>>1735706Congratulations, you just tripled your labor cost to deliver the same amount of goods.
No I didn't - not four times, at least. If any increase occurs depends on the operational practices of a given railroad. That being said, I didn't say there is not going to be more people involved.
>They're the second largest expense after fuel.So if your train gets from A to B in an hour earlier, you pay them a regular money, instead of the brutal overtime they do now.
Both of these are going to be moot, when remotely controlled trains roll int.
>Engineers don't run trains in throttle 8 100% of the time, once you're at speed you throttle down. On top of that, unneeded units are shut down or isolated en route.And that is relevant how?
> A locomotive that is dead in tow doesn't generate revenue, but they have to be taken to a repair facility somehow. Nothing new. Locomotives to pull freight trains are a necessity, and comparing them to DMU/EMU is just pointless.No sir. _IF_ railroads could do away with locomotives, they _would_. Locomotives are a necessary evil. The less of them are in the train, the more efficient a train becomes.
>Yes you do. That's why the Dash 9 and SD70 became ubiquitous. They were replacing SD40-2s on a 3 for 2 basis.No you don't. Or more specifically, not anymore. SD40s were replaced in 3:2 basis because AC traction and creep control systems made SD70/Dash9s a replacement in both power _and_ tractive effort. This is not going to be the case anymore. 0.4~ish factor of adhesion is as good as it is going to get.
>If it made sense they'd have already done it. Perhaps in the future it will be economical.As we all know, humans are always 100% rational and corporations, especially big ones, don't suffer from a variety of decision making ills. They either don't care, or are complicit in the current state of afairs - where they make money hand over fist.
