Paul_D_North_Jr"Chicago Worst in Truck Congestion" By Jenel Nels NBCChicago.com updated 1 hour, 45 minutes ago http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37374561 Activated the link for you, too. Says Chi-town has 3 of the top 10 spots, as follows - #9: The Dan [Ryan ?] Expressway at the Bishop Ford Freeway. #2: The junction connecting the Kennedy and Edens Expressways. Travel times average 23 mph during rush periods and only 39 mph during rush periods. [Huh ?] #1: The circle interchange. (The junction between the Eisenhower Expressway and the Kennedy and Dan Ryan Expressways). But the article doesn't say anything at all about containers being a factor in this. [It also has some editing issues, which I similarly noted in brackets above.] And which - if any - of these interchanges are heavily used by trucks transferring containers between railroad intermodal terminals ? If not much, then even if all containers were interchanged on 'steel wheels', the truck traffic congestion would remain . . . - Paul North.
"Chicago Worst in Truck Congestion"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37374561
Activated the link for you, too.
Says Chi-town has 3 of the top 10 spots, as follows -
#9: The Dan [Ryan ?] Expressway at the Bishop Ford Freeway.
#2: The junction connecting the Kennedy and Edens Expressways. Travel times average 23 mph during rush periods and only 39 mph during rush periods. [Huh ?]
#1: The circle interchange. (The junction between the Eisenhower Expressway and the Kennedy and Dan Ryan Expressways).
But the article doesn't say anything at all about containers being a factor in this. [It also has some editing issues, which I similarly noted in brackets above.] And which - if any - of these interchanges are heavily used by trucks transferring containers between railroad intermodal terminals ? If not much, then even if all containers were interchanged on 'steel wheels', the truck traffic congestion would remain . . .
- Paul North.
The Dan Ryan/Bishop Ford (I-94/I-57) junction is about the only one that might have any container traffic being rubber-tired as NS Calumet Yard is nearby and CN/IC Woodcrest is further south. Most container traffic being rubber-tired moves on surface streets with minimal expressway usage.
Paul_D_North_Jr Three further comments / observations: 3) Really, Chicago is a 'hub' for container traffic just like major airports are hubs for passenger traffic. And note that at airports, almost all passengers transfer themselves individually through the terminal concourse from the inbound plane to the outbound plane - the airline does not move the inbound plane over to the outbound plane and then carry the passengers into or onto the outbound plane - not even at the same or adjacent 'gates' usually, in my experience. Only if you're lucky enough to have the inbound plane continue onto your destination can you stay in your seat and avoid this ritual. The container interchange at Chicago is of like kind, it seems to me. - Paul North.
Three further comments / observations:
3) Really, Chicago is a 'hub' for container traffic just like major airports are hubs for passenger traffic. And note that at airports, almost all passengers transfer themselves individually through the terminal concourse from the inbound plane to the outbound plane - the airline does not move the inbound plane over to the outbound plane and then carry the passengers into or onto the outbound plane - not even at the same or adjacent 'gates' usually, in my experience. Only if you're lucky enough to have the inbound plane continue onto your destination can you stay in your seat and avoid this ritual. The container interchange at Chicago is of like kind, it seems to me.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Thanks - your opinion matters to me.
A further thought: Are any of the Chicago-area CREATE projects specifically intended to improve the 'steel wheel' interchanges enough to get some number of the 'rubber tire' interchanges off the highways ? I'm not recalling any, and don't have time right now to review them. And/ or - Would any of the CREATE projects have that as an incidental or unintentional side benefit ? It might be worthwhile for the railroads to review the CREATE project list to see if a credible case can be made for that with any of them - which might help with the availability and obtaining public funding, and expediting the permitting process adn coordination, etc.
Sawtooth500And how about anything coming from UP Global 1 or CP Bensenville to any of the yards on the South Side? That traffic would all roll down I-290 through the circle interchange onto the Dan Ryan.... I've spent plenty of times sitting in traffic there surrounded by Intermodal trailers...
