UNIVERSITY OFi ILLINOIS LIBRARY A" URBANA-CHAMPAIGN ENGINEERING NOTICE: Return or renew all Library JUaterialsl The Minimum Fee for each Lost Book is $50.00. JJJL Q Q jjjgg The person charging this material is responsible for
its return to the library from which it was withdrawn onjpr^efcfnevthe Late9t Pate^tenjped below.
Thel? rreMaiog, £r£t^erl)Wni reasons for discipli- nar\acj"l Mk ifai nAlt d( ie University. To renew cairrelepnoneTenle'if°3!
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN
L161—O-1096
M ^,^w^ u -.w,„ fcl,nip,y U3KAR) UNIVERSITY .^ «««.« Of fLLINO/'OL P.QHFERENCE ROOM «^««o» The person charging this material is re- sponsible for its return to the library from which it was withdrawn on or before the Latest Date stamped below. Theft, mutilation, and underlining of books are reasons for disciplinary action and may result in dismissal from the University. UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN
! II. H ••? ^
MftR 10
APR 15
m 3 o
..-.121 U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Mines and the Federal Energy Administration
Contract Report J0166163
"The views and conclusions contained in this docu- ment are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the offi- cial policies or recommendations of the Interior Department's Bureau of Mines, the Federal Energy Administration, or of the U.S. Government.
NOTICE
The United States Government does not endorse pro- ducts or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear herein only because they are con- sidered essential to the subject of this report.
IOGRAPHIC DATA 1. Report No. 3. Recipient's Accession No. T and Subtitle 5. Report Date Comparative Coal Transportation Costs: An Econ- August 1977 : and Engineering Analysis of Truck, Belt, Rail, Barge, and Slurry and Pneumatic Pipelines; Volume 1 - Summary and Ins inns non's) 8. Performing Organization Rept. No ael Rieber and Shao Lee Soo -CAC Doc. No. 223 forming Organization Name and Address 10. Project/Task/Work Unit No. er for Advanced Computation 46 26 17 372 ersity of Illinois at Urb ana- Champaign 11. Contract/Grant No. na, Illinois 61801 J0166163 onsoring Organization Name and Address 13. Type of Report & Period ce of the Assistant Director, Mining Covered au of Mines Final Report rtment of the Interior 14. ington, D.C. 20241 pplementary Notes
mparative cost analysis of competing trunk line and gathering/distribution system carrying modes. Provides a precis of the discussion in the remaining seven mes and the results of the costing analyses.
y Words and Document Analysis. transportation Yellow-ball rail transportation costs Comparative coal transport costs trains Water requirements (transport) slurry pipelines Mixed mode transport js (coal) Coal transport mode capacity iyor belts (coal)
: transport (coal) latic pipelines (high pressure il carrying)
entif iers /Open-Ended Terms
3SATI Field/Group
liability Statement 19. Security Class (This 21. No. of Pages Report) UNCLASSIFIED 91 20. Security Class (This 22. Price Page UNCLASSIFIED TIS-35 (REV. 3-72) USCOMM-DC I4952-P72 Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2012 with funding from
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
http://archive.org/details/comparativecoalt22313rieb FOREWARD
This report was prepared by the CenLer for Ad- vanced Computation of the Universit" of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign under USBM Contract No. J0166163. The contract was initiated under the Office of University Relations. It was admin- istered under the technical direction of the Divi- sion of Interindustry Analysis with Mr. Ronald Balazik acting as the Technical Project Officer. Mr. Robert Carpenter was the contract specialist for the Bureau of Mines.
This report is a summary of the work recently com- pleted as part of this contract during the period May 1976 to August 1977. This report was submit- ted by the authors on August 1977.
This volume is a part of the eight volume report completed for this contract. The draft final re- port was submitted in May 1977.
The principal authors, Michael Rieber and Shao Lee Soo, are, respectively, Research Professor, Center for Advanced Computation, the Graduate College; and Professor of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering; both at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Subject Inventions
This is to certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, there were no Subject Inventions nade or have resulted from the performance of this con- tract.
\ugust 1977
Michael Rieber Principal Investigator
CAC Document No. 223
FINAL REPORT
COMPARATIVE COAL TRANSPORTATION COSTS: AN ECONOMIC AND ENGINEERING ANALYSIS OF TRUCK, BELT, RAIL, BARGE AND COAL SLURRY AND PNEUMATIC PIPELINES
VOLUME 1
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
by
Michael Rieber and Shao Lee Soo with P. King, Y. T. King, T. Leung, H. Wu and J. Wu
prepared for
Bureau of Mines, Department of the Interior and the Federal Energy Administration ContractNo. J0166163
Center for Advanced Computation University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Project 46-26-17-372
August 1977
1
1ABLE OF CON TEN 'IS
VOLUKit 1
Page
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 1-1
1 . PROJECT PARAMETERS 1-1
1.1.1 Coal Production Scenario 1-2 1.1.2 Cost Basis 1-3 1.1.3 Analytic Methodologies 1-5
1.2 UNIT TRAINS 1-8
1.2.1 Development Needs 1-9 1.2.2 Unit Train Costing 1-10
1 . 3 COAL SLURRY PIPELINES 1-11
1.3.1 Slurry Pipeline Costs 1-11 1.3.2 Pipeline Flexibility and Branching 1-11
1.4 BARGE TRANSPORT 1-13
1.4.1 Introduction 1-13 1.4.2 River and Waterway Descriptions 1-13 1.4.3 Barge Transport Costs (Coal) 1-14
1.5 CONVEYOR BELTS 1-18
1.6 TRUCK HAULAGE. 1-25
1.7 PNEUMATIC PIPELINES 1-30
1.8 YELLOW BALL RAIL 1-33
1.9 COMPARATIVE COSTS 1-36
1.9.1 Additional Cost Estimates 1-36 1.9.2 Water Use and Costs 1-38
1 . 10 ROUTE SPECIFIC COST ESTIMATES 1-45
1.10.1 Introduction 1-45 1.10.2 Mixed Mode Transport 1-45 1.10.3 Comparative Route Cost Estimates 1-47
Page
1.11 COAL MOVEMENTS 19/5-1990 1-57
1.11.1 Rail Movements 1-57 1.11.2 Coal Slurry Pipelines 1-59 1.11.3 Barge Transport 1-60
REFERENCES 1-62
LIST OF TABLES
VOLUME 1
Page
FEA Estimated Coal Production 1975-1990 1-7 Coal Production Under Various Scenarios 1985, $13 Oil Imports 1-8 3 Integrated Dedicated Tow Costs for Coal Movements 1-16 4 River Capacities 1-17 5 Conveyor Belt Input Data: Case Runs 1-20 6 Conveyor Belt Cost Data: All Cases 1-23 7 Conveyor Belt Ownership and Operating Cost 1-24 8 Truck Haulage Costs 1-27 9 Truck Data Input Sources 1-28 Pneumatic Coal Transport 1-96 Yellow Ball Rail System 1-35 Summary of Comparative Short Distance Coal Transport Costs 1-41 Analysis of Railroad Estimated Expenses Deferred Maintenance and Delayed Capital Improvements 1-42 Origin-Destination Pairs - Unit Costs, Rail and Coal Slurry 1-50 Origin-Destination Pairs - Barge Transport 1-52 Rail/Barge Mixed Mode Costs, Selected O.D Pairs 1-56
in
LIST OF FIGURES
VOLUME 1
Page
1.1 Summary of Unit Cost Trends - Short Distance Transport 1-43 1.2 Summary of Unit Cost Trends - Lonq Distance Transport 1-44
IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR VOLUMES 2-8
VOLUME 2
UNIT TRAINS
Page
2 . UNIT TRAINS 2-1
2 . 1 INTRODUCTION 2-1
2 . 2 DEVELOPMENT NEEDS 2-6
2.3 UNIT TRAIN COSTING 2-20
2.3.1 Bottlenecks, Bypasses, Sinqle and Other Configurations 2-21 2.3.2 General Resource and Operating Parameters 2-25 2.3.3 Capital Costs 2-25 2.3.4 Labor and Supplies 2-26 2.3.5 Fuel 2-27
REFERENCES 2-54
COMPUTER APPENDIX (follows) 2-56
VOLUME 3
COAL SLURRY PIPELINES
3. COAL SLURRY PIPELINES 3-1
3.1 INTRODUCTION 3-1
3.2 SLURRY PIPELINE COSTS 3-8
3.3 PIPELINE FLEXIBILITY AND BRANCHING 3-18
REFERENCES 3-35
COMPUTER APPENDIX (Follows) 3-38
VOLUME 4
BARGE TRANSPORT
Page
4. BARGE TRANSPORT 4-1
4 . 1 INTRODUCTION 4-1
4.2 SIZES AND TXPES OF TOWBOATS AND BARGES FOR COAL TRANSPORTATION 4-3
4.2.1 Towboat 4-3 4.2.2 Barges 4-4
4 . 3 TOWING OPERATIONS 4-11
4.3.1 Integrated Towing Operations 4-11 4.3.2 Dedicated Tows 4-12
4.4 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE INLAND WATERWAY SYSTEM 4-14
4.4.1 Introduction 4-14 4.4.2 Illinois Waterway 4-16 4.4.3 Ohio River 4-18 4.4.4 Missouri River 4-19 4.4.5 The McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River System 4-21 4.4.6 Upper Mississippi River 4-22 4.4.7 The Lower Mississippi River 4-24 4.4.8 Tennessee River 4-25 4.4.9 Tennessee - Tombigbee - Warrior Rivers 4-26 4.4.10 Gulf Intracoastal Waterway - East 4-28 4.4.11 Gulf Intracoastal Waterway - West 4-28
4 . 5 DETERMINATION OF LINE-HAUL COSTS 4-43
4.5.1 Introduction 4-43 4.5.2 Methods of Updating Data 4-45
4.5.2.1 Average replacement costs for towboats and barges 4-45 4.5.2.2 Fix charges 4-45 4.5.2.3 Administration and supervision costs 4-46
Page
4.5.2.4 Operating expenses and taxes 4-46 4.5.2.5 Return on investment 4-46 4.5.2.6 Ownership and operating costs for barges 4-46
4.5.3 Determination of Hourly Ownership and Operating Costs ....4-47 4.5.4 Determination of Line-haul costs 4-47
4.6 WATERWAY COAL TERMINALS - PAIL TO BARGE 4-7 2
4.6.1 Facilities Description 4-72 4.6.2 Facility Costs 4-72
4.7 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS OF INDIVIDUAL WATERWAYS 4-74
REFERENCES 4-8 2
VOLUME 5
CONVEYOR BELTS
5. CONVEYOR BELTS 5-1
5.1 INTRODUCTION 5-1
5.2 SPECIFICATION 5-3
5.2.1 Material Characteristics 5-3 5.2.2 Operating Conditions 5-3
5.3. CONVEYOR BELT DESIGN- DISCUSSION 5-4
5.3.1 Determine the Angle of Surcharge 5-4 5.3.2 Determine the General Belt Width 5-4 5.3.3 Belt Speed Considerations 5-4 5.3.4 Determine Idler Space 5-5 5.3.5 Determine of Idler Class 5-5 5.3.6 Horsepower Calculation and Belt Tension 5-6 5.3.7 Conveyor Belt Material 5-6
5.4 COST ANALYSIS 5-8
5.4.1 Installation Cost 5-8 5.4.2 Operating and Maintenance Cost 5-9
Page
5.4.3 Ownership Cost 5-9
5.5 MODEL DESIGN 5-13
5.5.1 Model for Conveyor Belt Design 5-14 5.5.2 Cost Analysis Model 5-22
5 . 6 COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR CONVEYOR BELT 5-39
5.6.1 Input Data for Belt Width and Operating Speed 5-39 5.6.2 Input Data for Belt Tension 5-39 5.6.3 Input Data for Conveyor Belt Program - Cost 5-40
REFERENCES 5-41
COMPUTER APPENDIX (follows) 5-42
VOLUME 6
TRUCK HAULAGE
6 . TRUCK HAULAGE 6-1
6 . 1 INTRODUCTION 6-1
6.2 OPERATING COSTS - DISCUSSION 6-3
6.2.1 Operating Cost Adjusted by Running Speed.... 6-4 6.2.2 Operating Cost Adjusted by Elements of Highway Design 6-4 6.2.3 Reserve Truck Requirements 6-5
6.3 OPERATING COSTS - MODEL 6-7
6.3.1 Maintenance Cost 6-7
6.3.1.1 Cost adjusted by gross weight 6-7 6.3.1.2 Data adjusted by wholesale price indexes 6-7
6.3.2 Tires and Tubes Cost 6-8
6.3.2.1 Cost adjusted by gross weight 6-8 6.3.2.2 Data adjusted by wholesale price indexes 6-8
Page
6.3.3 Cost of Fuel 6-8 6.3.3.1 Cost adjusted ly gross weight 6-9 6.3.3.2 Data adjusted by wholesale price index 6-9
6.3.4 Depreciation and Interest 6-9
6.3.4.1 Cost adjusted by gross weight 6-9 6.3.4.2 Data adjusted by current wholesale price 6-10
6.3.5 Driver Costs 6-10
6.3.5.1 Cost adjusted by gross weight 6-10 6.3.5.2 Data adjusted by current wholesale price 6-11
6.3.6 Indirect and Overhead Costs Adjusted by Gross Weight 6-11
6.3.7 Operating Cost Adjusted by Running Speed and Grades 6-12
6.3.8 Number of Reserve Trucks Required 6-13
6.3.8.1 Calculation of truck cycle time. ... 6-13 6.3.8.2 Number of trucks 6-14 6.3.8.3 Real truck number 6-14
6.3.9 Cost of Reserved Trucks 6-14
6.3.9.1 Depreciation and interest 6-14 6.3.9.2 Unit cost 6-15
6.4 CAPITAL COST - DISCUSSION 6-23
6.5 CAPITAL COST - MODEL 6-26
6.5.1 Road Construction Cost 6-26
6.5.1.1 Total construction cost 6-26 6.5.1.2 Data adjustment factors 6-26 6.5.1.3 Annual depreciation and interest on road construction 6-27 6.5.1.4 Unit costs 6-27
6.5.2 Road Maintenance Cost 6-27
6.5.2.1 Model of road maintenance costs .... 6-27
6.5.2.1.1 Total maintenance cost 6-28
Page
6.5.2.1.2 Data adjustment factors 6-28
6.6 TOTAL COST MODEL 6-33
6.7 COMPUTER MODEL FOR TRUCK COST ESTIMATION - SPECIFIC EXAMPLE 6-36
REFERENCES 6-40
COMPUTER APPENDIX (follows) 6-41
VOLUME 7
PNEUMATIC TRANSPORT
7 . PNEUMATIC TRANSPORT 7-1
7 .1 INTRODUCTION 7-1
7.2 TECHNICAL BASIS OF PNEUMATIC TRANSPORT 7-6
7.2.1 Introduction 7-6 7.2.2 Previous Theoretical Analyses.. 7-7 7.2.3 Minimum Transport Velocity 7-S 7.2.4 Friction Factor 7-13 7.2.5 Design Approach to a Pneumatic Coal Transport Pipeline 7-16
7.3 PILOT FACILITY 7-21
7.3.1 Conceptual Design of the Pneumatic Coal Transport Pipeline 7-21 7.3.2 Design Calculations 7-22 7.3.3 Alternative Design for 1/4 x 0" Coal 7-23
7.4 COST EVALUATION OF PILOT PLANT 7-36
7.4.1 Capital Cost Estimation 7-36 7.4.2 Annual Operating Cost 7-37 7.4.3 Cost Analysis 7-38 7.4.4 Cost Comparison to Belt Conveyor 7-39 7.4.5 Cost Comparison to Railroad 7-40
7.5 OTHER CASES OF APPLICATION 7-48
7.5.1 Hypothetical Cases of Application 7-48
Page
7.5.2 Comparison of Costs 7-48 7.5.3 Cost Advantages of Shipping 1/4 x 0" Coal... 7-49
7.6 GENERAL DISCUSSION 7-55
7.6.1 Short Distance Coal Transport 7-55 7.6.2 A Hyperbolic Cost Model of a Hypothetical Pneumatic Coal Transport Pipeline 7-55 7.6.3 Economic Evaluation of an Inter- mediate Distance Telescoping Pneumatic Coal Transport Pipeline 7-56 7.6.4 Cost Evaluation of a Hypothetical Long- Distance Large-Capacity Telescoping, Pneumatic Coal Transport Pipeline 7-57
REFERENCES 7-63
:OMPUTER APPENDIX (follows) 7-69
VOLUME 8
YELLOW BALL RAIL
Page
3. BELLOW BALL RAIL 8-1
8.1 INTRODUCTION 8-1
8.2 FACILITY DESCRIPTION 8-2
8.2.1 Train Facility 8-2 8.2.2 Coal Preparation and Loading Facilities 8-3 8.2.3 Transloading Facilities 8-3
8 . 3 RETURNS TO YELLOW BALL SERVICE 8-5
REFERENCES 8-7
LIST OF TABLES FOR VOLUMES 2-8
VOLUME 2
UNIT TRAINS
Page
Parameters for Coal Transport System 2-4
Poor to Good Rai 1 Suppor t 2-13
Current Rail and Roadbed Specifications 2-14
Statement of Estimated Burlington-Northern Track Capacity for Routes 2-28
Model Cost Assumptions 2-29
Sample Detail of Labor Requirements 750 miles 2-30
Sample Detail of Supplies 2-31
Fuel Costs for Unit Trains (2EMMTY) 2-32
Fuel Consumption 5000 Ton Train-Level Track 100 Miles 2-33
VOLUME 3
COAL SLURRY PIPELINES
Proposed and Hypothetical Coal Slurry Pipelines 3-7
Itemized Capital Costs of Black Mesa and Wyoming- Arkansas Coal Slurry Pipelines (1976 Prices) 3-11
Major Items Required for Operation and Maintenance of Energy Facilities (1976 $) 3-14
Manpower Required for Operation of Energy Facilities 3-16
XII
Page
Changes in Costs per 1000-Mile Pipeline Designed for 5 MPH Flow at 5 MPH and 3.5 MPH as Compared to One Designed for 3.5 MPH (in million dollars) .. 3-24
Pipeline Branching Under Normal Conditions 3-25
General Effect of Varying Branch Flowrate 3-26
General Case of Branch Line Shutdown 3-27
Houston Natural Gas Branching Pipeline 3-28
Houston Natural Gas Pipeline, Proposed Normal Operation 3-29
Houston Natural Gas Pipeline Variable Branching Flowrate 3-30
Example of Pipeline Tapping, Normal Operation 3-31
Example of Pipeline Tapping, Varying Tap Flowrate 3-32
Examples of Pipeline Tapping 3-33
VOLUME 4
BARGE TRANSPORT
Typical Towboat Dimensions 4-6
Popular Towboat Engines 4-7
Number of Currently Operating Towboats 4-8
Typical Barge Sizes 4-9
Tow Configuration and Performance 4-13
Illinois Waterway Locks and Dams 4-30
Ohio River Locks and Dams 4-31
McClellan-Kerr-Arkansas River System Locks and Dams 4-33
Upper Mississippi River Locks and Dams 4-34
xm
Page
Tennessee River Locks and Dams 4-36
Tombigbee - Warrior Locks and Dams 4-37
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway - West Locks and Dams 4-38
Towboats: Ownership and Operating Costs 4-49
Open Hopper Barges: Ownership and Operating Costs 4-53
Hourly Ownership and Operating Costs, Towboats and Barges by Size and Waterway 4-54
Average Tow Speeds by Water . 4-63
Estimated 1973 User Costs 4-77
Comparative User Charge Estimates 4-81
VOLUME 5
CONVEYOR BELTS
1 Tension Rating of Conveyor Belts: Ratings 70 or Under, lbs per inch per ply 5-7
2 Plowability - Angle of Surcharge - Angle of Repose 5-26
3 Maximum Recommended Belt Speeds (Fpm) for Standard Service 5-27
4 Suggested Normal Spacing of Belt Idlers 5-28
5 Idler Service Factor A & Material Weight and Lump Factor B 5-29
6 Estimated Average Belt Weights, lbs per ft. Length 5-30
7 Roll Diameter and Shaft Diameter Selection 5-31
8 Factor K values 5-32 y 9 Conveyor Belt Cover Quality Service Selection 5-33
xiv
Page
3.10 Conveyor Belt Top-Cover Thickness and Grade: Recommendations For Cold Bulk Materials with Normal Loading Conditions 5-34
5.11 Conveyor Belt Bottom Covers 5-35
VOLUME 6
TRUCK HAULAGE
5.1 Adjusted Speed Factors 6-16
5.2 Grade Adjustment Factors 6-17
5.3 Cost of Road Construction 6-30
5.4 Road Maintenance Costs 6-31
VOLUME 7
PNEUMATIC TRANSPORT
Outline of Initial Design Study 7-24
List of Major Equipment for the 3.5 mile Pilot Pneumatic Coal Transport Pipeline for 200 Tons of 2 x 0" Coal Per Hour 7-25
Bare Module Costs for Major Equipment and Buildings - Pilot Plant 7-41
Capital Investment Estimation Pilot Plant 7-42
Total Annual Cost Estimation of Pilot Plant 7-43
Cost Projection of Pneumatic Pipeline Versus Belt Conveyor (3.5 miles, 18,000 Tons of 1/4 x 0" coal per day) 7-44
Cost Estimation of 24" Belt Conveyor System of 3.5 Miles for 200 Tons of 2 x 0" Coal Per Hour 7-46
xv
Paqe
'.8 Flow Parameters for Pressure and Vacuum Short-Distance (1000 feet) Transport System of 200 Tons of 2 x 0" Coal Per Hour 7-51
'.9 Summary of Cost Analysis of Pilot Plant and Other Hypothetical Cases of Pneumatic Coal Transport 7-52
'.10 Coal Distribution Modal Split and Distribution Cost Estimate 7-59
xvi
LIST OF FIGURES FOR VOLUMES 2-8
VOLUME 2
UNIT TRAINS
Page
Horsepower Requirements by Speed and Grade 2-5
Rail Deflection, U Values 2-15
Rail Bending Stress, U Values 2-16
Rail Life 2-17
Bottom Dump Unloading System 2-18
Rotary Dump Unloading System 2-19
Costs ($/Ton) , 750 Miles, at Varying Tonnages, Train Speeds and Bottlenecks 2-34
Costs (jzf/Ton-Mile) , 750 Miles, at Varying Tonnages, Train Speeds and Bottlenecks 2-35
Cost Effect of Bottlenecks ($/Ton), 25 MMTY at Varying Distances 2-36
Cost Effect of Bottlenecks (jzf/Ton-Mile) , 25 MMTY at Varying Distances 2-37
Cost Effect of a 10 Percent Bottleneck ($/Ton) at Varying Distances 2-38
Cost Effect of a 10 Percent Bottleneck
(jzf /Ton -Mile) at Varying Mileages and Tonnage 2-39
Bottleneck Effects on Cost/Ton-Mile at Varying Operating Conditions, 25MMTY, 250 Miles 2-40
Bottleneck Effects on Cost/Ton-Mile at Varying Operating Conditions, 25MMTY, 500 Miles 2-41
Bottleneck Effects on Cost/Ton-Mile at Varying Operating Conditions, 25MMTY, 750 Miles 2-42
XV 11
Page
Bottleneck Effects on Cost/Ton-Mile at Varying Operating Conditions, 25MMTY, 1000 Miles 2-43
Bottleneck Effects on Cost/Ton-Mile at Varying Operating Conditions, 25MMTY, 1250 Miles 2-44
Bottleneck Effects on Cost/Ton-Mile at Varying Operating conditions, 25MMTY, 1500 Miles 2-45
Bottleneck Effects on Cost $/Ton at Varying Operating Conditions, 25MMTY, 250 Miles... 2-46
Bottleneck Effects on Cost $/Ton at Varying Operating Conditions, 25MMTY, 500 Miles 2-47
Bottleneck Effects on Cost $/Ton at Varying Operating Conditions, 25MMTY, 750 Miles 2-48
Bottleneck Effects on Cost $/Ton at Varying Operating Conditions, 25MMTY, 1000 Miles 2-49
Bottleneck Effects on Cost $/Ton at Varying Operating Conditions, 25MMTY, 1250 Miles 2-50
Bottleneck Effects on Cost $/Ton at Varying Operating Conditions, 25MMTY, 1500 Miles 2-51
Employment at Varying Mileages and Operating Conditions with Fixed Bottleneck..... 2-52
Employment at Varying Tonnages and Operating Conditions with Fixed Mileage 2-53
VOLUME 3
COAL SLURRY PIPELINES
Unit Cost - Slurry Pipelines 3-17
Branching Examples 3-34
XVI 11
VOLUME 4
BARGE TRANSPORT
Page
Towboat Horsepower Range 4-10
Upper Mississippi, Missouri and Illinois Waterways 4-39
Ohio, Tennessee, Tombigbee and Warrior Rivers 4-40
Lower Mississippi, McClellan-Kerr-Arkansas Rivers, and the Intracoastal Waterway - West 4-41
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway - East, Tennessee, Tombigbee, Warrior and Mobile Rivers 4-42
Replacement Costs - Towboats 4-64
Administration and Supervision 4-65
Fuel Oil Cost Based on 1971 Data 4-66
Maintenance & Repairs 4-67
Supplies 4-68
Insurance 4-69
Taxes 4-7
Operating Expenses 4-71
VOLUME 5
CONVEYOR BELTS
5.1 Structure Cost for Conveyor Terminals 5-10
5.2 Cost Estimate for Belt & Belt Conveyor Equipment 5-11
5.3 Cost Estimate for Belt & Belt Conveyor Equipment 5-12
xix
Page
j.4 Troughing Idler Selection Chart (for belt widths through 60 inches) 5-36 j.5 Return Idler Selection Chart (for belt widths through 60 inches) 5-37
>.6 Factor K Value 5-38 fc
VOLUME 6
TRUCK HAULAGE
1 Truck Cost Elements 6-6
2 Operating Cost Model Flow Chart 6-18
3 Ratio of Indirect to Operating Costs: Percent Change by Gross Weight 6-1S
4 Adjusted Operating Cost Flow Model 6-20
5 Reserved Truck Cost Calculations 6-21
6 Reserved Truck Cost Calculations 6-22
7 Capital Cost Components 6-24
8 Construction Cost Flow Chart 6-25
9 Road Maintenance Flow Chart 6-32
10 Total Cost Flow 6-35
XX
VOLUME 7
PNEUMATIC TRANSPORT
Page
-.1 Friction Factor (f j of V acuu m Transport of Crushed Coal Suspension at Various Flow Reynolds Numbers 7-18
'.2 Friction Factor (f \ of Pressure TransportITl' of Crushed Coal Suspension at Various Flow Reynolds Numbers 7-19
'.3 Simplified Logic Diagram for Telescoping Pneumatic Coal Transport System Parameters Calculations 7-20
'.4 Proposed Pneumatic Coal Pipeline Route at Receiving End 7-26
'.5 Aerial View of Space and Right-of-toay Along Current Railroad and Pipeline Installation Plan at Receiving End in Relation to Current Coal Handling Facilities 7-27
'.6 Side View of Space for Receiving End Facility Showing Integration into Existing Facilities 7-28
! .7 Proposed Route of 3.5-Mile Pilot Plant of Pneumatic Coal Transport Pipeline 7-29
'.8 Schematic Diagram Showing Pressure (Blow Tank) Pneumatic Transport of Coal 7-30
'.9 Schematic Diagram Showing Pressure-Vacuum (Push-Pull) Transport of Coal 7-31
'.10 Flow Chart of Computer Programs for Calculating Telescoping Pneumatic Coal Transport System Parameters 7-32
xxi
Paqe
,11 Schematic Diagram of the 3.5-mile Telescoping Pneumatic Coal Transport Pipeline and Plow Parameters for Peabody-Baldwin Pilot Plant of 200 Tons of 2 x 0" Coal Per Hour 7-33
,12 Schematic Diagram of a 3.5-mile Pneumatic Coal Transport Pipeline (Constant Diameter) and Flow Parameters for Transport Capacity of 200 Tons of 1/4 x 0" Coal Per Hour 7-34
,13 Schematic Diagram of a 3.5-mile Telescoping Pneumatic Coal Transport Pipeline and Flow Parameters for Transport Capacity of 200 Tons of 1/4 x 0" Coal Per Hour 7-35
,14 Transmission Pipeline Construction Costs by Diameter 7-47
,15 Schematic Diagram of the 100-mile Telescoping Pneumatic Coal Transport Pipeline and Flow Parameters for Transport Capacity of 200 Tons of 1/4 x 0" Coal Per Hour 7-53
,16 Schematic Diagram of the 3.5-mile Telescoping Pneumatic Coal Transport Pipeline and Flow Parameters for Transport Capacity of 200 Tons of 1/4 x 0" Coal Per Hour 7-54
,17 Total Capital Cost and Unit Transport Cost for Short and Intermediate Distance Pneumatic Coal Pipeline 7-60
,18 Cost Comparison Showing Unit Transport Cost Extrapolated From Hyperbolic Cost Model for Long-Distance Large-Capacity Shipment as Compared to Cost Data of Rail and Slurry Pipeline 7-61
,19 Unit Coal Transport Cost Extrapolated from Hyperbolic Cost Model for Long-Distance Large-Capacity Shipment and Cost Data of Other Modes of Coal Transportation 7-62
xxii
1. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
L.l PROJECT PARAMETERS
This study is an extension of our previous work in the area of coal transportation [1,2,3,4,5,6]. Its subject is the comparative costing of competina transport modes. A wide range of costs and aspects of costs are dealt with in terms of engineering - economic analyses of the cost of the components which make up the facility and operating system descriptions of each coal transport mode. The cost comparisons, though analyzed, are not meant to be statements of policy but, rather, an input to decision making. Ihe technical material presented in tne succeeding volumes, along with the earlier work cited above, forms the basis for the analyses. This material may also broaden the general understanding of coal transportation issues and problems.
The project is divided into two main sections: (1) long distance coal transport and (2) gathering and distribution systems. Within each section economic and technological comparisons are made of the available modes. These are used as the basis for comparisons among the modes. Inter-modal compatibility is studied with respect to both mixed trunk line shipment and with respect to feeder to trunk line and trunk line to distribution systems. The engineering and technological data form the bases for the costing and economic analyses.
The cost basis includes all necessary processing, loading and unloading facilities needed for transport by each mode. Emphasis is placed on cost optimality and the ability to increase capacity.
Lon g Distance Transport - Specific studies are made of unit trains, barge, and coal slurry pipelines. Capital, operating ana maintenance, and other costs are reduced to a cents/ton/mile basis. Real cost data are used where available. Preliminary and engineering costs are used where competing modes are practicable but not currently avai lable.
Gathering and Distribution Systems - In the manner described above, these studies analyze truck transport, yellow ball rail transport on existing spur lines, conveyor belts, and an innovative high pressure pneumatic pipeline. The advantages and limitations of each system are analyzed.
1-1
Particular emphasis is placed on compatibility with trunk line movement and consumer facilities, producer and consumer size, and flexibility. All costs are reduced to a cents/ton/mile basis.
Regional Analysis - Eased on FEA's revised Project Independence estimates [7], an analysis is made of the problems and some solutions associated with projected increases in coal movement of 116.3KMTY from central Appalachia (for northern shipment) and of 457.1KMTY from the northern Great Plains (for eastern and southern shipment) between 1975 and 1990.
1.1.1 Coal Production Scenario
Becent FEA projections of regional coal production to 1990 provide the basis for our analysis of transport capacity and the choice of routes and areas to be studied. Table 1.1 provides the reference scenario to 1990. Table 1.2 suggests some of the variability inherent in the estimates. The C oal Age source is used, rather than the FEA document, simply because the former uses a 1975 baseline for actual production. (In this and succeeding volumes, tables and figures may be found at the end of each major subsection.)
By inspection it is apparent that the forecast increases in coal output, viewed regionally over a fifteen year period, are unlikely to strain existing transport facilities except, possibly, in central Appalachia and the northern Great Plains. Central Appalachian output is expected to increase by 56.5 percent, by 1990. Output from the northern Great Plains is expected to increase by 881 percent.
Over the same period, total U.S. coal output is expected to increase by 104.5 percent or 667.8MMTY. If the variability of the estimate is as great for 1990 as it is for 1985, and if $13/bbl oil is assumed, national output may range between 1205 and 1581WMTY. Similarly, the production ranges for central Appalachia and the northern Great Plains would be 310.7 to 331.7MKTY and 415.3 to 7 30.4MMTY, respectively. If the reference oil price increases, the coal production estimates may also be expected to rise. It is the magnitude of these increases, compared to the other producing regions, which suggest the geographic areas of concentration.
1-2
.
Given the renewed emphasis on coal utilization, comparative transport costs play a key role. Mis- statement of these costs, and transport prices far in excess of costs, yield results which not only imply a social loss, but help determine that coal may be produced in the wrona location and moved by a cost inefficient mode. Because of relative distance to the major markets, western coal has suffered a cost disadvantage which was not balanced by its lower cost of production. It was not until the mandates of air pollution control became effective that low sulfur western coal became important, however, western coals tend to have a higher ash and moisture content as well as a lower Btu and sulfur content than eastern coals [8,9,10,11,12]. Because of the Btu content, however, much of the western reserves may not meet EPA new source standards [6]
Air pollution control requlations are essen- tially based on sulfur content per million Btu's. Coal buyers are concerned not only with sulfur emissions but with Btu's per ton, moisture content (which tends to derate facilities), and with ash content (which results in removal costs). In terms of transportation, both moisture and ash content represent unuseable tonnages. Thus, the advantaaes of western coal are sulfur content and relative mining costs. The disadvantages are ash, moisture, Btu content and relative transport costs in terms of both cost per ton mile and cost per million Etu
(MtoBtu) . If the advantages are not sufficient coal preparation, flue gas desulf urization and other, more remote, means of utilizina eastern coals will reduce the market for western coals.
Transportation costs are a major component in determining the east-west coal interface. The higher are these costs, the less will be the advantage of western coals; the less likely will be the shifts and volumes recently estimated by PEA and others.
1.1.2 Cost Basis
The present analysis is cost based. The estimates presented do not correspond to existing tariffs, rates or prices; all of which are different names for the same thing. Rather than start with the latter to determine or justify the former, in the manner of a rate hearinq, we start with an
1-3 engineering and facility basis and determine costs of operation to the supplier of the service.
It is important to note the difference between costs and prices. To the recipient, all that goes into the coal before purchase is clearly a part of the price that must be paid. However, these prices contain not only the costs of producing the service but normal profits and elements of monopoly profits as well. Rail, barge and pipeline tariffs (prices) need not be similar within or across modes even when the service is essentially similar. The cost of a pipeline or a rail line does not determine the price. It does, however, determine the level below which long run prices cannot go. Railroads tend to charge lower prices when faced by barge or other rail competition than they do when competitors are not available. Their costs have not changed. Similarly, different barge lines will bid different prices and/or quote different prices for the same contract. By the same token, coal slurry pipeline costs do not indicate the eventual tariff or the possible escalation provisions of that tariff.
The most obvious example of this argument is the reduction in rail rates for the movement of coal following the operation of the Ohio coal slurry pipeline. For whatever the reason the railroads were able to reduce their prices, the important fact is that the pipeline shut down. Clearly, if rail costs at that time were not lower than pipeline costs, the railroad would not have been able to reduce its price sufficiently to successfully undercut its competitor. Currently, if the proposed ETSI pipeline is cheaper than competing unit trains on a cost basis, no rate proposed by the railroads would enable them to compete and make even a marginal profit on the competitive shipment volume. (It would, of course, be possible to increase rates on other freight thereby providing an internal subsidy to unit coal trains. This is limited by the ICC and the availability of other freight.) Alternatively, one would expect ETSI to set a tariff only slightly below the lowest tariff the railroads could charge and yet make a marginal profit. The difference between this rate or tariff and ETSI's costs would be translated into their profits. If, however, ETSI costs are higher than those of the competing railroads, rate reduction by those roads on unit coal train service would exclude the use of the ETSI line. This could be circumvented by long- term take or pay agreements. Profits could be
1-4
.
maintained with the consumer making up the difference. It should be noted that the expected rail tariff in this situation would be only slightly below the lowest that could be set by ETSI. These arguments are symmetrical.
For policy purposes the advantages of using costs rather than prices are twofold: (1) the treatment is consistent with the principles of resource allocation and (2) where prices (tariffs) are significantly in excess of costs, it is fair to ask why and, perhaps, to seek some form of correction
1.1.3 Analytic Methodologies
The methods of analysis and the forms of the results contained in this and the remaining volumes of this report are predicated on (1) our past work, (2) the availability of useful data, (3) the type of questions that must be addressed, and (4) on the specific characteristics of the transport mode under discussion. It will be seen that these vary widely. Cost estimates are built from the ground up to the completed service. This is akin to estimates made prior to and during the construction or the planned use, of any major facility or system. Eventual prices are a matter of indifference in this work; though they are not to a buyer and should not be to a regulator.
Work on unit trains and coal slurry pipelines previously reported has not been repeated. Instead, the emphasis is on new material and updating the results of our previous studies. The analysis of barge transportation has been concentrated on the major waterways and the analysis of costing. The former represents a gathering together of previously published material. Because the use of trucks and conveyor belts is not regionally limited, a facility and costing optimization model is presented. By using industry related costs in the model, output costs are determined for a range of tonnage and mileage assumptions. The models are sufficiently open so that others may substitute their own values. As a gathering system, yellow-ball rail is a geographically limited concept. The available material has been analyzed and a "best guess" cost developed.
1-5
The use of pneumatic pipelines for coal transportation is a new concept. While it has been reported at some length in our previous work 11,3,5,6], the ensuing discussions and issues raised prompted the development of a lengthy theoretical discussion of a number of technical aspects. The facility descriptions here are more exhaustive than those contained in other volumes. Cost estimates are developed for both gathering systems of varying lengths and for hypothetical long distance movements. This last is based on a hyperbolic extrapolation of the short distance movements.
Sections 1.2 through 1.8 provide a precis of the analyses of each mode of transport studied. The extended discussion and documentation may be found in Volumes 2 through 8 which correspond in title to these sections.
