I am loving this discussion, but having difficulty grasping it.
For one thing, as stated by RWM, there are so many variables attached to this that it is very difficult to make a definative determination, unless you have the "inside information". The traffic mix (coal, intermodal, single car, grain, etc) and the pricing involved with each type of traffic, plus the performance requirements of each, makes this a computation that my slide rule "cannot compute".
As in any business, the key component is going to be the additional revenue per unit that the expansion brings. Looking at the Transcon's expansion, which is based on low rated intermodal, it is obvious (sort of) why BNSF held off as long as they did.
Now, I turn my attention to a couple of real life examples.
First, one of my hometown lines is the ex NKP between Ft Wayne and Chicago. Pretty decent track on level Indiana cornfields, with 6,000 - 8,000 foot sidings every 8 miles or so. Traffic is as follows 16 intermodal/auto racks daily, 11 boxcar trains daily, plus a round trip local, and an average of 2 loaded and 2 empty coal trains. Figure 30-35 trains daily. The intermodals run pretty hot and hold a tight schedule, particularly out of Chicago. Inbound to Chicago is a different item as they must hold for terminal space. Also, of those 30-35 trains, about 10 peal off the mainline at Gary/Hammond and must receive clearance prior to moving to those lines (IHB and EJE). I have noticed that about 35 per day is the tipping point. Anything more than that and trains fill the sidings, recrews occur and tension builds.
RWM...how does your simulation account for the uneven spacing of availability of "landing slots" in a terminal such as Chicago? Or the offline movements such as to the Harbor or J? Is it based on historic movements of these trains?
Second point. I grew up in Southern Illinois near Olney which had the B&O St Louis - Cincinnati line. Decent track today, not great, probably 40mph, signaled with old B&O CPL (honorary semaphore signals in my book) and hand thrown sidings, about 15 miles apart. CSX, has really wanted to get rid of this line but never did. They talked of it 20 years ago, but somehow the line has hung on, even after the Conrail merger. With it's 8-12 trains a day, it has to be a money maker these days...or does it?
New coal moves has meant tie and rail investment. East of Mitchell they were even doing some serious work last spring to get the line up to speed to St. Louis - Cincy traffic again.
Yet, CSX over the years diverted considerable traffic off the line to the Indy line, possibly to take advantage of the Avon yard. So, along with the obvious issues of when to expand, how does a carrier decide to cut a line?
If the above didnt make sense, I have had a couple of phone interruptions plus a couple of homework questions...I guess that is called multitasking.
ed
jeffhergert wrote: Dweezil wrote:One would think that with all the whining you hear from the RRs about cutting crew costs, they'd see how much they are pouring down the drain paying crews to wait for hours on end for meets, in single track landYou would be surprised at how long trains sit at a CTC control point in CTC/two main track territory waiting for more "important" trains.Train to Dispatcher: "UP (number) West looking for a signal at CP A300."Dispatcher to Train: "I'm going to hold you at CP A300 to get the bird (Z-train) around you.Train to Dispatcher: "OK, where's he at?"Dispatcher to Train: "Going thru Boone now."Boone is MP 202, CP A300 is MP 300. Jeff
Dweezil wrote:One would think that with all the whining you hear from the RRs about cutting crew costs, they'd see how much they are pouring down the drain paying crews to wait for hours on end for meets, in single track land
You would be surprised at how long trains sit at a CTC control point in CTC/two main track territory waiting for more "important" trains.
Train to Dispatcher: "UP (number) West looking for a signal at CP A300."
Dispatcher to Train: "I'm going to hold you at CP A300 to get the bird (Z-train) around you.
Train to Dispatcher: "OK, where's he at?"
Dispatcher to Train: "Going thru Boone now."
Boone is MP 202, CP A300 is MP 300.
Jeff
It was a tongue in cheek comment. Clearly, the cost of having to maintain a second mainline far exceeds the incremental add on cost of crews burning up hours waiting on meets.
In fact, it's only because the RR's have managed to shed many miles of double track (and it's related cost to maintain) in this post-passenger train era, that crew costs are next in line as a factor to be dealt with.
