SD60MAC9500 zugmann They rebuilt a traditional diamond-traffic light interchgange with a diverging diamond interchange near me. By the reaction of local people, you'd have thought the devil himself came up to design it. They were positive there were going to be fatal accidents involving big explosions every day. Hasn't happened. It actually works a lot better than the old setup it replaced. I'll admit - I wasn't crazy about all the roundabouts that were being put in. But I saw how many of them actually really helped with traffic flow, so I'll admit my feelings were wrong about them. I agree I like the DDI's and Roundabouts.
zugmann They rebuilt a traditional diamond-traffic light interchgange with a diverging diamond interchange near me. By the reaction of local people, you'd have thought the devil himself came up to design it. They were positive there were going to be fatal accidents involving big explosions every day. Hasn't happened. It actually works a lot better than the old setup it replaced. I'll admit - I wasn't crazy about all the roundabouts that were being put in. But I saw how many of them actually really helped with traffic flow, so I'll admit my feelings were wrong about them.
They rebuilt a traditional diamond-traffic light interchgange with a diverging diamond interchange near me.
By the reaction of local people, you'd have thought the devil himself came up to design it. They were positive there were going to be fatal accidents involving big explosions every day.
Hasn't happened. It actually works a lot better than the old setup it replaced.
I'll admit - I wasn't crazy about all the roundabouts that were being put in. But I saw how many of them actually really helped with traffic flow, so I'll admit my feelings were wrong about them.
I agree I like the DDI's and Roundabouts.
I agree. I liked them in Oregon, Virginia and England.
My thought is that the ultimate goal is to use rationing of rail service to allow implementation of crew-less trains in road service - if we can't find crewpersons, you'll have to let run self-driving trains to provide service. Not that will really change things - if using unmanned trains drives the OR potential from the high to low 50% range, the current leadership will still get canned by stockholders for not getting to a 49% OR, and will require that additional assets be stripped out to reduce the asset base.
The evidence after 15 years of PSR with no payoff in traffic increases as was touted to be the ultimate reason to do PSR, worse customer service, worse working conditions for employees, worse support of the US economy as a whole by the railroads, and what seems like very little regard for common carrier obligation, it seems that PSR really stands for Pretty Sh***y Railroading.
PsychotThe great thing about roundabouts is that a left turn becomes a right turn. Now if we could get Americans to signal out of the roundabout like they do in the rest of the world...
And not to come to a dead stop when nobody else is there.
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
The great thing about roundabouts is that a left turn becomes a right turn. Now if we could get Americans to signal out of the roundabout like they do in the rest of the world...
CMStPnPI'll even bet you never drove in Detroit and put up with their ridiculous NO LEFT TURN rule in that city. You always have to turn right then make a U-TURN to fix for the LEFT turn you couldn't make, stupidest thing I ever saw as one car passes through the same intersection twice. But there is this huge group of people in Detroit that thinks it is efficient and so the idiocy perpetuates in that city. It's another DOT placebo.
It's an old concept, actually. Nowadays it's a "Michigan left," or in other places, a "jug handle." I really don't mind - most of the places I see it is on non-limited access four lane roads. Saves you havng your rear end hanging out in traffic while you wait for an opportunity to get in.
Several state parks here in northern NY used to have you "exit" right and loop around so you were crossing traffic at a right angle. Traffic patterns (and density) have changed over the years, so it's no longer necessary in most cases. You still find it around, though.
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...
BaltACD CMStPnP ... I'll even bet you never drove in Detroit and put up with their ridiculous NO LEFT TURN rule in that city. You always have to turn right then make a U-TURN to fix for the LEFT turn you couldn't make, stupidest thing I ever saw as one car passes through the same intersection twice. But there is this huge group of people in Detroit that thinks it is efficient and so the idiocy perpetuates in that city. It's another DOT placebo. I believe UPS has their delivery drivers observing a No Left Turn curriculum in their delivery routes. UPS says they are doing it for efficiency and accident avoidance and I suspect they have developed statistics to support their position. I have no idea what the correct long term answer to the question is.
