Euclid SD60MAC9500 Euclid SD60MAC9500 Euclid SD60MAC9500 Euclid So U.P. plans on one ground roving conductor in charge of several autonomous trains with no human engineers. This will abruptly end the era of monster trains and their broken knuckles, which will be good news to the roving conductors. This will be the ultimate solution to the war between labor and management over crew size. It will also be the ultimate solution to the crew fatigue problem by allowing the roving conductors to rove closer to home, so they can sleep at home every night. It will also usher in the era of short, fast, and frequent trains with their agility and flexibility to live up to the true implication of Precision Scheduled Railroading. Finally all the pieces fall into place. No it won't. Trains size will not be reduced under automonous operation. Even with a "crewless" train you'll want to keep economies of scale in your favor to remain in competition.. The only economy of scale for monster trains is moving more cars per crew cost. Otherwise, monster trains cost more to operate due to more mechanical problems and delays. So, if you reduce or eliminate the crew, economic advantage of monster trains drops. If it drops low enough to not be able to offset the added cost of breakdowns and delays of monster trains, there will likely be no economic advantage to running them. Then too, the railroads will be in sharp competition with trucking with its fundamentally quicker delivery. If railroads want to take business from trucking, they will have to speed up their service. Monster trains slow down service. PSR style freights were not created to just cut crew cost. PSR cutting train starts created the side effect of cutting crew cost. You are not looking past the human element.. Some of the key features of PSR, RoW rationalization, and in theory increased capacity which has happened for the most part. Equimpent cost do not go away just because you eliminate a crew. Capacity cost do not go away just because you no longer have a crew. Car utilization cost does not go away just because you do not have a crew.. PSR has it's hiccups and will continue to have them as the focus on OR remains.. For now.. I do agree that there are more costs to railroading than just crew costs. But I don't see how a great increase in train size lowers those costs. It might if they were monster unit trains. You mention car utilization. How do monster trains lower the cost of car utilization? How do they lower the cost of capcity, as you say? The increase in size creates capacity with the rolling stock instead of CAPEX going toward the physical plant. PSR pre/swap blocking keeps cars moving instead of dwelling in a terminal. Boxcars for example probably only get 1 turn a month. If PSR can double that to 2 turns a month then you lower the cost associated with your boxcar as its greater velocity creates more capacity and improves on the ROI in your boxcar fleet. The more loads you can get per month means less idle time sitting empty not producing revenue miles. I agree with all your points about striving for the best plant utilization. Get the best productivity out of the investment. But why run one 300-car train rather than three 100-car trains? Where are the statistics that show that the longer the train is, the more productive it is? Why would increasing the number of cars in one train make those cars more productive, or increase track capacity, as you say? What I am hearing about monster trains breaking knuckles, suffering delays, waiting for track space, running out of crew time, etc. leads me to conclude that plant productivity drops as trains get longer. The only point where productivity increases is that the number of cars in one train can be increased indefinitely without adding more crewmembers. So, the crewmember cost per car drops as trains get longer. Yet this one benefit is not nearly enough to offset the ponderous disruption and unforeseen complications of running monster trains. I believe the best way to increase plant productivity is to revert to shorter trains, and more of them. Shorter trains flow with the plant productivity capacity. Monster trains disrupt the flow. Shorter, faster trains also provide the best customer service, which was one of the great selling points of PSR before the industry redefined it. Automation, and PTC, will work together to increase track utilization by running more trains closer together. This is the modern method knocking at the door of old thinking.
SD60MAC9500 Euclid SD60MAC9500 Euclid SD60MAC9500 Euclid So U.P. plans on one ground roving conductor in charge of several autonomous trains with no human engineers. This will abruptly end the era of monster trains and their broken knuckles, which will be good news to the roving conductors. This will be the ultimate solution to the war between labor and management over crew size. It will also be the ultimate solution to the crew fatigue problem by allowing the roving conductors to rove closer to home, so they can sleep at home every night. It will also usher in the era of short, fast, and frequent trains with their agility and flexibility to live up to the true implication of Precision Scheduled Railroading. Finally all the pieces fall into place. No it won't. Trains size will not be reduced under automonous operation. Even with a "crewless" train you'll want to keep economies of scale in your favor to remain in competition.. The only economy of scale for monster trains is moving more cars per crew cost. Otherwise, monster trains cost more to operate due to more mechanical problems and delays. So, if you reduce or eliminate the crew, economic advantage of monster trains drops. If it drops low enough to not be able to offset the added cost of breakdowns and delays of monster trains, there will likely be no economic advantage to running them. Then too, the railroads will be in sharp competition with trucking with its fundamentally quicker delivery. If railroads want to take business from trucking, they will have to speed up their service. Monster trains slow down service. PSR style freights were not created to just cut crew cost. PSR cutting train starts created the side effect of cutting crew cost. You are not looking past the human element.. Some of the key features of PSR, RoW rationalization, and in theory increased capacity which has happened for the most part. Equimpent cost do not go away just because you eliminate a crew. Capacity cost do not go away just because you no longer have a crew. Car utilization cost does not go away just because you do not have a crew.. PSR has it's hiccups and will continue to have them as the focus on OR remains.. For now.. I do agree that there are more costs to railroading than just crew costs. But I don't see how a great increase in train size lowers those costs. It might if they were monster unit trains. You mention car utilization. How do monster trains lower the cost of car utilization? How do they lower the cost of capcity, as you say? The increase in size creates capacity with the rolling stock instead of CAPEX going toward the physical plant. PSR pre/swap blocking keeps cars moving instead of dwelling in a terminal. Boxcars for example probably only get 1 turn a month. If PSR can double that to 2 turns a month then you lower the cost associated with your boxcar as its greater velocity creates more capacity and improves on the ROI in your boxcar fleet. The more loads you can get per month means less idle time sitting empty not producing revenue miles.
