Overmod BaltACD And the download better mirror the actions you stated you took. All the download had to 'mirror' was that TO or LEADER was running the train at the point of failure. Then it's deemed a mechanical failure, rather than the programmer or inplemention failure it actually likely is.
BaltACD And the download better mirror the actions you stated you took.
All the download had to 'mirror' was that TO or LEADER was running the train at the point of failure.
Then it's deemed a mechanical failure, rather than the programmer or inplemention failure it actually likely is.
I don't believe the download will show who was running the train. Just what was happening on the engine. A few years ago when LEADER tore up my train, they had to consult a different program to see if it was engaged. I was told it would take a couple of days to confirm it.
Things may have changed. With the EMS now integrated into PTC, information as to being logged in, percentage of use, etc is available when the engineer ties up the job. If one doesn't use EMS for 90% of when it's available, we must provide a reason why.
Jeff
BaltACD Euclid SD60MAC9500 Euclid I think the answer is yes, a longer train is more likely to derail than a shorter train because the longer train has potential for greater in-train forces than a shorter train, all other things being equal. Does it? Or the placement of Draft Gear vs. EOCC. Loads vs. empties? If I have a train of only 5,000' in length and place loaded coal hoppers behind a block of empty cars I believed the in-train forces can be quite great as well. I agree that many factors can cause a derailment. They can be failures in track or equipment, and also external factors such as fires, landslides, floods, and collisions with other trains or vehicles. They can be caused by train makeup. They can be caused by operator negligence such as poor train handling or excessive speed. They can also be caused by excessive slack action with can in turn cause broken knuckles, pulled drawbars, string-lining, jackknifing, and shifting loads. Regarding these causes, I am not comparing the probability of one cause occurring versus another cause occurring. I am only comparing the probability of derailments increasing due to increasing the train length. And with increasing the train length, I assume that the direct cause would be the greater in-train forces which are directly related to train length. This issue requires careful definition and analysis. For instance, Even if there were no slack action, it may be that long trains derail more frequently than short trains simply because there are more cars in the longer train, and each one has the ability to cause a derailment due to factors not related to slack. For instance, because each car can cause a derailment if it has mechanical deficiencies due to lack of maintenance, the more cars in a train, the more likely it is for any one car to cause a derailment. But again, this would be due to unique problems with rolling stock and not purely to train length. The only factor I can recognize for possibly being a directly caused by increasing train length is an increase in in-train forces caused by slack action. I also understand the point that in-train forces can be increased by train makeup and locations of empties and loads. But I focus the question only on whether derailment probability increases as train length increases. This is a key question because it points to a downside to monster trains contrasting with the benefits of reduced crew costs per ton. This actually would seem to be a hot button issue because PSR is so controversial, and the railroad companies are defining PSR as the running of monster trains. Even if PSR is not actually intended to mean running monster trains, both PSR and monster trains are seen as being intended to reduce labor. I recall seeing various articles by labor unions that harshly criticize the reduction of safety resulting with running monster trains. The key question is this: Does the magnitude of slack run-in and run-out force increase as train length increases? If there is obvious evidence that monster trains experience many more broken knuckles and pulled drawbars than more “normal” sized trains, I would attribute that to an increase in slack action force being higher. That is your opinion - not the carriers. The carriers look at such happenings as a 'man failure incident' as the engineer did not properly control the slack in the trains.