CMStPnP ... I'll even bet you never drove in Detroit and put up with their ridiculous NO LEFT TURN rule in that city. You always have to turn right then make a U-TURN to fix for the LEFT turn you couldn't make, stupidest thing I ever saw as one car passes through the same intersection twice. But there is this huge group of people in Detroit that thinks it is efficient and so the idiocy perpetuates in that city. It's another DOT placebo.
I'll even bet you never drove in Detroit and put up with their ridiculous NO LEFT TURN rule in that city. You always have to turn right then make a U-TURN to fix for the LEFT turn you couldn't make, stupidest thing I ever saw as one car passes through the same intersection twice. But there is this huge group of people in Detroit that thinks it is efficient and so the idiocy perpetuates in that city. It's another DOT placebo.
I believe UPS has their delivery drivers observing a No Left Turn curriculum in their delivery routes. UPS says they are doing it for efficiency and accident avoidance and I suspect they have developed statistics to support their position.
I have no idea what the correct long term answer to the question is.
I've spent a lot of my life overseas, and most of the places I've been either prohibit left turns or provide very few places where you can make one. It makes sense; left turns cause a lot of accidents, and stopping opposing traffic to give left turners a green arrow gums up intersections.
CMStPnP dpeltier It actually reduces trip times. Your only measuring trip times on the freeway.
dpeltier It actually reduces trip times.
Your only measuring trip times on the freeway.
Correct, if you include the time spent in queues to access the freeway.
So what happens to the drivers that see the lights or the backup and decide not to enter the freeway?
Nobody avoids the freeway because of having to wait 1-10 seconds for the light to turn green. If they avoid the freeway, it's either because Google calculates a faster trip time on another route, or because of the traffic jams that they either see or know from experience will be there. So I guess you're talking about people who see a line of cars waiting on the ramp and switch their plans at the last minute? They will be less likely to do that with metering working correctly, because the managed queues to get on at a busy spot will be shorter than the ramp backups that result from the freeway being jammed.
Just curious, have you ever worked downtown anywhere and actually have to apply these theories your posting in practice?
I'm not sure what you mean by whether I ever "apply these theories in practice", I'm not a highway engineer. But my daily commute is mostly on highways that have ramp metering - on two I'm going in the peak direction and the third I'm going against it. The Twin Cities has very little traffic congestion by any reasonable standards, because it is relatively small, not growing particularly fast, spends a ton of money on highway expansion, and uses effective traffic control systems like ramp metering.
Two decades ago I lived in Boston, and commuted from one side of the city to the other, driving all the way through the entire limits of the ongoing Big Dig construction project. Traffic there was horrendous, because it was a relatively large city, spent a ton of money on highway expansion but it all got sucked up by one extremely expensive project, and had local road networks that couldn't support locally-generated traffic and couldn't be expanded. Ramp metering probably could have helped a bit, especially for the morning commute but would be somewhat tricky - you would have to manage traffic entering 50 miles away based on the capacity of the surface roads in downtown Boston. In the afternoon, ramp metering would probably have helped me a lot, and helped downtown a bit. (Queues to get on the highway were one bottleneck, but even without that, queues at the intersections leading to the highway also had the potential to back up and snarl things up.)
I have to visit Fort Worth about once or twice per year as well, since you brought up Texas. The almost comical level of highway infrastructure they've added recently definitely along the route from the airport to BNSF headquarters has reduced traffic backups. But it's still worse than the Twin Cities.
Traffic does not disappear once you erect metering lights anywhere, most of it shifts elsewhere (increasing congestion on side streets). You'll note it's never accounted for in whatever your using as a source because they are attempting to sell you on metering lights vs expansion of the freeway system. I'll tell you
Well first off, shifting traffic to other locations isn't necessarily a bad solution to a congestion problem, IF those other locations have adequate capacity. So I assume you are claiming that installing a comprehensive ramp metering system on a highway increases traffic CONGESTION in other areas? If so, then you are correct that I haven't heard of a study demonstrating that. Can you please give me a link or a citation?
Now because we've drifted pretty far off topic I'll just point out that none of this has to do with railroads. I brought up ramp metering as something that works - at least in theory - in the same way that taking cars offline works on a congested railroad. Whether or not ramp metering works in practice is not particularly relevant. The collective experience of railroaders is that the railroad half of that analogy works as I've described - lowering cars online results in higher throughout. With little to no published literature on the subject, that's probably the best info we have.
Dan
CMStPnP... I'll even bet you never drove in Detroit and put up with their ridiculous NO LEFT TURN rule in that city. You always have to turn right then make a U-TURN to fix for the LEFT turn you couldn't make, stupidest thing I ever saw as one car passes through the same intersection twice. But there is this huge group of people in Detroit that thinks it is efficient and so the idiocy perpetuates in that city. It's another DOT placebo.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Oh really?
Your only measuring trip times on the freeway. So what happens to the drivers that see the lights or the backup and decide not to enter the freeway? What did I imply about the overall commute and it's impact? I don't have a George Jetson car that I can fly over to the freeway on ramp, land and wait for the traffic lights, I have to negotiate the surface streets first AND in both directions of the commute.
Just curious, have you ever worked downtown anywhere and actually have to apply these theories your posting in practice? Because it does not read like it. I have actually had to tolerate the various DOT placebos for the public to make it look like they are actually fixing something.........when they are not.
Traffic does not disappear once you erect metering lights anywhere, most of it shifts elsewhere (increasing congestion on side streets). You'll note it's never accounted for in whatever your using as a source because they are attempting to sell you on metering lights vs expansion of the freeway system. I'll tell you in Texas they are definitely more honest about these things. So my sympathy there.
nevermind.
zugmann dpeltier But throwing more shipments into a system that can't handle them makes the problem worse, not better. I'm the short term, metering shipments is better for everybody. Is it the shippers' fault (and now their responsibility to try to fix) the railroad artifically and arbitrarily killing their capacity?
dpeltier But throwing more shipments into a system that can't handle them makes the problem worse, not better. I'm the short term, metering shipments is better for everybody.
Is it the shippers' fault (and now their responsibility to try to fix) the railroad artifically and arbitrarily killing their capacity?
Did I ever say it was? I said it was in their best interest, and that is true regardless of whose fault it might be.
Also note that the UP didn't exactly say that shippers had to "be responsible for" taking cars offline. What it said was - if you don't, we'll do it for you. Again, it's in the shippers' interest to manage that process for themselves, rather than having the railroad arbitrarily decide which orders to fill and which to cancel.
dpeltierBut throwing more shipments into a system that can't handle them makes the problem worse, not better. I'm the short term, metering shipments is better for everybody.
The system handled it just fine a few years ago. But that was before storing/selling half the engines, cutting crews, yards, and people.
Somone once told me "at least Penn Central had a reason. They were broke."
During my career for several years my job had me in close contact with the Chessie System car distribution personnell - personnel that kept numerous statistics concerning cars on line and fluidity of the system. I don't remember the numbers they were working with and around.
I do suspect, with the out break of PSR and the closing of many terminal facilities as well as the decrease in both motive power and manpower the number of cars online that permit fluid operations has also seriously dropped.
In the highway analogy, it is taking that 8 lane divided lane expressway and making it into a two lane road in most places and into a single cart path in others.
The only thing PSR is doing from a operations viewpoint is decreasing the number of cars online that it takes to codlock the system - it is doing nothing to increase the number of cars online and still provide fluid services to the customers.
The earnings reports that are being released by the carriers are touting a increased level of profits on a decreased volume of traffic handled.
adkrr64 UP's metering sounds more like telling an automobile driver that they are not allowed on the freeway at all today, and won't be allowed on until next week. Or maybe telling them thay can only take x number of freeway trips per week.
UP's metering sounds more like telling an automobile driver that they are not allowed on the freeway at all today, and won't be allowed on until next week. Or maybe telling them thay can only take x number of freeway trips per week.
In a sense that's true, but that's because commuters and rail shipments simply operate on totally different timeline, and because highways and railroads have a very different definition of "at capacity". The worst traffic jam I've ever been in - which was probably the time I saw people get out a little picnic grill and start cooking on the Cross-Bronx Expressway - would not even count as a delay for a carload shipper with rail service 2x per week. And by railroad standards, there isn't a single highway in America that is anywhere near capacity - all of them are more than capable of handling the daily trip demand within a 20-hour period, allowing for 4 hours of maintenance each day.
So yes, the timelines are very different. But the principle is the same: the system slows down when it is overloaded, and by reducing the rate at which you try to stuff things in one end of the pipe, you increase the rate at which thingd come out the other end.
CMStPnP dpeltier Implementing policies that maximize throughput in the short term, until the overall system is brought back into balance, is not "greedy". Moving as many shipments as possible is just as much in the shippers' interest as the railroads'. In my assessment this is not even a solution and doesn't fix anything. Looking at the freeway metering as an example. Does that fix congestion? Nope, it shifts it to the surface and side streets which still slows down the commute. It's basically a public placebo for people on the Freeway to think their overall their trip time is improving.
dpeltier Implementing policies that maximize throughput in the short term, until the overall system is brought back into balance, is not "greedy". Moving as many shipments as possible is just as much in the shippers' interest as the railroads'.
In my assessment this is not even a solution and doesn't fix anything. Looking at the freeway metering as an example. Does that fix congestion? Nope, it shifts it to the surface and side streets which still slows down the commute. It's basically a public placebo for people on the Freeway to think their overall their trip time is improving.
That is simply not correct. In heavy traffic conditions - and if the timing is set right for the current road conditions - ramp metering does NOT just reduce time spent on the highway by increasing time spent in entrance queues. It actually reduces trip times.
Once the number of cars trying to use a segment of highway exceeds the capacity of that segment of highway, the throughput (number of cars successfully getting to the end of the segment per minute) starts to decrease.
Suppose that a segment of highway can accommodate about 70 cars per minute in one direction. If 70 cars enter the segment in a given minute, 70 cars can also leave the segment in that minute. HOWEVER, if 75 cars per minute try to enter the segment, traffic starts to become unsteady and the number of cars EXITING the highway segment drops, to maybe 60 cars per minute.
To flesh this out with an example: Suppose you have a two lane (one-way) bridge that leads out of a city center. There are three entrance ramps from local roads that cars can use to get on the bridge. On the other end of the bridge, the road widens to flour lanes (one-way) and traffic moves along just find even during rush hour. 4,500 cars all want to get on the highway and drive home between 5:00 and 6:00 PM (75 cars per minute). The time to actually drive across the bridge at full speed is pretty insignificant, maybe 1 - 2 minutes.
If you let 75 cars per minute all try to squeeze onto the bridge at once, they get in each other's way, traffic gets snarled, and - as noted above - only 60 cars actually make it across the bridge each minute. The 4,500 cars that leave between 5:00 and 6:00 don't finish getting across the bridge until 6:15 - an average trip time of about 45 minutes.
Now suppose you meter the ramps so that only 70 cars are allowed into the bridge per minute. Because this does not exceed the bridge's capacity, traffic flows steadily and all 70 get across the bridge in a timely manner. Now your 4,500 cars will get through by 6:04, for an average trip time of 34 minutes. The ramp metering reduces the trip time by about 25% in this case.
Generally speaking, maximizing throughout in this manner - i.e., by deliberately creating queues at the entrance - will usually result in queues that are SHORTER than if you just allow the highway to get all gummed up - so it's better for local roads too.
CMStPnP I the railroad example, your asking the shipper to take on additional costs and hold product or inventory on their books while waiting for a slot to ship. It basically shifts part of the cost of transportation management from railroad to shipper. Additionally, it does not fix the congestion issue because like the freeway example above, it merely pushes the problem elsewhere. If I am the shipper I now have a constriction of when I can ship. Where does that product go? Who is paying for it to sit around? Lets say I slow down my producton schedule instead, who is paying for the decreased utilization of the production machinery on the plant floor?
