Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by beaulieu [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Well, I didn't say heavier rail per se, I said upgrading rail, but nonetheless your point is well taken, and indeed I made that point myself a few posts ago. What I am infering is that the maintenance costs for keeping that rail in optimal condition to support the 35.75 tons per axle cars has skyrocketed in constrast to the maintenance costs of that track if the axle weights were limited to 25 tons. And don't forget that the 35.75 tons per axle cars were plying the network well before most of that rail was upgraded, basically forcing the replacement of nominally good trackage due to the increased wear and tear caused by the 35.75 tons per axle cars. There was still perfectly functional jointed rail in existance all over that had to be upgraded to 136 lb welded rail once the damage caused by the HAL cars became evident. When you add in the shortline and regional rail conumdrum, you can see how the problem has metastasized. And the HAL article in TRAINS basically supports that contention. [/quote] Dave, in back in the discussion. A couple of points here, first you need to separate the coal and certain other bulk commodities from the general car fleet in this discussion. Coal Cars don't last 50 years at least not in unit train service. The high mileage and corrosive lading means that they are typically replaced between 20 and 25 years. Also with certain exceptions these trains aren't going to operate over shortline rails. Grain cars aren't going to be replaced at anywhere near that rate and the railroads are going to hold any new 315k cars in dedicated shuttle trains which won't leave the Class Is anyway. So the only cars likely to affect the shortlines early are Centerbeams and perhaps paper service Boxcars. I don't see serious numbers of those cars being introduced in a short timespan. [/quote] This is a good example of how railroads see business in a vacuum. Yes, dedicated shuttle trains make perfect sense for the railroad modus operandi, but the concept can become flawed when analyzed from the perspective of the entire supply chain. Coal and grain are two good examples - For coal, the shuttle or unit train concept is a good fit for both the railroad and the entire coal supply chain, because all 16,000 tons of coal originate at one location and is off-loaded at another sole location. But for grain, the shuttle concept is flawed because it increases the trucking portion of the grain supply chain and reduces the rail component, all due to the consolidation of the grain loading terminal. Whereas one time grain could be locally trucked 15 or so miles to the nearest railhead, now it has to be trucked 100+ miles to the new shuttle facility. From the supply chain perspective, shuttle trains have been a disaster. This is where the shortlines would normally fill the supply chain void between trucks and mainline rail. When 33 tons per axle was the norm, most shortlines could still handle those axle weights, and thus were the logical shipment method of choice over truck for haulage between farm and elevator. Shortlines were and are perfectly capable of providing large car lot shipments to the connecting Class I, effectively placating the need for radical grain terminal consolidation. But as we went from 33 tons per axle to 36 tons per axle, and with the spector of the 39 tons per axle cars coming down the pike, the HAL ogre has effectively forced connecting grain shipments off the logical mode aka rail and onto the mode of last resort aka trucks. That ain't progress folks, that's regress. And the spread axle concept would have prevented this regression of the supply chain.
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