Put the IT guy in charge!
As a guy who makes his living writing computer code, and as a guy who really likes trains, I really like this.
www.microsoft.com/business/peopleready/news/forbes/railroad.mspx
Hey hound, The article is in the Febuary 13, 2006 issue of FORBES with Wick Mooreman’s picture on the cover. Well written as is most of Forbes’ materal. Hopefully we will see more of this kind of coverge in the business press. PL
That was a great article!
And we trust a technology that has indicators on its equipment for “collisions?”
[swg]
Actually that’s the ethernet part of things - the computer communications. The electrical engineering approach to traffic flow is interesting. The idea of grouping cars together as early as possible may seem like a no-brainer, but it takes either a lot of people or the computing capabilities of a single entity (a computer) to be able to quickly sort them out.
The railroads are already using RFID (radio tags) to track cars. How long can it be before they are able to locate the cars instantaneously, in real time?
Quotes of interest:
“The ultimate competition, after all, is trucks.”
Yep, those trucks were right at the cusp of winning those coal hauling contracts and all that land bridge container business.[;)] (The preceeding smilie is the closest this forum has for representing sarcasm)
The truth is, there is no real compeition for railroads right now. Intramodal competition is confined to limited areas e.g. the Gulf Coast. Obviously, there aren’t enough trucks in existence to handle that aforeto mentioned traffic which the article credits for railroads’ revival. Until and if the Panama Canal is enlarged to handle the post-Panamax ships, land bridge traffic is safe. And as far as I know, there are no new plans for coal slurry pipelines (the only concievable competition for transporting coal).
“But the long train brought costs of its own. Ten trains would arrive in the span of two hours, then there would be none for eight hours. Locomotives and crews got bunched up in yards when they were needed elsewhere, so the company had to pay for extra crews to move the locomotives around. The longer other railroads’ cars were sitting on Norfolk Southern’s tracks, the higher the fees charged to those companies. And, of course, the delay might rankle customers whose stuff was sitting on the tracks for an extra day.”
Exactly what some of us had been saying for months now. The long train model, while being the bean counter’s pet, has flaws that end up hurting the bottom line. Granted, NS hasn’t yet endorsed the IT “packet” equivalent of shorter faster trains, but the idea has certainly gotton back on the board.
“A train can carry a ton of goods 202 miles on a gallon of fuel, while a truck can take it only 59 miles.”
Using the old numbers shows the writer hasn’t kept up with the times.
" Also, railroads don’t pay as much fuel tax as trucking companies. Fair enough, since the taxes pay for asphalt."
Hmmmm, that state
So, what’s your point? I see a lot a words but nothing being said.
As opposed to saying little and still saying nothing as above?[}:)]
What I am pointing out is the typical regurgitation of rail industry myths…
- “Trucks are the competition”
- “Longer train consists are more efficient than shorter train consists”
- “Trucks don’t pay their fair share of highway funds”
…and refuting them…
- Trucks are not the competition for railroads. Outside of areas with waterways and coastal shipping opportunities, only railroads are the competition for railroads. The writer seems to think that when a trailer or container is taken off a truck and put on a railcar, the truckers are “losing” business to the railroads, when in fact the truckers are getting a net benefit by shipping their trailers and containers by rail instead of hauling them over the highways. If the truckers were losing to the railroads by utilizing TOFC and COFC, JB Hunt et al wouldn’t allow a single trailer or domestic container to go by rail. Since TOFC and COFC is a win-win for both railroads and truckers, it is not a competitive arena, it is rather a cooperative arena.
And I’m still waiting to here about those trucking companies bidding for coal hauling contracts out of the PRB!
-
In this the writer and NS have got it right. Longer consists are not the economic panacea professional railroaders have extolled for years, rather those longer consists can end up costing the railroads business. Railroads can running shorter, more frequent consists and make better money, all by using the “Information Highway” model. Look for a revival of the shorter faster consist model in the years to come.
-
Not only do trucks pay their fair share of federal highway fees, they apparently are also subsidizing the railroads with their fuel taxes and othe
Truckers, buses and motorists do not pay for the full cost of roads. Highways are provided primarily as a subsidised public utility. Railroads are expected to pay the full cost of their infrastructure and pay property taxes to local municpalities which state highway authorities do not do. With respect to fuel taxes there is a problem of perspective. The trucking industry claims that fuel taxes are part of the money that they pay for the road. There is some truth and hence the reduction in fuel taxes for railroads. If one treats fuel taxes as a consumption tax similar to sales tax then there should not be a difference in the tax rates between railroads and trucks. This would mean that if the infrastructure were provided on the same basis to both modes then the mode with the best efficiency would have the lowest costs.
