futuremodal wrote: Limitedclear wrote: futuremodal wrote: Limitedclear wrote: Just exposing your pigheaded ignorance again FM...FOFLMAO...you are truly an idiot... LC Thank you, LC, for proving once again that you absolutely cannot carry on a conversation without spouting out inane insults. I hope Bert, Tom, Murphy, et al, will finally take note and admit that it is the folks like you and EdB that ALWAYS resort to insults when their line of reasoning falters. I also hope Bergie will take note, if indeed the TRAINS staff desires a forum based on decorum. I won't bother to comment on your inability to converge your own posts regarding toll railroads. Suffice it to say that one who in one post claims "toll railroads will never work" then admit in the next post that "overhead traffic does pay a nice premium", such a person is incapable of carrying on an intelligent conversation with himself, let alone others. Yep, same pattern, same idiot... I never said what you have misquoted. Obviously you are confusing me with the post after mine by CSSHEGEWISCH. If you are gonna use quotation marks get it right, stupid. Quothe LC before the CSSHEGEWISCH post "Most railroads would do well with added traffic from any source." That right there is an admission of the benefits of hosting overhead traffic, which absolutely counters your claim of "toll railroads won't work". Obviously, you don't even read your own posts. You would do well to try and read what you actually typed before spouting off further.
Limitedclear wrote: futuremodal wrote: Limitedclear wrote: Just exposing your pigheaded ignorance again FM...FOFLMAO...you are truly an idiot... LC Thank you, LC, for proving once again that you absolutely cannot carry on a conversation without spouting out inane insults. I hope Bert, Tom, Murphy, et al, will finally take note and admit that it is the folks like you and EdB that ALWAYS resort to insults when their line of reasoning falters. I also hope Bergie will take note, if indeed the TRAINS staff desires a forum based on decorum. I won't bother to comment on your inability to converge your own posts regarding toll railroads. Suffice it to say that one who in one post claims "toll railroads will never work" then admit in the next post that "overhead traffic does pay a nice premium", such a person is incapable of carrying on an intelligent conversation with himself, let alone others. Yep, same pattern, same idiot... I never said what you have misquoted. Obviously you are confusing me with the post after mine by CSSHEGEWISCH. If you are gonna use quotation marks get it right, stupid.
futuremodal wrote: Limitedclear wrote: Just exposing your pigheaded ignorance again FM...FOFLMAO...you are truly an idiot... LC Thank you, LC, for proving once again that you absolutely cannot carry on a conversation without spouting out inane insults. I hope Bert, Tom, Murphy, et al, will finally take note and admit that it is the folks like you and EdB that ALWAYS resort to insults when their line of reasoning falters. I also hope Bergie will take note, if indeed the TRAINS staff desires a forum based on decorum. I won't bother to comment on your inability to converge your own posts regarding toll railroads. Suffice it to say that one who in one post claims "toll railroads will never work" then admit in the next post that "overhead traffic does pay a nice premium", such a person is incapable of carrying on an intelligent conversation with himself, let alone others.
Limitedclear wrote: Just exposing your pigheaded ignorance again FM...FOFLMAO...you are truly an idiot... LC
Just exposing your pigheaded ignorance again FM...FOFLMAO...you are truly an idiot...
LC
Thank you, LC, for proving once again that you absolutely cannot carry on a conversation without spouting out inane insults. I hope Bert, Tom, Murphy, et al, will finally take note and admit that it is the folks like you and EdB that ALWAYS resort to insults when their line of reasoning falters. I also hope Bergie will take note, if indeed the TRAINS staff desires a forum based on decorum.
I won't bother to comment on your inability to converge your own posts regarding toll railroads. Suffice it to say that one who in one post claims "toll railroads will never work" then admit in the next post that "overhead traffic does pay a nice premium", such a person is incapable of carrying on an intelligent conversation with himself, let alone others.
Yep, same pattern, same idiot...
I never said what you have misquoted. Obviously you are confusing me with the post after mine by CSSHEGEWISCH. If you are gonna use quotation marks get it right, stupid.
Quothe LC before the CSSHEGEWISCH post "Most railroads would do well with added traffic from any source." That right there is an admission of the benefits of hosting overhead traffic, which absolutely counters your claim of "toll railroads won't work".
