Going ‘green’ in a big way
Along with other railroads, I contacted CSX Transportation to get an idea of what the Class I is doing to reduce its carbon footprint. Talk about sustainable momentum. Lauren Rueger in the Class I’s corporate communications department sent me a list entitled “CSX and the Environment” that describes no less than 21 ways the railroad is trying to be an environmental steward.
I knew CSXT was upgrading its locomotive fleet with environmentally friendly units, using Auxiliary Power Units to reduce locomotive idling and carbon dioxide emissions, and employing green practices — such as transitioning from diesel-powered to electric cranes — at intermodal facilities. But there are scores of things the railroad is doing that I hadn’t heard about before.
Here are a few examples. CSXT relies on an Environmental Management System to help define environmental management responsibilities throughout the organization; promotes a “Keep on Living” campaign through which employees work with children and adults to encourage environmental stewardship in communities; uses oil heaters that burn used locomotive oil to heat facilities; and acquires low-emission highway vehicles through a Clean Fuel Fleet program.
In addition, the railroad last year developed an environmental crimes unit within its police department that is charged with increasing employee and community awareness of environmental crimes, and fostering relationships with local law enforcement agencies.
In a section subtitled “People Make the Difference for the Environment,” the document provided by Rueger states, “The 34,000 people who work at CSX could all be considered ‘green collar’ as they provide the most environmentally friendly way to move goods on land.”
I’m interested to find out how the other Class Is, regionals and short lines are cultivating a green collar workforce and pursuing a green environment. From what I’ve read in press releases and heard from executives at various railroads over the past year or so, many of them are big on sustainability, too.
Stay tuned for my Green Movement article come mid-August. Our esteemed Associate Editor Angela Cotey will chronicle passenger railroads’ sustainability push in a companion piece to the August cover story.
Posted by: 
Jeff Stagl | Date posted: 6/25/2008
Comments
Posted by Dave Smith on 6/25/2008 8:34:14 PM
What exactly, pray tell, is an "environmental crime"? I can see where dumping diesel fuel into an aquifer aka BNSF in Livingston Montana sure can qualify as an environmental crime. But emitting a benign gas known as carbon dioxide, no way. The sad irony of this latest "green" movement is that the focus of evil seems to be CO2, yet CO2 represents less than 0.04% of our atmosphere and is essential for the greening of the planet. With so much focus on CO2, we're losing sight of real problem emissions such as CO, SOX, NOX, et al. If CSX really wanted to go green, they'd replace their diesel fleet with modern coal fired steam locomotives. A modern coal-fired external combustion engine would have lower emissions than a diesel for all except CO2. The catalytic converters on our automobiles came about because they reduced toxins to "harmless" CO2. I guess if we really want to reduce our collective carbon footprint, we'll get rid of catalytic converters and go back to emitting more toxic elements from our tailpipes.
Posted by Brian Jones on 6/26/2008 10:54:21 AM
"uses oil heaters that burn used locomotive oil to heat facilities;" Wouldn't it be much "Greener" to have the used oil refined back to a usable lube stock instead of burning it for heat. The used oil could be refined many, many times , but once burned it is gone.
Posted by James Swidergal on 6/26/2008 7:10:02 PM
I'm with Dave on this one. Coal fired steam loco's just might be the way to go. Or at least until self contained hydrogen plants or maybe nucleur generation can be safely addressed.
