Short Haul Intermodal - article in June Trains

[bratkinson]

CMQ_9017

I'm not certain that turning impacts efficiency (or rather I think you mean productivity), so much as how your warehouse is laid out and utilized. I'm also uncertain how you would ever move product around via forklift without making any turns whatsoever.

 

What's important in warehousing is the integrity of packages (IE, you aren't spending time we-wrapping or fixing pallets), the rationalization of product location, the organization of SKUs (look up Supermarket Concept for warehousing), LIFO vs FIFO, inventory counting (cycle counting intermittedly) or through-isles as well as general ergonomics and layout. Who knew so much could be considered when you think about warehousing?

 

Now consider this-- I was a project resource once for a Class I looking at increaing productivity of intermodal terminals. My 'contribution' was to treat the intermodal terminal as a warehouse. Considering the concept of the terminal as a warehouse would be like saying you have several hundred warehouse workers moving stuff around without much consideration for where it's going other than the next 'available spot' (this is akin to organized chaos). We also borrowed concepts from Airports, but the ultimate plan was to manage containers like product inventory. To the RR's of course, that is a foreign concept (although you'd think their railcar management in manifest yards would lend some help, you'd be surprised) since they don't produce or manage product inventory. Maybe someday yet we can get them to change their concept of the terminal.

 

 

Basically, containers at an intermodal ramp are like boxes at a Fedex hub where I worked before CSX Intermodal.  We really don't care WHAT's in a box.  A box is a box is a box...unless it needs special handling like hazmats.

 

The concept of an intermodal terminal is basically put an outbound box on the train in any available spot in the block of cars going to that destination, subject to heavier boxes on the bottom of double stacks.  But here's the rub: moving the selected boxes from their parking spot to alongside the car they're going on is very inefficient. 

 

 

For the 7 years I was at West Springfield, the yard jockeys were furnished a list of all containers and trailers sorted by container ID (4 chars + 6 digits) to go out on the next train.  Their job is to 'find' the container in the yard by driving up and down the aisles until it is located, hook on, take it to the next available spot in the string of cars for that block and leave it there for loading, then repeat the 'driving around' to find the next box, and so on.  They'd start with a list of perhaps 100 containers and they'd likely pause at each box and try to find it on the list of outbounds.  We almost always had empties going, and those were on a separate list, also sorted by container.  One young yard jockey would find each container IN ORDER and spot those IN ORDER.  It made loaded train verification somewhat easier, but certainly consumed more time finding a specific container number. 

 

In those years, we left it up to the yard jockeys to 'know what they're doing' when it came to loading the train.  They were trained by a man that had been a yard jockey at multiple ramps over a span of 30 years or more.  I ultimately became the manager for a number of years until that company was replaced by another yard jockey company.  He taught each of the new hires how to drive efficiently, how to determine 'what goes where' when spotting for loading, and so on.  I always thought it produced better results than what I had learned in my 2 weeks training at the Philadelphia ramp.  It gave each man the opportunity to be creative and not be a 'robot', while at the same time 'take responsibility' for his work.  There were rules to loading priorities, such as UPS first, loads next, repos, then empties.  They knew the rules, and thereby knew when to start loading the next priority down, etc.  When we'd radio them with the expected UPS numbers (x trailers, y containers), they'd leave spots at the head of the track for those loads  to be put on.

 

Sometime after I retired in Jan 2015, they replaced the computer system with a newer product that required the 'programmer' to put every load in its respective spot on the outbound train (in the computer), print it out, and hand it to the yard jockeys with the instructions to put every container & trailer exactly as shown.  That was the same methodology used in Philadelphia when I was there 7 years earlier.  While it would seem to take the guesswork out of loading a train by having a single decision-maker (the programmer), it also makes finding the load for the next spot more difficult, as there may be 4-6 other yard jockeys looking to fill that next spot as well.  Short of their broadcasting 'I have the 123456' (which wasn't done to my knowledge), every one COULD be looking for the same box!  It's much like the 'in numerical order' yard jockey we had for a while.  Chaos?  Yes.  Drivers crossing each others paths multiple times in pursuit of the next load?  Yes. 

 

That's why I specified 'all outbound loads go in a specific 'drive through parking area'.  They simply hook on the next load in the line and go.  No driving around looking for a specific trailer needed.  Automated robots could readily handle the job.  Ideally, there would be ACI type devices that are read as each container or trailer gets loaded on the train...exactly like RR locomotives and rolling stock are scanned at multiple locations along the right of way.  The computer then knows the exact order everything is on the train.  Even Fedex does that as the computer 'decides' which trailer is to receive a particular package and routes it there in the complex conveyor belt system.  Small packages are scanned before they are put into a 40-gallon bag that goes to a particular trailer door to be loaded on the trailer.

