Big Unknowns – Train Lengths vs. Govt. Length Regulation

[croteaudd]

With Precision Scheduled Railroading, ever increasing train length is the game.  But that incurs the wrath of the will of the people at grade crossings.  Ultimately, will railroads lose and people win?

[tree68]

Some people would complain about being 'delayed' by a five car train.

I would opine that the feds will be more concerned by safety issues than inconveniencing the public.  The exception could be urban areas, as was seen in Chicago a few years ago.  Once you get out on the road in the country, it's not that much of an inconvenience.

So the question becomes relative safety.  East Palestine would have happened with a ~50 car train (it was 150 cars - some reports say 151).  A couple of 700 axle trains came through Deshler when I was there last month, without incident, other than the time it took for them to clear the interlocking.

So, to answer your question, neither side will win or lose.  There is already talk of limiting train length.  And there will be a practical limit as well, based on siding length, yard capacity, etc.  As I said, some folks will complain about the 30 seconds it takes a five car train to clear a crossing.  They'll see anything short of completely eliminating trains as a loss.

[charlie hebdo]

tree68

As I said, some folks will complain about the 30 seconds it takes a five car train to clear a crossing.  They'll see anything short of completely eliminating trains as a loss.

Your reductio ad absurdum statement shows the weakness of your argument.  Big difference between a five car train, a 50 car train and a 100+  car monster.  Vision test?

[tree68]

Charlie hebdo

Your reductio ad absurdum statement shows the weakness of your argument.  Big difference between a five car train, a 50 car train and a 100+  car monster.  Vision test?

Not at all.  You've missed my point entirely.

For some people any delay in reaching their destination is unacceptable. 

Given the 20 or so second lead time before a train reaches the crossing, after the gates go down, plus the few seconds it takes that short train to go across the crossing and the gates to lift again, you're looking at 30-35 seconds, max.  Yet people will drive under the gates as soon as they lift far enough for their vehicle to clear.  They've just GOT to get where they're going...

If anything, I was being a bit facetious...

[Backshop]

charlie hebdo

 

 

tree68

As I said, some folks will complain about the 30 seconds it takes a five car train to clear a crossing.  They'll see anything short of completely eliminating trains as a loss.

 

 

Your reductio ad absurdum statement shows the weakness of your argument.  Big difference between a five car train, a 50 car train and a 100+  car monster.  Vision test?

 

Not really.  The CSX East Yard in Plymouth, MI is small but the yard throat is right at Haggerty Rd.  People grow impatient if a single locomotive has to make a couple of back-and-forth movements over the crossing to assemble its local. You can tell because they immediately make a u-turn.

[Overmod]

The Justice Department suit against NS specifically mentions trains that were too long to take siding to allow Amtrak trains to proceed...

[BaltACD]

Overmod

The Justice Department suit against NS specifically mentions trains that were too long to take siding to allow Amtrak trains to proceed...

Only one train must fit a siding for a meet - Amtrak fits most all sidings.

[croteaudd]

It is unfortunate that the Justice Department website directs information seekers away from the Justice Department, but at least a brief description of the lawsuit is available at the site.

 

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-files-complaint-against-norfolk-southern-stop-amtrak-passenger-train

 

The lawsuit undoubtedly has merit.  It is believed, without seeing the lawsuit text, it is not about common sense operations.  Example:  A freight goes into emergency and delays an Amtrak while the freight is being walked.  Eventually, as time goes on, routing Amtrak on the mainline is stupid.  It should be routed on the siding.  Let the delayed freight take the main.  Otherwise, routing the freight via the slow siding prolongs the delay! 

 

Likely, the suite is about gross stupidities and not common sense dispatching, as described just above.

[Euclid]

It has nothing to do with delaying traffic at grade crossings.  It also has nothing to do with which train fits into a passing siding during a meet.

 

“INTRODUCTION 1. The Attorney General of the United States brings this action pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 24103(a) to enforce the requirement of 49 U.S.C. § 24308(c) that, “except in an emergency, intercity . . . rail passenger transportation provided by or for Amtrak has preference over freight transportation in using a rail, line, junction, or crossing.” 2. Defendants Norfolk Southern Corporation and Norfolk Southern Railway Company (collectively, “Norfolk Southern”) regularly fail to provide National Railroad Passenger Corporation (“Amtrak”) passenger trains with their statutory right to preference over freight Case 1:24-cv-02226 Document 1 Filed 07/30/24 Page 1 of 16 2 transportation on Amtrak’s Crescent service, which provides daily passenger rail service in each direction between New York, New York, and New Orleans, Louisiana.” 

