BT CPSO 266 edbenton You are all speaking like the TYPICAL car commuter. Get these BIG NASTY TRUCKS OUT OF MY WAY. Here is a little WAKE UP CALL FOR ALL OF YOU. The Avarage OTR driver is a person that makes 50K a year is MARRIED and has 2 kids at home. While on the road they deal with More traffic in a week than you would see in a YEAR deal with more customers face to face than anyone that works in an office. They also have to deal with not enough PARKING spaces in the Northeast Cities that were built for Horse and BUGGIES. Politicans that would rather use the trucking industry as a Mobile ATM than stop raiding the Highway Trust fund. Oh yeah and they are the ENGINE that keeps this country RUNNING with out them this ENTIRE NATION WOULD STOP IN LESS THAN A WEEK. NYC would be out of FOOD IN LESS THAN A WEEK ALOT OF THE MAJOR CITIES ARE IN THE SAME BOAT. FACTORIES WOULD SHUT DOWN WITHOUT THE JIT DIELIVERY SCHEDULES THAT TRUCKERS MEET WITH IN ONE DAY. NO GAS IN THE SERVICE STATIONS WHY NO PIPELINE RUNS TO THE CORNER STORE. Yet all I am hearing FROM THE IDIOTS HERE IS GET RID OF THEM AND GO BACK TO THE RAILROADS. I AM A MEMBER OF ALOT OF TRUCKING BOARDS AND THE IDUSTRY AS A WHOLE IS GETTING SICK AND TIRED OF BEING PUSHED AROUND BY EVERYONE. YES YOU MAY NOT GET 2 DRIVERS TO AGREE WHO IS THE BEST TO DRIVE FOR HOWEVER IF THEIR COMPANIES TOLD THEM TO SIT WHILE WE TEACH THIS NATION A LEASON THEY WOULD. The only thing that we would not shut down would be anything healthcare like meds. Beyond that anything is fair game. I am simply looking towards a revived transportation system. We know that truckers have families to support, but with more short-haul they would be closer towards their homes. Although, changes would have to be made in he terms how they are payed a decent wage. We all know how important trucks are to the nation. This nation would stop in less than a week without railroads too. We are trying to change how that freight is moved over long distances and what needs to improve on the rail and trucking ends. Issues need to be addressed on both ends. For rail it's more improved and faster infrastructure for JIT freight, and trucking needs to adjust how truckers are payed and treated to make short-hauls a better investment. We are more looking towards Transportation Reform for America. It's an issue that needs to be dealt with.
edbenton You are all speaking like the TYPICAL car commuter. Get these BIG NASTY TRUCKS OUT OF MY WAY. Here is a little WAKE UP CALL FOR ALL OF YOU. The Avarage OTR driver is a person that makes 50K a year is MARRIED and has 2 kids at home. While on the road they deal with More traffic in a week than you would see in a YEAR deal with more customers face to face than anyone that works in an office. They also have to deal with not enough PARKING spaces in the Northeast Cities that were built for Horse and BUGGIES. Politicans that would rather use the trucking industry as a Mobile ATM than stop raiding the Highway Trust fund. Oh yeah and they are the ENGINE that keeps this country RUNNING with out them this ENTIRE NATION WOULD STOP IN LESS THAN A WEEK. NYC would be out of FOOD IN LESS THAN A WEEK ALOT OF THE MAJOR CITIES ARE IN THE SAME BOAT. FACTORIES WOULD SHUT DOWN WITHOUT THE JIT DIELIVERY SCHEDULES THAT TRUCKERS MEET WITH IN ONE DAY. NO GAS IN THE SERVICE STATIONS WHY NO PIPELINE RUNS TO THE CORNER STORE. Yet all I am hearing FROM THE IDIOTS HERE IS GET RID OF THEM AND GO BACK TO THE RAILROADS. I AM A MEMBER OF ALOT OF TRUCKING BOARDS AND THE IDUSTRY AS A WHOLE IS GETTING SICK AND TIRED OF BEING PUSHED AROUND BY EVERYONE. YES YOU MAY NOT GET 2 DRIVERS TO AGREE WHO IS THE BEST TO DRIVE FOR HOWEVER IF THEIR COMPANIES TOLD THEM TO SIT WHILE WE TEACH THIS NATION A LEASON THEY WOULD. The only thing that we would not shut down would be anything healthcare like meds. Beyond that anything is fair game.
