greyhoundsPut the carless trailers on the back of existing trains. It's true that you aren't allowed
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
CNSF Roadrailer's big chance came and went in the early '90's. I was in the Santa Fe Intermodal Business Unit at the time and worked on the file. Schneider, Swift, Werner, and some of the other big truckload carriers responded to J.B. Hunt's bet on non-standard intermodal containers by getting together and proposing a nationwide RoadRailer network which they would all commit to using. Scheider and Swift put their money where their mouths were and bought Roadrailers while the railroads were still hemming and hawing. At ATSF we were open to the idea of Roadrailer-only trains if we could see them replacing TOFC entirely, since we were already operating more or less seperate dedicated TOFC and doublestack trains and could see that we were gradually moving towards seperate ramps as well (eg. Willow Springs vs. Corwith). At our suggestion, Wabash built a Roadrailer pup trailer to UPS specs (right down to the brush-style mudflaps) and showed it off at the Atlanta intermodal expo. If UPS and the LTL carriers (Roadway, Yellow, etc.) that were the primary driving force of our TOFC business had shown any interest in Roadrailer, ATSF would have been supportive and today's intermodal world might look very different. Interesting comment on the impact of switching costs. The one economic aspect of Roadrailer that we at Santa Fe weren't sold on was the terminal cost. Yes, in the convential 'lift' system there's some switching, plus all that capital investment in cranes and reinforced concrete pads, but at least it's very labor-efficient. It looked to us like it would take a whole lotta tractor drivers and ground workers to first cherry-pick the dozen or so superhot UPS loads out of a 100-unit consist, then break up the rest of the train and release the track for reloading in a couple of hours. The folks at Triple Crown probably know the answer to that question by now. Finally, I must point out that the fact that Roadrailers can't be shoved or used in mid-train service with conventional rail equipment isn't due to blind stubborn insanity on the manufacturer's part. There's a good reason for it. The vast majority of shippers have always been very clear that they won't pay more than a 5-10% weight penalty to switch from intermodal to highway. As far as I know, no carless technology genius has yet figured out how to make a trailer frame as strong as a railcar without making it heavier and thus sacrificing lading capacity. I haven't looked closely at RailMate but am curious as to how (or whether) they've solved this problem. So, the fatal flaw of carless technology (so far) has been, as stated earlier, the classic chicken-and-egg problem. Nobody will buy the equipment without knowing they can use it over a large national network; and you can't build the network unless everybody buys the equipment. But for a year or so back in the '90's, it looked like it just might happen.
Roadrailer's big chance came and went in the early '90's. I was in the Santa Fe Intermodal Business Unit at the time and worked on the file. Schneider, Swift, Werner, and some of the other big truckload carriers responded to J.B. Hunt's bet on non-standard intermodal containers by getting together and proposing a nationwide RoadRailer network which they would all commit to using. Scheider and Swift put their money where their mouths were and bought Roadrailers while the railroads were still hemming and hawing.
At ATSF we were open to the idea of Roadrailer-only trains if we could see them replacing TOFC entirely, since we were already operating more or less seperate dedicated TOFC and doublestack trains and could see that we were gradually moving towards seperate ramps as well (eg. Willow Springs vs. Corwith). At our suggestion, Wabash built a Roadrailer pup trailer to UPS specs (right down to the brush-style mudflaps) and showed it off at the Atlanta intermodal expo. If UPS and the LTL carriers (Roadway, Yellow, etc.) that were the primary driving force of our TOFC business had shown any interest in Roadrailer, ATSF would have been supportive and today's intermodal world might look very different.
Interesting comment on the impact of switching costs. The one economic aspect of Roadrailer that we at Santa Fe weren't sold on was the terminal cost. Yes, in the convential 'lift' system there's some switching, plus all that capital investment in cranes and reinforced concrete pads, but at least it's very labor-efficient. It looked to us like it would take a whole lotta tractor drivers and ground workers to first cherry-pick the dozen or so superhot UPS loads out of a 100-unit consist, then break up the rest of the train and release the track for reloading in a couple of hours. The folks at Triple Crown probably know the answer to that question by now.
