Yes, but at some point in time one of the cars in the set would fail, develop a defect, and then the entire set would have to be bad ordered.
That's the major reason the unit train cars dedicated for coal, grain and such don't have semi permanent drawbars.
As for the cars themselves, the basic design and construction has pretty much reached its zenith...remember, the KISS rule applies...and also remember, if it can get bent or broken, it will get bent or broken.
Cars have to be rugged, able to withstand years of abuse with minimal repairs, other than the stuff you expect to wear, brake shoes, knuckles, draw bar keys and wheels...the whole concept is to keep it as simple and primitive as you can.
Sure, you can design an automatic un-coupler with and automatic air hose lacing device....but it wouldn't survive long when the car is humped repeatedly, or flat yard switched.
On the other hand, the basic knuckle and drawbar we use today can withstand being bypassed, or having the knuckle closed and getting a car or two kicked against it and still survive...and it is the same, basic technology that had been around for over a century...it is still used because it is simple, cheap to repair, and it works with a minimal amount of technology, a minimal amount of training, (all you have to do is lift the lever) and a minimal amount of maintenance.
As for car bodies...well, there are still four basic way to empty a car... either physically pick up the load, or through bottom chutes with air pressure or gravity doing the work, dump doors, or turn the car upside down, (or a variant of these).
So you might see a few changes, but what you do see will be building on these concepts...keep in mind the shippers and receivers have fixed plants that they will be reluctant to alter to accommodate new designs, unless it also increases their profit accordingly.
23 17 46 11
MichaelSol wrote: Murphy Siding wrote: I would think that being able to make the cars lighter, with higher capacity, would mean the trains would/could be the same length, but with a higher total tonnage. I've always wondered, about coal mines and coal receivers that use dedicated equipment. It would seem that developing equipment that would allow you to haul more tonnage, in the same length of train, yet still fit through the receiver's dumper would pay some handsome returns.How?Equipment that is railroad owned but shipper specific carries inherent economic risks, including a negotiated price risk: the railroad is the hostage to the equipment, not the shipper. Further, car weight and capacity, for an econometric analysis, measures averages -- the average of loaded and empty, for which the economic impact is most strongly influenced by the overall empty return ratio, not the difference between the tare and loaded weight. The second most important influence is the interest rate on the equipment purchase. The third most important factor is productivity or utilization. Specialized equipment is especially sensitive, in all the wrong ways, to railroad congestion and variations in shipper demands. The fourth most important factor is route specific. Required drawbar force is the sum of several resistance forces which vary in extent and proportion with the operating conditions of the particular lines of railroad. These include grade resistance, curve resistance, train resistance, and acceleration resistance. Which drawbar strength need is that 110th car designed for, aside from the fact that it is the 110th car? Where do you put the DPU?Normally, experienced people talk in terms of economies of scale. This discussion seems designed to try and figure out just how to make production of railcars as specialized and customized, and expensive, as possible, with car specs and inventory needs multiplying like rabbits.
Murphy Siding wrote: I would think that being able to make the cars lighter, with higher capacity, would mean the trains would/could be the same length, but with a higher total tonnage. I've always wondered, about coal mines and coal receivers that use dedicated equipment. It would seem that developing equipment that would allow you to haul more tonnage, in the same length of train, yet still fit through the receiver's dumper would pay some handsome returns.
I would think that being able to make the cars lighter, with higher capacity, would mean the trains would/could be the same length, but with a higher total tonnage.
I've always wondered, about coal mines and coal receivers that use dedicated equipment. It would seem that developing equipment that would allow you to haul more tonnage, in the same length of train, yet still fit through the receiver's dumper would pay some handsome returns.
How?
Equipment that is railroad owned but shipper specific carries inherent economic risks, including a negotiated price risk: the railroad is the hostage to the equipment, not the shipper. Further, car weight and capacity, for an econometric analysis, measures averages -- the average of loaded and empty, for which the economic impact is most strongly influenced by the overall empty return ratio, not the difference between the tare and loaded weight. The second most important influence is the interest rate on the equipment purchase. The third most important factor is productivity or utilization. Specialized equipment is especially sensitive, in all the wrong ways, to railroad congestion and variations in shipper demands. The fourth most important factor is route specific. Required drawbar force is the sum of several resistance forces which vary in extent and proportion with the operating conditions of the particular lines of railroad. These include grade resistance, curve resistance, train resistance, and acceleration resistance. Which drawbar strength need is that 110th car designed for, aside from the fact that it is the 110th car? Where do you put the DPU?
