'^vSmartWay
Transport Partnership
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
2018 SmartWay Shipper
Partner Tool:
Technical Documentation
U. S. Version 2.0.17 (Data Year 2017)
ggEES
www.epa.gov/smartway
SmartWayy
.SmartWay^
vSmarlWuyj
vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
-------
"^^SmartWay
Transport Partnership
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
2018 SmartWay Shipper
Partner Tool:
Tecnical Documentation
U. S. Version 2.0.17 (Data Year 2017)
Transportation and Climate Division
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
United States
Environmental Protection
^1 Agency
Office ofTransportation and Air Quality
EPA-420-B-18-046
October 2018
-------
1.0 Overview
The SmartWay Shipper Tool is intended to help shippers estimate and assess their
carbon, PM, and NOx emissions associated with goods movement in the U.S. freight
trucking, rail, air and barge sectors1. Shippers can track their freight-related emissions
performance from year-to-year using the Tool and assess a range of strategies to
improve the emissions performance of their freight operations, including selection of
low-emissions carriers and implementation of operational strategies such as (but not
limited to) packaging improvements, load optimization and logistical improvements.
The SmartWay truck, barge, air, logistics and multimodal carrier emissions performance
data that EPA has included in the Tool, along with industry average Class I rail CO2
data, will allow shippers to generate accurate emissions inventories. The data will also
help shippers optimize their emissions performance by allowing them to better estimate
the emissions impact of individual carriers, modal shifts, and operational strategies.
2.0 Tool Inputs and Calculations
After shippers enter their company and contact information, they provide basic
information about each company they operate, including the name and NAICS code for
each of these companies. For these individual companies to show up on the SmartWay
Partner list on the EPA website, shippers should submit separate Shipper Tools, one for
each company.
For each company, shippers need to indicate their participation level. If they have
annual mileage-related activity data by carrier (miles or ton-miles), they should select
Way 3 or Way 4, and proceed to input activity data for each carrier. Otherwise, they
must select the Way 2 option, which only requires them to report the portion of goods
they move with SmartWay carrier partners based on money spent, weight shipped,
packages shipped, or another custom metric.
If shippers select the Way 2 option, they will not be eligible for a SmartWay
Excellence Award, nor will they be able to calculate an emissions inventory or
develop emissions performance metrics (e.g. g/mile or g/ton-mile) for their freight
operations.2 All shippers - regardless of participation level - will be able to see the
SmartWay Category-level emissions performance data for their truck, logistics and
multimodal carriers as well as available industry average rail emissions factors.
Emissions performance data for barge and air carriers are reported on a carrier-specific
basis.
1 Future versions of the tool will help Shippers evaluate the emissions performance associated with ocean going
vessels.
2 Shipper partners are encouraged to select the Way 3 or 4 Way 3 or 4 reporting option for all their companies
whenever possible. When a shipper has multiple companies the participation level chosen for the % SmartWay
Value calculation must be the same for all companies in order for the Tool to calculate a Partner level % SmartWay
Value (Way 2).
1
-------
After identifying and selecting all of their SmartWay and non-SmartWay carriers, Way 4
shippers can then identify each carrier that they use for each company and the service
that the carrier provides (e.g., Inbound or Outbound hauls, International and/or
Domestic service, etc.). These optional parameters serve as "tags" which allows
shippers to filter their emission data as desired using the screen tools discussed below.
Emission Inventory and Performance Metric Calculations
If shippers choose the Way 3 or 4 option, the Tool will calculate their total mass
emissions (i.e., an emissions inventory) based on the mileage-related activity data
entered for each carrier, as well as various emission performance metrics (e.g.,
grams/mile and grams/ton-mile - see below).
Carrier-specific emissions are first calculated either on a ton-mile basis (as ton miles x
grams per ton-mile), or on a miles basis (miles x grams per mile), depending on the
category as shown in Table 1,3 Any modes/categories not listed have a limited data
availability and their emissions are calculated using ton-miles.
Table 1. Emissions Calculation Basis by SmartWay Category
SmartWav Cateqorv
Activity Basis
Dtm
Dm
Refrigerated
Ton-miles
1
0
Mixed
Ton-miles
1
0
TL/Dry Van
Ton-miles
1
0
Flatbed
Miles
0
1
Moving
Miles
0
1
Dray
Miles
0
1
Non-SW Truck General
Ton-Miles
1
0
Specialized
Miles
0
1
Expedited
Miles
0
1
Auto
Miles
0
1
Tanker
Miles
0
1
Heavy/Bulk
Miles
0
1
The Shipper partner's mass emissions are calculated by summing the individual carrier
emissions. Then, fleet average emission factors are calculated by dividing mass
emissions by total ton-miles and total miles to obtain grams per ton-mile and grams per
mile, respectively. The fleet average payload is calculated by dividing total ton-miles by
total miles.
Overall, carrier emissions are calculated using the following equations, where Dtm and
Dm are dummy variables with values of either 0 or 1, as shown in Table 1 above.
3 Note that the Tool doesn't need shippers to enter a payload or ton-mile estimate for SmartWay Categories whose
emissions are based on miles, as the payload estimate will not affect the overall emissions footprint. However, the
calculated emission factors and average payload estimate are affected by the assigned payload.
2
-------
Ec = Dtm * TonMlles * gtm + Dm * Miles * gm
Total emissions:
Etot= ' Ec
C
Emission factors and average payload (APL):
Etot
gtm
gm
Y,cTonMllesc
_ Etot
YjcMileSf.
YjcTonMileSf.
APL =
£c Miles
The emissions inventory for each carrier/mode combination displayed on the
Emissions Summary, Carrier Performance and SmartWay Category Details
screens is calculated using the equations show above. To calculate composite
emissions and associated performance metrics on the Carrier Performance screens
(i.e., overall g/mile and g/ton-mile performance), the Tool weights simply sums the
emissions, miles and ton-miles for the associated group ((e.g. all Inbound carriers) and
divides the total emissions by total miles and ton-miles as appropriate.
Ton-Mile Calculation
Correctly calculating Ton-Miles is critically important for the accurate determination of
your carbon footprint. You can calculate your company's ton-miles as follows.
Determine the ton-miles hauled per year attributable to each carrier. A ton-mile is one
ton moving one mile. DO NOT ESTIMATE TON-MILES BY SIMPLY MULTIPLYING
TOTAL MILES BY TOTAL TONS - this calculation effectively assumes your entire
tonnage is transported on EACH AND EVERY shipment, and will clearly overstate your
ton-miles.
Many companies track their ton-miles and can report them directly without further
calculation. For example, shipper company systems are often set up to associate a
payload with the mileage traveled on each trip by carrier, and are then summed at the
end of the year. If such information is not available, there are two ways to calculate ton-
miles:
1) Companies can determine their average payload per carrier, multiply the average
payload by the total miles per carrier, and sum the results for all carriers for the
3
-------
reporting year; or
2) Set ton-miles per carrier = (total miles per carrier x total tons per carrier)
total # of trips per carrier
NOTE: In both ton-mile calculations, empty miles are not factored in while the fuel used
to drive those empty miles is factored in.
To check your estimate, divide ton-miles by miles. The result is your fleet-average
payload. If this number is not reasonable, (e.g., typically between 15 and 25 tons for
Class 8b trucks), please check your data.
Carrier Emissions Performance Data
The current SmartWay program provides CO2, NOx and PM gram per mile, and gram
per ton-mile emission factors for truck, rail, multimodal, logistics, air and barge freight
transport providers. These data are provided in the SmartWayCarrierData2017ST.xls
file, which is downloaded to the user's computer using the button on the Tool's Home
screen.
It is envisioned that SmartWay will incorporate emission factors ocean-going vessel
transport providers in the future.
Truck Carrier Performance
Truck carrier performance data utilized by the current Shipper Tool is based on 2018
Truck Partner Tool submittals for activity in 2017. Performance data includes g/mile and
g/ton-mile for each truck carrier. Note that g/mile and g/ton-mile values represent
midpoints for the appropriate SmartWay Category, rather than exact performance levels
for a given carrier. Truck SmartWay Categories include:
The following provides an overview of the process used to estimate the carrier-specific
performance ranges.
Truck Performance Categories
In the 2018 SmartWay Truck Tool, data is collected at the individual company fleet
level. Fleets are characterized by a) business type: for-hire or private, b) operational
TL Dry Van
LTL Dry Van
Refrigerated
Flatbed
Tanker
Dray
Package
Auto Carrier
Expedited
Heavy/Bulk
Moving
Specialized
Mixed
4
-------
type: truckload/expedited, less than truckload, dray, expedited, or package delivery, and
c) equipment type: dry van, refrigerated van, flatbed, tanker, chassis (container),
heavy/bulk, auto carrier, moving, or specialized (e.g., hopper, livestock, others.)
The possible categories are shown below.
For-Hire
Dry Van
Reefer
Flatbed
Tanker
Chassis
Heavy/Bulk
Auto
Carrier
Moving
Specialized
TL
LTL
Dray
Expedited
Package
Private
Dry Van
Reefer
Flatbed
Tanker
Chassis
Heavy/Bulk
Auto
Carrier
Moving
Specialized
TL
LTL
Dray
Expedited
Package
Note that while Specialized fleets have disparate operations/equipment types and thus
do not compare well, they are also unlikely to compete with one another, so it was
deemed acceptable to aggregate these disparate fleets into one category.
For-hire and private fleets are combined in the SmartWay Categories. There are
relatively few private fleets compared to for-hire fleets. Because owners of private fleets
generally hire their own fleets exclusively, it was determined that grouping for-hire and
private fleets together would not be detrimental to for-hire fleets, and the simplicity of
one for-hire and private category outweighed the benefits of listing fleets separately.
