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..
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!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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.
Actually, I think PSR simply needs to adhere to its title, instead of being a catchword for cutting expenses to the bone.
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...
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.
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.
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,
Dan
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
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
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.
An "expensive model collector"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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...
.
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.
It sounds like the error code is improperly configured, getting triggered inconsistently. Typucal software crap.
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).
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.
zugmann A wise man once said: oltmannd I just want people to stop doing complicated, new things when simple, proven and better ways already exist. Good chance, in the long run, it'd be cheaper, too. Seriously, is it the physical aspect that is hampering growth, or is it the operational/managing/financial side that's the issue?
A wise man once said:
oltmannd I just want people to stop doing complicated, new things when simple, proven and better ways already exist. Good chance, in the long run, it'd be cheaper, too.
I just want people to stop doing complicated, new things when simple, proven and better ways already exist.
Good chance, in the long run, it'd be cheaper, too.
Seriously, is it the physical aspect that is hampering growth, or is it the operational/managing/financial side that's the issue?
I'm not sure anybody would believe the huge time, effort and treasure RRs go through to try to squeeze cost out of the carload network from a service design standpoint. Lots and lots of smart people...
RRs have never really sold any product door to door. Even in the old days, salesman were really just trying to get you to include their company in the route. Rates were fixed. Shippers shipped.
After Staggers, there still wasn't any real reason to go door-to-door, although there were all sorts of efforts to get "closer" to the customer to meet their needs better. Have the crews visit the plant. Have the serving yard transportation mgrs visit the plant. But, in the end, it's what Ulrich said, "Just move my GD load!" Shippers ship.
Then there's the "shortlines do it" myth. When shortlines take over from C1s, they beat the bushes and find some shippers who are willing to try rail sevice again, for a while. Carloads go up. But, then what? They flatten out and then start decreasing (unless they can fanagle a boutique shipper to locate on their line)
It's not stupidity.
It's not lack of trying.
It's not lack of creativity.
It's just the nature of the beast. Car load traffic is boutique. It's dying relative to the economy.
If 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.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
SD70DudeECP or any other major braking change is not going to be adopted by the railroads and car owners unless it is forced upon them by a new law or regulation. Remember that this is what it took to get them to start using knuckle couplers and the original automatic air brake over 100 years ago.
I agree.
I think you start with tests on unit trains - like ECP testing has been done for the past 30 years.
Then you build dedicated intermodal trainsets. Then the entire intermodal fleet.
Then cars in pools that move on intermodal train (mostly new construction to a newer lower buff strength standard.)
The rest of the fleet just ages out - or gets ECP-lite, braking only.
charlie hebdoDave K and a banished former member posted very long pieces consisting of others' writings, articles, book chapters.
403 is an error that is related to IETF RFC 9110 -- the Mozilla developer's reference is here:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Status/403#:~:text=The%20HTTP%20403%20Forbidden%20response,insufficient%20rights%20to%20a%20resource.
and the working-group reference is here:
https://httpwg.org/specs/rfc9110.html#status.403
It's a refusal by the server to accept a request (which is in this case an attempt to post a reply or comment). While in theory it would be possible to throw this error in response to something like attempted hotlinking, the Kalmbach code has routinely handled this in other ways, usually by failing to render the hotlink as such, rather than refusing the request on security grounds.
See also error 401, which is an authentication failure that could be fixed by supplying correct 'credentials'. Kalmbach does not handle secure login via https so we see infuriating failure for a login to 'take' rather than an error code.
OvermodI don't think excessive length by itself is a problem. And of all people here I'd probably be the first to know...
Dave K and a banished former member posted very long pieces consisting of others' writings, articles, book chapters.
I think the 403 Forbidden is a result of unexpected editing codes or metadata in the post somewhere, perhaps triggering some sort of residual security that Kalmbach no longer knows how to control (or can be bothered with addressing).
Try composing the post in a word-processing program set to save in "Rich Text Format" and then cut and paste the body text into the post window. Then after you post that, go in to 'edit' it if you want to use any of the tools above the window, for example to insert a picture or video.
I don't think excessive length by itself is a problem. And of all people here I'd probably be the first to know...
I've tried numerous times since Dec 29th to post a rather lengthy message, about 500 or so words in reply to this thread. Each time I get the 403 Forbidden message. I even rewrote it when "cut and paste" didn't work.
Any ideas?
PS. I even tried an abreviated version, 379 words, and I know I've written more as I tend to get "windy" at times. It won't go through.
GE's newest electric handbrakes seem to break down more often than they work. And cranking them on manually is a lot harder since you have to turn the motor and drive mechanism as well.
The Graham-White ones found on our newer EMDs are very reliable, but almost as hard to turn manually.
ECP or any other major braking change is not going to be adopted by the railroads and car owners unless it is forced upon them by a new law or regulation. Remember that this is what it took to get them to start using knuckle couplers and the original automatic air brake over 100 years ago.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
UlrichSix day service between Chicago and Atlanta sounds like a tough sell to me..but perhaps there's a market for that at some price point.. I don't know. From what I've read there wasn't much enthusiasum for it even within NS. I didn't hold out much hope for the LCL trial after reading a press release
6 days isn't really much better than regular old merchandise service. Service would be something like a local, 24 hrs dwell, 2 or 3 road trains at 12-24 hrs each with one or two 24 hr intermediate handlings, another 24 hrs at destination serving yard and a local.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.