Attached is an interesting article in reference to the cost of various intermodal options relative to truck...note that trucking is more economical at shorter distances..
http://www.tc.gc.ca/pol/en/report/operatingcost2000/7cost2000.htm
This study compares costs...it does not state that trucking services in the Toronto -Montreal lane can usually be had for less than cost. This is because the lane is a "reposition" lane for truckers..i.e. there are always Quebec based trucks in Toronto who want to get home and vice versa. To give you an idea of what people are charging in these lanes...$400.00 - $600.00 is ballpark..for a 53' box truck.. For Toronto-Detroit...a 53' box can be had for $350.00 to $550.00.
Some excerpts from the 2000 Transport Canada study referenced by Ulrich above - which for TOFC and COFC intermodal, appears to be just an 'update' of a 1985 study:
In 1985, Trimac Consulting Services was retained by Transport Canada to investigate and evaluate the energy and economic implications of TOFC (Trailer on Flat Car) services in Canada. A key finding of this study was that for hauls under 350 miles (565 km), direct truck was generally more economical than TOFC under various assumed conditions of utilization and "lane balance". [emphasis added - PDN]
Looking at the several tables of 'worked examples', 'Direct Trucking' is said to have about a $100 [14 %] cost advantage over TOFC and a $30 [4 %] cost advantage over COFC for the 334-mile Toronto - Montreal corridor - which is almost a break-even or equivalent to me. Further, in the other 2 corridors studied - Toronto - Winnnipeg at 1,297 miles and Toronto - Vancouver at 2,774 miles - both TOFC and COFC had a conclusive cost advantage.
Thanks to Ulrich for providing this.
I also recall from the late 1960s-early 1970s a couple of DOT and/ or FRA studies that concluded, and subsequent demonstration programs that attempted to prove, that TOFC could be truck-competitive down to the 400-mile range. My admittedly hazy memory is saying those demonstrations involved the ICG from like Chicago - Memphis, and/ or the MILW from Chicago to Minneapolis/ St. Paul, but I'm not at all certain of those details and could well be mistaken, and so would wlecome additions/ corrections, etc.
More to come later, as I can find time away from this 'day job' commitment . . .
- Paul North.
Ulrich Attached is an interesting article in reference to the cost of various intermodal options relative to truck...note that trucking is more economical at shorter distances.. http://www.tc.gc.ca/pol/en/report/operatingcost2000/7cost2000.htm This study compares costs...it does not state that trucking services in the Toronto -Montreal lane can usually be had for less than cost. This is because the lane is a "reposition" lane for truckers..i.e. there are always Quebec based trucks in Toronto who want to get home and vice versa. To give you an idea of what people are charging in these lanes...$400.00 - $600.00 is ballpark..for a 53' box truck.. For Toronto-Detroit...a 53' box can be had for $350.00 to $550.00.
I fully agree, it's very difficult, if not impossible, for rail intermodal to compete with over the road trucking at 340 miles. That's what makes CP's Expressway operation so interesting. They're doing just that.
What I objected to was the statement that the shipment had to go 900 miles before intermodal became competitive with trucking. That's what I'm "certain" is not true.
Yes..looking a those numbers one would think the rails would focus their TOFC efforts on those long hauls. Santa Fe had the right idea with their Super C service back in the 60s. And TOFC has some real advantages over other intermodal options....ie. terminal costs can be significantly less. I remember that in my home town (Sherbrooke, QC) CN had a ramp they used to load and off load trailers. One simple ramp was all they needed to make it work.
Although TOFC has been in delcine in recent years I don't think that this is due to any inherent problem with TOFC. I believe that with some good targeted marketing TOFC could make a serious comeback, especially in the United States where your population is more evenly distributed and where TOFC could be the tool to reach those smaller and midsized towns.
greyhounds Ulrich Attached is an interesting article in reference to the cost of various intermodal options relative to truck...note that trucking is more economical at shorter distances.. http://www.tc.gc.ca/pol/en/report/operatingcost2000/7cost2000.htm This study compares costs...it does not state that trucking services in the Toronto -Montreal lane can usually be had for less than cost. This is because the lane is a "reposition" lane for truckers..i.e. there are always Quebec based trucks in Toronto who want to get home and vice versa. To give you an idea of what people are charging in these lanes...$400.00 - $600.00 is ballpark..for a 53' box truck.. For Toronto-Detroit...a 53' box can be had for $350.00 to $550.00. I fully agree, it's very difficult, if not impossible, for rail intermodal to compete with over the road trucking at 340 miles. That's what makes CP's Expressway operation so interesting. They're doing just that. What I objected to was the statement that the shipment had to go 900 miles before intermodal became competitive with trucking. That's what I'm "certain" is not true.
You may be correct..I read 900 miles somewhere...but I've also seen other numbers like 600 miles (Brttanica) and even 500 miles.. I'm not sure what the magic number is although the salient point is that there is a lower cutoff length of haul at which TOFC is nolonger competitve.
Paul_D_North_Jr I also recall from the late 1960s-early 1970s a couple of DOT and/ or FRA studies that concluded, and subsequent demonstration programs that attempted to prove, that TOFC could be truck-competitive down to the 400-mile range. My admittedly hazy memory is saying those demonstrations involved the ICG from like Chicago - Memphis, and/ or the MILW from Chicago to Minneapolis/ St. Paul, but I'm not at all certain of those details and could well be mistaken, and so would wlecome additions/ corrections, etc. More to come later, as I can find time away from this 'day job' commitment . . . - Paul North.
The ICG "Slingshot" lane was Chicago-St. Louis (275 miles) not Chicago-Memphis. Chicago-Memphis was a foundation of IC/ICG intermodal service from its beginning. For ICG Intermodal 500 miles was "Long Haul"
The "Slingshot" operation started on the initiative of the UTU chairman. He was in a unique position in that the engineers on the old Alton Route were in the UTU and not the BLE. He was aparently aware of the FRA work on short haul intermodal. There was very little freight on the Alton and he was looking for some work for his members. The chairman came to the ICG with a proposal to run frequent short, fast intermodal service on the Chicago-St. Louis lane. These trains would operate with two person crews.
At that time George Stern was head of the ICG's intermodal department. He was skeptical of making a buck on such a service. But back then the unions were absolutely intransigent on crew districts and size. For a union person to suggest using two person crews was an offer to be accepted Normal crew consists would have required eight man days to move a train between the terminals. He was offering to do it with four.
The agreement was three trains each way per day with a 15 car (30 trailer) limit on each train. The UTU chairman wasn't giving away the store. He had no jobs at the eight man days per train requirement. He had 24 jobs when he dropped it to four man days per train.
The service had problems from the start. The 15 car limit was unworkable. A therory was that freight became available throughout the day and that departures should be spaced during the day to accept it and move it as soon as possible. This didn't happen. Shippers wanted to tender their loads in the evening and have them delivered the next morning. The noon departure from Chicago, #49, ran with very few trailers. The late evening departure, #45, was always sold out. (many of the loads on #49 were those left behind from the night before because #45 was full.)
The chairman was already taking heat for agreeing to the two person crews and he wasn't going to bend on the train length limit. We finally established a two tier pricing system (made possible with dereg) that allowed a shipper to get a lower rate if he endorsed the Bill of Ladding as "Move at carrier convenience." We could sort out the priority loads, move them on #45 and leave the "Carrier convenience" loads for #49 the next day without getting angry phone calls from shippers.
The service actually got expanded to include a "Steel Train" that carried special flat rack containers of steel. These moved on modified standard flatcars (not IM flats) and we could get four truckloads on a car. The 15 car limit reamained, but the "Steel Train" could handle 60 truckloads of freight instead of 30.
It would have been great to expand the service to the rest of the ICG. But while the railroads had merged, the unions hadn't. The crews on the "IC Side" were represented by different people and they wouldn't hear of such a thing.
.
passengerfanEven if we stick to standard rails I see know reason we cannot build HSR that carried one level of freight containers or trailers and passengers and package freight on the upper level.
Why not be even more simple, and tack the container cars on the tail end of the HS passenger train ? That way they can cut away and load/unload at seperate terminals. For that matter, with safety technoligy and high tech why not make it so that the freight carreing portion of the train can cut away "on the fly" while moving, not neccessarly at high speed but bellow 100 mph ? Presumably the container cars are self powered and can move on there own power also.
ps; The CPR Expessway trains do not run to Detroit or Winsor anymore. Only from Milton to Montreal with a breif stop in Scarborough. I am not an expert, but I have heard it is only a mediocre success according to CPRail, I hope they keep it running. Hiway traffic density from Milton to Montreal can be very heavy with unpredictable delays lasting hours of holdup in traffic.
Ulrich [snip] . . . 1) Expressway is a partnership between trucking companies and the railway..many/most of Expressway's customers are trucking companies. among them are the large fleets that belong to Canadian Tire and Hudson Bay company and of course the large for hire fleets like Robert. In a nutshell, Expressway allows these fleets to leverage the efficiency of their driver workforce. For example..a driver may take a couple of trailers to the railhead in Toronto for furtherance to Montreal via Expressway. That driver will then take a third trailer over the road to Montreal himself...deliver it...and then head over to the rail in Montreal to get the other two trailers for delivery in Montreal..So in essence the the carrier moves three trailers door to door with just one driver. Traditional TOFC has been marketed much differently than Expressway..as the railroads' door to door answer to over the road trucking and in direct competition with trucking ( and not in partnership as with Expressway). [snip] Furthermore, I stay away from the Toronto-Montreal-Detroit corridor due to the rates being so dirt cheap. The strengths of Expressway: It is a useful tool for high volume truckload carriers and shippers. If you ship 300 + trailers a week in that corridor then you can realize some potential savings by oursourcing the linehaul to CP as opposed to maintaining a a fleet of over -the-road tractors. Weaknesses: The lane itself is a dog..No trucker can survive for long running back and forth between Toronto and Montreal although many have tried..and Windsor/Detroit isn't much better if at all. I can't see how CP can make money with Expressway with prices so low. And I'm sure that the big shippers like Canadian Tire aren't paying a premium for Expressway..if anything..they are getting volume discounts. But who knows..I'm not on the "inside"..and quite possibly I'm missing a piece of the puzzle. But my guess would be that Expressway isn't much of a money maker. A final thought: overall..a great idea although I'd pick a more profitable lane...like Toronto - New Jersey/New York.. the rates are much better... the haul is a little longer at around 500 miles and there's plenty of traffic to boot.
1) Expressway is a partnership between trucking companies and the railway..many/most of Expressway's customers are trucking companies. among them are the large fleets that belong to Canadian Tire and Hudson Bay company and of course the large for hire fleets like Robert. In a nutshell, Expressway allows these fleets to leverage the efficiency of their driver workforce. For example..a driver may take a couple of trailers to the railhead in Toronto for furtherance to Montreal via Expressway. That driver will then take a third trailer over the road to Montreal himself...deliver it...and then head over to the rail in Montreal to get the other two trailers for delivery in Montreal..So in essence the the carrier moves three trailers door to door with just one driver. Traditional TOFC has been marketed much differently than Expressway..as the railroads' door to door answer to over the road trucking and in direct competition with trucking ( and not in partnership as with Expressway).
[snip]
Furthermore, I stay away from the Toronto-Montreal-Detroit corridor due to the rates being so dirt cheap.
The strengths of Expressway: It is a useful tool for high volume truckload carriers and shippers. If you ship 300 + trailers a week in that corridor then you can realize some potential savings by oursourcing the linehaul to CP as opposed to maintaining a a fleet of over -the-road tractors.
Weaknesses: The lane itself is a dog..No trucker can survive for long running back and forth between Toronto and Montreal although many have tried..and Windsor/Detroit isn't much better if at all. I can't see how CP can make money with Expressway with prices so low. And I'm sure that the big shippers like Canadian Tire aren't paying a premium for Expressway..if anything..they are getting volume discounts. But who knows..I'm not on the "inside"..and quite possibly I'm missing a piece of the puzzle. But my guess would be that Expressway isn't much of a money maker.
A final thought: overall..a great idea although I'd pick a more profitable lane...like Toronto - New Jersey/New York.. the rates are much better... the haul is a little longer at around 500 miles and there's plenty of traffic to boot.
Ulrich - Thanks much for your detailed, thoughtful reply. A trio of quick comments -
1. Could the presence of CP's 'Expressway' service actually be the reason for the rates being so low in the Toronto-Montreal-Detroit corridor ? Since it has so much capacity and a very low incremental cost for 1 more or less trailer on a train that's running anyway, is it effectively the dominant 'market-maker' there ? Or, is it so 'common' to many hauls and 'incentived' for return hauls as you've mentioned, that as a result it attracts a much larger or over-supply of truckers than would be justified by just the volume and pure economics, and so the rates are artificially depressed below what they would be in a rational market ?
It occurs to me that - say, just for curiosity's sake you - and maybe only you - could legitimately call up the Expressway marketing folks and ask what the current rate is for a decent volume of trailers, and compare that with the rates that you cited in another of your posts here. Who knows, maybe over lunch and/ or a brew or two they might even share some of the marketing goals with you - not the 'state secrets' kind of stuff, of course, but the publicly stated intentions or goals that they like to target repetitive shippers with X volume per day or per week, and as long as they get Y load factor, then they do OK with a variable cost or revenue-to-variable-cost ratio of Z, or something else like that, etc.
2. I met a couple last week who have recently driven across Canada. They said that aside from the major metropolitan areas, the long-distance roads in Canada - such as to/ from the West Coast - are not limited-access interstate or expressway-type roads as they are here in the U.S. Instead, they are high-quality 2-lane roads, and that they go through - not arouind - most towns. If that's an accurate characterization, then long-haul trucking in Canada is more handicapped to compete against rail and intermodal than it is in the U.S.
3. In your example above: Why move the 3rd trailer to Montreal 'over-the-road' by/with a driver, instead of putting it on the CP's Expressway as well ? Why not just have another driver in Montreal for 'local-only' work to deliver all 3 trailers, and have the 1st driver stay in Toronto to do likewise ?