Grouping for-hire and private separately would have doubled the number of SmartWay
Categories. Therefore, fleets can thus be categorized as shown below.
For-Hire and Private
Dry Van
Reefer
Flatbed
Tanker
Chassis
Heavy/Bulk
Auto
Carrier
Moving
Specialized
TL
LTL
Dray
Expedited
Package
5
-------
To be categorized in a particular category, a fleet must have at least 75% of its mileage
in a single category, otherwise it is classified as a "Mixed" fleet. Fleets may be mixed via
their operational or equipment type. Fleets are generally segregated by their operational
type, but some mixing does occur via equipment type, especially with smaller carriers
that do not differentiate their fleet. Fleets that do not have 75% of their operations in a
specific SmartWay Category are placed in the Mixed category.
Individual fleets were then placed into SmartWay Categories. The following shows the
relative number of fleets for the various category intersections, with darker shadings
indicating more fleets.
Dry Van
Reefer
Flatbed
Tanker
Chassis
Heavy/Bulk
Auto
Carrier
Moving
Specialized
Mixed
LTL
-
-
-
-
Dray
-
-
-
-
-
Expedited
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Package
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Mixed
-
-
-
-
-
SmartWay then considered combining categories with similar characteristics for
simplification purposes. One prerequisite was that there needed to be a minimum
number of fleets in each category. SmartWay determined that a category needed a
minimum of 25 fleets to be created. It was also determined that dry van and chassis (i.e.
intermodal container) groups functioned primarily as dry van transport, so these
categories were combined. While most refrigerated carriers were truckload, a few less
than truckload refrigerated fleets exist, so these categories were combined. Although no
expedited or package refrigerated fleets were identified, these categories were also
combined into one overall refrigerated category so that no operation and equipment
type intersections would be left undefined. A similar situation was identified with flatbed,
tanker, heavy/bulk, auto carrier, moving, and specialized fleets. All dray fleets were
collapsed into one category. Any fleet that had mixed operation and/or mixed equipment
was placed into a single mixed category. Finally, logistics and multimodal fleets were
also included and retained as unique categories.
The final performance categories for 2017 are illustrated below. The solid colors
indicate how operation and equipment type assignments vary by performance category.
For example, if 75% or more of a fleet's mileage is associated with reefer trucks, the
fleet is assigned to the Reefer category regardless of the operation percentage across
truckload, expedited, LTL, and package categories. However, the Reefer category
assignment is overridden if the operation category is greater than or equal to 75% dray,
logistics, or multimodal. Similar assignment rules apply to flatbed, tanker, heavy/bulk,
auto carrier, moving, and specialized equipment types. Only the Dry Van/Chassis
equipment category is subdivided by the truckload, expedited, LTL, and package
operation categories, meaning that the 75% threshold must be met for both equipment
6
-------
and operation type in these cases. All other equipment/operation type percentage
distributions are assigned to the Mixed category.
Figure 1. SmartWay Carrier Categories and Data Specificity - 2017 Calendar Year
TRUCK
Dry Van
Heavy
Auto
Specialized
& Chassis
Reefer
Flatbed
Tanker
& Bulk
Carrier
Moving
& Utility
Mixed
Dray
Dray
5 Performance Levels
Truckload
Truckload DryVan
5 Performance Levels
Reefer
Flatbed
Tanker
Heavy
Auto
Moving
Specialized
Mixed
Expedited
Expedited
& Bulk
Carrier
& Utility
5 Performance Levels
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
LTL
LTL
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
5 Performance Levels
Levels
Levels
Levels
Levels
Levels
Levels
Levels
Levels
Package
Package Delivery
5 Performance Levels
Less than 75%
Mixed
Mixed
in any category
Rail
Single Modal Average for All Rail
(No company differentiation allowed per Association of American Railroads)
Company Specific Data
Barge
Air
Company Specific Data
Logistics
5 Performance Levels
Multimodal
Emission Factor Data Only
(No 5 Performance Level Ranking)
Marine
To Be Determined
It is possible that SmartWay will expand these categories in the future based on in-use
experience or as a result of further data analysis, and/or requests from industry.
Fleets within a SmartWay Category have been ranked from lowest emission factor
(best) to highest emission factor (worst) for each of the following metrics: CO2 g/mile,
CO2 g/ton-mile, NOx g/mile, NOx g/ton-mile, PM10 g/mile and PM10 g/ton-mile. When
SmartWay Categories are first established, fleets within a category are separated into 5
ranges such that an equal number of fleets were in each range. Each range thus
represents a group of emission factors. These ranges, and associated ranking
"cutpoints" (transition points from one rank to the next) were then modified so that each
range had an equal difference between upper and lower bounds, and the new cutpoints
remained as close to the originals as possible. The new range cutpoints are displayed
as numbers with significant digits appropriate to emission factors in that range. The
midpoint of the range is used as the emission factor for all fleets in that range.
7
-------
It would be simpler and more straightforward to use fleet-specific emission factors,
however the trucking industry expressed concern that revealing exact data could be
used to back-calculate mile per gallon numbers. The above described methodology
prevents a determination of an exact mpg figure, while at the same time attributing an
emission factor much more precisely than a modal default number. Given the large
number of trucking fleets, and thus opportunity for fleets to be very close to each other
in performance, SmartWay believes it is acceptable and appropriate to break truck
fleets into 5 performance ranges for each SmartWay Category.
The table below illustrates the ranges in the For Hire/Private Truckload/Expedited Dry
Van SmartWay Category, using 2013 Truck Partner data as an example.
Table 2. Emission Factor Ranges for One Performance Category (2013 Data)
For-Hire/Private Truckload/ Dry Van CO2 g/mile
Group
ID
Fleets
Per Bin
Grams Per
Mile Min
Grams Per
Mile Max
Grams Per
Mile Avg
Grams Per Mile
Midpoint
Grams Per
Mile Std Dev
1
186
944
1,549
1,452
1,500
118
2
227
1,551
1,650
1,601
1,600
28
3
194
1,651
1,749
1,692
1,700
29
4
140
1,751
1,848
1,798
1,800
29
5
115
1,851
5,090
2,010
1,900
359
Similar tables have been developed for all performance SmartWay Categories. The
midpoint of each performance range is the data that a shipper downloads into their
SmartWay Shipper Tool to represent the emission performance of a specific fleet that is
in the associated range. Once the categories and ranges have been established, the
fleets of any new companies joining SmartWay will fall into one of the predefined
categories/ranges. SmartWay expects to update the category/range structure
periodically.
Performance estimates for non-SmartWay truck carriers were calculated based on the
lowest performing truck partners. Since no data exists to define non-SmartWay fleets,
SmartWay believes the prudent approach is to assign conservative emission factors to
non-SmartWay companies. Also, this policy makes it likely that any company joining
SmartWay will see better emission factors displayed than the non-SmartWay default
emission factors.
The non-SmartWay performance metrics were calculated by taking a standard
performance range delta (max - min) for each range within each SmartWay Category,
and using the delta to calculate a non-SmartWay carrier midpoint for each category.
This midpoint was the midpoint for Range 5 plus the standard range delta. For example,
if the Range 5 midpoint was 10.5 and the category's standard delta was 1, then the non-
SmartWay midpoint was calculated to be 11.5. Once the non-SmartWay midpoints for
each pollutant were calculated for all SmartWay Categories, the non-SmartWay
8
-------
performance metric was calculated by using the average value of these mid-points,
weighted by the number of fleets in each category. This approach does not require the
shipper to identify the appropriate SmartWay Category for their non-SmartWay
carrier(s), which they may not know, while still ensuring that the performance of their
non-SmartWay carriers reflects the distribution of the different categories within the
truck population.
As discussed in the Shipper Tool Quick Start Guide, depending upon the type of data
available for a given carrier, the user may input ton-miles or miles, and rely on carrier
data to back-calculate the other value. For example, providing ton-miles and average
payload allows the Tool to estimate total miles, by dividing the former by the latter.
Logistics and Multimodal Carrier Performance
Logistic and multimodal carriers have their own performance bins based on the carrier
tool submittals for the most recent available calendar year (2015 for logistics, and 2016
for multimodal). Multimodal carrier categories are also differentiated by mode
combinations, including Surface;4 Surface-Air; Surface-Marine; and Surface-Air-Marine.
Multimodal composite fleets with 10% or more of their ton-miles coming from air or
marine carriers are designated Surface-Air/Marine.5 If a composite fleet does not meet
the above Multimodal criteria, and if it has 75% of its ton-miles derived from one or more
Logistics component fleets, it is binned as a Logistics fleet. If a composite fleet does not
meet any of these criteria, it is binned as a Truck fleet.
Non-SmartWay carrier performance for the SmartWay Categories is estimated in the
same way as is done for non-SmartWay Truck carriers (i.e., averaging the bin midpoints
to calculate a fleet average value).
Air and Barge Carrier Performance
Barge carriers have agreed to have their actual emissions results made public, and
barge performance values used in the Shipper Tool are carrier-specific. The gram per
mile performance values for barge carriers correspond to individual barge (nautical)
miles travelled, rather than miles travelled by a string of barges or the associated tug(s).
Non-SmartWay barge carrier gram per mile and gram per ton-mile performance is set to
be 25% higher than the worst performing SmartWay barge carrier.
Since no air carrier data submittals have been approved as of this date, performance
levels for non-SmartWay air freight are based on publicly available data. First upper
bound estimates for grams of CO2 per ton-mile were obtained for short and long-haul air
4 Surface multimodal carriers utilize road and rail modes.
5 Air and/or marine carriers may be utilized directly by the multimodal carrier, or may be utilized indirectly by
logistics business units hired by the multimodal carrier.
