http://trn.trains.com/Railroad%20News/News%20Wire/2011/12/Canadian%20Pacific%20plans%20to%20lengthen%20trains%20further.aspx
------------------
Thinking of what Paul said in his comment, exactly how long are current typical trains, how much longer are they expected to get, and what additional likelihood of hazards will they face, especially in their terrain? How effective will DPUs be? And on slick or snowy rails?
kolechovski How effective will DPUs be? And on slick or snowy rails?
How effective will DPUs be? And on slick or snowy rails?
DPU is crucial to operating the line between Calgary and Vancouver. It started about 1969 and it took a number of years before they got the kinks out. It is not just the grades but the curvature on the grades as well. It took a lot of trial and error to get the placement of mid-train DPU units just right. Now they have computer software to figure it out.
Without DPU you had stringlining and pulled knuckles. and even with DPU the knuckle problem has never completely gone way. Another thing they discovered after the switch from DC to AC power is that AC units can pull more tonnage up hill than they can safely handle down grade, even with dynamic brakes. A couple of near runaways and heated words with the National Parks Department drove that point home. The units "A" ratings were adjusted downwards to match the units uphill capabilities with their down hill ability.
As mentioned in the recent TRAINS issue on DPU's they are routinely getting up to their 12,000 foot limit now, and the potential increases are mentioned in the article. They certainly need this plan to work because there are new potash plants coming online in the next couple of years, and coal sales always seem to be going up.
Bruce
So shovel the coal, let this rattler roll.
"A Train is a Place Going Somewhere" CP Rail Public Timetable
"O. S. Irricana"
. . . __ . ______
It looks like the the ghost of William Deramus (CGW/MKT/KCS) is in charge of operations for CP. Deramus was noted for a maximum-tonnage philosophy in operations.
Also James J. Hill of the GN fame, who had a hand in the early days of CP's construction.
Wonder if the trackage at the originating shipper and receiving terminal is also set-up - or has been/ is being revised - to efficiently handle the longer trains. If not - for example, a loop or collection of sidings that can hold only a 10,000 ft. train would be quite a hindrance when having to break apart a 12,000 ft. train and hold the extra 2,000 ft. someplace until it can be shuffled in to replace another 2,000 ft. that has to be pulled out . . .
Bruce's point about the AC braking limitations is interesting. Recall that for most of dieselization, the PRR/ PC/ CR/ now NS use helper units on downhill trains over the Allegheny Summit from Johnstown - Gallitzin - Altoona and through Horse Shoe Curve for added braking power as much as for uphill traction. I wonder if CP will consider or reinstitute helpers for that purpose ? Otherwise, the power capabilities of the AC units are not being fully utilized (= wasted) - which is more costly/ less efficient ?
- Paul North.
Long trains are great - until the most elemental of line of road occurrence happens - air hose coupling comes apart.
Now you have a line blockage of several hours duration.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD Long trains are great - until the most elemental of line of road occurrence happens - air hose coupling comes apart. Now you have a line blockage of several hours duration.
I tend to agree BaltACD. the advantage of longer trains allowing longer track times between trains and better fluidity is important. But for any air loss especially in winter is a real problem. A partial solution would be for a second conductor, engineer, or even maybe a carman to be assigned on the mid traiin DPU?. Then a much quicker locating of the problem could be initiated. If in front of the DPU repair if possible would then be completed and the train brought forward to pick up the DPU employee.
Once electronic controlled braking is in place on any train the isolation of the problem may be quicker ( ? ) but still I would have the DPU rider.
Paul_D_North_Jr Also James J. Hill of the GN fame, who had a hand in the early days of CP's construction. Wonder if the trackage at the originating shipper and receiving terminal is also set-up - or has been/ is being revised - to efficiently handle the longer trains. If not - for example, a loop or collection of sidings that can hold only a 10,000 ft. train would be quite a hindrance when having to break apart a 12,000 ft. train and hold the extra 2,000 ft. someplace until it can be shuffled in to replace another 2,000 ft. that has to be pulled out . . . Bruce's point about the AC braking limitations is interesting. Recall that for most of dieselization, the PRR/ PC/ CR/ now NS use helper units on downhill trains over the Allegheny Summit from Johnstown - Gallitzin - Altoona and through Horse Shoe Curve for added braking power as much as for uphill traction. I wonder if CP will consider or reinstitute helpers for that purpose ? Otherwise, the power capabilities of the AC units are not being fully utilized (= wasted) - which is more costly/ less efficient ? - Paul North.
