Awhile back Warren Buffet made mention BNSF would look at it's peers that are using the PSR model, and adopt it where it makes sense. Well it looks as if not only have they adopted PSR. In the process created their own version of it. Here's a clip from Youtube. I must say I'm impressed at 15,000' trains running at 60-65 MPH!
BNSF has been running "mega empty" coal trains for more than a year now. They're two empty coal trains coupled together, and have caused all the problems one would expect being longer than the railroad was designed to handle.
NorthWest - specifics please
SD60MAC9500I must say I'm impressed at 15,000' trains running at 60-65 MPH!
Ditto for sure!
Two questions:
As each car of the first train passes there is a high-pitched sound. What is the cause of it?
In the second train, why are there so many cars single stacked?
Thanks!
diningcarNorthWest - specifics please
I've seen this in two places; Colorado and Washington.
Here's one on the Front Range Sub (not my video):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLXrN6aRDTY
I'm not familiar enough with the Colorado operations to comment on the specifics, but in Washington, the mega empties are generally empty coal trains from Roberts Bank that are combined in the Seattle area to run east over Stampede (more often) or Stevens Pass back to Wyoming. I'm not sure if they are split before that point or not, but they run at least through Hauser, ID. Since they are longer than most sidings, there are limits to where they can meet long trains headed west, but the congestion seems to have been managed so far (granted, traffic levels are down).
NorthWest diningcar NorthWest - specifics please I've seen this in two places; Colorado and Washington. Here's one on the Front Range Sub (not my video): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLXrN6aRDTY I'm not familiar enough with the Colorado operations to comment on the specifics, but in Washington, the mega empties are generally empty coal trains from Roberts Bank that are combined in the Seattle area to run east over Stampede (more often) or Stevens Pass back to Wyoming. I'm not sure if they are split before that point or not, but they run at least through Hauser, ID. Since they are longer than most sidings, there are limits to where they can meet long trains headed west, but the congestion seems to have been managed so far (granted, traffic levels are down).
diningcar NorthWest - specifics please
Bruce Kelly would know. Maybe he’ll chime in with specifics.
AnthonyVAs each car of the first train passes there is a high-pitched sound. What is the cause of it?
Just the wheels singing on the rails.
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...
I believe this has been asked before. When these extra long train operate can the mid train loco being controlled pass commands further back ? So how many separate loco consists are being controlled this way if it is being done ? I would expect that if not now it will become available in the future. Then Australia has those monster long coal train up to 5 miles ?w
You can have up to 4 remote consists, plus the lead consist. It's been done a few times. Our instructions require the remote consists be placed no more than 6000 ft apart.
Back in March they ran a manifest in that matter. I forget how many engines each consist had. One or two were single engines, the other two and I think the lead might have had 3. It broke in two, or three pieces. As I recall, I was with my boss when he heard about it, the first 1/4 of the train was going down into a sag, the second 1/4 was coming out of a sag, the third 1/4 was going into the sag the second part was coming out of and the rear 1/4 was still on 'level' track. Since the engineer didn't have the fence up (operating some of the remote consists independent of the lead consist) they said it was 'human' error.
The real human error is thinking that you can slop together the different types of cars that go into most manifest freights, barely taking into account where loads, empties and long cushioned drawbar cars are placed, and thinking they are going to be OK. (Nevermind about equipment that may have components that are stressed and getting ready to fail.) They may meet the system special instructions for train placement, but that doesn't necessarily mean they won't have problems. Distributed power is not always the panacea that it's made out to be.
Jeff
Jeff: Thanks for the analysis. It appears that train routes with multiple sags cannot really operate with with loads of all types and empties. Need more thought on these problems. With PSR this might cause the RRs to even try to eliminate more loose car services.
AnthonyV In the second train, why are there so many cars single stacked?
More than likely the container weight has maxed out the wells rated weight capcity only allowing single stack.
tree68 AnthonyV As each car of the first train passes there is a high-pitched sound. What is the cause of it? Just the wheels singing on the rails.
AnthonyV As each car of the first train passes there is a high-pitched sound. What is the cause of it?
Sounds like the rail grinder has been through recently.
But why just the first train?
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
SD60MAC9500Sounds like the rail grinder has been through recently.
I would agree.
Paul of Covington But why just the first train?
I can hear it on the second train - but there's some other noise (points, rail joints) that somewhat overwhelm it.
Thanks NW.
The poster that started this thread was showing trains on the BNSF southern transcon which is double track and triple or four tracks in places; and with 50 mph crossovers. Quite a site to view if you may be traveling along I-40 or old hwy 66 at Amboy as shown.
tree68 Paul of Covington But why just the first train? I can hear it on the second train - but there's some other noise (points, rail joints) that somewhat overwhelm it.
