I watch the Ft Madison, Iowa webcam daily. Yesterday I watched a double stack megatrain. Three engines up front and another three midtrain. Did not count the cars, but when the mid train DPU locomotives passed the Ft Madison station the rear portion of train was still crossing the Mississippi river with cars on the east side of the river.
greyhounds I went back and reread Bill Stephens’ article on “Going Long” at the BNSF. I see his writing as accurate and truthful. If you want to see BNSF mega trains watch the Ft. Madison, Iowa Virtual Railfan camera. Not all BNSF trains through Ft. Madison are mega trains, but some certainly are. Stephens pretty much explains BNSF’s operations as meeting customer expectations while reducing costs. That’s the way to run a business. An example he cites is an eastbound stack train from Los Angeles being combined with eastbound ethanol empties. There’s no reason not to do that. At some point, maybe Kansas City, the trains are split with the containers going on to Chicago and the tank cars going to the ethanol plant. In between the BNSF saved train miles and crew miles. That’s good business efficiency. Another example Stephens cites is the operation of a stack train from Chicago to LA being combined with a domestic Q train to northern California. The trains are split at Barstow, CA. But between Chicago and Barstow the BNSF saved a lot of train miles and crew miles. I reason that what you’re personally watching is the very busy Pacific Northwest portion of the BNSF. This is generally single-track territory with relatively short passing sidings. BNSF isn’t about to create congestion by running many mega trains that don’t fit the sidings. (They do run some.) BNSF has just spent $2 billion to buy out the lease to the MRL. They’re hitting capacity on the Great Northern route and Stephens has pointed out in another article that they’ve added about all the capacity they reasonably can on that route. So, the next best option was to get the old Northern Pacific back. BNSF uses mega trains when they make good business sense. Not so. There are very few crew & train miles saved and is not good busiess sense.Building a mega enroute saves nothing. On the double-ended Wellks-Amaril pool over the Panhandle Sub, there are about 3-5 a day which will be put together at either Waynoka or Mendota. The process is slow and if all goes well, it can be done in "only" 3 hours while, in the meantine, single tracking around the stopped train delays other trains. The enroute combos always requires an extra board relief crew to take over from the pool crew as one cannot make it in hours of service. No savings there. Other factors is just what type of trains are being combined. I have been involved where both trains ran 70mph but the combining of the pair put the TOB over 105, which knocks down max speed to 55--provided if you can get up to that speed. One also has to carefully look over the proposed train make up to make sure it is in compliance, otherwise the condr is making phone calls to bring up the issue. Labor relations looks at it in a perfect world that miles are being saved but again they are not. You maybe using one less pool crew over a district, but extra board crews are being called to relieve the train. Same number of crews--just different boards and the excuse the workforce hears is "it is from a different budget" Sam
That's not quite true of the routes being completely single tracked in the region. There are significant sections of double-track on the Lakeside Sub. Providence Hill is part of a double-track section that is around 15 miles long. There are also other double-track sections easily capable of handling 10,000 foot trains, including west of Spokane; east of Ritzville; Connell; and east of Pasco. The Funnel is also mostly double-tracked between Spokane and Sandpoint, Idaho (there are at least two short sections that are still single, one of which is being double-tracked right now). There are also significant sections of double-track (despite these capacity constraints that hinder expansion along the Kootnai River, which is a very short stretch) east of Sandpoint, Idaho into Montana and North Dakota. Overall, I believe there is more double-track on BNSF's Northern Transcon than there is on CP's Transcon between Vancouver and Moose Jaw (and CP frequently run trains over 10,000 feet). It just doesn't make sense to me that they would not run them this short in the Pacific Northwest. It would be nice (and I am hoping a commenter refers this to me) to provide an updated timetable of the subdivisions that comprise BNSF's Pacific Northwest mainline, then I would determine further on many sections can currently handle 10,000 foot trains.
