The long trains that CP has been testing have used two separate DPU consists, this helps with both slack and braking as brake applications start from multiple locations, also all consists start at the same time minimizing run out. On the other hand the DPUs do experience more slack action. Freight cars in the middle of trains experience this all the time, perhaps this is why there are fewer Hobos.
There aren't fewer hobos. They're all just huddled inside the cabs of the last of a set of locos. It's a great place to keep warm and help yourself to some free refreshments! But then, if the train crew didn't already notice their boarding (they often do), they'll know it if a person has partaken in too much refreshment!
kolechovskiA 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?
[snipped]
kolechovski 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. . . .
- Paul North.
Two mile long trains? Well, let me be brief and come right out and say it: They're mad, they're absolutely insane.
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.
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. . . .
You would hope CP takes all this into account, but crew starts are hard-wired into the budget and easy to count. Impact of rolled-throughput of the reliability is harder to calculate and quantify, squishier in nature and not as easy to understand. Decisions like this are often made with imperfect information.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmannd Decisions like this are often made with imperfect information.
Decisions like this are often made with imperfect information.
My fear is that decisions for longer trains are made by investors, investment bankers, and CPA's and not real railroad superintendents, General Managers, Trainmasters, Road Foremen of Engines, Master Mechanics, Yardmaters, and Track managers and supervisors.
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 oltmannd: Decisions like this are often made with imperfect information. My fear is that decisions for longer trains are made by investors, investment bankers, and CPA's and not real railroad superintendents, General Managers, Trainmasters, Road Foremen of Engines, Master Mechanics, Yardmaters, and Track managers and supervisors.
oltmannd: Decisions like this are often made with imperfect information.
Remember that the are many types of investors, long-term investors are interested in long term returns, which depends on keeping the customers happy. Short term investors, on the other hand, are more focused on next quarter's numbers and focus excessively on reducing expenditures (see The Children's Fund vs. CSX). Creating effective policies for encouraging a long term view over a short term view will not be easy as the typically short term investors are investment managers for the likes of pension funds, 401k funds, mutual funds, nsurance companies, and endowments.
I would substitute MBA's for CPA's in your comment as CPA's are rarely involved in the decision making process. My impression is that a lot of MBA's mistake understanding finance as being the only thing they need to know about business.
- Erik
Firelock76 Two mile long trains? Well, let me be brief and come right out and say it: They're mad, they're absolutely insane.
Two mile long trains are passe, the railroads have started on the rail(road) towards 3-mile long trains.
The other day when I reported for work, a crew was talking about being held out of the terminal for a while. They said the dispatcher warned them they were going to be held because, "someone in their infinite wisdom decided to run a 17000 foot train" or words to that effect. I don't know, but suspect it was a stack train. Even on lines with 2 main tracks, long trains can cause misery.
Many times, it would seem that things are done, not with investors in mind but each department's budget. If department A can save money by doing something, even though departments B and C may have their costs go up, so what. Department A looks good, the managers get a bigger bonus and maybe remembered when promotion time comes around. You've got to have your priorities, and it isn't always the good of the company, investors, or custumers that come first. Despite what they say.
Jeff
BaltACD 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".
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".
Here's hoping that someone at CP has the common sense to use the length when needed and not simply "because they can".
It looks good on paper and there were no problems when we ran that 12000 foot train on the simulator. (You can get a train separation due to train handling, but I don't think they have a low hanging air hose hitting a crossing and coming apart programed into the simulation. Not to mention that once the air hose parts causing the train to go into emergency, slack action tears the train into two or three pieces.)
Then you find that you need a couple of E knuckles, but all you can find on the engines are F knuckles.
[quote user="beaulieu"]
Firelock76: Two mile long trains? Well, let me be brief and come right out and say it: They're mad, they're absolutely insane.
Two mile long trains are passe'? THREE mile long trains? Time to call the guys with the white coats and the straight-jackets!
zugmann henry6: 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.
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.
Johnny
Kevin C. Smith 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.
