I was told by a old Penn Central man that Freight Trains ran about 20-50 cars from the 1970s and earler and those were the norm rather then the 100 or more car trains that we see today and the longer freights are the reason that Amtrak is getting side tracked so much. I know UP ran long trains because they were a Transcon Bridge Line but in the Northeast Short Trains were the norm. Also we they had ALCOS and Multi-Unit Trains were just being perfected. Piggybacks ran on a timetable and were called Jet Trains (B&O used that term) because they were short fast trains.(30 or less cars)
Railroad Forums
Were Avg Freight Trains Shorter pre 1978?
- General discussion about railroad operations, related facilities, maps, and other resources.
Moderator: Robert Paniagua
Are Freight trains Amtrak ???
If Conductors are in charge, why are they promoted to be Engineer???
Retired Triebfahrzeugführer. I am not a moderator.
Retired Triebfahrzeugführer. I am not a moderator.
DutchRailnut wrote:Are Freight trains Amtrak ???I think the OP was asking whether freight trains are now longer than in the 70's and whether that is a factor in Amtrak delays. Seems like a legitimate question to me.
Jon
Courage is not the absence of fear; it is the determination that some things are more important than fear.
The short answer is: the economics of the industry have changed dramatically. There was a pretty nice explanation in one of the articles in this month's Trains magazine, actually.
Let me just note to donredhead (who's only been a registered member for a month) that this is a tightly-moderated forum. So don't be offended if this topic gets moved -- it just means that the moderators believe it to be more topical somewhere else. Happens all the time.
Of course, I really can't predict what the moderators will think.
Let me just note to donredhead (who's only been a registered member for a month) that this is a tightly-moderated forum. So don't be offended if this topic gets moved -- it just means that the moderators believe it to be more topical somewhere else. Happens all the time.
Of course, I really can't predict what the moderators will think.
donredhead wrote:I was told by a old Penn Central man that Freight Trains ran about 20-50 cars from the 1970s and earler and those were the norm rather then the 100 or more car trains that we see today and the longer freights are the reason that Amtrak is getting side tracked so much.Well, I'm a fairly old guy too and that doesn't match my memories of the 1970s (and 1960s) at all. Penn Central had more than its its share of problems, but long freights were definitely the rule when the business was there, as on the former NYC and PRR New York-Chicago mainlines. There was absolutely nothing unusual about 100-car trains forty years ago on PC or any other major railroad.
Amtrak's problem with freight railroad delays was due to (a) a big increase in intermodal and coal traffic in the last twenty years, at least pre-recession, (b) wholesale abandonment of multiple tracks and alternate routes that cut overall capacity, (c) the loss of the historical railroad culture that placed a priority on getting passenger trains over the road on time and took pride in doing that.
TomNelligan wrote:Ironically, part of what was said in (A) may have created the situation described in (C). The Class I's have increasingly thought like transportation business companies rather than just as railroads in recent years, and having fast, reliable intermodal freight service has become an increasing part of their business (and made long-haul truckload carriers like Schneider National and J.B. Hunt some of the Class I's biggest customers). When you combine that with the limited number of Amtrak trains operating on most corridors, it is easy to understand why (C) isn't as high a priority anymore.donredhead wrote:Amtrak's problem with freight railroad delays was due to (a) a big increase in intermodal and coal traffic in the last twenty years, at least pre-recession, (b) wholesale abandonment of multiple tracks and alternate routes that cut overall capacity, (c) the loss of the historical railroad culture that placed a priority on getting passenger trains over the road on time and took pride in doing that.
(For the record, I think the Class I's attitude towards enhancing service for their customers and increasing intermodal freight rail is a very good thing, but it does illustrate the challenges that I think most non-transportation people - and many transportation people - are underestimating when it comes to enhancing Amtrak service or in the future high speed passenger rail service in the U.S.)
2009 Phillies/Yankees World Series - aka the Acela Series
Erie-Laccawanna moved a lot of the heavy freight. When there line got chopped up in 1978-1981 there freight moved to the NYC main line. Also Freights moved on a schedule pre-conrail instead of a waiting around till they had enough cars to be oppitly move a train. If a scheduled train had only one car that day it ran because the ICC set the standard of service.
