But if you have a piece of track that is unoccupied for 20 hours a day, how much money is it bringing to the bottom line? If Amtrak or anybody else comes along and offers to fill it for one, ten, what, hours, what is it worth to you? If the track is empty and it is costing you $X.XX per hour to have it sit empty why not work out a deal to get at least that $X.XX per hour back. Not 20 times $X.XX but the cost for the hour(s) used. If you can get $X.XX plys $Y.YY, all the better, but don't get greedy and try to get the whole 20 empty hours back: get what you can and cut your losses. Its what others do with excess inventory: get what they can so it is not a total loss!
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
First, there's not much track that's empty 20 hours a day that Amtrak would want to run on.
Second, the average daily cost for that empty track - some taxes & insurance, a little incremental maintenance (mainly weather and time-related) - is not all that much, and does not increase if the track isn't used. A fair number is in the range of $1 per foot or $5,000 per mile per year for "plain" track - say, $5 million per year for 1,000 track-miles. What you're addressing is not an increased cost, but really the cost of a "lost opportunity" for additional revenue.
Thirdly, that empty track opportunity will probably last only a year or two - then we're going to be right back where we were a year ago, with many lines jammed to capacity. Then I won't want Amtrak there, but I'd be stuck with them anyway, likely forever more. So the choice is between a few cents more income today, or many dollars of lost income in 2 -3 years. In view of that, I'd prefer to "suck it up" today and "eat" the empty track cost for the time being.
Fourth, I doubt if any passenger operator can get set up and commit to a funding level to pay for that empty track in less thatn 3 years, and more likely 5 to 10 years.
If I were a railroad manager - and I'm track-oriented - I'd rather be inclined to be thinking about using all that available track time to do some time-consuming maintenance now, instead of waiting for when the traffic is busier, and instead of letting a passenger operation preclude my maintenance window.. Things like surfacing don't use a lot of cash expeditures - a few dollars for some extra stone is all, maybe some tie replacements (which deteriorate with weather as well as traffic), grade crossings, interlockings, but not rail - no traffic, no wear on it.
Lastly,excess inventory is a 1-time thing (hopefully) - once you liquidate it, it's gone. But the empty track and Amtrak come back every day, this year, next year, and the year after that, too, and so on. The present value of that lost opportunity for freight revenue is pretty big.
It would be interesting to quantify the magnitude of the revenues that a typical freight train earns, as opposed to a passenger train. There's enough public info to do the freight aspect pretty easily, I think. Maybe when I have a moment I'll do that - inutitively, I believe it'll be shockingly large. What I don't know where to find is what Amtrak typically pays per train-mile. Anybody here have a handle on that ?
- Paul North.
The biggest problem the railroads have with Amtrak is that it does not pay ANYTHING for the use of the track. The Class I railroads are subsidizing ATK to the tune of 100s of million dollars but it is hidden so well that very few understand it. IIRC the same thing happens to ATK on the NEC where it can not charge the commuter operators for slots.
Mac
henry6But if you have a piece of track that is unoccupied for 20 hours a day, how much money is it bringing to the bottom line? If Amtrak or anybody else comes along and offers to fill it for one, ten, what, hours, what is it worth to you? If the track is empty and it is costing you $X.XX per hour to have it sit empty why not work out a deal to get at least that $X.XX per hour back. Not 20 times $X.XX but the cost for the hour(s) used. If you can get $X.XX plys $Y.YY, all the better, but don't get greedy and try to get the whole 20 empty hours back: get what you can and cut your losses. Its what others do with excess inventory: get what they can so it is not a total loss!
In other words, go ahead and sell short the value of the franchise to realize a tiny revenue stream, and hope when the freight traffic returns, that Amtrak will say thanks for the opportunity, and politely go away and all the politicians, political activists, and the public will be grateful and understanding.
Is there even one end-to-end corridor in the U.S. that Amtrak currently uses or any corridor passenger operator proposes to use, including terminal trackage on each end, that has spare capacity going begging at this time sufficient to reliably schedule a passenger train without getting in the way of freight trains? There's plenty of lousy secondary trackage and branch lines that might fit the bill so long as the passenger train operator is willing to terminate the train and throw everyone onto a platform on the outskirts of the suburbs. Not too many operators are thinking of that, however.
RWM
First, some portions of my prior post for context:
Paul_D_North_Jr [snipped] Second, the average daily cost for that empty track - some taxes & insurance, a little incremental maintenance (mainly weather and time-related) - is not all that much, and does not increase if the track isn't used. A fair number is in the range of $1 per foot or $5,000 per mile per year for "plain" track - say, $5 million per year for 1,000 track-miles. [snips] It would be interesting to quantify the magnitude of the revenues that a typical freight train earns, as opposed to a passenger train. There's enough public info to do the freight aspect pretty easily, I think. Maybe when I have a moment I'll do that - inutitively, I believe it'll be shockingly large. What I don't know where to find is what Amtrak typically pays per train-mile. Anybody here have a handle on that ?
[snips]
OK, here goes, from BNSF's 4th Quarter 2008 "Investor's Report", page 11 (13 of 17), at:
http://www.bnsf.com/investors/investorreports/4Q_2008_Investors_Report.pdf
For Coal: $14.05 per 1,000 Revenue Ton-Miles.
135 cars in a typical train at 110 tons capy. ea. = 14,850 - say, 15,000 Rev. Tons per Train.
Train Revenue per Mile = 15,000 Rev. Tons x 1 Mile x $14.05 /1,000 Rev. Ton-Miles = $210 Train Rev. per Mile.
At a typical speed of 20 MPH, that train is earning -
20 Miles / Hour x $210 / Mile = $4,200 per Hour.
For Intermodal: $50.06 per 1,000 rev. Ton-Miles
Say, 300 containers in a typical double-stack train of about 9,000 ft. length (60 ft. per box to include the car underneath, 2 high, at 20 tons each) = 6,000 Rev. Tons per Train.
Train Revenue per Mile = 6,000 Rev. Tons x 1 Mile x $50.06 /1,000 Rev. Ton-Miles = $300 Train Rev. per Mile.
