As some of you may remember, I'm an enthusiastic proponet of increasing the movement of temperature controled freight (vegetables, fruit, red meat, poultry) by rail. I can go in to the numbers if anyone wants me to, but for right now I'll just say the volume is huge, the distances are long, and trucks dominate the business.
The railroads can handle this freight very well. They did so for decades. A major factor in the diversion to truck was the insane economic regulation of rail rates by the Federal Government. Please know that interstate truck rates of vegetable and fruit movements were never regulated. Truck rates on killed chicken were deregulated by a Supreme Court decision in the early 50's. The truckers played the market and the railroads lost the business.
Well, the harmful, totally unnecessary, rail rate regulation is now mercifully gone. The rails have been trying to claw back in to the traffic since that happened in 1981. Market development is a very weak area for US railroads.
One significant issue was the reefer containers used in double stack service. (If the rails can put double stack economics combined with decent service against long haul trucking, they'll have a winning record.) The initial DS reefer containers had a problem with interior floor length. The refrigeration unit took up too much space in the 53' length. So the rail reefers could carry fewer rows of pallets than their truck competition. Not good. Especially on the backhauls where lighter weight dry freight is often handled.
We seem to have a solution:
www.matts-place.com/intermodal/part3/images/jbru567329.jpg
A slimmer reefer system has been designed that allows the rail containers to carry an extra row of pallets. (Note the promotion of such on the JBI container.) I see this as a major step forward in the development of reefer traffic by rail.
Now if we can just get an intermodal terminal at Yuma. (and some other places)
This will run smack into PSR.
The "salad shooters" from the west coast used to get preferential treatment from source to destination. That's not the case any more.
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...
Why does a 53' truck reefer have more space than a 53' container reefer?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Those containers with a chassis are still 3 tons heavier than a 53 foot trailer from 10 years ago and with what they are coming out with soon for the Reefer industry about to make that close to 4 tons. Yeah your reading this right some engineer has come up with a lighter weight insulation for trailers that offers 50% better insulation than the current spray foam stuff. I have not heard when the stuff will be released into the market by which trailer builder but I can tell you this much which ever one does get to use it will have Prime's attention for a very long time.
BaltACD Why does a 53' truck reefer have more space than a 53' container reefer?
The reefer unit on a trailer is attached to the nose of the trailer and sticks out from the front of the trailer think of it like a very massive and heavy window AC unit. In a container they have to make it fit in that space and shape of the container along with the fuel needed to make it run. It normally takes in the area of around 4 feet or 2 pallet spots in the trailer to make it fit. In a 53 foot reefer or dry van container or trailer if you put the pallets in sideways you can put 30 pallets in the trailer in the space and still get the doors closed. With the current reefer containers the max is 28.
tree68This will run smack into PSR. . . .
Problem is, Yuma is on the UP, which is now "drinking the Kool-Aid" of PSR.
Better odds with BNSF because it's looking to grow traffic, but it's closest point on the Southern TransCon is Needles, which is about 185 mi./ 3 hrs. due north, and not really headed in the right direction.
Might be worth looking at going to Phoenix instead, which is kinda sorta in the right direction. From there it's a windy twisty branch line ("Peavine"?) up to the junction with the TransCon main at Ash Fork. However, that branch line is on BNSF's Intermodal Map ( https://www.bnsf.com/ship-with-bnsf/maps-and-shipping-locations/pdf/intermodal-map-large.pdf ), so it's not too much of a stretch to think that might be possible. Also, there's a yard in Phoenix that looks like it has some extra capacity, so it might be feasible.
- PDN.
Shadow the Cats ownerShadow the Cats owner wrote the following post an hour ago: Those containers with a chassis are still 3 tons heavier than a 53 foot trailer from 10 years ago and with what they are coming out with soon for the Reefer industry about to make that close to 4 tons. Yeah your reading this right some engineer has come up with a lighter weight insulation for trailers that offers 50% better insulation than the current spray foam stuff. I have not heard when the stuff will be released into the market by which trailer builder but I can tell you this much which ever one does get to use it will have Prime's attention for a very long time.
I don't see any reason why the new insulation couldn't also be used on the rail reefer containers. So they'd get the weight benefit too.
Yes, a container/chassis combination will weigh more than a trailer of the same length. But you can get weight back by using a highway tractor specified for intermodal service.
