Seattle sends 5 unit trains a week to eastern Oregon via UP. I was surprised it wasn't BNSF. It is a distance of about 320 miles. I think my nearby city does the same via fairly obscure sets of tracks. So far as I know all of this runs with little notice or publicity.
Remember -
Everyone wants FREE SHIPPING.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
blue streak 1 Murphy Siding Maybe the railroads just didn't want to haul the smelly garbage. Of course NS could have turned it over to a short line. Then the almighty Operating ratio "OR" would not rear its ugly head.
Murphy Siding Maybe the railroads just didn't want to haul the smelly garbage.
Maybe the railroads just didn't want to haul the smelly garbage.
Of course NS could have turned it over to a short line. Then the almighty Operating ratio "OR" would not rear its ugly head.
I do not conclude that this change in service has anything to do with PSR or with NS deciding that the trash hauling business is not lucrative enough for them.
I suspect the change has been forced by decisions made by RVRA in developing their trash by rail plan from the start. They now say that trucking is the cheaper option, with an implication that this is due to the latest pricing from NS. We don't know how much that pricing has changed with the latest proposal. But, I wonder if trucking was not actually the cheapest option from the very start. It is possible that RVRA perceived more value in the rail option for reasons other than pricing of the rail service. They seemed to have paid a lot of attention to the image and styling of their trash handling operation. Also, the trash is loaded and dumped three times during the haul cycle.
Altogether, I do not believe this latest change to trucking means that this is another case of trucking beating rail in the competition for this hauling, as the original poster said, and always says. It is not evidence that rail will soon go out of business due to truck completion.
MP173 CSX has a movement of trash westbound on Selkirk - Columbus, Oh train Q635, usually 70-100 cars (daily) which is set off at Fostoria for delivery to Sunny Farms Landfill about 10 miles south. Empty gons move back east on Q634 to Selkirk. Origin of the trash is possibly NYC...unsure about that. Nor am I sure of movement from origin to Selkirk. ed
CSX has a movement of trash westbound on Selkirk - Columbus, Oh train Q635, usually 70-100 cars (daily) which is set off at Fostoria for delivery to Sunny Farms Landfill about 10 miles south.
Empty gons move back east on Q634 to Selkirk.
Origin of the trash is possibly NYC...unsure about that. Nor am I sure of movement from origin to Selkirk.
ed
CSX also handles a block of Trash that orginates in the Toronto metro area off the CN via Toledo to this same landfill.
I think you are coming to a much more sound understanding of both the issues and the situation. Good work researching!
As I learn more about the background of this story, I no longer conclude that it supports the premise of the original poster’s assumption; that being that trucking beat the railroad in competition for the business.
As I now understand it, the rotary dumper broke down approximately four years ago, and so the trash train has not been running during that interval. The contract with NS is apparently gives them the right to renegotiate during this this recent time, and the price they require for continued service is higher than what Roanoke Valley Resource Authority is willing to accept. The RVRA says they can haul the trash by truck for less cost than by rail. I see two possibilities regarding that claim:
It may not be the case.
It may have been the case since the inception of the rail hauling, and so not related to this latest renegotiation.
Regarding item #1, the RVRA is over a barrel with the dumper out of service and the price of getting it back on line. They cite studies that show trucking would be cheaper, but do they have any other option at this point? They are the public sector and a change in service pricing has to be sold to the public to some extent. The public is not going to want higher pricing for trucking just because the rotary dumper / rail operation failed and there was no backup.
Also statements indicate that RVRA claims NS is requiring a major price increase for continuing the service contract. The implication is that rail has priced itself out of the market, so trucking is now the cost effective alternative. But I have not seen any news that clearly verifies that premise. It may be that trucking was always the lowest cost, but was overruled by objections to road traffic, and the “greenness” of rail compared to roads and trucks.
And even if those benefits still prevail, what has changed is that RVRA simply no longer has the rail alternative. And that may not necessarily be due to NS increasing its price, but rather due to the loss of the rotary dumper which is essential for the rail option.
