BaltACD [snipped] I'd like to tell you how it all worked out....but I got off at 0700 and turned the mess over to my relief. As can be seen, the decisions to be made are not between good and bad....but between bad and worse. Happy railroading!
Happy railroading!
Well, thanks for that object lesson in reality - perhaps you witnessed some "beautiful theories being murderd by a gang of brutal facts" ?
And then I see that "Heat Advisories" account of the hot weather's effects on the track's CWR is also introducing 20-minute delays to some of the Passenger Agency's trains tonight . . .
- Paul North.
BaltACD Reality - 0200 With all the discussion concerning 'Scheduled' operations I'll throw out a little dose of reality that began occurring at 0200 June 8. At Mile 10 on a E-W Sub a 8000 foot feature Intermodal train that goes HOS at 0630 has a UDE (undesired emergency) on the Eastbound track in double track territory. At mile 24 of the same subdivision a 7500 foot Merchandise train that goes HOS at 1035 also has at UDE. Meanwhile on a connecting N-S subdivision a small 34 car Merchandise train that goes HOS at 0545 also has a UDE at Mile 70 of that Subdivision on the Southbound track in double track territory. Both subdivisions where these problems occur have Commuter Passenger traffic that begins operating at 0500. The Intermodal train consumes 1 hour 30 minutes inspecting his train and does not find a specific cause and gets on the move, only to go 4 miles further and have another UDE, which the crew reports was initiated, unrequested, by the EOT - the Conductor must walk the 8000 feet to the rear of the train, disconnect the EOT, return to the head of the train that takes another hour and 30 minutes, and then proceed at the reduced speed of 30 MPH - they make it within the confines of their destination terminal, but not to their real destination and the train has to be recrewed. The E-W Merchandise train finds air hoses parted between two cars about 60 cars deep in the train. They are stopped for 2 hours recoupling the air hose and completing inspection of the HAZMAT that their train contains. The train the proceeds until it turns onto the N-S subdivision where, 40 miles ahead the Southbound train is in trouble and the Northbound track will be populated by Commuter & Amtrak trains on approximate 30 minute headway...insufficient time for this train to loop around the train that is in trouble without seriously delaying the NB passenger fleet. Additionally another SB freight has entered the Subdivision that goes HOS at 1215. Crew Management has reported that there will not be ANY POSSIBILITY of a relief crew until after 1400. The N-S Merchandise train, after 30 minutes of inspection reports they have a drawhead pulled out of the 'wrong' end of a car 25 cars from their engines. Mechanical forces and Transportation supervision are immediately notified of the problem. The crew discovers that there is a chain on their engine consist and that they can chain up the car without the drawhead....problem is the closest place to set the car off is down at MP 58 - 12 miles away. After getting the car chained up the crew proceeds at a very restricted speed to the set off location, where they arrive and get the car set off as their hours of service time expires....so we now have the head 24 cars of the train at MP 58 and the rear 9 cars of the train at MP 70...While a recrew was order as soon as the train had the UDE, the crew could only be obtained from the least desirable location and is on duty at 0550 and has to taxi over 100 miles through metropolitan area morning rush hour traffic to get from their on duty location to the HOS location of the train. I'd like to tell you how it all worked out....but I got off at 0700 and turned the mess over to my relief. As can be seen, the decisions to be made are not between good and bad....but between bad and worse. Happy railroading!
Reality - 0200
With all the discussion concerning 'Scheduled' operations I'll throw out a little dose of reality that began occurring at 0200 June 8.
At Mile 10 on a E-W Sub a 8000 foot feature Intermodal train that goes HOS at 0630 has a UDE (undesired emergency) on the Eastbound track in double track territory. At mile 24 of the same subdivision a 7500 foot Merchandise train that goes HOS at 1035 also has at UDE. Meanwhile on a connecting N-S subdivision a small 34 car Merchandise train that goes HOS at 0545 also has a UDE at Mile 70 of that Subdivision on the Southbound track in double track territory. Both subdivisions where these problems occur have Commuter Passenger traffic that begins operating at 0500.
The Intermodal train consumes 1 hour 30 minutes inspecting his train and does not find a specific cause and gets on the move, only to go 4 miles further and have another UDE, which the crew reports was initiated, unrequested, by the EOT - the Conductor must walk the 8000 feet to the rear of the train, disconnect the EOT, return to the head of the train that takes another hour and 30 minutes, and then proceed at the reduced speed of 30 MPH - they make it within the confines of their destination terminal, but not to their real destination and the train has to be recrewed.
