Canadian Pacific plans to lengthen trains furtherPublished: December 6, 2011
|
Photo by Graham Booth
CALGARY, Alta. — Canadian Pacific plans to lengthen its transcontinental trains 11 percent by the end of 2013 from their current limit of 12,000 feet, the company has announced. The railroad is continuing to install new, longer sidings and lengthen existing sidings to accommodate the longer trains.
“Long trains are the cornerstone of CP’s operating strategy,” said Mike Franczak, the railroad’s executive vice president of operations. “By increasing train lengths and realizing strategic long siding investments, CP is maximizing productivity and service while reducing labor costs and increasing fuel efficiency.”
In addition to lengthening transcontinental trains, CP has been stretching unit trains carrying export commodities on its system’s west end. Recent investments i |
| - |
DPU is crucial to operating the line between Calgary and Vancouver. It started about 1969 and it took a number of years before they got the kinks out. It is not just the grades but the curvature on the grades as well. It took a lot of trial and error to get the placement of mid-train DPU units just right. Now they have computer software to figure it out.
Without DPU you had stringlining and pulled knuckles. and even with DPU the knuckle problem has never completely gone way. Another thing they discovered after the switch from DC to AC power is that AC units can pull more tonnage up hill than they can safely handle down grade, even with dynamic brakes. A couple of near runaways and heated words with the National Parks Department drove that point home. The units “A” ratings were adjusted downwards to match the units uphill capabilities with their down hill ability.
As mentioned in the recent TRAINS issue on DPU’s they are routinely getting up to their 12,000 foot limit now, and the potential increases are mentioned in the article. They certainly need this plan to work because there are new potash plants coming online in the next couple of years, and coal sales always seem to be going up.
It looks like the the ghost of William Deramus (CGW/MKT/KCS) is in charge of operations for CP. Deramus was noted for a maximum-tonnage philosophy in operations.
Also James J. Hill of the GN fame, who had a hand in the early days of CP’s construction.
Wonder if the trackage at the originating shipper and receiving terminal is also set-up - or has been/ is being revised - to efficiently handle the longer trains. If not - for example, a loop or collection of sidings that can hold only a 10,000 ft. train would be quite a hindrance when having to break apart a 12,000 ft. train and hold the extra 2,000 ft. someplace until it can be shuffled in to replace another 2,000 ft. that has to be pulled out . . . [:-^]
Bruce’s point about the AC braking limitations is interesting. Recall that for most of dieselization, the PRR/ PC/ CR/ now NS use helper units on downhill trains over the Allegheny Summit from Johnstown - Gallitzin - Altoona and through Horse Shoe Curve for added braking power as much as for uphill traction. I wonder if CP will consider or reinstitute helpers for that purpose ? Otherwise, the power capabilities of the AC units are not being fully utilized (= wasted) - which is more costly/ less efficient ?
I tend to agree BaltACD. the advantage of longer trains allowing longer track times between trains and better fluidity is important. But for any air loss especially in winter is a real problem. A partial solution would be for a second conductor, engineer, or even maybe a carman to be assigned on the mid traiin DPU?. Then a much quicker locating of the problem could be initiated. If in front of the DPU repair if possible would then be completed and the train brought forward to pick up the DPU employee.
Once electronic controlled braking is in place on any train the isolation of the problem may be quicker ( ? ) but still I would have the DPU rider.
J.J. Hill was pretty much gone by the time the mainline was being built west of Winnipeg.
As to the trackage at originating and receiving points, I have read elsewhere that there is expansion going on at both the port of Vancouver and at several coal mines. However, I’m sure there still must be coal mine loading facilities that can’t be extended due to space limitations in the mountain areas. Given the flat terrain potash mines are found at, expansion of their loading facilities shouldn’t be too difficult, although I
The inherent problem with longer trains is that for any set of probabilistic-based potential reliability problem causes - air hoses, air brake valves, couplers, wheels, bearings, etc. - the cumulative effect is to decrease the overall probable reliability, and increase the probable delays, of the train.
In mathematical form, it’s something like Reliability = (Probability of failure of any 1 car) to the Nth power, where N is the total number of cars in the train - not merely P x N.
Thus, for a 100-car train of cars, each with a reliability of 99.9% (0.999), the reliability of the entire train is 0.999 to the 100th power = 90.5% (not 0.1% unreliable x 100 cars = 10% unreliable, although those answers are not far apart). But a 200-car train of the same cars is now 0.999 to the 200th power = 81.9% reliable (again, not 0.1% unreliable x 200 cars = 20% unreliable - note that the difference between those 2 computations is increasing . . .).
And it takes twice as long to assemble the train, lace-up the air hoses and check the hand brakes for release, walk the train to inspect it, and confirm air brake application and release, etc., etc. . . .
I don’t know about other railroads, but we’re not allowed to ride the DP engines. It’s not considered safe due to slack action. In the past when testing some longer trains by just combining two and running DP they did have a second crew ride on the DP consist. They reported being bounced around a bit, not enough to be hurt but enough that the practice became frowned upon.