BackshopIt seems like landfills always have the most bucolic sounding names...
Staten Island had an unintentionally funny example of this -- now one of the largest man-made structures in the world. They innocently called it Fresh Kills.
It seems like landfills always have the most bucolic sounding names...
Roanoke has been described as a place where Northern and Southside Virginia sensibilities meet...very warily. But the place does have a great transportation museum and it would be great if there's a VMT volunteer around here to clarify things from our perspective. The civilian news is sketchy and kind of loopy. The bit about disguising Tinker Creek as a "pretty" N&W shops building and the Smith Gap tipper as a train station (a real stretch) is amusing. Likewise for that little-front-end-loader-that-could. They're tossing millions around like confetti down there.
Pre-covid my after work routine was to check out this site, then the Roanoke webcam and then Railstream. I used to see that pretty green train with a bright red caboose almost every day. Never saw the return trip of empties but always wondered if it was a 33 mile shove move. At night? There are runaround tracks at the dump but still, why the caboose?
Rick
rixflix aka Captain Video. Blessed be Jean Shepherd and all His works!!! Hooray for 1939, the all time movie year!!! I took that ride on the Reading but my Baby caught the Katy and left me a mule to ride.
I guess the ball started rolling in 2017?
https://roanoke.com/news/local/for-the-waste-line-express-preparing-for-the-end-of-the-line/article_f93c1fbb-d3a9-591f-9e38-5638a192781b.html
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
Here is a status report from Roanoke Valley Resource Authority. In the text is a thumbnail photo that you can click on and it opens a set of photos showing the rotary dumper in action. Those photos can also be enlarged for viewing more detail. The car being tipped looks like a rather long, high sided gondola.
If I understand it correctly, they pick up trash with trucks throughout the district and haul it to the transfer station in that district. There, the trash is dumped from the trucks and loading into the gondolas. Then a train hauls it 33 miles to the second transfer station. There it is dumped onto the floor and reloaded into trucks that haul it out onto the landfill where it is dumped again.
https://rvra.net/106/Process
Zug, it's also been sponsored for the upcoming political season by the letters F, U, and N. With Norfolk Southern proudly noting that they were the ones who put the F U in it.
Someone needs to find out the size of the trucks actually going through the neighborhood. If these are in fact trailer-size dumps, the indicated trash volume is larger than "10 to 15 cars" and in fact, net of unloading at the landfill (which is where I'd have expected to find that rotary dumper if the delivery is trainloads by rail with minimal crew time) this might involve a train once a week... although the part of the critical path involving loaded-car dwell might be relatively time-limited to less than that, particularly in certain seasons. Perhaps a business model could be developed where the neighbors contribute to the crew wages as the days tick by, and when it comes up to sufficiency they make the call and the train moves...
Ron, surely you can find a copy of the actual report on line, read and report on it, and post a link to a copy here.
zugmann Today's business model has been brought to you by the letters "P" "S" and "R".
Today's business model has been brought to you by the letters "P" "S" and "R".
So that sounds like they will need to use a monster train to haul the trash once per year.