The E-W Merchandise train finds air hoses parted between two cars about 60 cars deep in the train. They are stopped for 2 hours recoupling the air hose and completing inspection of the HAZMAT that their train contains. The train the proceeds until it turns onto the N-S subdivision where, 40 miles ahead the Southbound train is in trouble and the Northbound track will be populated by Commuter & Amtrak trains on approximate 30 minute headway...insufficient time for this train to loop around the train that is in trouble without seriously delaying the NB passenger fleet. Additionally another SB freight has entered the Subdivision that goes HOS at 1215. Crew Management has reported that there will not be ANY POSSIBILITY of a relief crew until after 1400.
The N-S Merchandise train, after 30 minutes of inspection reports they have a drawhead pulled out of the 'wrong' end of a car 25 cars from their engines. Mechanical forces and Transportation supervision are immediately notified of the problem. The crew discovers that there is a chain on their engine consist and that they can chain up the car without the drawhead....problem is the closest place to set the car off is down at MP 58 - 12 miles away. After getting the car chained up the crew proceeds at a very restricted speed to the set off location, where they arrive and get the car set off as their hours of service time expires....so we now have the head 24 cars of the train at MP 58 and the rear 9 cars of the train at MP 70...While a recrew was order as soon as the train had the UDE, the crew could only be obtained from the least desirable location and is on duty at 0550 and has to taxi over 100 miles through metropolitan area morning rush hour traffic to get from their on duty location to the HOS location of the train.
I'd like to tell you how it all worked out....but I got off at 0700 and turned the mess over to my relief. As can be seen, the decisions to be made are not between good and bad....but between bad and worse.
When it rains it pours. This is the reality, this is railroading. Though to schedule the unpredictable.
Murphy: I'll review the thread. Since the topic was collisions and how fatigue may contribute, we looked at how scheduled trains might help crews to have a more predictable weekly schedule, so they could get more rest. No consensus because many thought that was impossible. So I brought up the example of railroads in Germany, where there are far more trains of all sort running on less trackage, yet they can keep schedules pretty regularly. Scheduling of anything has a lot more to do with how many objects there are to schedule in a given time and space, not on how much that objects weighs. So I reiterate, ton-miles are irrelevant to what we are discussing, and that is not making a dishonest comparison, merely because you don't understand or agree . But if the extremely long trains composed of very heavy cars causes the system schedule to break down with mechanical problems, as in the example from BaltACD, then that is another issue that should be examined.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Murphy Siding . Um, OK. I agree with you. Railroading, and darn near everything else for that matter, is different than it was 25 years ago. But knowing that wouldn't make me want to assert that railroads moved more freight 95 years ago. Yes, they probabaly made more moves, moved more (and Shorter) trains, and more passengers (a given). How does that relate to moving more ton/miles?
.
I never said they moved more freight. I suggested they made more moves more efficiently, had more trains both frieght and passenger, and moved them from end to end of a railroad with precision unfathomed by today's railroaders and railfans. Ton miles is up, yes; on fewer trains, yes; on fewer miles, yes. But what if the railroads ran as many trains as many train miles today with today's technology? (Then I'd be impressed, to say the least!) Maybe what it boils down to, Murphy, is that my concept of real railorading is so different than your concept that neither one of us can comprehend what the other is saying or means, I mean it, before Conrail or PC, it was a completely different world of machines, men, milage, and concept of what operating a railroad meant.
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.
This is clearly a case in need of Quality Control. The rest of the world has realized the importance of every part of a complex system working to have the system function. Once a train is made of many couplers, pipes, valves and hoses they all must function or you end up like the previous sequence. 99.99% is not good enough. Once the railroads take up the "Quality" banner they will recognize the importance of each detail working.
I would argue that the railroad could eliminate most of these sequences of failure with more attention spent on inspections and quality control.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
henry6 Here is comparing apples to oranges. Don't confuse ton miles with number of moves, number of trains, and number of passengers, and the amount of miles moved. Yes, they move more ton miles because they have longer trains moving longer distnances, for two things. I have mentioned this to Jim Wrinn, others, and on these postings: today's railroaders and railfans have absolutely no clue what railroading was like before Conrail ( to make a mark in the sand). How men and machines matched wits with the elements, the timetables, and one another, is completely different than how a railroad operates today. I not chooseing sides as to which is better, just pointing out how different the whole comp;osition an d operations of railroads, railroading, and railroaders are today than even 25 or 30 years ago.
