Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
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?
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag