QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal And railroad profits are not being reinvested in those areas where those profits originated for the most part, otherwise all of Montana would have been triple tracked by now.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal You've made so many statements that leave nothing but questions Well, you can see that it walks like a duck, etc, yet in your mind you have no idea what it could possibly be, because unless the duck actually walked up to you, grabbed you by the collar, looked you square in the eye, and yelled right into your face "I AM A DUCK!" you still couldn't fathom that the duck was actually a duck. And even after all that, there would be this nagging little voice in your head saying "Was that really a duck, or was the 'duck' lying to me about what it really is?" Trying to explain things to Tom is like............... Problem is, if the duck came up to you with a question, you'd just ignore it. Especially if you have no answer. Getting back to the original question that you have no answer for: What is causing the trains to run below the speed limits of the line in question? The only thing you could come up with is "require them to run at the speed limit." It sounds like the Gestapo in an bad WW2 movie: "You vill run the trains at the speed limit, der Furor has ordered it." Until you manage to move past step one of the problem (define the problem) you're just making so much hot air or bytes of computer data. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, February 12, 2006 12:38 PM Tom asks, QUOTE: What is causing the trains to run below the speed limits of the line in question? 1. Congestion 2. Crews going dead online 3. Increased frequency of derailments, delaying other trains 4. Lack of dispersed redundancy to mitigate #3 5. Laws of physics - longer heavier trains are naturally slower than shorter lighter trains ......and we can add more generalized things, such as....... 6. Loss of superior track alignments to more inferior alignments (see BNSF in Washington) 7. Paper barriers that force usage of heavier used lines rather than less used lines 8. Stubborn refusal to allow the transloading of certain commodities to other modes which would free up capacity 9. Clinging to old technologies aka CTC when newer technologies are available to streamline operations aka GPS 10. HAL, which require more cautious operating procedures 11. Clinging to old technologies aka air brakes when newer technologies are available to speed up operations aka ECP 12. Lack of directional running where available 13. Insufficient hp/ton ratios, forcing engines to work harder and slower 14. Government regulations that force trains to slow through urban areas, et al 15. Inherently incompetent monopolistic management that predicates ineffecient operations e.g. lack of intramodal competition Reply Edit TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Sunday, February 12, 2006 1:06 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Tom asks, QUOTE: What is causing the trains to run below the speed limits of the line in question? 1. Congestion 2. Crews going dead online 3. Increased frequency of derailments, delaying other trains 4. Lack of dispersed redundancy to mitigate #3 5. Laws of physics - longer heavier trains are naturally slower than shorter lighter trains ......and we can add more generalized things, such as....... 6. Loss of superior track alignments to more inferior alignments (see BNSF in Washington) 7. Paper barriers that force usage of heavier used lines rather than less used lines 8. Stubborn refusal to allow the transloading of certain commodities to other modes which would free up capacity 9. Clinging to old technologies aka CTC when newer technologies are available to streamline operations aka GPS 10. HAL, which require more cautious operating procedures 11. Clinging to old technologies aka air brakes when newer technologies are available to speed up operations aka ECP 12. Lack of directional running where available 13. Insufficient hp/ton ratios, forcing engines to work harder and slower 14. Government regulations that force trains to slow through urban areas, et al 15. Inherently incompetent monopolistic management that predicates ineffecient operations e.g. lack of intramodal competition Sounds like these things need to be addressed BEFORE anybody can give the order to "run the trains at the spped limit of the track." Simple orders won't overcome very many of these. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, February 12, 2006 1:50 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Tom asks, QUOTE: What is causing the trains to run below the speed limits of the line in question? 1. Congestion 2. Crews going dead online 3. Increased frequency of derailments, delaying other trains 4. Lack of dispersed redundancy to mitigate #3 5. Laws of physics - longer heavier trains are naturally slower than shorter lighter trains ......and we can add more generalized things, such as....... 6. Loss of superior track alignments to more inferior alignments (see BNSF in Washington) 7. Paper barriers that force usage of heavier used lines rather than less used lines 8. Stubborn refusal to allow the transloading of certain commodities to other modes which would free up capacity 9. Clinging to old technologies aka CTC when newer technologies are available to streamline operations aka GPS 10. HAL, which require more cautious operating procedures 11. Clinging to old technologies aka air brakes when newer technologies are available to speed up operations aka ECP 12. Lack of directional running where available 13. Insufficient hp/ton ratios, forcing engines to work harder and slower 14. Government regulations that force trains to slow through urban areas, et al 15. Inherently incompetent monopolistic management that predicates ineffecient operations e.g. lack of intramodal competition Sounds like these things need to be addressed BEFORE anybody can give the order to "run the trains at the spped limit of the track." Simple orders won't overcome very many of these. Heh. Trucking on toll roads aint much better. I believe Ohio stick em at the speed limit or split lower than car traffic. It's a wonder why most of the drivers took less traveled and free routes years ago. Sounds like this list is not a complete list. There is also friction in finding loads and getting them to the train as well as administrative and managerial induced problems. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, February 12, 2006 6:13 PM CSX nor IAIS own that track, they lease it. Reply Edit MP173 Member sinceMay 2004 From: Valparaiso, In 5,921 posts Posted by MP173 on Sunday, February 12, 2006 8:20 PM who owns it? ed Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, February 12, 2006 9:11 PM If the demand for transportation continues to grow, wouldn't it be wiser for the railroads to handle the most profitable traffic that fits their operations, and avoid the rest? It would be nice to see superior returns on investment. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, February 12, 2006 10:37 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by SECA CSX nor IAIS own that track, they lease it. yes, just who DOES own it...hmmmm? Reply Edit CSSHEGEWISCH Member sinceMarch 2016 From: Burbank IL (near Clearing) 13,540 posts Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Monday, February 13, 2006 12:35 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by farmer03 QUOTE: Originally posted by SECA CSX nor IAIS own that track, they lease it. yes, just who DOES own it...hmmmm? CSX leased the line from Chicago Pacific Corporation, which was the corporate shell of the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific RR after the railroad was liquidated, the creditors paid in FULL and the bankruptcy lifted. I'm not sure as to what happened after Chicago Pacific was absorbed by Maytag Corp. The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul Reply Zwingle Member sinceSeptember 2003 297 posts Posted by Zwingle on Monday, February 13, 2006 8:18 PM If memory serves, CSX and METRA did eventually buy their lines under the condition that whomever bought the rest of the RI track from Bureau to CB would be granted automatic trackage rights into Chicago. Interestingly, The rest of the track was bought by Heartland Rail Corp, headed by Maytag. Maytag wanted to restore rail service to Newton. Once Heartland began purchasing the line from Chicago Pacific Corp. they began leasing to the IAIS in 1984 (pushing out temporary tenant the Iowa Railroad Company which had operated since 1982). Now, in a twist of irony the Chicago Pacific Corporation bought other companies including Hoover Appliances. Maytag then aquired the Chicago Pacific Corporation. In 2004 Railroad Development Corporation aquired the Assets of both the IAIS Railroad and the Heartland Rail Corp. Maytag would still be the owners of the CRI&P logos, however they might be in the public domain now. IAIS used the old RI herald, then were told to stop, and are now using it again supposedly due to fan support. I'm not "up" on corporate law. :) I believe approval was granted for a major upgrading of the line west from Wyanet to Iowa City. A connection has been approved with BNSF just east of Wyanet, IL. Longer term plans may include a seperate 110+ mph passenger alignment. Check this out: http://www.dot.state.wi.us/projects/state/docs/railtaskforce.pdf Of course, the only way passenger service will work is if the trains are fast. I remember taking a train from Rock Island to Sheffield, IL in 1971 where my grandparents lived right beside the tracks (and still do!). That train was anything but fast. Creaking; groaning... took over two hours to make the trip, (although at some points we were able to pace cars alongside us on Hwy 6.) The train then stopped at the Sheffield depot, my mother, sister and I got off, and the train proceeded east.. Ah, memories! Great forums here! Reply MP173 Member sinceMay 2004 From: Valparaiso, In 5,921 posts Posted by MP173 on Monday, February 13, 2006 9:17 PM Welcome aboard Deep. That was quite a contribution for a first posting. Thanks for the information. Now, for the next logical question...who is "Railroad Developement Corp."? A few years ago I was told by a customer of mine, ADM, that they owned a significant portion of IAIS. That would make sense to me, based on the large amount of agricultural in the area. ed Reply MP173 Member sinceMay 2004 From: Valparaiso, In 5,921 posts Posted by MP173 on Monday, February 13, 2006 9:40 PM Alright, I did a bit of research...RDC is a company out of Pittsburgh that operates rail lines thru out the world. Interestingly enough, when checking their website, I found that effective this month, IAIS now is leasing the former CSX portion of the line from Utica to Henry. Hmmm, the CSX retrenchment is beginning already. ed Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, February 13, 2006 9:59 PM so what's the deal with the connection with BNSF and the wyanet-iowa city upgrading? Reply Edit Zwingle Member sinceSeptember 2003 297 posts Posted by Zwingle on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 9:26 AM Thanks MP! I registered here awhile back to watch the train cam and didn't even know about the forums. I was recently doing some research on a theoretical KCS-CN-DME/ICE merger and discovered this gem :) farmer, the longer-term idea is to upgrade all the way to CB for high-speed passenger traffic. The connection with BNSF east of Wyanet provides a faster route directly to Chicago. Eventually they hope this will be a busy passenger line, as the emphasis will be on speed and reducing the interstate traffic (which will be some feat). Do this, right click this link and save it to your computer. It has all thebig information. Really, it deserves a topic all its own. http://www.dot.state.wi.us/projects/state/docs/railtaskforce.pdf Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 12:35 PM whoa... good thing for the 500 things per second of this cool cable internet. that's a lengthy piece of literature. hopefully that all pans out as it sounds cheaper than the alleged 6-laning of I-80 across all of Illinois i keep hearing about. which is a double eged sword since i make a living in the road construction business. Reply Edit karldotcom Member sinceFebruary 2005 From: Burbank Junction 195 posts Posted by karldotcom on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 12:42 PM Funding The $2.4 billion Alameda Corridor was funded through a unique blend of public and private sources. Revenues from user fees paid by the railroads will be used to retire debts. Railroads will pay $15 for each loaded 20-foot equivalent unit (TEU) container; $4 for each empty container, and $8 for other types of loaded rail cars such as tankers and coal carriers. Over a 30-year period, fees will increase between 1.5 percent and 3 percent per year, depending on inflation. http://www.acta.org/newsroom_factsheet.htm QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken Alameda Corridor in LA if you want an answer to the subject header. ever heard of CREATE?