BackshopExcept that he doesn't want to use NWO.
greyhounds Backshop Except that he doesn't want to use NWO. I did not write that! I make mistakes and I’m open to corrections. But when people just fabricate things such as this it’s a little much. What I really said was: “I see no good reason to take loads to the southeast through N. Baltimore when they can be placed on a through train to destination at a Chicago terminal.” I stand by what I actually wrote. N. Baltimore may work well for loads to the northeast. In any event I never said I don’t want to use it.
Backshop Except that he doesn't want to use NWO.
All well and good EXCEPT, you aren't in charge of how CSX wants to operate its network. If they want everything to go through North Baltimore - N - S - E, that is their business, it is their investment and their operation.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
going to shift gears slightly here on this discussion...
Looking at the excellent Iowa Traffic Density Map (Iowa DOT, 2018), the CN Iowa line seems to handle a fair amount of tonnage, at least to Waterloo (12.86 Million gross tons per mile). West of Waterloo, the tonnage drops off - 8.41MGTM to Fort Dodge, then west the line splits - to LeMars and Sioux City- 3.81MGTM and the line to Council Bluffs - 2.0 MGTM.
Similar tonnage with Iowa Interstate. East of Iowa City is 13.38MGTM, then the short distance west to the junction with CRANDIC near South Amana it is 11.79. West of South Amana to drops to 1.41 until Des Moines area where it jumps back to 3 to 6.
The area around Waterloo to Iowa City seems to be the geographic region in which both CN and IAIS generates significant tonnage...to the east.
The Cedar Rapids and Iowa City (CRANDIC) line generates significant tonnage...10.86MGTM to the Iowa Interstate to and from Cedar Rapids. The CN line to the north out of Cedar Rapids generates 2.03 MGTM and Iowa Northern's line is 3.84.
It has been years since I have been to Cedar Rapids but I recall a huge ag processing facility downtown. CRANDIC generates over 100,000 carloads a year...average of 297 per day. Big time operations for a shortline/regional.
It makes sense to me why CN keeps the Iowa line, based on the tonnage hauled.
Could CN (or IAIS) support a daily intermodal to Chicago? Tonnage says yes there is capacity, if the line is sufficient with sidings and signal system.
I am intregied by the Waterloo/Cedar Rapids/Iowa City region and why that area generates so much traffic eastbound, but falls off to the west.
Any comments on this?Ed
MP173... I am intregied by the Waterloo/Cedar Rapids/Iowa City region and why that area generates so much traffic eastbound, but falls off to the west. Any comments on this?
I might guess that the Iowa rainfall map might have something to do with ag industry location:
https://www.weather.gov/images/dmx/Climate/Annual_Precipitation.png
The bigger tonnage coming from Cedar Rapids to the IAIS and east is Crandic haulage traffic. CIC owns the exMILW to the IAIS (exRI connection), but IAIS operates the line from the connection to an interchange yard (a few long tracks) east of Fairfax.
Looking at the IAIS, a couple of changes in tonnage don't look right. Newton to Des Moines is double that of the line east of Newton. I don't believe that there is enough business at Newton to account for the change.
West of Des Moines, the change in tonnage is easy to explain. Menlo is the site of a large ethanol plant. Hancock has originated unit grain trains, and other stations in western Iowa have grain elevators that ship out. Most of all that traffic moves east. Although I do recall hearing Hancock shipping unit trains west to the BNSF at Council Bluffs.
The CN line to Omaha normally only sees a local. I believe they still run turns out of Ft. Dodge and Omaha meeting at Denison. I see them regularly, lately it's been later at night. Usually 10 to 15 cars, for awhile last year they were 30 to 40 cars.
Ft Dodge to Sioux City is the busier section of the CN out west.
Jeff
Jeff:Great report. Thanks for clarifying. The IAIS didnt look right to me between Newton and Des Moines, but I havent been out that way in years.
It is obvious the Cedar Rapids area is a big rail origin/destination. So does Crandic service basically as a final mile and switching line in the Cedar Rapids area? Noted that Crandic is owned by Travero, a holding company specializing in Logistics including warehousing and cross dock operations in Cedar Rapids and East Dubuque. Interesting operation from their website.
Ed
Travero is a subsidiary of Alliant Energy. The Crandic was a subsidiary of Iowe Electric Light & Power, which merged with two or three other electric power companies to form Alliant. Travero was set up a few years ago.
