NorthWest I think that ECP could make the biggest difference in terminals, rather than on the road. Facilities were designed for shorter trains, and the time savings and capacity increase by quickening the time it takes to build the trains of today. What I'd love to see is railroads do is go even further, by using ECP, DPU and train handling helper like an improved LEADER to create trains composed of individual blocks with their own locomotive that could be rapidly connected and split. Running longer trains lowers the number of crew starts and requires fewer meets, running shorter trains more frequently lowers the penalty of missed connections and increases operational flexibility. If it's easy for blocks to be split on and off quickly, you can combine a lot of short trains into longer ones to get the benefits of both. ECP would substantially reduce the time penalty of block swapping, allowing for operating plans sending out an eastbound every hour, with whatever traffic is going that way on it, and traffic that misses the connection sitting for less than an hour, rather than up to 24 hours. I think it would allow shorter corridors to better compete with trucks, particularly if you could simply detach something like an LA-Phoenix block from the back of an LA-Chicago freight with minimal delay to the rest of the traffic headed east.
I think that ECP could make the biggest difference in terminals, rather than on the road.
Facilities were designed for shorter trains, and the time savings and capacity increase by quickening the time it takes to build the trains of today.
What I'd love to see is railroads do is go even further, by using ECP, DPU and train handling helper like an improved LEADER to create trains composed of individual blocks with their own locomotive that could be rapidly connected and split.
Running longer trains lowers the number of crew starts and requires fewer meets, running shorter trains more frequently lowers the penalty of missed connections and increases operational flexibility. If it's easy for blocks to be split on and off quickly, you can combine a lot of short trains into longer ones to get the benefits of both. ECP would substantially reduce the time penalty of block swapping, allowing for operating plans sending out an eastbound every hour, with whatever traffic is going that way on it, and traffic that misses the connection sitting for less than an hour, rather than up to 24 hours.
I think it would allow shorter corridors to better compete with trucks, particularly if you could simply detach something like an LA-Phoenix block from the back of an LA-Chicago freight with minimal delay to the rest of the traffic headed east.
I read once how the ecp system worked in an employee publication. I don't remember if it was a system special instructions or something on the web site. I can't find anything on it now. I save my old SSIs to might have to look through them.
I seem to recall when modifying the consist (picking up or setting out) each car (I think by intial and number) had to be entered or deleted from the consist for the system to properly recognize what cars were in the train. Possibly that could be done by the system downloading a new train list everytime a scheduled work event took place. Unplanned work would still need to be manually updated.
ECP is really something more suitable for unit type trains. Consists that don't change much between origina and destination. Not so much for carload or blocks of carload traffic. Which would fit in with their desire to kill off such business.
Jeff
Euclid Electroliner 1935 The thing that gets me is that there is too much inertia in the RR industry. The Westinghouse Air Brake design is over 100 years old and while it works, it has many flaws that need improvement. How we get there is beyond my "pay grade" but I hope better minds find a way. But technology will hopefully win out. I don't think it will win out in the case of ECP. The industry is simply unable to adopt it because the universal loose car system is wonderfully standardized and the number of cars is so vast. The logistics of a quick chaneover are impossible, and yet the benefits come in too slowly if the changeover is done over a reasonable amount if time, like say 20-30 years. So ECP will have to come by mandate if it is to happen at all. Or maybe Elon Musk can figure something out.
Electroliner 1935 The thing that gets me is that there is too much inertia in the RR industry. The Westinghouse Air Brake design is over 100 years old and while it works, it has many flaws that need improvement. How we get there is beyond my "pay grade" but I hope better minds find a way. But technology will hopefully win out.
I don't think it will win out in the case of ECP. The industry is simply unable to adopt it because the universal loose car system is wonderfully standardized and the number of cars is so vast. The logistics of a quick chaneover are impossible, and yet the benefits come in too slowly if the changeover is done over a reasonable amount if time, like say 20-30 years. So ECP will have to come by mandate if it is to happen at all. Or maybe Elon Musk can figure something out.
The biggest strike against ECP, for my 2 cents worth, is that the system as applied to cars will not meet the maintenance schedule for the current air brakes. 5 years.
The carriers want equipment to NOT REQUIRE ANY MAINTENANCE between FRA required inspection periods. Until ECP can demonstrate reliability approaching that of current air brakes or exceeding it, it will be a no go. That is 5 years in all the weather and customer conditions that rail cars are subject to during any 5 year period.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
[quote "BaltACD"]So! Your proposing that we have train brakes be able to be applied by cell phone from a remote location? [/quote]
NO WAY. With all the hackers out in the world, that would be asking for trouble. And while the garage door opener uses encripted data, it is not as the expression says "A life threatning event" which the traincar braking system failure would be. I was just trying to indicate that technology may be able to overcome the issues previously raised against ECP. I still think that an oil company should buy an entire train set (cars and locomotives) equipped with ECP and put them into captive service. This would require spares and maintenance coverage. I don't know what it would take to motivate such a action except an embargo following a catastopic explosion like the Lac Megatanic one in a US City such as a Chicago Suburb
Electroliner 1935The thing that gets me is that there is too much inertia in the RR industry. The Westinghouse Air Brake design is over 100 years old and while it works, it has many flaws that need improvement. How we get there is beyond my "pay grade" but I hope better minds find a way. But technology will hopefully win out.
Electroliner 1935I called and asked my daughter to retrieve it from my house and express it to me. She went to my house and when the external key pad for the garage door would not cause it to open, called me. I having a new internet connected garage door opener could remotely open the door from my cell phone. Problem solved. And we have been amazed how far we have come from the 40's when people had old party line phones.
So! Your proposing that we have train brakes be able to be applied by cell phone from a remote location?
With everything being web connected anymore, such as having toll collection RF transponders in our cars and cars having Wi-Fi repeaters in them, it seems that this is an issue that is waiting for someone to bite the bullet and do something positive. The thing that gets me is that there is too much inertia in the RR industry. The Westinghouse Air Brake design is over 100 years old and while it works, it has many flaws that need improvement. How we get there is beyond my "pay grade" but I hope better minds find a way. But technology will hopefully win out. I had an experice with technology this week that shows how far so things have come. I am recouperating from surgery up on Washington Island and forgot to bring my check book. I called and asked my daughter to retrieve it from my house and express it to me. She went to my house and when the external key pad for the garage door would not cause it to open, called me. I having a new internet connected garage door opener could remotely open the door from my cell phone. Problem solved. And we have been amazed how far we have come from the 40's when people had old party line phones.
oltmannd tree68 cx500 Equipment issues, negative cost/benefit, or management resistance to innovation; could be any of them. Can't discount management resistance, and equipment issues are usually addressable. That leaves a negative cost/benefit - and I'm waiting to hear the advantages of stopping a routine train in a half mile instead of a mile when they are stopping for a hold-out because the yard is full... Okay. I think think the benefits of ECP more than "better braking". You can raise restricting speed - track conditioins permitting - because the improvement in braking is greater at low speed. You can "bottle" trains during setout and pick ups. No more pumping air time. You can have remote apply/release of hand/parking brake. No more having to walk a cut to apply and release brakes. No more dragging cars with handbrakes set. You can know the status of the train's brakes without having to infer from flow meter and EOT and cab gauges. Fewer UDEs. Fewer train dynamic caused knuckles/derailments. You have a data backbone for employing full-time sensing and detection. Bearings hot/noisy, wheel flat/out of round, ride quality/truck hunting, etc. Trains get out of terminals faster, have fewer problems on the road, get in and out of slower speed sections faster. Equipment utilization improves. Network fluidity improves. Trip speed goes up. Trip reliability goes up. The only problem is that an ECP system that can do all this does not physically exist (yet...)
tree68 cx500 Equipment issues, negative cost/benefit, or management resistance to innovation; could be any of them. Can't discount management resistance, and equipment issues are usually addressable. That leaves a negative cost/benefit - and I'm waiting to hear the advantages of stopping a routine train in a half mile instead of a mile when they are stopping for a hold-out because the yard is full...
cx500 Equipment issues, negative cost/benefit, or management resistance to innovation; could be any of them.
Can't discount management resistance, and equipment issues are usually addressable. That leaves a negative cost/benefit - and I'm waiting to hear the advantages of stopping a routine train in a half mile instead of a mile when they are stopping for a hold-out because the yard is full...
Okay. I think think the benefits of ECP more than "better braking".
You can raise restricting speed - track conditioins permitting - because the improvement in braking is greater at low speed.
You can "bottle" trains during setout and pick ups. No more pumping air time.
You can have remote apply/release of hand/parking brake. No more having to walk a cut to apply and release brakes. No more dragging cars with handbrakes set.
You can know the status of the train's brakes without having to infer from flow meter and EOT and cab gauges.
Fewer UDEs. Fewer train dynamic caused knuckles/derailments.
You have a data backbone for employing full-time sensing and detection. Bearings hot/noisy, wheel flat/out of round, ride quality/truck hunting, etc.
Trains get out of terminals faster, have fewer problems on the road, get in and out of slower speed sections faster. Equipment utilization improves. Network fluidity improves. Trip speed goes up. Trip reliability goes up.
The only problem is that an ECP system that can do all this does not physically exist (yet...)
ECP does not replace air power for braking power - it only replaces, in theory, the control function of air. To believe that the individual car ECP control systems won't have their own issues in actual operation is to believe that the Tooth Fairy is running for President and will win.
I have no idea what the in service tests of ECP highlighted as failure conditions. I have heard man esitmates of the cost of installing ECP on cars - in some case the costs I have heard are nearly as much as it cost to buy the car in the first place.
If ECP installed on individual cars is not compatible with the current standard of air brakes and can at least have train air line compatibility - if set out on line if road for whatever reason it will have to be handled as a car without brakes by other trains with standard air brakes in moving it to a shop location.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
jeffhergert UP was testing ECP also. I was on one of the engines fully equipped for ECP once. I imagine the PTC mandate had a big part in shelving the testing. I would also imagine that since more railroad cars are owned by private owners than railroads, that it wouldn't be just the railroads that might be resistant to a wholesale switch to ECP. Jeff
UP was testing ECP also. I was on one of the engines fully equipped for ECP once. I imagine the PTC mandate had a big part in shelving the testing.
I would also imagine that since more railroad cars are owned by private owners than railroads, that it wouldn't be just the railroads that might be resistant to a wholesale switch to ECP.
A few years ago, I got to see a few pix from NS's ECP test trains. A good number of melted connectors....
Euclid oltmannd Euclid How do the Australian heavy haul ore railroads deal with unreliable ECP connectors? Are they simply more reliable because they are connected and disconnected less frequently when used on their unit trains? What makes a connector unreliable? What type of operator care is required in connecting and disconnecting the cable connectors? What is the exact technique used for connecting and disconnecting the connectors? With unit trains, you don't cut atn couple much. For US, "loose car" service, I think we really need a wireless trainline. Another alternative would be some sort of inductive connection in the glad hands. I believe someone was messing around with this a couple decades ago... With wireless, where would you get the power to operate all the car valves?
oltmannd Euclid How do the Australian heavy haul ore railroads deal with unreliable ECP connectors? Are they simply more reliable because they are connected and disconnected less frequently when used on their unit trains? What makes a connector unreliable? What type of operator care is required in connecting and disconnecting the cable connectors? What is the exact technique used for connecting and disconnecting the connectors? With unit trains, you don't cut atn couple much. For US, "loose car" service, I think we really need a wireless trainline. Another alternative would be some sort of inductive connection in the glad hands. I believe someone was messing around with this a couple decades ago...