[}:)] My train videos - http://www.youtube.com/user/karldotcom Reply jeffhergert Member sinceMarch 2003 From: Central Iowa 6,901 posts Posted by jeffhergert on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 5:36 PM CSX, originally operated by the B&OCT, did not buy the line to Bureau. They have a 50 year lease on the line. The lease had a stipulation that any railroad buying the tracks west of Bureau would be allowed trackage rights to the Chicago area. This is why the Iowa Railroad did not run trains east of Bureau. The IRRC only leased the track. The IAIS/Heartland actually bought the tracks and thus were allowed access to Chicago. On another list, someone had listed parts of the STB document for the IAIS to sublease part of the CSX trackage. I don't remember the exact name for the listed owner, but it wasn't Maytag, who succeeded the Chicago Pacific Corp. It may be a company acquired by Maytag and now only exists on paper, I don't know. I remember doing a limited search to find out about the company and didn't find anything. Maytag has let go of the rights to the RI logos. The RI Technical Society I heard was trying to obtain the rights. Jeff Reply MP173 Member sinceMay 2004 From: Valparaiso, In 5,921 posts Posted by MP173 on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 5:54 PM deep: What is your opinion on a CN/KSC/ICE/DME merger? It would sort of make sense,giving CN a clear NAFTA route, but the route would be pretty slow, as ICE/DME are not exactly high speed routes. Of course, the coal is the wild card inthis. Not sure whether the best routing for CN to KSC would be via ICE or down the old IC to Springfield and then to KC on the old GMO. That would take a lot of work, but the ICE route would require a lot to get thru Chicago from CN. ed Reply Murphy Siding Member sinceMay 2005 From: S.E. South Dakota 13,569 posts Posted by Murphy Siding on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 6:24 PM Ed: What would ICE/DME have to add to a merger of CN / KCS? Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar. Reply MP173 Member sinceMay 2004 From: Valparaiso, In 5,921 posts Posted by MP173 on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 9:42 PM I am not sure what they would offer, other than a route to Kansas City and perhaps a lot of coal coming out of PR. However, if DME gets access to the coal, then the rates would surely drop and the return on investment wouldnt look so hot. ed Reply Zwingle Member sinceSeptember 2003 297 posts Posted by Zwingle on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 9:30 AM Jeff, that does make sense. Had CSX bought the line, I would think IAIS would have had difficulty getting into Chicago. Do you know about Metra? Maybe Maytag divested the real estate holdings into a subsidiary. Would make sense. Maytag itself is about to be aquired by Whirlpool for $1.4 billion. Seems Maytag itself is nearly $1 billion in debt. MP, CN would be interested in PR, which DME has already been given prermission to build and extention to. I believe the battle now lies with investers and landowners. The following scenarios would likely occur only if the PR extension is built. Consider this: CN buys DME-ICE, giving CN direct access to KC, as well as a KC-Twin Cities line that isn't that much more indirect that BNSF's line, actually parallelling it for quite aways along the Mississippi. After this is done, KCS might enter the picture. In the unlikely event that CN would spend money on KCS before a PR-enriched DME-ICE, KC-Chicago traffic would be routed via KCS/CN's old GM&O route into illinois. Regardless, this line will probably be preserved, or put on "ice" so to speak for future transportation needs. Railroads seem more reluctant to abandon future potential. Like UP's hanging onto the old Rock Island KC-St. Louis line. All things being untouched, DME-ICE would move PR coal east and then south to Lyle, MN, southwest moving to trackage rights over the Iowa Northern to the SE, then rejoining the ICE track east of Mason City. Trains would then move south at Marquette and then East at Savanna, http://www.iowarail.com/pdfs/RRS_Hwy_04.pdf If CN takes control, this traffic will continue straight south-east at Lyle, cross the ICE track at Charles City, and join the CN main in Waterloo. A beautiful connection exists there I discovered recently on Google Earth http://earth.google.com/. If this scenario happens, look for the ICE track between Charles City and Marquette through the Bloody Run valley to become a nature trail, connecting with the existing trail from Calmar, IA to Cresco. Anyway, the question then becomes, what would CN do with PR trains at Dubuque? Would they use their original line, or would they abandon the bridge there in favor of the one at Savanna, which can be approached from both directions? The CN bridge in Dubuque must be approached from the north only. In addition, I believe the route through Savanna is better engineered and possibly shorter. In any case they would pick up again at the CN-ICE crossing at Genoa, IL. I know in the past BNSF has expressed an interest in the Galena-Chicago CN line for overflow (or future needs). CN could sell off that line to recoup some of the expenses if they wanted. Worst case scenario, the line between KC and Louisa Generating Station would be abandoned, and Muscatine would exist on the end of an industrial spur.. ::shudder:: I really do not think this would be the case. That ICE KC line has too much future potential as a Twin Cities connection; especially being part of the Nafta rail. http://cn.akanda.com/cn/ Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 6:36 PM sounds like you definately thought that one through. it's interesting hearing how quite a bit could change if all that were to happen. in my own uneducated opinion i'd like to see the kcs+dme/ice without CN. nothing against CN and i'm not a hater, rather i would like to see a strong midwestern US railroad rise up instead of fall under another bigun's umbrella. Reply Edit narig01 Member sinceNovember 2005 From: Hope, AR 2,061 posts Posted by narig01 on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 6:56 PM Who's paying? Re PT Barnum line bout a sucker born every minute, just not a lot of rich suckers, I will make this remark : Rich Suckers with money don't stay rich forever. Reply MP173 Member sinceMay 2004 From: Valparaiso, In 5,921 posts Posted by MP173 on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 8:02 PM narig: Thanks for the email regarding RDC. When I was snooping around on their website I found a paper on open access and it's failure in England. Was going to reference it but things have been pretty peaceful around here lately. ed Reply narig01 Member sinceNovember 2005 From: Hope, AR 2,061 posts Posted by narig01 on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 8:37 PM Personal Opinion: If own the railroad you can run it any way you want to these days within a few limits.