Putting in more miles of dual main as a strategy to control payroll costs, would be folly
Dweezil wrote:It was a tongue in cheek comment. Clearly, the cost of having to maintain a second mainline far exceeds the incremental add on cost of crews burning up hours waiting on meets.In fact, it's only because the RR's have managed to shed many miles of double track (and it's related cost to maintain) in this post-passenger train era, that crew costs are next in line as a factor to be dealt with.Putting in more miles of dual main as a strategy to control payroll costs, would be folly
And....enter remote control..Seriously though, it would seem that the only cost effective and sensible reason to add a second mainline nowadays would be to facilitate "boom" traffic. The intermodal "boom" of the past couple of decades. The Powder River coal "boom" of the past several years. (Maybe there will be a "corn boom" for the extra ethanol in the near future.) Many double mains of yesteryear can handle the same level of traffic through CTC today. If you study most of the dual mains in this country...take away the passenger mix, don't count the duals over mountainous grades...we're talking just plain traffic...the only dual lines I've found that are actually needed are those carrying large amounts of intermodal or coal (along with the other traffic.) Mr. Dweezil, it would be folly indeed to add otherwise.
MLG4'8.5"
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy Siding wrote: Is there a great jump in efficiency, in areas where directional running is used? (Two parallel tracks, that work like one way streets).
Yes, if you can start running trains that previously would have been too long to fit in the sidings, or if you were otherwise going to have to invest in CTC or longer sidings. Directional running is no different in effect from double-track (current-of-traffic, as opposed to 2 main tracks which are bidirectional) except that the two tracks are usually not on the same right of way. Early examples include the Joint Line of Santa Fe and Rio Grande from South Denver to Bragdon (Pueblo), Colo., and the Paired Track of Southern Pacific and Western Pacific from Weso (Winnemucca) to Alazon (Wells), Nevada, both of which date from the USRA during WWI. A notable example of directional running on the same right of way is the dark-double track of Rio Grande and Colorado & Southern between Southern Junction (Pueblo) and Walsenburg, Colo., about 50 miles.
Directional running gives you a lot more ton-miles per crew start. There's also a savings in fuel and time spent decelerating to a meet, hogging into the siding, and accelerating out the other end after a meet. In the long run there's a very large savings in not having to build sidings that fit trains, and you might not even have to install bidirectional (CTC) signaling but just make do with directional ABS. The first drawback is if the directional lines do not have co-located crew terminals there's a van and crew time cost to take a crew from the tie-up terminal to the other terminal heading back the other way. The second drawback is when you want to take one line out of service for maintenance or you have a wreck; the other line cannot accommodate bi-directional traffic and you might have to fleet trains, clogging yards at each end badly and melting down the subdivision in a matter of hours. The third drawback is that wrong-way trains, such as locals or unit trains running to or from a customer that's off one track only, can be a big killer of directional running fluidity.
There are some single-track lines that run trains that fit into the sidings in one direction, and overlong trains in the other direction, which will move more ton-miles per crew start in at least one direction but results in a crew surplus in the long-train direction. If the line has a terminal at one end that trains frequently have trouble getting into but not the other end -- the end with the held-out terminal is the dogcatch direction and the dogcatch crews use up the surplus crews that would have been deadheaded the other way.
RWM
MP173 wrote:I am loving this discussion, but having difficulty grasping it. For one thing, as stated by RWM, there are so many variables attached to this that it is very difficult to make a definative determination, unless you have the "inside information". The traffic mix (coal, intermodal, single car, grain, etc) and the pricing involved with each type of traffic, plus the performance requirements of each, makes this a computation that my slide rule "cannot compute".As in any business, the key component is going to be the additional revenue per unit that the expansion brings. Looking at the Transcon's expansion, which is based on low rated intermodal, it is obvious (sort of) why BNSF held off as long as they did. Now, I turn my attention to a couple of real life examples.First, one of my hometown lines is the ex NKP between Ft Wayne and Chicago. Pretty decent track on level Indiana cornfields, with 6,000 - 8,000 foot sidings every 8 miles or so. Traffic is as follows 16 intermodal/auto racks daily, 11 boxcar trains daily, plus a round trip local, and an average of 2 loaded and 2 empty coal trains. Figure 30-35 trains daily. The intermodals run pretty hot and hold a tight schedule, particularly out of Chicago. Inbound to Chicago is a different item as they must hold for terminal space. Also, of those 30-35 trains, about 10 peal off the mainline at Gary/Hammond and must receive clearance prior to moving to those lines (IHB and EJE). I have noticed that about 35 per day is the tipping point. Anything more than that and trains fill the sidings, recrews occur and tension builds.RWM...how does your simulation account for the uneven spacing of availability of "landing slots" in a terminal such as Chicago? Or the offline movements such as to the Harbor or J? Is it based on historic movements of these trains? Second point. I grew up in Southern Illinois near Olney which had the B&O St Louis - Cincinnati line. Decent track today, not great, probably 40mph, signaled with old B&O CPL (honorary semaphore signals in my book) and hand thrown sidings, about 15 miles apart. CSX, has really wanted to get rid of this line but never did. They talked of it 20 years ago, but somehow the line has hung on, even after the Conrail merger. With it's 8-12 trains a day, it has to be a money maker these days...or does it?New coal moves has meant tie and rail investment. East of Mitchell they were even doing some serious work last spring to get the line up to speed to St. Louis - Cincy traffic again. Yet, CSX over the years diverted considerable traffic off the line to the Indy line, possibly to take advantage of the Avon yard. So, along with the obvious issues of when to expand, how does a carrier decide to cut a line? If the above didnt make sense, I have had a couple of phone interruptions plus a couple of homework questions...I guess that is called multitasking.ed
Intermodal isn't low-rated anymore. Rates have been advanced quite a bit and they're sticking. It's the coal business that's getting pushed off the track in some cases.
