Western Railroad Discussion > Aftermath of PSR?

Looking at the bailey yard cam over the last few weeks I've noticed that not only is the yard half empty of freight cars but the diesel shop has a lot fewer locomotives in it now. Even the stored locomotives have thinned out. And no I don't think it's the economy. Maybe this scheduled railroading is the culprit.

Posted from Android

An empty yard is a good sign. Traffic is moving not sitting.

Posted from Android

stash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> An empty yard is a good sign. Traffic is moving
> not sitting.

Or, sitting out on the main lines and sidings, waiting to into the yard?

Yes, an empty yard, especially if there are a lot of cars being classified there, is a good sign; the cars are coming in, getting classified, and right back out with little to no delay.  But whether or not that's happening at North Platte is hard to say.  Because of PSR, there are probably a little smaller percentage of cars going over the hump because there are some carload cars being added to intermodal trains (are those cars set out there, or carried through to Kansas City, or Chicago, or....etc?).  However, if this were the case, it is likely that the congestion can then be moved to what ever yard is now tasked at sorting the cars out to add to the intermodal trains.  Hunter Harrison's PSR programs were to eliminate hump yards, if UP is reducing switching at hump yards, it's likely the yards that are taking up the switching is congested and causing high yard dwell times.

Another thing, is UP running more trains out of North Platte now, so the cars are not sitting in the yard as long as before?  Since PSR is a drive-down-costs program for the most part, I'd have to doubt that this is the case.

A more likely answer is that business levels may be going down, could be seasonal, the economy, or structural to the railroad (ie customers leaving).  We won't really know for a little while when the numbers come out.  I will put my bets on this, or moving the congestion to another yard, as the mega-sized trains that UP is running now will do nothing but clog up terminals.

Rumors are floating around the yard, without any confirmed validity (So sure, I'll spread them. Why not?) that one of the humps at Bailey will be shut down soon.

      Union Pacific's carload business was only up .9% vs BNSF being UP by 5.1%  and the UP head people say one they they intend to do is to saddle the shipper and reciever with a lot of the costs and labor if possible. Read that in 'Progressive Railroad' magazine.
 

Why are hump yards the big boogieman in PSR?

dcfbalcoS1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>       Union Pacific's carload business was only
> up .9% vs BNSF being UP by 5.1%  and the UP head
> people say one they they intend to do is to saddle
> the shipper and reciever with a lot of the costs
> and labor if possible. Read that in 'Progressive
> Railroad' magazine.

Again, this info is not correct. For the first several weeks of the year UP's carload traffic is up 3%. Most of the growth is in the Gulf Coast region, so a half empty yard in North Platte doesn't tell the real story.

Allen

Posted from Android



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/29/19 19:21 by bradleymckay.

This past Sunday, UP seemed very busy on the Gila Sub (which for the Gila Sub, Sundays are typically slow). Train make ups were back to normal.  Intermodals were Intermodals, Manifests were Manifests..  There was no mixing of trains like it was when they started PSR. The only problem they have out of Tucson is they are short on crews, this is from what I am hearing from a contact I know in Tucson.

SouthWest RailCams
CA, NM, CO, TX, AZ
https://SouthWestRailCams.com

MSE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why are hump yards the big boogieman in PSR?

With PSR they are trying to run the most direct route for a cars trip plan. Thus eliminating the hump yard classification process. This is in theory anyway.

CS

CaliforniaSteam Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MSE Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Why are hump yards the big boogieman in PSR?
>
> With PSR they are trying to run the most direct
> route for a cars trip plan. Thus eliminating the
> hump yard classification process. This is in
> theory anyway.
>
> CS

This and the immense cost to run and maintain.

portlander Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> CaliforniaSteam Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > MSE Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Why are hump yards the big boogieman in PSR?
> >
> > With PSR they are trying to run the most direct
> > route for a cars trip plan. Thus eliminating
> the
> > hump yard classification process. This is in
> > theory anyway.
> >
> > CS
>
> This and the immense cost to run and maintain.

"Hump yards being and immense cost to run and maintain" can be a point of argument.  There are those out there that say exactly the opposite, and that it depends on what costs one looks at.  Take a couple of examples:  Hump yards have more/mostly power switches which require mainenance, flat yards are usually manually operated hand throw switches, that may, or (in my experience) may not be adequately maintained; but automated switches have to be maintained or they will not work (as opposed to a switchman struggling to throw a manual one).  In addition, automated switches reduce injuries, as opposed to manual switches, which are a higher area of risk for injuries.  Let's also look at fuel and locomotive maintenance costs.  A hump hard uses gravity to do a lot of the car sorting with minimal power or braking input by locomotives.  Flat yards use a lot of fuel for switch engines "kicking" cars, then maintenance for brakes so that the same switch engines can stop quickly.  There can also be something said as for the damage to lading that cars experience from hump yards to "kicking" in flat switch yards.  Hump yards have been known for a decades to be the most efficient way to sort carload, loose car business.

