The unit train concept is one that was used to death. The C1's are so used to having a one track mind... They forgot how to market and service individual customers.. Imagine if coal was never the savior of the railroad industry? Unit trains makes sense only where the volumes exist demanding that service.
Jeff:
I have noticed that the CSX UP train to NWO (Q192) typically will have about 30 manifest cars, heavily concentrated with refer cars.
A few years ago UP/CSX ran dedicated "apple train" about 3x weekly from California and Washington to the Albany area for distribution into the Northeast. These were typically 40 - 60 refer cars. These trains are gone. Do you know if the business went away or is it in regular trains?
Ed
SD60MAC9500The unit train concept is one that was used to death.
Another problem is that they don't fit into the "land barge" concept of operations. I believe most unit train facilities are set up for ~100 car trains. Nowadays, such short trains are unusual, at best. It's not unusual to to see two such trains turned into one. Trains of 13,000 feet are common under PSR.
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...
Those trains were run for Railex. UP bought them and turned it into Cold Connect, which they shut down last year. The loading/unloading points for RailEx/Cold Connect still show in the reefer network. However, there is no dedicated train and I haven't seen any blocks of reefer only traffic in intermodal trains. (It does seem westbound intermodals are more likely to fill out with manifest traffic than east bounds.)
I first noticed something was up soon after UP bought RailEx. I didn't know that had happened at the time, but one day we were held for a long pool train to go around us. It was the salad shooter with a large block of regular manifest business. Then soon after they started combining the California and Washington trains east of Green River or Cheyenne. Then they went away and blocks started moving in intermodals.
I still see (reading train lists) that there are reefers moving to Selkirk/Rotterdam, but it's in manifest trains. I don't know how the volume compares now against the time it was RailEx.
Jeff
The RailEx-Cold Connect appeared to me to be an internal company 'power struggle' probably involving peak train speeds and expedited operation vs. using PSR to 'assure' things like longer-but-precise delivery time.
In practice, one of the PSR "imperatives" is to facilitate operations at restricted notch -- and this can be done in a way that actually 'saves fuel' rather than just the kind of feel-good speed reduction that Don Oltmann and some others have commented on. This is turn facilitates maintaining the 'railroad' for 45-55mph maximum speeds, and this is just as consequential for civil as it was in the days of William H. Vanderbilt.
If intermodal business, now, can be precision-scheduled at lower peak road speed, and I suspect UP knows much better than I do what its shippers actually require in this regard vs. what they're willing to pay for, then it begins to make sense to run 'merchandise' blocks in with the specialized intermodal equipment ... provided there is no serious unanticipated delay in yarding the intermodal equipment correctly for automated container or trailer exchange vs. those 'other' cars.
This ought to make us remember all the myriad ways the Amtrak MHC concept failed ... and what practical things might have been done to make it work.
If PSR is not correctly implemented -- and it's my impression that UP was comparatively late to the table with this PSR-priority planning, and perhaps not particularly skilled or experienced in what it actually implies vs. what analysts or other arb-type saprophytes 'enforce' it as being -- then you'll start to see blocks of convenient opportunity shoved on "intermodal" trains that merely slow them down, as I suspect was one of the issues with the Rotterdam Cold Connect service. Does anyone have the actual metrics of speeds and delays/dwells for Cold Connect consists, particularly on that part of CSX from east of Chicago to the point on the Chicago Line there is observable excess capacity much of the time?
What would be interesting would be Z-train speed with dedicated blocks of reefers handled in consist, something that I'd think ought to be technically possible, perhaps with some vehicle improvements. The logistics, including scheduling and delay handling, shouldn't be difficult or particularly arcane to develop. Something of this sort might be a potential opportunity for certain of the routes to disparate destination points out of the facility or facilities that receive the block traffic out of Cedar Rapids -- or the smaller blocks for some of the other originating traffic mentioned so far.
OvermodWhat would be interesting would be Z-train speed with dedicated blocks of reefers handled in consist, something that I'd think ought to be technically possible,
The UP has actually done that. Tropicana reefer cars were modified to be able to operate at 70 MPH. They took orange juice from Floirida to California and were handled in 70 MPH intermodal trains.
One of the tennants of PSR is to run a balanced network. Run the same number of trains in each direction. If there are 5 eastbounds and 6 westbounds, divide the traffic in that 6th train into the remaining 5. (Or run off enough business so you only need 5 trains.) Then retire (store, sell, furlough) any excess assests not needed to run the "balanced" network. Only retain enough assests to run the balanced network, not allowing for any possible upticks in business.
Unit trains, especially the low frequency users) throws off the balance. The idea is to move that low volume traffic into the manifest network. Instead of waiting 10 days for a 100 car train, work the industry more often and move the smaller blocks in manifest trains. That way extra equipment and manpower doesn't have to be retained for the unit train.
From what I read elsewhere, that's what got Vena and some of the other PSR types removed/reassigned. The Chinese were/are buying US grain due to their own ag problems. UP was looking at a 50% increase in grain trains to the west coast/PNW. Vena didn't want to do it because it would throw off his balanced network. Others on the board started askng why we have all these assests in storage instead of out producing revenue. Throw in the rising customer complaints, which I imagine are becoming harder to hide or explain away, the possible change of who's in the driver's seat and you have the possibility of them pulling back from the heavy, gung-ho PSR.
Every other railroad that has gone all out for PSR has eventually reached that point. They don't pull away completely from all tennants of PSR, but they've cut and gutted to the point they can't cut any more. They need to grow business. UP may have reached that point.
greyhounds Overmod What would be interesting would be Z-train speed with dedicated blocks of reefers handled in consist, something that I'd think ought to be technically possible, The UP has actually done that. Tropicana reefer cars were modified to be able to operate at 70 MPH. The took orange juice from Floirida to California and were handled in 70 MPH intermodal trains.
Overmod What would be interesting would be Z-train speed with dedicated blocks of reefers handled in consist, something that I'd think ought to be technically possible,
The UP has actually done that. Tropicana reefer cars were modified to be able to operate at 70 MPH. The took orange juice from Floirida to California and were handled in 70 MPH intermodal trains.
I don't know if they had to do much modification. All reefers and auto racks are allowed 70 mph on the UP.
That being said, other restrictions like Tons per Operative Brake can reduce a 70 mph train to 60 or 50 MPH.
greyhounds Overmod What would be interesting would be Z-train speed with dedicated blocks of reefers handled in consist, something that I'd think ought to be technically possible, The UP has actually done that. Tropicana reefer cars were modified to be able to operate at 70 MPH. They took orange juice from Floirida to California and were handled in 70 MPH intermodal trains.
As does BNSF.. BNSF does not run unit reefer trains. They run reefer blocks for the most part in their z-train network.
Must have been some very potent PSR kool-aid they were drinking to turndown grain trains to the coast. You build the rate to cover the return MTs.
Which leads to the next questions, why hasnt a system been developed to load all those MT international containers with grain going to China? Shouldnt be too difficult to figure that out.
MP173 Which leads to the next questions, why hasnt a system been developed to load all those MT international containers with grain going to China? Shouldnt be too difficult to figure that out.
That's already happening. But it adds additional handling costs compared to bulk shipment of grain.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
UP sad to say right now could really care less about more business. They still are in the throes of PSR and to hell with growing business right now. A company could offer them a million dollars a day contract that required local switching and UP more than likely would say no. If you look at their intermodal trains they do have anything but 3rd party logistics and maybe a few England containers. Then look at BNSF they're getting everything else. When SWIFT refuses to even consider the UP for intermodal you're in a problem. England uses them since well they don't have much choice in Salt Lake City.
MP173 Which leads to the next questions, why hasnt a system been developed to load all those MT international containers with grain going to China? Shouldnt be too difficult to figure that out. Ed
For corn or wheat you're never going to match the efficiency of a unit train. But for some products that are generated in smaller volumes or that are more differentiated, that would otherwise move as carload freight in manifest service, "ag-in-a-box" is a real thing.
I know of two ways in which ag-in-a-box products are shipped to the west coast.
The first is on regular intermodal trains. As with all such moves, it works best if the trip origin is close to the rail terminal.
The other way is that some companies have opened what are basically unit train facilities, except with well cars in place of hoppers. The railroad delivers a trainload of empty containers, the customer has a certain amount of time to deramp and load the cars up with loaded containers, and the train departs. A relatively new service of this type recently opened in Minot, ND for pulses and other specialty crops being exported through the PNW, but it is not the first. Individually the products do not generate whole trainloads to a single destination, but collectively they do.
