Short Haul Intermodal - article in June Trains

[CNSF]

You're right, Dave, that scenario has a better chance of succeeding than a purely inland domestic move, and I can think of a few other real-world examples I've seen over the years in addition to the one Bruce has noted. It's still marginal, but can work when the conditions are right. For example, here in Canada both CN and CP have tried and failed to make Toronto-Montreal domestic intermodal service work, but I'm pretty sure that most import-export containers moving between the Port of Montreal and the Toronto area are railed.

[SD60MAC9500]

csxns

 

SD60MAC9500

ow many recievers actually have spurs left for boxcar L/U? Not too many from what I see..

 

 

And i do see lots of boxcars so where do they get loaded and who uses them the railroads just don't run them for fun i can't see that.

 

 

 

 

I see boxcars too. That's beside the point. How many shipper/receivers do you see that have spurs left for boxcar L/U? Not many left, and what boxcars you do see for the most part are loaded with; forest products, paper, autoparts(what's left of that traffic), or can stock, from a few large producers. I can count right here in my area 10 shipper/receivers that have ripped out their spurs in the last 20-15 years due to eratic rail service. Ford being one of them. Do you see spurs into; Grocery Warehouses? Beverage Distributors? Amazon? Distribution Centers? Walmart DC's???? I'm 36 years old, and I can still remember seeing spurs as a child into a few grocery warehouses in Sou Cal. Very rare at the time, and they were on their last leg, but I remember...

 

[jeffhergert]

I still see a lot of canned goods and wine going by box car.  Maybe not as much as 40 years ago, but it's still out there.  

Jeff

[csxns]

SD60MAC9500

paper,

In Shelby NC Clearwater Paper just built a siding and you can see lots of paper going out,and why will a Walmart store have one anyway or a Giant or Bi-Lo's they have warehouses and the Walmart warehouse in Shelby go their and you will see lots of Intermodal trailers Walmart does use Rail.

[CMQ_9017]

Walmart & Amazon are some of the largest users of intermodal. There is big traction right now in the 'Cold Chain' space, with massive orders of reefer boxes in the upcoming 2 - 5 years. You should see some pretty impressive growth in the temperature sensitive intermodal market that will fill in the gap in the supply chain transportation mode offerings.

Boxcar rail is a cost saver, but too slow and clunky. It does still serve important purposes, as already mentioned a few, but long term why seek to add boxcars to the network when you can simply haul the containers?

[greyhounds]

CMQ_9017

There is big traction right now in the 'Cold Chain' space, with massive orders of reefer boxes in the upcoming 2 - 5 years. You should see some pretty impressive growth in the temperature sensitive intermodal market that will fill in the gap in the supply chain transportation mode offerings.

You posted that on my birthday.  That news is one of the best presents I have ever received.  Hopefully, the new business will include red meat and chicken.

[zardoz]

SD60MAC9500

How many shipper/receivers do you see that have spurs left for boxcar L/U? Not many left, and what boxcars you do see for the most part are loaded with; forest products, paper, autoparts(what's left of that traffic), or can stock, from a few large producers. I can count right here in my area 10 shipper/receivers that have ripped out their spurs in the last 20-15 years due to eratic rail service. Ford being one of them. Do you see spurs into; Grocery Warehouses? Beverage Distributors? Amazon? Distribution Centers? Walmart DC's????

Here in Kenosha county (and to some extent Racine county) over the last 10 years, and especially the last 5, there has been quite a warehouse development frenzy (and also some manufacturing). Companies such as U-Line no sooner get done with one plant expansion or relocation, and they start another  http://www.kenoshanews.com/news/local/uline-set-for-another-warehouse-construction-project/article_5434513f-7057-563a-b296-f0551d139fad.html .

Gordon Food Service, Rustoleum, Ariens, Visual Pak, Associated Wholesale Grocers, Jelly Belly, Meijer, etc; the products they inventory and/or manufacture vary widely. But what they ALL have in common is that their properties abut either the Canadian Pacific double-track main line (C&M sub) or the Union Pacific (Milwaukee sub). The other thing they ALL have in common in that NONE of them have sidings. Some have literally hundreds of trailers backed up to the edge of their property, right along the ROW.

There are a few companies that DO have switch leads: Honeywell, Iris, and PPC Industries on the UP; Ardent Mills, (which uses the old CNW Bain yard), L&M Corrugated, and Emco Chemical on the CP. However, those that do have rail access, the rail traffic is carloads, with capacity from a few cars to maybe a dozen. I don't even want to try and count the number of trucks sitting within a stones throw of the railroad ROW.

