Obviously the economics must have worked out, or Great Lakes ore shipping would have disappeared a long time ago - but I can't figure out how it worked out economically.
Take, say, 1950 - ore operations would probably something like iron ore shipped via rail from mine to ore docks at, say, the port of Duluth/Superior (Minnisota/Wisconsin), then shipped by laker down to, say Cleveland Ohio, unloaded (possibly by Huletts) into rail cars for the final leg to clients in Youngstown or Pittsburg etc. To me, even then it seems it would be easier and cheaper to ship all-rail routing from the mining areas in Minnesota and the Upper Pennisular of Michigan, around the Great Lakes (somehow avoiding the congestion of Chicago if possible? ), and out directly to Pittsburg etc.OK, I'm coming from a 21st century East Coast viewpoint, where the railroads of the NY Tri-State area dumped their extensive and expensive habor ligtherage and car-float operations as soon as fesible. I guess I am not considering ICC rate dictates and schedules of the era.
So, in that typical period of c.1950, was all-rail routing available? Was it common? And how did having to transload the ore to boats, and back again, using often extensive facilities, work out economically?
Many of the steel mills, especially in the Calumet Region and in the Cleveland area, received their ore directly from the boats without any transloading.
A Great Lakes ore boat is a long way from ligtherage. A deep water, large capacity, vessel is tremendously efficient. Before economic regulation screwed things up the railroads had successfully defeated water transportation on canals and rivers. But not on the Great Lakes. It's hard to beat a big ship using a (more or less) natural infrastructure.
Additionally, the regulators would not allow unit train rates in 1950. So the railroads couldn't legally give the volume discounts needed to compete for this type of traffic. (And no, the public was not clamoring for regulation that held rail rates high.)
The regulators held rail rates high to protect water movements of freight from rail competition. But even absent this economic stupidity, competing with the ore boats for the long haul movement of a bulk commodity is dubious.
The railroads can still defeat river barges (Even though the barge operators do receive a large government subsidy). But the Lakers remain a very efficient method of moving the iron ore. And so it shall remain until the mines play out or the Great Lakes dry up.
Remember for US Steel Company which owned the railroads on both ends, and the Lakers in between everything was done on a cost basis. As far as US Steel was concerned it didn't matter where the profit was generated, as long as it was. All they were concerned about was keeping the cost of producing their steel products as low as possible. The train, laker, train combination must have been the lowest cost option, or they would have changed the delivery method.
While I believe that they more than pay for normal maintenance like dredging (Although the federal government keeps most of the harbor trust fund that's paid by marine fuel taxes to maintain waterways hostage and reassigns it elsewhere leading to a huge dredging crisis around the country today), I'm skeptical that fees have paid for the initial major capital investment in infrastructure projects like the creation of the St. Lawrence Seaway back in the 50's.
Of course even if they only covered routine maintenance and operating costs, it's still a win-win for the taxpayer just the same. What's good for industry is good for everyone including railroading. And through the taxes that something like the Seaway, inland barge routes, or something like the Intercoastal has made possible, they certainly more than have paid for itself many times over not to mention things like reduced pollution that they bring to the table. But through direct fees, I'm skeptical that the users have paid all the costs associated with such major projects.
One thing some of these Great Lakes steamship lines have benefited from over the years is back hauls. There are plenty of 1 way runs but something like the major Canadian fleets have enjoyed where they haul grain to the lower St. Lawrence like Montreal and haul iron ore back into the industrial heartland is lucrative.
An iron ore train is always going to be returning empty [Edit: Well almost always... SP's & WC's setup in the 90's that hauled iron ore West and then coal East with the same pool of cars on the same trains comes to mind as a rare exception]. Just one of the many reasons why America's inland waterways have made and continue to make economic sense.
chutton01 Obviously the economics must have worked out, or Great Lakes ore shipping would have disappeared a long time ago - but I can't figure out how it worked out economically. Take, say, 1950 - ore operations would probably something like iron ore shipped via rail from mine to ore docks at, say, the port of Duluth/Superior (Minnisota/Wisconsin), then shipped by laker down to, say Cleveland Ohio, unloaded (possibly by Huletts) into rail cars for the final leg to clients in Youngstown or Pittsburg etc... ... So, in that typical period of c.1950, was all-rail routing available? Was it common? And how did having to transload the ore to boats, and back again, using often extensive facilities, work out economically?