Posted by Larry Kaufman on 6/27/2008 2:38:26 PM
Railroads may be "going green" as the blog says, and I'll look forward to reading Jeff's cover story in August, but a very strong case can be made that railroads already are "green" and have been for a long time. One doesn't have to argue with adherents of the Flat Earth Society who reject even the concept of global climate change to recognize that in the normal course of business railroads are among the better stewards of our environment. More to the point, they do good by being good -- simply by doing what they do in the normal course of business they contribute to improving our environment. Railroads can move a ton of freight 436 miles on a gallon of fuel, as much as four times the distance a truck can carry the same freight on a gallon of fuel. Less fuel per ton of freight = less greenhouse gas emissions, less Nox, less CO2, less climate change. But that's not all. Railroads don't do these things out of the goodness of their hearts. They do them because it is their business to use their technology in a benign manner. The steel wheel on steel rail has less friction than a rubber tire on concrete or asphalt pavement. Perhaps more important to this capitalist, railroads do what they do to earn a profit and provide a return to their investors. The good they do for the environment can be construed as the "icing on the cake." In so doing, they use their fuel efficiency to take freight that previously moved by truck off the highways. As intermodal continues to grow, rails will handle more of the long haul movements and trucks will handle the short haul movements to and from intermodal terminals to and from manufacturers and distribution centers, further reducing the amount of fuel consumed to move each ton of freight. Thus, railroads contribute to improving our environment by lessening the deleterious effects of moving more freight by less environmentally friendly means.
Posted by Dave Smith on 6/27/2008 7:55:12 PM
One doesn't have to argue with adherents of the Flat Earth Society and it's collective belief in the Goebblesque concept of human-induced climate change to recognize that in the normal course of business railroads in theory should be among the better stewards of our environment. Of course, that ignores all those Superfund sites such as Livingston Montana, or the raping of the forest around Snoqualmie Pass by former BN subsidiary Plum Creek Timber. Or for that matter, the miles and miles of railroad abandonments throughout the nation that has forced shippers to switch to trucks, relocate overseas, or just plain go out of business. What railroads do well in theory environmentally speaking, namely get up to 10 times better ton/mile fuel economy than trucks, is lost in the larger scheme of things by their own self inflicted actions over the years.
Posted by Larry Kaufman on 6/30/2008 10:36:20 AM
It didn't take Dave Smith long to convert the "green" discussion into his usual anti-railroad screed. So be it. I shall point out that the vast majority of rail abandonments over the past 27 years (since Staggers recognized that railroads have the right to end service where they cannot earn a return on investmen) have been driven by the need to oompete with motor carriers that are subsidized by taxpayers and other highway users (motorists in gas guzzlers and non-gas guzzlers, for example). With no capital cost beyond the tractor and trailer, truckers can operate profitably with a significantly higher operating ration than can railroads -- or any other business that has a high fixed capital cost structure. That's why a trucker with an operating ratio of 95 thinke he's died and gone to heaven, while a railroad with an operating ratio north of 80 is considered a shaky investment at best by those who provide capital funds to the industry. Right, Mr. Smith, keep on subsidizing truckers and then critiize railroads because they are forced to withdraw from some lines of business in reaction to their competitors living off the public. Logical? No, but that's never bothered those who work in the utility industry and would like to see their coal delivered at less than full costs.
Posted by Terry Gibbons on 6/30/2008 11:31:57 AM
We manufacture a product called PRP, which is slowly making it's way through the railroad industry. The material is a matrix of beeswax that remediates oils and hydrocarbons from the ballast, streams and railyards. Go to; www.unireminc.com to learn more. Our biggest hurdle has been getting the Tier 1 railroads to listen to us! Norfolk & Southern has been using the material at various sites in Ohio with remarkable results. We were able to reduce the hydrocarbons by @ 93% without using track matting thus, eliminating the disposal of hazardous waste. You can't get any greener than that!
Posted by Glen Fisher on 6/30/2008 11:36:12 AM
I wouls like to send you a copy of my paper POWERING FREIGHT RAILROADS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND PROFIT, Electrification---Why and How. It was presented to the Transport Canada "On Board for a Cleaner Environment" conference in Toronto, May 7, 2008.
