DISMANTLING
RAILROAD
FREIGHT CARS
A STUDY OF IMPROVED METHODS WITH APPLICATION TO OTHER DEMOLITION PROBLEMS
Thit report (SW-3c) wot written for the Bureau of Solid Waste Management
by DALE M. BUTLER and WILLIAM M. GRAHAM
Booz, AOen Applied Research Inc., under Contract No. PH 86-67-100
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
Public Health Service
CONSUMIB PROTECTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICE
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
Bureau of Solid Waste Management
1969
Environmental Protection
-------
-------
DISMANTLING
RAILROAD
FREIGHT CARS
A STUDY OF IMPROVED METHODS WITH APPLICATION TO OTHER DEMOLITION PROBLEMS
Thit report (SW-3c) wot written for the Bureau of Solid Waste Management
by DALE M. BUTLER and WILLIAM M. GRAHAM
Booz, Allen Applied Research Inc., under Contract No. PH 86-67-100
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
Public Health Service
CONSUMIB PROTECTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICE
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
Bureau of Solid Waste Management
1969
Environmental Protection Agency
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
LIBRARY OP CONGRESS CATALOG CARD NO. 75-603791
PuWc Health Service Publication No. 1850
WASHINGTON, U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, 1969
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price 45 cents
-------
FOREWORD
S
'OLID WASTE DISPOSAL has had the least scientific consideration of any of
the concerns of environmental pollution control. The classic approach has been to
consider disposal by controlled incineration, landfill, or burial at sea, as alternatives
to simple open-air burning. These classic concepts of disposal have become inadequate,
since usually they merely transfer pollution from one medium to another.
For the particular needs of the railroad car dismantling Industry, the problem has
an additional dimension. Any method of wood disposal other than the present practice
of open burning would raise operational costs in the face of market considerations
determining the price of the scrap steel product. This would seriously threaten the
survival of this enterprise, thus creating an even greater problem in solid waste
disposal—thousands of unwanted freight cars.
Would this be a loss to anyone besides the people who currently make their
livelihood by dismantling freight cars? Is railroad car scrapping an obsolete concept, to
go the way of the buggy whip? Indeed, would not public interest be better served if the
smelly, unsightly, unsalutary heaps of this kind were removed from our midst? The
answer is this: the industry must survive because it is vital to the conservation of our
natural resources. The recycling of iron and steel from the scrap heap back to the
furnaces and cupolas helps to stave off the day when our supply of ore and coke and
limestone reaches exhaustion. The salvage of reusable parts helps to keep down the
costs of rail transportation. Hence, the industry's function is equally as important
to the integrity of our natural environment as the removal of pollution from our
air, water, and land. Both types of effort are needed if we are to pass on the kind of
heritage all Americans so ardently desire.
The mathematical model used for evaluating the alternatives to open burning
of railroad cars was developed by the Bureau of Solid Waste Management with the
contractor. In the present case, this method was used to find the optimal solution to
open burning, a solution that would satisfy the requirements of both dismantlers and
those concerned with environmental pollution control. Producing ordinally weighted
scores, the method is an excellent decision-making tool and is perhaps the most
invaluable feature of this report.
—RICHARD D. VATTGHAN, Director,
Bureau of Solid Waste Management
m
-------
-------
PREFACE
T
AH:
I HIS REPORT Is the product of six months' Investigation and analysis under
contract with the Bureau of Solid Waste Management, Public Health Service, U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. The report Is also the product of an
unusual flow of interest, inquiry, counsel, and other thoughtful attention from many
Individuals who found themselves intrigued by the problem. The "infection" set in at
least three months before and continued until after the formal period of contract.
The researchers assigned to the project at Booz, Allen Applied Research Inc.
found themselves the beneficiaries of Interesting, imaginative, and ofttlmes useful
suggestions, which came from the most unlikely quarters, whether Inside or outside
the company. Literature bearing directly on the subject was virtually nonexistent. The
key to the problem, it seemed, must be sought among the new discoveries of space-age
technology. This, however, was not yet to be. The problem yielded only to a frontal
attack, which applied the basics of systems engineering to current operations within
the railroad scrap industry.
Many aspects of developing technology were investigated. These included new
forms of explosives, advances In wood residue utilization, high-speed water Jets, and
cryogenic brittlizing agents. Several of these are today the basis of accepted practice
in a variety of other industries. Prom exploration into these areas much emerged that
holds promise for railroad car dismantling. However, the economically feasible alter-
natives were mostly those that could be borrowed directly from well-established
technology.
The information-gathering period virtually coincided with the period of contract.
Letters and replies to questionnaires are still being received and often shed new light
upon unresolved questions. The bulk of Information, however, came from extensive
visits to commercial scrapyards, from personal observation of yard operations, from
searching discussions with yard operators and superintendents, with members of the
industry, with attendants at industrial association meetings, with manufacturers
of heavy equipment and their engineering staffs, with air pollution control officials,
and with Industrial and university researchers in new technologies. During one stage of
this activity, actual demonstrations of wood cutting by water jets were carried out on
railroad boxcars slated for dismantling.
In summary, the quest for feasible alternatives to the open burning of railroad
boxcars saw the exploration of a variety of seemingly unrelated areas of Industry,
business, and technology. To trace the subtle path of commonality linking these diverse
areas with the boxcar dismantling problem was a task of unusual complexity.
The researchers were beneficiaries of contributions from many quarters but all
conclusions expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily
reflect the views of the U.S. Public Health Service. Similarly, no reference herein to
specific companies or particular commercial products should be construed as an endorse-
ment by the Public Health Service; such citations are included only as descriptive
information and reports of pertinent facts.
-------
The task would have been Impossible without the generous cooperation of the
American Association of Railroad Car Dismantlers (AARCD), acting through its presi-
dent, Ralph Michaels, and Its executive secretary, Eoyd J. Outman, as well as the
interest and support of the AARCD's parent organization, the Institute of Scrap Iron
and Steel through its Scrap Research Foundation. The unflagging interest, encourage-
ment, and patient understanding supplied at always appropriate Intervals by Ralph J.
Black, then Deputy Chief of the Federal solid wastes program, who served as project
officer, was also an essential Ingredient of success. In addition to these men, many
other knowledgeable people in a broad spectrum of endeavor responded willingly to
requests for Information and advice. We have tried to list some of them below, knowing
that our expressions of gratitude are equally due to many others who gave thought
to our problem.
AARCD. Richard H. Allen, David J. Joseph Co., Cincinnati, Ohio; Lee Bercutt,
Lurla Brothers & Co., Houston, Texas; Roger Callanan, Industrial Service and Salvage
Corp., Chicago, Illinois; Ralph Otis Clare, Purdy Co., Chicago; Abraham Deitch, The
Deitch Co., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Milton J. Feinberg, El Paso Iron and Metal Co.,
El Paso, Texas; Arthur Goldenberg, Luria Brothers & Co., Cleveland, Ohio; Joseph
Hirschhorn, David J. Joseph Co., Skokie, Illinois; John P. Langan, Hyman-Michaels Co.,
Chicago; David Miller, Columbia Iron and Metal Co., Cleveland; Seymour Pielet, Pielet
Brothers, Joliet, Illinois; Samuel Proler, Proler Steel Corp., Houston; Erwin Vetter,
Industrial Service and Salvage Corp., Chicago.
OTHERS. Douglas Holmes, Lake Ontario Steel Co., Whitby, Ontario; Robert P. Mer-
win, Eriez Magnetics, Erie, Pennsylvania; Frederick D. Buggie, Eriez Magnetics, Erie;
Arlo F. Israelson, Eriez Magnetics, Erie; J. A. Bartnik, Eriez Magnetics, Erie; Norbert
T. Casper, Logemann Brothers, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Ralmond J. Smiltneek, Loge-
mann Brothers, Milwaukee; A. C. Schultz, Logemann Brothers, Milwaukee; J. Ray
Zimmerman, Logemann Brothers, Milwaukee; Dominic E. Balzano, Balzano Steel
and Trading Co., La Grange, Illinois; Roy A. Kamb, Kamb Engineering and Fabricating
Co., Seattle, Washington; Walter M. Wilcox, Simonds Saw and Steel Co., Fitchburg,
Massachusetts; Mr. Anderson, Hydro-Silica Corp., Gasport, New York; Mr. Weathersby,
Hydro-Silica Corp., Gasport; Roy Gronauer, Partek Corp., Houston; A. George Swint,
Harris Press and Shear Co., Cordele, Georgia; Mark Tyson, Harris Press and Shear
Co., Cordele; W. S. Story, Institute of Scrap Iron and Steel, Washington, D.C.; Dr. Wil-
liam C. Cooley, Exotech, Inc., Rockville, Maryland; Louis L. Clipp, Exotech, Inc., Rock-
ville; William J. Stanley, Department of Ah- Pollution Control, Chicago; Alvin Kellogg,
Department of Air Pollution Control, Chicago; Capt. Trainer, Demolitions School, Ft.
Belvoir, Virginia; Capt. Emmerson, Demolitions School, Ft. Belvoir; Herb Schaaf,
DuPont, Pompton Lakes, New Jersey; Norman Bork, I. Bork & Sons, Peoria, Illinois;
Frank B. Burkdoll, Explosive Technology, Fairfleld, California; Harold W. Hannagan,
Explosive Technology, Fairfleld; Dr. Jerome Saeman, Forest Products Laboratory,
U.S. Forest Service, Madison, Wisconsin; Andrew J. Baker, Forest Products Laboratory,
U.S. Forest Service, Madison; Dr. Norman C. Franz, School of Natural Resources,
University of Michigan; John E. Brodie, Department of Forests and Parks, LaVale,
Maryland; Carl V. Lyon, Association of American Railroads, Washington, D.C.; Ernest
Kirkendall, American Iron and Steel Institute, New York City; Max Stearman, Ace
Wrecking Co., Rockville, Maryland.
Besides Dale M. Butler, Research Director, and William M. Graham, Project
Manager, the primary contributors were Fredric C. Hamburg, J. Bruce Truett, and
George Biennan, as well as all members of the staff of Booz, Allen Applied Research Inc.
VI
-------
CONTENTS
PAGE
INTRODUCTION 2
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4
Range and Scope
Process Recommendations
Courses of Action
PRESENT INDUSTRY PRACTICES AND PERSPECTIVE 6
Structure of the Industry
Railroad Car Dismantling Process
Mechanisation: Possible Long-Range Solution
Environmental Pollution Constraints
Economic Considerations
ALTERNATIVES TO OPEN BURNING 16
General Process Relationships
Alternatives to Open Burning for Wood Separation
Criteria for Screening and Evaluation
Screening of Candidate Processes
Ultimate Disposal of Removed Wood
MODEL FOR EVALUATION 27
Measures of Cost and of Benefits
Application of Force Decision
Summary and Comment
SUMMATION 32
TABLES AND FIGURES
Table 1. Summary of Survey of Operations, Plant, and Equipment at 15 Typical
Yards that dismantle railroad cars 13
Table 2. Capital Costs for Incineration 25
Table 3. Use of Forced Decisions to Derive Criteria Weighting Factors 28
Table 4. Partial Scores (Unweighted) by Property Evaluated for Candidate
Methods with Wood Incineration 29
Table 5. Partial Scores (Unweighted) by Property Evaluated for Candidate
Methods with No Wood Incineration 29
Table 6. Weighted Scores by Property Evaluated and Totalled for Candidate
Methods with Wood Incineration 30
Table 7. Total Scores (Weighted) and Rank Order for Candidate Methods with
and without Incineration 30
Table 8. Estimates of Equipment Investment Requirements for Selected Scrap
Processing Methods 32
Figure 1. Railroad Car Scrap and Salvage: General Process and Relationships 17
Figure 2. Scores and Relative Standing of Candidate Methods with Wood
Incineration 31
-------
r
I HE SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ACT OF 1965
(P.L. 89-272) recognized that Inadequate action on the
part of both public and private agencies has resulted
in a solid waste disposal problem which contributes
significantly to community environmental pollution
and to urban and exurban blight. The Bureau of Solid
Waste Management has been established within the
Public Health Service of the U.S. Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, with full responsibility
in the area of solid waste management. To this orga-
nization falls the problem of what to do with worn-out,
retired railroad cars.
Approximately 70,000 rail freight cars are dismantled
each year for the purpose of salvaging reusable parts,
scrap iron, and steel. About 50 percent of these cars
contain 3 to 7 tons of wood each, which must be re-
moved before the scrap can be returned to the steel-
making process. The conventional means of removing
the wood has been by open burning. The dense smoke
emissions produced by open burning, however, are no
longer tolerable under the provisions of the Clean Air
Act. The Association of American Railroad Car Dis-
mantlers and local and Federal environmental pollu-
tion control agencies have resolved that this problem
must be corrected as soon and as completely as possible.
The Bureau of Solid Waste Management recognized
that practical and effective techniques developed for
dealing with these problems could have application in
numerous other solid waste problem areas. Conse-
quently, the Public Health Service contracted with
Booz, Allen Applied Research Inc. (BAABINC), Be-
thesda, Maryland, to investigate, evaluate, and make
recommendations with regard to alternative methods
for railroad car dismantling and salvage which succeed
in eliminating environmental pollution, or in reducing
emissions to acceptable levels. This document reports
upon the findings of the project.
The study was conducted over a six-month period
beginning March 13, 1967. In meeting the objectives
of the study, the following tasks were performed:
In order to become completely familiar with all as-
pects of the railroad car dismantling industry, members
of the project team visited the headquarters of the Bu-
reau of Solid Waste Management, the Association of
American Railroads, the American Association of Rail-
road Car Dismantlers, and individual railway car scrap
processors. This familiarization period was a brief but
highly important part of the Investigation hi that It
established the framework and constraints for the
entire study.
The next step was to compile a list of as many new
and different approaches to the dismantling of railroad
cars as possible. Scrap dealers and the manufacturers
of processing equipment were solicited for ideas by
mail. Questionnaires were sent to railroad car dis-
mantling companies. Mail inquiries provided some In-
formation, but most of the ideas and suggested ap-
proaches arose from detailed discussions with members
-------
"When future historians write of this era, I believe they uAU note that ours was
the generation that finally faced up to the accumulated problems of American life.
"To us has been given the task of checking the slow but relentless erosion of our civilization.
"To us has been given the responsibility not only of stimulating our progress, but
also of making that progress acceptable to our children and grandchildren.
"Today, we are taking another large and forward step in this direction . . ." *• *
DISMANTLING
RAILROAD
FREIGHT CARS
A STUDY OF IMPROVED METHODS WITH APPLICATION TO OTHER INDUSTRIAL PROBLEMS
of the industry, attendees at Industrial association
meetings, manufacturers of heavy equipment, univer-
sity research personnel, as well as with BAARINC person-
nel. From many interesting, novel, and useful sugges-
tions, more than 40 different schemes were selected for
subsequent investigation.
All suggested approaches were subjected to pre-
liminary screening to eliminate those which did not
meet predetermined criteria. These criteria were devel-
oped during the familiarization period, and included
the aggregate requirements of cognizant environmental
control agencies, the scrap industry, and the railroad
car dismantling industry. The successive screening pro-
cess reduced the list of proposed methods to twelve,
which were subjected to more detailed investigation.
These twelve surviving approaches were subjected to
a cost effectiveness analysis. An indexing system was
devised which ordered the methods according to their
effectiveness, i.e., the best combination of cost to the
dismantler, and control of environmental pollution
(within prescribed limits). There are two approaches
which appeared to have the most merit and are there-
fore worthy of further or prototype development.
The first is a system of cutting wood from railroad
cars using high pressure, manually operated, water jets.
This system—described later in the report—holds con-
siderable promise for application to other solid waste
disposal problems. The second approach uses the car
itself for an incinerator, with a stack installed directly
on the car to control effluent emission. This may be the
S34-359—69 2
most expedient means for solving the problem for the
railroad car dismantlers without creating a wood dis-
posal problem.
The above systems are described later in this report
along with recommendations for further investigation
and prototype development on these two methods. Also
recommended is a project, initiated under the auspices
of the Bureau of Solid Waste Management, which will
define the magnitude and scope of the general problem
of used wood disposal and reclamation.
Throughout the country, large quantities of unre-
claimed wood and other combustibles are regularly and
continuingly burned in the open air as old buildings
are demolished and no-longer-useful furniture and
other articles are disposed of. The manner in which
wood is intermingled with paint, plastic, and hardware
in most manmade structures favors open burning to
accomplish both separation and disposal of the wood.
From a point of view of total resource utilization, there
is reason to doubt the wisdom of individual open-
burning decisions. The investigation contemplated
would indicate those courses of action which will lead
to recovery of the solid material resources while con-
serving clean air.
1 Remarks by President Lyndon B. Johnson upon
signing the Solid Waste Disposal Act, October 20, 1965.
! Solid Waste Disposal Act. Title II of Public Law
89-272, 89th Congress, S. 306, October 20, 1965.
-------
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
S
'TODIES OP THIS KIND are necessarily limited
by two considerations. First, the canvass of ideas must,
in some respects, be incomplete. Future studies can
always be expected to yield new, better, or more creative
thoughts. In fact, the more thoroughly the field of per-
tinent information is combed, the more likely it is that
a chain of events will follow from which "independent"
schemes will emerge.
Secondly, the form in which alternatives are struc-
tured for appraisal is necessarily generalized and tenta-
tive. The goal is to form a basis for decision among
alternatives, rather than to develop preferred configu-
rations for specific concepts. Well-executed development
work will bring to bear specific information capable of
transforming the rudimentary products of research into
mutations not subject to forecast.
Decisions as to developmental demonstrations are
affected by the probable rewards from candidate alter-
natives, and by time considerations. Thus some alterna-
tives may have relatively greater prospects for successful
near-term development, while others may hold a greater
potential if sufficient time and resources are allowed
for full development. A number of factors influence
how the Issues are posed and the appraisal is shaped.
RANGE AND SCOPE
In this case, a number of dissimilar restraints may
be cited. Uncertainties and change characterize public
air pollution goals; and, further, the relative contri-
bution to overall pollution which may be rationally
ascribed to railroad car dismantling differs according
to the viewer's perspective. In short, the process alter-
natives may be judged against a background of rela-
tively near-term local objectives, varying widely
throughout the country—from avoidance of visible
concentrations of black smoke in some communities to
more sophisticated goals in others. But the problem has
certain broader significances, and these deserve con-
sideration. In general, we will address ourselves only to
Issues which are restricted to railroad car demolition
and ferrous scrap processing technology, and not to
those which apply to the broader framework of indus-
trial activities.
The nonprocess alternatives have been denned as
out of scope for this study. Similarly, the conversion of
waste wood byproducts of process alternatives to eco-
nomically useful purposes is a technological need com-
mon to a variety of demolition-scrap-and-salvage
operations.
Efficient means for separating and processing used
wood for reuse is a requirement of resource conservation
that dwarfs the total freight car problem. This study
has in fact shed some light on new and versatile means
for separating wood from obsolete structures of any
kind. Conversion to forms suitable for reuse is a field
substantially untouched, except to identify a dramatic
potential. The potential is truly dramatic, because once
solved, the savings from open burning at wrecking and
demolitions sites across the country would both vitally
affect achievement of clean air goals, and open un-
measured opportunities for natural resource
conservation.
Though not directly within the scope of this assign-
ment, some conclusions with respect to conservation of
used wood are inescapable. Consequently, a recommen-
dation is made for study focused on three aspects of the
problem: (1) In demolition operations of all types
throughout the country, how much wood, and of what
types, is lost to the economy, and how much of it is
converted by open burning to air polluting smoke? (2)
How can wood and other combustibles be separated
effectively and at reasonable cost from the structures
of which they are a part, without resorting to open
burning? For example, might not water jets of proper
design have some universal applicability for separating
combustibles from metallic and masonry elements in
many types of structures? (3) What means might be
found for reducing used wood, once separated, to
homogenous commodities for which economic uses may
be found?
PROCESS RECOMMENDATIONS
For reasons examined in the chapter on alternatives
to open burning, we find that those process alternatives
which alter the customary sequence of scrapyard opera-
tions do not generally fulfill present requirements. Such
alternatives tend to be either inconsistent with the
character of scrapyard operations and technological
practice (as in explosive separation), or their total
costs are adversely affected, due to the probable need
for adding subsequent scrap processing operations
(sawing, shearing, sorting, and recompacting se-
quences) .
For these reasons, many scrapyard operators are
prone to repeat the obervation that "nothing can im-
prove on burning." In a context, this is unarguable.
However, if open burning is to be universally forbidden,
a question can still be asked "if not burned openly, then
how?" The system of appraisal described in the Intro-
duction suggests there are two distinct approaches
which deserve detailed study and prototype develop-
ment. These are:
A Hooded Self-Incinerator. This approach contem-
plates an initial burning operation in which the car
itself is used as a partial incinerator. This will require
(1) carefully designed openings in the car to develop a
proper draft, and (2) mounting a hood and/or stack
arrangement over the car, equipped with smoke con-
trol devices for treatment of the effluent.
High-Pressure Water Jets. This approach contem-
plates an initial wood removal operation using a jet
of water as a cutting tool, followed by conventional
steel scrap and salvage activities, and waste wood dis-
posal by one of three possibilities:
-------
• A small general-purpose incinerator with effluent
control
• Development of local markets for waste wood
• Municipal or private commercial waste disposal
services.
Equipment adaptable for wood cutting is known to be
commercially available. Experimentation will be re-
quired to find an optimum combination of water pres-
sures, pump design, and nozzle configuration.
Railroad car demolition yards have conducted
limited experiments with hood arrangements. One
yard has pierced the corners of a boxcar and installed
a stack in the roof. This particular design may be im-
proved upon, but these efforts show that a draft can be
created which will funnel all smoke through the top
opening and out the stack. Indications are that the
interior will burn completely without rupturing the steel
sheath walls. The sheathing is only 0.1 inch thick and
will buckle, but the basic structural integrity of the box
is not destroyed.
Whether or not the hood-stack arrangement can be
made portable is at this stage undetermined. Some dis-
mantlers prefer portable hoods which can be put in
place by a crane, but the fragility of smoke control
equipment may require permanent mountings, restrict-
ing the mobility of attached equipment. With this ap-
proach, individual cars could be rolled under fixed but
adjustable hoods before preparing and firing the self-
incinerator.
An important limitation of this method concerns
the so-called all-wood boxcars. The wood cars (without
steel sheathing) represent aproximately 10 percent of
the boxcars now being retired, but their number will
continue to decrease since they were being phased out
of production 30 to 35 years ago. With the hood-in-
cinerator method, wood refrigerator cars and cattle cars
will continue to need special attention.
Flexibility and adaptability to related needs is the
key feature of the second approach recommended for
development through actual experimental demonstra-
tions. Water jets for industrial cleaning purposes (espe-
cially oil refinery equipment) are already in wide use.
New applications are independently being developed for
lumber operations (bark removal as well as limited
wood cutting applications). Several pump and nozzle
manufacturers have sufficient understanding of the po-
tential applications to provide assurance of technical
feasibility, though cost feasibility has not been estab-
lished in specific detail.
The main purpose of the demonstration programs
recommended is to establish firm efficiency and cost
information. The preliminary demonstrations organized
at Houston showed that wood could be effectively cut
from the metal car frames to which it was attached
without any of the tool-handling awkwardness asso-
ciated with rigid cutting tools operating in narrow
spaces. These demonstrations further showed a marked
difference in efficiency with moderate changes in jet
characteristics. The suggestion was very strong that
none of the equipment used at Houston approached
optimum design, so that with a proper balance between
stream diameter, pressure, handling, and flow charac-
teristics, much greater cutting efficiency might be
achieved. The effect of design optimization on cutting
productivity (and therefore unit operating cost) is un-
known, but nothing learned to date suggests
discouragement.
The use of water jets to clean (and therefore up-
grade) scrap, is an obvious possible side benefit com-
mented on favorably during the Houston demonstration.
Laboratory research at Exotech Inc., under a contract
with the Navy to develop pulsed water jets suitable for
cutting metal underwater, is already underway. Water
jets with granular additives in the water to Improve
cutting ability have been used operationally by under-
water ship salvage crews In the North Sea, and new
research on water jet additives is now being undertaken
at the University of Michigan. Systems for recycling the
water in any use of a continuing nature appear prac-
tical for advancing the efficiency of water jet equipment.
The burden of these observations is that while water
jet flexibility is established, the exact effect of this
flexibility on actual operating costs remains to be estab-
lished. The basic technology is readily available on a
commercial basis. Sufficient research is in progress on
new applications to indicate that water jets for this
immediate purpose may be a steadily improving art
and may in fact make positive contributions to related
material resource reclamation problems.
The conclusion that techniques designed around a
hood and self-incinerator arrangement and high-pres-
sure water jets offer the most promise for relief from
the hazards of open burning is not in conflict with the
notion of mechanization. The long-term solutions to
scrapyard operating problems may well depend on steps
toward automation. The recommendations made here
are based in part on the need for relatively near-term
progress. Complete systems integrating heavy machin-
ery (with or without the techniques suggested for pro-
totype development) must, it appears, await the
evolution of technical breakthroughs and economic
changes within the industry and its suppliers.
COURSES OF ACTION
As a consequence of these findings, it is recommended
that the Bureau of Solid Waste Management undertake
to sponsor a two-part demonstration program and to
consider the development of a fundamental research
program in a related area. The two-part demonstration
program would be directed toward the development and
testing of specific equipment to remove wood from
retired freight cars by:
• A self-contained incineration technique using a
hood and/or stack to deliver effluent to installed
smoke control devices
• High-pressure water jets of optimal design using
commercially available components and adapta-
tions.
The demonstration equipment would be assembled in
established railroad car demolition yards and would be
tested, under suitable supervision and with industry
cooperation, on freight cars of representative design.
Photographic and other records of results would be
kept, and a report appropriate for use as an industry
guideline would be prepared.
The development of a fundamental research program
would have a longer-term objective and should be ad-
dressed not just to the freight car problem but to the
structural demolition problems of industry generally.
It would be specifically addressed to the issues of defin-
ing the scope of the problem, techniques for separating
combustibles from structures undergoing demolition
without open burning, and means for renewing the
economic utility of used wood and other combustibles
found in demolition of fixed structures and chattels
such as furniture and appliances.
-------
PRESENT INDUSTRY
PRACTICES
AND
PERSPECTIVE
R
IAILROAD CAR DISMANTLERS are specialists
who salvage reusable components of retired railroad
equipment and convert the residual steel to useful fer-
rous scrap metal. In the main, these specialists also deal
in scrap steel derived from a variety of other sources,
ranging from assorted consumer durables to industrial
machinery and reclaimed structural steel. The mix of
normal "raw" material sources and differences from
area to area hi customer requirements for scrap signifi-
cantly affect how processors operate. Unlike producers
of most manufactured goods, railroad car dismantling
la not a homogeneous industry where production tech-
nology plays a dominant role in shaping industry
structure.
STRUCTURE OF THE INDUSTRY
Railroad car dismantling is an integral part of the
ferrous scrap industry. It is made up of yards "primarily
engaged In assembling, breaking up, sorting, baling,
shredding, and wholesale distribution, of iron and steel
scrap." * The heterogeneous character of the industry
is pointed up by the Government's authoritative manual
of industry descriptions, The Standard, Industrial Clas-
sification, which blankets the industry within wholesale
trade as a part of classification 5093, "Scrap and Waste
'U.S. Department of Commerce, Business and
Defense Services Administration, [Derrlckson, G. P.] Iron and
steel scrap consumption problems. Washington, U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Office, 1966. 52 p.
6
Materials." The scrap industry is made up of three
functional groups:
• Processors—who operate scrapyards where unpre-
pared or unprocessed articles of steel (mostly "ob-
solete" steel) are received, segregated, reduced to
specification sizes, and compressed or otherwise
converted into the forms required by steel makers.
• Brokers—who receive orders for processed scrap
and distribute them among processing yards, or
otherwise arrange for shipment from point of scrap
fabrication to scrap consumption.
• Collectors—who gather materials for processing by
purchase and delivery to processing yards.
Scrap processors may also act as brokers and collectors,
and usually do. They may at the same time rely on in-
dependent brokers and collectors. Where railroad cars
are specifically concerned, scrap processing is normally
one integrated operation in which yards serve as estab-
lished points of disposal for major railroads and other
railroad car fleet owners. For this reason, railroad scrap
processors tend to be concentrated in the vicinity of
the principal ran centers.
Rail hubs, for example, Chicago, St. Louis, Cleveland,
Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Kansas City, San Francisco,
and Los Angeles, happen also to be sites of other major
industrial activity. Since scrapyards characteristically
serve other industries as well, their location In industrial
areas at the major population centers appears Inevi-
table, natural, and desirable. The present investiga-
tions discarded the idea of relocating railroad car
dismantling operations because this alternative is
neither economical nor technically advantageous. In
-------
short, the processors are necessarily at locations where
a variety of other sources of air pollution are
concentrated.
Whether scrap processing is viewed as a part of indus-
trial activities of the nation as a whole, or as a segment
of industry located in any one of the major urban indus-
trial areas, measures of its proportionate contributions
to air pollution attributable to railroad car burning are
not available. Estimates have conceptual limitations
and may be of little use beyond verifying that open
burning of railroad cars is not a dominant contributor
when measured against aggregate air pollution. This
can be asserted a priori. The deleterious effect on am-
bient air is not by itself significant. These open fires in
densely populated areas are, however, spectacular, ob-
vious sources of local air pollution and indicative of
the need for pervasive action.
Of approximately 1,800 ferrous scrap processors of
all types, the Association of American Railroad Car
Dismantlers (AARCD) estimates that some 30 firms,
operating perhaps 50 yards, make up that part of the
independent industry specializing in railroad scrap.
Some major railroads operate "captive" yards which
also dismantle retired cars; either regularly or from
time to time. The AARCD believes that pehaps more
than half of all railroad cars scrapped are dismantled
in captive yards; the remainder move through the inde-
pendent yards. These independent firms are typically
one- and two-yard operations. A few are multiple-yard
operations; but, in these cases, the railroad car work
is normally confined to two or three sites. Not all yards
handling, or capable of handling, railroad car scrap
remain in the market for this class of scrap on a con-
tinuous basis.
Rising wage rates and newly developed machinery
have fostered a growing mechanization in scrap proc-
essing. This is true of steel scrapyards generally, and
railroad car yards are no exception. Many specializing
in railroad scrap feel that the industry is on the
threshold of a move toward much greater concentra-
tions of heavy machinery. A surge of mechanization
could follow the introduction of new and better designs.
Equipment designs which will determine future courses
of action may, however, not be available at this time.
One study* reports that scrapyards represent an
average investment of slightly more than $700,000;
about one-third is land and buildings, and two-thirds
is machinery and equipment. Some, however, utilize
equipment alone valued at upwards of $2 million. The
size of scrapyards varies markedly; the average is
about thirteen acres. Yards specializing in railroad cars
tend to be somewhat larger and located on more valu-
able sites than other steel scrapyards. They tend to be
less highly mechanized (Table 1).
Employment is also highly variable, being a function
of operating techniques, volume, and location. The
Iron Age survey, which was not confined to just those
specializing in railroad scrap, shows a range from under
10 to over 80 employees; average employment is about
50, the median figure approximately 25.
Freight Cars: Their Number and Types
The national fleet of railroad freight cars—including
those owned by railroads, shippers, and car lessors—
now numbers about 1.8 million units. Typically, a car
will be rebuilt, as distinguished from repaired, more
than once during its service life. Railroad maintenance
and replacement practices yield a typical life of approx-
imately 35 years for a freight c&r, though there are
marked variations according to type of car and other
considerations.
The latest pertinent American Railway Car Institute
survey" shows the following distribution, by type and
age, for freight cars owned and leased by Class I rail-
roads in 1962:
Type
Boxcars _
Plat cars _ _.
Stock cars
Gondolas
Hopper cars
Covered hoppers
Tank cars. .
Refrigerator cars
Rack cars . __
Other _-_
Number
(000)
665
50
29
256
471
65
5
25
38
2
Average
age
18
22
34
17
18
10
35
20
23
31
Total 1,606
18
The Car Service Division of the Association of
American Railroads reports• that the Class I railroads
and rail-controlled, private, refrigerator car lines re-
tired 77,000 freight cars in the 12 months ended July 31,
1967. These were distributed by type as follows:
Boxcars 35,372
Covered hoppers 1,242
(Jondolas _. 14,401
Hopper cars 17,758
Flat cars. - 1,263
Eefrigerator cars 4,254
Other 2,801
The proportion of cars retired by type of cars ap-
pears to be reasonably consistent from year to year
though the number of cars eliminated from service
varies more widely. An American Railway Car Institute
study7 shows that in the decade from 1952 through
1961, a total of 638,000 freight cars were retired, but
this average retirement of 64,000 cars reflected as many
as 89,000 in one year and as few as 46,000 in another.
Nearly half the cars are made up of gondolas, hop-
pers, and tanks which have no wood linings. On the
other hand, typical boxcars and refrigerator cars use
substantial amounts of wood as an integral part of
the structure. Stock cars exhibit a wood superstructure
and flat cars normally have a wood plank flooring.
The need for alternatives to open burning centers on
boxcars and refrigerators cars, owing to their design
« NKAL, H. R. Scrap problems. Iron Age. 197(25):
73-78, June 1966.
5 AMERICAN RAILROAD CAB INSTITUTE. Railroad car
facts; statistics on car building and car repairing, 1961. New
York, ABCI, 1962.
