jeffhergert oltmannd Euclid oltmannd 2. Get serioius about train braking. Stop playing with 30 year old trials of ECP braking that clearly don't work. Get going on smart freight cars that have smart braking. Don, I am familiar with ECP brakes and existing PCP brakes. Can you explain “smart braking,” which you refer to in your post? How does it work and how do the railroads feel about the need smart braking? To be honest - it's aspirational. No such thing exists at the moment but all the features have been talked about over the past few decades. Here are the features: 1. Electrically controlled brake valve. Application and release occur from a data command send from engineer. Brake valve is battery powered. 2. Battery powered processor on each car with charging from solar AND axle bearings. 3. Wireless, electronic trainline. Radio? Wave guided antennas in car end? I'm no EE (obviously) but it is needed and someone has to figure out how to make it happen. 4. Trainline supported DPU. Get rid of DPU radios. 5. Sensor equipped freight car for on board defect detection. Get rid of all the wayside stuff. 6. Totally proportional load/empty braking with wheelslip detection and correction. Locomotives can do 35% all weather adhesion. How about, immediate, on demand, 25% all weather braking adhesion? (60 to 0 in 11 seconds, 1000 feet) 7. Open up the brake pipe feed all the way. You don't need to reduce the brakepipe and restrict flow for any reason. Brake pipe can always be at full pressure. Remove most airbrake equipment from the locomotives. Train braking control is electronic. Locomotive braking (ind) still straight air. 8. Put an automatic "parking brake" on each car. Lots of challenges here. Long overdue time to get to work. While I would agree most of the features are desirable, the more things you add - the more things that will fail. Especially with the kind of maintenance they would get. Jeff
oltmannd Euclid oltmannd 2. Get serioius about train braking. Stop playing with 30 year old trials of ECP braking that clearly don't work. Get going on smart freight cars that have smart braking. Don, I am familiar with ECP brakes and existing PCP brakes. Can you explain “smart braking,” which you refer to in your post? How does it work and how do the railroads feel about the need smart braking? To be honest - it's aspirational. No such thing exists at the moment but all the features have been talked about over the past few decades. Here are the features: 1. Electrically controlled brake valve. Application and release occur from a data command send from engineer. Brake valve is battery powered. 2. Battery powered processor on each car with charging from solar AND axle bearings. 3. Wireless, electronic trainline. Radio? Wave guided antennas in car end? I'm no EE (obviously) but it is needed and someone has to figure out how to make it happen. 4. Trainline supported DPU. Get rid of DPU radios. 5. Sensor equipped freight car for on board defect detection. Get rid of all the wayside stuff. 6. Totally proportional load/empty braking with wheelslip detection and correction. Locomotives can do 35% all weather adhesion. How about, immediate, on demand, 25% all weather braking adhesion? (60 to 0 in 11 seconds, 1000 feet) 7. Open up the brake pipe feed all the way. You don't need to reduce the brakepipe and restrict flow for any reason. Brake pipe can always be at full pressure. Remove most airbrake equipment from the locomotives. Train braking control is electronic. Locomotive braking (ind) still straight air. 8. Put an automatic "parking brake" on each car. Lots of challenges here. Long overdue time to get to work.
Euclid oltmannd 2. Get serioius about train braking. Stop playing with 30 year old trials of ECP braking that clearly don't work. Get going on smart freight cars that have smart braking. Don, I am familiar with ECP brakes and existing PCP brakes. Can you explain “smart braking,” which you refer to in your post? How does it work and how do the railroads feel about the need smart braking?
oltmannd 2. Get serioius about train braking. Stop playing with 30 year old trials of ECP braking that clearly don't work. Get going on smart freight cars that have smart braking.
To be honest - it's aspirational. No such thing exists at the moment but all the features have been talked about over the past few decades.
Here are the features:
1. Electrically controlled brake valve. Application and release occur from a data command send from engineer. Brake valve is battery powered.
2. Battery powered processor on each car with charging from solar AND axle bearings.
3. Wireless, electronic trainline. Radio? Wave guided antennas in car end? I'm no EE (obviously) but it is needed and someone has to figure out how to make it happen.
4. Trainline supported DPU. Get rid of DPU radios.
5. Sensor equipped freight car for on board defect detection. Get rid of all the wayside stuff.
6. Totally proportional load/empty braking with wheelslip detection and correction. Locomotives can do 35% all weather adhesion. How about, immediate, on demand, 25% all weather braking adhesion? (60 to 0 in 11 seconds, 1000 feet)
7. Open up the brake pipe feed all the way. You don't need to reduce the brakepipe and restrict flow for any reason. Brake pipe can always be at full pressure. Remove most airbrake equipment from the locomotives. Train braking control is electronic. Locomotive braking (ind) still straight air.
8. Put an automatic "parking brake" on each car.
Lots of challenges here. Long overdue time to get to work.
While I would agree most of the features are desirable, the more things you add - the more things that will fail. Especially with the kind of maintenance they would get.
Jeff
For sure. I'd especially worry about the parking brake. Sensors and wires might not be too bad. Lots and lots of experience with doing this stuff in automotive industry - although shock and vibration on a rail car a different ball game.
Those Herzog ballast trains give me hope, though.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Erik_Mag How about dynamic braking on each car, where the braking resistors use the car frame as a heat sink? The obvious question is how to control the braking, one option would be having the dynamic braking effort being proportional to the pressure in the brake cylinder, the benefit is that the heat from braking would not solely be dissipated in the wheels.
How about dynamic braking on each car, where the braking resistors use the car frame as a heat sink? The obvious question is how to control the braking, one option would be having the dynamic braking effort being proportional to the pressure in the brake cylinder, the benefit is that the heat from braking would not solely be dissipated in the wheels.
If you could recover the energy, you might find a way to make it pay. But, then each car is a locomotive, by definition and things get really difficult.
I'd rather put disc brakes on the car, if braking HP into the wheels is a problem.
Ulrich Five loads a quarter is horrible.. can that be true? Six day service between Chicago and Atlanta sounds like a tough sell to me..but perhaps there's a market for that at some price point.. I don't know. From what I've read there wasn't much enthusiasum for it even within NS. I didn't hold out much hope for the LCL trial after reading a press release
Five loads a quarter is horrible.. can that be true?
Six day service between Chicago and Atlanta sounds like a tough sell to me..but perhaps there's a market for that at some price point.. I don't know. From what I've read there wasn't much enthusiasum for it even within NS.
I didn't hold out much hope for the LCL trial after reading a press release
Yes Ulrich 5 turns per Qtr. JBH has stated this in its internal reports. Like I mentioned above there's more to this slow turn time. Terminal dwell/congestion, reduced chassis capacity DC/warehouse detention. It's not the linehaul portion of transit.
Most IM terminals are wheeled which means containers sit on a chassis until drayed to a customer. One thing with wheeled facilties they lack capacity to store additional containers, while creating ineffcient use of chassis which could be stored to move dwelled containers faster. The C1's are moving toward what's called grounded operation by stacking containers. Getting away from using chassis to hold containers. The C1's still operate most facilities like a TOFC operation..
This is one con of intermodal.. Many moving parts that require precise coordination between all parties involved.
Five loads a week is terrible.. doesn't sound right to me..
MP173 I was amazed to read that JBH containers average about 5 loads per quarter. That is very low utilization. Is NS still running the Chicago - NYC LCL service? I saw it a few times but havent in months. I actually talked to an NS sales rep. They were looking at 6 day service from Chicago to Atlanta. Ouch. My suggestion to him was to seek out the local sub regional LTL carriers in Chicago and allow them to handle pickup and delivery service and piggyback on their local accounts. Ed
I was amazed to read that JBH containers average about 5 loads per quarter. That is very low utilization.
Is NS still running the Chicago - NYC LCL service? I saw it a few times but havent in months.
I actually talked to an NS sales rep. They were looking at 6 day service from Chicago to Atlanta. Ouch. My suggestion to him was to seek out the local sub regional LTL carriers in Chicago and allow them to handle pickup and delivery service and piggyback on their local accounts.
Ed
Yes Ed that's horrible utilization.. Looking at the whole intermodal picture; terminal dwell, chassis management, drayage capacity, and DC L/UL detention time seems to help decrease box utilization. This means JBH has to purchase more 53's to take up the slack for these low turns, not expanded business.
If you have not seen a boxcar in months. I guess we can assume the NS trial has ran its course. I like your suggestion. I would have even let Triple Crown market the LCL service as TCS is seperate from NS operations.
The C1's start these services yet seem to stall out and don't know where to grow the service. The same approach to wholesale intermodal should have been used for the LCL service as well. Own the equipment, wholesale the service.
[/quote]
SD60MAC9500 MP173 I was amazed to read that JBH containers average about 5 loads per quarter. That is very low utilization. Is NS still running the Chicago - NYC LCL service? I saw it a few times but havent in months. I actually talked to an NS sales rep. They were looking at 6 day service from Chicago to Atlanta. Ouch. My suggestion to him was to seek out the local sub regional LTL carriers in Chicago and allow them to handle pickup and delivery service and piggyback on their local accounts. Ed Yes Ed that's horrible utilization.. Looking at the whole intermodal picture; terminal dwell, chassis management, drayage capacity, and DC L/UL detention time seems to help decrease box utilization. This means JBH has to purchase more 53's to take up the slack for these low turns, not expanded business. If you have not seen a boxcar in months. I guess we can assume the NS trial has ran its course. I like your suggestion. I would have even let Triple Crown market the LCL service as TCS is seperate from NS operations. The C1's start these services yet seem to stall out and don't know where to grow the service. The same approach to wholesale intermodal should have been used for the LCL service as well. Own the equipment, wholesale the service.
Electroliner 1935They appear to run many short FAST freight trains that fit in with their passenger trains.
Key word there is "short." And Wall Street doesn't want to hear that four letter word "many."
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...
Do the european railroads use the same brakes on their frieght cars as the US? They appear to run many short FAST freight trains that fit in with their passenger trains.
oltmannd Well....ARGH! Once upon a time, boxcars were how things moved. The PRR lived (and died) moving box cars of raw material into the northeast and manufactured stuff back out in the same box cars. Backhauls were everything. Rate-wise, the raw material in part of the cycle WAS the backhaul. There was no money in moving raw materials in and then empty back home. Reload rate on box cars now? Like 5%. It's boutique business. You have a high volume lanes with specific commodities that often need special care (like a roof that doesnt' leak - or internal bracing system) - you have boutique lane. A brewery may get grain in in covered hoppers, and cans may go out in box cars. The box cars arrive empty, the covered hoppers leave empty. A lumberyard may get lumber of various types in on center beam cars. Cars go home empty. There is nothing to fix here! It's how things have evolved. Commodity specific equipment for specific customer-consingee lanes. Intermodal is where the present is and where the future is and the boutique carload has to fit in. RRs need to get busy optimizing their plant for their intermodal future. By: 1. fixing the slower speed connections, junctions, interlockings, curves so that trains can maintain track speed longer. 2. Get serioius about train braking. Stop playing with 30 year old trials of ECP braking that clearly don't work. Get going on smart freight cars that have smart braking. 3. Get serious about DPU. Don't just use it to run longer trains. Use it to greatly reduce buff/draft car construction requirments. Results of all this? Faster trains service, longer crew districts, fewer line of road mishaps, lighter and more modern equipment, reduce energy lugging around high tare equipment. Your short blocks of boutique carload can move in the network on intermodal trains or can move on a simplified hub and spoke daily carload network. STOP TRYING TRYING TO REVIVE CARLOAD TRAFFIC! It is what it is and it ain't ever gonna be what it was.
Well....ARGH!
Once upon a time, boxcars were how things moved. The PRR lived (and died) moving box cars of raw material into the northeast and manufactured stuff back out in the same box cars.
Backhauls were everything. Rate-wise, the raw material in part of the cycle WAS the backhaul. There was no money in moving raw materials in and then empty back home.
Reload rate on box cars now? Like 5%. It's boutique business. You have a high volume lanes with specific commodities that often need special care (like a roof that doesnt' leak - or internal bracing system) - you have boutique lane.
A brewery may get grain in in covered hoppers, and cans may go out in box cars. The box cars arrive empty, the covered hoppers leave empty.
A lumberyard may get lumber of various types in on center beam cars. Cars go home empty.
There is nothing to fix here! It's how things have evolved. Commodity specific equipment for specific customer-consingee lanes.
Intermodal is where the present is and where the future is and the boutique carload has to fit in.
RRs need to get busy optimizing their plant for their intermodal future. By:
1. fixing the slower speed connections, junctions, interlockings, curves so that trains can maintain track speed longer.
2. Get serioius about train braking. Stop playing with 30 year old trials of ECP braking that clearly don't work. Get going on smart freight cars that have smart braking.
