Read more carefully, Mr. B.
Set out and pick up by road freight at Wenatchee. Only additional costs is potential ITD and FTD. Road freights making a S/O or P/U at Quincy would add penalty costs quickly with the real potential of causing one or more road freights to "die" on their Hours-of-Service.
Real problem is a logistical one that either needs to solved clear back in Chicago or in Seattle. That problem is setting up well cars with operable refrigerated containers for forwarding to Washington one to five times per week (depending on needs). Presumption here is that will not be done and such sorting will need to be done at Quincy. The most cost and service efficient method of doing this is to have road freights set out and pick up loaded well cars at Wenatchee and have a "Quincy Flip" take these cars back and forth between Wenatchee and Quincy and the folks at Quincy will remove and add the appropriate containers.
I don't have current figures to make an appropriate calculation, but I strongly suspect that the order of "efficiency" for servicing Quincy would be, #1 - the Local, #2 - take everything to Seattle as is currently done and have them build an appropriate set-out for Quincy, #3 - go by truck.
If a proper cut can be made up at either Chicago or Seattle, it would be appropriate to have a road freight make one set-out and pick-up each direction per day, but there would need to be a locomotive and crew available to do the switching. The best operational move is for the road freights to leave and take their cars at Wenatchee when making their crew change and operate a local for these, truly local, cars.
Additional comment - above was discussed a "unit train" service for Quincy. A local-road freight combination would fit here provided only one train each direction set-out and picked-up at Wenatchee for the local to take to Quincy. To operate a separate train, say, from Seattle to Quincy, runs dead into the snarl at Cascade Tunnel. They are putting up to 20 or so trains a day through there now and the tunnel is at or close to capacity (air quality). So that part of your "unit train" would need to operate in combination with a currently operating freight between Seattle and Wenatchee.
Which brings a question ------ FM Dale ------
What is the projected load figure from Quincy East as well as West?
What is the projected load figure for this service type between Wenatchee and Moses Lake that could be consolidated at Quincy? It wouldn't need to be restricted to reefers - any COFC could work (or TOFC as well). Now that the former MILW turned short line service to Royal City seems to have terminated, there is also that possible source.
Would Ellensburg fit into this picture? I suspect it would.
kenneo wrote: They are built in the right place. Centrally located for rail transhipment from Moses Lake and Wenatchee. Problem is--this was not BNSF's idea to start with. They are not in full control. It is just a bit more complicated that couple and run.Total operating costs for BN are about 30 mins initial terminal delay for one train per day at wenatchee and about 20 mins final terminal delay at Wenatchee for each train setting out refrigerated containers plus the cost of a "Quincy Flip" local once a day. Revenue far exceeds cost, but that simply is not the issue. BN is NOT in TOTAL control.
They are built in the right place. Centrally located for rail transhipment from Moses Lake and Wenatchee. Problem is--this was not BNSF's idea to start with. They are not in full control. It is just a bit more complicated that couple and run.
Total operating costs for BN are about 30 mins initial terminal delay for one train per day at wenatchee and about 20 mins final terminal delay at Wenatchee for each train setting out refrigerated containers plus the cost of a "Quincy Flip" local once a day. Revenue far exceeds cost, but that simply is not the issue. BN is NOT in TOTAL control.
So an S-CHITAC arrives at Quincy and sets out a 5-pack set with 10 empty containers into the side track at Quincy, puts its train back together and proceeds to Wenatchee. Later a local out of Wenatchee picks up the loaded 5-pack and brings it back to Wenatchee where it gets added to the next westbound container train heading to the correct terminal? I don't think that is going to work. Whose containers? BNSF?
beaulieu wrote:A couple of questions, are there any type of container cranes located there? Second question have the shippers contacted the shipping lines rather than BNSF (i.e. Maersk, Cosco, Evergreen, etc.)? Wenatchee would have been a much better location due to the need to change crews at Wenatchee, it would probably cost a crew to stop the train at Quincy ( 1 crew Hauser, ID to Quincy, then a second crew Quincy to Wenatchee).