1-6
I
SI
a\ r-i N CN vo
I IT) r~\ \Q CN QO vO rH S) r-i r-i ro vi- |-» CN J~> ~- .N in vO <—1 «3" va O vj> «r CTi 0) r-t
c I cr> ro r» si oo sj oo s> vo S> (XI u"» U 00 00 CO vO ro ss S) ** s> S3 3 vO Vj -J"> IN O —l
ro O ro cr> m I (X) > vT> i— 0O J1 3 oo CN U3
I h ^ in ro vu "3" rH vO 1—1 Jl CN in rH N- Jl ro CO >N rH CM vo jQ >s in (H
g SI J> Jl zt io in r-i tr io 01 r-i 4J ro vO vD 1 vo o\ 3 s> u in rH ro ro >N vO o p» rH vO a ft ^ Ti e r-\ >< + + 1 + + + + + + +
2 ro * vO Si C
(U • x: C ro 4-1 O < H r-i a g c- Tj o * o u U CJ T3 o ii U cO -M 01 05 ^ CJ •H TO
1J 1 1 i u 0) ul is rH •H o V) Vj C VJ D 'J o (J 1 1 o O 'U •H jr JJ -U o a o c '.1 c 01 y) Vj o JJ H 1-7 . — - — < > r^ cm CO lO r- CO M CO 00 •— r-» r» cm Ol CO in cn id in ID vf 00 CO oo >— CO O lO lO o o i— CM f~. CM CM o c> co r— 1*3 1/1 r— O- m lf> C3\ CD CO r~ r-. cr> in ID CM r-^ 1M O oxno\ O O o o ro pi co I r— CM CM CM !•• «a- «r r >> c- o. 4J d-jt r3 ro cm i-- Cvj to O r- r~ ro O r— "3- CO 1*1 i/i .- }- o in cri CM o io r-~ CO o 3: CJ CM •— nno «3- 73 ul r- «r .— • CM CM «n lO o ro m .— On r-~ ro o i— ro to - vj- • UV r- CM ID ID O r— CO CM I— ."^ r» i CM in UJ M <0 CJ >— r-. en O f— CO C*> (O "."> - co in in c-j I - CM •* o cn in ... >J- IO i~~ •Ti ,~ in cr\ co f— •— CJ .- CJ> 'J o to to \D r~ *> «3* r- r— I-OIOO ,«j m '1 « .TJ u t. o v. I J77 o tl K) 1 t <0 1 c r " 1. .3 1-8 UNIT TRAINS A unit train is a single purpose, dedicated, integrated train, used for hauling a single commodity . It is composed of special purpose cars which haul continuously between a mine and the consumer. These trains may move over 800 miles/day instead of the 60 miles/day associated with general freight schedules. This improvement could be reflected in lower rates which might increase coal usage through lower total prices for coal at the point of consumption. For the railroads, unit trains provide better equipment and plant utilization than do other rail modes. The basic costing procedures, facility descriptors and other parameters used in this study are based on the work presented in Volume 2. 1.2.1 Development Needs A number of development needs are cited. These include the adequacy of track, roadbed, and rolling stock. The costing model assumes the necessary upgrading which, while increasing capacity and decreasing operating costs, increases capital costs. Given increased train speeds and traffic density, the need to reroute around cities and towns and protect crossings is discussed. The inherent costs are rolled into the model. Given the time horizons for output increases shown in Table 1.1, there does not appear to be a major problem in the upgrading of the lines most affected. Conrail has already shown how much upgrading can be done in a very short time period. Because, unlike pipelines and conveyor belts, railroads may build and upgrade incrementally, capital costs are not front-ended. Upgrading and financing can be done in acceptable stages to meet increased demands on capacity. The costing model assumes both an empty backhaul and that all track upgrading is assessed against the coal carrying unit train. The latter results in an overstatement of unit train costs. Some suggestions are made for possible backhaul utilization, thus lowering average costs, and for the allocation of upgrading costs among all rail traffic movements on a given line. 1-9 Finally, a suggestion is made concerning the use of concrete rather than wooden ties for both ecological and structural purposes. 1.2.2 Unit Train Costinq Our cost estimation is based on a generalization of operating conditions. The details and costs for specific routes are readily integrated into the working system. For a specific route, train operation simulation is readily available [13]. Cost estimations for the unit train are presented for varying mileages (of upgraded track), tonnages, route bottlenecks, utilization, and speeds. A new track assumption, included in the costs, is made to avoid cities and towns. The results are presented in a series of figures which show costs as cents/ton/mile and dollars/ton. Because of the interest in line capacity, an analysis of this is made based on various track configurations, train speeds, and train spacing. It is concluded that for reasonable configurations and train speeds coal traffic densities to 70MMTY on a given line are possible. Finally, a detailed examination is made of the component costs of unit trains, on a system basis, including capital and operating costs. 1-1! . COAL SLUhRY PIPELINES An analysis of coal slurry pipelines was presented in our May 1976 study [1], The present study extends that analysis In this study we oresent a synopsis of our previous results and a general statement of coal slurry pipelines. Extensions of the arguments are presented where warranted. New material is developed in the area of pipeline branching and tapping. These would appear necessary if slurry pipelines are to function as more than private lines; if they are to be responsive to common carrier needs. Except for the availability of water, pipelines are not geographically limited. To date, proposed pipelines have had a generally north-south orientation with points of origin in the great plains and mountain states. toest to east ana west to Pacific pipelines are feasible. They are also feasible along the east coast and for shipments out of Appalachia. In fact, the water problem there may be a relatively small deterrent. foe have found no reason to expect that costing, other than for problems associated with land values and terrain, differs significantly by geographic region. The coal slurry pipeline operation is described based on data from the Elack Mesa and ETSI lines. Problems of line breaks, plugging, dewatering and the disposal of fines are discussed. 1.3.1 Slurry Pipeline Costs Slurry pipeline costs are estimated based on facility descriptions, engineering costing analyses, and cost escalation factors for the original data. This forms the basis for route specific costs including, where desired, the return of water to the origin in a separate pipeline. 1.3.2 Pipeline Flexibility and Branching A slurry pipeline does not have the same advantage of monotone cost reduction with increases in throughput that railroads do in the range from 5MMTY to 70MMTV. The reason is that in moving from, say, 25MMTY to 70MMTY, increasing pipe diameters on a single line from 38'" to 64" is not desirable 1-11 because 70NMTY represents a generating capacity of about 14000 MVv. Because electric generating stations must be designed to handle powdered coal, rather than larger sizes, a pipeline failure would be too costly. The result of a prolonged blockage or disruption would be a regional blackout. Good planning would call for three 38" pipelines or, perhaps, two 46" pipelines as a safeguard against total interruption of regional coal supply. The need for some kind of distribution system at the delivery end of the line arises because even the largest coal burning utility consumes less than 7MMTY. Pipeline flexibility is analyzed in terms of changes in the rate of pipeline flow and/or pipeline overdesign. The costing of these alternatives is developed. However, the emphasis in this study is placed on pipeline branching and tapping. The limits are developed and turn out to be relatively severe. Theoretical examples are developed for hypothetical lines as well as a specific example based on the proposed HNG coal slurry pipeline. Vve conclude that it will be very difficult to branch a pipeline to serve several major customers. Tapping the line will yield even greater supply problems. 1-12 BARGE TRANSPORT 1.4.1 Introduction Commodity transportation by barge is possible on about 25,000 miles of navigable inland waterways in the contiguous 48 states. Even though the railroads have carried the major portion of the coal produced in this country, the inland waterways have borne a substantial percentage of the total. In 1974, domestic barges carried over 122.5 million net tons of coal [14, p. 30]. The location of the major river systems may make waterways a significant means by which to move the projected increases in coal production from central Appalachia and the northern Great Plains to the Midwest. In this study we examine the cost and capacity parameters of the major waterways that affect the movement of coal. The study is limited to the existing, central U.S. waterway system. Excluded are east coast, far western, Great Lakes and Gulf of Mexico operations. Because of the anticipated coal tonnage increases through 1990, we have dealt exclusively with dedicated integrated tows. Their use maximizes both river capacity, where there are locks and dams, and cost effective performance. The analysis of barge costing starts with a description of towboats and open hopper barges, the push-towing method, and the rationale for integrated-dedicated service in the movement of large tonnages of coal. Lock facilities are discussed in terms of size relative to the number of possible and practicable lockages or throughput. This bears on both river capacity and time. The latter is part of the costing criteria. 1.4.2 River and Waterway Descriptions A major portion of Volume 4 is devoted to individual waterway descriptions. For each, these include map descriptions, channel dimensions, navigation season, locks and dams, and navigation constraints. The waterways include: the Illinois waterway, the upper and lower Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee, Tombigbee and Warrior Rivers, the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River system, and both the 1-13 ) east and west segments of the Gulf Intracoastal waterway. The descriptions serve to identify current and future bottlenecks and capacities as well as travel time for costing purposes. For example, the canal connecting the Tombigbee and Tennessee Rivers is in the construction stage. The project, when completed, would allow river traffic on the Tennessee River to go all the way to the Gulf of Mexico. The total estimated cost of the project in 1976 was $1.58 billion [16, p. 44]. The major constraints on this waterway are the size of the locks and channel curvature. After the rehabilitation of Bankhead lock and dam, the lock which sets the limits on the size of tows going up to Birmingham is the Oliver lock which is 95' by 460'. This limits the maximum tow size to eight 195' barges. Below Bankhead lock the maximum tow size is fifteen 195' barges, In addition to the limitation set by the dimensions of the locks, the sharp curvature of the channel imposes further limitations and normal tow size on this waterway seldom exceeds four to six barges [15, p. 10]. 1.4.3 B arg e Transport Costs (Coal Barge transport costs are estimated by first determining towboat and barge ownership and operating costs on an annualized basis from facility descriptions. These are converted to hourly ownership and operating costs specific to each waterway and for the relevant range of barge and towboat sizes. Terminal costs, tow make up and break up costs, and operating costs are estimated and included. Finally, river user costs are estimated on a separable basis. The argument is raised that these should be assessed on a differential toll basis, akin to a toll road with irregularly spaced booths and charges based on the section just traversed. The costs of coal transportation by integrated dedicated barge tows may be divided into three parts. Ownership and operating costs for line-haul movement varies with the number of river miles. River operating, maintenance and navigation costs also vary with distance but have been detailed separately to avoid the direct inclusion of user charges. Terminal costs for loading and unloading are fixed charges per ton. They are divided into costs which accrue during the time the barge tow is 1-14 at the terminal. The basis for the calculations has been described above and in Volume 4. Our cost analysis has been limited to the five rivers (Table 1.3) which carry the greatest part of the barge movement of coal. Estimates for the other waterways could be made but, given the navigation limitations, tow sizes are too small to warrant serious consideration of their use for major coal transportation. Point to point estimation of costs/ton-mile or for an entire shipment for an integrated dedicated coal tow starts with identification of the tow size permissible. This is the smallest maximum allowed if more than one river or waterway is used. Cents/ton-mile for the round trip are ascertained from Table 1.3. These may include or exclude user costs. It is important to note that actual river miles must be used because of circuity compared to rail or coal slurry pipelines. The result is the cost/ton. To this should be added both segments of terminal costs, with the final total multiplied by the number of tons. Table 1.4 provides an estimate of additional capacity available on selected rivers and waterways on the assumption that other commodities shipped remain at current levels. It is, therefore, a maximum estimate. It is, furthermore, based on shipment along the entire river. Sectional bottlenecks will reduce overall river availability. 1-15 ' , I TABLE 1.3: Integrated Dedicated Tew Costs for Coal Movements River Ownership and Pi ver , Locks and Terminal Costs Op o r a t i n g Cost Uams -Opera t ion Barge Termina z low -I i no -haul Mai n te nance ' ' Opcrat ion facility (if/ton -mile) (t'/ton-rri le) Owner sh ip (i Loaded Empty ' (0/net ton) (izf/net ton) 4 Missouri* * 0.22 0.58 0.0926 0.18 0.48 Arkansas (5) 0.24 0.16 0.9626 0.21 0.48 M i s s i s s i pp i J -toper ' 0.28 0.18 0.0426 0.31 0.48 Mississippi (6 ' -lower 0.04 9 0.10 0.012 6 0.39 0.4 8 Ohio (/) 0.20 0.14 0.0156 0.21 0.48 Chio (8) 0.14 0.097 0.0156 (9) 0.29 0.48 (1) 'ihe calculation assumes that with an empty tow, a towboat consumes half as much fuel as it does with a loaded tow. (2) Corps of Enaineers' based data (3) Coast Guard responsibility (4) Six barge tow with maximum load of 7,200 net tons (5) Fifteen barge tow with maximum load of 225,000 net tons (6) Forty-five barqe tow with maximum load of 675,000 net tons (7) low si 7.o restricted by non -complet ion of the 1200' locks on the lover Ohio. Fifteen barqe tow with maximum load of 225, 0C0 net tons. (b) All locks 1200', 30 bane tow with maximum load of 450,000 net tons. (9) Depreciation of new locks is excluded. If. included, the cost would be higher . 1-16 *' ' 1» * » O m x: • O 01 3 JJ 01 IJH a - . O — ,— , N r^ — — Z r-i CN ro ^ in ^o 1-17 1.5 CONVEYOR BELTS Conveyor belts are an old, established method for the movement of material. They can handle large tonnages and work well in areas of difficult terrain. Where the competitive option is truck or rail transport, their high initial cost can sometimes be overcome simply because the route need not be as circuitous. This advantage is shared with pipelines. Because they are capital, rather than labor intensive, requiring relatively little staffing, almost without respect to distance, costs decrease with both distance and throughput. However, capital intensiveness suggests that system economics are best where throughput is neither variable nor intermittent. As an operation, belts are relatively noisy and may create spillage and dusting problems. Belt width may minimize the spillage while a covered system reduces both noise and dust. Neither is without additional cost. For practical purposes, the system must be above ground, creating land alienation and right of way problems. Ambient temperature affects the operation and may limit usefulness in areas and times of extreme cold or heat. Once in place, the conveyor belt is not very flexible. Failure at any point shuts down the entire system. They are not easily moved or relocated and, in time of need, tonnages are not easily rerouted. Because the entire system must be up before it is operational, all capital costs are front-ended. Furthermore, the system should be designed for its anticipated capacity. This may involve excess capacity in the early stages of its operational life. Coupled with high initial costs, these considerations may be a deterrent to its use by small and medium sized coal mines. For coal distribution purposes, conveyor belts are not particularly useful in buiit up areas, except for what may be considered in-house transport, as from a barge or rail facility to the plant. As a gathering system, they may be used from the mine to any of the trunk line systems. Both gathering and distributional use are subject to the advantages and limitations cited above. It is as a gathering system of from 3.5 to 100 miles that this study has been concerned. Because conveyor belts are feasible almost anywhere, this study has not investigated any specific route or geographic location. Rather it has concentrated on setting up an heuristic programming model for conveyor belt facility optimization and cost minimization. Because of the facility optimization and the general assumptions used, 1-1! the costs stated here are probably on the low side. Additionally, these costs are only in general agreement with the conveyor belt costs cited lor comparison with the pneumatic pipeline in Volume 7. Those costs involved a specific route. The major design parameters considered here are capacity, material lump size and percentage at the maximum size, material density, terrain characteristics, and mileage. Input assumptions for specific examples are described below. The analysis in Volume 5 starts with the principal factors involved in the design of the system and their optimization for various cases. This is followed by an analysis of the factors used in costing. The next step is the development of both facility and costing models suitable for computer analysis. Logic flow diagrams are presented at each major analytic step. Tables 1.5 and 1.6 present listings of the input values for each of the cases. Table 1.7 shows a set of typical results of this form of analysis. Belt capacities were chosen to reflect both small and large mines. Mileages portray short, medium, and '•long- distances but exclude in-house operations. An assumption was made concerning coal lump size. This was set at a maximum of 8 inches for a maximum of 10 percent of the coal transported. This standardization also set the belt width (to avoid spillage) at 30 inches. Because design width is particularly sensitive to material lump size, some crushing at the mine end appears warranted. The size cannot be made too small, however, as belt travel causes some grinding of the coal, producing fines and dusting. While crushing reduces belt capital costs, it is at the expense of added equipment at the mine. These costs have not been assessed here, but it is clear that this reduces the usefulness of the system to smaller operators, particularly for the shorter distances. If, for example, crushing to a 2 inch top size were assumed, belt width would be reduced from the 30 inches needed for 8 inch coal to only 14 inches. The rate of travel would be increased to 368 feet/minute. Finally, it has been assumed that the belt movement is over level terrain. If it is assumed that the terrain is hilly, both construction and operating costs increase. Right-of- way costs may decrease. Operating costs rise due to increased belt tension. The program in Volume 5 can be used, as needed, to provide the operating costs for any feasible terrain. Table 1.7 indicates that transport costs per ton-mile decrease with increases in both distance and capacity. The latter assumes full utilization. 1-19 1 . iii 1 IS 3 i-t * • 3 3 m a ui a 00 lD iN 3 3 CN IN .O ro ro sa 3 fi iH 3 3 53 3 3 r-i 3 a 3 in 3 in s co in cn a 3 3 in 3 in 3 co in in 3 3 in iN m o ro .-i 3 i-i m 3 s r~i 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 • 3 3 3 in 3 go >n in ro 3 3 in 3 m 3 oo in cm 3 3 >m ro m ro iN IN .""I m ro r-H 3 m3 CN z 3 :d 3! 3 Ui 3 .— 3 <~\ in r1 3 • u ro 3 3 in 3 in 3 CO iT) CN 3 3 3 ^n 3 in 3 co in cn <*i -0 3 IM .N 1*1 ro r»l 3 » iN >N (O ro ro r-\ i-H /- j ,, •u (1) o 3 o- 3 3 3 r-t 3 • .... 3 3 in 3 m 3 00 uO cN ro 33 in 3 m 3 CO in in ro C 3 CN iN iO ro ro - cn ol ro ro ro 1 •rJ. 3 3 -U 3 in cd Q. 4J H o H-l m U CD CD CD at w 3 Vj (1) CD O qj CD O W \ Vj u u Vj x: \ (U Vj Vj Vj £ \Cij CD c o> C CT CP K o CO Cti ^H c C cn erne O CIO -H x: o o d; cD C c QO •H o (D CD CD C jQ -H V XI 'O 'O TJ •rJ. ^H e 4J u 'a -u H ,-H e. e -h a> H CD d ro vj (0 Vj X i-i •H D 3 03 VJ iJ J-) o a> cd s k: CD ro c T3 T3 C c r-l — O J-» U CU CD C Vj CD CD 0 o tr- tr t-l t? ro 0) 6) C ro CD c r.l Q £ —< c c o •H s: a S .H < •H «C CI 3 -H as a- < c < X £.- 4-J ^ CJ CTi X H a c r-M o i3 i*-l CD o> a r: *c — 0) c Vj ry ^ C H ca X! < CT O >. O en U T) D CD C' c CD ."J c r. —< C CD o c u < — JJ V-l >. iJ 0.' (0 •:: -a iw > •u O ro aj c: •<-4 <0 O c O 4J c a- J-> C CT -< '< o «-l j.: »j — o H CIJ ro CD T3 -U •--< CI O r-| u o c> o a o t.': ro <*) >"i ,-i r-A ro I—) rH 1-20 "3* 00 cn ca cn co q ci in s in ca ro ca ca ca CN ca ca CO ca ca CO • * • • • • • * • • • • * *r cn ca cn ea cn co ca n in ca in ca cn ca in ro ca co ro ro i-H cn in ca cn .-h ca ro ca ca CT\ 00 CN ca CO ca >* ca ca ** ^ • # # • • ^ • • • • «. CO ca cm ca CN co ca ro in ca in ca 00 i-H ro ca v£> ro ro <-H cn rH ca cn i-H ca ro ca ca ca CN ca ca ca ^r co ca IN SCN oo ca ro m ca ui ca co la CN d ca m co ro i—i cn CN in ca i-i m Qfd P ca ro ca 3 z, ca CN ca a> z> cr> CO SI co « CN • • »- • • • • a~ ca vr cn ca cn ca in co ca co m ca in ca in ro ca in ro io i—l cn -p © 10 C2 rH s nMfi ^-a ro a >iU CO IN ca 00 0) w cr> <* ca ca > iH • • * • • • • c ca "» CO ca cn ca CN co ca ro in ca in ca oo ca rH ro ca in ro ro r-i r\| u ca m 4J in M—l CO c 3 01 a> C -H u CD tH .c H V) E \-C M CJ 4J fa 4J \.c \ w u 4J JJ 2 X C 14-1 lC O CM K XI \-M n C * * IV| CM 3 •H CD CD vi VI CD Vl D M IW U CD 4-> CD O E OJ 4J IT) > a jj 3 m Ov-U H O Vl cd Cr> C 'D H S-l J JJ o CO i-H fa o (11 CO CN iN r-i CN rH i-( CN (NH^1 CN ^J1 CN IN I-H rH 1-21 < t t es n CS CS vO cs CN s S3 CN O ca CS CT» CS CN CS CS 00 CS r-H V CS CS cx» oo CN CS oo cs 33 CS CN coacins^s co s CN CN r-\ z. CS m 33 CSS o cn CS CN s CS X cs 00 ss >a ro CO 30 • • *. • • • • • «k • « • • 03 a i-H T CN s IN S3 CN co a i'o in a in a CN S3 E i— CO m fl cs in ro i cn in 3 < «H M --H u o > c •H S3 ro CS S3 x» CT1 00 CN (S oo 03 S3 S3 (^ '3* o c V CO S3 CN S3 tp-l co S3 ro iT) ca m S3 03 S3 in ro i-H cn J-l 03 03 E 3 03 H u o 4J > 0) 4-1 o u m 3 0) 3 a> C u U tt> o •H U C \ £ T3 w 2 \£\n u 4J 4-» d) .3 c 4-1 £) \ *J 40 C O 4-1 r-\ (H 4-1 <-H -H C O 4J C 03 3 O vj c a a> H 03 O 4J u 4J 14-1 H 3 03 l-i 3 u-i a a o j- .c CO u E oj C 1-22 t t TABLE 1.6: Conveyor Belt Cost Data - All Cases 2 Belt Cost $2b/f 2 Idler Cost $22/ft 2 Deck Cost $10/ft 2 Terminal Cost $28,0G0/each 2 Structure Cost ?100/f 2 Sinkina Fund Return 0.06 Interest 2 Belt Life 10 years 2 Cost of Horse Power $0 . 25/h.p. 1 Total Operating Time 7,9 20 hrs. 2 Lab Cost $8/hr. 2 Belt Equipment Life 20 years 2 Inflation factor 1.45 2 Belt Replacement - 0.05 Sinkinq Fund 1 Number of Vi/orkers 3.3 Per Shift/10 miles Note: 1. Ey assumption 2. Source referenced in Volume 5 1-23 TABLE 1.7: Conveyor Belt Ownership and Operating Cost Capacity Mileage Belt Speed Total Capital Total Cost (tons/year) (ft/minute) Investment Cost($) ( $/t on/mile) 7,000,000 10.0 370 213,592,000 0.049 5,000,000 3.5 26 3 7,497,00 0,,08 10.0 263 21,292,000 0.,067 100.0 263 212,294,000 0,.059 1,000,000 3.5 53 7,407,000 0,.38 10.0 53 21,036,000 0,.31 100.0 53 209,732,000 0..28 250,000 3.5 14 7,390,000 1,.57 10.0 14 20,985,000 1..28 100,000 3.5 6 7,386,000 3,.9 10.0 6 20,975,000 2,.84 1-24 1.6 TRUCK HAULAGE This is a major mode of coal gathering/distribution, particularly for the smaller companies. Additionally, where alternative trunk line facilities are poor, where rail service has been discontinued, trucks may be used, particularly for short distances. Truck costs are high; the labor component is significant. Their use may lead to problems of spillage and traffic congestion. They also have an adverse impact on the roads over which they travel, particularly the lightly built rural roads. Compared with competing modes of transporting coal, they are not energy efficient. The advantage of over the road coal haulage lies principally in the fact that trucks can be used incrementally. They provide the most flexible service with respect to both total capacity carried and intermittant operation. Unlike a conveyor belt or pipeline, a truck system does not have to be completely set up before it is operational. Like the railroads, the capital costs are not all front-ended. Pvhile trucks must be replaced over the life of a mining operation, these costs are deferred rather than immediate. The system is cost effective for small to medium sized mines, especially those selling through brokers in the spot market. Like rail service, truck transport is not affected by the material size or characteristics of the coal carried. 1 Lump size can be "as mined ' permitting locational flexibility of crushing and other operations. Again, like the railroads, a road system must be in place before service begins. However, unlike the railroads, pipelines, and conveyor belts, trucks do not directly pay for the roads, or right-of-way, over which they travel except through general fuel taxes. To make the necessary intermodal cost comparisons, an attempt has been made in this study, as it has for barges, to include a separable cost estimation of this factor. In the analysis in Volume 6, truck costs have been treated as a system optimizing and cost problem. Eecause of the optimization, these costs are likely to be biased on the low side compared with specific real applications. Furthermore, because truck time and fuel costs are sensitive to terrain, these have been accomodated in the programming and cost optimization. They have been introduced in an arbitrarily limited way in the output in Volume 6. 1-25 The programming analysis follows the same aeneral format used for conveyor belts. Again, the reasoning is similar. Their use is neither route specific nor geographically limited. Therefore, the analysis and framework for computer simulation is a general one. Those using this methodology may substitute route specific inputs for those presented. Caution must be exercised in using this model. Hard data for coal truck operations are sketchy and conflicting. The companies apparently do not keep the same records as do other forms of coal transport. The margin of error here may be expected to be considerably wider than for other transport modes studied in tnis report. Table 1.8 presents the input data and results for the cases analyzed. Table 1.9 indicates the form of the source material. For all cases it was assumed that a 10 percent bottleneck existed along the route and, further, that 10 percent of the route was in hilly terrain. Where road costs are excluded, costs/ton/mile are more sensitive to the type of truck used than to the distance or mileage. Road costs are a separable item. However, except for specific or localized studies there are few data concerning road maintenance and up-keep that can be ascribed directly to this class of transport. As an alternative, we have assumed the construction of new roads of the same class to replace existing road, depreciated it, added average maintenance costs and assigned a percentage of this (10 percent) to the coal truck operation. The 10 percent was arbitrary. It can be used to reflect either the relative number of transits or the relative percentage of tons. It can not be directly used to reflect differences in road wear due to heavy versus light loads carried by single units. The actual percentage can be varied at will within the program format. The cases and assumptions given are simply examples. 1-26 < i •* *t a iti oi or> q a vo uO -r ro in ro tvj in 0) c a ca s Q cj csj #-H •-( T3 o o u OJ U 4J 3 t) WJ 3 >i O V.I c ro M 'a c 4J r-» to cri CO a «a- *r r» ro o p c cr> <— <-t ro LO l^* •*r in o in •H VO >^ X) oo to ro T "-T *r cr> oo u ,n >»"> ro ro ro XJ u -H QJ x: a—- • • U >i to c c I o o di ro .o in in m m H H c .* X -U 4J o u < ro fO 3 *- ij Vj o QJ 1) XJ 0. a O o o -U >, >. ro ro T3 0) TO TJ (U cr- in a a a a a m a \ \ e ro -U u 3 l*-4 <7J ro sa a a a a ro a K-l 0) HHU1 ^ •H to x: £ ro to to to p ro ro > ro en X Vj u ro IN 0) CJ iJ •^ o» £ E o >* a a a 3 3 XJ a a a (j) to n a w a a a 11 CO O ^ Jf. ra C * * < < o a a a u a m a a CM r-t 1-27 TABLE 1.9: Truck Data Incut Sources 3 axles 5 axles Truck Price ($) 25,000-30,000 50,000-55,000 Life (yrs) 6-8 8-10 Rear Dump x x Engine diesel diesel Transmission manual manual Tire (type) 10-120 10-120 Capacity 12 ton (24,000KP) 23 ton (46,000KP) Loading time (hrs) 009~0.017 Unloading time (hrs) 009~0.017 Waiting Time load 03~0.05 (hrs) Waitincf time unload 0.03~0.05 (hrs) ^Private Company Mileage between mine and plant % of total mileage on level Level speed (regular speed) % of total mileage on up-grades Up-grade speed % of total mileage on down-grade Down-grade speed % of total mileage at bottle-neck Bottle-neck speed Waiting time (loading) Waiting time (dumping) Loading time Dumping time Demand capacity per year Truck capacity Operating time per day Operating days per year Probability of hauling exactly n units Road construction cost for interstate rural highway Road construction cost for interstate urban highway Road construction cost for primary rural highway Road construction cost for primary urban highway Road construction cost for secondary rural highway Road construction cost for secondary urban highway Mileage of interstate rural highway Mileage of interstate urban highway Mileage of primary rural highway Mileage of primary urban highway Mileage of secondary rural highway Mileage of secondary urban highway 1-28 TAELE 1.9: Truck Data Input Sources (Continued) Current dollar value compared with base value (1967) 2 Interest 3 Road life 3 Maintenance cost of 3 interstate rural highway per mile Maintenance cost of interstate urban highway per mile 3 Maintenance cost of primary rural hiqhway per mile 3 Maintenance cost of primary urban highway per mile 3 Maintenance cost of secondary rural highway per mile 3 Maintenance cost of secondary urban highway per mile 3 Gross weight of loaded truck 4 Gross weight of unloaded truck 4 Adjustment factor for mechanics 3 Adjustment factor for repair parts 3 Adjustment factor for tire cost 3 Adjustment factor for fuel consumption 3 Adjustment factor for depreciation and interest 3 Adjustment factor for drivers' wage 3 Truck price 4 Service life of truck 4 Speed adjustment factor 3 Speed adjustment factor for bottle-neck 3 Cost adjustment factor for upgrade 3 Cost adjustment factor for downgrade 3 % of road cost included in total cost 3 Number of years of operation 3 Note: 1. By assumption 2. Source references in Volume 6 3. Modification of source reference in Volume 6 4. Program output 1-29 . 7 PNEUMATIC PIPELINES Pneumatic transport is not a new concept, it has been used commercially for the movement of ores and other materials. The analysis here continues and amplifies our previous work on its application to the movement of coal n, 5, 17, 18]. Volume 7 is devoted primarily to the pneumatic transportation of coal over short distances, as in a gathering/distribution system, but the analysis is extended to lonqer distances, suitable for trunk line movement, and to its use as a transloader. There are a number of advantages to this mode. Among them are environmental cleanliness, reduction of operating labor, lack of water problems relative suitability for intermittent use, ease of automation, and route flexibility. Air is used as the carrier and is thoroughly cleaned before venting. Unlike a coal slurry line, it is easily started after stopping, avoids the expense and disposal problems of dewatering, avoids the cost and energy expenditure of crushing the coal to a fine powder, and does not present the same environmental problems due to line breaks. The most immediate application appears to be as an adjunct to rail or barge transport. In this role a pneumatic pipeline may operate as a loader/unloader and a gathering/feeder system. It would compete with short-haul unit trains, conveyor belts, yellow ball rail and truck transport Because its application to coal is new and, further, because its economic feasibility has been subject to question, extensive technical and costing discussions are presented in Volume 7. These include both analyses of past results and the design parameters for a functioning line. The engineering is discussed at length based on a proposed pilot model of 3.5 miles, capable of carrying 200 tons/hour of 2x0" coal. A pneumatic pipeline may be buried or placed on ground level. For small gathering/distribution systems it may even be temporarily mounted and subject to rerouting. Like conveyor belts it is not conditioned by geographic location, a feature it shares with slurry pipelines, except for the water requirement. Like both belts and slurry pipelines, it is not adversely affected by terrain. Therefore, the analysis presented here, except for the example, is neither route specific nor regionally determined. 1-30 Capital costs are front-ended, as they are for all pipelines and conveyor belts. To be operable, the system must be completed. Future changes in capacity involve additional costs, therefore significant advance planning is required. Trucks and rail have more flexibility both in carrying capacity and timing of investment. Costs are reduced significantly if the material size is reduced from 2x0" to 1/4x0" coal. This suggests that crushing before introduction to the line is desirable and that the coal should be washed or otherwise cleaned at that point. Cleaning would reduce the sulfur and ash content resulting in an increase in the Btu content of the coal received. As a transloader, or as an adjunct to a transloader, the pneumatic pipeline studied is limited by particle size. A coal size of 2x0" is consistent with plant use but it may be a limiting factor in barge and rail transport. Both of the latter may carry run of mine coal. Furthermore, the smaller the size the greater the possibility of environmental hazard by dusting. The throughput rate of 200 ton/hour implies that a 1500 ton capacity barge could be unloaded in 7-8 hours. Multiple units would be used for large integrated tows. As an offloader, a vacuum-pressure system is suggested. The vacuum end unloads and the pressure end pushes the coal through to its destination. Because of power considerations, the vacuum system is suggested, instead of a pressure system, over very short distances. For distances of a few miles, unit costs decline with both throughput and coal lump size. Short distance utilization might be characteristic of many gathering/distribution systems which present problems of terrain, built up areas to be avoided, or for which alternative modes are currently unavailable. Four specific examples are presented: (1) 3.5 miles, 200 tons/hour, 2x0- coal - 13.45 cents/ton/mile (2) 3.5 miles, 1,800 tons/day, 2x0" coal - 6.09 cents/ton /mile (3) 3.5 miles, 200 tons/hour, 1/4x0" coal - 10.57 cents/ton/mile (4) 3.5 miles, 18,000 tons/day, 1/4x0" coal - 1.14 cents/ton/mile 1-31 Comparing examples (1) with (2) and (3) with (4) shows the effect of increasing coal tonnage on reducing costs. Examples (1) compared to (3) as well as (2) with (4) indicates the cost decrease due to the reduction of coal lump size. Comparison between (1) and (4) provides a form of summation of the two parametric changes. All of the unit transport costs are well within the competitive margin of alternative short distance modes. The smaller sized (1/4x0") coal is consistent with washing or other cleaning operations, with coal burning technology, and with future coal gasification and liquefaction facilities. For medium to long distance pipeline costs, estimation was made by extension of the data on short distance movement. Hyperbolic curves were fitted to the data for the generalization. These pipelines would be modular, have telescoped pipe rather than pipe of uniform diameter, and would require intermediate pumping stations. The analysis of the telescoping pipe diameters is contained in Volume 7. Because of the distance between pumping stations, the analysis of power requirements suggests that the coal be crushed to 1/4x0" before transport. This is a larger size than that required by a slurry pipeline. The use of such a pipeline appears to be best suited as a distribution system from a rail head or barge terminal through a built up area to a plant or utility. Alternatively, it may be viewed as a candidate to replace railroads where track has been, or will be, abandoned or where new track must be built for coal alone. Like the slurry line, a pneumatic pipeline carries a single commodity and does not offer joint freight benefits. Thus, if new track can be justified for both coal and general freight, on a distributed cost basis it is probably cheaper. If the hyperbolic cost model of the intermediate distance pneumatic coal pipeline is reasonably correct, then its applicability to a long-distance large- capacity pipeline should yield a conservative cost estimate. Lower costs would be expected as annual ton-mile capacity increased. 1-32 . 