Trains.com

BNSF Blames Lack of Empty Container Return for Volume Drop

1132 views
10 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    June 2006
  • 1,432 posts
BNSF Blames Lack of Empty Container Return for Volume Drop
Posted by Limitedclear on Friday, May 11, 2007 9:54 AM

 

http://www.americanshipper.com/SNW_story.asp?news=57313

  • Member since
    September 2002
  • From: Rockton, IL
  • 4,821 posts
Posted by jeaton on Friday, May 11, 2007 10:15 AM

"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics

  • Member since
    May 2004
  • From: Valparaiso, In
  • 5,921 posts
Posted by MP173 on Friday, May 11, 2007 10:40 AM

I did not quite understand the one line abuot BNSF getting revenue on empties by placing revenue loads....

When empties return back to the west coast...does the railroad receive revenue for the returns?  If so, is it usually at the same rate as a full container?

ed

  • Member since
    January 2006
  • From: New York City
  • 324 posts
Posted by sfrailfan on Friday, May 11, 2007 12:34 PM
 MP173 wrote:

I did not quite understand the one line abuot BNSF getting revenue on empties by placing revenue loads....

When empties return back to the west coast...does the railroad receive revenue for the returns?  If so, is it usually at the same rate as a full container?

ed



I don't quite understand it either, but I think in layman's terms the article is saying; if they can have a car coming back with a load for a 'found' customer on the fly, then money appears out of nowhere since the car had to come back (empty) anyway.

—can anyone clear this up for us, I'm curious now too.

DanZ
  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: Alexandria, VA
  • 847 posts
Posted by StillGrande on Friday, May 11, 2007 1:09 PM
Wasn't there a story some time last year that it was cheaper for the Chinese to just build a new container rather than ship and empty one back across the Pacific?
Dewey "Facts are meaningless; you can use facts to prove anything that is even remotely true! Facts, schmacks!" - Homer Simpson "The problem is there are so many stupid people and nothing eats them."
  • Member since
    June 2001
  • From: Lombard (west of Chicago), Illinois
  • 13,681 posts
Posted by CShaveRR on Friday, May 11, 2007 4:10 PM
There was a news story recently (I think on NBC Nightly News) concerning the use of old intermodal containers, at about 500 bucks apiece, for construction of trendy new homes.  I'm sure there are pros and cons to this type of construction, but if more containers are coming in than are going out, why not?

Carl

Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)

CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)

  • Member since
    May 2004
  • From: Valparaiso, In
  • 5,921 posts
Posted by MP173 on Friday, May 11, 2007 4:41 PM

I seem to recall also, the comment of making a new container rather than shipping it back, which seems to indicate they are paying rail transportation and also boat transport back to China.

But, we dont seem to have a definative answer to the empty return cost, if any.

This all leads to the next obvious question.  At what point in time, with China selling all those goods to us and then purchasing massive amounts of our Treasuries does China look at the return on the Treasuries (5%) and compare it to the costs of transporting and the returns on the rails...and start buying BNSF or UP?

Oh boy.

ed

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Friday, May 11, 2007 4:49 PM

     From the article:                                                                                                    " BNSF reported last month that it's first quarter domestic intermodal volume was down 1.2 percent to 508,000 cars compared to the same period a year earlier, and that revenue stayed flat at $586 million."

     If volume is down 1.2%, and revenue stayed the same, doesn't that mean they did better than this period last year?  At least 1.2% better?

 

 

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    October 2006
  • From: heart of the Pere Marquette
  • 847 posts
Posted by J. Edgar on Friday, May 11, 2007 9:39 PM
arent there just mountains of mt containers in Jersey??? I remeber reading that in the Wall Street Journal a fews yrs back....did they get built into condos?
i love the smell of coal smoke in the morning Photobucket
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, May 12, 2007 1:07 PM

Help me out here.  BNSF says it's domestic intermodal volume is down 1.2%, yet it references international intermodal in fingering a causal factor.  If it's a changeover in the pathway taken by the international containers in getting back to Asia via Europe, then that should be reflected as a drop in ISO returns westward, not domestic returns.

Does BNSF count domestics and internationals together on some of these hauls?

If empty ISO containers are being filled on the East Coast and sent to Europe, then that would be reflected in empty well cars heading back west.  Has anyone seen train after train of empty wells heading westbound?

I can tell you the real reason BNSF's domestic intermodal volume is down, and it has nothing to do with trucking company driver retention efforts:  BNSF has a well earned reputation for treating it's domestic customers like crap.  I guess that attitude has matastisized onto the intermodal division.

  • Member since
    November 2006
  • 75 posts
Posted by UP 829 on Sunday, May 13, 2007 7:23 AM

 StillGrande wrote:
Wasn't there a story some time last year that it was cheaper for the Chinese to just build a new container rather than ship and empty one back across the Pacific?

After a post about that last year, I started noticing the age of international containers on stack trains and there's quite a bit a variance from brand new to faded to rusted and heavily used, so I suspect they make more than one trip. It is possible the aged ones were used regionally in Asia before making the trip across the Pacific.

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy