Now why railroads are getting rid of hump yards.
Quoting SPer: "Now why railroads are getting rid of hump yards."
As I read your post, I have the impression that you are going to tell us why railroads are getting rid of hump yards, for you made a statement. This has been discussed on other threads. Did you intend to ask why they are changing the yards to flat-switching yards?
Johnny
SPer Now why railroads are getting rid of hump yards?
Now why railroads are getting rid of hump yards?
I have the same question. To elaborate, what are the advantages and disadvantages of a hump yard compared to a flat-switching yard?
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
The retarders are very expensive to maintain and humping adds significantly to car dwell time. Once you break a block, the car needs to be inspected and brake tested again, adding more time. They won't let us hump in groups of 4 or 5 any more because the TYT can't handle it so almost every car gets humped out individually. I've seen 20 cars go into the same track one at a time.
KielbasaThe retarders are very expensive to maintain and humping adds significantly to car dwell time. Once you break a block, the car needs to be inspected and brake tested again, adding more time. They won't let us hump in groups of 4 or 5 any more because the TYT can't handle it so almost every car gets humped out individually. I've seen 20 cars go into the same track one at a time.
Switching a train car for car adds to dwell time. Using a Hump Yard to perform the switching expedites the switching of said train, over the speed of flat switcing the same train and if volume warrants more than pays for the technology necessary for the running of the Hump Yard. (A efficient Hump operation can 'theoretically' switch 1000 cars per 8 hour day. A good flat switching crew is hard pressed to switch more than 200 cars per 8 hour day.)
We are in a period of declining car load merchadise business for all carriers. The carriers are seeking out train load business opportunities these days, not car load business opportunities. Train loads of commodity do not switching or humping.
With 'proper' Service Design a carrier can then concentrate traffic that needs car for car switching to a facility that best performs the function, taking into consideration switching that is needed at origin from customers siding to outbound train and the destination of the outbound train vs. the actual destination of the car(s). Some carriers have been known to minimize switching at origin and transport cars 200 miles to a hump yard to get switched to their next on line destination and retrace 150 of the miles they went to the hump yard in the reverse direction to get to that next destination. (I am not in possession of the costing figures that determined that this was the most cost effective way to handle the business - but this decision was made on a cost basis).
Handling business within a carriers Service Design Plan may not be as straight forward as it may appear on the surface.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
With distributed power you effectively have a 'train of trains', with the lead locomotive controlling the others. The point of distributed power is of course to enable very large trains to run whilst minimising coupler and braking forces.
If each 'sub-train' consisted of a locomotive and cars destined for one final destination it would be possible to operate a very large train over a long haul (say one of the transcons) for economy but combine this with the flexibility to serve multiple destinations. At a suitable node, e.g. Chicago, the mega-train would be uncoupled into its component parts and the intermediate locos crewed. The smaller trains formed would then proceed to their individual destinations.
There are limits as to how long any train (even with DP) can be. N&W found out in its experimental super-length coal trains of the late 1960's that the record-setting 500-car train was too long to be practical, it was too big for the yards and required too much supervision. I don't know what UP found out with its 18,000 foot stack train of a few years ago.
My personal experience with DP in my mountainous and curvy territory is less than great. Radio loses comms all the time and mid train DP tends to rip trains in half. Pushers work ok but when they get built 10,000ft long you again run into comms issues. DP units have a safe mode when they lose comm with the head end they will go into an idle down isolate setting. They tried running one particular freight train out of the yard at 200+ cars and 15,000ft and it took 4 crews to get it to the change point. Problem is when they get that big they won't fit anywhere and if anything goes wrong it stops the whole railroad until an official shows up and waves his magic wand. I guess out west they'd work ok on flat territory.
KielbasaI guess out west they'd work ok on flat territory.
Misnomer - the 'flatlands' really aren't flat. Every area of ground has its own undulations. The grades aren't those of sustained mountain climbing - but there are grades in the flatlands - every river and creek occupy's the low points and the number of rivers and creeks railroads cross is staggering. Additionally, no matter the territory, trains get loaded to near the maximum tonnage rating for the specific territory. A locomotive that might only be rated 2000 tons per unit over mountain grades may be rated 20,000 tons per unit over flatland grades. Handling long heavy trains over undulating 'flatlands' can be a real challenge for the Engineer with slack action as the train is draped over 3 crests and 3 sags at the same time.
Do NOT do an on-line search (Google/Bing/etc.) for "hump yard" without a filter on.
As I learned the hard way. (shudder!)
LensCapOn Do NOT do an on-line search (Google/Bing/etc.) for "hump yard" without a filter on. As I learned the hard way. (shudder!)
...and on no account use DP as an abbreviation for distributed power!!!!!
Kielbasa My personal experience with DP in my mountainous and curvy territory is less than great. Radio loses comms all the time and mid train DP tends to rip trains in half. Pushers work ok but when they get built 10,000ft long you again run into comms issues. DP units have a safe mode when they lose comm with the head end they will go into an idle down isolate setting. They tried running one particular freight train out of the yard at 200+ cars and 15,000ft and it took 4 crews to get it to the change point. Problem is when they get that big they won't fit anywhere and if anything goes wrong it stops the whole railroad until an official shows up and waves his magic wand. I guess out west they'd work ok on flat territory.
I wonder if it would be possible to continuously monitor the tension/compression in the couplers of the intermediate locomotives and feed this info into the control process?
BaltACD Kielbasa I guess out west they'd work ok on flat territory. Misnomer - the 'flatlands' really aren't flat. Every area of ground has its own undulations. The grades aren't those of sustained mountain climbing - but there are grades in the flatlands - every river and creek occupy's the low points and the number of rivers and creeks railroads cross is staggering. Additionally, no matter the territory, trains get loaded to near the maximum tonnage rating for the specific territory. A locomotive that might only be rated 2000 tons per unit over mountain grades may be rated 20,000 tons per unit over flatland grades. Handling long heavy trains over undulating 'flatlands' can be a real challenge for the Engineer with slack action as the train is draped over 3 crests and 3 sags at the same time.
Kielbasa I guess out west they'd work ok on flat territory.
+1. Been there, done that.
DP helps a lot, but doesn't always prevent incidents. Sometimes (like a few days ago south of Mason City so I've heard) it can contribute to the problem.
Jeff
CSX, with NS following close behind, are really just cutting humps they probably should have cut in the late 80s postmerger and after the Conrail breakup.
Hump yards are great, but only if the throughput is huge. Smart blocking saves tremendous amounts of time in the long run, without harming service at all. That way fewer expensive humps are needed.
Look at CSX. Their system isn't built on long runs. You've got less than a thousand miles from East to West and North to South. Based on the forumla now used on CN, CP, BNSF, and UP, more than one hump in a thousand miles for a car is a waste of resources.
So CSX had a dozen hump yards, many clustered on the same lines. If a car had to cross the system, almost certainly they'd find at least two humps. A car from Chicago to Baltimore would in theory be humped at Willard and Cumberland - in less than 1000 miles. By contrast, a car on the Union Pacific out of Chicago would make California with one hump at North Platte. Using CSX's density, they'd probably be humped three, maybe four times. See the innefficiency? Heavy, long hauls make railroads money, not hump yards.
Take Willard and Stanley. They were literally within one crew district. Ridiculous. Close Stanley and route anything to be humped to Willard, but block too so most traffic doesn't have to touch either!
Chances are, we'll be looking at Willard on the northern tier, Waycross covering the south, and maybe Avon and Queensgate survive, or something like that.
Railroad Yards are like airports. Transportation makes money moving things. Sitting eats oppotunity cost and helps not railroad's soaring fixed costs.
Harrison's montra is asset utilization. If it sits, shoot it!
Design a service plan, tweak it as necessary, and stick to it. That's how he wrings amazing sums of money out of railroads. Cost control, not cost cutting.
Sorry folks, the era of small hump yards is ending...20 years after it should have!
I would think a car on the UP received/orginated at Chicago going to a California destination would probably go over three humps. Proviso or Clearing in Chicago, North Platte and then Roseville.