Briefly, you're generally allowed 80,000 pounds gross vehicle weight on the highway (there are exeptions). This includes everything; tractor, trailer, payload, fuel, the driver, the driver's lunch, everything. All else being equal, the extra weight of the container chassis combination would cause a reduction in the allowable payload weight. This isn't a problem with most freight because it will fill the cubic capacity of the trailer/container before it hits the weight limit. It is a problem with perishable freight because perishables are mostly water and they load heavy. So the extra weight of the container/chassis combination could be a disadvantage to rail movement by reducing the possible payload.
But you can get weight back on the highway tractor. An over the road long haul tractor will have a structure enclosing a bed and basic living quarters for the driver(s). It will also have large fuel tanks loaded with a lot of fuel. You don't need either of these on an IM delivery tractor. They do add weight back in for the over the road movement.
Additionally, weight can be taken out of the intermodal tractor by using such things as an aluminum frame and single aluminum wheels. (no duals) The aluminum cost more than steel, but when the tractor is delivering two loads per day (intermodal) instead of just one per week (over the road movement) the added investment can pay off.
Couple this with the tremendous economics of double stack and the rails have a winner. At least JB Hunt thinks so. After all, they've acquired the new containers.
Pennsylvania allows an extra 10,000 lbs. for container cargo. An annual permit is needed, but last time I looked it was only $150. From
https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/FREIGHT/policy/rpt_congress/truck_sw_laws/app_a.htm#ex51
Containerized Cargo: An annual permit may be issued authorizing the movement on highways of containerized cargo that exceeds the maximum vehicle gross or maximum axle weights specified in Subchapter C (relating to maximum weights of vehicles). Except as set forth in subsection (b), the weight of any combination permitted under this section shall not exceed 90,000 lbs. overall gross weight and 21,000 lbs. on any axle. A brake retarder is not required on a combination permitted under this section while the combination is operated within the counties of Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, and Philadelphia. A vehicle operating with a permit authorized under this section may be driven 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, except on holidays and in inclement weather as specified in departmental regulations (Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. tit. 75, §4974).
And subsection (b) allows 107.5K GVW for refrigerated meat products in Phildelphia and the surrounding counties, if using certain equipment:
Refrigerated Meat Products: An annual permit may be issued authorizing the movement on specified highways of containerized cargo consisting of refrigerated meat products that exceeds the maximum vehicle gross weight or maximum axle weights specified in Subchapter C, subject to the following conditions:
Ken, I don't know whether to tell you to drool over this, or eat your heart out. It's tailor-made for what you're proposing.
tree68 This will run smack into PSR. The "salad shooters" from the west coast used to get preferential treatment from source to destination. That's not the case any more.
There currently are no dedicated salad shooters on the UP side. That reefer traffic seems to be moving on intermodals again.
Jeff
greyhounds Shadow the Cats owner Shadow the Cats owner wrote the following post an hour ago: Those containers with a chassis are still 3 tons heavier than a 53 foot trailer from 10 years ago and with what they are coming out with soon for the Reefer industry about to make that close to 4 tons. Yeah your reading this right some engineer has come up with a lighter weight insulation for trailers that offers 50% better insulation than the current spray foam stuff. I have not heard when the stuff will be released into the market by which trailer builder but I can tell you this much which ever one does get to use it will have Prime's attention for a very long time. I don't see any reason why the new insulation couldn't also be used on the rail reefer containers. So they'd get the weight benefit too. Yes, a container/chassis combination will weigh more than a trailer of the same length. But you can get weight back by using a highway tractor specified for intermodal service. Briefly, you're generally allowed 80,000 pounds gross vehicle weight on the highway (there are exeptions). This includes everything; tractor, trailer, payload, fuel, the driver, the driver's lunch, everything. All else being equal, the extra weight of the container chassis combination would cause a reduction in the allowable payload weight. This isn't a problem with most freight because it will fill the cubic capacity of the trailer/container before it hits the weight limit. It is a problem with perishable freight because perishables are mostly water and they load heavy. So the extra weight of the container/chassis combination could be a disadvantage to rail movement by reducing the possible payload. But you can get weight back on the highway tractor. An over the road long haul tractor will have a structure enclosing a bed and basic living quarters for the driver(s). It will also have large fuel tanks loaded with a lot of fuel. You don't need either of these on an IM delivery tractor. They do add weight back in for the over the road movement. Additionally, weight can be taken out of the intermodal tractor by using such things as an aluminum frame and single aluminum wheels. (no duals) The aluminum cost more than steel, but when the tractor is delivering two loads per day (intermodal) instead of just one per week (over the road movement) the added investment can pay off. Couple this with the tremendous economics of double stack and the rails have a winner. At least JB Hunt thinks so. After all, they've acquired the new containers.