At a typical speed of 30 MPH, that train is earning -
30 Miles / Hour x $300 / Mile = $9,000 per Hour
Simple Conclusion:
So, my hypothetical 1 mile of empty track - which might cost $5,000 per year or merely $15 per day to maintain 1 mile of track "as-is" without any traffic over it - could also support trains that would earn from $210 (coal) to $300 (intermodal) for each train that runs over that 1 mile. And of course, if it's empty 20 hours a day, probably 20+ such train could be accomodated. Those trains could earn the railroad from $4,200 (coal) to $9,000 (intermodal) per hour. In view of those numbers, is it any wonder why railroads love intermodal ? (I know, their cost structures are in nowise alike, but then again the IM is imposing something like half less gross ton-miles than the coal train.) And, to this point, what can Amtrak put on there that will even begin to match that revenue stream ? Why would a responsible railroad manager even risk giving up one of those trains slots for the "goose that lays the golden eggs" for a proverbial turkey like Amtrak, or any other passenger train ? (I know, "Cheap shot !", but I couldn't resist).
Railway Man [snip] Is there even one end-to-end corridor in the U.S. that Amtrak currently uses or any corridor passenger operator proposes to use, including terminal trackage on each end, that has spare capacity going begging at this time sufficient to reliably schedule a passenger train without getting in the way of freight trains? There's plenty of lousy secondary trackage and branch lines that might fit the bill so long as the passenger train operator is willing to terminate the train and throw everyone onto a platform on the outskirts of the suburbs. Not too many operators are thinking of that, however. RWM
There's plenty of lousy secondary trackage and branch lines that might fit the bill so long as the passenger train operator is willing to terminate the train and throw everyone onto a platform on the outskirts of the suburbs. Not too many operators are thinking of that, however.
You know, maybe those passenger operators should think harder about that [no, I'm not being facetious], at least in some areas. Here's why:
We all know that our beloved and valuable freight trains are pretty inflexible in their routes - they've got to get to the docks or the power plant or the class yard or whatever, and there aren't many good routes anymore to accomplish that. So the freight trains should have "1st dibs" on the good freight routes and time slots as a matter of necessity and economics - no question there.
However, in lots of cities - esp. here in the NorthEast - there are (were) multiple routes, built by several railroads, extending outward from each city, usually in a radial pattern. Many of those routes are not used any more, but maybe they should be. In other words, put the passengers on the unused routes or routes that are less-than desirable for freight, so as to minimize the passenger traffic on the good freight routes.
The key to this is recognizing and taking advantage of the fact that commuter-type passengers essentially self-haul themselves to the nearest or most convenient train station - they have a lot of flexibility in that ! Given a choice, most commuters shouldn't really care [big assumption, I know, but bear with me here] if they drive 3 miles west or 2 miles east to the nearest station, particularly if the new or "alternate" pasenger route can be made somehow more convenient or better, like with easier or cheaper parking or a faster trip to the destination over a line dedicated to passenger trains that's not cluttered up with . . . freight trains.
For example, consider 2 of the former Reading Railroad's lines: The one to the northwest along the Schuylkill River to Pottstown and Reading is now a NS main that is coveted for a parallel transit operation of some kind with a $1 billion price tag, if I recall correctly. However, the outer portion of the former Bethlehem Branch to Bethlehem - which has some adverse grades, but also used to go to NS's large modern Allentown Yard - was "taken out of service" in the early 1980s, and the tracks just removed last fall. A plausible scenario would be to restore that line to service, and trade capacity on it to NS for some on the other line. Or, restore other lines closer in to take up some of the needed passenger capacity, and keep the pressure off the freight mains. Here in northern Philly, the commuters could pretty much equally well use either SEPTA's Manayunk, Chestnut Hill - East, Chestnut Hill - West, or the Norristown (also along the Schuylkill River) line, instead of the NS main.
Further, a lot of economic development / growth and jobs here in the NE is happening in the suburbs, not in the center city cores. For example, I'm thinking of the King of Prussia - Valley Forge - Collegeville areas, which are about 15 to the north of Philadelphia here, and have many big pharma and high-tech companies located there. That's not good for the cities, but that's the reality for contemporary urban transportation. In view of that, throwing people onto a platform on the outskirts of the suburbs may be closer to what the market actually wants and really needs than we realize. No need then, to clutter up the inner main lines to the Delaware River ports, for example, with those trains.
Well, just a thought, for what it's worth.
henry6 An interesting thought was passed on to me last night by a long time friend and even longer rail observer. With today's downturn in freight business, would not the current operators look to passenger rail in general, Amtrak in particular, to fill in the ledgers by occupying otherwise empty tracks?
An interesting thought was passed on to me last night by a long time friend and even longer rail observer. With today's downturn in freight business, would not the current operators look to passenger rail in general, Amtrak in particular, to fill in the ledgers by occupying otherwise empty tracks?
Passenger trains don't make money, therefore, they can't or won't pay their share of what the slots are worth.
The rail lines that have some opening are probably not the same lines that would be needed by passenger trains.
There is no excess passenger equipment to expand passenger trains. You can't move more passengers on equipment that doesn't exist.
When freight business picks back up, the added passenger trains would have to get pitched back out of the system. (Which, might not be as difficult as it sounds. When the freight business rebounds, the passenger train people will still be looking for that non-exixtent equipment)
It's not going to happen, because it wouldn't help out the freight railroads.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
I am actually surprised and appalled at the negatavism that is put forth in the arguements here. First, if an entity comes to a railroad and wants to purchase space, or whatever you want to call it, on the railroad's track, the problem of whether or not it makes money is on the shoulders of the one operating the service and not the railroad. But beyond that, I cannot see any business letting its plant sit idle when there is an opportunity to earn money even enough to break even. If, as Paul and RWM say, it is now a time for the railroad to rebuild, fix the infrastructure, etc., then it probably is a good time, too, to test a given service and find its marketability. What if the passenger train works out to be a good service and earns its way. And if it does it helps the host railroad get income to pay for infrastructure maintenance. If I am accused of dealing in too many generalizations, then the dismissal of the idea without looking at a given situation, what could be negotiated, what could happen, is not just as much a generlization but also a major negative approach to business: we've never done it before so why should we do it now? what if it doesn't work? what if it is a success and we're saddled with making money? Come on guys, give innovation, give progress, give yourself a break and think positive. The kind of thinking, this attitude, is probably what's wrong with the thinking of railroad management today! "Ignore it, it should go away. At least until next year after I've retired."
