Someone somewhere is crunching numbers to see if running some trains even slower makes economic sense. I've read in several places where the decision was made to run slower to save on fuel. By slower, I mean less than 79 mph. I believe this was out west, and if I'm wrong, forgive me.
In any case, there is an interesting argument in the inverse. I know that lines where there is less mileage between stations allow for those same intermodals to run at far slower speeds. I am familar with a specific study documenting this, so I've seen it. Basically, find a way to have less miles in the routing, and you can run slower.
So, to recap, if CSX can crunch the numbers, and if it helps them maintain better consistency of service (well, shortlines think this way...so, who knows...), spend less money on trackwork (more likely with CSX, from what everyone and their mother is posting) and spend less money on crews/fuel, etc., they would do it. This assumes that they don't mind spending more money on actual crews themselves since it would take more hours, meaning more crews, per train. Shorter stretches of track, where outlawing is less frequent, or less important, see this tactic from time to time. Think the NS Buffalo line as an example.
Dave Becker
~Dave Becker
Moderator: Fairbanks-Morse Forum