Maybe it is, and maybe its not. For example a container unloaded at Prince Rupert, BC for a customer in Milwaukee, WI would travel via CN to Markham Yard on Chicago's south side. then be trucked to Milwaukee and when unloaded be trucked back to Markham. CN does not have any terminals between Chicago and Winnipeg. I received a container from Vietnam that was unloaded from the ship in LA then went to Chicago via UP and then was trucked to NW Wisconsin. So seeing a Container on a truck traveling through Chicago may not imply a rubber tired transfer.
Airline pride themselves on the efficiency of the Hub & Spoke systems to provide service to localities all over the country.
Chicago is the defacto Hub of the spokes of the nationwide rail network.
With United Airlines having O'Hare as it's primary Hub terminal in Chicago and with it's own and other carriers flight arriving at O'Hare providing spokes to almost the entire country, as well as a large part of the world (International flights). The hallways of O'Hare provide the 'rubber tire interchange' for passengers between flights at O'Hare as does the 'rubber tire interchange' between various carriers intermodal terminals in the Chicago area for container/trailers.
Can one imagine the congestion at O'Hare if each flight had to stop at each gate in the terminal to discharge and receive passengers from all the various origin/destination flights that each flight connects with. This same kind of congestion would occur if intermodal shipments through Chicago were limited to steel wheel interchange.
Remember, all the intermodal carriers that operate into Chicago have traffic for all the other carriers as well as for local delivery in Chicago and that traffic is rarely in a quantity that would justify all rail movement....just because CSX may have 100 boxes destined to destinations on the UP, doesn't mean that on the UP all those boxes would be handled to the same destination in the same train....of the 100 boxes, 20 go to the Dallas area, 20 go to Phoenix, 20 to LA, 10 to San Francisco, 10 to Denver and 20 to Seattle. The same principals apply to all carriers deliveries to each other. Each carrier has multiple destinations that is serves with different trains.
Paul_D_North_Jr [snip] Are any of the Chicago-area CREATE projects specifically intended to improve the 'steel wheel' interchanges enough to get some number of the 'rubber tire' interchanges off the highways ? I'm not recalling any, and don't have time right now to review them. Apparently not. A brief perusal of the CREATE website discloses no such explicit program benefits. either projected or sought. And/ or - Would any of the CREATE projects have that as an incidental or unintentional side benefit? Since by definition, the CREATE projects are collectively projected to expedite (among other rail traffic movements) the passage of transfers from yard to another, then transfers consisting of trailers and containers could gain incidental benefit. It might be worthwhile for the railroads to review the CREATE project list to see if a credible case can be made for that with any of them - which might help with the availability and obtaining public funding, and expediting the permitting process adn coordination, etc. It might. However, if the several participating freight railroads had perceived sufficient underlying cost benefit to expediting by rail their boxes bound for interchange by having additional project scope tacked onto the CREATE program portfolio, doesn't one suppose that they would have done so? Moreover, given all the scarce economic and political capital that they have invested in CREATE, would it be worth their while to change course in mid-program to add this filip to the program?
[snip] Are any of the Chicago-area CREATE projects specifically intended to improve the 'steel wheel' interchanges enough to get some number of the 'rubber tire' interchanges off the highways ? I'm not recalling any, and don't have time right now to review them.
Apparently not. A brief perusal of the CREATE website discloses no such explicit program benefits. either projected or sought.
And/ or - Would any of the CREATE projects have that as an incidental or unintentional side benefit?
Since by definition, the CREATE projects are collectively projected to expedite (among other rail traffic movements) the passage of transfers from yard to another, then transfers consisting of trailers and containers could gain incidental benefit.
It might be worthwhile for the railroads to review the CREATE project list to see if a credible case can be made for that with any of them - which might help with the availability and obtaining public funding, and expediting the permitting process adn coordination, etc.
It might. However, if the several participating freight railroads had perceived sufficient underlying cost benefit to expediting by rail their boxes bound for interchange by having additional project scope tacked onto the CREATE program portfolio, doesn't one suppose that they would have done so? Moreover, given all the scarce economic and political capital that they have invested in CREATE, would it be worth their while to change course in mid-program to add this filip to the program?
Paul_D_North_Jr A further thought: Are any of the Chicago-area CREATE projects specifically intended to improve the 'steel wheel' interchanges enough to get some number of the 'rubber tire' interchanges off the highways ? - Paul North.
