Network Intermodal Battles Trucks: January issue

[joesap1]

On page 31 it reads: " Given the tight daily operating schedule, frieght cars don't stay in the hump yards long - dwell times average only four to six hours per car! The hump yards are practically emptied of cars during the day, then bustle with activity during the evening an early morning hours; on weekends, they shut down completely. While this system provides excellent service and good car utilization, it also introduces long periods of inactivity at the hump yards, which are fiercely expensive to operate and maintain."

What a contrast to what we have in the United States! Ed, down Houston way, has reported that he has cars backed up with no place to go.

Is not the matter of speed the primary way the trucking industry is kicking our butts? The trucks are always getting it there faster.
The Europeans have streamlined the movement of freight and the author downplays it because the yard isn't used 24/7.
If we were as efficient in moving intermodal in America, then we could close down during the day and weekends and our crews would not be exhausted from overwork(which leads to accidents).
There has to be a way that we can compete with the trucks. The hump yards or something like it might be the answer.

What do you think?

[Overmod]

The matter of speed is one issue, yes, but the issue of cost is more important still.

You need to consider what constitutes an effective train movement length, to a given destination, leaving the hump yard in question. All the cars to make up that train will have had to be 'rolled' through the yard throat, coupled on, and the air connections made before power is attached, FRED is attached, air is charged and the line pumped down, crew does their paperwork etc. Only then would the train be ready to depart.

Meanwhile, in order for the cars in question to traverse the hump, they would have to have been received in an incoming movement, prepared and marshalled as one or more cuts, yard power cut on, and moved up to position at the throat.

Now consider the time required for each car to pass through the retarders and switchwork to be attached to its train...

... and remember that there are probably multiple trains being made up, each of which must reach some reasonable minimum length to be economically dispatched.

All this BEFORE you start factoring in weather, bad-order cars, 'incidents' of various types, inbound and outbound dispatch, crew, and power delays, etc. etc. etc.

European operations are often "optimized" for high line speed, shorter train lengths, and generally shorter destination distances; there is obviously economic support for relatively expensive methods of horizontal intermodal transfer (cf. INHOTRA) for reasons that generally don't apply to American freight railroading.

It comes down, basically, to "we could implement changes that accelerate yard handling, but shippers wouldn't generally choose to pay for the additional "convenience" in terms that would cover the changes' cost.

[jeaton]

Note the update to the story at http://www.trains.com/Content/Dynamic/Articles/000/000/005/564hcrce.asp

Changing conditions made two of the ramps uneconomic and they have been closed.

Jay

[oltmannd]

Generally, the North American train network is arrange to support daily or twice daily operation between major yards/terminals. You maximize train productivity and minimize handlings at the same time to wind up with the least cost service.

If you can go from A to B to C to D and handle the car at B and C, 12 hours each with twice a day train service

of

Go from A to B to D and handle the car once for 24 hours at B with once a day service, which is better?

[Anonymous]

Mark said that he didn't think the situations were comparable. I think that is an understatement! It isn't just apples and oranges, it is trying to compare fruits and nuts! The geography is different, the entire transportation infrastructure is different, and the size of the political units are vastly different.

Just to give you an idea, and to perhaps motivate further research; the United Kingdom is slightly smaller than Oregon, France is slightly less than twice the size of Colorado, and Germany, Europe's largest economy and most populous nation, is slightly smaller than Montana.

There are similar differences in total population and population density. And Germany has about 29,000 mi. of railroad compared to the US's 143,000 mi.

While comparisons might be interesting I really can't see where they are of much use in evaluating the merits of any particular method of operation, one way or the other.

[CSXrules4eva]

Reading the "Intermodel Battles Trucks" article was very interesting to me. The Europeans method of shipping intermodel over rail is very much differnt from our US system. Come on now the hump intermodel!!! That's very reare here in the US. For their railways it's very cost effective. Short haul domestic (trucks) shipping is priced much higher than, long hual (rail) service. In the States it's the other way around.

I guess in this situation one could do a little thinking by comparing and contrasting the to different approches to rail intermodel shippments. However, in reality because of the huge differences in freight or should I say bulk transportation between the two countries, it's imposible for one country to pratice another's transportaion methods. Unless one of those nations has more than a trillon dollors, or something.

[joesap1]

I agree with your comments, the situation in Europe is too different from the US of A to warrant comparison.
As a side note(of no real significance), I have always been fascinated by the hump yards. My Grandfather as an engineer on the UP was stationed in North Platte and as I lay in bed on those hot, sticky summer nights I could hear the screech of the cars going down the hump. It was one of those things that made my visit to North Platte unforgettable. (I forwarned you, it was weird)

[Anonymous]

Yet another "Trucks vs. Trains" article doesn't much of a service in these economic times.

For a while now, at least a year, the matter of trains vs. trucks has been a moot point here in the U.S. Because of the very rapid growth of intermodal, virtually any ramp of any size in the U.S. is seriously congested (LATC, Portland, Seattle, Laredo, San Antonio, San Bernardino, Willow Springs, Global 2, Global 1, Canal St, Bedford Park, Harrisburg, Croxton, Jax, Austell, Inman, etc, etc.) Mainlines in many cases are also at or beyond capacity and the RR's are shedding "poor paying" freight for the wealth of better paying freight that is available. The RR's have gotten their wish as far as having all of the intermodal that they want and in some cases, they aren't handling it too well.

Last year Canadian Pacific quit the TOFC business entirely because they were swamped with COFC, coal, grain, minerals, etc. CN put in their IMX reservation system to control the flow of intermodal business. UP just started an I-5 Corridor intermodal allocation system. BNSF put in an allocation system for international container shippers from LA to points inland. Service on most corridors has slid substantially over the last 5 months.

At the same time, truckers are struggling to find enough drivers to handle all of the volume which is also being thrown their way.

Both have more than they can handle right now.... so its Trains & Truckers both trying to keep up with the glut of demand that exists. ... not nearly as much Trucks vs. trains