Is there a market for 79+ MPH Intermodal service in the US or does capacity issues kill the idea??

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by broncoman

So how much extra motive power would you need to guarantee that if one unit goes down that you wouldn't slow a train down as to slow the rest of the schedule? UP runs 2 and sometimes 3 units, usually SD70s on a JB Hunt hotshot over Donner summit, this is only with usually about 15 or so cars, 30 trailers/containers.
The other question is aren't containers still tracked by paperwork and not by computer, so even though you may speed up the transit time, wouldn't the paperwork time still be the limiting factor?
Just wondering.

Paper work to support the business is all electronic these days. Paper work handled by the conductor is not processed or forwarded by him - except to hand off to the next crew.

[broncoman]

So how much extra motive power would you need to guarantee that if one unit goes down that you wouldn't slow a train down as to slow the rest of the schedule? UP runs 2 and sometimes 3 units, usually SD70s on a JB Hunt hotshot over Donner summit, this is only with usually about 15 or so cars, 30 trailers/containers.
The other question is aren't containers still tracked by paperwork and not by computer, so even though you may speed up the transit time, wouldn't the paperwork time still be the limiting factor?
Just wondering.

[dldance]

One approach that I am seeing is to speed up a line by rebuilding rail/highway crossings and removing other low speed restrictions. In the last year UP has been able to raise the speed limit through some small texas towns from 25mph to 45mph. Do the numbers -- eliminating two a three speed restrictions in a 100 mile run really improves average train speed. Now if they could only get them through the yards and juctions faster.

dd

[Saxman]

Speed isn't always the answer. I have left UP Yard Center at Thornton Jct for Battle Creek, MI on the CN with a train that could run the 60 MPH track speed in 4 hrs 45 min. I have aslo left the same location with a train that would only do 45 MPH. Time to Battle Creek? A little over 5 Hrs. The 15 MPH difference did not hurt the schedule of the train. Most schedules are padded anyway. At 45 MPH, I matched most of the permament speed restrictions on the subdivision. (40 MPH at Griffith, 40 MPH Wayne, 40 MPH at Wellsboro, 30 at Stillwell, 30 at South Bend and 30MPH at Schoolcraft ) I once read that to keep a line people moving at a steady pace, put the slowest person up front. The same applies to railroading. Put the slowest train out first .

Saxman

[Junctionfan]

Particularly at Fostoria and Deshler it is conjested because of the diamonds from CSX's north south movements and Norfolk Southern's added 40 trains. Fostoria operates more trains in a junction than anywhere in North America. Deshler isn't much better. A lot of south west movements to bong up the flow of west east movements. At Lima, there is also a diamond for a Genesee and Wyoming owned shortline I believe.

[Anonymous]

Junctionfan'

The Genesis III (P32DM)in service w/Metro-North RR and Amtrak Empire Service already has AC traction. The traction motors they use aren't as big as the ones used in the freight locos but they but do put more of their horsepower to the rails than their DC motored counterparts even with a 1200 HP disadvantage. So much so that Amtrak was toying with idea of ordering them instead of the P42's. So maybe w/o the Third Rail equipment you can fit a 16 cylinder FDL engine at 4400 HP. and have a light aerodynamic high HP AC traction B-B unit for high speed intermodal or bimodal service

BTW I totally agree w/you regarding the super long crew districts for CSX's hot Q100 and other hot UPS trains. If only can guarrantee those crews wont die on the main due to normal operational delays that take up alot of crews 12 hours of service.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal



If projections regarding an explosion of intermodal demand in the near future ring true, then the feds have got to start planning now. Can the Interstate system handle the increase if the railroads are loathe to invest in the capacity improvements themselves?

There's the value proposition. How much $ to increase Interstate highway capacity vs. $ to move it by rail.

[Anonymous]

If you are going to invest in any significant infrastructure improvements beyond "just in time" maintenance, you gotta do like the utilities are doing when planning for new coal fired power generation facilities: Start charging your customers now for a plant to be built 10 years from now. I think it's called "pre-pay as you go" as opposed to "pay as you go" e.g. social security or "build now, pay later" e.g. construction bonds.