Obviously, you don't even read your own posts. You would do well to try and read what you actually typed before spouting off further.
Well, at least you actually quoted me this time, of course you took it out of context, big surprise...
There is a significant difference between overhead traffic and this so called "toll" traffic you suggest. As I have already noted, the key is the ability to control the traffic and to accept or reject that traffic or business line that is compensatory for the track owner rather than having a flood of trains with their EZ Pass on the cab jostling for position for their trip down FM's "Phantom Tollway". Overhead traffic isn't always a bad thing, nor is it always a good thing...it certainly doesn't guarantee a "premium" (wherever FM made that up from). But, I'm done arguing with a stone from Idaho for today...
Limitedclear wrote: Trackage or haulage rights even won't work over a significant portion of a route because they are generally non-compensatory to the tenant road and because the owning road maintains operational control making the economics even worse for the tenant road.
Trackage or haulage rights even won't work over a significant portion of a route because they are generally non-compensatory to the tenant road and because the owning road maintains operational control making the economics even worse for the tenant road.
For whatever it's worth, BN/BNSF requested and was granted trackage rights over 3,600 miles of UP/SP trackage.
Presumably BN/BNSF concluded that the "economics" of being a tenant road were favorable.
Perhaps they had not consulted with the right people.
futuremodal wrote: So how is your pretend shortline doing? Always enjoy the rants of the plankeyed! For what it's worth, your shortline would do better as a toll railroad hosting multiple Class I overhead traffic, rather than trying to make ends meet with it's pitiful online business. Overhead traffic provides better net, MRL has learned this.
So how is your pretend shortline doing?
Always enjoy the rants of the plankeyed!
For what it's worth, your shortline would do better as a toll railroad hosting multiple Class I overhead traffic, rather than trying to make ends meet with it's pitiful online business. Overhead traffic provides better net, MRL has learned this.
OK, time out. I understand "dribial" and "dribble" are attempts at "drivel."
What is/are "plankeyed?"
MichaelSol wrote:In 1904, no less a railroader than E.H. Harriman proposed, as a means of diverting the Milwaukee Road from building its own Pacific extension, a "toll" agreement, whereby Milwaukee could operate its own passenger and freight trains over Union Pacific lines. Not quite a trackage rights agreement, the agreement was drafted and executed by both railroads. For whatever reasons Milwaukee's headstrong president, Roswell Miller, was adverse to such arrangements, and the PCE construction went ahead.
Now for the obligatory Milwaulkee Road anecdote...
At the end of the day, the point is it never happened. And it won't happen. Such agreements are not feasible over the long term.
Trackage or haulage rights even won't work over a significant portion of a route because they are generally non-compensatory to the tenant road and because the owning road maintains operational control making the economics even worse for the tenant road. For examples, look at how little of the D&H rights granted in the Conrail formation remain and how NS opted to make a substantial investment in a JV with the KCS over a previously haulage route to gain more control over traffic flows and capacity.
Interesting. Would this have been limited to the PNW line, or also include the LA-SL line?
Also, if Milwaukee had wanted the option of constructing a separate transcon through the Northern Tier but still use the UP lines through Eastern Washington and the Columbia Gorge, would this have negated the proposed agreement?
So, once again you make a lame attempt to deflect the truth and it fails. Toll railroads don't exist and never will, there is a system in existence that works fine. Just because you can't understand it and want to change it to the "Phantom FM Tollbooth" system to be similar to something your tiny mind can comprehend (clearly not relating in any way to railroads) is not a reason for a "toll railroad" to exist.
FOFLMAO...
Overhead (bridge) traffic has a better rate of return because it doesn't have to be handled en route. Consider Cotton Belt and RF&P as excellent examples of bridge routes, long before MRL came into existence. That being said, the bridge roads handle this traffic in their own trains, with their own crews on their own tracks and get a share of the rate. It is not the same as a "toll" railroad. They also have to go out and solicit this traffic from shippers, it does not just fall in their lap.