Euclid SD60MAC9500 Euclid I think the answer is yes, a longer train is more likely to derail than a shorter train because the longer train has potential for greater in-train forces than a shorter train, all other things being equal. Does it? Or the placement of Draft Gear vs. EOCC. Loads vs. empties? If I have a train of only 5,000' in length and place loaded coal hoppers behind a block of empty cars I believed the in-train forces can be quite great as well. I agree that many factors can cause a derailment. They can be failures in track or equipment, and also external factors such as fires, landslides, floods, and collisions with other trains or vehicles. They can be caused by train makeup. They can be caused by operator negligence such as poor train handling or excessive speed. They can also be caused by excessive slack action with can in turn cause broken knuckles, pulled drawbars, string-lining, jackknifing, and shifting loads. Regarding these causes, I am not comparing the probability of one cause occurring versus another cause occurring. I am only comparing the probability of derailments increasing due to increasing the train length. And with increasing the train length, I assume that the direct cause would be the greater in-train forces which are directly related to train length. This issue requires careful definition and analysis. For instance, Even if there were no slack action, it may be that long trains derail more frequently than short trains simply because there are more cars in the longer train, and each one has the ability to cause a derailment due to factors not related to slack. For instance, because each car can cause a derailment if it has mechanical deficiencies due to lack of maintenance, the more cars in a train, the more likely it is for any one car to cause a derailment. But again, this would be due to unique problems with rolling stock and not purely to train length. The only factor I can recognize for possibly being a directly caused by increasing train length is an increase in in-train forces caused by slack action. I also understand the point that in-train forces can be increased by train makeup and locations of empties and loads. But I focus the question only on whether derailment probability increases as train length increases. This is a key question because it points to a downside to monster trains contrasting with the benefits of reduced crew costs per ton. This actually would seem to be a hot button issue because PSR is so controversial, and the railroad companies are defining PSR as the running of monster trains. Even if PSR is not actually intended to mean running monster trains, both PSR and monster trains are seen as being intended to reduce labor. I recall seeing various articles by labor unions that harshly criticize the reduction of safety resulting with running monster trains. The key question is this: Does the magnitude of slack run-in and run-out force increase as train length increases? If there is obvious evidence that monster trains experience many more broken knuckles and pulled drawbars than more “normal” sized trains, I would attribute that to an increase in slack action force being higher.
Euclid I think the answer is yes, a longer train is more likely to derail than a shorter train because the longer train has potential for greater in-train forces than a shorter train, all other things being equal. Does it? Or the placement of Draft Gear vs. EOCC. Loads vs. empties? If I have a train of only 5,000' in length and place loaded coal hoppers behind a block of empty cars I believed the in-train forces can be quite great as well.
Euclid I think the answer is yes, a longer train is more likely to derail than a shorter train because the longer train has potential for greater in-train forces than a shorter train, all other things being equal.
I think the answer is yes, a longer train is more likely to derail than a shorter train because the longer train has potential for greater in-train forces than a shorter train, all other things being equal.
Does it? Or the placement of Draft Gear vs. EOCC. Loads vs. empties? If I have a train of only 5,000' in length and place loaded coal hoppers behind a block of empty cars I believed the in-train forces can be quite great as well.
I agree that many factors can cause a derailment. They can be failures in track or equipment, and also external factors such as fires, landslides, floods, and collisions with other trains or vehicles. They can be caused by train makeup. They can be caused by operator negligence such as poor train handling or excessive speed. They can also be caused by excessive slack action with can in turn cause broken knuckles, pulled drawbars, string-lining, jackknifing, and shifting loads.
Regarding these causes, I am not comparing the probability of one cause occurring versus another cause occurring. I am only comparing the probability of derailments increasing due to increasing the train length. And with increasing the train length, I assume that the direct cause would be the greater in-train forces which are directly related to train length.
This issue requires careful definition and analysis. For instance, Even if there were no slack action, it may be that long trains derail more frequently than short trains simply because there are more cars in the longer train, and each one has the ability to cause a derailment due to factors not related to slack. For instance, because each car can cause a derailment if it has mechanical deficiencies due to lack of maintenance, the more cars in a train, the more likely it is for any one car to cause a derailment.
But again, this would be due to unique problems with rolling stock and not purely to train length. The only factor I can recognize for possibly being a directly caused by increasing train length is an increase in in-train forces caused by slack action. I also understand the point that in-train forces can be increased by train makeup and locations of empties and loads. But I focus the question only on whether derailment probability increases as train length increases. This is a key question because it points to a downside to monster trains contrasting with the benefits of reduced crew costs per ton.
This actually would seem to be a hot button issue because PSR is so controversial, and the railroad companies are defining PSR as the running of monster trains.
Even if PSR is not actually intended to mean running monster trains, both PSR and monster trains are seen as being intended to reduce labor. I recall seeing various articles by labor unions that harshly criticize the reduction of safety resulting with running monster trains.
The key question is this: Does the magnitude of slack run-in and run-out force increase as train length increases? If there is obvious evidence that monster trains experience many more broken knuckles and pulled drawbars than more “normal” sized trains, I would attribute that to an increase in slack action force being higher.
That is your opinion - not the carriers.