If the railroads or the FRA are dictated by Congress to implement some of the suggestions here, they need to start charging for it now, and it would have to be comprehesive accross all the Class I's as well as the trucking companies. That's why it is more likely to have to come from the feds in the form of a new tax, something like a per container/truckload per mile tax. Then a few years down the road, they can start either building a new high speed freight rail network, improve the current rail infrastructure to handle dual speed trains, or build/rebuild/improve the condition of secondary mainlines to handle separate low speed and high speed consists.

If projections regarding an explosion of intermodal demand in the near future ring true, then the feds have got to start planning now. Can the Interstate system handle the increase if the railroads are loathe to invest in the capacity improvements themselves? Probably not. That's why it is only a matter of time before the feds get involved in the nation's rail infrastructure the same way they've involved themselves in the highway and waterway corridors. The pressures of Wall Street to induce higher ROI in capital heavy industries compared to other Dow Darlings makes it imperative that the feds reduce some of the cost burdens of the railroads.

Moving such projects to federal direction allows for the "build for the future" mentality once inherent in the early days of railroading but lacking today due to understandable risk aversion.

[Hugh Jampton]

err,,, isn't the stopping distance proportional to the square of the speed (double the spped = 4 times the braking distance)?? So does it also follow that if you raise the train speed the next following train has to keep farther back, and doesn't this actually reduce railroad capacity in terms of trains per hour?? So for a fixed braking rate (say 3.3 feet/secondsquared) wouldn't maximum capacity in trains per hour be achieved at about 27 mph (given that the signalling system and block lengths are optimized for that speed??
So in terma of maximum tonnage wouldn't you be better off running longer and slower trains??

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

If you decided to put a third rail down, you most definately couldn't have any railroad crossings.

A lot of the UK network in the South of England is electrified by 3rd rail at 750VDC,, and they have plenty of railroad crossings,, junctions,, road & footpath crossings etc..

[Junctionfan]

For the most part, a bunch of P-42s could handle the high-speed freight as they do 4400 hp. The only problem I can see is that the 8 axles wouldn't work as well as locomotives with 6 in the traction aspect. Maybe GE could experiment with the possibility of a 6 axle P unit or a really-really fast version of the dash 9-44W. If the U.S and Canada wasn't so damn big, electrification would be an answer but it would be way too expensive to electrify the continent (not to mention be an eye-sore). If you decided to put a third rail down, you most definately couldn't have any railroad crossings.

As far as speeds are concerned, I am not too concerned with speeds over 70mph (all though would be nice) as much an almost continuous and uninterupted 70mph; with few terminal waits and little need for crew changes. For example, I would like to see CSX's UPS train (Q100), to only have to do a crew change from Chicago at Cleveland and Selkirk instead of Willard, Cleveland, Frontier Buffalo and Selkirk Albany plus there might be a crew change before Worchester Ma.

[Overmod]

Don't mistake me, I LIKE the idea of fast freight, and I can tell you a bunch of ways to do it.

What I was trying to say, and perhaps didn't say well, was that 60mph coal trains isn't an issue. 79mph coal trains is an issue. (I'd like to be able to make a case for those, too, but the business justification just isn't there...)

I like your ideas -- but the Feds can't really do much about getting the states et al. to 'forgive' the property taxes... I think you'd have somewhat more 'political' success by appealing to the states to set up programs to improve strategic mileage within their borders (much the same model as FRA wants to use for 110mph corridor costs) -- THEN enable the use of some percentage of Federal money and Highway Trust Fund money (the latter being earmarked for the grade-separation and crossing improvement, etc.)

I gently suggest that 'homeland security' will be a much better 'initiative' than DoD in these post-Communist/nuke years.

I concur on the 'Balkanization' -- but as you astutely note much of the problem is "freight" vs. 'passenger', with the commuter agencies jealous of their expensively rebuilt track, and Amtrak folks -- when they stop carping about what flat wheels and derailments do to the fancy track in the NEC -- probably get to thinking about Gunpow. There's no reason why properly built intermodal trains can't run at these speeds... PROVIDED they are properly engineered and designed to do so. That requires better stability; a whole lot better truck suspension, pivoting, and damping; reliable high-speed engines; and much better terminal and way facilities for intermode transfers. For all intents and purposes this would be a 'passenger train for containers' -- and that's not a niche market for current manufacturers. Without it, though, there's little point in speculating about freight that's track-friendly in modern dual-service work. I don't particularly like segregating pax and freight, but it's the freight ops that have to improve...

