BNSFwatcher No reflection "BT CPSO 266", but I think this thread has become a case for mandatory "Spel-Chek" (sp?) enabling. Also, all posters should be required to own an English dictionary. Some should be required to enroll in "Remedial English". It is getting scary! Notice, Norris: no names mentioned! Hays
No reflection "BT CPSO 266", but I think this thread has become a case for mandatory "Spel-Chek" (sp?) enabling. Also, all posters should be required to own an English dictionary. Some should be required to enroll in "Remedial English". It is getting scary! Notice, Norris: no names mentioned!
Hays
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
henry6Bucyrus and I see eye to eye on how to think through this possible tool....
I'm not sure about this exact tool, but the concept should be explored by those who not only have technical expertise, but also outside-the-the box, visionary thinking in marketing and distribution.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
OMG, to pick up a phrase, even Bucyrus and I see eye to eye on how to think through this possible tool....
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.
I understand the observation that this is a concept in search of a market. In watching the video, it does not seem to really define the market. Instead, it focuses on the concept itself with its high fuel economy, single operator, sophisticated couplers, advanced braking, etc.
I don’t see a market for this new technology to be blended into conventional freight rail operations. Not only would it pose many operational complications, but also I simply cannot see the advantage over heavy rail operating in the same area.
We have had some previous threads discussing electrification of U.S. railroads as a component of a larger concept of a U.S. National Transportation System outlined by the FRA in their recent mission statement. For freight transportation, the FRA proposal calls for diverting most of long haul trucking to rail, and electrifying rail.
The most unresolved part of the proposal is the question of how freight will be handled between the rail terminal and the customer’s dock. Trucking gives the needed flexibility in the terminal-to-dock haulage. However, shifting most of long haul trucking onto rail will require rail to be as fast as trucking dock-to-dock. This need for speed will not be met simply by shifting truck freight onto trains. It will also require the terminal-to-dock handling to be speeded up. How will this be accomplished?
Can this be accomplished by speeding up the trucking that currently serves this pickup and delivery function, or can this function be speeded up more effectively with rail? Considering that the FRA objective in getting truck freight off the highways and onto rail is fuel economy, that same objective would apply to the pickup and delivery function now being served by truck. So improved fuel economy would be one argument of serving this pickup and delivery need by rail.
If rail is the solution, I do not think it will be simply an extension of conventional heavy rail operations right to every dock. Instead, the rail terminal-to-dock segment will be a radically different form of rail operation, compared to conventional freight rail. It might be something along the lines of the Sprinter concept in the video, but I don’t think that that concept is anywhere close to being the ultimate tool for the pickup and delivery component of the haul.
In any case, because the pickup and delivery rail system would not be integrated with conventional rail operations, the pickup and delivery system would be free to make many design departures from conventional rail practice, including the use of remote control, and even a different gage if necessary.
Not only would this new pickup and delivery rail system be a completely new and unique mechanical plant, it would also likely spawn related changes to how containers are handled at the rail terminal. I don’t have the details worked out, but I see this whole rail pickup and delivery system as a kind of automated Futurama vision. It would be way outside the box so to speak.
So that is the market that I see, if there is any market at all. I do not think that the Sprinter exactly is the right concept to serve that market. It might serve some specific need in that market. But, if anything, the Sprinter concept represents to me just the spirit of thinking that will have to be applied to this all-new rail pickup and delivery service. In that sense, there may be a relationship with the Sprinter.
Some may think that such new pickup and delivery by rail is too radical to happen, but we are living in a time of big changes. Electrifying the railroads, building a new energy grid, shoehorning new HSR and LRT into freight corridors, and getting most of long haul trucking off the highways and onto rail—these are all big changes.
~And, because this new rail pickup and delivery system will be such a radical departure from conventional freight rail, and because it replaces trucking, one might wonder who will end up running it.
schlimmPerhaps you would recognize the concept "loss leader?" I believe that is what the ICC came down on the rails for. Abandoned means they left the business.
I also believe that the ICC did take a near "paranoid" reaction to the phenomena as it was occuring.
For an example, we had, to the north of us, in Palmerston ON a major divisional point that by the 1950's was getting into moribund territory. One reason that keeps getting lost in the rush to jump on the RR was the simple moving by industry itself from rural communities to larger urban centers in order to capitalize on that market. In fact, places like Mitchell, Listowel, Monkton, Paisley, Chesley, Hanover, Southampton etc etc-- had furniture companies thriving there--. Only to have had an entire furniture industry either up and close up or move to Toronto. Same as a fair number of other industries----
Kind of hard to keep a viable RR going with that going on----
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/
greyhoundsAs to my use of the word "Nonsense", I have to call 'em like I see 'em. Talking about cross-subsidaztion withn a single point to point movement, with one bill presented to the shipper, is flat out nothing but "Nonsense".