Euclid SD60MAC9500 Euclid SD60MAC9500 Euclid So U.P. plans on one ground roving conductor in charge of several autonomous trains with no human engineers. This will abruptly end the era of monster trains and their broken knuckles, which will be good news to the roving conductors. This will be the ultimate solution to the war between labor and management over crew size. It will also be the ultimate solution to the crew fatigue problem by allowing the roving conductors to rove closer to home, so they can sleep at home every night. It will also usher in the era of short, fast, and frequent trains with their agility and flexibility to live up to the true implication of Precision Scheduled Railroading. Finally all the pieces fall into place. No it won't. Trains size will not be reduced under automonous operation. Even with a "crewless" train you'll want to keep economies of scale in your favor to remain in competition.. The only economy of scale for monster trains is moving more cars per crew cost. Otherwise, monster trains cost more to operate due to more mechanical problems and delays. So, if you reduce or eliminate the crew, economic advantage of monster trains drops. If it drops low enough to not be able to offset the added cost of breakdowns and delays of monster trains, there will likely be no economic advantage to running them. Then too, the railroads will be in sharp competition with trucking with its fundamentally quicker delivery. If railroads want to take business from trucking, they will have to speed up their service. Monster trains slow down service. PSR style freights were not created to just cut crew cost. PSR cutting train starts created the side effect of cutting crew cost. You are not looking past the human element.. Some of the key features of PSR, RoW rationalization, and in theory increased capacity which has happened for the most part. Equimpent cost do not go away just because you eliminate a crew. Capacity cost do not go away just because you no longer have a crew. Car utilization cost does not go away just because you do not have a crew.. PSR has it's hiccups and will continue to have them as the focus on OR remains.. For now.. I do agree that there are more costs to railroading than just crew costs. But I don't see how a great increase in train size lowers those costs. It might if they were monster unit trains. You mention car utilization. How do monster trains lower the cost of car utilization? How do they lower the cost of capcity, as you say?
SD60MAC9500 Euclid SD60MAC9500 Euclid So U.P. plans on one ground roving conductor in charge of several autonomous trains with no human engineers. This will abruptly end the era of monster trains and their broken knuckles, which will be good news to the roving conductors. This will be the ultimate solution to the war between labor and management over crew size. It will also be the ultimate solution to the crew fatigue problem by allowing the roving conductors to rove closer to home, so they can sleep at home every night. It will also usher in the era of short, fast, and frequent trains with their agility and flexibility to live up to the true implication of Precision Scheduled Railroading. Finally all the pieces fall into place. No it won't. Trains size will not be reduced under automonous operation. Even with a "crewless" train you'll want to keep economies of scale in your favor to remain in competition.. The only economy of scale for monster trains is moving more cars per crew cost. Otherwise, monster trains cost more to operate due to more mechanical problems and delays. So, if you reduce or eliminate the crew, economic advantage of monster trains drops. If it drops low enough to not be able to offset the added cost of breakdowns and delays of monster trains, there will likely be no economic advantage to running them. Then too, the railroads will be in sharp competition with trucking with its fundamentally quicker delivery. If railroads want to take business from trucking, they will have to speed up their service. Monster trains slow down service. PSR style freights were not created to just cut crew cost. PSR cutting train starts created the side effect of cutting crew cost. You are not looking past the human element.. Some of the key features of PSR, RoW rationalization, and in theory increased capacity which has happened for the most part. Equimpent cost do not go away just because you eliminate a crew. Capacity cost do not go away just because you no longer have a crew. Car utilization cost does not go away just because you do not have a crew.. PSR has it's hiccups and will continue to have them as the focus on OR remains.. For now..
