Eastern Railroad Discussion > Norfolk Southern vs CSXT DPU Questions

Good Morning:

I was west of Duncannon, PA yesterday and saw train 35A (Enola, PA to Conway, PA) go west on 2 main with 189 cars and engines 9161 leading and 4071 trailing. The mainline in that area is river grade and the power sounded like it was struggling to reach track speed. What surprised me was that there was no distributed power in the train. Contrast that with CSXT around the Baltimore area where it seems like the majority of road trains have distributed power.

Does NS use distributed power mostly on other parts of their system, or do they use it sparingly as opposed to CSXT? I know a few trains through the Harrisburg area have it, but it seems like CSXT uses distributed power more often. Just curious.

Thank you in advance.

On CSX we use DP when the train warrants it, and DP capable power is available....if power is not available the train may be cut in two so two or three on the head, whatever kind they may be can handle it. Part of our interpretation of PSR is all trains as long and heavy as is practicable....when you see a 100 or 110 car train it's because there was not enough DP power available to make it longer....or there were no other cuts to add to it, and the customer wants it yesterday.....

The 35A  that you saw was operating with only the lead unit on line, following tonnage profile/ energy management protocols. Between that and Trip Optimizer, these trains take thirty or more miles to get up to their cruising speed of 35-40 mph. (Their maximum timetable speed is 50.) When advised of this by the train crew, the standard response from the Atlanta Road Foreman Desk is that they can not break with Policy, and the train crew should call them back only if they find themselves in danger of stalling.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/05/20 12:19 by onblock.

Wow. I guess with train counts down it does not matter, but sure seems like the railroad would want the train to get over the road as soon as possible so that the cars make their connections and the crew can get rested for the next train, not to mention taking up mainline capacity as a slow moving train.

Thank you for the response.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/05/20 13:36 by PRR_4859.

onblock Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The 35A  that you saw was operating with only the
> lead unit on line, following tonnage profile/
> energy management protocols. Between that and Trip
> Optimizer, these trains take thirty or more miles
> to get up to their cruising speed of 35-40 mph.
> (Their maximum timetable speed is 50.) When
> advised of this by the train crew, the standard
> response from the Atlanta Road Foreman Desk is
> that they can not break with Policy, and the train
> crew should call them back only if they find
> themselves in danger of stalling.

Thanks for that insight. 

It's interesting that the constraint of fuel costs outweighs the cost of labor.  Getting the crew to its end point and to the hotel quickly would seem to higher value payoff than saving a few gallons of diesel fuel and 30 minutes of gradual acceleration.

I wonder if a management analyst did an analysis when fuel prices were much more expensive, and that fuel-saving directive became orthodoxy?

This is a decidedly “back of the envelope” calculation but, if a locomotive is consuming about 200 gallons of fuel per hour in run 8 and it’s taking a single locomotive close to an hour in run 8 to bring a train up to a 35-40 mph cruising speed, my assumption would be that two locomotives in run 8 would bring the train to the 35-40 mph cruising speed in half that time. If this assumption is correct, actual fuel consumed would be the same to bring the train to the 35-40 mph where the second unit could then be taken off line. Might one of the engineers on TO comment on this?

I’d also be curious about additional wear and tear on the locomotives; at least the leader in a situation like this.

Posted from iPhone



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/05/20 14:52 by Juniata.

in the quest to save then selves prosperity, i was counseled, years ago 3 sd-40's with almost non functional dynamic brakes, max tonage, i power braked 46 seconds, they figured a rule violation of 5 gallons of fuel, 175 mile run, they downloaded the whole trip, no other violation of rules found, and believe me they tried, in response i asked about the 20 car loads of cement double back hauled every day, yes double back hauled, which required 2 extra locomotives on a pair of trains, one each way daily. it took management 6 months to correct, after i told them of this BS over 46 seconds of power braking, lighting up $1000 bills to save nickles to justify their jobs

onblock Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The 35A  that you saw was operating with only the
> lead unit on line, following tonnage profile/
> energy management protocols. Between that and Trip
> Optimizer, these trains take thirty or more miles
> to get up to their cruising speed of 35-40 mph.
> (Their maximum timetable speed is 50.) When
> advised of this by the train crew, the standard
> response from the Atlanta Road Foreman Desk is
> that they can not break with Policy, and the train
> crew should call them back only if they find
> themselves in danger of stalling.

>189 cars and engines 9161 leading and 4071<

So if I am clear on this, C44-9W #9161 was dragging all 189 cars and the rebuilt AC44C6M #4071 with only the C44-9W doing all the work? 

SantaFeRuss

SantaFeRuss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> onblock Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The 35A  that you saw was operating with only
> the
> > lead unit on line, following tonnage profile/
> > energy management protocols. Between that and
> Trip
> > Optimizer, these trains take thirty or more
> miles
> > to get up to their cruising speed of 35-40 mph.
> > (Their maximum timetable speed is 50.) When
> > advised of this by the train crew, the standard
> > response from the Atlanta Road Foreman Desk is
> > that they can not break with Policy, and the
> train
> > crew should call them back only if they find
> > themselves in danger of stalling.
>
> >189 cars and engines 9161 leading and 4071<
>
> So if I am clear on this, C44-9W #9161 was
> dragging all 189 cars and the rebuilt AC44C6M
> #4071 with only the C44-9W doing all the work? 
>
> SantaFeRuss

Honestly, this would not surprise me at all. This happens all over the system now. Unless it is a premium intermodel and even those get shorted sometimes. 

PRR_4859 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow. I guess with train counts down it does not
> matter, but sure seems like the railroad would
> want the train to get over the road as soon as
> possible so that the cars make their connections
> and the crew can get rested for the next train,
> not to mention taking up mainline capacity as a
> slow moving train.


This is almost comical (in a sad kind of way). Its not the way things work now.....

Juniata, you have the right idea. Running underpowered is hard on a loco (especially if done over and over again). In time, the main components of a loco can fail.

I will add that what's even more enjoyable is being a "one unit wonder" and running short on time..??!!

Posted from Android

Most corporate fads run their course, and are replaced with new, and supposedly better, fads.

#beentheredonethatrepeatedly

TO is a joke. That, coupled with poor train make-up, causes not only delays but wrecks, primarily string-lining. But NS and others have invested so much money in TO and Auto-Router that the have to force the use of them to justify their cost to the bean-counters. Sad.

PRR1361 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TO is a joke. That, coupled with poor train
> make-up, causes not only delays but wrecks,
> primarily string-lining. But NS and others have
> invested so much money in TO and Auto-Router that
> the have to force the use of them to justify their
> cost to the bean-counters. Sad.

Kind of interesting if you think about it. NS wasn’t reluctant to walk away from the $160 million they spent to upgrade Bellevue four to six years back but; that was all Wick’s idea so the current leadership must have felt free to torpedo that investment and walk away with nothing sticking to them.

Makes me wonder who in the E suite currently is so emotionally / professionally “invested” in these automated operations management systems they believe it would be career suicide to abandon them.

Posted from iPhone