Finally, I must point out that the fact that Roadrailers can't be shoved or used in mid-train service with conventional rail equipment isn't due to blind stubborn insanity on the manufacturer's part. There's a good reason for it. The vast majority of shippers have always been very clear that they won't pay more than a 5-10% weight penalty to switch from intermodal to highway. As far as I know, no carless technology genius has yet figured out how to make a trailer frame as strong as a railcar without making it heavier and thus sacrificing lading capacity. I haven't looked closely at RailMate but am curious as to how (or whether) they've solved this problem.
So, the fatal flaw of carless technology (so far) has been, as stated earlier, the classic chicken-and-egg problem. Nobody will buy the equipment without knowing they can use it over a large national network; and you can't build the network unless everybody buys the equipment. But for a year or so back in the '90's, it looked like it just might happen.
Well, you're right. In the context you use, you're right.
First, let's deal with RailMate. I was at a demo in St. Paul where they had one of their dump trailer prototypes leaving the yard behind a standard highway tractor day cab with 46,000 pounds of waste rock from an iron mine as a payload. I was talking to one of thier consulting engineers by the name of Sims. I looked at him and asked if the load was legal. He said: "Yes, it's legal. Barely, but it's legal." If you can put 46,000 in a trailer you're truck competitive. I don't have the weight estimate they gave me on a 53' reefer in front of me, but I remember they felt they could build reefer trailers to take a 44,500 payload. That's also truck competitive on a 53' reefer. They wanted $25,000 to do the full design on the reefer and I have yet to fork that over.
Second, the economics of a mechanized IM terminal with cranes, reinforced concrete, etc. will, in fact, defeat or at least match the terminal costs of RailMate/RoadRailer provided the volume at the terminal is sufficient to spread the fixed costs of such investments over enough loads. The downside of this is that in order to generate the required volumes IM freight is forced though a very few terminals This puts those terminals far enough away from significant shippers/recievers so that the drayage costs to/from these few, high volume, terminals make intermodal noncompetitive with over the road movement for a lot of freight.
In the example you cited Santa Fe was looking at replacing its existing intermodal network with RoadRailers. Why do that? Where double stack/COFC/TOFC work, they work fine. Leave 'em alone. Haul the freight and send 'em a bill. As you said, it is impossible to replace the entire network in one fell swoop. Don't even try it, it's impossible.
The market niche for RailMate/RoadRailer is to expand the network and reach those customers that are beyond the econoimic reach of the existing terminals in the existing intermodal network. As Santa Fe realized, it makes no sense to replace something that is working very well. In this niche the carless technology would compliment, not replace, the existing hardware. It can operate out of terminals that don't require a lot of capital investment. That makes smaller terminals economically viable. That reduces drayage expense and puts more profitable freight on the railroad.
I'll come back to my SW Kansas beef example. The business potential is there. But there is no need to spend millions of dollars to prove it when you can get in for the cost of dumping some while rock over the rails and buying two used yard tractors. The volume won't be there at the get go to support major investment. It wasn't there in Chicago when Intermodal started in Chicago. Chicago started with circus ramps. If the volume builds to a sufficient level, you can always build the mechanized terminal. (I'd go with smaller volume terminals at both Holcum and Dodge City. There's no sense giving a trucker the revenue when the railroad can get it.)
Put the carless trailers on the back of existing trains. It's true that you aren't allowed (I won't use the word "can't" because I believe you can shove on a RailMate/RoadRailer consist, you're just not allowed to do so by regulation.) to shove on the rear of a carless consist. So What? How often is there a need to do that? (I know, trains out of LA have rear end helpers over Cajon. I'm not talking about operating carless out of LA. It is perfectly well served by present hardware. The tremendous volume of freight available out of SW Kansas is not well served by present hardware. That's the type of market I'm talking about.)
This should have been the RoadRailer marketing strategy from the beginning. They went the other way and they've paid the price for it.
zugmann greyhounds . Don't need no switching with RailMate/RoadRailer. And sorting 'em out with a yard tractor instead of a locomotive will never ever block the main line. Wow. Someone needs to tell that to triple crown. When I had that one roadrailer regular, it was a minimum 4 hours a night switching their blocks to put them in order. Seems they didn't want to bother doing it themselves.
greyhounds . Don't need no switching with RailMate/RoadRailer. And sorting 'em out with a yard tractor instead of a locomotive will never ever block the main line.
