2006 - The Year of Re-Regulation of Railroads?

[edblysard]

LC,
I think that is a normal occurrence already.

Dave seems to lose sight of the KISS theory...and its application to railroads.
The simpler, the better.

One poster mentioned the turn around time as a factor...you and I already know that, if given a dedicated rail line, we could run 50 mph coal train, (new specialized equipment would be needed) and run them an hour apart from each other...the problem isn’t so much how fast can you run a coal train, but how fast can you mine the coal and load it in the train, then what to do with the coal once you get it to the plant...there is a limited amount of storage.

Plastic makers have solved that problem with SIT yards...but you can't do that with coal.
The just in time delivery system isn’t the result of the railroads not wanting to run their lines at capacity, but a direct result of the plants ability to store and use the product.

Ed

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

....and I'd have gotten away with it if it hadn't been for these meddling kids.....

Watch it there buster! You just might be bordering on sophomoric territory![}:)]

Well, a sophomoric allegation deserves a sophomoric response.

Good work guys, now you've got FM talking to himself...FOFLMAO...

LC

[TomDiehl]

Well, at least we're helping FM move his theory to a more practical level.

So far he's moved the GPS idea from "superceed signals" to "supplement signals." Although he still has yet to tell us how it will supplement signals to the point that the expense will be worth while.

One of these days, he may actually look at the problem instead of a symptom.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

....and I'd have gotten away with it if it hadn't been for these meddling kids.....

Watch it there buster! You just might be bordering on sophomoric territory![}:)]

Well, a sophomoric allegation deserves a sophomoric response.

Well........I guess I'll just have to study up on when it is, and isn't appropriate to quote literary passages from Scooby Doo.[:D]
Note a grammatical error in my last post: ([}:)]) should have actually read ([;)]) [;)]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by up829

FM, I think you're missing the point about DME. For better ot worse, de-regulation has been the trend since the 80's. DME shows the market is working.....

Except if the market was really working, DM&E (and any other railroad company who could conceivably stretch their rails into the PRB) would have been able to build their extension entirely with private funds.

The question then is what is the primary reason for this need for government backing for rail projects? Is it perhaps that railroads have never really had the private sector viability capable of a nationwide network (otherwise why did we need the land grants and why do we need the anti-trust exemption)? Should a nation's rail network be reflective of it's total multi-modal package of infrastructure, rather than trying to exemplify a quasi-private sector investment?

What we do know is this: The current private closed access rail system does not engender the ideal of a genuine working free market, either historically or presently.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

....and I'd have gotten away with it if it hadn't been for these meddling kids.....

Watch it there buster! You just might be bordering on sophomoric territory![}:)]

Well, a sophomoric allegation deserves a sophomoric response.

[Anonymous]

How long does it take the mines and the utilities to turn around a coal train i.e. time it arrives until the time it departs? Unless the entire system is in balance, getting the trains there faster won't help.

FM, I think you're missing the point about DME. For better ot worse, de-regulation has been the trend since the 80's. DME shows the market is working, and as I understand it the problems are largely maintenance related on the Orin sub. DME provides redundancy, which as the large gulf coast refineries have shown, is a good thing. Of course the Dems may win back the House, Pelosi would become Speaker and a terrorist attack away from becoming President.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

....and I'd have gotten away with it if it hadn't been for these meddling kids.....

Watch it there buster! You just might be bordering on sophomoric territory![}:)]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

FM should also be aware that GPS for civilian use is only accurate to about 10-15 feet of actual position, insufficient accuracy to determine which track on a multiple-track main line. Is GPS enough of an improvement over existing systems to justify the expense of installation or is it a case of hi-tech for its own sake?

1. I would grant you that GPS is a lot cheaper than installing new CTC/ABS.
2. GPS could work in conjunction with EOT radar and lead unit radar detection, which would be activated if a lead consist slows below a safe speed range, or if it stops on the main, and would deactivate once a consist clears a siding. The point is, GPS wouldn't necessarily have to work alone to achieve the desired capacity improvements.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken
Will keep waving the banner of quack science until he brainwashes enough witless souls to further his cause.

Oh no [:0], mudchicken is on to our secret conspriacy to brainwash professional railroaders (or as he calls them "witless souls")[:D].

....and I'd have gotten away with it if it hadn't been for these meddling kids.....

Of course, what he's really afraid of is the fact that GPS is the primary component of the crewless consist concept. Even I'm not a proponent of that!

Isn't it ironic that UPS has a better idea of where their trucks are than the railroad that is carrying them?

The railroad seems to know where they are when it's time to unload them.

