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.
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.
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.
- Paul North.
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.?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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_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?
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.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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.
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.
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.
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"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 . . .
My wife and I flew from Austin to Long Beach with an intermediate stop at Phoenix. We had to deplane, pick up a boarding pass, and wait for the same plane to reload. Our baggage stayed on the plane; cows and baggage are different from people. Remember the hullabaloo about pigs and cows can ride through Chicago but people can't?
The Spring 2010 issue of Classic Trains has an article about a transfer run in Chicago. I think a person could probably walk faster than the transfer's speed.
Art
Sawtooth500As a Chicagoan, this is why I would personally prefer everything be steel wheel: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37374561. Unless you live in New York or LA, you really don't know how bad the problem is...
Copy to activate link!
(EDIT) To add: FTA " Chicago Worst in Truck Congestion"
Probably a headline to be noted in the annals of understatement. Some time back I worked out of a business at Archer Ave and Halsead. Traffic was a way of life. Kind of like a beating, you cannot fully appreciate it til you have received one. And you can be it has not gotten any better, just exponentially worse.
1) Suppose the inbound-to-Chicago train posited by the Original Poster does in fact have 10 or 20 containers scattered through it that are going to be interchanged to NS at Chicago - that would be the equivalent of 1 or 2 5-'platform' 'cars' worth of double-stacked containers. And let's further suppose that UP is nice enough to pick them all out and consolidate them all onto a pair of those 5-'platform' 'cars', and 'steel wheel' interchange those cars and the containers over to NS, and that it all goes pretty quickly and economically because they are combined with a 'transfer' run of regular freight cars, or a 'light engine' move that's going that way anyhow, etc.
But UP really hasn't done NS any great favors, because those 20 containers may then be bound for half-a-dozen or more different destinations in NS territory, which are likely going to be in different 'blocks' and perhaps even different trains - unless there's an entire 'car' load of 10 boxes in that UP transfer which are all going to the same place on NS. So NS now has to unload the containers a 2nd time, sort and handle them again, and then reload them one more time, likely on different tracks. Although that lifting, handling, and loading equipment is capable and mobile, it isn't very agile, so again the boxes will likely be put on truck chassis for movement within the yard. Enough of these kinds of 'favors' and the NS terminal manager will likely call his counterpart over at the UP terminal and work out a deal to save them both time, money, and congestion by ''rubber-interchanging'' the miscellaneous number of containers that are much less than a full block or trainload's worth.
2) The only way to greatly cut down on the need for 'rubber interchange' is to find a 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. How big ? Well, at least 2 miles long to accomodate the now almost standard 9,000 or 10,000 ft. train - and after UP's stunt with that 18,000 ft. monster train from Texas to Calif. earlier this year, maybe 4 miles would be better to allow for future increases in train length. But I digress . . . Next, say it's all 6 major railroads, and they each need at least 10 tracks for their various destinations. The tracks can be in pairs at maybe 15 ft. centers, but they need to have a paved roadway between the pairs for truck and lift access - say, 50 ft. spacing there, for about a 40 ft. wide paved area between the cars. So each track needs an average of about 32.5 ft., so the 10 tracks for each railroad will require about 325 ft. of width x 6 railroads is 1,950 ft., call it 2,000 ft. across, or almost a half-mile. So for our 2-mile long x 1/2 mile wide terminal, that's 1 square mile or 640 acres - and that doesn't include any room for storing or holding containers, empty cars, truck chassis, etc. - and 10 tracks per railroad may not be near enough. So altogether, that's a huge chunk of land - where are we going to find it ? And at what cost ? And difficulties tying into each railroad's network ? Etc., etc.
dakotafred I think a lot of people on here have lost track of sawtooth500's point: Is it or is it not a reproach to railroading's vaunted "efficiency" that it is somehow more economical to truck a rail load across Chicago than to switch it ... whether one load or a block of cars? Come on, people! Unless you're getting your paycheck from a railroad, I expect better from you. Greyhounds, for one, needs to take a pill.
I think a lot of people on here have lost track of sawtooth500's point: Is it or is it not a reproach to railroading's vaunted "efficiency" that it is somehow more economical to truck a rail load across Chicago than to switch it ... whether one load or a block of cars?
