Brainstorming A National Network

Too tired to go threw this one, locker till i can read everything, then ill open it back up k guys.

Unless one of the other Mods here already has???

Opened back up.

HoggerKen wrote:
It would not qualify under federal programs for alternative fuels becuse according to the Energy Policy act of 2005¹, electicity is not coverred. Nor were private fleets under the Act. It mentions truck fleets, not specifically locomotives. Also under that Act, there is really limited funds available ( fast calculation of about $900 million per year for all elements of it, some decreasing in later years). ¹outline of EPAct of 2005 - source U.S. DOE

But I don't think the credits would begin to cover the outlay. Two locomotives per train, @ 38 loaded trains per day, plus those which do not make the turn in time for the empties at North Platte. I am thinking 160 units would be sufficient to cover the service. These are in addition to the current fleet in the coal pool although you could figure in two days worth of credit account that line segment. There would be additional hostling jobs for DPU trains in NP, as well as mechanical people involved, not to mention the additional terminal capacity and facilities. And I have no idea how to figure the differences between the two fuels as far as per train or per ton costs (mmt/KWH ?).

I wish I had the time to do some numbers, however I have two tax returns sitting on my desk which require my direct attention on my days off.

I don't think electric locos are anymore expensive than diesel ones to buy , so it would just be part of an ordinary year or 2 loco replacement program . extra teminal space would be required , but would it be alot to facilitate an engine change ?
electric tractionis cheaper for passenger traffic than diesel , so it is reasonable to assume it would be for frieght as well .
the big cost would be the cantenary , and fiquring out who pays for it .

David Benton wrote: I don't think electric locos are anymore expensive than diesel ones to buy , so it would just be part of an ordinary year or 2 loco replacement program . extra teminal space would be required , but would it be alot to facilitate an engine change ?
electric tractionis cheaper for passenger traffic than diesel , so it is reasonable to assume it would be for frieght as well .
the big cost would be the cantenary , and fiquring out who pays for it .

Assume for a moment that UP 6501 is now ten years old, and still running strong. It is one of about 1700 in it's class. While this particular model would be due sooner to have it's lease expire, too many are newer than it, and to get out of those leases would be costly unless GE can work a deal out for them. (Not quite sure what the used market would be for this model, since it has no home on short lines like the SD40-2)

The carrier would require a surplus during transition since not all areas would be converted to electric at the same time. A program would have to be phased in during a decade. In thinking about this last night, I gave consideration to lesser lines first such as the Spine running from St. Paul to Kansas City. It has the least need for transition areas at the moment, and loco change could take place at both KC Junction in Iowa, and KC proper ( and not impact capacity). In time those transition areas would become less needed as other lines in the area were converted, with the last major exception being the Overland Route. Also I would invest by regions, and not try to push it system wide all at once. This limits capital costs, and allows for trial and error on a smaller scale before they tackle routes like the Overland and Sunset. (Remember for each line segment, you need to introduce maintenance facilities (service tracks), equipment, training, and supplies.)

The ultimate goal of course is to have electrics be universal system wide. And unless other carriers become electrified, you loose some flexibility with run through trains (the Perishable and ethanol trains come directly to mind), however your fleet does become captive.

Inside terminals, you would have to ration certain tracks for electric service, as you would still keep yard and local runs on diesel. But to string wire in the whole yard would not be prudent, same goes for industries (not unless Baldwin starts building motors again).

The more I think, the more expensive this proposition becomes. If indeed this does make sense in replacing the cost of diesel, then you have motivation.

Who pays? Obviously the carrier.

Currently railroads cannot meet demand. Routes need to be double-tracked, or more. By creating parallel routes using abandoned or secondary routes,(in general, they obviously would be straightened and modernized) this additional capacity, which is needed now anyway, will be created. And by having it owned by the government, (as is the highways) then any railroad (existing or new) can operate across it.

So, immediate benefits to the railroads would be increased capacity and reduced fuel costs. Costs would be purchasing and maintaining electric locomotives, as well as the time and labor involved in locomotive switching. (However, I think the concept of a "power car" is interesting, where a generator car would power the electric locomotive when it's not under wire. This could be coupled and decoupled wherever.)

So how long should a route be to maximize efficiency in regards to crew and locomotive changes?

MikeinNeb wrote:Currently railroads cannot meet demand. Routes need to be double-tracked, or more.

First off, the routes most needed for double tracking are getting it (i.e. such as they Sunset Route). The rest of the added capacity could be reached with a plan of reducing the number of stations one train works. A train that keeps moving does not slow down the fleet. And such thinking costs nothing but planning to achieve.

Also using directional running really makes a huge difference in adding capacity. An example is KC to Omaha, and Des Moines to KC. You add no new tracks, but add capacity for just the cost of transporting crews from one end point to another (Omaha to Des Moines). And overall, you use less crews than the single track bi-directional type, with constant dogcatches.

MikeinNeb wrote:So how long should a route be to maximize efficiency in regards to crew and locomotive changes?

There is a lot of variables to that. Single track line has to be CTC, and then figure about 150 miles max if they have to change locos. That of course would be a temporary issue. Right now on the Overland, they can make a 323 mile run in 12 hours or less if everything goes right. On average, 250 miles is not hard. But it all depends upon a lot of characteristics of the line. Coal traffic is a slam dunk, manifest is a different animal.

