CSX/CN Close To Agreement

[GTWTD3]

Just as an aside, exactly what I typed happened. I ended up writing 43 clearances on my shift, of which 35 of those were directly involved to moving 3 northbounds on top of each other, and 1 southbound. Three north followed each other the first 60 miles, then I started splitting them up. Trains started out around 5pm, when I left work at 10pm, they had travelled about 60 miles. 4 trains and the railroad was a mess.

[GTWTD3]

Don Simon wrote "And can't the coal trains run JIT from the yards to the power plants so they don't have to occupy the sidings? "

From my experience with coal trains, it's not quite that easy. Coal customers tend to buy trains in batches from a mine with a few exceptions that I can think of on my territory. What ends up happening is that the mine will shoot out 3 loads of coal for Monroe, and the railroads run them to the farthest out point, which in this case is Lang. Those BN trains are 130 cars, which usually is in the 6500 foot range for a regular size coal car. But these aren't regular size, they are 53 foot long cars, which now means the train is in the 6800 foot range. Most yards don't have more than a few tracks that can handle a train of that size, unless they break up the train, which you'll be hard pressed to find anyone willing to do that. So what ends up happening is the train is sent to the next location to store. As an example, last week I was working youngstown line and had an empty coal train to go to shire oaks from ashtabula. Problem was that shire oaks didn't have a crew. This was 130 long cars (53 foot), so I asked conway if they had a track to store the train. They only had 1 available track that could fit a 6900 foot train. And that track was assigned to 21G to do a 1000 mile inspection. So the train sat on the mainline for 5 hours waiting for a crew.

[AARR]

Wow, when I said that Wayne I was joking around. I figure the people running the railroads know what they're doing. But I didn't think about everything you wrote. It's just not easy getting these long trains across the road in the current infrastructure.

[GTWTD3]

Railroads, as with any business, are concerned with maximizing the profit for the train. In theory a 6900 foot coal train uses the same amount of crews to move as a 5000 foot coal train, so thus the railroad has lowered the expense per car. In addition, there is an acceptable amount of delay built into every trains schedule, even the hottest of intermodal trains will have several hours built into each division point. So while I may talk about the days where everything sits for hours (today was one of those days, held a train for 6 hours because of 6 southbounds and only 1 siding to work with), there are also days where everything moves perfectly. The planners will sit down and average it out and say those 6900 footers on average only caused 1 hour of delay. What they aren't seeing is that 10 of those delays were for 3 hours, and 20 were for 0 hours. It's all about smoothing, and I can't disagree with it. In addition, it's job security for me. No computer in the world is going to come up with the creative ways that the human mind can up with to move trains. But back to the original point, say over a 30 day period that 6900 foot coal train (130 cars at 53 feet) would normally require 30 crews to move the distance needed. That's 3900 cars of coal moved in 30 days, and 30 crews. Now using that 100 car train, lets just say that they were all 53 foot cars. Now this train of 100 cars will require 39 trains, and 39 crews, to move the same amount of coal in that 30 day period. Lets be generous and say that 25% of the time, the 6900 foot train required a recrew 25% of the time. That's only another 7.5 crews. Net total the railroad was able to make the move with 1.5 less crews in that month. Granted I'm oversimplifying, and making assumptions, but I really can't blame the railroads for maximizing their profit.

[trainjunkie47]

Thanks Wayne, that was interesting insight.

[AARR]

Thanks for the good info, Wayne.

[MDH]

Wayne,

I appreciate your posts with all the 'dispatcher insight' - very interesting for the rest of us.

To everyone,

As a general question though, it seems like we've had 'inside rumor' on one side placing possibly several more trains on this route and knowledgeable people on the other side pretty much saying they couldn't stuff more trains down those tracks without severe problems. So without getting into a 'who's right' argument, anyone care to speculate what the likelyhood of more trains is? Knowing how big corporations work - would one part of CN agree to this despite more knowledgeable people saying "hey, wait a minute!" and we'll watch the chaos? Or would they consider making improvements to the line to handle the capacity? (although even signal/siding upgrades wouldn't fix the problem of waiting to get through busy junctions).

Anyway, this has been very interesting to read and I'm curious to see what, if anything, happens.

Regards,
Michael

[GTWTD3]

My guess, from the lack of communication between the various departments, if CNs finance department says it'll be cheaper, man the torpedoes, full speed ahead.

[hobojim]

My guess, from the lack of communication between the various departments, if CNs finance department says it'll be cheaper, man the torpedoes, full speed ahead.