I the railroad example, your asking the shipper to take on additional costs and hold product or inventory on their books while waiting for a slot to ship. It basically shifts part of the cost of transportation management from railroad to shipper. Additionally, it does not fix the congestion issue because like the freeway example above, it merely pushes the problem elsewhere. If I am the shipper I now have a constriction of when I can ship. Where does that product go? Who is paying for it to sit around? Lets say I slow down my producton schedule instead, who is paying for the decreased utilization of the production machinery on the plant floor?
Again, you have missed the point. Just like highways, railroads are able to move MORE freight when the number of cars online stays below a certain threshold value. If you keep throwing more cars into the system, less and less actual transportation happens.
Product sitting in a delayed rail car is no more usable in the supply chain than product sitting in storage waiting to be shipped. The customers benefit from having product DELIVERED. If there are too many cars online already, then shipping more product results in LESS product being delivered.
Now, if the rate at which the railroad can deliver product is not enough to keep up with the customer's business needs, the customer has a problem. It's usually in the interest of both the shipper and the carrier to solve the capacity problems so that the adequate product can be delivered. But throwing more shipments into a system that can't handle them makes the problem worse, not better. I'm the short term, metering shipments is better for everybody.
The question should be why can't UP handle current levels? Car loadings are about 40 to 50K less than what they were handling 15 years ago.
Some of the fix, reopening yards and pulling locomotives out of storage is relatively easy. (Many are going to need some work. Some have been used as a parts source.) Getting people to run the trains, switch in the reopened yards, and repair the engines might be a little harder.
Bur maybe telling shippers they can only ship X number of cars will work out in the long run. Shippers will take more of their business elsewhere. They can close more yards, store more locomotives and cut off more people. Wall Street will love it.
Jeff
Don't think freeway metering at on-ramps is a good parallel here. Freeway metering helps with getting cars into the traffic flow. Instead of having 5 or 6 vehicles all trying to merge into the travel lane from the on-ramp at the same time, you get one vehicle every several seconds or so. Not as disruptive as 5 at a time, even though all 5 end up on the freeway in relatively short order.
dpeltierImplementing policies that maximize throughput in the short term, until the overall system is brought back into balance, is not "greedy". Moving as many shipments as possible is just as much in the shippers' interest as the railroads'.
In the railroad example, your asking the shipper to take on additional costs and hold product or inventory on their books while waiting for a slot to ship. It basically shifts part of the cost of transportation management from railroad to shipper. Additionally, it does not fix the congestion issue because like the freeway example above, it merely pushes the problem elsewhere. If I am the shipper I now have a constriction of when I can ship. Where does that product go? Who is paying for it to sit around? Lets say I slow down my producton schedule instead, who is paying for the decreased utilization of the production machinery on the plant floor?
CMStPnP However, the railroad your paying for a service and that service previously stated that you could manage your car supply better if you owned your own fleet of cars. Now it is restating that argument to say that you have to manage your traffic for us when you move your cars on the service your paying for. It would be one thing if they offered a discount to entice shippers to do this but asking them all to do it free of charge I think is pure greed and will lose them a lot of customer confidence.
However, the railroad your paying for a service and that service previously stated that you could manage your car supply better if you owned your own fleet of cars. Now it is restating that argument to say that you have to manage your traffic for us when you move your cars on the service your paying for.
It would be one thing if they offered a discount to entice shippers to do this but asking them all to do it free of charge I think is pure greed and will lose them a lot of customer confidence.
Implementing policies that maximize throughput in the short term, until the overall system is brought back into balance, is not "greedy". Moving as many shipments as possible is just as much in the shippers' interest as the railroads'.
Maybe you believe that the railroad should always be prepared to handle whatever traffic people want to ship, regardless of any other factors. Well, you're entitled to that opinion, but it's irrelevant to what the STB claimed to be investigating - which was not, "How did we get into this situation," or even "How do we prevent it from happening next time," but "How do we get out of it?" The answer to this question is reasonably obvious - use capacity as effectively as possible in the short term (including by reducing cars online), and add capacity in the form of increased workforce as quick as possible. But that doesn't really serve the political agenda for labor, or for shippers, or even for the STB itself, because it's what the railroads are already trying to do. So instead we hear people promoting ideas that, whatever other benefits they might have, would not help the current congestion problem and would mostly make it worse: shorter trains, reciprocal switching, disabling Trip Optimizer, etc.
