~ 

~ 'SmartWay· 

Transport Partnership 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

www.epa.gov/ smartway 

~ 

ft EA~ United States Environmental Protection ,..,,. Agency 

2018 SmartWay Shipper 

Partner Tool: 

Technical Documentation 

U. S. Version 2.0.17 (Data Year 2017) 
~ 

~'SmartWay· 

Transport Partnership 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

ft EA~ United States .. ~ Environmental Protection "1111,,. Agency 

2018 SmartWay Shipper 

Partner Tool: 

Tecnical Documentation 

U.S. Version 2.0.17 (Data Year 2017) 

Transportation and Climate Division 

Offce of Transportation and Air Quality 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Offce of Transportation 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 4Way 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 

SmartWay Category 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EEcc = DDtttt ∗ TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT ∗ ggtttt + DDtt ∗ TTTTTTTTTT ∗ ggtt

Total emissions: 

EEttTTtt = �EEcc

cc

Emission factors and average payload (APL): 

EEttTTtt ggtttt = ∑cc TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTcc

EEttTTtt

ggtt = ∑cc TTTTTTTTTTcc

∑cc TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTcc AAAAAA = ∑cc TTTTTTTTTTcc

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 tonmiles: 

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: 

• TL Dry Van • Auto Carrier 

• LTL Dry Van • Expedited 

• Refrigerated • Heavy/Bulk 

• Flatbed • Moving 

• Tanker • Specialized 

• Dray • Mixed 

• Package 

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 

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 

TL 

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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TRUCK 

Dray 

Truckload 

Expedit ed 

LTL 

Package 

Mixed 

Rail 

Dry Van 

& Cha.ssis 

Truckload DrvVan 

5 Performance Levels 

Expedited 

5 Performance Levels 

Package Delivery 

5 Performance levels 

Reefer Flatbed 

Reefer 

Tanker 

Heavy 

&Bulk 

Auto 

carrier Moving 

Performance Performance 

Levels Levelis 

(No company differentiation a llowed per Association of American Railroads) 

- Company Specific Dat a 

Company Specific Data 

I Logistics 5 Performance Levels 

~ Emission Factor Dat a Only 

- (No 5 Performance Level Ranking) 

I Marine To Be Determined 

Specialized 

& Utility Mixed 

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 

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 nonSmartWay 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 air freight 

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 

CO2/tmi CO2/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 CO2/gal diesel fuel), from publicly available data 

submitted in the 2017 railroad R-1 reports to the Department of Transportation. 2017 R1 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-Núñez, 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. Schlömer, 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_analysis/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/standalone.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 TonMi/Yr ('000) 

Sch. 755 line 

110 

Railcar-Mi/Yr 

('000) Sch. 755 

sum of lines 

30, 46, 64 & 82 

g 

CO2/railcarmile 

g 

CO2/short 

ton-mile 

BNSF Railway 1,353,897 665,948,516 11,606,520 1,187 20.70 

CSX Transportation 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 RailcarMiles (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 (x1K) Cu Ft Miles (x1K) 

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 (x1K) Cu Ft Miles (x1K) 

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 (x1K) Cu Ft Miles (x1K) 

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 (x1K) Cu Ft Miles (x1K) 

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 (x1K) Cu Ft Miles (x1K) 

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 (x1K) Cu Ft Miles (x1K) 

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 (x1K) Cu Ft Miles (x1K) 

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 (x1K) Cu Ft Miles (x1K) 

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, bargemiles 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, N2O, 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. Illustrative U.S. Freight Truck Industry Average Factors in Modal Shift 

CO2 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 Truck Industry Average Factors

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 

 in Modal Shift 

We developed the freight rail g CO2/ton-mile and g CO2/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 PM10 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/otaq/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 (accessed 8-22-18). 

21 
 

 

 

I I 

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 PM10/gal and g NOx/gal factors from 

Tables 5 and 6, respectively, in EPA's 2009 Technical Highlights: Emissions Factors for 

Locomotives.

25 To calculate g PM2.5/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/ZyNET.exe/P10024CN.TXT?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=2006+Thru 

+2010&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QF 

ieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5Czyfiles 

%5CIndex%20Data%5C06thru10%5CTxt%5C00000005%5CP10024CN.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=an 

onymous&SortMethod=h%7C-

&MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=hpfr&DefSe 

ekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntr 

y=1&SeekPage=x&ZyPURL (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://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/P100500B.TXT?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=2006+Thru 

+2010&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QF 

ieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5Czyfiles 

%5CIndex%20Data%5C06thru10%5CTxt%5C00000010%5CP100500B.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=an 

onymous&SortMethod=h%7C-

&MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=hpfr&DefSe 

ekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntr 

y=1&SeekPage=x&ZyPURL (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 I-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 5,057,466,000 

