286,000 lb question

[overall]

Let me start by saying there is a lot I don’t know about this issue, but, anyway, here goes;

We have heard a lot of discussion on the impending increase of car weight up to 286,000 lbs.
The short line railroads, especially those out west, have been saying that they will not be able to comply and therefore will be forced out of business and to abandon. One of them called Farmrail seems to be very concerned about this. If I am understanding this right, grain farmers harvest their grain and load it into trucks. The trucks take the grain to the grain elevators where it is transloaded into rail cars. The cars are then moved by the railroad to those places that process the grain into products like bread and cereal.

Now since these shipments originate on Farmrail, would not Farmrail have the right to dictate to the grain elevator owner how much grain can be loaded into a particular car? Would they not set the weight limit low enough to accommodate their rail? I know that a car coming on to Farmrail’s track from another railroad could weigh up to 286,000 lbs, but how often does that happen since Farmrail is usually a “loads out empties in “ business?

Please do not flame me since I have never worked on a farm, let alone a grain farm, in my life. I’m just trying to learn here.

George

[mudchicken]

Overall:

The grain elevator operator on Farmrail (George Betke's ex-Rock Island granger operation in OK & TX) gets burned because he needs more cars to ship the same amount of grain. He loses because another elevator with unit train capacity (110-125 car loading capacity storage track, usually owned by the industry...(*)) can ship more grain in fewer cars on a 286K HAL line which garners lower rates. The industry receiving the grain (exporter/mill/feedlot/alcohol plant etc.) helps pay the freight. He will normally pay the lower rate for the same product (apples to apples).....this either forces the elevator to pay the farmer less to pay for the higher shipping costs and or forces trucking to an elevator on a 286K HAL line that may be cost prohibitive due to trucking costs (i.e - you pay extra to truck the grain accross the county and then ship it at the lower rate.) Either way, the farmer and the elevator operator on the shortline stand to lose. The more you double-handle the lading (grain), the more it costs you...


George-Make sense now? Where is the article confusing you??


(*) Rarely stated anywhere is the fact that elevators cannot afford to extend their trackage to accomodate loading grain trains or mini-unit grain trains of 55-60-75 cars. Some elevators are hemmed in by their neighboring industries and have nowhere to expand. Some, and by no means all, of the Montana ruckus seems centered over rates charged elevators that have no unit train capacity and are unwilling/unable to expand. Elevators looking fo low interest loans, HUD grants, etc. because the money spent does not retain that many jobs and the grant/loan/finance people want (expect) large employment benefits.

[overall]

Thanks for the reply. Not being that familier with the grain business, I did not know all of the issues involved. It does make more sense now.

Thanks again

George

[PNWRMNM]

George,

It is always about money. If you look at the capacity of rail cars over time, say the 20th century, it has been constantly increasing, and the ratio of payload to tare has been increasing. Those are good things, but there is a price which is that the track, ballast, rail weight, and tie codition has to get better to support the higher loads. The Class I's have spun off light density lines, most of which never had very good rail to begin with. The new operator may or may not recognize that he has to play catch up on ties and ballast. If he does, maybe he can hold the track but you have to have the business to have the revenue to buy ties. The TRAINS article did good job on engineering issues.

The other problem is pricing. Take the grain on Farmrail. The value of hauling the grain is independent of what it costs to haul it by rail. The value will be set by the market, which is what the trucks will haul it for and what the Class 1 is up to. The class 1 are fixated on incentive rates. Incentive rates are rates that are lower per ton or per bushel in larger cars than in smaller. The railroad gets less revenue for a given volume of work, but they get a higher revenue per car.

The reason they think this makes sense is that costing formulas use the carload as the divisor in many formulas. The marketing guys are evaluated on a "contribution margin" basis. If this is calculated on a per car basis they have reason to do incentive rates. Unless it is operating at capacity, the railroad as is probably not better off with traffic moving under incentive rates.