You are all speaking like the TYPICAL car commuter. Get these BIG NASTY TRUCKS OUT OF MY WAY. Here is a little WAKE UP CALL FOR ALL OF YOU. The Avarage OTR driver is a person that makes 50K a year is MARRIED and has 2 kids at home. While on the road they deal with More traffic in a week than you would see in a YEAR deal with more customers face to face than anyone that works in an office. They also have to deal with not enough PARKING spaces in the Northeast Cities that were built for Horse and BUGGIES. Politicans that would rather use the trucking industry as a Mobile ATM than stop raiding the Highway Trust fund.
Oh yeah and they are the ENGINE that keeps this country RUNNING with out them this ENTIRE NATION WOULD STOP IN LESS THAN A WEEK. NYC would be out of FOOD IN LESS THAN A WEEK ALOT OF THE MAJOR CITIES ARE IN THE SAME BOAT. FACTORIES WOULD SHUT DOWN WITHOUT THE JIT DIELIVERY SCHEDULES THAT TRUCKERS MEET WITH IN ONE DAY. NO GAS IN THE SERVICE STATIONS WHY NO PIPELINE RUNS TO THE CORNER STORE. Yet all I am hearing FROM THE IDIOTS HERE IS GET RID OF THEM AND GO BACK TO THE RAILROADS. I AM A MEMBER OF ALOT OF TRUCKING BOARDS AND THE IDUSTRY AS A WHOLE IS GETTING SICK AND TIRED OF BEING PUSHED AROUND BY EVERYONE. YES YOU MAY NOT GET 2 DRIVERS TO AGREE WHO IS THE BEST TO DRIVE FOR HOWEVER IF THEIR COMPANIES TOLD THEM TO SIT WHILE WE TEACH THIS NATION A LEASON THEY WOULD.
The only thing that we would not shut down would be anything healthcare like meds. Beyond that anything is fair game.
I am simply looking towards a revived transportation system. We know that truckers have families to support, but with more short-haul they would be closer towards their homes. Although, changes would have to be made in he terms how they are payed a decent wage.
We all know how important trucks are to the nation. This nation would stop in less than a week without railroads too. We are trying to change how that freight is moved over long distances and what needs to improve on the rail and trucking ends. Issues need to be addressed on both ends. For rail it's more improved and faster infrastructure for JIT freight, and trucking needs to adjust how truckers are payed and treated to make short-hauls a better investment.
We are more looking towards Transportation Reform for America. It's an issue that needs to be dealt with.
How do you propose that trucking adjusts how truckers are paid? Please explain the details of this proposal.
From a shipper's perspective (which is really the only one that counts), transportation is a necessary evil...regardless of length of haul. Quite often transportation can be eliminated or reduced substantially by looking at the shipper's operations in their entirety. For example, I had a shipper approach me several years ago...they were in dire straights and we're asking me to reduce their transportation spend significantly. I did some research into their operation and discovered that most of their own customers were far flung ...75% of their customer base was 800 miles or more away in another country (!!!), and their suppliers were likewise all over the map. Instead of looking JUST at their transportation I began with a look at their sales process...I suggested that they focus their sales on acquiring LOCAL business in order to bring their transportation needs and costs down. They did that, and today most of their accounts are within 70 miles of their plant...revenues are way up too. Of course, the above solution wouldn't work for everyone...and that's what makes supply chain management so important.. every shipper is different and solutions often need to be tailored to each shipper's specific needs.
Ulrich...75% of their customer base was 800 miles or more away in another country (!!!), and their suppliers were likewise all over the map. Instead of looking JUST at their transportation I began with a look at their sales process...I suggested that they focus their sales on acquiring LOCAL business in order to bring their transportation needs and costs down. They did that, and today most of their accounts are within 70 miles of their plant...revenues are way up too. Of course, the above solution wouldn't work for everyone...and that's what makes supply chain management so important.. every shipper is different and solutions often need to be tailored to each shipper's specific needs.
I think that is going to have to happen at some point in the process. Mfg may have to look at local markets if there is going to be any sustainability factor in here. Supply chain management is a relatively new thing for a lot of industries. I know that in the electronics field, what with ROHS and other green programs, that it did have a lot of companies looking a lot closer at just how their own suppliers are involved in that very process themselves. This is going to be an on-going thing.
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
BucyrusI am simply looking towards a revived transportation system. We know that truckers have families to support, but with more short-haul they would be closer towards their homes. Although, changes would have to be made in he terms how they are payed a decent wage. We all know how important trucks are to the nation. This nation would stop in less than a week without railroads too. We are trying to change how that freight is moved over long distances and what needs to improve on the rail and trucking ends. Issues need to be addressed on both ends. For rail it's more improved and faster infrastructure for JIT freight, and trucking needs to adjust how truckers are payed and treated to make short-hauls a better investment. We are more looking towards Transportation Reform for America. It's an issue that needs to be dealt with.
It would have to be drastic form of legislation that would have to make as much an impact as the Staggers Act did on the rail industry.
BT CPSO 266Although we can't make the shipper chose one mode over the other. Congress may not have any choice then to either take steps to move more of the nation's freight to rail.
BT CPSO 266It is all the what is best for our nation's economic survival and sustainability.
Your sentence conflicts with itself. If Congress takes steps to move more of the nation’s freight by rail, we will have indeed forced the shipper chose one mode over the other.
In other posts, I have alluded to the constant use of the term “we” by many of the pro-rail advocates. It is a curious euphemism that makes it sound like all of us forum members are in the transportation business, using both truck and rail.
But what “we” can only mean is “we the people” forcing our will through the legal force of congress. If that is the way we run transportation, then it is no longer private sector capitalism. Government owns the roads and they run the roads. If they pour public money into rail, will they eventually own rail and run it? Would that not be an excellent concept?
What could be more efficient than having a central managing authority running a well-oiled transportation machine according to a national transportation policy guiding our collective survival and sustainability?
What I mean to say is that although congress can't force the shipper to chose one mode over the other; they can certainly take steps to make rail a more viable option for the shipper. I am not saying all the freight is going to be converted to rail but there are many shippers that are close to using rail as an option if there were a few changes made. Mainly on faster service.
I am not for a Nationalize rail network in America. I don't think we will see the day that the taxpayers pay for the rail infrastructure and the rail companies operate over them. I just think after decades of neglect it is time for some compensation to meet the predicted traffic demands for the future. Rails function more as a privatized utility if you think about it. To keep rail shipping prices down; third party investment seems to be the only option.
If route capacity upgrades are made then the railroads won't need to be concerned so much if a service is going to be profitable or not; they would have the shippers coming to them for cheap transportation.
"always keep the track good."
John Kenefick, former President of the Union Pacific Railroad.
Quote From: Richard Saunders, Jr's Mainlines: Rebirth of North American Railroads
Bucyrus What could be more efficient than having a central managing authority running a well-oiled transportation machine according to a national transportation policy guiding our collective survival and sustainability?
Free market capitalism.
This is a link to an article in a conservative journal proposing a national rail policy. Reader responses largely rejected the argument by a former Amtrak President.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Marten carries not alot of TIME Critical stuff they carry stuff like Frozen Foods things with a shelf life of MONTHS so a couple days will not matter to them in transit time. Same with CR England. However the carriers that haul the Produce and Fresh foods can not switch over even a day is a huge delay on alot of produce and also on meats. Some fresh meat has a shelf life of 2 weeks MAX from the time the animal is KILLED AND PROCESSED. Some Produce especially Baby or fragile crap has 6 days before it starts to go bad. Now you want to lose 4 days of that going across the nation on a train NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. The Ackale carrier group Heartland and Other Larger carriers are NOT GOING INTERMODAL why their driver turnover jumped 50% higher and these are companies that respect the more experianced driver. Also Flatbed will never go Intermodal for one reason drivers in that field of OTR hate to even drop thier trailer ler alone have to change a trailer with all the straps chains binders and tarps they have to carry around.
The carrierrs you see going Intermodal are known in the industry as BOTTOM FEEDERS. They are the reason that drivers hate them so much.
schlimmThis is a link to an article in a conservative journal proposing a national rail policy. Reader responses largely rejected the argument by a former Amtrak President.
