GLC RR

Anything pertaining to railfanning in Michigan.
User avatar
AARR
Ann Arbor RR Nerd
Posts: 37905
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 7:39 pm
Location: Washington, MI

Re: GLC RR

Unread post by AARR »

LansingRailFan wrote:
Fri Jan 27, 2023 1:13 pm
Updated:
329
383
386
390
393
395
396
399
Thank you for the update. How many engines is ideal for GLC to keep their system fluid?
PatC created a monster, 'cause nobody wants to see Don Simon no more they want AARR I'm chopped liver, well if you want AARR this is what I'll give ya, bad humor mixed with irrelevant info that'll make you roll your eyes quicker than a ~Z~ banhammer...

User avatar
LansingRailFan
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 11137
Joined: Fri Nov 01, 2019 4:21 pm
Location: Lansing
Contact:

Re: GLC RR

Unread post by LansingRailFan »

AARR wrote:
Fri Jan 27, 2023 1:57 pm
LansingRailFan wrote:
Fri Jan 27, 2023 1:13 pm
Updated:
329
383
386
390
393
395
396
399
Thank you for the update. How many engines is ideal for GLC to keep their system fluid?
If you add these together it’s 3,071 with an average of 383.875

User avatar
AARR
Ann Arbor RR Nerd
Posts: 37905
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 7:39 pm
Location: Washington, MI

Re: GLC RR

Unread post by AARR »

LansingRailFan wrote:
Fri Jan 27, 2023 2:28 pm
AARR wrote:
Fri Jan 27, 2023 1:57 pm

Thank you for the update. How many engines is ideal for GLC to keep their system fluid?
If you add these together it’s 3,071 with an average of 383.875
9 got it :wink:
PatC created a monster, 'cause nobody wants to see Don Simon no more they want AARR I'm chopped liver, well if you want AARR this is what I'll give ya, bad humor mixed with irrelevant info that'll make you roll your eyes quicker than a ~Z~ banhammer...

User avatar
LansingRailFan
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 11137
Joined: Fri Nov 01, 2019 4:21 pm
Location: Lansing
Contact:

Re: GLC RR

Unread post by LansingRailFan »

AARR wrote:
Fri Jan 27, 2023 2:35 pm
LansingRailFan wrote:
Fri Jan 27, 2023 2:28 pm
AARR wrote:
Fri Jan 27, 2023 1:57 pm

Thank you for the update. How many engines is ideal for GLC to keep their system fluid?
If you add these together it’s 3,071 with an average of 383.875
9 got it :wink:
341.22 repeating sorry. I divided by eight.

And no, I’m not sure that just nine is enough. They should probably get more of the assets they own running

User avatar
AARR
Ann Arbor RR Nerd
Posts: 37905
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 7:39 pm
Location: Washington, MI

Re: GLC RR

Unread post by AARR »

LansingRailFan wrote:
Fri Jan 27, 2023 2:37 pm
AARR wrote:
Fri Jan 27, 2023 2:35 pm
9 got it :wink:
341.22 repeating sorry. I divided by eight.

And no, I’m not sure that just nine is enough. They should probably get more of the assets they own running.
I was under the impression that they need two sets of engines. One of Cadillac and one for Owosso that the day shift shares with the night shift. Is there a need for Owosso's crews to have separate sets of engines?
PatC created a monster, 'cause nobody wants to see Don Simon no more they want AARR I'm chopped liver, well if you want AARR this is what I'll give ya, bad humor mixed with irrelevant info that'll make you roll your eyes quicker than a ~Z~ banhammer...

User avatar
LansingRailFan
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 11137
Joined: Fri Nov 01, 2019 4:21 pm
Location: Lansing
Contact:

Re: GLC RR

Unread post by LansingRailFan »

AARR wrote:
Fri Jan 27, 2023 3:43 pm
LansingRailFan wrote:
Fri Jan 27, 2023 2:37 pm
AARR wrote:
Fri Jan 27, 2023 2:35 pm
9 got it :wink:
341.22 repeating sorry. I divided by eight.

And no, I’m not sure that just nine is enough. They should probably get more of the assets they own running.
I was under the impression that they need two sets of engines. One of Cadillac and one for Owosso that the day shift shares with the night shift. Is there a need for Owosso's crews to have separate sets of engines?
If that's the case, this would be all of the power they would need for just one train, right? : http://railroadfan.com/phpbb/viewtopic. ... 58#p511358

User avatar
AARR
Ann Arbor RR Nerd
Posts: 37905
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 7:39 pm
Location: Washington, MI

Re: GLC RR

Unread post by AARR »

LansingRailFan wrote:
Fri Jan 27, 2023 4:28 pm
AARR wrote:
Fri Jan 27, 2023 3:43 pm
I was under the impression that they need two sets of engines. One of Cadillac and one for Owosso that the day shift shares with the night shift. Is there a need for Owosso's crews to have separate sets of engines?
If that's the case, this would be all of the power they would need for just one train, right? : http://railroadfan.com/phpbb/viewtopic. ... 58#p511358
Yes sir, 2 engines for the Cadillac crew and 4 for the Owosso crew. So, what I am learning from you is they need more than two sets of engines to keep their system fluid. I hope we can talk in person sometime.
PatC created a monster, 'cause nobody wants to see Don Simon no more they want AARR I'm chopped liver, well if you want AARR this is what I'll give ya, bad humor mixed with irrelevant info that'll make you roll your eyes quicker than a ~Z~ banhammer...

