286K Infrastructure, Investments & Procedures in New England

aes' montville power station has been sending heavy ash cars on the necr for years. someone should have looked at present operations before spending on a needless upgrade. aes burns 500k tons/year of w.va coal brought in by barge. the plan was to 'pelletize' the bottom and fly ash ( about 200k tons/year) and reload onto the barges. didn't work so the bag-house and bottom ash are dumped into covered hoppers. this loading is why aes has significant ground water polluting ash everywhere. how do i know this? because aes came to mwra quincy to look at my equipment and sludge loading and wanted a proposal. i was not successful for a few reasons. these discussions however do point out the group think mentality of many outside of this forum who have no understanding of the relationships between equipment, railroad pricing and gvw. ken patrick

Wow, Part Deux!
The Cadbury Creme Eggs attachment is sweet! Non-sour posts at 0748 and 1100 of 03-22-2012!
Please, sirs, I want more! Seriously.

Another happy card carrying member of the "lollypop guild". Sorry if the realities of railroading don't fit into the "foamerific" ideal. This thread is for

MEC407 wrote: the discussion of 286K rail infrastructure, investments, procedures, pros & cons, etc., as they pertain to New England railroads.

Notice it says PROS & CONS. It also says a discussion....meaning that everyone who has a valid point can talk about it. If that doesn't fit in with the foamer agenda, than oh well. Foaming isn't paying back the $74,000,000.00 in tax payer money that was spent up north.

jaymac wrote:Wow, Part Deux!
The Cadbury Creme Eggs attachment is sweet! Non-sour posts at 0748 and 1100 of 03-22-2012!
Please, sirs, I want more! Seriously.

So it's "Creme-eggs vs Kool-aide" then?

steamer69 wrote:Another happy card carrying member of the "lollypop guild". Sorry if the realities of railroading don't fit into the "foamerific" ideal. This thread is for

MEC407 wrote: the discussion of 286K rail infrastructure, investments, procedures, pros & cons, etc., as they pertain to New England railroads.

Notice it says PROS & CONS. It also says a discussion....meaning that everyone who has a valid point can talk about it. If that doesn't fit in with the foamer agenda, than oh well. Foaming isn't paying back the $74,000,000.00 in tax payer money that was spent up north.

Well yes, BUT...


..painting everyone who does not hold with your particular opinion as "foamers" only makes you look like a jerk to us foamers.

Cosmo wrote:

steamer69 wrote:Another happy card carrying member of the "lollypop guild". Sorry if the realities of railroading don't fit into the "foamerific" ideal. This thread is for

MEC407 wrote: the discussion of 286K rail infrastructure, investments, procedures, pros & cons, etc., as they pertain to New England railroads.

Notice it says PROS & CONS. It also says a discussion....meaning that everyone who has a valid point can talk about it. If that doesn't fit in with the foamer agenda, than oh well. Foaming isn't paying back the $74,000,000.00 in tax payer money that was spent up north.

Well yes, BUT...


..painting everyone who does not hold with your particular opinion as "foamers" only makes you look like a jerk to us foamers.

And beating the dead horse to glue is pure threadjacking (not you, steamer...that other ray of sunshine). I would love it if we could talk about 286K pros and cons, but Cadbury Creme Eggs are the only things keeping this sane right now.

Before I start the serious part of this reply, pretty soon this thread will get a Google ranking for <Cadbury Creme Eggs>.

My 03-22-2012 post of 1154 was intended, however gracelessly, to comment positively on two posts, one from steamer69 of 03-22-2012 at 0748 and the other from KEN PATRICK of 03-22-2012 at 1100, that showed a distinct difference from many previous submissions of the two posters. In each case, there was information, but there were neither the frequent ad hominem approaches in replying to posters of differing opinions nor the more than occasionally grating displays of impatience with those who would not be swayed to the stances of either KEN PATRICK or steamer69 on this and other forums. Any offense taken from my 1154 posting is definitely, at the risk of seeming younger than I am, my bad.
If someone does not embrace or even rejects another's opinions, beliefs, or experiences, then more forceful, more strident, more seemingly angry attempts to effect a conversion of others to those opinions, beliefs, or experiences are almost certainly doomed to counterproductivity.

