20091118

Slide 1
ILLINOIS - RAILROAD ENGINEERING
Railroad Transportation
Energy Efficiency
Chris Barkan
Professor
Director - Railroad Engineering Program
Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering
University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign
Slide 2
Acknowledgements
Project Team
Civil & Environmental Engineering
Yung-Cheng Lai, J. Riley Edwards, Tristan Rickett
Beckman Institute - Electrical & Computer Engineering
Narendra Ahuja, John Hart, Avinash Kumar
Research Sponsor
BNSF Railway Technical Research and Development
Mark Stehly, Larry Milhon, Paul Gabler
Partial support for Yung-Cheng Lai from a CN Research
Fellowship in Railway Engineering
Slide 3
Presentation Outline
Fundamentals of railroad transportation energy

efficiency
Measuring railroad train resistance
Intermodal train aerodynamics and train resistance
Optimizing intermodal train loading to minimize
resistance
Use of machine-vision to automatically monitor
intermodal train loading efficiency
Slide 4
Jeopardy
Whatisis
What
457?
457?
Slide 5
THE
NUMBER
OF
THE NUMBER OF
MILES
RAILROADS
MILES RAILROADS
CAN
CANMOVE
MOVEONE
ONETON
TON
OF
OFFREIGHT
FREIGHTON
ONONE
ONE
GALLON
FUEL
GALLONOF
OF FUEL
Slide 6
Energy efficiency truck vs. rail

How does that compare to
truck transport?
Rail
Rail is 3.5 times

more efficient than truck
Truck
100
200
300
400
500
Freight Revenue Ton-Miles per Gallon

(AAR & FRA data)
Slide 7
US 20th Century was about

CONVENIENCE
The 21st must consider
EFFICIENCY as well
Then
Abundant: energy, land, natural
resources, labor, dominant economy
Now
Diminishing resources:
Energy
Air quality
Water
Land
Congestion
Need more efficient use of
transportation infrastructure
Stronger global competition
Slide 8
Petroleum-derived
energy consumption
Transportation accounts for the

majority of petroleum energy
consumption in the U.S.
Of this cars, light trucks (including

SUVs) and heavy trucks account
for a large majority, followed by air
Rail consumes only a small

fraction of transportation
consumption (estimated to be
2.2% of total in 2009)
Contrast percentage consumed by

rail compared to heavy trucks,
Recall that rail moves about 42%

of intercity freight ton-miles
whereas trucks move about 30%
US DOE http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/2006_fcvt_fotw414.html
DOE 2003
Year
Slide 9
Transportation energy and work

What are the two primary elements of transportation energy
requirements?
Resistance
How much work is required to move something
Energy efficiency
How efficiently energy is converted into useful work
Slide 10
RESISTANCE (lbs./ton)
Speed and Resistance by Transport Mode
Pipe
line
Boat
Airplanes
Trucks
Rail uniquely combines

High Speed & Capacity with
Low Resistance
SPEED (mph)
Slide 11
Railroad transportation efficiency

Railroads produce transportation output more efficiently
than their principal competition: trucks
What is transportation output
Freight ton miles
Passenger miles
So why are railroads so efficient?
Low rolling friction
Large vehicles
Trains
Slide 12
Rolling friction
FR = RW
where:
R < R
FR = resistive force of rolling

friction
R = coefficient of rolling
friction for the two
surfaces
proportional to the
width of the wheel
R < R
inversely proportional
to its radius
W = weight
FR is also inversely
proportional to rolling
surface hardness
FR < FR
Slide 13
Steel Wheel on Steel Rail permits low

coefficient of rolling friction (R)
Steel wheel on steel rail has lower rolling friction

(R) than rubber tire on pavement:
Steel wheel on rail: R = 0.001
Truck tire on pavement: R = 0.006 to 0.010
a dna e miTkciuQ
ro s serp moced )de s serp mocnU( FFIT
.erutcip siht ee s ot dedeen era
Tire is 6 to 10 times greater than steel wheel
Consequently lower rolling resistance
Why?
Rubber tire on pavement

