On webcams I've been seeing blocks of doublestack intermodal containers start to show up on the CPKC manifest trains running between Nahant, IA and Kansas City. They seem to be on already-existing trains so far. I also saw an autorack train, which I don't recall seeing before. All this since the merger date this week. The containers haven't appeared in Dubuque, so must be headed toward Chicago.
MidlandMikeIf trucks fully paid for the road use, the highway trust fund wouldn't be about $40 billion short.
Overmod MidlandMike If trucks fully paid for the road use, the highway trust fund wouldn't be about $40 billion short. If trucks fully paid for the road damage they cause, the trucking industry would likely be trillions short. As we transition away from the 'good roads' movement making road and highway maintenance the same sort of 'free right' as public education, we may expect to see measures to make trucks pay their 'fair share' of this -- and with the government's proven authority to be paid revenue "owed" them (or face expedient prosecution, imposition of strict scrutiny, etc.)
MidlandMike If trucks fully paid for the road use, the highway trust fund wouldn't be about $40 billion short.
If trucks fully paid for the road damage they cause, the trucking industry would likely be trillions short. As we transition away from the 'good roads' movement making road and highway maintenance the same sort of 'free right' as public education, we may expect to see measures to make trucks pay their 'fair share' of this -- and with the government's proven authority to be paid revenue "owed" them (or face expedient prosecution, imposition of strict scrutiny, etc.)
That "fair share" would simply be passed on to the consumer..Ultimately any subsidies are subsidies to you and me and every other consumer who buys stuff from stores that aren't located on a rail line.
And let's not forget that all transportation modes benefit from taxpayer subsidies...Amtrak, VIA, and all commuter rail operations, for example are largely paid for by the taxpayer while their host railroads enjoy sub 60% operating ratios. Similarly, cheap airfares are only possible because we have subsidized airports, and security...thanks again to taxpayers.
UlrichThat "fair share" would simply be passed on to the consumer.
Ulrich Overmod MidlandMike If trucks fully paid for the road use, the highway trust fund wouldn't be about $40 billion short. If trucks fully paid for the road damage they cause, the trucking industry would likely be trillions short. As we transition away from the 'good roads' movement making road and highway maintenance the same sort of 'free right' as public education, we may expect to see measures to make trucks pay their 'fair share' of this -- and with the government's proven authority to be paid revenue "owed" them (or face expedient prosecution, imposition of strict scrutiny, etc.) That "fair share" would simply be passed on to the consumer..Ultimately any subsidies are subsidies to you and me and every other consumer who buys stuff from stores that aren't located on a rail line. And let's not forget that all transportation modes benefit from taxpayer subsidies...Amtrak, VIA, and all commuter rail operations, for example are largely paid for by the taxpayer while their host railroads enjoy sub 60% operating ratios. Similarly, cheap airfares are only possible because we have subsidized airports, and security...thanks again to taxpayers.
Iowa DOT did a study years ago, I came across it looking for something else and haven't found it since, that said automobile traffic subsidized commercial trucks. It wasn't that automobiles paid higher fees, but that when those fees were compared to the damage to highways done by the different sized vehicles, the smaller vehicles paid higher rates in proportion to the wear and tear they did to the roadways.
No matter who pays what in fees, the US Highway Trust fund has been short for a very long time and general funds used for highway infrastructure. Over the last few years I've realized that while trucks appear to be subsidized, it's really the large shippers/receivers that are being subsidized. It's like Ulrich has said, if fees were changed to cover the costs of commercial trucks, they would be passed along to the shippers/receivers and ultimately the rest of us.
Still, I wish it would. Maybe then rail would be involved more in the transportation chain like it once was. Of course, it would also mean that the major railroads would have to actually provide transportation. It was like someone on another site said. When it was the ICC, railroads were considered a vital public utility. After Staggers, railroads just became another industry.
Jeff
CPKC has landed some new intermodal business.
CPKC Lands Schneider Business - Railway Age
Of course, UP is partnering with CN, too.
UP: CN, UP, and GMXT Announce New Transformational Mexico-US-Canada Intermodal Service
jeffhergertOf course, UP is partnering with CN, too. UP: CN, UP, and GMXT Announce New Transformational Mexico-US-Canada Intermodal Service
Schnieder states they do not care about the multi-railroad offering even if it has marginally better times because they only want a single vendor to deal with the service vs. multiple railroads. Seems to me that is a fairly big clue dropped by a major client that UP & CN both need to setup a single touch point for their intermodal clients on cross border and cross country traffic.
Question is, will they do that?
I think American railroads approach to traffic offline is rather 1970's era and needs to be updated. I could not imagine telling a client if I had a joint rate with someone that they need to call the other person to find out about their shipment or to complain. Just seems like fairly bad customer service.
CMStPnP jeffhergert Of course, UP is partnering with CN, too. UP: CN, UP, and GMXT Announce New Transformational Mexico-US-Canada Intermodal Service Schnieder states they do not care about the multi-railroad offering even if it has marginally better times because they only want a single vendor to deal with the service vs. multiple railroads. Seems to me that is a fairly big clue dropped by a major client that UP & CN both need to setup a single touch point for their intermodal clients on cross border and cross country traffic. Question is, will they do that? I think American railroads approach to traffic offline is rather 1970's era and needs to be updated. I could not imagine telling a client if I had a joint rate with someone that they need to call the other person to find out about their shipment or to complain. Just seems like fairly bad customer service.
jeffhergert Of course, UP is partnering with CN, too. UP: CN, UP, and GMXT Announce New Transformational Mexico-US-Canada Intermodal Service
Customer service is an unknown concept to most US railroads.
