Western Railroad Discussion > "Going Long" and the point that was overlooked: Service.

TRAINS Magazine attempted to cover the controversial subject of trains 'Going Long'.  I found the article concentrated on BNSF and I found the example used to be interesting because they made it seemed so natural to combine trains.  But I discovered that the examples came from the Goldilocks zone.  I felt the article missed the entire error of the concept of ‘Going Long’. 

From my experience I know of a lot yards that would fit the following daily situations:  Let’s call the outlying yard WS and that late afternoon all the locals have returned and the interchanges have arrived and were classified so the yardmaster called the Chief.  “Hey Joe, We have 51/20 7500 tons tonight westbound for the Hump”.  “What? You won’t take the train if I don’t have 120 cars?  I don’t have 50 more cars---there a dozen hot loads from our best customer in this”.   “Ok we see what happens tomorrow---What you want me to do with the power?”  ‘Run it west with only an engineer? OK”

So then the crew gets annulled and they have a guarantee of so many runs per months and get paid anyways.   You pay your people by minutes and earn income by moving miles so that computes to speed.  The speed of your cars, loaded and empty, is a better count of performance than operating ratio.  The investment in your equipment is a daily cost, so getting the empty to the next revenue gaining shipment is valuable also.  

When you wait for enough cars you delay the ones you have ready to move.

‘Going Long’ is not precision and is not a good schedule to keep customers.

 

The example isn't "sweating the assets" and it's not good trip plan compliance, so either those metrics don't count as much as reduction in train start cost, or their acceptable thresholds are way too loose. And/or they're gamed. 

Or that kind of example doesn't happen often, which I doubt, but the frequency statistics do matter. 

Precision Selective Return or required cost control?

I thought that the article was about how the BNSF was making long trains when it made sense, not as an abstract (Wall St Investment Advisor induced) goal.
This is viewed as an exception to PSR which other Class 1s have adopted mostly as a race to the bottom in cost control, not to improve service.

This post is hard to understand as it's mostly gibberish. From what I can tell, the OP has no idea how any of this works.

An important thing to consider about asset utitlization these days--most of the cars on the trains are not owned by the railroad.   Most are owned by Private Owners, as the reporting marks end in X (such as GATX, etc).   So, a railroad does not really need to care how many trips a car can make in a month, how much revenue that car can generate, as they do not own it.  Look at reporting marks with that in mind next time you watch a freight go by.
Tony

PlyWoody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When you wait for enough cars you delay the ones you have ready to move.

Which is the opposite of PSR where trains run "on time" whether the cars are ready or not.
In your story of the yard the train would head to the hump whether or not all the locals made it back on time, so the delay would come if a customer's loaded car(s) missed the cutoff time for the train to the hump.

portlander Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This post is hard to understand as it's mostly
> gibberish. From what I can tell, the OP has no
> idea how any of this works.

C'mon man. He's an expert. Just ask him.

trainjunkie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> portlander Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > This post is hard to understand as it's mostly
> > gibberish. From what I can tell, the OP has no
> > idea how any of this works.
>
> C'mon man. He's an expert. Just ask him.

Yep, that's on me. I totally forgot :)

justalurker66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> PlyWoody Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > When you wait for enough cars you delay the ones
> you have ready to move.
>
> Which is the opposite of PSR where trains run "on
> time" whether the cars are ready or not.
> In your story of the yard the train would head to
> the hump whether or not all the locals made it
> back on time, so the delay would come if a
> customer's loaded car(s) missed the cutoff time
> for the train to the hump.

I've never seen a coherant or consistent definition of PSR from any of its advocates, and they usually contradict each other, or even themselves (albeit over time rather than in the same sentence or paragraph). They may say it's about running per a schedule come hell or high water and regarless of how short a train might be as a result, while also saying switching is wasteful and expensive; in reality it's all about fewer and longer trains uber Alles. Railway Age had published a few pro- and anti-PSR commentaries and one of the guys really nailed it (rather comically) about the "PSR means this except when it means the opposite" flip-flopping propaganda.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/19/21 15:54 by Bandito.

If the ultimate goal is to go crew-less it would seem to me that shorter trains would be much easier. One engine and enough cars to make track speed across the country would be easier to program and control. Moving signal blocks would address the reduction in capacity.

Eventually self propelled rail cars on than electrified railroad would be the future. Customer releases the loaded car with destination programmed and away it goes all on its own.

Posted from iPhone