•Traffic World, 131(8): 1-90, Aug. 1967.
7 AMERICAN RAILROAD CAB INSTOTTTB. Railroad car
facts; statistics on car building and car repairing, 1961.
New York, ABCI, 1962.
-------
8
DISMANTLING
and their numbers. Insulation materials present in re-
frigerator cars make open burning particularly nox-
ious in their case. Regardless of age or manufacturer,
boxcars and the other basic types are each constructed
according to reasonably consistent overall design
standards. However, cars are frequently ordered in
small lots, and use and retirement patterns are such
that the specific structural characteristics of cars pre-
sented for demolition cannot be expected to follow
predictable patterns.
Boxcars can, however, be broadly classified into two
groups—wood-sided cars and the so-called all-steel
car. Both are steel framed boxes. About 10 percent of
the cars now being retired are of the obsolete wood
exterior design. The all-steel car is a misnomer; it is
a steel frame covered by a thin steel sheath (0.1 of an
inch thick) on the outside walls and finished on the
inside with a wood tongue-and-groove or plywood
lining. Some of the later cars are finished with "nail-
able" steel lining, but all retirement-age cars have
wood lining.
In recent years, railroad fleet modernization policies
may have caused more cars to be retired than may be
available for demolition in future years. Over the long
term, an average of 50 to 60 thousand cars a year,
about half being boxcars and refrigerated cars, appears
to be the highest sustainable rate at which freight
cars can be expected to be retired. Though larger,
higher capacity cars are being added, the size of the
fleet is gradually shrinking in terms of numbers. Con-
sequently, the projected number being retired may also
decrease.
Composition of the Car
Perhaps the most important characteristic of a
freight car as far as this study is concerned is its struc-
tural integrity. Railroad cars are built to last; they are
built to withstand rough treatment and unusual stresses
during loading, train makeup, and transit. The com-
bustible elements are primarily wood floors and side-
walls. The basic structure is such that the wooden
components are securely attached, and to a degree,
interlocked with the steel frame of the car.
The second most important characteristic to be con-
sidered is the structural irregularity of the cars. Even
cars of a given type, i.e., boxcars, will differ in structural
detail though the basic design may be markedly simi-
lar. Sizes and shapes of cars and their structural ele-
ments differ from one series to another. This is true
of both metallic and nonmetallic parts.
The wood elements are also not attached to the
metal by methods which are entirely consistent from
car to car. Their separation requires either a pervasive
technique, such as fire, or a flexible technique, such as
hand stripping. Though much of the wood consists of
planks or boards, plywood sheets are becoming more
and more common. The wood studs and other struc-
tural pieces are designed and integrated with steel
members in different ways from car series to car
series.
Railroad scrapyards get cars of many sizes, shapes,
and conditions. Some may be .relatively new cars of
70 or more tons capacity, but ready to be scrapped
owing to accidents or other special conditions. Most
cars will be over 30 years old and many will be minus
doors or other components by the time the scrapyard is
reached. These older boxcars are characteristically 40-
foot cars with a rated capacity of 40 or 50 tons. The
light weight of such cars is approximately as follows:
Refrigerator cars 55,000 Ibs
Boxcars, 44 to 48,000 Ibs
Stock cars 40 to 44,000 Ibs
Flat cars 40 to 44,000 Ibs
Such cars consist of a box or platform mounted on two
4-wheeled "trucks." The combustible components, pri-
marily the wood floors and sidewalls of a boxcar of
this vintage, will account for 6,000 to 9,000 pounds of
the total weight—a few thousand pounds more in the
case of refrigerator cars and something less for flat
cars. In a typical boxcar of retirement age, from 1,000
to 2,000 pounds of the wood weight can be traced to
preservatives and oils which the wood has absorbed.
Older cars are frequently used for freight that imparts
vegetable oils, greases, or other contaminants, which
may be partially absorbed by the wood car lining.
The metallic content of boxcars will typically be dis-
tributed as shown at top of page 9.
Using a figure of $25 per ton for the revenue from rail-
road scrap after paying transportation costs to the mill
and taking 15 tons as the scrap-steel yield per 40-foot
boxcar, the anticipated revenue from scrap will amount
to $375 per car. Industry sources indicate that sizable
variations from this estimate are found in actual expe-
rience. Furthermore, the additional yield from resale of
salvaged parts is generally regarded as too highly
variable to be amenable to protective estimates. The
skill and know-how of the scrapyard operator appears
to play a significant role here.
Many scrap processors regard the earnings from.
salvage as the sole source of profit for the total opera-
tion, even though many of the costs of conducting the
business are joint costs insofar as the production of
salvage and scrap are generated from common sources
and common operations. This view of the character of
the business is exemplified by the observation that the
revenue returned from scrap alone is often approxi-
mately offset by the cost of simply acquiring boxcars for
demolition. Prom this point of view, all other costs and
net return for services must be supported by salvage
operations.
The Scrapyard Customer
The railroad scrapyard services two types of
customers:
• Railroads and railroad equipment builders and re-
builders. Many railroads rebuild rolling stock in
their own shops; others contract with independent
shops.
• Steel mills and foundries.
These two heavy industries are the focal points influenc-
ing virtually all operationing decisions of the railroad
scrap processors. In this sense, the railroad scrapyards
may be described as a satellite industry.
Railroads are not only the major source of cars for
demolition, but also the prime customer for salvaged
parts. Salvaged parts are purchased both as an inven-
tory of reusable components and for reworking for
installation in rebuilt cars.
Steel mills purchase a variety of grades of scrap.
-------
RAILROAD FREIGHT CARS
Boxcar rated capacity
40 tons
50 tons
70 tons
Total metallic (tons) 17-20 20-21 24
Trucks (2) (tons) 6 7 8.5
Typical salvage (tons) 1.5 1.5 1.5
Net ferrous scrap (tons) 4.5 5.5 7
Body, including under frame (tons) 11-14 13-15 15.5
Typical salvage (including: brake systems, couplers (2), yokes (2),
draft gear (2), which yield about one ton of metal of which about
half normally becomes salvage and half scrap) 0.5-1 0.5-1 0.5-1
Net ferrous scrap (tons) - 10-13.5 12-14.5 14.5-15
Typical salvage-scrap distribution for total car:
Salvage (tons) 2-3 2-3 2-3
Scrap (tons) T 15-17 17-19 21-22
Railroad scrap makes a preferred grade of scrap steel,
usually designated as No. 1 Heavy Melting Steel.
Steelmakers use different proportions of scrap in
manufacturing new steel. The mix of scrap and ore-
derived "hot metal" depends on a complex set of metal-
lurgical factors and economic circumstances. These
may be summarized as follows:
• Impurities—All scrap carries with it some impuri-
ties. Generally speaking, the lower the grade of
scrap, the higher the degree of expected undesira-
ble impurities. The impurities and alloy substances
tolerable in scrap varies with the type of end-
product steel sought. Railroad cars generally yield
a high grade of scrap with predictable steelmaking
qualities.
• Price—The price of scrap fluctuates constantly in
an open market. The cost of producing pig iron
from ore also varies over time and represents a
competitive control on scrap prices. The price of
heavy melting scrap has generally declined from
a postwar high of about $54 per gross ton, in 1956,
to recent quotations of about $28 a ton.
• Furnace technology—Over the past 15 years, the
installation of new furnaces has had a self-cancel-
ling effect on the proportion of scrap used. The
most prevalent type of furnace is still the open-
hearth design which uses from 40 to 50 percent
scrap content. The basic oxygen furnace (BOF),
now widely introduced, typically uses only about 28
percent scrap, or about the same proportion as the
home scrap generated by integrated producers.
Expansion of continuous casting promises to alter
this picture in favor of the scrap processors. On
the other hand, the electric arc furnace, which
uses 98 percent scrap in its charge, is also account-
ing for an increasing share of steel production.
Electric furnaces are a favored and efficient instal-
lation for nonintegrated and specialized steel
producers.
• Integration of steelmakers—Generally speaking,
the larger integrated steel producers rely on the
open-hearth and (increasingly) the BOF methods.
They generate large amounts of scrap internally
(home scrap). Conversely, the nonintegrated pro-
ducers use relatively greater amounts of scrap steel
purchased from scrap processors. This is true both
because of furnace technology and because of their
corporate characteristics. Nonintegrated operations
frequently require a flexibility accommodated by
the raw material flow made possible by scrap
processors.
RAILROAD CAR DISMANTLING PROCESSES
In general, scrapping processes consist of the follow-
ing tasks:
• Boxcar delivery to scrapping area
• Body removal
• Truck parts salvage
• Wood separation
• Body parts salvage
• Metal cutting
• Scrap sorting and loading
• Scrap delivery to steel mills.
Variations will be found from yard to yard with
regard to the sequence, procedures, and costs for indi-
viduals tasks. These variations usually reflect the ex-
pertise and operating philosophy of the operator or his
yard superintendent. More than likely, they are also
in direct response to the economic picture, to local
ordinances, and to other activities engaged in at the
yard. These considerations will be discussed more fully
in later sections.
Yard Organisation: Outdoor Processing Plants
The uninitiated public too often confuses scrap yards
with junk piles or dumps, which is hardly accurate. To
operate efficiently, a scrapyard must be well organized
both in layout and functioning. Railroad spur lines
along which the retired cars are delivered must lead
into an arrival area that is nothing less than a small
freight yard, with the necessary array of track lines,
switches, frogs, sidings, etc. From the time of arrival
to final disposition as scrap and salvaged parts, a boxcar
goes through the successive dismantling steps in dis-
tinct, specialized areas of the yard. Much of the work
done in the process takes acquired skills and experience
for quick, effective accomplishment.
Railroad cars arriving in a shipment are usually of
many types: boxcars, both all-wood and wood-lined;
refrigerator cars (reefers); flat cars; special purpose
cars; gondolas; stock cars; tank cars; hoppers; and,
occasionally, passenger cars and cabooses. If these are
intermixed in the arriving train, they are usually sepa-
rated by type after arrival, with the aid of a yard loco-
motive. Boxcars and refrigerator cars are then brought
down to the dismantling area. If they are to be burned,
the area used is somewhat isolated from the rest of
the yard, and usually selected for its location downwind
-------
10
DISMANTLING
from Inhabited areas based upon prevailing winds.
These areas may still be used for boxcars and "reefers"
even in yards where the practice of burning has been
discontinued, since it offers a place for sorting and
stockpiling the wood removed unburned.
Before dismantling, the car body is lifted off its
trucks by means of a railroad crane, swung around
away from the track and placed into position on bare
ground. Cars to be burned are usually assembled at this
site in groups which may number as many as thirty
cars and as few as two or three. In the meantime, the
trucks remaining on the track are disassembled with
the aid of a torch. Salvageable parts are removed, and
the wheels and axles are gradually moved uptrack to be
reconditioned for use if possible. The side frames,
springs, bearings, bolsters, and air brake parts are
moved to individual stockpiles. Brass from the bearings
is sold for brass scrap separately, bringing prices which
are a little higher than prices paid for scrap steel.
Car body burning to remove the wood also succeeds
in improving the quality of the body scrap by removing
much of the paint, grease, dirt, and other external im-
purities. A can or two of gasoline liberally applied inside
each car and set afire is all that it takes to perform
this task. Heavy clouds of black smoke are given off
from the fire for the first half hour to an hour, after
which the fire burns more cleanly and the smoke is
whitish in appearance. After two to three hours, the fire
burns itself out, and the steel skeleton is left to cool.
Where open burning is prohibited, wood must be
removed by hand. It takes about a day for two non-
skilled laborers to strip the wood from an all-steel box-
car; remove nails and bolts; separate, sort, and stock-
pile reusable lumber, and throw the rest into a trash
pile for removal to a dump. A wood-sided boxcar takes
another half day or so.
When the metal frame is ready for subdivision, the
roof and uprights are separated from the undercar-
riage. Salvageable parts consisting mainly of the
couplers, coupler yokes, and draft gears (shock ab-
sorbers) are cut away, and then the major subdivision
is begun.
The acetylene torch is the yard mainstay for cutting
steel. In yards not equipped with shears, torch-cutting
is used to reduce the entire structure to pieces no larger
than 3 feet by lYa feet. In yards which have shears,
torchcutting is often used only to reduce the metal to a
size which the shears can handle. Large shears can cut
all of the metal, including sills and body bolster (main
frame) to required 3-foot lengths or less. Smaller
shears can cut most of the boxcar steel except for the
body bolsters, which are left for the torch.
The subdivided lengths are now in a form acceptable
to the mills as heavy melting steel. The railroad crane
returns to the site, with a heavy disc-shaped electro-
magnet to pick up the steel. Scrap is lifted from the
pile and loaded into gondolas or open-top trailer trucks
for delivery to the steel mills.
Processing Costs Determinants
In 1967 a typical price for scrap steel received at the
mill was $28 per ton. A scrap dealer at Chicago might
pay freight charges of about $2.70 per ton, leaving him
a net recovery of a little over $25 per ton for the scrap.
To compute the total recovery per boxcar, we need to
refer to the data (page 9) which shows:
Car capacity (ton) Net scrap weight (.ton)
40 15-17
50 17-19
70 21-22
Salvageable parts removed from the body after burn-
ing include:
Couplers, two at 400 Ibs each
Yokes, two at 200 Ibs each
Draft gears, two at 300 Ibs each.
Of the above 1,800 pounds, about 50 percent Is sal-
vageable; the rest going for scrap. For 6-ton trucks, the
salvageable portion is about 1.5 tons. All told, salvage
may account for 2 or 3 tons per car of 40-ton capacity,
but is sold by the type of item, e.g., 60 sets of wheels, 40
couplers, etc. The remaining 15 to 17 tons constitute
the scrap weight. At $25 per ton, the scrap returns $350
to $425 to the dealer per car. As will be shown, at least
another $100 must be recovered from the sale of re-
usable parts.
Costs begin with purchase of the boxcar, which
amounts to something between $300 and $400. Process-
ing costs per net ton of scrap and salvage run about
$7 for direct charges and about $10 with overhead in-
cluded. This averages about $180 per boxcar. Hence,
total costs more than consume the total income from
scrap, and salvage revenues must be relied on for sol-
vency, to say nothing of profit.
All the aforementioned costs and prices are subject
to variation within a range of plus or minus 15 percent.
Within this range, the dealer may find profitable lever-
age on Individual transactions. Margins are constantly
being squeezed by rising costs in every phase of the
operation; particularly labor costs. At the other end,
prices for scrap steel have not risen. Indeed, prices have
tended to sag with the rapid growth of BOF Installa-
tions, where the scrap constitutes as little as 25 percent
of the intake, compared with 50 percent, or more, for
open-hearth furnaces and 98 percent for electric
furnaces.
Railroad scrap processors have sought ways of con-
tinuing a profitable operation while hoping an upturn
in the railroad scrap picture will materialize. Some
have succeeded by avoiding the purchase of boxcars
wherever possible, and concentrating on all-metal items
like tank cars and locomotives. Others have turned
to supplementary operations, such as auto scrap and
other secondary metals to fill the gaps in use time for
equipment such as shears and cranes, and they have
sometimes found themselves turning away from the
railroad scrap business. A few operators have abandoned
railroad scrap processing altogether. As a result, the
normal functioning of the reclamation cycle for rail-
road scrap becomes more and more uncertain.
It is evident that any further rise in costs in com-
pliance with the prohibition of open burning would turn
a barely marginal operation Into a guaranteed loss.
Wood removal by manual means at today's unskilled
labor costs (about $2.75 an hour in industrial areas)
means an added burden of $40 to $50 per boxcar. The
same job could be done for much less in the imme-
diate postwar years when scrap steel prices were
somewhat higher than today.
The manual method for removing wood leaves to-
day's scrapyard operator with a new problem: how to
dispose of the scrap wood. Once, farmers were happy
-------
RAILROAD FREIGHT CARS
11
to cart It off for use as firewood and construction ma-
terial; but, today with increased urbanization and with
farmers themselves operating at a higher economic
level, no inducement is found to haul scrap wood over
25 or 50 miles of highway.
As a result, railroad scrap processors, forced to aban-
don open burning, have found themselves in the used
lumber business. This Is hardly lucrative, but in a few
localities it does help to recover some of the added
costs. Where the local market warrants even higher
costs for used lumber carefully stripped from the box-
car, unskilled laborers may be supported by acetylene
torch men, whose weekly pay may exceed $200. The
torch is used to "blow the bolts" that hold down heavier
planks, especially in the flooring, where the 2- by 6-inch
or 2- by 8-inch lumber finds a readier market.
All in all, the problem of learning to live with envi-
ronmental pollution controls is intimately tied to the
problem of residual wood utilization. In this regard, the
railroad scrap business is but a minor contributor to a
vastly larger and increasingly importunate solid waste
disposal problem which affects all sectors of our
economy.
