CNSFIn the 1960's Santa Fe was handling about 40 million gross tons on the "Transcon" between Clovis and Vaughn
Net (not gross) ton-miles per mile in 1962, in millions:
Clovis-Vaughn 6.74 westward, 4.25 eastward
Gallup-Winslow 6.76W 3.55E
Hesperia-San Bernardino 8.90W 2.30E
Highest density was Emporia-Ellinor, 6.98W 10.36E. Dunno whether the Cajon segment includes UP-- probably not? Cadiz-Barstow is shown as 6.51W 3.34E, Barstow-Hesperia is 8.00W 2.32E and Barstow-Mojave is 2.27W 3.72E.
In 1952 Clovis-Vaughn 4.70W 4.03E, Gallup-Winslow 4.59W 3.43E, and the densest was Argentine-Holliday 7.20W 10.61E.
Posters SanDiego and Greyhounds both made most intelligent comments. But a factor that has been lost in this thread is start to finish time of shipments, i.e., from the time a shipment leaves a shipper to when it is received by a customer. As for the train under discussion, it made NO difference how fast the Super C traveled. Remember, the shipment had to be brought to the loading site, loaded, wait for other shipments to be loaded, and finally depart at a certain time. At the other end of the trip, the reverse consumed time. Time, time, time being consumed – with nothing moving shipment-wise!
I think it was the BNSF website that had (and probably still has) some schedules that shippers could use to plan their shipments. There was often five or six scheduled departures to a particular destination. While slower than the Super C and less disruptive logistics-wise, a customer’s shipment would under most cases involve LESS start to finish time overall. Who could argue with that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- K.P.’s absolute “theorem” from early, early childhood that he has seen over and over and over again: Those that CAUSE a problem in the first place will act the most violently if questioned or exposed.
Please add into your equation(s) that the dispatcher today has a much broader territory with more trains, more tonnage and is less likely to give the premium train the attention it got then. The Q-train experiment of the 80's and 90's (dedicated route pairs of short/ light trains) put a strain on a system then that has only gotten leaner since.
On the other side, crew districts are longer, flying crew changes are illegal (must stop), capacity is enhanced (Super C ran after the massive line changes that DC was part of), FRA inspections are fewer, no cabeese and better, more reliable power.
(I can still remember the running joke about the Valley Division dispatcher (Fresno) announcing - "199 left Chicago; Everybody off the railroad, NOW!"
sandiego Murphy—Schlimm is correct. Speaking as a retired rail I can say from a dispatching standpoint that the total number of trains handled a day is the main factor in handling traffic over a given track segment and configuration. So CNSF's data about the tonnage increases since 1960 needs to be qualified. How many trains (of all types) was the ATSF handling then compared to what the BNSF is handling today? Other factors that the dispatcher considers are: HP/ton ratio—determines what speed it's even possible for the train to attain Tons/operative brake—On the BN trains over 100 TOB were restricted to 45 MPH Empties in train—55 MPH restriction on empty freight cars in mixed freight trains Type of train—Passenger, oil train, intermodal; all higher or lower speed than typical freight Length of train—Not much of a factor except on subdivisions with shorter sidings "Back in the day" there was a mix of trains also—drag freights, hotshots, fast passenger trains, and not-so-fast passenger trains—for the dispatcher to contend with, and those passenger trains had to be kept on time or heads would roll, beginning with the dispatcher's. Notice I qualified my initial statement with "for a given track segment and configuration" as this can be a major factor in train capacity. A single track line with Track Warrant Control will not be able to handle as many trains as a line with two main track CTC. Grades and curves also affect capacity by reducing maximum speeds. Consider that the ex-ATSF main line has substantially the same grades and curves as it did in 1960 (after the Williams Jct.-Crookton line relocation) but now is two main track CTC instead of a mix of single and double main CTC; with that the line certainly has more capacity than during the passenger train era. Kurt Hayek
Murphy—Schlimm is correct. Speaking as a retired rail I can say from a dispatching standpoint that the total number of trains handled a day is the main factor in handling traffic over a given track segment and configuration. So CNSF's data about the tonnage increases since 1960 needs to be qualified. How many trains (of all types) was the ATSF handling then compared to what the BNSF is handling today?
