Before a single word of discussion is posted, let me emphasize that this is not an option that can, or should be pursued upon the spur of the moment; as with the entire industry's renewal and rebirth 1974-1995; the potetnial is enormous, but so are the obstacles.
At the time of the industry's lowest ebb, I was pursuing unsucccessful graduate study, and later, starting out in the HQ of a struggling East Coast motor carrier. One of the cases I came across was Penn Central's decision to close its Altoona TOFC ramp; the distance from Altoona to the East Coast was viewed as too short to justify the rail-highway transfer (despite formal studies which cited a trade-off-point as short as 130 miles), and the desirable traffic to the west could be trucked to Pittsburgh. And within a few years more, even hauls as "long" as from the East Coast to Chicago and St. Louis were being "unsold".
And just as Dieselization and MU controls allowed the consolidation of carload general-commodity traffic into heaver, longer and less-frequent trains, the same rules appear to prevail for containerized traffic. And while both NS and CSX have developed impressive chains of COFC terminals along the routes feeding into the East Coast SuperMetros, the necessity of local pickup and delivery, and the congestion associated with it, continues to fuel the resentments of post-industrial, suburban America.
Five years ago or so, it was a common belief that the completon of PANAMAX would substantially diminish the role of the Port of Los Angeles/Long Beach and reduce activity along the Western trunk lines; it takes time for the full effect of such changes to be realized, but so far, the impact has not been that great; still, the interest among promoters of ports like Savannah, Charleston and Hampton Roads is apparent, and thse are not markets the rail carriers seem eager to promote, or even investigate.
My own studies -- admittedly, too many years ago -- reinforced the belief that the trade-off point between rail and highway carriage is vastly understated, and easing of energy-efficiency concerns in recent years is not going to inveigh in the rails' favor. But the revival of interest in short hauls for lower-value commodities (e. g: aggregates) also argues that the market can be revived, given sufficent volume.
But barring a decline in longer hauls, a major increase in volume involving new markets and shorter distances would require a major investment in new dispatching and signal hardware, and probably, additional track-miles just as with the approaches to major cites which have develped new/expanded commuter systems. The industry isn't going to "pony up" for any major projects within smelling distance of anywhere the Garcetti / Schumer / DeBlasio mentality predominates. So the next move, like it or not, will have to involve the perils of the public sector.
There is considerable opportunity in the segment, and many of the 'required' policies and attitudes (and some of the necessary types of equipment) can be seen in the CP Expressway operation and in some of the types of company operations that use that service. That of course is not the only way to do it, but all the lessons provided need to be understood, and solutions for the common problems and shortcomings provided that are at least as effective in both short and long term, for any short line-haul operations to be effective.
I spent considerable time looking at a very different technology that would permit reasonably 'efficient' short service, based on the CargoSpeed trailer-lifting approach. What is required there is the ability to pull trailers across the top of dedicated skeleton or well cars, at an angle to the depressed track, in parallel at precise spacing. Jacking apparatus then rises under the trailer rails with appropriate conformance padding, translates to the effective balance point, lifts and rotates the trailers so they are in line with the cars, then lowers them to securement. In theory the staging of the trailers can be done before the consist is slid in underneath if the consist is empty; otherwise the trailers will have to be pulled in after the train is stationary. The railcar framework has to be open enough to allow the jacking to work. Dwell time actually involved for the train consist can be very short at any incremental stop, particularly if (as for Expressway) skilled crews in optimized yard tractors make the actual loading moves. So cutoff time can be reasonably close to train time, close enough to make transit competitive with full OTR times particularly in congested areas, and unloading time is similarly short at any facility since it can be done in parallel just as loading was, without breaking the train any more than absolutely necessary.
As Eddie Sand noted, the cost of the dedicated facilities, close to convenient roads with the necessary track development and other support concerns, probably far outweighs any incremental income from running a short bridge service at reasonable opportunity cost over full OTR moves of the same traffic. So there needs to be more than a little public buy-in, and I think there is enough justification to at least get the ball rolling just in the potential reduction of truck traffic on many congested sections of road. Note that this is completely in addition to the costs Eddie mentioned for better CBTC or track capacity.
There are some notable lanes and services where this kind of approach has far more effective 'bang' for first introduction or necessary 'debugging'.