(FRA rules on maint & Hours of Service). If you really want to see anything goes try the trucking industry, everything from common carriers who'll haul anything & have the operating authority to do so. The company can haul themselves, load on their trailer, send by rail, send behind someone else’s truck, get someone else to haul it (broker the load out). Look at the Landstar group of companies or C.H.Robinson. To operations like Kraft Nestle, & Wal-Mart that have their own trucks & use everyone elses trucks, & railcar’s & whatever else is available to move their goods. The smart operators in my opinion are the ones in the logistics business, ie that do things like figure out how to move, & store goods from factory to consumer. They make the decisions about how to move what. Regards narig01 Reply Murphy Siding Member sinceMay 2005 From: S.E. South Dakota 13,569 posts Posted by Murphy Siding on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 9:53 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173 narig: When I was snooping around on their website I found a paper on open access and it's failure in England. Was going to reference it but things have been pretty peaceful around here lately. ed [(-D] Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 10:48 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173 narig: When I was snooping around on their website I found a paper on open access and it's failure in England. Was going to reference it but things have been pretty peaceful around here lately. ed [(-D] "He laughs best who laughs last", or something to that effect, lumberboy. Now that the French have finally capitulated to allowing OA run throughs through their precious countryside, European 3pl's now can run their own trains spanning all of Europe. The boom is now at hand. BTW, have you noticed your wholesale lumber prices going up? Reply Edit Murphy Siding Member sinceMay 2005 From: S.E. South Dakota 13,569 posts Posted by Murphy Siding on Thursday, February 16, 2006 6:39 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173 narig: When I was snooping around on their website I found a paper on open access and it's failure in England. Was going to reference it but things have been pretty peaceful around here lately. ed [(-D] "He laughs best who laughs last", or something to that effect, lumberboy. Now that the French have finally capitulated to allowing OA run throughs through their precious countryside, European 3pl's now can run their own trains spanning all of Europe. The boom is now at hand. BTW, have you noticed your wholesale lumber prices going up? My laughter wasn't about the "open access" part, it was about the "peaceful" part.[(-D] Wholesale lumber prices move up, and down constantly, based soley on supply and demand. The transportation cost factors into the producers cost of goods, but not nearly as much as you think. As a goodwill gesture to Ed, who started an interesting thread, forget I mentioned this.[:)] Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar. Reply rrnut282 Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: MP CF161.6 NS's New Castle District in NE Indiana 2,148 posts Posted by rrnut282 on Thursday, February 16, 2006 7:52 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal And railroad profits are not being reinvested in those areas where those profits originated for the most part, otherwise all of Montana would have been triple tracked by now. ANOTHER place you seem to know more about railroad operations than the railroad itself. You're starting to sound like a Consultant. LOTS of ideas and theories, but no experience actually putting them into action. Careful, you might be insulting the wrong person.[;)] Mike (2-8-2) Reply 123 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
You've made so many statements that leave nothing but questions
Problem is, if the duck came up to you with a question, you'd just ignore it. Especially if you have no answer. Getting back to the original question that you have no answer for: What is causing the trains to run below the speed limits of the line in question? The only thing you could come up with is "require them to run at the speed limit." It sounds like the Gestapo in an bad WW2 movie: "You vill run the trains at the speed limit, der Furor has ordered it." Until you manage to move past step one of the problem (define the problem) you're just making so much hot air or bytes of computer data. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, February 12, 2006 12:38 PM Tom asks, QUOTE: What is causing the trains to run below the speed limits of the line in question? 1. Congestion 2. Crews going dead online 3. Increased frequency of derailments, delaying other trains 4. Lack of dispersed redundancy to mitigate #3 5. Laws of physics - longer heavier trains are naturally slower than shorter lighter trains ......and we can add more generalized things, such as....... 6. Loss of superior track alignments to more inferior alignments (see BNSF in Washington) 7. Paper barriers that force usage of heavier used lines rather than less used lines 8. Stubborn refusal to allow the transloading of certain commodities to other modes which would free up capacity 9. Clinging to old technologies aka CTC when newer technologies are available to streamline operations aka GPS 10. HAL, which require more cautious operating procedures 11. Clinging to old technologies aka air brakes when newer technologies are available to speed up operations aka ECP 12. Lack of directional running where available 13. Insufficient hp/ton ratios, forcing engines to work harder and slower 14. Government regulations that force trains to slow through urban areas, et al 15. Inherently incompetent monopolistic management that predicates ineffecient operations e.g. lack of intramodal competition Reply Edit TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Sunday, February 12, 2006 1:06 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Tom asks, QUOTE: What is causing the trains to run below the speed limits of the line in question? 1. Congestion 2. Crews going dead online 3. Increased frequency of derailments, delaying other trains 4. Lack of dispersed redundancy to mitigate #3 5. Laws of physics - longer heavier trains are naturally slower than shorter lighter trains ......and we can add more generalized things, such as....... 6. Loss of superior track alignments to more inferior alignments (see BNSF in Washington) 7. Paper barriers that force usage of heavier used lines rather than less used lines 8. Stubborn refusal to allow the transloading of certain commodities to other modes which would free up capacity 9. Clinging to old technologies aka CTC when newer technologies are available to streamline operations aka GPS 10. HAL, which require more cautious operating procedures 11. Clinging to old technologies aka air brakes when newer technologies are available to speed up operations aka ECP 12. Lack of directional running where available 13. Insufficient hp/ton ratios, forcing engines to work harder and slower 14. Government regulations that force trains to slow through urban areas, et al 15. Inherently incompetent monopolistic management that predicates ineffecient operations e.g. lack of intramodal competition Sounds like these things need to be addressed BEFORE anybody can give the order to "run the trains at the spped limit of the track." Simple orders won't overcome very many of these. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, February 12, 2006 1:50 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Tom asks, QUOTE: What is causing the trains to run below the speed limits of the line in question? 1. Congestion 2. Crews going dead online 3. Increased frequency of derailments, delaying other trains 4. Lack of dispersed redundancy to mitigate #3 5. Laws of physics - longer heavier trains are naturally slower than shorter lighter trains ......and we can add more generalized things, such as....... 6. Loss of superior track alignments to more inferior alignments (see BNSF in Washington) 7. Paper barriers that force usage of heavier used lines rather than less used lines 8. Stubborn refusal to allow the transloading of certain commodities to other modes which would free up capacity 9. Clinging to old technologies aka CTC when newer technologies are available to streamline operations aka GPS 10. HAL, which require more cautious operating procedures 11. Clinging to old technologies aka air brakes when newer technologies are available to speed up operations aka ECP 12. Lack of directional running where available 13. Insufficient hp/ton ratios, forcing engines to work harder and slower 14. Government regulations that force trains to slow through urban areas, et al 15. Inherently incompetent monopolistic management that predicates ineffecient operations e.g. lack of intramodal competition Sounds like these things need to be addressed BEFORE anybody can give the order to "run the trains at the spped limit of the track." Simple orders won't overcome very many of these. Heh. Trucking on toll roads aint much better. I believe Ohio stick em at the speed limit or split lower than car traffic. It's a wonder why most of the drivers took less traveled and free routes years ago. Sounds like this list is not a complete list. There is also friction in finding loads and getting them to the train as well as administrative and managerial induced problems. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, February 12, 2006 6:13 PM CSX nor IAIS own that track, they lease it. Reply Edit MP173 Member sinceMay 2004 From: Valparaiso, In 5,921 posts Posted by MP173 on Sunday, February 12, 2006 8:20 PM who owns it? ed Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, February 12, 2006 9:11 PM If the demand for transportation continues to grow, wouldn't it be wiser for the railroads to handle the most profitable traffic that fits their operations, and avoid the rest? It would be nice to see superior returns on investment. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, February 12, 2006 10:37 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by SECA CSX nor IAIS own that track, they lease it. yes, just who DOES own it...hmmmm? Reply Edit CSSHEGEWISCH Member sinceMarch 2016 From: Burbank IL (near Clearing) 13,540 posts Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Monday, February 13, 2006 12:35 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by farmer03 QUOTE: Originally posted by SECA CSX nor IAIS own that track, they lease it. yes, just who DOES own it...hmmmm? CSX leased the line from Chicago Pacific Corporation, which was the corporate shell of the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific RR after the railroad was liquidated, the creditors paid in FULL and the bankruptcy lifted. I'm not sure as to what happened after Chicago Pacific was absorbed by Maytag Corp. The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul Reply Zwingle Member sinceSeptember 2003 297 posts Posted by Zwingle on Monday, February 13, 2006 8:18 PM If memory serves, CSX and METRA did eventually buy their lines under the condition that whomever bought the rest of the RI track from Bureau to CB would be granted automatic trackage rights into Chicago. Interestingly, The rest of the track was bought by Heartland Rail Corp, headed by Maytag. Maytag wanted to restore rail service to Newton. Once Heartland began purchasing the line from Chicago Pacific Corp. they began leasing to the IAIS in 1984 (pushing out temporary tenant the Iowa Railroad Company which had operated since 1982). Now, in a twist of irony the Chicago Pacific Corporation bought other companies including Hoover Appliances. Maytag then aquired the Chicago Pacific Corporation. In 2004 Railroad Development Corporation aquired the Assets of both the IAIS Railroad and the Heartland Rail Corp. Maytag would still be the owners of the CRI&P logos, however they might be in the public domain now. IAIS used the old RI herald, then were told to stop, and are now using it again supposedly due to fan support. I'm not "up" on corporate law. :) I believe approval was granted for a major upgrading of the line west from Wyanet to Iowa City. A connection has been approved with BNSF just east of Wyanet, IL. Longer term plans may include a seperate 110+ mph passenger alignment. Check this out: http://www.dot.state.wi.us/projects/state/docs/railtaskforce.pdf Of course, the only way passenger service will work is if the trains are fast. I remember taking a train from Rock Island to Sheffield, IL in 1971 where my grandparents lived right beside the tracks (and still do!). That train was anything but fast. Creaking; groaning... took over two hours to make the trip, (although at some points we were able to pace cars alongside us on Hwy 6.) The train then stopped at the Sheffield depot, my mother, sister and I got off, and the train proceeded east.. Ah, memories! Great forums here! Reply MP173 Member sinceMay 2004 From: Valparaiso, In 5,921 posts Posted by MP173 on Monday, February 13, 2006 9:17 PM Welcome aboard Deep. That was quite a contribution for a first posting. Thanks for the information. Now, for the next logical question...who is "Railroad Developement Corp."