Would we run out of terminal capacity first? or linehaul capacity?
And do bottlenecks already exist today along some routes? I'm not really sure which answer is easier to solve either; both adding a track and building a new terminal sound incredibly expensive.
It depends!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
This question assumes that RR's would not have adopted as these changes occurred. That is a definate false assumption. There has been continial adaptation, as has been illustrarted, with the modification of RR operations and approach to marketing in the recent (10- 15) years.
Ok, let’s pretend the surge in demand happens overnight. The aim of the question is to identify the areas in which the railroads have the least excess capacity, not to question the RRs ability to keep up with investment.
Everywhere!
BaltACD It depends!
what’re the main variables it depends on?
RailRoader608 BaltACD It depends! what’re the main variables it depends on?
Traffic volumes when, where and what commodities. Increased traffic levels depend on many things that are far beyond railroad's ability to forecast 10-15 years in the future. Forecasting 1-5 years in the future is more difficult than what most people understand - all it takes is a 'price change' in some commodity and the whole transportation world turns on a dime.
10 years ago there was no such thing as CBR - Crude By Rail, but the World oil market made such a operation economically viable. 20 years ago municipal trash was disposed of in the municipality - now it is rail transported to commercial landfills all over the country. 10 years ago coal was king for electrical power generation - now the economics are working against coal. There are probably 100 different areas where things happen and the transportation world changes.
BaltACD RailRoader608 BaltACD It depends! what’re the main variables it depends on? Traffic volumes when, where and what commodities. Increased traffic levels depend on many things that are far beyond railroad's ability to forecast 10-15 years in the future. Forecasting 1-5 years in the future is more difficult than what most people understand - all it takes is a 'price change' in some commodity and the whole transportation world turns on a dime. 10 years ago there was no such thing as CBR - Crude By Rail, but the World oil market made such a operation economically viable. 20 years ago municipal trash was disposed of in the municipality - now it is rail transported to commercial landfills all over the country. 10 years ago coal was king for electrical power generation - now the economics are working against coal. There are probably 100 different areas where things happen and the transportation world changes.
Spot on! The financial planners for the Fortune 225 Corporation that I worked for did not believe that they could plan beyond two years with any reasonable degree of accuracy.
Also, depends on what happens with globalization over the next few years. If we continue to lean more heavily in favor of protectionism then those beautiful long hauls from the ports will be replaced with Peoria to Chicago type moves... volumes may indeed double, triple, quadruple or more.. but.. the railroads as they're currently configured would be hard pressed to capitalize on those volume increases if they're prominantly shorthauls.
Hopefully the brains at the top diversify their businesses so that they can effectively tap into shorthaul.. maybe by becoming transportation conglomerates through the purchase of trucking and logistics companies. Yes, I know.. UP failed with Overnite.. but that was long ago.. the synergies were different as was the regulatory and economic framework. In that context CN is perhaps most at risk: its main competitive advantage from a shareholder's standpoint is its simple route structure and mostly long hauls.. Maybe their recent acquisition of TransX has been in recognition of their need to diversify into the midhaul transportation market.
So to answer the OP's question.. there may be no rail bottlenecks as freight volume increases may mostly not be conducive to rail anyway.. i.e. the bottlenecks will be on the interstates.
I've done a bad job of phrasing my question!
Ignore the hypothetical about quadrupling freight over 10 years. Here's my real question: generally speaking, are railroads closer to capacity on their linehaul routes (i.e. closing in on maximum trains per hour) or are they closer to capacity on their terminal operations? So if the demand for more freight existed and the railroads started moving more and more goods, would they have to add more tracks or build more terminals/improve terminal throughput first in order to keep up?
I understand that in the real world this is probably specific to the route and railroad.
Now we can supply specifics. UP just announced it was withdrawing capital funds from the new Hearn, TX railyard and will apply some of those $$$ to adding siding length to its Sunset route between El Paso and Los Angeles. BNSF has almost finished adding main traks to its southern Transcon Needles and Belen to Dalies.
I am sure others will offer additional ongoing adjustments designated to meet current growth of traffic, or to make existing traffic move more efficently.
I don't know if the tracks in and through Chicago would be considered a line-haul or a terminal . . .
- PDN.
I'd be happy if our volumes in my section of the world would just get back to 2008 levels.
Jeff
Of all the Class I railroads I think BNSF will be the most capable of providing infrastructure for future traffic. They don’t have to use up cash buying back shares so they can report to Wall Street that they are returning more than 100% of earnings to shareholders. If they borrow money it goes right in to the physical plant instead of stock buybacks. They have the Southern Transcon double-tracked except for two bridges and those are both in the permitting process. The Northern Transcon is mostly double-tracked or paired main lines, and they are adding more double track on that route every year. They are also steadily eliminating bottlenecks, and have extended their intermodal franchise to Atlanta and the Upper Ohio Valley by haulage agreements with CSX. They seem to be 10 years ahead of the other railroads in terms of being ready for growing traffic.
diningcarNow we can supply specifics. UP just announced it was withdrawing capital funds from the new Hearn, TX railyard and will apply some of those $$$ to adding siding length to its Sunset route between El Paso and Los Angeles. . . .
http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2019/04/18-up-halts-work-on-new-hump-yard-will-idle-two-others
Sub-heading: Railroad will shift funding from massive Texas facility to new Sunset Route sidings, block-swapping yard
That may answer the Original Poster's question, at least for that portion of the UP.
