schlimm If the rails cannot afford to run trains the way most other industrial nations do, then it is about time for RoW to be nationalized and brought into the 21st century. Let the freight lines compete to run trains on that RoW as is the case elsewhere.
I fail to see how a nationalized rail network would avoid the current problems that plague the highway network, namely underinvestment and overpoliticization.
The nearest case to what would exist in the US is the current system in Australia. None of the private operators are willing to invest in the network as it would aid competitors in addition, and the ARTC fails to fully invest in the network. New routes such as the Inland Railway are political footballs.
If a new Powder River Basin opened, would the network administrator be able to raise the funding to build new lines, or would it be either stuck or be forced to spend similar amounts of money in other states?
How do those railroads that operate with one-man crews meet these rules?
I guess it means terminal to terminal with no setouts or pickups, and anything unsual that happens means sit tight and wait for help via other power arriving with its two-man crew, or someone showing up in a highway vehicle or heleocopter.
And all power switches, not hand-throws.
Or sidings with spring-switches.
Having to secure the train if both crew members are on the ground is a stupid rule. Stupidity beyond measure.
You'd get severely disciplined here if, as an engineer, you didn't get a switch and caused an hour+ delay for the conductor to have to walk from the tail end to the head end and back - especailly with 11-14000 foot trains.
Also, as per CRO Rules, when stopped for meets, all crew members are required to be outside and on the ground with at least one person on the opposite side of the tracks when safe to do so. So yes, the engineer has to be outside even in the pouring rain.
The example given of the CSX train pushing the last few tail end cars of the train that doesn't fit is the quickest.
This backing up of trains and cutting them here and there is nonsense.
10000 feet and no dynamics? Today is going to be a good day ...
Again, sawbys are suggested to meet an emergency situation, not regular operations.
NorthWestThe nearest case to what would exist in the US is the current system in Australia. None of the private operators are willing to invest in the network as it would aid competitors in addition, and the ARTC fails to fully invest in the network. New routes such as the Inland Railway are political footballs.
I would think the British government-owned Network Rail or in Germany, the DB Netz or in France, the Reseau Ferre de France, would be more comparable.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
traisessive1Also, as per CRO Rules, when stopped for meets, all crew members are required to be outside and on the ground with at least one person on the opposite side of the tracks when safe to do so. So yes, the engineer has to be outside even in the pouring rain.
Talk about stupidity beyond measure.
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
schlimm Yes. Even more stupid is the attempt to cut corners on proper operation. Busy lines should be double-tracked with sidings. There should be shorter, less heavy trains with adequate crews. If the rails cannot afford to run trains the way most other industrial nations do, then it is about time for RoW to be nationalized and brought into the 21st century. Let the freight lines compete to run trains on that RoW as is the case elsewhere.
Yes. Even more stupid is the attempt to cut corners on proper operation. Busy lines should be double-tracked with sidings. There should be shorter, less heavy trains with adequate crews. If the rails cannot afford to run trains the way most other industrial nations do, then it is about time for RoW to be nationalized and brought into the 21st century. Let the freight lines compete to run trains on that RoW as is the case elsewhere.
What criteria would you use to compare other nations' apples to our oranges, in deciding which railroads were doing it wrong? Maybe a fair comparison would be ton/miles hauled?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
daveklepper Again, sawbys are suggested to meet an emergency situation, not regular operations.
Are there any major railroads that are using them in regular operations?
An "expensive model collector"
daveklepper How do those railroads that operate with one-man crews meet these rules? I guess it means terminal to terminal with no setouts or pickups, and anything unsual that happens means sit tight and wait for help via other power arriving with its two-man crew, or someone showing up in a highway vehicle or heleocopter. And all power switches, not hand-throws. Or sidings with spring-switches.
It's all in how the rules are written. Maybe more importantly, how they are interpreted.
Jeff
schlimm NorthWest The nearest case to what would exist in the US is the current system in Australia. None of the private operators are willing to invest in the network as it would aid competitors in addition, and the ARTC fails to fully invest in the network. New routes such as the Inland Railway are political footballs. I would think the British government-owned Network Rail or in Germany, the DB Netz or in France, the Reseau Ferre de France, would be more comparable.