Simulations are only as good as the scenario you feed them. You can simulate any condition you wish and as many as you wish until your budget runs out, but how do you know you have chosen the conditions that will obtain in the future? Well, you don't! That's where experience and intuition come into play. Generally in a simulation I'm looking to see how marginal the railroad appears for a given traffic level, traffic type, and fixed plant, and for recurring choke points under different scenarios. Sometimes when you run a scenario for, say, 7-20 days (sped up), you see things that are quite surprising.
One of the mistakes people make with simulators is they will use the simulator to count how often a particular siding is used or a particular turnout is thrown, and they pick out the low outliers and decide those particular sidings are not needed. That ignores network effects, and often when they rerun the scenario without that siding the traffic congeals.
Railway Man wrote:That said, we now have something better than the formula -- the computer simulation -- which solves the formula simultaneously and allows for variables that are not present in the forumula.
That said, we now have something better than the formula -- the computer simulation -- which solves the formula simultaneously and allows for variables that are not present in the forumula.
Is the computer simulation package a proprietary program (sounds a bit like Espee's TOPS)? If not, it sounds like a fun package for us computer oriented types to play with. What might be even more 'fun' is to modify it to simulate an electrification (i.e. effects of line voltage, substation spacing, etc.).
I'm assuming that the package can take weather into account, with allowances for reduced factor of adhesion for wet weather, longer times to pump up the trainline in extremely cold weather, increased number of CWR pull-aparts in cold weather, CWR sun kinks in hot weather, etc.
This reminds me of a story I heard about BART (not vouching for the truth of the story) - train operations were simulated on a computer and system capacity was projected from those simulations. When it came time to run trains on the system, the capacity was substantially less than what was simulated. When the simulation program was analyzed, there was a line of code that set the headway to 120 sec if the headway ever dropped below that figure.
As for your reply to Michael about laptops, bear in mind that some laptops are now shipping with 3GB of RAM, which is probably enough to simulate a pretty long chunk of track. Processor performance should be within a factor of two of any existing single processor system. Though I doubt that Excel would be the best tool for this kind of modeling (could be done, but it would be painful).
Lost irony ... it does take a heck of a laptop but if you have that laptop, it will run it.
The software will set you back mid-five numbers plus annual support contract.
Railway Man wrote:The software will set you back mid-five numbers plus annual support contract.
In other words about the same order of magnitude as many engineering packages (e.g. Ansys) and annual support is typically 10% of the purchase price. Also similar to many engineering packages, if you need the capability, the price is typically worth it. The type of simulation is esoteric enough that I doubt that there would be sufficient interest in the Free Software community to write something similar - though it would make for a great 'engine' for a dispatcher game.
I imagine that the costs of collecting and inputting the data would easily equal or exceed the purchase price for the software.
Appreciate the info.
- Erik
Ok, let me shift gears here slightly. We have the simulation software and hardware to run all of these scenarios.
How much real "dispatching " is done with today's modern systems? In other words does the system essentially set up the meets with the ability for there to be override? I understand with maintainence, inspections, etc there will always be a need for dispatcher input, but what are the systems of today ( and tomorrow) capable of.
One of the biggest deterents to the single line CTC/siding situation is the grade crossings. I often hear the NS having to decide whether or not to cut the train. That time loss can really make certain sidings ineffective for trains of sizes that exceed the effective length of the siding (from switch to grade crossing).
No doubt if the railroads could go back 100 years and redo their lines, it would be different.
diningcar wrote:The analysis which RR's apply to all facets of their operations, expenses, revenues and projected revenues is so much more sophisticated today than it was even ten years ago. They are more 'on top' of their business than most posters here realize.Since I am 17 years retired I do not know how crews are compensated; perhaps Dweezil or someone else can tell me if crew costs are extra for waiting on meets if they do not exceed the 12 hour law.
The analysis which RR's apply to all facets of their operations, expenses, revenues and projected revenues is so much more sophisticated today than it was even ten years ago. They are more 'on top' of their business than most posters here realize.
Since I am 17 years retired I do not know how crews are compensated; perhaps Dweezil or someone else can tell me if crew costs are extra for waiting on meets if they do not exceed the 12 hour law.
MP173 wrote: How much real "dispatching " is done with today's modern systems? In other words does the system essentially set up the meets with the ability for there to be override? I understand with maintainence, inspections, etc there will always be a need for dispatcher input, but what are the systems of today ( and tomorrow) capable of.One of the biggest deterents to the single line CTC/siding situation is the grade crossings. I often hear the NS having to decide whether or not to cut the train. That time loss can really make certain sidings ineffective for trains of sizes that exceed the effective length of the siding (from switch to grade crossing).No doubt if the railroads could go back 100 years and redo their lines, it would be different.ed
On our dispatching systems, there is an automatic feature, which will allow the computer to "run" the railroad. It will make meets and passes according to a trains priority. I do not know of any dispatcher that uses it in our office, as it does not do that great of a job. It will make some questionable meets, and does some other wierd things. It does not factor in such things as road crossing in the sidings, or physical characteristics of the road.
An "expensive model collector"
Railway Man wrote:One of the mistakes people make with simulators is they will use the simulator to count how often a particular siding is used or a particular turnout is thrown, and they pick out the low outliers and decide those particular sidings are not needed. That ignores network effects, and often when they rerun the scenario without that siding the traffic congeals.
When the Frisco took over the BN, they brought the "Lou Menk" attitude with them in spades and were in full fury to "rationalize" the system by eliminating "little used" or "redundant" yards and sidings. In our neck of the woods, that was sidings here and there, a yard at Wishram, and some other things. One of the BN dispatchers, a man of long experience, estimated that the "Frisco Toads" eliminated about one-third of the fluidity of the lines in the Seattle region, and gradually, their mistakes had to be undone. Whether or not that was based on simulations, I do not know, but suspect as much ...
n012944:
Thanks for the response. It sure seems that a dispatcher would have a better handle on the operations of a line, and particularly the trains, crews, terrain, etc.
You live in Valpo?
MP173 wrote: n012944:Thanks for the response. It sure seems that a dispatcher would have a better handle on the operations of a line, and particularly the trains, crews, terrain, etc.You live in Valpo?ed
Yea, the automatic feature sounds good in theory, but thats about it.
I just moved to Valpo a couple of months ago.
This is the most interesting thread in a long time. Some of the posts I've had to read two or three times to have a dim understanding of what is being said, but that is a function of my lack of knowledge and not the fault of the poster. Thanks everyone for all the thought-provoking information.
RWM made a comment about traffic on lines he was formerly responsible for fluctuating violently from one day to the next. Is that generally still the case?
Does anyone know of instances where less-profitable traffic was "demarketed" to increase capacity for more-profitable traffic? Is that being done now, due to the capacity problems in the industry? Just curious how often it happens.
"demarketed" often results in raising pricing to the prevailing price, with the understanding that if you retain it, then it will be profitable, if you lose it, then capacity increases.
This is a very interesting time in a number of markets (not just rail) as low demand is beginning to result in lower volumes, which often leads to aggressively lower pricing. However, with so many commodity costs at historic high levels, the resulting price cuts are not quite as prevelent. The company I sell for today increased "labor costs standards" for the first time in years. Raw material prices have been bumping upwards now for about three years.
In good times you can be selective with your pricing and orders...this is not the time to do that, yet costs are up.
