Railroad Forums
Moderator: MEC407
rovetherr wrote:I work for a smaller RR, we have had a fuel conservation program in place for about a year. Most guys are buying into it since they get a performance bonus every quarter. For quite some time, we had had the same mentality as Desertdweller speaks to. However, after looking into the issue it was determined that the fuel usage, coupled with the excellerated wear and tear on the locomotive, of running trains at max tonnage was far more expensive than powering them at a 65 to 80% of max tonnage level. Once this change was instituted, we saw a dramatic reduction in mechanical, electrical, and operational failures. Another big part of the fuel program is one that is still being rolled out. It is a focus on track speeds. The data clearly shows a very significant reduction in fuel usage and track damage by increasing speeds from 10 to 25mph. Upwards of 40% fuel reduction! A further 25% reduction can be found by raising speeds to 40. However, the increased expenditures on track maintenance to maintain 40 mph can equal or exceed the fuel savings if certain conditions are present.Seems like for an operation that has for the purposes of this post run the railroad for minimum investment in an effort to maximize profits, Going Real Slow may have actually had negative impact on their bottom line and in more ways than just decreased capacity and the ability to play to customers both conventional and intermodal. Not only infuriatingly slow, but not so economic either.
KSmitty wrote:^ I wouldn't think it would be economical for them [VRS] to move their ethanol trains at PAR/S speeds, especially with that large climb in the middle. And with such a small fleet, they don't exactly have much backup in case something goes wrong either.rovetherr wrote:I work for a smaller RR, we have had a fuel conservation program in place for about a year. Most guys are buying into it since they get a performance bonus every quarter. For quite some time, we had had the same mentality as Desertdweller speaks to. However, after looking into the issue it was determined that the fuel usage, coupled with the excellerated wear and tear on the locomotive, of running trains at max tonnage was far more expensive than powering them at a 65 to 80% of max tonnage level. Once this change was instituted, we saw a dramatic reduction in mechanical, electrical, and operational failures. Another big part of the fuel program is one that is still being rolled out. It is a focus on track speeds. The data clearly shows a very significant reduction in fuel usage and track damage by increasing speeds from 10 to 25mph. Upwards of 40% fuel reduction! A further 25% reduction can be found by raising speeds to 40. However, the increased expenditures on track maintenance to maintain 40 mph can equal or exceed the fuel savings if certain conditions are present.Seems like for an operation that has for the purposes of this post run the railroad for minimum investment in an effort to maximize profits, Going Real Slow may have actually had negative impact on their bottom line and in more ways than just decreased capacity and the ability to play to customers both conventional and intermodal. Not only infuriatingly slow, but not so economic either.
KSmitty wrote:I've read elsewhere on these forums a discussion on fuel consumption. http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopi ... 6&t=156601" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;Yes for some reason the bean =counters in Billerica think they have it figured out where every other regional in the country is wrong.
The take away point was basically: the cost of maintaining a line to 25mph was actually less than 10, apparently there is enough in fuel saving to justify added track expenses. There was also supposedly fuel savings going from 25 to 40, but not enough to justify the added track maintenance. The post is from mid2014, so the advantages are less now, with fuel prices being down +/-$1 gallon, but a near 40% fuel savings would surely still pay for a lot of new ties.
rovetherr wrote:I work for a smaller RR, we have had a fuel conservation program in place for about a year. Most guys are buying into it since they get a performance bonus every quarter. For quite some time, we had had the same mentality as Desertdweller speaks to. However, after looking into the issue it was determined that the fuel usage, coupled with the excellerated wear and tear on the locomotive, of running trains at max tonnage was far more expensive than powering them at a 65 to 80% of max tonnage level. Once this change was instituted, we saw a dramatic reduction in mechanical, electrical, and operational failures. Another big part of the fuel program is one that is still being rolled out. It is a focus on track speeds. The data clearly shows a very significant reduction in fuel usage and track damage by increasing speeds from 10 to 25mph. Upwards of 40% fuel reduction! A further 25% reduction can be found by raising speeds to 40. However, the increased expenditures on track maintenance to maintain 40 mph can equal or exceed the fuel savings if certain conditions are present.Seems like for an operation that has for the purposes of this post run the railroad for minimum investment in an effort to maximize profits, Going Real Slow may have actually had negative impact on their bottom line and in more ways than just decreased capacity and the ability to play to customers both conventional and intermodal. Not only infuriatingly slow, but not so economic either.
KSmitty wrote:Is it true they have/had annual taxi bills in excess of $1 million?The bill I saw was for over 100K for one month, and that was after they started with the company vans.
cpf354 wrote:Saw another published speedo for the Freight Main in Maine that has a stretch of 5 MPH. So is Pan Am now a 10 MPH railroad with 5 MPH slow orders, instead of a 25 with 10s?
newpylong wrote:I believe it's in the stretch just outside of Keag Yard. Lots of beat to sh!t 85# rail of World War I vintage. Theres a stretch up there like that north of Lincoln anyway, not sure if it coincides with the 5mph speedo, but it wouldn't be surprising.cpf354 wrote:Saw another published speedo for the Freight Main in Maine that has a stretch of 5 MPH. So is Pan Am now a 10 MPH railroad with 5 MPH slow orders, instead of a 25 with 10s?
Even back when I was there there was always a stretch of 5 I think it was Winn? No idea where that is I just remember seeing it all the time and shaking my head.
