Guess we can call this a pipe dream
The Illinois Terminal Railroad ran regular “Oil Can” trains out of the Hartford, Illinois refineries in WWII. It wasn’t a pipe dream, but a viable means of transportation.
we have trains of tank car here in the area now Ric I know it’s viable. Just a bit of humor on a situation that shouldn’t exist, but i won’t go there.
This has been on the horizon for some time and …
http://atowncalledpodunk.blogspot.com/2009/07/port-tests-waters-for-cns-rolling.html
As a matter of fact CN also has/had plans to ship East, slightly delayed because of the 2008 “blip”.
http://www.cn.ca/en/shipping-north-america-alberta-pipeline-on-rail.htm
http://www.cn.ca/documents/Shipping/pipeline-on-rail-oilsands-en.pdf
Side effect of the delay: hundreds/thousands of tank cars stored in every available siding that could be used, including here in the Valley along the Kelowna Pacific Railway which leases the CN tracks.
Prior to Big 2, oil was shipped from the Gulf to New England by sea. Admiral Donitz’ boys put an end to that. The oil was then shipped by oil can trains until various pipelines were built. If memory serves, that was also the beginning of the Inland Waterway, though I am not positive about that.
“Prior to Big 2, oil was shipped from the Gulf to New England by sea. Admiral Donitz’ boys put an end to that. The oil was then shipped by oil can trains until various pipelines were built.”
To add to what Steve wrote, I took a railroad history class at our local community college. The instructor showed us an advertizement N&W Railway published during WWII. The illustration shows a U-boat captain checking his periscope. In the background, an N&W Y class is pulling a long train of tank cars. The caption reads: “Out of Your Range, Nazi!”
The idea for tank trains is not really new.
Yours,
David Meashey
1924 would be the date on the intercoastal waterway
here for those interested http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intracoastal_Waterway
Amazing thing is that CN is shipping oil by rail, we are refining it, exporting 400,000 gallons of gasoline because of an excess and the price still does not go down at the pump!
Ron
OK guys, help me out here…20’s D&RG NG tank car I know about.
Modern Supersize tank cars I’m real ignorant on. How many gallons do they hold each, and about how many can they put together for a unit train? Is it based on total tonnage or # of car loads.
Dave
38,000 gallons seems to be about the average petro tanker on today’s railroads, though some tankers go as high as 63.000 gallons. (Source-Wikipedia) To get barrels of oil, just divide gallon capacity by 42.
I would imagine that tonnage will determine how big the unit train is, just like it determines everything else in railroading.
Steve, 38,000 gal of ethanol, and 38,000 gal of crude can’t weigh the same. I guess what I’m looking for is can they convert a standard tank car to crude hauling to ramp up the “pipe line” quickly? Or is their enough “oil tankers” already in the system.
If Israel does a preemptive on Iran’s Nuke’s then a rapid ramp up would really be a good thing.
I saw a video of an SP unit tank train. Each tank car was connected to the other one with over head pipes at each end.
What’s with that?
“Each tank car was connected to the other one with over head pipes at each end.
What’s with that?”
John;
I think that allows the tank train to be unloaded by attaching only one car to the emptying facility; instead of having to unload each car separately.
Yours,
David Meashey
Yeah they had a name for those cars. However, I cant remember the name, “Tank Train”??? Anyways it was an idea that if you hooked up just one car you could fill all 5 or 3 car units. It wasn’t real successful. It limited the loading because it took special loading equipment and unloading equipment. I dont think they even use them anymore, I think most have been converted to a standard tank car.
As far as the converting tank cars. That is usually not that easy. Crude oil is a lot thicker than Ethanol. The plumbing is different, plus a car is designated for hauling Ethanol is not easily changed to haul something else. Its all about contamination.
Dave Taylor said:
Steve, 38,000 gal of ethanol, and 38,000 gal of crude can't weigh the same. I guess what I'm looking for is can they convert a standard tank car to crude hauling to ramp up the "pipe line" quickly? Or is their enough "oil tankers" already in the system.If Israel does a preemptive on Iran’s Nuke’s then a rapid ramp up would really be a good thing.
Dave, that is why tonnage, and not gallons, or capacity, is the ruling decision. It you are transporting ethanol, of course you will be able to haul more cars than if you are hauling crude oil. I doubt that ethanol cars could be easily converted to haul crude oil. The transfer mechanisms are not the same.
The specific gravity of crude oil varies dependent on type, but using 7 pounds / U. S. gallon is a pretty good number.
Refined gasoline weighs just over 6 pounds / U.S. gallon.
Alcohol weighs around 6.5 pounds / U.S. Gallon.
Happy RRing,
Jerry
Well, let’s see, at a half a pound per gallon difference between alcohol and crude oil, that’s 19,000 pounds per car, or 9.5 tons per car. Let’s arbitrarily take a unit train of 100 cars. Let’s make it easy, ok, and stipulate 100 cars. That’s 950 tons per unit train. Is that enough to make a difference? I dunno. It might if you have to go up hill… or down hill.
Train length is between 80 and 150 cars, according to a write up in the Globe&Mail.