Guilford: the worst?

KEN PATRICK wrote:now, as for speed restrictions. why not increase to 15mph on the 'bad' track? run a few months. zero in on specific track problems and fix them. then repeat the same 'test' at 20mph. do the needed repairs. go to 25 etc.i don't like large ball-park numbers- '150 million'- because they are never real. i prefer an incremental approach. i think 4 good ties every 40 ft, gauging and resurfacing should be on-going. the increase in profits would easily pay for the work. i love folklore but it really clouds issues. ken patrick

The problem with that is, as has been explained before, there is some solid science behind "Harmonic Rock" which occurs between 15-20mph, never mind it is company policy that trains on jointed rail not operate between 25 and 10, unless on an uphill where they are losing speed to gain altitude.

It is also a problem in that "testing" as you suggest would result in more on the ground. As was said earlier here, there is a no debt approach. Each derailment costs to clean up, which decreases line investment...Circle of doom there. Better to upgrade track structure to support 25mph operation rather than "test" and make a mess.

KEN-
In the year and a quarter (February 2013) since you first stated your doubts about the veracity of harmonic rock, not much has changed. Staggered joints at 39' intervals on jointed rail still exist in much of the country. Add in low joints produced by less-than-fully-funded maintenance and the dynamic is augmented. You did eventually seem to acknowledge back then that harmonic rock was a real phenomenon. If there have been no basic changes in conditions, the way of avoiding the consequences of harmonic rock back then -- avoiding speeds between 10 and 25 mph on jointed rail -- remains the way to avoid those consequences now.
Should you have doubts, you can use the search feature to rediscover past postings.

Now THAT'S why PAR won't do more than 10mph in much of D1! Man, all these years I thought it was just because their track conditions suck the big one! Learn something new every day

Well, it's six of one and half a dozen of the other.

KSmitty wrote:

CN9634 wrote:

necr3849 wrote:

KSmitty wrote:

Also everyone seems to be forgetting that Mr. Fink does not own the railroad. A lot of stuff has to go by Mr. Mellon and trust me, that is very difficult. For the most part, things are improving but still the Master of Puppets is the head honcho. And without the appropriate resources, it's tough to get things done. I'm sure that PAR execs would love to spend $150M on a large scale upgrade project, but that would require taking on debt, and Mr. Fink has made it clear -- no debt (Even though he is affiliated with a bank...). All the capital comes from the RR's retained earnings (after the bull gets his cut) and/or outside investment.

So if you want to skip all the writing I just did, the point is, there are a lot of smart people working for Pan Am and unless you know what's going on in the inside, don't act like you know what you're talking about. Even people that have no idea about running a railroad can say "gee, those trains seem to be moving pretty slow."

Just curious as to why these 2 posts were chosen to be quoted to make your point on railroad management and Mr. Mellon's rules? Neither myself or "necr3849" made any references to inadequacies in the current management of Pan Am. In fact, if you take a quick look back, I've been quite the proponent of the current management. I appreciate the situation they are in, limited resources, lots of miles, and many contractual commitments that must take priority over D1 east of Royal Jct.

I was too lazy to scroll to the bottom to push reply to the whole thread.

Man thats pushing the lazy a little far, even by my standards...

Simply put, management is just pulling the profit out of the system. There is only enough money available to keep the system running, none really to speak of for any big capital improvements or upgrades to the system. Routine maintenance consists of what is needed simply to get by. This is why, over the last 30 years of this ownership, the system has degenerated to where it is today. They are not alone, there are many other corporations that also operate this way as maximizing the short term profits for the stockholders becomes the number one objective of the business with all other spending coming behind that.

The new corporate attitude in America these days is big short term profits vs smaller down the road profits. Got to make those shareholders happy...

Sir Ray wrote:In a thread titled "Guilford: the worst?" - the title alone is an open invitation to trolling

I've thought of changing the title to something a little less inflammatory, but it does sum up the OP's primary question, which was as follows:

pistolpete66 wrote:...it seems Guilford/Pan Am has little credibility and operates quite possibly the worst railroad in the U.S. Is this an accurate assessment?

I'm not sure how else to word that in a thread title, especially given the strict character limit imposed by the site's software.