9
-------
freight (~4,236 g/t-mi and ~1,461 g/t-mi, respectively).6 7 Values for CO2 g/mile were
calculated by multiplying the g/t-mi value by an average cargo payload value of 22.9
short tons. The average payload value was estimated by dividing total airfreight
tonnage in 2012 (15M tons)8 by the total number of cargo departures in the same year
(654,956 LTOs).9 Corresponding performance metrics for NOx and PM10 were based on
the ratio of these pollutants to CO2 from the EDMS 5.1.4.1 model (0.009 for NOx and
0.000059 for PM10).10 The resulting performance metrics are shown in Table 3. An
average cargo volume estimate was also obtained for inclusion in the SmartWay carrier
data file based on the volume for a typical freight aircraft, the Boeing 747 200 series
(5,123 cubic feet).11
Table 3. Assumed Performance Metrics for Non-SmartWay Air Carriers
C02/tmi
C02/mi
NOx/mi
NOx/tmi
PM/mi
PM/tmi
Short-haul
4,236
96,998
873.2713
38.1341
5.743247
0.250797
Long-haul
1,461
33,448
301.1280
13.1497
1.980430
0.086482
Rail Carrier Performance
Rail carrier performance data are collected and displayed in the Shipper Tool at the
industry average level derived from Class 1 rail company data. Gram per ton-mile
factors were determined by dividing total fuel use by total ton-miles and multiplied by a
rail diesel CO2 factor (10,180 g C02/gal diesel fuel), from publicly available data
submitted in the 2017 railroad R-1 reports to the Department of Transportation. 2017 R-
1 data was also used to obtain total railcar-miles per year for all Class 1 carriers, in
order to estimate gram per railcar-mile factors. Industry average values are currently
assumed for all rail carriers in the carrier data file, regardless of SmartWay Partnership
status. Specific rail companies may have the opportunity to provide company-specific
6 Short haul air freight assumed to be less than 3,000 miles, covering most domestic air routes in the U.S.
7 Estimates from Figure 8.6 in Sims R., R. Schaeffer, F. Creutzig, X. Cruz-Nunez, M. D'Agosto, D. Dimitriu, M. J.
Figueroa Meza, L. Fulton, S. Kobayashi, O. Lah, A. McKinnon, P. Newman, M. Ouyang, J. J. Schauer, D. Sperling,
and G. Tiwari, 2014: Transport. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working
Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R.
Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B.
Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlomer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
8 U.S. DOT Bureau of Transportaion Statistics, Fregiht Facts and Figures 2013,
http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight analvsis/nat freight stats/docs/13factsfigures/pdfs/fff2013 highres.pdf
(accessed 8-22-18).
9 U.S. DOT, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, U.S. Air Carrier Traffic Statistics,
https://www.transtats.bts.gov/TRAFFIC/ (accessed 8-22-18:).
10 EDMS outputs for take-off mode, assumed to be equal to cruising mode. (Cruise emissions are not output by
EDMS). Take-off mode emission rates were averaged across all aircraft/engine combinations in the Heavy (Max
Takeoff Weight over 255,000 lbs) and Large (Max Takeoff Weight 41,001 to 255,000 lbs.) weight classes.
11 Aircraft Cargo Plane Specifications, http://www.airgroup.com/standalonc.php?action=air spec (accessed 8-22-
18).
10
-------
data in the future. The R-1 data and corresponding CO2 performance data are
presented in Table 4 below.
Table 4. Rail Carrier Performance Metric Calculation Inputs & Results (2017 R-1
Data)
Rail Company
Gal/Yr ('000)
Sch. 750 Line 4
Freight Ton-
Mi/Yr ('000)
Sch. 755 line
110
Railcar-Mi/Yr
('000) Sch. 755
sum of lines
30, 46, 64 & 82
g
C02/railcar-
mile
g
C02/short
ton-mile
BNSF Railway
1,353,897
665,948,516
11,606,520
1,187
20.70
CSX T ransportation
426,721
208,127,221
4,713,411
922
20.87
Grand Trunk
116,986
62,708,628
1,486,205
801
18.99
Kansas City Southern
68,873
34,582,626
724,012
968
20.27
Norfolk Southern*
458,179
201,451,969
4,383,081
1,064
23.15
Soo Line
65,299
35,244,079
745,550
892
18.86
Union Pacific
1,016,161
466,721,215
10,090,926
1,025
22.16
Total - Industry
Average
3,506,116
1,674,784,254
33,749,705
980
20.72
* and combined subsidiaries
NOx and PM emission factors for rail carriers are also based on industry averages.
Please see the "Background on Illustrative (Modal Average) U.S. Truck and Rail
Factors" section below for details regarding the calculation of industry average NOx and
PM performance levels for different freight modes.
Average payloads per loaded railcar were calculated for all Class 1 carriers by dividing
the value for annual ton-miles hauled by an estimate for loaded railcar-miles, based on
2008 R-1 data. The calculation uses the Total Revenue and Non-Revenue Ton-Miles as
listed In the R-1 Report on line 114 of schedule 755 divided by the Total loaded Railcar-
Miles (the sum of lines 30 and 64 of schedule 755) along with the factor for fuel gallons
consumed for loaded freight that is created based on the percentage of loaded freight to
total freight multiplied by the total diesel fuel value listed on schedule 750 Line 4. The
following table summarizes the estimated average payload per railcar, by carrier.
Table 5. Rail Carrier Average Payload
Carrier
Avg Payload/Loaded
Railcar (tons)
BNSF Railway
108
CSX Transportation
85
Grand Trunk
80
Kansas City Southern
91
11
-------
Carrier
Avg Payload/Loaded
Railcar (tons)
Norfolk Southern
76
Soo Line
77
Union Pacific
91
Industry Average
93
Average railcar volumes were calculated for all carriers by first estimating an average
volume for each major railcar type listed in the R-1 forms (schedule 755, lines 15-81).
The assumptions used to estimate these volumes are provided in Table A-1. The
railcar-miles reported for each railcar type were multiplied by these average volumes to
estimate annual cubic foot-miles travelled by car type for each company and for the
industry average. The distribution of cubic foot-miles across car types was used as the
weighting factor to estimate a single average railcar volume for each company. These
values and the resulting volume estimates are presented in Table 6 below.
Table 6. Rail Carrier Average Volume Determination
BNSF
Freight Car Types (R1 - Schedule 755)
Avg. Cu Ft.
Railcar Miles (xlK)
Cu Ft Miles (xlK)
Box-Plain 40-Foot
4,555
1
4,555
Box-Plain 50-Foot & Longer
7,177
9,338
67,018,826
Box-Equipped
7,177
147,226
1,056,641,002
Gondola-Plain
5,190
379,762
1,970,964,780
Gondola-Equipped
5,190
75,894
393,889,860
Hopper-Covered
4,188
758,442
3,176,355,096
Hopper-Open Top-General Service
4,220
65,077
274,624,940
Hopper-Open Top-Special Service
4,220
137,449
580,034,780
Refrigerator-Mechanical
6,202
19,272
119,524,944
Refrigerator-Non-Mechanical
6,202
32,910
204,107,820
Flat-TOFC/COFC
6,395
520,521
3,328,731,795
Flat-Multi-Level
13,625
38,624
526,252,000
Flat-General Service
6,395
357
2,283,015
Flat-All Other
6,395
71,826
459,327,270
All Other Car Types-Total
5,772
20,146
116,282,712
Average Railcar Cubic Feet
5,811
12
-------
CSX
Freight Car Types (R1 - Schedule 755)
Railcar Miles (xlK)
Cu Ft Miles (xlK)
Box-Plain 40-Foot
-
-
Box-Plain 50-Foot & Longer
6,987
50,145,699
Box-Equipped
144,631
1,038,016,687
Gondola-Plain
137,256
712,358,640
Gondola-Equipped
64,532
334,921,080
Hopper-Covered
153,315
642,083,220
Hopper-Open Top-General Service
78,412
330,898,640
Hopper-Open Top-Special Service
35,451
149,603,220
Refrigerator-Mechanical
17,117
106,159,634
Refrigerator-Non-Mechanical
11,923
73,946,446
Flat-TOFC/COFC
125,828
804,670,060
Flat-Multi-Level
29,956
408,150,500
Flat-General Service
162
1,035,990
Flat-All Other
31,913
204,083,635
All Other Car Types-Total
19,861
114,637,692
Average Railcar Cubic Feet
6,389
Grand Trunk
Freight Car Types (R1 - Schedule 755)
Railcar Miles (xlK)
Cu Ft Miles (xlK)
Box-Plain 40-Foot
0
-
Box-Plain 50-Foot & Longer
2,119
15,208,063
Box-Equipped
66,110
474,471,470
Gondola-Plain
6,467
33,563,730
Gondola-Equipped
19,201
99,653,190
Hopper-Covered
44,239
185,272,932
Hopper-Open Top-General Service
9,114
38,461,080
Hopper-Open Top-Special Service
32,621
137,660,620
Refrigerator-Mechanical
312
1,935,024
Refrigerator-Non-Mechanical
205
1,271,410
Flat-TOFC/COFC
2,779
17,771,705
Flat-Multi-Level
4,831
65,822,375
Flat-General Service
20
127,900
Flat-All Other
31,744
203,002,880
All Other Car Types-Total
4,755
27,445,860
Average Railcar Cubic Feet
6,309
13
-------
Kansas City Southern
Freight Car Types (R1 - Schedule 755)
Railcar Miles (xlK)
Cu Ft Miles (xlK)
Box-Plain 40-Foot
0
-
Box-Plain 50-Foot & Longer
3,383
24,279,791
Box-Equipped
39,792
285,587,184
Gondola-Plain
16,628
86,299,320
Gondola-Equipped
11,150
57,868,500
Hopper-Covered
50,346
210,849,048
Hopper-Open Top-General Service
626
2,641,720
Hopper-Open Top-Special Service
943
3,979,460
Refrigerator-Mechanical
21
130,242
