charlie hebdo So are you attempting to say the computer code automatically rejected a post by length? What is the cutoff in words, characters or (not helpful) kilobytes? Or is the arbitrary? Or simply poor Kalmbach software?
So are you attempting to say the computer code automatically rejected a post by length? What is the cutoff in words, characters or (not helpful) kilobytes? Or is the arbitrary? Or simply poor Kalmbach software?
Can't answer the question - but there's obviously some sort of trigger level for length, at least sometimes.
I've gotten the same error, but was able to post Ed Blysard's holiday message without issue.
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...
charlie hebdoSo are you attempting to say the computer code automatically rejected a post by length? What is the cutoff in words,
403 "Forbidden" is an AUTHENTICATION error. It has nothing to do with the formal length of a post, although it may have a great deal to do with the type of metadata or code a post contains (possibly in a form that does not display with the text in the window).
It sounds like the error code is improperly configured, getting triggered inconsistently. Typucal software crap.
I've gotten "403" codes on occasion when I've tried to post a comment, even an comment with no links. Aside from muttering "Whisky-Tango-Foxtrot" when it happens I've given up trying to figure out why it happens.
Suffice to say when I try again in a hour or two my post works with no problem.
Gremlins I suppose.
oltmannd Euclid oltmannd 2. Get serioius about train braking. Stop playing with 30 year old trials of ECP braking that clearly don't work. Get going on smart freight cars that have smart braking. Don, I am familiar with ECP brakes and existing PCP brakes. Can you explain “smart braking,” which you refer to in your post? How does it work and how do the railroads feel about the need smart braking? To be honest - it's aspirational. No such thing exists at the moment but all the features have been talked about over the past few decades. Here are the features: 1. Electrically controlled brake valve. Application and release occur from a data command send from engineer. Brake valve is battery powered. 2. Battery powered processor on each car with charging from solar AND axle bearings. 3. Wireless, electronic trainline. Radio? Wave guided antennas in car end? I'm no EE (obviously) but it is needed and someone has to figure out how to make it happen. 4. Trainline supported DPU. Get rid of DPU radios. 5. Sensor equipped freight car for on board defect detection. Get rid of all the wayside stuff. 6. Totally proportional load/empty braking with wheelslip detection and correction. Locomotives can do 35% all weather adhesion. How about, immediate, on demand, 25% all weather braking adhesion? (60 to 0 in 11 seconds, 1000 feet) 7. Open up the brake pipe feed all the way. You don't need to reduce the brakepipe and restrict flow for any reason. Brake pipe can always be at full pressure. Remove most airbrake equipment from the locomotives. Train braking control is electronic. Locomotive braking (ind) still straight air. 8. Put an automatic "parking brake" on each car. Lots of challenges here. Long overdue time to get to work.
Euclid oltmannd 2. Get serioius about train braking. Stop playing with 30 year old trials of ECP braking that clearly don't work. Get going on smart freight cars that have smart braking. Don, I am familiar with ECP brakes and existing PCP brakes. Can you explain “smart braking,” which you refer to in your post? How does it work and how do the railroads feel about the need smart braking?
oltmannd 2. Get serioius about train braking. Stop playing with 30 year old trials of ECP braking that clearly don't work. Get going on smart freight cars that have smart braking.
To be honest - it's aspirational. No such thing exists at the moment but all the features have been talked about over the past few decades.
Here are the features:
1. Electrically controlled brake valve. Application and release occur from a data command send from engineer. Brake valve is battery powered.
2. Battery powered processor on each car with charging from solar AND axle bearings.
3. Wireless, electronic trainline. Radio? Wave guided antennas in car end? I'm no EE (obviously) but it is needed and someone has to figure out how to make it happen.
4. Trainline supported DPU. Get rid of DPU radios.
5. Sensor equipped freight car for on board defect detection. Get rid of all the wayside stuff.
6. Totally proportional load/empty braking with wheelslip detection and correction. Locomotives can do 35% all weather adhesion. How about, immediate, on demand, 25% all weather braking adhesion? (60 to 0 in 11 seconds, 1000 feet)
7. Open up the brake pipe feed all the way. You don't need to reduce the brakepipe and restrict flow for any reason. Brake pipe can always be at full pressure. Remove most airbrake equipment from the locomotives. Train braking control is electronic. Locomotive braking (ind) still straight air.