SaturnaliaCSX, with NS following close behind, are really just cutting humps they probably should have cut in the late 80s postmerger and after the Conrail breakup. Hump yards are great, but only if the throughput is huge. Smart blocking saves tremendous amounts of time in the long run, without harming service at all. That way fewer expensive humps are needed. Look at CSX. Their system isn't built on long runs. You've got less than a thousand miles from East to West and North to South. Based on the forumla now used on CN, CP, BNSF, and UP, more than one hump in a thousand miles for a car is a waste of resources. So CSX had a dozen hump yards, many clustered on the same lines. If a car had to cross the system, almost certainly they'd find at least two humps. A car from Chicago to Baltimore would in theory be humped at Willard and Cumberland - in less than 1000 miles. By contrast, a car on the Union Pacific out of Chicago would make California with one hump at North Platte. Using CSX's density, they'd probably be humped three, maybe four times. See the innefficiency? Heavy, long hauls make railroads money, not hump yards. Take Willard and Stanley. They were literally within one crew district. Ridiculous. Close Stanley and route anything to be humped to Willard, but block too so most traffic doesn't have to touch either! Chances are, we'll be looking at Willard on the northern tier, Waycross covering the south, and maybe Avon and Queensgate survive, or something like that. Railroad Yards are like airports. Transportation makes money moving things. Sitting eats oppotunity cost and helps not railroad's soaring fixed costs. Harrison's montra is asset utilization. If it sits, shoot it! Design a service plan, tweak it as necessary, and stick to it. That's how he wrings amazing sums of money out of railroads. Cost control, not cost cutting. Sorry folks, the era of small hump yards is ending...20 years after it should have!
So where on CSX does EHH put his only hump yard to service all of CSX's E-W North, E-W South, N-S East and N-S West as well as the NE-SW traffic and the MW-SE traffic?
BaltACDSo where on CSX does EHH put his only hump yard to service all of CSX's E-W North, E-W South, N-S East and N-S West as well as the NE-SW traffic and the MW-SE traffic?
I expect that we are about to find out.
BaltACD So where on CSX does EHH put his only hump yard to service all of CSX's E-W North, E-W South, N-S East and N-S West as well as the NE-SW traffic and the MW-SE traffic?
My guess:Nashville - east-west traffic from New Orleans and Memphis gateways to all CSX destinations, plus cars moving to the southeast from Chicago and STL. as well as in-house carloads moving north-south west of the the Applachians (say, Columbus/Florida).
Willard: CHI-STL traffic to the Northeast,adding in in-house cars moving east-west between the CSX portion of the Corn belt and the NortheastUnknown location , and maybe not needed: a yard to cover north-south cars moving along the east coast. Waycross Might be too far south - but really, are there enough cars in these lanes to justify a 2000-car-a-day hump yard in ANY location? Hamlet is in the right area, but maybe flat-switching at a couple of locations would be the answer. Cincinnati might be an option, and could also back up Williard and Nashville in their primary lanes if needed.
With fewer loose cars there is probably less need for switching, thus reducing the need for yards in general. It may be more econimical to replace many hump yards with lower capacity flat yards and in some cases eliminate yards of both types.
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.
With fewer loose cars (more unit trains) there is probably less need for switching, thus reducing the need for yards in general. It may be more econimical to replace many hump yards with lower capacity flat yards and in some cases eliminate yards of both types.
Also shifting traffic patterns may make some yards redundent, and may necessitate expansion or construction of yards at other locations.
jeffhergert I would think a car on the UP received/orginated at Chicago going to a California destination would probably go over three humps. Proviso or Clearing in Chicago, North Platte and then Roseville. Jeff
Much of UP's interchange traffic from Chicago is actually designed to pass right through. There are direct North Platte - Elkhart trains, for example.
Even if trains are humped at Proviso/BRC, North Platte, and Roseville, that's still over nearly 2 thousand miles, half the density of CSX's humps, using the same calculus of BRC-Willard-Cumberland for our Chicago-Baltimore example.
No matter how you slice it, NS and especially CSX had way too many hump yards. With a bit of critical thinking in terms of trip and yard plans, many hump yards are easy to eliminate without any large impacts to flow and trip times. Instead of the smaller yards just pushing their traffic towards the nearest hump, they now block so most traffic can bypass the former humps, using block swapping instead.
EHH's plans are generally misunderstood as self-centered, and there's no arguing that in places he has cut too far. But at the end of the day, once Harrison leaves, as has been the case at CN and CP, the core assets will be streamlined and effective, allowing the plant to grow whilst producing excellent financial returns, without the burden of "deadwood" nobody bothered to cut before.
Saturnalia jeffhergert I would think a car on the UP received/orginated at Chicago going to a California destination would probably go over three humps. Proviso or Clearing in Chicago, North Platte and then Roseville. Jeff Much of UP's interchange traffic from Chicago is actually designed to pass right through. There are direct North Platte - Elkhart trains, for example.
All of UP's traffic to CSX either goes through the BRC/IHB or straight to Barr.