Perhaps you would recognize the concept "loss leader?" I believe that is what the ICC came down on the rails for. Abandoned means they left the business. They were still trying in the 1950's (witness dedicated equipment on the NYC, SP and others) but even without interstates, highway and truck improvements following the war took the lion's share away from the rails.
schlimm greyhounds: If Evanston were closer I might read the/your thesis. However, your sneering tone is hardly that of an academic. We don't refer to contrasting viewpoints as "nonsense." Lighten up.
greyhounds: If Evanston were closer I might read the/your thesis. However, your sneering tone is hardly that of an academic. We don't refer to contrasting viewpoints as "nonsense." Lighten up.
No, and I never claimed to be "An Academic".
You made a false statement that the railroads had "Abandoned" the LCL business. I know that they tried very hard to remain competitive in that important market segment. Their inovations and changes were blocked by Federal economic regulators. These regulators essentially forced the railroads out of the LCL market. You were essentially blaming the victim.
As to my use of the word "Nonsense", I have to call 'em like I see 'em. Talking about cross-subsidaztion withn a single point to point movement, with one bill presented to the shipper, is flat out nothing but "Nonsense".
A few years back I had started a thread titled "Light Rail Freight"The thing I wanted to point out was there is a lot of short to medium haul freight that goes by truck that could be handled more efficiently by rail.The best case I can think of is this:In Tennessee a large retail chain has a distribution center(DC) appox 70 miles east of Memphis. They get a lot of containers (over 100 a day) both domestic & imports and it all get delivered by truck. In addition there are other DC’s in the 100-200 mile radius of Memphis that receive similar volumes. Rgds IGN
My turn to throw rocks. Re Cargo Sprinters
The first thing I saw when looking at this was that big old crane to lift containers. Anyone know how much it costs? (Del Monte at some of there terminals use what is essentially an oversized fork lift to move containers. As do railroads) .
Next 6 or 8 platforms? Not much revenue potential.
If you want to use something like this for short haul, I think John Kneiling was correct use rollers & latches to move containers not an expensive crane(like the airlines due for their containers).
Next can you add or subtract cars easily?
600 hp engine what about trying to climb a small grade?
Rgds IGN
henry6 I am glad to see that the possible merits of Cargo Sprinter are finally being discussed instead of trying to diss the catylist! It's not that I favor or not favor the concept, its that there is now thoughtful insight instead of knee jerk dismissal. ust stay away from arguing about the end of LCL here...it belongs in a thread of its own...for this argument just know it was but is no longer. Keep going...
I am glad to see that the possible merits of Cargo Sprinter are finally being discussed instead of trying to diss the catylist! It's not that I favor or not favor the concept, its that there is now thoughtful insight instead of knee jerk dismissal. ust stay away from arguing about the end of LCL here...it belongs in a thread of its own...for this argument just know it was but is no longer. Keep going...
I find CargoSprinter very interesting and have read everything I can find online about it but I do find some of your comments about it rather odd. Specifically your statement that you don't "care what the Germans have done". CargoSprinter is a system that was designed and built in Germany by a German company specifically for the German/European rail network. The idea was to be able to run very short, fast trains of containers on a rail system that is primarily designed and operated for the transportation of passengers. The idea was to reduce intercity truck trips and that is the type of service the Cargosprinter was trialed in, unsuccesfully I may add. It is designed for relatively short distance services. The question 'are there other applications for it?" should really be "are there other applications where Carosprinter would offer a major advantage over established technology?".
The intermodal freight rail network in North America based around doublestack trains is designed to transport enormous numbers of containers long distances. The industry is pretty good at doing this economically and this is borne out by the marketshare they have taken from long distance OTR trucking. One could think of Cargosprinter as a way to grow shorter distance,lower volume intermodal business but then it would be competing with technologies that are already more established and proven, specifically the Roadrailer/Railrunner/Railking type equipment......
BTW, way back in the 70's Brookville Locomotive (now a builder of Genset Units) built a prototype of a self- propelled piggyback car called a "Trailer Tramp" that was very similar to the Cargosprinter and tried to find buyers well into the deregulation era, with no luck....
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Some have posted about this being useful for an all-rail, dock to dock, move. Probably because it mentions unused spurs at factories. This thing, as it's shown isn't going to work like that. Unless they start making containers with side doors, all those shown have to be loaded thru one end. That means at the shipper, and receiver, it's going to need to be removed from the flat car, onto a chassis and backed into a loading/unloading bay. In effect for an all rail move, every shipper/receiver is going to need to have their own lift equipment. (They said that the Sprinter can be loaded from either side. I didn't think that was a problem. They make it sound like they've solved a problem that has kept intermodal from catching on.)