MECHANIZATION: POSSIBLE LONG-RANGE
SOLUTION
Proponents of mechanization in the scrap industry
insist that a downturn in unit cost can occur only
through a modernization of scrapyard practices and
equipment. They maintain that while most yards have
heavy equipment of some kind, no yard has attempted
to develop and operate a completely integrated system.
An optimum system of this type would have the follow-
ing characteristics:
• It would use state-of-the-art items of equipment,
or custom modifications.
• It would be made of components which are matched
with regard to capacity, speed and duration of
operation, control and maintenance requirements,
etc.
• It would provide for continuous flow processing.
• Its operation would be almost entirely automatic.
• Its downtime periods during workdays would be
brief, and then only for inspection and mainte-
nance.
• It would have provision for temporarily bypassing
a defective component.
• It would come with spare parts which yard person-
nel can readily interchange.
• It could increase its capacity at peak periods with-
out adverse effects.
On this list, the items which would contribute most to
the reduction of scrap processing costs are the contin-
uous flow and automatic provisions. To present-day
technology such specifications are routine. All the com-
ponents are commercially available, and manufacturers
seeking larger markets and wider applications for their
equipment have already proposed new models designed
to handle railroad cars. An automatic system designed
and assembled as a complete unit would constitute the
next higher level in the state-of-the-art. One need not
look too far into the future to envision all scrap as
being processed in this way.
In a typical proposed system, a boxcar is brought to
a reception shed in which the trucks and salvageable
parts are removed and tracked off to the salvage area.
The car body is slid onto a conveyor, and from there on,
the entire process is automatic. The roof and sides are
compressed toward the floor as the body approaches a
gigantic shear. The shear reduces wood and metal to-
gether to sections as wide as the car and between 18 and
36 inches long, as required. Lateral cuts, which bring
the maximum widths down to between 12 and 18 inches,
can be made with the same shear by the use of a turn-
table base, or with a second, smaller shear.
Much of the wood will have already separated and
fragmented by this time. Conveyors then take the wood
and metal to a hammermill or ball mill, which not only
performs a further size reduction, but also substantially
frees the metal of wood and cleans it through abrasive
action. The next conveyor is also a vibrator, which helps
to shake away any wood particles clinging to metal and
thus prepares it for the final separation, which is done
by a magnetic drum. Clean, beneflciated steel scrap
then exits onto one conveyor which loads it directly into
gondolas. Wood fragments enter a chute where they
eventually fill bags for sale as mulch or for other
purposes.
Variety of Equipment in Use
The major items of scrapyard equipment currently
in general use may be grouped according to function, in
the following manner:
• Movement and storage
Locomotives
Gondolas
Container units
Truck transporters
Cranes with grapples
Cranes with electromagnets
• Primary size reduction
Oxyacetylene torch units
Guillotine shears
Alligator shears
Scrap breakers
• Secondary size reduction
Shredders
Rippers
Pulverizers
Hammermills
Ball mills
• Compaction
Balers
Squeeze boxes
• Combustibles removal
Incinerators, single-chambered
Incinerators, multi-chambered
• Intra-vrocess scrap movement
Feeders
Rams
Conveyors
• Ferrous extraction
Vibrators
Magnetic separators
Flotation.
Most of these items are used in the processing of scrap
originating from sources other than railroad cars; prin-
cipally automobiles. Railroad cars must be specially pre-
pared and sectioned before they can be accommodated
by the processing units. Shears have been designed with
a throat wide enough to accept a boxcar (about 10 feet),
but nothing that large is in current use. One source in-
dicates that only 6 to 8 yards, actually dismantling
334-359—69-
-------
12
DISMANTLING
railroad cars, have shears capable of handling railroad
scrap—torch cutting being by far the dominant method.
Compacting devices such as squeeze boxes are used
to laterally constrict large, loose, or compressible
chunks of raw scrap so they can fit into the throat of
the shear into which they are being fed. However, the
undercarriage of a boxcar cannot be treated in this
way—center sills and body bolsters being too rigid and
strong for most conventional equipment to handle.
Most scrapyard incinerators are of the old, single-
chambered type which are little more effective than
open fires in controlling air pollution. Newer types are
multi-chambered, providing for complete combustion
by carrying the process through successive stages. Many
are now equipped with pollution control devices, gen-
erally some type of scrubber or precipitator.
One scrapyard has recently installed an emission
control incinerator which is designed to accommodate
several boxcars at a time. This unit represents a con-
siderable capital investment, and accomplishes little
more than open burning formerly did, but it was con-
sidered the price necessary to stay in business.
A cross section of scrapyards specializing in railroad
car demolition was surveyed to ascertain the specific
types of equipment currently available in these yards
(Table 1). This equipment is not necessarily used only
for railroad cars; in fact, in most cases, it is used for a
variety of steel processing operations.
Capital Investment Requirements
Semiautomatic systems which are already in use for
automobile scrap processing have required capital out-
lays of one-half to one million dollars. Similar systems
redesigned to handle boxcars would apparently cost at
least twice as much. These would still fall short of the
automatic, continuous flow capability achieved for auto
scrap. The necessary capital requirements could not be
justified by many individual railroad car dismantlers,
volume being a key consideration.
Computation of the total allowable capital invest-
ment for a particular scrapyard must be based upon a
demonstrated reduction in net operating cost brought
about by the new equipment. If we assume a cost re-
duction of $2 per ton, or roughly, $40 per boxcar, a yard
which processes 2,000 boxcars per year would be able
to recover $80,000 per year. Five-year amortization for
this equipment makes the figure $400,000. Roughly one-
fourth of this amount might be needed for extra track-
age required for moving cars into the equipment, plus
any auxiliary equipment required. This leaves some
$300,000 available for new equipment, before considering
interest or opportunity costs.
ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION CONSTRAINTS
A basic premise in selecting alternatives to the prac-
tice of open burning is that any process must be rejected
if it results in legally unacceptable levels of pollution.
Does logic then dictate that all combustion processes,
however minimal the pollution level, ought to be re-
jected? Is it not axiomatic that nothing is better than
no pollution at all? To answer these questions, we must
consider the entire cost-effectiveness picture from the
standpoint of short-term as well as long-term objec-
tives. For example, if one or more incineration process
plus emission control is effective In meeting existing
standards, we cannot reject it out of hand even though
it may not meet ultimate public goals. For a compara-
tive evaluation of processes which could at least be
useful for the next five years or so, we must consider
incinerator systems on the same basis as nonemission
processes.
The railroad car dismantler notes, however, that in-
cinerators at many scrapyards have not been meeting
local air quality standards satisfactorily. This inade-
quacy can result from:
• Deficiencies in design principle, construction, oper-
ation, or maintenance of the installation.
• Upgrading of standards over the years following
installation.
• Stricter enforcement of existing regulations result-
ing from growing public awareness.
The question of what is and will be legally acceptable
is the key issue. What is acceptable in one scrapyard
location may not be in another. What was acceptable
yesterday is less so today, and perhaps not at all to-
morrow. However, it is worthwhile for scrapyard oper-
ators to realize they are not alone hi feeling the pres-
sures of community action. It is also instructive to note
where they do stand with reference to pollution control
programs, and as a corollary, what this study considers
the ground rules to be from an environmental pollution
point of view. We will, therefore, look briefly at what is
given off when a railroad boxcar is burned, what
happens to the local atmosphere, and what the public
officials are supposed to dp about it.
Products of Combustion. The most objectionable
emission from open burning is smoke. The heavy, black
clouds which billow into the air during the first hour
of burning contain unburned carbon particles mixed
with mineral fly ash, carbon oxide gases, and partially
condensed steam. Gradually, smoke lightens as the fire
stabilizes to a more complete combustion stage; steam
now dominates the effluent. The smoldering phase is
accompanied by thin, but blackish smoke which grad-
ually fades as the fire burns out; this smoke has a
high content of carbon due to incomplete combustion
with lower temperature.
The major gaseous products of combustion are car-
bon dioxide and water, but there are also generous
amounts of objectionable gases. The major pollutants
are the aldehydes and the oxides of nitrogen. These
substances come from the combustion and partial dis-
tillation of cellulose, lignin, and colloidal residues
such as gums, resins, and sap, which characterize par-
ticular varieties of wood. Small amounts of sulfur
oxides and of carbon monoxide are emitted. However,
wood burning can be considered as a negligible source
of these pollutants.
When a refrigerator car is burned, it well merits its
abbreviated name "reefer," for the burning insulation
adds richness and heaviness to the black smoke. Its
resemblance to an oil fire is not coincidental, for much
of the added density is due to hydrocarbon aerosols and
gases. The lubricating oils, greases, and various other
fluids absorbed in the undercarriage of boxcars also
contribute to hydrocarbon emission. When tars have
been used to treat the wood, combustion will also pro-
duce small amounts of wood alcohol, acetone, and
acetic acid.
Meteorological Considerations. Pollution from box-
car burning is usually very local and short lived. Since
burning is usually saved for those days when "the
wind is right," that is, downwind from residential areas,
it is seldom done more often than twice a week. It also
-------
RAILROAD FREIGHT CAES
13
S
d
^
•d
£8
O
h
eg
M
5
53
S
03
CQ
•3
-p
-P
DQ
•e
E
be
1
d)
o
O
fH
&i
i1
o
M
"3
o
«r^
ft
-P
»o
*"*
•g
Ci
ri
1
"3
1
•d
-P"
r<
1
"a
I
rf
(H
&
O
rh
(H
bfi ?
rS c5 •*>
•rt rtl tf5
•3 §
s
* M
•si
"3 ?
-p "
o
H
c
a
0
c
c
C
OOOZ Of
o o_o o
c
c
r*
^ >o o
N 0
o
of of co"
V
c
c
c
>•
c
OC
o"
o
a
Oi
v
c
c
c
>• ee-
OOO OC
ooe« ocv
oo o
o~ ofof o"
o co o
a
(f
o>
y 93-
o « CM oi •* r-i •* « oi n
>O rH^
O^
r-T
rH
rH
66-
o lO't
0
o
co"
CO
66-
I-
'J
4
OlrHrH
iH 0) iH
C!
O
ft
(fir
O tf.
0 -
o
c
c
o o o ^5 o £*• o co co Q
o o o ^ o
c
c
o «
r-T *
iH 3
0) CD Q>
a s q s H n
O O OOO O
&
rH rH
« « rH
ee-
O >o o OOd ocoo a>i-ta>a>a>a> O CO ^ I"* ^ W '•H *-*
O •* O ®Or-( Or-rg
o o ^o o o
o"
•3
X
CjT rH »O CO *-?
QC
(C
«
S-
01 t^-
^H
€6-
*
^T
€^
#
o <* o ooi> o a> a> •# o co •* co co
o •* o ^Ort O'i'cs csooi'-iTH
q_
O CO O O CM O
o ^
CO
t^-"
1H<0 O
C4 Is- O
co co o
o" co"
,-< tft-
^
66-
«- 66- *'
,-,
*3
60
"3
n
TJ
P,
1-4
O
(A
r volume:
stimated annual gross,
sources
C3 W
i— (
O
I-i
^
0
•£
03
O
.3
2
o
-p
fl>
ercentage attributabl
ODerations
n
,
"a
t
O
DQ
2
1
^{
•-3
stimated gross from n
vaere excluded^
H
' |
h t>>
_. °^
•d > ^
P4 ^
oi co
-------
14
DISMANTLING
depends upon the rate of boxcar shipment to the yard.
The fire generally burns itself out within two or three
hours; depending upon the number of cars stacked for
burning. During this period, the major portion of ob-
jectionable material is emitted within an hour or less.
Boxcar burning does not in fact contribute signifi-
cantly to the high nationwide levels of air pollution,
but for limited periods, the heavy emissions present
a threat to health, comfort, and nearby property. This
puts boxcar burning more in the class of public nui-
sance; but this, too, is a target of legislative action.
Some of the deleterious effects of boxcar burning
come from bad or mistaken practices on the part
of the scrapyard operator. It appears to be the custom
to burn late in the day so that by the following morn-
ing the remaining steel structure will be cool and ready
for torch cutting. It is not openly acknowledged that
the choice of burning time may also be governed by
more subtle reasons, such as:
• Twilight conditions, visibility restrictions, and
cloudiness tend to mask the fire and smoke.
• Neighborhood housewives are mostly indoors pre-
paring the evening meal and are thus less likely
to observe and complain about the fire.
• Air pollution surveillance helicopters and inspec-
tors are generally going off duty.
Prom a meteorological standpoint, however, early
evening is a very inappropriate time to burn, because
solar connective activity is about over for the day, and
nocturnal inversion conditions are setting In. This
virtually guarantees that palls of smoke emanating
from the scrapyard will remain low above the ground,
spread laterally and settle during the night, and by
morning cover the neighborhood with a fresh layer
of grime.
Over most of the country, the best time to do open
burning is early in the afternoon on a sunny day,
when the lower atmospheric layers are most unstable
and turbulent eddies will rapidly diffuse and dissipate
the smoke and carry it off to great heights. With the
aid of a qualified meteorological service, which the
local Weather Bureau office can usually provide, scrap-
yard operators and air pollution control officials could
reach agreement on an acceptable time for open burn-
ing day by day, where still permitted.
Abatement and Control. The control provisions of
new regulations will henceforth be more uniformly and
effectively enforced. Under the 1965 and 1966 Amend-
ments to the Clean Air Act, the air pollution control
and solid waste disposal programs of state and local
agencies will be strongly bolstered. The availability of
Federal grants will help these agencies to improve
their effectiveness through more responsive organiza-
tion, fuller staffing, up-to-date monitoring and analy-
sis equipment, and closer communication with other
governmental functions and with the public at large.
Abatement and control activities will be more vigor-
ously pursued, but the ultimate objectives are now be-
coming more clearly defined. Smoke-chasing and the
punishment of offenders are secondary to the long-
range measures for overall community planning. Some
of the broader objectives are:
• Elimination of hazards to life, health, and
property.
• Conservation of our resources and common heri-
tage.
• Preservation of esthetic values.
• Establishment of conditions for a sound and grow-
ing industrial economy; not a self-defeating one.
• Exercise of the principle that no individual or
group enjoys the right or special privilege of con-
taminating the environment shared by others.
Each of us has a stake in these common goals; gov-
ernment is now fully committed to them. However, the
scrapyard operator whose business is threatened finds
little consolation in the priorities which enforcement
officials sometimes follow. He complains with some
justification that independent operators are being
brought to task while other major offenders are left
inviolate.
In communities where heavy industry dominates the
employment structure, public pressure for a clean-up
is often countered with the threat of shutdown. The
independent scrap processor has no corresponding re-
taliatory weapon. Scrap is essentially a satellite indus-
try which needs the steel companies and the railroads to
share the responsibility. The present study enjoyed the
cooperation of an integrated steel producer and of rail
industry organizations, though Individual roads regis-
tered little interest.
Independent scrapyard operators may find some
comfort in knowledge that the present disparity is tem-
porary, and that before long, compliance requirements
will be uniform and universal. During this transitional
period, the Federal Interest is to lend support to efforts
directed to more general standardization, and to pro-
vide a floor of minimum criteria. The more progressive
scrapyard dealers have already taken measures to ad-
just to the imposed changes, and will find ways of living
with short-term inequities.
ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
Freight cars, like all manufactured goods, are made
from raw materials found In limited supply. The metal
elements in particular retain an economic value to so-
ciety even after the usefulness of the car itself has been
spent. Cars are retired In large numbers and are of cer-
tain relatively uniform characteristics. It follows that
a system for recovering the reusable materials should
be economically desirable from a public view as well
as from the car owners and steel producers point of
view. The AARCD expressed it this way':
"Scrap Is a man-made resource which can replace
iron ore, coke, and limestone—all irreplaceable natural
resources—in making new steel. One ton of scrap can
be used Instead of a ton and a half of ore, a ton of coke,
or a half-ton of limestone.
"The conservation of scrap Is a necessity for this na-
tion. Supplies of natural resources within the conti-
nental United States are not inexhaustible. Reliance on
foreign sources can be risky in emergencies. For those
reasons, every estimate made of America's resources in-
cludes the availability of iron and steel scrap and rates
it as vital to the country's industrial wellbeing as ma-
terials dug from the earth."
1 AMERICAN ASSOCIATION or RAILROAD CAB DISMAN-
TLERS. At the end of the line. Chicago, AARCD [1968]. 4 p.
-------
RAILROAD FREIGHT CARS
15
As his mission, the railroad car dismantler has the
performance of an economic function for his own profit,
his customer's service, and the public's benefit. Air pol-
lution is becoming an increasingly obvious public detri-
ment. So, the problem is to find a practical method for
salvaging a valuable resource, while conforming to the
public's interest in controlling air pollution. A practi-
cal method implies (1) effectiveness in reducing air pol-
lutants, and (2) costs which are tolerable to the market
for scrap steel.