 

At Fedex, a box is a box is a box.  At CSX, a container is a container is a container.  Except for hazmats and a few other products, we have no idea whatsoever what's inside.  It's just another box to be loaded or unloaded.  Period.

 

 

[CMQ_9017]

bratkinson

Let me start with saying that the idea of using box cars, loaded through side doors, simply is not a workable option.  Even the best forklift drivers will be slowed down having to make a right-angle turn to get into a box car and another to spot the load and drop it.  Slowing down is not an option for efficiency.  Neither is driving in reverse as it’s done more slowly and is more prone to accidents.  About 15 years ago, while doing a ‘pick up’ for the local PBS stations’ annual auction at the regional Coca Cola bottling plant, I was blown away to see fork lifts taking 4 pallets at a time – 2 wide by 2 high, ie, 8’ high x 8’ wide x 4' thick, and driving straight into a trailer and dropping them.  At 53’ length, 13 trips into each trailer and it’s loaded to the max with 52 pallets of Coca Cola! 

 

I'm not certain that turning impacts efficiency (or rather I think you mean productivity), so much as how your warehouse is laid out and utilized. I'm also uncertain how you would ever move product around via forklift without making any turns whatsoever.

 

What's important in warehousing is the integrity of packages (IE, you aren't spending time we-wrapping or fixing pallets), the rationalization of product location, the organization of SKUs (look up Supermarket Concept for warehousing), LIFO vs FIFO, inventory counting (cycle counting intermittedly) or through-isles as well as general ergonomics and layout. Who knew so much could be considered when you think about warehousing?

 

Now consider this-- I was a project resource once for a Class I looking at increaing productivity of intermodal terminals. My 'contribution' was to treat the intermodal terminal as a warehouse. Considering the concept of the terminal as a warehouse would be like saying you have several hundred warehouse workers moving stuff around without much consideration for where it's going other than the next 'available spot' (this is akin to organized chaos). We also borrowed concepts from Airports, but the ultimate plan was to manage containers like product inventory. To the RR's of course, that is a foreign concept (although you'd think their railcar management in manifest yards would lend some help, you'd be surprised) since they don't produce or manage product inventory. Maybe someday yet we can get them to change their concept of the terminal.

[bratkinson]

Coming back to this resurrected thread after 6 months of inactivity has given me some new ideas about how to handle short haul intermodal.   Advancing technology also plays a part in my thinking.

 

Having spent 7 years as an intermodal clerk at CSX Intermodal in West Springfield, MA, I know firsthand the two biggest issues are local drayage and terminal time/costs.  I think both can be addressed most readily by an independent company such as Schnieder or JB Hunt doing everything, perhaps even including owning the trains and rail equipment and paying the railroad to provide crew and tracks to run their trains.  Except for providing terminal services, rail equipment and train crews, those two companies already have 100% price, equipment, and staffing control beyond the intermodal ramps.

 

Let me start with saying that the idea of using box cars, loaded through side doors, simply is not a workable option.  Even the best forklift drivers will be slowed down having to make a right-angle turn to get into a box car and another to spot the load and drop it.  Slowing down is not an option for efficiency.  Neither is driving in reverse as it’s done more slowly and is more prone to accidents.  About 15 years ago, while doing a ‘pick up’ for the local PBS stations’ annual auction at the regional Coca Cola bottling plant, I was blown away to see fork lifts taking 4 pallets at a time – 2 wide by 2 high, ie, 8’ high x 8’ wide x 4' thick, and driving straight into a trailer and dropping them.  At 53’ length, 13 trips into each trailer and it’s loaded to the max with 52 pallets of Coca Cola! 

 

But seeing that very-efficient ‘double wide’ loading tells me that time and speed efficiency at the intermodal ramp is paramount.  First, I’d start from scratch with a new ramp owned by the end-to-end company such as Schnieder.  It’s more important they be located very convenient to the freeway – not more than ¼ mile from entry/exit ramps with NO low bridges in the vicinity – AND be adjacent to a railroad, preferably a class one mainline or at least on a busy branch of a mainline.  Having to ‘hand off’ a train between a shortline RR and the mainline RR loses far too much time.  The RR side has to be done by a single railroad.  OK…maybe a shortline could handle the whole trip, but how many shortlines are in the 300-500 mile range? 

 

For a city the size of Chicago, there could easily be a dozen or more of these 'mini-ramps' surrounding the city with routes radiating in every direction.  So, if a trailer gets loaded on the south side of Chicago but is destined for Minneapolis, it would have to be driven through (or around) Chicago to a ramp on the Northwest side of town.  However, if there were enough loads from the south side to MSP, they could all be loaded on the south side of town if BNSF or CN is the railroad, but not CP as their south side 'presence' is minimal, as far as I know.  Another 'key' to success is that each railroad treat these trains as 'hot', 2nd only to UPS trains and higher than 'regular' intermodal trains.