I also think the idea of the Widget Works loading 5 or 6 containers for the same destination is also a simplistic way of looking at the way most freight moves. While sure, there are factories that probably do generate a train load (even a small 6 car train) of traffic for one destination, I'd bet most generate a smaller number with more diverse destinations. If they can generate enough loads in one day to fill the Sprinter, I doubt that the loads are all going to the same city. Even if they do, it's not assured that all loads going to the same place will be ready in a 1,2.3 manner. One load may be released in the AM, the second around noon, the the next in the PM etc. So do you tie up a couple of these things waiting until all the loads are ready? The truckers could be half way towards the destination with the first few loads by then.
Before hiring out on the UP, I worked for IBP at their Perry, IA plant for 3 years. It was a smaller plant where I did inventory, but also helped load and bill out trucks. (I also had to move 1200 lbs of meat in 5 lbs loose boxes one night after everyone else went home to make one guy legal.) We probably loaded around 10 +/- trucks per shift, this being a two shift facility. Most of the loads didn't go to the same place. Of those that did, it wasn't assured that the loads for the same destination were loaded and ready at the same time.
So really, this thing is going to consolidate local traffic at one IM yard for delivery to another IM yard for local distribution. Something that could already be done with conventional equipment. The RoadRailer system would probably be better for this, but it hasn't worked out over the general system either.
No matter what equipment you use, your still going to eat up capacity fast with 300 foot trains, if you want them to all run at track speed. That's about 6 trucks every 4 or 5 miles. If you wait to build a train large enough (It said up to 7 units, that's still short by our standards. I wonder if they used that for a European audience? Maybe it could even be longer here.) you may as well use convenional equipment. Plus, the whole idea is to get the freight moving now, not 3 or 4 hours later when you have a capacity efficient length. (Yes, maybe it could be used on tracks that currently don't have much other rail traffic. Problem is, there most likely isn't much truckload sized freight either. One thing that amazes me is going by small towns that to used have regular, but maybe not a large volume of business. A lot of it is gone, not lost to trucks, just gone. Either outmoded or moved away. Even some small cities have lost a lot of industrial plants.)
One last thing. We always hear that the railroad never wants to try anything new, the "this is the way we've always done it" mentality. If it doesn't fit in/on (take your pick) box car, flat car, unit train, etc. we don't want to try it. What about the customers? I'd bet that there is a lot of that same mentality (always done it this way) on their part too. I'm sure there are quite a few who've never delt with a railroad in any way before. They equate the railroad being steam engines and box cars, something just a bit more modern than the stone age, suitable only for hauling stone in bulk and not much else. (Sure I know in this day and age things have and are changing. Still, I bet there's a lot of customers out there thinking, this intermodal may work well for others, but it won't work for me under any circumstances. I'd better just keep my freight on the highway.)
Jeff
I'm wondering about something else as well. The concentration of industries into larger and larger urban centers may also have affected LCL--at least north of here it did.
I could see a shortline handling LCL in regional centers without having to build what comes out as smaller versions of intermodal depots in every town.
Can someone tell me just how many more lines would have to be built for this thing to work? If the stated goal is to get rid of all the truck traffic---then----?
The idea could be made to work in some ways-----
Ok henry you want answers then here is yur answers., This will not fit into a class 1 railroad right away, If ever, you dont have the class 1 mentallity.( and that is not a insult its a compliment ) so maybe ill haft to shed light on it for you. Ok this thing is no more than a motorized flat car not a truck the only thing truck about it is over in germany they put a truck cab on it. Herzog has something very similar to that right now we talked about it a few months ago. in that it was picking up ties on my division here. but with making a few changes to this system a idea could work. for example instead of making it a train of its own cars adapt the ( i will call it a truck to only keep it clear of which power plant i am talking about) truck to work with existing cofc cars now. and use it on short line or spur tracks, now big advantage
1) If this is going to start at any town the cost will eat up any profit for several years. you haft to have a facility to bring the containers to, pave it , put up a crane ( these things dont jump off the chasse up on to the car, the power equipment and the people to hire to make this happen. then if this is on a spur line you haft to off load this stuff onto a regualr car for a class 1 to haul. My way around this is use regular cofc and modify the truck to work with this. that takes care of some start up cost, to be cost effective you want light weight and simple and fuel effient trucks. that takes us to step 2
2) saftey. ( OH NO NOT AGAIN) I keep hearing that some say the unions wont let this happen and one even said that the engineers and truckers are 1 teamsters. WRONG We are the BLET. seperate from the teamsters They are the governing body but we are still the BLET. Now with that rant done, The Carrier would never let this happen not the unions. why is because of the FELA if the carrier would not be liable they would sit you on a number 2 wash bucket in the open and tell you to run it., That is why a gp 38 or maybe a gp 15 mp15 sw1500 would work fine for this application. If you did the truck deal it would be manditory to slow to 15 mph or stop at all rail/highway crossing to keep the operator from being killed at the crossings.
