CSX pulling trains over 10000 FT

conrail6479 wrote:

roadster wrote:I have to agree with Conrail4evr, there is a specific rule against anything over 14K on the water level route. I have run 660 xls, have heard a couple 700 plus, but thats all. 99K has to be a typo or info. error. Even 1K xls is too much. I think he's refering to length of 10K ft? maybe?

that was an error. it should been 99,000FT

I think you might mean 9,900 ft...

I've heard detectors annouce 600-650 axles a few times, but not that often. Of course, intermodal trains can be much longer with fewer axles than general freight.

Conrail put remote equipment on 10 C40-8Ws and tried a distributed power experiment on SEEL/ELSE in the mid-90s, running monster trains around 800-900 axles with two C40-8W up front and two more mid-train, but it only lasted a few months - one T&E employee I talked to said that on one occasion trying to go out of Buffalo westbound they managed to break 6 knuckles with one of these trains, and rarely got out without breaking at least one.

So I was under the impression that such trains, while physically possible to be run, require train-handling skills that are nearly impossible in themselves.

roadster wrote:Yep, no 18 mile trains around here. Csx is running simular sized trains to CR's up here for the reason that the Water Levels route permits said train size. why send more trains and crews when you can do it with one.

The odd short train shows why: Work in yards along the way, or at the initial and final terminals, goes INFINITELY quicker with smaller trains. Shorter trains start faster, stop easier, and clear up MUCH sooner.

I truly believe that if the Company would give it a chance with an open mind, they'd find the extra crew costs in ordering more, shorter trains would pay for themselves.

But CSX management is nothing if not stubborn.

lvrr325 wrote:I've heard detectors annouce 600-650 axles a few times, but not that often. Of course, intermodal trains can be much longer with fewer axles than general freight.

Conrail put remote equipment on 10 C40-8Ws and tried a distributed power experiment on SEEL/ELSE in the mid-90s, running monster trains around 800-900 axles with two C40-8W up front and two more mid-train, but it only lasted a few months - one T&E employee I talked to said that on one occasion trying to go out of Buffalo westbound they managed to break 6 knuckles with one of these trains, and rarely got out without breaking at least one.

So I was under the impression that such trains, while physically possible to be run, require train-handling skills that are nearly impossible in themselves.

I ran the train with the slave units mid train for a while out of Selkirk, in
fact it was my regular job. We called it the "super train". I ran the train
for 300 miles and never had any problems with the thing. The Lines West
crews going west out of Buffalo were always bitching about the thing and
I think they always or almost always had a road foreman riding it but I
had one rider on it the first trip I ran it and then I was OK'd and ran it on
my own. I kind of liked the train, on the pay check it showed with a high
engine rate and some ITD as well and once we got going, they gave us
"high greens" all the way. It wasn't a bad train to handle either although
it was very long. I could not wee why the Lines West people made such a
fuss, it was all Elkharts and made no stops except for the crew changes
and as I said was not a bad train to operate.
One reason that Conrail stopped running SEEL in that manner was the
fact that they had formerly operated two SEEL's out of Selkirk a few hours
apart and one of them worked at Parma, Ohio and the other one also
had a stop somewhere in Ohio as well. That plus the cars did not always
make their assigned connections at Elkhart dictated that two trains in this
case were better than just one "super train".
I still have some figures on car count, axle count and train length but I can
not pull them right now.
Noel Weaver

Back at the begining CSX stated they were going to run shorter more frequent trains, up here. But, CR managers were still in place and generally continued to operate as before, and even with new CSX mgnt in place it seems old habits die hard. The "ONE PLAN" has been peculliar, seeing a train dispatched with only a dozen or less cars (van trains with just one 3 well car)and 3 big engines, then the next train a monster 12K ft, with 2 SD40's screaming for all their worth. The "ONE PLAN" was meant to depart a given train on it's scheduled time regardless if all the connecting cars were available. So what was missed on the first train is carried by the second. recently CSX at Dewitt has been combining Q167 and Q113 (usually abouty 4-5K ft themselves) and run one 10K-12K beast. Again, Why run 2 when you can get away with one.

A week ago Saturday, my son and I saw a very long westbound merchandise train passing through Jordan on the Water Level Route. Sure enough, the axle count on the Centerport detector was over 600.

sometimes EX-conrail dector at coldwater on the chicago main line. would say conrail coldwater new york track 2 no defects toltal axle count 66 700 train speed 60 over.

Thats when the next 2 hrs a maintainer is there.

conrail6479 wrote:sometimes EX-conrail dector at coldwater on the chicago main line. would say conrail coldwater new york track 2 no defects toltal axle count 66 700 train speed 60 over.

You sure? I'm out quite a bit and can always hear Coldwater, and that's one of the few detectors I never hear acting up (whereas Churchville is quite problematic). Don't believe everything a detector says...I've heard one of them giving a 5 car Amtrak train three hotboxes on axles 239-241 with a total axle count of 422 and a speed of 255 MPH...

opps!! yea i meant churchville detector.

conrail6479 wrote:sorry if i confused you guys on my question. I didn't realized that CSX runs train that long. I know that CR TV299 had well over 90,000 axles on it once and CR ML403 had over 99,000 axles on it on the chicago main line.

I think you really mean 99,000 tons, don't you" A 99,000 foot long, 90,000 ton train makes more sense. (on Pluto..... )

GOLDEN-ARM wrote:
I think you really mean 99,000 tons, don't you" A 99,000 foot long, 90,000 ton train makes more sense. (on Pluto..... )

...or in Jacksonville.

I can tell you Ive had 135 Autoracks Ive pulled out of Framingham and Westboro up the Berkshires to Selkirk on Q283 that are over 12,000 ft with all the Slack.
And I was told I ran the Longest and Id call it a Monster Q114 from Selkirk with Full set-offs on all Site Tracks and Overflow at all the Terminals W. Springfield, E. Worcester and Boston that was 14,000 ft in length

Over here on the B&A they go by Tonage not Length and NOT to Exceed 10,000 Tons

and I can tell you the Guys at Dewitt need to stop being lazy and learn how to build Van trains......Loads ahead of Emptys you DOPES...

CSX Eng.98 I suggest you refer to your equipment handling Rule book. #4402: Intermodal on other than the water level route can not exceed more than 9,000 tons or 10,000 ft.. The size limitations are by either tonage or length. Water Level Route can not exceed 12,000 tons or 14,000 ft. Both your Q283 and Q114 exceeded these limits and should have been refused untill ordered by a supervisor to depart. I refused a 14,400 TV and they opted to cut off the excess length. Very few Supervisors will risk accepting that kind of responsability. I'm not sure where you get the impression that Dewitt people are lazy. They switch out more Intermodals than any other NE terminal. Your above mentioned Rule book spells out how trains are blocked including the placement of empties mixed in with loads. Empties do not have to be on the rear only mixed in with a certain amount of loads. I handled a mixed frieght with 35 empties on the headend with 1 load in the middle, followed by 78 loads. With the one load splitting the empties it complied with the rule book. I might also suggest you please refrain from the name calling on these forums

Rule book smack-down!

Okay, if the rule book is written in blood, I wonder what happened when somebody put "too many" empties before the load? My speculation is that all the empties had too little momentum of their own, and when the weight of the loaded cars squished them by braking while the train was on a curve, they popped off like a jewelweed.