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: 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.
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
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.
Hays
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.
It could keep the lonely Amtrak "Turboliner" company in the kudzu of South Carolina.
I could even see a use at a limited number of industries that have raw resources close by. Last I heard, US Gypsum still runs a narrow gauge RR. Maybe even a way of delivering product from a quarry to the standard gauge RR? Most places use those big conveyor belts and own old locomotives, though.
I just can't see a use on a class-1. I really can't. Maybe we can set one up to run between the yard office and where train crews get on their trains?
Henry6
I found two situations where you think this technology would work, less than trainload coal and auto parts from suppliers to an assembly plant.
Lets look at the issues and alternatives. The issue with the coal case is that the equipment shown is dry containers. For some additional amount I am sure coal containers could be designed, or they could be permanently attached to the underframe thereby reinventing the coal car.
The default alternative for this traffic is carload rail. The mine ships some number of cars to some number of destinations. This has been around since the 1830's and it works fine. It is not as cheap as unit trains on a per ton basis, but the shipper or the consignee or both, is not set up for that volume. They can be if they want to make the investment, but we can reasonably assume that for good and sufficient reasons they choose not to.
The option exists today to run a small dedicated train of conventional cars between the mine and one or more customers. That this solution is not implemented says that the current carload servce is the most cost effective solution for all players. If the carrier wanted to reduce the car fleet, increase labor costs, and increase congestion they could do it today, but why would they? Only if the TOTAL cost of the operation is lower than the current alternative. Of course the customer could tell the railroad that they want their coal at a certain time every day. The railroad would pencil it out and quote the customer a higher rate for the premium service. The customer would decide the current arrangement, and rate, was just fine. This is Zug's GP 38 and a few cars. Reading's Bee Line was some variant. There are market niches where a mini unit train or some variation does make sense. Where is the advantage to doing it with expensive new purpose built equipment?
Your auto plant supply scenario might actually work BUT you are competing with direct truck, the speed and flexability of which you will never match, with the roadrailer based Tripple Crown service, and with rail carload which can be tailored at destination to provide very close support to plant operations. Whether you used conventional intermodal or this German train you still need a container terminal at destination, plus the ability to move the containers from the rail unloading point to where the containers would be unloaded. You need the same things at each origin. These terminal investments will be made only if the transportation savings have a greater present value than the projected cost of the terminals. You can figure each terminal to cost at least $2,000,000 to $5,000,000 each. Terminal operating costs are additional and depend on exactly what is to be done.
To the best of my knowledge no one is doing what you proposed and I described. The most likely reason is that the system is not more cost effective than whatever the customer is doing now. Even if the railroads are as totaly stupid as you imagine, the automakers are spending hundreds of millions of dollars per year on transportation. Do you think they enjoy that and are not always looking to save a million or two here and there?
From the video I see no evidence that the terminal for the German train would be less than for conventional intermodal. Again the railroads have conventional intermodal equipment and locomotives in storage. Why would anyone invest in the German equipment given these facts?
The new thing has to be either cheaper than the current, or enough better so that the customer will pay a premium price for a premium service that only the new thing can provide. You can safely assume that shippers want to pay less for their transportation. They may be willing to pay more if by doing so they save more than the cost of the extra transporation. That is why there is an air freight business.
Rail carriers know that some customers will pay a premium for premium service. Trucks are the premium service. For a railroad to get the truck rate the rail service must be as good as truck. Intermodal sells at a discount to truck because it is invariably slower. The carriers are not as stupid as you imagine. Their issue is always and forever the margin between the rate they get and the costs they incur to provide the serice. Marketing guys think about margin all the time since in most cases margin is what drives their bonuses.
We have found no case in which the German train can gain a premium rate compared to truck and it is clearly more expensive to operate than conventional intermodal. Why would anyone invest more thought into it than that???
Mac
Watching those videos, I sure as heck wouldn't want to hit a truck at a crossing in one (esp at high speed). I'll stick to my GP38, thank you.
To Henry6:
With all due respects, your advocacy of Cargo Sprinter is starting is starting to sound like the not-very-missed futuremodal with his advocacy of open access and Roadrailers as the solution to all of railroading's problems and his responses to those who disagreed with him.
FRA approval can be a problem. Remember that it took an Act of Congress (literally) to amend the Safety Appliances Act to allow Roadrailers in their present form. The FRA has to act within statutory guidelines, whether they seem inflexible or not.
Now I have to shout, Henry.
