Dyslexics of the world--untie!
LC, I wouldn't mind meeting you if you happen to be in Chicagoland again, with a little better transport. Or you, Paul--or Norris! Most of the people I've met through this Forum I'm pleased to have made their acquaintance, and if I don't hold the record, I'm pretty close to it.
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
Mookie LC - now my palms are sweating.....Believe it or not - I am shy about meeting people for the first time.
LC - now my palms are sweating.....Believe it or not - I am shy about meeting people for the first time.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Mookie LC - now my palms are sweating.....Believe it or not - I am shy about meeting people for the first time. (Ask Mudchicken. Altho..... I nearly knocked him off his feet the first time - a tackle right to the chest!) Well, maybe he isn't a good example. Ed and Carl, I was a little more reserved.....
LC - now my palms are sweating.....Believe it or not - I am shy about meeting people for the first time. (Ask Mudchicken. Altho..... I nearly knocked him off his feet the first time - a tackle right to the chest!) Well, maybe he isn't a good example. Ed and Carl, I was a little more reserved.....
No need to sweat it Mook, just a cranky ol' railroader... MC is one of my favorite folks. I've been to see him in Denver and elsewhere too. Kathi Kube is a lot of fun too. Gotta convince her to get to the Vegas meeting this year. In the RR biz we don't listen to Obama on where to hold our meetings. Don't think there'll be any corporate jets there this time though...
Despite the de-err-recession my travel schedule is still nuts. I guess I need to fly to Moline in July. Anybody know who flys there?
LC
She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw
CShaveRRPaul, it's neither "inside" nor a joke. SJ has always displayed all of the attributes I would like to have had in a little sister--smart, witty, and curious and excited about something that means a lot to a big brother. It didn't take me long for me to "adopt" her. We hit it off quite well when we met, and our respective spouses get along, too. Cousin Ed and I are both railroaders (and yes, Sis and I have met him in person, too). Meanwhile, I've been getting along a lot better with my little sisters in real life since adopting SJ. Don't know what that says, but I'm not knocking it.
As an aside, I'm looking forward to meeting the three of you at some point too. I keep trying to get to Houston, but it hasn't worked for me yet. I'm thinking sometime in the next year or so. As for Chicago, I was there for a fly in/out a few months back, but as I was at O'Hare and carless it wasn't gonna happen.
P.S. Where can I find this guy Jose? Sounds like he can replace a three man section gang and my wreckmaster.
croteaudd Bucyrus croteaudd, Sounds to me like you should talk to these people at Railcars Sequencing Turntables, LLC: http://www.freightturntables.com/home They have it all worked out and will explain the details. Their website will load a demonstration in a minute or so. It is as simple as 2 + 2 = 4 When you get done checking that out, come back and tell us what you think of it. Bucyrus,Thank you for the awareness of the turntable group’s efforts and website.The website demonstration was most fascinating and totally mesmerizing.The turntable’s cost itself seems unbelievably enormous. But, it is difficult to evaluate the costs without knowing the A to B operating premises that would be used.Finally, I couldn’t help but wondered if centrifugal force would flip boxcars over at the outer ends of the turntable! The website’s demo was great, but it is unimaginable (at least to me) that such a large, real turntable could safely shift positions that fast.
Bucyrus croteaudd, Sounds to me like you should talk to these people at Railcars Sequencing Turntables, LLC: http://www.freightturntables.com/home They have it all worked out and will explain the details. Their website will load a demonstration in a minute or so. It is as simple as 2 + 2 = 4 When you get done checking that out, come back and tell us what you think of it.
Bucyrus,Thank you for the awareness of the turntable group’s efforts and website.The website demonstration was most fascinating and totally mesmerizing.The turntable’s cost itself seems unbelievably enormous. But, it is difficult to evaluate the costs without knowing the A to B operating premises that would be used.Finally, I couldn’t help but wondered if centrifugal force would flip boxcars over at the outer ends of the turntable! The website’s demo was great, but it is unimaginable (at least to me) that such a large, real turntable could safely shift positions that fast.
croteaudd,
I agree that starting and stopping a 1000-foot-diameter turntable carrying thousands of tons of rolling stock could be problematic. It would need to be driven and braked from its perimeter. It poses questions that need to be answered.