Here is comparing apples to oranges. Don't confuse ton miles with number of moves, number of trains, and number of passengers, and the amount of miles moved. Yes, they move more ton miles because they have longer trains moving longer distnances, for two things. I have mentioned this to Jim Wrinn, others, and on these postings: today's railroaders and railfans have absolutely no clue what railroading was like before Conrail ( to make a mark in the sand). How men and machines matched wits with the elements, the timetables, and one another, is completely different than how a railroad operates today. I not chooseing sides as to which is better, just pointing out how different the whole comp;osition an d operations of railroads, railroading, and railroaders are today than even 25 or 30 years ago.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
jeffhergert When I tie up, at either home or away, I can check the line up and usually have a good idea of when I'm going back to work. I can't always tell the train, but the times usually hold up fairly well. (It should be noted, the farther out like say 30 hours the time might move somewhat but by about 10 hours out the times firm up. Within about 8 or 10 hours I can start to tell which condr I'll probably get.)
When I tie up, at either home or away, I can check the line up and usually have a good idea of when I'm going back to work. I can't always tell the train, but the times usually hold up fairly well. (It should be noted, the farther out like say 30 hours the time might move somewhat but by about 10 hours out the times firm up. Within about 8 or 10 hours I can start to tell which condr I'll probably get.)
I really liked this post. This is how I have always understood how it works. The part in brackets is particularly noteworthy. It was this way back back when my father was still working and I have several books written by an Engineer who said the same thing.
One thing I have been looking for in my own library is how freight crews could bid on numbered freight train jobs like passenger train crews did. In TT&TO days there were certain conditions where a crew would hold down a particular job, provided it started within the twelve hour Time Table schedule window. Everybody started on the Extra Board, then eventually you had enough seniority to bid on freight jobs, and finally you got to hold down a passenger job. There was a Engineers list, a Conductors list, a Trainmans list, and a Firemens list. Trainmen had to qualify to move up to the Conductors list and Firemen had to qualify to move up to the Engineers list.
But even though you had four lists, guys that liked to work together and held the same relative seniority on their respective lists, could eventually set themselves up to bid on the same jobs. Mixed Train crews would be the same year round except for Annual Vacations.
I guess my point is, if railways still have designated trains like the Q999 or the XYZAB, couldn't they set up a system where crews could bid on at least those jobs?
Bruce
So shovel the coal, let this rattler roll.
"A Train is a Place Going Somewhere" CP Rail Public Timetable
"O. S. Irricana"
. . . __ . ______
henry6 Why compare American railroading to European railroading? Compare any USA railroad of 2011 to any and all USA railroads of the WWII era! Number of movements of both freight and passenger, total efficiency of operation overall. We moved more people, more freight, more trains more efficiently than we do today!
Why compare American railroading to European railroading? Compare any USA railroad of 2011 to any and all USA railroads of the WWII era! Number of movements of both freight and passenger, total efficiency of operation overall. We moved more people, more freight, more trains more efficiently than we do today!
schlimm Let's just leave it with Germany, since I am familiar with that first hand. Very heavy traffic density, i.e., # of trains operating on trackage in a given time period, freight and passenger. Tonnage is irrelevant, and so is government ownership, which is only partial. DB makes a profit overall.
Let's just leave it with Germany, since I am familiar with that first hand. Very heavy traffic density, i.e., # of trains operating on trackage in a given time period, freight and passenger. Tonnage is irrelevant, and so is government ownership, which is only partial. DB makes a profit overall.
I think many of you are hung up on that the railroad needs to run it's trains on a scheduled system. That's, as stated, not always possible. What would probably work better is scheduling the people. It's been proposed and maybe tried using "call windows." An employee protects a certain time period; six, eight, or whatever hours. If they don't get called to work during that period they get a basic day's pay and drop to the bottom of the board until their "window" opens again the next day.
I've heard it was proposed or tried on a part of the UP using pool crews. In their case, when their window closed, any crew not used was deadheaded to the away frm home terminal. I'm not sure how it worked ar the AFHT, but they may have had a window there too and deadhead home if not used.
