Cedar Rapids, Iowa

[greyhounds]

The backhaul?  This is often a “Stopper”.  Someone points out that we’re going to have to move empty equipment back to Cedar Rapids and that’s the end of that. 

 

Well, the truckers also need to move empty equipment back.  You cannot balance the freight movements into and out of Cedar Rapids.  There’s more going out than coming in and we’ve got to deal with that reality. 

 

People in Iowa do consume imported Heineken Beer, French wine and orange juice, along with the other things that need to be brought into Iowa.  But there just aren’t enough Hawkeyes to consume enough of everything to balance the outbound freight volume produced by their tremendous output of food.

 

It’s a problem to be solved.  It’s not something to cause a “Give Up.”  I’m not going to give up until a doctor says I’m dead.  And I plan on arguing with the doctor about that.

 

There isn’t a freight transportation company in the world that doesn’t incur empty, non-revenue miles.  You can try to minimize them, but you cannot eliminate them.  Such miles are literally unsold production.  The transportation company has incurred the expense of producing the movement but gets no revenue for doing so.

 

The truckers do have one advantage regarding minimizing empty, non-revenue miles.  The truckers have much greater route flexibility than a railroad.  So, for example, after delivering a load of meat to a location near Boston a trucker can easily drive down (empty) to the Port of New York and New Jersey and get a westbound load of French wine destined to the Twin Cities.   He/she takes the wine to destination and then returns (empty) to Iowa for another meat load.  Try that with a railroad.

 

The railroads’ offsetting advantage is that they have much lower marginal costs than a trucker.  A trucker’s marginal costs incur by the truckload.  A railroad’s marginal cost largely incur by the trainload.  And that’s a big advantage for rail if the volume is available.   (Marginal cost are the added cost of adding one more unit of production.)  Think about it.  What are the added costs of putting an extra container of meat on an exiting schedule from Chicago to Boston?  I’ll say, not much.  There are some, but not much. 

 

What are the marginal costs of adding the empty westbound container to an existing Boston-Chicago schedule?  Again, I’ll say “Not Much.”  In this case what goes for one extra container on the existing trains can also go for 10-20 containers on those trains.

 

While the trucker has the advantage in reducing empty miles such miles are much less costly to a railroad.

 

Remember how I’ve proposed setting this up.  I have proposed establishing two new round trips per day between Cedar Rapids and Chicago.  Along with a new intermodal terminal in Cedar Rapids.  We have to do this because there is currently no such service in Cedar Rapids.  Those are real costs, and those costs must be covered with a required return on invested capital.  But currently the rail line has excess capacity and locomotives are in storage.  So. the cash start up cost are somewhat minimized.  Chicago and east just uses existing trains and terminals.  No new train miles, no new crew starts.  Money in the bank.

 

Railroads have a bad inherited practice of cost accounting using an individual load as the production unit.  It doesn’t work that way.  The railroad’s unit of production, and cost, is per train, not per container.  Get as much revenue on that train as possible if the load covers its marginal cost.

 

Obviously, we want to get every westbound load we can.  Work those ports hard and never, ever loose to a trucker on price.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Shadow the Cats owner]

I would call my marginal costs to the customer lower when it costs my boss 500 bucks to have each car switched out of our SIT yard by the BNSF when they get dropped or picked up.  That is a grand a car or half a cent a pound we have to charge our customers that buy the resins out of those cars.  If I know I am getting an extra grand in drop and delivery fees on a load I can deadhead my drivers about 300 miles we do still make a profit.  Also when your picking up a multi stop load most of the time your grabbing them in the same area.  It is rare that you have to go hundreds of miles to get the next pickup made.  Normally your going 5-10 miles to another cooling house or less to get that pickup done.  

 

They can beat us on the longhaul yes but for short and medium haul and also for cost of service well the OTR industy has them beat in spades.  For what the Class 1 railroads charge just in switching fees to service a local customer anymore a good OTR carrier can haul for that same customer a load up to 500 miles away for them at 2 bucks a mile and get it there before the railroad even gets the next train on the way for that city.  Yes the customer will have more trucks going there normally about 4 for every 1 railcar but the service level is worth it in the eyes of their CEO and their logistics departments.  Until the railroads start thinking that service to their customers is more important than lowering their Operating Ratios they are still going to be losing market share to the OTR industry regardless of costs.  Why you can propose all the service you want but until you deliver it on time and then get the empties that the customer needs back to them every single time so they can keep their production running they will not trust you at all.  

