RR's are full - then let truckers pull doubles!

[Anonymous]

So far this year, the RR's have enjoyed tremendous volumes to the point of service drastically suffering on several of the class 1's, which the RR openly attributes to being "full." As a result of being full, the RR's have puffed up and have been very open in the trade press about taking rates up since they can be selective about the freight they move from this wealth of available freight. In some cases the RR has walked away from significant business (ie. Union Pacific - UPS freight) because some trains no longer fit their network... again, because they're full. RR's are hoping that this surge of freight will boost their fortunes to the point that they are the darlings of Wall Street. They're intentionally delaying capacity additions (ie. building more track) to capitalize on the traffic boom. Union Pacific was recently cited in the Wall St. Journal as a deterent to economic growth because they aren't able to deliver freight at the rate that the shipping market demands.

We've also read a great deal about the truck driver shortage in the U.S. and how the RR's also attribute their intermodal volume increase, in part to that situation.

There is a solution and railroaders big and small will gasp and blanch at the thought of it, but if the RR's can't handle the volume that is there and if there aren't enough drivers to handle the freight pulling single trailers, then why not let truckers pull double trailers (ie. double 48's or double 53's?)

I'm as "pro-railroad" as anyone that you will find, but there is an economic and logistical reality of getting this freight moved.

I know that there is a whole bleeding heart contingent that will cry that its unsafe to pull these longer combination vehicles, which is why you would restrict them to intercity moves on the interstate system with very specific restrictions to keep them off of local streets and state highways. (ie. they can operate on interstate highways but must be connected and disconnected within 1 mile of the interstate highway. Some Western states allow double 45's and 48's and I've driven among them many times with no concern whatsoever. Again, there would be a cry and hue over "its too dangerous" but that's protectionism under a veiled wrapper.

If the RR's can't do it... and they've publicly said that they can't, let someone else who can.

[Randy Stahl]

Yea,, your right RR managers are collectivly a bunch of idiots, Ill second that!!!!!
Randy

[Anonymous]

There is just one word for this idea. DUMB.

The doubles out there are unsafe enough so that many truck drivers won't drive them even with extra pay. Further, allowing doubles on rural highways and city streets is much less safe than on the interstates. Further, trucks damage our highways enough without adding more problems. Lets have the trucks pay for the damage they already do before we encourage further growth.

Truckers with their driver shortage, their own financial problems, their new HOS regulations and less efficient EPA tractors are having a problem of their own. Don't look now but there are not enough trucks now to handle just the existing truck business much less trying to pick up slack for the railroads.

LC

[Modelcar]

...Call it "bleeding heart contingent" or some other name, I for one do not wi***o see the building of "truck trains" on our interstates....Believe we have enough potential danger of mingling with present truck and passenger car traffic without upping the percentages. Of course the increased road damage is always a reason with more and heavier traffic. Interstates are crumbling fast enough as it is....But it is mind bogging why railroads won't increase capacity...if they really can to grab the additional business.

[Randy Stahl]

I like to think that my family and loved ones will be safe on the highway! Iknow that if more trucks are crammed onto the interstates that safety is a thing of the past. Truckers usually survive a collision with a family car, the occupants of the smaller vehicles rarely survive. A rule of thumb on RRs years ago was to not mix lightweight and heavyweight equipment, especially on electric RRs. collisions between the 2 always have a big body count.
Randy

[TH&B]

There are other solutions. Many shipments realy don't even need to be shipped or at least shipped very far. But alot of product just gets moved around alot all over the place before it finaly might reach a consumer. This is because of poor planning and last minute decisions. Raising the costs of truck traffic and rail traffic to its real direct costs would not in the long run raise consumer prices. Maybe it would raise in the short run but on the long run prices would go even further down.

One example is an industry using steel from a mill far away when there is a mill close by because the farther away mill is cheaper but only because it's dumping the steel and then being shipped by truck damaging our hiway at the public's cost.

Where I live there are alot of rock carying trucks on some of our hiways, why does rock have to travel 60mph? rocks fall off these sometimes overloaded trucks at speed. Aggregates belong on barges when possible or slow trains and if by truck it should be in safer trucks and at the real costs.
REAL costs will make REAL solutions.

[Anonymous]

Mark's made a whole lot of sense. I'm not sure I understand why it is that railroads get treated like a public utility when it comes to rates. I also don't understand why it is that semis on the highway don't pay for the real costs of maintaining the Interstate system. And of course, I still haven't figured out why it is that airlines can afford to order new aircraft, but somehow can't make a profit without a US Government subsidy in carrying the mail.

We all want the good things in life that have to be transported some way or another, but we really don't want to pay for them.

Erik

[Modelcar]

....Did railroads rip up too much of their plant in recent decades to satisfy bean counters and now find that having some that was done away with could be used to their advantage. I'm sure some was reduntant but lack of poor planning ahead seems to have turned around and bit them in many cases. How often to we read of sidings that were torn out and now presently we're hearing of trains sitting in sidings for miles and some without even crews, etc.....clogging the system here and there and it goes on and on.....Somehow don't railroads have to plan for the modern world. Other forms of transportation seem to be somehow doing at least part of that....