Take, say, 1950 - ore operations would probably something like iron ore shipped via rail from mine to ore docks at, say, the port of Duluth/Superior (Minnisota/Wisconsin), then shipped by laker down to, say Cleveland Ohio, unloaded (possibly by Huletts) into rail cars for the final leg to clients in Youngstown or Pittsburg etc...
...
There is still an integrated steel mill in Pittsburgh (US Steel), but I believe virtually all other blast furnaces not accessible to ports have shut down, eliminating that final rail leg.
In the 1950s, as well as now, there are some all-rail ore movements when ice closes the Soo locks about Jan. thru Mar.
bud the bargemanI'm sure that all-rail routing was available (much more then than now). However, for transporting any massive volume of dry-bulk (or liquid, for that matter), it has always (and always will be) far less costly to ship by water than by rail. Unfortunately, railroad management has, traditionally, been pretty bone-headed about the benefits (to railroads, as well as water transportation interests and the shippers themselves) and very slow to embrace the concept (not saying there has been NO intermodal transportation embraced by the railroads, just not nearly as much as could have/should have been). With the tremendous growth in containerized shipping, in recent years, there is renewed interest in exploring the efficiencies of intermodal transportation and some very large container ports are being built in major, port cities (both "brown water" and "blue water" ports). There is still a lot of developing and learning to be done, but the trend is gathering momentum. A big plus will be a dramatic reduction in "long haul" trucking. Most of that tonnage will become containerized and move by rail and by barge to major hubs, before being placed on trucks for movement to final and local distribution centers.
And, he goes on:
bud the bargeman Lots of incorrect information, here. You need to do some research. Contrary to railroad fantasy, river transportation does not and has NEVER received government subsidies and has been paying (through a fuel tax) for the maintenance of the waterways (in spite of being only one of the users of the lock & dam system) for the past forty years. Also, dry bulk freight was never a regulated commodity. A full tow of barges, on the lower Mississippi River will contain over 55,000 tons of cargo. This is comparable to modern Great Lakes vessels. Railroads have NEVER "defeated" river barges. The only defeat of river traffic by railroads occurred in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when passenger traffic moved from river to rail. If rail is so much more efficient than barges (it isn't, by the way), why are the container transportation models being developed in such "think tanks" as Carnegie Mellon University showing that containers can move more efficiently on barges than on railroads? I'm flat-out of time to debate, for the next several days, but this is a very complex subject and there are volumes of information available out there that should be researched before making such sweeping (and incorrect) statements of "defeat" by rails. The simple reality is that both river & rail are highly effective means of moving large volumes of bulk cargoes and neither form, alone, could ever replace the other.
Lots of incorrect information, here. You need to do some research. Contrary to railroad fantasy, river transportation does not and has NEVER received government subsidies and has been paying (through a fuel tax) for the maintenance of the waterways (in spite of being only one of the users of the lock & dam system) for the past forty years. Also, dry bulk freight was never a regulated commodity. A full tow of barges, on the lower Mississippi River will contain over 55,000 tons of cargo. This is comparable to modern Great Lakes vessels. Railroads have NEVER "defeated" river barges. The only defeat of river traffic by railroads occurred in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when passenger traffic moved from river to rail. If rail is so much more efficient than barges (it isn't, by the way), why are the container transportation models being developed in such "think tanks" as Carnegie Mellon University showing that containers can move more efficiently on barges than on railroads? I'm flat-out of time to debate, for the next several days, but this is a very complex subject and there are volumes of information available out there that should be researched before making such sweeping (and incorrect) statements of "defeat" by rails. The simple reality is that both river & rail are highly effective means of moving large volumes of bulk cargoes and neither form, alone, could ever replace the other.