Euclid How do the Australian heavy haul ore railroads deal with unreliable ECP connectors? Are they simply more reliable because they are connected and disconnected less frequently when used on their unit trains? What makes a connector unreliable? What type of operator care is required in connecting and disconnecting the cable connectors? What is the exact technique used for connecting and disconnecting the connectors?
With unit trains, you don't cut atn couple much.
For US, "loose car" service, I think we really need a wireless trainline. Another alternative would be some sort of inductive connection in the glad hands. I believe someone was messing around with this a couple decades ago...
With wireless, where would you get the power to operate all the car valves?
On board battery charged by generator built into wheel bearing plus solar.
https://news.timken.com/2004-09-20-Timken-Supplying-Intelligent-Rail-Bearing-Product-for-Federal-Railroad-Administration
https://www.herzog.com/innovation/ballast-unloading-machine-for-new-track-construction/
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...
For a time, CPR was testing ECP brakes on one or two unit coal train sets, with a group of GE AC4400s also equipped. That was probably 10-15 years ago now. The trial ECP did not last long. I have no idea as to results and why it ended. Equipment issues, negative cost/benefit, or management resistance to innovation; could be any of them.
OvermodHey Euc, I see you didn't find and read AAR standard S-4210 when I pointed you to it a few years ago. If you had, you wouldn't need to ask connector questions... Looking back in the history of freight-ECP evolution, y'all might find this reference of interest. Note that this is now more than a decade old, and we've had the Sarah years in the intervening time.
Well, as I tried to indicate, I don't think that connectors are as big of a problem as they are said to be. The problem with ECP is not technical. It is that the industry believes the current air brake art is good enough, and does not want to spend the money on ECP.
With all the time that has passed, I think that if there really was a connector problem it would have been solved by now. And if solving it has not been possible, I think there were be a lot of available documentation detailing the problem and what has been done in an attempt to solve it. So where is that documentation?
The industry ignores all of the benefits of ECP, and focuses only on the question of whether EPC can prevent accidents by better stopping performance. Then they say that only 1% of accidents are related to brake failure, so they conclude that problem is so small that any benefit from ECP cannot do much good.
So the industry has its mind made up and the only thing that they have to worry about is a government mandate. They almost got that with the tank cars, but they dodged that bullet. I am sure they feel very lucky because ECP on tank cars would have been the "camel's nose under the tent" of incremental ECP by more mandates.
Euclid oltmannd Euclid How do the Australian heavy haul ore railroads deal with unreliable ECP connectors? Are they simply more reliable because they are connected and disconnected less frequently when used on their unit trains? What makes a connector unreliable? What type of operator care is required in connecting and disconnecting the cable connectors? What is the exact technique used for connecting and disconnecting the connectors? For US, "loose car" service, I think we really need a wireless trainline. Another alternative would be some sort of inductive connection in the glad hands. I believe someone was messing around with this a couple decades ago... With wireless, where would you get the power to operate all the car valves?
oltmannd Euclid How do the Australian heavy haul ore railroads deal with unreliable ECP connectors? Are they simply more reliable because they are connected and disconnected less frequently when used on their unit trains? What makes a connector unreliable? What type of operator care is required in connecting and disconnecting the cable connectors? What is the exact technique used for connecting and disconnecting the connectors? For US, "loose car" service, I think we really need a wireless trainline. Another alternative would be some sort of inductive connection in the glad hands. I believe someone was messing around with this a couple decades ago...
Keep in mind that the 'current' wired trainline connector (which is an industry standard) is said to be robust over a wide range of conditions and carefully wear-tested.
Hey Euc, I see you didn't find and read AAR standard S-4210 when I pointed you to it a few years ago. If you had, you wouldn't need to ask connector questions... Looking back in the history of freight-ECP evolution, y'all might find this reference of interest. Note that this is now more than a decade old, and we've had the Sarah years in the intervening time.
I don't think that the actual connector per se is a particular source of trouble; one of the things I think important is that the 'breakaway' at the equipment junction box needs to be weatherproof after separation, and easily restorable in the field ideally with no tools and people wearing gloves. And perhaps needless to say, that there be plenty of "FRUs" from junction box to connector readily at hand at any time for replacement.
Power to operate the equipment with noncontact trainlines is from the usual range of sources used for powering unconnected equipment: mostly self-power from motion augmented by sunlight. Rather obviously this is not as good a solution as 220V trainlined power. Note the recent disaster caused by witless programming of the ECP controllers, where conserving battery power was more important than conserving the train.
I think a better place to locate the inductive intercar connection is on the coupler, rather than the gladhands, for a variety of reasons. I thought long and hard about actually running meaningful power through the gladhands at one point (having grown up with Electrolux vacuums and then having read about the GE "point contact" streetcar system switching methods of the early 20th Century) but there are too many potential (pun intended) pitfalls once you get a few years of typical railroad 'attention' on them.
In my opinion, you will have a reliable DPU wireless connection long before you have a reliable as-encountered-in-interchange wireless trainline. There are too many ways it can hard and soft fail, in every case forcing a decision about whether to make the train stop, perhaps as fast as possible, with every failure, or whether to ignore glitches that may cause disaster without further warning.
The approach I was using has a different set of (redundant) transponder equipment at each end of each car (they are associated with the truck instrumentation at each end) and during initialization they automatically determine both the actual consist and the direction each car is facing/moving. Actual wireless radio transmission backs this up, and the logic in the car controllers distinguishes the two modalities. It's a lot of fun, and I mean a lotta lotta fun, to design modulations that are resistant to likely hacking strategies and transient environmental conditions. Hint: the correct solution, as with PTC, involves several interlocking AI systems.
BaltACDAnd on bulk commodity cars in winter - don't overlook the means used to heat the commodity so that it will flow from the car. Open flame is not unheard of.
open flame, thaw sheds, steam lines, rotary dumps - list keeps growing.
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
zugmannYou need electronic devices that can withstand brutal cold, brutal heat, getting soaked, getting frozen, getting covered in grain/limestone/potash/whatever dust, being slammed around in a hump yard or industry, and be made of things (or completely inaccessible) so vandals/druggies/thieves won't want to destroy or steal, be easily servicable, and last more than a few weeks at a shot. Is that all? I don't think it's pure connicdence that railcars have stayed so low tech for so long.
Is that all?
I don't think it's pure connicdence that railcars have stayed so low tech for so long.
And on bulk commodity cars in winter - don't overlook the means used to heat the commodity so that it will flow from the car. Open flame is not unheard of.
You need electronic devices that can withstand brutal cold, brutal heat, getting soaked, getting frozen, getting covered in grain/limestone/potash/whatever dust, being slammed around in a hump yard or industry, and be made of things (or completely inaccessible) so vandals/druggies/thieves won't want to destroy or steal, be easily servicable, and last more than a few weeks at a shot.
Also, consider that the Australian ore roads don't have the extremes of weather that North American roads must contend with. Heat, yes, but bitter cold and blowing snow will not be an issue over there.
EuclidHow do the Australian heavy haul ore railroads deal with unreliable ECP connectors? Are they simply more reliable because they are connected and disconnected less frequently when used on their unit trains? What makes a connector unreliable? What type of operator care is required in connecting and disconnecting the cable connectors? What is the exact technique used for connecting and disconnecting the connectors?
I believe the supposed technical problems and suggestions that ECP is not adequately reliable are being exaggerated by the industry in order to push back against the prospect of a government mandate. If the connectors are unreliable, then make them more reliable. These issues are always presented as being showstoppers for ECP adoption.
The problem with ECP is that it is an all or nothing proposition requiring the spending of a gigantic amount of money to install and maintain ECP before learning how much actual benefit comes out of it when applied to loose car railroading.
How do the Australian heavy haul ore railroads deal with unreliable ECP connectors? Are they simply more reliable because they are connected and disconnected less frequently when used on their unit trains? What makes a connector unreliable? What type of operator care is required in connecting and disconnecting the cable connectors? What is the exact technique used for connecting and disconnecting the connectors? Do the Australian ore railroads get their ECP power from batteries carried on each car?
There were cars, covered and uncovered hoppers/coal gondolas that were being delivered with equipment for ECP operation. They weren't ready, but had some hardware in place to make the addition of ECP easier. I haven't paid attention to the latest new covered hoppers to see if they are still doing this.
jeffhergert I'm not so sure that using the wire for ECP to also control DPs would be much better. It should, but you'll have a connection between every car. Much more places on a 300 car train to have problems. You have to remember that the way most railroads maintain things leaves a lot to be desired. Makes me worry about all the technology being developed. It'll work great when new, but how about a few years down the line? Jeff
I'm not so sure that using the wire for ECP to also control DPs would be much better. It should, but you'll have a connection between every car. Much more places on a 300 car train to have problems.
You have to remember that the way most railroads maintain things leaves a lot to be desired. Makes me worry about all the technology being developed. It'll work great when new, but how about a few years down the line?
I'd be really worried about that many trainline connectors. I really hated that the current ECP tries to push power down the same trainline.
Each car has to have its own power, for starters. Maybe a battery with a generator integral to the roller bearing plus some solar.
For the trainline, I'd hope someone could come up with something like bluetooth, but with some sort of wave guide so that cars would have to be coupled for the communication to take place.
I think there would also have to backward compatibility - an ECP equiped car could operate in an unequipped train - but forward compatibility? I can't see a way to accomplish that.
So, to implement, you'd have to do it in phases. Start with some unit trains, expand to all intermodal equipment, then perhaps ML equipment by pool. Let that stuff run around for a couple of years until you have a chance to get things thorougly de-bugged, then equip the rest of the fleet. Maybe five years start to finish?
Once that is in place, start adding all the "jewelry" to make full use of that data backbone.
But, it has a much better system that the goofy one the RRs have been playing with for a couple decades.
With a wireless bridge to a DPU or EOT you could go right to the fault probably not even have to stop until the next terminal since you have a back-up path.
Aircraft are starting to use Ethernet for this purpose.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avionics_Full-Duplex_Switched_Ethernet
The other thing we discussed on other threads was if you had an electric trainline you could have power or power assisted hand brakes.
Of course I could see all the 'artists' putting down the spray cans becoming copper rats.
Except that if I understand correctly, being a data link, it can tell you how far down the string, it is able to communicate.
ECP is analogus to that 300 light string of Christmas lights, wherein when one fails they all go out. You only have to find the one that failed.
Keep in mind that ECP and PTC are radically different in proven value. There's concrete experience back before the 1920s in electrically-controlled braking, and most -- notice I emphasize most -- of the bugs in North American-appropriate systems were worked out in applications like the mining railroads in Australia. I see little either difficult or misdesigned in the current approaches, with the primary difficulty being the hard connections of the trainlined power/data cable. But I don't think these count as unproven vaporware/betaware provisions.
PTC was from the beginning four separate functions, which really needed different systems to provide them, being rolled into one mandate and then turned loose on techies to build and code. Somewhere along the line the decision was made to provide "it" as overlay to physical signaling systems, which is in practice not only a 'fifth function' but one that substantially complicates both the tech and the maintenance with few if any actual safety or operating benefits. It was bad enough to see a camel being designed by a committee; now we're beginning to see some of the relatively unpatchable holes in the "safety" coverage.