While sitting in a restaurant along Interstate 94/41 casually watching the traffic, there are so many trucks going by that one could be forgiven for thinking a IM train was passing by. Sometimes sitting by the tracks (especially UP), one could be forgiven for wondering if the tracks are being used at all.

[bratkinson]

Coming back to this resurrected thread after 6 months of inactivity has given me some new ideas about how to handle short haul intermodal.   Advancing technology also plays a part in my thinking.

 

Having spent 7 years as an intermodal clerk at CSX Intermodal in West Springfield, MA, I know firsthand the two biggest issues are local drayage and terminal time/costs.  I think both can be addressed most readily by an independent company such as Schnieder or JB Hunt doing everything, perhaps even including owning the trains and rail equipment and paying the railroad to provide crew and tracks to run their trains.  Except for providing terminal services, rail equipment and train crews, those two companies already have 100% price, equipment, and staffing control beyond the intermodal ramps.

 

Let me start with saying that the idea of using box cars, loaded through side doors, simply is not a workable option.  Even the best forklift drivers will be slowed down having to make a right-angle turn to get into a box car and another to spot the load and drop it.  Slowing down is not an option for efficiency.  Neither is driving in reverse as it’s done more slowly and is more prone to accidents.  About 15 years ago, while doing a ‘pick up’ for the local PBS stations’ annual auction at the regional Coca Cola bottling plant, I was blown away to see fork lifts taking 4 pallets at a time – 2 wide by 2 high, ie, 8’ high x 8’ wide x 4' thick, and driving straight into a trailer and dropping them.  At 53’ length, 13 trips into each trailer and it’s loaded to the max with 52 pallets of Coca Cola! 

 

But seeing that very-efficient ‘double wide’ loading tells me that time and speed efficiency at the intermodal ramp is paramount.  First, I’d start from scratch with a new ramp owned by the end-to-end company such as Schnieder.  It’s more important they be located very convenient to the freeway – not more than ¼ mile from entry/exit ramps with NO low bridges in the vicinity – AND be adjacent to a railroad, preferably a class one mainline or at least on a busy branch of a mainline.  Having to ‘hand off’ a train between a shortline RR and the mainline RR loses far too much time.  The RR side has to be done by a single railroad.  OK…maybe a shortline could handle the whole trip, but how many shortlines are in the 300-500 mile range? 

 

For a city the size of Chicago, there could easily be a dozen or more of these 'mini-ramps' surrounding the city with routes radiating in every direction.  So, if a trailer gets loaded on the south side of Chicago but is destined for Minneapolis, it would have to be driven through (or around) Chicago to a ramp on the Northwest side of town.  However, if there were enough loads from the south side to MSP, they could all be loaded on the south side of town if BNSF or CN is the railroad, but not CP as their south side 'presence' is minimal, as far as I know.  Another 'key' to success is that each railroad treat these trains as 'hot', 2nd only to UPS trains and higher than 'regular' intermodal trains.

 

Moving in reverse is viewed as non-productive and is wasted time.  Call it ‘precision ramp activities’ if you will.  All incoming trucks with trailers use an automated entry ‘log in’ done via their cell phone app prior to arrival, which is already done at CSX Intermodal these days.  Permanent vehicle 'ID' tags like that on RR cars would be affixed to every tractor coming in the gate.  The trucker drives in through a slew of cameras and without backing up, drops the trailer in a diagonally positioned ‘drive through’ location easily accessible for loading.  The trailers to be loaded area must be separate from the trailers awaiting drayage out the gate for best efficiency. 

 

Given the technology of battery driven 18 wheelers and the automated robot technology in use at Amazon warehouses, fully automated robots would hook on to a trailer and drive it through a string of articulated, enclosed cars (like auto carriers but only 1 level) and self-lock themselves down using some kind of drop down ‘hook’ devices to hook on to a ‘loop’ on the floor of the enclosed rail car.  I could see one hook ‘drags’ until it latches on one ‘loop’ and stops the forward progress, then an ‘arm’ projects forward with another hook and latches on to a front ‘loop’ and tightens itself up.  Trailers on flat cars are held in place only by the 5th wheel device on each platform.  The robot is the 5th wheel and is securely 'locked in' to the rail car.  Like the floors in an Amazon warehouse, there are barcode labels atthe entry end exit of each car to tell the robot ‘where’ it is.  That way, the robot would go to the 15^th car, for example, and latch itself down, the next one, following by only a couple of feet, would go to the 14^th, and so on. 

 

Upon arrival at the destination ramp, everything would be unloaded from the front of the cars.  I don’t know for certain, but it wouldn’t surprise me if Auto Train does the same thing.  Automobiles are loaded and unloaded in the forward direction only.  

 

Initially, I don’t see more than 20-30 short haul trailers per day at any origination point except the largest of cities.  And since one-per-day trains would kill any hope of being time competitive with truckers, a minimum of 3 trains per day, with perhaps 10-12 trailers each would be the bare minimum to consider starting a short haul lane between to points.   Obviously, bigger ramps would require additional tracks and the trains would have to be assembled from two or more tracks as needed.  I’d even go so far as to redesign the couplers on the cars to have built in brake line connections as well as multiple electrical connections for computer automation purposes so the cars can ‘talk’ to each other as well as computers at the ramp as well as potential future electronic braking systems.  Subway systems and some commuter lines have multi-function couplers already.  It should become a standard, in my opinion.

 

Obviously, issues of rain, sleet, snow and ice have to be considered.  That’s why I suggest enclosed ‘carrier’ cars.  I’d go so far as to suggest heated surfaces at each ramp as well, to prevent snow and ice from any build up.  I’ve seen the yard jockeys go nuts spinning their tires trying to move a loaded trailer on snowy pavement.  That has to be eliminated as robots would most likely spin their wheels until the battery is dead.  Maybe an enclosed ‘warehouse’ space for the ramp to eliminate all precipitation problems?  It would have to be adequately ventilated to remove all diesel truck exhaust fumes and likely unheated as well.  Still, snow and ice dropping off incoming trailers would have to be dealt with.

 

By having a highly automated ramp, the costs of labor, yard jockey tractors, and million-dollars-each packers are eliminated.   Of course, the robot yard trucks that go with the load would be the biggest startup costs at, say, $25K each.  Naturally, traffic would have to be directionally ‘balanced’ to ensure a sufficient supply of robots for each train.  There’d only be perhaps 1 person on the gate and two yard workers to oversee the operation, raise & lower the bridge plates between cars (maybe controlled electronically from the first or last car on each track?) and inspect the loaded trains before departure.   Of course, a car-knocker would have to do their inspections as well. 

 

For arrivals, a radio message to all the robots on the train would commence unloading once the bridge plates are down.  There’d also have to be at least 1 backup computer system, if not a 2^nd one, too, in case of failures.  Computer communications on site as well as to HQ would also need multiple backup capabilities as well. 

 

Is it doable today?  I’d have to answer “not yet, but soon” to that question.  Maybe a couple years from now once self driving, battery-powered 18 wheelers have completed their ‘teething’ issues. 

 

Hey Elon Musk!!!  Why to try something new????

[CMQ_9017]

bratkinson

Let me start with saying that the idea of using box cars, loaded through side doors, simply is not a workable option.  Even the best forklift drivers will be slowed down having to make a right-angle turn to get into a box car and another to spot the load and drop it.  Slowing down is not an option for efficiency.  Neither is driving in reverse as it’s done more slowly and is more prone to accidents.  About 15 years ago, while doing a ‘pick up’ for the local PBS stations’ annual auction at the regional Coca Cola bottling plant, I was blown away to see fork lifts taking 4 pallets at a time – 2 wide by 2 high, ie, 8’ high x 8’ wide x 4' thick, and driving straight into a trailer and dropping them.  At 53’ length, 13 trips into each trailer and it’s loaded to the max with 52 pallets of Coca Cola! 

 

I'm not certain that turning impacts efficiency (or rather I think you mean productivity), so much as how your warehouse is laid out and utilized. I'm also uncertain how you would ever move product around via forklift without making any turns whatsoever.

 

What's important in warehousing is the integrity of packages (IE, you aren't spending time we-wrapping or fixing pallets), the rationalization of product location, the organization of SKUs (look up Supermarket Concept for warehousing), LIFO vs FIFO, inventory counting (cycle counting intermittedly) or through-isles as well as general ergonomics and layout. Who knew so much could be considered when you think about warehousing?

 

Now consider this-- I was a project resource once for a Class I looking at increaing productivity of intermodal terminals. My 'contribution' was to treat the intermodal terminal as a warehouse. Considering the concept of the terminal as a warehouse would be like saying you have several hundred warehouse workers moving stuff around without much consideration for where it's going other than the next 'available spot' (this is akin to organized chaos). We also borrowed concepts from Airports, but the ultimate plan was to manage containers like product inventory. To the RR's of course, that is a foreign concept (although you'd think their railcar management in manifest yards would lend some help, you'd be surprised) since they don't produce or manage product inventory. Maybe someday yet we can get them to change their concept of the terminal.

[bratkinson]

CMQ_9017

I'm not certain that turning impacts efficiency (or rather I think you mean productivity), so much as how your warehouse is laid out and utilized. I'm also uncertain how you would ever move product around via forklift without making any turns whatsoever.