Euclid SD60MAC9500 Euclid So U.P. plans on one ground roving conductor in charge of several autonomous trains with no human engineers. This will abruptly end the era of monster trains and their broken knuckles, which will be good news to the roving conductors. This will be the ultimate solution to the war between labor and management over crew size. It will also be the ultimate solution to the crew fatigue problem by allowing the roving conductors to rove closer to home, so they can sleep at home every night. It will also usher in the era of short, fast, and frequent trains with their agility and flexibility to live up to the true implication of Precision Scheduled Railroading. Finally all the pieces fall into place. No it won't. Trains size will not be reduced under automonous operation. Even with a "crewless" train you'll want to keep economies of scale in your favor to remain in competition.. The only economy of scale for monster trains is moving more cars per crew cost. Otherwise, monster trains cost more to operate due to more mechanical problems and delays. So, if you reduce or eliminate the crew, economic advantage of monster trains drops. If it drops low enough to not be able to offset the added cost of breakdowns and delays of monster trains, there will likely be no economic advantage to running them. Then too, the railroads will be in sharp competition with trucking with its fundamentally quicker delivery. If railroads want to take business from trucking, they will have to speed up their service. Monster trains slow down service.
SD60MAC9500 Euclid So U.P. plans on one ground roving conductor in charge of several autonomous trains with no human engineers. This will abruptly end the era of monster trains and their broken knuckles, which will be good news to the roving conductors. This will be the ultimate solution to the war between labor and management over crew size. It will also be the ultimate solution to the crew fatigue problem by allowing the roving conductors to rove closer to home, so they can sleep at home every night. It will also usher in the era of short, fast, and frequent trains with their agility and flexibility to live up to the true implication of Precision Scheduled Railroading. Finally all the pieces fall into place. No it won't. Trains size will not be reduced under automonous operation. Even with a "crewless" train you'll want to keep economies of scale in your favor to remain in competition..
Euclid So U.P. plans on one ground roving conductor in charge of several autonomous trains with no human engineers. This will abruptly end the era of monster trains and their broken knuckles, which will be good news to the roving conductors. This will be the ultimate solution to the war between labor and management over crew size. It will also be the ultimate solution to the crew fatigue problem by allowing the roving conductors to rove closer to home, so they can sleep at home every night. It will also usher in the era of short, fast, and frequent trains with their agility and flexibility to live up to the true implication of Precision Scheduled Railroading. Finally all the pieces fall into place.
So U.P. plans on one ground roving conductor in charge of several autonomous trains with no human engineers. This will abruptly end the era of monster trains and their broken knuckles, which will be good news to the roving conductors. This will be the ultimate solution to the war between labor and management over crew size. It will also be the ultimate solution to the crew fatigue problem by allowing the roving conductors to rove closer to home, so they can sleep at home every night. It will also usher in the era of short, fast, and frequent trains with their agility and flexibility to live up to the true implication of Precision Scheduled Railroading. Finally all the pieces fall into place.
No it won't. Trains size will not be reduced under automonous operation. Even with a "crewless" train you'll want to keep economies of scale in your favor to remain in competition..
The only economy of scale for monster trains is moving more cars per crew cost. Otherwise, monster trains cost more to operate due to more mechanical problems and delays. So, if you reduce or eliminate the crew, economic advantage of monster trains drops. If it drops low enough to not be able to offset the added cost of breakdowns and delays of monster trains, there will likely be no economic advantage to running them. Then too, the railroads will be in sharp competition with trucking with its fundamentally quicker delivery. If railroads want to take business from trucking, they will have to speed up their service. Monster trains slow down service.
PSR style freights were not created to just cut crew cost. PSR cutting train starts created the side effect of cutting crew cost. You are not looking past the human element.. Some of the key features of PSR, RoW rationalization, and in theory increased capacity which has happened for the most part. Equimpent cost do not go away just because you eliminate a crew. Capacity cost do not go away just because you no longer have a crew. Car utilization cost does not go away just because you do not have a crew.. PSR has it's hiccups and will continue to have them as the focus on OR remains.. For now..
I do agree that there are more costs to railroading than just crew costs. But I don't see how a great increase in train size lowers those costs. It might if they were monster unit trains. You mention car utilization. How do monster trains lower the cost of car utilization? How do they lower the cost of capcity, as you say?
The increase in size creates capacity with the rolling stock instead of CAPEX going toward the physical plant. PSR pre/swap blocking keeps cars moving instead of dwelling in a terminal. Boxcars for example probably only get 1 turn a month. If PSR can double that to 2 turns a month then you lower the cost associated with your boxcar as its greater velocity creates more capacity and improves on the ROI in your boxcar fleet. The more loads you can get per month means less idle time sitting empty not producing revenue miles.
I agree with all your points about striving for the best plant utilization. Get the best productivity out of the investment. But why run one 300-car train rather than three 100-car trains? Where are the statistics that show that the longer the train is, the more productive it is? Why would increasing the number of cars in one train make those cars more productive, or increase track capacity, as you say?
