7 ms·

A Revolution Sweeping Railroads Upends How America Moves Its Stuff

56 points by ycombonator 8y ago

EmilStenstrom 8y ago
Behind paywall unfortunately.
- Luc 8y ago
  Try ‘web’ link.
  - spacegod 8y ago
    What does this mean?
    - semperdark 8y ago
      Most paywalled news sites have exceptions if you're coming from Google/FB. You can hit the "web" link under the title of the article on HN to Google search for it, and then click the article from there.
  - gpvos 8y ago
    Has that ever worked for you with the WSJ paywall? Not for me.
    - masonic 8y ago
      One just worked for me for this specific article.
    - Luc 8y ago
      Yes, it worked for this article.
- akadruid1 8y ago
  If you search for the article title you will find it on syndicate sites without the paywall, such as https://ih.advfn.com/stock-market/NYSE/norfolk-NSC/stock-news/79622433/a-revolution-sweeping-railroads-upends-how-america https://ih.advfn.com/stock-market/NYSE/norfolk-NSC/stock-new... Perhaps a mod could update the link?
- dang 8y ago
  We changed the URL from https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-revolution-sweeping-railroads-upends-how-america-moves-its-stuff-11554302583 https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-revolution-sweeping-railroads... to one that's publicly readable.
OldManAndTheCpp 8y ago
This seems to be an argument that one scheduling system is worse than the previous. However, one of the major objectives of a scheduling system is to reduce cost, which this seems to have done. What is the downside?
- ropeladder 8y ago
  You are missing the key pay of the question: reduce costs for whom? Since railroads are effectively a (regulated) monopoly reducing costs for Norfolk Southern or CSX can mean Wall Street profits combined with worse service for customers at the same price.
  - Nasrudith 8y ago
    Wouldn't that be a question for regulators then in terms of how much profit can be extracted without lowering costs or using the savings on other investments?
Animats 8y ago
The customer perspective:[1] The metrics grain shippers use all got worse. [1] http://www.grainnet.com/article/160328/precision-scheduled-railroading-operating-ratios-and-grain-service-metrics http://www.grainnet.com/article/160328/precision-scheduled-r...
steve_gh 8y ago
I do a lot of work with the rail industry in the UK (both heavy and light rail) - but the UK is much more passenger focussed. Reducing cost can take a lot of tweaking to get right, and is likely to take more than one cycle to do. But new schedules do take some bedding in until they are running smoothly. Once that happens, you can then look for the next round of optimisations - tweaks to the way the trains are assembled in the yards which then start building the incremental gains. If you have a better scheduling system, you build resilience into the schedule. You open up more time for maintenance, you keep your assets in better condition, so you have fewer breakdowns. One thing to remember is that (in general) there is a Pareto on train breakdowns - 20% of the locomotives cause 80% of the problems. It will be the worst locomotives that are taken out of service, so the reduction in service affecting failures should be quite significant. You make some money on the OPEX side by doing more scheduled maintenance, and less emergency maintenance (overtime is really expensive!). You also make savings on the CAPEX side, because your assets last longer. [edit]. Changed para order
- yazr 8y ago
  Can you please explain why "new schedules do take some bedding" ? Cant u sort of simulate the expected scenarios and get sort-of expected performance? I realize there is unexpected events, but these will occur anyway in old and new schedules Also - does real train software has nice graphics or do u get a boring excel ? ;(
  - liotier 8y ago
    In theory there is no difference between theory and practice... As for software, the optimization of rail slot allocation is far beyond spreadhseets - for the whole French network it is a math-heavy process for which a whole team harnesses a bunch of specialist software. More about the process (in French): https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01423840/document https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01423840/document
    - k3liutZu 8y ago
      > In theory there is no difference between theory and practice... This is really good.
SideburnsOfDoom 8y ago
Is precise scheduling of trains really a revolution?
- zeckalpha 8y ago
  Perhaps not, but business practices fall out of style and get rediscovered over time. This practice of leaving with or without your forecasted cargo reminds me of the software “release train” concept.
  - PaulHoule 8y ago
    It sounds like something advanced manufacturers were doing in the late 1970s and that the laggards were talking about in the mid 1990s.
- exabrial 8y ago
  For cargo yes. Trucks arrival times are predictable within a few hours, trains are within days.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - SideburnsOfDoom 8y ago
    If trains are already running precise schedules on those tracks, then it's not that revolutionary really?
- hylaride 8y ago
  It's not a revolution per say, except that since it can often be hard for trains to bypass congestion/stoppages that schedules can go awry easily. In the US, there are huge bottlenecks around Chicago (where a crazy high percentage of all American rail freight passes through) and as much as the railways would love to build new track, various political/environmental issues have been preventing it. As the article states, freight trains used to kind of run "on demand" centered around the customer, which made scheduling efficient train loads hard. Now they're trying to group into a more normal schedule, but this can still be hard as freight loads don't necessarily go point-to-point to their final destination and delays can cascade for switch-overs at hubs. Source: Have been a long-time investor in a major railway and read the investor reports.
sathomasga 8y ago
> CSX spokesman Bryan Tucker said the company could have done better communicating the changes to customers, but he defended the actions by pointing to its financial results. I think the most telling part of the article
adamc 8y ago
The layoffs are going to hurt. Fewer good jobs for people with those skills.
bluGill 8y ago
I don't understand: how/why is service worse? The article makes it clear that service is worse, but the details on why are important. I can come up with a number of different scenarios, with different faults and restrictions. Without knowing deeper reasons I don't know if this is a bad idea (as BNSF claims) that needs to be scrapped or a great idea that just needs to get over growing pains.
supernova87a 8y ago
I'm not sure I get the problem. Doesn't this just call for modeling a network of branches, nodes, with set of realistic max/min/stddev timings to traverse each, and an inventory + desired times of trains to be released into the system? Is it that railroads don't have the expertise to do this? Hard to imagine. Why are railroad execs huddled around a physical table + map trying to propose timings for trains to run through? Maybe the article is simplifying things that makes it sound really inefficient.
SilasX 8y ago
So, basically a routing/allocation problem? You could throw SAT solvers at it, right?

