I found this interesting.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/video/inside-life-trucker-road-20988024
The load is a long haul of ceiling tile. From Cloquet, MN to Pearland, TX. Over 1,200 miles. It went by truck. The driver estimated it would take him 2 1/2 days. Come on BNSF/UP. You go there. If your intermodal marketing departments can't get loads such as this on your rails you need to light a fire under 'em.
And just look at what the driver does for his money. He fuels, he does minor repairs, he inspects, he helps unload, and he cleans the equipment. I'm not suggesting rail workers do this. I'm suggesting they be aware that their competitive labor does this.
greyhounds I found this interesting. http://abcnews.go.com/2020/video/inside-life-trucker-road-20988024 The load is a long haul of ceiling tile. From Cloquet, MN to Pearland, TX. Over 1,200 miles. It went by truck. The driver estimated it would take him 2 1/2 days. Come on BNSF/UP. You go there. If your intermodal marketing departments can't get loads such as this on your rails you need to light a fire under 'em. And just look at what the driver does for his money. He fuels, he does minor repairs, he inspects, he helps unload, and he cleans the equipment. I'm not suggesting rail workers do this. I'm suggesting they be aware that their competitive labor does this.
One trailer from MN to TX is not the scale to make BNSF do anything to capture the business. 100 trailers a day - every day is what it would take to entice BNSF to have a look a providing 'competitive' services. It takes large, consistant volumes to rail carriers to enter markets.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Single trailers, single loads, one time once loads. These do not make money for a railroad nor sense for a shipper on railroad. However, if the shipper went to a major over the road hauler like J.B.Hunt or Schnieders it might go via rail in the long distance. Years ago there were freight forwarders who might preform the same service with a single, one time once, box car but usually handled l.c.l. (less than carload lots). But today, a single trailer or container is not like a passenger on the railroad, can't just show up and buy a ticket.. Least not in this country!
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
BaltACD . One trailer from MN to TX is not the scale to make BNSF do anything to capture the business. 100 trailers a day - every day is what it would take to entice BNSF to have a look a providing 'competitive' services. It takes large, consistant volumes to rail carriers to enter markets.
.
And therein lies the problem.
While no one shipper is going to show up with 100 trailers per day from Minnesota to Houston there is freight in some volume moving on that lane. The railroads need to be able to discover/identify potential business, quantify it, evaluate it and get it. They currently do not have the ability to do that. (I blame the stupid government, and I'll go in to detail on that if anyone wants me to.)
The railroads currently provide competitive intermodal service from St. Paul to Houston. Through Chicago. No new service is required. What they have to do is market the business. That includes identification, quantification, evaluation, pricing and selling. They (maybe with the exception of the NS) don't currently have marketing people who can do that. (Such bright young folks are a standard issue of business schools. The railroads just don't hire enough of 'em.)
Do you think this is a one time move? Do you think these are the only ceiling tiles the distributor will order? Adding this freight to existing rail service would throw money to the bottom line.
Marketing is the very weak link in the otherwise very good North American freight rail network. My post was meant to point that out. And I'll stand by that.
As for forwarders, the government absolutely hated them and basically caused their unfortunate demise.
I would opine that this market would be best handled by third-party expiditers who would act as the go-between tweenst the trucking industry and the railroad.
If you want your trailer to go by rail, you contact the expiditer, who will arrange for space with the railroad. Drop your load at the requisite spot and somebody picks it up at the other end and delivers it.
As long as the railroad is delivering consistent service, the expiditer can advertise as such and make the necessary arrangements, all for a cut of the action.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
greyhounds BaltACD . One trailer from MN to TX is not the scale to make BNSF do anything to capture the business. 100 trailers a day - every day is what it would take to entice BNSF to have a look a providing 'competitive' services. It takes large, consistant volumes to rail carriers to enter markets. And therein lies the problem. While no one shipper is going to show up with 100 trailers per day from Minnesota to Houston there is freight in some volume moving on that lane. The railroads need to be able to discover/identify potential business, quantify it, evaluate it and get it. They currently do not have the ability to do that. (I blame the stupid government, and I'll go in to detail on that if anyone wants me to.) The railroads currently provide competitive intermodal service from St. Paul to Houston. Through Chicago. No new service is required. What they have to do is market the business. That includes identification, quantification, evaluation, pricing and selling. They (maybe with the exception of the NS) don't currently have marketing people who can do that. (Such bright young folks are a standard issue of business schools. The railroads just don't hire enough of 'em.) Do you think this is a one time move? Do you think these are the only ceiling tiles the distributor will order? Adding this freight to existing rail service would throw money to the bottom line. Marketing is the very weak link in the otherwise very good North American freight rail network. My post was meant to point that out. And I'll stand by that. As for forwarders, the government absolutely hated them and basically caused their unfortunate demise.