A further thought: Are any of the Chicago-area CREATE projects specifically intended to improve the 'steel wheel' interchanges enough to get some number of the 'rubber tire' interchanges off the highways ?
No. Understand a rubber tire is the desire of the customer, getting their load from point A to Point B. If train ZMCG3 arrived at Global 3, chances are not good that there will be more than two or three containers going to one destination or even carrier. It may be that they are rubber-ed to their spot of unload, or to an interchange partner. Heck, it may even go to Yard Center for points south. Of course ZMCG3 is small potatoes to the likes of ZOACS or their cousins.
The marketing purpose of the train, is to go from origination, to furthest point of interchange, or delivery to dock with as many as you can. There is a reason there are only two intermodal points in the State of Iowa (one is private for loading tofu). It is because they will generally take a train to Chicago or Omaha, and rubber tire to the dock from there.
If the customer uses a broker such as Illooseya Load Brothers , who also happens to own D.O.R.C. Drayage in Chicago, good money says that is how it will be handled in that Windy City. Brokers can offer reduced rates because they can offer a carrier a large number of loads going from one point to another. Illooseya Load Brothers know if they can get so many loads to Chicago, they will get additional cash in the pocket from that rubber tire move. That can buy a lot of Borscht and caviar.
Paul_D_North_Jra suitably located huge plot of land in the Chicago area and build the 'mother of all intermodal terminals' there for all of the major railroads to consolidate their IM yards into a single location. - Paul North.
Seems to me Alpheus Beede Stickney tried that once in 1889. The whole terminal was never built as planned (a circle which would have consumed a a lot longer than 2 miles. Probably from Harlem to Kedzie, to 87th and back to Harlem). Carriers have already consumed many billions of dollars increasing capacity and terminals, I doubt they would throw it all up for scrap now.
Stickney's Circle was probably the smallest part of his whole concept and was the only part that was actually built. Its center was roughly what is now the apex of Clearing's humps and ran from about 59th to 71st on a north-south basis. All of the proposed yards that would have extended from the circle would have covered a lot more ground.
An earlier poster mentioned that the containers are loaded randomly on the West Coast port yard. I don't know if that is correct, but if so, wouldn't a possible solution be to have them loaded by a computerized process to a string of cars all being forwarded to the same RR in CHI and even same end destination? This process is used overseas, I believe, for ship to rail transfer. (Most transfers there go to trucks b/c short hauls, but it is computer-controlled as well.)
BTW, I hope this question doesn't get a nasty, sarcastic response as the OP, sawtooth, did for his. Yet he was reprimanded for his response to that while greyhounds if given a pass.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Hey, just to be clear - I'm not avocating that idea - just trying to point out the literal dimensions of its impraticality. It would be interesting - and more useful - to compare with the size of a few recently-built IM yards to get a better gauge for what would actually be needed
A little more on Clearing, which is instructive on this point, from the BRC's history at - http://www.beltrailway.com/history.html [emphasis added - PDN]
The history of the Clearing Yard is interesting and is found in a fascinating story of a practical railroad dreamer who lived in the days of empire builders. His name was Stickney and he was president of the Chicago & Great Western Railway, whose line reached Chicago in 1886. [Also a personal and professional friend of one J. J. Hill, per Wikipedia - PDN.]
He conceived an enormous Clearing Yard for the ever increasing flow of freight which he foresaw for Chicago when its distribution facilities had been exploited. His first thought was location and his first requirement was a site outside the city where the burden of taxation could not eat away the economical advantages of his Clearing Yard.
In 1889 he proceeded with the construction of his conception of a clearing house for railroad cars. This was a four track circle, a mile in diameter, into which he proposed to have the railroads feed their freight trains at different intervals, dropping off cars destined for other railroads into radial tracks and shunting those for industries upon tangent spurs.
Stickney called it his Clearing Yard and thus gave the name Clearing to the industrial district which was to be its ultimate successor. This circle ran from 55th Street on the north to 79th Street on the south and from Harlem Avenue on the west to Cicero Avenue on the east.
The plan was found to be impractical and never reached a tryout stage. So Stickney passed out of the picture and his circle went back to nature.