Oh, I've done the research. The barge industry was, is, and will continue to be subsidized by the US taxpayers for no good reason other than special interests politics. Here you go:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2013/03/27/big-muddy-big-money/
The only reason for the lock and dam system on the upper Mississippi to to facilitate the barges. And it's a taxpayer gift forced through special interests.
http://www.mvr.usace.army.mil/Media/NewsStories/tabid/6636/Article/4550/why-do-we-have-locks-and-dams.aspx
Attempts to use container on barge systems in the US have been around for at least 30 years. Last I heard there was some COB movement on the Columbia River, but not much else. I don't know what anybody failed to "learn" in the last 30 years, but rail intermodal is around 46% of total rail loadings while barge container loadings are near nothing. But keep on "learning". The railroads will keep on hauling. We were in competition with container on barge between Memphis and New Orleans in the 1980s. The barge system failed so badly that they were using our trains to move the containers instead of their own barges.
As to water "Always" being "far less costly" than rail; BS. If that was true river traffic on the Missouri River would not have virtually disappeared. Nor would the regulators, in the past, have had to hold rail rates high to protect barges from competition. (It's foolish to think you can determine the cost of moving a ton of freight down to the penny, but that's the government for you.)
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/392/571/case.html
Look at what has happened since the government regulators were forced to quit protecting the barge interests. Barge traffic on the Missouri has dried up. Barge traffic on the Mississippi has drastically declined. And, coastwise/intercoastal shipping on the oceans is but a memory.
Water transportation does have its place. As long as that place is determined without taxpayer subsidy and without lawyers and judges setting prices, I'll let the chips fall where they may.
And anyone who gets out here and: 1) Tells me to do more research and, 2) At the same time, falsely says that transportation charges of dry bulk commodities were "Never Regulated" is a dirty bird. Everything that moved by by rail in the US was regulated. 100%. And those rail charges were held artificially high by the regulators in order to protect water transportation from rail competition.
Now, go do your own research and forevermore speak only the truth.
EDIT. Here's some more information on Mississippi River barge tonnage though the taxpayer donated lock and dams north of St. Louis. Please note the dramatic declines over the 10 years 2002 - 2011. If barges were "Always" the most efficient this decline in the tonnage would not have occurred.
http://www.mvr.usace.army.mil/Portals/48/docs/CC/FactSheets/Miss/Mississippi%20River%20Locks%20and%20Dams%20(2012).pdf
ndbprrW ell it isn't only ore. How can a head of lettuce be grown in California, be picked, boxed, trucked to a warehouse and loaded in a car, shipped to the east coast and sell for $1.39. If it was uneconomical it wouldn't have been done. But as Ricky Ricardo would say, " somebody got a whole lot of 'splainin to do".
The 'splainin is easy.
This involves two of the most efficient sectors of the US economy. 1) Agriculture and, 2) Transportation. If a trucker charges $7,100 to move 42,000 pounds of lettuce from California's Imperial Valley to New York it's $0.169 per pound. This is just 12.3% of your quoted price of $1.39/pound. For 3,000 miles of movement. Not a really big deal. Apparently, New Yorkers are willing to pay that for a fresh salad in December.
http://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/wa_fv190.txt
Transportation and agriculture, in the US, are mega efficient since deregulation.
The ore boats that sailed the Great Lakes were much more seaworthy when they carried ballast ; than to sail empty back to Duluth and Two Harbors. Often this ballast was either coal or limestone. USS operated a steel mill in Duluth for many years because of this ballast. It made economic sense for USS to operate this plant and it earned brownie points(favorable tax rates for shipping iron ore) from the State of Minnesota.
Great Northern shipped a lot of iron ore to Superior from the Mesabi Iron Range. GN did have an all rail route out of Duluth but used the ore docks in Superior. GN could have shipped ore to St Paul via its own rails and handed it off to the Burlington. BNSF today does operate an all rail routing to Gary from the Minnesota's Iron Range.
Iron ore could not be shipped in the winter months. DM&IR crews in the 1930's went south and worked on the FEC I have heard.
