Ozexpatriate Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Updating the data I presented above with "transit" statistics from US/DOT/BTS/RITA: 2009 Passenger km UK: (Franchised etc, non-TfL etc): ... 50,800 million US: (Amtrak) ...................................... 9,521 million US: (Rail transit) .............................. 48,509 million US: (Passenger Rail) ....................... 58,030 million My guess that if you factor in Transport for London, light rail etc, it gets closer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozexpatriate Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 er, where are we going here? Good question Pete. I don't think there's a point. We know the two countries are different. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted May 9, 2012 Author Share Posted May 9, 2012 Yep, one is quite large, the other quite small; one is more crowded than the other: The UK has 646 people per sq mile, the USA 83 people per sq mile. The USA needs its massive rail freight movements, the UK really needs an efficient people mover rail system that is cheap...are we there yet? Best, Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted May 10, 2012 Author Share Posted May 10, 2012 Open sesame! As promised. But let's not just get bogged down with a list of stats, this time (I was as guilty as anyone....) Best, Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-UnitMad Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 ...er, where are we going here? Must admit I've wondered that about most of this thread.. What's the point of comparing the two Rail systems? They are just different, in so many ways - which is why it's so great that we share a common language (more or less ) and therefore can take a great interest in both.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted May 12, 2012 Author Share Posted May 12, 2012 Originally I was wondering about the difference in the way Freight was handled or rather prioritised over two systems of similar track mileage. Best, Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted May 12, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 12, 2012 Originally I was wondering about the difference in the way Freight was handled or rather prioritised over two systems of similar track mileage. Best, Pete. Good question that one Pete. I wonder if there is much difference in methods between the big US roads although I would have thought there wouldn't be much beyond whatever speciality the different traffics require? Certainly very different from over here where, notwithstanding a smidgeon of revival since privytisation, our freight working is mainly based on a trainload approach because of the economies it offers in operating costs. I wonder too how US freight rates are derived - are they still mileage based or are they as the UK and based on market pricing with costs taken into account when deciding you can do it economically for the market price? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted May 12, 2012 Author Share Posted May 12, 2012 I replied once but must have been writing in invisible ink............. To be honest I'm not sure on the pricing issues - I may get into it but it sounds too much like work.......... Good point, though. What I did find interesting was/is the increasing importance to the railroads of "General Merchandise" - other than Auto-Racks - the kind of mixed train which used to be prevalent in Britain is making a bigger comeback over here (especially if Coal continues its' decline). Lesson for everyone in this, maybe? Best, Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave1905 Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 Freight rates in the US have never been "mileage based" per se. Tariff rates (published rates) are by weight for a certain commodity between two points, regardless of mileage. So it might cost $1 per 100 lbs to ship cotton bales between El Paso and Galveston. It doesn't matter which railroad hauls it, what route they have to take, the rate is the same. So the ATSF might have a route that is 800 miles and the MP a route that is 500 miles, but they both charge the same rate. Since the 1980's when railroads were able to negoiate contracts there might be some mileage based contracts or mileage might be a component of how the rate was derived but not purely a mileage based system. The value added to product has more to do with it than the distance. A low grade bulk commodity will be a much lower rate than a higher grade finished product. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave1905 Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 Originally I was wondering about the difference in the way Freight was handled or rather prioritised over two systems of similar track mileage. With the old scheduled trains (timetable schedule), nominally the class of the train determined its priority. In addition to that there was a 'service schedule' or transportation plan, that is still used today, that assigns different categories of trains and is normally conveyed by the train symbol. The category and symbol are assigned based on the traffic the train is intended to carry. Within a railroad there are a network of trains that primarily handle autos and auto parts, another network that handle TOFC and COFC, a grain network, a coal network and a manifest network (general freight). There might be a management staff to handle each network and interface with the network's customers and terminals, but the same dispatchers handle all the trains on a given territory. For example a TOFC train might have symbol that starts with the letter Z. Everybody knows to keep Z trains moving. Within those Z trains there are few that have sensitive committments, such as those carrying UPS or FedEx shipments. Those might be the hottest of the bunch. They are prioritized by internal communications in the railroad. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave1905 Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 What I did find interesting was/is the increasing importance to the railroads of "General Merchandise" - other than Auto-Racks - the kind of mixed train which used to be prevalent in Britain is making a bigger comeback over here (especially if Coal continues its' decline). I'm not sure that manifest is necessarily "increasing in importance", other than as coal decreases due to a shift in natural gas, manifest is a relatively larger slice of the pie. Manifest really has tremendously decreased over the last decade, primarily due to the housing market collapse (lumber and building components) and the auto industry problems (steel and plastic products). The auto industry is rebounding faster than the housing market. Also manifest gets erroded by intermodal. A lot of what was boxcar business is now in domestic containers. The big increase lately is what is required to handle the shale oil and fracking process. There is a large rise in drill pipe, frac sand and crude oil. Some of that is in the manifest network, some is in unit train service. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted May 12, 2012 Author Share Posted May 12, 2012 The last quarterly report of NS highlights "General Merchandise" (or some such title) I cannot access it right now. If I remember it has a growth rate of 13% over same period last year. That's pretty significant but it may not be the same for UP and others. Best, Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted May 12, 2012 Author Share Posted May 12, 2012 Maybe "Mixed" would be a better title.... This is the sort of train I mean. From New Jersey earlier this year: Best, Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortliner Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 When people mention "mile-long" trains - it doesn't really sink in and mean anything - then you see something like this! See there is a Helm Leaser in #2- Ray'll be pleased Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
long island jack Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 Pete Wish i had trains like that at my back door,i've only got DMU's and the odd flask train,nice to see Helm leaser. Ray from deepest west cumbria Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted May 12, 2012 Author Share Posted May 12, 2012 I forgot to alert him too! Glad you all caught it... Best, Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talltim Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 Any one of those trains probably had more boxcars than there are left on the entire British network. It's interesting that there seems to be goodly amount of wagonload steel. What were the first few cars after the hoppers and the tank on the third train? That last train had some nasty wheel flats. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave1905 Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 Maybe "Mixed" would be a better title.... This is the sort of train I mean. From New Jersey earlier this year: Sometimes they are called mixed freights, although in the classic sense a mixed train is a train that has both freight and passenger cars. The interesting thing is how many of those cars are private owner cars (initials end in "X"). It used to be only tank and covered hoppers, but now boxcars, gons, flats are frequently private owner. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 Maybe "Mixed" would be a better title.... 'Wagonload' is probably the most meaningful name for such traffic used over here in modern times... What were the first few cars after the hoppers and the tank on the third train? They appear to be bulkhead flatcars converted to 'woodchip gon' style cars (as per the pair following them) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozexpatriate Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 The last quarterly report of NS highlights "General Merchandise" (or some such title) I cannot access it right now. Pete, on p26, the NS 2011 Annual Report breaks down General Merchandise into: Agricultural / consumer / government Chemicals Metals / construction Automotive Paper / clay / forest Revenues are listed for each category for 2009, 2010, 2011. I suspect that operationally, this business includes unit trains as well as 'mixed' like the CSX trains in your video. Other railways seem to break out some of these business segments separately. EDITED. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Wintle Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Pete, on p26, the NS 2011 Annual Report breaks down General Merchandise into: Agricultural / consumer / government Chemicals Metals / construction Automotive Paper / clay / forest Revenues are listed for each category for 2009, 2010, 2011. I suspect that operationally, this business includes unit trains as well as 'mixed'. Other railways seem to break some of these business segments separately. Since the annual report splits traffic into three major chunks, Coal (31% of revenue), General Merchandise (50%), and Intermodal (19%), I'd say that General Merchandise covers most trains that aren't either unit coal trains or intermodal trains, and would include, for instance, autoracks, whether run in complete trains or as part of a mixed train. Pages 11/12 (K5/K6) have the text description. Adrian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave1905 Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 If you read page 28, it says that on the NS, revenues increased by 12% year over year, driven by price increases, but that general merchandise traffic volume was flat. On pages 28 and 29 are more detailed descriptions of the performance and forecast for each commodity group. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.