Why hasn't Bimodal Technology taken off in Class 1 intermodal service???

[Anonymous]

The news of CN discontinuing their Montreal to Chicago Roadrailer service has been very very disconcerting to me. Again after an important Class 1 expansion give it a year or two, RETRENCHMENT ANBANDONMENT!!

As a New Yorker I saw Roadrailer, Railrunner and their ilke make the promise of breaking into the 97% truck dominated NYC market with equipment that meshes well with heavy commuter and intercity passenger traffic that dominmates our local rails. In the early '80s I watched the Empire State Xpress in a short time become the the dominant carrier in the NYC to Buffalo traffic lane. With 50 unit consists rocketing up and down the Hudson Div. at 70+ MPH speeds with only ONE U36B hauling it and sometimes only one B23-7. (It was way faster than the single unit FL9 hauled Amtrak Lake Shore Limited New York Section.)Only to see it quicky die partly due to no backhaul out of NYC.

Here some other example of broken promises:

The possible Florida to Hunterspoint (Bronx) service. Still a pipe dream .

The joint NS(Triple Crown)/Amtrak service to Sunnyside yards and on to Hicksville, Long Island. Third rail interferrence and Amtrak is getting out of the Roadrailer business.

Even Triple Crown has RETRENCHED from the NYC market. Terminating in Bethlehem, PA instead of Elizabethport NJ.

My question is what is wrong with the present Class 1 management mentality and market circumstances with the glorious exception of Triple Crown, that does not allow bimodal technology to be used and used effectively ????

It can't be the terminal cost and motive power requirements. What Class 1 intermodal train can accelerate like a subway train and maintain passenger train speeds generally with one modern high horsepower locomotive or whose terminal requirements is generally a patch of blacktop and a heavy duty forklift??

Again My question is what is wrong with the present Class 1 management mentality and market circumstances with the glorious exception of Triple Crown, that does not allow bimodal technology to be used and used effectively ????

[Overmod]

You can bet that there are operating reasons for the decisions made so far. These may not always be 'revealed' by the railroads making them, but would be stronger than the perceived advantages of the technology (especially as COFC continues to be strong).

One note in particular: No actual truck line seems to have embraced the technology, even though some (Hunt in particular) went to TOFC and COFC extensively. There needs to be a substantial pool of fully-compatible trailers before exclusive RoadRailer service to 'through' destinations, most particularly New York City destinations, makes much sense. It apparently does NOT make sense to run RoadRailers at the end of conventional trains, although I continue to think that can be done with some trains (e.g. the Tropicana trains and some semi-dedicated pig trains that aren't expected to see switching moves etc. en route, and many of the advantages you mention for 100% RoadRailer trains don't really apply to mixed consists.

Amtrak doesn't have to be in the 'RoadRailer business' to allow NS trains to run through the Hudson River tunnels -- just allow trackage rights over the old Connecting Railroad, through the tunnels and Penn Station complex, and then out over the LIRR. Presumably Amtrak would also provide the necessary electric or dual-power locomotives and crews for the service, but this shouldn't be difficult to arrange, as the total time involved should not be more than an hour or so. The political issue with Amtrak, probably the same as with the MHC service, was and is perceived competition with private carriers at a time they have to fight tooth and nail for high government subsidy; I would add that even with Gunn at the helm, they haven't been able to show panache in 'freight' or 'express' handling... and now this business about the mail contracts. But this isn't Amtrak-in-the-freight-business, it's Amtrak allowing NS to run its trains through the tunnels over portions of the Corridor trackage. Amtrak also has very little concern with LIRR routing past Sunnyside, which quickly becomes Metro-North; trains at this point would need to be re-powered with diesels or third-rail-capable locomotives to get to Hicksville. Presumably existing Metro-North dual-service power could handle these trains. Personally, I wonder whether we could find a use for the remaining E60s, FL9s, etc., or reasons for a few new P42ACs (to get a foot in the door for AC power on NS?) for the joint service.

It will be interesting to see if the third-rail problem can be solved, or whether it is a convenient excuse to put the kibosh on further consideration of the idea. I have to wonder whether it makes more sense to run the RoadRailers from Florida via the tunnels and Hell Gate to get to Hunter's Point (Bay Ridge is right there) than to go way up north and still have to contend with third-rail trackage on the most convenient routes into the NYC terminal area.

Another potential concern is that the physical security of trailers is considerably lower than shipping containers. When you yard these trains, it's usually not practical to have a full fleet of tractors 'scheduled' and standing by to pull all the trailers away -- although good logistics management would at least make a stab at that. This means that yard tractors, or your 'heavy-duty forklift', would have to dissassemble the consist and park the trailers somewhere... where modern 'Conrail Boys' might have a field day...