MP173 wrote:"demarketed" often results in raising pricing to the prevailing price, with the understanding that if you retain it, then it will be profitable, if you lose it, then capacity increases.This is a very interesting time in a number of markets (not just rail) as low demand is beginning to result in lower volumes, which often leads to aggressively lower pricing. However, with so many commodity costs at historic high levels, the resulting price cuts are not quite as prevelent. The company I sell for today increased "labor costs standards" for the first time in years. Raw material prices have been bumping upwards now for about three years.In good times you can be selective with your pricing and orders...this is not the time to do that, yet costs are up. ed
This is a result of the Global Economy, demand maybe down within your marketing area for your finished product but still strong globally for your raw feedstock, so you get squeezed in between.
Let's see if I can get this. Using Michael Sol's figures from way back, on a typical 120-mile track running 35 trains/day, they average 184 moving hours and .88 x 184 = 162 siding hours. Someone else mentioned $1000/hr for waiting in a siding. That's $162,000/day for waiting in sidings. Give them 300 days/year, which comes to about $48.6 million/year for each 120 miles of track - wasted crew time.
If it cost $4 million/mile for a second track, that comes to $480 million for a 120-mile added track.
Keeping it simple, I assume no siding time for double track. Then the new track pays for itself in ten years in avoided wasted crew time.
At the higher costs, say ten times $4 million/mile, it would take 100 years to break even.
It seems to me that that would be a good investment, considering that the ROW doesn't deteriorate, once built. I.e., the lifetime of the double track easily is 10-100 years.
This does not take into account the likelihood that the RR will get more business if it can deliver more quickly. I.e., the new double track line may well run more than 35 trains/day.
cordon wrote: Let's see if I can get this. Using Michael Sol's figures from way back, on a typical 120-mile track running 35 trains/day, they average 184 moving hours and .88 x 184 = 162 siding hours. Someone else mentioned $1000/hr for waiting in a siding. That's $162,000/day for waiting in sidings. Give them 300 days/year, which comes to about $48.6 million/year for each 120 miles of track - wasted crew time.If it cost $4 million/mile for a second track, that comes to $480 million for a 120-mile added track.Keeping it simple, I assume no siding time for double track. Then the new track pays for itself in ten years in avoided wasted crew time.At the higher costs, say ten times $4 million/mile, it would take 100 years to break even.It seems to me that that would be a good investment, considering that the ROW doesn't deteriorate, once built. I.e., the lifetime of the double track easily is 10-100 years.This does not take into account the likelihood that the RR will get more business if it can deliver more quickly. I.e., the new double track line may well run more than 35 trains/day.
A simple pay-back period of ten years is most likely well below a RRs ROI hurdle for new investment. It isn't helped by that much of the savings is "soft", .e.g. you are saving crew hours, but enough that it reduces staffing or hours paid or allows long pools? Are you really saving car ownership cost or just moving the dwell from the road to the yard?
It is really difficult to get your hands around all the benefits double tracking in hard dollars - which make it hard to say when is the right time to do the double tracking.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
I have to agree that this topic has been most interesting, and thanks to all the contributors.
The question that perhaps also needs to be addressed is "When to single track?"
Back in the UK, the chickens are certainly coming home to roost in the context of hurried decisions taken at the time immediately following Beeching, and also in the Peter Parker era. I suspect each of us UK members might quote a local example, and worryingly, further line singling and closure of diversionary routes of long standing are even now allegedly under consideration.
Hwyl,
Martin
cordon and Don:Excellent points. Cordon, as Don stated, the 10 year payback period is generally not quick enough. Most ROI analysis require a pretty big hurdle rate before the money is invested, usually 15% - 20%, if memory serves me correct. Quite often the process is as follows:
1. All capex possibilities are considered with an anticipated ROI developed for each project.
2. Those with the highest ROI are chosen, if those are above the "hurdle rate" which is based on a company's "cost of capital". So, if a railroad has 50 capex projects to consider and a budget of $1 billion per year, those which have the highest ROI and fit within the budget get approval.
I dont know what the ROI would be on the project you just described, but in agreement with Don, I think it would be quite low.
Rob Krebs got into hot water with his expansion of the Transcon line. If you recall, about 10 years ago he authorized the double tracking of the Kansas City - Clovis section. I believe the phrase "if you build it, they will come" term was used. Well, it took awhile and the traffic did come, but BNSF got taken to the woodshed by Wall Street for the capex.