Eddie Sand commented [inpart] "...My own studies -- admittedly, too many years ago -- reinforced the belief that the trade-off point between rail and highway carriage is vastly understated, and easing of energy-efficiency concerns in recent years is not going to inveigh in the rails' favor. But the revival of interest in short hauls for lower-value commodities (e. g: aggregates) also argues that the market can be revived, given sufficent volume..."
Eddie Sands, You might just possibly be on to something? The Distance Factor' may be the "...Mountain that the rail industry chooses to die on..."; and it may also just be an ingrained way of thinking within the 'big lines' management; it might, very well, be the factor that brings them down, like the dinosaurs ?
I worked for a carrier in the middle of the US, Corporate HQ was at roughly midline on the 'mainline of mid-America'. That railroad was building a 'new' piggy-back facility [mid'90's] on the fringe of their major yard. I am not sure if it was the railroad that 'sold' my carrier's management on pigggy-back, or vice-versa(?). [I suspect that greyhounds might shed some light on that?}
The carrier ordered a bunch of new trailers from the factory, they came with 5 quarter hardwood planking attached under areas of the frame rails, to cushion the 'lifting eq.' The piggy-back yard was equipped with several heavy lift, capacity fork lift, style, machines. We 'shipped' loads North and South; Chicago and to New Orleans. Our equipment on the yard, took 'a beating' /learning curves for the railraod's employees(?) The trailers that did make their destinations got either, our company drivers to deliver; or if they were not available, local dray operators, with their 'normal' fees. It was almost a tie for which was 'killing' the business; drays fees, or damage to the trailers by ham-fisted lift operators. Needless to say, when it worked, it was great, but when it didn't it was a profit killer.
Needless to say, my employer did not last in the piggy-back business six months.
Funny part of it was, at about the same time there was another smaller, trucking compeditor, in town, whose keystone service was piggy-back. They grew, and thrived, and may still be in business(?).
Remember also, the Ill. short line that started a piggy-back operation, about that same time frame, ran them on their short line railroad utilizing a steam engine. It was the Crab Orchard and Egyptian?
Not sure how many short lines are now in the TOFC or COFC business in today'sarket; I'd think that the odds are pretty good, that a short line has seen an opportunity, and it fulfilling that need(?)
Mac and a couple of others have posted extensively on many of the factors involved with making some short-haul intermodal 'workable'. A major problem to recognize early is that a great many details both in technology and timing need to be kept arranged with almost 'zero-defects' execution, then subjected to all the vagaries of customer business fluctuations, seasonal variations, business downturns and the like which require some combination of deep pockets, business-interruption insurance, and 'intestinal fortitude' to weather -- all this subject to a sort of Bekenstein bound imposed by non-intermodal road competition, including that by O/Os over their heads on the truck note who can be made to work for a pittance. Even given significant 'political' buy-in with asset supports, various kinds of subsidy or preferential legislation, etc. it's going to be difficult to make a case that this is a 'best opportunity use' of scarce capital.
One short line 'opportunity' I was watching for a while was an outfit in central New Jersey that was interested in running trailers/containers from comparatively lightly-trafficked roads or industries in areas with restricted or congested road access to the New York port infrastructure; at the time I came across them they were looking at adapting the Adtranz light self-propelled intermodal-car technology (which incidentally has more than a passing resemblance to what Kneiling was proposing back in the day) to give relatively quick service 'on demand' in areas where road transport would be at best circuitous and subject to heavy delays.
Note what came of that.
When I was young I fell for the hype that you could easily and repeatedly sideload or 'piggy-pack' loaded trailers ... heck, I was seeing plenty of pictures of it being done, so it had to work...
There is much more involved in handling trailers. As Sam found out, any 'proprietary' modification to a trailer makes its use highly restricted; the tare-weight increases that so hobbled RoadRailer and crippled RailRunner only pile another mountain of woe on top. And most trailers aren't meant to be stressed other than at the bogie/slider points and the kingpin, so many of the clever padded lifting-arm arrangements to, say, the perimeter framing of the van actually don't compensate for how the actual trailer load affects the trailer construction. And outside all considerations of profitable trips, one ruined trailer or load eats up a very large amount of any prospective actual 'big savings' from intermodal.