8 YELLOW BALL RAIL Rail cars are referred to as '•yellow-balled" when they are sufficiently old or damaged to preclude their efficient operation on long-haul or main line routes. For most coal carrying railroads, their alternative value is salvage. This, however, does not necessarily preclude their effective use, on a limited basis, by small mines located near existing trackage. As a gathering system, yellow-ball rail could provide a significant alternative, particularly in Appalachia, to coal trucks, conveyor belts and pneumatic pipelines. Rail service of this type provides a limited alternative to track abandonment, a possible financial return to a railbank, a direct contribution to service demand on main lines, and a means by which many small eastern coal mines could retain or regain competitive viability [6] . It is primarily as a gathering, rather than a distribution system, that yellow-ball coal transport may have an impact. In appearance and structural characteristics these cars are not suitable for use in populated areas. Furthermore, they are not suited for the large tonnage, continuous use required for coal fired utilities The system is currently more hypothetical than real. Utilization depends not only on the proximity of trackage but on arrangments for its use. Both rolling stock and transloading facilities must be available [19]. The ownership of the transloader alone may be as important as the availability of track and equipment. Its ownership by a group of mines implies a cooperative or limited joint venture. The problem is cohesion and individually small reserves. The advantage may be long-term contracts, financial stability and avoidance of a brokered spot market. If the transloader is owned by the railroad or a large mine, capital costs to the mines are reduced. However, their competitive position may be almost as tenuous as it is when dealing on a spot market. Regardless of ownership, however, the system, by gathering the output of many small mines into a sizeable shipment, permits the use of unit train transport rather than single or multi-car shipments. The result is lower rail tariffs, lower total sales price and a higher net-back to the mine. Because of the low density, relatively light weight travel, and low operating speeds, suitably maintained, light and/or old track and roadbed can be used. To assess the cost impact, some specific assumptions must be made. These can be altered to meet actual conditions or cases. Assume a 1.5MMTY total operation over 1-33 a 330 day year based on nine mines averaging 175,000 TPY/mine. The gathering system radius is 30 miles. With a 15 mile average, the round trip is again 30 miles. At an average train speed of 7.5 mph, an average trip time, including unloading, is five hours. The trains are 12 cars long with an average capacity of 65 tons and are pulled by a single switcher size locomotive. Including 14 spare cars and one spare locomotive, the system requires 158 cars and seven locomotives. The cars may be separately owned, the switchers should be jointly owned. Note that if even the smallest mines require two cars, mines producing 21,450 TPY can be accommodated. This would require a few more cars on the system in total. If car costs are $1,300 each, the system total is $205,400 or an average of about $22,800/mine in initial capital costs. Assuming a five year life, annual car costs per mine are about $4,600. Given locomotive costs at $286,700 each, the initial system expenditure is about $2,007,000 or close to $223 , 000/mine. With an eight year remaining life, annual costs are $28,000 per mine. Assuming that there are no acquisition costs for the track and that the total system maintains 100 miles of track, annual maintenance charges are $625,000 or $69,500/mine. The transloading facility is assumed to have a breakeven cost of 50 cents/ton. For the 1.5 MMTY facility, initial cost is $3,701,000 with annual depreciation of $245,800. Annual operating costs are estimated at $533,000. Shared among the mines, these are $191,222, $27,311, and $59,222, respectively [41]. The assumptions suggested above include all labor except that for train crews and excludes capital expense for rolling stock. The results are shown in Table 1.10. From the table, transloader costs are 49 cents/ton while transport costs are 66 cents/ton including interest. If only six locomotives need be used, this falls to 54.5 cents/ton. The implied average transport cost is 4.4 cents/ton/mile. Adding fuel and crew costs raises this to approximately 6.0 cents/ton/mile; well within the range of truck and conveyor belt alternatives. Unlike the truck, which may speed the deterioration of a road system, the positive maintenance of track and roadbed implied in the rail costs may become a social benefit for which the payment was private. Unlike the conveyor belt, there are no new right of way impacts. Finally, it must be reiterated that the costing used here is speculative. 1-34 TABLE 1.10: Yellow Ball Rail System Initial Cost Initial Cost Average Annual Per System Per Mine Cost/Mine ($) ($) ($) Rolling Stock $2,212,100 $245,788 $ 32,436 [rack 69,444 [ransloader Capital 3,701,000 245,800 27,311 Operating 491,588 59,222 totals 5,913,100 491,588 188,413 1-35 COMPARATIVE COSTS 1.9.1 Additional Cost Estimates A generalized picture of comparative costs for trunk line and gathering/distribution line coal movements is presented in Figures 1.1 and 1.2, respectively. A cautionary note is in order. The figures are representational and based on a number of parameters. They should not be used for explicit comparative cost calculations. For example, all mileages in these figures are visually equal. However, because of circuity, point to point distances by barge may be as much as 30 percent longer than a competing rail route. Similarly, pipelines are usually less circuitous than rail or truck transport. fahere more precise estimates are needed reference should be made to the costing methodology in the volume devoted to the specific transport mode, or to the route specific costs which follow. Costing of the pneumatic line in Figure 1.2 is based on a hyperbolic extrapolation of the short distance estimates. Table 1.11 presents a summary of some of the cost output for gathering/distribution systems. The data contained in both the table and the two figures, as well as the underlying assumptions, may be compared with some industry data. For conveyor belt operations, Leung [20] has used industry data to calculate conveyor belt costs for large tonnages over a short distance. For an 800,000 ton/year operation, over a distance of 3.5 miles, carrying 2x0" coal, he estimates a cost of 33.3 cents/ton/mile. For a similar distance, at 6MMT¥ and 1/4x0" coal he estimates 3.83 cents/ton/mile. These estimates are close to our own. Smaller coal sizes require less belt width and lower capital costs. Truck operations, based on general freight, owner-operator characteristics are estimated at 38-50 cents/mile [21] . If a 25 ton/trip average is assumed, this amounts to only 1.52-2.0 cents/ton/mile. However, the object of the general freight owner-operator carrier is to make as few empty hauls as possible. The coal carrying gathering/distribution operation would guarantee an empty back haul. Comparative data in some detail 1-36 , has been obtained from the Georgia-Pacific Corporation [22]. The over the road route distance is 110 miles round trip at an average tonnage of 25.17 tons per loaded trip. The operation involves 8 trucks and 10 trailers making 5 trips daily each during a 250 day working year. Total hauling costs are estimated at 61 cents/mile or an average of 2.42 cents/ton/mile. Vvhile these costs include loading and unloading time, they do not include the loading and unloading facility or administration costs. Part of the cost involved in unit train coal transportation is the necessary track and roadbed upgrading. This is a function of the amount of work to be done, the cost of the work, and the share to be borne by the unit train service. The share may be a matter of relative tonnages. The cost of the work has been included in our analysis. An indication of the amount of work to be done is indicated in Table 1.12. freighted average deferred and delayed maintenance in the eastern district is $30 , 200/mile. In the western district it is $27 , 200/mile. In both districts, major weights are due to single railroads; the Penn-Central in the east and the Chicago and Northwestern in the west. If these two are eliminated from the calculation, the results are $18,700/mile and $17 , 300/mile respectively. The table does not include all rail systems. However, it appears that except for those shipments which must use the Penn-Central (now part of Conrail) or Chicago and Northwestern routes, upgrading costs fall well within our estimates. Shipments from central Appalachia to northern destinations are likely to bear a higher cost until upgrading is completed. Throughout the analysis, slurry pipeline costing has been predicated on the Black Mesa pipeline and the ETSI or HNG proposals. Except for throughput characteristics, the major features of these lines are not significantly different from those found for crude oil pipelines. New large diameter crude oil pipelines are not a regularly scheduled occurrence. Therefore, comparisons are scarce and the results are merely indicative. At an estimated current cost of $1,034 billion for a 1040 mile, 38 inch diameter pipeline, per mile coal slurry pipeline costs are $994,200. For comparison, the planned 750 mile, 48 inch crude oil pipeline linking the Ghawar oil fields to YenGu, Saudi Arabia, is estimated at $1.55 billion or $2.1 million/mile [23]. Estimating pipe at one-third of 1-37 total cost, this can be reduced to $1.9 million per mile in order to match the ETSI pipe diameter. The proposed Northern Tier (U.S.) pipeline is estimated at $1 billion. It has a 40 inch diameter and will be 1500 miles long [24]. Its per mile cost (adjusted for pipe diameter) is $655,666. Finally, the 212 mile Iraqi section of the Iraq-Turkey 40" pipeline is estimated at $135.2 million of which $67.6 million is estimated for pipe alone f25]. Adjusting for pipeline diameter, the line may be estimated at $.622 million/mile. Logistics make overseas construction costs high but labor costs are low. On the other hand, coal slurry pipeline pressures are high, the pumping facilities more complex, and the ancillary front-end and dewatering-storage facilities more extensive than those for crude oil lines. Additionally, the crude oil pipeline data cited above do not include all ancillary loading, storage and delivery facilities. It is suggested, on the basis of admittedly sketchy evidence, that our estimates should be reasonably close to the mark. It may be noted, however, that they are essentially 1975 data, capital and fuel costs must be adjusted upward; the former are about 15-20 percent higher, the latter 7-10 percent. 1.9.2 Water Use and Costs Water requirements bulk large in the consideration of some transportation systems. The water use can be direct or indirect. Examples of the latter include EHV transmission and coal gas or syncrude transport. EHV transmission requires on site water use in the power plant producing the electricity for export. Some of the water may be recycled, but most will be lost to the local area. Coal gasification and liquefaction both require water as a chemical input; a source of hydrogen to add to the carbon in coal. Here the water is almost totally lost. Coal slurry pipelines, without water recycle, transport water along with the coal. In some regions this may not be important, in others it may be vital. For all of the above, the important factor is the alienation of the water supply. If water is used for a transport related purpose, it is unavailable in the given location for any other use, including strip mine reclamation. 1-38 Barge transport is, with respect to water, an intermediate mode. Like the systems listed above it needs water to operate. Unlike the above, it does not necessarily alienate water supplies. It may, however, suffer the consequences of water usage by others for other purposes. These include irrigation, industrial use, and the draw down from other transport modes. If the alternative uses are too large, insufficient waterway depth may occur. The result is decreased river capacity and increased barge transport costs. Rail, pneumatic pipelines, conveyor belts and trucks ail use water. The amounts are comparatively small. Where water use is heavy, where water is scarce, and/or where it is alienated and exported, a cost is involved. In the west, where these conditions pertain, some cost estimates are in order. In a series of articles, beginning 5 January, 197 7, in the Winner Advoc ate and Tr_ipp County Journal, State Senator Billie Sutton (South Dakota) has reported water costs in connection with the West River Aqueduct project. The aqueduct is of importance because the state permit granted to ETSI for the use of the Madison water formation is conditional on a backup source in the event that ETSI's development of the well field in the Madison formation adversely affects the formation. In the series of articles, ETSI's water purchase price, on a take or pay basis if from the aqueduct, is quoted at $700-$800 per acre-foot. There is some indication that they might be willing to pay up to $1100 per acre-foot. Costs to industrial users in Wyoming were reported at $770-900 per acre-foot. Users in South Dakota would be charged $30-$250 per acre-foot, depending on user class. It was mentioned that some Wyoming industrial users would be willing to pay up to $1200 per acre-foot. It is possible to scale these prices to correspond with our water price estimates: $ per acre-foot $/10 gallons 326 1.00 700 2.15 800 2.45 9 00 2.7 6 1100 3.38 1200 3.68 1-39 It may be noted that the ETSI water prices quoted above exceed or are only slightly below the high water cost used in this study. Madison formation water may be cheaper than that from the Vvest River Aguaduct but, in economics, it is the marginal or additional source and cost which rules the price. Alternatively, if an average is sought, the low is unlikely to be below our $1.00 estimate while the high far exceeds our high estimate of $2.50/10 gallons. At worst, our water component of the slurry pipeline estimate is too low. At best the estimate should be taken from near the high end of our cost range, assuming no water return. These cost assignments may be used for all western origination slurry pipelines. In the east, the availability of water suggests that the low end of the range is appropriate. This is also consistent with no water return. 1-40 1 .-%I. 1 1 <3 o ro n ^* in m ro \D Kf v *r ca 23 u • vr rr • CN « CN U .-H 1-1 vO vO i-i 1 1 o\ 00 co m X rj >* -— S3 O Jl r^ s a a -U — as > • • *-H : fa • p» a sr >xj i—i oo «"-r in co a> js o CC CO ifl o\ m CN oo CN lO — u .1 ft .*) •-i CN CJ ^C O: r-i X .— o »=r rH a\ fa •H — o 3j —• u ra .— i~. : — LO J> D3H ro V 51 o x <— ca SQ3S si asacaStaaa Q IS) 3 a a s a a 3 aaaaaaaa a a a Vj CJ a :a a a 3) a q a 3 a ii oi >s a ca a > - \ CN in vr cj si a aaaaaaaa sa a a to o — (0 O U) i/uiin in C 1-41 co QZU Q W hi iJ i-3 u x a m < X < bl SC cn S5> a mvor^ oo oo co si r^ •q< ao to CN CO IH P5 iJ > in cm co cn in cn r-» rH a") oo "* m in vo •sr CN CO O W CU O OS s> vr cn in in in no cn oo in cn oo r- -v si CN rH t-i &4 Q u5 U u a. o< si cor- o si in cn CO CO SI rH CN m vo oo m s Qi»S rH rr H 1-^ Cl l~> CN CN i-H rH CN r- co CO to- CO-tO- to- co- to- co- to CO- to- CO- to- co- to- to- to- to- in in s c sa 4J r- o co c --{ •H D 1-42 FIGURE 1.1: Summary of Unit Cost Trends - Short Distance Transport 1-43 FIGURE 1 . 2: Summary of Unit Cost Trends - Long Distance Transport UPPER LIMIT-BARGE INCL. LOCK COST 2000 3000 1-44 . 1.10 ROUTE SPECIFIC COST ESTIMATES 1.10.1 Introduction Cost estimates for coal transportation have been prepared for shipments of northern Great Plains coal to midwestern and north central markets as well as for central Appalachian sources to northeastern markets. A general justification was presented in Section 1.1. While it is feasible to move coal from western sources (in addition to the northern Great Plains) to the west coast, given the anticipated surplus of Alaskan crude oil, major coal shipments do not appear likely during the time frame of this report. The cost of these shipments via EHV transmission, coal slurry pipeline, and unit trains, has been explored in our earlier work [1] Colstrip, Montana and Gillette, Wyoming have been chosen as the points of origin for the western shipments. Our costing analyses already includes the gathering costs to these points. An exception may be made for the coal slurry pipeline if the individual mines needed to make up a volume of, say, 25MMTY are not in close proximity. Distribution costs must be added as appropriate. Similarly, the origin point for central Appalachian shipments is assumed to be Parkersburg, West Virginia. This choice is partially predicated on proximity to the Ohio River. For Parkersburg shipments, gathering costs should be added. In all of the cost comparisons the unit of measure is $/ton. It must be remembered, however, that western coal has a lower Btu content than eastern coal. The cost comparisons include barge, rail and coal slurry pipelines. Gathering/distribution systems may be added where necessary from the data in the previous subsections and Volumes 2 through 8. None of these systems are geographically limited. Trunk line movements may be mixed mode or uni-modal. There are some limitations. 1.10.2 Mixed Mode Transport Inter-modal system compatibility is primarily a function of the state in which the coal is transported. For simplicity these may be described 1-45 in terms of the trunk line movements. Unit trains may be served by all of the gathering systems under review. A possible exception is the pneumatic pipeline. If 2x0'" coal is considered too small because of the possibility of fines and small particles dusting along the right of way, either covered cars or coated surfaces must be used. Given the added cost, this may not be recommended. For distribution, yellow ball rail is too restrictive in location to be of value. Trucks and conveyor belts may be environmentally unsound, particularly in urbanized areas. On the other hand, a pneumatic pipeline would permit the use of a coal terminal outside the distribution area. At this point preliminary crushing to 2x0", or final crushing to 1/4 x 0'", would provide the correct size for further shipment. Coal storage at the terminal, rather than at the plant or utility site, would be an advantage of the system. Train to barge and barge to train compatibility has long been a feature of coal movements. In their evaluation, trans- shipment costs should be explicitly included. Barge transport is usually served by a gathering system and often employs a distribution system. The limitation of the modes is similar to that for rail. In this study it is pointed out that a pneumatic pipeline (vacuum) may be used for barge unloading as well as distribution (pressure) if the coal size carried does not exceed 2 x 0". Coal slurry pipelines may be served by all of the gathering systems studied. All of the coal would have to be crushed to a finer mesh size prior to slurrif icat ion . If the entire coal volume transported is not taken by a single consumer at a given location, distribution is problematic. The concept and limitations of branching and tapping slurry lines is discussed elsewhere. The major problem is the inherent lack of flexibility. The alternative of distribution by truck or conveyor belt is not attractive because of the size of the coal particles. If the coal is dried, a pneumatic pipeline could be used for distribution. the use of air as a carrier would reduce the amount of surface moisture remaining after the coal has been centrifuged or cycloned. However, a storage problem would still remain which might be solved, at additional cost, by the use of enclosed silos. 1-46 Vvhile transshipment from unit trains and barges to a slurry pipeline is not difficult, additional grinding being necessary before slurrif ication , the reverse is not as easy. If the slurry is not dewatered, only flat bottom gondola cars or barges can be used. Because of the water content, the weight of coal carried must be reduced and the unit cost of the coal transported by barge or rail must be increased accordingly. In a given barge, if the slurried coal were loaded to the level of dry lump coal, the barge would sink. The cost increase may be as high as 40 percent. Furthermore, the slurry must be agitated during or after shipment to avoid settling. If the slurry has been dewatered, the additional transport cost is substantially reduced. However, because of the coal particle size, surface drying may be expected along with dusting problems. Because the damp coal cake will cling, there may also be unloading problems. If the slurry is dried, severe dusting problems during transit and unloading may be anticipated. At least for transit, the solution, at a cost, is the use of covered cars or barges or the surface treatment of the coal carried. If the transit and unloading problems can be solved, the use of slurry pipelines for coal export in, say, modified tankers, may be attractive. Western coal to Seattle, Los Angeles or San Francisco [1] and eastern coal to Hampton Roads are possibilities. Some method of surge storage would have to be provided as the pipeline movement is continuous while ship arrivals are subject to discontinuities. This problem would exist, however, even with transshipment to barges or unit trains. 1.10.3 Comparative Route Cost Estimates The estimated coal slurry pipeline costs presented in Table 1.13 are based on our current work. It is assumed that the pipeline delivers 25MMTX at a flowrate of 3.5 mph . The estimated mileages are the linear distances between the origin-destination pairs. River crossings are not separately costed but, rather, are assumed to be part of the linearity. An exception is made for points along the Great Lakes if linearity leads to a crossing. Here, the distance used was the shortest practicable land route. For shipments out of Gillette and Colstrip, the water cost was assumed to be about $2.50/1000 gallons. For those out of 1-47 Parkersburg, West Virginia, approximately a $1.00/1000 gallons rate was used. These reflect relative shortages. For western shipments, the low end of the range reflects the assumption of no water return, the high end is based on a requirement to return the slurry pipeline water. The need to return water was deemed inconsistent with a $1.00/1000 gallon price. Thus, there is no range given for the eastern shipments. The cost estimates are all based on full pipeline capacity utilization. If the utilization drops by about 13 percent (3 mph operation), an penalty of approximately 15 percent in cost is incurred. Water for dilution must be added if utilization drops more than 13 percent. If a 5 mph, 38'" pipeline (36MMTY) is assumed, reducing the flow rate to yield 25MMTY (3.5 mph) suggests a one-third increase in cost for a 30.6 percent drop in capacity. The assumption of pipeline linearity biases costs downward. For specific proposals, the route miles should be used. In particular, if a pipeline is to use a railroad right of way, as suggested for eastern development in this study, the advantage of shorter mileage is given up. The costs will be somewhat higher than those in the table. Finally, a number of 0-D pairs are presented simply as intermediate points along major waterways to permit comparisons of intermodal shipment costs. Unit train costs are also presented in Table 1.13. They are based on the data underlying Section 1.2 and Volume 2 of this study. Mileages were derived from a system route map utilizing the shortest rail distance between origin and destination pairs. The costs are based on a movement of 25MMTY, with train speeds of 30 mph loaded and 60 mph unloaded. A 10 percent bottleneck penalty was assessed throughout.- Increasing tonnages decrease costs and costs are directly related to bottleneck assumptions for all tonnages and speeds. For this analysis the cost range was developed by assuming alternative utilization rates as defined in Volume 2. The comparative costs in Table 1.13 must be viewed with great care. They are clearly biased against the unit train. The slurry costs are 1-48 understated; the unit train costs overstated. For unit trains, the entire cost of road and track upgrading has been assessed against the coal carrying operation. Clearly, some of this should be allocated to other rail traffic which share the benefits. Similarly, no credit is taken for route flexibility, the possibility of a back haul, or any advantages accruing to existing trackage in a time of national emergency. The preceeding paragraph indicates the restrictive assumptions on which the costs were based. However, it must be emphasized that if the railroads do not upgrade where necessary, the loads and speeds cannot be sustained, and the rail cost estimates should not be used. For the slurry pipeline, while the affects of altering some of the route cost assumptions were noted, they were not included in the costing. To these possible alterations must be added the cost of distribution and, possibly, gathering systems. Table 1.13 assumes that the entire 25MMTY is gathered at a point and consumed at another. Clearly, no single consumption point utilizes this tonnage. While barge distribution shipments as well as branching and tapping the trunk line have been discussed, these costs have not been factored into the slurry side of the 0-D cost comparisons in Table 1.13. Barge transport costs between selected origin - destination pairs, based on the data developed in this study, are presented in Table 1.14. Actual river miles are used. Ownership and operating costs include all those associated with the movement except for river user charges as defined in Section 1.4 and Volume 4. The total cost includes our estimate of current hypothetical river user charges. Table 1.15 presents an estimate of mixed mode barge/rail shipments from Gillette and Colstrip to selected southern and eastern destinations. The transshipment points are specified. The tabled costs are based on data from Tables 1.13 and 1.14. For each total cost pair, the first is from Gillette, the second from Colstrip. For unit trains, only the 100 percent capacity estimate was used. For barges, the user charge was excluded. From the tables, it should be possible to expand the cost estimates for each given pair as well as approximate others. 1-49 . op in m rH CN in in Q CO on cn r-t IN) m rH cn r» ON in "3< ca co m on rH co "a- co i-- cD CT> CO cm m CO i cn • • «-h in in in in in co CN vO I-. SI CN H r-t (0 c — VJ 4J O crP rH •^ cs> 00 ON SI CN CO CO CM r- CO SI r*> l> in PI S) CO vr ON in CM r^ en in CO CN «* CN JJ U W-H m in co 1/1 IN in in CO on co ro p* CO 00 00 SI on •* 00 ON rH cn rH co CN co Ol rH SI rH ~~ rH r-t rH rH r-t r-t r- rH co C2 rH CM on CO CO SI 00 oo on SI SI 00 CM CO 00 CO (** CO co ca CN _^ r» r» «* CN rH in cd — u 10 c cd CO rH Si SI si in ca si ca si SI SI 31 SI oo in CN CO ON ^ in s> •rf CO m s> -=r r- <* co m cn in co m oo CM ^o cO SI -a- cn 00 rH CO SI CO 00 CN vO ca cm r» oo ON CO on r-» co m ca cn r» in ro co rH r-t r-t CN oo si r» oo c 00 on vo r» <3* m on ca lM CO in r- ON SI rH CM co •*)• rH CN «* m in co CD c-» in 'a- co : i H CO CD m ;n Ol SI cO i-~ CO ON SI r-t i> p» r- oo ON ON 00 00 cn ca ca s> Ca rH 00 ON cn ca r-t rH r-t rH rH 0) fd rH rH rH rH a 8 CD U -~* i C w (0 0) 1 4-> rH ca m ca si si ca m in ea ca si si in ca ca ta in ca in in si ca ca si si si CO H m rH cs. SI cm m rH CN CO -H ca oo co in s> CM r— in CN CM ca ca ca ca 00 SI •h a CO r- m co CN CO r- oo ca rH co in oo co on ca rH CM on si c-1 co co >* "^ m ca cm Q — rH r-t rH rH 0) -H cd a CD Qj o -C 4J CN CJ C u C CD a o 4J CO D JJ3 o CO o cn H rH XI > JJ m O tr- CO o 1-50 » » CTl CN CN CN r-( r-i ro c — uu 0<« cr» r» «-l r-i i"* r-» in 10 c-t <3 .-h ^r ro O in T O \ Q UU»H r-i CN CN n m m X) CO CN IN CN SI r-i OS CO CN ro vO pto (0 s U to -p c o> x> s> cs a •as CTl CN 8& CN r-| c v in iJ o •H rH a> * IN CO cH 1 1 ^ ro 00 M O \ O^ r-i • • I r~ en m ••r •^f C/J QJ o ,— r: «1 <3 CD tPrH 4-! r-i SI £3 U~> s> s> •rH -H (0 <-i CN •S3 r» in m m Cn D> u u u J-i -U o u l-J «3 * •r-t •H o c x: u c-i ti o 0. ±) JJ r-i -Si '0 Cn 1-51 TABLE 1.14: Origin-Destination Pairs - Barge Transport A. From Minneapolis - St. Paul Destination Load 25MMTY 7 0MMTY Cost/T ow ($) Route (Tons) # Of # of Ownersh ip Total Miles Tows Tows & Cost Operating Cost St. Louis 22500 1111 3111 3.96 4.24 673 Memphis 22500 1111 3111 5.61 6.02 1094 New Orleans 22500 1111 3111 7.99 8.40 1731 Pine Bluff 22500 1111 3111 8.67 13.36 1322 Paducah 22500 1111 3111 4.90 5.31 898 Cincinnati 22500 1111 3111 7.37 7.78 1365 Louisville 22500 1111 3111 6.48 6.89 1234 Pittsburgh 22500 1111 3111 9.30 9.71 1834 1. Arkansas River limit number of 195' barges in a tow to 9. An additional 2000 hp towboat needed at mouth of Arkansas River. 2. Integrated dedicated tows - 15 195' barges. B. From Dubuque, Iowa Destination Load 25MMTY 70MMTY Co st /Tow ($) Route (Tons) # of # of Ownership Total Miles Tows Tows & Cost Operating Cost St. Louis 22500 1111 3111 2.64 2.92 399 Memphis 22500 1111 3111 4.28 4.69 808 New Orleans 22500 1111 3111 6.66 7.07 1445 Pine Bluff 22500 1111 3111 6.27 10.96 1036 Paducah 22500 1111 3111 3.66 4.07 624 Cincinnati 22500 1111 3111 5.98 6.39 1091 Louisville 22500 1111 3111 5.33 5.74 960 Pittsburgh 22500 1111 3111 8.33 8.74 1560 1. Arkansas River limit number of 195' barges in a tow to 9. An additional 2000 hp towboat needed at the mouth of Arkansas River 2. Fifteen 195' barges dedicated integrated tow. 1-52 . TABLE 1.14: Origin-Destination Pairs - Barge Transport (Continued) C. From St. Louis, Missouri Destination Load 25MMTY 7 0MMTY Cost/T Memphis 45000 5 56 1556 1.60 1.88 409 New Orleans 45000 556 1556 2.79 3.07 1046 Pine Bluff Paducah 45000 556 1556 1.89 2.30 225 Cincinnati 22500 1111 3111 3.67 4.08 692 Louisville 22500 1111 3111 3.11 3.52 561 Pittsburgh 22500 1111 3111 5.71 6.12 1161 1. It will be necessary for three towboats to be waiting at mouth of Arkansas River as there is a barge limit on the Arkansas River D. From Cairo, Illinois Destination Load 25MMTY 70MMTY Cost/Tow ($) Route (Tons) # of # of Ownership Total Miles Tows Tows & Cost Operating Cost Memphis 67500 370 1037 1.23 1.31 229 New Orleans 67500 370 1037 2.16 2.29 866 Pine Bluff 1. It will be necessary for 4 more towboats to be waiting at at the mouth of Arkansas River. 1-53 ) TABLE 1.14: Origin-Destination Pairs - Barge Transport (Continued) From Sioux City, Iowa Destination Load 25MMTY 7 0MMTY Cost/Tow ($) Route (Tons) # of # of Ownership Total Miles Tows Tows & Cost Operating Cost St. Louis 7200 34 7 2 97 22 6.52 7.18 7 32 Kansas City 7200 3472 9722 3.51 4.17 357 1. 7.5 ft draft limitation. From Pittsburgh, Pa. Destination Load 25MMTY 70MMTY Cost /Tow ($) Route ( Ton s # of # Of Ownership Total Miles Tows Tows & Cost Operating Cost Paducah 22500 1111 3111 3.85 3.98 936 Cincinnati 22500 1111 3111 2.29 2.41 469 Louisville 22500 1111 3111 2.73 2.86 600 Chicago 22500 1111 3111 6.21 6.52 1526 1-54 ) TABLE 1.14: Origin-Destination Pairs - Barge Transport (Continued) G. From Gallipolis, Ohio Destination Load 25MMTY 7 0MMTY Cost/Tow (?) Route ( Ton s # of # of Ownership Total Miles Tows Tows & Cost Operating Cost Paducah 22500 1111 3111 2.91 3.04 6 57 Louisville 45000 556 1556 2.26 2.39 321 Cincinnati 45000 556 1556 1.20 1.33 190 Chicago 22500 1111 3111 5.27 5.58 1247 All tows starts at west end of Gallipolis. Gallipolis L&D not yet replaced. H. From Markland, Indiana Destination Load 25MMTY 7 0MMTY Cost/Tow (?) Route (Tons) # of # Of Ownership Total Miles Tows Tows & Cost Operating . Cost Paducah 22500 1111 3111 2.06 2.19 404.5 Cincinnati 45000 556 1556 0.91 1.04 62.5 Louisville 45000 5 56 1556 0.92 1.05 68.5 Chicago 22500 1111 3111 4.42 4.73 994 1-55 TABLE 1.15: Rail/Barge Mixed Mode Costs, Selected O.D Paris Origin Gillette and Colstrip To Transload Total Cost at ($/Ton) St. Louis Minn - St. Paul 9.87- 9.70 Dubuque 9.44-10.81 Sioux City 10.32-11.80 Memphis Minn - St. Paul 11.52-11.35 Dubuque 11.08-12.45 St. Louis 9.87-12.25 Cairo 11.46-14.02 Pine Bluff Minn - St. Paul 14.58-14.41 Dubuque 13.07-14.44 New Orleans Minn - St. Paul 13.90-13.73 Dubucrue 13.46-14.83 St. Louis 11.06-13.44 Cairo 12.39-14.95 Paducah Minn - St. Paul 10.81-10.64 Dubuoue 10.46-11.83 St. Louis 10.16-12.54 Cincinnati Minn - St. Paul 13.28-13.11 Dubuque 12.78-14.15 St. Louis 11.94-14.32 Louisville Minn - St. Paul 12.39-12.22 Dubuque 12.13-13.50 St. Louis 11.38-13.76 Pittsburgh Minn - St. Paul 15.21-15.04 Dubuque 15.13-16.50 St. Louis 13.98-16.36 1-56 1.11 COAL MOVEMENTS 1975-1990 Given the time horizon, there appears to be no reason to expect that the forecast tonnages cannot be moved provided that the necessary construction and/or upgrading actually takes place in an orderly manner. Gathering/distribution systems are not at issue here as they can be augmented quickly and present no geographic or regional problems. Trunk line movements will require some development. 1.11.1 Rail Movements Based on our analysis, and assuming the necessary upgrading, the railroads should be able to handle the tonnages forecast out of both the northern Great Plains and central Appalachia. Route capacities were discussed in Volume 2. Seventy million tons per year per line were found to be reasonable. However, the limiting conditions and track configurations must be observed. It is probable, furthermore, that more lines must be developed in the northern Great Plains area. By 1990, double tracking from Colstrip, Montana to eastern North Dakota and from Gillette to eastern Nebraska may be required. Additionally, more spurs into the coal fields will become necessary. Finally, a more direct link between the Colstrip and Gillette areas would prove helpful by establishing shorter rail distances and relieving the more western connecting loop. Once into the Nebraska/North Dakota regions, a multiplicity of routes are available. While we have tried to analyze only the shortest of these, somewhat longer routes can be utilized, at a cost, in the event of bottlenecks or disruptions. It is this flexibility, in addition to their common carrier, multi-cargo, and energy efficiency characteristics, that gives the railroads their special significance. There are no apparent rail network problems in the east. The major concern, cited in Volume 1.9, is the amount of deferred and delayed maintenance on critical lines. The speed with which this can be remedied may be seen in the upgrading efforts in the -northeast corridor. It may also be observed in the data reported for Conrail during its first nine 1-57 . months [26], This includes the installation of 4.6 million new ties, the laying of 72? miles of welded rail, the smoothing of rough spots on 8,247 miles of track, and the rehabilitation of about 11,800 cars. In the west, increased rail capacity must be associated with higher train speeds and the safety hazards these entail. Vie have suggested the necessity for rerouting around cities and towns as well as protected level crossings and overpasses. In the east rerouting is probably not possible. Given the existing mainline corridors, it appears more reasonable to lay more parallel track. It should also be possible to provide for coal storage and distribution facilities outside major consumption centers. For rail shipments from Appalachia westward, the rail deterioration situation may not be as bad as it is often pictured. It should be noted that the Chessie system was willing to incorporate segments of bankrupt lines in Ohio, Western Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Illinois. The condition of these lines is not apt to be as bad as those that were left for Conrail. The rail problem is one of finance and, sometimes, of diversion of rail revenues to non- transport use. In large part this seems to be due to the attitude that as costs rise prices must rise (except where freight competition is too strong) Costs rise due to inflation, but per unit costs are also rising because of freight diversion. The very increase in prices serves to decrease demand by diverting potential and existing traffic. The result is less revenue to cover the existing, relatively fixed, cost of service. The railroads appear to behave as if demand were a function of money GNP (i.e., with the inflation factor) rather than a function of price and relative price for the service. Only to the extent that they have monopoly power can they continue the increases. Even then demand will fall. Economic theory predicts that short of a natural monopoly, a high price level tends to attract competitors such as the coal slurry pipeline. The increase in rail tariffs since 1975 are as honey to a bee when viewed by potential competitors. This study, based on comparative costs, does not address this problem. It makes no difference to a consumer that rail costs are less 1-58 than pipeline costs if pipeline tariffs are expected to be lower than rail tariffs. 1.11.2 Coal Slurry Pipelines With the exception of the Black Mesa line, all slurry pipelines are only proposed or even less certain. Long distance lines will be in the 20-25MMTY range although they may be looped to add capacity. This is cheaper than laying the original line. Given an end to the legal complications, new or looped lines could be added as warranted by demand. The principal problems are in gathering/distribution, lack of throughput flexibility, and consumer risk. The latter two are general, the first is regional. The limits to pipeline flexibility are discussed in Volume 3. Because of the plant site facilities needed and the coal size delivered, consumers with plants designed to operate with this size coal are unequipped to handle substitute sizes in the event of mine strikes or pipeline problems. At a substantial cost, inventories or standby crushing facilities are a partial solution. It may be noted that a 60 day slurry reserve (25MMTY) implies a storage pond 25 acres by 200 feet deep. In the west, coal slurry pipelines face a water problem. This, far more than comparative costs or pace of development will serve to limit their usefulness. The development of several ETSI sized lines out of a given area will require a water draw-down that may seriously impact other regional developments. Given the size of western mines, four or five mines can easily supply the intake volumes required by a slurry line. Because of the volume, however, distribution is difficult. This is discussed in Volume 3. In the east, water is not yet a scarce resource. However, the gathering/distribution problem is reversed. Eastern mines tend to be considerably smaller than western mines [6]. It is probable that to satisfy the intake requirements of a coal slurry line, either a costly extensive gathering system must be employed, or the input end of the line must be extensively branched. 1-59 Because large sections of the northeast and north central rail systems are controlled by a quasi -government organization, it is possible that fewer legal problems will arise in the east. An optimum solution may be to use the existing rail corridors for coal slurry transport. This would minimize environmental impact and land alienation. It would also provide a relatively simple, low cost vehicle for pipeline construction. 