We were supposed to get a carload of lumber in Monday. It didn't work out that way. The local come from the north, but our lead faces north. At about 2:00 o'clock Monday, I saw our carload of CanFor 2X6's go by in the middle of the train. Generally, it runs past our switch, and goes 2 hours down the line to Marion, where cars are switched, and then heads back to us to be switched into our loading dock when the train is heading back north. We figured the car would be spotted after 5 on Monday, but it had not shown up by the time we left at noon on Tuesday, Christmas Eve. The BNSF generally delivers to us on Mon-Wed-Fri, so we'll probably see our wayward car Friday. Our yard crew that unloads is fit to be tied, about why the railroad won't do things that are best for them, as opposed to what's easiest for the railroad. They can't understand why the railroad can't just drop off our car on the way through. Here's a question about time frame to spot a car- 2 scenarios, one favoring the railroad, one favoring the receiver- a lumberyard in dire need of a carload of 2x6's from Canada. How long would it take to switch each way?1) The local is heading south. At the head of the train are 3 engines of the GP-28 variety. The train is approximately 40 cars, and a lone car of lumber is about in the middle of the train. As the local is heading south, the lead going into the receiver is facing north. The local passes the receiver, and spots the car, typically, 4-6 hours later, on the return trip north into the main yard. To spot the car, the train stops, splits the train just behind our car, and pulls north past the switch. The conductor throws the switch, and the car back through the switch into our yard. After dropping off our car, the train pulls back out onto the main, then relines the switch. The train backs up, re-coupling onto the rest of the train. Then. it's ready to head north into the home yard for the night.2) The local stops north of the switch. The switch is thrown, and the front locomotive is split from the other two, and pulled onto the siding. The switch is relined for the main. The train is split just north of the lumber car. The train is then pulled south of the switch. The switch is line for the lead again. The single locomotive is backed north, back onto the main. Switch is lined for the main again. Single engine moves south on the main, couples to the lumber car, and back north of the switch. The switch is lined for the lead into the yard, and the car is spotted. While the single engine is still on the lead, the switch would have to be lined for the main again. The train south of the switch, with the 2 locomotives on the front end, would then have to back north of the switch. The switch is then lined for the lead. The single engine pulls north through the switch, back onto the main, and re-couples onto the front of the train. The switch is re-lined for the main, and the local can continue south. In talking through this with a lumberyard foreman ( who used to work at a grain elevator, and therefore knows everything about trains), I found myself lacking in trying to explain just how much time it would take to make him happy. As I see it, the easy move, #1, takes about 20 to 30 minutes. That's pretty consistent with past performance, as our dock is about 1/4 mile off the main. I picture the harder option, #2, taking 1:15 to 1-1/2 hours. Any thoughts?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
You might see the car Friday.
Splitting power to set the car out (option 2) is quite the operation, especially if there is snow to complicate matters. If the car is in the middle of the train, the engineer is loathe to walk all those cars to get where he needs to be, tie down the unattended portions of the train with the requisite handbrakes, etc.
There might also be arbitraries and penalties to pay out.
It would have to be a super hot car to go through that level of extra moves.
Is it downhill into the lumber yard? If the car would roll from the main into your yard that would be more feasible than your option 2, but not likely with current work rules. In the old days a power drop would get the car into the yard a lot quicker.
Mike WSOR engineer | HO scale since 1988 | Visit our club www.WCGandyDancers.com
Murphy,
No way on God's Green Earth will you get BNSF to do the second option.
Look at the root causes of your problem.
You are on a spur that opens to the north and your load comes from a local yard located north of you. That makes the southward, or first, move a "facing point" move, but to set a car out, or pick it up, the move must be "trailing point", that is done on the northward movement. In the "good old days" your car would have been on the head end of the train and the crew would have dropped the car into the spur. Between having fewer trainmen on the crew and today's safety rules, dropping the car in is impossible.
If the crew is not spotting the car on the way back then one of two things is happening. One, the crew has so much other work that they are running close to their hours of service limit, which is 12 hours on duty. Two, the crew is lazy.
Solutions. Start with the easy stuff. I suspect the crew is about two hours into their day when you first see them and have about an hour's work after they go by northward. What time do they generally go by northward? The point is you can make a reasonable estimate of their HOS situation.
Even if you do not know the HOS situation, go talk to the local Trainmaster. He is the crew's boss. If it is an HOS issue he can, and will, tell you. If the crew is lazy he can encourage them to do the work.
The other issue is your spur. I looked on Google Earth and whoever laid it out to open north should be shot, since there is plenty of open ground to the south. It appears that the spur could have, and certainly should have been, built to open to the south. Had it been you would not have this problem.
This has two possible cures. One is to revise the spur to open south. The other is for BNSF to build a short "run around" track adjacent to your switch. I would put it south of your existing switch. This will involve a new switch in your spur and a new switch in the main track, plus 300-400 feet of track. Either solution will be in the $250,000 to $1,000,000 range, and you should expect to pay for it.
If you were a regular customer, and thus a regular pain in the a$$ to the crew and the Trainmaster, he might be moved to get marketing involved in paying for a solution. A few years back BNSF was actively looking to revise bonehead track arrangements to speed up local switching. I have no idea whether or not they are still doing that. In any case the place to start a discussion about any track changes is the trainmaster.
Do not bring up your pal's "brilliant idea" since it will make you look like an idiot to the Trainmaster. No need to start off on the wrong foot.
Mac McCulloch
One other thing that plays into the HOS situation. Yard crew built the train for Local freights and the cars were switched into the train in 'station working' order, if they weren't in the proper order the Local Freight crew was due an arbitrary payment for 'reswitching' their train. That arbitrary was done away with a decade or more ago. The best the Local Freight crew can expect today, is to have all their cars switch to a track(s) so that they can come on duty, get their power and couple to their track(s) and depart; more likely however, with yard crews being cut to the bone - the Local Freight crew will have to switch together their train from the serving yard, so it is very likely that by the time you see the crew for the first time the crew may have already been on duty 5 or 6 hours.
Outside of relocation of your track, the best tactic is to have a civil conversation with the local trainmaster concerning your observations. I wish you luck, as the limited volume your company generates gives you very little bargining power.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
narig01Option C. Call a truck.Rgds IGN
If you are calling 1 truck - you better call 2 for the lumber that the rail car is carrying.
(1) IIRC - It wasn't that long ago that you folks moved. A little buyers remorse?
(2) How about two #9 turnouts and about 600 feet of track (on your side of the R/W line)? IIRC you folks did not build the original track at the new site. Is it worth the capital outlay versus "the wait"?
(3) If all you ever do is wait to complain to the local operating supervision, you won't get far.
(4) The operating rulebook will just about kill any part of a drop in a conversation. The world is now risk-adverse and roadswitchers keep getting fewer in number.
(5) Anybody investigated the nearby transload operation when logistics get critical?
A “drop” is not going to happen…while still allowed in the GCOR, BNSF’s own safety rules forbids them, and do most railroads do.
Your best bet is a call, maybe in person, to the Marion yardmaster expressing your concern.
Most of the time, if they can manage it, yard masters do try and help out local customers.
As Balt pointed out, if the local crew has to do more than double over to a few tracks and leave heading north, then the odds of your car getting back on the same day are slim.
Depending on how long you guys plan on being in your current location, Mudchickens suggestion #2, adding to your exsisting siding/spur may be the best choice operation wise over the long run, but again, if the expense isn’t overall a economical one, then talking to the operational folks is the way to go…start at the bottom of the food chain with the yard master at Marion, then the trainmaster, then the BN corridor manager on up…don’t start at the top and work down, railroaders are real “turf” minded, if the yardmaster gets his tail twisted, your car may float around Marion yard a few days, get routinely bad ordered, you get the point.
23 17 46 11
edblysard your car may float around Marion yard a few days, get routinely bad ordered, you get the point.
Must be nice to have extra capacity. Heck, we usually can't wait to get the cars out of our yard to the customers!
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
Mudchicken's point #2 is the best idea for a physical fix. It gives you a runaround track without any involvement with BNSF, which makes it the cheapest and most simple idea of the bunch. 600 feet seems a bit much, BUT better more track today than have to move a switch in the future.
