New Railrunner technology

[jsanchez]

I am surprised there has been no mention of the new railrunner technology in Trains magazine . http://www.railrunner.com . This has been getting more coverage in the business community, Kipplinger, Forbes, Wall street Journal, etc. They all think this is going to be a huge benefit to the railroad industry.It is a great low cost way to haul containers, Norfolk Southern is using it between Fort wayne and Jacksonville, Fl. There seems to be a wealth of uses for this technology, it could allow for short hauls of containers under 500 miles, it could allow for large industries to get containers delivered directly to their plants avoiding expensive truck hauls from distant intermodal terminals, it would be cost effective for shortlines and regional railroads to use, allowing them to get in the intermodal business, I see third world countries benefiting from this technology , it would be great for military usage allowing for very ecconomical transport of military supplies without tying up troops with truck driving duties. It could also be adapted for cheap bulk hauling of waste, grain, aggregates, etc. I think the railrunner could be one of the biggest break throughs in freight rail technology, yet I have seen nothing about in Trains magazine and no I'm not affilated in anyway with this company, I just think its a great idea, that needs mentioning.

[Junctionfan]

I can see where the containers rest on. It looks to me that the containers act as a coupler. Are the containers strong enough to take the weight and slack?

[Overmod]

We've mentioned this in a couple of threads already.

Not to recap those, one point that's been brought up repeatedly for all the different RoadRailer technologies is that relatively balanced traffic in lanes is required for effective capital utilization and ROE. So far, that hasn't been developed. Operating economies for bimode are difficult to achieve when any 'leg' of a lane or circuit path (e.g. triangle traffic) must depend entirely on rubber-tire movement -- again, this could be theoretically overcome with 'tight' scheduling or operations management, but would be somewhat unlikely in practice.

The RailRunner people have concentrated on what they believe to be effective services, and seem well aware of the differences between TOFC and COFC logistics. Keep in mind that many existing container owners insist on the use of their own underframes for container road moves; this may affect some of the 'take rate' both for bimodal container acceptance and for the company's own licensing or future production of its patented designs.

[rrnut282]

NS hasn't run very many of them, yet. I saw 4 on the back of #251 two weeks ago. I don't see 251 everyday, but I haven't seen any since. They're too new to tell what kind of impact they'll make.

[Anonymous]

Where the RailRunner technology can open up new markets is in bi-modal transportation of grain. Each time grain is transfered from one receptacle to the other, there is a certain percentage of damage. If grain can be loaded directly into standard 40' containers at the farm, then it can stay there unmolested until the deep water port is reached. Since most grain today needs a 100 plus mile truck haul to reach rail terminals anyway, there will always be a significant truckhaul component. Use of bimodal technology can allow a solution to empty backhauls of ISO containers. Bi modal equipment can be used to either haul all the way to the deep water port or to the nearest intermodal terminal, where the containers can be double stacked the rest of the way.

[Anonymous]

Seems like a great idea. It should work fine.

keep asking, keep learning

[Overmod]

There are several problems with using ISO series 1 or 3 containers to handle grain:

Their tare weight is high for the volume
They are not 'food lined'
They do not have doors or ports in the right places for convenient grain loading
Because they don't, it is difficult to 'dun' the grain load to keep it from shifting

We developed a double-wall inflatable plastic liner in the '70s (the great age of the Soviet grain boom) to make container moves possible, but the market greatly favored air levitation of bulk grain, using covered hoppers for the rail moves and specialized bulk carriers. The attrition (pun intended) of grain along the way isn't usually sufficient to compensate for the economies of handling larger volumes at low tare, or using bulk handling methods (such as AirSlide emptying of hoppers).

The economics may have changed somewhat now that the effective 'value' of a 40' marine container is actually less than zero in some markets -- but there is still cost involved in moving the containers to where they would be loaded, lining them, loading them, and then transporting them. It is sheer nonsense to assume that a farmer or even a co-op would invest in container-underframe trucks, and then drive them so many hundred miles to pick up a container -- even if the container were free or even subsidized. I have my doubts as to how many private farms are interested in holding grain until packaged for ultimate delivery, as opposed to delivering it to a local bulk elevator in increments or less-than-precise-container-loads. Note that there is trouble anytime the container supply doesn't exactly balance the underframe demand -- and a bare skeleton underframe isn't a terribly useful farm truck in almost any respect.

Some of these problems can be addressed, in principle, with collapsible containers (several of which, folded, fit and lock down into the space on an underframe occupied by a single load, and can be handled like a regular container when so stacked; when full they can be double-stacked for transport). Once again, though, you're competing with much cheaper bulk modalities, and the value of the grain lost in handling is not sufficient to cover the difference in first-cost capital for the specialized containers and all the equipment and infrastructure to use them. I'd have my doubts about the relative economics of sending grain on container ships, even if carriage amounts to a subsidized backhaul because of trade imbalances.

I suspect there are niche grains and specialty products -- wild rice comes to mind -- that might benefit from this approach. But I think commodity grain would turn out to be a money pit. (Don't let me dissuade someone from inve$ting in lots of RailRunner underframes, however -- when the economics go belly-up it will be possible to pick up the underframes at considerable discount, and then make money more readily on more logical uses of the technology! ;-})

Don't mistake me -- it was an interesting idea. I don't just say that because I, too, had it. But there are reasons why I think it almost certainly won't work as advertised...

[Anonymous]

We are already moving grain in ISO's and dry vans from Montana and the Dakotas to the Port of Lewiston ID. They run them as a backhaul, and it takes less than five minutes to dump them out with a hydralic trailer lifter. Since it is a backhaul, the rates compare favorably to the unit rail rates out of Montana to the Pacific Coast.

