DOCSLIB.ORG

Analysis of Railroad Energy Efficiency in the United States (MPC-13-250)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Analysis of Railroad Energy Efficiency in the United States (MPC-13-250) MPC Report No. 13-250 Analysis of Railroad Energy Efficiency in the United States Denver Tolliver Pan Lu Douglas Benson Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute North Dakota State University Fargo, North Dakota May 2013 Disclaimer The contents of this report reflect the work of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the information presented. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Mountain-Plains Consortium in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof. North Dakota State University does not discriminate on the basis of age, color, disability, gender expression/identity, genetic information, marital status, national origin, public assistance status, sex, sexual orientation, status as a U.S. veteran., race or religion. Direct inquiries to the Vice President for Equity, Diversity and Global Outreach, 205 Old Main, (701) 231-7708. CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................... 1 2. BRIEF REVIEW OF RAILWAY ENERGY STUDIES .................................................................................. 3 3. ANALYTICAL MODELS OF RAILROAD FUEL CONSUMPTION .......................................................... 5 3.1 Resistance Forces and Equations .............................................................................................................. 5 3.2 Estimating Procedures ............................................................................................................................... 6 3.2.1 Car and Locomotive Resistance Factors ......................................................................................... 6 3.2.2 Locomotive Requirements ............................................................................................................... 7 3.2.3 Total Train Resistance ..................................................................................................................... 8 3.2.4 Horsepower-Hours and Gallons of Fuel Consumed ........................................................................ 9 3.3 Uniform Train Simulations ....................................................................................................................... 9 3.3.1 Average Train Speeds .................................................................................................................... 10 3.3.2 Train Speed Profile ........................................................................................................................ 10 3.3.3 Fuel Consumed During Acceleration ............................................................................................ 11 3.3.4 Origin-Destination Switching ........................................................................................................ 12 3.3.5 Average Trip Distance and Cycle Length ..................................................................................... 13 3.3.6 Estimated Speeds and Idle Time ................................................................................................... 14 3.3.7 Fuel Consumed During Drayage ................................................................................................... 14 3.3.8 Grade Profile ................................................................................................................................. 15 3.3.9 Predicted Results ........................................................................................................................... 16 3.4 Summary and Limitations of Analytical Method .................................................................................... 17 4. STATISTICAL MODEL OF RAILROAD FUEL CONSUMPTION .......................................................... 19 4.1 Model Formulation ................................................................................................................................. 19 4.1.1 Main Explanatory Variables .......................................................................................................... 19 4.1.2 Model Statement ............................................................................................................................ 20 4.1.3 Time Variable ................................................................................................................................ 21 4.1.4 Regional Variables ........................................................................................................................ 21 4.2 Regression Results .................................................................................................................................. 22 4.2.1 Key Model Properties .................................................................................................................... 22 4.2.2 Parameter Estimates and Standard Errors...................................................................................... 22 4.2.3 Probability Values and Inferences ................................................................................................. 23 4.2.4 Test for Serial Correlation ............................................................................................................. 24 4.3 Model Predictions ................................................................................................................................... 24 4.3.1 Level of Precision .......................................................................................................................... 