An "expensive model collector"
SaturnaliaEHH's plans are generally misunderstood as self-centered, and there's no arguing that in places he has cut too far. But at the end of the day, once Harrison leaves, as has been the case at CN and CP, the core assets will be streamlined and effective, allowing the plant to grow whilst producing excellent financial returns, without the burden of "deadwood" nobody bothered to cut before.
The same can be said of BRAC - early rounds closed a lot of facilities that fit in the "why is this here" category. Any attempts at cutting facilities anymore are simply efforts to cut facilities - the cost savings will be minimal.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
n012944 Saturnalia jeffhergert I would think a car on the UP received/orginated at Chicago going to a California destination would probably go over three humps. Proviso or Clearing in Chicago, North Platte and then Roseville. Jeff Much of UP's interchange traffic from Chicago is actually designed to pass right through. There are direct North Platte - Elkhart trains, for example. All of UP's traffic to CSX either goes through the BRC/IHB or straight to Barr.
There's one run-through symbol right now between the Chicago and North Platte. It is a run-through out of Elkhart, but for quite a while has also had cars from the BRC that used to run on it's own train. The other manifest comes out of Proviso.
Eastbound there's no run-throughs. There are 3 NP to Chicago manifests. One goes to the BRC/Clearing, the other two both go to Proviso. I remember seeing a train list showing a lot of NS cars on one of the them, but it wasn't exclusive NS traffic.
Some of these blocks may not go over the hump, but they don't exactly run through either.
jeffhergert I would think a car on the UP received/orginated at Chicago going to a California destination would probably go over three humps. Proviso or Clearing in Chicago, North Platte and then Roseville. Jeff Not necessarily, Proviso humps mostly eastboun trains for local (Chicago-area) destinations and blocking trains for eastern connecting RRs. A cconnecting train from the east would likely have been humped somewhere like Elkhart pre-blocked for UP. The North Platte and Roseville humping locations are both valid for this example.
I believe they've stated that for a hump yard to be efficient it needs to process between a minimum of 1400 - 1600 cars a day, though 1600+ is preferred. So find any hump that isn't reaching that volume and you're looking at a potential conversion. Realistically CSX can get away with 3 facilities; one in the South, most likely Waycross; one in the Midwest, take your pick but people say Queensgate; and one for the Northeast, I'd say Selkirk, but it's anyones guess really. That's it, your system is covered, that also covers any single line freight you might handle. As for the potential of increased carload business...I've always wanted to open a direct to customer warehouse store that bought product by the carload(in multiple carloads), delivered right to the facility and sold out the door...similiar to Costco but on a carload scale. I think it has potential to handle anything that could move via 60' or larger boxcar, but the place would be gargantuan in size, you'd need moveable floors to get around inside.
GERALD L MCFARLANE JRI believe they've stated that for a hump yard to be efficient it needs to process between a minimum of 1400 - 1600 cars a day, though 1600+ is preferred. So find any hump that isn't reaching that volume and you're looking at a potential conversion. Realistically CSX can get away with 3 facilities; one in the South, most likely Waycross; one in the Midwest, take your pick but people say Queensgate; and one for the Northeast, I'd say Selkirk, but it's anyones guess really. That's it, your system is covered, that also covers any single line freight you might handle. As for the potential of increased carload business...I've always wanted to open a direct to customer warehouse store that bought product by the carload(in multiple carloads), delivered right to the facility and sold out the door...similiar to Costco but on a carload scale. I think it has potential to handle anything that could move via 60' or larger boxcar, but the place would be gargantuan in size, you'd need moveable floors to get around inside.
It is all simple from afar. Gets more difficult when you factor in actual traffic patterns and the actual geographical layout of the carriers and their terminals.
Conrail had it down to five, almost. One in each corner and one in the middle. Eklhart, Selkirk, Avon, Oak Island/Allentown and Conway.
I was really surprised that NS took out Chattanooga. I would have thought it could stay and Birmingham and Macon could be downgraded. Perhaps there wasn't enough room in Chattanooga for this. Conway has been hanging by a thread for a while. With the Bellevue expansion, Conway is just a wide spot in the road.
The odd balls for NS are Allentown and Sheffield. If NS could get more out if Oak Island and find a way to do more in Reading, Allentown wouldn't be needed. Sheffield is a beautiful yard but doesn't make enough classification to justify it's existance. Maybe Chattanooga going away will require more of Sheffield. But, the best work for it would be to build and take apart blocks from deep in BNSF and UP territory in exchange for the same from them.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.