# Shippers organizing to get better service



## Willbridge (Dec 12, 2022)

Freight railroad service is terrible, even without the threat of a strike



The UP is brought up as a bad example.


----------



## LookingGlassTie (Dec 12, 2022)

This reminds me of a question I've been meaning to ask for a while:

How do we balance the timely shipping (and by extension delivery) of goods via rail with making sure that passenger rail service (as it is currently) isn't severely affected? 

On the one hand, people want to take Amtrak and trust that it will be reliable. On the other hand people want to be sure that goods they have shipped out or are expecting as deliveries are transported on time.


----------



## GDRRiley (Dec 12, 2022)

LookingGlassTie said:


> This reminds me of a question I've been meaning to ask for a while:
> 
> How do we balance the timely shipping (and by extension delivery) of goods via rail with making sure that passenger rail service (as it is currently) isn't severely affected?
> 
> On the one hand, people want to take Amtrak and trust that it will be reliable. On the other hand people want to be sure that goods they have shipped out or are expecting as deliveries are transported on time.


both of those require well planned timetables and sticking to them. With a computer controlled hump yard there is no reason a car should take 48 hours+ to go through it

Plan service first
Operation changes to get you closer
Finally concrete to deliver the needed investments


----------



## PeeweeTM (Dec 12, 2022)

GDRRiley said:


> both of those require well planned timetables and sticking to them. With a computer controlled hump yard there is no reason a car should take 48 hours+ to go through it
> 
> Plan service first
> Operation changes to get you closer
> Finally concrete to deliver the needed investments


Yeah, something like Precision Scheduled Railroading could become a concept.
Or is it too soon to make a joke about that?


----------



## joelkfla (Dec 12, 2022)

LookingGlassTie said:


> This reminds me of a question I've been meaning to ask for a while:
> 
> How do we balance the timely shipping (and by extension delivery) of goods via rail with making sure that passenger rail service (as it is currently) isn't severely affected?
> 
> On the one hand, people want to take Amtrak and trust that it will be reliable. On the other hand people want to be sure that goods they have shipped out or are expecting as deliveries are transported on time.


Both should be possible if the railroads run trains that will fit in sidings with adequate staffing and planning.


----------



## Qapla (Dec 12, 2022)

Quit holding the freight trains until they are as long as possible to "consolidate loads" (precision railroading) thus having freight trains so long that they no longer fit in sidings ... resulting in other trains, freight and passenger, having to be held/delayed while these super-long trains rumble by at slower speeds than shorter trains would run.


----------



## GDRRiley (Dec 12, 2022)

joelkfla said:


> Both should be possible if the railroads run trains that will fit in sidings with adequate staffing and planning.


it also helps to put enough power on trains, the current average is less than 1HP/T for most trains with only intermodal getting 1.5-2HP/T


----------



## Bonser (Dec 12, 2022)

LookingGlassTie said:


> This reminds me of a question I've been meaning to ask for a while:
> 
> How do we balance the timely shipping (and by extension delivery) of goods via rail with making sure that passenger rail service (as it is currently) isn't severely affected?
> 
> On the one hand, people want to take Amtrak and trust that it will be reliable. On the other hand people want to be sure that goods they have shipped out or are expecting as deliveries are transported on time.


How could this have been done so well 70-100 years ago with far more trains in service?


----------



## daybeers (Dec 12, 2022)

Willbridge said:


> Freight railroad service is terrible, even without the threat of a strike
> 
> 
> 
> The UP is brought up as a bad example.


wow, it's almost like PSR isn't so precision!!


----------



## bonzoesc (Dec 12, 2022)

Bonser said:


> How could this have been done so well 70-100 years ago with far more trains in service?


More trains in service. Missing the only train for the next 24h is a bigger deal than missing the third of five today, especially if all of them are shorter. PSR's big thing is consolidating trains to save on labor and capital expense, while moving the downsides of this to labor and customers.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Dec 12, 2022)

Bonser said:


> How could this have been done so well 70-100 years ago with far more trains in service?