NorthWest The nearest case to what would exist in the US is the current system in Australia. None of the private operators are willing to invest in the network as it would aid competitors in addition, and the ARTC fails to fully invest in the network. New routes such as the Inland Railway are political footballs.
Are you sure? European railways have been operated under singular control bodies for decades, and because of their passenger-oriented dense networks and high taxes do not resemble North America at all.
Australia is a thinner, longer network with conditions similar to North America: longer trains, no freight electrification, sparse passenger traffic, and wide open spaces without much population density. States formerly ran their own rail companies, and the railroads are digging slowly out of a massive modal share loss similar to the US in the 1950s and 1960s as state railways failed to modernize in order to combat road freight. Taxes are also lower than those of Europe.
ARTC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Rail_Track_Corporation
FWIW, the rail freight modal share has been slipping in the last two decades to the point that most Western European nations have completely dropped carload freight. For now, Germany retains it.
jeffhergertIt's all in how the rules are written. Maybe more importantly, how they are interpreted. Jeff
And enforced.
[quote user="schlimm"]
zugmann Talk about stupidity beyond measure.
schlimmYes. Even more stupid is the attempt to cut corners on proper operation. Busy lines should be double-tracked with sidings. There should be shorter, less heavy trains with adequate crews. If the rails cannot afford to run trains the way most other industrial nations do, then it is about time for RoW to be nationalized and brought into the 21st century. Let the freight lines compete to run trains on that RoW as is the case elsewhere.
Surprise! We are the 21st century.
The US freight rail network hauls more tonnage of more types further, safer and more cost effective than any other country's system.
Other countries are faster, but haul much less tonnage. Other systems haul longer, heavier trains, but fewer of them and not the variety of commodity and priority types. Other railroad networks are extensive but are government operated and not very efficient. The US freight railroads are not consumers of tax dollars, we are net contributors of tax dollars.
As far as train size goes, for the last 30-40 years, every time a train length went up, people were predicting that it would tie up the railroad and bring the industry to its knees, the railroads would lose more money than they have gained, yadda, yadda.
So far I haven't seen any evidence that that has happened. Overall train speed has been increasing, tonnage per train and employee have been going up, generally profits are going up, Class 1 railroads stopped going bankrupt. If the longer trains are so horrible, where is the evidence?
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
dehusman schlimm Yes. Even more stupid is the attempt to cut corners on proper operation. Busy lines should be double-tracked with sidings. There should be shorter, less heavy trains with adequate crews. If the rails cannot afford to run trains the way most other industrial nations do, then it is about time for RoW to be nationalized and brought into the 21st century. Let the freight lines compete to run trains on that RoW as is the case elsewhere. Surprise! We are the 21st century. The US freight rail network hauls more tonnage of more types further, safer and more cost effective than any other country's system. Other countries are faster, but haul much less tonnage. Other systems haul longer, heavier trains, but fewer of them and not the variety of commodity and priority types. Other railroad networks are extensive but are government operated and not very efficient. The US freight railroads are not consumers of tax dollars, we are net contributors of tax dollars. As far as train size goes, for the last 30-40 years, every time a train length went up, people were predicting that it would tie up the railroad and bring the industry to its knees, the railroads would lose more money than they have gained, yadda, yadda. So far I haven't seen any evidence that that has happened. Overall train speed has been increasing, tonnage per train and employee have been going up, generally profits are going up, Class 1 railroads stopped going bankrupt. If the longer trains are so horrible, where is the evidence?
Surveys conducted by both the World Bank and the International Heavy Haul Association show the North American Railway system to be the most cost effective and efficient general freight rail carriers in the world by far, yet some folks repeat their pet "solution" even while some places that have adopted the vertical disintegration solution are considering some moves that would undo it.
Its interesting to note that 2 of the most successful privatization of government owned railways (Mexico and Brazil) adopted the vertically integrated model. But oh well!
I think you are missing the point. The private freight lines do a good job with limited resources for infrastructure. Think of how much better they might do with a more modern infrastructure? Heavy bulk cargo trains are waning rapdly, yet our lines are not equipped for faster, high-value shipments door-to-door. And you all overlook passenger services. Under the current model, those services are largely incompatible with freight. Passenger services are as much a part of railroading as freight. Let the freight lines do what they do best: compete for loads and operate trains. Amtrak should be radically reformed as well.
