PAS/PAR System Capacity Management Discussion

[CN9634]

A nice lengthy reply! Very nice.

Another thought or 'recommendation" I would advise you on is this. Forget about how things were done in the past, even up to 10 years ago. The industry has changed and more importantly so has the RR management. I'm not even talking about Mr. Fink Jr., there have been a number of other changes in the executive office as recent as 2 years ago. I would recommend discussing under the reasonable assumption that they have a good understanding of the changes they would need to do to increase capacity but they might not be sure just yet where they want to allocate their resources (And in what order) in order to get there.

IE, Strategy.

[newpylong]

I also concur with that. Going from how things were run (lack of investment, lack of clear goals, shoestring budget, bare minimal crews and power, lack of marketing, etc to where a profitable and stable company is what is wanted is going to take time and is not easy. There is 20 years of lipstick to clean off the pig...

[KEN PATRICK]

All this angst and what-ifs. Edict a 5mph system wide increase in speeds. After a month edict another 5mph increase. The system speed presently is 10mph. Abandon 'the-eye of-the-beholder' judgements on track conditions. Stressing the system will quickly highlight what needs to be done short-term. The improved profits will easily fund track gangs and materials. Have a target of 30mph by year-end. Ken Patrick

[jaymac]

In electronics, it might be practice to overload -- actually overvolt -- to determine a failure point. Unless loads of potable water are being carried, I'm not sure that stressing-to-failure is a viable approach in railroading. Maybe the American Society for Nondestructive Testing has a paper or two. The FRA, as well, might have policy. For stick-rail territory, it's either 10 mph or 25 mph because of harmonic-rocking avoidance, so 5 mph increments probably won't be happening.
As rapid as improvements have been, newpylong's concerns plus perception lag from and trust by potential or burned shippers and consignees are why it will take time to get beyond the Fink 1.0 era.

[gokeefe]

Another thought or 'recommendation" I would advise you on is this. Forget about how things were done in the past, even up to 10 years ago.

No doubt about it. I can certainly personally say that I was never one of those folks that got caught up in the negativity. Personally I always tried to keep an even handed approach to "GRS" at the time and now of course PAR.

The industry has changed and more importantly so has the RR management. I'm not even talking about Mr. Fink Jr., there have been a number of other changes in the executive office as recent as 2 years ago.

Interesting. Some hints of this have come out in the past but nothing quite so direct.

I would recommend discussing under the reasonable assumption that they have a good understanding of the changes they would need to do to increase capacity but they might not be sure just yet where they want to allocate their resources (And in what order) in order to get there.

Now that is a very interesting problem indeed, and I would think one that will certainly form a central part of the discussion in this thread.

At least for the moment it would seem that they've probably got a capacity problem in several places. I don't know District 3 very well at all but District 1, especially in and around Portland seems to be operationally challenged at the moment. I can't see where they get out of this quickly unless there's suddenly a discussion about adding double track back in through Woodford's and Deering. I have to wonder if they are seriously considering that.

[gokeefe]

As rapid as improvements have been, newpylong's concerns plus perception lag from and trust by potential or burned shippers and consignees are why it will take time to get beyond the Fink 1.0 era.

I can confirm that I have heard exactly that from folks who either are or have indicated that they are in industries that once used rail extensively well into the GRS era.

There is definitely a perception "out there" that PAR has got a lot of work to do to reverse. On the other hand they seem to be making incremental progress on this front in a lot of areas.

[newpylong]

In a perfect instance of lipstick on a pig, Big G/ Fink 1.0 is showing it's ugly head lately. Lotta 10's creeping back up and some horrible dispatching at night is slowing things down. They can't run 6-10 trains in so few hours with so many slow downs and lack of double iron. I believe they finally did the winter lay off of the construction crews so that would account for the lack of heavy track repairs. Let's hope when things warm up they get them ironed out.

[gokeefe]

In a perfect instance of lipstick on a pig, Big G/ Fink 1.0 is showing it's ugly head lately. Lotta 10's creeping back up and some horrible dispatching at night is slowing things down. They can't run 6-10 trains in so few hours with so many slow downs and lack of double iron. I believe they finally did the winter lay off of the construction crews so that would account for the lack of heavy track repairs. Let's hope when things warm up they get them ironed out.

I wonder if the cold weather we've had might have something to do with that. The freeze/thaw/freeze/deep freeze/thaw cycle probably doesn't help much.