Just think: if we'd passed timely legislation against pedophiles using cell phones improperly, we'd probably not have this mandate this way in the first place...
rdamonSome great things have been designed on PowerPoint!
But were they actually built and delivered to their target market on Power Point. Power Point creates great demonstration images - it doesn't make real hand gripping articles.
Some great things have been designed on PowerPoint!
jeffhergertI don't believe ECP has to be an overnight, wholesale change. It can be an overlay on the existing conventional brake system on cars and the controls on the engine. The electronic brake valves being delivered on new engines, for the past few years, are compatible with ECP. That being said, everyone seems to listen to promises of the techies and sales people on what their technology will deliver. It used to be things had to prove themselves before wide scale adaption. Now when some entity or person hears what they want to hear, it's like it MUST BE adopted NOW! Whether that technology actually delivers the benefits promised. Jeff
That being said, everyone seems to listen to promises of the techies and sales people on what their technology will deliver. It used to be things had to prove themselves before wide scale adaption. Now when some entity or person hears what they want to hear, it's like it MUST BE adopted NOW! Whether that technology actually delivers the benefits promised.
I had 10 years of working in the Tech enviornment - it is absolutely amazing the 'yarns' Tech Salesmen can spin that their technicians can't deliver on - at least not had the time the salesman said it was real. Maybe after 4 or 5 years of all out development efforts some of the 'sales features' will come into a basic reality. Workable, reliable applications lag far behind the creation of high tech electronic creations.
PTC is a specific case in point - pulling together a number of diseparate technologies to create a workable, hopefully reliable and 24/7 functioning application. Bringing that many 'moving part' together in one application that must operate in a fail safe manner has been a much larger undertaking than anyone that concieved the mandate understood.
jeffhergertI don't believe ECP has to be an overnight, wholesale change.
You're right, but not in quite the way you mean.
It can be an overlay on the existing conventional brake system on cars and the controls on the engine.
None of the existing commercial systems work this way, and while it is possible to achieve some of the effects of 'electronic brake control' on one-pipe Westinghouse systems (I have designed at least two) they are not "ECP" in some critical details (including graduated release) and the equipment remains incompatible when running in interchange.
There is a fundamental difference in how ECP uses the 'one pipe' between cars. In a Westinghouse system all the brake commands and logic go through this pipe, either as a function of pressure or of transitions between pressures. ECP runs the pipe at full pressure almost all the time, only using it for 'emergency' application by dumping the pressure (the 3% 'gain' from ECP coming from the pipe venting to atmosphere at every car instead of only at the valves)
Both manufacturers have developed 'conversion kits' for freight cars that can be installed between the standard Westinghouse brake valve and its mount. These then allow simple changeover between ECP and one-pipe, for interchange during the 'transition era', so you don't recreate the transition era in the years following passage of the Power Brake Law.
The electronic brake valves being delivered on new engines, for the past few years, are compatible with ECP.
That just means that when an ECP logic signal is provided to the valve, it can configure itself accordingly and then function 'as expected' (and ideally tell the engineer exactly why if it can't). Problem is that there's lots more detail that has to be changed on or installed in each locomotive to actually implement ECP, and I expect even with PSR there will be limits on how effectively (let alone cost-effectively) the 'equipped' engines can be lined up with the early full-ECP trains... the default in either case being 'simple in principle' but requiring all cars and engines to be manually transitioned to one-pipe. "Theoretically" cars can be equipped with a simple harness for ECP passthrough, analogous to through air lines in the air-brake transition era, but on ECP those cars could not be braked, and I don't really see anyone's FRA or AAR condoning x percent of unbraked cars with the excuse that ECP will still stop the whole shebang in less time, and that 'emergency will work even faster because all brakes on all cars will apply faster. Of course in this modern age they could try to get that one across...
On top of this is a logistical issue: Who will install the millions of conversions? I do know a couple of car-repair outfits that increased their size expecting Sarah's FRA to mandate conversion, but to really do it in reasonable time to justify the investment requires many new entities and the training, vetting, supervision, and no-Mickey-Mouse government oversight to make them work.
At least some of these would then be field contractors to track the equipment, monitor status, and do PM and emergent repairs. I'm sure Progress Rail would gear up to 'own this segment' but I don't think their culture can handle the relationship-based service that's going to be necessary.
The problem is that until essentially the whole interchange fleet in the general system of transportation is converted, none of the safety advantages of ECP will be available. Modular harness development has not really been done, and while I think the brake companies would provide lower cost equipment as demand ramps up and economies of scale begin to present themselves predictably, I don't see the cost of the kits plus associated QA going much under $5000 a car.
How much of this the railroads themselves would pay for the added convenience is unclear. So is the amount that could be essentially extorted from them for the increased perceived safety. I doubt there's anywhere near the trillions required even for the most conservative implementation (accelerated application to tank and then unit-train fleets; modular harnesses on everything else) without significant "assistance" either in the form of Federal money or Federal incentives (probably including significant tax credits, perhaps extending to the firms that own or control particular railroads or suppliers)
I don't believe ECP has to be an overnight, wholesale change. It can be an overlay on the existing conventional brake system on cars and the controls on the engine. The electronic brake valves being delivered on new engines, for the past few years, are compatible with ECP.
The decline in coal and PSR does not lend itself to captive unit trains that can be set up with ECP
SD60MAC9500The RR's should not wait to act on advancements.. Just like the forced implementation of PTC. Which cost more than if the RR's would have took an incremental approach to installing over time could have been reduced. When ECP is eventually forced by congress on the RR's. It will be the same again. High cost for a system that could've been done on the cheap over time..
I believe the railroads will never enact ECP braking unless they are mandated to do so. It is a problem like railroads changing their gage overnight because a gradual change would have required the highly disruptive use of two gages during a prolonged changeover.
Initially, the railroads were very interested in ECP because it is a valuable improvement whose time has come. But the logistics of changing the North American fleet of rolling stock in one fell swoop are a deal breaker.
The standardization of the rolling stock fleet is a great benefit, but it also freezes improvement to the fleet. So the destiny of ECP is in future braking disasters and their ability to propel Congress into making an ECP mandate.
SD60MAC9500ECP allows brake test to be sped up by quite a bit. Any troubles with the air can pinpointed to the exact car. No more guessing about where a problem in the train line would be. Plus the time charging the train line is reduced significantly. So while the cost of implementing such a system will be costly the gains in productivity can't be denied.
As is previously stated - air issues can be pinpointed and diagnosed much easier than electrical and electronic issues. Improperly acting electrons don't bring attention to themselves except by some element of the equipment not working. Yes, a particular electrical component can be replaced, however, the component that fails and gets replaced may not have been the cause of the failure - just the end result of what is actually failing.
tree68 Overmod There are more benefits from ECP than those of a nominally shorter stopping distance, notably the use of graduated release from any degree of application. Being able to take a little 'too much' brake without subsequent need to 'release to recharge' is surely a useful thing in train handling. It also becomes practical to modulate the brake systems on the cars independently with a little added equipment, which should make the issue of 'getting a knuckle' a thing of the past even for sudden full-service applications. That's all fine and dandy, and I fully appreciate those advantages. The question remains - what is the economic gain from installing ECP? Even if we discount the cost of installation, and the cost of maintenance, does ECP add anything to the bottom line? It can be argued that air brakes reduced headcount - no need for brakemen to walk the roofs of the cars setting and releasing brakes - probably two or three people no longer necessary on the crew. Mind you, I'm not opposed to ECP. As noted by others, though, in this day of penny pinching, what does it do for me?
Overmod There are more benefits from ECP than those of a nominally shorter stopping distance, notably the use of graduated release from any degree of application. Being able to take a little 'too much' brake without subsequent need to 'release to recharge' is surely a useful thing in train handling. It also becomes practical to modulate the brake systems on the cars independently with a little added equipment, which should make the issue of 'getting a knuckle' a thing of the past even for sudden full-service applications.
It also becomes practical to modulate the brake systems on the cars independently with a little added equipment, which should make the issue of 'getting a knuckle' a thing of the past even for sudden full-service applications.
That's all fine and dandy, and I fully appreciate those advantages.
The question remains - what is the economic gain from installing ECP?
Even if we discount the cost of installation, and the cost of maintenance, does ECP add anything to the bottom line?
It can be argued that air brakes reduced headcount - no need for brakemen to walk the roofs of the cars setting and releasing brakes - probably two or three people no longer necessary on the crew.
Mind you, I'm not opposed to ECP. As noted by others, though, in this day of penny pinching, what does it do for me?
The economic gains would come from improved schedules as the outcome of greater velocity which leads to high car turns per month.. Since PSR wants to keep cars turning instead of sitting in yards and at shipper/receivers for a period of time. ECP allows brake test to be sped up by quite a bit. Any troubles with the air can pinpointed to the exact car. No more guessing about where a problem in the train line would be. Plus the time charging the train line is reduced significantly. So while the cost of implementing such a system will be costly the gains in productivity can't be denied..
The RR's should not wait to act on advancements.. Just like the forced implementation of PTC. Which cost more than if the RR's would have took an incremental approach to installing over time could have been reduced. When ECP is eventually forced by congress on the RR's. It will be the same again. High cost for a system that could've been done on the cheap over time..
OvermodThere are more benefits from ECP than those of a nominally shorter stopping distance, notably the use of graduated release from any degree of application. Being able to take a little 'too much' brake without subsequent need to 'release to recharge' is surely a useful thing in train handling. It also becomes practical to modulate the brake systems on the cars independently with a little added equipment, which should make the issue of 'getting a knuckle' a thing of the past even for sudden full-service applications.
jeffhergertI'm not so sure that using the wire for ECP to also control DPs would be much better. It should, but you'll have a connection between every car. Much more places on a 300 car train to have problems. You have to remember that the way most railroads maintain things leaves a lot to be desired. Makes me worry about all the technology being developed. It'll work great when new, but how about a few years down the line? Jeff
Remember the CARDINAL rule of PSR - reduce head count! Doesn't make any difference which department - Operating, MofW, Signals, Car Dept., Accounting, Supervision you name it - REDUCE HEAD COUNT.
Installation and maintenance of ECP would invariably increase head count - at what offeseting continuing expense? None that I can think of.
It is already difficult enough to maintain air lines and other air braking equipment, now throw on top of that the electronics and other associated electrical equipment and train line connectors. Air faults are realatively easy to locate and correct - electrical faults not so much, unless is ECP is designed by England's Lucas Electric and always faults in smoke mode.
Gramp This all seems to support the notion that the railroad is a centralizing technology. Some thinkers see our future as the highly urbanized city (the auto requires lots of acreage in today’s cities that would be freed up with fewer of them) with rural areas returning to wilderness to the benefit of the overall environment. Urban food production is growing with aeroponic Tower Garden technology.
This all seems to support the notion that the railroad is a centralizing technology.
Some thinkers see our future as the highly urbanized city (the auto requires lots of acreage in today’s cities that would be freed up with fewer of them) with rural areas returning to wilderness to the benefit of the overall environment. Urban food production is growing with aeroponic Tower Garden technology.
And I've read where some think eventually the cities won't be sustainable. (I came across the article by accident and it didn't appear to be from a rightward leading entity.)
Lithonia OperatorBut seems like they’d let you acces a single story.
The problem I have with it is not access to the story; it's that I can't read it without completely disabling my ad blocking. Which, in the complete absence of any information from the Post regarding its advertisers or the code they may be planning to shovel across, I am extremely reluctant to do.
