Trains.com

If freight rail volume were to quadruple over the next 10-15 years, where would the bottlenecks in the system appear?

4687 views
47 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    April 2016
  • 1,447 posts
Posted by Shadow the Cats owner on Sunday, April 28, 2019 10:31 PM

I can say this from my perspective on my industry.  If freight volume goes up that much without a major investment in the invastructure in this nation especially the roads then more than likely the entire logistics chain would collaspe from the bottlenecks in the major cities alone.  Just getting in and out of the areas around the old Joliet Arsenal in Illinois are a major pain in the rear anytime of the day.  Why the local roads into and out of the logistics parks can't handle the volume of traffic.   If you're heading north into Chicago it's 3 lanes of bumper to bumper traffic almost a solid 8 hours a freaking day now for 50 miles between Joliet and Chicago.  The beltway interstates are the same the bypass aka 294 around it your basically racing at Talladega from Indiana to Wisconsin while praying not for a major accident anywhere on it.  When it can take 90 minutes to go 30 miles in rush hour traffic on a Friday night to just go from the Tristate to I 80 there's no more room for growth in traffic on the road. 

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,021 posts
Posted by tree68 on Sunday, April 28, 2019 10:16 PM

jeffhergert
but they've realized only cutting takes you so far.

Which rather follows the concept that cutting only moved money to where it to could removed by the investors interested only in the money...

There was no long-term planning in their strategy.

LarryWhistling
Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) 
Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you
My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date
Come ride the rails with me!
There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...

  • Member since
    October 2006
  • From: Allentown, PA
  • 9,810 posts
Posted by Paul_D_North_Jr on Sunday, April 28, 2019 8:43 PM

jeffhergert
. . . Some former EHH railroads have since found after he left that you have to have growth, and spend money to do so. . . . 

Exactly what Matt Rose of BNSF has been saying for the last several months, including in his interview with Trains.  Evidently ("manifestly" Smile, Wink & Grin ) BNSF has known this without first 'drinking the Kool-Aid' of PSR, and the resultant delay of taking the intellectual and operating detour of trying to implement PSR before coming to this conclusion.  Too bad the costs of PSR - lost opportunity and otherwise - can't be quantified and charged to those responsible.

- PDN. 

"This Fascinating Railroad Business" (title of 1943 book by Robert Selph Henry of the AAR)
  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: Central Iowa
  • 6,901 posts
Posted by jeffhergert on Sunday, April 28, 2019 6:44 PM

Update for Carl, and anyone else.  I see a Waukegan coal train on the line up, so they're not completely gone.  I line up for it, all 180 cars of it.  Normal trains are more like 135 +/-.

Maybe the question isn't where will the bottlenecks be if traffic volumes increase.  Maybe it should be will those railroads practicing PSR even want increased volumes? 

Some former EHH railroads have since found after he left that you have to have growth, and spend money to do so.  They may not have abandoned PSR completely, but they've realized only cutting takes you so far.

Jeff

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Sunday, April 28, 2019 5:34 PM

 

SAMUEL C WALKER

The Federal Government created an estimate for railroad capacity in 2035 in 2007. It is instructive. https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/nat_freight_stats/trainvolcap2035.htm 

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Sunday, April 28, 2019 5:28 PM

 

SAMUEL C WALKER

The Federal Government created an estimate for railroad capacity in 2035 in 2007. It is instructive. https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/nat_freight_stats/trainvolcap2035.htm 

RailRoader608

Would we run out of terminal capacity first? or linehaul capacity?  

And do bottlenecks already exist today along some routes? I'm not really sure which answer is easier to solve either; both adding a track and building a new terminal sound incredibly expensive.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    December 2015
  • From: Sharon, PA
  • 47 posts
Posted by SAMUEL C WALKER on Sunday, April 28, 2019 11:22 AM

The Federal Government created an estimate for railroad capacity in 2035 in 2007. It is instructive. https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/nat_freight_stats/trainvolcap2035.htm

RailRoader608

Would we run out of terminal capacity first? or linehaul capacity? 

 

And do bottlenecks already exist today along some routes? I'm not really sure which answer is easier to solve either; both adding a track and building a new terminal sound incredibly expensive.