[johnpbarlow]

How are these 10mph speed restrictions discovered? Are there periodic hi-rail patrols looking for track defects? Or do the train crews report issues with the track? What are the nature of these defects and how do these defects make themselves visible? Thanks.

[NosenDove]

Many years ago I worked as a Train Director at MC running the board from Mechanicville to Rotterdam Jct where the B&M ended. The entire length was double tracked and signaled.

From Mechanicville to Crescent was dual use by both the B&M and the D&H. Indeed, at one time the entire line from Boston to Rotterdam Jct was double tracked.

NOW, if you look at the old railroad construction books on the theory of railroad construction there is a general rule that if the number and length of sidings reached a critical level, depending on a lot of variables, then it would pay in an economic sense to double track the line. I think that this is fast approaching for most of the main line of PanAm and PanAm Southern.

I have ridden a freight train from Mechanicville to Rotterdam Jct - not very memerable.

Jonathan

[KEN PATRICK]

jaymac. What is 'harmonic rocking'. Last time i ran a car in the HAL consist at Pueblo, we were measuring truck dynamics at various speeds. If there is car 'rocking' , harmonic or not, it would be a function of car suspension not speed. I suspect you made it up as well as the 10-20 thought. I remain convinced that PAR track speeds are subjective and raising same by increments would yield significant operational benefits. Ken Patrick

[MEC407]

jaymac. What is 'harmonic rocking'. . . . I suspect you made it up as well as the 10-20 thought.

As much as I'm sure Mr. Jaymac would like to take credit for it (*wink*), I can assure you that he didn't make up harmonic rocking. It's also known as harmonic roll and there are numerous references to it in various publications and on the web. One such reference can be found in "Train Accident Reconstruction and FELA and Railroad Litigation" by James R. Loumiet, William G. Jungbauer, and Bernard S. Abrams. See also "Computer Aided Simulation in Railway Dynamics" by Rao V. Dukkipati and Joseph R. Amyot, or the USDOT/FRA publication "Safe Placement of Train Cars: A Report."

[CN9634]

jaymac. What is 'harmonic rocking'. Last time i ran a car in the HAL consist at Pueblo, we were measuring truck dynamics at various speeds. If there is car 'rocking' , harmonic or not, it would be a function of car suspension not speed. I suspect you made it up as well as the 10-20 thought. I remain convinced that PAR track speeds are subjective and raising same by increments would yield significant operational benefits. Ken Patrick

Ken,

I do appreciate you taking the time to make posts and share some of your 'railroad knowledge' however I do find it somewhat concerning that someone as experienced with railroads such as yourself seems to be unfamilar with the concept of harmonic rocking. Furthermore, it isn't as easy are just raising the speeds by small increments, trust me.

[TomNelligan]

Historical note: If you run trains faster, you can do a lot with single track, healthy locomotives, and enough crews to move your trains in a timely manner. Thirty years ago, following the B&M's revival under Alan Dustin and his team, the single-track B&M mainline had a basic speed limit of 40 mph for freights. Circa 1980 the Mechanicville-East Deerfield line handled four symbol freights each way (MEPO-A, MEPO-B, MEBO, and MELA east, POME-A, POME-B, BOSE, and LASE west) plus Bow coal trains and locals, and routine congestion wasn't a problem. East of East Deerfield, two more pairs of (POED/EDPO and EDCO/COED) were added to the mix to make it six each way plus coal trains, locals, and commuter trains east of Gardner/Fitchburg. But you can't carry that sort of traffic when the speed limit is a lot slower.

[jaymac]

KEN-
When you have the opportunity, this link -- http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDe ... -0068-0002 -- should enable you to download Timetable No. 1, Pan Am Railways, Effective April 6, 2008. When then you scroll to Rule 37.7 on p. 16, you will notice the company's prescription for harmonic rocking. Since I am only an outside observer of PAR/S, I have no idea how subjectivity factors into its decision processes for speed restrictions or for any of its other concerns. Your stated suspicions aside, I did not make up the concept of harmonic rocking. I also did not make up either Rule 37.7 or its speed increments for stick rail. Additionally, I did not make up the timetable itself. Inaccuracies may have existed in my postings. Fabrications, however, are reserved for the first day of the fourth month of the year and then only with a noticeable caveat.