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.
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.”
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.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
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
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.
Jeff
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?
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!
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.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
zugmann Talk about stupidity beyond measure.
Talk about stupidity beyond measure.
10000 feet and no dynamics? Today is going to be a good day ...
[quote user="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.
jeffhergertIt's all in how the rules are written. Maybe more importantly, how they are interpreted. Jeff
And enforced.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
daveklepper Again, sawbys are suggested to meet an emergency situation, not regular operations.
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"
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
jeffhergertI would've done the same thing. (Setting full service, not getting off the moving engine to try to line the switch.) I guess I'm dumb too, or I know something that others don't.
Even with lite power, if I'm going to be sitting more than a few seconds, I toss on full service. An old engineer once said something about how a faulty valve could leak off independent only, or some such stuff. I just do it... because.
If I remember right, that 8888 engineer also thought he put on full dynamic, when it was full throttle (engine had one of those dynamic/throttle selector switches). I only ever ran a few engines with those, but I never understood the reasoning behind them. Wasn't like you saved a lever or anything - since you had to add the selector lever.
jeffhergertThe requirement that a crewmember, even a utility person, can only be "attached" to one crew at a time is a Federal requirement.
Thanks. That's what I thought, but didn't know 100%.
daveklepper Runaway CSX 8888 must have been caused by more than just leaving the locomotive to throw a switch. Had he made a full service brake application to bring the train to a stop? Had there been a check to insure that all brakes on all cars were working? WAs the end-of-train device working properly and did the engineer pay attention to whatever message it was sending? Was the trian on a heavy grade? I do not think my sawby technique is applicable, even in emergencies, if there is a heavy grade, many sharp curves, trafficked grade crossing immeidate in the vacinityof the siding or through the siding, and htere may be other constraints.
Runaway CSX 8888 must have been caused by more than just leaving the locomotive to throw a switch. Had he made a full service brake application to bring the train to a stop? Had there been a check to insure that all brakes on all cars were working? WAs the end-of-train device working properly and did the engineer pay attention to whatever message it was sending? Was the trian on a heavy grade?
I do not think my sawby technique is applicable, even in emergencies, if there is a heavy grade, many sharp curves, trafficked grade crossing immeidate in the vacinityof the siding or through the siding, and htere may be other constraints.
The engineer actually did make a full service application. They were switching in a yard and the air brake system wasn't connected or charged. The engineer knew this but still made the application. At the time, a lot of "expert" railfans commented how dumb this engineer was to do this, even though he knew the brake system wasn't charged.
I would've done the same thing. (Setting full service, not getting off the moving engine to try to line the switch.) I guess I'm dumb too, or I know something that others don't.
zugmann jeffhergert To be able for an engineer to get a switch, he/she would have to tie down all the engines in the consist and a sufficient (or prescribed by bulletin) number of hand brakes on any cars attached. Then do a release test to make sure the hand brakes hold. Can't leave the train without it being secured, yet you can't secure the train without stepping off of it. Kind of a catch-22. Also, in the original, a unless the crewmember is a utility, he can't work with two crews (with our railroad - but I think that's a federal regulation thing - I'm not sure). So that means conductor A can't couple up to cars with engineer B, and then turn air in, knock brakes off, etc. He can watch shoves in our little railroad universe. Don't know the case with others.
jeffhergert To be able for an engineer to get a switch, he/she would have to tie down all the engines in the consist and a sufficient (or prescribed by bulletin) number of hand brakes on any cars attached. Then do a release test to make sure the hand brakes hold.
Can't leave the train without it being secured, yet you can't secure the train without stepping off of it. Kind of a catch-22.
Also, in the original, a unless the crewmember is a utility, he can't work with two crews (with our railroad - but I think that's a federal regulation thing - I'm not sure). So that means conductor A can't couple up to cars with engineer B, and then turn air in, knock brakes off, etc. He can watch shoves in our little railroad universe. Don't know the case with others.
The requirement that a crewmember, even a utility person, can only be "attached" to one crew at a time is a Federal requirement.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.