fast freight

[Anonymous]

Train's latest article by S. Patterson on fast freight transcons is right on the mark. Yes, the carriers can provide the service, at an operational cost, but for whom. In a day and age of "just in time" industrial operations companies spend big $$ for air freight. Only very few consider rail an option. Even in the 60's and 70's,when air freight was not as prevelant, my father ran the Super C from Ft. Madison to KC with as few 5 flats. As a teenager I thought "yes, it's very fast; too bad more don't use it". When purchasing managers are allowed to spend to spend 3x the worth of their cargo just to tranport it "just in time", which in reality is "just too late", rail will be overlooked. Corporate's accounting procedures have seemingly overlooked transportation as cost factor. Any comments would be appreciated and Bravo to Trains magazine. Thx. ljperry

[Anonymous]

Sir, you made some very good point's in your comment. I used to work for a Cellular Phone manufacter. We used just in time proceedure's. Our incoming part's delievery bill's were so high that we had to go before corporate auditor's to explain some of the cost's. We did several studies and found railroads to be the cheapest alternative to bring in the parts (cutting incoming shipping cost's by 65%). But because the railroads could not guarantee "just in time delivery" (72 hour window was the best we could get) corporate shot it down. There statement being that high shipping cost's were still cheaper then storage. Just in time is over rated.
TIM A

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the feedback. I must correct my posting though. The article on fast freight in Trains was written by Fred Frailey not Steve Patterson. Mr. Patterson wrote the article on troubleshooting in east Texas, which is also excellent. Sorry. LJPerry

[Anonymous]

I read that article. A big factor in rail shipping, it seem's, is track capacity. I can remember back in the late 70's and early 80's when railroads were pulling up there double track and converting to single track. I bet they regret that decision now.
TIM A

[edblysard]

Yes Tim, we do. Houston, where the sideswip Mr Patterson describes happened, was at the center of the UP?SP meltdown a few years back. Every siding within 200 miles of the place had trains tied down nose to tail, some sat for weeks, getting new crews every twelve hours, to just sit there, hoping a slot in a yard would open up so they could move their train a mile or so. It was a mess beyond belife. UP even paid us to "hide" a couple of trains for them, they were flat out of crews and space. We were taking trains and parking them where ever we could find an empty siding or track. Regret isnt a strong enough word, those managers who survived refuse to even discuss it today, for fear of repriseal.
Ed

[Anonymous]

I'd like to know more about the conversion of double track to single track. Where did the bulk of this occur and which railroads? I would guess the northeast... but that's only a guess. It sure looks like the railroads had "given up" when they did this. How could railroads present themselves as a serious shipping option when they were ripping up mainline capacity? What did they say in reply to accusations that they were being short-sighted? Why not mothball the trackage involved rather than rip it up?

Bill, Toronto

[Anonymous]

The Northeast was hit the hardest but they were ripping up double track all over the country. The problem with the Northeast, and please anyone, (correct me if I am wrong) was Conrail itself. Conrail was formed from bankurpt Penn Central, New York central and Eire Lackawana. I believe all the managers for Conrail came from those three railroads so there was a lot of in house fighting on which track should be kept from Chicago to New York. Eire Lackawana had very good main line double track. There main line track's were sepperated by at least 15 ft. in some places.Trouble is Eire had a lot of enemies from PC and NYC making decisions. They decided to wipe out all traces of Eire Lackawana (Rumor had it the employe's were not even allowed to use the name Eire Lackawana in conversation.) So that track got ripped up first. I bet CXS and NS would love to have that track now.
TIM A

[andrewjonathon]

I wonder if the railroads upper management really regret ripping up the second mainline for two reasons. First, the reduced maintenance costs has allowed railroads to reduce operating costs without a directly losing revenue. The increased profitability (even if short sighted) increases the attractiveness of the stock to investors. Secondly, there are examples of railroads removing the second mainline even during the 'boom' of the '90s. CN is an example that comes to mind as an example. If railroads really had regrets then why continue the practice even if on a small scale.

[Anonymous]

The railroads were not giving up. The best estimates of line usage combined with anticipated revenue, expenses and technology advances dictates track retention decisions. The attractiveness of maintenance savings has its allure and the thought processes of one type of management vs another sometimes could not resist.
Do the railroads wi***hey had some of the line segments back or still double tracked, you bet!!! These decisions were the topic of countless stern conference calls, meetings and the like. If we could all harness 20/20 hindsight forward what a great world we would have. Thanks for your questions...they're tough, but valid. gdc

[Anonymous]

gdc, Do railroads hire consultance to study traffic patterns so that they can estimate which lines to improve? Do they also hire consultance for such things as weather they should double track or just add more siding? I read a article that said if you space the sidings just right that its the same thing as double track.
TIM A

[Anonymous]

Yes Tim, they do. These consultants are respected experts in their fields and work closely with higher management on these decisions. Your assumption that correctly spaced, high speed, long passing sidings (12,000 Feet or longer) can alleviate congestion is correct. However, you also need state-of-the-art dispatching to achieve the maximum benefit. Operating division characteristics vary from location to location. As an example, on NS, the Tennessee Division between Cincinnati and Chattanooga is basically a bridge line territory. Lots of long siding with 45 mph switches to traffic controlled passing sidings (called turnouts). Not as much local traffic. There certainly are some large customers there, but it is basically a district where trains are traversing between the nofrth and the south. By contrast, The Pocahontas Division between Williamson and Bluefield, WV is a mountain main line serving many mines and connecting with many branches. By it's nature is slower. Heavy traffic there would not tolerate single track anywhere.
On a high speed division, in single track, a risk is that if one train is delayed, it delays everything following and opposing. Those are the decisions that are made.
Following the Conrail transaction, NS decided to double track part of the Lake Division between Bellevue and Bucyrus, Ohio. Another example is CSXT double tracked their main line across Ohio from Chicago to Willard (maybe further, I just am not sure). Both expansions have served well and led to reduced congestion and better schedules.
But decisions on additions and reductions are made based on the best information at the time. Are these decisions regrettable? Sometimes. Could it happen again? Sure. These are not actions entered into lightly. Sometimes, even with all the best information and the smartest minds, it's still a crap shoot. Seven or snake eyes!
Have a good evening. gdc

[Anonymous]

Tim A. will probibly like this one! From V29#3 North Western Lines titled - Slow or Fast freight-
The following was overheard on a Chicago Great Western branch;

Shipper: "You say you have fast freight and slow freight from this town. You charge twice the amount for fast freight as slow freight, and yet I find that you have only one train a day. How do you explain that?"

CGW Agent: "We put the fast freight at the front of the train and the slow freight at the back, and so the fast freight gets there first. Our motto is to please the public."-Jim L. Rueber

Motorolla would have loved to hear that for an explination!! Hey at least the agent was honest!!
Icemanmike-Milwaukee

[Anonymous]

That's like a first class seat on plane, only no hot meal. gdc

[Anonymous]

Thats a good one. Made a copy, going to hang it on my office wall!

[Anonymous]

I guess that shows that the customer is first!!
Glad ya liked it!
Icemanmike-Milwaukee