? A few years ago I was told by a customer of mine, ADM, that they owned a significant portion of IAIS. That would make sense to me, based on the large amount of agricultural in the area. ed Reply MP173 Member sinceMay 2004 From: Valparaiso, In 5,921 posts Posted by MP173 on Monday, February 13, 2006 9:40 PM Alright, I did a bit of research...RDC is a company out of Pittsburgh that operates rail lines thru out the world. Interestingly enough, when checking their website, I found that effective this month, IAIS now is leasing the former CSX portion of the line from Utica to Henry. Hmmm, the CSX retrenchment is beginning already. ed Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, February 13, 2006 9:59 PM so what's the deal with the connection with BNSF and the wyanet-iowa city upgrading? Reply Edit Zwingle Member sinceSeptember 2003 297 posts Posted by Zwingle on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 9:26 AM Thanks MP! I registered here awhile back to watch the train cam and didn't even know about the forums. I was recently doing some research on a theoretical KCS-CN-DME/ICE merger and discovered this gem :) farmer, the longer-term idea is to upgrade all the way to CB for high-speed passenger traffic. The connection with BNSF east of Wyanet provides a faster route directly to Chicago. Eventually they hope this will be a busy passenger line, as the emphasis will be on speed and reducing the interstate traffic (which will be some feat). Do this, right click this link and save it to your computer. It has all thebig information. Really, it deserves a topic all its own. http://www.dot.state.wi.us/projects/state/docs/railtaskforce.pdf Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 12:35 PM whoa... good thing for the 500 things per second of this cool cable internet. that's a lengthy piece of literature. hopefully that all pans out as it sounds cheaper than the alleged 6-laning of I-80 across all of Illinois i keep hearing about. which is a double eged sword since i make a living in the road construction business. Reply Edit karldotcom Member sinceFebruary 2005 From: Burbank Junction 195 posts Posted by karldotcom on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 12:42 PM Funding The $2.4 billion Alameda Corridor was funded through a unique blend of public and private sources. Revenues from user fees paid by the railroads will be used to retire debts. Railroads will pay $15 for each loaded 20-foot equivalent unit (TEU) container; $4 for each empty container, and $8 for other types of loaded rail cars such as tankers and coal carriers. Over a 30-year period, fees will increase between 1.5 percent and 3 percent per year, depending on inflation. http://www.acta.org/newsroom_factsheet.htm QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken Alameda Corridor in LA if you want an answer to the subject header. ever heard of CREATE?[}:)] My train videos - http://www.youtube.com/user/karldotcom Reply jeffhergert Member sinceMarch 2003 From: Central Iowa 6,901 posts Posted by jeffhergert on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 5:36 PM CSX, originally operated by the B&OCT, did not buy the line to Bureau. They have a 50 year lease on the line. The lease had a stipulation that any railroad buying the tracks west of Bureau would be allowed trackage rights to the Chicago area. This is why the Iowa Railroad did not run trains east of Bureau. The IRRC only leased the track. The IAIS/Heartland actually bought the tracks and thus were allowed access to Chicago. On another list, someone had listed parts of the STB document for the IAIS to sublease part of the CSX trackage. I don't remember the exact name for the listed owner, but it wasn't Maytag, who succeeded the Chicago Pacific Corp. It may be a company acquired by Maytag and now only exists on paper, I don't know. I remember doing a limited search to find out about the company and didn't find anything. Maytag has let go of the rights to the RI logos. The RI Technical Society I heard was trying to obtain the rights. Jeff Reply MP173 Member sinceMay 2004 From: Valparaiso, In 5,921 posts Posted by MP173 on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 5:54 PM deep: What is your opinion on a CN/KSC/ICE/DME merger? It would sort of make sense,giving CN a clear NAFTA route, but the route would be pretty slow, as ICE/DME are not exactly high speed routes. Of course, the coal is the wild card inthis. Not sure whether the best routing for CN to KSC would be via ICE or down the old IC to Springfield and then to KC on the old GMO. That would take a lot of work, but the ICE route would require a lot to get thru Chicago from CN. ed Reply Murphy Siding Member sinceMay 2005 From: S.E. South Dakota 13,569 posts Posted by Murphy Siding on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 6:24 PM Ed: What would ICE/DME have to add to a merger of CN / KCS? Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar. Reply MP173 Member sinceMay 2004 From: Valparaiso, In 5,921 posts Posted by MP173 on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 9:42 PM I am not sure what they would offer, other than a route to Kansas City and perhaps a lot of coal coming out of PR. However, if DME gets access to the coal, then the rates would surely drop and the return on investment wouldnt look so hot. ed Reply Zwingle Member sinceSeptember 2003 297 posts Posted by Zwingle on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 9:30 AM Jeff, that does make sense. Had CSX bought the line, I would think IAIS would have had difficulty getting into Chicago. Do you know about Metra? Maybe Maytag divested the real estate holdings into a subsidiary. Would make sense. Maytag itself is about to be aquired by Whirlpool for $1.4 billion. Seems Maytag itself is nearly $1 billion in debt. MP, CN would be interested in PR, which DME has already been given prermission to build and extention to. I believe the battle now lies with investers and landowners. The following scenarios would likely occur only if the PR extension is built. Consider this: CN buys DME-ICE, giving CN direct access to KC, as well as a KC-Twin Cities line that isn't that much more indirect that BNSF's line, actually parallelling it for quite aways along the Mississippi. After this is done, KCS might enter the picture. In the unlikely event that CN would spend money on KCS before a PR-enriched DME-ICE, KC-Chicago traffic would be routed via KCS/CN's old GM&O route into illinois. Regardless, this line will probably be preserved, or put on "ice" so to speak for future transportation needs. Railroads seem more reluctant to abandon future potential. Like UP's hanging onto the old Rock Island KC-St. Louis line. All things being untouched, DME-ICE would move PR coal east and then south to Lyle, MN, southwest moving to trackage rights over the Iowa Northern to the SE, then rejoining the ICE track east of Mason City. Trains would then move south at Marquette and then East at