Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
2006 - The Year of Re-Regulation of Railroads?

Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by up829 OK, so the DME is building it's own line into the PRB. Isn't that much better than 6 railroads running the same number of trains that 2 now do over the Orin sub, as would happen under open access? [/quote] Except under open access the infrastructure owner would want as many trains as possible moving as quickly as possible over the lines to maximize the daily revenues. The only way to do this is to encourage shorter faster trains rather than dealing with those longer slower trains. I dare anyone to disagree with this premise - forcing the railroads to move at an average speed of 50 mph as opposed to the current 25 mph would do wonders for improving capacity. OA with a 50 mph industry average speed would be more fluid than closed access at 25 mph. [/quote] Disagreeing with this is TOO easy. Just a few facts of the rail industry. Under the access of only the owning railroad, I guess they're not using their assets to the fullest potential? That is the most ridiculous claim of the entire "open access" concept. Railroad speed limits are based on the condition of the trackwork. "Forcing" a railroad to run at 50 MPH can't be done if the trackwork isn't up to that standard. Upgrading and maintaining trackwork to the 50 MPH standard costs a good bit more than trackwork at 25 MPH. Speed limit is less dependant on the length of the train than the quality of the rolling stock. Again, a higher expense. Simply splitting these expenses up between an operating company and a trackwork company would add another level of management, increasing costs, not decreasing them. Plus the frequency of the trains would be dependant on the capacity of the signalling system. So shorter trains would just clog up the mainline. [/quote] ....and the sound of left knees jerking commences! Tom, this isn't about mainline speed limits, it's about the industry average velocity, which right now is a pitiful 25 mph. The speed limits can stay as they are for the most part, what needs to happen is to get those slower than speed limit trains up to speed. You should also note that it is not necessarily axoimatic that longer trains cannot also increase their average velocity, it's just that the laws of practicality (along with a heavy dose of Murphy's Law) make such an increase less than likely. The advent of HAL has also contributed to a slowing of average speeds. Try this hypothetical for size: Which would ultimately have the greatest revenue ton/miles per year (all other factors being equal)- a 263k car moving at an average speed of 50 mph, or a 315k car moving at an average speed of 25 mph? Or here's one: In the March 2006 TRAINS, there's an article on HAL in which it is shown that a 315k car yields a 20% increase in capacity over a 263k car. Q: Which is a more meaningful statistic - a 20% increase in a car's capacity, or a 100% increase in average velocity? Is it possible that the railroads erred in focusing on increasing load factor at a detriment to average speed? Should they instead have stuck to the 263k car and increased average velocity to at least a reasonable approximation of railroading's theoretical speed limit? If the laws of physics dictate that LAL's would move faster overall than HAL's, wouldn't be wise to re-explore the old idea of getting the goods from point A to point B in an expedient fashion, and forget this obsession with overfeeding the 600lb gorilla?
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag