2006 - The Year of Re-Regulation of Railroads?

[Anonymous]

Of course, we're drifting away from the subject heading, but for what it's worth here's a few suggestions to raise average speeds within the constraints of the current culture:

(1)Implement directional running where possible, even if it means cooperating with another railroad to achieve this end. The WP and SP did it in Nevada. BNSF and UP could do it between Spokane and the Tri-Cities/Wallula area. BNSF has the necessary redudancy through the Northern Tier states to do this. And doesn't UP do directional running along parts of the Southern Tier?

(2)As per (1) above, require all trains to run at the maximum allowable speed. If that means requiring a minimum hp/ton ratio to achieve this, than so be it. It makes no sense to have a 79 mph stretch of track only to have some heavy tonnage bumbling along at 35 mph in that zone.

(3)If indeed shorter trains can achieve over the line speeds that a longer train cannot, then shorten the trains to achieve this end. If that means 1 man crews to make up for ostensible increases in labor costs, then find a way to do it. The unions may go for some form of 1 man crew if it results in increased employment opportunities, and the necessary incentive/safety backup is implemented, such as a shorter work day at the same pay rate as a longer work day, pay the 1 man crew the equivalent of a 1.5 man crew, and/or require an incab video assist. The railroad should be able to achieve an increase in revenue via higher revenue carloads per year to more than offset the increase in per man labor costs. And shorter consists means cars spend less time dwelling in yards.

(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.

Beyond those suggestions, I would point out that even a partial shift to bi-modal operations can achieve tremendous line speed increases. The problem is that bi-modal operations are diametrically opposed to the trend toward HAL. For the longer term, someone needs to step back and analyze whether HAL is indeed in the best inerests of railroads. Is HAL counterintuitive to the concept of JIT, after all JIT is the continuing trend for the supply chain? Is HAL counterintuitive to the concept of premium priced TOFC? Do we really need HAL doublestacks, if most containers only max out a well at 160,000 lbs? Isn't it counterintuitive to oppose increased GVW for trucks, yet want to increase load factors for domestic COFC and TOFC?

As for heavier cars, the railroads did just fine with the six and either axle "rail whales" which were subsequently banned by the FRA based on possible damage to bridges and other structures, yet HAL would put the very same stress on structures as the spread axle loads! At least the rail whales fit into the higher speed infrastructure characteristics since their average axle loadings were still at 33 tons, so we could still have greater superelevation on curves than the HAL allow.

As for re-regulation, I would think if such were to occur it would probably be a blanket requirement for all rates to be reflective of the 180% R/VC standard. This would raise rates for import intermodal, but lower rates for domestic coal and grain movements. The question then is, can the railroads survive without the ability to gouge captive shippers? As for the argument that a blanket 180% R/VC standard would kill infrastructure investments, we already know that most infrastructure investments are going to those lanes where rates are less than 180% R/VC. Of BNSF's capital improvement plan, only one aspect of that plan is addressing PRB coal corridors, the rest goes to intermodal lanes. Maybe if those intermodal lanes are forced to pay for themselves..........

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

And of course, it needs to be pointed out that in all likelyhood neither ed, Tom, ironken, LC, or mudchicken have any experience in economic analysis, which is why they think the world of expertise stops at the union hall.

Some punk management type tells them it can't be done, and they gladly regurgitate the misinformation. And woe to those who beg to differ if they are not professional railroaders, 'cause if you ain't ever jacked a run 8 or took some slack up the backside, "why you don't know nuthin' bout how these here railroads funkshun."

Suffice it to say, older transportation theories state that the logical upper limit of steel wheel on steel rail is around 125 mph, so to expect railroads to achieve a doubling of average industry speed from 25 mph to 50 mph is only "impossible" to those who have not studied transportation theories. And to try and explain revenue maximization to those who think revenues are derived from increasing load factor per car, not tons of revenue-producing product delivered per time period, is like trying to explain fiduciary fiscal factuality to a feculent foppish frump.