Also, it does make business sense to run longer trains in the Pacific Northwest. It saves train start-ups and also makes crews more available for BNSF, among other reasons. Since Stevens Pass is primarily for empty commodity trains, it would make sense to combine oil/coal or oil/grain or grain/coal into one. Even Stampede since that is exclusively now reserved for empty commodity trains as well. Westbound trains could be combined from Spokane to Vancouver, Tacoma, and Seattle via the Columbia Gorge. In fact, westbound loaded trains only use the Columbia Gorge and do not traverse Stampede or Stevens. They could then split the trains at another point to send them to their specific destination. I think that 41 trains in 17 hours is rather surprising and I think this stresses the line more than to run trains combined in two miles or longer sections.
I see Waynoka is in Oklahoma. I am not sure where Mendota is. Where's that?
To any event, I found it odd that the double-tracking combination would occur in Oklahoma, where are no significant rail yards, as compared to Barstow, Belen, Amarillo, Kansas City, or Galesburg which major rail yards reside. It sounds like there is too many authorities involved in setting up the "Megatrains" that run on BNSF. I agree that the strategy described there doesn't sound that efficient and logical.
Waynoka is where the ex-Frisco trains from St Louis and Memphis join the Transcon.
ADRIAN BALLAM I see Waynoka is in Oklahoma. I am not sure where Mendota is. Where's that? To any event, I found it odd that the double-tracking combination would occur in Oklahoma, where are no significant rail yards, as compared to Barstow, Belen, Amarillo, Kansas City, or Galesburg which major rail yards reside. It sounds like there is too many authorities involved in setting up the "Megatrains" that run on BNSF. I agree that the strategy described there doesn't sound that efficient and logical.
There is a "Mendota" in north central Illinois on the old CB&Q line through Galesburg, IL to the Mississippi River crossing at Burlington, IA. The BNSF has two "Two Main Track" lines between Chicago and the river crossings.
Barstow, Belen, Amarillo, Kansas City, and Galesburg are already on Two Main Track routes. In fact, Galesburg is on two two main track routes.
SFbrkmnThe process is slow and if all goes well, it can be done in "only" 3 hours while, in the meantine, single tracking around the stopped train delays other trains. If the process takes 3 hours when things "Go Well", they need to improve the process.
If the process takes 3 hours when things "Go Well", they need to improve the process.
I agree. That sounds like a major issue there. I think that can be improved upon.
ADRIAN BALLAMhat's not quite true of the routes being completely single tracked in the region.
I did say "Generally." I did not say "Completely."
Yes I agree "generally". Still with the double-track sections available, they could run quite a few more 10,000 foot trains, although I would like to have the timetables with siding and double-track lengths to better assess.
BNSF has created southern Transcon infrastructure that provides the ability to manage mega trains.
They have four main tracks at crew change locations: Barstow, Needles, Winslow, Belen, Clovis, Amarillo and of course Kansas City. They have double tracked the southern Transcon with high-speed crossovers spaced ten miles +- apart which allows higher speed trains (Including Amtrak 3&4) to overtake slower trains.
Those who drive I-40 can witness this efficiency at many locations. And, if riding Amtrak 3 or 4, you can experience it.