I disagree with everything that Alex Kummant says in that piece, and I agree with many of the comments, although I did not read them all. Most of the comments I did read were top notch in my view. I especially liked #13 by Curly Smith.
I just don’t buy this tired old argument that we are losing our national competitiveness because of our decaying transportation infrastructure. We’re losing it all right, but not from a lack of transportation.
BT CPSO 266 What I mean to say is that although congress can't force the shipper to chose one mode over the other; they can certainly take steps to make rail a more viable option for the shipper. I am not saying all the freight is going to be converted to rail but there are many shippers that are close to using rail as an option if there were a few changes made. Mainly on faster service. I am not for a Nationalize rail network in America. I don't think we will see the day that the taxpayers pay for the rail infrastructure and the rail companies operate over them. I just think after decades of neglect it is time for some compensation to meet the predicted traffic demands for the future. Rails function more as a privatized utility if you think about it. To keep rail shipping prices down; third party investment seems to be the only option. If route capacity upgrades are made then the railroads won't need to be concerned so much if a service is going to be profitable or not; they would have the shippers coming to them for cheap transportation. "always keep the track good." John Kenefick, former President of the Union Pacific Railroad. Quote From: Richard Saunders, Jr's Mainlines: Rebirth of North American Railroads
"Rails function more as a privatized utility if you think about it". Well, I've certainly throught about it, and your're wrong.
Rails are not a utility. For decades the government tried to treat 'em like a utility and the result was a predictable disaster. You've said there have been decades of "neglect". I wish you were right about that. But you're wrong again. The government had its nose in everything and its grubby little dead hands on everything. Neglect would have been far better.
A good portion of the freight now on the highway is there because the government put it there with asinine regulations that prevented the railroads from competing with trucks. I've mentiioned this one before; the government regulatory decision in "In the Matter of Container Service" strangled the development of a domestic intermodal container network for 50 years. The government price regulation of rail transportation of fresh fruits and vegeatbles put trucks on the road for 3,000 mile hauls. And your solution to government screw ups is more government involvement?
In the US we have the safest, most efficient, cost effective rail freight system in the world. (So says the Federal Railroad Administration.) The rail infrastructure is in good shape. There are places that need some work, but overall it's in good shape. And you want to "reform" that? Why?
And please stick to the truth. You started by saying it takes five days to move an intermodal shipment from Charlotte to New York. Wrong again. The NS schedule is 39 hours. Now a truck can do it faster, but so what? If the shipper needs absolute speed, he's going to use a truck. It doesn't matter how fast the train goes.
A trucker can offer custom service to every truckload. He assigns a driver and that driver is dedicated to producing just exactly what the shipper wants. A railroad can not do that. It has to aggregate various shipments into production lots called "Trains". That aggregation takes time and while that time is passing the trucker is movin' on down the road.
The railroad has to deliver in a reasonable time (39 hours, for example), and it has to deliver reliably, but it sells efficiency and lower cost, not pure speed. It generally can't win a "race" with a trucker. Not because the trains are slow as you falsely claim, but because of the need to aggregate into trainload lots. A need that isn't present in trucking.
Which brings us to another thing you're wrong about. You say the railroads don't run "enough" high performance intermodal trains. Well, just what is "enough"? I'll guarantee you that if such a train can be economically justified, the railroad will run it. They're in business to make money and they don't make money by letting the freight go down the highway.
In your Charlotte-New York example the NS would have to be convinced that the extra cost of running such a train would be covered by the extra revenue. Since you seem to know more about this than the NS marketing people know, why don't you share with us just how much additional freight, additional freight revenue, and additional cost, the NS would experience at various levels of improved terminal to terminal transit times. They've evidently concluded it's not worth it, but you claim to know better so please share your insights with us.
Transportation in the US is one of the "Bright Spots", at least as far as the private sector components go. Look at what just happened. All over the country people sat down to holiday meals that included fresh vegetables, fresh fruit, fresh meat and poultry, seafood... name it. This food was delivered in good and safe condition at a low cost. And it moved great distances. Most of the country isn't harvesting fresh vegetables right now.
Packages and presents were delivered on time and in good shape all over the US. I personally sent presents to Florida and California. They arrived on time and in good shape.
