I was looking at information about the Rail Runner (the new roadrailers not the commuter train) and that the intermediate rail unit is capable of being operated at 70 mph.
All other economics questions aside, just how many routes in the the US are actually capable of operating such trains at 70 mph?
If you mean that every single mile along the entire route has to be good for 70 MPH - then darn few of them.
More practically, if we can exclude terminals, interlockings, junctions, movable bridges, tunnels, and other such comparatively short limitations, then there might be quite a few. But even on those, there are going to be curves and/ or grades at locations that will restrict the top speed for longer distances. For an example that's close to both of us, the NS Pittsburgh Line from Harrisburg to the Steel City could be capable of that - except for the 12 miles from Altoona to Gallitzin including the Horse Shoe Curve, which is limited to 35 MPH if I'm not mistaken. There are also segments on the West Slope that are too curvy for that high of a speed. Likewise, the 50-mile ascent up the Front Range from Denver to the Moffat Tunnel - does that disquailfy the rest of the route ?
And that leads to the next qualification: While the geometry of the alignment might be capable of 70 MPH, the owning railroad might not currently have established the speed limit that high, for reasons of safety, fuel economy, track maintenance costs, etc. - which I note you have excluded from consideration. This kind of limitation would definitely apply to a lot of MidWest and Western US 'regional railroad' lines. So looking at a current Employee TimeTable would not provide a definitive answer to your inquiry.
Lastly, the signal system presently in place - and FRA regulations - could also limit the top speed for a route to a value considerably below its potential from solely a geometric standpoint. how should that circumstance figure into the calculation ?
All that being duly noted, I'd say only a core network in the eastern US - pretty much only where Amtrak runs. Actually, the Amtrak routes are not a bad 'general overview level' surrogate to answer the question, because it doesn't run on many 'slow' routes - the ex-ATSF Raton Pass line being a notable exception. Conversely, some other BNSF, UP Transcon, and CN lines are largely capable of those speeds, even though Amtrak isn't on them now.
- Paul North.
Paul has it right. It depends on a lot of things. I've ridden Conrail TV trains from Albany to Cleveland where you would sail right along as fast at the locomotives can haul for long stretches of 55-60 mph running, but there places where you're down to 30 mph or so. Dismal swamp - climbing the hills and negotiating the curves around Rochester - getting through Buffalo. The trip typically took 11-13 hours. You needed equipment that was good for 60 mph so you could average speeds in the low 40s.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
The Sunset and the Transcon through New Mexico-Arizona-Texas are capable of 70+ in most areas and host Amtrak, as well. I would imagine that the portion of the Sunset east of Beaumont Hill in California would qualify, as well.
Besides grades, safety, curves, signalling, etc., I would add congestion to Paul's list of qualifications.
John Timm
If we're looking for lines capable of running a certain type of freight equipment at a top speed of 70 m.p.h., I think that we'd be asking about lines that in the here and now have employee timetables that permit 70-mph running as the top subdivision speed, with slower stretches for curves, bridges, interlockings, cities, etc. If the timetable doesn't allow 70 now, it's unlikely that it will any time soon, given most railroads' mindset these days.
Having said that, I'd be surprised if any railroads east of the transcontinental divide (Chicago-St. Louis-Memphis-New Orleans) have any stretches where freights can legitimately do 70 or better. I suspect (and would welcome examples to the contrary) that portions of the BNSF Transcon and various UP routes (Elburn west to North Platte and beyond, places on the Sunset, perhaps the LA&SL).
Speed limits of 60 might include some eastern railroads, but doesn't automatically include anything that has 70-or-better Amtrak service. I suspect that much of the ex-CR Water Level Route (now split between NS and CSX) is good for 60, as is CSX's ex-B&O line between Chicago and probably Willard. If any lines in the Southeast can handle freights at 60, I suspect that it's the route traveled by Amtrak's Florida passenger trains, and possibly the FEC.
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)
Track speeds and average speeds are two different things. If you look at an intercity bus schedule for instance, you will see a 55 or 60 mph between points schedule meaning a need to be doing 70-80 mph on the interstates and highways. Commuter trains are often averageing 30 to 35 mph but have to hoof it at speeds up to 90 mph to maintain it. So a 50 mile railroad with a 70 mph speed the entire length will ha ve schedules all the way down to 30 depending on length of train, number of stops, and dwell times at stations. You can only go 50 miles in an hour if you can go 50 mph from mile post 0 to milepost 50 with no getting up to speed or slowing down to stop!
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.