24 4.3.2 Marginal Estimates Derived from Coefficients ............................................................................. 25 4.3.3 Average Fuel Efficiency Factors ................................................................................................... 25 4.4 Comparisons of Predictions .................................................................................................................... 27 4.4.1 Grain Shipments ............................................................................................................................ 27 4.4.2 Auto Shipments ............................................................................................................................. 27 4.4.3 Coal Shipments .............................................................................................................................. 28 4.4.4 General Inferences ......................................................................................................................... 28 5. NATIONAL ANALYSIS OF RAILROAD FUEL EFFICIENCY ................................................................. 29 5.1 Overview of Waybill Sample .................................................................................................................. 29 5.2 Empty/Loaded Mile Ratios ..................................................................................................................... 29 5.3 Estimation Procedure .............................................................................................................................. 30 5.4 RTM/G Estimates for Major Commodity Movements ........................................................................... 30 5.5 Validation of Modeling Process .............................................................................................................. 31 6. TRUCK FUEL EFFICIENCY MODEL ......................................................................................................... 33 6.1 Variations in Fuel Economy with Speed ................................................................................................. 34 6.2 Empty Truck Miles ................................................................................................................................. 34 6.3 Fuel Attributable to Empty Truck Miles ................................................................................................. 35 7. WATERWAY FUEL EFFICIENCY MODEL ............................................................................................... 37 7.1 Revenue Ton-Miles per Gallon by River System ................................................................................... 37 7.2 Illustrative Waterway Movements .......................................................................................................... 38 8. COMPARISONS OF MODAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY ............................................................................ 39 8.1 Grain ....................................................................................................................................................... 39 8.1.1 Truck-Rail Comparisons................................................................................................................ 39 8.1.2 Rail-River Comparisons ................................................................................................................ 40 8.2 Flour ........................................................................................................................................................ 41 8.3 Ethanol .................................................................................................................................................... 41 8.4 Iron Ore ..................................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2018 Annual Report Built Drive to Growth
    BUILT TO DRIVE GROWTH 2018 ANNUAL REPORT BUILT TO DRIVE BUILT GROWTH CP 2018 ANNUAL REPORT PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS $ in millions, except per share data, ratios or unless otherwise indicated 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 EXCHANGELISTINGS FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS Total revenues $ 6,620 $ 6,712 $ 6,232 $ 6,554 $ 7,316 The common shares of Canadian Pacific Railway Limited are (1) Operating income 2,202 2,618 2,411 2,519 2,831 listed on the Toronto and New York stock exchanges under Adjustedoperatingincome(1)(2) 2,198 2,550 2,411 2,468 2,831 the symbol CP. Operating ratio (1) 66.7% 61.0% 61.3% 61.6% 61.3% Adjusted operating ratio (1)(2) 66.7% 62.0% 61.3% 62.4% 61.3% Net income 1,476 1,352 1,599 2,405 1,951 Adjusted income (2) 1,482 1,625 1,549 1,666 2,080 CONTACTUS Diluted earnings per share (EPS) 8.46 8.40 10.63 16.44 13.61 Investor Relations AdjusteddilutedEPS(2) 8.50 10.10 10.29 11.39 14.51 Email: [email protected] Cash from operations 2,123 2,459 2,089 2,182 2,712 Free cash (2) 969 1,381 1,007 874 1,289 Canadian Pacific Investor Relations Return on invested capital (ROIC) (2) 14.4% 12.9% 14.4% 20.5% 15.3% 7550 Ogden Dale Road S.E. Adjusted ROIC (2) 14.5% 15.2% 14.0% 14.7% 16.2% Calgary, AB, Canada T2C 4X9 Shareholder Services STATISTICAL HIGHLIGHTS(3) Email: [email protected] Revenue ton-miles (RTMs) (millions) 149,849 145,257 135,952 142,540 154,207 Canadian Pacific Shareholder Services Carloads (thousands) 2,684 2,628 2,525 2,634 2,740 Office of the Corporate Secretary Gross ton-miles (GTMs) (millions) 272,862 263,344 242,694 252,195 275,362 7550 Ogden Dale Road S.E.
