By TIM ALEXANDER
Illinois Correspondent

MILWAUKEE, Wis. — A recent online “webinar” hosted by Progressive Railroading magazine allowed rail experts to make their case in support of longer, heavier and faster trains on U.S. track systems. Bolstering profits is the main motivation behind the railroads’ desire to increase payloads and speed for freight trains.

An industry-wide transition to heavier (think double-stacked) and longer trains, however, would likely require a bolstering of rail infrastructure and equipment, Transportation Technology Center Vice President of Commercial Programs Al Reinschmidt acknowledged during the webinar.

Train braking systems and rail integrity are two issues the industry is examining before moving ahead, Reinschmidt said, after telling listeners that railroad owners will need to increase profits to offset equipment and other costs associated with new federal emissions standards coming online in 2015.

An increase in highway congestion in the future may also contribute to a modal shift in the transportation of goods, according to Reinschmidt, an alumni of the University of Illinois-Chicago’s rail program.

“We’re looking at a substantial capital requirement for things that basically have nothing to do with capacity,” he said. “Longer and heavier trains are one way to increase capacity without a lot of capital investment required.”

Rail strength is one aspect of increased payloads for freight trains that critics point to as a safety factor, though “current rail materials are pretty adequate for what we’re doing,” according to Reinschmidt.

“We’ve learned so much about rail management, with adequate lubrication and good grinding practices. Our friends in the steel industry have done an awful lot in terms of changing metallurgy in clean steels. (But) if we go to heavier cars, (rail integrity) is going to be a challenge for us.”

Braking issues are another consideration that could derail the railroads’ desire for industry-wide change to allow for heavier trains, though new technology should help allay that fear.

“We’re looking at the (industry-wide) implementation of ECP (electronically-controlled pneumatic) brake systems,” Reinschmidt explained. “We’re putting a local area network on the trains, and we’re not controlling the brakes with pressure changes. The benefit is that we apply the brakes uniformly, instantaneously, down the train length; we don’t have the problems we had with the current brake system.

“This gives us more capability to run faster trains, put trains in service more quickly, improve fuel efficiency and operate trains more safely and easily.”

Distributed-power trains (DPTs) are another example of cutting-edge technology which allow for bigger, heavier and faster cars and locomotives, Reinschmidt said. Distributed power, a technology of General Electric Co., is installed on more than 8,500 locomotives around the world, under the brand name LOCOTROL.

With LOCOTROL, the systems provide control of remote locomotives by command signals sensed at the lead locomotive and transmitted over a radio data link to the remote units. LOCOTROL will interface with almost every type of braking and train line control system, according to GE, and can allow for 30 percent faster and smoother starting and stopping distances.

ECP brakes went on their maiden run aboard a DP-driven BNSF train in April 2008. “The use of ECP brakes will provide the potential for improved safety, faster coal deliveries, fewer railcars and reduced maintenance – all of which will benefit our customers,” stated Jeff Wallace, vice president of fuel services for Southern Company, which owned the rail cars equipped with ECP brakes operated by Burlington-Northern Santa Fe (BNSF).

Will increased payloads and speed really result in lower prices for shippers of agricultural products, such as grain, and for farmers? Despite Wallace’s statement, the answer seems difficult to find.

“It could. It could,” said Reinschmidt, when contacted by Farm World. ‘There was a massive revolution in the agricultural movement of grain by rail maybe 20 years ago. As the local elevators disappeared and the big mega-elevators appeared, and you began moving grain in unit trains rather than three or four custom cars, it had a huge impact on lowering costs.”

John Gray, senior vice president of policy and economics for the American Assoc. of Railroads, said, “I can’t comment on that. There are serious anti-trust concerns on that. Price policy is the province of the individual railroads.”

He added that labor costs, fuel costs and equipment and infrastructure productivity are the main drivers behind rail shipping costs.

In a survey of leading U.S. grain and oilseed shippers conducted by the Soy Transportation Coalition (STC) and released in April, BNSF finished with the highest rating for overall customer satisfaction, with Union Pacific (UP) finishing second. Canadian Pacific and Canadian National were ranked at the bottom among the seven Class I railroads.

“Over the years, grain and oilseed shippers have expressed legitimate concerns with the performance of the rail industry,” said Mike Steenhoek, executive director of the STC. “However, it is entirely appropriate to acknowledge quality and improvement, when evident.

“Five of the Class I carriers – specifically, BNSF and Union Pacific – are to be commended for their performance in a number of areas, particularly customer service and responsiveness. They have expended much energy and resources to improve in this area.”

When presented with the question, “Are rail service costs clearly explained to you? Is there transparency in the railroad’s pricing mechanism?” however, grain and oilseed shippers graded Class I railroads 3.67 out of 10. Again, BNSF and UP received the highest marks.

UP’s senior assistant vice president of engineering, Bill Van Trump, also participated in the webinar. Van Trump offered a presentation of efforts UP is undertaking to improve equipment and infrastructure before the industry completely evolves to faster, heavier and longer trains.