That may be true. But the problem is that there's a point where theory has to become practice. Otherwise it's just so many words and thoughts.

Or plainly put HOW do you raise the average speed? What areas are lacking? What needs to be upgraded? How much does it cost? Where do you get the money? Will it provide enough return on investment to make it worth while?

[Anonymous]

LC,

I will just reiterate as I did for Tom - the railroads don't need to increase track speed limits per se (which are fine being between 40 mph and 79 mph for most mainlines), they need to increase average train speed above the pathetic 25 mph average now at the fore.

The problem with HAL as it relates to lowering average train speeds lies mostly with the elimination of superelevation around curves. Trains have to (1) slow down for the curve (2) go slow through the curve, and (3) try to accelerate back up to the posted speed afterward. The move from 25 tons per axle to 35 tons per axle has corresponded with the loss of speed-friendly curvature.

Railroads are the only mode I know of that have in many respects gotten slower over the years, while airlines, trucks, and even ships have gotten faster. This relative slowing of the system is THE major contributor to the current capacity crunch, not the increase in traffic. The current network would be just fine for current traffic conditions if only they'd get the trains accross the system in a more expedient fashion.

Now the "Crunch of 2006" will be heard around the world. The railroads' modus operandi is already causing them to fall behind the demand curve, and there is no reason to believe things will get better anytime soon. As coal plants are forced to shut down due to lack of coal supply, possibly triggering major blackouts this summer, politicians will be getting an earfull, and the buck will stop right at Ft. Worth and Omaha.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

And of course, it needs to be pointed out that in all likelyhood neither ed, Tom, ironken, LC, or mudchicken have any experience in economic analysis, which is why they think the world of expertise stops at the union hall.

Some punk management type tells them it can't be done, and they gladly regurgitate the misinformation. And woe to those who beg to differ if they are not professional railroaders, 'cause if you ain't ever jacked a run 8 or took some slack up the backside, "why you don't know nuthin' bout how these here railroads funkshun."

Suffice it to say, older transportation theories state that the logical upper limit of steel wheel on steel rail is around 125 mph, so to expect railroads to achieve a doubling of average industry speed from 25 mph to 50 mph is only "impossible" to those who have not studied transportation theories. And to try and explain revenue maximization to those who think revenues are derived from increasing load factor per car, not tons of revenue-producing product delivered per time period, is like trying to explain fiduciary fiscal factuality to a feculent foppish frump.

FM -

This thread is not a license for you to get on your high rocking horse...

Doubling of the industry speed is likely to be a project of significant length as we who actually run the trains and see on a daily basis the inefficiency of the system. The aging infrastructure, the inadequate locomotive power and lack in many cases of enough decent cars to haul the product. The repetitive BS from customers who are constantly trying to use the rail system in ways never intended and always seeking to avoid payment of valid transportation charges through one loophole or another. Gee, I wonder why farmers have fought so hard to keep grain movements subject to tariffs instead of contracts in a last gasp to keep a regulatory hold on railroad pricing...

The level of investment required to double speed would be HUGE. It is unlikely that an economic return could be earned on such an investment even in a world where railroads show some hope of earning their cost of capital. I know you'll see this as an opening to hawk your open access foolishness, again, but no amount of OA and financial mumbo jumbo analysis will change the amount or character of the necessary investment. That is something you have to learn by inspection and observation, all the analysis in the world is worthless without facts, as are most of your speculative "analysis" .

LC

[Anonymous]

And of course, it needs to be pointed out that in all likelyhood neither ed, Tom, ironken, LC, or mudchicken have any experience in economic analysis, which is why they think the world of expertise stops at the union hall.

Some punk management type tells them it can't be done, and they gladly regurgitate the misinformation. And woe to those who beg to differ if they are not professional railroaders, 'cause if you ain't ever jacked a run 8 or took some slack up the backside, "why you don't know nuthin' bout how these here railroads funkshun."

