Create project P4 has good maps and drawings of the area, along with possible changes which are currently in "environmental review and preliminary engineering" state. The currently favored build alternave "A" includes trackage through and around Englewood. The project web site link is at:
http://www.grandcrossingrail.com/images/project_resources/maps/Build_Alternative_A.pdf
State of Indiana is becoming aware of how the almost melt down is snagging auto & truck traffic.
http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20141102/LOCAL/311029956
Now NS dispatchers have taken concers over the auto router system to the feds. State that the system cannot handle the unanticipated amount of traffic. Its the same old problem IT persons either in house or contractor promise results that are then not met ? Could it be that the traffic density of the route(s) is over the 75% of actual capacity amd the system was not built for such traffic ?. Have seen when IT is pushed too much to fix problems thru patches they just get up and walk away to another job ?
EDIT -
http://www.updispatchers.com/ATDAFormalComplaintwithFRA-NSUTCS.pdf
blue streak 1 State of Indiana is becoming aware of how the almost melt down is snagging auto & truck traffic. http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20141102/LOCAL/311029956
Johnny
blue streak 1 Now NS dispatchers have taken concers over the auto router system to the feds. State that the system cannot handle the unanticipated amount of traffic. Its the same old problem IT persons either in house or contractor promise results that are then not met ? Could it be that the traffic density of the route(s) is over the 75% of actual capacity amd the system was not built for such traffic ?. Have seen when IT is pushed too much to fix problems thru patches they just get up and walk away to another job ?
Any dispatcher that sees 'autoroute' lining up a move that should not be made - and lets it stand should be in a investigation the next day. Autoroute is a tool - nothing more and nothing less. If you let a tool overrule your better judgement you no longer deserve to be a train dispatcher.
If management is forcing the use of a flawed tool then the management needs replacing.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
blue streak 1 Now NS dispatchers have taken concers over the auto router system to the feds. State that the system cannot handle the unanticipated amount of traffic. Its the same old problem IT persons either in house or contractor promise results that are then not met ? Could it be that the traffic density of the route(s) is over the 75% of actual capacity amd the system was not built for such traffic ?. Have seen when IT is pushed too much to fix problems thru patches they just get up and walk away to another job ? http://ww.gracecovenantworship.com/service
http://ww.gracecovenantworship.com/service
What on earth was that link supposed to be?
Overmod What on earth was that link supposed to be?
blue streak 1 Overmod What on earth was that link supposed to be? however for some reason correct link for a new reply has taken 4 tries to get the proper one/./ ( I hope ) am beginning to understand K.P.'s frustration. This web site definitely has an intermittent gremlin? Will edit if link not correct. http://www.updispatchers.com/ATDAFormalComplaintwithFRA-NSUTCS.pdf
Overmod What on earth was that link supposed to be? however for some reason correct link for a new reply has taken 4 tries to get the proper one/./ ( I hope ) am beginning to understand K.P.'s frustration. This web site definitely has an intermittent gremlin? Will edit if link not correct.
DeggestyThe article mentioned "loading and unloading cars" as one reason for the trains to stop and sit. Were the people quoted saying this under the impression that the trains that blocked crossings handled LCL?
Well, you know, since they pulled up all the team tracks they've had to be creative.
Will try for fifth time to reply this. Took three tries to get this link to stick in the thread. Then posted that it appears that there is a an intermittent gremlin in this web site. Can understand KPs frustration. Note: seems very likely that there is an intermittent bug. Maybe only happens at some itteration of 2 to the X power. such as 8 , 16, 32, 64
What the dispatchers ned to do is to keep a detailed log (Time, date and exactly what happended) for each incident where the Aout router creates an unsafe condition and pass these logs along to FRA. They take safety VERY seriously and would make sure that NS fixes the problem quickly..
BaltACD If management is forcing the use of a flawed tool then the management needs replacing.
Now that's funny.
Oh, I agree with the statement, but managment will never admit that something they implemented is flawed. Even if everyone else (probably including many in management privately) can see it. If it saves a penny or eliminates a job, it'll be considered a rousing success. Even if the savings are an illusion and off set by costs rising in another area.
I saw a short video about Movement Planner put out by GE and NS on another site. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5IYUjAiLek What stood out to me was one of the GE design people's comment. He said one of the first things they needed to determine was "What flights need to be run today."
Jeff
BaltACDAny dispatcher that sees 'autoroute' lining up a move that should not be made - and lets it stand should be in a investigation the next day. Autoroute is a tool - nothing more and nothing less. If you let a tool overrule your better judgement you no longer deserve to be a train dispatcher. If management is forcing the use of a flawed tool then the management needs replacing.
It's not just a tool, from what I've been told, but it is a whole workshop.
As long as the dispatchers override it to keep things moving, the higher ups will deem it a success. Think about it: Autorouter implemented + trains running = success.
