RR's are full - then let truckers pull doubles!

[passengerfan]

Having been in the trucking induistry for 28 years I resent comments that truckers are not capaable of pulling double 53' trailers. The Kansas Turnpike, and other turnpikes have witnessed the pulling of multiple 53' trailers for a number of yeras now and there safe operation has been without herald. In ceratin western states three 28' trailers are operated on the Interstate system and have been successfully for years. In California it will never come to pass as the state has forced trucks to use the two right hand lanes of the freeway where all of the on ramps and off ramps are locarted. It has been proven time and time again that traffic operating at the same speed limits on interstates causes the least amount of accidents but California still holds trucks to 55 mph while other traffic is operating at 70 mph and over. Some years ago a study conducted on the Ohio Turnpike investigated traffic operating at two speed limits and found the majority of night rear end collisions were cars running into the rear of slower moving trucks due to the speed limits.
I feel that the professional drivers out their with todays capable trucks would be more than able to safely operate double 53' trailers safely.
The furniture manufacturers were among the first to lobby for 53'trailers due to the light weight of furniture loads. I received a lesson in the difference between a 53' trailer and a fifty foot boxcar some years ago when a crew loading a fifty foot hi-cube boxcar with furniture tod me they could put 2-1/2 53' trailer loads in one of the boxcars.

[Modelcar]

BaltACD....The thought of dumping the rail intermodal traffic over to the interstate system is scary. Just even the thought of having to do this should be a wake up call for traffic planners and method of allotment of transportation funding in this country. This can't be an option. That is to let the rail system fail....But what is an acceptable answer.

[daveklepper]

Why don't shippers cooperate with railroads on campaiging to get rid of the discriminatory fuel tax? They could split the savings, part to lower rates, part to increase profits, and part to add capacity.

[BaltACD]

While this thread has been discussed from the Railroad and Traffic Safety points of view, one point of view has not be adequaltely broached.

Road (Interstate) System capacity.

As a frequent user of the I95, I75, I10, I70 and I77 corriders, the Interstate system (at least East of the Mississippi) is approaching it's capacity limits for effective automobile travel, at least at the levels of operational freedom we have become accustomed to. For those of us who have Cruise Control on our automobiles, once you get on the Interstate....how long can you run in 'Cruise' without the need to exit 'Cruise' to contend with other traffic. That amount of time is decreasing each and every trip that I take.

Without taking an actual count, my perception is that there are more and more trucks on the highways. There are time where I will pass 10 to 12 trucks before I pass another passenger vehicle (car, SUV or Pick-up). Were the Intermodal volume handled by the railroads to be forced to the highways, gridlock and chaos would be the ultimate result.

The transportation network of the country relies upon all modes to perform the function that they most economically perform. There is a market for all the forms of transportation as long as the transportation providers market themselves to their strengths, not attempting to cover their weaknesses.

[arbfbe]

rllewiszz in the above post mentioned a railroad CFO recruited from AT&T. You ask why would they want someone from the phone company (TPC for all you older flinty guys) to work on the railroad? Ask yourself what does AT&T really do? They are a TRANSPORTATION company. Then move electrons that carry ideas from one place to another. AT&T was also another high fixed cost, regulated industry. Whether or not this individual could successfully make the transition from transporting ideas to moving freight is another matter.

Alan

[Puckdropper]

One of the major reasons why trucks should not pull dual 53-foot trailers is because many drivers have proven they cannot handle one properly. Many drivers pu***heir trucks (or themselves) too hard, or don't pay enough attention while driving to stop safely.

(Do note the usage of the word "many." I know for a fact that not all drivers are lacking in the ability to handle their truck safely.)

[Anonymous]

Modelcar: I'm quite familiar with hearing jake brakes. When I used to live in Columbus, we lived up on the hill on the west side of I-26 between the 74 interchange and 108 bridge not far from the base of the grade and trucks were constantly putting on their jake brakes and were often blowing tires. It could be considered worse than living next to a rail line (other thread) because the noise was constant, 24/7 365 for the 16 years I lived there (except the few times it closed for downed trees in the snow and the chemical spill.) At least it would only be at certain times for the trains.

