Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="MP173"] I believe we have differing opinions regarding the "efficiencies" of trucks v rails.  Sure, the cost of transporting via rail is considerably lower, but the efficiencies of trucking was (is) the flexibility it offered.  LTL trucking ate into REA business, it was much more efficient and quicker. Truckload offered the ability to ship from door to door via a single carrier.  Often railroad boxcar freight had to move thru several carriers...plus one had to fill a boxcar to get the rate.  Trucking offered rate structures which rewarded the movement of partial truckloads or "header rates".  Interchange between railroads was painfully slow, interlining between LTL carriers was much more efficient.  LTL terminals "cross docked" freight in hours, rail terminals took  much more time.[/quote]What I look at is the relative running speeds of the fastest highway vehicles vs those of the railroads.  1930's - 50 mph highways were still the exception, not the rule, but railroads were in seeming competition to break the 100 mph barrier with dedicated trains.  Granted, those were mostly passenger trains, but the standard was still set.  Thinking about it now, can you imagine what things would look like today if those 100 mph railroads had offered TOFC service in tandem with those passenger hotshots to haul those new fangled truck trailers?  The whole dock to dock dynamic changes in terms of transit time for OTR vs TOFC.Fast forward to the 1950's - highway speeds are now up in the 60 mph range, but railroads have decreased their top speeds!Again, the theoretical advantage in flexibility still favors rail transit over highway transit for all but the shortest hauls in the dock to dock race, but with what is offered/allowed today TOFC is only advantageous in the longer haul lanes, and that's only because of the new truck driver rules.[quote]Finally...I am not sure if the HAL's was the main factor in the deterioriation of the ROW's or simply along for the ride.  Was it HAL's or the inability to maintain the track due to the deployment of assets in uncompensated endeavors such as branch lines with five member crews and 4 car trains?[/quote]Well, it does correlate.  The 264k car with 100 ton trucks came into it's own during the 1960's, so you have the efficiency gains over the 220k car with 70 ton trucks which correlate with the relative financial health of the railroads during this period.  Then by the advent of the 1970's tracks were starting to fall apart - could it be the move from 70 ton truck (55,000 lbs per axle) to the 100 ton truck (65,750 lbs per axle) was finally taking it's toll?  It may be the move to the 100 ton truck was seen as a short term gain for investors, with the usual tendency to bail before the longer term consequences came about.
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