Eastern Railroad Discussion > Diesel Fuel?

Saw this on another site.  Man said a 17000 ton coal train traveling 1200 miles with 3 units.  The 5000 gallon tanks would have to be filled 3X.  That would be 15000 gallons per diesel which would equal 45000 gallons for that trip.  Would it use that much diesel?  Is he just talking because he knows or because no one calls him on it?
 

Surely mileage is dependent on numerous criteria, not just tonnage but grade, curvature, temperature, etc. Most diesels have 12-16 cylinders with pistons size at 645-710 cubic inches, so 12 or 16 of them will surely consume large amounts of fuel to ignite and drive those large pistons. I dont know what the MPG data is but I do know there are fuel pads at numerous locations to refuel these guzzlers as they traverse the continent.

On my road 30000 tons can go from the mines to the pier and empties back to the mines for about 5000 gallons total ( all engines used together consume that amount total not each) and we will assume that the latest engines get best economy while older ones don't do as well...but most are in a state of tune that allows them to do the best they can.

As an example.  A GE  -9 uses 190 gallons per hour at full load.   MPG really isn't calculatable because speed drastically changes MPG.  That being said, I have personally witnessed the fuel gage reduce by 10 gallons every 2 miles on a large train with a single working unit.

Eng.Shadetree

It's gallons per mile, not miles per gallon.
150 miles about 10,000 tons, about 500-700 gallons per engine, x3 engines, roller coaster terrain.


If you can't afford to put gas in your locomotives, you should probably get out of the RR bizNS.
On the other hand, THEY are famous for passing fuel surcharges along to their customers.
Just sayin'

A 17,000 ton coal train would have trouble finding 1200 miles it could handle with just 3 units, so it's a little tough to come up
with a reat estimate. 

Out 

callum_out Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A 17,000 ton coal train would have trouble finding
> 1200 miles it could handle with just 3 units, so
> it's a little tough to come up
> with a reat estimate. 

???

A 22,000 ton coal train with a 2x1 DPU configuration has been common for years.

dstill Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Man said a 17000 ton coal train traveling 1200 miles with 3 units. 

CSX says: "CSX trains can move a ton of freight approximately 492 miles on a single gallon of fuel."

17000 tons moved 1200 miles? 2.439~ gallons per ton for 1200 miles or 41,463 gallons needed.

> The 5000 gallon tanks would have to be filled 3X.  That would be 15000 gallons per
> diesel which would equal 45000 gallons for that trip.  Would it use that much diesel? 

Apparently he is correct (three fill ups with a little fuel to spare).

> Is he just talking because he knows or because no one calls him on it?

Can't say how "he" got the knowledge, but the numbers are good.

CSX came up with their 492 miles per gallon by dividing their revenue ton miles by their gallons of fuel consumed over a period of a year - so definately a big average.
208,712,027,000 RTM / 423,998,863 gals = 492 RTM/gal (2018 figures)

https://www.csx.com/index.cfm/about-us/the-csx-advantage/fuel-efficiency/



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/12/22 17:59 by justalurker66.

nsrlink Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's gallons per mile, not miles per gallon.
> 150 miles about 10,000 tons, about 500-700 gallons
> per engine, x3 engines, roller coaster terrain.
>
>
> If you can't afford to put gas in your
> locomotives, you should probably get out of the RR
> bizNS.
> On the other hand, THEY are famous for passing
> fuel surcharges along to their customers.
> Just sayin'

Just curious why you think railroads shouldn’t pass on the cost of fuel? I assume you feel that based on the above statement, I could be wrong though. I would like to point out that almost every mode of transportation in particular the freight segment passes on the cost of higher fuel if it goes higher than when the agreement/contract was first instituted. The trucking industry is far more Notorious for passing on fuel costs than the railroads. In fact some trucking companies pass on the complete cost of fuel on to the shipper/receiver in addition to the cost of the freight charge. Shipping lines/barge freight is no different.