[Anonymous]

In Re: Slotracer's post today at 11:58:42

My earlier posts have been somewhat uncharacteristically positive about the industry and its managers. However, much of my career in the industry was spent contending with and fighting over poor economic decisions (in my view) such as Slotracer describes.

For example, in a notably public statement in the late 1970's the new CFO (recruited from AT&T) of a big Class I declared that all traffic would be subjected to a rate-of-return test. If a given piece of traffic didn't have a revenue-to-cost ratio of at least 1.34, it was candidate for elimination if rates couldn't be raised to that level. Major tonnage was diverted to truck and barge as a result. This enormously exacerbated the negative effects of the 1980-1982 "double-dip" recession on the railroad. In my opinion then and now, an economically rational decision system would have kept the traffic to use up the sunk capital if rates could not be raised. But this demonstrates the eternal tension in a complex entity with so many shared expenses and shared physical assets. It is difficult to trace out all ramifications of any decision. But one truth is eternal: It's almost impossible to reduce costs and plant as rapidly as revenue when traffic is driven away.

Maintaining viable "excess" railroad capacity is expensive, so it isn't done much, because very few managers trust economic forecasts. Rightfully. Mothballing can be done, such as BN did with Stampede Pass, but reactivating is a multi-million dollar, multi-month process. One doesn't do it for "Easter Sunday" volume.

And then there is Intermodal, on which Slotracer doesn't want to be got going! No traffic has been more praised or pilloried. I have done both. Deservedly so, I believe. Short-haul, "loose trailer" TOFC has historically been low-margin, and unless even more radical operational and technological innovation than "Iron Highway" comes along, it will remain so (if kept at all). Truck service and rates are too competitive. Only where sunk capital and short-term excess capacity exist can such service be justified, as was briefly the case for BN's "Expediters" of the late 1980's.

Transcon intermodal is another matter. Apparently the Class I's see the traffic as investment quality. (One must concede that "glamour" affects even big investments such as this. Re-equipping the rail passenger fleet post-WW II comes to mind.) But the combination of highly efficient double-stack trains and premium-priced trailer service in essentially unit-train operating patterns is impressive. But recent industry experience is instructive. The transcon UPS hotshot appears to have wrecked havoc on the UP's Sun Belt LIne. And that after apparently interesting pricing decisions awarded the traffic to UP. It takes fortitude to turn away from "glamour" traffic, but the right analytical and decision making tools and management atmosphere make for sound decisions.

One may debate and critique past intermodal strategies, but the dice have been cast and there are precious few box cars showing.

Finally, Slotracer appropriately laments ill-advised cost cutting, and who would argue?
In an earlier posting I mentioned that Class II's have a portfolio of traffic segments. Accurately ranking the profit-contribution and return-on-assets of those segments provides an invaluable tool to guide cost-reduction decisions (as well as re-investment decisions). Keep line A up to snuff, maybe even a bit over-maintained. Line M, well keep it safe, but slow. Line Z should be starved, and shut down if it can't be safely operated. Same with rolling stock. And train consolidations. In short, "Precision Railroading." Overhead expenses may not be as easily ranked, but they can never be ignored. There is always "low fruit."
.

[Modelcar]

BRF...I'm familiar with truck run away ramps...There is one on Rt. 30 in Pennsylvania about 15 miles from my home area...That is a federal highway {not interstate}, and it crosses Laurel Hill Mtn. at that point and on the western side they have the truck run away ramp. Trucks are required to stop at the top before starting the decent. The grade is mostly 9 and 10% and even a bit steeper for a short distance of that area....For trucks, on 2-lane twisting road, that means business...! Jake brakes help much...something that they didn't have back in the 30's and later before the Pennsylvania Turnpike was built and Rt. 30 was the main east - west route through that area...

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Modelcar Posted: Today, 09:51:42
To BRF.....That is an interesting bit of info you related of the former proposed route for the rail line from Spartanburg to Asheville and then in later years used for I-26. That is a bit of rough territory through there...but still not quite as rough as farther north on I-40 north to the Tennessee line...even tunnels. For sure, not a place to be pulling double trailers of any size..!

