Precision railroading
Precision railroading, also known as precision scheduled railroading (PSR), is a model utilized primarily in North American rail networks that emphasizes moving individual railcars rather than entire long trains. This operational shift, initially introduced by Hunter Harrison in the early 1990s, aims to enhance network efficiency and service reliability by minimizing the sorting of freight cars in classification yards. Proponents argue that PSR leads to a more fluid operation, allowing trains to run consistently and frequently, which may reduce costs and improve service quality.
Since its first implementation in 1998, the PSR model has been adopted by most major Class I railroads, although it has faced criticism regarding its impacts on public safety, service quality, and employee job security. Critics highlight that the focus on reducing crew sizes and streamlining operations can lead to delays and increased congestion, ultimately pushing some shippers to consider alternative transport methods. Labor unions have raised concerns about the reduction in workforce and its implications for thorough inspections and safety, citing incidents linked to these changes. As PSR continues to evolve, its effects on the rail industry remain a topic of ongoing debate.
On this Page
Subject Terms
Precision railroading
Precision railroading, also known as precision scheduled railroading (PSR), is a model of railroading that has been implemented across North American railway networks. PSR focuses on moving railcars instead of long trains, which advocates say promotes network efficiency and more reliable service. Hunter Harrison first introduced the idea at Illinois Central, where he became chief executive officer (CEO) in 1993. The first freight railroad made the switch to PSR in 1998. Others followed, making the transition from 2012 through 2019. Proponents say PSR makes railways more efficient and reliable. However, opponents say it does just the opposite, poses public safety risks, and costs workers their jobs.
Background
Traditionally, the American rail service utilized long trains that could move more freight, thereby maximizing capacity and efficiency. Railroads operated both unit trains, which carry a single type of item, and manifest service, trains that carry a variety of types of items. Unit trains were preferred because they could accommodate a faster train speed, getting the goods to their destination sooner. However, this model did not always work out well for railroads or customers. Because railroads aimed to build longer and faster-moving trains, any train that did not meet specific length requirements could be canceled. This left customers without service for the day. This also meant that customer cars could sit for a very long time before being picked up and delivered. Railroads discovered that the focus on moving trains was slowing down the network and causing cars to sit in yards for lengthy stretches. This resulted in the unavailability of cars, a congested network, and undependable rail service.
Hunter Harrison changed the entire rail model with PSR in the early 1990s. He started in the industry in 1963 when he was nineteen years old by oiling axel boxes at a freight yard in Memphis, Tennessee. Harrison quickly moved up the ranks, becoming CEO of Illinois Central (IC) in 1993. Harrison’s interest in eliminating inefficiency and keeping trains and cars moving led him to develop PCR. His core goals included consolidating rail networks, boosting speed, reducing the size of the crew, and improving fuel efficiency.
Where traditional railroading focused on moving trains, PSR shifted the focus to moving cars, the individual units that make up a train. This meant that instead of waiting for a long train to be built, trains would always be moving, and cars would be picked up on schedule regardless of the length of the train. While velocity and train length were still important, moving cars began to take precedence in this new railroad model.
Advocates of PSR say that it promotes network fluidity and more reliable service. In addition, the network becomes more balanced because the right resources, including crews, cars, and locomotives, are in place when needed. One-way PSR provides consistent, frequent service is by operating general-purpose trains running in each direction every day. These all-purpose trains might include a variety of different types of commodities—bulk and merchandise, for example—instead of using separate trains to move these goods. Supporters say this keeps trains and crews in the right places and reduces costs.
Overview
The first freight railroad made the switch to PSR in 1998. Others followed, making the transition through 2019. Since its introduction, PSR has been adopted by the majority of Class I railroads in North America, including Canadian National (CN), Canadian Pacific Railway Limited (CP), CSX Corporation, Norfolk Southern Corporation (NS), Union Pacific Corporation (UP), and Kansas City Southern (KCS). The only major network that had yet to adopt PSR into the mid-2020s was Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp Railway (BNSF). Proponents say the implementation of PCR has decreased the number of locomotives across the industry, which has tended to increase train length, thereby increasing the total number of cars. KCS said in 2020 that it believed the principles of PCR would help the company weather the impact of the global coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic on the industry.