Posted by Dave Smith on 6/30/2008 7:38:51 PM
Glen, I hope we get a chance to analyze your numbers. Since your paper was dated recently just a few months ago, I assume you've adjusted the costs of string catenary to reflect rising commodity prices for things such as copper wire et al. Electrification (preferably powered by hydro or nuclear power) would be the "greenest", but not necessarily the cheapest way for railroads to break the shackles of expensive petroleum. With the price differential of coal vs oil at a factor of 13:1, modern reciprocating coal-fired steam would be the lowest cost option, but of course the spector of CO2 regulation effectively kills off that option. What I have pointed out is the irony that the lowest cost AND the most environmentally friendly method of locomotion - modern coal-fired reciprocating steam - would take a back seat to continuation of diesel electrics with their litany of toxic emissions, or to capital intensive electrification. And of course, if the electricity is provided by a coal-fired power plant, there goes the "green" award.....
Posted by Terry Bell on 7/1/2008 10:15:13 AM
Jeff, I'll be interested to see if you were able to get the Class 1's to divulge what their plans are for alternate fuels. It's fine to get switchers on a green path but burning 4 billion gallons plus of diesel, @ current prices, would seem to be a driver for alternate fuels. Maybe the Class 1's should look to Boeing/Virgin Air and Delta. They are joining in an effort to jump ahead of the current biofuels technology and move to the ultimate source of triglycerides, algae. Clearly, sustainable algae strains need to be developed but when the capability exists to combine existing technologies where hydrogen and biodiesel are produced, consuming CO2 in the process, the Class 1's need to be looking this way. Just the ensuing positive PR, trying to solve the challenge rather than just issuing fuel surcharges, would seem to me to be in their interesxt. I look forward to you article.
Posted by Larry Kaufman on 7/1/2008 10:16:07 AM
It's time for a fundamental revisit of certain facts. First, an electric locomotive doesn't know nor care whether the electricity is receives is generated by coal, nuclear, hydro, natgas, wind or solar energy. Trying to argue who or what is "greener" in this kind of discussion is a bit like trying to determine the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. Second, there were and still are good and valid reasons why railroads opted for diesel-electric power over steam. The technology that existed at the time made the decision quite simple. Steam locomotives required much more labor to maintain them than did diesels. Steam locomotives ran more or less constantly, making today's diesel idling appear quite friendly to the environment. Diesels not only required less labor to maintain them, they were a more reliable unit. As in most non-governmental endeavors, economics ruled. The people who were responsible for running the enterprise made the best capital spending decision based on the information at hand and the technology as it existed at the time -- they chose diesel-electric power. No small consideration, but diesels could be combined in multiple units more easily than steam could, enabling greater tonnage to be moved. Ever since the conversion from steam to diesel, which began in the 1930s and was completed in the early 1960s, there have been efforts to recreate steam. Those efforts properly have focused on developing a new generation of locomotives that would be cleaner burning, more efficient, more reliable, etc. As one who believes that technology can always be improved, I do not reject the efforts to develop a new, improved steam locomotive. Perhaps one will be developed that will meet the operational and capital requirements of moving commerce throughout the U.S. To date, though, that has not happened. Remember, please, that a locomotive purchased today, whether diesel or steam (if one existed), will be in the inventory for the next 20 years -- even longer with rebuilding. This is true of most railroad capital expenditures; they are very long lived. It is easy to sit back in 2008 and tell boards of directors and senior executives what they should be doing and why. Those who do, however, rarely reflect the non-technical factors that go into such decisions: capital cost, debt structure, parts inventories, training labor, and a few I'm sure I've forgotten. The people who actually make the decisions to spend millions do not have the luxury of contemplating their navels and thinking that something that isn't even being offered in the market would be nice to have. It might, but so what?
Posted by Dave Smith on 7/1/2008 9:05:49 PM
I tell you what, Larry. You seem adament that anthropogenic global warming is irrefutable fact, and that man's carbon emissions are to blame. And of course you speak for the railroad industry, right? Fine, let's put our money where our mouth is and convince the railroads to just stop hauling coal altogether. Oh, not today, but say maybe in 10 years or so we'll stop hauling this toxic coal that is killing the planet, giving utilities a window to convert to nuclear, solar, or wind. What do you think would happen to the stock value of Class I's if this scenario happened? Well, this steel rail version of the Malthusian spector may come to pass if you and the folks at PR keep on pushing this global warming hoax. It is not inconceivable that the entire coal-fired generation sector could be converted to nuclear within a decade or so, in order that we may collectively reduce our "carbon footprint" while maintaining current rates of electricty consumption. RAILROAD EXECS TAKE NOTE! This aquiescence to the green movement will result in the rail industry cutting it's own collective jugular.