    [Show full text]
  • MODULMAX Power Your Projects Version 06.2016 Version
    EN MODULMAX Power your projects Version 06.2016 Version www.faymonville.com 2 MODULMAX - POWER YOUR PROJECTS BÜLLINGEN (BE) - since 1988 With an experience of over 50 years, Faymonville is one of 30.000 m² the biggest manufacturers of semi-trailers for special and heavy haulage. Faymonville provides their customers with optimal so- lutions and systems for any transport need outside the usual norms. Quality, flexibility, productivity, creativity and service are the company’s keywords. The range of products and ser- vices is constantly enlarged in tight collaboration with our customers. GOLENIOW (PL) - since 2006 21.000 m² The high level of innovation and the excellent manufac- turing quality of the products are secured by optimized production processes and own modern production plants in Büllingen (Belgium), Lentzweiler (Luxembourg) and Goleniow (Poland). A service station has been opened in Noginsk (near Moscow, Russia) and Poland (next to the factory in Goleniow). NOGINSK (RU) - since 2014 LENTZWEILER I (LU) - since 2003 3.120 m² 20.250 m² LENTZWEILER II (LU) - since 2015 16.000 m² MODULMAX - POWER YOUR PROJECTS 3 The Faymonville ModulMAX is a series of combinable road-going transport modules (with 2-6 axle lines) and accessories that can achieve a total payload of up to 5000 t. The ModulMAX offers seamless interoperability with identical vehicles from other manufacturers (S-ST, G-SL). This variety of combination options as well as the user-friendly operating concept makes the ModulMAX a guarantor of flexibility and economy for the most complex of heavy-duty transport jobs. Main characteristics ■ Axle loads of up to 45 t per axle line ■ Hydraulic axle compensation with a stroke of up to 650 mm ■ Pivot-mounted bogie with 60° steering angle ■ Strengthened loading area outer fields with point loads of up to 50 t 4 MODULMAX - POWER YOUR PROJECTS 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Prices and Costs in the Railway Sector
    ÉCOLE POLYTECHNIQUE FÉDÉRALEDE LAUSANNE ENAC - INTER PRICESPRICES AND AND COSTS COSTS ININ THE THE RAILWAY RAILWAY SECTOR SECTOR J.P.J.P. Baumgartner Baumgartner ProfessorProfessor JanuaryJanuary2001 2001 EPFL - École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne LITEP - Laboratoire d'Intermodalité des Transports et de Planification Bâtiment de Génie civil CH - 1015 Lausanne Tél. : + 41 21 693 24 79 Fax : + 41 21 693 50 60 E-mail : [email protected] LIaboratoire d' ntermodalité des TEP ransports t de lanification URL : http://litep.epfl.ch TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. FOREWORD 1 2. PRELIMINARY REMARKS 1 2.1 The railway equipment market 1 2.2 Figures and scenarios 1 3. INFRASTRUCTURES AND FIXED EQUIPMENT 2 3.1 Linear infrastructures and equipment 2 3.1.1 Studies 2 3.1.2 Land and rights 2 3.1.2.1 Investments 2 3.1.3 Infrastructure 2 3.1.3.1 Investments 2 3.1.3.2 Economic life 3 3.1.3.3 Maintenance costs 3 3.1.4 Track 3 3.1.4.1 Investment 3 3.1.4.2 Economic life of a main track 4 3.1.4.3 Track maintenance costs 4 3.1.5 Fixed equipment for electric traction 4 3.1.5.1 Investments 4 3.1.5.2 Economic life 5 3.1.5.3 Maintenance costs 5 3.1.6 Signalling 5 3.1.6.1 Investments 5 3.1.6.2 Economic life 6 3.1.6.3 Maintenance costs 6 3.2 Spot fixed equipment 6 3.2.1 Investments 7 3.2.1.1 Points, switches, turnouts, crossings 7 3.2.1.2 Stations 7 3.2.1.3 Service and light repair facilities 7 3.2.1.4 Maintenance and heavy repair shops for rolling stock 7 3.2.1.5 Central shops for the maintenance of fixed equipment 7 3.2.2 Economic life 8 3.2.3 Maintenance costs 8 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Army Container Operations
    FM 55-80 ARMY CONTAINER OPERATIONS DISTRIBUTION RESTRICTION: Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. HEADQUARTERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY FM 55-80 FIELD MANUAL HEADQUARTERS No. 55-80 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY Washington, DC, 13 August 1997 ARMY CONTAINER OPERATIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PREFACE.......................................................................................................................... iv CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION TO INTERMODALISM .......................................... 1-1 1-1. Background.................................................................................... 1-1 1-2. Responsibilities Within the Defense Transportation System............. 1-1 1-3. Department of Defense ................................................................... 1-2 1-4. Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, Transportation Policy............................................................................................. 1-2 1-5. Secretary of the Army..................................................................... 1-2 1-6. Supported Commander in Chiefs..................................................... 1-2 1-7. Army Service Component Commander............................................ 1-2 1-8. Commanders .................................................................................. 1-2 1-9. United States Transportation Command .......................................... 1-3 1-10. Military Traffic Management Command ......................................... 1-3 1-11. Procurement and Leasing
    [Show full text]
  • Railcars at Rocky Flats Community Final 11-04-04.Indd
    Rocky Flats Fact Sheet Transporting low-level radioactive waste from Rocky Flats using railcars Transporting low-level radioactive waste from Rocky Flats using railcars The Rocky Flats Closure Project is one of the largest environmental cleanup operations in the world. Rocky Flats, located approximately 15 miles northwest of Denver, produced plutonium and uranium components for the U.S. nuclear weapons program from 1953 until 1989. The operations left a legacy of radioactive and hazardous waste contamination. Cleanup operations began in earnest in 1995. As part of closure, all radioactive and hazardous waste will be shipped from Rocky Flats to waste disposal sites in other states. No waste will be permanently stored or disposed of on site. Currently, all low-level radioactive waste leaving Rocky Flats is transported by truck. As the Rocky Flats Closure Project Cleaning up Rocky Flats will return thousands of acres to the citizens of Colorado. The nears completion, demolition of former site will become a national wildlife refuge. manufacturing buildings signifi cantly increases the volume of low-level radioactive waste. To improve effi ciency and worker safety, the project will use railcars to ship very low-level waste to the Envirocare disposal facility in Utah. Using rail may eliminate as many as 5,000 truck shipments. Background The complex job of cleaning up and closing down Rocky Flats involves removing massive quantities of radioactive waste. To date, after nine years of shipping, Rocky Flats has safely shipped approximately 260,000 cubic meters (65 percent) of the projected 400,000 cubic meters of radioactive waste that will be generated during closure.