You're right. I rewatched it and paid better attention. I heard it from the third train as well.
I know labor isn't cheap, but it seems counterintuitive to me that gumming up the railroad with these land barges saves money because you only need the services of two humans vs. four or six.
jeffhergert Back in March they ran a manifest in that matter. I forget how many engines each consist had. One or two were single engines, the other two and I think the lead might have had 3. It broke in two, or three pieces. As I recall, I was with my boss when he heard about it, the first 1/4 of the train was going down into a sag, the second 1/4 was coming out of a sag, the third 1/4 was going into the sag the second part was coming out of and the rear 1/4 was still on 'level' track. Since the engineer didn't have the fence up (operating some of the remote consists independent of the lead consist) they said it was 'human' error.
Wait, what???? So the railroad encourages the engineers to let the software run the train, but they blame the engineer when he/she does just that by leaving the fence down? How does your head not explode from that BS?
Double-length trains on BNSF's Northern Corridor have been eastbound empty oil, coal, and grain trains. Sometimes two of the same type coupled together, sometimes a mix of oil/grain, grain/coal, what have you. There have also been a small number of double-length loaded manifests, intermodals, empty intermodal/repositioning trains, and combinations thereof, running either direction. Standard set-up for the eastbound double empties has been 2 or 3 units on the front, 2 in the middle, 1 on the rear.
As mentioned above, the double empties on the Northern Corridor have been coming east primarily via Stampede Pass and occasionally via Stevens Pass. The Stampede route has the advantage of being a mostly one-way, eastbound railroad these days between Auburn and Pasco, WA. Once those trains reach Pasco, the rest of their run to Spokane, WA, and eventually Hauser, ID, does offer a number of long sidings or stretches of double main where they can pass opposing traffic (see caveats in next paragraph below). The Stevens Pass route has only one place where these trains can fit between switches and that's the double track between Lamona and Bluestem, WA.
Two caveats to what I just said are: 1) These trains can obviously meet an opposing train at a conventional-length siding when the opposing train is able to fit between switches, and 2) Stopping a double-length train anywhere, even if it fits between switches, must also take into account any crossings it will block.
So far, most of the double empties have been staying intact east beyond Hauser. Those which get refueled at Hauser can not have their head-end power fueled there because doing so would leave the rear of their train hanging out past West Hauser on Main 2, blocking McGuire Road.
https://goo.gl/maps/CEnH82RNziLMa7Da9
Instead, the inbound road crew stops on the Hauser fuel pad, and a K crew takes over and pulls the train east to spot the mid-train power for fueling. After that, they pull the train east again to spot the rear DPU for fueling. BNSF saw the future coming when it diverted Greensferry Road away from its grade crossing at East Hauser and re-routed it under a new rail bridge to the east some 20 years ago. More recently, BNSF added crossovers at East Hauser and extended the fuel pad lead in such a way that double-length eastbounds can pull ahead until their rear DPU is on the pad but still leave tracks clear for other trains to enter or leave the fuel pad or yard.
Because MRL has few places where double-length trains can fit between siding switches, it's not uncommong for a double empty to wait at Hauser or somewhere on BNSF's Funnel until the last westbound in an MRL fleet has come off MRL at Sandpoint. It's my understanding that the head-end units on eastbound double-length trains can get serviced at Missoula.
I'm not sure if these double-length trains represent BNSF adopting some form of PSR, at least not in the manner of UP. More like BNSF implementing a dramatic cost-cutting/efficiency practice. Results in fewer crew starts, which unfortunately means fewer crew members getting the call to earn a day's pay. Which also translates to one crew doing what's normally the work of two. And trains of that length do require some careful planning and execution to get across the route without plugging up the works.
In contrast, UP's form of PSR has included system-wide closures of key facilities that used to help maintain the flow of trains regardless of length. After the hump yard at Hinkle, OR, was closed, crews handling UP manifests to and from the Canadian border have been forced to shuffle their trains into three or four tracks at the tiny ex-MILW yard in Spokane and sort cars routed to/from the Portland area, CA, southern ID and beyond, etc. When UP's METSK comes down from Eastport, ID, it must pull west onto BNSF track between Napa Street and Sunset Jct in Spokane, then reverse direction to get into the UP Yard. That maneuver blocks surface streets as well as BNSF's double-main corridor for quite a while. That, plus the delay to inbound locals that can't enter the yard when a single manifest occupies just about every yard track, might translate to less "yard dwell" time in UP's quarterly and annual report, but it typically creates a greater amount of un-charted dwell time (aka delay) for carload business out on the road. PSR?