Then for years, 4,000 acres lay idle, but not forgotten. H.H. Porter, another of the empire builders, a railroad president and banker, picked up where Stickney left off. In 1898 he laid out a car sorting yard employing the hump gravity principle for the first time on a large scale.
The yard commenced operation on April 1st, 1902, and Mr. Porter invited the railroads to come and use it. Despite his position as chairman of the Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad, he was unable to convince his fellow railroaders of its practicability or to agree to its cooperative use. The Yard remained in general operation for one month only, but continued to handle some switching business on a small scale until August 1912. In order to fit into Belt Railway plans of terminal operation, it was necessary to tear out, salvage, rebuild and enlarge. It took the years 1913, 1914 and part of 1915 to do it.
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
The "randomly" came from Paul North, who I assume knows what he is talking about:
"So when a train rolls into Chicago with 280 containers on board - randomly loaded, by the way - that are bound for - say, 30 different destinations across the Eastern U.S., but not uniformly - some get only 1 container, others may get 20 or 30 boxes."
I think the term "madness" while a headline grabber, was pretty over the top. But I wondered if some (though not all) of the classification needs could be avoided in Chicago by better classifying/blocking in SF, LA, etc.?
The "random" comment was mine, and it was chiefly based on my recollection of a comment from Railway Man that the ships unloaded containers in a 'mine run' fashion - meaning that the boxes come off in no particular order, starting with the top of each stack of course, and giving consideration to maintaining the balance and trim of the ship during the unloading process, etc. Further, as I recall they are also loaded pretty much that way - there isn't the infrastructure on the originating piers to sort and hold the containers in a particular order.
Now the handling process from the container crane at the unloading wharf to the double-stack train may - or may not - involve a couple of opportunities for sorting and aggregating. But my point is - and note that this is without the benefit of any first-hand knowleddge - that I doubt that the boxes are loaded so precisely that the first 10 platforms are all for CSX - Boston destinations only, the next 15 are all for CSX's New York City and New Jersey terminals, the next 5 are for NS's Bethlehem intermodal terminal, etc. If such elaborate pre-blocking is indeed the case, then those blocks could just be cut and switched/ transferred on their 'steel wheels' directly and immediately to the proper forwarding railroad's IM terminal - but that's not happening.
Instead, my understanding is that the containers on the trains for each of the G1, etc. destinations have some characteristics in common, whether it is the shipper such as UPS, a commodity such as food or mail, and/ or the next railroad or destination range - interchange or local, etc. I'd be pretty surprised if all of the trains to any 1 of those terminals are destined for only 1 or 2 railroads or interchange points. Until that happens regularly, a sorting operation will still be needed - and at that level, even a planned load for several different intermediate or ultimate destinations is not too different from a random load - they all have to be taken off, sorted, and reloaded.
I see this time to time when tracing domestic containers on the UP: They'll stop the load to de-ramp & re-ramp at Global 3. Run it on a shuttle train from Global3 to Gloal2. At G2 they will de-ramp it & dray it over to the CSX (for a UMAX box) or NS (for an EMP). They'll blow 4-5 days doing all of that. The next load on that run will steel-wheel across in about 24hrs or so.
I guess it depends on if they have a full well car for that specific ramp pairing. If they do it rolls right on thru. If they don't, it results in a lot of re-working.
One thing to keep in mind is that each shipping company contracts with just one of the western railroads, and if the box is destined for Chicago it will go to one particular Intermodal facility, I think K-Line containers go to Global 1, Mitsui OSK to Global 2, etc. One of the reasons this happens is because the shipping company will have chassis at only one IM facility. No railroad supplies container chassis, In fact the railroad charges to store the chassis at their IM facility.
beaulieuOne thing to keep in mind is that each shipping company contracts with just one of the western railroads, and if the box is destined for Chicago it will go to one particular Intermodal facility,
And the second RR contracts the same way? An example of the lack of real integration in the rail-rail, let alone intermodal networks.
I think the analogies between O'Hare passengers and freight cars are faintly ridiculous. Human traffic, rail as well as air, has always been responsible for making its own transfer arrangements (except for the short era of coast-to-coast sleeping car service). That's because God gave its members a brain and two feet.