I concentrate on trailers because I see very little actual market for short-haul container service, even if effective use of economically-stranded inbound containers or containers no longer structurally suitable for deck stowage were used and the cost of road chassis subsidized. Not that I wouldn't like to see someone try; just that I wouldn't advise friends to be early investors no matter how carefully the plan is drawn up before contact with the enemies.
samfp1943I worked for a carrier in the middle of the US, Corporate HQ was at roughly midline on the 'mainline of mid-America'. That railroad was building a 'new' piggy-back facility [mid'90's] on the fringe of their major yard. I am not sure if it was the railroad that 'sold' my carrier's management on pigggy-back, or vice-versa(?). [I suspect that greyhounds might shed some light on that?} The carrier ordered a bunch of new trailers from the factory, they came with 5 quarter hardwood planking attached under areas of the frame rails, to cushion the 'lifting eq.' The piggy-back yard was equipped with several heavy lift, capacity fork lift, style, machines. We 'shipped' loads North and South; Chicago and to New Orleans. Our equipment on the yard, took 'a beating' /learning curves for the railraod's employees(?) The trailers that did make their destinations got either, our company drivers to deliver; or if they were not available, local dray operators, with their 'normal' fees. It was almost a tie for which was 'killing' the business; drays fees, or damage to the trailers by ham-fisted lift operators. Needless to say, when it worked, it was great, but when it didn't it was a profit killer. Needless to say, my employer did not last in the piggy-back business six months
I wish that I would have known about this. I see these issues as solvable. I probably could have had a hand in doing so.
I see shorter haul intermodal as being feasible and profitable on a case by case basis. The feasibility will depend on an interplay of cost elements with the biggest one being the drayage expenses. Others include, but are not limited to, available terminal capacity, equipment utilization, the competitive truck rates, union cooperation, schedule time, etc., etc., etc. Remember, the railroads have unionized labor. Generally, the motor carriers don't.
I get irritated when someone tries to come up with an arbitrary number of miles that are required to make intermodal competitive. It's a situation specific thing. As the CP and FEC prove daily.
I see one good way to develop the shorter haul markets as adding shorter haul blocks to existing longer haul trains. Then make set outs and pick ups en route. (Don't destroy the through schedule!) i.e., On a New Orleans to Chicago intermodal consist add loads moving from NOLA to Memphis (400 miles). Set off the Memphis block and add Memphis origins. The railroad will get the added revenue with no additional train miles.
"heaver, longer and less-frequent trains," is the break point. The people who seek cheap transportation are not the same people who seek fast transportation and are willing to pay a premium for it.
When I was an aviation student, The place where I was studying had a contract with IBM. When IBM called they would drop everything to deliver a package to an airport a couple of states away. Imagine what THAT cost.
FEDEX proved that there are many people willing to pay a big premium for speed.
Those people will always prefer the truck over the train. It's faster.
When I was working in aviation I occasionally was asked why FEDEX came to our hangar so often. My reply was: "I have a $2,000,000 aircraft out of service waiting for a $1,200 part. What is $40.00 to have it shipped overnight?
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Many years ago, after seeing the success of the Auto Train, I wondered if a similar thing could be done and create 'Truck Train'. Loading would be done by staff and all done in a 'drive through' manner where once a truck was spotted on a car, it would be secured and the staff person squeeze out and get the next truck. Meanwhile, the driver would be in coach or even sleeper accomodations.
I believe it would work in the short haul market...even medium haul. A trucker could have the mandated rest period on board the train and the next morning, drive off the truck at the destination. It's only since becoming involved as a CSX Intermodal clerk did I realize that each truck has to have appropriate tax-paid stickers for each state they drive in. So, maybe this could be done with trucking company-owned vehicles and a new (local) driver picks it up at the destination. The only drawback I can see from the trucking company point of view (I'll use Schnieder as an example) is that the trucks kept at each locale would be continually changing and whatever licensing and maintenance issues would have to 'follow the truck'.
Without betraying my source, I can say that the fully loaded employee-only cost per intermodal lift today exceeds $35 PER LIFT. Throw in buildings, equipment, maintenance, etc, along with depreciation, etc, likely brings it near $50/lift.
In short, the key to intermodal short haul profitability is driving down the 'terminal costs' for each lift. The only way to do this is to drastically reduce loading/unloading time as well as the need for multi-million dollar machinery to load & unload everything. To me, that means forward-only 'drive on', 'drive off' operation with drop down plates from car to car...just like the early days of circus-style loading. The difference is that the tractor (owner-operator-, corporation-, or even railroad-owned) stays with the load! Think of it like driving on brand new cars...except they back them on, I'm told...what a waste of time! The key is forward movement only. Back when I went through the Smith System driving school, it was noted that the majority of accidents occur in reverse! This is especially true with a job that requires lots of backing up. For what it's worth, I've clobbered my garage door twice and side mirrors on my car too many times to count simply backing into my garage with an 7' door. So I must concur with that statement.
So, given that most intermodal ramps these days use an automated, largely unattended self-check in at the gate for all drivers registered in the national intermodal driver data base (I forgot its official name), and self-checkout as well, the main issue becomes that of tractor and trailer securement on the train.
If it were up to me, 5 position articulated cars with platforms designed to handle both day-cab and sleeper-cab tractors and only 53' and perhaps future 57' trailers. Perhaps two manually accessed from below the train hooks on chains with a hand power-drill activated 'crank' could be used to secure each axle. Another issue to be addressed is top-heaviness on rubber tires rather than 5th wheel lock down for trailers. I'd suggest some kind of reinforced steel side rails at the 10' and 12' height above the platform of each car that would limit swaying of the loads. Essentially, each truck platform is actually two 30" wide platforms to drive on and they would be open between them for access from below, much like oil quick change locations.
It was mentioned by a previous respondent that the train be put on depressed tracks. That is not an option, in my opinion, due to snow and drainage issues, and more importantly, accessibility for the car department to inspect and repair spotted cars.
One drawback of the 'forward only' loading/unloading design is that the inbound train and locomotives can't do the spotting. Both intermediate and terminal stops would all be 'drop and run' for the power and any through cars to other locations. Hence, there would have to be a local switcher available to spot the block on, let's say 3 separate tracks with permanent ramps on the 'front end'. It may be possible to simply have 'pop up' ramps at the unloading end and portable loading ramps (or unloading, too, skip the pop ups!) that ride on rubber tires and hook onto the end of the car for 'absolute' connection. These would be akin to the self-powered, drivable, baggage handling conveyors used at airports.
The unfortunate reality these days is that employee costs are the most expensive item in any business. Minimizing shipment handling time per employee is an absolute requirement. But this has a 'cost' too. Assuming a 100 loads arrive on a train, using 5 drivers to spot the ramps and then unload a train and park each load (in a drive-through slot - NO BACKING UP, EVER!) would take about 2-3 hours as each employee has to walk back to get his next load. How many short-shift part timers would be willing to take that job. Ideally, they would immediately load an outbound train, preferrably going the opposite direction, thereby eliminating the need to reposition the ramps, would be another 2-3 hours.
I'm also thinking fixed block sizes. In other words, make every block a multiple of 5 cars, 25 tractor/trailer positions. The trains would always depart on schedule, all 25/50/75/100 positions, regardless if it is filled to capacity or not. It would also make sense that the local switcher assemble multiple blocks prior to the 'through train' arrival.
bratkinsonIf it were up to me, 5 position articulated cars with platforms designed to handle both day-cab and sleeper-cab tractors and only 53' and perhaps future 57' trailers.
You do understand that from the very beginning of TOFC, it's been acknowledged that transporting the tractors along with the trailers was almost always uneconomical, especially if they are not automatically equipped to withstand freezing conditions in transport without idling. That is far more the case now than it was when tractors were less expensive and sophisticated. Now, if you are actually serious about this, the 'correct' solution goes immediately back to the HPIT and Iron Highway proposals that provide a more-or-less continuous through deck and at least theoretically the ability to park truck-tractor combinations continuously nose-to-tail without any required gaps between railcars or units. (I suspect there are still a couple of consists available cheap if you want to try this as a logistics experiment!)