 

  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: Central Iowa
  • 6,901 posts
Posted by jeffhergert on Friday, April 26, 2019 6:32 PM

CShaveRR

Jeff, which coal operation is missing now, if I may be so bold?
It was a little startling to see the Pleasant Prairie plant with no steam coming from its stack yesterday.  Guess it's done, huh, and all WEPX trains through here are now going to Oak Creek?

(When I hired out, Pleasant Prairie didn't exist, but Oak Creek did.  What goes around comes around, I guess.)

 

I can only say by destination, I don't always know which power company owned what.  Off the top of my head some regular destinations gone are Powerville (Marshalltown, IA-new gas plant), Waukegon and Will County, Kinkaid, Fruitland (Muscatine).  I haven't seen a Michigan City for quite awhile, but we still have a few Wheatfield trains.  It seems like not as many though.  The Cedar Rapids area used to be good for trains to Alliant and ADM.  The Alliant trains kind of tapered off, I haven't seen one for awhile but they could be getting trains via other railroads.  I know BNSF-IAIS now has the ADM contract, so there is always a chance to regain it.  There was one run-through to CSX that they rerouted across Missouri to avoid Chicago.  I don't know if it still runs.

The Fruitland trains still run, only via BNSF-CPRS.  Fruitland is (primarily) a Mid-America plant.  Mid-America, has is BNSF, is in the Berkshire Hathaway camp.  It wasn't a surprise we lost that contract.

And of course, Pleasant Prairie is gone.

Jeff

  • Member since
    January 2015
  • 2,678 posts
Posted by kgbw49 on Friday, April 26, 2019 11:50 AM

The Elm Road Generating Station in Oak Creek (just north of the Oak Creek Generating Station) is 1,268 MW. The 634 MW Unit 1 commenced commercial operation In 2010 and the 634 MW Unit 2 commenced commercial operatiin 2011.

 https://www.we-energies.com/home/elm-road-generating-station.htm

  • Member since
    January 2003
  • From: Kenosha, WI
  • 6,567 posts
Posted by zardoz on Friday, April 26, 2019 11:24 AM

CShaveRR
It was a little startling to see the Pleasant Prairie plant with no steam coming from its stack yesterday.  Guess it's done, huh, and all WEPX trains through here are now going to Oak Creek?

Carl, even the coal stacks are gone, tore down a few weeks ago. Oak Creek is now the source of our electricity.

On a personal note, I was glad to see the plant close as it generated an annoying amount of black dust that made hanging laundry a bad idea when the wind was coming from the wrong direction. And then there's the other pollutants (mercury) that we were exposed to. Too bad the plant didn't last long enough to burn T.Rumps "clean coal".

 

  • Member since
    June 2001
  • From: Lombard (west of Chicago), Illinois
  • 13,681 posts
Posted by CShaveRR on Thursday, April 25, 2019 9:40 PM

Jeff, which coal operation is missing now, if I may be so bold?
It was a little startling to see the Pleasant Prairie plant with no steam coming from its stack yesterday.  Guess it's done, huh, and all WEPX trains through here are now going to Oak Creek?

(When I hired out, Pleasant Prairie didn't exist, but Oak Creek did.  What goes around comes around, I guess.)

Carl

Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)

CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)

  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: Central Iowa
  • 6,901 posts
Posted by jeffhergert on Wednesday, April 24, 2019 9:38 PM

zardoz

 

 
jeffhergert
I can think of 7 or 8 power plants that had a loaded train about every day.  A couple were good for two about every day.  And then throw in the empties going back.

 

The Pleasant Prairie power plant has closed recently, although WE Energies is using the facility for storing the unused empty cars.

 

 

That was one that was good for two loads and returning empties about everyday.

I'm pretty safe with my seniority.  It's those on the bubble I'm concerned about.  One day they're working the conductor's pools with a fairly comfortable cushion below them.  A few weeks later they're worried about being regulated to the AWRR (retention board where you work two days a week) or worse, being furloughed completely.  Right now we're starting down the cutting back mode again, while a new hire class is ready or has started.

Jeff

  • Member since
    January 2003
  • From: Kenosha, WI
  • 6,567 posts
Posted by zardoz on Wednesday, April 24, 2019 10:16 AM

jeffhergert
I can think of 7 or 8 power plants that had a loaded train about every day.  A couple were good for two about every day.  And then throw in the empties going back.

The Pleasant Prairie power plant has closed recently, although WE Energies is using the facility for storing the unused empty cars.