[vsmith]

HOLY ***, BATMAN! ANYTHING BUT THAT!

Good God! Double 40+ footers is an Absolutly Stupidly Insane idea! Theres a reason why only short trailer doubles are allowed on the highways. Here are the problems.

A semi can only pull a certain amount of weight. Most trucks are only rated a little more powerfull than the loads they are hauling, that is why they tend to crawl up steep grades while autos are zipping by. Add another trailer and you will either be barely moving up a grade or you will have to buy even bigger , more powerfull semis to handle the added weight. We dont need bigger semi's in this country, the current ones are big enough. Bigger/worse milage/less profit/higher insurance.

Double trailers are incredibly sensitive to wind loads. I have seen double trialer rigs get pushed around by winds way more dangerously than a single trailer even though the single is the same lenth as the double. Its the ability of the double to flex that creates instabilty, Take two 40 footers add a cross wind and that second trailer becomes a broom sweeping anything around it off the road.

A semi can only safely manuvure as traffic allows, a truck pulling a single 40 foot trailer has a hard enough time just changing lanes without hitting another car or getting cut off from a distrcted driver. Add another 40 feet to that and Jezzzuuuzzz can you imaging just how hard it becomes just to change lanes or merge onto the freeway? You could follow the routes of these double 40 footers by the trail of knocked over signals as they try to manuvere thru city streets, running over curbs and corners making right turns...I see this on an almost daily basis.

And finally most trucker end their deliveries by backing up the trailer to a loading dock. It is nearly Impossible to back up a double trailer into a loading dock. Ask any trucker, they would rather try landing a jumbo jet onto a Aircraft Carrier at night than but up with that frustration.

[garr]

Hello Mark,

I enjoyed your great work editing Trains but I believe I enjoy your imput on the forum more.

Government owning mainlines is not new. Georgia still owns the old W&A mainline from Atlanta to Chattanooga(now CSX), Cincinnati owns the CNO&TP(now NS from Chattanooga to Cincinnati, and North Carolina owns a key link in the NS in that state.

Jay

[mudchicken]

You might ask why existing railroads don't also starve their maintenance budget to maximize earnings. Actually, they do -- in the very short term. I'm always suspicious of a railroad which has historically had trouble earning money all of a sudden having a good quarter. I want to see if they bought any rail or ties or labor that quarter. (Most of the time, they didn't.) But in the longer term, the existing Class I railroad can't run itself into the ground, because its owners won't let it -- they've invested essentially in the ownership of assets, the geographic franchise, and the promise of long-term profitability. If the railroad company for structural or technical reasons can't make money no matter what, the investors will seek a merger or spin-off of valuable assets. See SP.

....backing Mark's point, see "DEFERRED MAINTENANCE".....Also, the large railroads arrange to spend money based on projected carloadings. Most will not go to a bank for financing (they want too much, more money in equipment trusts....ROR is low, not a fast buck)

[banghead][banghead][banghead]

[Anonymous]

Most of you are correct in what I have read here,though Mark Hemphill is correct in what he said,ots you the tax payers that are paying for the cost to get the goods to market. But on another perspective look ,i'm a trucker also......I'm one of the many that drive an 18 wheeler,and we have MORE crap to put up with than most people realize.With the new HOS (hours of service) law,I cant get to my destination when I want to,as I can only be on the road for 11 hours,12 if some drivers "dirty log book ".And this is just the tip,with random inspections,scale houses,and a maximun limit of 80,000 pounds gross vehicle weight limit......if I'm overloaded by AN OUNCE!,I have to take that off the trailer,and put it someplace,or in some cases,if its greater than that,you have to pull into the scale parking lot,call the dispatcher,and he in turn has to get a truck to come out and get the excess load and deliver it. All the while your sitting there wasting time and valuable money that should be going in my pocket,instead it goes no where.As far as safety,yes the DOT is heavy on that,yet I am very P-offed at the fact that the @#$%^&* NAFTA has allowed the mexican truckers to travel on U.S.highways,with trucks that are so old,parts are falling off the rigs and onto the roads. Now with the EPA getting on our butts about emissions,if a trucker wants to buy a new truck,he /she has to wait a YEAR for the truck,as the new engines that Caterpillar,Cummins,Detroit,and Mack have.....well ......they are NOT sure if they will be performable,and the warranties on them stink. You'd be lucky if the warranty will go for 10 years instead of 2 or 5 at the present time. as for doubles,I will NOT do it.. way too dangerous,and turning them is a big pain and problem too.It makes me wonder how the drivers for UPS,FED-EX, YELLOW,and other Less Than truckLoad (LTL) carriers can manage it. Makes me want to go back to the BNSF, and work for them now.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dblstack

So far this year, the RR's have enjoyed tremendous volumes to the point of service drastically suffering on several of the class 1's, which the RR openly attributes to being "full." As a result of being full, the RR's have puffed up and have been very open in the trade press about taking rates up since they can be selective about the freight they move from this wealth of available freight. In some cases the RR has walked away from significant business (ie. Union Pacific - UPS freight) because some trains no longer fit their network... again, because they're full. RR's are hoping that this surge of freight will boost their fortunes to the point that they are the darlings of Wall Street. They're intentionally delaying capacity additions (ie. building more track) to capitalize on the traffic boom. Union Pacific was recently cited in the Wall St. Journal as a deterent to economic growth because they aren't able to deliver freight at the rate that the shipping market demands.

