As of right now, Q192 hasn't run through Deshler yet. Yesterday it hit the diamond around 4PM.
It's only listed as going to North Baltimore.
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...
The Q192 is growing...lately it is in the 40-60 general freight cars with 15 or so refers, plus the domestic containers.
Ed
MP173 Thanks for the update. I have noticed that Q192 eastbound seems to be handling general freight cars in addition to the intermodal containers. Is there a special provision contractually for that? Seems to be capped at 30 cars, often refers. Ed
Thanks for the update.
I have noticed that Q192 eastbound seems to be handling general freight cars in addition to the intermodal containers. Is there a special provision contractually for that? Seems to be capped at 30 cars, often refers.
I don't think there is a cap. The Q192 has really become a combo of the old QNPSKP (Q390) and the Apple train (Q090), with some general intermodal thrown on board.
An "expensive model collector"
RailPlannerI assume the Memphis to Chicago RR you refer to is the former IC...now the CN. In your example the CN also serves Twin Cities and Toronto...and by a more circuotous conection on the old Soo (the track,,,not the CP subsidiary) also serves Milwaukee. Would CN rubber tire loads to themself across town rather than rail?
No. The CN has consolidated its Chicago intermodal operations at the site of the IC's old Markham Yard. So, no need to rubber tire between CN terminals. To my knowledge the CN does not have an IM terminal in the Twin Cities. That load could move past Chicago on the BNSF out of their Cicero, IL terminal. It probably would be rubber tire interchanged.
CN does have another Chicago area IM terminal near Joliet to serve the large "Inland Port" there.
The Milwaukee load should be on tires from Chicago north. It's something like 90 miles. Just have a driver hook to it and deliver it.
Edit to add. A very true story.
So, Thibodaux, LA is in a sugar producing area. And, as a result, they had a candy factory that made, in this case, Christmas candy. Christmas candy doesn't have much value after Christmas. Their logistics people obviously didn't know what they were doing and shipped two TOFC trailers of Christmas candy to Milwaukee routed ICG-Louisville-Milwaukee Road. Bad idea.
So, we screwed it up from the get go. The trailers didn't go to Louisville, they came in to Chicago. Our Chicago IM terminal manager, who rarely knew what he was doing, should have just sent them to the Milwaukee Road in Chicago. We would have paid a deprived revenue claim, but hey, we did misroute the loads.
So, this less than adequate individual decides the thing to do is load the trailers back up on a flatcar and send them down to Louisville. We didn't have direct service to Louisville so I don't know how long it took them to get there.
We interchanged the flatcar with the trailers to the Milwaukee. Again, I don't know how long that took.
The Milwaukee Road got them on a train north from Louisville. It was a really rough early winter that year and the Milwaukee train got stuck in a southern Indiana blizzard. And there the candy sat, with Christmas fast approaching.
I took a call from the shipper. He was literally pleading for a way to get this candy delivered before Christmas. I couldn't do much. The loads were on another railroad. I ask him what the Milwaukee Road said. He said they said: "Call back with the flatcar number." I had the flatcar number and I gave it to him. That sure didn't get the car unstuck from the snow.
The moral of the story is: If you've got the load in an intermodal terminal 90 miles from the consignee just have a driver hook to it and deliver it.
I assume the Memphis to Chicago RR you refer to is the former IC...now the CN. In your example the CN also serves Twin Cities and Toronto...and by a more circuotous conection on the old Soo (the track,,,not the CP subsidiary) also serves Milwaukee. Would CN rubber tire loads to themself across town rather than rail?
greyhounds CMStPnP It's kind of stupid.........is my problem with it. Well, so much for trying to have a reasoned, intelligent discussion on this forum. With a response like this one, that can't happen. It would have been nice during this winter lockdown. But NO. The response is "It's kind of stupid..." As told in my presence by one Robert Reebie (As in the RoadRailer Robert Reebie) a union intermodal terminal was proposed for Chicago when he was working for the New York Central marketing department. The proposal made it all the way up to the Real Mayor Daley, AKA King Richard the 1st. Hizhonordamayor was reported to be quite enthused with the proposal. But then some folks with pencils, paper and adding machines (It was the 1950s) started analyzing the numbers. Things just didn’t work out money wise. If any such facility had been built it would be antiquated today. While containers and trailers stay on their railcars through Chicago when it makes sense to do so, rubber tire interchange also is used when it’s the better option. If you’re response to this is: "It's kind of stupid..." I’ll just say you’re in denial of reality.