Shadow the Cats owner Shadow the Cats owner wrote the following post an hour ago: Those containers with a chassis are still 3 tons heavier than a 53 foot trailer from 10 years ago and with what they are coming out with soon for the Reefer industry about to make that close to 4 tons. Yeah your reading this right some engineer has come up with a lighter weight insulation for trailers that offers 50% better insulation than the current spray foam stuff. I have not heard when the stuff will be released into the market by which trailer builder but I can tell you this much which ever one does get to use it will have Prime's attention for a very long time.
Those that haul into grocery warehouses where these things will be going call them the Black holes of the consignees. Drivers call them the clock eating monsters. It is nothing for a grocery warehouse to take 5-7 hours to unload a trailer even it the freaking thing is on pallets and is a straight pull off. Why because they do not care about the drivers time. My boss does hammer them with detention time as hard as he can so he can compensate the drivers and make up some of the lost productivity. However larger fleets don't care that much and JB Hunt is one of the worst. Unless they are going to have these things in D&H locations which is rarer than dirt in the reefer business then their drivers are going to get the shaft yet again. Most of JB's IM tractors are midroof Cascadia tractors with a 58 inch bunk carry 150 gallons of fuel and ride on dual tires in the back. His local drivers get the day cabs and since the ELD mandate those trucks are being retired faster than Arrow imploded in the industry. Most of my OTR drivers deliver between 2-4 loads a week some as many as 6 a week.
JB Hunt only is playing in the reefer market due to a couple customers they have. When a carrier like Prime or KLLM or Stevens all whom use IM shipments extensively start to switch over to containers I will pay attention. Prime is the largest in terms of both Revenue and trucks in the reefer side of the industry and tends to be the front runner for tech. If they adopt it then the rest of the reefer boys do. They are not even interested in containers at all. They tried the flatbed ones and almost lost their largest customers for that divison and learned their lesson.
If railroaders could somehow temper PSR with a more focussed and robust marketing and sales effort they'd be hard to compete with. That's likely coming.. After everyone has milked the PSR cow dry they'll be looking for new frontiers.. and some EHH visionary of the future will "discover".. marketing.
Truth be told there's ALOT of low hanging fruit (pun.. yeah I know) out there that goes by truck now that would be entirely amenable to rail.. But to get at it would require close collaboration between sales and operations..as most loads would involve truck drayage and transhipping along with careful coordination from pickup to delivery.. PSR is fine.. PSR guided by intelligent marketing and sales and supported by an overriding interest in customer service would be fantastic.
UlrichIf railroaders could somehow temper PSR with a more focussed and robust marketing and sales effort they'd be hard to compete with. That's likely coming.. After everyone has milked the PSR cow dry they'll be looking for new frontiers.. and some EHH visionary of the future will "discover".. marketing. Truth be told there's ALOT of low hanging fruit (pun.. yeah I know) out there that goes by truck now that would be entirely amenable to rail.. But to get at it would require close collaboration between sales and operations..as most loads would involve truck drayage and transhipping along with careful coordination from pickup to delivery.. PSR is fine.. PSR guided by intelligent marketing and sales and supported by an overriding interest in customer service would be fantastic.
One characteristic of PSR is drastic slashing of marketing/sales personnel. Even easier to get ROI by slashing those folk than by slashing operating personnel.
Yep, come up with a new idea, or even a recognition of something new going on, and you'll get people coming out of the woodwork explaining why it's stupid and can't work. These people often throw irrelevant "facts" against the wall hoping to confuse the situation and defeat something they don't like. Such as:
Shadow the Cats ownerMost of my OTR drivers deliver between 2-4 loads a week some as many as 6 a week.
That may be true, but it's also irrelevant to the subject at hand. "Most" OTR drivers have relative short hauls, i.e. Chicago-Cincinnati, that allow them to handle several loads per week. Perishables move longer distances, i.e. Salinas-New York. There's no way for a single driver to deliver more than one load a week on that route. We're talking about the long haul perishable business here.
Shadow the Cats owner Unless they are going to have these things in D&H locations which is rarer than dirt in the reefer business then their drivers are going to get the shaft yet again.
Because D&H (drop and hook) is rare now doesn't mean it won't work for rail intermodal. (Drop and hook is a system whereby a trucker brings a load to a facility, such as a grocery distribution center, drops the load by unhooking his/her tractor, and hooks to an empty pervisously unloaded. The driver then leaves with the empty trailer. The driver doesn't have to wait around to get unloaded. That's a big advantage for rail intermodal.) Our intermodal was mostly D&H which was facilitated by our trucking being local drayage from and to the intermodal terminals.
Shadow the Cats ownerMost of JB's IM tractors are midroof Cascadia tractors with a 58 inch bunk carry 150 gallons of fuel and ride on dual tires in the back. His local drivers get the day cabs and since the ELD mandate those trucks are being retired faster than Arrow imploded in the industry.
Yes, well "Most" of JB's intermodal freight consists of dry loads that don't require the specifications needed to haul the heavy perishable loads. So it's perfectly reasonable that JB isn't spending the extra money needed to take the weight out of the tractors. If the rail temperature controlled business expands, as I know it can, JB can simply get some lightweight tractors to handle the loads.
The requirement for electronic log devices (ELDs) does not apply to local trucking operations. Any operation within 117 miles of an intermodal terminal is exempt from the mandate. Again, it has no relevance to this situation. It's just something thrown out to confuse the situation.
Shadow the Cats owner When a carrier like Prime or KLLM or Stevens all whom use IM shipments extensively start to switch over to containers I will pay attention.
Well, you can wait for whatever you want to wait for, but...
This new slim reefer, which allows 15 rows of pallets instead of only 14 is a new technology that does improve rail rail container competitiveness. I reason it shows great potential. It's new, and it overcomes one big drawback of previous rail reefer containers. We'll have to see who gets on board.
I really want to deal with the PSR thing. I see it as good for railroading and good for this business in particular. But one thing at a time.
greyhoundsI really want to deal with the PSR thing. I see it as good for railroading and good for this business in particular. But one thing at a time.
A good deal of what I've seen about PSR is that it's great for the investors, not so much for the business of running a railroad.
A smart business person would be looking for ways to get more business, even if it was in a fairly narrow range (ie, IM, bulk/unit trains). You don't do that by getting rid of the people who go out and find that business for you.
Likewise, you can't cut operating and business costs without having some effect on actually running the railroad. That's not to say that there wasn't some fat to be cut, but how much is too much? This is why I suggested elsewhere that an analysis needs to be done post-EHH to see what stuck and what didn't, and the long-term effects on the railroad.
Many of the ideas put forth as PSR go back years. Cutting dwell time and increasing velocity predate PSR. So do deferred maintenance and clearing out perceived "deadwood." We will have to wait to see how it all falls out in the end.
PSR was actually the operating plan pre-Staggers. Cut everything because railroads as a business have no future. ICC regulations pre-Staggers slowed it's implementation. Staggers enabled it with serious plant rationalizations and customer shedding. Harrison didn't invent anything - he just put a name on it. Wall Street, the Whiz Kids, still don't believe railroads have a future and a purpose for existing - that is why they have flocked to PSR.
As information.
This is what is making this breakthrough possible, the Thermo King SLXi-DRC.
https://www.thermoking.com/content/dam/thermoking/documents/products/56481_SLXi_DRC_Brochure.pdf
PSR is really just a buzz phrase for "let's run it efficiently by optimizing the use of people and assets". As with most things, too much of a good thing defeats the whole purpose. I think NS has the right idea by easing into PSR over a couple of years.. Running 10 KM every day is also good.. but very bad to start out with that if you've been a couch potato for the last 20 years. Use the assets efficently but focus on customer service metrics. Better to have a higher OR and outstanding customer service numbers than a very low OR and a bunch of unhappy shippers.
Sounds like someone is whistling by the graveyard.
UP handles most of our plastic resins as far as KC then they are interchanged to the BNSF for final delivery to us here. Since the UP has started to implement PSR our delivery times have gone up by on average 3 days to the point we are wanting BNSF to carry the traffic direct for us from the Chemical Coast to us. It's getting to the point were at times we have less than 200 tons of each of our primary resins in stock for blending. Our normal supply is over 400 tons. The problem for us is while the BNSF has trackage rights they can not service the customers on the Chemical coast they can only haul what UP allows them to haul. Also the PTRA of Houston does not service most of the plants where we get our resins from. So we have to deal with the UP and trying to get them to change the Interchange point to Houston forget about it. They wanted to double their charges to us to do it. If that is PSR then they can have it.
This market is HUGE! The basic point of greyhounds (I think) to pursue this market is well taken. Most of my design/construction projects are cold storage, food processing, similar. I’m dealing with shippers and facility operators daily.