I've only been through there a few times before and recall how rough the terrain is and the interstate cutting through in Haywood County. I heard that they could have gone through the Smokies a lot easier, but politics got too involved and they ended up following the river. Earlier this summer I went down Old Fort Mtn. in McDowell County on I-40, which is east of Asheville out of the mountains and it makes our section of I-26 in Polk County look easy! It's still a 6% grade, but for 6 miles instead of 3. Trucks are required by law to come to a complete stop at the top of the mountain for a brake check and see the map of the section showing where run-away truck ramps are before proceeding down the mountain at no more than 35 mph. There are even sensors in the road connected to overhead warning lights that flash if the truck is going more than 35 mph. Not an easy section to travel, up or down. Wish I had some pictures of it, but I-26 is only 2 miles from my house, so much easier to get those.

[Modelcar]

...JOdom...I doubt not your knowledge and workings of government...I recieve SS checks on time each month and our mail is delivered consistently each day...by government, to mention a few items that seem to get the job done. I'm sure, as you so state...some areas of government do not work like such.

[slotracer]

Long thread, mark made some good points. Shippers ship rail for a variety of reasons, cost being a significant one. We pay less by rail although we also figure in the cost of demurrage, intraplant switching, private car sosts etc to the NT rate. If truck or barge is lower than the railroad looses out to a natural competitor. Ourselves and most other shippers realize there is a cost difference and with it a value difference. With truck, delivery is plus or minus a few hours. Rail is plus or minus a couple days, but when the system is haywire, it can be plus or minus a couple weeks depending on the haul and shippers cannot live with that even if the service is free.Railroads have a part to blame in this too. While the majors have invested in improved track added double track and siding capacity, improved signalling etc, much has been abandonned with the mergers and thus excess capacity goes away forever. When major service snafus hit or business picks up there is no additional capaity to take up the slack. Railroads have a hsitory of waffling from focus on volume at the expense of contribution, then switching to focus on contribution at the expense of volume. We just had a major come to us and request we terminate a line of business that is good for 1000 carloads a year at a 40% profit margin....I know this as I was the business manager who set up teh rates and did the costing when I was still at that major. We'd kill for such a margin in competitive industry !

Don't get me going on intermodal, the railroads focus on it as it is teh major growth segment for the future, but it is the lowest margin traffic they haul for the most part and frequently has the highest demands for on time performance with severe penalties for service problems. You take your lowest margin traffic and use your peemium power and schedule your railroad around it, then complain you don't make enough to reinvest in the property and chase off higher yielding manifest traffic....

A major problem is that the railroads are still in the mindset that there is plenty of costs to cut as if this was just after staggers in 1980. The low hanging fruit is long gone and the railroads frequently cut into muscle and bone to try and cut costs.

[SALfan]

Very interesting thread. Don't have any direct knowledge of railroading or trucking, but can bring direct knowledge of working in government to the discussion. The day after tomorrow will complete 25 years of government service for me; trust me, folks, from one who has been there, GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT IS NOT NOT NOT THE ANSWER!!!!!!! Doesn't matter what the need is, doesn't matter what good intentions generated the idea of government involvement, getting the government involved is almost always a bad idea.

If you doubt me, look at the Internal Revenue Code. It should be simple - you made X dollars of profit, everybody's tax rate is Y percent, multiply the two and send a check for the resulting amount. Don't even fantasize that that is the way it works. I worked for a CPA firm in a former life, and did tax returns for businesses in a variety of industries. Every industry has its own special tax breaks, every one put in place by Senator Foghorn or Representative Paymeoff at the behest of whatever industry got to him "fustest with the mostest (cash)". And I apologize to Nathan Bedford Forrest for stealing his line.