I tend to believe that there are a lot of opportunitites out there than just Minnesota to Texas and it disheartens me that the railroads; particularly my employer CPRS, can't or won't take advantage of those opportunities.
Los Angeles Rams Guy greyhounds While no one shipper is going to show up with 100 trailers per day from Minnesota to Houston there is freight in some volume moving on that lane. The railroads need to be able to discover/identify potential business, quantify it, evaluate it and get it. They currently do not have the ability to do that. (I blame the stupid government, and I'll go in to detail on that if anyone wants me to.) The railroads currently provide competitive intermodal service from St. Paul to Houston. Through Chicago. No new service is required. What they have to do is market the business. That includes identification, quantification, evaluation, pricing and selling. They (maybe with the exception of the NS) don't currently have marketing people who can do that. (Such bright young folks are a standard issue of business schools. The railroads just don't hire enough of 'em.) Do you think this is a one time move? Do you think these are the only ceiling tiles the distributor will order? Adding this freight to existing rail service would throw money to the bottom line. Marketing is the very weak link in the otherwise very good North American freight rail network. My post was meant to point that out. And I'll stand by that. As for forwarders, the government absolutely hated them and basically caused their unfortunate demise. I tend to believe that there are a lot of opportunitites out there than just Minnesota to Texas and it disheartens me that the railroads; particularly my employer CPRS, can't or won't take advantage of those opportunities.
greyhounds While no one shipper is going to show up with 100 trailers per day from Minnesota to Houston there is freight in some volume moving on that lane. The railroads need to be able to discover/identify potential business, quantify it, evaluate it and get it. They currently do not have the ability to do that. (I blame the stupid government, and I'll go in to detail on that if anyone wants me to.) The railroads currently provide competitive intermodal service from St. Paul to Houston. Through Chicago. No new service is required. What they have to do is market the business. That includes identification, quantification, evaluation, pricing and selling. They (maybe with the exception of the NS) don't currently have marketing people who can do that. (Such bright young folks are a standard issue of business schools. The railroads just don't hire enough of 'em.) Do you think this is a one time move? Do you think these are the only ceiling tiles the distributor will order? Adding this freight to existing rail service would throw money to the bottom line. Marketing is the very weak link in the otherwise very good North American freight rail network. My post was meant to point that out. And I'll stand by that. As for forwarders, the government absolutely hated them and basically caused their unfortunate demise.
All of this appears to me to be missing part of the underlying issue: is capturing this kind of small-scale traffic justifiable in terms of real-world railroad operations and use of their assets?
In order to accommodate small numbers of vehicles in a given lane, there has to be an appropriate empty car available just at the right time. Then there is the time (and trouble) involved in loading and securing the trailer -- and determining what to do with the tractor and its driver. The train then proceeds to destination, where (1) some means of removing the trailer from the consist has to be arranged, and (2) the shipping company needs to provide a second tractor to deliver the van or whatever where it's going.
All the required steps, delays, and added routing have to be balanced against what the small-volume trucker gains from the exercise. Fuel savings? Already small compared to the cost of labor and the added uncertainty in delivery assurance (critical for kanban, for example, unless you've built excessive slack into your scheduling). Convenience of the rail option over one-crew point-to-point delivery... not so clear. It would take clever marketing indeed to make this look like an advantage to many truckers and companies providing the low-volume or uncertain-flow services.
Meanwhile, think of the fun for the railroad in providing the necessary 'collateral' and support for capturing a small-volume variable traffic. Clever marketing is going to do nothing to reduce those costs; indeed, I have to wonder if actual diminishing returns to scale (as in automobile manufacturing in small numbers) might be observed in most cases. Among other things, there would have to be clear 'champions' at railroad companies to support such a service, both through initial acceptance and traffic-volume building and through waiting for external conditions (such as fuel price) to change to the point the service becomes net-cost-effective. I'm sorry, but I see this as too much of a gamble for most marketing people, or operating people, to stake an important part of their careers on.
Now, if an OTR trucker can get around having to be licensed for many of the states traversed by a rail link, you may have a better argument. If there is a meaningful reduction in insurance cost proportional to the mileage run under the railroad's coverage, you may have a better argument. If the railroad provides better security and tracking than what is available to a crew in the cab of a truck and a built-in GPS unit, you may have a better argument. If fuel cost goes up over $5 per gallon, or weird new carbon taxes or whatever get tacked onto the cost of on-road moves "to help maintain the Interstate infrastructure" or whatever, you may have a better argument.
For railroads with surplus capacity, there may be a clear advantage in providing some properly-spotted empties in consists, especially if their computer systems and yard infrastructure easily support this. To an extent, if the reservations for small-volume traffic can be scheduled far enough ahead, you can get around the issues with providing empty capacity, balancing equipment moves, and so forth. I suspect there are quite a few special markets where capturing small-volume traffic in sufficient volume to allow actual trains to be made up ... even, perhaps, with Kneiling/Sprinter-style self-propelled equipment ... is a possible option (and there, aggressive, persuasive, and effectively-targeted marketing will be an essential factor.)
But for railroads that do not have excess capacity, it seems to me that the operating hassles alone make the service effectively 'unprofitable', even if nominal revenue goes up somewhat or the idea of the service catches on. One of the stated advantages of the RoadRailer/RailRunner was that just this sort of ad-hoc small-volume movement could be easily accommodated by adding the special trailers to the end of 'any old consist', more or less just by removing the FRED from the rear coupler knuckle and hooking 'em on. And that was without need for any special infrastructure other than road access to the rear of the consist, on the railroads' part. We all know where that approach has gone, and not for any reason I can see that better marketing would have addressed... ;-} How much less the perceived advantages are when consist changes or loss in dedicated capacity have to be made to accommodate the new service! (And how quickly its 'big savings' will vanish the first time someone leaves a trailer coupler unlocked, as on the Iron Highway years ago... but that's a whole different subject from marketing under ideal operations.)
Yes, I'd like to see a coherent service model developed, with all the costs and tradeoffs identified and at least roughly quantized. And yes, I'd like to see a railroad (or railroads) implement such a thing on an effective basis -- I'm sick and tired of heavy Interstate truck traffic to and from the Memphis distribution-center area, to say nothing of the through traffic, and would welcome anything that tended to reduce it. But it will have to work operationally before anyone can 'sell' it, no matter how strong the marketing emphasis becomes.
I'd like to point out that the business cited would not require any new service or equipment distribution system. It could move through existing intermodal terminals and on existing intermodal trains.
Yes, new, added business would require more flatcars. But they'd be moving on existing lanes between existing terminals.
I just wish someone had used RoadRailers as suggested above. Instead they were used in more or less standard intermodal systems. (without the flatcars). Using them as suggested might have actually worked.
And with that I will sign off to begin my Thanksgiving holiday. Happy Thanksgiving everyone!
As an employee of a company that receives goods on trucks and on trains, I'd have to doubt whether this would work for the buyer. Plan A calls for Joe Trucker to pick up my load at the manufacturer's door, drive for 2-1/2 days, and deliver it to my door. Plan B has Trucker #1 haul it from the manufacturer's door to a rail site, where it will be loaded on a rail car. Railroad #1 hauls it half way, and switches the car to Railroad #2. Railroad #2 delivers the car to a rail facility and unloads it. Trucker #2 picks up the load, and delivers it to my door. In Plan A, Joe Trucker is responsible for getting me the goods in as good of shape as when they left the manufacturer. Joe Trucker also has a financial stake in getting me my load as soon as possible. The quicker he gets unloaded, the quicker he is down the road. In Plan B, we have 2 truckers and 2 railroads involved, plus the maybe a couple of 3rd party contractors who loaded and unloaded the semi trailer off the van. Plan A has one party involved in the shipment who has responsibility for damage, and has a financial incentive to get me my load fast. Plan B has 4 to 6 parties involved, maybe more, if there is another entity involved in lining up all the players, If my goods are damaged, I'll bet real money that everyone involved will blame any and all of the others, and no one will want to pay for the damages. Instead of getting my load promptly, I'll get it when it works out for all parties involved- maybe today, maybe tomorrow, maybe next week. The unpredictability of shipping something like this by truck/ train/ train/ truck would have to have a very real cost savings for most end users to consider it. When I pulled into work this morning at 7:00 a.m. there was a truckload of OSB waiting at the gate. The load was from Canada, probably 1200 miles up the highway. Within 30-45 minutes, he was unloaded and down the highway. By now- 9:00 a.m., he's picking up something like a load of bricks an hour south in Sioux City Iowa, and heading down the road. For freight that is not big quantities of repeitive, predictable loads from one spot to another, I question whether trains are the best way to go.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy has created an example of the varying obstacles and circumstances which, I am sure, the major RRs have long ago examined and made their decisions upon.