BTW, isn't the tracking system that UPS uses mounted in the tractor, not the trailer?

Still, I notice no answer to WHERE or WHY the trains are being slowed down. Just a few high tech buzz words rather than answers or solutions.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken
Will keep waving the banner of quack science until he brainwashes enough witless souls to further his cause.

Oh no [:0], mudchicken is on to our secret conspriacy to brainwash professional railroaders (or as he calls them "witless souls")[:D].

....and I'd have gotten away with it if it hadn't been for these meddling kids.....

Of course, what he's really afraid of is the fact that GPS is the primary component of the crewless consist concept. Even I'm not a proponent of that!

Isn't it ironic that UPS has a better idea of where their trucks are than the railroad that is carrying them?

[mudchicken]

CSSH: He's just trotting out the term because he thinks that it is some sort of magic bullet that solves all the world's problems. He has no clue about what's involved or its mechanics. Will keep waving the banner of quack science until he brainwashes enough witless souls to further his cause. If he spend others hard earned income to suit his warped agenda, so much the better.

GPS can contribute (witness GES locomotive monitoring), but not where he thinks it is going to.

[V][V][V]

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by chad thomas

QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken

(4) In what may need FRA approval, implement GPS to supercede lineside signals or the lack thereof. GPS would result in incredible efficiency gains, what is needed is a way to combine GPS with in cab signalling. Being able to bunch trains closer together means greater line utilization.

*******************************************************************************

You're dreaming again - your lack of a "grounding in reality" is amazing. The relative precision of GPS data collected even with the pdop military inhibitors removed is poor, even with post-processing. Ain't gonna happen until computer technology makes a quantum leap. GPS is not the panacea you reckless clowns think it is.(about as bad as the call for GPS tracking in coal mines made recently[:D])

Now I have heard some stupid things before but that has to be one of the stupidest. GPS in a cave? HELLO, is there anybody home?[V]

OMG Chad is the Verizon guy. [:D]

"Can you hear me now?"

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

FM should also be aware that GPS for civilian use is only accurate to about 10-15 feet of actual position, insufficient accuracy to determine which track on a multiple-track main line. Is GPS enough of an improvement over existing systems to justify the expense of installation or is it a case of hi-tech for its own sake?

[chad thomas]

QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken

(4) In what may need FRA approval, implement GPS to supercede lineside signals or the lack thereof. GPS would result in incredible efficiency gains, what is needed is a way to combine GPS with in cab signalling. Being able to bunch trains closer together means greater line utilization.

*******************************************************************************

You're dreaming again - your lack of a "grounding in reality" is amazing. The relative precision of GPS data collected even with the pdop military inhibitors removed is poor, even with post-processing. Ain't gonna happen until computer technology makes a quantum leap. GPS is not the panacea you reckless clowns think it is.(about as bad as the call for GPS tracking in coal mines made recently[:D])

Now I have heard some stupid things before but that has to be one of the stupidest. GPS in a cave? HELLO, is there anybody home?[V]

[Anonymous]

You know, I come with some really great theories when I am in the bathroom on the throne......Should I start posting them here too. Maybe I should ponder re-regulation in my next deposit session. Is this the time when you hatch all of your master plans FM?

[mudchicken]

HAL = Heavy Axle Load

Adding elevation to the curves equates to more rail wear or car stability problems (High center of gravity - unbalance) ... The elevations set now are there to keep a happy median elevation that all the typical railcars using the line can handle based on MGT and maintenance cycle considerations.

FM: On the GPS comment above, I assume that the railroads are: (1) going to build a special car to get the GPS antennae away from the multipath nightmares called main generators on those D-E locomotives. (2) are going to remove every tree over 15 foot tall within 200 feet of the track, (3) remove every bridge and daylight every tunnel, and remove every high tension power line near the tracks (most of them forced on the railroad because the r/w adjoiners made placing them where they ought to go too expensive to do the right way) and haul around a Cray super-computer the size of a small locomotive just to process real-time GPS data.......JUST so a collection of greedy 5 Watt dim-bulbs in the power biz can get their way?[(-D][(-D][(-D]

[oltmannd]

Capacity on main tracks is generally not the problem. It's bottlenecks. Most bottlenecks are generally around terminals. Trains having to double in and out of terminals, tying up main track while they do it, trains arriving and departing yards at restricted speed, slow speed, crossing routes in terminal areas are the kinds of things that kill average train speed.