Suffice it to say, older transportation theories state that the logical upper limit of steel wheel on steel rail is around 125 mph, so to expect railroads to achieve a doubling of average industry speed from 25 mph to 50 mph is only "impossible" to those who have not studied transportation theories. And to try and explain revenue maximization to those who think revenues are derived from increasing load factor per car, not tons of revenue-producing product delivered per time period, is like trying to explain fiduciary fiscal factuality to a feculent foppish frump.

[Anonymous]

Michael Sol wrote:

"I don't lecture you on trains or how to run them. Never had anything to do with them, except an occasional ride."

Thanks for the confirmation Mike.

LC

[mudchicken]

QUOTE: Originally posted by [e-mail]

QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken

50 MPH average speed for coal trains huh? [(-D][(-D][(-D]

No matter the condition of the track structure, that coal train equipment isn't going over 45 MPH.

you have no idea what you are talking about. on the bnsf in winslow, az the max speed for a coal train is 55. throughout the powder river the max speed on all bnsf unit coal trains is 50.

Even with distributed power letting you go a max of 55 MPH on part of BNSF [Other Class 1's restrict to 45 - You gotta be able to stop] , you still have OTR dwell time and you don't exactly go from zero to 55 in the bat of an eye. The issue is AVERAGE speed and to get an average of 50, I hope you're in good with the rules people. I don't expect to see an average speed of 50 in my lifetime)

Maybe Paul Thomas can come up to Ya-Ta-He Central from Phx/Glendale and 'splain it to yaz. He would be what I would classify as an expert on running trains. (I never said I run -em, I am more responsible for what the hopeless operating types run their shiny toys ON)

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken

50 MPH average speed for coal trains huh? [(-D][(-D][(-D]

No matter the condition of the track structure, that coal train equipment isn't going over 45 MPH.

you have no idea what you are talking about. on the bnsf in winslow, az the max speed for a coal train is 55. throughout the powder river the max speed on all bnsf unit coal trains is 50.

[mudchicken]

The PE who professes to "know all" will be sitting in front of the State Board who licensed him/her explaining to them in short order why he deserves to not have his license pulled for operating outside of his area of expertise. We have some folks here who don't know what either kind of engineer does (trade or profession) and still claim to know it all - Excuse me while I give you both a VERY wide berth.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

Actually, Mike...
I am a yardman because I have enough seniority to hold the nice morning trick lead job with the days off I want, work, or not work the holidays I chose, and have both a nice lunchroom, with a coffee pot on all the time, and the privilege of being the lead man on our switch crews...I am here by choice, I don’t have to walk brake sets in the rain, or replace knuckles by myself, and pretty much am allowed to run things at my pace and in the manner I choose...as opposed to you being "out of the loop" for 30 plus years.

And I am certain that when I retire, I will have met many, many men, and a few woman, that are much better railroaders than I... and most certainly much better, and less bitter people than you.

But enough of the pissing contest; trust me, mine’s younger, squirts farther, and I have better aim than you...

The real question is: Do you plan on answering Tom's question, or not?

Ed

Don't know what Tom's question was. I stopped reading after he fabricated some studies on another thread, then plagarized a website offering it as his own knowledge.

I've answered a lot of Tom's questions, in a straightfoward fashion. When he demanded on another thread that I explain why a Professional Engineer was not the same thing as every engineer that the railroads had, I did so without rancor or drama. A PE is a specific thing and it was not what Tom thought. He was fairly arrogant about his assumptions, but presumably that was put to rest.

Best regards, Michael Sol

I see Michael's reading ability isn't any better on this thread than the other.

Since you have trouble reading, let me give you directions and see if you can at least follow them. This thread, page 3, post 9 Edblysard; then again on post 10 bobwilcox asked about your background. On post 11, I commented that they had "beat me to it."

Of course you stopped reading it. You just have a problem with people point out your BS.

And I "plagarized a website offering it as his own knowledge?" Just more proof that you can't read. I NEVER claimed that any of that info was my own.