Marketing "experts" at this site are welcome to market their expertise to any or all of the RRs. Good luck!
I work at an Intemodal Marketing Company & we can move this on an EMHU on a Minneapolis-CP-Chicago-UP-Houston routing. It would cost me approx. $3292. It would be up to the account rep to determine how much margin to add to that. Expected transit would be a 5th morning delivery. JBHunt, Schneider, Swift & others could offer service on a BNSF routing.
Generally the RR's don't market i/m services directly to shippers. They depend on IMC's to market EMP & UMAX container programs & in the case of BNSF, they rely on the truckload carriers to sell their services. They also have subsidiaries that provide door to door services to non-imc brokers... Streamline by Union Pacific, CSX Critical Capacity and Thoroughbred Direct by the NS.
At first glance I was inclined to agree with most that this would be business major carriers would ignore, but re-reading it, the light bulb went on…
Ceiling tiles are packaged in bundles, and then boxed in cardboard, so if there is a team track anywhere near the producer, then using a few boxcars would make this a win for the carrier and the producer.
Both BNSF and UP deliver to us, the PTRA in Houston, and we have team tracks, so how hard would it be for a local delivery company or stevedore to load the boxcar in MN, BNSF or UP picks it up, switches it into the daily outbound for Houston, it gets here, ends up at BNSF’s New South Yard or UP’s Englewood, both of which do a twice daily (sometimes more depending) transfer run to the PTRA, we can switch it out and have it in the team track next day….said track is about an hour drive from Pearland.
No special equipment needed and no special facilities beyond a team track, boxcars are plentiful, no special switching or handling by the carrier is needed, it’s a box for the team track, it can be humped or flat switched, road access to the team track here is great.
23 17 46 11
1200 miles in 2 and a half days certainly isn't breaking any records...should be a day and a half. Railroads aren't interested in low volume occasional moves, and that's what most shippers put out. The average shipper is 10 million in annual sales or less. Truckers go after that freight, hence the clogged interstates and secondary routes. Team tracks are nice; however, in essence the receiver is asked to pick up his/her own freight at the railhead. It is much easier to call a load broker who will arrange for door to door service via a hungry small truckload carrier.
UlrichRailroads aren't interested in low volume occasional moves, and that's what most shippers put out.
There was a day when railroads were in the low volume occasional business. I can remember when my father took me down to to the Appanaug RI station of the New Haven Railroad. We picked up a crate of oranges friends in Florida sent us as a Christmas present. Those days, however, are long gone. As Ulrich and others have pointed out, today's freight railroads are serious business. The children's story about the train hauling a load of toys over the mountain so the boys and girls could have presents under their Christmas tree is a charming story. But it has nothing to do with freight railroads.
I'm of the opinion that it isn't that the railroads don't want this business, it's that they aren't going to go out and try to get it. The UP had an ad campaign a while back about wherever you find business, you'll find the UP. They had a screen saver silent version that went through a bunch of scenes like a construction site, beverage bottling plant, auto plant, etc on company computers. In each scene was a UP shield, looking like a machined part with no lettering, somewhere in the back ground. Most of the lines of business depicted would consist mostly of low volume type freight.
While I'm sure they would accept low volume intermodal shipments, their actual solicitation ends with a few advertisements and their website. They aren't going to send people around to small customers like that to line up only a few loads, only to those that can line up large amounts. If a small customer wants to use intermodal, they have to go to the railroad. The railroad isn't going to go to them.
Jeff
Today's marketing schemes look for high volume and long distance with least amount of handling. Thus if you drove your tractor trailer to a railroad and said you want a ride, they will turn you away. If however, you make arrangements to have a single trailer every day or every week maybe, they may talk to you and try to work something out depending on distance and convenience to them. A local shortline might be more amicable to a contract than a Class One for sure. Fed Ex Freight and UPS Freight along with a few others,have taken over the Railway Express and L.C.L. shipping.