I think a big piece of this issue is that the surviving railroads either can't or don't like to "think like a trucking line". Until the entire logistical picture of overall trips, including the truck-related drive times, scheduling, etc., is well-considered, the hassle involved with making up pure RoadRailer trains is likely to outweigh the perceived benefits. I would personally prefer to see a class of RoadRailer trailer that had corner fittings that would allow existing Mi-Jack cranes, Letroporters, etc. to handle and position them, but this was considered even back in the '80s and the construction and tare weight determined to be relatively uncompetitive.

More later, perhaps. I look forward to seeing more comments from the wise.

[Anonymous]

Because railroads and Triple Crown run intermodal "trains in lanes," not individual loads, they must seek high volume back-hauls IN THE SAME LANE. Trucks "triangulate" in a totally free-form pattern to find individual loads, while always seeking to maximize the loaded-to-empty miles ratio. Pricing is flexible to facilitate this process. "Back to the Hub" is a huge constraint on railroad and Triple Crown flexibility.

Look at this map:http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/state_info/new_york/truckflow_nyc.htm
Unfortunately, it doesn't give directionality and thus doesn't reveal triangulation potential as well as other maps of this kind I have seen. Nevertheless, the rapid diffusion evident demonstates in part the difficulty of generating train-load volumes in two directions.

Roadrail technology seems to be suffering major economic set-backs, with CN exiting Montreal-Chicago and Swift/BNSF apparently ending the I-5 experiment. The technology is half-a-century old and seems to fit only narrowly defined niches supported primarily (it appears to me) by auto parts for assembly plants located in metropolitan areas.

I don't think the recent failures represent any "cultural" hostility on the part of the rairoads at all. In fact, aggressive intermodal advocates have welcomed the technology and given many "test bed" opportunities. I do think that Triple Crown has a formula that works, they know where and when it works, and the Class I's seem open to appropriate working relationships, e.g., UP: Chicago to Twin Cities and BNSF: Kansas City -DFW.

I don't see Roadrailer/Triple Crown having a market-shaping strength, as does tomtrain:

"I think the economies of TC (roadrailers) that presently are still in large part latent will manifest themselves as their "gravity" further attracts developments that are suited to it. "Spatial" economic decisions to locate to take better advantage of what roadrailers offer will further make roadrailers a path of least resistance which will in turn strengthen roadrailers. It appears to me that the movement of auto parts has been the starting point."

They will continue to be a niche player, in my opinion.

I've thought alot about transportation technology innovation that might change "spatial economic" decisions in the way railroads emptied the rivers and trucks have emptied the railroads (in a certain manner of speaking). Levitation, helium-filled balloons, teleportation. :~) Heck, while blue-skying, why not invert the logic of traditional intermodal ... power units that are capable of operating in both road and rail modes, a la Brandt RoadRail power units, with rail-only freight units that give full play to railroad cube and weight advantages, i.e., 8,000 cube boxes built to trailer specs and 100 ton flats, gons, hoppers, etc.. Never operate "trains." Operate double and triple-bottoms, a la the truckers. Frequent dispatch, truck service characteristics, truck team-driver economics coupled (I used that word loosely) with steel-on-steel rolling resistance advantages. Total power unit repositioning and servicing flexibility, double-track mains, GPS dispatching. Cornelius Peterbilt as CEO. Otta work, don't you think?

[Anonymous]

The "X" factor ... it's a great idea, but difficult to play out in the railroad business for several reasons. For one, the industry is standardized to a great extent, e.g., track gauge, making "outside-the-box" thinking difficult to implement. For another, capital requirements are high for almost any significant service innovation, so there is always competition between "maintenance and renewal" capital, e.g., roadway, locomotives, etc., and innovation capital. Add in the risk of innovation investment, and the former typically wins out.
And, yes, the industry has a conservative management bent.

Having said the above, though, innovation has been consistently encouraged and risks taken. Roadrailer is one example. BN built "TroughTrain" in the early 1990's, an innovation that would have vastly increased unit coal train productivity had it panned out. BN collaborated with innovative engineers and truck lines to develop dry van trailers that would carry automobiles in one direction, dry freight in the opposite. It proved too expensive and too complex. BN worked with others in the industry and supply industry to support development of the AC diesel-electric locomotive, then BN placed the first order in 1993 for 300 of these units. The benefits of this innovation have been significant for the entire industry.

Innovation in the railroad business isn't as "flashy" as in the information technology industry. (Who outside the railroad industry was aware of "enthusiasm" for concrete ties? (:~) ) But innovation is supported, tested, promoted and implemented on a consistent basis in the industry.