CMStPnP It's kind of stupid.........is my problem with it.
Well, so much for trying to have a reasoned, intelligent discussion on this forum. With a response like this one, that can't happen. It would have been nice during this winter lockdown. But NO. The response is "It's kind of stupid..."
As told in my presence by one Robert Reebie (As in the RoadRailer Robert Reebie) a union intermodal terminal was proposed for Chicago when he was working for the New York Central marketing department. The proposal made it all the way up to the Real Mayor Daley, AKA King Richard the 1st. Hizhonordamayor was reported to be quite enthused with the proposal.
But then some folks with pencils, paper and adding machines (It was the 1950s) started analyzing the numbers. Things just didn’t work out money wise. If any such facility had been built it would be antiquated today.
While containers and trailers stay on their railcars through Chicago when it makes sense to do so, rubber tire interchange also is used when it’s the better option.
If you’re response to this is: "It's kind of stupid..." I’ll just say you’re in denial of reality.
Greyhounds thanks for mentioning this. I understand rubber tire dray across town has it's merit, as does steel wheel. I always thought a Clearing type of IM ramp would make more sense. Numbers don't lie. If a union type facility was a better option it would've been built, but it has not, and will not.
There's another part of the produce business most of you are missing...most major cities in the past had central Produce markets that would receive the bulk of produce in carload quantities. The produce markets housed multiple produce brokers that sold the produce to the retail outlets that would pick up from the produce market and deliver to their retail facilities. There are still produce markets in operation in many cities, but they no longer handle the volumes as in the past, and it's more specialized now. When I was in the intermodal business we had one customer that was an onion/garlic/watermelon shipper/broker and used insulated vented trailers/containers(and regularly overloaded up to 50k). Loads would actually be picked up from either the fields directly or a packing shed related to the field(s), delivered to the intermodal terminal and shipped off east to Chicago and Eastward, at first it was mostly to New York(Hunts Point Produce Terminal), Baltimore, Philadelphia, and others from mostly the Central Valley of California. Eventually, by the time I left the business loads would originate from almost all Western States except Nevada and go across the East Coast and even down as far as Miami. Eventually the BNSF got rid of their fleet of insulated vented trailers(the SFVZ 73 series), not sure about CSX(CSXU 7 series containers), but all I remember is the additional charges always incurred at loading and/or destination, and the profits that customer would make.
MP173 Union Pacific originates a train at their intermodal terminal south of Joliet (ICOG4) which is handed off to CSX (Q192) for North Baltimore, the big sorting yard for containers. B
Union Pacific originates a train at their intermodal terminal south of Joliet (ICOG4) which is handed off to CSX (Q192) for North Baltimore, the big sorting yard for containers.
B
One small correction, the Q192 train originates off of the UP out of G3 in Rochelle. The train is handed off of the UP to CSX at 16th St from the Geneva sub, to the Blue Island sub.
Interestingly the CSX to UP train, Q191, does go to G4. It changes crews on the IHB at 71st Street, and goes onto the CN at Argo to reach G4.
I am learning more about the reefer side of this industry from another company that all they do is haul meat out to the west coast and then make multiple pickups to fill their trailers up to head back to the midwest to do it all over again. The boss of that carrier showed me his numbers on his return loads his rate per mile on average is HIGHER than what he is getting on his contract loads out to his customers. They literally are making more with doing more pickups thru brokers than on a dedicated contract load.
Not a trucker!
