An Argument for Ethanol by Rail

[carnej1]

I’m begining to think that the “Ethanol people” don’t like the rail industry much. There was supposed to be a big plant that produced ethanol going in a small town just to the west of my town. Then the news paper announced that it was going to have rail scervice. Needless to say, I was extatic, Oh another place to railfan! Well, after the annoucement of rail being involved, the company involved reportadly went bankrupt… Care to speculate?

Justin,

So you believe that the owners of the ethanol company intentionally went into bankrupcy because they hate railroads???

The Ethanol industry has been foundering since gasoline prices dropped off ( the various gas/ehtnol blends are not price competitive in the current market). AFAIK, every single large ethanol plant in the country uses rail service, trucking out that much bulk product would be very expensive compared to using tank cars…

[Murphy_Siding]

More than likely, the bankruptsy had nothing to do with rail service. I’m sure they had planned to have rail service from the start…they just didn’t plan on going bankrupt.

[bubbajustin]

More than likely, the bankruptsy had nothing to do with rail service. I’m sure they had planned to have rail service from the start…they just didn’t plan on going bankrupt.

Well, I din’t men necaserally that the Ethanoal Co. hated railroads. I was just saying that that’s what happend.

[carnej1]

More than likely, the bankruptsy had nothing to do with rail service. I’m sure they had planned to have rail service from the start…they just didn’t plan on going bankrupt.

Well, I din’t men necaserally that the Ethanoal Co. hated railroads. I was just saying that that’s what happend.

Justin,

You’re a bright kid, think this through. If your local paper said that the plant, if built, would ship by rail, that is because it was designed that way; therefore the ethanol company wanted to be a railroad customer…

If you’re disappointed due to the loss of a potential railfanning location think of all the people who either lost their jobs when the company went bankrupt or who won’t be able to get jobs building or working the plant…

[RRKen]

Justin,

So you believe that the owners of the ethanol company intentionally went into bankrupcy because they hate railroads???

The Ethanol industry has been foundering since gasoline prices dropped off ( the various gas/ehtnol blends are not price competitive in the current market). AFAIK, every single large ethanol plant in the country uses rail service, trucking out that much bulk product would be very expensive compared to using tank cars…

A combination of gas prices, and corn prices last June. Going from $4 to $8 per bushel maked a large hole in the balance sheet, something price cannot overcome (unless we see $5 a gallon gasoline).

[RRKen]

One other thing to remember is ethanol plants must import gas to mix with the ethanol. For some reason, they cannot ship pure ethanol, maybe to discourage those with a long straw from “sampling” as it is transported. So along with imbound corn, there is also inbound tank cars loaded with gas to switch. While the cost to transport this is very small compared to the inbound corn and outbound DDGs, it still has to be considered.

RWM: If you like that plant in Wisconsin, you’ll love the soybean plant in Decatur, IN. There is a major street (it used to be a US highway) that crosses the inside the clearance points of most of the twenty or so tracks.

First off, if a plant has to take corn in by rail, it might not be very profitable. Corn, as it was said earlier, is the biggest expense of an ethanol plant, adding transport to the price narrows the margins. Now a days, to disgusting levels.

Second, gasoline (denaturant) is for the most part not railed in, but trucked from the local pipeline or refinery. I have not seen tanks of gas for a couple of years now.

[Railway_Man]

To say nothing of the appalling, unswitchable, unworkable, unsafe track layouts at many of these plants. I couldn’t believe my eyes when I was presented the track plans for a “standard” ethanol plant – I’ve never seen anything quite so wrong in my life.

RWM

Before any plant trackage went into service, they were approved by the carrier. In most cases, the carriers management was copied in during planning and construction, and the carriers basic track standards had to be met.

First off, any plant wishing to ship units, must have a track capable of holding the entire train in one cut. There are a few plants owned by POET who are grandfathered into this scheme (they co-load units). But POET is big enough to get those terms. Others, had to expand their plants to accomodate units before we would accept them. No doubling out, just couple on, pull, and hang the marker. Air must be made.

The plants that Valero just purchased are a model of efficient rail operations. One or two balloon tracks, each holding 100 cars, plus several other tracks for holding interchange of singles. The Fairmont plant took the existing elevator facility, and added loading and two balloons, easily holding several hundred cars. The newly enlarged Mason City trackage has a capacity of close to 300, last I looked, they had 250 on hand.

Ken, this isn’t intended to be adversarial on my part. I just write down what’s the viewpoint of some of us in the railroad industry.