Wow. Someone needs to tell that to triple crown. When I had that one roadrailer regular, it was a minimum 4 hours a night switching their blocks to put them in order. Seems they didn't want to bother doing it themselves.
I'm going to ask for some clarification and elaboration here.
I spent more than a few nights at Calumet Yard in Chicago showing folks how a RoadRailer consist was put together. It was all done with a yard tractor and a forklift to handle the boggies. (RailMate doesn't need the forklift, or forklift operator.)
I can respond if you give me some details as to where and when.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
Interesting...maybe this is the next big thing. I wasn't aware that switching costs were that significant...that changes everything.
I've had some opportunities to check out the Rail Mate equipment over at Hopkins and it's definitely the thing. What I really like about it is that you can use this type of equipment on the back of regular intermodal trains (or I suppose on regular manifest trains as well) so it's not restricted to its own little world a la the Road Railers. Also, as Greyhounds correctly points out, the switching expenses are reduced immensely when compared to conventional TOFC flat cars. Now, if they build some refrigerated trailers and/or dry vans I would LOVE to see this equipment have a chance to have its mettle tested in some medium distance traffic lanes. I think the long-range success of the Rail Mate technology will come down to how RRs price the service and if the operating departments give it a fair shake.
Sorry, I misinterpreted your location. I have also been out of the business for about 20 years and I have no doubt that things work differently. For one, it seem, everything is urgent.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
Ulrich I just don't see it gaining widespread usage although I'm sure it is useful in some specialized markets. Good old fashioned TOFC doesn't require specialized trailers..requires only a ramp to on and off load..and is far less complex in that nothing more complex than a flatcar with a pin hook is required.
I just don't see it gaining widespread usage although I'm sure it is useful in some specialized markets. Good old fashioned TOFC doesn't require specialized trailers..requires only a ramp to on and off load..and is far less complex in that nothing more complex than a flatcar with a pin hook is required.
Nope. "Good old fashon TOFC" requies flatcars and flatcars require switching. If you think drayage is expensive, you ought to take a look at switching. I've got it at $4.79/minute. That's $287/hour for an engine and crew.
Digging out a bad order and lining 'em up for tonight's loads will kill you profitwise. Don't need no switching with RailMate/RoadRailer. And sorting 'em out with a yard tractor instead of a locomotive will never ever block the main line.
Ulrich More so in the US than in Canada. .up here we deal directly with the railroads. I think that's a good thing because there are only two major systems and the value of a third party intermediary is therefore greatly deminished. My own earlier statements were perhaps a bit too harsh...overall the rails do a fine job. In the US the railroads don't appear to be interested in any business below a certain volume threshold...and that's where IMCs flourish. That's not the case up here...I can deal with CN or CP directly even if I only have one container to ship.
More so in the US than in Canada. .up here we deal directly with the railroads. I think that's a good thing because there are only two major systems and the value of a third party intermediary is therefore greatly deminished. My own earlier statements were perhaps a bit too harsh...overall the rails do a fine job.
In the US the railroads don't appear to be interested in any business below a certain volume threshold...and that's where IMCs flourish. That's not the case up here...I can deal with CN or CP directly even if I only have one container to ship.
IMCs (Intermodal Marketing Companies, formerly known as "Shipper's Agents"), are a legacy of past economic regulation. Aside from the Crows Nest Pass rate thing, Canada never got as nutty as the US did with economic regulation.
We now have a good chance of going back to nutville.
Ulrich Regardless of the technology used, the objective is to bring on more business and to improve margins. In my opinion the railroads should stick with the older proven technology and focus more on improving their sales and marketing...make it easier for smaller and midsized businesses to use rail. The technology is great...but if it still takes me a week to get a quote...if I can't get a customer service rep to call me back..then I'm not going to use rail. I have some business that would work great on rail.. but it doesn't because my own customers expect rates and service information from me within 30 minutes of their call. So the end result is that I have containers moving 900+ miles via flatbed truck...even though from a technology and environmental perspective these should move by rail. As Greyhounds seems to be pointing out.. Roadrailer was developed along the lines of "let's build it and they will come".. unfortunately they never came because... throughout the process no one bothered to ask customers what they want.