3) short line running would work and be profitable maybe even do away with trucks to some degree, going from town to town Say you take a line out of nashville tennessee a spur type running south ( I know there isnt this is hypatitical) to do away with some rush hour traffic and pollution make a few of these trains up say 1 carry the mail stopping in the towns heading south say another would be carring auto parts for the saturn plant, this would be work if the class 1 would give up some profits to allow this ( basing on them not owning the line) The big thing is you haft to make it universal. it cost to much to put cranes and unloading facilities every where.
The only way i see this type of system work is its own net work its own rails and its own terminals, i would not run these because its to dangerous, back to saftey no protection in the cab. it dont matter if there is only 1 crew member in the cab,There is so many people on here that think we wont do something because it get more people working with 1 man in the cab its safer with 2 but why give jobs up we have few jobs now dont give up any more. but you guys math dont add up. you say 1 man crews and smaller trains up to 10 how is that putting more men to work, they fill from the board but 10 jobs of 2 is 20 men now they haft to hire. I see a market that this would excel in here in the states. hauling nucular waste.
BT CPSO 266Now I see these sprinters able to create options. I mean right now the option is to use a boxcar, flatcar, whatever, that has to continually go through several mail sorting processes and tend to move at slow speed, along with traveling with other customers' cars. The other option is intermodal; where if you are not close to a major terminal near a city, drayage kills you. This sprinter option allows to to load one of these up and it goes strait toward your receiver, at relatively fast speeds. Like I said earlier, if they are next to the rails, build small and I mean small intermodal yards that can serve several business near smaller cities.
What you are really trying to address is the aggregtion problem. RWM did an excellent treatment of this many months ago and I would encourage you to find it. This will be more broad brush.
Minimizing total rail costs means minimizing rail line haul costs. In the carload context this is done by gathering cars from some geographic area at a yard and making a train headed in the general direction that the cars want to go. There may be several intermediate yards at which cars for similar destinations are aggregated and cars for other destinations are separated and aggregated separately. The cars, whcih may well be from multiple origin are finally spotted from the last yard to the customer. I am the first to acknowledge that yards are not cheap, but the fact that they exists means that they are cheaper on a system basis than the alternative.
In the current intermodal system the truck replaces the switch engine and containers are loaded for other large intermodal yards. Ideally a train carries containers for only one distination, but block swapping may be done at some intermediate point. At Chicago, the city streets are used to sort containers.
Imagine a direct delivery system. To keep it simple imagine two yards 400 miles apart. The railroad runs two trains of 100 cars each way. Assume trains depart from each end on 12 hour intervals. To simplify a bit more assume that trains can cover the distance in 16 hours, start at the same time and meet in the middle.
The line haul fixed plant required is one main track 400 miles long, one siding in the middle to meet trains, say two miles long. Train control can be TWC and no signal system is required. To minimixed the impact on other trains of unforseen delays to one train, we would probably add at least a couple of more sidings as a practical matter.
Now go to the extreme case of single powered rail cars. We must now move 200 vehicles each way in 24 hours. We must design for 8 vehicles per hour, or one about every 7 minutes. Clearly we need double track since we have gone from two meets per day to way more than I wnat to figure out. We have just doubled our investment in track. At this density we also need a block signal system since we do not want following vehicles to run into one that stops for some reason. Block length can be about a mile long with four aspect signals since individual vehicles do not have the brake propagation delay of long trains, but the coefficent of friction has not changed so actual stopping distance for any particular brake application is unchanged. The signal system for two tracks probably costs as much as the second track, so we have trippled our fixed plant investment to support our new operating plan.
On train labor is a major cost element. Lets assume that the unions are reasonalbe men and will see the advantage of replacing a two or three man crew on 100 cars with one man per car. That increases our on train labor by a factor of 33.
Finally there are those pesky FRA safety standards. Broadly put new locomotives must have certain crash protective features. Will the FRA insist that those standards still apply? If so they will add a lot of cost and weight, perhaps so much that we need a full locomotive for each car. This would more than negate any weight saving due to minimally powered cars and drastically increase motive power capital cost, fuel consumption, and gross ton miles.
Lets come back to these sprinters. You want to use them to serve customers with existing sidings. I presume you mean current or recently lost carload customers. There is nothing that would prevent the railroad from providing direct service today except that the cost will be higher than the current system. The quality of service, measured as transit time, would be greater than current carload. How much more will it cost to priovide this direct carlaod service? Is the shipper willing to pay at least the increased cost more for better service? That is the question. To my knowledge no shippers are willing to pay the additional cost for this quality of rail service. They don't have to, truckers will do it cheaply and easily.