The key feature for anything that uses intermodal equipment is just that there has to be a large number of containers moving from one terminal to another. With carload you can sort cars into blocks in a classification terminal; with intermodal, they are loaded into blocks at the originating rail terminal.
As I understand it, North Baltimore was an experiment in trying to create the functional equivalent of a classification yard for containers, so that intermodal could operate as a network instead of a fixed and limited set of O/D pairs. Apparently it was not considered a success. Given the massive investment required, don't expect anyone else to rush to try again for a while. If you want to open a rail intermodal terminal, you'll have to show that you can aggregate a large number of trips - probably a train's worth, in most cases - from your new terminal to a single destination terminal.
Dan
dpeltier MP173 Which leads to the next questions, why hasnt a system been developed to load all those MT international containers with grain going to China? Shouldnt be too difficult to figure that out. Ed For corn or wheat you're never going to match the efficiency of a unit train. But for some products that are generated in smaller volumes or that are more differentiated, that would otherwise move as carload freight in manifest service, "ag-in-a-box" is a real thing. I know of two ways in which ag-in-a-box products are shipped to the west coast. The first is on regular intermodal trains. As with all such moves, it works best if the trip origin is close to the rail terminal. The other way is that some companies have opened what are basically unit train facilities, except with well cars in place of hoppers. The railroad delivers a trainload of empty containers, the customer has a certain amount of time to deramp and load the cars up with loaded containers, and the train departs. A relatively new service of this type recently opened in Minot, ND for pulses and other specialty crops being exported through the PNW, but it is not the first. Individually the products do not generate whole trainloads to a single destination, but collectively they do. The key feature for anything that uses intermodal equipment is just that there has to be a large number of containers moving from one terminal to another. With carload you can sort cars into blocks in a classification terminal; with intermodal, they are loaded into blocks at the originating rail terminal. As I understand it, North Baltimore was an experiment in trying to create the functional equivalent of a classification yard for containers, so that intermodal could operate as a network instead of a fixed and limited set of O/D pairs. Apparently it was not considered a success. Given the massive investment required, don't expect anyone else to rush to try again for a while. If you want to open a rail intermodal terminal, you'll have to show that you can aggregate a large number of trips - probably a train's worth, in most cases - from your new terminal to a single destination terminal. Dan
If grain in containers is to be a 'thing'. Surprised that Covered Hopper style containers have not been developed.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACDIf grain in containers is to be a 'thing'. Surprised that Covered Hopper style containers have not been developed.
I would opine that the ease of moving containers (including tipping for loading and unloading) would preclude the complexity of making them operate like a hopper car.
Such tipping is already done.
BaltACD If grain in containers is to be a 'thing'. Surprised that Covered Hopper style containers have not been developed.
Santa Fe experimented with just that back in the early 80's it was a part of their fuel foiler intermodal line.. The goal was to move goods to the Midwest loading the containers with grain for the return move to the West Coast. They were called A-Stacks and proved to be inefficient and cumbersome.
Sounds like loading and unloading containers with grain uses a similar technique to that used with boxcars in years gone by. It probably includes a similar amount of leakage while in transit.
For 'ag-in-a-box' seasonal intermodal, I developed the GrainTainer, which was basically a folding frame with membrane container which could be collapsed vertically and locked for storage or empty handling. This was designed to be accessible by forks from below, spreaders from above, and some systems of sideloading, with the idea that 5 or more 'folded' could fit in the space on a rack flat occupied by a single ISO (I admit I designed for series 3, not series 1) container. Folded containers could be stored, or handled 'asynchronously' on single flats or small blocks, to return them for 'reloading' as necessary. I had them set up to be loaded at the top, with multiple internal 'cells', much like covered hoppers; there are a number of possibilities for emptying them although 'end doors' are not a good mechanical solution -- you would be amused by a couple of the options.
This was in the '70s, in the Fuel Foiler years, when sideloading into 'kangaroo pockets' was the coming thing for fast oil-saving TOFC and there was still a perceived benefit in COFC (as for Flexi-Van) in lower wind resistance. While it's possible that collapsible units could be built to be stack-loaded, much of the effectiveness of the design, particularly with regard to a number of types of service failure, would be compromised if strengthened to allow that... this includes ground-handling. Of course you would never allow this construction on a ship .