Consider grain a 263,000# will carry a net of 100 tons. The 286,000 car will carry 111 tons. A 26 car unit train of 263k cars is 2600 tons that tonnage will take 24 cars of 286K. What has the railroad saved? The capital cost of 2 cars, say $120,000 divided by 20 trips per year is $6000, and at 15% that is $900 per trip. Labor to spot and pull is the same, power and fuel is the same. Their per car fee to the short line drops by 2 cars. Odds are the class 1 gives more than that away in the incentive rate.

Why would a short line want to play this game?? They do not. The problem is that the class 1 wants to supply whatever cars they have and the elevator operator wants the incentive rate that the class 1 would not offer if they were rational.

[overall]

Thanks for the reply. Now let my put forth something else. John Kneiling, a commentator in TRAINS magazine, first proposed this idea some years ago. If a shortline railroad wishes to upgrade their existing track to 286K for the benefit of their customers, then that railroad could collect money from it’s customers to help pay for the improvement. Then, anytime the railroad moves a car over the improved track, no matter whose car it was, it would pay all of the customers a certain amount of money called a “drawback”. When Mr. Kneiling proposed this idea, our railroad industry was still under regulation and some provision in the law made this arrangement illegal. Mr. Kneiling’s column derided the regulation as wrong and counter productive. If the legislation now before the congress fails, could something like this be a full or partial solution?

Thanks

George

[mudchicken]

It is still do-able and "rebates" have existed in the industry for years, just tied to certain trackage. The issue of the Elkin's Act is that the railroads cannot play favorites with shippers (this still exists, albeit heavilly modified in the late 1980's). If you get one shipper on the line who balks, the whole deal can collapse.

Ag business is so cuthroat these days that the type of arrangement you propose is unlikely to happen unless the shippers buy the railroad.

[Anonymous]

This thread indicates a fundamental issue which apparently I did not make clear in the "Short Line" article: cost of service. Service can ALWAYS be provided, and is, but at what cost? The problem for the shipper on the non-286K line is that they cannot afford the service. Their competitor on the 286K line is advantaged, whereas the shipper on the 263K line is operating at a cost disadvantage. In a commodity business, where the product is indistinguishable no matter where it comes from, the shipper with higher costs will eventually have to cease business. PNWRNWM and Mudchicken are 100% correct.

Even if such a deal as a drawback is feasible, it's no good. The shipper on the 263K line is still paying an effective higher rate than his competitor on a 286K line, who doesn't have to include trackwork as a part of his cost structure. Kneiling's solution was merely a way to use shipper's better borrowing ability, and it also was a suggestion that railroads should get shippers to recognize that the rail plant was in effect part of their own plant, but he was not claiming that this would be something for nothing.

The solution that the ASLRRA proposes is to use taxpayer money to subsidize the shipper on the 263K line. That might be a good idea; it might not.

[overall]

I have one other question and then I’ll be quiet on this subject. What happens to a grain elevator that loses its rail service? Does the elevator just go out of business, forcing the farmers to truck their grain to a larger elevator somewhere else that can load unit trains? Does the elevator re-load the grain they get direct from the farmers and truck it to one of the unit train elevators? Does the elevator relocate itself to a rail line where it can load unit trains like the competition?

Thanks to all who responded. I’ve learned a lot.

George

[mudchicken]

(1) The elevator pays less per bushel of grain due to the trucking rates. Eventually goes under unless it finds a local feedyard as a cash cow.

(2) The elevator becomes a satellite facility for an on-line elevator that handles 286-315K and handles overflow.

(3) The elevator handles something else that is less profitable....like dried New Jersey sludge pellets from a sewage treatment plant to be spread as fertilzer. (Yum!!! - Amity, CO)

(4) Some ocasionally move and abandon the existing "kansas skyscraper" (Most of the concrete ones sit empty, the empty steel ones become tornado bait & the wooden old ones rot until they collapse.)