But I am really curious about your sorting system. Please clarify whether you are referring to a revised methodology using conventional classification yards, or revised hardware that replaces conventional classification yards.
And please explain how you would sort cars without bleeding the brakes.
Bucyruscroteaudd, Sounds to me like you should talk to these people at Railcars Sequencing Turntables, LLC: http://www.freightturntables.com/home They have it all worked out and will explain the details. Their website will load a demonstration in a minute or so. It is as simple as 2 + 2 = 4 When you get done checking that out, come back and tell us what you think of it.
MP173 The earlier comment about a butterfly in China and thunderstorm in Philadelphia is a great analogy. A broken knuckle on a single track stretch, or a car on the ground on track 48 at Proviso will have ripple effects down the line. Same as a thunderstorm at OHare at 5pm. Or a financial failure based on too much leverage. Systems can fall down in a hurry. ed
The earlier comment about a butterfly in China and thunderstorm in Philadelphia is a great analogy. A broken knuckle on a single track stretch, or a car on the ground on track 48 at Proviso will have ripple effects down the line. Same as a thunderstorm at OHare at 5pm. Or a financial failure based on too much leverage. Systems can fall down in a hurry.
ed
And the there is the Spanish Inquisition!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSe38dzJYkY
"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
Mac:Quite an answer. I really appreciate your taking the time and sharing your industry knowledge. The larger the tool, the more difficult it is to have a spare sitting around. Let alone get it spotted. Trucking is obviously much easier to provide service, assuming the equipment and manpower is available, as there are so many routing possibilities.
What I am beginning to understand is the nonrandomness of this industry. Cars just dont move around. There is a definate flow and order. I was very fortunate and lucky to spend a couple of hours in a major hump yard watching and listening to the activity. How many millions of dollars of GNP passed by in that short time? It is staggering.
MP 173
I will give you overview of how "general service" cars are handled. I will use your scrap gon example.
First most railroad owned cars are assigned to a pool. It may be very specific, such as Schnitzer Steel at Portland Oregon, or very broad such as system scrap. High class gons are very likely in other pools. The Schnitzer Portland pool will contain a specific number of cars based on expected traffic levels and historic turn times, usually calculated load to load. For example a customer who reliably orders 10 cars a day with a 15 day turn time requires a pool of 150 cars.
Problems crop up immediately. The loading facility breaks down so empty cars bunch up at loading end. If facilty is physically restricted to about the planned loading rate, say 12 cars a day, it will take a week to work off one lost loading day while empty cars sit in the yard that supports the origin customer. On the unloading end the radiation detector picks up a hot car. Have to move it to a different spot and unload it peice by piece taking an extra five days. Unoading facility lets one end of a cut run over the derail which ties up the whole place until the railroad gets Jose and the gang out to rerail the car and fix the track. Railroad yard track has wide gauge and cars drop in. Call Jose again. All routine problems, but they all create variability, random disturbances which generally lenghten car cycle.
Most customers are not that consistent. One week they want one car the next week they want 10, the next two weeks they order nothing. How many cars would you buy to support that customer? As a matter of practice most customers order on a weekly basis and hope for 1/5 of order to appear each day, holidays and weekends excepted. Fortunately with many customers weekly orders tend to a weekly mean value, as do car cycles, but changes in either can leave railroad over supplied with cars or short. If short, the shipper calls his congressman. If over no one but railroad bean counter cares.
Actual orders are typically filled by a computer working on a program designed to fill all orders from the appropriate pool with a minimum of empty car miles and empty car days.
Consider the same minimill that gets scrap from Portland. The mill is located on a UP shortline in Western Oregon and is also buying scrap from California. They want 10 cars per day from five different vendors in California with varrying capacity and availablity of scrap. The mill buyer contracts for constant volume in total, but varrying as between origin points on a weekly basis. Expected car cycle is different from each location. Some shippers are on UP and some on BNSF. While BNSF has obligation to supply cars, if anyone is paying attention the last order they will fill is the short line haul to UP interchange. For that reason the UP pool used to supply the California origin cars may or may not include the BNSF origin(s).