What sort of time frame are we talking about for a trucker to aggregate a return truckload? I suspect the minimum time involved in picking up one part of a aggregated load will be in the neighborhood of one hour at best - getting to the facility, finding out where to go in the facility, loading and securing the part load, securing and signing the paperwork and then departing the facility. How much travel time to the next part load facility, rinse and repeat. All this time the HOS clock is ticking and subtracting from over the road time. Suspect the same relative times are a part of the delivery cycle on the destination end. While I quote a single hour - it could easily be two, three or more hours for each segment of the load.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
OvermodThat is not something a combination of local traffic aggregating to trainload (or even blockload) make-up points is likely to match. But it is likewise not representative of 'ordinary' trucking economics, even in ttrraaffiicc's ideal world of electrified autonomy.
I propose that we need to establish a "Godwin's Law" type principle for anytime a poster tries to incorporate ttrraaffiicc's reasoning into their own argument(s)
Convicted OneShe was emphasizing that trucking provides flexibility in originating loads, compared to the railroad's insistence that you "bring the mountain to Mohammad, so that he can move it".
That is not something a combination of local traffic aggregating to trainload (or even blockload) make-up points is likely to match. But it is likewise not representative of 'ordinary' trucking economics, even in ttrraaffiicc's ideal world of electrified autonomy. What he is likely proposing is similar to what he proposed for 'cold train' service: a network of short-distance (or even medium-distance) providers all converging TOT on a scheduled train or block, traveling to strategic points centered on rapid delivery (as Rotterdam was said to be for New York and New England demand points) where the 'reverse' TOT for distributed short-distance delivery is conducted. None of the drivers wastes time or capacity traveling the whole distance, and everyone can sleep in a real bed while working full or nearly-full logbook hours...
And yeah, it's the railroad 'bringing the mountain to Mohammed' -- and then making it possible for it to be redistributed quickly on arrival -- and yeah, I expect the individual trucking companies to be aggressive and customer-centric as appropriate, and yeah, I expect the railroads' "logistics divisions" to be aggressive both in helping the truckers with customer-centricity and lead generation, etc. and in providing a clean, reliable, least-cost scheduled service that GETS THERE... as in the old Apple slogan, 'it just works'. And assuredly that is one of the things PSR could provide if you run it correctly instead of as a kludge or excuse.
greyhoundsAnyway, the things you cite may be true, but they are also irrelevant. It does not matter how many cooling sheds are visited to make up the long haul load. Nor does it matter how many stops for partial unloading are required on the destination end.
I thought her comments WERE relevant. She was emphasizing that trucking provides flexibility in originating loads, compared to the railroad's insistence that you "bring the mountain to Mohammad, so that he can move it".
Well I have heard from my close hold sources at KLLM and Marten that they are not ordering more Reefer Containers again. The tare weight issue is still way to much along with the loss of flexiblity for them to absorb. Yes JB Hunt is buying them however JB Hunt hasn't bought a regular trailer in 20+ years except for their dedicated accounts that require them. The loss of 3 tons of cargo is just still way to much for them to absorb.
Shadow the Cats ownerReasons like this are why the pershible market for railroads has died. My boss is starting to dab his toe in the water of this market so to speak with return loads from Texas back to Illinois. Our drivers are literally going to up to 10 different places to get a trailer load of produce for a local grocery warehouse. Let alone if we ever decided to play in the West Coast markets. I asked my hubby that pulled produce out of California for years how many places he picked up out of. He pulled out his map of the coolers of Salinas and stopped counting at 90 places in a 30 mile radius of that one city. Then throw in Oxnard for berries Bakersfield for grapes and carrots the rest of the Central Valley for other produce. He literally picked up out of 300+ places in his career that all where going to about anyplace in this nation. Just imagine the railroads and their limited marketing departments trying to keep up with that today.
I strongly disagree. Perishables by rail haven't died. But they sure were hurt by government price regulation. Such regulation never was fostered on truck shipments. That's not just dumb, it's "Government Dumb."