We've also read a great deal about the truck driver shortage in the U.S. and how the RR's also attribute their intermodal volume increase, in part to that situation.

There is a solution and railroaders big and small will gasp and blanch at the thought of it, but if the RR's can't handle the volume that is there and if there aren't enough drivers to handle the freight pulling single trailers, then why not let truckers pull double trailers (ie. double 48's or double 53's?)

I'm as "pro-railroad" as anyone that you will find, but there is an economic and logistical reality of getting this freight moved.

I know that there is a whole bleeding heart contingent that will cry that its unsafe to pull these longer combination vehicles, which is why you would restrict them to intercity moves on the interstate system with very specific restrictions to keep them off of local streets and state highways. (ie. they can operate on interstate highways but must be connected and disconnected within 1 mile of the interstate highway. Some Western states allow double 45's and 48's and I've driven among them many times with no concern whatsoever. Again, there would be a cry and hue over "its too dangerous" but that's protectionism under a veiled wrapper.

If the RR's can't do it... and they've publicly said that they can't, let someone else who can.

I was in the not so distant past a part of a state DOT (NCDOT) that built and maintained the part of the infrastructure known as public bridges and highways. What you are asking for is, in my opinion, the complete final destruction of any asphalt road in the U.S. As I mentioned in the thread on the future of railroading, One LEGALLY loaded Simi-tractortrailer combination does more damage in one pass to the road than do 900 automobiles (Proctor Method of Asphalt testing by AASHTO specs). Your suggestion would not double the problem but probably square the damage done to the PUBLIC roadways. When this is considered together with the crisis in the tax base of many states which are already stressed to the max and that are very dependant in many ways on gasoline taxes to service the PUBIC roadways. This would have the effect of even higher gas taxes (read increased subsidy) that you and me and a lot of other folks pay just to cover the cost of substructure repair and resurfacing. When this is compared to a PRIVATE company that has a measure of both increased effiencey and load factor far above that of most any other form of surface transportation (READ RAILROAD). The economics of the steel on steel technology is obvious especially to the members of this forum. HOWEVER, if you have quantified and qualified information to the contrary[:-^] many of us would like to hear about this. I know I would.

[Junctionfan]

First of all I am not in favour of double trailer. Highways are not capable in North America to take what I call the beginning of road trains. The only why trains are safe as they are is because a train doesn't require a stearing wheel to make sure you don't stear into traffic or have to worry about jack knifing due to an ice patch or hydroplaning during a bad rain storm. Truck trains are a wonderful idea if you plan on reducing the national population though.

I think that the federal government must invest in rail service. This includes giving tax breaks or even direct funding to the railroads like UP who are at capacity but is willing but only willing to increase capacity to run the service. I must say I am very distressed at CN and CP lack of interest in running trains at all. If they really wanted to run trains, with the territory that they own; UP, BNSF, NS and CSX wouldn't have to worry about picking up their slack. CN and CP in my opinion are not pulling their wait in improving the economy of Canada in particular and in the United States as well. CN seems to be more interested in owning the realistate than actual operation.

The government must make certain that the people know what is going on and educate them on what should be done and than let the voters make a decision on what should be done if not through a representative of federal government than a federal referendum. Public opinion is important; if the people are swaid into the decision the politicians want than the people will allow you to do what must be done. That is democracy (honest democracy (no lies; tell it like it is)).

I would say to investors. Those who invest in companies that are dependant on the railroad must start using a little more thinking from the brain and less from the pocket. If a railroad can not help you because they are at capacity, than they will loose profit and may end up SOL at the quarterly. If they go under, so does your stocks. It is in investors best interest to make sure that the railroads can increase capacity and should harp on the other investors to see that the railroads can get the money needed in order for their investments to be protected. Railroads must educate investors too about railroad needs and try to make them understand that they are a mode of transportation and not a financial instution and that even though they are on the stock market, it would not help the investors other investments if they could not meet the demand of the market.

Railroads must get federal help and investors need to be more intelligent with their greed. They must realize that their is a percentage of operation investment is required to make a decent profit. If you lower the operation than you lower the profit. You can increase operation without raising the rate of operation investment but the minimum must be there otherwise you won't be givin the money you expect.

[Anonymous]

Wow! So much to correct here, and some continued disappointment at the opinions of those who really should know better...