Visionary or excessive investment? Time has shown that Krebs gamble paid off, but it took awhile. If the traffic hadnt showed up, it would have been an expensive expansion that didnt pay off. These are tough decisions. If you wait for the anticipated traffic to show up, you might not get it, if your infrastructure isnt able to handle it. If you build anticipating the business and things change (think of all the ethanol investment the past couple of years) then that is wasted capital that SHOULD have been invested in other projects.
It is pretty interesting how the whole decision making process is done on a corporate finance level. If it would be left to the operations folks it would be different. Of course the operations people no doubt shake their heads over the "beancounters."
joemcspadden wrote:At least east of the Mississippi, double-tracking a line that has always beensingle-track is seldom an option. Too many environmental impact studies;too many NIMBYs ready to pounce; too many buildings too close to thetracks in towns & cities; too many natural bottlenecks; etc., etc.The only exception would be if the government rally wanted it to happenand was prepared to cough up huge subsidies. Even then, most likely theonly reason state or federal government interest might be there would befor passenger trains--and this would make things even worse.To a very large extent, railroad tracks are a truly finite resource. And withan awful lot of shipping business needing to use this limited resource, Idon't see that railroad managements will have much choice--they willsimply have to be concerned about profits, rather than profitability (torelate back to the distinction Michael Sol drew in this context).If you have a mill that is most profitable at 50% capacity, and futureprojections show available business for 100% capacity or more, youhave a choice--just build another mill. 99% of the time,building another railroad track isn't an option. It ain't gonna happen.Joe
I am not completely disagreeing with you. But, I think the fact that we still build much wider highways would seem to indicate that rail expansion may not be all that finite. Moreover, several lines were once double tracked, permitting a good deal of expansion there. Finally, when we really hit a transportation crunch, I suspect that rails-to-trails might not be the untouchable beast we all think they are.
gabe wrote: joemcspadden wrote:At least east of the Mississippi, double-tracking a line that has always beensingle-track is seldom an option. Too many environmental impact studies;too many NIMBYs ready to pounce; too many buildings too close to thetracks in towns & cities; too many natural bottlenecks; etc., etc.The only exception would be if the government rally wanted it to happenand was prepared to cough up huge subsidies. Even then, most likely theonly reason state or federal government interest might be there would befor passenger trains--and this would make things even worse.To a very large extent, railroad tracks are a truly finite resource. And withan awful lot of shipping business needing to use this limited resource, Idon't see that railroad managements will have much choice--they willsimply have to be concerned about profits, rather than profitability (torelate back to the distinction Michael Sol drew in this context).If you have a mill that is most profitable at 50% capacity, and futureprojections show available business for 100% capacity or more, youhave a choice--just build another mill. 99% of the time,building another railroad track isn't an option. It ain't gonna happen.JoeI am not completely disagreeing with you. But, I think the fact that we still build much wider highways would seem to indicate that rail expansion may not be all that finite. Moreover, several lines were once double tracked, permitting a good deal of expansion there. Finally, when we really hit a transportation crunch, I suspect that rails-to-trails might not be the untouchable beast we all think they are.
Sorry, Joe and Gabe, but I have to partially disagree with both of you.
Joe, I don't think a RR would run into too many objections to a double-tracking project outside the big cities and their suburbs, where the enviro-*** tend to congregate. It's really kind of ironic - the people who "love the environment" so much tend to live in cities and suburbs where restaurants, movies, malls, cell phone towers, and so forth ad nauseum are close at hand. If they love the environment and don't want anything built, let them go live in a cave in the backwoods of Montana. Out in the rural areas the residents tend to be more understanding. Of course, you will always have the "professional objectors" like the Sierra Club, Greenpeace and that ilk, but at least so far industrial development tends to win.
Gabe, I think we'd have to be a lot more desperate for the good of the general population to outweigh the howls of outrage and anguish that the trail-lovers would raise. I live near an excellent trail (the Washington and Old Dominion, in the VA suburbs of DC), use it frequently and quite selfishly would hate to see the asphalt replaced by rails. HOWEVER, if gas suddenly went to $5+ per gallon and there was a move to use it for some kind of railborne mass transit, I wouldn't fuss too much. I would be in a tiny minority of trail users, who would want the trail to remain undisturbed no matter what.
