Balloon track vs siding/spur

Trains Magazine General Discussion
1

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

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

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

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

2

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

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

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

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

3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quit trying to read something into what is not there.

4

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

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

5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ed

6

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

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

7

Think of a circle sitting on top of a Y.

8

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

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

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

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

Which suggests several things in refutation of the current status quo. The railroads can provide ti

9

OK, that supposition was wrong.

So was this one.

[quote]
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
Since balloon tracks take up so much more real estate than sidings and spurs, why do we even need them? Seems that the elevator owner is the one that has to pay for the rail layout, and what seems to be happening is that brand new shuttle loader elevators are being built soley for the sake of constructing the balloon track, when there are perfectly good elevator

10

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

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

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

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

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

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

What tickles me is you are commenting on a place and a service you have never set eyes on, you have zero idea of the lay of the land, the constraints this elevator has to work around, nor do you have the basic knowledge on how trains really work and wh

11

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

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

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

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

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

12

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

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

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

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

13

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

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

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

14

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

Ah ha…I know; it’s a conspiracy!

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

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

Wow, it all makes sense now!

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

Ed

15

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

16

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

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

17

Posted by the one and only ED

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

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

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

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

18

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

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

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

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

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

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

19

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

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

Ed

20

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

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

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

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