QUOTE: The 80 MPH is not a typo. The axle loading on European railways especially in the UK are practically toy trainlike (meaning very very light)when compared to North American practice. Alot of the equipment is designed for high speed, most of the motive power is high HP electrics for everything, the freights have to move fast to keep out the way the of the the frequent high speed passenger (even low priorty passenger trains run at 200+ KPH or 120 MPH), so can't have a big speed differentialon the those high speed multitrack mainlines it would gum up the works.
QUOTE: Originally posted by mhurley87f QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TerminalTower The Problem with American Railroads is not speed... Its the time that Railroad cars (And Passengers) spend in terminals and Yards... Why should a freight car have to go thry at least 3-4 yards enroute to its destination? As far as Amtrak passengers on the Metroliners can be on and off the trains in 5 min. But in the midwest it can take as long as 20 to 30 minutes to disembark the train Because car load freight shipments have many , many times the number of unique O/D pairs that passenger operations do. There aren't great chunks of traffic going from each O to each D. For a week's worth of car load (excluding coal and intermodal) traffic on NS, there are over 14,000 unique OD pairs (on NS - it would be more if you considered offline origin and destinations). 42% of them have only one car. 87% have less than 10 cars. If you accept that the profitability of railroading is at least partly based on economies of scale, then the trick is to balance intermediate handlings against train size and frequency. If you run more, shorter trains, you can reduce handlings but at the expense of crew cost and line capacity. It may not be as bad as you think. A typical carload shipment on NS has an avg of 1.5 intermediate handlings Are we perhaps only seeing the problems, and not the possibilities? Shouldn't RR thinking be focused on the whole of the potential traffic between individual Origins and Destinations, not merely Rail's current share, and working back from there? Martin
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TerminalTower The Problem with American Railroads is not speed... Its the time that Railroad cars (And Passengers) spend in terminals and Yards... Why should a freight car have to go thry at least 3-4 yards enroute to its destination? As far as Amtrak passengers on the Metroliners can be on and off the trains in 5 min. But in the midwest it can take as long as 20 to 30 minutes to disembark the train Because car load freight shipments have many , many times the number of unique O/D pairs that passenger operations do. There aren't great chunks of traffic going from each O to each D. For a week's worth of car load (excluding coal and intermodal) traffic on NS, there are over 14,000 unique OD pairs (on NS - it would be more if you considered offline origin and destinations). 42% of them have only one car. 87% have less than 10 cars. If you accept that the profitability of railroading is at least partly based on economies of scale, then the trick is to balance intermediate handlings against train size and frequency. If you run more, shorter trains, you can reduce handlings but at the expense of crew cost and line capacity. It may not be as bad as you think. A typical carload shipment on NS has an avg of 1.5 intermediate handlings
QUOTE: Originally posted by TerminalTower The Problem with American Railroads is not speed... Its the time that Railroad cars (And Passengers) spend in terminals and Yards... Why should a freight car have to go thry at least 3-4 yards enroute to its destination? As far as Amtrak passengers on the Metroliners can be on and off the trains in 5 min. But in the midwest it can take as long as 20 to 30 minutes to disembark the train
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
QUOTE: Originally posted by tpatrick Forgive me if I am repeating something from a few pages back. I read the first page and fast-forwarded to the end. But I would be surprised if the German speed was not Kph rather than Mph. The whole continent long ago went metric and I think a 48 mph freight would be more believable than an 80 mph freight. Distances between German cities are not that great, so higher speeds would not justify the cost . If I am wrong and German freights really do make 80 Mph, please dump on me with everything you've got.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Originally posted by oltmannd Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, December 9, 2005 5:36 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal [Think of "faster" in the cumulative vein rather than the single trip idea. 2 hours on one trip means you're two hours earlier for embarking on the return trip, then another 2 hours saved on the return trip, after a week you might have saved 10 or 15 hours in your cycle, after two weeks you might have added another trip or two to your cycle......., in a year you've added 10, 15, maybe 20 extra trips to your annual cycle. It's all about rail car utilization, the more revenue trips per year the better your bottom line. It's all about better labor utilization, the more miles a crew can cover within the hours of service, the better your labor productivity. If it has to go at a snail's pace, put it in a barge or a pipeline. Railroad technology is intended to move bulk commodities at speed, otherwise it's a waste of national capital. Dave you are so right. I read recently that typically BNSFcycles a UPS/TOFC train set within TWO HOURS!! That unload, reload, inspected and back out to the west coast all in two freakin' hours. Remember these trains spend alot if most of their time at 70 MPH. So they are not wasting the time they saved rocketing across the continent all holed in the yard. Regarding what you said about crew utilization, about getting a crew to cover the most amount of miles within the hours of service law. I recently found out how "culturally" influenced the view within the industry is towards the practice. I thought that all Class 1's were gung ho about the concept and that it was the brotherhoods that were dragging their feet. How wrong I was! I recently interviewed with one of the Eastern RR that bought part of Conrail. The interviewer told me his RR was appalled [:(!][:0]at the long crew pools that Conrail had set up such as the Harrisburg to Pittsburgh and the Selkirk(Albany, NY) to Buffalo(300 miles). He said that they had to take those local agreements as part of the sale [}:)][}:)]but wanted to aboli***he long pools if they could preferring short ones of around 130 miles!! I thought the fewer crew starts you have for a given train and consists the better but apparently not all Class 1's seems to think so. I guess just because your are a Fortune 500 company and is making some kind of profit doesn't mean that the managment of the property is employing the forward thinking views on railroad operations [:p][:p]. And that labor isn't always or I should is usually not the problem in moving the industry forward. But getting back to your original point. I think that an increase in freight train speeds should be seen as an overall package in increasing "Fluidity" on the mainlines and the yards as well(the yards would be a tougher nut to crack). It shouldn't be just putting 10 trains in the hole waiting hours and hours on end for the hot "Blue Streak- UPS" train to barrel through when all those could be moving on the road towards their destinations instead of "going down on the law" and 10 dog catch crews have to find and pick them in places where there are no road access. This speaks to the need for the revival of lot more multitrack mainline in this country. And yes faster trains would mean higher fuel cost but if price correctly for the service it also means higher profits. Remember that Southwest and JetBlue pay the same high cost of fuel as the "Legacy Carriers" and they don't fly their 737's and A320's any slower than American, United, Delta and Northwest flies their 737's and A320's. So high speed and high fuel cost doesn't automatically mean the death kneel of railroad profitability as some doggedly thinks it does. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, December 8, 2005 8:22 PM The Problem with American Railroads is not speed... Its the time that Railroad cars (And Passengers) spend in terminals and Yards... Why should a freight car have to go thry at least 3-4 yards enroute to its destination? As far as Amtrak passengers on the Metroliners can be on and off the trains in 5 min. But in the midwest it can take as long as 20 to 30 minutes to disembark the train Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, December 8, 2005 8:16 PM The problem with the FRA speed limit is that it was created half a century ago. It does not recognize the vastly improved truck/wheel/braking technology. It does not recognize distributed operations and how DPU's affect train operating dynamics. It does not recognize the high speed trucks of RoadRailer and RailRunner bi-modal technologies. Give us DPU's, electronic brakes, and/or bi-modal consists, and we can safely run at higher speeds over existing trackage, right? Reply Edit Bob-Fryml Member sinceMarch 2003 From: US 733 posts Posted by Bob-Fryml on Thursday, December 8, 2005 7:45 PM In 1971 the ATSF California Division issued a Form 19 "Tissue Flimsie" train order to each section of the "Super C" that read, "Trains nos 99 and 100 assume passenger train speed not to exceed 79 mph". One Saturday that summer while riding the head end of an eastbound "Super C," the train high-spotted a little bit through Victorville at 82-mph. Looking back at the consist I didn't notice any unusual tracking problems. In May 1982 I saw an amazing site: a 6,000-ton unit coal train (each Deutsche Bundesbahn car had six axles) making its way up the gentle Rhine River grade with 15,000-horsepower on the point. I choked at the thought of 2.5-HP/trailing ton, but then that train was competing with passenger runs for track space. In 1982, as it is today, the U.S. equivalent operating through the American Middle West would never exceed 0.75-HP/TT. Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, December 8, 2005 3:06 PM Not a very high percentage. What's your point? The question was were did "59 mph" with respect to the FRA come from. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Thursday, December 8, 2005 2:49 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd 59 mph is the max speed allowed for passenger trains on unsignalled track. 49 for freight. I can't imagine where else it could have come from... But what percentage of high density mainlines are signalled as opposed to unsignalled in the US? Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, December 8, 2005 12:05 PM 59 mph is the max speed allowed for passenger trains on unsignalled track. 49 for freight. I can't imagine where else it could have come from... -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Thursday, December 8, 2005 9:59 AM Where does your 59MPH statement come from as last month I paced a BNSF train east of Daggett & my car said speed was at 70MPH & I was keeping perfect pace with the train which meant he was also doing 70? [:p] Originally posted by trainfinder22 Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, December 8, 2005 7:23 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by athelney QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken There are quite a few places where you can run a freight train at 79 MPH.....railroads cannot get an acceptable rate of return to justify the extra expense in fuel and maintenance on railcars.....Doesn't pay? - Don't do it! What about the time element -- ie A to B at least 10mph faster say with an intermodal -- doesnt this translate into more dollars if you can get it there quicker! -- especially with so many Asia - Europe land bridge trains . "Faster" only works if you can wring inventory out of the entire supply chain. An hour or two doesn't usually help much. If you take UPS traffic as an example. "Faster" only works if you can arrive a "sort" earlier. In most of thier lanes that move by rail, an additional 10 or 20 mph on the max speed (provided you could accomodate it without hammering your overall capacity) wouldn't do this. The UP/CSX train operated for UPS at 75 mph max. was an attempt to do this in one of the lanes where it would work. However, the complexity of getting the train over the road on schedule turned out to be untennable. Not sure there is really all that much land bridge traffic. Nearly all containers landing in US ports have US destinations. Think of "faster" in the cumulative vein rather than the single trip idea. 2 hours on one trip means you're two hours earlier for embarking on the return trip, then another 2 hours saved on the return trip, after a week you might have saved 10 or 15 hours in your cycle, after two weeks you might have added another trip or two to your cycle......., in a year you've added 10, 15, maybe 20 extra trips to your annual cycle. It's all about rail car utilization, the more revenue trips per year the better your bottom line. It's all about better labor utilization, the more miles a crew can cover within the hours of service, the better your labor productivity. If it has to go at a snail's pace, put it in a barge or a pipeline. Railroad technology is intended to move bulk commodities at speed, otherwise it's a waste of national capital. In a homogenous world, you'd be correct. But intermodal traffic is all about production schedules and corresponding gate cut-offs. With carload traffic, the cycle time game is won and lost first in the "last mile" part of the trip, second, in the number and duration of intermediate handlings. A distant third is train speed. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply rrandb Member sinceDecember 2001 From: K.C.,MO. 1,063 posts Posted by rrandb on Wednesday, December 7, 2005 10:40 PM What about the need for closer inspections of equipment thar operates at the higher speeds. How many passenger cars weight 286,000 lbs? Also the cars used with high speed passenger trains were equipted with special high speed trucks. And if i remember correctly the former high speed freight were only faster compared with normal freight times. They did not run that much faster they were only handeled faster. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, December 7, 2005 9:43 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by athelney QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken There are quite a few places where you can run a freight train at 79 MPH.....railroads cannot get an acceptable rate of return to justify the extra expense in fuel and maintenance on railcars.....Doesn't pay? - Don't do it! What about the time element -- ie A to B at least 10mph faster say with an intermodal -- doesnt this translate into more dollars if you can get it there quicker! -- especially with so many Asia - Europe land bridge trains . "Faster" only works if you can wring inventory out of the entire supply chain. An hour or two doesn't usually help much. If you take UPS traffic as an example. "Faster" only works if you can arrive a "sort" earlier. In most of thier lanes that move by rail, an additional 10 or 20 mph on the max speed (provided you could accomodate it without hammering your overall capacity) wouldn't do this. The UP/CSX train operated for UPS at 75 mph max. was an attempt to do this in one of the lanes where it would work. However, the complexity of getting the train over the road on schedule turned out to be untennable. Not sure there is really all that much land bridge traffic. Nearly all containers landing in US ports have US destinations. Think of "faster" in the cumulative vein rather than the single trip idea. 2 hours on one trip means you're two hours earlier for embarking on the return trip, then another 2 hours saved on the return trip, after a week you might have saved 10 or 15 hours in your cycle, after two weeks you might have added another trip or two to your cycle......., in a year you've added 10, 15, maybe 20 extra trips to your annual cycle. It's all about rail car utilization, the more revenue trips per year the better your bottom line. It's all about better labor utilization, the more miles a crew can cover within the hours of service, the better your labor productivity. If it has to go at a snail's pace, put it in a barge or a pipeline. Railroad technology is intended to move bulk commodities at speed, otherwise it's a waste of national capital. Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Wednesday, December 7, 2005 8:34 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by athelney QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken There are quite a few places where you can run a freight train at 79 MPH.....railroads cannot get an acceptable rate of return to justify the extra expense in fuel and maintenance on railcars.....Doesn't pay? - Don't do it! What about the time element -- ie A to B at least 10mph faster say with an intermodal -- doesnt this translate into more dollars if you can get it there quicker! -- especially with so many Asia - Europe land bridge trains . "Faster" only works if you can wring inventory out of the entire supply chain. An hour or two doesn't usually help much. If you take UPS traffic as an example. "Faster" only works if you can arrive a "sort" earlier. In most of thier lanes that move by rail, an additional 10 or 20 mph on the max speed (provided you could accomodate it without hammering your overall capacity) wouldn't do this. The UP/CSX train operated for UPS at 75 mph max. was an attempt to do this in one of the lanes where it would work. However, the complexity of getting the train over the road on schedule turned out to be untennable. Not sure there is really all that much land bridge traffic. Nearly all containers landing in US ports have US destinations. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply CrazyDiamond Member sinceNovember 2005 From: Windsor Junction, NS 451 posts Posted by CrazyDiamond on Wednesday, December 7, 2005 8:25 AM At the risk of showing my very limited knowledge here goes: First I acknowledge that greater speeds allow you to do more with less....but as speed increases, it takes more and more effort (cost). Fuel consumption increases, wear increases exponentially, mechanical quality has to increase, engineering has to increase, derailments become more catastrophic ( one CN derailment incurred a $28M envriomental charge), etc...so while speed offers its benefits more speed in North America RRs does come with ever increasing costs. I look at capacity as an equation: Volume = Frequency + Intensity + Duration Volume = How Often + How Long&Speed + Delay In the posts above all we have talked about is increasing the intensity of our trains....longer heavier faster trains. We talk about speed as a tool to reduce the Delay and to get more. From my perspective here in Halifax, Nova Scotia the Frequency variable is under-utilized. Its seem we have this "day shift" mentality....trains arrive early in the morning to drop off freight, the yard/port move containers around to (a) disassemble the arrivals, and (b) assemble trains for departure. Then in the early evening the trains depart here. Contrainers can often sit in port for a day or longer before its actually moving on the track. THIS IS HUGE DELAY from the customers perspective!!! IMHO, if we (North America) spent our effort (cost) into having our yards/port and RRs organize their operations so that trains are leaving/arriving on a 24 hours basis....I think that would yield a much higher ROI. Our trains can still run at the speeds and lengths they are now, so there would be no need to spend billions and billions with these infrastructure overhauls. I know more trains require more locos and more staff, but I think this can easily be paid for from the money we would have spent on the effort (costs) I mentioned above. As well, today's computing applications are nothing short of amazing....and I think very advanced CTC, scheduling, timing, perhaps a few extra sidings, and better supply-chain integration with the (a) customer, and (b) distributors/shippers, etc would give the North American RRs: newfound capacity with less end-to-end delay. Sure gees, if a contrainer can be taken off a ship, and be on its way in 4 hours instead of 24 then we just saved 20 hours right there!!! How fast of a train would we need to make up 20 hours!!! Yes maybe no??? Side Note: Comparing apples to oranges here.... I work for the telecommunications industry...and while our operations are very different than the RR, we are not without our own unique challenges. However our infrastructure is very well utilized.....with many of our 'routes' running minimum 75% utilization at any given time, and 100% some of the time. Our reporting and modeling applications tells us when and where to add capacity, and how much to add. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, December 7, 2004 10:51 PM Do you want freight trains to do 80? There is a lot of things that have to go in to the track layout. I shoud know I work for CP as a forman in the track dept. Just take the DOT Haz mat book. Most RR shipped what in that book if the state and Fed will let them move it. Now would you like that stuff move like a 18 wheeler????? Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, December 7, 2004 4:15 AM you have to remember that european trains have a coupler system, bumpers and chain link, which inhibits monster trains such as we have in america. all their freight trains are short by our comparisons. also they do not have compatible electric transmission systems to permit runthrough freight from country to country, except for say, germany to switzerland and austria. so their freight traffic is within their own boundaries for the most part. also they have to have fixed schedules for freight trains to fit into the operating pattern with fixed passenger schedules. american railroads can not operate freight trains on a rigid schedule day after day. the differences are tremendous. of course the germans don't and can't operate a 17,000-ton freight train, nowhere even close. another great difference. no use trying to compare the two countries! theo sommerkamp crosstie@wowway.com Reply Edit daveklepper Member sinceJune 2002 20,096 posts Posted by daveklepper on Sunday, December 5, 2004 2:15 AM Rode the two NY-Boston Turbos about 5 or 6 time, about 3 or 4 times to GCT and twice after it got switched to Penn. Rode well at high speed even on jointed track. Rode poorly on jointed track at 35mph in the Park Av. Tunnels and poorly through switches. At one time the engineer pushed it to 110 mph going west on the eastbound express track Rye to New Rochelle to make sure he'd make his slot at Shell Tower. Rode beautifully. Maintenance and fuel costs ended its operation. One was taken on a USA tour just after Amtrak started. I thoroughly enjoyed sitting behind the engineer in the "pod". Reply Overmod Member sinceSeptember 2003 21,669 posts Posted by Overmod on Saturday, December 4, 2004 10:32 PM I was referring only to the UA/Alan Cripe TurboTrains, not the Frangeco-style and Rohr trains. As you point out, a number of those are still around. However, to me any of those French trains lack the magic of the Cripe train... Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, December 4, 2004 10:07 PM Overmod said My understanding is that all the Turbos were cut up long ago. I'd like to be wrong. Not entirely true. Amtrak still owns (and to my knowledge, still operates [the latest I can confirm their operation is 2001]) a few Rhor turbos, and recently refrebished them for the aborted Acela Commuter service Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 2:34 AM I live in miami fl and work near the fia east coast . north miami main line. the trains i see cruising by are intermodels and rock trains. i have rode along with these trains in my truck and i know for a fact thespeed of these trains do reach 50mph. too me thats a safe speed for trains .. we have to keep trains on the tracks for safety. trains need safe operations not a happy go lucky person with a need for speed... accidents kill and destroy people property and above all change lives forever... Reply Edit M636C Member sinceJanuary 2002 4,612 posts Posted by M636C on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 9:17 AM Guys, A truck used in Australia on our earliest 85' container wagons was a "General Steels Aligned Truck" which had rods linking the sideframe with the bolster, much like traction rods on passenger trucks. These held the sideframes square with the bolster without adding much weight or cost. These were US Trucks and were available in the right timeframe for the "Super C" Rockwell had a truck with sideframes with a cross beam on each that had ball joints on the far end connecting the two sideframes, allowing relative vertical twist but no lozenge movement. I think it was intended for cabooses, but we used one under a box car for high speed trials in the early 1970s. I don't have my 1970 Cyclopedia with me right now! One problem with the "regeared switcher" approach was the old 567s wouldn't meet current emissions requirements, the whole thing with the Cargo Sprinter having reduced emissions as a major goal. It would probably be better than the replaced trucks, but not as good as the two big truck engines under the Cargo Sprinter. Peter Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 7:12 AM One variable in hunting is length. The longer the car, the high the hunting threshold speed. 90' TTX flats less likely to hunt at 80 mph than a 50 foot flat. In fact, some RRs limit those converted 50' box car intermodal flats to 50 mph because of stability issues. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply 12345 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal [Think of "faster" in the cumulative vein rather than the single trip idea. 2 hours on one trip means you're two hours earlier for embarking on the return trip, then another 2 hours saved on the return trip, after a week you might have saved 10 or 15 hours in your cycle, after two weeks you might have added another trip or two to your cycle......., in a year you've added 10, 15, maybe 20 extra trips to your annual cycle. It's all about rail car utilization, the more revenue trips per year the better your bottom line. It's all about better labor utilization, the more miles a crew can cover within the hours of service, the better your labor productivity. If it has to go at a snail's pace, put it in a barge or a pipeline. Railroad technology is intended to move bulk commodities at speed, otherwise it's a waste of national capital.
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd 59 mph is the max speed allowed for passenger trains on unsignalled track. 49 for freight. I can't imagine where else it could have come from...