 

Moving in reverse is viewed as non-productive and is wasted time.  Call it ‘precision ramp activities’ if you will.  All incoming trucks with trailers use an automated entry ‘log in’ done via their cell phone app prior to arrival, which is already done at CSX Intermodal these days.  Permanent vehicle 'ID' tags like that on RR cars would be affixed to every tractor coming in the gate.  The trucker drives in through a slew of cameras and without backing up, drops the trailer in a diagonally positioned ‘drive through’ location easily accessible for loading.  The trailers to be loaded area must be separate from the trailers awaiting drayage out the gate for best efficiency. 

 

Given the technology of battery driven 18 wheelers and the automated robot technology in use at Amazon warehouses, fully automated robots would hook on to a trailer and drive it through a string of articulated, enclosed cars (like auto carriers but only 1 level) and self-lock themselves down using some kind of drop down ‘hook’ devices to hook on to a ‘loop’ on the floor of the enclosed rail car.  I could see one hook ‘drags’ until it latches on one ‘loop’ and stops the forward progress, then an ‘arm’ projects forward with another hook and latches on to a front ‘loop’ and tightens itself up.  Trailers on flat cars are held in place only by the 5th wheel device on each platform.  The robot is the 5th wheel and is securely 'locked in' to the rail car.  Like the floors in an Amazon warehouse, there are barcode labels atthe entry end exit of each car to tell the robot ‘where’ it is.  That way, the robot would go to the 15^th car, for example, and latch itself down, the next one, following by only a couple of feet, would go to the 14^th, and so on. 

 

Upon arrival at the destination ramp, everything would be unloaded from the front of the cars.  I don’t know for certain, but it wouldn’t surprise me if Auto Train does the same thing.  Automobiles are loaded and unloaded in the forward direction only.  

 

Initially, I don’t see more than 20-30 short haul trailers per day at any origination point except the largest of cities.  And since one-per-day trains would kill any hope of being time competitive with truckers, a minimum of 3 trains per day, with perhaps 10-12 trailers each would be the bare minimum to consider starting a short haul lane between to points.   Obviously, bigger ramps would require additional tracks and the trains would have to be assembled from two or more tracks as needed.  I’d even go so far as to redesign the couplers on the cars to have built in brake line connections as well as multiple electrical connections for computer automation purposes so the cars can ‘talk’ to each other as well as computers at the ramp as well as potential future electronic braking systems.  Subway systems and some commuter lines have multi-function couplers already.  It should become a standard, in my opinion.

 

Obviously, issues of rain, sleet, snow and ice have to be considered.  That’s why I suggest enclosed ‘carrier’ cars.  I’d go so far as to suggest heated surfaces at each ramp as well, to prevent snow and ice from any build up.  I’ve seen the yard jockeys go nuts spinning their tires trying to move a loaded trailer on snowy pavement.  That has to be eliminated as robots would most likely spin their wheels until the battery is dead.  Maybe an enclosed ‘warehouse’ space for the ramp to eliminate all precipitation problems?  It would have to be adequately ventilated to remove all diesel truck exhaust fumes and likely unheated as well.  Still, snow and ice dropping off incoming trailers would have to be dealt with.

 

By having a highly automated ramp, the costs of labor, yard jockey tractors, and million-dollars-each packers are eliminated.   Of course, the robot yard trucks that go with the load would be the biggest startup costs at, say, $25K each.  Naturally, traffic would have to be directionally ‘balanced’ to ensure a sufficient supply of robots for each train.  There’d only be perhaps 1 person on the gate and two yard workers to oversee the operation, raise & lower the bridge plates between cars (maybe controlled electronically from the first or last car on each track?) and inspect the loaded trains before departure.   Of course, a car-knocker would have to do their inspections as well. 

 

For arrivals, a radio message to all the robots on the train would commence unloading once the bridge plates are down.  There’d also have to be at least 1 backup computer system, if not a 2^nd one, too, in case of failures.  Computer communications on site as well as to HQ would also need multiple backup capabilities as well. 

 

Is it doable today?  I’d have to answer “not yet, but soon” to that question.  Maybe a couple years from now once self driving, battery-powered 18 wheelers have completed their ‘teething’ issues. 

 

Hey Elon Musk!!!  Why to try something new????

[zardoz]

SD60MAC9500

How many shipper/receivers do you see that have spurs left for boxcar L/U? Not many left, and what boxcars you do see for the most part are loaded with; forest products, paper, autoparts(what's left of that traffic), or can stock, from a few large producers. I can count right here in my area 10 shipper/receivers that have ripped out their spurs in the last 20-15 years due to eratic rail service. Ford being one of them. Do you see spurs into; Grocery Warehouses? Beverage Distributors? Amazon? Distribution Centers? Walmart DC's????