The railroad industry is not 100% consistent between carriers (and who would want it to be) and not 100% consistent at any carrier for all industry track designs and service plans at all times in all places. There’s a number of plants approved by a carrier one day that might not be the nex

[Railway_Man]

Hey Railway Man, how about a short primer on yard design? What makes a yard “switchable” or not? And what are some of the criteria you look for in location, layout and design? Having (mis?)spent my life in aviation I am ignorant of the nuts and bolts of railroading, but I find it fascinating to learn. So, what works and what doesn’t?

Tim

I’ve been putting off answering this because it’s a long, long answer. To start with, there are hump yards, flat-switch yards, intermodal yards, autorack yards, industry yards, marshaling yards, train servicing yards – and that’s just the broad categories.

An unswitchable yard I categorize as any yard that requires significantly more labor, track, locomotives, maintenance, and risk to lives and property to accomplish the same production as another yard. It doesn’t mean it can’t be switched, it means it can’t be switched efficiently.

Some general guidelines are:

1. Straight tracks. Curved tracks block vision. Blocked vision means it’s easier to run into things and run over people.
2. Flat tracks. Cars run away on grades; it takes a whole lot more labor and lot more risk if skates and handbrakes have to be used.
3. Simple ladders. Any time a man has to cross over a track to throw a switch, that’s a man at risk of being run over by a rolling car or a moving cut. If internal crossovers have to be used, consider powering them up.
4. Decent-sized turnouts, softened curves. Small-number turnouts and tight curves mean high maintenance costs and increased risk for derailments.
5. Logical layout. Complex layouts confuse people. Employee turnover means a lot of time is spent training people on where things are and how it works instead of on developing safe and efficient work habits.
6. Efficient connections to the main track. This doesn’t necessarily mean that the main track requires an expensive, fancy

[bubbajustin]

I do feel badly for these people, and I do hope that thay will find jobs.

[challenger3980]

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/1632033,w-rockford-derailment-train-blow-up-062009.article

Hmmm,

And this makes an EXCELLENT Argument for shipping Ethanol by TRUCK. Seldom(as in has Never Happened) do 18 Tank Trucks all crash at the same time, and have 14 of them burn uncontrollably.

The point here is that whichever method of transport is used, there are risks involved. Also, whichever method of transport is used, there was a REASON for selecting that method. There are situations where truck transport is the best or only option, and times when rail transport is the best, but rarely only option.

Doug

[Limitedclear]

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/1632033,w-rockford-derailment-train-blow-up-062009.article

Hmmm,

And this makes an EXCELLENT Argument for shipping Ethanol by TRUCK. Seldom(as in has Never Happened) do 18 Tank Trucks all crash at the same time, and have 14 of them burn uncontrollably.

The point here is that whichever method of transport is used, there are risks involved. Also, whichever method of transport is used, there was a REASON for selecting that method. There are situations where truck transport is the best or only option, and times when rail transport is the best, but rarely only option.

Doug

Perhaps. Of course the explosion and fire of 14 carloads of ethanol, about 55 truckloads, resulted in one fatality at a grade crossing and damage to private railroad property at a smaller cost to taxpayers. The truck accident also caused a fatality and extensive damage to a public highway. According to published reports guardrails on an overpass above the fire melted and structural steel was deformed possibly requiring replacement of the overpass. Good luck getting that covered under the trucker’s insurance…

LC

[MP173]

RWM:

What is the best yard you have seen?

ed

[tpatrick]

Thanks RWM for taking the time and effort to lay it all out for us. I’ll have to read it again and probably a third time to soak it all in. It is pretty easy to stand at a distance and criticize things one doesn’t really understand. People do it all the time. Here you have opened our eyes to some of the factors that go into designing a yard. It is most interesting. Thanks again.

[Railway_Man]

RWM:

What is the best yard you have seen?

ed

Best of what kind? Hump? Flat-switch? IMX? They’re very different animals.

Best on what basis?

Not sure I can answer this because the purpose and need of every yard is quite different from every other. Conceivably you could say “OK, pick the yard that best matches its purpose and need,” but even that is not a valid comparison because some of the purpose and need sets can be very difficult for any yard to address satisfactorily. And the geographic constraints of every site are really different, too.

Another way of looking at this is that I could take a given Class 1, and say “such and such yard is a pretty good one, and this other one is a dog.” Any most of the people at the Class 1 would agree with me. But that doesn’t mean that the dog can be trained to heel, it might be a poor yard for reasons that no one could or can control.

RWM

[TH_B]

Welland yard on CPRail (Hewitt) . Flat land with a bowl shaped so they don’t need to kick hard and the cars role well. It’s symetrical, straight , weilded rail no sharp curves,long leads, no public crossings and good viability. Theoreticaly hand brakes are not heeded but required as per blanket rules for all yards. Built and payed for by the government during a relocation when the Welland cannal was expanded cutting off the old curved Welland yard.