LOMBARD, Ill. — Precision Scheduled Railroading is helping to lift shippers opinions of railroads according to the recently released State of Logistics report of the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals. “Railroads did partic...
http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2019/07/08-precision-railroading-helped-railroads-do-well-in-the-eyes-of-logistics-managers-report-says
Brian Schmidt, Editor, Classic Trains magazine
You can't possibly mean...
That it works?
greyhounds You can't possibly mean... That it works?
Aside from the bad taste left by the [whatever you want to call them] investors, there's usually something good to be said for something like PSR. That the entire package doesn't necessarily work is shown by those railroads returning to some pre-PSR practices after the proponents of PSR left those railroads.
The question remains - how long will it be before all signs of PSR, as a package, are just a memory.
Larry 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...
I wonder what the vehemently anti-PSR folks' response will be to that?
charlie hebdo greyhounds You can't possibly mean... That it works? I wonder what the vehemently anti-PSR folks' response will be to that?
Remove traffic from the carriers and all of a sudden their On Time Performance improves - thus it has always been. PSR has driven off enough customers so that those that remain are now getting OT performance..
Watched my own company's metrics through good times and bad. In high traffic, high revenue times the overall OT performance suffered - too much traffic competing for the same resources - Manpower, locomotive power, track time. In low traffic low revenue times while manpower was cut, locomotive power stored more track time became available for the trains that were run and the OT performance soared.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
There is something just too certain and sure of itself in the sweeping and relentless repudiation of PSR. It is as if the issue is really about something else.
“Rail productivity continued to improve as the Class I railroads that adopted ‘precision railroading’ principles achieved ever-lower operating ratios.”
This is the only survey comment I’m seeing that is related to PSR. What I’m not seeing - at least in the info included in the article - is any specific claim that service improvements have resulted from PSR implementation.
EuclidIt is as if the issue is really about something else.
It is - people using it as a "get rich quick" scheme...
tree68 Euclid It is as if the issue is really about something else. It is - people using it as a "get rich quick" scheme...
Euclid It is as if the issue is really about something else.
EuclidThere is something just too certain and sure of itself in the sweeping and relentless repudiation of PSR. It is as if the issue is really about something else.
I think the same about the PSR fangirlz.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
Euclid tree68 Euclid It is as if the issue is really about something else. It is - people using it as a "get rich quick" scheme... No. I don't think that is what it is about. That is just the way it is being painted.
No. I don't think that is what it is about. That is just the way it is being painted.
Tell it to the loyal railroad employees that are no longer employed through no fault of their own.
tree68The question remains - how long will it be before all signs of PSR, as a package, are just a memory.
Remember not too long ago when the railroads were advertising to get people to work for them, even to the point of paying (or at least offering) sign-on bonuses? Now they can't fire them fast enough.
And locomotives? At $2million each.......https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZ36yCvFzMk
What I gathered from the article, it dealt more with intermodal users. PSR for us seems to be centered on the manifest and some unit train sectors. It was first said every train, except Z trains would be subject to work enroute. They even got rid of the K symbol for intermodal, an intermediate level of service, in anticipation for those trains working manifest. So far it hasn't happened. There have been manifest symbols with blocks of IM, but no IM symbols carrying manifest cars. (There have been some IM trains with blocks of reefers or auto racks. These combinations predate the PSR movement.)
In any case, with the curtailing or abandonment of many IM lanes, it's funny that they are happy with the service. Other railroads (CSX?) has tried combining manifest and IM trains. It's hard to believe that most IM users would be happy about having their trailer/container moving on a 50 mph (if they have enough power) junk train instead of a 60 or 70 mph dedicated intermodal.
Jeff
zardoz tree68 The question remains - how long will it be before all signs of PSR, as a package, are just a memory. About the same amount of time it took for the effects of all the track "rationalizations" (don't ya just love corporate double-speak?) that occurred in previous decades. Remember not too long ago when the railroads were advertising to get people to work for them, even to the point of paying (or at least offering) sign-on bonuses? Now they can't fire them fast enough. And locomotives? At $2million each.......https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZ36yCvFzMk
tree68 The question remains - how long will it be before all signs of PSR, as a package, are just a memory.
About the same amount of time it took for the effects of all the track "rationalizations" (don't ya just love corporate double-speak?) that occurred in previous decades.
I watched that first video about the 300 engines stored in Arizona. It makes a profound point, but I am not sure exactly what that point is.
What is the reason (or reasons) for U.P. having those 300 locomotives stored out of service? If they will not need them, what are they saving them for? If they will need them, why don't they need them now?
What were they doing differently that required these engines when they bought them?
Glad to see the videos. Two years ago, I saw a portion of this lineup of locomotives and could not believe it. Several miles were visible from the highway.
York1 John
EuclidWhat is the reason (or reasons) for U.P. having those 300 locomotives stored out of service? If they will not need them, what are they saving them for? If they will need them, why don't they need them now?
Business levels fluctuate - if volume picks up, which is cheaper - restoring to opeation locomotives you already own and have stored or going to the locomotive manufacturers to buy more at $2M+ each as well as the 6-9 month wait to get what you have purchased.
BaltACD Euclid What is the reason (or reasons) for U.P. having those 300 locomotives stored out of service? If they will not need them, what are they saving them for? If they will need them, why don't they need them now? Business levels fluctuate - if volume picks up, which is cheaper - restoring to opeation locomotives you already own and have stored or going to the locomotive manufacturers to buy more at $2M+ each as well as the 6-9 month wait to get what you have purchased.
