Author Topic: New Plant at Reynolds  (Read 84037 times)

CSX_CO

  • Tycoon
  • ******
  • Posts: 8391
  • Ok...lets get our stories straight......
Re: New Plant at Reynolds
« Reply #40 on: November 28, 2012, 09:45:00 PM »
Funny, I thought railroad pricing would be a factor in routing  ::)

You would be amazed by the routing some cars take in the search of saving the almighty dollar.  A car can take an extra week to go between points just because the shipment can save a few bucks going on a convoluted routing.

Practice Safe CSX

torgy1962

  • Chief Dispatcher
  • *****
  • Posts: 629
Re: New Plant at Reynolds
« Reply #41 on: November 28, 2012, 10:05:05 PM »
Here's a great flowsheet of the pelletizing process, albeit of Jasper, not Taconite, on the Marquette Iron Range.
 
http://www.geo.msu.edu/geogmich/tilden.html

scraphauler

  • Tycoon
  • ******
  • Posts: 5512
  • Oberfeldwebel Hans Scraphauler
Re: New Plant at Reynolds
« Reply #42 on: November 28, 2012, 10:07:06 PM »
Don't forget that the customer's traffic department chooses the routing! They can ship the hoppers via California if they want!

Unless I'm doing something wrong, I can not specify which specific route the railroad moves my cars on.  I can specify a specific interchange point, but it's up to the railroad how they move it.  For example, If I ship a single load or even a unit train from a location on CSXT in Kentucky, going to a location on BNSF in Iowa, I can dictate a St Louis interchange,  a Chicago interchange, or even a Memphis interchange.  Let's say I choose Chicago - it's up to CSXT how they move my traffic from origin to Chicago - I don't get to tell them to move it through Cincinnati and Garrett IN, or up through Indianapolis, or even via Louisville and Henderson - that's their call based on their operations/practices.


You would be amazed by the routing some cars take in the search of saving the almighty dollar.  A car can take an extra week to go between points just because the shipment can save a few bucks going on a convoluted routing.

Practice Safe CSX

If it's a non time sensitive move, saving a few bucks on shipping can make or break a deal.  That's where some of the funky Rule 11 routing's come into play.  For example, I have a move that comes off Conrail SA in New Jersey going to a NS served facility in North Carolina.  It's CHEAPER to route this traffic CSXT - Charlotte - NS than it is to go NS direct.  CSXT routing is about 5 days longer than the NS direct route, but at NS's price, the material becomes simply too expensive.

But again, I can specify CSXT to Charlotte - I can not tell CSXT how to get it to Charlotte.   If they want to run it via Avon, so be it.  My price is the same.
The opinions, views, and incoherent ramblings presented here do not necessarily represent the view point of any company I work for or own,  any logical thinking being, or even me.

torgy1962

  • Chief Dispatcher
  • *****
  • Posts: 629
Re: New Plant at Reynolds
« Reply #43 on: November 28, 2012, 10:37:23 PM »
Unless I'm doing something wrong, I can not specify which specific route the railroad moves my cars on. 

You might be doing something wrong (or not)! The customer, via traffic managers, specifies the routing. That's what FOB means!

bn13814

  • Conductor
  • ****
  • Posts: 209
Re: New Plant at Reynolds
« Reply #44 on: November 28, 2012, 10:45:34 PM »
You might be doing something wrong (or not)! The customer, via traffic managers, specifies the routing. That's what FOB means!

Scraphauler's point is that as a shipper, he can't specify INTERNAL routings, but can specify interchange points when multiple carriers are involved.