Be interesting to see whether the RailRunner people figure out how to crack the NYC tristate metro market for rapid delivery -- they have a useful tool for part of what's needed.

[Anonymous]

Overmod,

I maybe an armchair but I don't think the CEO of the largest RR on the continent is! I don't think *** Davidson and his staff is running 60 MPH loaded coal trains because they wanted them to see them go fast. I think it was a slightly out of the box solution to operational problem on the super busy UP main through North Platte. I am sure they took the the higher wear and tear into account and besides a loaded coal train other than its tremendous weight is a uniform and relatively stable consist to run.

I know that the RR's don't have the vast army of MOW workers like they did in the past century and though mechanization has made tremendous strides a vastly larger work force might be needed to maintain the service levels that we are talking about here.

Perhap it is time that the Feds get involved here and maybe if not a direct subsidy but to forgive the RR's their property taxes on the ROW and apply them direct to mandating the RR's to maintain them to FRA Class 4 and 5 standards w/attendant cab signaling and /or PTC. They make the program a Dept. of Defense initative like when Pres. Ike did in the 50's with Interstate Highway System. Remember this is all in the public good and it would help The various High Speed Rail (110+ MPH) Programs get off the ground.

I am not a great fan of of completetly separated ROW's for Pass. and Frt unless you are talking about sustained TGV speeds, 150 MPH and better. From I seen over the years here in the NYC area it leads to "Rail Balkanization" whrer one side has no idea or appreciation to what the other does or needs. It has made Railfreight all but impossible to operate and expand here in NYC since the commuter RR's place unreasonable demands on the freight operators. When thirty years ago when both passenger and freight was operated by the private RR companies mixed traffic was not ever a real problem.

[Junctionfan]

I am proposing that one to two lines for the coal, unit, manifest and normal priority trains plus as many passing sidings as required if so. Parralel would be one line with passing sidings using long switches like what is used in Europe. There maybe times where some subdivisions may be up to 4 tracks but largely it will be double or triple tracked. Obviously not all areas have the space for this like in the mountains and in over developed cities.

Not all subdivisions would need to be set up like that. There are only a few subdivisions in particular, that I would consider going to this extreme. The CSX Willard Subdivision between at least Deshler to Chicago due to over 30 intermodals, a couple of amtraks, and any foreign Z train intermodal that operates on the line. The BNSF Needles Sub which operates several amtrack, 4 B trains, 11 Z trains, 7 P trains, 5 Q trains and 4 S trains plus 1 critical priority vehical train. The UP lines that includes between Cheyenne to Laramie that operates 18 Z trains and 19 I trains. Last but not least, the UP ex SP Sunset line which I will find out later how many of intermodals run.

Now granted this is really blinking expensive. Needles Sub runs for 700 miles times 1 to 2 million per CTC'ed line....holy-moley!! Of course that is where the government comes in and can pitch in. I think everybody knows my positions on bottlenecking and increased capacity lectures so I will spare you guys. Now since the intermodal shipping particularly during the seasonal holidays are increasing, than more trains could go on the lines. BNSF charges about $2,500 for example between Chicago to Los Angelas on their P trains and Z trains for domestic containers. Now think how containers that is and how many trains, and you will see that is a lot of money. If you want to increase the profit so the investment of the line wasn't in vein, offer things like "pay for one container, get the second one for half price" deals. Retail business does this a lot and make a killing on it-just ask Wal-Mart which made it on the top of the list on the Forbes Magazine for highest revenue in 2000 ($256.3 billion).

There is so many ways to make building a dedicated line for high-speed service profitable that the benefits should out weigh the problems. Some of the problems can be helped by the government telling the oil companies, middle-east and opec to chase themselves by putting a cap on oil. That's what is hurting the airline industry too.