I'm not sure the pools really need it though. When I tie up, at either home or away, I can check the line up and usually have a good idea of when I'm going back to work. I can't always tell the train, but the times usually hold up fairly well. (It should be noted, the farther out like say 30 hours the time might move somewhat but by about 10 hours out the times firm up. Within about 8 or 10 hours I can start to tell which condr I'll probably get.) What you can't always see is last minute crises that stop everything. Something like a broken rail,trains being held for a hot train or routine MOW work. That's more of an inconvenience, but if a train is figured with a 5pm start time I'd rather go to work then instead of 9pm. At least know about when they intend to call, rather than sit and watch the phone and wonder.
The extra boards however are a different story. The most I've ever been 1st out is about 16 hours. (We have terminals where someone, like Georgia Railroader has done, have been 1st out for a few days) On the extra board you're at the mercy of whether an assigned person (not necessarily a person working a regular, ie yard or local job) laying off. Whether an extra or short turn job goes to the pool or the extra board. Some places you have to watch nearby terminal's extra boards. If they're used up they might call you to deadhead over for an assignment. I could see where something is needed for them.
I've read the proposals submitted here and elsewhere. I think some have promise and some don't. (I for one, don't want a 10 hour call. The idea that you can't lay off after being called is BS. I've been called ASAP because someone layed off either on or after call. Some were understandable, auto accident on the way to work, and some were not.) I do know that without everyone and I mean everyone, not just so called "experts" from both sides input we'll just get more of the same: things that don't really work but look like something's being done.
Jeff
ed: Did you notice there were some DB freight numbers in the post? You are really missing the point. It is the density of traffic that makes running on a schedule much harder. When you throw in passenger and freight trains running in a fairly wide range of speeds, that makes it harder, too. Add to the mix the fact that a majority of freights must run during the night and you make it even harder, because of fewer hours to use. And quite a few lines are double track, and even single track with scheduled meets. Yet DB runs on a tight schedule successfully.
Paul ,
We did negotiate with Philips...well, rather they came to us.
And as you pointed out, the 95 cars out don't all go to the same customer, they go to Casey yard, a SIT yard here in Houston, where that 5 cars are cut out and on the next BNSF towards NJ interchange.
Used to be, we worked the entire Phillips plant, went in, gathered up all the cars, sorted them around or blocked them inside the plant, pulled the whole thing out, did the air test and all, then pulled it across our system to North Yard, where it was re-blocked and switched.
Just getting the cars out of the plant and air tested took an assigned crew, and the day they didn't make overtime was rare.
Phillips came up with the idea of building their own yard adjacent to their plant, holds around 500 cars, they bought a set of switch engines, we built a siding that holds about 100 cars, gave them permission to occupy our main, and they build the train in the siding.
This gives them the ability to pre block the train, and the ability to clear their plant at their convenience.
It also allows for the storage of some of the specialty plastics they make...if an order comes in for say medical grade stuff, they have it switched into their train asap.
Before, a dedicated crew pulled them on a assigned shift, now, when they call our DTS, (director of train services) he checks with the yard masters and finds out if any current on duty crew is finished or close to finished with their work, and if they have time to pull Phillips.
If not, he calls the crew caller to call out an extra crew.
He also checks to see if there is any BNSF power on property not already assigned by the BNSF power desk, if so, we grab that power and head to Phillips.
If not, then he calls BNSF, gets power and crews headed our way, sometimes the crew is bringing the power from South Yard with them, sometimes the power is on a BNSF train already close to PTRA, or in our tie up track.
The crew is cabbing in to Pasadena to meet the train there.
No matter how it is arraigned, the whole idea is that when the train arrives at Pasadena, its ready to go with minimal delays.
And, if time permits, and the Phillips empties are ready at Pasadena, we double them up and take them out there, cut off clear of the siding and get against the outbound.
While the air is pumping up, Phillips will get against the empties and shove them into their yard.
There is assigned tracks at Pasadena that are only for Phillips cars, same at North Yard, they are that important a customer.
And I didn't think anyone would pony up the numbers, seems now we are comparing passenger trains to freight trains....
Ah well.
23 17 46 11
Very true, henry. One of the ways over the past 50 years the freight rails (and truck lines) have increased their profit margins, though not necessarily service efficiency, has been huge increases in weight and overall size of each railcar, and length of each train. The result? Lower labor costs, less flexibility in service and enormous damage to track and roadbeds (and in the case of trucks, heavy damage to roads and safety considerations: compare Interstate 80 with one of the auto-only parkways on LI).