Savanna, http://www.iowarail.com/pdfs/RRS_Hwy_04.pdf If CN takes control, this traffic will continue straight south-east at Lyle, cross the ICE track at Charles City, and join the CN main in Waterloo. A beautiful connection exists there I discovered recently on Google Earth http://earth.google.com/. If this scenario happens, look for the ICE track between Charles City and Marquette through the Bloody Run valley to become a nature trail, connecting with the existing trail from Calmar, IA to Cresco. Anyway, the question then becomes, what would CN do with PR trains at Dubuque? Would they use their original line, or would they abandon the bridge there in favor of the one at Savanna, which can be approached from both directions? The CN bridge in Dubuque must be approached from the north only. In addition, I believe the route through Savanna is better engineered and possibly shorter. In any case they would pick up again at the CN-ICE crossing at Genoa, IL. I know in the past BNSF has expressed an interest in the Galena-Chicago CN line for overflow (or future needs). CN could sell off that line to recoup some of the expenses if they wanted. Worst case scenario, the line between KC and Louisa Generating Station would be abandoned, and Muscatine would exist on the end of an industrial spur.. ::shudder:: I really do not think this would be the case. That ICE KC line has too much future potential as a Twin Cities connection; especially being part of the Nafta rail. http://cn.akanda.com/cn/ Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 6:36 PM sounds like you definately thought that one through. it's interesting hearing how quite a bit could change if all that were to happen. in my own uneducated opinion i'd like to see the kcs+dme/ice without CN. nothing against CN and i'm not a hater, rather i would like to see a strong midwestern US railroad rise up instead of fall under another bigun's umbrella. Reply Edit narig01 Member sinceNovember 2005 From: Hope, AR 2,061 posts Posted by narig01 on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 6:56 PM Who's paying? Re PT Barnum line bout a sucker born every minute, just not a lot of rich suckers, I will make this remark : Rich Suckers with money don't stay rich forever. Reply MP173 Member sinceMay 2004 From: Valparaiso, In 5,921 posts Posted by MP173 on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 8:02 PM narig: Thanks for the email regarding RDC. When I was snooping around on their website I found a paper on open access and it's failure in England. Was going to reference it but things have been pretty peaceful around here lately. ed Reply narig01 Member sinceNovember 2005 From: Hope, AR 2,061 posts Posted by narig01 on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 8:37 PM Personal Opinion: If own the railroad you can run it any way you want to these days within a few limits.(FRA rules on maint & Hours of Service). If you really want to see anything goes try the trucking industry, everything from common carriers who'll haul anything & have the operating authority to do so. The company can haul themselves, load on their trailer, send by rail, send behind someone else’s truck, get someone else to haul it (broker the load out). Look at the Landstar group of companies or C.H.Robinson. To operations like Kraft Nestle, & Wal-Mart that have their own trucks & use everyone elses trucks, & railcar’s & whatever else is available to move their goods. The smart operators in my opinion are the ones in the logistics business, ie that do things like figure out how to move, & store goods from factory to consumer. They make the decisions about how to move what. Regards narig01 Reply Murphy Siding Member sinceMay 2005 From: S.E. South Dakota 13,569 posts Posted by Murphy Siding on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 9:53 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173 narig: When I was snooping around on their website I found a paper on open access and it's failure in England. Was going to reference it but things have been pretty peaceful around here lately. ed [(-D] Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 10:48 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173 narig: When I was snooping around on their website I found a paper on open access and it's failure in England. Was going to reference it but things have been pretty peaceful around here lately. ed [(-D] "He laughs best who laughs last", or something to that effect, lumberboy. Now that the French have finally capitulated to allowing OA run throughs through their precious countryside, European 3pl's now can run their own trains spanning all of Europe. The boom is now at hand. BTW, have you noticed your wholesale lumber prices going up? Reply Edit Murphy Siding Member sinceMay 2005 From: S.E. South Dakota 13,569 posts Posted by Murphy Siding on Thursday, February 16, 2006 6:39 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173 narig: When I was snooping around on their website I found a paper on open access and it's failure in England. Was going to reference it but things have been pretty peaceful around here lately. ed [(-D] "He laughs best who laughs last", or something to that effect, lumberboy. Now that the French have finally capitulated to allowing OA run throughs through their precious countryside, European 3pl's now can run their own trains spanning all of Europe. The boom is now at hand. BTW, have you noticed your wholesale lumber prices going up? My laughter wasn't about the "open access" part, it was about the "peaceful" part.[(-D] Wholesale lumber prices move up, and down constantly, based soley on supply and demand. The transportation cost factors into the producers cost of goods, but not nearly as much as you think. As a goodwill gesture to Ed, who started an interesting thread, forget I mentioned this.[:)] Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar. Reply rrnut282 Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: MP CF161.6 NS's New Castle District in NE Indiana 2,148 posts Posted by rrnut282 on Thursday, February 16, 2006 7:52 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal And railroad profits are not being reinvested in those areas where those profits originated for the most part, otherwise all of Montana would have been triple tracked by now. ANOTHER place you seem to know more about railroad operations than the railroad itself. You're starting to sound like a Consultant. LOTS of ideas and theories, but no experience actually putting them into action. Careful, you might be insulting the wrong person.[;)] Mike (2-8-2) Reply 123 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
QUOTE: What is causing the trains to run below the speed limits of the line in question?