What I am hearing about monster trains breaking knuckles, suffering delays, waiting for track space, running out of crew time, etc. leads me to conclude that plant productivity drops as trains get longer. The only point where productivity increases is that the number of cars in one train can be increased indefinitely without adding more crewmembers. So, the crewmember cost per car drops as trains get longer. Yet this one benefit is not nearly enough to offset the ponderous disruption and unforeseen complications of running monster trains.
I believe the best way to increase plant productivity is to revert to shorter trains, and more of them. Shorter trains flow with the plant productivity capacity. Monster trains disrupt the flow. Shorter, faster trains also provide the best customer service, which was one of the great selling points of PSR before the industry redefined it.
Automation, and PTC, will work together to increase track utilization by running more trains closer together. This is the modern method knocking at the door of old thinking.
The mechanical issues are known. Yet how many failures per train start are occuring? I imagine it's acceptable to the railroads to keep the operating model. Running one long train creates more capacity by freeing up slots on RoW. Most freight is not time sensitive and doesn't need to run in shorter faster trains for most markets. Also do you have the capacity to run these shorter faster trains? How many overtakes are needed? You'll still be holding and hopping in front of traffic.. Even European rail freight operators want to get away from short trains due to the poor economics of operation. Which is why trucks dominate land freight over there.
"But why run one 300-car train rather than three 100-car trains? "
When you go get a couple bottles of water from the fridge do you walk twice to your refrigerator? Or do you grab them all at once? It's about more efficient operation.
charlie hebdoThe autonomous trains would be a capital investment, not an expense as labor would. Only maintenance would be expenses. The autonomous equipment would be depreciated.
I was thinking the same thing earlier today - you beat me to it. Two different pockets involved. Convince the investors that in the long run they'll see more money in their pockets and they'll be all in.
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...
Do long trains free up capacity? Yes and No. It frees it up out on the road between terminals, but they can gum up the works at terminals where said trains originate, terminate or do intermediate work. Often at the beginning and end these trains have to triple or quadruple in and out.
We have one symbol that fairly regularly dies between crew changes on the east end. It has a couple of work event locations. As do other trains. Only so many can work a yard at the same time. Even where there is two tracks, especially when one has to be kept open for the priority trains.
And it seems that every train that has to work a specific yard all show up at the same time.
We also have one on the west end that usually falls short. Because the terminating yard doesn't have room for it. I recently had it and actually made it in to the yard put the train away and then cabbed another hour to our tie up location without hitting overtime. (Overtime on that run begins after 9 hrs 55 mins due to miles run.) The first time in a long time that has happened.
Jeff
This poster has wanted to stay out of thie fray. However here is a railway age article about in train forces and that looks at derailments for I suppose all RRs but may not. Notice it only goes thru 2019 wonder why 2020 not listed ?
WHITE PAPER: Management of In-Train Forces – Challenges and Directions - Railway Age
amd managment of in train forces.
greyhounds Euclid Beyond the symbolic objective of running monster trains, the real objective is to run crewless, autonomous trains. I'll disagree. Here's the real objective: "For example, empire builder James J. Hill said in an interview with Frank L. McVey at the turn of the twentieth century 'that railroad income is based on ton miles and the expense of operation on train miles. The object is to get the highest rate [operating revenue] on the ton-mile and the smallest rate [operating expense] on the train mile.' In this statement is concentrated the theory of railroad management present day. (See the Ten Principles of Transportation Economics in Box 2.3, which is the authors’ more extended version of a theory of transportation economics and management such as James J. Hill had formulated.)" Gallamore, Robert E.. American Railroads . Harvard University Press. Kindle Edition.
Euclid Beyond the symbolic objective of running monster trains, the real objective is to run crewless, autonomous trains.
I'll disagree. Here's the real objective:
I am not sure where we differ. When I say the real objective is to run autonomous trains I mean the real objective is to run autonomous trains for the purpose of making the most amount of money by reducing crews to zero persons rather than just reducing to one-person.
If I understand James Hill, he is saying to make the most amount of money; you haul freight at the highest possible price and reduce the operating cost of your trains as low as possible.
I don’t think monster trains reduce the operating cost compared to normal average size trains. I think they raise operating cost, but that is partly offset by the reduced crew per ton cost.
Autonomous trains eliminate crew cost, so there is no need for the autonomous trains to be monster size trains. So with autonomous trains, you can run say thee 100-car trains instead of one 300-car train because there is no advantage to the 300-car train. And then you also have a lower operating cost with the three 100-car trains combined, as opposed to one 300-car train. That is why I said earlier that changing to autonomous trains will end the monster train era.
