Balloon track vs siding/spur

[Anonymous]

One thing that occured to me while mulling over grain shuttle elevators, is this seeming inherent need for all new shuttle facilties to be constructed with a balloon track rather than the classic adjacent siding or spur. Look at all the new shuttle facilities, grain or coal, and every one has a balloon track.

I can see the convience of such loop tracks if the consist has only head end power, but most if not all such shuttle trains employ distributed power, with units at both ends of the consist. For all intents and purposes, shuttle trains with power on both ends can operate in bi-directional push/pull mode, ergo there is no real need for a loop track for the sake of convience.

Since balloon tracks take up so much more real estate than sidings and spurs, why do we even need them? Seems that the elevator owner is the one that has to pay for the rail layout, and what seems to be happening is that brand new shuttle loader elevators are being built soley for the sake of constructing the balloon track, when there are perfectly good elevators with sidings of sufficient length trackside that could easily be converted to the rapid discharge loaders the railroads seem to covet (and at far lesser cost than a brand new facility).

Are the railroads forcing grain and coal companies to build unnecessary brand new facilities with balloon tracks, just because some head case at corporate headquarters thinks balloon tracks are essential to railroad profitability?

[tree68]

Given the opportunity would you prefer to have a straight driveway you had to back either into or out of or a circular driveway you could simply drive around?

Given that most of the facilities you speak of are flood loaders, it is far easier for all involved if the crew can simply drive in, set the train to run at X mph (literally a crawl) and ride it around. If you have to change crews, you can likely do it on the move (assuming that's not a huge rules violation).

A 100 car train is a mile long, more or less. That's a long way to walk in the middle of the night or during inclement weather, especially considering that they probably aren't going to install a nice lighted walkway for the crew's convenience.

So if you have to lay a mile+ of track anyhow, and have the real estate available (as many of these concerns probably do based on pictures I've seen), why not lay it in a loop?

[mudchicken]

(1) New track needs to be placed (In Kanseese: needs placed[:D]) at a minimum of 25 feet over from the main line.

(2) Unless you are using your own locomotives, you need a railroad QUALIFIED crew to operate the thing.

(3) Properly placed, loop tracks can minimize the amount of storage track needed.

(4) The more you run off in a straight line, the more you run into drainage related problems (i.e. bridges)

(5) You build it on railroad R/W, you pay railroad labor to build it . [ From personal experience - grain elevator operators tend to be some of the cheapest, most reckless , unsafe and grossly irresponsible track owners you have ever seen. They prefer to break the law if it saves them a few pennies. (you tend to believe that these noble people can do no wrong - We coined a word for them : "Agridummies".]

(6) BNSF and UP Shuttle train minimum track engineering specification do not require balloon tracks. Those spec.s do have requirements for minimum load/empty storage capacity lengths plus clearances around switches and roadcrossings, etc.

(The last three shuttle train facilities I worked last year were not loops.)

(7) Distributed power out on the flatlands is FAR from a given.

(8) You do NOT allow these people to operate anywhere near the main track of an operating company.

Quit trying to read something into what is not there.

[jeaton]

If the train must be clear of the main track during loading operations, a unit train loadout that is a straight siding must be a little more than twice the length of the train.

On the other hand, a loop with the correct design will require just a little more than one train length of track.

[edblysard]

As a counter point, BNSF is building two new sidings at the Cargil elevator here at Jacintoport, one for an empty, and one for a loaded unit train, on PTRA (Port of Houston) property.
Building cost is all BNSF's, and the track are exclusivly for BNSF unit train use.
PTRA will supply the crews as we do now...BNSF will deliver the train to our North Yard, we do the rest.

Cargil studied the posibilities of installing a loop, just like the one at the Bulk Materials (coke loadout) facility, but the cost of buying or leasing long term the amount of real estate needed on the ship channel was prohibitive.

