricing inequities MAY exist, I wouldn't be looking to CURE for an objective critique... or sensible solutions.

[rearedevice]

I know of one coal slurry pipeline from the Ohio Valley to Fairport Harbor OH on Lake Erie. Since coal is acidic how do they clean up the water that they use? As of right now the restrictions of Utlities owning there own railroads have been lifted. The old restrictions that were put in place in 1939 forced the power companys out of the Interurban Buisness. The Interrbans themselves used railroad eminate domain powers to build the railways and the foundations of the grid

[2nd trick op]

Very little, if any freight, "has" to move by rail. Even some rail equipment, such as non-standard gauge transit cars, has moved by truck on occasion. And my personal observation is that the completion of the Interstate Highway system actually made specialized trucking the carrier of choice for a lot of "high and wide" moves for which rail was once considered the most suitable option.

The resurgence of rail carriage after 1985 was accomplished mostly by economies of scale ... that is, by identifying and capturing traffic which moved in a volume sufficient to justify a larger vehicle than a highway trailer, or by identifying and segregating traffic for a single customer, such as an auto-assembly plant, and avoiding the classification yards and local siding-to-siding pickup and delivery. Well before that time, shipments of high value, or which required special handling, such as perishables and livestock, had been gravitating away form the rails.

Various types of traffic have see-sawed between rail and highway and, occasionally inland water (barge) movement for a number of years now. And there are some signs of regaining, or at least getting a share of, traffic that hasn't moved much by rail in decades, such as long-distance perishable moves. Reliability ... getting it there at the time agreed to ... seems to be at least as much a factor as simple transit time.

CURE's agenda certainly isn't about putting more traffic on the rails; it represents the interests of a group of shippers, many of them admittedly relatively small players, who lost ground when deregulation permitted the railroads to concentrate their efforts on the smaller, more-concentrated group of customers who actually paid the lion's share of the bills. In that respect, the return to profitablity by a smaller number of leaner competitors might be viewed in a light similar to the emergence of super-retailers at the expense of small-market independent merchants. It's a trend which makes enemies for the freight roads who can be viewed in a sympathetic light by much of the public. But reversing the trend would likely result in higher costs for everyone else.

[Ken W2KB]

CURE is talking about about captive shippers and recievers. I cant think of anything that has to move by rail. Many power plants are near bodys of water and could get there coal in barges. Powder River Coal could be moved by a US Army Canal or by conveier. http://www.railcure.org/ CURE complains that the cost of many comedities shipped by rail is more then the cost of the comodity at the mine or the field. This is not new. When I worked in recyclibles the cost of USED Tires or Concreate to ship was always more then the price of the product whether it was by truck or by train or even water. Many power plants get there coal by truck even when there is rail in there backyard. The Power plant in Cumberland MD (home of a hughe CSX Yard) gets there coal in by truck. Other then dimensional loads what has to go by rail?

Where coal can move by water, it does, as it is substantially less expensive than other modes. Trucks for coal may be less costly for shorter distances than rail, there is some breakeven point I'm sure. Coal for my employer's electric generating stations comes by ship to NJ from Indonesia.

[scharnhorst]

Some power plants take coal in both by Rail and by ship all around the Great Lakes. Ontario Hydro, and Quebec Hydro are two that use both rail and ship to move coal to there power plants. Detroit Edison also uses both types of services as well.

[slchub]

I'm not sure if it is a federal requirement or easier for transport but the shuttle rocket boosters are sent to Florida from Clearfield, Utah via rail.

[HoggerKen]

Ethanol, while it does not have to be transported by rail, economics say it must be. For a moment, replace units moving ETOH with truck. That is almost 250 trucks, good luck with that. We ship 4 units per week from our area on UP alone, most to the east coast. Combine CN, CP (ex-ICE/DME), and BNSF, you have clogged roads. This is why there are 10,000 tank cars built since 2001 for ethanol service.

Now for C.U.R.E. I don't have time for them. Are there pricing issues? Yes. Are they captive? Not in the strongest sense of the word. But is it worth to re-regulate the industry over these issues? No.

Railroads have made great strides in modernization, and invested billions since Staggers. Where new traffic has occurred, such as ethanol, they have been able to move quickly and invest where they needed it. So long as, there is enough to pay the way. And that is the whole point of contention with folks like C.U.R.E. They expect a rate, sometimes the same level as 1984, with the same service or better, which will today not cover the investment to continue that service. (A lot of coal contracts for example, originated back when the PRB was just beginning to open up with the arrival of CNW as a competitor to BN. The first train to move on CNW/WRPI was in 1984. Many 20 year contracts as a result of competition were issued. By 2004, many of those contracts started expiring. Some utilities went to BN, or vise versa to try and control increases of rates. But in the last few years, rates on both carriers out of the PRB via UP or BNSF, were about the same. So are the costs. )

The same folks backing C.U.R.E. also were very vocal supporters of the DM&E PRB project, in word only of course. Twelve yeas later, there is no DM&E route out of the PRB, primarily, becuase those who wanted the cheap rates, would not make the investment. They had a chance to put their money where their mouths were.

[NV290]

I'm not sure if it is a federal requirement or easier for transport but the shuttle rocket boosters are sent to Florida from Clearfield, Utah via rail.

I was told this is for weight, Dimension and security issues more then anything. To move items that large by truck over that great a distance would be a nightmare.

[wigwagfan]

I'm not sure if it is a federal requirement or easier for transport but the shuttle rocket boosters are sent to Florida from Clearfield, Utah via rail.

I was told this is for weight, Dimension and security issues more then anything. To move items that large by truck over that great a distance would be a nightmare.

Just as a comparison, a shuttle SRB is just under 150 feet in length, and weighs 200,000 pounds without propellant.

A wind turbine blade (Vestas V90-3MW) is 144.4 feet in length, and weighs 14,770 pounds.

So I don't think the length is a concern, since I see dozens upon dozens of wind turbine components driving up I-84 east of Portland/Vancouver (despite both a BNSF and a UP mainline through the same area); and there is one tunnel on I-84 (eastbound only). Weight could certainly be a factor; the wind turbine is comparatively light and well under 50-state legal limits while the SRB is over twice the 50-state legal limit.

Do the SRBs ship with armed escorts for security?

[scharnhorst]

Do the SRBs ship with armed escorts for security?

at the most part they do have a maned caboose to keep an eye on them if there armed or not I don't know but someone here might know.