3. Get serious about DPU. Don't just use it to run longer trains. Use it to greatly reduce buff/draft car construction requirments.
Results of all this? Faster trains service, longer crew districts, fewer line of road mishaps, lighter and more modern equipment, reduce energy lugging around high tare equipment.
Your short blocks of boutique carload can move in the network on intermodal trains or can move on a simplified hub and spoke daily carload network.
STOP TRYING TRYING TO REVIVE CARLOAD TRAFFIC! It is what it is and it ain't ever gonna be what it was.
Don,
To start my comment was about moving boxcar LCL in intermodal service..Here's a piece of it..
"Imagine a cross dock inside of a intermodal ramp. However I would sell space to my customers; UPS, ABF, IMC's, etc. Or let them and/or a 3PL like WATCO, or Kuehne+Nagel market the service and solicit the traffic. They could buy a slot(s) in the boxcar. The C1's could even build the cross dock and lease it out to these LP/3PL's.
Remember intermodal doesn't have to just be COFC or TOFC.."
Both BNSF and UP move reefers and boxcars in Z-train service. NS may still be offering its TDS Boxcar LCL service in IM lanes to the Southeast and NJ/NYC.
Carload is still the bread and butter of the industry with the highest revenue per carload. Intermodal will have a difficult time growing due to overfocus on OR. I don't believe IM is the future.. However it's a part of the future where the C1's need to provide actual reliable service and growth. Until they offer shorthaul IM >500Mi. there's little to no growth in IM and thats why its currently stagnated. As for moving carload in IM that already exist and has existed.
Also no amount of ECP is going to fix the industry. While I'm a proponent of such tech. That doesn't solve the labor issues or poor reliability.. Also out of the 1.6 Million North American Railcar fleet.. About 75% of those cars are privately owned. So it's not up to the C1's to push ECP. That's on; DuPont, Cargill, GATX, UTLX, Mitsui, etc...
Also to your empty miles statement. That's a part of the network you'll never have 100% load factor on anything.. Even intermodal suffers from this. Factor in low to no triangulation and repositioning of equipment, and markets that lack drayage capacity or terminal footprint. ..Boxcars also carry a slow turn rate of about once per month so backhaul's would be a low percentage of boxcar movements. Though speaking of slow turns.. JB Hunt boxes are currently only turning 1.6 times per month...
Backshop Fedex Freight (not Ground) is much bigger than Old Dominion. It's composed of the old Viking, American Freightways and Watkins Motor Lines. All they do is palletized LTL.
Fedex Freight (not Ground) is much bigger than Old Dominion. It's composed of the old Viking, American Freightways and Watkins Motor Lines. All they do is palletized LTL.
Yes, I'm aware of that.. use both.. compare.. and find out why they're both doing well in their respective niches.. they're not direct competitors. I've used both for years.. apples to oranges.
zugmann oltmannd 100% physical. Trucks and highways happened and the genie flew out of the box. Actually started happening in the 1920s Lots of industries survived/and strived with changes that happened 100 years ago. I don't think new braking systems or forcing every customer to use intermodal boxes will save the industry. I think ulrich is closer to the real solutions. I'll add - the railroad companies need to stop acting like it is 1850 and stop treating everyone they are involved with (customers, their managers, the public, the employees) as the enemy. Maybe if they could ever give up that victim mentality, they could actually grow and adapt. And yes, even implement some of those innovations you speak of. But I don't think they're the answer in and of themselves.
oltmannd 100% physical. Trucks and highways happened and the genie flew out of the box. Actually started happening in the 1920s
Lots of industries survived/and strived with changes that happened 100 years ago.
I don't think new braking systems or forcing every customer to use intermodal boxes will save the industry.
I think ulrich is closer to the real solutions. I'll add - the railroad companies need to stop acting like it is 1850 and stop treating everyone they are involved with (customers, their managers, the public, the employees) as the enemy. Maybe if they could ever give up that victim mentality, they could actually grow and adapt. And yes, even implement some of those innovations you speak of. But I don't think they're the answer in and of themselves.