Thanks again. Very interesting thread and discussion.
passengerfan carnej1 passengerfan From the beginning I looked at Californias HSR system as a means to move priority freight either in Containers or as trailers. My idea since the system would be totally independant of the freight lines why remain at 4'8" why not sixteen foot rail width. In that way the HSR could carry two wide containers or trailers on a lower level and passengers and packages on the upper level. I originally thought of the Boeing 727 QC madel that operated as passenger planes during the day, at the end of the day the passenger interiors were rolled out and freight was hauled all night. The next morning the passenger interiors were once again rolled in and the plane was ready for passengers. With passengers and package express on the upper level this would certainly maximize the use of the trains. I also felt it would be great to extend the HSR corridor north from Sacramento to Redding in order to take traffic off I-5 coming from Washington and Oregon. In this way there would be no need to widen I-5. Trucks and containers would be whisked to LA and San Diego or the Bay area in less than a day. A truck coming from Washington could be delivering in those places the same day it arrives in Redding something impossible to do today. My original idea was also to make the system with Mag-Lev so 300 mph speeds could be attained. It is time to begin thinking outside the box. and we in California have a unique opportunity to show the world what good old yankee enginnuity can come up with. Al - in - Stockton Starting with a clean sheet of paper and designing a completely new super broad gauge (your idea reminds me of the old 1970's TV show "Supertrain") system would be a great way to ensure that nothing ever gets built (sorry,that's real world economics rearing it's ugly head).. IIRC, the California HSR system is supposed to include some freight transport, at least airline shipping containers/pallets and possibly full size containers.An Online document I read stated the electronics manufacturing industry is a major potential market... I don't believe that the 727 QC was not widely adapted by the airline industry. One of the big cargo airlines (FED EX?) did use one for a short time to offer weekend passenger service to the Caribbean(IINM, this was all Charter through a subsidiary company) but I'm not aware of other examples (though I would imagine some Charter operators may have)..carnej1 passengerfan From the beginning I looked at Californias HSR system as a means to move priority freight either in Containers or as trailers. My idea since the system would be totally independant of the freight lines why remain at 4'8" why not sixteen foot rail width. In that way the HSR could carry two wide containers or trailers on a lower level and passengers and packages on the upper level. I originally thought of the Boeing 727 QC madel that operated as passenger planes during the day, at the end of the day the passenger interiors were rolled out and freight was hauled all night. The next morning the passenger interiors were once again rolled in and the plane was ready for passengers. With passengers and package express on the upper level this would certainly maximize the use of the trains. I also felt it would be great to extend the HSR corridor north from Sacramento to Redding in order to take traffic off I-5 coming from Washington and Oregon. In this way there would be no need to widen I-5. Trucks and containers would be whisked to LA and San Diego or the Bay area in less than a day. A truck coming from Washington could be delivering in those places the same day it arrives in Redding something impossible to do today. My original idea was also to make the system with Mag-Lev so 300 mph speeds could be attained. It is time to begin thinking outside the box. and we in California have a unique opportunity to show the world what good old yankee enginnuity can come up with. Al - in - Stockton Starting with a clean sheet of paper and designing a completely new super broad gauge (your idea reminds me of the old 1970's TV show "Supertrain") system would be a great way to ensure that nothing ever gets built (sorry,that's real world economics rearing it's ugly head).. IIRC, the California HSR system is supposed to include some freight transport, at least airline shipping containers/pallets and possibly full size containers.An Online document I read stated the electronics manufacturing industry is a major potential market... I don't believe that the 727 QC was not widely adapted by the airline industry. One of the big cargo airlines (FED EX?) did use one for a short time to offer weekend passenger service to the Caribbean(IINM, this was all Charter through a subsidiary company) but I'm not aware of other examples (though I would imagine some Charter operators may have).. United Airlines was a very large purchaser of the 727QC aircraft and used them on many domestic routes. Chicago - Los Angeles, Chicago - San Francisco, Chicago - Seattle, Chicago - New York and Chicago - Denver come immediatly to mind. Lufthanza also purchased 727QC but do not know what routes they were used on. The change from passenger configuration to cargo configuration took about 20 minutes. Even if we stick to standard rails I see know reason we cannot build HSR that carried one level of freight containers or trailers and passengers and package freight on the upper level. France is already building double deck HSR trains. Who would pay for such a freight service, how about UPS or Fedex. If trailers or containers delivered by 11:00 AM in either San Francisco or LA could be delivered before 3:00 the same day I am sure there would be some demand for that type service. Or possibly the USPS they are losing so much money already whats a few billion more taxpayer dollars. France has dedicated HSR trains for the mails, don't know if they make any money but possibly. I am more concerned about California HSR being derailed by lawsuits and enviromentalists than cost over runs. Al - in - Stockton Al - in - Stockton
carnej1 passengerfan From the beginning I looked at Californias HSR system as a means to move priority freight either in Containers or as trailers. My idea since the system would be totally independant of the freight lines why remain at 4'8" why not sixteen foot rail width. In that way the HSR could carry two wide containers or trailers on a lower level and passengers and packages on the upper level. I originally thought of the Boeing 727 QC madel that operated as passenger planes during the day, at the end of the day the passenger interiors were rolled out and freight was hauled all night. The next morning the passenger interiors were once again rolled in and the plane was ready for passengers. With passengers and package express on the upper level this would certainly maximize the use of the trains. I also felt it would be great to extend the HSR corridor north from Sacramento to Redding in order to take traffic off I-5 coming from Washington and Oregon. In this way there would be no need to widen I-5. Trucks and containers would be whisked to LA and San Diego or the Bay area in less than a day. A truck coming from Washington could be delivering in those places the same day it arrives in Redding something impossible to do today. My original idea was also to make the system with Mag-Lev so 300 mph speeds could be attained. It is time to begin thinking outside the box. and we in California have a unique opportunity to show the world what good old yankee enginnuity can come up with. Al - in - Stockton Starting with a clean sheet of paper and designing a completely new super broad gauge (your idea reminds me of the old 1970's TV show "Supertrain") system would be a great way to ensure that nothing ever gets built (sorry,that's real world economics rearing it's ugly head).. IIRC, the California HSR system is supposed to include some freight transport, at least airline shipping containers/pallets and possibly full size containers.An Online document I read stated the electronics manufacturing industry is a major potential market... I don't believe that the 727 QC was not widely adapted by the airline industry. One of the big cargo airlines (FED EX?) did use one for a short time to offer weekend passenger service to the Caribbean(IINM, this was all Charter through a subsidiary company) but I'm not aware of other examples (though I would imagine some Charter operators may have)..
passengerfan From the beginning I looked at Californias HSR system as a means to move priority freight either in Containers or as trailers. My idea since the system would be totally independant of the freight lines why remain at 4'8" why not sixteen foot rail width. In that way the HSR could carry two wide containers or trailers on a lower level and passengers and packages on the upper level. I originally thought of the Boeing 727 QC madel that operated as passenger planes during the day, at the end of the day the passenger interiors were rolled out and freight was hauled all night. The next morning the passenger interiors were once again rolled in and the plane was ready for passengers. With passengers and package express on the upper level this would certainly maximize the use of the trains. I also felt it would be great to extend the HSR corridor north from Sacramento to Redding in order to take traffic off I-5 coming from Washington and Oregon. In this way there would be no need to widen I-5. Trucks and containers would be whisked to LA and San Diego or the Bay area in less than a day. A truck coming from Washington could be delivering in those places the same day it arrives in Redding something impossible to do today. My original idea was also to make the system with Mag-Lev so 300 mph speeds could be attained. It is time to begin thinking outside the box. and we in California have a unique opportunity to show the world what good old yankee enginnuity can come up with. Al - in - Stockton
From the beginning I looked at Californias HSR system as a means to move priority freight either in Containers or as trailers. My idea since the system would be totally independant of the freight lines why remain at 4'8" why not sixteen foot rail width. In that way the HSR could carry two wide containers or trailers on a lower level and passengers and packages on the upper level. I originally thought of the Boeing 727 QC madel that operated as passenger planes during the day, at the end of the day the passenger interiors were rolled out and freight was hauled all night. The next morning the passenger interiors were once again rolled in and the plane was ready for passengers. With passengers and package express on the upper level this would certainly maximize the use of the trains. I also felt it would be great to extend the HSR corridor north from Sacramento to Redding in order to take traffic off I-5 coming from Washington and Oregon. In this way there would be no need to widen I-5. Trucks and containers would be whisked to LA and San Diego or the Bay area in less than a day. A truck coming from Washington could be delivering in those places the same day it arrives in Redding something impossible to do today. My original idea was also to make the system with Mag-Lev so 300 mph speeds could be attained. It is time to begin thinking outside the box. and we in California have a unique opportunity to show the world what good old yankee enginnuity can come up with.