Btw, scraphauler, I've occasionally seen some of your cars on BNSF's eastbound "Peoria Local" (L-CHI1071). They're empties with HOME SHOP REPAIR DO NOT LOAD decals, and are interchanged to Norfolk Southern (via TZPR). I assume Peoria interchange is BNSF's order because I also notice the same train handling empty EPIX spine cars and Lake Terminal RR gondolas with the same decal.

torgy1962

  • Chief Dispatcher
  • *****
  • Posts: 629
Re: New Plant at Reynolds
« Reply #45 on: November 28, 2012, 10:56:39 PM »
Scraphauler's point is that as a shipper, he can't specify INTERNAL routings, but can specify interchange points when multiple carriers are involved.

I'm not sure what INTERNAL routings are , but a traffic manager still specifies the routing (as far as particular railrpoads go) of a shipment, much like you determine whether you ship via FedEx, UPS, or USPS.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2012, 11:57:14 PM by torgy1962 »

bn13814

  • Conductor
  • ****
  • Posts: 209
Re: New Plant at Reynolds
« Reply #46 on: November 28, 2012, 11:20:52 PM »
I'm not sure what INTERNAL routings are , but a traffic manager still specifys the routing of a shipment, much like you determine whether you ship via FedEx, UPS, or USPS.

Internal routings means how a car is routed by one carrier on its own network. If ADM sent carloads of corn syrup to Sweetners Plus in Lakeville, New York, it could route them NS-Silver Springs, NY-LAL or CSXT-Rochester, NY-LAL. What it can't do is tell CSXT or NS how to route the car within their own network ("NS, you send that car to Elkhart, Indiana and avoid Bellevue, Ohio"). That's for each carrier to decide.

scraphauler

  • Tycoon
  • ******
  • Posts: 5512
  • Oberfeldwebel Hans Scraphauler
Re: New Plant at Reynolds
« Reply #47 on: November 28, 2012, 11:38:27 PM »
Exactly.  If I have two or more carriers serving a facility, I can pick which one I use.  For locations where I only have one carrier, I'm stuck with their service.   If it goes off line, I can specify an interchange point.  Thats as far as it goes. 

So for the question that started this whole debate, Reynolds IN to Middletown OH could conceivably move either CSXT direct or TPW to NS (assuming TPW gets access).  Whoever is paying freight will determine which carrier moves the material.  If it goes via CSXT,  CSXT, not the customer, will decide if they run it down the Monon to Indy and across to Hamilton, or up to Sinday, or even it the take it back to Chicago and come acrosss through Garett.

As for bad orders bn13814 spoke of, I have even less control there.  Home Shop bad orders (green tags) are handled through the DDCTS system.  I select the shop, and if not on current carrier, specify the railroad it needs to go to, and the carrier who currently has the car decides where to hand off.   Most of my Home Shop go to Indiana via NS and BNSF seems to prefer handing them off at Peoria.
The opinions, views, and incoherent ramblings presented here do not necessarily represent the view point of any company I work for or own,  any logical thinking being, or even me.

torgy1962

  • Chief Dispatcher
  • *****
  • Posts: 629
Re: New Plant at Reynolds
« Reply #48 on: November 29, 2012, 12:08:42 AM »
Internal routings means how a car is routed by one carrier on its own network. If ADM sent carloads of corn syrup to Sweetners Plus in Lakeville, New York, it could route them NS-Silver Springs, NY-LAL or CSXT-Rochester, NY-LAL. What it can't do is tell CSXT or NS how to route the car within their own network ("NS, you send that car to Elkhart, Indiana and avoid Bellevue, Ohio"). That's for each carrier to decide.

Yes, and I'm not sure what the issue is here. A GM traffic manager doesn't care if, for my plant, whether CSX routes a car through Georgia on its way to Wentzeville, MO from Lockport, NY, as long as it gets there within the time specified in the agreement between CSX and GM.

MSchwiebert

  • Chief Dispatcher
  • *****
  • Posts: 562
Re: New Plant at Reynolds
« Reply #49 on: November 29, 2012, 07:59:44 AM »
Problem with either Sidney or Hamilton is that the connection tracks are in the 'wrong' quadrant to get to Middletown without a run-around move.  Obviously with a traffic source that would be this consistent (based on the frequency of the K185 trains that currently run from Toledo to Middletown) it may be justifiable to construct a new connection for it, but at Sidney at least the current layout may preclude it.