The elevator here was built in the 1920s, with several silos added as time passed, and the facility is now so closely crowded by other plants that a loop or ballon track just wasn't possible.

Cargil, not BNSF, wanted the loop track, it is faster.

BNSF worked a deal with Cargil...they will guarentee two 100 to 125 car unit grain trains every 8 hours, and provide the road crews at North Yard if Cargil will promise to turn at least one entire unit train every eight hours...so they will always be one loaded train on site waiting to spot in the elevator, and one empty ready to return every eight hours...PTRA will provide the logistics and the crews to pull and spot the elevator, Cargil will provide the crews and locomotive to do the actual load out.

When Cargil has emptied the cars, PTRA will use BNSF road power(that came in on the last load) to pull the empties, do a inital terminal air test, hang the fred, and return the empty to North Yard and the BNSF crew waiting there.

Oh, and as Mudchicken pointed out, you do not want the elevators "railoraders" touching your locomotive, unless you like having new dents and missing handrails, bent plows, by passed knuckles and flat spots on the wheels...

Ed

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

If the train must be clear of the main track during loading operations, a unit train loadout that is a straight siding must be a little more than twice the length of the train.

On the other hand, a loop with the correct design will require just a little more than one train length of track.

I think both need to be roughly 2 x train length. I'm visualizing the schematic of the Ritzville shuttle loader. The actual loop itself needs to be just a little more than train length, plus the approaches from the main, so that the lead engine can re-access the approach track just as the last car/engine has cleared.

Assuming both examples require a clear main, they're both double long.

[jeaton]

Think of a circle sitting on top of a Y.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

Cargil studied the posibilities of installing a loop, just like the one at the Bulk Materials (coke loadout) facility, but the cost of buying or leasing long term the amount of real estate needed on the ship channel was prohibitive.

Which confirms my allegation of real estate constraints. Do go on....

QUOTE:
The elevator here was built in the 1920s, with several silos added as time passed, and the facility is now so closely crowded by other plants that a loop or ballon track just wasn't possible.

Again, nothing to disagree with you here. Existing physical plant seems to favor parallel sidings/spurs over wide arcing loops from an economics, whether out in no man's land or in the high priced metropolis.

QUOTE:
Cargil, not BNSF, wanted the loop track, it is faster.

Aye, there's the rub! Cargill just wants faster service, not necessarily a loop track. It's just that railroad SOP gives expediency to loops over sidings, and Cargill (apparently being manned by folks who have evolved upward from "Agricummy") is just taking note of what their past experience with the railroads suggests for future investment.

It's not a physics thing, it's purely an attitude thing.

QUOTE:
BNSF worked a deal with Cargil...they will guarentee two 100 to 125 car unit grain trains every 8 hours, and provide the road crews at North Yard if Cargil will promise to turn at least one entire unit train every eight hours...so they will always be one loaded train on site waiting to spot in the elevator, and one empty ready to return every eight hours...PTRA will provide the logistics and the crews to pull and spot the elevator, Cargil will provide the crews and locomotive to do the actual load out.

Which suggests several things in refutation of the current status quo. The railroads can provide time expedient service for shuttle trains without the ostensibly "speedier" loop track layouts (if the customer happens to be a big fish in the rail shipping pond). Non-railroaders can handle load out duties when need be (it ain't rocket science, suprise, suprise).

QUOTE:
When Cargil has emptied the cars, PTRA will use BNSF road power(that came in on the last load) to pull the empties, do a inital terminal air test, hang the fred, and return the empty to North Yard and the BNSF crew waiting there.

What this suggests is that rail shuttle shippers should just lease their own locomotives (including DPU's/remote control units) and have the railroad use that equipment instead of the precious railroad-owned equipment. We already have shipper-owned hopper fleets, which ostensibly save on a few hassles. Of course, there's no guarantee that the railroad would knock off a few bucks from the rate if the shipper provided the motive power instead of the railroad, but you'd think so........