Come on, people! Unless you're getting your paycheck from a railroad, I expect better from you. Greyhounds, for one, needs to take a pill.
Well, medication or no medication, I won't suffer fools gladly.
It's no "reproach". It's just beyond your understanding. That doesn't make it invalid..
dakotafred I think a lot of people on here have lost track of sawtooth500's point: Is it or is it not a reproach to railroading's vaunted "efficiency" that it is somehow more economical to truck a rail load across Chicago than to switch it ... whether one load or a block of cars?
Railroad's "efficiency" has always been in the long haul, not switching.
An "expensive model collector"
Sawtooth500 But this brings me to another question: Why are intermodal trains always unit trains? Why don't you ever put a few intermodal cars into a mixed freight?
The Intermodal terminals are frequently at some distance from the nearest carload freight yard. So you would need a local or switch crew to move the Intermodal cars from the carload yard to the Intermodal yard or vice versa. For BNSF carload is handled at Eola, while Intermodal is handled at Cicero, Corwith, Willow Springs, and LPC near Joliet. Figure 3-4 days longer transit time from the LA area to Chicago if you moved an Intermodal load via carload freight trains. And that is compared to a "S" series Stacktrain, the difference would be nearly another day compared to "Z" train service.
Good question, but as with everything related to transportation, the economics are much more complex than what logic may make you think.
The industry term is 'rubber wheel' vs. 'steel wheel' interchange, and why would anyone dray a single container cross town in Chicago when railroads could interchange dozens of containers all with one trip?
For those not familiar with the term, "dray" is the trucking portion of a container movement.
Here are the factors at play:
1) Ease of interchange / Terminal capabilities: Operating speeds and congestion between two interchange yards, plus the size of the facilities for handling the inbound load. Some terminals handle trailers, others handle containers.
3) Economics: Sometimes the majority of your freight is going from one terminal to another, so steel wheel interchange makes the most sense. Say 90 pct of inbound loads to CSX Bedford Park need to get over to UP Global 1. But maybe only 10 pct. is going to another terminal. In that case, it may be cheaper to take those containers off the cars and truck the across town.
My background doesn't come from the railroad side, so I really can't get too in depth with railroad's costs or standard operating procedures. However, I know a lot about economics of end to end container transportation, and if you think the cross-town drayage in Chicago is odd, here are some examples that will really make you think:
1) Sometimes it is cheaper to load a container in Cincinnati, dray it to Chicago and then rail to Los Angeles for LESS than ramping the container right there in Cincinnati, to travel to Los Angeles by rail.
2) Some companies will dray containers FROM Chicago to as far away as TORONTO rather than using the CN/CP and the local ramp in Toronto!!!! Remember, it all depends on rail and truck pricing and the particulars of your door to door move!
3) Would you believe me if I said sometimes shipping a load from Charlotte, NC to Oakland, CA is not necessarily cheapest or best going the entire way by rail? What if rail pricing out of Charlotte, NC is very high, and there isn't any equipment available? What if a more cost effective option is to truck a shipment to Memphis, transload the same shipment into a rail container, and then the railroad handles the shipment to Oakland?
4) What about Florida to New Jersey? Sometimes rail is cheaper, sometimes truck is cheaper. Why? There's a variety of factors that play in here.
The bottom line here is that the economics of the transportation marketplace are influenced by many, many different factors.. some of which are difficult to realize and understand if you do not work in the industry.
To the non-railroader, railroad operations have the appearance of disorganized chaos.....because they are not cognizant of the carriers operating plan....and every, repeat every carrier does have a very detailed operating plan....a plan of regular merchandise car load freight as well as plans for the intermodal networks. Without the plans virtually nothing would be moving....EVER. With the wrong operating plan, the carriers operations come to a screeching halt (the UP melt downs in the late 90's, CSX's melt down after Day 1 when the ConRail operating philosophy was implemented). Operating plans have to mesh the traffic volumes with the physical plant characteristics of the territory it is being implemented on. Mandating 200 car trains on terminals who's physical limitations will only handle 100 car trains is the fast track to gridlock.
The plans are continually adjusted, on a daily basis as dictated by daily volumes. On longer term basis based on known traffic changes from shippers/consignees, large scale construction/maintenance projects on the carrier and any of 101 other sustained measurable changes in traffic volumes.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.