RWM brings up important items that I feel that many of our passenger advocates seem to forget. There have been many threads that touch on how capacity of any line is affected and how its fluidity is affected. Here is a very small fractional summary.
1. One is the vertical profile of any line. The FEC is flat as a pancake so no hills to slow any train down. Contrast that to the DRG&W line out of Denver. This leads RRs to have HP to ton ratings of each line segment. Only so much drawbar pull can be applied to a train before causing a pull apart. DPU can only help so much so the train slows down on hills.
2. Curvature is another problem as if there are too many degrees of curveature the train may stringline derail. Plus curves slow down the train. Even FEC will see a train slow down on curves even though the train is at a constant throttle position.
3. HP on a train is detrmined upon its priority. Drag freights - just enough to get over the road's ruling grade. VS. high priority intermodal enough HP to get over the ruling grade at max track speed.
4. Traffic mix: If the track section has only one kind of traffic then many trains can pace each other. Example the powder river coal trains. 125 cars now, same train weight, even load distribution, DPU etc. UP's and BNSF's transcons come close as most traffic is one speed intermodal. But even FEC's track has many 70MPH intermodals but runs a lot of rock trains from MIA at a maximum of 50 MPH. Throw in on any route a dimensional or other speed limited special and things can gum up rapidly.
What does this lead to? I would love to be able to operate my RR section with all trains at one speed. Boy can I handle a lot of trains but that is not realistic so my capacity is limited for all the above factors + maintenance windows and more restrictions not considered. If you add trains that are going twice as fast as present freight traffic you need two or three tracks to handle all the present traffic and keep them separated. Think what it is like when you are on a two lane interstate in your porsche traveling 125 and you come up and have to wait for a 2 mile long tractor trailer going 60MPH passing another 2 mile long tractor trailer going 55MP. OOPS - that slows you down for a minimum of 25 minutes not counting distance to get front to back separation.
Now throw in a new Medium Speed Passenger Rail (MSR 80 - 125 MPH my definition)(HSR above 125 MPH). Now for assumptions. Any route that will get MSR will probably be designed for daytime hourly or every other hour service. Since most of the route will probably use present ROWs except where curve straightening is required then the route is going to need a new track built to Class 7,6,or 5 standards. Where possible this track shoud be 25 ft away from the existing track to prevent slow downs due to maintenance on either track. Although I would expect the track structure to be built to 300,000# + load limits there would probably not be too much freight traffic on the new passenger tracks. (ton mile charges for freight use of the MSR rail line might be an incentative).
SIDINGS - High speed probably every 15 minutes of passenger train travel to allow passing of opposing passenger trains and the length to be in the 20,000 ft range to prevent slowing for meets. These sidings could be between the present freight tracks and new passenger tracks for dual use. FREIGHT SERVICE SIDINGS - A whole other problem. Those areas where there are industries on both sides of the ROW requiring a passenger track in the center WITH A flyover or duck under to get there and at least a freight main on one side and a service siding on the other side. Of coure there will be locations that even two tracks on the ROW may be impossible without expensive building and land purchases.
All this is for present single track lines with passing sidings. In those areas already double or triple track all the above items apply requiring another track. The only saving grace is that with three or more tracks the center track may be used for the passenger track with flyovers or duck unders to and from stations. If the traffic mix is many different speeds a middle track would need duck unders or flyovers at the locations of freight crossovers.
Examples of the afore mentioned problems and possible solutions. ( I'm not an alignment engineer so this is just observations. Charlotte - Greensboro: NCDOT has this line planned to return to all double track by the end of 2010. Not knowing NS's total traffic load I don't know if any additional sidings or third track will be needed but suspect it will. Greensboro - Raleigh. There it will definitely need another track because the present alignment already has 10 - 15 slow sections (70 MPH or lower) needing relocation. Raleigh - Petersburg: S line another MSR track to Norlina and then just track with 15 minute passing sidings ( can start out 30 min but that assumes all on time operation. If certain businesses want to locate on the line then probably only night time freight service would be available for them. The issue of detour traffic off the A-line will need to be addressed for both AMTRAK and CSX (and it will happen sooner or later)( maybe no more Auto train Greensboro detours.
I have doubts of running the Petersburg line through downtown and instead think it should pass west of Petersburg as one of the alternatives depicts. (would save about 10 minutes travel time). Petersburg - Richmond: The common use of the A-line to Centralia then S-line to Main Street stationt would definitely require a third track on the A-line and a second track on into Mainstreet Station to cover for freight service to the Richmond Deepwater Terminal. Richmond - Wash: At the moment CSX is limiting VRE from more trains because of track restrictions. Each section that becomes third track allows for more VRE service. But to handle MSR (90 min Wash - Ric) a 4th track on most of the RF&P will be needed north of Fredericksburg until VRE goes onto Richmond then all the way. If the MSR follows the old C&O ROW from AM junction to somewhere near Pleasant Hill as has been proposed thereby bypassing Doswell then only 3 tracks probably needed from Plesant Hill to Richmond AM junction. The only other additions would probably a extra bridge over the Potomac (Long Bridge), with 4 tracks to Virginia Ave Junction, and maybe a second Capitol Hill tunnel to Wash Union Station.
Wash Union Station/Ivy City yard will need additional storage tracks but VRE and MARC claims there is very limited land but the storage tracks are desperately needed. AMTRAK would also need more storage to service, stage, and repair the additional equipment. North on the NE corridor additional tracks up to 4 for the route to Philidelphia including new tunnels at Baltimore. The trains south of Washington would add to the traffic count north of Washington. As it is AMTRAK has not allowed MARC to add frequencys to the NE corridor with the present track count and configurations. When the Catenary is finally upgraded on the NE corridor the added metric of higher speed ACELAs on the route (hopefully 150+ MPH) adds another different speed trafic mix. Right now during many rush hour times the MARC trains hold all train speed down because of fleeting in both directions and a MARC train late.
With a few exceptions grade crossing (rail and road), bridge upgrades to take the higher speeds, and other additional items have been left out of this post. Maybe later I will address other routes.This one is presented because of some familarity of the route and this route is somewhat along in the vetting process. .
