Western Railroad Discussion > Random Thoughts on a Snowy Day

Is it just me, or has anyone else thought today's railroads
need a lot more motive power these days. It just seems like
everyone is ordering more power, and very little if any is
being retired. And BNSF has gone back to its BN roots and
is now chronically power short, even though they have over
a thousand Dash 9's, and GEVO's, not to mention the AC
six axle power, non-C4's, they have. Somewhere I saw the
BNSF totals for their fleet, and it seemed to increase every
year.

Just saying.

Nick Tharalson,
Marion, IA

"...they have over a thousand Dash 9's..."

Aw geez Nick, did you really have to put a number to it? We could have continued to pretend it was just a couple of hundred even though we knew it was a lot more. Didn't mind it al all though when UP had a thousand SD40-2s.

Well, "today's railroads" as compared to - The transcontinental railway, or BN/UP/CRQ/SP/ATSF etc. in the 1970s? I suppose it would seem that railroads need more locomotives than they did in the past, because they do. In 1970 (for a random example year), it wouldn't have been possible to get a train from coast to coast, utilizing just 2 or 3 railroads.

It is certainly possible today, and it happens all the time. Take for example BNSF train Q NYCLAC. It leaves New York on Norfolk Southern (as train 21G [?]) and then in Chicago, becomes Q NYCLAC for the remainder of the trip to LA. Individual railroads have larger and more expansive networks, then they did in the past, so it only seems sensible that they would need more locomotives.

For example, Great Northern only had operations in the Northern US, from Washington, to Illinois, and in Northern California. There would be no reason that GN would have needed 4 or 5 thousand locomotives for the size of their network.

Now, take BNSF in 2014. They have operations in: AZ, CO, IA, ID, IL, KS, LA, MO, MN, MT, ND, NE, NM, OR, SD, TN, TX, UT, WA, WI and WY (Corrections welcome if I missed a state). For a rail network covering over 20 states, it would seem sensible that there would be a greater need for motive power/locomotives than a predecessor road covering less than half that many states.

Just my $.02

-Dalton

Well, Dalton, here's my take on your take. Two railroads coast to coast
has been possible for many years, mostly since the consolidations of the
early twentieth century. Think PRR/NYC/Erie/B&O to ATSF/UP/SP, depending
on route. Secondly, one of the big selling points of the "40" line was
unit reduction, fewer units to haul the same tonnage. That said, tonnages
on today's trains are larger. And while there were big tonnage ore trains
in Northern Minnesota back in steam days, they went downhill. And the higher
horsepower of today's locomotives HAS allowed for unit reduction; three MAC's
instead of five SD40's/C30's as an example. However, traffic is also up
over the last twenty years, and maintaining a schedule has become more important.
So, you have to get over the road. (I can hear the uproarious laughter of the
professional railroaders now.) Trains that got two or three SD45's are now
getting three or four 4400 hp units. And if you look at the summaries of units
on the BNSF in Del Grosso's Annuals, you'll see a steady growth in the totals.

Oh yes, even with the addition of the MKT and MP, the UP barely had over a thousand
SD40-2's. Operative word, barely.

Anyway, as I said, it just seems like there's a lot more motive power out there
than there used to be.

Just Saying.

Nick Tharalson,
Marion, IA



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/06/14 07:15 by ntharalson.