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.*
.....
*-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.
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
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.
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 ..........
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.
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.
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.
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?
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...
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
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.
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.
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.
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..
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
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
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.
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
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...
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.
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.
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 . . .
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.
.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ulrich 2) Expressway, unlike tradional TOFC, is a relatively shorthaul operation...Toronto and Montreal are only 350 miles apart...and Toronto and Windsor/Detroit are only about 240 miles apart. This is a disadvantage as most studies have shown that TOFC only becomes economical at distances of 900 miles or more.
2) Expressway, unlike tradional TOFC, is a relatively shorthaul operation...Toronto and Montreal are only 350 miles apart...and Toronto and Windsor/Detroit are only about 240 miles apart. This is a disadvantage as most studies have shown that TOFC only becomes economical at distances of 900 miles or more.
Could you please cite 2 or 3 of those studies that show TOFC only becomes economical at distances of 900 miles or more?
I don't buy that and I really would like to know if and why I'm wrong. Heck, maybe I am. What studies should I read?
Paul_D_North_Jr Original Post - Ulrich Intuitively doublestack makes alot of sense... by stacking containers you shorten the train and you improve the loaded verses tare weight ratio. But when I look at a double stack train I see alot of empty space between well cars... so each set of stack containers catches the wind and the space savings gained in stacking containers appears to be negated to some extent by the huge gaps between well cars. Compare to a standard COFC...you've got what looks like an unbroken string of containers with a relatively low center of gravity. So one has to wonder...taking into account the specialized equipment for doublestack... the greater clearances... the specialized equipment and facilities needed to on and off load...just how much more efficient is double stack over COFC? Ulrich, since you're from Canada, I meant to ask this before: What's the 'word' or consensus on CPR's ''Expressway'' [formerly ''Iron Highway''] operation, which now has a network from Montreal [1 terminal] to and through Toronto [2 terminals - Milton and Agincourt], to Detroit [1 terminal] / or Windsor [1 terminal] ? For the CPR website for it, see: http://www8.cpr.ca/cms/English/Customers/New+Customers/What+We+Ship/Expressway/default.htm In particular, see the seemingly unimportant-looking links in the right-hand margin for 'How to Ship', 'Schedule', 'Facilities', and 'Network Map', each of which open into separate 'pop-up' windows. [Note: It has been amazingly hard for me to access any other detailed or reliable technical and economic information about it.] So: Is it commercially successful ? Who uses it ? Would or do you ? Why or why not ? Strengths and weaknesses of it, from your standpoint ? Any other comments you care to add ? It would seem to me to have many of the advantages of the COFC operation that you initially asked about, with fewer of the disadvantages. Looking forward to your response. - Paul North.
Original Post -
Ulrich Intuitively doublestack makes alot of sense... by stacking containers you shorten the train and you improve the loaded verses tare weight ratio. But when I look at a double stack train I see alot of empty space between well cars... so each set of stack containers catches the wind and the space savings gained in stacking containers appears to be negated to some extent by the huge gaps between well cars. Compare to a standard COFC...you've got what looks like an unbroken string of containers with a relatively low center of gravity. So one has to wonder...taking into account the specialized equipment for doublestack... the greater clearances... the specialized equipment and facilities needed to on and off load...just how much more efficient is double stack over COFC?
What's the 'word' or consensus on CPR's ''Expressway'' [formerly ''Iron Highway''] operation, which now has a network from Montreal [1 terminal] to and through Toronto [2 terminals - Milton and Agincourt], to Detroit [1 terminal] / or Windsor [1 terminal] ? For the CPR website for it, see:
http://www8.cpr.ca/cms/English/Customers/New+Customers/What+We+Ship/Expressway/default.htm
In particular, see the seemingly unimportant-looking links in the right-hand margin for 'How to Ship', 'Schedule', 'Facilities', and 'Network Map', each of which open into separate 'pop-up' windows.
Is it commercially successful ?
Who uses it ?
Strengths and weaknesses of it, from your standpoint ?
It would seem to me to have many of the advantages of the COFC operation that you initially asked about, with fewer of the disadvantages.
Looking forward to your response.
Paul , glad you asked..I was wondering about Expressway myself a few weeks ago and about how they are doing.
