In a lot of books I read (remember books?-those thingies we had before the internet?), it seems that many railroads have had ongoing,internal debates about which is better-long or short trains. Most noteable that I can think of were CGW, and KCS. The issue seems to revolve around: long,economical to operate trains vs. shorter,more frequent trains to provide better service times. What are your thoughts?
Good to hear from our resident railroading soldier. Heard on CNN this AM (Sunday) that they blew up a railroad there Mark, and was wondering if you were OK. Stay safe!
Willy
A cost-based analysis, alone, will almost invariably lead to the wrong decision.
Revenue, based upon rate differentials willingly paid by shippers, is the key consideration in any short trains/long train analysis.
Best regards, Michael Sol
I’m so pleased Mark Hemphill is staying involved here at the old forum, I’m sure he keeps busy over there dodging bullets,etc. His excellent information and professional presentationare always informative to me and a pleasure to read. And no, I am not his mother! There was another guy whom I really appreciated, I think he was an electrician for Wisconsin Central. What drives me from this, and other forums, is the angr and venom spewed by the several pit bulls amongst us. It’s our love of railroading which brings us here, and I, for one, would like to think that, when we bare our teeth, it is to smile, not to snarl.
Another one of those re-occuring themes from railroad history: “John Doe came in and saved The AB&C railroad, by consolidating all the short trains into long,money-saving trains” Next chapter: “Joe Blow came in and saved The AB&C railroad, by eliminating all the super-long,money losing trains, and runninh shorter,more frequent trains” And so it goes. !?!
long trains are good cos they have more power which means LOUD!!!
Revenues and costs, considered in isolation from each other, cannot be the basis of any decision in the long/short train decision. Running more short trains is not an answer if the increased revenues do not offset the increased costs. The converse is also true, running fewer, longer trains doesn’t work if the reduced costs are more than offset by lost revenues.
An analysis of all factors must be made before the appropriate decisions are made. MWH has explained much better than I could that there is no one right solution.
Agent:
Sometimes people of passion express their feelings and when there is disagreement then tempers fly.
Personally, I would rather have a passionate discussion about a topic than luke warm dry toasting a color scheme or favorite fallen flag. Nothing wrong with either of those, but some of the best topics on this forum are when we have had to calm everyone down a notch.
Hang around and enjoy it.
ed
Makes me think of UP running the UPS ground express. One hot train, fun to watch, but completely screwed up their whole system for one train. Can’t happen that way.
JDV
Presumably the decision to offer the service was made by experienced railroaders after a good deal of study. Was the concept wrong? Was the implementation wrong? Is the system designed poorly? Is the system operated poorly?
Presuming that experienced rail professionals believed it could work, the point raises interesting questions about the reasons for any alleged failure. Was the train at fault? Was the system at fault? Were the experienced railroad planners at fault? Did the shipper implement their end of the operation appropriately? Did a difference of opinion about the efficacy of such service – “don’t meddle with the operating plan” – cause a cultural resistance to its success?
Many reasons can explain success, many reasons can cause failure.
Best regards, Michael Sol
Good point. I don’t blame UP for trying it, I applaud them for trying a gutsy move like that. I know you can’t be afraid of changes, but hopefully if they don’t work out you discover why and learn from it. Sometimes it could very well be a combination of reasons, like you said.
Part of the reason this is still a debated topic on most RRs is the lack of good tools for doing a complete analysis. When every day is a different disaster, it’s hard to construct network models that can be used to maximize the net benefit.
Like deja-vu, all over again! Today a Dakota & Iowa empty rock train came through town with 10 (ten) engines on the head end! The first 2 were D&RGW, the other 8 were D&I. Do you think this means they’re going to merge???[;)]
i like both but like long trains better as long as its mixed frieght.