One would have to suspect it would go down Monon to Indy , then either/or/combination of Indianapolis Line to Sindey, then south on the Toledo, or the Indianapolis Sub to Hamilton and up to Middletown.  Or, CSXT could get the short end of the stick and TPW take it to Logansport and give to NS.

Ok fantasy railroaders.  Everyone keeps pining for the diamonds at Tipton and Indianapolis to be replaced and the former NKP through Nobelsville reconnected to the outside world.  How about Kokomo Grain kicking US Rail out and reinstalling CERA as operator of CERA, CERA gets freight concession from HHPA and get diamonds put in, and the pellets go TPW-CERA-CIND to Cincinnati then IORY to Monroe for NS delivery into AK.  I know that will never happen - but at least this dream scenario has real traffic that could support it.  Wouldn't it be nice to see a long drag of pellets rolling down the street in Nobelsvile?

Laguna Man

  • Superintendent
  • *****
  • Posts: 794
Re: New Plant at Reynolds
« Reply #50 on: November 29, 2012, 08:09:18 AM »
The route for inbound and outbound rail shipments has already been chosen. Transportation costs are always part of the initial study before any decision is made. Maybe someone in our group knows or can find out which way the traffic will be moving. However, has it been about how much estimated rail volume will terminate and originate from the new facility?

bn13814

  • Conductor
  • ****
  • Posts: 209
Re: New Plant at Reynolds
« Reply #51 on: November 29, 2012, 08:29:02 AM »
Yes, and I'm not sure what the issue is here. A GM traffic manager doesn't care if, for my plant, whether CSX routes a car through Georgia on its way to Wentzeville, MO from Lockport, NY, as long as it gets there within the time specified in the agreement between CSX and GM.

The GM traffic manager would most likely specify a CSXT-(St. Louis)-NS routing for Harrison Radiator traffic to Wentzville, MO, however; CSXT's internal routing to St. Louis would be clearcut: former NYC territory via Cleveland and Indianapolis. But that would be CSXT's decision, not the shipper's.

torgy1962

  • Chief Dispatcher
  • *****
  • Posts: 629
Re: New Plant at Reynolds
« Reply #52 on: November 29, 2012, 01:07:53 PM »
But that would be CSXT's decision, not the shipper's.

Exactly!!! But the point is moot, as we hardly ship anything by rail any more. This is down from 120 cars/day in the early CR years.

Anyways, if any of you patronize a hobby shop that carries the "Ore Extra," take a look at the current issue. It has shots of the Magnetation loadout under construction and one of the interior of the plant.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2012, 04:03:45 PM by torgy1962 »

mononradio

  • Conductor
  • ****
  • Posts: 201
Re: New Plant at Reynolds
« Reply #53 on: December 04, 2012, 02:44:16 PM »
This is interesting information, particularly regarding the alleged checkered history of this company taking the low road with regard to government corporate welfare handouts.  I wasn't around here when the circle tracks were built at Reynolds, but had wondered what the deal was, and how much taxpayer incentives were put down there.  Looking at the aerial photos, I could not see any evidence of a connection track ever existing from the Monon side, and it makes sense to me now, if the plant was never built, there was no need for access to the trackage.  There appears also to be an unfinished portion on the north end....I had assumed something had been torn out there and perhaps an environmental remediation had taken place.

The Lafayette paper reported plans by the company to hire 120 at this site, which will be good news if it ever happens.  I personally would not care to live next to an ethanol plant, or near an ore processing facility, either one.  But, there are gravel pits all around this area, and perhaps people are already immune to the noise, incessant truck traffic, and potential environmental hazards.  We gotta do what we gotta do to keep the wheels of commerce rolling I suppose.