And a "professional," by the dictionary definition, is "n. A member of any profession; one who makes a living by arts, sports, etc., in which amateurs engage." So I guess the railroads only had amateur engineers working for them. BTW, they're called "licensed engineers" in this area. Maybe that's because they need a license?

Oh, and that reference: Webster's Dictionary, which is on my desk. I won't bore or try to impress people with a long, self-serving list of the other books there.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

Actually, Mike...
I am a yardman because I have enough seniority to hold the nice morning trick lead job with the days off I want, work, or not work the holidays I chose, and have both a nice lunchroom, with a coffee pot on all the time, and the privilege of being the lead man on our switch crews...I am here by choice, I don’t have to walk brake sets in the rain, or replace knuckles by myself, and pretty much am allowed to run things at my pace and in the manner I choose...as opposed to you being "out of the loop" for 30 plus years.

And I am certain that when I retire, I will have met many, many men, and a few woman, that are much better railroaders than I... and most certainly much better, and less bitter people than you.

But enough of the pissing contest; trust me, mine’s younger, squirts farther, and I have better aim than you...

The real question is: Do you plan on answering Tom's question, or not?

Ed

Don't know what Tom's question was. I stopped reading after he fabricated some studies on another thread, then plagarized a website offering it as his own knowledge.

I've answered a lot of Tom's questions, in a straightfoward fashion. When he demanded on another thread that I explain why a Professional Engineer was not the same thing as every engineer that the railroads had, I did so without rancor or drama. A PE is a specific thing and it was not what Tom thought. He was fairly arrogant about his assumptions, but presumably that was put to rest.

When he asked who and what paid for a particular engineering study on another thread, I gave him a detailed history of who, and the background of the firm as well, from its beginning to its end. Spent some time doing it. Suffice it to say, notwithstanding my efforts, I did not receive so much as a thanks, rather something else. Tom turns out to have fabricated a series of studies that he referred to as "railroad studies," and it turns out he had never seen a one of them and apparently they didn't exist.

My opinion on "responding" to any of his comments, questions, or remarks has been changed by my experience with him and his penchant for fabricating whatever convenient "reference" happens to come to mind to sustain an argument on something he actually knows nothing about either by experience, by study, by training, or as near as I can tell, even by anecdote.

As for being "out of the loop for 30 years," at that time and at that age, I had no idea what a "loop" was. Whatever I was in, I was in. Whatever I was out of, I was out of. I did my job. I spend more time discussing and consulting on rail issues and operations, and history, with senior people now than I ever did. There are a variety of specific reasons for that. Whether they are any of your business or not, issues should stand on their merits. If what you or I say is accurate or makes sense, it will be accurate or make sense. If it isn't, it isn't. I have known enough complete idiots in several lines of work that I do not take them as representative, and enough astute observers to know that smart people exist irrespective of "experience."

I don't lecture you on trains or how to run them. Never had anything to do with them, except an occasional ride. Haven't noticed the same humility in return.

If the class of some of the people I see on this list is typical, I am rather glad I got out when younger. Accordingly, the people I still know and see frequently, as regular correspondents or at the annual retired employee picnics, seem better by comparison all the time. They were and are classy people. I don't see that much on this List.

Best wishes on your career. When you retire and mellow out, I hope your memories are as pleasant as mine

Best regards, Michael Sol

[edblysard]

Actually, Mike...
I am a yardman because I have enough seniority to hold the nice morning trick lead job with the days off I want, work, or not work the holidays I chose, and have both a nice lunchroom, with a coffee pot on all the time, and the privilege of being the lead man on our switch crews...I am here by choice, I don’t have to walk brake sets in the rain, or replace knuckles by myself, and pretty much am allowed to run things at my pace and in the manner I choose...as opposed to you being "out of the loop" for 30 plus years.

And I am certain that when I retire, I will have met many, many men, and a few woman, that are much better railroaders than I... and most certainly much better, and less bitter people than you.

But enough of the pissing contest; trust me, mine’s younger, squirts farther, and I have better aim than you...