Another reason not to get government involved: every rulemaking government agency, or agency that manages something from which a vendor or taxpayer could make money, has had the experience of making a decision that is right and fair, then having to endure letters/calls/testimony at a hearing where the agency is raked over the coals by Senator Foghorn or Rep. Paymeoff because the decision took money out of the pockets of the people providing the payoffs. Government is all about applying political pressure so that one or a few (the ones providing the payoffs) reap some advantage. At least in the business world the profit and loss statement enforces a certain discipline, and in most cases keeps the BS down to a manageable level. If a company lets the internal BS get out of hand it goes out of business (refer to Ed Blysard's description of how things were at Southern Pacific for an example). There is nothing to keep the BS in check in government.

[jchnhtfd]

At some risk of adding additional confusion...

I might throw out the concept (not mine, although I agree with it!) that certain types of business are 'natural monopolies': that is, because of some aspect of the nature of the business, they are most efficient when they are operated as geographic monopolies. Among the examples are electric power generation and transmission, wired communication systems (e.g. telephony) -- and highway freight and railroads. In each of these examples, there is, or should be, a significant investment in the distribution infrastructure, and that investment must be maintained and upgraded. Highway freight has, of course, never been treated that way, for historical reasons. Electric power was, as was telecommunications, and railroads have always been competitive. The current political mantra is deregulation and competition (or open access) but it seems to me that it is quite valid to enquire as to just how well it really works (electric power provides some pretty horrible case studies lately). There is much (quite unpopular, these days) to be said for treating these operations as, and allowing them to be, monopolies subject to suitable regulation. The problem with that is that the regulators historically were highly political creatures, with very poor long-term memories and even worse performance with future outlooks -- but was that a fault of the system, or the people running it?

Just another line of thought...

[Modelcar]

BRF....Enjoyed your photos of the interstate through the area...Have traveled each mile.

[jchnhtfd]

Tyson -- I was wondering when someone would bring up one of those monsters. I encountered one once on the way from Alice to Darwin... I was impressed. Couldn't do it in North America, except way north in Canada.

Many of the above posts are superb -- this is one of the best threads in quite some time. A few, unfortunately, are a little less -- but what the heck, I'm no great example.

As to splitting infrastructure development and maintenance from operations: please, oh please, don't. It's been tried on railroads in the UK and the results are truly horrendous. So has open access, ditto. For that matter, one can argue, correctly, that the highway/truck system is an example of open access and split operations and maintenance: deferred maintenance on highways is, as a result, the order of the day (can you spell 'pothole'?) and the competition in trucking is cutthroat, with the inevitable result that a few operators, in order to gain an edge, compromise safety -- with predictable, but lamentable, results.

In a nutshell, perhaps: remember that transportation is an industry, and an integrated industry -- much as we may like to think of it as a hobby -- and it has to please the customer or it's dead!

[Modelcar]

To BRF.....That is an interesting bit of info you related of the former proposed route for the rail line from Spartanburg to Asheville and then in later years used for I-26. That is a bit of rough territory through there...but still not quite as rough as farther north on I-40 north to the Tennessee line...even tunnels. For sure, not a place to be pulling double trailers of any size..!

[Anonymous]

Hey guys.

I'm not really into discussing the pros and cons of double trailers or road trains on the highways in the US since i dont even live there! But i thought you might be interested in what we have here in Australia. These are the real ROAD TRAINS! It must be noted however that these trucks dont drive down the main streets of major cities (at least not that i have seen), as far as i am aware they are limited to the national highways in particular the 3000km+ one way journey from Adelaide to Darwin. Are you sure you guys dont wanna have these driving around over there? [;)] I dont blame you!!

Check out this site for some pictures of what you are missing:
http://outbacktowing.tripod.com/australianroadtrainsnewphotoalbum/index.html

And believe it or not the world record comes in at 79 trailers, 3,340 ft in length and weighing 1,072 metric tonnes - all hauled by a single Kenworth prime mover a distance of 8km. (Not quite the economics of scale that one)

Despite that i still think trains are way cooler than trucks!