The Crandic owns the line down to the IAIS connection, the northern half of the original MILW main line to Kansas City, a branch line/secondary main after about 1903. It was acquired to serve the Amana Refrigeration (now part of Whirlpool) after the MILW retrenchd from much of Iowa in 1980. They had the foresight to leave the track in place to the site of the IAIS. Originally, the MILW went under the RI with no physical connection.
The MILW was negotiating with the CIC for the entire line to Rutledge, the junction on the north side of Ottumwa with the cutoff from Muscatine. The negotiations were being handled by IE directly with the then CIC superintendent out of the loop. It was said he was not pleased at being left out and vowed the CIC wouldn't go south of the Amana Colonies. It didn't.
Getting back to a previous comment made on intermodal on the short haul from Iowa to Chicago...I received info back from CN regarding their average haul for intermodal. It is about 1800 miles average per unit. Revenue per unit 4Q'22 was $2129 per unit for an average mile charge of $1.18 per mile.
It would be difficult for CN to be interested, in today's market, for an ultra short haul of 350 miles. Obviously they would be looking at considerably more than $1.18 per mile to cover fixed costs. I have no idea of what a "local" rate for intermodal would be. CSX shows an average intermodal revenue per unit at about $800. Unsure of their average milage but is probably in the 700-800 mile range.
Not sure where I am going with this, but my gut feeling is the volume would need to be high to justify a dedicated Waterloo - chicago movement.
MP173 Getting back to a previous comment made on intermodal on the short haul from Iowa to Chicago...I received info back from CN regarding their average haul for intermodal. It is about 1800 miles average per unit. Revenue per unit 4Q'22 was $2129 per unit for an average mile charge of $1.18 per mile. It would be difficult for CN to be interested, in today's market, for an ultra short haul of 350 miles. Obviously they would be looking at considerably more than $1.18 per mile to cover fixed costs. I have no idea of what a "local" rate for intermodal would be. CSX shows an average intermodal revenue per unit at about $800. Unsure of their average milage but is probably in the 700-800 mile range. Not sure where I am going with this, but my gut feeling is the volume would need to be high to justify a dedicated Waterloo - chicago movement. Ed
And an eastern carrier would have to do all the heavy lifting soliciting the traffic. I don't see CN being opposed to running a train for either NS or CSX, but they aren't going to be beating the bushes pushing for it either. NS negiotiated deals with UP and BNSF to extend their Triple Crown network into the Twin Cities and Saginaw, Texas. It worked for years. I'm guessing that it could have continued to work if NS hadn't gotten forced into the Cult of OR game.
Talk about an opportunity lost. Roadrailers would be perfect for so many short to medium distance premium truck-competitve services. Minimal terminal requirements. Minimal tare weight. Minimal slack action. Minimal motive power requirements to run 60-70 mph. And, with short enough consists, perhaps the rail unions would be willing to consider one-person crews, ala the ICG Slingshots.
One of these days somebody in the industry will figure out that double stack land barges are largely for non-truck competitive traffic where cost is the primary determining factor. They have to really speed things up and improve reliability if the railroads ever want to grow market share.
NS:Great points...refer Roadrailers would be ideal for this market, pushed by NS.
Wont happen now.
ed
A downside of Roadrailers is that they tend to have a high tare weight for highway operation. They are also nonstandard equipment in rail service.
ns145 Talk about an opportunity lost. Roadrailers would be perfect for so many short to medium distance premium truck-competitve services. Minimal terminal requirements. Minimal tare weight. Minimal slack action. Minimal motive power requirements to run 60-70 mph. And, with short enough consists, perhaps the rail unions would be willing to consider one-person crews, ala the ICG Slingshots. One of these days somebody in the industry will figure out that double stack land barges are largely for non-truck competitive traffic where cost is the primary determining factor. They have to really speed things up and improve reliability if the railroads ever want to grow market share.
CSSHEGEWISCH A downside of Roadrailers is that they tend to have a high tare weight for highway operation. They are also nonstandard equipment in rail service.
Actually the newest and last Mark Series TCS RoadRailers only have a 800lbs. tare difference between them and a highway spec DV. Since they don't have to deal with latitudinal lifting force only longitudinal. Being they are slackless they only require minimal floor and side rail reinforcement.
Speed is reliability. Can't make up much lost time plodding along at 35-40 mph with less than 1 hp/ton of motive power. The other killer is all the time wasted at junction terminals taking two double stack trains and turning them into one gigantic train that the terminal infrastructure can't properly accomodate. When 258 and 259 pickup or setout St. Louis-bound stacks in Decatur, IL the whole railroad is tied up in knots until they finally leave town.