QUOTE:
Oh, and as Mudchicken pointed out, you do not want the elevators "railoraders" touching your locomotive, unless you like having new dents and missing handrails, bent plows, by passed knuckles and flat spots on the wheels...

....which of course never happens under the watchful care of the road crew! So how are all those flat spots and broken knuckles occuring?

[tree68]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

One thing that occured to me while mulling over grain shuttle elevators, is this seeming inherent need for all new shuttle facilties to be constructed with a balloon track rather than the classic adjacent siding or spur. Look at all the new shuttle facilities, grain or coal, and every one has a balloon track.

QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken
(6) BNSF and UP Shuttle train minimum track engineering specification do not require balloon tracks. Those specs do have requirements for minimum load/empty storage capacity lengths plus clearances around switches and roadcrossings, etc.

(The last three shuttle train facilities I worked last year were not loops.)

OK, that supposition was wrong.

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
I can see the convience of such loop tracks if the consist has only head end power, but most if not all such shuttle trains employ distributed power, with units at both ends of the consist. For all intents and purposes, shuttle trains with power on both ends can operate in bi-directional push/pull mode, ergo there is no real need for a loop track for the sake of convience.

QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken
(7) Distributed power out on the flatlands is FAR from a given.

So was this one.

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
Since balloon tracks take up so much more real estate than sidings and spurs, why do we even need them? Seems that the elevator owner is the one that has to pay for the rail layout, and what seems to be happening is that brand new shuttle loader elevators are being built soley for the sake of constructing the balloon track, when there are perfectly good elevators with sidings of sufficient length trackside that could easily be converted to the rapid discharge loaders the railroads seem to covet (and at far lesser cost than a brand new facility).

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard
Cargil studied the posibilities of installing a loop, just like the one at the Bulk Materials (coke loadout) facility, but the cost of buying or leasing long term the amount of real estate needed on the ship channel was prohibitive.

In other words, if the real estate was available, there would be a loop there now. If you're out in the plains somewhere, the real estate probably is available. Why not use it?

If your statement that the new facilities are being built solely to build a loop track is a supposition, it does not take into account the fact that the old facility may not have met current standards and/or requirements, and bringing it up to snuff would cost more than a new facility.

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
Are the railroads forcing grain and coal companies to build unnecessary brand new facilities with balloon tracks, just because some head case at corporate headquarters thinks balloon tracks are essential to railroad profitability?

I can't see any evidence in your arguments that even remotely supports that statement. Based on what I've seen here, there is no trend.

[edblysard]

How you read that nonsense into what I wrote is amazing...do you practice being obtuse?

Cargill owns the small 17 track yard at their facility...they wanted to razed the yard, install a long siding, and a loop track.
To do so would require them to purchase Texas Terminals, a Stevedore terminal, and lease from the Navigation district the land for the siding.
To big an expense for the results they would get.
BNSF had nothing to do with their decision not to build, all BN does is bring the train to us, we take it to the elevator.
BN can not force Cargill to build anything.

Yes, on unit trains, the service is better that a peddler gathering up loose cars...duh...this finally occurred to you.

BNSF realized that if they could find a solution to the problem of the crowded property that now encircles the elevator, they could run more unit trains, and make more money...which is why BNSF is in business.
They have always been able to provide the number of train stated, Cargill has not been able to load them out as fast as BNSF can deliver them.
Hence the two new sidings...better for both BNSF and Cargill.

The lynch pin to all of this isn’t how fast BNSF can deliver, that has always been constant...it is how fast the elevator can load out.

Or, and those non railroaders you mentioned are not Cargill employees...they are Econorail, a contract switching service, made up of scab railroaders who have managed to get themselves fired from just about every professional railroad they worked for...if you are lucky, they show up sober, or just toked up...unlucky means they are so trashed they cant get off the locomotive to line the switch, so they just run through it instead.

