The term “yard” implies inactivity out in the open. Railroad yards as we know them truly are places of open idleness, where millions and millions of dollars in equipment and shipping customer’s merchandise sit around unproductively for hours and hours, sometimes even for days on end. But, in the future, if most railroad cars spent less than a few hours in a yard and then moved on to their destinations, would not “sorting facility” be a better term then than “yard”?
Railroad yards need to become more productive if the railroads are to become more competitive with the trucking industry…While the cars are motionless at a yard, the truck is moving on down the pike to it’s destination. Will it take a different “system” to make it all happen quicker…?
QM
I do not agree that “yard” implies inactivity. “Yard”, in railroad, terminology implies sorting, arriving and departing, servicing, etc. These are activities indiginious to railroads and are necessary if the economy of scale is to be recognized. I do believe, though, that yards have to be greatly more efficient and are too big. They are necessary, but move cars through quickly using through trains, larger blocks and minimizing the need for classification. All in all, changing the names to “sorting facility” or something like that is a terrible waste of time. What could possibly be the gain? gdc
To QM:
Yes!
To GDC:
Yards are yards, and sorting facilities are sorting facilities. There is a difference. IF, in the future, you ever personally saw a sorting facility in action, I think you would marvel and change your mind regarding terminology.
Please explain how changing the name would improve rail operations. Through trains, reducing the need for humps, better blocking and a operations mindset that focuses on expediting is the way to better compete. I regret to see yards full of cars. They’re not moving, therefore they’re neither creating revenue nor jobs. You seem to draw a operational distinction between yards and sorting facilities…please explain the difference. Thanks…gdc
reading all this… i ask myself…
yard…sorting facility
trash man… sanitation engineer
they still do the same job no matter what you call it
get a grip
GDC:
Your observation discernments are correct. A sorting facility, which presently does not exist, would have much equipment actively in a state of being sorted instead of sitting around idle.
Saboja:
In an emergency, how would you want to be transported up from the Grand Canyon floor? Would the preference be for a medical helicopter, or some kind of mule transport? Is all A to B conveyances really the same? A sorting facility could be compared to a helicopter ride, and a yard to a mule ride.
croteaudd:
maybe i misunderstood… are we talking about just renaming … or a “new thing created”?
what i understood was just a rename of the same thing, with some modification
kinda like the helicopter … a M.A.S.H.chopper ( being straped to the outside)
vs the hospital chopper ( being all cozy inside the chopper)
Oh, an efficient yard operation (not a contradiction of terms). We do try…Triple Crown is an example, but then that’s intermodal. They didn’t even want to be called trains. In Roanoke, there are two yards. One is a hump and the other is more like a terminal. Humps are dinosaurs, but in some places necessary. There’s still probably too many of them. In Bellevue and Elkhart, I’ve seen wind blow cars back up the hump so that they had to be stopped with the retarders. The most likely cars for this are empty hi-cubes or high bulkhead flats. Now, that’s weird, but it happens in high wind conditions.
The other yard in Roanoke is known as South Yard. It is the former Virginian Railway yard. Today it handles domestic and export coal as well as unit grain trains. There’s a DTL fueling operation there and trains are lengthened or pushers added depending on destination. There’s still too many light engine moves between Shaffers Crossing and South Yard, but dedicated power to some of the coal trains along with DTL has helped.
I think you and I are probably on the same page, at least it appears that way. A study was done shortly after the Conrail acquisition to determine if Roanoke hump could be eliminated. It could not. It just threw too much on Allentown, Knoxville and Linwood as well as creating too many unnecessary shipment delays, as well as excess car and engine miles. Per diem rates and mileage are a large cost item. But be assured, that’s all being constantly reviewed. The overall focus is employee safety and then customer service. No matter what’s posted here and other places, the truth is that the best effort is being made, always looking for something better. Have a good day. GDC
Thank you, GDC. Same to you.
Actually, “yard” is just shorthand for Carload Redaction And Planned Processing Yard. The term “yard” was more palatable than the acronymn.
-Don
A rail yard does more than the sorting function. It’s where cars are aggregated.
The reason cars sit in yards is not a problem with sorting. It is the need to aggregate cars into blocks and blocks into economical train sizes. A car may be rapidly sorted onto the proper classification track and still sit for a good long while. It has to be held until enough cars going to the same destination are gathered (aggregated) into a block. Then the blocks have to be aggregated into a train.
You’re trying to solve the aggregation problem by somehow improving the sorting. It won’t work. They are two seperate issues. You could have the Jolly Green Giant pick up the cars by hand like a model railroader, put 'em on the right departure track, and they’d still have to sit until enough cars were aggregated into an economical train size.
Somehow I doubt the O.P. works for a railroad.
Not every railcar needs to be a the customer’s siding yesterday. A yard I worked with had about 30 cars for one company. Sounds bad? No.The company could only handle 4 cars per day. So they would order their 4 in at a time, and the rest would sit around in our yard. While the unknowing observer would think the yard as being inefficient, anyone that has worked here knows that just isn’t true.
Not every load on the railroad is HOT.
To the O.P.
Just what exactly is your plan to make the “SORTING OPERATION” more efficient to keep the freight moving faster? You keep saying the system that’s currently in place all across the US and Canada etc does not work.
What is wrong with it that YOU can fix? How are you going to fix it? If you truly had a solution, you’d be a very rich man because every railroad would be hiring you to come “FIX” their problems.
Why was this post resurrected from 2002? That’s my main question…
I will send out a memo that from now on all of our yards and terminals are to be called sorting facilitys so that everyone can marvel at all the activity .
I see them as having some new-fangled name, something along the line of : Facilities for Articulation & Reditribution of Trains and Sorting. That might be too unweildy to use. Maybe, they’d have to come up with some sort of acronym?[:-,]
Tyler -
Because it’s being “cross-bred” with another thread, the “Re: Getting Railroaders Back to Work Quickly in this Recession” thread, at:
http://cs.trains.com/trccs/forums/t/149088.aspx?PageIndex=10
In particular, about halfway down that page - presently Page 10 of 10 - see the post by Bucyrus on 03-12-2009 at 8:08 PM, and following.
- PDN.