1. Back to the original subject at hand, what needs to be done to improve the efficiency of truckers is to get rid of Gross Vehicle Weight limits and replace that with an average weight per axle standard. Here's a quiz: Which causes more road damage - two trucks each hauling 35 tons of cargo, or one truck hauling 70 tons of cargo? Assuming the average axle loadings are the same, the two trucks will cause more road damage because they are adding more tare weight in the form of the second cab unit. Obviously, by allowing a single trucker to haul two trailer loads worth of cargo will result in less road damage. In addition, a single truck pulling two 53' trailers will have less net length than two trucks each pulling a single 53' trailer, again due to the space taken up by the second cab unit. With our nation's dependency on trucks to deliver the goods, the idea of allowing more weight and/or more trailers per truck can only benefit the nation.

2. Mark, I really wish you would think things through regarding open access, defered maintenance, etc. Why do you insist that an infrastructure company would be more likely to defer maintenance than the current situation? We know that today's railroads are purposefully defering capital investments to temporarily improve their botton lines with Wall Street. An infrastructure company would have no choice, they would have to reinvest in the infrastructure or go out of business real soon. To suggest that infrastructure-based corporations exist only for the here and now and would not reinvest in infrastructure is extremely cynical. Don't the owners of pipelines reinvest to keep current capacity and grow for future capacity increases? What about electric transmission line owners? Telecommunications infrastructure owners? Don't timber companies replant trees after logging operations on separately private timberlands or public timber lands?

Do store owners simply let the paint peel and the shelves collapse to the point of being ineffectual for the selling of the goods, and then simply close up and walk away? NO! They include the costs of maintenance and expansion in the markup of the goods.

An infrastructure company will base rates in a way that will cover maintenance costs to maintain the track at certain minimum speeds, weights, train lengths, etc., and with a certain ROI factored in. By doing so, they will satisfy their customers, who in turn will commit to more long term contracts. This is the basic business model, and it includes the cost of maintenance as a cost of doing long term business. By reinvesting, they will attract more business, which in turn will allow investment in future expansions. There is enough of an efficiency and/or speed advantage of railroads to successfully compete with highways and waterways, enough so to make up for subsidization of the others.

In other words, there is a market for pathways to maintain the flow of goods. Those who provide the most efficient infrastructure will garner the most shippers and profit from it, those who let their pathways crumble will go out of business. It is the basic supply and demand dynamic, and this dynamic is the basis of the free market system. When either supply and.or demand are artificially squelched in monopolistic situations, it degrades the dynamic, and that is what is happening in the railroad industry in North America.

There are formulations available by third party firms that calculate what an infrastructure company would have to charge in order to cover up to the date maintenance and still produce a profit. Check out this website.....

http://www.zetatech.com/CORPQIII44.htm

..... then offer up your collective opinions on whether an infrastructure company could make it or not.

3. I'm also disappointed in the presentation of shippers as being some sort of bad guy trying to destroy our nice little railroads. Excuse me, isn't it supposed to be about the shippers? Aren't they the reason transportation companies exist in the first place? Why do some of you instantly denegrate shippers who are guilty of nothing more than trying to alleviate themselves from the abuses of monopolistic practices by the railroads? Why do you think the manufacturers of bulky, heavy things are constantly moving their operations overseas or shutting down? One of the major factors in the U.S.'s loss of manufacturing jobs lies in the inability of stateside manufacturers to access competitive transportation options. Look at those handful of buk-transport-dependent manufacturers who are planning expansion in the U.S. By and large, they seek to site their new facilities in locations which have access to more than one Class I railroad. Few if any will be building new facilities in locales which have access to only one Class I railroad.

Dave Smith

[Anonymous]

<<
I'm also disappointed in the presentation of shippers as being some sort of bad guy trying to destroy our nice little railroads. Excuse me, isn't it supposed to be about the shippers? Aren't they the reason transportation companies exist in the first place? Why do some of you instantly denegrate shippers who are guilty of nothing more than trying to alleviate themselves from the abuses of monopolistic practices by the railroads? Why do you think the manufacturers of bulky, heavy things are constantly moving their operations overseas or shutting down? One of the major factors in the U.S.'s loss of manufacturing jobs lies in the inability of stateside manufacturers to access competitive transportation options. Look at those handful of buk-transport-dependent manufacturers who are planning expansion in the U.S. By and large, they seek to site their new facilities in locations which have access to more than one Class I railroad. Few if any will be building new facilities in locales which have access to only one Class I railroad.
>>

The shippers would like to believe that everything in the world revolves around them. Railroads are a service company, however we perform a very definite and distinct function, rail transportation. In order to perform this function in an economically feasible way we must serve many customers. Most customers understand this, unfortunately, there seems to be some customer executives who don't. Usually this is not the local plant manager. It is a higher up who expects everything to be done to his timetable and at little or no cost to him(or her). That is where the trouble starts.