    [Show full text]
  • Activity-Based Rail Freight Costing a Model for Calculating Transport Costs in Different Production Systems
    Activity-Based Rail Freight Costing A model for calculating transport costs in different production systems GERHARD TROCHE Freight flows Requirements & Desires Train timetable Possibilities & Restrictions Infrastructure Doctoral Thesis in Railway Traffic Planning Stockholm, Sweden 2009 KUNGLIGA TEKNISKA HÖGSKOLAN TRITA-TEC-PHD 09-002 Royal Institute of Technology ISSN 1653-4468 ISBN 13:978-91-85539-35-2 Division for Transportation & Logistics Railway Group Activity-Based Rail Freight Costing A model for calculating transport costs in different production systems Gerhard Troche Doctoral Thesis Stockholm, February 2009 Gerhard Troche © 2009 Gerhard Troche [email protected] Division for Transportation & Logistics - Railway Group - S – 100 44 STOCKHOLM Sweden www.infra.kth.se Printed in Sweden by Universitetsservice US AB, Stockholm 2009 - 2 - Activity-Based Rail Freight Costing - 3 - Gerhard Troche Innehåll Preface 7 Summary 9 1 Introduction 17 1.1 Background 17 1.2 The need for information on railway costs 23 1.3 Goals and purpose 26 1.4 Delimitations 28 2 Literature review 31 2.1 Introductory remarks 31 2.2 General theory of costs and cost calculation 33 2.3 Transport cost models for rail freight 51 3 Methodology 67 3.1 Research approach 67 3.2 Selection of activities and cost items to be depicted 71 3.3 Model validation 75 3.4 Methods of data collection 78 4 Structuring the rail freight system 83 4.1 Products and production systems 83 4.2 Operating principles for freight trains 90 4.3 Changing organizational structures in the railway
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation: Emerging Realities Les Transports
    CTRF Transportation: Emerging Realities Les Transports: realites en puissance• VOLUME 2 ess-nrch rurn rh 1:2./Jd -*/ Y p1j iu Actes J 21 er1iJ confer si 111111 Torconit),JJ1IJfiJ 25 cats Inf./I, I 717l7 418 WHAT IF? / WHY NOT? A Railway Tridea F.H.Howard P Eng Richmond B C 1. RUBBER AND RAIL The ability of a locomotive to exert tractive effort or drawbar pull - the measure of what it could lift vertically, say over the edge of a cliff - and so, once the train's resistance has been determined, what tonnage of train it can start, is restricted by its wheen adhesion to the rails, normally about /14 of its weight. wheel slip control (replacing sanding) has now raised this to about 1/3. Too much power, and its wheels will slip. Starting a train is adhesion-limited; running it is horsepower-limited. When inverted, this fraction becomes "Factor of Adhesion" and refers to steel wheels gripping - or slipping - on steel rails. Some locomotives are ballasted to achieve adhesion, which affects braking too.. Heavier trailing tonnages can be moved if a much lower Factor of Adhesion can be developed. Such a low factor is indeed developed by rubber on paving. Assuming the road is dry and the tires sound, a rubber-tired highway tractor can lift half its own weight, with the corresponding capacity to pull a heavy trailing load, usually a semi-trailer, also on rubber tires. 1 Howard 419 A number of rail vehicles use a Hi-Rail device,. hydraulically-lowered sets of rail wheels, commonly attached to rubber-tired track inspection and maintenance equipment, especially automobiles, pickup trucks or vans; sometimes little cranes.