I looked into the use of semiautonomous 'drone tractors' that completely fit under the front of the trailer nose, in no more footprint than a rear bogie would occupy, and use those to position the trailers closely and then perhaps the yard version would be 'extractable' from either side and something inserted at the other end for roll-off. It would be possible to build relatively large numbers of these things, either yard or road capable, and keep one with each trailer for subsequent unloading. But you're still limited to block unloading in sequence if you want to eliminate backing, and you seem to forget that one switch move to break the train will cost you far more in 'fully allocated costs'. (I concur with the point about LetroPorter allocated costs, but those were silly things to be used in lifting loaded van trailers in the first place.)
Perhaps two manually accessed from below the train hooks on chains with a hand power-drill activated 'crank' could be used to secure each axle.
And you are complaining about the personnel expense to run intermodal transfer equipment?
It's good to work from analogy with flatbedding broken-down cars and trucks, but manually chaining down a full consist, manually unchaining and then stowing the chains at the other end, and all the various consequences coming out of loose, broken, falling, or improperly-secured chains, including damage to the truck equipment, make that a very poor idea to me.
Another issue to be addressed is top-heaviness on rubber tires rather than 5th wheel lock down for trailers. I'd suggest some kind of reinforced steel side rails at the 10' and 12' height above the platform of each car that would limit swaying of the loads.
There goes much of your tare weight advantage, and invariably there's going to be van contact with those rails as your drivers go on. And probably mirror contact, too. There are reasons none of the older TOFC approaches used this approach, and here too it would likely turn out a very poor approach in practice. I am by no means sure that any substantial sway into rails not joined across the top for reinforcement would in fact carry the rail structure into potential "interference with loading gage" along with the trailer.
In any case, note that almost no matter how hard you chain the bogie down 'at the axles' you are still leaving the trailer suspension to deflect, and that is what causes or allows for most of the sway. You'll be there forever loading if you try winching down the van body against the suspension or de-air the bags or whatever. Not to mention the fun involved when the methods and equipment you use start to get old, and the people using them disgruntled or impatient or just lackadaisical... and we won't cover the fun that comes at the other end when you have to de-gag things or air up the bags and something isn't working right.
Essentially, each truck platform is actually two 30" wide platforms to drive on and they would be open between them for access from below, much like oil quick change locations.
I think this was fairly 'standard issue' for many of the lightweight RoRo kinds of TOFC equipment, and as an added benefit the plating used for the platforms can have penetrations and tie-down hardpoints and the like incorporated in it for easy chock and tie-down insertion and removal. Since your proposal eliminates fixed hitch locations, but is very sensitive to how well the spring or other parking brakes preclude roll, I suspect a good system of chock placement and removal (even with truck weight against the chock itself) is an important design detail.
Surely you are aware what vaults are, even if the track concerned were depressed 'at grade' and not provided with adjacent raised platforming or ramps, which at most 'new-build' ramps constructed with public money would be the case. Likewise if inspecting the train were a concern (and it really better not be in a short-dwell intermodal facility proper!) it is not difficult in theory to provide either a movable camera setup or a man-capable 'creeper' to run under the elevated loading platform spaces to illuminate and access the running gear. This is just an extension of the likely access you would be using to get to your tie-down chains (or were you going to go to the expense of rebuilding the track with an oil-change-place-like pit between the rails?) Any inspection and repair of the cars should have been made before the equipment is spotted for loading, and of course before unloading.
There are a few places where this operating model could be made to work. I believe it has been used in a number of places in Europe, where cars with very low effective floor and a multiplicity of alarmingly tiny wheels have been used to get trucks loaded within the restrictions of some of the Alpine tunnels. I looked at a version of it as a comparable 'truck bridge' through the North River Tunnels (at nighttime) and across Manhattan and all its bottlenecks and traffic, connecting to the NY&A on the far side and eventually to someplace where 'drive-off' could be directed quickly to the through road network for points further north and east, but everyone I consulted about it quickly advised it would be uneconomical even with the opportunity cost represented by greatly increased tolls and fees for trucks as an incentive.
Little that involves paying to cart around tractors full of fuel, and their drivers in crew dorms and sleepers, would do anything but add to the costs involved. It doesn't even pay railroads to provide dorm space for replacement crews going into known delay situations where HOS becomes a frequent concern.
The use of containers is the most efficient way to move goods by more than one mode. The only thing that occurs to me to improve it is a quicker, easier way to move the container from mode to mode. Even air freight uses containers to load and unload the aircraft quickly.