Refrigerator-Non-Mechanical
52
322,504
Flat-TOFC/COFC
10,736
68,656,720
Flat-Multi-Level
629
8,570,125
Flat-General Service
12
76,740
Flat-All Other
2,321
14,842,795
All Other Car Types-Total
247
1,425,684
Average Railcar Cubic Feet
5,938
Norfolk Southern
Freight Car Types (R1 - Schedule 755)
Railcar Miles (xlK)
Cu Ft Miles (xlK)
Box-Plain 40-Foot
0
-
Box-Plain 50-Foot & Longer
7,622
54,703,094
Box-Equipped
136,745
981,418,865
Gondola-Plain
193,214
1,002,780,660
Gondola-Equipped
111,320
577,750,800
Hopper-Covered
116,848
489,359,424
Hopper-Open Top-General Service
84,557
356,830,540
Hopper-Open Top-Special Service
30,078
126,929,160
Refrigerator-Mechanical
3,512
21,781,424
Refrigerator-Non-Mechanical
5,392
33,441,184
Flat-TOFC/COFC
114,928
734,964,560
Flat-Multi-Level
20,349
277,255,125
Flat-General Service
145
927,275
Flat-All Other
24,563
157,080,385
All Other Car Types-Total
212,408
1,226,018,976
Average Railcar Cubic Feet
6,065
14
-------
Soo Line
Freight Car Types (R1 - Schedule 755)
Railcar Miles (xlK)
Cu Ft Miles (xlK)
Box-Plain 40-Foot
0
-
Box-Plain 50-Foot & Longer
725
5,203,325
Box-Equipped
17,972
128,985,044
Gondola-Plain
1,203
6,243,570
Gondola-Equipped
8,856
45,962,640
Hopper-Covered
94,146
394,283,448
Hopper-Open Top-General Service
3,077
12,984,940
Hopper-Open Top-Special Service
20
84,400
Refrigerator-Mechanical
159
986,118
Refrigerator-Non-Mechanical
742
4,601,884
Flat-TOFC/COFC
11,178
71,483,310
Flat-Multi-Level
2,973
40,507,125
Flat-General Service
12
76,740
Flat-All Other
10,068
64,384,860
All Other Car Types-Total
428
2,470,416
Average Railcar Cubic Feet
5,667
Union Pacific
Freight Car Types (R1 - Schedule 755)
Railcar Miles (xlK)
Cu Ft Miles (xlK)
Box-Plain 40-Foot
0
-
Box-Plain 50-Foot & Longer
12,311
88,356,047
Box-Equipped
238,241
1,709,855,657
Gondola-Plain
206,370
1,071,060,300
Gondola-Equipped
91,775
476,312,250
Hopper-Covered
370,929
1,553,450,652
Hopper-Open Top-General Service
188,027
793,473,940
Hopper-Open Top-Special Service
104,969
442,969,180
Refrigerator-Mechanical
82,874
513,984,548
Refrigerator-Non-Mechanical
27,009
167,509,818
Flat-TOFC/COFC
1,026,251
6,562,875,145
Flat-Multi-Level
46,889
638,862,625
Flat-General Service
350
2,238,250
Flat-All Other
72,371
462,812,545
All Other Car Types-Total
16,769
96,790,668
Average Railcar Cubic Feet
6,248
15
-------
Total (for Industry Average)
Freight Car Types (R1 - Schedule 755)
Railcar Miles (xlK)
Cu Ft Miles (xlK)
Box-Plain 40-Foot
1
4,555
Box-Plain 50-Foot & Longer
42,485
304,914,845
Box-Equipped
790,717
5,674,975,909
Gondola-Plain
940,900
4,883,271,000
Gondola-Equipped
382,728
1,986,358,320
Hopper-Covered
1,588,265
6,651,653,820
Hopper-Open Top-General Service
428,890
1,809,915,800
Hopper-Open Top-Special Service
341,531
1,441,260,820
Refrigerator-Mechanical
123,267
764,501,934
Refrigerator-Non-Mechanical
78,233
485,201,066
Flat-TOFC/COFC
1,812,221
11,589,153,295
Flat-Multi-Level
144,251
1,965,419,875
Flat-General Service
1,058
6,765,910
Flat-All Other
244,806
1,565,534,370
All Other Car Types-Total
274,614
1,585,072,008
Industry Average Railcar Cubic Feet
6,091
% SmartWay Value
The % SmartWay screen presents the portion of goods that shippers move with
SmartWay Partners (expressed as a percentage between 0 and 100). Shippers select
the basis for calculating the percentage shipped with SmartWay Partners, including the
following options for Way 3 and Way 4 participants:
• Total annual miles (the Tool will automatically populate the % SmartWay screen
with any carrier activity data that shippers entered in the freight Activity Data
screen). Miles correspond to truck-miles for trucks, aircraft-miles for air, barge-
miles for barge, and railcar-miles for rail;
• Total annual ton-miles (the Tool will automatically populate the % SmartWay
screen with any carrier activity data that shippers entered on the freight Activity
Data screen);
Shippers participating at the Way 2 level must characterize their carrier activity using
one of the following metrics:
•
• Percent Spent;
• Percent Weight Shipped;
• Percent Packages Shipped;
• Other Custom Metric (as defined by Shipper).
16
-------
Public Disclosure Reports
The Shipper Tool now provides a report summarizing Scope 3 emissions for public
disclosure purposes. Mass emissions are presented in metric tonnes for CO2 (biogenic
and non-biogenic), NOx, and PM12 for all carriers NOT specifically designated as
"Shipper Carriers" on the Tool's Activity screen.13 The percent of CO2 attributable to
SmartWay Carriers is also provided, again excluding any Shipper Carriers. Biogenic
CO2 emissions estimates are assumed to equal 2 percent of total CO2 emissions, as per
U.S. requirements for biomass-based diesel from the EPA Renewable Fuel Standard
program final volume requirements.14
3.0 Calculator Tools
In addition to estimating a shipper's emissions inventory and performance metrics, the
Shipper Tool also allows shippers to estimate the emissions impact of system activity
strategies as well as modal shifts, if the user provides mileage-related activity data
under the Way 4 option.
Mile and Weight Improvements
The Mile & Weight Improvements screen is optional and is intended for reference
purposes only. On this screen, shippers may estimate emission reduction benefits for
the following options:
• Miles Removed from the System
o Distribution center relocation
o Retail sales relocation
o Routing optimization
o Cube optimization
o Larger vehicles and/or multiple trailers
• Weight Removed from System
o Product weight reduction
o Package weight reduction
o Vehicle weight reduction
12 Emissions from CH4, N20, HFC's, PFC's, SF6 and NF3 have been deemed immaterial, comprising less than 5% of
overall GHG emissions and are therefore EXCLUDED for reporting purposes.
13 "Shipper Carriers" refer to fleets directly operated by the Shippers themselves. These fleets are associated with
Scope 1 emissions which are not reported in the Shipper Tool. For purposes of developing a corporate inventory
using the SmartWay Shipper Tool, the relevant Scope 3 category only includes upstream transportation and
distribution and therefore excludes downstream transportation and distribution as falling outside of the system
boundary.
14 As stated in the Final Rule (Table I.B.7-1 - see https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-12-12/pdf/2017-
26426.pdf), the volume requirements for biomass-based diesel in 2018 is 1.74%, rounded to equal 2% for
calculation purposes. The percentage will be updated annually in the Tool.
17
-------
For each activity selected, shippers must provide an estimate of the percentage
reduction in freight activity (in miles or weight), for each mode of interest, along with a
detailed text description of the strategy. The Tool assumes that total mass emissions
are reduced in direct proportion with the specified mileage or weight reduction.15
Mass emission reductions are calculated by using the appropriate emissions inventory
from the Emissions Summary screen (based on reported activity data and associated
carrier emissions performance data) as shown below:
S = EM x (1 / (1 - Reduction) -1)
Where:
S = Savings (tons of CO2, NOx, or PM)
EM = Emissions inventory value (tons of CO2, NOx, or PM from Emissions
Summary screen)
Reduction = the reduction in total miles or weight as a result of the
strategy (expressed as fraction)
Fractional reduction estimates must be documented in the Shipper Tool. An example
calculation is provided below:
A shipper changes the shape of its milk cartons from round to square. As a result, the
shipper can pack 20% more milk cartons per truck trailer than the rounded milk cartons.
This reduces 20% of the loads associated with that product line (corresponding to the
"Cube Optimization" activity selection for the "Miles removed from system" category).
However, the company sells many products, and the total truckloads associated with
milk shipments is 1,000 out of 50,000 overall truckloads. The efficiency gain is thus 20%
x (1,000/50,000), or a 0.4% system improvement. Therefore, the shipper would enter
"0.4" in the Percent Improvement column. This assumes that all loads on average travel
an equivalent distance. If milk loads were significantly shorter than other loads, then a
mileage-based weighting per trip would need to be applied to arrive at a percent
improvement. The burden of proof on demonstrating an accurate percent reduction and
modal allocation is the shipper's. The data sources and methodology should be briefly
described in the Tool under Data Source/Methodology. The shipper should, at a
minimum, keep detailed records electronically within the company to document the
estimate upon EPA request. The shipper can also submit any documentation in
electronic text format along with the Tool to its Partner Account Manager.
15 This assumption should be accurate for weight reduction strategies when applied to truckload shipments that
weigh out. Additional uncertainty arises in the case of LTL and package delivery shipments, where weight
reductions may not result in one-to-one reductions in miles hauled. Uncertainties are even greater for non-truck
modes, where the shipper commonly does not control the entire content of the container. Likewise, this assumption
may not hold if shippers reduce freight by loading more products (i.e., more weight) on trucks that were previously
cubing out, since the increase in payload will negatively impact the truck's fuel economy and g/mile emissions
performance.
18
-------
Modal Shift Impacts
Overview
The Modal Shift Impacts screen in the Tool is optional and is intended for reference
purposes only. Shippers should develop their carrier emissions inventories (and
associated emissions factors for their companies) by inputting activity data in the
Activity Data screen.
Shippers wishing to conduct scenario analyses can use the Modal Shift Impacts
screen to estimate the emissions impacts associated with modal shifts by specifying the
mode from which they are considering shifting their freight ("From Mode"), as well as the
target mode ("To Mode"). Shippers have several options for selecting an emissions
factor for both the "From Mode" and "To Mode". First, the Tool automatically calculates
and displays the average emission factors for truck, barge, air and rail modes
corresponding to the carrier data file values used on the Activity Data screen
(corresponding to the "Shipper's Carrier Average" Emission Factor Source selection). In
this case partners can also adjust their estimates of emission impacts from modal shifts
by applying different filters for the "From" Mode (e.g., just considering inbound
international freight). Second, partners may select illustrative industry average emission
factors (discussed in the section below) from the drop-down menu (corresponding to the
"Modal Average" selection). Third, the shipper can input a set of alternative emissions
factors of their choice (corresponding to the "User Input" selection). In this instance the
user must also provide a description of the source of the information used to develop
the alternate factors (by selecting the "User Input Data Source" button).
Note: the emissions factors that automatically appear on the Modal Shift Impacts
screen do not include all potential emissions impacts; for example, the factors do not
include emissions associated with drayage (i.e., short-distance trips often required to
move freight from one mode to another), or operations at intermodal facilities.
While EPA has populated the Tool with illustrative modal average freight emission
factors, we recommend that partners use more representative emission factors to
analyze scenarios whenever possible. For example, partners may wish to evaluate the
emissions impact from moving freight from rail to a specific truck fleet by consulting the
SmartWay Category average emissions factors associated with the fleet (available on
the SmartWay website), or by inputting data that partners receive directly from a carrier.
For better estimates of emission impacts from modal shifts, partners are encouraged to
use a factor that reflects the full emissions impact (e.g., including anticipated drayage
emissions) and that best represents the fleet equipment and operational type that they
are most likely to work with for their unique freight movement.
While we have not provided modal average ocean-going vessel factors in the Tool,
there are several external resources that partners can consult. We have included some
selected sources of ocean-going vessel factors in the following section.
19
-------
In order to calculate the emissions impact associated with a modal shift, shippers input
the activity data corresponding with their modal shift scenario expressed in a given unit
(miles or ton-miles) and the Tool combines that data with a corresponding emission
factor (described above) in the same unit. The Tool then displays the change in
emissions (as calculated below) in tons per year.
Total Emission Impact (tons/yr) =
[(Efficiency Before x "From Mode" Amount) -
(Efficiency After x "To Mode" Amount)] x grams to short tons conversion factor16
If the shipper is evaluating a mode shift between truck and rail or barge, and if the
available activity units are in miles rather than ton-miles, then the activity data entered
must be expressed in terms of railcar-miles or barge-miles, as appropriate in order to be
consistent with the g/mile factors included in the carrier data file. Determination of railcar
and barge-miles for any particular container/commodity type and route should be made
in consultation with carriers or logistics service providers in order to account for volume
differences compared to truck carriers.
If you need to convert truck-miles to railcar and/or barge-mile equivalents for your
assessment, a railcar-to-truck equivalency factor can be calculated by first identifying
the average cargo volume for a given rail carrier (see Table 5 above). These volumes
estimates should be weighted by the miles associated with each rail carrier in order to
estimate a single weighted-average railcar volume for the carrier company in question.
Similarly, weighted average volumes can also be calculated for the different truck
carriers associated with the given shipping company. (Company-specific volume data is
contained within the carrier data file for SmartWay truck carriers.) The weighting
calculations should involve all carriers used by the company if no filters are selected on
the Modal Shift Impacts screen (only relevant for the "From" mode). Otherwise the
weighted average calculation should only be performed for the filtered subset (e.g.,
inbound domestic truck carriers).
Once the weighted average volumes are determined for both rail and truck modes, you
can calculate the ratio of the average railcar volume to the average truck volume (R).
Using industry average volume estimates as described in Appendix A, we estimate R to
equal approximately 1.41, meaning that the average railcar has 1.41 times the volume
of an average truck trailer/container. Next, you can convert your truck-equivalent mile
estimates to railcar equivalent miles by dividing truck miles by the ratio R.17 Enter the
corresponding railcar-mile activity estimate in the "Amounts" column.
The same process is used to convert truck-miles to barge-mile equivalents, although
national average barge volume information was not identified for this analysis. In this
case volume estimates may be used for specific barge carriers from the carrier data file.
16 1.1023 x 10"6 short tons/gram
17 Any route mileage differences must be adjusted for separately.
20
-------
In addition, the value for truck miles should also be divided by 1.15 to convert from
statute to nautical miles.18
Background on Illustrative U.S. Modal Average Factors
Modal Average performance metrics have been estimated for rail, truck and multimodal
modes (both gram per mile and gram per ton-mile), as well as for barge and air modes
(gram per ton-mile only) in order to estimate emission impacts using the Modal Shift
Impacts screen. We developed the freight truck g/ton-mile factors with 2014 CO2,
NOx, and PM2.519 inventory data on short-haul single unit, short-haul combination unit,
long-haul single unit, and long-haul combination unit truck categories20 in EPA's 2014a
version of the Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES2014a) model.21 MOVES
does not contain ton-mile data, so we then divided the MOVES-based inventories by
2014 ton-mile data from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics,22 which we determined
was the most recent, comprehensive national freight truck ton-mile dataset available.
For the freight truck g/mile factors, we used the same emissions inventory data as the
g/ton-mile factors described above and divided them by the corresponding 2014 VMT
data in MOVES2014a.
Table 7 presents the illustrative freight truck emissions factors in the tool, and Table 8
presents the key underlying data. (Note that the modal average factors calculated for
truck carriers were assumed valid for logistics carriers as well.)
Table 7. Illus
rative U.S. Freight Truck Industry Average Factors in Modal Shift
C02
NOx
PM2.5
gram/short ton-mile
210
1.145
0.0454
gram/mile
1,546
8.45
0.335
Table 8. Underlying Emissions Inventories and Activity Data for Illustrative U.S.
Freight
CO2 (grams)
418,275,000,000,000
NOx (grams)
2,286,630,000,000
PM2 5 (grams)
90,672,929,280
short ton-miles
1,996,165,000,000
miles
270,592,000,000
We developed the freight rail g C02/ton-mile and g C02/mile factors with 2017 data,
summarized in Table 4 above.
18 Barge performance values are expressed in grams per nautical mile, to be consistent with barge carrier reporting
practices.
19 Corresponding PMio emission factors were estimated assuming PM2 5 values were 97% of PM10 values, based on
MOVES model outputs for diesel fueled trucks.
20 These four truck categories are coded as 52, 53, 61, and 62 in the MOVES model, respectively.
21 EPA's MOVES model and accompanying resources, including technical documentation, are available at:
www.epa.gov/otaa/models/moves/index.htm (accessed 8-22-18).
22 Bureau of Transportation Statistics, U.S. Ton-Miles of Freight, https://www.bts.gov/content/us-ton-miles-freight.
. Accessed, https://www.bts.gov/content/us-ton-miles-freight (accessed8-22-18).
21
-------
We developed the freight rail g NOx/ton-mile and g PM2.5/ton-mile factors with 2010
inventory data from Tables 3-82 and 3-83, respectively, in EPA's 2008 Regulatory
Impact Analysis for a locomotive diesel engine rule.23 This inventory data represents
2010 emission projections for all U.S. rail except for passenger and commuter rail (i.e.,
large line-haul, large switch, and small railroads), which we determined would very
closely align with the freight rail sector. We divided this emissions inventory data by the
2007 BTS ton-mile data described above.
We developed the freight rail g/mile factors for NOx and PM2.5 by using 2008 railcar
mileage data from lines 15 through 81 of R-1 forms that Class I railroad companies
submitted to the Surface Transportation Board.24 We developed the NOx and PM
inventories using the average 2010 locomotive g PMio/gal and g NOx/gal factors from
Tables 5 and 6, respectively, in EPA's 2009 Technical Highlights: Emissions Factors for
Locomotives25 To calculate g PIVte.s/gal, we assumed 95% of PM10 is PM2.5, which we
determined was a good approximation of the share of overall PM10 emissions
represented by particulate matter that is 2.5 micrometers in diameter or smaller.
Table 9 presents the illustrative freight rail emissions factors in the Tool and Table 10
presents the key underlying data.
Table 9. Illustrative U.S. Freight Rail Industry Average Factors in Modal Shift
NOx
PM2.5
gram/short ton-mile
0.4270
0.0120
gram/railcar mile
18.6
0.503
gram/TEU-mile
4.745
0.1284
23 U.S. EPA, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, 2008. Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control of Emissions of
Air Pollution from Locomotive Engines and Marine Compression Ignition Engines Less than 30 Liters Per Cylinder,
EPA420-R-08-001a, Washington DC. Available at:
https://nepis.epa. gov/Exe/ZvNET.exe/P10024CN.TXT?ZvActionD=ZvDocument&Client=EPA&Index=2006+Thru
+2010&Docs=&Ouerv=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=l&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntrv=&OField=&QF
ieldYear=&OFieldMonth=&.OFieldDav=&IntOFieldOp=0&ExtOFieldOp=0&.Xm1Querv=&File=D%3A%5Czvfiles
%5 CIndex%20Data%5 C06thru 10%5 CT xt%5 C00000005%5 CP 10024CN.txt&U ser= ANONYMOUS&Password=an
onvmous& SortMethod=h%7 C-
&MaximumDocuments=l&FuzzvDegree=0&ImageOualitv=r75g8/r75g8/xl50vl50gl6/i425&Displav=hpfr&DefSe
ckPagc=.\&ScarchBack=ZvActioiiL&Back=ZvActioiiS&BackDcsc=Rcsults%2()pagc&Ma.\imumPagcs= l&ZvEntr
v=l&SeekPage=x&ZvPURL (accessed 8-22-18).
24 Surface Transportation Board (STB), Industry Data, Economic Data, Financial and Statistical Reports, Class 1
Annual Report, Form R-1. Available at: http://www.stb.dot.gov/stb/industry/econ_reports.html (accessed 8-22-18).
25 U.S. EPA, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, 2009. Technical Highlights: Emission Factors for
Locomotives, EPA-420-F-09-025, Washington DC. Available at:
https://ncpis.epa. gov/E.\c/ZvNET.c.\c/P100500B.TXT?ZvActionD=ZvDocumcnt&C'licnt=EPA&lndc.\=2006+Thri)
+2010&Docs=&Ouerv=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=l&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntrv=&OField=&QF
ieldYear=&OFieldMonth=&.OFieldDav=&IntOFieldOp=0&ExtOFieldOp=Q&.Xm1Ouerv=&File=D%3A%5Czvfiles
%5 CIndex%20Data%5 C06thru 10%5 CT xt%5 C00000010%5 CP 100500B .txt&U ser= ANONYMOU S&Password=an
onvmous& SortMethod=h%7 C-
&MaximumDocuments=l&FuzzvDegree=0&ImageOualitv=r75g8/r75g8/xl50vl50gl6/i425&Displav=hpfr&DefSe
ckPagc=.\&ScarchBack=ZvActioiiL&Back=ZvActionS&BackDcsc=Rcsults%20pagc&Ma.\imumPagcs= l&ZvEntr
v= !&SeekPage=x&ZvPURL (accessed 8-22-18).
22
-------
Table 10. Underlying Emissions Inventories and Activity Data for Illustrative U.S.
Freight Rail Industry Average Factors in Modal Shift
short ton-miles
1,819,633,000,000
Class l-only railcar miles (total)
34,611,843,000
50' and Larger Box Plain + Box Equipped
2,223,402,000
40' Box Plain
22,000
Flat TOFC/COFC, General, and Other
Flat Multi Level
5,057,466,000
1,725,998,000
Gondola Plain and Equipped
7,893,684,000
Refrigerated Mechanical and Non-Mechanical
495,311,000
Open Top Hopper General and Special Service
5,913,012,000
Covered Hopper
7,210,656,000
Tank under 22,000 gallons
1,295,482,000
Tank 22,000 gallons and over
2,394,565,000
All Other Car Types
402,245,000
Note that NOx and PM emission factors were not available at the carrier level for the rail
mode. Accordingly, the modal average emission factors for NOx and PM were assumed
to apply equally for all rail carriers.
Modal average estimates for multimodal carriers were calculated for intermodal
truck/rail freight movements by estimating the average length of haul for rail freight (990
miles)26 and truck drayage carriers (398 miles).27 Based on these estimates we assume
a "typical" intermodal container shipment will travel 71% by rail, and 29% by truck.
These percentages are applied as weights to the modal average rail and truck mode
values calculated above in order to estimate modal average performance metrics for
intermodal shipments (see Table 11).
Table 11. Modal Average Performance Metric Estimates for Rail, Truck, and
Intermodal
Mode
g/mi
g/ton-mi
C02
NOx
PM10
PM2.5
CO2
NOx
PM10
PM2.5
Rail
1,072
18.6
0.519
0.503
22.94
0.427
0.012
0.012
Truck
1,546
8.54
0.345
0.335
210
1.145
0.047
0.045
Intermodal
1,209
15.68
0.469
0.454
77.19
0.635
0.022
0.022
NOTE: if you wish to estimate the emission impacts for other modal combinations (e.g.,
truck/barge) select the "User Input" option to provide the appropriate performance
metric estimates.
The modal average barge emissions factors presented in Table 12 are from a study
prepared by the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) for the U.S. Maritime
26 Class I Rail average length of haul for 2013 - https://transportgeographY.org/7page id=2735 (accessed 8-22-18).
27 Harrison, R. et al, Characteristics of Drayage Operations at the Port of Houston, University of Texas Center for
Transportation Research, Table 4, September 2008. Available at
https://static.tti.tamu.edu/swutc.tamu.edu/publications/technicalreports/473700-00075-l.pdf (accessed 8-22-18).
23
-------
Administration28 and reflect inland waterway towing operations in the U.S. We
converted the PM10 factor in the TTI study into PIVte.sby assuming 95% of PM10 is PM2.5,
which we determined was a good approximation of the share of overall PM10 emissions
represented by particulate matter that is 2.5 micrometers in diameter or smaller.
Table 12. Modal Average Barge Emission Factors
co2
NOx
PM2.5
gram/short ton-mile
17.48
0.4691
0.0111
Estimates of average g/mi performance metrics were not identified for barge carriers.
Modal average estimates for airfreight are based on EDMS outputs, presented in Table
3 above.
Outside Sources of Ocean-Going Marine Emission Factors
There are many sources of marine emission factors available in research literature and
other GHG estimation tools. For reference, we have included below:
¦ g C02/ton-mile marine factors from the Business for Social Responsibility's (BSR)
Clean Cargo Tool g C02/ton-mile marine factors from a study prepared for the
International Maritime Organization (IMO).29
Note that the factors from BSR and IMO are published in units of kg C02/metric ton-km,
so we converted this data into g C02/ton-mile by first multiplying by 1,000 (to convert
from kilograms to grams), then multiplying by 0.9072 (to convert from metric tonnes to
short tons), and then multiplying by 1.609 (to convert from kilometers to miles) to
prepare the tables below.
BSR developed average 2009 marine emission factors for various shipping corridors, as
well as global defaults that are applicable outside those corridors, based on surveys
from marine carriers. The BSR marine factors in Table 13 below are from the "Emission
Factors & Distances" tab in their tool.
Table 13. BSR Marine Emission Factors (g C02/short ton-mile)
Ship_general
International
13.0678
Ship_Barge
International
29.1937
Ship_Feeder
International
29.1937
Ship_inland_Germany
Germany
41.5280
Ship_inland_China
China
35.0578
28 U.S. Maritime Administration and the National Waterways Foundation (U.S. MARAD), amended January 2017.
A Modal Comparison of Domestic Freight Transportation Effects on the General Public. Prepared by Center for
Ports & Waterways, Texas Transportation Institute, Table 10. Available at: http://www.portsofmdiana.com/wp-
content/uploads/2017/06/Final-TTI-Report-2001-2014-Approved.pdf (accessed 8-22-18).
29 Buhaug, et al. for the International Maritime Organization (IMO), 2009. Second IMO GHG Study 2009,
International Maritime Organization (IMO), London, UK, April 2009. Available at:
http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/AirPollution/Documents/SecondIMOGHGStud
v2009.pdf (accessed 8-22-18).
24
-------
Ship_Asia-Africa
Asia—Africa
11.9227
Ship_Asia-South America (EC/WC)
Asia—South America (EC/WC)
13.1897
Ship_Asia-Oceania
Asia—Oceania
13.4028
Ship_Asia-North Europe
Asia—North Europe
10.8586
Ship_Asia-Mediterranean
Asia—Mediterranean
12.1358
Ship_Asia-North America EC
Asia—North America EC
12.9854
Ship_Asia-North America WC
Asia—North America WC
12.0818
Ship_Asia-Middle East/India
Asia—Middle East/India
13.5459
Ship_North Europe-North America EC
North Europe—North America EC (incl. Gulf)
14.1823
Ship_North Europe-North America WC
North Europe—North America WC
13.0642
Ship_Mediterranean-North America EC
Mediterranean—North America EC (incl. Gulf)
12.6788
Ship_Mediterranean-North America WC
Mediterranean—North America WC
10.1433
Ship_Europe (North & Med)-Middle East/India
Europe (North & Med)—Middle East/India
13.4276
Ship_Europe (North & Med)-Africa
Europe (North & Med)—Africa
15.8361
Ship_Europe (North & Med)-Oceania (via Suez
/ via Panama)
Europe (North & Med)—Oceania (via Suez / via
Panama)
14.4056
Ship_Europe (North & Med)-Latin
America/South America
Europe (North & Med)—Latin America/South
America
12.6146
Ship_North America-Africa
North America—Africa
17.4549
Ship_North America EC-Middle East/India
North America EC—Middle East/India
12.8788
Ship_North America-South America (EC/WC)
North America—South America (EC/WC)
13.4379
Ship_North America-Oceania
North America—Oceania
15.0552
Ship_South America (EC/WC)-Africa
South America (EC/WC)—Africa
11.7432
Ship_Intra-Americas (Caribbean)
Intra-Americas (Caribbean)
15.9222
Ship_Intra-Asia
Intra-Asia
15.2012
Ship_Intra-Europe
Intra-Europe
17.1790
The marine factors in the IMO study reflect commonly-used equipment sizes and types.