The preceeding is all short term. Long term the question is how should the fleet be adjusted? The answer is so as to maximize contribution margin per dollar invested. Contribution margin is revenue minus variable costs.
How much will you invest to protect the short haul traffic? As little as possible since the move is only 50 miles by road but 200 by rail with a shortline involved. Truck cost will limit rail rate. Depressed rail rate means low to nonexistant contribution margin. The solution is to assign cars that are one step away from the scrapper to this pool if you have them. If not, raise the rate since if you base your costs on new cars the traffic is a looser, that is the traffic has a zero or negative contribution margin. The polite term for this is "demarketing".
How much do you invest to protect the long haul traffic? Here your circuity is not bad. The haul is too long for private or contract truckers to seek the business because your rate is lower than their costs. If a rate low enough to hold the traffic gives a good contribution margin, and you expect the customer to stay in business for the 40 year life of the cars, you make the investment, say 150 cars at $60,000 each, or $9,000,000.
The ideal is obviously to have just enough equipment to use the last car to fill the last order. It never happens. Operations change shortening or lengthing the expected car cycle. Random problems, and we have barely scratched the surface about what they are, always lengthen car cycles. The known unknows can be planned for with more cars. The unknown unknows can not be planned for.
Car shortages result from unexpected increases in traffic offered, or changes in traffic patterns. Longer shipments imply longer transit times and more cars to protect a fixed volume. Car surpluses result from lack of traffic, say a bad grain crop, a customer's plant is shut down, loss of business to a competing railroad, barge line or trucker, or a financial panic.
There are really two issues; car disrtibution or how do I fill the car orders that I have, and car supply or how many cars should I have in the fleet to protect the traffic that makes money for me?
If I did not hit what you really want to know, let me know and I will try again.
Mac
Railway Man Ed -- I digress here, and this is absolutely not directed at you, because you clearly understand economics. Railroading is the cheapest overland transportation method by far, is that not satisfying to anyone? Rail enthusiasts have built a straw man out of the evil truck, expect the railway to burn the straw man every day, and then -- having created a challenge for which railways themselves did not ask -- are disappointed and blame the railways when the railways don't fulfill their fantasies. I know of no other hobby where the participants spend quite so much time and effort setting themselves up for disappointment and unhappiness. John Kneiling made enemies because he had a soapbox from which he could issue scorn and judgment without fear of ever having to make good on his theories. He had no skin in the game, and I don't think anyone ever offered him a ticket to the dance, either. From that you could conclude that either John's prescriptions were snake oil, or that railways were vast conspiracy and threatened by John. John was an outstanding columnist, in that the purpose of a columnist is to stir things up a little, entertain us, and sell magazines. (OK, that paragraph used four cliches, and that's overquota for today.) RWM
Ed -- I digress here, and this is absolutely not directed at you, because you clearly understand economics. Railroading is the cheapest overland transportation method by far, is that not satisfying to anyone? Rail enthusiasts have built a straw man out of the evil truck, expect the railway to burn the straw man every day, and then -- having created a challenge for which railways themselves did not ask -- are disappointed and blame the railways when the railways don't fulfill their fantasies. I know of no other hobby where the participants spend quite so much time and effort setting themselves up for disappointment and unhappiness.
John Kneiling made enemies because he had a soapbox from which he could issue scorn and judgment without fear of ever having to make good on his theories. He had no skin in the game, and I don't think anyone ever offered him a ticket to the dance, either. From that you could conclude that either John's prescriptions were snake oil, or that railways were vast conspiracy and threatened by John. John was an outstanding columnist, in that the purpose of a columnist is to stir things up a little, entertain us, and sell magazines. (OK, that paragraph used four cliches, and that's overquota for today.)
RWM
I'm going to stick up for Mr. Kneiling here.
First, I don't believe the statement that "Railroading is the cheapest overland transportation method by far" is true. Railroads are now niche players in the transportation market. They've got some very good niches, and they've recently been financially successful (which may change soon thanks to our Federal Government), but trucks have long dominated the movement of goods in the US. There's only one real reason for this dominance, on an "all in" cost basis trucks are cheaper to use for most freight.
That was one of Kneiling's main points. He hammered on things like total logistics costs which were beyond the range of comfortable thought for most railroaders of the day. Making people leave their comfort zone of thought always upsets them. Kneiling was very successful at doing that. But he once said: "Making you feel good is another profession."
