Re: GLC RR
Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2023 1:57 pm
Thank you for the update. How many engines is ideal for GLC to keep their system fluid?
Page 2 of 4
Re: GLC RR
Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2023 2:28 pm
Re: GLC RR
Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2023 2:35 pm
9 got itLansingRailFan wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 2:28 pmIf you add these together it’s 3,071 with an average of 383.875
Re: GLC RR
Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2023 2:37 pm
341.22 repeating sorry. I divided by eight.
And no, I’m not sure that just nine is enough. They should probably get more of the assets they own running
Re: GLC RR
Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2023 3:43 pm
I was under the impression that they need two sets of engines. One of Cadillac and one for Owosso that the day shift shares with the night shift. Is there a need for Owosso's crews to have separate sets of engines?LansingRailFan wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 2:37 pm341.22 repeating sorry. I divided by eight.
And no, I’m not sure that just nine is enough. They should probably get more of the assets they own running.
Re: GLC RR
Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2023 4:28 pm
If that's the case, this would be all of the power they would need for just one train, right? : http://railroadfan.com/phpbb/viewtopic. ... 58#p511358AARR wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 3:43 pmI was under the impression that they need two sets of engines. One of Cadillac and one for Owosso that the day shift shares with the night shift. Is there a need for Owosso's crews to have separate sets of engines?LansingRailFan wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 2:37 pm341.22 repeating sorry. I divided by eight.
And no, I’m not sure that just nine is enough. They should probably get more of the assets they own running.
Re: GLC RR
Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2023 4:50 pm
Yes sir, 2 engines for the Cadillac crew and 4 for the Owosso crew. So, what I am learning from you is they need more than two sets of engines to keep their system fluid. I hope we can talk in person sometime.LansingRailFan wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 4:28 pmIf that's the case, this would be all of the power they would need for just one train, right? : http://railroadfan.com/phpbb/viewtopic. ... 58#p511358
Re: GLC RR
Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2023 4:52 pm
There’s more than two crews! There’s more than two jobs! There’s more than four people working at a given time!AARR wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 4:50 pmYes sir, 2 engines for the Cadillac crew and 4 for the Owosso crew. So, what I am learning from you is they need more than two sets of engines to keep their system fluid. I hope we can talk in person sometime.LansingRailFan wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 4:28 pmIf that's the case, this would be all of the power they would need for just one train, right? : http://railroadfan.com/phpbb/viewtopic. ... 58#p511358
Re: GLC RR
Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2023 5:05 pm
On the north end (Cadillac), there's no need for more than one set. And for the runs north of Cadillac, they really only need one engine. But for whatever reason, 90% of the time they take 2 engines to TC and Petoskey. Maybe just in case one has issues, but that's a lot of wasted fuel (yes they are always both online).
Re: GLC RR
Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2023 12:34 am
Why do I get the feeling you really don't like the GLC?TC Man wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 5:05 pmOn the north end (Cadillac), there's no need for more than one set. And for the runs north of Cadillac, they really only need one engine. But for whatever reason, 90% of the time they take 2 engines to TC and Petoskey. Maybe just in case one has issues, but that's a lot of wasted fuel (yes they are always both online).
Re: GLC RR
Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2023 12:42 am
How many unit grain trains does the railroad get per year? How many units are running on those trains? Normally I've seen 4 units on the units trains. If you only had 4 engines in Owosso that would mean the entire "southern" power would be tied up onto 1 train, thus not allowing any other operations to occur on the south end of the railroad, and thus potentially impacting operations on the north end and with interchange partner railroads.LansingRailFan wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 4:52 pmThere’s more than two crews! There’s more than two jobs! There’s more than four people working at a given time!AARR wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 4:50 pmYes sir, 2 engines for the Cadillac crew and 4 for the Owosso crew. So, what I am learning from you is they need more than two sets of engines to keep their system fluid. I hope we can talk in person sometime.LansingRailFan wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 4:28 pm
If that's the case, this would be all of the power they would need for just one train, right? : http://railroadfan.com/phpbb/viewtopic. ... 58#p511358
For those thinking the GLC only needs 6 functioning locomotives, maybe we need to think back to the AA era when they were running the GP35's and were running similar total length (although level volume the entire length of the line). At that time they had 10 GP35's plus 2 RS1's, and several swtich engines. Today, the traffic density is different, but the needs for locomotive power are similar.
Re: GLC RR
Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2023 7:47 am
On average, GLC runs more than 2 trains on any typical day. They need as many engines as they can keep running.
Re: GLC RR
Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2023 1:21 pm
chapmaja wrote: ↑Sat Jan 28, 2023 12:34 amWhy do I get the feeling you really don't like the GLC?TC Man wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 5:05 pmOn the north end (Cadillac), there's no need for more than one set. And for the runs north of Cadillac, they really only need one engine. But for whatever reason, 90% of the time they take 2 engines to TC and Petoskey. Maybe just in case one has issues, but that's a lot of wasted fuel (yes they are always both online).