There are also examples of bridge roads that are now bicycle paths because they provided little more than an opportunity for the connecting roads to short-haul themselves.
futuremodal wrote: Limitedclear wrote: futuremodal wrote: There are certain lines in the US which would make good candidates for the toll railroad concept. The required conditions would be: 1. The line currently has extra capacity available. 2. The line connects to multiple Class I's at both ends, and/or a logical waterway transload port at one or both ends, and/or a major freight terminal. 3. The line has desirable operating profiles. 4. The current owner would derive more income from the line by renting it out to maximum capacity rather than keeping it all to themselves at subcapacity, or abandoning the line for scrap. Nominees? There are no "Toll Railroads". There will be no "Toll Railroads". The term "Toll Railroads" is a complete misnomer. Give it up FM. The type of situation you suggest will not happen. Why? Because the railroads already have their own long lasting and workable arrangement for charging rates and routing traffic. A railroad that opened a line to traffic to all comers that had even some of the characteristics you find desirable would immediately short haul itself to the detriment of its shareholders. One can only imagine the floodgates of litigation that would open. Railroads have mechanisms for handling situations in which they have extra capacity already through trackage rights or haulage rights agreements or even joint ventures such as the Meridian Speedway. These measures and other rate work are a much more efficient means of asset utilization than what you suggest and they already exist in a manner approved and acceptable to the industry and the regulators. There is no justification for your half baked reinvention of the wheel (as usual). LC So how is your pretend shortline doing? Always enjoy the rants of the plankeyed! For what it's worth, your shortline would do better as a toll railroad hosting multiple Class I overhead traffic, rather than trying to make ends meet with it's pitiful online business. Overhead traffic provides better net, MRL has learned this.
Limitedclear wrote: futuremodal wrote: There are certain lines in the US which would make good candidates for the toll railroad concept. The required conditions would be: 1. The line currently has extra capacity available. 2. The line connects to multiple Class I's at both ends, and/or a logical waterway transload port at one or both ends, and/or a major freight terminal. 3. The line has desirable operating profiles. 4. The current owner would derive more income from the line by renting it out to maximum capacity rather than keeping it all to themselves at subcapacity, or abandoning the line for scrap. Nominees? There are no "Toll Railroads". There will be no "Toll Railroads". The term "Toll Railroads" is a complete misnomer. Give it up FM. The type of situation you suggest will not happen. Why? Because the railroads already have their own long lasting and workable arrangement for charging rates and routing traffic. A railroad that opened a line to traffic to all comers that had even some of the characteristics you find desirable would immediately short haul itself to the detriment of its shareholders. One can only imagine the floodgates of litigation that would open. Railroads have mechanisms for handling situations in which they have extra capacity already through trackage rights or haulage rights agreements or even joint ventures such as the Meridian Speedway. These measures and other rate work are a much more efficient means of asset utilization than what you suggest and they already exist in a manner approved and acceptable to the industry and the regulators. There is no justification for your half baked reinvention of the wheel (as usual). LC
futuremodal wrote: There are certain lines in the US which would make good candidates for the toll railroad concept. The required conditions would be: 1. The line currently has extra capacity available. 2. The line connects to multiple Class I's at both ends, and/or a logical waterway transload port at one or both ends, and/or a major freight terminal. 3. The line has desirable operating profiles. 4. The current owner would derive more income from the line by renting it out to maximum capacity rather than keeping it all to themselves at subcapacity, or abandoning the line for scrap. Nominees?
There are certain lines in the US which would make good candidates for the toll railroad concept. The required conditions would be:
1. The line currently has extra capacity available.
2. The line connects to multiple Class I's at both ends, and/or a logical waterway transload port at one or both ends, and/or a major freight terminal.
3. The line has desirable operating profiles.
4. The current owner would derive more income from the line by renting it out to maximum capacity rather than keeping it all to themselves at subcapacity, or abandoning the line for scrap.
Nominees?
There are no "Toll Railroads". There will be no "Toll Railroads". The term "Toll Railroads" is a complete misnomer. Give it up FM.
The type of situation you suggest will not happen. Why? Because the railroads already have their own long lasting and workable arrangement for charging rates and routing traffic. A railroad that opened a line to traffic to all comers that had even some of the characteristics you find desirable would immediately short haul itself to the detriment of its shareholders. One can only imagine the floodgates of litigation that would open.