User avatar
LansingRailFan
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 11137
Joined: Fri Nov 01, 2019 4:21 pm
Location: Lansing
Contact:

Re: GLC RR

Unread post by LansingRailFan »

AARR wrote:
Fri Jan 27, 2023 4:50 pm
LansingRailFan wrote:
Fri Jan 27, 2023 4:28 pm
AARR wrote:
Fri Jan 27, 2023 3:43 pm
I was under the impression that they need two sets of engines. One of Cadillac and one for Owosso that the day shift shares with the night shift. Is there a need for Owosso's crews to have separate sets of engines?
If that's the case, this would be all of the power they would need for just one train, right? : http://railroadfan.com/phpbb/viewtopic. ... 58#p511358
Yes sir, 2 engines for the Cadillac crew and 4 for the Owosso crew. So, what I am learning from you is they need more than two sets of engines to keep their system fluid. I hope we can talk in person sometime.
There’s more than two crews! There’s more than two jobs! There’s more than four people working at a given time!

TC Man
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 1064
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 11:25 am

Re: GLC RR

Unread post by TC Man »

On the north end (Cadillac), there's no need for more than one set. And for the runs north of Cadillac, they really only need one engine. But for whatever reason, 90% of the time they take 2 engines to TC and Petoskey. Maybe just in case one has issues, but that's a lot of wasted fuel (yes they are always both online).
CEO of the Waving Institute- teaching great wave forms.

chapmaja
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 1262
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 2:02 pm

Re: GLC RR

Unread post by chapmaja »

TC Man wrote:
Fri Jan 27, 2023 5:05 pm
On the north end (Cadillac), there's no need for more than one set. And for the runs north of Cadillac, they really only need one engine. But for whatever reason, 90% of the time they take 2 engines to TC and Petoskey. Maybe just in case one has issues, but that's a lot of wasted fuel (yes they are always both online).
Why do I get the feeling you really don't like the GLC?

chapmaja
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 1262
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 2:02 pm

Re: GLC RR

Unread post by chapmaja »

LansingRailFan wrote:
Fri Jan 27, 2023 4:52 pm
AARR wrote:
Fri Jan 27, 2023 4:50 pm
LansingRailFan wrote:
Fri Jan 27, 2023 4:28 pm


If that's the case, this would be all of the power they would need for just one train, right? : http://railroadfan.com/phpbb/viewtopic. ... 58#p511358
Yes sir, 2 engines for the Cadillac crew and 4 for the Owosso crew. So, what I am learning from you is they need more than two sets of engines to keep their system fluid. I hope we can talk in person sometime.
There’s more than two crews! There’s more than two jobs! There’s more than four people working at a given time!
How many unit grain trains does the railroad get per year? How many units are running on those trains? Normally I've seen 4 units on the units trains. If you only had 4 engines in Owosso that would mean the entire "southern" power would be tied up onto 1 train, thus not allowing any other operations to occur on the south end of the railroad, and thus potentially impacting operations on the north end and with interchange partner railroads.

For those thinking the GLC only needs 6 functioning locomotives, maybe we need to think back to the AA era when they were running the GP35's and were running similar total length (although level volume the entire length of the line). At that time they had 10 GP35's plus 2 RS1's, and several swtich engines. Today, the traffic density is different, but the needs for locomotive power are similar.

User avatar
SD80MAC
Ingersoll's Mr. Michigan
Posts: 10431
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:59 pm
Location: Grand Rapids

Re: GLC RR

Unread post by SD80MAC »

On average, GLC runs more than 2 trains on any typical day. They need as many engines as they can keep running.
"Remember, 4 mph is a couple, 5's a collision!"
http://flickriver.com/photos/conrail680 ... teresting/
Image

TC Man
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 1064
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 11:25 am

Re: GLC RR

Unread post by TC Man »

chapmaja wrote:
Sat Jan 28, 2023 12:34 am
TC Man wrote:
Fri Jan 27, 2023 5:05 pm
On the north end (Cadillac), there's no need for more than one set. And for the runs north of Cadillac, they really only need one engine. But for whatever reason, 90% of the time they take 2 engines to TC and Petoskey. Maybe just in case one has issues, but that's a lot of wasted fuel (yes they are always both online).
Why do I get the feeling you really don't like the GLC?