I believe that the loss of the Erie has a lot to do with the Amtrak Lake Shore being late all the time because the Erie was a double track line and also the Erie handled more long slow heavy drag freights with Coal and Steel out of Northeast PA via the Pittsburg & Lake Erie while the NYC was a fast freight line. With the loss of the Erie the drag freights on the Erie moved to the NYC Main. Not to mention the traffic from other lower grade class ones (like the Lehigh Valley) RR moving over to the mains as there lines were being slaughtered by Conrail. Now the argument can be made that the USDOT when they ran Conrail from 1975-1985 perhaps made the wrong decisions in haste to make Conrail Profitalble for future sale with the hindsight that rail traffic would not boom as much as it did from 1991-2008
I believe that the loss of the Erie has a lot to do with the Amtrak Lake Shore being late all the time because the Erie was a double track line and also the Erie handled more long slow heavy drag freights with Coal and Steel out of Northeast PA via the Pittsburg & Lake Erie while the NYC was a fast freight line. With the loss of the Erie the drag freights on the Erie moved to the NYC Main. Not to mention the traffic from other lower grade class ones (like the Lehigh Valley) RR moving over to the mains as there lines were being slaughtered by Conrail. Now the argument can be made that the USDOT when they ran Conrail from 1975-1985 perhaps made the wrong decisions in haste to make Conrail Profitalble for future sale with the hindsight that rail traffic would not boom as much as it did from 1991-2008
CHIP72 wrote:Well Passenger Trains and yes Amtrak was part of the US Mail system and were considered profitable by the freights because FRA rules alowed for high speed passenger trains that hauled mail to run at 90mph. When REA died and the US mail moved most of the mail off the passenger trains (but not all mail as Bulk Media still moved by Amtrak) and on to piggyback. The Passenger trains got priority because of the high priority freight that was on it. Now that freight has moved to the IntermodalTomNelligan wrote:Ironically, part of what was said in (A) may have created the situation described in (C). The Class I's have increasingly thought like transportation business companies rather than just as railroads in recent years, and having fast, reliable intermodal freight service has become an increasing part of their business (and made long-haul truckload carriers like Schneider National and J.B. Hunt some of the Class I's biggest customers). When you combine that with the limited number of Amtrak trains operating on most corridors, it is easy to understand why (C) isn't as high a priority anymore.donredhead wrote:Amtrak's problem with freight railroad delays was due to (a) a big increase in intermodal and coal traffic in the last twenty years, at least pre-recession, (b) wholesale abandonment of multiple tracks and alternate routes that cut overall capacity, (c) the loss of the historical railroad culture that placed a priority on getting passenger trains over the road on time and took pride in doing that.
(For the record, I think the Class I's attitude towards enhancing service for their customers and increasing intermodal freight rail is a very good thing, but it does illustrate the challenges that I think most non-transportation people - and many transportation people - are underestimating when it comes to enhancing Amtrak service or in the future high speed passenger rail service in the U.S.)
trains and Amtrak goes into the hole track along with the drag freights
From Fact Check.org-
July 1, 2008
Q: Can a freight train really move a ton of freight 436 miles on a gallon of fuel?
A: Yes, and some do even better. The figure used in the rail industry's advertising is a national average.
This question is generated by an advertising campaign by the railroad industry, which is arguing that a good way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to move more freight by rail rather than by truck. An example of the industry's ads can be seen on the Web site www.freightrailworks.org.
We'll remain neutral in the perpetual competition between the railroad industry and the truckers, about which we'll say more later in this article. But we can vouch for the 436-mile claim. It's the average for all major U.S. railroads for 2007.
Each year the railroads are required to submit reports to the federal Surface Transportation Board, the regulatory body that took over some of the functions of the old Interstate Commerce Commission. The annual reports of each railroad are public information, available on the STB's Web site. Buried amid all the facts about the number of railroad ties replaced, cubic yards of ballast placed and the cost of new locomotives, the railroads also report totals for the number of gallons of diesel fuel consumed and tons of freight moved. The government doesn't tally up those figures anymore, but the Association of American Railroads does. And now, we have done the same.
According to our calculations, which match the AAR's tally exactly, the nation's seven major railroad companies reported the following for 2007:
Moving 1,770,545,245,000 ton-miles of freight
Consuming 4,062,025,082 gallons of diesel fuel (including freight trains and trains in switching yards, but excluding passenger trains)
The average works out to be 435.88 ton-miles per gallon of fuel.
Some rail lines do better. The Soo Line, which is the U.S. branch of the Canadian Pacific, operating in the upper Midwest, reported moving each ton of freight 517.8 miles per gallon of diesel fuel, on average. Lines operated by the Grand Trunk Corp. reported 510.5 ton-miles per gallon.
The national average figure of 436 miles is the highest on record, according to AAR, and a 3.1 percent increase from the 423-mile figure reached in 2006.
