Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="beaulieu"][quote user="futuremodal"][quote user="nbrodar"] The main issue with the 700 mile limit  is speed.   High speed intermodal trains are the bane of smooth traffic flow.   Especially on single track.  When that hot intermodal guy comes on your sub, everything, and I mean everything stops for it.   I often have trains sit in the siding for an hour or more waiting for the UPS train to pass. So you get the idea of how fouled up this is,  it takes between 2 and 3 hours to cover my subdivision at track speed. To compete, you have to be as fast or faster then the truckers.  This includes, not only the point to point running time, but also time need to pick up and drop cars, place the cars for loading/unloading and the time needed to lift and drop the trailer.  And don't forget the time required to get the trailer to and from the drop site. The capital return on intermodal is slim.   You need to be priced competitvely with the truckers, which holds revenue down.  Intermodal is also a capital intensive game.   You need lots of people and equipement avalable around the clock to make it work. It's one of those things.  Everyone wants the business, but no-one wants the traffic.  Nick  [/quote] I'll ask the same question I've asked over and over again:  Why can't it all move at the same high speed?  The only reason those hot intermodals foul up the system is that everything else is moving too slow.  I mean, the railroads have been dragging their arses at about 25 mph average speed for decades now.  Will we ever see a significant improvement in this key performance indicator in our lifetimes? Every other transport mode has it's "hot" players and it's not so hot players moving at the same relative speed - Gravel trucks move at the same 65 mph as those UPS trucks down most Interstates.  Grain barges and container barges move at the same speed up and down the Columbia-Snake River Waterway (in fact, they move in the same barge tow).  Container ships and break bulk ships move at the same speed (although if Fast Ship ever gets going, it will bust that axiom!).  Air freight and passenger jets move at the same speed. [/quote] See any UPS trailers on those barges? What is the average speed of those barges 12 mph, maybe. On Iron Ore from Northern Minnesota to the Indiana mills the ships top speed is about 14 mph, the are a few old steamers with a bit higher speed. The distance they have to travel is about twice that of the railroads, but the railroads can't dent the traffic except for a few trains when the lakes are iced over. [quote] Why can't (or why doesn't) rail do the same?  Is it this obsession with fuel economy?   If so, is optimizing fuel use worth the lost business? [/quote] Indirectly its the fuel economy, directly its the cost, more fuel burned means higher cost, fuel is one of the largest expenses of a railroad. Do you see any of the big railroads that aren't choked with too much traffic right now? [quote] And as this thread has implicity stated, intermodal doesn't have to be capital intensive, the railroads just seem to prefer it that way, for any number of misplaced reasons.  If a trailer can't be lifted onto a spine car by a big expensive crane, forget it!  (insert comic voiceover here[:-,]) We don't need no stinkin' roll-on/roll-off trailers with their Frenchie circus ramps and one tractor at a time on the consist waiting games (nevermind that Iron Highway cut the circus style loading time in half, and my parallel side loader idea would cut loading time to minutes).  We don't need no stinkin' bi-modal trailers with their lack of actual railcars and subsequent prime load factor.  If we can't hump it, dump it!  And for that matter, we don't particularly like having to deal with your trailers anyhow.  Put it all in a container so we can double stack it.  (end comic voiceover here[swg]) [/quote] Dave, when it suits you you keep carping about how little Intermodal earns, then also when it suits you, you suggest ideas that reduce the productivity of the system. How many trailers can you put in a given length of train versus a doublestack. Even if the rate for a container is only 75 percent that of a trailer, the doublestack will be generating more revenue.  A good portal crane operator can load one container per minute consistently if they can bring them fast enough to him, I doubt seriously that a loader can back a trailer down a length of flats and drive back off in one minute, obviously when he is nearly finish he can do better. With your side loading you still have the hitches to connect which takes time, or what ever else you would use to secure the trailer. With the doublestack you can pick a container out of the train at an intermediate terminal fairly easily, with a circus sytem you can't. [quote] Nevermind that double stacking domestic containers is the most capital intensive form of intermodal, and the one that is least preferable to the trucking companies. [/quote] It also generates the highest unit volume per acre. Where land is scarce or expensive it is the only way to go. There is no way that a facility like Hobart Yard in LA could handle its current volume with circus style loading. Expansion anywhere close isn't an option either. If it was all trailers the would have to require a time frame in minutes for how long until you pick up your trailer. UPS normally has drivers ready and waiting, but otherwise you need some holding time. [/quote] 1.  No, UPS doesn't ship by barge as far as I know.  They do ship by air, which was another of the modes I mentioned that all go at the same relative speed.  But haven't you noticed something?  Only railroads seem to relate a given speed to a given commodity.  It's something to ponder. 2.  RE:  Intermodal.  What I have said is that import intermodal has such small margins.  Domestic intermodal can get away with higher margins, because the alternative (trucking) has a higher per mile charge than the average railroad rate.  Compare that to landbridge traffic, which in addition to having cutthoat competition from the various container lines and competing US ports, must also compete with the lower per mile charge of Panama Canal shipping.  I believe it is important to make a distinction between import intermodal and domestic intermodal when discussing profit margins. 3.  Since you bring up the UPS example, have you noticed that UPS has for the most part rejected pressures to forego TOFC in favor of double stack?  In fact, most trucking companies prefer TOFC to domestic double stack.  There's a reason for that - it's called customer choice.  From the trucking company perspective, the dry van is preferable to the RoadRailer van which is preferable to the domestic container. 4.  For what it's worth, I doubt my side loading method would take any more time than what it takes to load/unload a double stack train, probably less time with multiple tractor units working.  I am of course projecting that the cost of a side loading tractor would be a fraction the cost of an overhead container crane.  As for intermediate stops, I can foresee a slide-on/slide-off adjunct working well in those situations, among other options.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag