Fair use quote from Trains newswire article:
"OMAHA, Neb. – Union Pacific will start metering traffic on Monday if shippers don’t voluntarily reduce their active freight-car inventories on the railroad, which is bogging down due to a combination of crew and locomotive shortages."
So if I run, say, a chemical manufacturing plant that ships by rail, and I can't send a loaded car into the network, what exactly am I supposed to do with that car?
Or am I misunderstanding the meaning of the term "metering"?
https://www.trains.com/trn/news-reviews/news-wire/union-pacific-to-begin-metering-traffic-if-shippers-dont-reduce-car-inventory/
It is a plan that has worked in the past. The BRC was limiting traffic into Clearing Yard for the last couple of months.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-12/union-pacific-will-limit-traffic-to-clear-clogged-rail-lines
An "expensive model collector"
I think it may also be cars on hand at an individual facility. Even if the trackage is owned by the customer.
Within the last year or two, a manager drove us from our on duty point to where the train was. Normally they use a contract van company, Rail Crew Express in my area, but there were no drivers available. While being taxied, the manager had his phone on to listen in on the morning meeting. One topic was cars on line. They were including cars at customer's facilities that hadn't been released for movement, loaded or empty, as on-line.
The person leading the meeting admonished a few about this problem. I guess the managers responsible for those areas are supposed to go load/unload the cars themselves. Or at least get on those customers about the delay.
Actually, I think the railroad, or at least some in the company, would be happy for some of those customers to go away. They hate the expense of having to switch those customers out, even though they make more money off them.
Jeff
jeffhergertI think it may also be cars on hand at an individual facility. Even if the trackage is owned by the customer. Within the last year or two, a manager drove us from our on duty point to where the train was. Normally they use a contract van company, Rail Crew Express in my area, but there were no drivers available. While being taxied, the manager had his phone on to listen in on the morning meeting. One topic was cars on line. They were including cars at customer's facilities that hadn't been released for movement, loaded or empty, as on-line. The person leading the meeting admonished a few about this problem. I guess the managers responsible for those areas are supposed to go load/unload the cars themselves. Or at least get on those customers about the delay. Actually, I think the railroad, or at least some in the company, would be happy for some of those customers to go away. They hate the expense of having to switch those customers out, even though they make more money off them. Jeff
Considering the 'supply chain' issues that have existed for the past year plus, I suspect some industries, in order to 'protect themselves' have ordered excess 'raw materials' for their businesses from a variety of suppliers. Now for any number of reasons multiple suppliers are now supplying the orders they had been having troubles supplying 'back when' and are inundating the industry.
Disrupted supply chains are both feast and famine to those who rely upon them. One minute they are out of necessary material and the next they have more material than they have anyplace to store it.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Or are they asking shippers to park their excess cars somewhere out of the way on their property or on an accomodating shortline? Or to thin their herds via the scrapyard?
Rick
rixflix aka Captain Video. Blessed be Jean Shepherd and all His works!!! Hooray for 1939, the all time movie year!!! I took that ride on the Reading but my Baby caught the Katy and left me a mule to ride.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Is the metering centered upon railroad or private owner cars?
Methins the demurrage wars are about to heat-up. Plenty of industry out there still only has one or two car capacities in a location.
(somehow this will creep into the STB hearings (EP-770) as the chronic/clueless whiners of the shipper world [the ones who NEVER learn] try to force their way into the conversation followed closely by the sumthin-fer-nuttin crowd. )
Not seeing much on the AAR embargo side on the capacity issue.
Our 7 day car loadings seem to be holding pretty steady at the highest levels I've seen for the last 10 years or so. It's still about 20,000 below what used to be normal. Much of that loss is probably the loss of coal.
To say we can't handle our current numbers says a lot. Thank you, PSR.
jeffhergertOur 7 day car loadings seem to be holding pretty steady at the highest levels I've seen for the last 10 years or so. It's still about 20,000 below what used to be normal. Much of that loss is probably the loss of coal. To say we can't handle our current numbers says a lot. Thank you, PSR. Jeff
But look at all that 'shareholder value' that PSR brought about.
Murphy SidingIt sounds like UP is essentially doing the same thing. Their particular product is freight capacity and they’re trying to keep things moving.
But they are the ones that killed their freight capacity.
It's like UPS torching half their trucks and saying "oh no, we can't deliver packages! - darn people shipping things!!!"
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
Not just UP is troubled. See this letter from BNSF to the STB.
