Had an interesting dream last night which kinda plays into this discussion, as well as the age-old discussion about private ROW vs public highways.
I found myself in the driver's seat of a "big rig," with a bunch of semi-trailers behind me. Not a double, not a triple (saw some of those in Indiana this past summer), but numerous trailers, connected as would be a double or triple.
Of greater significance was that I was driving on a private, one-lane road (through Canada, but that's not an important item here).
As is normally the case, I was awake for a bit (those are the dreams you remember - the one's you're having when you wake up), and pondered that possibility - trucking companies (or consortiums thereof) building private roads for running such rubber-tired "trains." I believe it's done in Australia, though not in the 30+ range I think I was "hauling."
The roads could be single lane, with passing land "sidings" for meets and "yards" where trailers could be added or removed.
While not steel-rail trains as we are discussing here, this could work for some short-haul applications - like getting numerous trailers into urban areas.
It would probably require some pretty heavy duty tractors.
The down side is that this would require real estate that might not be (read: probably isn't) available.
On a historical "what if," one might wonder whether canal tow paths might not have been repurposed as roads for such an operation if the automotive technology had been available at the appropriate time.
But, like I said - it was just an interesting dream.
I do also recall wondering how I was going to get back into the States (I was westbound), and for that matter how I got into Canada (out of NY), as apparently in the dream I didn't have the proper ID.... Especially as in real life I do have a passport... But that's another story.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Jim:
You are forgetting one mayor item and that is cost to have the machine needed to oload a trailer onto a flat car and the cost of the operator make it cheaper to drive the trains the one hour and a half to the city then to have the rest because how offend would a trailer be load if it not everyday then it not worth it and if it is everyday it woud need to be more then two trailer everyday to be able to make a profit from it. Plus who is paying for the flat car to be moved to where the trailer are at, all of these items has to make a profit for the railroad and so far you haven't showed anything that would do that. I know the cost to run or drive a tractor trailer because I own both for over 5 years and drove over the road for 30 years and have over 4 million miles driving accident free it cheaper to drive them there then to do the rest.
Michael Looney
ALEXANDER WOOD carnej1 Again, where is the available capacity to run those (I assume your talking about single stack container) trains on the NEC without seriously impacting the passenger train (Amtrak and the various commuter) operations? BTW, the port authority does not control any part of the NEC. The Bridge opening schedules are certainly an issue but there is much more to it than that.. How much freight traffic could actually operate on the shoreline? I do not see how a meaningful number of truckloads could be taken off Rt.95 and put on the Northeast corridor without changing the route from a primarily passenger to primarily freight line,something that isn't going to happen.. They could run during the middle of the day, or during the middle of the night. They would not be able to run during either rush hour. I know PANY&NJ doesn't own the railroads, but they would be the ones building the tunnel, for CSAO to operate, while P&W, NY&A, and CSX are all involved in freight in the region. Some restructuring of operations and trackage rights would be needed to make a coherent system out of that hodge-podge. At least CSAO is half CSX. The issue is what can be economically and logically moved, not the capacity of the Shoreline. The Shore Line itself, with some additoinal interlockings, maybe a couple more sidings, and the elimination of the idiotic red tape surrounding bridge closings, could handle dozens of freights a day, even with more SLE and MBTA operations, the question is where all the freight is going. I'd imagine a couple of freights per day worth of traffic could be operated on the Shore Line.
carnej1 Again, where is the available capacity to run those (I assume your talking about single stack container) trains on the NEC without seriously impacting the passenger train (Amtrak and the various commuter) operations? BTW, the port authority does not control any part of the NEC. The Bridge opening schedules are certainly an issue but there is much more to it than that.. How much freight traffic could actually operate on the shoreline? I do not see how a meaningful number of truckloads could be taken off Rt.95 and put on the Northeast corridor without changing the route from a primarily passenger to primarily freight line,something that isn't going to happen..
They could run during the middle of the day, or during the middle of the night. They would not be able to run during either rush hour. I know PANY&NJ doesn't own the railroads, but they would be the ones building the tunnel, for CSAO to operate, while P&W, NY&A, and CSX are all involved in freight in the region. Some restructuring of operations and trackage rights would be needed to make a coherent system out of that hodge-podge. At least CSAO is half CSX.
The issue is what can be economically and logically moved, not the capacity of the Shoreline. The Shore Line itself, with some additoinal interlockings, maybe a couple more sidings, and the elimination of the idiotic red tape surrounding bridge closings, could handle dozens of freights a day, even with more SLE and MBTA operations, the question is where all the freight is going. I'd imagine a couple of freights per day worth of traffic could be operated on the Shore Line.
I would bet that if the tunnel is built, P&W will acquire trackage rights into New Jersey.
The Ct. State document I linked in an earlier reply indicates that P&W would seek to operate additional trains from the tunnel to Worcester via the shore lint to New Londonso they would seem to be the most likely entity to facilitate northward movement of freight, including intermodal.
Getting the State of Connecticut, Amtrak, the Army Corps of Engineers (who have jurisdiction over the navigable waterways),etc. to agree on making the changes neccessary to operate the number of freights that ran on the shoreline in NY,NH & H days seems very unlikely though..
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
BaltACDRelying on a short line to originate the traffic - in only car load lots, not train load lots to the same destination. A car load of trailers from a Short Line, will be handled just like any other car load. Individual car loads get the handling of individual car loads. Why does the OP believe the Carriers are doing their best to convert their customer base to be train load users?
The economics of loading 20 tons of stuff on one car and then switching it around, and waiting forever for it don't make any sense. When you're moving stuff directly in a railcar, or at a transload site, now you're putting 100 tons per car. Intermodal only works because you have 100-200+ trailers worth of stuff on one train.
Even for bulk stuff, the carriers are trying to convert to unit trains. Look at grain, and trucking the grain farther to massive loop elevators to load an entire unit train at a time.
Relying on a short line to originate the traffic - in only car load lots, not train load lots to the same destination. A car load of trailers from a Short Line, will be handled just like any other car load. Individual car loads get the handling of individual car loads. Why does the OP believe the Carriers are doing their best to convert their customer base to be train load users?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
carnej1Again, where is the available capacity to run those (I assume your talking about single stack container) trains on the NEC without seriously impacting the passenger train (Amtrak and the various commuter) operations? BTW, the port authority does not control any part of the NEC. The Bridge opening schedules are certainly an issue but there is much more to it than that.. How much freight traffic could actually operate on the shoreline? I do not see how a meaningful number of truckloads could be taken off Rt.95 and put on the Northeast corridor without changing the route from a primarily passenger to primarily freight line,something that isn't going to happen..
dehusmanYes, the carload trailer was moved with all the priority and urgency of a carload of scrap.
Nice job of discecting this imaginary trip but you forgot a few things.
The hump yards at Memphis, KC, and Pasco Washington will each take 24-36 hours to traverse. That is a 3-5 day transit time penalty all by itself.
In addition having a trailer and its load survive four hump yards would be a minor miracle, especially if using a highway strength trailer.
You also forgot the last move, a transfer from either Tacoma or Seattle to South Seattle which is the BNSF mechanized ramp that serves Tacoma. Add another 24-36 hours for this, which will be a special move from either yard. Balmer Yard at Seattle (Interbay) is a hump yard. Tacoma is a flat yard.
There are very good reasons that the railroads do not offer the services the OP thinks he wants.
Mac McCulloch
jimnortonAs a resourceful traffic manager I now have my trailers loaded on the proper flat car. I watch as the Nashville and Eastern picks up three loads of scrap iron and an empty covered hopper. My car is next. Shortly, the 3 locomotives, 3 loads of scrap, the empty covered hopper, my trailer loads along with 20 loads of sand will depart west for Nashville.
In the mean time the next industry over has loaded a trailer and by the time the local picks it up the trailer is about half way to Atlanta.
At The Music City, the NERR interchanges the train with CSX. CSX then moves my trailers as carload freight in the next manifest to Memphis.
That takes about 24-36 hours to process at Nashville. In the mean time, the other guy's trailer has been loaded on an intermodal train at Atlanta and has departed Atlanta, ironically, headed for Memphis.
At Memphis, my trailers are interchanged with BNSF then become part of another manifest train to Tacoma.
Actually they probably become part of a manifest train for Kansas City or Lincoln, NE. The cars will be switched again at KC or Lincoln and put on another mainifest train, they might even have one going to Tacoma from there, otherwise they will go to another hump yard, be humped again and then make connection with a train for Tacoma.
In the mean time, the trailer out of Atlanta is on a through intermodal train directly to the BNSF. While the car load trailers are pulling into the yard at Memphis to be switched, the other trailers go by them at 50 mph. The through train trailers end up about a day ahead of the carload trailers. At some point the BNSF will reblock the cars into a Tacoma train. The through trailers will arrive a full 2-3 days ahead of of the carload trailers.
Now here is the pathetic part: If BNSF can't make any money on my "carload" on its 2,400 trek to Tacoma then there is something gravely wrong.