[greyhounds]

Shadow the Cats owner

would call my marginal costs to the customer lower when it costs my boss 500 bucks to have each car switched out of our SIT yard by the BNSF when they get dropped or picked up.  That is a grand a car or half a cent a pound we have to charge our customers that buy the resins out of those cars. 

  

She goes on.

The BNSF is getting $500 per switch?  Their pricing folks are doing a good job.

The Cat's owner's post has nothing to do with what I've proposed.  I would never try to move meat in traditional railroad carload service.

[BaltACD]

Shadow the Cats owner

I would call my marginal costs to the customer lower when it costs my boss 500 bucks to have each car switched out of our SIT yard by the BNSF when they get dropped or picked up.  That is a grand a car or half a cent a pound we have to charge our customers that buy the resins out of those cars.  If I know I am getting an extra grand in drop and delivery fees on a load I can deadhead my drivers about 300 miles we do still make a profit.  Also when your picking up a multi stop load most of the time your grabbing them in the same area.  It is rare that you have to go hundreds of miles to get the next pickup made.  Normally your going 5-10 miles to another cooling house or less to get that pickup done.  

 

They can beat us on the longhaul yes but for short and medium haul and also for cost of service well the OTR industy has them beat in spades.  For what the Class 1 railroads charge just in switching fees to service a local customer anymore a good OTR carrier can haul for that same customer a load up to 500 miles away for them at 2 bucks a mile and get it there before the railroad even gets the next train on the way for that city.  Yes the customer will have more trucks going there normally about 4 for every 1 railcar but the service level is worth it in the eyes of their CEO and their logistics departments.  Until the railroads start thinking that service to their customers is more important than lowering their Operating Ratios they are still going to be losing market share to the OTR industry regardless of costs.  Why you can propose all the service you want but until you deliver it on time and then get the empties that the customer needs back to them every single time so they can keep their production running they will not trust you at all.  

You are entitled to one placement and one pull of a car for FREE - it is a part of the freight rate and charges.

All moves between the original placement and the final pull are chargable, every time you move a car around in your SIT yard you are increasing your overhead..

[greyhounds]

MP173

Greyhound: Backshop brings up a very valid point.  The meat going to food service companies such as Sysco, Gordon, and others who serve the restaurants (and particularly the big chains...McDonalds is delivered by Martin Brower) will take a much different path than that going to Wegmans, Walmart, Kroger, etc.  Much different paths. We dont know how that moves, my guess it is a bit more complex.   Ed

I'll agree.  You'll have to sit down with each potential customer and see how any system fits their needs.  Changes will certainly be required.

My Ex Wife used to work in distribution for McDonalds.  They streamline it as much as they can.  It is a cost to them and they don't want any additional loading/unloading or delays that add costs.  Same thing with grocers.  Groceries are low margin and any extra handling will cut that margin.

But you're right.  There's a need to sit down with each customer and try to fit your service to their needs.  The railroads would probably cede this task to a third party intermodal trucker.   

[Backshop]

So it's less than 250 miles from Cedar Rapids to Chicago with I-80 the direct route.  With an intermodal ramp in Cedar Rapids, you'd have a short haul to Chicago, where the train would have to be busted up for multiple destinations.  I'd say it's cheaper and faster just to truck it to Chicago and rail it from there.

[greyhounds]

Backshop

So it's less than 250 miles from Cedar Rapids to Chicago with I-80 the direct route.  With an intermodal ramp in Cedar Rapids, you'd have a short haul to Chicago, where the train would have to be busted up for multiple destinations.  I'd say it's cheaper and faster just to truck it to Chicago and rail it from there.

Basic to the idea is to get the money for the railroad.  Not to hand over the dollars to truckers.

The "which is cheaper" thing is going to be decided by how much volume goes on each train.  And if we can get lower cost trains with one person crews.  If we only develop 10 loads/day, it will be cheaper just to truck it into Chicago.  But if we get up to 80 loads/day, which I think is reasonable, the cost advantage will be on the rail.  Rail economies are very volume dependent.  Remember that.  Volume dependent. It’s key.