The transportation system worked well, just as it always does. And you want to "reform" that? Why?
The only real problem in the US transportation system is in the segments that are under the control of the government. They're not really doing a great job with bridges and highways. And you want to involve them with the railroad infrastructure, which is in good shape? Why?
There will be adjustments necessary in the future. They will be made. I support letting the railroads keep more of the money they earn through an investment tax credit for railroad capacity expansion. Beyond that the dang government should just at least try to fix what it's already responsible for and leave the railroads alone.
BT CPSO 266 I am mainly stating that fact of what change is need on the trucking end of a rail-truck partnership. How to go about doing it, one would need a better understanding of what the trucking industry desires the most to make them change there views on a focus away from long-haul to short-haul. To make a decent amount of money from short-haul moves. Whether it is unionization, government intervention, or a reformation of the trucking industry model. Anything would have to be a drastic chance in regulation. One needs a committee in Washington to sit down and discuss what needs to be done because what I suggest is drastic transportation reform. That involves a balance of modes between rail, trucking, and ocean shipping industries. It would have to be drastic form of legislation that would have to make as much an impact as the Staggers Act did on the rail industry.
I am mainly stating that fact of what change is need on the trucking end of a rail-truck partnership. How to go about doing it, one would need a better understanding of what the trucking industry desires the most to make them change there views on a focus away from long-haul to short-haul. To make a decent amount of money from short-haul moves. Whether it is unionization, government intervention, or a reformation of the trucking industry model. Anything would have to be a drastic chance in regulation. One needs a committee in Washington to sit down and discuss what needs to be done because what I suggest is drastic transportation reform. That involves a balance of modes between rail, trucking, and ocean shipping industries.
Well, I think you worded that quite correctly. "Anything would have to be a drastic chance in regulation."
The idea that "The Wise Men and Women of Washington" can sit down and produce a piece of paper that will make it all better is a non starter. The transportation system is dynamic and changing. Regulation, as has been proven, prevents needed changes. You can't assure truckers that they will "make a decent amount of money" without preventing competition. And if you do that you'll drive cost up and hurt the economy.
What you're proposing is exactly what was in place from 1935 to 1980 or so. It was terrible. US logistics costs dropped dramatically after deregulation. Now you want to drive them back up by reregulating the trucking industry. This would make the US economy even less competitive than it is now.
Just leave it alone and the market will work things out on an ever changing basis far better than any regulator could ever dream of doing. The US freight transportation system is working well. Let it continue to do so.
I am simply stating that that there should be involvement more on the trucking front then the rail front. The only thing I believe the government should be helping the railroads with is money for infrastructure improvements to increase the train speeds. Whether one wants to admit it or not; there are a great many intermodal trains that take multiple days to make their journeys which is a turn off to shippers (as mentioned by another person in this thread about shipping food.) If a shipper logs on to a railroad's website and sees the multi-day schedules; you'll have a hard time convincing them to move to rail service.
I mentioned an example in another thread that NS provides service from Pittsburgh to Chicago in a day; while a Pittsburgh to New Jersey train takes three days. There is a lot of truck traffic that follows along the PA turnpike and Interstate 80. That NS could look into and have less than day or overnight trains running between the regions.
I am not an expert on NS marketing, but you can see why NS probably can't improve this service. The significant capital investment they would have to put up to increase capacity on the mostly double tracked route. The busy route isn't good route for passing up other trains, you either hold up one train coming the opposite direction or you have to follow behind a slower train.
If there was money given to NS to improve the route the faster service looks more viable and opens up the window for more trains to use the route with different origins and destinations. If the railroads could offer more service that wasn't scheduled for a multi-day travel they wouldn't have to worry as much about getting customers, but capacity improvements and speed improvements need to be made.
It is like the $8 Billion give to high speed passenger rail, it is probability going to go towards improving exiting systems to show as a model to how well this service works and can be used elsewhere.
One has to admit that the quality of the rail infrastructure as been neglected over the decades. Government intervention may have prevented this at a time when the railroads were just trying to keep above water and functioning. They weren't focusing on the expanding the rails as much as just keeping the existing ones together. Now there is some relative peace and sustainability in the industry that they can now focus on improvements.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.