Freight cars do not have these advantages. And traditionally the transfer has been "steel wheel." Rubber-tire is a response to a system that is broken. That's really all Sawtooth was saying. Anyone who thinks that response is anything other than a tactic of desperation -- a short-term "solution" rather than a long-term strategy -- had better not be running a railroad I own stock in.
dakotafred I think the analogies between O'Hare passengers and freight cars are faintly ridiculous. Human traffic, rail as well as air, has always been responsible for making its own transfer arrangements (except for the short era of coast-to-coast sleeping car service). That's because God gave its members a brain and two feet. Freight cars do not have these advantages. And traditionally the transfer has been "steel wheel." Rubber-tire is a response to a system that is broken. That's really all Sawtooth was saying. Anyone who thinks that response is anything other than a tactic of desperation -- a short-term "solution" rather than a long-term strategy -- had better not be running a railroad I own stock in.
This, of course, is just plain wrong.
The false claim that this is "short-term" ignores history. I got my first civilian transportation job in Chicago 35 years ago. I had come to the Chicago area in 1974 to attend graduate school at Northwestern after finishing my obligatory two years on active duty with the US Army Transportation Corps.
In 1975 I was a summer intern at Merchant Shippers, a freight forwarder located at 1601 S. Western Avenue in Chicago. We were hard by the "Falcon's Nest", the C&NW ramp on Wood Street. We were also "across the sreet" from a BN ramp in Chicago. We were in a BN freight house and we worked LTL shipments across a freight dock into TOFC trailers for movement to the west coast. Despite being next door to the C&NW (UP) ramp and a BN ramp, most of our California frieght went out on the Santa Fe. Santa Fe train #188 was unbeatable to LA.
We were head to head with the truckers on service and we held our own. TOFC shipments coming in from the east were always "Cross Towned" on rubber from the eastern road's ramps to the western road's ramps. It was the most efficient way to move the freight. That's reality. Refusal to accept reality might indicate some kind of a problem.
Rubber wheel interchange of intermodal freight in Chicago is not, as falsely claimed by some, a short term desperation strategy. If is, for some shipments, the most efficient method of interchange. It's certainly not "short-term". Its been around for decades and it stays around today because there is no reason to replace it with a less efficient method of interchange. (After graduation I went to work for ICG intermodal marketing, then RoadRailer, and I became convinced that rubber wheel interchange has its place for some of the shipments.)
The people who decry this practice are simply looking for something to decry. The US has the safest, most efficient, most cost effective rail freight system in the world. So says the FRA. The FRA administrator, Joe Szabo, has referred to the US rail freight system and "The Envy Of Other Nations".
Please note this fact: Recognition of reality is not "desperation". It's the refusal to accept reality that is the true "desperation". That's just what the folks who are critical of the rubber wheel Chicago interchange are about - they're desperately looking for something, anything, to criticize. And if they can't find anything real they'll pick out something that is not intuitive and try to ride it to victory. The rubber wheel interchange suits their purpose just fine. It's not a real problem, but it'll do. They're not about fixing real problems, they're about themselves.
A train and a truck are simply two different tools that do the same thing. Which tool you use depends on the situation. To be the "best tool for the job" a train needs volume. When there's limited volume moving between two rail intermodal terminals in Chicago, it makes sense to use the truck tool for the interchange. That's reality. People who deny that are denying reality.
If any of you want to give these people any credence, that's your problem.
dakotafred . And traditionally the transfer has been "steel wheel." Rubber-tire is a response to a system that is broken. That's really all Sawtooth was saying. Anyone who thinks that response is anything other than a tactic of desperation -- a short-term "solution" rather than a long-term strategy -- had better not be running a railroad I own stock in.
. And traditionally the transfer has been "steel wheel." Rubber-tire is a response to a system that is broken. That's really all Sawtooth was saying. Anyone who thinks that response is anything other than a tactic of desperation -- a short-term "solution" rather than a long-term strategy -- had better not be running a railroad I own stock in.
And traditionally the steel wheel transfer has been the weak point of the system. As it is right now the rubber tire transfer is the best way to interchange containers. Considering that railroads have been doing it like this for years, you might want to sell your stock.