You are so correct about finance departments having final say so on purchases. I worked in maintainence for GM and we would all of a sudden get inferior repair parts and upon inquiring we would be told that 'purchasing' was able to find it cheaper from a different supplier who sent inferior parts.
Another thing they would do is buy the wrong part because it was cheaper. I would request a Stainless steel weld flange. I would get a regular cast iron flange, because it was cheaper. There are so many horror stories of how finance and purchasing people are screwing up the operations people. I guess it doesn't matter what industry, it is the american way of doing business.
I am retired now and my pension is from a fund that will be unaffected if GM goes bankrupt, so I guess I care less now than i did then.

[AARR]

There are so many horror stories of how finance and purchasing people are screwing up the operations people. I guess it doesn't matter what industry, it is the american way of doing business.

Yes, that's how many companies operate these days. If you're with one that still puts quality and value before price consider yourself very fortunate. And unfortunately for railroads most of their customers ship by rail to save money.

[David Lang]

Aside from the fact that it may be a challenge to put additional trains through Detroit, here is my analysis on why I feel a few more trains a day on the Mt. Clemens Sub will work:

Here is a typical day on the Mt. Clemens Sub: around 4 or 5 am - 145 comes south from Pt. Huron. Then between 7am and 9am - 383 comes south from Pt. Huron. 386 might come North between 5 and 8am or so, and may have to wait at either Nolan or Haven for the southbounds. 387 used to follow 383 pretty close, but is now coming in the afternoon, maybe 4 or 5 pm. If this is the case, then 145 a& 383 are long clear of Nolan by maybe 10am or so at the latest. By this time 386 is long gone northbound and there is nothing again Northbound OR Southbound at Nolan until 382 and 144, which have been coming by in the late afternoon/early evening. (That's a several hour window, like 4 to 5 hours at least!) Also, on the North end at Tappan - dead from about 9am to maybe 2 or 3 pm, which is another 4 to 5 hours if 387 continues to run in the afternoon, which they have been - 145, 383, and 386 are already LONG gone, and no movements until 387 and after that would be 382 and 144 which would get up there until maybe 5pm at the EARLIEST on the typical day. The only other trains left are 385 coming South usually at 9 or 10pm, and 384 which goes north around the same time or a little later. LOGIC tells me that if 2 or 3 more trains are added a day, it will work. Now if its more than 3 a day, it may get hairy due to only 1 passing siding between Nolan and Pt. Huron, and the fact that it is dark territory, but they have done it in the past - I think CN is capable of doing it again. Just my opinion, but is based on fact as you have just read above.

Dave

[AARR]

I believe the Mt. Clemens Sub can handle more traffic. It's Detroit and south where it's trouble. What's your proposal to get trains through Detroit to Toledo without having a meltdown

[GTWTD3]

Dave, again, no disrespect, but your analysis is based on a limited portion of the railroad, a portion which is the least congested. You can't throw out the problems detroit causes, that's like saying the Flint sub can handle 30 more trains a day if you remove yards at flint, lansing, and durand. My analysis is based on a broader study of CN's operations, done mainly by simulations of that area, information which was mainly gathered through traces. While you are correct on the dead times, the problem your not realizing is the amount of time trains sit in Detroit waiting to go south. You say that the train has just got to be south of detroit by the time the next southbound arrives, which is not true. East Yard still has significant parking lot issues, from crews swapping trains, to shared assets not handling the train, to flat rock not being able to handle the train, etc. In addition, the morning window break you talk about is when MofW work is performed. Single track railroads frequently have windows of 3 or 4 hours without trains, except maybe a local. That is when MW gets their work done. I'm not talking about the twice weekly inspections required, which have to be thrown into the mix but are much more flexible, I'm talking tamping, surfacing, grade crossing tests, etc. On average, it takes a tamper 60 to 90 minutes to tamp a spot, plus any tramming time at 20 mph. I'm sure you realize this, but when the tamper has the railroad, nothing else can go through until it clears. There goes your window. I also must say that what you are seeing is not fact, it is what you are seeing. All to frequently, people fail to look at the big picture of what actually occurs on the railroad. Your failing to take into account crew issues, length of trains, capacity of yards, required maintenance, places trains can fit without blocking crossings, work enroute that may tie up the railroad, locals, yard jobs, etc. Sure, the Mt. Clemens by itself may be able to handle another train or two. But when taking into account all of the factors, there just isn't a whole lot of capacity to be played with.

[David Lang]

MORE CAPACITY there buddy! If the bottleneck is lack of track and it occurs all the time and everyone knows it, then fix it! If its not track but a lack of a good signal system, then fix it! Its not that difficult to me.