CShaveRR Speed limits of 60 might include some eastern railroads, but doesn't automatically include anything that has 70-or-better Amtrak service. I suspect that much of the ex-CR Water Level Route (now split between NS and CSX) is good for 60, as is CSX's ex-B&O line between Chicago and probably Willard. If any lines in the Southeast can handle freights at 60, I suspect that it's the route traveled by Amtrak's Florida passenger trains, and possibly the FEC.
In the early days of Conrail, that route was 70 mph for Van trains less than 62 cars. Later, Conrail dropped it to 60 mph as few train qualified for the higher speed. At the CSX/NS split, CSX put their part back up to 70 (along with the matching western half of the B&O). I think it was to entice UPS to give them the NJ to Chicago traffic (it worked!). Don't know if it's still 70 or not.
NS has nothing >60 mph for frt.
Paul:
You may be interested in this, here is the Pittsburgh Line Timetable, scroll down to page 59 and you will have the speed limits along the route for passenger trains, freight in starts on page 63.
I was not really including terminals or yards, but really the route in general. So yeah, interlockings, bridges, tunnels would be included. Although if a train is going straight through an interlocking, how much does that really affect the speed?
Essentially, I more so stating that the majority of the route or a large chunk of it is capable of 60-70 mph with any sort of regulation or individual RR operating rules in place and not really holding back speeds because of infrastructure nor the fluctuating of temperatures.
When I said keep economics aside, I was more getting at not to really focus on the rail runner itself so much. I do not mind talking about improving speed for intermodal trains in general or any freight train, but merely do not want to focus on the new roadrailer economics. Probably should have been more specific.
Obviously, there are no quick and easy answers here as there are many factors entering into this. First, there is an overall maximum track speed authorized between points A & B, then there is the types of cars in the train, any speed limited cars due to ladding, and the top gear speed of the locomotives. An intermodal train may be authorized 75 MPH, but a general freight can only make 50 MPH if it has hazardess materials and only 35 MPH if it's carrying loaded log cars -- all on the same track authorized for 75. A glance at a real employee timetable will usually list the max speeds of most equipment. In most cases the gear ratio of the locos is not a factor, as they are geared high enough for most freights. I very quick scan of the California Region Timetable 15 effective March 21, 2004 (Altamont Press) lists general speed limits for a sub, but bear in mind that there are numerous areas limited by curves, etc. that are not listed. I lived in Vegas for quite a while and know first hand that altho the Sands Ave - Arden limit is 70, just watch a loaded WB coal train crawl upgrade at 20, or even a WB vehilcle train at 35 or so. Also, the area around Sloan is on a stiff WB grade and has a wide horsehoe curve with a 35 MPH limit on it. Even tho it's in 70 MPH territory, the grade/curve limits speed. As for the Dunn - Toomey run, I personally came off of Hountain pass on I-15 and caught the end of a WB double stack. I gept up with my speedometer pegged at 80 all the way. I lost it when it slowed for a crew change at Yermo. UP Cima Sub Sands Ave Vegas -- Arden 70 Sloan -- Erie 70 Erie -- Cima 75 Thru Chase 75 Daws -- Basin 75 Thru Dunn 65 Dunn -- Toomey 75 UP Yuma Sub Dunes -- Regina 75 Iris -- Ragosa 70 Ragosa -- Mecca 75 Thru Thermal 65
Obviously, there are no quick and easy answers here as there are many factors entering into this. First, there is an overall maximum track speed authorized between points A & B, then there is the types of cars in the train, any speed limited cars due to ladding, and the top gear speed of the locomotives. An intermodal train may be authorized 75 MPH, but a general freight can only make 50 MPH if it has hazardess materials and only 35 MPH if it's carrying loaded log cars -- all on the same track authorized for 75. A glance at a real employee timetable will usually list the max speeds of most equipment. In most cases the gear ratio of the locos is not a factor, as they are geared high enough for most freights.
I very quick scan of the California Region Timetable 15 effective March 21, 2004 (Altamont Press) lists general speed limits for a sub, but bear in mind that there are numerous areas limited by curves, etc. that are not listed. I lived in Vegas for quite a while and know first hand that altho the Sands Ave - Arden limit is 70, just watch a loaded WB coal train crawl upgrade at 20, or even a WB vehilcle train at 35 or so. Also, the area around Sloan is on a stiff WB grade and has a wide horsehoe curve with a 35 MPH limit on it. Even tho it's in 70 MPH territory, the grade/curve limits speed. As for the Dunn - Toomey run, I personally came off of Hountain pass on I-15 and caught the end of a WB double stack. I gept up with my speedometer pegged at 80 all the way. I lost it when it slowed for a crew change at Yermo.