I would not conclude that every railroad is on board with this idea, but U.P. and C.N. seem to be.
charlie hebdo Ulrich charlie hebdo greyhounds Euclid Beyond the symbolic objective of running monster trains, the real objective is to run crewless, autonomous trains. I'll disagree. Here's the real objective: "For example, empire builder James J. Hill said in an interview with Frank L. McVey at the turn of the twentieth century 'that railroad income is based on ton miles and the expense of operation on train miles. The object is to get the highest rate [operating revenue] on the ton-mile and the smallest rate [operating expense] on the train mile.' In this statement is concentrated the theory of railroad management present day. (See the Ten Principles of Transportation Economics in Box 2.3, which is the authors’ more extended version of a theory of transportation economics and management such as James J. Hill had formulated.)" Gallamore, Robert E.. American Railroads . Harvard University Press. Kindle Edition. Wouldn't elimination of crews cut labor costs dramatically and thus the expense of operation? Eliminating crews would cut cost.. but the as yet unproven technology that would allow their elimination wouldn't come for free either. Given that the technology isn't fully cooked, it is impossible to determine the true savings in making the transition. The autonomous trains would be a capital investment, not an expense as labor would. Only maintenance would be expenses. The autonomous equipment would be depreciated.
Ulrich charlie hebdo greyhounds Euclid Beyond the symbolic objective of running monster trains, the real objective is to run crewless, autonomous trains. I'll disagree. Here's the real objective: "For example, empire builder James J. Hill said in an interview with Frank L. McVey at the turn of the twentieth century 'that railroad income is based on ton miles and the expense of operation on train miles. The object is to get the highest rate [operating revenue] on the ton-mile and the smallest rate [operating expense] on the train mile.' In this statement is concentrated the theory of railroad management present day. (See the Ten Principles of Transportation Economics in Box 2.3, which is the authors’ more extended version of a theory of transportation economics and management such as James J. Hill had formulated.)" Gallamore, Robert E.. American Railroads . Harvard University Press. Kindle Edition. Wouldn't elimination of crews cut labor costs dramatically and thus the expense of operation? Eliminating crews would cut cost.. but the as yet unproven technology that would allow their elimination wouldn't come for free either. Given that the technology isn't fully cooked, it is impossible to determine the true savings in making the transition.
charlie hebdo greyhounds Euclid Beyond the symbolic objective of running monster trains, the real objective is to run crewless, autonomous trains. I'll disagree. Here's the real objective: "For example, empire builder James J. Hill said in an interview with Frank L. McVey at the turn of the twentieth century 'that railroad income is based on ton miles and the expense of operation on train miles. The object is to get the highest rate [operating revenue] on the ton-mile and the smallest rate [operating expense] on the train mile.' In this statement is concentrated the theory of railroad management present day. (See the Ten Principles of Transportation Economics in Box 2.3, which is the authors’ more extended version of a theory of transportation economics and management such as James J. Hill had formulated.)" Gallamore, Robert E.. American Railroads . Harvard University Press. Kindle Edition. Wouldn't elimination of crews cut labor costs dramatically and thus the expense of operation?
Wouldn't elimination of crews cut labor costs dramatically and thus the expense of operation?
Eliminating crews would cut cost.. but the as yet unproven technology that would allow their elimination wouldn't come for free either. Given that the technology isn't fully cooked, it is impossible to determine the true savings in making the transition.
The autonomous trains would be a capital investment, not an expense as labor would. Only maintenance would be expenses. The autonomous equipment would be depreciated.
But a cost nontheless..
greyhounds A real safety issue is the number of pedestrians and autos struck by trains. If the number of trains is reduced the likelihood of a pedestrian or auto being struck by a train should also be reduced.
But as trains get longer and block crossings for a longer time - won't people start taking more risks to try to beat them at a crossing?
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
Isn't there a very long, iron ore carrier in Australia that's automated? I figure most of the line is through sparley populated country. How are they at dealing with the car and pedestrian issues when they get into a city?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
zugmann greyhounds A real safety issue is the number of pedestrians and autos struck by trains. If the number of trains is reduced the likelihood of a pedestrian or auto being struck by a train should also be reduced. But as trains get longer and block crossings for a longer time - won't people start taking more risks to try to beat them at a crossing?
Murphy SidingMaybe the answer is that these autonomous trains will require major upgrades at all crossings to make them idiot proof? I'm sure that would be a cheap upgrade. Add
There is no 'idiot proof'. I am aware of cars being driven into the side of a train that is halfway through the crossing.
The long trains give those T-bone motorists better odds at "success."
Still in training.
U.S. railroads are vehemently opposed to adopting ECP brakes. So they use every excuse not to, such as saying ECP is not yet perfected for use. When you say Rio Tinto Railroad in Australia uses ECP brakes, the U.S. detractors offer more excuses, such as saying Rio Tinto only runs unit trains, so ECP is easy for them.
But when it comes to autonomous trains, I sense that the concept is quickly becoming welcomed by U.S. railroads, so they don’t need excuses not to adopt autonomous operation. For one think Autonomous operation can be instituted incrementally, and the overall cost is tiny compared to adopting ECP brakes. Also, autonomous trains are seen as necessary to prevent rail traffic from being taken over by autonomous trucking. And finally, autonomous trains are a big step toward the railroads wining their cold war with the labor unions.