[Anonymous]

In Re: Junctionfan's comments on CN

CN Revenue 1997: $5.231 billion
CN Revenue 2003: $5.694

CN Operating Income 1997: $1.185 billion
CN Operating Income 2003: $1.777

CN Operating Ratio 1997: 77.3
CN Operating Ratio 2003: 69.8

CN Share Price 1/1/97: ~ $13
CN Share Price 8/3/04: ~ $45

It is certain that CN has made mistakes over this period, as Junctionfan points out, but Canada (and portions of the U.S.) now benefits from a very healthy transportation provider competing vigorously to move commerce efficiently. Individuals are adversely affected as procuctivity improves, to be sure, but given the precarious state of CN for decades prior to privatization, where would those individuals be today had change not occurred?

[MP173]

rllewiszz:

Yes, I sat in those smoke filled room, and 15 years later, I wonder what it was all about.

Anti-trust immunity allowed a lot of weak players to do well, quite well, but deregulation in 1980 brought an end to that. The inefficient ones left early, the ones that were efficient, but didnt understand free markets lasted a little longer and the strongly capitalized carriers remain.

LTL trucking is so similar to airline service. The second best move I ever made in my life was getting out and changing careers.

MP

[Junctionfan]

I would have to disagree with that CN is doing great since privatization I'm afraid. SInce CN has been private they have under serviced cities and whole regions forcing them to bring in a shortline. Anybody that knows Hamilton, Ontario-home of Stelco Steel, Stelwire, Canada Pipe Lines, Agrium, Siemens-Westinghouse, Doffasco Steel, Colombia Chemicals, and many others; CN decides in their infinate wisdom that they do not want to switch thease industries anymore. Industries bring in RailAmerica to do their job; CN all of a sudden decides they make a mistake and they want Hamilton back and Rail America says no. CN can't do anything about it because CP Kinnear Yard is near by and accessable to Rail America. CN has pulled the same garbage in Niagara where I live, Brantford which they manage to get back and many, many places. I took a look at an operation schedule of CN in 1995 and saw they ran about 600 trains daily and now they run about 300. What the heck is up with that. They don't seem to make any effort in replacing customers that just quit rail because they went belly up. They managed to alienate their market for the CN roadrailer service between Toronto and Montreal which must have cost CN alot for those tandem trailers and the facilities. The more CN acts the way they are, the angry and frustrated that the government or governments doesn't turn around and tell CN-"Look you aren't going to keep buying more railroads and fire folk just so you can make more cash and make the unemployment rate go up. Work with what you got". CN senior management is the biggest bunch of dingbats yet. You would figure that being the only railroad in Canada they compete with is CP and that CN runs all the way from the Atlantic to the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific (not even UP, BNSF, CSX and NS have that luxury), they would be operating more since it is easier for a company to pay one railroad to get from one area to an other than pay 2 or more railroads for the same destination such as this whole intermodal bridge thing I here will take place with the aquisition of BC Rail. Like I send CN is not pulling their weight in order to benifit the economy.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Blue Ridge Front

This might work in some of the flatter land, but here in western North Carolina and other mountainous areas this would be an absolute DISASTER. Every interstate coming into WNC (I-26 and I-40) have grades of 6-7% for several miles at a time with many sharp curves along the way. There'd be wrecks constantly. I've heard that in Australia they'll run up to four trailers at a time across the flatlands, so I would imagine two trailers could be done along certain routes in the plains if traffic isn't too heavy.

*To of course mention trains (this is a Trains forum, isn't it?) the I-26 route was originally planned to be the route from Spartanburg to Asheville instead of Saluda Grade. Engineers and surveyors determined that it would require 13 miles of extra track and several tunnels to ascend the unstable slopes of the mountain, not to mention the extra cost. So they instead decided on a route with a 4.7% grade? Oh well.

A few pictures of what I'm talking about. (A picture is worth a thousand words...)

http://www.geocities.com/williamchague/I-26

As you have noted that is tough country and from my past in NCDOT expensive to build, maintain and to repair. Two tunnels come to mind in my nightmares even down here in Winston Salem

[Anonymous]

This is a fast-moving forum! My limited typing skills, rusty efforts at composition, and unfamiliarity with forum technique have me a bit frustrated in attempting to keep pace while making some sense. (I agree with Mr. Hemphill that decorum must be maintained.)