Railroads are also part of the problem since they view infrastructure as their private property, which it is under the current regime. As a result they are often not to cooperative on government supported projects that might impinge upon their ability to control the infrastructure.
Governments could provide major funding for grade separations and crossing protection through the highway fund and both the railroads and the highway user would benefit. You may notice that on interstate and other divided highways that there are usually no grade crossings. If one views a double or triple track railroad as the railway equivalent of the divided highway you will still see grade crossings. This is becuase the needs of railroads have been deemed subservient to the interstate highway system by both the federal and state (and provincial in Canada) governments.
The way to increase capacity is to increase speeds and mutiple track. Speeds can only be increased with shorter trains and increased crossing protection. Look at the maps in Trains comparing multiple track segments in 1950 and 2006. It is a sad state of affairs. Do you think that when gasoline costs 5$/gallon that we will shut down one la
That is a great article.
NS seems to run it’s trains on a pretty tight schedule, at least here in my town of Valparaiso, In. I can usually tell when I hear a whistle, which train it is…not always, but probably 75% of the time.
Visual inspections of the trains indicate several things:
-
Often the general freight trains are short. I have seen train 307 with as few as 15 cars between Bellevue, Oh and Chicago.
-
Trains such as 17R, which runs off of the CN (Fond du Lac to Columbus, Oh) are monster trains, often 150 cars and heavy (lots of lumber). At some point CN and NS have to revisit that operation and run 2 trains instead of just one. The train often dies before it reaches Ft. Wayne. It just cant seem to get thru Chicago, no doubt the size of the train restricts it, as there are only a few places it can park, instead of keep moving.
-
NS instituted a rash of new trains last summer/fall. This was probably in response to the Elkhart yard work done and running the data. Trains 17R, 324 and 365 were added. 324 and 365 are Elkhart - Fort Wayne and Fort Wayne to Elkhart trains which run west on the Conrail line to East Chicago then, south to the Nickel Plate line at Osborn (5 miles) and then back east to Fort Wayne. This circulous routing doesnt seem to make sense, but there is not an easy way to go straight. The trains are usually 45 to 70 cars, not huge, but the cars move daily.
-
Their intermodal trains are usually extremely punctual.
-
Those intermodal trains are usually very large, often with 150 to 200 containers or units. Often these trains run in second sections. Their marketing seems to be paying off quite well.
-
The line in quesition is a 60mph railroad, single track CTC handling 30+ trains daily. They are also investing in the line, the tie and surface crews are out in full force.
In case you cannot tell, I think the NS is one heck of a railroad…just from cas
It sounds like you keep a close watch over NS’s operations in your area. The only point I would like disagree with is that the 60mph railroad is only 60 mph when the train is actually moving at full speed. When you have 150 car trains it takes either a lot of horsepower or time to get the train up to 60mph unless the sidings are more like short sections of double track allowing moving meets. Ultimately the only way to increase capacity is to lay more rail.
I noticed on the Trains map of June 2006 that the Southern Railway appears to be double track all the way from Washington DC to Atlanta GA in 1950 and now it only has short sections of double track. Is that correct or am I misreading the map? Hopefully with the joint venture with KCS there will be growing volume to allow the route to be double tracked again.
I beleive that the railroads need to pick certain key routes and concentrate on them just as BNSF has on the transcon line. Otherwise it is a case of spending too little money to too few areas to make much of a difference.
Good point about the 60mph. We are also very close to the Chicago area…about an hour from their Calumet yard, so things slow down.
Most of their trains are not 150 cars, the 17R seems to be the only monster, tho the intermodals seem to be stretching out in length. Part of the problem is the siding lengths are limited. There is a 10,000 siding, but most are in the 6500 -8000 length. It is a challenge operating this district, but they certainly do a great job at it.
ed
From the Trains Newswire:
Electric utilities in good shape for summer, says coal experts
WASHINGTON - Electric utilities are in good shape for the upcoming summer months when the demand for electricity is at its highest, and have adequate coal stockpiles that continue to grow, according to the federal government, coal experts, and coal publications, the Association of American Railroads said yesterday.
Last week, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
In selected cases, depending on what’s being hauled and where. The fact that a train is shorter does not allow it to run faster on the same section of track, the speed limit is determined by the condition of the track and the train’s tons per operable brake. Running shorter consists in heavily traveled corridors will slow things down, due to the spacing required between trains by the signal or traffic control system.