"Metering" is apparently the same access-control method used on some California freeways, and frankly its use ought to be one of the principal tenets of actual "precision scheduled" railroading. You schedule pickups when most convenient, with adjustment if a customer needs quicker switching. Of course, any car not actually switched yet isn't 'online' in a proper sense, and while its 'pre-scheduling' via appropriate management software becomes a consideration in online capacity planning, only an idiot would blindly put all cars on the next train just to keep 'em rolling... which apparently is an attractive model for some of the Hunter Harrison devotees... when there are objective 'capacity handling problems'.
Now, if 'metering' becomes a euphemism for days of delay in picking up shipments or accepting them in interchange... it is no longer a scheduling issue, but a punitive one. I suspect that certain shippers who abuse what UP considers "its" rules will encounter longer metering delays than others... oddly, this is just the opposite of shippers who hold up car release with slow unloading (see the enhanced enforcement of demurrage and car-detention policies -- just the opposite problem from 'too many cars'.
I wonder how much of this is 'rolling inventory storage' or car owners not having to pay to store equipment. Has there been discussion about this in any activity with the STB?
OvermodNot just UP is troubled. See this letter from BNSF to the STB. "Metering" is apparently the same access-control method used on some California freeways, and frankly its use ought to be one of the principal tenets of actual "precision scheduled" railroading. You schedule pickups when most convenient, with adjustment if a customer needs quicker switching. Of course, any car not actually switched yet isn't 'online' in a proper sense, and while its 'pre-scheduling' via appropriate management software becomes a consideration in online capacity planning, only an idiot would blindly put all cars on the next train just to keep 'em rolling... which apparently is an attractive model for some of the Hunter Harrison devotees... when there are objective 'capacity handling problems'. Now, if 'metering' becomes a euphemism for days of delay in picking up shipments or accepting them in interchange... it is no longer a scheduling issue, but a punitive one. I suspect that certain shippers who abuse what UP considers "its" rules will encounter longer metering delays than others... oddly, this is just the opposite of shippers who hold up car release with slow unloading (see the enhanced enforcement of demurrage and car-detention policies -- just the opposite problem from 'too many cars'. I wonder how much of this is 'rolling inventory storage' or car owners not having to pay to store equipment. Has there been discussion about this in any activity with the STB?
To make a educated decision on what UP is doing - we have to know prcisely WHATis being metered.
Is Johnny Jones lumber - that gets one car per switch and three switches a week being metered because there are 10 cars in next weeks projection?
Is George's Grain that can load two 100 car unit grain trains a day being metered to only be allowed to load one train every other day?
In the late 70's and early 80's when the B&O's Export Coal business was operating to the point of railroad gridlock and there were up to 100 vessels waiting at anchorage for their turn to load - the Chessie System implemented a Permit System for both Vessels and Mines. Vessels would be handled FIFO - within the 'schedule' of vessels their cargo needs (tonnage of the various grades of coal) would be communicated to Chessie and Chessie would authorise a 'Permit' for the mines producing the specific grades of coal for that vessel for the tonnage needed for that vessel. By the time the permitted coal was loaded it could be handled to the Export Coal Piers and move into the serving yard in time to be dumped on its scheduled vessel.
During this period of time Chessie was dealing with a serving yard that had approximately 1600 car standing capacity for coal and was dealing with vessels that could load 800 cars in a day. Running the operation was a constant juggling act to have the proper grades of coal on hand at the serving yard for the proper vessel WITHOUT having much if any excess left in the yard once the vessel completed loading. Excess from one vessel would use yard space needed for cargo for subsequent vessels.
More supply chain foul ups:
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/texas-trucker-border-inspections-disrupting-supply-chain-raising-prices-white-2022-04-13/
zugmann Murphy Siding It sounds like UP is essentially doing the same thing. Their particular product is freight capacity and they’re trying to keep things moving. But they are the ones that killed their freight capacity. It's like UPS torching half their trucks and saying "oh no, we can't deliver packages! - darn people shipping things!!!"
Murphy Siding It sounds like UP is essentially doing the same thing. Their particular product is freight capacity and they’re trying to keep things moving.
Murphy Siding zugmann Murphy Siding It sounds like UP is essentially doing the same thing. Their particular product is freight capacity and they’re trying to keep things moving. But they are the ones that killed their freight capacity. It's like UPS torching half their trucks and saying "oh no, we can't deliver packages! - darn people shipping things!!!" Sure, there's that too. I'm not defending them, I'm just saying that's where they're at, and there's lots of other people in essentially the same boat. Some years back, one of our major suppliers shot themselves in both feet at the same time. They had mobile testing agency vans show up at all 4 of their operations and do drugs tests on everybody as part of their zero tolerance program. In one afternoon, they fired one third of their employees. The storm that followed was so bad that even their competitors had to limit deliveries and purchases. It seems they couldn't keep up with the amount of extra business that they suddenly inherited from the other guy. It took them about 2 years to get back on their feet- just in time for covid.