SFbrkmn Not so. There are very few crew & train miles saved and is not good busiess sense.Building a mega enroute saves nothing. On the double-ended Wellks-Amaril pool over the Panhandle Sub, there are about 3-5 a day which will be put together at either Waynoka or Mendota. The process is slow and if all goes well, it can be done in "only" 3 hours while, in the meantine, single tracking around the stopped train delays other trains. The enroute combos always requires an extra board relief crew to take over from the pool crew as one cannot make it in hours of service. No savings there. Other factors is just what type of trains are being combined. I have been involved where both trains ran 70mph but the combining of the pair put the TOB over 105, which knocks down max speed to 55--provided if you can get up to that speed. One also has to carefully look over the proposed train make up to make sure it is in compliance, otherwise the condr is making phone calls to bring up the issue. Labor relations looks at it in a perfect world that miles are being saved but again they are not. You maybe using one less pool crew over a district, but extra board crews are being called to relieve the train. Same number of crews--just different boards and the excuse the workforce hears is "it is from a different budget" Sam
Not so. There are very few crew & train miles saved and is not good busiess sense.Building a mega enroute saves nothing. On the double-ended Wellks-Amaril pool over the Panhandle Sub, there are about 3-5 a day which will be put together at either Waynoka or Mendota. The process is slow and if all goes well, it can be done in "only" 3 hours while, in the meantine, single tracking around the stopped train delays other trains. The enroute combos always requires an extra board relief crew to take over from the pool crew as one cannot make it in hours of service. No savings there. Other factors is just what type of trains are being combined. I have been involved where both trains ran 70mph but the combining of the pair put the TOB over 105, which knocks down max speed to 55--provided if you can get up to that speed. One also has to carefully look over the proposed train make up to make sure it is in compliance, otherwise the condr is making phone calls to bring up the issue. Labor relations looks at it in a perfect world that miles are being saved but again they are not. You maybe using one less pool crew over a district, but extra board crews are being called to relieve the train. Same number of crews--just different boards and the excuse the workforce hears is "it is from a different budget" Sam
Question SFBrkmn,
BNSF has been combining trains for some years now. Starting on the NT eventually taking the practice down to the ST. Was this due to crew shortages prior?
I'm not against long trains. However they don't always fit the bill. The C1's have taken on too much of a one size fits all approach. I can see your point about combining trains being capacity eaters. Especially at terminals..
The number of double-length eastbound empty "mega trains" (combined grain, coal, or oil trains) that BNSF operates in the Pacific Northwest are clearly in the minority. Often only a half-dozen or less per day through Spokane. There were more of them running during the fall rush/peak season late last year when BNSF in the Northwest was heavy with traffic but light on available crews. Double-length westbound loaded coal and grain trains have fallen somewhat out of favor after some of the operational headaches they've experienced, but I now hear that the combining of eastbound loaded coal trains has recently been tried in North Dakota. Double-length intermodals, vehicle trains, and intermodal-manifest comboes are still an occasional thing.
Where the article in question makes the assertion that "...BNSF launched a blended train that included both intermodal and carload business" to serve its PNW-Texas lane, it misses the point that this new service was in fact initially launched as a purely intermodal run, the Q-PTLALT and Q-ALTPTL.
https://www.bnsf.com/news-media/news-releases/newsrelease.page?relId=intermodal-pnw-texas-launch
The first runs of Q-PTLALT were incredibly short trains, just two units and a few hundred feet of Swift and/or JB Hunt doublestacked containers, continuing eastward onto MRL without any pick-ups of manifest carloads. BNSF's stated goal was to attract perishables business from Northwest growers, most of whom would have to truck their loads over the Cascades to reach rail terminals in either Portland or South Seattle. As it turned out, the first runs of Q-PTLALT typically left Portland with just a handful of cars, if that, and filled out at South Seattle.
More ag customers probably would have jumped onboard had this new service been originated out of or offered a pick-up at Quincy, WA, on the east side of the Cascades, where there had once been a refrigerated container loading outfit called Cold Train. Z-SSECHC used to stop at Quincy to pick-up Cold Train stacks, and BNSF was on the verge of adding siding capacity there to allow those pick-ups to take place without blocking the main. But then came the deluge of capacity-improvement projects and surging traffic that BNSF's Northern Corridor faced in 2014, which forced them to temporarily suspend Z train service there,and which put the nail in the coffin of ag-oriented intermodal out of Quincy.
The initial failue of the PNW-Texas intermodals to garner the anticipated levels of business prompted BNSF to begin filling them out with manifest carloads from Spokane eastward, and to eventually re-symbol the Q-PTLALT to the Q-SSEALT, and then to the Q-SPOALT. Even from the beginning of the PNW-Texas intermodals, BNSF already had Alliance-bound blocks that were carried by the Q-SSECHC and Q-PTLCHC and combined at Hauser, ID, into a Q-SPOALT. By the time the Trains article was written, the combined intermodal/manifest Q-SPOALTs were actually handling a pretty respectable length of doublestacked domestic containers.