Mac
This is several responses to post above. That's why the paragraphs will seem unconnected, or maybe I'm not that good of a writer... First, we found out the answer to the time frame question. This morning, the local cruised on out to our location and spotted the car. It was a 3 man crew, with 3 locomotives pulling one car the 7 miles out to our location, then back to town empty. The actual switching and spotting took about 35 minutes- mainly because the car was directly behind the locomotives. The trip out and back took probably a half hour each way. Add to that, the switch time in town. So roughly, delivering our car took about 1-1/2 hours. At that rate, a 3 man crew with 3 road locomotives could conceivably deliver 9 cars in a 12 hour shift. The problem is most definitely on our end, and it has many levels of dysfunction
. Some time back, Mark W. Hemphill wrote about how there is some business the railroads just don't need. We fit that bill, right down to his telling a story about a receiver seeing his car go by, but never see it spotted. Our new location, built 5 years ago, should never have had a rail spur. But, no one asked me. In 100 years, we will not save enough in freight to pay for the investment. What rubs me the wrong way, is that at nowhere along the planning stages did anyone from the railroad have the gumption to tell our owner that a rail spur was really not a good idea. The rail connection layout was designed by dummies. It makes me think of Mud Chicken's reference to agri-dummies. Lumber-dummies perhaps? We were a tour old location for something like 103 years. I imagine, that we'll be here for quite a while- long enough for big ol' weeds to grow up around our tracks, once we admit that it's not worth the effort. In the long run, I forsee someone getting lucky, when more industry fills in around us, that needs a rail car more than once a month. In fact, I forsee the day when someone views this spur as being a case of foresight. One of our options to shipping in a car of lumber to our yard, would be to buy a car load of lumber from one of the 3 wholesale suppliers we buy from in town, and have them unload it in their yard. Ironically, one of the 3 is a Co-Op type company, and our company is a major stock-holder. () At this point, our yard crew and the railroad crew have crossed each other off Christmas card lists. The road crew has mentioned many times, that our drop off is a "pain in the a.s.s. Our yard foreman, who once worked for a grain elevator and knows everything about railroads, makes it a habit to tell the railroad guys what they're doing wrong. This is the same guy who argued that the railroad could switch in our car going south in 10 minutes flat- if they knew what they were doing.. Someone posted the answer- trucks, and lots of them. I'm a sales guy, but I need wood to sell. Thanks for the responses everyone.
First, let me say that the train crew didn't have any business getting in to a argument with the customer. The customer may have been very unpleasant with the crew. But sometimes you have to put up with unpleasant customers. They make your paycheck possible.
I've got a question. It's just a question, so don't nobody get upset.
If a local has customers with facing point switches, and that local runs with two or more engines, why can't the power be run as distributed power? If the rear locomotive could be isolated the train could be cut just ahead of the car to be delivered and the lead engine with cars pulled past the switch. Then the rear locomotive, under the control of the engineer in the lead unit, could shove the car to spot. Then with one of the crew providing point protection it could pull back out on to the main line. Reline the switch and put the train back together.
Would this cost too much? Would it take too much time? Or would it work?
It could be done if the local engines are DP equipped. I bet (like UP's local/yard power) they aren't.
Even if they were equipped, it wouldn't be a good idea. DP operation has a feature that during communication loss between the controlling unit and DP units, the DP units will stay in the last throttle/brake position command they received before comm was lost up to 90 mins. There is a way to override a DP in power (but not dynamics) by making a brake application, but that requires air brake continuity between the lead and DP. Something you wouldn't have with the rear portion detached from the head end.
An inopportune and sustained comm loss could cause problems on Murphy's siding.
Jeff
Re: greyhounds' question:
NS does that routinely with its local freights here in eastern Pennsylvania - one (older) loco on each end - but I doubt if they're DPU equipped. Doesn't seem to matter - the operation works fine anyways. Sometimes the only way to tell the 'proper' direction in which the train is heading is by the track it's on (the normally or mainly EB track), or watch the direction it arrives from, and/ or which loco the engineer is on when it arrives.
- Paul North.
Paul_D_North_Jr Re: greyhounds' question: NS does that routinely with its local freights here in eastern Pennsylvania - one (older) loco on each end - but I doubt if they're DPU equipped. Doesn't seem to matter - the operation works fine anyways. Sometimes the only way to tell the 'proper' direction in which the train is heading is by the track it's on (the normally or mainly EB track), or watch the direction it arrives from, and/ or which loco the engineer is on when it arrives. - Paul North.
Murphy stated that his car was in the middle of a 40 or so car train, if engines were on either end of the train it would still entail approximately a 1/4 mile walk for the engineer between the engines on either end - unless the run was alloted a engineer for each end (fat chance), A Engineer walking 1/4 mile on Main Track ballast brings the S word into the discussion, especially when you are talking the Dakota's in December.
When our car did arrive, it came special delivery- 1 car with 3 locomotives on the front end. Our know it all yard foreman said the railroaders were "stupid" for not putting 2 locomotives on front, and 1 on the tail. But, then the world's smartest man is operating a forklift and not a railroad. I imagine a lot of things could be done differently, if the world revolved around us.
jeffhergert It could be done if the local engines are DP equipped. I bet (like UP's local/yard power) they aren't. Even if they were equipped, it wouldn't be a good idea. DP operation has a feature that during communication loss between the controlling unit and DP units, the DP units will stay in the last throttle/brake position command they received before comm was lost up to 90 mins. There is a way to override a DP in power (but not dynamics) by making a brake application, but that requires air brake continuity between the lead and DP. Something you wouldn't have with the rear portion detached from the head end. An inopportune and sustained comm loss could cause problems on Murphy's siding. Jeff
Thank you for the information. Got to stay safe.
But this brings up another question in my mind. (Again, it's a question. So please, nobody get upset.)
OK, here's what we've got assuming the railroad puts two DP equipped locos on the local, one at each end. The rear loco can push the load into Muphy's Siding but it's not safe to do so because a commo loss to the rear loco will cause it to just keep pushing and create a very unsafe condition.
But, it's a local, and we've got three crew members to work with. Two can work on the ground. One of them will have to eventually be on the rear loco to protect the movement out of the siding anyway. I know brakemen and conductors aren't supposed to run locomotives. But they can dump the air in case of emergencies such as a commo loss.
So would this work safely?
1) Local approaches facing point set out location.
2) Crew person #1 drops off, train puls by, then that crew person boards rear locomotive.
3) Crew person #2 gets off short of the facing point switch, uncouples the train ahead of the car to be set out, tells the engineer to move the front portion of the train ahead into the clear, then lines the switch for the siding, and mounts the car to ride the shove.
4) Crew person #2 then tells the engineer to come ahead with the rear portion of the train. He/she rides to the spot and tells the engineer to stop.
5) Meanwhile, back on the rear end, crew person #1 sits ready to dump the air in case of a commo failure.
6) Crew person #2 uncouples the set out car and tells the engineer to back out of the siding with the rear portion of the train. (Crew person #1 is already on the rear locomotive to protect the movement out of the siding.)
7) After passing the switch the rear portion of the train is stopped. Crew person #2 backs up the engineer with the head end and recouples the train. He can then walk up to the head end. This puts two crew members up front.
8) Crew person #1, on the rear locomotive can either continue to ride there or walk up to the front. His/her choice.
Now, does the presence of a crew member on the rear locomotive, ready to dump the air in an emergency, provide enough of a safety factor to make this feasible?
Just asking. And having some fun thinking about railroading.
Pretty high horsepower to tonnage ratio?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm Pretty high horsepower to tonnage ratio? The 3 locomotives always seem to operate together, even when doing yard switching.
schlimm Pretty high horsepower to tonnage ratio?
I think the scheme proposed would work, and might be adopted in quite a few similar cases. Assuming distributed power and three-man crews.
Murphy Siding [snipped - PDN] . . . Some time back, Mark W. Hemphill wrote about how there is some business the railroads just don't need. We fit that bill, right down to his telling a story about a receiver seeing his car go by, but never see it spotted. . . .
John Kneiling wrote a column once (mid- to late 1960's) about a lumber business that ordered 3 cars, and after a while when they didn't show up, was told it would take something like 60 to 90 days in transit. He also had some comments about how many men, how much equipment, and how long it took the lumber operation to unload the cars when they did show up - at a team track, yet.
All of this shows the weak points of 'loose-car' (or single car) railroading. The solutions that have evolved are either domestic containers, and/ or transload facilities (formerly called team tracks).
Someday I'll find the cites for both of those columns- maybe over the New Year's holiday.
Actually, the good solution proposed IS IN USE!!! By the Providence and Worcester. I think in their case freight crew members are cross-trained, and engineers are qualified as conductors and visa versa, so they do not need distributed power, just one unit on each end of the train, with three-man crews. But I don't know the union situation there.
daveklepper I think the scheme proposed would work, and might be adopted in quite a few similar cases. Assuming distributed power and three-man crews.
The only problem, again, is communication. While unlikely, voice radio can also fail, even in fairly close range. Should this happen, and the guy riding the DP not realize in time, you could have a problem. The big thing now-a-days is eliminating risk. It's not that things will go wrong, 99 times out of 100 they don't, but that things might go wrong. That 100th time. That's one of the reasons why things that may have only taken 10 or 15 mins in the past now take much longer.
I've heard the procedure that Greyhounds originally proposed actually being done once. Spotting the rear third of a loaded coal train no less. Nothing bad happened, but the engineer was reminded of the comm loss feature and that it wouldn't be a good idea to do it again.
One of the things the railroad guys dislike about our spur is that it's about a quarter mile from the switch to the dock. Some poor guy rides on the front of the car all the way in. Why? In the industrial park in town, they utilize a caboose shoving platform, so that, as I understand it, some poor guy doesn't have to ride on the front of a car for a quarter mile. Now, I wouldn't recommend they drag that old caboose all over creation just to spot one car, but why doesn't the switch man just ride in the locomotive, and get out when they are close to the dock?
Murphy Siding One of the things the railroad guys dislike about our spur is that it's about a quarter mile from the switch to the dock. Some poor guy rides on the front of the car all the way in. Why? In the industrial park in town, they utilize a caboose shoving platform, so that, as I understand it, some poor guy doesn't have to ride on the front of a car for a quarter mile. Now, I wouldn't recommend they drag that old caboose all over creation just to spot one car, but why doesn't the switch man just ride in the locomotive, and get out when they are close to the dock?
I believe the current UTU contract requires a 'shoving platform' (it may or may not look like what was formerly known as a caboose) for shoves of over 1 mile. For moves of less than 1 mile the leading end of the move must be protected by a man on the lead end of the lead car. It gets even more fun when there is a road crossing involved.
What is that man protecting the lead car from, when it's just one car being pushed through an alfalfa field?
daveklepper Actually, the good solution proposed IS IN USE!!! By the Providence and Worcester. I think in their case freight crew members are cross-trained, and engineers are qualified as conductors and visa versa, so they do not need distributed power, just one unit on each end of the train, with three-man crews. But I don't know the union situation there.
Murphy Siding What is that man protecting the lead car from, when it's just one car being pushed through an alfalfa field?
It would amaze you what a unprotected shove can hit or derail on!
Go back and look at "restricted speed".....I spent too much of my time as a roadmaster cleaning-up after crews fired themselves on blind shoves (and watching my budget get destroyed instead of the ^$#@%%^^!! trainmaster's)
(1) Crap fouling the track (agri-dummies and industry-dummies no savvy the concept of "foul".
(2) broken or damaged rail
(3) stupid people and somewhat smarter livestock
(4) road crossings
(5) docks, dunnage et al
(6) Track bumpers, derails, wheel stops (no toucheee!)
(7) misaligned couplers, switches
(8) clearance points/ visual cues/ gate circuits
Right, never push a train blind. But I can ask the lumber salesman: Look, the siding has been bought, the track is in. If your freight costs are less by rail, by all means you should make every effort to get reliable rail service before moving to trucks. What your getting reliable service does to BNCF's bottom line isn't your worry. The railroad is plenty profitable and won't go out of business subsidizing your timely freight deliveries. Now, does that make sense?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.