Normally, experienced people talk in terms of economies of scale. This discussion seems designed to try and figure out just how to make production of railcars as specialized and customized, and expensive, as possible, with car specs and inventory needs multiplying like rabbits.
I understand your points about specialized equipment. I am only pointing out the inherent tare weight penalty on all cars in a loose-car system, and how a fixed car train-set can overcome that penalty as well as the penalty of slack. It is not my idea, and it is not even a new idea. I am not advocating it, and I am not even in a position to see all of the pros and cons of it in any application. However, it is one direction that the evolution of freight cars could take.
To your question about the 110th car:
I assume you are asking about the 110th car in a conventional loose-car train. As such, its design strength must be adequate to be the first car in any train, and be strong enough to pull what has generally become established as the longest practical train length, say around 200 cars. In short, that drawbar needs to be as strong as all drawbars are today. In a dedicated train-set of say 120 cars, where cars are permanently coupled, the 110th car's drawbar only needs to be strong enough to pull 10 cars because that 110th car will always have ten cars behind it.
Bucyrus wrote: I understand your points about specialized equipment. I am only pointing out the inherent tare weight penalty on all cars in a loose-car system, and how a fixed car train-set can overcome that penalty as well as the penalty of slack.
I understand your points about specialized equipment. I am only pointing out the inherent tare weight penalty on all cars in a loose-car system, and how a fixed car train-set can overcome that penalty as well as the penalty of slack.
Well, I think the term "penalty" creates the unjustified presumption.
I would use the terms "durable", "interchangeable", "highly flexible" and "time-tested", as well as "continuingly evolved". Not sure about the "penalty of slack". With slack, the starting coefficient of friction is pretty reasonable, without any slack, it is enormous.
For specialized equipment, I might use the terms "production cost penalty", "maintenance penalty", "inventory penalty", "back-haul penalty", "congestion penalty", and "captive price penalty".
MichaelSol wrote: Bucyrus wrote: I understand your points about specialized equipment. I am only pointing out the inherent tare weight penalty on all cars in a loose-car system, and how a fixed car train-set can overcome that penalty as well as the penalty of slack. Well, I think the term "penalty" creates the unjustified presumption. I would use the terms "durable", "interchangeable", "highly flexible" and "time-tested", as well as "continuingly evolved". Not sure about the "penalty of slack". With slack, the starting coefficient of friction is pretty reasonable, without any slack, it is enormous.For specialized equipment, I might use the terms "production cost penalty", "maintenance penalty", "inventory penalty", "back-haul penalty", "congestion penalty", and "captive price penalty".
I use the term, penalty in reference to weight, merely as meaning weight that could be eliminated by some alternate design. But eliminating one penalty usually incurs other penalties as you mention. Aluminum eliminates the weight penalty of steel, but aluminum comes with the penalty of higher cost and less strength compared to steel.
Bucyrus wrote: Murphy Siding wrote: I'm not so sure about the idea of cars in a dedicated train having different strength characteristics though. The odds of manmade failures lead me to believe that you'd have to have warnings 10' tall on the sides of the cars, and someone would still put one in the wrong order.It would be physically impossible to change the order.
Murphy Siding wrote: I'm not so sure about the idea of cars in a dedicated train having different strength characteristics though. The odds of manmade failures lead me to believe that you'd have to have warnings 10' tall on the sides of the cars, and someone would still put one in the wrong order.
I'm not so sure about the idea of cars in a dedicated train having different strength characteristics though. The odds of manmade failures lead me to believe that you'd have to have warnings 10' tall on the sides of the cars, and someone would still put one in the wrong order.
It would be physically impossible to change the order.
Hmmm I guess I was viewing this as being something like a 200 car train, that has 10 different types of cars, depending on where they ride in the train. The first batch could ride anywhere from #1 to #20 position; the next batch from #21 to #40, etc. If the car in spot #122 has to be taken out of service, it could go back anywhere from #121 to #140.
If it would be physically impossible to change the order, that would mean they are built differently, from #1 to #200? So, like my example above, #122 has to go back into the #122 spot after it's returned from the repair shop?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Bucyrus wrote:I use the term, penalty in reference to weight, merely as meaning weight that could be eliminated by some alternate design. But eliminating one penalty usually incurs other penalties as you mention. Aluminum eliminates the weight penalty of steel, but aluminum comes with the penalty of higher cost and less strength compared to steel.