[quote]
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
As opposed to saying little and still saying nothing as above?[}:)]
What I am pointing out is the typical regurgitation of rail industry myths…
- “Trucks are the competition”
- “Longer train consists are more efficient than shorter train consists”
- “Trucks don’t pay their fair share of highway funds”
…and refuting them…
- Trucks are not the competition for railroads. Outside of areas with waterways and coastal shipping opportunities, only railroads are the competition for railroads. The writer seems to think that when a trailer or container is taken off a truck and put on a railcar, the truckers are “losing” business to the railroads, when in fact the truckers are getting a net benefit by shipping their trailers and containers by rail instead of hauling them over the highways. If the truckers were losing to the railroads by utilizing TOFC and COFC, JB Hunt et al wouldn’t allow a single trailer or domestic container to go by rail. Since TOFC and COFC is a win-win for both railroads and truckers, it is not a competitive arena, it is rather a cooperative arena.
And I’m still waiting to here about those trucking companies bidding for coal hauling contracts out of the PRB!
-
In this the writer and NS have got it right. Longer consists are not the economic panacea professional railroaders have extolled for years, rather those longer consists can end up costing the railroads business. Railroads can running shorter, more frequent consists and make better money, all by using the “Information Highway” model. Look for a revival of the shorter faster consist model in the years to come.
-
Not only do trucks pay their fair share of federal highway fees, they apparently
The only thing coming close to a subsidy for the railroads in the article:
“The port of Norfolk is undergoing an $880 million expansion that it hopes will attract the ships. Norfolk Southern is spending up to $100 million to upgrade its main route from Norfolk to Columbus, Ohio, where it is building a yard at the old Rickenbacker Air Force Base to offload the double-stacked containers. (The federal highway bill includes an additional $90 million for this project.)”
I guess since the containers aren’t being offloaded onto trucks, this is strictly a subsidy to the railroad?
Again, you’re ignoring the facts presented and reading your own agenda into it.
I beg to differ regarding the comment on shorter trains.
From an operational standpoint, you can run more, shorter trains on a given section of track due primarily to the relative ease in handling a short train. Not nearly as much consideration needs to be given for slack, and a shorter train is much more predictable in handling. If I was running a 150-car train behind another train, I would sit and wait until I had at least 1, preferably 2 clear signals ahead of me. To try and nurse a huge train through restrictive signals just begs for problems. I would have no hesitation following a train into a signal block if I had the short train.
In addition, there are problems of where to park the 150 car train if the one in front breaks down or has some other problem. A 30-50 car train can be run almost as easily as an unoccupied passenger train.
And a point-to-point shorter train COULD be operated with only one crewman.
[quote]
QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz
I beg to differ regarding the comment on shorter trains.
From an operational standpoint, you can run more, shorter trains on a given section of track due primarily to the relative ease in handling a short train. Not nearly as much consideration needs to be given for slack, and a shorter train is much more predictable in handling. If I was running a 150-car train behind another train, I would sit and wait until I had at least 1, preferably 2 clear signals ahead of me. To try and nurse a huge train through restrictive signals just begs for problems. I would have no hesitation following a train into a signal block if I had the short train.
In addition, there are problems of where to park the 150 car train if the one in front breaks down or has some other problem. A 30-50 car train can be run almost as easily as an unoccupied passenger train.
And a point-to-point shorter train COULD be operated with only o
[quote]
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
From the Trains Newswire:
Electric utilities in good shape for summer, says coal experts
WASHINGTON - Electric utilities are in good shape for the upcoming summer months when the demand for electricity is at its highest, and have adequate coal stockpiles that continue to grow, according to the federal government, coal experts, and coal publications, the Association of American Railroads said yesterday. <
So what is the % of the Highway Trust Fund that is funded by other than fuel taxes and trucking fees?
[quote]
QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944
[quote]
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
As opposed to saying little and still saying nothing as above?[}:)]
What I am pointing out is the typical regurgitation of rail industry myths…
- “Trucks are the competition”
- “Longer train consists are more efficient than shorter train consists”
- “Trucks don’t pay their fair share of highway funds”
…and refuting them…
- Trucks are not the competition for railroads. Outside of areas with waterways and coastal shipping opportunities, only railroads are the competition for railroads. The writer seems to think that when a trailer or container is taken off a truck and put on a railcar, the truckers are “losing” business to the railroads, when in fact the truckers are getting a net benefit by shipping their trailers and containers by rail instead of hauling them over the highways. If the truckers were losing to the railroads by utilizing TOFC and COFC, JB Hunt et al wouldn’t allow a single trailer or domestic container to go by rail. Since TOFC and COFC is a win-win for both railroads and truckers, it is not a competitive arena, it is rather a cooperative arena.
And I’m still waiting to here about those trucking companies bidding for coal hauling contracts out of the PRB!
-
In this the writer and NS have got it right. Longer consists are not the economic panacea professional railroaders have extolled for years, rather those longer consists can end up costing the railroads business. Railroads can running shorter, more frequent consists and make better money, all by using the “Information Highway” model. Look for a revival of the shorter faster consist model in the years to come.
-
Not only do trucks