Western Railroad Discussion > Union Pacific in Iowa - confidence in your locomotive power

The VR Fort Madison camera had an eastbound UP intermodal train which amazed me.  A single unit up front, 82 well cars, a single DPU, and 106 wells.  That's it.  Not much latitude or spare power if something goes awry.

Eastbound at 2.50 CT. A westbound BNSF train was coming off the bridge, and an empty coal train was heading north on the K line at the same time. Busy place.

A steady flow of river traffic as well. That swing span gets a lot of daily use.

It all comes down to the economics of the situation: (all numbers made up)

1) cost of running one train A to B with 1+1 locomotives (fuel, crew, maint, depreciation).........$10,000
2) cost of adding 1 unit to the consist (fuel, maint, additional switching time..................................3,000

3) Total cost of running 30 trains (1/day) with 1+1 locomotives...................................................300,000
4)  Added cost of an additional locomotive for 30 days..................................................................90,000

5) Cost of train limping in with only 1 functioning locomotive (late fees, pissed off customers)....10,000
6) Cost of 'borrowing' a locomotive from a passing train to aid disabled train ..................................5,000

In short, if there's less than 9 breakdowns per month, they've saved the cost of the extra locomotive.  Assuming that the locomotives are in 'good shape', in all likelihood, 1 breakdown per month is probably on the high side.

Compare that to Amtrak and their 'save a buck today' reduced maintenance program of fill the fuel, sand, and oil, and send it on its way...with overdue-for-replacement locomotives to boot!

I saw that same eastbound UP train on the LaPlata 360 webcam. What surprised me is that BNSF would accept a train from UP that would not appear to be compliant with BNSF’s own HP per trailing ton requirements.

Posted from iPhone

Juniata Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I saw that same eastbound UP train on the LaPlata
> 360 webcam. What surprised me is that BNSF would
> accept a train from UP that would not appear to be
> compliant with BNSF’s own HP per trailing ton
> requirements.
>
> Posted from iPhone

Union Pacific ran an intermodal with five motors up front just a half hour later. Looked like a similar length.

Still, UP put a lot of confidence in its people and power maintenance.

Posted from Android

i wonder what the tonnage differences where between the 1x1 and 5x0 or IF any of the 5x0's were d.i.c................

66



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/28/20 15:59 by goneon66.

Cost of the negative impact on your ability to grow traffic (= limited future) and maintain premium shippers (= lower rates) when the train does limp along and miss schedules: priceless!

Bruce

goneon66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> i wonder what the tonnage differences where
> between the 1x1 and 5x0 or IF any of the 5x0's
> were d.i.c................
>
> 66

Likewise.   The 5 unit train was almost surely one of the ZCIG2 or ZG4CI trains, which sometimes have 5 up front and 2 DPUs if long.  The other train could have been a repo train of empty containers.  Seen UP do that with only 1 unit at times

There were 3 UP eb intermodal trains that were running fairly close together by the La Plata cam. I don't recall the order but the 5x0 was the ZCIG2...this train usually has 1 to several UPS trailers on it.

The 4x0 looked like the ILAG2...all domestic containers.

The 1x1 was either the ILBG4 or the ISIG4 (if it still runs). Both are a mix of marine and domestic containers.


Allen


.

Posted from Android



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/28/20 19:23 by bradleymckay.

StStephen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cost of the negative impact on your ability to
> grow traffic (= limited future) and maintain
> premium shippers (= lower rates) when the train
> does limp along and miss schedules: priceless!
>
> Bruce


Thank you..!!

And being a crew member on one of these underpowered trains (it is happening a lot everywhere) is NOT an enjoyable experience.....

Posted from Android

BRAtkinson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It all comes down to the economics of the
> situation: (all numbers made up)

>
> In short, if there's less than 9 breakdowns per
> month, they've saved the cost of the extra
> locomotive.  Assuming that the locomotives are in
> 'good shape', in all likelihood, 1 breakdown per
> month is probably on the high side.
>
> Compare that to Amtrak and their 'save a buck
> today' reduced maintenance program of fill the
> fuel, sand, and oil, and send it on its way...with
> overdue-for-replacement locomotives to boot!

There are remarks about underpowered. That is usual for discussion of one unit trains. If they can go track speed (we don't know this one can't), they aren't underpowered. People are used to first generation four units equals a modern steam engine. The units are bigger now. A couple of times, I ran a 4000-5000 ton train out of Pasco (WA) with a single SD45, drawing complaints from the enginers. One guy was an old head with steam seniority. I asked him how many Z Class (4-6-6-4) he would get for that train. Just one. When the diesels came, how many units would you get? Probably three. And an SD-45 is as powerful as...? See where I'm going? Yeah, here we go.

As far as the reliability factor, yup, that's a primary consideration.

TAW

Union Pacific and BNSF both have commendable Mean Time/Distance Between Failures for their power, which undoubtedly enters into the power desk calculations.  If you have a very high expectation the power will do just fine, and is appropriately matched to the train, go for it!

Newer, well maintained power can be a competitive edge

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
 A single unit
> up front, 82 well cars, a single DPU, and 106
> wells.  That's it.  Not much latitude or spare
> power if something goes awry.

CN runs most of their doublestack trains out of Prince Rupert across the Rockies with 1 unit and 1 DPU.  550+ axles on these trains is common.

Well car platforms are not that heavy.  at 25 tons each, 200 well platforms  is only 5000 tons.  A 4400 hp engine can handle that on flat land.  Flat land running only needs about a half HP per ton.    Grades is another story, altho effective brake per ton descending seems to be more restrictive than HP/ton needed to climb the grade.

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Union Pacific and BNSF both have commendable Mean
> Time/Distance Between Failures for their power,
> which undoubtedly enters into the power desk
> calculations.  If you have a very high
> expectation the power will do just fine, and is
> appropriately matched to the train, go for it!
>
> Newer, well maintained power can be a competitive
> edge

i wonder how the bnsf hogheads feel about the competitive edge with the "newer, well maintained power" in the form of those six axle motors with ONLY 4 traction motors on heavy trains...........

66

goneon66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> i wonder how the bnsf hogheads feel about the
> competitive edge with the "newer, well maintained
> power" in the form of those six axle motors with
> ONLY 4 traction motors on heavy trains...........
>

The problem isn't the motors, it's how they use them. I argued such things with the B&O power bureau 50 years ago, and for a decade with the BN power bureau. It's like saying NO to a cat.

TAW

goneon66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------
>
> i wonder how the bnsf hogheads feel about the
> competitive edge with the "newer, well maintained
> power" in the form of those six axle motors with
> ONLY 4 traction motors on heavy trains...........
>
> 66


The C4s have been discussed before.

While I can't speak for the "new" ones.....

A few years ago, a bunch of them roamed the country paying back horsepower hours. Some of us got a crash course on how "great" they are...??!!

All I'm going to say is they are NOT MADE for heavy trains/demanding routes. I would rather have an ACE or a "heavy" GEVO....

Posted from Android

ns1000 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> All I'm going to say is they are NOT MADE for
> heavy trains/demanding routes. I would rather have
> an ACE or a "heavy" GEVO....

...or a 4000 ton 70 mph train.

TAW

and a LOT of trains keep getting longer and heavier out here in the grades of the west..........

66