One additional correction to that story, for the two photos on pages 38-39, whose caption was written by someone on the staff to erroneously indicate the double-length loaded grain train was "eastbound." It was actually westbound (by timetable direction). The caption that I submitted with those two photos had said: "A double loaded grain train totaling 229 cars and powered 3x3x2 climbed southwest out of Spokane, Wash., and across I-90 via the Y-shaped Latah Creek Bridge on August 22, 2020." My compass direction of "southwest" being technically accurate for the alignment of Latah Creek Bridge and for the generally southwestward direction the train would travel on its way down toward Pasco, WA, before turning west down the Columbia River, so as not to give the Trains readers the false impression that it might be heading due west from Spokane toward Wenatchee.
Thank you for the in depth insight and makes the article from Trains Magazine even more of a letdown. One of my major issues with this article is it is two years premature. This would have been more appropriate probably in 2023 or 2024, when BNSF would have a better understanding of a 10,000 foot train or longer, especially in the Pacific Northwest. The intermodal insight from you is pretty disappointing in that they are forgoing business opportunities. Quincy is a good place to setup an intermodal facility for BNSF in Central Washington. I guess that could be also said for Pasco as well as I don't believe there is an intermodal facility in that region either (I didn't see one in either April or May). Both could attract new business.
I did not include this in my analysis, but both trips to Washington in April and May netted no international stack trains (one train was international stacks with autoracks, but still no straight international intermodal trains). I assume much of the traffic towards Tacoma and Seattle (which was noted in an October 2020 issue of Trains Magazine) is now going through the BC ports of Vancouver and Prince Rupert via the Canadian railroads. I find it odd, even with these capacity issues they are experiencing, for BNSF not to relocate intermodal from their Southern Transcon to the Pacific Northwest, especially given the ports' closer proximity to Asia and the fact they are not plagued by crime.
Since you seem fairly knowledgable, if you have insight on this as well, I would really be interested?
You shouldn't let the Trains story feel like a "letdown." It presented a pretty good overview of the development of BNSF's double-length or comboed "super trains," and the story made it abundantly clear that BNSF was implementing them only on a limited basis, at least for the time being.
There are definitely other people who are better informed and more closely in-touch with BNSF traffic flow than me. Especially so during the past several months, which have had much of my attention diverted elsewhere. But my gut instinct -- based on more than a quarter century of living within visual range of the Spokane-Sandpoint Funnel, photographing it, monitoring it, seeing its lineups, and so forth, coupled with the seasonal fluctuations in both export bulk traffic and import intermodal, and now the widespread reductions in factory output in China -- tells me that your early spring visits this year were at a time of comparatively less international container movement by rail, at least on the Northern Transcon.
Had you spent more time between Seattle and Spokane, you would have stood a much better chance of seeing BNSF stack trains handling foreign containers than down on the Lakeside or Fallbridge Subs. But exactly how many S-symbols are running east of Seattle/Tacoma on an average day right now, I can not say.
ADRIAN BALLAM I assume much of the traffic towards Tacoma and Seattle (which was noted in an October 2020 issue of Trains Magazine) is now going through the BC ports of Vancouver and Prince Rupert via the Canadian railroads. I find it odd, even with these capacity issues they are experiencing, for BNSF not to relocate intermodal from their Southern Transcon to the Pacific Northwest, especially given the ports' closer proximity to Asia and the fact they are not plagued by crime.
I assume much of the traffic towards Tacoma and Seattle (which was noted in an October 2020 issue of Trains Magazine) is now going through the BC ports of Vancouver and Prince Rupert via the Canadian railroads. I find it odd, even with these capacity issues they are experiencing, for BNSF not to relocate intermodal from their Southern Transcon to the Pacific Northwest, especially given the ports' closer proximity to Asia and the fact they are not plagued by crime.
Few things about the Northwest Seaport Alliance which makes up the Ports of Seattle and Tacoma..
While NSA is closer to Asia.. The terminals are small with limited footprint including shallower draft compared to Vancouver, and Prince Rupert B.C.. As well both Canadian Ports have made accommodations for future growth. Giving them facilites that are more efficient with room to expand accordingly. SEATAC does not have this option at the moment and would be prohibitively expensive.