And that's a pretty good summary. People think these ideas up like they are brand new ideas and as though railroads haven't been incrementally working on them for 150 years, quickly brand skeptics as "foolish", and then forget to even begin to think about 90% of the considerations that go into any "new" idea.
The tare-minimized integral unit train concept, for example. Sure, you could reduce tare, right along along with interchangeability, and create much higher inventory and repair costs. The point? Not sure, except that somebody isn't doing their homework. And it isn't that easy to reduce tare.
And instead of one freight car spec, you've got what? 20? 200? This returns railroads to the days of steam when every order was, practically speaking, for a custom piece of equipment. A sure fire way to drive the manufacturer nuts and the car department nuts. I won't even begin to suggest that someone is missing the big picture on that idea, or how expensive it would be to purchase equipment with less flexibility. And, I reiterate: net to tare isn't the real measure; empty return load ratio is. And if a company invests in specialized equipment, the likelihood of any return load ratio below 50% becomes negligble. The idea drives productivity down, and does not improve it.
But, it's more practical even than that. For the integrated train idea, one problem is: how do you turn the train?
You can't just put the engines on the other end and go back home anymore because the train comes apart. Is that worth 3-6 times the cost of the entire train itself to build loop tracks just so that one specialized train-set can go home?
I suppose its the way the idea is presented on threads like this, which seem to be appearing frequently lately, that these are really bright ideas, there are "handsome returns" just waiting out there, but that all the rest of us are too "foolish" and "blind" to accept the brand new concept of higher loading, lower tare when, in fact, its less a matter of being "foolish" than more a matter that some people do their homework and add a dash of common sense to it, and some don't.
MichaelSol wrote: I suppose its the way the idea is presented on threads like this, which seem to be appearing frequently lately, that these are really bright ideas, there are "handsome returns" just waiting out there, but that all the rest of us are too "foolish" and "blind" to accept the brand new concept of higher loading, lower tare when, in fact, its less a matter of being "foolish" than more a matter that some people do their homework and add a dash of common sense to it, and some don't.
I certainly did not mean to imply that.
Bucyrus wrote: MichaelSol wrote: I suppose its the way the idea is presented on threads like this, which seem to be appearing frequently lately, that these are really bright ideas, there are "handsome returns" just waiting out there, but that all the rest of us are too "foolish" and "blind" to accept the brand new concept of higher loading, lower tare when, in fact, its less a matter of being "foolish" than more a matter that some people do their homework and add a dash of common sense to it, and some don't.I certainly did not mean to imply that.
And you didn't and you haven't. The specific words were used by another.
Murphy Siding wrote: Bucyrus wrote: Murphy Siding wrote: I'm not so sure about the idea of cars in a dedicated train having different strength characteristics though. The odds of manmade failures lead me to believe that you'd have to have warnings 10' tall on the sides of the cars, and someone would still put one in the wrong order.It would be physically impossible to change the order. Hmmm I guess I was viewing this as being something like a 200 car train, that has 10 different types of cars, depending on where they ride in the train. The first batch could ride anywhere from #1 to #20 position; the next batch from #21 to #40, etc. If the car in spot #122 has to be taken out of service, it could go back anywhere from #121 to #140. If it would be physically impossible to change the order, that would mean they are built differently, from #1 to #200? So, like my example above, #122 has to go back into the #122 spot after it's returned from the repair shop?
What you visualize regarding the grouping of cars in strength classes could be one version of the execution. I only meant they could not be uncoupled in the traditional manner and inadvertently mixed up during train handling. Some other measure might be needed to prevent a mix-up if cars are taken out of the set for repairs.
Truck side frames are too long of a casting to hold the tolerance necessary for the axle centers to fall within the maximum range of difference allowed from one side frame to the other. So they are sorted into size classes after they are produced. The classes are indicated by that little row of nubbins cast on the side of the frame. After casting, they measure the center distance, and knock off one or more of the nubbins to indicate the size class, and I believe the rule is that there can be no more than one nubbin difference from one side frame to the other in a truck. So, in that case, they rely on a visual indicator to prevent mismatching truck frames.