The carriers look at such happenings as a 'man failure incident' as the engineer did not properly control the slack in the trains.
I do not expect the industry to agree with my opinion on this. That is beside the point. The parties I expect to be interested in my conclusion would be railroad labor unions, Federal regulators, and the general public. What matters is how much risk they see with the monster trains. In any case, it should not have to be a matter of opinion. A little research could reach a factual conclusion. I am sure that it soon will. They have all the data then need to answer the question.
Generally the larger concern at the moment is the impact of monster trains blocking grade crossings for longer periods than shorter trains do. A secondary concern is the dangerous effect of incorrect train makeup being exaggerated by monster trains.
The industry should be careful though, since their preferred monster trains flirt with making the case that safe braking and control of monster trains would be best achieved by the use of ECP brakes. A couple of references:
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-19-443
“Stakeholders said that the arrangement of train cars and locomotives—known as “train makeup”—and the potential for blocking highway-railroad crossings are issues to consider to safely operate longer freight trains.”
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-19-443.pdf
“RAIL SAFETY Freight Trains Are Getting Longer, and Additional Information Is Needed to Assess Their Impact”
I find references to the issue of train makeup being particularly critical with monster trains in order to avoid causing derailments. Is train makeup thoroughly regulated by the railroad rules and instructions? If it is, what is the issue that makes the rules-defined correct train makeup more critical with monster trains? Or is successful train makeup impossible to correctly define by rules when it comes to monster trains?
If that is the case, it would seem that the safety of monster trains is fundamentally uncertain because the critical influence of train makeup cannot be predicted.
EuclidI find references to the issue of train makeup being particularly critical with monster trains in order to avoid causing derailments. Is train makeup thoroughly regulated by the railroad rules and instructions? If it is, what is the issue that makes the rules-defined correct train makeup more critical with monster trains? Or is successful train makeup impossible to correctly define by rules when it comes to monster trains? If that is the case, it would seem that the safety of monster trains is fundamentally uncertain because the critical influence of train makeup cannot be predicted.
The carriers BELIEVE they have rules that cover proper makeup of trains covered by their existing train makeup rules. New derailments lead to new rules.
This is human nature. You do what you do until you have a failure, you diagnose what YOU BELIEVE to be the cause of the failure and write a rule to prohibit it from happening in the future. Human existance it a continuing game of 'Wack-a-mole'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGwHWNFdOvg
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
I can see your point that it is an ongoing learning experience, and there is a need to learn new details of best train makeup as time goes by. Some of the finer points probably just take a long time to recognize and learn. But some of the need for new learning is probably the continuous evolution of the physical plant of trains and tracks with ever increasing capacities, as trains grow heavier and longer.
However, the sudden change from average 150 car trains to over 300 cars is a major change within a very short time. So it seems to me that this change would require a sudden surge of new learning to establish new conditions for safe train makeup.
This must be the reason why experts are cautioning a need for greater focus on train makeup specifically for monster trains. That would also indicate that regarding the question of whether monster trains are more prone to derailing, the answer is yes. And the underlying reason is that the monster trains have greater in-train forces, which makes successful train makeup more of a challenge.
Outside of Unit Trains - no two trains are the same in their specific make up. Even intermodal trains have varying make up - the differing combinations of single rail car mixed with Triple bottom and Quintuple bottom cars and how those cars are specifically loaded with both loaded and empty containers/trailers. The variables are endless.
I can't speak to other carriers rules. On CSX vs. Mountains the BASIC precepts of train make up were (when I was working) no more than 29 empty cars in a contiguous block, Long car/short car being coupled together restrictions, trailing tonnage restrictions concerning the use of Helpers (DPU), long empty car restrictions.
I suspect, since I have retired, that even more train make up regulations have been placed in effect based on lessons learned.
Railroading has been learning ever since the steam engine and the horse car first competed between Baltimore & Ellicott City back in the early 19th Century
So, other than for unit trains, train makeup is not an exact science that is either correct or incorrect, but attempts to find a perfect balance of rolling stock. But even if train makeup is as near perfect as possible for a given consist, excess slack action can cause a derailment. And, the longer the train, the greater the risk of excess slack action, which is dependent on track profile and train handling.