Ore traffic plummeted during the winter months for two reasons: The Lakes froze over, forcing the boats to lay up for the winter; and the natural ores mined at the time had a high moisture content and also froze solid during the winter. Taconite does not have this problem and can be mined year round.
bud the bargeman, wrote the following post at Thu, Dec 26 2013 3:46 PM:
[SNIPPED] '...Lots of incorrect information, here. You need to do some research. Contrary to railroad fantasy, river transportation does not and has NEVER received government subsidies and has been paying (through a fuel tax) for the maintenance of the waterways (in spite of being only one of the users of the lock & dam system) for the past forty years. Also, dry bulk freight was never a regulated commodity..." [SNIPPED]
Not trying to pick a fight here, with Bud, but I would take issues with his statement about subsidies.
[ ie:["...river transportation does not and has NEVER received government subsidies..." ]Specifically, on the Mississipppi River, and the Missouri River and the Ohio River. I would suggest that the millions of sollars, and the operations of the Army Corps of Engineers, their locks and Damas and their Waterways Maintenance activities; are a direct subsidy to the operations of Civilian River Transportation.
Admittedly, the major benefit to their presence and operations is the Flood Control that results to the Benefit of the Population that lives along the banks of those waterways. The Fuel Taxes paid by the Inland Marine Operators does not come close to the costs of the infrastructure maintained by the Corps in the name of Flood Control, since 1879 with the formation of the Mississippi River Commission.see link @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_Valley_Division
The Marine Operators do get the full benefit of the Locking Systems at the various Corps Dams along th course of the Upper and Lower Mississippi River envioroments. No to mention the facilities that are on the previously mentioned Three major river systems in the Central Part of the Country.
Remember the situation that was brought about by the low water of 2012/2013? At the area of the Union Pacific ( nee: Southern Pacific) Crossing at Thebes Il. ? The Corps went against Government Regulations, and was using water from the Missouri River impoundments, to raise the levels on the Lower Mississippi to aid navigation and their dredging efforts. see link @ http://www.npr.org/2013/01/13/169243113/army-corps-options-dwindle-along-with-mississippi-river
Then there is the Tennessee Valley Authority (T V A of The Tennessee River system), and the "other North/South Watertays of the Tennessee-Tombigbee/Warrior River, (its lower system of theTenn-Tom along with the Alabama River).. The McClellan-Kerr Waterway ( on the Arkansas River System) It could be said that the big beneficiaries to those huge Waterways projects are the Inland Marine Operators.
As to the COB Comment. ("Stackers" ?) The more generous clearances between the water, and the bridges of the "Lowerr Mississippi River ( Alton,Il and South) would allow certain levels of higher Clearances on Stacks of Containers. But on the Missouri and Upper Mississippi the clearances get much tighter, and the Marine Operators use hydraulic Wheel House Lifts to get them visual clearances between bridges. see the following link to see one of these types: @ http://www.towboatgallery.com/The_Towboat_Gallery.php?pic=1619&tnc=1&mnu=#MAINIMAGE
As an aside to the Tenn-Tom Waterway. It was authorized in about 1972 by congressional act. Pushed hard there by Senator Stenis of Mississippiand Senator Sparkman of Alabama. Court Challenges caused it not to be started until about 1982. Iw as originally supposed to cost in the area od some $320 Million Dollars. It was finished in 1984 at about a cost of $2 Billion Dollars. The first cargo was not moved on it until 1985. The Commercial traffic, I do not think has ever approached the original estimate, of millions of tons per year. It seems to be an expensive short cut from the Tennessee River to the Gulf for pleasure boaters. see link @ http://www.encyclopediaofalabama.org/face/Article.jsp?id=h-2365
or this link of a private trip with pictured down it @ http://dockersdiary.blogspot.com/2011/11/tenn-tom-waterway.html
The case that Inland Waterways Operators do not have Federal Subsidies is about as murky as the business of Lobbying Congress for "Favors" and not claiming they are ffree of any subsidies.