What tickles me is you are commenting on a place and a service you have never set eyes on, you have zero idea of the lay of the land, the constraints this elevator has to work around, nor do you have the basic knowledge on how trains really work and what is involved to make them work, yet you feel qualified to make assumptions based only on your dislike of BNSF...how silly.

It is plain you have never been in a grain elevator property, or at least a large elevator...your assumption that a single siding or spur would suffice to serve a large elevator is proof...only small mom and pop elevators have a single siding, large ones have their own yards and switch engines...a loop track for the mom and pop set up is a waste of resources, they can not load out enough cars to justify the expense...in fact, most of the "classic" elevators you referred to are going out of business because they can not load out or load a sufficient volume of cars to make it worth while for any railroad, even a short line, to waste their time on, these elevators are just to small to hold enough product to do so, even if they had the track and loader to do so.

When was the last time you rode around a balloon track, or protected a shove into a siding, or spotted cars in a grain elevator?
Lined a switch or tied a hand brake on a car?

So the only qualifications you have are the books you have read and the only experience you have is watching a train as it goes past your office window...and your assumed façade as an railroad academician...

It is obvious you can't read, or understand content, because you managed to get your version of my post so absolutely wrong...do you always skew and twist other peoples words to fit your off kilter view of the world?

Good luck selling your brand of socialism to the rest of the world.



Ed (and assorted Ilk)

[Anonymous]

(I had a whole long parsed response, but it got caught up in the abyss of cyberspace, so this will have to suffice...)

Tree: Do you or do you not agree that the railroads are forcing the issue regarding 110-car vs 26 and 52 car loading facilities? Hmmmm, that would be a "trend", wouldn't it? Which facilities are more likely to require a balloon track? The ones feeding the longer consists, or the shorter consists?

And BNSF regularly employs DPU's on it's PNW-bound grain shuttles, mudchicken's denial to the contrary.

It comes down to a matter of convience for the railroad at the cost of convience to the shipper.

The question of push/pull via DPU's vs the pull-through facility is a minor point. And no one said the "requirement" by the railroads for balloon track designs came from the engineering specs. Certain people tend to read more into these topic questions than are actually there. The bigger question is why existing elevators of relative newness and sufficient design for the shorter shuttles are being wasted in deference to the more expensive facilities? Some of those 26 and 52 car loaders are barely a few decades old, hardly depreciated. Whose to say that these newer more expensive 110 car loaders won't be a wasted investment in the future as railroads use their pricing power to force the construction of 160 car shuttles? I can see it now, instead of balloon tracks, these supermega facilities will require a double "Tehachapi" type loop system to fit such long consists into the existing real estate and road crossing constraints.

[tree68]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
Tree: Do you or do you not agree that the railroads are forcing the issue regarding 110-car vs 26 and 52 car loading facilities? Hmmmm, that would be a "trend", wouldn't it? Which facilities are more likely to require a balloon track? The ones feeding the longer consists, or the shorter consists?

I regularly see coal deliveries at the co-gen plant located on the facility where I work. A 100 car train is brought in by CSX, broken to fit the available tracks, then run through the unloader in 10-12 car sticks by the co-gen people (using an RC switcher), as that's all the unloader tracks will handle. I then get to see CSX reassemble the train. It's takes a while.

If the railroad is simply charging a rate that reflects the amount of time and effort required to break down and reassemble the train, I should think that most customers would soon see the advantage of having trackage that will handle a complete train, given the space.

The unloader I cite is no speed demon. It takes a couple of days to clear those 100 cars. Add to that the time it takes them to move the empty stick to a suitable track, then pick up a new stick and haul it back to the unloader.

Methinks you need to research this from the customer's point of view. Do they feel they are being forced? Or is this a conscious decision on their part?

[jeaton]

I like it how the grain companies are being "FORCED" to build facilities for rapid loading of ever longer trains. Do the railroads send out goon squads that go crashing into company board rooms and force the CEO's to sign?