Al - in - Stockton
Starting with a clean sheet of paper and designing a completely new super broad gauge (your idea reminds me of the old 1970's TV show "Supertrain") system would be a great way to ensure that nothing ever gets built (sorry,that's real world economics rearing it's ugly head)..
IIRC, the California HSR system is supposed to include some freight transport, at least airline shipping containers/pallets and possibly full size containers.An Online document I read stated the electronics manufacturing industry is a major potential market...
I don't believe that the 727 QC was not widely adapted by the airline industry. One of the big cargo airlines (FED EX?) did use one for a short time to offer weekend passenger service to the Caribbean(IINM, this was all Charter through a subsidiary company) but I'm not aware of other examples (though I would imagine some Charter operators may have)..
Even if we stick to standard rails I see know reason we cannot build HSR that carried one level of freight containers or trailers and passengers and package freight on the upper level. France is already building double deck HSR trains. Who would pay for such a freight service, how about UPS or Fedex. If trailers or containers delivered by 11:00 AM in either San Francisco or LA could be delivered before 3:00 the same day I am sure there would be some demand for that type service. Or possibly the USPS they are losing so much money already whats a few billion more taxpayer dollars. France has dedicated HSR trains for the mails, don't know if they make any money but possibly.
I am more concerned about California HSR being derailed by lawsuits and enviromentalists than cost over runs.
Slightly OT but I stand corrected on the 727-100QC, I read that Braniff and Eastern were operators as well (and it was UPS that operated a weekend passenger charter service in the 90's with one)..
Whatever rolling stock is built for California will follow existing European design/practice (which as we both noted does include some freight equipment)..there's no chance of a clean sheet design, you can bank on that..
Back in the 1960 GATX designed (but never built) a High Speed Broad Gauge system called RRollway which was kind of like what you described in your first post. The extra width would have allowed cars to be driven onto and off of the railcars "garage style"(I.e side by side rather than fender to fender as on an autorack). The proposal originally was to use broad gauge rail (12 feet wide or so) but was modified to incorporate the idea of equipment running on two parallel standard gauge tracks...
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
passengerfanFrom the beginning I looked at Californias HSR system as a means to move priority freight either in Containers or as trailers. My idea since the system would be totally independant of the freight lines why remain at 4'8" why not sixteen foot rail width. In that way the HSR could carry two wide containers or trailers on a lower level and passengers and packages on the upper level. I originally thought of the Boeing 727 QC madel that operated as passenger planes during the day, at the end of the day the passenger interiors were rolled out and freight was hauled all night. The next morning the passenger interiors were once again rolled in and the plane was ready for passengers. With passengers and package express on the upper level this would certainly maximize the use of the trains. I also felt it would be great to extend the HSR corridor north from Sacramento to Redding in order to take traffic off I-5 coming from Washington and Oregon. In this way there would be no need to widen I-5. Trucks and containers would be whisked to LA and San Diego or the Bay area in less than a day. A truck coming from Washington could be delivering in those places the same day it arrives in Redding something impossible to do today. My original idea was also to make the system with Mag-Lev so 300 mph speeds could be attained. It is time to begin thinking outside the box. and we in California have a unique opportunity to show the world what good old yankee enginnuity can come up with. Al - in - Stockton
Al, just so your question doesn't get ignored, it is also a function of aerodynamic cross-section, to push a train that wide through the air at 200 mph speeds would take so much energy even a passenger service could not afford the price.
Paul_D_North_Jr Ulrich [snip] . . . 1) Expressway is a partnership between trucking companies and the railway..many/most of Expressway's customers are trucking companies. among them are the large fleets that belong to Canadian Tire and Hudson Bay company and of course the large for hire fleets like Robert. In a nutshell, Expressway allows these fleets to leverage the efficiency of their driver workforce. For example..a driver may take a couple of trailers to the railhead in Toronto for furtherance to Montreal via Expressway. That driver will then take a third trailer over the road to Montreal himself...deliver it...and then head over to the rail in Montreal to get the other two trailers for delivery in Montreal..So in essence the the carrier moves three trailers door to door with just one driver. Traditional TOFC has been marketed much differently than Expressway..as the railroads' door to door answer to over the road trucking and in direct competition with trucking ( and not in partnership as with Expressway). [snip] Furthermore, I stay away from the Toronto-Montreal-Detroit corridor due to the rates being so dirt cheap. The strengths of Expressway: It is a useful tool for high volume truckload carriers and shippers. If you ship 300 + trailers a week in that corridor then you can realize some potential savings by oursourcing the linehaul to CP as opposed to maintaining a a fleet of over -the-road tractors. Weaknesses: The lane itself is a dog..No trucker can survive for long running back and forth between Toronto and Montreal although many have tried..and Windsor/Detroit isn't much better if at all. I can't see how CP can make money with Expressway with prices so low. And I'm sure that the big shippers like Canadian Tire aren't paying a premium for Expressway..if anything..they are getting volume discounts. But who knows..I'm not on the "inside"..and quite possibly I'm missing a piece of the puzzle. But my guess would be that Expressway isn't much of a money maker. A final thought: overall..a great idea although I'd pick a more profitable lane...like Toronto - New Jersey/New York.. the rates are much better... the haul is a little longer at around 500 miles and there's plenty of traffic to boot. [emphasis added - PDN] Ulrich - Thanks much for your detailed, thoughtful reply. A trio of quick comments - 1. Could the presence of CP's 'Expressway' service actually be the reason for the rates being so low in the Toronto-Montreal-Detroit corridor ? Since it has so much capacity and a very low incremental cost for 1 more or less trailer on a train that's running anyway, is it effectively the dominant 'market-maker' there ? Or, is it so 'common' to many hauls and 'incentived' for return hauls as you've mentioned, that as a result it attracts a much larger or over-supply of truckers than would be justified by just the volume and pure economics, and so the rates are artificially depressed below what they would be in a rational market ? It occurs to me that - say, just for curiosity's sake you - and maybe only you - could legitimately call up the Expressway marketing folks and ask what the current rate is for a decent volume of trailers, and compare that with the rates that you cited in another of your posts here. Who knows, maybe over lunch and/ or a brew or two they might even share some of the marketing goals with you - not the 'state secrets' kind of stuff, of course, but the publicly stated intentions or goals that they like to target repetitive shippers with X volume per day or per week, and as long as they get Y load factor, then they do OK with a variable cost or revenue-to-variable-cost ratio of Z, or something else like that, etc. 2. I met a couple last week who have recently driven across Canada. They said that aside from the major metropolitan areas, the long-distance roads in Canada - such as to/ from the West Coast - are not limited-access interstate or expressway-type roads as they are here in the U.S. Instead, they are high-quality 2-lane roads, and that they go through - not arouind - most towns. If that's an accurate characterization, then long-haul trucking in Canada is more handicapped to compete against rail and intermodal than it is in the U.S. 3. In your example above: Why move the 3rd trailer to Montreal 'over-the-road' by/with a driver, instead of putting it on the CP's Expressway as well ? Why not just have another driver in Montreal for 'local-only' work to deliver all 3 trailers, and have the 1st driver stay in Toronto to do likewise ? Thanks again. Very interesting thread and discussion. - Paul North.
Those are intersting thoughts Paul.
1. I don't believe Expressway has had anything to do with depressing the rates in the lanes in which they operate. The Toronto - Montreal rates were poor long before Expressway came along, and are most attributable to chronic overcapacitiy. In a sense that lane is special because ordinarily supply and demand would cure overcapacity..i.e. rates go down and carriers drop out until rates stabilize to allow profitble operations for the most efficient carriers. That does not happen with Toronto- Montreal because it is a reposition lane that Canadian truckers have to travel whether they want to or not. For example..lets say that two carriers..one domiciled in Montreal and other from Toronto quote on loads out of Kentucky to Ontario and Quebec. Carrier A..the Montreal based carrier is going to want to get his trucks home to Montreal after delivering in Toronto and he will thus quote the shipper in KY a rate that takes into account the move from Toronto to Montreal...most likely he will add a little to the rate based on his ability to get at least 400 bucks on the truck from Toronto to Montreal. The Toronto based carrier does the same to get his trucks back home to Toronto after delivering in Montreal. You might ask...why don't the Montreal carriers simply stick to Montreal freight and the Toronto carriers stick to Toronto area freight to avoid the Toronto-Montreal lane altogether? The answer is that the rates go down..i.e. if you as a carrier can do less then your rate goes down accordingly and we're back to square one with lousy rates.
2. I did meet with Expressway's director of marketing about 10 years ago...met him at a tradeshow and I was quite impressed with his presentation. I'm not sure how much marketing was involved in getting Expressway going. I sense they said "let's build it and they will come"...instead of first identifying a need in the marketplace and then putting together a service to meet that need. Why else would anyone go into a business that 1) involves overcapacity and low rates..2) goes into it with equipment (TOFC) that isn't ideally suited to short hauls. But as I said earlier, maybe there's something I'm not seeing that makes this an atractive proposition for CP.
got to run...work beckons..
As for the dynamics of TOFC vs Stack containers....I remember when the early stacks started moving across the CR's Southern Tier the Road Foreman of Engines extolled the virtues of "passenger train like handling": smooth handling, responsive, fast, and fast starting and stopping.
As for the marketing. Again we are steeped in tradition and history. I remeber that 500 miles was the standard of moving from road to rail for economy. But there are so many factors today that that might not be true. I am sure that if a railroad could gather enough containers or TOFC or RoadRailers in one place at one time going one place less than 500 even as little as 200 miles perhaps, there could be a way of successfully marketing and operating that service. With needs to clear the highways of congestion and the air of pollutants and to address the physical stresses and costs of building highways with equal volume and weight, it might just be a real solution.
I have often wodered myself whether or not we should have adopted a 6 foot or larger guage in this country...or if it is too late to? Imagine the loading capacity and economy that could have been (be) achieved?
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
henry6 As for the dynamics of TOFC vs Stack containers....I remember when the early stacks started moving across the CR's Southern Tier the Road Foreman of Engines extolled the virtues of "passenger train like handling": smooth handling, responsive, fast, and fast starting and stopping. As for the marketing. Again we are steeped in tradition and history. I remeber that 500 miles was the standard of moving from road to rail for economy. But there are so many factors today that that might not be true. I am sure that if a railroad could gather enough containers or TOFC or RoadRailers in one place at one time going one place less than 500 even as little as 200 miles perhaps, there could be a way of successfully marketing and operating that service. With needs to clear the highways of congestion and the air of pollutants and to address the physical stresses and costs of building highways with equal volume and weight, it might just be a real solution. I have often wodered myself whether or not we should have adopted a 6 foot or larger guage in this country...or if it is too late to? Imagine the loading capacity and economy that could have been (be) achieved?
The cost of re-gauging the entire rail network would be astronomical and who would pay for it? I find the occasional suggestions that the track and loading gauges in North America are "too small" strange. Do you consider clearences/tolerances sufficient for 286,000 lbs. railcars to be too restrictive? What is needed is increased capacity, not double sized rolling stock...
Ulrich [snip] This study compares costs...it does not state that trucking services in the Toronto -Montreal lane can usually be had for less than cost. This is because the lane is a "reposition" lane for truckers..i.e. there are always Quebec based trucks in Toronto who want to get home and vice versa. To give you an idea of what people are charging in these lanes...$400.00 - $600.00 is ballpark..for a 53' box truck.. For Toronto-Detroit...a 53' box can be had for $350.00 to $550.00.
For the 334 miles between Montreal - Toronto, that works out to $1.20 to $1.80 per mile. For a 22.5-ton payload, that's about 5.32 to 8.00 cents per ton-mile. If CPs 'Expressway' / ['Iron Highway'] service is getting anything near that for revenue, then I'm inclined to think that the Expressway could be making a good buck here.
On the other hand, if Expressway is doing that well - then why hasn't it expanded to other lanes/ Origin-Destination pairs ? [which would be to get more of a 'good' thing, of course]
It might be interesting to run a little speculative pro forma cost analysis of the Expressway operation - at first glance, it should be pretty economical, and hence competitive and profitable. The Expressway cars/ equipment is pretty simple, as I recall - just basic flatcars with a continuous deck and connecting fold-down 'plates' for the truck tires. The only 'special' car is the 'ramp' car that 'breaks apart' or folds down somehow to allow a truck to back onto the flatcars of the train. Also - unlike almost all other TOFC operations - Expressway can load and unload with just yard 'hostling' tractors - none of those expensive 'PiggyPacker' lifts or overhead cranes, etc. are needed, nor is a big, improved or paved, and hence expensive terminal site and facilities.* Finally, that route doesn't have any serious operational constraints or cost boosters - like a mountain grade, or tunnels - that I can recall.
*-Those lifts or cranes, their operators, and the limited few basically level sites that have to be fine-graded and paved or otherwise improved to support them, are the only inevitable and necessarily added costs that are usually why TOFC has trouble competing with 'Over-The-Road' trucking, as Ulrich alluded to in his post above. Expressway can dispense with all of those cost elements because it simply doesn't need them.
As a result, Expressway can have terminals in better locations, which can do a lot to address the potential drayage cost add-on, which - as greyhounds reminds us, is commonly - but not necessarily or inevitably a handicap that is associated with most rail intermodal moves.
Maybe so...one thing Expressway does have going for it as well is that dray cost to and from the rail is the trucker's cost. Their service is terminal to terminal. So indeed...if they are getting 400.00 to 600.00 just for the linehaul then maybe they are making out well.. although I would wonder why a trucker would pay that much in addition to having to deal with the dray cost at both ends.