TELL ME WHAT THIS THING HAS OVER A MP15 OR A GP38. AND WHAT ADVANTAGES DOES IT HAVE OVER A BRANDT TRUCK?
The concept is NOT NEW. I repeat, NOT NEW. And you act like the RRs don't know about it. They do. I also consider not being FRA compliant, a MAJOR argument against it. You want to look at how it can work, we are telling you a few challenges it must overcome. You just can't put your hands over your ears and say "lalalalalalalla I can't hear you". You must look at both pros and cons.
And stop saying that we are personally preventing it. We are just a bunch of railfans urinating into the wind, here.
We haven't spent any money on equipment yet! We've been given a sales pitch by the hardware manufacurer and we're looking at what we might be able to do with it. Yeah, everybody's thrown dirt on it, have said it ain't gonna work, they've made noises against it, created problems and thrown up road blocks...all in the minds of the posters and not proven by inquiry and investigation. There has been no real argument against it except that nobody wants to do the work necessary to find out whether it would work or not.
But you don't spend the money until you get the OK.
Buying non-compliant rail equipment that will rust away in the back of a yard somewhere is NOT the solution.
zugmann But the FRA is a deal-breaker. You don't want to buy the technology, then be told you can't run it. You would probably have to start from the ground up to make a FRA-capable sprinter, then it'd probably be too big and heavy to be as convenient as its German Bruder.
But the FRA is a deal-breaker. You don't want to buy the technology, then be told you can't run it. You would probably have to start from the ground up to make a FRA-capable sprinter, then it'd probably be too big and heavy to be as convenient as its German Bruder.
We don't know that. It is not a problem until the FRA says no. In effect, Zug, you have created the road block/problem by assuming something that is not yet in play. And even if the FRA says no, there might be ways around the block or simple adjustments. Don't know till we get there.
Zugmann's questions still good but FRA is not an obstical yet...don't know til we take it to them, Don't make a problem before it pops up.
CNW: I am trying to elicit thinking responses not out of hand "no's", And I'm not trying to solicit a "yes" answer either...I am trying to put off the naysayers, the defeatists, the status quo's, in favor of thinking things through.
And Greyhounds, yes the ICC was a problem for many years but trucks and air transportation, population and manufacturing shifts, all changed it too. And now there is another change afoot of which this Cargo Sprinter might be part of.
The Reading failed for so many reasons beyond the BEE LINE service that it cannot be counted. And as I have stated, I have no stake in Cargo Sprint and really don't care whether it is a go or no go. I am concerned about the defeatist, naysayer, anti progress, say "no" out of hand, status quo keeping attitudes and trying to challenge postivie thought into approaching a opportunity. I don't want to say or hear "no" without hearing about how it might work and how effort might be applied to find out about it. I will say this, it won't work, it won't happen, it should be ignored just because of the apathetic approach by those here (with a few exceptions) so far.
greyhoundsI 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. Churella Delivery to the Customer’s Door: Efficiency, Regulatory Policy, and Integrated Rail-Truck Operations, 1900–1938 Enterprise & 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.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
zugmannAgain, I'll ask since no one has answered yet: what advantages does this sprinter have over a small locomotive (MP15, GP38, etc) ?????
One of many key questions. It is a lot cheaper to test a market niche with equipment you are already paying for than to go buy new, one off otherwise useless, equipment to test the niche. Some things do not need an elaborate costly study to prove.
IIRC the Reading "Bee Line" service used conventional equipment. The innovation was how it was deployed, not what it was. New deployments of existing equipment are cheap. Specialized equipment is not cheap.
First question that has to be answered. Would the FRA even ALLOW this thing to be used for revenue freight? Does it even have the minimum of crash safety standards?
MOW has Brandt trucks, Sperry has their hy-railers, I've seen a weed spraying outfit that used a hy-rail tractor trailer, but those are all MOW.
Again, I'll ask since no one has answered yet: what advantages does this sprinter have over a small locomotive (MP15, GP38, etc) ?????
schlimm greyhoundsThe railroads did not "abandon" the LCL business. They were forced out of direct participation in that market by stupid misguided Federal economic regulation. I believe most writers would indicate the rails lost the LCL business to trucks because of improved trucks and roads, including the Interstates, not because of regulations, as well as rigid, unimaginative management lacking much marketing savvy. Product development does not necessarily only come about after a market niche is already there. Demand can be created by innovation. In any case, as you are in the field, can you identify any niche yourself? It was filled at one time by the rails, and as you say, they move intermodal today, but don't retail it. Why not? Why can they not be competitive in a market where there apparently is a profit to be made by someone, if done right.
greyhoundsThe railroads did not "abandon" the LCL business. They were forced out of direct participation in that market by stupid misguided Federal economic regulation.
I believe most writers would indicate the rails lost the LCL business to trucks because of improved trucks and roads, including the Interstates, not because of regulations, as well as rigid, unimaginative management lacking much marketing savvy.
Product development does not necessarily only come about after a market niche is already there. Demand can be created by innovation.
In any case, as you are in the field, can you identify any niche yourself? It was filled at one time by the rails, and as you say, they move intermodal today, but don't retail it. Why not? Why can they not be competitive in a market where there apparently is a profit to be made by someone, if done right.
I WAS in the field.
If you've got the inclination to actually understand the diversion of LCL to truck you might want to drop by Northwestern's Transportation Center in Evanston. Get a copy of "The Transportation of LCL/LTL Freight By Railroad." and read it. This was a thesis for a MS in Transportation. The first chapter, "The History of Rail LCL Service" documents the railroads' very inovative responses to the then new motor freight competition and how those inovative responses were blocked by Federal regulators.
They then knew their market and what was happening to it. The advent of motor freight was a game changer and the railroads tried to respond, only to be thwarted by Federal economic regulation.
The LCL business was effectively lost well before the Interstate System. In 1946 the railroads originated 24,386,724 tons of LCL. In 1956 they only originated 6,485,147 tons of LCL. All it took was paved roads and government regulation to move it to the highway.
First, the government stopped development of a domestic intermodal container system. This system began to develop almost as soon as trucks that could carry a decent load of freight were developed. That would have been in the early 1920's The container system dropped rail costs tremendously and kept them truck competitive in terms of price and service for high value commodities such as LCL.
In 1931 the idiot misguided Federal regulators ordered the railroads to increase their rates for container service to the point where it was not competitive with the truckers. 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 needed to use trucks to pick up and deliver the LCL shipments. The regulators restricted this further hampering the ability of the rails to compete with the truckers, who were under no such restrictions.
Companies called "Freight Forwarders" existed and specialized in LCL. These middlemen combined rail freight with motor freight in the most efficient manner. The regulators ordered the railroads to increase their charges to the forwarders, diverting more freight to highway.
The railroads understood that serving smaller communities by substituting truck movement for way freight LCL delivery made the systems more efficient. The regulators greatly restricted this and hampered the ability of the rails to form efficient intemodal LCL systems.
There's more, but if your so inclined you may read it for youself.
I will admit the concept looks interesting on paper and at the first impression. Maybe someone could convince a progressively thinking shortline into trying out a set down a lightly used branch. All of the "catches" have already been mentioned though...and they're hard to discount. I don't believe this would work on a Class 1 mainline as space is generally too hard to come by. The possible rare exception would be if there's a known lull (for example "overnight: 11 P to 5 A" - hypothetically speaking). Maybe a line would have only 1 or two through trains during that time and the locals only work during the "day" (again, conjecture) when the industries they serve are open. The odds of those factors (plus shippers with small loads that need to go somewhere local and fast) coming together are remote IMO.
You did mention, Henry, in one of your earlier posts about the Reading RR doing things that worked and the Bee Line was a moneymaker. The Reading closed shop a long, long time ago. If what they did worked that well they'd still be around, right? Trains were smaller and the safety rules of today didn't exist (largely) back then as I understand things now. That and many networks had capacity then that's been ripped out now. If a RR had 4 mainlines between 2 cities. and typically two were used directionally you still could have one for express trains and another for stuff like this w/o getting in each other's way. That's also really expensive to maintain and, I believe, not practical long term. That's how RRs need to think. If you doubt that, Google why Warren Buffet opted to purchase the BNSF stock. It's a long term investment.
You are also insinuating that "nobody has done the research on this". This makes me think of two questions:1) Why don't you do it to prove the point and the professionals on here (hopefully for you) wrong?and2) Do you have a stake or vested interest in this concept/company? To me it almost seems like you do.
I think the whole discussion boils down to this:If something is shipped in a "metal barrel" now that used to get shipped in a "wooden crate" but isn't shipped in the "wooden crate" because of many factors (damage, cost, economies of scale, etc) why should the shipper go back to a crate because it's got a new wrapper on it? Times change, policies and procedures change. Sometimes technology finally catches up to someone's dream from way back when about an idea that may have been relevant "back in the day". That idea may not hold water now.