Now if the STB thinks that it's in the interest of the country for the railroads to always have a bunch of spare resources held in reserve to handle unexpected situations, they could try to figure out a way to require and / or incentivize that. But that would fall under "How do we prevent it from happening again," which doesn't generate the same level of excitement as "Oh my God we're in a crisis, how can the STB ride to the rescue?" (It would also be an extremely difficult thing to do and would have a high chance of backfiring.)
dpeltierCar metering, on the other hand, IS something that can provide the immediate, system-wide benefit that Oberman is looking for. Reducing car inventories (to a point) increases system throughput by reducing congestion, just like the ramp monitoring we use on freeways here in the Twin Cities
Both are methods to avoid spending money to handle surge capacity. I could care less about the freeway because I since moved to Texas away from that nonsense in the Midwest where they do different tricks to avoid needed infrastructure spending. So I no longer have to deal with it.
The biggest terminal I run into/out of, Council Bluffs, used to have hostlers. They sometimes call an extra job to do things around the terminal, and if they have time they will hostle power within the terminal area.
Sometimes the extra jobs will put together outbound trains. I have had that happen a few times, and I've (more often than not) had to get power off the ramp and put the train together. Sometimes kicking out bad orders the car men found.
The reason they use the extra jobs to assemble trains isn't out of any kindness for the road crews. One thing is with all the work dumped onto smaller terminals (to close the hump yards) they need the track space for other trains to be worked. Second thing is it cuts hours off the road crew putting the train together. Hours they will need in making it into the next terminal. Third is it keeps the extra job busy, enough that they keep calling them.
Today, actually beginning last night, I was called for a loaded ballast train. It changed symbols, meaning where I got on it became it's originating station. That requires a class one inspection and air test. Only 95 cars, took about 45 minutes. Then we are instructed to go about 4 miles and set out the two middle engines, one bad and one good. This puts us on the side of a hill where the conductor had to tie 30 hand brakes to hold the train once we're back on and recharging the brake pipe.
We're all ready to go, but there is no route through town. While sitting there, the dispatcher comes back on and says we need to go back and pick up the good engine we had set out. So the conductor has to tie 30 hand brakes again. We pick up the engine and once again are ready to go, with about 5 hours left to work at this point. We have signals through town, but I have to do a cab signal test at the main track test loop because the engine wouldn't self-test while we were stopped. Only consumes a few minutes and we're off.
We go about 20 miles when the dispatcher tells us to stop. Once stopped he tells us we need to set out the good engine we had to pick back up at the next town. At least we're on level ground and only a few hand brakes will hold the train. Once we're back on the train, the relief crew shows up. We had been told one was going to chase us down. We were relieved with a little over 2 hours left.
Left out of the above is we had to do 2 engine consist brake tests because of the way we had to remove two engines in the middle and then add one back. (We placed it back 3rd out, which made things easier when instructed to set it out.) Each time we changed the brake pipe requires a class 3 set and release test for brake pipe continuity. Has to be done when the brake pipe pressure at the rear end is at 75 psi (simplified explanation). Also left out was we had to wait 90 minutes for a ride from our away terminal to take us to the train, an hour's ride. Then taking the train across Omaha and Council Bluffs was slow going in places. The first few miles because we're taking 12K tons uphill, then a few miles running at restricted speed due to signals.
There's a lot of required things to be done. Things that take time, often more time than managment thinks it should or plans for. Things that outsiders don't see. Things that even some insiders don't see. I've had originating trains that everything went well and we're out in 2 hours. I've had originating trains that everything went bad and we're out in 9 hours. Somewhere in the middle is more normal, but when some see the 2 hours they begin to think that should happen every time.
PS. I forgot to mention when I got off the train, the two remaining engines on the train had 1000 and 900 gallons of fuel respectively. The one set out had 740 gallons. I had notified the dispatcher when we were first on board of the low fuel conditions. I'm not optimistic how things turned out for the relief crew or the one going to pick up the engine we set out.