It may be that the sudden move into monster trains will reveal that adequate train makeup is simply not possible once a mixed train consist reaches a certain length and tonnage. In other words, maybe the in-train forces are so high with monster trains that they now cause derailments in spite of the best possible train makeup. It may reach a point where severe slack run-in will lift wheels off the rails even with the best train makeup.
If that is the case, they might have to explore ways to limit slack action. It may be time to reconsider changing to ECP brakes to eliminate slack action.
From the GAO report:
“As we previously reported, electronically controlled pneumatic brakes reduce the in-train forces that occur during braking when individual cars push and pull against one another.”
A possible less espensive solution wouid be to pogram a computer with iniput of all ossibl e varietiers of freight cars and degrees of loading. all RoW characteristics of a specific railrad, all possible block swapping and mid- and rear-train helper options. and allow the computer to assemble the order of cars in every train.
This goes along with using the advanced computer to plan the movement of every car and make Customer-Responsive railroading just as efficient as or more efficient than so-called "Precision Scheduled Railroading." which is not automatically more efficient and should be named Asset-Utilization Railroading.
In actual practice, how much is all this train makeup science used? Aside from the obvious: pre-blocking, buffering hazardous tanks, avoiding stringlining etc., does a yardmaster or switch crew really worry about placement of loads and empties? "Oops, 30 empties, better put one somewhere else." I'd think that assembling a near perfect train would take a long time. Is there some kind of alert if things ain't right?
Rick
rixflix aka Captain Video. Blessed be Jean Shepherd and all His works!!! Hooray for 1939, the all time movie year!!! I took that ride on the Reading but my Baby caught the Katy and left me a mule to ride.
rixflixIn actual practice, how much is all this train makeup science used? Aside from the obvious: pre-blocking, buffering hazardous tanks, avoiding stringlining etc., does a yardmaster or switch crew really worry about placement of loads and empties? "Oops, 30 empties, better put one somewhere else." I'd think that assembling a near perfect train would take a long time. Is there some kind of alert if things ain't right? Rick
What it boils down to - Is the road crew that moves the train from origin knowledgable of the various placement restrictions that may exist in the train - and will they accept the train that violates those placement restrictions.
I don't know about other carriers. On CSX the Train Documentation that is provided for the train will highlight many of the train placement restrictions when those conditions are observed in the train as put together by the Yardmaster. Crews are REQUIRED to have Train Documentation for their train and they are also required to update that documentation as the progress along their route with the pickups and setoffs that happen along the way. The Crew is RESPONSIBLE for the makeup of their train. If it were to derail because a makeup restriction was not complied with the Crew can expect a unpaid vacation.
Back in the 'olden days' when computers were not a part of yard operations and all observances of the restrictions were to be done by manual means - it was easy for a restriction to be overlooked. In the 21st Century computers are 'everywhere' and those involved in the train makeup process have been programmed to highlight when and where restrictions have been violated and warn those responsible of their transgressions of the restrictions.
I would opine that proper train make-up and pre-blocking may be at cross purposes.
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...
BaltACDWhat it boils down to - Is the road crew that moves the train from origin knowledgable of the various placement restrictions that may exist in the train - and will they accept the train that violates those placement restrictions.
Makeup restrictions are playing catch-up with PSR mega-trains. Having empty centerbeams in the towards the head end of a 100-car freight isn't usually a big deal. But on the head end of a 250 car freight? Yeah...new palcement rules are being written and re-written all the time. Esp when a train derails and they can't blame the crew.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
zugmann BaltACD What it boils down to - Is the road crew that moves the train from origin knowledgable of the various placement restrictions that may exist in the train - and will they accept the train that violates those placement restrictions. Makeup restrictions are playing catch-up with PSR mega-trains. Having empty centerbeams in the towards the head end of a 100-car freight isn't usually a big deal. But on the head end of a 250 car freight? Yeah...new palcement rules are being written and re-written all the time. Esp when a train derails and they can't blame the crew.
BaltACD What it boils down to - Is the road crew that moves the train from origin knowledgable of the various placement restrictions that may exist in the train - and will they accept the train that violates those placement restrictions.
I have contended for years that it is virtually impossible to build a multi-block merchandise train without 'stumbling' over some restriction that will prevent the train from being 100% in compliance with both the train makeup restrictions and the requirements of proper blocking. The more blocks that the train carries the more likelyhood of encountering a failure.