Anyway, the things you cite may be true, but they are also irrelevant. It does not matter how many cooling sheds are visited to make up the long haul load. Nor does it matter how many stops for partial unloading are required on the destination end. Rail transport comes in on the long haul from say, Salinas to New England. Do the loading/unloading stops by truck and use a train for the long haul move. There isn't a truck in North America that can compete with a good double stack schedule and price if enough miles are involved.
Railroad marketing does suck. But, it too is irrelevant in this case. We'll leave the marketing work to intermodal truckers such as KLLM.
Shadow the Cats ownerOur drivers are literally going to up to 10 different places to get a trailer load of produce for a local grocery warehouse ... Just imagine the railroads and their limited marketing departments trying to keep up with that today.
Railroads gave up these niches, effectively, long ago. Even if management pursued them, labor considerations would likely preclude it -- even in the happy world we'd have had if RoadRailers had caught on for the traffic that would allow the heavier tare weight...
Where the rails shine is when there is aggregate traffic from the great many initiating points to put reasonable blocks or trainloads together, through to locations where the great many terminating points can then be served ... with different trucks and drivers. In my opinion the UP 'logistics' service to Rotterdam was clearly an example, and the fact they chose not to sustain it is a cautionary tale here. The same could be said, at a lesser scale, of CP Expressway used the ways that best applied.
Reasons like this are why the pershible market for railroads has died. My boss is starting to dab his toe in the water of this market so to speak with return loads from Texas back to Illinois. Our drivers are literally going to up to 10 different places to get a trailer load of produce for a local grocery warehouse. Let alone if we ever decided to play in the West Coast markets. I asked my hubby that pulled produce out of California for years how many places he picked up out of. He pulled out his map of the coolers of Salinas and stopped counting at 90 places in a 30 mile radius of that one city. Then throw in Oxnard for berries Bakersfield for grapes and carrots the rest of the Central Valley for other produce. He literally picked up out of 300+ places in his career that all where going to about anyplace in this nation. Just imagine the railroads and their limited marketing departments trying to keep up with that today.
Actually containers are moving thru Chicago by rail.
BNSF hands off 2 trains, one originates on Los Angeles and the other in Ft. Madison, Iowa which are handed off to CSX in Chicago (Q170 and Q172). Train Q170 is BNSF train QLACNWH6 while Q172 carries the symbol QFTMCXO1.
Meanwhile over on the NS side, train 20W is a Chicago - Croxton NJ train which is handed off from BNSF (ZLACNYC). This train originates in Los Angeles. Not sure where it picks up enroute, my guess would be Clovis, NM. This train is a very high priority movement of trailers and container, nearly all domestic UPS, FedX, YRC, and other domestic carriers. It usually carries about 150-175 trailers/containers with about 50 UPS units and perhaps 25 FedX.
There is volume concentrate to profitably move from LA to NOrth Baltimore and LA to Croxton NY. These 3 EB trains collectively will have 400 - 500 containers on a daily basis.
From North Baltimore, CSX is breaking these trains down for distribution to Louisville, Detroit, Columbus, and other locations.
I am unfamiliar with Ft. Madison operations on BNSF, so I cannot comment on how they are building that train, but my guess is block swapping is occuring with Chicago bound trains dropping off Texas, Kansas City, and other intermediate intermodal locations.
The Q192 from Union Pacific will typically only have about 100-150 domestics containers. This train typically will carry XPO branded containers with CSX and pool containers...very seldom internationals. Further, the first 30 or so cars are general freight, with refers in the mix. My guess is that CSX and UP have worked out an agreement to handle what was the "Apple Train" between Washington/California to Albany area on a daily move to North Baltimore where it is built into a Selkirk train.
So, yes there are hogs moving thru Chicago (always slaughtered) and containers. No passengers tho, without changing trains.
n012944I am not sure where people get the idea that there is congestion in the Chicago area these days.
I think it might be due, in part, to the persistent propaganda pieces we read hyping the imperative to spend additional money on C.R.E.A.T.E. type projects.
