CNSF I know that from startup until about 10 years ago, 90% of the Triple Crown Roadrailer business was auto parts, mostly for the domestics I believe. Take a look at the service network - assembly plants at every end point. They were trying to get into more diversified general freight, but it wasn't going well. Maybe since then things changed, but I suspect that if you want to know who's hauling the Roadrailer freight now, go see whose trailers are parked at the auto plants. It won't be independent truckers.
I know that from startup until about 10 years ago, 90% of the Triple Crown Roadrailer business was auto parts, mostly for the domestics I believe. Take a look at the service network - assembly plants at every end point. They were trying to get into more diversified general freight, but it wasn't going well. Maybe since then things changed, but I suspect that if you want to know who's hauling the Roadrailer freight now, go see whose trailers are parked at the auto plants. It won't be independent truckers.
Actually in most cases thre won't be any trailers parked at those auto plants, if they're still standing. The Road Railer service lanes were keyed to auto plants outside of Michigan and Ohio, and for the most part those plants have shut down and many of them have since been bulldozed.
Road Railer service lanes were to the areas hosting those plants such as Atlanta, St Louis and the Twin Cities. The plants closed and Road Railer's major business went away.
Vern Moore CNSF I know that from startup until about 10 years ago, 90% of the Triple Crown Roadrailer business was auto parts, mostly for the domestics I believe. Take a look at the service network - assembly plants at every end point. They were trying to get into more diversified general freight, but it wasn't going well. Maybe since then things changed, but I suspect that if you want to know who's hauling the Roadrailer freight now, go see whose trailers are parked at the auto plants. It won't be independent truckers. Actually in most cases thre won't be any trailers parked at those auto plants, if they're still standing. The Road Railer service lanes were keyed to auto plants outside of Michigan and Ohio, and for the most part those plants have shut down and many of them have since been bulldozed. Road Railer service lanes were to the areas hosting those plants such as Atlanta, St Louis and the Twin Cities. The plants closed and Road Railer's major business went away.
Do not forget the Alliance, Tx end point, off BNSF. When it was running there was a round-trip weekly, via Kansas City to Alliance,Tx.
The idea of an "amphibian" vehicle that can run on both roads and railroads is interesting but so far appears to be a solution looking for a problem. Containers, especially when used in conjunction with double-stack trains, remove a large chunk of the potential intermodal market for Roadrailers and similar concepts, as does TOFC.
There might be scope for using road-rail vehicles for moving bulk commodities where production takes place in large manufacturing plants but distribution is to many commercial consumers, e.g. the movement of gasoline from oil refineries to gas stations. This sort of distribution pattern is favourable to unit trains at one end but trucks at the other. If a train of (coupled) road-rail tankers could be loaded just like a conventional unit train but divided Roadrailer-fashion into trucks at a suitable distribution point this would eliminate the need for intermediate storage and distribution facilities. The ability to load rapidly in bulk at one end of the journey would lower costs, compared to using trucks throughout.
Oil products are one obvious commodity with the distribution pattern described above but there are others, e.g. cement, fertilizers, frack sand. .
Methinks the termination of the Road Railer program was mostly the result of a perfect storm:
1/ the need for massive capital outlays to replace most of the trailer fleet,
2/ a 40% drop in fuel price at the same time;
3/a raise in the effective national speed limit to 70 mph, dropping transit time and increasing the effective daily driver-day by 10-15% since the original RR model was developed;
4/ the aforementioned tare weight penalty, much more important today than 20 years ago when the RR model was developed. The 53 foot trailer with the 26/52-pallet footprint has become the national "truckload" yardstick vs the 48'/45 trailer with a 22/44 pallet footprint (or, heaven forbid, the hoary old 40" van in years past). More loads "weigh out" now instead of "cubing out". I have to think that RR just could not justify the capital layout to replace the fleet to their lenders or financial powers-that-be - just take the viable equipment, concentrate it on the optimal lanes, and hope it doesn't wear out until fuel prices increase.
"Weigh out vs.Cube out"--Back when I was taking care of the supply of chemicals used in manufacturing computer chips, a full load of sulfuric acid in drums was 12 pallets; I could get two pallets of acid in bottles and not overload the van. One supplier used spacer pallets to distribute the load in the van.
Johnny
Oh, yeah! When I worked in the LTL side of the trucking business, we were given a 20' container of heavy steel chain in drums at Baltimore to unload and ship to about five different consignees. The container originated in Korea. The drums were strapped four to a pallet and completely filled the trailer - we figured the total weight with the tractor to be about 180,000 (legal limit was about about 80,000 at the time). o.O
If we had tried to drag that over a highway scale as presented, we'd probably still be paying the fine....