Regardless of the technology used, the objective is to bring on more business and to improve margins. In my opinion the railroads should stick with the older proven technology and focus more on improving their sales and marketing...make it easier for smaller and midsized businesses to use rail. The technology is great...but if it still takes me a week to get a quote...if I can't get a customer service rep to call me back..then I'm not going to use rail. I have some business that would work great on rail.. but it doesn't because my own customers expect rates and service information from me within 30 minutes of their call. So the end result is that I have containers moving 900+ miles via flatbed truck...even though from a technology and environmental perspective these should move by rail. As Greyhounds seems to be pointing out.. Roadrailer was developed along the lines of "let's build it and they will come".. unfortunately they never came because... throughout the process no one bothered to ask customers what they want.
I am under the impression that "circus loading" of TOFC trailers is not very common in North America anymore. Loading trailers with cranes and "piggypackers" is far more common due to the time saved in loading/unloading, in those operations reinforced trailers are required. I know about the CP Expressway service but that uses specialized equipment to carry unmodified OTR trailers....
The various "carless" systems seem to be primarily aimed at distances shorter than what is considered generally to be profitable for standard intermodal service. So their utility is in specialized markets.
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
carnej1 wholeman greyhoundsImproving instead of destroying, that's what RailMate could do that RoadRailer has not done. What is RailMate? http://www.railmate.com/
wholeman greyhoundsImproving instead of destroying, that's what RailMate could do that RoadRailer has not done. What is RailMate?
greyhoundsImproving instead of destroying, that's what RailMate could do that RoadRailer has not done.
What is RailMate?
http://www.railmate.com/
That's pretty cool. I could see where there is some potential to that.
Will
greyhounds First, the disagreement. Amtrak did not use RoadRailers "successfully". The RoadRailer operation on Amtrak was shut down because it was uneconomical. The operation was not successful because it did not cover its costs. Anyone can do about anything if they don't have to worry about covering its costs.
First, the disagreement. Amtrak did not use RoadRailers "successfully". The RoadRailer operation on Amtrak was shut down because it was uneconomical. The operation was not successful because it did not cover its costs. Anyone can do about anything if they don't have to worry about covering its costs.
I agree with your assestment. While riding the CAL Z out of Denver Two of the 3 units failed up the east slope and we crept up and into Moffett tunnel. A UP freight behind us offered to push but couldn't because of the Roadrailers. At Helper (Price) the decision to not add a helper set to the front was a disaster as the two units failed again, the train stalled, and a helper set could not be added to the rear and no units were at the summit. 2-1/2 hours later the engineer finally got 1 more unit running and we crept up the grade. Go to Emeryville only 3 hours late due to some good UP dispatching. If you were AMTRAK would that kind of consequences soon sour operations personnel on placing them on the rear??.
MP173 Greyhound:I had forgotten about the L'ville - Memphis service. How long did it last? About how many trailers/day did it handle? Why were those two points chosen? ed
Greyhound:I had forgotten about the L'ville - Memphis service.
How long did it last? About how many trailers/day did it handle? Why were those two points chosen?
ed
One year, replaced by a conventional intermodal train (that could handle all loads).
I don't remember. The target we were given was 30 loads per day out of Louisville and 20 into Louisville. There was no chance of hitting the target, and we didn't.
The points were chosen because the then VP Intermodal at the ICG was, IMHO, an egotist who thought everyone else was stupid. HE was going to show the world that HE could take freight off the highway and put it on the railroad. He insisted that every load on the RoadRailer trains had to come off the highway. You can't do that. When you introduce a new service you're going to take some business from your existing service. That's just a fact of life. When Kellogg introduces a new cereal they know that some of the customers for their new product will come from their existing brands. Pointing out facts like this just got you yelled at.
Everyone ran from this impending disaster. Harry Bruce called a round table meeting in his office to discuss operating RoadRailers between Louisville and Memphis. Everybody above me managed to get out of Chicago to avoid the meeting and I wound up sitting around a table with all these VPs and AVPs in Bruce's office. (Nice 27th floor view of Lake Michigan) That VP of Intermodal tried to get Bruce to skip me and they all voted to go ahead.