An "expensive model collector"
Sticking to Chicago and the UP... I posted a link below for info on the new UP Joliet Intermodal Terminal (JIT).
http://www.uprr.com/customers/intermodal/featured/joliet.shtml
At the bottom of the page is the UP Chicago Terminal Plan which I have also posted below:
Global III is more of a intermodal switching yard. Intermodal trains from the west coast drop blocks at G3 for yards they are not going to. UP has transfer runs that go to Global I, Global II, Chicago / Ashland Ave (NS) and Chicago / 59th St. (CSX). Global III is UP's effort to reduce at least some of the rubber-wheel transfer congestion in the greater Chicago area. By having dedicated transfer runs they also reduce the number of trains trying to access Ashland Ave. and 59th St.
Mixed intermodal? How about ISEG2 (intermodal Seattle - Global II) that does / did (?) have a block of about ten auto racks on the front-end.
How does a shortage of truck drivers affect drayage operations / costs? Or, is it mainly the OTR operations that are short drivers?
CC
CShaveRRDid somebody say "randomly"? I'm pretty sure that's not the case. Not when you have trains from the west coast whose designations end in "G1", "G2", and "G3", among others. I haven't taken a look at our alphanumeric soup to see what all is being run, but a complete list from somewhere would give a good idea of the madness that assuredly is not involved.
Each terminal in Chicago handles a different type of traffic now. And it is madness in a way. Meaning, for the most part, unless they are taken directly to a connecting carrier, it is all random. The only thing not random is the terminal it ends up at, be it G1-G2-G3-CS- or Yard Center. Given both the limited capacity and traffic, unless it has an intermediate block, or is a dedicated train for a carrier, it is all mine run. Once in Chicago, the containers are grounded, at that time, they may be sorted into blocks, or hauled off by drayers. Sure in a terminal such as Long Beach, you might have space to dedicate to all CSX or all NS or all CN containers. But they have to make the terminal before the cut-off, or it is all a waste. Usually such places are first come-first loaded. After the cut-off time, containers are being spotted for the next train already.
As for CREATE, Intermodal is just another type of train that will move better through Chicagoland as a result. The third track planned around Proviso will help get some trains out of the way of the stackers, and the crossing improvements at Brighton Park will speed things up between UP's Global-whichever and NS' Ashland Avenue or CSX's 59th Street yards. But these are just a percentage of the movements through these spots; CREATE will help/is helping everything.
Considering the congestions in the Chicago terminals, a lot more are on the rubber tire once they hit the ground than you imagine. And that is just the one carrier I am familiar with. They have inbound of 1200 containers per day average. Of those 1200: 133 are for UPS; 109 for Landers; 92 for Bedford Park; 32 for Conrail at 59th...(these are just numbers, not exact manifests). That's it. The rest are shoved into G1-G2-G3 for grounding. That said, there is at least one transfer job between G3 and G2 and G1 every day. I cannot speak to what is contained in it, and did not include it in my accounting.
In short, lots of rubber moves.
Yes, there is some block swaping going on. For example, KLBCH drops a block at G3 before heading to Conrail 59th. KTALN drops a block at G3 before heading to Landers. KLTG1 picks up a block at G3 before heading into G1. Nine of the fifteen daily trains that enter the teriminal, do not make intermediate stops in-town. KTAG2 for example or ZCIBP or ZEPCS. And not to be mistaken, at least one of the Chicago bound Z trains do make pick ups enroute, so they are not all get on and ride. Work horse? KLBCH, with work at Salt Lake, Council Bluffs, G3, and finally to 59th.
dakotafred And traditionally the transfer has been "steel wheel." Rubber-tire is a response to a system that is broken. That's really all Sawtooth was saying. Anyone who thinks that response is anything other than a tactic of desperation -- a short-term "solution" rather than a long-term strategy -- had better not be running a railroad I own stock in.
Rubber tire is efficient in most cases for the carriers. There is no yard switching involved. Dray drivers are cheap, usually on a per trailer/container basis. Locomotives and crews are not. Line capacity is limited, and cost money to expand. Using the street is cheap and easy, and most of all, not your responsibility. Once the dray leaves the terminal, your problems end as a carrier (actually once the container/trailer hits the ground). Let the broker or customer deal with the dray companies.