  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 6,952 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Wednesday, April 24, 2019 8:11 AM

kgbw49
We are all sincerely pulling for UP and you, Jeff!

Their stock is doing fantastic, I have more than doubled my original investment of just 8 years ago.    It's approaching $200 a share, bought near $80.....400+ shares and climbing slowly due to divident reinvestment.

  • Member since
    January 2015
  • 2,678 posts
Posted by kgbw49 on Tuesday, April 23, 2019 9:31 PM

We are all sincerely pulling for UP and you, Jeff!

  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: Central Iowa
  • 6,901 posts
Posted by jeffhergert on Tuesday, April 23, 2019 5:18 PM

kgbw49

Here is some UP traffic information:

https://www.up.com/investors/attachments/factbooks/2008/factbook.pdf

See page 31 of 40 of the 2008 UP Fact Book.

9.261 million carloads in 2008 (9.852 million in 2006 - the all-time peak) but many of these were coal trains from the Powder River Basin, prior to the natural gas boom.

In 2017, UP had 8.588 million revenue carloads per their 2017 Fact Book.

In 2018, UP had 8.908 million revenue carloads per their 2018 Q4 Financial Press Release.

in 2008, UP had 2.328 million revenue loads in their Energy Sector, of which 90% or 2.095 million were coal loads from the PRB or CO/UT (per 2008 Fact Book).

In 2018, UP had 1.650 million revenue carloads in their Energy Sector per their Q4 financial report, but that also included frac sand, ethanol and crude oil trains. No full-year coal load info was broken out, but Q4 coal loads were 252,000, which would correlate to about 1.0+ million coal loads for the year.

If UP again has 4% growth in carloads in 2019 as they did in 2018, they will have about 9.264 million carloads and will have finally exceeded 2008 carloads (though not have yet surpassed 2006).

 

The loss of coal is what's mostly reduced the train count in my neck of the woods.  A few trains, including one coal train, were rerouted away from our route.  I'm not sure if those rerouted trains still run anymore.  I can think of 7 or 8 power plants that had a loaded train about every day.  A couple were good for two about every day.  And then throw in the empties going back.

It's amazing how things have changed.

Jeff  

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Tuesday, April 23, 2019 3:33 PM

RailRoader608

Would we run out of terminal capacity first? or linehaul capacity? 

 

And do bottlenecks already exist today along some routes? I'm not really sure which answer is easier to solve either; both adding a track and building a new terminal sound incredibly expensive.

 

Terminal.  The line haul stuff is easier to fix, generally. Launching and putting trains away in terminals chews up capacity like crazy.

 

But, quadrupling is a tall order....

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    January 2015
  • 2,678 posts
Posted by kgbw49 on Monday, April 22, 2019 10:11 PM

Here is some UP traffic information:

https://www.up.com/investors/attachments/factbooks/2008/factbook.pdf

See page 31 of 40 of the 2008 UP Fact Book.

9.261 million carloads in 2008 (9.852 million in 2006 - the all-time peak) but many of these were coal trains from the Powder River Basin, prior to the natural gas boom.

In 2017, UP had 8.588 million revenue carloads per their 2017 Fact Book.

In 2018, UP had 8.908 million revenue carloads per their 2018 Q4 Financial Press Release.

in 2008, UP had 2.328 million revenue loads in their Energy Sector, of which 90% or 2.095 million were coal loads from the PRB or CO/UT (per 2008 Fact Book).

In 2018, UP had 1.650 million revenue carloads in their Energy Sector per their Q4 financial report, but that also included frac sand, ethanol and crude oil trains. No full-year coal load info was broken out, but Q4 coal loads were 252,000, which would correlate to about 1.0+ million coal loads for the year.

If UP again has 4% growth in carloads in 2019 as they did in 2018, they will have about 9.264 million carloads and will have finally exceeded 2008 carloads (though not have yet surpassed 2006).

  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: Central Iowa
  • 6,901 posts
Posted by jeffhergert on Monday, April 22, 2019 9:57 PM

Murphy Siding

 

 
jeffhergert

I'd be happy if our volumes in my section of the world would just get back to 2008 levels.

Jeff

 

 

 

Out of curiosity, how much would the traffic have to increase to be back at the 2008 levels?