Why compare American railroading to European railroading? Compare any USA railroad of 2011 to any and all USA railroads of the WWII era! Number of movements of both freight and passenger, total efficiency of operation overall. We moved more people, more freight, more trains more efficiently than we do today! We are afraid (and maybe rightfully so) to put a passenger train out on a track an hour before or after a freight train (exaggerated, yes) and vice versa (again exaggerated, but you get my drift), limit the number of trains that can be run based on single track, signaled track, and directional spacing.. Even with all the technological and safety improvements we don't run the number of trains nor the speeds and efficiencies we've done in the past. Safety experts say PTC is the answer while rail management says it isn't. Who is right? Could we go back to running lots of trains at suffecient speeds if we had PTC? Would that be costly to management or would it mean they could actually move more quicker, safer, and make money? Or at least isn't that the idea?
ed: There are so many inaccurate assertions in your post that it is nearly pointless to respond. One or two stats to illuminate:
Over 4.5 million people a day use Deutsche Bahn's 29,000 trains (~4740 freights daily) serving over 5,500 stations along 35,000 km (21748 miles) of track. The line on the east bank of the Rhine alone sees about 50-60 freights per day plus around 35 regional passenger trains. The statistic that is most relevant to scheduling, etc. is traffic density, not length of train or tonnage. If the latter two prevent reasonable scheduling, then maybe that is part of the problem.
edblysard [snipped; emphasis added - PDN] Or Phillips Plastic Division....we pull 95 car plastic pellets hoppers out of there at least once a day, and they want them gone as soon as they drop a dime on us, because they have a plant that runs 24 hours a day, every day, and there are 300 loaded cars in their yard waiting on customer orders. They call us, we call BNSF as soon as we hang up from them and order up power and a crew to be at Pasadena by XX hours to haul this thing out of our yard. We send a crew out on the next shift to Phillips and they get pulled. BNSF is waiting, often we use their power so all our guys have to do is pull into Pasadena and swap crews with BNSF and that thing is gone from our property. You can't "schedule" crews for something like that. Well, you could, but I don't want to be the guy to tell Phillips they only get service at a specific time, or be the guy to tell their customer in New Jersey that makes those plastic bags you get at the grocery store his 5 hoppers of plastic are not going to arrive until the schedule says so.
They call us, we call BNSF as soon as we hang up from them and order up power and a crew to be at Pasadena by XX hours to haul this thing out of our yard.
We send a crew out on the next shift to Phillips and they get pulled.
BNSF is waiting, often we use their power so all our guys have to do is pull into Pasadena and swap crews with BNSF and that thing is gone from our property.
You can't "schedule" crews for something like that.
Well, you could, but I don't want to be the guy to tell Phillips they only get service at a specific time, or be the guy to tell their customer in New Jersey that makes those plastic bags you get at the grocery store his 5 hoppers of plastic are not going to arrive until the schedule says so.
But I wouldn't just unilaterally tell Phillips that they only get service at a specific time. Instead, I'd go see their traffic manager, explain how this makes operations for the railroads vary a lot, and negotiate to see if regularly scheduled time(s) for that switch would work better for them, too - that way, it's on 'autopilot', they don't need to even call anymore, the railroad will just show up and pull the cars that need to be gone. Although that might result in smaller cuts and higher costs for the railroad, it may also make the plant's unrelenting continuous production run more smoothly - less 'surges', and worth a little more to them too.
Maybe some more Storage In Transit yard tracks are needed to hold and 'buffer' the cuts of cars from each day's 'pulls' until the 95+ cars for a full train are accumulated and a BNSF crew is called.
I doubt that the 95 cars from each day's pull are all destined to the same consignee - the 5 hoppers to the guy in NJ is more typical. So possibly smaller but more frequent cuts shouldn't adversely affect that aspect of the traffic.
And the guy in NJ may be happier to know that his cars will arrive on a more certain schedule, instead of 'when they get there' as they do now.