Lets face it, a lot of railroad customers are not users of rail spurs so they use intermodal and it is the way of the future. If the railroads start using transloading and overall, operates more low priority freights, than the intermodals and passengers are really going to struggle to get by. You can't make the freights go faster because some of the commodities like chemicals, have speed restrictions on the load. Your alternative is run less intermodal, run less freight trains or use dedicated lines. Multiple lines were used because of lack of CTC and so 4 tracks were used (New York Centreal) for 1 set for passengers and 1 set for freight. That is fine than but now that the trains have gotten longer and on-time intermodal service is hard to maintain, more lines are needed. If you run trains that go really fast, you don't need to re-crew them as often thus the extra crews can be diverted to the drags and the manifests. That is the best way of saving your labor costs in train crews without having to hire and go through the long wait of training them. Track gangs are easier and cheaper to train than train crews. That will reduce terminal waiting which is a pain because in some case there are not enough staging track in the yards for all the manifests and drags plus all those intermodals.

[Overmod]

That's exactly right, and what I've been trying to convince people of for quite some time. I was told much the same thing in a different context (just-in-time delivery) by no less a person than the last CFO of Consolidated Freightways. He should know!

There are some markets for higher-speed freight shipments, but they are specialized and are almost surely not sufficient to justify new track construction.

[dldance]

Most companies I consult with prefer reliable delivery times to faster but more variable deliveries. You can build an effective supply chain around almost any transit time as long as it is constant. For example, some personal computer suppliers now use ocean containers to get systems from Asian assembly locations to market in the US. Lots cheaper than air freight and almost as reliable.

dd

[Overmod]

Separate lines for semi-fast and drag freight is something that's been bounced around in these forums from time to time, usually involving companies like Conrail or BNSF that have considerable numbers of redundant parallel mains. Single-directional main lines is a different thing -- our experts can tell you the places this has been successfully tried; the idea is that you have two geographically separate mains between the same points, and run all traffic over the line with the better grade or curve profile in that direction. This isn't as flexible as CTC, naturally, but has advantages other than better grades and potentially tight headways. Principal problem as you note is that more physical ROW care and some additional infrastructure is needed for the two complete routes; it may be necessary to do some roundabout return routing for originating traffic on one line that's going in the opposite direction.

Neither of these is what I think you're proposing, which is a dedicated high-speed track on or adjacent to an existing ROW with tracks being used for slower service. Are you proposing to run wholly directional traffic on this? If not, you're talking two tracks, not one, unless you do some fancy things with sidings that, in the aggregate, will be almost as expensive and a whole lot less convenient than a double main with high-speed crossovers a la NYC.

But here's where the idea begins to fall to the ground: ALL the other slow business, drag freights and ordinary mixed stuff, has to be on another track. If traffic is going both ways, make THAT line double track... now we're up to four tracks. Originating traffic may be on either side of the line, and it sure isn't going to be switched from the high-speed line, so you might be looking at massive Cassatt-era flyovers. What's your pick for the location of the fast track vs. slow track -- dual double track? Fast mains inside? Passenger/commuter mains outside?

Worst of all, you're engineering an engineman's nightmare into this system: Trains running closely parallel to other trains going at least 50mph slower. Little problems rapidly turn into big ones *for other trains* in this scenario. This is one of the significant reasons why so many high-speed ROW are strictly segregated from slower traffic.

BTW, you wouldn't run CTC on any new high-speed main in the sense you probably mean; you'd build it to use some form of continuous PTC and run it entirely with automatic wireless control. The infrastructure difference for this is not particularly significant, as there is no investment in lineside signals, etc. There would be some extra need for 'duplicate' items like hotbox detectors, but I think many roads would prefer keeping one train from blocking a detector's view of another train anyway.

Be interesting to see where there are 'secondaries' that are potentially faster profiles than the mainlines in use. You don't suppose the Atglen & Susquehanna would allow faster trains than the Reading, do you? There's supposed to be a line that was built to 100mph standards south from Baton Rouge to the Gulf. Of course, many portions of the CNIC mid-continent line saw 100mph+ trains... in the '40s. It's not hard to justify the time a secondary spends out of service while being regraded and built up to super railroad standards. Would you want *your* railroad to suffer through that process without traffic?