Moving the entire truck is too complicated and severely limits the capacity of the railroad cars.
So on the Ex-NYC Ex-Conrail Main Line, Even though there is a dozen Intermodal Trains a day between Cleveland, Buffalo and Syracuse and all have IM Ramps last time I called the RR and freight forwarder to move a 20 ft container of my stuff they said that they would not do it. How hard can it be to switch off my car in the Buffalo yard? Furthermore they would not let my freinds drive up in a Pick-Up truck to the yard and hand unload the container, They told me that I had to hire a local dray trucking company to take the 20ft contaner off site to unload. So with lift fees and drayage at both ends its more then hiring a LTL Carrier.
Phoebe VetThe use of containers is the most efficient way to move goods by more than one mode.
There are a great many more potentially efficient ways to 'move goods by more than one mode' than ISO marine containers, which have all the inherent problems Flexi-Vans did and add substantial tare weight to the mix. The additional thing that needs to be considered is what constitutes 'efficiency' in the end-to-end trip that is the only sensible metric when comparing against OTR truck competition. You may be savin' money hand over fist running precision scheduled railroad trains with stacked containers, but if you lack a full cohort of underframes each with its own tractor and crew at the endpoints, there are going to be delays, and if you have them, you'll have a plethora of additional costs and logistical considerations that must fairly be accounted for in the competitive analysis.
Look at the discussions we had on CP Expressway for one example of a service that could not be run as expeditiously with COFC. Just about any mode that is to be competitive with short-haul on even a restricted-area general basis runs into what I used to call the "REA problem" (you need enough equipment allocated to each area or station to handle peak anticipated demand or face service degrades, and the sum of all those vehicles adds up dramatically) as compared to just sending normal highway-capable van and specialty trailers that any good trucker can tie onto and forward once spotted for them. Do not throw that out just because the previous poster has a dubious method for spotting them.
I was disappointed more than anyone else on this forum is likely to be by the more-or-less complete failure of the Rail Runner technology. But even though it preserves much of the operating 'efficiency' of COFC it's just too heavy and expensive and 'fiddly' ... and, ironically, still too light to avoid much of the stability and stringlining concerns required in rail service.
The problem is beneath a certain point of length of haul anymore regardless of how agressive the railroads price IM serivce they will still lose just based on speed of serevice. Let's figure a 4 hour cut off for the train to get it loaded and then 3 hours on the other end to unload and get ready to have the final delivery made. That is almost a complete 10 hour mandated break for a driver. Then throw in the transit times my fleet can make 650 miles in a day without breaking a sweat on a preloaded trailer. So anything within say within 600 miles of Chicago I can cover with my trucks without breaking a sweat. Any company worth their salt can do the same radius so that leaves out most major metro areas in this nation. The railroads need to start offering better service first before trying to reclaim lost market share. Just keep your current customers happy before trying to gain new ones.
Regarding bradkinson's freight "Autotrain" idea, it would be interesting to speculate if any freight did get moved by Autotrain. Some parts manufacturer in the northeast ships to an assembler in Florida by using company vans or crossovers that the driver uses just like someone on his or her way to Florida and return. Even with backhaul it would probably not be at all competitive costwise with FedEX, UPS, or regular eir-freight, or would it?
The idea of taking trains off the I-81 corridor has been floated from time to time. The problem is that while there's rail along most if it (the Interstate), it's not all the same railroad, and there are some places where it's not a straight shot. Syracuse being one of them, for trailers coming out of Canada and northern NY. The interchange with the Susquehanna would likely be convoluted as the diamond is ancient history.
There is a fairly new intermodal facility at Valleyfield, Quebec, but one would have to do a traffic analysis to see where the loads crossing the Thousand Islands and Ogdensburg bridges originate to see if having them go to Valleyfield would be desirable.
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...
So Israel has short haul container trains from its port to the Inland to relieve traffic congestion. If the Port of NY/NJ and Thruway Authrity would subsidize short haul trains then this might work.