Other factors that the dispatcher considers are:
HP/ton ratio—determines what speed it's even possible for the train to attain
Tons/operative brake—On the BN trains over 100 TOB were restricted to 45 MPH
Empties in train—55 MPH restriction on empty freight cars in mixed freight trains
Type of train—Passenger, oil train, intermodal; all higher or lower speed than typical freight
Length of train—Not much of a factor except on subdivisions with shorter sidings
"Back in the day" there was a mix of trains also—drag freights, hotshots, fast passenger trains, and not-so-fast passenger trains—for the dispatcher to contend with, and those passenger trains had to be kept on time or heads would roll, beginning with the dispatcher's.
Notice I qualified my initial statement with "for a given track segment and configuration" as this can be a major factor in train capacity. A single track line with Track Warrant Control will not be able to handle as many trains as a line with two main track CTC. Grades and curves also affect capacity by reducing maximum speeds.
Consider that the ex-ATSF main line has substantially the same grades and curves as it did in 1960 (after the Williams Jct.-Crookton line relocation) but now is two main track CTC instead of a mix of single and double main CTC; with that the line certainly has more capacity than during the passenger train era.
Kurt Hayek
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
I think an important point in CNSF's post has been missed.
There has to be a market need for a service. No one has identified such a need for a Super C type service. In fact, the original Super C was launched without identifying such a need. It was the the brain child of a senior Santa Fe executive. It flopped because it served no significant customer need.
Maybe 10 or so years ago UPS did ask BNSF for a train that could deliver Monday shipments from Los Angeles to New York for Friday delivery. (one day per week operation.) BNSF took a look, did some analysis, and said no. Such a service would be too disruptive on their busy mainline.
So the UP saw an opportunity for a lot of "Thank You" UPS business and tried to run the train. They fell on their ass. And they disrupted their network doing so.
It's foolish to think that a railroad can just start some service and then tell marketing/sales to just fill up the train. The market need must be identified and quantified first. Then the operating people have to be able to meet that need in an economical manner. Nobody has identified such a need for a new Super C.
Does any livestock move by rail today? I think not.
After finishing your Santa Fe all the way salad, the main course is served.
Beef. It's what the Union Pacific brought you for dinner.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjbRQpWoDrE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xtm520gYdC4
Norm48327 schlimm Why? How? The stat is traffic flow. On a highway, I think you measure by how many cars per hour. I does not matter if the cars weigh 2000# or 3000#. Then it would make more logic to count freight cars per hour. Trains per hour does not accurately describe how much freight is moving. A train can have any number of cars.
schlimm Why? How? The stat is traffic flow. On a highway, I think you measure by how many cars per hour. I does not matter if the cars weigh 2000# or 3000#.
Why? How? The stat is traffic flow. On a highway, I think you measure by how many cars per hour. I does not matter if the cars weigh 2000# or 3000#.
Then it would make more logic to count freight cars per hour. Trains per hour does not accurately describe how much freight is moving. A train can have any number of cars.
Again that may not be an apples-to-apples comparison given that modern freight cars have a higher payload capacity than their 1960's ancestors....
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Norm
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm CNSF By 2014, gross tonnage on this stretch was up to over 170 million - more than four times the 1960s volume. Tonnage is irrelevant. So is carloadings. The total number of trains daily is the only way to compare then and now.
CNSF By 2014, gross tonnage on this stretch was up to over 170 million - more than four times the 1960s volume.
Tonnage is irrelevant. So is carloadings. The total number of trains daily is the only way to compare then and now.
CNSFBy 2014, gross tonnage on this stretch was up to over 170 million - more than four times the 1960s volume.
