I am really surprised we have not seen since the introduction of “Percision railroading” a rash of regulations and state/federal laws limiting freight train length to siding length. I remember when the “Percision” plans started in order for some trains to meet they would break a train in two at a yard so the other “super train” could roll by.
It just seems reasonable trains should be able to meet each other or pass each other with no restrictions.
From your continued questions - you don’t understand the private corporation status under which the railroads in the USA exist.
Railroads run their own operating plans - they are permitted to operate non-clearing trains if they so desire. Some managements lose their common sense and seek to operate non-clearing trains in both directions over single track line segments, they do so at their own level of inefficiency.
You decide to pass a law that trains can’t be longer than … the shortest siding? The shortest siding between Los Angeles and Portland, or the shortest siding between Los Angeles and Sacramento, or the shortest siding between Los Angeles and Bakersfield?
I’m sure that the railroads feel the same way. And there have been efforts to accomplish just that for the longer trains that are now being run.
But if you’re going to mandate something, you have to be prepared to pay the price.
Trains being too long for some, or all sidings on a specific line is nothing new. I remember 40+ years ago trains too long for a siding having to “double over” the head end to another track at a siding near my home growing up. The siding was, and still is, 5380 ft long. Formerly on a class one, it’s now a regional where train meets a more rare at that location. The tracks that were used to “double over” to are now gone.
Both trains being too big to meet at a siding also happened at times. There’s a move called a “double saw-by” can be used. It’s not as feasible now because of the smaller crews and no cabooses on trains, but it can still be done. It means a lot more walking for the conductors now.
There really isn’t any standard size for sidings. Generally, when first built they reflected the size of trains being operated. Eventually as train sizes grew, sidings would be extended to reflect the longer trains.
This is still happening today. Sidings are being lengthened, capital spending plans permitting.
The real bottlenecks are the yards at the originating and terminating points. While they too are having receiving and departing tracks lengthened, many are still short requiring trains to double, triple, quadruple in or out of. Many yards, once out in the “sticks” are now landlocked by developement. Making it hard to expand tracks.
Jeff
When I was working I had the opportunity to read through a interview of a former NS Operating VP done by a CSX interviewer - When the question of train size was asked of this senior operating official - the answer was ‘We don’t care about train sizes, we just let the Train Dispatchers figure out how to get them over the road.’
What a way to run a railroad.
At that time I was working the CSX Atlanta Division - at that time, if I remember correctly, Northbound trains destined Birmingham from Waycross were limited to 6200 feet in length, trains destined Atlanta were limited to 7800 feet. Southbound trains from both Atlanta and Birmingham were limited to the then CSX maximum length of 9000 feet.
The biggest problem was Yardmasters - while in operating their yard they know if track A holds 50 cars and you put 51 cars in it will foul the leads on one end or the other. Tell them a train limit is 6200 feet and they think one more car won’t hurt.
The one phrase a Train Dispatcher does not want to utter is - "What do you
Government trying to regulate efficiency in anything is scary.
On the other hand, I have witnessed operating departments demand in the budgets for siding extensions that were built and then never used.
How do we define siding length? Is it actual length from signal to signal, or do we want to leave a little wiggle room at each end?
What about crossings, a siding might be 12,000’ in the timetable but if there is a crossing halfway down it then the longest train you can stop there will be just under 6,000’, unless of course you want to send the conductor out to cut the crossing (big delays).
How do we define a “siding”? What is there to stop the railroads from redesignating all their sidings as short stretches of double track?
The railroads might also well respond to such a regulation by simply ripping up all the sidings and combining all the traffic into one super long train on some routes. Seemed to work for Chicago Great Western…
I know of a spot where trains are often parked for considerable periods of time - at night you can see the crossing signals flashing merrily away all night (it’s on one of the cams). The siding is about 7,000 feet, but there are crossings…
Train Dispatchers ‘work’ with siding length on a minute to minute basis and now that PSR is in effect the fact that there are crossings in a siding don’t over rule the fact that it is a siding of a specified length. To some extents, if the wait will be especially long for the meet(s) the train taking siding may be instructed to cut one or more crossings - it also might no be so instructed.
In the past, many railroads considered places where there were parallel tracks for more than two miles were considered double main track - with PSR double main track segments of four miles and less have effectively become sidings with the size trains that are being operated under PSR.