UP Cima Sub
Sands Ave Vegas -- Arden 70
Sloan -- Erie 70
Erie -- Cima 75
Thru Chase 75
Daws -- Basin 75
Thru Dunn 65
Dunn -- Toomey 75
UP Yuma Sub
Dunes -- Regina 75
Iris -- Ragosa 70
Ragosa -- Mecca 75
Thru Thermal 65
Yes, there is usually a "maximum allowed speed" listed in the employee timetables for any given segment of railroad plus the "restrictions" in general terms of signal indications (diverging route, restricted, approach, medium, approach medium, etc. and their given definitions), and by specific location ("turn out trk 1 to trk 2 at MP 40.3" or CP101 or station or other designated name) or by segment ("curve at mp suchnsuch" or through station, etc.). Add to that any slow orders, passenger train stops, or other operating specifics or conditions and you've got your average speed per train. So most likely if the maximum allowable speed is 70 over a division or between two points, the average speed could be as much as 50% of that!
In WI CN operates no "mainline" subs (Waukesha, Neenah, Superior) faster than 60 mph. Most other "branch" routes (Manitowoc, Valley, etc) are 35 or 40. Other "secondary" lines are typically 25 mph. Not repeating the entirety of what others have said I'm thinking the phrase "diminishing returns" in this scenario, but that gets back into economics.
Dan
BT CPSO 266 [snip] . . . here is the Pittsburgh Line Timetable, scroll down to page 59 and you will have the speed limits along the route for passenger trains, freight in starts on page 63.
Thanks for that link - I already had it saved, but it's a good example and now everyone else can look, too. A map of the line starts on page 53 [Page 57 of 158 for this 'PDF' format version], but here's a brief overview and summary: CP CANNON at MP PT 118.9 is essentially Harrisburg, ALTO Tower in Altoona is on page 54 at MP PT 236.7, as is Horseshoe Curve at MP PT 242.0, on page 55 CP MO is at Cresson at MP PT 250.5, CP SO is at MP PT 266.1 (but then you knew that already, right ?), Johnstown is on page 56 at MP PT 275.1, and on page 57 is Pittsburgh at MP 353.1.
For this purpose, note that Passenger trains are authorized for Maximum Speeds in the range from from 30 to 79 MPH, generally at 5 MPH increments (although on page 60 the limitation between MP PT 206.5 and MP PT 209.0 - between Huntington and the Spruce Creek Tunnels - is 58 MPH . . . ), and the maximum speed typically changes every couple - three miles. In contrast, the Freight train Maximum Speeds - which also change frequently - range between 25 and 60 MPH, with a single 15 MPH to the west of PITT. So with all of those changes and restrictions, how would you classify this line - is it capable of 60 - 70 MPH service, or not ?
To me, the passenger train speed limits are more representative of the maximum speed capabilities based on the geometry of the route - John Kneiling used to recommend looking at old passenger train schedules from the 1940's and 1950's to see what speeds could be realistically achieved by one of his proposed high-powered intermodal or container "Integral Trains".
First note that Knieling's statements were based on track and train dynamics of the 60's and 70's and that much has changed since. So his statement cannot be as easily applied today as back then. In fact, I am led to believe that there actually is a greater disparity between passenger and freight train dynamics today than used to be. Size differentials, stablizing differentials, etc. all contribute to track differentials both cronlogically and physically.. There is less superelevation needed for today's freight cars, for instance. Back in the 1970's D&H President Bruce Sterzing was able to boast he got a 50 mile per hour freight railroad instead of 35 when Amtrak improved his route to Montreal. Such might not be the case today. But I do wonder if some of the freight train speeds were lower because of the needed stopping distances rather than the track ability to carry the loads?
In the past, freight was allowed 60 mph on class 4 track-- is that still the limit?
If so, 70 mph freight east of the Mississippi isn't common? Is it much less common than, say, 20 years ago?
West of the Mississippi there has been lots of 70 mph track for decades-- that is, lots of Class 5 track-- but the RR only wants the hot freights to do 70.
Per FRA'S Track Safety Standards Compliance Manual, 49 CFR Part 213, Section 213.9(a) Classes of Track; Operating Speed Limits, Table 1, at - http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/safety/tss_compliance_manual_chapter_5_final_040107.pdf , the general Freight Train speed limits are as follows (some exceptions apply, of course):
Class 3 - 40 MPH
Class 4 - 60 MPH [thanks to timz for catching the typo of 40 - PDN.]
