I don’t know why but the numbers I found on the net about truck vs train transport and efficiency seems very far off. It seems that several sites say that train is 4x more fuel efficient.
Are they saying that if you deliver the intermodals from a train with 150 double stack cars that you’d need only 4x the fuel if you were moving them the same distance with 300 trucks?
First, you should post a link so that we can determine the veracity of the site. Second, remember that the truck goes door-to-door with the load while with a train you’ll need to add in both first- and last-mile delivery costs.
You need to do some careful research and homework before swallowing any lore about truck vs. train efficiency. Otherwise you’re stuck in the era of comparing Niagaras to ‘diesels’, or a couple of decades later ‘diesels’ to AMC Berkshires. Even if the analysis is correctly and fairly conducted, everything has changed in sometimes considerable detail since then.
A fully modern Class 8 OTR truck is capable of getting upward of 12.5mpg average over a large percentage of many routes, loaded (to about 40T - those in the industry can flesh out with much better numbers than I have). Meanwhile, rail fuel efficiency has increased with improvements in EFI, predictive operation, AC synthesis drive, proper rail and wheel grinding maintenance, etc. Something leveraging costs for the truckers is additional fuel cost due to tax recovery attempts, but that is usually passed along as a surcharge rather than incorporated in an “economic analysis” as it should be. There are also, as shadow’s owner points out, what may be substantial net costs related to emissions control – some of which apply, in other ways, to Tier 4 final (or better) locomotives.
One of the big savings is, as you note, the need to pay team drivers for each ‘container’ or equivalent, rather than one train crew for 15,000’ of articulated stack cars. For routes that make sense to operate on this scale by rail – which involve intermodal-point to intermodal-point or cross-dock facility – this difference is enormous even before we start looking into issues like driver availability.
You’ll want to do this before you start factoring in things like truck and truck-route electrification, semi-autonomous operation or yarding, smart bogi
Part of the problem is me not knowing what is and what isn’t reliable, hence the post here.
One example:
Page 10, item#8:
I realize that there are MANY variables so general information would be appreciated.
One problem about this is that, on the ‘net of a million lies’, the only way to ensure ‘reliability’ is to look at a range of sources with common-sense appraisal and understanding of the underlying issues as well as the technology. Keeping in mind that there may, indeed, be a conspiracy approaching grand proportions that is pushing a particular 'revealed wisdom view – like the issues with the PRR T1 locomotive detail design. You have to decide for yourself what you will, and won’t, believe trustworthy – and even then, if you trust, verify.
Gotcha! It’s not something that could be answered in any reasonable amount of time (for my curiosity level). I’ll take it that only 4x is total garbage and leave it at that.
it’s an apples to oranges comparison…efficiency is determined largely by the job at hand…i.e. if you’re in the business of delivering home appliances to people’s homes then certainly the basic 24 ft box delivery truck is most efficient. If, on the other hand, you’re moving millions of tons of coal then obviously rail is the way to go. Sure, the flanged wheel on guided rail is far more efficient than rubber on tarmac, but that’s only one criterion that factors in to overall efficiency.
Keep in mind also that the use of any of the containers 40’ or larger will only imperfectly replace local or last-mile trucking. Their ‘fuel’ advantage in between distribution points like Rotterdam, NY, or perhaps organized cross dock facilities as in Cedar Rapids or organized lanes from intermodal facilities to truck-line warehouses. The ‘competitive’ truck technology is therefore more limited than just something with rubber tires at pavement-busting pressure vs. steel-on-steel flanged wheels.
What make and model of over the road tractor gets 12.5 MPG running at 80,000 pounds Gross Vehicle Weight? What engine are they using?
It’s more like 8-9mpg. I’ve seen accounts of Freightliner Cascadias with the DD15 engine with an automated transmission using the cruise control for acceleration and cruising can do it.
We average 6.5 mpg pulling flatbed mostly…
I got my figures mainly from ET Transport, which is up in your area, in Concord.
Note I said ‘capable of’ – the examples I saw were experimental configurations and not ‘production’ tractors or chassis.
As noted above, much of that is through very careful, very diligent, very accurate control of throttle and transmission, and of course correct true aero. To a certain extent it would reflect predictive control (e.g. from GPS/GIS on the Carnegie Mellon model, which should have been widespread by now but the opportunity was missed by AAR. But I digress).
One example of engine that would give you an entry point to a ‘best-practices’ engine design would be one incorporating the features that Kocher (of Cummins) described in the OSTI “55% BTE” paper from 2018. Hopefully one of our Caterpillar mavens will have a similar ‘state-of-the-art’ reference from the yellow side.
Absolutely possible. But here again results will vary based on real world applications and conditions. If you make your living dragging heavy loads of lumber and steel through the mountains of WV then you’re likely not going to get anywhere close to that number.
You don’t even need to go so far. In a world that tolerates fuel surcharges, would you pay All That Money Extra for the Cummins 55%-BTE engine as described to save a couple of ideal-world MPG over something you could buy in the used market to do the same job?
(Not to mention the fun when some of the ‘heat conserving’ features on the amazing wonder engine turn out to have “issues” in the field. Note for example the precise methods Cummins would be using to drain condensate in the EGR system, and where the EGR valve itself is placed…)
Much more significant would be the introduction of what corresponds to ‘dual-mode-lite’ for trucks: short-term electric boost on critical grades, true regenerative braking, downsized peak-power and hence engine displacement and physical weight and dimensions…
Caterpillar hasn’t made truck engines since 2010.
It’s not total garbage. If it were possible to compare total train ton-miles performed in the US with total truck ton-miles, maybe the trains would burn a quarter of the fuel the trucks did, per ton-mile. Probably someone tried to do some such calculation, but it included all rail ton-miles, not just intermodal.
Yeah, it would be interesting to know how many gallons a stack train burns between LA and Chicago, and how many gallons trucks would burn pulling the same containers. Maybe twice as much?
CSX touts 520 ton miles per gallon overall. For trucks, several sources I found cite around 160 ton miles per gallon. So a factor of ~3.5 would be a decent starting point.
That’s for a box van semi. Auto haulers get atrocious mileage.
CSX is calculating that figure from all the fuel they buy and all the freight they bill
If you listen to trains, even intermodal container trains along the UP mainline, you will easily and frequently hear considerable evidence of an appalling lack of the above maintenance.
Deferred maintenance redux, ala Penn Central days?