That’s quite a facility…why don’t railroads share their service facilities? Everyone pretty much uses the same motive power these days, technicians are in short supply, wouldn’t “co production” in that area be more cost effective than each road running its own shops?
It might sound like a good idea but there are many reasons not to do it. First, geographically, roads don’t necessarily use the same type of power in the same region. Second, competing roads don’t want to tip their hand in relation to business reasons. Third, interchanging may be more of a hassle than you might think. Fourth, each company has its own program and going off line may not fit. Fifth, roads’ own major shops and center of operations may be too far away to make sense. Sixth, personalities, proceudures, proclivities.
Would be interesting if NS and CSX could look at synergies in that area…i…e. Harrisburg and Cumberland. They’re only 140 miles apart. CSX and NS pretty much operate the same type of motive power… no?..except for the paint one loco is just like the other. Both roads operate in the same region and haul the same commodity mix… hard to imagine that there wouldn’t be substantial cost savings to be had by coordinating facilites and resources…
Even two miles apart, they might be worlds apart. Branch line trains and locomotives on one railroad has four axel power predominant while mainline haulers on the other are all six axel. One road goes for AC while the other remains ballast deep in DC. Onboard computers are distant cousins not brothers and sisters. The master mechanic on one was onced married to the wife of the Superintendent on the other and he hates his brother in law, too. And if the host road may find that the guest road’s power has lots of problems…to many to fix. This week. .
Each carrier has it’s own power plan based upon it’s own traffic patterns, classification facilities and shop facilities. While all the locomotives are from the same manufacturers, each carrier has their own specifications for their power, while the differences may not be ‘significant’ when viewed from a operational point of view, they can be significant from a maintenance point of view.
I can’t count the number of times crews have made disparaging comments when having to operate foreign power; and in some cases glowing comments concerning a different carriers power. While the locomotives may look the same on the outside, they are not the same to the men and women that have to operate and live with them.
With the interline run-through power, each carrier does service the foreign line power that is on their property when running needs and statutory regulations require.
What I’ve wondered is why the locomotive builders don’t take advantage of major shops such as Cumberland for actual production of locomotives (presumably for the railroad whose shops they’re using). NS’s Juniata Shops built some EMD locomotives from the ground up a few years back, and we were always taught that the C&O’s Huntington Shops had the capability of building units from scratch. The major railroads all have shops that could handle such production (maybe even two…one each for EMD and GE). Locomotives would return to their shops as necessary for retrofitting, upgrading, and warranty repairs.
The carriers have outsourced some maintenance to manufacturer sponsored maintenance organizations - with mixed results.
The carriers announced intentions since the passage of the Stagger act has been to operate as transportation companies - and not, as far as practicable, get involved in all the ancillary operations that railroads had claimed as their own during the regulation era. The carriers don’t want to be involved in designing and building equipment and locomotives as they once were. There are a number of other facets of the business that have been ‘shipped off the reservation’ and into stand alone business.
Most likely because locomotive production at one location is more efficient than having several plants all over the country. With each additional plant ,staffing, supervision, work rules, and logistics, etc. become more complex as well. Makes more sense to have one large plant…
Another aspect of the external supplier for locomotives might be a legal one, as well. Imagine that one railroad is building locomotives as a business adjunct and supplies a locomotive for another carrier.
Lets say that tha a locomotive is involved in some sort of incident; possibly, due to a design malfunction, or even a misapplication of the locomotive’s function. The incident is tried and plays out in a court of law. You have to know that lawyers will sue everyone; even those remotely connected within the incident. Just imagine, that the engine was built at a CSX owned location. That engine was sold to the UPRR, and operated by the NS. It becomes a legal entanglement of nightmarish proportions. No corporation wants to get into those murky waters. Bad enough with current trackage rights, and shared power putting corporations at risk in high profile incidents, [2c]