Euclid Here is the full explanation which sounds like the original poster here was right. The trash train had been operated for 25 years, using a rotary dumper to unload the gondolas. But eventually the dumper broke down, and repair has not been made. I assume the dumper repair is very expensive, but also very time consuming. It may be that the dumper simply has an operating (maintenance) cost that exceeds its benefit for such light usage as it sees with the trash trains. The trash cannot wait for the repair, so a temporary solution was found as trucking the trash in on Bradshaw Road which had previously been quiet and residential. This brought many complaints from those residents. A solution was explored to containerize the trash to eliminate the need for the rotary dumper. However, even without the rotary dumper, Norfolk Southern announced the trash train "no longer meets its business model." Norfolk Southern told the authority that it could haul a much larger freight train with the same crew as compared to "shuttling" 10 to 15 cars to the landfill daily. I am curious about the rotary dumper, which the article refers to as being “one of a kind.” Was this a custom built machine? Also, it mentions that the dumper was a inadequately maintained. I suspect the dumper was custom built at an enormous cost, and then suffered a lack of maintenance. Now, once it fails in the time sensitive service of trash hauling, the repair is time consuming and eye popping expensive. Purchasing a custom built rotary dumper in the first place may not have been the best option. The inside story on the dumper would be most welcomed. I assume the containerization proposal would use containers carried in the gondolas that could be lifted out and dumped with a crane. That sounds way more prudent than relying on an expensive rotary dumper which is likely to break down eventually and create precisely the crisis that has transpired here. Forty to sixty trucks, per day using Bradshaw Road had been regarded as a temporary solution until the dumper was repaired. But a study now recommends eliminating the trash train because trucking is less expensive and more reliable than rail. So the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority has embarked on converting to trucking which has begun by ripping up the rail spur line to the landfill and replacing it with a paved road. It has already invested millions of dollars into equipment to facilitate that. It is not clear whether this option will eliminate trucking on Bradshaw Road. The Authority's study found switching to trucks would save $40 million over the next 25 years. https://www.wsls.com/news/2018/11/21/temporary-trash-transport-solution-causing-stink-in-roanoke-county/
Here is the full explanation which sounds like the original poster here was right. The trash train had been operated for 25 years, using a rotary dumper to unload the gondolas. But eventually the dumper broke down, and repair has not been made. I assume the dumper repair is very expensive, but also very time consuming. It may be that the dumper simply has an operating (maintenance) cost that exceeds its benefit for such light usage as it sees with the trash trains.
The trash cannot wait for the repair, so a temporary solution was found as trucking the trash in on Bradshaw Road which had previously been quiet and residential. This brought many complaints from those residents.
A solution was explored to containerize the trash to eliminate the need for the rotary dumper. However, even without the rotary dumper, Norfolk Southern announced the trash train "no longer meets its business model." Norfolk Southern told the authority that it could haul a much larger freight train with the same crew as compared to "shuttling" 10 to 15 cars to the landfill daily.
I am curious about the rotary dumper, which the article refers to as being “one of a kind.” Was this a custom built machine? Also, it mentions that the dumper was a inadequately maintained. I suspect the dumper was custom built at an enormous cost, and then suffered a lack of maintenance. Now, once it fails in the time sensitive service of trash hauling, the repair is time consuming and eye popping expensive. Purchasing a custom built rotary dumper in the first place may not have been the best option. The inside story on the dumper would be most welcomed.
I assume the containerization proposal would use containers carried in the gondolas that could be lifted out and dumped with a crane. That sounds way more prudent than relying on an expensive rotary dumper which is likely to break down eventually and create precisely the crisis that has transpired here.
Forty to sixty trucks, per day using Bradshaw Road had been regarded as a temporary solution until the dumper was repaired. But a study now recommends eliminating the trash train because trucking is less expensive and more reliable than rail.
So the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority has embarked on converting to trucking which has begun by ripping up the rail spur line to the landfill and replacing it with a paved road. It has already invested millions of dollars into equipment to facilitate that. It is not clear whether this option will eliminate trucking on Bradshaw Road.
The Authority's study found switching to trucks would save $40 million over the next 25 years.
https://www.wsls.com/news/2018/11/21/temporary-trash-transport-solution-causing-stink-in-roanoke-county/
I think this is the most salient point. It sounds like the trash train used to meet the NS business model, but no longer does so. I wonder what changed. It might have been the NS business model that changed, or maybe the trash train changed.
The NS defense that they can haul a much larger train with the same crew as they used for the trash train is bizarre to say the least. Every train crew cannot be running the biggest train possible just to get the maximum revenue out of the crew. I think the key point is whether the trash train made money for NS or not. I can’t believe they were running the train without making any money on it.