The intermodal case is similar. You seem to be advocating a terminal in every town. Lets take a real example, apples from Wenatchee Washington. GN had a circus ramp in Wenatchee years ago. It has long been closed and the fruit has moved almost exclusively by truck for a generation. Apples go all over the country every day. Apple consumption is basically a function of population and competing local supply. With this sprinter I could load up 60 containers per day in season, say 10 to Chicago, 10 to New York and Boston, 10 to Philladelphia, 10 to Kansas City, 10 to Birmingham, and 10 to Florida. The first split happens at Shelby MT, about 500 miles east of Wenatchee. Now I have two 30 car trains. Assuming the capacity exists I would expect BNSF to charge me the same per train mile as they would for a 200 container train. That is what I would do if I were BNSF.
Assume BNSF would charge me 50 cents per container mile on 200 container minimum, or $100 per train mile. On my most dense segment my direct cost to BNSF per container would be $1.33 per mile almost three times the 50 cent base rate, and at the extreme ends where I am moving 10 containers I am at $10 per container mile presuming I am fully loaded. This excludes the capital and operating cost of the intermodal terminal I would have to build in Wenatchee, the capital and operating cost of my containers, marketing and agency costs, and dray costs but it is clear I can not compete with truckers providing door to door service at $2 per mile.
You may want to see freight off the highway. I do too. Start with increased taxes on trucks. Start with accellerated depreciation of rail investments. Start with State and Federal funding of railroad improvements. Get Amtrak off freight lines. Those would make a nice start. I am not willing for the government to mandate modal shifts as government mandates are always expensive, and are usually wealth and utility destroyers.
Mac
If only we could:
Each and every RR car have its own 100-200 hp diesel engine coupled to generator and have one traction motor driving two axles at one end of the RR car. All computer controlled with GPS. Assemble a train together with 1 locomotive at the front controlling all of these cars. The first cars to leave the train are at the rear and the train is initially assembled in order for their destinations. On the fly cars one by one (or however how many are destined for each siding) uncouple from the rest of the train and slow down enough for the rest of the train to clear a switch to send that car via computer controll and GPS to its siding unmanned. Slowly as the train goes along all of the cars reach their destination.
The Unions would have a heart attack over a system like this one if it was ever tried.
I only read part of the first page so forgive me if someone else thought of this same way out there idea that I have.
Modeling the "Fargo Area Rapid Transit" in O scale 3 rail.
schlimm greyhounds I maintain that this decision, "In the Matter of Container Service." (173 ICC 377) remains the worst economic regulatory decision in the history of the US. It greatly harmed the country as well as the railroads. The railroads were forced out of the LCL business by government regulation. There is no question about it. That is your opinion. Other researchers may see it differently. Academics respect differing opinions in research and leave room for questioning their own, rather than dogmatic insistence. Albert J. ChurellaDelivery to the Customer’s Door: Efficiency, Regulatory Policy, and Integrated Rail-Truck Operations, 1900–1938Enterprise & Society - Volume 10, Number 1, March 2009, pp. 98-136 Abstract: During the first third of the twentieth century, U. S. railroad executives offered local collection and delivery trucking operations. Railroad managers claimed, with justification, that these services were necessary to reduce congestion at urban freight terminals, and to increase the operating efficiency. Yet, executives also employed collection and delivery practices to discriminate against shippers and communities, and to draw business away from rival carriers, in violation of the 1887 Interstate Commerce Act, the 1903 Elkins Act, and the Transportation Act of 1920. During the 1920s, as competition from independent truckers became more intense, railroad managers used their inherent advantage in line-haul service to cross-subsidize local delivery services, to the detriment of independent motor carriers—an issue of considerable concern to Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) commissioners, following the passage of the 1935 Motor Carrier Act. The railroads’ emphasis on the productive efficiency associated with local trucking operations conflicted with the allocative efficiency advocated by federal courts and by the ICC. Commissioner Joseph B. Eastman, in particular, emphasized both the potential benefits and the potential dangers associated with coordinated rail-truck service. More broadly, the status of that service, as one of the few forms of transportation that lay beyond the ICC’s authority, stemmed from a complex interaction, over several decades, between all three branches of the federal government. By 1938, the ICC commissioners had concluded that the railroads’ local delivery operations occupied a nebulous region between rail and truck regulation. While lawful, they did not serve as a model for post-1945 efforts to achieve integrated, multi-modal transportation services. Project MUSE® - View Citation MLA APA Chicago Endnote Albert J. Churella. "Delivery to the Customer’s Door: Efficiency, Regulatory Policy, and Integrated Rail-Truck Operations, 1900–1938." Enterprise & Society 10.1 (2009): 98-136. Project MUSE. [Library name], [City], [State abbreviation]. 3 Apr. 2010 <http://muse.jhu.edu/>. Always review your references for accuracy and make any necessary corrections before using. Pay special attention to personal names, capitalization, and dates. Consult your library or click here for more information on citing sources. Albert J. Churella. (2009). Delivery to the customer’s door: Efficiency, regulatory policy, and integrated rail-truck operations, 1900–1938. Enterprise & Society 10(1), 98-136. Retrieved April 3, 2010, from Project MUSE database. Always review your references for accuracy and make any necessary corrections before using. Pay special attention to personal names, capitalization, and dates. Consult your library or click here for more information on citing sources. Albert J. Churella. "Delivery to the Customer’s Door: Efficiency, Regulatory Policy, and Integrated Rail-Truck Operations, 1900–1938." Enterprise & Society 10, no. 1 (2009): 98-136. http://muse.jhu.edu/ (accessed April 3, 2010). Always review your references for accuracy and make any necessary corrections before using. Pay special attention to personal names, capitalization, and dates. Consult your library or click here for more information on citing sources. TY - JOURT1 - Delivery to the Customer’s Door: Efficiency, Regulatory Policy, and Integrated Rail-Truck Operations, 1900–1938A1 - Albert J. ChurellaJF - Enterprise & SocietyVL - 10IS - 1SP - 98EP - 136Y1 - 2009PB - Oxford University PressSN - 1467-2235UR - http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/enterprise_and_society/v010/10.1.churella.htmlN1 - Volume 10, Number 1, March 2009ER - Always review your references for accuracy and make any necessary corrections before using. Pay special attention to personal names, capitalization, and dates. Consult your library or click here for more information on citing sources.