Besides the speculation of where freight cars might evolve to is the study of where they have evolved from. One of the most profoundly informative interesting books on that subject is The American Railroad Freight Car by John H. White Jr. It is limited to the wood car era up to the beginning of the steel car ear. What is amazing is the large variety of cars that were developed, including cars specialized for commodities that are no longer hauled by rail. Also striking is the amount of intense mechanical engineering and clever inventions being created in what might seem, from today's perspective, to have been a very primitive time of railroading. Mr. White's discussion of swing motion trucks with its school of advocates versus the anti-swing motion school is fascinating with its long list of pros and cons of the two designs.
Also interesting is his description of yard switching technique based on the use of an engine pushing a pole car on a track with a track of cars standing on each side. The pole car picks off cars from the end of each standing cut and pole-kicks them into various tracks. The advantage in picking the cars off the end of the cut was that you did not need to accelerate and brake the entire cut for each kick. The Pennsy used this system.
86' Hi-Cube Box Cars are mostly used for items like auto parts.
Most freight car builders are now building many types of 60' Excess Height Box Cars.
Is this what will replace the 86' Hi-Cube Box Cars built in the 1960's and 1970's?
Andrew
Watch my videos on-line at https://www.youtube.com/user/AndrewNeilFalconer
Bucyrus wrote:One of the most profoundly informative interesting books on that subject is The American Railroad Freight Car by John H. White Jr. It is limited to the wood car era up to the beginning of the steel car ear. What is amazing is the large variety of cars that were developed, including cars specialized for commodities that are no longer hauled by rail. Also striking is the amount of intense mechanical engineering and clever inventions being created in what might seem, from today's perspective, to have been a very primitive time of railroading. Mr. White's discussion of swing motion trucks with its school of advocates versus the anti-swing motion school is fascinating with its long list of pros and cons of the two designs.
One of the most profoundly informative interesting books on that subject is The American Railroad Freight Car by John H. White Jr. It is limited to the wood car era up to the beginning of the steel car ear. What is amazing is the large variety of cars that were developed, including cars specialized for commodities that are no longer hauled by rail. Also striking is the amount of intense mechanical engineering and clever inventions being created in what might seem, from today's perspective, to have been a very primitive time of railroading. Mr. White's discussion of swing motion trucks with its school of advocates versus the anti-swing motion school is fascinating with its long list of pros and cons of the two designs.
I also found the book to be profoundly informative and interesting. A very nice companion to his book(s) on passenger cars.
One of the less developed topics touched on in the book was the transition of making axles out of wrought iron to making them with steel in the mid-1800's. The problems with wrought iron were much better discussed in Foecke & McCarty's recent book on the Titanic - which included many pages on the mmetallurgy of wrought iron.
I think the boldest change being seriously proposed in the evolution of freight cars is the ECP brake system. Presently, it is in the experimental stage, but if it becomes the universally applied standard brake system, that will surely be a sea change on par with the conversion to automatic couplers or the adoption of the air brake.
Here is the power point presentation:
http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/safety/ecp_overview3A.pdf
Here is the full report with lots of operational and engineering detail:
http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/safety/ecp_report_20060811.pdf
Tha Americans used to be huge inovaters of railway equipement, inovations that were adopted all over the world. But not so much in the last 50 years especialy the box car. The 85 foot hi-cube is realy the same as a 36 foot wooden box exept for the size realy, as far as a cotumer is concerned.
Modern lumber cars are pretty good, a little top heavy when empty though.
In other parts of the developed world the box car has been replaced by cars where each half of the car slides open for vastly superior loading. They can be loaded faster and loaded from the side threwout, giving more flaxability with skids wich can't always be used efficeintly in US style center door box cars. Many European cars are capable of very high speeds, some are used in 124mph freight trains.
In Australia and Europe they use coal car designs that control dust better. In general Europe has a bigger variety of inovative freight cars including 6 axle cars for 150,000 KG gross for ore and steel.
Bucyrus wrote: I think the boldest change being seriously proposed in the evolution of freight cars is the ECP brake system. Presently, it is in the experimental stage, but if it becomes the universally applied standard brake system, that will surely be a sea change on par with the conversion to automatic couplers or the adoption of the air brake. Here is the power point presentation:http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/safety/ecp_overview3A.pdfHere is the full report with lots of operational and engineering detail:http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/safety/ecp_report_20060811.pdf
Interesting concept, although I wonder if it would run counter to Ed's idea of k.i.s.s. It seems there would be some hi-tech and/or hi-maintenance parts involved.
What would be the advantage of ECP brake systems?
edblysard wrote: So you might see a few changes, but what you do see will be building on these concepts...keep in mind the shippers and receivers have fixed plants that they will be reluctant to alter to accommodate new designs, unless it also increases their profit accordingly.