Kneiling also hammered poor utilization of equipment. He was right about that one. I once had a C&O trainmaster flat out tell me that "They don't cost us anything, we own 'em" with regard to freight cars. If somebody understood the costs at headquarters they weren't getting the word out to the field where the decisions were made.
At the ICG it was painfully obvious that the operating people didn't take equipment costs seriously. Cars that went bad order in Jackson, MS on Friday afternoon waited until Monday for repair. The cost of having a car just sit over a weekend didn't apear on the mechanical department's expenses, so they just let it sit.
We tried to improve service on paper and chemicals from Louisiana to the northeast. Cars were moved to Centrailia where three blocks were made for Conrail yards. The blocks were moved to Effingham where Conrail trains destined to those yards picked them up. This necessistated making a Centrailia block at Geismar, LA. Geismar was making eight blocks on eight classification tracks. The Centrailia block would be the 9th to be built on eight tracks.
Now you can do this easy enough. But no. They just quit making a Birmingham block. This sent the Birmingham cars into the Memphis yard. It added about two days to the cycle time of some assigned cars which were getting particular attention. (The operating people took a step back to go with the step forward of improving service to the northeast. They degraded service to the southeast.) We squawked pointing out that this would require the assignment of more cars to the service.
They had effectively spent capital funds without thinking about it. (We got the Birmingham block back.)
Kneiling was pointing things like this out. It made people think, and often folks just hate that.
Kneiling was right about concepts approximating double stack container trains, shuttle grain service and high performance coal trains. These things make up large successful niches of today's railroading. He missed on details. But everything changes from initial concept to implementation.
I think he had the big picture in focus. As to tact, he aparently didn't find it useful.
Murphy:Thanks for the update on Dale. His ability to provide information is world class. Let's hope his system gets quick, soon.
Paul:Keep those links coming. The multimodalinc algorithm link was a very good overview of what we are discussing.
Ok, bear with me on this next question. Lets assume that a railroad has pools of different types of cars that it knows will be used in the operations. These cars may be specifically built to handle certain types of freight (hi cube box cars for auto for example). That pool of cars probably move in fairly regular rotations from specific shippers to consignees and return.
Lets deal with a more general type of car, perhaps gondolas, used in handling scrap metal. You know the kind...30 years old with rusting sides which have had considerable abuse over the years. How does the railroad control the movement of empties to handle shipper requirements? Often the scrap metal folks have their own fleet, but let's just say these are NS cars moving within their system.
Is there an algorithm system in place that is based on historic needs that indicates how much car inventory needs to be available at specific locations? Could this be part of the issue the OP could be indirectly referring to? We have determined that asset managment is critical to the profitability of a business. Too much and margins erode. Too little and opportunity are lost. How does the railroad determine the tools they will need? Probably such as any other business, with input from the sales and marketing people based on customer needs.
So, is part of the problem not that the cars move inefficiently, but there is an oversupply of cars to handle high water marks in business cycles? Thus, there will often be cars sitting, waiting the next load.
To make a long story even longer, how do railroads handle the movement and placement of empties?
MP173 BTW, completely off topic, but I havent seen Dale lately (Naomini (sp)). He reference ability was amazing. Anyone know anything about him? ed
BTW, completely off topic, but I havent seen Dale lately (Naomini (sp)). He reference ability was amazing. Anyone know anything about him?
MultiModal's home page: http://www.multimodalinc.com/
From "White Paper" on Algorithm-Based Blocking Plan Analysis
April 12, 1999
Carl Van ***
Marc Meketon
"Over the years a series of tools have been developed to assist in the modeling, evaluation, and design of railroad blocking or marshalling plans. This discussion will focus on the capabilities of this type currently found in MultiModal Applied Systems’ MultiRail product. Variations of these capabilities can also be found in the Automated Blocking Model software family maintained by ALK Associates and in the real-time Algorithmic Blocking and Classification System (ABC) used by Norfolk Southern. Every major U.S., Canadian, and Mexican carrier currently utilizes MultiRail, and the blocking logic it contains for strategic analysis and planning."