I believe CP is on to something with their idea of partnering with truckers instead of using TOFC in the traditional way of competiing with truckers. I just don't think they picked a very good lane. There are some lanes that would work really well and would be quite lucrative. For example.. Charlotte, NC to points in the Northeast.. Money is good in that lane..truckers don't like the lane due to imbalance and would probably embrace a rail carrier that would move their trailers for them. To increase revenues further...offer several ramp off load points in the Northest..schedule the service and let the truckers worry about bringing their trailers in for shipping. Both CSX and NS have publicly stated that they want to take trucks off the road...and here's a way they could do that..as partners with the trucking carriers.
carnej1The cost of re-gauging the entire rail network would be astronomical and who would pay for it? I find the occasional suggestions that the track and loading gauges in North America are "too small" strange. Do you consider clearences/tolerances sufficient for 286,000 lbs. railcars to be too restrictive? What is needed is increased capacity, not double sized rolling stock...
Ya , but what about regaging (loading gage only, not track gage) just a lane of traffic. Just because you widen the gage , wether it's a completely new railway or upgrade you can still run conventional trains.
The Channel route in England runs enormous loading gage just for the tunnel. This is considered a very special lane, but the idea might be good. AAR and unions and manangement, employees and even bank thinking might be a drag. Sure old thinking does work for coal and some traditional traffic but ..........
Ulrich [snip; emphasis added - PDN] I believe CP is on to something with their idea of partnering with truckers instead of using TOFC in the traditional way of competiing with truckers. . . . [snip] . . . There are some lanes that would work really well and would be quite lucrative. For example.. Charlotte, NC to points in the Northeast.. Money is good in that lane..truckers don't like the lane due to imbalance and would probably embrace a rail carrier that would move their trailers for them. To increase revenues further...offer several ramp off load points in the Northest..schedule the service and let the truckers worry about bringing their trailers in for shipping. Both CSX and NS have publicly stated that they want to take trucks off the road...and here's a way they could do that..as partners with the trucking carriers.
Ulrich, the point emphasized above was also in one of your previous posts, but it probably bears repeating. So, the railroad intermodal operation is essentially a sub-contractor to the OTR trucker, who is responsible for finding, snagging, and executing the business, scheduling, staff and equipment for the deliveries, etc. As such, by not being the 'entrepreneur' in the operation, the railroad should and has to live a lesser rate and profit margin. Fortunately, that appears to be quite possible, as I'll show in a moment.
I also like and agree with your suggestion regarding other lanes, and that one in particular. Kind of sounds like my I-78 [and I-80, too, I suppose] to New York City suggestion a few posts above.
Here are some numbers I worked out for the CP Expressway operation. I'll make this briefer than I usually do, but also invite comments, additions, and corrections as I usually do.
Figures are based on 1 train of 60 trailers on 60 'short' flatcars, of 3 sets of 20 platforms each, approx. 40 tons per car incl. trailer, or 2,400 gross tons, with 2 3,000 HP locomotives for about 3,000 tons total train weight and a 2.0 HP/ ton ratio. It's 334 miles from Toronto to Montreal, and the train typically does it in just under 8 hours. The resulting end figure is on the basis of 'per trailer':
Locomotives - 2 at $1,000 ea. per start = $2,000 / 60 = $ 33
Fuel - 8 hrs. at 100 gals./ hr. avg. x 2 locos at $3.00 per gal. = $ 80
Cars - $20 ea. per diem = $ 20
Crew - 1 at $1,000 per day / 60 = $ 17
Maintc. of track, signals, dispatching, etc. - 3,000 gross tons x 334 miles =
1.002 Million Gross Ton-Miles at 0.5* cent / GTM [$5,000* per MGTM] / 60 =
$ 83
Loading and Unloading - typ. 3 to 5 minutes at $100/ hr. = $ 13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal - Direct Costs $ 246
25 % Overhead, Marketing, Admin., Profit, Capital, Taxes, Etc. $ 61
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notional Total for Expressway $ 307
Remaining - from $400 - for Dray at Both Ends and Margin for OTR Trucker -
approx. 23% $ 93
Well, what do you think of that ?
EDITS: Tried to fix formatting better.
Also: * - This figure is most likely too high, by a factor of from 2 to 6. In other words, a more accurate number would likely be in the range of from $17 to $42, with the rest going to other lines further down in the table, of course. The raw number - derived from NS' 2008 R-1 STB report - is 0.34 cents / $3,400, respectively. I added 50 % to be conservative/ safe, but on further reflection the result is way too high. For example, on a line carrying 10 ea. 10,000 gross ton trains a day, this rate would provide approx. $175,000 per mile per year for track and R-O-W maintenance, which is more typically in the range of $25,000 to $75,000 per mile per year, 'depending'.
Finally - these figures are reaonably consistent with what CP's 2008 annual reports appears to say that its average revenue is for intermodal - 5.3 cents per Revenue Ton-Mile - and costs, at 3.5 cents per RTM, as I remember them.
- PDN.
Paul_D_North_Jr....... Also - unlike almost all other TOFC operations - Expressway can load and unload with just yard 'hostling' tractors - none of those expensive 'PiggyPacker' lifts or overhead cranes, etc. are needed, nor is a big, improved or paved, and hence expensive terminal site and facilities.* ..... *-Those lifts or cranes, their operators, and the limited few basically level sites that have to be fine-graded and paved or otherwise improved to support them, are the only inevitable and necessarily added costs that are usually why TOFC has trouble competing with 'Over-The-Road' trucking, as Ulrich alluded to in his post above. Expressway can dispense with all of those cost elements because it simply doesn't need them. ..... - Paul North.
....... Also - unlike almost all other TOFC operations - Expressway can load and unload with just yard 'hostling' tractors - none of those expensive 'PiggyPacker' lifts or overhead cranes, etc. are needed, nor is a big, improved or paved, and hence expensive terminal site and facilities.*
.....
I seem to remember another equipment advantage claimed for Expressway is that it could handle any trailer. According to publicity puffs in its early days not all trailers had the necessary strength to be handled by the overhead cranes or other lifting equipment that had become virtually universal at intermodal terminals. Since the source was advertising/pr, this may not be completely true; perhaps one of the folks on this forum with trucking experience can comment.
John
Good point ! Expressway does claim that it can handle essentially any OTR trailer, of almost any length, or any body configuration - such as tanks, dry bulk, flats, low-boys or drop-beds, etc., and which may not have that internal strength to be lifted overhead.
Whether that trailer strength is still an issue or not is, as you say, something on which someone in the trucking industry has way more expertise than I do.
That is a good point. Paul about your earlier point...i..e the rails would handle the linehaul while the truckers would be the entrepreneurs who bring in the business. I would add that the railroads also have an opportunity to bring in the freight in the same entrepreneurial fashion. Most trucking carriers depend heavily on 3PLs to fill their trucks..the truckers themselves don't do much in the way of direct sales. Most often the trucker simply goes to an internet loadboard where 3PLs post their available loads and then the trucker chooses the loads he wants from what's available. Thus, the 3PL is really the entrepreneur..and guess who has been getting into 3PL logistics in a big way?... the railroads. It's a really smart move on their part because in this way they really leverage the value of their brand with minimal investment and outlay of capital. So what may happen in our above Charlotte, NC to northeast TOFC scenario is this: Shipper in NC calls CSX's logistics department to schedule a shipment. CSX Logistics then contacts one of their small fleet truckers they use under contract to pickup the load and deliver it to the railhead.. CSX then moves the load north where another (or maybe the same trucking carrier) picks up the trailer for delivery to the receiver. In this scenario CSX would call the shots..they would "own" the relationship with the customer...not the trucker.