Pallets on a truck/container are gold. That is how the money is made. Losing pallet positions to ship by rail will often not cut it, even if it is only 2 or 4 pallets. Whether because of cube loss or from overweight because of the added tare weight plus chassis weight of a container, it is a big challenge. My suggestion: focus on trailers for food shipments. See below regarding chassis, too. At least to recapture the business, make it easy and convenient and transparent for the dominant equipment: trailers. I would agree with Shadow the Cats owner: when Prime, Stevens, FFE, etc decide to make a major move to containers, then it is time for railroads to do so too. Until then, stick with trailers. BNSF is doing far better than UP on refrigerated intermodal because they are focused on trucker convenience, not asking truckers to focus on railroad convenience (which it sure looks like UP is doing).
Frozen goods are good to go by rail. Perishables much less so. Shelf life becomes very critical on many items. Strawberries, lettuce: an extra day of transit is critical for the value of what is being shipped. That is why truckers get short, medium, and long hauls on highly perishable fresh items. Whether it is an employee team for a trucking company or a husband-wife (or similar, not trying to pigeon hole anyone into gender or relationship boxes…..), if the truck can keep on the road most of the time and get 1,000 miles/day, it will beat the heck out of the best intermodal service.
A trucker doesn’t have ramp terminal time, and waiting for a chassis shortage (happens more than it should – part of the dysfunction of railroading), or sitting in a gate queue. As noted, truckers are already caught up in wait times at shipping and receiving points. More operations, though, are going to a D&H. That cuts the truck yard wasted time down a lot, but only for the trucking companies. For the gypsy truckers, who still transport a large portion of the refrigerated market, they will wait in their tractor, attached to their trailer, because they OWN the trailer.
Since there is a limit to the amount of refrigerated traffic in both directions, dry freight becomes a key to making the service work. Some of this is large-scale triangulation, but a lot is more like the California market. Dry freight moves west to primary regional distribution hubs, or urban/suburban LTL hubs, runs empty to a food area, then runs east. And trucking is nimble: seasonal harvests are far easier for trucks to move around to than railroads. Lettuce is harvested part of the year in the Watsonville/Salinas areas, then part of the year in the Yuma/Mexicali/El Centro areas (and a few others). Railroads aren’t real interested in moving lift equipment around from ramp to ramp.
Making a major dent in refrigerated transport will mean being service- and customer-foscused. That means schedules that work for the shipper. And multiple schedules per day on shorter hauls so a load is not sitting around in a terminal for 8 or 16 hours. That means terminals that flow. That means consistency. Railroads has a long way to go to get there.
Aha! Another person who I can quiz about details:
How, specifically, would you modify a reefer van trailer structure to make it rail-compatible? That includes where to put reinforcement for underlift or side-lifting, and any formalization of standards to develop cost-effective intermodal handling equipment that doesn't cause cumulative damage to the vehicles.
Absent this, a more widespread use of 'trailers' for greyhounds' type of operation is likely to have extensive hidden costs that may break the long-term perceived profitability.
I have my thoughts on these design issues; let's hear yours.
Overmod for the railroads to even start to make a dent back in the produce market they're going to have to put customers first instead of shareholders. Then instead of only wanting to deal with larger customers start going after the smaller ones again. I have received request for quotes for pricing for service for smaller railroad customers in my area that both UP and CSX no longer want to service them. My boss just doesn't have the equipment to handle it right now. In 3 months we will have it and these places are understanding that. Our fleet I can say is growing by 20 percent this year all due to PSR on 2 railroads costing themselves customers. That's another 55 families that my boss is probably a very popular person in. Thanks for the business.
Frankly the days of railroads going after this kind of business on their own are likely long over. No financier-driven organization is going to take the 'risk' of temporary de-optimization of metrics like "OR" as currently defined in order to build new market share, particularly in what are likely to be seasonal or cyclic markets.
What I see is a kind of return to the age of the freight forwarding companies and 'express lines' in an era of American railroading that kinda resembles what's developing now. Remember W.H.Vanderbilt's interview with 'the public be damned' -- customers then were not treated too differently. The idea was to provide as slow a service as possible, in the absence of reasonable alternatives, right down to what the 'competition' (like canals or steamboats) would offer. To get better service you had organizations that improved cars, negotiated for more expedient handling or higher speed, and provided 'one-stop' arrangements for the necessary performance, tracking, and end-to-end expediting needed to 'get the package through'.
Everything I've heard greyhounds saying about meat or vegetable traffic works better for the equivalent of a co-op with access to capital than it does for contemporary railroads implementing their pathetic little perversions of PSR. Even if the organization is owned the way the original Trailer Train was, the actual management and administration could be Done Right operationally, and that extends to capital design and operations.