Posted by Larry Kaufman on 7/2/2008 12:59:51 PM
Well, Mr. Smith, you insist on using my first name although to my knowledge we've never met and you certainly are not a friend of mine. That leaves solicitors who always like to use first names, so what are you selling? I tried to make my blog response as non-political and impersonal as possible, and after rereading it, believe I was quite successful. That didn't satisfy you, though, so you come back with more of your political agenda. Let's start with one error in your post: I do not speak for the railroads. I speak for myself, based on some 40 years of experience in government, journalism, association, carrier, and consulting. I am paid for my writings. Enough on that. I confess to not knowing the word anthropogenic, but I'm sure you do. So, how about communicating in English? I do believe that man (now some 6 billion of us) does have an effect on the environment. You obviously do not. So be it. Funny, but I didn't say a word about the environment in my blogpost about why diesel electric power has triumphed over steam in the railroad business. I guess when it comes to debate, you must always come back to the points you wish to make and ignore those of others. And why would I or anyone want to convince the railroads to stop hauling coal - now or in the next 10 years. What a silly proposition! Railroads have a common carrier obligation to provide service on reasonable request, remember? They dont make the environmental laws; they just serve customers. You've switched into Goebbellian (your term) "logic" with this latest silliness. I'm not aware that any reputable expert has said anything about killing the planet. Affecting the environment, yep, but killing the planet? Try again, Mr. Smith. Utilities will convert to nuclear, solar, or wind when other fuels and generating methods make economic sense. They don't have any more love for coal than they do for paying railroads to get it delivered. You posit the question of what cessation of use of coal would do to the railroads. You seem to forget we already know the answer. The utilities pretty much abandoned coal some years ago and they didn't give a rat's a** what it meant to the railroads. They came back to coal for one reason and one reason only: western low sulfur coal is cheaper on a delivered basis than any fuel they could get other than renewable things like wind, hydro and solar. In your Goebbelian effort, you try to tie me to PR's editors (flattered, but sorry, I have no relationship with PR other than to participate in its blogs) and deny again that there is any such thing as global warming, including calling it a "hoax." Dick Cheney would be proud of you, Mr. Smith. You then raise the spectre of total conversion to nuclear within 10 years or so, as though it were a threat. Ten years? Surely you jest. If and when it makes sense, and the United States has a coherent comprehensive energy policy, it will happen, not before, and certainly not within 10 years. I have promised the editor of PR that I would cease personal attacks on you, Mr. Smith, but you make it impossible to keep the pledge when you engage in the kind of invective of your latest blogpost. It's downright silly and I'm sure you will be given all the attention you deserve - NONE.
Posted by Robert E. Munn on 7/2/2008 3:38:49 PM
Why has industry so completely bought into this "green" meme? It actually is disheartening to see us buy whole hog into an ideology largely based on wildly erratic models and supported by a legion of loopy-loons. Is it simply to join the mindless money-grab? To become a part of resource sapping group of scare mongers who contribute nothing, zero, zilch, bupkis to our existence? It is time to choose sides. You can be with the side of rational thought, or the loopy greenies.
Posted by R.J.Tarasi on 7/3/2008 2:13:32 PM
One of the biggest pollutions problems in the railroad industry is from diesel engines idling outside a repair facility, or in a holding area, waiting for a train make up. The engines usually sit over a very out dated, inefficient absorbent track mat. The oil/diesel runs through the ballast and sometimes all the way to the sub-surface ground water. THAT IS A MAJOR PROBLEM. There is a GREEN product called Oil Buster/PRP which absorbs this oil/diesel mixture and prevents if from ever penetrating the ballast and it biodegrades, insitu, the hydrocarbon contamination. See www.unireminc.com for tests and testimonials.
