Does anyone know why Canadian intermodal is growth is flat this year?

[andrewjonathon]

I follow the rail traffic statistics posted each week on Trains and the AAR website. I can't understand why rail traffic (both carload and intermodal) in the US and Canada is booming except for Canadian intermodal traffic. So far this year Canadian intermodal traffic is down -0.1% from last year. This seems strange because besides record growth in carload and US intermodal traffic, I have read in the news that the Vancouver port is backlogged with containers. Does anyone know why this traffic boom is not reflected in the Canadian intermodal weekly statistics. If I recall correctly it was about mid-last year that Canadian intermodal growth went flat. Before that the numbers reflected quite robust growth. It just seems odd and I can't put my finger on the reason.

Andrew

[Anonymous]

Several reasons: Most US intermodal growth is in the LA-Chicago corridor, the rest of the intermodal numbers on the other rail corridors in the US are as stagnant as the Canadian numbers. Also, CP had a chance to introduce a new double stack innovation from Greenbrier called the "stack n' half" which would increase the load factor of a typical COFC consist by up to 30%, but TTX talked them out of it and instead convinced them to buy more of the standard well cars and build longer sidings to handle the 30% desired increase in COFC carloadings. And we all know that if the Canadian roads don't innovate to get ahead of their US counterparts, they end up falling behind.

DWS

[passengerfan]

Part of the reason you answered yourself when you mentioned the port of Vancouver. This is Canada's only major container port on the west coast and has been a very congested port for many years. The new CN expansion of Prince Rupert's container facilities that is part of the BCR takeover will make a drastic difference when it is in place. This will give CN the only coast to coast landbridge and will save at least three days transit time between Europe and Asia and is more likely to save five to seven days transit time. Five days between Europe and Asia represents a major saving for container traffic and when it is completed watch the figures grow. My suggestion is buy your CN stock now. Growth is money and CN will be handling alot of it once the landbridge is fully operational.

[Anonymous]

Keep in mind there are two major container ports here in the lowermainland.
The Port of Vancouver in Vancouver and Delta Port which is out in Delta.
Both ports are currently having trouble keeping up with container demands.

[Anonymous]

CPR is getting out of the TOFC business. They have a "MaxStack" program underway to convert as much trailer traffic as possible to stack train, looking for a 16% gain in productivity. This program is said to be 80% complete. (See http://www.trainscan.com/news/scan/s0404/index.html and the CPR Second Quarter, 2004 press release.) Possible this is diverting some business to the highways.

[Anonymous]

See today's (August 6, 2004) "Trains" Newswire: CN's exit from Montreal-Chicago roadrailer service was preceded by loss of traffic to truck. Short-haul intermodal just can't make the hurdle(-rate).

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rllewiszz

CPR is getting out of the TOFC business. They have a "MaxStack" program underway to convert as much trailer traffic as possible to stack train, looking for a 16% gain in productivity. This program is said to be 80% complete. (See http://www.trainscan.com/news/scan/s0404/index.html and the CPR Second Quarter, 2004 press release.) Possible this is diverting some business to the highways.

If CPR wants to maximize it's stack train business, why did they allow TTX to bully them away from the introduction of Greenbrier's "Stack 'n a Half" concept? The Stack 'n a Half would allow a 30% increase in stack train load factor (which put another way would increase full economy by roughly 20% with the complimentary gross weight to light weight factor). CPR instead decided to spend needlessly on increasing siding length, which will allow more boxes per train but does nothing to improve the load factor efficiency.

If you want to know what the Stack 'n a Half is, go the the U.S. Patent office website at <www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html> and search for patents 6,546,878 and 6,510,800. What the Stack 'n a Half is is basically three drawbar connected well cars with a load capacity of 160,000 lbs each e.g. a typical 2 x 20' in the well and a 40'+ container on top, and an additional 20' container placed over the drawbar between the two wells. This gets rid of the dead space between the wells, allowing for better aerodynamics, and allows more flexibility in selecting box placement. By allowing the odd 20' to be placed between the wells instead of tacking it on to the end of the consists on some old container flat, you get rid of alot of needless tare weight.

It's a simple yet brilliant concept, which is probably why the railroads haven't adopted it yet![V]

DWS

[UPTRAIN]

The only thing I can come up with is that CN SUCKS!!!

[Anonymous]

The two biggest reasons are:
1) as noted above, CP embargoed (banned) trailers from their RR. They have enough grain and coal traffic .... and they spent a bunch of $$ on containers, so they're feeling pretty randy and decided to put the screws to their trailer shippers.
2) CN put in place a reservation system that is so unworkable, that a good amount of their intermodal freight evaporated. I suspect if you look at volumes at terminals on the U.S. side, near Canadian cities, it increased significantly this year (i.e. more Vancouver freight ramping at Seattle, Toronto freight going to Buffalo, Montreal freight going to Syracuse.)

[passengerfan]

Some years ago I was an owner operator for a major trucking Company in Canada and after loading my trailer my tractor needed work so I pigged the trailer from Toronto - Vancouver. I flew to the west coast to meet the trailer where i rented a tractor to unload and reload. I then pigged the trailer back to Toronto. After adding up my truck expenses I discovered I made more money on this trip than driving would have earned me and that includes the airfare. It gave me more time at home with family but of course if the company would have found out I would have lost my contract. I have often wondered if any other owner operators have pulled a similar stunt. By the way their was not one damage claim in either direction. Who says railroads are rougher than the highways on goods being shipped.