In your need to defend every practice, you miss the point completely. Heavy trains are much harder on track, leading to derailments and making higher speeds difficult and more expensive. Bulk shipments of oil and coal are not seen as a growth area for the future. The salad days of easy coal shipments to utilities are fading fast. International containers may decline as well. Buffett and BNSF have sufficient vision to see this and also see the way to grow is to take back some of the lost truck traffic.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm dehusman schlimm Try that one on CSX and NS RoW and operating personnel who were there after the takeover. Since the CSX is one of the roads having some of the track related derailments we are discussing, aren't you living in a glass house? Not sure what you are saying. I am saying Conrail was a mess and the track and equipment CSX and NS inherited needed a lot of work. Hence derailments today.
dehusman schlimm Try that one on CSX and NS RoW and operating personnel who were there after the takeover. Since the CSX is one of the roads having some of the track related derailments we are discussing, aren't you living in a glass house?
schlimm Try that one on CSX and NS RoW and operating personnel who were there after the takeover.
Since the CSX is one of the roads having some of the track related derailments we are discussing, aren't you living in a glass house?
Not sure what you are saying. I am saying Conrail was a mess and the track and equipment CSX and NS inherited needed a lot of work. Hence derailments today.
And those CSX derailments att on former CR track right? And almost 19 years later. And CSX was so upset at CR's operating practices that the appointed CR's VPO, Ron Conway, as their VPO after the purchase.
schlimmTry that one on CSX and NS RoW and operating personnel who were there after the takeover.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
schlimm Buslist schlimm Not sure that 20 years at Conrail is much of a recommendation. Actually it is. Work at Conrail is considered to have been one of the best training grounds for rail economists. Let's take several basket case railroads turn them into a profitable carrier and then get 2 Class 1s to get into a bidding war to take it over. Not a bad performance I'd say. Try that one on CSX and NS RoW and operating personnel who were there after the takeover.
Buslist schlimm Not sure that 20 years at Conrail is much of a recommendation. Actually it is. Work at Conrail is considered to have been one of the best training grounds for rail economists. Let's take several basket case railroads turn them into a profitable carrier and then get 2 Class 1s to get into a bidding war to take it over. Not a bad performance I'd say.
schlimm Not sure that 20 years at Conrail is much of a recommendation.
Not sure that 20 years at Conrail is much of a recommendation.
Actually it is. Work at Conrail is considered to have been one of the best training grounds for rail economists. Let's take several basket case railroads turn them into a profitable carrier and then get 2 Class 1s to get into a bidding war to take it over. Not a bad performance I'd say.
Try that one on CSX and NS RoW and operating personnel who were there after the takeover.
Did enough track inspections with Ben Gorden (Chief Engineer of Conrail) to know what the condition of the track was. Compared to a decade earlier it was pretty damn good, and a far better that roads like the IC at the time.
Randy StahlAs far as the oil trains causing the track damage I have an open mind and would like the see the results of track testing before I speculate. It is possible with a liquid commodity that has no consistant center of gravity that "unusual" truck dynamics could expose the track to unknown forces. I suppose you could have times where the load would slosh forward and place more weight on one end of the car leaving you with a heavy end and a light end but as I said , I would love to see the results of testing first.
It is possible with a liquid commodity that has no consistant center of gravity that "unusual" truck dynamics could expose the track to unknown forces. I suppose you could have times where the load would slosh forward and place more weight on one end of the car leaving you with a heavy end and a light end but as I said , I would love to see the results of testing first.
Can somebody find and post the results of that testing here. I am sure that this has been entirely tested in order to design tank cars. I would be very interested in seeing the results of testing the effects of liquid weight transfer producing dynamic loading on track.
I've played the Europe vs UK vs US/Canada game before and its not winnable because its apples to oranges. Finding statistics in the same units that are meaningful are the hard part.
Counting trains isn't really useful since their trains have shorter runs. One US "train" can cover 1500 miles, take 3 or 4 days to run and have 10 crew starts. Counting carloads or tons isn't that useful since the cars aren't the same size and and the tons don't take into account distance. Haven't found comparable ton-mile statistics. Also US statistics typically only cover US class 1 railroads and don't cover passenger lines (Amtrak and commuter), short lines or regionals.
If you count crew starts and resize the US cars to European equivalents the picture changes dramatically. One stack train on a US western road easily converts to about 20-40 European trains.
100 us platforms double stacked = 200 platforms single stacked. European trains about 50 platforms = 4 trains. One stack train = 10 crew starts = 40 crew starts each running 50 platforms 150-200 miles.
I have dealt with European roads benchmarking US roads and I will say that what they say is their typical train (length and tonnage) would not meet the minimum requirements to operate on many US roads (too short, too few cars, not enough tonnage). We would fold it into another train or let it roll to the next day.
Yes they have an amazing system. But we still move more stuff farther than they do in fewer trains in fewer cars.
Murphy SidingDoes the number mean there are 26,713 passenger train locomotives in Germany, or does each time a passnger train leave a station get counted as one?
Typically that means starts. So If one set of equipment makes 6 round trips in a day, that would be 12 trains. 6 train schedules north and 6 train schedules south.
schlimm Murphy Siding schlimm BaltACD What is the freight tonnage moved by German railroads vs. US railroads. DB carries almost 2 billion passengers annually; 26,713 passenger trains daily; 26,713 passenger trains daily? On 18,000 miles of track? I'm missing something here. It's straight off the DB corporate site. And it's mile of line, not miles of track. Since their lines are usually double-tracked or more, the track mileage is much higher. If you ever actually watched trains there, you'd understand and appreciate rather than pooh pooh anything outside the USA.
Murphy Siding schlimm BaltACD What is the freight tonnage moved by German railroads vs. US railroads. DB carries almost 2 billion passengers annually; 26,713 passenger trains daily; 26,713 passenger trains daily? On 18,000 miles of track? I'm missing something here.
schlimm BaltACD What is the freight tonnage moved by German railroads vs. US railroads. DB carries almost 2 billion passengers annually; 26,713 passenger trains daily;
BaltACD What is the freight tonnage moved by German railroads vs. US railroads.
DB carries almost 2 billion passengers annually; 26,713 passenger trains daily;
26,713 passenger trains daily? On 18,000 miles of track? I'm missing something here.
It's straight off the DB corporate site. And it's mile of line, not miles of track. Since their lines are usually double-tracked or more, the track mileage is much higher. If you ever actually watched trains there, you'd understand and appreciate rather than pooh pooh anything outside the USA.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
schlimm BaltACD What is the freight tonnage moved by German railroads vs. US railroads. DB carries almost 2 billion passengers annually; 26,713 passenger trains daily; 5122 freight trains daily; 415 million tons annually over 33,723 km (about 18,000 miles) of line. That is a lot of fast, densely scheduled traffic. Want to try dispatching that? Add to that the railroads in the other European network and you have a system that makes ours look pretty simple. The US carries about 4.5x as much tonnage as German Rail - 1800 million tons. Not sure about the rest of Europe. But if all you want is railroads to carry bulk, then that's what you get. I believe US railroads can continue to carry bulk but also grow and take far more truck traffic off the roads. That requires much higher speeds and schedules. And I'm not alone. Warren Buffett and BNSF seem to be investing fir that as well.
DB carries almost 2 billion passengers annually; 26,713 passenger trains daily; 5122 freight trains daily; 415 million tons annually over 33,723 km (about 18,000 miles) of line. That is a lot of fast, densely scheduled traffic. Want to try dispatching that? Add to that the railroads in the other European network and you have a system that makes ours look pretty simple.
The US carries about 4.5x as much tonnage as German Rail - 1800 million tons. Not sure about the rest of Europe. But if all you want is railroads to carry bulk, then that's what you get. I believe US railroads can continue to carry bulk but also grow and take far more truck traffic off the roads. That requires much higher speeds and schedules. And I'm not alone. Warren Buffett and BNSF seem to be investing fir that as well.
Here's some interesting quotes from Jim Blaze's comments on DB's early 2015 performance. Seems he doesn't agree.
http://jimblaze.railwaygotoexpert.com/2015/06/poor-intermodal-rail-freight-german-1st-qtr-results-suggests-strategic-issue/
"GERMANY’s railfreight industry has suffered a disappointing start to 2015 says the headlines. Germany’s federal statistics agency Destatis on June 3rd reported the largest decline in first quarter traffic since the height of the financial crisis back in 2009.
Overall rail freight traffic dropped 4.2% compared with the first quarter of 2014 to 88.1 million tonnes’
In the first quarter 2015′ —
International traffic fell 4.9%, —
German domestic traffic declined 2.1%. —
German rail freight intermodal traffic at 1.4 million TEU units was down a significant 12.8%
The posted rail results gives us the chance to ask about the real prospects for rail freight in Germany and Europe. Here is a short discussion
LENGTH TOO SHORT; HEIGHT TOO SHORT; WEIGHT TOO LIGHT"
"Without an investment in higher axle load and stack train clearance technology (engineering and operations focused), Europe and Germany are unlikely to reach their dream of a 40% or greater rail freight market share. Not in my life time.
In contrast, intermodal market share on strategic corridors in North America three decades after introduction of the technology can see 70% or better share versus highway trucking.
The European intermodal rail train product is simply too short in length, too short in vertical clearance, and too light in net to tare weight.
Running at near passenger train speeds really does little to develop huge shifts away from truck/road movement to the European intermodal freight trains. Marginal shifts? Yes.
The Europeans rail organizations collectively continue to struggle for market share growth by offering marginal engineering and service improvements to their intermodal customers over a high speed light axle passenger design loading track network.
There has been no WOW success factor in the past two generations of rail leadership for rail freight."
tree68 Euclid One thing about iron ore is that is never sloshes. Doesn't burn or explode either.
Euclid One thing about iron ore is that is never sloshes.
Doesn't burn or explode either.
Johnny
EuclidOne thing about iron ore is that is never sloshes.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
schlimm And how many iron ore trains run on the mainlines of the CSX, NS, BNSF and UP?
And how many iron ore trains run on the mainlines of the CSX, NS, BNSF and UP?
Quite a few. Daily ore trains off the BNSF to Reynolds In on CSX's Monon sub. Several trains a day out of the Toledo Docks to Middeltown Oh, and Ashland Ky, just to name a few....
An "expensive model collector"
I've been onsite at PLENTY of ore train derailments on the ex CNW lines.. just not that newsworthy I guess.
Norm48327 A question for thos with experience on the subject. If constant heavy weight trains contribute to rail defects that eventually cause derails why do we never hear about the DMIR having those problems. Iron ore trains certainly can't be light and they are constant.
A question for thos with experience on the subject.
If constant heavy weight trains contribute to rail defects that eventually cause derails why do we never hear about the DMIR having those problems. Iron ore trains certainly can't be light and they are constant.
M636C I believe the problem with the block oil trains is that they are running on lines that have had heavy general traffic before but not consistent trains of heavy identical cars. M636C
I believe the problem with the block oil trains is that they are running on lines that have had heavy general traffic before but not consistent trains of heavy identical cars.
M636C
I think that makes a lot of sense. Oil trains are new traffic that needs new capacity which can be found in lower classes of trackage. So oil trains find themselves pushing the envelope on some of their trackage.
How much trackage did the DMIR own?
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
BaltACDWhat is the freight tonnage moved by German railroads vs. US railroads.
A question for those with experience on the subject.
While Iron Ore is heavy the DMIR hoppers were fairly small. Back in the days of plain bearings, there were limits to how heavy a car could be and still run reliably. But the DMIR (and other roads with similar traffic) "grew up" with unit trains and the track was made to fit the job. As the trains got heavier, the track was brought up to a higher standard. You can't afford to stop trains if you are part of the mine's production system.
edblysard To add to Dave's analogy, Imagine all those rush hour cars having to use just two lanes, one in each direction, and all of them trying to get into the same two or three parking lots at the same time. Why do folks insist on comparing the European model of railroading to the American model, when they face two completely different geographic obstacles/ regions, and vastly different distances, and two different political models?
The politics are irrelevant. The terrain in Europe is as rugged as here and only transcontinental runs are really essentially different.
Norm
dehusmanLower capacity cars and shorter trains = more trains. A train is a train as far as the dispatching and signal system is concerned. Whether the train has 10 cars or 100 cars it still uses the same crew and occupies the same slot on on the railroad. More trains = a slower railroad.
If everything stays moving, maybe. But once you have to stop trains or arrange meets, then train length & weight become very important. Only so many places you can hold a long train without blocking interlockings or road crossings around here. And longer trains take longer to put away in the yard, which can back up incoming and outgoing trains (as well as hold up yard moves/switching crews).
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.