See:
http://www.multimodalinc.com/pdfs/algorithm.pdf
- Paul North.
Earlier in the thread a quick reference was made to RPM (used as statistics).
What is it and where?
Rail Applications Special Interest Group - "RASIG" - of "operations research" by mathematical and statistical methods: http://www.muten.com/rasig/ and http://www.muten.com/
RASIG's current website could not be accessed, but here's their "Archives" page with links:
http://www.muten.com/rasig/meeting.html
And a typical meeting's agenda / program: http://www.muten.com/rasig/atlanta2003.html
Railroading's hidden half: the yard, part 1 Trains, June 2002 page 46 what yards do and how they work ( "KRAFT, EDWIN", OPERATION, YARD, TRN )
Railroading's hidden half: the yard, part 2 Trains, July 2002 page 36 yards of the future ( "KRAFT, EDWIN", OPERATION, YARD, TRN )
Thanks for reminding me of these - think I'll go find and re-read them over the weekend. Also do the Google search.
AnthonyV I sit outside the industry but I do not criticize it, nor have I suggested the railroads should do anything differently. I do not know enough about the business - plain and simple. I enjoy reading posts from industry insiders because I learn more about the tradeoffs that explain why the industry operates as it does. Experience has taught me that when a particular industry operates in a manner that leaves me scratching my head, it is most certainly due to my lack of understanding rather than idiotic industry executives. Those who assert the industry is doing everything wrong would probably end up operating it the same way if given the chance. Regarding the cost issue, could you provide a breakdown of costs? Thanks Anthony
I sit outside the industry but I do not criticize it, nor have I suggested the railroads should do anything differently. I do not know enough about the business - plain and simple. I enjoy reading posts from industry insiders because I learn more about the tradeoffs that explain why the industry operates as it does.
Experience has taught me that when a particular industry operates in a manner that leaves me scratching my head, it is most certainly due to my lack of understanding rather than idiotic industry executives. Those who assert the industry is doing everything wrong would probably end up operating it the same way if given the chance.
Regarding the cost issue, could you provide a breakdown of costs?
Thanks
Anthony
Good question -- but I am not sure how to get at in a simple fashion. Could you try a different approach to the question?
Railway Man Ed's point was that rolling stock cost is relatively small in the whole scheme of costs. I agree. My point is that rolling stock cost per trip is already so low that there is very little opportunity to make it smaller. A car-handling scheme that saves a whopping 25% of the car-cost per trip only makes sense if it can be done for around $25 or less in capital cost, variable cost, interest, taxes, and amortization. I'm avid to see the numbers for an alternative. It's easy to sit outside the industry and criticize it, but if there's not a spreadsheet showing the proposed savings, and a fully thought-out plan to implement it, then it should not be surprising if the critics are ignored. This is not a simple industry with simpletons running it. RWM
Ed's point was that rolling stock cost is relatively small in the whole scheme of costs. I agree. My point is that rolling stock cost per trip is already so low that there is very little opportunity to make it smaller. A car-handling scheme that saves a whopping 25% of the car-cost per trip only makes sense if it can be done for around $25 or less in capital cost, variable cost, interest, taxes, and amortization. I'm avid to see the numbers for an alternative. It's easy to sit outside the industry and criticize it, but if there's not a spreadsheet showing the proposed savings, and a fully thought-out plan to implement it, then it should not be surprising if the critics are ignored. This is not a simple industry with simpletons running it.
RWM :
Mr North and Railway Man: My complements to you both for propriety and decorum. It brings a certain sense of Decency and Good Order to our Forum.
Kindest regards Gentlemen,
PL
Railway Man AnthonyV croteaudd Everything perpetually seems to stand still in railroad yards. I think the fundamental point of the original poster is correct - railroad cars spend much of their time standing still. I recall that the average number of loads a railroad car hauls in a year is 12 to 15. Is this accurate and how does this compare to truck trailers and containers? Anthony His observation was that rail cars spend much of their time not moving. His premise was that this was unnecessary and wasted money. His point was that railroads could make cars move faster and quit wasting money. We're waiting for his proof of concept. [snip -emphasis added] RWM
AnthonyV croteaudd Everything perpetually seems to stand still in railroad yards. I think the fundamental point of the original poster is correct - railroad cars spend much of their time standing still. I recall that the average number of loads a railroad car hauls in a year is 12 to 15. Is this accurate and how does this compare to truck trailers and containers? Anthony
croteaudd Everything perpetually seems to stand still in railroad yards.