Expressway differs fundamentally from traditional TOFC in some important ways. The two most important in my view are:
I don't use Expressway because my own business is 90% flatbed with most loads moving within the US, Canada and to/from Mexico. Furthermore, I stay away from the Toronto-Montreal-Detroit corridor due to the rates being so dirt cheap.
Paul_D_North_JrThen move under conventional diesel power aross North Jersey to arrive at the Hudson River tunnels in the early evening - after the outbound commuter rush in the opposite direction is mostly done, but before the M-O-W people need to claim the tunnels for their activities during the overnight low-traffic/ shutdown hours. Attach an Amtrak E-60 electric or two - if there are any still in service - to tow the idling diesels thru the tunnels and Penn Station to the vicinity of Sunnyside Yard, at about 30 MPH max. to minimize track wear and damage, from whence the diesels can move under their own power again to the new IM terminal for unloading before midnight. That way the boxes can hit the street in the early morning hours, and be drayed and delivered both into the City and onto the Island before the start of the next business day
I had often thought about this proposal but had rejected it because of the conditions of the North River Tunnels and their need for continuing maintenance. Then when the ARC NJ Transit tunnel was proposed it seemed to be a great opportunity since those tunnels will be not used at PDN's times. Now the new tunnel set-up will not allow connecting to the East River tunnels for the forseable future because of the ancient old NYC water tunnel problems. This is just one more reason to connect the new tunnel to the present NYP.
PDN's proposal will work using the new 5 well container cars if there are no platform clearance problems. With them having a short wheelbase going through turnouts and puzzel switches since the present passenger cars have a longer wheel base. These well cars could be required to pass over a WILD impact detector eliminating any bad wheels to prevent premature rail wear and the 30 MPH limit is also good for the same reason. As pointed out in this thread; the wheel weight loads will be much less than a passenger car truck.
I drove a truck in NYC just enough to know drayage can kill you especially when paying a driver hourly rates just to get to your receiver. PDN's economics appear valid. Anything that improves delivery time is a +..
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)
passengerfanwhy 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
What is the advantage of running containers side by side ? Greater wind resistance? heavier axle load ? High speed trains have to be light to go fast, with low axle loads and streamlined. Single decker close coupled containers should work at high speeds. As for wide coaches, this may increase passenger comfort if they don't miss use the new found space by jamming more seats in, wich they probably would. Now I don't realy see why they couldn't build the line with wider loading gage to permit 12' wide passenger cars on 4'8" track. Railway cars wider then 10' on standard gage track does exist around the world.
Paul_D_North_Jr The next question is what to do about it. Go talk to a CN marketing guy ? The shippers ? One of the '3PL's = 3rd Party Logistics provider or contractor, or a sharp trucking/ intermodal outfit like Pacer, J.B. Hunt, Schneider, etc. ? I don't know, but for sure that doesn't mean that no one else does, either. - Paul North.
The next question is what to do about it. Go talk to a CN marketing guy ? The shippers ? One of the '3PL's = 3rd Party Logistics provider or contractor, or a sharp trucking/ intermodal outfit like Pacer, J.B. Hunt, Schneider, etc. ? I don't know, but for sure that doesn't mean that no one else does, either.
Paul,
If you contact me at rabbiteer@sbcglobal.net I'll send you what I pitched to CN Intermodal Marketing last year.
passengerfan [snip] . . . 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. . . . Al - in - Stockton
First, for 2 boxes side-by-side or a 16 ft. wide vehicle, you would not need a 16 ft. track gage. Presently, standard gage rail vehicles are around 10.0 to 10.5 ft. wide on a 4.71 ft. - call it 5.0 ft. between rail head centers, or about a 2-to-1 ratio of vehicle width-to-gage, and some of the narrow gages pushed that ratio to about 2.5, or even a little higher. Similarly, around 8 ft. would work - maybe down as close as a 6 or 6.5 ft. gage. So I. K. Brunel may have been onto something when he used the 7 ft. gage for his Great Western Railway in England way back when.