We subscribe to online Washington Post. I had forgotten that when I posted the link. But seems like they’d let you access a single story. Dunno.
OvermodThe Washington Post didn't recognize that link for a while, but it seems to be working now. Have not read it, as I'm not disabling my adblocker for an unvetted site that seems intent on pushing content. Would have PMed but Kalmbach and Firefox haven't ironed out their little 'issue'.
Would have PMed but Kalmbach and Firefox haven't ironed out their little 'issue'.
Working fine W10 + Chrome
The normal BS of the FRA/NTSB trying to spend OPM (Other peoples money) in mass quantities.
Worked for me using Winders 10, IExplorer.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
The Washington Post didn't recognize that link for a while, but it seems to be working now. Have not read it, as I'm not disabling my adblocker for an unvetted site that seems intent on pushing content.
I found this to be an informative article:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/railroads-regulators-clash-over-braking-system-for-trains-carrying-flammable-liquids/2016/12/19/68071650-9ad4-11e6-b3c9-f662adaa0048_story.html
tree68The question being this - what is the benefit of shorter stopping distances in daily operations? How much time can be saved if a train can be stopped in half a mile instead of a mile? How does the occasional broken knuckle balance out with the savings gained from that time saved?
There are more benefits from ECP than those of a nominally shorter stopping distance, notably the use of graduated release from any degree of application. Being able to take a little 'too much' brake without subsequent need to 'release to recharge' is surely a useful thing in train handling.
SD60MAC9500 ECP test have proven train stopping distances can be greatly decreased.
The question being this - what is the benefit of shorter stopping distances in daily operations? How much time can be saved if a train can be stopped in half a mile instead of a mile? How does the occasional broken knuckle balance out with the savings gained from that time saved?
Yard capacity has been mentioned - is there a gain if the train can be stopped in a shorter distance at it's hold-out spot because there's no room in the yard?
SD60MAC9500My issue with PSR is how much innovation and infrastructure improvements it's stifiling due to: sharebuy backs, increased focus on dividends, and short term gains?
Indeed - I've said before that PSR has been tainted by those who see it as a way to enrich themselves (ie, the "vulture capitalists," or whatever term you want to use). Much of what is PSR has been done before - preblocking, longer trains, etc - but with the capital spending necessary to make it work.
[quote user="jeffhergert"]
Ultimately, the class ones (for now) may have the goal of having nothing but intermodal trains. PSR isn't about getting to that goal, rather how to handle the remaining car load business until it can be converted or eliminated. If they ever reach that goal, about the only customers they'll be serving are those located near a major metropolitan area where most of their IM terminals are. I think rail customers outside of whatever is a reasonable drey range will end up sending their shipments entirely by highway.
Jeff. Your caption here echos my sentiments as well.. PSR is about eventually dumping the carload network. Build it into a effcient machine for the shortlines to handle. Open access? maybe not.. Or expanded trackage rights...While PSR has sound operating principles. This should have been the last straw. The RR's didn't need PSR to become efficient in handling carload freight or eventually their IM networks. Technology should have been at the forefront of making the RR's an efficient effective way to transport freight..
Once upon time when BN was testing ARES back in the 80's the system proved itself with: Moving blocks, GPS, and digital radio communications. The 90's approached.. Changes in BN staff, and further research and testing halted at other RR's concluded the systems's cost was excessive and provided no benefit could be had from it's implementation? ARES R.I.P... Fast forward to 2008.. PTC was forced onto the RR's
Someone mentioned ECP.. Another positive benefit to train handling that has proven itself in Heavy Haul applications such as the Pilbara region iron ore rail lines. ECP test have proven train stopping distances can be greatly decreased. ECP also provides a more robust, responsive, and simplified air brake system..Another benefit of ECP. It also provides comm access. This would solve Jeffs DP signal issues, with hard wire instead of wireless communication. How long before congress forces the RR's to install ECP???
ARES(Called PTC now of course), ECP, combined with: Dispatching, Car scheduling/real-time tracking, MoW authority, and Rolling stock maintenance would've have provided a much greater benefit as all could be brought under one platform. My issue with PSR is how much innovation and infrastructure improvements it's stifiling due to: sharebuy backs, increased focus on dividends, and short term gains?
Euclid jeffhergert Euclid What is the practical maximum length of trains using distributed power? If there is a maximum practical length, what causes the length limit, and what happens if the limit is exceeded? What's going to limit length is how far can communication be maintained between the head end and the DP consists. For us, 10000' is allowed between the lead engine and remote consist east of the Rocky Mountains, 8500' west of the dividing line. System limit for length is 18000', no more than 6000' between DP consists and there must be a DP on the rear. If no DP on the rear, than length is limited to 15000'. Conventional trains are limited to 10000'. There can also be subdivision length restrictions. Usually because of siding lengths. If a train shows up and the length, either system or subdivision limit is exceeded, they can either make you correct the problem if possible. For example, repositioning a DP consist. More likely they'll have someone, usually the corridor manager, give you time and initials to take it as is. It's amazing what can be done with time and initials. Jeff Is there a technological solution to the problem of not being able to maintain communication between the head end and the DP consists? If so, is it too costly? Is there work being done to develop such a solution? If it were possible to run longer trains, would there be a need for that? Or would train length be absolutely limted by siding length?
jeffhergert Euclid What is the practical maximum length of trains using distributed power? If there is a maximum practical length, what causes the length limit, and what happens if the limit is exceeded? What's going to limit length is how far can communication be maintained between the head end and the DP consists. For us, 10000' is allowed between the lead engine and remote consist east of the Rocky Mountains, 8500' west of the dividing line. System limit for length is 18000', no more than 6000' between DP consists and there must be a DP on the rear. If no DP on the rear, than length is limited to 15000'. Conventional trains are limited to 10000'. There can also be subdivision length restrictions. Usually because of siding lengths. If a train shows up and the length, either system or subdivision limit is exceeded, they can either make you correct the problem if possible. For example, repositioning a DP consist. More likely they'll have someone, usually the corridor manager, give you time and initials to take it as is. It's amazing what can be done with time and initials. Jeff
Euclid What is the practical maximum length of trains using distributed power? If there is a maximum practical length, what causes the length limit, and what happens if the limit is exceeded?
What is the practical maximum length of trains using distributed power? If there is a maximum practical length, what causes the length limit, and what happens if the limit is exceeded?
What's going to limit length is how far can communication be maintained between the head end and the DP consists.
For us, 10000' is allowed between the lead engine and remote consist east of the Rocky Mountains, 8500' west of the dividing line. System limit for length is 18000', no more than 6000' between DP consists and there must be a DP on the rear. If no DP on the rear, than length is limited to 15000'. Conventional trains are limited to 10000'.
There can also be subdivision length restrictions. Usually because of siding lengths.
If a train shows up and the length, either system or subdivision limit is exceeded, they can either make you correct the problem if possible. For example, repositioning a DP consist. More likely they'll have someone, usually the corridor manager, give you time and initials to take it as is. It's amazing what can be done with time and initials.
Is there a technological solution to the problem of not being able to maintain communication between the head end and the DP consists? If so, is it too costly? Is there work being done to develop such a solution? If it were possible to run longer trains, would there be a need for that? Or would train length be absolutely limted by siding length?
Siding length only limits train length in one direction.
Don't know what cell tower installations cost - using such towers as repeaters 'should' solve any communications issues - if they are strategiclly placed.
My experience indicates that excessive length trains screw terminals into the ground in their current configurations. It takes multiple yard tracks being coupled together to build the train - fouling out strategic locations in the terminal for long periods of time. The same thing when attempting to yard the train. I am not aware of PSR wanting to spend the money requried to reconfigure terminals to handle the 10K - 12K - 15K - 18K long trains.
Hauling long trains between terminals is not the big deal. The bigger deal is having crews available to crew change locations, however, part of the PSR plan is to limit the number of crews as PSR works to minimize the employed head count.
Better more reliable radios. The biggest thing IMO, is maintaining the equipment. Especially the little things like wire connections and antennas. One of the first things many mechanics do when he climbing on board to try to fix comm problems is to unscrew the wire out of the radios and blow on them. Trying to dislodge dust or dirt particles that may have accumulated.
I'm also wondering about electronic interference from non-railroad sources. For us, Missouri Valley IA seems like a communications black hole. If you are already having DP comm problems, that area makes it worse. Trains that don't have DP comm problems else where seem to have them there.
Siding length only becomes a real problem when you run no-fitting trains in both direction. As long as at least one direction can fit, or hold the main between the switches, an overlength train isn't a problem.
greyhounds zardoz Disclaimer: I retired before DP, thus certain aspects of train handling relating to DP are unfamiliar to me. However, I've run trains with 6BL and 24RL automatic brake valves (and trains with only AB brakes and friction bearings), using the feed valve to effect a small enough reduction as to not trigger a kicker, and then using straight air to trigger a quick release. And, it's going to take a while to figure out how to do this. And, it will largely be done by trial and error.
zardoz
Disclaimer: I retired before DP, thus certain aspects of train handling relating to DP are unfamiliar to me. However, I've run trains with 6BL and 24RL automatic brake valves (and trains with only AB brakes and friction bearings), using the feed valve to effect a small enough reduction as to not trigger a kicker, and then using straight air to trigger a quick release.
And, it's going to take a while to figure out how to do this. And, it will largely be done by trial and error.
With Dad being a company operating department official, he was required to have a Private telephone line - for those 2 and 3 AM derailement calls and other issues he had to be involved in.
When we moved to Baltimore, we moved to the Catonsville area, just West of the City/County line - we had a dial phone. My Grandfather lived in Severna Park, 6 miles exactly (as the crow fly's) from the Golden Dome of the Naval Academy in Annapolis - Severna Park did not have dial service. He was Severna Park 45. A couple of years later, Severna Park did get dial service - his number was the Severna Park prefix + 4545.
The first telephone system we had when I was growing up was a dial system--with three digits (small town). One day, some cousins from the small city 10 miles up the road were visiting, and one asked me how the dial system worked; at the time I did not realize that her telephone calls involved asking the operator for the number wanted, so I did not explain the wonders of dialing.
When I went off to college, Bristol, Tennessee, and Bristol, Virginia, still used operators. During my time there, a dial system was installed, with NO the prefix for Virginia numbers, and SO the prefix for Tennessee numbers--you had to be careful to not use zero for the second letter of the prefix.
Johnny
jeffhergertPS. I forgot about party lines. We had one, too. You know you're old when you go into an antique store and remember having and using many of the items for sale.
We had a party line as well. At least we didn't have to remember which ring was ours....
I can remember having to go through the operator to complete a connection.
Every now and then FB will have one of those posts which say that "only X percent of people know what these items are." I'm usually in the X percent.
As an off-topic aside - during the big festival in Milford, MI this past weekend, one vendor had old pictures of the village - it was fun hanging out there a bit and telling the newbies what some of the places in the pictures were.
Yep, Remember my grandmothers house in central Indiana, she had a wood/corncob stove in the kitchen, a coal burner heating unit in the parlor, no running water, just a pump outside and a privy. Under the bed was a porcelin commode for use at night. She also had a party line with an oak box crank phone on the wall. The contrast to today is mind blowing. Yesterday, my daughter needed to get into my house while I an away up on Washington Island and the external key pad would not open the garage door. I have a new opener which is connected to the web so she called me and I used the app on my cell phone to open the garage door from 327 miles away.