J.J. Hill was pretty much gone by the time the mainline was being built west of Winnipeg.
As to the trackage at originating and receiving points, I have read elsewhere that there is expansion going on at both the port of Vancouver and at several coal mines. However, I'm sure there still must be coal mine loading facilities that can't be extended due to space limitations in the mountain areas. Given the flat terrain potash mines are found at, expansion of their loading facilities shouldn't be too difficult, although I don't recall reading of any expansion there.
There are manned pusher points on the Rogers Pass, but I don't know the details offhand. There seemed to be some staffing issue at one location but I don't know any more about that.
What has really got my attention about your post is this, where do you park a 15,000 ft. train while it is in Calgary? Not only do you have to change crews, but as far as I know they still do standing brake tests on every WB train regardless of the distance it traveled to get here, before it leaves for the mountains. For those of you that know Calgary, once a WB has cleared the grade crossing at Glenmore Trail, where does the lead unit end up? And don't say 15,000 ft. farther west. I think it would be somewhere between 12 ST E and the west switches of the Red Deer and Macleod Sub. wyes. If you have to refuel a train that size, then the back end is going to be blocking Glenmore Trail. Gee, I hope somebody thought of that.
And oh yes, don't forget about those broken air hoses and pulled knuckles out on the line.
The inherent problem with longer trains is that for any set of probabilistic-based potential reliability problem causes - air hoses, air brake valves, couplers, wheels, bearings, etc. - the cumulative effect is to decrease the overall probable reliability, and increase the probable delays, of the train.
In mathematical form, it's something like Reliability = (Probability of failure of any 1 car) to the Nth power, where N is the total number of cars in the train - not merely P x N.
Thus, for a 100-car train of cars, each with a reliability of 99.9% (0.999), the reliability of the entire train is 0.999 to the 100th power = 90.5% (not 0.1% unreliable x 100 cars = 10% unreliable, although those answers are not far apart). But a 200-car train of the same cars is now 0.999 to the 200th power = 81.9% reliable (again, not 0.1% unreliable x 200 cars = 20% unreliable - note that the difference between those 2 computations is increasing . . .).
And it takes twice as long to assemble the train, lace-up the air hoses and check the hand brakes for release, walk the train to inspect it, and confirm air brake application and release, etc., etc. . . .
blue streak 1 BaltACD: Long trains are great - until the most elemental of line of road occurrence happens - air hose coupling comes apart. Now you have a line blockage of several hours duration. I tend to agree BaltACD. the advantage of longer trains allowing longer track times between trains and better fluidity is important. But for any air loss especially in winter is a real problem. A partial solution would be for a second conductor, engineer, or even maybe a carman to be assigned on the mid traiin DPU?. Then a much quicker locating of the problem could be initiated. If in front of the DPU repair if possible would then be completed and the train brought forward to pick up the DPU employee. Once electronic controlled braking is in place on any train the isolation of the problem may be quicker ( ? ) but still I would have the DPU rider.
BaltACD: Long trains are great - until the most elemental of line of road occurrence happens - air hose coupling comes apart. Now you have a line blockage of several hours duration.
I don't know about other railroads, but we're not allowed to ride the DP engines. It's not considered safe due to slack action. In the past when testing some longer trains by just combining two and running DP they did have a second crew ride on the DP consist. They reported being bounced around a bit, not enough to be hurt but enough that the practice became frowned upon.
Jeff
Isolating the problem is not the 'time waster' getting to the problem and getting back on the head end is the problem. 12000 feet is in excess of 2 miles - and he who walks back from the engines must also return to the engines. Walking a train - on Main Track ballast - at night - with a brakeman's lantern for your only light source - IS NOT the 4 MPH pace one can attain on a well lit and level sidewalk, especially when one is inspecting cars for whatever defect may have cause the train to stop in the first place.
