Rail Physics & Track Class Science Discussion

[ThirdRail7]

A major point of the EOT is if something happens to the forward control valves, air line, brake stand etc, there is a mechanism to apply the air from another section of the train. The presence of EP braking, dynamic braking, blended braking does not minimize that important aspect.

This is why you can have 4 car passenger train(which is a light train that should suffer no degradation) and still need an EOT if the rear portion of the train is not accessible.

[JayBee]

i believe eot's main function is to telegraph air pressure. Train line air degredation is a concern as is the delay in brake pipe adjustments. What was a leap forward by Westinghouse should no longer be viewed as satisfactory for today's train handling dynamics. Ep braking eliminates buff and slack damage. Also, i believe pueblo efforts are high speed related. I'm uncertain about the HAL consist. As to unloading -I suspect it is related to , among other issues, market demand. Since rail is 75% more expensive than pipelines, i can understand the push to build a pipeline at Casco Bay. My instincts would lead to dropping the price based on cost reductions arising from higher speeds so as to render the proposed pipeline uneconomic . When in the drivers seat, do not let any competitive alternative arise. Lastly, give Irving the option of building more storage in exchange for reduced transportation expense. Crude to end product is a complex process. I remain convinced that our society is best served by fair costing. Ken Patrick

Why do you believe higher speeds would reduce costs. Sure on PAR with low top speeds going from 20 to 30 or 40 would improve utilization. On the railroad nearest me, CP's Soo Line, Unit Oil trains are allowed 40 mph when loaded and 50 mph when empty. Intermodal trains are allowed 60 and Amtrak is allowed 70. Lower average speeds are due to meeting other trains, and especially overtakes by Amtrak.

Now as to fitting ECP to tank cars, and for that matter radial trucks, What would be the ROI for the leasing company, will they be able to command a higher lease rate? What does their ROI look like when several thousand brand new cars are stored never having turned a wheel in service (many tank cars purchased for Ethanol service sat unused for 2-3 years when Ethanol demand slumped). The car leasing companies are very skittish about buying tank cars with extras when the leasing market could collapse when pipelines are built.

With modern locomotives retainer use is becoming very rare unless a train encounters trouble descending a steep grade. Normally a railroad will choose to add enough power spread into one or more DPU consists to avoid the need to set retainers. For example CP in Western Canada operates Unit Coal trains for export with 150 cars. The trains use Head End power plus two DPU consists back in the train. They operate on a 2.2% downgrade in the loaded direction without using retainers.

[KEN PATRICK]

jaybee- costs go down with increased utilization.Think crews,fuel and overhead absorption. Yes overhead absorption is a big factor in cost determinations which lead sometimes to pricing. The sometimes is when 'what the market will bear pricing' can be used. I'm thinking that par is using a mix on the oil car pricing. Lowering costs will lower the pricing which will put competition in a bad position. Investment in pipelines will be held back. As for leasing companies , a tank car is probably $65k. Add ep braking $2k, radial trucks $7k .$74k , use 20 year life @ 7% plus profit $700/month. 4 trips/month $.24/barrel. Big deal? I think not. Lastly, do not look at Ethanol as anything more than government market intervention in pursuit of a flawed concept. I suspect the unused Ethanol cars are running with oil- as it should be. I think the costly Ethanol edict should be cancelled. Ken Patrick

[Cowford]

I'm really trying hard to understand this: Why would a tank car company equip a crude car with radial trucks? And ECP... ECP-equipped cars can't be moved in non-ECP service. And crude often moves in loose-car manifest service.

[JayBee]

jaybee- costs go down with increased utilization.Think crews,fuel and overhead absorption. Yes overhead absorption is a big factor in cost determinations which lead sometimes to pricing. The sometimes is when 'what the market will bear pricing' can be used. I'm thinking that par is using a mix on the oil car pricing. Lowering costs will lower the pricing which will put competition in a bad position. Investment in pipelines will be held back. As for leasing companies , a tank car is probably $65k. Add ep braking $2k, radial trucks $7k .$74k , use 20 year life @ 7% plus profit $700/month. 4 trips/month $.24/barrel. Big deal? I think not. Lastly, do not look at Ethanol as anything more than government market intervention in pursuit of a flawed concept. I suspect the unused Ethanol cars are running with oil- as it should be. I think the costly Ethanol edict should be cancelled. Ken Patrick

No Railroad has anything to do with the tank cars ownership/lease, the cars are bought or leased by either a Logistics Co, the Oil Producers, or the Refining companies. If the Tank Car leasing companies could get 20 year leases they might consider your suggestion, right now 5-6 years is the maximum, with 2-3 not uncommon. While the Railroad companies are convinced that Crude by Rail has a long term future, not that many Customers are yet convinced. A simple way to tell who is convince is by what companies are buying rather than leasing tank cars, and even that is not absolute as with the bigger refining profit to be made by buying cheap Mid-Continent Crude, they can afford to set aside money to prematurely writeoff the tank cars if they no longer need them before they are fully depreciated.