I agree that the Z-trains do pretty well, but they are really the exception. And since the adoption of PSR, the Class I's eliminated a lot of Z-train traffic by refusing to run trains on the 4-5 day/week schedules that shippers desire.
Being an NS guy at heart and having seen Roadrailers in action for 30+ years, I don't really buy the "custom equipment/can't work" arguments against them. While NS was poaching medium distance truck traffic in the East and Midwest, everybody else was just playing the long-distance game. I understand the economics of long hauls, but there's more to play for if railroads want to compete and be relevant in the mid-21st century.
One needs to keep in mind that on both CSX and NS the Roadrailer operations were heavily dependent on auto parts traffic. I don't think that either railroad got much other traffic to support the operation.
CSSHEGEWISCH One needs to keep in mind that on both CSX and NS the Roadrailer operations were heavily dependent on auto parts traffic. I don't think that either railroad got much other traffic to support the operation.
ns145And an eastern carrier would have to do all the heavy lifting soliciting the traffic. I don't see CN being opposed to running a train for either NS or CSX, but they aren't going to be beating the bushes pushing for it either. NS negiotiated deals with UP and BNSF to extend their Triple Crown network into the Twin Cities and Saginaw, Texas. It worked for years. I'm guessing that it could have continued to work if NS hadn't gotten forced into the Cult of OR game. Talk about an opportunity lost. Roadrailers would be perfect for so many short to medium distance premium truck-competitve services. Minimal terminal requirements. Minimal tare weight. Minimal slack action. Minimal motive power requirements to run 60-70 mph. And, with short enough consists, perhaps the rail unions would be willing to consider one-person crews, ala the ICG Slingshots. One of these days somebody in the industry will figure out that double stack land barges are largely for non-truck competitive traffic where cost is the primary determining factor. They have to really speed things up and improve reliability if the railroads ever want to grow market share.
I think you understand the basic concept. (or "Half Baked Idea" if you’re Backshop).
There’s a whole lot of freight generated domestically that the railroads don’t even try to get. For a long time, the railroads focused on import loads concentrated at a few west coast ports. This import business has fallen off dramatically.
In the case of CN’s Iowa line there is significant freight generated on, or near, that line that moves long distances to eastern population centers. But the CN isn’t interested due to the freight being a short haul for them.
However, for an eastern railroad such freight would be relatively long-haul business. The idea is to extend the eastern railroad(s) to the Missouri River, by using trackage rights, over the underutilized CN Iowa line. (Jeff explained the difference between trackage rights and haulage rights. I think trackage rights will be better. I reason that CSX/NS crews on the trains will ensure that the crews won’t be used for other CN business,)
As Ed pointed out, this is going to take more market research than I’m willing to do. I’m confident I could get the origin-destination truck rates from DAT or Freightwaves’ Sonar. I’ve done that before. I believe I could get lane specific volumes from those sources. I’ve never done that, but I believe such data is available from those sources. I’d have to pay for such data and I’m not willing to do that.
In the end the people doing the market research are going to have go, in person, to talk to the shippers and receivers. Listen to them. A potential customer will tell you what they need if you let them. I’m not willing to do that on my own dime. Besides, I’m 72 with poor hearing. I’d make a terrible listener.
What I’ve got (free from the USDA) is that in 2021 Iowa, Nebraska, and South Dakota produced 32.73% of the red meat in the US. The volume produced in those states equates to 397,115 truckloads in 2021. (46,000 pounds lading per truck.) That’s 1,088 truckloads per day, every day, on a 365 day year. The railroads move very little of this meat.
And there’s other freight. Hides, honey, breakfast cereal, LTL, etc. It’s worth a good look.
I’ve got more experience with RoadRailers than was good for me. I’d reason that the Iron Highway system is better for this service. I’ll get to that in another post.
I'm saving a lot of money since I started living rent-free in someone's head.
It's amazing how many posts I get mentioned in that I haven't contributed to.
NS used the autoparts business to anchor the Triple Crown Services enterprise, then went out on the street drumming up loads for backhauls. In the process they developed a lot of additional traffic moving east-west and north-south. Eventually the network expanded to the East Coast via Conrail, the Twin Cities via UP, and Texas via BNSF. People tend to forget that the Norfolk Southern of the mid/late 1980's had very little intermodal traffic of any kind. In 2022 they were the #2 intermodal carrier behind BNSF.