Blue streak 1
henry6 I am actually surprised and appalled at the negatavism that is put forth in the arguements here. First, if an entity comes to a railroad and wants to purchase space, or whatever you want to call it, on the railroad's track, the problem of whether or not it makes money is on the shoulders of the one operating the service and not the railroad. But beyond that, I cannot see any business letting its plant sit idle when there is an opportunity to earn money even enough to break even. If, as Paul and RWM say, it is now a time for the railroad to rebuild, fix the infrastructure, etc., then it probably is a good time, too, to test a given service and find its marketability. What if the passenger train works out to be a good service and earns its way. And if it does it helps the host railroad get income to pay for infrastructure maintenance. If I am accused of dealing in too many generalizations, then the dismissal of the idea without looking at a given situation, what could be negotiated, what could happen, is not just as much a generlization but also a major negative approach to business: we've never done it before so why should we do it now? what if it doesn't work? what if it is a success and we're saddled with making money? Come on guys, give innovation, give progress, give yourself a break and think positive. The kind of thinking, this attitude, is probably what's wrong with the thinking of railroad management today! "Ignore it, it should go away. At least until next year after I've retired."
Murphy Siding henry6 I am actually surprised and appalled at the negatavism that is put forth in the arguements here. First, if an entity comes to a railroad and wants to purchase space, or whatever you want to call it, on the railroad's track, the problem of whether or not it makes money is on the shoulders of the one operating the service and not the railroad. But beyond that, I cannot see any business letting its plant sit idle when there is an opportunity to earn money even enough to break even. If, as Paul and RWM say, it is now a time for the railroad to rebuild, fix the infrastructure, etc., then it probably is a good time, too, to test a given service and find its marketability. What if the passenger train works out to be a good service and earns its way. And if it does it helps the host railroad get income to pay for infrastructure maintenance. If I am accused of dealing in too many generalizations, then the dismissal of the idea without looking at a given situation, what could be negotiated, what could happen, is not just as much a generlization but also a major negative approach to business: we've never done it before so why should we do it now? what if it doesn't work? what if it is a success and we're saddled with making money? Come on guys, give innovation, give progress, give yourself a break and think positive. The kind of thinking, this attitude, is probably what's wrong with the thinking of railroad management today! "Ignore it, it should go away. At least until next year after I've retired." If American railroads were to quickly jump on passenger service in order to make some cash, knowing full well that they would have to relinquish this traffic later at great cost, they would surely be seen as going for the quick buck without any long term investment and strategy.
I am not going for the quick buck...I am going for new thinking, new planning, expanded minds, expanded business, new money, new ideas, thinking outside the boxcar, whatever you want to call it. I want to see the same old same old thinking of how a railroad was run thrown away and a new thinking of how a railroad could or might be run now and in the future brought to the table.
Henry6, you have said the following above (my emphasis added):
“But if you have a piece of track that is unoccupied for 20 hours a day, how much money is it bringing to the bottom line?”
“If the track is empty and it is costing you $X.XX per hour to have it sit empty why not work out a deal to get at least that $X.XX per hour back.”
“If you can get $X.XX plys [plus] $Y.YY, all the better, but don't get greedy and try to get the whole 20 empty hours back: get what you can and cut your losses.”
“I am not going for the quick buck...I am going for new thinking, new planning, expanded minds, expanded business, new money, new ideas, thinking outside the boxcar, whatever you want to call it.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My response:
When they don’t go after the lost revenue from those 20 hours per day, to you, it looks like they are not thinking out of the box. Maybe the fact is that they are just trying to not be greedy. You know, get what they can and cut their losses, as you say. You seem to see their glass as half empty, but maybe it is actually half full.
And, incidenlty, let me add that I am not just talking about passenger service...I am talking about anybody who walks into the railroad office and wants to buy: it is a perfect time for them to explore new avenues of income and find out what they might have to or want to do to get it.
henry6 And, incidenlty, let me add that I am not just talking about passenger service...I am talking about anybody who walks into the railroad office and wants to buy: it is a perfect time for them to explore new avenues of income and find out what they might have to or want to do to get it.
Right now, our company, and 1,001 of our dearest competitors are, at this very moment, exploring every new avenue of income under the sun. To suggest that a railroad, or any other business in the country right now is just sitting on their hands and not doing this, is to suggest that you are either far removed from the business world, or terribly underestimating the spirit and strength of American business and railroading in particular. You are wrong.
I don't follow all the minutiae of blue streak 1's post above from 7:51 PM on 02-11-2009, but I can relate to this part of it:
"Think what it is like when you are on a two lane interstate in your porsche traveling 125 and you come up and have to wait for a 2 mile long tractor trailer going 60MPH passing another 2 mile long tractor trailer going 55MP. OOPS - that slows you down for a minimum of 25 minutes not counting distance to get front to back separation." [emphasis added - PDN]
As RWM and maybe others have told us, the required length of passing sidings for trains to get around each other is horrendous. A couple weeks ago I worked out in my head something like a 60 MPH intermodal passing a 40 MPH manifest or coal train - each 10,000 ft. long, and moving at a constant speed - and also came up with a figure in the 25-mile range. Here's how the approximate math works:
Difference in speeds = 60 MPH - 40 MPH = 20 MPH
20 MPH x 1.5* ft./ sec. = 30 ft. / sec. difference, that the faster train will gain on the slower one.
* 1 Mile Per Hour = 5,280 Ft. per Mile / (60 mins. per Hr. x 60 Secs. per min.) = 1.47 Ft. Sec. - use 1.5 Ft. / Sec. for simplicity.
For each 10,000 ft. (2 miles) that speed difference has to overcome, it will take:
10,000 ft. / 30 ft. / sec. = 333 secs. = 5.56 mins., say 6 mins.