Now here is the pathetic part. Since the through cars were only switched once, the rate for those trailers was significantly less than the rate for the carload trailer. So the car load trailer shipper paid more money for worse service.
But interestingly, the 3 loads of scrap are tucked behind my load and on their way to Tacoma too
Yes, the carload trailer was moved with all the priority and urgency of a carload of scrap.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
ALEXANDER WOOD carnej1 P&W does have trackage rights on the NEC but IINM there are restrictions on how many trains they can operate. This is particularly an issue iof they were going to run on the corridor North of New Haven. These are issues that the PANY&NJ would have to deal with. I'm not sure who really has power over who. One of the biggest bottlenecks north of New Haven are the absurd State of CT rules for bridge opening windows. That section of the NEC would have far more capacity if the federal government would just wipe those rules out because they interfere with interstate commerce. The Fresh Pond traffic is CHFP and FPCH, from Cedar Hill through New Haven, down the New Haven Line, breaking off to the Bay Ridge Branch after going over the Hell Gate, and then to Fresh Pond. Other P&W trains bring the traffic from the quarry or exchange (in Branford) to Cedar Hill to build up a unit train. carnej1 700,000 more tons of freight going by rail rather than highway is a nice traffic increase for P&W but the document makes clear that,if the tunnel gets built, they are only going to be able to run two Northbounds (and presumably 2 southbound trains as well) from Fresh Pond to New London then off the NEC north to Worcester. Doubt that that will make much of a dent in semi traffic on Rt. 95 going north. Their look at it is basically just carload freight, which would have limited impact, to be sure. I'm thinking of intermodal traffic above and beyond that, to act as a feeder for NJ using COFC, so as to avoid all the drayage that goes up 95 en route to somewhere, presumably RI and MA.
carnej1 P&W does have trackage rights on the NEC but IINM there are restrictions on how many trains they can operate. This is particularly an issue iof they were going to run on the corridor North of New Haven.
These are issues that the PANY&NJ would have to deal with. I'm not sure who really has power over who. One of the biggest bottlenecks north of New Haven are the absurd State of CT rules for bridge opening windows. That section of the NEC would have far more capacity if the federal government would just wipe those rules out because they interfere with interstate commerce.
The Fresh Pond traffic is CHFP and FPCH, from Cedar Hill through New Haven, down the New Haven Line, breaking off to the Bay Ridge Branch after going over the Hell Gate, and then to Fresh Pond. Other P&W trains bring the traffic from the quarry or exchange (in Branford) to Cedar Hill to build up a unit train.
carnej1 700,000 more tons of freight going by rail rather than highway is a nice traffic increase for P&W but the document makes clear that,if the tunnel gets built, they are only going to be able to run two Northbounds (and presumably 2 southbound trains as well) from Fresh Pond to New London then off the NEC north to Worcester. Doubt that that will make much of a dent in semi traffic on Rt. 95 going north.
Their look at it is basically just carload freight, which would have limited impact, to be sure. I'm thinking of intermodal traffic above and beyond that, to act as a feeder for NJ using COFC, so as to avoid all the drayage that goes up 95 en route to somewhere, presumably RI and MA.
Again, where is the available capacity to run those (I assume your talking about single stack container) trains on the NEC without seriously impacting the passenger train (Amtrak and the various commuter) operations? BTW, the port authority does not control any part of the NEC. The Bridge opening schedules are certainly an issue but there is much more to it than that..
How much freight traffic could actually operate on the shoreline? I do not see how a meaningful number of truckloads could be taken off Rt.95 and put on the Northeast corridor without changing the route from a primarily passenger to primarily freight line,something that isn't going to happen..
CSSHEGEWISCHExcept that in the general scheme of things, 80 miles (slightly less than Chicago-Milwaukee or NY-Philly) IS a short haul. Walking distance is hardly a valid standard in a mechanized world.
I'm thinking 100-180mi shuttle moves. That is short in the intermodal world, but the speed for trucks through NYC is also much lower than elsewhere, and thus the costs are higher, in addition to tolls. However, MN and Amtrak trackage rights might be big $$$, so that could hurt it too.
Except that in the general scheme of things, 80 miles (slightly less than Chicago-Milwaukee or NY-Philly) IS a short haul. Walking distance is hardly a valid standard in a mechanized world.
The huge size of the United States as a whole is used to determine that any intermodal haul less than 300 miles is too short for railroads, from what has been stated on the forum.
Well the roads could be filled with trucks and autos moving slowly for 20 miles of a 50 to 100 mile trip that could be faster by rail if people could time their drop-off and pick-up of the trailers by actually communicating with the railroad about the availability of the flat cars. The local delivery company and the railroads need more communication and coordination to make these "short" distance hauls work.
