It’s not complicated. Compare the cost of a recrew vs the cost of the fuel saved.LansingRailFan wrote: ↑Sat Aug 13, 2022 4:11 amCalculating fuel costs/savings etc… js a very easy metric which is why it’s so popular.NSSD70ACe wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 5:09 pmIt’s hilarious that some people are all worried about the costs regarding fuel and then don’t worry about the costs to recrew a train due to TO usage, which is definitely higher. I don’t have exact amounts but I’d rather pay to get my trains over the road quickly and provide better service than to keep burning the boards with constant recrews…SD80MAC wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 4:16 pm^ The above is why CSX got rid of their SD50/SD60 fleet and has been very reluctant to pull CW40-8s, CW40-9s, and SD70ACs from storage until absolutely necessary: no Trip Optimizer. The fact that CSX does continue to slowly crank out rebuilt SD70ACs is pretty amazing considering their obsession with T.O. The STB said it best; "The person paying more for their electricity and more for a loaf of bread at the store doesn't care about Trip Optimizer". The Class 1s have this weird fixation with T.O. "It saves on fuel". Ok, maybe it does. But weigh that against the costs of slowing down your velocity, increasing your dwell time, increasing overtime and limbo for crews, and recrewing trains that would otherwise make it if they were able to actually run normal speeds.
Weighing fuel savings against the amount of trains being recrewed or other intangibles like dwell time etc… is very complicated. There are a number of factors that can influence dwell time or needing additional crews for a train, therefore making it easy to shift blame away from things like TO for those instances.
And yes, I’m well aware of the factors that can influence dwell time. I deal with this every day. And as someone “in the know”, I can tell you that TO and throttle restrictions literally makes the difference between having to recrew a train and getting it back within their 12 hours where I am.