NO NO NO on the recrew (Dog-catch). It would be almost the same cost to operate everything out of Seattle!!! Over a nice big mountain. Helpers. All that.
Operations are the easy part. No special deals involved. Little cost increase. Huge revenue increase. International container lines will supply only for their routings overseas. What domestic container line would have equipment available? I don't know, but would think that the folks at Quincy would be better off buying their own equipment.
beaulieu wrote: futuremodal wrote: It seems that it wouldn't be that big of a deal to use Quincy as the crew change point for this particular operation, unless there is a union objection. It can't be more than an hour's time difference between the two towns. You can bet that the Unions won't be easy on this, no matter how its resolved, it will cost money to buy them off. And BNSF will expect the shipper to pay. And the Unions may just say "no".
futuremodal wrote: It seems that it wouldn't be that big of a deal to use Quincy as the crew change point for this particular operation, unless there is a union objection. It can't be more than an hour's time difference between the two towns.
It seems that it wouldn't be that big of a deal to use Quincy as the crew change point for this particular operation, unless there is a union objection. It can't be more than an hour's time difference between the two towns.
You can bet that the Unions won't be easy on this, no matter how its resolved, it will cost money to buy them off. And BNSF will expect the shipper to pay. And the Unions may just say "no".
No need to move the crew change point. There are some pretty heavy costs involved, and in this case, helper crews are based out of Wenatchee for the push up to the tunnel. Would not be cost effective.
Political (read union) costs are a doable thing. Other costs are not. The geography at Quincy is better than at Wenatchee, but Wenatchee is already "built".
jclass wrote:So, the cold storage warehouse was built in the wrong place to take advantage of rail economies? If it were in the right location for rail, would the warehouse promoters whine that trucking to the Coast costs too much?
beaulieu wrote:A couple of questions, are there any type of container cranes located there?
I believe the Port of Quincy owns there own top lifts.
Second question have the shippers contacted the shipping lines rather than BNSF (i.e. Maersk, Cosco, Evergreen, etc.)? Wenatchee would have been a much better location due to the need to change crews at Wenatchee, it would probably cost a crew to stop the train at Quincy ( 1 crew Hauser, ID to Quincy, then a second crew Quincy to Wenatchee).
The problem with using Wenatchee for this operation is that it doesn't really have a lot of industrial space available for large scale intermodal terminal operations since it is located down in the Columbia River canyon. Quincy on the contrary has plenty of flat space available for any projected growth.
It is also my understanding that the shippers out of Wenatchee did all their business through the 3pi (Columbia Rail Intermodal) as the point of contact rather than the shipping lines or the railroad. In fact, as hard as it is to do direct business with the railroad, they'd be the last option for contact.
Valleyline wrote:150 mile shipments by rail are hardly cost competitive with trucks, particularly if the RR is required to supply the specialized refrigerated equipment. Could it be that the shipper failed to disuss rates with BNSF before they built the place? I suspect the news story lacks all the facts.
You forget, the rule of thumb that states railroading isn't profitable except in the long haul doesn't apply to unit train operations. Unit trains work in the long haul and short haul because there is no need for classification yards etc. In other words, unit train operations don't need the longer hauls to compensate for the cost of carload aggregation.
BNSF would actually make more money per ton mile with this short haul than they do on the long haul intermodal trains. All they have to do is price under the baseline truck rate of around 0.09 or 0.10 per ton mile. That opportunity for premium pricing is there regardless of whether this is just having the train stop in Quincy to off-load/up-load containers, or if the operation is a dedicated Quincy-Seattle train.
I think that the BNSF wants to load a train one time at the westcoast port and dont stop until they hit Chicago.
All the shippers in between will have to build thier own railroads if they want to move by rail.