If you have ever walked 10 miles, you would not think that 80 miles is a short haul by truck.
Watch my videos on-line at https://www.youtube.com/user/AndrewNeilFalconer
carnej1700,000 more tons of freight going by rail rather than highway is a nice traffic increase for P&W but the document makes clear that,if the tunnel gets built, they are only going to be able to run two Northbounds (and presumably 2 southbound trains as well) from Fresh Pond to New London then off the NEC north to Worcester. Doubt that that will make much of a dent in semi traffic on Rt. 95 going north.
BaltACDTrailers not constructed to railroad service standards (cheap trailers) will be torn apart by the loads they carry in railroad service and the stresses placed upon that load and trailer by train operations.
This is nonsense. Canadian Pacific has the Iron Highway, which backs on non-reinforced trailers onto flats. As long as you don't lift them, they are fine.
WizlishI believe these have been discussed here before. They are very heavy and expensive compared with a van trailer, you need fleets of them to handle any substantial traffic, they still have to stay at the back of any conventional trains, they are no good if your traffic doesn't already move in containers -- backhauls and lanes become major issues. It isn't surprising to me that the RailRunner has failed to find much use.
They actually make perfect sense to serve as feeders for intermodal, or for lighter density routes. Basically anything in a dry or refrigerated van can move in a domestic intermodal box, as we have seen over the past decade as dry vans that are set up for TOFC lifts have slowly given way to domestic containers for double stack operation.
WizlishSo you have all the cost of moving the tractors, and paying the drivers, etc., just to make it a little quicker to unload circus-style at the far end? Even one problem with one tractor throws off the whole loading/unloading sequence, and parallel unloading (e.g. with something like CargoSpeed) doesn't handle tractor-trailers together. Even rudimentary autonomous-vehicle road-training would have a serious impact on such an operation.
You completely missed my point. This isn't a replacement for stack trains. Stuff that can go in a domestic intermodal box without it's driver is much cheaper to move by stack train. Same for TOFC. This is for stuff that's driven OTR now. I envision it mostly for long routes, like today's stack trains. With the HOS laws, and the costs and hassle of driving long distances, this type of service would be quite successful. For things that are in a big hurry, trucks that don't containerize well, or independent truckers, this makes total sense. They rest while they're doing 70 or 80 or 90 on the railroad. For short hauls, it's not as compelling of a case, except maybe in the Northeast.
The only place in the US that needs the weird cars and have tight clearance would be the NJ north into New England shuttle service. Everywhere else could use standard TOFC and have upwards of 3 feet of extra clearance available.
WizlishWhere is the electrified super-railroad fairy when you need her? The proposed 'synergistic' model is an interesting one, although my first guess is that you'd have to develop the traffic very intensively across a wide range of media that the individual groups of potential clients may not share, and even a little poor word-of-mouth (or accident reporting) may make large numbers of potential, or even repeat, customers decide not to use the service. As with the electrification, you might need extensive subsidy to get the thing set up and running -- and that subsidy is unlikely to be available to you from any competitive market-based economic system that understands opportunity cost.
Advertising is not hard. Why would they not be repeat customers? Your logic makes no sense there. As long as it is a decent experience, once they use it once, they are going to use it again. Make the coaches and sleepers super comfortable, have nice amenities on them. It would also generate business that never existed. People might be more likely to take their car or RV with them on vacation to California when they never would have dreamed of doing it before. If the rails were upgraded to top specifications allowing long stretches of 70-90mph operation, a train could leave on an afternoon from NJ and be in CA the second morning.
The subsidy to put some yards, flats, coaches, autoracks, and locomotives together isn't that significant. The big-ticket item is the electrification and creation of the Iron Interstate. The government should partner with the big four to establish a series of Iron Interstates. The same should be done for HSR.
In both cases, the Iron Interstates and LGVs might go from nowhere to nowhere, but have feeder lines built to lower standards or speeds that allow connectivity to where people and freight want to go. The LGVs and Iron Interstates would be 225mph and 110mph, respectively, both being at least two tracks and fully grade separated. The difference would be that the LGVs would mostly be new ROW with steep grades and minimal corners, while the Iron Interstates would be mostly based on existing routes, like the BNSF Transcons (outside of Chicago and LA), the Crescent Corridor, the Water Level Route (Albany west), Pensey Main (Harrisburg west), UP Main, etc.
http://www.theintermodals.com/?video=video-ROEn88WR9Cw
BaltACD Amtrak, as owners of the NEC are VERY PROTECTIVE of it when it comes to allowing freight operators to operate on it.