Permit me a generalization, if you will. Perhaps overly broad, but directionally correct. Railroaders (I was one for 28 years) and railfans do not understand logistics, the economics of trucking freight, nor the nature of competition between the modes. Emotion, romanticism, and railroad industry propaganda influence their thinking to an undue degree in many cases.

I cut my economic/regulatory teeth on the railroad industry truism that "the steel wheel on steel rail is umpteen times as efficient as rubber on concrete." The physics is right but virtually irrelevant in comparing logistics efficiency of the two modes: shipment size, transit time, frequency of dispatch, predictability, reliability.

And the subsidy canard: "If the truckers paid their fair share railroads would move everything over a hundred miles." Sure, there is the never-ending debate over highway construction cost allocation. Truckers want to pay less and the AAA and railroads want them to pay more. But trucks pay alot in taxes, nowhere near 0% as is implicit in many heated debates, so a relevant question is, what would happen to modal share if truck taxes were, say, doubled? Almost nothing would change. Truck logistic advantages are that great.

I'll probably be way behind the posts, but I offer these observations and comments on recent submissions.

Highway damage is significantly a function of axle-loads, therefore double-bottoms do not in and of themselves cause additional damage. In fact, one double will do less damage than two singles because of reduced tractor axle impact.

Double-bottoms and triples (pups) have been widely and safely used for decades. From the New York State Thruway to the Kansas Turnpike to many of the western states where the name "Rocky Mountain double" was coined. The "logistics" of doubles operation are complex, though, and the apparent raw line-haul economic advantage is limited in many cases. This, I believe, is why the trucking industry has largely ended its agitation for more widespread use of doubles.

Why the dire pessimism about the industry and outright lack of current information?

For example, the CN has performed spectacularly since being privatized in 1996, giving real world insight against arguments which favor separating ownership of right-of-way and train operation.

And where are the data showing extensive deferred maintenance on any Class I?

Which Class I is anywhere close to needing government "assistance?" UP has its trouble, but it's no SP! CSX isn't exactly highballing, but it's no PC!

And then there is the argument for open access in a "monopolistic" industry that doesn't earn it's cost of capital and is in need of government support. (Talk about inept capitalists!) An "Exhibit UP": Consider the trona (soda ash) shippers of Wyoming. "Captive" to the UP for decades ... displaced all of the old sovay-method producers years ago ... highly competitive in world export markets. "Exhibit BNSF": Montana wheat still moves into world markets 34 years after James J. Hill's "monopolistc" dream was realized in the BN merger. There is an inherent tension in the relationship between railroads and shippers, "captive" or other. Economic rent is to be had, the calculations are complex, mistakes are made. But they need each other once that capital has been invested. Only the foolish attempt to blindly exploit the other, for too many options exist.

Ah! A comment from MP173 ... so you too sat in those smoke-filled rate bureau rooms.
Sometimes I shake my head ... how could an industry with complete antitrust immunity for rate-making not succeed? Then I remember ... logistics, and the ignorance therof.

[Anonymous]

This might work in some of the flatter land, but here in western North Carolina and other mountainous areas this would be an absolute DISASTER. Every interstate coming into WNC (I-26 and I-40, at least 4 total, many others that aren't as long but just as steep) have grades of 6-7% for several miles at a time with many sharp curves along the way. There'd be wrecks constantly. I've heard that in Australia they'll run up to four trailers at a time across the flatlands, so I would imagine two trailers could be done along certain routes in the plains if traffic isn't too heavy.

*To of course mention trains (this is a Trains forum, isn't it?) the I-26 route was originally planned to be the route from Spartanburg to Asheville instead of Saluda Grade. Engineers and surveyors determined that it would require 13 miles of extra track and several tunnels to ascend the unstable slopes of the mountain, not to mention the extra cost. So they instead decided on a route with a 4.7% grade? Oh well.

A few pictures of what I'm talking about. (A picture is worth a thousand words...)

http://www.geocities.com/williamchague/I-26

[Anonymous]

High Iron-

The Thruway is exactly what I was thinking of.

LC

[MP173]

Great thread.

I worked in trucking (LTL) management for 13 years before seeing the light and getting out of a horribly competitive industry and into something in which you can add value and call it a manufactured product.