[And anyway, those cars may be going to one of my cousin's Sonoco Plastics (Crellin) plants, or one of the nearby Sigma Plastics' plants such as Film-Tech here in Allentown . . . ]
You bring up some very good points Ed, but the "experts" on here will still disagree. It's easy for you all to stand on the outside and look in and say you should do this or that. Come to work out here and see just how messed up things get out here. No I'm not trying to be negative here, I dont mind change, I'm just being realistic.
Here is part of the reason, or some of the differences between the European freight trains and their American counterparts.
The European model you guys love so much, and hold up as some type of benchmark is shorter, lighter, and has quite a lot less distance to run.
As for their passenger rail, most, (not all) run on state sponsored, built and maintained separate right of way.
And they run at a loss.
Europeans treat and expect their railroads to be run as a public service/utility, heavily subsidized for the most part, they are not profit oriented.
European railroads for the most part run between set distribution points, where the majority of their loads are trans loaded from the truck to the train and then from the train back to truck for delivery to the customer, most often in a container type system, very rarely do they run a local that works industries, and when they do, it is almost always as a unit train, that local only pulls and spots that one industry.
You are comparing two totally different systems, driven by two totally different types of markets and totally different economies.
About the only thing they have in common are steel wheels on steel rails.
You want something to really compare American freight railroading to, go to South America, and look at place like Chile and Brazil.
Personally, I would love to see a European train drag 120 car grain train of the same weight we handle every day.
Schlimm and Henry...
Get real figures, like tons moved, miles moved, and number of trains yearly, and place them side by side with the figures from American railroads.
I would hazard a guess that there is more miles of track inside my county, (Harris, Texas) than a lot of the European countries have inside their entire border.
By my map, a LA to Chicago intermodal train could start at Limoges, France, cross all of west Europe, and end up at Minsk, in the USSR with a few miles left over.
Here is something to consider.
The Teague Ami, a daily BNSF mixed freight that arrives at PTRA, travels almost the same distance as a train traveling from the west border to the east border of France.
The Teague Ami originates and ends totally inside Texas.
It brings on average 100 cars daily.
I think you will find that the entire West European system miles is not equivalent to the miles owned and operated by UP or BNSF individually.
I may be mistaken, but I bet it will still be close.
I love it when people compare American freight railroading to European, because whenever I ask for a real line by comparison, apples to apples oranges to oranges, they never come up with the figures...they claim that it's not fair.
Yet the same folks have no fairness issue when they toss out "the Europeans do this, and schedule that and ..." and "it's better because".
Yup, the Europeans do schedule, and the French railroaders, under contract, only work 4 days a week, their insurance is "paid for" by their government, (we pay for over half of ours, the carrier pays the difference).
You are comparing a somewhat small, closed and managed economy with a huge, open free market place economy.
That doesn't quite offer any real comparison.
True, they schedule trains, they have no choice, if they ran trains as "extras" like most American Class 1 roads, they would have trains stacked up nose to tail simply because of the size constraints.
So, if you want me,( and I suspect a few others) to buy into the "Europeans are better" or "the European system works better" ideology, post some real numbers.
Average train length.
Average train miles traveled.
Average tons moved, annually or monthly, either one works.
Yup, the European trains are faster, but they are also shorter, lighter and have less distance to travel.
When I was a kid, with the exception of railroads and the refineries and oil fields, everything down here
was closed on Sundays.
If you were lucky, a gas station might be open, and a grocery store might be open on reduced hours, but
everyone had weekends off.
I live about 2 miles from a Kroger Flagship Grocery store, which is open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
You drive by that place at 3am, and the parking lot is just as full as it is at 5pm.
Our entire culture, and the way we do business has changed so radically it's scary.
Yup, a lot of companies do still run 5 days a week, but a whole lot run all the time, and that number grows bigger every year.
Did you ever wonder why railroads embraced CTC so eagerly and tossed the train order system out as quickly as they did?
Because CTC allows you to run more, even bigger trains closer together.
More trains equals more stuff moved equals more money made, all driven by consumer demand.
That demand is totally different in Europe.
Their entire supply and demand system is way different than ours.
Their cultural and social requirements are different than ours.
How many grain elevators in Europe take two 120 car grain trains and turn them around in 24 hours?
We spot and pull at least 2 daily in the Cargill elevator here, and that's just one elevator out of five on the Houston ship channel, and we are just one of several ports on the Gulf of Mexico that exports grain.
I doubt that most people outside of the rail industry really know or realize how huge the volume of goods shipped by rail in America really is.