Amtrak, as owners of the NEC are VERY PROTECTIVE of it when it comes to allowing freight operators to operate on it.
True that.
Excerpt from this document :
http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dplansprojectsstudies/plans/state_rail_plan/State_Rail_Plan_Final_11-8-12.pdf
"The Cross Harbor Tunnel could divert roughly ten million tons of New Jersey and Staten Island traffic annually from truck to rail, of which NYCEDC estimates 7 percent would benefit southwestern Connecticut. This equates to a 357,000 vehicle-miles-traveled reduction, mostly from a diversion of heavy truck traffic running through Connecticut, and not originating or terminating in the state. The P&W Railroad is projected to handle the diverted through-traffic by two daily trains that would operate via the NHL to New London and north to New England points. Most freight shipped into Connecticut currently moves via the more northerly Boston to Albany route, where there is reduced congestion, and this is not expected to change appreciably. A draft EIS was published in 2004 and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is conducting a public scoping process and preparing the EIS."
700,000 more tons of freight going by rail rather than highway is a nice traffic increase for P&W but the document makes clear that,if the tunnel gets built, they are only going to be able to run two Northbounds (and presumably 2 southbound trains as well) from Fresh Pond to New London then off the NEC north to Worcester.
Doubt that that will make much of a dent in semi traffic on Rt. 95 going north.
Jim Norton
Huntsville, AL
ALEXANDER WOOD carnej1 I often have to use the Ct. turnpike and, while I admire your fine state, I have to agree with you on the congestion issues but; I work in a logistics intensive business(though not on the logistics side), my major customer imports a large amount of product via container. When I drive past the port in Newark, I note that it's about a 4-5 hour ride on a highway chassis from the port's ramp area to most destinations in the major population centers North in New England (which, for the most part is the "God knows where" you mention in your reply although I'm sure some of those boxes make it into Quebec and the Canadian Maritimes).. From a logistics manager's perspective, this is a quick trip and there isn't a shortage of day rate truckers available.. I am very dubious that;even if Amtrak would cooperate, you could get the rate on COFC under the wire as you are proposing down to such a point that businesses find it competive without some kind odf major subsidy, let alone going ship to barge to train to truck like you are also suggesting .. But that's not the big problem: there is no way that the Northeast Corridoe North of NYC has enough capacity to allow that amount of tonnage on 90 MPH COFC trains without absolutely messing up the 125-150 MPH commuter and regional trains that are vitally important to many people traveling in the region. Put those folks back on the interstates in cars and the gridlock will be even worse. Back in the late 80's early 90's Conrail and Norfolk Southern were floating the idea of running Roadrailers up the NEC through the NY tunnels in partnership with Amtrak. The idea was to use amtrak crews and locomotives north of New Jersey. The passenger carrier rejected the idea beacause of concerns about congestion and the possibility of a roadrailer train accident blocking the tunnels. I don't think the barge-train method makes any sense. At that point, just runs the barges to Bridgeport, New Haven, New London, and Davisville, and forget about the trains. That actually makes some sense, and they could also accomodate 53s. I guess the big question is who arranges the drayage for international containers? For domestics, it's an easy sell, as the customer doesn't know or care how it got to, say, Rhode Island, as JB Hunt or Schneider National or HUB Group figures all that out, and the truck shows up with whatever is in it. For international, is it set up where the shipping line arranges for delivery to the customer's loading dock, or do they just dump them in Bayonne or Newark, and say "come get it". If it's the former, then it's easy, as the customer doesn't need to know or care how it got there. If it's the latter, then it gets a LOT more complicated. Those distances wouldn't normally be something where rail could be competitive, but with the difficulty and slowness of getting through NYC, rail starts to make more sense. P&W already has the trackage rights from Providence all the way down to Fresh Pond Queens, although with the Cross-Harbor tunnel, everything would have to get restructured. It's also mostly Metro North, so it would depend on the state of CT being behind the efforts, which would be politically popular if they were even perceived to remove truck traffic from I-95. The Metro-North segment is 75mph max in CT, the COFC trains would likely be 60 max. They couldn't run during rush hour, but there's plenty of room to slip a couple through midday, and then many more overnight. Moving Roadrailers through the North River Tunnels sounds absolutely nuts, and I can see why they canned the idea. The Cross-Harbor tunnel would offer the opportunity to move a lot more freight East of Hudson via rail. The Roadrailer idea was pretty cool, but it seems like there's a relatively small fleet of them with limited service, and it hasn't grown at all. That gets me thinking that there may be huge upside potential for Roadrailers for small-scale intermodal service, since they can be loaded without any special equipment, and handled in small blocks. And they can be coupled to the rear of a regular intermodal train... I just stumbled upon these things, which are half Roadrailer, and half intermodal chassis. They look AMAZING for feeder intermodal operations: http://www.railrunner.com/ These things would be PERFECT for feeders up into New England.
carnej1 I often have to use the Ct. turnpike and, while I admire your fine state, I have to agree with you on the congestion issues but; I work in a logistics intensive business(though not on the logistics side), my major customer imports a large amount of product via container. When I drive past the port in Newark, I note that it's about a 4-5 hour ride on a highway chassis from the port's ramp area to most destinations in the major population centers North in New England (which, for the most part is the "God knows where" you mention in your reply although I'm sure some of those boxes make it into Quebec and the Canadian Maritimes).. From a logistics manager's perspective, this is a quick trip and there isn't a shortage of day rate truckers available.. I am very dubious that;even if Amtrak would cooperate, you could get the rate on COFC under the wire as you are proposing down to such a point that businesses find it competive without some kind odf major subsidy, let alone going ship to barge to train to truck like you are also suggesting .. But that's not the big problem: there is no way that the Northeast Corridoe North of NYC has enough capacity to allow that amount of tonnage on 90 MPH COFC trains without absolutely messing up the 125-150 MPH commuter and regional trains that are vitally important to many people traveling in the region. Put those folks back on the interstates in cars and the gridlock will be even worse. Back in the late 80's early 90's Conrail and Norfolk Southern were floating the idea of running Roadrailers up the NEC through the NY tunnels in partnership with Amtrak. The idea was to use amtrak crews and locomotives north of New Jersey. The passenger carrier rejected the idea beacause of concerns about congestion and the possibility of a roadrailer train accident blocking the tunnels.
I work in a logistics intensive business(though not on the logistics side), my major customer imports a large amount of product via container.
When I drive past the port in Newark, I note that it's about a 4-5 hour ride on a highway chassis from the port's ramp area to most destinations in the major population centers North in New England (which, for the most part is the "God knows where" you mention in your reply although I'm sure some of those boxes make it into Quebec and the Canadian Maritimes)..
From a logistics manager's perspective, this is a quick trip and there isn't a shortage of day rate truckers available..
I am very dubious that;even if Amtrak would cooperate, you could get the rate on COFC under the wire as you are proposing down to such a point that businesses find it competive without some kind odf major subsidy, let alone going ship to barge to train to truck like you are also suggesting ..
But that's not the big problem: there is no way that the Northeast Corridoe North of NYC has enough capacity to allow that amount of tonnage on 90 MPH COFC trains without absolutely messing up the 125-150 MPH commuter and regional trains that are vitally important to many people traveling in the region. Put those folks back on the interstates in cars and the gridlock will be even worse.
Back in the late 80's early 90's Conrail and Norfolk Southern were floating the idea of running Roadrailers up the NEC through the NY tunnels in partnership with Amtrak. The idea was to use amtrak crews and locomotives north of New Jersey. The passenger carrier rejected the idea beacause of concerns about congestion and the possibility of a roadrailer train accident blocking the tunnels.
I don't think the barge-train method makes any sense. At that point, just runs the barges to Bridgeport, New Haven, New London, and Davisville, and forget about the trains. That actually makes some sense, and they could also accomodate 53s.
I guess the big question is who arranges the drayage for international containers? For domestics, it's an easy sell, as the customer doesn't know or care how it got to, say, Rhode Island, as JB Hunt or Schneider National or HUB Group figures all that out, and the truck shows up with whatever is in it. For international, is it set up where the shipping line arranges for delivery to the customer's loading dock, or do they just dump them in Bayonne or Newark, and say "come get it". If it's the former, then it's easy, as the customer doesn't need to know or care how it got there. If it's the latter, then it gets a LOT more complicated.
Those distances wouldn't normally be something where rail could be competitive, but with the difficulty and slowness of getting through NYC, rail starts to make more sense.
P&W already has the trackage rights from Providence all the way down to Fresh Pond Queens, although with the Cross-Harbor tunnel, everything would have to get restructured. It's also mostly Metro North, so it would depend on the state of CT being behind the efforts, which would be politically popular if they were even perceived to remove truck traffic from I-95.
The Metro-North segment is 75mph max in CT, the COFC trains would likely be 60 max. They couldn't run during rush hour, but there's plenty of room to slip a couple through midday, and then many more overnight.
Moving Roadrailers through the North River Tunnels sounds absolutely nuts, and I can see why they canned the idea. The Cross-Harbor tunnel would offer the opportunity to move a lot more freight East of Hudson via rail.