Everything perpetually seems to stand still in railroad yards.
I think the fundamental point of the original poster is correct - railroad cars spend much of their time standing still.
I recall that the average number of loads a railroad car hauls in a year is 12 to 15. Is this accurate and how does this compare to truck trailers and containers?
His observation was that rail cars spend much of their time not moving. His premise was that this was unnecessary and wasted money. His point was that railroads could make cars move faster and quit wasting money. We're waiting for his proof of concept.
[snip -emphasis added]
That (above) is a nicely done piece of analysis and rhetoric - a depth of thought and perception not often seen, and not really manifested in the original post - and concisely summarized.
We weren't taught how to do that in engineering school, not even in the required English courses - or in several other institutions of higher learning that I've spent some time in.
RWM - For the benefit of those of us who care to improve how we read, write, and think - can you share with us, where and how did you learn to do that ? Were you an English major, on a debating team, or write a lot of history papers ? Or whatever you care to tell us.
That I'm taking the time to write this post speaks to how much I admire it, I hope. A lot more people could benefit from those skills.
For some interesting reader on railway classification yards checkout Dr. Edwin R. "Chip" Kraft's articles in trains magazine.
A google search turns up some interesting stuff using his name too.
RWM:I knew the "inefficiencies" would bring out a comment, that is why I hedged it just a bit.
Railroads are efficient and are really starting to flex that efficiency. It will be interesting to see how this recession affects their operations and future investments.
Gotta run to a basketball game (I do live in Indiana), but regarding your comment of hobbies that disappoint...how about astronomy?
I cannot tell you the number of failures when seeking Messier 51 from my backyard with my 90mmETX (in light pollution). But, there is always something out there to keep us going. To me, it always seemed good to be outside at midnight with my scope and hear an NS or CN blasting thru town. There is nothing quite like looking thousands of years into the past and hearing a train cross town in the present.
MP173In a way, the railroads have built in for their inefficiencies. Look at the railroad tariffs and one will notice there are rates for railroad provided equipment and lower rates for private equipment. One may argue this is not accounting for "inefficiencies" but for the transfer of assets to the shippers. I wont split hairs on this one. However, a number of very large shippers now own their equipment, in fact in certain industries it appears to be standard practice. Somewhere on this thread I thought there was mention of the number of car cycles per year that cars generate. I cannot find it. If someone has that info, particularly for specific types of cars (covered hoppers, boxcars, etc) I would like to take a look at that. This thread has really turned into a very good discussion on the car hire, car cycle, asset utilization subject. During the 70's John Kneiling had a monthly column in Trains in which he discussed the inefficiencies of the industry. He made a number of enemies with his views. Much of what he had to say was related to this discussion. Paul, your last post regarding the modeling of the yard operations, from an engineer's viewpoint is interesting. Obviously there are models which analyze traffic flows. I recall reading that NS had such a system. On another forum, members are discussing NS's operation changes during the past year due to the economy. They seem to have a pretty good handle on how to move their carload traffic between major terminals and are often starting/terminating OD points. Years ago Hunter Harrison of CN mentioned the goal of having their yards empty. We discussed scheduled railroading on other threads and briefly touched on it here. Somewhere out there is the key to what makes this works. Most of us on this thread do not have the tools available to us. Those are proprietary tools to a railroad or within the industry. We might be given glimpses of those tools from time to time (investor relations sometimes briefly discusses these tools), but for the most part it isnt for us to know. A decade ago we were allowed to trace individual cars, now due to 911/security that is not available (understandedly so). A book I read on the Missouri Pacific stated they were at the forefront of developing a transportation control system back in the 60's. That evolution has been quite astounding in a few decades. ed
In a way, the railroads have built in for their inefficiencies. Look at the railroad tariffs and one will notice there are rates for railroad provided equipment and lower rates for private equipment. One may argue this is not accounting for "inefficiencies" but for the transfer of assets to the shippers. I wont split hairs on this one. However, a number of very large shippers now own their equipment, in fact in certain industries it appears to be standard practice.