 

I’ll guess a truck would get about $1,000 for the 500-mile round trip.  So, at 80 loads/day we’d be handing over $80,000 per day to the truckers.  Rail can beat that on a marginal cost basis.  If the volume develops.

 

One of the reasons I chose Cedar Rapids is that I’d like to see such rail operations at least researched.  Such “Feeder Trains” can develop new rail markets and improve the economics of existing rail service by increasing volume.  Contrary to your claim this is a long-haul move.  It involves two railroads, but it is long haul.

 

One final, especially important thing.  You’re not seeing opportunities.  You’re looking for reasons to make the concept fail.  If we put an intermodal terminal in Cedar Rapids, we’ll sure sweat the asset.  Previously I mentioned that the western states needed to bring in a large volume of red meat.  That’s certainly long-haul.  And I intend to put every damn load that covers its marginal cost through the terminal.

 

Look for opportunities, not reasons to knock a concept down. 

[Backshop]

greyhounds

 

 

Backshop

So it's less than 250 miles from Cedar Rapids to Chicago with I-80 the direct route.  With an intermodal ramp in Cedar Rapids, you'd have a short haul to Chicago, where the train would have to be busted up for multiple destinations.  I'd say it's cheaper and faster just to truck it to Chicago and rail it from there.

 

 

Basic to the idea is to get the money for the railroad.  Not to hand over the dollars to truckers.

 

 

Shorthaul intermodal doesn't work according to what I've read.

[MP173]

Shorthaul intermodal can work, it is simply what value are you placing on it.

CSX runs trains Q47 and Q48 between Chicago and Columbus...roughly the same distance.  The westbound this morning had 18 containers.  Someone (UPS) is paying a premium for that train.  Why?  Probably a shortage of drivers and a high demand of moving the freight (holiday season which has extended into January no doubt due to all of the returns).

I will say this...there is an opening for this to work, with the influx of containers now entering the eastern ports.  Not all of that freight moves in full containers to destination.  There will be opportunities for breakbulk of those containers at eastern ports and moving freight east in domestics containers or trailers.

Cats...regarding the $500 movement fee, take a look at what Hoffman does at their SIT yard not too far from you.  He takes care of that charge internally.

 

Ed

[jeffhergert]

Backshop

So it's less than 250 miles from Cedar Rapids to Chicago with I-80 the direct route.  With an intermodal ramp in Cedar Rapids, you'd have a short haul to Chicago, where the train would have to be busted up for multiple destinations.  I'd say it's cheaper and faster just to truck it to Chicago and rail it from there.

 

I mentioned on another thread a few months back that the local managers at Cedar Rapids were working with a couple of the cereal companies to load containers at Beverly Yard.  The higher ups at the railroad put an end to it.  The point is, initially one of the cereal companies approached the railroad.  The loading would've been for both directions on alternating days. 

That eastward trip would only be as far as Chicago, where they would have to change railroads.  The railroad was going to make money on the move, the cereal companies were willing.  I can only guess that the profit wasn't enough under PSR guidelines.

Now Vena is gone (senior advisor for the last six months of his contract) and doesn't hold sway, other PSR types have been reassigned duties and titles.  The rumor is Black Rock is out and Vanguard is top dog now.  And they aren't happy the way things were going.  Maybe some of the projects rejected the last few years need to be resubmitted.  It sounds like they are starting to put into place people who realize you need business to keep making money.    

Jeff

[greyhounds]

Backshop

Shorthaul intermodal doesn't work according to what I've read.

Well, we've got to do more than read.  We've got to understand and think.

We've got to understand what the problems were and think of ways to solve such problems.  

  

[Backshop]

Okay greyhounds, you started a thread, asked for suggestions and shot just about all of them down.  How would YOU solve the the problem?

[greyhounds]

Backshop

Okay greyhounds, you started a thread, asked for suggestions and shot just about all of them down.  How would YOU solve the the problem?

I don’t know what “The Problem” you’re referring to specifically is.