In my current career I deal with both railroads and trucking companies, primarily the latter, although my largest customer is rail related.
The arguement of the truckers not paying for the infrastructure is old and I just dont buy it. Taxes are huge for not only trucking fleets, but for automobiles.

I personally dont construct and maintain my own infrastructure to drive to Chicago daily, but I do make choices...do I pay the tax of $2 to go over the Skyway or do I pay the expense of added time to drive the longer route?

Rails lost the boxcar business because the reliability of service suffered.

They are gaining that business back, thru intermodal.

In most instances, the only way to gain the business back thru intermodal was to be cheaper than trucking...they certainly cannot charge a PREMIUM for inferior service. Thus the "new" business is incrementally priced lower and lower. I believe TRAINS addressed this recently in an article discussing pricing and costs for boxcar vs intermodal traffic.

Transportation is at a crossroads (thanks...I know it is a great pun) now. There are several dynamics at work here. The truckers are finally getting a chance to get some rate relief.

Why? Supply and demand is finally in their favor.

Rails should be getting rate relief for the same reasons. Will it be enough to cover the cost of capital necessary for new infrastructure? Probably not.

There has been enough damage done for the future of railroading by the rationalization of lines in the 80's and 90's. But ... it was necessary, to be healthy.

Recently the CSX turned service of the former PRR mainline thru Indiana and Ohio to Chicago to a regional operator of short lines. They retained ownership, I believe of the track. Not a bad move, just in case they need it later.

Too bad other lines couldnt have been railbanked in the past.

That website on the MOW costs was great. Reminds me of the old days when I sat in on rate bureaus and how we determined costs and then sat around smoke filled rooms legally establishing rates.

MP

[Anonymous]

In response to limitedclear....

If railroads aren't about the shippers, what other entities out there are using rail service? Why have this "service" called "rail transportation" if the shippers are percieved as the enemy? Are you suggesting that railroads are an entity unto themselves, existing for the sheer reason of existance? Talk about BS......

Secondly, do you even know what constitutes a monopoly? A monopolist has control over captive customers, so in the railroad business any rail dependent shipper who only has access to one Class I IS subjected to monopolistic pricing behavior by that Class I, thus the situation reflex a de facto monopoly. The monopolistic characteristics of the North American railroad industry is mostly a regional phenomenon. Whole areas such as northern and eastern Montana, southern Idaho, Utah, western Colorado, parts of the Dakotas, et al, are all reflective of this situation, as reflected by the higher rates being charged to customers in those areas relative to rates being charged to customers with access to more than one Class I. Having access to two Class I's is only slightly better, since usually both Class I's are so huge as to afford ignoring all but the biggest shippers, e.g. a situation of oligarchy. There are plenty of shippers who would use rail if only one of the oligarchs would simply return their call. There are plenty of transportation companies such as 3PL's and 3PI's who would send their business over the rail lines if only it didn't take three years to negotiate a haulage agreement with the owners of the railline, by which time the potential customers got tired of the BS and renegotiated their contracts with a trucking company who is charging a higher rate per load.

I will agree with Mark on that point, that efficiency is more than fuel and labor, it is also flexibility and efficacious response to customer needs. When was the last time a monopoly was reputed to be flexible and responsive to customer needs? Remember back when AT&T was a monopoly? Remember what it took to try and get flexibility and responsiveness from them? When AT&T was broken up into several companies, the regulators were wise enough not to let these Baby Bells have sole access to their respective telecommunication lines, otherwise the AT&T breakup would have been pointless, kind of like California's "partial" energy deregulation, and in a way kind of like the Staggers Act. Releasing the railroads from regulatory constraints was a good thing, but that was counteracted by the failure to open access to the remaining Class I rail grid to all qualified users. Yes, there may not be a single railroad monopoly in the classic sense, but the remaining seven rail oligarchs project an attitude reflective of monopolistic behaviors because they and only they control access to their repective right of ways.