56 points by ycombonator 8y ago

EmilStenstrom 8y ago

Behind paywall unfortunately.

Luc 8y ago
Try ‘web’ link.
- spacegod 8y ago
  What does this mean?
  - semperdark 8y ago
    Most paywalled news sites have exceptions if you're coming from Google/FB. You can hit the "web" link under the title of the article on HN to Google search for it, and then click the article from there.
- gpvos 8y ago
  Has that ever worked for you with the WSJ paywall? Not for me.
  - masonic 8y ago
    One just worked for me for this specific article.
  - Luc 8y ago
    Yes, it worked for this article.
akadruid1 8y ago
If you search for the article title you will find it on syndicate sites without the paywall, such as https://ih.advfn.com/stock-market/NYSE/norfolk-NSC/stock-news/79622433/a-revolution-sweeping-railroads-upends-how-america https://ih.advfn.com/stock-market/NYSE/norfolk-NSC/stock-new... Perhaps a mod could update the link?
dang 8y ago
We changed the URL from https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-revolution-sweeping-railroads-upends-how-america-moves-its-stuff-11554302583 https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-revolution-sweeping-railroads... to one that's publicly readable.

OldManAndTheCpp 8y ago

This seems to be an argument that one scheduling system is worse than the previous. However, one of the major objectives of a scheduling system is to reduce cost, which this seems to have done. What is the downside?

ropeladder 8y ago
You are missing the key pay of the question: reduce costs for whom? Since railroads are effectively a (regulated) monopoly reducing costs for Norfolk Southern or CSX can mean Wall Street profits combined with worse service for customers at the same price.
- Nasrudith 8y ago
  Wouldn't that be a question for regulators then in terms of how much profit can be extracted without lowering costs or using the savings on other investments?