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Tom asks, QUOTE: What is causing the trains to run below the speed limits of the line in question? 1. Congestion 2. Crews going dead online 3. Increased frequency of derailments, delaying other trains 4. Lack of dispersed redundancy to mitigate #3 5. Laws of physics - longer heavier trains are naturally slower than shorter lighter trains ......and we can add more generalized things, such as....... 6. Loss of superior track alignments to more inferior alignments (see BNSF in Washington) 7. Paper barriers that force usage of heavier used lines rather than less used lines 8. Stubborn refusal to allow the transloading of certain commodities to other modes which would free up capacity 9. Clinging to old technologies aka CTC when newer technologies are available to streamline operations aka GPS 10. HAL, which require more cautious operating procedures 11. Clinging to old technologies aka air brakes when newer technologies are available to speed up operations aka ECP 12. Lack of directional running where available 13. Insufficient hp/ton ratios, forcing engines to work harder and slower 14. Government regulations that force trains to slow through urban areas, et al 15. Inherently incompetent monopolistic management that predicates ineffecient operations e.g. lack of intramodal competition
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Tom asks, QUOTE: What is causing the trains to run below the speed limits of the line in question? 1. Congestion 2. Crews going dead online 3. Increased frequency of derailments, delaying other trains 4. Lack of dispersed redundancy to mitigate #3 5. Laws of physics - longer heavier trains are naturally slower than shorter lighter trains ......and we can add more generalized things, such as....... 6. Loss of superior track alignments to more inferior alignments (see BNSF in Washington) 7. Paper barriers that force usage of heavier used lines rather than less used lines 8. Stubborn refusal to allow the transloading of certain commodities to other modes which would free up capacity 9. Clinging to old technologies aka CTC when newer technologies are available to streamline operations aka GPS 10. HAL, which require more cautious operating procedures 11. Clinging to old technologies aka air brakes when newer technologies are available to speed up operations aka ECP 12. Lack of directional running where available 13. Insufficient hp/ton ratios, forcing engines to work harder and slower 14. Government regulations that force trains to slow through urban areas, et al 15. Inherently incompetent monopolistic management that predicates ineffecient operations e.g. lack of intramodal competition Sounds like these things need to be addressed BEFORE anybody can give the order to "run the trains at the spped limit of the track." Simple orders won't overcome very many of these.
QUOTE: Originally posted by SECA CSX nor IAIS own that track, they lease it.
QUOTE: Originally posted by farmer03 QUOTE: Originally posted by SECA CSX nor IAIS own that track, they lease it. yes, just who DOES own it...hmmmm?
QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken Alameda Corridor in LA if you want an answer to the subject header. ever heard of CREATE?[}:)]
My train videos - http://www.youtube.com/user/karldotcom
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173 narig: When I was snooping around on their website I found a paper on open access and it's failure in England. Was going to reference it but things have been pretty peaceful around here lately. ed
QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173 narig: When I was snooping around on their website I found a paper on open access and it's failure in England. Was going to reference it but things have been pretty peaceful around here lately. ed [(-D]
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173 narig: When I was snooping around on their website I found a paper on open access and it's failure in England. Was going to reference it but things have been pretty peaceful around here lately. ed [(-D] "He laughs best who laughs last", or something to that effect, lumberboy. Now that the French have finally capitulated to allowing OA run throughs through their precious countryside, European 3pl's now can run their own trains spanning all of Europe. The boom is now at hand. BTW, have you noticed your wholesale lumber prices going up?
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal And railroad profits are not being reinvested in those areas where those profits originated for the most part, otherwise all of Montana would have been triple tracked by now. ANOTHER place you seem to know more about railroad operations than the railroad itself. You're starting to sound like a Consultant. LOTS of ideas and theories, but no experience actually putting them into action.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.