Western Railroad Discussion > thoughts on a "scheduled freight railroad"

i'll admit, i have NO operating experience with a "scheduled freight railroad." i was just thinking, would a "scheduled freight railroad" work on the bnsf between needles and los angeles?

here are my thoughts:

1. bnsf runs "long pools" between needles and bakersfield, with some of it over the u.p. on trackage rights. i think it would be difficult to run a "scheduled freight railroad" over a competitors line when you have NO control over their movements and/or schedules.

2. the bnsf runs with metrolink and amtrak in the l.a. basin. again, i think it would be difficult to run a "scheduled freight railroad" in the l.a. basin along with BOTH the metrolink and amtrak schedules AND having no control over their schedules.

3. IF there is a needles to l.a./hobart "long pool," i think it would be even more difficult to schedule those around the l.a. basin's passenger movements and still keep the nee-lac "long pools" within their h.o.s. AND the premium freight delivered in the MOST EXPEDITIOUS manner.

4. stack trains would be at the mercy of the ports unloading/offloading of containers. that would really be difficult.

keeping HOT expedited trains AHEAD of their schedules was beneficial. IF the HOT expedited train had a delay and was running AHEAD of schedule, there was still a chance it could still be "on-time" at its destination......

66



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/16/18 21:35 by goneon66.

At the initial terminals for most of the main intermodal trains on the BNSF, they already have scheduled departure times and days. Have been for many years, They don't publish the schedules for the public like they used to with passenger trains.
I worked the other end of the Santa Fe mainline between Chicago and Chillicothe, IL/Fort Madison, IA from 1965 to 2007. So my firsthand knowledge is limited to those years on the 1st, 2ND and Pekin Districts of the Illinois Division. The westbound trains out of Chicago were relatively predictable.
We (Union and ATSF/BNSF) even experimented with assigned pools of conductors/trainmen working assigned start times for eastbound trains from our home terminal Fort Madison, IA. For example we would work the 1st intermodal after 1:00 PM headed for Willow Springs/Chicago, IL twice a week on Monday and Friday. Then layover in Chicago and work the 1st train westbound called after 9:00 AM, which because of the predictable schedule was usually the 199 train. Many days there was enough traffic to run a 2ND 199 so the regular chain gang (unassigned) pool worked it.
Over a 2000 mile run things can happen that make it hard to stick to a ridged timetable operation like they did with passenger service. Yes, the ATSF did a good job compared to Amtrak keeping the timetable operation on time, but it did not give the DS the flexibility to make changes needed. Before the increase in business in the late 1990 era I could check Trainorders.com web cam and see the 991 train running thru California then about 40 hours later get called for the same train out of Fort Madison, IA to Chicago.
As the stack train business increased and the BNSF merger the schedules were difficult for FT Worth DS central dispatching to keep the same reliable times. Of course "Z" trains were given priority but it didn't work as well when they ran most trains at 70 MPH without the restrictions in place now. For a time I worked the "Belt Pool" we were assigned to work the trains running over the Indiana Harbor Belt departing the mainline at McCook, IL at MP 13. It would be a drag freight eastbound with the MCI destination symbol then work a relatively better symbol freight with vehicles and auto parts or "V" train to El Paso, TX or Phoenix, AZ. Unfortunately BNSF could not maintain the schedule required by the shipper and consignee so BNSF lost the business to the UP.
In both of these examples the assignments were advertised in the notice book, bid and awarded by seniority, They tended go fairly high on the conductor's roster, mostly because it gave us a more predictable work schedule than working the chain gang pool in the same way passenger assignments. Plus it gave the railroad company a regular assigned conductor who was more familiar with the little details it took to expedite your train, especially on the IHB. Maybe this is too much info? Or not what you are looking for?
Thanks for posting this question and jogging my distant memory, Steve Rippeteau
p.s. Here is a snap shot I took from my desk, possibly the Z-WSPNBY (199) train out of Chicago/Willow Springs, IL:



Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 06/17/18 01:32 by railscenes.

---

I don't know if you answered the poster's question Railscenes, but I certainly enjoyed and appreciated your explanation -- and the photo.

Kim Heusel

Conrail had published cut off times for receiving intermodal traffic at the gate. And published windows when the loads would be ready for pick up. So did many other lines.

The problems often happened in between. Two crews available but three trains needing crews. MW people needing urgent time and track.

Didn't Ed Myers try to run scheduled freight, home every night on the Illinois Central?

Posted from Android

Similar to the example Railscenes gave the railroads could set up a higher seniority call windows on the busiest lines. Guys who don't want to work pool or extra could bid: for example the 9-11am window on Monday at home. They get first train out the door after 9am.
Then say a 12-2pm window away from home terminal on Tuesday Back home a little later on Wednesday or Thursday morning. Then back to away on Friday afternoon. For a set amount of runs through the week with set rest times. It would be a nice perk for the guys with families or who just want to sleep on a regular schedule. The mileage hogs could still run extra board.

Railroads would never go for it as it adds another layer of complexity and they don't even like having different pools for different directions.

Posted from iPhone

EHH tried meet and turn scheduled trains on CN/IC/WC for years and it never worked. They gave up on it a long time ago.

Posted from Android

goneon66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> i'll admit, i have NO operating experience with a
> "scheduled freight railroad."


I do, so what I write isn't just theory.

> i was just
> thinking, would a "scheduled freight railroad"
> work on the bnsf between needles and los angeles?

There is one essential element to undisciplined (unscheduled or loosely scheduled) railroad operation, lots of excess capacity. The US has the emptiest railroad network in the developed world, so it works, kind of more or less sometimes.

