Yard Capacity

[StillGrande]

Okay, BNSF is spending billions on double track.  UP is spending on track.  Is any of that to increase yard capacity, or build new ones?

 It seems to me that it doesn't matter how many trains you can run over the track if there is no place to put them when they get to the end of the run. Stacking them up on the line just reduces the capacity of the line, defeating all the investment in double tracking.  Around here CSX is sorely missing Potomac Yard, which they sold for development, and is looking for someplace to put a new yard, with little luck so far.  UP seems to have had the same problem right after the SP merger and closed or "consolidated" yards, leaving them no place to put the volume of trains. 

So what is being done for terminal and yard capacity to handle all these trains they will now be able to run faster and closer together?

[Railfan1]

 You have brought up interesting topic and some very good points. Once you've got  your mainline up and going, when a train travels it, where do you put it once it's at it's destination? CSX believes in installing sidings and filling those up first. Now that I think about it, you always hear about railroads investing in their tracks (like you said), but, what about the yards? I also am interested to hear some input from others.

[beaulieu]

To an extent they are. BNSF is beginning a new Intermodal facility new LA Harbor to reduce the amount of trucks hauling containers away, also BNSF is expanding its facilities at Logistics Park Chicago (The old Joliet Arsenal). UP is adding trackage for run-though trains at Bailey Yard, NS reopened Enola Yard, etc. Note also the controversy over UP's desire for a large new yard along the Sunset route, between Tucson and Maricopa.

[oltmannd]

The growth driving the double track projects is primarily intermodal.  The RRs have, and continue to spend $$$ on expanding and building new intermodal terminals.

There is no need for more hump yards because traffic growth is very small and RRs have improved operations to reduce handlings.

[mudchicken]

ADD: BNSF:

(1) New Yard at Irondale, CO that will replace Globeville & Rennick (condemned for RTD)

 (2) Yard expansion at Guernsey, WY

(3) San Bernardino, CA consolidation of A&B yards

(4) Clovis, NM

UPRR:

(1) New Yard at Brighton, CO to replace North Yard (Condemned by RTD) ...City of Denver is lusting after Burnham too. (or should I say it's the developers looking to spend other peoples Money so they can play thier get-rich-quick games)

(2) New Facility: Logistics Park (near DIA on the Old KP east of Denver)

(3) Bill, Wyoming (darned place in the middle of nowhere never stops growing)

A lot of what you are seeing also is the re-configuring of yards to get rid of the short tracks that were set up for 40 Ft. boxcar business and shorter trains. The operating needs have changed significantly as loose car business has decreased and unit trains have multiplied. (Santa Fe re-configured its yard in KC (Argentine) and SP/UP redid Armourdale, getting rid of a hump and small bowl that was fundementally useless in today's world)...You also have egoes in the Operating Department Supervision trying to build empires with new hump yards where flat switching can be as good or better with less infrastructure...witness the  circus on BNSF in the Pueblo-La Junta area)...Recently got a nickle tour of my old turf at Hobart Yard (LA-ATSF) and almost didn't recognize it after being gone 10 years.

Design Standards:

Also - New yards of the same capacity of an old yard require almost double the reall estate because of larger minimum track centers (13-15 feet and smaller in some old yards have given way to 20-25 feet and greater) and bigger switch geometry on the leads (#6-7-8 turnouts have yielded to #9-10-11's with a much smaller frog angle which makes switching leads incredibly long.

[CShaveRR]

I wish MC could come and redesign our place in a few years (after I'm out of a job!).  Until then, we'll have to be content--assuming the CREATE projects are built--with a third main track around the yard, and better connections to the IHB.

A plan for a second main line along the west side of Yard 9 (so we could accommodate more than one coal train to/from Wisconsin and the west without yarding one of them) was proposed by CNW, but went nowhere--so far--after the merger.

The late Frank Shaffer once told me that the key to a fluid yard was getting trains out of it.

[SALfan]

 

(3) Bill, Wyoming (darned place in the middle of nowhere never stops growing)

MC - Why would Bill be growing if it's in the middle of nowhere?  I'm not familiar w/geography in that part of the world, so don't know where rail lines go from there.  Thanks.

[mudchicken]

 

(3) Bill, Wyoming (darned place in the middle of nowhere never stops growing)

MC - Why would Bill be growing if it's in the middle of nowhere?  I'm not familiar w/geography in that part of the world, so don't know where rail lines go from there.  Thanks.

Bill is in the middle of the coal fields and is a big holding yard for coal trains/fueling and car repair (Progess Rail is there) ...but nobody lives there. They all commute in from Douglas or Gillette.

[StillGrande]

Are the number of yard locomotives increasing to meet the rising number of trains arriving? Are they just building more parking spaces to hold arriving trains in a single location while they wait for space at the terminal rather than in a siding?

[spikejones52002]

There are proposals to build three to four new yards or service centers near La Porte In.

[MP173]

It looks as if the LaPorte, Indiana yard situation is now down to one possibility...NS.  CSX seems to be leaning towards an Ohio yard.

The NS yard would be for intermodal as they already have Elkhart yard 60 miles east.

ed

[Kevin C. Smith]

Assuming we are talking about a traditional "loose car" class yard (not an intermodal yard), what is the "capacity", anyway? "X" number of cars a day?-but that can just mean trains stacked in the receiving yard for 23 hours... I guess I'm curious how many cars can be classified per typical hour. I assume that the hump itself is the choke point. I have heard of numbers in the 1000-2000 cars/hour range-is that possible? Seems they'd be flying past the people on the ground that are supposed to be pulling the pins. How fast is too fast? How much is too much?

[oltmannd]

Yard capacity is a function of a whole bunch of things - hump speed being one of them.  Others would  include the layout of the yard, the number of crews on duty, the number of car inspectors, number of classifications being made vs. number of class tracks in the bowl, etc.

The hump may not be the choke point.  It could be the forwarding (departure) yard configuration vs. the size of the trains operated.  If every train has to double out, it can interfere with the ability to build more trains and clear class tracks. 

Similarly, if the yard is configured so that each train humped has to be pulled back first, and you only have one hump crew on duty, the hump will be idle while the pull back is happening.

Also, if you staff your car inspectors to keep their productivity high, you could have a situation where trains are waiting to be bled or inspected just so you won't have idle inspectors at other times.