I know for a fact that people in the railroad industry have been fired for even suggesting opening access in some form or another. They saw an opportunity to enhance revenue on underutilized lines by allowing other operators to use the lines on some sort of fee basis, and they got their asses canned for it. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I do not understand this knee-jerk fear of allowing others to use the property on a fee basis if it results in an enhanced bottom line. Why not allow the trucking firms to run their own trains if the end result would be a shift of freight from highway to rail? What would be wrong with UP allowing UPS to run their own trains if UP themselves can't muster up the crews and locomotives?

Can any of you present any studies that would refute the notion that opening access to the NA rail grid would result in a net shift of freight from the highways to rail? And if such were to occur, wouldn't that be reflected in increased revenues for railroads?

The only BS I see is a stubborn unwillingness to try new things in order to enhance the bottom line (e.g. make railroading a growth industry in the eyes of the financial markets)and the nation's competitiveness in the global markets.

[JoeKoh]

Wow
lots of information. really wouldnt want to see double trailers on the highway not safe.And as stated before the railroads will move it if the price is right.
stay safe
Joe

[Anonymous]

Double 48's or 53's??? OMG!! NO, HAY-UL NO. nope no how uh uhnh sowwry.

YOu can flame me if you want. But I have 16 years in the trucking behind the wheel starting with 20 footers (Thought those were big) moved to 40's then 45's 48's and finally 53's.

There are very few places in the country where you can hook two full trailers and that is the NY Thruway. They are connected prior to gettting on and disconnected when they are off that road. 2 drivers are then needed to deliver them. (Or one driver two trips)

The driver shortage is a constant problem in the trucking. Everyweek you see 50 hopeful wanna be's packing orientation chattering to each other how they gonna make the money, drive a large car etc etc. Phooey. Very few out of that 50 will still be in the cab 6 months from they hire and even fewer will make it past first year.

On the flip side I hear the UP wants engineers and engines so bad they need 5000 just to honor the freight they got piling up.

Remeber this: They will ALWAYs need a truck to deliver something anywhere in the USA.

"Then let truckers pull doubles..." what a dangerous and unsafe concept. I am awake and glaring at the monitor because I remember that there are millions of spots you should NOT take a 53 trailer into because you cannot get out (never mind the bridges, overpasses, corner obstructions, people getting too close with the cars etc"

There are howls on both sides of the issue but bottom line is this:

Highways and state roads will NOT accomodate full doubles safely. This is why we have pups and triples across the country doing this work.

I shudder to think of what I must do with a double full set in downtown little rock to make a delivery anywhere.

As far as the talk about road damage, I can attest to some very bad roads left to crumble while they argue over what to do with the Federal Motor Carrier Taxes and Taxes from Fuel that has over the last 20 years accumilated in our US Treasury to rebuild our entire system twice over.

Some states are finally addressing very bad roads. These roads destrory trucks and sap the driver's strength and health. Cars handle the road easier but you will feel every crack and dip in a truck.

One truck with 24 tons in the trailer does less harm than a pair of trucks carrying 12 ton. The axle loadings on the 24 tonner load (40 tons gross) = 12,000 steer, 34,000 drive and 34,000 tandems. Give or take a little. Spread 10 foot axles on the steel flatbeds can carry 40,000 on the rear (20,000 max per axle)

The little truck with the 12 ton load perhaps has 3 axles maybe 2. The loadings are a bit less than the big truck. But put two of them with two tractors, insurance, fuel, drivers payroll etc etc etc costs more and requires more attention than one single truck at 80,000 pounds.

I no longer pay attention to shippers and recievers. They are in control of what, when and how and what time of day does the freight need to be there. You are locked into that when you load the rig, sign the bill of lading and close the doors. (They may even punch the time of day and actual date of loading on the lading forcing you to adjust your log book among other problems)

Railroads have higher axle loadings are best at carrying large cargos long distances. River barges will carry as much as a train does at times. Freighters ocean going ships will take even more.

In the end if you need that widget at the store, it was delivered by truck. You dont see the waste, loss and damaged product taht arrives at the destination for distribution to your store.

If I wanted to ship coast to coast I will box it and put it on the train. No problem. Getting it from the train to the customer will require a truck.