What might have been possible on the "old ATSF" is hardly relevant to today. A recent article by Dick Eisfeller in the SFRH&MS "Warbonnet" shows why. In the 1960's Santa Fe was handling about 40 million gross tons on the "Transcon" between Clovis and Vaughn, NM. By 1988, (coincidentally, the year I was hired on) they were up to about 58 million tons. By merger date, in 1995, gross tonnage on that stretch of railroad was up to about 98 million tons. Essentially, during 7-year stretch, we took new business equivalent to the size of the railroad in 1966 and piled it on top of the 1988 railroad's volume.
Our service offering in those years included multiple daily UPS and mail trains moving on 48-52 hour schedules between Chicago and California - not quite as fast as the Super C or the top passenger trains of the '60's, but exactly what those customers needed based on their pickup, sort, and delivery times. Those schedules matched or beat team drivers running over the road. The only faster way to ship was air freight. Our big new partner of the '90's, JB Hunt, only occasionally used this premium service. They preferred slower, cheaper trains for the vast majority of their business. We knew what we were doing - because we listened to the customers and understood their needs. I'm no longer part of the team, but I'm sure they still know what they're doing.
By 2014, gross tonnage on this stretch was up to over 170 million - more than four times the 1960s volume. There's no way you could do that and still operate a mid-60's ATSF passenger lineup, even on the new, much-improved BNSF. Of course, we all remember the service nightmares of 2014. BNSF's task now is to re-establish credibility with its premium shippers. Faster trains which customers aren't asking for, and which would only add to congestion and reduce network capacity and reliability, aren't part of the solution. 95%+ on-time performance of the Z-trains they already have are.
CSSHEGEWISCH If I read things correctly in my old copies of the OG, produce traffic schedules and rates allowed a certain amount of delay if requested to allow the shipper to consider market prices for his product. Could a railroad still allow such a provision today without causing too many operating problems?
If I read things correctly in my old copies of the OG, produce traffic schedules and rates allowed a certain amount of delay if requested to allow the shipper to consider market prices for his product. Could a railroad still allow such a provision today without causing too many operating problems?
In the 'olden days', perishable shippers used both 'circuitous routing' and 'reconsignment and diversion' in shipping their unsold product from the West Coast to the markets of the East. By having product moving it enabled the product to be shipped continuously from origin and give the product time to find a buyer while it was inroute. Once the sale was made, the reconsignment and diversion order would be implemented (normally in the vicinity of normal Gateway locations between Western & Eastern carriers), and the product would then be directed to the ultimate destination as a priority shipment, arriving in one to two days after the sale was consumated.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
schlimmAgree. Of course now some folks here will say you are anti-railroad.
The Dumbest Idea In the World: Maximizing Shareholder Value
schlimm dakotafred Seven days for a perishable product is pathetic, worse than the rails did 50 years ago. If they can't find a way, with all the modern improvements in communications, to run an occasional fast train in their mix, they are simply inept and unsuited to the modern age. Stuck with the easy, pokey stuff that suddenly is looking not so easy. Agree. Of course now some folks here will say you are anti-railroad.
dakotafred Seven days for a perishable product is pathetic, worse than the rails did 50 years ago. If they can't find a way, with all the modern improvements in communications, to run an occasional fast train in their mix, they are simply inept and unsuited to the modern age. Stuck with the easy, pokey stuff that suddenly is looking not so easy.
Seven days for a perishable product is pathetic, worse than the rails did 50 years ago. If they can't find a way, with all the modern improvements in communications, to run an occasional fast train in their mix, they are simply inept and unsuited to the modern age. Stuck with the easy, pokey stuff that suddenly is looking not so easy.
Agree. Of course now some folks here will say you are anti-railroad.
A seven day schedule may be ok for apples and potatoes, but for really perishable stuff like lettuce, strawberries and fresh broccoli it will not work. One other item, the problems with getting enough salad lettuce has prompted the salad growers to find other places to grow lettuce. Mexico and Florida as well as central Colorado (usually only one crop a year).
The demand is there for the ability to move bulk quantities of lettuce. The packers have been developed a wide number of techniques to move larger quantities. What they do not have is any way to extend the shelf life of the lettuce once it is harvested from the field. Seven days out of the field and you start to get "rusty" lettuce.
schlimm Wizlish How do you spell "Kingdom" with an S? ;-) At least the right railroad.