greyhounds I maintain that this decision, "In the Matter of Container Service." (173 ICC 377) remains the worst economic regulatory decision in the history of the US. It greatly harmed the country as well as the railroads. The railroads were forced out of the LCL business by government regulation. There is no question about it.
I maintain that this decision, "In the Matter of Container Service." (173 ICC 377) remains the worst economic regulatory decision in the history of the US. It greatly harmed the country as well as the railroads.
The railroads were forced out of the LCL business by government regulation. There is no question about it.
That is your opinion. Other researchers may see it differently. Academics respect differing opinions in research and leave room for questioning their own, rather than dogmatic insistence.
Albert J. ChurellaDelivery to the Customer’s Door: Efficiency, Regulatory Policy, and Integrated Rail-Truck Operations, 1900–1938Enterprise & Society - Volume 10, Number 1, March 2009, pp. 98-136
Abstract:
During the first third of the twentieth century, U. S. railroad executives offered local collection and delivery trucking operations. Railroad managers claimed, with justification, that these services were necessary to reduce congestion at urban freight terminals, and to increase the operating efficiency. Yet, executives also employed collection and delivery practices to discriminate against shippers and communities, and to draw business away from rival carriers, in violation of the 1887 Interstate Commerce Act, the 1903 Elkins Act, and the Transportation Act of 1920. During the 1920s, as competition from independent truckers became more intense, railroad managers used their inherent advantage in line-haul service to cross-subsidize local delivery services, to the detriment of independent motor carriers—an issue of considerable concern to Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) commissioners, following the passage of the 1935 Motor Carrier Act. The railroads’ emphasis on the productive efficiency associated with local trucking operations conflicted with the allocative efficiency advocated by federal courts and by the ICC. Commissioner Joseph B. Eastman, in particular, emphasized both the potential benefits and the potential dangers associated with coordinated rail-truck service. More broadly, the status of that service, as one of the few forms of transportation that lay beyond the ICC’s authority, stemmed from a complex interaction, over several decades, between all three branches of the federal government. By 1938, the ICC commissioners had concluded that the railroads’ local delivery operations occupied a nebulous region between rail and truck regulation. While lawful, they did not serve as a model for post-1945 efforts to achieve integrated, multi-modal transportation services.
So, does this mean you're not going to go read the thesis at Northwestern? That university doesn't hand out graduate degress based on opinion pieces. It's more than my opinion. Those are proven, documented facts. You can't wish them away.
But anyway I thank you! You just demonstrated my point very well. Although I would hope you would read more than an abstract before commenting on the subject.
According to the cited abstract from Churella, the railroads had an advantage over the motor carriers for the business, and the government wouldn't let them use it. That's just what that abstract says. As in "and to draw business away from rival carriers". The government would not allow the railroads to compete least they draw business away from the motor carriers. That is what your posted abstrct says.
Here's another great nonsense line: "The railroads’ emphasis on the productive efficiency associated with local trucking operations conflicted with the allocative efficiency advocated by federal courts and by the ICC." The railroads wanted to be efficient (which would be good for the country's economy.) But they were ordered into inefficiency by the Feds. That it flat out nuts. Don't we want efficient railroads? I guess the Federal regulators didn't. (Allocative efficiency is what?)
The "cross subsidization" charge is pure bunk. Anyone who understands commerce and/or economics knows that. No for profit company will willingly cross subsidize anything. It lessens their profits. I've run into this nonsense before on intermodal moves. The freight is picked up by a truck and taken to a rail terminal for line haul movement. At the destination rail terminal the freight is transferred back to truck movement for delivery. The customer gets one bill for the entire move. You can't realistically "allocate" parts of the revenue to various components of the transportation. As in, the origin dray gets this much of the revenue, the rail line haul gets this much, and the destination dray gets this much. Any such allocation would be arbitrary at best.