(5) Some are torn down, used by farmers as local long term storage or find other uses...
(one in Denver is a restauraunt, another became condo's)

(6) Some are sold to a neighboring outfit and combined

mc[banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead]

[sooblue]

This may sound crazy but if the diffrence between the two cars is only 11 tons that would be 5.5 tons on each end of the car. 2.75 tons per axle. Why is that a problem?
If it is a problem could a third axle be added (like a tag axle) coupled between the cars or better yet the government mandates that the heavier cars be made tri-axles to preserve free trade.
Sooblue

[Anonymous]

Yeah, 2.75 tons sounds not much but this is a problem for the rails, ties and also the roadbed!

I´m from Germany and at the moment (don´t laugh) we have a normal maximum weight per axle here of 22.5 metric tons or 24 tons!!!

And I wrote about MAINLINES !!. We have branchlines that can handle only 20 metric tons. (I know only one coalmine near Cologne that has a 34 tons per axle railsystem, the rail in this open pit with this gigantic KRUPP wheelloaders.

Beginning in 1998 the DBAG Cargo (German Freight Railroad) buyed a 300 car fleet of new ironore cars Type Faals 151 - replaced the then 20 years old and optical similar Faal 150.

This new cars have two 3 axle trucks with a maximum gross weight of 150 metrictons against 135 tons of the Faals 150 type (Faals isn´t the name, it´s a normed european classificationsystem, F=open freightcar with unloading equipment, aa=more than 4 axles, l= mechanical unloading, s= maximum speed 100km/h. The digits are a serial number.

At November 24 last year - 5 years after the first delivery - the first 39 car train of this cars run with this weight - 6.000 tons unit train between Hamburg-Hansaport via Lüneburg – Uelzen – Celle – Lehrte – Peine to Salzgitter-Beddingen. This line is the first 25 tons per axle route here in Germany.
They must installed new ties - closer together - and newer and heavier rails before they can handle this weight!

You will see the difference in the states too - A mainline that will handle 315K cars have more ties - most concrete and thicker (higher) rails than the 263K branchline.

Now a good, but true, joke.

The differences between Europa and the USA - EXTREME !!!

Faals151 against Bethgon II (I KNOW,I KNOW: iron ore against coal)

This "heavy" Faals151 is the heaviest 6 axle freight car in Europe. Built special for the heavy iron ore and so his volume is only maximum the same as a 4 axle coal gondola (grossweight of a 4 axle coal gondola: 90 metric tons (99 tons)

- maximum gross weight 150 metric tons (165.38 tons)
- empty weight 38 metric tons (41.89 tons) = 25.3 % of gross weight
- maximum loading weight 112 metric tons (123.48 tons)

Rotary unloading is here not common because it´s not easy to do with the normal used couplers and sidebuffers - the Faals150 and 151 had or have a very similar to the USA centercoupler and no side buffers because the normal coupler cannot drag 6.000 tons, 3.000 tons at a 2 % grade are here a real coupler problem! (the locomotives of this trains have the

The Bethgon is "the" coalgondola in the USA. A simple built car and not expensive - only the Aluminium makes it a little bit more expensive than a car built of steel. But the more of loading tonnage because of the aluminum turn this negative fact into a positive one.
- maximum gross weight 143 tons
- empty weight 20.85 tons = 14.58 % of gross weight- maximum loading weight 122.15 tons

We here in Europe need an expensive 2 truck - 6 axle car that damage the tracks more tha a 4 axle car for hauling a little bit than 1 ton more!!!

We have norms: a train cannot have more than 250 axles and cannot be longer than 750 meters.

So we transport ore in a maximum 39 car trains = 4.815.72 tons of iron ore maximum!

A 125 car (135 are possible) Bethgon coaltrain leaving Powder River = 15.268,75 tons of coal maximum!

What´s real better?
Exact: The coal train with heavy rails !!! In the end the heavier train is the cheaper one !!!