Animats 8y ago

The customer perspective:[1] The metrics grain shippers use all got worse. [1] http://www.grainnet.com/article/160328/precision-scheduled-railroading-operating-ratios-and-grain-service-metrics http://www.grainnet.com/article/160328/precision-scheduled-r...

steve_gh 8y ago

I do a lot of work with the rail industry in the UK (both heavy and light rail) - but the UK is much more passenger focussed. Reducing cost can take a lot of tweaking to get right, and is likely to take more than one cycle to do. But new schedules do take some bedding in until they are running smoothly. Once that happens, you can then look for the next round of optimisations - tweaks to the way the trains are assembled in the yards which then start building the incremental gains. If you have a better scheduling system, you build resilience into the schedule. You open up more time for maintenance, you keep your assets in better condition, so you have fewer breakdowns. One thing to remember is that (in general) there is a Pareto on train breakdowns - 20% of the locomotives cause 80% of the problems. It will be the worst locomotives that are taken out of service, so the reduction in service affecting failures should be quite significant. You make some money on the OPEX side by doing more scheduled maintenance, and less emergency maintenance (overtime is really expensive!). You also make savings on the CAPEX side, because your assets last longer. [edit]. Changed para order

yazr 8y ago
Can you please explain why "new schedules do take some bedding" ? Cant u sort of simulate the expected scenarios and get sort-of expected performance? I realize there is unexpected events, but these will occur anyway in old and new schedules Also - does real train software has nice graphics or do u get a boring excel ? ;(
- liotier 8y ago
  In theory there is no difference between theory and practice... As for software, the optimization of rail slot allocation is far beyond spreadhseets - for the whole French network it is a math-heavy process for which a whole team harnesses a bunch of specialist software. More about the process (in French): https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01423840/document https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01423840/document
  - k3liutZu 8y ago
    > In theory there is no difference between theory and practice... This is really good.

SideburnsOfDoom 8y ago

Is precise scheduling of trains really a revolution?

zeckalpha 8y ago
Perhaps not, but business practices fall out of style and get rediscovered over time. This practice of leaving with or without your forecasted cargo reminds me of the software “release train” concept.
- PaulHoule 8y ago
  It sounds like something advanced manufacturers were doing in the late 1970s and that the laggards were talking about in the mid 1990s.
exabrial 8y ago
For cargo yes. Trucks arrival times are predictable within a few hours, trains are within days.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- SideburnsOfDoom 8y ago
  If trains are already running precise schedules on those tracks, then it's not that revolutionary really?
hylaride 8y ago
It's not a revolution per say, except that since it can often be hard for trains to bypass congestion/stoppages that schedules can go awry easily. In the US, there are huge bottlenecks around Chicago (where a crazy high percentage of all American rail freight passes through) and as much as the railways would love to build new track, various political/environmental issues have been preventing it. As the article states, freight trains used to kind of run "on demand" centered around the customer, which made scheduling efficient train loads hard. Now they're trying to group into a more normal schedule, but this can still be hard as freight loads don't necessarily go point-to-point to their final destination and delays can cascade for switch-overs at hubs. Source: Have been a long-time investor in a major railway and read the investor reports.

sathomasga 8y ago

> CSX spokesman Bryan Tucker said the company could have done better communicating the changes to customers, but he defended the actions by pointing to its financial results. I think the most telling part of the article

adamc 8y ago

The layoffs are going to hurt. Fewer good jobs for people with those skills.

bluGill 8y ago

I don't understand: how/why is service worse? The article makes it clear that service is worse, but the details on why are important. I can come up with a number of different scenarios, with different faults and restrictions. Without knowing deeper reasons I don't know if this is a bad idea (as BNSF claims) that needs to be scrapped or a great idea that just needs to get over growing pains.

supernova87a 8y ago

I'm not sure I get the problem. Doesn't this just call for modeling a network of branches, nodes, with set of realistic max/min/stddev timings to traverse each, and an inventory + desired times of trains to be released into the system? Is it that railroads don't have the expertise to do this? Hard to imagine. Why are railroad execs huddled around a physical table + map trying to propose timings for trains to run through? Maybe the article is simplifying things that makes it sound really inefficient.

SilasX 8y ago

So, basically a routing/allocation problem? You could throw SAT solvers at it, right?