Air hose parting is only the simplest of causes for a train to stop on line of road. Defect detector activation for any number of things that these devices are identifying, notification from passing another train or employee that there are smoke/sparks coming from a relative location within the train - there are MANY reasons that a excess length train may come to a stop on line of road - and until the problem is resolved and the train is moving again - YOU HAVE A LINE BLOCKAGE - just as effective as a derailment.
While the bean counters have sharpened their calculators in devising these plans - they don't have to fight the results of their calculations from origin to destination in all kinds of atmospheric conditions.
I have never been an afficianado of longer trains. Even with bigger horsepower, concrete ties and welded rail, mid train and pusher's remotely controlled, and other new technologies. More can go wrong and hold traffic up for longer periods of time. It takes longer to get up to speed, and it probably would be a lesser speed. Fuel consumption is probably not too different....more is consumed to get up to speed and maintain speed but it may be a wash. I would assume sidings have been lengthened to accomodate meets and the CPR knows what it has to do in planning such a practice. I just wonder if three or four 50 to 75 car trains won't get across the railroad faster and safer than one 200 or 300 car train. I guess it is the cost of 2 man crews vs. time and service rewards. Which is the better customer service? Which serves the railroad operations best? Which serves investors best?
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.
henry6 Which is the better customer service? Which serves the railroad operations best? Which serves investors best?
Which is the better customer service? Which serves the railroad operations best? Which serves investors best?
I just wish these questions always had the same answer.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
I've never been a fan of sacrificing manpower in general to save costs alone, especially when there are significant downsides to doing so. Considering the failure possibilities and risks involved with longer trains, plus extra blockages caused by longer trains that the planners failed to oversee, and risks of movement in the tough terrain that CP goes through...I'd be extremely worried when there are already enough challenges of running current trains through such tough terrain. It almost seems like they'd be begging for trouble, just to supposedly fit trains on the map easier and to use workers a bit less.
I'm also wondering how their locomotives may be better capable of handling their situation. I don't know what kind of air compressors they use in their locos, if they're the common ones, or if they've got better ones meant for the rigors of mountain railroading, cold conditions, ECP, etc. As I think of that, I assume they've got ECP to work with. Do they? If they're using DPUs, I'd imagine they would. What other means could they use to better manage the air? And what additional risk of slack-related derailments or breaks could there be with DPUs on larger vs. typical helpers on current-sized trains?
kolechovski I assume they've got ECP to work with. Do they? If they're using DPUs, I'd imagine they would. What other means could they use to better manage the air? And what additional risk of slack-related derailments or breaks could there be with DPUs on larger vs. typical helpers on current-sized trains?
I assume they've got ECP to work with. Do they? If they're using DPUs, I'd imagine they would. What other means could they use to better manage the air? And what additional risk of slack-related derailments or breaks could there be with DPUs on larger vs. typical helpers on current-sized trains?
I have just read that they have at least two full trainsets of ECPB equipped coal cars for use from the Crowsnest area up to Golden, on the mainline, and down to Vancouver. They are setting up more trainsets, and all of the new locomotives purchased this year have ECPB capabilities built in.
The concern with Henery6's suggestion is that you end up with three or four trains each way in a given section of track, making scheduling and executing meets much more difficult. In the end it slows down progress compared to getting two longer trains past each other, provided you have big enough sidings.
Longer sidings to handle longer train is the easy part of the operation.
The terminals that originate, terminate, classify and service the longer trains must also be configured to handle these trains without bringing the entire operation to a screeching halt.
One Class I carrier tried to implement at 'fewer - bigger trains' operating plan; without making any changes to the terminals upon which the plan was being implemented. The plan brought the property to a virtual stand still in short order - the large trains could not be yarded because the yard tracks were still being occupied by freight that was being assembled for the larger departing train(s) - of course the power on the inbound train(s) was needed for outbound train(s). Multiply the stand offs by multiple terminals and in short order you have grid lock.
Any Class I operating plan that only looks at one aspect of the physical realties of a carriers operation is doomed to failure. Manpower, terminal size and facilities, line of road characteristics (grades, sidings, signaling) all have to be integrated into the plan.
...After reading all the posts on the subject of extra long trains....I can't imagine where the consistent advantage would be in operating these trains in {especially}, mountainous terrain.