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.
[edit: add:] In 1972, My wife and I rode the Rio Grande Zephyr from Denver to Salt Lake City. I had expected to see many eastbound freights, but saw very few.
Hi All
Interesting discussion.
Being someone who drives quite regularly to Calgary and from time to time to Cranbrook and points east, what work CP has done on infrastructure both in Rogers Pass and Crowsnest is quite evident and significant.
There is directional running Kamloops (Basque) to Vancouver, CN WB, CP EB.
There are significantly lengthened sidings east of Kamloops to Pritchard, part of which has a small running yard and fuelling pads I believe. There is a small running yard at Chase which has been there for years, extended sidings just west of Craigellachie, Golden WB is double tracked east to well past Donald. I really can't think of anywhere on the Shuswap and Mountain Subs where they haven't done significant work.
There also was a time when the Mountain Sub had a lot more double track (from the look of things the ROW would still be usable if they decided to do more. Lots of MOW vehicles still use these 'roads'.) Even now there is double running west of Revelstoke and according to the Canadian trackside guide east of Revelstoke some 20 miles. On the Laggan sub they used to have three tracks, Lake Louise-Stephen ( believe it's only two tracks now). I'm sure there's been plenty of work done Calgary to Banff although this is not visible from the highway. At the same time I know, other work has been done with an eye to reducing grades, although in that territory you'll never really be able to get much in the way of curvature reduction.
To the casual observer such as myself it is clear CP has a long term game plan and they've been working at it for many years. Remember the Mount MacDonald tunnel and the time and money CP invested (about 1B. It's only one part of the larger picture, I'm sure, and did much to reduce WB grades at a critical point on the Mountain Sub. Double tracking where present has in places been realigned to improve gradient.
I'm quite sure the Fording load track is a balloon track and there is plenty of double track at Elkview and Sparwood loaders. The latter has been there for years IIRC as coal mine have been in the Natal/Michel area for the best part of 100 years.
To my way of thinking they have also done a lot of good work with DP in the mountains over the years. As Bruce points out they've been at it since 1969 and after a few significant runaways and near misses they've gotten such running in mountainous territory down to as much of a 'fine science' as has anyone, especially CN who in the west has only started running DP in the last three or so years.
I honestly think they'll pull it off. They haul a lot of coal and potash (sulphur too) as Bruce points out and those markets will only likely grow. It's a mainstay of their western business and I'm sure they intend to build on it.
They have IMHO the length and depth of running experience to do so along with the infrastructure work they have done west of Calgary. What they'll have to do in Calgary is another story and one I'm sure others know better than I.
The view from here.
Charlie
Chilliwack, BC
But...
You can't compare one 100 car train with one 200 car train. You need to move 200 cars so you would need to use two 100 car trains. Using the numbers provided, a single 200 car train would be very close to the reliability of two 100 car trains. If one 100 car train has a 9.5% factor of unreliability (100%-90.5%) then two 100 car trains would have a 19% factor of unreliability. One train or the other train could have a problem and tie up the line. The reliability of the two 100 car trains would be 81% which is near the 81.9% reliability provided for the one 200 car train.
As to the contention that the 200 car train would take twice as long to put together, yes that's reasonable. But you only have to put together one train. Putting together two 100 car trains should take around the same time as putting together one 200 car train.
The major gains from longer trains are in single track line capacity and fluidity. To move 200 cars in each direction would require four 100 car trains but only two 200 car trains. To pass the 100 car trains on a single track would require four meets. With 200 car trains only one meet is required. That's a big deal.
Longer trains will come with some added costs. Longer trains will also reduce some costs. Apparently CP's analysis, simulations and testing have shown that the cost reductions outweigh the cost increases. We're gonna' find out if their projections are right. I'm betting they're right.
The over-the-road handling of extra sized trains is the simplest part of the entire equation, though fraught with excessive delays any and every time the train is stopped for any kind of mechanical incident.