I would love to see the dispatchers just sit back and let autorouter do whatever it wants. Either 2 things will happen: it will run the trains like promised, or it will fail miserably. Either way - we would know. But this overriding/overruling thing is not going to help anything. It'll just limp along (like so many other things out here that we make work).
Supposedly the software monitors everything on all territories and makes real time decisions based on that - and not just what is in the dispatcher's immediate territory. So I wonder that if by having all these dispatchers overruling the autorouter, it isn't negatively affecting the autorouter in other territories. Since autorouter is making decisions based on what the decisions would be if the computer was making them, and not what the dispatcher thinks is best.
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
zugmann BaltACD Any dispatcher that sees 'autoroute' lining up a move that should not be made - and lets it stand should be in a investigation the next day. Autoroute is a tool - nothing more and nothing less. If you let a tool overrule your better judgement you no longer deserve to be a train dispatcher. If management is forcing the use of a flawed tool then the management needs replacing. It's not just a tool, from what I've been told, but it is a whole workshop. As long as the dispatchers override it to keep things moving, the higher ups will deem it a success. Think about it: Autorouter implemented + trains running = success. I would love to see the dispatchers just sit back and let autorouter do whatever it wants. Either 2 things will happen: it will run the trains like promised, or it will fail miserably. Either way - we would know. But this overriding/overruling thing is not going to help anything. It'll just limp along (like so many other things out here that we make work). Supposedly the software monitors everything on all territories and makes real time decisions based on that - and not just what is in the dispatcher's immediate territory. So I wonder that if by having all these dispatchers overruling the autorouter, it isn't negatively affecting the autorouter in other territories. Since autorouter is making decisions based on what the decisions would be if the computer was making them, and not what the dispatcher thinks is best.
BaltACD Any dispatcher that sees 'autoroute' lining up a move that should not be made - and lets it stand should be in a investigation the next day. Autoroute is a tool - nothing more and nothing less. If you let a tool overrule your better judgement you no longer deserve to be a train dispatcher. If management is forcing the use of a flawed tool then the management needs replacing.
When my carrier started into the CADS world - dispatchers were taught that autoroute was the way to go. When the dispatchers used it - it was the automatic way to bring a territory to a codlocked stop.
After several years and multiple revisions to the 'logic' that autoroute was using, the word came down from on high - 'autoroute is a function of CADS - use it considering the peril you will be subject to for it delaying trains'.
Some facts:
NS's UTCS movement planner is not an "autorouter". It attempts to minimize the end point variance to schedule for all trains running on the network - accross the whole network - and is weighted by train priority. It recalculates the whole network better than once every 5 minutes. It isn't implemented in some terminal areas - not because it won't work - but because the input data quality is rotten (don't get good handoff times from connecting roads)
In general, the movement planner will be more aggressive in planning meets than a distpatcher. A dispatcher will normally make meet decisions based on train priority. e.g. Merchandise train takes siding. Premium train holds the main at track speed. That may be a locally optimum solution, but is worse for the network - particularly if the Merch train is running late and premium train is running ahead. (dispatchers normally don't have current variance to schedule readily available to them - it's usually just "don't delay the premium train!")
NS does not have more traffic on the Chicago Line than it did n 2008 (and actully has less than Conrail did in the late 1990s)
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmanndNS's UTCS movement planner is not an "autorouter". It attempts to minimize the end point variance to schedule for all trains running on the network - accross the whole network - and is weighted by train priority.
Is this why long trains are being routed through sidings without even meeting a train? It is my understanding that the Chief will not let the dispatchers override the system, at least around here. Crews are definately getting frustrated with the system.
.
BigJim oltmannd NS's UTCS movement planner is not an "autorouter". It attempts to minimize the end point variance to schedule for all trains running on the network - accross the whole network - and is weighted by train priority. Is this why long trains are being routed through sidings without even meeting a train? It is my understanding that the Chief will not let the dispatchers override the system, at least around here. Crews are definately getting frustrated with the system.
oltmannd NS's UTCS movement planner is not an "autorouter". It attempts to minimize the end point variance to schedule for all trains running on the network - accross the whole network - and is weighted by train priority.
The only time I've seen it do that was when the main had a work authority still on it. The dispatcher governs that...and/or the roadway worker. Most of the frustration I've heard about stems from the system not lining routes as far in advance as the dispatchers would like to see.
...and, yes, compliance is measured - but no one is expecting 100%
BigJimCrews are definately getting frustrated with the system.
NS has a long cultural history of being really bad a communicating. I'll bet the only one who told you anything about movement planner is (are) the dispatcher(s). And, that's just a shame.
oltmannd BigJim Crews are definately getting frustrated with the system.
BigJim Crews are definately getting frustrated with the system.
Meets such as Big Jim describes above used to make me crazy. If anyone brought up the complete inaneness of it, dispatchers would be full of excuses. None of them were good excuses. Much as Big Jim describes, I'm sure it's still going on.
jeffhergertWhat stood out to me was one of the GE design people's comment. He said one of the first things they needed to determine was "What flights need to be run today."
No wonder why the whole project is closing in on 20 years! There's been lots and lots NS has had to teach the GE/Harris folk about this stuff.
UTCS went in without the movement planner turned on for many months. The situation you describe of a phantom siding is not a problem with movement planner, but with the GE and NS folk who maintain the system.
As ValleyX points out (and as I see nearly every day on the CSX line near me), bozo meets are nothing new. The movement planner could do a good job with locals if it had a solid schedule for that day's train - something that is in the works.
Is any railroad creating good, local train schedules from the specific work for that day's train? I doubt it.
oltmannd UTCS went in without the movement planner turned on for many months. The situation you describe of a phantom siding is not a problem with movement planner, but with the GE and NS folk who maintain the system. As ValleyX points out (and as I see nearly every day on the CSX line near me), bozo meets are nothing new. The movement planner could do a good job with locals if it had a solid schedule for that day's train - something that is in the works. Is any railroad creating good, local train schedules from the specific work for that day's train? I doubt it.
One fallacy of Local Train's operations is who is in charge of the work they are supposed to be performing. On the Main tracks the Train Dispatcher is the first line supervisor and arbitor of track occupancy time (the local Trainmaster my be ultimately responsible for the work getting performed - but he is not responsible for Main Track operations). Despite being the 'suprvisor' the Train Dispatcher must be informed by the Local Freight's Conductor of what specific work locations and estimated time to occupy the Main track at those work locations and then work the needs of the Local in with the overall priority requirement of all trains on his territory. Management does not like seeing priority trains being delayed by a Local for any reason unless Senior Management has made a specific local service a priority.
During periods of trains actually operating in or near their scheduled windows - the operation of the Locals will be in defined lulls in the overall operation of a territory. One day a Local may only have a hours worth of Main track time needed for their work; another day they may need 5 or 6 hours of Main track time over 50 or 60 miles of territory - the Train Dispatcher never knows until he has a conversation with the Local Freight's Conductor. With opeations as they exist today with a heavy volume of 'unscheduled' trains being operated on many territories, many of the windows that Locals have been scheduled into are not really viable windows any longer. Throw in MofW needing track time for their actions and inspections and the windows shrink even further.
Any idiot, or computer program, can line a signal - a Train Dispatcher knows when not to.
Is it possible with Szabo moving to the Chicago planning group that changes could be in the wind ? He may have the connections to bully the RRs into compromising ? Being on the outside of the RRs he can go to any and all plus the DOT & FRA and put a bug into their ears ?
Joe Szabo is hardly an outsider. I really don't think that he has the influence to muscle anybody into a compromise. His longtime connections to railway labor may work against him in such a situation.
NS has begun re-routing roughly a train every 1-2 days onto the CF&E through Ohio and Indiana to bypass the water level route. 2 days ago was the first with a manifest freight (W1E) and today and today an empty oil train (67W). Both were westbound.
In some effort to alleviate congestion, NS started running a very few trains across the CF&E from Mansfield, OH, to Fort Wayne, IN, utilizing their trackage rights. This is the former PRR and it appears that so far, they are running only a occasional westbound. I believe the first train ran midweek.
and from fort wayne to chicago?
daveklepper and from fort wayne to chicago?
The first train was the NS geometry train. The first freight train ran via the CF&E on west of Fort Wayne but I don't know about the second train.
BaltACDOne fallacy of Local Train's operations is who is in charge of the work they are supposed to be performing. On the Main tracks the Train Dispatcher is the first line supervisor and arbitor of track occupancy time (the local Trainmaster my be ultimately responsible for the work getting performed - but he is not responsible for Main Track operations). Despite being the 'suprvisor' the Train Dispatcher must be informed by the Local Freight's Conductor of what specific work locations and estimated time to occupy the Main track at those work locations and then work the needs of the Local in with the overall priority requirement of all trains on his territory. Management does not like seeing priority trains being delayed by a Local for any reason unless Senior Management has made a specific local service a priority. During periods of trains actually operating in or near their scheduled windows - the operation of the Locals will be in defined lulls in the overall operation of a territory. One day a Local may only have a hours worth of Main track time needed for their work; another day they may need 5 or 6 hours of Main track time over 50 or 60 miles of territory - the Train Dispatcher never knows until he has a conversation with the Local Freight's Conductor. With opeations as they exist today with a heavy volume of 'unscheduled' trains being operated on many territories, many of the windows that Locals have been scheduled into are not really viable windows any longer. Throw in MofW needing track time for their actions and inspections and the windows shrink even further.
A good description of how locals are, and have been, handled on an ad-hoc basis day in and day out.
The day is coming when RRs will have enough information to plan the operation of locals with a lot more precision than this. The cars for delivery don't just "beam down" onto the serving yard just before the local goes on duty. Similarly, the originating loads and empties didn't just "beam down" onto the industry tracks.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.