RR's are full - then let truckers pull doubles!

[Modelcar]

To BRF.....That is an interesting bit of info you related of the former proposed route for the rail line from Spartanburg to Asheville and then in later years used for I-26. That is a bit of rough territory through there...but still not quite as rough as farther north on I-40 north to the Tennessee line...even tunnels. For sure, not a place to be pulling double trailers of any size..!

[jchnhtfd]

Tyson -- I was wondering when someone would bring up one of those monsters. I encountered one once on the way from Alice to Darwin... I was impressed. Couldn't do it in North America, except way north in Canada.

Many of the above posts are superb -- this is one of the best threads in quite some time. A few, unfortunately, are a little less -- but what the heck, I'm no great example.

As to splitting infrastructure development and maintenance from operations: please, oh please, don't. It's been tried on railroads in the UK and the results are truly horrendous. So has open access, ditto. For that matter, one can argue, correctly, that the highway/truck system is an example of open access and split operations and maintenance: deferred maintenance on highways is, as a result, the order of the day (can you spell 'pothole'?) and the competition in trucking is cutthroat, with the inevitable result that a few operators, in order to gain an edge, compromise safety -- with predictable, but lamentable, results.

In a nutshell, perhaps: remember that transportation is an industry, and an integrated industry -- much as we may like to think of it as a hobby -- and it has to please the customer or it's dead!

[Modelcar]

BRF....Enjoyed your photos of the interstate through the area...Have traveled each mile.

[jchnhtfd]

At some risk of adding additional confusion...

I might throw out the concept (not mine, although I agree with it!) that certain types of business are 'natural monopolies': that is, because of some aspect of the nature of the business, they are most efficient when they are operated as geographic monopolies. Among the examples are electric power generation and transmission, wired communication systems (e.g. telephony) -- and highway freight and railroads. In each of these examples, there is, or should be, a significant investment in the distribution infrastructure, and that investment must be maintained and upgraded. Highway freight has, of course, never been treated that way, for historical reasons. Electric power was, as was telecommunications, and railroads have always been competitive. The current political mantra is deregulation and competition (or open access) but it seems to me that it is quite valid to enquire as to just how well it really works (electric power provides some pretty horrible case studies lately). There is much (quite unpopular, these days) to be said for treating these operations as, and allowing them to be, monopolies subject to suitable regulation. The problem with that is that the regulators historically were highly political creatures, with very poor long-term memories and even worse performance with future outlooks -- but was that a fault of the system, or the people running it?

Just another line of thought...

[SALfan]

Very interesting thread. Don't have any direct knowledge of railroading or trucking, but can bring direct knowledge of working in government to the discussion. The day after tomorrow will complete 25 years of government service for me; trust me, folks, from one who has been there, GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT IS NOT NOT NOT THE ANSWER!!!!!!! Doesn't matter what the need is, doesn't matter what good intentions generated the idea of government involvement, getting the government involved is almost always a bad idea.

If you doubt me, look at the Internal Revenue Code. It should be simple - you made X dollars of profit, everybody's tax rate is Y percent, multiply the two and send a check for the resulting amount. Don't even fantasize that that is the way it works. I worked for a CPA firm in a former life, and did tax returns for businesses in a variety of industries. Every industry has its own special tax breaks, every one put in place by Senator Foghorn or Representative Paymeoff at the behest of whatever industry got to him "fustest with the mostest (cash)". And I apologize to Nathan Bedford Forrest for stealing his line.

Another reason not to get government involved: every rulemaking government agency, or agency that manages something from which a vendor or taxpayer could make money, has had the experience of making a decision that is right and fair, then having to endure letters/calls/testimony at a hearing where the agency is raked over the coals by Senator Foghorn or Rep. Paymeoff because the decision took money out of the pockets of the people providing the payoffs. Government is all about applying political pressure so that one or a few (the ones providing the payoffs) reap some advantage. At least in the business world the profit and loss statement enforces a certain discipline, and in most cases keeps the BS down to a manageable level. If a company lets the internal BS get out of hand it goes out of business (refer to Ed Blysard's description of how things were at Southern Pacific for an example). There is nothing to keep the BS in check in government.

[slotracer]

Long thread, mark made some good points. Shippers ship rail for a variety of reasons, cost being a significant one. We pay less by rail although we also figure in the cost of demurrage, intraplant switching, private car sosts etc to the NT rate. If truck or barge is lower than the railroad looses out to a natural competitor. Ourselves and most other shippers realize there is a cost difference and with it a value difference. With truck, delivery is plus or minus a few hours. Rail is plus or minus a couple days, but when the system is haywire, it can be plus or minus a couple weeks depending on the haul and shippers cannot live with that even if the service is free.Railroads have a part to blame in this too. While the majors have invested in improved track added double track and siding capacity, improved signalling etc, much has been abandonned with the mergers and thus excess capacity goes away forever. When major service snafus hit or business picks up there is no additional capaity to take up the slack. Railroads have a hsitory of waffling from focus on volume at the expense of contribution, then switching to focus on contribution at the expense of volume. We just had a major come to us and request we terminate a line of business that is good for 1000 carloads a year at a 40% profit margin....I know this as I was the business manager who set up teh rates and did the costing when I was still at that major. We'd kill for such a margin in competitive industry !

