I've read elsewhere on these forums a discussion on fuel consumption.
http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopi ... 6&t=156601" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The take away point was basically: the cost of maintaining a line to 25mph was actually less than 10, apparently there is enough in fuel saving to justify added track expenses. There was also supposedly fuel savings going from 25 to 40, but not enough to justify the added track maintenance. The post is from mid2014, so the advantages are less now, with fuel prices being down +/-$1 gallon, but a near 40% fuel savings would surely still pay for a lot of new ties.
rovetherr wrote:I work for a smaller RR, we have had a fuel conservation program in place for about a year. Most guys are buying into it since they get a performance bonus every quarter. For quite some time, we had had the same mentality as Desertdweller speaks to. However, after looking into the issue it was determined that the fuel usage, coupled with the excellerated wear and tear on the locomotive, of running trains at max tonnage was far more expensive than powering them at a 65 to 80% of max tonnage level. Once this change was instituted, we saw a dramatic reduction in mechanical, electrical, and operational failures. Another big part of the fuel program is one that is still being rolled out. It is a focus on track speeds. The data clearly shows a very significant reduction in fuel usage and track damage by increasing speeds from 10 to 25mph. Upwards of 40% fuel reduction! A further 25% reduction can be found by raising speeds to 40. However, the increased expenditures on track maintenance to maintain 40 mph can equal or exceed the fuel savings if certain conditions are present.
Seems like for an operation that has for the purposes of this post run the railroad for minimum investment in an effort to maximize profits, Going Real Slow may have actually had negative impact on their bottom line and in more ways than just decreased capacity and the ability to play to customers both conventional and intermodal. Not only infuriatingly slow, but not so economic either.