The Ports of LA/LB will always be the leading Westcoast port for a few reasons.
One is of all the Ports on the WC. None have a surrounding population of 20+Million residents. POLA/POLB give instant access to a massive consumer base.
POLA/POLB port infrastructure allows it to maintain its position due to volume and berthing capabilites.
Transload. The POLA/POLB is situated right next to largest Warehousing and DC square footage in the world in the Inland Empire. This includes the municipalities of; Ontario, Chino, San Bernardino, and Bloomington.. Just to name a few. Transload save importers money by reshuffling freight out of 40' ISO containers into doemstic 53's. The ratio is 4=3(4x40'=160', 3x53'=159') This eliminates an extra box move. BCO's (Benificial Cargo Owner the receiver of freight) can have freight mixed together. As well it always BCO reduced carrying cost by acting as "storage in transit". The shipping alliances like this as well as it reduces empty moves. No other Seaport on the WC has this capability on such a scale..
One aspect of the Port of Prince Rupert is the cheaper rail cost. Due to CN's low grade crossing at Yellowhead Pass in the Canadian Rockies compared to BNSF/UP surmounting Cajon Pass at 2.2% Eastbound and 1.6% Westbound.
UP at 2% Westbound, 1.9% Eastbound at Beaumont Pass..
What about the Tulsa yard which is a flat yard. Not exactly small. I counted at least 52 tracks, not as large as Galesburg of course, which one of BNSFs' hump yards, but it is not small either.
BNSF has intermodal yards in Portland, OR, Seattle, Wa, South Seattle, WA and Tacoma, WA. Information from the BNSF website so it is correct.
BNSF runs a number of intermodal trains to and from the pacific northwest. Here are a few examples pof intermodal train that they run, the QCHESSE (Ciscero, IL to South Seattle, WA high priority intermodal train, the SDENTAC (Denver, CO, to Tacoma, WA) stack train and the ZCHESSE (Cicero, IL to South Seattle train).
For what it's worth, I counted cars on an average ethanol train that came through tonight. It looks like an average ethanol or grain train running the flatlands of South Dakota has 123 cars and 3 locomotives. How long would that train be?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Wow! This is the kind of insight I am looking for as well. I knew from the October 2020 Trains Magazine that rate of shipping via BNSF and UP to the Los Angeles basin was way more expensive than other ports, but I never factored in the grades on Cajon and Beaumont. Makes sense. That explains why CN is cheaper because not only Prince Rupert, but also Vancouver, would involve trains traversing the desirable, considerably lower Yellowhead Pass.
That consumer market perspective is interesting with the Los Angeles/Long Beach ports. The Seattle and Tacoma assessment is really disappointing as well as infrastruture could not be effectively expanded due to capacity. How sad.
One port you had not mentioned with such insight is Oakland (though it was not initially brought up by me). Does that port have better advantages that Seattle and Tacoma as well?
I still stick by "letdown" just by the fact that the "megatrain" discussion focused on BNSF and has not been this in depth for CN, which has been running 10,000 foot or longer trains for over two decades. I am not Trains Magazine has mentioned but they have never discussed CN's handling of huge trains to this extent, and there is a significant history here, especially when they faced stark criticism back in 2004 to 2007 due to a series of derailments. Then the further disappointment in which I didn't see much in terms of "Megatrains" on my recent trips to the Pacific Northwest. I do acknowledge via the previous comments and railcams in Missouri, Kansas, and Arizona that long trains do exist on other lines. I just wish BNSF did this also in the Pacific Northwest as well.
With regards to the international intermodal, it doesn't seem like it has tapered off here in BC. This evening I went to the Fraser Valley to watch trains and of the six trains caught, three were CN intermodal trains, two of which were over 10,000 feet. All containers on the trains were international (MSC, ONE, ZIM, SM Line).
I believe these trains would be 6,500 to 7,500 feet, not too long. Grain cars are 60 to 65 feet, while tank cars (ethanol) are 55 to 60. Therefore 123 cars would equate to a length of 1.3 to 1.5 miles.