 

I wanted to have an interesting discussion on the possibility of moving red meat by rail from its production in the Midwest to its consumption in coastal population centers.  You’re saying I “shot down” suggestions.  Well, that’s a discussion.  We’re not singing from a hymnal. 

 

If you’re talking about short haul intermodal…..

 

This isn’t short haul intermodal.  Cedar Rapids to Harrisburg, PA is 893 miles, and a truck driver can’t legally make it in one shift.  That’s a rail competitive distance and time.  This is a long haul move that involves two railroads.  (Harrisburg is a distribution center for the northeast).

 

I was trying to discuss (something that will involve a back-and-forth exchange of thoughts) a system to get this freight profitably on the rail. 

 

As to short haul IM itself, I’ve been there and done that.  The main problem is the drayage cost which just eat dollars.  A way to control drayage expenses is to have intermodal terminals near the customers, as in Cedar Rapids.

[Shadow the Cats owner]

jeffhergert

 

 

The thing is that sooner or later someone that has enough brains takes a GOOD LONG look at what PSR actually does to a railroad and goes it does not actually work.  Why it did so well at the IC at first was they were actually overbuilt and did not have the traffic to justify a double track mainline and all the other stuff EHH cut.  The problem was EHH thought that was the only way to run a railroad after that since it worked so well at IC and to heck with what actually worked at the railroads he took over after that.  All you have to do is look at the BNSF compared to UP recently with the surge in IM loads.  BNSF did what was needed to service customers and more than likely had massive gains in revenue.  UP was fining customers since they wanted more slots on trains instead of adding cars to the trains.  

 

Backshop

So it's less than 250 miles from Cedar Rapids to Chicago with I-80 the direct route.  With an intermodal ramp in Cedar Rapids, you'd have a short haul to Chicago, where the train would have to be busted up for multiple destinations.  I'd say it's cheaper and faster just to truck it to Chicago and rail it from there.

 

 

 

 

I mentioned on another thread a few months back that the local managers at Cedar Rapids were working with a couple of the cereal companies to load containers at Beverly Yard.  The higher ups at the railroad put an end to it.  The point is, initially one of the cereal companies approached the railroad.  The loading would've been for both directions on alternating days. 

That eastward trip would only be as far as Chicago, where they would have to change railroads.  The railroad was going to make money on the move, the cereal companies were willing.  I can only guess that the profit wasn't enough under PSR guidelines.

Now Vena is gone (senior advisor for the last six months of his contract) and doesn't hold sway, other PSR types have been reassigned duties and titles.  The rumor is Black Rock is out and Vanguard is top dog now.  And they aren't happy the way things were going.  Maybe some of the projects rejected the last few years need to be resubmitted.  It sounds like they are starting to put into place people who realize you need business to keep making money.    

Jeff

 

 

 

Backshop

So it's less than 250 miles from Cedar Rapids to Chicago with I-80 the direct route.  With an intermodal ramp in Cedar Rapids, you'd have a short haul to Chicago, where the train would have to be busted up for multiple destinations.  I'd say it's cheaper and faster just to truck it to Chicago and rail it from there.

 

 

 

 

I mentioned on another thread a few months back that the local managers at Cedar Rapids were working with a couple of the cereal companies to load containers at Beverly Yard.  The higher ups at the railroad put an end to it.  The point is, initially one of the cereal companies approached the railroad.  The loading would've been for both directions on alternating days. 

That eastward trip would only be as far as Chicago, where they would have to change railroads.  The railroad was going to make money on the move, the cereal companies were willing.  I can only guess that the profit wasn't enough under PSR guidelines.

Now Vena is gone (senior advisor for the last six months of his contract) and doesn't hold sway, other PSR types have been reassigned duties and titles.  The rumor is Black Rock is out and Vanguard is top dog now.  And they aren't happy the way things were going.  Maybe some of the projects rejected the last few years need to be resubmitted.  It sounds like they are starting to put into place people who realize you need business to keep making money.    

Jeff

 

[/quote]

 

 

Backshop

So it's less than 250 miles from Cedar Rapids to Chicago with I-80 the direct route.  With an intermodal ramp in Cedar Rapids, you'd have a short haul to Chicago, where the train would have to be busted up for multiple destinations.  I'd say it's cheaper and faster just to truck it to Chicago and rail it from there.