    [Show full text]
  • Bewhuwcii U*& Osilt
    BEWHUWCIi U*& OSiLt REPORT NO. FRA/0R&D-76/275.I % „ LOCOMOTIVE CAB DESIGN DEVELOPMENT Volume I: Analysis of Locomotive Cab Environment & Development of Cab Design Alternatives Jl J. Robinson D. Piccione G. Lamers Boeing Vertol Company P.O. Box 16858 Philadelphia PA 19142 ^A .ususa&j S'A1H O* OCTOBER 1976 INTERIM REPORT DOCUMENT IS AVAILABLE TO THE U.S. PUBLIC THROUGH THE NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE. SPRiNOFIELO, VIRGINIA 22161 Prepared for U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION J Office of Research and Development Washington DC 20590 A NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Govern ment assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. 'C NOTICE The United States Government does not endorse pro ducts or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear herein solely because they are con sidered essential to the object of this report. Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient** Cafolog No. FRA/ORSD-76/275.I 4. Title and Subtitle S. Report Dole LOCOMOTIVE CAB DESIGN DEVELOPMENT October 1976 Volume I: Analysis of Locomotive Cab 6. Performing Orgonnotien Code Environment § Development of Cab Design Alternatives 8. Performing Orgonisotton Report No. Author's) Robinson, D. Piccione, G. Lamers DOT-TSC-FRA-76-22,I 9. Performing Orgcniiotion Nome and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Boeing Vertol Company* RR628T/R7341 11. Contract or Grant No. P.O. Box 16858 Philadelphia PA 19142 DOT-TSC-913-1 13. Type of Report ond Period Covered 12.
    [Show full text]
  • N Scale SW1500 Locomotives & Train
    January 2017 Denver & Rio Grande Western® Road Number 810419 This 89’ tri-level closed autorack is orange with black lettering and aluminum roof and runs on Barber Roller Bearing trucks. Built in 1979 as part of series 810352-810456, this enclosed autorack design became the universal standard for most railroads by the mid 1970s, as it prevents vandalism and pilferage and helps to protect vehicles from the elements. This D&RGW marked autorack rides on an ETTX flat. DRGW® is a registered trademark of the Union Pacific Railroad. #111 00 220...$44.95 Shell Oil Louisville & Nashville Road Numbers SCMX 1005/1006 Road Number 41044 These 39’ single dome tank cars are aluminum with black lettering and run on Bettendorf trucks. Built This 50’ auto box car with double side doors and end door is grey with yellow ends and roof and in 1941 at the Milton, PA plant and assigned road numbers 1005 and 1006, these cars were used in the one yellow door and runs on Bettendorf trucks. The Louisville & Nashville railroad used boxcars and transportation of chemical solvents and raw materials for synthetic rubbers. piggyback trailers for transporting company material between cities. Originally red with white reporting marks, they were repainted into the yellow and grey scheme, denoting company materials service in the ONLY TWO NUMBERS early 1970s. #065 00 921...$26.90 #065 00 922...$26.90 #078 00 140...$27.90 Port Huron & Detroit NASA Series Road Number PHD 1042 Road Number NLAX 127 This 50’ rib side box car with single door and no roofwalk is blue with white band and herald and runs on Barber This 57’ converted TOFC flat car is brown with white lettering and runs on Barber Roller Bearing trucks.