[mudchicken]

QUOTE: Originally posted by sooblue

This may sound crazy but if the diffrence between the two cars is only 11 tons that would be 5.5 tons on each end of the car. 2.75 tons per axle. Why is that a problem?
If it is a problem could a third axle be added (like a tag axle) coupled between the cars or better yet the government mandates that the heavier cars be made tri-axles to preserve free trade.
Sooblue

(1) Impact loading

(2) that extra weight is hardly evenly distributed (and the l/v ratios get squirrelly to the point that spikes can't hold rails to the tie in curves and the rails cant/roll over)

(3) three axle trucks eliminate a lot of sidetracks with sharp curves from being used (DODX military flatcars have this problem), especially in ports where a lot of the grain goes [Ed would know about some of the wicked curves in the grain transfers in his port]....Adding an axle between cars would not pick up any of the load, just adds another axle.....

If it was a simple fix, the industry would have already adopted it.[sigh]

[broncoman]

Would empty flatcars placed between loaded grain cars spread the weight enough. I've seen them use these when they ship transformers or power plant parts. I am probably missing the picture though.

[jchnhtfd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by broncoman

Would empty flatcars placed between loaded grain cars spread the weight enough. I've seen them use these when they ship transformers or power plant parts. I am probably missing the picture though.

Don't think so -- the real problem is the axle loading, as mudchicken pointed out, rather than the actual weight per unit length of the train. As I recall, the idler flats for very heavy shipments are there more so avoid overloading bridge structures than overloading the track -- the bridge is much more influenced by the weight per unit length of the train than by the axle loading (which is why we used to have to put idler cars between engines on sections of the southern division of the Central Vermont -- the bridge in Millers Falls couldn't handle the concentrated weight of two engines together).

[kenneo]

To make adding axels do any good, you would have to not exceed two axels per truck and then use span bolsters or to make the cars articulated with a two axel truck on each end and one in the middle. (See articulated well cars.)

Three axel trucks tend to want to make straight rail out of any curve. But on cars it seems to be a real disaster where with locomotives it is not quite the problem. If it were, we would have nearly all of our locomotives always on the ties, and we don't.

But adding axels doesn't solve the problem of load concentration, aka knowns as the cars footprint. A GP unit, even though it has the axel loading the same as an SD, you can put three GP's (say, 40's or 9's) which have the same number of axels and the same weight as two SD's of the same type and cause less damage to the track.

Idlers only aid on bridge structures because of the span distance involved, the size of the stringers under the rail and the specific type of construction of the structure. Track structure bends under the truck only. Bridges and trestles bend over their entire span length.

MudChicken is correct about the absolutely crazy things the load/velocity numbers tell us about three axel cars. On the SP, they were restricted to 45 MPH loaded or empty, and you could not push on them with a helper. Cars with a span bolster supporting a car with four axels on each end contained in two two axel trucks carried no such restrictions.

I wish I had a simple answer as to why three axel trucks do the things they do, but I don't think I could even explain it under any circumstance. MudChicken, do your teaching feathers have any words of wisdom here????

Waiting for that iron clad mudcovered dust bird.

[jeaton]

Beside the other problems, it seems to me that three axel trucks would put the cost of the car per tare ton at or above the cost ratio on the 263GW Hundred ton car.

[Anonymous]

Jay emphasizes the key point: cost.

Any solution that costs more than the 286K car is futile and self-defeating. Idlers, extra axles, whatever -- they all cost a lot more than the problem they are intended to solve. The problem is not technology, the problem is how the short line pays for it.

The reason Class I railroads went to 286K cars was to cut costs -- to haul a lot more grain in not much more car. So any solution that anyone wants to propose can be no more expensive. Don't think the railroad industry hasn't looked for it. It has not found it because it does not exist. This is why the short line railroad association is proposing a government tax break for improving short line track: the plan is to use someone else's money.

[Anonymous]

Mark and Jay had said the key point. The railroads must CUT DOWN THE COSTS!

The cheapest way for cutting cost are heavier cars on heavier track.
And make things as simple as possible and a 3 axle truck isn´t simple!!!

An "upgraded" to 315K former 286K construction will not cost not much more than the 286K, when the design is similar !!! And this is possible!