Is this what we are talking about?
http://www.transport-research.info/sites/default/files/project/documents/20060727_143123_02411_CARGOSPEED_Final_Report.pdf
"So on the Ex-NYC Ex-Conrail Main Line, Even though there is a dozen Intermodal Trains a day between Cleveland, Buffalo and Syracuse and all have IM Ramps last time I called the RR and freight forwarder to move a 20 ft container of my stuff they said that they would not do it. How hard can it be to switch off my car in the Buffalo yard? Furthermore they would not let my freinds drive up in a Pick-Up truck to the yard and hand unload the container, They told me that I had to hire a local dray trucking company to take the 20ft contaner off site to unload. So with lift fees and drayage at both ends its more then hiring a LTL Carrier.8
Clearly, in thinking about my 'truck-train' idea, I neglected some obvious limitations pointed out by subsequent respondents.
The whole idea revolves around minimizing terminal loading and unloading time as well as limiting gate cutoff to 1 hour before departure, and likewise, availability 1 hour after arrival. As posted above, even a 600 mile trip can be done faster and more economical on the highway than the train. The key, therefore, is to 'get out of town' as fast as possible and have the train average 60 mph. Yes, it would be slower than the highway, but would a $200-300 savings be enough to lure trailers off the highway?
I never thought about issues of turning off the on-board diesel tractors. Fuel gelling would also have to be considered. How about electric powered tractors for loading/unloading and travelling on the train? Yeah. Battery issues in the dead of winter make that a non-starter.
OK, how about an unpowered 4-rubber-tire 5th wheel assembly (akin to a trailer dolly) that hooks onto a moving chain like a fast car wash? In this scenario, each inbound trucker drops their trailer in a 'drive through' diagonal parking area and a yard jockey quickly backs under it with a 5th wheel mini-trailer, takes it to the 'staging area' like the inbound lane at a car wash, drops it and a hook comes up and grabs the mini-trail and big trailer. How and when to disconnect from the chain or hook on for unloading will have to be figured out later. So will being able to rapidly connect the 'chain' from car to car to provide a continuous loop. And snow & ice? Another problem to be solved later. Maybe using a cable instead and 'grips' like cable cars would be a solution?
I'm still convinced that forward only loading/unloading, leave the 'tractor' or whatever with the trailer, is far faster than present-day side loading with any machines. Having the outbound trailers staged in special 'to be loaded ASAP' lanes parallel to and adjacent to each track is a requirement. The unloading ASAP lane would be on the other side of the train. Having yard jockeys driving around the yard looking for a trailer or an open spot is NOT the way to do it. Even having the computer designate specific parking spots is not the way. It has to be everything gets loaded, or unloaded and parked, in sequential, linear order as close to the track as possible. And for those trailers unloaded but not picked up within 2 hours? Moved to somewhere else in the yard and a $100 late pickup fee charged! It would be up to the trucking companies to have sufficient drivers ready to pickup inbound loads on a schedule. Presuming an inbound train every 4 hours and outbound also every 4 hours, 3 hours after arrival, requires everything be done according to schedule. Make it 6 hours with 3 hrs between arrival and departure...it doesn't matter as long as the schedule is maintained. And what about bad order trailers? Immediately off to the shop area for repairs. And leaning trailers? Shippers must have pre-authorized ramp personnel to open and inspect sealed trailers for shifted loads or other loading issues, including leaking fluids.
In my opinion, competitively fast, frequent service, say, 4 to 6 arrivals & departures per day per ramp at regular intervals is what's needed to get trailers off the highways. But that requires a well maintained, 70 mph railroad operated according (and I hate to use the term) 'precision railroading'.
As an off topic comment about EHH's plans, precision railroading requires near zero failures 'on the road'. Preventative maintenance, even pre-failure scheduled part replacements must be increased significantly to do that.
bratkinsonAs an off topic comment about EHH's plans, precision railroading requires near zero failures 'on the road'. Preventative maintenance, even pre-failure scheduled part replacements must be increased significantly to do that.
And there is still only 24 hours a day of track time - for all the trains and all the maintenance. On a segment of track you can run trains or you can perform maintenance actions - you can't do both at the same time. By the way maintenance includes the various on track REQUIRED inspections, even if no defects are indicated.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
bratkinson Without betraying my source, I can say that the fully loaded employee-only cost per intermodal lift today exceeds $35 PER LIFT. Throw in buildings, equipment, maintenance, etc, along with depreciation, etc, likely brings it near $50/lift.