Small effects of static friction and adhesion of
the rubber
Major factor is the deformation of the tire while
rolling under load
Pavement deflection also contributes
Steel wheel and rail experience elastic deformation

under load as well, but much less
QuickTime and a
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Slide 14
Operation of large, heavy vehicles is feasible because

track structure is STRONG and efficiently designed
Track system design and materials optimized to support very heavy loads
Normal North American railroad axle load is 39 tons, compared to 8.5 for trucks
Slide 15
Large Size of rail vehicles permits

economies of scale
Strong railroad infrastructure allows
larger, heavier vehicles than
practical for highways
Permits economies of scale
Larger vehicles can transport
more weight with less resistance
per unit
Larger engines convert energy
to work more efficiently
Slide 16
Trains permit two more important

economies of scale
The ability to operate many vehicles coupled together permits two more
substantial economies of scale
Labor: one or two people can operate a single train with 100 to 150 cars
(or more). Considering that each railcar is roughly equivalent to three
trucks, the economies are substantial*.
Energy: close spacing of cars in train substantially reduces aerodynamic
resistance compared to trucks. This effect is particularly important at
higher speeds (> 40mph)
Slide 17
TRUCK trains are possible, but would we

really want them?
Slide 18
Rail transport requires less land per

unit of transport
26 containers
(1 x land)
13 trailers
(4 x land)
Transportation output per unit of land is much

greater for rail compared to highway
More units per vehicle (tons or people)
Fewer vehicles, and they are consolidated

into trains
Easier to accommodate temporal differences

in directional traffic
Slide 19
Measurement of train resistance
Substantial research early in the 20th century led to the development of a

general formula for train resistance
Developed by W.J. Davis, often referred to as the Davis Equation

2
CAV
29
Ro = 1.3 +
+ bV +
w
wn
where:
Ro = resistance in lbs. per ton
w = weight per axle (= W/n)
W = weight of car
n = number of axles
b = an experimental friction coefficient for flanges, shock, etc.
A = cross-sectional area of vehicle
C = drag coefficient based on the shape of the front of the train and
other features affecting air turbulence etc.
The Davis Equation has been substantially updated to reflect modern

developments, but its basic form remains the same
Slide 20
Sources of rail vehicle resistance

C = resistances
that vary as the
square of speed
(affected by
aerodynamics of
the train)
A = resistances that vary with axle
load (includes bearing friction,
rolling friction and track
resistance)
B = resistances that vary directly

with speed (primarily flange friction
and effects of sway and oscillation)
A varies with weight ("journal" or "bearing" resistance)

B varies directly with velocity ("flange" resistance)
C varies with the square of velocity (air resistance)
The general expression for train resistance is thus:
R = AW + BV + CV2
where:
R equals total resistance

W = weight
V = velocity
Cross-section of the
vehicle, streamlining
of the front & rear,
and surface
smoothness all affect
air resistance
Slide 21
Resistances that vary with weight
Journal resistance
Friction between journal
and bearing
Rolling Friction
Friction between wheel and rail due
to creepage at interface
Minute elastic deformation of wheel
and rail surfaces
Track Resistance
Deformation of track structure
Consequent uphill running
Slide 22
Resistances that vary directly with speed
Flange contact
consequent friction and impacts
rail lubrication reduces resistance
on both curved and tangent track
Wheel/rail interface friction

lateral movement between wheel tread and rail head
Oscillation can also induce various other energy losses into:

vehicle suspension system (sway, bounce, buff, draft)
track structure
Slide 23
Resistances that vary as the square of speed
Streamlining of vehicles and train has a

substantial effect on air resistance as
speeds increases
Front and rear of train, as well as

smoothness of sides affect air resistance
Empty, open-top cars create turbulence

that increases drag
Wide spacing between cars also creates

turbulence that increases drag
The aerodynamics of the whole train may

be more important than that of individual
vehicles
Non-aerodynamic
Aerodynamic
Slide 24
Conventional Freight Train Resistance

16
Air Resistance (C)
14
Rolling Resistance (B)

12
Bearing Resistance (A)
10
8
6
C
4
2
0
10
B
A
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Speed (mph)
Using Modified Davis Equation with coefficients from Hay pg. 79
90
100
Slide 25
Intermodal (TOFC) Freight Train Resistance

16
14
Air Resistance (C)