Dan
BT CPSO 266 So, basically what is keeping the sprinter from taking off here in the US, is initial start up cost and not making "enough" money. I personally, wonder if the industry has even looked into it? What exactly is it going to take for this thing to be implement onto the nation's network?
So, basically what is keeping the sprinter from taking off here in the US, is initial start up cost and not making "enough" money.
I personally, wonder if the industry has even looked into it? What exactly is it going to take for this thing to be implement onto the nation's network?
At least a Tipperillo for BT CPSO 266. No answers but he is thinking and asking the right questions!
PNWRMNM Henry, how do you KNOW that no railroad has looked at this technology? As you point out this site is just a gabfest of the ignorant. Some of us who do know something about railroad economics, marketing, and operation have pointed out that this technology has no advantages over the alternatives, and would be more costly than those alternatives to deploy. If you choose to advocate for this fine, but you need to show that it has an economic advantage rather than call those who do not see an advantage "negative". Your feelings do not create a market niche for this equipment. Your feelings are not sufficient reason for rail managements to invest their stockholder's money in this or any other technology that does not show a real potential to be deployed profitably. Only congress can do that. Your posturing and self assumed moral superiority will not win friends nor influence people. Mac
Henry, how do you KNOW that no railroad has looked at this technology? As you point out this site is just a gabfest of the ignorant.
Some of us who do know something about railroad economics, marketing, and operation have pointed out that this technology has no advantages over the alternatives, and would be more costly than those alternatives to deploy. If you choose to advocate for this fine, but you need to show that it has an economic advantage rather than call those who do not see an advantage "negative".
Your feelings do not create a market niche for this equipment. Your feelings are not sufficient reason for rail managements to invest their stockholder's money in this or any other technology that does not show a real potential to be deployed profitably. Only congress can do that.
Your posturing and self assumed moral superiority will not win friends nor influence people.
I HAVE TO SHOUT:
THAT I AM NOT CALLING ANYONE HERE "IGNORANT"! I have just said that many are reacting emotionally and not from a positive point of view nor seem willing to really look into marketing and operation possibilities..
AND I DON"T ASSUME MORAL SUPERIORITY. I am trying to challange participants to think and look for possible positives and opportunities for the concept. Superiority seems to be oozing from those who want to rest on the laurals of what is and not think about what could be and attack me for wanting answers.
I have not dealt out my feelings of what could be but suggested several services which might be looked at for the Cargo Sprint or an adaptation. My only feelings is that too many have just turned this idea out to pasture without looking at what might be possible. No railroader has responded by saying he or his railroad took the Cargo Sprint to a client or examined the possiblities in some kind of service. I am not looking for a positive or negative answer but a professionally and practiaclly searched answer. We've only heard from those dealing off the opening presentation.
henry6 PNWRMNM Henry, In what situation will either the railroad or the customer be better off using this technology than anything AND everything else out there? With realistic costs please. Mac How can I answer that Mac, when the whole board of directors, operations, the marketing and sales departments, customer relations experts,, and the rest of the staff here have already dumped the idea. So we don't know what the application could be, we don't know what the costs are, we don't know what the benefits are, we don't know what the downsides are, we don't know how a customer might feel if approached, we just know that nobody seems to want to look into it. But they do know they don't like it. Mac, I'm not a railroader and have no financial interest in nor cares whether this flies or not. I am just surprised that there is no one enterprising enough to look at what it is and how and if it might work. This is a discussion board about railroading, the Cargo Sprinter in particular, by a bunch of railfans, most of whom apparently are not managers of any kind, especially railroads.
PNWRMNM Henry, In what situation will either the railroad or the customer be better off using this technology than anything AND everything else out there? With realistic costs please. Mac
Henry,
In what situation will either the railroad or the customer be better off using this technology than anything AND everything else out there? With realistic costs please.
How can I answer that Mac, when the whole board of directors, operations, the marketing and sales departments, customer relations experts,, and the rest of the staff here have already dumped the idea. So we don't know what the application could be, we don't know what the costs are, we don't know what the benefits are, we don't know what the downsides are, we don't know how a customer might feel if approached, we just know that nobody seems to want to look into it. But they do know they don't like it.
Mac, I'm not a railroader and have no financial interest in nor cares whether this flies or not. I am just surprised that there is no one enterprising enough to look at what it is and how and if it might work. This is a discussion board about railroading, the Cargo Sprinter in particular, by a bunch of railfans, most of whom apparently are not managers of any kind, especially railroads.