The regulatory fantasy cited by Churella holds that the railroads were selling their pick up and delivery below cost and using profits from their line haul advantage to do so. Again, this is nonsense. This would require that the revenue from the move be alloacted to drayage and line haul components and no one can realistically do that.
This just proves how insane the regulation got and why it worked to divert the freight from rail to truck. In doing so it greatly hurt the country and the railroads.
At least schlimm is getting back on topic.
I not saying I am or any of us our experts at rail economics, but we can look at this situation and see what basic challenges need to be meet.
Now I see these sprinters able to create options. I mean right now the option is to use a boxcar, flatcar, whatever, that has to continually go through several mail sorting processes and tend to move at slow speed, along with traveling with other customers' cars. The other option is intermodal; where if you are not close to a major terminal near a city, drayage kills you. This sprinter option allows to to load one of these up and it goes strait toward your receiver, at relatively fast speeds. Like I said earlier, if they are next to the rails, build small and I mean small intermodal yards that can serve several business near smaller cities.
I look at these as encouraging industry to grow instead of just relying on what exists. Maybe once a few shippers start using this service others may want to try it out to. I think the RR's need to collaborate with themselves and go out and ask potential & existing customers, and say hey? You think you would be interested in using this and think I would work for you?
I do not look at this from a railfan's perspective, I look at this from a traveler/commuter and tax payer perspective. I'd rather put up the initial cost for upgrades and expansion for these sprinters than continue to strain the highways and continue to rebuild them so often. I just honestly rather have less interaction of how the freight gets to where its going; and it may come to that point. I mean France just decided to force freight moved by rail to increase from 15% to 25% and have less of it on the road. We may come to that point.
I am a radical thinker, obviously in order for these to work, there so many changes that have to made on many fronts.
[
Another one that didn't get it! n012944! I never said I really liked it...and Zug, I never tried to make fun of anyone or insult anyone...I am keenly aware of how many will attack and make insults here. I tried to challange participants to use positive attitudes to find a way to apply this technology. No one really did and I saw that no one was going to. No insults, no name calling, no anger on my part. Others slung a few names around, I didn't. I know what I said, what I asked for, and why. I am satisfied the results are in and there is no more discussion of the topic on my part. I will leave the topic alone.
I think what was an interesting discussion turned unproductive. perhaps what we should be examining is not so much the merits of the specific German equipment, which seems to have been misunderstood, but the underlying concept.
Namely, is there a profitable way railroads could recover small carload/container, high value business from smaller companies that are still trackside that now is handled by truck or intermodally?
Could costs be held down? Only if one engineer replaces 5 or more truck drivers.
Door to door all-rail service only. No intermodal terminals.
Only high value freight, not bulk.
Fast speeds, no wasted time in yards. Only automatic couplers. Perhaps FRA regs would not apply since the equipment would not mix with regular freight.
Custom schedules, overnite delivery. Somehow out of the way of regular freight trains.
Perhaps the model, in part, that could be borrowed, would be FedEx?
Just some brain-storming; no need for anyone to get all riled up as though there were something threatening about this topic.
zugmann I checked out the Brandt webpage today (http://road-rail-corp.brandt.ca/). Take a look at this: http://road-rail-corp.brandt.ca/products.php?f_action=prod_detail&f_product_id=7 Looks familiar, no?
I checked out the Brandt webpage today (http://road-rail-corp.brandt.ca/). Take a look at this:
http://road-rail-corp.brandt.ca/products.php?f_action=prod_detail&f_product_id=7
Looks familiar, no?
A friend of mine in Germany described that as an upgraded Whitcomb. Don't these get used already?
It is also up to the proponent to build his/her case for the vehicle concerned. As well as determining the market size for the idea. That is why business plans are always used to get financing from banks etc---
henry6 No Mac, you don't get it. I gave you your points and I took in all others. If you, or anybody else, read some of my posts I made it clear I was challenging all to look into the product and come up with viable answers not based on emotions and preconceptions.
No Mac, you don't get it. I gave you your points and I took in all others. If you, or anybody else, read some of my posts I made it clear I was challenging all to look into the product and come up with viable answers not based on emotions and preconceptions.
Henry it is you that doesn't get it. As pointed out ONE PAGE ONE, this is very similar to the Iron Highway concept. CSXI tried to find a market for it, ran dedicated trains with it, and it failed. CSX tried, had crews run through normal crewchange points, dispatchers parted the seas for the trains, and they made times that were competitive with trucks. They did not work. The CP took the technology and tried to make it work, with very little success so far. Just because YOU think it will work does not make it so.
An "expensive model collector"
Sigh. Maybe we just got tired of your thinly veiled insults, Henry.
You accuse of us not thinking and being negative, then you want to act like you weren't surprised.
Whatever.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
No Mac, you don't get it. I gave you your points and I took in all others. If you, or anybody else, read some of my posts I made it clear I was challenging all to look into the product and come up with viable answers not based on emotions and preconceptions. Some did, many didn't. I wanted to see if there was any real positive thinking and did find some. I even noted that all were railfans here but had hoped there would be some positive inquires and ideas posted. There were a few. I noted that I, nor anyone else here, really had the tools or the opportunity to dig deep into the concept and come up with a possible specific client or application and that I was just looking for some positive approaches instead of out of hand naysaying (which was the majority of the opinions). I signed off because there was no sense pursuing the question as all have seemed to log on with thier thoughts and it was drifting toward name calling and frustration from most...note the comments and after I signed off on the post. I am not angry or upset. It really went as I expected and I actually heard what I expected.
henry6OK...I think I've heard all the answers there are. I'm signing off on this based on the facts that it has been determined by the majority here as not worth pursuing
Henry you still don't get it. It is up to the proponent, you, to make the economic case for this thing. You have admitted that you do not know enough to do so.
I tried to do a quick analysis of your two hypotheses, gave you some working assumptions, some of which are absolute facts, and concluded that this train has no advantages compared to current alternatives. If my facts or assumptions are wrong tell me so. Fix my analysis to prove your point.
The majority has determined nothing. You have not even tried to make an economic case for this. Do not blame us for your failure.
"foamgasm"
I love it!
zugmann henry6 OK...I think I've heard all the answers there are. I'm signing off on this based on the facts that it has been determined by the majority here as not worth pursuing: there is really no customers who would use it even if they could, the FRA won't approve its guage and the unions won't allow one man crews, one diesel unit with a two man crew has the versitility of working with an adjustible amount of cars, big Class One's would never use it and short lines don't have to. So it is a closed issue. Facts? Majority? Again. We are railfans, some of us employees too. We just gave some real-world advice to counter the propaganda-filled youtube video and pointed out some of the many challenges that have to be overcome before we import a barge load of these things. It's a forum. Don't get all worked up over it. We do not represent anyone but ourselves.
henry6 OK...I think I've heard all the answers there are. I'm signing off on this based on the facts that it has been determined by the majority here as not worth pursuing: there is really no customers who would use it even if they could, the FRA won't approve its guage and the unions won't allow one man crews, one diesel unit with a two man crew has the versitility of working with an adjustible amount of cars, big Class One's would never use it and short lines don't have to. So it is a closed issue.
OK...I think I've heard all the answers there are. I'm signing off on this based on the facts that it has been determined by the majority here as not worth pursuing: there is really no customers who would use it even if they could, the FRA won't approve its guage and the unions won't allow one man crews, one diesel unit with a two man crew has the versitility of working with an adjustible amount of cars, big Class One's would never use it and short lines don't have to. So it is a closed issue.
Facts? Majority? Again. We are railfans, some of us employees too. We just gave some real-world advice to counter the propaganda-filled youtube video and pointed out some of the many challenges that have to be overcome before we import a barge load of these things.
It's a forum. Don't get all worked up over it. We do not represent anyone but ourselves.
Dan
BNSFwatcherMethinks the LIRR was the original innovator (is that redundant?) of the "piggy back" (TOFC) concept. The NYNH&H was an early adherent and did a thriving business sixty, and more, years ago, only to be done-in by government regulation and construction of I-95. I remember seeing a recent picture of a (NS?) hi-rail truck pulling about ten hopper-loads of ballast. 1,000 tons? Doubt if it goes very fast, but.... REAX, too, was an early user of containers. NYC's "Flexi-Vans" worked well, for a while, given the limited clearance diagram in a lot of the territory. Sure don't hear much about "Tripple Crown" service. Seems, to me, like a logical thingie, especially in some markets. Is it going strong? What happened to the Amtrak "Roadrailers"? Did NS buy them? They were good for 79-mph anyway, maybe more. Hays
Methinks the LIRR was the original innovator (is that redundant?) of the "piggy back" (TOFC) concept. The NYNH&H was an early adherent and did a thriving business sixty, and more, years ago, only to be done-in by government regulation and construction of I-95. I remember seeing a recent picture of a (NS?) hi-rail truck pulling about ten hopper-loads of ballast. 1,000 tons? Doubt if it goes very fast, but.... REAX, too, was an early user of containers. NYC's "Flexi-Vans" worked well, for a while, given the limited clearance diagram in a lot of the territory. Sure don't hear much about "Tripple Crown" service. Seems, to me, like a logical thingie, especially in some markets. Is it going strong? What happened to the Amtrak "Roadrailers"? Did NS buy them? They were good for 79-mph anyway, maybe more.
The MOW truck was probably a Brandt truck. Triple Crown is still running their roadrailers, although in dedicated, unit trains only. Triple crown also bought the Amtrak fleet of toadtaielrs.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.