Dave

[David Lang]

Yes Wayne, that's why I stated at the beginning of my email that it IS difficult to get trains through detroit, I was just speaking about the Mt. Clemens Sub in a vacuum. So now that we both agree that the real problem is Detroit, which again I have identified as agreeing with you before, then what is the solution? You know the rail network better than I my friend. What can they do down there to relieve conjestion that RR management would approve of also? Can something be done? Something needs to be done in general I think - Matt Rose CEO of BNSF said in a recent statement that if capacity is not added to the US rail network in the next few decades, it will spell trouble - his charts were "drenched in red" as I remember reading the article if capacity wsa not added. What to do? Thanks for your perspective.

Dave

[J T]

MORE CAPACITY there buddy! If the bottleneck is lack of track and it occurs all the time and everyone knows it, then fix it! If its not track but a lack of a good signal system, then fix it! Its not that difficult to me.

Dave

Dave, if only it were that simple. How many times have you gone into a Mickey D's at lunch time only to have to wait for long periods of time to get your food? You'd THINK that with them knowing lunch is going to be busy, they FIX IT so you wouldn't have to wait to long. If a fast food restaurant has issues with congestion at peak times, can you really blame the railroad?

[gridejq]

"Its not that difficult to me."

Hmmm....sounds like railfans are going to "run" the railroads now..

[David Lang]

Well, no obviously I can't blame the railroad, but like your example McD has capacity problems only for a small percentage of the time as compared with 24 hours of operation which most of them are now. BUT, if there is a capacity issue during a large percentage of the time, you would think something could be done. Would it cost money? YES. Will you have to convince RR management? Absolutely YES. Will it be difficult? Yes. But like this problem and all the worlds problems are, if you do nothing, then the problem will AT LEAST stay the same and probably get worse, but to begin to TRY, it is a step in the right direction no matter if you are adding capacity to track in Detroit, or are trying to solve world hunger. Fail to plan is a plan to fail.

ANYWAY, I would really like to know (you RR employees please chime in) if this rumor about more trains is REALLY a good rumor, or is just a rumor. Does anyone know for sure?

Dave

[Y@]

I say it over and over again. While there has been no public announcement, the deal is most certainly being worked on between CN and CSX, it's just a matter of time before it goes public and we start seeing CN on the Toledo Branch and the Big Four.

[GTWTD3]

Dave, your not making a valid argument when you say that McD's is congested for only 1 hour of the day. That's there choke point, McD can only serve 24 times the maximum capacity per hour. It doesn't mean that the people who normally eat lunch at noon, will just come back at 2. People will eat when they are hungry. I've referred to smoothing before, and I'm going to here again. Say McDonalds wants all customers to have an average wait time of 5 minute for there food. That doesn't mean that every customer will have a 5 minute wait, it means over the 24 hour period people waited on average 5 minutes. Say your restaurant has an average wait of 6 minutes, which is higher than what corporate policy calls for. Looking at your waits, you see that the biggest delays for people is during the lunch hour, when you don't have enough cash registers to provide the customers service. Using your examples, your solution would be to tell people to come back at 2. But people won't do that, at least not enough to make a dent in your average, so your still stuck with a long wait during lunch. Now remember with smoothing, your lunch hour patrons are probably waiting something more like 10 or so minutes, but it's all averaged out. The solution is not to just throw money at something. The solution is to analyze it like a business would. Is the added cost of putting in those cash registers, worth the reduction in wait time, or is it cheaper to not put in those cash registers and instead have customers slowly dwindle down to where your average wait time improves (which unless you have darn good hamburgers, people will go where the shortest lines are at). It's easy to sit on the sidelines and say throw money at something, but it is much much much more involved than that. To add another passing track on the Mt. Clemens, your talking about 10s of millions of dollars. Railroad allocate a certain percentage of their income to capital improvements, and each division is fighting to get their project. Will throwing the money at Detroit earn back its cost of capital. Will the three added trains to the Mt. Clemens reduce costs on other divisions, thus paying for the upgrades. Try looking at things from a business perspective. Unfortunately railroads aren't there to run trains for you to watch trackside, they are there to make money. Do I agree with every decision they make? Nope. But every decision made comes from sound analysis. I can't share any details from NS, but I am privy to some of their analysis of track upgrades, train reroutes, etc. Every decision is backed up with a research and cost analysis to see if the delay saved is worth the money spent. Let me ask you this question. When you buy a car, do you just open your checkbook and buy? Or do you spend time researching which one to buy, to see which is the most beneficial to you?