Second - That said, it still probably wouldn't work because at anything approaching the potential weight-carrying capacity of such a train and track system, 1 of 2 things would have to happen - either:
1. The load on that small contact area between the wheel and rail would be so high as to be destructive - or least fatally non-economic, in terms of rail wear/ damage, and probably to the wheels as well; or,
2. The trucks and suspensions would have to be redesigned to distribute those loads among many additional wheels, which would introduce a lot of complexity and result in higher construction costs and maintenance expenses, etc.
It's not generally or widely appreciated or understood that for the current North American 'loading gauge' of approx. 10 ft. wide x 16 ft. high for general freight cars and minerals [unit coal trains] - or x 20.5 ft. high for double-stack trains - that is at about* the maximum capacity of the standard steel wheel / steel rail system for typical car lengths, with conventional car designs. We can't go any higher or wider and hence heavier than this without risking incurring disproportionately larger increases in wear, damage, and maintenance expenses, etc.
* - There is respected opinion that we're already beyond that point - which is roughly represented by the 263,000 lb. gross weight car - with either the 286K or the 315K gross car weights. It's only their savings in capital costs and operating costs that enables them to justify or repay the added track maintenance expenses that they cause.
Nahh - no 'good' reason - just reasons, mostly bad or indifferent, to wit: Maybe just the usual corporate/ bureaucratic inerita and lack of vision or 'imagination' [funny how often that word has come up in various contexts during the last few years, isn't it ?].
Plus, compounded by insufficient time to think about it or resources to do something about it, due to work overload from the downsizing that seems to be a continuous process anymore. Economizing ourselves right out of business, it seems to me.
And/ or the 'circular' one of - ''We don't have any of that business now, so I/ we can't justify spending any time or money trying to get it.'' Huh ?
But to be less facetious - and I'll certainly defer to other experts here on such things: Probably because there is no 'champion' or 'Product Manager' such as I understand there is at Procter & Gamble to oversee and 'ride herd' on the development and growth and management of each product line in the business. No one 'owns' it and has primary responsibility for it, so to speak. That, to me, is the biggest reason.
greyhounds Paul_D_North_Jr greyhounds - OK, thanks for the example. I wasn't so much thinking of 'getting rid of' either one or any of them, but in the context of a marketing and costing approach - where some could clearly best go via 1 method, but others are pretty much indifferent and 'up for grabs' - asking the more general question of, "How do we sort out which of the 'tools' to use for each segment of the market ?" Sure, I know, 'lowest cost and most efficient' for each - but what if the economics get much better for 1 method by not using another one, at the present or projected levels and sources of traffic ? A couple of further and different thoughts: Rail lines that are mostly unoccupied and not used at maximum capacity with frequent trains are a potentially lost 'opportunity cost' - just the same as the single-level COFC train in my example above that doesn't use near all of the weight capacity of the cars or track structure, or space capacity of the clearance diagram. Most days I take my lunch and eat up by the double-track NS Reading Line in the hopes of seeing a train - and most days I could sit between the tracks and not be disturbed by anything on either track during that 30 or 45 minutes, or if something does comes by, it's usually just the local switcher. To be fair - and to illustrate the point - other days there are as many as 3 trains that go by, sometimes in the same direction on as close as 10-minute headways/ spacing. When I drive west during the day on essentially parallel I-78 from Allentown to Harrisburg, to relieve the boredom I count the tractor-trailers = potential loads going east in 10-minute increments - it's usually in the 120 to 130 range. Why aren't more of them on the rails ? Others here have said that the railroads have optimized their revenue/ profit yield with the present mix of intermodal and regular trains for the line capacity, differential pricing, and so on. But I don't believe it. We have yet to see a railroad seriously try - in a contemporary, post-2000 market - a 'SouthWest Airlines on rails' approach of proposing to run many intermodal trains and slots to fill a line to capacity - say, hourly, even;, low, competitive but compensatory rates; and marketing for traffic to fill those slots. Yes, terminal capacity is a constraint, and its a big gamble, and so on. But some methods have lower terminal costs, and all of the equipment can be used elsewhere if it doesn't work out. Besides, a lot of that equipment is sitting idle right now anyway . . . Just some food to provoke further thoughts. - Paul North. That's a good point. 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.