I do not dislike the GLC at all. I do dislike a waste of my taxes (I'm not a railfan in the sense that many here are- don't watch trains, but I watch with interest their operations on the north end). Transload with cross dock availability would not only allow GLC to be more profitable (save fuel, wear and tear, locomotive and crew availability, track maintenance for the share that they pay), and save the state (and in turn us taxpayers) by abandoning north of Cadillac once a fully executed transfer facility is built in or near Cadillac. Heck, reuse the abandoned San mine in Yuma- perfect spot and right on M-37. Might even be able to take some business from Marquette. Would be plenty of room to grow there. We know plastic pellet transloads work (look at Clare and Petoskey), as do lumber (look all over the USA). And then they can market the facility all over northwest Michigan, therefore adding to carload count in the north (aka revenue).
CEO of the Waving Institute- teaching great wave forms.

chapmaja
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 1262
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 2:02 pm

Re: GLC RR

Unread post by chapmaja »

TC Man wrote:
Sat Jan 28, 2023 1:21 pm
chapmaja wrote:
Sat Jan 28, 2023 12:34 am
TC Man wrote:
Fri Jan 27, 2023 5:05 pm
On the north end (Cadillac), there's no need for more than one set. And for the runs north of Cadillac, they really only need one engine. But for whatever reason, 90% of the time they take 2 engines to TC and Petoskey. Maybe just in case one has issues, but that's a lot of wasted fuel (yes they are always both online).
Why do I get the feeling you really don't like the GLC?


I do not dislike the GLC at all. I do dislike a waste of my taxes (I'm not a railfan in the sense that many here are- don't watch trains, but I watch with interest their operations on the north end). Transload with cross dock availability would not only allow GLC to be more profitable (save fuel, wear and tear, locomotive and crew availability, track maintenance for the share that they pay), and save the state (and in turn us taxpayers) by abandoning north of Cadillac once a fully executed transfer facility is built in or near Cadillac. Heck, reuse the abandoned San mine in Yuma- perfect spot and right on M-37. Might even be able to take some business from Marquette. Would be plenty of room to grow there. We know plastic pellet transloads work (look at Clare and Petoskey), as do lumber (look all over the USA). And then they can market the facility all over northwest Michigan, therefore adding to carload count in the north (aka revenue).
I find it interesting that you mention wear and tear as a potential cost savings, while at the same time talking about tax savings. I think you are significantly underestimating the cost of the wear and tear that having such a transload would place on the roads leading to and from the TC area. Wear and tear that costs a significant amount of money, all of which is taxpayer money to deal with. I think it would be interesting for you to do a breakdown of how much the costs (in taxpayer dollars) are for the GLC running north of Cadillac and compare that with the cost (again in taxpayer dollars) that transloading that traffic would cost.

Jim_c
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 311
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2017 6:14 pm

Re: GLC RR

Unread post by Jim_c »

Last time I was in TC it seemed like the last thing that was needed was more traffic, especially in the summer. A few years ago they were looking at regional mass transit options, and rail was mentioned as a long-term solution if the area continues to grow. Abandoning the track may save some money in the short term, but may not be a good long-term strategy. Just like Grand Rapids, they have unused track, but abandonment will decrease options down the road.
Trails to Rails. Put the track back.

TC Man
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 1064
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 11:25 am

Re: GLC RR

Unread post by TC Man »

Where is there going to be more traffic? All this traffic already goes via truck from and to wherever. So opening a transload will remove some truck traffic south of the transload site. From there to TC, nothing changes. The amount of truck traffic added between TC and the transload is minimal- Beacon ships maybe 4 cars per month, and Amerhart gets maybe 4 cars per month. Even figuring 4 trucks per rail car, that's not much extra.
CEO of the Waving Institute- teaching great wave forms.

1TrackMind
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 222
Joined: Thu May 24, 2018 5:47 pm

Re: GLC RR

Unread post by 1TrackMind »

Don't you think if it made financial sense the railroad would have already done that?

TC Man
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 1064
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 11:25 am

Re: GLC RR

Unread post by TC Man »

Not necessarily. They seem to be focusing on the south half. And MDOT may have a say in it also.
CEO of the Waving Institute- teaching great wave forms.

User avatar
R Bedell
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 157
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:42 pm
Location: Mid Michigan

Re: GLC RR

Unread post by R Bedell »

Sigh. I see this thread got Hi-jacked. :(

GP30M4216
Saver of all History
Posts: 4801
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2004 10:35 pm
Location: Feel the Zeel, MI
Contact:

Re: GLC RR

Unread post by GP30M4216 »

Earlier in the GLC era, I was told by a reliable source that the Owosso shop crew often plans a couple of major projects over each winter when grain traffic is much slower, it wouldn’t surprise me if a few more numbers join that active list as winter warms into spring.

4 units minimum seem to be needed for the south end. If there’s a big interchange with csx at AnnPere, or the Annie at Osmer, or both, the Owosso south train will run with 4, and I don’t know if a separate crew switches around Owosso at all on their own power or not.

Post Reply