Now I could have said: "Based on analysis, the freight isn't there to support the operation." But I would have gone home without a job. I remember this clearly. When Harry Bruce asked me about operating the taiins I, in a very rare political dodge, said: "I don't see how we can get hurt that bad." That gave Harry Bruce an opening if he wanted to take it. He didn't take the offer.
To this day I wonder if I should have been more upfront. But I think I did my job. I dilligently participated in analysis of the potential.opportunity. Against my superior's wishes, when asked, I gave the VP Maketing a negative opinion which he could have chosen to develop. That he chose not to develop my less than enthusiastic opinion of the operation is on him, not me. At least I tell myself that when I think about wasting our investors' money on a RoadRailer operation between Louisville and Memphis.
That's why I put successful in quotes. I do realize that Amtrak was unable to make money with them, or express in general.
The shoving ban is a big deal when you need helpers, and during switching. The book says TOW (trailer on wheels) equipment must be handled separately from convention equipment during switching.
You are right that it's a clear lack of initiative on RoadRailer's part to promote it's product and overcome the Operating Department's skittishness over the equipment. With a few exceptions, we actually have a system ban on TOW equipment.
Nick
Take a Ride on the Reading with the: Reading Company Technical & Historical Society http://www.readingrailroad.org/
nbrodar It IS possible to operate RoadRailers in conventional service. However, the operational restrictions make them a gigantic headache. There are two or three PAGES of restrictions in my Restricted Equipment book. They have to be on the rear, you can't shove against them, etc. It's worth noting that Amtrak used them "successfully" on it's passenger trains, until they dumped the express business altogether. Nick
It IS possible to operate RoadRailers in conventional service. However, the operational restrictions make them a gigantic headache. There are two or three PAGES of restrictions in my Restricted Equipment book. They have to be on the rear, you can't shove against them, etc.
It's worth noting that Amtrak used them "successfully" on it's passenger trains, until they dumped the express business altogether.
Well, I've got one agreement with "Nick" and one disagreement.
Now for my agreement:
As I said: "As presently used, RoadRailers require a whole seperate system." I aknowledge that RoadRailers can be physically used on the rear of existing IM trains. They're just not used that way.
A RoadRailer is just another "tool" for moving freight. Any sane manufacturer producing a new tool will realize that they will have to teach potential customers how to use the tool. Show them its advantages. Show them how it can improve their bottom line.
The RoadRailer people, who were initially on their own, then once part of North American Car ( a defunct railcar builder), then once part of Thrall Car (another defunct railcar builder), and are now part of Wabash National (a trailer manufacturer) have steadfastly refused to promote and develop the operation of their product in any manner exept its operation in dedicated RoadRailer trains or Amtrak trains. Niether one of these options has been really successful over almost 30 years. This doesn't seem to faze 'em one bit. One definition of insantiy that you keep doing the same thing over and over in hope of a different outcome.
RailMate has figured it out from the get go and is marketing its "tool" as an adjunct to existing intermodal service. RoadRailer hasn't figured that out yet. You can't fix stupid.
As to the operational difficulties cited, they are not significant, they are trivial. The "Carless Vehicles" have to be on the end of the train. So? The Birmingham Block also needs to be on the end of the tain. What's the problem with that?
You can't shove against them? So what? The goal isn't to minimize operating restrictions. The goal is to maximize the railroad's income. Three pages ain't no big deal. If the money's right.
BaltACDTriple Crown is roadrailer. Just NS's name for it.
Thanks.....figured it might be, but wasn't sure.
Quentin
Modelcar UlrichRoadrailer was developed along the lines of "let's build it and they will come".. unfortunately they never came Is / was "Roadrailer" similar to what we see travel thru here on a daily basis on NS...."Triple Crown" to the deep south.......?
UlrichRoadrailer was developed along the lines of "let's build it and they will come".. unfortunately they never came
Is / was "Roadrailer" similar to what we see travel thru here on a daily basis on NS...."Triple Crown" to the deep south.......?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
overall Greyhound, If the Railmates were adopted, would they do what the RoadRailer has not done? George
Greyhound,
If the Railmates were adopted, would they do what the RoadRailer has not done?