Flat Multi Level 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 

CO2 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/?page_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/473700-00075-1.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 PM2.5 by 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 air freight 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 CO2/ton-mile marine factors from the Business for Social Responsibility’s (BSR) 

Clean Cargo Tool g CO2/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 CO2/metric ton-km, 

so we converted this data into g CO2/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 CO2/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.portsofindiana.com/wpcontent/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 

y2009.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 CO2/ 

ton-mile) 

Total 

efficiency

(g of 

CO2/tonmile) 

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 CO2/ 

ton-mile) 

Total 

efficiency

(g of 

CO2/tonmile) 

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 + lm 5,154 70% 19.4 368,202,021 66.12 72.25 

Ro-Ro 0-1,999 lm 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 CO2/ 

ton-mile) 

Total 

efficiency

(g of 

CO2/tonmile) 

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 

Payload 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 tonmile 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)]. 

30 Norfolk Southern Shipping Tools/Equipment Guide/Merchandise Equipment. 

http://www.nscorp.com/content/nscorp/en/shipping-tools/equipment-guide/merchandise-equipment.html (accessed 

5-25-18). 31 UP Rail Equipment Descriptions, UP Rail Equipment Descriptions. https://www.uprr.com/customers/equipresources/cartypes/index.shtml (accessed 5-25-18). 32 BNSF Individual Railcar Equipment. http://www.bnsf.com/ship-with-bnsf/ways-of-shipping/individualrailcar.html#subtabs-3 (accessed 5-25-18). 33 CSX Railroad Equipment. https://www.csx.com/index.cfm/customers/resources/equipment/railroad-equipment/ 

(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 (USDA), 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 high cube assumed to be 6,304 [reflecting the average of 6339 (NS) and 

6269 (CSX)]. 

60 ft. high cube assumed to be 6917 [reflecting the average 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 6,395 Based on the average of the following flat car types: 

except for multi-level 60ft assumed to be 6739 (BNSF). 

89ft assumed to be 9372(BNSF). 

Coil assumed to be 3387(NS). 

Covered coil assumed to be 5294 [reflecting the average of 8328 (NS) and 

2260 (BNSF)]. 

Center beam assumed to be 6546 [reflecting the average 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 carry very large cargo, such as vehicles/tractors) assumed to be 

12183 (NS). 

Bi-level assumed to be 14381(NS). 

Tri-level assumed to be 14313 (based on average of 15287 (NS) and 13339 

(BNSF). 

Flat Car – all typesincluding 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 5,190 Based on the average of the following gondola car types: 

Including equipped 52-53ft assumed to be 2626 [based on average of 2665 (NS), 2743 (CSX), 

2400 (BNSF), and 2697(CRLC)]. 

60-66ft assumed to be 3372 [based on average of 3281 (NS), 3242 (CSX), 

3350 (BNSF), CRCL-3670, and 3366 (GTRC)]. 

Municipal Waste assumed to be 7999 (NS). 

Woodchip assumed to be 7781[based on average of 7862 (NS) and 7700 

(CRCL)]. 

Coal assumed to be 4170 [based on average of 3785 (NS) and 4556 (BNSF)]. 

Refrigerated - 6,202 Based on the average of the following refrigerated car types: 

Mechanical /non- 48-72ft assumed to be 6963 [based on average of 6043 (UP) and 7883 

Mechanical (BNSF)]. 

50ft assumed to be 5167(GTRC). 

40-90 ft. assumed to be 6476 [based on average of 6952 (UP) and 6000 

(BNSF)]. 

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 

Woodchip assumed to be 7075 [based on average of 7525 (NS), 5999 (UP), 

and 7700 (CRCL)]. 

Small Aggregate assumed to be 2252 [based on average of 2150 (NS), 2106 

(BNSF), and 2500 (CRCL)]. 

Covered Hopper 4,188 Based on the average of the following covered top hopper car types: 

45ft assumed to be 5250 (GTRC). 

Aggregate assumed to be 2575 [based on average of 2150 (NS) and 3000 

(CRCL)]. 

Small Cube Gravel assumed to be 2939 [based on average of 2655 (NS), 

3100 (CSX), and 3063 (BNSF). 

Med-Large Cube Ores and Sand assumed to be 4169 [based on average of 

3750 (NS) and 4589 (BNSF)]. 

Jumbo assumed to be 5147 [based on average of 4875 (NS), 4462 (CSX), 

5175 (BNSF), and 6075 (CRCL)]. 

Pressure Differential (flour) assumed to be 5050 [based on average of 5124 

(NS) and 4975 (CRCL)]. 

Tank Cars under 2,314 Assumes 1 gallon=0.1337 cubic foot (USDA). 

22,000 gallons 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