Railroads have mechanisms for handling situations in which they have extra capacity already through trackage rights or haulage rights agreements or even joint ventures such as the Meridian Speedway. These measures and other rate work are a much more efficient means of asset utilization than what you suggest and they already exist in a manner approved and acceptable to the industry and the regulators. There is no justification for your half baked reinvention of the wheel (as usual).
Ahhhh...so, its back to change the subject and attack the questioner again...
You never will learn FM. Most railroads would do well with added traffic from any source. Of course the larger lines do better carrying the freight longer distances which means they don't route over other railroad's lines unless they have no alternative. There are very few places even in with the current congestion where such routings are justified.
Paul Milenkovic wrote: John Kneiling was a proponent of side-transfer or "Stedman" gear and container "integral trains." The train would stay as a fixed consist, and the aggregating and sorting would take place by transfering containers on an off the train. From the few picture I saw in Trains, the side transfer gear -- it was a mechanized truck trailer in the spirit of the equipment that picks up Dumpsters -- took some skill to operate, but it could be operated by one person, and that one person could be an owner-operator of a tractor and side-transfer trailer. Kneiling argued that a single owner-operate-driver while front-loading piggyback lifts require a dedicated operator, two spotters on account of the lift operator having the view blocked with the trailer in front. An intermodal terminal would be simply a siding with a driveway next to it, you would have random access to the train, and you could have a fixed consist for the train. His idea was that a freight operation would be more like a passenger train. Passenger trains, with rare exceptions, don't aggregate and distribute by switching cars between trains -- they run fixed consists (although the consists can be increased for peak travel times) and passengers aggregate and route by boarding trains at stops and by changing trains. What ever happened to the side transfer system and why did it not catch on? Why has RoadRailer sort-off catch on while side transfer got a trial in Canada and that was about it? RoadRailer seems to have a major rail-mode tare weight and air drag advantage over piggyback and even to some extent over containers, but it seems to have a clumsy way of assembling trailers into trains that harkens back to circus loading.
John Kneiling was a proponent of side-transfer or "Stedman" gear and container "integral trains." The train would stay as a fixed consist, and the aggregating and sorting would take place by transfering containers on an off the train. From the few picture I saw in Trains, the side transfer gear -- it was a mechanized truck trailer in the spirit of the equipment that picks up Dumpsters -- took some skill to operate, but it could be operated by one person, and that one person could be an owner-operator of a tractor and side-transfer trailer. Kneiling argued that a single owner-operate-driver while front-loading piggyback lifts require a dedicated operator, two spotters on account of the lift operator having the view blocked with the trailer in front. An intermodal terminal would be simply a siding with a driveway next to it, you would have random access to the train, and you could have a fixed consist for the train.
His idea was that a freight operation would be more like a passenger train. Passenger trains, with rare exceptions, don't aggregate and distribute by switching cars between trains -- they run fixed consists (although the consists can be increased for peak travel times) and passengers aggregate and route by boarding trains at stops and by changing trains.
What ever happened to the side transfer system and why did it not catch on? Why has RoadRailer sort-off catch on while side transfer got a trial in Canada and that was about it? RoadRailer seems to have a major rail-mode tare weight and air drag advantage over piggyback and even to some extent over containers, but it seems to have a clumsy way of assembling trailers into trains that harkens back to circus loading.
Paul,
You mean something like this?
It is alive and well here in the Netherlands and mainly used to ship trash or contamined soil.
greetings,
Marc Immeker
here's an old trainorders discussion on the topic that pretty much resembles the one we got going here:
That discussion on trainorders was nothing like the discussion here -- the trainorders posts were polite, they discussed the issues from both railroad and the Swift point of view, and they gave technical insights.
