Business Slump 2008

[rcbsd45]

The NYS&W will be eliminating(for the time being, anyway) one round trip road train per week, reducing the SU-100/99 turns from three trips per week to two. Two employees have been displaced off the road pool, and the result has some bumping of junior employees on the northern division taking place as a result. This is primarily a result to a drop in customer traffic, with the exception of the Jamesville Quarry, Suit-Kote, and one or two others. This will likely be a temporary situation until traffic rebounds. The railroad in NJ however, seems to be compensting for the reduced Binghamton-NJ road traffic by interchanging more traffic at North Bergen(CSX) and Marion Yd/West Croxton (NS). Last Sunday/Monday (June 15/16)there was no 100/99 turn, and while it hasnt been decided which trip to eliminate (it may just rotate from week to week), one trip per week WILL BE abolished for the time being. Signs of the times......

[SecaucusJunction]

So 3 trips per week go to 2 trips per week. Next, 2 trips per week will turn into 0 trips per week when mommy and daddy realize they can run this stuff to wherever and whenever they want on the Lehigh and River Lines. Sparta to Warwick and west of Port Jervis will have a lot of rust on the rails in the near future. Perhaps there will be a local turn from Binghamton to Lackawaxen on the Southern Tier.

[blockline4180]

Perhaps there will be a local turn from Binghamton to Lackawaxen on the Southern Tier.

He doesn't mention what day the train won't run, but it makes sense that they abolish the Monday SU-99 train since it only ran with 15-20 cars for several months!!

Oh and don't hold your breath on a local turn from Binghamton to Lackawaxen anytime soon, but you are probaably right in that LOCALS will play a much more important role between Little Ferry and Binghamton.

It is sad a once bustling railroad with 1 train daily and even some CSX detours is now down to 2 trains per week, but that is how the traffic dictates it and there isn't a damn thing you or me can do about it!!!

[lvrr325]

Heck, it used to have 20+ trains a day at one time.

What's nuts is all the garbage I see on I-81 in trucks that should be on trains coming up the NYS&W and handed off to the Finger Lakes to a transload somewhere near the landfill it actually goes to in Seneca Falls.

[nysw3636]

[quote="lvrr325"]Heck, it used to have 20+ trains a day at one time.

20?? Perhaps 2, but not 20.

[henry6]

Bingo east to Port Jervis, Campbell Hall (Maybrook Yard), Croxton, and Hoboken/Jersey City used to easily see in excess of 20 trains a day in each direction in Erie and EL days (plus the commuter traffic, such as it was, east of PJ). Traffic and track are gone, so no, no more than I believe than 5 trains in each direction per 24 hour period is possible under NORAC rules.

[Erie-Lackawanna]

Bingo east to Port Jervis, Campbell Hall (Maybrook Yard), Croxton, and Hoboken/Jersey City used to easily see in excess of 20 trains a day in each direction in Erie and EL days (plus the commuter traffic, such as it was, east of PJ). Traffic and track are gone, so no, no more than I believe than 5 trains in each direction per 24 hour period is possible under NORAC rules.

NORAC rules don't specify how many trains per ___ you can run. The signal system, track speed, sidings (length and location) and train length determine the capacity of a given rail line between two points. I haven't sat down to analyze the line (and I don't intend to - not for free, anyway), but knowing what I know about it, I'm fairly certain you could run more than 5 trains in each direction per day between PO and BD.

Jim

[Steve F45]

Bingo east to Port Jervis, Campbell Hall (Maybrook Yard), Croxton, and Hoboken/Jersey City used to easily see in excess of 20 trains a day in each direction in Erie and EL days (plus the commuter traffic, such as it was, east of PJ). Traffic and track are gone, so no, no more than I believe than 5 trains in each direction per 24 hour period is possible under NORAC rules.

NORAC rules don't specify how many trains per ___ you can run. The signal system, track speed, sidings (length and location) and train length determine the capacity of a given rail line between two points. I haven't sat down to analyze the line (and I don't intend to - not for free, anyway), but knowing what I know about it, I'm fairly certain you could run more than 5 trains in each direction per day between PO and BD.

