Quick question. What is meant by the term “drag freight service?” I see references to it quite often, but I’ve never quite figured out what it is. Is it different from general freight service?
Thanks,
Ross R.
Drag freight is generally low-speed service, often but not exclusively associated with mineral freight. A good example of drag freights would be operations on CGW, MKT and KCS while William Deramus was president of those roads. Through freights were infrequent, long and not very fast, with lots of power on the front end, CGW’s 6-unit lash-ups of F-units being a good example.
Drag freight implies that the train has just enough tractive effort to keep from stalling on the ruling grade. HP/ton for schedule keeping is either irrelevant or a secondary issue.
In some places, the same thing is called a “dead freight”.
Drag freight was considered the most efficient around 1900 and trains dragged every car they could get at speeds as low as 10mph. Later it became the method for nontime sensitive materials as mentioned.
"Uphill slow,
Downhill fast,
Tonnage first,
and horsepower last!"
When I started on the railroad the last line was…
“Safety last!”
I’ve heard of such trains being called both “general merchandise” or “junk” trains.
Drag refers to type of service - slow, minimum HP/Ton. A train that is so long that it takes a helper to push it downhill (because the head end is already climbing the next grade).
Manifest trains (your “general merchandise” or “junk” trains) can be drags, but usually are not. A very long bare-table move would probably classify as a drag.
OK, but I often see bare-table moves along the BNSF triple track main line (usually in the post-rush-hour evening times) that move pretty darned fast and are (like you said) usually powered by only one unit (likely no more are needed as these are undoubtedly very light trains).
CGW wasn’t totally drag freight, however. The up and down profile of the Chicago-Oelwein line reguired a 2-8-0 in place of a 2-6-2 (or 2-6-6-2 in place of 2-8-0) for about half of the trip. In later steam days, CGW used 2-10-4s that were rated at 65MPH. They could pull more than a Mikado and maintain a higher speed on the grades. The Oelwein-Kansas City line had a speed limit of 45MPH in the 1950s (CGW was full dieselized).So, it wasn’t quite a drag freight. Just as long (and, in many cases, longer) and faster.
Now you have inserted another parameter - conflict with other movements that cause a decrease in capacity. A drag can be operated “fast” - and usually would be - if slow operation will delay other more time sensitive movements. The available capacity in the area you are talking about is probably “nil”, so to maintain that capacity, all trains operate at a higher speed than they might otherwise use somewhere else.
The Coal in the “Coal Drag” sat in the ground for millions of years.
A few minutes lost climbing the mountains at 8 mph is not going to be a problem.
Steady supply was more important than speed.
Tell that to the railroad that just boomed a 125 car coal train at 60+ mph and three high horse units thru my area today.
Ahhh…but Drag service was used before “Just In Time” inventory…to keep inventory costs low, power plants today tend to not stockpile even a week of coal. They used to stockpile at least a month. So the Railroads, who had lots of extra capacity, got a long term contract with the powerplant to deliver a certain amount of coal weekly…or even daily. So to avoid penalties, the coal has to get there on time!
I think Entergy Arkansas is in a bit of a rate fight because they allowed thier plants to deplete coal reserves to below 45 days and had to buy electricity on the open market causing our bills to go up. I think it had to do with Wyoming and the failure to keep that line open or maintain adequate traffic flow out of that area.
We have two coal consuming power plants and one nuke plant that I know of here in this state.
Be gentle with me here because I only now am beginning to understand my local area with the power. Back where I was raised, Baltimore needed 60 days reserve of coal, if not more.
What’s gonna happen when we deplete Wyoming coal and suddenly no one has emissions friendly coal to burn?
From what I’ve about the Powder River Basin from relatives in Eastern Montana - there are two 30 foot thick coal seams with the top seam typically less than 100 feet below the surface. These coal seams cover an area of maybe 40,000 square miles. Think it safe to say that the Wyoming coal reserves will not be depleted in my lifetime- more likely that CO2 concerns may cause a shift away from coal.
I saw the operation at what used to be NP’s Colstrip mine back in 1971 - at it was impressive at how much coal was in the ground.
Are power plants that rquire coal, and do busness with the railroads in terms of getting coal to them, via unit/ heavy haul considered captive shipers? I belive this is correct considering the fact that there isn’t any other way to get millions of tons of coal to a power plant efficiently (sp) other than rail. I also think the railroad jacks up the price of shipment just because, power plants are captive shipers.
No, they’re not captive.
Here’s why. Just for starters, they could:
-
ship the whole way by truck
-
ship by truck to closest barge route
-
build slurry pipeline to power plant or barge point.
-
build their own RR
-
build powerplant at mine mouth and ship by wire
-
And last, but not least, source coal elsewhere (import, eastern vs. western, Monongahela vs. Pocahontas, etc.)
All of these would be more expensive than the mine/rail carrier combo that is currently in use - who would chose a more expensive option?
Also, the rail carriers have done a good job of reducing and containing costs over the years. Imagine if they still had jointed rail, 5 man crews, 100 mile basic day, steam locomotives, ABS & tower operation, 50 ton max capacity cars. What would their costs be? I’d bet no one would be howling about being captive. In fact, there’d be no RRs to howl at! [:(]
Or consider if there was no RR and all coal moved by truck from a mine 500 miles to a po
[quote user=“oltmannd”]
No, they’re not captive.
Here’s why. Just for starters, they could:
-
ship the whole way by truck
-
ship by truck to closest barge route
-
build slurry pipeline to power plant or barge point.
-
build their own RR
-
build powerplant at mine mouth and ship by wire
-
And last, but not least, source coal elsewhere (import, eastern vs. western, Monongahela vs. Pocahontas, etc.)
All of these would be more expensive than the mine/rail carrier combo that is currently in use - who would chose a more expensive option?
Also, the rail carriers have done a good job of reducing and containing costs over the years. Imagine if they still had jointed rail, 5 man crews, 100 mile basic day, steam locomotives, ABS & tower operation, 50 ton max capacity cars. What would their costs be? I’d bet no one would be howling about being captive. In fact, there’d be no RRs to howl at! [:(]
Or consider if there was no RR and all coal moved by truck from