Somewhere on this thread I thought there was mention of the number of car cycles per year that cars generate. I cannot find it. If someone has that info, particularly for specific types of cars (covered hoppers, boxcars, etc) I would like to take a look at that.
This thread has really turned into a very good discussion on the car hire, car cycle, asset utilization subject. During the 70's John Kneiling had a monthly column in Trains in which he discussed the inefficiencies of the industry. He made a number of enemies with his views. Much of what he had to say was related to this discussion.
Paul, your last post regarding the modeling of the yard operations, from an engineer's viewpoint is interesting. Obviously there are models which analyze traffic flows. I recall reading that NS had such a system. On another forum, members are discussing NS's operation changes during the past year due to the economy. They seem to have a pretty good handle on how to move their carload traffic between major terminals and are often starting/terminating OD points.
Years ago Hunter Harrison of CN mentioned the goal of having their yards empty. We discussed scheduled railroading on other threads and briefly touched on it here. Somewhere out there is the key to what makes this works. Most of us on this thread do not have the tools available to us. Those are proprietary tools to a railroad or within the industry. We might be given glimpses of those tools from time to time (investor relations sometimes briefly discusses these tools), but for the most part it isnt for us to know. A decade ago we were allowed to trace individual cars, now due to 911/security that is not available (understandedly so).
A book I read on the Missouri Pacific stated they were at the forefront of developing a transportation control system back in the 60's. That evolution has been quite astounding in a few decades.
I have to take issue with "built in for inefficiencies." You could just as easily say, "built in for efficiencies."
Ed, I deeply respect your thirst for knowledge and your awareness of the limits of your expertise, and that's why I like to participate here. The manner in which you pose questions, without nastiness or condescension, and with precision and reason, makes me think a little harder, and that's good for me.
Paul_D_North_JrRWM - Thanks for the replies to my previous posts regarding yards, velocity, handlings, etc. I've been considering them and the other detailed comments and responses in the meantime, and keep coming back to 2 thoughts: 1) Yard Operation Models, of which more below; and, 2) "Continuity Equation" concept analysis - which is beloved by engineers of the fluid mechanics, hydraulics, hydrology, environmental, and other types, as well as accountants and diverse others - as applied to the closed sub-system of a yard. This essentially recognizes that for incompressible flows, over a longish period of time, "Volume / Carloads Out" has to equal "Volume Carloads In". Otherwise, there would be a net gain or loss of Volume/ Cars to the system /yard, and in a system / yard of fixed capacity (tracks), such a gain or loss can't happen. This concnept can be written as a mathematical algebraic equation in terms of flows in and out, and augmented by adding concentrations to each flow and volume the same as the environmental people do, because the concentrations would be analogous to the proportion of cars for a particular destination or block, etc. Further, they like to do differential equations to this to see how each of those concentrations change over time - but I digress, and all this needs some more thought before I want to post it. Back to my Yard Operations Model inquiry: Can you tell us if you are aware of any, and if any of the large railroads use them with any regularity - like annually - to analyze and refine the operations of their yards ? I might be a whole lot less concerned about the apparent inefficiency of, say, 1,000 cars sitting in a yard with an average dwell time in the 24-hour range at $25 car hire per day - i.e., $25,000 per day in the aggregate = about 20 crew-starts, each and every day - if someone would tell me that this is indeed studied and actively managed, the same as crew starts and locomotives and fuel used, etc. Does any of the major railroads even monitor or track on a regular basis the number of car-days consumed by each yard on their system ? You've mentioned using the Rail Traffic Controller model in several threads - as does the STB in the Operations portion of the Minor Environmental Impact Assessment (? terminology) in the CN-EJ&E transaction review. But I don't recall any mention of a similar tool regarding yard operations. About 10 years ago I had a phone conversation with a senior person at Multi-Modal and my recollection is that at the time he said there wasn't any such thing in widespread use*. It may well be that this kind of analysis is the traditional province of the industrial engineer "time-and-motion" types, and/ or is so specialized for each railroad and yard that it doesn't lend itself to portability or being used in situations or conditions other than with the parameters for which it was specifically designed. (Compare with your recounting in the Location thread of the earthwork grading software that was demonstrated to you several years ago and which resulted in an essentially unusable, unoperatable, continuously curving alignment with a roller-coaster profile, etc.) What this leads to, of course, is whether there is a model of a node or hub operation, as contrasted with - and teamed up with - the RTC modeling for the spokes or line-haul operations. The next step would be to integrate the two models, so that the Yard Model feeds the RTC model, and vice-versa. Which is why I ask - I figure you should know, if anyone does. When you have a moment, if you can. In the meantime, best wishes for the weekend. - Paul North. *-Somewhere in that long-ago conversation was a discussion about programming computer code in the Fortran IV language. I have a suitable prize for anyone else who can remember the nuances of that.