I only brought up the Roadrailers as an example of a technological solution better suited to go after short to medium haul truck business. Iron Highway would work too. I'm just a little biased towards the Roadrailer trains.
I think Greyhound's idea would be better served by refrigerated containers or trailers moving on standard intermodal equipment, given the current reality that we're living in.
I'm a bit surprised no one has brought up this news story of CPKC's first new trains hauling Midwestern meat to Mexico: https://www.trains.com/trn/news-reviews/news-wire/cpkcs-first-new-trains-will-handle-cross-border-perishables-shipments/
Backshop CSSHEGEWISCH One needs to keep in mind that on both CSX and NS the Roadrailer operations were heavily dependent on auto parts traffic. I don't think that either railroad got much other traffic to support the operation. Roadrailers also wouldn't work in the proposed service that some have brought up here since they aren't reefers.
Roadrailers also wouldn't work in the proposed service that some have brought up here since they aren't reefers.
They can be.
https://www.fleetowner.com/refrigerated-transporter/article/21219307/weekly-trains-run-both-ways-ice-cold-express-puts-reefers-on-steel-wheels
"The new intermodal service operates a fleet of 185 refrigerated RoadRailer trailers in two dedicated weekly trains"
An "expensive model collector"
n012944 Backshop CSSHEGEWISCH One needs to keep in mind that on both CSX and NS the Roadrailer operations were heavily dependent on auto parts traffic. I don't think that either railroad got much other traffic to support the operation. Roadrailers also wouldn't work in the proposed service that some have brought up here since they aren't reefers. They can be. https://www.fleetowner.com/refrigerated-transporter/article/21219307/weekly-trains-run-both-ways-ice-cold-express-puts-reefers-on-steel-wheels "The new intermodal service operates a fleet of 185 refrigerated RoadRailer trailers in two dedicated weekly trains"
Backshop n012944 Backshop CSSHEGEWISCH One needs to keep in mind that on both CSX and NS the Roadrailer operations were heavily dependent on auto parts traffic. I don't think that either railroad got much other traffic to support the operation. Roadrailers also wouldn't work in the proposed service that some have brought up here since they aren't reefers. They can be. https://www.fleetowner.com/refrigerated-transporter/article/21219307/weekly-trains-run-both-ways-ice-cold-express-puts-reefers-on-steel-wheels "The new intermodal service operates a fleet of 185 refrigerated RoadRailer trailers in two dedicated weekly trains" Well, since that article is from 1999 and there aren't any today, I guess that it didn't work out, did it?
Well, since that article is from 1999 and there aren't any today, I guess that it didn't work out, did it?
So are you saying they lost the blueprints and can't build more? Otherwise roadrailers would work just fine in the proposed service, they just need to build more.
Well, there you go. The great intermodal experiment of meat from Iowa can begin.
Set up Nahant Yard in Davenport as an intermodal terminal. Dray the loads in from Waterloo and surrounding regions and load for Mexico. If that works, then expand into lower Texas. Explore moves from Iowa into Toronto and Montreal. Reach into NYC and Boston with a block swap in Buffalo or Cleveland with CSX on the daily Chicago to Canada intermodal...or perhaps swap out at North Baltimore.
This merger is all about disrupting the current market and moving trailers from the road to the rails. This is an ideal situation to break two artificial borders...US/Mexico and Chicago to the east and north.
Could also set up a terminal in Kansas City for that Kansas beef.
n012944 So are you saying they lost the blueprints and can't build more? Otherwise roadrailers would work just fine in the proposed service, they just need to build more.
Backshop n012944 So are you saying they lost the blueprints and can't build more? Otherwise roadrailers would work just fine in the proposed service, they just need to build more. No, I'm saying that the technology has been around for 25 years, was common knowledge and yet no railroad, shipper or producer has seen a reason or need to bring it back. I'm sure they have good reasons.
No, I'm saying that the technology has been around for 25 years, was common knowledge and yet no railroad, shipper or producer has seen a reason or need to bring it back. I'm sure they have good reasons.
So your statement that they wouldn't work is incorrect. Got it. I understand Greyhound's nickname for you now.
I'm not concerned with greyhounds or anyone else's nickname about me. If he was that good at marketing, he'd be a teacher, consultant or author. This is a railfan website, for people who like trains, not a professional marketing website. His constant "I thought of something that no one else has, therefore I'm smarter" refrain got old years ago. Maybe others much more intelligent than him, thought of it but then discarded it as fiscally unworkable. I'm not talking about people on this site, but professionals who do it for a living. There's a reason that this forum seems to be down to around twenty active members, and he's one of them.