Rolling Resistance (B)
12
Bearing Resistance (A)

10
8
6
C
4
2
0
10
B
A
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Speed (mph)
Using Modified Davis Equation with coefficients from Hay pg. 79
90
100
Slide 26
Pretty picture,
but aerodynamic
nightmare
TOFC silhouette
on bridge
and empty slots even worse!
Slide 27
Improving intermodal train energy efficiency
Intermodal (IM) freight is the largest source of revenue for US freight railroads
and the fastest growing segment of their business
IM freight is the least energy efficient in comparison to other types of rail freight
High speed necessary to compete with trucks
Poor aerodynamics due to large air gaps between and beneath loads
Continued growth of this business indicates need to improve its energy efficiency
Slide 29
Gap Length and Position in Train are the two

most important factors to IM train aerodynamics
Based on the wind tunnel testing of rail equipment, three important

factors to IM train aerodynamics were identified:
1. Gap Length between the IM loads
2. Position in Train
3. Yaw Angle: wind direction (canceled out over the whole route)
Slide 30
BNSF Transcontinental Mainline

Ne
lso
I
D
rtla
Po
nd
ok
a
CANAD
A
vr
Ha
e
ne
n
W
A
Sn
o
wd
e
Glendiv
e
e
ur
La
l
M
T
o
in
t
M
da
an
n
d
er
Ab
n
W
Y
t
lle
Gi
te
O
C RN
A V
Biebe
r
sp
Ca
r
Bridg
er Jct
lia
Al
e
UT
A
Z
o
rst
Ba
w
eb
Pu
o
C
O
N
Richmo
nd
San
Diego
Topek
a
La nta
Ju
Wichit
a
K
O
S
K
Avar
d
n
xli
Te
e
Amarill
o
Kansas
City
bb
Lu
k
El so
Pa
er
stl s
Ru ring
Sp
M
O
Tuls
a
Oklahoma
City
tw
ee
Sw
er
at
I
N
K
Y
Paduca
h
hi
mp
Me
s
oc
T
X
Fort
Worth
Be
nt aum
o
Ga
lv e
st o
M
S
T
NA
L
Birmingha
m
A
R
L
A
Longvie
w
DeRidd
er
y
Ba y
t
Ci
LA to Chicago over 2,000 miles
St
r
or eat
Pe
or
i
St
Louis
Phoeni
x
nc
Ri
n
nv
e
Albuquerq
ue
Bele
n
Chicag
o
GaSavann
les
g a
bu
r
a
w
Io ct
J
Long Beach/
Los Angeles
De
W
II
Sioux
City
Fort
Madison
Los
Angeles
M
N
I
A
N
E
nc
Chicago
St
Paul
co
Lin
ln
r
ke
Ba
ld
ee
in
erl
St
g
Br
h us
e
sfi
D
h ulu
t
Keddi
e
es
Fr
o
rg
Fa
o
N
DS
D
ye
fa
La
e
F
L
tt
New
Orleans
Pensac
ola
Sp
elb
Sh
y
Springfi
eld
le
Ho
on us
Sumas
Om
ha a
Se
att
Pl
oo enty
d
w
Vancouv
er
Slide 31
Slot utilization measures the percentage of slots

on IM cars are used for loads
Maximizing slot utilization improves train energy efficiency because
it eliminates empty slots and the consequent large gaps
However, it does not account for the size of the space compared
to the size of the load
Two trains may have identical slot utilization, but different loading
patterns and aerodynamic resistance
100 %
100 %
Not the Right Car for the Right Loads
Slide 32
Train Energy Model and Aerodynamic Subroutine

were used to conduct efficiency analysis
General Train Resistance Equation: R = A + BV + CV2
Bearing and rolling resistance are primarily affected by weight
Aerodynamic coefficient is determined according to loading pattern
Fuel Consumption: AAR Train Energy Model (TEM)
Representative Train:
3 locomotives + 20 five-unit IM cars
1 five-unit spine car
Slide 33
Larger gaps resulting in a higher aerodynamic

coefficient and greater resistance
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0
6
8
10
Gap Length (ft)
12
14
Slide 34
Equipment matching matches IM loads with railcars

so as to minimize gaps and maximize efficiency
Capacity of well and spine cars
is usually constrained by the length
of the loads
40
40 well
larger gap
48 well
Equipment matching matches

IM loads so as to minimize gaps
Example:
40 container in 40 well car,
rather than a 48 well car
48 trailer in 48 slot spine car,
rather than car with 53 slot
48
48 slot
larger gap
53 slot
Slide 35
Aerodynamic Coefficient of 40 IM Loads

in Various Sized-well Cars
Aerodynamic Coefficient
(lbs/mph/mph)
5.2
5.0
4.8
4.6
0.0
40'
48'
Length of Well (ft)
53'
Slide 36
Total Train Resistance = Weight + Aerodynamics

55,000
Train Resistance (lbs)
40'-well
48'-well
53'-well
45,000
35,000
25,000
15,000
-10
10
20
30
40
Speed (mph)
50
60
70
80
Slide 37
Fuel Consumption over an 103-mile Route
Fuel Consumption (gal)
800
+40
+13
750
700
0.0
40
48
Length of Well (ft)
53
Slide 38
Matching can save as much as 1 gal/mile
Train Resistance (lbs)
60,000
40
40
40
40
48' well
40' well
48
50,000
48
48' slot
53' slot
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
18,000
27%
Fuel Savings ~ 1 gal/mile/train
Fuel Savings = 0.13 gal/mile/train
15,000
12,000
9,000
6,000
3,000
0
-10
3%
1%
0
10
20
30
40
Speed (mph)
50
60
70
80
-10
10
20
30
40
Speed (mph)
50
60
70
80
Slide 39
Loads should be assigned not only based on

slot utilization but also slot efficiency
Aerodynamic Coefficient (lbs/mph/mph)
12.00
DS Containers on Well Cars

Trailers on Spine Cars
3%
9.48
10.00
9.20
36%
8.00
6.56
23%
6.00
5.05
5.90
5%
4.82
4.00
Slot Efficiency
2.00
0.00
90% Slot Utilization
100% Slot Utilization

Loading Pattern
Equipment Matching
Slide 40
Using Slot Efficiency to monitor

the loading efficiency of IM trains
IM
Loads
Length of actual load

Length of ideal load
IM Equipment
& Loading Capability
Slot Efficiency
Calculator
= 100%
Slot Efficiency
Slot efficiency represents the loading efficiency by comparing the difference

between the actual and ideal loading configuration
Every slot in each type of railcar has an ideal load that can be determined
by using the loading capability of each railcar acquired from UMLER
Slot efficiency is similar to slot utilization except that it also factors in
the energy efficiency of the load-slot combination
Right Cars for the Right Loads
Slide 41
Aerodynamic Loading Assignment Model (ALAM)

optimizes the aerodynamic efficiency of IM trains
Minimize Total Adjusted Gap Length
subject to:
Railcar Loading Capability
(including railcar accommodation ability, train schedule & blocking plan)
Double Stack Constraints
Weight Constraints for Every Unit
Length Constraints for Every Slot
Railcar Inventory
(car initial & #)
Optimal Loading Pattern
Blocking Plan
ALAM
Train Schedule
Load Inventory
(weight & Length)
Updated Load Inventory
Slide 42
Z is the total adjusted gap length within the train

N
Ak +1
A1
k =1
z=
Uk y ij 1k Li + Uk +1 y ij 1k +1Li
U1 y ij 11Li +
2
2
i
j
i
j
i
j
L y
i
ij1k
L y
j
1.P1
1.P2
Where:
i
j
k
p
Ak
Uk
Li
yijkl
ij1k +1
U1
= Type of the load (40, 48, 53 etc.)
= Load number within the specific type
= Unit number (1,2,,N)
= Position in the unit (P1 or P2)
= Adjusted factor of kth gap
= Length of kth unit
= Length of ith type load (ft)
= 1 if jth load in i type was assigned to kth unit Lth position; 0 otherwise
2.P1
2.P2
U2
Slide 43
Aerodynamic Loading Assignment Model (ALAM)