CatFoodFlambeOh, yeah! When I worked in the LTL side of the trucking business, we were given a 20' container of heavy steel chain in drums at Baltimore to unload and ship to about five different consignees. The container originated in Korea. The drums were strapped four to a pallet and completely filled the trailer - we figured the total weight with the tractor to be about 180,000 (legal limit was about about 80,000 at the time). o.O If we had tried to drag that over a highway scale as presented, we'd probably still be paying the fine....
If railroad intermodal only accepted 'properly' weighted trailers and containers, they most likely would have very little business. Railroads charge by the container/trailer load - not by the weight of contents and the shippers know it. I suspect water carriers also charge by the unit, not by weight.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD CatFoodFlambe Oh, yeah! When I worked in the LTL side of the trucking business, we were given a 20' container of heavy steel chain in drums at Baltimore to unload and ship to about five different consignees. The container originated in Korea. The drums were strapped four to a pallet and completely filled the trailer - we figured the total weight with the tractor to be about 180,000 (legal limit was about about 80,000 at the time). o.O If we had tried to drag that over a highway scale as presented, we'd probably still be paying the fine.... If railroad intermodal only accepted 'properly' weighted trailers and containers, they most likely would have very little business. Railroads charge by the container/trailer load - not by the weight of contents and the shippers know it. I suspect water carriers also charge by the unit, not by weight.
CatFoodFlambe Oh, yeah! When I worked in the LTL side of the trucking business, we were given a 20' container of heavy steel chain in drums at Baltimore to unload and ship to about five different consignees. The container originated in Korea. The drums were strapped four to a pallet and completely filled the trailer - we figured the total weight with the tractor to be about 180,000 (legal limit was about about 80,000 at the time). o.O If we had tried to drag that over a highway scale as presented, we'd probably still be paying the fine....
If most truckloads "weight out", what might be a larger container size and strength or other parameter that would give the railroad an economic transportation advantage while being attractive to many customers? And maybe drive creation of industrial/commercial park development adjacent to "transfer stations" (or nonpublic road/street construction for delivery)?
It Died off because there was a big evil meeting with TTX and NS. TTX asks that NS cancel the Roadrailer Program. because they Want. The Money.
Just Kidding. I don't Know why. The above is what i think happen to the RoadRailers
Gramp BaltACD CatFoodFlambe Oh, yeah! When I worked in the LTL side of the trucking business, we were given a 20' container of heavy steel chain in drums at Baltimore to unload and ship to about five different consignees. The container originated in Korea. The drums were strapped four to a pallet and completely filled the trailer - we figured the total weight with the tractor to be about 180,000 (legal limit was about about 80,000 at the time). o.O If we had tried to drag that over a highway scale as presented, we'd probably still be paying the fine.... If railroad intermodal only accepted 'properly' weighted trailers and containers, they most likely would have very little business. Railroads charge by the container/trailer load - not by the weight of contents and the shippers know it. I suspect water carriers also charge by the unit, not by weight. If most truckloads "weight out", what might be a larger container size and strength or other parameter that would give the railroad an economic transportation advantage while being attractive to many customers? And maybe drive creation of industrial/commercial park development adjacent to "transfer stations" (or nonpublic road/street construction for delivery)?
A very John Kneiling suggestion but if there's a market for TOFC containers that are too big to legally be drayed over-the-road wouldn't those customers be better served by boxcars? You suggest building dedicated industrial parks; why wouldn't you build sidings running up to the various customers?
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
My first thought would be the aggregated amount of time and other resources it takes for a trainload of shipments to get from the varied customers to the train and vice versa. Trailers/boxes/roadrailers vs. railcars.
I picture that over time the path of least resistance rules (in the physics sense). Apple has taken the lion's share of overall cell phone profits by creating a path of least resistance favorable to Apple. Amazon has just succeeded with its first delivery by drone. The customer took receipt of his order 13 minutes after placing it.
GrampIf most truckloads "weight out", what might be a larger container size and strength or other parameter that would give the railroad an economic transportation advantage while being attractive to many customers? And maybe drive creation of industrial/commercial park development adjacent to "transfer stations" (or nonpublic road/street construction for delivery)?
* http://www.lehighvalleyrailmanagementllc.com/index.html
- Paul North.
When Fred Smith wrote his thesis at Yale on creating a nationwide overnite letter service (which was deemed unfeasible by his professor), he realized that it would have to serve every major city from day one. His Federal Express did that. It wouldn't have worked by rolling it out gradually. I'm just a layman. I do think that's what has been missing concerning roadrailer. It would've had to be a nationwide network from the start to really work.
Federal Express had to jump through a lot of regulatory hoops before it made its first delivery. At startup, it was a freight airline only and was restricted to flying bizjets (Dassault Falcons) by its CAB certification.
