Here is what happens when you don't have a pipeline i.e.Keystone

I always thought a drum was 55 gallons, a keg was 15.5 gallons and a barrel was 42 gallons. 16,000 tons is 32,000,000 lbs. If we are talking net tons. Tar sand oil weighs about 9 lbs per gallon. (32,000,000 Lbs/9 lbs per gallon)/ 42 gal per barrel equals 84,656 barrels per rail line.

 

Sort of;

1. Any of various units of volume or capacity. In the U.S. Customary System it varies, as a liquid measure, from 31 to 42 gallons (120 to 159 liters) as established by law or usage.

However, a oil barrel is 42 gallons.
Also, every reference I can find say the oil is about 8.3 pounds per gallon. Since the train operates per ton regardless of other factors, the oil density is immaterial except to convert it to barrels.

 

Our Evolution locomotives are rated at 484 gpt. I suppose I should have used it in context of a train at a specific tonnage with X amount of locomotives. So sure, singularly, it's 484.

 

Are you saying that 2, 3, or 4 engines in tandem get better mileage than a single engine? I seriously doubt that. And if it were true, every train out there would have 10+ engines and get 2000 gpt. 484 I can believe, but I will also wager that is under the perfect load size on flat track with all axles freshly greased etc. I will bet that 400 figure is pretty darned close.

 

The information I found stated the oil weight varied from .99 to 1.14 kg per liter depending on geographic source. Could be the Canadian tar sands product is 8.3 lbs. Why is density immaterial? Rail volume is described in terms of weight (tons) and the pipeline volume is described in terms of space (volume - barrels). 8.3 Lbs per gallon puts rail volume at 91,796 barrels per. Anyway to reach the project volume of 860,000 barrel per day capacity of Keystone would require around 1350 rail tankers per day if 150 rail tankers have the capacity of 16,000 tons.

 

Volume cannot be equated to weight. BTW, oil densities can go as low as 0.8.

And it does not matter for the trains because they pull x gallons of fuel per ton regardless of the volume (density, if you prefer). Now, it does count when you convert those tons back into barrels.

 

Guy, go easy on rlm and his old 'engineering' skills. He is not so good at math and facts and such. He has some how confused the weight of water with the specific gravity of oil compared to it. Just wait, his stuff gets even more amusing if you have the stomach for it. He figures this is the place where ignorant old racists go to pasture.

 

Of course multiple engines get better fuel millage. One motor pulling say 1000 tons burns a lot more fuel than four motors pulling 1000 tons. Basic math. Where I work we have an elevation change from 400 feet to 7700 feet, so having between 5 and 9 locomotives per train is common. We never have less than four.

 

I will bet the numbers you are giving are PER ENGINE. Like a 500 hp car cannot get the mpg of a 200 hp car.

BTW, I spent a summer working for the rr which held (holds?) the record for the most tonnage ever pulled by a train.

 

Ive been with the railroad 25 years. Our tonnage is limited due to grade and drawbar limitations. 16,000 tons is the max here, but in Nebraska Ive seen them exceed 21,000 tons.

 

I don't remember what it was, but it was back in the old steam days pulling iron ore cars. 100t ore cars are not very big.

 

Got this list from Wiki makes the mind boggle in some respects

Bulk (ore, coal etc)[edit]

• BHP Run on 21 June 2001, comprising 682 wagons and hauled by eight 6000 hp General Electric AC6000CW diesel-electric locomotives controlled by a single driver with a total length of 7.353 km on the 275 km iron ore railway to Port Hedland in Western Australia – total weight 99,734 tons[18]
• Sishen–Saldanha, South Africa. Run on 26–27 August 1989, comprising 660 wagons, 7.302 kilometres (4.537 mi) long and a total weight of 71 765 tons. The train comprised 16 locomotives (9 Class 9E 50 kV AC electric and 7 Class 37 diesel-electric).[19][20]
• The longest and heaviest freight train ran on February 20, 1986 from Ekibastuz to the Urals, Soviet Union, was carried out with the coal train. The composition consisted of 439 wagons and several diesel locomotives distributed along the train with a mass of 43,400 tonnes and the total length of 6.5 kilometres (4.0 mi).

General cargo[edit]

• Union Pacific, United States. Run from January 8 to January 10, 2010, consisting of 296 container cars and hauled by nine diesel-electric locomotive spread through the train with a total length of 18,000 feet (3.4 mi; 5.5 km), from a terminal in Texas to Los Angeles. Around 618 double-stacked containers were carried at speeds up to 70 mph/112 km/h. 14,059 t.[21][22]
• BNSF, United States, 2010—3.03 km [23]

Passenger[edit]

• Kijfhoek–Breda, Netherlands. Run on 19 February 1989, as a test and publicity stunt what would become the longest passenger train in the world. The train was pulled by one 1500 V DC locomotive and had 60 passenger cars, of which only the first 14 cars held actual passengers during the run.[24]
• Ghent–Oostende, Belgium. On 27 April 1991, one electric locomotive and 70 passenger cars (totalling 1733 m and 2786 ton, excluding locomotive) held a charity run for the Belgian Cancer Fund, thereby exceeding the Dutch record.[24]