So the railroads don’t make excuses for not adopting autonomous trains like they do for not adopting ECP brakes.
Regarding the issue of grade crossings being compatible with autonomous trains, this is a standard debate point by the unions. The point must make a leap from; it takes 15 miles to stop a freight train to: you need the human engineer to grab the air and stop the train on a dime to avoid striking a grade crossing runner. The irony is that even if that were possible, the autonomous system could accomplish the same feat. And unlike the human engineer, the autonomous operation would not hesitate to apply braking... [edit]
EuclidU.S. railroads are vehemently opposed to adopting ECP brakes.
Is it that the railroads are opposed, or are the 50,000* private car owners opposed?
*-insert real number here.
greyhounds One very real advantage of “Monster Trains” is that the number of train meets will be greatly reduced. A meet usually involves a stopped train and thus creates a waste of labor and capital investment. (If the wheels aren’t turning, you aren’t earning.) Let’s take UP’s former T&P single track line between Ft. Worth and El Paso, TX as an example. At one time I read they were running 18 trains each way per day over this line. Assuming it takes 24 hours or more for a freight to go between Ft. Worth and El Paso that means 18 westbound trains would each meet 18 eastbound trains. Well, 18 x 18 = 324. That’s a whole lot of meeting going on. But since each meet involves two trains, we can halve the number to 162. On average, it still means a stopped train, waiting in the hole for another train to pass, every nine minutes somewhere on the line. That’s quite a waste of resources and capacity. Now let’s increase the train size from 100 cars to 300 cars using distributed power. Instead of 18 trains each way there are now but six trains each way. Well, 6 x 6 = 36. Again, since each meet will involve two trains, we can halve the number to 18. 18 meets instead of 162 meets. The trains and crews keep moving. Of course, these benefits will not come without costs. Passing sidings and terminals will need to be enlarged to accommodate the longer, but fewer, trains.
Longer trains have the potential to cause additional congestion compared to the same amount of traffic moving in shorter trains.
Many sidings were lengthened out here, but many others were removed or rendered nearly useless by the shift to longer trains.
It is nice to talk about revamping yards to accommodate longer trains, but in reality that usually doesn't happen (big $$$ for little reward and publicity). So the road crew builds their train out of two or more shorter tracks while everyone else waits for them to clear the lead.
The longer the train, the fewer places you can stop without blocking a crossing. That 13,000' siding looks great on paper, but if there is a crossing halfway down it you can only park a 6,500' train there. And due to the aforementioned yard congestion it has become more and more common for trains to be staged in sidings or on double track, sometimes for days at a time.
One of the more egregious examples in my area is a 10 mile section of double track that will hold exactly one 11,000' train. Or two 10,000' trains. Or four 9,000' trains. Or five 8,000' trains. And so on.....
What's that you say, cut the crossing? In some cases this may be a little harder than it sounds. Walking to and from the cut and applying and releasing handbrakes takes time but isn't a big deal, what is worse is the fact that many crossings are not 'smart', that is the warning devices will not deactivate if equipment is left in the first approach circuit, meaning you have to cut off up to half a mile before the crossing, which in some locations now means your tail end portion might be blocking yet another crossing if you are long enough. The alternative is to call out a signal maintainer to deactivate the crossing, but if you choose this option trains proceeding on the other track will have to stop and manually protect it (yes, I've seen this happen. I've seen a Chief Dispatcher choose this option over other, better ones on more than one occasion).
In Canada you need portable derails to protect equipment that is left on a siding or main track and not attached to a locomotive. Again, not a big deal but it will cause even more delay and cost waiting for the Sectionmen to install and remove the derails. Hopefully they were called on time.......
A clogged terminal radiates congestion for hundreds of miles. Then you start scrambling and looking for places to park all the trains it can't handle.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
SD70DudeLonger trains have the potential to cause additional congestion compared to the same amount of traffic moving in shorter trains. Many sidings were lengthened out here, but many others were removed or rendered nearly useless by the shift to longer trains. It is nice to talk about revamping yards to accommodate longer trains, but in reality that usually doesn't happen (big $$$ for little reward and publicity). So the road crew builds their train out of two or more shorter tracks while everyone else waits for them to clear the lead. The longer the train, the fewer places you can stop without blocking a crossing. That 13,000' siding looks great on paper, but if there is a crossing halfway down it you can only park a 6,500' train there. And due to the aforementioned yard congestion it has become more and more common for trains to be staged in sidings or on double track, sometimes for days at a time. One of the more egregious examples in my area is a 10 mile section of double track that will hold exactly one 11,000' train. Or two 10,000' trains. Or four 9,000' trains. Or five 8,000' trains. And so on..... What that you say, cut the crossing? In some cases this may be a little harder than it sounds. Walking to and from the cut and applying and releasing handbrakes takes time but isn't a big deal, what is worse is the fact that many crossings are not 'smart', that is the warning devices will not deactivate if equipment is left in the first approach circuit, meaning you have to cut off up to half a mile before the crossing, which in some locations now means your tail end portion might be blocking yet another crossing if you are long enough. The alternative is to call out a signal maintainer to deactivate the crossing, but if you choose this option trains proceeding on the other track will have to stop and manually protect it (yes, I've seen this happen. I've seen a Chief Dispatcher choose this option over other, better ones on more than one occasion). In Canada you need portable derails to protect equipment that is left on a siding or main track and not attached to a locomotive. Again, not a big deal but it will cause even more delay and cost waiting for the Sectionmen to install and remove the derails. Hopefully they were called on time....... A clogged terminal radiates congestion for hundreds of miles. Then you start scrambling and looking for places to park all the trains it can't handle.