I also referenced that on K.P. Harrier’s Sunset Route Two-Tracking Updates.
If they build long sidings like CN does, they may be 5 miles long to hold two trains, and built to mainline standards.
There also are just a few short gaps in double track in California that may be closed. I would suppose it all depends on how much Brazos Yard capital can be redirected.
kgbw49I also referenced that on K.P. Harrier’s Sunset Route Two-Tracking Updates. If they build long sidings like CN does, they may be 5 miles long to hold two trains, and built to mainline standards. There also are just a few short gaps in double track in California that may be closed. I would suppose it all depends on how much Brazos Yard capital can be redirected.
When I hired out in 1965 - 5 miles of two tracks was considered double track. With today's trains it may, at times, be difficult to fit two trains into 5 miles of track - especially if there are road crossings involved.
That is a good point - the sidings might even have to be longer depending on how long UP will run their long trains. 5 miles at 26,400 feet puts two 12,500-footers in there - they have to have space to clear the main, of course.
At least in the desert out west, roads are much farther apart, so they have that going for them regarding the placement of these new sidings
As always, it will be interesting to see how and where these new sidings go in.
I am not sure what the other Class 1's are doing, but the BNSF has double tracked even added a third and fourth track on its two mainlines to unclog bottlenecks. The northern transcon is not to my knowledge complete yet, but they are working on it.
Caldreamer
A 5% increase in traffic can easily create bottlenecks.
10000 feet and no dynamics? Today is going to be a good day ...
traisessive1A 5% increase in traffic can easily create bottlenecks.
One train can gridlock a subdivision. Each single track subdivision has a finite limit in the number of trains that can be effectively handled. Add one more train and the sub can be brought to a screeching halt, that can take hours, if not days to work the operation out of.
Paul_D_North_Jr Railroad will shift funding from massive Texas facility to new Sunset Route sidings, block-swapping yard
What is a block-swapping yard?
Through trains drop long cuts of cars to be picked up and added to another train going to a different destination. The blocks of cars are not further sorted - they are dropped and added as a block.
UP has three westbound routes arriving at El Paso (via Tucumcarri; via Dallas - Ft Worth; via New Orleans - Houston). Those trains will have blocks of cargo destined for Tucson and west to LA. The new Santa Teresa yard just west of El Paso will be used to combine similar blocks from those arriving westbound trains into larger trains, thus eliminating, for example, three arriving trains from continuing individually.
Watching the Deshler cams as I often do, it's not unusual to see IM trains held out on the main at West Deshler or at South Deshler, presumably because the North Baltimore facility doesn't have room for it.
Last year on my visit there, I encountered an eastbound train parked on the main just west of North Baltimore - which had to be a headache for the dispatcher.
There has been mention on the cam chat of adding a third track between Deshler and North Baltimore - presumably to clear up the mainlines.
This could be a problem crossing-wise, as roads in that area a pretty much laid out in a grid, with one mile between them.
I would opine that while mainlines can get congested, the problems will be with yard capacity.
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...
tree68Watching the Deshler cams as I often do, it's not unusual to see IM trains held out on the main at West Deshler or at South Deshler, presumably because the North Baltimore facility doesn't have room for it. Last year on my visit there, I encountered an eastbound train parked on the main just west of North Baltimore - which had to be a headache for the dispatcher. There has been mention on the cam chat of adding a third track between Deshler and North Baltimore - presumably to clear up the mainlines. This could be a problem crossing-wise, as roads in that area a pretty much laid out in a grid, with one mile between them. I would opine that while mainlines can get congested, the problems will be with yard capacity.
PSR will solve all that with block swapping! [/sarcasm]
BaltACDForecasting 1-5 years in the future is more difficult than what most people understand - all it takes is a 'price change' in some commodity and the whole transportation world turns on a dime.
Over on the Sunset Route Two-Tracking Updates thread, Bruce D Gillings has some very salient information on UP yard capacity in the LA area as it relates to the recently published three 16,000-foot sidings that UP will be adding to single track sections of the Sunset Route in southwestern Arizona.
jeffhergert I'd be happy if our volumes in my section of the world would just get back to 2008 levels. Jeff
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy Siding jeffhergert I'd be happy if our volumes in my section of the world would just get back to 2008 levels. Jeff Out of curiosity, how much would the traffic have to increase to be back at the 2008 levels?
Out of curiosity, how much would the traffic have to increase to be back at the 2008 levels?
I would guess about 20 more trains a day to equal the peak. We probably topped out with about 70 to 75 trains a day. We're probably running about 50 or so today. Gone are the days when the talk was that they were planning on 100 trains a day and were going to need a third main across Iowa and Illinois.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.