What happens when the landfill has issues.....
https://www.firstcoastnews.com/article/news/local/large-fire-breaks-out-at-st-johns-county-landfill/77-750178ff-e1ba-4dd2-ab08-74ffeaa12e91
Paul MilenkovicHoly Professional Iconoclast, Batman! Overmod should write a column for Trains Magazine.
(What's the smiley for 'rimshot' to give Backshop? That was good. Prof. Milenkovic's sarcasm was good, too, and recognized as such.)
Paul Milenkovic Holy Professional Iconoclast, Batman! Overmod should write a column for Trains Magazine.
Holy Professional Iconoclast, Batman! Overmod should write a column for Trains Magazine.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
As a potentially interesting 'aside':
Many years ago, the city of Englewood decided to build a 'trash transfer station' as part of an 'urban renewal effort' -- this was intended as an open site where ~24 surrounding communities could dump their municipal trash trucks after comparatively short drives, and the result would be compacted and then consolidated into appropriate larger semitrailers built to handle compaction and discharge compacted waste at a distant landfill in a closed shuttle operation, using contracted crews and tractors much as many intermodal providers currently do.
I noted in some of the town meetings that the old Erie Northern Branch ran directly adjacent to the proposed facility, and with little more than a 90-degree orientation change to access would permit rail sidings to access both the closed-ended compactor and an extension of the lifting conveyor that charged it. Instead of a potentially increasing traffic of specialized heavily-built compactor trailers on local streets and highways, this would allow relatively silent arrival and departure on nearly-unused trackage with minimal grade crossings to the south and good connections to a variety of local and mainline trackage at the south end (note that part of this route is now rebuilt into a key link in the current "Lehigh Line" replacement for freight over the NEC and then north on the ex-West Shore to Selkirk). To the extent this service could be extended to more communities in the region, many more than the initial 24 communities could likely be serviced, the initial 'proposals' to conduct recyclables sorting and segregation could reach critical volume more quickly, and the practical choices for where to send the transferred trash perhaps greatly expanded in scope. I might add that this was comparably shortly after the full construction of the connection between 80/95 and the George Washington Bridge, which among other things made it easy for taxi drivers to pay the toll to go across, fill up on cheap Jersey gasoline and go back in just a few minutes for large (in those days) money savings. There was little question that many communities on Manhattan from at least Washington Heights north would be far better served 'transferring' trash to us than trying to find ecologically or financially superior alternatives in Beame's legacy city...
This foundered on an interesting, but expectable, political point: Englewood is a severely divided city, with two rich wards and two relatively poor ones; naturally the transfer station was located in one of the latter. The perception that poorer neighborhoods were to be the source of a garbage 'enterprise', no matter how profitable to the city as a whole it might become or how many surrounding communities might benefit, was nearly sufficient to kill the initial proposal, and certainly kept it from a rail alternative while the original compactor-truck model remained workable (we had a couple of open landfills, including in the 'Meadowlands' and on Staten Island, available within relatively short driving distance largely on Interstate roads, at that time)
It occurs to me that what is happening here is that the transfer station where the 'rotary dumper' was located may not be restored to operation at all (I think the WSLS story references 'before 2019', which tells you volumes), and by inference the various trash trucks will go to the landfill (on that newly-paved dedicated 'road') and dump there to have the load spread by the landfill's equipment. Any use of specialized compactor trailers, as at Englewood, presupposes having been 'dumped from the transferring local trucks first, so the rotary dumper (or at least parallel access and conveyor to handle dumping from regional trucks) remains a broken part of the critical path; there may be little gained by duplicating a fleet of expensive vehicles that presumably either Roanoke and other communities or the Roanoke Valley Regional Authority would have to maintain and run. This is largely about the railroad not finding even subsidized trash handling 'profitable enough' to continue. That is a tremendously different thing from trucks naturally taking over the business, as anyone who actually looks at the logistics and extended concerns would likely realize. I don't know if the "40 to 60 trucks each day" down the temporary access route represent one-way trips, loaded and then empty, but that's still a relatively high volume of objectionable traffic.