Wall Streeters (financial types) feature they are the smartest of the smart because they can manipulate numbers and perform no physical work - as such anything in the physical world is beneath their contempt. PSR is a Wall Street creation.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Backshop Ulrich They could purchase LTL carriers and bring the whole operation under one roof. I know.. it didn't work with Overnite almost half a century ago, but that was long ago and one failure doesn't disprove the idea. Imagine (for example) a transportation company consisting of Fedex, CSX and say.. Old Dominion... At the head of it would be people who determine shippers' needs and deploy assets accordingly.. instead of having shippers deciding for themselves which way is best. UP bought Overnite in 1986 and sold it in 2003--well under a half century. If you had Fedex, what would be the purpose of Old Dominion?
Ulrich They could purchase LTL carriers and bring the whole operation under one roof. I know.. it didn't work with Overnite almost half a century ago, but that was long ago and one failure doesn't disprove the idea. Imagine (for example) a transportation company consisting of Fedex, CSX and say.. Old Dominion... At the head of it would be people who determine shippers' needs and deploy assets accordingly.. instead of having shippers deciding for themselves which way is best.
They could purchase LTL carriers and bring the whole operation under one roof. I know.. it didn't work with Overnite almost half a century ago, but that was long ago and one failure doesn't disprove the idea. Imagine (for example) a transportation company consisting of Fedex, CSX and say.. Old Dominion... At the head of it would be people who determine shippers' needs and deploy assets accordingly.. instead of having shippers deciding for themselves which way is best.
UP bought Overnite in 1986 and sold it in 2003--well under a half century. If you had Fedex, what would be the purpose of Old Dominion?
Fedex is more of a courier while OD is more of an LTL.. I know.. Fedex also does LTL, but their focus is more on small LTL not skid lot or bigger bulky LTL..
ok.. but it feels like half a century ago..
oltmannd100% physical. Trucks and highways happened and the genie flew out of the box. Actually started happening in the 1920s
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
BaltACD greyhounds Well, here we go again. Someone comes up with an idea on how to grow rail revenue and tonnage. Then we get at least one of the usual suspects insisting that it can’t possibly ever work. It would be more constructive to figure out how to make it work. Anyway, this is a YouTube of an LTL driver making deliveries. Just so we all can get on the same page. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEI_NXAfGHg Please note that he is using a trailer equipped with lift pads for TOFC service. The company he’s driving for, Estes, is a regular user of TOFC/COFC. They have their own rail containers for double stack operation. So, evidently, the derided long trains do not give the freight too bad of a ride. Other LTL truckers regularly using rail include FedEx and Yellow. Those are number one and two in the US LTL market. And let’s not forget all those UPS packages that move along just fine by rail. I don’t see a lot in the video that requires significant investment. The trick is to make rail participation grow profitably. But we’ve always got these people who insist “It Won’t Work.” BTW, I did start out on an LTL/LCL freight dock at 1601 S. Western Ave. in Chicago. The railroads never did entirely quit hauling LTL. But they were shoved out of a lot of it by government regulators who didn’t have a clue. 3rd Party LTL can and does work. 3rd Parties are making the investments in equipment, facilities and manpower - NOT RAILROADS. 3rd Party LTL carriers are using railroads for what they are designed for - moving completed shipments from the 3rd Party's origin terminal to the 3rd Party's destination terminal. The 3rd Party is on the hook for everthing necessary to originate a full trailer to ship and everything necessary to deliver whatever the trailer contains at the destination terminal. Were railroads to seek ENTRY to the LTL business they would have to compete against existing 3rd Party LTL carriers, financially that is a very high barrier to surmount; a barrier that railroads have made a business decision not to attempt.
greyhounds Well, here we go again. Someone comes up with an idea on how to grow rail revenue and tonnage. Then we get at least one of the usual suspects insisting that it can’t possibly ever work. It would be more constructive to figure out how to make it work. Anyway, this is a YouTube of an LTL driver making deliveries. Just so we all can get on the same page. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEI_NXAfGHg Please note that he is using a trailer equipped with lift pads for TOFC service. The company he’s driving for, Estes, is a regular user of TOFC/COFC. They have their own rail containers for double stack operation. So, evidently, the derided long trains do not give the freight too bad of a ride. Other LTL truckers regularly using rail include FedEx and Yellow. Those are number one and two in the US LTL market. And let’s not forget all those UPS packages that move along just fine by rail. I don’t see a lot in the video that requires significant investment. The trick is to make rail participation grow profitably. But we’ve always got these people who insist “It Won’t Work.” BTW, I did start out on an LTL/LCL freight dock at 1601 S. Western Ave. in Chicago. The railroads never did entirely quit hauling LTL. But they were shoved out of a lot of it by government regulators who didn’t have a clue.