Here in Kenosha county (and to some extent Racine county) over the last 10 years, and especially the last 5, there has been quite a warehouse development frenzy (and also some manufacturing). Companies such as U-Line no sooner get done with one plant expansion or relocation, and they start another  http://www.kenoshanews.com/news/local/uline-set-for-another-warehouse-construction-project/article_5434513f-7057-563a-b296-f0551d139fad.html .

Gordon Food Service, Rustoleum, Ariens, Visual Pak, Associated Wholesale Grocers, Jelly Belly, Meijer, etc; the products they inventory and/or manufacture vary widely. But what they ALL have in common is that their properties abut either the Canadian Pacific double-track main line (C&M sub) or the Union Pacific (Milwaukee sub). The other thing they ALL have in common in that NONE of them have sidings. Some have literally hundreds of trailers backed up to the edge of their property, right along the ROW.

There are a few companies that DO have switch leads: Honeywell, Iris, and PPC Industries on the UP; Ardent Mills, (which uses the old CNW Bain yard), L&M Corrugated, and Emco Chemical on the CP. However, those that do have rail access, the rail traffic is carloads, with capacity from a few cars to maybe a dozen. I don't even want to try and count the number of trucks sitting within a stones throw of the railroad ROW.

While sitting in a restaurant along Interstate 94/41 casually watching the traffic, there are so many trucks going by that one could be forgiven for thinking a IM train was passing by. Sometimes sitting by the tracks (especially UP), one could be forgiven for wondering if the tracks are being used at all.

[greyhounds]

CMQ_9017

There is big traction right now in the 'Cold Chain' space, with massive orders of reefer boxes in the upcoming 2 - 5 years. You should see some pretty impressive growth in the temperature sensitive intermodal market that will fill in the gap in the supply chain transportation mode offerings.

You posted that on my birthday.  That news is one of the best presents I have ever received.  Hopefully, the new business will include red meat and chicken.

[CMQ_9017]

Walmart & Amazon are some of the largest users of intermodal. There is big traction right now in the 'Cold Chain' space, with massive orders of reefer boxes in the upcoming 2 - 5 years. You should see some pretty impressive growth in the temperature sensitive intermodal market that will fill in the gap in the supply chain transportation mode offerings.

Boxcar rail is a cost saver, but too slow and clunky. It does still serve important purposes, as already mentioned a few, but long term why seek to add boxcars to the network when you can simply haul the containers?

[csxns]

SD60MAC9500

paper,

In Shelby NC Clearwater Paper just built a siding and you can see lots of paper going out,and why will a Walmart store have one anyway or a Giant or Bi-Lo's they have warehouses and the Walmart warehouse in Shelby go their and you will see lots of Intermodal trailers Walmart does use Rail.

[jeffhergert]

I still see a lot of canned goods and wine going by box car.  Maybe not as much as 40 years ago, but it's still out there.  

Jeff

[SD60MAC9500]

csxns

 

SD60MAC9500

ow many recievers actually have spurs left for boxcar L/U? Not too many from what I see..

 

 

And i do see lots of boxcars so where do they get loaded and who uses them the railroads just don't run them for fun i can't see that.

 

 

 

 

I see boxcars too. That's beside the point. How many shipper/receivers do you see that have spurs left for boxcar L/U? Not many left, and what boxcars you do see for the most part are loaded with; forest products, paper, autoparts(what's left of that traffic), or can stock, from a few large producers. I can count right here in my area 10 shipper/receivers that have ripped out their spurs in the last 20-15 years due to eratic rail service. Ford being one of them. Do you see spurs into; Grocery Warehouses? Beverage Distributors? Amazon? Distribution Centers? Walmart DC's???? I'm 36 years old, and I can still remember seeing spurs as a child into a few grocery warehouses in Sou Cal. Very rare at the time, and they were on their last leg, but I remember...

 

[CNSF]

You're right, Dave, that scenario has a better chance of succeeding than a purely inland domestic move, and I can think of a few other real-world examples I've seen over the years in addition to the one Bruce has noted. It's still marginal, but can work when the conditions are right. For example, here in Canada both CN and CP have tried and failed to make Toronto-Montreal domestic intermodal service work, but I'm pretty sure that most import-export containers moving between the Port of Montreal and the Toronto area are railed.

[Bruce Kelly]

Dave, here's one example, which I previously posted above:

http://www.capitalpress.com/Business/20180503/container-business-grows-at-portland-intermodal-facility

 

[daveklepper]

What about import-export short-haul?   Between dock, direct to-or-from ship, railroad to 300 - 500-mile distant intermodal terminal?  Should be profitable and reduce highway congestion around ports.

[csxns]

SD60MAC9500

ow many recievers actually have spurs left for boxcar L/U? Not too many from what I see..