On my territory every day we had trouble with one train that was to pick up empty cars from a GE facility and the conflict with the train handling rules that limited consecutive empty cars to a maximum of 30 when the rest of the train contained 10 or more loads behind the empties. Various solutions were applied to insure that the train was 'legal' upon departure. If the train wasn't legal - the 'weed weasels' would insure the crew paid the price.
BaltACDIf the train wasn't legal - the 'weed weasels' would insure the crew paid the price.
We always had the words "when practicable" tacked on to that rule. Or the local TM would just blanket OK it. I mean, a few loads mixed in isn't the problem. Having 10 empty 90' flats head out on a 18,000 ton train is. But common sense and all that.
zugmann BaltACD If the train wasn't legal - the 'weed weasels' would insure the crew paid the price. We always had the words "when practicable" tacked on to that rule. Or the local TM would just blanket OK it. I mean, a few loads mixed in isn't the problem. Having 10 empty 90' flats head out on a 18,000 ton train is. But common sense and all that.
BaltACD If the train wasn't legal - the 'weed weasels' would insure the crew paid the price.
If the crew can get someone of authority to 'sign on the dotted line' that the 'violation' is good to go - then go. But, as we well know, those in authority do not want to accept responsibility for something/anything that is outside of the rules.
What that sign on the dotted line comes down to is TRUST. If the Official tells you to do something outside the rules, will he 'defend' your doing it if something happens. Too many officials tell you to work outside of the rules and will burn you if something happens because of it.
The problem with monster trains and train makeup is that train makeup needs to become more restrictive as trains get longer. But the essence of the problem is not train makeup. It is slack action which gains potential impact force as trains get longer. So the makeup must become ever more refined and restrictive in order to keep the train safe from excess slack action which could derail it.
But I am hearing that train makeup is already so restrictive that it cannot be fully complied with in practice. If that is the case, how can it be made way more restrictive as needed to run the 300 car trains? At some point, refining train makeup becomes a lost cause for protecting monster trains from derailing due to inadequate train makeup. At that point, the solution has to revert to a way of limiting slack action forces.
BaltACDWhat that sign on the dotted line comes down to is TRUST. If the Official tells you to do something outside the rules, will he 'defend' your doing it if something happens. Too many officials tell you to work outside of the rules and will burn you if something happens because of it.
And if you don't do it - insubrodination. Damned if you do/don't situation.
EuclidBut the essence of the problem is not train makeup. It is slack action which gains potential impact force as trains get longer.
Slack forces work hand in hand with train makeup.
zugmann Euclid But the essence of the problem is not train makeup. It is slack action which gains potential impact force as trains get longer. Slack forces work hand in hand with train makeup.
Euclid But the essence of the problem is not train makeup. It is slack action which gains potential impact force as trains get longer.
They do work together to cause derailments. But the underlying cause of the problem is slack force, and that force potential rises as train length increases. DPU power theoretically eliminates break-in-two, stringlining, by equalizing tractive effort throughout the train. It also adds control to braking which reduces the likelihood of break-in-two, stringlining, and jackknifing.
But in a practical sense, both power distribution and braking improvement from DPU are insufficient to eliminate derailments caused by excess in-train forces, so the problem needs to be further mitigated by striving for the best train makekup.
But because derailment potential rises as train length and tonnage increases, there is bound to be a practical limit to train length and tonnage. More research is needed to determine where that limit is.
There would not need to be any consideration of train makekup if the following conditions applied:
Eliminate slack action, or mitigate its force sufficiently to prevent it from causing derailments regardless of train makeup.
Equalize and limit tractive effort throughout the train.
Equalize and limit braking induced buff and draft force throughout the train.
From the report:
“Union representatives added that in their view, the safest train-braking operations are when DP locomotives are used in conjunction with electronically controlled pneumatic brakes. According to representatives from AAR and Class I railroads, however, freight railroads have faced challenges with these braking systems, including reliability issues, as we have noted in a previous report.”
“While most railroads employ conventional brakes, railroads can also employ electronically controlled pneumatic brakes—which provide an electronic brake signal instantaneously throughout a train—allowing railcars to brake faster than with conventional air brakes. As we previously reported, electronically controlled pneumatic brakes reduce the in-train forces that occur during braking when individual cars push and pull against one another.”
In a normal world, long trains would likely be the catalyst for bringing ECP into use.