With the financial crunch the B&O experienced in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s before the affiliation with the C&O they undertook two CTC installation projects. The first was on the Chicago Division betwen Sherwood, Ohio and Pine Jct near the Indiana/Illinois state line; the
Track length = Pt of Sw to Pt Of Switch
Storage Capacity = Clearance point to Clearance point
Operating Capacity = Storage capacity - clearance for public crossings - clearance for some (not all)private crossings and incidental differences caused by insulated point & signal placement, etc.
…and then there are the operating wonks creating new terms created on the planet they are visiting from.[%-)]
Again I agree…
It is a fundamental legal concept concerning private property and real estate that I have to say I am surprised that more Trains forum readers do not comprehend. Why the heck do you think a Home Owners Association Contract is so lengthly and requires your signature. Because it is a direct amendment to your existing private property rights that your agreeing to abide by in return for living in a specific area. Without that amendment, nobody has the right to tell you what color you paint your house, what trees are replaced with what bushes and/or on and on because it is your private property.
Real Estate law states you cannot take someones property or dictate it’s use without just compensation. Weather you like the definition or not, it is viewed as a confiscation of property and infringement on property rights by the government. The only loop hole around that is the use of Emminent Domain. The government cannot just step in and tell a Corporation how to operate on private property just for kicks. The government has to prove either a safety consideration impacting others OR common good overrules the property rights (Emminent Domain). It can pass regulations on how a business in general operates. It can pass regulations on Interstate Commerce. It can step in when Interstate Commerce is impeded. Wartime and National Emergencies move special powers into the governments hands
In regards to this item. I would be real curious if all the laws passed on how long you can block a crossing are actually legal because I suspect they are not legal but nobody has really challenged them and the Class I railroads would rather not rock the boat here and do this as a community service to maintain goodwill with the communities they pass through. Similar to maintaining speed limits lower than track speed to pacify a community…I don’t think a community has any legal right to dictate to a railroad what speed trains pass through town at. Another law I think is a community service type deal with no real legal basis under it.
A lot of these communities can just as easily build a bridge for all the costs they are imposing on railroad operations here. Granted some are not that wealthy and could not but a good chunk of them can.
What about “You cannot blow your horn at grade crossing in my town” even though it is the everyones safety and Federal Law requires it.
The FRA has set up guidelines regarding the establishment of quiet zones. The municipality has to jump through a lot of hoops and be willing to accept some responsibility in this matter.
[quote user=“caldreamer”]
The horn blowing requirement is a safety requirement which I exempted from what I said above. It is also not an absolute ban from what I understand and still at the Engineer’s descretion for safety purposes.
So, you think that railroads should be allowed to block public crossings for as long as they want? What about dead end roads with no other access besides the crossing? What about emergency vehicle access?
If the effort to not block crossings is so costly then the railroad should easily be able to justify paying for those new overpasses themselves.
Up here the crossing rules come from Transport Canada, the federal regulator. They definitely have the authority to tell the railroads what to do.
Unless of course you think that railroads and perhaps large corporations in general should be above the law.
From the FRA: https://railroads.dot.gov/highway-rail-crossing-and-trespasser-programs/train-horn-rulequiet-zones/train-horn-rule-and-quiet
I don’t believe that to be true.
[quote user=“CMStPnP”]
BaltACD
From your continued questions - you don’t understand the private corporation status under which the railroads in the USA exist. Railroads run their own operating plans - they are permitted to operate non-clearing trains if they so desire. Some managements lose their common sense and seek to operate non-clearing trains in both directions over single track line segments, they do so at their own level of inefficiency.
Again I agree…
It is a fundamental legal concept concerning private property and real estate that I have to say I am surprised that more Trains forum readers do not comprehend. Why the heck do you think a Home Owners Association Contract is so lengthly and requires your signature. Because it is a direct amendment to your existing private property rights that your agreeing to abide by in return for living in a specific area. Without that amendment, nobody has the right to tell you what color you paint your house, what trees are replaced with what bushes and/or on and on because it is your private property.
Real Estate law states you cannot take someones property or dictate it’s use without just compensation. Weather you like the definition or not, it is viewed as a confiscation of property and infringement on property rights by the government. The only loop hole around that is the use of Emminent Domain. The government cannot just step in and tell a Corporation how to operate on private property just for kicks. The government has to prove either a safety consideration impacting others OR common good overrules the property rights (Emminent Domain). It can pass regulations on how a business in general operates.