8. Put an automatic "parking brake" on each car.
Lots of challenges here. Long overdue time to get to work.
.
Flintlock76 I've gotten "403" codes on occasion when I've tried to post a comment, even an comment with no links. Aside from muttering "Whisky-Tango-Foxtrot" when it happens I've given up trying to figure out why it happens. Suffice to say when I try again in a hour or two my post works with no problem. Gremlins I suppose.
Same here. Or I'll shorten the post then go back and edit it with the rest of what I want to say...
oltmanndIf RRs want to survive, they have to get really good at intermodal - and stop treating it as "one of those things we do." It is THE thing they should do. And the boutique carload will have to fit in.
For years when I read the summaries of US rail traffic, Total Intermodal units would always beat out total carloads... but since last year (likely earlier) this has no longer been the case - sometimes carloads beat IM.Hmm, what was that prediction made by 'the experts' in the 1960s about future US rail freight - just intermodals and unit-trains of coal? Oh well...
Much as I love intermodal and the various technical things it enables (or ought to enable) not only isn't it "the" answer to future rail transportation -- in many ways, it's becoming the new bottom-tier 'commoditized' lowest-possible-rate service that things like low-rank bituminous coal used to be. It's nice that there are places that 'get' how to do effective intermodal operations (although, imho, less and less and less of them) BUT -- they won't replace covered-hopper blocks, or ethanol trains, or a great many of the private cars like Olin's that have their own QoS and technical features and could not (and arguably should not) be reduced to private-container-on-obligatory-chassis, or to TOFC-style carriage of hazmat trailers.
As we get closer and closer to what the autonomous world is likely to hold for Wall-Street-capitalized large carrier operations, instead of the blerfblog vision of electrified PRR-style operations in 2040, what we're likely to get is very traffic-optimized traffic that moves at comparatively slow peak speed, and may begin to have larger technical 'dwell' as block and flat switching becomes increasingly automated and perhaps self-powered. In my opinion there will come a time -- I think it's reared its head at UP already -- where not only the excuse for PSR but the hamhanded intervention of finance-type 'stakeholders' implodes on itself and operations will go back to some form of 'optimal control' rather than slavish deification of something relatively useless like decimal OR.
And when that comes, look for an increasing, rather than decreasing. number of 'cars' to be privately capitalized, owned, and maintained, and operated autonomously under the system of some of the companies that claim they will 'own this space'. That ain't gonna be at the mercy of some pay-by-the-hour Uber-style underframe/chassis provision, and it ain't gonna be at the mercy of intermodal cars with heaven-knows-what bearing quality, wheel fit, or tread profiling.
I'm not against intermodal. They are some of the easiest trains to run, even when they are 15000 feet long. And I'm all for more business on the rails.
Has anyone, besides me, thought that intermodal takes trailers/containers off the highways in areas (for most of the US) where they have more existing capacity and/or room for expansion, but puts more trailers/containers on the highways where they are most constrained for both capacity and future expansion.
Jeff
jeffhergertI'm not against intermodal. They are some of the easiest trains to run, even when they are 15000 feet long. And I'm all for more business on the rails. Has anyone, besides me, thought that intermodal takes trailers/containers off the highways in areas (for most of the US) where they have more existing capacity and/or room for expansion, but puts more trailers/containers on the highways where they are most constrained for both capacity and future expansion. Jeff
The State of Virginia has been working for the past several decades to enhance the abilities of the railroads to carry traffic of all kinds - passenger and freight to pull both automobile and truck traffic off the state's throughfares so that additional lanes of highways aren't required to be built going into the future.
How well this state investment in rail infrrastructure is working - I have no idea.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
jeffhergert Has anyone, besides me, thought that intermodal takes trailers/containers off the highways in areas (for most of the US) where they have more existing capacity and/or room for expansion, but puts more trailers/containers on the highways where they are most constrained for both capacity and future expansion. Jeff
Yes, I've had that thought many times, such as when stuck in traffic on I-55 in Joliet near Global IV and LPC. It has also occurred to me that the railroad part of an intermodal trip is the part that where automated driverless trucks are closest to becoming reality.
It seems like there could be some real value added if BNSF and UP could deliver intermodal trains directly to northwest Indiana and CSX and NS could serve Joliet.