BaltACDWith the carriers pushing PSR, there is a lot of malicious compliance with the operating and safety rules being applied by rank and file employees.
I don't see that happening. Honestly, with the lack of people, amount of work, and size of trains, simple compliance (which they will take you OOS if you don't do) is enough to make most managers frustrated. But it's not malicious. Having a turn crew take the time to air test 173 outbound cars because you did away with the car inspectors is not malicious. It's just what they have to do.
Can you give an example of how that might be done?
BaltACDThere a whole host of factors involved in yarding and dispatching trains from yards. Car Inspectors are only one facet of the operation and not the controlling factor. Operating a terminal is a juggling routine - a terminal has X track space and is normally tasked with handling 2X or 3X daily. Power arnd Crew are the largest factor under PSR in the handling of traffic through the terminals and they are the primary factors that PSR has depressed. Once upon a time in the dispatching of trains it was common for the departing train to made up with power and caboose attached and air tested and ready to go when the Road Crew came on duty with the crew just needing to get on the train and go. Those days are so far back they are over the horizon. In most cases the crew has to come on duty, get their power - wherever it may be in the yard - on the locomotive service tracks or else where in the terminal - inspect the power for a Calendar Day inspection if necessary - wade through 'terminal traffic' at the direction of the Yardmaster to get to the first track of the train. If the crew is lucky they will find the 'Air Slip' indicating that the track has had its Class 1 Air Brake Test completed satisfactorily. After the crew has the first track ready to move, they will be allowed to operate within the terminal to be able to couple to second and any subsequent tracks that are involved in the make up of the train. In most cases, once a train starts 'doubling' the tracks required for its train - all tracks attached to the lead the train is working on are 'out of service' for any other trains/movements until the train is complete and departs the terminal. With the carriers pushing PSR, there is a lot of malicious compliance with the operating and safety rules being applied by rank and file employees.
Wasn't the guy that assembled the locomotives and made sure they were ready before the crew arrived, referred to as the "Hostler" or something. If his/her pay was lower than the operating crew I would think that the old method of staging locomotives was more cost efficient for railroad operation. At least there was someone more directly accountable for locomotive service before it ventured out onto the road.
blue streak 1IMO this getting in and out of yards is a red herring. PSR has allowed for not enough yard enployees to gets the trains out, Hire enough car knockers, hostlers, and portable air compressors to do the class 1 brake tests so as soon as road crew shows the train can leave. Road crew does not spend so much time getting train ready and that sometimes alone will enable crew to finish run and not go HOS on the law. More car knockes will allow train to get in yard quicker and be broken up quicker also saving T&E on duty times.
More car knockes will allow train to get in yard quicker and be broken up quicker also saving T&E on duty times.
There a whole host of factors involved in yarding and dispatching trains from yards. Car Inspectors are only one facet of the operation and not the controlling factor. Operating a terminal is a juggling routine - a terminal has X track space and is normally tasked with handling 2X or 3X daily.
Power arnd Crew are the largest factor under PSR in the handling of traffic through the terminals and they are the primary factors that PSR has depressed.
Once upon a time in the dispatching of trains it was common for the departing train to made up with power and caboose attached and air tested and ready to go when the Road Crew came on duty with the crew just needing to get on the train and go. Those days are so far back they are over the horizon. In most cases the crew has to come on duty, get their power - wherever it may be in the yard - on the locomotive service tracks or else where in the terminal - inspect the power for a Calendar Day inspection if necessary - wade through 'terminal traffic' at the direction of the Yardmaster to get to the first track of the train. If the crew is lucky they will find the 'Air Slip' indicating that the track has had its Class 1 Air Brake Test completed satisfactorily. After the crew has the first track ready to move, they will be allowed to operate within the terminal to be able to couple to second and any subsequent tracks that are involved in the make up of the train. In most cases, once a train starts 'doubling' the tracks required for its train - all tracks attached to the lead the train is working on are 'out of service' for any other trains/movements until the train is complete and departs the terminal.
With the carriers pushing PSR, there is a lot of malicious compliance with the operating and safety rules being applied by rank and file employees.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.