George
RailMate was concieved and designed from the beginning to operate within the existing intermodal network. RoadRailer was concieved and designed from the beginning to operate outside the exiting intermodal network.
As presently used, RoadRailers require a whole seperate system. That gets really expensive. RailMate has the potential to "fit in" and compliment the existing system. That's much less expensive.
It is very difficult to aggregate an entire train load of IM freight going from one origin to one destination on a timely basis. RoadRailers require this difficult task. RailMates don't. (NS/Triple Crown deals with this by opeating a "Hub" in Ft. Wayne, IN. This "Hub" allows on train to serve multiple destinations.)
I recently started a thread on a BNSF intermodal train that I saw near Galesburg. The train carried JB Hunt 53' double stacked containers, UPS trailers (28' long and up), one 53' CR England reefer trailer, and several 53' Central Refrigerated reefer trailers. The dang thing was a mile long. It could reach that length, bringing in significant economies of scale, because it could carry any intermodal load to any destination with an intermodal terminal.
A RoadRailer operation destroys those ecnomies of scale. There would have to be two seperate trains, each smaller. This would send expenses through the roof. In sharp contrast, RailMates could simply be added at the rear of the train. This would further improve the economies of scale instead of destroying them as is required by RoadRailer.
Improving instead of destroying, that's what RailMate could do that RoadRailer has not done.
Where would you do this adding? I'll suggest Grand Island, NE where JBS Swift has a huge beef plant. That Denver-Chicago Z runs right through there. With RailMate the railroad could add loads out of Swift on the back of their existing train (if there were enough to justify a pick up) and improve its economies of scale. RailMate has been designed to do this. RoadRailer has been positioned to not be able to do this.
RoadRailer is one of three competing "Carless" technologies. These are systems that dispense with the intermodal flatcar and mount the highway vehicle (trailer or container chassis) directly on a rail wheel assembly. (Known for some reason as as a "boggie") The other systems are RailRunner and RailMate. Niether RailRunner or RailMate is in commercial use. Of the three, I think RailMate is the best.
It's been almost 30 years since the first commercial use of RoadRailer between Memphis and Louisville on the old ICG. In those three decades the success of RoadRailer can, at best, be described as "quite modest."
I was working at the ICG in intermodal marketing when the RoadRailer service was developed, started, and shut down. It was obvious to just about everyone that the service wouldn't be successful. The person who really supported the service was the one person that really counted, ICG Intermodal Vice President Peter Novas. He was going to put those trains on come Hell or High Water.
I was one of the people assigned to identify potentail customers for the trains and determine what types of rate/service packages would be required to get their business. While doing this work RoadRailer's "Fatal Flaw" became readily evident. There was a lot of production in the Louisville area. Appliances, alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, TVs and more appliances drayed in from Bloomington, IN. There was freight to be had with the right price and service.
We just couldn't haul it anywhere besides Memphis. RoadRailer has always been conceptualized as a stand alone system operating seperately from the intermodal network. It uses it own trains and is not mixed with other intermodal equipment. This is its "Fatal Flaw".
A load of tobacco products out of Louisville to New Orleans couldn't move in a RoadRailer. An interline load to Los Angeles couldn't move in a RoadRailer. There was no RoadRailer train service beyond Memphis. Only Memphis loads could move in RoadRailers. This wasn't going to work and everyone except the VP of Intermodal realized it.
We wound up with two intermodal systems at Louisville. One for the RoadRailer business and one for everything else. It was hopelessly uneconomic. The RoadRailer trains were shut down and the VP left the company.
There are significant potential advantages to the use of "Carless Technology". The main one being is that it would allow low cost, lower volume, intermodal terminals to be located closer to the customers. This would reduce drayage expense and improve ral competitiveness with over the road trucking. (Rail miles are often cheaper than truck miles.) But to be used like this the Carless Technology will have to operate in the same train as other rail equipment. That's entirely possible, it's just that after 30 years of only "Quite Modest Success" the RoadRailer folks still cling to the idea that their equipment should only operate in exclusive trains.
One of the reasons I'm partial to RailMate is that they have correctly figured out that their trailers need to be able to move on the back of an existing train and not require the expenses of an entire seperate intermodal operation.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.