Edit topic

Updated your discussion topic below.

Subject
Enter a subject for your topic. Maximum 150 characters.
Post Body
Enter your post below.
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?
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag
E-mail Subscribe
Check the box below if you want to receive e-mail notifications when replies are made to this thread.

Receive notifications