One of the insights is that assembling a RoadRailer train is labor intensive and time consuming. The RoadRailer also has to be assembled at Point A and taken apart at Point B without provision for intermediate points.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
edbenton wrote:Futuremodal I can give you 3 110 car Elevators that each load around 4 trains a week. Ransom IL Touluca IL on the former ATSF and then there is Mendota on the old BN plus there is talk of a couple more being built in the Macomb Galesburg area in the next couple years with all the ethanol plants going up need to provide them with the squeezins to make it. I have pulled a roadrailer and they flat out weigh 1 thousand pounds heavier than a standard plate side trailer. The old mark 4 with a intergrated alxe set was one ton that is 2000 lbs heavier. I also talked to my friends in management at Swift Transprotation the real reason not the dribial you are spouting the BNSF jacked the rates way up is the fact that Swift pulled the train off so they could use the trailers to give there drivers some more miles. There is a different concept a trucking company pulling loads off a railroad to give around 100 drivers a run of around 1000 miles each way. Remember the drivers of a company have alot of power yes a company can come up with replacements but that takes time. Swift has around 7000 trucks and drivers were do you get that many drivers in 3 days you can not.
Ed,
1. I'm not denying that Midwestern interests are building 110 car shuttle facilities. I said that it is likely many of those entities are some of the same ones that got burned by BN/BNSF who convinced them to invest in 26 car and 52 car shuttles, only to lose service to those facilities long before they could be depreciated out. It has happened here in the PNW and through the Northern Tier, so I expect it has also happened in the Midwest. Michael has made a counterpoint that in fact BNSF still serves certain Illinois small carlot elevators, even one that only has a single car spur.
2. RoadRailers have about 800 lbs of tare over standard trailers:
http://www.triplecrownsvc.com/Equipment.html
3. Why on earth would Swift pull the extrememly low labor utilization of the RoadRailers "so they could use the trailers to give there drivers some more miles" as you say, when all the trucking companies have been dealing with a severe driver shortage for the last decade?
http://www.thetrucker.com/showstory.aspx?id=10750
As for the "real" reason the Swift RoadRailers were discontinued, here's an old trainorders discussion on the topic that pretty much resembles the one we got going here:
http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?1,1135255
No one knows who these folks are, so we can't discern who's the insider(s) and who is not. But there seems to be a consensus regarding the new rate proposal by BNSF, which may have included a desire by BNSF to terminate the RoadRailers in Bakersfield rather than down in LA. Swift of course wanted to get as close to the population center as possible to keep the local dray relatively short. A Bakersfield to LA dray was and is just too long. BNSF also seemed to have a hard time keeping the schedules, and it's commitment for the terminals for the I-5 traffic seemed secondary to the committment BNSF showed for the transcon traffic.
arbfbe wrote: Ah, Bert, missed again. Every craft on the MRL is represented by one of the national labor organizations. That includes section men, signal maintainers, machinists, electricians, clerks and train crews. It has been that way on the MRL since day 1. This has been mentioned in every published article on the railroad in the railfan press. Try to get the facts straight before you push the send key.
Ah, Bert, missed again. Every craft on the MRL is represented by one of the national labor organizations. That includes section men, signal maintainers, machinists, electricians, clerks and train crews. It has been that way on the MRL since day 1. This has been mentioned in every published article on the railroad in the railfan press. Try to get the facts straight before you push the send key.
I never said they were not union, I said it was a union busting move by the BN. Lets not forget all the issues they had during the start up.
Bert
An "expensive model collector"
greyhounds wrote: futuremodal wrote: So tell us, how is aggregation for TOFC different from aggregation for bi-modal? Are you forgetting that bi-modal operations generally cycle 3 vans per bogie? Greyhounds doesn't understand the whole "cycle" thing. TOFC aggregation is much more efficient than bimodal (RoadRailer) aggregation. Remember, the whole idea is to put together a train of economic size as quickly as possible and move it. TOFC can aggregate with anything. Containers, motor carrier trailers, box cars, etc. Trying to run bimodal only trains doesn't allow this. Think of all the equipment you can't use in such an aggregation. No containers. No motor carrier trailers. No rail trailers (if there are any left). You end up holding loads waiting for more bi-modal vehicles to show up. This reduces equipment utilization, takes up terminal space and gives poor service to the customer. And not only are you limited by equipment - your're limited by destination. You can mix TOFC blocks to anywhere to create a train. They can be set out/picked up enroute and recombined with other traffic in another train. Can't do that with bi-modal only. It's important to remember that BNSF didn't withdraw from the market served by its RoadRailers. I continuted the service but it aggregated the equipment with other intermodal shipments by putting it on flatcars. It is more efficent that way. As to your wierd comment about "cycle times". What is your point? The ratio of vehicles to boggies is of no relavance to this discussion. It will vary by the design and length of the operation. That 3:1 ratio means absolutely nothing.
futuremodal wrote: So tell us, how is aggregation for TOFC different from aggregation for bi-modal? Are you forgetting that bi-modal operations generally cycle 3 vans per bogie? Greyhounds doesn't understand the whole "cycle" thing.
