UP running 18000 foot intermodal train on Sunset Route Dallas west to Long Beach

 The UP's senior management team has four members.  Three of them  are Certified Public Accountants.

Hypothetical conversation:

"Dispatcher, this is IDILBF08, UP7454, we just went into emergency."

"Extra 7454, if you cannot retrieve your air, you will have to walk your train.  Are you blocking any crossings?"

"Yes, we are blocking the entire town of _______."

"Ummm, let me talk to the chief and get back to you."

 So....would this train have an escourt on adjacent highways by supervisors? 

For you railroaders out there, what potential problems does this train pose (vs a "normal 8000ft train)?  I understand this question is rather vague and misleading as there are probably no "normal" trains, but one would think an 18000 footer would have special handling and operational issues.

Further, what is the big advantage here?  Obviously there is a savings on crew costs, but would those savings be offset by a general slowing of the operations of the division/region, etc? 

Lets say this become the norm, to build one ultra intermodal daily out of Long Beach (CN seems to be experimenting with this according to a recent Trains issue), how does this effect the scheduling, asset utilization, crew utilization, and a whole bunch of other issues?

Interesting development during these slow economic times to tighten the financial belts.

Ed

Heaven help anyone that runs around a crossing gate.  I would not throw that train into EMERGANCY FOR ANYTHING if I WAS THE ENGINEER.  I DO not care if it was a School Bus or a Tanker of Gasoline sorry I am going to hit it rather than risk derailing that monster.

18,000 feet? OK--fine--

That is going to be somethng on video----just a SLIGHT indication how long it'll take at a crossing----

Watch out for the "impatient fool"--

This looks like this might be an experimental operation along the lines of the 500-car coal train on N&W in the 1960's.  This train appears to be technically feasible but operationally impractical.

What is the average grade on that route anyways?

 In Arizona between Dragoon and Mescal there are many curves and grades of one to two percent, with the Benson, Arizona crossing of the San Pedro River being the low spot.  Dragoon is the highest point between New Mexico and Tucson, Arizona, the San Pedro River is the lowest point, and Mescal is the second-highest point.

I would not want to be the guinnea-pig engineer having to maneuver a train of this length and weight through SE Arizona.

Is this train modeled after a railroad song ( In the pines ) the longest train I ever saw??    LOL

Operationally this poses several questions.

1. Are there any sidings on present single track sections that are 18,000 - 20,000 ft long on this route? Do not count the double track sections. This would require very close dispatcher co-ordination of these size trains to enable meets on a 18,000 ft siding of two of these size trains.

2. This size train would almost certainly remain on the main if possible and shorter trains would take a siding waiting for the 18,000 footer.

3. The use of fewer trains is a positive allowing more rack time for maintenance.

4. The possibility of additional rail wear because of the longer trains flexing time of the rails before the rails can rest between trains?

5. A way to aleviate an emergency brake application would be to station a crew man 2/3rds of the way back in a DPU unit to trouble shoot the problem ( can isolate problem to either in front of DPU or rear) and help locate the problem? and speed up restoration of problem. Still would be fewer total crew. ECP Brakes may allow remote trouble shooting in the future.

6. Extra man also allows quicker break up of train at destination or intermediate stop where train is split into two or more destinations. Much quicker setting up DPU when combining trains. Also in case of derailment or grade crossing collision can more quickly move un affected portion of train out of the way if needed.

7. More attention to brake systems to lower the possibility of shooters (defective brake systems causing an unwanted emergency application.

8. Refueling these trains at the El-Paso pads could be a major headache with 3 - 4 stops to refuel and service the locos. This would surely require yard crews and hostlers to preserve hrs of service time for the road crew?.  

9. The time lost in the above refueling would probably not be acceptable for high priority traffic.

10.  For maximum fluidity (that term again) the 20,000 ft sidings required would need to be equal time (not equal distance) spacing to allow rolling meets where possible. Many present siding ( including additional siding on double track) would need to be lengthened.

I read elsewhere that 4 eastbounds were rerouted onto the Las Vegas line because they were doing "track maintenance" on the Sunset Route.  I suspect this was done to clear a path for this Monster Train.

 They should have brought Matt Bown out of TV retirement and had him giving a play by play.

It may take 3 to 5 min. to clear a crossing, spokeswoman R. Williams said.....Yes, and then some in my opinion.   Probably more like 15 min.

blue streak 1

Operationally this poses several questions.

1. Are there any sidings on present single track sections that are 18,000 - 20,000 ft long on this route? Do not count the double track sections. This would require very close dispatcher co-ordination of these size trains to enable meets on a 18,000 ft siding of two of these size trains.

The difference between an 18,000-foot siding and a section of two main track is somewhat semantic.  There is a long tradition of running trains longer than the plant towards each other.  Sometimes it is a real problem other times not; it depends.

2. This size train would almost certainly remain on the main if possible and shorter trains would take a siding waiting for the 18,000 footer.

Yes, that's how it's usually done, but it does not necessarily mean much delay for the shorter train because many sidings have grade-crossings and the train taking the siding has to hold short.

3. The use of fewer trains is a positive allowing more track time for maintenance.

Maybe.  Maybe not.  It might mean less.  It depends how the trains bunch.

4. The possibility of additional rail wear because of the longer trains flexing time of the rails before the rails can rest between trains?

That, at least, is a definite no.

5. A way to aleviate an emergency brake application would be to station a crew man 2/3rds of the way back in a DPU unit to trouble shoot the problem ( can isolate problem to either in front of DPU or rear) and help locate the problem? and speed up restoration of problem. Still would be fewer total crew. ECP Brakes may allow remote trouble shooting in the future.