The key now a days is to keep the cost per car down, not to create more by unloading and loading containers, then running a transfer. That just steals money from the bottom line. long term or short term. And terminals is where the most of the profit is sucked out of a rate.
I am going to try and give this a whirl, although I highly suspect the original; poster really doesn't care, he is just looking for someone to agree with him that there are to many trucks on the streets and there is a way to make them go away.
First, to address the idea that the container ships have randomly loaded containers is incorrect.
A lot depends on where the ship originates, where it stops en route, and who the ship belongs to and who the ship owners customers are.
Keep in mind a lot of container ships operate just like a local peddler freight train, they make several stops, set out and pick up groups of containers, all along a pre determined route.
When they arrive at Long Beach, or Houston for that matter, most of the boxes on top came from the same point of origin, and are headed for the same final destination, be it a central location or a distribution center.
The next set or group all were loaded at the same place, and as with the first group, have the same basic destination, be it a single distributor or a single city.
It would be a rare event that any ship would put to port for one or two singles, just like with trains, the economy is in scale.
Trust me, you can go to the First Officer on these ships, and in a few key strokes, he can tell you exactly where in the ship any container is, and most likely give you an estimate to its unloading time within a few minutes of the actual lift time.
Now, if you are discussing a ship that was completely loaded at one point of origin, say Hong Kong, then yes, the chances are the boxes are simply stacked in the ship in no particular order, because all the boxes are destined for the same point of arrival, and the "sort" will occur at that location.
The reason all the boxes are headed for the same destination is economy, its cheaper to aggregate all the boxes for Houston at one dock, load them all in one ship and go.
These containers may be from 40 different companies in China, in 40 different cities, all trucks or trained to Hong Kong to be sent out, because its cheaper that way.
Back to our peddler freight ship...he left China, stopped in India, then after stopping in several ports of call in Africa, he round the horn, then over to South America, makes a few more pick ups, up the coast, through the canal and into Houston.
For the sake of clarity, lets say he has 100 boxes for 5 different location in the US, all 5 served by different railroads.
Now, you could load railroads A's train, by pulling the train along side the ship at the wharf, and digging all the boxes out of the ship for that railroad, but then you have to figure out a place to put all the boxes not going out on that railroad.
Or, you could build 5 separate tracks next to the wharf, and load the trains with a really expensive and very large container crane capable of spanning 5 tracks.
Or, you could do what most ports do, simply drop the box on a boogie chassis and use a dock pup to run it over to the track where its correct train is, and lift it there.
Again, using Houston as an example...lets say your peddler ship arrivers At Barbour's Cut intermodal wharf, with the 500 boxes....Barbours Cut is a Santa Fe yard, with 6 inbound tracks and 6 outbound tracks.
So you unload the ship...what to do with the boxes that are going to, say the UP?
Englewood, UP's intermodal yard, is about 15 miles away, and has no dock, its land locked.
You could simply drop all the UP boxes on a train and run it over to Englewood, right?
Heres the rub.
To get from Barbours Cut to Englewood, the train would have to have a brand new rested crew, because ti will take the better part of 12 hours to go that 15 miles, because it will have to travel over 3 different railroads, through the PTRA Pasadena yard, our Manchester yard, UP's Booth Yard, then either through UPs Basin yard or PTRA's North yard, fight traffic up the Belt sub and arrive at Englewood, and once there, the boxes would have to go through a final sort again by final destination.
Or...you could drop the boxes onto highway chassis and drive them to Englewood, where the trucks pull up next to the correct outbound train, and the last lift happens.
You choices are, lift the boxes off the ship to a train, then off the train to another train, with a 12 hour delay, or lift the boxes off the ship, and then lift them to the correct out bound train in about an hour.
3 lifts and 12 hours, or 2 lifts and 1 hour, which do you think saves time and money?
I would imagine the situation is no different in Chicago than here, maybe even worse, as from what I understand, some where along the run you would have to use the Belt tracks, and a few other railroads tracks, so you cost just went up again, along with the lift cost and crew cost, plus the time involved.
As to why the cost of trucking the box is so "cheap"?