From the Windhoff website:
The CargoSprinter is a railcar featuring characteristics with regard to design and technology that are much related to a truck. For this reason, it is often called the truck on rail, combining the benefits of a fast, relatively cost effective and flexible means of transport. One transport unit can convey up to ten interchangeable containers resp. containers with a length of 7.8 m and 16 tons individual weight. The CargoSprinter is to allow for continuous traffic without any interruption. Therefore, coupling is done within a few minutes by means of the automatic train coupling and non-contact data and energy transmission. In fact, each CargoSprinter unit is self-supporting, but within three minutes can be combined to a container train formation of up to seven units. At common target positions, the individual units are separated or combined to new formations.
Advantages:
SCHLIMM GETS A CIGAR. Key phrase, "....not knowing the customer who walks a way empty handed....you don't worry about the opportunities (for revenue) lost." He thought it through rather than dismiss on emotion.
Greyhound, several concepts of possible use have been put forth here, just rejected out of hand.
Right, PAUL, LCL was done in by trucks and air almost in partnership. Even the Post Office was using air more and more without charging the premium. It was too costly for each town to get a REX shipment,or LCL car dropped off and picked up. And will GIVE YOU A CIGAR, too, for thinking things through a little.
CSSHEGEWISCH Intermodal traffic has pretty low profit margins to begin with so a railroad has to selectively market its business if it expects to make money.
I don't know if the Sprinter concept would work, but the point seems to be to capture all the profit in the intermodal by eliminating the truck altogether as well as the consolidator.
I have paged through a number of OG's dating from the mid-1960's which included maps or listings showing the number of piggyback ramps in just about every division or crew change point. Many of them were small endloading ramps which could handle only one or two flat cars at a time and were served by the local freight. They were eventually abandoned because there wasn't enough business to justify their existence.
Cargo Sprinter seems to be a concept geared at going after every last bit of freight traffic. Intermodal traffic has pretty low profit margins to begin with so a railroad has to selectively market its business if it expects to make money. Cargo Sprinter seems to be an expensive way of obtaining more business.
schlimm [1. In retailing there used to be a saying about not knowing the customer who walks away empty handed. One of the problems in focusing on containing costs is you don't worry about the opportunities (for revenue) lost. So much (almost all) less than trainload and much earlier, the LCL, business has been abandoned to trucks. Maybe it's too late for that. But this concept, flawed as it may well be, seems to be an attempt to rethink that.
[1. In retailing there used to be a saying about not knowing the customer who walks away empty handed. One of the problems in focusing on containing costs is you don't worry about the opportunities (for revenue) lost. So much (almost all) less than trainload and much earlier, the LCL, business has been abandoned to trucks. Maybe it's too late for that. But this concept, flawed as it may well be, seems to be an attempt to rethink that.
The railroads did not "abandon" the LCL business. They were forced out of direct participation in that market by stupid misguided Federal economic regulation. Just as they were largely forced out of the perishable business by regulation.
They move a lot of LCL (now LTL) to this day. They just don't retail it. But they do handle a significant amount of intermodal LTL for the truckers.
I'm still waiting for someone to identify a market niche for this Cargo-Sprinter thingy. That's where you start, with a market need. Not a product.
zugmannSmall yards have been shut down everywhere. There are fewer and fewer locals. Hardly any 3-man crews around anymore that make switching an industry so much easier (And quicker). The RRs have manpower set up to have the fewest men possible, and still maybe, be able to run the intermodals (if no one marks off).
A few comments as a neutral bystander (no name-calling and no negativity):
1. In retailing there used to be a saying about not knowing the customer who walks away empty handed. One of the problems in focusing on containing costs is you don't worry about the opportunities (for revenue) lost. So much (almost all) less than trainload and much earlier, the LCL, business has been abandoned to trucks. Maybe it's too late for that. But this concept, flawed as it may well be, seems to be an attempt to rethink that.
2. Crew size would be important. Looks like a one-man operation. Maybe an operator would pay the host RR to use trackage.
3. Fast, scheduled, premium-priced door-to-door service is what is being promoted to smaller shippers (not bulk commodities like coal). Hence the short, fast (75 mph) train, with mostly containers (not intermodal). How to do that without getting in the way of regular freight looks like a big problem, but there might be creative ways.
4. This sort of operation would best lend itself to a local/regional scale, not long distance or transcontinental.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.