buzz456 wrote:Surly you are not going to argue that making trains a bit shorter hinders transportation. All super long trains do is theoretically save some labor. I question that but what do I know.. What's the cost of the crew per mile on a 8500 foot train compared to a 11,000 foot train?
AmericanSteam wrote:It may be because Iowans don't like to wait for longer trains at grade crossings.
cnwfan wrote:AmericanSteam wrote:It may be because Iowans don't like to wait for longer trains at grade crossings.
We are an impatient sort... especially with our John Deere tractors. In all seriousness, I've got to believe this is being pushed by metro areas that have a class 1 mainline running through their downtown with lots of grade crossings. Once the trains are clear of those metro areas, the time difference for a 6,500 ft train vs a 11,000 ft train at 45 mph is a matter of a few minutes at best.
Buzz, to your point, I agree that the cost of the crew is the same for a 6,500 ft train verses an 11,000 ft train. But it comes down to the number of trains and crews it takes to haul a given amount of footage. 20,000 ft can take 2 trains at 10,000 ft per, or 3 trains at 6,500 ft. Each train needs spacing / time for meets, recrews, yarding. In this example, eliminating one train removes 1/3 of those spacing / timing issues, thus helping the overall system to move cars in a more timely manner.
buzz456 wrote:God save us from the bean counters of the world.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests