This months’ Trains features nice article on newer and bigger freight cars that rip up rail that’s not made for it.
Back in 80s, some shortlines purportedly went extinct b/c track wasn’t up to standard to bigger cars.
Now, with these even bigger cars planned in future, that could put a hurt in shortlines that make up 30% of all US mileage. Already, they need $7 BILLION to keep up with existing traffic.
Do you think Uncle Sam could give the shortlines about $50 billion to get it all right and say it’s in the national interest?
They did an article a while back on it as well. Unfortunately I don’t remember when, or any of the specifics they brought out.
If the case is made correctly, I think the feds could be convinced that it would be money well spent - after all, they are keeping traffic off the roads, preventing the potential closure of industries, etc. There could also be some local input into the process - perhaps some sort of matching grant process.
Several months ago, they did a whole feature on just that and the real possibility that shortlines with their older track won’t be able to handle the newer cars. Since a lot of large railroads spin off shortlines to do work they would rather not, it seems counter productive.
I will argue that the shortlines are not in as much jeopardy as it might appear on the surface from larger freight cars. The first usage of the larger cars will be coal trains. In fact that is the specific application being tested in Colorado. Coal routes are a heavily used, but limited subset of the national RR system. And any shortline that is a coal route will have economic justification for upgrades.
The bulk of the car fleet will not immidiately change - because of the very long life of a freight car. The transistion to 263K’s took about 20 years and I expect that the transition to 300K+ will take at least as long. That will be plenty of time for the shortlines to evaluate, plan and implement upgrades.
Since you opted to play devils advocate and general pinata I’ll just have to respond.
First your premise that 286,000lbs cars are limited to coal service is completely incorrect. I doubt 315,000lbs cars (315K) will be long in entering all kinds of service. 286K cars make up a large component of the covered hopper cars in service including those used for grain, plastics, chemicals, rock salt and foods (flour, cereals, sweeteners, pet food, etc) and are gaining in areas such as centerbeam flats (lumber), open top hoppers (aggregates, woodchips, etc) and also gons (scrap metal, coiled steel, etc). As many of these cars roam the entire rail system, the entire system is subjected to the damage they can do. 315K cars can also be expected to enter the fleet quickly as car manufacturers are turning out a recent record number of cars of all types now.
Also, lets not forget the fact that to many shippers, the more they can pack into a car the better, making overloading common. As many cars never see a scale until they reach destination (commodites priced on destination weight) these overloaded 286K cars are already pounding our rail system often at gr
LC - Kaman Sciences would tell you that you are short about 25% for an in-motion scale and they are incredibly cantankerous. The old mechanical scales are almost never seen any more and the survivors are rarely servicable. (You could have gotten either type of scale 6 months ago off the former DRGW Aspen Branch, but the 5 watt dimbulbs operating the heavy equipment destroyed them with little thought[:(!])
I believe certain kinds of freight cars will never go to 315K due to volume considerations. Woodchip gons for one. (has anyone seen even a 286K woodchip car? All of the type I have seen predate 286K cars.)
LC
those overweight cars are pounding the crossovers and diamonds over here too.think your wifes ring is expensive try replacing a rr diamond.
stay safe
Joe
Just how big are these new cars? anyone have dimensions compared to standard cars/ what about weights and lengths and lets have some photos for all us with no more train service.
Your comments on 315K’s are well taken. However, I think that there is a fundamental difference between the introduction of 315K vs the introduction of 286K and that is the testing work, so well reported by TRAINS. RR’s will have a much better picture of the operating conditions required for the large cars – and thus will have a much better picture of the total cost of operations – including required track mods. The introduction of the 100 ton grain cars caused many derailments and much track damage in the Midwest before MOW and operations staff figured out that the theoretical calculations on track loading were insufficient.
Another big difference is the overall economics of railroad vs truck today. At the time of the introduction of the 286Ks, rail traffic and the rail network were shrinking. Now, we are seeing credible forecasts of an increase in rail traffic by 25% over the next 3 to 5 years – and I personally think that those estimates are conservative, considering the forecasts for oil prices.
Without increasing freight car size for some major commodities, the increased car count will strangle operations and average speed will drop even further.
Suurrrrrrrre, we’ll just tap the ol social security trust fund ONE LAST TIME (snicker) and all the short line operators can get out the guitar and sing Kum Bayh Yaaaa togeher.