As a means of extracting grain from multiple loading points and converging it effectively and 'as quickly as cost-effectively desired' on bulk loading locations, it was, and I think it still remains, an interesting alternative. In the West, where the 'jumping-off place' for most prospective grain shipments is now, the transition to 'bulk' is not as amenable to river/waterway loading as traffic toward the Mississippi or some of the logical eastern-port destinations.
CSSHEGEWISCH Sounds like loading and unloading containers with grain uses a similar technique to that used with boxcars in years gone by. It probably includes a similar amount of leakage while in transit.
Also labor intensive, probably. It appears OM's notion never made it to production, if that.
charlie hebdoIt appears OM's notion never made it to production, if that.
Back to hauling meat from Iowa...
I woke up this morning and suddening realized why this has not been implemented, or at least in my simple mind.
Earlier this week thru the wonders of a news feed on my phone a quarterly earnings report from JBHunt was featured. I read it (yes I actually read financial statements...that is how uneventful my life is) and a key metric was the intermodal loads - 524906 during 4Q, 2020. Quite impressive. However, it took JBH 98689 containers to move those loads....an average of 5.31 loads per quarter, or one load every 16.9 days (based on a 90 day quarter).
Break down the info a bit more (trusty slide rule at my side) and that is $140 per day revenue for each container. That is not very much.
Consider that the JBH intermodal is in very concentrated lanes and their average length of haul is 1711 miles with average revenue per load at $2360 ($1.38 per mile for those of you wondering). The mileage from LA to KC is roughly 1700 when drayage is considered...perhaps a bit more.
Five and a fraction loads per quarter for a container moving in highly concentrated lanes 1700 miles does not seem very efficient to me. Or am I overlooking something?Cats...what is the efficiency of your trucking operation? How many loads are you turning with a trailer each quarter?
Greyhound...how would you bend the cost curve to allow this Iowa Meat Express (IMX) to work?
I havent even went down the rabbit hole as far as container costs and refer container costs are concerned, but $140 per day of revenue/dry van container doesnt seem very rich to me.
Comments?One final thought...EHH has been hated for the PSR, but one of the key components was the reduction of assets thru more efficient usage. Perhaps there is a need, based on JBH's financials for a PSIntermodal (PSI). That asset usage is very leaky.
SD60MAC9500 Regardless of how you feel about him. Hunter Harrison made the right call to change the dynamic of NWOH.
Regardless of how you feel about him. Hunter Harrison made the right call to change the dynamic of NWOH.
He didn't. Which is one of the reasons why after his death, NWOH went back to operating much closer to its original purpose.
An "expensive model collector"
MP173Back to hauling meat from Iowa... I woke up this morning and suddening realized why this has not been implemented, or at least in my simple mind. Earlier this week thru the wonders of a news feed on my phone a quarterly earnings report from JBHunt was featured. I read it (yes I actually read financial statements...that is how uneventful my life is) and a key metric was the intermodal loads - 524906 during 4Q, 2020. Quite impressive. However, it took JBH 98689 containers to move those loads....an average of 5.31 loads per quarter, or one load every 16.9 days (based on a 90 day quarter). Break down the info a bit more (trusty slide rule at my side) and that is $140 per day revenue for each container. That is not very much. Consider that the JBH intermodal is in very concentrated lanes and their average length of haul is 1711 miles with average revenue per load at $2360 ($1.38 per mile for those of you wondering). The mileage from LA to KC is roughly 1700 when drayage is considered...perhaps a bit more. Five and a fraction loads per quarter for a container moving in highly concentrated lanes 1700 miles does not seem very efficient to me. Or am I overlooking something?Cats...what is the efficiency of your trucking operation? How many loads are you turning with a trailer each quarter? Greyhound...how would you bend the cost curve to allow this Iowa Meat Express (IMX) to work? I havent even went down the rabbit hole as far as container costs and refer container costs are concerned, but $140 per day of revenue/dry van container doesnt seem very rich to me. Comments?One final thought...EHH has been hated for the PSR, but one of the key components was the reduction of assets thru more efficient usage. Perhaps there is a need, based on JBH's financials for a PSIntermodal (PSI). That asset usage is very leaky. Ed
One element that is routinely overlooked in equipment utilization - weekends. Many (most) businesses don't work weekend. A load that arrives after close of business on Friday won't be handled until start of business on Monday, at the earliest.
Secondly, containers are not necessarily handled 'immediately' upon arrival for either loading or unloaded. I have no idea what JBH's rules are for 'free time' on their equipment with their customers are; 'free time' is something that is built into all haulage to allow for expeditious loading/unloading of the container.