Originally posted by trainfinder22 Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, December 8, 2005 7:23 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by athelney QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken There are quite a few places where you can run a freight train at 79 MPH.....railroads cannot get an acceptable rate of return to justify the extra expense in fuel and maintenance on railcars.....Doesn't pay? - Don't do it! What about the time element -- ie A to B at least 10mph faster say with an intermodal -- doesnt this translate into more dollars if you can get it there quicker! -- especially with so many Asia - Europe land bridge trains . "Faster" only works if you can wring inventory out of the entire supply chain. An hour or two doesn't usually help much. If you take UPS traffic as an example. "Faster" only works if you can arrive a "sort" earlier. In most of thier lanes that move by rail, an additional 10 or 20 mph on the max speed (provided you could accomodate it without hammering your overall capacity) wouldn't do this. The UP/CSX train operated for UPS at 75 mph max. was an attempt to do this in one of the lanes where it would work. However, the complexity of getting the train over the road on schedule turned out to be untennable. Not sure there is really all that much land bridge traffic. Nearly all containers landing in US ports have US destinations. Think of "faster" in the cumulative vein rather than the single trip idea. 2 hours on one trip means you're two hours earlier for embarking on the return trip, then another 2 hours saved on the return trip, after a week you might have saved 10 or 15 hours in your cycle, after two weeks you might have added another trip or two to your cycle......., in a year you've added 10, 15, maybe 20 extra trips to your annual cycle. It's all about rail car utilization, the more revenue trips per year the better your bottom line. It's all about better labor utilization, the more miles a crew can cover within the hours of service, the better your labor productivity. If it has to go at a snail's pace, put it in a barge or a pipeline. Railroad technology is intended to move bulk commodities at speed, otherwise it's a waste of national capital. In a homogenous world, you'd be correct. But intermodal traffic is all about production schedules and corresponding gate cut-offs. With carload traffic, the cycle time game is won and lost first in the "last mile" part of the trip, second, in the number and duration of intermediate handlings. A distant third is train speed. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply rrandb Member sinceDecember 2001 From: K.C.,MO. 1,063 posts Posted by rrandb on Wednesday, December 7, 2005 10:40 PM What about the need for closer inspections of equipment thar operates at the higher speeds. How many passenger cars weight 286,000 lbs? Also the cars used with high speed passenger trains were equipted with special high speed trucks. And if i remember correctly the former high speed freight were only faster compared with normal freight times. They did not run that much faster they were only handeled faster. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, December 7, 2005 9:43 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by athelney QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken There are quite a few places where you can run a freight train at 79 MPH.....railroads cannot get an acceptable rate of return to justify the extra expense in fuel and maintenance on railcars.....Doesn't pay? - Don't do it! What about the time element -- ie A to B at least 10mph faster say with an intermodal -- doesnt this translate into more dollars if you can get it there quicker! -- especially with so many Asia - Europe land bridge trains . "Faster" only works if you can wring inventory out of the entire supply chain. An hour or two doesn't usually help much. If you take UPS traffic as an example. "Faster" only works if you can arrive a "sort" earlier. In most of thier lanes that move by rail, an additional 10 or 20 mph on the max speed (provided you could accomodate it without hammering your overall capacity) wouldn't do this. The UP/CSX train operated for UPS at 75 mph max. was an attempt to do this in one of the lanes where it would work. However, the complexity of getting the train over the road on schedule turned out to be untennable. Not sure there is really all that much land bridge traffic. Nearly all containers landing in US ports have US destinations. Think of "faster" in the cumulative vein rather than the single trip idea. 2 hours on one trip means you're two hours earlier for embarking on the return trip, then another 2 hours saved on the return trip, after a week you might have saved 10 or 15 hours in your cycle, after two weeks you might have added another trip or two to your cycle......., in a year you've added 10, 15, maybe 20 extra trips to your annual cycle. It's all about rail car utilization, the more revenue trips per year the better your bottom line. It's all about better labor utilization, the more miles a crew can cover within the hours of service, the better your labor productivity. If it has to go at a snail's pace, put it in a barge or a pipeline. Railroad technology is intended to move bulk commodities at speed, otherwise it's a waste of national capital. Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Wednesday, December 7, 2005 8:34 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by athelney QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken There are quite a few places where you can run a freight train at 79 MPH.....railroads cannot get an acceptable rate of return to justify the extra expense in fuel and maintenance on railcars.....Doesn't pay? - Don't do it! What about the time element -- ie A to B at least 10mph faster say with an intermodal -- doesnt this translate into more dollars if you can get it there quicker! -- especially with so many Asia - Europe land bridge trains . "Faster" only works if you can wring inventory out of the entire supply chain. An hour or two doesn't usually help much. If you take UPS traffic as an example. "Faster" only works if you can arrive a "sort" earlier. In most of thier lanes that move by rail, an additional 10 or 20 mph on the max speed (provided you could accomodate it without hammering your overall capacity) wouldn't do this. The UP/CSX train operated for UPS at 75 mph max. was an attempt to do this in one of the lanes where it would work. However, the complexity of getting the train over the road on schedule turned out to be untennable. Not sure there is really all that much land bridge traffic. Nearly all containers landing in US ports have US destinations. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply CrazyDiamond Member sinceNovember 2005 From: Windsor Junction, NS 451 posts Posted by CrazyDiamond on Wednesday, December 7, 2005 8:25 AM At the risk of showing my very limited knowledge here goes: First I acknowledge that greater speeds allow you to do more with less....but as speed increases, it takes more and more effort (cost). Fuel consumption increases, wear increases exponentially, mechanical quality has to increase, engineering has to increase, derailments become more catastrophic ( one CN derailment incurred a $28M envriomental charge), etc...so while speed offers its benefits more speed in North America RRs does come with ever increasing costs. I look at capacity as an equation: Volume = Frequency + Intensity + Duration Volume = How Often + How Long&Speed + Delay In the posts above all we have talked about is increasing the intensity of our trains....longer heavier faster trains. We talk about speed as a tool to reduce the Delay and to get more. From my perspective here in Halifax, Nova Scotia the Frequency variable is under-utilized. Its seem we have this "day shift" mentality....trains arrive early in the morning to drop off freight, the yard/port move containers around to (a) disassemble the arrivals, and (b) assemble trains for departure. Then in the early evening the trains depart here. Contrainers can often sit in port for a day or longer before its actually moving on the track. THIS IS HUGE DELAY from the customers perspective!!! IMHO, if we (North America) spent our effort (cost) into having our yards/port and RRs organize their operations so that trains are leaving/arriving on a 24 hours basis....I think that would yield a much higher ROI. Our trains can still run at the speeds and lengths they are now, so there would be no need to spend billions and billions with these infrastructure overhauls. I know more trains require more locos and more staff, but I think this can easily be paid for from the money we would have spent on the effort (costs) I mentioned above. As well, today's computing applications are nothing short of amazing....and I think very advanced CTC, scheduling, timing, perhaps a few extra sidings, and better supply-chain integration with the (a) customer, and (b) distributors/shippers, etc would give the North American RRs: newfound capacity with less end-to-end delay. Sure gees, if a contrainer can be taken off a ship, and be on its way in 4 hours instead of 24 then we just saved 20 hours right there!!! How fast of a train would we need to make up 20 hours!!! Yes maybe no??? Side Note: Comparing apples to oranges here.... I work for the telecommunications industry...and while our operations are very different than the RR, we are not without our own unique challenges. However our infrastructure is very well utilized.....with many of our 'routes' running minimum 75% utilization at any given time, and 100% some of the time. Our reporting and modeling applications tells us when and where to add capacity, and how much to add. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, December 7, 2004 10:51 PM Do you want freight trains to do 80? There is a lot of things that have to go in to the track layout. I shoud know I work for CP as a forman in the track dept. Just take the DOT Haz mat book. Most RR shipped what in that book if the state and Fed will let them move it. Now would you like that stuff move like a 18 wheeler????? Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, December 7, 2004 4:15 AM you have to remember that european trains have a coupler system, bumpers and chain link, which inhibits monster trains such as we have in america. all their freight trains are short by our comparisons. also they do not have compatible electric transmission systems to permit runthrough freight from country to country, except for say, germany to switzerland and austria. so their freight traffic is within their own boundaries for the most part. also they have to have fixed schedules for freight trains to fit into the operating pattern with fixed passenger schedules. american railroads can not operate freight trains on a rigid schedule day after day. the differences are tremendous. of course the germans don't and can't operate a 17,000-ton freight train, nowhere even close. another great difference. no use trying to compare the two countries! theo sommerkamp crosstie@wowway.com Reply Edit daveklepper Member sinceJune 2002 20,096 posts Posted by daveklepper on Sunday, December 5, 2004 2:15 AM Rode the two NY-Boston Turbos about 5 or 6 time, about 3 or 4 times to GCT and twice after it got switched to Penn. Rode well at high speed even on jointed track. Rode poorly on jointed track at 35mph in the Park Av. Tunnels and poorly through switches. At one time the engineer pushed it to 110 mph going west on the eastbound express track Rye to New Rochelle to make sure he'd make his slot at Shell Tower. Rode beautifully. Maintenance and fuel costs ended its operation. One was taken on a USA tour just after Amtrak started. I thoroughly enjoyed sitting behind the engineer in the "pod". Reply Overmod Member sinceSeptember 2003 21,669 posts Posted by Overmod on Saturday, December 4, 2004 10:32 PM I was referring only to the UA/Alan Cripe TurboTrains, not the Frangeco-style and Rohr trains. As you point out, a number of those are still around. However, to me any of those French trains lack the magic of the Cripe train... Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, December 4, 2004 10:07 PM Overmod said My understanding is that all the Turbos were cut up long ago. I'd like to be wrong. Not entirely true. Amtrak still owns (and to my knowledge, still operates [the latest I can confirm their operation is 2001]) a few Rhor turbos, and recently refrebished them for the aborted Acela Commuter service Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 2:34 AM I live in miami fl and work near the fia east coast . north miami main line. the trains i see cruising by are intermodels and rock trains. i have rode along with these trains in my truck and i know for a fact thespeed of these trains do reach 50mph. too me thats a safe speed for trains .. we have to keep trains on the tracks for safety. trains need safe operations not a happy go lucky person with a need for speed... accidents kill and destroy people property and above all change lives forever... Reply Edit M636C Member sinceJanuary 2002 4,612 posts Posted by M636C on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 9:17 AM Guys, A truck used in Australia on our earliest 85' container wagons was a "General Steels Aligned Truck" which had rods linking the sideframe with the bolster, much like traction rods on passenger trucks. These held the sideframes square with the bolster without adding much weight or cost. These were US Trucks and were available in the right timeframe for the "Super C" Rockwell had a truck with sideframes with a cross beam on each that had ball joints on the far end connecting the two sideframes, allowing relative vertical twist but no lozenge movement. I think it was intended for cabooses, but we used one under a box car for high speed trials in the early 1970s. I don't have my 1970 Cyclopedia with me right now! One problem with the "regeared switcher" approach was the old 567s wouldn't meet current emissions requirements, the whole thing with the Cargo Sprinter having reduced emissions as a major goal. It would probably be better than the replaced trucks, but not as good as the two big truck engines under the Cargo Sprinter. Peter Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 7:12 AM One variable in hunting is length. The longer the car, the high the hunting threshold speed. 90' TTX flats less likely to hunt at 80 mph than a 50 foot flat. In fact, some RRs limit those converted 50' box car intermodal flats to 50 mph because of stability issues. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply 12345 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by athelney QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken There are quite a few places where you can run a freight train at 79 MPH.....railroads cannot get an acceptable rate of return to justify the extra expense in fuel and maintenance on railcars.....Doesn't pay? - Don't do it! What about the time element -- ie A to B at least 10mph faster say with an intermodal -- doesnt this translate into more dollars if you can get it there quicker! -- especially with so many Asia - Europe land bridge trains . "Faster" only works if you can wring inventory out of the entire supply chain. An hour or two doesn't usually help much. If you take UPS traffic as an example. "Faster" only works if you can arrive a "sort" earlier. In most of thier lanes that move by rail, an additional 10 or 20 mph on the max speed (provided you could accomodate it without hammering your overall capacity) wouldn't do this. The UP/CSX train operated for UPS at 75 mph max. was an attempt to do this in one of the lanes where it would work. However, the complexity of getting the train over the road on schedule turned out to be untennable. Not sure there is really all that much land bridge traffic. Nearly all containers landing in US ports have US destinations. Think of "faster" in the cumulative vein rather than the single trip idea. 2 hours on one trip means you're two hours earlier for embarking on the return trip, then another 2 hours saved on the return trip, after a week you might have saved 10 or 15 hours in your cycle, after two weeks you might have added another trip or two to your cycle......., in a year you've added 10, 15, maybe 20 extra trips to your annual cycle. It's all about rail car utilization, the more revenue trips per year the better your bottom line. It's all about better labor utilization, the more miles a crew can cover within the hours of service, the better your labor productivity. If it has to go at a snail's pace, put it in a barge or a pipeline. Railroad technology is intended to move bulk commodities at speed, otherwise it's a waste of national capital.
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by athelney QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken There are quite a few places where you can run a freight train at 79 MPH.....railroads cannot get an acceptable rate of return to justify the extra expense in fuel and maintenance on railcars.....Doesn't pay? - Don't do it! What about the time element -- ie A to B at least 10mph faster say with an intermodal -- doesnt this translate into more dollars if you can get it there quicker! -- especially with so many Asia - Europe land bridge trains . "Faster" only works if you can wring inventory out of the entire supply chain. An hour or two doesn't usually help much. If you take UPS traffic as an example. "Faster" only works if you can arrive a "sort" earlier. In most of thier lanes that move by rail, an additional 10 or 20 mph on the max speed (provided you could accomodate it without hammering your overall capacity) wouldn't do this. The UP/CSX train operated for UPS at 75 mph max. was an attempt to do this in one of the lanes where it would work. However, the complexity of getting the train over the road on schedule turned out to be untennable. Not sure there is really all that much land bridge traffic. Nearly all containers landing in US ports have US destinations.
QUOTE: Originally posted by athelney QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken There are quite a few places where you can run a freight train at 79 MPH.....railroads cannot get an acceptable rate of return to justify the extra expense in fuel and maintenance on railcars.....Doesn't pay? - Don't do it! What about the time element -- ie A to B at least 10mph faster say with an intermodal -- doesnt this translate into more dollars if you can get it there quicker! -- especially with so many Asia - Europe land bridge trains .
QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken There are quite a few places where you can run a freight train at 79 MPH.....railroads cannot get an acceptable rate of return to justify the extra expense in fuel and maintenance on railcars.....Doesn't pay? - Don't do it!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.