 

 

 

 

I mentioned on another thread a few months back that the local managers at Cedar Rapids were working with a couple of the cereal companies to load containers at Beverly Yard.  The higher ups at the railroad put an end to it.  The point is, initially one of the cereal companies approached the railroad.  The loading would've been for both directions on alternating days. 

That eastward trip would only be as far as Chicago, where they would have to change railroads.  The railroad was going to make money on the move, the cereal companies were willing.  I can only guess that the profit wasn't enough under PSR guidelines.

Now Vena is gone (senior advisor for the last six months of his contract) and doesn't hold sway, other PSR types have been reassigned duties and titles.  The rumor is Black Rock is out and Vanguard is top dog now.  And they aren't happy the way things were going.  Maybe some of the projects rejected the last few years need to be resubmitted.  It sounds like they are starting to put into place people who realize you need business to keep making money.    

Jeff

 

[/quote]

[SD60MAC9500]

 

Greyhounds brings up a great point about utilizing exisitng trains to increase IM business. As mentioned drayage incurs huge cost. As do those massive IM facilities with Straddlers, and Mi-Jacks which make sense for high volume IM lanes.. Though. If someone could develop a cheap to build anywhere low volume double stack terminal for P/U S/O's, that could be a game changer!

Something similar to this lift chassis might be the tool to accomplish that..

Think of a terminal akin to a Triple Crown Ramp. You could use gravel, or whatever cheap recyclable material for a pad. No need to keep any cranes, or lifts on site.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Randy Stahl]

www.railrunner.com

[Overmod]

SD60MAC9500

Something similar to this lift chassis might be the tool to accomplish that..

The Magna Mater of all high-tare-weight, high polar moment of inertia, complex, fiddly, high-maintenance chassis.  With a need for fairly high power to operate, and I'll bet people have to attach and adjust those chains.  Better not hope the load's shifted!

Note that the stabilizing feet have to extend before and behind the container -- you will not run this on a 'rake' of articulated wells without significant modification, and possibly complications to the railroad car suspension arrangement.  Not impossible, mind you, but requiring significant modification to every car involved if it is to work.

There are all sorts of cockamamie approaches to onboard container handling, including some built to travel with the equipment.  None of them even remotely approaches the convenience of a straddle crane with appropriate pads that can lift vertically from double or single stack with a regular balanced spreader and set down "one lane over" on a plain old low-tare container chassis.

The only customers for RailRunners after a very long, very well-marketed campaign were some select markets where tare and expense weren't primary considerations -- I wish I could remember precisely where it was -- somewhere in the Caribbean?  I kept expecting someone there to figure out how to make a well-car version, but apparently some level of common sense did prevail there.

Personally I don't think any level of container-on-RoadRailer-chassis stands a chance of competing with proper TOFC on the one hand and articulated-well-car double-stack on the other.  If you are interested (and have a line of credit) I can tell you how to build a RoadRailer well chassis ... but you won't get much good use out of them compared to costed-down alternatives or easy adaptation.

[charlie hebdo]

For this and other applications of moving containers, we could learn a lot from a look at the huge yards for that purpose in Hamburg and Rotterdam.  Computerized sliding cranes on rails do the job. 

https://www.hafen-hamburg.de/en/container-terminals

I hope this is not off-topic as I think it has applications here. 

[Overmod]

charlie hebdo

I hope this is not off-topic

Very much on-topic (in my opinion); wherever this large-scale equipment can be justified, there is great advantage in providing it.  Tennessee Yard, on the ex-Frisco, is an example of the kind of facility that would be cost-effective for origination of traffic on the anticipated scale, and for handling the 'inbound' containers for cleaning and reloading.

Even in areas like Forrest Yard in Memphis, where there are no 'fixed' cranes, only a number of Mi-Jacks, a great throughput of containers between modes (and using the ground) can be relatively easily achieved.  These are more flexible than the railborne versions, and for 'inland' loading to railroad lading (which all the non-export Cedar Rapids transport would conform to) their capacity for high-speed transfer is adequate. 