1.11.3 Barge Transport The limits to barge transport have been described above and in Volume 4. Winter freezing, lock and dam capacity and channel depth and width are the limiting factors. Only the major rivers have been discussed in this report. The direction of coal traffic flow in the tributary rivers almost invariably flows to the rivers discussed in detail in this report. This includes the Kanawha (5.5MMTY), the Green (8MMTY), and the Monongahela (17MMTY) Rivers. The Allegheny River moves about 1MMTY in each direction, while the Illinois moves a maximum of 7MMTY northwards. These figures are maxima as portions remain in the tributary rather than contribute to long distance movements. Capacity increases over time depend upon major river projects. The estimates cited in this report include: Illinois Waterway $1.2 billion Missouri River $3-4 billion Upper Mississippi $3.1 billion Tombigbee $1.58 billion The sum of $8.9-9.9 billion equals 8-9 ETSI pipelines or 200-225 MMTY of coal per year. Pipelines are single use while the rivers carry many commodities. Therefore, the expenditure may be balanced against the additional carrying capacity of the railroads if used for the proposed subsidy. (It is assumed that the subsidy, if any, would be used for upgrading and rerouting.) Expenditures on the four waterways listed above need not produce major increases in tonnage capacity. The Illinois waterway is severely limited 1-60 in the Chicago area. It may not be possible for the budget listed above to greatly increase operations to this load center. Stopping short of Chicago would require the addition of large scale distributional facilities. The Missouri River is already bound by high costs due to reduced loads occasioned by channel depth. Water shortages have already been predicted. The Garrison Diversion Unit in North and South Dakota will only exacerbate the situation. Expenditures on the upper Mississippi will increase capacity significantly if they are completed to the Minneapolis-St . Paul area. However, the river is limited by winter freezing. Coal users must stockpile or seek alternate means of transport. Finally, the development of the Tombigbee would permit the use of 15 barge tows with double lockages. However, the upper Tennessee River from Chattanooga to Knoxville is limited by lock size to two 195* barges in a single lockage or seven 175' barges in a double lockage. To be fully utilized, these locks and dams would have to be enlarged at additional cost. Improvements may also have to be made on the lower Warrior and Mobile Rivers. Travel from the lower Ohio or Cumberland Rivers is unlikely to be along the new waterway because, while the distance is longer, the lower Mississippi has no locks and costs will be lower. 1-61 . . . : REFERENCES Rieber, M. , and S. L. Soo, Route Speci fic Cost Comparisons Unit Trains, C oal Slu rry Pipelines and Extra High V olt age Transmission, CAC Document No. 19 0, May 1976. Ballard, L. R., Coal Transportation C osts : U nit Train vs. Slu rry Pipeline, (1976), M.S. Thesis, " University "of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Rieber, M. , S. L. Soo, and J. Stukel, The C oal Future; Econo mic and Technological Analysis of I nit ia tives and Innovations to Secure Fuel Supply Independence, CAC Document No. 163, May 1975. Report to NSF (NTIS PB 247-6 78/AS) Ferguson, J. A., Unit Train Transp orta tion of Coal , (1975), M.S. Thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (NTIS PB 248-652/AS), Appendix E to Reference 3. Soo, S. L. , et al., C oal Transportation: Unit Trains Slurry and Pneumatic Pipelines, Appendix F to Reference 3. Rieber, M. , and S. L. Soo, The Feasibility of C oal Mine Cooperatives : A Prelim inary Report and Analysis , CAC Document No. 157P, April 1975, prepared for the Office of Coal, Federal Energy Administration, Contract P-05-75-6678-0. Federal Energy Administration, National Ene r gy Outlook , February 1976, (FEA-N-75/713) Rieber, M. , Low S ulfur Coal ; A Revi sion of Reserve and Su pply Estimates, CAC Document No. 88, November 1973, Appendix C of Reference 3. U. S. Department of the Interior, Sulfur Reduction Potential of the Coals of the United States, Bureau of Mines, RI 8118 (1976) U.S. Department of the Interior, The Reserve Base of Coal for Underground Mining in the Western United Sta tes , Bureau of Mines, IC 8678 (1975). U.S. Department of the Interior, The Reserve Base of Bituminous and Anthracite for Underground Mining in the Easter n U nited States, Burea u of Mines, IC 8655 (1974). 1-62 . U.S. Department of the Interior, The Reserve Base of U.S. 22ii§ by. £ul f in: Content 1. The Eas tern S tate s (Bureau of Mines IC 8680/1975) 2. The Western States (Bureau of Mines IC 8693/1975). Luttrell, N. W. , R. K. Gupla, E. M. Low, and G. C. Martin, "User's Manual - Train Operations Simulator - Mathematical Model," An International Government Industry Research Paper on Track-Train Dynamics, Chicago, Illinois, R-198, 1976. Corps of Engineers, Waterborne Commerce of the United States 1974 - Part 5 - National Summaries , Department of the Army, 1975. Corps of Engineers, Inland N avigation Sys tems Analysis Waterway Analysis , Department of the Army, 1976. U.S. Senate, 94th Congress, 2nd Session, Appropriations Hearings, Part I, Public Works for Water and Power Developmen t a nd Energy Approp r iations , FY 1977 . Soo, S. L. , and L. Ballard, "Cost of Transportation of Coal: Rail vs. Slurry Pipeline," ME-TR-57 2, UILU ENG 75-4003. University of Illinois, June, 1975. (NTIS PB 248-652/AS) Soo, S. L. , J. A. Ferguson and S. C. Pan, "Feasibility of Pneumatic Pipeline Transport of Coal," ASME Paper 75-1CT-22, 1975. Federal Energy Administration, Office of Coal, Economics of Coal Transloaders, Final Report, September 22, 1975, Contract No. P-05-75-7312-0. Leung, S. Y. T., A Study and C ost Evaluation of Pneuma tic Coal Transport Pipelines, M.S. Thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign, December 197 6. Go, March 1977, pp. 102,104,107. Ricker, R. , "Initial Analysis of Proposed Georgia-Pacific Private-Road Trucking Operations Between Woodland and McAdam," Georgia-Pacific Corporation, Mimeo, December 10, 1976. Wall S tree t J ournal , February 9, 197 7. Oil and Gas Journal, October 4, 1976, p. 74. 1-63 25 • Oil and Gas Journal , January 5, 1976, p. 120 26. Business Week, April 11, 1977. 1-64 | UHIV LINOl; UfiBANA, ILLINOIS ;ed Computation UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN URBANA, ILLINOIS 61801 CAC Document No. 223 COMPARATIVE COAL TRANSPORTATION COSTS: AN ECONOMIC AND ENGINEERING ANALYSIS UNIT TRAINS Volume 2 by Michael Rieber and Shao Lee Soo Center for Advanced Computation University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign August 1977 the The Library of 5 The person charging this material is re- sponsible for its return to the library from which it was withdrawn on or before the Latest Date stamped below. Theft, mutilation, and underlining of books are reasons for disciplinary action and may result in dismissal from the University. UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN £« ihif* : r u i & \i MAR 10 KW lb APR 7 R .APR 1 lit L161 — O-1096 U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Mines and the Federal Energy Administration Contract Report J0166163 "The views and conclusions contained in this docu- ment are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the offi- cial policies or recommendations of the Interior Department's Bureau of Mines, the Federal Energy Administration, or of the U.S. Government. NOTICE The United States Government does not endorse pro- ducts or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear herein only because they are con- sidered essential to the subject of this report. 1. Report No. LIOGRAPHIC DATA 3. Recipient's Accession No. ET .ind Subtitle 5. Report Date It . „ i m „ Comparative Coal Transportation Costs: An Econ- August, 1977 and Engineering Analysis of Truck, Belt, Rail, Barge, and aic 6. jal Slurry and Pneumatic Pipeline; Volume 2 - Unit Trains jihon's) 8. Performing Organization Rept. No inhael Rieber and Shao Lee Soo "CAC Doc. No. 223 rforming Organization Name and Address 10. Project/Task/Work Unit No. nter for Advanced Computation 46 26 17 372 uversity of Illinois at Urb ana- Champaign 11. Contract/Grant No. Illinois 61801 :bana, J0166163 ponsoring Organization Name and Address 13. Type of Report & Period Covered of the Assistant Director, Mining •fice Final Report ireau of Mines partment of the Interior 14. ^inpt-on. D.C. 2H24J lupplementary Notes abstracts )Sting of coal carrying unit trains is based on a facility and system description I the operation including necessary upgrading. Some development needs are reviewed, )sting analyses include varying tonnages, mileage, bottlenecks, and utilization. rack capacity is analyzed. (ey Words and Document Analysis. 17a. Descriptors Dal transportation ait trains lit train costs rack and roadbed requirements rack capacities Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms COSATI Field/Group ivailability Statement 19. Security Class (This 21. No. of Pages Report) UNCLASSIFIED 116 20. Security Class (This 22. Price Page UNCLASSIFIED 1 NTIS-35 IREV. 3-72) USCOMM-DC 14952-P72 FOREWARD This report was prepared by the Center for Ad- vanced Computation of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign under USBM Contract No. J0166163. The contract was initiated under the Office of University Relations. It was admin- istered under the technical direction of the Divi- sion of Interindustry Analysis with Mr. Ronald Balazik acting as the Technical Project Officer. Mr. Robert Carpenter was the contract specialist for the Bureau of Mines. This report is a summary of the work recently com- pleted as part of this contract during the period May 1976 to August 1977. This report was submit- ted by the authors on August 1977. This volume is a part of the eight volume report completed for this contract. The draft final re- port was submitted in May 1977. The principal authors, Michael Rieber and Shao Lee Soo, are, respectively, Research Professor, Center for Advanced Computation, the Graduate College; and Professor of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering; both at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Subject Inventions This is to certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, there were no Subject Inventions made or have resulted from the performance of this con- tract. August 1977 Michael Rieber Principal Investigator CAC Document No. 223 FINAL REPORT COMPARATIVE COAL TRANSPORTATION COSTS: AN ECONOMIC AND ENGINEERING ANALYSIS OF TRUCK, BELT, RAIL, BARGE AND COAL SLURRY AND PNEUMATIC PIPELINES VOLUME 2 UNIT TRAINS by Michael Rieber and Shao Lee Soo with P. King, Y. T. King, T. Leung, H. Wu and J. Wu prepared for Bureau of Mines, Department of the Interior and the Federal Energy Administration Contract No. J0166163 Center for Advanced Computation University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Project 46-26-17-372 August 1977 TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 2 Page 2. UNIT TRAINS 2-1 2 . 1 INTRODUCTION 2-1 2 . 2 DEVELOPMENT NEEDS 2-6 2.3 UNIT TRAIN COSTING 2-20 2.3.1 Bottlenecks, Bypasses, Single and Other Configurations 2-21 2.3.2 General Resource and Operating Parameters 2-25 2.3.3 Capital Costs 2-25 2.3.4 Labor and Supplies 2-26 2.3.5 Fuel 2-27 REFERENCES 2-54 COMPUTER APPENDIX (follows) 2-56 LIST OF TABLES VOLUME 2 Page 2.1 Parameters for Coal Transport System 2-4 2.2 Poor to Good Rail Support 2-13 2.3 Current Rail and Roadbed Specifications 2-14 2.4 Statement of Estimated Burlington-Northern Track Capacity for Routes 2-28 2.5 Model Cost Assumptions 2-29 2.6 Sample Detail of Labor Requirements 750 miles 2-30 2.7 Sample Detail of Supplies 2-31 2.8 Fuel Costs for Unit Trains (25MMTY) 2-32 2.9 Fuel Consumption 5000 Ton Train-Level Track 100 Miles 2-33 li LIST OF FIGURES VOLUME 2 Page 2.1 Horsepower Requirements by Speed and Grade 2-5 2.2 Rail Deflection, U Values 2-15 2.3 Rail Bending Stress, U Values 2-16 2.4 Rail Life 2-17 2.5 Bottom Dump Unloading System 2-18 2.6 Rotary Dump Unloading System 2-19 2.7 Costs ($/Ton) , 750 Miles, at Varying Tonnages, Train Speeds and Bottlenecks 2-34 2.8 Costs (jzf/Ton-Mile) , 750 Miles, at Varying Tonnages, Train Speeds and Bottlenecks 2-35 2.9 Cost Effect of Bottlenecks ($/Ton), 25 MMTY at Varying Distances 2-36 2.10 Cost Effect of Bottlenecks (^/Ton-Mile), 25 MMTY at Varying Distances 2-37 2.11 Cost Effect of a 10 Percent Bottleneck ($/Ton) at Varying Distances 2-38 2.12 Cost Effect of a 10 Percent Bottleneck (szf/Ton-Mile) at Varying Mileages and Tonnage 2-39 2.13 Bottleneck Effects on Cost/Ton-Mile at Varying Operating Conditions, 25MMTY, 250 Miles 2-40 2.14 Bottleneck Effects on Cost/Ton-Mile at Varying Operating Conditions, 25MMTY, 500 Miles 2-41 2.15 Bottleneck Effects on Cost/Ton-Mile at Varying Operating Conditions, 25MMTY, 750 Miles ". 2-42 2.16 Bottleneck Effects on Cost/Ton-Mile at Varying Operating Conditions, 25MMTY, 1000 Miles 2-43 in Page 2.17 Bottleneck Effects on Cost/Ton-Mile at Varying Operating Conditions, 25MMTY, 1250 Miles 2-44 2.18 Bottleneck Effects on Cost/Ton-Mile at Varying Operating conditions, 25MMTY, 1500 Miles 2-45 2.19 Bottleneck Effects on Cost $/Ton at Varying Operating Conditions, 25MMTY, 250 Miles 2-46 2.20 Bottleneck Effects on Cost $/Ton at Varying Operating Conditions, 25MMTY, 500 Miles 2-47 2.21 Bottleneck Effects on Cost $/Ton at Varying Operating Conditions, 25MMTY, 750 Miles 2-48 2.22 Bottleneck Effects on Cost $/Ton at Varying Operating Conditions, 25MMTY, 1000 Miles 2-49 2.23 Bottleneck Effects on Cost $/Ton at Varying Operating Conditions, 25MMTY, 1250 Miles 2-50 2.24 Bottleneck Effects on Cost $/Ton at Varying Operating Conditions, 25MMTY, 1500 Miles 2-51 2.25 Employment at Varying Mileages and Operating Conditions with Fixed Bottleneck 2-52 2.26 Employment at Varying Tonnages and Operating Conditions with Fixed Mileage 2-53 IV UNIT TRAINS 2.1 INTRODUCTION The increase in f.o.b. mine prices of coal from $5/ton to over $18/ton in five years [1] has increased the significance of transportation costs. Coals produced in the vicinity of the consumer bear a much lower transport cost than those produced in the west. This differential may be used for flue gas desulfurization , other cleaning, or further processing of local coals. To the extent that western coals are cheaper to produce and have a lower sulfur content, they offset the locational disadvantage. To the extent that they have a lower heating value, the disadvantage is exercabated. Given the other conditions, an accurate analysis of transport costs will help suggest the location of coal mining and the mode of transport. Both transport costs and tariffs have risen. Together they have increased delivered coal prices, altered the balance between the use of coal and other fuels, helped to alter the location of mining activity, and put pressure on consumers to examine the cost effectiveness of alternative transport modes. Transportation options for long distance coal movements include rail, barge, pipeline, and EHV transmission lines. A summary of system parameters is shown in Table 2.1. Barge transport, pneumatic and slurry pipelines are discussed elsewhere in this report. Together with EHV, they have been the subject of previous studies [2,3,4] . Slurry pipelines have been shown to be especially useful where rails are not available [2] but the technical problems of dewatering, handling, and utilization of lines [5] remain unresolved. They are discussed in Section 3. Barge transportation depends on the location of the mine and consumer with respect to the waterway system. One drawback of barge shipment is interruptions due to winter, and low or high water conditions. Mine mouth power generation followed by EHV transmission of over 500 miles has been shown to be the most expensive means of delivering an equivalent amount of energy to consumers [2]. This, however, does not imply that railroads are necessarily superior. Even with the advent of unit trains, the problems of the railroad industry have adversely affected its capability as a coal carrier. Widespread skepticism exists concerning the future adequacy of rail service and the relationship between tariffs and cost. 2-1 . A unit train is a single purpose, dedicated, integrated train, used for hauling a single commodity; coal in this study. It is composed of special purpose cars which haul continuously between a mine and the consumer [2, Section 1.2]. Advantages accrue to both the railroad and its customers. In fact, the advantages are sufficiently obvious for some customers (utilities) to own their own unit trains. For the coal burning utilities, they lower fuel expenditures and help to establish a stable fuel supply thereby reducing the level of inventories which must be held [6]. The mining company benefits from increased efficiency in movement resulting in lower transport costs, a higher netback at the mine and the ability to make stable long-term contracts. These trains may move over 800 miles/day instead of the 60 miles/day associated with general freight schedules [2, p. 7]. This improvement could be reflected in lower rates which might increase coal usage through lower total prices for coal at the point of consumption. For the railroads, unit trains provide better equipment and plant utilization than do other rail modes. The unit train started in 1957, when the Reserve Mining Company contracted for shipments of iron ore to Silver Bay, Minnesota, some 50 miles away [2, p. 3]. The incentive for their use in coal transportation evolved when competitive price pressures from alternative transport modes and competing fuels began to reduce rail coal traffic. These pressures included coal transport by slurry pipeline in Ohio and the reduction of crude and residual oil prices on the east coast. The reduced tariffs offered on unit trains closed the slurry line, which could not compete, and reopened or maintained some eastern coal markets to coal. From the mid-1960's to the present, unit train use has been growing as its capabilities have increased Unit trains have been treated in detail in several previous studies [2,7,8,9,10]. Among the important factors to note are: 1) they generate less revenue/ton shipped than general freight; 2) their cost is higher in stop and go situations than regular freight because unit trains carry more weight; 3) their costs are influenced by grades; 4) the principal benefit of the system comes from tne greater utilization of railway capacity. Changes in speed during movements, stopping and starting, and grades all decrease fuel consumption efficiency. As shown in Figure 2.1, a signficant amount of additional power is needed to maintain a constant speed when confronted by grades. If upgrading of rail lines includes grade reduction it diminishes locomotive requirements. Reducing the number of curves allows higher 2-2 train speeds. Smoothing train system operations, by computer simulation and control,, allows a more continuous, higher density, traffic flow. The basic costing procedures, facility descriptors and other parameters used in this study are based on recent work done at the University of Illinois [2,7,10, and 8 (Appendix F) ] . Therefore the emphasis in this study is on new material and on additional methodological and estimating procedures. 2-3 : : TABLE 2.1: Parameters for Coal Transport Systems Supply Point Transport Facility Receiving Point Pc imary Parameters Tons/Day Tons/Day and Distance Tons/Day Common to All: 1. Mine 1. Terrain 1. Utilization 2. Loader 2. Labor 2. Labor 3. Storage 3. Power and Fuel 4. Labor Railroad (Speed) 5. Loading Facility 4. Rails 3. Unloading Facility 6. Supplies 5. Locomotives 4. Storage 6. Cars 5. Pulverizing in 7. Stations Power Plants Slurry Pipeline : (Flow Velocity) Slurry Preparation 4, Pipeline 3. Stirred Storage Mills Pumping Stations 4. Separation Facility Storage Tanks Suppl ies to Centrifuge Agitators Coal and Water , 6. Pumping Water Disposal 7. Water Supply 8. Supplies EHV Transmission ; 5. Voltage Step-up Transmission 3. Voltage Condition- 6. Rectification Lines and Towers ing and Distribution Barge 5. Loading Facility 4. Barges 3. Unloading Facility 6. Supplies 5. Docking Stations 4. Storage 5. Pulverizing Pneumatic 5. Crusher 4. Pipeline Receiver Bins 6. Injection Bins 5. Pumpinq Stations 7. Comoressors 6. Supplies 8. Supplies 2-4 FIGURE 2.1: Horsepower Requirements by Speed and Grade LOCOMOTIVE H.P./G-ROSS TON Source: [14] 2-5 . 1.2 DEVELOPMENT NEEDS Given forecast levels of future coal demand and mining location, necessary railroad equipment expansion by 1985 is anticipated to be as high as 8 f 000 locomotives and 150,000 hopper cars [11]. The emphasis is on more powerful locomotives and larger hopper cars. However, increasing rail capacity involves a wide variety of problems. Cars cannot simply be scaled up by making everything larger. Points of possible failure, such as center plates and bolsters must be redesigned [11, p. 2]. The rails must be upgraded to a level at which they can endure the anticipated heavier weight as well as the effects of train movement harmonics. The dependence of unit train costing and system capacity on both the adequacy of rolling stock and upgrading of existing lines can hardly be over emphasized. Inadequate rolling stock limits the number of trains or units available; raising prices and limiting throughput in the face of rising demand. Inadequate track and roadbed, by reducing train speed, increases costs even if demand does not increase. It will be shown that as train speeds decrease or bottlenecks increase, costs rise sharply. To remain competitive; to carry the anticipated growth in coal and other commodities, the railroads must upgrade their systems. If commodity transport revenues are diverted to other non-transport corporate uses, rehabilitation and increased capacity are less likely. In this study it is explicitly assumed that the upgrading has, or will, take place. If it does not, rail costs and tariffs for coal movements may be considerably higher than those postulated here The ability of the railroads to obtain rolling stock in an orderly manner, finaicial considerations aside, does not appear to be a problem. It has been discussed in some detail in reference [2] . The current situation has not changed. To date there are excess cars and excess car construction capacity. Both track upgrading and additional rolling stock has put pressure on the steel industry. This too was discussed in reference [2]. Currently the capacity exists. There is sufficient excess capacity in the U.S., Europe and Japan to cause increased pressures for raising import tariffs and establishing quotas. In sum, if there are steel shortages, it is not due to capacity limits, but to domestic prices, production policies and import-export agreements. Some problems may arise because of the fewness of suppliers. Only five U.S. mills make rails. Few companies make cars 2-6 . or locomotives. In the short run, this is a competitive problem, it is not a capacity problem. Long run, with the possible addition of more companies and/or capacity as prices rise, it may not even be a competitive problem. Given current financial problems, as expressed by the railroads, it has been suggested that the Army Corps of Engineers could be a central organization for the rebuilding and extension of the rail system [23]. They have already been involved with the relocation of rail lines in connection with dams and waterway projects. This would be an extension of their role in transportation as evidenced in barge transport and may be viewed as a supplement or alternative to the building of locks and dams A singular area for public action is rerouting lines around cities and towns. Clearly if train speeds must be 30-60 mph and train spacing one hour or less, trains cannot roll through level crossings in populated areas. The bypasses on the Interstate highway system are thoughtful examples of this. An alternative is the cordoned corridors for rail traffic that exist in the east. Both alternatives are expensive. Nevertheless, if the rails are to carry the anticipated increased coal traffic and other freight, not only must an accommodation be made with the populated areas through which they pass, but it is likely that all county road crossings will have to be protected by remote control gates and all secondary (and higher classification) roads will have to be supplied with overpasses. To the railroads the payoff for the capital investment is train speed, reduced operating costs and increased capacity which benefits all traffic. If the railroads cannot or will not provide the capital, if rail transport is still considered desirable or necessary, rerouting must be done publicly. Because unit trains are in integrated dedicated service, the back haul is empty. Most of tiipse trains deliver to or near cities. If it becomes feasible to use these trains for the transport of treated wastes and sewer sludge, a number of advantages may accrue. With landfill availability decreasing and ocean dumping problems increasing, the cities would have an outlet for their wastes. The wastes could be used as part of a mine reclamation project, providing organic matter and reducing subsidence. Given the current costs of waste disposal, the railroads would obtain more than the marginal costs of the back haul. The costs to the railroad would include those associated with the extra line required to collect and dispose of the load, some additional track and roadbed, the extra fuel used on a loaded back haul, and car cleaning costs. Because of the moisture content, it is likely that 2-7 . . , only flat bottom gondola cars could be used. There may be some additional environmental costs. More hypothetically the alternative use, or opportunity cost, of sewer sludge is the production of gas while solid waste, after the reclamation of the recyclable portion, could be used under boilers for electric generation. The shipment of solid waste for disposal in a land reclamation project would require the recovery of the recycleable portion in any event An environmental concern with respect to coal transport is the problem of dusting occasioned by carrying some varieties of coal. Sealing the tops of coal cars is an obvious solution. This can be accomplished either by chemical coating or roofing the car [11]. Roofing, however, restricts the car to bottom discharge and neither alternative is costless. The severity of the problem can only be estimated by an analysis of the specific coals carried. If the condition of rail and roadbed must be upgraded in order to carry the anticipated loads and traffic density, it is useful to have some indication of the levels required. To accommodate 100 ton cars, track should have a U value of 3,000 with 90 lb rail, or a U value of 2,000 for 115 lb rail, where U is the modulus of elasticity of rail support [12, p. 14]. For 132 lb track, a U value of 3000-4000 may be recommended for high density traffic [Figures 2.2 and 2.3] U is not related to rail stiffness or size but, rather, to the stiffness of the track structure below the rail. It is defined as the load per inch of rail necessary to depress the rail one inch. Table 2.2 shows conditions of poor to good rail support. Figure 2.4 gives a generalized indication of the effect of car size on rail life based on a wide variety of data. Track can be most economically upgraded by concentrating on drainage, ballast, and ties, rather than by merely laying heavier rail sections. More efficient use of component parts results in a higher overall system life. A small section of poor track or roadbed adversely affects the entire operation. As a corollary, a relatively small maintenance expenditure may result in large savings in operation, maintenance and capital costs needed for additional rolling stock. The Santa Fe railroad has discovered that reducing empty train speed from 70 mph to 55 mph significantly decreased rail wear indicating that instability is an important wear factor [13]. If new rails are installed, an average life of 9 years for 35 million gross tons per year (MMGTY) and 4 years for 70MMGTY is indicated. New ties should last 25-30 years for 35MMGTY and 15-20 years for 70MMGTY [14] 2-8 Developments in rail transportation in recent years have included: continuous welded rail (CWR) , harder rail and wheel material, concrete ties and improved dump systems. Unusual harmonics from unit trains cause rapid deterioration of jointed rail. Angle iron fracture and loose or lost bolts are the main problems [16] . Continuous welded rail eliminates them, resulting in an increased service life for track and rolling stock and reduced maintenance costs. However, installation costs are higher. Prevailing practice is to fabricate CWR at a welding plant using an electric flash butt welding process to join 39 foot rails into 1440 foot lengths [17] . This requires a large material handling capability. One solution to this problem, particularly for smaller roads, is in-track butt welding. The Holland Company has successfully used this process on various North American railroads. In-track welding reduces the capital investment. The welding itself is fast; about 3 minutes to complete a weld on 136 lb rail. Additionally, it is not necessary to ship and relay new track in long sections. Service is disrupted less, serviceable track is retained and the timing of upgrading is more flexible. Further developments include: 1) complementary " impulse fusion" which reduces welding time and rail consumption by approximately one-third each, and 2) built-in shear for the removal of the upset which reduces weld finishing work and time [17pp. 49-53]. With heavier wheel loading and increased traffic, the old standard 0.80 percent carbon steel rail is inadequate for tight curves and high density sections of tangent (straight) track. Unit train traffic increases shelling which produces subsurface fractures and corrugated effects. Maintenance involves continuous grinding which wears the head. Heavier rails do not solve this problem because the extra weight goes into the footer and not the head [16]. Tight curves (>8°) result in a ripple effect on the rail [14]. Metallurgical research by the industry's suppliers is now keyed to the areas of rails, wheels, heavy castings, and center plate. Two of the three rail steel producers in the U.S., U.S. Steel and Bethlehem Steel, are both using heat treatment to strengthen their product while the third, CF&I, is alloying its steel. An immediate effect of these stronger materials has been higher prices. However, as all rail costs have increased, the additional cost charged for the harder steels may be offset by longer life and reduced maintenance. As rail steels become harder, so must wheel material; wrought steel is now competing with castings in this area [18, pp. 39-42]. Concrete ties are possible substitutes for wooden ones where light traffic density is involved. Their use is currently very limited. Test results have been 2-9 inconclusive. The use of 125 ton capacity cars, instead of 100 ton cars, resulted in a two-parameter development. The increased load became a variable in addition to the test variable of altering the material from wood to concrete. The effect of the extra car weight on the new material should be correlated. The compatibility of concrete ties with conventional ballast was not studied. Wooden ties yield to rock ballast due to resiliency, concrete ties do not. The major problem in the use of concrete ties is their hardness with respect to the ballast: if harder than the ballast, the ballast will be pulverized and subject to washout. Sufficient drainage then becomes a problem. If the concrete ties are softer than the ballast, the opposite occurs: the ties will be chipped away. The result is loss of rail support. In a suggested new approach to the problem, concrete ties would not be used as wooden ties as they do not have the same inherent characteristics. Instead, they would be integrated to better utilize their properties. A possible solution is a continuous concrete trackbed. The building of such a support is similar to the construction of a highway or a long narrow airstrip. An estimated cost of a concrete slab roadbed .vould be about $2-3 million/mile. This includes ties, rails, and other hardware. Compared to a conventional new roadbed, the material costs are proportionally more than labor costs. The use of concrete may be ecologically desirable. One million trees for each 1000 miles of double track upgrading would be saved if concrete replaced wooden ties [2, p. 46]. Material handling costs would also be reduced as the manufacture of concrete is dispersed nationally, as is the rail system; forest culture is not. Some current railroad specifications are shown in Table 2.3. According to the railroads surveyed, differences in specifications are not due to the weight (except for rail shelling) of individual trains but, rather, to the volume and density of traffic over a given period of time. The break between high and low density is usually given as 20MMTY. Specific differences can be found in the table. Some more general comments may be in order. These may suggest both areas of structural research and differential costing of different types of movements. For rails, all freight produces a ripple effect on track if curves are greater than 6°. Track run or creep due to temperature may be avoided by continuous anchoring but creep will exist, even with good anchoring due to braking of heavy trains at particular points. To avoid track harmonics, a result of the characteristics of unit trains more than of merely heavy mixed freight, welded rail rather than jointed rail may be required. 2-10 . , Ballast for light density routes may be pit-run, slag or limestone. It is relatively thin. E'or high density routes, the subgrade should support about 3500 lbs/sq.ft. Ballast specifications run from thick crushed rock or trap rock through granite. Slag is considered too soft and limestone too subject to erosion and wear. Ballast depth ranges from 12 inch subballast plus 8-12 inch top ballast to a 24 inch minimum. Because of compression, ties for high density routes have a shorter life than those on lightly travelleo lines. The latter last 40 years, the former 30 or less. The tie dimension of the former is about 1.5 times that on the latter Because other freight and passenger service may use any given rail line, all upgrading costs should not be assessed against the unit train. If we assume labor costs are roughly proportional to material costs, that rail for high density lies is 1.2 times that for low density lines, that ties for high density lines are 1.5 times those for low density lines and that twice as much ballast, at double the cost due to quality, is needed for high density lines, an approach can be made toward separating unit train costs. All rail freight contributes to the requirements for low density transport. This is spread over the entire gross tonnage and includes unit trains. The remainder necessary to maintain high density, heavy train usage accrues to the unit train alone. Additional sidings or double tracking, if needed, also accrue to the unit train. This still biases the costs against the unit train, but it is less than the bias in our numbers which have ascribed all upgrading and rebuilding costs to the unit train. Two types of cars are used for coal: open hopper and flat bottom gondola cars. The latter must be rotary dumped; hopper cars can be either rotary dumped or bottom dumped. However, standard coal hopper cars posess poor unloading characteristics which are inherent in their design. Therefore, in unit coal train service, the conventional hopper car has given way to self-clearing, quick discharge cars and rotary dump cars that can be automatically or semi-automatically emptied in much less time [11, p. 4]. At the Georgia Power Company's Bowen Plant, the automated rapid discharge system can unload a 70-car 100-ton per car capacity train in thirty minutes [15, p. 111-41] . This corresponds to about 26 seconds per car . Transport efficiency has increased with the development of faster loading and unloading techniques. Train loading is accomplished by the use of an overhead bin 2-11 (tipple) with a conveyor feed from an open storage area or crushing plant. The lead locomotive contains a pacesetting device which maintains a constant speed of approximately 0.5 mph during loading. About one car is loaded every two minutes or 4000 tons/hour. A 100 car train is loaded in less than four hours [15, p. 11-47] . Recent installations for bottom dump systems use a self-clearing design of coal car equipped with a door activating system that permits unloading while the train is in motion. Cars empty into either under track hoppers or the space under a trestle. The latter can double as a live storage area, thus reducing coal handling requirements [11, p. 6]. Figure 2.5 shows such a system. Greater efficiency is obtained if the area holds a full train load. The rotary dump system requires solid bottom gondola or hopper cars equipped with rotary couplings, which permit dumping without disconnection. At the unloading site, the train is pulled through a dumper house, one car-length at a time. Once inside, the car is locked into position and turned upside down over a hopper. Conveyor belts transport the coal to stockpiles at a rate of about 3500 tons/hour. Unloading a 100-car train takes four hours. A rotary dump facility is shown in Figure 2.6. This method is more widely used than the rapid discharge one because bottom discharge cars are too heavy to be suitable for long distance hauling. Development of lighter rapid discharge cars is expected [15, p. 1-35]. 2-12 TABLE 2.2: Poor to Good Rail Support 2 2 Case 1. u=1000 lb. /in. Case 2. U=1000 lb./m. Poorly drained, soft subgrade. Average subqrade, some drainage. 6" thin ballast section 6" thin ballast section of relatively unsound of fair soundness, material fouled reasonably free of mud: with mud. Poor tie condition. Fair tie condition. 