This evening I went up to see some trains in Madison & Unionville Ohio. Well, this was the longest train I have ever seen in my life and it was all loaded sand covered hopper cars. 252 cars total. This train has units up front, then 2 sets of DPU distributed power units, 2 mid UP DPU & 2 rear UP DPU. A must see video!!!
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Amazing, Tom! Great looking video of a super train.
Thanks Tom. Glad we don’t have these here.
We did pass a CSX container train coming out of the port yesterday that had two engines in the middle. First time we had seen that in Suffolk and it was not close to the length of this one.
The 'box' truck didn't wait, ha, ha. Now ya know why some dummies run the crossing gates ? WOW !
Long trains like this are a thorn in the side of timely response from Police, Fire and EMS. Out of zone coverage requires secondary responders to be diverted from their primary response zones, entailing longer response times, and, can literally mean the difference between life and death in emergencies. Most agencies have action plans to deal with these delays, but it’s still not ideal.
I don't understand why the railroads are taking large risks with trains this size. Why not just run two trains with 3 engines each one after another? Isn't the only added cost just one extra crew to run the second train? I would think paying the cost of one extra crew would far outweigh the cost of cleaning up a wreck.
How much extra stress and pressure is there on the single crew running a train this size?
At least someone was paying attention to how the train was put together. You will note the "mid-train" DPU set is NOT in the center of the train, but rather 2/3s of the way back from the front. Experience has shown this position results in the least amount of trouble when handling a train of this size.
Chris
LVHR
@Ron045 posted:I don't understand why the railroads are taking large risks with trains this size. Why not just run two trains with 3 engines each one after another? Isn't the only added cost just one extra crew to run the second train? I would think paying the cost of one extra crew would far outweigh the cost of cleaning up a wreck.
How much extra stress and pressure is there on the single crew running a train this size?
May I suggest that you learn the particulars of PSR (Precision Scheduled Railroading), concerning the philosophies of personnel and motive power reductions, and how it relates to lower operating ratios and inflated stock prices on Wall Street.
@Hot Water posted:May I suggest that you learn the particulars of PSR (Precision Scheduled Railroading), concerning the philosophies of personnel and motive power reductions, and how it relates to lower operating ratios and inflated stock prices on Wall Street.
Thanks for the reply. I'll have to put that on my list of priorities and see where that falls out.
@lehighline posted:At least someone was paying attention to how the train was put together. You will note the "mid-train" DPU set is NOT in the center of the train, but rather 2/3s of the way back from the front. Experience has shown this position results in the least amount of trouble when handling a train of this size.
Chris
LVHR
Hot Water can better comment on this, but I think that these days, with respect to the comment "someone is paying attention to how the train was put together," that someone is mostly a computer, which calculates load and power requirements and engine position for most efficient operation of a given train. I think I read awhile back about the use of computers and programs that the railroads use now for these things. A lot of it is to make things as efficient as possible to save fuel, a huge cost factor for railroads, as well as to achieve best utilization (without unnecessary wear) of engines.
@Ron045 posted:...Why not just run two trains with 3 engines each one after another? Isn't the only added cost just one extra crew to run the second train?
They don't HAVE any extra crews.
With the advent of PSR and its total focus on improving shareholder value above all else, people are quitting the railroad industry in droves. NS is hurting for people so bad that they recently approved a female for conductor service after she FELL OFF a car during training because she couldn't hang on any longer. The full story was posted on Trainorders.com last week.
Good comment, Rich. And this is in an environment where railroad jobs are pretty well-paid - and would seem to be desirable. As you have observed before, PSR is driving customers away, too, not just employees.
A couple of years ago I read a white paper about PSR when it first came on the scene. In that paper, the word shareholder appeared over 100 times. How many times did the word “customer” appear?
Not once.
That should tell you all you need to know about PSR - Pretty Sad Railroading.
@Ron045 posted:I don't understand why the railroads are taking large risks with trains this size. Why not just run two trains with 3 engines each one after another? Isn't the only added cost just one extra crew to run the second train? I would think paying the cost of one extra crew would far outweigh the cost of cleaning up a wreck.
How much extra stress and pressure is there on the single crew running a train this size?
Most of the time… it’s run by trip optimizer anyway.
All I watch is train action on Youtube. I often think that somehow with all this federal money floating around, that an overpass could be built somewhere along these lines. You know, solar panel heated wires in the roadbed to melt ice in winter, all sorts of cool stuff could be implemented.
"Hot Water can better comment on this, but I think that these days, with respect to the comment "someone is paying attention to how the train was put together," that someone is mostly a computer, which calculates load and power requirements and engine position for most efficient operation of a given train. I think I read awhile back about the use of computers and programs that the railroads use now for these things. A lot of it is to make things as efficient as possible to save fuel, a huge cost factor for railroads, as well as to achieve best utilization (without unnecessary wear) of engines."
It might be a computer now, but a lot of it is emperical data. When they started doing this a little while ago, the RRs did put the DPU set smack in the middle of the train. The result was an imbalance in pushing/pulling by the DPU, which resulted in pull aparts (and worse?). They started toying with DPU placement and found 2/3s back was usually the ideal location. It has far less to do with fuel efficency and a lot more with reliability for getting the train from point A to point B on time.
Chris
LVHR
YouTuber Wide World of Trains also caught this same consist in upstate NY:
---PCJ
Access to this requires an OGR Forum Supporting Membership