And if the big advantage doing so, is to use less employees, then it sounds even worse yet.....Just my
Quentin
jeffhergert I don't know about other railroads, but we're not allowed to ride the DP engines. It's not considered safe due to slack action. In the past when testing some longer trains by just combining two and running DP they did have a second crew ride on the DP consist. They reported being bounced around a bit, not enough to be hurt but enough that the practice became frowned upon. Jeff
Jeff: That seems strange. If the DPU was a manned mid-train or end of train helper instead what is the difference ??
It wouldn't be the first time operations of any kind of business gets trumped by investors and/or accounants only to have to clean up...and pay for...any mess from not heeding field advice. There are a lot of things here to be looked at from traffic speed, length and location of passing sidings, other traffic, terminal approaches, terminal facilities, fueling facilities enroute, total amout of fuel consumption on these trains compared to consumption of other trains with same total of cars; time consumed from point to point and to and between intermittent points, actual manpower hours to be consumed per train or per trip, balanced traffic in reverse, total ability for total radio contact full train length at all times. I probably have missed a dozen or more things; I wonder if they got them all?
Just as long as they're not as long as Canadian Nationals Monsters. Those things are indeed lengthy...especially when they're going slow.
Through trains don't need fuel in Calgary, fueling platforms in Moose Jaw and Golden look after that.
Paul_D_North_Jr The inherent problem with longer trains is that for any set of probabilistic-based potential reliability problem causes - air hoses, air brake valves, couplers, wheels, bearings, etc. - the cumulative effect is to decrease the overall probable reliability, and increase the probable delays, of the train. In mathematical form, it's something like Reliability = (Probability of failure of any 1 car) to the Nth power, where N is the total number of cars in the train - not merely P x N. Thus, for a 100-car train of cars, each with a reliability of 99.9% (0.999), the reliability of the entire train is 0.999 to the 100th power = 90.5% (not 0.1% unreliable x 100 cars = 10% unreliable, although those answers are not far apart). But a 200-car train of the same cars is now 0.999 to the 200th power = 81.9% reliable (again, not 0.1% unreliable x 200 cars = 20% unreliable - note that the difference between those 2 computations is increasing . . .). And it takes twice as long to assemble the train, lace-up the air hoses and check the hand brakes for release, walk the train to inspect it, and confirm air brake application and release, etc., etc. . . . - Paul North.
Speaking of land barges...I live near MP 175.1 on CN's Neenah Sub which sits about halfway (railroad anyway) between Winnipeg, MB and Chicago, IL. Most of the southbound traffic that has DPUs (the only northbound train with them through here is Q199 - intermodal, and only if cold enough "up north") are in the neighborhood of 650-700 axles and the DPUs are roughly 2/3 back from the head end. I have seen on many occasions (especially in winter) trains that look like they "somethings missing" and were around 300/350 axles quickly followed by the "rest of the train". Someone either in Pokegama or further north 'split' the train in two.
Having also gone to CP's Watertown Sub on occasion the longest train I've heard a detector announce was less than 400 axles. I haven't seen anything approaching the length of CN's "regular" landbarges. Then again...I'm not there everyday like I can be with CN.
Here's hoping that someone at CP has the common sense to use the length when needed and not simply "because they can".
Dan
The unfortunate reality of operations thinking (most of the time anyways) is - It you did it once under ideal circumstance - you should be able to do it all the time, no matter how conditions may change.
CNW 6000 Here's hoping that someone at CP has the common sense to use the length when needed and not simply "because they can".
CNW 6000 Having also gone to CP's Watertown Sub on occasion the longest train I've heard a detector announce was less than 400 axles. I haven't seen anything approaching the length of CN's "regular" landbarges. Then again...I'm not there everyday like I can be with CN. Here's hoping that someone at CP has the common sense to use the length when needed and not simply "because they can".
The sidings on CP's trackage in North Dakota are only ~7700 ft. long and it is Dark Territory so no monster trains on the CP in the US in the near future. They need longer sidings and CTC before they can lengthen trains significantly.
Potash trains interchanged from CP to UP at Eastport, Idaho, started running a bit longer this year. Some have been moving to Portland with 130 cars, others with 135. Potash trains which stay on CP to the coast are even longer than that. UP is preparing for some massive capacity upgrades in the Northwest to handle not only longer trains out of Canada, but more of them. Potash export business is on the verge of a huge expansion.