QB 52.32 wrote:For traffic traversing Maine to/from the Maritimes to/from the US, I don't see the traffic density or length-of-haul in this marketplace necessary to support a dedicated intermodal lane let alone one that would require large capital costs (to clear for stack).

QB 52.32,

I was not so much addressing the likelihood of a change from the hub terminal system as I was asking about the potential for bridge traffic over the line from Halifax to Boston and even potentially Halifax-Chicago (via ME, Ayer, Mechanicville or Worcester).

I completely agree that there is little to no chance that the railroads would want to change their current operational patterns for trans-loading.

Would going through MA be shorter than via CN through Canada? Surely there is plenty of traffic traveling Halifax Chicago?

There is international Halifax-Midwestern U.S. container traffic, G O'K, as there has been for many years as Halifax is one of the steamship lines' preferred ports-of-call since the development of large container vessels. But, I think CN holds a decided service and cost advantage vs. going down through New England and evidenced by the lack of international container traffic moving over this route during this period (which could have moved COFC, maybe TOFC (?)). I think the odds are low that CSX or NS could effectively compete with CN for this traffic, and even if they could, it wouldn't justify the capital costs of clearing for stack (or speeding up the route to better compete (?)). As for Halifax to Ayer or Worcester traffic, I think that's a tough nut: it's short-haul, demand is probably somewhat uneven, and, because of terminal capacity at Ayer or Worcester serving long-haul east/west traffic, wouldn't justify the necessary capital for terminal capacity expansion. Similar to or combined with the Midwestern traffic, Halifax-New England traffic wouldn't justify the capital costs of clearing for stack. Perhaps the inability to tap Montreal port-southern New England container traffic, though part of the justifcation for clearing the Bellows Falls, VT tunnel for doublestack, provides a good case study of the difficulty of rail competing in this type of market even when doublestack capability is introduced.

QB 52.32 wrote:Perhaps the inability to tap Montreal port-southern New England container traffic, though part of the justification for clearing the Bellows Falls, VT tunnel for double stack, provides a good case study of the difficulty of rail competing in this type of market even when double stack capability is introduced

I think that you hit the nail right on the head with that assertion. To be very clear, these case studies that are done to justify organic and non-organic asset allocation, as well as what (in the case of the BF tunnel) seem to be over inflated and over generous traffic projections, do nothing to actually justify the costs associated with the upgrades. What I mean by that is this. We'll stay with the New London/BF/Rutland/D&H example. The tunnel was supposed to be dropped to allow new service to provide vertical clearance for first generation double stack (one international container and one national container) and auto-rack cars (19 ft. – 7 in.). Tunnel foundations were engineered so that sometime in the future, after start of service that was supposed to add 5,000 cars a year, and with demand, organic assets could be used with some tax payer money (yet again) so that the floor could be dropped again to allow for full double stack (20' 8"). The outlay of state (tax payer) money has resulted in how many double stack trains on the line? 1 test car....1. Guestimation of traffic is not the way to base these improvements. Demand that results in actual car hire and loadings is. If there is no real benefit for the railroad to pony up the cash to do the improvement based on realistic cost vs. traffic gain, then why should it be the priority of the state? I do think that there are some residual benefits to doing the work, but it is certainly not for an increase in traffic on all but a very few of the lines. If the main truck and feeder lines are not bringing in traffic that meets these requirements, and there is no infistructure to support such a gain in traffic, then upgrade of the roadbed is a moot point.
This is why we haven't seen corridor service originating in Canada passing through Northern New England. There is no justification for clearing these lines for full double stack. Now, before someone goes jumping all over my backside, yes there are some routes that are cleared....yes there is the possibility of running double stacks on some secondary routes....BUT....they are not running. The major trunks (CSX, etc) are not feeding this traffic up at all, and the New London traffic is non-existent. So we head onto standard plate F and 286K traffic. These little lines that are struggling can never compete with CN in terms of service and pricing. Because they have ways to "off set" some of the lesser performing lines, they can remain competitive even in an area where tariff rates have to be governed by a reduced traffic flow. They (along with CP, P&W, CSX) can offer still competitive service on the smaller feeder lines because of the access to (and ownership of) a main trunk line that allows them the combination of originating and bridge traffic. Without the ability to garner a non-fluctuating car count that makes capital gains improvements possible, the railroads are forced to lean on taxpayer support for these major infistructure upgrades. The sad part about it is that Joe Q Public gets a bad taste in their mouth when they see all of the work with none of the benefit. It's hard to argue the validity of these arguments with non-railfans who see the cost outlay, but none of the benefit....and the railroads see this too. That's why not everyone is "champing at the bit" to get these 286K and plate F projects started. (IMO). The above however, is observations from what is going on mostly in Northern New England, where we do not enjoy a traffic density of some of our friends down south. So some of this may or may not pertain directly to your area. If you live above the belt (CSX Selkirk to Boston) it is very true.