And i do see lots of boxcars so where do they get loaded and who uses them the railroads just don't run them for fun i can't see that.

[SD60MAC9500]

Ulrich

Pick pallets up by truck.. have them transferred to a BOXCAR at a transload facility.. let the railroad haul the boxcar to wherever it needs to go... move the pallets from the boxcar back onto a truck for last mile delivery to receiver. I know that's how it was done years ago.. worked well then.. can work well again today and into the future! 

 

 

 

 

When they resize boxcars to 8'6" interior width then we might see something happen..Until then boxcars are 2 1/2 pallets wide. Too much dunnage for load securement. Also in order to maximize the volume of a box car, lump loading is preferred, which is time consuming and expensive. Hence if boxcars were dimensioned as such; W 8'6" x H 18'. Moving pallets, roro racks, etc. between trailer/boxcar would be a big benefit. Yet even if these improvements took place. How many recievers actually have spurs left for boxcar L/U? Not too many from what I see..

[SD60MAC9500]

See below 

[greyhounds]

Gramp

Would the meat shipments be railed to, say, Chicago, and then disseminated to other trains for delivery to multiple destinations?

That's the idea.  Once they get to Chicago the meat loads can be forwarded "Everywhere East" on existing trains.  Adding good revenue loads to existing trains is money in the bank.

And! While a train is running between Sioux City and Chicago the railroad might as well add shorter haul Chicago destination loads to the consist.  As long as there is terminal capacity the marginal cost of doing this will be low.

 

[CNSF]

Gramp

Would the meat shipments be railed to, say, Chicago, and then disseminated to other trains for delivery to multiple destinations?

Which points out that there are different types of short-haul lanes.  CP's Toronto-Montreal service was truly a standalone lane for trailers moving between those two metro areas.  But when I worked a bit on the Ashley Furniture operation back in the '90's, it was a short-haul leg in and out of Arcadia WI which connected to a number of longer-haul intermodal lanes radiating out of Chicago.  And, of course, the division of the US rail network into eastern and western carriers creates a whole batch of short-haul lanes which would otherwise be part of longer-haul transcontinental lanes, as you see in Canada. (Not that there are many loads moving intact all the way between Vancouver and Halifax.)  Each scenario has its own unique complexities, but when I was a rail marketer it always seemed to me that the short-haul appendages on our own system represented the lowest-hanging fruit. 

Case in point:  when I was at CN, we had a substantial daily volume of traffic being drayed between Toronto and the Windsor area, which is at best a 4-hour run each way over a frequently congested highway.  It was all moving on rail between Toronto and western Canada - nice profitable long-haul traffic, but with this expensive driver-consuming dray.  I always felt there was no good reason why we couldn't figure out how to set up a workable rail shuttle to Windsor, but we never did.  Why not?  Well, in Canada CN is it's own door-to-door retail arm. They were our trucks, our drivers, and we were already getting full door-to-door revenue for doing the work.  Yeah, maybe we could have saved ourselves $50 a load in cost and freed up a bunch of driver hours with a well-tuned rail shuttle operation, but you know, there were other fires burning, it would have required investment and considerable management attention for the first year or so, and we would have ultimately had to give at least some of our savings to the customers anyways.  So in the end (looking at you, greyhounds), no one ever felt it was worth sticking their neck out for such relatively small gains given the risk. 

[Gramp]

greyhounds,

Would the meat shipments be railed to, say, Chicago, and then disseminated to other trains for delivery to multiple destinations?

[CMQ_9017]

Lane balance I think you refer to what we call Trade, the ratio of loads moving in and out of a marketlace. You do a full market analysis before hand to determine the trade ratio and if you're in a backhaul or headhaul situation. For the most part too you'd only consider FTL/FCLs as your primary unit (I don't subscribe to the TEU being a great measure anymore as it doesn't accurately portray rev units) but now we get into the trade balance and repositioning strategies... with that you're now thinking why not move an LTL/LCL or multistop to get my box somewhere else? But of course from the RR perspective, the majority of their traffic is from the IMC or their joint equipment programs -- so why do they really care, moving equipment is moving equipment (although not priced the same). They just want to have a good trade balance on a per train basis, and if not build into the lane pricing an encompassing move (which they do) on the per mile basis. Also the RR owned box fleets are typically leased or brokered out by 3PLs so regardless of the logo on the side they're really just builting supplemental capacity in certain lanes that they aren't building the actual volumes on. You'll see the RR owned box love-hate relationship come and go as they buy en mass and then also dump en mass boxes (which have a relatively short lifespan just by virture of what they are and how they are handled). Don't forget in your techno improvements the intermediate step between now and autonomous vehicles is platooning... Hunt's already signed on you should see that in the next 5 - 10 years. 

[greyhounds]

MP173

Here is a real challenge....lots of bottles moving into Denver area (think beer). Lots of bottles produced in St. Louis area and moved to Denver. How can one incorporate the St. Louis - Denver move intermodally and haul meat out of Iowa?

I wouldn't.

An empty bottle in results in a full bottle out.  I'd just go for the outbound beer loads.  If you've got in and out from the same facility just haul the freight and send 'em a bill.

I know CP just shut down their Montreal - Toronto lane.  But railroads do offer "Short Haul" intermodal services.  Examples include the BNSF Chicago to Kansas City and St. Paul.  Both under 500 miles.

As CNSF pointed out, "We're dealing with people here".  It's not easy for a railroad marketing person to stick his/her neck out and advocate taking a risk on developing new business.  There will be failures.  And the advocate will take the blame.  The reality that there is no success possible without a real risk of failure is foriegn to railroad culture.  So risk is avoided.  

An oil man was once quoted as:  "If we're not getting some dry holes we're not being agressive enough looking for oil."  It's the same with market development.  If you have no failures you're not being agressive enough.  You can't be foolish, but you have to take prudent risks.  My experience is that the rail industry excessively avoids risks at a cost to growing their business.

Putting intermodal terminals at places such as Sioux City and Storm Lake then trying to triangulate equipment in is going to involve taking risks and applying intensive mangement.  It won't be easy, but I can be done.  Terminals at those places will minimize dray expenses.  But someone is going to have to stick their own neck out to get it done, and I see the reluctance to do that as the main barrier.

 

 

 

 

[CNSF]

Okay, perhaps the need for balance was one of those "goes without saying" things that most participants here understood already.  I guess the essence of my point is that there are a whole bunch of planets, of which balance is one, which have to be in almost perfect alignment for short-haul intermodal to work.  When you're dealing with cross-continent linehauls measured in the thousands of kilometres, you can absorb quite a bit of inefficiency - one in eight empty miles, several days dwell on the equipment at the difficult end waiting for a backhaul load, out-of-line dray moves, etc, etc, - and still make a profit.  Not so when you've only got 500-750 kms of linehaul to work with. The margins are there, but only if everything works perfectly on a consistent basis.

My assessment of the situation is that everyone involved - not just the "stupid, lazy" railroads, but also shippers and truckers such as J.B. Hunt - have studied short-haul intermodal repeatedly and concluded that, while it could be done, it probably isn't worth the effort under current market conditions.  Remember that we're talking about people here.  Wherever there's a buck to be made, someone's bound to figure out a way to make it.

[BaltACD]

MP173

BTW, the wife and I were stopped by a CSX intermodal last night here in NW Indiana on the old B&O.  I didnt catch the symbol, but we were stopped for quite a while.  After awhile she said to me "you counting?"  "Yep".   

331 containers later, we proceeded....mostly domestics.  Damn, that was an impressive train.  Figure $700 per container and revenue around $231,000.  Lots of big Orange, XPO, and probably 50 JBH.  Obviously end of month patterns pushed the volume up, but still...that is an impressive demonstration of intermodal strength and trust....and probably reality of a driver shortage.

Ed

Imagine waiting for 331 trucks & trailers at a traffic light?

[MP173]

Not all dry freight can or will move in refers.  It will take some work to make the Twin Cities/Denver/Sioux City triangulation work.

For instance, not all freight moves out of large metropolitan areas with intermodal terminals....one is still back to the drayage costs.  Now, factor in the triangulation factor and you have a problem (to solve).

Here is a real challenge....lots of bottles moving into Denver area (think beer).  Lots of bottles produced in St. Louis area and moved to Denver.  How can one incorporate the St. Louis - Denver move intermodally and haul meat out of Iowa?  

BTW, the wife and I were stopped by a CSX intermodal last night here in NW Indiana on the old B&O.  I didnt catch the symbol, but we were stopped for quite a while.  After awhile she said to me "you counting?"  "Yep".   

331 containers later, we proceeded....mostly domestics.  Damn, that was an impressive train.  Figure $700 per container and revenue around $231,000.  Lots of big Orange, XPO, and probably 50 JBH.  Obviously end of month patterns pushed the volume up, but still...that is an impressive demonstration of intermodal strength and trust....and probably reality of a driver shortage.

Ed

[greyhounds]

CNSF

back to the present and short-term future, I'm also a little surprised that no one - not even Greyhounds - has mentioned another key factor that limits short-haul intermodal opportunities: lane balance. This may not be too big a problem in big, high-volume lanes with many shippers, such as Chicago-Memphis, LA-Bay Area, or Toronto-Montreal, but it can be a deal killer in small, one-industry town scenarios where the inbound and outbound flows often don't match at all. Here again the flexibility of truck is a major advantage. If truckers can't achieve balance by finding loads directly back to their original starting point, they do it by triangulating, or even running 4 or 5-point "loops". Rail networks offer far fewer opportunities to do this.

Oh, Memphis to Chicago was a problem for us.  The truckers were running balanced with revenue loads south and north.  But there were more loads going south than coming north.  So we got the imbalance along with hauling non revenue empty equipment north.

Now, a problem is something that can be solved.  It was once explained to me this way:  A prisoner who is going to be hung in the morning doesn't have a problem.  He has trouble and is in dire straights.  But he doesn't have a problem because he can do nothing as a solution.  

We viewed the 500 mile Memphis - Chicago lane as a problem to be solved.  We needed the equipment loaded with revenue freight in both directions.  Anyone with a basic knowledge of economics can see the issue.  There was more demand southbound than northbound but the supply was the same.  (We couldn't just let the TOFC trailers pile up in Memphis.)  That meant the supply and demand curves for northbound freight intersected at a lower price than the supply and demand curves for southbound freight intersected.  We had to charge less to move a load from Memphis to Chicago than we did to move a load from Chicago to Memphis.  

The very idea of doing this caused an old, traditional pricing guy to develop a case of the vapors.  It simply wasn't done.  And it wasn't going to happen on his watch. He relented when it was explained that the alternative was his early retirement. 

Anyway, we reduced the northbound rate.  This, and other things made possible with deregulation, allowed us to fill the intermodal trains with revenue loads in both directions.

I view balance as a problem to be solved.  The near impossiblity of having as many loads in to Sioux City as there are outbound loads should be manageable.  It should not be a solid barrier precluding the development of the market.

There are very few transportation companies in the world that do not have to reposistion empty equipment.  This includes trucking companies.  These empty miles do have a cost but they have no offsetting revenue.  So the empty miles need to be minimized.  But no one can eliminate all empty miles.  Such non revenue miles need to be ruthlessly managed and minimized, but they cannot be eliminated.  (The last time I checked JB Hunt over the road trucking was running one of eight miles empty with no revenue.)

Look at it this way:  Both Denver and the Twin Cities have significantly more inbound freight than outbound.  A look at the freight rates will tell you that.  Every carrier is willing to make quite a deal to get a revenue load out of Denver.

But Sioux City needs equipment.  And it's not that far from Denver (or the Twin Cities).  Load east from Iowa then back (a dry load in a reefer works fine) to the inbound points, then repo the empties to Sioux City or Storm Lake, wherever.  It'll take a 3rd party to do this.  But, By God, the railroads can do this.  And they're going to have to learn to do this.  The sooner the better.  

 

[Overmod]

Greyhounds has repeatedly introduced the necessity of lane balance - both routine and long-term unstable - as a critical factor in intermodal transport, particularly with respect to RoadRailers.  He may have seen no need to restate the obvious in a discussion strictly concerning the obligate containerized version of mark 2 RoadRailer service.  That makes it no less important to keep always 'at the fore' the right recognition and understanding of lanes that cost-effectively balance availability and utilization within the wider excess profitability of the bimodal system. 

[CNSF]

As another former industry pro who made a living trying to figure out solutions to these kinds of problems, let me assure you all that Greyhounds knows what he's talking about.

I don't usually follow these discussions in real time; rather, I occasionally check in on them. When I started reading this one, I wondered how long it would be before it devolved into a discussion on equipment technology. I've always been amazed at how many college-educated people have put so much effort into trying to find a technological solution for a problem where the main issue is not the equipment, but rather the fixed cost of drayage and terminal operations. Having said this, though, I do see the long-term potential for one hugely disruptive technology - autonomous vehicles - to change this radically.

But back to the present and short-term future, I'm also a little surprised that no one - not even Greyhounds - has mentioned another key factor that limits short-haul intermodal opportunities: lane balance. This may not be too big a problem in big, high-volume lanes with many shippers, such as Chicago-Memphis, LA-Bay Area, or Toronto-Montreal, but it can be a deal killer in small, one-industry town scenarios where the inbound and outbound flows often don't match at all. Here again the flexibility of truck is a major advantage. If truckers can't achieve balance by finding loads directly back to their original starting point, they do it by triangulating, or even running 4 or 5-point "loops". Rail networks offer far fewer opportunities to do this.

[Overmod]

SAMUEL C WALKER

So, the problem basically was weight for the Roadrailer dry van. Engineer the weight out and the intermodal vehicle of Roadrailer might be more effective to get and keep traffic of all sorts.

You cannot cavalierly compare the two as if comparable, or ignore the practical effect of whatever tare weight is involved above the underframe in the intermodal version.  Have you not studied anything about RailRunners?  Even their Web site goes into detail on these issues (and some of the special considerations, as in Africa, that made their use cost-effective for a time).