Where the question for these 'self-powered' and small-scale handling devices come in is at the some of the distributed destination points for the traffic that would putatively be originating in a combination of bulk and optimized LCL in Cedar Rapids.   The point has been raised about specialty traffic to the various companies supplying restaurants and chains; this is business that could easily be taken down to LCL 'scale' if appropriate dunnage and internal handling methods were put in practice.  That to me is not business a modern railroad is set up to exploit, but is certainly an effective niche for a joint-venture partner at appropriate scale.  As with the express companies of the late 1800s, there may also be 'aggregators' who make up full container lots of LCL shipments for the railroads to forward.  The question then becomes: what is the best way to expedite these smaller shipments past the point of efficient rail double-stack shipping, where the economics and convenience of trucks exceed even what is possible from automated handling.

[beaulieu]

Backshop

Shorthaul intermodal doesn't work according to what I've read.

Tell that to Florida East Coast Rwy.

[tree68]

The military installation where I worked regularly loads and unloads containers from railcars using rubber tire loaders.  They do so on a gravel working surface in one of the yards.  

Granted, they aren't dealing with time constraints as you would see with foodstuffs, but the container handling does occur.

It's not beyond the possible that expedited movement of containers could be done on a shorter haul.  

[greyhounds]

tree68

The military installation where I worked regularly loads and unloads containers from railcars using rubber tire loaders.  They do so on a gravel working surface in one of the yards.  

Do you think they'd have any of those loaders for sale as army surplus?  Because that's what I'd be looking for to start up a Cedar Rapids operation.  Nothing particularly innovative. No new technology.  Just a tried-and-true proven system. 

 We used such a system to operate our intermodal terminal serving St. Louis.

 

Let’s do one innovation at a time.   The more innovative you get, the more changes you make, the more opportunity you give to people to proclaim, “It’s dumb and it will not work.”  And such folks will be damn adamant in their quest to stop change.  I think we’ve seen some of that on this thread.  

 

Let’s keep it simple.  Remember, this concept proposes using existing, stored locomotives to move the trains.  Not anything new.  Does the UP have any GP-38’s still in storage?  I think one of those would do for pulling the proposed trains.  Keep it simple and cheap.  Innovation will be more acceptable that way.

 

The initial target is 80 loaded containers per day out to eastern destinations.  (On two trains.)  So, we’ve also got to bring 80 containers, loaded or empty, into Cedar Rapids per day.  Figure around 160 lifts per day on and off the railcars.  (It isn’t going to be a steady 160/day. Volumes will move around some.)

At six minutes per lift, which is somewhat slow, that will require 960 minutes, or 16 hours, of machine operation per day.  With two used lifting machines we’ll have 48 hours of machine time available per day.  So, we’ll be good, and we’ll be cheap.  And we’ll have backup if one machine throws craps.  If both machines go down at the same time we’d be in trouble.

 

[jeffhergert]

greyhounds

 

 

tree68

The military installation where I worked regularly loads and unloads containers from railcars using rubber tire loaders.  They do so on a gravel working surface in one of the yards.  

 

 

Do you think they'd have any of those loaders for sale as army surplus?  Because that's what I'd be looking for to start up a Cedar Rapids operation.  Nothing particularly innovative. No new technology.  Just a tried-and-true proven system. 

 We used such a system to operate our intermodal terminal serving St. Louis.

 

Let’s do one innovation at a time.   The more innovative you get, the more changes you make, the more opportunity you give to people to proclaim, “It’s dumb and it will not work.”  And such folks will be damn adamant in their quest to stop change.  I think we’ve seen some of that on this thread.  

 

Let’s keep it simple.  Remember, this concept proposes using existing, stored locomotives to move the trains.  Not anything new.  Does the UP have any GP-38’s still in storage?  I think one of those would do for pulling the proposed trains.  Keep it simple and cheap.  Innovation will be more acceptable that way.

 

The initial target is 80 loaded containers per day out to eastern destinations.  (On two trains.)  So, we’ve also got to bring 80 containers, loaded or empty, into Cedar Rapids per day.  Figure around 160 lifts per day on and off the railcars.  (It isn’t going to be a steady 160/day. Volumes will move around some.)

