Log train

[Ianab]

Train was a bit light on logs this morning, usually there are a few more. They pick up logs from the Whanganui area and haul them to the port at New Plymouth. About 100 miles (2+ hours). Makes the double handling economic, and few less trucks on the road.

https://youtu.be/ZyAfxY9oeOg

[SwampDonkey]

When I was a kid, used to see whole train loads of logs or 4-foot pulp. In dad's day, the 4-foot was all loaded by hand if it was off woodlots. Mills had loaders of course. The train would also haul car loads of sawdust from the sawmill, so you had round wood pulp as well as sawdust heading to the pulp mill. Sure baffling how that was not economical versus 20 trucks on the road making several trips for the same volume. :

[Ianab]

Sure baffling how that was not economical versus 20 trucks on the road making several trips for the same volume

The extra handling needed. Landing -> trucks ->train -> trucks -> sawmill. At ~50 miles the logs are at the mill and the truck is back for another load before the train leaves the station. 

But when you can cut out 100 miles of trucking it starts to make sense, In this case the rail wagons can be unloaded at the port as easily as a truck, so that's another advantage. 

Not sure about other places, but all the old side lines and sidings are long gone here. It's long distance bulk freight (see all the containers and tanks). 

[SwampDonkey]

Sawmill yard. Wood hauled from the woods to the yard tree length on truck. Mill yard bucks the 4 foot off the top ends for the logs plus separate tree length pulp logs that don't make logs. Sawdust and planer shavings produced at the mill. Load it all from there to the train parked at the saw mill yard siding. One big load to the pulp mill. No extra handling to haul to the pulp mill at all. Around here, it was not done inefficiently as you suggest. The old sidings are gone because they let them be gone and made more jobs for trucks and more money for truck dealers. Where trucks work best is small loads, small operators who had no siding and would have to add handling. The truck backs into your potato house for a load and off it goes. Trucks are more efficient for short hauls. But perishable goods are a problem on trains, freezing or thawing out. Canada is 37 times larger than NZ. ;D There are trucks hauling goods from 1000's of miles away. We get produce from California and Mexico, that's not a short haul. ;)

[barbender]

For the life of me I can't understand why rail roads aren't used to transport more wood (other than the railroad companies are horrible to deal with). There are thousands of cords of pulp that move on trucks 100 miles one way, parallel to the rail tracks on the way to Sappi, and pine sawlogs going the other way to Potlatch. 

[beenthere]

Trucks can go to the woods roads and load from there. Should they then unload and reload onto the rail cars? Like this truck load linked to your gallery.
Just wondering, as your question gives reason to do that. Distribution yards or collection yards on rail sidings needed? With equipment to move logs?
https://forestryforum.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pid=310633

[Ianab]

Canada is 37 times larger than NZ. There are trucks hauling goods from 1000's of miles away. We get produce from California and Mexico, that's not a short haul.

All true, but people also underestimate the size on NZ too.  State Highway One is longer (2,000+ km) than Los Angeles to Vancouver. Just the country isn't very wide :D

I guess it's a matter of logistics. They have to have a loading yard near the forests, and that means equipment and at least one operator on site. So unless you have multiple trucks unloading over the course of the day, it's not practical. But if you can cut the fleet of trucks from 10 to 5, then having a loader and driver stationed at the yard isn't a big deal. There logs will be headed to the port for export, so they have the rail siding and log handling machinery there anyway. The rail company has to have enough wagons per day to make it worthwhile too. 

You can see the rest of the train is containers or bulk tanks (propane?), no "general goods" wagons at all. Again that double handling and general inefficiency.  

[SwampDonkey]

To move strickly saw logs then train doesn't pencil out unless you have volume and quick turn around, you need trucks from the woods to the mill yard. It's all the products off those logs and pulp logs in the mix that the sawmill can't use that is more economical on a train to move the 80+ miles. Tons of fuel saved and don't need as many trucks because they haul shorter distance now. What's the difference, unloading onto a yard pile or on a train? I see the sawmill yard as the central processing yard. Any time you cut logs/mill lumber/plain lumber, there is pulp material. If material separation is done in the woods, you need bigger yards for different products and your still handling. If you have enough rail cars, the pulp mill unloads as they feed the mill, train hauls back the emptied cars to drop at the sawmill and pulp product continues on to port. It all depends on how well the train is managed, I know the Twin River pulp mill had issues with MMA in Madawaska/Edmundston. It was later acquired by Irving and CP rail.

[scsmith42]

That was a nice whack of logs on that train!