The rail industry says its fuel efficiency has increased by 85 percent since 1980. It attributes that to factors that include using new and more efficient locomotives, training engineers to conserve fuel, using computers to assemble trains more efficiently in the yard and to plan trips more efficiently to avoid congestion, and reducing the amount of time engines are idling.
Truckers Say, "So What?"
Although the 436-mile figure is accurate, it's meaning is open to interpretation, especially by the rival trucking industry. We contacted Clayton W. Boyce, vice president of Public Affairs and Press Secretary of the American Trucking Association. "While railroads almost certainly have a fuel efficiency advantage over trucks, their claims that they are thus also more environmentally benign are suspect at best, as are statements that enough freight will shift from truck to rail to even make a difference," Boyce said.
For one thing, freight often has to travel farther by rail than it would by truck, because "railroads go to very few communities," Boyce said. He also notes that heavy-duty trucks have been required to burn ultra-low-sulphur diesel fuel (15 parts per million) since 2006 and says trains can legally continue burning higher-sulphur diesel (500 parts per million) for another four years.
Indeed, for all their fuel efficiency, locomotives are still a major source of pollution. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says:
EPA: Locomotive engines are significant contributors to air pollution in many of our nation's cities and ports. Although locomotive engines being produced today must meet relatively modest emission requirements set in 1997, they continue to emit large amounts of nitrogen oxides and particulate matter (PM), both of which contribute to serious public health problems.
In March of this year, the EPA issued more strict regulations for new and remanufactured diesel locomotives that it said will reduce locomotives' soot by 90 percent and emissions of nitrogen oxide by 80 percent. The EPA predicted it would be sometime after the year 2030 before the new, low-polluting engines replace all those now in use, however.
-Brooks Jackson
Sources
"Railroads: Building A Cleaner Environment." Association of American Railroads, May 2008.
"Railroad Fuel Efficiency Sets New Record." News Release, Association of American Railroads, 21 May 2008. BNSF Railway Company 2007 Annual Report Data.
Lines 1 and 3, Schedule 750, p. 91; Line 110, Schedule 755, p. 97, "BNSF Railway Company 2007 Annual Report Data." Surface Transportation Board, accessed 30 June 2008.
Lines 1 and 3, Schedule 750, p. 91; Line 110, Schedule 755, p. 97, "CSX Transportation, Inc. 2007 Annual Report Data." Surface Transportation Board, accessed 30 June 2008.
Lines 1 and 3, Schedule 750, p. 91; Line 110, Schedule 755, p. 97, "Grand Trunk Corporation 2007 Annual Report Data." Surface Transportation Board, accessed 30 June 2008.
Lines 1 and 3, Schedule 750, p. 91; Line 110, Schedule 755, p. 97, "Kansas City Southern Railway Company 2007 Annual Report Data." Surface Transportation Board, accessed 30 June 2008.
Lines 1 and 3, Schedule 750, p. 91; Line 110, Schedule 755, p. 97, "Norfolk Southern Combined Railroad Subsidiaries 2007 Annual Report Data." Surface Transportation Board, accessed 30 June 2008.
Lines 1 and 3, Schedule 750, p. 91; Line 110, Schedule 755, p. 97, "Soo Line Railroad Company 2007 Annual Report Data." Surface Transportation Board, accessed 30 June 2008.
Lines 1 and 3, Schedule 750, p. 91; Line 110, Schedule 755, p. 97, "Union Pacific Railroad 2007 Annual Report Data." Surface Transportation Board, accessed 30 June 2008.
July 1, 2008
Q: Can a freight train really move a ton of freight 436 miles on a gallon of fuel?
A: Yes, and some do even better. The figure used in the rail industry's advertising is a national average.
This question is generated by an advertising campaign by the railroad industry, which is arguing that a good way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to move more freight by rail rather than by truck. An example of the industry's ads can be seen on the Web site www.freightrailworks.org.
We'll remain neutral in the perpetual competition between the railroad industry and the truckers, about which we'll say more later in this article. But we can vouch for the 436-mile claim. It's the average for all major U.S. railroads for 2007.
Each year the railroads are required to submit reports to the federal Surface Transportation Board, the regulatory body that took over some of the functions of the old Interstate Commerce Commission. The annual reports of each railroad are public information, available on the STB's Web site. Buried amid all the facts about the number of railroad ties replaced, cubic yards of ballast placed and the cost of new locomotives, the railroads also report totals for the number of gallons of diesel fuel consumed and tons of freight moved. The government doesn't tally up those figures anymore, but the Association of American Railroads does. And now, we have done the same.