Here's a thought. When economies of scale exist, they will be exploited. The first true grain unit train was the brain child of a grain company executive. If you want justice for the poor owners of 26 and 52 car facilities, maybe you should go to the builders of the 110 plus facilities and tell them to stop putting the hurt on the little guys.

And while you are on a roll, maybe you could put a stop to the proliferation of big box retail stores.

[edblysard]

Wouldn't it be great if he hated Wal Mart as much as he hates BNSF?
After all, Wal-Mart buys a lot of stuff from China and Taiwan, and ships huge amounts of containers on BNSF, and.....

Ah ha...I know; it’s a conspiracy!

Wal-Mart must secretly be forcing BNSF to refuse to handle the smaller grain trains and focus instead on the intermodel business, there by forcing the smaller Montana wheat farmers out of business...and all this time we though it was the evil BNSF trying to make money, but no, its the evil Wal-Mart behind it all!

Based on that, we can assume that Sam Walton had to have been a evil, Chinese double agent, out to destroy the America Norman Rockwell painted , and forcing us all to quit eating American grown wheat bread, there by forcing us to have to substitute Ramen noodles in place of Wonder bread!...

Wow, it all makes sense now!

Thanks, Dave, for pointing out the duopolistic evil big business take over of the American heart land...with out you and agent 99, we would all be using chopstick soon!

Ed

[Murphy Siding]

Yes, and they would have succeeded, if it hadn't been for you meddling kids! Scooby-dooby-doo!!

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

FM doesn't seem to realize that railroads can't afford to be all things to all people anymore. As pointed out above, economies of scale exist in the shipment of grain, so the facilities that can load 110-car blocks quickly are going to get a better rate than smaller facilities. Correspondingly, you can probably buy an item at a better price at the newly-opened big box discounter on the edge of town than at the mom-and-pop variety store on Main Street that's been in business for 75 years.

Railroads are in business to turn a profit, not just move goods from Point A to Point B.

[Anonymous]

Posted by the one and only ED

"Or, and those non railroaders you mentioned are not Cargill employees...they are Econorail, a contract switching service, made up of scab railroaders who have managed to get themselves fired from just about every professional railroad they worked for...if you are lucky, they show up sober, or just toked up...unlucky means they are so trashed they cant get off the locomotive to line the switch, so they just run through it instead.

What tickles me is you are commenting on a place and a service you have never set eyes on, you have zero idea of the lay of the land, the constraints this elevator has to work around, nor do you have the basic knowledge on how trains really work and what is involved to make them work, yet you feel qualified to make assumptions based only on your dislike of BNSF...how silly."

"ECONORAIL"??????? are you kidding me? There is a such thing? Holy crap! When we used to pick up trains in Gillette, we picked them up from the scabloaders....Rail Link. You could tell which mines used Rail Link by the knuckles laying on the ground.

FM-You give other members on this forum a bad name. Guys like you wear me out....Why? As Ed said you have never turned a wheel. Some of you all pop off and wouldn't know a Frog from a wet fart. Your following quote is the type of crap that makes me wanna puke!
"....which of course never happens under the watchful care of the road crew! So how are all those flat spots and broken knuckles occuring?"
What do you mean...all those flat spots and broken knuckles....blah blah.? Truth is, I don't see alot of knuckles and flat spots. You make out road crews to be morons. Why? Were not. 99% of us take our job very seriously. A *** site more than in most industry. We are personally accountable for our actions. A willful violation could result in jail time. When we screw up it is usually bad. We have officials constantly observing us from A-Z. The penalty for botching up is from investigation and time off to lawsuit to jailtime. What is it that you do for a paycheck there stud? Hows about you share that with us and give me a crack at scrutinizing your career.

[Anonymous]

Tree: What is the age of the facility you mention? Can I assume that it is a long established facility located in mountainous territory? If so, would there even be room for a rapid discharge balloon track?