Once you become accustomed to the "never ending" nature of such appeals, I think it's just human nature to accept that either there must be genuine problems worthy of attention, or alternately conclude that the appeals are outright fraud. So, in a way, I think you could say that endorsement illustrates a willingness to try and be sympathetic towards mass-transit needs?
I am not sure where people get the idea that there is congestion in the Chicago area these days. As someone who actually railroads on a daily basis there, I can say it is in pretty good shape. That is with traffic almost at pre-pandemic levels.
https://www.progressiverailroading.com/rail_industry_trends/news/AAR-Railroads-close-out-2020-with-traffic-near-pre-pandemic-levels--62377
I would say the one thing that is slowing things down is the reluctance to accumulate horsepower hours from other railroads. Mainline power swaps on run through trains can make it tricky at times.
CMStPnP BaltACD And as we have seen in Chicago - even a 'Union Station' did not bring ALL the carriers and all the rail traveling public to a single station. Grand Central, LaSalle Street, Dearborn Street, IC Central Station a until the creation of Amtrak, and I belive Northwestern Station is still in use for METRA commuter service. Add Quote to your Post Thats true but I wonder how hard it would be to flip this to a centralized terminal of multiple carriers concept so at most you can just carry the container to another waiting train vs driving it across town. I actually drive on the Chicago freeway system at times. The congestion with trucks is horrible at times on the freeways.
BaltACD And as we have seen in Chicago - even a 'Union Station' did not bring ALL the carriers and all the rail traveling public to a single station. Grand Central, LaSalle Street, Dearborn Street, IC Central Station a until the creation of Amtrak, and I belive Northwestern Station is still in use for METRA commuter service. Add Quote to your Post
Thats true but I wonder how hard it would be to flip this to a centralized terminal of multiple carriers concept so at most you can just carry the container to another waiting train vs driving it across town.
I actually drive on the Chicago freeway system at times. The congestion with trucks is horrible at times on the freeways.
CMStPnP: Although we disagree about some things, I tend to agree with you that there must be a better way. Rubber interchange is only cheaper here because the rails don't incur the full costs to the rest of society of such a scheme. If trucking within city borders were reduced/banned at certain times, perhaps that would force the rails to engage in some creative, forward-leaning thought for viable solutions? Look to how this is accomplished elsewhere, including abroad, for examples?
greyhoundsIf you’re response to this is: "It's kind of stupid..." I’ll just say you’re in denial of reality.
Oh really? Because it doesn't read like efficiency to me and it also reads like the railroads have significant issues keeping the system fluid in their own respective terminals.
https://www.midwestinlandport.com/chicago-truckers-publishing-rail-turn-times/
CMStPnPIt's kind of stupid.........is my problem with it.
BaltACDAnd as we have seen in Chicago - even a 'Union Station' did not bring ALL the carriers and all the rail traveling public to a single station. Grand Central, LaSalle Street, Dearborn Street, IC Central Station a until the creation of Amtrak, and I belive Northwestern Station is still in use for METRA commuter service. Add Quote to your Post
The solution to the Chicago rail congestion would be to have the final round of transcontinental mergers. That would spread some routes away from Chicago, and spread other interchange points across the country.
greyhounds A qualification! If a decent sized block for a destination can be aggregated at origin that block can stay on the rail for transfer in Chicago in an efficient and expeditious manner. We’d do that with LTL loads from Yellow Freight moving out of E. St. Louis to Seattle routed ICG-Chicago-BN. We got a solid 10 loads per day and would use a switch crew to move them on flatcars to the BN’s Cicero intermodal terminal. It all depends on the volume and aggregation situations.
While the vast multitude of intermodal might be rubber tired across the Chicago metro area, I've seen in train lists blocks of well cars with containers all destined for the same ramp on CSX or NS. I think these might be interchanged directly to either carrier.
Jeff
charlie hebdoThere's a lot of old, "all or nothing" thinking on display.
Coupled with a lot of 'somethng for nothing' being displayed to.
Spontaneous order.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.