I don't understand why they can't make the shorter trains more efficient by running them faster with less interruption. If I were a shipper thats the direction I would want the railroad to move, since faster and more frequent trains means my shipment moves faster with more times to ship on the clock. Why not one crew handles two shorter trains per shift vs. 1 monster train?
Why does this concept work for FEC but not the larger class I's?
I wonder if anyone really worked it out on paper the advantages of short trains vs longer trains before the decision was made to move to longer trains? Or did they just jump at one because it was easier to implement with far less skill management wise.
Seems to me as well they could potentially speed up the heavier trains by adding another two axles to the cars and improving the suspension so the car can take higher speeds without falling apart or damaging the track. Think of how much cheaper it would be to transport Powder River Basin Coal if the Unit Trains could move at 80 mph and turn twice as fast. The Europeans seem to have no issues moving ballast trains across their rail system at speeds 50-60% faster than the same train in the United States would travel. They have better maintained track and probably lower axle loads though. In a country as expansive as ours I would think much faster frieght train speeds would have a better advantage then attempting to turn the rail network into a slow pipeline system.
Euclid... And unlike the human engineer, the autonomous operation would not hesitate to apply braking because it worries about derailing the train and setting the town on fire.
Murphy Siding Euclid ... And unlike the human engineer, the autonomous operation would not hesitate to apply braking because it worries about derailing the train and setting the town on fire. Huh? That doesn't make autonomous trains sound very appealing. For my money, I think I'd prefer the human that would hesitate before derailing the train and setting the town on fire.
Euclid ... And unlike the human engineer, the autonomous operation would not hesitate to apply braking because it worries about derailing the train and setting the town on fire.
Huh? That doesn't make autonomous trains sound very appealing. For my money, I think I'd prefer the human that would hesitate before derailing the train and setting the town on fire.
Euc is investing in town renewal - the next big investment sector. After the town burns there will be a lot of building supples sold to rebuild the destoyed buildings; not to mention the loans that will have to be obtained to facilitate the reconstruction.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Think about it. Of course you don’t want to burn down the town. But how are you going to know if making an emergency application will even derail the train let alone cause deadly mayhem? It is always possible. So what do you do? If you take your side on the issue, you never use the emergency application.
You may think that of course you will use it, but you still may hesitate and cause a death that may have been prevented had you not hesitated. The problem is that you develop a mindset of second-guessing the need for an emergency application due to an overabundance of caution. But it can cause you to freeze when a hard choice is necessary. Carrying this mindset is a liability.
It is simply not your job to assume the responsibility for every mishap that may occur due to the use of the train brakes. Making an emergency application when it proves to have not been needed is far less harmful than not making one that proves to have been needed.
Euclid Murphy Siding Euclid ... And unlike the human engineer, the autonomous operation would not hesitate to apply braking because it worries about derailing the train and setting the town on fire. Huh? That doesn't make autonomous trains sound very appealing. For my money, I think I'd prefer the human that would hesitate before derailing the train and setting the town on fire. Think about it. Of course you don’t want to burn down the town. But how are you going to know if making an emergency application will even derail the train let alone cause deadly mayhem? It is always possible. So what do you do? If you take your side on the issue, you never use the emergency application. You may think that of course you will use it, but you still may hesitate and cause a death that may have been prevented had you not hesitated. The problem is that you develop a mindset of second-guessing the need for an emergency application due to an overabundance of caution. But it can cause you to freeze when a hard choice is necessary. Carrying this mindset is a liability. It is simply not your job to assume the responsibility for every mishap that may occur due to the use of the train brakes. Making an emergency application when it proves to have not been needed is far less harmful than not making one that proves to have been needed.
You also sell the engineer short. The engineer has the experience running a train. You don't. Just because you would freeze up and become indecisive doesn't mean a trained professional would.
Yes, but would an autonomous train sacrifice a schoolbus full of children to avoid derailing itself?