Ed: How in the blazes do you go from a discussion of elevator tracks to your seemingly obligatory rant of the "evil" BNSF/Walmart/China? A little Ritalin would do you good. Still, it is entertaining!

jeaton: Rates and how they are applied force action of the customer. Railroads have been learning this ever since Staggers came into effect - it is easier to price the customers out of their comfort zone and then begin the process of abandonment. Once you lose all your customers on a line it is less likely they will be around to file a challenge to an abandonment proceeding. Those pesky shippers always ruin a good act of retrenchment. And the same philosophy is used for online facilities that don't fit the "efficiency ideal". Just because a major customer takes an action that fits into the railroad's wishes doesn't mean that same customer would have taken that action without impetus being forced by the railroad. Most grain companies would be perfectly willing to continue dealing in carload and small car lots, because that is what their customers prefer. As such facilites become consolidated, it means more travel time for the elevators' customers to get from farm to terminal. Show me one grain grower who agrees with you that 110 car shuttles are the way to go.

Murphy: As usual, your contribution is sophomoric. Try for once not to let ed and the ilks pressure you into sycophancy.

CSSHEGEWISCH: Try to remember, elevator companies and grain growers are trying to stay in business too. What's "efficient" for the railroad is not necessarily efficient for the whole supply chain.

ironken: I'll issue you the same challenge I issued LC - tell us your real name and what railroad you work for, and I'll tell you who I work for. Isn't that fair?

[edblysard]

How about my name and employer;
Ed Blysard.
I work for Port Terminal Railroad Association.
Houston, Texas.

How about you, Dave?
Got the guts?
I doubt it....

Ed

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

How about my name and employer;
Ed Blysard.
I work for Port Terminal Railroad Association.
Houston, Texas.

How about you, Dave?
Got the guts?
I doubt it....

Ed

Ed, the deal is for these anonamous posters like LC and ironken to give their real names and who they work for. I already know your name and place of work, you've mentioned such ad nauseum.

Both LC and ironken have called me out, yet they themselves hide behind their alias'. There's a word for that, it's called hypocrasy.

If I thought I could trust you to retain confidentiality on my behalf, I'd gladly email you offline and let you know my situation.

How about it, Ed?
You got the guts to be discretionary?
I doubt it.

[jeaton]

"jeaton: Rates and how they are applied force action of the customer. Railroads have been learning this ever since Staggers came into effect - it is easier to price the customers out of their comfort zone and then begin the process of abandonment. Once you lose all your customers on a line it is less likely they will be around to file a challenge to an abandonment proceeding. Those pesky shippers always ruin a good act of retrenchment. And the same philosophy is used for online facilities that don't fit the "efficiency ideal". Just because a major customer takes an action that fits into the railroad's wishes doesn't mean that same customer would have taken that action without impetus being forced by the railroad. Most grain companies would be perfectly willing to continue dealing in carload and small car lots, because that is what their customers prefer. As such facilites become consolidated, it means more travel time for the elevators' customers to get from farm to terminal. Show me one grain grower who agrees with you that 110 car shuttles are the way to go. (futuremodal)

So if I develop production efficiencies, reduce my costs, and decide to make a price cut, I am FORCING my present and new customers to buy at my lower prices?
That kind of nonsense wouldn't get you the time of day on a second rate conspiracy forum

[Anonymous]

FM, I decline to give my name......there is a reason that alot of rails do not post their real names on these forums and that is ridicule at work. I will however tell you the info that I request from you. I am a conductor on the BNSF. All I asked of you is what you do for a living. No more than I am willing to give. You upped the ante on personal info assuming (correctly) that I would decline to divulge my real name thus freeing yourself from divulging any personal info. Nice....very nice. Some pshycology at work here. Are you embarassed of your career of choice? Do you build nuclear devices? Inquiring minds want to know. My bet is head fry cook at Burger King. Am I right?