Paul_D_North_Jr greyhounds - OK, thanks for the example. I wasn't so much thinking of 'getting rid of' either one or any of them, but in the context of a marketing and costing approach - where some could clearly best go via 1 method, but others are pretty much indifferent and 'up for grabs' - asking the more general question of, "How do we sort out which of the 'tools' to use for each segment of the market ?" Sure, I know, 'lowest cost and most efficient' for each - but what if the economics get much better for 1 method by not using another one, at the present or projected levels and sources of traffic ? A couple of further and different thoughts: Rail lines that are mostly unoccupied and not used at maximum capacity with frequent trains are a potentially lost 'opportunity cost' - just the same as the single-level COFC train in my example above that doesn't use near all of the weight capacity of the cars or track structure, or space capacity of the clearance diagram. Most days I take my lunch and eat up by the double-track NS Reading Line in the hopes of seeing a train - and most days I could sit between the tracks and not be disturbed by anything on either track during that 30 or 45 minutes, or if something does comes by, it's usually just the local switcher. To be fair - and to illustrate the point - other days there are as many as 3 trains that go by, sometimes in the same direction on as close as 10-minute headways/ spacing. When I drive west during the day on essentially parallel I-78 from Allentown to Harrisburg, to relieve the boredom I count the tractor-trailers = potential loads going east in 10-minute increments - it's usually in the 120 to 130 range. Why aren't more of them on the rails ? Others here have said that the railroads have optimized their revenue/ profit yield with the present mix of intermodal and regular trains for the line capacity, differential pricing, and so on. But I don't believe it. We have yet to see a railroad seriously try - in a contemporary, post-2000 market - a 'SouthWest Airlines on rails' approach of proposing to run many intermodal trains and slots to fill a line to capacity - say, hourly, even;, low, competitive but compensatory rates; and marketing for traffic to fill those slots. Yes, terminal capacity is a constraint, and its a big gamble, and so on. But some methods have lower terminal costs, and all of the equipment can be used elsewhere if it doesn't work out. Besides, a lot of that equipment is sitting idle right now anyway . . . Just some food to provoke further thoughts. - Paul North.
greyhounds - OK, thanks for the example. I wasn't so much thinking of 'getting rid of' either one or any of them, but in the context of a marketing and costing approach - where some could clearly best go via 1 method, but others are pretty much indifferent and 'up for grabs' - asking the more general question of, "How do we sort out which of the 'tools' to use for each segment of the market ?" Sure, I know, 'lowest cost and most efficient' for each - but what if the economics get much better for 1 method by not using another one, at the present or projected levels and sources of traffic ?
A couple of further and different thoughts:
Rail lines that are mostly unoccupied and not used at maximum capacity with frequent trains are a potentially lost 'opportunity cost' - just the same as the single-level COFC train in my example above that doesn't use near all of the weight capacity of the cars or track structure, or space capacity of the clearance diagram.
Most days I take my lunch and eat up by the double-track NS Reading Line in the hopes of seeing a train - and most days I could sit between the tracks and not be disturbed by anything on either track during that 30 or 45 minutes, or if something does comes by, it's usually just the local switcher. To be fair - and to illustrate the point - other days there are as many as 3 trains that go by, sometimes in the same direction on as close as 10-minute headways/ spacing.
When I drive west during the day on essentially parallel I-78 from Allentown to Harrisburg, to relieve the boredom I count the tractor-trailers = potential loads going east in 10-minute increments - it's usually in the 120 to 130 range. Why aren't more of them on the rails ?
Others here have said that the railroads have optimized their revenue/ profit yield with the present mix of intermodal and regular trains for the line capacity, differential pricing, and so on. But I don't believe it. We have yet to see a railroad seriously try - in a contemporary, post-2000 market - a 'SouthWest Airlines on rails' approach of proposing to run many intermodal trains and slots to fill a line to capacity - say, hourly, even;, low, competitive but compensatory rates; and marketing for traffic to fill those slots. Yes, terminal capacity is a constraint, and its a big gamble, and so on. But some methods have lower terminal costs, and all of the equipment can be used elsewhere if it doesn't work out. Besides, a lot of that equipment is sitting idle right now anyway . . .
Just some food to provoke further thoughts.
That's a good point.
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?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.