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis and Prospects of Container and Rail Transport
    MATEC Web of Conferences 329, 01014 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/202032901014 ICMTMTE 2020 Analysis and prospects of container and rail transport Sergey Vakulenko1,*, Pyotr Kurenkov1, Dmitry Romensky1 , Kirill Kalinin1, and Jozef Gašparík2 1Department of Transport business management and intelligent systems, Russian University of Transport, Moscow, Obraztsova str., 9, building 9, 127994. Russia 2Faculty of Operation and Economics of Transport and Communications, Zilina, Univerzitná 8215/1, 010 26, Republic of Slovakia Abstract. The article studies the main trends in the market of container transportation in rolling stock of various types, considers the process of transporting large-capacity containers in open wagons. The operational and economic aspects of removing administrative restrictions on the implementation of this type of transportation are noted. The dynamics of rental rates for rental of gondola cars and platforms in 2019-2020 is present. The summary characteristics of the gondola car fleet and fitting platforms on the Russian Railways network have been study. The analysis of the market share of the largest owners of gondola cars and fitting platforms was carry out. The advantages and disadvantages of using the technology of container transportation in open wagons are list. Solutions are propose to create a competitive environment in the container transportation segment of the transport services market. 1 Introduction Currently, containers are transport on fitting platforms, but theoretically, according to international rules, they can also be transport in open wagons: 40-feet - horizontally per piece, 20-feet - two each, and empty 20-feet - even three. From December 1, 2014, the local technical conditions (LTC) for the placement and fastening of universal containers in gondola cars with unloading hatches were cancel.
    [Show full text]
  • AS 7524 Coupler and Draw Gear
    AS 7524:2018 Coupler and draw gear Rolling Stock Standard Please note this is a RISSB Standard for Public Comment Document content exists for RISSB product development purposes only and should not be relied upon or considered as final published content. Any questions in relation to this document or RISSB’s accredited development process should be referred to RISSB. Standard Development Manager: Email: Andrew Hardiman [email protected] RISSB Office Phone: Email: Web: 0429 432 095 [email protected] www.rissb.com.au AS 7524:2018 Coupler and draw gear This Australian Standard® AS 7524 Coupler and draw gear was prepared by a Rail Industry Safety and Standards Board (RISSB) Development Group consisting of representatives from the following organisations: Click here to enter the organisations represented on the Development Group. Tab between them. The Standard was approved by the Development Group and the Enter Standing Committee Standing Committee in Select SC approval date. On Select Board approval date the RISSB Board approved the Standard for release. Choose the type of review Development of the Standard was undertaken in accordance with RISSB’s accredited process. As part of the approval process, the Standing Committee verified that proper process was followed in developing the Standard. RISSB wishes to acknowledge the positive contribution of subject matter experts in the development of this Standard. Their efforts ranged from membership of the Development Group through to individuals providing comment on a draft of the Standard during the open review. I commend this Standard to the Australasian rail industry as it represents industry good practice and has been developed through a rigorous process.
    [Show full text]
  • 1991 Rail Vs Truck Fuel Efficiency
    Rail vs. Truck Fuel Efficiency: U.S. Department The Relative Fuel Efficiency of Truck of Transportation Competitive Rail Freight and Federal Railroad Administration Truck Operations Compared in a Range of Corridors Office of Policy FINAL REPORT Abacus Technology Corporation Chevy Chase, Maryland Moving America New Directions, New Opportunities DOT/FRA/RRP-91/2 April 1991 Document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161 Technical Report Documentation Page 1 • R e p o rt N o . 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catolog No. FRA-RRP-91-02 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Rail vs Truck Fuel Efficiency: The Relative Fuel Efficiency of Truck Competitive Rail Freight and Truck 6. Performing Organizotion Code Operations Compared in a Range of Corridors 8. -Performing Organization Report No. 7. Authors) Abacus Technology Corporation 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Abacus Technology Corporation 5454 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1100 11. Contract or Grant No. DTFR-53-90-C-00017 Chevy Chase, Maryland 20815 13. Type of Report and Period Covered 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address U.S. Department of Transportation Final Report Federal Railroad Administration Office of Policy, RRP-32 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Washington, DC 20590 Federal Railroad Admin. 15. Supplementary Notes William Gelston (Chief, Economic Studies Division, FRA), Project Sponsor Marilyn W. Klein (Senior Policy Analyst, FRA), Project Monitor 16. Abstract This report summarizes the findings of a study to evaluate the fuel efficiency of rail freight operations relative to competing truckload service. The objective of the study was to identify the circumstances in which rail freight service offers a fuel efficiency advantage over alternative truckload options, and to estimate the fuel savings associated with using rail service.
    [Show full text]