When this passing maneuver starts, the intermodal train will have to be at least 1 block = 10,000 ft. behind the coal train, as the tail end of the coal train finishes moving into the 40-MPH siding and the mainline turnout (No. 20 ?) returns to the Normal = fast position for the intermodal train, for the intermodal to avoid seeing a red block signal (maybe more - RWM or someone else can tell us). The front of the IM then has to come up even with the tail of the coal train, which is the 1st 10,000 ft. Then the front of the IM has to progress along the length of the coal train until the locos are even, so that's another - 2nd - 10,000 ft. Then the IM has to pull out ahead of the coal train until the tail of the IM is just even with the locos of the coal train, which is another -3rd- 10,000 ft. Finally, the tail of the IM has to be at least another 1 block = the 4th - 10,000 ft. ahead of the coal train's locos before the coal train can return to the main where the IM just was (via another No. 20 turnout ?), so that the coal train doesn't see a red block signal then.
So that's a total of 40,000 ft., or 7.58 miles = 8 miles practically, as a minimum distance that the IM has overcome i order to overtake and pass the coal train. At 5.56 or 6 minutes for each 10,000 ft. increment, that's 22 to 24 minutes = 22 to 24 miles for the 60 MPH (= 1 mile per minute) intermodal train. And if RWM or someone else tells me that no, a minimum separation of 2 blocks - of 10,000 ft. each - is needed for each train to reliably avoid seeing a red or speed-restricting yellow signal during this passing maneuver. That would add another 20,000 ft. to overcome, or another 11 to 12 minutes and another 11 to 12 miles, for a total of 33 to 36 miles.
Other values for these numbers could be used ("YMMV" = Your Mileage May Vary !), but the conclusions will be similar. Practially, that has to be getting close to a 40-mile long passing siding, which may as well be effectively a another main track. It feels like this entire maneuver would take those two trains halfway across Nebraska to consummate !
I certainly hope so! But the tone of some postings here in reply to my suggestion was that the status quo is. The old good enough is good enough, someday things will [may] turn back around and all will be hunky doree again. I am just saying that a downturn in business or unused inventory is an opportunity to explore new routes of income, new services, new adaptations if necessary. And so what if it is short term? If it is not good, then short term might be too long. If it is good, then short term is a good breaking in period. You don't know unless you try.
henry6 And, incidenlty, let me add that I am not just talking about passenger service...I am talking about anybody who walks into the railroad office and wants to buy: it is a perfect time for them to explore new avenues of income and find out what they might have to or want to do to get it. [emphasis added - PDN]
Are you familiar with the story of "Death Valley Scotty" ? He was a miner who struck it rich. Back in July 1905, he chartered a special short passenger train on the AT&SF from California to Chicago, pretty much just for the heck of it to see how fast they could do it ? The trip was made with specially selected locos and enginemen and a couple of reporters on board, closely supervised by ATSF officials. It's something of a legend:
"The entire nation followed the “Coyote Special.” As the train sped along the 2,265-mile journey, bulletins were flashed from the railroad to the press. Cheering crowds lined the tracks.
When the train arrived at Chicago’s Dearborn Station on July 11 at 11:45 a.m., two days later, it had covered the entire distance in 44 hours, 54 minutes, breaking the old record by nearly eight hours. The record would stand unmatched for more than 30 years, until the advent of diesel locomotives."
- From a 2002 article in the Los Angeles Times, at: http://articles.latimes.com/2002/jul/28/local/me-then28
EDIT - add: Good grief, there's a ton of more info on this in the Wikipedia article at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Special
Paul_D_North_Jr henry6 And, incidenlty, let me add that I am not just talking about passenger service...I am talking about anybody who walks into the railroad office and wants to buy: it is a perfect time for them to explore new avenues of income and find out what they might have to or want to do to get it. [emphasis added - PDN] Are you familiar with the story of "Death Valley Scotty" ? He was a miner who struck it rich. Back in July 1905, he chartered a special short passenger train on the AT&SF from California to Chicago, pretty much just for the heck of it to see how fast they could do it ? The trip was made with specially selected locos and enginemen and a couple of reporters on board, closely supervised by ATSF officials. It's something of a legend: "The entire nation followed the “Coyote Special.” As the train sped along the 2,265-mile journey, bulletins were flashed from the railroad to the press. Cheering crowds lined the tracks. When the train arrived at Chicago’s Dearborn Station on July 11 at 11:45 a.m., two days later, it had covered the entire distance in 44 hours, 54 minutes, breaking the old record by nearly eight hours. The record would stand unmatched for more than 30 years, until the advent of diesel locomotives." - From a 2002 article in the Los Angeles Times, at: http://articles.latimes.com/2002/jul/28/local/me-then28 - Paul North. EDIT - add: Good grief, there's a ton of more info on this in the Wikipedia article at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Special
Paul, if another "Scottie" showed up today with a similar proposal he may not have enough money, even with the current slowdown. The disruption of the TRANSCON, and the ancillary disruptions, would be difficult to compute. In 1905 Santa Fe was promoting the passenger business and considered this a public relations project. Several RR's did gooffy things back in those times - the MKT had two trains stage a head on with unmanned trains starting toward each other from either side of a valley, and had advertised it so there would be spectators.
Regarding taking on passenger service in these 'lean times', that would be like pregnancy with no option for abortion. The public, with their legislators, would make it very difficult or impossible to terminate.
Paul_D_North_JrAs RWM and maybe others have told us, the required length of passing sidings for trains to get around each other is horrendous. A couple weeks ago I worked out in my head something like a 60 MPH intermodal passing a 40 MPH manifest or coal train - each 10,000 ft. long, and moving at a constant speed - and also came up with a figure in the 25-mile range. Here's how the approximate math works:<edit for space>Other values for these numbers could be used ("YMMV" = Your Mileage May Vary !), but the conclusions will be similar. Practially, that has to be getting close to a 40-mile long passing siding, which may as well be effectively a another main track. It feels like this entire maneuver would take those two trains halfway across Nebraska to consummate ! - Paul North.
In practical terms, the amount of "wrong-hand main" that will be used up for a runaround in reasonably flat CTC territory where both trains keep moving at their best possible speed is ~ 40 miles. This is presupposing there are no opposing moves wanting to use that other main track during this event. It still takes a very good dispatcher to get away with it, and a smart ACD or Chief will only let a good dispatcher attempt it. If you have that kind of low train density on a consistent basis that you can do stunts like this, you are maintaining an awful lot of track that is not being paid for by the traffic. Rail operations is the science of balancing expense with revenue. A solution that optimizes revenue will be very expensive to implement. A solution that optimizes expense runs zero trains.
