Railroads Taking On Trucks

[zugmann]

CNW 6000

Paul_D_North_Jr

Would this be an opportunity for refrigerated RoadRailer service ?  Load off-the-rail/ on-the-tires at the produce picker's/ processor's warehouse, dray to either an existing intermodal terminal or a new 'team track' operation to assemble into a daily inter-line train to the Midwestern (Chicago) and NorthEastern US points, where it is broken up for final delivery by highway ?

- Paul North.

Interesting point Paul.  Would the equipment (trailers) work with extant rail equipment?  What about the cooling units?  Who would check those en route while on rails?  I like that idea though, but I'd bet someone somewhere looked at it.  There must be a "yeah, but..." somewhere with that.

 

Triple Crown also has a fleet of reefers.  Satellite-tracked, plus the temperatures are checked and recorded by Triple Crown guys every time you make set offs/pick ups at their terminals.

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

Good questions.  Yes - sure seems like it.  Amtrak tagged RR's onto the back of some of its trains for a few years in the mid-1990's.  That can be done in theory with mainline freights, too, but isn't seen in actual practice - they all seem to be dedicated operations. 

In 1999 BNSF started running its ICE = Ice Cold Express using 'ReeferRailers' - see - http://www.qstation.org/ice/reefer_railer.jpg .  See also "Weekly Trains Run Both Ways - Ice Cold Express Puts Reefers on Steel Wheels" at - http://refrigeratedtrans.com/mag/transportation_weekly_trains_run/  - part of the article says -

"Garrity says that Carrier Transicold units were chosen for the fleet, because Carrier seemed to be farther along with its remote tracking and system control at the time the order was placed.

Ice Cold Express keeps track of trailer location and load condition through a tracking and communication system provided by Arinc in Colorado Springs. The Arinc system uses a flat antenna that glues to the trailer roof. Communication equipment hooks directly to the refrigeration unit's microprocessor controls.

The tracking and control system will be implemented in stages. At present, it is a relatively passive system that transmits trailer position and refrigeration condition once a day. "Essentially, the trailer wakes up every morning at 6 am and calls home, sort of 'Hi, I'm here,'" Garrity says. "We can interrogate the unit at any time during the day if we need more information than contained in the daily status report. In addition to location, we get discharge air temperature, box temperature, unit fuel level, and notice of operating mode-continuous run or start/stop. We can command the unit to turn on or off, change temperature, or change operating mode. We haven't implemented it yet, but farther down the line, customers will have access to this same data across the Internet. They will be able to check location and load status, but will not be able to issue commands to the unit." "

See also - http://www.qstation.org/ice/i_c_e.html  

See also -

BNSF Partners with CSXI to Create Seamless Coast-to-Coast Ice Cold Express Service

at - http://www.bnsf.com/media/news/articles/2001/06/2001-06-20a.html 

and

"Refrigerated Intermodal Services
Exel offers transcontinental service on temperature-protected commodities with transit times that are competitive with over the road trucking. If you are looking for dependable refrigerated capacity at a fair price, we can help you." at - http://www.exel.com/exel/ets_core_service.jsp?ID=6 

"Temperature-Controlled Intermodal - BNSF Temperature-Controlled Intermodal Carrier partners own and operate trailers for nationwide transportation of truckload temperature-controlled shipments. By working with BNSF's Temperature-Controlled Carrier Marketing Team and using our Intermodal line-haul service, partner carriers move their equipment across BNSF's network to supplement over-the-road line-haul operations."

at - http://www.bnsf.com/markets/intermodal/perishables.html 

- Paul North.

[Anonymous]

Paul_D_North_Jr

So - Yes, we'll need the dollars for the 'carrot approach'.  But I think the improvements ought to be identified, planned, designed, and funded by the users, such as the railroads and their shippers = the market, not by a government agency that's attempting to predict how this particular market is going to evolve and reshape itself, in all of its variations and nuances in the many different locations all across this vast nation - it's not a 'one size fits all' solution.

 

Well if this is something that should happen, and if we expect to make it happen by private investment, why not just let the marketplace bring it about.  If it should happen, it will happen. 

 

However, what I keep reading about are big plans to force it to happen.  Why do that?  

[CNW 6000]

Paul_D_North_Jr

Would this be an opportunity for refrigerated RoadRailer service ?  Load off-the-rail/ on-the-tires at the produce picker's/ processor's warehouse, dray to either an existing intermodal terminal or a new 'team track' operation to assemble into a daily inter-line train to the Midwestern (Chicago) and NorthEastern US points, where it is broken up for final delivery by highway ?

- Paul North.

Interesting point Paul.  Would the equipment (trailers) work with extant rail equipment?  What about the cooling units?  Who would check those en route while on rails?  I like that idea though, but I'd bet someone somewhere looked at it.  There must be a "yeah, but..." somewhere with that.

[Murphy Siding]

     Wouldn't the California example noted above have the self-leveling effect of making produce from other areas and even other countries more cost competitive?

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

edbenton

  [snip] Basically forcing companies to retire perfectly GOOD equipment and replace it with crap just to run their state.  However 90% of the companies are small less than 30 trucks and can not afford to replace everything on the schedule CARB wants.  So the large Companies will get all the Frieght.  Trouble is the big boys do not have enough drivers trailers and such.  [snip]

Longtime Trains columnist John G. Kneiling also liked to point out that in his admittedly cynical view, such environmental and other regulations usually also resulted in 'turfing out' the little guys.  Ed Benton above seems to be providing yet another real-life example of that effect at work in California.

Would this be an opportunity for refrigerated RoadRailer service ?  Load off-the-rail/ on-the-tires at the produce picker's/ processor's warehouse, dray to either an existing intermodal terminal or a new 'team track' operation to assemble into a daily inter-line train to the Midwestern (Chicago) and NorthEastern US points, where it is broken up for final delivery by highway ?

- Paul North.

[edbenton]

What do you think CARB in Commiefornia is trying now.  Basically forcing companies to retire perfectly GOOD equipment and replace it with crap just to run their state.  However 90% of the companies are small less than 30 trucks and can not afford to replace everything on the schedule CARB wants.  So the large Companies will get all the Frieght.  Trouble is the big boys do not have enough drivers trailers and such.  What are they goiing to do shove it all on the RR considering that CARB also wants bigger cuts in Emmissions from the RR's than the EPA does.  CARB is going to take the 8th largest ECONOMY and destroy it because they can.  The RR's can not haul the Produce out of the Central Valley they ripped out all the loading tracks.  So how are the RR's supposed to help haul the crap out.  Transloading anytime you reload produce you risk BRUISING THE HELL OUT OF IT.

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

Bucyrus

  [snip] With the stick approach, we just add taxes or fees to long haul trucking to make rail the most favorable choice, even if it is slower.  [snip]

John G. Kneiling used to write in the late 1960's and 1970's about how that was the approach taken in Great Britain and the rest of Europe.  He especially liked to point out that the result was just more expensive trucking - that the railroads were still not competitive in the minds of the shippers - unless the railroad intermodal service was improved = faster.

So - Yes, we'll need the dollars for the 'carrot approach'.  But I think the improvements ought to be identified, planned, designed, and funded by the users, such as the railroads and their shippers = the market, not by a government agency that's attempting to predict how this particular market is going to evolve and reshape itself, in all of its variations and nuances in the many different locations all across this vast nation - it's not a 'one size fits all' solution.  That's not to say that there's no role for government agencies, such as 'authority' financing, owning and 'operating' - perhaps via private contractor management - a giant public team track/ intermodal terminal in certain locations, keeping a level playing field, and enforcing the rules and user fee collections or taxes, etc.  But I believe that the community of those users is better at identifying the best and most cost-effective 'fixes' that they actually need to fulfill a demand or solve a problem that is impeding them, and then 'self-financing' it through user fees or a tax, etc.  That helps to assure that it's the actual users - the ones who receive the benefits - are the same ones who mostly pay for it, instead of the public at large, some of which may have no use for the improvement.  That also helps to keep the costs in line with the anticipated benefits, which avoids 'gold-plated' solutions.  Best of all, it does the most to assure that the funding stream will actually be there to pay for the improvement - no need to go begging for a government grant or hoping for a legislative appropriation, etc. - and thus by being a 'stand-alone project, is by definition self-supporting and long-term 'sustainable'. 

- Paul North.

[bobwilcox]

 Just let the price of motor fuel continue its long term path up to $4.00, $5.00 and $5.00+ per gallon.  My only wish is that the Commonwealth of Virginia would shift their tax rate from cents/gallon to % of selling price.

[daveklepper]

Not just a matter of fuel economy.   Also: highway capacity, air quality, highway maintenance expense.