The real question is: Do you plan on answering Tom's question, or not?

Ed

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard
By the way, you raised the question, not I.
All I was doing was asking for your train dispatching qualifications and experience.
Based on the fact that, like a good lawyer, you never answered the question, but redirected the question instead, I would say your experience is zero.
[

Interesting. No allegation that there was a qualification, but rather a comment by TomDehl that suggested he knew all about it.

A single question: what's the background to the comment?

The gentleman fabricated some sources on another thread. Naturally, when anyone comments on a technical question, it is appropriate to ask what the source is. It may be personal experience, training, it may be a reference source. Most people gladly provide it. You always seem threatened.

And the question of course, as both of you carefully evaded, was never answered.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

QUOTE: Originally posted by ironken

Ed, between people here that are armchair rails and newbies who haven't ever paid off any of RRB's tiers or for that matter put in enough time to qualify for RR unemployment, I just wanna puke! On annother thread, this chick is "cutting people in," that have been through the hiring prcess on how the cow eats the cabbage......The MODOC way. Crap! I am not a pro for Peat's sake....but, If you Havn't done it yourself, then have some respect for those that have!

I heartily agree...

Michael Sol is an attorney for those who don't know. As far as I can determine he has no real railroad experience. Having both my attorney's license in a few jurisdictions and an engineer's card and conductor's qualification, I think you can see where I stand...

Also, that woman on the Modoc thread is a FOOL...

LC

So much for your "determination." I don't know you from Adam, and you don't know me. Don't pretend to know what you don't know. That's where I stand.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

Ladies and Gentilemen, the promoted AND educated L.C. Nuff Said!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ironken

Ed, between people here that are armchair rails and newbies who haven't ever paid off any of RRB's tiers or for that matter put in enough time to qualify for RR unemployment, I just wanna puke! On annother thread, this chick is "cutting people in," that have been through the hiring prcess on how the cow eats the cabbage......The MODOC way. Crap! I am not a pro for Peat's sake....but, If you Havn't done it yourself, then have some respect for those that have!

I heartily agree...

Michael Sol is an attorney for those who don't know. As far as I can determine he has no real railroad experience. Having both my attorney's license in a few jurisdictions and an engineer's card and conductor's qualification, I think you can see where I stand...

Also, that woman on the Modoc thread is a FOOL...

LC

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

Tom,
I never had to hide behind anonymity, nor have I pretended to be an expert...what you see is what I really am, an engine foreman/switchman/conductor at the PTRA in Houston.
Unlike the armchair railroading both Dave and Michael play at, I do it for a living.
They do this (trolling) as a sport, neither on has any experience running a train...Michaels total experience in railroad operations is that as a teenager; he carried a fire extinguisher on a ROW brush fire squad, for a summer.
Which qualifies him to pee on a match...?

Pretty sensitive there Ed, stuck in the yard job and never got promoted out eh? Of course, as you know from the fire extinguisher story, there was a little more to it, but that wouldn't be the whole story, then, would it? Wouldn't expect the whole story from you.

And yeah, I did run some of your comments past a "couple of friends" the kind with more years of experience in railroading that you will ever have; the kind who would have been your bosses if you had ever made it a real railroad. They chuckled over how much you knew, and how little they did, since none of them had ever "put together a train", but they had run railroads. One asked the other day: "what about that switch engine guy that knows how to run a railroad, is he still around?"

When I left the rail industry, I left an industry that I held in a high, if somewhat pessimistic regard (1974). I am still glad to say that every single railroader I knew was a better man than you.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

Rock, I don't have a vast amount of years in either. The people I'm talking about know who they are. If the shoe fits......

[route_rock]

Too true Ken. Be the first to admit I havent been out here that long. But I do know every coal train I have been on ( there has been a few trust me) has run at 50 except when on the hills! Most trains I have been on run the speed they are supposed to, If we are catching yellows its cause of a meet, a slower train, a junction ahead, or whatever. Point is we are doing it out here.

What is it besides car velocity or mainline speeds?Ever think to toss in rested crews? Equipment? Oh crap the motors for this train are still on that train! And THAT train is still 5 hours out!

I dont know ,but I can tell you this. Its going to come to those who have never worked it deciding the best way to fix it. Thats the truth for any buisness anymore. You can learn all you can from a book or a class, but until you get your hands dirty and sweat your tush off repeatedly,you dont know jack! I cant run the books. I kinda understand demurrage But by god I know that the departure tracks shouldnt be clear across the yard where you have to fight past switch engines pulling out and trains coming in to get power to the outbounds.So now someone is suggesting if a yardmaster or trainmaster was sitting there keeping us in line we could move faster. (maybe they will whip us till we pick up the motor and carry it over on our backs so we dont have to foul the tracks we need)

Which armchair guy wants a job they are hiring at my terminal for a trainmaster.

[Anonymous]

Ed, between people here that are armchair rails and newbies who haven't ever paid off any of RRB's tiers or for that matter put in enough time to qualify for RR unemployment, I just wanna puke! On annother thread, this chick is "cutting people in," that have been through the hiring prcess on how the cow eats the cabbage......The MODOC way. Crap! I am not a pro for Peat's sake....but, If you Havn't done it yourself, then have some respect for those that have!

[edblysard]

Tom,
I never had to hide behind anonymity, nor have I pretended to be an expert...what you see is what I really am, an engine foreman/switchman/conductor at the PTRA in Houston.
Unlike the armchair railroading both Dave and Michael play at, I do it for a living.
They do this (trolling) as a sport, neither on has any experience running a train...Michaels total experience in railroad operations is that as a teenager; he carried a fire extinguisher on a ROW brush fire squad, for a summer.
Which qualifies him to pee on a match...?
Dave's is zero, if you ever get a chance to see his "railcar" design...well, they fit with his theories on how railroads should operate, sorta out there a bit and a few bubbles off plumb.

I know who, what and where Michael is...and as a former employee of an attorney, I can promise you that nothing he posts is the complete story.
His job as an attorney is to distort facts and re direct the reader’s attention, so they don’t focus on the main points...and you note he does this in every thread he participates in...he buries you in the statistics till you forget what the original question/topic was, and then leads you away from the questions he doesn’t want to answer...such as what railroad did he dispatch for...none, of course, but note he will not answer.
Instead, he answers a question with a question, and then tries to redirect the conversation away from the question he is too afraid or embarrassed to answer.
Basically, if you can’t dazzle them with your brilliance, then baffle them with your BS...
He will, on the other hand, decry and deride the operating crafts, he was a office staff weenie for the Milwaukee road, and like most staff weenies, he thinks he knows more, and is better than those of us who get our hand dirty working for a living.
I doubt either he, or Dave, could get a train out of a yard, much less over the road to it's destination by themselves, they both have no clue how a train works, or why it does what it does.
And no Michael, I don’t care, and I am sure most here don’t care if you had coffee with the President of the Milwaukee Road, nor how many “important” people you want to claim to be buddies with….that doesn’t qualify you to run a train, it only qualifies you as a autonomous staffer.
Ed

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

Sat in the PTRA's dispatchers/yardmasters seat off the extra board for a short time..and went back to the ground switching as fast as my feet would allow!
For the pay, the stress and headaches were not worth it.

The major constraints are as Tom pointed out, the limits of the system used to control train movement, and the ability of the yards to absorb the inbound traffic.
Bluntly, you have to have somewhere to put the trains, getting them there is only half the equation, as UP found out the hard way when they tried to run the Houston SP network in the same manner they ran the rest of their railroad.
By the way, you raised the question, not I.
All I was doing was asking for your train dispatching qualifications and experience.
Based on the fact that, like a good lawyer, you never answered the question, but redirected the question instead, I would say your experience is zero.

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

And yours, Michael?
You were a dispatcher from when to when, and for what railroad?