Dan
Containers, as great as they are, add more traffic on already congested roads. Decades ago pickup and delivery trucks took their loads to a break bulk terminal where freight was consolidated and transferred directly to boxcars for the linehaul. Today pickup and delivery trucks take their loads to offline breakbulk terminals where the freight is consolidated and transferred to a container, and that container, once loaded, hits the road for delivery to a rail intermodal terminal. Same process in reverse at the destination terminal.
No doubt about it, containers add efficiency, and they allow for the transference of freight at locations not directly served by rail. But the cost of that is an additional dray move at each end (to move the container to/from the rail).. a cost in manpower, additional fuel, indirect cost to the road infrastructure and upkeep, and of course more pollution.
I remember when the railroads operated freight houses close to city centers.. boxcars down one side and loading docks for p&d trucks on the other.. no container dray required. Perhaps things are more flexible now than they need to be. Most consumer products are palletized today.. that in itself provides alot of flexibility and efficiency that wasn't around decades ago when almost everything was floor loaded. Bringing back railroad owned freight houses might be just the ticket..employ modern technology.. cut out the dray altogether.. combining the old with the new.
UlrichContainers, as great as they are, add more traffic on already congested roads. Decades ago pickup and delivery trucks took their loads to a break bulk terminal where freight was consolidated and transferred directly to boxcars for the linehaul. Today pickup and delivery trucks take their loads to offline breakbulk terminals where the freight is consolidated and transferred to a container, and that container, once loaded, hits the road for delivery to a rail intermodal terminal. Same process in reverse at the destination terminal. No doubt about it, containers add efficiency, and they allow for the transference of freight at locations not directly served by rail. But the cost of that is an additional dray move at each end (to move the container to/from the rail).. a cost in manpower, additional fuel, indirect cost to the road infrastructure and upkeep, and of course more pollution. I remember when the railroads operated freight houses close to city centers.. boxcars down one side and loading docks for p&d trucks on the other.. no container dray required. Perhaps things are more flexible now than they need to be. Most consumer products are palletized today.. that in itself provides alot of flexibility and efficiency that wasn't around decades ago when almost everything was floor loaded. Bringing back railroad owned freight houses might be just the ticket..employ modern technology.. cut out the dray altogether.. combining the old with the new.
UPS and FedEx along with the other 'consumer grade' freight handling outfits do a much better job than the railroads EVER DREAMED of doing when they were in the LCL business.
In a PSR world the railroads will NEVER get back into the LCL business.
dpeltier jeffhergert Has anyone, besides me, thought that intermodal takes trailers/containers off the highways in areas (for most of the US) where they have more existing capacity and/or room for expansion, but puts more trailers/containers on the highways where they are most constrained for both capacity and future expansion. Jeff Yes, I've had that thought many times, such as when stuck in traffic on I-55 in Joliet near Global IV and LPC. It has also occurred to me that the railroad part of an intermodal trip is the part that where automated driverless trucks are closest to becoming reality. It seems like there could be some real value added if BNSF and UP could deliver intermodal trains directly to northwest Indiana and CSX and NS could serve Joliet. Dan
CSX builds solid trains for both UP's Global 4 and BNSF's Logistics Park out of Northwest Ohio. There are interchanged on the IHB at 71st st, with just a crew swap.
Both the UP and the BNSF build solid trains for CSX, and are interchanged at 71st st on CSX's Blue Island sub, with just a crew change.
An "expensive model collector"
n012944 CSX builds solid trains for both UP's Global 4 and BNSF's Logistics Park out of Northwest Ohio. There are interchanged on the IHB at 71st st, with just a crew swap. Both the UP and the BNSF build solid trains for CSX, and are interchanged at 71st st on CSX's Blue Island sub, with just a crew change.
Interesting. Just to be clear, are these containers originating at Global IV / LPC, or are they shipments originating / terminating elsewhere on the western networks and forwarded to CSX in Chicago? The CSX intermodal website is a little funky, especially on a mobile phone, but it doesn't appear to list either Global IV or LPC as a destination (but it does list Denver, Stockton, etc.)
Of course moving stuff across the great Chicago divide is important. But what I had in mind was more the ability to choose a rail destination within Chicagoland based on proximity to the customer.
Thanks,
Maybe PSR needs to be ditched or modified then. Bring in new people from outside the industry with fresh perspectives. Surely if Fedex and UPS can hire people to run terminals efficiently then so can a railroad.
