I saw this article and it reminded me of previous posts on related topics such as congestion as well as how fast freights were run in the past compared to the present. The Nickle Plate comes to mind. Is this a trend and if so will it prompt the development of motive power toward more horsepower at speed? Which, in turn, reminds me of the steam vs diesel debate topics. What is the average freight mph? I have no idea.
http://www.thesouthern.com/articles/2006/05/24/top/16421380.txt
A lot will depend on what you include in the average. If you include things like load and unload time, terminal dwell time, stuck in the hole time, etc, then it will be a REALLY low number. Actual speed out on the line depends on the condition of the track as well as congestion, to name the most obvious.
Tom’s variables duly noted, how fast a train moves depends heavily on the track, and raising track speed means upgrading track. Temporary slow orders notwithstanding, overall track speed on CSX through here is 40 mph, but I can think of a couple of curves that demand 10…
Upgrading (and maintaining) a better class of track costs money, and only the balance sheet can truly decide whether it’s worth it for a railroad to do so. Maybe MC will weigh in here with some cost comparisons and other salient facts.
Tom, as usual (thanks, Tom!) nailed it – and the railroads know it. What capital they have these days is put into raising capacity, primarily in yard operations and in double tracking (consider the amount of cash BNSF is putting into double tracking the transcon, for instance). There’s absolutely no point in going from 49 to 59, say, on the track if you constantly have to meet other trains, never mind if you have to tie up on a siding miles out of town because the yard is full…
Well according to this gentleman, we need to work on this capacity thing pronto.
http://www.logisticstoday.com/displayStory.asp?sNO=7927
This little bit came to me in one of the dozens of email news filter things I get each day. Interesting read.
As I observed in another thread, the railroads were evaluating what was causing the bottlenecks or chokepoints, and coming up with plans to (for lack of a better word) unbottleneck the areas as quickly as possible with the available funds. If you’ve been following the railroad press recently, the railroads are spending big bucks, both for long term and short term projects to keep things flowing. Higher speeds out on the mainline won’t mean a thing if the train has to sit for hours waiting to get through a single track area, or into a yard. Long or short trains seems to make no significant speed difference, according to several forum members that actually run the trains, sitting and waiting seem to do the most harm to quick delivery of the goods.
Plus statements that railroads did away with capacity years ago, that might have helped now is nothing more than Monday Morning Quarterbacking.
What’s the point of racing a train to get to a choke point. Other than releiving the crew and pay them to get home.
The biggest step is to streamline loading and unlading, then after thet junctions and bridges and other “points”. Last is to increase tack speed.
Increasing track speed can be used to get a slow train out of the way of a late train, but to run all trains faster just makes them congest faster.
And waste fuel.
Then my next question is- if all the above is true ,then why is UP increasing and not decreasing their speed? There are other areas in the country reporting this.
It must be because UP meets the criteria. UP has the overland route and the sunset route wich are long routes. Getting over the road fast is important. UP also sometimes alows coal trains to reach 60mph to get out of the way of faster trains.
Most other US railroading is plagued with terminal time (aka loading, unloading waiting for crews, or power, junctions and transfers etc…)
For the week of 5/19/06:
UP’s current average terminal dwell time is 27.0 hours.
BNSF – 24.2
CP – 21.2
CSX – 24.9
NS – 21.1
KCS – 21.4
Selected UP Yards:
Proviso --27.5
Fort Worth – 34.1
Hinkle, OR – 38.2
Houston Englewood – 37.4
Houston Settlegast – 37.8
North Platte West – 36.4
Pine Bluff – 35.8
Roseville – 30
West Colton – 43.6
Average train speed has a definition:
“Train Speed measures the line-haul movement between terminals. The average speed is calculated by dividing train-miles by total hours operated, excluding yard and local trains, passenger trains, maintenance of way trains, and terminal time.”
The most important factor in increasing capacity is reduction of variation. Variability is also the factor most likely to blow holes in a schedule. Increasing the speed of a coal train may reduce the variability of a whole division, thus increasing the speed of a whole division.
Look at a dispatcher’s job – it is essentially to handle variability. And there is nothing worse than an interruption soemwhere - increasing variability - ruin a dispatcher’s day and to plug up a line.
dd
Exactly as i said, if the train can’t get TO the terminal because of congestion on the line or is delayed by slow orders, temporary or long term, the average speed will decline. The average speed being low is simply an indicator that there is a problem. To change it for the better, the exact reason(s) for the slow average must be determined and corrected.
The AAR measure is for road freight trains. It’s broken out by train type, too. All the roads, except CN, use the AAR std definition. Generally, it’s from terminal departure, to next terminal arrival. Delays along the road, such as meets, track and signal trouble, mechanical trouble are all counted in the elapsed terminal to terminal time. Time at intermediate terminals to switch or recrew is NOT counted.
Car velocity is a whole 'nother topic.
Average speed of all trains as most recently posted by the AAR is KCS with the highest speed of 25.5 mph and CSX with the lowest 19.5 mph. The other Class I’s fall between these extremes.
Increasing train speed is a way to increase capacity without laying more track. CP was recently quoted in the newspaper on just this point. Sure you gotta address the bottlenecks, by why lay a few hundred mile of rail to get double track, when an extra 10MPH average provides the capacity needed?
But then you’re back to the original question: “Can the trackwork support the higher speed?” Or: “How much will it cost to upgrade it to handle the higher speeds?”
And to add to Toms point, yards do have a finite capacity…so can your end points and origin points handle the extra traffic?
With the exception of unit trains, ya gotta take 'em apart or put them together somewhere.
From experience, you do not, never, ever ever want to jam up a metropolitian area with trains stacked to the rafters…dwell time goes through the roof, trainmasters have strokes, yardmasters throw fits, and everybody makes overtime…and trains sit in sidings needed for other uses.
An extra 10mph would bury most yards today.
Ed
You’d be right on most occasions, but from what I could gather from the article, CP found ways to run faster trains without upgrading the track. I believe they said track speed was up 14%, or something aroudn there.