[Junctionfan]

What is the difference in operating separate lines (on for drag and one for semi-fast) and running an extra line for dedicated service? I don't get your logic. My way is easier because you only have to worry about extra maintainace on the one subdivision. Your way, you have to hire a whole new track gangs for a whole new subdivision instead of hiring a few extras guys on the current subdivision. Not to mention that it is probably cheaper to pay for taxes for one subdivision than two. Plus you would need CTC on the other subdivision plus extra railroad police, plus switch machines and any other equipment needed.

Europe and Japan seems to think that high-speed service works well because their is a great demand for passenger service but not much for freight. They are a passenger train dependant. With North America, we are opposite in that we depend on freight. Well we have built up quite a few freight trains and now quite a few and growing intermodal trains. Plus on some lines, passenger trains and commuter trains add to the speed demands. That is why in some areas, it maybe wise to add the extra line in.
That isn't necessarily "if you build it, they will come" but more like, "if enough people want and it will be profitable to build it, I will". Places like Chicago, Toronto, and areas around Texas, needs dedicated lines for the amount of faster-than-freight trains that sometimes out number the freights. I know that GO transit is going to pay for another line at Bayview Junction on CN, because of their commuter trains. Some parts of the BNSF Medota Sub are 4 tracks because of the Chicago Metra Link. UP and BNSF run a tremendous amount of intermodal trains where ever they go (they supply intermodal set-offs for CN, CP, CSX and NS) and so their other trains likely run into the problem of being forced into a siding anyways (Z trains in particular).

[oltmannd]

Faster intermodal service is a good goal, but the place to start isn't higher track speed.

On the few mainlines were capacity constraints are caused by lack of main track, it might make sense to try to get all traffic moving at the same speed. However, most places, capacity problems are due to capacity at yard and terminals and "choke points" along the route, not lack of main track.

The market for 79 mph intermodal is small compared to the overall RR frt market. Speed is VERY expensive in terms of fuel and track maintenance. The little extra revenue from super hot-shot intermodal service would be drowned out by the extra cost incurred to create the service.

Plain-jane 50' freight cars aren't designed for speeds in excess of 50 or 60 mph, because, when empty, truck hunting becomes a problem.

The loaded braking ratio of loaded coal hoppers is very low, making for LOOOONG stopping distances. Most mainlines with traditional signal spacing can't accomodate loaded coal trains operating at speeds greater than 50 mph.

Intermodal is the growth engine for the RRs and I beleive they recognize that. The easiest, cheapest way to improve the competitive stance of intermodal is to improve the cycle time in terminals. That is, getting trains in and out faster, getting truckers in and out the gate faster, and improving the staging and loading processes within the yard. I think this is why you're seeing the RRs plow a good chunk of their discretionary capital spending on new or improved intermodal terminals.

[Overmod]

Facile and easy for the armchair boys to talk about 'speeding up' trains to run over 79mph, and dedicate high-speed trackage in lanes so that new traffic will come.

I suggest that advocates for faster operation look beyond fuel consumption, and start looking at track maintenance cost, particularly for high-speed operation of coal trains. After that, we can start looking at safety. Very important problems with truck stability start to go nonlinear at around 50-60mph. Likewise problems with light or relatively low-tare-weight equipment with worn wheel profiles at the higher speeds. Let's not forget brakes either. Just to get some of the brain cells going, remember that it takes as much braking effort to slow a train from 80 to 60 as it does to stop the same train completely from 60.

It would be nice to call for implementation of magic-wear-rate grinding operations, Hegenscheidt lathes for all interchange cars, etc. etc., as well as the dedicated high-speed trackage for lanes or corridors. Up until recently, the FRA was looking into what would be required for dual-service use of 110mph track -- note that this is one way to obtain the "important' expensive half of the 'dedicated high-speed line' proposal, but with Amtrak on the skids it's not as active -- and one conclusion is that it doesn't really pay to run anything but purpose-built (and well-maintained) stuff over the ATC limit speed, let alone at the higher permissible track speed.