Euclid What is the reason (or reasons) for U.P. having those 300 locomotives stored out of service? If they will not need them, what are they saving them for? If they will need them, why don't they need them now?
I can understand business fluctuations, but storing 300 un-needed locomotives seems like an awfully large fluctuation. When and why was business so good that the 300 dead engines were being used?
I remember riding the "Sunset Limited" past the dead line in question two years ago. Most of the power was Dash-8's being stored pending sale, having been replaced by Tier 4 power.
EuclidI can understand business fluctuations, but storing 300 un-needed locomotives seems like an awfully large fluctuation.
The question you want to ask is "where would I get my money out of the capital investment represented by those 300 locomotives if I try to sell or lease them rather than store". If you follow that, you will understand why some railroads have made the choice to mothball instead.
Someone like JPS1 can explain whether there are tax consequences for the stored power that help justify storage instead of sale.
EuclidI can understand business fluctuations, but storing 300 un-needed locomotives seems like an awfully large fluctuation. When and why was business so good that the 300 dead engines were being used?
An article in Classic Trains recently may shed some light on that.
During the transition from steam to Diesel, some PM Berkshires, still relatively new, were sent to the coal fields to work when C&O quickly Dieselized their north end (Michigan, et al).
In the article it was mentioned that some steam locomotives had not been scrapped yet due to restrictions in their trust agreements.
I'll leave it to someone else to give a better explanation of trusts as they apply to railroads, but that could be a factor in the storage of Diesels, too.
Overmod Euclid I can understand business fluctuations, but storing 300 un-needed locomotives seems like an awfully large fluctuation. The question you want to ask is "where would I get my money out of the capital investment represented by those 300 locomotives if I try to sell or lease them rather than store". If you follow that, you will understand why some railroads have made the choice to mothball instead. Someone like JPS1 can explain whether there are tax consequences for the stored power that help justify storage instead of sale.
Euclid I can understand business fluctuations, but storing 300 un-needed locomotives seems like an awfully large fluctuation.
I am not asking about the business decision to store the locomotives versus selling them. My point is to ask why there are 300 unneeded locomotives. Did they buy 300 to meet expectations that never materialized? Did PSR make it possible to earn the same income with 300 fewer locomotives? Are these 300 locomotives suddenly obsolete and awaiting disposition?
I can understand the effect of business fluctuations, but for that to be the cause, I would expect maybe 10-30 locomotives stored. For business fluctuation to explain 300 stored, I would expect us to be in a deep and dire recession right now.
CSX has some 4000 locomotives.
The trust issues I mentioned, possible tax issues, and the desire to move to newer model locomotives all possibly conspire together to make that 300 number a reality.
They may, or may not, have any need or desire to bring them out of storage - perhaps the used market isn't all that strong and scrap prices aren't where they'd like them.
Perhaps they're holding them for future trade-ins.
I know of over 700 LP tank cars in storage right now. They'll come out of storage when they are necessary to move LP again.
I recall a significant number of hoppers stored in this area not long ago against future purchases of new hoppers.
Lotsa variables.
Business levels are down. Fewer trains doing more work. (Say you have 2 trains that need the power of 2.5 engines. That means 3 engines on a train. Now you combine the trains. Power required is 5 making 1 engine surplus.) Some engines may still be on lease. Once their leases are up they may be gone.
They also could be holding onto some as replacement power for when active engines fail. They've been getting rid of mechanical people, too. Closing points where running repairs can be done. Then trains are run with as little power as possible. (You may see many engines in a consist, but that doesn't mean they are all working.) It seems like there's a lot of power out there having problems of some kind.
EuclidI am not asking about the business decision to store the locomotives versus selling them. My point is to ask why there are 300 unneeded locomotives. Did they buy 300 to meet expectations that never materialized?
Another possibility is that UP and BNSF have lost a lot of coal business. I live near the BNSF coal mainline.
Ten years ago we have nearly 80 coal trains a day from Wyoming headed east.
We are now down to around 40 per day.
I can't say this is what affects UP and the number of stored locomotives. I do know that several former students have been laid off due to the drop in coal.
Sept. 2016
Jan 2019
An equipment trust is basically a bank loan secured by specific equipment identified by type and road number.
If equipment secured by the trust is sold, I am 99.99% sure the bank must be paid the balance of the loan attributible to the equipment sold.
300 units stored is not a huge number in the context of UP's total fleet. Holding on to them is simply a hedge that enables UP to have the power on hand to service demand.
Equipment supply is seldom in balance. It is either short or surplus. Surplus equipment gets stored in the weeds.
PNWRMNM An equipment trust is basically a bank loan secured by specific equipment identified by type and road number. If equipment secured by the trust is sold, I am 99.99% sure the bank must be paid the balance of the loan attributible to the equipment sold. 300 units stored is not a huge number in the context of UP's total fleet. Holding on to them is simply a hedge that enables UP to have the power on hand to service demand. Equipment supply is seldom in balance. It is either short or surplus. Surplus equipment gets stored in the weeds.
I believe the 300 number is what is in that one particular place. There are locomotives stored elswhere, but nothing approaching that number.
Equipment trust requirements have led to some interesting situations. Certain rolling stock retained its Pere Marquette reporting marks long after the merger, some of it until at least 1960. A more recent example was two ex-VGN Train Masters on N&W that were re-numbered 3592 and 3599 (ex-WAB) to secure the equipment trust.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.