Overmod, reefer trailers are already by Stevens, Prime, FFE, Navajo, Marten, Alliance Shippers, Knight, Clipper, Freymiller, TransWest, JKC, KLLM, and more. I’m not sure what they’ve done to make them work, but seems to be working!
Bruce D GillingsOvermod, reefer trailers are already by Stevens, Prime, FFE, Navajo, Marten, Alliance Shippers, Knight, Clipper, Freymiller, TransWest, JKC, KLLM, and more. I’m not sure what they’ve done to make them work, but seems to be working!
Kind of not the point. Sidelift any of them or try to elevate them with contact other than bogie or kingpin/landing gear and they likely suffer accelerated damage. That is the issue I'm concerned with avoiding, because circus loading/unloading of large numbers of trailers is a functional nonstarter.
It is relatively easy to reinforce a trailer to, say, be able to straddle-lift it. Traditionally this greatly increases the tare weight and often limits either the cubage or the practical lading, to say nothing of increasing cost. Few of the companies you mention have, to my knowledge, optimized a reefer trailer design for actual rail intermodal transfer on a frequent and routine basis.
Basically all they've done is shove a larger 100 gallon instead of 50 gallon of fuel tank on them slightly reinforce the bottom rails at lifting points and put sat tracking on the reefer units that can communicate with their shops if they have any problems. Beyond that they are standard OTR trailers that anyone can order out of their builder's catalog.
The reinforced bottom rail adds maybe 100 lbs the fuel tank is the real heavy weight item. Full of fuel it is almost 800 pounds. Then we have the side skirts that California requires also now. So to equip a new trailer for reefer intermodal usage is about 500 pounds more than a standard reefer trailer. We as an industry can deal with that. It's when you are talking tons of weight we can't make it work.
OvermodRemember W.H.Vanderbilt's interview with 'the public be damned' -- customers then were not treated too differently. The idea was to provide as slow a service as possible, in the absence of reasonable alternatives, right down to what the 'competition' (like canals or steamboats) would offer.
He was referring to passenger service in a response to a complaint by Mr. Dresser, who was on the same train. Dresser gave the story to the Tribune.
First I'd like to thank most of the contributors to this thread. Your writings have been thoughtfull, knowledgeable, and incisive, for the most part. And no one has called me a dirty name. I enjoy such topics.
Anyway, let's look at the market. I'll go with vegeables. These are USDA numbers for 2016. This is per capita US food availability. What's on the grocery shelf.
Here you go, scroll down:
https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-availability-per-capita-data-system/
In 2016 the per capita availability of vegetables was 385.1 pounds. Of that, over half, 51.3% consisted of only two vegetables: 1) potatoes (115.8 pounds) and, 2) tomatoes (81.8) pounds. These crops aren't hard to haul. They have long shelf lives. And the vast majority of potatoes are processed by freezing or dehydrating. Over 50% of the US potato crop is produced in Idaho and Washington. It is shipped long distances to population centers. Railroads should dominate this business. They don't.
Tomatoes are picked green. Then, after shipment they are ripened with a gas. (An exception is hot house tomatoes.) They can stand a little extra transit time. Railroads should also dominate the long haul tomato market. They don't. (I'm convinced the only way to get a good tomato is to grow it yourself.)
Other vegetables readily amenable to rail movement include: 1) onions (20.8 pounds per cap), 2) carrots (10.7), 3) sweet potatoes (7.2), and dry beans (6.7). Thow these in and we're at over 63% of the business without breaking a sweat.
Sweet corn (I love it) is big at 20.3 pounds per cap. Fresh sweet corn is very time sensative. But most of the corn (13.1 pounds) is processed by freezing or canning. Go get it on the rails.
Food in the US is produced where it's most amenable to raise that particular type of food. That means it moves long distances to where the population centers are.
Next, I'll go in to the relative merits of each type of rail equipment for moving food to folks. 1) Refrigerated rail car, 2) Double stack container, or 3) Standard highway reefer trailer in TOFC service. Each has its place.
The biggest issue that the railroads are going to have to regain any measurable share in the produce market hauling is where the final Distribution centers are being built now. Not one of the Walmart the largest in terms of sales BTW Distribution centers has rail access they are all Truck service only. Amazon which owns Whole Foods is the same way so is Costco the other major Grocery chains are the same way also. The railroads cut their own throats with their lack of customer service to the produce markets.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.