Doesn't take very many maintained-to-a-price or flatwheeled interchange cars to cause track damage on a high-speed main. And only one to cause a derailment. Of course, I wouldn't consider running anything but purpose-built integral or high-speed intermodal consists on high-speed lines... but I have the privilege of actually running numbers on the costs of building and maintaining these things, which I somehow doubt my esteemed confreres have done. We recognized in the '70s that about the only way to get the equipment built (absent massive subsidy from folks with deep pockets and no concern about opportunity cost) was to run it through a few sequential companies that went bankrupt trying to get the proposition to pay, until the depreciated resale value of the trains reached what the actual market would bear -- you'll find that approach much harder to try in the wake of Enron et al, even if you swallowed "conventional morality" enough to actually embrace it (which I did not, and do not...)

Reasoning from the 'California freeway' model (aka 'if you build it they will come') is attractive but imho flawed -- there are much more substantial barriers to entry for high-speed rail, much more circumscribed benefits, and (as I think we've already covered for conventional intermodal) NOT very much recognition on the part of shippers that all the cost and profit of the enhanced infrastructure should be rolled into the cost per ton-mile of the stuff they ship. High equipment utilization rates presume sufficient PAYING traffic to fill enough of the slots in each movement (we won't reha***he equipment balancing concerns that have hobbled RoadRailer acceptance so far and will probably make life difficult for the RailRunner efforts).

The issue of post-merger use of 'redundant' mainlines to accomplish effective separation of semi-fast service from drag service is a bit different from the above, and does make considerably more sense to me. One thing that made a deep impression on me early was the difference between the D&H operating philosophy with high-pressure compound Consolidations and the D&H operating philosophy with 4-6-6-4s -- lays out the logistics of 'keeping the railroad fluid' even better than Colin's/Davidson's points. The catch is, again, whether there is sufficient high-speed dedicated main traffic -- or other subsidy, including state and Federal participation -- to justify the higher maintenance standards (and relative lack of ease to service online industry) for an explicitly high-speed-only main.

I believe it makes better sense to run 'dual main' operations to reduce ruling grades, or minimize effective travel time and distance for online or favored shippers, than to build a separate bidirectional multiple-track main separate from a 'drag-tolerant' main. It certainly seems historically true at least that railroad managements have thought so. And, believe me, they've known about the possible benefits of dedicated high-speed corridor trackage for many years now.

In a nutshell... when you're responsible for OPM, decisions get made on a basis somewhat different from the one enthusiasts use...

Sorry if there are occasional 'v's missing from recent posts -- I'm stuck on a laptop that has had a couple of its keys removed and used as baby-girl chew toys... ;-}

[Anonymous]

It's too bad the railroads abandoned most of their redundant lines after the merger orgey. It would have made more sense for them to dedicated certain lines for higher speed trains and leave the others for the slower stuff, than to settle for the one time scrap price. They apparently weren't planning on any future global economic growth, else we wouldn't have the uneccessary capacity crunch we're experiencing now. Just plain bad planning.

I agree with Colin's nee-Davidson's assessment, that you should run even your so-called drag freights at the highest speed possible to keep from clogging up the mainline and damaging your intermodal logistics. Either that, or reroute your drags onto the secondary mains (if there are any left!) and leave the mainline for the 60mph+ trains. The railroads greatest growth potential is easily intermodal, so why not spend more to develop these markets rather than hanging the entire company's fate on minimal growth markets like coal and grain?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tree68
[

Money. Coal doesn't need to move at 79+ mph, and the cost to make it move that fast would be prohibitive.

[Junctionfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tree68

QUOTE: Originally posted by garyaiki

QUOTE: Originally posted by BaltACD

The entire systems operation is dictated and corntroled by the 'slowest' class of service, not the fastest.

So what's holding down the slowest class of service? If speeding up the slowest trains yields higher capacity and faster overall service, what's the problem?

Money. Coal doesn't need to move at 79+ mph, and the cost to make it move that fast would be prohibitive.

I believe I was talking about intermodal, commuter and passenger trains which have to go fast. You must be joking if you think that an extra line where economically logical, wouldn't work. The reason why the railroads don't do it is because they are so wrapped up on how not to spend money, they have forgotten the ways on how to make money. Like I said, if (IF) an extra line for the hot shots was built because the hot shots pay for the upkeep of their line and increases the over all profit, what is wrong with that?