PS. I forgot about party lines. We had one, too. You know you're old when you go into an antique store and remember having and using many of the items for sale.
EuclidWhat is the practical maximum length of trains using distributed power? If there is a maximum practical length, what causes the length limit, and what happens if the limit is exceeded?
The carriers are still searching for the maximum, and most likely will continue to.
zardoz Disclaimer: I retired before DP, thus certain aspects of train handling relating to DP are unfamiliar to me. However, I've run trains with 6BL and 24RL automatic brake valves (and trains with only AB brakes and friction bearings), using the feed valve to effect a small enough reduction as to not trigger a kicker, and then using straight air to trigger a quick release.
That's one of my points. The technology used in rail operations has changed. So the operations themselves will also change to use the new tech most efficiently.
blue streak 1 Question for our metal experts. Does the additional flexing of rail, switches, etc more often in a short time reduce the life of rails and such ? Does a monster train of mostly 286k cars of almost a 1000 axels set up fatigue faster than say 2 trains of 500 axels passing over 10 + minutes apart ?.
Question for our metal experts. Does the additional flexing of rail, switches, etc more often in a short time reduce the life of rails and such ? Does a monster train of mostly 286k cars of almost a 1000 axels set up fatigue faster than say 2 trains of 500 axels passing over 10 + minutes apart ?.
That’s an interesting question. Personally, I have no clue.
BaltACD Tune in to the ME TV Network and you can see a number of the B&W only shows - Perry Mason, Gunsmoke - the early years, Rifleman, Wagon Train - the Ward Bond years - and a whole bunch more on Saturday - Have Gun Will Travel and others. I first remember TV when we lived in Auburn, IN. The nearest station was in Kalamazoo, MI - over 100 air miles distant, my father had to erect a antenna 20 feet above the roof of our house. Out best picture had the appearance of light snow flurries - other times the picture was a raging blizzard.
Tune in to the ME TV Network and you can see a number of the B&W only shows - Perry Mason, Gunsmoke - the early years, Rifleman, Wagon Train - the Ward Bond years - and a whole bunch more on Saturday - Have Gun Will Travel and others.
I first remember TV when we lived in Auburn, IN. The nearest station was in Kalamazoo, MI - over 100 air miles distant, my father had to erect a antenna 20 feet above the roof of our house. Out best picture had the appearance of light snow flurries - other times the picture was a raging blizzard.
BaltACD SALfan jeffhergert: I'm old enough, and lived in a place, to remember 2 commercial networks and the public TV channel. Savannah, GA (the nearest city large enough for TV stations to where I grew up) didn't even have an ABC affiliate until about 1968 or 1969. My mother's aunt and uncle in SW GA still had a party line where every subscriber had a different ring, and every phone on the party line rang when anyone got a call. I also remember when there was no color TV; the first year or two of color availability, some programs were in color and some weren't. Now I feel really old. Tune in to the ME TV Network and you can see a number of the B&W only shows - Perry Mason, Gunsmoke - the early years, Rifleman, Wagon Train - the Ward Bond years - and a whole bunch more on Saturday - Have Gun Will Travel and others. I first remember TV when we lived in Auburn, IN. The nearest station was in Kalamazoo, MI - over 100 air miles distant, my father had to erect a antenna 20 feet above the roof of our house. Out best picture had the appearance of light snow flurries - other times the picture was a raging blizzard.
SALfan jeffhergert: I'm old enough, and lived in a place, to remember 2 commercial networks and the public TV channel. Savannah, GA (the nearest city large enough for TV stations to where I grew up) didn't even have an ABC affiliate until about 1968 or 1969. My mother's aunt and uncle in SW GA still had a party line where every subscriber had a different ring, and every phone on the party line rang when anyone got a call. I also remember when there was no color TV; the first year or two of color availability, some programs were in color and some weren't. Now I feel really old.
My wife and I watch Perry Mason on ME TV almost every night.
Growing up out at the farm the TV antenna wasn't as tall as yours, but was mounted on a metal pipe that could rotate, about two feet out from the edge of the front porch floor. Sometimes, usually after one of us boys had been jumping off the porch and swinging on the pipe, the antenna required adjustment. My father would cuss and send the closest boy out to stand at the end of the porch and twist the pole to improve the aim, in response to directions yelled thru an open window. Good times, long gone.
greyhoundsLonger trains are generally more efficient. Greater length makes for a declining average cost.
Having said all that, I have run trains of 50 car lengths and 3K tons with 2 SD40-2 units, and I have run 13K' long mixed manifests of 12K tons with no dynamics. The difference in stopping distances is huge, mostly due to the very delicate way a monster train has to be handled. With 50 cars one could easily go right to a 10-15psi reduction at 30mph while only in the 4th notch, or get the dynamics (if equipped) loading so much quicker; with the monster, keeping the slack stretched sufficiently to prevent run-ins requires lots of power, and lots of planning: the braking has to commence so much further back, in order to give the entire train's brakes time to set. One could likely bring the 50-car train from 30mph to 0 and back to 30mph in about 5-10 minutes and within a mile or two; the monster would likely take at least 30-45 minutes (each time) to do the same and take many miles to accomplish. Multply that by a number of meets, slow orders, and work enroute, and your efficiencies quickly disappear. And those figures do not include stops for sticky brakes, the inevitable knuckle/drawbar, signal problems, weather conditions, DP issues, etc. Plus, in cold weather there is the problem of trainline charging.
Sure, on a nice summer day, if one could open the throttle at point A, then just roll along until point B, then yes, a 20K ton 20K' long mosnter is much more efficient (heck, you might not even need a second crew member); but how often does that happen? Like, almost never.
Electroliner 1935 EHH what have you given us.
EHH what have you given us.
He's given some people a great gift. That gift would be someone and something to despise and hate. Such a gift is very fulfilling for some people.
Again, I judge the tenets of PSR to be wise and good. But, there are going to be some bumps in the road regarding its implementation. Heck Fire, look at the Boeing 737 MAX.
Longer trains are generally more efficient. Greater length makes for a declining average cost. Why do you think railroads progressed from the 4-4-0's to 2-10-4's, the Big Boys, and the Alleghenies? Eliminating classification en route is also great for efficiency. And if the railroads don't become more efficient, they're dead.
Yes, a carload of plastic pellets can get misrouted. It happens. I've had FedEx misroute an overnight shipment. Perfection just doesn't exist.
Ah yes ! All those old tv shows and they were analog ! Cannot believe how much better the HD programs are including many of the old analog ones. Of course a lot of the old ones especially on ME tv are 4:3 ratio instead of 16:9
Yes, I like MeTV. I find those shows much more entertaining. That, and Masterpiece mysteries.
SALfanjeffhergert: I'm old enough, and lived in a place, to remember 2 commercial networks and the public TV channel. Savannah, GA (the nearest city large enough for TV stations to where I grew up) didn't even have an ABC affiliate until about 1968 or 1969. My mother's aunt and uncle in SW GA still had a party line where every subscriber had a different ring, and every phone on the party line rang when anyone got a call. I also remember when there was no color TV; the first year or two of color availability, some programs were in color and some weren't. Now I feel really old.
Lithonia Operator jeffhergert Lithonia Operator jeffhergert, I’d be interested in knowing which road you work for, if that is something you are willing to divulge. Also, I think you are an engineer; is that correct? I always enjoy reading your posts. Yes, I'm a locomotive engineer. I work in the family business, for Uncle Pete. (Actually, I'm the first in my family to work for a railroad. And I don't really have an Uncle Pete.) Jeff Thanks for responding, Jeff. Cotton Belt MP 104, thanks for your PM. I could not respond because I am traveling, and apparently I cannot send a PM from a cell phone.
jeffhergert Lithonia Operator jeffhergert, I’d be interested in knowing which road you work for, if that is something you are willing to divulge. Also, I think you are an engineer; is that correct? I always enjoy reading your posts. Yes, I'm a locomotive engineer. I work in the family business, for Uncle Pete. (Actually, I'm the first in my family to work for a railroad. And I don't really have an Uncle Pete.) Jeff
Lithonia Operator jeffhergert, I’d be interested in knowing which road you work for, if that is something you are willing to divulge. Also, I think you are an engineer; is that correct? I always enjoy reading your posts.
jeffhergert, I’d be interested in knowing which road you work for, if that is something you are willing to divulge. Also, I think you are an engineer; is that correct?
I always enjoy reading your posts.
Yes, I'm a locomotive engineer. I work in the family business, for Uncle Pete.
(Actually, I'm the first in my family to work for a railroad. And I don't really have an Uncle Pete.)
Thanks for responding, Jeff.
Cotton Belt MP 104, thanks for your PM. I could not respond because I am traveling, and apparently I cannot send a PM from a cell phone.
Try using the "desktop site" option in your browser. I have to do that when I'm on my phone.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
zardoz jeffhergert I've got a box of Cracker Jacks on the shelf in the kitchen. They still put a "prize" in the package, but of late it's usually some sticker. I thought about using CJ instead of cereal. Either one is probably foriegn to a lot of the young forum membership. How about the mega-sugary bubble gum that used to be in packages of baseball cards. There used to be a small drug store at my train-watching spot in Milwaukee, and I'd stock up on baseball cards each time I visited (I mention this in order to keep the forum on-track (pun intended)). jeffhergert ....who remembers dial telephones and getting up to change the TV channel, which only had 3 and later 4 channels with at least one usually having something worth watching. And if you were lucky your parents had a color tv, and even luckier if the program you wanted to see was in color. No only that, but the commercials would blast so loud, and it was way too much of a hassle to get up for every ad to adjust the volume, up, then down, then up, then down..... Ah, the "good" old days.
jeffhergert I've got a box of Cracker Jacks on the shelf in the kitchen. They still put a "prize" in the package, but of late it's usually some sticker. I thought about using CJ instead of cereal. Either one is probably foriegn to a lot of the young forum membership.
How about the mega-sugary bubble gum that used to be in packages of baseball cards. There used to be a small drug store at my train-watching spot in Milwaukee, and I'd stock up on baseball cards each time I visited (I mention this in order to keep the forum on-track (pun intended)).
jeffhergert ....who remembers dial telephones and getting up to change the TV channel, which only had 3 and later 4 channels with at least one usually having something worth watching.
And if you were lucky your parents had a color tv, and even luckier if the program you wanted to see was in color. No only that, but the commercials would blast so loud, and it was way too much of a hassle to get up for every ad to adjust the volume, up, then down, then up, then down.....
Ah, the "good" old days.
jeffhergert: I'm old enough, and lived in a place, to remember 2 commercial networks and the public TV channel. Savannah, GA (the nearest city large enough for TV stations to where I grew up) didn't even have an ABC affiliate until about 1968 or 1969. My mother's aunt and uncle in SW GA still had a party line where every subscriber had a different ring, and every phone on the party line rang when anyone got a call. I also remember when there was no color TV; the first year or two of color availability, some programs were in color and some weren't. Now I feel really old.
jeffhergertI've got a box of Cracker Jacks on the shelf in the kitchen. They still put a "prize" in the package, but of late it's usually some sticker. I thought about using CJ instead of cereal. Either one is probably foriegn to a lot of the young forum membership.
jeffhergert....who remembers dial telephones and getting up to change the TV channel, which only had 3 and later 4 channels with at least one usually having something worth watching.
tree68 jeffhergert (For those who remember when they used to put "prizes" inside the boxes of cereal.) Can't forget Cracker Jacks... There are few new ideas - they just come up every now and then with a new name. Big trains, pre-blocking, you name it, it's been done before.
jeffhergert (For those who remember when they used to put "prizes" inside the boxes of cereal.)
