I was poking thru some other areas and this popped up
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-05-26/news/ct-met-traffic-chokepoints-0527-20100526_1_trucking-federal-highway-administration-mph
Chicago Tribune Article describing the top truck bottlenecks in the country.
Rgds IGN
Paul_D_North_JrIt would be interesting to see an experimental trial of one of those at an IM terminal to see if it could expedite and economize the sorting and transfer functions enough to facilitate some more of the steel-wheel transfers, and also handle the local rubber-tire deliveries and dray hauls when that is the more appropriate choice for a particular load.
To Paul D North. As you know I've advocated road railers elsewhere. And specifically in this case I think they would be a good vehicle for interchange.
Sawtooth500As a Chicagoan, this is why I would personally prefer everything be steel wheel: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37374561. Unless you live in New York or LA, you really don't know how bad the problem is...
Or you drive a truck thru the Chicago area on a regular basis.
Also if you READ the INTERSTATE highway bill the Interstates were designed TO PROVIDE FOR THE NATIONS DEFENSE AND INTERSTATE COMMERCE FIRST. THE FACT THE NATIONS AUTOMOBILE TRAFFIC USE THEM WAS A SIDE BENEFIT. There is a provision in there IIRC that in WARTIME that ALL AUTOMOBILES WOULD BE BANNED FROM ALL INTERSTATES LEAVING THEM FOR THE EXCULSIVE USE OF OTR TRUCKS AND ALL MILITARY TRAFFIC ONLY. THE LAST YEAR I DROVE OTR I PAID WELL OVER 50K IN HIGHWAY USEAGE TAXES AND FUEL TAXES COMBINED. Yet we are treated like Steerage class passengers on the Titantic as it was sinking. Nevermind that if you have it in your house WE BRING IT. Why is the Circle Interchange so SCREWED UP. You have the I-55 I-290 I-90/94 all within one mile that come together and with all the IDIOTS that drive cars in and around Chicago the TAXIS are the worst that suicide dive a truck to not loose 10 seconds of time that is what causes the backup. Also the I-57-94 down at the south end. You have 6 lanes of traffic being forced into 3 and then you are forcing the trucks to cross into the 2 rights only because the YUPPIES will not be slowed down by a truck. Yet when I drove up there 95% of all the accidents that had an OTR truck in them were when a car rear ended a SEMI or cliped his drivers side fender trying to make his exit. Since the car could not be INCONVIANCED TO STAY BEHIND THE TRUCK.
Sawtooth500Paul_D_North_Jr "Chicago Worst in Truck Congestion" By Jenel Nels NBCChicago.com updated 1 hour, 45 minutes ago http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37374561 Activated the link for you, too. Says Chi-town has 3 of the top 10 spots, as follows - #9: The Dan [Ryan ?] Expressway at the Bishop Ford Freeway. #2: The junction connecting the Kennedy and Edens Expressways. Travel times average 23 mph during rush periods and only 39 mph during rush periods. [Huh ?] #1: The circle interchange. (The junction between the Eisenhower Expressway and the Kennedy and Dan Ryan Expressways). But the article doesn't say anything at all about containers being a factor in this. [It also has some editing issues, which I similarly noted in brackets above.] And which - if any - of these interchanges are heavily used by trucks transferring containers between railroad intermodal terminals ? If not much, then even if all containers were interchanged on 'steel wheels', the truck traffic congestion would remain . . . - Paul North. To answer your question, those are ALL used by intermodal transfers, especially the circle interchange and the Dan Ryan expressway. Chicago is jam packed with rail yards. There are so many yards virtually every road in Chicago could be used by truck transfers...
Paul_D_North_Jr "Chicago Worst in Truck Congestion" By Jenel Nels NBCChicago.com updated 1 hour, 45 minutes ago http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37374561 Activated the link for you, too. Says Chi-town has 3 of the top 10 spots, as follows - #9: The Dan [Ryan ?] Expressway at the Bishop Ford Freeway. #2: The junction connecting the Kennedy and Edens Expressways. Travel times average 23 mph during rush periods and only 39 mph during rush periods. [Huh ?] #1: The circle interchange. (The junction between the Eisenhower Expressway and the Kennedy and Dan Ryan Expressways). But the article doesn't say anything at all about containers being a factor in this. [It also has some editing issues, which I similarly noted in brackets above.] And which - if any - of these interchanges are heavily used by trucks transferring containers between railroad intermodal terminals ? If not much, then even if all containers were interchanged on 'steel wheels', the truck traffic congestion would remain . . . - Paul North.