Given that 286K and DS clearance are two separate issues (at least from the market, if not public funding perspective), I'd vote to have the thread split if this discussion must continue. QB (as usual) has provided reasonable analysis on the DS issue. Certainly nothing more I could add. Back to the 286K issue:

Mr Patrick, every time I read your boasts about running overweight and blowing tires on I-95 it turns my stomach. If you're truly a logistics professional, you would be cognisant and respectful of both rail and road load limit rules. They are in place for a reason. One of these days, your hubris will bite you... or maybe an unfortunate innocent on I-95... in the a**.

That out of the way... let's dispel two myths: 1. Heavier GWR will not lower rates. Crap. Railroads typically gainshare with shippers. If the railroads didn't provide incentive rates to load heavier, why are shippers doing so? 2. There is little/no traffic in NE that would benefit from higher GWR. Crap. Most coal, grain, printing paper, steel, veg oil, corn syrup, limestone, yadda yadda shippers/receivers could take advantage. It might take a while to adapt (ie, cycle in new, high-cap'y equipment), but there are numerous opportunities.

Now how much it would cost to upgrade principal rail lines in MA and the rest of NE is unknown, at least to me. And there's certainly a cost-benefit to consider. And I take no position at this time as to whether the state should or should not fund such improvements. Considering that the rest of the nation (North America, actually) has adopted the 286K standard on principal lines, it's arguable that not having such a standard within New England puts the region at a further transportation cost disadvantage to other regions.

PS: Moving further to 315K is not in the cards. Extensive testing has found a diminishing economic return as gross weight is pushed much above 286K.

Cowford wrote:1. Heavier GWR will not lower rates. Crap.

Then why has there been no downward trend in tarriffs ANYWHERE in new england then? The cost of the upgrades has to be paid for somehow, and remember that most of the lines in New England can't handle the 286K cars. Someone has to pay for it and the states, federal govt, and tax payers do not foot the bill for ALL of the necessary upgrades required.

Cowford wrote: 2. There is little/no traffic in NE that would benefit from higher GWR. Crap. Most coal, grain, printing paper, steel, veg oil, corn syrup, limestone, yadda yadda shippers/receivers could take advantage. It might take a while to adapt (ie, cycle in new, high-cap'y equipment), but there are numerous opportunities.

I can't speek for ALL of New England here, but.....in northern New England....you need to show how it's crap. The railroad up here can barely make it as it is....let alone pull traffic out of their buts. If the traffic isn't there now, how do you expect it to be there when someone pays for the 286K upgrade. Just to give you an idea about cost, here is a few numbers.