UlrichMaybe PSR needs to be ditched or modified then.
Actually, I think PSR simply needs to adhere to its title, instead of being a catchword for cutting expenses to the bone.
At the risk of turning this into yet another thread on PSR, I'm not sure if PSR is the problem or if PSR has becoming the whipping boy for all that ails us... everything from late trains, yard congestion, crew quits.. probably bedsores even... I don't know. No one can even agree on a precise definition of Precision Scheduled Railroading. Instead the term is torqued one way or the other, and if anything at all goes wrong then it must be PSR. BNSF was smart about it... they came out and said they weren't going to follow the PSR playbook although they too seem to be using some aspects of it.
Maybe scrap the whole thing and start over with new people.. new ideas..no preconceived notions.
UlrichMaybe PSR needs to be ditched or modified then. Bring in new people from outside the industry with fresh perspectives. Surely if Fedex and UPS can hire people to run terminals efficiently then so can a railroad.
How much would a carrier have to invest in facilities, equipment and manpower, on their own dollar, to recreate the services UPS and FedEx provide. How much profit would such a new railroad offering be expected to bring to the bottom line to be a success.
Traffic loads like the following picture could be expected at the start!
Alot. But Fedex and UPS as well as others were somehow able to do it. Traffic loads like that picture could also be expected if nothing changes. The railroads don't even really need to innovate like Fedex did.. just copy and paste and tweek it a bit..
UlrichAlot. But Fedex and UPS as well as others were somehow able to do it. Traffic loads like that picture could also be expected if nothing changes. The railroads don't even really need to innovate like Fedex did.. just copy and paste and tweek it a bit..
FedEx and UPS started developing their business models decades ago and those models have evolved and grown overtime. If rail were to be a competitor for the same market, they would have to have a service level equal to if not vastly BETTER than the competition just to make a dent in the market, let alone capture enough of a share to make the effort worth the investment. Today's businesses want a return on investment in a short period of time, much shorter than such a undertaking would require.
I think you are underestimating the physical plant and infrastructure that UPS & FedEx currently have inplace and how much it would take the railroads to be a player in those market segments.
I wouldn't expect the railroads to compete with Fedex or UPS... they're in different markets. All I'm saying is that the railroads could "borrow" some ideas from others and modify them to rail. And let's not forget that the railroads were already a well entrenched and mature industry when Fred Smith wrote his C level college paper outlining the idea that would culminate in the creation of Fedex. All I'm saying is that fresh thinking is required, and that's usually only possible by bringing in people who aren't married to the "it's always been done this way" philosophy. CSX had the right idea in bringing someone from automotive to head up the Company. That's no guarantee to success.. but at least he isn't constrained by old ideas.
UlrichI wouldn't expect the railroads to compete with Fedex or UPS... they're in different markets. All I'm saying is that the railroads could "borrow" some ideas from others and modify them to rail. And let's not forget that the railroads were already a well entrenched and mature industry when Fred Smith wrote his C level college paper outlining the idea that would culminate in the creation of Fedex. All I'm saying is that fresh thinking is required, and that's usually only possible by bringing in people who aren't married to the "it's always been done this way" philosophy. CSX had the right idea in bringing someone from automotive to head up the Company. That's no guarantee to success.. but at least he isn't constrained by old ideas.
What is the specific market niche that you think railroads could profitably exploit?
Sometimes, what's old needs to be new. I've mentioned before (somewhere on the forum) a New York Central program from the 1960's called "Operation Sunset," where crews were encouraged to make their connections on time. An ETT from that era had a chart showing many of those connections.
It's been mentioned here that some railroads "used to" be conscientious about keeping schedules. Some apparently still are, to a point. My view is that the problem is not having the crews available to promptly recrew as necessary. I think it's pretty much felt that said problem is the result of the cost-cutting that is known as PSR.
It's also been pointed out that the very folks who should be out there beating the bushes for more business were among the first to be let go when PSR hit. As we've discussed, not every potential business opportunity is worth the cost and effort. But some are.