ADRIAN BALLAM One port you had not mentioned with such insight is Oakland (though it was not initially brought up by me). Does that port have better advantages that Seattle and Tacoma as well?
Murphy Siding For what it's worth, I counted cars on an average ethanol train that came through tonight. It looks like an average ethanol or grain train running the flatlands of South Dakota has 123 cars and 3 locomotives. How long would that train be?
The UP has problems with waiting for clearance into Chicago. Today I saw an eastbound double coal train (about two and one half miles long) stuck for about one hour. The infrastructure capacity was not designed for such trains. PSR may save $ on labor costs but may lose by delays. Stationary wheels don't a profit make.
charlie hebdo Murphy Siding For what it's worth, I counted cars on an average ethanol train that came through tonight. It looks like an average ethanol or grain train running the flatlands of South Dakota has 123 cars and 3 locomotives. How long would that train be? The UP has problems with waiting for clearance into Chicago. Today I saw an eastbound double coal train (about two and one half miles long) stuck for about one hour. The infrastructure capacity was not designed for such trains. PSR may save $ on labor costs but may lose by delays. Stationary wheels don't a profit make.
When the CSX acqusisition of their part of ConRail took place, a former ConRail official was given the Operating Vice President position and implemented a 'ConRail' designed operating plan for the entireity of the rail road. Succintly, it was operate fewer bigger trains without any concern for the ability of the terminals to do it. What PSR is today.
The ConRail side of the property had no problems as they by and large had BIG terminal facilities. The non-ConRail portion of the railroad was codlocked within two weeks. Trains waiting to yard in a terminal that had trains waiting for more cars before being dispatched and then tying up the departure end of the yard for hours as the train was doubled together from multiple tracks. After the train departed then the waiting inbound train could yard on the tracks vacated by the outbound train. The plan DID NOT fit the abilities of the terminals it was implemented upon. After about six months of the railroad being at a virtual standstill the ConRail Operating VP was shown the door and a new operating plan was formulated that got the entire CSX fluid again.
PSR gets away with the fewer bigger trains today as there are fewer merchandise cars being handled over the various systems. The majority of traffic being handled by todays railroads is bulk commodities - intermodal, autoracks, coal, ore, grain and other similar commodites in train load lots.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Most unit coal trains do not use yards. They pass through a circular track arrangement where the cars are individually dumped and then continue as a complete train until all cars are dumped and the train is ready to return to its destination.
diningcarMost unit coal trains do not use yards. They pass through a circular track arrangement where the cars are individually dumped and then continue as a complete train until all cars are dumped and the train is ready to return to its destination.
Bulk commodity trains go to the terminals for their commodities. Those terminals are normally independent of the structures of major carrier yards. That being said - they still have to compete for the crew and power availability with all the other trains that the carriers are operating. The other parts of PSR have been reductions in crews and also reductions on motive power that are active at any point in time. Crew change points are congestion point when crews are scarce, it is even worse when the crew issues hit single track subdivisions as you can very quickly end up with 100 mile and more distance between train meeting locations or with inept management the single track crew change location locked down account having no crews for the trains that occupy all the tracks available at the location.
charlie hebdoThe UP has problems with waiting for clearance into Chicago. Today I saw an eastbound double coal train (about two and one half miles long) stuck for about one hour. The infrastructure capacity was not designed for such trains. PSR may save $ on labor costs but may lose by delays. Stationary wheels don't a profit make.
First, we have no knowledge that the delay was caused by the train length. Any train of any length could have had the delay.
Second, transportation is an economic activity. Everything in the economy is a trade off. You incur a cost for any benefit. Someone must make the decision as to whether the benefit is worth the cost.
The UP has evidently made the decision that the benefits of combining the coal trains are worth the costs of combining the coal trains. They could be wrong, but nobody here knows enough to evaluate their reasoning.
The union folks generally don't like the combined trains since they reduce the labor input per load. They focus on the costs but ignore the benefits.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.