Purely an opinion, but the inland waterways would not be operable without the government building the required locks and dams to make transportation by water viable. Government subsidies are required for their maintenance as well. Waterborne transportation was the only viable option in it's day but has been overtaken by other transportation options run with private investment. That leaves barges as a dieing breed. They served their need but have become outmoded by better technology. The Tenn-Tom waterway never did meet expectations, and was a boondoggle that cost taxpayers a huge sum.
Norm
bud the bargemanMore inaccurate/half-truths. For starters, the decline in Missouri River barge traffic is the result of changes in water management practices and the agricultural interests in the Missouri basin are fighting for a return to reasonable policy, which would restore river levels enough to make navigation economically feasible. Rail freight rates held high to protect barges? Really? How come rail freight rates, on water level routes, were/are always significantly lower than those on routes with no competition from water transportation? Oh, yeah.....don't look now, but coast-wise/intercoastal shipping is on the rise and has been for the past few years. Declining tonnage on the Mississippi? Yeah, after Carter's idiotic Russian grain embargo, some other grain-producing countries got a big boost at our expense. Up until that time, we (the US) pretty much had the market cornered and rails could not handle all of the volume of grain being moved to the Gulf. Other factors have since combined to effect river traffic, but competition from railroads has not been a big problem. You site a decline in Mississippi River traffic occurring between 2002 and 2011. However, deregulation occurred decades before that. As far as the "subsidies" the railroads are always whining about; it has little to do with politics and special interests and a lot more to do with that obscure and increasingly ignored document called the Constitution, the framers of which being very much aware of the positive effect that good transportation infrastructure can have on commerce. As I look at what we are arguing over, I have to laugh at both of us. The battle we are "fighting" has been going on for way over 100 years. Both side continue to cry "foul" and cite zillions of "studies", statistics and "facts" in support of their sides of the argument. It never gets settled and no one wins. For every "fact" you cite, I can find documentation of another "fact" to repudiate your "fact" and, I'm sure, visa-versa. Silly, isn't it? I don't know about you, but I don't have time to re-do research I've done 10,20, 40 or 50 (yeah, I'm that old) years ago to prove a point which really doesn't matter, anymore. One fact that will be proven is that freight will continue to move by barge. Volumes of some commodities will decline, while others will grow (why are the new, natural gas by-product refining plants for the Marcellus Shale gas being build on the rivers?) and prosper. Traffic on one segment of the inland waterways will decline and grow on another segment. Now, I like railroads and want them to continue to prosper as much as the next guy. But I want to see a balanced, intermodal transportation system more than anything, simply for the good of the country. We don't have such a system, now and it's been hurting us in the international marketplace for decades. How much longer will it continue to kick our butts? OK. I'm done. I've got more important things to be doing than wasting time on a century-old argument that has never been won by either side, contrary to what some have thought during that century of arguing.
Oh good grief.
He's all over the map here. The Constitution? Jimmy Carter? And he's excusing himself from providing any back up for his false claims and denials. How convenient.
In a previous post I cited and linked to the precedent setting decision of the US Supreme Court that allowed the Interstate Commerce Commission to continue to hold rail rates artificially high in order to protect barge lines from rail competition. In the cited case, commonly known as "The Ingot Molds Case" American Commercial Lines (barge) had actually gone to the Supreme Court to prevent the railroads involved (The Pennsylvania and the L&N) from reducing their through rate to match the barge rate. Had they been allowed to do that, it was stipulated, all the business would have switched from barge to rail.
The regulators, for no good reason, would not allow that. They didn't want make anyone mad I guess. So they wanted, and got, a "differential" that set the rail rate high enough so that the traffic split between rail and barge. That's about what they could do. The regulators had no valid way to determine what the rail rate "should" be. So, as they typically did, they split the difference and actually allocated some of the business to each mode.
And that, folks, is an absolutely terrible way to manage an economy. (Not that the government should be managing the economy in the first place.) It increased the cost of the Ingot Molds because the customers could not use their best transportation option. Which, it was stipulated, was obviously rail.
I don't know what the US Constitution has to do with this. It certainly does not require corporate welfare. Which is what the barge operators get. Unfortunately, it doesn't prohibit corporate welfare either. So, we have this economically degrading mess.