As far as your continued BS about monopolies, railroads are not a monopoly, haven't been for a long time. Haven't met a ship or barge yet that couldn't or wouldn't move more than a train at a lower cost. Haven't met a truck that couldn't move some pretty bulky stuff quicker than a train and to more places. There isn't even any comparison in the passenger arena.

You indicate that companies manufacturing heavy things are locating in other countries. I have news, that has darn little to do with rail or any other transportation and much more to do with the internal economies in the manufacturing process. Otherwise, why move your manufacturing facility away from your primary market??? And of course, if you do that, who will you be paying to bring your bulky heavy stuff to market?? Hmmmm. Railroads? NAAAAAH! Lets face it, manufacturers locating on two Class 1s are doing so for rate competition more than for access.

Perhaps railroads have issues, nobody's perfect. Shippers and recipients are every bit as bad. They will cheat on weights( "the car didn't weight 306,000lbs when it left our elevator!"), lie about carloadings ("Our new plant will produce at least 10,000 carloads annually", if I had a nickel for every time I heard that I'd be very comfortably retired), deny damaging cars by moving them with a front end loader ("It was bent like a pretzel when you delivered it, honest") whine about demurrage, intraplant switch charges, and anything else they know they owe. So, please don't give me the "Customers are Us" crap. Customers are at least as bad as any railroad when it comes to holding up their end.

LC

[Anonymous]

vsmith wrote:
<<
Good God! Double 40+ footers is an Absolutly Stupidly Insane idea! Theres a reason why only short trailer doubles are allowed on the highways. Here are the problems.
>>

Having lived in California in a prior life I know what you are talking about, but in many other states there are long doubles on the Interstates. I'm not sure but I think some of them are at least double 48's and possibly double 53's.

LC

[Anonymous]

One other thing, Mark Hemphill is absolutely right when he says that rate shortage is the cause of the problem. Rates for a loaded railcar on moves of over 300 miles are nearly the same as a truck rate for the same trip, yet the railroad carries three or more times the freight. Also, rail backhauls are few and far between. The rail infrastructure is simply too expensive to maintain without some form of government assistance. Properly deployed, such assistance will enable proper maintenance of existing infrastructure and hopefully also allow for acquisition of new right of ways and expansion of the network to reach the growing cities and towns of a new age. The oil won't last forever and transportation will still be needed.

[Anonymous]

Double 48's or 53's??? OMG!! NO, HAY-UL NO. nope no how uh uhnh sowwry.

YOu can flame me if you want. But I have 16 years in the trucking behind the wheel starting with 20 footers (Thought those were big) moved to 40's then 45's 48's and finally 53's.

There are very few places in the country where you can hook two full trailers and that is the NY Thruway. They are connected prior to gettting on and disconnected when they are off that road. 2 drivers are then needed to deliver them. (Or one driver two trips)

The driver shortage is a constant problem in the trucking. Everyweek you see 50 hopeful wanna be's packing orientation chattering to each other how they gonna make the money, drive a large car etc etc. Phooey. Very few out of that 50 will still be in the cab 6 months from they hire and even fewer will make it past first year.

On the flip side I hear the UP wants engineers and engines so bad they need 5000 just to honor the freight they got piling up.

Remeber this: They will ALWAYs need a truck to deliver something anywhere in the USA.

"Then let truckers pull doubles..." what a dangerous and unsafe concept. I am awake and glaring at the monitor because I remember that there are millions of spots you should NOT take a 53 trailer into because you cannot get out (never mind the bridges, overpasses, corner obstructions, people getting too close with the cars etc"

There are howls on both sides of the issue but bottom line is this:

Highways and state roads will NOT accomodate full doubles safely. This is why we have pups and triples across the country doing this work.

I shudder to think of what I must do with a double full set in downtown little rock to make a delivery anywhere.

As far as the talk about road damage, I can attest to some very bad roads left to crumble while they argue over what to do with the Federal Motor Carrier Taxes and Taxes from Fuel that has over the last 20 years accumilated in our US Treasury to rebuild our entire system twice over.

Some states are finally addressing very bad roads. These roads destrory trucks and sap the driver's strength and health. Cars handle the road easier but you will feel every crack and dip in a truck.

One truck with 24 tons in the trailer does less harm than a pair of trucks carrying 12 ton. The axle loadings on the 24 tonner load (40 tons gross) = 12,000 steer, 34,000 drive and 34,000 tandems. Give or take a little. Spread 10 foot axles on the steel flatbeds can carry 40,000 on the rear (20,000 max per axle)

The little truck with the 12 ton load perhaps has 3 axles maybe 2. The loadings are a bit less than the big truck. But put two of them with two tractors, insurance, fuel, drivers payroll etc etc etc costs more and requires more attention than one single truck at 80,000 pounds.

I no longer pay attention to shippers and recievers. They are in control of what, when and how and what time of day does the freight need to be there. You are locked into that when you load the rig, sign the bill of lading and close the doors. (They may even punch the time of day and actual date of loading on the lading forcing you to adjust your log book among other problems)

Railroads have higher axle loadings are best at carrying large cargos long distances. River barges will carry as much as a train does at times. Freighters ocean going ships will take even more.