Can't forget Cracker Jacks...
There are few new ideas - they just come up every now and then with a new name. Big trains, pre-blocking, you name it, it's been done before.
I've got a box of Cracker Jacks on the shelf in the kitchen. They still put a "prize" in the package, but of late it's usually some sticker. I thought about using CJ instead of cereal. Either one is probably foriegn to a lot of the young forum membership.
Jeff, who remembers dial telephones and getting up to change the TV channel, which only had 3 and later 4 channels with at least one usually having something worth watching.
SD70Dude Shadow the Cats owner SD70Dude my customers that have to deal with your employeers US based side of it call them the Canadian NOPE when it comes to service. Half our loads to Mississippi are loads that are on IC trains in hopper cars that the IC can not deliver even a week late and the plant has to have product to run and we have to bail them out yet again. We have 5 trucks heading that way now for Monday morning yet again to keep the bumper plant for an auto assembly plant running because IC and CN sent the hopper car full of their plastic to Winnipeg instead of Jackson MS. Then CN wants them to pay for the freight charges for the screw up. I think we are going to get that contract full time pretty soon. Yeah, that sounds about right. Sigh. At least your business is doing well. I like to use this TSB report as an example of how well CN's car-tracking system works. Unfortunately not much has changed since this happened. http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/rail/2009/r09w0016/r09w0016.html
Shadow the Cats owner SD70Dude my customers that have to deal with your employeers US based side of it call them the Canadian NOPE when it comes to service. Half our loads to Mississippi are loads that are on IC trains in hopper cars that the IC can not deliver even a week late and the plant has to have product to run and we have to bail them out yet again. We have 5 trucks heading that way now for Monday morning yet again to keep the bumper plant for an auto assembly plant running because IC and CN sent the hopper car full of their plastic to Winnipeg instead of Jackson MS. Then CN wants them to pay for the freight charges for the screw up. I think we are going to get that contract full time pretty soon.
SD70Dude my customers that have to deal with your employeers US based side of it call them the Canadian NOPE when it comes to service. Half our loads to Mississippi are loads that are on IC trains in hopper cars that the IC can not deliver even a week late and the plant has to have product to run and we have to bail them out yet again. We have 5 trucks heading that way now for Monday morning yet again to keep the bumper plant for an auto assembly plant running because IC and CN sent the hopper car full of their plastic to Winnipeg instead of Jackson MS. Then CN wants them to pay for the freight charges for the screw up. I think we are going to get that contract full time pretty soon.
Yeah, that sounds about right. Sigh. At least your business is doing well.
I like to use this TSB report as an example of how well CN's car-tracking system works. Unfortunately not much has changed since this happened.
http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/rail/2009/r09w0016/r09w0016.html
Car issues are not only a CN issue.
Electroliner 1935 Nothing can go wrong, go wrong, go wrong...Now I am scared. 15000 ft long trains with these tank cars in them just waiting to be pulled apart while carrying toxic loads. I can see the lawyers salivating over the prospects of the negligence claims against the RR's, shippers and the car owners. EHH what have you given us.
Nothing can go wrong, go wrong, go wrong...Now I am scared. 15000 ft long trains with these tank cars in them just waiting to be pulled apart while carrying toxic loads. I can see the lawyers salivating over the prospects of the negligence claims against the RR's, shippers and the car owners. EHH what have you given us.
We had monster sized trains before EHH. Eventually some other flavor of the day method will come along, and we'll probably still have some monster sized trains running. While I don't like the monster sized trains either, depends on the train make-up - some aren't too bad to handle, I think people are still better off seeing that hazmat on the rail instead of going through town on the highway.
While most truck drivers are good and compentent, like everything else the bad ones put the paint on the brush that covers all of them, they have to drive among the general public. Some of whom seem to have gotten their driver's license at the bottom of a cereal box. (For those who remember when they used to put "prizes" inside the boxes of cereal.)
Just wait until they put PSR in the Cloud!!
I have no clue how their resins are routed to Jackson from their main supplier. We have been delivering a couple of custom blends they wanted for a while. So when they called us up and said they needed 110 tons of plastic resins that we had in stock that they normally get from a different company we said yes we can help you out. The problem is IC can not even get the product to this plant when they have it for them to deliver.
To me, the term PSR implies the outlook of ”this is how we’ve always done it”. Meet our schedule. It’s about us. Hardened arteries. If they were truly trying to serve their customer, they would use the term, JIT. Just In Time thinking. What the customer needs, when he/she needs it.
I find it kind of amusing that the term Precision Scheduled Railroading has caught on to the point that virtually everyone in the railroad (and related) busines uses it.
To me, it sounds very hype-ish, like a cheap sales slogan. Like “new and improved.” Some folks here say that it’s not so precision, not so scheduled, but the term endures.
I saw that one railroad said they are implementing a “modified version of PSR.” Seems like they should come up with their own term. Maybe an acronym like SORT: Service Oriented Railroad Technology. That wouldn’t be any more lame than Precision Scheduled Railroading.
Electroliner 1935EHH what have you given us.
Shadow:Just curious how that Streator, Il to Jackson, Ms is routed...is that NS to Kankakee to CN?That should be a smooth move.
ed
SD70DudeOne thing I like about this forum is comparing rules and operations with the folks from other railroads.
It is amazing how different 'similar' can be.
I apprecaite the posts of contributors such as 1070Dude and all the others who have hands-on experience in railroad operation and others whose work is connected with railroading--especially when they correct my errors. I have been interested in railroading for 70 years, and still have much to learn.
There are a select few of us on here who currently work in train or engine service or other railroad operating positions, and more who are retired. Those ranks recently suffered a great loss with the death of Ed Blysard of Houston's PTRA (RIP).
I am currently employed by Crash National (you fill 'em, we spill 'em!).
One thing I like about this forum is comparing rules and operations with the folks from other railroads.
jeffhergert Deggesty I wonder if the people who are gung-ho on precision scheduling are unaware of the reality that things that foul schedules up happen. A couple of months back, I brought into the home terminal a just shy of 15000 foot train. Normally, the train sets out and often is considerably shorter leaving. Usually the set out is a rear end and entirely behind the midtrain DP consist, which usually stays to be used on trains originating there. This one, had cars ahead of the DP also, which meant an extra move or two to get the setout to fit in the yard tracks. On this day, we were showing picking up (on the head end) a couple of units to be taken to another yard down the line. We started into the yard with about 45 mins to an hour left to work, after being held out for 2 or 3 hours because the yard wasn't ready for us. The outbound was on duty, and was on the spot to help with the engine work. They tried to go to the power and move it up to where we where in the yard. The power wouldn't start. The yard mechanic came out and got it running, then had to help to get the hand brake to release. We got the power together on the train and were just beginning to change out. The dispatcher came on the radio and asked where we were at in the process. I told him I was about to get off the engine, the outbound ready to get on and pull down and do the set out. He asked if he could have the signal back at the control point at the east end of the yard. I said they'll be ready to pull right away. He said he really needed it back. I said we had the whole town blocked. (One underpass in the city, but the big fire equipment won't fit under it.) He said the corridor manager wanted him to take the signal back. I said go ahead and take the signal. (The outbound had heard all this on the van radio and even said they'ld be ready to pull and start work.) While riding the van (now dead on hours) to the tie up point, I heard the outbound tell the dispatcher they were ready. The dispr said it would be about 20 mins or so before they could get a signal, waiting for one train each way. I figured, assuming they began their work on that time estimate, that the entire city was blocked for close to 2 hours before crossings started to be cleared. A week later, the outbound engineer told me he had turned in the blockage to our safety hotline. He said he got word that it was a hot topic during the next manager's morning meeting. Now while this did happen after PSR was started, things like this have happened before during times of extreme cost cutting. Those previous times usually being of low car loadings. It just happens more often, maybe not to that extent of time, under PSR with more trains doing more intermediate work. Jeff
Deggesty I wonder if the people who are gung-ho on precision scheduling are unaware of the reality that things that foul schedules up happen.
I wonder if the people who are gung-ho on precision scheduling are unaware of the reality that things that foul schedules up happen.
A couple of months back, I brought into the home terminal a just shy of 15000 foot train. Normally, the train sets out and often is considerably shorter leaving. Usually the set out is a rear end and entirely behind the midtrain DP consist, which usually stays to be used on trains originating there. This one, had cars ahead of the DP also, which meant an extra move or two to get the setout to fit in the yard tracks. On this day, we were showing picking up (on the head end) a couple of units to be taken to another yard down the line.
We started into the yard with about 45 mins to an hour left to work, after being held out for 2 or 3 hours because the yard wasn't ready for us. The outbound was on duty, and was on the spot to help with the engine work. They tried to go to the power and move it up to where we where in the yard. The power wouldn't start. The yard mechanic came out and got it running, then had to help to get the hand brake to release. We got the power together on the train and were just beginning to change out. The dispatcher came on the radio and asked where we were at in the process. I told him I was about to get off the engine, the outbound ready to get on and pull down and do the set out. He asked if he could have the signal back at the control point at the east end of the yard. I said they'll be ready to pull right away. He said he really needed it back. I said we had the whole town blocked. (One underpass in the city, but the big fire equipment won't fit under it.) He said the corridor manager wanted him to take the signal back. I said go ahead and take the signal. (The outbound had heard all this on the van radio and even said they'ld be ready to pull and start work.)
While riding the van (now dead on hours) to the tie up point, I heard the outbound tell the dispatcher they were ready. The dispr said it would be about 20 mins or so before they could get a signal, waiting for one train each way. I figured, assuming they began their work on that time estimate, that the entire city was blocked for close to 2 hours before crossings started to be cleared.
A week later, the outbound engineer told me he had turned in the blockage to our safety hotline. He said he got word that it was a hot topic during the next manager's morning meeting.
Now while this did happen after PSR was started, things like this have happened before during times of extreme cost cutting. Those previous times usually being of low car loadings. It just happens more often, maybe not to that extent of time, under PSR with more trains doing more intermediate work.
Penny wise, dollar foolish! Spend $1K to save a dime.
blue streak 1A breakdown at LaGrange is 2-1/2 miles of combined for the A&WP / Lineville subs. If the RRs do not do this voluntarily then we are concerned that congress / STB/ and or FRA is going to step in. That would of course be much worse !
If the RRs do not do this voluntarily then we are concerned that congress / STB/ and or FRA is going to step in. That would of course be much worse !
Don't know how LaGrange is dispatched at present - When I had it as a part of my territory - The Lineville Sub, including LaGrange was dispatched by one dispatcher; the A&WP was dispatched by a different dispatcher. The combined 2 1/2 miles was 'primarily' a railroad crossing at grade, without having a diamond.
While both dispatchers communicated with each other - the order of trains operating on the Lineville Sub was in the hands of the Lineville Sub Dispatcher and that includes the A&WP trains between the Lineville Sub control points. Dispatchers have to deal with the physcial characteristics of their territory.
PNWRMNM blue streak 1 Hopefully this would mainly benefit freight customers with side benefit to Amtrak. Very disingenuous, Streak. You are a well known passenger train guy advocating for another hidden subsidy for the rolling wreck known as ATK.
blue streak 1
Hopefully this would mainly benefit freight customers with side benefit to Amtrak.
Very disingenuous, Streak. You are a well known passenger train guy advocating for another hidden subsidy for the rolling wreck known as ATK.
Although our proposal will benefit Amtrak somewhat the focus is on freight RRs. There are too many freight only lines around here that would benefit from the many delays caused by too long freights for many sidings. LaGrange Ga is often packed with trains waiting for too long trains. Often see same train waiting for a slot as the BNSF haulage trains get some priority when able as crews for BNSF can run into HOS problems. There is esentially 5 - 6 miles of double track at LaGrange which is a combination of the CSX A&WP sub ( ATL - Montgomery ) and Lineville Sub ( Birmingham - Manchester ).
A breakdown at LaGrange is 2-1/2 miles of combined for the A&WP / Lineville subs.
Shadow the Cats owner Greyhounds my boss is a smaller customer for 2 of the Class 1 railroads just here in my town. We have SIT tracks at 3 locations in this town now. We are the ones that have the laid the tracks for the frack sand that gets hauled by NS out of this area since they have no direct rail access to the mine. We transload the sand from trucks into empty hoppers for NS and ship it out plus our plastics we get from them. We have doubled our shipments of hoppers on NS in the last year alone. Last year combined we shipped a combined 1200 cars empty and loaded on with it being a 50% split almost on both the BNSF and NS. That give you a clue how much plastics we are shipping out of here as custom blends. Let alone the sand which was 400 cars. Yet with PSR service level requirements that EHH demanded both my boss and the Ethanol plant that is at the end of the line on the NS will not be large enough to meet the service required to keep the line in business. This ethanol plant I am talking about produces just did an upgrade to produce 280 million gallons of ethonal a year.
Greyhounds my boss is a smaller customer for 2 of the Class 1 railroads just here in my town. We have SIT tracks at 3 locations in this town now. We are the ones that have the laid the tracks for the frack sand that gets hauled by NS out of this area since they have no direct rail access to the mine. We transload the sand from trucks into empty hoppers for NS and ship it out plus our plastics we get from them. We have doubled our shipments of hoppers on NS in the last year alone. Last year combined we shipped a combined 1200 cars empty and loaded on with it being a 50% split almost on both the BNSF and NS. That give you a clue how much plastics we are shipping out of here as custom blends. Let alone the sand which was 400 cars. Yet with PSR service level requirements that EHH demanded both my boss and the Ethanol plant that is at the end of the line on the NS will not be large enough to meet the service required to keep the line in business. This ethanol plant I am talking about produces just did an upgrade to produce 280 million gallons of ethonal a year.
So, what did EHH have to do with Norfolk Southern?
Also 1000 c/l of cooking oil/year? Maybe Lou Ana in Baton Rouge might do that.
Tangential stuff:
NS's implementation of PSR, so far, has not tackled the intermodal network to any great extent. It focused on trying to smooth out flow by getting more customers up to 7 day a week service, more pre-blocking at origin serving yards, and running longer trains with more DPU.
Has it worked? Too soon to tell, but my hunch is it'll move the OR a few points (if they stop being stupid with train make-up on the Horseshoe Curve...)
They plan on tackling intermodal next, maybe pulling some low volume lanes into mixed service (they did a lot of this with multilevel trains already)
I still fear that they are focusing too much on the present and not enough on the future. Too much is being spent on share repurchase and dividends and not enough on raising the physical plant up to 21st Century standards. (Just making the southern half of the RR look and run like the Pittsburgh and Chicago Lines would be a nice start)
BaltACD Euclid Would the railroad customers prefer re-regulation? Customers - like everyone else - are looking for 'free shipping'.
Euclid Would the railroad customers prefer re-regulation?
Customers - like everyone else - are looking for 'free shipping'.
LOL! Maybe not free but; what an old colleague of mine years ago referred to as “widows and orphans“ pricing.
EuclidWould the railroad customers prefer re-regulation?
Would the railroad customers prefer re-regulation?
I doubt many shippers would want to refer to it as “re-regulation“ but; I suspect many would like to see stronger oversight of the railroads that implement PSR.
While the above overdetailed regulation would probably not come out of Congress, it does demonstrate that PSR, however it is defined, has given new life to the specter of re-regulation.
blue streak 1Hopefully this would mainly benefit freight customers with side benefit to Amtrak.
PSR has had some very stinging complaints from various freight customers including Amtrak.
A proposal that congress should consider is some sort of regulation on train lengths.
What if congres and or the STB / FRA proposed the following.
Limit the length of trains on any segment so they would fit into the sidings on a route. As well distances between sidings capable to handle these monsters would have say no more than 40 miles between capable sidings with that distance being reduced every year until lengths between capable sidings would be 10 miles.
This would allow the RRs to determine on each route how many of these super sidings and their length that they would want on any route to handle both freight and those routes with Amtrak as well. Mountain routes such as the northern transcon would probably have shorter super sidings.
An example of not having at present having train lengths that will fit into present sidings is on NS between Meridian, Birmingham, and Atlanta that do not allow opposite direction freights to be dispatched on several long segments between sidings at the same time. As well Amtrak wannot run around an extra length train on this route. These Super sidings defined as capable of opposide direction trains of "X" length to pass. That would also allow Amtrak trains to run around freights for example on the Crescent route it is not possible on many segments.
Routes that are already 2 main tracks not double track current of direction would be naturally be exempt such as the BNSF transcon which only has a few short single track locations left. 2 MTs would allow for most trains to pass around any broken down freights.
greyhoundsOr the railroads could bring more customers within economic drayage range by adding more intermodal terminals.
Yeah, don't hold your breath for that with PSR. Intermodal will be/ is being slashed just like everything else.
UP could open small IM terminals. All the places you name, plus many more, had them at one time. (Yes, a far cry from the modern IM terminal.) But they won't. Unless there is a sea change, they aren't interested in what they consider a short haul. I can tell you the volume of IM that originates in Council Bluffs (The ramp is on the IAIS over in the old RI East Yard. They haul it to/from the UP yard.) to Chicago. Zip, none. nada. The only time you see IM coming out of CB is if a conductor misread his train list and setout the wrong cars.
Don't get me wrong. I'd love to see them grow the business. But PSR isn't about running more efficiently to free up assets to grow the business. It could be, but as practiced it's about cutting costs and saving money.
So, so much to think about here, and I'm short on time.
Ken, I've gone a couple rounds with both you and 466lex over on Frailey's section of this site, so you probably already have a good idea of what we agree and disagree on. Also, Paul Bouzide would probably be a good source for info on UP's internal practices, though I believe he left their employment a couple years ago.
It truly is a shame that this so-called PSR is not very precise or scheduled. If it were then customers like Juniata Man would not be complaining in droves. Short-term hiccups while restructuring could be understood, but with CN, CP and CSX the pains went on for years. Not to mention all the other cuts that happened during EHH's tenure, leaving railroads with worn-out physical plants with rampant deferred maintenance and an inability to properly handle any future increases in business. When CN's oilfield and intermodal traffic surged in Western Canada a couple years ago it caused gridlock out here, which continues today (though not nearly as bad as the winter of 2017-18). That's the true legacy of PSR.
A railroad that implemented EHH's version of PSR wouldn't be able to keep all that new business hauling pork, beef, cereal and eggs, even if they had bothered to go out and get it in the first place.
So far it seems like UP's 'PSR-lite' is not causing nearly as many problems as the full EHH dose. Let's hope it stays that way.
jeffhergertUltimately, the class ones (for now) may have the goal of having nothing but intermodal trains. PSR isn't about getting to that goal, rather how to handle the remaining car load business until it can be converted or eliminated. If they ever reach that goal, about the only customers they'll be serving are those located near a major metropolitan area where most of their IM terminals are. I think rail customers outside of whatever is a reasonable drey range will end up sending their shipments entirely by highway.
Or the railroads could bring more customers within economic drayage range by adding more intermodal terminals.
Let's go back to my favorite place, Iowa. Iowa does generate a whole lot of truck freight. It's kind of the breakfast originator for America. Pork, cereal, eggs. And there's export. Very little of this, if any, moves by rail. Even though it's moving long distances to coastal population centers.
And, just how busy is the UP main line between Chicago and Council Bluffs these days? They could consider putting low cost intermodal terminals in Sioux City (Beef, pork and eggs), Marshalltown (Pork), and Cedar Rapids (Cereal, with pork from Waterloo). That would bring these production facilities within economical drayage distance. They've already got an IM facility in Council Bluffs.
So what's the hold up? Well, railroad cost analysis is a can of worms. In a time gone by I went a few rounds with a guy calling himself "466lex" over on Fred Frailey's blog. He was a former financial guy with, I guess, the BN. He insisted on applying average costs to any analysis. This will give you the wrong answer every time. It seems to be a legacy from the ICC which insisted on doing it that way.
What counts are the marginal costs, not the average costs. Marginal costs are what will be directly incurred by adding the service, nothing more. If the railroad can get more added revenue than the added marginal costs, it will be money ahead by doing so.
I don't see the UP as being at this point, yet. They seem to be still using average costs. Again, if a company uses average costs in analysis they'll get the wrong answer every time.
charlie hebdo Some are speaking of 'activist investors' as though they were one and the same with 'vulture' capitalists. They are not, in my opinion. According to the Investopedia, an activist investor is an individual or group that purchases large numbers of a public company's shares and/or tries to obtain seats on the company's board to effect a significant change within the company. On the other hand, a vulture capitalist is a type of venture capitalist who looks for opportunities to make money by buying poor or distressed firms. “Distressed” refers to companies or property in trouble, mismanaged, dying and heading toward bankruptcy. The “vulture” fund believes they see some “meat on the bone” and may get involved when all others have passed. They will either try to turn the asset around or liquidate it before it goes into the inevitable bankruptcy process.
Some are speaking of 'activist investors' as though they were one and the same with 'vulture' capitalists. They are not, in my opinion.
According to the Investopedia, an activist investor is an individual or group that purchases large numbers of a public company's shares and/or tries to obtain seats on the company's board to effect a significant change within the company. On the other hand, a vulture capitalist is a type of venture capitalist who looks for opportunities to make money by buying poor or distressed firms. “Distressed” refers to companies or property in trouble, mismanaged, dying and heading toward bankruptcy. The “vulture” fund believes they see some “meat on the bone” and may get involved when all others have passed. They will either try to turn the asset around or liquidate it before it goes into the inevitable bankruptcy process.
Far worse than the activist investor who holds management to account are the droves of passive investors who don't vote.. don't get involved .. and just let'er ride. These passive investors often don't have a clue about what they own even (i.e. CSX is a cereal) , and they allow poor managements to thrive and prosper until its too late.
These days the biggest culprits and enablers of mediocrity are not the activist investors but rather the index funds that have proliferated over the last couple of decades. Index funds are by their very nature passive.. they track the market or a portion of it, and they aren't managed or directed to any meaningful extent. They're akin to having an owner of a business who doesn't care.. doesn't even come in to the office.. And if the business goes south.. oh well.. he's got other businesses anyway.
This is not to say that all activist investors are good.. many are too focussed on the short term without any regard for how things turn out 10 or 20 years down the road. Ideally a business should have owners (investors) who have 10 to 30 year time horizons.. but those are generally family own businesses and not publicly traded companies where shareholders really have no skin in the game.. i.e. can sell out at any time.
Actually, PSR isn't about train load customers. It's about running as few trains as possible. They want to run a balanced system, the same number of trains east/west or north/south every day. Unit trains can be unpredictable and throw off the network. It might require holding onto extra equipment and manpower in anticipation of when the trains will run.
They actually want to convert some unit trains to the manifest network. One example of this goal was using an imaginary customer that loads 10 cars a day, but waits 10 days until they accumulate 100 cars and then the train is run. Now they would rather pick up those 10 cars every day and move it in the regular manifest network. It's funny how over the years they wanted unit trains by offering multi-car discount rates and just making it hard to obtain cars for those that didn't or couldn't use the railroad's targeted unit train size. Now it seems they want to undo that.
What they still don't want, of course, is the small volume/once or twice a week customer. I think about some of the opprotunities they've turned down involving 10 to 30 car block business that could've been handled in the manifest network over the last few years. I wonder now if they would jump at it.
greyhounds Who, The Blazes, gets 1,000 tank cars of cooking oil in a year?
It might be less - I believe they repackage it.
The actual industry is served by a short line that provides "last mile" service for a number of small customers, including steel that is often a "high/wide" load. CSX picks up/drops the aggregated group of cars, but it's still loose car.
The short line also still serves a feed mill that gets one car at a time, about once a week. Must still be economical for the mill to get carload lots vs trucks.
tree68How many containers would it take to replace 10 full sized tankers of cooking oil? Delivered twice a week? Or two flat cars of steel shapes, too big for the highway?
Well, I did say that there was a niche for loose car railroading. When you're in to large volume bulk liquids or oversize loads, you're in the niche. Who, The Blazes, gets 1,000 tank cars of cooking oil in a year?
But that isn't most freight. After all, most freight now moves by truck. Loose carload just isn't, and can't be, competitive.
A good example is the Quaker cereal factory in Cedar Rapids, IA. They claim it's the largest cereal factory in the world. It pumps out 100 trucks of cereal per working day. And not one ounce of that cereal moves out by rail.
Be concerned about things like that. Not the niche movements.
greyhounds BaltACD If you are serving ALL customers large and SMALL you are not running PSR because you still have loose car railroading. Loose car railroading requires car for car switching to service the SMALL customer. If you have small customers you cannot have PSR. What I really like about this thread is that I'm learning. My mom taught school for 43 years and I guess she taught me to learn to learn. Nobody has changed my mind, but I get to better understand people who differ with me. I kind of like that. I'm going to speak up on this one. Sorry Balt, but you're wrong. Serving ALL customers, great and small, does not require loose car railroading. While there is a niche for loose car business, it's generally a very inefficient system. Somebody will have to pay for this inefficiency. There just ain't no free lunch. The government can't try to force the investors to pay, because then they won't invest. If the customers would pay there would be no problem, but they won't. Who's left? Put the small shippers in containers and do the pick up and delivery by highway. There will be a need for more intermodal terminals, and trains. But it's usually far less costly to do small shipper PU&D by truck with the line haul by rail. And lower cost logistics are good for all of us.
BaltACD If you are serving ALL customers large and SMALL you are not running PSR because you still have loose car railroading. Loose car railroading requires car for car switching to service the SMALL customer. If you have small customers you cannot have PSR.
What I really like about this thread is that I'm learning. My mom taught school for 43 years and I guess she taught me to learn to learn. Nobody has changed my mind, but I get to better understand people who differ with me. I kind of like that.
I'm going to speak up on this one. Sorry Balt, but you're wrong.
Serving ALL customers, great and small, does not require loose car railroading. While there is a niche for loose car business, it's generally a very inefficient system. Somebody will have to pay for this inefficiency. There just ain't no free lunch. The government can't try to force the investors to pay, because then they won't invest. If the customers would pay there would be no problem, but they won't. Who's left?
Put the small shippers in containers and do the pick up and delivery by highway. There will be a need for more intermodal terminals, and trains. But it's usually far less costly to do small shipper PU&D by truck with the line haul by rail. And lower cost logistics are good for all of us.
Not all small customers can be SERVED by truck sized shipments. Of course once you stop serving them they will get truck shipments from other carriers since you pissed them off in the first place.
The small railroad served customers of the 21 Century are railroad customers for a reason. The reason being that for most of the last two decades the carriers have tried to substitute 'intermodal' service for their needs and it has alread been found wanting for a variety of reasons that are germain to the individual customers.
PSR does not want car load customers - train load yes, car load no. Ever since Staggers the Class 1's have been actively discouraging car load customers. They are almost gone now, a few more years and they will be gone.
greyhoundsPut the small shippers in containers and do the pick up and delivery by highway.
How many containers would it take to replace 10 full sized tankers of cooking oil? Delivered twice a week? Or two flat cars of steel shapes, too big for the highway?
BaltACDIf you are serving ALL customers large and SMALL you are not running PSR because you still have loose car railroading. Loose car railroading requires car for car switching to service the SMALL customer. If you have small customers you cannot have PSR.
caldreamerThe way to run PSR is to serve ALL of your customes, large and small. Do not abandon customers because they do not generate a lot of money for the railroad and are on a line that has only a few customers. You can run fewer, but longer trains and plan shipments so that not all trains server all yards enroute..
If you are serving ALL customers large and SMALL you are not running PSR because you still have loose car railroading. Loose car railroading requires car for car switching to service the SMALL customer. If you have small customers you cannot have PSR.
The way to run PSR is to serve ALL of your customes, large and small. Do not abandon customers because they do not generate a lot of money for the railroad and are on a line that has only a few customers. You can run fewer, but longer trains and plan shipments so that not all trains server all yards enroute..
Juniata Man Now; if we are going to start singing the praises of activist investors - I will part ways with you. Typically these folks are in it for the short term to rake as much cash as possible then skitter back under the rocks to wait for another victim to drift by. I‘ll repeat something I said in my earlier post; if the railroad uses the lower cost structure achieved with PSR to invest in the railroad and grow the business; PSR can be a good thing. Too often though; the railroad uses the extra cash flow along with taking on additional debt to buy back shares and drive the stock price up so their activist investors can cash out. I certainly do not see that as a positive for the other stakeholders with a longer term interest in the company - the customers, employees and the communities served.
Now; if we are going to start singing the praises of activist investors - I will part ways with you. Typically these folks are in it for the short term to rake as much cash as possible then skitter back under the rocks to wait for another victim to drift by.
I‘ll repeat something I said in my earlier post; if the railroad uses the lower cost structure achieved with PSR to invest in the railroad and grow the business; PSR can be a good thing.
Too often though; the railroad uses the extra cash flow along with taking on additional debt to buy back shares and drive the stock price up so their activist investors can cash out.
I certainly do not see that as a positive for the other stakeholders with a longer term interest in the company - the customers, employees and the communities served.
+1.
There are many employees who are embracing PSR - Pickup, Setout, Recrew. Until they get a better feel, it seems like all the working trains hit some of the yards at the same time. Often, this causes trains to sit and wait their turn for access. Ultimately, some hog law before reaching the next crew change point causing a dog catch crew to be called.
Although they still have a ways to go, I do think they are getting better. At first every manifest, and some stacker (so much for being 70mph) and hopper trains, were working almost every yard. This really choked things up. While more trains are working more places, they seem to have planned out work events a little better. Not every train works every yard. Things still get plugged up, but maybe not as bad as at first.
greyhounds I'll ask if you prefer "Passive Investors?"
Actually, yes. Those are the folks who want to use their investment twenty or more years down the road for their retirement. They want to see the company grow and improve in the long term. That means putting part of the profits into that growth and improvement, not harvesting the profits out like some sort of crop.
greyhoundsActivist investors are rarely just trying to loot a company. They see an opportunity to make it a better company. This increases its value and this increase in value is what puts money in their pockets. All in all, activist investors are good for the economy and the people.
All in all, activist investors are good for the economy and the people.
Activist Investors all tend to work in the short term - as such they tend to loot the treasury and lost interest in a company and then move on to the next 'mark'. The 'activist investor' when they have control of a company, tend not to permit 'long term' capital investment projects to happen as that would decrease the amount of money available to the 'activist investor'. They may not want to 'loot' a company but they do want to insure that they get the most first.
greyhoundsAll in all, activist investors are good for the economy and the people.
Maybe economy, but people? I don't know. Trains don't operate in a vacuum. They operate among the public. Should they be allowed to blcok US-main street with 20,000 foot trains because they don't fit anywhere? Sure hope to hell your ambulance isn't stuck on the other side....
Personally, I think there needs to be a balance between profits and regulation. Too much of either isn't good, but lack of either can be just as harmful.
tree68The problem with PSR today is that the process has been tainted by the "activist investors," eager to wring a buck out of the railroads for their own gain.
Well, I defended PSR without getting flamed. I was surprised by that.
So now I'll defend "Activist Investors". I'll ask if you prefer "Passive Investors?" The goal is to get the greatest output while using the fewest inputs. (Fuel, labor, capital, etc.) Doing that will maximized the benefits the railroad provides to the overall population.
Management just doesn't always do that. They get comfortable, settle in, go on "Retreats" to places like Jackson Hole, WY, etc. Don't make waves, leave well enough alone. They should always be constructively disatisfied. Looking for better, more efficient ways to get things done. But that's hard work and it involves personal risk. If someone's initiative just doesn't work out he/she runs the risk of getting fired. Better to just go along with the routine.
And that, over time, will kill the company. It will get displaced by more agressive firms.
Activist investors act when they see an underperforming company just rolling along with a settled routine. They come in a light a fire under management. Changes start getting made. Some of these changes are mistakes, but as long as adjustments are made things will get better over time.
Activist investors are rarely just trying to loot a company. They see an opportunity to make it a better company. This increases its value and this increase in value is what puts money in their pockets.
I spent 40 years as a rail shipper in minerals and ores; fertilizer and chemicals. I experienced the good and the bad of PSR implantation on CN, CP and CSX and the first steps in that direction by NS and UP.
In my opinion; CN’s was our least painful implementation which I attribute to the close cooperation of CN’s marketing and sales folks along with their network operations people. Rather than simply having changes shoved down our throat; CN’s folks engaged with us to develop a service plan that actually resulted in a measurable improvement in our service despite a reduced frequency of local service.
The most painful implemendation award goes to CSX for the absolute cluster EHH visited on that railroad’s customers, employees and communities served. Our service levels in 2019 are no better than in pre-PSR 2016 despite the pain and additional costs we have experienced.
In my opinion; if a railroad takes the lower cost structure obtained from PSR and uses that to grow their business in the manner CN has under JJ Ruest; then the concept can be a good one. If PSR is implemented solely to improve shareholder value by stripping assets, shedding employees and picking the pockets of your customer base - then it shifts to being a flawed process that threatens the long term viability of the railroad implementing it.
greyhoundsI am convinced that the concepts of PSR are sound and will be a net benefit to the economic well being of the people of North America. But it's change. And change upsets some folks. There are going to be some mistakes in implementation, there always are. But we learn and progress by trial and error. So there are going to be some mistakes.
I tend to agree - the fundamental concepts are sound, and in many cases, are concepts that have been around for years, even if they were not well executed.
The problem with PSR today is that the process has been tainted by the "activist investors," eager to wring a buck out of the railroads for their own gain.
This is why you're seeing slow implementation of PSR concepts by those who haven't been subjected to the hedge fund impetus.
And the trial and error factor is why you're seeing railroads that have already implemented PSR backing out of the parts the aren't working for them.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.