Terminal productive or the lack thereof is the key to being able to sustain the operation of extra sized trains. If the one or two extra sized trains a day are the only activity on the terminals and associated line of road - it is not a big deal. When you start having terminals and line of road segments that are handling a double digit number of trains in both directions all of a sudden the handling of the extra sized trains begins to affect all the other trains, both on line of road and especially in terminal - IF the terminals have not had extra sized facilities built for the express needs of the extra size trains. Will there be receiving yard tracks than can handle the extra sized trains without the requirement of yarding the train in two or more receiving yard tracks....in dispatching the super size train how much time will be required to double tracks together to put the super size train together and will this work block other trains from doing the work required of them. In the continued operation of the terminal, is their sufficient track capacity that the terminal can stay fluid with both arrivals and departures while the cars are being accumulated for the super size train.
The key to super sized trains is in terminal fluidity - not line of road issues.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
greyhounds As to the contention that the 200 car train would take twice as long to put together, yes that's reasonable. But you only have to put together one train. Putting together two 100 car trains should take around the same time as putting together one 200 car train. Longer trains will come with some added costs. Longer trains will also reduce some costs. Apparently CP's analysis, simulations and testing have shown that the cost reductions outweigh the cost increases. We're gonna' find out if their projections are right. I'm betting they're right.
But if you can put together one 100 car train and have it well on tocustomer's destination while the other 100 car train is being made up for other customers or even the same one, are you not giving the customers better service? Of course there are customers where delivery in terms of time, on time, frequency, etc. don't matter, but they are probably few and far between.\
And, yes, the DRG&W did run short and fast trains, keep the railroad fluid, delivered to the end points with reliability and effeciency. But bean counters caught up with operations figuring they could make 80% of $100 instead of 50% of $200. When you are in the business of producing a product or service for the long haul, the latter is preferable, but if you are in business to sell the business or attaract investment, your books should show the latter. American business is based on the former rather than the latter, thus the imprint on our products of "Made in China". But since you can't import a rail move, the result is to build more and wider highways, buy more imported oil, and have the government pay for it.
BaltACD The over-the-road handling of extra sized trains is the simplest part of the entire equation, though fraught with excessive delays any and every time the train is stopped for any kind of mechanical incident. Terminal productive or the lack thereof is the key to being able to sustain the operation of extra sized trains. If the one or two extra sized trains a day are the only activity on the terminals and associated line of road - it is not a big deal. When you start having terminals and line of road segments that are handling a double digit number of trains in both directions all of a sudden the handling of the extra sized trains begins to affect all the other trains, both on line of road and especially in terminal - IF the terminals have not had extra sized facilities built for the express needs of the extra size trains. Will there be receiving yard tracks than can handle the extra sized trains without the requirement of yarding the train in two or more receiving yard tracks....in dispatching the super size train how much time will be required to double tracks together to put the super size train together and will this work block other trains from doing the work required of them. In the continued operation of the terminal, is their sufficient track capacity that the terminal can stay fluid with both arrivals and departures while the cars are being accumulated for the super size train. The key to super sized trains is in terminal fluidity - not line of road issues.
As others have pointed out, expansion work is being done in the Port of Vancouver (including Roberts Bank). Also the substantial coal traffic originates from a non-Calgary based part of the system via Fording and Windermere Subs to the Mountain Sub at KC Junction/Golden. Potash and sulphur trains originate east of Calgary in different parts of Saskatchewan.
What's happening in Calgary is another story and one I cannot speak to. I have noticed extension work on the Red Deer Sub but have no idea what is being done at Calgary Downtown. There are three tracks at least (I believe) on the main in west Calgary, visible from the Stoney Trail overpass south of Nose Hill, however, I would defer to Bruce on whatever could/might be done to make the Calgary situation better for longer run through potash and sulphur trains from further east.
Deggesty Do you remember that back in the sixties the Rio Grande operated short, fast trains? [edit: add:] In 1972, My wife and I rode the Rio Grande Zephyr from Denver to Salt Lake City. I had expected to see many eastbound freights, but saw very few.