As for E Hunter Harrison, he was well known for his dis-like for hump yards.  However, a more important reason for their downplay with PSR might have to do with more of the flow of traffic.  Hump yards tend to lend themselves to the "hub and spoke" way of managing the operations of a railroad's loose car business (similar to the way most airlines operate).  This method of operations allows the railroad to build trains that, in theory, can bypass other yards down line, and more expedite the handling of customers' cars.  PSR, on the other hand, seems to be more similar to the way railroads used to run in the 50's where trains moved from one yard, to the next, to the next, setting out and picking up blocks of cars.  PSR seems to put less focus on centralized switching points, but spreading them out over wide areas.

Now, with all these railroads going to "PSR", it will be interesting to see how this strategy will work.  On the CN and CP, those were much simpler operations, and the traffic flow was much more linear.  However, CSX was the first railroad where the traffic flow patterns are much more complex.  Hunter Harrison's original goal of shutting down all but one (IIRC, Waycross was going to be the only original survivor), or use just a couple of CSX's hump yards, fell flat on it's face real quickly.  Still, a number of them did get shut down.  However, one can also look at how many hump yards that CSX did have, and come to the conclusion that they probably did have too many (Example: Cincinnati-Louisville-Nashville all had hump yards, and they were all within about 300 miles of each other).  In addition, the other hard hit humps that were closed were former B&O hump yards, most of which were smaller, older operations, with small classification bowls and short (if any) receiving and departure tracks.  I'm sure those yards did not look very efficient to EHH who often complained that there weren't enough cars going over their humps.

So, for the UP, this should be very interesting if the plan of this new COO is to close hump yards (does this also mean that UP is going to cancel their new yard in Texas?).  I really have this gut feeling that we could soon be reliving the late 90's again with yet another major UP meltdown crisis.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/30/19 11:49 by spwolfmtn.

spwolfmtn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> portlander Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> 
> >
> > This and the immense cost to run and maintain.
>
> "Hump yards being and immense cost to run and
> maintain" can be a point of argument.  

I've been told by some schmuck from Omaha who was out evaluating Roseville a few years ago that for a hump yard to break even and pay for itself, it needs to be humping at least 1400 cars a day. Obviously a very general statement, but enough to be concerned as an employee working out of a yard that often barely breaks that mark.

portlander Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> spwolfmtn Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > portlander Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > 
> > >
> > > This and the immense cost to run and
> maintain.
> >
> > "Hump yards being and immense cost to run and
> > maintain" can be a point of argument.  
>
> I've been told by some schmuck from Omaha who was
> out evaluating Roseville a few years ago that for
> a hump yard to break even and pay for itself, it
> needs to be humping at least 1400 cars a day.
> Obviously a very general statement, but enough to
> be concerned as an employee working out of a yard
> that often barely breaks that mark.

A very similar car count was mentioned in the EHH version of CSX.  I believe 1200 cars per day was seen as the minimum.

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> A very similar car count was mentioned in the EHH
> version of CSX.  I believe 1200 cars per day was
> seen as the minimum.

It depends on the hump yard.  In general, humps should be operating at a very high percentage of capacity in order to be efficient.  A hump designed for 1500 cars a day, but only handling 1200, has a lot of expensive infrastructure not being used.  Hump yards are an infrastructure solution to the switching problem.  PSR is "right sizing" assets to support your most profitable traffic.  That usually results in hump yards being considered surplus to PSR.

 

portlander Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> spwolfmtn Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > portlander Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > 
> > >
> > > This and the immense cost to run and
> maintain.
> >
> > "Hump yards being and immense cost to run and
> > maintain" can be a point of argument.  
>
> I've been told by some schmuck from Omaha who was
> out evaluating Roseville a few years ago that for
> a hump yard to break even and pay for itself, it
> needs to be humping at least 1400 cars a day.
> Obviously a very general statement, but enough to
> be concerned as an employee working out of a yard
> that often barely breaks that mark.

LOL, yeah, but get over 1401 cars into that yard, it implodes into a melt down!  Of course, the new Roseville yard probably isn't an ideal example of a well engineered/designed hump yard (little bit of an understatement here). 

It always strikes me as odd that one would purposely try to make a yard into a congested mess, just so they can get so many cars over the hump!  I remember one yard that they would hump empty grain trains to get a couple bad orders out of them, just so they could get the hump count up!  I also wonder how they come up with that magic number of cars to justify the yard?  In reality, every yard is an expense (not a profit center), but an expense that is needed for train operations.  Kind'a like, well, eating food is an expense, maybe I should quit eating....

Railroads have always been known for their propensity to trip over a dollar to pickup a penny.

spwolfmtn Wrote:

>
> LOL, yeah, but get over 1401 cars into that yard,
> it implodes into a melt down!  Of course, the new
> Roseville yard probably isn't an ideal example of
> a well engineered/designed hump yard (little bit
> of an understatement here). 