RWM -
Thanks for the replies to my previous posts regarding yards, velocity, handlings, etc. I've been considering them and the other detailed comments and responses in the meantime, and keep coming back to 2 thoughts:
1) Yard Operation Models, of which more below; and,
2) "Continuity Equation" concept analysis - which is beloved by engineers of the fluid mechanics, hydraulics, hydrology, environmental, and other types, as well as accountants and diverse others - as applied to the closed sub-system of a yard. This essentially recognizes that for incompressible flows, over a longish period of time, "Volume / Carloads Out" has to equal "Volume Carloads In". Otherwise, there would be a net gain or loss of Volume/ Cars to the system /yard, and in a system / yard of fixed capacity (tracks), such a gain or loss can't happen. This concnept can be written as a mathematical algebraic equation in terms of flows in and out, and augmented by adding concentrations to each flow and volume the same as the environmental people do, because the concentrations would be analogous to the proportion of cars for a particular destination or block, etc. Further, they like to do differential equations to this to see how each of those concentrations change over time - but I digress, and all this needs some more thought before I want to post it.
Back to my Yard Operations Model inquiry: Can you tell us if you are aware of any, and if any of the large railroads use them with any regularity - like annually - to analyze and refine the operations of their yards ? I might be a whole lot less concerned about the apparent inefficiency of, say, 1,000 cars sitting in a yard with an average dwell time in the 24-hour range at $25 car hire per day - i.e., $25,000 per day in the aggregate = about 20 crew-starts, each and every day - if someone would tell me that this is indeed studied and actively managed, the same as crew starts and locomotives and fuel used, etc. Does any of the major railroads even monitor or track on a regular basis the number of car-days consumed by each yard on their system ?
You've mentioned using the Rail Traffic Controller model in several threads - as does the STB in the Operations portion of the Minor Environmental Impact Assessment (? terminology) in the CN-EJ&E transaction review. But I don't recall any mention of a similar tool regarding yard operations. About 10 years ago I had a phone conversation with a senior person at Multi-Modal and my recollection is that at the time he said there wasn't any such thing in widespread use*. It may well be that this kind of analysis is the traditional province of the industrial engineer "time-and-motion" types, and/ or is so specialized for each railroad and yard that it doesn't lend itself to portability or being used in situations or conditions other than with the parameters for which it was specifically designed. (Compare with your recounting in the Location thread of the earthwork grading software that was demonstrated to you several years ago and which resulted in an essentially unusable, unoperatable, continuously curving alignment with a roller-coaster profile, etc.)
What this leads to, of course, is whether there is a model of a node or hub operation, as contrasted with - and teamed up with - the RTC modeling for the spokes or line-haul operations. The next step would be to integrate the two models, so that the Yard Model feeds the RTC model, and vice-versa. Which is why I ask - I figure you should know, if anyone does.
When you have a moment, if you can. In the meantime, best wishes for the weekend.
*-Somewhere in that long-ago conversation was a discussion about programming computer code in the Fortran IV language. I have a suitable prize for anyone else who can remember the nuances of that.
Without getting into proprietary items ...
Paul_D_North_Jr Paul North.
Johnny
Fortran IV? Where's my stack of punch cards?
I haven't used fortran since college where we had to model the level in a water tower with 4 independant pumps that turned on and off at different levels for a 24hr period. The prof provided differing water demands to check our models (like a simulated 4 alarm fire at 7am). That was 25 years ago. I don't remember the first step anymore except to define the variables (integer, floating, fixed) and memory usage.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.