"Chicago Worst in Truck Congestion"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37374561
Activated the link for you, too.
Says Chi-town has 3 of the top 10 spots, as follows -
#9: The Dan [Ryan ?] Expressway at the Bishop Ford Freeway.
#2: The junction connecting the Kennedy and Edens Expressways. Travel times average 23 mph during rush periods and only 39 mph during rush periods. [Huh ?]
#1: The circle interchange. (The junction between the Eisenhower Expressway and the Kennedy and Dan Ryan Expressways).
But the article doesn't say anything at all about containers being a factor in this. [It also has some editing issues, which I similarly noted in brackets above.] And which - if any - of these interchanges are heavily used by trucks transferring containers between railroad intermodal terminals ? If not much, then even if all containers were interchanged on 'steel wheels', the truck traffic congestion would remain . . .
- Paul North.
Perhaps to have dreams of Boogie Fever?
Break out the mirror ball and platform shoes....
23 17 46 11
edblysard Or, you could do what most ports do, simply drop the box on a boogie chassis...
Or, you could do what most ports do, simply drop the box on a boogie chassis...
Sorry, everyone, but it's been a couple of days since I checked the forum and I just finished taking in this thread in one sitting. Lots of good information but between all that and the full moon, my brain is reeling and the typo gave me a laugh (no offense intended). Off now to sleep, perchance to dream of tricked out box chassis-low riders, with tinted tractor windows, loud music and fuzzy dice...
G'night all.
my worth dept. I have on any number of occasions advocated for a modified mk 4 roadrailer (truck chassis with 1 single axle rail wheel). Chicago might be a good application here.
The biggest advantage in a congested terminal is that you could store loads on the ramp(not on rails) til you had room to assemble a train. Also it would be easier to do small trains(10-40 boxes)
Kind of in a hurry here, I'll try to get back later.
To Paul North Jr. Try to remember what I've said in past about roadrailers.
Thx IGN
BT CPSO 266 Unless I missed it? Could the railroads arrange the well cars at the originating terminal so that containers bound for other yards can just be uncoupled from the consist at the destination terminal and then coupled to a road switcher (maybe a SW1500) and take it to the appropriate terminal? Just asking. Most people seem to understand cost better than me here; I am just wondering what keeps this from happening cost wise?
Unless I missed it? Could the railroads arrange the well cars at the originating terminal so that containers bound for other yards can just be uncoupled from the consist at the destination terminal and then coupled to a road switcher (maybe a SW1500) and take it to the appropriate terminal? Just asking. Most people seem to understand cost better than me here; I am just wondering what keeps this from happening cost wise?
In another thread in this forum there is a discussion about 'loose car' railroading. Truthfully, intermodal operations is what has replaced 'loose car' railroading as many of the shippers and receivers of intermodal traffic generate their traffic at one and two container a day rates, and like most organizations both receive and ship to multiple, geographically dispersed localities.
Were we to have nationwide rail carriers, then suitable loading patterns would be developed at origin to maximize the long haul benefits of the rail car and train.
If one of the carriers is able to develop a business opportunity that would involve trainload volumes from a single origin area to a single destination area...that operation would be all rail all the way without the need to unload/load at Chicago, or any other gateway.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Paul - Your comment on the "Mother of all Terminals", isn't that far fetched. Mi-Jack came up with a plan called the "Thruport Concept". It was designed specifically for Chicago and to solve the truck transfers across town from one railroads terminal to another. The concept uses wide-span gantry cranes....lets say up to 15 tracks.....and allows the interchanging of containers (up to 2 at a time) from one railroad to another in 1 step. Of course there is a lot more to this concept, and I am sure their is a reason why railroads have not implemented it. However, it is still a very interesting concept and one we might see one day.
BNSF's new intermodal yard in Memphis will actually operate very close to the Thruport Concept. CSX's new terminal in North Baltimore will also be similar.
For those of you interested in learning more about it, you can check out this link:
Thruport Concept
Mike A.
Paul_D_North_Jr Since no one asked - and in case someone does - here's a little list and links that I've been compiling over the years, in no particular order. Thsi list is not exhaustive - they may well be some others. The links are all still active as of a few minutes ago, unless noted otherwise: Steadman's - from Britain, I believe - sliding transfer truck was pictured by Kneiling in the 1960's in Trains, in the NMRA's Bulletin, and also by David DeBoer in his book on Piggyback and Containers, but is now defunct as far as I can determine. I understand that CP bought and used several of them when it first got into containerization, mainly in Eastern Canada, as I recall. Perhaps someone with close ties and a good memory - Kootenay Central ? - can add to this. ACTS - http://www.intermodallogistics.co.uk/acts/ California Container Lifters - www.cclifters.com/equipment.htm - now defunct ? Containerlifters - UK dealers for Steelbro Sidelifters - http://www.containerlift.co.uk/sidelift-salesrental Kiwi Container Lifting Services - http://www.kiwicontainerlifting.com/ Swinglift USA, Texas - http://www.swingliftusa.com/links.html Sidelifter.com - California - http://www.sidelifter.com/index.html American Swinglift - seems to be defunct - http://www.americanswinglift.com/ Steelbro Sidelifters - http://www.steelbro.com/default.aspx Swing Thru International - http://www.swingthru.com/home.html#a Hammar Sidelifters - http://www.hammar.eu/ As someone once said to me, "You're a really sick puppy . . . " - Paul North. P.S. - Most of these appear to be capable of stacking containers 2-high, at least from ground-level - I'm not sure if they can work the top container to or from a double-stack well car, though. - PDN.
Since no one asked - and in case someone does - here's a little list and links that I've been compiling over the years, in no particular order. Thsi list is not exhaustive - they may well be some others. The links are all still active as of a few minutes ago, unless noted otherwise:
Steadman's - from Britain, I believe - sliding transfer truck was pictured by Kneiling in the 1960's in Trains, in the NMRA's Bulletin, and also by David DeBoer in his book on Piggyback and Containers, but is now defunct as far as I can determine. I understand that CP bought and used several of them when it first got into containerization, mainly in Eastern Canada, as I recall. Perhaps someone with close ties and a good memory - Kootenay Central ? - can add to this.
ACTS - http://www.intermodallogistics.co.uk/acts/
California Container Lifters - www.cclifters.com/equipment.htm - now defunct ?
Containerlifters - UK dealers for Steelbro Sidelifters - http://www.containerlift.co.uk/sidelift-salesrental
Kiwi Container Lifting Services - http://www.kiwicontainerlifting.com/
Swinglift USA, Texas - http://www.swingliftusa.com/links.html
Sidelifter.com - California - http://www.sidelifter.com/index.html
American Swinglift - seems to be defunct - http://www.americanswinglift.com/
Steelbro Sidelifters - http://www.steelbro.com/default.aspx
Swing Thru International - http://www.swingthru.com/home.html#a
Hammar Sidelifters - http://www.hammar.eu/
As someone once said to me, "You're a really sick puppy . . . "
P.S. - Most of these appear to be capable of stacking containers 2-high, at least from ground-level - I'm not sure if they can work the top container to or from a double-stack well car, though. - PDN.
Back in the 1990's a patent was filed for an updated version of Kneiling's system with the train itself equipped with side loading equipment:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=InYfAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
We could analyze why this was never built but it shows someone thought about the problem..
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
I do understand the current situation; trucks are the most economical way to do this right now.
However, that theory revolves around the fact that capacity issues would need to be addressed first. It would seem if road traffic gets bad enough, federal money maybe thrown at the Chicago Hub to expand capacity on the RRs and separate grade crossings.
As others have explained again and again, the rubber tire interchanges aren't inherently good or bad, they are just the best way for that traffic, given all the constraints of the system.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Chris30 Sticking to Chicago and the UP... I posted a link below for info on the new UP Joliet Intermodal Terminal (JIT). http://www.uprr.com/customers/intermodal/featured/joliet.shtml At the bottom of the page is the UP Chicago Terminal Plan which I have also posted below: Ramp Market Destination Joliet International Southern California, Northern California, Pacific Northwest, El Paso, Tucson Global I Domestic Southern California Global II Domestic and Limited International Northern California, Pacific Northwest, Denver, Las Vegas, Reno, Salt Lake City Global III Domestic and International Southern California, Northern California, Pacific Northwest Yard Center Domestic and International Dallas, Houston, Laredo, Mexico, San Antonio [snip]
Sticking to Chicago and the UP... I posted a link below for info on the new UP Joliet Intermodal Terminal (JIT).
http://www.uprr.com/customers/intermodal/featured/joliet.shtml
At the bottom of the page is the UP Chicago Terminal Plan which I have also posted below:
[snip]
Thanks much for that link and the ''Terminal Plan'', above. Note the following with regard to the terminals and their destinations:
3 go to SoCal - Joliet, G1, and G3
3 go to NorCal - Joliet, G2, and G3
3 go to the PNW - Joliet, G2, and G3
Only 1 terminal goes to each of the other destinations.