That would totally defeat the purpose here.  It wouldn't help much anyway.  But it's not like every train has an undesired emergency application every trip.  More like 1 in 200 in my experience is a worst-case scenario, and that on a relatively bad infrastructure and alignment in relation to the tonnage, length, and frequency of the trains.  On a good infrastructure with good alignment, and using intermodal cars that are not free-runners like the usual crap in manifest service, it can be much less frequent.

6. Extra man also allows quicker break up of train at destination or intermediate stop where train is split into two or more destinations. Much quicker setting up DPU when combining trains. Also in case of derailment or grade crossing collision can more quickly move un affected portion of train out of the way if needed.

Again, defeats the purpose.  And 99% of the time would not make any difference.

7. More attention to brake systems to lower the possibility of shooters (defective brake systems causing an unwanted emergency application.

Intermodal cars lend themselves to this very well.

8. Refueling these trains at the El-Paso pads could be a major headache with 3 - 4 stops to refuel and service the locos. This would surely require yard crews and hostlers to preserve hrs of service time for the road crew?. 

Not necessarily.  It's feasible to fuel remotes with trucks.

9. The time lost in the above refueling would probably not be acceptable for high priority traffic.

Most intermodal trains are not high-priority.  It may, or may not, decrease reliability and increase transit time.  It might actually decrease it.  There are many factors that have to be looked at.

10.  For maximum fluidity (that term again) the 20,000 ft sidings required would need to be equal time (not equal distance) spacing to allow rolling meets where possible. Many present siding ( including additional siding on double track) would need to be lengthened.

Maybe.  There's no perfect pattern or system or method for any of this, just a long series of adjustments and counter-adjustments over a period of decades.  The world never stands still long enough for anyone to get their transportation plan and infrastructure matched up and working like clockwork.

Long story short:  There's absolutely no way for me to stand on the outside and say with any certainty if this is a good or bad idea.  It's hard enough for me to stand on the inside and say that with certainty.  There are many factors at play, and we'll never know most of them.  Let's let experience be our guide and if it is a money-maker or a money-loser, we'll know simply by waiting to see what happens.

RWM

karldotcom

I read elsewhere that 4 eastbounds were rerouted onto the Las Vegas line because they were doing "track maintenance" on the Sunset Route.  I suspect this was done to clear a path for this Monster Train.

Could have been UFOs lurking on the Sunset Route, too.

RWM

CShaveRR

 

They didn't, however, make a provision for employee comments on this little item--I guess they figured they'd get an earful of stuff they didn't want to hear. Best comment I've heard so far is that this is a "Bean-counter's wet dream, and a conductor's worst nightmare." I'm sure the dispatchers will love it, too--the Sunset Route isn't ready for this yet.

Carl, I don't think any UP route is ready for these sized trains.  All right if you keep moving, but even on two main tracks trains get stopped.  

I can just imagine all the happy campers in Ames, IA (and elsewhere) when going thru town under train control (15mph).  Heck, just getting train control above 40mph and having to go to suppression could be fun in the wrong place.

As someone else noted, this could be a test, but the rules were changed recently to allow this length of train.  I'd bet we'll see more of these in the future.

Jeff  

 At 60 mph it would take 3 minutes, 26 seconds to pass a point. I would be interested to know whether such a long train would be operated at that speed, even faster, or slower.

Outside of train handling considerations in having the train operating through multiple hills and sags at the same time.....walking the train for any reason...UDE, Defect Detector activation will have the train stopped for up to potentially 6 hours.  If that occurs on a single track segment you have a serious line blockage...remember 18K feet is 36K feet round trip...brakemen/conductor are not able to inspect their train at a 4 MPH power walking pace on Main Track ballast, in the dark, with a brakeman's lantern.  Even if the stoppage occurs in multiple track territory...how many trains are trapped behind the monster because they are beyond the last control point behind the train.

1. DM&E/CP should try this going through Rochester Minnesota.

2. Maybe a stupid question,,, but, with a train that long can the rails get hot enough to weaken them?

Boyd

2. Maybe a stupid question,,, but, with a train that long can the rails get hot enough to weaken them?

No.  There are train dynamic issues with long trains in which track can play a part, e.g., stringlining on curves, but the track structure itself really doesn't care if all the axles are in 1 train, 2 trains, 3 trains, etc.

RWM

 What is stringlining?

Boyd

 What is stringlining?

Even pulling on one end does essentially the same thing. 

-Crandell

 From the Star-Telegram's article that was linked in the Original Post: 

"The Union Pacific Railroad train carried the equivalent of 618 truckloads of furniture, clothing and electronic components — bound for the Long Beach, Calif. seaport. From there the goods will be shipped to Asia."

Note - it was all exports - not imports, nor empty containers being sent back for reloading.  That was a surprise for me.

- Paul North.

Well, IF they were all loaded.  Article didn't quite say that, the way I read it.  But they could have been.   In this economy the westbound loaded box is a lot more important than it used to be.  Back in the day when there was a clamor for empties in Asia it was counterproductive to load most of the boxes in the U.S. because it reduced cycle times, both at the U.S. end and at the Asian end, especially because there was usually a substantial repositioning requirement at both ends.

RWM

One benefit that the train crew has when running such a long train is that they know they won't be making a lot of planned stops / meets, etc. Once heard a dispatcher tell the crew of a 12,000 foot intermodal train that they weren't going to stop anywhere because he didn't have anywhere to stop them.

CC