The net incremental costs of any innovation in the
recovery process is vital to the interests of each party
concerned—the railroad, the scrap processor, the steel
mill, and the public as a whole. Unless the costs are
such that the market will adjust, the resource will be
unable to retain utility. The resource and the economic
function will be lost until the market adjustment is in
fact made. The time that adjustment takes is a meas-
ure of the real cost of clean air. Who bears that cost is
important.
The problem is not simply one of "clean up or shut
up"; it is a matter of finding the least disruptive way to
continue to use the resource consistent with clean air
goals. This disruption takes two forms:
• Disruption to the orderly and established activities
by which the economy makes use of recoverable
steel from retired freight cars.
• Disruption of the scrap processor's ability to per-
form his accustomed function.
The combined effect of these aspects of the problem
leads to a conclusion that in time the pressures of the
marketplace and the ingenuity of railroad scrap special-
ists will find a way to recover the resource even if all
open burning of freight cars were prohibited immedi-
ately and absolutely. Our joint mission is to smooth this
path.
In this connection, the competition among railroad
car dismantlers deserves comment. The scrapyard oper-
ators, under the spur of competition, may hold the long-
run key to an effective solution, but this managerial
resource can either be relied on constructively or used
unfairly. To the degree that clean air standards are en-
forced unequally among given localities, and to the
degree that clean air standards are enforced without
first finding workable solutions or approaches to solu-
tions, the economic forces will combine to work a hard-
ship on those who can protect themselves least. Neither
the entrepreneurial scofflaw nor the entrepreneur who
is swamped by his problem represents a constructive
result.
-------
ALTERNATIVES TO
OPEN BURNING
CRAP PROCESSORS and other sources have pro-
vided a variety of alternatives to open burning as the
primary means for removing wood from retired railroad
cars. Methods which have been considered are those
where:
• Wood is removed prior to metal processing.
• Wood is removed after initiation of metal
processing.
Methods other than routine scrap processing operations
are also briefly discussed later in this chapter.
The availability of alternative possibilities implies
neither acceptability to the industry, nor compatability
with its existing operations. The industry must be able
to incorporate new or modified methods into its railroad
car scrapping operations without impairing scrapping
operations for other commodities, and it must do so
profitably. These factors are the first criteria for screen-
ing the alternatives:
• Methods are eliminated which are outside the scope
of normal scrapyard operations.
• Methods are eliminated which are of interest, but
for which technology is inadequate at this time.
GENERAL PROCESS RELATIONSHIPS
Even after the elimination of what might be termed
"nonprocess" alternatives by means of the gross criteria
given above, a great many individual methods and
combinations of methods remain. These span the field
of technology in wood and metal cutting, and wood and
metal separation techniques. Compared to open burn-
ing, however, these alternative methods have the com-
mon feature of higher cost.
For this reason, it immediately becomes necessary to
view each alternative in its relationship not only to
open burning, but also to the overall processes involved
in railroad car scrapping. In other words, the alterna-
tive methods available should be viewed as possible
components of modified scrap processing systems. A
further important consideration is in the application
of some of the proposed methods to the scrapping of
nonwood-bearing railroad cars, or to metal scrapping
in general.
In this study we grouped procedures through which
railroad cars may be scrapped (Figure 1). The individual
methods or techniques were then aggregated under
broad headings to demonstrate the point or points
where they might be located in the overall scrapping
process.
Only two fundamental procedures exist: that wherein
wood is removed prior to basic metal processing (Pro-
cedures A and B) and that wherein wood and metal
are processed simultaneously (Procedure C). Regard-
less of individual method, five fundamental steps com-
prise the generalized railroad car scrapping process.
Wood Removal
Includes all methods used to remove wood prior to
metal processing; the products are wood and metal
for further separate processing.
Initial Size Reduction
Includes reduction of the car, with wood and metal
separated or together, into a few large pieces which
can then be further processed by passing them through
equipment incapable of accepting an entire car body.
Secondary Size Reduction
Includes all methods whereby large pieces of scrap
material are reduced to small-size pieces or fragments.
Final piece-size is determined by the specific scrap
market (the scrapper's customer). This is the reason
for the metal bypass around secondary size reduction in
Procedures A and B, since all markets do not require
small pieces of scrap.
16
-------
-------
18
DISMANTLING
Separation
Separation appears as a specific step in Procedure C
(wood and metal processed simultaneously). Steel mills
which purchase metal scrap require the exclusion of
wood. If wood and metal are handled simultaneously.
it is unlikely that all the wood will, of its own accord,
fall off the steel. Some methods must be provided to
complete the separation.
Wood Disposition
This step includes all methods for disposition of wood,
whether reclaimed or destroyed, and generally assumes
that wood and metal have been fully separated at a
previous point in the scrapping process. The exception
is in Procedure C, where some wood fragments would
still be attached to metal fragments. These would re-
quire destructive disposition.
Under these five broad headings, fourteen possible
steps in the overall process were established (Figure 1).
ALTERNATIVES TO OPEN BURNING FOR WOOD
SEPARATION
All of the proposed alternatives to open burning are
associated with one or more of these steps. Each al-
ternative has been subjected to initial screening, and
those which survived were subjected to a more detailed
analysis. The possible process alternatives may be listed
according to the following classifications:
Conventional Sequence of Operations
(.wood removal after salvage operations,
but prior to scrap metal separations')
Manual wood removal
• Strip out wood using ordinary hand tools (wrecking
bars and other nonpowered devices)
• Strip out wood using standard hand-operated
power tools
• Grit blasting equipment
• Water or steam jets under high pressure
• Other specially designed hand-operated power
tools (saws, abrasive wheels, nibblers, chippers,
etc.).
Automated physical wood separation (vibratory)
• Acoustic vibration using enclosure and externally
applied frequencies to wood or to metal frequency
ranges
• Ultrasonic or acoustic vibration applied internally.
Chemical processes for wood removal
Solvent bath
Wood-destructive spray
Other wood-destructive coating
Brittlizing agent.
Biological processes
Microorganisms
Wood-eating insects.
Controlled incineration
• Enclosed incinerators able to accept entire car or
substantially unprocessed boxes
• Semienclosed burning
Attach stack or hood with smoke-control device
while using shell of car for partial internal draft
control for burning out car
Vortex "pit" open-top type incinerator (air
recirculation assisted by directed jets).
Carbonisation
• Use an oven to "bake" wood until reduced to char-
coal
• Induction heating where steel sheeting and frame
supplies controlled heat to wood.
Modified Sequence of Operations
(wood removal integrated with
scrap metal separations')
Wood shattering impact methods applied to total box
* Use large-mouth shear to accept entire box, with
wood and steel frame intact
• Gravity action relying on
Weight of car
Weight of crushing device
• Mechanical pummeling device
• Shock action under cryogenic conditions.
Initial separation of total box into convenient seg-
ments for processing with conventional equipment
(shears, hammermills, magnetic separators)
• Mounted saw-type cutting tool
• Unmounted saw-type cutting tool
• Mounted abrasive wheel (powered)
• Unmounted abrasive wheel (powered)—cutting
from inside or from scaffolding
• Cut with acetylene torch accompanied by fire ex-
tinguishing agent (conventional soda-CO2, water
hose, foam sprayer, etc.)
• Explosive cutting effects (shaped charges)
• Any of above applied only to underframe using
gravity to break up remainder
• Explosive gas-filled interior,
Initial separation, as specified, followed by unconven-
tional subsequent process for wood removal
• Flotation
• Direct gravity feed
• Density-vibration feed
• Mechanical equipment of existing types.
Separations, as specified, followed by wood disposal
• Small incinerators with smoke control
• "Total" combustion incinerators
• Convert to landfill or other low utility purpose
• Convert to economic byproduct.
CRITERIA FOR SCREENING AND EVALUATION
As noted, all methods considered have the common
feature of cost being higher than open burning. Since
the consideration here is for private industry, attention
is immediately drawn to the single criterion by which
industry judges any contemplated program—return on
investment. Within this limitation, it Is possible to de-
velop other criteria for screening and evaluating alter-
native methods for scrapping. These alternative
methods have various cost implications, including the
cost of a possible decision to stop scrapping of wood-
bearing railroad cars altogether, and to devote plant
capacity to other scrap operations.
Basic Criteria for Screening Individual Methods
• Methods were eliminated which are outside the
scope of normal scrapyard operations. Interest
here is focused upon methods that can readily be
incorporated into the scrap production processes
and that can be financed by private means. Appli-
cation of this criterion immediately eliminated
those methods which are not directly involved in
production of salable scrap, along with those
methods requiring continuous financial participa-
tion by the government.
• Methods were eliminated which are of interest but
-------
RAILROAD FREIGHT CARS
19
for which technology Is inadequately developed at
this time. This criterion can be immediately applied
to chemical, biological, and other advanced
processes.
• Methods recommended for further consideration
should minimize the capital investment required.
This suggests multiple use of the method or equip-
ment, including the possibility of using this method
or equipment for other scrapping operations. For
example, a high-pressure water jet used for cutting
wood out of a boxcar can be used also for cleaning
ferrous scrap, a process which will upgrade the
scrap and increase its market value.
• Methods recommended should incorporate reason-
able operating costs. This generally means that
highly sophisticated and complex methods should
be avoided. While such methods might perform
their assigned tasks very well, the possibility of ex-
tensive downtime and the requirement for highly
skilled, high-cost operating and maintenance per-
sonnel and for high-cost repairs parts should be
carefully considered.
• Methods recommended should be capable of im-
plementation without impairment of other scrap
processes. The volume of railroad car scrappings
varies widely among individual processors. At some
scrapyards, it does not represent a majority of the
work. For this reason, methods recommended for
use in railroad car scrapping should not be detri-
mental to other scrapping operations. In fact, cer-
tain methods addressed to the railroad car problem
could also be used advantageously in general metal
scrapping.
• Recommended methods should apply to all wood-
bearing railroad cars. It should not be necessary to
establish multiple methods simply to accommodate
the construction differences between steel-sheathed
cars and wood-sided cars. A single scrap production
line or process should suffice for all wood-bearing
cars.
These six criteria, then, plus the general criterion of
return on investment, were used to evaluate the candi-
date methods listed in this chapter.
SCREENING OF CANDIDATE PROCESSES
Under the first criterion—elimination of methods out-
side the scope of normal scrapyard operations—those
alternative methods in which cars are not processed
through scrapyards were eliminated. The methods thus
eliminated generally involve government participation
in the form of subsidy, or by outright purchase of the
cars. While such an approach may have merit, it is
not consistent with the purposes of this study, which
is focused upon identification of technology applicable
to scrap processing operations.
A second broad category of alternatives also deserves
special comment. Recent innovations in scrap process-
ing have been widely publicized, especially with respect
to automated processes for scrapping automobiles. Why
not simply apply these machines—or larger versions
of them—to freight cars? Essentially, three considera-
tions may be cited to show that such an approach
oversimplifies the problem. First, freight cars as units
are too large for present auto scrapping equipment to
accept without initial size reductions and many of the
steel elements are too large or heavy for many of the
existing cutting and shredding machines to handle on
a continuing basis without undue wear. (Rippers oper-
ate most efficiently on steel structures where configura-
tion allows "biting" surfaces which is not the case
with flat, uninterrupted surfaces such as boxcar
sides.) Secondly, indications are that oversize versions
of equipment suitable for automobile scrap would re-
quire inordinately high capital investments and volumes
of throughput not characteristic of existing yards.
Finally, auto bodies are a complex of materials which
are incompatible from a scrap point of view. Freight
cars, on the other hand, are composed of relatively
homogenous materials. With the significant exception
of the wood, the nonferrous elements are small in vol-
ume and easily identified and separated, e.g., brass bear-
ing and brake-hose fittings. Consequently, automobile
scrap requires a fine division of materials for effective
separation while freight cars present a problem of inte-
grated nonferrous only with respect to wood.
This brings us to consideration of alternatives and
to the application of criteria to those methods.
Hand Tools for Wood Removal. In manual wood
removal, workers go into the car and remove the wood,
using nonpowered hand tools such as wrecking bars and
nail pullers. Inherent limitations of this method prevent
it from offering a long-term solution. The method adds
only nominal cost to the scrapping process at the point
of application, and produces complete separation of
wood and metal, i.e., clean metal scrap. Since boards,
planks, and sheets of wood are removed in nearly their
installed sizes, this method is most likely to produce
wood salable as used lumber. However, two major prob-
lems are associated with this method. First, labor costs
in some areas make this method one characterized by
increasing cost. Second, if the lumber has no market,
an incinerator must be provided for wood disposal. This
incinerator would be of a commercially available size,
but the air pollution control devices required at the
exhaust stack would increase its cost. If a market is
available for the wood as used lumber, the additional
labor cost might be at least partially recovered, the
air pollution problem is completely avoided, and no
capital investment is required.
Powered hand tools might be used to cut away wood
from its fasteners In lieu of stripping the wood out by
hand. Such tools vary widely in sophistication of design,
ease of operation, and suitability to other work In the
scrapping process. Powered hand tools satisfy our ini-
tial screening criteria.
• The use of powered hand tools is well within the
scope of normal scrapyard operations.
• Technology is well developed for all of the individ-
ual methods, although some engineering develop-
ment is required in the details of certain methods,
as will be seen later.
• Intial costs are modest.
• Reasonable operating costs are anticipated, pri-
marily because of the highly developed and well
established state-of-the-art in powered hand tools.
• Semlmanual methods are applicable to all types
of wood-bearing railroad cars.
With one possible exception, namely water Jets, the
individual methods for manual wood removal consid-
ered In this study are common in industrial woodwork-
Ing and metalworking processes. Water Jets are common
for some processes, chiefly for industrial cleaning.
Saws for Wood Removal. The saws contemplated
here are the small power saws routinely used by car-
penters and other woodworkers. These units are com-
mercially available with electric and pneumatic drives.
-------
20
DISMANTLING
The type selected is a matter of choice, which would,
in turn, be governed by the anticipated capital invest-
ment required to provide power for the tools. In opera-
tion, the saws would be used to cut through the wood
near the fasteners, allowing the cutoff boards to fall
free. This technique immediately presents further prob-
lems, since wood in small pieces would remain attached
to the metal. Further processing would be necessary
for complete wood-metal separation. Skill and a high
order of adaptability to changing physical configura-
tions would be acquired in practical operation. These
are the principal reasons this method is not a candidate
for further consideration.
Abrasive Cut-off Wheels for Wood Removal. For semi-
manual wood removal, abrasive cutoff wheels would
be used in the same manner as the saws discussed
above. The tool drives would be nearly identical to those
for the saws, with the abrasive wheels substituted for
circular saw blades. Consequently, the same consider-
ations exist as for the saws. This method is not a
candidate for further study.
Chippers for Wood Removal. The chippers in this
case are chipping hammers of the type commonly used
in welding operations. They are power-driven ham-
mers equipped with chisel-type blades. For wood re-
moval, chippers would be used to cut wood away around
the fasteners, allowing the cutoff boards to fall free.
All the same considerations exist as for the saws and
abrasive cutoff wheels; in addition, chippers would be
a significantly slower operation (perhaps no faster than
fully manual wood removal). Therefore, the method
is not a candidate for further study.
Grit-blasting for Wood Removal
This method uses a high-velocity stream of steel grit,
from a hand-held nozzle, to cut wood away from metal
around bolts and other fasteners. This method should
produce clean metal scrap in terms of wood-metal sep-
aration. After initial cutting, the cutoff boards would
fall free; the grit stream could then be directed upon
the small wood pieces left clinging to the fasteners. The
fasteners would shatter away in splinter form, thus
separating wood from metal completely.
The equipment required is commercially available,
although it has not previously found application for
wood cutting, per se. The hazard to personnel inherent
in the grit stream and the dust generated require that
the process be housed in a closed building equipped with
dust control devices, and that the operators wear special
protective clothing. A grit reclamation cycle is neces-
sary, because the grit is too expensive to throw away
after one pass. In addition, the nozzles commonly dis-
charge grit at the rate of several thousand pounds per
hour, creating a storage and disposition problem. Sys-
tematic removal of spent grit from inside the car might
be both troublesome and expensive.
Unless a market were available for the wood, an in-
cinerator would also be required. Since the pieces would
generally be small (3 to 4 feet maximum length), sal-
ability is questionable. Although no data currently exist
as to applicability of the method for wood cutting, en-
gineering considerations tend to reduce the problem
to one of speed rather than feasibility. Commercial
availability of the equipment would indicate that the
initial costs of the equipment would not be excessive,
but might amount to approximately $75,000 per yard
on an installed basis. Housing requirement costs and
operating costs appear sufficiently high to prohibit con-
sideration. These factors, plus the possibility of con-
taminating the scrap metal with grit, eliminate the
method as a candidate for further study.