At six minutes per lift, which is somewhat slow, that will require 960 minutes, or 16 hours, of machine operation per day.  With two used lifting machines we’ll have 48 hours of machine time available per day.  So, we’ll be good, and we’ll be cheap.  And we’ll have backup if one machine throws craps.  If both machines go down at the same time we’d be in trouble.

 

 

You will probably have a better chance getting the CN to try this than UP.

Jeff

[Shadow the Cats owner]

The boss agreed to the higher switch fees in order to get better service from the BNSF at the time.  For years he literally got daily switch service then they changed to weekly.  Well our contract is coming up for renewal this year we're demanding a drop in the fees since their no longer honoring the terms that are in the contract that states why we agreed to them.  So far every lawyer has said we will win if they refuse and we take it to the STB.  

[SD60MAC9500]

 

If the Army doesn't have anything for sale. I'm sure you can find some good used side loaders here.

 

[n012944]

SD60MAC9500

 

 

To this day I still believe CSX's North Baltimore ICTF was built in the wrong location.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think this kind of thing is what NWOH is built for.  Lets take Greyhound's 40 car double stack train coming off of the UP or CN in Chicago.  The train only changes crews there, none of the power swap BS, and goes to NWOH.  There it is broken up, trains depart from there to the east coast, southeast, Canada, even Detroit.  A perfect setup to make this concept work.  

[MP173]

Agree (from an outsider viewpoint).  NWO seems to be the ideal spot.

 

However, will revenue support a 40 container train from Iowa to NWO?  Why not merge the Iowa train into the existing UP daily train to NWO?  It is under utilized now...plenty of capacity.

Granted, it might slow down the overall time involved, but perhaps not.  If the containers need to be deramped in Chicago, crossed towned, then reramped...that is considerable time.

Merge the Iowa Meat Express (IMX) with the Q192 in Chicago and print $$$$ for shareholders.

 

ed

[jeffhergert]

The railroad already shot down running 3 to 5 double stack five packs a day.  That would've been handled in existing trains.

Never mind trying to get a single person crew for right now.  You'll have to get agreement for an interdivisional run from Cedar Rapids to the Chicago area.  Clinton is the dividing line for the two seniority districts.  Iowa crews can't go east of Route 84 on the Illinois side.  Illinois crews can't go west of a place called "Hawkeye" about MP 5.  (Anytime I've ran east I don't remember an Illinois crew going beyond Central Steel crossing, the first crossing west of the Camanche control point.)

I'd almost wager getting a single person crew agreement might be easier than getting the interdivisional agreement.

Jeff

[SD70Dude]

Jeff, how many hours does it typically take for a priority train to run from Cedar Rapids to Clinton?  And from Clinton to the Chicago area?

Renegotiating contracts is useless if the new run cannot be completed with the HOS limitations. 

We have a similar sort of scenario out here, about 25 years ago CN negotiatied the ability to run trains across two steam-era crew districts with a single crew, this practice being commonly referred to as "extended run" or "double sub". 

But most of our trains still change crews at all the old steam-era locations across western Canada, and there are very few lines where all trains are operated with extended run crews.  Why?  Because you cannot reliably make it over the road in 12 hours.  Heck, it isn't exactly uncommon for single sub crews to run out of hours and get rescued before they have even gone 100 miles. 

[jeffhergert]

Making the run (Chicago - Cedar Rapids) within HOS wouldn't be a problem under normal circumstances.  The CNW, before the UP, wanted to run through Clinton to Cedar Rapids/Beverly.  That would also have meant running through Boone to Council Bluffs/Fremont.  The big obstacle was the Mississippi River bridge. 

It still is to a great extent.  IF they ever build a new, non-draw span bridge I look for Clinton and Boone to be run through.  Then Beverly may or may not be the intermediate crew change.  There are other options that have been suggested.  I hear something about it every so often, but I don't know if I'll ever see it before I retire, and I have at least 10 years to go.

Jeff

PS. We have trains that can sail across our historic crew districts in 4 to 6 hours.  Then there are others, usually the ones that have to work intermediate yard(s) that have to be recrewed.  Usually because more than one train that needs to work an intermediate yard shows up at the same time.  One has to wait while the other(s) work.  No matter what they try to do to stagger arrival time of the workers, it never seems to work.  They all still seem to show up at the same time.  

Jeff