Overall less freight to move, much more track capacity. Lower population density. More trains, very cheap labor cost. Wall Street has always been a problem. Executive officer that work for the company, and not robbing it for there own needs.

You need someone who can argue with the Wall Street Overlords about expectations and capital needs of a railroad. It does need to be in your face argument, it just need to be on a PowerPoint and repeated often. Wall Street just cares about next quarter, when railroads are a long term game. A railroad wooden crossties can last 30 years. It takes months to qualify a engineer.


----------



## cirdan (Dec 13, 2022)

LookingGlassTie said:


> On the one hand, people want to take Amtrak and trust that it will be reliable. On the other hand people want to be sure that goods they have shipped out or are expecting as deliveries are transported on time.


I would be interested to know how much of total overall freight train delay is caused, even indirectly, by anything to do with Amtrak.

I expect other causes figure much more prominently.


----------



## Qapla (Dec 13, 2022)

Bonser said:


> How could this have been done so well 70-100 years ago with far more trains in service?



There were more tracks back then. The RR's have removed and abandoned vast amounts of tracks making less room for short and long trains. They have diminished the amount of mainline and sidings all in the name of progress profit.


----------



## jis (Dec 13, 2022)

Qapla said:


> There were more tracks back then. The RR's have removed and abandoned vast amounts of tracks making less room for short and long trains. They have diminished the amount of mainline and sidings all in the name of progress profit.


Reducing the property tax burden is one of the leading reasons for reducing the real estate footprint. many municipalities and counties thought they had found their piggy bank in railroads that passed through town, until they ceased to do so.


----------



## joelkfla (Dec 13, 2022)

cirdan said:


> I would be interested to know how much of total overall freight train delay is caused, even indirectly, by anything to do with Amtrak.
> 
> I expect other causes figure much more prominently.


Amtrak's take on that is detailed in their complaint about the Sunset Limited’s “abysmal” performance, which was referenced in the RPA 12/9 Hotline.

ETA: BTW, I found it fascinating reading all the details of how OTP is tracked and delays attributed.


----------



## Qapla (Dec 13, 2022)

jis said:


> Reducing the property tax burden is one of the leading reasons for reducing the real estate footprint.



While this may apply to the tracks that were abandoned and have since become "rails-to-trails" ... discontinuing the second track still leaves the RR owning the ROW and may not reduce the tax paid - however, it supposedly reduces/eliminates the maintenance costs even though it ends the ability to use that track as a siding to allow trains to pass.


----------



## jis (Dec 13, 2022)

Qapla said:


> While this may apply to the tracks that were abandoned and have since become "rails-to-trails" ... discontinuing the second track still leaves the RR owning the ROW and may not reduce the tax paid - however, it supposedly reduces/eliminates the maintenance costs even though it ends the ability to use that track as a siding to allow trains to pass.


It does reduce the tax paid a
In most, if not all, jurisdictions, since that part of the land becomes undeveloped, from developed.


----------



## GDRRiley (Dec 13, 2022)

I've not gotten to UP statements yet but shippers seem not happy with UP


----------



## MARC Rider (Dec 13, 2022)

Qapla said:


> While this may apply to the tracks that were abandoned and have since become "rails-to-trails" ... discontinuing the second track still leaves the RR owning the ROW and may not reduce the tax paid - however, it supposedly reduces/eliminates the maintenance costs even though it ends the ability to use that track as a siding to allow trains to pass.


If I were to demolish my house, leaving a vacant lot, I believe my property tax bill would be greatly reduced. On the other hand, if I build an addition, making my house larger, I can expect an increase in my taxes. Either way, I still own the same amount of land.


----------



## MARC Rider (Dec 13, 2022)

On one of the background articles I read on the web that I can't find any more on why rail freight is in that state it's in, I read a history of "precision scheduled railroading" (PSR) that gives the impression the what the class 1s are calling PSR isn't really what PSR was supposed to be. Especially the "scheduled" part.

What the railroads seem to be doing is running trains too long and heavy for the existing infrastructure and trying to cut costs on equipment and personnel in ways that go against having anything that can be called "precision scheduled railroading."