It's the amount of cars in the bowl that will start the implosion. Roseville humps on average just over 1500 cars a day. The bowl is comfortable under 1000 cars and smooth under 800. Once it starts pushing 1200, it starts to go downhill fast and spirals from there.

> It always strikes me as odd that one would
> purposely try to make a yard into a congested
> mess, just so they can get so many cars over the
> hump!  I remember one yard that they would hump
> empty grain trains to get a couple bad orders out
> of them, just so they could get the hump count
> up! 

We have sent grain trains over the hump as well. It has nothing to do with hump count. The last train that I saw that was humped had 14 bad ordered cars. Setting out bad orders, depending on where they are in the train, blocks inbounds from entering the receiving yard. Roseville really can't afford to hold trains out for the time it would take a train crew to set that many cars out.

Nobody likes that option, but sometimes it's the best choice.

spwolfmtn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Railroads have always been known for their
> propensity to trip over a dollar to pickup a
> penny.

That's too generalized. I can be more specific, although it's not railroad-related.

It takes effort to transition from book smart (college) to being simply smart (real world). I know many folks who were successful in the transition, and have good careers in their fields of study.

The stereotypical "MBA types" who push square pegs into round holes FAILED in the transition. The railroads are victims of these people.

So what to do if you can't deal with the real world? Stay with "theory" and continue to rely on book smarts. Finance offers such a career, where you deal primarily with numbers. Same goes for economics and psychology. Combine all those fields and... you get a "manager!"

While not all managers, accountants, economists, and psychologists are bad, the oppressive types in those professions are there because of their need to bully others due to their failures to deal with the real world.

portlander Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> It's the amount of cars in the bowl that will
> start the implosion. Roseville humps on average
> just over 1500 cars a day. The bowl is comfortable
> under 1000 cars and smooth under 800. Once it
> starts pushing 1200, it starts to go downhill fast
> and spirals from there.

Curious, so why do they not "turn the bowl over" faster (ie trim the cars out and build trains in the departure yard)?  Is it the lack of outbound train schedules (ie holding cars for bigger, infrequent trains) that plug up the bowl?  I was once at BNSF Argentine yard, not too long after it's rebuild, and remember them talking about the emphasis keeping the cars flowing through the yard; so there were usually two trim jobs, and two hump jobs working at the same time.  That yard is also a side-by-side yard (ie receiving and departure yards on each side of the bowl), but the idea was when one job was done on the lead (or hump) the other job was all lined up ready to continue their work.  It probably didn't look as good productivity wise per job, but it kept the cars flowing through the yard.  IIRC, their average hump count there was about 2000 a day at that time; also, it is a standard type of hump, with a full size hump and retarders, so the cars could be humped at a faster rate.

> We have sent grain trains over the hump as well.
> It has nothing to do with hump count. The last
> train that I saw that was humped had 14 bad
> ordered cars. Setting out bad orders, depending on
> where they are in the train, blocks inbounds from
> entering the receiving yard. Roseville really
> can't afford to hold trains out for the time it
> would take a train crew to set that many cars
> out.

If a grain empty had a number of bad orders to throw out, yeah, the hump would probably work pretty good.  In the cases I was talking about, they were only a couple bad orders (there was always a big concern if the yard was humping enough cars at particular times - then at other times, the yard was usually in melt-down mode).

spwolfmtn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> portlander Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > It's the amount of cars in the bowl that will
> > start the implosion. Roseville humps on average
> > just over 1500 cars a day. The bowl is
> comfortable
> > under 1000 cars and smooth under 800. Once it
> > starts pushing 1200, it starts to go downhill
> fast
> > and spirals from there.
>
> Curious, so why do they not "turn the bowl over"
> faster (ie trim the cars out and build trains in
> the departure yard)?  Is it the lack of outbound
> train schedules (ie holding cars for bigger,
> infrequent trains) that plug up the bowl?  I was
> once at BNSF Argentine yard, not too long after
> it's rebuild, and remember them talking about the
> emphasis keeping the cars flowing through the
> yard; so there were usually two trim jobs, and two
> hump jobs working at the same time.  That yard is
> also a side-by-side yard (ie receiving and
> departure yards on each side of the bowl), but the
> idea was when one job was done on the lead (or
> hump) the other job was all lined up ready to
> continue their work.  It probably didn't look as
> good productivity wise per job, but it kept the
> cars flowing through the yard.  IIRC, their
> average hump count there was about 2000 a day at
> that time; also, it is a standard type of hump,
> with a full size hump and retarders, so the cars
> could be humped at a faster rate.
>

That's a good question and you're on to the answer. Roseville doesn't run every train seven days a week. More importantly, none of the locals run seven days a week. As such, the tracks allocated to certain destinations fill up and overflow into other already spoken for tracks. On the trim end, now you have a train that requires three bowl tracks to build instead of two. 

With PSR, we're being told that locals and most trains will be going back to seven days in order to lower car dwell, but I'm not holding my breath.