As Balt indicated, any intermodal underframe, no matter how skeletal, has to have adequate tare weight to resist buff and draft, and more importantly to resist stringlining when in consist (and that includes "bimode" consists where all the RoadRailer traffic is relegated to the rear of a given train in a lane).  This cuts into the permissible tare weight for the intermodal container or platform and its associated dunnage and internal securement, even as it is recognized that establishing a practical fleet of ISO series ex-marine containers for "railborne" RailRunner service inherently requires accepting the tare weight of oceangoing containers (which is substantial compared to dry-van structure) or incurring substantial cost to reduce that tare weight (which both makes the containers unfit for deck service and likely weakens them in some planes, notably rack).

I believe there have been several attempts at extremely-low-tare-weight 'container' systems (where the external vehicle is made as light as possible, essentially just a liftable structure enclosing pallets that do the actual "carrying" and involve a substantial portion of the protective packaging).  The principal issue with these is that, to become 'competitive' with ISO-container intermodal, the capitalization and effective ongoing 'take rate' have to be substantial, and not just in limited lanes -- and they must produce a profit or service advantage that more than justifies the capital and risk, etc. put into them.  I have never observed this in the time I have been watching the intermodal industry, even as some European swap-body companies have tried to float the idea.

Composite materials?

Study their cost and mechanical properties and come back when you can propose specific engineered examples with some numbers.  You don't know enough yet to comment knowledgeably on this.

As for a Roadrailer [intermodal] chassis beyond the prototype built in 1980, the solution would be to engineer out weight and be able to adjust length.

I think you are implicitly insulting a number of people at Wabash National with a comment like this, although I doubt they are reading this thread.  Did you think an intermodal RoadRailer would intentionally be built as a heavy 'dog' or without reference to the physical requirements?

More alarmingly, what would lead you to believe that making any underframe 'adjustable-length' would not impose a potentially-crippling weight penalty -- to say nothing of the safety implications should the variable-length mechanism become unlocked in transit?  I will grant you that it is possible to do some limited adjustment of corner-casting transoms but the issue you're raising is accommodation of radically longer containers, with assumptions about weight distribution and dunnage that become far more serious for low-tare-weight solutions, as well as accommodation issues for containers that overhang their functional corner castings.

It sounds like a bright mechanical engineering talent at Wabash National could figure it out.

I think you'd be right, but you overlook the other 'shoe' -- that the bright mechanical-engineering talent at Wabash National did figure it out, and in between the laws of physics and the realities of finance determined that it could not be made to pay.

(As a separate note: I believe there are now several discussions of the RoadRailer development that explain exactly where the increased tare weight is necessary, and what the structures are.  One often-ignored point about dry vans in intermodal service is that most of them are not designed to be lifted, and in fact are likely to be damaged if anything other than slow, very steady, and knowledgeable control is used the entire time the lifting apparatus is near the trailer in question.  Even providing the necessary structure to permit a loaded trailer to be forked somewhere other than under the bogie and kingpin, for example by inflatable pads equipped with load cells, involves some additional tare weight (which, as Shadow's owner indicates, translates directly into lost revenue every run).  So far, the 'where's my big savings?' has predominated.

Now, I think there is bright mechanical-engineering talent out there now that is looking into just this, the practical development of a dry van that can be efficiently sideloaded quickly and positively on and off skeleton intermodal equipment.  Note that as soon as you have this the use of Fuel-Foiler style underframes (where the trailer bogie wheels ride in 'kangaroo' pockets and the frontal resistance can be reduced) becomes practical, whereas it was not so before.  My own opinion is that perimeter-frame well-style cars are more practical than 'spine' cars, in part because rapid parallel loading and unloading is possible with them.  But I see relatively little upside for the idea of RoadRailing container underframes used for any practical lanes of 'container' service.

[BaltACD]

SAMUEL C WALKER

So, the problem bascially was weight for the Roadrailer dry van. Engineer the weight out and the intermodal vehicle of Roadrailer might be more effecive to get and keep traffic of all sorts. Composite materials? As for a Raodrailer chassis beyond the prototype built in 1980, the solution would be to engineer out weight and be able to adjust length. It sounds like a bright mechanical engineering talent at Wabash National could figure it out. Many thanks for your insights.

However, in railroad operations weight has a additional function - keeping the vehicle on the rails.  Many aspects of railroading rely on gravity to make things work.  So in addition to the buff and draft loads that a 'Roadrailer' must be able to handle it must be heavy enough to stay on the rails.

[SAMUEL C WALKER]

So, the problem bascially was weight for the Roadrailer dry van. Engineer the weight out and the intermodal vehicle of Roadrailer might be more effecive to get and keep traffic of all sorts. Composite materials? As for a Raodrailer chassis beyond the prototype built in 1980, the solution would be to engineer out weight and be able to adjust length. It sounds like a bright mechanical engineering talent at Wabash National could figure it out. Many thanks for your insights.