In your experiences, have you run accross any railcar *improvements* that weren't an improvement over the existing types of equipment?
Murphy Siding wrote: What would be the advantage of ECP brake systems?
Reduced fuel burn is the big one. Also, better train dynamics, lower buff forces, lower risk of break-in-twos, less wear-and-tear on the track structure in curves -- all of which allows longer, heavier trains.
RWM
Bucyrus wrote: I think the boldest change being seriously proposed in the evolution of freight cars is the ECP brake system. Presently, it is in the experimental stage, but if it becomes the universally applied standard brake system, that will surely be a sea change on par with the conversion to automatic couplers or the adoption of the air brake.
ECP is well beyond the experimental stage and into the deployment stage, and is in everyday use on Spoornet (South Africa), BHP Billiton (Australia), Quebec Cartier Mining (Canada). Those are all captive systems where ECP brakes have defined cost-benefit numbers and attractive return on investment, whereas U.S. railroads are network systems with free-running equipment, and ROIs are much harder to calculate, and realize. I don't think it's a sea change by any means, but it is an improvement that is valuable.
Murphy,
Not really...
Take the EOT or Fred...at first blush is seems little technical,
but then consider how it is attached, and how it operates.
Both quite simple, it is easy to use.
It clamps onto the knuckle, uses a standard glad hand and simple radio frequency.
It can withstand the abuse we conductor give it...being dropped from moving trains, laying around out in the weather weeks on end, lost in the yard...kinda like your old Timex, it takes a licking and keeps on ticking.
The electronic brakes, when they finally get it completely standardized, will use a few parts as possible, be as rugged as it can be, will be able to survive flat yard switching and the abuse.
From what I have read so far, it is currently being tested on unit trains where the consist is not broken up routinely, where the load/empty ratio is constant, but like the AEI tag system, once they get the final design down it will be very user friendly, it will not interfere with the shippers use of the car, and require as little human interface as an EOT.
Railway Man wrote: Murphy Siding wrote: What would be the advantage of ECP brake systems?Reduced fuel burn is the big one. Also, better train dynamics, lower buff forces, lower risk of break-in-twos, less wear-and-tear on the track structure in curves -- all of which allows longer, heavier trains.RWM
Thanks
The difference is the brakes set and release simultaneously and the propagation time is eliminated. This enables the engineer to control speed much more precisely, reducing the number and severity of speed overshoots and undershoots, eliminating any fuel spent dragging against brakes that are still releasing, enabling the engineer to begin decelerations later and accelerations earlier, and in undulating terrain reducing the slack run-ins and outs.
The less buff force and drawbar force placed into a train, the less lateral force it exerts in curves, reducing rail wear, forces on ties and fastener systems, ballast, etc. It adds up.
James Sanchez
Railway Man wrote: Murphy Siding wrote: What would be the advantage of ECP brake systems?Reduced fuel burn is the big one. Also, better train dynamics, lower buff forces, lower risk of break-in-twos, less wear-and-tear on the track structure in curves -- all of which allows longer, heavier trains.
Wouldn't increased safety be another advantage? If my understanding is correct, ECP allows for braking without reducing pressure in the brakeline. This would reduce the chance of a runaway, since you don't need to wait for the trainline pressure to build up after releasing the brakes.
erikem wrote: Railway Man wrote: Murphy Siding wrote: What would be the advantage of ECP brake systems?Reduced fuel burn is the big one. Also, better train dynamics, lower buff forces, lower risk of break-in-twos, less wear-and-tear on the track structure in curves -- all of which allows longer, heavier trains.Wouldn't increased safety be another advantage? If my understanding is correct, ECP allows for braking without reducing pressure in the brakeline. This would reduce the chance of a runaway, since you don't need to wait for the trainline pressure to build up after releasing the brakes.
That is true, the system allows graduated release, and so it eliminates the risk of losing your air by a series of sets and releases. Another claimed benefit is lower cost of crew training.
It is my understanding that the long-range vision is to convert the entire North American railroad practice (1.4 million cars and 29,000 locomotives) to this ECP system. The technology seems fairly easy to comprehend. Air does the work, but the conventional control function of air is replaced by an electric control function. So the pneumatic brain of the conventional system (i.e.: the triple valve) is replaced by an electronic brain. Not so easy to comprehend is the logistics of the mass conversion.