[tree68]

QUOTE: Originally posted by garyaiki

QUOTE: Originally posted by BaltACD

The entire systems operation is dictated and corntroled by the 'slowest' class of service, not the fastest.

So what's holding down the slowest class of service? If speeding up the slowest trains yields higher capacity and faster overall service, what's the problem?

Money. Coal doesn't need to move at 79+ mph, and the cost to make it move that fast would be prohibitive.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by BaltACD

The entire systems operation is dictated and corntroled by the 'slowest' class of service, not the fastest.

So what's holding down the slowest class of service? If speeding up the slowest trains yields higher capacity and faster overall service, what's the problem?

[BaltACD]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

Good point but I asked myself this first. How many intermodals, commuters and passenger trains would you plan on operating on thease new lines if they were to build them. If the answer is enough for them to pay it off and get a return off of it in the future, I see little problem with it.

Fine!....You FUND it and the railroads will build it, use it and you can repay your funding with the earnings from it.

Any railroad that thinks it can economically operate multiple classes of service is only deluding themselves. The entire systems operation is dictated and corntroled by the 'slowest' class of service, not the fastest. A railroad is a 'closed' enviornment with limted resources and the slowest trains occupy most of the resources for most of the allowable time, therefore the operation of this category of traffic dictates how any other grades of traffic are handled.

[Junctionfan]

Good point but I asked myself this first. How many intermodals, commuters and passenger trains would you plan on operating on thease new lines if they were to build them. If the answer is enough for them to pay it off and get a return off of it in the future, I see little problem with it.

[Saxman]

Last I read the cost of 1 mile of CTC Main track is between $1-2 Million per mile. Thats on existing right-of-way! Now throw in the additional cost land purchases, EPA studies and NIMBY court battles and where is the return on the investment? I am not sure it's a "Build it and They will come and use" project for the railroads. Where is the market for this type of expense?

Saxman

Saxman

[Junctionfan]

Don't shoot the messanger but maybe railroads should designate or build a hot shot only track for their intermodals and passenger train guests. Just wondering..

[Saxman]

A few months back Trains ran an article about the test train UPS ran on the UP and BNSF in conjunction with CSX that was to operate on a 70 MPH schedule and reduce tranist time coast to coast. ( I forget how many hours coast to coast I want to say 24 hrs) One of the comments was, that while the train could be run at those speeds and tranist time reduced, its impact on other traffic on the railroad was negative. Other traffic does and will get delayed by taking sidings and slowing down to let the "hot shot" over take them.

I saw this demonstrated on the CN when I was Road Foreman of Engines and Roadadrailer service was started between Toronto and Chicago. I was assigned to ride the trains on start up to report on their progress and delays from Port Huron, MI to Markham Yard in Chicago. CN wasn't looking too see how fast we could run the train, as it had the same 60 MPH speed limit as all intermodal, but run it with one crew from Port Huron to Markham Yard in Chicago. Given that it did no work on line, the economics favored on crew start instead of two. (Port Huron- Battel Creek, Battle Creek-Chicago) The use of one crew worked but its impact on the other trains was terrible. Everybody waited for this train as the dispatchers were not going to get chewed out for delaying the Roadrailer. The crews began to affectionatly call this train the "Roadrage". When CN started these trains, the South Bend Sub. between Battle Creek and Chicago was not all CTC. One night we had to run "wrong main" account a train with engine problems ahead. A RCBS Clearance (Radio Controlled Block System) had to be issued and then the train was limited to 49 MPH for the next 30 miles. This move delayed several other trains as we had to clear their track before they could run. This is the type of thing that will begin to eat at the hots shots schedule and make dispatchers "hedge their bets" and not let anyone out in front of the hot shot delaying the schedule of the follwoing trains. Today the South Bend Sub. is CTC and if this train ran today, somebody would still get delayed to run him around or by another train. In the end CN ended the Roadrailer service between Toronto and Chicago (softening of the economy) which now has been follwed by the service between Toronto and Montreal. In the end one crew did make it from Port Huron to Chicago but at what cost to other trains?

The conclusion of the UPS test trains was similar, while a train could be run coast to coast with the reduced transit time, it's impact on the rest of the railroad out weighed its benefits.

Saxman