Why would a small unit train result in MoW costs different than that of a conventional small train? Is it a question of scheduled vs. nonscheduled service?
Also, IIRC, the Rock Island wanted to try 10 or 12 car grain trains with two man crews in Iowa on the branchlines, but the union wouldn’t go for it.
There was another thread talking about efforts to increase truck lengths and number of trailers to turn them into “trains.” My question is why trucks wanted to be trains when trains didn’t want to become trucks — operate in short blocks.
When trains become “trucks” they incur added costs mentioned above. When trucks become “trains” they take on problems of trains – braking, power to climb grades, the service issues of blocking shipments to train lengths.
It seems there is a big gap between what trucks are allowed to operate and the minimum size that railroads seek to operate trains. I guess the reason for that gap is that trucks can operate at 2-second headways (try doing that with a train) while operating trains at much less than hourly intervals takes considerable investment in sidings, signals, double track. Operating short trains gets into track capacity pretty quickly, and that may be part of the passenger train dillema – one of operating frequent short trains for service reasons and the high cost of doing that.
As to the other end, making trucks into trains, if you make the trucks too long, their roadability and braking must suffer and you go back to the train problem of requiring longer headway.
Back to the issue of costs – is there a way to get ahold of that AAR study, by Internet or by library? Those cost numbers are really interesting, and I would like to see similar cost numbers for passenger train operations. Are similar numbers available for truck and bus operations?
No difference between small unit train and small conventional train.
At the time their other trains used more two man crews. This would have reduced the three man local crews to two man.
It doesn’t. The MofW figures are per 1,000 gross ton miles and it doesn’t matter how those gross tons move their miles.
That’s why I left it out originally. Dave seemed to mistakenly take crew and train mile costs as “everything” and I attempted to correct the misconception.
Now this is a good starting point to exemplify the overlooked possibilities. Short haul unit train operations will work fine if:
Another possibility for railroads to get more traffic (and the union to get more members) - If you can get the union to agree on a one man crew for a guaranteed scheduled haul in a normal work day with normal human off time(e.g. no on-call hassles, no back to work in 8 hours stuff), then you have increased the labor efficiency over that of regular two man crews who must put up with being on the call board for unscheduled departures.
Until the brewery crashed and burned financially (An Australian investor paid too much for it and the debt service killed the company.), the number one beer brand in Chicago was “Old Style” brewed in La Crosse, WI.
It might have worked, a small beer train out of La Crosse to Chicago shooting across Wisconsin to the millions of thirsty folks living in the Chicago area.
Alas, the “Old Style” brand was bought by Miller and is now brewed in Milwaukee. The La Crosse facility operates as a much smaller brewery. And beer from La Crosse no longer dominates the Chicago market.
You have just about the correct parameters for the short unit train. We did a few on the IC, as “experiments” to get the unions to go for it as a test. It worked for some grain hauls from country elevators to the big grain storage and unit train shipping facilities. We also had a set up hauling short trains of aggregate to temporary pits built near the route of I-55. We had to stay within one crew district, because a crew change made even the two man crew cost too high. Operate on a tight schedule, unload the train on arrival and put the crew home at the end of the shift.
These days, short lines tend to be able to get more flexibility in the use of the crews and with lower levels of other traffic can pull off profitable short unit train operations. With higher traffic levels and
greyhounds,
I remember the constant parade of Old Style trucks on I-90 between La Crosse and Chicago. Always wished the Milwaukee or Burlington or even the Northwestern could’ve attracted that business. I worked for a distributor in Wisconsin around that time, and the distributors arranged the transportation.
On a recent trip to St. Louis, I saw many Budweiser trucks on I-55 between Chicago and St. Louis. JB Hunt must have the hauling contract, as many of the semi’s had their cabs. Too bad UP couldn’t gain that traffic, and use the Alton line.