Ed

And you?

Best regards, Michael Sol

Ed,

Is it just me, or did you notice that we posted our backgrounds on this topic, but have YET to hear about Michael's?

Maybe he's still "theorizing" or reading papers and never had any real world experience.

[Anonymous]

Check out January, 2001 Trains. A panel of 9 railroad experts (experienced rail executives) talks about the subject.

One possible scenario with open access they mention is this: "someone goes to congress, says ' The small shippers are being exluded; they can't get access to the network. ' And then we have legislated slots for small shippers."

In other words, those little wheat shippers in WA and MT are still out of luck with open access. FutureModal, I am surprised to hear you support an idea like this with such enthusiasm.

[Anonymous]

And the war wages on between those of us who have actually turned a wheel and those of us who have not.

[mudchicken]

50 MPH average speed for coal trains huh? [(-D][(-D][(-D]

No matter the condition of the track structure, that coal train equipment isn't going over 45 MPH.

[Anonymous]

Pass the bottle.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

Sat in the PTRA's dispatchers/yardmasters seat off the extra board for a short time..and went back to the ground switching as fast as my feet would allow!
For the pay, the stress and headaches were not worth it.

The major constraints are as Tom pointed out, the limits of the system used to control train movement, and the ability of the yards to absorb the inbound traffic.
Bluntly, you have to have somewhere to put the trains, getting them there is only half the equation, as UP found out the hard way when they tried to run the Houston SP network in the same manner they ran the rest of their railroad.
By the way, you raised the question, not I.
All I was doing was asking for your train dispatching qualifications and experience.
Based on the fact that, like a good lawyer, you never answered the question, but redirected the question instead, I would say your experience is zero.

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

And yours, Michael?
You were a dispatcher from when to when, and for what railroad?

Ed

And you?

Best regards, Michael Sol

Ed,

Is it just me, or did you notice that we posted our backgrounds on this topic, but have YET to hear about Michael's?

Maybe he's still "theorizing" or reading papers and never had any real world experience.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
Try this hypothetical for size: Which would ultimately have the greatest revenue ton/miles per year (all other factors being equal)- a 263k car moving at an average speed of 50 mph, or a 315k car moving at an average speed of 25 mph?

Now this throws ANOTHER fly into the ointment of your whole scenerio. Tracks that are certified to handle a 263K car can't necessarily handle a 315k car without upgrading. Another expense. Now it's not only "how fast can it move" it's also "can it even run on these tracks."

I have a tendency to think in terms of reality rather than hypothetical.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by up829

OK, so the DME is building it's own line into the PRB. Isn't that much better than 6 railroads running the same number of trains that 2 now do over the Orin sub, as would happen under open access?

Except under open access the infrastructure owner would want as many trains as possible moving as quickly as possible over the lines to maximize the daily revenues. The only way to do this is to encourage shorter faster trains rather than dealing with those longer slower trains.

I dare anyone to disagree with this premise - forcing the railroads to move at an average speed of 50 mph as opposed to the current 25 mph would do wonders for improving capacity.

OA with a 50 mph industry average speed would be more fluid than closed access at 25 mph.

Disagreeing with this is TOO easy. Just a few facts of the rail industry.

Under the access of only the owning railroad, I guess they're not using their assets to the fullest potential? That is the most ridiculous claim of the entire "open access" concept.

Railroad speed limits are based on the condition of the trackwork. "Forcing" a railroad to run at 50 MPH can't be done if the trackwork isn't up to that standard. Upgrading and maintaining trackwork to the 50 MPH standard costs a good bit more than trackwork at 25 MPH. Speed limit is less dependant on the length of the train than the quality of the rolling stock. Again, a higher expense. Simply splitting these expenses up between an operating company and a trackwork company would add another level of management, increasing costs, not decreasing them.

Plus the frequency of the trains would be dependant on the capacity of the signalling system. So shorter trains would just clog up the mainline.

....and the sound of left knees jerking commences!