Roadrailer could not have started as nationwide operation since it would have required multiple railroads to have a stake in its operation. Triple Crown Services would have had to have joint ownership similar to Trailer Train or the Pullman Co (after 1947).
BaltACD CatFoodFlambe ...- we figured the total weight with the tractor to be about 180,000 (legal limit was about about 80,000 at the time). o.O If we had tried to drag that over a highway scale as presented, we'd probably still be paying the fine.... If railroad intermodal only accepted 'properly' weighted trailers and containers, they most likely would have very little business. Railroads charge by the container/trailer load - not by the weight of contents and the shippers know it. I suspect water carriers also charge by the unit, not by weight.
CatFoodFlambe ...- we figured the total weight with the tractor to be about 180,000 (legal limit was about about 80,000 at the time). o.O If we had tried to drag that over a highway scale as presented, we'd probably still be paying the fine....
Are containers weighed when being loaded? Is any consideration made to avoid double-stacking of grossly overweight containers?
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Paul of Covington BaltACD CatFoodFlambe ...- we figured the total weight with the tractor to be about 180,000 (legal limit was about about 80,000 at the time). o.O If we had tried to drag that over a highway scale as presented, we'd probably still be paying the fine.... If railroad intermodal only accepted 'properly' weighted trailers and containers, they most likely would have very little business. Railroads charge by the container/trailer load - not by the weight of contents and the shippers know it. I suspect water carriers also charge by the unit, not by weight. Are containers weighed when being loaded? Is any consideration made to avoid double-stacking of grossly overweight containers?
To my knowledge - a box is a box. Container cranes 'may' be equipped with some form of strain guage to ascertain weight for crane operation purposes - not for assessing charges.
Worked at a intermodal terminal with trailers and circus loading. When the hydraulics on the yard tractor were 'taxed to the max' in picking up a trailer for movement to or from a rail car, you knew you had a 'real heavy' trailer.
Each crane is equipped with a scale on them. If the container is to heavy to even be picked up the crane will shut itself off to prevent damage to the crane itself. Also if the container was loaded like your saying the floor on the container itself would have failed. They have a max loading per square foot and beyond that they will fail. We have had a couple trailers going to CA that were close on weight and we did get charged more by both the UP and BNSF for IM rates.
I am not certain, but I think you could bet most of the traffic Triple Crown had is now on the highway. The railroads are looking for too high of a return on their investment to attract new business. Typically, rail intermodal is bottom feeding anymore. The truckers are "eating the railroads lunch" and the executives are still in the "we will raise rates" regardless. The Class 1's better hope for a revival of coal and a combination of higher fuel prices and/or the network will shrink along with employment.
Amtrak had roadrailers in the early 2000's, they disappeared after 2005 though.
I remember seeing them around LA's Union Station from time to time.
Was Amtrak trying to save money?
Were they used on the Three Rivers train?
Swift was the contractor that worked with Amtrak. Amtrak terminals did not have room for COFC and TOFC lifts so roadrailer was the best option.
ATSFGuyAmtrak had roadrailers in the early 2000's, they disappeared after 2005 though. I remember seeing them around LA's Union Station from time to time. Was Amtrak trying to save money? Were they used on the Three Rivers train?
Amtrak was trying to obtain 'express' business and take a bite out of UPS & FedEx. Ultimately they found that the additional train switching necessary between passenger origin and passenger destination was hurting their core business of passenger transportation. A management change of philosophy brought the practice to an end.
20th century,
Correct, most is back on the road. A large contract packing company behind my warehouse ships 50 or so loads per dayfor P&G. All were Triple Crown, none are now. Now it's all the big contract carriers and a bunch of independents.
So are the roadrailers gone for good or have they been sidelined for the time being?
The Roadrailers were an idea whose time has passed. They were non-standard which condemned them to niche service, NS and CSX used them primarily in auto parts service and the handful of other operations were also specialized. The equipment is probably old enough to be due for replacement and they may be too much of a custom job for Wabash National to build new ones at a reasonable price.
ATSFGuy So are the roadrailers gone for good or have they been sidelined for the time being?
Gone for good. They are worn out. There is still a pair of Triple Crown trains on NS, but they are operated under the NS Intermodal group. The Triple Crown subsidiary is no more.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Swift Scheinder and the Refrigerated 3rd parties that bought fleets have all either sold them or removed the nose extension along with replaced the rear bumpers on them.
The only group still running is for the auto industry on dedicated service Detroit to either St. Louis or K.C., all others are gone as has been mentioned.
The Roadrailers may have dissappeared from the rails, but I can still model them in HO Scale.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.