CMStPnP Schnieder states they do not care about the multi-railroad offering even if it has marginally better times because they only want a single vendor to deal with the service vs. multiple railroads. Seems to me that is a fairly big clue dropped by a major client that UP & CN both need to setup a single touch point for their intermodal clients on cross border and cross country traffic.
Actually, Schneider doesn't say that in the article. From the article: "Schneider’s growing customer base will be able to leverage CPKC’s broad network of rail lines and terminals, according to the Class I railroad. “These services, supported by Schneider’s drayage capabilities and expertise in the U.S. and Mexico, will create service reliability in lanes that until now lacked single-line, truck-competitive intermodal options,” the railroad reported." This quote is from the railroad; the quote from Schneider in the article doesn't mention the "single-line" route. (If there are other articles that do include such quotes from Schneider officials, please provide the link.)
It sure is an amazing coincidence that this new business was announced right after the CPKC merger was consummated. Could it be that CPKC is offering a rate lower than the competition? Maybe even too low just to attract customers to prove their merger a "success?"
CMStPnP Schnieder states they do not care about the multi-railroad offering even if it has marginally better times because they only want a single vendor to deal with the service vs. multiple railroads.
Schnieder states they do not care about the multi-railroad offering even if it has marginally better times because they only want a single vendor to deal with the service vs. multiple railroads.
"Marginally" is subjective, of course, but dictionary.com defines it as "by a minimal, insignificant, or almost insufficient amount." The CPKC route between Laredo and Chicago is 25% further than the UP route. Shorter does not always mean faster or less-expensive, but in this case it does - in spades. The UP has multiple routes between San Antonio and Chicago including directional running most of the way to increase fluidity. It avoids major terminals other than St. Louis. Grades are moderate. CPKC on the other hand, as one route, and is heavily dependent on UP just to get out of Texas, including traversing the Houston terminal. (Houston is well-known for congestion, but it can't be a problem for CPKC - even if their trains are severely delayed - because they're on record in their STB merger testimony stating that UP capacity here is adequate and that CPKC wouldn't need to provide any money for infrastructure upgrades.) On their home rails CPKC is proud to channel the Rio Grande of the past and tout "Through the Ozarks, not around them" compared to the competition, in reference to the 1.5% grades on Rich Hill in Oklahoma/Arkansas as well as in Northwest Arkansas and Southwest Missouri. And then there's 1.6% Rutledge Hill climbing eastward out of the Des Moines River valley at Ottumwa, Iowa. Not only that, for a service from Mexico to Michigan, Ontario and Quebec, trains arrive Chicago in the northwest part of the metro, and would have to fight their way across the city (IHB/BRC) to reach the congested NS main line southeast of the city core for their trackage rights trip to Detroit. (A UP-CN arrangement, in contrast, arrives the Chicago area from the south and uses CN's ex-EJ&E line to pretty much avoid most of the city and exit on its own rails going east.) Far from "marginal," it's easy to see where the 25% mileage disadvantage for CPKC could easily balloon to a 40% or 50% greater cost.
I just don't buy that desire for "single-line" service is that much of priority when the single-line route is so much more expensive and requires so many more resources (especially cycle time for Schneider equipment). There's something else aplay here. We'll see what happens when it's time to renew the contract. My guess is that in a couple of years after CPKC succumbs to its operational reality in this lane compared to the other railroads and its mergertime "Everything Everywhere All At Once" claims about the service they'll provide will all fade and traffic will revert back to the way it is now or by the more cost-effective routes.
Nine doublestack well cars with 11 containers on the end of tonight's 261 everything-train passing through Washington, Iowa. 3x1x0 power setup on a typical long slow one.
More likely customers waiting to sign until merge official?
blue streak 1 More likely customers waiting to sign until merge official?
The merger is official, completed in mid-April. CPCK plans to add new intermodal trains 180/181 beginning May 11. New customers must not be in a hurry. It took last night's 261 four hours to go 40 miles or so Washington, IA to Muscatine, IA. It had to meet 260 somewhere between.
Of course you know that starting May 11th that the containers will no longer move on 260 and 261, and that railroads don't assign equal priority to every train. Imagine BNSF moving UPS traffic on H-BARGAL instead of Z-LACWSP.
Also Intermodal on US railroads down 8% on CP Intermodal is up 4% in the 1Q 2023 and this doesn't include KCS.
JayBeeOf course you know that starting May 11th that the containers will no longer move on 260 and 261, and that railroads don't assign equal priority to every train. Imagine BNSF moving UPS traffic on H-BARGAL instead of Z-LACWSP. Also Intermodal on US railroads down 8% on CP Intermodal is up 4% in the 1Q 2023 and this doesn't include KCS.
The question then becomes, what lanes on CP are up and what lanes are down.
The same questions need to be asked of the US intermodal statistics.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Ed Kyle blue streak 1 More likely customers waiting to sign until merge official? The merger is official, completed in mid-April. CPCK plans to add new intermodal trains 180/181 beginning May 11. New customers must not be in a hurry. It took last night's 261 four hours to go 40 miles or so Washington, IA to Muscatine, IA. It had to meet 260 somewhere between.
Can't wait to see how this will play out with the north-south intermodal lanes- CP's current east-west seem to run a very small handful of massive, 700-800 axle trains, some of which include manifest and auto traffic. The way I see it, CP simply can't run a high speed, dedicated intermodal service with their usual mindset. Time will tell I guess...
Harrison
Homeschooler living In upstate NY a.k.a Northern NY.
Modeling the D&H in 1978.
Route of the famous "Montreal Limited"
My YouTube
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.