So tell us, how is aggregation for TOFC different from aggregation for bi-modal? Are you forgetting that bi-modal operations generally cycle 3 vans per bogie?
Greyhounds doesn't understand the whole "cycle" thing.
TOFC aggregation is much more efficient than bimodal (RoadRailer) aggregation.
Remember, the whole idea is to put together a train of economic size as quickly as possible and move it. TOFC can aggregate with anything. Containers, motor carrier trailers, box cars, etc.
Trying to run bimodal only trains doesn't allow this. Think of all the equipment you can't use in such an aggregation. No containers. No motor carrier trailers. No rail trailers (if there are any left). You end up holding loads waiting for more bi-modal vehicles to show up. This reduces equipment utilization, takes up terminal space and gives poor service to the customer.
And not only are you limited by equipment - your're limited by destination. You can mix TOFC blocks to anywhere to create a train. They can be set out/picked up enroute and recombined with other traffic in another train. Can't do that with bi-modal only.
It's important to remember that BNSF didn't withdraw from the market served by its RoadRailers. I continuted the service but it aggregated the equipment with other intermodal shipments by putting it on flatcars.
It is more efficent that way.
As to your wierd comment about "cycle times". What is your point? The ratio of vehicles to boggies is of no relavance to this discussion. It will vary by the design and length of the operation. That 3:1 ratio means absolutely nothing.
Actually, you can mix bi-modal with conventional equipment. The only difference is that the bi-modal sets have to run at the end of a conventional consist. The FRA hasn't approved any for being places at the head end or amid a conventional consist. Depending on the number of intermediate bodies you use, you can make up a bi-modal consist with two, three, or more different blocks, set them out where you like, etc.
And bi-modal is not limited to dry vans and reefers. RailRunner offers bi-modal chassis and can do bi-modal flatbeds if need be. Any truck trailer type can be built to bi-modal specs.
Let me educate you on something. The reason a railroad such as BNSF would choose to forgo bi-modal operations in favor of conventional TOFC and COFC is simple: BNSF can bundle together more fees for TOFC and COFC than they can for bi-modal. Gotta pay for those top lifts (plus a percentage), gotta pay for that TOFC crane (plus a percentage), gotta pay for that expensive new intermodal yard (plus a percentage), gotta depreciate those TTX flats we own (plus a percentage), etc., etc., etc. RoadRailers and RailRunners do away with top lifts, TOFC cranes, fancy new intermodal terminals, and conventional railroad-owned equipment. That's the erstwhile advantage of bi-modal. Usually, a business has to have a niche all to them selves (e.g. monopoly power) to be able to force such additional fees onto the consumer. Some utilities are (or were) able to bundle such extras onto the monthly bill. Hey now, a little extra gravy ain't gonna hurt nobody, right?
edbenton wrote: Out here in the IL the local elevators are building 110 car loaders as fast as they can to get service by the EVIL BNSF as you call it.
Out here in the IL the local elevators are building 110 car loaders as fast as they can to get service by the EVIL BNSF as you call it.
Apparently this is happening on other railroads, or it's prospective on BNSF.
Speaking only for facilities currently located on BNSF, Illinois is a good example of how difficult it is to "compel" large elevator construction in a competitive railroad environment -- the farmer can just drive down the road to another elevator rather than 100 miles to a unit or shuttle elevator.
PNW operators could be compelled to build the 52 car and 110 car shuttle by rate differentials. Of course once the little elevators are gone, the rate changes and there's nothing the farmer can do about it. He pays the extra cost of trucking and the "new" shuttle rate, plus the cost of financing an expensive new loader facility. Gets it coming and going at 300% R/VC.
Illinois shippers have undertaken little new construction over the past 20 years, aside from regular replacement. Compared to Montana's 10 shuttle loaders, Illinois has only 4.
Illinois has one elevator on BNSF that handles 80 cars. Not sure if it's actually set up for unit train operation though.
The typical Illinois elevator on BNSF handles only 5-6, maybe 10 carloads. The elevator at Augusta, IL has capacity for one -- 1 -- carload, and still has service.
Just don't see that in the PNW.
Overall, on BNSF, Illinois has only four shuttles but 30 elevators that handle between 1 and 27 cars, and one that handles 80.
Illinois farmers have more alternatives, and the apparently high resistance to large, new expensive facilities reasonably derives from that. A new shuttle costs between $8.50 and $10.00 per bushel, which is a large capital investment to replace existing facilities that have, by and large, paid for themselves.
greyhounds wrote: futuremodal wrote: But if you care to do some fact checking around your area, I'll bet you there are dozens of 26-car and 52-car elevators barely a decade or so old that were constructed by some of those same entities at BNSF's behest, only to lose BNSF's service a few years later. Yep, nothing like having millions of dollars of investment go to waste! Ask them how they feel about BNSF, maybe then you'll find that elusive "evil BNSF" phrasology you so desire. OK, what communities are these "dozens" of new elevators in? Name 24, and remember, they gotta' be new and constructed at BNSF's "behest". And also remember, BNSF is only about a decade old itself.
futuremodal wrote: But if you care to do some fact checking around your area, I'll bet you there are dozens of 26-car and 52-car elevators barely a decade or so old that were constructed by some of those same entities at BNSF's behest, only to lose BNSF's service a few years later. Yep, nothing like having millions of dollars of investment go to waste! Ask them how they feel about BNSF, maybe then you'll find that elusive "evil BNSF" phrasology you so desire.
But if you care to do some fact checking around your area, I'll bet you there are dozens of 26-car and 52-car elevators barely a decade or so old that were constructed by some of those same entities at BNSF's behest, only to lose BNSF's service a few years later. Yep, nothing like having millions of dollars of investment go to waste! Ask them how they feel about BNSF, maybe then you'll find that elusive "evil BNSF" phrasology you so desire.
OK, what communities are these "dozens" of new elevators in?
Name 24, and remember, they gotta' be new and constructed at BNSF's "behest". And also remember, BNSF is only about a decade old itself.
I can name 10 right here in the PNW if you'd like. Logic dictates that if 26- and 52-car facilities were constructed in the PNW at the behest of the Class I's, there's probably a bunch more in the Midwest. But then again, logic isn't your strong point, is it?
And don't insult the intelligence with your "BNSF is only a decade old" crap. Burlington Northern, Burlington Northern Santa Fe, BNSF......it's all the same bunch.
greyhounds wrote: futuremodal wrote: Ed, Everyone in the biz knows that it is quite simple to fill a reefer like you would a dry van. California is the world's biggest consumer market, and there's still plenty of production from the Midwest that could have filled those "dry" reefers. In fact, that backhaul would have been the least expensive way to get consumer goods from the Midwest to California. The question is - who's fault was it that this backhaul opportunity was missed? Did BNSF not permit the necessary flexibility in the cycle to allow backhauls to reach the necessary docks? Or did the ReeferRailer folks just suffer from brain freeze? I honestly don't know. But given my experiences with BNSF, I suspect BNSF was principle in denying the backhaul logistics to fully function. At least that would be consistent with BNSF's other actions. Backhauls weren't the problem. Railroads have been loading reefers west to California for over 100 years. And Chicago is still a major manufacturing center that produces a lot of freight needing temperature protection. If you drive by the Nestles' facility near O'Hare you'll see intermodal reefers parked waiting to take chocolat west. They say "Alliance Shippers" and "England Intermodal" on their sides. And Nestle isn't alone here - shoot, there's even a suburban station named "Mars" because it's located at the candy factory. The problem was that it was impossible to aggregate the asinine, stupid RoadRailer Reefers into trainload lots in a timely fashion. And you can load the reefers with dry freight like LTL easy enough to go west. UPS even set up Martrac to balance its moves with reefer freight. The "ReeferRailers" weren't taken out of service. They were switched to TOFC service. This also definately required a backhaul. It wasn't the backhaul that was the problem, it was the aggregation into trainload lots of the RoadRailer equipment that could not be aggregated with other conventional westbound loads. FM doesn't understand the whole "aggregation" thing. But then, he's never tried to "balance" 18 loads of bananas into Chicago per week with backhauls. I have.
futuremodal wrote: Ed, Everyone in the biz knows that it is quite simple to fill a reefer like you would a dry van. California is the world's biggest consumer market, and there's still plenty of production from the Midwest that could have filled those "dry" reefers. In fact, that backhaul would have been the least expensive way to get consumer goods from the Midwest to California. The question is - who's fault was it that this backhaul opportunity was missed? Did BNSF not permit the necessary flexibility in the cycle to allow backhauls to reach the necessary docks? Or did the ReeferRailer folks just suffer from brain freeze? I honestly don't know. But given my experiences with BNSF, I suspect BNSF was principle in denying the backhaul logistics to fully function. At least that would be consistent with BNSF's other actions.
Everyone in the biz knows that it is quite simple to fill a reefer like you would a dry van. California is the world's biggest consumer market, and there's still plenty of production from the Midwest that could have filled those "dry" reefers. In fact, that backhaul would have been the least expensive way to get consumer goods from the Midwest to California. The question is - who's fault was it that this backhaul opportunity was missed? Did BNSF not permit the necessary flexibility in the cycle to allow backhauls to reach the necessary docks? Or did the ReeferRailer folks just suffer from brain freeze? I honestly don't know. But given my experiences with BNSF, I suspect BNSF was principle in denying the backhaul logistics to fully function. At least that would be consistent with BNSF's other actions.
Backhauls weren't the problem. Railroads have been loading reefers west to California for over 100 years. And Chicago is still a major manufacturing center that produces a lot of freight needing temperature protection.
If you drive by the Nestles' facility near O'Hare you'll see intermodal reefers parked waiting to take chocolat west. They say "Alliance Shippers" and "England Intermodal" on their sides. And Nestle isn't alone here - shoot, there's even a suburban station named "Mars" because it's located at the candy factory.
The problem was that it was impossible to aggregate the asinine, stupid RoadRailer Reefers into trainload lots in a timely fashion.
And you can load the reefers with dry freight like LTL easy enough to go west. UPS even set up Martrac to balance its moves with reefer freight. The "ReeferRailers" weren't taken out of service. They were switched to TOFC service. This also definately required a backhaul. It wasn't the backhaul that was the problem, it was the aggregation into trainload lots of the RoadRailer equipment that could not be aggregated with other conventional westbound loads.
FM doesn't understand the whole "aggregation" thing. But then, he's never tried to "balance" 18 loads of bananas into Chicago per week with backhauls. I have.
Greyhounds;
I thin I understand the aggregation element in these senario's, but I would offer, that in addition to that, there is a further element of 'natural currents' of flow in the commerce of the US, at least in the Midwest South and Northeast. A kind of counter-clockwise movement, that reoccurs each week and is also effected by an end of the month surge of outbound freight[ possibly, to pump up monthly' numbers' by the end of the month.] Not to mention the end-of-the- year push, especially in the states that have high inventory taxing levels, to get freight billed, and on trucks/cars to avoid tax penalties. The latter is more prevalent in the UpperMidwest, and Northeastern states, rather than down South, although it does happen to a lesser degree there also.
I guess what I am saying is that there are city pairs that would support full train load aggregation, but only at specific times of the week or month. Memphis to Dallas/Ft Worth on sunday night for delivery on monday, springs immediately to mind[ the I-40/30 corridor]; The I-80 corridor[Ohio/NJ/NY]. Just to name a couple. If one could even out the surge, affregation would work, but it would require too many trade-offs across the board to really work. Would work is single industrial users with multiple suppliers in a regional contex, shipping JIT; I guess this is the Triple Crown model for its auto parts. The targeting of a specific industry with reoccuring needs, requiring large volumes of materials.
futuremodal wrote: To reiterate for the millionth time, I have never called BNSF evil.
To reiterate for the millionth time, I have never called BNSF evil.
We never said you did.
In that exact quote. However, in just about everything else you say about them ..............
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.