As connecting line segments are cut over to electric, there will be added capacity.

actually , electification is most suited to mountain railroading , so the powder basin route may not be the best example . Athough obviously the possibility of a pithead power station makes it more attractive .
I have always thought the tecapachi (sp?) loop route would be a prime candiate for electrification . there you have alot of trains dynamic braking down a single line , burning off that energy as waste heat . Bankers are addedd / subtracted to these trains anyway , so it would not be much extra work to change from diesel to electric , and back .

As has been noted in several other discussions, the rail industry of today is a far cry from the "any load, anywhere-to-anywhere, siding-to-siding" rail industry of the post-World War II era.

At the time of the railroads' greatest domonance of the intercity freight market, (around 1915, when intercity trucking was in its infancy), passenger trains averaged about 60 MPH, freights around 15-20 MPH. On main lines, the timetable/train order dispatching system then in use was almost as much concerned with allowing the priority pasenger moves to overtake slower movements as with meeting and clearing conflicitng moves. Double-track, or on the busiest lines, quadruple track was the usual remedy, but block-signal systems usually operated in only one direction, and freights often had to take siding for overtaking moves.

The increased competition and improvements in motive power after World War I unshered in a slow-but-steady rise in freight speeds. Centralized Traffic Control and more-sophisticated block-signal systems operable in both directions also helped, but smaller and higher-valued shipments continued to leave the rails, often as much due to the inability to schedule consistent deliveries as the speeds themselves.

By 1970, the writing on the wall was clearly visible. The railroads slowly transformed themselves to carriers of very large quantities of mostly low-valued commodoites, although intermodal technology was able to retain a suprising quantity of traffic where volume was sufficient to justify regular and frequent moves. The new technology, combined with greater rate-making freedom and work-rules reform, returned the rails to the position of serious competitors, not only to some marginal truck markets, but to barges, lakeships, and pipelines.

Energy prices will continue to ebb and flow, but the diminishing supply of oil, and even the pressures driving the cost of recovery and environmental suitability of coal, are likely to strengthen the railroads' hand. But whether the current rail traffic-control system can be modernized to restore some ot the flexibilty of a long-gone era, remains to be determined. It's ironic that the most challenging jobs in dispatching in modern-day America are on predomionately-passenger lines.

Re the dispatching , has there been any attempt to run frieght trains to schedule ?with some trans con lines having 100 trains a day , it would seem better . would also give crews more routine working hours .

The erratic work schedules that employees in road service have to deal with have long been recognized as a big problem, contributing to crew fatigue and therefore accidents, as well as being very stressful for the crews.

I would think that scheduling trains on heavily-trafficked lines would be to everyone's benefit.

A couple of years ago, UP proposed, to its engineers on the Powder River line, a system of scheduled assignments that would regularize crews' schedules. The engineers rejected the offer because it would have reduced overtime payments.

If I have this wrong, I welcome corrections by our Moderator or other informed members.

Might be two different things there Joe, trip credits, and "assigned called to work windows".

The trip credit thing i dont know much about, i remember talk about it for our local jobs. Averaged pay (overtime, 2nd trips, late call), dont know where they were gonna draw the line at. I can understand why the Powder River guys turned it down, i worked with some of those guys that borrowed out here. They said dieing on there hours was an everyday thing.

Think the "work window" thing was talked about the same time they tryed giving us days off on the extra board six or seven years ago. I think if i remember right it was gonna run on seniority bid type thing. I cant remember how much time they were gonna give you to be subject to call, ill give you guys an example.

New Job Bulletin-Work Window For 7th District Pool Crews
Group A:Call time between 0600 till 1200---- 15 spots
Group B:Call time between 1200 till 1800---- 10 spots
Group C:Call time between 1800 til 2400---- 15 spots
Group D:Call time between 2400 till 0600---- 10 spots
Assigned spots my be adjusted...yada yada yada.......


So the groups are bid on by seniority, you could see what would happen if you weren't near the top of the roster. Take you chances on a rotating board or work straight nights.

so , at the moment , you can get called up any oldtime , providing youv'e had the required number of rest hours ???

Yep unless your in the yard or on a local, your on a first in, first out rotating board.

One possibility might be to use a few of the bidding arrangements I've encountered in my years in trucking. Here are a couple:

Turn or A-B-A bids: The driver (or crew in the case of rail employees)makes three trips a week to an end point - this can be specified, or several points in one or both directions. At the end point, the employee(s) get 10 hours rest, than return. one the three turns are completed, the employee is not called again until the system resets at the end of the week.

Time bids: the employee reports for work at a specified time, five or six days a week, wih a designated day off. Crew dispatchers may have the option of moving that time within a window of a few hours.

The remaining drivers/crews are considered "system" employees, and may be called at any time after sufficient rest. In some situations, system employees may temporarily work a bid during leaves and vacations.

Inadequate rest and unpredictable work schedules were a much thornier issue when I first started out in trucking during the early 1970's, and ironically, rigid bid systems contributed to the downfall of many regular-route common carriers once the full impact of deregulaion was felt about ten years later. The overwhelming majority of carriers now orient their operations around drivers regularly assigned to the same equipment and those drivers can usually count on getting back to their home terminal on weekends.

Can they not have a system where the employee has a choice . structured work hours for less pay , or the ususal call up procedure for the normal pay ?