2 Cas e 3. U=3000 lb. /in. Case 4. u=4000 lb. /in. Average subgrade, some drainage. Average subgrade, some drainage, 6" thin ballast section 12" ballast section of sound, crushed stone, of sound, crushed stone, free of mud. free of mua. Good tie condition. Good tie condition. 2 Case 5. U=5000 lb. /in. Good subgrade compact, well drained. 18" thick ballast section of clean, sand, crushed stone. Good tie condition. Source: [12] 2-13 . : CD 0) UD rH co 4J •o 01 X 4-i CD CD 0) CO o ^-t •rH J-> U Q) >. CO O 1 X> \C CD 4J CD u o rH 3 3 O 3 rH !-> \ C HH 01 0) C 3 rH r-i • CD O X O -=r T3 01 CD Q. iu 01 -rH O r-i -^ cd a x> to w CO C r—i u (D CT U U 4J 4J U U 0) •h ai CD - tn ID 10 j* cn u 4J CN CO : O 4-> CN -H -H CD MUD H C rH .sc ^-t MH O 1 1 CO CO o CD c O O t3 JQ X! 4-1 : U Q, 4-> 3 O £ CT> O 4-> CD CO D CO co D' O CO CT' u 3 C rH u -C m CO CD -M CO E < to O CN : CO Ul rH CO T5 rH 4-1 Qj -rH CD 4J CN c <* D D 4-> .-I 3 U U rH to CO C CO i-j U 1 0> \ U -H X CN CCH CO O CO U H o XI CO ^o a CI U Pj CD rH XI XI 4J E J CD C4H rH si ct 4-1 v u XI CT CD x> O rH •rH 4J c 01 o r a u S 3 O CO c co ^ 4-1 0) CD rH CO -C a: 1 u O o •rH CN 4-1 4-1 4-> s 3 a m x c o T 4J co rH 0) -r4 C H CO 1^- M — X 3 X •H vO ^j 2tH tH o2 CN n• t V • CN >< c 4J 4-> 3 •H W U —1 to CO 0) i C r-{ 4-1 > P-| CD rH H CO r\ a CO Oh i-i t~l 0Q : CXI 3 O hJ X! U rH O 'O cn X! "CT CD rH CD 4J rH -o c I I H LTl rH -rH in CO rH QJ O « •H 3 -r-i 2-14 ,URE 2.2: Rail Deflection, U Values * J .J \0* ( \ 0> l W *9 ?>0° ' .*i^ -,3°' rJ NOMINAL CAR S/Zf, TO/VS CAPACITY Source: [12] 2-15 . ;GURE 2.3: Rail Bending Stress, U Values DEK/VAT/&K OF A/.IOWA3LF jBE/VjD/A/G- SFF^Ss: €0, 000 /=>s/* - y/t:/: Foy/vy o/r ^r^£-/. — 7; OOO P.?/. = FFA/PZr/?ATCf/i£ ^7/?£XS ~ 60 SVo FO/t A.OAZ> y/\/?/A 7-/CSS ~/S cya FO.3. £.A T/T/?AA ££A/£>/A/G- o —/S7o FaK UA/£A^MC££> o o FOH ABA/O/^/^jAl. ^ S SO 3/, jToo s*S/. 40 •?.? St?, \ 30 -S0 7o FOR JO /NT /NSTAB- /LITY VSHFLN /O CL-2QOO of? Less a~?,20o ~Fs7. SO S3 /OO /2S~ /VOM//VAL CAtf S/ZE, TO/VS C4PY. ource : [12 ] 2-16 FIGURE 2.4: Rail Life 0) o o o o o o is SO S3 /OO /25~ CAR S/2£, TONS CAPACITY (3C " IA/H*?££$} Source [12] 2-17 FIGURE 2.5: Bottom Dump Unloading System Source: [11] 2-18 FIGURE 2.6: Rotary Dump Unloading System Stockpile 180° con- As train arrives at unloading area, . . . rotates to empty allows the car locked in the dumping tents. Rotary coupler cars to remain coupled as a unit. cradle . . . Source: [15] 2-19 2.3 UNIT TRAIN COSTING A number of studies have been made of projected rail transportation needs which may be compared with the present report [2,7,9,10,20]. A U.S. Department of Transportation study of coal movement in the 1980 's [15] is route specific. However, it lacks a technology predictor. Its advantage is that by using 1976 technology its predictions for 1980 are conservative, but the suggested task of railroad upgrading should put train speed to at least 30 mph loaded. Our cost estimation is based on a generalization of operating conditions. The details and costs for specific routes are readily integrated into the working system. For a specific route, train operation simulation is readily available [ 21] . All cost estimations in this section assume the following values unless otherwise indicated: 1) a 750 mile route 85 percent upgraded; 2) 25MMTY coal traffic; 3) a 10 percent bottleneck restriction; 4) 100 percent capacity; 5) 15 percent new track to avoid populated areas; 6) 30-60 mph operation. Utilization of equipment must be considered as a stable, 100 percent capacity system, does not exist. Under-utilization results in higher unit costs because unused equipment is assumed to be leased at a loss and the labor force is partially redundant. Operating at a reduced capacity of 20, 40, or 60 percent includes leasina out of equipment. Conservatively, this is estimated to recover one-half of the depreciating capital cost, the full cost of maintenance, and lay offs of 15, 30 and 45 percent of the labor force, respectively. Over-utilization, to about 120 percent, requires the use of reserves or the leasing of equipment at a premium. Reserve locomotives and cars can be used as active equipment for only a short time, subsequently, more equipment must be leased or bought to serve as reserves. There is no need to increase the labor force. Instead, operations are assumed to increase from 274 days per year to a maximum of 328 days. At about 120 percent capacity, unit costs reach a minimum. Beyond this point, unit costs increase. The main causes of the increase are the leasing of equipment at an assumed level of twice own cost and the need to hire new labor. 2-20 . 2.3.1 B ottlenecks , Bypasses , Single and Other Track Config urat ion s Bottlenecks occur because of poor track and difficult terrain. It is assumed that along such sections, a unit train travels at about 10 mph. The length of time required for a one way trip increases resulting in higher total labor costs. As bottlenecks increase, the advantage of faster running trains decreases. Bottlenecks in the west are principally a problem at high density linkage points and for westward shipments where mountain terrain is encountered. The former may be eliminated temporarily by rerouting or permanently by new track designed to go around metropolitan areas and/or duplicate river or other crossings. Reducing high grades (up to 2.2°) and sharp curves (up to 8 / a 716 foot radius) produces the major costs of upgrading in the west [22, p. 49]. In the east, existing track condition is a major problem in a number of areas. Given population densities and the number of contiguous built up areas, the ability to by-pass with new track is more limited. Transport corridors are a more practical alternative. When the cost of upgrading and right of way is integrated in our model, no alteration is used for east and west coast. In both the 30-60 mph and the 50-60 mph operation studied, bottlenecks are expressed as a percentage of round trip distance travelled at 10 mph In the following set of figures, Figures 2.7 through 2.10 indicate the effect of bottlenecks, or their absence, on our base case for unit train costing. Figures 2.11 and 2.12 extend the results to include a wide range of tonnages given a limited bottleneck assumption. Figures 2.13 through 2.24 show the effects of changes in capacity operation at varying distances on costs for various train speeds and bottlenecks. It will be noted in the figures that the costs of a 30-60 mph operation are almost uniformly below those of the corresponding 50-60 mph operation. This result follows from the balance of the costing elements described below. Briefly, while the faster movement for a given tonnage, etc., uses fewer trains and less labor, the slower movement uses fewer locomotives and less fuel. Alternative 2-21 . costing inputs may produce different relative results. The reduced speed impacts on the track configuration and line capacity discussion which follows For an average 750 mile route and a throughput of 25 MMTY, a 10 percent bottleneck increases unit costs by $0.36 per ton (0.05 cents per ton-mile) while a 20 percent bottleneck increases unit costs by $0.81 per ton (0.11 cents per ton-mile) for a 30-60 mph operation. The increases in unit cost are higher where 50-60 mph operations are postulated. Line capacity is dependent on the type of track and signaling system. Various track configurations include, single track, single track with sidings, alternating overlapped single and double tracks, and double tracks [15, p. 2-30]. Sidings on a single track system provide for traffic in opposite directions and passing by faster trains. Closer sidings allow a greater variety of traffic speeds. Overlapping sidings have almost the flexibility of double track. Table 2.4, from Desai and Anderson [15, p. 2-32], is based on six assumptions: 1) train speed limits are fifty miles per hour (we extend this to 60 mph for return trains) ; 2) tracks are on average rolling terrain (any steep grades are treated as bottlenecks); 3) no priorities among trains are permitted; 4) no overtaking among trains going in the same direction is permitted; 5) six hours per day are reserved for maintenance this average is allowed for in only 274 days/yr operation of right of way and other contingencies; and 6) the allowable delay for trains is fifty minutes per hundred miles which is equivalent to a 30 percent bottleneck. The two signalling systems used are "timetable and train order" and centralized traffic control. The former is dependent on individual train speed. These speeds govern the flow of traffic. The latter involves speed regulation to increase traffic efficiency. Signals indicate to the engineer whether he is passing each point at the correct time. Our model assumption of 60 mph maximum return should not affect the data in Table 2.4. In Table 2.4, operating speeds are given in pairs. The first number of each pair is the operating speed of the loaded train: 30 or 50 mph. The limits in operating speeds, the second of the paired numbers, are the minimum average speed of the 2-22 . empty train necessary to clear the single track while non-stop loaded trains proceed in the opposite direction. These loaded trains are at a spacing, in terms of distance, greater than or equal to the sum of the miles of siding (L2) on a double track plus miles of single track (LI) . In an idealized route of constant LI + L2, the train spacing in terms of number (n) of section length (LI + L2) combinations between loaded trains (LI + L2)n = (speed in mph) times (train spacing in hours) are: (1) When n For the track configurations in Table 2.4, at train spacing of one hour or mor°, the configurations in the first three columns readily permit averages of 30-60 and 50-60 mph operations. In spite of 10 miles double tracking the fourth column will not allow a non-stop return train when the 30 mph loaded trains operate with less than one hour spacing. The 10 mile double, 10 mile single tracking allows non-stop two way operation at above 30 mph. The last column of Table 2.4, average coal trains per day, gives the corresponding inter train spacing down to 11.5 minutes at 125 trains/day (360MMTY) . Coal train spacing below one hour (70MMTY) might be considered academic: first, track must be made available for other types of traffic; second, coal is a relatively low revenue/ton commodity; and third, safety margins may be cut too thin. The use of single track-siding combinations might appear feasible down to 40 minute train spacing, but the greatly increased fuel consumption even with empty trains should be considered. Single track rail capacity is dependent upon the number and spacing of sidings. With more sidings, there is less delay in passing approaching trains. With a centralized traffic system, capacity for sidings 5-7 miles apart is greater than 35 trains/day without delay and for sidings 10-13 miles 2-23 . apart is greater than 25 trains/day [15 , Appendix B] In the former case, handling 70MMTY (24 trains/day) is no problem, extra capacity is available. The latter could also accommodate 70MMTY. Double track capacity is theoretically limited only by the trains' maximum braking distance and signalling spacing. Double track railroads are typically broken into signal blocks. Their presence prevents other trains from entering the block [7, p. 20]. A conservative estimation of safe train spacing is 3.0 miles. This allows time for the driver to react as well as the actual braking distance. For a 30-60 mph operation, the theoretical capacity of double track is about 400 trains covering a 750 mile line at four minute spacing. This capacity is limited by the branch lines. With trains of different origins using the line, this capacity is theoretically reached at the last branch. Branching enables the shipping of other commodities. If only unit train movement is assumed, a capacity of about 520MMTY can be theoretically reached. This is not practical due to: 1) mine capacity, 2) number of trains needed for 30 mph, (over 400 trains are needed) , 3) loading time capacity, 4) track and roadbed life (520MMTY yields 705MMGTY or a rail life of less than 1 year). Double track can handle coal shipments of 70MMTY (~24 trains per day) . The DOT estimates that a 10 mile double, 10 mile single track configuration has a 70 train/day capacity (~190MMTY) [15], therefore other commodity freight can share these lines with the unit trains. A very conservative usage ratio would be 1:1. If this were assumed, unit train track upgrading costs might be shared in this proportion. In a given corridor, more trackage can always be added. The Rhine gorge reportedly accommodates 650 trains per day. Freight is a major user. Head room between trains can also be cut as it is in Japan. The U.S. government proposal for the Boston to Washington corridor envisions fast passenger trains, one every fifteen minutes, by 1990. Unfortunately, the plan also suggests rerouting the slower freight trains. European passenger train routes on an integrated basis are being planned for average speeds of 114-162 mph, with top speeds of 180 mph. These routes would also accommodate freight. The basis for the European rail expansion is the projected fuel shortage and the greater fuel 2-24 efficiency of railroads. 2.3.2 General Resource and Operating Parameters Basic cost and resource items for specific routes and operating parameters as listed in our earlier work [2, pp. 37-38] appear in Table 2.5. The following assumptions are taken from that study. It can be seen from Figures 2.7 through 2.10 (above) that operating at higher speeds has no cost advantage if there are no bottlenecks but has a cost disadvantage over long distances wita major bottlenecks. A large portion of the cost of a 50-60 mph operation is due to locomotives. For unit trains, high horsepower locomotives are preferred. About 10,000 hp may be ideal. Two such engines would be required for a 30-60 mph operation and four for 50-60 mph. Additional power without major weight increases is an area where technology could contribute significantly to cost and resource efficiency. Our model uses 5-3500 hp locomotives to haul 10,500 tons at 30-60 mph and 12-3500 hp locomotives to haul at 50-60 mph. Unit horsepower for locomotives in coal service vary from 1800 hp to 3600 hp. However, 2000-3000 hp locomotives are still commonly used although the trend is toward 3000 hp. Coal trains normally require high tractive effort rather than simply horsepower. It is expected that the future trend will be toward increases in adhesion rather than simply more horsepower [15, p. 1-35]. 2.3.3 Capital Costs The cost data presented in this section is an update of that found in [2]. A basic assumption in the computer model is that each route is 85 percent upgraded to justify the speed assumptions and includes 15 percent new track. This requires 300 feet of new right of way, to bypass cities and straighten curves, at an average cost of $1 ,070/mile. Higher costs occur in populated areas, especially in the midwest and east. The new track is assumed necessary to bypass cities and towns, construct crossings and bridges and straighten 2-25 . . winding routes. we assume branching distribution lines are equivalent to 100 miles of upgraded railroad Upgrading includes replacement, over ? three year period, with 132 lb. /yd. track and 6400 ties/mile. Railroad shipments oi other commodities also benetit from improvements but in this analysis this is neglected. Hence, unit train costs expressed here are conservative (high) . Replacement of ties along a 750 mile double tracked route assumes 35 million feet of No. 5 wooden ties (9" x 1" x 8.5" ) Locomotives are assumed to be 3,500 hp diesel electric costing $500,000 each. Hooper cars are 100 ton capacity estimated at $30,000 each. The number of trains is based on 274 operating days per year with a 5 percent reserve. The average life of the hopper cars is estimated to be 15 years with minimal maintenance and 20 years with adequate maintenance. New cars must be purchased during the 30 year life of the project. Locomotives are assumed to last the entire 30 years. Straight line depreciation is taken over these anticipated life times. Additionally, roadbed, right of way, and structure depreciation is taken over 30 years. Annual fixed charges are based on 60 percent debt and 40 percent equity, and assumes a 9 percent interest rate return to debt and 15 percent on equity. During construction, compensation by interest on uncommitted capital is assumed. 2.3.4 Labor and Supplies Labor, maintenance and supplies must be estimated over a period of years in order to ascertain their importance. Tables 2.7 and 2.8 show these costs. These agree closely with SRI and Burlington Northern trends [2, p. 32]. They are included in the bases for computing specific route costs. Compared to general freight, labor needs on unit trains are small. Reducations occur in the area of railroad yards, switching, accounting, and administration. With alternative work rules, faster trains could create savings in crew costs [2, p. 55]. 2-26 Employment generated by unit train operations is illustrated in Figures 2.25 and 2.26. These do not include employment generated from either upgrading or employment in related industries. These factors wuld tend to increase the figures shown by up to 60 percent for a zero bottleneck situation and short (<800 miles) distances. 2.3.5 Fuel Locomotive diesel fuel may be considered equivalent to No. 2 fuel oil, although it may be somewhat heavier. For comparison, No. 2 fuel oil contains 5.90 MMBtu/bbl, distillate fuel oil 5.9 MMBtu/bbl, railroad diesel 6.06 MMBtu/bbl, and railroad-automotive from 5.6 to 6.4 MMBtu/bbl. The heavier the grade, the more Btu's per barrel, and the fewer the barrels needed [2, p. 32]. Locomotive fuel costs are assumed to be $0.32/gal. For 25MMTY hauled over an average grade of 1°, this amounts to 2.29 gal/MGTM (thousand gross ton miles) for a 30-60 mph operation and 2.54 gal/MGTM for a 50-60 mph operation. Using Figure 2.1 and assuming a locomotive efficiency of 0.25, the results are presented in Table 2.8. This may be compared with company data presented in Table 2.9. 2-27 t I 1 • (L- >. cr „ r~ ,_, CXi co ro c H rH • in TO u •H IT) 1 LO 1 in . c •O i m ii. i_) —H •H r-l CN ro 3 u T CN co T 1 0.' TO ro • • a TO u C 1 1 1 • 1 ^> H > U 0J £ 3 CN SI .-1 si a 31 • ~- a lr> < U ^-< Q. CO rH — fN ^ n -^ ^C ~— X CO j cj < H z U X X X cj i— CO -p>r< 0> •H •H c 9 .Q -H fO ro ro & 4-> U U 1 0) 4-> co o> CO .-I (I (|)'rl HI g •H rH E — •H X! CT m m E 3 S C in in •"! —I O l l I Q TD CO u s n m ^ CO u CT ro cn c i u \ •H to W 4-1 rH •a OJ CO CO S 4-> cu cr a> rH C rH u 3> rH •H H -H (3 rH 'a' z E O E D, I I o H ro M lT> CO r- ro in P-l < ce 3 01 $ u rH tH •H A E to to I 2 CT 0) 4J o CN C rH l-l CN -3- u \ H H CO a- in rH I D E 0- I :>s •H ro s> s> CJ CN co r- ro in < A £h rH •H CO E CO CT C CT\ •H CO O * c co cu CO 4-) T3 CJ rH U H rH rH Ai -H -^ TO 01 2-23 TABLE 2.5: Model Cost Assumptions Gathering Time at Mines $ 663,400/MMTY (125 ton trucks) Right or Way $ 38,900/mile New Road $2,000,000/mile Upgrad ing $ 288,900/mile Locomotive Cost $ 500,000/locomotive Car Cost $ 30,000/car Loading & Maintenance 15% of locomotive & car cost Facil ities Average Rate Base 50% total capital costs Debt Retirement 12.4% average rate base Federal Tax 28% debt retirement Depreciation 1/30 total caDital costs + 1/90 locomotive and car costs Fuel Costs #2 diesel fuel: 32e7gallon , $12.60/bbl 30-50 mph 50-60 mph Fuel Costs $40,000/mile $76,000/mile Labor Costs ? 1 . 7 7 5/ train-mile $2.178/train-mile Supply Costs $.5287/train-mile $. 4280/train-mile Locomotive Horsepower 3500 Steel required 1) Cars 31.5 tons/car 2) Locomotives 159.6 tons/locomotive 3) Rail 465 tons/mile (double track) Employment $16 , 000/man-yr Related Industries $l,397,000/man-yr Ties 1) Concrete 900 tons/mile $50/tie (includes fasteners and hardware) 2) Wood 54,400 ft No. 5 ties/mile $24/tie (includes hardware) 3) Continuous Roadbed (Concrete) $2 to 3xl0°/mile New Road a) Ballast and bed $l,500,000/mile (includes labor) ("5000 ton/mile) b) Ties $ 153,600/mile (6400 ties/mile, $24/tie) c) Rails $ 162,600/mile (132 lb rail, 465 tons/mile, $350/ton) d) Labor $ 178,800/mile e) Signaling $ 5,000/mile $2,000,000/mile 2-29 >Xi m CN "vT ao oo ^D 00 rH C3 V£> ^r >X> lD 3 >x> LT) CO LP) LD rH LD rH * c C CD U a> e Ao o ^ re ro ro C J rO a> cp l^J cu C CQ CO u ro to x: CP to c •H 1-1 U 4-> V-l C U fO u 0) to •rH to • CD rH •H 0) c c c •rH 4-> c 6 •H u c rO 4-) a> (D cij QJ U c o to c CD ro 4-> ro c e e J-> -U cu to _v •H u CD i-l o fO U h a) rr> c u a ro u x: O rH CD Eh CD CJ! V-l fO H cu u E ro u JD u x: c a c -h r- fO rH fO r-i ro ro 4J • fO 2 W U CQ 2 J o CQ ai CN S-i O ro is lD ro -U QCD ro D to to ro to C S-i to 2-30 TABLE 2.7: Sample Detail of Supplies 750 miles 2 5 HMTY Detai l - Suppl ies Million Dollars Locomotive repair 03 Car repair 7 Road and Shops and Machinery: 1. Road and Buildings: Ties .59 Bridges, trestles .34 Building, Shops .19 Fence and Signals .05 T7T7 2. Stationary .02 3. Chemicals and Track .39 4. Stone, glass, ballast .19 5. Metal Products: Rail .19 Tools .01 80 6. Miscellaneous Supplies .19 7. Shop Machinery .14 8. Electrical Equipment .25 9. Roadway Machines .15 10. Signal and Interlock .28 11. Miscellaneous Repairs .04 12. Power, Light, Water .05 ITT0 Total R&S&M 3.07 Total Supplies 6.81 Source: [2] 2-31 '*-' i 11 1 CD 4-» cr in fO o s-i U cu S3 C3 S) S3 > l"^ ^ CN ro < S3 CO m m n rH t—i ,— *—V >H >H H H <£ 2 s s ±J LT) in U) CN CN o w o cu a rH i— S> SI S! S3 m S3 <* S3 •r-l rH 1— n V£5 m r- r-~ S3 c o •H 4Jas*— E H D U W 3 c \ o t-l u ra S3 00 in in CN r~ CN r- O rH <& r-» cr> s CTi S3 H *— CU VO \o a En w CU 4-1 > O -H 4-> U O m m CN CN m in CN CN a; 'O — ro o\° S3 S3 S3 S3 i-i — 4J •a TJ U CU CU T3 T3 D ro rO O O H TJ — J J CU CD n 3 cu a S3 S3 ii a e S3 S3 S3 m S3 m w — ro in >X> w »X> • • =0 • T3 N CU •a T3 i3 cu cu fO J T3 T3 o 23 rO rcj rH 3 O O C h J J S 2-32 <1 A ofc-l "D S ^i* r- ro >£> CD \ rH m o> CM e w • • • • D rH rH rH rH CN W fO c o o CJ -H U; cd c P o LLi r— CN ^r VD 00 1— r~ 00 *£> CN rO in r- CD cd • V£> <£) rH rH u £ w CXI (?) V£> <* CD H Vj • • • • C £n CM rH rH r-i 22 oCD c • O r- •h »x> W CTi Q u CD CD 13 rH (S) CS cs CS > e a; CS cs •H CD !> CN oo 4-> > CD 4-> rH O O C ^ a. co I CD e u I c > O - •H H W u -^ a ra 4-> c • M e ^ o O u U rH g a. (D I 10 o EC <-\ c c u rH 4-> W Q o o i O rH 0) -H U fH 3 CI c .* I cs fa oi CS cs CS o h ts O in ro \ o CD U T3 CD C CD m rH CM O TO CD CO m o u r~^ Qj 3 f0 c/l O 03 C/3 2-33 FIGURE 2.7: Costs ($/Ton), 750 Miles, at Varying Tonnages, Train Speeds and Bottlenecks - 50-60 mph 30-60 mph O f— 20% Bottleneck 10% Bottleneck o 0% Bottleneck -i ^b.o cXJ.C ^0.0 C-iCJ. 30. C TONNAGE- M^TY (750 MI) 2-34 FIGURE 2.8: Costs (^/Ton-Mile), 750 Miles, at Varying Tonnages, Train Speeds and Bottlenecks o ID mph mph O 2~o o 20% Bottleneck 10% Bottleneck 0% Bottleneck 3" OJ oQ 4- + + ^ 20.0 40.0 60.0 30.0 T0NNPGE- MMTY (750 MI? 2-35 ($/Ton) 25MMTY, at FIGURE 2.9: Cost Effect of Bottlenecks , Varying Distances ID-r 50-60 mph 30-60 mph 20% Bottleneck 10% Bottleneck / ] 0% Bottleneck 15.0 Ll5.TflNCE:-MILE:S (25MMTY1 (XlC<- ) 2-36 , FIGURE 2.11 Cost Effect of Bottlenecks (^/Ton-Mile) 2 5MMTY at Varying Distances o CD 50-60 mph 30-60 mph -Jf Vti 20% Bottleneck 10% Bottleneck „ } % Bottleneck o J -i s.c 7.?; ice i^.s L5.0 2 [][3TPMC[:-MILES (25M!^TY) (XZC 1 2-37 FIGURE 2.11: Cost Effect of a 10 Percent Bottleneck ($/Ton) at Varying Mileages and Tonnage 5 MMTY 10 MMTY 25 MMTY 70 MMTY 15.0 0*/ 2 13] STANCE-MILES (7 8-NECK) (X2 ) 2-38 i FIGURE 2.12: Cost Effect of a 10 Percent Bottleneck (^/Ton-Mile) at Varying Mileages and Tonnage o co 50-60 mph 30-60 mph o cv o ^ i i 5 MMTY o I— 10 MMTY C3 25 MMTY CD 70 MMTY CD — «%T 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 DISTANCE -MILES (10X B-NECK) (X10- ) 2-39 FIGURE 2.13: Bottleneck Effects on Cost/Ton-Mile at Varying Operating Conditions, 25MMTY, 250 Miles 50-60 mph 30-60 mph 20% Bottleneck 10% Bottleneck 0% Bottleneck ^0.0 6CL0 80.0 103. 120.0 '/. CAPACITY ( 250 MI, 25 MMTY) 2-40 G FIGURE 2.14: Bottleneck Effects on Cost/Ton-Mile a Varying Operating Conditions, 25MMTY, 500 Miles 50-60 mph 30-60 mph 20% Bottleneck 10% Bottleneck 0% Bottleneck "UC.C SCO 80. IOC. 120.0 V. CRPRC1TY ( 500 MI. 25 MMTY) 2-41 FIGURE 2.15: Bottleneck Effects on Cost/Ton-Mile at Varying Operating Conditions, 25MMTY, 750 Miles 50-60 mph 30-60 mph 20% Bottleneck 10% Bottleneck 0% Bottleneck ^C.C SO.O 80.0 100.0 120.0 CAPACITY ( 750 M I , 25 MMTT) 2-42 FIGURE 2.16: Bottleneck Effects on Cost/Ton-Mile at Varying Operating Conditions, 25MMTY, 1000 Miles 50-60 mph 30-60 mph 20% Bottleneck 10% Bottleneck 0% Bottleneck "40.0 60.0 30.0 00. 120.0 7. CRPOCITY (1Q0Q MI 25 MMTY) 2-43 FIGURE 2.17: Bottleneck Effects on Cost/Ton-Mile at Varying Operating Conditions, 25MMTY, 1250 Miles 50-60 mph 30-60 mph 20% Bottleneck 10% Bottleneck 0% Bottleneck "gO.G 60. 30.0 100.0 120.0 X CfiPfiCiTY (1250 Ml, 25 MMTY) 2-44 FIGURE 2.18: Bottleneck Effects on Cost/Ton-Mile at Varying Operating Conditions, 25MMTY, 1500 Miles 50-60 mph 20% Bottleneck >»% Bottleneck 0% Bottleneck IJO.O SO.G 30. 1CC.C 120.0 X CAPACITY (1500 MI. 25 MMTY) 2-45 FIGURE 2.19: Bottleneck Effects on $/Ton at Varying Operating Conditions, 25MMTY, 250 Miles 50-60 mph 30-60 mph 20% Bottleneck 10% Bottleneck 0% Bottleneck %0.Q 60. 90.0 100. D 1?0.0 '/ r CAPACITY ( 250 MI, 2 i MMTT] 2-46 Operating FIGURE 2.20: Bottleneck Effects on $/Ton at Varying Conditions, 25MMTY, 500 Miles 50-60 mph 30-60 mph 20% Bottleneck 10% Bottleneck 0% Bottleneck 4G.C ftO.G 30.0 100.0 120.0 '/. CAPACITY 5Q0 MI, 25 MMTY) 2-47 FIGURE 2.21: Bottleneck Effects on $/Ton at Varying Operating Conditions, 25MMTY, 750 Miles ro -r 50-60 mph 30-60 mph --\ \ 20% Bottleneck 10 % Bottleneck 0% Bottleneck ^0.0 60.0 30.0 100.0 120.0 /. CAPACITY ( 75C Ml, 25 MMTT] 2-48 FIGURE 2.22: Bottleneck Effects on $/Ton at Varying Operating Conditions, 25MMTY, 1000 Miles 50-60 mph 30 -60 mph 20% Bottleneck 10% Bottleneck 0% Bottleneck ^0.0 SO.O 30.0 1G0.0 120.0 /. CAPACITY (1000 MI, 25 MMTY) 2-49 RE 2.23: Bottleneck Effects on $/Ton at Varying Operatinq Conditions, 25MMTY, 1250 Miles mph mph 20% Bottleneck ' 10% Bottleneck 0% Bottleneck 60.0 90.0 100.0 120.0 A CAPACITY (1250 MI, 25 MMTY) 2-50 FIGURE 2.24: Bottleneck Effects on $/Ton at Varying Operating Conditions, 25MMTY, 1500 Miles D CD-r 50-60 mph O 30-60 mph r- -- o 20% Bottleneck 10% Bottleneck 0% Bottleneck "1*0. G GG.G 3G.G ICG. 120.0 V. CAPACITY (1500 MI, 25 MMTT] 2-51 IGURE 2.25: Employment at Varying Mileages and Operating Conditions with Fixed Bottleneck 70 MMTY MMTY 10 MMTY 5 MMTY 10.0 15.0 2 DISTANCE-MILES (10°/ B-NECK) (X1C ) 2-52 FIGURE 2.26 Employment at Varying Tonnages and Operating Conditions with Fixed Mileage 20% Bottleneck / / 10% Bottleneck % Bottleneck c_> O X. 21 O _J a 2:: ~ LU l J CO t>.0 20. 40.0 C3U.-U T0NN9GE- MMTY (750 MI) 2-53 . References 1. Heisler, H.R., Illinois Power Company, Private Communication, December (1976). 2. Rieber , Michael, and S. L. Soo, "Route Specific Cost Comparisons: Unit Trains, Coal Slurry Pipelines and Extra High Voltage Transmission," CAC Document No. 190, May 1976. 3. '"Manpower, Materials, Equipment, and Utilities Required to Operate and Maintain Energy Facilities," Stanford Research Institute, March 1975. Prepared for Bechtel Corp., San Francisco, California. 4. Leung, Sek-Yiu Thomas, "A Study and Cost Evaluation on Pneumatic Coal Transport Pipelines," M. S. Thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. December 1976. 5. Dina, M.L., "Operating Experiences at the 1580 MW Coal Slurry Fired Mohave Generating Station," Southern California Edison Company, 1976. 6. National Petroleum Council, Coal Task Group, Other Energy Resources Subcommittee, U. S. Energy Outlook , (Coal Availability), for the U.S. Department of the Interior, 1973. 7. Ferguson, John Alan, "Unit Train Transportation of Coal," 1975. M.S. Thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (NTIS PB 248-652/AS) 8. Rieber, Michael, S. L. Soo, and James Stukel, "The Coal Future: Economic and Technological Analysis of Initiatives and Innovations to Secure Fuel Supply Independence," CAC Document No. 163, May 1975. Report to NSF (NTIS PB 247-678/AS) . 9. "The Energy Supply Planning Model," Betchel Corp., Draft, 1976. 10. Ballard, Lon Rodney, "Coal Transportation Costs: Unit Train vs. Slurry Pipeline," (1976) , M.S. Thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. 11. Keniston, H. E., Ortner Freight Car Company, Cincinnati, Ohio, "High Utilization Cars for Unit Coal Trains," Private Communication, 1976. 2-54 . 12. Ahlf, Robert E., "Heavy Four Axle Cars and Their Maintenance of Way Costs," October 27, 1976. 13. "How to Maintain a Unit Train," Railway Age, September 27, 1976. 14. Smith, Nate, Railroad - Unit Train - General Freight Comparisons - equal density and volume, correspondence. 15. Desai, S. A., and J. Anderson, "Rail Transporation Requirements for Coal Movement in 1980," Final Report of Input Output Computer Services, Inc., prepared for Department of Transporation, Office of Transportation Energy Policy and Transportation Systems Center, Research Division, Cambridge, Massachusetts, April 1976. 16. Private Communication, Railroad Company. 17. Hunziker, Rene A., "Welding Continuous Rail In- Track," Proceedings of the 12th Annual Railroad Engineering Conference, held at Pueblo, Colorado, October 23-24, 1975. 18. Irving, Robert R., "The Picture's Changing in Railroad Steels," Iron Age , October 18, 1976. 19. Private Communication, Railroad Company. 20. Armbruster, Frank E., and Basil J. Candela, "Research Analysis of Factors Affecting Transportation of Coal by Rail and Slurry," Pipeline , Volume I, April 1976. Report, Hudson Institute, Inc. 21. Luttrell, N.W., R.K. Gupla, E.M. Low, and G.C. Martin, "User's Manual - Train Operations Simulator - Meihenathel Model," An International Government Industry Research Paper on Track-Train Systems, Chicago, Illinois, R-198, 1976. 22. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Energy Research Development and Demonstration (Fossil Fuels) of the Committee of Science and Technology, U. S. House of Representatives, 94th Congress, Second Session, January 29, 1970, [No. 61] Vol. IV. 23. Hannon, B. and R. Findley, "Railroading the Army Engineers: A Proposal for a National Transportation Engineering Agency," Natu ral Resourc es Journal , Spring 1977 (forthcoming) 2-55 M( ' $JJ3 OEXT,EUN = EEEF,PAOF.S=3 00,TIME=3C0,NOWAP.N REAL * U R .. nTjlCCCjIJEjMIL _ . CUTT3CTS H1L je f j) ,NCr.-(t,: ,i) ,iuLo(:) , iu el (277x700-12 ) ,;>upU) ,hv(6J f uu DIHENSICN EELCA (5) CHARACTER* 19 NAME (1)/' 15% NEW FOftD'/ PEAD, HV II J) ,.1 = (LOCO (J) , FUEL (J), LAB (J) ,SU? (J) IK JK h 1,3) , , "J=1,2 rrrnDT t NNS=1 MIL (1 3)=7: c. a MIL (1 TT^tT !"»iUI (1,3) 10 MIL (1 = MIL (1,3) -MIL (1,1) +100. 11 NS = ii KT=3 \i NS=2 14 NC=6 15 DC 7 1=1,6 i DO 7 J=1,j TT HV (LI = HV (1 18 MIL (i »J)-M I77TT J) la ' CO NT I NUE C DP IS TOT AL HI LES D3 5 T=TT^ tITY is ai LLlCt; TCNS PEE YEAR 21 MTY=I -5+ (I -1)-^ (1-2) *5+ (1-1)* (1-2)* (1-3) *1 0/3 ±2. T5C" d J=X C HPH IS FE TUFN SFZED K?H=3 0-MJ 1)*20 DO 5 K=T,3 C PP. rs but TTTifcTT PP = (K -1)*. 1 C-HH IS TSA VEL T IHZ HH HPH +ED/60.+6.) * (1.+PP*KFH/10.) c in is irA"^rs mo V£ ill*' 7 Pit DAY TM=M7 Y*10C CC0C./1O50O./27U. C NNT IS KU MEFR OF TFAIBS KEEDED ' 29 NST=H H*TP 24. + . 5 - hU'i (I,J,K) 31 CONTINUE 32 33 H T Y=I «5+'(I-1)» (1-2) «5+(I-1)» (1-2)* (1-3) *1 0/3 J4 X=1.0 7 35 FUEL 1)=0. 0C214 36 FOEL ?j=0. 0C266 37 LAB if!= 0.0 C141* 3a TXF =TJ7U C17J* 39 SUP =0.C C042* 40 SUP = C.O 0C34* X 41 PRINT 10, TY,I , NAME (1) MIL (1,3 4-i "TO TTTRTI7A TFT 7p5J •COSiS' ATJU UfclSUUKCKSsinn FOH UNIT TRAIN TKANSPJHTATiUh ' *///'C • ,TU7 .'MIL LICN DDLLA3S - ',12,' MHTY •//' ,T38, « ROUTE N •, 1 *I2,», ',2-X, A19,E 9.1,' aiLES ) 43 DO 2 J=1 ,N 14 K=i;tJ r Z INI TIALIZ ATION CF CAPACITY FACTORS 45 F2=1. 46 F3 = 1. ^7 Fu=1. F5 = 1. . N . — w: 4 L=1,NC 50 CALL CAFIX (I, J,K,F2,F3,F4,F5) 51 IF (L. EO.HC) GO TO 4 » 52 F2=1.+DELC ( L) «0. 5 IF (DELCA (F) . fc'1.0. ) GO TO "T 54 F3=1. +DULCA (L) 55 fu=i. +o.75*n -CA(L) 56 F5=1. 57" IT (DtLCA (I) fQ.-C.fc) F4=U.b 5d GO TO a 59 Fs=1.+DELC A (L) 60 F2 = 1 , o . 1-4 = 1. +1.5*L ±LJA (L) o<- F5=F3 6 3 4 COSTJNUE 6- 3 CCKTIIllIJ" 2 cuTmrnrr 6 o 1 COKTTNUF 67 6fa ESD* SU P (2) ,KV (6) ,MTY 73 ^ r 07 74 I? (F3.K3.1.) GO TC 20 T3~ C 1 =1=.= 1d.*FF*MTV2"5T 76 C 2<=0.5" 5*FF*HTY/25. C CALC OLA TIC OF ROAD EEt 77 C (3)=MII (1.1) *C.*Q. C36*FFC36*F ~T5~ pTp=2.(;*»xI(I.TV 7 9 c (5 =MIL(I,2) *C.27*FF C iiQU IP " CALC 8 C*(6)=N UT (I, J,M* (0. 50 *LOCO (J) +3.0 0) *F2 "BT 7T5*1 82 83 84 "53" C AVE 36 87 2)*o.2b : 89 6)/3C.+C(6)/90, 90 91 *2~ 5Tvr (bfj»JD 93 IF G37.1 .3 ) A(5)=M5)*1.2 94 2 CO MIN UE C OPE FAT ING COSTS UEL{J)*K7Y*MIL |I,3) *FJ AE(J)*MII (1,3) 1NUT (I,J,K) *F4 OP (J) »MIl'(I,3)*tlUT (I,J,K) *F3 =T73 100 + (L) 101 JO) 102 4)+A (5) • ' [ , | C UNIT COSTS 103 U Cp)=T??/(MTY«f)=T?1/(KTY*F3)3) ~mu ,-,,„,._._.,,-,,,. -_ .. 105 n{3[=( ,J(1)/(2.i-3*HV (I)))*100. C ENEBGY 3QM. 106 __gV (1) = 35.00. »LCCO (J) *KUT (I, J,K) "1^7 : tK Ul=0 (l)/12.fc C STEEL FOF1 10d IF(F3.NF.i I.J GC 10 21 S( ) = ?150.*t:TIT (I.J.K ) "TTO Sm=T-y.e*10CC(3)s hi=ity.c*iocc (5j *NUT(T,J,K)-kit C 132 LSLB' KAIL 111 S(3)=456.*MIL (1,3) 112 S(4)=0. -TT3 DO 4 L = 1,3 = 11+ S(4)=S(4)+S(L) 115 4 CONTINUE 115 S( C-)=9CC.*^II (1,3) "TT7 TI=544CC.*BIL (I, i) C EMPLOYMENT 118 21 Z(1)=0(2) *6€.67 119 E 2 =C?8 /Ztl) "T2T! E(J)=U. ;bfc*C(t)*F4 121 IF(F3.GT.1.) 5 (3) =0.766*0(8) 1_3 _. sp=jo. 124 I? (J.FQ.2) SP = E0. . U5 IF (F3.NE. 1.) GO TC22 12o PRINT 30,S?,SUI (I,J,K) "' '' ' ' "" U7 30 FOPMAT ('6' "A 3ct'FULL CAPACI T Y OPERA TIPS - SPE E E',F5. 1, ' M/H LOADED ! ' -- —rTFti M/H UNLCALED'//' ' ,~'NUgHK.-{~OJ? * ,1^ IKMMS'7 J;5:V > #______v _ 1 * /' 0',' CAPITAL COSTS', T17, ' ',T22, 'ANNUAL FIXED ' ' ' + ,T3«, MCFEFATING COSTS' TTSW, | UN II CCSTii' .-677*1 .H.HGY ,'18 ' • • *6,'| STEEL REOUIKIC' T105, | EMPLOYMENT ]'/' ,T1 7 I ' , T2 1 . 'CHA | j | • T86 *FGE ON DEBT' ..38, ' ,754, ,T67,' | REQUIREMENTS ', ' • ,T1 05 ,' | f *,T86,'| LOCC» ,F10.1,» T.'T105,'| CAP/WOFK • , F5. 2,T1 20, • '/• », EOUI -*P. ',F9.1 ,117, «| FEE. TAX' ,F11.1,T38, 'I SUPPLY' , F6. 1,754 • ir/MBT *U» ,F6.2,T67,> | L_lil__ I RAIL ',F9.1,' l.',T105,' | R EL IBP. ',I5,T f '/» ' • ' *1_0,« I ,T17. | _EPRECIA'1I0N',F7.1,T38, | , IStfTH ',Tb7,' |',T8fc, ? »,• _-_---_ *«i 'ItIob,' | ,T120,» i'/' * ______ - _ ,..! . _ -* / ^ • '0» ,'TCIAL' 7FF71 ,Ti;,'| TOTAL' ,F1 4. 1 f Tib, I TOTAL ', E7. 1 ,T5 • ' • • • | . *4, • ,T67,' | ,T86, | TOT AL , F9 . 1, T.',T105,»| TOT AL' I8,T120, «| *V ',' - - — , * ' ' T T • /'0«/T17. I 8X,'TCTAL ANNUAL~COST' 78. 1 . 151 , F7T677 "r ,18b, I C , *ONCHETE« ,F10.1,' T'/' «,T86,'| TIMBER' ,F1 1 . 1 » FT') PlilKT b (' 1o t FC?HAT , , ,+ l 1T2 fc= jo (^)* n.o7*>jo.- i.)Au ' M- >r*3 °~n 1jj FCC=FC/MXY/2C. 1j-» PRINT 1CD0,FC ') MS. 1J00 FO P a \1V. '-t-1 IC CA L CCSTQO YRS ) = ',F10.2,' (K I LLIOH D OLLARS) i:~i T7"i T"3 I JO GO 137 15o TiTJ FC= (0 (t) ? (IT '.)7+*3o;-T.J/.07+A(5)*JO.) FCC=FC/KrY/jO. PRINT 2000, FC t 14^ >J00 FORM A T (' ',' TCTA1 CCSTQO YES) = ' > Ft0.2, (MILLION DOLLARS)') I 4 4 1 1 ai'iUiN . 1U ESC SENTRY a:W HE* U. OO o • oo mooo r~o iOO oCO ST W3- E-< WD3 10O.J U« 03L>M sax: -ep«s OH CJE-" 55 o N CO H H op- < o ci • EH op a. o PSW in, O in a! W03 CM r- fclt iizH 10 wo •Z. o> *z i 03 -* o 05 OWl x m CJVM , N 1-1 tt. M S3 nno 03 to • • • 1 M o| «: ro«-cn m| H03 r-j so d i => W P4 W O Oil OQ 4 w IX re-ie O SB tOi * a N\\ SB ! if' to O T- H to H , • o •I • ^i « u oomr- o SS i s rS f-' re wcccu :w O p.. >-l 71 ft, i H 1 3 'M (J S3 M 3U t-as',««l-l S3 03 as. MM En »03 U .aid a. J> ,lj UM LI J 'AM . Milosooi 1 -20.0% CHANGE. IN OPERATION , SPEED 30.0-60. M/H TOIAL OPERATING COST 10. 10TAL ANNUAL COST 62.4 UNIT COST S/TON 15.61 UNIT COST r/ TOK -MIL ? 2.08 TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 493 TOTAL COST (30 ?RS) = 2526.09 (PILLION DOLLARS) -40.0% CHANGE IS OP FEATICM , SPEED" 30.0-60. M/H TOTAL OPERATING COST 7,8 TjI^L ANNUAL COST 5s 7T" U»IT COST S/TOM 19.96 UNIT COST r/TCN -MILE 2.66 FUi.L BEQUIPBMEETS KME3 0. 28 L'0'x.iL iMPi-XHfcN'i 5T7T TOTAL CO3I(30 YRS) = 23G0.C3 (MILLION DOLLARS) y •60.0 c CHA NGE IN OPERATION .SPEED 30.0-60. M/H TOTAL OPERATING COST 5.3. TOiAL ANNUAL CCSI 57.2 UJiii' CU5T S7TTTE ZaTTT UNIT COST [/TON -MILE 3.81 FUiL REQUIREMENTS MMEE 0.26 TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 258 TOTAL COS1(30 YRS)= 2C57.94 (MILLION DOLLARS) 20. OS CHANGE IN OPERATION , SPEED 30.0-60. M/H 'TOTAL CPFRATING COST 15.3 TOIAL ANNUAL COST 67.8 UNIT COST S/TOS . 11.30 UNII COST I /TDK -MILE TTHX '' FUiiL REQUIREMENTS . MMEB 0.77 TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 650 TOTAL COjT<30 YRS) = 3019.33 (MILLION DOLLARS) UC.C* CHANGE IN OPERATION , SPEED 30.0-60. M/H 1'OlAL OPERATING COST 18.1 101 AL ANNUAL COST 9 £.3 UNIT COST S/TCN 14. C4 UNIX COST r/r^X -MILE 1.87 i'JLL F^QUIPEMhMS MMEE 0. -'5 TOTAL EK?LCY3i!I:l 7 18 TOTAL CO3i(30 YRS)= ti 1 16. 26 (MILLION DOLLARS) 1 -vOO Olf>vu Ui m coo 3HOss 0-,_J sun; o (u .0 o • Q 00 W ^00 00 « • • 100 M OCNO r-o O 3TiO voo en Ot-O CD r- © - « a- in 1 CO E-t W01 caw Ucj zz: fe H >*w W« ZH n W3C w i k b r- -A .-I J 1 O «: 1 Ol o HI n f»> I in 1 (-40.. i-i o u SH I O I t' I I . . . en o j r- 1 * 1 o < J M (IN • 1-1 lid TJ-Vi «« O WOO" H r U -2C.0% CHANGE IN OPERATION .SPEED 30.0-60. H/H IOIAL OPERATING COST 11.il IOIAL ANNUAL C OST 6 4 . U Unii CUbi. i/'iCN To"; OH I 2 COST [/TON -MILE 2.15 FUiiL REQUIREMENTS BMEB 0.51 TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 561 loTAi, "C"OSI(30 YRS) = "2663. 30 "(MIL LICS DOLLARS) 40. OX CHANGE liJ OPERATION , SPEED 30.0-60. H/H TOTAL OPERATING COST 8.8 TOTAL ANNUAL COST 6 1.5 U Nj/T CO ST S/TCN - 2 0.50 ujii cost r/TCN -aite ~2TTr FUiiL REQUIREMENTS MMPB 0. 38 TOTAL EMPLCYBEN1 «fi1 IOIAL CCS* (30 Y?S) = 2412.52 (hlLLICS COLLARS) 60.0% CHANGE IN OPERATION , SPEED 30.0-60. B/H TOTAL OPERATING COST 6.C IOIAL ANNUAL COST 58. UNII COST S/TON 29.21 ON I T COST T/ION -MILF 3.89 FUiL EEQUIFEttBN'lS HHfcH U. 2b TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 328 TOTAL COST(3C YRS)= 2110.37 (BILLION DOLLARS) 20. OX CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SFEED JO.U-60. H/H TOTAL OPERATING COST 17.1 .TjTAL ANNUAL COS1 7TJTTT UNIT COST $/TON :•' 11.75 — ~— -... UJIT COST 1/ICU -MILE- T7T7 FUcL REQUIREMENTS MMEB 0.77 -. TOTAL EMPLOYMENT ' 753 TOTAL COSx(30 YRS) = 3219.70 (MILLION DOLLARS) 40.03 CHANGE IN OPERATION , SPEED 30.0-60. H/H "Win operating cost Tvnr IOIAL ANNUAL COST 101.8 UNIT COST S/T3N 1M . 