This raises 2 questions for me:
1 - With those several possible origins to each of SoCal, NorCal, and PNW - is there and how are the containers aggregated into whole and full train-load quantities each day, without some rubber-tire transfers back and forth to equalize the loads, etc. ?
2 - And if a container for one of the destinations that's served by only 1 terminal arrives at any of the others by steel-wheel transfer/ interchange, along with a bunch of others that do belong there - how else does it get to the right terminal, without a rubber-tire transfer ?
Beyond that, I'm a little gratified by how well my ''guesstimate'' way above on the notional size of a single giant sorting yard matches up to Joliet's principal features, per the link above: 550 acres, 4 working tracks, 6 support tracks, 6 switching tracks, and 3,400 parking stalls, etc. Rochelle's Global III is about twice as big, per http://www.uprr.com/customers/intermodal/featured/global/index.shtml - 1,200 acres, 4 loading tracks, 6 support tracks, 13 yards tracks, plus long switching leads, and about twice as many storage/ parking spaces - 7,200. But someone will have to explain to me UP's subtle difference between ''support tracks'' and ''switching tracks'' or ''yard tracks'' . . .
Again, I'm not advocating such a thing - but what this tells me is that such a facility might have to be on the order of 20 times as large to accomodate all of the major railroads and their principal destinations - and that's just not going to happen, for economic and political reasons, among others. Besides, I happen to think that a Soviet-type 'One Big Facility' is sub-optimum anyway - a diversified, spread-out, de-centralized terminal and interchange network such as this has evolved into is intentionally a little bit redundant and hence more stable and 'robust' against disruptions and overloads of various kinds, and allows each facility to specialize and optimize on a task, route, or traffic that it handles better than the others, etc.
RRKen Rubber tire is efficient in most cases for the carriers. There is no yard switching involved. Dray drivers are cheap, usually on a per trailer/container basis. Locomotives and crews are not. Line capacity is limited, and cost money to expand. Using the street is cheap and easy, and most of all, not your responsibility. . . . The key now a days is to keep the cost per car down, not to create more by unloading and loading containers, then running a transfer. That just steals money from the bottom line. long term or short term. And terminals is where the most of the profit is sucked out of a rate.
The key now a days is to keep the cost per car down, not to create more by unloading and loading containers, then running a transfer. That just steals money from the bottom line. long term or short term. And terminals is where the most of the profit is sucked out of a rate.
Several of the posts on Page 4 mentioned or alluded to rubber-tire interchange or transfer being faster/ cheaper/ better than steel-wheels, but the post quoted above explains it best, I think.
John Kneiling advocated intermodal terminal yards and adjoning industrial parks similar to some of those we're seeing now, but with the container unloading/ loading, sorting, and transfers being done by a giant industrial truck. As he used to put it, something like ''The truck and its 1 driver can sort the boxes faster and cheaper than the switch engine and its crew''.
The truck would be 'captive' to the private roads of the terminal and the industrial parks - it would not go out onto the general public road system. Hence, the transfer truck would not have to conform to those road's weight limits - like many of the machines that can be seen inside a steel mill or other heavy industrial plants, for example. The truck would perform those transfer and sort functions at less cost and with considerably more mobility and agility - and far less site space and paving requirements - than the portal cranes, 'PiggyPackers', and the like that are now commonly used.
As envisioned by John, this giant container transfer truck would have a flat-bed about 80 ft. long, be likewise structurally capable enough to carry 4 fully loaded TEUs = ''Twenty-foot Equivalent Units'', and equipped with a boom-crane like device to unload and reload them at the shipper's dock. Such units do exist - then and even more so now - to either 'slide', 'swing', or 'side' unload and load, although the container length is limited to about 40 ft. or so - maybe some can handle the 53 ft. boxes. There are a few in the US - mainly on the West Coast - though they seem to be more popular in Britain and Scandanavia, and esp. in New Zealand and Australia.