Isolating the problem is not the ‘time waster’ getting to the problem and getting back on the head end is the problem. 12000 feet is in excess of 2 miles - and he who walks back from the engines must also return to the engines. Walking a train - on Main Track ballast - at night - with a brakeman’s lantern for your only light source - IS NOT the 4 MPH pace one can attain on a well lit and level sidewalk, especially when one is inspecting cars for whatever defect may have cause the train to stop in the first place.
Air hose parting is only the simplest of causes for a train to stop on line of road. Defect detector activation for any number of things that these devices are identifying, notification from passing another train or employee that there are smoke/sparks coming from a relative location within the train - there are MANY reasons that a excess length train may come to a stop on line of road - and until the problem is resolved and the train is moving again - YOU HAVE A LINE BLOCKAGE - just as effective as a derailment.
While the bean counters have sharpened their calculators in devising these plans - they don’t have to fight the results of their calculations from origin to destination in all kinds of atmospheric conditions.
[quote user=“blue streak 1”]
BaltACD:
Long trains are great - until the most elemental of line of road occurrence happens - air hose coupling comes apart.
Now you have a line blockage of several hours duration.
I tend to agree BaltACD. the advantage of longer trains allowing longer track times bet
I have never been an afficianado of longer trains. Even with bigger horsepower, concrete ties and welded rail, mid train and pusher’s remotely controlled, and other new technologies. More can go wrong and hold traffic up for longer periods of time. It takes longer to get up to speed, and it probably would be a lesser speed. Fuel consumption is probably not too different…more is consumed to get up to speed and maintain speed but it may be a wash. I would assume sidings have been lengthened to accomodate meets and the CPR knows what it has to do in planning such a practice. I just wonder if three or four 50 to 75 car trains won’t get across the railroad faster and safer than one 200 or 300 car train. I guess it is the cost of 2 man crews vs. time and service rewards. Which is the better customer service? Which serves the railroad operations best? Which serves investors best?
I’ve never been a fan of sacrificing manpower in general to save costs alone, especially when there are significant downsides to doing so. Considering the failure possibilities and risks involved with longer trains, plus extra blockages caused by longer trains that the planners failed to oversee, and risks of movement in the tough terrain that CP goes through…I’d be extremely worried when there are already enough challenges of running current trains through such tough terrain. It almost seems like they’d be begging for trouble, just to supposedly fit trains on the map easier and to use workers a bit less.
I’m also wondering how their locomotives may be better capable of handling their situation. I don’t know what kind of air compressors they use in their locos, if they’re the common ones, or if they’ve got better ones meant for the rigors of mountain railroading, cold conditions, ECP, etc. As I think of that, I assume they’ve got ECP to work with. Do they? If they’re using DPUs, I’d imagine they would. What other means could they use to better manage the air? And what additional risk of slack-related derailments or breaks could there be with DPUs on larger vs. typical helpers on current-sized trains?
I have just read that they have at least two full trainsets of ECPB equipped coal cars for use from the Crowsnest area up to Golden, on the mainline, and down to Vancouver. They are setting up more trainsets, and all of the new locomotives purchased this year have ECPB capabilities built in.
The concern with Henery6’s suggestion is that you end up with three or four trains each way in a given section of track, making scheduling and executing meets much more difficult. In the end it slows down progress compared to getting two longer trains past each other, provided you have big enough sidings.
Longer sidings to handle longer train is the easy part of the operation.
The terminals that originate, terminate, classify and service the longer trains must also be configured to handle these trains without bringing the entire operation to a screeching halt.
One Class I carrier tried to implement at ‘fewer - bigger trains’ operating plan; without making any changes to the terminals upon which the plan was being implemented. The plan brought the property to a virtual stand still in short order - the large trains could not be yarded because the yard tracks were still being occupied by freight that was being assembled for the larger departing train(s) - of course the power on the inbound train(s) was needed for outbound train(s). Multiply the stand offs by multiple terminals and in short order you have grid lock.
Any Class I operating plan that only looks at one aspect of the physical realties of a carriers operation is doomed to failure. Manpower, terminal size and facilities, line of road characteristics (grades, sidings, signaling) all have to be integrated into the plan.
…After reading all the posts on the subject of extra long trains…I can’t imagine where the consistent advantage would be in operating these trains in {especially}, mountainous terrain.
And if the big advantage doing so, is to use less employees, then it sounds even worse yet…Just my [2c]
It wouldn’t be the first time operations of any kind of business gets trumped by investors and/or accounants only to have to clean up…and pay for…any mess from not heeding field advice. There are a lot of things here to be looked at from traffic speed, length and location of passing sidings, other traffic, terminal approaches, terminal facilities, fueling facilities enroute, total amout of fuel consumption on these trains compared to consumption of other trains with same total of cars; time consumed from point to point and to and between intermittent points, actual manpower hours to be consumed per train or per trip, balanced traffic in reverse, total ability for total radio contact full train length at all times. I probably have missed a dozen or more things; I wonder if they got them all?