 

 

I would guess about 20 more trains a day to equal the peak.  We probably topped out with about 70 to 75 trains a day.  We're probably running about 50 or so today.  Gone are the days when the talk was that they were planning on 100 trains a day and were going to need a third main across Iowa and Illinois.

Jeff 

 

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Monday, April 22, 2019 9:13 PM

jeffhergert

I'd be happy if our volumes in my section of the world would just get back to 2008 levels.

Jeff

 

Out of curiosity, how much would the traffic have to increase to be back at the 2008 levels?

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    January 2015
  • 2,678 posts
Posted by kgbw49 on Monday, April 22, 2019 7:34 PM

Over on the Sunset Route Two-Tracking Updates thread, Bruce D Gillings has some very salient information on UP yard capacity in the LA area as it relates to the recently published three 16,000-foot sidings that UP will be adding to single track sections of the Sunset Route in southwestern Arizona.

  • Member since
    January 2003
  • From: Kenosha, WI
  • 6,567 posts
Posted by zardoz on Monday, April 22, 2019 4:41 PM

BaltACD
Forecasting 1-5 years in the future is more difficult than what most people understand - all it takes is a 'price change' in some commodity and the whole transportation world turns on a dime.

Or an idiot in the Oval Office.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Saturday, April 20, 2019 8:14 PM

tree68
Watching the Deshler cams as I often do, it's not unusual to see IM trains held out on the main at West Deshler or at South Deshler, presumably because the North Baltimore facility doesn't have room for it.

Last year on my visit there, I encountered an eastbound train parked on the main just west of North Baltimore - which had to be a headache for the dispatcher.

There has been mention on the cam chat of adding a third track between Deshler and North Baltimore - presumably to clear up the mainlines.

This could be a problem crossing-wise, as roads in that area a pretty much laid out in a grid, with one mile between them.

I would opine that while mainlines can get congested, the problems will be with yard capacity.

PSR will solve all that with block swapping! [/sarcasm]

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,021 posts
Posted by tree68 on Saturday, April 20, 2019 4:02 PM

Watching the Deshler cams as I often do, it's not unusual to see IM trains held out on the main at West Deshler or at South Deshler, presumably because the North Baltimore facility doesn't have room for it.

Last year on my visit there, I encountered an eastbound train parked on the main just west of North Baltimore - which had to be a headache for the dispatcher.

There has been mention on the cam chat of adding a third track between Deshler and North Baltimore - presumably to clear up the mainlines.

This could be a problem crossing-wise, as roads in that area a pretty much laid out in a grid, with one mile between them.

I would opine that while mainlines can get congested, the problems will be with yard capacity.

LarryWhistling
Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) 
Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you
My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date
Come ride the rails with me!
There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...

  • Member since
    December 2006
  • 1,754 posts
Posted by diningcar on Saturday, April 20, 2019 10:35 AM

UP has three westbound routes arriving at El Paso (via Tucumcarri; via Dallas - Ft Worth; via New Orleans - Houston). Those trains will have blocks of cargo destined for Tucson and west to LA. The new Santa Teresa yard just west of El Paso will be used to combine similar blocks from those arriving westbound trains into larger trains, thus eliminating, for example, three arriving trains from continuing individually.

 

  • Member since
    January 2015
  • 2,678 posts
Posted by kgbw49 on Saturday, April 20, 2019 9:41 AM

Through trains drop long cuts of cars to be picked up and added to another train going to a different destination. The blocks of cars are not further sorted - they are dropped and added as a block.

  • Member since
    December 2018
  • 865 posts
Posted by JPS1 on Saturday, April 20, 2019 9:07 AM

Paul_D_North_Jr
 Railroad will shift funding from massive Texas facility to new Sunset Route sidings, block-swapping yard 

What is a block-swapping yard?

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Saturday, April 20, 2019 9:00 AM

traisessive1
A 5% increase in traffic can easily create bottlenecks. 

One train can gridlock a subdivision.  Each single track subdivision has a finite limit in the number of trains that can be effectively handled.  Add one more train and the sub can be brought to a screeching halt, that can take hours, if not days to work the operation out of.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Winnipeg, Mb
  • 628 posts
Posted by traisessive1 on Saturday, April 20, 2019 8:56 AM

A 5% increase in traffic can easily create bottlenecks. 

10000 feet and no dynamics? Today is going to be a good day ... 

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

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