It would be interesting to see an experimental trial of one of those at an IM terminal to see if it could expedite and economize the sorting and transfer functions enough to facilitate some more of the steel-wheel transfers, and also handle the local rubber-tire deliveries and dray hauls when that is the more appropriate choice for a particular load.
ZCIBP, ZEPCS, ZCIG1, an KLAG1 use BN, KC to Ft. Madison onto I was told, a new connection on the Peoria line, then to the E/W main. It used to be they rain all the way into Chicago on BN.
When you look at a lot of terminals, they do not have unlimited space. The managers have an idea about how many units will arrive at the gate for a particular train. I say that because too many miss cut-off times.
Look at Long Beach. Six tracks for loading, which hold up to 15 DS cars each, or a total of 80 DS cars. Some allocated for inbound, others for outbounds depending upon the time of day. So those 800 container spots are precious. They can park 2800 containers in the terminal, outside of the loading/unloading areas. As soon as they begin loading a train, those spots are filled with units for the next one, if the track is going to be used as an outbound. With a missed cut-off, they either leave the space empty, or look to see if another unit is on the property, and spot it up for last minute loading.
With a train such as KLBCH, given that they allocate at least one track, and part of another for the train, the number of DS cars are limited to either what is shown in reservations, or the capacity limits of the end terminal such as Council Bluffs. If CB can only take 15 DS cars, then any other units for CB have to wait. Terminals like the Globals in Chicago usually don't have those kinds of limits. Overflow can set out at G3 and be transfered later. But, to block units further into sub-blocks for G3, becomes time consuming and a constraint on capacity. In the case of KLBCH, with it's SLC, CB, G3, and CR 59th blocks, to create sub-blocks inside of that would be insane. If you tried each and every day to create inside of the 59th street block Charlottes, Pittsburghs, Queensgates, and Baltimores, it would tie space up, and delay other 59th street traffic. Perhaps one day, there are 23 Baltimores. That means either adding an extra DS car, or 3 stay behind for the next day. Those other 7 open slots on the DS car are wasted, meaning lost revenue and added cost. And that is just one sub-block. If you add extra DS cars to every sub-block just to cover a few cars, you either get too long for 59th, or wasting a lot of money hauling around half empty cars. And where will those extra cars come from? Will you shorten the next train by stealing some of their cars for half loads? Revenue lost again. Sure, there are some extras hanging out in the terminal. But not to the degree you might expect when you start running half loads on a regular basis.
So all this blocking nonsense is just that when it comes to dollars and cents. And it is where a rubber tire makes the most sense either inside the terminal, or from carrier to carrier.
Thanks again, ed - and the other commenters above, too - for the detailed explanation of the several different scenarios that can occur, and each of your insights on them. Although this too seems like the parable of the 3 blind men touching different parts of an elephant and then describing 3 wildly different animals, there are a lot of common elements to this 'elephant' - as an unbiased review of all the comments on this Page 4 will confirm. Two of them is that there is a real mix of the boxes at most terminals, and there seems to be a real need for rubber-tire transfer or interchange.
edblysard [snip; emphasis added - PDN] First, to address the idea that the container ships have randomly loaded containers is incorrect. A lot depends on where the ship originates, where it stops en route, and who the ship belongs to and who the ship owners customers are. . . . Now, if you are discussing a ship that was completely loaded at one point of origin, say Hong Kong, then yes, the chances are the boxes are simply stacked in the ship in no particular order, because all the boxes are destined for the same point of arrival, and the "sort" will occur at that location. The reason all the boxes are headed for the same destination is economy, its cheaper to aggregate all the boxes for Houston at one dock, load them all in one ship and go. [snip]
First, to address the idea that the container ships have randomly loaded containers is incorrect.
A lot depends on where the ship originates, where it stops en route, and who the ship belongs to and who the ship owners customers are. . . .
Now, if you are discussing a ship that was completely loaded at one point of origin, say Hong Kong, then yes, the chances are the boxes are simply stacked in the ship in no particular order, because all the boxes are destined for the same point of arrival, and the "sort" will occur at that location.
The reason all the boxes are headed for the same destination is economy, its cheaper to aggregate all the boxes for Houston at one dock, load them all in one ship and go.
