Why would crew pools be less efficient ? Wouldn’t trips be faster because of no meets ?
The biggest upside; 5 increases volume capacity.
The UP runs directional traffic north of Kansas City, among other areas on the system. For trains going towards the Twin Cities area, northbounds use the ex-MP to Omaha, then eastward over the ex-CNW to Nevada. From there northward over the ex-CNW/RI. Southbounds go direct over the ex-CNW/RI. There are some variations in routing possible, but that’s generally how it’s done.
The northbound crews out of Kansas City many times will cab over to Des Moines to tie up. That’s about a 130 mile cab ride. There they take southbounds back to KC. The trains from Omaha are handled by crews out of Boone. Because this makes a greater level of eastward traffic, almost every day they need to deadhead crews to Fremont. (When a crew at Fremont gets called for a train out of Omaha/Council Bluffs, they cab down to get the train.)
There’s a daily manifest train out of Council Bluffs to Kansas City. By rail around 200 miles direct over the ex-MP. Instead it runs via Boone and Des Moines. One crew takes it from CB to Boone, 144 miles. A second crew to Des Moines (and cab home), 51 miles. A third crew from DM to KC for another 200 plus miles.
Even with the added costs for crews, fuel etc it must be better than the alternative.
Jeff
The big reason is that because now you’re running a de facto double-track railroad without any of the flexibility of a true double-track railroad. If you have a true double-track railroad, and suppose there is a crossover every 10 or 20 miles, if you need to take a track out of service for maintenance for any period of time, you can always turn a 10-20 miles stretch back into single track and run trains wrong-way on the other track and at keep things moving in some semblance of fluidity. On a directional running railroad, when you take one track down for maintenance, all the trains that would be running on that track just pile up at one end because you don’t want to turn the entire length of the other one into a two-way railroad for several days (and then undo it later), assuming you even have the signaling and sidings to do it. That means that all the crews that would be taking trains one way – then resting to get on trains the other way – are also piling up at one end. But trains keep running the other way, which means they exhaust the board at that end, so you have to deadhead crews one way (and pay them) to keep the other way going. Then when you turn the out-of-service track back on, now you have all the trains that were piled up at its entrance now needing crews, which you do not have, and you will deadhead crews from the other end to man them up.
If there are any intermediate crew changes in the directional territory, the effects are exponentially worse.
All things considered, directional running can be more cost-effective than two single-tr
Other than a downhill section of single direction track where one might expect a lot of dynamic braking, I don’t understand why the track would creep in the direction of travel. Could you please explain this in more detail?
Watch the rail under a train and you will often see it sink under each truck. The result is that each leading wheel is pushing against the very slight slope of the rail. This force is very small, but not zero, and when multiplied by 200 shoves per train, it adds up. Perhaps one of the other civil engineers can come up with actual numbers.
In fact, this rail creep can be helpful when out railfanning on the less busy lines. If there is a little play in the rail anchors you can determine which way the last train went because it will have PUSHED the anchors tight against the ties on the one side. Has the daily westbound gone by already? - a quick check of the anchors (take a poll, not just one) may provide the answer. This works best for full size trains; passenger or light units may not cause enough movement. Check it out the next time you have an opportunity.
John