JOdom wrote: This is the most interesting thread in a long time. Some of the posts I've had to read two or three times to have a dim understanding of what is being said, but that is a function of my lack of knowledge and not the fault of the poster. Thanks everyone for all the thought-provoking information.RWM made a comment about traffic on lines he was formerly responsible for fluctuating violently from one day to the next. Is that generally still the case?Does anyone know of instances where less-profitable traffic was "demarketed" to increase capacity for more-profitable traffic? Is that being done now, due to the capacity problems in the industry? Just curious how often it happens.
Traffic volatility -- nothing has changed. Even if one railroad attempts to schedule, there's always the ocean ships, coal mines, terminal elevators, and connecting railroads to insert chaos into your system. Carload shippers tend to load during the day and during weekdays, which automatically puts a daily and weekly cycle into traffic. There is emphasis at some railroads on scheduling trains into slots and if the train arrives late for its slot, holding it at a staging yard until its slot or another suitable slot appears. In effect the "meeting point" for the train has relocated from a siding on the line to a staging yard at an endpoint, which is not a net improvement in either that train's running time or track construction costs, but it can save on earthwork costs on subdivisions with lots of vertical terrain. It's a fine line in cost between putting the capacity into the yard or the capacity into the main track, and there's no simple formula or "right answer". Extensive study is used to determine the most cost-effective solution.
Demarketing is nothing really new nor unique to railroads. It consists of determining how much capacity you have then auctioning the capacity to the highest bidders, setting the strike price at the point where the bidders will use up all of the capacity. For example, if there's capacity for 10 trains a day, and one class of shippers will buy three slots at $0.10/ton-mile, another class will buy four slots at $0.07/ton-mile, and another class will buy three slots at $0.05/ton-mile, then the bidder asking for 1, 2 or 20 slots at $0.04/ton-mile has no slots at all. If the cost of adding capacity is covered by the shippers adding $0.04/ton-mile then you might add it. "Demarketing" as a term refers to the event that occurs when an existing shipper enjoying a low rate is outbid by a new shipper or an expanding shipper that bids a higher rate for the same capacity. The existing shipper has the opportunity to match the higher rate but chooses not to do so; he is then demarketed.
JOdom wrote:Sorry, Joe and Gabe, but I have to partially disagree with both of you.Joe, I don't think a RR would run into too many objections to a double-tracking project outside the big cities and their suburbs, where the enviro-*** tend to congregate. It's really kind of ironic - the people who "love the environment" so much tend to live in cities and suburbs where restaurants, movies, malls, cell phone towers, and so forth ad nauseum are close at hand. If they love the environment and don't want anything built, let them go live in a cave in the backwoods of Montana. Out in the rural areas the residents tend to be more understanding. Of course, you will always have the "professional objectors" like the Sierra Club, Greenpeace and that ilk, but at least so far industrial development tends to win.Gabe, I think we'd have to be a lot more desperate for the good of the general population to outweigh the howls of outrage and anguish that the trail-lovers would raise. I live near an excellent trail (the Washington and Old Dominion, in the VA suburbs of DC), use it frequently and quite selfishly would hate to see the asphalt replaced by rails. HOWEVER, if gas suddenly went to $5+ per gallon and there was a move to use it for some kind of railborne mass transit, I wouldn't fuss too much. I would be in a tiny minority of trail users, who would want the trail to remain undisturbed no matter what.
Environmental constraints on new rail construction in thinly populated areas are usually more restrictive. I think you're mistaking enforcement of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) with community requests for zeroing-out impacts on communities caused by railroad traffic increases and changes. In my experience it really doesn't matter WHO lives next to the railroad track, be it rich suburbanites, poor inner-city dwellers, hardbitten ranchers, corporate farmers, All-American apple-cheeked farmers, hobby farmers, peaceniks, or whatever: they all want their cut. Protests against DM&E have included the rural as well as the city as well as the small town, for example. Singling out one group "who's not one of us" makes good copy but it doesn't reflect reality out there.
CG9602 wrote:This is all fascinating information, despite having to read and re-read some segments over and over. I encourage MichaelSol, Cordon, Don, et al., to continue posts like this. Thank you to everyone who has participated in the explanation of these issues and processes. For those of us who are studying the transportation industry in Graduate School, this has been enlightening.I apologize for thread-jacking, but at what point would RR management consider installing automatic train stop along the route ? what issues would have to be considered ?
The answer is NEVER.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.