I do not dislike the GLC at all. I do dislike a waste of my taxes (I'm not a railfan in the sense that many here are- don't watch trains, but I watch with interest their operations on the north end). Transload with cross dock availability would not only allow GLC to be more profitable (save fuel, wear and tear, locomotive and crew availability, track maintenance for the share that they pay), and save the state (and in turn us taxpayers) by abandoning north of Cadillac once a fully executed transfer facility is built in or near Cadillac. Heck, reuse the abandoned San mine in Yuma- perfect spot and right on M-37. Might even be able to take some business from Marquette. Would be plenty of room to grow there. We know plastic pellet transloads work (look at Clare and Petoskey), as do lumber (look all over the USA). And then they can market the facility all over northwest Michigan, therefore adding to carload count in the north (aka revenue).
Re: GLC RR
Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2023 9:30 pm
I find it interesting that you mention wear and tear as a potential cost savings, while at the same time talking about tax savings. I think you are significantly underestimating the cost of the wear and tear that having such a transload would place on the roads leading to and from the TC area. Wear and tear that costs a significant amount of money, all of which is taxpayer money to deal with. I think it would be interesting for you to do a breakdown of how much the costs (in taxpayer dollars) are for the GLC running north of Cadillac and compare that with the cost (again in taxpayer dollars) that transloading that traffic would cost.TC Man wrote: ↑Sat Jan 28, 2023 1:21 pmchapmaja wrote: ↑Sat Jan 28, 2023 12:34 amWhy do I get the feeling you really don't like the GLC?TC Man wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 5:05 pmOn the north end (Cadillac), there's no need for more than one set. And for the runs north of Cadillac, they really only need one engine. But for whatever reason, 90% of the time they take 2 engines to TC and Petoskey. Maybe just in case one has issues, but that's a lot of wasted fuel (yes they are always both online).
I do not dislike the GLC at all. I do dislike a waste of my taxes (I'm not a railfan in the sense that many here are- don't watch trains, but I watch with interest their operations on the north end). Transload with cross dock availability would not only allow GLC to be more profitable (save fuel, wear and tear, locomotive and crew availability, track maintenance for the share that they pay), and save the state (and in turn us taxpayers) by abandoning north of Cadillac once a fully executed transfer facility is built in or near Cadillac. Heck, reuse the abandoned San mine in Yuma- perfect spot and right on M-37. Might even be able to take some business from Marquette. Would be plenty of room to grow there. We know plastic pellet transloads work (look at Clare and Petoskey), as do lumber (look all over the USA). And then they can market the facility all over northwest Michigan, therefore adding to carload count in the north (aka revenue).
Re: GLC RR
Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2023 10:07 am
Last time I was in TC it seemed like the last thing that was needed was more traffic, especially in the summer. A few years ago they were looking at regional mass transit options, and rail was mentioned as a long-term solution if the area continues to grow. Abandoning the track may save some money in the short term, but may not be a good long-term strategy. Just like Grand Rapids, they have unused track, but abandonment will decrease options down the road.
Re: GLC RR
Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2023 10:59 am
Where is there going to be more traffic? All this traffic already goes via truck from and to wherever. So opening a transload will remove some truck traffic south of the transload site. From there to TC, nothing changes. The amount of truck traffic added between TC and the transload is minimal- Beacon ships maybe 4 cars per month, and Amerhart gets maybe 4 cars per month. Even figuring 4 trucks per rail car, that's not much extra.
Re: GLC RR
Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2023 12:23 pm
Don't you think if it made financial sense the railroad would have already done that?
Re: GLC RR
Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2023 1:39 pm
Not necessarily. They seem to be focusing on the south half. And MDOT may have a say in it also.
Re: GLC RR
Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2023 3:39 pm
Sigh. I see this thread got Hi-jacked. 
Re: GLC RR
Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2023 4:35 pm
Earlier in the GLC era, I was told by a reliable source that the Owosso shop crew often plans a couple of major projects over each winter when grain traffic is much slower, it wouldn’t surprise me if a few more numbers join that active list as winter warms into spring.
4 units minimum seem to be needed for the south end. If there’s a big interchange with csx at AnnPere, or the Annie at Osmer, or both, the Owosso south train will run with 4, and I don’t know if a separate crew switches around Owosso at all on their own power or not.
4 units minimum seem to be needed for the south end. If there’s a big interchange with csx at AnnPere, or the Annie at Osmer, or both, the Owosso south train will run with 4, and I don’t know if a separate crew switches around Owosso at all on their own power or not.