 |
Re: UP: We don't need no stinkin' track!
Author: theconductor
Date: 07-26-2015 - 10:14
SP5103 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And when UP melted down circa 2004/2005, part of
> the problem was that Roseville was blocking trains
> for more locations than they had bowl tracks even
> before considering tracks out of service for
> maintenance or being pulled by a trim job.
>
>
Something to think about is that up until the last few month, the UP was handling nearly as many weekly carloadings as the 2004/2005 meltdown. And just as many as the post merger meltdown of the late 90's. Things have been very fluid not only in Roseville, but across the system. It seems those inexperienced clueless college kids did manage to figure some things out.
I'd also like to know how many recieving tracks the old Roseville yard had and how long they were. For the most part it's working pretty damn well over the last few years, but it certainly can fill up fast!
-------------------------------------------------------
> And when UP melted down circa 2004/2005, part of
> the problem was that Roseville was blocking trains
> for more locations than they had bowl tracks even
> before considering tracks out of service for
> maintenance or being pulled by a trim job.
>
>
Something to think about is that up until the last few month, the UP was handling nearly as many weekly carloadings as the 2004/2005 meltdown. And just as many as the post merger meltdown of the late 90's. Things have been very fluid not only in Roseville, but across the system. It seems those inexperienced clueless college kids did manage to figure some things out.
I'd also like to know how many recieving tracks the old Roseville yard had and how long they were. For the most part it's working pretty damn well over the last few years, but it certainly can fill up fast!