 

However, besides this case of delaying Amtrak trains, there are other reasons why the Government might decide to regulate train lengths. One reason is to prevent delays at grade crossings for both vehicles and pedestrians.  The other reason is to prevent derailments due to longer trains increasing in-train forces, which causes derailments. 

 

I would guess that it is the latter reason that will eventually cause the Government to regulate train length. 

[Overmod]

 It also has nothing to do with which train fits into a passing siding during a meet.

How to tell me you haven't read the actual suit without saying so.

One of the chief reasons given for the physical Crescent delays was in fact 'trains too long for the passing sidings'.  This would be remediated by operating shorter trains during the 'window of time' needed by a given Amtrak train... but terminal delays, other congestion, earlier Amtrak delays, etc. could require the necessary "window" to be longer, or involve considerable advance planning and losses in 'throughput' efficiency to assure.

Another amelioration might be to relax 'fifth-notch' restrictions on trains ahead of an Amtrak move -- the problem then being the whole higher-speed-can-lead-to-worse-accidents issue NS now faces after East Palestine.

I have little doubt that this is brought now because of the pending Dallas-to-Meridian trains, which as currently planned double both the impact on Atlanta traffic but the section between Atlanta and Meridian.  So they kill two birds with one stone: re-establish the absolute Amtrak priority that was (somewhat snottily) advanced at the STB hearings over the Mobile trains, and chasten NS in advance for what will be more trains in a congested situation.

[charlie hebdo]

tree68

Not at all.  You've missed my point entirely.

The point of the thread was long trains cause very long delays at crossings of 5 or more minutes. Add to that the increase in the number of trains and parking trains because of inadequate yard space and crossings can be tied up for 30 minutes or more. Monster trains also are more suseptible to air hose disconnects leading to blockages of an hour.  I see these events first hand on the UP mainline.

[tree68]

charlie hebdo

The point of the thread was long trains cause very long delays at crossings of 5 or more minutes. Add to that the increase in the number of trains and parking trains because of inadequate yard space and crossings can be tied up for 30 minutes or more. Monster trains also are more suseptible to air hose disconnects leading to blockages of an hour.  I see these events first hand on the UP mainline.

Agreed - but my point is that "long train" is subjective in the public's eyes.  And that to some people (likely the most vocal, at that) is that any train is too long...

[croteaudd]

Let me be very pointed and clear:  I sense as PSR trains become ever longer and longer and longer, the will of the people will be super provoked to limit train lengths!  When that happens, I believe Wall Street will take heavy, heavy losses in railroad investments.

 

Red faced managements in response, and to save face with a war outlook, may go all out for one man crews.  

[jeffhergert]

Trains were getting longer before PSR. If they abandoned the worst parts of PSR, some trains would undoubtedly still be huge.

I don't think the DOJ lawsuit is about legislating train length, although it will probably be used by proponents of such legislation as a reason it is needed. The lawsuit isn't about which train takes the siding or holds the main. Rather it's the fact that the Amtrak train has to stop to let a freight train clear a route for it.

Some times a small delay in one spot will prevent a big delay somewhere else. I imagine that there are those, including some on railfan sites, who think passenger trains should see nothing but green lights. After all that's how it used to be. It used to be freight trains were shorter, but there also was more of them. There were also more sidings to make meets and passes. Even then, not all trains could fit in all sidings. 

Those days are gone. Now you have sidings maybe every 20 to 30 miles. The dispatcher has to keep his territory fluid. Holding a train that fits at A so Amtrak doesn't stop. This can also cause a domino effect delaying other trains that can start hogging out on HOS. Eventually there's no where for anyone to move. So maybe putting  Amtrak in the hole at B or C for a few minutes may be the better option. 

Like those motorists that turn around at the sight of xing signals starting, many won't countenance any delay for Amtrak. 

I haven't read the lawsuit, but imagine it way downplays delays Amtrak itself is responsible for while focusing a laser like attention on NS caused delays. 

Jeff 

[BaltACD]

Amongst the Class 1's that operate Amtrak over their lines - some carriers give Amtrak some priority, some carriers errect operating/financial roadblocks - let alone no priority to Amtrak.

The carriers know who they are.

Remember for Amtrak to see Clear signals - any train (freight or passenger) must be AT LEAST two signal segments ahead of a following train.  At the start of the Century, signal segments were the approximation of two miles between signals, as the Century approaches the Quarter Post on many lines the signal spacing has been increased to three miles and in some cases more.

[tree68]

Even two-track mains like the Chicago Line through Utica, NY will evidence the "Amtrak halo."  I've seen it many times.

[Psychot]

tree68

 

 

charlie hebdo

The point of the thread was long trains cause very long delays at crossings of 5 or more minutes. Add to that the increase in the number of trains and parking trains because of inadequate yard space and crossings can be tied up for 30 minutes or more. Monster trains also are more suseptible to air hose disconnects leading to blockages of an hour.  I see these events first hand on the UP mainline.

 

 

Agreed - but my point is that "long train" is subjective in the public's eyes.  And that to some people (likely the most vocal, at that) is that any train is too long...

 

Following your logic to its conclusion, we shouldn't regulate anything because some people complain about everything.

[BaltACD]

Psychot

 

tree68 

charlie hebdo

The point of the thread was long trains cause very long delays at crossings of 5 or more minutes. Add to that the increase in the number of trains and parking trains because of inadequate yard space and crossings can be tied up for 30 minutes or more. Monster trains also are more suseptible to air hose disconnects leading to blockages of an hour.  I see these events first hand on the UP mainline. 

Agreed - but my point is that "long train" is subjective in the public's eyes.  And that to some people (likely the most vocal, at that) is that any train is too long... 

Following your logic to its conclusion, we shouldn't regulate anything because some people complain about everything.

Isn't that the 21st Century already? 

[tree68]

Psychot

Following your logic to its conclusion, we shouldn't regulate anything because some people complain about everything.

It's all about finding the balance.  

The railroads would like to run 400 car trains with one crew member.

The public doesn't want to be delayed on their way to Starbucks.

Somewhere in there is a happy medium.  The problem is finding a point where both sides complain equally...

 

[Reading467]

According to the 16-page complaint, the issue of long trains primarily deals with the inability of Amtrak's Crescents to overtake long slower frieghts traveling below the 79 mph passenger limit.  In those cases, the frieght taking the siding wouldn't matter, since the front or back would still foul the main.  

Another area of complaint is freights blocking access to station tracks.  There were 3-4 examples given, all of which caused avoidable delays by questionable dispatching/train operations.   

There was one other example of a SB Crescent being stuck behind a CSX frieght #605 (on trackage dispatched by NS) for 3 miles.  The Crescent was 10 miles from NOUPT and would've been on time if it didn't get stuck by the CSX frieght, which was heading west from CSX's Gentilly Yard. The Crescent wound up being 55 minutes late into Nawlins. 

There were also complaints about the Crescents being put into sidings to allow for multiple frieght meets in northern Mississippi. I can see how that would be necessary for Amtrak to take the sidings to keep freight traffic moving fluidly on the mostly single track NS line. 

Here's the URL for the complaint: 

https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1362071/dl?inline

[BaltACD]

Reading467

According to the 16-page complaint, the issue of long trains primarily deals with the inability of Amtrak's Crescents to overtake long slower frieghts traveling below the 79 mph passenger limit.  In those cases, the frieght taking the siding wouldn't matter, since the front or back would still foul the main.  

Another area of complaint is freights blocking access to station tracks.  There were 3-4 examples given, all of which caused avoidable delays by questionable dispatching/train operations.   

There was one other example of a SB Crescent being stuck behind a CSX frieght #605 (on trackage dispatched by NS) for 3 miles.  The Crescent was 10 miles from NOUPT and would've been on time if it didn't get stuck by the CSX frieght, which was heading west from CSX's Gentilly Yard. The Crescent wound up being 55 minutes late into Nawlins. 

There were also complaints about the Crescents being put into sidings to allow for multiple frieght meets in northern Mississippi. I can see how that would be necessary for Amtrak to take the sidings to keep freight traffic moving fluidly on the mostly single track NS line. 

Here's the URL for the complaint: 

https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1362071/dl?inline

Nothing more that NS 'sticking it to the man' - the man being Amtrak.  There are ways to Dispatch terrirories with 'restrictive' operational parameters and not screw over 'the man'.  NS has always be antagonistic toward the operation of Amtrak - Not as bad as CN but close.

[Psychot]

tree68

 

 

Psychot

Following your logic to its conclusion, we shouldn't regulate anything because some people complain about everything.

 

 

It's all about finding the balance.  

The railroads would like to run 400 car trains with one crew member.

The public doesn't want to be delayed on their way to Starbucks.

Somewhere in there is a happy medium.  The problem is finding a point where both sides complain equally...

 

 

That's spot on.

[jeffhergert]

I read something within the last year that the railroads and EOT makers are working on an EOT that can maintain communication with the lead engine without the use of a midtrain repeater.  The distance between the engine and EOT they are trying to make work is 5 miles.