The RTC tool is used to model runaround scenarios in specific terrains, which saves a great deal on all the pencil, paper, and calculator work that Paul did above. This enables accuracy for a specific terrain with specific grades, speed restrictions, wayside signal locations, wayside signal aspects, etc. Then I look at it and see if it makes any sense. Sometimes the model does some dumb things, or the modeler has toggles turned on that make the model a little more aggressive than would happen in real life.
diningcarRegarding taking on passenger service in these 'lean times', that would be like pregnancy with no option for abortion. The public, with their legislators, would make it very difficult or impossible to terminate.
A graphic and utterly true analogy.
diningcar [snip] Paul, if another "Scottie" showed up today with a similar proposal he may not have enough money, even with the current slowdown. The disruption of the TRANSCON, and the ancillary disruptions, would be difficult to compute. In 1905 Santa Fe was promoting the passenger business and considered this a public relations project. [snip]
HAH ! Good point ! Using the figure of $9,000 revenue per hour for a typical intermodal train that I developed in my post of 11:52 AM yesterday (02-11-2009), for a 40 hour trip "window" that would be $360,000 or so - probably more like twice that to allow for contingencies, extra supervision, disruption to other trains along the way as you mention, etc. But if I had a spare $ Megabuck I might call Matt Rose up and ask if he too wants to do something to earn a good buck and capture the nation's attention and get it off the other silliness in all of its various forms . . .
- PDN.
Two things: Death Valley Scotty was a one time thing. He himself was not looking to run fast non stop passenger service to Chicago. But, ironically, he did show the Sante Fe what might be done if they really wanted to do it. But that's not what I am talking about here..
I am not saying any service should be started just because somebody comes to the door with the need or idea...again I am not just talking passenger train here...but the customer and the railroad have to work out an agreement. It would be assumed that some kind of market research has been done and planning, etc. of some kind, too...real business people with business plans and understandings and not pie in the sky railfans. If it is to move logs, cars, people, coal, whatever, it has to have a business plan and an understood markting concept. Why do the business experts here keep slamming the door on innovation and possible growth by dismissing an idea out of hand and suggesting that the railroad do the same.
Railway Man In practical terms, the amount of "wrong-hand main" that will be used up for a runaround in reasonably flat CTC territory where both trains keep moving at their best possible speed is ~ 40 miles. This is presupposing there are no opposing moves wanting to use that other main track during this event. It still takes a very good dispatcher to get away with it, and a smart ACD or Chief will only let a good dispatcher attempt it. If you have that kind of low train density on a consistent basis that you can do stunts like this, you are maintaining an awful lot of track that is not being paid for by the traffic. Rail operations is the science of balancing expense with revenue. A solution that optimizes revenue will be very expensive to implement. A solution that optimizes expense runs zero trains. [snip; emphasis added - PDN] RWM
Thanks for confirming the 40-mile conclusion with your real-world insight. The essential conclusion, of course, is that putting any train with a differential speed requirement on a line with tight operations is inevitably and unavoidably going to be either hugely disruptive and hence unacceptable to the railroad, or else hugely expensive to mitigate, and hence unaffordable for someone. When you think of adding a "plain" single track at $1 - 2 million per mile, plus the interlockings at each end and crossovers every 10 miles in between, that siding is going to cost at least $40 to $80 million, plus any special structures (sure to be a few) - say, $100 million. And what - 3 to 5 years to design permit, build, and accept ? That's why no new passenger trains will be added to any busy main line anytime soon. And when they are, the invitation will be like to a high-stakes poker game: "Show up - and bring money !"
LOL (again !) at your last statement, too. Don't you just love how many CEOs and business people focus on that - only ? As you know, of course, the optimal solution is the one that maximizes (long term) net revenue, which is the difference between revenue - expense. A minor mathematical* and technical point - that's not the absolute balance between the two, but instead the solution = operation where each $1.00 change in revenue will have the effect of a $1.00 change in expense in the same direction - both increase, or both decrease. Anything else is by definition sub-optimal. And anyone who has either the judgment or crystal ball to discern that point in all situations with accuracy, precision, and certainty, hasn't made his/ her presence or talent known to us yet.
[* - Where the slope (1st derivative) of the curve of revenue - expense is equal to zero.]
henry6 I am not saying any service should be started just because somebody comes to the door with the need or idea...again I am not just talking passenger train here...but the customer and the railroad have to work out an agreement. It would be assumed that some kind of market research has been done and planning, etc. of some kind, too...real business people with business plans and understandings and not pie in the sky railfans. If it is to move logs, cars, people, coal, whatever, it has to have a business plan and an understood markting concept. Why do the business experts here keep slamming the door on innovation and possible growth by dismissing an idea out of hand and suggesting that the railroad do the same.
Other people have had the same idea you have, starting about 37 years ago to be exact. I have had responsibility for reviewing the business cases and advancing on their merits (if there are any!) 8 such proposals during the past 2 years. Two are on my desk right now. My predecessors did the same, and many of their analyses are behind me on my bookshelves. Most of these ideas failed to get off the drawing board because none of them could effectively compete for the resources they required from the railway facility with other active customers of the railway facility. But when they do get enacted, no one in the railfan community ever celebrates our adoption of a new idea or an outside proposal, they just condemn us for not doing it faster and more often. With a "enthusiast" group like that, who needs enemies?
I appreciate your tireless promoting of ideas; people need to do that. But your conclusion that since we're not all jumping on it that we must be closed-minded, not that the business case is deficient, has no evidence and no logic I can find to support it. I'm too old and grey-haired to be insulted any more.
This is precisely why even though many of us inside the industry -- at some very high levels -- are died-in-the-wool rail enthusiasts, we don't want to be labeled as such or associate with such, because some rail enthusiasts are the most frustrating people we ever meet, worse than the dumbest-post politician. Too often they are the ones that are closed-minded ... to reality. It's hard to explain to other people at the railroad why we would want to associate with a group of people whose prescriptions if enacted would bankrupt the company, wreck our families, and put us all into the soup-kitchen lines. (And that's why most of us are here under an alias.)
The operating examples shown above go a long way in explaining why, after running a test train, BNSF declined to bid on the UPS request for super-speed service, the so-called Bullet Trains.