Convicted One Yes, but would an autonomous train sacrifice a schoolbus full of children to avoid derailing itself?
Longer trains may cut down on the number of meets. However, our recrew report is full of trains that die because they can only be met, or passed, at one or two sidings.
John Kneiling in one of his columns where he addressed autonomous trains felt that crossings should have a metal detector or something similar to detect objects on the tracks. The train could be programmed to stop if something was detected. His view was that the train should be programmed to stop only if the object was large enough that it might imperil the train. If the object didn't meet the set criteria, the train should just plow through it.
Murphy Siding suggests that I would be too timid to use the brakes for fear of derailing the train? Again> huh? I've never said that.
Just my "gut". The discussion is actually grounded in a belief held by some that engineers have either been instructed, or have a personal preference, to hit encroaching cars rather than putting their trains into emergency. Whether this is official or not, or whether this is safety driven, or vengence driven never really gets conclusively nailed down. It's usually passed off as "it depends" or "each situation is unique" .
So, the nominal aspect of fear, would be for one's job security, not any fear of the vehicle.
The schoolbus, as a plot device, usually serves as a grounding rod.
I'm no railroader, but my general inclination is that it's likely easier to explain "I hit a car violating a crossing" than it is to explain putting your train on the ground, unless, of course, the car is one of those long yellow ones.
The other side of that, of course, if you put your train into emergency everytime you see a car that might foul a crossing, in adequate time to stop the train before impact, you'd probably have a hard time explaining that too.
Convicted One It's usually passed off as "it depends" or "each situation is unique"
One key factor with crossings is that they often represent a dynamic situation, not a static one.
A static situation would have the obstruction in view well before a train arrives at the crossing.
A dynamic one would be like the videos that were circulating a while back where cars full of teens arrived at the crossings, at speed, at the same time as the locomotive.
And there's a long continuum in between.
I don't care how good the sensors are - such collisions are going to happen, barring elimination of all crossings on autonomous routes...
I guess that I just grew up in a very different world? I was always told if you run thru a flashing crossing, to expect disaster, or if you resist arrest, bad things are gonna happen to you. Responsibility was YOURS. Now days everyone who doesn't have deep pockets, is a victim.
Convicted OneI guess that I just grew up in a very different world? I was always told if you run thru a flashing crossing, to expect disaster, or if you resist arrest, bad things are gonna happen to you. Responsibility was YOURS. Now days everyone who doesn't have deep pockets, is a victim.
And every victim that has deep pockets buys their way out.
Convicted OneI guess that I just grew up in a very different world?
It's probably at least partly that teenage attitude of "it can't happen to me." Some never grow out of it.
Murphy Siding Convicted One Yes, but would an autonomous train sacrifice a schoolbus full of children to avoid derailing itself? I gotta admit, I went back and read euclid's post again. It sure seems like he's suggesting that the autonomous train wouldn't stop for the school bus. To be honest though, it's not quite clear, due to some circular logic being involved. It'd be best if re-explained what he meant. One thing is clear though. He suggests that I would be too timid to use the brakes for fear of derailing the train? Again> huh? I've never said that.
I gotta admit, I went back and read euclid's post again. It sure seems like he's suggesting that the autonomous train wouldn't stop for the school bus. To be honest though, it's not quite clear, due to some circular logic being involved. It'd be best if re-explained what he meant. One thing is clear though. He suggests that I would be too timid to use the brakes for fear of derailing the train? Again> huh? I've never said that.
Re the sentence fragment-
“…and unlike the human engineer, the autonomous operation would not hesitate to apply braking because it worries about derailing the train and setting the town on fire.”
The post where I brought this up above is too confusing because the above sentence conveys two conflicting meanings at the same time. The wrong meaning is: The autonomous train applies braking because it worries about derailing the train and setting the town on fire. The actual meaning is that it applies brakes because it does not worry about derailing the train because of applying the brakes.
I am sorry for the confusion. I also went back and edited that post to remove the above sentence fragment.
The point, as we have discussed in other threads, is that a human engineer may wait to apply braking until a collision has occurred because until that point, they will not actually know if a collision will occur. This prevents an inconvenience of an unnecessary emergency application. Engineers might do this as a matter of operational philosophy. I am convinced that is a bad philosophy. So, my point above is that the autonomous operations will not have that operational philosophy unless it is programed in, which I would not expect.
I brought this up in regard to what you said about a need to upgrade crossing protection if autonomous operation is adopted. I don’t see such a need, and do not know why it would be required.
To my knowledge Euclid has always, like Joe, supported the idea that 'emergency' should always be used in these circumstances, whether or not it might derail or damage the train. To the extent that an autonomous train represents the 'best practice' of a human engineer, the same braking preference would apply. I would argue that the autonomous train could better implement the idea of modulating full service and controlling/setting DPUs to set the train up (with knowledge of local conditions) before going to full emergency, but that is more a matter of programming.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.