Min
s.t.
y
p
minimize total adjusted gap length

ijpk
Ripk 1
i , j
y ijpk Ripk
loading capabilities
i , j , p, k
40 y ij 2k Li (1 xk )
i CL
i CL
xk
ij 2 k
2 (1 y ij 1k )
y
i
double-stack rules
i CL
ijpk
w ij Wk
1)
k (such that k =
weight constraint
y
i
1)
k (such that k =
ij 1k
i TL
k (such that k =1)
ijpk
Li Qkp
k , p
length constraint
y ijpk , xk = 0, 1
Where:
Ripk
Wk
k
xk
= Loading capability
wij = Weight of jth load in i type
= Weight limit of kth unit
Qkp = Length limit of position p in kth unit
= 1 for well-car unit; 0 otherwise = A large positive number
= 1 if the top slot of kth Unit can be used; 0 otherwise
Slide 44
The front of the train experiences the greatest

aerodynamic resistance
Unit (k)
#
1 (locomotive)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
100
Drag area (CDA) Adjusted factor

(ft2)
31.618
1.5449
28.801
1.4073
26.700
1.3046
25.133
1.2280 Placing loads with shorter
23.963
1.1709 gaps in the frontal position
23.091
1.1283 generates less
22.440
1.0964 aerodynamic resistance
21.954
1.0727
21.591
1.0550
21.320
1.0418
20.466
1.0000
base value
Objective:
Minimize the total adjusted gap length within the train
(adjusted gap length = adjusted factor x actual gap length)
Slide 45
Applying ALAM to the example train can

save 0.95 gallons per mile for one train
Loads: fifty
40
, fifty
48
, fifty
53
Train: ten 5-unit 53-foot-slot spine cars followed by

ten 5-unit 48-foot-slot spine cars
Optimum based on ALAM = 514 (ft)
Worst case by manual assignment = 1170 (ft)
Fuel savings is 0.95 gallons/mile/train
150 loads
100 slots
Slide 46
Applying ALAM to four general types of IM trains

Type
C20 C40
32 184
Intl. Stack Train
Domestic Stack Train 28 88
0
0
TOFC/COFC Train
32 22
Mixed Train
C45
8
9
0
0
C48
0
17
0
6
C53
0
102
0
59
T20 T28 T40 T45 T48 T53 Total Loads

0
0
0
0
0
0
224
0
0
0
0
0
0
244
11 31 0 30 35 24
131
0
2
2
2 15 33
173
International
Stack Train
0.00 gal/mile
Domestic
Stack Train
TOFC/COFC
Train
Mixed Train
0.33 gal/mile
0.96 gal/mile
0.22 gal/mile
Slide 47
Using Adjusted Slot Efficiency (ASE) to

monitor the loading efficiency of IM trains
IM
Loads
ASE Calculator
IM Equipment
& Loading Capability
ASE = Adjusted Factor =
Slot Efficiency
Calculator
Length of actual load

Length of ideal load
Slot Efficiency
= 100%
*ASE accounts for both Gap Length and Position in Train effects
Slide 48
Conclusions & Recommendations

A train can be more efficiently operated if loads are assigned based
on adjusted slot efficiency
Filling empty slots with empty containers or trailers also reduces
aerodynamic resistance thereby improving energy efficiency
Uncoupling empty railcars from the end of loaded intermodal
trains when practical to reduce weight and fuel consumption
By using the aerodynamic loading assignment model (ALAM),
the potential fuel savings can be as much as 0.96 gal/mile/train
Questions?
Slide 49
Automated monitoring of IM loading using

machine vision
Due to the high volume, speed
and length of their intermodal
traffic, BNSF was interested in
developing technology to
automatically monitor how well
they were loading their trains
Sponsored research at UIUC to
develop this capability.
Railroad Engineering Program
teamed with Computer Vision and
Robotics Lab in Beckman
Institute to develop an automated,
machine vision system for this
purpose
Q u i c k T im e
T IF F (U n c o m p r e s
a r e n e e d e d to s
Slide 50
Primary Machine Vision System Components
Incoming
Train
Image
Acquisition
System
Machine
Vision
Algorithms
Data
Analysis
System
Pertinent
Information
for
Railroads
Slide 51
Automated Monitoring System at BNSFs