Class 5 - 80 MPH
From my limited perspective and experience in the NorthEast US, 70 MPH freight isn't common around here, except for UPS and TV or MAIL trains as Oltmannd stated above, and even those are only a few trains on selected portions of particular routes, such as the ex-NYC, PRR, and NKP from Chicago to New York City Pittsburgh, and Buffalo, respectively, etc. I don't think that 70 MPH freight is much less common than it was 20 years ago =1990 or so; if anything, it's maybe a little more common, with fresh produce trains and the like having been added. But I don't think such fast freight ever exceeded 5 or 10 % of the total freight volume.
Paul_D_North_Jr(snip) I don't think that 70 MPH freight is much less common than it was 20 years ago =1990 or so; if anything, it's maybe a little more common, with fresh produce trains and the like having been added. But I don't think such fast freight ever exceeded 5 or 10 % of the total freight volume. - Paul North.
Would the amount of 'faster than normal' freight be relative to system capacity? IOW if too much traffic arrives at which ever intermediate points in the system where set outs/switching happens, then the traffic would be held up waiting to be switched/set out. Would/could the freight then end up averaging the same transit time as if it had gone slower across the system? So net, you'd end up with not much of an improvment in delivery/transit time but spending more on fuel and crews under this theory. Does that make sense and do you think (if it does make sense) that each system as a 'flow speed' at which things tend to work smoothly?
henry6 But I do wonder if some of the freight train speeds were lower because of the needed stopping distances rather than the track ability to carry the loads?
But I do wonder if some of the freight train speeds were lower because of the needed stopping distances rather than the track ability to carry the loads?
Yes. Definitely. The 70 mph speeds on the Water Level Route for van trains were based on stopping distances. Over 62 cars, the trains couldn't be counted on to stop in time passing an approach at 70 mph. There were very specific instructions on how to apply the air to stop, too - a split reduction ending in full service.
Dan - Although I have no actual experience in such 'network' or 'system' operations of railroads, that theory makes a lot of sense to me, and is true or close to true. Better yet , coincidentally in the last day or two I ran across a post from a year or two ago by "S. Hadid/ 1435mm" - I was searching the Forum for threads on "equilateral turnouts" - and as I recall it, his comment was pretty much to exactly that effect. It was pretty funny, actually - essentially, and not trying to put too many words in his mouth - he said that as soon as too much priority is given to trains in one direction, the trains in the other direction start to 'back-up'. That degrades the ability to give priority in either direction, which starts a downward spiral of delays and occupied sidings interacting with each other to worse effect - and pretty soon, the enitre line is in a 'gridlocked' state. He too appeared to advocate a nearly single-speed operation as being closer to an optimum flow. I'll see if I can find that thread and post the link to it here sometime over this weekend.
P.S. - EDIT: Here it is, captioned as "Difference between "Double Track" and "Two Main Tracks" - the posts I referred to are both of Page 2 of 3, the 1st being about 1/3 of the way down, dated 02-10-2007 at 11:29 AM, and the 2nd near the bottom at 9:09 PM, both of which are at - http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/forums/t/87726.aspx?PageIndex=2
Be sure to read his and other posts on the rest of Page 2 and pages 1 and 3 for the full and proper context of that discussion. - PDN.
Thanks Paul. My brain was starting to wander down the two/double track line of thought. A very informative thread to read. The biggest "take home messages" I dug out were about capacity. Nice info!
Another way to achieve faster freight schedules was what the D&RGW did years ago: shorter trains. Yeah, more trains, more crews, but got over the road faster, got better locomotive/equipment utilization, better crew utilization, less overtime, satisfied customers. Win/win/win/win/win situation. But bottom liners saw longer trains meant fewer trains, fewer crews, maybe only a couple fewer locomotives, and less money spent therefore higher return. But that higher return was on investment and not repeat business. Larger locomotives, larger cars, better equipment technology of course allows for longer trains, but still, I don't think it matches fast, reliable service to the customer (who will pay for the service) nor for the equipment utilization.
A friend of mine espouses the idea of 12 hour directional running. But I see too many hang ups, especially with trains left in siding eliminating passes and overtaking. Even 6 hour directional would be hairy at best! Don't really think it would be any faster.
The problems with 'directional running' are really not about line of road movement.....they are about terminal capacity...terminal operation is all about juggling inbound and outbound movements....doesn't make any difference if it is a hump yard classifying cars or a intermodal terminal handling intermodal trailers/containers. Terminal, as they exist today, cannot act as holding yards to permit directional running. Secondarily, directional running can only exist over a small portion of today's class I carriers, as their end to end route structures have more than 6 or 12 hour routes. Directional running may be appropriate for one or two subdivisions, not for a entire railroad of Class I size.
henry6 A friend of mine espouses the idea of 12 hour directional running. But I see too many hang ups, especially with trains left in siding eliminating passes and overtaking. Even 6 hour directional would be hairy at best! Don't really think it would be any faster.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
PAUL:
So with all of those changes and restrictions, how would you classify this line - is it capable of 60 - 70 MPH service, or not ?