Critics of PSR say that this rail model has led to disruptive changes to operating plans and service schedules and the degradation of service, including delays, and unreasonable charges. These problems have led some shippers to seek out increased truck transportation as a result. Emily Regis, fuels resource administrator for the Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, said in a congressional hearing in 2019 that while proponents claimed that PSR improved services, her company’s experience had been the opposite. A US Government Accountability Office study found that between 2008 and 2017, train length grew by 25 percent for two Class I railroads. Some of these trains extend for several miles. Longer trains could have public safety impacts, including longer traffic jams for motorists waiting at train crossings and delays for emergency vehicles.
Some unions that represent craft employees and train and engine crews have also expressed skepticism of PCR, mostly because of the model’s goal to cut costs. Reducing employee headcount is one way of achieving this goal. From 2016 to 2021, the yearly average headcount of those employed in Class I railroads in the US fell by about 25 percent, according to the Surface Transportation Board. The unions also argue that PSR’s emphasis on a strict train schedule impedes workers’ ability to complete thorough inspections. They say that the depth of the cuts has resulted in a freight industry that does not have enough network capacity when congestion issues arise or when rail volumes grow. The unions also believe employee cuts could be responsible for accidents such as a fatal Amtrak derailment that occurred in September 2021. One railroad employee, talking to Freight Waves, said everything changed when PSR was implemented at his company. One of the biggest changes was fewer employees, coupled with greater responsibilities for those who remained. The employee said that the workers were stretched thin. He expressed a belief that PSR was unsustainable.
Bibliography
Barrow, Keith. “Precision Scheduled Railroading—Evolution or Revolution?” International Railway Journal, 17 Sept. 2019, www.railjournal.com/in‗depth/precision-scheduled-railroading-evolution-revolution. Accessed 9 Feb. 2025.
DeFazio, Peter. “Wall Street Is Boosting Profits in Railroads with New Technology. But It’s Ignoring the Drawbacks.” Fortune, 21 July 2021, fortune.com/2021/07/21/peter-defazio-precision-scheduled-railroading-problems. Accessed 9 Feb. 2025.
“Freight Rail Information on Precision-Schedule Railroading.” United States Government Accountability Office, Dec. 2022, www.gao.gov/assets/gao-23-105420.pdf. Accessed 9 Feb. 2025.
Leonard, Matt. “6 Charts Show How PSR Changed Rail.” Supply Chain Drive, 22 Apr. 2020, www.supplychaindive.com/news/6-charts-psr-rail-speed-dwell-OR/571792. Accessed 9 Feb. 2025.
Marsh, Joanna. “The Perils of Precision Scheduled Railroading.” Freight Waves, 15 Oct. 2021, www.freightwaves.com/news/the-perils-of-precision-scheduled-railroading. Accessed 9 Feb. 2025.
Snider, Matt. “What Is Precision Scheduled Railroading?” Breakthrough, 6 Aug. 2020, www.breakthroughfuel.com/blog/precision-scheduled-railroading. Accessed 9 Feb. 2025.
Stephens, Bill. “Retired Exec Says Precision Scheduled Railroading Gets a Bad Rap — Analysis.” Trains, 1 Apr. 2024, www.trains.com/trn/news-reviews/news-wire/analysis-retired-exec-says-precision-scheduled-railroading-gets-a-bad-rap/. Accessed 9 Feb. 2025.
Stephens, Bill. “What Is Precision Scheduled Railroading?” Trains, 2 May 2022, www.trains.com/trn/train-basics/abcs-of-railroading/what-is-precision-scheduled-railroading. Accessed 9 Feb. 2025.
“What Is Precision Scheduled Railroading?” Union Pacific, 17 Sept. 2019, www.up.com/customers/track-record/tr091019-precision-scheduled-railroading.htm. Accessed 9 Feb. 2025.