Water Jets for Wood Removal
Of all the methods considered for semimanual wood
removal, water jets now appear to be one of the most
promising, because of their simplicity, general utility,
relatively low cost, and especially because of their pos-
sible extension to cleaning and to metal cutting service.
For wood removal, the method uses a high-velocity
stream of water from a hand-held nozzle to cut wood
away around fasteners, which allows the cutoff boards
to fall free. After the boards are cut off, the jets can
be turned upon the wood left clinging to the fasteners,
for complete wood-metal separation.
Preliminary testing with commercial units (normally
used for cleaning work) operating at 5,000 psi and
10,000 psi has demonstrated that water jets will cut
wood from railroad cars quickly and efficiently. Some
engineering development is required, particularly in
shaping the stream, to adapt the commercial units to
production operations in boxcar dismantling. However,
the development required should not be extensive or
costly. The units tested were developed by the Hydro-
Silica Corporation of Gasport, New York (5,000 psi),
and the Partek Corporation of Houston, Texas (10,000
psi).* They are completely portable when truck or
trailer mounted.
The application of water jets to industrial wood and
metal cutting is currently receiving a great deal of
research attention, although mostly on a laboratory
scale. Pumps and associated equipment are commer-
cially available for pressures up to 70,000 psi and ex-
perimental equipment has been developed for pressures
over 1,000,000 psi.
Of equal interest to the wood cutting application is
the contingent possibility of using very high-pressure
water-jet units to cut metal. Cutting the metal in rail-
road cars would probably require a permanent installa-
tion. Some design problems exist with regard to
equipment configuration, and especially with nozzles,
since the very high-pressure units would produce super-
sonic flow velocities. The jets are inherently dangerous
to personnel, so use of this method in any form would
require careful attention to safety measures.
Aside from wood and metal cutting, water jets could
prove very useful in cleaning metal scrap, which has
been the most extensive use of water jets to date. Wood
scrap produced would be in small pieces. Should no
market be available for the wood, an incinerator would
be required to dispose of the wood. Water jets are con-
sidered a very strong candidate for further study.
Automated Physical Wood Separation (Vibratory)
The techniques investigated under this method in-
clude applying acoustic or ultrasonic vibrations to the
boxcars. Two techniques were investigated. One applied
vibrations to the entire car while to an enclosure; the
other applied ultrasonic or acoustic vibrations to the
car internally. Theoretically each of these techniques
could be utilized, but equipment of the size and types
necessary to generate forcing vibrations has not been
'Mention of commercial products does not Imply
endorsement by the U.S. Public Health Service.
-------
RAILROAD FREIGHT CARS
21
developed. Extensive engineering and design work at
considerable expense would be required to develop these
methods. Consequently, they have been eliminated from
further consideration.
Chemical Processes for Wood Removal
Chemical processes for wood removal use chemicals
to dissolve the wood, thereby reducing it to a form that
might be likened to ashes remaining after burning.
There is considerable uncertainty as to whether the
chemical agents are available for these processes. How-
ever, it is certain that if the agents are available, the
time required for processing would be prohibitively
long—weeks, or possibly months. Because the technol-
ogy is not fully developed and because of the processing
time involved, chemical processes are eliminated from
further consideration in railroad car scrapping.
Biological Processes for Wood Removal
Biological degradation is considered in two forms. In
the first, microorganisms attack the wood and degrade
it to a dust form; in the second, wood-eating insects,
for example, termites, destroy the wood. While these
methods might some day find application, two problems
prohibit their use at this time. The first problem is that
of time, which would, as in chemical methods, extend
to weeks or months. The second, and perhaps more
important problem, is that of control of the organisms
or insects, to prevent their spread not only throughout
the scrapyards, but to adjacent areas as well. For these
reasons, biological methods are eliminated from further
consideration.
Controlled Incineration for Wood Removal
Methods involving incineration of an entire car body
result in the "cleanest," most straightforward, overall
scrapping process. In this regard, it is similar to the
current process in which open burning is used as the
first step.
Efficient application of whole-car incineration would
immediately satisfy most of the criteria:
• Whole-car incineration is well within the scope of
normal scrapyard operations.
• The method is well within existing technology. The
problem at this point is only one of scale, since
incinerators of this size are not common.
• Because of the scale problem, capital investment
data are almost nonexistent; however, capital
equipment costs probably will not be prohibitive.
The real cost problem will not be in the incinerator
itself, but in the type and extent of air pollution
control devices required on the incinerator exhaust
stack.
• Operating costs for a whole-car incinerator are
not anticipated as prohibitive, but here again, data
are almost nonexistent. As in the case of capital
investment, operating costs will also depend largely
upon the type and extent of air pollution control
devices required.
• One of the more attractive features of whole-car
incineration is that it will not impair other scrap
processing operations. Indeed, the method could
readily be applied to current scrapyard operations
without disturbing any existing downstream scrap
processing operations. (Proof of this is given by
open burning, which is one type of whole-car
incineration.)
• In general, whole-car incineration is applicable to
various types of wood-bearing railroad cars.
We have developed the general process of whole-car
incineration in terms of the criteria, and now consider
individ'^l methods.
Oven-type Incinerator Large Enough to Accept En-
tire Car Body. This method would require an incinerator
just large enough to accept a single car body. All of the
technology-associated criteria will be satisfied, so that
the problem becomes one of capital investment, operat-
ing costs, and return on investment. An important
process factor at this point is that of whether a single-
car incinerator will be fast enough to handle the work-
load, which will vary from yard to yard. This method is
a candidate for further study, although no such incin-
erator is currently known to exist.
"Pit-vortex," Open-top Type Incinerator, Large
Enough to Accept Entire Car Body. The "pit-vortex"
type incinerator was developed primarily for disposal
of municipal solid wastes. While the device could readily
be applied to scrapyard operation, significant problems
exist with respect to air pollution control." The primary
objective of the design is to eliminate smoke. While this
might be accomplished, the open top does not control
all fly ash and combustion gases. Control of fly ash
and gases would require the addition of some sort of
hood and subsequent pollution control equipment, which
would significantly increase the capital investment re-
quired. In addition, the hood would have to be movable
to allow car bodies to be inserted into the pit. This re-
quirement can be expected to add serious operating
problems and, therefore, operating costs. Furthermore,
experience to date has shown additional high operating
costs because the high temperatures generated in the
pit have been very destructive to the refractory lining.
For these reasons, the "pit-vortex" is not considered
a candidate for railroad car scrapping.
Induction Heating. This method uses an induction
coil large enough to accept an entire car body, passing
a current through the coil to heat the steel hull to a
temperature high enough either to ignite or to "cook"
the interior wood. It uses the steel box as a crucible.
Under most design circumstances, a hole would be
cut in the car for attachment of a stack, as in the
"afterburner" type incinerator. This method was con-
ceived as a means of closely controlling heating to pro-
duce charcoal from the wood. While this aspect has
merit, induction heating method has problems asso-
ciated with capital cost, volume requirements, inap-
plicability to other uses, and a shortage of engineering
design experience on closely related applications. The
fact that the wood flooring of freight cars does not
normally rest against a complete sheet of steel also
presents design problems. Therefore, induction heating
is not considered a candidate for further study.
Hood-Stack Attachments for Self-incinerator. In
this type of incineration, use would be made of the
structure of the car itself to control drafts and foster
capture of the effluent. One or more holes would be cut
in the car roof, and openings of appropriate size and
position would be provided near the bottom of the car
so that a fire in the wood lining of the car will draw
properly. A stack would be attached to top of the car
•I. MCKEEEACHEB, Asst. Commissioner, Air Pollu-
tion Control Div., Toronto, Ont. Private communication.
May, 1967.
-------
22
DISMANTLING
(either directly or through a hood) which will allow the
smoke to be fed through air pollution control devices.
These devices may be any of several different types.
They may be installed in the stack or, more probably,
be separately housed but connected with the stack
through a flexible duct. The effluent may be treated by
a number of filter, washer, or precipitator techniques or
by an "afterburner" in which effluent is subjected to
recombustion. This method has been proposed by var-
ious sources, notably the Morse-Boulger Division of
Hagan Industries, Inc., Corona, N.Y.
While the concept of using the car body as its own
furnace has been experimented with by at least two
yards, at least two general limitations must be ac-
knowledged: the approach is only applicable to so-
called all-steel or steel-sheathed cars; and cars with
missing or inoperable doors or ruptured sidewalls will
require special attention. Industry sources appear to
agree with the conclusion that this approach has much
to commend it. This method Is recommended for ex-
perimental research and development.
Cover Entire Car with a Funnel-shaped Hood, or
Erect Hood as an Open-sided Building. This method is
a variant of the hooded self-incinerator and is similar
to the oven-type, except that only a roof (the hood)
will house the car body. The hood would be in the shape
of a cone. At the top of the cone, a stack would lead
to air pollution control equipment. Under the open-
sided building concept, the "hood" might be quite large,
covering sufficient space to accommodate five to eight
cars simultaneously. Problems here include that, at out-
door wind speeds greater than about 15 mph, too much
effluent might escape through the side vents. The proc-
ess would be similar to open burning, except that com-
bustion would benefit from natural and induced drafts
within the structure. This method is readily applicable
to existing operations and satisfies all the technology-
associated criteria. However, problems associated with
the structure and meterological conditions would make
capital investment and operating costs higher than
those for a true self-incinerator. For this reason, this
method would not be recommended for prototype de-
velopment unless draft or other efficiency problems
could not be overcome in the self-incinerator.
Carbonisation
The possibility of making charcoal from rail car
wood by means of electric induction heating while the
wood was still attached to an all-steel car was investi-
gated. The process required about four hours, which
proved too slow for routine processing of rail cars. The
economic aspects of this investigation indicated that
about % to 1 ton of charcoal could be produced, at a
market value of around $50, from a car containing 3.5
tons of wood.
A charcoal plant must process 70 tons of wood per
day, corresponding to about 20 rail cars, in order to
be economically justified.
The usefulness of wood used in rail cars as a source
of charcoal is suspect owing to the presence of con-
taminants and to the types of woods employed. Better
charcoals are made from hardwoods; various other
types of wood, including plywood, are used in rail cars.
The lack of uniformity of rail car wood would ad-
versely affect the value of charcoal produced. For these
reasons, carbonization of the wood as a step In the dis-
mantling process has been eliminated as a candidate
for railroad car scrapping. Charcoal manufacture as
a means of disposing of waste wood is discussed In a
later section of this report.
Wood Removal Integrated with Scrap Metal Separation
The methods so far discussed have been those for
which wood was removed prior to metal processing. The
following steps all involve cutting the cars into large
pieces (with wood still on the car), generally by mecha-
nized means. Metal piece size depends upon the scrap
metal market or upon further processing requirements.
As a general method, mechanized car cut-up brings
into consideration the use of large-scale automated
machine tools for accomplishment of initial size reduc-
tion.
Application of mechanized car cut-up will satisfy
most of our screening criteria, as noted below, but ex-
ceptions are significant.
• Mechanized car cut-up Is not consistent with nor-
mal scrapyard operations at most yards today.
• The method is within existing technology, but pre-
sents a problem of scale, since machinery to handle
an entire car body has not been built. While an-
ticipated capital investment costs are high, they are
not necessarily prohibitive. For each of the in-
dividual methods considered, a development pro-
gram would be necessary.
• Operating costs for the methods considered are ex-
pected to be reasonable.
• Mechanized car cut-up is not expected to impair
other scrapyard operations, and the equipment
could be applicable to other scrap processing. How-
ever, since it will constitute a major step In the
overall railroad car scrapping process, its effect
must be carefully considered from an engineering
systems viewpoint.
• The method is applicable to all types of wood-bear-
ing railroad cars.
The points noted above will be enlarged upon in the
following discussion.
Shear. This method contemplates the provision of
a shear large enough to accept an entire car body. It
also anticipates that such a shear would be fed from a
very large squeeze-box which, would crush the car sides
and roof prior to actual shearing. Specifications, Includ-
ing throat opening, power and stroke requirements,
are undetermined. The capital investment for a shear
of this size Is considered prohibitive, even for the largest
scrap companies. It is doubtful that such an investment
would earn an adequate return when used In several
scrapping processes, and no single yard scraps enough
wood-bearing railroad cars to warrant its exclusive use
for this process.
Circular Saws. Circular saws would necessarily be
very large, probably 48 to 72 inches in diameter. They
would be Installed on traveling mounts which would be
mounted on a large structural steel framework strad-
dling the track. The railroad car would be spotted under
the framework and the saws started. They would slice
through the car vertically and horizontally, with the
number and location of cuts dependent upon the de-
sired size of the cut sections.
Large saws of the type contemplated here are in wide-
spread service In metal cutting operations, and the
technology is well developed. The principal operational
problem would arise from the fact that the car is not
securely clamped In place.
Hack Saws. As is true with circular saws, automatic
power hack saws are highly developed and In wide-
-------
RAILROAD FREIGHT CAKS
23
spread use. Motor driven reciprocating saws use
straight, flat blades and are available from a variety
of manufacturers. Those commercially available, how-
ever, do not approach the size, especially in terms of
blade length, that would be required for sawing car
bodies. The blades and drive units would be installed on
traveling mounts which would be mounted on a large
structural steel framework straddling the track. The
blade would be perpendicular to the track centerllne
and would be capable of sawing both vertically and hor-
izontally. It would slice the car body Into sections, cut-
ting from the top down and from end to end.
Abrasive Wheels. In this application, abrasive cutoff
wheels would be used in very much the same manner as
circular saws. Large abrasive cutoff wheels are com-
monly used for cutting structural steel shapes and for
trimming iron and steel castings. Because of possible
blade-life problems with circular saws, it is probable
that abrasive cutoff wheels would serve better for cut-
ting up railroad car bodies.
The technology is well developed and they are In
widespread use. Capital investment costs and operating
costs are not anticipated to be unreasonable.
Automated Flame Cutting. A series of oxyacetylene
torches could be installed on traveling mounts, which
could be mounted on a structural steel framework strad-
dling the track. A car would be spotted beneath the
framework, and the torches would move into the car
sides and top. The torches would travel both vertically
and horizontally to cut the car into sections.
If the wood and metal were being processed simul-
taneously, the flame cutting heads would have to be
accompanied by some type of continuously operating,
fire-extinguishing heads. It now seems most likely that
water nozzles (operating at local line pressure) would
probably suffice. The water nozzles would be mounted so
that they would always be trailing the torches by a few
inches, to avoid extinguishing the cutting flame. The
fire-extinguishing agent would be sprayed through the
slot left by torch passage.
Overall, this method appears to be one of the less
difficult of the automated methods to put into use. It
also holds promise as a manually operated approach.
Separation by Explosives. Newly developed explosive
materials and techniques might be used to separate a
boxcar into smaller components. Materials of a design
resembling Prima-cord and shaped plastic charges
could be strategically placed in a manner which would
cut the entire car into pieces of the desired size. How-
ever, many of those pieces will still have wood attached
to them, which must be removed by another process
step. One estimate of the cost of the explosives is ap-
proximately $60 per car. Such costs might be cut con-
siderably if sufficient volume were developed to spread
production costs of the explosive selected. Qualified
demolition personnel are in short supply and command
premium wages. These considerations preclude the use
of explosives in dismantling of boxcars, though labor
time, shrapnel effects, noise, and smoke do not appear
to be significant problems.
Full Separation of Wood from Metal Fragments
(Not Including Incineration)
This part of the operation begins with the wood and
metal mixed together in the form of fragments, the size
of which is sufficiently small so that all of the wood is
free of the metal. Under this condition, the wood may
be separated with relative ease by taking advantage of
different densities or magnetic properties of the
fragments.
Total separation of the wood from the metal is not
possible with off-the-shelf equipment of the kind com-
monly used to process rail car scrap. It could be achieved
by using available size-reduction equipment to produce
smaller fragments. It could also be achieved by use of
equipment now under development, the effectiveness of
which has not yet been demonstrated.
Approaches involving the production of very small
metal fragments are considered undesirable, since these
approaches would increase processing costs consider-
ably. Also, they would produce metal fragments smaller
than those necessary for a steel furnace charge. It la
not certain that complete separation of fragments by
this approach, using the separation methods discussed
below, has been demonstrated.
Approaches involving the use of large-scale size-
reduction equipment now under development must wait
for a demonstration of suitable equipment (large, spe-
cialized hammermills), although there appears to be no
technical reason why such equipment would not be ef-
fective. Manufacturers indicate that the cost of such
equipment will be in the neighborhood of $800,000 for
equipment suitable for processing rail car scrap.
Partial Separation of Wood from Metal Fragments
(Not Including Incineration)
This operation begins with the wood and metal al-
ready mixed together in the form of fragments. Some
of the metal fragments have pieces of wood attached,
and vice versa.