Nah. Easier to truck the stuff.
kenneo wrote: I think BN's prime directive is to dumb down and/or eliminate any possible operating complexity. I know that if I was an operating officer or dispatcher and was faced with a road freight stopping to unload - let alone sort and unload - anything, I would be in orbit when faced with the traffic density on that line. I would barely agree to letting a train make a set out and pick up of a blocked cut - that would take about 1 hour when you consider all of the parts of the delay. Doing the transload at Wenatchee is a much better deal. All trains stop there for crews, and unless the train is making a rolling crew change, you already have lost about 2 hours to delay there. Second best, from the BNSF's point of view, would be to operate a Wenatchee-Quincy turn to take the cars off the westbound train to Quincy and then bring the westbound loads back to Wenatchee. Probably, there could be eastbound loads originating at Quincy, too. But BN won't foot the bill - the cold storage outfit will need to pay for the local, unloading, sorting, loading, and transportation billing.Last "problem" here is refrigerated equipment. Rare in surface international container service. Them frozens will require them. And don't expect the BNSF to operate a separate train from "Seattle" to Quincy. Remember the traffic capacity issue at Cascade Tunnel.And if the BNSF doesn't want to cooperate in any fashion, the UP is (currently) of the frame of mind to cooperate if you can get the trailers down to Yakima.
I think BN's prime directive is to dumb down and/or eliminate any possible operating complexity. I know that if I was an operating officer or dispatcher and was faced with a road freight stopping to unload - let alone sort and unload - anything, I would be in orbit when faced with the traffic density on that line. I would barely agree to letting a train make a set out and pick up of a blocked cut - that would take about 1 hour when you consider all of the parts of the delay.
Doing the transload at Wenatchee is a much better deal. All trains stop there for crews, and unless the train is making a rolling crew change, you already have lost about 2 hours to delay there. Second best, from the BNSF's point of view, would be to operate a Wenatchee-Quincy turn to take the cars off the westbound train to Quincy and then bring the westbound loads back to Wenatchee. Probably, there could be eastbound loads originating at Quincy, too. But BN won't foot the bill - the cold storage outfit will need to pay for the local, unloading, sorting, loading, and transportation billing.
Last "problem" here is refrigerated equipment. Rare in surface international container service. Them frozens will require them.
And don't expect the BNSF to operate a separate train from "Seattle" to Quincy. Remember the traffic capacity issue at Cascade Tunnel.
And if the BNSF doesn't want to cooperate in any fashion, the UP is (currently) of the frame of mind to cooperate if you can get the trailers down to Yakima.
Problem with that last sentence is that UP's traffic out of Yakima is handled by BNSF on a haulage agreement down to the Tri-Cities or Wallowa, and frankly getting from the Quincy area to Yakima is no picnic for truck drivers. Time constraints would probably nix that. Might as well just drive on west to Seattle!
You're probably right regarding BNSF's ultimate desire to be nothing more than an exclusively transcon railroad. And that's the problem with allowing a partially deregulated/massively consolidated rail industry to call the shots via continued closed access - It's the intermediate domestic customers that lose out on getting decent rail service, and the closed access aspects of a vertically integrated monopoly prevents those willing 3rd party rail service providers from picking up the rejected business.
Obviously, Linda Morgan et al have no idea of the monster they created.
futuremodal wrote: mudchicken wrote: Short haul aside - Wonder what contractual obligation Quincy failed to follow through on. Quasi-government agencies tend to be bad about this sort of thing, especially where there is a liability issue that is long term. (Facility is not a team track)....The article clearly states that BNSF was involved in the facility design.
mudchicken wrote: Short haul aside - Wonder what contractual obligation Quincy failed to follow through on. Quasi-government agencies tend to be bad about this sort of thing, especially where there is a liability issue that is long term. (Facility is not a team track)....
Short haul aside - Wonder what contractual obligation Quincy failed to follow through on. Quasi-government agencies tend to be bad about this sort of thing, especially where there is a liability issue that is long term. (Facility is not a team track)....
The article clearly states that BNSF was involved in the facility design.
Design does not equate with ownership. BNSF could have designed and built the whole mess, but if they did not then, and do not now, own the facility or any of its parts, the shipper is the beneficial owner for all parts of the facility outside the ROW of the BNSF.