Paul_D_North_Jr Good point ! Expressway does claim that it can handle essentially any OTR trailer, of almost any length, or any body configuration - such as tanks, dry bulk, flats, low-boys or drop-beds, etc., and which may not have that internal strength to be lifted overhead. Whether that trailer strength is still an issue or not is, as you say, something on which someone in the trucking industry has way more expertise than I do. - PDN.
I have read a number of sources including David J. DeBoer's book- Piggyback and Containers: A History of Rail Intermodal on America's Steel Highway (and he was an insider who helped shape the industry's modern practices) that many if not most "off the Shelf" OTR trailers cannot be lifted (at least while loaded) by overhead cranes and straddle carriers....
The CP Expressway system started out as a joint R&D program with CSX along with New York Air Brake and MK Rail to build a John Kneiling style "Integral train system", it was originally conceived to be self -propelled with distributed traction motors. Here's one of the original patents from General Signal Corp with illustrations:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=16o9AAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q=&f=false
This was called "Iron Highway" and the first two prototypes were build, but without the cabs and CAT gensets (modular units which would have suppled traction current) installed. They tested on CSX with modified GP40-2s pulling them. The tests demonstrated that there were significant tachnical and maintenance issue with the system and CSX dropped out, while CP modifed the trainsets into the first Expressway equipment which was designed to be used in a more conventional locomotive pulled configuration:
http://www.trainnet.org/Libraries/Lib016/IRON_HWY.JPG
The structure on the end is where the control cab would have been mounted (there would have been cabs/gensets on each end with the "split ramp" system in the middle)......
There used to be freight forwarders and warehouses who would find you the bet routing for your product. I know that was mainly for less than car load lots (LCL). But weren't there, or aren't there today, services which you can hire to do that, sort of a private, off premise, 1099 contractor, that could be your "shipping department".
From back on Page 1 of this thread, because I had a further thought on this earlier today:
greyhounds [snips] Put the RoadRailers/RailMates on the back of existing IM trains east from KC. [snip]
I was - admittedly incorrectly - recalling this as proposing to hook the RoadRailers/ RailMates to the back of a conventional freight train.
The 'downside' that I was wondering about is that - If such a regular freight train is 'held for tonnage', or runs at any of the randomly unpredictable hours that trains sometimes do for a variety of reasons - some good, some bad - then that would cause havoc with the schedule keeping, promised transit times for customers, equipment utilization, etc.
But using an intermodal train instead as the 'parent' or 'tractor' for this move provides a fighting chance on having a dependable schedule and sticking to it, to keep the customers happy.
Or, using one of CN's 'Scheduled Railroad' general freight trains might work just as well. For that reason, maybe CN's and E. Hunter Harrison's emphasis on that would have a big benefit here, perhaps one that is not shared with or equally available from other railroads ?
Just some musings.
carnej - thanks for those links and summary history. I knew most of that, but not all of it, or in that much detail. I want to go back and review it all more closely when I have a little more time than right now.
Ulrich That is a good point. Paul about your earlier point...i..e the rails would handle the linehaul while the truckers would be the entrepreneurs who bring in the business. I would add that the railroads also have an opportunity to bring in the freight in the same entrepreneurial fashion. Most trucking carriers depend heavily on 3PLs to fill their trucks..the truckers themselves don't do much in the way of direct sales. Most often the trucker simply goes to an internet loadboard where 3PLs post their available loads and then the trucker chooses the loads he wants from what's available. Thus, the 3PL is really the entrepreneur..and guess who has been getting into 3PL logistics in a big way?... the railroads. It's a really smart move on their part because in this way they really leverage the value of their brand with minimal investment and outlay of capital. So what may happen in our above Charlotte, NC to northeast TOFC scenario is this: Shipper in NC calls CSX's logistics department to schedule a shipment. CSX Logistics then contacts one of their small fleet truckers they use under contract to pickup the load and deliver it to the railhead.. CSX then moves the load north where another (or maybe the same trucking carrier) picks up the trailer for delivery to the receiver. In this scenario CSX would call the shots..they would "own" the relationship with the customer...not the trucker.
So what may happen in our above Charlotte, NC to northeast TOFC scenario is this: Shipper in NC calls CSX's logistics department to schedule a shipment. CSX Logistics then contacts one of their small fleet truckers they use under contract to pickup the load and deliver it to the railhead.. CSX then moves the load north where another (or maybe the same trucking carrier) picks up the trailer for delivery to the receiver. In this scenario CSX would call the shots..they would "own" the relationship with the customer...not the trucker.
Ulrich: Interesting - because in an earlier post, you noted that railroads made a mistake by trying to compete with truckers rather than be partners with or subcontractors to them.
But in your scenarios above the railroad is not partnering with the trucker, nor competing with him either, because the railroad isn't using the loadboards.
Instead, the railroad would be completely 'leap-frogging' over the trucker, and competing more directly with the 3PLs. The trucker's involvement would be more of a support' player/ sub-contractor to t e railroad, instead of vice-versa.
Or am I missing or mis-undertstanding something here ?
Not sure I stated the railroads made a mistake by trying to compete with truckers...although partnering with them (as with Expressway) might be the better way to go.
I've found (from my own experience in business) that the line between partner and competitor isn't usually clear. I partner with my competitors on some projects just as the rails partner with one another in some areas while remaining very competitive in others. Look at CN and CP...they are certainly competitors..yet they partner with one another on track sharing where doing so reduces the cost for both. At one time CN and CP even shared joint ownership in a major international tunnel and in a railroad (Northern Alberta Railway)...Back in the 80s CN and CP also collaborated on a telecommunications venture...aptly named CNCP.
In my scenario above the railroads and truckers collaborate on some business while remaining distinctly competitive in other areas. I sell loads to competitors on a daily basis...and when I have a surplus of equipment in a given area I will accept loads for transport on my own equipment from a competitor who may be short on equipment himself. So there again we're competitors but also partners.
Los Angeles Rams Guy greyhounds [snipped out quote from PDN's prior post] We were talking about the Tyson mega beef plant at Dakota City, NE (across the Missouri River from Sioux City). That huge plant is at the end of the CN's Iowa line. This line has little businesss, only a very few trains per day. All along that line in western Iowa from Sioux City and Council Bluffs are meat plants (slaughter and processing facilities.) Tyson alone has facilities in Cherokee, Council Bluffs. Denison, Storm Lake and Waterloo, Iowa. The Waterloo facility kills over 19,000 hogs per day. Four states produce 50% of the red meat in the US. Iowa and Nebraska are two of them. The people in Iowa and Nebraska aren't eating all this beef and pork. Much of this freight is moving over 1,000 miles to northeast consumers. Now, if the CN can't be truck competitive at 1,000 miles, they can't be truck compettiive at all. It just seems to me that they've made the decision that they'd rather have a greatly underutilized line through Iowa than to develop this business. Does anyone have any idea why they would make such a decision? Maybe there is a good reason. If there is, I'd sure like to understand it. EXACTLY. Why isn't CN trying to capitalize on this potential business?
greyhounds [snipped out quote from PDN's prior post] We were talking about the Tyson mega beef plant at Dakota City, NE (across the Missouri River from Sioux City). That huge plant is at the end of the CN's Iowa line. This line has little businesss, only a very few trains per day. All along that line in western Iowa from Sioux City and Council Bluffs are meat plants (slaughter and processing facilities.) Tyson alone has facilities in Cherokee, Council Bluffs. Denison, Storm Lake and Waterloo, Iowa. The Waterloo facility kills over 19,000 hogs per day. Four states produce 50% of the red meat in the US. Iowa and Nebraska are two of them. The people in Iowa and Nebraska aren't eating all this beef and pork. Much of this freight is moving over 1,000 miles to northeast consumers. Now, if the CN can't be truck competitive at 1,000 miles, they can't be truck compettiive at all. It just seems to me that they've made the decision that they'd rather have a greatly underutilized line through Iowa than to develop this business. Does anyone have any idea why they would make such a decision? Maybe there is a good reason. If there is, I'd sure like to understand it.
