 |
Re: Ah "Megatrains", the last step before total meltdown?
Author: HUTCH 7.62
Date: 09-30-2014 - 19:21
BOB2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have run a 150+ car 13,000+ footers, and if my
> experience, and the research on optimal train
> sizes are anything to go by, this is truly the
> last refuge of fools, before meltdown. Worse,
> most evidence would suggest that resorting to
> "mega-trains" can actually fuel and facilitate
> meltdown.
>
> These beasts tie up miles of railroad, take
> forever to start, often have train line issues,
> are invariably slow, causing havoc on single track
> with too few extremely long sidings, and on double
> track without enough crossovers to get traffic
> around these turkey's.
>
> For these "mega-trains" trains, evidence and
> experience show that you need to take a switch to
> switch run time and double it. So a normal six or
> eight hour run doubled, suddenly becomes a monster
> train tied up after twelve hours, dead on the law,
> and doing little but to make crew shortages even
> worse.
>
> Now, tie up a couple of these "mega-trains" down
> on the mainline, because you have no sidings or
> yard capacity to get them out of the way, and you
> have what happened in Sou Cal back after the UP-SP
> merger: system meldown.
>
> As to Rich's earlier comment about fleet size, I
> am a big believer in HPT (horse-power-per-ton).
> More and properly distributed HPT can do a lot to
> maintain or improve velocity and improve fluidity.
> In turn, this would potentially improve crew
> availability the old fashioned way, by getting
> more miles covered per crew hour....
>
> Most of these mega-trains, are often (inevitably?)
> underpowered, and have more drag to contend with
> due to more more LOV resistance from shear length,
> which really ties up the railroad, especially
> where you have grades and curves. They are also a
> @#$%& (or "female dog"?) to handle, too much power
> and you can easily suck a draw bar (and tie up the
> RR), or even string-line (and tie up the RR), too
> much slack action, due to length, ditto (and you
> tie up the RR).
>
> In ten years this crew problem will be solved,
> there will be no more engineer---the automated
> "google" train, will be here along with the
> "google" driverless car and truck. The stupidity
> of the "mega-train" will probably survive,
> however, as another generation of trainmasters
> will find the simplistic appeal, too enticing.
> But, at least we won't get run over in the cross
> walk by dufus's texting...
Seemed to work for the SP. Well except on the trackage rights on the WP east of Sierra Army Depot.
Once heard a saying on the SP, "Uphill slow, Downhill Fast, Tonnage First, Safety Last
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have run a 150+ car 13,000+ footers, and if my
> experience, and the research on optimal train
> sizes are anything to go by, this is truly the
> last refuge of fools, before meltdown. Worse,
> most evidence would suggest that resorting to
> "mega-trains" can actually fuel and facilitate
> meltdown.
>
> These beasts tie up miles of railroad, take
> forever to start, often have train line issues,
> are invariably slow, causing havoc on single track
> with too few extremely long sidings, and on double
> track without enough crossovers to get traffic
> around these turkey's.
>
> For these "mega-trains" trains, evidence and
> experience show that you need to take a switch to
> switch run time and double it. So a normal six or
> eight hour run doubled, suddenly becomes a monster
> train tied up after twelve hours, dead on the law,
> and doing little but to make crew shortages even
> worse.
>
> Now, tie up a couple of these "mega-trains" down
> on the mainline, because you have no sidings or
> yard capacity to get them out of the way, and you
> have what happened in Sou Cal back after the UP-SP
> merger: system meldown.
>
> As to Rich's earlier comment about fleet size, I
> am a big believer in HPT (horse-power-per-ton).
> More and properly distributed HPT can do a lot to
> maintain or improve velocity and improve fluidity.
> In turn, this would potentially improve crew
> availability the old fashioned way, by getting
> more miles covered per crew hour....
>
> Most of these mega-trains, are often (inevitably?)
> underpowered, and have more drag to contend with
> due to more more LOV resistance from shear length,
> which really ties up the railroad, especially
> where you have grades and curves. They are also a
> @#$%& (or "female dog"?) to handle, too much power
> and you can easily suck a draw bar (and tie up the
> RR), or even string-line (and tie up the RR), too
> much slack action, due to length, ditto (and you
> tie up the RR).
>
> In ten years this crew problem will be solved,
> there will be no more engineer---the automated
> "google" train, will be here along with the
> "google" driverless car and truck. The stupidity
> of the "mega-train" will probably survive,
> however, as another generation of trainmasters
> will find the simplistic appeal, too enticing.
> But, at least we won't get run over in the cross
> walk by dufus's texting...
Seemed to work for the SP. Well except on the trackage rights on the WP east of Sierra Army Depot.
Once heard a saying on the SP, "Uphill slow, Downhill Fast, Tonnage First, Safety Last
