Pan Am's last day

I'm sure QB 52.32 will come along and tell us how much better this way of running is.

Bingo, here I am to say if it saves fuel (up 78% for CSX vs. 12% for labor & fringe '22 v. '21) and, therefore, emissions, without degrading the service demanded by the marketplace, which by all indications it does, I'll trust the decision. I'm sure it sucks for you in T&E, I've heard a lot of griping, but is it any different than when you fly or for the many-a-truck-driver with a speed governor?

Big difference.Governors set a maximum speed for the truck,65 to 70 depending on the company.They don't slow you down to 60 or 50 or 40mph to conserve fuel.

Fuel conservation management is big in trucking as it is in railroads. And, sure a governor doesn't slow you down per se, but it does slow you down, including usage for fuel conservation. All you have to do is take a look at a UPS, LTL carrier, and big-fleet truck operating on the highway to understand how drivers are measured and managed. I believe the advanced cruise control in some new fleet tractors have the option to take into account fuel conservation as well.

I drive for a big carrier.Again,only the top speed is governed.You set the cruise control and go.It does not adjust the speed to save fuel.We have 5 minute idle auto shut downs and other means of fuel savings,but our top speeds are not affected.If they were we would never get our runs done in a timely manner.

Many transportation modes have an optimum speed for fuel efficiency. Maersk is on public record for slowing its container ships purposely to save fuel. Same for Jetblue and Ryanair flying planes slower to save fuel. Fighter jets use the afterburners sparingly because while they go fast, they use fuel like crazy vs flying slower. If you drive your car at 85 vs 55 or 60, I'm highly confident that you'll get there faster but will have used more fuel. Every car I've owned gets worse mileage at high speed. No way for us to know if the math works out, but if CSX's trip optimizer saves more $ in fuel by going slower than it costs in terms of extra labor expense and lost business due to reduced service, then it makes economic sense. If it doesn't, then it seems like a waste. I have no way to know whether or not it works as intended

pnolette wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 8:52 pm I drive for a big carrier.Again,only the top speed is governed.You set the cruise control and go.It does not adjust the speed to save fuel.We have 5 minute idle auto shut downs and other means of fuel savings,but our top speeds are not affected.If they were we would never get our runs done in a timely manner.

Your carrier, your tractor's cruise control, the market in which you compete. Does not necessarily apply to other carriers, and certainly to F74265A's point, or how fast another driver might go instead with traffic if allowed, the point is that in transportation, a T&E gripe of going slower for fuel conservation than otherwise might be desired, is not an only or an outlier in the world of carrier operations.

Moderator note:

Let's get back to the subject at hand, please.

stevefol wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 12:25 pm One possible change I have noted - the southbound LA-2 rolls through Winchester/ West Medford at significantly greater speeds than before. Usually it would roll through at 25mph max - now it is more like 50. Is this a CSX change?

Same speeds as they've always been, it is indeed 40mph but there are many reasons the train would be going under that, including whatever signal aspect they're running on at the time.

newpylong wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 7:13 am Same engineers still, and yes most are timid to crank it up even when MAS is 40. For that matter many don't even go 25 in 25s. Wait until CSX starts downloading the boxes if they see discrepancies between interlockings, they'll find the ball draggers. I had engineers who never went above 22 to f*ck the dog as we called it.

Funnily enough in this instance the job was being covered that week by a different engineer