geysergazer posted:OK, I'm just a civilian with no railroading experience but I can analyze what I read. This is from the OP, the definition of PSR given by Progressive Railroading:
"Shifting operational focus from moving trains to moving cars; minimizing car classification events and dwell time; employing more general purpose trains; and balancing train movements to improve asset utilization (ie minimal deadheading empty trains). The operating strategy focuses on prioritizing car delivery on fixed point-to-point schedules while minimizing in-transit work events so customers can better plan shipment arrivals and departures."
"Shifting operational focus from moving trains to moving cars;"
Isn't this a meaningless statement? The singular method of getting cars moved is by moving trains. If you move the train you necessarily move the cars.
"minimizing car classification events and dwell time;"
I remember as a kid reading in Trains Magazine about all the excitement wrt limiting car classification as a way of speeding up service. Hasn't this been the goal of every Class I for a long time?
"employing more general purpose trains;"
Another meaningless statement? If you have 150 cars of coal to move from the Powder River Basin to Chicago a Unit Train is the only logical choice. If you hang 10 cars of general merchandise on the end you have added a classification operation to the run. Don't railroads always use "general purpose" trains when needed anyway?
"and balancing train movements to improve asset utilization (ie minimal deadheading empty trains)."
I really don't get this. Isn't that what the private car fleets (Procor, Railgon, Railbox) accomplish by minimizing deadheading?
"The operating strategy focuses on prioritizing car delivery on fixed point-to-point schedules while minimizing in-transit work events so customers can better plan shipment arrivals and departures."
Wouldn't implementation of this strategy result in more shorter trains rather than a smaller number of longer trains?
Lew
stop trying to make sense