This right here is why EHH is killing off North Baltimore. Containers being lifted 4 times instead of two on one route with extra dwell for the mid-run swap, on already low-margin cars isn't going to drive the sort of return that Harrison is looking for.
Saturnalia bratkinson Without betraying my source, I can say that the fully loaded employee-only cost per intermodal lift today exceeds $35 PER LIFT. Throw in buildings, equipment, maintenance, etc, along with depreciation, etc, likely brings it near $50/lift. This right here is why EHH is killing off North Baltimore. Containers being lifted 4 times instead of two on one route with extra dwell for the mid-run swap, on already low-margin cars isn't going to drive the sort of return that Harrison is looking for.
And not doing it will not provide the service that the volume of intermodal is predicated on generating - without the volume costs increase even further. Precision Scheduled money disposal.
Eddie Sand My own studies -- admittedly, too many years ago -- reinforced the belief that the trade-off point between rail and highway carriage is vastly understated, and easing of energy-efficiency concerns in recent years is not going to inveigh in the rails' favor. But the revival of interest in short hauls for lower-value commodities (e. g: aggregates) also argues that the market can be revived, given sufficent volume. But barring a decline in longer hauls, a major increase in volume involving new markets and shorter distances would require a major investment in new dispatching and signal hardware, and probably, additional track-miles just as with the approaches to major cites which have develped new/expanded commuter systems. The industry isn't going to "pony up" for any major projects within smelling distance of anywhere the Garcetti / Schumer / DeBlasio mentality predominates. So the next move, like it or not, will have to involve the perils of the public sector.
Eddie,
Well you sucked some commentators in, but how about telling us what your vision is, and why you think any public agency is going to invest when they have perfectly fine money pits in public streets and highways? Or to the contrary, why these are markets that you expect railroads NOT to pursue.
Mac McCulloch
bratkinsonIn my opinion, competitively fast, frequent service, say, 4 to 6 arrivals & departures per day per ramp at regular intervals is what's needed to get trailers off the highways. But that requires a well maintained, 70 mph railroad operated according (and I hate to use the term) 'precision railroading'.
Well, I wouldn't operate a railroad based on opinion. Get out and actually talk with the potential customers. Listen, listen, listen. They'll tell you what they want and need if you let them. No preconceived notions of how many departures per day. Just synthesize the maket input and design an operating plan that meets the market needs as best that can be done. Remember it's all about money.
I had experience with multiple trains per day. I was with ICG intermodal marketing when we ran the "Slingshots" between Chicago and St. Louis. We tried three trains each way per day spaced as to departure and arrival times. Nice theory, didn't work that well in practice.
We found that the vast majority of customers wanted overnight service. Ship it on a Monday and have it delivered reliably on Tuesday. Our noon departure from Chicago had very little business. Our 8:00 AM departure from St. Louis had almost no business.
By union contract we were locked in to three trains per day each way with a maximum of 15 TOFC cars per train. We adjusted the schedules as best we could to meet the market demand, but we still had to leave freight behind that we couldn't fit on an overnight schedule. I'll give the UTU credit for being flexible in allowing two person crews, but no plan survives contact with reality and the union contract made needed adjustments impossible.
We tried a price differential to get freight on the low traffic trains. Didn't have much effect.
Unless and until multiple daily departures on a lane can be well justified by market research, it's just an opinion. Don't waste the money.
The original Iron Highway envisioned automated pnuematic tired fifth wheels that would be attached at gate time and drive the trailer up the ramp onto the train, securing themselves to the carbody somehow. Of course they would have air to release the trailer brakes and nowdays that would be helpful to keep the suspension full of air.
Back then a wire guide would have been required, but now some of the seaport equipment manufacturers (Kone) have created systems using a few embedded targets. The automated tractors are probably still too expensive to ride along, but the idea of them engaging, then carrying a portable fifth wheel stand could be doable, though it would require they back the trailer one at a time.
Say you have five of these working a train, the cost of loading alone might be just $10 and they could run on conventional depth pavements or likely gravel with geotechnical cloth. But loading the entire train might still take 2 hours or so.
For quicker loading either a system like ModaLohr (Lorryrail) or Cargobeamer has figured out nearly instantaneous ground acccess to each trailer at additonal civil and equipment cost.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.