According to our calculations, which match the AAR's tally exactly, the nation's seven major railroad companies reported the following for 2007:
Moving 1,770,545,245,000 ton-miles of freight
Consuming 4,062,025,082 gallons of diesel fuel (including freight trains and trains in switching yards, but excluding passenger trains)
The average works out to be 435.88 ton-miles per gallon of fuel.
Some rail lines do better. The Soo Line, which is the U.S. branch of the Canadian Pacific, operating in the upper Midwest, reported moving each ton of freight 517.8 miles per gallon of diesel fuel, on average. Lines operated by the Grand Trunk Corp. reported 510.5 ton-miles per gallon.
The national average figure of 436 miles is the highest on record, according to AAR, and a 3.1 percent increase from the 423-mile figure reached in 2006.
The rail industry says its fuel efficiency has increased by 85 percent since 1980. It attributes that to factors that include using new and more efficient locomotives, training engineers to conserve fuel, using computers to assemble trains more efficiently in the yard and to plan trips more efficiently to avoid congestion, and reducing the amount of time engines are idling.
Truckers Say, "So What?"
Although the 436-mile figure is accurate, it's meaning is open to interpretation, especially by the rival trucking industry. We contacted Clayton W. Boyce, vice president of Public Affairs and Press Secretary of the American Trucking Association. "While railroads almost certainly have a fuel efficiency advantage over trucks, their claims that they are thus also more environmentally benign are suspect at best, as are statements that enough freight will shift from truck to rail to even make a difference," Boyce said.
For one thing, freight often has to travel farther by rail than it would by truck, because "railroads go to very few communities," Boyce said. He also notes that heavy-duty trucks have been required to burn ultra-low-sulphur diesel fuel (15 parts per million) since 2006 and says trains can legally continue burning higher-sulphur diesel (500 parts per million) for another four years.
Indeed, for all their fuel efficiency, locomotives are still a major source of pollution. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says:
EPA: Locomotive engines are significant contributors to air pollution in many of our nation's cities and ports. Although locomotive engines being produced today must meet relatively modest emission requirements set in 1997, they continue to emit large amounts of nitrogen oxides and particulate matter (PM), both of which contribute to serious public health problems.
In March of this year, the EPA issued more strict regulations for new and remanufactured diesel locomotives that it said will reduce locomotives' soot by 90 percent and emissions of nitrogen oxide by 80 percent. The EPA predicted it would be sometime after the year 2030 before the new, low-polluting engines replace all those now in use, however.
-Brooks Jackson
Sources
"Railroads: Building A Cleaner Environment." Association of American Railroads, May 2008.
"Railroad Fuel Efficiency Sets New Record." News Release, Association of American Railroads, 21 May 2008. BNSF Railway Company 2007 Annual Report Data.
Lines 1 and 3, Schedule 750, p. 91; Line 110, Schedule 755, p. 97, "BNSF Railway Company 2007 Annual Report Data." Surface Transportation Board, accessed 30 June 2008.
Lines 1 and 3, Schedule 750, p. 91; Line 110, Schedule 755, p. 97, "CSX Transportation, Inc. 2007 Annual Report Data." Surface Transportation Board, accessed 30 June 2008.
Lines 1 and 3, Schedule 750, p. 91; Line 110, Schedule 755, p. 97, "Grand Trunk Corporation 2007 Annual Report Data." Surface Transportation Board, accessed 30 June 2008.
Lines 1 and 3, Schedule 750, p. 91; Line 110, Schedule 755, p. 97, "Kansas City Southern Railway Company 2007 Annual Report Data." Surface Transportation Board, accessed 30 June 2008.
Lines 1 and 3, Schedule 750, p. 91; Line 110, Schedule 755, p. 97, "Norfolk Southern Combined Railroad Subsidiaries 2007 Annual Report Data." Surface Transportation Board, accessed 30 June 2008.
Lines 1 and 3, Schedule 750, p. 91; Line 110, Schedule 755, p. 97, "Soo Line Railroad Company 2007 Annual Report Data." Surface Transportation Board, accessed 30 June 2008.
Lines 1 and 3, Schedule 750, p. 91; Line 110, Schedule 755, p. 97, "Union Pacific Railroad 2007 Annual Report Data." Surface Transportation Board, accessed 30 June 2008.
A railroad efficiency measuring stick has been Gross Ton Miler per Train Hour or GTMTH. Because this was a measuring block, railroad managers, in order to build their own trophy case of kudos would run a train as long as they could and ideally keep it moving. Fast and Frequent definitely "whacked" into this measurement - so what if it is what potential customers wanted!