These are "privately owned" (i.e., not railroad owned) tracks. Team tracks must have unfettered public access and private 3rd parties as seldom - if ever - willing to take the responsibility. Liability both from the railroads point of view and the insurance company's point of view are way to great for 3rd party operation at a cost that the traffic will bear.
So, if I hire you to design a grocery store, that contractually obligates you to provide customers?
23 17 46 11
kenneo wrote: Article from Oregon Public Broadcasting concerning Quincy, Washington, and the BNSF. Quincy is just a bit East of Wenatchie at the top of the grade up from the Columbia River.FM ---- Open Access in Action?http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/opb/news.newsmain?action=article&ARTICLE_ID=1096928
Article from Oregon Public Broadcasting concerning Quincy, Washington, and the BNSF. Quincy is just a bit East of Wenatchie at the top of the grade up from the Columbia River.
FM ---- Open Access in Action?
http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/opb/news.newsmain?action=article&ARTICLE_ID=1096928
Open access would certain mitigate the situation, but the Port of Quincy folks should have known they were dealing with an entity that is not to be trusted with public funds or public commitments. Although this particular story goes way deeper than what was opined - way back to the day when I was involved with Columbia Rail Intermodal and RailRunner trying to facilitate the Yakima to Puget Sound single stack service.
CRI was initially the LLC that approached the Port of Quincy about establishing a rail intermodal terminal for Puget Sound bound containers. CRI saw that there was more than enough export containers of Central Washington ag products heading by truck over Snoqualmie Pass to try and shift that traffic to rail.
What they envisioned was for certain westbound BNSF container trains to stop off at Quincy, offload the empty containers fit for ag products (of which most westbound container trains have plenty of, empty containers that is), and throw on containers subsequently filled with Central Washington ag products. The concept made sense, and the premium pricing demanded by BNSF was still light years less costly than trucking the containers via the Interstate.
It seemed like a go. The Port of Quincy and CRI even signed agreements in principle for the collaberation.
Then Northwest Container Services stepped in, and seeing the same possibilities, made a counteroffer to the Port. The Port of Quincy subsequently opted out of the CRI agreements and opted in with NCS instead. CRI then brought litigation into the mix, since they had already invested a lot of money for the Quincy operation. CRI in the meantime decided to operate out of nearby Wenatchee, and ran a fairly successful operation using the same principles of off-loading empty containers and on-loading full containers while the trains were stopped for crew change or whatever reason it is that BNSF trains will stop in Wenatchee.
However, BNSF over the last year or so eventually decided to end the CRI service out of Wenatchee, and CRI has subsequently gone out of business (or changed to other venues, I'm not sure - haven't been able to contact David via the old numbers he gave me). No one really knows why, it was making money for all the entities involved, but that's BNSF for you. This was just a few years after BNSF rejected the RailRunner concept out of Yakima, another brilliant concept that would take trucks off the roads and bring in revenue over underutilized trackage via Stampede Pass.
This goes right to the heart of my opinion that BNSF is simply not interested in providing decent service to domestic customers, even though those same domestic customers are willing to pay a higher rate (and incur most of the investment risk!) than what BNSF is getting from the Asian importers. Why this is so is open to speculation, and I have done more than enough speculatin' about BNSF's "prime directive". I'll let others provide the defense of this company if they want to prove me wrong (John B.?)
It should be noted that Northwest Container continues to operate a short haul intermodal service out of Pasco Washington, albeit with UP, not BNSF.
Perhaps the Port of Quincy is getting their come-uppance for what they did to CRI, but that is more in the karma mode than any legal recompense. The fact is the Port apparently screwed up in not getting firm contractual agreements from BNSF, ones that could be acted on should BNSF try to delay or pull out of the deal.
There should be all kinds of railroad bussiness for that whopping 100-150 mile haul to the coast.........
........Yea right
So, are we going to fight for the Conductor's job, or do I get stuck with the Agency work - again - still.
Hey,
I'd stop for a bag or two of fries....
If we only stacked the containers one per well, cut the train in half and ran it in sections, we could call it the French Fry Express...maybe Don Phillips could do an article?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.