The Government, Federal and State levels, can't (or won't, use whichever word you prefer) fund the highway system adequately. Do you suppose they would do better with the entire railroad physical plant?
I don't agree that the major carriers don't have a modern infrastructure in the vast majority of cases. The title of this thread might be somewhat misleading. I don't think it's really a case of "long trains/short sidings", but "unusually long trains/normal sidings". If these longer trains are going to stay the norm, you can expect sidings on single track lines to be extended.
schlimm I think you are missing the point. The private freight lines do a good job with limited resources for infrastructure. Think of how much better they might do with a more modern infrastructure? Heavy bulk cargo trains are waning rapdly, yet our lines are not equipped for faster, high-value shipments door-to-door. And you all overlook passenger services. Under the current model, those services are largely incompatible with freight. Passenger services are as much a part of railroading as freight. Let the freight lines do what they do best: compete for loads and operate trains. Amtrak should be radically reformed as well.
Murphy Siding schlimm I think you are missing the point. The private freight lines do a good job with limited resources for infrastructure. Think of how much better they might do with a more modern infrastructure? Heavy bulk cargo trains are waning rapdly, yet our lines are not equipped for faster, high-value shipments door-to-door. And you all overlook passenger services. Under the current model, those services are largely incompatible with freight. Passenger services are as much a part of railroading as freight. Let the freight lines do what they do best: compete for loads and operate trains. Amtrak should be radically reformed as well. Honestly, I seem to be missing the point because I don't understand the point. You want the government to own the tracks, so that the railroads can run trains on them?
Honestly, I seem to be missing the point because I don't understand the point. You want the government to own the tracks, so that the railroads can run trains on them?
Yes, as I already. It's the way it's done in many other places. The railroads could gain a larger share because the efficiencies would make them more competitive with other modes.
If the government owned the rails, trains would probably have firemen again.
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2016/03/15/2016-05553/train-crew-staffing
“FRA proposes regulations establishing minimum requirements for the size of train crew staffs depending on the type of operation. A minimum requirement of two crewmembers is proposed for all railroad operations, with exceptions proposed for those operations that FRA believes do not pose significant safety risks to railroad employees, the general public, and the environment by using fewer than two-person crews. This proposed rule would also establish minimum requirements for the roles and responsibilities of the second train crewmember on a moving train, and promote safe and effective teamwork.”
wanswheelIf the government owned the rails, trains would probably have firemen again.
Small potatoes. If my cousin had his way, trains would still have cabooses and seven man crews.
Norm
schlimm Murphy Siding schlimm I think you are missing the point. The private freight lines do a good job with limited resources for infrastructure. Think of how much better they might do with a more modern infrastructure? Heavy bulk cargo trains are waning rapdly, yet our lines are not equipped for faster, high-value shipments door-to-door. And you all overlook passenger services. Under the current model, those services are largely incompatible with freight. Passenger services are as much a part of railroading as freight. Let the freight lines do what they do best: compete for loads and operate trains. Amtrak should be radically reformed as well. Honestly, I seem to be missing the point because I don't understand the point. You want the government to own the tracks, so that the railroads can run trains on them? Yes, as I already. It's the way it's done in many other places. The railroads could gain a larger share because the efficiencies would make them more competitive with other modes.
Very different. It lets the rails (freight and passenger, public or private) operate trains on public RoWs, like truck companies on public roads, doing what they do best. It frees up huge amounts of capital. Not lease. Compete for routings and pay an access fee. It also allows more efficient routings than now.
wanswheel If the government owned the rails, trains would probably have firemen again. https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2016/03/15/2016-05553/train-crew-staffing “FRA proposes regulations establishing minimum requirements for the size of train crew staffs depending on the type of operation. A minimum requirement of two crewmembers is proposed for all railroad operations, with exceptions proposed for those operations that FRA believes do not pose significant safety risks to railroad employees, the general public, and the environment by using fewer than two-person crews. This proposed rule would also establish minimum requirements for the roles and responsibilities of the second train crewmember on a moving train, and promote safe and effective teamwork.”
Had you bothered to read more carefully, you would see I proposed a quasi-government corporation own RoW, not own operating railways.
schlimm Very different. It lets the rails (freight and passenger, public or private) operate trains on public RoWs, like truck companies on public roads, doing what they do best. It frees up huge amounts of capital. Not lease. Compete for routings and pay an access fee. It also allows more efficient routings than now.