Admittedly, there are congested single track routes that need some relief, and lack of superelevation in curves does slow things down a bit, but these aren't where the real problem is.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Adding axles is also a major expense. A flexible 6-wheel truck like a Buckeye is going to cost a lot more to purchase and maintain than the simple 4-wheel three-piece design. Span bolsters (if you want to go to 16 wheels per car), are also an added expense, both initial and ongoing. This is an awful lot of money to spend to avoid having to spend money to upgrade a branch or short line to handle 286k or 315k cars.

[owlsroost]

HAL = high(er) axle load, maybe ?

Tony

(or IBM taken down a step......)

[Murphy Siding]

I lost track-what is HAL? Isn't that the computer in 2001 A Space Odyssy?

[Anonymous]

beaulieu,

It's not HAL for trucks, it's GVW. Remember, trucks spread the weight of the rig over more axles as the GVW increases. Railroads have gone the opposite direction, prefering to put more weight on the same number of axles.

HAL is death to shortlines. It is somewhat ironic that if railroads had gone the spread axle route, all the shortlines would have to do is fix the bridges to stay in the good graces of the Class I's. With HAL we're talking a complete extreme makeover of branchlines, and usually the cost of doing so exceeds the value of the line to begin with.

[beaulieu]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal


Yeah, GPS is too newfangled for the railroads to touch. Better wait another 50 years until trucks and ships prove it's value, then finally adopt it.

Just remember being off by 15ft doesn't mean much to a ship to a train it can mean being on a different track, also it won't help with things like switch position and broken rails.

QUOTE: [i]
Tom, just remember "more trains" does not mean more congestion, it means greater fluidity of the system. Occupying a slot is a function of time, not train length. The less time a train occupies a slot, the faster that slot becomes available for the next train. If longer consists could get faster, great, but it seems that the practical solution to reduce the time a slot is occupied is to run 'em shorter and quicker, until someone comes up with a way to run 'em longer and quicker. Even then, the longer consists will always take more time to make up and break up. Parking cars in a yard somewhere is not a solution to discapacity.

But time of occupancy IS a function of speed plus length, plus safety buffer.

QUOTE: [i
Regarding GVW, it must be pointed out that increasing a truck's GVW will not have any effect of adding to highway congestion, because that heavier truck is still booking along at the max speed limit except on grades, and most grades these days have passing lanes, so no one is being inhibited by that heavier truck. There's plenty of places to pass on most highways. In fact, increasing GVW standards for trucks will reduce the number of trucks required to haul a set tonnage of cargo, so the effect can be reduced ambient highway congestion.

On railroads, it's different, because "passing" zones are few and far between, so one heavy train bumbling along will clog up the whole system. Do what ever it takes to limit the amount of time a consist spends on a slot, and then and only then can you effectively "add" capacity without laying a single new set of rails.

HAL is good for trucks but not trains? Breaks up the pavement quicker, etc.
One thing to remember about going to lower axle loadings is that the tare to payload ratio will deteriorate and costs will go up. A car built for 286,000 gross weight does not cost proportionately more than a 268,000 car. Material cost does increase but the labor cost, which is the driver, increases hardly at all.
Speeding up traffic WILL increase track capacity to a point. But harmonizing train speeds will generate better utilization faster than speed will. Don't forget that speeds aren't held down by just curves but also grades. One other factor not mentioned by the Utilities because it isn't on their agenda is that a few years ago when coal prices were at their nadir, the coal companies just closed several mines to create a shortage and drive spot prices back up. Also right now there is a serious shortage of tires for heavy mining equipment, it is so bad that Elk Valley Coal in Canada has announced that they will be unable to fill about 7 million tons of orders in the first half of 2006 for Met. Coal. CP is storing some power and parking some coal train consists.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM

Tom

Speed limits are not a function of train length. They may be a function of train type. Unit coal trains are sometimes held to a lower speed than others, for example. Lower speed limits are sometimes imposed on trains with high tons per operative brake TPOB. This is because a train with high TPOB will take longer to stop that will one with lower TPOB. This is done where signals are relatively close together and speed needs to be limited to assure they can stop for an adverse signal.

Mac

Dave has been a bit vague about what is causing the trains to run below the speed limits of the sections of the railroad in question. I was continuing along the line of his proposal that shorter trains could run faster.

[PNWRMNM]

Tom

Speed limits are not a function of train length. They may be a function of train type. Unit coal trains are sometimes held to a lower speed than others, for example. Lower speed limits are sometimes imposed on trains with high tons per operative brake TPOB. This is because a train with high TPOB will take longer to stop that will one with lower TPOB. This is done where signals are relatively close together and speed needs to be limited to assure they can stop for an adverse signal.