This is what happens when pencil pushers and number crunchers call the shots. In the end customer service will suffer due to the delay these behemoths cause to the rest of the trains operating on the same line segment. Any train over two miles in length is just asking for trouble. Let a few of these monsters break into or loose the air and tie single track up for four hours and watch the inexperienced college kids in the office scratch their heads looking for answers. The real game changer though is when the network speed drops by 10% or more. Then the cost of operating one train vs. two will be insignificant.
TBG
lenzfamily What's happening in Calgary is another story and one I cannot speak to. I have noticed extension work on the Red Deer Sub but have no idea what is being done at Calgary Downtown. There are three tracks at least (I believe) on the main in west Calgary, visible from the Stoney Trail overpass south of Nose Hill, however, I would defer to Bruce on whatever could/might be done to make the Calgary situation better for longer run through potash and sulphur trains from further east.
Sorry it has taken me so long to get back here. I want to do a longer post to answer some of the questions about CP's DPU history and operation, but I will hit on a couple of quick points now. The three tracks mentioned above is the yard at Keith. It is one of two staging yards west of the main yard at Alyth. Bearspaw is several miles further west of Keith. The work mentioned on the Red Deer Sub are new sidings at Beddington and Zoo.
I did some more detailed investigation about my comment about parking a 15,000 ft. train in Calgary, using the 2011 Canadian Trackside Guide and a Rand-McNally street map. 15,000 ft. is not 3 miles, it is actually 2.84 miles. This would mean then that a WB train could stop at the normal location at the Alyth Yard Office, and the rear of the train would be 1/10 of a mile (528 ft.) or less north of the grade crossing at Glenmore Trail. An utterly astounding thing to contemplate for someone who grew up watching 40 car mixed trains.
I did find some other disturbing info in the 2011 CTG though. It seems CP doesn't own a 15,000 foot siding in either the Provinces of Alberta or British Columbia. There is in fact only approximately 20 miles of double track in all of Alberta.. There is 20 miles in one section of the Shuswap Sub. alone and somewhere between 50-100 miles of double track, not counting the directional running track in the Fraser Canyon, in all of BC. Either the CTG is completely out of touch, or I don't understand how CP can already be running 12,000 ft. trains.
This issue requires further investigation.
Bruce
So shovel the coal, let this rattler roll.
"A Train is a Place Going Somewhere" CP Rail Public Timetable
"O. S. Irricana"
. . . __ . ______
The tactic most frequently used when trying to operate extra sized trains on a territory where the extra size trains exceed the capacity of any of the passing sidings is to only operate the extra sized trains in one direction. The normal size trains operating in opposition to the extra size trains must be the ones to take siding (or at least remain at the siding on the Main track) as the extra size train operates past.
One cannot operate extra sized trains in both directions on a territory if there is not location(s) where the extra sized trains can meet.
AgentKid I did find some other disturbing info in the 2011 CTG though. It seems CP doesn't own a 15,000 foot siding in either the Provinces of Alberta or British Columbia. There is in fact only approximately 20 miles of double track in all of Alberta.. There is 20 miles in one section of the Shuswap Sub. alone and somewhere between 50-100 miles of double track, not counting the directional running track in the Fraser Canyon, in all of BC. Either the CTG is completely out of touch, or I don't understand how CP can already be running 12,000 ft. trains. This issue requires further investigation. Bruce
EMD#1 This is what happens when pencil pushers and number crunchers call the shots. In the end customer service will suffer due to the delay these behemoths cause to the rest of the trains operating on the same line segment. Any train over two miles in length is just asking for trouble......Then the cost of operating one train vs. two will be insignificant. TBG
This is what happens when pencil pushers and number crunchers call the shots. In the end customer service will suffer due to the delay these behemoths cause to the rest of the trains operating on the same line segment. Any train over two miles in length is just asking for trouble......Then the cost of operating one train vs. two will be insignificant.