Crew costs on most railroads won't change for trains equipped with ECP, a slight reduction in OT won't make a noticeable difference. Higher fuel costs from higher operating speeds would make a significant difference. The PAR and the similar Regionals are a special case since their operating speeds tend to be lower than the Class I Railroads, but in the end to use ECP you will have to convince the Class Is plus the multitude of Private Car Owners before it will happen.

[KEN PATRICK]

jaybee. Thanks for the post.BNSF serves 16 of the 19 producing counties in North Dakota. They are currently moving 400k barrels/day on 5 unit trains. They anticipate 500k barrels/day this year and growing to 1million barrels/day- and that's just 1/2 of production. The remainder goes by pipelines and Canadian railroads.BP, Conoco and others are now working the Bakken.Because of this, I find your comments relative to market for the light sweet crude to be off-putting. As for lease owners, I would think BNSF has a play in car ownership since they control the economics. Your statement will cause me to research on the ownership of the 30k tank car deliveries this year. Lastly, I remain convinced PAR should simply edict an increase in track speeds. The revenue increase will fund major track improvements efforts. Will even permit PAR to stop whining about getting public money. Imagine a non-government solution for generating cash. The market does work. Ken Patrick

[Cowford]

Mr Patrick, you think that BNSF has taken an ownership interest in crude tank cars? They have not/will not. You need to consider the alignment of strategic assets by stakeholder: BNSF strategic asset in ths market is their franchise. They would derive no additional benefit from "controlling" the tank car. The crude marketer's strategic asset IS the rail car; it's a flexible pipeline that can be repositioned from BNSF origins to CP origins to UP/other RR origins in distant regions (Eagleford shale, for one). And even those guys are willing to pay a premium to lease instead of own due in large part to the unknown long-term viability of rail vs pipe.

And before anyone jumps to conclusions after seeing a pic of a BNSF tank car... yes, BNSF does have a fleet of tanks. They are used exclusively in company fuel service.

[KEN PATRICK]

cowford. I think TTX , owned by several class I's including BNSF, is a major player in the equipment arena. The history and operations of ttx are interesting. Their pool pricing is extremely low. The current operating/rental of tank cars is $600/month, if you can find the cars. TTX has about 200k cars. Total North American railcar fleet is 1.4 million, split evenly between railroads and private. My company, Intermodal Technologies, made the top 100 private railcar owners for a few years . 200 cars was the cut-off. Operating and Financial leases are used by all railroads. I don't think TTX's charter would accomodate pooling of tank cars. I'm guessing the oil moves tank cars are third-party leased to the various railroads enjoying the oil boom. The bottom line? the railcar cost per barrel remains trivial. Ken Patrick

[JayBee]

jaybee. Thanks for the post.BNSF serves 16 of the 19 producing counties in North Dakota. They are currently moving 400k barrels/day on 5 unit trains. They anticipate 500k barrels/day this year and growing to 1million barrels/day- and that's just 1/2 of production. The remainder goes by pipelines and Canadian railroads.BP, Conoco and others are now working the Bakken.Because of this, I find your comments relative to market for the light sweet crude to be off-putting. As for lease owners, I would think BNSF has a play in car ownership since they control the economics. Your statement will cause me to research on the ownership of the 30k tank car deliveries this year. Lastly, I remain convinced PAR should simply edict an increase in track speeds. The revenue increase will fund major track improvements efforts. Will even permit PAR to stop whining about getting public money. Imagine a non-government solution for generating cash. The market does work. Ken Patrick

If you want to research leases go to the STB website and look under Recordations. For example Recordation # 30595 dated 12/31/2012 covers 5 leases between J. P. Morgan Chase Bank NA. and Statoil US Trading. (the US subsidiary of Norwegian Oil Company Statoil) for 112 non-coiled tank cars numbered in the series STAX 10064 to 10310 not inclusive. The actual lease agreements are not included so that we can not determine the length of the lease. When a Railroad leases cars or locomotives the STB has to receive notification and it will show up on this website, albeit with a short delay.

http://www.stb.dot.gov/recordations.nsf ... m?openform

[Cowford]

JayBee, do you know why the leases have to be recorded with the STB?