In the end if you need that widget at the store, it was delivered by truck. You dont see the waste, loss and damaged product taht arrives at the destination for distribution to your store.

If I wanted to ship coast to coast I will box it and put it on the train. No problem. Getting it from the train to the customer will require a truck.

[JoeKoh]

Wow
lots of information. really wouldnt want to see double trailers on the highway not safe.And as stated before the railroads will move it if the price is right.
stay safe
Joe

[Anonymous]

In response to limitedclear....

If railroads aren't about the shippers, what other entities out there are using rail service? Why have this "service" called "rail transportation" if the shippers are percieved as the enemy? Are you suggesting that railroads are an entity unto themselves, existing for the sheer reason of existance? Talk about BS......

Secondly, do you even know what constitutes a monopoly? A monopolist has control over captive customers, so in the railroad business any rail dependent shipper who only has access to one Class I IS subjected to monopolistic pricing behavior by that Class I, thus the situation reflex a de facto monopoly. The monopolistic characteristics of the North American railroad industry is mostly a regional phenomenon. Whole areas such as northern and eastern Montana, southern Idaho, Utah, western Colorado, parts of the Dakotas, et al, are all reflective of this situation, as reflected by the higher rates being charged to customers in those areas relative to rates being charged to customers with access to more than one Class I. Having access to two Class I's is only slightly better, since usually both Class I's are so huge as to afford ignoring all but the biggest shippers, e.g. a situation of oligarchy. There are plenty of shippers who would use rail if only one of the oligarchs would simply return their call. There are plenty of transportation companies such as 3PL's and 3PI's who would send their business over the rail lines if only it didn't take three years to negotiate a haulage agreement with the owners of the railline, by which time the potential customers got tired of the BS and renegotiated their contracts with a trucking company who is charging a higher rate per load.

I will agree with Mark on that point, that efficiency is more than fuel and labor, it is also flexibility and efficacious response to customer needs. When was the last time a monopoly was reputed to be flexible and responsive to customer needs? Remember back when AT&T was a monopoly? Remember what it took to try and get flexibility and responsiveness from them? When AT&T was broken up into several companies, the regulators were wise enough not to let these Baby Bells have sole access to their respective telecommunication lines, otherwise the AT&T breakup would have been pointless, kind of like California's "partial" energy deregulation, and in a way kind of like the Staggers Act. Releasing the railroads from regulatory constraints was a good thing, but that was counteracted by the failure to open access to the remaining Class I rail grid to all qualified users. Yes, there may not be a single railroad monopoly in the classic sense, but the remaining seven rail oligarchs project an attitude reflective of monopolistic behaviors because they and only they control access to their repective right of ways.

I know for a fact that people in the railroad industry have been fired for even suggesting opening access in some form or another. They saw an opportunity to enhance revenue on underutilized lines by allowing other operators to use the lines on some sort of fee basis, and they got their asses canned for it. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I do not understand this knee-jerk fear of allowing others to use the property on a fee basis if it results in an enhanced bottom line. Why not allow the trucking firms to run their own trains if the end result would be a shift of freight from highway to rail? What would be wrong with UP allowing UPS to run their own trains if UP themselves can't muster up the crews and locomotives?

Can any of you present any studies that would refute the notion that opening access to the NA rail grid would result in a net shift of freight from the highways to rail? And if such were to occur, wouldn't that be reflected in increased revenues for railroads?

The only BS I see is a stubborn unwillingness to try new things in order to enhance the bottom line (e.g. make railroading a growth industry in the eyes of the financial markets)and the nation's competitiveness in the global markets.

[MP173]

Great thread.

I worked in trucking (LTL) management for 13 years before seeing the light and getting out of a horribly competitive industry and into something in which you can add value and call it a manufactured product.

In my current career I deal with both railroads and trucking companies, primarily the latter, although my largest customer is rail related.
The arguement of the truckers not paying for the infrastructure is old and I just dont buy it. Taxes are huge for not only trucking fleets, but for automobiles.

I personally dont construct and maintain my own infrastructure to drive to Chicago daily, but I do make choices...do I pay the tax of $2 to go over the Skyway or do I pay the expense of added time to drive the longer route?

Rails lost the boxcar business because the reliability of service suffered.

They are gaining that business back, thru intermodal.

In most instances, the only way to gain the business back thru intermodal was to be cheaper than trucking...they certainly cannot charge a PREMIUM for inferior service. Thus the "new" business is incrementally priced lower and lower. I believe TRAINS addressed this recently in an article discussing pricing and costs for boxcar vs intermodal traffic.

Transportation is at a crossroads (thanks...I know it is a great pun) now. There are several dynamics at work here. The truckers are finally getting a chance to get some rate relief.

Why? Supply and demand is finally in their favor.