For the NECR to upgrade just it's trackage in VT was $74,000,000.00. That 191 miles which comes out to +/- 387,434.55 per mile of track (that's including bridges and culverts and such....the state of Vermont has 578.22 total miles of active track...subtracting the 191 NECR miles that have been upgraded, that leaves 387.22 miles of track in need of the 286K. Plug that into the average for neglected New England track, and to upgrade JUST vermont....it's $150,022,406.00. New Hampshire has another 397 miles that need upgraded....that's $153,811,516. So then. If it's such a no brainer, why won't the shippers pick up some of the slack since they're the ones it will benifit. As it says in the Vermont State Rail Plan..."The more than century-old track and bridge structures of Vermont’s short line railroads are, in many cases, insufficient to support the heavier railcars, typically defined in terms of their gross weight or individual-axle-loadings. Furthermore, small railroads typically are the least able financially to fund major improvements to their infrastructure. The resulting “obsolescence” of their infrastructure could result in many short line railroads becoming marginalized with little ability to improve their tenuous financial status."

http://railroads.vermont.gov/Documents/ ... hap1-4.pdf

You are right about the disadvantage created by not going to the 286k loadings, but yet again, where is the traffic and money coming from to do it? The bulk comodity trains that you are talking about are just not up here. The closest thing that we have are the fuel oil customers. It's not really fair for you to call Crap on some of these things when you really don't know what's going on in all of new England, and even the states agree that the financial status of the railroads is such that they really can't do 286K upgrades.

I thought my posts were clear on what i have experienced. Apparently not since group think continues to be alive and well among fellow posters, So please let me re-state clearly & simply;
1. Existing rail is capable of 286. (17.5 tons/wheel standard)
2. Commuter rail is capable of 286.( see above)
3. railroad contract pricing is not gwr based. published tariffs do not reflect differing rates for differing gwr.
4. few railroad personnel have broad experience in all facets,hence they behave anachronistically.
5. cofc/tofc need higher gvw to maximize railroad benefits.
6. railroad pricing should end 'what-the-traffic-will-bear' pricing.
7. taxes should not be substituted for railroad capital expenditures.

it would be instructive if dot personnel were required to read everyone's posts. i believe far too many are simply lawyers who lack real world experience. Millions wasted on illusions. ken patrick

KEN PATRICK wrote:Existing rail is capable of 286. (17.5 tons/wheel standard)

If it's capable of 286K, then why do the railroads need to "upgrade" to 286K? Why worry about the roadbed, bridges, culverts, tunnels and such. That comment is just a little bit out there......

KEN PATRICK wrote:railroad contract pricing is not gwr based. published tariffs do not reflect differing rates for differing gwr.

My point exactly to Cowford. If the traffic isn't there, the traffic isn't there.

KEN PATRICK wrote:taxes should not be substituted for railroad capital expenditures.

Exactly. The railroad should be able to sustain itself, fix itself, and do the majority of it's work without depending on the public for all if the major upgrades.

Ken, to your "clearly stated" points

1. Existing rail is capable of 286. (17.5 tons/wheel standard)

I've never seen anyone quote tons/wheel as a standard (maybe tons per axle, extrapolated you're slightly off, but we'll let it go). I'll leave it for the bridge engineers to decide - and they don't seem to be in your camp.

2. Commuter rail is capable of 286.

Again, I'll leave that for the bridge engineers to decide.

3. railroad contract pricing is not gwr based. published tariffs do not reflect differing rates for differing gwr.

Uh, yes it is, either explictly or implicitly. And railroad costing models incorporate the gross/lading weight(s). One easy, explicit pricing example. PAR tariff 4132: Veg oil rates. Loads in 263K GWR equipment enjoy a 5% lower unit rate (per CWT) than those shipped in 220K GWR equipment.

4. few railroad personnel have broad experience in all facets,hence they behave anachronistically.

Some maybe. But then again, some shippers (ahem) don't fully understand the rail environment and become frustrated.

5. cofc/tofc need higher gvw to maximize railroad benefits

This has no basis in fact. In fact, if road weights changed in unison, it would have a damaging, not positive effect.

6. railroad pricing should end 'what-the-traffic-will-bear' pricing.

Market-based pricing is what the world goes 'round, my friend. Another sign of a frustrated shipper. Do YOU price your services at cost-plus?

7. taxes should not be substituted for railroad capital expenditures.

While I think there are certain exceptions, this is actually something on which we can generally agree. As I said in my earlier post, I have no opinion pro or con about public funding of such upgrades because (like you) I have never seen all the costs and benefits laid out. Just saying that such upgrades would indeed provide benefits to both railroads and shippers.