All along that line in western Iowa from Sioux City and Council Bluffs are meat plants (slaughter and processing facilities.) Tyson alone has facilities in Cherokee, Council Bluffs. Denison, Storm Lake and Waterloo, Iowa. The Waterloo facility kills over 19,000 hogs per day. Four states produce 50% of the red meat in the US. Iowa and Nebraska are two of them. The people in Iowa and Nebraska aren't eating all this beef and pork.
Much of this freight is moving over 1,000 miles to northeast consumers. Now, if the CN can't be truck competitive at 1,000 miles, they can't be truck compettiive at all. It just seems to me that they've made the decision that they'd rather have a greatly underutilized line through Iowa than to develop this business.
Does anyone have any idea why they would make such a decision? Maybe there is a good reason. If there is, I'd sure like to understand it.
EXACTLY. Why isn't CN trying to capitalize on this potential business?
Two further thoughts on the above:
1. For CN's InterModal people to now decide that this business is worth getting would be tantamount to them admitting that they either made a mistake, or have been 'asleep at the switch', in not going and getting it themselves already. Whoops ! What - admit an error in judgement ? From a corporate and bureaucratic standpoint, that can be 'shooting yourself in the foot' at best, and career-ending at worst. In any but the most enlightened corporate cultures, where's the incentive for doing that ? What would E. Hunter Harrison think of that ? Maybe a change in thinking will occur when the new guy takes over.
2. Why not just charter a train - the 'hook-and-pull' concept - like the circus train does ? That way, maybe CN doesn't have to know or care as much what equipment it is pulling - reefers, TOFC, COFC, RoadRailer, RailMate, or a combination of same - and what goods are in the equipment, other than it's not Haz-Mat. [greyhounds, I know that was in the presentation that you were kind enough to send me, but I think the point needs further discussion here.] For a very rough idea of the costs, rates, and working capital that might be needed - say, 90 days' worth of expenses, see my 'quick 'n' dirty' pro forma for the CP's Expressway service, above.]
Ulrich Not sure I stated the railroads made a mistake by trying to compete with truckers...although partnering with them (as with Expressway) might be the better way to go. I've found (from my own experience in business) that the line between partner and competitor isn't usually clear. I partner with my competitors on some projects just as the rails partner with one another in some areas while remaining very competitive in others. Look at CN and CP...they are certainly competitors..yet they partner with one another on track sharing where doing so reduces the cost for both. At one time CN and CP even shared joint ownership in a major international tunnel and in a railroad (Northern Alberta Railway)...Back in the 80s CN and CP also collaborated on a telecommunications venture...aptly named CNCP. In my scenario above the railroads and truckers collaborate on some business while remaining distinctly competitive in other areas. I sell loads to competitors on a daily basis...and when I have a surplus of equipment in a given area I will accept loads for transport on my own equipment from a competitor who may be short on equipment himself. So there again we're competitors but also partners.
Certainly this is sensible enough - actually, really smart - from an economic and efficiency perspective, to avoid waste and under-utilized assets, etc.
But if there's a customer, regulator, or reporter looking to make trouble, be advised that there's at least a potential anti-trust vulnerability here: making deals with ostensible competitors over splitting a customer's business, and possibly the rates as well. Example: "You want to explain why the rate for that shipment which you let your competitor handle was $500, whereas your rate is usually $400", or "Why was your rate $500, but his rate is usually $400 ?"
I don't want to go down a sidetrack and get diverted here - it's been quite a while since I did any anti-trust work and I'm not providing legal advice here. Also, there are legitimate ways to handle that - such as by just renting/ leasing the equipment, without being involved in the rates or customer contacts - and maybe you're doing all that just fine and staying above-board and beyond suspicion, like Caesar's wife. But it did jump out at my sometimes cynical, suspicious mind that someone could think they see a fire and holler about that, where there's only smoke - or something like that.
TH&B carnej1The cost of re-gauging the entire rail network would be astronomical and who would pay for it? I find the occasional suggestions that the track and loading gauges in North America are "too small" strange. Do you consider clearences/tolerances sufficient for 286,000 lbs. railcars to be too restrictive? What is needed is increased capacity, not double sized rolling stock... Ya , but what about regaging (loading gage only, not track gage) just a lane of traffic. Just because you widen the gage , wether it's a completely new railway or upgrade you can still run conventional trains. The Channel route in England runs enormous loading gage just for the tunnel. This is considered a very special lane, but the idea might be good. AAR and unions and manangement, employees and even bank thinking might be a drag. Sure old thinking does work for coal and some traditional traffic but ..........
My former colleagues in the various track and engineering departments will hate and fight to the death any of the double-track 'wide gage train' proposals for the following reasons, among others that I have previously mentioned:
1. Super-elevation in curves will be a nightmare. The rise in the outer track would have to be so high that it would be a pretty good hump in that track's profile.
2. Inter-track obstacles. Signals could be moved, but not between-track station platforms, nor - most troublesome - such things as girder-type through bridges where the main members are a couple feet above the top of rail between each track. Further, with some of those older ones, the track center spacing can be really odd - and dimensions are way less than we'd like.
3. 25-foot track center spacings are now common out in the wide open spaces where the R-O-W is more affordable, so that the MOW crews can work on one track without having to shut down while and when a train passes on an adjacent track, per the FRA Roadway Worker safety standards. These proposals would be inconsistent with and negate that benefit.
Give it up. For a fraction of that cost, we could improve the system with present technology and standards so much that there'd be no need for any of that, and have it running much sooner.
TH&Bcarnej1The cost of re-gauging the entire rail network would be astronomical and who would pay for it? I find the occasional suggestions that the track and loading gauges in North America are "too small" strange. Do you consider clearences/tolerances sufficient for 286,000 lbs. railcars to be too restrictive? What is needed is increased capacity, not double sized rolling stock... Ya , but what about regaging (loading gage only, not track gage) just a lane of traffic. Just because you widen the gage , wether it's a completely new railway or upgrade you can still run conventional trains. The Channel route in England runs enormous loading gage just for the tunnel. This is considered a very special lane, but the idea might be good. AAR and unions and manangement, employees and even bank thinking might be a drag. Sure old thinking does work for coal and some traditional traffic but ..........
The Loading gauge of High-Speed 1, the Channel Tunnel link in Englund is call GB+. It is a slight enlargement of the UIC "B" gauge in portions of the envelope. France is a mixture of UIC "B" and UIC "B+", so the Channel Tunnel link isn't built with greater clearances than much of France. Germany is mostly built to the still larger UIC "C" gauge.
Paul_D_North_Jr [ Give it up. For a fraction of that cost, we could improve the system with present technology and standards so much that there'd be no need for any of that, and have it running much sooner. - Paul North.
[
Despite my jibe at looking outside the box for guage, etc. I often have asked if we have really explored and exploited what we have for both loading and speed? That's an excellent point, Paul.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.