5U UNIT COST f/ION -MILE 1.94 Jr'JhL HEQUiBEHENlS MMEB (J. Sy TOIhL EMPLOYMENT 843 TOTAL COSi(30 YHS)= 4366.71 (MILLION DOLLARS) . _ i-r-ui 1 (N 1 I^CMvO 1 f 1 H i n »oo 1 P» 1 is «~ UJ xz ae > Cm «Q o oa -4 :sm 1 *H 1 04 \ • «S 1 CU.J 1 £-< 1 c«s w • O 1 U'_1Q3 1 H 1 HH 1 M-B^a^^i 1 —•- 1 O 1 • • • 1 • 1 •O I iHEh 1 EH 1 • Q © 1 OO I UJ ooo 1 © 1 OO I OS • • • 1 * 1 in© i n ~oo 1 o I r~o i E> idctno 1 =T 1 vOO 1 o> l-t^O 1 C-- 1 00 1 m^icsi w 1 *~ 1 © 1 05 - » 1 VO 1 W-3- 1 ro r"» 1 1 H | J WfC 1 W 1 -1 1 KW | UOhl 1 <=C 1 U« 1 H BUM 1 H 1 ZC 1 to SO< 1 Ol QM 1 Ji-im 1 HI UB 1 1 —1 1 s 14 W c t-t D» 53 «VD | D f^ • O CO WPS SSM £ ' JM 1 • | o» 1 s w 1 ! H o i D^ ! _>W i i B D=> -Itii * i bm^wmm B 1 3ino to T>aoa- H • • • i to M*— f"- - o \o i i u • © ' Pi I SKH o I d I m ^Hsa » i —— } j ! — i —i — i s: i 10 H ! I W :jr-t— i a- i • O m i • i in i H O rjtnr- i in i • i to i *~ i C* 1 C3 TJ> vO 1 z -1 H n >-l fcH KhI 1 >^!l O «H -IOOi 1 ^^no<%l 1 *"* 1 >-) 1 •H . . . . 1 • 1 •^ 1 -1 SOMV 4J 1 -T 1 E> 1 ^; H <>fN T- I in i S3 1 Mm N 53 | «3 _ | N XJ o M O iS 1-4 1 • 'S . Ol «S 1 o iJI-H Hll -* H 1 S3 M| C 1 ri iiOrtM«*| H 1 *n ©C5 r-tiTiaJMj 'JlUHU ss«ai W UJ 1 ! 1 e> •«! I «; i • li_OOi 1 H | II >u:u' jy 1 O 1 '«Qt,U 1 EhI 1 X to '^iO in • « • 1 f*l 1 1 3 "itNt— i • I ! 1 1 3- 1 i r» i 3- i r-» i H I -» 1 o Q J '/) P • -1 d. Q"U I .-) i " -20. 0% CHANGE IN OPERATION , SPEED 30.0-60. M/H TOTAL OPERATING COST 12.6 TOTAL ANNUAL COST 66.3 UNI J COST $/TO N 16.56 —: UTTT^^T5TT7^TT^1TTT-E 2TTT FUr,L REQUIREMENTS MMEE 0.51 TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 629 TOTAL COST (30 YRS) = 2300.52 (MILLION DOLL ARS) -40.0S CHANGE IN OPERATION , SPEED 30.0-60. M/H TOTAL OPERATING COST 9.E TOTAL ANNUAL COST 63. 1 UNIT COST 21 .04 l/TCN 1" UNT1 CCS"T f/TDT - TJTT 7'. 6 FU±.L SEQU:IIREMENTS MMEE C. 3fi TOTAL fcHPLCYMENT 516 TOxAL COSI(3C YRS) = 2525. C2 (MTIL I C K DCLLAPS) -60.0% CHANGE IN OPERATION , SPEED 30.0-6C. M/H tji«l opfratiwg cost — F .7 xoial annual cost 59.7 UNIT COST */TCN 29. P3 Udil COST r/ TCt" -MILE 3.SE Jj'UtL HiOMlKEMhli'iS HHFB 0.56 TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 367 :OTAL COST(30 YRS) = 2222.79 (MILLION DOLLARS) 20. OS CHANGE IN OPERATION , SPEED 30 . 0-60. M/H TJTAL OP ER A T I NG COST 42-' TOTAL ANNUAL COST T3TT UNIT COST S/TON 12.19 UNIT COST [/TON -MILE 1.62 FUEx, P EQU IREMENIS MME B 0.7 7 "lOTAL~T»PL0YHENT"" ^835" TOTAL COST (30 Y3S) = 3420.07 (MILLION COLLARS) ttQ. O* CHANGE IH OPFR ATICK .SPEED 30. TOTAL CPEPATING COS 22.7 UiAL ANNUAL C ST U«"iT:T COST J/Toi; T5TD": UNIT COST [/TON -MILE 2.00 EJjiL REQUIREMENTS MfiEB O.^V TOIAL E M PLOYMENT 569 x 1UTXZ Cu3i'( i'i TTST IT5T7TTC ( HIT L 10 !~ITO LL A R ST" 1' — in Nf- | oo nm i =» 1 i -! | r- •m | in i Z 1 ^ i Al | | E | *: • t >" | 1 KQ D 1 D5S | -1 1 IN I -J i a> 1 S. 1 «c I aj.-j 2 1 i H 1 Al 1 03 '«W 1 O 1 CE _)05 1 H 1 Ph 1 • • * 1 • | .o : H -"H 1 H 1 O • 1 a i OO 1 | | ^- W o JO 1 OO I • « 1 • • 1 • 1 r\cD i H 1 o :3c; i O I ~~o =1 | o •no i d 1 .00 o> 1 m SO | r~ | 00 ij >£< w i ^ 1 in i WS 1 H 1 -4 l W05 u =J 1 -1 or.uj | w M 1 M Di-1 1 •< 1 Uca « t; JH 1 e* i S5E «: «< }j 1 0«d I O 1 OH o u -)cc 1 b^ 1 UH i-4 ^~— — z — ~ 1 — 1 — o 33 cu \ w ^: 53 IH 1 53 1 • 33 1 »UJ O 1 .o C3!v: i o % aw i o Q AIM 1 -T oJ • 1 KM 1 00 1 Q pd=3 1 =3 1 «S Ol 1 o W 1 • 1 | (X i-i O 1 c -1 1 1 J aJ | X M 1 c A. sN. _4 | —{1 — S> 1 nn a3"' 1 rs: o z: i o rl • • • 1 V~ in 3 *£> t a =3 1 w i, i H z EN • w 3 1 H t O 1 a i CLl H IHS 1 w M 1 1 DO) 1 =-; • 0) o i H o a i \n T* mm i 3 1 * M 1 • « I I IN _ p * H j O VC 1 oo i CO «: ^- r- | ID D-. IX a H3 << a ^ o< H t"- 1 -1 o H KM 1 .J 1 o a! ~! OtH 1 «: i a >< X w E3Cn 1 HI Fh Eh il =3 HE 1 O 1 M 3 It, M ai -IU1 1 EH 1 c CJ O O u H rC -> Ui IN yir-r~ i uu I K-l -( «, • • • i • 1 «: Ml «^ i IN 2J o S Tin) 1 o or. *-* H N «- I IT 1 51 1-3. HO-i r\i S5 >-i ijuj =5 « 3 ^ LJ V-i 31 . Ps i -1 IT. ^ 1 1 -H *c*3 i,Z «r • O 1 00 j-! o UJ ri H 1 b r> -1 •^r. M 1 uu t..u •-i>:.4! i 1 p-i (N t =>o e q «; m i " in. «r :- 6-U I ' rri 3-S M 1 -) 1 t — > 'CC, | << 1 '_) a Aiaoi i El 1 II : j uj uu • —. > i O - :. * ar«, w i i; 1 1 M 1 OU ~ — — >* ar- i 3- r » • • i 1 1 O rr N<-> 1 1 rn f-i 1 £> 1 1 o t | O 1 r4 -r i i -ni 1 o 1 CJ H a i •1 i -» H y • i •< CU 1 « aai i J i i <3 1 "J ^^ i < i 1 H 'J 1 3 i;r3 i. HI 1 O 3 3 1 Ol 1 H H HI — -20. OX CHANGE IN OPERATIGN ,SPEED 50.0-60. K/H TOi'.-iL- OPERATING COST TOTT" I-OiAL ANNUAL COST 63. 4 UKIT COST S/TON 15.6tt UNIT COST [/TON -HILF 2.11 FTTZI HtUlJlKilHbMS KEUB O.tU TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 4 = 9 TOTAL COS! (30 Y?S)= 26C0.67 (MILLION DOLLARS) ~-UQ.~0% CHANGE IN" OPEBATICN , SPEED 50.0-60. M/H OPERAIIijGCCST e.3 T3TAL — , litSL annual cost 6U.fc UNIX COST $/t:n 20.19 aNo.2 COST f/TON -MILE 2.69 FUfii, BEOJIIREJ1M1S MMEJ 0. 48 ttjiat EtPTcTHrsn "37T TOTAL COal (30 YRS)^ 2353.26 (MILLICN DOLLABS) -60.0% CHANGE IN OPERATIC* .SPEED 50.0-60. M/H TOTAL CP^ BATING CCST 5.6 IOi'ALJM; PAL COST 57.6 UNIT COST i/TCN 28. £2 UNIT COST [/TON -MILE 3.84 FUiL KEO" TPEMENTS MMtB 0.32 TOTAL EM? LCYMENT 266 TOTAL COST (30 YRS) = 2092. 54 (KIILICN DOLLARS) 2 0. G* CHANGE IN OPERATION , SPEED 50.0-60. M/H TOTALJTAL QOPERATINGPEF COST 16.4 JoialJJTaL AS3BAIXnnu COST , FJTT UNIT COST S/TON 1 1 . 52 ONIT COST f/TON -MILE N 1.54 FUEL BEQO IBEflEHTS MMBB 0.56 TOTAL EM?TUYMENT : 5"9T~ TOTAL COST(30 YRS)= 3127.63 (MIILICN DGLLABS) 40. OX CHANGE IN OPEBATICN ,SFEED 50.0-60. M/H TOTAL OPERATING CCST 19.3 TJIAL ANNUAL CCST 99.8 1TSZ2 COST l/'l: JN TTTTf Ufl'IT COST r/rc>J -MILE 1.9C FUiL REQUIREMENTS MMEB 1. 12 ° TOTAL . EM LCY«EM 653 •I'oiA- COS! (30 YTTST^ 4z4C. u (siLLiLiN Duxmnrsr OiNro 1 m r-^r- 1 s» .<»> n 1 r» 1— | ee • 1 SQ | OZ 1 SH 1 H \ 1 »c Cu^i 1 E-" pa«sw • O tSOBS 1 EH H [H 1 O Sn 1 • • • 1 • • HHH 1 Eh O Q O => 1 OOO I ao O 1 03 • • • 1 • LI 1 oco 1 r- 3 1 000 1 10 3 1 | >£HOO rM B 1 CN w K 1 .-I CO -4 1 w MOJ 1 < U :u 1 E-i H KUH 1 ss E 1 < «*o«< 1 O O H 1 o _)i-JD5 1 i~> U E-i 1 •-j z 1 a Oj \ 1 00 1 •CO 1 O • 1 C5 00 1 1 Q H uo 1 w z -H \C • 1 a «~CJ 1 «: 31 T3 1 o • | O.J 1 CJl^ 1 0= • X 1—lU-l 1 C^1C4 1 =100 1 • • • 1 o 10; zr*-cr< 1 oj T- VO 1 in o a s 1 •A) l^E^H 1 W 1 ij 1 J Oi f'f E | CO - •'0 ^rH EH o CT r-kCr- | r» o • • • 1 • O o ClTr- | kC • «— (Nl Cfl 1-4 M x ! O CSi-l 1 -1 JOB. 1 «C r-JQOj x C3 i EH H =>.:» t C M M P-H^IVJ 1 H U O &MU)\Ls 1 m J • • • • 1 • «: r-.i-'a^yr 1 IT- E3 *5 s^i *— 1 LTl '"-J 1 •i t^< 1 V) !R 1 J •r. • Ol t. JH H 1 H IT f-l 1 <_> [-.'t X"= | £-1 t-*v -in 1 t^ c-o 1 — '° 1 kJ t-. *£~t \ «* --I .moo. 1 -''> P >.! iUL- l 1 «rcz,'i. u 1 fc-H I ... | "rlJ | 1 • • • | (-CM — 1 • TT * 1 f~ * | J- J J 1 n • 1 nS.TTl 1 J -C UJH 1 -s Eh =K=> 1 F-H O =3 0OI 1 O FH ^dSLij | H -~5c. a change in op e r at icn .speed 50.0-60. m/ii TOTAL "CTP5PATIK(TTX5r TTTT TOTAL ANNUAL COST 66. U UHIT COST J/TCN 17. 11 u nit c ost r/ioN -mile 2.28 TUtuL RECWISlifllKTS MKE3 O.^U TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 629 TOTAL COSi(30 YRS) = ' 2923. <,3 (HIILION DOLLARS) -iC.Q* CHANGS I S~5P1:"MTTCB .SPEED 50.0-60. M/H •IQ^AI OPERATIN G COST 10. 6 TOTAL ANNUAL COST- 64.9 r Ui. II COST [/'ION -MILE 2.ee FULi, REQUIREMENTS MI^ EE 0. U6 TOTAL EMPICYMENI " en TOTAL COST (30 YRS)= 2628.57 (MILLION DOLLARS) •6 0.0% CHANGE IN OPERATION .SPEED 50.0-60. M/H TOTAL 0P5SATIHG CCST 7.2 T3TAL ANNUAL COST 61. C mm cost S/Tmi jo. si UNIT COSI f/TON -MILE U.C7 FUEL REQUIREMENTS MMEB 0.32 i66 TOTAL . EMPLOYM ENT XO'i'Ai, Cu3^(30 YKS) = 2 257.148 (KX1LION DOLLARS) 20.0* CHANGE IN OPERATION .SPEED 50.0-60. M/H TOTAL OPERATING CCST 2C.6 TOIAL ANNUAL COST 75.9 Urtll COSI $/TON 12. 65 UHII COST" [/TCN~ -MILE " 1.65 FUEL REQUIREMENTS . MMEB 0.96 TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 85« TOTAL COSI ( 30 YRS)= 36C6.6U (MILLION DOLLARS) 40.0% CHANGE IN OPERATION .SPEED 50.0-60. M/H luTAL OPERATING CCST 24.5 TOTttL ANNUAL COST 108.8 ON II COSI VTCN 15.55 Otf.II COST I7T0S -MILE 2TC1 : FUEi. FEQUIRBS'EKTS MMEE 1.12 TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 965 TOTAL COS! (30 Y 3 S) = u8t,6.C2 (MILLIO N DOL LARS) U3OC0 a- .rn 00 I >H o H a. SB m E-E-" C .c HEmCh c • a OO w ooo OO • • • mo H Oy3C- r»o a a H KUH SEE ! «c OH I O x- \ to >-Wl 10 C5I- CSW O a WPS o w SSM Q MS (NO o> g .; w| J o as I I ID I o» ! >-ii*< N j 7Z Si t/i o*or~: • • • o rtil to arsiiNil in P=l O u e::ce-«i w o O I 03: e-eheI CQI| D23 to S3 i o a- oo t-l o I •a pa W o E-i ft W o o s o amEh H (MS o -1 so«:(" z:a u r. t-l to ry '.J 63 •20 . 0% CHAN G£ IN OPERATION ,SPEED 5C.0-60. H/H IOTA I OPERATING CCST 15.1 TOTAL ANNUAL COS T 7 1 . C UNi: COST S7TTH 17.7b UNIX COSI [/TON -MILE 2.37 FUEL REQUIREMENTS HMEB 0.6U lOTAL.iMPLOYMENT. .... "7 1 = 71 IOTA- CUS-l (30 Y R i- ) 3 C 59. —(fULLiUN UOLLAKS) -40.0% CHANGE IN OPERATION , SPEED 50.0-60. H/H TOTAL OPERATING CCSI 11.7 TOTAL BHflUAL COSI 6 7.C -"--•• uan ccsr $/ton 22.30 OJiir COSI T /TON -MILE 2.S6 FUi,^ REQUIREMENTS KKEB 0.06 TOTAL EMPLCYMFNI 585 TOTAL COSI(3C Y?S) = 2766.23 (WIIIIGS DOLL ARS) -60.0% CHANGE IN OPERATION , SPEED 50.0-60. M/H TOTAL OPERATING COST STT TOIdL ANNUAL COST 62.7 UNIT COST t/TCN 31.35 ojir cost r/TCN - mile u. 13 FTTEI BTQ^T5iT3ETTS —dMPB C.il TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 15 TOTAL COST (30 Y2S)= 23S9.96 (BILLION DOLLARS) 20.0% CHAUGE IN 02ERTTICH , SPEED bO.C-6C. H/H TOTAL OPERATING C C S I 22. TOTAL AKNUAL COST 7T.T" UNIT COST $/TOU 13.22 UNIT COST f/TON -MILE 1.76 FUEL REQUIREMENTS MMEB 0.96 TOiAL EMPLOYMENT TE7~ TOTAL' COST(30 YRS)= 3906. CO (MILLION DOLLARS) 00.0% CHANGE IK OPERATI C N .SPEED 50.0-60. H/H TOTAL CPEFATING CCST 27.1 TOTAL ANNUAL CCST 113 ,0 ; or.:r cost s/tcb Terrs UNIT COST [/TON -MILE 2.16 FUEL FEQ'JIREMENIS MKEE 1.12 TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 1 121 TOTKTuS rniJ Y:>S)= s'Od.i.' (flllLlCN l)CLXJTE5T" = C3 -20. OX CHANGE lit OPERATION , SPEED 30.0-50. R/U TOTAL OPERATING COST 20. iOinL At. M UAL COST 75. o a^-r ccs t $/?o» '?. 38 "uanT costt/tom -mile rrzr EUfcL EEQtMIIREMSNTS MMCI) 1.02 iOIAL EMPLOYMENT €59 TOTAL COS:(30Y3S)= 3556.5 1 ( BILLION DOLLARS) •1*0.0% CHANGE IN OPERATION , SPEED 30.0-60. M/H TOTAL OPERATING CCST 15.6 TOTAL ANNUAL COST 69.9 uan ccst $/tcn 11.66 UNIT C CST r/TCH -a HE 1.5 5 TTTSl" 8 SO" riEMiJNTS MHBE 0. 1/ TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 575 TOTAL COS! (30 YHS) = 3104.40 (MILLION DOLLARS) ~^1 lUX CHAN GT"T¥~~0?"ESATICN ,SYi xO'i AL OPEPAT fNG CCS T 10.6 I 7T A L ANNUAL xcst 64.5 UNIT COST {/TON 16.12 UNIT CCST" f/TCN -MILE 2.15 FULL REQUIREMENTS MHEB 0.51 TUiAL EHPLOHHESII- n1TSr TOTAL CO3T(30 YRS)= 2520.22 (MILLION DOLLARS) 20.0% CHANGE IN OPERATION .SPEED 30.0-60. M/H TOTAL OPERATING CCST 30.5 85. £ TOTAL ANNUAL COST' -•-- ?•>" UNIT COST S/TON 7.15 " UNIT COST T/TON -MILE 0.95 FUcL REQUIREMENTS MMEB 1.53 T OTAL E f ? L QYMENI _ 961 TOTAL COST (30 YSS) 4543.00 (HULIoS DOLLARS) 40.03 CHANGE IN CPE3ATICN ,SEEED 30.0-60. M/H total operating ccs: OO.i TOTAL ANNUAL COSI 12C.5 UNIT CCST f/T CN 8.61 UN-! COSI C/T.1N -MIL T5 FUI2L REQUJUIREMENTS M MPB 1.79 TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 1097 TOTAL COS ! (30 Y RS)= 5 9i 7.^7 (MILLION DO LLARS) romrg O00J5 ao •'^ H vo ON I a o tM S3 ^ • X o Oi5 J i CM N «: I 33 On-I w ca«ew O i (sow fr-> I c • z Ei o • Q O D W COO O I oo « • • • in ^ H 3T3 r~ ^ e OC0O (Nrno o •J I w COO-t «S I Q K'JH «C O I o -I O u H -1 3SS to £ ©00 Si • fN O xuu| o • ue| o— o o o 2H. Q WO| «* O o« hi o: ow CO. I OB Wl vocoooi ~i! 25.1 CO ^r»-o] EH (O O O Q W & fcl M O I «! Cn S= E-T-iSi in vt 35 f-> O to r-T-r* 00 I M o • • • u U3UVCN r- J- (X 00 55 < u OS .-1 -ioeu WCQC-, fcH E«*D to M (ii»-JtO o U o CUOP- r" • • • • rnr-OD ^» rt") Ol lij to W < • 'J OJt-l -H .5 -< M^*i >: rt aci HK-4; H 53tfji •^&.b-< >_l 3-, w sac. ir-> .TB .K.Q&1 ID'MO D CJ E-i HI I o O I E*l C -20.0'% cHa:jmr"nr"CPERATic!TTST"Erir jo.o-bu. H/ii 'TOTAL OPERATIN G COST 22.7 iJi'AL ANNUAL CC5T 7fc.y UNIT CCST S/TJN 9. 86 UiJj.r COS! r/TCK -MIL]: 1.21 FUtL REQUIPBME?»TS MMEB 1.02 LOxAL tHPL'JYMtin 83tr IOTAL COSJ(30 YR3) = 38 20.54 (MILLION DOLLARS) -40.0% CHANGE IN OPERATION .SPEED 30.0-60. M/H TOTAL OPFPATING COST "'7.6 TOIAL ANNUAL COST 72.2 ""," ' UuIT COST $/TON ~ 12.19" UNIT COST r/TCN -MILE 1.63 FUEL BECUTriEMENIS MMEE 0.77 IOTA1 jMPLCY3|KT 63^ TOIAi, COST( JU Y?3) = T3777T9 (MILLION DOLLARS) •60.0% CHANGE IN OPERATION , SPEED 30.0-60. M/H TOTAL CPEPATING COST 12. TOTAL ANNUAL CCST 67. UNIT CCST S/TCN 16.74 U^-Li1 COST [/TON -MILE 2.22 FUiL REQUIREMENTS MMEE 0.51 TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 4P7 TOTAL COST (30 YR5) = 2765. C6 (MILLION DOLLARS) 20.0% CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SEEED 30.0-60. M/H TOTAL OPERATING CCST 34.3 TOTAL ANVUAL COST 91.1 UNIT COST J/ICN , 7.59 UNIT COST [/TON -MILE 1.01 FUEL REQUIREMENTS"TREM" MMEP~ 1.53 TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 1167 ToTAi, CCST (JO YKS)= HTUTmi (KULION DCLLAHS) 40.0% CHANGE IN OPERATION , SPEED 30.0-60. M/H iui'AL OPSPATING CCST 40.8 TOTAL ANNUAL COST 1*^.4 UNIi' C"ST g/TOJj 9.1C T7TT U.ilT CCST | 7TTS -AILL • FUEi, FEQUIKEMFNT3 MMEE 1.79 TOT.iL EMPLOYMENT 13 u 8 TOTAL COST (30 YPS) = 644P.67 (MILLION DCLLARS) ; • o a. \ CUlfi o &- •O o • a 00 w 000 00 « ino H 000 r-o o 0000 kOO Ol 00 w »— t^i^j © En «pMc: WOi-l UCQ Q5UM KS OH I OE Oi a: H oco z o • a WWISM w Q < o o UJ 1-1 UW os \ T-|l s to o sa'i Q w W a* i a i OB3 H ft; as w oa. > K H Oi U O a; E-i pa. LUM-t HWfcJ ZB- — •2 0. 03 CPANGS IN OPERATION P SPEE D 30.0-60. M/tl TOTAL OPERATING COST 25.2 TO TAL ANN U AL CC ST 8 2 . 7 U«.l£ COST IT/TcU TO" .TIT UNIT cost [/t:n -MILT^ 1.38 FUuL REQUIREMENTS MMEB 1.C2 TOTAL E MPLOYMENT 97 total ajsTTTir'YirsT^ stt5Tj8 (sitlick dcllaus) -40.0% C HA NGE IH OPERATION , SPEED 30.0-60. M/II TOTAL OPERATING COST 19.6 IJT.tL A N NUAL C OST 7o.4 7 UNI r~CC "S T t/TJ N 1 *. , i Ua'IT COST r/TCN -MILE 1.7C FULL BEQUirfErfFNTS MMEB C.77 TOTAL EM'PICYMENT 795 Cod" (30 Yrvb')= 3554. j8 (MILLION DCLL?P.5f -60. OX CHAIIGE IN OPERATION , SPEED 30.0-60. M/H TOTAL OPERATING CCET 13.1 TOTAL ANNUAL CCSI 69.5 U N..I COST S/ICK 17.36 unit ccsi r/TCN -inn ztt2 : FUEL BEOUIREMENTS MMEB 0.51 TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 566 TO TAL COST (30 Y5S)= 29^9.93 (MILLION DCLLAPS) 20.0% CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SEEED 30.0-60. fl/H TOTAL OPERATING CCSI 38.1 TOTAL ANNUAL COST 96.4 UNIT COST S/TON 8.03 UNIT COST r/TCN -MILE 1.07 FiTEI fityUinEMEETS HTTFE 1.53 TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 1372 TOTAL COST(30 YPS} = 5344.48 (MILLION DOLLARS) 40. UX CHANGE IN CPESATICN , SPEED 30.0-60. H/*H TOTAL CPE P ATING COST 45.3 'IjiAL 57TRTJ3L COS'l TJTTT UNIT CCS r i/TCN 9.59 UJi.iT COS" f/TOH -MILE 1.2B F ULL REQUIREMENTS M "II E B 1 . 7S "Tk,TAL EMPLOYMENT 1~5W TOTAL COSi. (3C .YRS)= 6949.77 (MILLION DOLLARS) u qf -20.0* JEFMfi S_IB_O.EEMI I OH _,_ S PS E D 30.0-60. fl/H TOTAL OPERATING COST 25.2 TO TAL ANN H AL COST 8 2 . 7 o;;It ccsf~I7Tcti tUTJit UNIT COST f/TJN -MILT7 1.38 FULLFUliL REQUIREMENTSREQl . MMEB 1.C2 TO TAL EMPLOYMENT S7 TOTAL i.05"rfTJ""Y i-(S)= bTcTTjB (SITLICN DCLLAUS) •qp. 0% C HA NGS IN OPERATION , SPEED 30.0-60. M/II XOIAL OPERATING COST 19.6 IOInL AJK NJJAL C OST 7 o . 4 U 2i I r~CC'3 ? t/TJ Ix.. 'i Oi -60.0* CHANGE IN OPERATION , SPEED 30.0-60. M/H TOTAL OPERATING CC£T 13. TOTAL ANNUAL COST 69.5 U N.. I COST 3/103 1 7 . 3 USTT CCS" [/TCN -ifTTE 2T3~2 ] FUEL REQUIREMENTS MMEB 0.51 TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 566 TO TAL CGSI(30 YKS)= 29^9.93 (KIL1ICS CCLLAPS) 20.0% CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SEEED 30.0-60. M/H TOTAL OPERATING CCSI J8TT TOTAL ANNUAL COST 96.4 UNIT COST $/TON 8.03 ONIT COST L/TCK -MILE 1.0? FUEL EEyUiaEMtLlSi MKbb 1.5" TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 1372 TOTAL COST(30 YRS) = 5344. q8 (MILLION DOLLARS) 40. OX CHANGE IN OPERATION , SPEED 30.0-bU. M/H TOTAL CPE ? A TING CO S T 45.3 loihL AN SUA"! COST 1 J4. 4 UNIT CCS r i/TCN 9.59 UN.lT COS' [/TON -MIL? 1.2B FUEL REQUIREMENTS MMEB 1 . Ji Io-TAL EMPLOYMENT 1"S79 TOTAL CJSx (3C-YRS)= 6S49.77 (MILLION DOLLARS) Noom coco C5Qoa oca ' o PK .© o . oo mooo r~o lOO oCO M KMMas m (_)cu Q ZE < OH O z1-4 N 01 en xw 10 US ZMW03 o eg P3 X o Uw in Q W W to m w oo u CEi-l H U p g n<'i r- '-5'q » to JS3 £23 U -2G.CX CHANGE IN OPERATION , SPEED 50.0-60. M/H i'Oi'AL OPERATING COST 23.1 i'OlAL ANNUAL COST 79. U U»IT CCST S/TON 9. c.3 ui.ii ccs: fyrci; -mile ttt2 FUiiL REQUIREMENTS KMEB 1.28 TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 716 TOT AL CCSi.(30 Y3S)= 3872.37 (MILLION DCLLAHS) -U0.0* CHANGE IN OPERATIC!,' , SPEED 50.0-60. M/H rCTXI CPtSATrNG COST rTTT TOInL ANNUAL CCS" 75. tt Ui.iT COST. J/TOK 12. 2 Hi', IT COST r/TLjj -MILE 1.P3 tr fuzi HTQTTTtjrirETrrs—n a t u o . s total fkplcym5ni 586 total cos; (30 yivs)- 33h8.52 (million dcllahs) 6 0. C*. CHANGE IN OPERATION , SPUED 50.0-60. M/H gOTAL CPK H A TING CCST~ 12.1 tutxtttitstj rr^crs'- 6 TTr UN.L2 COST $/TO!i . 16.78 unit cos: r /ion -mile 2.2a FUEL RE QUIRE MENTS MME E 0.6U IOIAL I MT1 CTmTKT VTT TOTAL COSK30 YRS) = 2751.89 (MILLION DOLLARS) . "... .. 20. OX CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 50.0-60. ,M/H 30. 1 TOTAL OPERATING COST 8 TOTAL ANNUAL COST 91.8 UNIT CCST S/TCN 7.65 DKIT CCST f/TCN -MILE 1.02 FUEL REQUIREMENTS MHEB 1.5z TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 985 TOTAL COSI(30 YRS)= U9S9.01 (MILLION DOLLARS) <40.0X CHANGE IS OPERATION , SPEED 50.0-60. M/H TOTAL 3PFRATING CCST U 1 . 2 i'JTAL ANNUAL CCST 124. (J Ut TOTAL COSi(3f- YHS)= . 6 4Se.63 -{MIILTCN DCLLAP3) !i 1 — r^ 20 | r- i j- CO | * i •rn | n i v£> | O 1 S 1 3 | T~ | -* i E 1 < • i M | SO | D 1 Da i -3 I *M 1 •Jl ^ 1 S 1 «S 1 n i i—l 1 tn 1 J 1 03 ci; w i O 1 P3 JIX I E-< 1 HH 1 — — i 1 — — 1 D • • 1 • 1 • O 1 H HEH 1 3 • 1 3 I 1 30 | «J I c JO | ^ 1 3Q 1 • B 1 • • 1 • 1 no i -) | 1 c 00 O I "o 1 D I inpc i in i OO 1 :> i otro t 3 1 00 1 it 1 CNpCM 1 r- O'l -•^ A 1 CN 1 r~ i 49 1 "1 1 rn | H 1 -H 1 a •A 1 l-» 1 EW | w ^ .1 in :>-! i •4 1 JIU 1 <-j H 1 « ->H 1 HI S£ 1 «c /) 1 z. — 1 =1 DC 1 1 Pj! 1 \ W 1 s E-< 1 ob i ! Z 1 >H*=-I o 1 of. : \r> JIS 1 of- 1 i 2=W 1 c>! I o J-ICr | rr| 1 uj at-H I oi • 1 a i ^•=> 1 r\lfy 1 N • ! s ^h , '•JMC i I o si -0 1 i-fjm | • | • M 1 H 1 • t c «r i •rt 1 or- J 1 1 Q3 in | D 1 i 3 1 CH 1 J 1 o = ! 1 fe. w 1 H 1 Zf3IH 1 ~\ ca W O 1 1 oil i Cu a 1 E-F-z: . to '-• 1 W 1 v<_i__i 1 ; • •a i — 1 — - ! 22 1 n i J • a 3 1 rl | o /J 1 CMf- O 1 00 1 M "_> 1 * • 1 j i L* ! M J 1 1— 1 • i "-> «e IN 1 1 I- I « 05 | — 1 T> 1 w <£ 1 Q-. H . 1 >• 1 o -H 1 C-l 1 -1 < 1 hJ OH- 1 'A 1 1 X ~ 1 & ta p- i Fl 1 H 1 c< 1 1 1 1 1 f ' BKp O A M p4 -10) 1 tH • 3 1 u D 1 J 1 «s — •r,^.^- (X r~ | u > | -) 1 CT" xi-i i w 1 fc-, I ~i i V) -t i • :: <* • C 1 i -, U 1 ta t' 1 r( 1 fs t-- 1 | :j i i.-d 1 ^4f-lt-;»r | }-l | E i fri •* n i t L, M | -1 1 -1 «fH 1 «= 1 | O 1 • 3-.OC 1 E-< 1 •4'-4P-' 1 > O 1 '' ; at- w i EH 1 -I ^O M -t | • » ; • i in i •T'pfN 1 • i ~\ 1 1 1 fr N 1 ! I ; -<: i h i !l 1*4 • 1 | t i ^tQTj .J , ! _>£> -1 1 < i 3i j t « t H 1 1 ! «P > 1 J 1 aa | trl 1 • H 1 . -20.0* CHANGE IN OPERATION , SPEED 50.0-60. M/H TOTAL OPERATING COST 25.9 TOTAL ANNUAL COSI 84.5 UNI T COST g/TOjj 13 .56 urri' cos-: r/run -hill i~.tti FUiL REQUIREMENTS HMEB 1.26 TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 685 TOTAL COS! (3 Y5S) = 42C4.93 [MI1LIOH DOLLARS) uO.OJS CHANGE IN OPERATION , SPEED 50.0-60. M/H TOTAL OPERATING COST 2C.0 IOTaL ANNUAL COST 7 7.7 UNIT COST J/TON 12.96 U tvir cos: f/ tpn -mile 1.73 "TU^L RJoUI^iiHiKTS MMfcE 0T5* IOTAL EMPLOYMENT 725 TOTAL COST (.30 YF.S)= 3623.63 (HIILICII DCILAFS) ^ . IPfTC HAM GE IN OPES ATICN ,SP£ED 50.0-60. M/H TOTAL OPF rtA TT?jg COST 13.7 ioIAL ANNUAL COST 7 CT5 ' DjilT COST S/TCN 17.62 •'Uiiir C^SI [/TON -MILE 2.35 FUEL FEQUIF.EMESTS MMBB 0, e4 ="15 i TOTAL ETFl7TTBTJn TOTAL COST(3C Y3S) = 2596.64 (MILLION DOLLARS) 20 C jt CHANGE IN OPERATION , S PEED 50.0-6C. M/H TOTAL OPERATING CC£T 39.1 TOTrtL flNWUAL COST 98.6 DTTTI COST S/TON 8TT1 " UNIT COST f/TCN -MILE 1.1C FUEL REQUIREMENTS MMEB 1.92 TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 1211 TOTAL COST (30 Y3SJ = 5T7BT71 (MILLION DOLLARS) 40. OX CHANGE IN OPERATION , SPEED 50.0-60. M/H TOTAL OPERATING CCST 46.4 ioial an:;ualcosi 13 7 . c UrtIT COSTIT/TTS 57T3 US IT COST f/TJN -MILE 1.3 1 EUtL REQUIREMENTS MMEfi 2.24 TOTAL JjfPICYHEHT 1436 Total coj;(30 yssj = ttuwtyu (m:il:g"*t~dt:tl~a~?"5t H :s S X o >-) IT £3 o K PS a pjb. z>h a o o 1-1 p IS IJSJl 031 1 C: o in Q w w b D4 V) S3 d- Z P O p= M EH OOOfN CNT- o t o W o £-• oto H o iF-> WW o :rr- -.1 J 3 ^ a: =>< O MO! U rZTTOX CHANGS IK OPERATION , SPEED 50.0-60. H/H -1Mb J2PF?A?ilG CCS? 30.1 uair cost $/icn 11.51 ownOall costCOST r/icrI/ZLf -milt-MILT 1.51i.5 •10.0% CHAKOT IN OPERATION .SPEED 50.0-60. H/H TOTAL OPERATING COST 23. TJ1AL SK'.'HAL COST P U . 2 1 3 usii ess : s/tcn m . Uitli COST r/TCN -KILE 1.67 £Ur.L &EQIJIIEMEKTS rtfiEB C. S6 IvJ'i'AL. E.MPLCYHZNT 933 ._. . I3in cosl (30 ytst^ irjjf.eo (HiiLi-N Dumnrsy 60.0% CHANGE IN OPERATION , SPEED 50.0-60. M/H IJIAL OPERATING COST 16.1 TOTAL RKNH3L COST 75,6 •UNIT CObT i/TJN 1b . 85 oirrr ccs-i r/fis =httt 27=7 F'JE;^ REy'JIHEKPNTS ttHEB O.ftfc 1J1AL EMPLOYMENT 6S2 TOIAi. C0Si(3C YAS) = 33CU.26 (MIIIICK- ECLLAES) 20.0% CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SEE5D 50.0-60. H/H ii-TAL OPERATING COST t5.5 TOThL ANNUAL COST 103.8 UNIT COST $/TON 9. Of U^-lT COST T/T( N -»!ILE 1.21 c - FUEL EEQUTTZMENTS—MSEB - TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 1626 TOTAL CO3T(30 YRS)= 6196. 12 (MILLION DOLLARS) 10.0% CHANGE IS OPERATION ,SPEED b(J.G-faO. H/H _iOT AX_C_P S RA TIN G CQ_ST_ 5 1.2 i J ULlfi a TAL CCST T5Trrr UNIT COST .E/TCN 10. ^5 UNI"UNIT COST r/TCN -MILE 1.13 FUi ,'L F.FQMIFEHENTS MMEB 2. 21 TOTAL EK?LCYKEiiT T9CTU TOTA^ COSi(30 YPS)= 6C13.10 (KILLIOK DOLLARS) COSTS AND riES'JUKCES E'OK UNIT IK ATN-TRANSPCirTA — — — i r~ioc 1 U3 I O^CN 1 «»> 1 .3- 1 H CN I vo 1 «3 1 »-c 1 '^ 1 w 1 K | tZ • 1 X I CSO 1 o 1 OK 1 •-) 1 SH t >-) B. 1 1 \ 1 ". • B 1 CU-1 ( E-" 1 CO 1 C3-Crt 1 O 1 «CJ« 1 En 1 EHE-i 1 Cc, 1 O 1 .o 1 FHE-it-i 1 H 1 o • 1 o 1 oo 1 CM 1 ooo 1 O 1 oo • • • • 1 C5 1 I i mo 1 H 1 OCCO 1 CO i r-c 1 E> I O'OC 1 ^o 1 oo t Ol 1 3T~0 | T- 1 00 1 CM | O.NCN i cn 1 o 1 cc 1 o I CMcr I n 1 £-< 1 •-) 1 WK IM O 1 i >-) 1 «W W 1 w 1 to Ok-) i < I Ota 1 CJ 1 fc- 1 con i t-< 1 2S «C l to 1 -tc-c 1 c 1 OH O 1 'Ji-lfc 1 E-i 1 OE. i-l —— —* 7-, 1 — 1 -•>-— | _ 1 ~— to o t w h X ! Qj H \ 1 CO ?3 1 H 1 ou> 1 •*" 1 = O o | Xln 1 o • • VO t oss I on o * I (KCM 1 O u") e 1 WCi 1 o r^ w | 15M 1 02 • Q i cm:t 1 r»cr. 1 Ol 1 SG O 1 w X t-J. O i (a 1 OJ fH « 1 U rM I r-\OC3 • 2 • 5 1 M 1 • • • <=r. i U) O 1 VI I U10 3 «: m CC I O 1 CM Ct, 1 trt 1 ^snf-" p u SM o 1 Hi 1 O 1 ft .-1 CM eu 1 f 1 cHE'S :z VI S2 1 o 3 i \W ca UJ l ^i_j_j ——— | =* i C i — — — 1 » z ir. E 1 CO 1 o T— ;3 a 1 H ii -r i H o 1 CO i cnt- r~ iJ M 1 O i • • • i • 1 CO , * til (-J E-" 1 u i cacm i ft 1 • :)•«•- ti H "1 «* 1 1 vD i r» s 1 O 1 fN po 1 2= 1 T— a a. 1 M 1 X -1 tf.i-i O 1 H 1 1 i-t c p-. 1 -5 1 -JO'-'J 1 rt'. a E- >« 1 C I vacu 1 E-" 1 H ^. D E-" 1 iM i e«*^ 1 C 1 CO , Cli -»:/) 1 O hi 1 l p^. t r-i O O « U 1 o M ! — t -) < l — — ^ >~ 1-4 Uj i *-r~r- I T- 1 e-i • «c • i • • • 1 • i «; HI *; <_» I Oil u> 1 o t E-. 1 com r- 1 m.' 1 E5 -i 1 uc. 1 <"M 1 Z i^ »-i 1 M4 I «: <~J s . .*U 1 ^ • CM 1 f 1 1 to I »-i Ci,S- KJi 1 I • l •£ O ~H | I <_/ 1 ii.c-< 1 H u 7"- -• 1 I —• 1 1 O o I rtCtj i C-h n- >< 'Z 1 1 H r- 1 SCI I b-sci; -1 I 1 5" ft* I j I is** i i I s.~ 1 E- • 31 l «: .CC.O i o 1 1. 1 b- ii -U | f 1 rtdt'- -J | H —* tH 1 — 1 ——— _ | __ 1 CO 1 C^>'< "i ( 1 Hi t • • • i •> c. r-i 1 CO I 'CC1«- • • -> 1 1-13 1 o 1 I m 1 -I i J 1 < J 1 H i a •/> • 1 ' < 1 J r-) r ti I o, 1 ^a n 1 .-3 i s i 'j a -i 1 «* t"" ° 1 C-* D : t ao-» 1 o E-< 1 H^S^M 1 E-i ) C -20 . OX CHjUiffJ I M OPERA TION ,SPEED 30.C-60. M/ II TOTAL' OPERATING COST 51.9 TOTAL ANNUAL COST 114.7 "DTrTT'TC'Sr "?/TOfl ~577t utfir cost f/TCN -am o.7e FJtL REQUIREMENTS HM£3 2.35 TOTAL .EMPLOYMENT _1361 30TAL 0o3!lTTO~Y!rs") = 6TB"5TCTT TF:iLIC!] DCLLASSJ" -U0.. 0% CHANGE IN OPERATION , SPEED 30.0-60. M/H TOTAL OPERATING COST 40. TOIAL AKMUAL COST 101.7 UNIT C0ST*/TCN 6 . 78 r ~u -ttt ^0Ti"T77n; -mile ctw FUtL REyUIEiMENTS HP!EB 1.91 TOIAL EMPLCYMEKI 1134 TOTAL C03I (30 Y?S) = 56.-0. CO (MIILICS CC I.L APS) -60.0% CHANGE IN OPERATION , SPEED 30.0-60. M/H TOTAL OPERATING CGSI 277! TO'i^L ANNUAL COST 87.7 UNIT CCS? VTCN 8.77 U. 2 0. 0* CHANGE IN OPEHATICK , SEE EI) JU.'J-bO. H/H TOTAL OPERATING COST .76.2 101 AL AN!, HAL CC3T K2.U UM1T COST $/T(~N 4.75 UN If COST f/TCV -MILE 0.63 FULL EEQUIHEHPMS Mf!EB 3.g3 TOTAL ti-iyLt^HHTT T9^8~ TOIAL COST (30 YRS)= 9314.39 (KIILION DOLLARS) 40.0X CHANGE IN_OPERATICN , SPEED 30.0-60. M/H TOIAL OPERATING COST 92.8 TOIAL ANNUAL COST 19C.^ UNIX COST S/TJK 5TWH UJi: COST [/TON -MILE 0.73 FUrL EE0UI3EMENIS .1MEP- 4.47 TOIAL IfiPLCYMENT 23 60 " "T07A~ 0OS- (-10 K.-;S)= TTFS3TT7 (MILLION " LOLLAtS) ;-t£H o .c ooJ • OO 3 oc CO ~ iOO oo oCO y« Sl-J !n ;n £ O VO BE ° a ° I M ZH IT) •! Q O .H J D ' o-)i 3 b OD i E i 10 i o ps i W h • H i o ru i tn f0 |B3 O H I U K i ss b i o Fsi H I « IS eu : O ' n ca bl o -> awrtft-' sun; U Cl, A " •2C.0* CHANGE IN OPERATION ,5PEED 30.0-60. H/H IOTA I OPERATING C rsr TF7TT TOTAL ANNUAL COST 1; Ui«-T COST $/TPN 6. 11 U»'If COST r/TCjj -MI LE 0.82- FUr,L -REQUIREMENTS iTTTFET""J ^ TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 1655 TOTAL CO3i(30 YRS) = 7333. e7 (MILLION DOLLARS) =W0.0% CHANGE IN"0T ESTTTOTTT T JTAL O P ERATING C OST TjixiL ATTN UAL CC ST 105.1 UNIT COST S/TCN 7.21 thill' COS? r/TON MILE 0.96 FJi.1, PEQUIR~"'EMEKTS MKEE 1.31 i-Oi'Al EKPICYHKI*'! 1 731 TOTAL CUoT (30 YRS) = 6C79.S6 (MILLION DOLLARS) -60.0% CHANGE IN OPERATION , SPEED 30.0-60. M/H IOTAL OPERATING COST 30.1 1 JxaL ANNUA L COST 92.7 TTNTT "r/TUTT y . 2i us it cosr r/iot; -mile 1.2t FUkL EFQUIPEMEl«'IS MMEB 1.28 ' TO ___J K_LC Y MEN T 9eu IOTAL CJ?*(JU V'HS) = 4719.21 ( RTLLICU LT"LT&~ET3r 20,0% CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SEEED 30.0-60. B/H IOTAL QPEFATING COST 8.5.7 XOT«L ANNUAL COST 15-.0 UNIT COST j/TCN 5. 10 UNIT COST [/TON -MILE 0.68 FULL EEsguiar"'IE ME!; IS" MMEB 3. A3 TUTSJ. iflPICYKENT 2^775" TOTAL COSI(30 YRS) = . 10115.67 (BILLION DOLLARS) 40.0% CHANGE IN OPERATION .SPEED 30.0-50. M/H TO I 1 OPERATING COST 101.9 ANN' UAL Ct'SI 20«.2 UjI: CO" 5/TOi: 5TT; UNIT COST [/TON -MILE 0.7R FULL REQUIREMENTS MMEB 4.U7 to: AiiL EMPLOYMENT 28 62 iuiAij woi (30~ Utib) 12695.56 (HTTXION DOLLARS)" incoiM n H "* w 1 CSiJ O O 5 ft, 5«a: J O • a OO w o ^ C3 in: M r- -s S 3 I W a- MSEH K "J U 3 a o«a! l-l a35 a: Ns 31 3: in \ CM o w n "I o I oco o •si 00 03 W o HP li E-< f-J II -• t-UC f . t .(U.hU CI w f J •tr. p r_ 'JLVMfO o — t n o * - A (H "1 < to a!. -4 A 1 -C E-t H I O CSO'TI -20.02 CHANGE IIJ OPERATION , SPEED 30.0-60. M/H TOTAL OPEIjATINGCCST _62.9 ;oi.-AL Annual cost T3T7T UiilS COST S/TCS 6.60 usxr cost [/ton -mile o.ae c c _____ BEQ U TRgM.ESIS MME3 iO'JAL "JTPTCYMEKT TOTAL CCS1(3C Y?.S) = 8013.95 (KILLICK DOLLARS) -iiC.0% CKAl'GE III CPEP.ATIC1T , SPEED iO.C-fcO. M/H TOTAL OP EFATI N G COST K9.C "lOi'AL ANTT7AT~CC"ST TVT72 UNIT COST $/TCN 7.7! UNIT COST r/TCK -MILE 1.03 FJ__L EEQO IS SMiNIS BHEB 1. 91 201 A L fcHPLCYi-IEH: TcTi* TOTAL COSl(30 Y3S) = 6642.U5 (MILLION DOLLARS) •60.0% C H ANGE IN OPERA TI CN , SPE ED 30.0-60. M/H TOTAL OPERATING COST 33.6 -101 A L ANNUAL COST S8. 9 una co si $/tjt. srgs UKIT COST [/TON -MILE 1.32 F'JtL BEQU1P2MEN7S MKEB 1.26 TOTA L EMPICYKEM 1 161 TOTAL COS! (30 YRS) = b 1 31 . ib T«U-LICN DCLLAPS) 20.055 CHANGE IN OPERATICN , SPEED 30.0-60. H/d TOTAL OPERATING CCST 95.1 TOTAL ANNUAL CCST 166.2 UNIT COST S/TON 5. 5 tt UNIT CCS'l l/TCJ. -HTLT. 0T7 i, ! FULL FEGniREMENTS MKEB 3.83 TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 292« TOTAL COSi(30YRS)= 11117.73 (WILLICS DCLLAFS ) 40.0% CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SP£ED 30.0-60. M/H — TuIkL CPFFAlItiG CCST TTTT3 •TuIAL JNKDAL CCST 221.1* UNIT COST $/TON 6.33 UMT COST r/TCK -HUE 0.°- FULi. REQUIREMENTS MKEB U.47 IOIAL EMPLOYMENT 2t?C TOTAL COSI(30 YPS)= 139U7.60 (MILLION DCLLASS) r- «- -.a- i-O os N as ocr, o Cm .c o • Q CO W 03-0 oo 03 • • • iro H CfNO r-o ococ CO iOO a I- o00 ws rn E-< Wca CiW vio-i U« a KUH ze: < •SO«C O i OH U>-iai £ SB 3 ur o • CCbj: ZH io o Oil « o*j 53 r. s< WU3 CD BSC i en roll o o OU)m o i U *"z: H I Oil SJ l~»OCi|o 1H uj~i| fr SIX. z«s o O 'J •X) I in | H H a. -4 I D I C1 _ 7 .> , CX CHANGE I« OP7-RATICM .SPEED 50.0-60. M/H c IOIAL CPE3ATING COST 7 . xJIAL fiHNUSL CCST fc.-u UiJir ccsc [/ton -mile C.P2 iUiiL REQUIhEMEMS MKEE 10'iAL EMPLOYMENT 1315 IGIAL COS L(.iO YPS) = 7;-5U.L'J (KI1LICH D r LLAKS) -uo. . 0% CHANGE IN OPERATION , SPEED 50.0-60. M/H IOIAL OPERATING CCST IOIAL AKKUAI COST 107.*? UaZT C:ST £/T0K 7. 18 UiJxi' U'j; l/'i'ur. -HILi Fd£L FEQUIIiEMFNlS HMEB 2.u0 IOIAL EMPLOYMENT 1C76 TOTAL Ci>5T(3C YHS) = 6053. S8 (MILLION DCLL7.F.S) -60. OX CHANGE IS OPERATION , SPEED 50.0-60. M/H J.01AL ANNUAL CCST 52.2 UNj.1 COST S/TOK 3.22 uwir cost r/TOK -kile 1.23 FULL BEQTIIREMEtfTS KMEE 1.6C IOIAL EMPLOYMENT 76-J = ivvi'AL v.o3l'i3CI KKt) UcfS.CI . (M.LII_(JN DOLLARS) 20.0X CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 50.0-60. M/H TOTAL OPERATING COST 65. IjUL AI.N'OAL COST 1 5 :: . UNIT COST f/TCN 5 .10 OTTTT COST r/TCl.' -MILE TT7FS" JrJLL EEQUIBLMEfclS KKEE ii.ao 1GIAL EMPLOYMENT 169C TOTAi :_Cj S 1 (30 Y3S) = 1C 135.35 (MILLION DOLLARS ) VO.flS CHANGE IH OPERATION ,SPEED 50.0-60. M/H ~ lOCAl OPTfATlNG CCST TOITi IJ1A1 ANNUAL COST 203.6 0U~£ COST -f/TON 5.R2 UNIT CP 3 T [/TO N -MILE .73 full nrr.iiipfcr.nrrs mmee 5 t^ti J.01AL EMPLOYMENT 2*23 TOTAL COS. (30 YF.S) = 12663.26 (MILLION DOLLARS) a «rr -o w s<: • X P3Q o 1-1 a. \ X«tW O •c ooo . DvOO oo • • • ino r-o or-o too w oao « Wcr t-t w w KUH fSO< OH p«-Jce OH S CM PJ a. O I CM • • • to p-c « Oj l-it-" M| r a wl H •uc l .CQft.! cctui I _ I O »»>£> ja ) t •20. CS CHANGS IN OPERATIC!! , SPEED 50.0-60. M/Il •IOTAx. nnrs)" ,0.05 CHANGE IN OPERATION , SPEED 50.0-60. M/H TOTAL OPERATING COST 50." TOinL ANNUAL COST 123.6 U N IT CC S T j/TCK 8. C4 TOlx COST r/TC.j.—^rLT "TT iJEL REQTJIR'EMEKISFiEQTJIREMEK M M E B 2 . 4 C IjTAI EMPICYKEKT 1m92 TOl, iL COS. (30 YPS) = 666 t4. 92 (million D0LLA 3S) -60.0? CHANGE IK OPERATION , SPEED 5C.0-60. M/H *iL OPERATING COST 34. i. ji AL ANNUAL COST 10 2.3 UNI I COST S/TCS 10.23 UJjI 1' COS! r/ICK -MILE 1.36 FUEL REgGlEciaTSTS SKEB 1.FC ! TOT hL EMPLOYMENT 1058 TOTAL COS! (30 YRS)= 5299.65 (MILLION DOLLARS) "20. U* CHANGE ITOTERTZTQ TOTAL OPERATING COST 98.6 "I01AL ANHUAL CCST" 1/3.4 UNI! COST S/TCN 5.78 UNIT COST r'/rCN -MILE 0.77 FULL BEQUIIREQUIREMENTS KMEB 4.80 XUVAL iflPKKHtNT -2^6tr TOTAL COoT(30 ¥RS)= 11571.76 (MILLION DOLLARS) 40.0 % CHANGE IN OPE R ATION ,SPEED 50.0-60. M/H 1'OIAL CFSFATING COS' 117.4 101 A L ANNUM. COST ^J'. unit ccsr 3/rcf! 6.59 UNIT COST [/TIN -MILE O.ee r'UEL REUIJIPE-K2NTS '-1ME E 5. 60 ro'iAL rtTPTcranr: rt^i IOTAL CJS'J.-(10 Y3S) = 14 465.59 (KILLIOK DOLLARS) r- Mr Oi let H6H O :co • DO no ^o .00 oas x!=t MWH jam DCU OH w N. H Z o W KM a o*c kJ 33 to I C 5= . M I in e: > O En c-j o w i m I ™ C TO inn s-h -l^lXl I H O ft,Uc"> H M*0 1H lj"||JT-f -J o Oft Q 'JO H Drt3 «i ) -> 1 uC -20. OS CHANGE IN OPERATION , SPEED 50.0-60. M/H TOTAL OPfiFVTlKG C S T ^7 3T5 TOi AL ANNUAL COST 152.9 I COST $/TCN 7 -t5 r COS T r/TC N -MILF 1.02 Fin: EHRTQnTEEF/Z KT5—FH E B 377C" TO T AL EMPLOYMENT 2:22 IOTAL CoSi (30 YHS) = 9349.65 (MILLION DCLLAFS} -4 0.CI~CHA:nGE IN CPES^TrCirTSTTEIT b'J.U-bU. M/H IOJAL OPERATI NG CO ST 57. c IOxAL ANNUAL UUS1 T3T".'T Ui\.i' COST $/TCK 8.9C o&ir cost r/TON -mtlj i.19 r'Ur.L EPQUIHEMEKTS f!rE£2.U0 i-J'ili. EMPTTYTTETT T5 C7 TOTAi. ;uSl(30 YsS) = 7710. £6 (F.IILION DCLLAPS) •6 0. 0% CHAN G E IN OP E3ATI CN ,SPEE D 50.0-60. K /_H_ TOTAL OPERATING CCST 39. 4 TOTAL fiHNUAL COS? 1 12. u :. 1 VrTTU CCST r /tc s •MILE 1.50 fjl-.i. PEQUTFEnOT: ; WMER 1.6C ErtPL JYHEST 1553 .i'Oi'ij. ti,jil.iO 1Mb) 5 '3 1 U . *: 9 ( BILLioN DCLLASS) 20. OX CHANGE IN OPERATION , SPEED 50.0-60. M/H 101 al :pe RATING C 111.6 roi aL ANN UAL CCST I9j.7 UiNI T CCS S/TON 6.46 OTT : ccsr yzzv -.Tin ot"?^ FUi L REQtj SIREKENTS MKBB 4.90 TO I dL EMP LOYMIN1 3429 TOTAL COS! (30 Y3 Sl= 130C6. 16 ( MILLION DCLI APS) 40. 0% CHANGE IN OPEBATICN, , SPEED 50.0-60. M/H TOTAL OPERATING COST 133. TOTAL ANNUAL COST 257. / U«'ir CCSI S/TOK 7.36 UalX C3 5" T /TC N -MILE O .Sg -TVEZ FEWrT>T7rETHT5 MHEB b.~6T TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 4C96 IOTAL CoSx(30 YHS)= 16 303.73 (MILLION DOLLARS) T-CSKO o rn .in coo « a O * 3 H C3.«W t-> H O CO W ooo oo • • • iro S! orjo o>~o DO o D w OOIT.IN O to r">f>tr w * «- 4n H WPS U a CSUj-l s=fc «q O '< OH UiJfo o n H \ COW KM H « Eh M to i w opa i § J co! col N I -1 a t-i (^ b i a, CO c CO o u mr* (o cc i O -J *f- ja h J T « IT. \J% ""CHANGE TirnTPEimi CtT 7~5TF! TOTnL CPFPATIKG COS I'JlrtL ANNUAL COST m-.i U^iir COST i/TCK 4. 11 UNIx COS'.' f/TfK -MILE 0.55 Full. FHQ'mZM FMS MMEB 7. 15 "T-A'AL bHPLCYMEI-T T3TT2 TOTAL CUSi (30 YRS) = 16196. C8 (MLLICN DCLLAFS) -UQ.0% CFAt'GE IN OPERATIC N .SPEED 30 . C-60. M/ H TOT- cpefa:: NG CCST 111 i'OI 3NNUAI cos? • 19":, unit cosr*/:ot u.iir cost r/i'cr - MILE . 6 1 TUtL BEQUTFEMENIS tf!-!EB 5. 36 TOTAL Eii?ICYi1 ?M 27 5 Xol (T7r"Y?"ST£ Iksfcl.b^ (/TLLTCK XCLLASS)" -60. 0* CHANGS IN OPERATICN , S EE2D 30 . 0- 60. M/H v ij.al opft 20. OS CHANGE IN OPERATICN ,SF2ED 30.0-60. M/H TOi AL CFEPA TING C OST nr.r to: AL ANNUA L CCST iC6.7 UNI I COST « /TCK 3.65 Ujix I COST r /TCN - MILE 0.u9 FTTEL ittg'J^EHENIS MKEB10. 72 TOT AL EMPLOYMENT 4902 TOTAL COST (30 Y?S) = 23227.62 (MILLION DOLLARS) 40. 0% CHANGE: IN OPt'ETATlCN ,StEE0 30.0-60. M/H" I TALCP E HAT I NG CCS 258.6 x'U'iAL ANNUAL JCS. TSTTTB UtflT COST S/T^N 4.01 UN^-T COST [/TOK !ILE 0.54 FUE.L FEQ'JISEKFI-Tf MKEB12.51 j-OiAL HMPIUTMT 5B?8 CoSj. ( 30 Y3S)= 26t29.li5 (MILLION DOLLARS) opo •SO Da e-«t-< C .© H HF-i o . oo ir.o C OCT r-o m no >oo in :ro 00 o n E-< i cu WDr-1 ^E rtlbrt OH uf-its UEh Cj 3C of-") o .Pi 3E Sin" v\ Q «: n o 4 o i « OS N «n l-)k-> (-•jioo> O 2! a 1=1 rv, w-i o 10 « i o H «s wP-. oPi K U- «< «* IrM Lr. •« e i h* ^ fJ rr.l Su t- TO . I --t.-rir •I- • i Ira Ji3H . •« cab > ; O ! H / •20. OX CHANGE IS OPERATION , SPEED 30.0-60. M/H IJIAL OPERATING COST 160.2 iOlAL ANNUAL CCST i55.C U:1IT1_COST S/IZV. 4. 55 [jirri co~sTT7Tnir--^arn TTT! FUbL REQUIREMENIS MMBB 7. 15 lOTAl EMPLOYMENT 4131. = TO I hi i.v6i (30 YRS) 17S 7 a.g 9 ClIIIICN DCLLAPS ) -40. OX CHA'JGS IN OPERATION , SPEED 30.0-60. H/H IOIaL OPERATING COST T2TTT TOTAL ».NS0AL CCST 214.6 U.UI COST i/TOt, 5.11 jj^li) COST f/O-'K - Kill 0.66 r'Ui-L fci.'O'l^IM-.'N.S TTRliti 5T3T lOinL RMPICYKEKI 3«26 TOTAL :Ooi."(30 Y3S) = 14aua.2& (KI1J ION DCLLAPS) r?TC. CS CH7.NGi: IN OPE^AIICN ,"S"FEEU 30.0-60. M/H 0'IAL OPERATING COST u:dL AN>UA> Obi rrcr-r Ua'il CCST S/TJN 6. 10 OS IT COS I l/Z:ZV. :li 0.81 £M NIS MM EH 3. 57 fprrr IpTAL COS 'l (30 Y.r 20.0% CHARGE IN CPE3ATICN .SPEED 30.0-60. H/H ld :2kl OPERATING CCSI 242.Q TjxaL 3NSUAL COST J - c llji ll COST \ 1 C.K MI LF Q. 4 i?ut; kE0 ! <'"iMi*rZIIT5 71MEE10. )l TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 62U0 TOTAL COSI(3C YSS)= 25932.64 (MILLION DOLLARS) 40.0% CHANGE IN OPERATIC:! ,S£££d 30.0-60. M/H TOTAL CPE°A TING_CQ ST 287.7 TSiTL ASvTTJ 5 L COST "433tT O.N II COS"" S/TOK 4.47 o ccsr [/toe -mile O.SOo.« un "1 Ur.L REQ UIREMENTS MKEE1 2. = 01' AL EEPTCYMTN"! 7"5"3 TOTi :u5-(30 YHS) 31c£5.28 (MILLION DOLLARS) 3 CO -r- •r- IH ->C= 3o ooo • O :j;r 'H 4u5 N Ql 4£= fc=n fys o: i-l o N r- Hi n, 05 . fc-t WO 1 Mi ftii P-. . 10 .2 Ui N rt 1 -J J. o CO H L0 ?5 E-'H D O p L- .« •taco, ° ! | >ri~-JT .r.r-t It t I Ja. *:ra ~u CJOH => f*a C3 L ^ -31 - t-»f-5 -J -20. os chakge it; operation , speed 30.0-50. m/ii TJl^l OPERATING COST 1 , / . b iOTAL AKNUAL COST 262. C U:."ir COST S/TCN 5.0U UNIT COST r /TCK -MIL E ^.£7 5~ Jr'Ucx. 5TQU 7 SlTfTETTS B ETFB 7 . 'I LO-hL EBPLCYMFNI 513U TOTAL CO3i(30 YRS) = 19S00.93 (BILLION DCLLAF.S) UQ.0% CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 30.0-50. M/i! I3TAL CPEFATTNG CCSI TJbTl IOTA1 ANNUAL COST 237.2 UNIT COST 5/ICK 5.6 5 ujir-c:st r/TCK -Bill B~ C.75 FITETL F ETJTr: 31! YEATS H BE " 5 . To" TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 4 20 4 TOTAL Cool (30 Y^S)= 160*9. 20 (RI1LTCN DCLLABS) ~^Trr TOTAL OPERA TING COS! 9U.6 i J '1~A 17 USTOTTL CO! uiiir cost S/TCK 6.73 u:«ii cost r'/Tcs -BTLF 0.9C FULL FEOUIFEMiiNIS MHEP 3 . 57 TUTaL IMP ICY KT FT ZSTI luIAL 003.(30 Y?S)= 11 753. C« (Mill ICN DOLLARS) 20.0% CHAKGE I N OPERATION .SPEED 30.0-60. B/H TOTAL CPEFATING COST 269.2 TOTAL "l.'N'IAL CO ST 3 7 8.3 U,^i.' COSY S/TCN CT5TT" UNIT OS? r/TCN -BILE 0.60 FUEL PEQUIREKENIS HHEB10.72 TOTAL EBP LOYKEtiT 7681 TOTAx. COS. (jO YliS) = 2bbj/.fc2 (KiLLION DCLLAHS) 40.0*4 CHANGE IN OPERATION , SPEED 30.0-60. M/H TOTAL OPEFATING COST 319.6 aJTAL ANNUAL COST 486.2 UNIT COST g/TCjj U. 96 "Tnrrr ccsr r/Trs -mtxt FULL EECUISEHEKIS MKEB12.51 XJiAL EHPLCYHFKI 92 n 8 i'Oi 051(30 Y*?3) = 35191.55 (KILLION DOLLARS) 1 *" r-r- j I i 4- a-rj 1 ?> i H r" • 1 » O I roo | 1 sti # OS a o o i 3 i i -1 \ 'S 1 Oj -5 1 => cs«« 1 O 1 «u ~ . . . | . 1 EhEh 1 H 1 o H w OC0 2 1 D 1 • • | • | CVD 3 1 O | r— Or P 1 1 X-T-O N 1 r~m 4 1 J 1 o^o * 1 T- 1 1 n i --i i «io -) 1 C 1 «l_l H 1 H i rtO -C 1 3 I CJi-1 r-< 1 cu t/1 oo Z •r-j o • as o— 05y c«~ a UK CO w 8H CM »| 1 o -•»a i «e CW — E o W • S OrJ oaCJW .-i"** i (MM3f- 1 rviinin i • [_• I 3O0 1 1 in ps; i N E-tjl Q 1 1 UM Pul .«p : H o i pa i EhE-K | Wi_ -1 | »! O = !< T-CN 1 n i « • | M • « i EH «~r- JN » Jsr 7> 1 03 «- r— 1 w >H 1 -1 - o « 1 hH 1 o t-)0 J* 1 •K 1 HO X | H 1 EH F-i c«; T: | O I '/l Eh.-) J3 1 Eh 1 O o irv- j3-3 1 r" | • • * * 1 • l C_MH »•- 1 20 l cmin i— .1 | J> 1 3 nj W i£S 1 **. • O 1 wc • M 1 r* tH 1 JJW (iTU. *«: 1 t^s: "l^H 1 S-ft, *4C^ ;(U 1 a: &J 1 hH 1 EH •P. | «< 1 L_ U • P3 — | cH 1 t»u-J tJUkM | C 1 «:o i 4 « 1 t-' 1 J-cJ Tl 1 • • • 1 ifirs; • 1 cj-.-r n r 1 1 :* "I 1 & 1 CO I A «>aj » 1 fcsn K, 1 J 1 'J a H 1 < 1 => < 3 | EH | « ^p i O I EH a - Eh r 1 c A — --20. 0* CKANifF IN -OPESATIuB ,SFEEn bJ.'>fcO. M/H TOTAL CPEnATIHG CCSI 16 . U 7 JIM 'ANf'JAL CCSI "2TW2 unit c^sr s/ton -.5t OiNir COST r/TCN -MIL* 0.61 FUT.L FEOUISEKEKTS KKFP 3.96 total nTPrrnmn: rrr^ IOIAL CuS J.