I work for a Class 3 Switching and Terminal railroad, we currently roster around 300 T&E employees and our annual car handling is between 300 and 500 thousand cars with 177 miles of track and 450 industrial customers ranging from steel to automobiles, grain, pet coke and just about every petrochemical you can think of, shoot, we even have a customer that gets a reefer of butter every once in a while.
That's a lot of stuff.
And we are a small railroad.
Just like Class 1 railroads, we have a mix of scheduled customers, and a mix of customers whose demands and needs has to be flexible.
And no Schlimm, the "status quo" is not the accepted way.
We change what and how we do things all the time.
Practices that were common when I hired out are gone, safety has improved tremendously and average tons per mile is so much more than what was run even 10 years ago.
How trains are blocked and classified changes all the time, it totally depends on the customers.
Could we go back to train orders, scheduled freights and such?
Sure could, but when we do, I would like you guys to explain the Shell Deer Park Refinery why, instead of the 75 car pull and spot we serve them twice every 24 hours, they can only get 40 cars once a day because of the schedule.
You go tell them to tool down, cut production back and lay off workers.
Or Phillips Plastic Division....we pull 95 car plastic pellets hoppers out of there at least once a day, and they want them gone as soon as they drop a dime on us, because they have a plant that runs 24 hours a day, every day, and there are 300 loaded cars in their yard waiting on customer orders.
You tell him that, and the guy is going to blow a gasket, because he has standing orders from two grocery chains for 300thousand bags a week, and you just shut him down.
The system has to be flexible, and the people who work in it also have to be flexible.
There is a reason for all the SIT yards near major industrial cities, because you have to be able to tag and drag of this stuff on a moment's notice.
And Class 1 roads, just like us, have both "schedules" and flexibility; it's the only way they can operate.
That's not status quo, that's simply the economics of the business.
You couldn't put all of the volume of freight from American railroads on European rails, it simply wouldn't fit.
Not real sure why you think density is the benchmark in American railroading.
I could put 2 carseach behind 50 locomotives and run 'emall out on the transcon 5 minutes apart, and claim to be running a traffic dense railroad, but in reality all I am doing is running a 100 car train in a whole lot of sections, and wasting a lot of crew money and diesel fuel.
By the way, if you want density, go watch the Powder River joint line.
60 plus trains a day, each 120 car length, they haul that stuff out of there as fast as they can load the things up.
Most tracks only have a finite capacity, you exceed that, increase your density, and any major problem backs the whole thing up, not to mention rear end collisions happen, and people get killed.
And yes, distance is relative, you want to run a 3000 mile railroad like a 700 mile railroad?
How?
Your car count and volume would fall through the floor.
You claim the Germans and by inference European railroads do it better, but they don't, they simply do it differently, because their needs and market drive them to.
So, pony up some real numbers, and let's see who hauls more stuff farther.
I think is will be like comparing a Kenworth to a Toyota, but hey, who knows....
schlimm So how is it that schedules used to work here (had to) with timetable and train order railroading. They do currently in Europe, with a much heavier traffic density, where schedules are adhered to, with generally few exceptions. You say "reality throws the best schedule out of whack" and "something, anything happens and throws one element of the schedule seriously off schedule and then all the disruptions cascade down the system." So that seems to make the schedule impossible to keep. In other places, things happen too, or are you suggesting more incidents, engine failures, et al. occur here? If so, that is another set of problems that should be addressed.
So how is it that schedules used to work here (had to) with timetable and train order railroading. They do currently in Europe, with a much heavier traffic density, where schedules are adhered to, with generally few exceptions. You say "reality throws the best schedule out of whack" and "something, anything happens and throws one element of the schedule seriously off schedule and then all the disruptions cascade down the system." So that seems to make the schedule impossible to keep. In other places, things happen too, or are you suggesting more incidents, engine failures, et al. occur here? If so, that is another set of problems that should be addressed.
Actually, timetable and train order railroading didn't mean the trains "had" to run on time. One of the important reasons for train orders was to modify the "timetable" to match the actual times of the trains as they appeared and keep the line reasonably fluid. In particular, schedules for freight trains were often just a theoretical starting point and they might be given an order to run six hours late if that was when they showed up.