----------



## Qapla (Dec 13, 2022)

All I know is that when the tracks started being removed in our area the freight RR's expresses that it was done to eliminate "maintenance costs" ... maybe they meant "taxes" but that is not what they said.

Either way, by reducing the number of tracks, they have made moving freight and passengers trains more difficult - not easier.


----------



## Willbridge (Dec 13, 2022)

jis said:


> It does reduce the tax paid a
> In most, if not all, jurisdictions, since that part of the land becomes undeveloped, from developed.


Remember, there are states with centrally assessed utilities, Colorado and Oregon being the ones I'm familiar with. Valuation is based on traffic on a line, rather than the number of tracks. The state professional figures the value of the entire operation in the state, divides it up by line classification and then distributes the assessment back to the county tax assessor who applies the mill rate and sends the tax bill.

It has the effect of making fairer assessments but shifting value out of urban areas to rural areas. As it was adopted when rural legislators sailed the ship of state, that might have been the payoff for cutting local assessors out of the first step.

I think I've remembered this right. In 1975-76 I was asked to propose a way of financing railway improvements. When I came up with diverting railway ad valorem taxes -- I copied it from the way that airplanes, boats, and motor vehicles avoid ad valorem taxes -- you should have seen the panic-stricken looks. I started thinking about other work.

Utah has centrally assessed utilities and explains it in their nice website:

_The Centrally Assessed Team within the Property Tax Division values all mines, airlines, and utilities, and all railroad properties that operate as a unit. Values are set and apportioned to taxing entities based on situs of property. The local County Treasurer bills and collects the tax._


https://propertytax.utah.gov/centrally-assessed/


----------



## GDRRiley (Dec 14, 2022)

UP seemed really proud of the fact they extended and CTC some sidings. 
Using recent numbers from California projects the 45 siding extensions were 10-14 million mattering on what they did but in total that is under 600m of investments over 2 years. Between that and the 600 engine rebuild UP which is 1B over 3 years. 
Wow UP you are spending 1B a year on a few projects projects vs 8b in stock buybacks.


----------



## Mystic River Dragon (Dec 14, 2022)

Isn’t there some way for the shippers to get around the freights? For example, come into port from across the ocean, unload onto trucks, trucks take stuff to the nearest large body of water, unload onto boats that take the stuff to trucks at the other end, etc.? 

The only stuff left would be the dangerous containers that can only go safely by rail. That I don’t have an answer for, but I am proposing the first as a serious solution. Just like a passenger might try to set up a plan to go from commuter rail to connecting commuter rail as a network if Amtrak shuts down.


----------



## jis (Dec 14, 2022)

Mystic River Dragon said:


> Isn’t there some way for the shippers to get around the freights? For example, come into port from across the ocean, unload onto trucks, trucks take stuff to the nearest large body of water, unload onto boats that take the stuff to trucks at the other end, etc.?
> 
> The only stuff left would be the dangerous containers that can only go safely by rail. That I don’t have an answer for, but I am proposing the first as a serious solution. Just like a passenger might try to set up a plan to go from commuter rail to connecting commuter rail as a network if Amtrak shuts down.


So something arriving across the Pacific that is going to say Chicago ( rather common thing for distribution to the Midwest), what large body of water would the truck take it to from the Pacific Port?


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Dec 14, 2022)

jis said:


> So something arriving across the Pacific that is going to say Chicago ( rather common thing for distribution to the Midwest), what large body of water would the truck take it to from the Pacific Port?



Great Lakes Shipping?
Your ship would need to fit into the locks to access the area.

Size matters today, the ships travel across the pacific can’t fit into the Panama Canal never mind the Great Lakes.

If you need to move freight, there is plenty of options. It’s just laziness and the demand of profit that is preventing you from doing so.


----------



## jis (Dec 14, 2022)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Great Lakes Shipping?
> Your ship would need to fit into the locks to access the area.
> 
> Size matters today, the ships travel across the pacific can’t fit into the Panama Canal never mind the Great Lakes.


There are relatively few container ships that do not fit Panamax using the new locks at Cocoli and Agua Clara. The original lock gates are a different matter, but naturally today's container carriers do not use those.