The Roanoke situation seems as though the original setup 'leveraged' on the presence of lots of track, much of it functionally if not actually redundant, in the Roanoke area, combined with what was likely less highway access at original design time. In such a scenario (and perhaps in an era where smaller or older locomotives were still in general use for yard or local service) the economics might work for dedicated 'garbage turns' or even scheduled access. The problem is that until we read the actual 'authority' report, not just the newsworker account about it, we can't discuss the likely details with more than speculation. Who has the link? Presumably Shane Dwyer at WSLS read the thing; he might know...
The real secret here is reminiscent of what's happening in Alabama now: with the rotary dumper out of service sine die, the railroad(s) providing the service get to think about whether they want to do the same old business at the same old stand once it is restored or replaced ... and their business model no longer supports it. That is no different from "PSR"-style shucking of anything requiring actual work, or highest opportunity return ... or retention of more than, say, the current NS minimum supported types of locomotive.
There are probably better ways the railroads could have handled that latter subject; perhaps the journalism is mentioning it in detail to 'leverage' or emphasize problems with PSR-addled "marketing" and exploitation of captive customers for the usual news-business sort of reasons. But times do change, and with them, the economics of relatively short, complicated moves involving switching and track occupancy that we have seen discussed in other contexts here. When a noisome and immediately-unpopular commodity comes to be involved -- one that most people like to consider as if there were a 'garbage fairy' making unwanted things disappear just as if an 'electricity fairy' makes wanted things appear -- it might not be surprising to see just the sort of expedient changes happen that we see in this example.
And it does not mean that at some future point -- for example, adoption of full autonomy for limited-context railroad service before on-road trucking (or, indeed, after on-road autonomous trucking comes to be highly circumscribed, restricted, or banned to make its use here infeasible or (relatively) uneconomical) -- the facility can't be restored to rail and used comparable to 'before'. It's not as if some idiot will tear up all the trackage forever and replace it with one-way truck routes a little TLM-style preparation and some panel track would put the spur right back for access, probably easier than repaving (and repaving and repaving) what they've put down for the road access...
Remember Kneiling's piece on trash by rail? Less need for technologically expensive garbage trucks. Keeping it simple. Supplant rather than supplement.
Information as to why the garbage was switched to truck seems murky. Reading between the lines, I conclude that there was a technical problem with dumping with the rotary dumper. Also was a comment about the trash being containerized for hauling by rail. I conclude that the trucking will be more costly, and so there may be a rate increase needed. Apparently the rotary dumper had been used without any problems. Maybe someone else can explain why the change was made. To me, that is the most obvious question raised by the story.
Jack Layton was the main guy fighting the idea of sending the trash to Kirkland Lake. He threatened to lie down on the ONR tracks. I liked the guy, met him once but I thought he was wrong about this. And the trucks keep rolling on.
Having driven across the "402" from London to Sarnia a number of times, I know those big trucks are a part of the "scenery." Never mind eighteen wheelers - it's more like twenty-four.
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...
54light15 There was a proposal to ship Toronto's garbage north by rail to an abandoned open pit mine in Kirkland Lake that was lined with granite. It would have provided jobs and work for the ONR but political correctness put a stop to it so it all goes to Michigan by truck. Funny how a country as big as Canada can't find a place on it's own soil to dump it's trash.
There was a proposal to ship Toronto's garbage north by rail to an abandoned open pit mine in Kirkland Lake that was lined with granite. It would have provided jobs and work for the ONR but political correctness put a stop to it so it all goes to Michigan by truck. Funny how a country as big as Canada can't find a place on it's own soil to dump it's trash.
54light15There was a proposal to ship Toronto's garbage north by rail to an abandoned open pit mine in Kirkland Lake that was lined with granite. It would have provided jobs and work for the ONR but political correctness put a stop to it so it all goes to Michigan by truck. Funny how a country as big as Canada can't find a place on it's own soil to dump it's trash.
It isn't "can't". It is don't want to.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.