It's a question that's bound to stir up passionate opinions, regardless of how it's worded.

With that in mind, I'll request (as always) that people be respectful in their responses, and try to conduct themselves as they would if they were having a face-to-face conversation with a friend or colleague.

If Guilford, now PanAm, was a publicly traded company,
it would have been possible over the years and today,
to see just how good or bad the financial situation was/is.

Overall, it probably has been a financially positive enterprize
for Mr. Mellon. Or he would have gotten out from under it
many years ago, even at a loss from his original investment.

jaymac- constant contact side bearings eliminate rock N roll. old cars might have worn ccsb so some rock n roll might exist. the new tankers in a dedicated train will certainly have good ccsb and should be pulled at higher rates. and the obvious answer to these fears- just go faster than 25mph. ken patrick

KEN PATRICK wrote:jaymac- constant contact side bearings eliminate rock N roll. old cars might have worn ccsb so some rock n roll might exist. the new tankers in a dedicated train will certainly have good ccsb and should be pulled at higher rates. and the obvious answer to these fears- just go faster than 25mph. ken patrick

The slight bump in the rail every 39' caused by the joint of 2 sections still causes significant "rock n roll." This is why railroads have rules about Harmonic Rock on sections of jointed rail, but make no mention of it on welded rail. It has no bearing (pun intended) on the car/wheel interaction.

The proof here is easy to spot. I'd really suggest you spend 10 minutes near a section of jointed rail. Watch 1 train and the rock and roll will quickly become apparent. Or, even easier watch this -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QH8N-KM-znI" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; <- all the cars are swaying. All are riding on roller bearings, and some are very new. The fact is that harmonic rock is still an issue on jointed rail. This effect is greatly exaggerated on sections of track in poor state of repair where the surfacing is poor. Each dip and rise in the rail adds to the rock.

KEN PATRICK » Sat May 10, 2014 10:49 am
jaymac- constant contact side bearings eliminate rock N roll. old cars might have worn ccsb so some rock n roll might exist. the new tankers in a dedicated train will certainly have good ccsb and should be pulled at higher rates. and the obvious answer to these fears- just go faster than 25mph. ken patrick

KEN-
Whatever qualities constant-contact side bearings may have, one of the matters beyond their scope is the ability of having any remediative affect on what the wheels rest on. Issues with rail and/or roadbed are among the items that determine FRA track classification. If there are sufficient compromises with the rail, ties, connectors, or roadbed, then a given stretch of track receives a diminished classification and a diminished maximum speed. The no-go 10-25 mph range is strictly on jointed rail. Maintenance issues have been a featured area of discussion and can be seen as a result of management-deemed prioritization. When all cars have properly maintained constant-contact side bearings, then -- perhaps -- the no-go range will be erased, but the issue of track classification will still exist.
You seemed at various points in the past to have suggested that speeds be raised as a real-world experiment until failure occurs. I would hope that recent various "incidents" have caused a reconsideration of that position.

CN9634 wrote:
I've spoken regularly with many Pan Am employees and managers primarily out of District 1 and a few from Billerica. Have yet to cash in on my tour though... Looking forward to working with them this summer on some projects as well.

So how do the managers from D1 and Bellerica like the furlough idea?

One thing I will tell you about railroaders. They are just like construction workers. Unless you hear the information FIRST HAND, the information you hear may be tainted. Maybe an innocent word is added, but will change the whole meaning of the gossip. You will find this out as you grow older. Speaking like a know it all all of the time does not mean you know it all.

Mikejf wrote:

CN9634 wrote:
I've spoken regularly with many Pan Am employees and managers primarily out of District 1 and a few from Billerica. Have yet to cash in on my tour though... Looking forward to working with them this summer on some projects as well.

So how do the managers from D1 and Bellerica like the furlough idea?

One thing I will tell you about railroaders. They are just like construction workers. Unless you hear the information FIRST HAND, the information you hear may be tainted. Maybe an innocent word is added, but will change the whole meaning of the gossip. You will find this out as you grow older. Speaking like a know it all all of the time does not mean you know it all.

What furlough are you talking about? Perhaps we should talk via PM about the rest of your statement.