As we all know fuel is an enormous expense for the railways, and I was just wondering what kind of taxes railways pay on their diesel fuel?
Are they paying the exact same taxes on fuel that truckers pay?
Here’s a thought… since railways pay for 100% of their own infrastructure, and trucks get a free ride, why don’t the US and Canadian governments offer tax breaks on fuel to the railways…
It seems like it would at least make things a little bit more fair between trucks and trains, and offer the railways a large savings in diesel prices…
Even if the governments would only offer savings of 10 - 20 cents a gallon, that would still leave the railways with a pile of ca***hat they could put towards infrastructure…
If the government isn’t going to help the railways directly with their infrastructure, why not at least subsidise them indirectly through a fuel discount…
Surely the railways would have a pretty good argument.
No, they do not pay the same as truckers. I think we had a thread on this not to long ago, so you may want to look around for it.
They use off-road diesel and do not have to pay all the taxes a trucker would. They also use a lower grade of diesel, higher sulphur content, which casts less also.
They have always had pushes for fuel consumption on the RR’s. I remenber reading articles and stories from the steamer days (On Time Tyner - a series from the 70’s (?) that was covered in Trains Mag) of them running steam to heat the fuel oil in the tender to show a lower fuel consumption.
UP used to burn “residuals” in their steamers and early turbines. That stuff has a freeze point of about 120 degrees so every one of their tenders has both steam lines to heat the tank and steam tracing on the oil pumbing. I know it sometimes gets hot in Wyoming - but I’ve only seen 120 once. Those engines needed the steam even on the hottest summer days.
Note: when plastics became an industrial commodity in the 1950’s - the prices of “residual” oil shot up. All the long molecules that cause the high freeze point are very desirable to the plastics people - so UP converted to #2 diesel - which seriously impacted the economics of their turbines.
there costs will be going up though the EPA is requiring a 90% reduction in sulpher content in all diesel fuel by 2009 which means all engines on the railroad will be running on low sulpher fuel and that stuff does not like rubber eats it up back when the trucking companies switched in the early 90’s they had all kinds of fuel system problems with injector seals failing and fuel contamination in the oil one company I worked for as a mechanic had to rebuild 4 engines in a month due to the new low sulpher fuel out to be nice to see how the 710 series will last on the new formula the GE engine is already designed for low sulp[her fuel
I remember grumbling about lubricity in the early nineties when sulfur levels were reduced. Fuel injection components fit to micron tolerances, and manufacturers were at first worried, but then later reassured owners.
If in fact sulfur levels are going to be reduced even further, could lubricity then truly become a problem?
Last I looked trucks dont get a free ride. They pay road use taxes plus god knows how many other fees taxes and etc.(who do you think pays for the roads you are on?Not your everyday car driver.) Look at the IFTA sticker on a truck next time you see one.Thats the state of residence basiclly if you could see the cab card to know which states that truck is authorized to operate in you would see where all that one units money goes.Anytime you are in a state you must report it and any fill ups and if you were loaded or empty.Wyoming gits you coming in the state.New Mexico makes you show your special fuel permit.Dont even get me started about Cali! Anyhow thats enough of my rant.
jruppert – how does sulfur level in the fuel affect lubricosity?
I’ve always used the Stanadyne additive, TD4 or whatever to put the ‘right’ lubricosity in the injection system. I had thought that the sulfur removal was similar to what’s used in the synfuel industry (etc.) and the appropriately lubricating mix of chains would be restored in subsequent refining. Can’t think of anything that removing sulfur would do that would make diesel #2 eat rubber. So tell!
I would presume that it’s not a ‘big deal’ to improve lubricosity with zero sulfur, via nothing more complicated (or expensive) than an additive package. Doesn’t seem to have hurt the objective cost of gasoline fuel to put detergents, friction modifiers, etc. in there in required quantities. We’re not talking Howes or Power Service profit margins here. I, personally, would pay a few cents more per gallon for assured high cetane and lubricosity, just as I now do for ‘high-octane’ gas for the cars that benefit from it.
The day I see a trucker who pays their fair share of road damage via taxes, I’ll be surprised. And yes, we everyday car and light truck drivers pay a considerable amount for the roads we’re on – and unlike truckers, many automobile drivers can’t deduct the amount from their income tax or pass it along to the marks, er, customers. Moreover, If truckers had to support even the maintenance expenses for the Interstate system by themselves, it would be interesting to see what our highway system would resemble today. Those slabs on I-20 didn’t get tilted like that from cars, did they?
Having said that, I concur that it’s pathetic to watch the states soak the truckers for every cent they can. At least in the old days, you didn’t need to see the cab card – you could tell by all the little stickers and permits on the rig itself what states it was licensed to operate in. Nothing quite as sad as politicians who see a cheap revenue source coming from people who can’t vote 'em out!
The sulfur content in diesel in america is sky high compared to every other country that has laws banning sulfur in diesel fuel. I will gladly make any changes to my truck to say it is twice as powerful, twice as efficient, and TWICE AS CLEAN as any gasser motor.
Im not exactly sure how the sulfur content has to do with the lube qualities of diesel fuel, but it is working in europe where most passenger cars are diesel. (clean diesel i might add)
Don’t you get reduced milage out of ethanol blended gasoline?
I know they sell it for cars at a lot of gas stations here in Canada, but I was hearing that you don’t actually get as good milage on an ethanol blended gasoline?
All it requires is some tinkering with the technology. It will obviously work at some point in the near future otherwise industries wouldn’t waste their time trying to market it as a viable fuel source.
But for the price Diesel now a days do the RR;s have a set price as the prices of today keep going up for the trucking companys,in other words the RR’s pay a flat rate? Right?
Because the truckers have to pay more as the price goes up.
Macguy: Yes, lower mpg in a gasoline engine when ethanol is mixed:
Lower heat content per mole (look at the formulas, bond energies, etc.)
Higher heat of vaporization for the alcohol – requires more of the heat energy of combustion/expansion. (Fringe benefit: ethanol blend acts like a higher-octane gasoline)
This is part of the reason so little ethanol is incorporated in the ‘consumer’ blended fuels.