Don't get me going on intermodal, the railroads focus on it as it is teh major growth segment for the future, but it is the lowest margin traffic they haul for the most part and frequently has the highest demands for on time performance with severe penalties for service problems. You take your lowest margin traffic and use your peemium power and schedule your railroad around it, then complain you don't make enough to reinvest in the property and chase off higher yielding manifest traffic....

A major problem is that the railroads are still in the mindset that there is plenty of costs to cut as if this was just after staggers in 1980. The low hanging fruit is long gone and the railroads frequently cut into muscle and bone to try and cut costs.

[Modelcar]

...JOdom...I doubt not your knowledge and workings of government...I recieve SS checks on time each month and our mail is delivered consistently each day...by government, to mention a few items that seem to get the job done. I'm sure, as you so state...some areas of government do not work like such.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Modelcar Posted: Today, 09:51:42
To BRF.....That is an interesting bit of info you related of the former proposed route for the rail line from Spartanburg to Asheville and then in later years used for I-26. That is a bit of rough territory through there...but still not quite as rough as farther north on I-40 north to the Tennessee line...even tunnels. For sure, not a place to be pulling double trailers of any size..!

I've only been through there a few times before and recall how rough the terrain is and the interstate cutting through in Haywood County. I heard that they could have gone through the Smokies a lot easier, but politics got too involved and they ended up following the river. Earlier this summer I went down Old Fort Mtn. in McDowell County on I-40, which is east of Asheville out of the mountains and it makes our section of I-26 in Polk County look easy! It's still a 6% grade, but for 6 miles instead of 3. Trucks are required by law to come to a complete stop at the top of the mountain for a brake check and see the map of the section showing where run-away truck ramps are before proceeding down the mountain at no more than 35 mph. There are even sensors in the road connected to overhead warning lights that flash if the truck is going more than 35 mph. Not an easy section to travel, up or down. Wish I had some pictures of it, but I-26 is only 2 miles from my house, so much easier to get those.

[Modelcar]

BRF...I'm familiar with truck run away ramps...There is one on Rt. 30 in Pennsylvania about 15 miles from my home area...That is a federal highway {not interstate}, and it crosses Laurel Hill Mtn. at that point and on the western side they have the truck run away ramp. Trucks are required to stop at the top before starting the decent. The grade is mostly 9 and 10% and even a bit steeper for a short distance of that area....For trucks, on 2-lane twisting road, that means business...! Jake brakes help much...something that they didn't have back in the 30's and later before the Pennsylvania Turnpike was built and Rt. 30 was the main east - west route through that area...

[Anonymous]

In Re: Slotracer's post today at 11:58:42

My earlier posts have been somewhat uncharacteristically positive about the industry and its managers. However, much of my career in the industry was spent contending with and fighting over poor economic decisions (in my view) such as Slotracer describes.

For example, in a notably public statement in the late 1970's the new CFO (recruited from AT&T) of a big Class I declared that all traffic would be subjected to a rate-of-return test. If a given piece of traffic didn't have a revenue-to-cost ratio of at least 1.34, it was candidate for elimination if rates couldn't be raised to that level. Major tonnage was diverted to truck and barge as a result. This enormously exacerbated the negative effects of the 1980-1982 "double-dip" recession on the railroad. In my opinion then and now, an economically rational decision system would have kept the traffic to use up the sunk capital if rates could not be raised. But this demonstrates the eternal tension in a complex entity with so many shared expenses and shared physical assets. It is difficult to trace out all ramifications of any decision. But one truth is eternal: It's almost impossible to reduce costs and plant as rapidly as revenue when traffic is driven away.

Maintaining viable "excess" railroad capacity is expensive, so it isn't done much, because very few managers trust economic forecasts. Rightfully. Mothballing can be done, such as BN did with Stampede Pass, but reactivating is a multi-million dollar, multi-month process. One doesn't do it for "Easter Sunday" volume.

And then there is Intermodal, on which Slotracer doesn't want to be got going! No traffic has been more praised or pilloried. I have done both. Deservedly so, I believe. Short-haul, "loose trailer" TOFC has historically been low-margin, and unless even more radical operational and technological innovation than "Iron Highway" comes along, it will remain so (if kept at all). Truck service and rates are too competitive. Only where sunk capital and short-term excess capacity exist can such service be justified, as was briefly the case for BN's "Expediters" of the late 1980's.

Transcon intermodal is another matter. Apparently the Class I's see the traffic as investment quality. (One must concede that "glamour" affects even big investments such as this. Re-equipping the rail passenger fleet post-WW II comes to mind.) But the combination of highly efficient double-stack trains and premium-priced trailer service in essentially unit-train operating patterns is impressive. But recent industry experience is instructive. The transcon UPS hotshot appears to have wrecked havoc on the UP's Sun Belt LIne. And that after apparently interesting pricing decisions awarded the traffic to UP. It takes fortitude to turn away from "glamour" traffic, but the right analytical and decision making tools and management atmosphere make for sound decisions.