But this is a PSR world, where the object is to bring every penny to the bottom line to be harvested by the investors. It'll be a hard sell to get the investors give up a portion of their dividend for the installation of ECP.
Or a federal mandate, as was seen with air brakes way back when, and PTC.
And we must remember the "Pinto Principle," wherein it's cheaper to pay for the problems caused than to fix the problem in the first place...
tree68But this is a PSR world, where the object is to bring every penny to the bottom line to be harvested by the investors. It'll be a hard sell to get the investors give up a portion of their dividend for the installation of ECP.
It's not just railroads - there's a LOT of private owners with cars that are going to have to foot the bill to equip their stuff wtih ECP.
EuclidDPU power theoretically eliminates break-in-two, stringlining, by equalizing tractive effort throughout the train. It also adds control to braking which reduces the likelihood of break-in-two, stringlining, and jackknifing.
I, too, have read the brochure.
Pretty obvious that the desire for increased short-term profits means that previously safe practices of much shorter trains of distinct freight, equipment and speeds have been superseded by slower monster trains with overly heavy cars to save on labor costs. And the railroads won't pay for the technological safety improvements historically unless forced to do so.
Oh I don’t expect the railroad industry to adopt ECP brakes. There is nothing that they run faster from.
This is critical because you can’t run away from a mandate, so it pays to keep your distance. First the railroads fell in love with PSR even though it had no definition. So they provided the definition of PSR as being monster trains. I do find it somewhat ironic though that their much loved monster trains are now attracting ECP brakes.
When I read the references to monster trains, the regulators seem to feel that this sea change in train length is moving forward without the necessary regulatory approval. But they are just starting to look into it. They are focused on two potential problems with monster trains:
Increasing grade crossing blockage.
Being less stable due to increased in-train forces as trains get longer.
Item #1 is the more obvious issue, and so they seem mostly focused on that issue. But they are starting to look at the possibility of extreme train length causing derailments. From a regulatory point of view, both of these problems can be solved by placing Federal limits on train length, such as 200 cars.
So far, the regulatory community has connected rising in-train forces with a need for improved train makeup. But it is not clear whether it can be improved at all, let alone improved enough to offset the excessive in-train forces.
zugmann tree68 But this is a PSR world, where the object is to bring every penny to the bottom line to be harvested by the investors. It'll be a hard sell to get the investors give up a portion of their dividend for the installation of ECP. It's not just railroads - there's a LOT of private owners with cars that are going to have to foot the bill to equip their stuff wtih ECP.
tree68 But this is a PSR world, where the object is to bring every penny to the bottom line to be harvested by the investors. It'll be a hard sell to get the investors give up a portion of their dividend for the installation of ECP.
Without being able to get ahold of a current Equipment Register and totalling up all the railroad owned cars and the private owned cars - what I see going by my eyes when I see passing trains leads me to believe there are currently more Private owner cars than railroad owned cars. PSR is pushing car ownership into the 'Private' sector of car ownership.
Obviously, the railroads like monster trains because they reduce labor costs. But that is a reason for labor unions to oppose monster trains. But I wonder what shippers think of monster trains. What is in it for them? And then speaking of private car owners, what do they think of monster trains?
EuclidObviously, the railroads like monster trains because they reduce labor costs. But that is a reason for labor unions to oppose monster trains. But I wonder what shippers think of monster trains. What is in it for them? And then speaking of private car owners, what do they think of monster trains?
It has been demonstrated for decades that the carriers care very little if at all what the Union positions are on their operations.
Shipper/consignees only care about getting their cars/shipments consistently in the agreed upon time schedules. If they do, they could care less about the means the carriers utilize to do the job. If the shipper/consignees deal with lease payments on the private owner cars used for their shipment and the car turn cycle degrades and their lease payments and car needs increase they will be unhappy.
Private car owners only care if they are the shipper and or consignee and degraded service requires more cars to handle the same level of product.
Balt:
You hit the nail on the head! Longer cycle times for private cars translates to more cars to handle the same business. And more cars equals higher lease and maintenance costs.
And a potential increased cost is the storage or demurrage cbarges when service finally does improve and you're not yet able to return the now surplus cars off lease.
CW
https://www.railwayage.com/safety/whire-paper-management-of-in-train-forces-challenges-and-directions/
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.