I’m sure you’re right on the cost. To put it in context though, a $75,000 set of scales is about the cost of two middlin’ size timber bridge repairs or one big one. Plus the scales keep on earning their keep after they have been paid for. Initially, depending upon the tariff rate for weighing you can have about a two year payback on the scales on a decent traffic line.
I think that the trains magazine article on heavy cars proves beyond all doubt the pure folly it is too expect uncle sam to line the pockets of these shortline operators.
Obviously it is NOT as simple as just cutting them a one time check to put in heavier rail.
Even the big boys are finding out that heavier cars mean intensive and ON GOING maintenance issues, where will these nickle and dime operators go for money to fix their pineapple (the Dole) when it starts to wear out?
Will the prevailing argument then be that we must “throw good money after bad”? to preserve our original investment in stupidity?
What’s so blantantly obvious to us common sense intellectuals is that, if indeed the feds (e.g. we the taxpayers) will be stuck with a $7 to $50 billion bill for bring shortllines up to the 39 tons per axle standard, it would be so much better for the feds to simply exert regulatory oversight and cap per axle weight limits at 25 to 33 tons per axle, and instead focus infrastructure aid on bringing bridges up to a 300 to 400k gross car weight standard.
Just focussing on shortlines’ bridge structures would only cost a mere fraction of having to bring entire lines up to a 315k standard. And with the money saved, we could instead focus on building new rail capacity, not just engaging in current track spec upgrade overkill.
You need to go back and reread the Trains article. The very reason the railroads are interested in the higher capacity cars is to increase the capacity of the system without adding new trackage. Since the railroads own and maintain their own rights of way, I doubt the is any actual way a governmental regulatory agency can cap axle loading limits the railroads want to use. So long as the new weights are safe and within engineering standards the railroads are free to run the cars as heavy as they please.
Wow, I can’t believe you called youself common…after all these years!
Oh, your buddy said he didn’t know if you got your newsletter, so he asked me to send this link to you…and to remind you that you were a month behind on your dues…
Agreed, but getting $75,000 is kinda tough when most shortlines find it tough to even rub two nickels together. I fear the repeat of the 1860-1890 scenario where bridge failures, especially with timber spans, was common because the engineering understanding wasn’t there yet. Now we have the knowledge and not the financing. I am seeing evidence where I work of shortline operators, many of who cannot afford a bridge engineer or properly trained track engineer, gambling that they can run the heavier cars so they can keep the business (and not anger the customer who is cheating, on purpose, in regard to the weight of the lading) …You can run the heavier trains for a brief while on track with a lesser track modulus (stiffness), but there are consequences and that is what the article is getting at.
The intellectual snob with the horse blinders on (from above) doesn’t seem to remember that the advent of the 315K car was created by market pressures from the electric power industry reducing tare weight. If it suits his narr
Agreed, but getting $75,000 is kinda tough when most shortlines find it tough to even rub two nickels together. I fear the repeat of the 1860-1890 scenario where bridge failures, especially with timber spans, was common because the engineering understanding wasn’t there yet. Now we have the knowledge and not the financing. I am seeing evidence where I work of shortline operators, many of who cannot afford a bridge engineer or properly trained track engineer, gambling that they can run the heavier cars so they can keep the business (and not anger the customer who is cheating, on purpose, in regard to the weight of the lading) …You can run the heavier trains for a brief while on track with a lesser track modulus (stiffness), but there are consequences and that is what the article is getting at.
The intellectual snob with the horse blinders on (from above) doesn’t seem to remember that the advent of the 315K car was created by market pressures from the e
Having a nice picture of what you need is great. The short lines I work with as a consultant and advisor all have a very good handle on their needs and know very well what 315K means. It is one thing to have a nice picture and another to have the resources to fix the problem. They don’t and all the pretty pictures in the world are worthless without the resources.
Increasing the car weight by 15 tons or so won’t make much difference in terms of moving product. The real increases of 30 tons will make a difference to shippers. They will happen as I discussed above and these ponderous overweight beasts will destroy many bridges if allowed to happen. People will di
If, as some posters on here suggest, power companies and grain shippers are "captive"to only railroads for shipment; can’t the railroads just say NO to heavier cars?