Regarding Mr. Readhead's thoughts on the ERIE, no question whatever a major East-West line was abandoned just as traffic was rising; likewise the downgrading of the PRR, route of the Broadway Limited, the "Fort Wayne", whatever, did not help the cause of 'fast and frequent' when the traffic displaced from those lines ended up on either the NYC or B&Q, with I guess some finding its way on to the quite circuitous NKP.
As I've noted in the past over at Fallen Flags, what really would have been a "hot setup' would be for both the abandoned MILW Lines West and the ERIE to have come under control of maritime interests. There was a proposal for Japanese maritime interests to acquire Lines West but that, in view of the anti-Asian sentiments prevalent during the early 80's simply was a DOA. However, had those two lines, both considered surplus by the Trustees of their respective Estates, become a transcontinental, a "land bridge' for Asia-Europe shipments could have been in place and 96 hour dock in Seattle to sail from New York transit could be a reality. The costly plan, both to shippers and the environment, to expand capacity of the Panama Canal would have simply been a no start.
Finally, the lone survivor of the Great Steel Fleet of NY-Chicago passenger trains, Amtrak's Lake Shore Limited, would move over the road more expeditiously than at present.
Regarding Mr. Readhead's thoughts on the ERIE, no question whatever a major East-West line was abandoned just as traffic was rising; likewise the downgrading of the PRR, route of the Broadway Limited, the "Fort Wayne", whatever, did not help the cause of 'fast and frequent' when the traffic displaced from those lines ended up on either the NYC or B&Q, with I guess some finding its way on to the quite circuitous NKP.
As I've noted in the past over at Fallen Flags, what really would have been a "hot setup' would be for both the abandoned MILW Lines West and the ERIE to have come under control of maritime interests. There was a proposal for Japanese maritime interests to acquire Lines West but that, in view of the anti-Asian sentiments prevalent during the early 80's simply was a DOA. However, had those two lines, both considered surplus by the Trustees of their respective Estates, become a transcontinental, a "land bridge' for Asia-Europe shipments could have been in place and 96 hour dock in Seattle to sail from New York transit could be a reality. The costly plan, both to shippers and the environment, to expand capacity of the Panama Canal would have simply been a no start.
Finally, the lone survivor of the Great Steel Fleet of NY-Chicago passenger trains, Amtrak's Lake Shore Limited, would move over the road more expeditiously than at present.
Gilbert B Norman wrote:As I've noted in the past over at Fallen Flags, what really would have been a "hot setup' would be for both the abandoned MILW Lines West and the ERIE to have come under control of maritime interests. There was a proposal for Japanese maritime interests to acquire Lines West but that, in view of the anti-Asian sentiments prevalent during the early 80's simply was a DOA. However, had those two lines, both considered surplus by the Trustees of their respective Estates, become a transcontinental, a "land bridge' for Asia-Europe shipments could have been in place and 96 hour dock in Seattle to sail from New York transit could be a reality. The costly plan, both to shippers and the environment, to expand capacity of the Panama Canal would have simply been a no start.I have no doubt economics and logistics skuttled this idea. Why would a capital-intensive business like a steamship line want to enter into the "unknown" capital-intensive and under-capitilized (MILW and Erie) railroading business? Or, give up the lower prices (their cost) generated by putting that traffic up for competition between competing ports and railroads? Or, make an investment into a rigid logistics network in a world of ever-changing geopolitics and global economics ie., think Suez Canal and Asian production shifting westerly? It might have been someone's "bright" idea that was quickly found out to be a "non-starter", DOA, as, unfortunately, it doesn't make sense.
Illiniose Central went single track in the 80s,,,How well or not well has the City of New Orleans ran since then?
This has little to do with Amtrak and doesn't belong here.
The question: Were average freight trains shorter pre 1978?
The answer: Absolutely NOT.
Noel Weaver
The question: Were average freight trains shorter pre 1978?
The answer: Absolutely NOT.
Noel Weaver
This thread may move to another section.
Train length in the past was limited by the capacity of the loco to move it.
Steam era freights moved in 40ft boxcars.
An AA set of F7's had 3000 HP. A SD40 had 3000HP in 1 unit.
Cars have become longer & heavier.
So more cargo moves in fewer cars. More cargo moves in special cars, not an all-purpose boxcar.
Train length in the past was limited by the capacity of the loco to move it.
Steam era freights moved in 40ft boxcars.
An AA set of F7's had 3000 HP. A SD40 had 3000HP in 1 unit.
Cars have become longer & heavier.
So more cargo moves in fewer cars. More cargo moves in special cars, not an all-purpose boxcar.
Glenn Woodle
Well are we then less trains in 2009 hauling more freight? It would seem that there was a lot of short local freight back in the 1950s.