Yes, there is some problem with grain getting in under the plywood sidings and expanding, thus compromising the structural integrity of the container or trailer, but that is a rare occurance.

The point is, there are all these empty ISO's sitting in intermodal yards since it is cheaper for China to just manufacture more than it is to send back the empties. Why not utilize these empties by backhauling them with grain to the Rim. The RailRunner technology fits this situation perfectly.

[Overmod]

I'd certainly love to see it done.

I still think that the principal issue involves getting the ISOs in sufficient numbers to the grain loading areas, and providing enough RailRunner underframes for the local shippers -- there are costs associated with that part of the logistics that might be better accommodated with a different technology. For example, instead of using RailRunners, you might provide each of the co-ops or elevator operators with a Letroporter, straddle loader, modified forklift, etc.. Then use cheap underframes, flatbeds, whatever will take an ISO container, to do the farm-to-elevator run, and transload to ordinary intermodal cars -- of which I believe there is a relative glut -- for the rail leg. Shouldn't require much modification to a 'war-weary' ISO container to permit it to be blown full, using the same general equipment used to fill silos -- in fact, containers so modified might constitute a reasonable 'general fleet' that could be used for freight on the return to grain country.

I suppose my biggest problem with the plan you were describing is the reliance on the proprietary RailRunner underframes. Where are the farmers going to get the funds to purchase or lease these (as opposed to more generally useful motor vehicles)? Cargill and ADM aren't going to transport in ISOs; they have much better bulk equipment right down the production chain, and I'd doubt that stacking would give them as much convenience as big Trinity pressure-dumping covered hoppers. Even a relatively small proportion of 'elevator-delivered' truck-in is going to make pressure loading of the containers *at the elevator* a preferred method of general loading -- and this can be done about as easily on rack flats or whatever as on separated RailRunners. The trains aren't going to move very fast, which implies to me that very large numbers of underframes would be needed to make the trick work -- who's paying for them? And I doubt the traffic will 'bear' premium pricing for speed, even with relatively low tare weight and minimum locomotive utilization... I hope I'm wrong but have that Christian-Scientist-with-appendicitis feeling I'm not.

[Anonymous]

We had approached Montana Rail Link about running a mixed TOFC/RailRunner service between Billings and Missoula, with eastbounds out of Lewiston ID as the primary haul and westbounds the grain backhauls. The distance between Missoula and Billings is about the right distance for a RailRunner concept, and the service would have created a virtual rail link between Billings and Rapid City SD (a city that is currently isolated from western rail service). We would have a 3pi manage the thing, all MRL had to do was run the trains every other day between the two principal cities three times a week. There is a BNSF intermodal terminal in Billings which had the same problems of empty ISO containers piling up, and this would have been a good way to develop new markets for these containers, and accompli***he goal of taking trucks off the roads and onto the rails that would otherwise not go by rail.

The problem of course was that MRL is scared to death that BNSF might not approve of this new-fangled service since it might compete with the unit grain trains out of Billings, so the plan was scrapped. So much for the BS of Class I's wanting to take trucks off the roads!

[Overmod]

And MRL didn't actually ASK BNSF if they wouldn't approve of this newfangled service? Especially if it could be phrased as a win-win solution that assisted container balance? If there's a further issue, get people in Rapid City, or elsewhere on the 'virtual link', to chime in.

Doesn't seem to me that a triweekly service is much threat to unit grain trains... and just what, exactly, happens to the containers loaded with grain when they get to Missoula? Wouldn't most of this grain be continuing to, say, Pasco, over BNSF? Would it be transloaded from containers there, or continue via intermodal train (rather than unit grain)? Doesn't seem to me like a short-route issue, but even if BNSF disagrees I'd think it would make sense to ask...

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Overmod

And MRL didn't actually ASK BNSF if they wouldn't approve of this newfangled service? Especially if it could be phrased as a win-win solution that assisted container balance? If there's a further issue, get people in Rapid City, or elsewhere on the 'virtual link', to chime in.

Doesn't seem to me that a triweekly service is much threat to unit grain trains... and just what, exactly, happens to the containers loaded with grain when they get to Missoula? Wouldn't most of this grain be continuing to, say, Pasco, over BNSF? Would it be transloaded from containers there, or continue via intermodal train (rather than unit grain)? Doesn't seem to me like a short-route issue, but even if BNSF disagrees I'd think it would make sense to ask...

You have to remember that MRL has excess capacity to run new single stack operations, and a service entirely run on MRL rails keeps it from being discounted by the connecting "overlords". BNSF's line from Sandpoint ID into Spokane (the erstwhile "Funnel") is at max capacity, same for the line on to Pasco and the Columbia Gorge, so allowing a new fangled single stack bimodal service on these lines is anethema to BNSF folks. Such an untried concept might end up delaying current TOFC/COFC/unit grains trains already plying those lines.

The reason we would terminate the west end at Missoula is that is where the rails end, so to speak, for the connection to Lewiston ID. Since what we were attempting was to take the Lewiston bound truck traffic off I-90/US 12/Montana 200 and onto MRL rails, most of the target traffic would divert in Missoula anyway, and as I mentioned before, any attempt to get into Spokane would require approval of BNSF since MRL rails end in Sandpoint ID and MRL uses trackage rights on into Spokane over BNSF. Secondly, there was no online intermodal service through Montana's primary cities on the I-90 corridor (although I think BNSF does run some intermodal out of Butte's Port of Montana now). Our plan was to run Billings to Helena to MIssoula and back, with those towns the intermodal terminals. The MRL was the corridor where all this truck traffic merged so to speak, with highway traffic to and from Billings connecting with Rapid City and other SD points, points in North Dakota, and points in Wyoming. For example, there is alot of containerized bentonite coming out of Wyoming headed for the Port of Lewiston.