(3C Y3S) = 17966.36 (MILLION COLLARS) -iiO.Cft CHANGE I N OPE R ATION .SPEED 50. 0-6 0. M/H TOTAL CPEFMING CCS? 123.2 T OTAL ASJ U L CCS 1: 212. 6 UNIT COST ~T7TTT: 5TCT UN^T COST r/TOK -MILE 0.66 FUtL FEQUIFEMENTS MKEE 6.72 -j.OI.iL ESP L CYKEM 2^15 IOIAL COST (30 YSSJ5 "• U - 2 8 .XT"fFTILTCTT TJCLLAKb") 60.0* CHA-NGE IN OPERATION ,SF£ED 50.C-60. M/H IOIAL CP3FATING CCST 83.7 IOIAL ANNUAL CCST 16$. C UNIT COST 3/10 E 6.0 3 - . 7- —T7-r 7~" —- — n ; —r n"v -tv tt t n -Ot U J i i. C C3T"T7TCT - MILS CTHTT ?U~L F.EQUIFEKFNTS MK2F 4. Ufa TOTAL EKPIOYMENI 1655 TOTAL COS: (30 Y?.S) = 1Cut6.83 (MILLION LCLLAP^) .20. OX CHANGE IS OPERATION , SPEED 50.0-60. M/H TOTAL OPERATING COST 2-11.8 IOIAL ANNUAL CrsT 339.9 Ual? CCST V-JN BTCT u«ix ccsr r/To»; -mile o,5u FUhL BEQIJIBEKEMS HMEP13.U3 TOTAL EMPLOYMENT _ U"735 TOTAL COS I ("3 iAS)= 25762.57 (f.HLICJN LCLLABSJ 40. C* CHANGE IN OPERATION , SPEED 50.0-60. M/H TOTAL OPERATING CCST 286.0 TOTAL- ANNUAL CCST fc3".fc U :i l . CCS"? S/TOI S,Ju 7 ;_ — r - iniT" : 3T~r/ - f h i o "n"TT v FJLi. FEQ!II«EM3NT5 MKEB15.67 TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 5o~9 TOTAL C UJ-l ( 3C YRS)= 31460.11 (MIILICN DCLL AFS) ' CT> ! in i E-IH C 6- i COoo mo r-o E3 vOO mil oi o i oil «--!! v£> I E-i • wesi caw! BOH Ut-i! OH DE-1 S h: o a! VO «W| a Wfti w ZH| Q MS' Of; o W. -J o \ in o z. 1 to • M 1 E-" o «: 1 V) ID ft 1 O Eh 1 U Q 114 W 1 H w O • M ft 1 2 ft W 1 — i [T. a i n ET. ;s 1 IH o z 1 (/} l-l 1 o (H 1 u *s c 1 o w t 53 Cu t H 0=1-1 I o 1 t-< kJ 1 «< >l 1 ft HQD( EHll [H 1 w c.-.| I 1 1 CU fc-ij u 1 o *f. a, ds Oft si- c- ca OCJ E-.'C '0 o D u -.1 -1 EH --1 O H • 20. OX CHANGE IN OPERATI ON , SPEE D 5C.C-60. M/H TOTAL OPERATING COST 18! or i r< ii A L Ui«~T CC5T $/" :n Otjkir" cost [/ton -mils o.7i FUi,L REQUIREMENTS Mt'E? S.96 —x JT AL tKi'L'JYHfcNT —rtrrr TOTAL COSi(30 YR.S) = 2C793.12 (MILLION DCLLAP.S) -UO. OX CHANGS IN OPERATION , SPEED 50_. 0-60 . M/H IA T ^D 2 FATING ccs: 1U2.6 TO L ?N NUAL CO si 2HS.3 017 "TUT?T S/l'-N ^. ^u COS T UlCli -MIL? 0.79 FU EHQ UIREMFN TS- KMEB 6.72 10 L EM PLCYMES T 3792 _ TOiaj- Cob to—r H5T= T5TFB7T1—pnXLLOfc i)CLL£BSJ -60. OX CHANGE IN CP ERA-TICK , SPEED 50.0-60. M/H TOTAL CPE2ATING- COST 97. 4 TOTAL ANNUAL CC3I 1S/.7 Uj.lT COST S/TCy 7.0 6 lK.1T COS" f/TJfs -MILE 0.97T FUrL REQfJ]JIEEKEtfTS MKEB «. !i8 TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 26S9 TOTAL CojjJJO YRS) = 122C3.S3 (yiLLICN DCLLABS) 20.0% CHANGE IN OPERATION .SPEED 50.0-60. M/H TOxAL OPERATING CC£T 77FTU- TOTAL SNNUAL COST 397.7 UNIT COST $/TOK 4.73 ON IT COST f/TCN -1ILE- 0.63 FTJ7TL" FEO'IIAEMHNTS ;TFFBT3TQ~j J.OIAL EMPLOYMENT 6915 TOTAL CO5T(30 YRS) = 29652.39 (MILLION DOLLARS) _ 1*0. OX CHANCE IN OPERttTTC¥ T3TT nrm crrrfttTnre ctrsr 3 3 c . 3 TOTAL ANNUAL COST 511.** UfcH COST I/TO 8 5.22 rjyix' cost r/Toy -mile .0.70 FTTil 'i'i'JU.Vi7i "STT3 KMEB15. P 7 _CIAL EMPLOYMENT 8331 TOTAL COST (30 Y?.5)= 36630.37 (KIIL! DOLL! 5 S) r- o I CO X . CCQ OSS \an HmJW O I sua En I E- © • I oc OVDO oo mo t-o VOO o* MfNlO CO JOOJ o co i Eh .-J WK CH&J lOOi-l UC COM zs OH UEH UK I CSW WC3 j ! o> : ^5 r a 3 9-i E [ f-^J-'O j- a' co i-lOOi time* H I EH O I \n En I o o H /) z K • < o ist-< »- >-l CO |H«!«:M f=C t. b-' ^-> is-* ' En .05 ; .t,ae. M.nrtU Lr to in • wooi N^3 4 EH [ 1 £ -20. Q% CHAKG5 IN OPERATION , SPEED 5C.C-60. fl/il I01AL CPEFATING COST 207.9 TJiAL ANNUAL COST 3tC5 UNIT CCS ," j/T ON e . c p. TJiTTT"ColTITTTT-^^TIt'E ^"^T" FUii- REQUIREMENTS riKEP 3.S6 U.AL Eti?LOYi1E:."T 6C60 PCTAL .-03 1 (30 Y3.S) = 236 19 . 3^ (MILLICN D OLL AR S) -i;0. 0% CHAiiGE IN OPERATION , SPEED 50.0-6C. M/li lAL OPERATING COST TrTTTS i.0 TiL ANNUAL CCSI 235, UN ir ccsr $/ro*. 6,?1 *<;"SI r/TOX -TI LL 0.P1 V - j ti t—— u n t n LL FLQUIrlMLis .c C. II _-iq IAL EKP1CYM£M liJ'iAli CCo i(30 YIiS) = 19' C3.36 (MILLION DOLLARS) •DOT CKTI^T ""OTETHTn •:d" d:).u-60. h/ii o:al tp^atimg cost 1. 1 ZZoTM u:jit cost J/tcn 3.09 u;;^: cosr r/TOK -mil E 1.06 V Jr'Ux.1. R EQUIP," .TNIS M k e e a . a 8 TOTAT 3 C Y35) = 13v£0. v3 (MILLION DOLLARS) TuIAL COS. (. 20.0% CHAI.O E IN OPERATI C N , SPEED .50. 0-60. B/H TOTAL" CPEFATING C: 314.3 TO J ANNU AL COS T U55.5 U U 1 S7TTK 5.u^ UNIT COST r/TOK -MILE 0.72 FUEL REQUIREMENTS KMEc13.ii3 TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 9095 TOTAL COSi(30 Y^S)= 33922.23 (MILLION DOLLARS) UO.OX CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SFEED 50.0-60. M/H TOTAL CPEFATING COST 374. S 101*1 8NNHAL COST 53S.C Uai: COST g/Tp K 6. CO U.«IV Co ST r/TC>: -MILE U. HI' FJr.L FF.CfiJI3£MSt:TS MMF.Es15.67 l'OTAL EMPLOYMENT 1093U :AL CCSjLLJO YHS)= H17t\61 (mil l: i N DCLLAP3) :ERING LIBR, UNIV y Of W&AHK ILIJNOK jnivers;ty of Illinois at urbana-champaign URBANA, ILLINOIS 61801 CAC Document No. 223 COMPARATIVE COAL TRANSPORTATION COSTS: AN ECONOMIC AND ENGINEERING ANALYSIS COAL SLURRY PIPELINES Volume 3 \>y Michael Rieber and Shao Lee Soo Center for Advanced Computation University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign| August 1977 • f * «077 U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Mines and the Federal Eneray Administration Contract Report J01661G3 "The views ^and conclusions contained in this docu- ment are those of the authors and should not be interpreted -as necessarily representing the offi- cial policies or recommendations of the Interior Department's Bureau of Mines, the Federal Energy Administration, or of the U.S. Government. NOTICE The United States Government does not endorse pro- ducts or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear herein only because they are con- sidered essential to the subject of this report. liographic data 1. Report No. 3. Recipient's Accession No. •:et i,u-.inJ subtitle Comparative Coal Transportation Costs: An Econ- 5. Report Date mic and Engineering Analysis of Truck, Belt, Rail, Barge, August-, 1Q77 ad Coal Slurry and Pneumatic Pipelines; Volume 3 - Coal lurry Pipelines 8- jt hop's) Performing Organization Rept. No. ir.hael Rieber and Shao Lee Soo CAC Dnr No—223 .rforming Organization Name and Address 10. Project/Task/Work Unit No. 46 26 17 372 jnter for Advanced Computation liversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 11. Contract /Grant No. rbana, Illinois 61801 J0166163 jponsoring Organization Name and Address 13. Type of Report & Period Covered ifice of the Assistant Director, Mining Final Report ireau of Mines apartment of the Interior 14. qfi-ingfnn, n.r. 2Q24J upplcmentary Notes bstracts ised on previous work, the pipelines are described and costed. Pipeline and de- itering environmental impacts are discussed. Pipeline flexibility is analysed in rms of variation in the flow rate as well as branching and tapping the trunk line r distribution purposes. cy Words and Document Analysis. 17a. Descriptors Dal transportation Cal slurry Fpelines Fpeline branching Cal slurry transport costs 'dentif iers/Open-Ended Terms KOSATI Field/Group 'ailability Statement 19. Security Class (This 21. No. of Pages Report) UNCLASSIFIED 59 20. Security Class (This 22. Price Page UNCLASSIFIED >MT IS-35 (REV. 3-72) USCOMM-DC I4952-P72 FOREWARD This repor t was prepared by the Center for Ad- vanced Co mputation of trie University of Illinois at Urbana -Champaign under USBM Contract No. J0166163. The contract was initiated under the Office of University Relations. It was admin- istered un der the technical direction of the Divi- sion of In ter industry Analysis with Mr. Ronald Balazik a ctinq as the Technical Project Officer. Mr. Robert Carpenter was the contract specialist for the Bu reau of Mines. This report is a summary of the work recently com- pleted as part of this contract during the period May 1976 to August 1977. This report was submit- ted by the authors on August 1977. This volume is a part of the eight volume report completed for this contract. The draft final re- port was submitted in May 197 7. The principal authors, Michael Rieber and Shao Lee Soo, are, respectively, Research Professor, Center for Advanced Computation, the Graduate College; and Professor of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering; both at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Subject Inventions This is to certify that, to the best of my Knowledqe and belief, there were no Subject Inventions made or have resulted from the performance of this con- tract. August 1977 Michael Rieber ^ Principal Investigator CAC Document No. 223 FINAL REPORT COMPARATIVE COAL TRANSPORTATION COSTS: AN ECONOMIC AND ENGINEERING ANALYSIS OF TRUCK, BELT, RAIL, BARGE AND COAL SLURRY AND PNEUMATIC PIPELINES VOLUME 3 COAL SLURRY PIPELINES by Michael Rieber and Shao Lee Soo with P. King, Y. T. King, T. Leung, H. Wu and J. Wu prepared for Bureau of Mines, Department of the Interior and the Federal Energy Administration Contract No. J0166163 Center for Advanced Computation University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Project 46-26-17-372 August 1977 TAELF, Or CONTENTS VOLUME 3 Page 3 . COAL SLURRY PIPELINES 3-1 3 . 1 INTRODUCTION 3-1 3 . 2 SLURRY PIPELINE COSTS 3-8 3.3 PIPELINE FLEXIBILITY AND BRANCHING 3-18 REFERENCES 3-3 5 COMPUTER APPENDIX (Follows) 3-36 LIST OF TABLES VOLUME 3 Paqe Proposed and Hypothetical Coal Slurry Pipelines 3-7 Itemized Capital Costs of Black Mesa and Wyominq- Arkansas Coal Slurry Pipelines (1976 Prices) 3-11 Major Items Required for Operation and Maintenance of Energy Facilities (1976 $) 3-14 Manpower Required for Operation of Energy Facilities 3-16 Changes in Costs per 1000-Mile Pipeline Desiqned tor 5 MPH Flow at 5 MPH and 3.5 MPH as Compared to One Desiqned tor 3.5 MPH (in million dollars) .. 3-24 Pipeline Branchinq Under Normal Conditions 3-25 General Effect of Varyinq Branch Flowrate 3-26 General Case of Branch Line Shutdown 3-27 Houston Natural Gas Branchinq Pipeline 3-28 Houston Natural Gas Pipeline, Proposed Normal Operation 3-29 Houston Natural Gas Pipeline Variable Branchinq Flowrate 3-30 Example of Pipeline Tappinq, Normal Operation 3-31 Example of Pipeline Tappinq, Varyinq Tap Flowrate 3-32 Examples of Pipeline Tappinq 3-33 li LIST OF FIGURES VOLUME 3 Page 3.1 Unit Cost - Slurry Pipelines 3-17 3.2 Branching Examples 3-34 in 3. COAL SLURRY PIPELINES 3.1 INTRODUCTION An analysis of coal slurry pipelines was presented in our May 1976 study, Route Specific Cost C ompariso ns : Uni t Trains , Coal Slurry Pipelines a nd Extra High Vo ltage Transm issio n [4], The present study extends that analysis. The earlier work included technical and economic cost descriptions of the Black Mesa and ETSI pipelines as well as some hypothetical pipeline routes. Water problems, safety and environment, required resources, and labor impacts were discussed at some length. Additionally, pipeline impacts on competing railroads, slurry-rail comparisons, and cost escalation were analyzed. The difference in pipeline profitability to an owner-operator versus a promoter-builder was suggested. These aspects are not redone in this study. Here, we present a synopsis of the previous results and a general statement of coal slurry pipelines. Extensions of the arguments are presented where they appear warranted. New material is developed in the area of pipeline branching and tapping. This would appear necessary if slurry pipelines are to function as more than private lines; if they are, for example, to be responsive to common carrier requirements. Except for the availability of water, pipelines are not geographically limited. To date, commercially proposed pipelines have had a generally north-south orientation with points of origin in the great plains and mountain states. West to east and west to Pacific pipelines are feasible. They are also feasible along the east coast an^ for shipments out of Appalachia. In fact, the water problem there may be a relatively small deterrent. We have found no reason to expect that costing, other than for problems associated with land values and terrain, differs significantly by geographic region. A list of some proposed and hypothetical coal slurry pipelines appears in Table 3.1. Cost estimates are those proposed by the listed source at the time of submission. They have not been escalated. A coal slurry pipeline is an available alternative to unit train transportation. While the process is not new, it was not until 1957 that a major coal slurry pipeline was built. The 10" diameter pipeline extended 108 miles from Cadiz, Ohio to the East Lake Power Station of the Cleveland Illuminating Company on Lake Erie. It operated until 1963 when changes in ICC rate making policies permitted the competing railroad to offer cheaper unit train rates on all 3-1 coal carrying unit trains in the region. Apparently the cost structure of the pipeline did not allow the meeting of the new rates and the pipeline was closed. Since then the line has remained inoperative. An engineering proposal was formulated by Bechtel, sponsored by the former Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, for the inactive pipeline to ship garbage from Cleveland to the Cadiz area [1]. This proposal was not carried out because of local opposition to garbage dumping at Cadiz. The incident, however, has been denied in testimony by E. J. Wasp at a House Subcommittee hearing on January 29, 1976 [2]. A second coal slurry pipeline was not built until 1970. It extends between the Black Mesa coal fields near Kayenta, Arizona and the Mohave power plant in southern Nevada. This 273 mile, 18" line was built as a cost efficient alternative to the construction of 150 miles of new railroad. The circumstances were ideal for the use of a slurry pipeline. The distance between the Black Mesa coal mines, located 120 miles north of the nearest railroad, and the Davis Dam, located 30 miles north of the nearest railroad, gave the pipeline a 2:3 distance advantage. The availability of an adequate water supply with which to move the coal, without the need for water return, further reduced the relative costs. A coal slurry pipeline system requires that the coal go through a number of processing stages before it is used by the power plant. Once mined, the coal is delivered to a preparation plant where it is pulverized to sizes between 18 and 325 mesh and then suspended in about an equal weight of water. This 50-50 slurry mixture has a consistency approximating toothpaste. It is pushed through the pipeline via electric pumping stations 70 to 100 miles apart [3, p. 3]. Flow velocity through the line must be maintained within a narrow range. For example, if a 3.5 mph design is used at 5 mph , the system must be able to withstand double the horsepower, peak pressure, and wear [4, p. 59]. Minimum flowrate must be maintained to avoid particle settling and plugging. If an emergency situation occurs, a maximum of three days shutdown is possible before the coal particles settle in the line. However, in general, once a pipeline system has been designed, because of economic considerations on the one hand and design limits on the other, flowrate is rather inflexible. Pipelines may be routed through and around mountains, cities and other obstacles. However, routing and terrain are reflected in construction costs, pipeline pressure, and required pumping power. If access to route paths is difficult, additional pipeline construction costs accrue. Elevation changes put more stress on pumps than level 3-2 . movement Two pipeline hazards are breakage and plugging. While plugging does not occur on liquid or gas pipelines, line breaks and leaks are not unknown. System reaction is nearly the same for both cases. Stations upstream of the plug or break must dump slurry into holding ponds and introduce water for flushing. For a 1000 mile line with 100 mile station spacing, this means dumping slurry into a holding pond equivalent to one acre by 100 feet deep. Complete flushing of the line would take 30 hours [4, p. 71]. Downstream of the plug or break the slurry presents a different problem. In the case of a plug, the slurry between it and the downstream station cannot be moved. If plug removal or other repair takes more than a week, the slurry may deposit in the pipe and lose fluidity. In the case of breakage, the downstream slurry can be moved if the leak is not too large. In that case there will still be sufficient pressure remaining to flush the downstream mass. Spillage however, creates environmental hazards, especially if near or in a populated area. This procedure calls for flushing water storage as well as holding pond storage. For a 25MMTY, 3.5 mph , 1000 mile line station, the requirement is 20,000 gal/min. of flushing water and 42 million cubic feet of holding pond storage space. Subsequent to the operation, disposal of the dumped slurry remains. After the coal has settled it must be dredged and removed. Unless a sufficient number of ready buyers, with facilities capable of burning the finely divided coal are available, the dumped coal is valueless. Reinjection is possible from established holding ponds. This requires provision for agitators and injection pumps. To date no slurry line proposal includes this option. During the interim period, the ponds themselves may cause an environmental hazard. Dredged coal may be carried away by the wind as coal dust. If the pond water is allowed to evaporate, coal dust may be carried from the margins. The flushing water is too dirty to dump into rivers or streams and contains too little coal to justify dewatering. Pipeline safeguards include the addition of standby pumps, an emergency power source, and pipe overdesign. Standby pumps are needed in case of main pump failure or if extra power is needed for moving the slurry. Pipeline overdesign minimizes the chance of breakage. Pipeline failure is not a unique event. For example, there were 1,373 failures of natural gas pipelines in 1975; a better record than the 1,477 failures in 1974 [13]. While natural gas leaks are more dangerous than coal slurry leaks, and there are many more miles of natural gas pipelines, coal lines are more difficult to restart. There can be no guarantee against breakage. The use of 3/8" 3-3 thick 38" diameter pipe for coal slurry at 1000 psi suggests at least the same probability of breakage as that .for a natural gas pipeline. The seven year old Black Mesa ^pipeline burst in two places on February 8, 1977 [23,24]. According to the newspaper report, slurry escaped into the desert east and west of Kingman, Arizona. The amount of escaped slurry was not reported. However, the Burlington- VNorthern has taken color photographs of the extent of the residue. Inherent in pipeline movement is friction and the resulting abrasion of both the coal particles and the pipeline wall. While coal particles become smaller along the line, increasing slurry viscosity somewhat, the lack of specific data shows that this may not be significant. Normally, abrasion is not a problem when slurry moves at low velocities. Coal fines of less than 40 micronmeter size (<40*im) , a result of the grinding process during shipment, cannot be avoided. Use of these fines is a matter of concern. At the present time, no solutions exist. An attempt to dewater them has had limited success [6]. To reduce the moisture in the slurry cake from 20 percent to 10 percent, a minimum of 1 percent of the heat of the coal has to be used. Recent attempts at using natural gas or oil to dry the coal cake appear to be an uneconomic engineering practice. Retention of 20 percent moisture in coal mined with that amount already contained is less objectionable. Returning the transport water to the mine area after dewatering may solve both the problem of the fines and the acquisition of scarce water in the mining area. The increase in total cost, however, is considerable. Pipelines that have a slowly moving throughput and a water carrier may be subject to freezing in northern areas during periods of severe cold. Most of the pipeline will be underground but some portions must be exposed. Heated sections or heavy insulation provides a solution at an added cost. If the slurry freezes, expansion would result in a pressure increase of more than 300 psi. More importantly, a frozen section can act as a plug. Even the presence of a slush may reduce pipeline slurry velocity to unacceptably low speeds. Freezing may also cause uneven concentration of the coal in the pipe as the outer portions freeze first. When this melts, also unevenly, a natural settling of the coal particles in the slush will occur. Estimation of the danger of pipeline freezing is similar to that of, for example, the estimation of the probability of low water conditions on a river or drought. In the latter case we estimate (regionally or locally), from past records, the probability of a ten day low water flow during 3-4 a given period of years; anywhere from ten to one hundred years depending on our needs. For a pipeline with a given life expectancy we can similarly estimate the probability of a ten day period of temperatures below any given arbitrary point. The receiving plant centrifuges the slurry at high speeds. This separates most of the coal from the water leaving about a 25 percent total moisture content in the coal. This remaining moisture causes about a 2.5 percent loss in heating value compared to dry coal. This is adequate for power plant use. Further drying is possible but may be unnecessary [4, pp. 10-11]. Here, power plant design is the determining factor. One of the problems associated with slurry pipeline analyses is the lack of operating experience. With only one, relatively small, system presently in operation, new proposals for lines three to four times longer with throughputs of four to five times the quantity mean that the analyses are subject to some speculation. Furthermore, the Black Mesa pipeline is ideally located; other systems modeled upon it must be analyzed carefully. As the Black Mesa coal slurry system has been used as a prime source of current technical information, some review is in order. The contract pumping rate at Black Mesa is between 560 and 660 tons/hour, or 4 . 9-5 . 78MMTY , respectively. However, the general literature indicates that the line moves 4.8 million tons of coal per year. The slurry is about 48 percent coal by weight. Coal is delivered by conveyor belt to the preparation plant. Once it is crushed and mixed with water, it is sent to one of four 630,000 gallon storage tanks. The slurry is agitated to prevent settling. Four electrically powered pumping stations located 65 miles apart move the slurry at about 3.5 mph. Actual trip duration for a ton of coal is about three days. The effect of terrain on operating pressure is seen in the Black Mesa pipeline. There, the pressure drop due to pipe flow friction and hydrostatic head produces a maximum pressure of 1500 psig. Pipe flow friction was deliberately introduced at the delivery end to deal with this problem. By decreasing the pipe diameter, the flow velocity is sufficiently reduced as it enters the separation facility [5] . A report prepared by M.L. Dina , plant engineer, Mohave Generating Station, [6] provides an indication of some technical problems and solutions. The major areas of concern are centrifuging and coal slurry temperature. Centrifuging problems include: 1) underflow; 2) excess coal cake moisture; and 3) wear on centrifuge linings. The 3-5 underflow, which contains an average of 80 percent water and 20 percent solids (95 percent of which are <40um size), when introduced into the centrifuge results in a 6 percent moisture increase. For every one percent increase in fines of <40um a one percent increase in cake moisture was noted. The 400,000 tons of underflow that Mohave has produced entirely fill a waste water pond 35 acres in area to a depth of 10 feet. Studies concerning the use of these fines are continuing. By rerouting the underflow, added moisture was eliminated. However, the power station design specified the use of coal with a lower moisture content than could be obtained by centr if uging . The initial design called for 25 percent moisture in the coal instead of the 28 percent received. The first solution tried was to air dry this coal cake. However, the system temperature was too low. Subsequently, gas burners were installed to heat the air from 650°F to 750°F. This proved sufficient and did not affect other processing operations. Given the cost and scarcity of natural gas, experimentation is underway to convert to fuel oil. In the long-run, a coal fired heating system is probably desirable given the plant input. An inherent problem of centrifuging is wear. Slurry abrasiveness required overhauling the centrifuge every 500 to 1000 hours. Experimentation resulted in the use of new materials. Alumina ceramic centrifuge flites were found to have a life span of 15,000 hours. Hardened stainless steel cone liners lasted approximately 10,000 hours. These changes have significantly improved the Mohave operation. 3-6 ( TJ 0) 01 OJ 4J c c (0 •rH H TJ ^H .H H c 01 0) ^H o • a a O M r-i o •H •H co u (0 4-1 u a< 04 c o W to o ;h * Z) • CO fl) s 3 o -Q o z Z 3 O E •rH 1 cj O U i-H > 01 OJ n z CJ c CO 10 10 to • ro u • 4-) 4-1 0} (— 01 01 01 01 t-i o 0> O (0 (0 TJ 1-1 3 4-J c c c c 3 4-1 u en u 4J 4J 0) O E o ^ H •H •H •H 4-1 o to to u E en z z Z SI • IT] o u u 1-1 U ro • 3 >! c Z as ai -h -i E en I M I H C rH 0~> co E O 4-> CO uo — vo S3 -H S in SI (TJ f-l r» in 4J W> o — H _ CO co 01 0) CN CO ac I •H U m a C CM m m 145 in m H >H 00 U &H in m in s CN ai t u w c o TJ u 4-1 C c ro c 01 CO 1 o o > 3 >< c 1 ^1 H •H o 01 CO c O 1 CO r. -C -C -C • l-H to CO C 4J X 1 as re j^ c > 1 ra CTG) C 4J to CO •iH 4J ra (TJ .* 0) Tj C X i N ITJ £ 01 u OJ (D ra c oi cu (0 01 OJ ro 0) ro 0) CP c u c-i CO O Oi >-i c H J o z c 1-1 4J E TJ c c '£ G >-< ^£ C .-H 3 -4 3 -i P-i ra 4J 1 ra 4J 1 4-1 4-1 H -H < 1 O 4-> 1H 01 o U n 1 O 3 O oi -a M E 0> 1 1 4-1 1 ^H 4J 1 --! 4J 4-1 4J 4-1 4J 4J 4J 4J u o e to 1 X3 < u -C O U 1 z U M ^ 4J ro CO CO ro 3 IT' ro • (TJ U U -H (TJ 1 •H C O ro O ro (0 O O H O 3 J_ O o C C C 01 >. O M o >4 O OJ 2 4J 4-1 4J OJ 1-1 >-H O >. > (0 4J O CHI o am O 0) O 01 a s u < =: 3 a. a z en m o < < =: o ca £ 3 UL, VJ z w to itneo Z tn z vj 3-7 3.2 SLURRY PIPELINE COSTS Slurry pipeline costs as summar ized in reference [4] appear in Table 3.2. Also, material and labor parameters are found in Tables 3.3 and 3.4. The pipeline is capital intensive and the capital costs are front-ended. The pipeline costs developed here are understated. The relative cost of U.S. pipeline construction rose from an index of 235 in 1973 to 343 in 1975 (1947=100) . Between 1974 and 1975, alone, it rose 64 points. Similarly, pumping equipment (stationary engines, reciprocating pumps and speed increasers) rose from an index of 273 in 1973 to 370 in 1975. Of this, 66 points were accounted for in the last year [14]. The 800 mile Aleyeska pipeline, on which the Bechtel Corporation had construction management control until 1975 [15,16] and responsibility for welding quality control until early 1976 [17, 18], was originally costed in 1968 at $900 million. The price was $6 billion by October 1974, $6,375 billion by June 1975 and about $7 billion by February 1976 [19]. By July 1976, reported costs were $7.7 billion or somewhat less than $10 billion if interest costs are added [20]. It is possible that in projecting the ETSI slurry pipeline the original cost estimate of $750 million was an understatement. It is probable that our escalation of this to $1,034 billion is also understated. A current estimate of at least $1.1 billion is in order. Documentation of the present slurry pipeline systems are found in several sources [3,4,6]. The Black Mesa pipeline consists of one mine supplying one destination with 5MMTY by a 273 mile, 18 inch pipeline. The Wyoming- Arkansas, 1040 mile, 38-inch pipeline, would supply 25MMTY [7, p. 20]. Major costs accrue to the preparation plants and dewatering stations. Right of way costs for buried pipelines are assumed to be similar to oil and gas lines. The present value of removing the pipeline after its useful life has not been included. Annual fixed charges are estimated on the same basis as those for unit trains, however, high utilization is relatively more important. If coal throughput must be dropped at the supply or demand end, below minimum desiqn capacity, the only method to decrease coal shipment is to introduce excess water into the system [4, pp. 68-69] . The alternative of large coal inventories at the supply end is expensive, at the demand end even more so. Figure 3.1 shows route specific costs for some hypothetical routes [4] in dollars/ton for slurry pipelines assuming water costs of $1 per 1000 gallons and $2.50 per 1000 gallons and for both cases of no return and where the 3-8 . water is returned including piping and pumping equipment cost at both a low level of $240,000 per mile (denoted RL) lor the 27" diameter return water pipe and $480 , 000/mile as a conservative high value (RH) . The figure of $240,000 per mile was close to that suggested by Bechtel and is believed to be the lowest possible cost including pipes, pumps, and motors but no new excavation or other route preparation. Depending on current prices of equipment, this figure might buy only the pipe. The figure of $480 , 000/mile accounts for the necessary uphill pumping and a pump designed to handle inky water after separation of the coal from the slurry. When water is returned, the unit cost in cents/ton-mile (Figure 3.1) does not decrease over distance as much as in those cases when water is not returned. Also included in Figure 3.1 are the multipliers for converting the unit costs to costs per million Btu (MMBtu) . Two multipliers are provided for each source, the 'dry' basis (D) and the 'as mined' basis (M) The availability of water is a major concern. The point has been sufficiently emphasized by the present drought in the states where the proposed lines originate. Although the water for the proposed slurry lines may be brackish, it can be used for some irrigation or other purposes when mixed with sweet water. Sources of water at pumping stations enroute are unlikely to be all brackish. Presently there are no plans to build a pipeline with a return water system. Pipeline water requirements are found in Table 3.3. To this should be added the ETSI estimate of 3.66MM ft for a dumping pond at each station. However, a holding pond of ten times this capacity might be needed at the delivery point. Flushing water amounting to 27.4MM gallons will be needed (the ETSI specification of 18.7MM gallons does not include the volume of coal to be filled by water.) Hence, the water reservoir should also be 3.66MM ft 3 instead of the 2.5MM ft 3 estimated by ETSI. Water costs vary over a wide range. Some estimates for the ETSI line are presented in Volume 1, Section 1.9.2. Costs are subject to such factors as accessibility and alternative use by farmers and industry. Existing or potential drought conditions in the supply end make water and water rights a critical element. One way to reduce the heavy reliance on an adequate water supply is to provide for a return system. For the ETSI system, equipment for this would cost about $257,000 per mile for 27" piping diameter (approximately 38"\/2 although the pipe could be 24" diameter if the pumping velocity were suitably increased) and $514,000 per mile as a conservative value. Return pumping would require more power in order to move the waste water. The benefits of long distance shipping economics are not felt as much in a water-return system. 3-9 But it offers a solution to the problem of fines as exemplified by the Black Mesa receiving facility [6]. With return water, fines could be returned for use in land reclamation projects at the mine site. If water could burn, a slurry line would be ideal. On the east and west coasts, oil may be an available substitute as a carrier, particularly for south-north shipments. The idea dates back to World War II and has lately been somewhat revived [21]. The oil source would probably be imports, but the coal content would reduce total oil consumption. With the entire slurry burned, transport costs are low. Particle deposition in oil takes weeks not days as it does in water. Total costs may not be lower than burning coal alone if scrubbing is unnecessary. If crude oil is used as the carrier, the differential profit that could have been made from the sale of the refined products must be added to the transport costs. 3-10 TABLE 3.2: Itemized Capital Costs of Black Mesa and Wyoming-Arkansas Coal Slurry Pipelines (1976 Prices) Black Mesa Wycming-Arkansas 273 miles 1,040 miles Preparation 5 x 10 tons/yr 25 x 10 tans/yr 1. Transport from mine 1.5 7.5 2. Truck hopper 0.05 0.25 3. Initial crushing and cleaning 1.0 5.0 4. Stocking conveyor 0.2 1.0 5. In-active storage 1.0 5.0 6. Paw storage 0.68 3.4 7. Active storage 1.0 5.0 8. Dozers and scrapers 0.6 3.0 9. Conveyor transfer tower 0.2 1.0 10. Transfer tower 0.3 1.5 11. Conveyor to bunkers 0.15 0.75 12. Bunkers and feeders 0.15 0.75 13. Operating plant 1.0 5.0 14. Vibrator 0.2 1.0 15. Impactor 0.5 2.5 16. Rod mill 1.5 7.5 17. Vibrator 0.15 0.75 18. Slurry holding tank 0.6 3.0 19. Slurry test loop 0.05 0.25 20. Land 0.05 0.25 21. Wells and water pumps 1.25 6.25 22. Water working storage 0.35 1.75 23. Water reservoir and pipe 0.3 1.5 24. Water piping and rust inhibitor injectors 0.1 0.5 25. First pumping station 5.0 25.0 TOTAL: Preparation 17.88 89.4 Pipeline 26(a) Mainline 45.6 26(b) 700 27. Collecting and branch lines 190 28(a) Coal in pipelines 0.23 28(b) 4.4 TOTAL: Pipeline 45.83 894.4 3-11 ) * TABLE 3.2: Itemized Capital Costs of Black Mesa and Wyoming-Arkansas Coal Slurry Pipelines (1976 Prices) (Continued Black Mesa Wyoming-Arkansas 273 miles 1, 040 miles Separation 5 x 10 tons/yr 25 x 10 tons/yr 29(a) Permanent storage 4.8 29(b) 13.0 30. Holding tanks 2.1 10.5 31. Dewatering centrifuges 4.0 18 32. Pulverizers 0.9 4.5 33. Flocculating tanks 0.7 3.5 34. Piping 0.15 0.75 TOTAL: Separation 12.65 50.25 TOTAL CAPITAL COST 76.36 1034.0 tfotes to Table 3.2: 1. Five 125-ton trucks for transport from the mine @ $30,000 each. 2. Truck hopper @ $50,000 3. Two 28 ft by 14 ft diameter rotary breakers, $l,000/ton/hr x 660 ton/hr x 1.5 [4a] 4. Movable stacking conveyor, $800/ft x 250 ft [4b] 5. 200,000 tons coal @ $5/ton in-active storage 6. 35,000 tons coal @ $5/ton raw storage + feeder and site development @ $500,000 [4c, 5] 7. 38,000 tons coal @ $5/ton active storage + rotary plow, structure above, and site development @ $810,000 [4c, 5] 8. Four bulldozers or scrapers @ $150,000 9. 400 ft by 30 in. conveyor, $250/ft equipment x 400 ft x 1.28 labor and material/material x 1.6 [4d,6a] 10. Transfer tower with 300 ton bin; coal sampled and weighed @ $300,000 11. 300 ft x 30 in. conveyor, $250/ft equipment x 300 ft x 1.28 labor and material/materials x 1.6 [4d,6a] 12. Three 590 ton bunkers with feeders @ $50,000 13. Operating plant @ $1,000,000 2 58 2 14. Three 6 ft x 10 ft twindeck vibrators, 3 x $l,100/ft x 60° ft x 1.32 installation x 2.4 stainless steel x 1.5 [6a] ,1.2 15. Three impactors, 290 tons/hr, 3 x $85/ton/hr x 290 tons/hr x 1.57 installation x 1.5 [6a] 16. Three 18 ft x 13 ft I.D. rod mills, 1,500 hp, 150 tons of rods, 3(150 tons x 2,000 lb x $l/lb + $20,000/motor x 8.5 installation) [7.8] 0,58 17. Three 3.5 ft x 4 ft wedge wire screen vibrator, 3 x $900/ft2 x 14 /ft x 1.32 installation x 2.4 stainless steel x 3 wedge wire x 1.5 [6a] 3-12 » ) TABLE 3.2: Itemized Capital Costs of Black Mesa and Wyoming-Arkansas Coal Slurry Pipelines (1976 Prices) (Continued Four 650,000 gallon tanks with 10 ft 125 hp agitator, 4 ($60,000/tank x 1.75 inflation + $350A*P x 125° 5 hp x 1.62 installation x 1.5 inflation) + $100,000 slurry tower 206 ft test loop, 4,200 gpm @ $50,000 100 acres @ $500/acre Five 3,400 ft wells and pumps @ $250,000 [9] 150 ft diameter x 48 ft high, 6.3 x 10 6 gal water storage tank, $200,000 x 1.75 [6b] 3 x 106 gal plastic lined tank and 14 in., two-mile pipe, $150,000 x 1.75 + $40,000 pipe [6b] Piping and rust inhibitor injectors @ $100,000 Three 1,750 hp, 330 tons/hr coal equivalent slurry pumps, 1,000 psi discharge, 3 x $1,330,000 + $1,000,000 accessories [6c] $7,120,000 pumping x 5 x 10$ tcns/9 x 106 tons x 1.65 inflation 6 + $37,590,000 mainline x 273 miles/344 miles x 5 x 10 6/9 x 10 tons x 2.1 inflation - $5,000,000 first pumping station [10] ($13,000,000 + $3,400,000) x 5 pipeline valuation in Niobrara and Goshen Counties, Wyoming, x 1,040 miles/106 miles x 0.91 deflation - $25,000,000, first pumping station [9] ($20,800,000 + 3,600,000) x 5 collecting pipeline valuation in Campbell and Converse Counties, Wyoming, x 2 destination supply lines as well as collecting lines x 0.91 deflation [9] 46,000 tens coal in pipe @ $5/ton 875,000 tons coal in pipe @ $5/ton 29a. Two 36 x 10*> gal storage tanks in a ground plastic lined, 90 tons coal each, 2 ($200,000 for 6 x 106 gal tank item 22 x 6°» 8 size factor x 1.75 inflation + 90,000 tons coal x $10/ton) [6b, 8] 29b. 1 x 10 6 tons coal hauled by train and stored dry @ $10/ton + $3,000,000 for facilities 30. Three 6 x 106 gal holding tanks, 15,500 tons of coal, 3($200,000/tank x 1.75 inflation + $200,000 agitator and accessories + 15,500 tons x $10/ton) [6b, 8] 31. Twenty centrifuges, 20 x $35,000/centrifuge x 3.1 process plant cost ratio x 1.9 [8,11b] 32. Ten pulverizers, $520/lb x (660 tons/hr x 2,000 lb/ton) 0.35 x 1.59 installation x 1.8 [6a] 33. Two 200 ft I.D. tanks @ $350,000 [6b] 34. Piping @ $150,000 Source: [4] 3-13 TABLE 3.3: Major Items Required for Operation and Maintenance of Energy Facilities (1976 $) (Quantities per Year) COAL SLURRY PIPELINE (includes slurry preparation and dewatering) Thousands I. MATERIALS of Dollars A. Major Raw Materials, Volume, Energy Content: 25 x 10 tons fine coal/year; lz 405 x l@ Btus/year B. Other Materials and Supplies :" 1. Lumber and Wood Products (20,21) Lumber 122 2. Paper and Paper Products (24-26) 31 3. Chemicals and Allied Materials (27-32): Corrosion retardants 1,378 Other 62 Subtotal 1,440 4. Stone, Clay, and Glass Products (35,36): Negligible 5. Nonferrous Metals (38): Aluminum, copper products 122 6. Metal Products (39-42) : Pipe, valves, and fittings 298 7. Miscellaneous: Negligible 8. TOTAL 2,013 II. MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT 1. Nonelectrical machinery (43-50,52): Negligible 2. Electrical Equipment (53-58): Negligible 3. Transportation Equipment (59-61): Negligible 4. Instruments and Controls (62,63): Negligible 3-14 : TABLE 3.3: Major Items Required for Operation and Maintenance of Energy Facilities (1976 $) (Continued) 5. Miscellaneous (64): Machinery (pumps, pulverizers, etc.); controls, electrical instruments, communication equipment 2,986 6. TOTAL 2,98 6 III. UTILITIES 1. Power and Light (68) (1.5^/kWh) Coal preparation 420 x 10 6 kWh (49,020 KW) 6,300 Pipeline movement 847 x 10 kh/h (98,856 kW) 12,700 2. Fuel (68) : 3. foater (68): 6.43 x 10 9 gal ($1/1000 gal) 6.43 x 10 6 4. TOTAL 19,161 "Bureau of Economic Analysis industry category numbers are in oarentheses. Source: [4] 3-15 — 1 00 X »X ^JD CN CN CM r—I rH r- lO s_i c c CO • • CU O 03 S-l to T3 •rH g S-l c cu rH -H 4J a cu cu u rH CU 03 E Q, E o •H 3 4-) 3 rH to X) ^ \ c wan) 4J 03 to S-i 03 -C rH 4H rH (U -H ». •. 03 03 u -H 4-> CJ s-i s-i U U 4-> S-I n J CU 03 -P -H O CU -H -H O CJ c < c U •H S-l 4-» cu c c 4-> 03 H cx> •H 14-1 4-> 03 C 03 03 n S-) i— O c c J-J CU CJ s-j -h x: x: D CU 03 CO Eh -4-1 •rH cu •H a cu cu a- u u CO -C 4-> S-l ^ o S-l m E S-l H rH a c cu cu 4-1 O CU CU CO CJ CM M O (1)22 O H 4-1 rH c 4-1 4-> to OJ o 03 MH g D •M *-^ 3 03 03 C • • • 4J u CU S-l CU 03 03 03 T3 CJ 03 n v Eh 2 U cu 0) X CU T3 a c c o s-l H 03 CN on cu i-H S-l a CU c o a o -M to •H -H u C^ 4J Si CN CN CTi -o ra 03 IT) in CU cu >< S-l u ?H S-i 03 •H i S-i Qj CO a c a cu C S-l Cr to 03 rH S-l cu cu 0) cu 2 CO sOj E en ,-< •H to 03 4-> CU —1 >t 4-> c S-l •H Cn 03 l-l 4H 03 0) rH 03 O s-i 03 E 3 H u U D u •• to O CJ CU r-i T3 T3 H CU a 03 > CO C 03 CU 03 c Cu 3-16 FIGURE 3.1: Unit Cost - Slurry Pipelines 1.0 0.9 i 0.8 " 0.7 " 0.6 12 RH RETURN WATER CONSERV. COST RL RETURN WATER OPTIMISTIC COST $2.5/1000 gal: 1000 1200 1400 t t t t MILES NM TO LA MT TO WA WY TO WY TO TX CHI 3-17 . 3.3 PIPELINE FLEXIBILITY AND BRANCHING A slurry pipeline does not have the same advantage of monotonic cost reduction with increases in throughput that railroads do in the range trom 5MMTY to 70MMTY. The reason is that in moving from, say, 25MMTY to 70MMTY, increasing pipe diameters on a single line from 38" to 64" is not desirable because 70MHTY represents a generating capacity of at least 14000 MW. Because electric generating stations must be designed to handle powdered coal, rather than larger sizes, a pipeline failure would be too costly. The result of a prolonged blockage or disruption would be a regional blackout. Good planning would call for three 38" pipelines or, perhaps, two 46" pipelines as a safeguard against total interruption of regional coal supply. An alternative would be a very large standby inventory of caked coal powder. This presents environmental and safety hazards One alternative is to operate a 3.5 mph line at, say, 5 mph to gain throughput. The undesirabil ity of operating a pipeline designed for 3.5 mph at 5 mph is seen in the doubling of pumping power and a pipeline pressure at 143 percent of design capacity. For example, each pumping station on the Black Mesa pipeline is equipped with 3 pumps with one as a spare. It this practice is applied, operating at 122 percent capacity is feasible provided the line can take a 50 percent increase in operating pressure. In this case the unit transportation cost would be reduced by 18 percent. Similarly, operating at the minimum flow velocity of 3 mph gives a transfer capacity of 86 percent for the same slurry but at 75 percent of the power need. In this case, unit costs are increased by 15 percent. Another option is to design a pipeline for 5 mph thus giving the flexibility of a reduced load at 3.5 mph or 3 mph. For purposes of comparison, a case was calculated (Table 3.5), showing changes in costs for such a pipeline operating at 3.5 mph. Note that while a pipeline designed for 5 mph may have a unit cost only 5 percent higher than a 3.5 mph line, when the former is operated at 3.5 mph the unit cost will be 40 percent higher, for a 40 percent capacity range. If coal slurry pipelines are to become an important factor in coal transportation, they cannot remain in the class of single user or special case pipelines. A 273 mile line with a throughput of only 5MMT^ (Black Mesa) may serve a single power station, but economics precludes extending a 5MMTY line to 750 or 1000 miles. On the other hand, even if the economics of a 25MMTY, 1000 mile pipeline, is 3-18 attractive, single users of such throughput are nonexistent. Were they to exist, the risk of shutdown of the line on the consumer or of a shutdown of the consumer on the line suggests major economic penalties. The consumer may gain some protection by holding large (and costly) inventories. But this must be considered a part of the transport cost. The pipeline seeks protection by long term take or pay agreements. (These prior agreements also aid in financing the line.) Currently, the largest producing mine is Decker No. 1 in Montana which had a 1975 output of 9.2 MMTY. The next three largest mines produced less than 7 MMTY. The grouping after that falls well Delow 5 MMTY per mine. As companies, only Peabody and Consolidation Coal produced more than 25 MMTY in 1975. In 1975, only six states used more than 25 MMTY in the production of electricity. Of these only two, Ohio and Pennsylvania, consumed considerably more. Among coal fired utilities, the largest in 1975 was the Monroe plant of Detroit Edison at 6.9 MMTY. The Four Corners plant in New Mexico and the Labidie plant in Missouri consumed 5.9 and 5.7 MMTY, respectively. As coal use grows, both mine and plant sizes may be expected to grow. They are unlikely to grow to 25 MMTY. Hence, some form of slurry pipeline gathering and distribution system is indicated. One solution is to branch the pipeline to serve multiple users. Each user must have its own dewatering and other ancillary facilities. If the coal slurry pipeline is to be a common carrier in more than name only, a branching system is required unless a very large service depot handling finely powdered coal is envisioned. Movement of the powder or dewatered cake from the depot to the consumer would not be simple and may be environmentally hazardous. Dewatering equipment, however, is a major cost of a slurry pipeline. Such plants are probably beyond the reach of all but large consumers. Long-term agreements are not entirely necessary as the customer will have to amortize the plant in any event. Customers of the requisite size in a given location, even with brancning, are apt to be few. Branching does allow for flexibility due to market conditions but because, unlike gas or oil lines, the slurry is subject to settling, a branched operation is not simple. Branching increases pipeline flexibility because instead of slurry transport from a point of origin to a point of delivery, distribution along the pipeline route can take place. However, unlike gas or liquid pipelines, the flow velocity of a coal slurry line cannot be arbitrarily varied. The pipeline must operate at a flowrate above that required to keep the slurry from settling, and below that permitted by the maximum design 3-19 pipeline pressure. For a 3.5 mph design, the operating speed of the slurry cannot tall below 3.0 mph, or run above 4.3 mph (for a 50 percent design margin). Given these considerations, the following is a general analysis of a branching point along a pipeline. The case of a single branching line is illustrated in a series of tables. Cases of multiple branching are shown in Figure 3.2. These include double branching in 3.2(a) and single branching segments in 3.2(b) and 3.2(c). Table 3.6 shows the capacity range for branching under normal conditions. Here, it is assumed that the design specifications for slurry flow, W , are: 3.5 mph normal, 3.0 mph minimum, 4.3 mph maximum, and 5.0 mph maximum for a specially designed line. For a given segment of pipeline under normal conditions, the range of safe operation is -14 percent to +23 percent of the design flowrate. This is written as W + 23%-14% (-14 percent to +43 percent for 5 mph) . The flowrate W + 23% is the maximum permissible to avoid line burst, while to-14% is the slowest rate possible that avoids slurry settling and plugging. The effect of varying the branching flow W is shown in Table 3.7. the minimum flow is theoretically, zero when the line is completely shut off. This is possible only if ( off flow, fa , shutting the designed p does not cause the flow, W to exceed its maximum. The resulting effects are shown in Table 3.8. These general cases indicate that the flexibility of the system depends heavily on the size of the branching line. The smaller the branch line, the easier it is for the main line to compensate for variations in flowrate. In order for a branching system to have the capability of total shutdown, it must be able to first clear the line by flushing through with water. This reauired pumping and storage adds significantly to the cost of the system. The originally proposed Houston Natural Gas pipeline may serve as an example for application to the general formulas. Their proposed branching scheme is shown in Table 3.9. It should be noted that their latest proposal is to use barges for distribution rather than branching laterals. They have already merged with a major barqe line. Using mainline D, Tables 3.10 and 3.11 were developed. For example, we can show the flexibility of each line when the flowrate of the branching line is at its maximum and minimum design capacity. For normal operation, in millions of tons per year, and the range of flow var iation: 3-20 6 (+ .14/-1.71) = 6 (+ 2%/-29%) W D " 13.5 ( + 1.71/-1.07) = 13.5 (+ 13%/-8%) w^ = 7.5 (+ 1.71/-1.07) = 7.5 (+ 23%/-14%) Note that 6 (+ .14/-1.71) means an increase of 0.14MMTY above the 6MMTY design or a decrease of 1.71MMTY. The second equality gives the same variation but in percentages. For a specially designed line capable of 5 mph speeds, the eguilivant throughputs are: W = 6 = p (+ 1.14/-1.71) 6 (+ 19%/-29%) W" D = 13.5 (+ 3.20/-1.71) = 13.5 (+ 24%/-29%) W = = £ 7.5 (+ 3.20/-1.07) 7.5 (+ 43%/-14%) The 20 percent increase in branch flowrate still leaves room for flexibility. With respect to the maximum and minimum branch flowrates, the maximum of 6.14MMTY can be handled by simply increasing the flow in the source pipe. The amount of slurry delivered to other points by the main pipeline remains unchanged. However, operation at minimum branch flowrate is impossible without decreasing the flow to other points downstream: Design Case Vv = p 5.0 W = c 12.5 W = 7.5 E Minimum Case top = 4.29; top decreased by 14% W = Vv decreased 14% D 10.7; D by W p = 6.4; W„ decreased by 15% 3-21 Maxi mum Case W = 6.14; W increased by 43% W = 12.64; W D D increased by 1% Wp = 6.5; W r remains constant Ei ti Because stopping the branching flowrate causes the downstream section to exceed its allowable maximum, the branch cannot be shut off. Halting this line would require the main line to operate below the minimum flowrate of 3.0 mph, which is also not allowable. Obviously, any changes in the main line will be felt at other branching points. Similar analyses using the technique employed above will determine conditions at other points. With many branching points, the number of variables increases at a very rapid rate. Nevertheless, if coal slurry pipelines are to be truely common carriers rather than private carriers under a public label, this form of analysis must be repeated for each line and for a number of potential customers. It would appear from the above, however, that the ability to branch a coal slurry pipeline to serve several major customers is severely limited. Akin to branching is tapping a slurry line. This is different because there is no change in the original diameter of the main pipeline. Branching would be designed into a pipeline system. Tapping occurs when a consumer, not one of the original customers, wishes to establish a branch line to take advantage of the existing main line. This is shown in Table 3.12. If tapped, the upsteam line's flowrate must increase to compensate for this loss of slurry at the tap. Table 3.13 shows the resulting flowrate variations. As an example, it is helpful to use a situation similar to that of our branchinq example (Table 3.6). The normal main line flow conditions of 10MMTY are close to those of the branching case. Table 3.14(a) shows the maximum tap situation for a 10MMTY line while Table 3.14(b) shows this for a 25MMTY line. A major drawback to tapping is the effect on the main line. A tap can draw 25 percent of the main line while still allowing the design throughput downstream. However, the upstream line will be operating at its maximum capacity. This rules out further tapping unless one is willing to sacrifice downstream throughput by adding water to maintain the flowrate. Compared to the branching case, tapping lacks flexibility. One may design for branching but one must adapt for tapping; branching is preferred. This suggests that 3-22 additional customers, at a later date, may not be served. An analysis of branching and tapping as a gathering system from dispersed mines into a coal slurry trunk line may be found in reference [22]. 3-23 TABLE 3.5: Changes in Costs per 1000-Mile Pipeline Designed for 5 MPH Flow at 5 MPH and 3.5 MPH as Compared to One Designed for 3.5 MPH (in million dollars) Design 5 nph Line 3.5 rtph Line Operating Flew 5 mph 3.5 rnph 3.5 mph Operating Capacity, MflY 36 25 25 Capital Costs: Gathering 22.3 22.3 15.5 Preparation 117.9 117.9 81.9 Piping & Pimping 1300 1300 860 Separation 72.4 72.4 50.3 Total 1512.6 1512.6 1007.7 Annual Costs: Fixed Charges Pate Base 93.8 93.8 62.5 Federal Tax 26.3 26.3 17.5 State Tax 30.3 30.3 20.1 Depreciation 50.4 50.4 33.6 Total 200.8 200.8 133.7 Operating Costs Labor 6.9 6.9 6.9 Material 6.25 5 5 Power 34.1 19 19 Water ($1/1000 gal) 9.3 6.4 6.4 Total Annual Cost 258.6 239.3 171.0 Unit Cost: $/ton 7.18 9.57 6.85 ^/ton-mile .72 .96 .69 $/MJ©tu 36 48 33.9 <:/MMBtu/mile .036 .048 .034 Source: [4] 3-24 •i « 2 O CO — " < - OQ - o 5 5 _J ro ro ro <9 sr *; sr w i— •—i •—I o *"" ui Q. CO " - 3 Q. -1 J= iH H CO < Q. 1 E " - ~ V 3-25 o co --* a| » o *-" UJ Q. UIUU 3^ I e x < "9fO UJ 2 <* 1 < m or UIUJ o Z - o _J it z CD < 5 ro -J JZ < o. ! 5 £ O 5 O » Z ro WZ So OQ O LJ O CL LU QL CO 3-26 1i t z o V) •*-» *= u 00 - 00 °t 's 3 _J ^ ro rO <9 ^r sf o «° r— «— u ~" a. CO 2^ - => OL CD - CO s e 5 5 ro ro X ro 1 CM cvj ^ »— i—i LU s *"" 1- t < CD o LiJ _i u. 2 £ <9^s 3 CL - *Z " -J tc < q. I s e o oa: ^_ z ro UJZ?o < CD o ECTI IPEL Q_<0 3-27 w c o P Hp U rrj s a s q si q U S S Q S G) S s s a sq s P a S3 CS O O s ft Q C2 in ro a c c < rn Jul 3 O -Q rH C rH (1J-HX to U H IOJJHOd) c ra e c cup S< fO g (U rH CD rH O O ft Eh tJi -P P C O 3-28 t« i i1 H e> s- sf o> I i— s-' o -' I 6 s »- ^9 .—1 i— I Id «> O *"" _J u Q. CO < ^m^ =>W*Q. s e *t CM I— iri 2 I— CD CO 5 w2 2l I Ul < DC £ 2^c 3 O £ s- I fO (VI L_ 6 «- MIN to (3.0 _J 1c. < CL 1 5 6 lO lO o r- K lrt cvi iri o ** f— 2 ro LU2 cr zo < U o UJ U. Q. UJ Q.CO 3-29 i —t• z © u_ U. 3 3 + 1 gf CD |v. o —J ^ s -' I 1^ I- <9 O 6 h-" • —• .— .-« •— u «" o ' ^ ' -J u w ^ ^ —v e> a. c c z CO E E < u. 3 ^^ ?* 3 Q. i >- 1 E + *r • CNJ CM • CD s 5 -H CD U) •— *-* S t c c LJ E E Id < q: u_ $ Ll. £ s2" 5 3 9- + 0> o 1 nr 10 ^ CV1 U. MINIM (3.0 2 6 cc 2 X X D o E E _j ^= < Q. e t 2 li. §"> 5 2 fO O -J -J HiZ CO zo < -Jl- a UJ U_ Q-LJ Q.CO 3-30 i z S2 en — Ul ^= _ li_ ro ro ro i—i 1—4 LU w Q. CO - u_ ^ID Q. ro ro > ro CM CM CM <*> 1—1 5 i—i s 5 S 1 w LU UJ < UJ 5r - u. s- 5 s- I I s- o I it m in m Li. 00 00 CO MIN: (3.0 _i ^ t It o o 6 6 o S«* »— i—i 2 ro wz ?o Q LU U_ ECTI IPEL Q.CO 3-31 ' «i i z o — u. CO 5 - u. UJ ^ " UJ Q. 3 Q 3 1 6 ro - Ul ro 5 St ^Q i— ro •—4 »° o "^ sr LJ .— OL CO u. $ 2^ - UJ - U. *—- 3 Q. 3 1 3 >- E ro - Ul ro I 3 OJ r- X ^. < - u. UJ ^"2 5 £ + - -J O - UJ UJ _ U. _J It 5 3 3 u. r>- r> MIN m lO (3.0 io CD 00 CO _l JC < 9- t 2> E u. g-Q 3 Z ro yz?o ECTI Q LxJ L. IPEL Q_(0 3-32 " ii i iI1 4 i1 Z z CD CD CO "-* CO — U >c w •£ Q. Q. Q 0) Q •— O CD s- E ro O CM E I O i— _i _ < o ^3 Q. 3 Q. ^ CM ro ^^ O ro £ o CO S £ s- O > I > I O CVJ s- x CM m I in •— o K 2ro o < • CM 5 2 2 t ro 2 S 5E *— s— Ixl Ixl _l SI _l x: < a- < Q- t— O i— fO s- s- o ro I 5 E 2 £ I O £m CM o CM O m m i— •—* £m o • o • ro CM z ro z ro I u U ?oz ?oZ Q Ixl u. ECTI L_ ECTI IPEL Q LU IPEL Q-<0 OLCO 3-33 FIGURE 3.2: t ranch inn Examples A + B (a) B = A, l ^2 B 2 — (b) (c) C = A 1 2 B 3-34 . References 1. Zandi, I., University of Pennsylvania, Private Communication, Februarv 16, 1976. 2. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Energy Research Development and Demonstration (Fossil Fuels) of the Committee of Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, 94th Congress, Second Session, January 29, 1970, [No. 61] Vol. IV. 3. Armbruster, Frank E., and Basil J. Candela, "Research Analysis of Factors Affecting Transportation of Coal by Rail and Slurry Pipeline," Volume I, April 1976. Report, Hudson Institute, Inc. 4. Rieber, Michael, and S. L. Soo, "Route Specific Cost Comparisons: Unit Trains, Coal Slurry Pipelines and Extra High Voltage Transmission," CAC Document wo. 190, May 1976. 5. Ellis, Bacchetti, "Pipeline Transport of Liquid Coal," Technology and U se of Lign ite , Bureau of Mines, IC 8543, 1972. 6. Dina, M. L., Operating Experiences at the 1580 MVv Coal Slurry Fired Mohave Generating Station, Southern California Edison Company, 1976. 7. Ballard, Lon Rodney, "Coal Transportation Costs: Unit Train vs. Slurry Pipeline," (1976), M.S. Thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. 8. Wasp, E. J., "Progress with Coal Slurry Pipelines," Mining Cong ress Jour nal , Apri_l 1976, pp. 27-39. 9. Rieber, Michael, S. L. Soo, and James Stukel, "The Coal Future: Economic and Technological Analysis of Initiatives and Innovations to Secure Fuel Supply Independence," CAC Document No. 163, May 1975. Report to NSF (NTIS PB 247-678/AS) 10. Banks, Vv. F., "Slurry Pipelines-Economic and Political Issues - A Review," Technical Report - TASK 2.1, Contract E ( 04-03) -1171 by Systems Science and Software, La Jolla, California for ERDA, December 26, 1976. 3-35 , . 11. Desai , S. A., and J. Anderson, "Rail Transportation Requirements for Coal Movement in 1980," Final Report of Input Output Computer Services, Inc., prepared for Department of Transportation, Office of Transportation Systems Center, Research Division, Cambridge, Massachusetts, April 1976. 12. "The Energy Supply Planning Model," Bechtel Corp., Draft, 1976. 13. O il a nd Gas J ournal , 14 June 1976, p. 44. 14. Oil and Gas Jou rnal , 23 August 1976, p. 84. 15. New York Times , 13 June 1976. 16. Oil and Gas Journal, 28 June 1976, pp. 78,80. 17. W all Street J ournal , 11 June 1976. 18. W all Street Jour nal , 14 June 1976. 19. Oil and Gas J ournal , 2 February 1976, p. 48. 20. Oil and Gas Journal 12 July 1976, p. 19. 21. Energy Research and Development Administration, Division of Coal Utilization, Coal-Oil S lurry Comb ust ion Prog ram , April, 1976 (FE-COSC-1) 22. Wu , John B., Coal Transporta tio n Capabil ity and Cost C ompar i sons , (M.S. Thesis), Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign, 1977. 23. The Kingman (Arizona) Da ily Miner a nd Mohave County Mi ner , 21 February 1977. 24. Moha ve Valley News , Bullhead City, Arizona, 23 February 1977. 3-36 -N"-) r) w P-; M CO F-t Eh o CQ w p • J rt! >-i OE i Ht-l Eh ss \ \ «• cry % K4 o-i Eh cm J-l . Fh EH C) rcU o &H CI fc-i f-4 - -I In OO O E Et o c fXH H t » fH E-< O W Fa; « mo hi Pi rt, r- Ct-t E' Pj H 1 U o « c El C .-5C2 m ic:^» o « %' fc-'t- U Lf it-* rj » ^r- - II 0Oc*t-"*—^O E-t b ~ w d rr. S Rr- 1- rtj HE i£U a. ii E-P- ?; pr' rr; CP-- StiftiC OP—»c PjHI iC MP*-. CO ft V .T>0no < ) - 1 i — . en Ei r-i CO to o s U \ C3 M PJ P-. o-. ca o 00 VD ft co I li. crj — o - «J! l; «. ad .i o t- w Oj Pi rj > M o C eh - OJ hJ H C5 ft PI — m in «c » Li) CM O oo, ro 4^> r~- til" r-JE i c- »• .o E-' t- w • H 4c - ^5- C k ' + f I ,— ro J-TILP cir l-i r^ ^ "— £-l! LI i • Ui t 'lis I — \. I C I i ^F-H t-l i- -' 0) *e i -i r i r^^i-3 , Q I- :' II M.. (J 2" >-~ CM'. I I rop. 3 L0 i w ' \-^i ii s:i -i N c-j-^*-',- b \ \w o f-i. c-v—E-'in ,— I I -- *-^i— f~ (X. *" .-} O «c; t-l T- hi *• ^-~ro| *- r._>r\J (r-i_ E-'Lj ^-"ZD LPi pj c->- cl L- + \ o r f •; nr >o r IP + t r»> ^.f-..C'Li' n~"f t- Li) -h \ " U- U- IT! r^.u I^o- .c vt r c p . f ' I — x.-: c; ' *—--**- *- *- I! "-"Of . li *-r3 • IP vp ctr- I \C0\~ oo*- t-IOOt ' — trsf- O t-< O 5^ F. r- f F-- b- «. E- » I < E-i-t: i<;|hr E-4r II M!^ II II II 1-^ II H-4 II II II h- II II II li II Htf E ^1— hlF-b-'«f i- i f- ^~ ;-. PJ ^F u -— i~t ,— ,r» ^— »-*£ ^ *-— ST. t-' rr: :3 s:' — : ip •r- P-iP h^ 'U"!' r- «:v"P ,d =1 K-'P: h-lu. h r'-1 •' r-rvj n or* tj -?a ~> M'lrM.r -or :nn '-op* 00 T» -T O'O t rt -t rt -t lOif Ln>n ir>tn-c vjODPH p^r— i- . ' — 1 1 i — ^•p-i^cy* 1 • I VX50CVO1 1 — ror~ l kocor~< .< • • »o i . * 3 1 *1i-m . I ro»-r~ • | «- o 1 «-l 3 1 t. 1 1 1 H I 1 to 1 1 O 1 1 O 1 1 H 1 ft! 1 H 1 1 .J 1 V^ 1 1 -J 1 | ^1 1 W M B 1 1 w -J E • I-) C 1 K 1 1 H' 1 | E3D 1 *£ = F-l ~* 1 UN 1 1 1 -intern I ^^Q C I JOKE 1 00>- ; E^ -HHE 1 HHE 1 «i l «_ 1 V l i 1 — 1 — 1 1 — 1 — 1 i-vC";^c r. hoi I t— i^m CO 1 'ni-u'd kO I «- 1 I rot— in 3CO 1 «- 1 ^ 1 to 1 E-i 1 E-' 1 tO 1 to 1 O 1 O 1 I 3i 1 U 1 fM o I IS i in i 2; oa 1 >5 1 • 1 OS= i [Jl roo 1 H 1 M 1 »o I r- r* rtM I F-i 1 r- f-> 1 «CM I ft. -U-l l «: l 1 kIH I •* 1 cc; 1 ui i «; I L3 03 1 P5 1 w i i K'F-fJ 1 a. I CU 1 !3E'»-q to l 1 ntn«fl 1 O o HWrt HUH 1 I to 1 F-HI-JM 1 1 ^amo; P" 1 _1 1 1 f i rfr^E ac: I CKl_lCq li- r-i i rf i 1 '0 1 WmP" ••>ro i I •."- -£ F-i ft L-iiE H 1 H 1 1 o 1 U,?-F- 1 I P.'Q«i- o u,cj«j;o «=: 1 O 1 1 u 1 Urt 1 I a: 1 Cm El o C ft." C7. • • • » 1 • 1 H-l 1 zr. F-l 1 v£ . . • * i •-1 I *-, rr.o.ot u r oj.X'(^- l'j i r-~ i 1 ^ O 1 D'H") | urn i-rJ I CNPM •" 1 n i -~ J i i o o I B-. I in C i f i I 1 £-- ft C l 1 ^— w I i ft- i i-J to o »$ 1 E 1 r-, c_ 1 ft"i 1 t-< «c «* 1 w CO 1 u. | c i-) Z.' i to *~ < 1 M 1 I i-1 o 1 «£ E-l CO 1 1 O I n o 1 ft3 1 o Q o ft: --. 1 £< 1 f>' 1 u> X- 1 r-t zs x C 1 1 X 1 t- M O 1 «-; l 1 F i V i i «: c '; 1 1 o ^: n 1 ! Cj ! Cu, 1 KLi.t-l : u l^l'tiS F 1 1 F .r ' i r-* 1 *s ' to ri •s; 1 J 1 If) *x i i b; i U,'U4rt. <:' tre-i«= O 1 1 H I U 1 *•• n '- !- 1 «: p. c r- . 1 —1 1 ^ ET ft i I., — « ft;",-, ir; I icr | ^. | D.UJ.'J ura I ;- ftlfc-Qrti C. | I' 1 i i.-t.-a •aifij 1 <^ .r.- > ft-, f .- 1 C 1 cr. it-: i >-c.t t , rtlft- ft- {'; f VC I «s:rc,t-. tOQ | a— i - I I j .^i rjfvoo 1 1-.) i ( v- 1 f^O^CO • • » i • i 1 3 3"-"-i 1 I to II 1 H 1 E- 1 I 1 t., 1 V. 1 i to 1 O r-i 1 O 1 1 K, 1 O 1 F-' [ > 1 z*. 1 1 >• t=£ 1 .-1 1 «* >a" •J 1 .-1 1 1 O 1 1 1-3 '-' Cj 1 1 1 n 1 P-l 1 o-< •sz *"~ 1 H 1 1 1 i-H 1 -- ~> -'. O PS 1 M 1 1 M I rL 1 •H _"> 1 ru 1 1 l < 1 M D r •H 1 1 •< -< 1 1 1 O I 'J 1 i .-• •'-< H I'M I ' ) I lJOjCu 1 F.-i 1 1 M -J 1 Ljji-urii I CiHuJ 1 O 1 1 O 1 '«M'.i4 I 5 E^QtlO l r-i l 1 EH u 1 Wdj'/l Hi 1 00 *©Cf> in JOrJOO • • •© nj-r- • r-O i m 1 1 E- I oo 1 O 1 U 1 E^ 1 1 1 V. i ~~i on-)vl>r-j l • • • • w pq 1 to 1 i-l i r-i i H I M 1 10 1 in S 1 O 1 o 1 U 1 U cs -i • •s i 'J i IT) o i •£ i a- 1 M t r- o 1 r-t 1 o 1 < 1 o I m i 1 l f-i l [-•-1 N 1 C< | to 1 C 1 t0«! a. 1 w MH I W r' 1 f-l 3 ^ 1 to i-l rj t-i &: ^: M 1 ^ i-t O 1 u P3 a o i Oj vr 1 ^r i r-< i < to 1 ^ 1 PC 1 • mfNfNlO I ; K t/i Q r\ 1 E I1 M-P-' I1 cr L) tr. fcl 1 ^ i a i £-'} <— «: M ir rN r- I 3 J t 1 V 1 ~ 1 Q i-l i-l tr 1 O 1 to a •* j: Cl. Q P-; n i &-i i « M 1 O 1 •z. [. 1 CI 1 a O fLi C 1 ' ^ 1 I i I t-> f-l O 1 Hi 1 o|i «i i-l r 1 O 1 E i -) 1 V, tc h CJ i a i i-i E" M ti i f-j i V) r i i >i i Q 3 1 hi 1 Tt-, u o 1 | o. 1 1-5 1 «Si~1Fi 1 *f. 1 3«; U 1 3 1 Jfc;HW H«? U'F '[< fc-o~,C in r.ir 1 V 1 F I tr i r 1 c 1 ,J 1 < 1 1 i a r-4 n i H -i •-CB \-< Oif\, o H « ;. «' - _ _ I mrjO n COvO Or 1 ij'-tn D <£>;* nr» L 1 • • • 3 • • •o 1 j**-«- • IDT- •• • 1 O) 3 NO OT Fh Oto u Fh IH 4 p: S5 -I ^J o 1 P) H W H 1 t-J .J s: 1 n 1 M i 1 5t3 3 e: 3D ! -1 l 1 R • HfH r.cj I ZSW 13 5S^ l COi: s OO EJE l C-i^.t: a fnpi CK 1 . . — W, i V-, 1 vCOOf^l X.-CT \cce 1GO '1 mr-lTi »>£> for- xir^o (Nl to 10 J H jl to o 1 O O :i ra a; .£. 1 OZ OZ M 1 QO cao H I E I i_- • • • • CO . • • • ^! Q I cf'^tcr. r-CO ence ')i/mi 1 CNPO [—*— '1* r-r-r^l o w ti cr; «; 1 Pi PJ 1 CO to r j »-^ a i ci P3 w 1 pi tt'i P-l zz ^ :-: i rn : o f c H 1 F^ *^ H «i >* H 64 I rci !=,(: •"IF-i tr.P- [iSt- «:;**' I to «*;*.! to -3 l fcj«:.-3 r t Cl- 1 oou-ao CmO> CO 1 • • • • • • r* I =rc-lm =>r- 1 C OU1 cri LD 1 «-U '—ID to E- ii FH 10 |H o V, a: u C< Q E-< > tc J 1 1 WOjCU i- J !JC^ Oi ~ reji- 1 «HW •< u I C^OilO r- OK: 1 Tit»— criinvo . . .o *r-ro • CJ© n '-> 1 1 j J -< 1 1 -i w r^ W M1-1 J K MESO1 1 E->Fh ^OEEmiOjcn H CH E i3 •O. . . -1 -! .cocr-ico N r- • *- ».»-irico 1 l£ 1 3 1 CO 1 H 1 (H t CO 1 CO | C 1 O 1 U 1 V 1 -J 1 « 1 ID | X O 1 r- j a t OK Z 1 # g r- M 1 ^O M t | r> 1 f-> 1 <£M F-l 1 M 1 3 1 •a: ) JH «* t r" 1 Z> 1 re | «* « 1 r— | c=3 1 :5K W 1 N. 1 0- 1 ^(^J Oj 1 10 1 o t (to.* O 1 03 • CO i-iHM 1 r «£ I , a 7T, (i; r^ c -] • -1 1 i.0 0,1 I &';[*: M •a: | i-) 1 £"i KEH3 H E-> 1 «-: O 1 u a. o «: o O 1 1 Q 1 O^EC CJ : E< 1 Eh 1 — — CO .A 1 1 I M n I 1 O 1 r-i a, -O 1 i n 1 U 1 • I u* C! t .cot^cJ a 1 N i ^ c- • • • « >~3 1 U < b i C0 3-O**" CO J 1 c. t£ 1 :Nr*^ t— r- i *""' r> UJ 1 1 «! O F-l 1 C 1 CO »=s i E 1 < i PI :* i .M | ~ t fC O 1 C-1 t .-j i (r ft. i | i- 1 *•$ i : Q O 1 W ^ t ' i k! CO &• 1 O 1 rz; H 1 O 1 n 1 •H 1 to 1 en FH 1 o • C-, 1 U 1 t/i 1 H K K 1 CO £- x o G > i i «S rt 1 H 1 •.- CL O fn 1 K. M t ' fi | to «: *-_: 3<3 1 -5 1 IiVjIhIIH M n i •ju« i_i *< 01 l'5 >-> i CtUlu-L-i c. >4! I u-'HQ^: 0. E-< 1 ... > P- E W- C 1 Ci,(/. ' K3D. Q E 1 - "~ • -! — • rviiooc- in i • • • • i =r r-zl in i CO \r> E-i 1 '0 o I 1 u 6' 1 O 1 us U 1 i-j «=: «-> K 1 .J 1 r-< n. 1 « 1 M .^s 1 H 1 Di O B 1 M 1 .j: Cu M O 1 1 l-l •-< < •J 1 1 •< H 1 U 1 cj-rrf rl75"j 1 i.3 1 Oi ->! H 1 't 1 rj-^Cb 1 fcH 1 Oi -la.1 1 O 1 OiOitO 1 H 1 . •» 1 cm-- 1 • • • r> • • •O I "* I Lior- • r-«- • 1 r 1 fN a IO 1 I to I to I [ ' 1 tr> 1 1 1 tO l to t 1 o 1 O 1 1 u 1 O 1 t E-i 1 E- t 1 H j 1 Hi • W 1 1 £3 -^ I ^ | >-) 1 1 D 1 w -i 1 3 1 w H 1 e: •-) 5C 1 1 M i H 1 1 1 1 H H 1 HH 1 1 J-.ET. W a i-iiO 1 1 OOiJ oo St I i E-f-'s: 2E 1 i w. , <** 1 oc no. oo 'imc | tO i • • • • • • i aojm J-fN nine i o I a- m i t> 1 w A 1 ••1 H Eh H 1 l to to to yj o o o 1 D u u u _> =5 u 1 03 u 1 OJ u (S 1 O >J_' 1 in h-4 s& 1 o» a 1 • ^i OS • 1 CO M rsJ 1 ceo M 1 H rao 1 n fN 1 r-i 1 rfM F 1 1 9 F < ««i-i F-i cn i ri, -)F-l *- -j: o 1 «J 1 4H «£ w— I cfi o a: 1 «JI m I 1 03 1 I ca i w l cj:o3 P5 PJ OC- 1 C=3 V, p. l r-.c-nJ 04 1 1 Cl, 5-.F-- ^-J I P< 05 tC to c> 1 Mto«s! Ci o HID | O pa 1 to 1 C iMM • l to t E--H H 1 1 f-l «s 1 E-i 1 ^E=q- CBPrt J 1 rn 1 rtUi oirerc I >J ^ k4 i in 1 o;h(-1 P:P1 «; 1 M 1 f-t-l Hp-rn i «< r tO 1 El E-i J I O JEM SH 1 O 1 WE" [H3H 1 1 | ^C's.' O o CuQC C«* o 1 O 1 CUQ 1 O K o 1 0«u.» Dj3 F-H i r-' 0"T! SB,? 1 EH 1 F-i 1 <-> O i i to 1 • L> 1 3 1 F-i 0^ CM *~* 1 1Z m 1 »C^IC4 "Met i— 1 1 CQ •rJ r-or- 1 in " re 1 • • 4 (u rr» • • • • >-] 1 C • • 1 t-i 1 — 1 1 « 1 1 "i 1 «* i -nr- to in 1 «< 1 *- 1 Q 3CO 0.(N^.i | in *— 1 1 mar r-l J i/)<^? r-(\|r>l | =j 3 1 £3 Oiif. 1 E ' 1 KL' | t- <£ 1 P- l_i 3. "1 u p: 1 i-4 pi J 1 6- c<: 5T i «: l:. a. f^r. p.' *3 E-i o 1 M 1 E-i «: fc-! uj 1 1 to 0. to O-, Eh 1 O ^ X C 1 •=-' ' E-i H o 1 1 ' j-: O < k4 1 CO t CO F- C: E-i O Q &3 C c fij *'• cq U ^ 1 b 1 cr i'l p 5^ 1 CO ^» >: 1 E-I ft-! O t«- f-< :-: o i i it: «c! i O F I «e H E- ^ Hl «: f i Em u P i fcfr-i xr-i cr h p.. 036! l-«j-;t4 i P3 i t-. *x.t?. p ^ t/'i J 1 pq«=!,-j H> 1 c vA Wa- JF '1 • 1 Q I isium: r- pa! j;& •^ U 1 «- *-: S I CE !![•! - JT C; PuP ("- 1 _i *- r; IC! E3 1 P-.pl*. F-lPO a c_t iar--0r. 1 l: i e-if 'C »aCL fc S". ^l-l Q"J-P^ 1 E-i r- c. 1 P"X» F-. C f^ «. >tn ji-F 'p; i O E-i I Kp.ii MtJ E- li' «"rw P-MQ 1 aI • « i • o i • « • i • CTl i =»»- m | cr* l c c-ir 1 C'3 Ul 1 1 r-u.' r- | r-O' C I t-i II 1 f- 1 1 to E- _. 1 f j 1 E-i cr to 1 c u 1 O • 1 o • E- C I u • f-i 1 O > ST. 1 I t-1 1 *s 1 <-A » «r I rr: 1 I i-: y~ r I «r i >J I J '1 rf r 1 M i rv t -i i Qj 1 * ^ 1 H 1 .3 t* 1 H 1 1 -2 H 1 Oj 1 S? 1 1 ~) 1 O - F" Pj 1 I '^S •H 'Ti 1 ', a> 1 M 1 1 1 H O 1 r '_) ~* • 1 t.) '^ 1 1 1 1 1 H M 1 «s! r- (_ fc-i 1 I 1 I rf!ssrr 1 ri- f^ 1 -j -a 1 P4M1 1 it- < t _ ' oaor- r— CVCITI • • »o O'-CTi • (N LO CJ bl W MI-) iJ s E^OM 1 1 E-iFh OOESg-. 13 in a HHKS «. . . -! -j ocma> N 1 ir, i a^csmcN r- 1 (N in I FH 1 10 1 O 1 u 1 ^ «: 03 CJJ 1 *. Of. £5 1 • w 00 TIO 1 1 1 :n 1" Cu to «CM < 1 n JE-* "-* 1 r— «; a; 1 tstr; a i WE-lt-l a. i to M t/i «: O 1 F-«l IH 1 rtssmn-i V* J 1 &' J o3 h r>~ fij rt 1 in rq«E ipe f i H 1 a HQrtG rj" O 1 - o o to • CM (NCI =1 r- | 10 o • • • • • I -i *— U p. ccr-fin T) 1 rZ r»i;»t-«r- n O 1 3 is o f-' 1 Q 7. 1 C" 1 J i tn K 1 <^i 1 03 H W 1 E- i rt. 10 •X •-) H 1 O I .-I rt l-l 1 E. i >~i .-! ca 1 E ' 1 1 o H 1 CJ 1 o 1 W ^. I K se*. tO E~< s-; C i <3 1 o «; I-' EH 1 1 o r-i t-p r-J 1 1 E r*\ — wwn-t a'i 1 | 1 ' w c- . a « C4 1 E 1 r-J > «.pr.b.o] Ci 1 t-< — 1 1 * 1 vD c-r-a. 1 a I t • • • 1 • 1 1 i- *"" rr^ c* 1 * 1 I- - ecu 1 IX I «-V£l i r- i 1 1" 1 L^ 1 1 m 1 i to H 1 O 1 1 (^ >-" 5K t a i 1 *fi ,-1 i >j i I r~ Oj i -ii i I "i *"— ^s 1 EH 1 i t-* O S5 1 M l M O 1 'u 1 1 -0 -< 1 M 'Z 1 1 o * H 1 L) 1 1 CJ as rJ «< rjj 15 iK 1 -J 1 i j an «-^ 1 «* 1 1 «s Ljrwoj 1 H 1 1 F-l mmw 1 O 1 1 O £-> tweue] 1 1 t H 1 1 1 1 IrtCM'in i 1 1 rolnr>)»- I O-CDI-•a' i 1 1 1 • • •O 1 • 1 • • •© I VOOi' 1 1 ->© 1 ' i 1 1 1 • 1 1 • 1 1 1 10 1 1 1 H 1 1 • to 1 1 1 I O 1 1 1 U 1 t 1 I | I I fn 1 1 • I H 1 W I 1 1 • Z | M 1 1 1 I • 1 K M 1 1 1 I I >-) E 1 1 1 I 1 M 1 1 1 1 I 1 *Z 33 • 1 1 I 1 1 -•H I 1 1 I 1 S5S5 ura i 1 1 I 1 oo -E | 1 1 I 1 HH = ^: i 1 t I I • , i 1 «fi i I — 1 1 — 1 —1 — I 1 1 I 1 1 I i inoj OOCT" 1 in [M inline <& I • 1 i • • • « • I 1 3tN nhic 1 n 1 i csiinnoc in i CM 1 in i i i i l /) 1 l H 1 -i • i f-> I O 1 1 1 to I D 1 D 1 1 o t J 1 J 1 1 U I X O !-) I rvi Cu • «: 3 1 as 1 JIM O l s o = 1 5= 3 I .1 z I -1 1 H 1 POO 1 f 1 M I rn ~- ^h =H m o 1 «SM 1 f- t FA I rt •r, «- • o =< 1 i-Jf-i 1 1 rt I CN co o S 1 «S X 1 1 K I i: 1 r- 1 IS(H j-1 1 1 cc K I 3. \ ">i 1 ZH A 1 | | ft- I K to D I MIO =c 1 O 1 1 HltOs-- O I HI 1 1 >< a; to 1 1 E ic- | 1 rr ' uCC-iN 1 - 1 «S 1 «; u « w Zt CO or- a tor r^ i U) i-i—ro I cor-jfN^- OO K *£ L-l « 1 ^ 1131 I 3 '^ *1 H U, ^ 1 l- 1 1 r- I S5 J -1 H D 1 1 K 1 I Z •1 1 t-l «< o pkt «c | < I a Pi :i -1 1 ^ t 1 Z I t5 1 i3||J| rj i ^J t; «: t z ?i fc ~ 1 i E I < •?. - 1 1 1^ E-' o (- O 1 W H I to -t 1 H L5 z; i 1 O W I O .-1 E-i rj | n: i i n i t-t I f- -3 • t pa H 1 1 H I "' 1 1 U4 l-l O 3 i | **r: 3' to c_> i' 1 W 1 1 1 OS I r-i s. 1 1 1 r- « i O I a: :-i i 3< a M 1 «r- H 1 t H E-l I Bui 1 K tl r-IMF-i 1 C.-.J 1 f'-t-t :E- CQ I o "' l to *r ^ | ' ' to «;«s r-; I -i »- J ^ I T<;n: kJF-I 1 Ol ' < t-4 E- " o l o: Kt, | tTli-S u 1 i i i ~-> M 1 »tf T D U. 1 i i Or p.ifc: M I :-IKt J'Hfk • < i i fiC- <= t ir I cje EUrfp. | E • 1 1 e i >«: t-'t k. i H 1 C I 1 «.i;f r- o I :• 1 rid i-tOO | 1 1 o,ri toe H I - — i 1 1 i | ^> I NC X< 1 t co i 1 • • • | • 1 1 • l | "0 l air m 1 1 mm m i 1 cc J, I .G 1 1 i/ in r- t | *~C0 T> 1 1 a- i 1 1 1 1 1 • I to i CD 1 1 E • 1 1 I : • 1 f ' \ i i H | 1 • tr 1 O W i i C' O 1 1 O I - z I t 1 1 rr L' I >* 1 1 1 1-3 I c I 1-5 1 <" t eJ l 1 1 J I •s I r-i nj i 1 1 < I '~* Li '-* i *-* 1 1 1 I "^ 1 cu 1 o l H 1 1 rn M • CU i ^ 1 M O 1 | | o Cu I EH 1 -« 1 1 •aj l 'J I H r> H I C-l ) 1 '«! 1 1 1 'J M 'J I 1 '1'.! * 1 1 1 I t: I -J 1 1 1 « 1 1 1, i i | iO:T:»\ 3 1 1 cicnf^. > 1 . .< 1 . 5 1 I r~om • 1 I ro< > 1 • ' 1 CO i i 1 E< i i i to • i 1 o [ 1 u ! j i t-< 1 H 1 1 1 is -) 1 t 3 1 H H 1 1 -) a i 1 M i i 1 SO d i 1 1 EH -H 1 | J^iJCC a i i 1 OOE 1 FHHE U 1 1 w v . 1 inrjr^! m 1 • • • • • 1 JCNLf,( | in CO EH EH CO O O H U o x; ^~ -I 14 ts 1 JS C3 ! -1 >~ ^. I on • . H I eo n i a 1, ^ 1 rf.H EH 1 ro «: 1 .-Uh «S I T- K 1 «! e« K I cert W 04 a. \ 1 t-.t-'J C 1 mco*i: O 1 CO 1 F~Ht 1 l 1 E I -cr-.re «e J *£ 1 CO i «» try a w 10 1 C> l 6i?:t-< 3El C-i t u 1 CbGn: D-j: o OS 1 o^sr: 0,3: F- 1 EH o i i-i 1 CO 1 » W r~. r~ i ^ o M E-' r^ *— to O «; •Ki E-' l w w Si W *' — w U W i >-i CO ^ fc c E.'. i «: p. w O •n: l C''; Ci- 1 E-< ^c Oi u ^: 1 CO 1 o .-! 1- f i U 1 **l 1 E i •J Eh 1 10 1 rq O to c Q V, c w o 1 M i F I i r :-: p: 1 '.0 >-3 1 r-'.^,.- 'Th o t-4 *!.' 1 '_diii«: o HI £ 1 « r r: r-i l-t y^ *J- w sr I I'.^UU' t<(~. • l.-, 1 f'T-iC. • COi l ™i *i; 1 >«.'W:. F 1 C' C^l I t:u.-.Cv. MO f-i • o *<*' i r <- C" 1 it 1 • • • • r~ • I 3 u" »n o CTi 1 c fir i vr l t-"i' o- 1 CO 1 H II 1 10 E- «— '-0 1 r~> 1 io 1 O 1 t> I O 1 p. >• o 1 1 *-- l -^ *" 1 l -! 1 ) r-» 1 1 1 d i 1 fi F-4 1 J 1 ( > i 1 J 1 _] 1 liHii 1 c 1 1 H 1 H 1 O 1 O 1 a ' 1 i nt-nco i --iNoin • .o • • *o OOfciCTi • — T-r^ • - ino I L 1 < 1 O 1 J 1 _> 1 • : H 1 tj a W M^i i-l 33 M 1 SE = 1 HH 302Eits coca >'-ir-iEE 1 r- J>^rooo 3 in I i • * 1 3" NlDt-u.' 1 c. *rgmt- - 1 1 i m m to 1 i e-i €-1 1 E-i 1 1 i to to 1 to 1 o O 1 O 1 1 u U 1 U 1 rvj ~~ i u O 1 s ID 1 o • " m Z 1 Oz ^ 1 CO • M in I- > 1 ao M 1 f-* F-l * 1 H o 1 N 1 C- pj 1 i-F-iH-) Dj 1 lo«c 1 O O 1 -l!0«^ C 1 :» MM to HMM 1 ^4 F-i ft- 1 *J I PI cor\jc-rocr 3- ^j: 1 a. I K i **~ O 4_r-03 < «C ISI i in xicnfip n rCb_r ft •ei: ft 1 CM 1 O l ic i >«;ft t-< 1 C 1 (X.'ftilOQ 1 rn *T. Uj 1 H O tO o f 1 i r- — ~ ~ — 1 * — - i a i r^ 1 rv; 1 tN Qj | r-Jt^oo r- i 1 vo li-l | 1 • i ^ • • • • i • 1 r~ fv l =t 1 cr M 3CJ-<^ l 1 LP 1 <£ =$ i ru'iO n i 1 t— | r S 1 >-in i r~ i o-< i to (- 1 ' 1 II i 1 1 II E 1 1 1 , (») i to 1 1 1 y> 1 to | 1 to C. c 1 I to 1 O 1 (X c t-H 1 O I 1 IX >H (.' >-> 1 (_> 1 CB 1 s- 1 1 l O 1 >-j «: 1 IV. i< .j 1 >J i r 1 1 J 1 c i-i •-' 1 *fl 1 rn a. 1 1 I -n £.-* *" •«»; w 1 1 55 1 i -i 1 bH 1 i 1 i-i P-i '-< r • I O 1 n< O B5 • 1 i 1 Cu • Cli 1 < 1 < •H O 1 | i to 1 -a: 1 1 J3 H 1 'J .-I .H 1 •* 1 1 o 1 ' ) '.> H «« L< 1 1 1 L) i i rK'JJ-S 1 tJ 1 .J n i <•!« 1 .J 1 1 ..3 1 «c 1 «a! U 1 OiMi; 1 "i 1 1 -a 1 l-l 1 M -i i .goiOi 1 (r> 1 1 H 1 o 1 o it i KM J 1 O 1 t O OitO 1 EH 1 H u • OjCLi to 1 H 1 1 H (NCDLjlnr . . .© CDC 30r- • T3 w M•J l-J E M 1 S 3CD 1 ^H S<5*£ wa oo FSS HH as *^i . . C^=J »1t-«n • • • • • arj jn-r-- ni- PL, • > cno in i in cr- o CO ps &i CO .-I m•>=: o-J. a Ft p- g; CO F-< X O *3 •j; •-• U-.T;] f->!»-:C' CO •=.«• r--,*-: JUM cr cr3 <=. U <£ OS Cvl M 1 pifi weir.. ur\-, Q.-Cu >>=> IjJFhK «;a 'j-coQ r r~i oc • 4 • r! ix m or in i-C r* E-« «; J Oi -: o •:3 1 H o r—4 •H < f -i JS'5 -< •f! : re fu- •-« ry n. Oi H JSi-, d o iia CO H 1 , i^t-votn -oou-if- -t-ccin • »o • • «o | Or- vo • - voo f. * 1 /I -> _| H w .^ W M1-4 J SC t-lSES1 1 HH :oee.SESCjO- HHEE «. , . -! - I 1 nMtC C 1 3 • • • • • • | niNinc O 1 Cl 1 ml vO r- i tO K to 1 ^ F-I 1 F-i 1 M to 1 to 1 S3 O 1 O 1 — U 1 EC O J 1 a, • a: 1 13 1 IX O I r>-, e o O 1 DEs OB ^ 1 • r- H ) BO H 1 =T LT> T- C 1 f-< 1 S3 1 K 1 iJ I to >-" •u: X^ Z b. | r-' i 1 I a. *r i o b. C I | w M 1 C-i «: 53 1 to r> i i-) H O . 1 o k1 f-i 1 U t rti M 1 [-• l -J r-i .-1 1 tO 1 03 i 1 o H O 1 Q 1 W 1 1 CJ W L> 1 b 1 M U1 « i E-i Ei :-: Q 1 5r- l- : 1 r=tf «s 1 4 F^' 1 1 O O P- 1 Cb-E- ; r-i 1 CQ 1 1 M to K .< W 1 1 ^1 i t-1 1 tMJ[ a i 1 J •< 1 (5tt'< o 1 hi iij 1 rt r-.b t-H 1 S Uj •O- | ^^ ISt'JWt 1 t F.O.35 C- 1 H 1 *£* 1 >-c;>i-if 1 (T> f 1 O 1 E-i . ' — — 1 1 o. tN^CQO 1 «<~' I \C- 1 • • • 1 • 1 1 O zsmtr-) "* in or-'*"' 1 • l i/i Xin i f— at C 1 ^ 1 t-00 1 C 1 1 CM 1 to E-1 l ii to 1 f- • r 1 (0 1 i to U fc' 1 O 1 1 Cu 1 ES 1 L> 1 X »n; rf ^J 1 tJ 1 I 00^1 «.fp- aooo< r>* i • * • O 1 croi * • l JO | 1 VI | 1 E-* 1 1 W 1 1 O * 1 U • 1 £• 1 1 M 1 &3 1 *~- 1 1 >-) 1 1 D 1 1 < • J K 1 M 1 1 ^>E 1 _ 1 ^H 1 GO t:JC | HE-. RE 1 ^lrr,C) ror- | r i • • • • • 1 U)CN r;ir>r- I n i O 1 .O ! '—4 I I 1 - 1 10 | -n i "> O 1 l 1 1 U I J i j cs J O 1 i-J z i OZ .-c l • 1 W 1 1 i ( i ffo —i i r- i D, 1 | F 1 1 rtM =» i H «* 1 >-!El J. 1 OJ 1 r; as ~I', -! 15 K JJ rij au 1 \ I I i Kf' J i 10 o urn j. i o Sm w l in l HH M 1 | vj HI -) 1 Vi 1 Cr,M r-H'in i < 1 ' fc'.S- 1 s hi *4 l C t F'3H 1 -1 o 1 O 1 CiC rtOrt I O 1 -' in W o o>=s 5CCU2: | El 1 r\j Bi 1 l-J 1 m i M 00 I *=; l O 1 i 0. l — 1 1 1 r- u t • CO •i— ^n)io 1 N ^"' t/1 o o» l l r . • • • 1 t -i 1 »)[- »a- Ui w I -< I c C0=t U"i 1 1 «« t-J k. vL>00 r-ir-j^r i 30 => 1 .-! H r^J i^ m | O i-l .-J C-" O r H xn o rj H -J 1 in [t. «.' Ei ps W EJ 1 P"i O O < W 1 i'l E- 1 ^ M 15 — C/0 1 C5 C 1 ^1 #^ Ei J M i) 1 H 1 Hi 1 Q 1 E-' O HI o Q M a s: K o S^ V~ 1 « k r r-< y o i K M «c c: mi E< r^ (i. fl^ f'XF; 1 C; l-i n W J ,-3 (>;.=; >- O.CB &- too 1 ir» 1 /> 1 M3 X | • 1 • 1 • * u. "n r- I 3h | n I cc J~> 1 J3 -*-. 1 *-(N 1 *~ 1 1 V, | i r-i i II I to 1 E< , , Si 1 O 1 m 1 U 1 E-< 1 [r. (.) 1 >-> < «£ 1 «' 1 i-l 1 J c^ 1 F-i ru s m 1 1 l — 1 iH 1 I su EH -> -* 1 ~U 1 I l H H • »* 1 1 1 a, 0 H O < 1)1 1 M H 1 O * 1 i .i!;3 C 1 J uJ i n,. c 1 >• O x: JJ 01 TJ UH 'O (0 >J 4J '4-1 rH oi 01 (U Ol X! Ol nj CJ IS r-i JJ -U C UH C CO o a; c N O fO -H Ul Cn 17 tT •H|U)| •H|ui|X! ^r CO rH o o o JJ O JJ H H ^2 C CT vj Vj Vj rH|C|'n rHlCI rH r-i JJ CJ rH jj H CS JJ f~ 01 ca (0 rH j.-H r-l|0|S Ol CO r-l IS) (C -H «3 CO tH o u co | O ca C CO c E J-i to in H m -Q XI x> •H|J-U — •H|4J|f1 jj rH o 01 Oj C Xi rH vO c - o H -H CO 3 -H CN IN XI CN El El — o ro Ul CO O a rl O CJ -JJ 4-) jj JJ 'O 3 O V-| (0 r^ (SI m m JJ CS JJ| c Ul 0J O —i E E •H -H a'D o LH O O UJ -^ vO rH rH «!> S|0J|CN a| g;|ss O CD Vj 4J D E rH UH c *- — U3 < £-< UH CJ O 3 ro w rH .--I CM .^IC ^O jj •H H Qh tr.-H ca S O r-l IM c JJ Vj c -a 01 r^ ui H CO H 0) •rH CD •H T3 CO E vj rH 0) T3 Ul -C -C co X) u-i JJ rH ai tJ JJ o 01 c o r— •rH Vj CO CO co co •H CO ^ rH E uh Ul S) m s> rH <-< a JJ CO 4-1 c CO cri vt> r- (~» C < Vj C CJ UH o rH 10 o SI vO 'S' rH r-i QJ CO Vj •H O C O CJ (0 VJ J-l «* ^ K ^ ^ V r-t . Ul -H a •H SI CJ 4J iH l"-» 00 00 IN cn n", (X c C •rH D Q.H 10 UH CN o -P a\ o~i CT> s> CTl CA •H TO o ry •H rH H O H Ch rH h rH in * CN m ca ca ea cn ca CN Q IS SI SI cs S3 • • • • * • • • • CO • • • ^ r-1 "tf 00 o M3(N cosMvoams CO CS CN «•> \ s * n m h r^ CN in CS CN .-1 in si si rs si 4J H 00 ro CM s; in Ol SI SI IN in vo si in CO si si CO m .-. si in oo si -rj< •^ CI s oo r~ m r» in r» I"- rH in m m co on a ca co co in CN T rH rH rH r-t r-t rH r-t rH rH rH Cti ID t-» en U f0 H S-l -I o a a C3> < o CM u 4-> 'w 3 CQ •H TD < • C rH CN CO O Eh O Z3 5-1 z CU s -C s> •3 CN IT) in S) Cn LT> IT) rH CN f~- ID O s-i -C Eh 1 'Sihlt: c 1 ajH :! 1 1 Jja,i/ t- l cua to 1 M-) «. u 1 «. a 1 a;cr.vo TCM r~ 1 I zTITit- r— ro l\l t a