Why does this have to devolve into personalities and insults?
"Reefer" RoadRailers were always possible; even with a thin-line refrigerator the added cost of the equipment and insulation adds significant non-revenue weight; there is no advantage unless established delivery and backhaul lanes that use the insulated/refrigerated feature to advantage can be established.
The issue as I see it is a combination of risk and first cost. There is clearly business for organized meat delivery to 'hubs' like Rotterdam that serve a large number of 'redirect' destinations -- perhaps via rail as well as road-intermodal. The first issue is whether the number of dedicated RoadRailers can be built, maintained, and serviced at the 'opportunity cost' of conventional reefer vans operating TOFC or Iron Highway. The second issue is finding, nurturing, and then sustaining the right amount of refrigerated backhaul. There is also the cost involved in schlepping the bogies around to make the trick work -- people are throwing millions at more lameheaded 'autonomous rail' vehicles than self-powered, self-directing RoadRailer Mark IV or whatever it is "smart trucks" with their own battery packs, reefer shore power, etc., so there's clearly OPM available to the glib or clever, and the trucks could easily be designed 'modular' to fit under existing boxcars... Euclid! Calling Euclid!
But in the absence of really, really well-thought-out and planned operations, but the presence of various shortsighted PSR and QoS concerns... no, reefer RoadRailers aren't something you're going to see sold in the necessary volume to make even a limited service work, when there are more flexible alternatives that are already costed-down or demonstrated. Anyone can prove me wrong by getting a deal financed -- I'll even help free with technical details. But don't bother calling me names.
OvermodThere is also the cost involved in schlepping the bogies around to make the trick work -
When I worked roadrailer trains years ago, I believe (if my memory isn't failing me - it's been a while) they just tossed extra bogies in empty trailers and sent them on the train.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
Not so sure I like the concept of NS or CSXT gaining haulage rights on CN to tap into the vast meat/meat products market that exists in central and western Iowa. If CN can't (or won't) do it on their on volition, then the onus is on them. Plain, pure and simple.
We've talked about - at length - eastern US markets that would be ideal destinations for this type of traffic and why the relatively short-haul for CN in such a scenario wouldn't be attractive for them. However, one thing that hasn't been discussed here so far is why can't eastern Canadian destinations (Toronto/Ottawa/Montreal et al) be in this mix that would give CN the desired long-haul that would obviously change the dynamics for them here.
As a CPRS (soon to be CPKC) guy, yeah, I think there's definitely some opportunities there as well although the drayage could be problematic and I'm not sure without taking a closer look at things if you could achieve some semblance of balance with loads going both ways.
I think at some point, the CN is going to have to take a hard look at this opportunity again and figure out a way to make this work.
I think that Greyhound's idea could work. I think the hard part would be getting CN to play along. I would guess it would be easier to arrange haulage rights rather than trackage rights, with NS or CSX using their own crews. I'm not sure the volume would be enough to interest an eastern class one to hire crews for that.
I know there are such trackage rights agreements in place elsewhere. NS is hiring for such in New York for new operations involving CSX and the PanAm restructuring. BNSF has it over the UP in places due to merger conditions. I was just reading that BNSF instead of using their own crews lets UP man the trains. The volume of trains doesn't call for setting up a BNSF crew base. UP uses it's own crews on portions of BNSF. )
Roadrailer has it's points, and it's short comings. The original design, with rail wheels on the trailer dooms it to only be used in specific lanes. It doesn't fit into a national system very well. The later design is more flexable, but if it's not used within a roadrailer lane, what's the point?
Roadrailer, while better than some other ideas that have been floated, does not address the real problem. It's noble to try to design equipment to capture more business for over rail movement, but equipment isn't the big problem. The problem is getting the class ones' to want the business the new equipment might bring in. Especially in the current PSR climate where raising the OR is a bigger concern than any revenue that might in.
Los Angeles Rams GuyWe've talked about - at length - eastern US markets that would be ideal destinations for this type of traffic and why the relatively short-haul for CN in such a scenario wouldn't be attractive for them. However, one thing that hasn't been discussed here so far is why can't eastern Canadian destinations (Toronto/Ottawa/Montreal et al) be in this mix that would give CN the desired long-haul that would obviously change the dynamics for them here.
Canada is a net exporter of beef to the US. Canada is also the world's 3rd largest exporter of pork. They are also a big exporter of grain. Would Canada need to import much from Iowa?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.