Logistics Park Chicago Facility
Slide 52
Support Equipment Layout
ANTENNA TOWER
CAMERA TOWER
EQUIPMENT
ENCLOSURE
(COMPUTER, ETC.)
LOOP
DETECTORS
Plan
Profile
9 FT
37.5 FT
Slide 53
Background Subtraction and Update Model

Background
Updating Module
Difference (XOR) Image
Slide 54
Panorama Image Generation
The middle section of every frame in the video contributes to

the construction of the panorama
The panorama is constructed, a patch at a time, using each
frames central patch and its pixel velocity relative to the
frame before
BNSF IM Train Panorama
Slide 56
Processed Train Panorama
Container (Red)
Trailer (Green)
Load Edges
in Blue
Slide 57
Results: Detection of Single Stack

Edges correctly
detected
Single Stack
Correctly
Detected
Edges correctly
detected
Slide 58
Results: Detecting Double Stacks

Double
Stack
Correctly
Detected
Slide 59
Results: Detection of Trailers

Trailers
Correctly
Detected
Slide 60
Evaluation of Loading Efficiency

Train
Monitoring
Module
Gap
Document
and
Report
Train Video
Train Panorama Reconstruction From
Input Video with Identified Gaps and
Detection of Containers/Trailers
Slide 61
Data Analysis System

Edge detection and gap width data are matched with AEI equipment
type data and also with timestamp data
The aerodynamic efficiency of each train is calculated and a score is
given to its loading pattern
A report detailing the loading efficiency can then be developed and
sent to the appropriate personnel

20091118

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

20091118

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Slide 1

ILLINOIS - RAILROAD ENGINEERING

ILLINOIS - RAILROAD ENGINEERING

ILLINOIS - RAILROAD ENGINEERING

Fundamentals of railroad transportation energy

ILLINOIS - RAILROAD ENGINEERING

ILLINOIS - RAILROAD ENGINEERING

ILLINOIS - RAILROAD ENGINEERING

Energy efficiency truck vs. rail

Rail is 3.5 times

Freight Revenue Ton-Miles per Gallon

ILLINOIS - RAILROAD ENGINEERING

US 20th Century was about

ILLINOIS - RAILROAD ENGINEERING

Transportation accounts for the

Of this cars, light trucks (including

Rail consumes only a small

Contrast percentage consumed by

Recall that rail moves about 42%

ILLINOIS - RAILROAD ENGINEERING

Transportation energy and work

ILLINOIS - RAILROAD ENGINEERING

Speed and Resistance by Transport Mode

Rail uniquely combines

ILLINOIS - RAILROAD ENGINEERING

Railroad transportation efficiency

ILLINOIS - RAILROAD ENGINEERING

FR = resistive force of rolling

ILLINOIS - RAILROAD ENGINEERING

Steel Wheel on Steel Rail permits low

Steel wheel on steel rail has lower rolling friction

Tire is 6 to 10 times greater than steel wheel

Consequently lower rolling resistance

Rubber tire on pavement

Steel wheel and rail experience elastic deformation

ILLINOIS - RAILROAD ENGINEERING

Operation of large, heavy vehicles is feasible because

ILLINOIS - RAILROAD ENGINEERING

Large Size of rail vehicles permits

ILLINOIS - RAILROAD ENGINEERING

Trains permit two more important

ILLINOIS - RAILROAD ENGINEERING

TRUCK trains are possible, but would we

ILLINOIS - RAILROAD ENGINEERING

Rail transport requires less land per

Transportation output per unit of land is much

More units per vehicle (tons or people)

Fewer vehicles, and they are consolidated

Easier to accommodate temporal differences

ILLINOIS - RAILROAD ENGINEERING

Measurement of train resistance

Substantial research early in the 20th century led to the development of a

Developed by W.J. Davis, often referred to as the Davis Equation

The Davis Equation has been substantially updated to reflect modern

ILLINOIS - RAILROAD ENGINEERING

Sources of rail vehicle resistance

B = resistances that vary directly

A varies with weight ("journal" or "bearing" resistance)

R equals total resistance

ILLINOIS - RAILROAD ENGINEERING

Resistances that vary with weight

ILLINOIS - RAILROAD ENGINEERING

Resistances that vary directly with speed