Posted from iPhone

I can say the numbers are probably correct or incorrect on how you want to look at them and what kind of Territory the train is running over. For example on CSX, the old NYC water route, 18,000+ tons trains are run everyday with only two locomotives and don’t burn/consume near that amount of fuel. On NS from Roanoke to Norfolk on 22,000 plus ton coal trains if I remember correctly only consume about 2,000 gallons of fuel per locomotive, granted that is only about 250 miles with two locomotives.

Posted from iPhone

FYI: For 2021, CP reported the best gas mileage ... one ton moved 571.69 miles per gallon. UP had the worst ... one ton moved 456.59 miles per gallon.
For the theoretical 17000 ton train traveling 1200 miles CP would have used 35,684 gallons and UP would have used 44,484 gallons.

The average for the Class I railroads was one ton moved 496.35 miles per gallon.
On average the Class I railroads paid $2.16 per gallon for fuel (NS reporting $1.94 per gallon).
On average every dollar Class I railroads spent on fuel moved 229.65 tons one mile.
 

JOHNY5ALIVE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Just curious why you think railroads shouldn’t
> pass on the cost of fuel? I assume you feel that
> based on the above statement, I could be wrong
> though. I would like to point out that almost
> every mode of transportation in particular the
> freight segment passes on the cost of higher fuel
> if it goes higher than when the agreement/contract
> was first instituted. The trucking industry is far
> more Notorious for passing on fuel costs than the
> railroads.

When the RRs gloat about their revenues due to fuel surcharges on their earnings calls, I happen to think it is disgusting & raises prices for everyone.  If they want to cover their fuel costs with a surcharge, that would be one thing.  But when they use such an excuse for more profits, after they make several billion, that's where it gets out of hand in my opinion.  And the way they all discipline their employees for the slightest infraction of their energy management stuff or fuel burn --that's disgusting too.

nsrlink Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JOHNY5ALIVE Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Just curious why you think railroads
> shouldn’t
> > pass on the cost of fuel? I assume you feel
> that
> > based on the above statement, I could be wrong
> > though. I would like to point out that almost
> > every mode of transportation in particular the
> > freight segment passes on the cost of higher
> fuel
> > if it goes higher than when the
> agreement/contract
> > was first instituted. The trucking industry is
> far
> > more Notorious for passing on fuel costs than
> the
> > railroads.
>
> When the RRs gloat about their revenues due to
> fuel surcharges on their earnings calls, I happen
> to think it is disgusting & raises prices for
> everyone.  If they want to cover their fuel costs
> with a surcharge, that would be one thing.  But
> when they use such an excuse for more profits,
> after they make several billion, that's where it
> gets out of hand in my opinion.  And the way they
> all discipline their employees for the slightest
> infraction of their energy management stuff or
> fuel burn --that's disgusting too.

Understand and agree with you. Thanks.

Posted from iPhone

In the US model of capitalism, the share owners come first. They vote for directors, approve management compensation, and stock grants.

Employees, shippers, local towns aren't that important.

Posted from Android

nsrlink Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JOHNY5ALIVE Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Just curious why you think railroads
> shouldn’t
> > pass on the cost of fuel? I assume you feel
> that
> > based on the above statement, I could be wrong
> > though. I would like to point out that almost
> > every mode of transportation in particular the
> > freight segment passes on the cost of higher
> fuel
> > if it goes higher than when the
> agreement/contract
> > was first instituted. The trucking industry is
> far
> > more Notorious for passing on fuel costs than
> the
> > railroads.
>
> When the RRs gloat about their revenues due to
> fuel surcharges on their earnings calls, I happen
> to think it is disgusting & raises prices for
> everyone.  If they want to cover their fuel costs
> with a surcharge, that would be one thing.  But
> when they use such an excuse for more profits,
> after they make several billion, that's where it
> gets out of hand in my opinion.  And the way they
> all discipline their employees for the slightest
> infraction of their energy management stuff or
> fuel burn --that's disgusting too.