I guess if the route is constantly fluctuating in terms of speed then it is probably not a 60-70 mph route. I mean if you can not have 20-50 mi stretches where you do not have to worry about slowing down then I would not consider the route being classified as capable of being considered 60-70 mph service. Also the number of stretches capable of such speeds should be considered as well. I am not expecting Coal or Manifest consist to be moving at these speeds but I would expect intermodal to be capable of such.
Coarse I do wonder how much speed restrictions would change if they started making smaller consists. Whoever brought that it makes a great point.
I will have to ask my friend as to why the Spruce Creek Tunnels show up as 58 mph.
henry6 Another way to achieve faster freight schedules was what the D&RGW did years ago: shorter trains. Yeah, more trains, more crews, but got over the road faster, got better locomotive/equipment utilization, better crew utilization, less overtime, satisfied customers. Win/win/win/win/win situation. But bottom liners saw longer trains meant fewer trains, fewer crews, maybe only a couple fewer locomotives, and less money spent therefore higher return. But that higher return was on investment and not repeat business. Larger locomotives, larger cars, better equipment technology of course allows for longer trains, but still, I don't think it matches fast, reliable service to the customer (who will pay for the service) nor for the equipment utilization. A friend of mine espouses the idea of 12 hour directional running. But I see too many hang ups, especially with trains left in siding eliminating passes and overtaking. Even 6 hour directional would be hairy at best! Don't really think it would be any faster.
Short-fast-frequent trains on D&RGW is one of those stories that captured the railfan imagination following an article in Trains (circa 1964, as I recall), and subsquently amplified, celebrated, and held up as an example to us by numerous railfan pundits. It didn't work and was abandoned; D&RGW reverted to long-slow-infrequent trains. Under the short-fast-frequent concept, crew costs went up, fuel costs went up, and locomotive costs went up. Car hire went down a little. Revenue per car did not go up. It could not; railroads were regulated at that time! Because costs per car went up, but revenue per car could not go up, every carload of additional business attracted by the faster service (which was not much faster, nor was much new business attracted) was a carload hauled at a lower margin, in some cases at a negative margin. You cannot lose a dollar on every carload and hope to make it up on volume. Bottom-line types -- which is what railroaders are supposed to be, because this is a business -- looked at the numbers and concluded that it didn't pay.
The train-fleeting concept is used every now and then; I've had some operating experience with it when we had some temporary conditions that it helped ameliorate. The big drawbacks to it are:
We've run a number of simulations with fleeting schemes to see if we can make them work. (It's a lot cheaper running simulations than playing what-if with real trains and spending millions of dollars.) We found that fleeting can in some rather specialized cases made to just only barely work, but the moment we presented to the system maintenance outages, derailment outages, bad weather, or trains arriving late from connections or from customers' loading points, the railroad soon ground to a halt with locomotives and crews out of place, terminals plugged, sidings plugged, etc. Then it took us several days of recovery in the simulation to get everything rearranged back to where it was supposed to be so that we could resume fleeting, which required a massive amount of deadheading and light-power moves, and what would have been phone calls to customers saying "sorry no coal trains at your mine this week" and at the first wrinkle it fell apart again.
RWM
Interesting thoughts, RWM. But I wonder if today, shorter and faster trains would possibly be more productive if the need for such large power was also reduced. Would an SD40 like locomotive, or two, be better with 50 cars than two behemouth 7000hp units with 125 or 150 cars? What would the cost impact be on crew cost and use from the 4 and 5 man crews of the 60's to the 2 man crews of today? Computerized traffic control, wayside dectection, today's technologies in track and train? All could mean a different dynamic and different outcome. Even a chance to look at crew fatigue and home resting.
As for fleeting...I see a lot of back up in Binghamton these days with the new single track operation west to Owego, NY and, in reality I think, all the way to Waverly, distances of 25 and 45 miles. I will admit there is still track work being done...pick up and clean up of track 1 still in progress. There are grumblings already about the missing track for the 45 miles but I think that it is only because of the work being done. By next Spring the single track program will be in place all the way through as the interlocking is in at Owego to cross over and send everything west on 2 and is in fact being done. (What is surprising to me is that the Herzog train runs track one to pick up and clean up track 2 from the side rather than one train working one direction picking up from behind...seems to me quicker without stopping for traffic or interfearing with traffic flow in general.) Another problem here is that east of Binghamton you have two different traffic patterns, one south and east to Scranton, Allentown, or Harrisburg, the other northeast to Albany, Montreal, or New England. Westbound service for fleeting would be dependent on both feeds being in the same time frame. Add to that the 3 times a week feed from the NYS&W, too.
Railway Man Short-fast-frequent trains on D&RGW is one of those stories that captured the railfan imagination following an article in Trains (circa 1964, as I recall), and subsquently amplified, celebrated, and held up as an example to us by numerous railfan pundits. It didn't work and was abandoned; D&RGW reverted to long-slow-infrequent trains. Under the short-fast-frequent concept, crew costs went up, fuel costs went up, and locomotive costs went up.
Short-fast-frequent trains on D&RGW is one of those stories that captured the railfan imagination following an article in Trains (circa 1964, as I recall), and subsquently amplified, celebrated, and held up as an example to us by numerous railfan pundits. It didn't work and was abandoned; D&RGW reverted to long-slow-infrequent trains. Under the short-fast-frequent concept, crew costs went up, fuel costs went up, and locomotive costs went up.
henry6 First note that Knieling's statements were based on track and train dynamics of the 60's and 70's and that much has changed since. So his statement cannot be as easily applied today as back then. In fact, I am led to believe that there actually is a greater disparity between passenger and freight train dynamics today than used to be. Size differentials, stablizing differentials, etc. all contribute to track differentials both cronlogically and physically.. There is less superelevation needed for today's freight cars, for instance. Back in the 1970's D&H President Bruce Sterzing was able to boast he got a 50 mile per hour freight railroad instead of 35 when Amtrak improved his route to Montreal. Such might not be the case today. But I do wonder if some of the freight train speeds were lower because of the needed stopping distances rather than the track ability to carry the loads?
Track/train dynamics is not my area of expertise, but comparing my manuals from the 1960s to my manuals of today, I'm not seeing much difference in the net result on track design such as superelevation, spiral length, tangency between curves, etc.. I certainly am not finding any significant difference in the amount of superelevation that is required for freight trains or passenger trains for a given speed, for a given degree of curvature, for a given unbalance.
Re stopping distances. In and of itself, stopping distances matter only for wayside signal spacing on a line of road equipped with ABS or CTC. In dark territory, it matters not. (I have dispatched dark territory using manual block rules with a 60 mph maximum freight train speed, but I don't think there is any of that left in the U.S. now) If the signals are not far enough apart for the desired maximum speeds, that can be mitigated by changing the signal aspect progression, e.g., having two hard yellows in a row, two flashing yellows in a row, etc. The line capacity is diminished somewhat because trains can't follow as closely, but that is usually not viewed as a problem. I have never heard of a subdivision where someone said "we'd like to have a zone speed of 70 mph but we can only get 65 mph because of signal spacing." Today we are assuming a greater number of tons per operative brake than we did in the 1960s. The forumulae we use today assume 315K cars, whereas in 1970 people were using 286K or 263K. That means that signal spacing is slightly greater today than in the past for a given speed limit. But it's fairly uncommon to discover existing wayside signal locations that don't "space out" properly for 315K for the given aspect progression and speed limit. When we do, we change the aspects or in rare cases respace the intermediates. Many of the intermediates in the U.S. were respaced in the 1950s, by the way, in order to enable longer heavier trains that were enabled by dieselization.
One significant difference today is that bridge ratings now use dynamic loads. Those have only begun to be considered within the last 10 years or so, I think. But I have yet to see an instance where it made a difference in the maximum allowable speed across bridges on a high-volume main track.
Passenger-train speed is mostly limited by the amount of unbalance that the operator wishes to tolerate, and by adherence to the vertical and horizontal geometry that is mandated for each FRA track class.
What matters MOST for speed limits are the following:
Back to the original question about freight train speed, the answer is there is a substantial amount of main track in the U.S. (and Canada, but less so Mexico) that could nominally support 70 mph freight trains based on horizontal alignment considerations, and outside of terminals. It might take a T&S (ties and surface) program to gain the next higher FRA track class. But the usual reason it's not done is that the prospective marginal revenue increase from faster trains is not offset by the net of greater track maintenance cost, greater fuel cost, greater equipment and crew utilization (if any), and greater track time occupancy for maintenance activities. The latter is often a major problem for passenger operations that want to be hosted on freight railroads -- by the time the additional track time for suface and line is figured in, you can come into a case where you actually have to add some double track so you can maintain one track while you run on the other. And often the greater speed that might be gained on the line-of-road cannot be brought down to an actual improved schedule to any significant degree or in a way that means anything to the customer. For example, if you currently have a fifth-morning delivery for a domestic intermodal product, getting the box to the destination ramp at 5 pm on day 4 instead of 4 am on day 5 doesn't mean anything for a customer who doesn't open his warehouse dock to receive trailers until 7 am in the morning.
henry6 Interesting thoughts, RWM. But I wonder if today, shorter and faster trains would possibly be more productive if the need for such large power was also reduced. Would an SD40 like locomotive, or two, be better with 50 cars than two behemouth 7000hp units with 125 or 150 cars? What would the cost impact be on crew cost and use from the 4 and 5 man crews of the 60's to the 2 man crews of today? Computerized traffic control, wayside dectection, today's technologies in track and train? All could mean a different dynamic and different outcome. Even a chance to look at crew fatigue and home resting.