He liked to point out that was the intention or business model of the early railroad enterprises, but the operating and control methods of the day weren't up to supporting such a system. So what we got instead was the ownership and maintenance of the track combined with the operation of trains (also marketing).
If you think about it, building and maintaining the track has little in common with running the trains in terms of 'core competencies' - they just happen to have a common physical interface/ connection at the top of the rails.
- Paul North.
Paul_D_North_Jr schlimm Very different. It lets the rails (freight and passenger, public or private) operate trains on public RoWs, like truck companies on public roads, doing what they do best. It frees up huge amounts of capital. Not lease. Compete for routings and pay an access fee. It also allows more efficient routings than now. Amazingly, none other than Trains' Professional Iconoclast John G. Kneiling (a conservative capitalist if ever there was one) advocated such a system in the 1960's and 1970's. That was to enable innovation in equipment and services - such as his pet integral bulk and container trains - independent of the poorly-run railroads then owning the track. He liked to point out that was the intention or business model of the early railroad enterprises, but the operating and control methods of the day weren't up to supporting such a system. So what we got instead was the ownership and maintenance of the track combined with the operation of trains (also marketing). If you think about it, building and maintaining the track has little in common with running the trains in terms of 'core competencies' - they just happen to have a common physical interface/ connection at the top of the rails. - Paul North.
Amazingly, none other than Trains' Professional Iconoclast John G. Kneiling (a conservative capitalist if ever there was one) advocated such a system in the 1960's and 1970's. That was to enable innovation in equipment and services - such as his pet integral bulk and container trains - independent of the poorly-run railroads then owning the track.
Thanks for pointing out Kneiling's view on this. This general idea is a simply a way of enhancing what could be a capitalistic, free-market business by reducing the amount of capital tied up in plant.
Murphy SidingOK, so the railroads would then lease the tracks from the government? This sounds like how a lot of small town post offices operate now. How is spending government funds to own the tracks much different than spending government funds to just subsidize the railroads?
No - the operators would pay tolls to use the tracks. Never mind that figuring out those tolls would be a can of worms...
As Schlimm points out - anyone meeting established requirements could then use the rails. With the coordination that would be required, methinks you'd have a combination of toll roads and FAA air traffic control.
Thus, if you wanted to buy a locomotive or three and bid a contract to haul a commodity from A to B, you could. Or a person could go to work for one of the big companies...
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...
Wanswheel said: [in part] "...If the government owned the rails, trains would probably have......"?
Seems like "Groundhog Day" on the Forum.. It appears this topic of "Long Trains and Short Sidings" is devolving into a discussion of Open Access..
That being the case: Then you have to discuss WHO, or WHICH entity is going to HAVE TO PAY for use of the existing infrastructure? Brought about by what would be almost a Total Paradigm shift for American Business.
How will the improvements, and those costs to that existing infrastructure be parceled out ?
Who will deteermine the schedule of adding enhancements to the existing railroad infrastructure?
Will the "USERS" or "The Owners" of said existing infrastructure be responsible for paying for those enhancements?
So does the Federal Government just step in, and take-over the existing infrastructure from current owners and operators? Then run the National Rail Network as if it were 'open access' similar to our National Network of Airlanes, and airports?
Does the 'Government simply declare or deem that each rail operator PAY a Toll for its use between specific points?
HOW, or WHO will establish 'priorties' for usage by the rail operators?
WHO wil control 'The Controlers' ? Then you get down to the afore mentioned ' Crews' Lots of questions there as well.
Paul_D_North_JrIf you think about it, building and maintaining the track has little in common with running the trains in terms of 'core competencies' - they just happen to have a common physical interface/ connection at the top of the rails.
The part you and Schlimm aren't addressing is that having a train and having a track doesn't get you anything because you still can't MOVE the train. Somebody has to be in charge of dispatching the whole thing. That means either the government/owner of the tracks has to also decide who gets access when (everybody can't be first) and who gets priority, or you have to farm that out to a third party.
In that case you now have 3 competing entities all with conflicting priorities and nobody really having ownership of the complete operation.
That's why the US system is the most efficient. There is clear ability to set priorities and coordinate activities to maximize efforts across all functions.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.