The Roadrailer idea was pretty cool, but it seems like there's a relatively small fleet of them with limited service, and it hasn't grown at all. That gets me thinking that there may be huge upside potential for Roadrailers for small-scale intermodal service, since they can be loaded without any special equipment, and handled in small blocks. And they can be coupled to the rear of a regular intermodal train...
I just stumbled upon these things, which are half Roadrailer, and half intermodal chassis. They look AMAZING for feeder intermodal operations:
http://www.railrunner.com/
These things would be PERFECT for feeders up into New England.
P&W does have trackage rights on the NEC but IINM there are restrictions on how many trains they can operate. This is particularly an issue iof they were going to run on the corridor North of New Haven.
O.C, as you point out, P&W has the ability to run North from Southern Ct. up to Worcester away from the NEC on former, and I believe this is how much of the Fresh Pond traffic goes now, but that's a very circuitous routing for accessing the coastal part of Southern New England. It does allow access to the "Port of Worcester" which is P&W and CSX intermodal and transload facilites and that is a way to service the Boston Market so there could be benefit if the Cross Harbor freight tunnel is actually built.
tree68 Having seen more than a few such trains loaded and unloaded, they usually have more than enough help to get everything tied down.
Having an army, litterally, is very helpful in loading and unloading several carloads of large vehicles secured by chains. That is why the collapsable trailer hitch was such a wonderful invention in its day.
Mac
PNWRMNMEvery piece of wheeled equipment is secured with chain tie downs which are very, very labor intensive to apply and remove.
Having seen more than a few such trains loaded and unloaded, they usually have more than enough help to get everything tied down. The fun part (for the railroad) is making sure that the train is properly oriented when delivered to the marshalling yard (circus ramp) so the vehicles can be driven off. I wouldn't want to back a truck with a trailer down a dozen cars...
A lot of rail-served military installations have a wye someplace on the property.
CMStP&P
The cars Jim Norton remembers from 1976 all had fold down hitches that a tractor could drive over and were then raised to engage the kingpin on the trailer to hold the trailer on the car. To the best of my knowldedge there are no such cars left in service. There may be some with fixed hitches, which require a lift machine to load and unload.
The military train involves NO hitches. Every piece of wheeled equipment is secured with chain tie downs which are very, very labor intensive to apply and remove. The folding hitch was invented to eliminate that method of securing trailers on flat cars. If anything this train tends to confirm my belief that there are no fold down hitch cars in today's intermodal fleet.
DODX is the reporting mark for the Department of Defense.
I think I should point out for the benefit of the discussion as one item mentioned I'm not sure is true. Seems to me there are plenty of circus loading flatcars left in the TTX fleet, they are used to suppliment the DODX flatcar fleet as the Military still does circus loading of vehicles and maintains circus ramps on most Army posts at least that have military equipment to ship. Now, I believe the DODX reporting mark flatcars are reserved exclusively for the Army and are reinforced for heavy loads and also come with three axles sometimes at each end........I do not think the TTX or TTDX reporting mark flatcars are reserved exclusively for DoD.......I could be wrong there.
Here is a military train leaving Ft. Bragg, NC:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4h4cBIhOEw
ALEXANDER WOODI just stumbled upon these things, which are half Roadrailer, and half intermodal chassis. They look AMAZING for feeder intermodal operations: http://www.railrunner.com/ These things would be PERFECT for feeders up into New England.
I believe these have been discussed here before. They are very heavy and expensive compared with a van trailer, you need fleets of them to handle any substantial traffic, they still have to stay at the back of any conventional trains, they are no good if your traffic doesn't already move in containers -- backhauls and lanes become major issues. It isn't surprising to me that the RailRunner has failed to find much use.
What I think would also be an incredible system for the US is open intermodal, where vehicles are driven onto a string of flats RoRo style, parked, chained down, and the drivers go with their vehicles in passenger cars. Think Auto Train but with full-sized trucks.
So you have all the cost of moving the tractors, and paying the drivers, etc., just to make it a little quicker to unload circus-style at the far end? Even one problem with one tractor throws off the whole loading/unloading sequence, and parallel unloading (e.g. with something like CargoSpeed) doesn't handle tractor-trailers together. Even rudimentary autonomous-vehicle road-training would have a serious impact on such an operation.
The Europeans have tried this is a place where all aspects make sense: some of the Alpine crossings, as a kind of 'train-bridge'. The trip is short enough and the 'alternative route' awful enough, to make the circus-stule tractors-and-all logistics look good, and the equipment utilization can be reasonably effective. Only a slight enhancement of the idea would permit 'blocks' of loaded cars to be dispatched to and from different endpoint locations on either side of the crossing. Considerable work went into designing cars with very, very low height (to accommodate OTR trucks of large dimensions in tight tunnels) and some of the resulting designs are highly interesting technically.
In practice, this and the Iron Highway have the same general problem -- if anything on the trucks sags or shifts, and you get a clearance 'issue', awful things happen. Many of which can ruin an already-delicate financial profitability. You can enclose the cars (like auto racks) but this gives very limited egress from truck cabs, and higher difficulty driving on and off even for skilled drivers. I'm not sure I would want the job of handling insurance for the outfit that tries the idea...
Combined with electrified super-railroads, this would offer an incredibly efficient way to move stuff that doesn't currently fit the rail model, everything from regular cars to specialized trucks to moving vans to RVs to independent truckers and expediters with customers who require fast service to race car trailers and small businesses who need to travel distances.
Where is the electrified super-railroad fairy when you need her?
The proposed 'synergistic' model is an interesting one, although my first guess is that you'd have to develop the traffic very intensively across a wide range of media that the individual groups of potential clients may not share, and even a little poor word-of-mouth (or accident reporting) may make large numbers of potential, or even repeat, customers decide not to use the service. As with the electrification, you might need extensive subsidy to get the thing set up and running -- and that subsidy is unlikely to be available to you from any competitive market-based economic system that understands opportunity cost.
conductorchris No reinforced trailers (no need, since they won't be lifted with cranes).
No reinforced trailers (no need, since they won't be lifted with cranes).
Trailers not constructed to railroad service standards (cheap trailers) will be torn apart by the loads they carry in railroad service and the stresses placed upon that load and trailer by train operations.
With the size trains that operate on todays Class 1 networks, were there cabooses and men occupying them - those men would be in serious jeapordy for their lives from the slack action contained within the train.
I think the reliability of the carload network is the key prerequisite. We're not there now, but I think if the railroads can fix that, they will find greater profits.
The attraction of the low volume ramp is not high costs, but low costs. No employees loading and unloading (local trucker does it). No capital costs (a dirt ramp). No reinforced trailers (no need, since they won't be lifted with cranes). The costs enter the system in the low capacity and poor equipment utilization (which is why you need reliable and good service to make it work).
carnej1I often have to use the Ct. turnpike and, while I admire your fine state, I have to agree with you on the congestion issues but; I work in a logistics intensive business(though not on the logistics side), my major customer imports a large amount of product via container. When I drive past the port in Newark, I note that it's about a 4-5 hour ride on a highway chassis from the port's ramp area to most destinations in the major population centers North in New England (which, for the most part is the "God knows where" you mention in your reply although I'm sure some of those boxes make it into Quebec and the Canadian Maritimes).. From a logistics manager's perspective, this is a quick trip and there isn't a shortage of day rate truckers available.. I am very dubious that;even if Amtrak would cooperate, you could get the rate on COFC under the wire as you are proposing down to such a point that businesses find it competive without some kind odf major subsidy, let alone going ship to barge to train to truck like you are also suggesting .. But that's not the big problem: there is no way that the Northeast Corridoe North of NYC has enough capacity to allow that amount of tonnage on 90 MPH COFC trains without absolutely messing up the 125-150 MPH commuter and regional trains that are vitally important to many people traveling in the region. Put those folks back on the interstates in cars and the gridlock will be even worse. Back in the late 80's early 90's Conrail and Norfolk Southern were floating the idea of running Roadrailers up the NEC through the NY tunnels in partnership with Amtrak. The idea was to use amtrak crews and locomotives north of New Jersey. The passenger carrier rejected the idea beacause of concerns about congestion and the possibility of a roadrailer train accident blocking the tunnels.
I would note that a number of shortline and regional railroads have tried small scale intermodal (primarily TOFC) services over the years and could not generate sufficient revenue from it to continue the operations.
This included experiments such as hauling roadrailer style trailers on rail bogies with a high rail equipped truck tractor. Brookville mining equipment even built a prototype of a self propelled flatcar equipped with an engineer's cab and a retractable ramp that was designed for such a service. They proposed offering it with enough engine power to be used to haul conventional freightcars as well as Piggyback traffic.
I seem to remember that most of the Class 1's "local TOFC" operations happened back in the Pre-Staggers era and did not seem to thrive in the less regulated environment post- 1980..
It should be remembered that accountants are not the people that make the decisions. If you don't like the cost analysis that they provide to the decision makers, then maybe you should consider working for an employer who doesn't worry so much about costs.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.