Good point BALT...but there seems to be a trend for more and more 24/7 shipping/receiving, particularly by the large DCs. With the reduction of quarterly data from 90 days to 65 days (13 weeks * 5 days per week) one still has a load factor of every 12 days....based on an average haul of 1711 miles. Not very efficient.
It would be interesting to go behind the scenes of JBH, Hub, Schneider, and others to see how these truckload carriers actually operate.
MP173 Good point BALT...but there seems to be a trend for more and more 24/7 shipping/receiving, particularly by the large DCs. With the reduction of quarterly data from 90 days to 65 days (13 weeks * 5 days per week) one still has a load factor of every 12 days....based on an average haul of 1711 miles. Not very efficient. It would be interesting to go behind the scenes of JBH, Hub, Schneider, and others to see how these truckload carriers actually operate. Ed
Part of the slow cycle time could very well be chassis availability.
MP173a key metric was the intermodal loads - 524906 during 4Q, 2020. Quite impressive. However, it took JBH 98689 containers to move those loads....an average of 5.31 loads per quarter, or one load every 16.9 days (based on a 90 day quarter). Break down the info a bit more (trusty slide rule at my side) and that is $140 per day revenue for each container. That is not very much. Consider that the JBH intermodal is in very concentrated lanes and their average length of haul is 1711 miles with average revenue per load at $2360 ($1.38 per mile for those of you wondering). The mileage from LA to KC is roughly 1700 when drayage is considered...perhaps a bit more. Five and a fraction loads per quarter for a container moving in highly concentrated lanes 1700 miles does not seem very efficient to me. Or am I overlooking something?
I know that our trailers on average 4 loads or more a month based on logbook records. That is for our van side our tanker side is closer to 6 loads a month for the acid boys and our peumatics are around 4 to 5 loads a month also. Our tank division is a shorter distance hauled normally 800 miles or less and unless we have a tank wash in the area they come back empty.
Shadow the Cats owner I know that our trailers on average 4 loads or more a month based on logbook records. That is for our van side our tanker side is closer to 6 loads a month for the acid boys and our peumatics are around 4 to 5 loads a month also. Our tank division is a shorter distance hauled normally 800 miles or less and unless we have a tank wash in the area they come back empty.
You are doing 12+ loads per quarter while the other guys' calculation was 5.31 loads. It doesn't seem like they are competitive.
charlie hebdo Shadow the Cats owner I know that our trailers on average 4 loads or more a month based on logbook records. That is for our van side our tanker side is closer to 6 loads a month for the acid boys and our peumatics are around 4 to 5 loads a month also. Our tank division is a shorter distance hauled normally 800 miles or less and unless we have a tank wash in the area they come back empty. You are doing 12+ loads per quarter while the other guys' calculation was 5.31 loads. It doesn't seem like they are competitive.
Doesn't seem like apples and apples are being measured.
BaltACDDoesn't seem like apples and apples are being measured.
The chief difference is in the oversight, and consequent control, of the "dispatching" of the load-carrying equipment -- for these purposes it is almost immaterial if they are trailers or containers. Admittedly STCO's equipment is often purpose-built and probably of expensive construction with expensive maintenance, so there's more of an incentive to minimize dwell and maximize turns. But outside the time actually spent moving in consists, the handling of truck-line-owned boxes is little different from handling of trailers, with only the consideration of 'chassis management' complicating it -- and this kind of consideration is well-understood with respect to other intermodal efforts from Flexi-Van through the 'second iteration' of RoadRailer with articulated three-piece trucks to the present.
Reading between the lines, the relatively long turns may be perceived as 'adequate' by the operators -- there are certainly ways, some of them very simple and cost-effective to implement, to reduce that time. I'm quite sure there are people at the various companies at least as knowledgeable, and perhaps disinclined to lay out their reasoning in a competitive environment, which may be a strong indication to study the actual service to see where speed is needed vs. where it costs more than it contributes.
As we get further into the supposed game-changing alternative-power autonomously-enabled future, we can expect both the market and the economics to change, at which point I'd certainly anticipate the railroads' part in the exercise to b 'streamlined' where they deem practical. It would certainly be fun to see at least one of the big operators heavily invested in box traffic, like J.B. Hunt, test some of the methods earlier.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.