Take my favorite coalcar: The BethGon´s: little bit higher side walls, possible a little bit longer, little bit thicker aluminium panels and one or two braces more at each side.
Both trucks are 100ton RB at the Bethgon II so here is no change!

BETHGON III ready to delivery - I bet: The first car will be delivered 6 month after the start of construction. With modern CAD programms the development is no problem! And the price isn´t much higher than the Bethgon II price.

And the rebuilt of a line into 315K ready track will be made when the rails must be changed - cost not much more than a normal overhaul.

[Anonymous]

In Australia they use 40ton axle loads (I believe that's metric tons so it's a little more) and run trains that are hundreds of cars long, up to record breaking 600+ cars, 100,000 ton train, that is heavier than 300mph is fast!
In north America there was a time when most passenger cars were 6 axle coaches, and in the US I see 6 axle tank cars, whatever economy applies to that?!?!?
The N&W or VGN once used 6 axle coal cars.

[edblysard]

Add in the fact the shipper would have to pay for the idler flats, and part of the entire concept is that bigger capacity cars means less number of cars per train, adding idlers negates the concept, you still have to spent fuel dragging them around too!
Keep in mind most elevators were built way back when grain was shipped in 40' boxcars, they are old, real old, as are the tracks they have.
I found a piece of rail in service at Cargill Jacintoport date stamped 1925.
The new cars would snap it like glass.
Adding a third axle wouldnt solve the problem, just aggervate it, the wheel set and the three axle buckeye truck are heavy, you just increased the weight of the car by a few more tons.
And three axle trucks have a bad habit of climbing the rail in the tight curves you find in older ports, docks and most old elevators.

Ed

QUOTE: Originally posted by broncoman

Would empty flatcars placed between loaded grain cars spread the weight enough. I've seen them use these when they ship transformers or power plant parts. I am probably missing the picture though.

[overall]

We should ask ourselves this question before we use tax dollars to upgrade a railroad. That question is this;
“Does the economic activity made possible by this railroad’s presence justify the expense of the upgrade?”
Utilities like water, sewer, electricity and roads are installed to customers all the time, not because their revenues will pay for the installation, but because that customer, while pursuing his business, will pay property, sales and other taxes into the local community, thus improving the standard of living for all who live there. If a western shortline is forced to abandon and the grain elevators it serves close, the tax revenue from those now closed elevators goes away also. If the railroad, in this particular context, is thought of as a utility, instead of a private enterprise itself, then it seems to me, that the use of tax monies to upgrade it is justified. Let us not forget that local governments use the promise of tax breaks and free utilities to get auto plants to locate near them. Couldn’t the same thing apply to some smaller railroads also?

George

[Anonymous]

Overall-

Correct. This is essentially what many short lines are saying. They perform an essential service similar to a utility without which many major local employers and businesses would simply cease to exist. Perhaps some of these businesses could use trucks but the economics of moving bulk materials by truck will never compete with competitors with rail service.

Let's not forget that from the very public charter of most of our railroads, these private companies have received public support including powers granted by charter not available to other businesses (eminent domain, law enforcement, etc) and financial support from states and the federal government (cash, land, ROW grants, etc). Even recently programs such as grants under the 3R and 4R Acts provided for the Local Freight Assistance Programs. Oh and lets not forget the massive assistance provided in the purchase of various railroads to form Conrail and all the special rules that made it possible for short lines to be formed from the dying carcasses of the CRIP, Milwaulkee Road and Conrail's predecessors. The Staggers Act that deregulated most rail freight should also not be forgotten. The public purse has long been behind the railroads as they do provide essential public services and at the end of the day in some form or another there will be help from the government.

LC

[broncoman]

I read over the post and missed the short lines in question. Was there a list or was it a general statement by one of them.

[PNWRMNM]

Broncoman,

Any short line handling open or covered hoppers has the problem. Even paper mills want 286K boxcars. Root problem is that marketing is offering incetive rates with too much incentive!