I have no objection to the promise of increase rail traffic, but I bet I am the only one left in White County that feels that way.  Most people just look at trains as objects of disdain, something to slow them down on their way to and from wherever they are driving to in such a hurry, and blow horns all night to keep them awake.  And we all know that trains are traps for the unwary, that locomotives will jump off the tracks at a high rate of speed, and mow you down while you are casually sipping your morning latte. 

I can't wait for all the horrible news reports of "train kills woman, dismembers motorcyclist, or slaughters children on innocently driven school bus."

Bottom line: With all the good comes a mixed bag of potential adverse reactions.

rcall31060

  • Conductor
  • ****
  • Posts: 157
Re: New Plant at Reynolds
« Reply #54 on: December 06, 2012, 10:45:38 PM »
Last evening, I had a chance to talk at length, with Terry Nanti, General Manager, Pellet Plant, Magnetation Inc.  This was at a public forum introducing Magnetation Inc. to area residents.  It was enlightening, to say the least.

The site in Reynolds was chosen, because of its access to rail, with rail infrastructure, already on the site.  There will be some reconfiguration of existing on-site trackage.

Almost all incoming materials (Iron concentrate, Limestone, Bentonite clay, used in the manufacture of the end product (Round Iron pellets about the size of a marble) will be brought in by rail.  If they can get it all in by rail, so much the better.  They're not in favor of using trucks, unless they absolutely have to.

CSX will get ALL the business.  They made the company a very attractive offer on rates.  TP&W's offer wasn't even close  Hence, the decision to use CSX for ALL inbound and outbound train movements.  For the time being, there will be no direct connection between the plant site and the TP&W line.  There could be a future direct connection installed, for inbound Limestone, IF TP&W would offer an attractive rate.  The feeling is that TP&W just isn't interested.

This plant will operate 24/7, 330 days a year,  Expect to see one 11,000 ton inbound unit train and an equivalent outbound unit train on a DAILY basis (that's seven days a week, folks).  In addition, there will be inbound loads of Limestone and Bentonite clay.

This is GREAT business for CSX.  The old Monon is fixin' to get a lot busier, when this plant goes into full production, sometime in 2014.

Bob Callahan
Monticello, IN

Bob Callahan
Monticello, IN

torgy1962

  • Chief Dispatcher
  • *****
  • Posts: 629
Re: New Plant at Reynolds
« Reply #55 on: December 06, 2012, 11:07:16 PM »
This is GREAT business for CSX.  The old Monon is fixin' to get a lot busier, when this plant goes into full production, sometime in 2014.

I hope it all works out as planned,

LJ

  • President
  • *****
  • Posts: 1539
  • The train's are on their way back!!!!
Re: New Plant at Reynolds
« Reply #56 on: December 07, 2012, 06:30:53 AM »
This will definitely help the former Monon Railroad's north end!!!! They have been needing some more business on it for awhile.

oat324

  • Dispatcher
  • *****
  • Posts: 486
Re: New Plant at Reynolds
« Reply #57 on: December 07, 2012, 10:04:56 AM »
Guess we will be finally seeing the end of jointed rail on the north end and higher speeds for Amtrak with the new rail. Wonder if any new sidings will be installed.

Laguna Man

  • Superintendent
  • *****
  • Posts: 794
Re: New Plant at Reynolds
« Reply #58 on: December 07, 2012, 10:45:35 AM »
So would this make the daily train count between Lafayette and Crawfordsville around 12 per day.

IndyHog

  • President
  • *****
  • Posts: 1377
Re: New Plant at Reynolds
« Reply #59 on: December 07, 2012, 11:42:28 AM »
So would this make the daily train count between Lafayette and Crawfordsville around 12 per day.

RB Dispatcher will be pulling out his hair.  Might be time for a few improvements. Like radio controlled switches at Surrey and West Pass (Monon) for starters.
Meet the new boss, he's the same as the old boss......wait a minute, He's much worse