Mudchicken: Does't it make your heart feel good to know BNSF is rehabing 150 track miles during the downturn in business? Couldn't think of a better time to do it even though trains newswire got it slightly wrong. See BNSF website for actual work areas.
blue streak 1 Mudchicken: Does't it make your heart feel good to know BNSF is rehabing 150 track miles during the downturn in business? Couldn't think of a better time to do it even though trains newswire got it slightly wrong. See BNSF website for actual work areas.
This amplifies my feeling that the BNSF is a class act. If a RR company has faith in its future, but is currently running fewer or shorter trains, sprucing up the track makes all kinds of sense.
(1) That material was ordered long ago, the timing, just happened to be fortuitous.
(2) It finally dawned on the operating dim-bulbs in the NOC that the improvements will pay for themselves regardless .
(3) The whining and moaning from the operating planners and dispatchers will continue, but at least the the Chief Engineer's staff know it could be way worse if capacity was up and the dispatchers buried the extra gangs in the hole for hours/days/weeks. this is one place where the downturn will save some serious $$$ by leaving the gangs out working productive long days.
Hey! This one's a managerial no-brainer. Railroading 101: Fail to maintain main lines = a surefire prescription for deep trouble later on.
Now it's easy to be seduced by the Dark Side of the Force. In bad times, cut back maintenance-of-way (or MofE) to "save" funds. Problem is, this plot produces no savings, only the illusion of savings. Because the rate of decline in way is non-linear -- the decay in roadbed condition accellerates as time increases. Ask Rock Island. Ask Penn Central (Yeah, I know, they're not around any more to answer you). And if you think that reducing maintenance to produce an artificially inflated P&L statement, guess again -- your action, or more accurately, inaction, will not fool the capital markets, either....
billio Hey! This one's a managerial no-brainer. Railroading 101: Fail to maintain main lines = a surefire prescription for deep trouble later on. Now it's easy to be seduced by the Dark Side of the Force. In bad times, cut back maintenance-of-way (or MofE) to "save" funds. Problem is, this plot produces no savings, only the illusion of savings. Because the rate of decline in way is non-linear -- the decay in roadbed condition accellerates as time increases. Ask Rock Island. Ask Penn Central (Yeah, I know, they're not around any more to answer you). And if you think that reducing maintenance to produce an artificially inflated P&L statement, guess again -- your action, or more accurately, inaction, will not fool the capital markets, either....
This is slightly off topic and maybe needs to be in a seperate thread, but I'm new around here so bear with me.
A BNSF line runs through my town here in Socorro, New Mexico. We're 30 miles south of Belen where the new Rail Runner line starts it's route north to Santa Fe on a combination of BNSF tracks and tracks owned by the state for the Rail Runner. BNSF has indicated it won't allow the Rail Runner to use it's tracks south of Belen. I'm not sure why since there's an agreement for traffic north of Belen. Can anyone give me some insight into this?
I certainly could have missed it, but I haven't picked up any suggestion that the Class 1's are going to cut back on track maintenance. They may slow the rate of capacity expansion projects and equipment renewal (cars and locomotives), but those are the things that can be defered until such time as there are signs that business will be coming back. Can't see any orders for new auto racks coming out any time soon.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
Others may have a more detailed response, (MC ?) however here is mine. The Railrunner Agreement in place has the Belen boarding location north of the Transcon and thus none of the Railrunner trains interfere with the Transcon operations.
Belen is one of the busiest terminals on the Transcon with sometimes as many as 135 trains a day arriving and stopping for crew change, for fuel and for the 1000 mile safety inspection. If Railrunner were allowed to mingle with these ongoing operations it would be detremental to both BNSF and Railroadrunner operations.
diningcar Others may have a more detailed response, (MC ?) however here is mine. The Railrunner Agreement in place has the Belen boarding location north of the Transcon and thus none of the Railrunner trains interfere with the Transcon operations. Belen is one of the busiest terminals on the Transcon with sometimes as many as 135 trains a day arriving and stopping for crew change, for fuel and for the 1000 mile safety inspection. If Railrunner were allowed to mingle with these ongoing operations it would be detremental to both BNSF and Railroadrunner operations.
Again thanks for the info.
NMRXfan Thanks diningcar. Local politicians are saying the Rail Runner route could be extended south, maybe all the way to Las Cruces, but it sounds like that inorder to accomplish that they're going to have to lay their own tracks. I guess the question then becomes will BNSF allow the state to lay tracks parallel to their existing ones.
Thanks diningcar. Local politicians are saying the Rail Runner route could be extended south, maybe all the way to Las Cruces, but it sounds like that inorder to accomplish that they're going to have to lay their own tracks. I guess the question then becomes will BNSF allow the state to lay tracks parallel to their existing ones.
As stated earlier, the major BNSF objection would be the crossing of the Transcon at Belen. I doubt there would be any major concerns regarding the line from Belen to Las Cruces as it is lightly trafficed and, if my info is correct, lacks automatic signaling.
One possible avenue that Rail Runner could take would be to pay for a line relocation to just east or west of Belen and the construction of a "flyover" at the actual BNSF crossing. They might also have to be willing to pay for any required track upgrade and signalling on the Belen to Las Cruces line.
Mike
Thanks Mike,
The local politicians have been less than forthcoming as to the issues in extending the line south to us here in Socorro and beyond. Yes, there would have to be major upgrades to the tracks and the signaling. However, the traffic south of Belen isn't as light as you might imagine. There's been a steady increase in freight traffic coming up from Mexico because of NAFTA over the past few years and as someone who lives about 300 yds from the BNSF line at Lemitar NM (7 mi. N. of Socorro) I can attest to the increase in rail traffic. Wether or not the line could be shared once the issues at transcon in Belen are solved nobody is saying here at the moment.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.