Ken, to my knowledge TTX has never participated in the tank car market. The specialized nature of the beast and regulatory/engineering issues associated with the car type keep the pool of market participants pretty small: GATX, Union Tank/Procor, Trinity, GE Rail, and ARI are the primary tank guys. And crude tanks for $600/mo? If only!

[BigLou80]

Ken,
you make a lot of great points about trucks/suspension/EP being able to increase track speeds, and I suspect your probably right about most of them. That being said track speed isn't just about the cars/locomotives them selves. The track structure needs to be able to take the pounding and abuse with out failing. Some simple physics, an object going in a straight line want's to continue going in a straight line, the track needs to be able to exert enough force on the train to make it go around the corner ( or straighten it back out) the faster the train the more force required. Lousy track bed won't be able to do this and radial trucks and EP brakes won't make a bit of difference You seem to be avoiding/ignoring this half of the train speed equation.

[JayBee]

JayBee, do you know why the leases have to be recorded with the STB?
!

The STB is the Registrar of Record for Security Interest on Railroads and Railroad Equipment. If you take out a mortgage on a home, the Bank will register that loan as a Lien against the Property with the County Registrar of Deeds for the County where the home is located, and similarly the bank will likely want a Lien in a Car Title and will file it in the state where a Car is Titled. Since Railroad Equipment can travel to 49 states plus two foreign countries, it makes sense that the Security Agreement is filed at the US Federal level of Government. The US DOT is the logical location, and within the DOT the STB is even more logical.

[KEN PATRICK]

BigLou80. Flat spots on wheels cause pounding not the rotation itself.With new tank cars, wheels, springs and brake rigging, I opine that the tank cars will run smoothly no matter the speed. With EP brakes, release is certain, no dragging shoes to heat up the wheel. I admit i'm dense relative to 'harmonic rocking' . I'm of the opinion that properly set constant contact side bearings and legal cog would prevent rock and roll. I can't picture a tank rocking and rolling. Anyways, why not run 5 mph faster? 10mph faster? Having developed a 286 89 flat from a 220 TTX body ,when the cognoscenti told me it couldn't be done, gave me an appreciation for the railroad folklore-impacted equipment/operations decision process. I can't fault the environment. There is little reward for risk-takers. I'm sure the PAR operations manager is not going go out front on this. And the PAR financial folk have no incentive. Ken Patrick

[KEN PATRICK]

Sperry has announced a new technology - magnetic induction - that will allow their railcars to cover 10 times more track in the usual period. I don't know how Sperry charges but i'll guess it's per mile. Will this new technology allow Sperry to drop it's prices by 90%? I doubt it but since costs will be reduced per mile, I'll bet some pricing reductions will encourage ralroads to inspect more frequently. And that should result in faster track speeds. ken patrick

[rovetherr]

The frequency of Sperry tests has little positive effect on track speed. The issues that effect track class, and therefore speed, are related to over all track geometry. And by that I mean everything that has been mentioned here before, weight/type of rail, ties, surface, sub-base, bridges, culverts, and so forth. The mandated frequency of Sperry testing is primarily a function of amassed tonnage for a certain section of line, unless the host RR feels that they can justify the additional expense to reduce service failures of the rail, or in specific cases the increase over the mandatory minimum is mandated by the FRA. One such example of FRA mandate is the Portal Bridge on the NEC, it had been under a 90 day testing cycle when I worked at Sperry due to the style of miter rails, they had failed and caused a rather nasty wreck and as a consequence were tested at a higher frequency than other bridges with different miter rails.

Magnetic induction is not a new technology, it is in fact the original method perfected by Dr. Sperry around 1925. See this page from the SRS website for a history of the development of internal rail inspection. What is new is the miniaturization of the components in the system, so much so that now instead of having to use the rail bound cars high rail trucks are utilized. The newest detection method is with laser light , but to my knowledge it hasn't progressed past the lab for rail-flaw detection. The newest real-world development has been non-stop high speed ultrasonic inspection. UT inspection was limited to about 13 MPH, before the development of a new style of wheel that could catch the signal bounce-back quicker and a much improved artificial intelligence for the flaw detection software. Now they can test up to 50 MPH.

And Sperry charges by the hour, unless you have a contract.