That's the scenario/ kind of operation that I had in mind when I posted the ''random'' comment.
I am going to try and give this a whirl, although I highly suspect the original; poster really doesn't care, he is just looking for someone to agree with him that there are to many trucks on the streets and there is a way to make them go away.
A lot depends on where the ship originates, where it stops en route, and who the ship belongs to and who the ship owners customers are.
Keep in mind a lot of container ships operate just like a local peddler freight train, they make several stops, set out and pick up groups of containers, all along a pre determined route.
When they arrive at Long Beach, or Houston for that matter, most of the boxes on top came from the same point of origin, and are headed for the same final destination, be it a central location or a distribution center.
The next set or group all were loaded at the same place, and as with the first group, have the same basic destination, be it a single distributor or a single city.
It would be a rare event that any ship would put to port for one or two singles, just like with trains, the economy is in scale.
Trust me, you can go to the First Officer on these ships, and in a few key strokes, he can tell you exactly where in the ship any container is, and most likely give you an estimate to its unloading time within a few minutes of the actual lift time.
These containers may be from 40 different companies in China, in 40 different cities, all trucks or trained to Hong Kong to be sent out, because its cheaper that way.
Back to our peddler freight ship...he left China, stopped in India, then after stopping in several ports of call in Africa, he round the horn, then over to South America, makes a few more pick ups, up the coast, through the canal and into Houston.
For the sake of clarity, lets say he has 100 boxes for 5 different location in the US, all 5 served by different railroads.
Now, you could load railroads A's train, by pulling the train along side the ship at the wharf, and digging all the boxes out of the ship for that railroad, but then you have to figure out a place to put all the boxes not going out on that railroad.
Or, you could build 5 separate tracks next to the wharf, and load the trains with a really expensive and very large container crane capable of spanning 5 tracks.
Or, you could do what most ports do, simply drop the box on a boogie chassis and use a dock pup to run it over to the track where its correct train is, and lift it there.
Again, using Houston as an example...lets say your peddler ship arrivers At Barbour's Cut intermodal wharf, with the 500 boxes....Barbours Cut is a Santa Fe yard, with 6 inbound tracks and 6 outbound tracks.
So you unload the ship...what to do with the boxes that are going to, say the UP?
Englewood, UP's intermodal yard, is about 15 miles away, and has no dock, its land locked.
You could simply drop all the UP boxes on a train and run it over to Englewood, right?
Heres the rub.
To get from Barbours Cut to Englewood, the train would have to have a brand new rested crew, because ti will take the better part of 12 hours to go that 15 miles, because it will have to travel over 3 different railroads, through the PTRA Pasadena yard, our Manchester yard, UP's Booth Yard, then either through UPs Basin yard or PTRA's North yard, fight traffic up the Belt sub and arrive at Englewood, and once there, the boxes would have to go through a final sort again by final destination.
Or...you could drop the boxes onto highway chassis and drive them to Englewood, where the trucks pull up next to the correct outbound train, and the last lift happens.
You choices are, lift the boxes off the ship to a train, then off the train to another train, with a 12 hour delay, or lift the boxes off the ship, and then lift them to the correct out bound train in about an hour.
3 lifts and 12 hours, or 2 lifts and 1 hour, which do you think saves time and money?
I would imagine the situation is no different in Chicago than here, maybe even worse, as from what I understand, some where along the run you would have to use the Belt tracks, and a few other railroads tracks, so you cost just went up again, along with the lift cost and crew cost, plus the time involved.
As to why the cost of trucking the box is so "cheap"?
Because just like railroads, when you have a large number of guaranteed loads, you can lower the cost, your drivers are not leaving the city, they can work in 8 hour shifts, making the same run over and over.
If you can guarantee a trucking firm or stevedore firm 500 runs in a 24 hour period, they are going to give you a tremendous break on cost.
To boil it down to a simple answer, every time you lift a box, the contents of the box just got more expensive, and every hour that box is not moving also raises the cost.
And, just like Houston, I would bet Chicago has a direction of traffic on its rail system, (one that is incomprehensible to anyone who is not a dispatcher) so the steel wheel interchange may involve sending the train completely around the city simply to travel a few miles away from its start point.