Wizlish How do you spell "Kingdom" with an S? ;-)
WizlishHow do you spell "Kingdom" with an S? ;-)
At least the right railroad.
schlimmI.S. Brunel's name is always associated with successes and failures: the Great Western Railway (error in setting gauge at 7 feet) and the "atmospheric" extension of it (failure), HMS Great Eastern, a failed passenger ship which laid the first tranatlantic cable and many great bridges, stations and tunnels, some still in use, I believe.
How do you spell "Kingdom" with an S? ;-)
Not sure the 'broad gauge' was a failure in and of itself, although in Britain the tight de facto loading gauges would have made it impossible to get 'full use' out of it. Best structural efficiency would involve putting the vertical secondary suspension at the transverse 'quarter points' unless you really need the high-speed stability of putting it 'as far outboard as possible' (as in the last generations of OSH passenger trucks, the carbody springs on the ALP44s, etc.)
I'll grant you that 6' was a bit less 'excess' than the Great Western tad-over-7' gauge ... but I think "standard" gauge has turned out to have significant limitations...
... and in my opinion no little part of the 'narrow gauge' winning out in Britain by 1891 involves politics rather than 'engineering' optimality...
The atmospheric traction might have worked with a choice of materials that was less tasty ... but I agree that it was unlikely to have been a long-term solution for a variety of reasons. A bit like how I laugh at the idea that Beach's atmospheric subway would ever have worked for NYC rapid transit, practically...
All that was probably needed for Great Eastern to succeed was the 'right' business model ... the exact same one, I might note, that was used for Titanic. Leo Ames will probably have some comments on this. I am presuming that 'better' steam engines, boilers, etc. could have been fitted to her when they became available, which is a bit of a stretch but not an impossible one.
On the other hand, I can think of few things that were a more impressive way of separating people from their money effectively. Even the people who cut the thing up lost their butts. Pity nobody appreciated artificial reefs then...
One of the most interesting things about Great Eastern to me is that it so nearly predates so many industrial improvements that would make building and operating large ships more effective, and I specifically include economic and political thinking as well as technology in that. While I'm not going to do 'alternative history' on what the British or Americans could or should have done with the ship, there are some interesting 'what ifs', like the idea of airship travel to Gold Rush California or the development of steam motor trains in the late 1850s or the invention of the fax and the teletype before the Morse-code telegraph, that might have come out very differently had even a few (and, in context, relatively circumstantial) things happened differently or in a different timeframe.
I for one would still like to have seen what PRR would have done with fast Diesel motor trains between 1927 and 1929, for instance...
Railex: "5 day non-stop just-in-time delivery." Average speed of 23 mph?
ericsp timz caldreamer UP is running multiple super fast perishable trains from Yakima, Wa and Delano, Ca to the east coast. Super fast meaning... what is it, 96 hours Delano to Rotterdam? It is "only" 144 hours. At least it gives the wine time to age. http://railex.com/train-schedule/
timz caldreamer UP is running multiple super fast perishable trains from Yakima, Wa and Delano, Ca to the east coast. Super fast meaning... what is it, 96 hours Delano to Rotterdam?
caldreamer UP is running multiple super fast perishable trains from Yakima, Wa and Delano, Ca to the east coast.
Super fast meaning... what is it, 96 hours Delano to Rotterdam?
It is "only" 144 hours. At least it gives the wine time to age.
http://railex.com/train-schedule/
Ye gods, even if reliability is more important to the customer than speed, shouldn't the shipper and/or the railroad have more respect for utilization of their equipment than that?
Wizlish he very clearly noted the parallels with the history of Brunel's Great Eastern... )
I.S. Brunel's name is always associated with successes and failures: the Great Western Railway (error in setting gauge at 7 feet) and the "atmospheric" extension of it (failure), HMS Great Eastern, a failed passenger ship which laid the first tranatlantic cable and many great bridges, stations and tunnels, some still in use, I believe.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.