There are five essential elements to scheduled railroad operation:
* knowledge of times used for the various processes (on duty to leaving, time between stations, arriving to tied up, arriving to receiving track clear, makeup to inspection complete, etc.)
* resources needed to achieve the times (road crews, yard crews, carmen, etc.)
* knowledge of how to use the information into a timetable that allows all trains to run on time simultaneously (BN was the first place I worked where it was impossible for all trains to be on time simultaneously, even among the passenger trains)
* discipline to operate trains as specified in the timetable
* knowledge of what to do when a train isn't and/or can't be on time

That is five more than available on US railroads.

Until those five elements are universally applied (which, in your examples, they are not), the benefits of schedule are not completely available (there may be some improvement if parts of a territory have at least some of those elements in play).

Early trains are not good. BN used to practice that with great regularity, a badge of honor and all that, until the early train showed up somewhere that couldn't be ready or couldn't have a track to use, dropped anchor, and got in the way of trans that did have a place to go. Yet, they persisted.

Hot should be in the times in the schedule and the arrangements against other trains in the schedule and timetable, not in how many dozen green signals are lined up ahead of the train. Properly timetabled and scheduled, a train can be on time regardless of yellow or red.

A small sample of how it works is found here ( https://www.pmcmedia.com/en/all-titles/rail/185/railway-timetabling-operations - https://www.pmcmedia.com/media/pdf/01/0c/c6/978-3-96245-089-2_Railway-Timetabling_Leseprobe.pdf ) or in a vastly simplified form here ( http://www.vtd.net/vtdpub/MRT/MRT.html - http://www.vtd.net/vtdpub/MRT/MRT%20TOC.pdf )

TAW

question answered.

i need some clarification on one thing: excess capacity.

between barstow and los angeles, i don't think there is a lot of excess capacity. is that a good thing for a "scheduled freight railroad?"

good point about "early trains." now that i THINK about it, i would really be miffed if a HOT train arrived a few hours early onto my territory and the destination terminal told me they could NOT take it yet.....

66

goneon66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> question answered.
>
> i need some clarification on one thing: excess
> capacity.
>
> between barstow and los angeles, i don't think
> there is a lot of excess capacity. is that a good
> thing for a "scheduled freight railroad?"
>

First, let's look at this capacity thing. The capacity of a railroad is the number of movement opportunities that it presents. That can get complicated, but let's use a simple example:

A double track railroad has a signal system that keeps trains 10 minutes apart at track speed. Each track can handle 6 trains per hour, 144 trains per day. No matter the rate you pour trains into one end, they will come out at the other end 10 minutes apart. If you are originating trains five minutes apart for an hour, it will take two hours for the flow to go back to track speed. They won't all be running at track speed, but that will fix itself eventually. Let's say that you keep pouring trains into the system on five minute headway for four hours. Eight hours later, it will finally normalize. If you pour them in at that rate for 12 hours every day, it will never recover. If you are going to run 20 trains a day on that track, the extra time to recover from the chaos (which has to be allocated by guessing) will be less per train than were you running 40 trains. The more trains that are run faster than the railroad can digest them, the more extra time each one needs.

If someone dictates that some Red Hot Smokin' Awesome Z train needs "plenty of green" (defined in Seattle in the BN days as five control points, roughly 60 miles), your 10 minute headway is down the tube. Headway for that train is let's say, 60 minutes. That train uses the capacity of six trains. Those other six trains, if they encounter that RHSAZ train will need plenty of extra time. Two RHSAZ trains under those rules are worse, and it goes on and on. Guess what. The engineer can only act on ONE green signal. The others are irrelevant.

The elephant in the room is terminals. I have been on so many projects in which the terminals are ignored. It's kind of funny, the yards operate as if the main line isn't there and the main line operates as if the yards aren't there. Let's say that at the end of our example double track railroad, there is a yard that has four receiving tracks. Landing a train, inspecting, and pulling for switching takes two hours. Four trains on 10 minute headway fills the yard. Now, each track is cleared in two hours, so arriving trains must be two hours apart, not 10 minutes apart. If you plan to run a fleet of four trains then after an hour, you want to start them on hourly headway, you need at least five tracks in the receiving yard.

Railroading in the 80s, when traffic was way down, was relatively easy. There was plenty of excess capacity. Railroads started ripping out the excess capacity, then even with light traffic, it was no longer easy. Then in the 90s, after struggling with light traffic and reduced capacity, traffic increased, making scheduled operation even more necessary: on the example railroad, trains on no closer than 10 minute headway, and trains arriving at the four track receiving yard no faster than the yard's rate of flow (two hour headway per track). If that is not done, there is congestion, which leads to unpredictability, which leads to hours of service relief, excess deadheads, shortage of locomotives, cars, and rear end telemetry devices. In order to mitigate the effect of chaos, the supply of crews, equipment, and the time in "schedules" must be increased. To keep it moving, something has to be increased to more than would otherwise be needed.

I have some other discussion here https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?4,3354917,3355643#3355643 Date: 03/20/14 02:59 Re: If BNSF had its way, what would max speed be? Author: TAW

Something to remember about scheduled railroad is that the schedule can be developed by the trick dispatcher and chief, as it was before the 80s. Those basics I outlined were figured by the trick and chief. When a call figure (final) was set, it became the schedule, hard and fast. The chief was expected to develop arrivals and departures jointly with terminal to ensure that what was planned could actually be accomplished on all levels. Just as with any other precision operation, after the plan was developed, discipline was needed to execute it. Cowboys and heroes don't cut it.

TAW

thanks for taking the time to post that explanation.......

66