[DTomajko]

Another thing to think about,how would all those international containers be handled by Roadrailers? The advantage of traditional intermodal is that any standard container or even road trailer can be handled on the present types of intermodal equipment. Even Roadrailer Reefers are regularly shipped into the Pittsburgh terminal on flatcars and spine cars.With the steamship companies long standardized on 20' to 45' containers, it doesn't seem feasible at this time to accommodate all those boxes traveling in stack trains,(how about a roadrailer container chassis?). Would you transfer the container freight into roadrailers? That seems like a step backwards. Another advantage of T/COFC is the ability for a packer to unload from anywhere in a cut of cars on the pad to expedite the "hot" loads such as UPS,USPS, Hunt or Schneider, while leaving the less time-sensitive,(but still important),freight to be handled throughout the shift. This scenario is played out everyday in Pittsburgh with trucks lining the tracks to recieve their assigned loads. UPS will even call in advance of the trains arrival with the trailers they want off first. I believe that a roadrailer train is worked from one or both ends but is dificult to pull a unit from the middle. I think that each type of intermodal service will continue to have its place in operations and service. By the way, the intermodal ramps I have seen are really nothing more than large parking lots, with one to five packers and a bunch of jockey trucks to handle trailers on the ground. I will grant that roadrailers require a little less initial terminal investment but the number of employees is about the same overall. I do know that about 50 trailers and containers can be unloaded by a single person in a shift, where it takes at least three to handle a roadrailer,(forklift,jockey, & groundman).By the way, a little trivia, there is no single piece of intermodal equipment presently available that will accommodate every possible loading configuration,(ie; 20',40',45',48',53' COFC; 28',45',48',53' TOFC, or COFC on chassis).Good luck and stay safe.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by DTomajko

Another thing to think about,how would all those international containers be handled by Roadrailers? The advantage of traditional intermodal is that any standard container or even road trailer can be handled on the present types of intermodal equipment. Even Roadrailer Reefers are regularly shipped into the Pittsburgh terminal on flatcars and spine cars.With the steamship companies long standardized on 20' to 45' containers, it doesn't seem feasible at this time to accommodate all those boxes traveling in stack trains,(how about a roadrailer container chassis?). Would you transfer the container freight into roadrailers? That seems like a step backwards. Another advantage of T/COFC is the ability for a packer to unload from anywhere in a cut of cars on the pad to expedite the "hot" loads such as UPS,USPS, Hunt or Schneider, while leaving the less time-sensitive,(but still important),freight to be handled throughout the shift. This scenario is played out everyday in Pittsburgh with trucks lining the tracks to recieve their assigned loads. UPS will even call in advance of the trains arrival with the trailers they want off first. I believe that a roadrailer train is worked from one or both ends but is dificult to pull a unit from the middle. I think that each type of intermodal service will continue to have its place in operations and service. By the way, the intermodal ramps I have seen are really nothing more than large parking lots, with one to five packers and a bunch of jockey trucks to handle trailers on the ground. I will grant that roadrailers require a little less initial terminal investment but the number of employees is about the same overall. I do know that about 50 trailers and containers can be unloaded by a single person in a shift, where it takes at least three to handle a roadrailer,(forklift,jockey, & groundman).By the way, a little trivia, there is no single piece of intermodal equipment presently available that will accommodate every possible loading configuration,(ie; 20',40',45',48',53' COFC; 28',45',48',53' TOFC, or COFC on chassis).Good luck and stay safe.

Yes, there is. RailRunner <www.railrunner.com> can handle every size of container, domestic or ocean, and the bi-modal RailRunner chassis can be handled by a straddlecrane the same as a standard Z-trailer. You are correct in that it becomes somewhat of a logistical hassle to pull a trailer from the middle of a consist, but it is possible if the yardman can forklift the extra bogey out of the way. The RailRunner people still are exploring the possibility of using handheld connectors between the bogies in lieu of the chassis, an innovation that could allow mid-train removal of trailers without gumming up the works.

The real reason bi-modal hasn't caught on like it should is that railroads are very conservative when it comes to doling out cash for new untried capital expenditures. Why purchase new units of state-of-the-art bi-modal equipment when TTX can simply weld a few more sheets of steel onto a 48' spine car and convert it into a 53' spine car to handle the 53' standard truck trailer?

[DSchmitt]

On the railroad progress is evolution, nor revolution. Even something that seems like a revolution is around for many years before it catches on.

For instance the ancestors of the diesel electric locomotive date back to the early 1900's, but the "revolution" in motive power wasn't until 1950's.

This "truth" applies to most things.