Rails should be getting rate relief for the same reasons. Will it be enough to cover the cost of capital necessary for new infrastructure? Probably not.

There has been enough damage done for the future of railroading by the rationalization of lines in the 80's and 90's. But ... it was necessary, to be healthy.

Recently the CSX turned service of the former PRR mainline thru Indiana and Ohio to Chicago to a regional operator of short lines. They retained ownership, I believe of the track. Not a bad move, just in case they need it later.

Too bad other lines couldnt have been railbanked in the past.

That website on the MOW costs was great. Reminds me of the old days when I sat in on rate bureaus and how we determined costs and then sat around smoke filled rooms legally establishing rates.

MP

[Anonymous]

High Iron-

The Thruway is exactly what I was thinking of.

LC

[Anonymous]

This might work in some of the flatter land, but here in western North Carolina and other mountainous areas this would be an absolute DISASTER. Every interstate coming into WNC (I-26 and I-40, at least 4 total, many others that aren't as long but just as steep) have grades of 6-7% for several miles at a time with many sharp curves along the way. There'd be wrecks constantly. I've heard that in Australia they'll run up to four trailers at a time across the flatlands, so I would imagine two trailers could be done along certain routes in the plains if traffic isn't too heavy.

*To of course mention trains (this is a Trains forum, isn't it?) the I-26 route was originally planned to be the route from Spartanburg to Asheville instead of Saluda Grade. Engineers and surveyors determined that it would require 13 miles of extra track and several tunnels to ascend the unstable slopes of the mountain, not to mention the extra cost. So they instead decided on a route with a 4.7% grade? Oh well.

A few pictures of what I'm talking about. (A picture is worth a thousand words...)

http://www.geocities.com/williamchague/I-26

[Anonymous]

This is a fast-moving forum! My limited typing skills, rusty efforts at composition, and unfamiliarity with forum technique have me a bit frustrated in attempting to keep pace while making some sense. (I agree with Mr. Hemphill that decorum must be maintained.)

Permit me a generalization, if you will. Perhaps overly broad, but directionally correct. Railroaders (I was one for 28 years) and railfans do not understand logistics, the economics of trucking freight, nor the nature of competition between the modes. Emotion, romanticism, and railroad industry propaganda influence their thinking to an undue degree in many cases.

I cut my economic/regulatory teeth on the railroad industry truism that "the steel wheel on steel rail is umpteen times as efficient as rubber on concrete." The physics is right but virtually irrelevant in comparing logistics efficiency of the two modes: shipment size, transit time, frequency of dispatch, predictability, reliability.

And the subsidy canard: "If the truckers paid their fair share railroads would move everything over a hundred miles." Sure, there is the never-ending debate over highway construction cost allocation. Truckers want to pay less and the AAA and railroads want them to pay more. But trucks pay alot in taxes, nowhere near 0% as is implicit in many heated debates, so a relevant question is, what would happen to modal share if truck taxes were, say, doubled? Almost nothing would change. Truck logistic advantages are that great.

I'll probably be way behind the posts, but I offer these observations and comments on recent submissions.

Highway damage is significantly a function of axle-loads, therefore double-bottoms do not in and of themselves cause additional damage. In fact, one double will do less damage than two singles because of reduced tractor axle impact.

Double-bottoms and triples (pups) have been widely and safely used for decades. From the New York State Thruway to the Kansas Turnpike to many of the western states where the name "Rocky Mountain double" was coined. The "logistics" of doubles operation are complex, though, and the apparent raw line-haul economic advantage is limited in many cases. This, I believe, is why the trucking industry has largely ended its agitation for more widespread use of doubles.

Why the dire pessimism about the industry and outright lack of current information?

For example, the CN has performed spectacularly since being privatized in 1996, giving real world insight against arguments which favor separating ownership of right-of-way and train operation.

And where are the data showing extensive deferred maintenance on any Class I?

Which Class I is anywhere close to needing government "assistance?" UP has its trouble, but it's no SP! CSX isn't exactly highballing, but it's no PC!

And then there is the argument for open access in a "monopolistic" industry that doesn't earn it's cost of capital and is in need of government support. (Talk about inept capitalists!) An "Exhibit UP": Consider the trona (soda ash) shippers of Wyoming. "Captive" to the UP for decades ... displaced all of the old sovay-method producers years ago ... highly competitive in world export markets. "Exhibit BNSF": Montana wheat still moves into world markets 34 years after James J. Hill's "monopolistc" dream was realized in the BN merger. There is an inherent tension in the relationship between railroads and shippers, "captive" or other. Economic rent is to be had, the calculations are complex, mistakes are made. But they need each other once that capital has been invested. Only the foolish attempt to blindly exploit the other, for too many options exist.