I, too, have been studying this for at least 40 years. The difference is that I'll provide back up on what I say. Given their pricing freedom under deregulation the railroads are successfully working away at taking business of the rivers. I don't for one second think they'll take it all, But they've got a pretty good start.
One group's view on the Inland Waterway Trust Fund, and proposed changes to pass more of the costs to tax payer's.
http://www.taxpayer.net/library/article/golden-fleece-awarded-to-riverboat-ripoff
Jeff
CSSHEGEWISCH Ore traffic plummeted during the winter months for two reasons: The Lakes froze over, forcing the boats to lay up for the winter; and the natural ores mined at the time had a high moisture content and also froze solid during the winter. Taconite does not have this problem and can be mined year round.
A few Great Lakes freighters on certain runs will remain operating all winter.
The locks at Sault Saint Marie stayed open all winter several times in the 70's. It can be done but it's more efficient all around to have some downtime so those experiments weren't made permanent.
It's only a matter of a few weeks anyways (For the American fleet, that is... ice closes the Welland Canal & St. Lawrence Seaway right around now each season but American vessels rarely stray from the upper Lakes). They stay open well into January before opening again a few weeks later in March. Gives some time to do maintenance on ships, locks, buoys, etc. And it gives the human element, especially those that have spent most if not all of the shipping season aboard ship, a chance to go home for a few weeks.
And it reduces the stress all around on the infrastructure, ships, and the human element by avoiding operating this time of year with extreme cold and heavy ice.
Norm48327Waterborne transportation was the only viable option in it's day but has been overtaken by other transportation options run with private investment. That leaves barges as a dieing breed.
For bulk cargoes, shipping is a very viable option when available.
"For bulk cargoes, shipping is a very viable option when available."
I can see that on the Great Lakes. OTOH, without subsidies the river traffic would (pardon the pun) dry up because the railroads are now competitive.
bud the bargemanWell, you have got some of it right, Norm. Without those locks & dams, much of the inland waterways would not be navigable. But, since the government is constitutionally charged with the maintenance of navigable rivers & harbors, to promote commerce, that's the way it is. Don't worry about barges being a "dying breed". They'll continue to survive and thrive. BTW, I suspect that people said the same thing about the Ohio River system, when it was canalized between 1914 & 1924, that you've said about the Tenn-Tom. After all, it takes a while for industry to locate along a navigable waterway, to utilize the transportation which could be available, if demand continues to grow. At any rate, I'd be careful about writing the Tenn-Tom off as a failure. True, I haven't looked at any ton-mile figures for the Tenn-Tom, so I could be wrong. But I just have a feeling that there is going to be substantial growth in barge traffic there.
Oh come on! The Tenn Tom boondoggle opened in 1985. That's 28 years ago. Here are the tonnage figurs:
http://tenntom.org/brewer-fuller.pdf
In 2010 it handled a whopping 5,000,000 tons. And that isn't on an upward trend. Now 5,000,000 tons equates to less than three very modest size 5,000 net ton freight trains per day. So they (the Feds) peed away a couple billions in tax dollars to haul what three trains per day could easily handle.
But after 28 years you "Just Have A Feeling" that there will be future growth. If it ain't happened in 28 years it's probably not ever gonna' happen. But you've got company. The idiot politicians and bureaucrats who peed away our money had that same "Feeling". No rational reasoning and forecasting, but they had a "Feeling",
Their feeling was the payoffs they got for serving special interests groups.
You know, it takes me about 90 seconds to find authoritative sources on things such as tonnage on the the Tennessee - Tombigbee boondoggle. But you just don't have the time to check facts before you run on. That's disrespectful on your part to the other people on this forum. If you know something, then by all means, say it. But be respectful and find actual facts first.
bud the bargeman. COB will continue to become more common. The vertical/stack height concerns you mention are non-existant, except for the Chicago area and some other, non-critical areas. Just how high do you think we need to stack containers on a barge? "Double-Stack" is a joke, to rivermen. Depending on weight (the heavier-the better) I can easily envision stacking containers four or five high (higher, if need be...there's still plenty of vertical clearance) and three wide in existing hopper barges. Four lengths of 40' containers can be placed in a hopper barge, which is really not ideally suited for containers. When purpose-built, container barges are built, those numbers will go up, of course. I can readily envision 15 barge tows of container barges being moved from Pittsburgh to St. Louis, St. Paul, Chicago, and Nashville or 35 barge tows moving from New Orleans to St. Louis, for example. I'm told that container on barge is all the rage in Europe, even with their constricted waterways. I have a feeling it's going to catch-on over here, too.