Sure, there's that too. I'm not defending them, I'm just saying that's where they're at, and there's lots of other people in essentially the same boat. Some years back, one of our major suppliers shot themselves in both feet at the same time. They had mobile testing agency vans show up at all 4 of their operations and do drugs tests on everybody as part of their zero tolerance program. In one afternoon, they fired one third of their employees. The storm that followed was so bad that even their competitors had to limit deliveries and purchases. It seems they couldn't keep up with the amount of extra business that they suddenly inherited from the other guy. It took them about 2 years to get back on their feet- just in time for covid.
The law of unitended consequences.
BaltACD Murphy Siding zugmann Murphy Siding It sounds like UP is essentially doing the same thing. Their particular product is freight capacity and they’re trying to keep things moving. But they are the ones that killed their freight capacity. It's like UPS torching half their trucks and saying "oh no, we can't deliver packages! - darn people shipping things!!!" Sure, there's that too. I'm not defending them, I'm just saying that's where they're at, and there's lots of other people in essentially the same boat. Some years back, one of our major suppliers shot themselves in both feet at the same time. They had mobile testing agency vans show up at all 4 of their operations and do drugs tests on everybody as part of their zero tolerance program. In one afternoon, they fired one third of their employees. The storm that followed was so bad that even their competitors had to limit deliveries and purchases. It seems they couldn't keep up with the amount of extra business that they suddenly inherited from the other guy. It took them about 2 years to get back on their feet- just in time for covid. The law of unitended consequences.
That's similar to the UP and BNSF attendence policies. Both have modified them slightly, very slightly, because they were going to lose too many people, too fast.
In UP's case, before they modified their policy, they started bringing people back on "leniency" terms. Reduce the offender's score and give them a second chance. I believe the reasons are two fold.
First, they started losing people too fast. They needed people and the quickest way was to bring some back.
Second, I think they know that many cases that ultimately end up in arbitration would be thrown out and the railroad might be liable for back pay for the time fired. By signing for the leniency, the person just threw away any chance of getting reinstated if they fan afoul of the policy again when it went to arbitration. By signing for the leniency, you are admitting you were willfully guilty. The arbitrator is not going to care about circumstances or that the policy itself is fouled up. You've admitted you were wrong and now you're in trouble for a second time.
I think many would be better served to go through the process and be reinstated. Enough losses, with the resulting back pay, and I think the policies would be lightened up. However, that can take months or years and I can understand wanting to get back to work. Not to mention that before an arbitraitor there are no gaurantees. You could be 100% justified in why you ran afoul, but the arbitraitor could still rule against you.
Every Corporate action generates a reaction - a reaction that may not be what Corproate intended with their action.
One of the hardest thing to do in 1st level Supervision is to write a instruction for your subordinates to follow - that gets the job done the way you want it and can't be corrupted by malicious compliance.
Maybe the longterm solution is shorter and faster trains... four one locomotive/60 car trains instead of one four locomotive 240 car behemoth. Additional labor costs would at least in part be offset by better systemwide fluidity, better overall service to the customer (resulting in better rates), better use of existing plant, yard, and facilities that can more easily accommodate shorter trains.
UlrichAdditional labor costs would at least in part be offset by better systemwide fluidity,
Methinks you'd have to put a dollar value on fluidity (maybe there is one) so you could convince the investors that they'll make more money that way. Otherwise I don't see the investors buying in.
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...
UlrichMaybe the longterm solution is shorter and faster trains... four one locomotive/60 car trains instead of one four locomotive 240 car behemoth. Additional labor costs would at least in part be offset by better systemwide fluidity, better overall service to the customer (resulting in better rates), better use of existing plant, yard, and facilities that can more easily accommodate shorter trains.
If and it is a BIG IF - a carrier has configured its plant to operate the 240 car trains - 60 trains would waste capacity and drive up the employee cost.
The entire aim of PSR has been and continues to be to drive down employee costs.
The reality of today is that the carriers only marginally have enough employees to operate their 240 car trains today - they do not have the crew base to operate the same level of traffic in 60 car trains.
BaltACDThe reality of today is that the carriers only marginally have enough employees to operate their 240 car trains today - they do not have the crew base to operate the same level of traffic in 60 car trains.
If Jeff is correct, they would have enough crews if they could run the trains to their crew change points without going dead on HOS and tying up a dogcatch crew or waiting to block swap at every yard along the line. And it would help crew productivity if the engineer was allowed to use available power to maintian track speed rather than dragging on the minimum HP/ton rules.
Around here, a lot of times there isn't any extra available power. Many trains run with just one engine, or a 1+1 DPU set up.