Los Angeles Rams Guy I tend to believe that there are a lot of opportunitites out there than just Minnesota to Texas and it disheartens me that the railroads; particularly my employer CPRS, can't or won't take advantage of those opportunities.
It appears that in many cases such service would be available in one form or another. Actual loading and unloading points would be the most critical factor - and whether those points were close enough to a given shipper and receiver to be feasible.
If XYZ Expiditers handled the arrangements, then a trailer delivered at X for delivery to Y should not be any different for a one-off movement or someone who ships multiple units on a daily basis.
In the end, I would opine that it all comes down to whether the costs and transit times are acceptable to all involved. All the marketing in the world won't attract customers to the railroad if it's cheaper overall to ship by truck.
tree68 All the marketing in the world won't attract customers to the railroad if it's cheaper overall to ship by truck.
Can't say either. Cheap is in they wallet of the buyer. If time is of the essence, or the safe handling of the shipment is important, if the size of the shipment dictates, or the route via highway vs. rail is better and less restrictive....there is no one reason to chose one mode over the other in any given circumstance, no blanket statement can be made.
AND to what Greyhounds mentioned:
"...And just look at what the driver does for his money. He fuels, he does minor repairs, he inspects, he helps unload, and he cleans the equipment. I'm not suggesting rail workers do this. I'm suggesting they be aware that their competitive labor does this..."
Add to that: the driver must make that 1200 miles "fit" into his schedule of available hours. If there is "a discrepancy" and the driver is "checked" by any of State Enforcement Agencies (rte: down I-35. Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma or Texas)
At any time the driver is subject to be checked for any compliance issue. and is subject to anything from being fined to being jailed ( Depends on the issues found at time of Compliance Check) Of Course any of those events can effect the Delivery at destination. Not to mention the fines levied are usually immediately due and payable generally by Certifiec Check ( ie: Com-Chek,etc) or Cash. A chain of events that can effect the final Delivery of the load at Destination. These kinds of fines are usually charged to the Driver...It is Equipment- based fines that can be payable to the Company(?).
Basicly, the Trucker is involved in a 'game of chance'. The Railroad Company is subject to the vaguaries of Weather, Equipment Failure (including Track). Generally, the Compliance issues facing the railroad are mostly, after the fact and subject to arguments by the Legal Dept. The Trucker is not as equipped, and subject to that odd political effect..." When you have them by the cahones, you have their hearts and minds, and attention..."
greyhounds And just look at what the driver does for his money. He fuels, he does minor repairs, he inspects, he helps unload, and he cleans the equipment. I'm not suggesting rail workers do this. I'm suggesting they be aware that their competitive labor does this.
Except for the loading/unloading and cleaning parts, TE&Y crews can and sometimes do fuel engines. Inspections and minor repairs have always been part of the job. (Even on highly unionized class one carriers. And before someone says, "Sure, but being union we get extra compensation for that." most of those provisions in the contracts have long been removed. Only under a few special circumstances are penalty claims available, and then it takes years before they might get paid.) Sure, larger facilities often have employees who's job does that work, but not all terminals. Even terminals that have them don't always have them on duty. When those other people aren't available, it falls to the train crews to do it.
PS. I carry a small bottle of window cleaner in my grip, so I guess I do clean windows some times.
I think one of the reasons that railroads don't compete well against trucks in this type of freight is the pricing. It's not that the railroads charge too much, as much as it is the truckers charge too little for their service. Truckers are, by nature, hard workers, who work long hours away from home, often in adverse conditions, and they don't get paid enough. Trouble is, there is always some other guy willing to do the job for less money.
The customer will pay for what he wants and/or what he needs as long as it is honest.
Oh Jeese!
Once again, it's DeJa Vu all over again.
It's like I'm back working for the railroad, in marketing, pointing out a movement of truck freight alongside our mainline. The line forms to the right for people telling me why we can't possibly handle the freight. After all, we're not handling it now. So how could we possibly acquire the business?
So I'd tell them how. And they'd see only problems, and never the opportunities. Well, you can't ignore the problems. But then, neither can you ignore the opportunities. There are always problems to be worked through to get to the opportunities. That's management's job. To work through the problems and seize the opportunities.