 

What's important in warehousing is the integrity of packages (IE, you aren't spending time we-wrapping or fixing pallets), the rationalization of product location, the organization of SKUs (look up Supermarket Concept for warehousing), LIFO vs FIFO, inventory counting (cycle counting intermittedly) or through-isles as well as general ergonomics and layout. Who knew so much could be considered when you think about warehousing?

 

Now consider this-- I was a project resource once for a Class I looking at increaing productivity of intermodal terminals. My 'contribution' was to treat the intermodal terminal as a warehouse. Considering the concept of the terminal as a warehouse would be like saying you have several hundred warehouse workers moving stuff around without much consideration for where it's going other than the next 'available spot' (this is akin to organized chaos). We also borrowed concepts from Airports, but the ultimate plan was to manage containers like product inventory. To the RR's of course, that is a foreign concept (although you'd think their railcar management in manifest yards would lend some help, you'd be surprised) since they don't produce or manage product inventory. Maybe someday yet we can get them to change their concept of the terminal.

 

 

Basically, containers at an intermodal ramp are like boxes at a Fedex hub where I worked before CSX Intermodal.  We really don't care WHAT's in a box.  A box is a box is a box...unless it needs special handling like hazmats.

 

The concept of an intermodal terminal is basically put an outbound box on the train in any available spot in the block of cars going to that destination, subject to heavier boxes on the bottom of double stacks.  But here's the rub: moving the selected boxes from their parking spot to alongside the car they're going on is very inefficient. 

 

 

For the 7 years I was at West Springfield, the yard jockeys were furnished a list of all containers and trailers sorted by container ID (4 chars + 6 digits) to go out on the next train.  Their job is to 'find' the container in the yard by driving up and down the aisles until it is located, hook on, take it to the next available spot in the string of cars for that block and leave it there for loading, then repeat the 'driving around' to find the next box, and so on.  They'd start with a list of perhaps 100 containers and they'd likely pause at each box and try to find it on the list of outbounds.  We almost always had empties going, and those were on a separate list, also sorted by container.  One young yard jockey would find each container IN ORDER and spot those IN ORDER.  It made loaded train verification somewhat easier, but certainly consumed more time finding a specific container number. 

 

In those years, we left it up to the yard jockeys to 'know what they're doing' when it came to loading the train.  They were trained by a man that had been a yard jockey at multiple ramps over a span of 30 years or more.  I ultimately became the manager for a number of years until that company was replaced by another yard jockey company.  He taught each of the new hires how to drive efficiently, how to determine 'what goes where' when spotting for loading, and so on.  I always thought it produced better results than what I had learned in my 2 weeks training at the Philadelphia ramp.  It gave each man the opportunity to be creative and not be a 'robot', while at the same time 'take responsibility' for his work.  There were rules to loading priorities, such as UPS first, loads next, repos, then empties.  They knew the rules, and thereby knew when to start loading the next priority down, etc.  When we'd radio them with the expected UPS numbers (x trailers, y containers), they'd leave spots at the head of the track for those loads  to be put on.

 

Sometime after I retired in Jan 2015, they replaced the computer system with a newer product that required the 'programmer' to put every load in its respective spot on the outbound train (in the computer), print it out, and hand it to the yard jockeys with the instructions to put every container & trailer exactly as shown.  That was the same methodology used in Philadelphia when I was there 7 years earlier.  While it would seem to take the guesswork out of loading a train by having a single decision-maker (the programmer), it also makes finding the load for the next spot more difficult, as there may be 4-6 other yard jockeys looking to fill that next spot as well.  Short of their broadcasting 'I have the 123456' (which wasn't done to my knowledge), every one COULD be looking for the same box!  It's much like the 'in numerical order' yard jockey we had for a while.  Chaos?  Yes.  Drivers crossing each others paths multiple times in pursuit of the next load?  Yes. 

 

That's why I specified 'all outbound loads go in a specific 'drive through parking area'.  They simply hook on the next load in the line and go.  No driving around looking for a specific trailer needed.  Automated robots could readily handle the job.  Ideally, there would be ACI type devices that are read as each container or trailer gets loaded on the train...exactly like RR locomotives and rolling stock are scanned at multiple locations along the right of way.  The computer then knows the exact order everything is on the train.  Even Fedex does that as the computer 'decides' which trailer is to receive a particular package and routes it there in the complex conveyor belt system.  Small packages are scanned before they are put into a 40-gallon bag that goes to a particular trailer door to be loaded on the trailer.

 

At Fedex, a box is a box is a box.  At CSX, a container is a container is a container.  Except for hazmats and a few other products, we have no idea whatsoever what's inside.  It's just another box to be loaded or unloaded.  Period.