Mac

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Regarding GVW, it must be pointed out that increasing a truck's GVW will not have any effect of adding to highway congestion, because that heavier truck is still booking along at the max speed limit except on grades, and most grades these days have passing lanes, so no one is being inhibited by that heavier truck. There's plenty of places to pass on most highways. In fact, increasing GVW standards for trucks will reduce the number of trucks required to haul a set tonnage of cargo, so the effect can be reduced ambient highway congestion.

On railroads, it's different, because "passing" zones are few and far between, so one heavy train bumbling along will clog up the whole system. Do what ever it takes to limit the amount of time a consist spends on a slot, and then and only then can you effectively "add" capacity without laying a single new set of rails.

I guess the Pacific Northwest doesn't have traffic jams and slow spots like we do here in the east. There's been MANY times I seen (from the road) that all traffic is moving at nowhere near the speed limit. If it moves at all.

And again, what is the speed limit of a heavy train as compared to a lighter train? How much of a difference can be achieved with this change?

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Tom, just remember "more trains" does not mean more congestion, it means greater fluidity of the system. Occupying a slot is a function of time, not train length. The less time a train occupies a slot, the faster that slot becomes available for the next train. If longer consists could get faster, great, but it seems that the practical solution to reduce the time a slot is occupied is to run 'em shorter and quicker, until someone comes up with a way to run 'em longer and quicker. Even then, the longer consists will always take more time to make up and break up. Parking cars in a yard somewhere is not a solution to discapacity.

Now you're making it sound like a train's speed limit is determind by its length. If so, what is the speed limit of a 50 car train as compared to a 100 car train? Plus, is yard dwell time figured into your average speed equation?

[Anonymous]

Yeah, GPS is too newfangled for the railroads to touch. Better wait another 50 years until trucks and ships prove it's value, then finally adopt it.

Tom, just remember "more trains" does not mean more congestion, it means greater fluidity of the system. Occupying a slot is a function of time, not train length. The less time a train occupies a slot, the faster that slot becomes available for the next train. If longer consists could get faster, great, but it seems that the practical solution to reduce the time a slot is occupied is to run 'em shorter and quicker, until someone comes up with a way to run 'em longer and quicker. Even then, the longer consists will always take more time to make up and break up. Parking cars in a yard somewhere is not a solution to discapacity.

Regarding GVW, it must be pointed out that increasing a truck's GVW will not have any effect of adding to highway congestion, because that heavier truck is still booking along at the max speed limit except on grades, and most grades these days have passing lanes, so no one is being inhibited by that heavier truck. There's plenty of places to pass on most highways. In fact, increasing GVW standards for trucks will reduce the number of trucks required to haul a set tonnage of cargo, so the effect can be reduced ambient highway congestion.

On railroads, it's different, because "passing" zones are few and far between, so one heavy train bumbling along will clog up the whole system. Do what ever it takes to limit the amount of time a consist spends on a slot, and then and only then can you effectively "add" capacity without laying a single new set of rails.

[mudchicken]

(4) In what may need FRA approval, implement GPS to supercede lineside signals or the lack thereof. GPS would result in incredible efficiency gains, what is needed is a way to combine GPS with in cab signalling. Being able to bunch trains closer together means greater line utilization.

*******************************************************************************

You're dreaming again - your lack of a "grounding in reality" is amazing. The relative precision of GPS data collected even with the pdop military inhibitors removed is poor, even with post-processing. Ain't gonna happen until computer technology makes a quantum leap. GPS is not the panacea you reckless clowns think it is.(about as bad as the call for GPS tracking in coal mines made recently[:D])

[TomDiehl]

1) Cooperation between the BNSF and the UP? Have to see that one to believe it.

2) But the real question is "why aren't they running at max allowed speed now?" Just requiring them to do it won't compensate for problems in the infrastructure.

3) The problem here is shorter trains will require MORE trains to move the same number of cars. So this alone will negate or even worsen the slow delivery problem.

4) Signalling or other traffic control system changes would have to be proven reliable and safe before a railroad would consider using them. And would need to show an actual improvement. GPS, being the "new and flashy" technology, doesn't necessarily mean that it would work better.

The difference in GVW for trucks and trains has more to do with the route they travel. The trucks, running on the highways, are weight limited based on the structure of the public highways and roads they will travel. The railroad, running on it's own right of way, has the same type restriction, but more control over the weight limit.

Again, you're second guessing the decision of where to invest the railroads investment in infrastructure from the outside looking in.

And as stated many times in this thread, reregulation would be more a political move than a practical move because a few shippers complain about rates.