The factors in Tables 14 below come from Table 9.1 4 in the IMO study.
Table 14. IMO Marine Emission Factors
TYPE
SIZE
AVERAGE
CARGO
CAPACITY
(metric
tonne)
Average
yearly
capacity
utilization
Average
service
speed
(knots)
Transport
work per ship
(tonne NM)
Loaded
efficiency
(g of C02/
ton-mile)
Total
efficiency
(9 of
C02/ton-
mile)
Crude oil
tanker
2000,000+dwt
295,237
48%
15.4
14,197,046,74
2
2.34
4.23
Crude oil
tanker
120,000-199,99
dwt
151,734
48%
15
7,024,437,504
3.21
6.42
Crude oil
tanker
80,000-119,999
dwt
103,403
48%
14.7
4,417,734,613
4.38
8.61
Crude oil
tanker
60,000-79,999 dwt
66,261
48%
14.6
2,629,911,081
6.28
10.95
Crude oil
tanker
10,000-59,999 dwt
38,631
48%
14.5
1,519,025,926
7.59
13.28
Crude oil
tanker
0-9,999 dwt
3668
48%
12.1
91,086,398
30.22
48.61
Products
tanker
60,000+ dwt
101,000
55%
15.3
3,491,449,962
4.82
8.32
Products
tanker
20,000-59,999 dwt
40,000
55%
14.8
1,333,683,350
10.51
15.03
Products
tanker
10,000-19,999 dwt
15,000
50%
14.1
464,013,471
16.49
27.30
25
-------
TYPE
SIZE
AVERAGE
CARGO
CAPACITY
(metric
tonne)
Average
yearly
capacity
utilization
Average
service
speed
(knots)
Transport
work per ship
(tonne NM)
Loaded
efficiency
(g of C02/
ton-mile)
Total
efficiency
(9 of
C02/ton-
mile)
Products
tanker
5,000-9,999 dwt
7,000
45%
12.8
170,712,388
21.60
42.62
Products
tanker
0-49,999 dwt
1,800
45%
11
37,598,072
38.68
65.69
Chemical
tanker
20,000 + dwt
32,200
64%
14.7
1,831,868,715
8.32
12.26
Chemical
tanker
10,000-19,999 dwt
15,000
64%
14.5
820,375,271
10.66
15.76
Chemical
tanker
5,000-9,999 dwt
7,000
64%
14.5
382,700,554
15.62
22.04
Chemical
tanker
0-4,999 dwt
1,800
64%
14.5
72,147,958
27.15
32.41
LPG tanker
50,000 + m3
46,656
48%
16.6
2,411,297,106
7.59
13.14
LPG tanker
0-49,999 m3
3,120
48%
14
89,631,360
39.41
63.50
LNG tanker
200,00 + m3
97,520
48%
19.6
5,672,338,333
7.88
13.58
LNG tanker
0-199,999 m3
62,100
48%
19.6
3,797,321,655
12.26
21.17
Bulk carrier
200,000 +dwt
227,000
50%
14.4
10,901,043,01
7
2.19
3.65
Bulk carrier
100,000-199,999
dwt
163,000
50%
14.4
7,763,260,284
2.63
4.38
Bulk carrier
60,000-99,999 dwt
74,000
55%
14.4
3,821,361,703
3.94
5.98
Bulk carrier
35,000-59,999 dwt
45,000
55%
14.4
2,243,075,236
5.55
8.32
Bulk carrier
10,000-34,999 dwt
26,000
55%
14.3
1,268,561,872
7.74
11.53
Bulk carrier
0-9,999 dwt
2,400
60%
11
68,226,787
33.43
42.62
General cargo
10,000 +dwt
15,000
60%
15.4
866,510,887
11.09
17.37
General cargo
5,000-9,999 dwt
6,957
60%
13.4
365,344,150
14.74
23.06
General cargo
0-4,999 dwt
2,545
60%
11.7
76,645,792
15.91
20.29
General cargo
10,000+ dwt, 100+
TEU
18,000
60%
15.4
961,054,062
12.55
16.06
General cargo
5,000-9,999 dwt,
100+TEU
7,000
60%
13.4
243,599,799
20.14
25.54
General cargo
0-4,999 dwt,
dwt+TEU
4,000
60%
11.7
120,938,043
22.63
28.90
Refrigerated
cargo
All
6,400
50%
20
392,981,809
18.83
18.83
Container
8000+TEU
68,600
70%
25.1
6,968,284,047
16.20
18.25
Container
5,000-7,999 TEU
40,355
70%
25.3
4,233,489,679
22.19
24.23
Container
3,000-4,999 TEU
28,784
70%
23.3
2,280,323,533
22.19
24.23
Container
2,000-2,999 TEU
16,800
70%
20.9
1,480,205,694
26.71
29.19
Container
1,000-1,999 TEU
7,000
70%
19
578,339,367
42.91
46.86
Container
0-999 TEU
3,500
70%
17
179,809,363
48.61
52.99
Vehicle
4000 +ceu
7,908
70%
19.4
732,581,677
36.78
46.71
Vehicle
0-3999 ceu
2,808
70%
17.7
226,545,399
68.90
84.08
Ro-Ro
2,000 + Im
5,154
70%
19.4
368,202,021
66.12
72.25
Ro-Ro
0-1,999 Im
1432
70%
13.2
57,201,146
80.57
88.02
26
-------
TYPE
SIZE
AVERAGE
CARGO
CAPACITY
(metric
tonne)
Average
yearly
capacity
utilization
Average
service
speed
(knots)
Transport
work per ship
(tonne NM)
Loaded
efficiency
(g of C02/
ton-mile)
Total
efficiency
(9 of
C02/ton-
mile)
Note: "Loaded efficiency" is the theoretical maximum efficiency when the ship is fully loaded at service speed/85% load. Since
engine load at the fully loaded condition is higher than the average including ballast and other voyages, the difference
between the columns "loaded efficiency" and "total efficiency cannot be explained by differences in utilization only.
4.0 Shipper Payloads and Data Validation
Pavload Validation
The Shipper Tool also contains data validation checks designed to identify missing and
potentially erroneous data. At this time the only validation involves payload checks and
total ton-mile checks, on the Activity Data screen.
Payload validation cutpoints were set with the intention of identifying those payloads
that are somewhat outside typical industry values (yellow flag warnings) and those that
are far outside industry averages (red flag warnings). The payload check only apples to
Data Availability selections a, b, and c where payloads are either entered by the user, or
calculated based on other inputs. Checks are applied at the carrier (row) level.
Payload checks are specific to the Truck SmartWay Category, which is available for
each carrier category from the Carrier Data File. Note that payload Ranges 1 (very low)
and 5 (very high) are colored red on the Activity screen, and require explanations before
proceeding. Ranges 2 (low) and (high) 4 are colored yellow, and explanations are
optional.
Reported Shipper payloads were compiled for each shipper carrier for the 2014 - 2016
reporting years. The data was broken down for each SmartWay carrier category. Next,
for every category a histogram was developed and the distribution of the data was
reviewed. By adjusting the size of the bins outliers were identified and the histograms
adjusted to exclude those points. In most cases specific cutpoints were then selected
for each SmartWay category to represent 5, 10, 90, and 95 percentiles. (Certain highly
skewed distributions such as that for package carriers did not define low end cutpoints).
The resulting cutpoints used to establish the "red" and "yellow" validation ranges are
provided below.
27
-------
Table 15. Shipper
Payload Validation Ranges
Carrier Category
low red
low yellow
high yellow
high red
Dray
2.90
6.47
22.00
23.00
Expedited
N/A
N/A
20.16
21.61
Specialized
1.00
4.95
24.00
28.00
LTL
N/A
N/A
16.48
19.44
Auto Carrier
0.0041
0.0046
20.95
21.83
Heavy Bulk
5.45
10.24
25.03
25.20
TL
4.003
7.334
22.00
24.00
Moving
N/A
N/A
20.13
20.54
Flatbed
4.34
7.59
23.00
26.00
Mixed
1.001
4.429
22.500
23.933
General
10.00
14.45
21.00
28.00
Package
N/A
N/A
2.20
11.00
Tanker
7.86
14.06
24.56
26.28
Reefer
3.87
9.33
22.00
24.00
Logistics
0.404
1.158
22.00
24.00
Validation cutoffs for rail and surface multimodal carriers are summarized below. The
upper bound cutpoints for surface multimodal payloads are based on a qualitative
review of 2011 Multimodal carrier Tool submittals. The upper bound cutpoints for rail
payloads are based on the distribution of average values estimated for all Class 1
carriers (see Table 5 above).
• Average surface multimodal payloads less than 9.4 tons (error - red)
• Average surface multimodal payloads greater than 95 tons (error - red)
• Average railcar payloads less than 9.4 tons or greater than 125 tons (error - red)
• Average surface multimodal payloads between 9.4 and 15.5 tons (warning -
yellow)
• Average surface multimodal payloads between 60 and 95 tons (warning - yellow)
In addition, the absolute upper bound for rail and surface multimodal carriers have both
been set at 200 tons.
Multimodal carriers with an air component have their maximum average payload set to
220,000 lbs., corresponding to the maximum payload capacity for the largest aircraft
make/model specified by SmartWay partners in 2017. Payloads above this amount will
trigger a "red" out of range error that must be explained by the partner in order to
proceed, although no value has been set for a maximum allowable payload at this time.
Payloads between 110,000 and 220,000 lbs. will receive a "yellow" warning which may
be explained if the partner chooses. Any payload value less than or equal to zero will be
flagged as an error and must be changed.
28
-------
Finally, barge carrier payloads are flagged for verification if their density is greater than
0.6 tons per cubic foot or less than 0.003 tons per cubic foot, consistent with the
payload validation used in the Barge Tool.