Psychot jeffhergert Back in March they ran a manifest in that matter. I forget how many engines each consist had. One or two were single engines, the other two and I think the lead might have had 3. It broke in two, or three pieces. As I recall, I was with my boss when he heard about it, the first 1/4 of the train was going down into a sag, the second 1/4 was coming out of a sag, the third 1/4 was going into the sag the second part was coming out of and the rear 1/4 was still on 'level' track. Since the engineer didn't have the fence up (operating some of the remote consists independent of the lead consist) they said it was 'human' error. Wait, what???? So the railroad encourages the engineers to let the software run the train, but they blame the engineer when he/she does just that by leaving the fence down? How does your head not explode from that BS?
Jeff, I'm surprised he wasn't letting Trip Op or Leader run it. Funny how they never seem to get statements......
No matter what you were doing, when an incident happens it is always the crew's fault. I'd say you get used to it after a while, but you don't.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
SD70Dude I don't remember if it had one of the energy management systems or if the EMS or it had disengaged itself before hand. I read a recrew report where the EMS had disengaged itself and the train got a knuckle within a mile. Human error they said. Since the EMS automatically puts the fence up with DP units, but doesn't take it down when disengaged, I bet the engineer didn't have time to get the DP unit(s) in the proper throttle setting when the knuckle happened. If EMS breaks a train, and it's confirmed by the download, it's deemed a mechanical failure. Jeff Psychot jeffhergert Back in March they ran a manifest in that matter. I forget how many engines each consist had. One or two were single engines, the other two and I think the lead might have had 3. It broke in two, or three pieces. As I recall, I was with my boss when he heard about it, the first 1/4 of the train was going down into a sag, the second 1/4 was coming out of a sag, the third 1/4 was going into the sag the second part was coming out of and the rear 1/4 was still on 'level' track. Since the engineer didn't have the fence up (operating some of the remote consists independent of the lead consist) they said it was 'human' error. Wait, what???? So the railroad encourages the engineers to let the software run the train, but they blame the engineer when he/she does just that by leaving the fence down? How does your head not explode from that BS? Jeff, I'm surprised he wasn't letting Trip Op or Leader run it. Funny how they never seem to get statements...... No matter what you were doing, when an incident happens it is always the crew's fault. I'd say you get used to it after a while, but you don't.
I don't remember if it had one of the energy management systems or if the EMS or it had disengaged itself before hand.
I read a recrew report where the EMS had disengaged itself and the train got a knuckle within a mile. Human error they said. Since the EMS automatically puts the fence up with DP units, but doesn't take it down when disengaged, I bet the engineer didn't have time to get the DP unit(s) in the proper throttle setting when the knuckle happened. If EMS breaks a train, and it's confirmed by the download, it's deemed a mechanical failure.
Not to ask for information that might lead to trouble for any poster, but I would be relieved to know that these "Leader" or other software-induced knuckle problems are not on BNSF itself, which seems like too much a heads-up operation to force engineers into such situations.
I don't call the pure HH brand of railroading PSR. Every well-run freight railroad is PSR. The pure HH brand of railroading should be called Asset-Utilization Railroading. I call the BNSF brand of railroading Customer Responsive Railroading. You can still run long trains, and a route with double and more track and high-speed crossovers and still be customer-responsive and run long trains at high speed with no gumming up. Especially if their engineers are encouraged to use their experience and knowledge to maximize safety.
SD70Dude Psychot jeffhergert Back in March they ran a manifest in that matter. I forget how many engines each consist had. One or two were single engines, the other two and I think the lead might have had 3. It broke in two, or three pieces. As I recall, I was with my boss when he heard about it, the first 1/4 of the train was going down into a sag, the second 1/4 was coming out of a sag, the third 1/4 was going into the sag the second part was coming out of and the rear 1/4 was still on 'level' track. Since the engineer didn't have the fence up (operating some of the remote consists independent of the lead consist) they said it was 'human' error. Wait, what???? So the railroad encourages the engineers to let the software run the train, but they blame the engineer when he/she does just that by leaving the fence down? How does your head not explode from that BS? Jeff, I'm surprised he wasn't letting Trip Op or Leader run it. Funny how they never seem to get statements...... No matter what you were doing, when an incident happens it is always the crew's fault. I'd say you get used to it after a while, but you don't.
Sorry for the confusing question. When I wrote it, I had it in my head that the fence was associated with the EMS--but of course it isn't. My bad.
jeffhergertAs I recall, I was with my boss when he heard about it, the first 1/4 of the train was going down into a sag, the second 1/4 was coming out of a sag, the third 1/4 was going into the sag the second part was coming out of and the rear 1/4 was still on 'level' track.