The separation of wood from metal Is not complete as
long as some of the wood remains attached to the pieces
of metal. Industry sources believe that most of the wood
could be separated from metal fragments by magnetic
means, assuming that the mixed fragments have been
produced by shearing sections of rail cars with the wood
still attached to metal. This would leave some of the
wood to be removed by some nonmechanical means,
such as Incineration. No detailed quantitative estimates
have been obtained for other methods of separation
listed below. The predominately metal fragments can
be separated from the predominately wood fragments
by the various methods outlined below.
Flotation. This method of separating mixed wood
and iron takes advantage of the fact that most wood
floats on water. The mixed fragments could be dumped
into a flotation tank equipped with an agitator to insure
that unattached wood fragments were not trapped
under metal.
The floating wood fragments could be easily skimmed
off the surface and collected for disposal. An appro-
priately designed agitator could cause the steel to ac-
cumulate at the bottom of the tank, where it could be
picked up by a bucket-on-sprocket type conveyor, lifted
out of the water, and dumped onto a receptacle or
conveyor for further processing.
No cost or effectiveness estimates have been obtained
for separation of metal and wood by flotation, although
this process should be similar to magnetic separation
in both respects. Operationally, it would probably be
more difficult and complex because of maintenance
problems as well as the fact that the wet wood does
not burn easily.
The methods which involve processing the car with
wood and metal together all have one common feature:
the wood must be removed by another process step
while it is in small fragments. While this is technically
-------
24
DISMANTLING
feasible, it may not be economical since the net effect
is to add one entire operation to the total process. The
wood must be removed completely or, as stated earlier,
the scrap is degraded and consequently worth less
money. Manufacturers proposing complete systems for
the car dismantling have indicated that they would be
economical if 60 cars a day were processed. At this
time, none of the dismantling yards process this num-
ber. Therefore, consideration of processing cars with
the wood intact is not considered further in this report.
ULTIMATE DISPOSAL OF REMOVED WOOD
Assuming that all or most of the wood had been re-
moved from the metal parts of rail cars without burn-
ing or other forms of decomposition, the problem of
wood disposal remains. Three alternatives appear fea-
sible, but not equally attractive: they are landfill, con-
trolled incineration, and various types of reclamation
or utilization. The first two methods involve a cost;
the last results in some net income.
Landfill
The mere transportation and dumping of scrap wood
at some point remote from a salvage yard does not solve
the problem of wood disposal, but merely transfers it
to another location. Since decaying wood may pro-
duce undesirable gases, this approach should be con-
sidered only in conjunction with a landfill operation.
The removed wood could be placed in a landfill as a
means of ultimate disposal. The form of the wood is
not particularly important except for ease of handling.
The only costs involved are transportation and han-
dling, plus cost or rent of the land area where the fill
is located.
Wood is subject to decay when buried, and, therefore,
is not a good material for foundation fill. It is, there-
fore, considered to be similar to municipal solid wastes
(garbage, paper, scrap, etc.) as a fill material, impos-
ing a cost penalty rather than offering profit potential.
Controlled Incineration
Incinerators and emission control equipment are
available which can meet virtually all present-day air
pollution control requirements, when the material be-
ing burned is scrap wood. However, such equipment is
expensive, and its cost will subtract directly from the
profit of scrapping the rail car.
Wherever the wood is in large fragments (pieces of
boards up to 3 feet in length or pieces of plywood up to
2 by 3 feet, such as might result from a cross-cut
shearing operation), these pieces could be fed to the
incinerator manually, or with a small dozer or lift,
provided the overall rate of material flow was small
(one, two, or three cars processed per day, correspond-
ing to about 6 to 24 tons of wood fragments to be
burned per day). However, if the processing rate is to
be on the order of one car per hour, this would corre-
spond to about 50 tons of wood during an eight-hour
day. Even if the incinerator is operated on a three-shift
basis, this would require two tons of wood to be burned
per hour. At this or any greater rate, some form of
mechanical charging would be needed. In this case,
the large fragments of wood would have to be reduced
in size, as by a hammer-mill hogger. Of course, if the
wood and metal were hammermilled before separa-
tion, the hogging prior to feeding into the incinerator
would probably be unnecessary.
A well-designed incinerator, with mechanical baffling,
but without additional emission control devices, can
burn wood so completely that emissions are well with-
in limits of most current air pollution control require-
ments. Typical legal limits are smoke density not ex-
ceeding No. 1 on the Ringlemann chart, and particulate
emission not exceeding 0.6 pounds of particulate ma-
terial per 1,000 pounds of gaseous material. However,
standards and requirements for pollution control are
subject to change. The fact that a process meets to-
day's requirements in a particular jurisdiction is no
guarantee that it will meet the requirements three or
four years hence, a period of time well within the life
expectancy of recently installed Incineration equip-
ment. Also, incineration equipment considered for dis-
posing of removed wood should be adapted to auxiliary
emission control equipment such as wet scrubbers or
electrostatic precipitators, to permit upgrading the
overall emission-control capabilities in the event that
more stringent requirements are imposed.
Incineration of removed wood meets all of the screen-
ing criteria mentioned above. Controlled incineration
of wood and other materials is in fact a part of the nor-
mal operation of some salvage yards. Despite the rela-
tively high initial cost of incineration equipment, this
cost is comparable to other equipment items commonly
used in scrapping rail cars (for example, large shears
and squeeze-boxes). Because of the high heat content
of dry wood, the cost for other fuel to initiate and
maintain combustion would be minimal. Other operat-
ing costs for incinerators (power, maintenance) are
small, but the problem of ash disposal remains. Since
the total quantity of ash is minor compared with the
quantity of wood burned, the ash could be hauled by
truck to a landfill.
The capital cost of incinerators and other air pollu-
tion control equipment for processing removed wood at
various rates was tabulated. This cost is based on the
cost of basic incinerators and charging equipment as
estimated by equipment maunfacturers, plus estimated
installation costs ranging from 10 percent of incinera-
tor costs for large plants, to 20 percent for large units
(Table 2).
The indicated cost for incinerators covers equipment
adequate to limit visible emissions to the No. 1 Ringle-
mann level, and to keep particulate emissions below
0.6 pound per 1,000 pounds of gaseous material. If it
becomes necessary to reduce emission of these types
of material even further or to remove some of the other
products of combustion, additional treatment of the
flue gas would be necessary. The cost of additional
equipment based on the estimated initial cost was
figured for the indicated processing rates (Table 2).
A part of the cost of large incinerators may be re-
coverable by using the heat to generate steam, and
marketing the steam. The feasibility of this process
has not been investigated in any detail as a part of the
present study. Similar investigations of waste heat
recovery in other industries (for example, current
manufacture) indicates the procedure to be not eco-
nomically feasible in the United States at this time,
although it has proven economically advantageous in
Europe. If under closer investigation the production of
usable steam appears advantageous, this operation
would qualify under the criteria stated above, since it
is well within the state of present-day technology, and
results in a useful product.
-------
RAILROAD FREIGHT CARS
25
TABLE 2.—Capital costs for incineration
Capital investment
If amortized over 5 years, at 8 percent interest
of cars
processed*
per day
1
8
24
75
Incinerator equipment*
Kinglemann No. 1
density; particulates
<0.6 lb/ 1,000 Ib gases
t$120,000
1650,000
Jl,430,100
J3,300,000
Additional
emission
control
equipment*
t$9,000
$18,000
Jl 50,000
$450,000
Number cars
processed in
5 years
1,000
8,000
24,000
75,000
Cost/car for
incinerator
$150
100
75
55
Cost/car for
incinerator,
and additional
equipment
$160
105
85
62
* Figures are based on an average weight of 6 tons per car.
t Size based on 1 -shift incinerator operation.
{Size based on 3-shift incinerator operation.
Reclamation or Utilisation of Removed Wood
The use of wood removed from rail cars has been
considered for a number of applications which are dis-
cussed below.
Reusable Lumber
Manual or semimanual removal of wood from rail
cars may produce boards or plywood pieces of sufficient
size and structural strength to be useful as structural
members or sheeting. However, our survey of the scrap
industry has revealed no utilization of removed rail
car wood for these purposes, and contacts with dealers
in used lumber indicate that rail car scrap lumber
would be uncompetitive in both quality and price with
lumber from other sources. We conclude that the used
lumber market is generally not an attractive outlet for
rail car wood scrap.
Charcoal Manufacture
Early in this study, the possibility of making charcoal
from rail car wood scrap was investigated in some
detail, in connection with the partial incineration of
the wood by means of electric induction heating, while
still attached to an all-steel car. Although the process
proved too slow for routine processing of rail cars
(about four hours per car), the economic aspects of
this investigation indicated that about % to 1 ton. of
charcoal could be produced, at a market value of around
$50, from a car containing 3.5 tons of wood.
Subsequent inquiry into the charcoal industry reveals
that a charcoal plant, to be economically profitable,
must process 70 tons of wood per day, corresponding to
about 20 rail cars.
There is some question concerning the suitability of
woods used in rail cars as a source of charcoal. The
better charcoals are made from hardwoods, and vari-
ous other types of wood, including plywood, are used
in rail cars. The occurrence of contaminants and lack
of uniformity in scrap wood from freight cars would be
expected to adversely affect quality, and hence the
value, of the charcoal produced.
Although this means of using waste wood appears
technically and economically feasible upon cursory
examination, the questions raised above—the effects of
nonuniformity of wood, and the possible need for con-
solidation of scrapping operations in order to accumu-
late sufficient wood to making charcoal manufacture
worthwhile—indicate that investigation at greater
depth is necessary before this approach to wood utiliza-
tion could be recommended.
On the other hand, the general area of pollution
control might generate additional needs for charcoal.
One of the proposed methods of advanced waste treat-
ment (that is, tertiary treatment of municipal sewage)
involves charcoal filtration of the secondary-stage
effluent. If charcoal filtration becomes widely used for
this purpose, the market might be affected so as to
increase the economic attractiveness of charcoal manu-
facture as a means of waste wood disposal for the scrap
industry.
Pulp and Paper Products
Use of rail car scrap wood as a source of cellulose for
the manufacture of wood pulp or paper appears inad-
visable because of the variety of chemicals contained
in the wood scrap. These materials would be considered
contaminants if the wood is to be made into pulp, and
probably would have to be removed prior to the pulping
operation. Contaminants include paints, preservatives,
adhesives (in plywood), dirt, and spillage and other
wastes from cargoes. Green lumber is preferred for
paper pulp; hence the dried wood from freight cars
would require special handling or pretreatment.
The process of removing contaminants prior to pulp-
ing appears expensive, thereby making rail car scrap
wood uncompetitive with wood from other sources as a
raw material hi manufacture of pulp for paper. There
is a possibility that the contaminants could be recov-
ered by distillation or other chemical processes, and
would have commercial value as preservatives or for
other applications. Such recovery processes have not
been investigated carefully in this study, but appear
unattractive as an adjunct to the scrap business, be-
cause of the large amount of specialized equipment
needed to recover a small amount of material.
Chip Board
Rail car scrap wood appears to be a good source of
wood chips to be pressed with an adhesive binder into
sheets of utility-grade building material. It would have
to be demonstrated that the paint film or other chem-
icals present on the chips would not interfere with the
action of the binder. If there is no interference, these
chemicals might actually improve the quality of the
chip board product. This means of disposing of scrap
wood should definitely be investigated carefully.
There is a cost associated with converting board
-------
26
segments to chips. This militates against the use of
rail car scrap lumber in competition with other "by-
product" sources of chips. However, it is possible that
the water jet technique of wood cutting could be
adapted to a direct conversion of wood to splinters suit-
able for production of chip board.
Fuel or Kindling
In at least one area, rail car scrap wood is given away
to nonemployees of the scrapyard who are willing to
strip it from cars. It is used for firewood in bakeries,
and perhaps for other applications.
Although the removed wood is generally dry and well
seasoned and burns readily, it probably could not be
sold as fireplace fuel throughout the country because
of its generally unattractive appearance. However, if it
were chipped or otherwise fragmented and pressed into
the form of small logs (similar to "Prestologs" now on
the market), it could probably be marketed for home
fireplace use. Before this could be done, it should be
demonstrated that preservatives and other chemicals
are not present in sufficient quantities to produce ob-
jectionable odors when burned.
Viewed broadly, this means of disposing of scrap wood
does not reduce the air pollution problem, but shifts it
away from the rail car scrapping operation and into
the fireplace of the householder.
Conversion to Heat Energy
As in the case of kindling, the wood has a heat value
which, as a theoretical proposition, might be recovered
as an energy source for use in the yard. Scrapyards
have limited need for steam or steam power. The cost
of generator equipment for yard-consumed electricity
appears too high to justify use of the wood as a source
of energy for conversion to power.
Mulch
Scrap wood in the form of small chips could serve as
a mulch for agricultural or gardening purposes. It could
bind loose soil to prevent erosion, could help retain
moisture at the surface, and soften hard-pan soil. When
decayed, it would add organic matter to the soil. The
decay process would probably not be as rapid as in other
woods, because of the preservatives present in some
rail car scrap wood. Before this wood could be used for
mulch, it would be necessary to investigate whether the
paint, preservatives, and other chemicals might ad-
versely affect plantings in the mulched area. Dr. Jerome
Saeman, Director, Forest Products Laboratory, U.S.
Forest Service, Madison, Wisconsin, is optimistic about
the prospects of railroad car scrap wood as marketable
mulch when reduced to finger-size pieces. There is a
growing demand for it in truck farming, for instance,
where marked benefits from this type of mulch are
being reported. Dr. Saeman recommends this utilization
above any of the others considered.
Organic Carrier or Filler
Closely related to the use of wood shavings or
splinters as mulch Is their use as a filler or carrier In
certain agricultural or industrial materials. For exam-
ple, wood particles might be a fortunate choice as a
carrier or medium for spreading certain fertilizers.
Wood particles are being used as filler in production of
certain roofing and other construction materials.
Fodder
Certain types of farm animals can digest cellulose.
When properly prepared, wood cellulose might serve as
an item of diet of animals, or might be used to add
bulk to mixes of other foods. However, because of the
presence of chemical contaminants, rail car wood does
not appear to be an attractive source of cellulose for
this purpose.
Summary
In view of the current market for the above products
derived from wood, and considering current procedures
for scrapyard operation, three of the above applica-
tions of wood scrap appear to have promise, on both
technical and economic grounds, as means of utilizing
wood removed from rail cars. These are the use of wood
in the form of chips for chip board or fireplace logs, and
the use of wood particles as fillers or carriers, and wood
converted to mulch. Preparation of these end products
is generally outside the scope of salvage yard operations,
although either mulch or fire logs could probably be
produced with minimal equipment investment. This
warrants serious consideration as a means of disposing
of the wood while avoiding the cost of on-yard
incineration.
Another view of the wood salvage and conversion
problem deserves comment. Waste lumber emanates
from a number of demolition and disposal operations
throughout the economy. The presence of wood ma-
terials in structures being wrecked is a problem in solid
waste disposal and has reclamation potential that
dwarfs the problem of wood from freight cars. The
burning of such wood, because no market for its reuse
has been developed, is a broadly based source of air
pollution and an important issue in resource utilization.
Better means to recover and reuse waste wood has
Implications well beyond the scope of this study.
-------
MODEL FOR
EVALUATION
NY METHOD finally recommended as an al-
ternative to open burning in railroad car scrapping
operations must satisfy two basic requirements. First,
the method must hold any resultant environmental pol-
lution to acceptable levels, and secondly, the method
must be capable of implementation and continued use
without significant impairment to the economic viabil-
ity of the overall scrapping process.
These requirements stem from two sources—the pub-
lic health authorities and the railroad car dismantlers.
The divergence in basic goals of the two most interested
groups poses problems not easily reconciled. Open
burning, for example, while solving the fundamental
wood disposal problem for the dismantlers, creates a
fundamental air pollution problem from the public
health view. Conversely, any method which completely
solves the problem for the public health agencies—i.e.,
eliminates air pollution—may create very difficult and
costly problems for the dismantlers.
MEASURES OF COSTS AND OF BENEFITS
It becomes obvious, then, that some optimization ac-
ceptable to the parties at interest is needed. At the very
least, some approach which recognizes and equitably
weighs the considerations vitally affecting the parties
must be sought. A general approach which immediately
suggests itself is an analysis of possible methods based
on their dual effectiveness—both in minimizing air pol-
lution, and in recovering scrap at costs consistent with
the value of the product.
The measurement of air pollutants presents a num-
ber of conceptual problems. But relating measures of
pollution to scales which reflect the value of clean air
is still more complex, and is a problem for which no
standard approaches are yet available. Consequently,
any system of values addressed to effectiveness in pollu-
tion control must have highly arbitrary qualities. Since
only an ordered expression of the relative merits or rela-
tive contributions to pollution control is necessary for
formulation of cost-benefit quotients, some of the basic
problems of pollution measurement could be avoided.
Systems of subjectively assigned index values were
tested but found to raise distracting issues of interpre-
tation.