Tom, this isn't about mainline speed limits, it's about the industry average velocity, which right now is a pitiful 25 mph.

The speed limits can stay as they are for the most part, what needs to happen is to get those slower than speed limit trains up to speed.

OMG, now you're trying to say that industry average velocity has nothing to do with mainline speed limits? Sounds like you need to go back to basic math classes to find out what "average"means.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by up829

OK, so the DME is building it's own line into the PRB. Isn't that much better than 6 railroads running the same number of trains that 2 now do over the Orin sub, as would happen under open access?

Except under open access the infrastructure owner would want as many trains as possible moving as quickly as possible over the lines to maximize the daily revenues. The only way to do this is to encourage shorter faster trains rather than dealing with those longer slower trains.

I dare anyone to disagree with this premise - forcing the railroads to move at an average speed of 50 mph as opposed to the current 25 mph would do wonders for improving capacity.

OA with a 50 mph industry average speed would be more fluid than closed access at 25 mph.

Disagreeing with this is TOO easy. Just a few facts of the rail industry.

Under the access of only the owning railroad, I guess they're not using their assets to the fullest potential? That is the most ridiculous claim of the entire "open access" concept.

Railroad speed limits are based on the condition of the trackwork. "Forcing" a railroad to run at 50 MPH can't be done if the trackwork isn't up to that standard. Upgrading and maintaining trackwork to the 50 MPH standard costs a good bit more than trackwork at 25 MPH. Speed limit is less dependant on the length of the train than the quality of the rolling stock. Again, a higher expense. Simply splitting these expenses up between an operating company and a trackwork company would add another level of management, increasing costs, not decreasing them.

Plus the frequency of the trains would be dependant on the capacity of the signalling system. So shorter trains would just clog up the mainline.

....and the sound of left knees jerking commences!

Tom, this isn't about mainline speed limits, it's about the industry average velocity, which right now is a pitiful 25 mph.

The speed limits can stay as they are for the most part, what needs to happen is to get those slower than speed limit trains up to speed.

You should also note that it is not necessarily axoimatic that longer trains cannot also increase their average velocity, it's just that the laws of practicality (along with a heavy dose of Murphy's Law) make such an increase less than likely. The advent of HAL has also contributed to a slowing of average speeds.

Try this hypothetical for size: Which would ultimately have the greatest revenue ton/miles per year (all other factors being equal)- a 263k car moving at an average speed of 50 mph, or a 315k car moving at an average speed of 25 mph?

Or here's one: In the March 2006 TRAINS, there's an article on HAL in which it is shown that a 315k car yields a 20% increase in capacity over a 263k car. Q: Which is a more meaningful statistic - a 20% increase in a car's capacity, or a 100% increase in average velocity?

Is it possible that the railroads erred in focusing on increasing load factor at a detriment to average speed? Should they instead have stuck to the 263k car and increased average velocity to at least a reasonable approximation of railroading's theoretical speed limit?

If the laws of physics dictate that LAL's would move faster overall than HAL's, wouldn't be wise to re-explore the old idea of getting the goods from point A to point B in an expedient fashion, and forget this obsession with overfeeding the 600lb gorilla?

[edblysard]

Sat in the PTRA's dispatchers/yardmasters seat off the extra board for a short time..and went back to the ground switching as fast as my feet would allow!
For the pay, the stress and headaches were not worth it.

The major constraints are as Tom pointed out, the limits of the system used to control train movement, and the ability of the yards to absorb the inbound traffic.
Bluntly, you have to have somewhere to put the trains, getting them there is only half the equation, as UP found out the hard way when they tried to run the Houston SP network in the same manner they ran the rest of their railroad.
By the way, you raised the question, not I.
All I was doing was asking for your train dispatching qualifications and experience.
Based on the fact that, like a good lawyer, you never answered the question, but redirected the question instead, I would say your experience is zero.

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

And yours, Michael?
You were a dispatcher from when to when, and for what railroad?

Ed

And you?

Best regards, Michael Sol