BaltACD Ulrich I wouldn't expect the railroads to compete with Fedex or UPS... they're in different markets. All I'm saying is that the railroads could "borrow" some ideas from others and modify them to rail. And let's not forget that the railroads were already a well entrenched and mature industry when Fred Smith wrote his C level college paper outlining the idea that would culminate in the creation of Fedex. All I'm saying is that fresh thinking is required, and that's usually only possible by bringing in people who aren't married to the "it's always been done this way" philosophy. CSX had the right idea in bringing someone from automotive to head up the Company. That's no guarantee to success.. but at least he isn't constrained by old ideas. What is the specific market niche that you think railroads could profitably exploit?
Ulrich I wouldn't expect the railroads to compete with Fedex or UPS... they're in different markets. All I'm saying is that the railroads could "borrow" some ideas from others and modify them to rail. And let's not forget that the railroads were already a well entrenched and mature industry when Fred Smith wrote his C level college paper outlining the idea that would culminate in the creation of Fedex. All I'm saying is that fresh thinking is required, and that's usually only possible by bringing in people who aren't married to the "it's always been done this way" philosophy. CSX had the right idea in bringing someone from automotive to head up the Company. That's no guarantee to success.. but at least he isn't constrained by old ideas.
LCL that requires day definite service levels. The railroads are already providing the service albeit by partnering with outside vendors for consolidation and distribution.
Ulrich BaltACD Ulrich I wouldn't expect the railroads to compete with Fedex or UPS... they're in different markets. All I'm saying is that the railroads could "borrow" some ideas from others and modify them to rail. And let's not forget that the railroads were already a well entrenched and mature industry when Fred Smith wrote his C level college paper outlining the idea that would culminate in the creation of Fedex. All I'm saying is that fresh thinking is required, and that's usually only possible by bringing in people who aren't married to the "it's always been done this way" philosophy. CSX had the right idea in bringing someone from automotive to head up the Company. That's no guarantee to success.. but at least he isn't constrained by old ideas. What is the specific market niche that you think railroads could profitably exploit? LCL that requires day definite service levels. The railroads are already providing the service albeit by partnering with outside vendors for consolidation and distribution.
Railroads canned LCL over half a century ago, for costs and profitability reasons then. Today's world has escalated the costs many times over and shrunk the profitability potential.
The LCL market is more than filled at present by LTL truckers and various freight forwarder organizations. Railroads have divested or eliminated all the freight houses they once had and have no intent to rebuild and restaff such a operation.
UlrichCSX had the right idea in bringing someone from automotive to head up the Company. That's no guarantee to success.. but at least he isn't constrained by old ideas.
Thanks for the chuckle. Look at how much GM and Ford have downsized in the last 30 years and how much the German automakers have expanded.
Depends on the lane. Here in Canada most LCL (LTL) that goes any distance goes on the rail. Check out any container train on CN or CP.. you will see containers belonging to Armour, Midland, TransX, Roadfast, Day & Ross, Maritime-Ontario, not to mention others. All of those containers are loaded with LCL/LTL, domestic freight. The service is very service competitive too and at prices that over the road carriers cannot come close to.
The service has grown over that last couple of decades, thanks in large measure to the sales efforts of freight forwarders.. and they of course get a big chunk of the profits. The carriers (like Day and ross, Midland, M-O) who ran trucks over the road 30 years ago have all migrated to rail.. sure.. they still run trucks, but largely in short haul lanes and of course to and from the rail head.
The situation in the US is more complex because your population centers aren't all neatly aligned along the 49th parallel like ours are, and of course, you have many more large population centers than we do. But nonetheless, rail can recapture a big piece of the LCL market.. indeed it must as growing congestion and pollution render the status quo untenable going forward. LCL remains a money maker.. the question however is who is making the money? The answer (in Canada anyway) is that the freight forwarders do. And perhaps that's as it should be... the people who make the sale.. who own the relationship with the customer.. are generally the people who make the best margins. There's no reason that margin can't flow back to the rail by once again bringing that function back to the railroad..
CMStPnP Ulrich CSX had the right idea in bringing someone from automotive to head up the Company. That's no guarantee to success.. but at least he isn't constrained by old ideas. Thanks for the chuckle. Look at how much GM and Ford have downsized in the last 30 years and how much the German automakers have expanded.
Ulrich CSX had the right idea in bringing someone from automotive to head up the Company. That's no guarantee to success.. but at least he isn't constrained by old ideas.
Yes I know.. Volkswagen is the gold standard... a company that has never had any problems or scandals.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.