Ton-Mile Validation
2011 Logistics Partner data was evaluated to establish absolute upper bounds for ton-
mile inputs. The ton-mile validation applies at the carrier (row) and total fleet
(summation of rows) level, with the same values applied to both. The maximum
allowable ton-mile value was set to twice the observed maximum value in the 2011 data
set: 209,207,446,000 ton-miles.
29
-------
Appendix A
Calculation of Truck-Equivalent Mileage Factors for Rail
Truck-equivalent can be converted into railcar-miles, so that partners can more readily
estimate emissions impacts from shifting freight between truck and rail modes, by
estimating the average volume capacity of Class I railcars and dividing it by an average
freight truck volume capacity. This results in a rough estimate that does not take into
consideration the utilized volume of railcars or the comparative freight truck, but we
determined that this was the best available data and method to estimate modal average
railcar-equivalent miles.
To estimate the average volume capacity of railcars, we multiplied the railcar miles
reported by each company for each railcar type in their respective 2008 R-1 reports
(lines 15-81) by the volume-per-railcar assumptions in Table A-1 to obtain total Class I
TEU-miles. We then divided the total railcar TEU-miles by the total railcar-miles to
estimate the average railcar volume capacity. We then divided this average railcar
volume capacity (3.92 TEUs) by the average freight truck volume capacity that we
developed for the truck g/TEU-mile factor discussed above (2.78 TEUs) to develop the
conversion factor -1.41 railcar-miles-to-truck-miles. In the absence of more specific
data, this factor can be used to convert truck miles to railcar miles for use on the Modal
Shift screen of the Shipper Tool. Note that no equivalent information was identified for
the estimation of industry-average barge volumes.
Table A-1: Railcar Volume Assumptions and Sources
Railcar Type
Cubic
Feet
Source/Method
Key: Norfolk Southern Railroad (NS)30, Union Pacific Railroad (UP)31,
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF)32, CSX Transportation
Railroad (CSX)33, World Trade Press Guide to Railcars (GTRC)34, Chicago
Rail Car Leasing (CRCL)35, Union Tank Car Company (UTCC)36, U.S
Department of Agriculture (USDA)37
Boxcar 50 ft and
longer including
equipped boxcars
7,177
Based on the average of the following boxcar types:
50ft assumed to be 5694 [reflecting the average of 5355 (NS), 5431 (UP),
5238 (CSX), 6175 (BSNF), 6269 (GTRC)l.
30 Norfolk Southern Shipping Tools/Equipment Guide/Merchandise Equipment.
http://www.nscorp.com/content/nscorp/en/shipping-tools/eauipment-guide/merchandise-eauipment.html (accessed
5-25-18).
31 UP Rail Equipment Descriptions, UP Rail Equipment Descriptions, https://www.uprr.com/customcrs/cauip-
resources/cartvpes/index.shtml (accessed 5-25-18).
32 BNSF Individual Railcar Equipment, http://www.bnsf.com/ship-with-bnsf/ways-of-shipping/individual-
railcar.html#subtabs-3 (accessed 5-25-18).
33 CSX Railroad Equipment, https://www.cs.vcom/indc.vcfm/customcrs/rcsourccs/cauipmcnt/railroad-cquipmcnt/
(accessed 5-25-18).
34 World Trade Press, World Trade Resources Guide to Railcars 2010.
35 Chicago Freight Car Leasing Company, Railcar Types. http://www.crdx.com/Services/Railcar (accessed 5-25-18).
36 UTLX Tank Car Designs and Descriptions, http://www.utlx.com/bdd tank.html (accessed 5-25-18).
37 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USD A), 1992, Weights, Measures, and Conversion Factors for Agricultural
Commodities and Their Products, Agricultural Handbook Number 697, Economic Research Service, Washington,
DC. Available at: https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/41880/33132 ah697 002.pdf?v=42487
(accessed 5-25-18).
30
-------
Railcar Type
Cubic
Feet
Source/Method
Key: Norfolk Southern Railroad (NS)30, Union Pacific Railroad (UP)31,
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF)32, CSX Transportation
Railroad (CSX)33, World Trade Press Guide to Railcars (GTRC)34, Chicago
Rail Car Leasing (CRCL)35, Union Tank Car Company (UTCC)36, U.S
Department of Agriculture (USDA)37
60ft assumed to be 6,648 [reflecting the average of 6618 (NS), 6389 (UP),
6085 (CSX), 7500 (BNSF)].
50ft hiqh cube assumed to be 6,304 Treflectina the averaqe of 6339 (NS) and
6269 (CSX)].
60 ft. hiah cube assumed to be 6917 Treflectina the averaae of 7499 (NS).
6646 (CSX), and 6607 (GTRC)].
86ft assumed to be 9999 (NS).
Auto parts assumed to be 7499 (NS).
Boxcar 40ft
4,555
Based on estimate of 50ft boxcar volume described above. Assumed 40ft
length would result in 20% reduction in volume.
Flat car - all types
except for multi-level
6,395
Based on the average of the following flat car types:
60ft assumed to be 6739 (BNSF).
89ft assumed to be 9372(BNSF).
Coil assumed to be 3387(NS).
Covered coil assumed to be 5294 Treflectina the averaae of 8328 (NS) and
2260 (BNSF)].
Center beam assumed to be 6546 Treflectina the averaae of 5857 (UP) and
7236 (BNSF)].
Bulkhead assumed to be 7030 (BNSF).
Multi-level flat car
13,625
Based on the average of the following multi-level flat car types:
Unilevel (that carrv verv larae carao. such as vehicles/tractors) assumed to be
12183 (NS).
Bi-level assumed to be 1438KNS).
Tri-level assumed to be 14313 (based on averaae of 15287 (NS) and 13339
(BNSF).
Flat Car - all types-
including multi-level
[not used in analysis,
except for estimating
volume of "All Other
Cars"]
7,428
Based on the average volumes of the flatcar types described above including
multi-level as a single flat car type.
Gondola - all types
Including equipped
5,190
Based on the average of the following gondola car types:
52-53ft assumed to be 2626 Tbased on averaae of 2665 (NS). 2743 (CSX).
2400 (BNSF), and 2697(CRLC)].
60-66ft assumed to be 3372 Tbased on averaae of 3281 (NS). 3242 (CSX).
3350 (BNSF), CRCL-3670, and 3366 (GTRC)].
Municipal Waste assumed to be 7999 (NS).
Woodchip assumed to be 7781 Tbased on averaae of 7862 (NS) and 7700
(CRCL)].
Coal assumed to be 4170 [based on averaae of 3785 (NS) and 4556 (BNSF)].
Refrigerated -
Mechanical /non-
Mechanical
6,202
Based on the average of the following refrigerated car types:
48-72ft assumed to be 6963 Tbased on averaae of 6043 (UP) and 7883
(BNSF)].
50ft assumed to be 5167(GTRC).
40-90 ft. assumed to be 6476 Tbased on averaae of 6952 (UP) and 6000
(BNSF)l.
Open Top Hopper
4,220
Based on the average of the following open top hopper car types:
42ft assumed to be 3000 (UP).
54ft assumed to be 3700 (UP).
60ft assumed to be 5188 [based on average of 5125 (UP) and 5250 (GTRC)].
45ft+ assumed to be 4105 [based on average of 4500 (UP) and 3710 (BNSF).
31
-------
Railcar Type
Cubic
Feet
Source/Method
Key: Norfolk Southern Railroad (NS)30, Union Pacific Railroad (UP)31,
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF)32, CSX Transportation
Railroad (CSX)33, World Trade Press Guide to Railcars (GTRC)34, Chicago
Rail Car Leasing (CRCL)35, Union Tank Car Company (UTCC)36, U.S
Department of Agriculture (USDA)37
WoodchiD assumed to be 7075 Tbased on averaae of 7525 (NS). 5999 (UP),
and 7700 (CRCL)].
Small Aqareqate assumed to be 2252 Tbased on averaae of 2150 (NS). 2106
(BNSF), and 2500 (CRCL)l.
Covered Hopper
4,188
Based on the average of the following covered top hopper car types:
45ft assumed to be 5250 (GTRC).
Aaareaate assumed to be 2575 Tbased on averaae of 2150 (NS) and 3000
(CRCL)].
Small Cube Gravel assumed to be 2939 Tbased on averaae of 2655 (NS).
3100 (CSX), and 3063 (BNSF).
Med-Larae Cube Ores and Sand assumed to be 4169 Tbased on averaae of
3750 (NS) and 4589 (BNSF)].
Jumbo assumed to be 5147 Tbased on averaae of 4875 (NS). 4462 (CSX).
5175 (BNSF), and 6075 (CRCL)].
Pressure Differential (flour) assumed to be 5050 Tbased on averaae of 5124
(NS) and 4975 (CRCL)l.
Tank Cars under
22,000 gallons
2,314
Assumes 1 gallon=0.1337 cubic foot (USDA).
Based on small tank car average volume of 17304 gallons, which is the
average of the following currently manufactured tank car volume design
capacities of 13470, 13710, 15100, 15960, 16410, 17300, 19900, 20000,
20590, and 20610 gallons (GTRC).
Tank Cars over 22,000
gallons
3,857
Assumes 1 gallon=0.1337 (USDA).
Based on large tank car volume of 28851 gallons, which is the average of the
following currently manufactured tank car volume design capacities of 23470,
25790, 27200, 28700, 30000, 33000, and 33800 gallons (GTRC).
All Other Cars
5,014
Based on average volume presented above for each of the nine railcar types
(all flatcars are represented by the line item that includes multi-level flatcars -
7428).
32
------- |