Both the cost and the return savings are astoundingly high, but they also accrue in complex variables: For the cost, the variables are which types of service are converted first, economies of scale in number of cars converted at one time, retrofitting versus new car construction, whether or not cars are equipped with overlay capability for dual system use. For the return, the variables are fuel savings, wheel savings, brake shoe savings, and savings on brake inspections. There are also cost savings associated with the safety benefits and reduced cost of crew training.
The fundamental drawback inertia in the conversion is that if you apply ECP brakes to one freight car at a cost of $4000, there is no benefit. If you applied it to 1000 cars, and let those cars circulate as cars do, there would be no measurable benefit unless several or many of those cars happened to end up in one train one time. So the conversion, which will be gradual, needs to be targeted initially to captive cars in unit train service, and then spread out to cars that frequently run on certain corridors. And the more cars that are converted or introduced new with ECP, the less need there will be for the overlay capability and its extra cost.
Railway Man wrote: ECP is well beyond the experimental stage and into the deployment stage, and is in everyday use on Spoornet (South Africa), BHP Billiton (Australia), Quebec Cartier Mining (Canada). Those are all captive systems where ECP brakes have defined cost-benefit numbers and attractive return on investment, whereas U.S. railroads are network systems with free-running equipment, and ROIs are much harder to calculate, and realize. I don't think it's a sea change by any means, but it is an improvement that is valuable.RWM
Murphy Siding wrote: Railway Man wrote: ECP is well beyond the experimental stage and into the deployment stage, and is in everyday use on Spoornet (South Africa), BHP Billiton (Australia), Quebec Cartier Mining (Canada). Those are all captive systems where ECP brakes have defined cost-benefit numbers and attractive return on investment, whereas U.S. railroads are network systems with free-running equipment, and ROIs are much harder to calculate, and realize. I don't think it's a sea change by any means, but it is an improvement that is valuable.RWMAren't there dedicated trainsets, that operate between mines and power plants, where this could be introduced fairly easily?
Yes. The questions are, who will pay for it, what will be the value of the benefits, and who will reap the value of the benefits? Coal trainsets are typically paid for by the utility, but the value of ECP brakes will mostly accrue to the operating railroad. The utility might be interested in investing the capital if there's a return on investment for it. This could be in the form of a discount on the freight rate compared to an unequipped trainset.
That sounds attractive in theory but in practice it's ugly, because to amortize the investment it would require a long-term contract that the railroad is loath to provide unless it's at a rate level that protects the railroad against unforseen cost increases. Who wants to predict what fuel, steel, labor and regulatory costs are 10 years from now? Or the value of the track capacity? If you're the utility, do you want to sign a long-term contract that has escalation clauses that have huge potential downsides? And explain it to your state PUC? Or investors?
If you're the utility, how do you really know you got a discount, and that the railroad didn't just take the rate it was going to give you anyway and mark it up by the same percentage as the "discount" it is offering? How do you decide what the true cash value of operating a train with ECP brakes is versus a train without? There's not much baseline experience with them to know. The value for a few trainsets here or there might be irrelevant. It's very, very hard to break out operating costs and maintenance costs attributable to one train on a track shared by 40 trains because many of the costs of railroad operation are not incremental but shared, or influenced by all the other trains. Adding the 40th train to a line with 39 trains might increase your costs by 1/40th. Or it might be 1/39th, 1/38th, or 1/37th, or 1/36th because it delays all the other trains a little bit and causes some extra train meets you didn't have before. It's much easier to cost all-or-nothing improvements on a line, but improvements that are only costed against one train or one customer make your head spin trying to decide if your assumptions are correct, or just wishful thinking.
Well anyway, as usual, the face-value evidence is the most valuable evidence. If it was easy and simple, everyone would have already done it.
Railway Man wrote: If you're the utility, how do you really know you got a discount, and that the railroad didn't just take the rate it was going to give you anyway and mark it up by the same percentage as the "discount" it is offering? RWM[/Railway Man]
If you're the utility, how do you really know you got a discount, and that the railroad didn't just take the rate it was going to give you anyway and mark it up by the same percentage as the "discount" it is offering? RWM[/Railway Man]
The utility is very familiar. But there's not a large pool of data points to see where you fit, and you're not renegotiating the rate very often. You can't just call up your neighbor and see what he's paying. Railroad transportation is not a commodity like gasoline or milk or OSB, it's highly individualized by location, lane, and market conditions.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.