The cost studies we do continually demonstrate that longer trains are the way to go, as do the line-of-road capacity studies. We've certainly looked at short-frequent concepts. We will continue to look at short-frequent concepts. I am pretty sure after I retire in a few years that the people I've trained will continue to consider short-frequent concepts. It's easy to do and the payoff if it works, compared to the cost to run these studies, is potentially enormous, so we're not about to not turn over that stone just because we might not have done it that way before. We haven't found one that pencilled out yet.
As to fast, we haven't been able to demonstrate either with capacity simulations, or with real-world experience, that shorter and more frequent was able to do anything other than suck up crews and kill track capacity. It really falls apart on single-track railroads because there's a greater frequency of meet-pass events, and those are time killers.
This is not to say that there's no upper limit to train length. There is. Every subdivision has a sweet spot on train length versus cost versus revenue, and going off the deep end on too long is not a good idea either. Lots of eager young operating officers have tried to run trains longer than their physical plant would support, and I imagine that 100 years from now there will be still be the same people trying to do the same thing, and rediscovering the same limits, and having to admit that, oh, doing things like running two non-clearing trains toward each other is a guaranteed dog-catch for one or both trains.
zardoz Railway Man: Short-fast-frequent trains on D&RGW is one of those stories that captured the railfan imagination following an article in Trains (circa 1964, as I recall), and subsquently amplified, celebrated, and held up as an example to us by numerous railfan pundits. It didn't work and was abandoned; D&RGW reverted to long-slow-infrequent trains. Under the short-fast-frequent concept, crew costs went up, fuel costs went up, and locomotive costs went up. To begin with, I am going to call a train 'short' if it is under 75 cars lengths long (regardless of tonnage) and assuming proper train blocking and no distributed power. As long as everything is working correctly, then I agree with what you say. However, when things start going wrong, the longer the train--the slower the problems get resolved; and let's not forget to factor in weather-related delays. In addition, some operating territories are more favorable to different size trains.
Railway Man: Short-fast-frequent trains on D&RGW is one of those stories that captured the railfan imagination following an article in Trains (circa 1964, as I recall), and subsquently amplified, celebrated, and held up as an example to us by numerous railfan pundits. It didn't work and was abandoned; D&RGW reverted to long-slow-infrequent trains. Under the short-fast-frequent concept, crew costs went up, fuel costs went up, and locomotive costs went up.
To begin with, I am going to call a train 'short' if it is under 75 cars lengths long (regardless of tonnage) and assuming proper train blocking and no distributed power.
Which is why when it dropped below zero we split trains in two, as I think your road did also?
I cannot see how shorter trains on the DRGW increased costs, at least in its' mountain districts. When factoring in time needed to add/remove helpers, the cost of the additional helper crew, and the limited time on duty vs miles covered, not to mention the increased likelihood of a break-in-two, I sure do not see savings.
Additionally, the big train will have to be handled with kid gloves the entire trip due to the complexities of operating a huge train over difficult terrain. Whereas a short train can be run much quicker account less slack action and less occurrences of some cars of the train going uphill and some cars going downhill and further along in the train more cars going uphill, etc., all at the same time. Perhaps on the wide-open prairies with flat profiles and limited curvature a long heavy train would not be as likely to have problems.
To have to stop a 9000' 12000-ton train to line a switch into a siding, then pull out of the siding and either reline the switch or leave it open (thereby stopping the next train) takes a good deal of time in nice weather; in the cold and snow--forget it.
Also not mentioned in these discussions is the amount of time it takes to assemble a long train in the yard. Doubling, tripling, and quadrupling a train together, charging the trainline, then pulling the monster thru the yard at restricted speed (prepared to stop for each switch which translated into about a 2-3 mph speed thru the yard--well, you get the idea. There have been many times I went on duty at Proviso and died on my hours before ever seeing the main line. Then factor in the delays to other trains due to the monster's problems. I've put together 11000 foot train at Proviso, where my head end was at North Avenue yard and the hind end was still deep into East 5. In effect, we had most of Proviso tied up, including the diesel ramp.