All this reminds me of what I've seen referred to as the "drag freight era" (ca. 1900-1920)...supposedly so named because the operating model was maximum ton-miles at minimum train miles, i.e., as much as possible in as few trains "dragged" from yard to yard as possible. The extremes of the practice died out after WWI as railroads found that their terminals were clogged with the time it took to collect the cars and to assemble them into outgoing trains, as well as either the congestion of trying to do so in outmoded terminals/yards or the cost of expanding those terminals/yards to properly support the over-the-road savings. Nonetheless, the idea of using trains as large as possible to maximize operating efficiency on the line is something that is fundamental to almost all railroad operations.
Good points, Kevin.
I'll venture a prediction, as this continues: The regulatory agencies (FRA in the US) will impose a limit on the maximum train size/ length, without or until an extensive environmental/ safety/ social review is performed and mitigation measures put into place. Mainly that will involve addressing grade crossing delays through either separations, improvements, closures, etc. Those measures may also involve better parallel access and service roads, communications links, lighting, and preparedness (such as spare parts and on-call personnel, etc.), where trains are inspected or encounter problems frequently, such as broken couplers on steep grades, etc. It may also involve mandatory DPU operations with certain minimum power requirements, maximum spacing, and ECP brake systems, etc.
Reminds me of when the State of NJ wieghed in and stipulated that no "mulitple unit electric trains" could be more than 13 cars. But, I doubt there will be such a need for freight trains as in the long run economics and operational difficulties will make the decision for the railroad(s). There are so many obvious and apparent pitfalls, plus history which says the opposite, that I am surprised that here in the 21st Century a railroad management is actually considereing such a practice especially without redesigning and rebuilding the infrastructure to accomodate longer train operations. Slack action alone should leave the last quarter of a train of 200 cars sitting in the middle of the main!.
Counting axels,as noted above: 400 axels, sans locomotives, should be 100 cars which seems quite comfortable for engines, tracks, yards, crews, timetable, infrastructure. Unless there is a lot of upgrade, new track and new tracks, fueling facilities redsigned and other infrastructue adjustments including yards, lengthening trains seems more sport than smart.
A couple things henry6 just said got me thinking...first, what is the expected cost of doing the entire upgrade project necessary everywhere to allow the larger trains they want to run, including any necessary ECp and DPU expenditures, and how much money do they have to put towards that?
Second, with what henry said in regards of slack action made me remember a recent story, where a conductor disconnecting helpers just prior to the summit of a hill got run over and killed. I estimate slack in the cars would have drifted back and caused him to be run over that way. What risks will slack be in the longer trains, even with DPUs, and could there be additional risks to the crews like with what was experienced here?
And something someone else said a little while back about a crew riding on the DPUs and getting bumped around...I can see how that would be an issue, as the center between push and pull would always be on the move, and as many DPUs are in the center (assuming one DPU set), that would have about as much action as a carnival ride (maybe Bumper Cars?). It should be okay for crews on front or rear sets of locos, as those should almost always be either pushing or pulling, so there'd be little action there. I'm curious how DPU is controlled. Is there software within the locos themselves to do all of the calculated operating to constantly monitor and manage train forces, or is the engineer on the lead somehow responsible for that as well?
Congested yards may not be a problem in one type of operating situation. Assume a heavier train "A" originates at a yard and lighter train "B" at another yard. A and B meet at some location. "B" then couples to rear of "A" and its units go DPU. Combined train then goes to some location where the above is reversed. Traffic patterns being what they are the above would have very limited application.
For those of you who dismiss slack action or don't understand it in the context of, lets say a 100 car train. I don't know the exact measure...I believe about 8 inches is possible per drawbar, but lets use 6 inches per drawbar. With a drawbar at each end of a car that means slack action could be 12 inches or a full foot! So with 100 cars that would amount to about 100 feet or two or three car lengths difference from bunched up to full drawn out. And the actual motion from front to rear could be a dangerous jerk and whiplash at the hind end for both equipment and persons aboard. Such slack action is as much a reason to have gotten rid of cabooses as anything else.
I don't know....to me it really doesn't make sense. Can it be done? Yes. But at what cost and for what reason. Unless or until they prove me wrong.....
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.