CSSHEGEWISCH The operating examples shown above go a long way in explaining why, after running a test train, BNSF declined to bid on the UPS request for super-speed service, the so-called Bullet Trains.
Thanks Paul, for a fine example of the sophistication of today's railway management.
Santa Fe had hired industrial engineers several years prior to the merger with BN and used their education and experience to analyze these proposals. I presume BN had some also at the time of the merger.
Santa Fe had a 'train simulator' computer program which was very sophisticated as early as 1975. For the TRANSCON it had the alignment, profile, special circumstances associated with a line gegment and even took into account prevailing winds and their effect on train resistance all loaded into a data base. It was used for power allocation, locomotive purchases, signal spacing and braking application studies, as well as other uses. These BNSF people keep improving upon their analysis techniques which is illustrated by the example Paul has given.
Wow - we've rolled quite a number of more-or-less related topics into this poor abused thread, haven't we ?
Well, now I want to take my 40-mile siding analysis (above), and "bring it on home" with a location-type question, as follows: (By the way, note that RWM was right again when he said - a l-ooo-nnn-g ways above - that a lot of this can be worked out with a pencil and an envelope - the computer just makes it more sophisticated, as diningcar noted just above with his recounting of the Santa Fe's analysis of such things.)
Take my hypothetical 40-mile, $100 million siding scenario above. How much will it cost ? Well, to borrow $1,000 now to pay back over 30 years at a 6 % interest rate will cost $6.00 per month, so the $100 million siding will cost . . . [calculates - there sure are a lot of zeroes in here !] . . . $600,000 per month, or about $20,000 per day ! Add something for maintenance (40 miles at $10,000 per mile per year for heavy traffic = $1,100 per day or so), taxes, insurance, whatever - call it close to $24,000 per day or $1,000 per hour.
Even on a busy line, I doubt if that passing siding will get used for this purpose as often as once an hour - the train density just isn't going to be / can't be that heavy, due to other factors - but let's assume that it will be 1 per hour anyway. So each train that uses this passing siding costs us $1,000.
Now, my intermodal train from yesterday is earning $9,000 revenue per hour. Is this siding worth it to save that train some running time ? [I know, there's some comparing of "revenue apples-to- expense oranges" in this, and non-linear effects, too, but bear with me here.) Well, if that intermodal train saves at least $1,000 worth of that $9,000 per hour, which is about 7 minutes or more, then the answer is yes. But can or will the intermodal train save that much time, and what about other things that might get in its way ? In other words, if the 60 MPH intermodal train instead had to slow down and "dog along" behind the 40 MPH coal train for an hour, what result ? Well, the IM would only go 40 miles, instead of the 60 miles it would have otherwise if ithe IM could have continued unimpeded. So the IM now has to recover 20 miles of distance, which will take at least 20 minutes at its nominal speed of 60 MPH - and 30 minutes at the slower 40 MPH if the IM continues following behind the coal train. So on the surface, the initial analysis is that the siding could well pay for itself, if a lot of intermodal or similar high-value trains are using it.
Now, here are the "location" questions: What are some other alternatives for getting the IM around the coal train ? Well, the obvious and traditional one of stopping the coal train in a conventional 10,000 ft. long siding is maybe not such a good idea - too much delay there, and slow moves brakng to get into it and stop, and then coming out of it and getting back up to track speed.
But instead of building a 40-mile long siding in the assumed flat territory, maybe the smart thing to do is put this passing siding on an grade. There, the coal train - with its comparatively low HP/ton ratio - will be dragging uphill at only 15 or 20 MPH, while the intermodal train - with its comparatively high HP/ton ratio - can better maintain its higher speed and run uphill much faster. Then the IM, with its larger speed differential and hence a higher overtaking rate, can get around the coal train much faster, and so the siding doesn't need to be near as long.
Or, why not put the siding on a moderate downgrade ? That way, the coal train can head in and either slow way down, or even stop. Now that ECP (Electronically Controlled Pneumatic) brakes are starting to be implemented in the coal train fleet, this maneuver won't be quite as problematic as it might have been up until now. With that much more of a speed differential, it follows that the intermnodal train could get around the coal train much faster, and the passing siding could be much shorter. And with the coal train being on a moderate downgrade, getting back up to speed might not be that difficult - release the brakes and let gravity do a lot of that work.
It would take a "driver" = locomotive engineer, Road Foreman of Engines ("RFE"), a trainmaster, or a similar person with a lot of actual operating experience to evaluate and judge these alternatives. So, any thoughts or comments on them from out there ?
