Certainly the efficiency & reliability of locos (not to mention
higher horespower) have reduced the #'s required to move as much or
more ton miles than yrs ago BUT.... One thing also different in
favor of those 70,000+ locos - they serviced over 200,000 miles of
track nearly all on a daily basis. There were hundreds of RR's, many
of them shortlines each with 1 or 2 locos (after all they were the
ONLY connection to the outside world so even 5 mile long lines
serving a town of 1,000 might have 2 locos due to pass & frt loadings
and to insure availability of motive power when 1 is shopped). If
RR's today had the same mileage AND the same level of service (more
but smaller trains), the # of locos would have to be increased.
Indeed even today the # of locos varies by RR, all things being
equal, depending on whethter their philosophy is to run more or less
frequently to meet service standards. Growing up in Dubuque I saw a
good example - CGW believed in 1 or 2 big trains a day (7 or 8 F
units) with a big drag whereas the Q operated more frequently to meet
shippers skeds (and in fairness they were meeting the needs of 2
owners in Twin Cities whereas CGW had no such partner obligations).
As I understand this was an issue when N&W and Southern merged - the
frequency & size of trains. No one right answer - just a difference
on how one runs their RR. Kind of like whether as a coach you
emphsize offense or defense. THe Q was service oriented; i.e. have
sufficient power & rolling stock to service the customers and not
have to annull trains or beg/borrow/steal equipment. Gerald
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CBQ/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
CBQ-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|