I'd say the problem was the RR still has "laid on the dirt" 19th century right of way. Way past time to invest some of that PSR generated cash in the actual right of way.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Id say the problem was the RR still has "laid on the dirt" 19th century right of way. Way past time to invest some of that PSR generated cash in the actual right of way.
Been there - done that. In 1959-1960 Santa Fe built a new 44 mile doubletrack main line through the mountains between Williams and Crookton, AZ that replaced 1880's construction. The new line was 1% max grade and 1 degree max curves. There were rock cuts two mile long 115 feet deep and fills of 80+ feet. Further the 31 mile decending grade westward grade from Williams Jct was continous and then encountered an .88% accending grade with a 10000 foot vertical curve to minimize slack action. This is now a part of the BNSF southern transcon.
oltmanndWay past time to invest some of that PSR generated cash in the actual right of way.
That's not how PSR works. Money only gets invested in investors' pockets.
To hell with the physical plant.
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
And the above, as far as I know, is not BNSF policy. Buffet seems interested in the long-term, not the immediate profit. So, as far as I know, BNSF still respects the brains of experienced engineers and doesn't require them to use automation when it messes up train handling. And runs long trains at high speed when the physical plant is appropriate for such operations.
Anybody want to argue with this?
I think Buffett et al. (note sp.) certainly have a better idea of 'value investing' than the Hilals of this world seem to. On the other hand there is just as much of a problem if your selected 'professional expert management' prioritizes the wrong operations paradigms... a common problem with 'bold new precision-scheduled' theories.
Take this wonderful new innovation, doubtless soon to be disparaged by the ttrraaffiiccs among us:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=RDCMUCsNn5NQp9uuirDdIsrvnjjw&v=oe-cZq3yPAo&feature=emb_rel_end
I have some trouble with the terminal logistics displayed here. Requiring a driver to back into a tight well seems silly initially, and only marginally less silly for autonomous articulated vehicles. Then a driver has to move to a 'safe' location while the magic dingus binds onto the container and removes it. Nothing is said about how long it will take for a 'replacement' load.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=RDCMUCsNn5NQp9uuirDdIsrvnjjw&v=oe-cZq3yPAo&feature=emb_rel_end the whole idea of container-handling at right angles to the main, and the amount of stepping and fetching going on with the grooming, seems poorly conceived to me. I have yet to see one of these multiple-track gantry setups in action, but they would seem to be worth their considerable capital cost... if they clear the autostrads when moving light.
I'm sure considerable thought has gone into choosing this layout for a terminal, and that considerations other than speed and convenience of intermodal transfer apply. But it seems to me that the wonders of autonomous operation are being partly lost by the way the process flow has been structured. That does not mean BNSF executive management isn't aware of its chosen priorities, but it does indicate to me that some things that ought to be priorities are not being carefully enough assessed...
daveklepper And the above, as far as I know, is not BNSF policy. Buffet seems interested in the long-term, not the immediate profit. So, as far as I know, BNSF still respects the brains of experienced engineers and doesn't require them to use automation when it messes up train handling. And runs long trains at high speed when the physical plant is appropriate for such operations. Anybody want to argue with this?
I will. BNSF thinks as much of their employees as any other class one railroad. They have the EMS and I believe are required to use it as much as possible. Just like everyone else. Most of our EMS is now integrated into PTC. Since BNSF was ahead on PTC I would guess they have that, too.
There's nothing wrong with running your railroad as effeciently as possible. Parts of PSR may do that and I'm sure it's those parts BNSF is looking at. PSR as practiced on other roads seems to be more about cost cutting. Once you've freed up assests (human, mechanical or infrastructure) you can either liquidate those assests and pass the money to investors or you can look for some new business. Wall Street, which drives everyone else, wants to see that money go to them.
oltmannd jeffhergert As I recall, I was with my boss when he heard about it, the first 1/4 of the train was going down into a sag, the second 1/4 was coming out of a sag, the third 1/4 was going into the sag the second part was coming out of and the rear 1/4 was still on 'level' track. I'd say the problem was the RR still has "laid on the dirt" 19th century right of way. Way past time to invest some of that PSR generated cash in the actual right of way.
jeffhergert As I recall, I was with my boss when he heard about it, the first 1/4 of the train was going down into a sag, the second 1/4 was coming out of a sag, the third 1/4 was going into the sag the second part was coming out of and the rear 1/4 was still on 'level' track.
Many of our 'trouble spots' on the east/west main are on trackage that replaced the 19th century right of way.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.