Jim

Weren't they doing this when the nysw had the stacks and conrail was still going up the tier?

[henry6]

No it isn't NORAC rules per se. But with single track, a few sidings, speed restrictions, etc., it is difficult for trains to make a single trip BD to Port Jervis or vice versa, in under 5 hours. And thats with no opposing traffic. I believe at one point the line was allowed up to five round trips a day but that was before single tracking of Gulf Summit hill from SR east and several other speed restrictions along the route. Today it is not uncommon for a train to outlaw along the line someplace, too, further clogging the line.

[Erie-Lackawanna]

No it isn't NORAC rules per se. But with single track, a few sidings, speed restrictions, etc., it is difficult for trains to make a single trip BD to Port Jervis or vice versa, in under 5 hours. And thats with no opposing traffic. I believe at one point the line was allowed up to five round trips a day but that was before single tracking of Gulf Summit hill from SR east and several other speed restrictions along the route. Today it is not uncommon for a train to outlaw along the line someplace, too, further clogging the line.

I understand that what you're saying is basically what I said, but I just want to make clear there are no legal, civil, or written "allowances" or limits on the number of trains per day that can operate over this line. That NYSW doesn't have enough crews or power to actually run 5 trains (or more) a day each way isn't a limit on the line, it's a limit on NYSW's ability to utilize the line to its capacity. If NYSW had enough crews and power, nothing would stop them from putting 20 trains a day out on the line, and a good number--if not all--of them would actually traverse the entire distance, given creative dispatching.

One possible scenario - and this doesn't qualify as creative dispatching - would be to dispatch a pack of westbounds, one right after the other. I'd bet you could put 7 or 8 in a row out there. When the last one clears Binghamton 10 hours later, dispatch a pack of eastbounds. Without even trying, you just put a good 14-16 trains out there in one day.

Jim

[henry6]

That's a neat idea a friend of mine often suggested for the D&H. Part of the secret there is shorter, thus faster, trains to clear up the line faster; not too much different than the one time successful philosophy of the Rio Grande. But too often you get operating heads who have to hold everything until they can overload a set of locomotives, create break in twos on hills, an not fit any siding on the division. Three 50 car trains, 20 minutes apart could clear a 150 mile division at 35mph average in 5 hours 10 minutes while one 150 car train might make it in 6 hours averaging 25 mph. Man hour cost would have to be considered against customer service and satisfaction.

[SooLineRob]

Three 50 car trains, 20 minutes apart could clear a 150 mile division at 35mph average in 5 hours 10 minutes while one 150 car train might make it in 6 hours averaging 25 mph.

Henry6, what you said above is exactly the operating plan that keeps Chicago from a gridlock meltdown.

Having worked in Chicagoland, I rarely saw mixed freights over 4000 feet long being handled between two different carriers. While railroads do dispatch long trains on their own tracks to points destined on their own railroad, I seldom saw long drags on transfer runs. Exceptions, of course, were unit bulk trains and intermodal equipment.

Short, quick trains have the ability to park where needed without blocking road crossings, interlockings, et cetera; and can accelerate to track speed (get MOVING!) a heck of alot faster than a 117 car junker that goes 0-30 in two days. The short trains were standard practice in Chicago; and when you'd report to the (foreign line) Dispatcher you had two units, 109 cars, 10,317 tons, and 6723 feet, you'd get "grief" for bringing something like that to the party...

While short trains can be handled easier, they do consume resources (locomotives, fuel, crews, etc) and are very inefficient.

[henry6]

Crews are the big cost. As for locomotives and fuel, good planning would find 4 axle power where appliccable for one. But also, there could be a tendency to over or under power the longer train causing less fuel economy etc. Customer satisfactin (buying more product) might be an offset to certain ineffeciencies. I'd really like to see a real plan!

[nysw3636]

Thanks henry6 for the correction to my reply. After I sent my reply, I believed lvrr325 was referring to EL operation of the Tier, not NYSW which I was referring to. Thanks again...

[GOLDEN-ARM]

Let's get back onto topic here. Fantasizing about what might make a railroad run faster, and relating Chicago meltdowns here, have nothing to do with business slowdown on the Suzy. Add something relevent, or this one will be closed.