Paul_D_North_JrWow - we've rolled quite a number of more-or-less related topics into this poor abused thread, haven't we ? Well, now I want to take my 40-mile siding analysis (above), and "bring it on home" with a location-type question, as follows: (By the way, note that RWM was right again when he said - a l-ooo-nnn-g ways above - that a lot of this can be worked out with a pencil and an envelope - the computer just makes it more sophisticated, as diningcar noted just above with his recounting of the Santa Fe's analysis of such things.) Take my hypothetical 40-mile, $100 million siding scenario above. How much will it cost ? Well, to borrow $1,000 now to pay back over 30 years at a 6 % interest rate will cost $6.00 per month, so the $100 million siding will cost . . . [calculates - there sure are a lot of zeroes in here !] . . . $600,000 per month, or about $20,000 per day ! Add something for maintenance (40 miles at $10,000 per mile per year for heavy traffic = $1,100 per day or so), taxes, insurance, whatever - call it close to $24,000 per day or $1,000 per hour. Even on a busy line, I doubt if that passing siding will get used for this purpose as often as once an hour - the train density just isn't going to be / can't be that heavy, due to other factors - but let's assume that it will be 1 per hour anyway. So each train that uses this passing siding costs us $1,000. Now, my intermodal train from yesterday is earning $9,000 revenue per hour. Is this siding worth it to save that train some running time ? [I know, there's some comparing of "revenue apples-to- expense oranges" in this, and non-linear effects, too, but bear with me here.) Well, if that intermodal train saves at least $1,000 worth of that $9,000 per hour, which is about 7 minutes or more, then the answer is yes. But can or will the intermodal train save that much time, and what about other things that might get in its way ? In other words, if the 60 MPH intermodal train instead had to slow down and "dog along" behind the 40 MPH coal train for an hour, what result ? Well, the IM would only go 40 miles, instead of the 60 miles it would have otherwise if ithe IM could have continued unimpeded. So the IM now has to recover 20 miles of distance, which will take at least 20 minutes at its nominal speed of 60 MPH - and 30 minutes at the slower 40 MPH if the IM continues following behind the coal train. So on the surface, the initial analysis is that the siding could well pay for itself, if a lot of intermodal or similar high-value trains are using it. Now, here are the "location" questions: What are some other alternatives for getting the IM around the coal train ? Well, the obvious and traditional one of stopping the coal train in a conventional 10,000 ft. long siding is maybe not such a good idea - too much delay there, and slow moves brakng to get into it and stop, and then coming out of it and getting back up to track speed. But instead of building a 40-mile long siding in the assumed flat territory, maybe the smart thing to do is put this passing siding on an grade. There, the coal train - with its comparatively low HP/ton ratio - will be dragging uphill at only 15 or 20 MPH, while the intermodal train - with its comparatively high HP/ton ratio - can better maintain its higher speed and run uphill much faster. Then the IM, with its larger speed differential and hence a higher overtaking rate, can get around the coal train much faster, and so the siding doesn't need to be near as long. Or, why not put the siding on a moderate downgrade ? That way, the coal train can head in and either slow way down, or even stop. Now that ECP (Electronically Controlled Pneumatic) brakes are starting to be implemented in the coal train fleet, this maneuver won't be quite as problematic as it might have been up until now. With that much more of a speed differential, it follows that the intermnodal train could get around the coal train much faster, and the passing siding could be much shorter. And with the coal train being on a moderate downgrade, getting back up to speed might not be that difficult - release the brakes and let gravity do a lot of that work. It would take a "driver" = locomotive engineer, Road Foreman of Engines ("RFE"), a trainmaster, or a similar person with a lot of actual operating experience to evaluate and judge these alternatives. So, any thoughts or comments on them from out there ? - Paul North.
Your siding on the downgrade has to be signaled for a non-ECP train because even ECP trains might fail and go into non-ECP mode, and there is no way the FRA is going to let you write a special instruction that says you can only use the siding for ECP trains, even should you want to do something that risky! Downhill sidings have some very bad effects on wayside signal spacing, which will rob capacity for plain-old trains that will never take it. In general? A heavy train will never be routed into a downhill siding because there's way too much risk it will come out the other end. As a dispatcher, I never routed a downhill heavy train into a siding without first talking to the hoghead, and making sure he was comfortable with it. Sometimes they were, sometimes they weren't.
We build hundreds of scenarios like this and test them with the RTC model. It's not a black-box model; it only tests what you put in. So if you put in garbage, you get dumb results. But those of us that are using it are mostly old chief dispatchers so we have extra-gray hair and lots of skepticism. These days no passenger train or line change or new siding or anything will be built without running it on the RTC model, and the people who look at the results and figure out what to do with them are people like me -- former chief dispatchers, superintendents, and the like; people whose job it is every day to make a division or a region run.
Paul, you have the wrong set of people. Train dispatchers and signal engineers are the people who know how a railroad operates as opposed to how a train operates. The braking curves are worked out by formula and experience. RFEs play in that game and are the experts who will tell you if a braking curve is too aggressive. (We also work closely with specialty rail track/train dynamic firms that analysze buff forces, etc.). The braking curves set the signal spacing. The signal spacing says what trains are going to do for speed and spacing. Trainmasters have no role in designing infrastructure or in service design or in network planning; their job is to get crews out the door, do efficiency tests, go to investigations, and solve local problems. I have never in my career seen a trainmaster stick his nose into a dispatching office much less know what goes on there. At the level of an assistant superintendent, then that person better start learning how a railroad operates not just a train. Most of the annointed up-and-comers are secunded to a dispatching office as an ACD for awhile so they can learn something of how a railroad operates.
If you want to do overtakes, you build outside sidings. You put the slow train into them and wait until the fleet runs by, then bring them out. You will oftentimes hog them out, of course. That's the breaks. There is usually not a lot of economic incentive to run the wheels off a heavy train anyway. If the coal or grain train has a 72-hour cycle or a 70-hour cycle, so what? These trainsets usually end up parked a month of the year anyway, so the "savings" in time never accrues to anything useful, like less car capital costs. The economic incentive to speeding up coal and grain trains with higher hp/ton ratios is mostly so that they will not delay trains that have a significant time component to them. The tradeoff, then, is between building sidings to stash 1.2 hp/ton grain and coal trains into to get them out of the way of the hotshots, and not building sidings and powering them up to 2.0 hp/ton to try and run them ahead of the hotshots. Generally the plan for most Class 1s in recent years has been more power, less sidings. This is precisely what we test with the RTC model -- comparing alternatives, conceptually costing the thing, and seeing which business case works better.
RWM -
Thanks for that clarification and comments. I can see where I was a little off-base with the people - what you're describing for the RFE is more what I had in my mind.
I was wondering, too, about taking the $100 million for that hypothetical siding and instead buying say, 50 locos (at $2 million ea.) = whole lotta more HP to add onto those slow trains to do exactly as you say is the recent trend. Not quite the same as the siding dollar-for-dollar, but another alternative to look at. But I didn't want to write the equivalent of another section of a book this afternoon . . .
Even before I read your response above I was thinking the following: Now we know why the PRR and the NYC essentally said "The heck with this fooling around with half-measures - we'll just build 4-track mains" (with a very few too-tight 2-track exceptions, and in some places, even 6 tracks) - to handle all their traffic between NYC and Chicago (and Washington, D.C., too for the PRR). Which was basically a fast (through) and a slow (local) track in each direction. And then they installed interlockings - with like 6 crossovers to get all the way across those 4 tracks and back again, complete with block towers that were manned 24 x 7 x 365 - like every 6 to 10 miles to facilitate the kind of maneuvers that we're discussing here. Can you imagine what that cost to do then ?
Better yet, can you imagine what it would cost to replicate all that today ? Now we can better appreciate the value of all that track, structure, and signal infrastructure and route-miles and track-miles that's already out there now. It staggers the imagination (at least mine tonight, anyway).
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.