Regarding the speed issue: a VP once told me that the one place the railroads could save money was by making the yards more efficient, instead of making the main line capable of higher speed. He pointed out that to go 200 miles at 60mph takes 3 hours 20 minutes, but at 40mph it takes only 1 hour 40 minutes longer. However, the costs of maintaining the track at 60mph capacity vs 40mph are huge (or so I've been told). However, I'm sure there are other factors I have not considered, which might blow my arguments out of the water.
Terminals are also (in my opinion) the major bugaboo. We've done a lot to fix line-of-road capacity and throughput problems. But terminals have not been improved as much (also in my opinion) in part because railroads regard them as perennial money drains that just cost money and don't earn it. But more important is that terminal operations are much more difficult to quantify, allocate costs to, and understand, than line-of-road. It's hard to justify spending money improving a piece of infrastructure when you can't explain how it works, why it costs what it costs, or even how to measure performance before and after a project. There's an understandable fear that you can throw hundreds of millions of dollars at a single terminal and accomplish nothing, and given that this exact scenario has happened more than once, people in my level of the organization are very gunshy about taking on the risks of terminal investment.
Railway Man Short-fast-frequent trains on D&RGW is one of those stories that captured the railfan imagination following an article in Trains (circa 1964, as I recall), and subsquently amplified, celebrated, and held up as an example to us by numerous railfan pundits.
Short-fast-frequent trains on D&RGW is one of those stories that captured the railfan imagination following an article in Trains (circa 1964, as I recall), and subsquently amplified, celebrated, and held up as an example to us by numerous railfan pundits.
My recollection was 1968 (think I have good memory, but know it isn't perfect), will be easy to check once Kalmbach gets the index back on-line. You did get the right decade.
Short and fast makes more sense for passengers than freight.
-Erik
For 20 or 30 years, I have been of the opinion that speed, i.e., time in transit for freight, has been a bogus issue largley promoted by United Parcel Service. But, if I can be a conspircy therorist, the concept was also pushed by my fellow bean counters who looked at the short term interest rates of the 1980's of 15 to 25% and concluded that inventory carrying costs demanded that everything had to get to the destination faster. The argument has merits if the time is weeks versus days. But more often the issue became confused with the concept of "just in time", which when effectively employed means how long it takes to get here is irrelevant, so long as we don't have to stop our further processing waiting for the shipment to arrive.
Any good professional in the business of buying transportation service-traffic or transportation managers, purchasing agents, production and logistics managers, (now all known as "supply side" managers)-are very capable of planning deliveries to keep the internal operations of their businesses running smoothly. The one who is always on the phone yelling he needs to have a shipment buy 6:00am tomorrow probably should be contemplating a future career as a Walmart greeter.
As for general public consumers buying on-line, I have to wonder how meany actually know that their package arrived two days later than the advertised schedule. (I do. My my January Trains has yet to be delivered, but I am special).
Just because they are in competition with very time efficient over-the-road trucking service, railroads have to be dealing with transit times on intermodal service. While the speed of intermodal trains is a factor in the business, it appears to me that terminal operations have been recognized as the low hanging fruit. Compared to just a couple of decades ago, I suspect with improvments in terminal design, handling equipment and IT, the time to get a shipment through an intermodal terminal has dramatically dropped.
Moving back to the original subject of this thread, it is worth noting that FRA regulations specifiy maximum freight trains speeds of 60MPH for Class 4 track and 80MPH for Class 5. I will leave it to the engineer types here to confirm, but it is my understanding that the jump in building and maintaining track from 4 to 5 is big. The jump in fuel cost for running 80MPH vs. 60MPH may be even greater. Grade and allignment is always a critical limiting factor, but I don't read or hear much about investments to modify or improve those conditions. At the same time, I don't pick up any indication that the Class 1 railroads are reducing freight train speeds.
On the other hand, there some recent technology improvements being put into place that are said to improve the efficiency of train movement. Norfolk Southern has started to install an information system designed as a dispatch aid. Admiting some initial skepticism, NS CEO Wick Moorman now believes that the system can improve average train transit times by 10%.
Canadian Pacific has taken an interesting approach to the issue of train frequency as an impediment to over the road time by implementing a plan to substantially increase train length using available technology for remote controled locomotives strategically distributed in the train. Recognizing that a mechanical break down of a long train can caise serious disruptions to operations, they are focusing on the development of technology to identify mechanical weakness before failures. CP President Fred Green said that the goal is to move people who now look for mechanical problems to fixing the problems before failures.
"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
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.