I've been able to identify the subject shipper in Cloquet, MN as USG (United States Gypsum) It wasn't hard. They make ceiling thingys there. Now a railroad salesperson assigned to USG should know what's coming out of their Cloquet plant and where it's going. If he or she doesn't know that, then he/she needs to be replaced. (Buy 'em lunch, buy 'em hockey tickets, take 'em golfing at the country club. Stay on the right side of the ethical line, but get 'em to talk.)
Some bright, young, freshly minted MBA at the railroad HQ should be able to ascertain the range of truck rates paid on the identified moves. I'll guarantee you, that on this move, intermodal can beat the truck price. And provide competitive service times.
But, unless it's an oil field, several grain fields, or a coal mine, one shipper does not make for development of rail service. So the USG information will have to be combined with information from other traffic sources to produce a service plan that will maximize profits.
And that is where the railroads fall down. They don't analyze an origin territory's potential. They develop service plans based on what they have, not on what they could have.
For many decades, as other US companies developed a marketing culture that oriented their services and products to customer demands, the railroads were prevented from doing so by the idiot government regulators. So the railroads are playing catch up. And it's hard to catch up when the other guys are off and running.
I will agree with Murphy, there needs to be one entity in charge of the whole move. An intermodal trucker such as JB Hunt or and IMC so that if there is a problem the customer deals with one entity and not multiple entities.
The perception\ that is projected by the railroads, greyhounds, is. however, that overall they don't want the business unless is doesn't have to be switched, handled, picked up or set out enroute or to or from an out of the way location, and is either big enough at one time or is a frequent flyer. Again, it is the perception many have of the industry...and seemingly most frequent among railfans. Railroads seem to be doing well financially with lots of carloadings, frequent and long trains, and hiring of many. What we fans don't often understanding is that it isn't always just the railroad involved in the move but may be, as you point out, a JB Hunt or other truck and trailer shingle or a forwarder or several other agents and agencies, even other railroads, steamship lines, even product manufacturers or miners themselves. It is not just buying locomotives and cars to run on tracks but a much more involved and sometimes complicated system. And that railroads are soliciting as individual companies and as groups...for instance shortlines have groups that solicit in their name rather than each road having a huge sales staff. Fans see trains and engines, thats the fun of it. The blood, sweat, and income is behind the scenes.
The shippers I deal with value simplicity. They don't really care who or what picks the load up so long as it gets to its destination. You know how I get my business? I answer my phone on the first ring and respond to email rate quotations within 20 minutes. That responsiveness alone gets me a ton of business. The other guy might be cheaper, but what good is that if he takes a week to quote? Conversely, the killer of all business deals is the old "I'll get back to you". Nothing beats "my price is XYZ and your load will be picked up this afternoon". Simple simple simple.
greyhounds And that is where the railroads fall down. They don't analyze an origin territory's potential. They develop service plans based on what they have, not on what they could have. For many decades, as other US companies developed a marketing culture that oriented their services and products to customer demands, the railroads were prevented from doing so by the idiot government regulators. So the railroads are playing catch up. And it's hard to catch up when the other guys are off and running.
I wonder if the bulk of the problem isn't where this stuff fits in the pecking order. Domestic intermodal is growing about as fast as the RRs can acquire cars and build terminals. This "fruit" may not be "hanging low enough".....yet.
To your point of analyzing a territory's potential....I believe that's exactly what got NS going on the Crescent Corridor. I don't remember the whole story, but they had gotten a hold of truckload OD pair data and found out the true size of the market.
To your point of
greyhoundsAfter all, we're not handling it now. So how could we possibly acquire the business?
The "run the trains to serve the current customers" is EXACTLY the Amtrak LD train marketing scheme, however.....or maybe "run the trains to serve the customers we had 50 years ago"!
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Thank you.
I realized I wasn't getting my point across. I was struggling with how to express it differently, or to just drop the whole.thing.
The railroads probably cannot sell directly to small customers in an efficient way. But they don't have to. They can go through retailers who will aggregate the small volumes into shipment volumes that the railroads can well deal with.
What I'm trying to say is that the railroads need to have a good understanding of what these aggregate volumes, and revenues, are so that they can tailor their services to enable the retailers to succeed. I am confident that the railroads, in general, do not have the knowledge. They simply don't know what they don't haul.
The point seems to be that such small traffic sources are probably more important to forwarders and consolidaters than to the railroad itself, especially since railroads have turned into transportation wholesalers and rarely deal directly with such small shippers.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.