[BT CPSO 266]

It's coming to the point were there not going to be a matter of choice. It's not just fuel efficiency that is a huge plus to trains; other factors like taking through traffic trucking off the interstates, and the cheaper rates and maintenance of the rail infrastructure.

I have mentioned this fact in another thread; the key rail routes need more tracks for intermodal trains to pass the slower manifest, coal, grain trains, etc. Treating the major railroad routes more like fast interstate highways would make the trains even faster than trucks and improving intermodal Terminal loading/unloading times. 

After decades of neglect; upgrades are severely needed. If the restructuring of the "Steel Interstate" system should be treated as the construction of the highway interstates. With great investment would rely turn out for the better. 

Short-haul trucking needs to adapted to the changing times. It needs too if the nation's economy is going to thrive and function while meeting quick delivery demands.

[Anonymous]

blownout cylinder

The thing I'm kinda curious about is how one is going to fund the dang needed infrastructure when the $$$$ flow is not quite up to snuff

 

It depends on whether we use the carrot or stick approach to get truck traffic onto rails.  With the carrot, we rebuild railroads, develop new, faster trains, and reinvent the terminals, so the whole system will be more attractive to shippers than long haul trucking.

 

With the stick approach, we just add taxes or fees to long haul trucking to make rail the most favorable choice, even if it is slower.

 

So we only need the dollars for the carrot approach, not with the stick.  With the stick, transportation just slows down to save fuel for the nation.

[blownout cylinder]

mmmm--interesting blog piece there--and you are right about his general crabbiness

The thing I'm kinda curious about is how one is going to fund the dang needed infrastructure when the $$$$ flow is not quite up to snuff

The one thing I'm curious about is also just which areas are going to be 'targetted' for the infrastructure projects? It appears that most of this will be in major urban areas---which will make the rural areas that much more the sole province of the trucking industry ---or what?

[Anonymous]

Referring back to the blog piece linked to the locked thread entitled, “What Changes Must Be Made In The Trucking Industry?”, I have some ideas that pertain to the relationship between railroading and trucking.  I brought this up in the locked thread, but the thread was locked before these ideas could be explored.  I know that many in the trucking industry are passionate about being squeezed by costs and regulations.  If they are passionate about what is happening now, I cannot imagine how they are going to feel as this new pro-rail, anti-truck transportation agenda moves forward as public policy as the FRA alludes to in their new mission statement.

 

In reading the abovementioned blog piece, I must say the first writer has sure put some creative juice into crafting his message to hit all the buttons.  But his vengeance is understandable considering that he is pushing back against this emerging societal message that rail is the Primadonna of “green” transportation, and that trucking should take a back seat and just move freight from the shipper to the nearest railhead, and vice versa. 

 

From sources including the FRA, the Trains article, WIRED UP, and think tanks cited within that article, I keep hearing the message that “we” need to get trucks off the highways and shift their freight to rail so “we” can save fuel.  The objective of getting as much as 80% of trucks off the roads has been often cited.  Nobody seems to be asking why shippers are using trucks instead of rail.  And nobody seems to be concerned about how the truckers are going to survive if 80% of their trucks are removed from the roads. 

 

Railroads and trucking are cooperative partners in the supply chain, but they also compete in certain areas of that chain.  There are places where rail can offer the lowest rate, but trucks can provide higher speed.  Some businesses choose the higher speed over the lower rate simply due to the economics of their business.  Yet the higher speed trucking might use more fuel than the lower rate rail alternative.  Should “we” as a society, who have a collective interest in conserving fuel, step in through congress, and have them force shippers to use the shipping option that uses the least amount of fuel, no matter how fast or slow it is?

 

Or—maybe “we” don’t have to force the shippers to switch from trucking to rail.  Maybe instead, “we” can revise railroad infrastructure to improve service so much that most of the shippers who presently opt for truck will opt for rail instead.  But whether shippers are forced to switch from truck to rail, or whether they are incentivized to do so by rail improvement, trucking loses a lot of business in the deal.

 

It is still an open question of what will need to happen to trucking in the rail terminal-to-shipper delivery / pickup business.  I believe that this component of the transportation would need to be as revolutionized as the rail component, and terminal component.  All three components will have to be dramatically speeded up in order to get the service to exceed the all truck long hauls that are preferred over rail alternatives today.  In the new system, somehow the incoming loads have got to be gotten off of the train instantaneously, and over to the customer’s dock just as fast as the wheels can turn.  Perhaps a whole new form of light rail infrastructure will replace trucking for the customer-to-railhead trip.