Oh, by the way, most news reporters don't have a clue as to how or why railroads work the way we do, they simply assume you go out, get on the train, and "drive" from point A to point B, sorta like driving to work...
dakotafred And traditionally the transfer has been "steel wheel." Rubber-tire is a response to a system that is broken. That's really all Sawtooth was saying. Anyone who thinks that response is anything other than a tactic of desperation -- a short-term "solution" rather than a long-term strategy -- had better not be running a railroad I own stock in.
Rubber tire is efficient in most cases for the carriers. There is no yard switching involved. Dray drivers are cheap, usually on a per trailer/container basis. Locomotives and crews are not. Line capacity is limited, and cost money to expand. Using the street is cheap and easy, and most of all, not your responsibility. Once the dray leaves the terminal, your problems end as a carrier (actually once the container/trailer hits the ground). Let the broker or customer deal with the dray companies.
Yes, there is some block swaping going on. For example, KLBCH drops a block at G3 before heading to Conrail 59th. KTALN drops a block at G3 before heading to Landers. KLTG1 picks up a block at G3 before heading into G1. Nine of the fifteen daily trains that enter the teriminal, do not make intermediate stops in-town. KTAG2 for example or ZCIBP or ZEPCS. And not to be mistaken, at least one of the Chicago bound Z trains do make pick ups enroute, so they are not all get on and ride. Work horse? KLBCH, with work at Salt Lake, Council Bluffs, G3, and finally to 59th.
CShaveRRDid somebody say "randomly"? I'm pretty sure that's not the case. Not when you have trains from the west coast whose designations end in "G1", "G2", and "G3", among others. I haven't taken a look at our alphanumeric soup to see what all is being run, but a complete list from somewhere would give a good idea of the madness that assuredly is not involved.
Each terminal in Chicago handles a different type of traffic now. And it is madness in a way. Meaning, for the most part, unless they are taken directly to a connecting carrier, it is all random. The only thing not random is the terminal it ends up at, be it G1-G2-G3-CS- or Yard Center. Given both the limited capacity and traffic, unless it has an intermediate block, or is a dedicated train for a carrier, it is all mine run. Once in Chicago, the containers are grounded, at that time, they may be sorted into blocks, or hauled off by drayers. Sure in a terminal such as Long Beach, you might have space to dedicate to all CSX or all NS or all CN containers. But they have to make the terminal before the cut-off, or it is all a waste. Usually such places are first come-first loaded. After the cut-off time, containers are being spotted for the next train already.
As for CREATE, Intermodal is just another type of train that will move better through Chicagoland as a result. The third track planned around Proviso will help get some trains out of the way of the stackers, and the crossing improvements at Brighton Park will speed things up between UP's Global-whichever and NS' Ashland Avenue or CSX's 59th Street yards. But these are just a percentage of the movements through these spots; CREATE will help/is helping everything.
Considering the congestions in the Chicago terminals, a lot more are on the rubber tire once they hit the ground than you imagine. And that is just the one carrier I am familiar with. They have inbound of 1200 containers per day average. Of those 1200: 133 are for UPS; 109 for Landers; 92 for Bedford Park; 32 for Conrail at 59th...(these are just numbers, not exact manifests). That's it. The rest are shoved into G1-G2-G3 for grounding. That said, there is at least one transfer job between G3 and G2 and G1 every day. I cannot speak to what is contained in it, and did not include it in my accounting.
In short, lots of rubber moves.
Global III is more of a intermodal switching yard. Intermodal trains from the west coast drop blocks at G3 for yards they are not going to. UP has transfer runs that go to Global I, Global II, Chicago / Ashland Ave (NS) and Chicago / 59th St. (CSX). Global III is UP's effort to reduce at least some of the rubber-wheel transfer congestion in the greater Chicago area. By having dedicated transfer runs they also reduce the number of trains trying to access Ashland Ave. and 59th St.
Mixed intermodal? How about ISEG2 (intermodal Seattle - Global II) that does / did (?) have a block of about ten auto racks on the front-end.
How does a shortage of truck drivers affect drayage operations / costs? Or, is it mainly the OTR operations that are short drivers?
CC
dakotafred . And traditionally the transfer has been "steel wheel." Rubber-tire is a response to a system that is broken. That's really all Sawtooth was saying. Anyone who thinks that response is anything other than a tactic of desperation -- a short-term "solution" rather than a long-term strategy -- had better not be running a railroad I own stock in.