Electroliner 1935 BaltACD The reality of today is that the carriers only marginally have enough employees to operate their 240 car trains today - they do not have the crew base to operate the same level of traffic in 60 car trains. If Jeff is correct, they would have enough crews if they could run the trains to their crew change points without going dead on HOS and tying up a dogcatch crew or waiting to block swap at every yard along the line. And it would help crew productivity if the engineer was allowed to use available power to maintian track speed rather than dragging on the minimum HP/ton rules.
BaltACD The reality of today is that the carriers only marginally have enough employees to operate their 240 car trains today - they do not have the crew base to operate the same level of traffic in 60 car trains.
Look at each carriers 'dead line' for the power situation.
When CSX imploded following the CR acquisition the problem was having a former CR executive running the operation on the motto of 'fewer bigger trains'; the problem was CSX consisted of 'many smaller yards'. Yards that had dispatched one and two track capacity trains were now required to dispatch four and more track capacity trains. All well and good, however the five track trains arriving their destination yard had to be held out until that yard dispatched it's five track train - with this happening at virtually every terminal on the railroad things ground to a grinding halt - systemwide. The removal of that CR individual from his position brought about a operating plan that was geared toward the realities of the terminals it was to operate upon.
Whatever operating plan a carrier uses must be designed around the operating capacities of the terminals in the system.
My observation from being five+ years retired is that the only reason CSX is currently fluid with its PSR operation is that the level of traffic is down - I don't have access to any 'facts and figures' and understand that figures can be spun to prove any point the spinner wants to highlight.
The current crew shortage problem is likely temporary. A more nuanced approach to running trains instead of forcing the PSR model on everything would probably also alleviate some of the current bottleneck problems.. run massive 300 car trains where it makes sense, and run shorter shuttle type trains in congested areas or for expedited services. The railroads have tried to use PSR as a "one size fits all" panacea for all problems. They need to go back to the drawing board and start with customer needs and work a plan that meets those needs. I don't think shareholders would object..
UlrichThe current crew shortage problem is likely temporary. A more nuanced approach to running trains instead of forcing the PSR model on everything would probably also alleviate some of the current bottleneck problems.. run massive 300 car trains where it makes sense, and run shorter shuttle type trains in congested areas or for expedited services. The railroads have tried to use PSR as a "one size fits all" panacea for all problems. They need to go back to the drawing board and start with customer needs and work a plan that meets those needs. I don't think shareholders would object..
The one thing I learned from 51+ years of railroading - Nuance is not in the vocabulary. If they can operate 500 cars in a train once - that will soon be the standard size train.
Ulrich The current crew shortage problem is likely temporary. A more nuanced approach to running trains instead of forcing the PSR model on everything would probably also alleviate some of the current bottleneck problems.. run massive 300 car trains where it makes sense, and run shorter shuttle type trains in congested areas or for expedited services. The railroads have tried to use PSR as a "one size fits all" panacea for all problems. They need to go back to the drawing board and start with customer needs and work a plan that meets those needs. I don't think shareholders would object..
That would make the operating ratio go up. And that would be bad.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
PSR is all about cost control and returning any savings to the shareholders. It's not about providing better service to customers. PSR is working as intendened.
They design their plans with the expectation that nothing will go wrong. That their will be no equipment failures. That all engines work as if they just left the factory. That the weather is 70 degrees and sunny. That terminals can process trains in the allotted time.
Then they plan their manpower to reflect the above plan. To try to cut down on the need for extra people to cover vacancies, they come up with attendence policies to try to force people to stay marked up and continually working.
Then reality sets in. Something happens that snowballs across the railroad. First thing you know is available equipment and manpower is used up. The railroad grinds to a snail's pace, if not a complete stop.
So the answer to all the problems is to restrict the amount of business we'll allow customers to do.
Mottos used by UP once upon a time in the past were, "We can handle it." and "Dependable Transportation."
I'm afraid those days are gone.
Here in the western suburbs of Chicago I've been seeing UP freights (manifests mostly) parked on the Geneva Subdivision (UP West Line) waiting to get into Chicago for the past couple of months. I hadn't seen that for a few years, since before PSR and the closing of Proviso's hump. Since Proviso only takes in a couple of trains per day now, these trains are waiting to get into BRC Clearing Yard, likely, or to be transferred to NS or CSX.
The Rochelle cam has shown about 25-30 UP freight moves per day recently, not much different than a few months or a year ago. Only 6 of 29 trains on April 15 were set up with DPUs. The trains didn't look particularly long. So I'm not seeing train length as the problem. It seems to be the usual deal here - yard congestion. Maybe Chicago is missing Proviso?
- Ed Kyle
I also see UP freights. Most days there are many more, and with DP.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.