3rd Party LTL can and does work. 3rd Parties are making the investments in equipment, facilities and manpower - NOT RAILROADS. 3rd Party LTL carriers are using railroads for what they are designed for - moving completed shipments from the 3rd Party's origin terminal to the 3rd Party's destination terminal. The 3rd Party is on the hook for everthing necessary to originate a full trailer to ship and everything necessary to deliver whatever the trailer contains at the destination terminal.
Were railroads to seek ENTRY to the LTL business they would have to compete against existing 3rd Party LTL carriers, financially that is a very high barrier to surmount; a barrier that railroads have made a business decision not to attempt.
oltmannd2. Get serioius about train braking. Stop playing with 30 year old trials of ECP braking that clearly don't work. Get going on smart freight cars that have smart braking.
zugmann A wise man once said: oltmannd I just want people to stop doing complicated, new things when simple, proven and better ways already exist. Good chance, in the long run, it'd be cheaper, too. Seriously, is it the physical aspect that is hampering growth, or is it the operational/managing/financial side that's the issue?
A wise man once said:
oltmannd I just want people to stop doing complicated, new things when simple, proven and better ways already exist. Good chance, in the long run, it'd be cheaper, too.
I just want people to stop doing complicated, new things when simple, proven and better ways already exist.
Good chance, in the long run, it'd be cheaper, too.
Seriously, is it the physical aspect that is hampering growth, or is it the operational/managing/financial side that's the issue?
None of the above.. it's a visionary thing..The industry needs new thinking and a shakeup..i.e. a vision. Railroads need to give up the conveyor belt mentality and focus more on the retail side of the business by becoming transportation companies rather than just railroads. A good start would be to look at what shippers generally want. Most care about responsiveness, consistent service levels, and a wide range of service offerings that include courier, trucking, LTL, LCL, and of course rail. Price is usually not the most important selling point, if it was the couriers, the air freight people, and the truckers would be starving; and the post office, the railroads, and the barge companies would have the freight market to themselves. Think like a shipper and go from there.
Years ago I had a memorable conversation with a shipper. I asked him the usual 301 questions every sales person asks, and growing exasperated he finally said "Ulrich, just ship my GD load". Shippers just want their stuff moved.. they don't care if it goes via train, plane, truck, barge, other..
zugmannSeriously, is it the physical aspect that is hampering growth, or is it the operational/managing/financial side that's the issue?
I think the financial side factors in heavily. Even if the will is/was there to offer such a service, there is the question of whether it can make enough money to keep the investors happy.
On the physical side, most, if not all of the infrastructure that would make it possible is gone.
It's going to take an outside push to change things - the railroads have little incentive to offer such services these days.
100% physical. Trucks and highways happened and the genie flew out of the box.
Actually started happening in the 1920s
JIT is awful not to mention outdated. Nowadays shippers and receivers are able to plan well ahead to manage inventory levels, and for the most part JIT has given way to "Day Definite" or "Time Definite" where there's room to adjust appointments. JIT is to be avoided like the plaque as breach of delivery in the hour of need almost always comes with penalties..
PSR and JIT are mortal enemies.
BroadwayLionImagine over night freight srtvice between New York and Chicago. On a Train.
This was ISO-outline containers sideloaded on skeleton underframes, with special asynchronous installations for gang-loading and unloading. At each "stop", unloading slots would be arranged on one side of the track, loads staged on the other, so that there would be minimum dwell. Containers would then be sideloaded (or Letra-Portered or PiggyPacked or whatever) onto road underframes, again with at least semi-automatic registering of chassis and powered transfer.
Thw plan was to have standardized internal modules, wrapped pallets, and modular dunnage within the container outline to simplify LCL access 'away from the railroad' -- we expected at some point to do an ISO standardization effort for this.
Problem was, and problem still is, that not enough people who ship things care to pay what it costs "overnight every night". What they value more is very precise arrival just when the shipper says they want or need it, for the lowest possible out-of-pocket cost, and the highest guarantees of service quality. You are unlikely to find a PSR railroad that cares to optimize any of that. Of course, logically, "PSR" practiced correctly would provide this, even at the cost of some delay and slack, and perhaps some of the Wall Streeters will come to realize that.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.