But the cost of a single transit using Panamax can be eye watering running upto a million dollars or more for a single crossing! But still it is apparently quite worth it since those new lock gates are in great demand and are never sitting idle for too long.


----------



## Mystic River Dragon (Dec 14, 2022)

jis said:


> So something arriving across the Pacific that is going to say Chicago ( rather common thing for distribution to the Midwest), what large body of water would the truck take it to from the Pacific Port?



It would stay on the trucks if there is no water route.



Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Great Lakes Shipping?
> Your ship would need to fit into the locks to access the area.
> 
> Size matters today, the ships travel across the pacific can’t fit into the Panama Canal never mind the Great Lakes.
> ...



That’s a good point about the ship sizes.

Oh well, it was just an idea. I will stop thinking now and let all the brilliant people come up with a solution.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (Dec 14, 2022)

Mystic River Dragon said:


> Isn’t there some way for the shippers to get around the freights? For example, come into port from across the ocean, unload onto trucks, trucks take stuff to the nearest large body of water, unload onto boats that take the stuff to trucks at the other end, etc.?
> 
> The only stuff left would be the dangerous containers that can only go safely by rail. That I don’t have an answer for, but I am proposing the first as a serious solution. Just like a passenger might try to set up a plan to go from commuter rail to connecting commuter rail as a network if Amtrak shuts down.


That's been a problem too - look at the port backups they have had over the past few years in Oakland, as a particular example. Not enough truckers (and probably not enough trucks or highway capacity either) to handle to loads.


----------



## jis (Dec 14, 2022)

Mystic River Dragon said:


> It would stay on the trucks if there is no water route.


Placing all of the containers that currently travel on rail multimodals, exclusively on trucks looking for waterways across the country would certainly have a non-trivial effect on the traffic on the interstates, assuming enough drivers and rigs can be found that is.


Metra Electric Rider said:


> That's been a problem too - look at the port backups they have had over the past few years in Oakland, as a particular example. Not enough truckers (and probably not enough trucks or highway capacity either) to handle to loads.


That would in general be doing exactly the opposite of what we should be doing, that is moving more of the traffic on the more efficient rail mode.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (Dec 14, 2022)

Why, the famed North Platte shipping route of course! 

In theory, containers could be transferred to barges in NOLA after cruising through the Panama Canal and shipped upriver to Chicago, however, that's dependent on enough barges and water levels (right now - or at least a few weeks ago - the Mississippi was extremely low and traffic was limited). 

There is certainly a route from the Gulf into the heart of the Midwest even to Pittsburgh and into the Great Lakes, but requires transferring containers to a different ship.


----------



## jis (Dec 14, 2022)

We'll do anything to avoid fixing the railroads, and the pampered Wall Street boys running them.  Even if it involves other transport modes run by the same pampered Wall Street boys


----------



## TrackWalker (Dec 14, 2022)

BMWED







www.bmwe.org





Precision Scheduled Railroading (PSR) Must End Immediately. 

Published: Dec 14 2022 3:08PM

For the better part of two days in D.C. this week, testimony after testimony before the Surface Transportation Board, ranging from Labor Union presentations (including the BMWED) to trade associations to the rail customers themselves, has dragged Union Pacific’s operations strategy worse than a dangling E.O.T. device, thoroughly decimating the greed and short-sightedness that has led to U.P.’s utter ineptitude.

Any company worth its share price would feel complete shame and embarrassment for conduct that has led to U.P. issuing over 1,000 embargoes in 2022 – a practice where trade is stopped to clear up congestion and backlog – due to woefully insufficient workforce staffing driven by their version of “precision scheduled railroading,” which “Uncle Pete” comically calls “Unified Plan 2020.”

What PSR or UP 2020 or whatever you want to call it has done to their service is destroy it. U.P.’s customers are in the lurch, betrayed by a foolish strategy wrecked even more expeditiously by the Covid pandemic, where lean operating ratios and record profits were fixations rather than adequate and reliable service and dedication to fulfilling their shippers’ expectations.