To overcome these difficulties, a forced decision
model, adapted from techniques used in value engineer-
Ing,10' u was devised. This approach was applied to
choices among eleven specified candidate methods
selected as those most promising. Each candidate
method was evaluated with and without potential pollu-
tion. Eight specific criteria were identified and weighted
for the purpose of constructing and exercising the
model. The candidate methods evaluated by the model
were:
1. GRIT BLASTING
2. WATER JETS, MANUALLY OPERATED
3. ENCLOSED OVEN INCINERATOR
4. SEMIENCLOSED INCINERATOR WITH HOOD OR STACK
5. SHEARS AND "SQUEEZE-BOX"
6. CIRCULAR SAW, MOUNTED
7. HACKSAW, MOUNTED
8. ABRASIVE WHEELS, MOUNTED
9. WATER JETS, MOUNTED
10. TORCH AND EXTINGUISHER, MOUNTED
11. TORCH AND EXTINGUISHER, MANUALLY OPERATED.
Each of these candidate methods was hypothesized in
specific configurations; except for numbers 3 and 4—the
oven incinerator and the hooded incinerator—two con-
figurations were assumed for each. One configuration
assumed a post-separation incineration of waste wood
IOGELPI, M. J. Forcing a good decision. Westing-
house Engineer, 27(1) : 24-25, Jan. 1967.
u FASAL, J. Mathematical tool for value engineer-
Ing—forced decisions for value. Product Engineering, 38(8):
84-86, Apr. 1965.
27
-------
28
DISMANTLING
while the other operated on the premise that a cost free
means of disposing of the separated wood without burn-
ing would be found. In this manner, complete processes
involving ultimate wood incineration were systematic-
ally compared with one another and processes free of
any burning were separately evaluated. This replicative
step obviated the need for detailed pollution effective-
ness ratings.
The eight criteria were expressed as total process
properties—three relating to process cost character-
istics and five reflecting process effectiveness. These
were:
• COMPATIBILITY—Consonance with normal scrap-
yard operations, future mechanization, and private
financing practice (A)
• CURRENT TECHNOLOGICAL ADEQUACY (B)
• MANAGEABLE COST, BECKONED ACCORDING TO:
Gross Capital Investment Requirements for Plant
and Equipment (C)
Anticipated Operating Cost Impacts (E)
Total Cost per Unit Product (H)
• OPERATING CONVENIENCE—Ease of installation and
maintenance; lack of impairment of other scrap-
yard processes (P)
• MULTIPLE USE CAPABILITY—Applicability to scrap
sources other than freight cars and to diverse
scrapyard operations and industrial purposes (D)
• CAR VARIETY—Degree of applicability to different
types of railroad rolling stock vs. the number of
freight cars which may require separate or special
handling (G).
The eight letters in parentheses—A through H—
correspond to those used in Tables 3 through 7 and
Figure 2 to designate these qualities in the evaluation.
An additional system quality—the technical "upgrad-
ability" of the key step—was also considered but found
to be extremely difficult to rate or grade on a consistent
and analytically defensible basis. Prudence dictated the
elimination of upgradability from this part of the total
analysis.
APPLICATION OF FORCE DECISION
Having selected the properties against which each of
the postulated options are to be judged, a method of
scoring must be adopted. In the forced decision tech-
nique employed, the elements of choice are broken
down into all possible combinations of pairs. Factual,
analytical, and judgemental resources are then brought
to bear to arrive at preferences between the paired
elements.
The evaluation was performed in two basic steps:
• Determination of the relative importance of each
criterion (property)
• Evaluation of candidate methods (solutions) in the
context of each property.
The first step provided weighting factors for each
of the eight criteria, the total of weights being 1. Each
weight was appropriately applied to the scores received
by candidate methods rated against one another for
each criterion. The decision model essentially forms a
two-dimensional distribution matrix where the argu-
ments are the eight criteria and eleven candidate
methods.
TABLE 3.—XTse of forced decisions to derive criteria -weighting factors*
Property Code
Compal
Techno]
Capital
Multipl
Operatii
Operati
Car van
Cost/un
Code
C
D
E
F
G
H
T
ibility . A
ogical adequacy 3
expenditure _ _ C
3 use capability D
Qg cost - E
ng convenience _ . F
ety . ... ... G
it product H
B C D E F G H
0 0 1 0 1 0.5 0
1
1
0
1
0
.5
1
C D E F G H
0.5 1 0.5 1 10
.5
0
.5
0
0
1
D E F G H
1 0.5 1 1 1
0
.5
0
0
0
E F G H
0000
1
1
1
F G H
1 1 0.5
0
0
.5
G H
1 0
0
1
H
0
1
otals - -
Total
Sum Score
(wets.)
2.5 0.089
5 .179
6 .214
0 .001
5.5 .196
2 .071
1.5 .054
5.5 .196
28.0 1.000
*The basic technique used has been described by: Dean, B. V., and M. J. Nishry. Scoring and profita-
bility models for evaluating and selecting engineering products. Journal of the Operations Research Society
of America, 13(4): 550-569, Jul.-Aug. 1965.
-------
RAILROAD FREIGHT CARS
29
In scoring, all properties or solutions are rated against
one another by pairs, and a forced decision must be
made between the elements of each pair. If a set of
alternatives consists of p elements, then the number of
decisions to be made is
. The item selected
is given a score of 1, the other receiving 0. In the
present analysis a slight modification of this scoring
system was adopted whereby a point was evenly divided
between the two elements of a pair when no defensible
selection could be made. This scoring system may be
used to derive criteria weighting factors (Table 3).
This technique was used to score candidate methods
against each other with regard to each criterion, and
the unweighted scores were tabulated (Tables 4 and
5) . The product of the aggregate raw scores when mul-
tiplied by the weights (Table 3) may be summed to
derive a total score for each candidate method. The
weighted products, on a with-incineration basis, are
shown In Table 6. Table 7 gives the total weighted
scores under both hypotheses—i.e., with wood incinera-
tion for each process and with wood disposal by other
means. The total score for each candidate method is
the sum of weighted scores for all eight criteria (Table
7).
The results of exercise of the model were depicted
graphically (Figure 2). The scores and relative stand-
ings of all eleven candidate methods indicate that the
hooded semienclosed incinerator holds top rank with
water jets second under the first hypothesis. Assuming
no type of incineration were allowed, the water jet
ranks as most promising followed by a manual torch
and fire extinguisher technique.
TABLE 4.—Partial scores (unweighted) by property evaluated for candidate methods with wood incineration
Method
Aggregate unweighted scores by designated property
A*
B
E
G
H
1. Grit blasting 0.055 0.073 0.127 0.109 0.027 0.000 0.055 0.009
2. Water jet, manual .163 .091 .146 .163 .118 .163 .055 .173
3. Oven incineration .109 .163 .163 .145 .145 .145 .073 .082
4. Hood incineration .145 .091 .182 .145 .173 .163 .027 .154
5. Shear and squeeze-box.- ... _. .127 .073 0.000 .182 .173 .127 .163 .064
6. Circular saw . __ .091 .145 .036 .018 .073 .055 .118 .091
7. Hack saw . . 0.000 .018 .082 .073 .073 .018 .154 .073
8. Abrasive wheel _ _ .055 .091 .036 .055 .073 .036 .100 .055
9. Water jet, mounted .018 .018 .082 .073 .118 .127 .009 .118
10. Torch/extinguisher, mounted .073 .073 .036 .018 .027 .073 .082 .036
11. Torch/extinguisher, manual .163 .163 .109 .055 0.000 .091 .163 .145
*Legend for criteria codes: A, compatibility; B, technological adequacy; C, capital expenditure; D, multiple
use capability; E, operating costs; F, operating convenience; G, car variety: H, cost/unit product.
TABLE 5.—Partial scores (unweighted) by property evaluated for candidate methods with no wood incineration
Method
Aggregate unweighted scores by designated property
E
G
H
1. Grit blasting
2. Water jet, manual . _.
5. Shear and squeeze-box
6. Circular saw..
7. Hacksaw _ _ .
8. Abrasive wheel . . ...
9. Water jet, mounted
10. Torch/extinguisher, mounted
11. Torch/extinguisher, manual
0.084
.194
.194
.139
0.000
.084
.028
.084
.194
0 084
.112
.084
.194
.028
.139
.028
112
222
0.194
.222
0.000
.056
.125
.056
.056
.125
.167
0 139
.194
.222
.028
.112
.084
.111
028
084
0.041
.180
.222
.112
.112
.112
.180
041
0 000
0.000
.194
.194
.084
.028
.056
.194
112
139
0.042
.042
.194
.125
.180
.097
.014
.112
.194
0.014
.208
.097
.125
.097
.069
.167
.042
.181
*Legend for criteria codes: see Table 4.
-------
30 DISMANTXXtfO
TABLE 6.—Weighted scores by property evaluated and totalled for candidate methods with wood incineration
1. Grit blasting
2. Water jet .. . _
3. Oven incinerator - _
4. Hood incinerator
5. Shear & squeeze-box..
6. Circular saw
7. Hack saw.
8. Abrassive wheel
9. Water jet mounted
10. Torch/ext., mounted. .
11. Torch/ext., manual
Weights applied (from
Table 3)_.
A*
0.0049
.0145
.0097
.0129
.0113
.0081
0.0000
.0049
.0016
.0065
.0145
.089
B
0.0131
.0163
.0292
.0163
.0131
.0260
.0032
.0163
.0032
.0131
.0292
.179
Weighted i
C
0.0272
.0312
.0349
.0389
0.0000
.0077
.0175
.0077
.0175
.0077
.0233
.214
scores by <
D
0.0001
.0002
.0001
.0001
.0002
0.0000
.0001
.0001
.0001
0.0000
.0001
.001
designated
E
0.0053
.0231
.0284
.0339
.0339
.0143
.0143
.0143
.0231
.0053
0.0000
.196
property
F
0.0000
.0116
.0103
.0116
.0090
.0039
.0013
.0026
.0090
.0052
.0065
.071
a
0.0030
.0030
.0039
.0015
.O088
.0064
.0083
.0054
.0005
.0044
.0088
.054
H
0.0018
.0339
.0161
.0302
.0125
.0178
.0143
.0108
.0231
.0071
.0284
.196
Total
0.0554
.1338
.1326
.1454
.0888
.0842
.O590
.O621
.0781
.0493
.1108
1.000
^Legend for criteria codes: A, compatibility; B, technological adequacy; C, capital expenditure;
multiple use capability; E, operating costs; F, operating convenience; G, car variety; H, cost/unit product.
TABLE 7.—Total scores (weighted) and rank order for candidate methods with and without incineration
Method
1. Grit blasting
2. Water jet, manual
3. Oven incinerator
4. Hood incinerator _ _ _ .
5. Shear and squeeze-box _ -
6. Circular saw _ _ -
7. Hack saw . _
8. Abrasive wheel
9. Water jet, mounted
10. Tnrr.'Vi/fi'^'fciTiguipVifti', 7YmiiTTh«rJ
11. Torch/extinguisher, manual
With incineration
Total Bank
score
0.0554
.1338
.1326
.1454
.0888
... .0842
.0590
.0621
.0781
. . . .0493
.1108
10
2
3
1
5
6
9
8
7
11
4
Other wood disposal
Total Rank
score
0.0772
.1771
N.A.*
N.A.
.1193
.1183
.0845
.0891
.1021
.0846
.1487
9
1
N.A.
N.A.
3
4
8
6
5
7
2
*N.A., not applicable.
SUMMARY AND COMMENT
This exercise employs a decision model for select-
Ing the best of a selection of likely alternative methods
for railroad car dismantling. The elements or system
properties which were selected as decision criteria are
those which might have been quantified in a con-
ventional cost-effectiveness analysis. An illustration
of the type of quantification relied on shows esti-
mates collected from scrapyard operators and equip-
ment manufacturers of gross investment requirements
for specific scrap processing alternatives (Table 8). In
the absence of definitive air pollution standards, the
model was exercised under two assumptions: first, that
controlled incineration would be satisfactory; and sec-
ondly, that no incineration would be acceptable.
The two methods which scored highest, the semi-
enclosed incinerator and the manually operated water
jet, were strongly suggested as leading alternatives by
the field and technical investigations reported in the
preceding chapters and have, in fact, already under-
gone preliminary testing in scrapyards. These analyt-
ical results tend to confirm judgments independently
derived, and the preliminary scrapyard tests also add
credence to the analysis here presented.
The water jet method in particular appears to hold
promise owing to potential for wide applicability to the
cutting, penetration, fragmentation, and disposal of
solid material. Pumps are now commercially available
that deliver 70,000 psi with very low water usage, and
mtensifiers with specially designed nozzles have raised
the pressures to above 1,000,000 psi. Water jets at these
pressures have been used to cut sizable thicknesses of
wood, concrete, and even sheet steel. They hold great
promise as solid waste disposal mechanisms that suc-
ceed also in eliminating air pollution.
-------
RAILROAD FREIGHT CARS
.1500-1
31
.1000 -
ui
K.
O
O
V)
UI
3
^
2
O
.0500-
Q
E F
C,D
Q
C
R
+
H
G
F
C D
Q
F
£
C,D
B
Q
EiF
B,C,D
„ ''•
H
G
E
0,0
g
G
F
E
C.D
B
A
G
F
h
A
H
G
F
E
C,D
B
A
G
F
C,D
B
""' '
G
F
C D E
B
Grit blasting.
Water jet, manual.
Oven Incinerator.
Hood Incinerator.
4567
CANDIDATE METHODS
5. Shear and squeeze-box.
6. Circular saw.
1, Hacksaw.
8. Abrasive wheel.
10
11
9. Water jet, mounted.
10. Torch and extinguisher, mounted.
11. Torch and extinguisher, manual.
FIGURE 2. Scores and relative standing of candidate methods with wood incinera-
tion. See page 28 for the eight criteria that correspond to the eight letters, A through H,
appearing in the figure.
-------
32 DISMANTLING
TABLE 8.—Estimates of equipment investment requirements for selected scrap processing- methods
Processing method designated by key
step descriptors *
Estimated total
original cost of
listed equipment
(including'
installation)
Memoranda: Cost estimates included in total
for applicable types of equipment as
indicated—
Key process=code a
Initial size reduction (shear)=code b
Second size reduction (hammermill,
etc.)=code c
Incinerator (wood only)=code d
Hammermill hog (wood chipper)=code e
Wood/metal separator: magnetic=code f
incinerator = code g
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Grit blasting (semimanual) :
Alternate No. 1 t -
Alternate No. 2 ..
High-pressure water jet (semimanual) :
Alternate No. 1 — . ...
Alternate No. 2 ._ .
Whole-car incinerator, oven type:
Alternate No. 1 (one car/8 hr)
Alternate No. 2 (one car/1 hr)
Whole-car incineration, hood type:
Alternate No. 1 t (one at a time)
Alternate No. 2 (six simultaneously).
Shear and squeeze-box (mechanized, 25
cars/day) :
Alternate No. I..
Alternate No. 2. ._. . .
Circular saw (mechanized) :
Alternate No. I..
Alternate No. 2. . ....
Hack saw (mechanized) :
Alternate No. 1.. .
Alternate No. 2 — — _ — .
Abrasive cutoff wheels (mechanized):
AlternateNo.lt-- - -
Alternate No. 2.. — — .
Mounted high-pressure jets:
Alternate No. 1 . ._ .. .
Alternate No. 2.
Automatic torch/extinguisher:
Alternate No. 1 ...
Alternate No. 2 ..
Manual torch/extinguisher:
Alternate No. 1 . _. ..
Alternate No. 2 _.-
$1,225,000
625,000
1,165,000
665,000
740,000
940,000
610,000
1,350,000
3,405,000
2,025,000
2,
1,
2,
1,
2,
1,
2,
1,
2,
1,
1,
1,
075,
475,
025,
425,
075,
475,
025,
475,
075,
425,
130,
730,
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
a,
a,
a,
a,
a
a
a
a
a,
a,
a,
a,
a>
a,
a,
a,
a,
a,
a,
a>
a,
a,
b, and d
b, and d
b, and d
b, and e
and b
and b
and b
and b
c, d, f, and g
c, e, f, and e
b,
b,
b,
b,
b,
b,
b,
b,
b,
b,
b,
b,
c, d,
c, e,
c, d,
c, e,
c, d,
c, e,
c, d,
c,e, t
c, d,
c, e,
c, e,
c,d,
f,
f,
f,
f,
f,
f,
f,
and
and
and
and
and
and
and
', and g
f,
f,
and
and
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
and f
and e
*Costs based on processing rate of 8 cars per day, except as otherwise noted in study.
fExcept as otherwise noted, Alternate No. 1 anticipates ultimate controlled incineration of separated
wood while Alternate No. 2 contemplates disposal of wood without any type of burning processes.
U.S. 60VERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1969
------- |