CN is trading tonnage for schedule

[David Lang]

CN is apparently realizing very long trains isn't that efficient. I still think running freight trains to an exact schedule is difficult, but it's an interesting article anyway.

https://www.trains.com/trn/news-reviews ... ule-is-in/

[AARR]

It seems a major complaint about railroads is their unpredictable schedules. Scheduling more trains should help predictable schedules. But will customers pay more for railroads to hire more crews, equipment, etc?

[David Collins]

CN is apparently realizing very long trains isn't that efficient. I still think running freight trains to an exact schedule is difficult, but it's an interesting article anyway.

https://www.trains.com/trn/news-reviews ... ule-is-in/

Could this be the end of CN doing PSR?

[David Lang]

It was interesting that the article states that they don't say "PSR" anymore, its just scheduling now.

Well, somebody's got to say it...if this does lead to a few more trains, from a railfan perspective, I'll take it! Already seeing a fair amount of extras on the CN main lately.

[PatAzo]

Could this be the end of CN doing PSR?

Actually a return to it. In the early days of PSR when CN received a car, the car was given a trip plan with all the connections it would make from shipper to receiver. Trains left on time at tonnage or not so connections could be made. PSR showed great promise turning equipment around faster and reducing capital costs. Costs went down and profits went up. Investors like growth and to keep stocks on the rise railroads had to show growth in profit.

The first PSR victims were small shippers. Any process runs best when it runs stable. Unpredictability in small shippers meant ebb and flow in car counts. It also cost more to service small shippers than dragging containers to and from ports so small shippers started getting the axe. The stockholder beast wanted more.

Rates were raised for anyone captive. We had a mining customer served solely by U.P. who built a transload two hours from the mine and trucked product to get access to BNSF as well as U.P. As soon as they broke ground on the transload U.P. started making double digit rate reductions. The mine said they saved 25%+ once they could leverage BNSF and UP against each other.

With no more small shippers to get rid of and the shippers turning to the government for help with rates, cost cutting became the name of the PSR game. Reduce yards, crews and locomotives. At first that worked o.k. but the beast wanted more. So cuts continued until it was effectively anti-PSR. Not enough people to move the freight. Log jammed terminals.
Behemoth trains that the drag freight mined set of the early 20th century would have been proud of.

[Standard Railfan]

I wonder if this ongoing study by the FRA had anything to do with CN’s change of heart.

https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.do ... ersion.pdf

[Saturnalia]

It's one thing to run big trains. It's another to start running trains that exceed what the physical plant and equipment was designed for.

When trains get longer, you get a greater efficiency in crewing, for instance, but at some point the additional problems presented begin to outweigh the initial benefits. I think this is what the railroads are starting to come to a better understanding of.

For instance, tripling a 12,000' train out of a yard, blocking the switching lead and perhaps mainline track causes congestion. No-fitters congest the mainline. A longer train is more likely to experience an EOT Comms loss, which on most carriers is a 30 MPH speed restriction. Longer trains are more likely to experience knuckle failure, and they're more likely to be further from the locomotive, increasing the time of repair and further congesting the mainline. This is all before any of these recent train-handling and train-makeup incidents are factored in.

Simply put, I believe over the next couple of years the industry, having now tried anything and everything for train consists, will probably (with nudging from the FRA), adopt relatively shorter consists as the norm. However, this won't be a return to when 6000 foot trains were the big ones. I think we'll get to a point where 7500-9000 footers are your normal maximum in general.

Another angle which I foresee the railroads exploring is working with the FRA and labor unions on a set of standards for which trains could be operated by a lone engineer, which would probably require footage and tonnage limits. Such limits could be on length, tonnage, route difficulty and hazmat. For instance, do they adopt that a non-key train under say 7,000' and 10,000 tons can be operated over most non-mountainous PTC-equipped routes with only an engineer? Perhaps.

I will note one question I presently have, and that is, at what point will the industry trade upgrading the rolling stock for reductions in train crew size? For instance, freight cars right now are almost all 100% passive with only a single brake pipe linkage. Perhaps if cars gained additional sensor technology (thinking hotbox, G-sensors for slack, etc), and electrically controlled pneumatic braking, the railroads would be able to convince regulators, and gain enough economically to pay off the unions, to make it happen.

Time will tell.