What it has done to U.P.’s employees is a fundamental failure that hasn’t been seen to this degree in decades, if not a century. Just on the maintenance of way side, 22 percent of Union Pacific’s total trackage, 7,239 cumulative miles, is currently under slow order due almost entirely to the carrier’s decision to reduce manpower in the track department. As BMWED spokesperson Brother Rich Edelman told the STB Tuesday, that is the equivalent of 11-man football team intentionally inflicting two injuries to its on-field roster. It’s stupid.

In October 2021, U.P. had 6,123 MOW employees and claimed it was in the throes of a hiring spree spurred by recognition of its manpower-trimming misstep. Yet, in September 2022, the railroad has only 5,954 MOW employees, a REDUCTION from an already woefully inadequate number the year prior. And those employment numbers don’t even reflect the loss of workforce prior to the pandemic, which is an even more egregious precipitation.

Rail workers from every craft across the board can relay similar stories. Operating crafts are so egregiously undermanned that trains sit for weeks, causing the consternation for shippers that has been well-documented this week. U.P. regularly constructs trains in upwards of 13,000 feet when sidings are only 9 to 10,000 feet long, leaving dispatchers nowhere to divert passing locomotives. Circuitous routing that takes trains hundreds of miles away from desired destinations to evade further traffic congestion creates further on-time service delays. The entire wrath of the PSR model is eroding at warp speed and leaving both labor and customers at wit’s end.

Clearly, the railroads – not only U.P. but the entire Class I lot who have chosen PSR at the behest of Wall Street and the almighty dollar – must be penalized for their greed and incompetence. If the STB does not have the will or the teeth to hold them accountable, Congress should step in. The current operating and management system of America’s biggest rail carriers is beyond untenable – it is now obscene. Things must improve. The treatment of their employees must get better. The expectations of their customers must be met. The demands of their shareholders must finally take a back seat to the people who create their profits.

The travesty of Precision Scheduled Railroading must come to an end immediately.

*************

Back in the early 1980's after the Frisco took over the Burlington Northern in the territory I worked 1/2 of the MOW sections were removed as well as a traveling general maintenance crew shared by two Roadmasters. (along with their jobs.) Everyone's territory to cover was doubled. One branch line section was cut because according to management the track was "over maintained" anyway.

In the last 10 years the territory was again cut with only one section crew now remaining to maintain all trackage. About 200 miles of track plus four small yards. The only good thing is that this territory spreads out like a web and is not end to end like others.


----------



## west point (Dec 14, 2022)

IMO RRs should have sidings every 20 - 30 minutes spacings that would limit land barges to shortest sidings. If that means lengthing the shortest siding or restore sidings long enough so be it ! Also new sidings to fill in voids.


----------



## Qapla (Dec 15, 2022)

Sounds like a good idea until the NIMBYS don't allow it


----------



## railiner (Dec 15, 2022)

jis said:


> There are relatively few container ships that do not fit Panamax using the new locks at Cocoli and Agua Clara. The original lock gates are a different matter, but naturally today's container carriers do not use those.
> 
> But the cost of a single transit using Panamax can be eye watering running upto a million dollars or more for a single crossing! But still it is apparently quite worth it since those new lock gates are in great demand and are never sitting idle for too long.


It might in some cases be worth it to just sail from Asia around South Africa or South America to an East Coast port...


----------



## cirdan (Dec 15, 2022)

jis said:


> We'll do anything to avoid fixing the railroads, and the pampered wall street boys running them.


If we do nothing to fix the railroads, at some point there will be nothing left to be fixed.

Other than creating a bunch of hiking and biking trails.

That won't be good for Amtrak either.


----------



## MARC Rider (Dec 15, 2022)

west point said:


> IMO RRs should have sidings every 20 - 30 minutes spacings that would limit land barges to shortest sidings. If that means lengthing the shortest siding or restore sidings long enough so be it ! Also new sidings to fill in voids.


I would think that just having a government regulation that limits the length of trains to the length of sidings on the route would do a lot to ease the problems. Does the FRA have the legal authority to do such a thing?


----------



## Trollopian (Dec 15, 2022)

cirdan said:


> If we do nothing to fix the railroads, at some point there will be nothing left to be fixed.
> 
> Other than creating a bunch of hiking and biking trails.
> 
> That won't be good for Amtrak either.



But great for the nation's obesity crisis. /s


----------



## joelkfla (Dec 15, 2022)

MARC Rider said:


> I would think that just having a government regulation that limits the length of trains to the length of sidings on the route would do a lot to ease the problems. Does the FRA have the legal authority to do such a thing?


Nah, never work. It makes too much sense. 

I was watching some of the STB UP Embargos hearing last night. There was an interesting comment, I think by the union rep: "If there's a hot box near the end of the train, by the time the conductor walks back to it, it's cooled down."


----------



## cirdan (Dec 19, 2022)

Qapla said:


> All I know is that when the tracks started being removed in our area the freight RR's expresses that it was done to eliminate "maintenance costs" ... maybe they meant "taxes" but that is not what they said.


In the UK too, especially during the Beeching area and right up until the 1980s, many former double track lines were reduced to single track. Maintenance costs were cited as the main reason. I guess this was factually correct as in the UK there was no tax advantage.

In some of these cases, I understand that on former double track lines, after single-tracking, the remaining single track was shifted over from the side to the middle of the alignment. This helped save costs for example if a railroad embankment or cutting was suffering from erosion or subsidence, as the central part was typically the most stable. The alternative would have been spending money on stabilizing or recreating the embankment or cutting. This is also why in the cases where this reduction has since been reversed and lines have been reinstated as double track, that this often took considerable investment.

I think in terms of the tracks themselves, the savings are probably not that significant as reducing a line from double to single track instantly doubles the number of trains using that track and thus leads to higher degradation and brings forward the time that it needs to be replaced. Furthermore more sidings and switches are required which all add to maintenance overhead.


----------



## Willbridge (Dec 24, 2022)

I've been reading up on Reconstruction and learned that it coincided with the efforts of shippers to organize against real or perceived railway unfairness. The name of one of the shipper associations back then was:

The National Anti-Monopoly Cheap Railway Freight League

Some things don't change much.


----------



## Willbridge (Dec 24, 2022)

cirdan said:


> In the UK too, especially during the Beeching area and right up until the 1980s, many former double track lines were reduced to single track. Maintenance costs were cited as the main reason. I guess this was factually correct as in the UK there was no tax advantage.
> 
> In some of these cases, I understand that on former double track lines, after single-tracking, the remaining single track was shifted over from the side to the middle of the alignment. This helped save costs for example if a railroad embankment or cutting was suffering from erosion or subsidence, as the central part was typically the most stable. The alternative would have been spending money on stabilizing or recreating the embankment or cutting. This is also why in the cases where this reduction has since been reversed and lines have been reinstated as double track, that this often took considerable investment.
> 
> I think in terms of the tracks themselves, the savings are probably not that significant as reducing a line from double to single track instantly doubles the number of trains using that track and thus leads to higher degradation and brings forward the time that it needs to be replaced. Furthermore more sidings and switches are required which all add to maintenance overhead.



Somewhere between Buffalo and Albany on the Water Level Route. Was this three tracks or four?


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Dec 25, 2022)

Willbridge said:


> Somewhere between Buffalo and Albany on the Water Level Route. Was this three tracks or four?
> View attachment 30839


Based on the width of the signal bridge I would say it was 4 tracks. Or planned to have a 4th track.


----------



## jis (Dec 25, 2022)

AmtrakBlue said:


> Based on the width of the signal bridge I would say it was 4 tracks. Or planned to have a 4th track.


The Water Level Route was substantially 4 track west of Albany.


----------



## railiner (Dec 25, 2022)

jis said:


> The Water Level Route was substantially 4 track west of Albany.


As was the "broad way" west of Philadelphia...


----------



## MARC Rider (Dec 25, 2022)

railiner said:


> As was the "broad way" west of Philadelphia...


Except between Atglen and Harrisburg, where the freight was bypassed on the "Enola low grade line." (now a rail-trail)


----------