Jeff

[NKP guy]

tree68

The public doesn't want to be delayed on their way to Starbucks.

I agree with three of your points:

If the railroads want 400 car trains with one crew member, let them build and pay for the necessary long sidings or better yet, bridges.

There is a happy medium and, as in nearly everything in life, it's all about finding the balance; the ancient Greeks knew that.

But I think it's too heavy-handed to make the public seem frivolous. What I see at the crossings in my town daily are people going to work or to college, or just trying to get somewhere. The public has as much right to use their roads as the railroads do theirs.

In my town, the citizens built a second fire station on the west side in 1949 because Erie trains frequently blocked all three crossings; being late for school because of a stopped train was common to teachers and students and considered an excused tardiness (where else but in school is "tardy" used?). Finally, two overpasses were built, just in time (1971 or '72) for the Erie Lackawanna to go out of business and NS to more or less abandon their W&LE line here. 

How would the railroads like it if the public would block their tracks ("Sorry, we have a parade scheduled")? After all, two can play the same game.

As usual,I agree with you tree, but waiting for a train to clear the crossing while one is trying to get to work, the hospital, the doctor's office, to school or an appointment, or somewhere similar, is not frivolous. The public never agreed to PSR.

 

[n012944]

NKP guy

 The public never agreed to PSR.

 

 

 

It doesn't matter.  One only has to look at the amount of collisions Metra has had with autos over the years.  At best, the gates will be down for less than a minute for a commuter train, but often that is too long for the general public.  Complaining about train length is just an excuse.  

[NKP guy]

n012944

Complaining about train length is just an excuse.  

I see I need to clarify: Here in town people don't really mind waiting at the crossing as long as the leviathan on the tracks keeps moving. It's stopped trains that drive folks to distraction and can be a danger.

So you make a good point, n012944.

[charlie hebdo]

n012944

 

 

NKP guy

 The public never agreed to PSR.

 

 

 

 

 

 

It doesn't matter.  One only has to look at the amount of collisions Metra has had with autos over the years.  At best, the gates will be down for less than a minute for a commuter train, but often that is too long for the general public.  Complaining about train length is just an excuse.  

 

It does matter. The public is fed up with some railroads'utter contempt for the people in the many towns through which they pass. Arrogant attitudes do not make for good neighbors 

Beware of the inevitable eventual pushback. 

 

[tree68]

NKP guy

How would the railroads like it if the public would block their tracks ("Sorry, we have a parade scheduled")? After all, two can play the same game.

Depending on the railroad, they have held traffic for such events.  OTOH, those events are infrequent (maybe annual, in most towns), so it's less of a deal.

I fully agree that extended blocking of crossings is a problem, especially if it's stopped trains and it's a regular/frequent event.  I see this regularly on the Deshler cam (and when I'm there).  A 700 axle train rounding one of the transfers (at ~10MPH) can essentially cut off a quarter of the town.

A garage fire while I was in Deshler this summer saw some responding units delayed by a train coming through.  Didn't really change the outcome (I was there before the FD, and the entire garage was aflame, inside and out).

Who gets the say depends largely on who was there first, just like diamonds.  In many cases, it was the railroad.  MC can probably cite some examples...

I joke about Starbucks mainly because that's probably who complains the longest and loudest (Karen, anyone).  

[charlie hebdo]

tree68

Who gets the say depends largely on who was there first, just like diamonds.  In many cases, it was the railroad.  MC can probably cite some examples...

In the case of the UP West main, ex-CNW Galena Division line through the western Chicago burbs, the towns were mostly first, often inviting the railroad with incentives, such as free land.

A major problem in the 21st century is retaining privately-owned rail lines with ROWs laid out 150 or more years ago. Switching to upgraded state controlled infrastructure (as roads are) could solve the problem and leave maintaining rolling stock and operations to private rail operators.  If they struggle with either of those areas, they would lose licenses to operate.

 

[ns145]

tree68

NKP guy How would the railroads like it if the public would block their tracks ("Sorry, we have a parade scheduled")? After all, two can play the same game.

Anyone here remember the First Nations rail blockades in Canada in early 2020 right before the pandemic?  Very effective, thanks to the sensitive nature of relations with First Nations people in Canada.  Just imagine what could happen if groups wanting CSX and NS to pay compensation for the activities of their southern predecessors descended upon Pine Junction, Indiana and blockaded the two busiest mainlines in the eastern US.

Edit:  If a blockade were erected a few hundred feet further north, CN's access to Kirk Yard could be cut off too.