[edblysard]

Ironken...
Give it up. He is an office weenie at a Montana power company...a clerk or some other supernumerary too frightened to do much beside be a troll.

Ed

[Anonymous]

Roger that Ed! Then this forum is a great place to talk s$%t and theorize about something he knows nothing about. It is pretty easy to B.S. people who are not in the industry, that's why he has trouble with the rails around here.....we call him on his rhetoric. Heck, most of the railbuffs do too.

[rvos1979]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

It is plain you have never been in a grain elevator property, or at least a large elevator...your assumption that a single siding or spur would suffice to serve a large elevator is proof...only small mom and pop elevators have a single siding, large ones have their own yards and switch engines...a loop track for the mom and pop set up is a waste of resources, they can not load out enough cars to justify the expense...in fact, most of the "classic" elevators you referred to are going out of business because they can not load out or load a sufficient volume of cars to make it worth while for any railroad, even a short line, to waste their time on, these elevators are just to small to hold enough product to do so, even if they had the track and loader to do so.

Ed (and assorted Ilk)

At the risk of getting shot down by Ed, Mudchicken, and others, I'd like to offer a few points and opinions from working three years at the WSOR.

At least in our service area, the tiny elevator is not dead yet, although we try to get everyone to be able to load 25-car sets of grain. We have elevators that can only take two cars maximum at a time, normally they go with another, larger elevator to fill out a 25-car set. We have several different elevators that had this arrangment, it does make life harder for the switch crews, but apperently it works for the Wissor.

Judging from some of the track layouts I used to spot, the people who design and place these grain elevators should be taken out onto the street and shot. I have worked places where the tail tracks will only hold about 15 cars or so, meaning that halfway through loading a set, they need to be switched. We have two elevators in the same town, located on approx. 1.25% grades, that are a challenge for a good engineer to pull loads from. One other elevator has a 2% grade pulling the loads uphill, I pulled this place once, in fresh winter snow, and it was enough for my nerves (forgot to mention, the main at this point has a 1% grade uphill in the direction of the loads, makes airtests interesting, to say the least!).

All of our elevators that we served were too small or had bad locations which made them unsuitable for loop tracks. In two places, the loadouts are right on the main track, one is at the end of a spur so it isn't a problem, but the other one requires the use of train crews to load the grain set (elevator pays for this, too!).

I should mention here that much of the Wissor's grain carloads do not go offline anymore since two ethanol plants were built on the system, they eat up quite a bit of the grain that the elevators load. There are still loads destined for Chicago and points beyond, but it isn't as much as it used to be.

Quick aside: the guy who placed one of the ethanol plants should get a stupidity award, going into the plant, it is a steep grade down (I think someone said 2%), hand throw switches at the bottom that is usually against where you want to go, and the longest track holds about 28 cars, with enough tail track at the other end for three engines. Did I mention the crossing circuit that has only about 25 feet of approach, and is placed at one end of the yard? It's real fun bringing 50 grain loads and other assorted items down into that industry.

Ok, shot my mouth off enough for one posting.

Randy, former Wissor employee

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal


Murphy: As usual, your contribution is sophomoric. Try for once not to let ed and the ilks pressure you into sycophancy.

Dave: I'm making fun of the fact that way to many people take this board way too serious. I would think that Ed would have more reason to be upset with me than you. After all, it was Ed I was making fun of. Sorry Ed. I guess it's just that sophomoric side of me tha t pressures me into finding a dictionary to look up sycophancy.[;)] Enjoy the weekend.[:)]

[tree68]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Tree: What is the age of the facility you mention? Can I assume that it is a long established facility located in mountainous territory? If so, would there even be room for a rapid discharge balloon track?