Well, for Container on Barge to become "More Common" it would have to be "Common" in the first place. In North America it isn't at all common. There are good, valid reasons why it's not being used to any significant extent. You may deride double stack as a "Joke", but it's moving the freight while barges don't do much at all with containers.
There is, and never was, any regulatory block to COB. There was a very real, very stupid, regulatory block to rail containerization. With the removal of that regulatory block rail container movement has grown and grown, Barge container movement remains insignificant. Which leads to the obvious question: "Why hasn't COB developed?"
The answer is in the numbers you tout. A 15 barge tow of containers from Pittsburgh to St. Louis? Silly, just plain silly. You claim a 4x3 layer of containers (12) with a five layer high stack per barge. That would be 60 containers per barge Then you propose to lash 15 of these barges together to form a tow destined to St. Louis. That would be 900 containers in the tow. It would be very efficient if anyone could actually find 900 containers moving from Pittsburgh to St. Louis at the same time. Such a thing just isn't the market reality. You've got a concept that, at best, fits a totally non-existent market need.
Rational business people don't make decisions based on "It's all the rage." Container on Barge works somewhat in Europe because the river/canal system there serves major container ports such as Rotterdam and Antwerp. No major US container port has inland river service (OK, you can go up to Albany from New York/New Jersey. Big deal. Truckers own that distance.) New Orleans and Portland, OR are the only two US container ports with any real inland river/canal reach, and they're not major container ports.
Unless you can come up with a valid reason why container on barge hasn't developed in the US I'll suggest you go do some more research. It has been tried. I competed against an attempt to establish such a service between Memphis and New Orleans when I was working in intermodal marketing for the ICG. I didn't have to do much. Just sit back and let 'em fail. Heck fire, they were putting the containers on our trains instead of their own barges because their plan wasn't working.
The need to aggregate into tow load lots, and the impossibility of doing so, will keep COB in the US an insignificant factor in freight movement.
.
Wouldn't speed also be a factor in container-on barge vs. COFC ? Containers tend to be a higher value freight needing quicker transit than bulk commodities.
MidlandMike Wouldn't speed also be a factor in container-on barge vs. COFC ? Containers tend to be a higher value freight needing quicker transit than bulk commodities.
Yes it would; and going upstream the barges would do well to make six knots (nautical miles per hour) while the trains cruise along at 50 MPH.
greyhoundsThere was a very real, very stupid, regulatory block to rail containerization. With the removal of that regulatory block rail container movement has grown and grown
Thanks for the responses so far, but I fear this thread is veering off into tangents I didn't expect.Originally I asked (in summary), was it cheaper to ship ore rail-laker-rail vs an all rail routing in the year 1950 (chosen specifically because a number of inland integrated steel mills that would require the final rail-leg were still operating). I already pretty much knew the answer (it must have been cheaper, as the industry did it for many decades), although I don't believe anyone so far established how much cheaper it would have been (even including the maintainence of the transload/unload facilities at the ports).It was established that on occasion all-rail-routing was used, but apparently only during special conditions (e.g. winter shut-down) - so clearly while doable, all-rail routing must have been signficantly pricier than rail-laker-rail routing. So does anyone have any hard numbers, or at least ball-park figures, on how much more economical rail-laker-rail routing would be.
NB: Lakers still handle Iron Ore shipping, but a bit of interesting news is that a new iron ore concentrator is being built in Reynolds, Indiana - planned opening 2014 - using an all rail routing from Minnesota. It's a fair distance south of Gary, Indiana (Lake Michigan), much closer to Layfayette IN.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.