. And traditionally the transfer has been "steel wheel." Rubber-tire is a response to a system that is broken. That's really all Sawtooth was saying. Anyone who thinks that response is anything other than a tactic of desperation -- a short-term "solution" rather than a long-term strategy -- had better not be running a railroad I own stock in.
And traditionally the steel wheel transfer has been the weak point of the system. As it is right now the rubber tire transfer is the best way to interchange containers. Considering that railroads have been doing it like this for years, you might want to sell your stock.
An "expensive model collector"
dakotafred I think the analogies between O'Hare passengers and freight cars are faintly ridiculous. Human traffic, rail as well as air, has always been responsible for making its own transfer arrangements (except for the short era of coast-to-coast sleeping car service). That's because God gave its members a brain and two feet. Freight cars do not have these advantages. And traditionally the transfer has been "steel wheel." Rubber-tire is a response to a system that is broken. That's really all Sawtooth was saying. Anyone who thinks that response is anything other than a tactic of desperation -- a short-term "solution" rather than a long-term strategy -- had better not be running a railroad I own stock in.
I think the analogies between O'Hare passengers and freight cars are faintly ridiculous. Human traffic, rail as well as air, has always been responsible for making its own transfer arrangements (except for the short era of coast-to-coast sleeping car service). That's because God gave its members a brain and two feet.
Freight cars do not have these advantages. And traditionally the transfer has been "steel wheel." Rubber-tire is a response to a system that is broken. That's really all Sawtooth was saying. Anyone who thinks that response is anything other than a tactic of desperation -- a short-term "solution" rather than a long-term strategy -- had better not be running a railroad I own stock in.
This, of course, is just plain wrong.
The false claim that this is "short-term" ignores history. I got my first civilian transportation job in Chicago 35 years ago. I had come to the Chicago area in 1974 to attend graduate school at Northwestern after finishing my obligatory two years on active duty with the US Army Transportation Corps.
In 1975 I was a summer intern at Merchant Shippers, a freight forwarder located at 1601 S. Western Avenue in Chicago. We were hard by the "Falcon's Nest", the C&NW ramp on Wood Street. We were also "across the sreet" from a BN ramp in Chicago. We were in a BN freight house and we worked LTL shipments across a freight dock into TOFC trailers for movement to the west coast. Despite being next door to the C&NW (UP) ramp and a BN ramp, most of our California frieght went out on the Santa Fe. Santa Fe train #188 was unbeatable to LA.
We were head to head with the truckers on service and we held our own. TOFC shipments coming in from the east were always "Cross Towned" on rubber from the eastern road's ramps to the western road's ramps. It was the most efficient way to move the freight. That's reality. Refusal to accept reality might indicate some kind of a problem.
Rubber wheel interchange of intermodal freight in Chicago is not, as falsely claimed by some, a short term desperation strategy. If is, for some shipments, the most efficient method of interchange. It's certainly not "short-term". Its been around for decades and it stays around today because there is no reason to replace it with a less efficient method of interchange. (After graduation I went to work for ICG intermodal marketing, then RoadRailer, and I became convinced that rubber wheel interchange has its place for some of the shipments.)
The people who decry this practice are simply looking for something to decry. The US has the safest, most efficient, most cost effective rail freight system in the world. So says the FRA. The FRA administrator, Joe Szabo, has referred to the US rail freight system and "The Envy Of Other Nations".
Please note this fact: Recognition of reality is not "desperation". It's the refusal to accept reality that is the true "desperation". That's just what the folks who are critical of the rubber wheel Chicago interchange are about - they're desperately looking for something, anything, to criticize. And if they can't find anything real they'll pick out something that is not intuitive and try to ride it to victory. The rubber wheel interchange suits their purpose just fine. It's not a real problem, but it'll do. They're not about fixing real problems, they're about themselves.
A train and a truck are simply two different tools that do the same thing. Which tool you use depends on the situation. To be the "best tool for the job" a train needs volume. When there's limited volume moving between two rail intermodal terminals in Chicago, it makes sense to use the truck tool for the interchange. That's reality. People who deny that are denying reality.
If any of you want to give these people any credence, that's your problem.
beaulieuOne thing to keep in mind is that each shipping company contracts with just one of the western railroads, and if the box is destined for Chicago it will go to one particular Intermodal facility,
And the second RR contracts the same way? An example of the lack of real integration in the rail-rail, let alone intermodal networks.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.