Ah! A comment from MP173 ... so you too sat in those smoke-filled rate bureau rooms.
Sometimes I shake my head ... how could an industry with complete antitrust immunity for rate-making not succeed? Then I remember ... logistics, and the ignorance therof.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Blue Ridge Front

This might work in some of the flatter land, but here in western North Carolina and other mountainous areas this would be an absolute DISASTER. Every interstate coming into WNC (I-26 and I-40) have grades of 6-7% for several miles at a time with many sharp curves along the way. There'd be wrecks constantly. I've heard that in Australia they'll run up to four trailers at a time across the flatlands, so I would imagine two trailers could be done along certain routes in the plains if traffic isn't too heavy.

*To of course mention trains (this is a Trains forum, isn't it?) the I-26 route was originally planned to be the route from Spartanburg to Asheville instead of Saluda Grade. Engineers and surveyors determined that it would require 13 miles of extra track and several tunnels to ascend the unstable slopes of the mountain, not to mention the extra cost. So they instead decided on a route with a 4.7% grade? Oh well.

A few pictures of what I'm talking about. (A picture is worth a thousand words...)

http://www.geocities.com/williamchague/I-26

As you have noted that is tough country and from my past in NCDOT expensive to build, maintain and to repair. Two tunnels come to mind in my nightmares even down here in Winston Salem

[Junctionfan]

I would have to disagree with that CN is doing great since privatization I'm afraid. SInce CN has been private they have under serviced cities and whole regions forcing them to bring in a shortline. Anybody that knows Hamilton, Ontario-home of Stelco Steel, Stelwire, Canada Pipe Lines, Agrium, Siemens-Westinghouse, Doffasco Steel, Colombia Chemicals, and many others; CN decides in their infinate wisdom that they do not want to switch thease industries anymore. Industries bring in RailAmerica to do their job; CN all of a sudden decides they make a mistake and they want Hamilton back and Rail America says no. CN can't do anything about it because CP Kinnear Yard is near by and accessable to Rail America. CN has pulled the same garbage in Niagara where I live, Brantford which they manage to get back and many, many places. I took a look at an operation schedule of CN in 1995 and saw they ran about 600 trains daily and now they run about 300. What the heck is up with that. They don't seem to make any effort in replacing customers that just quit rail because they went belly up. They managed to alienate their market for the CN roadrailer service between Toronto and Montreal which must have cost CN alot for those tandem trailers and the facilities. The more CN acts the way they are, the angry and frustrated that the government or governments doesn't turn around and tell CN-"Look you aren't going to keep buying more railroads and fire folk just so you can make more cash and make the unemployment rate go up. Work with what you got". CN senior management is the biggest bunch of dingbats yet. You would figure that being the only railroad in Canada they compete with is CP and that CN runs all the way from the Atlantic to the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific (not even UP, BNSF, CSX and NS have that luxury), they would be operating more since it is easier for a company to pay one railroad to get from one area to an other than pay 2 or more railroads for the same destination such as this whole intermodal bridge thing I here will take place with the aquisition of BC Rail. Like I send CN is not pulling their weight in order to benifit the economy.

[MP173]

rllewiszz:

Yes, I sat in those smoke filled room, and 15 years later, I wonder what it was all about.

Anti-trust immunity allowed a lot of weak players to do well, quite well, but deregulation in 1980 brought an end to that. The inefficient ones left early, the ones that were efficient, but didnt understand free markets lasted a little longer and the strongly capitalized carriers remain.

LTL trucking is so similar to airline service. The second best move I ever made in my life was getting out and changing careers.

MP

[Anonymous]

In Re: Junctionfan's comments on CN

CN Revenue 1997: $5.231 billion
CN Revenue 2003: $5.694

CN Operating Income 1997: $1.185 billion
CN Operating Income 2003: $1.777

CN Operating Ratio 1997: 77.3
CN Operating Ratio 2003: 69.8

CN Share Price 1/1/97: ~ $13
CN Share Price 8/3/04: ~ $45

It is certain that CN has made mistakes over this period, as Junctionfan points out, but Canada (and portions of the U.S.) now benefits from a very healthy transportation provider competing vigorously to move commerce efficiently. Individuals are adversely affected as procuctivity improves, to be sure, but given the precarious state of CN for decades prior to privatization, where would those individuals be today had change not occurred?

[Anonymous]

Hey guys.

I'm not really into discussing the pros and cons of double trailers or road trains on the highways in the US since i dont even live there! But i thought you might be interested in what we have here in Australia. These are the real ROAD TRAINS! It must be noted however that these trucks dont drive down the main streets of major cities (at least not that i have seen), as far as i am aware they are limited to the national highways in particular the 3000km+ one way journey from Adelaide to Darwin. Are you sure you guys dont wanna have these driving around over there? [;)] I dont blame you!!

Check out this site for some pictures of what you are missing:
http://outbacktowing.tripod.com/australianroadtrainsnewphotoalbum/index.html

And believe it or not the world record comes in at 79 trailers, 3,340 ft in length and weighing 1,072 metric tonnes - all hauled by a single Kenworth prime mover a distance of 8km. (Not quite the economics of scale that one)

Despite that i still think trains are way cooler than trucks!