When they  gloat about revenue they do it because they have to....if you charge a fuel surcharge and the customer pays that is revenue yes....it has to be counted as such...of course you spend it ON fuel...because fuel has to be bought....that is an expense. It is how double entry journalism messes with peoples minds....more revenue is good, more expenses is not necessarily good, but so long as those expenses can be paid it's net nothing....well it may pump up your operating ratio, but that should only be used as a general guide to how you are spending your revenue...sometimes the ratio goes up sometimes down, but as long as you are making enough money to cover expense and have some left over, you have a profit. 

Let's go another way....let's not charge a fuel surcharge....we have to set our tariff so that the switching charges pay for the fuel at the highest cost recently known. And when we write contracts for service we set that rate to pay everything we might spend providing service plus some for profit and maybe a touch more for unforseen events. We also hedge fuel prices....we get a fuel contract for a year when prices are rosey...but when that contract is up if prices are skyrocketing we buy on the spot market and pray for the price to fall. The trick is making sure your contract price is low enough to protect you a while, and there is as much luck as there is science to it. But again if  fuel prices skyrocket enough that it erodes the padding we made in our tariffs and prices...we have to do something....a fuel surcharge is a fair way to do that because it doesn't have to be a permanent price increase...it can scale with the movement in the prices of fuel....if you set your surcharge to be effective when the fuel price is above a certain minumum....it should disappear when the price goes below that price. Yes we know sometimes companies hold onto a surcharge too long and that is smarmy but everyone knows it smarmy so it doesn't happen that often. Only communists and people who don't understand that you have to make money to pay the bills don't get this is not a money grab. If am a railroad and you are my customer you SHALL pay me enough to cover your service and a little more or you shall not receive any service. 

            In the world of business, thousands of hard working people have gone bankrupt because they worked seven days a week, up before the sun and got home around 11pm, didn't see the wife or kids much because . . . . . . . . . . they did NOT pay attention to their costs. It is not free, someone has to pay for every part of the business and if the owner is paying part of it, it is time to shut it down. It does not work that way.
           When the fuel goes up like has recently happened, the cost of doing business must go up.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/13/22 14:38 by dcfbalcoS1.

Fuel surcharges are intended to cover increases in fuel costs from whatever the base cost per gallon is set at and what is actually being paid.

When I retired three years ago, railroads were basing their fuel charges on the EIA’s national average cost for highway diesel. Simply put, if you monitored the price of diesel at truck stops around the country, that’s your national average. To my knowledge, railroads continue to use this EIA national highway average as the basis for application of fuel surcharges.

Given that railroads hedge on fuel costs and purchase diesel in such enormous quantities, it should be apparent that they pay considerably less per gallon of diesel than the price on a pump at a truck stop.

In what I’ll admit is a bit of an over simplification, the gap between what is actually being paid per gallon and what is being used as the basis for the fuel surcharge is where the fuel surcharge revenue enters the picture. Railroads are profiting from fuel surcharges.

CW

Edit to note that EIA is the Energy Information Administration.
Posted from iPhone



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/14/22 05:49 by Juniata.

No question that railroads are making a profit on their fuel surcharges, and the customers have noticed. It is on the 10-k.

To be fair, if you hedge one million gallons of diesel fuel for 2023 at $4.50 per gallon, and the spot price in 2023 is $4, you have to pay the difference or take the fuel. So you would see a loss.

Another benefit of hedging is to assure the supply of fuel.

Posted from Android

Lackawanna; not to hijack the thread but, can you recollect a railroad or railroads getting burned on their fuel hedging in the past? I seem to recollect reading about airlines that ended up underwater on their hedges but, I don’t recollect reading of any railroads that “bet” wrong.

CW

Posted from iPhone

Juniata Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lackawanna; not to hijack the thread but, can you
> recollect a railroad or railroads getting burned
> on their fuel hedging in the past? I seem to
> recollect reading about airlines that ended up
> underwater on their hedges but, I don’t
> recollect reading of any railroads that “bet”
> wrong.
>
> CW
>
> Posted from iPhone

The railroads would likely not publicize such news....but the airlines will because they value any means to raise ticket prices....railroads raise their prices too, but customers usually just suck it up.