I can see trying longer trains IF they are unit trains; at least the loading and weight distribution would be uniform. But I cannot imagine running mega mixed manifests over rugged terrain.
Only once did I have the opportunity to run a super-long train. It happened back in the 70's or 80's when the Native Americans staged a blockade somewhere in Canada, and the CN detoured some of it's trains on the CNW. I left Butler with 12800 feet of train totalling just over 11000 tons of mixed freight with mostly TOFC on the head end, and 4 CN SD units all WITHOUT dynamic braking. That was one tense trip, as I had never run anything with that configuration. Somehow we made it in one piece. When my hind end cleared the north end of Yard 9 in Proviso, my head end was way past East 5, just about to the switch for the Belt. That train had Proviso tied up quite nicely for quite a while.
Hi Zardoz!
Are you a UP engineer? I've had a couple of 12,000 foot intermodals but the longest mixed freight I've run was just a little over 10,000 feet. As an engineer myself, I know you understand the difference between running different types of trains. A 10,000 foot intermodal is definitely easier to run than a 10,000 foot mixed freight made up of mostly empties with a block of loads on the rear! Some trains you can be more aggressive with and some you have to handle with kid gloves.
Too often I've seen engineers get knuckles on these mega size mixed freight trains due to severe slack action. In the cab when it feels like I'm in a tug of war match with the rear end of the train the last thing I want to do is prove that I can win by giving it another notch!
Best Regards,
Tim
zardoz I would bet that all of these cost studies do not take into account the added risk of derailment with the longer trains. With such lengths, stringlining and buff forces increase dramatically. Pop a hose in the middle of the train while draft forces are in transition (not all bunched or stretched), and a drawbar failure becomes much more likely; and of course when the drawbar falls out and lands between the rails and rolls under a car wheel.....
I would bet that all of these cost studies do not take into account the added risk of derailment with the longer trains. With such lengths, stringlining and buff forces increase dramatically. Pop a hose in the middle of the train while draft forces are in transition (not all bunched or stretched), and a drawbar failure becomes much more likely; and of course when the drawbar falls out and lands between the rails and rolls under a car wheel.....
You would be generally correct. The most that will happen is that simulations of particular trains will be run to see if it is possible to handle them safely over the territory - and to develop appropriate train handling guidelines. But, the increase in risk is likely not analyzed.
They also will use simulations to see how the traffic flows across the territory and to develop reasonable schedules - perhaps with some that include some big, unscheduled delays. But, it simulations can't do the complete "what if". The decision to do it or not comes always has a level of uncertainty in it.
The "hard dollar" crew savings they see may "rose color" their understanding of the risks. With hounds barking at the door, CP clearly believes it needs to do something.
EMD#1 Hi Zardoz! Are you a UP engineer?
Are you a UP engineer?
EMD#1 I've had a couple of 12,000 foot intermodals but the longest mixed freight I've run was just a little over 10,000 feet. As an engineer myself, I know you understand the difference between running different types of trains. A 10,000 foot intermodal is definitely easier to run than a 10,000 foot mixed freight made up of mostly empties with a block of loads on the rear! Some trains you can be more aggressive with and some you have to handle with kid gloves.
I've had a couple of 12,000 foot intermodals but the longest mixed freight I've run was just a little over 10,000 feet. As an engineer myself, I know you understand the difference between running different types of trains. A 10,000 foot intermodal is definitely easier to run than a 10,000 foot mixed freight made up of mostly empties with a block of loads on the rear! Some trains you can be more aggressive with and some you have to handle with kid gloves.
The long Intermodals that CP is running have been configured as 1/1/1 with two remotes.
How will the CP DPU operation differ from the UP Ogden - Nampa - Portland DPU operation. I suspect that the profiles may be quite different ?? When the UP operation was started it was said that UP saved $100M not having to add siding and double track.
I am wondering if these 200 car trains will not be mineral trains (e.g Coal, potash, etc) which can run at slowr speeds and move when the tracks are clear of higher priority traffic.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.