Passenger and freight operation, Europe and North America, present different challenges. A 120-car freight has 20 times the chance of a mechanical problem compared with a 6-car passenger train. A 2,000 mile journey presents 10 times the chance of a problem compared with a 200 mile journey. Combine the two and the odds are already 200 times worse. Many North American routes have substantial segments of single track, very little consists of more than two main tracks. When something happens with one train the flexibility does not exist to keep everything else fluid.
The fatigue issue is real, and I am sure the situation could be improved. Unfortunately it will require cooperation, compromise and flexibility on the part of both rail management and the union members. None of those three words come to mind as describing the all too common adversarial relationship existing today; both sides are at fault.
My opinion.
John
The Krauss-Maffei ML 4000's had twin Maybach Diesel prime movers.
Murphy Siding schlimm: So how is it that schedules used to work here (had to) with timetable and train order railroading. They do currently in Europe, with a much heavier traffic density, where schedules are adhered to, with generally few exceptions. You say "reality throws the best schedule out of whack" and "something, anything happens and throws one element of the schedule seriously off schedule and then all the disruptions cascade down the system." So that seems to make the schedule impossible to keep. In other places, things happen too, or are you suggesting more incidents, engine failures, et al. occur here? If so, that is another set of problems that should be addressed. I have to suggest that you're doing the ol' aples and oranges shuffle here. Europe may have heavier traffic density, I don't know. Overall, they are hauling a lot less tons, in smaller trains over shorter distances on rail systems that are heavily subsidised by their governments. Other than that, they are exactly the same, and there is no reason they can't be run the same. A good analogy might be the selzier(?) locomotives that SP bought. They worked in Europe, they should work here-right?
schlimm: So how is it that schedules used to work here (had to) with timetable and train order railroading. They do currently in Europe, with a much heavier traffic density, where schedules are adhered to, with generally few exceptions. You say "reality throws the best schedule out of whack" and "something, anything happens and throws one element of the schedule seriously off schedule and then all the disruptions cascade down the system." So that seems to make the schedule impossible to keep. In other places, things happen too, or are you suggesting more incidents, engine failures, et al. occur here? If so, that is another set of problems that should be addressed.
I have to suggest that you're doing the ol' aples and oranges shuffle here.
Europe may have heavier traffic density, I don't know. Overall, they are hauling a lot less tons, in smaller trains over shorter distances on rail systems that are heavily subsidised by their governments. Other than that, they are exactly the same, and there is no reason they can't be run the same. A good analogy might be the selzier(?) locomotives that SP bought. They worked in Europe, they should work here-right?
Let's just leave it with Germany, since I am familiar with that first hand. Very heavy traffic density, i.e., # of trains operating on trackage in a given time period, freight and passenger. Tonnage is irrelevant, and so is government ownership, which is only partial. DB makes a profit overall. Distance somewhat relevant. The main variable factor is traffic density, in terms of maintaining schedules or not. They can do it. Why not the US railroads? As henry6 says, It would be nice to hear something besides feeble excuses.
Sulzer is a brand name of diesel engine. Those SP and D&RGW diesel-hydraulic drive locomotives were built by Krauss-Maffei (sp ?) - but I can't recall if they had Sulzers in them or not, though.
P.S. - Unless, of course, they were a very early "alternate-fuel" version of locomotives powered by - oh, say, seltzer water and carbide powder (like the kids' Bangsite [TM] cannons - makes a noisy explosive mixture of acetylene gas, if I recall correctly . . . ). - PDN.
coborn35 Big difference between cute little hi speed passenger trains and 12,000+ freights going up 2.5% grades...
Big difference between cute little hi speed passenger trains and 12,000+ freights going up 2.5% grades...
Big difference between a line with hundreds of trains of various sorts (passenger and freight) versus a few slow-moving freights on an all freight line. As many of you rail folks like to tell us non-rail folks, since you have no actual experience with what we've mentioned, you don't know anything about it.
As I suspected, it is assumed it can't be done, it is often stated so and all kinds of arguements are made as to why we can't do it, and so we've never been able to achieve it, and so it can't be done. So, I guess, why discuss it.?..the status quo is the way it is and always will be and, evidently, the way it has to be.
Mechanical Department "No no that's fine shove that 20 pound set all around the yard... those shoes aren't hell and a half to change..."
The Missabe Road: Safety First
Henry - you have NO IDEA how hard todays carriers try to operate a scheduled network....not having it operate on time is not from a lack of scheduling or from a lack of trying to maintain the schedules.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.