[daveklepper]

I'm confused by the three-axle on cars comment. Are others?

1. Thousands of standard heavyweight Pullman cars roamed USA and Canadian Railroads with three-axle trucks, did not damge the tracks, and ran where appropriate at 100mph.

2. Why would a heavily loaded 6-axle freight car damage tracks but not a 6-axle locomotive? Dave Klepper

[rrnut282]

It has a lot to do with weight. The 6-axle passenger cars weren't heavier than their 4-axle counterparts out west. Rather the 6-axle cars were an attempt to provide a smoother ride over track that wasn't as smooth as it shuold have been. Contrary to popular belief, deferred (track) maintenance predated Penn Central.

[edblysard]

Yes Dave, they did and do damage track, but most of the new C-C truck locomotives now days have some form of steerable trucks.
The old SD40s, and C30s, with a solid sideframes, is hard on industrial tracks.
The center axle will bind on a tight curve, and ride up and over the rail head, or exert enough sideways force that it can wide guage the track.
And keep in mind, both locomotives, and passenger cars have a different types of suspension, softer or more reactive than freight cars.

Grab a timetable of your favorite railroad, and read the speical instructions for each subdivision.
It will include a list of the trackage with axle restrictions for cars and locomotives.

And track maintainance on the tracks that saw passenger traffic was much more intense than for freight.
Today, you almost never hear of joint bar crews, whos sole purpose was to check and tighten joint bar bolts on their subdivision, but they were quite common before.
Where before, a track gang had maybe 50 miles of track to maintain and be responsible for, now days it can be 500 miles per single crew.
Add to all of this the fact that volume of cars moved is up, way up.

Ed

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

I'm confused by the three-axle on cars comment. Are others?

1. Thousands of standard heavyweight Pullman cars roamed USA and Canadian Railroads with three-axle trucks, did not damge the tracks, and ran where appropriate at 100mph.

2. Why would a heavily loaded 6-axle freight car damage tracks but not a 6-axle locomotive? Dave Klepper

[Modelcar]

....Ed, isn't it also true there is much less numbers of joint bars in use now with continuous rail almost exclusively on class 1's....But surely it is still highly important no matter how many there are it would only take one out of place to cause a derailment. I'm assuming that job is included in the track gang's duties now....

[Modelcar]

...Just a comment on The heavier wt. cars. We have a NS route coming in from the north west and heading south and north here in Muncie....and I drive along a passing siding often coming into town and much of the time a length of covered grain hoppers are setting on the passing track and in a short time moved out...but yesterday I tried to eyeball the GVW figure as I drove along the tracks...For the most part what I saw was figures around the 219,000 mark....This route is a major route of this kind of traffic going through here....Didn't see any 286 units but I will now start to watch for them. Do they have a noticable different appearance...?

Yesterday on the same route, I witnessed at a crossing a large tank car that almost looked like a pressure cyl....It had rounded ends and fixtures on top at the center to input and unload the product, whatever that was...and it had 3-wheel trucks. I suppose the GVW on that car was pretty high. I wasn't close enough to see what it was. It was a rather large unit.

[Mookie]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar

...Just a comment on The heavier wt. cars. We have a NS route coming in from the north west and heading south and north here in Muncie....and I drive along a passing siding often coming into town and much of the time a length of covered grain hoppers are setting on the passing track and in a short time moved out...but yesterday I tried to eyeball the GVW figure as I drove along the tracks...For the most part what I saw was figures around the 219,000 mark....This route is a major route of this kind of traffic going through here....Didn't see any 286 units but I will now start to watch for them. Do they have a noticable different appearance...?

Yesterday on the same route, I witnessed at a crossing a large tank car that almost looked like a pressure cyl....It had rounded ends and fixtures on top at the center to input and unload the product, whatever that was...and it had 3-wheel trucks. I suppose the GVW on that car was pretty high. I wasn't close enough to see what it was. It was a rather large unit.

I have seen some of those monster tubes! Next to a "regular" one they are huge!

J