Because just like railroads, when you have a large number of guaranteed loads, you can lower the cost, your drivers are not leaving the city, they can work in 8 hour shifts, making the same run over and over.
If you can guarantee a trucking firm or stevedore firm 500 runs in a 24 hour period, they are going to give you a tremendous break on cost.
To boil it down to a simple answer, every time you lift a box, the contents of the box just got more expensive, and every hour that box is not moving also raises the cost.
And, just like Houston, I would bet Chicago has a direction of traffic on its rail system, (one that is incomprehensible to anyone who is not a dispatcher) so the steel wheel interchange may involve sending the train completely around the city simply to travel a few miles away from its start point.
Oh, by the way, most news reporters don't have a clue as to how or why railroads work the way we do, they simply assume you go out, get on the train, and "drive" from point A to point B, sorta like driving to work...
23 17 46 11
Thanks again, ed - and the other commenters above, too - for the detailed explanation of the several different scenarios that can occur, and each of your insights on them. Although this too seems like the parable of the 3 blind men touching different parts of an elephant and then describing 3 wildly different animals, there are a lot of common elements to this 'elephant' - as an unbiased review of all the comments on this Page 4 will confirm. Two of them is that there is a real mix of the boxes at most terminals, and there seems to be a real need for rubber-tire transfer or interchange.
edblysard [snip; emphasis added - PDN] First, to address the idea that the container ships have randomly loaded containers is incorrect. A lot depends on where the ship originates, where it stops en route, and who the ship belongs to and who the ship owners customers are. . . . Now, if you are discussing a ship that was completely loaded at one point of origin, say Hong Kong, then yes, the chances are the boxes are simply stacked in the ship in no particular order, because all the boxes are destined for the same point of arrival, and the "sort" will occur at that location. The reason all the boxes are headed for the same destination is economy, its cheaper to aggregate all the boxes for Houston at one dock, load them all in one ship and go. [snip]
A lot depends on where the ship originates, where it stops en route, and who the ship belongs to and who the ship owners customers are. . . .
[snip]
That's the scenario/ kind of operation that I had in mind when I posted the ''random'' comment.
When you look at a lot of terminals, they do not have unlimited space. The managers have an idea about how many units will arrive at the gate for a particular train. I say that because too many miss cut-off times.
Look at Long Beach. Six tracks for loading, which hold up to 15 DS cars each, or a total of 80 DS cars. Some allocated for inbound, others for outbounds depending upon the time of day. So those 800 container spots are precious. They can park 2800 containers in the terminal, outside of the loading/unloading areas. As soon as they begin loading a train, those spots are filled with units for the next one, if the track is going to be used as an outbound. With a missed cut-off, they either leave the space empty, or look to see if another unit is on the property, and spot it up for last minute loading.
With a train such as KLBCH, given that they allocate at least one track, and part of another for the train, the number of DS cars are limited to either what is shown in reservations, or the capacity limits of the end terminal such as Council Bluffs. If CB can only take 15 DS cars, then any other units for CB have to wait. Terminals like the Globals in Chicago usually don't have those kinds of limits. Overflow can set out at G3 and be transfered later. But, to block units further into sub-blocks for G3, becomes time consuming and a constraint on capacity. In the case of KLBCH, with it's SLC, CB, G3, and CR 59th blocks, to create sub-blocks inside of that would be insane. If you tried each and every day to create inside of the 59th street block Charlottes, Pittsburghs, Queensgates, and Baltimores, it would tie space up, and delay other 59th street traffic. Perhaps one day, there are 23 Baltimores. That means either adding an extra DS car, or 3 stay behind for the next day. Those other 7 open slots on the DS car are wasted, meaning lost revenue and added cost. And that is just one sub-block. If you add extra DS cars to every sub-block just to cover a few cars, you either get too long for 59th, or wasting a lot of money hauling around half empty cars. And where will those extra cars come from? Will you shorten the next train by stealing some of their cars for half loads? Revenue lost again. Sure, there are some extras hanging out in the terminal. But not to the degree you might expect when you start running half loads on a regular basis.
So all this blocking nonsense is just that when it comes to dollars and cents. And it is where a rubber tire makes the most sense either inside the terminal, or from carrier to carrier.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.