One may debate and critique past intermodal strategies, but the dice have been cast and there are precious few box cars showing.

Finally, Slotracer appropriately laments ill-advised cost cutting, and who would argue?
In an earlier posting I mentioned that Class II's have a portfolio of traffic segments. Accurately ranking the profit-contribution and return-on-assets of those segments provides an invaluable tool to guide cost-reduction decisions (as well as re-investment decisions). Keep line A up to snuff, maybe even a bit over-maintained. Line M, well keep it safe, but slow. Line Z should be starved, and shut down if it can't be safely operated. Same with rolling stock. And train consolidations. In short, "Precision Railroading." Overhead expenses may not be as easily ranked, but they can never be ignored. There is always "low fruit."
.

[Anonymous]

Modelcar: I'm quite familiar with hearing jake brakes. When I used to live in Columbus, we lived up on the hill on the west side of I-26 between the 74 interchange and 108 bridge not far from the base of the grade and trucks were constantly putting on their jake brakes and were often blowing tires. It could be considered worse than living next to a rail line (other thread) because the noise was constant, 24/7 365 for the 16 years I lived there (except the few times it closed for downed trees in the snow and the chemical spill.) At least it would only be at certain times for the trains.

[Puckdropper]

One of the major reasons why trucks should not pull dual 53-foot trailers is because many drivers have proven they cannot handle one properly. Many drivers pu***heir trucks (or themselves) too hard, or don't pay enough attention while driving to stop safely.

(Do note the usage of the word "many." I know for a fact that not all drivers are lacking in the ability to handle their truck safely.)

[arbfbe]

rllewiszz in the above post mentioned a railroad CFO recruited from AT&T. You ask why would they want someone from the phone company (TPC for all you older flinty guys) to work on the railroad? Ask yourself what does AT&T really do? They are a TRANSPORTATION company. Then move electrons that carry ideas from one place to another. AT&T was also another high fixed cost, regulated industry. Whether or not this individual could successfully make the transition from transporting ideas to moving freight is another matter.

Alan

[BaltACD]

While this thread has been discussed from the Railroad and Traffic Safety points of view, one point of view has not be adequaltely broached.

Road (Interstate) System capacity.

As a frequent user of the I95, I75, I10, I70 and I77 corriders, the Interstate system (at least East of the Mississippi) is approaching it's capacity limits for effective automobile travel, at least at the levels of operational freedom we have become accustomed to. For those of us who have Cruise Control on our automobiles, once you get on the Interstate....how long can you run in 'Cruise' without the need to exit 'Cruise' to contend with other traffic. That amount of time is decreasing each and every trip that I take.

Without taking an actual count, my perception is that there are more and more trucks on the highways. There are time where I will pass 10 to 12 trucks before I pass another passenger vehicle (car, SUV or Pick-up). Were the Intermodal volume handled by the railroads to be forced to the highways, gridlock and chaos would be the ultimate result.

The transportation network of the country relies upon all modes to perform the function that they most economically perform. There is a market for all the forms of transportation as long as the transportation providers market themselves to their strengths, not attempting to cover their weaknesses.

[daveklepper]

Why don't shippers cooperate with railroads on campaiging to get rid of the discriminatory fuel tax? They could split the savings, part to lower rates, part to increase profits, and part to add capacity.

[Modelcar]

BaltACD....The thought of dumping the rail intermodal traffic over to the interstate system is scary. Just even the thought of having to do this should be a wake up call for traffic planners and method of allotment of transportation funding in this country. This can't be an option. That is to let the rail system fail....But what is an acceptable answer.

[passengerfan]

Having been in the trucking induistry for 28 years I resent comments that truckers are not capaable of pulling double 53' trailers. The Kansas Turnpike, and other turnpikes have witnessed the pulling of multiple 53' trailers for a number of yeras now and there safe operation has been without herald. In ceratin western states three 28' trailers are operated on the Interstate system and have been successfully for years. In California it will never come to pass as the state has forced trucks to use the two right hand lanes of the freeway where all of the on ramps and off ramps are locarted. It has been proven time and time again that traffic operating at the same speed limits on interstates causes the least amount of accidents but California still holds trucks to 55 mph while other traffic is operating at 70 mph and over. Some years ago a study conducted on the Ohio Turnpike investigated traffic operating at two speed limits and found the majority of night rear end collisions were cars running into the rear of slower moving trucks due to the speed limits.
I feel that the professional drivers out their with todays capable trucks would be more than able to safely operate double 53' trailers safely.
The furniture manufacturers were among the first to lobby for 53'trailers due to the light weight of furniture loads. I received a lesson in the difference between a 53' trailer and a fifty foot boxcar some years ago when a crew loading a fifty foot hi-cube boxcar with furniture tod me they could put 2-1/2 53' trailer loads in one of the boxcars.