The facility was built from scratch a little better than ten years ago. While there could be sufficient level land to build a loop, this is on an established government facility - think urban. The plant is bordered on one side by a busy 4 lane road, and on the other side by a hill that while far from mountainous, would preclude building a loop track without significant fill. It was built next to an established 6 car yard used chiefly for loading/unloading flatcars circus-style, but also very capable of use to hold full and empty hoppers. There is another 8 car yard about 3/4 mile away that is also used.

Here's an aerial photo. You can see the coal pile just above the center of the picture. The "L" in the black of the coal is the conveyors. The unloader is in the shed at the toe of the "L". The second yard I mentioned is at the center bottom of the picture. It looks like there is a stick of cars being unloaded, and one in the yard next to the unloader.

Drop off and delivery is handled by CSX using "local" designated trains, although often with run-through power.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tree68

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Tree: What is the age of the facility you mention? Can I assume that it is a long established facility located in mountainous territory? If so, would there even be room for a rapid discharge balloon track?

The facility was built from scratch a little better than ten years ago. While there could be sufficient level land to build a loop, this is on an established government facility - think urban. The plant is bordered on one side by a busy 4 lane road, and on the other side by a hill that while far from mountainous, would preclude building a loop track without significant fill. It was built next to an established 6 car yard used chiefly for loading/unloading flatcars circus-style, but also very capable of use to hold full and empty hoppers. There is another 8 car yard about 3/4 mile away that is also used.

Here's an aerial photo. You can see the coal pile just above the center of the picture. The "L" in the black of the coal is the conveyors. The unloader is in the shed at the toe of the "L". The second yard I mentioned is at the center bottom of the picture. It looks like there is a stick of cars being unloaded, and one in the yard next to the unloader.

Drop off and delivery is handled by CSX using "local" designated trains, although often with run-through power.

If I am seeing correctly, it looks as if the faciltiy is located at a "Y" junction, and that there are several road crossings to deal with if loading longer trains was desired. Tough situation for unit trains.

[mudchicken]

Randy:

Regarding the elevators you were around, go back and look at the 'agri-dummies" comment at the beginning of the thread. The elevator owner-operators are often the source of their own grief. Also in play is the "ethics of the low bid" which those folks get in trouble with on an almost daily basis which cause the design failures you want to shoot the designers for. (While shooting the unqualified designer, take the grain company clown who hired him an shoot him as well[;)][;)][;)])

There are two cases I can think of where a bulk storage facility was built and then expanded using truck service exclusively with rail service as an option. The east coast consultant that designed both facilities (totally unrelated) suddenly disappeared when both major railroads that were near these facilities told the facility owners that they could not physically serve them because of unrealistic curve (32 degree) and grade (6+%) restraints. In one case, a wallboard plant, the facility has sat "almost new" and vacant for 22 years. The other is left to the whim of the truckers and is set to fail. (It's owner is building a new facility and will eat the original mistake.)

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ironken

FM, I decline to give my name......there is a reason that alot of rails do not post their real names on these forums and that is ridicule at work. I will however tell you the info that I request from you. I am a conductor on the BNSF.

I'll take your word for it, since your contemptous attitude toward rail shippers is befitting a BNSF clone.

I had you pegged as some 12 year old Eric Cartman wannabe. Wouldn't suprise me if that turned out to be the case.

Me? You could have ascertained such by going through my profile.

I am self-employed. As for my connection with railroading, I own two patents on railcar design. I advise local EDC's on how to include the area railroads in their development plans. I am currently working as a consultant for a power company (no, Ed, I don't have an office window).

There's a storm abrewing between the energy sector and railroading, one that will make the ag vs railroads fight look like more of a spat, and that fight is going to end up in re-regulation of the railroads. Consumers might be oblivious to the effects of the railroad's abuses of the ag sector, but the energy sector has a direct effect on most US citizens, and as railroads continue to screw up coal deliveries and gouge utilities, this fight will end up as a regular event on the evening news.

2006 is the year of epiphany for railroads. If they continue to screw it up, there is no hope for them. Better sell that railroad stock now.