What's ahead for rail network capacity & speeds as coal winds down?

[TheBogieMan]

I have had a few broad questions on my mind:

Here's a broad question. Times are changing. Looking ahead a few years, beyond coronavirus and to when coal is phased out and oil use is much reduced - that seems to be what's in the cards - what will rail network capacity look like with the slower trains for those commodities gone? How will that affect average speeds of certain kinds of consists? How might the railroads capture freight from the highways (including perhaps for shorter hauls) to keep the rail business and its employment going strong?

[Overmod]

Keep in mind that there are two relatively big things that color this discussion -- and both are facilitated by the "right" kind of PSR.

First is that both light and empty coal trains want to be kept rolling, as near track speed as possible.  The reasons are a bit different: fuel and operating economy for loads, equipment utilization for empties.  But even with relatively low factor price you want to keep them in a 'one-speed' model where you can.  I see some of the DPU use reflect this.

Second is that 'high speed' isn't a criterion of high return, even in most  'merchandise' intermodal traffic.  Wherever there have been efforts to provide true sustained high speed for 'short guaranteed transport' (from Super C through the Z-train eperiments with Genesis power) the marginal costs of the high speed are not proportional to the added aggregate revenue over time -- if, in fact, they are great enough to bother with at all.  So many railroads have gone to implicit or explicit "PSR" where the actual train, causing actual ROW wear and tear and consuming fuel, can run just as slowly as crew expenses and any JIT demand permit.  (What has changed over W.H.Venderbilt's dream operation is that the speed actually does accord with 'the public' demand -- just that it's the manufacturer's or shipper's choice of cost-benefit, not just the railroad cutting cost to the minimum in a captive market, and leaving 'speed' to express lines that pay for the speed up front)

Many of the changes in motive-power type and utilization have (in my opinion at least) made ballasted AC engines with high inherent adhesion at low speed a 'preferred' power for most traffic -- so the effect of throwing 'coal train' power out of work is just to make those locomotives (which in the earlier age of AC were preferentially kept on the heavy trains even though their 'contribution to profitability' was carload-for-carload lower) the power least likely to be 'furloughed' in this traffic downturn, or among the first to be reactivated when general traffic picks up.

The loss of the 'guaranteed' business even as PSR has railroads seemingly fanatically devoted to cutting large swaths of potential or even legacy business, is to me the principal concern.  But here, too, if part of the idea is to abandon the 'old' idea of traffic maximization to get revenue maximization, in favor of 'cherry picking' just such traffic as leaves your railroad with least operating cost and uncertainty ... getting rid of coal may be seen as a blessing in not too much disguise.

That is, until cyclic demand changes start to bite quarterly profitability by some non-railroad financial analyst's little pet model...

But that would be a better time to have your alternative ways of coping with 'the loss of coal net revenue' ready for discussion and advocacy.

[BaltACD]

The first 20 years of the 21st Century the carriers were building capacity.  I suspect for the next 20 years with PSR in their minds they will be shedding capacity.

[diningcar]

increased speed has the potential for reducing labor costs, assuming other factors do not intervene, with fewer twelve hour on duty times being violated. 

[SD60MAC9500]

With coal slowly heading out the door look for future 250-300 car coal trains in a 3x3x2 Setup trudging along at an average pace of 15 mph

[guetem1]

and the suits never understand that a single track railroad will only sun as fast as your slowest train

[BaltACD]

diningcar

increased speed has the potential for reducing labor costs, assuming other factors do not intervene, with fewer twelve hour on duty times being violated. 

Increased train speeds also tend to increase maintenance costs in having the track structure being able to support those higher speeds.

There are no 'free lunches'.

[charlie hebdo]

Increased speed can increase utilization of equipment as well as labor,  this increasing efficiency and ROI of equipment.  Those may outweigh increases in maintenance and may attract new traffic. 

[jeffhergert]

I guess everyone who's already posted expects the class ones to go to an exclusive intermodal system.  No more other type cars in use.

There's still a lot of freight moving in cars that at best are good for 60 mph, and often when fully loaded bring the train speed down to 50 mph.  (TPOB-tons per operative brake restrictions.  Our lowest TPOB restriction speed is 50.  Others may have lower speed restrictions.)

Our coal trains loaded are restricted to 50 mph.  Many intermodals are large enough (or underpowered enough if you want) that they are doing good if they can maintain 50 mph.  (Heaven help them if there is a good wind blowing.)  Not to mention the fuel conservation throttle restrictions that many railroads have.

The lessening of coal traffic only means you will wait longer trackside as there are less trains running.  Then as already observed, some coal trains are being doubled up to create 250 to 300 car trains.  They roll along at 50 mph where possible.  (Most railroad's velocity is already in the 15 to 20 or so mph.  Less traffic usually means less delay, hence velocity goes up.  More traffic, velocity tends to go down.)

Jeff