From the Puget Sound Business Journal (WA state)
Congestion from coal and oil trains seems to be the key factor forcing closure of a prominent express rail service that carries Washington fruit and produce to East Coast markets. Cold Train on Thursday announced it is shutting down its express service from Quincy, Wash. because restrictions in the BNSF Railway schedule changed delivery guarantees from three days to six days. Read the full story: http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2014/08/07/coal-trains-kill-cold-trains-fruit-delivery.html
Congestion from coal and oil trains seems to be the key factor forcing closure of a prominent express rail service that carries Washington fruit and produce to East Coast markets.
Cold Train on Thursday announced it is shutting down its express service from Quincy, Wash. because restrictions in the BNSF Railway schedule changed delivery guarantees from three days to six days.
Read the full story:
http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2014/08/07/coal-trains-kill-cold-trains-fruit-delivery.html
Yep, I was wondering what the mess on the Great Northern corridor was doing to Cold Train.
Unfortunately, things just went to Hell.
greyhoundsUnfortunately, things just went to Hell.
I second that sentiment. I grew up being taught that to succeed the railways had to expand the number of commodities they hauled. You don't grow a business by cutting service and expenses. You try to grow the top line.
I feel your pain.
Bruce
So shovel the coal, let this rattler roll.
"A Train is a Place Going Somewhere" CP Rail Public Timetable
"O. S. Irricana"
. . . __ . ______
This is pretty sad. These people have lost their shirts. An ugly message to other business people who might be considering startups that depend on rail.
Sounds like it might be a case of a bean counter at BNSF deciding they didn't want the company's business and figuring out an easy way to get rid of it and deflect blame.
Sounds like constrained physical plant capacity issues. Show has become too big for the tent.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Depressing news, but if there us a silver lining in this dark cloud, it's that the parties involved came to the realization that it was better to own up to the problem than to hold themselves o a "promise" that was no longer feasible, watch the situation continue to deteriorate and leave a bad impression with many more people.
The recent mandates lower speeds for oil moves, coupled with the approach of a saturation point on the bidirectionally signalled "2 main track' pattern which has become the rule for all but a handful of main lines serves to underscore the point that the industry might have no choice but to expand back toward the three- and four-track main lines that once graced a handful of eastern trunk lines.
The only real question would be how to accomplish this -- probably by "incremental" expansion. That is, either a revival of the "long sidings" for overtaking moves that originally figured into NYC's slimming down of its Albany-Cleveland main in the late Fifties, or the creation of more "3 main track" lines in the mold of UP between Gibbon and North Platte, NE,
Given the rock-ribbed conservatism for which UP is noted, and the preference for one-direction main lines exhibited in regions such as west Texas and southeastern Nebraska, I don't see much enthusiasm for innovative dispatching originating at Sixth and Dodge (Omaha). But its possible that some other carrier might be wiling to experiment, particularly if public-sector, or even academic co-operation (he upgrading of locks on the Ohio River waterway involved some use of simulation models way back in the Sixties, and CSX reportedly used the same concept for a demonstration of a 3- and 4-track 'A'-line (Washington-Jacksonville) about a decade ago).
Sooner or later, the upper limits of current dispatching technology will have to be challenged.
cacole Sounds like it might be a case of a bean counter at BNSF deciding they didn't want the company's business and figuring out an easy way to get rid of it and deflect blame.
I chuckled a bit at this when I first read the thread -- then I looked at the story. I see BNSF quoted as saying
"This is a case of rapid growth for several commodities and we are not favoring one commodity over another."
In other words, no preference for perishable high-value traffic over coal trains, or presumably restricted-speed oil trains? And, reading between the lines, no effective end-to-end timing guarantees even at the longer trip times...
That would seem to make little sense from a conventional standpoint of maximizing revenue from operations, presuming the value of a Cold Train consist is higher than the equivalent trainlength of mineral or oil cars. So there must be more to the various operations of the congested system than meets the eye -- quite possibly enough to make special handling for the Cold Train consists impractical at any realistic tariff... in other words, problems leading BNSF people to decide they did not want (or could not provide cost-effectively, which translates into 'did not want') the Cold Train business on the terms the Cold Train people needed to stay in business.
This is yet another reminder of the inherent limitations of rail. Even a double-track, bidirectionally signaled main is, in highway terms, no better than the old two-lane roads of 60 years ago, before the Ohio & Indiana turnpikes and then the Interstate system.
Makes you think the concrete fraternity may be onto something.
It's sad that railroads can no longer do speed as such. We know that Amtrak is an enemy; but so, it seems, are priority intermodals and now, of course, produce and (you can bet) the prospective Shoener meat trains.
If rail has a future beyond clunky commodity trains, it's got to do better than this every time business providentially picks up.
Responding to Overmod's post above: To some extent, then, the Cold Train traffic seems to have some of the same tough fast-schedule characteristics as priority UPS trains, which has led certain railroads to eschew* that demanding traffic in favor of less-sensitive traffic.
But I wonder if the Cold Train people could have protected themselves with a contractual arrangement with BNSF that guarantees either the service levels that the Cold Train operation needs, or else compensation for the ongoing equipment and overhead costs that were entered into and incurred in justifiable reliance on BNSF's scheduling commitments.
(*Never thought I'd deliberately use "eschew" in a sentence outside of an English class, but there you go !)
- Paul North.
In March 2014 Federated Railways announced that it had signed an agreement to acquire Cold Train. Story on that here: http://www.progressiverailroading.com/intermodal/news/Federated-Railways-acquires-Cold-Train-intermodal-service--39646
However, the acquisition was never completed. No doubt the failed acquisition didn't do anything to help Cold Train survive the BNSF service cutbacks.
And a different article about the service suspension, one that goes into a little more operational detail than the BizJournal article in post #1:
http://www.capitalpress.com/Nation_World/20140807/cold-train-suspends-service-blames-rail-congestion#.U-WOb-NdUy0
Overmod [snipped - PDN] . . . In other words, no preference for perishable high-value traffic over coal trains, or presumably restricted-speed oil trains? . . . That would seem to make little sense from a conventional standpoint of maximizing revenue from operations, presuming the value of a Cold Train consist is higher than the equivalent trainlength of mineral or oil cars. So there must be more to the various operations of the congested system than meets the eye -- quite possibly enough to make special handling for the Cold Train consists impractical at any realistic tariff... . . .
That would seem to make little sense from a conventional standpoint of maximizing revenue from operations, presuming the value of a Cold Train consist is higher than the equivalent trainlength of mineral or oil cars. So there must be more to the various operations of the congested system than meets the eye -- quite possibly enough to make special handling for the Cold Train consists impractical at any realistic tariff... . . .
One optimum multiple track configuration (short of streetcar-like train volumes and 4 or more tracks, which is extremely rare) is 3: 1 each way, with the 3rd available (any one of the 3) for overtakes/ passes of faster trains around slower ones or cripples, set-outs, etc. in either direction, and for MOW to do its activity without interfering with the smooth flow of traffic in each direction. You can almost count on your hands the number of lengthy triple-track freight routes in the US - UP in Nebraska and suburban Chicago (see almost any of Carl Shaver's posts), NS from Altoona to Johnstown (mountain grade, too), maybe CSX at Sand Patch and 17-Mile grades, BNSF at Cajon Pass, etc. Unfortunately, not easy or cheap to achieve, but that will be the next wave of capacity expansions after the major routes are mostly double-tracked.
The more articles I read about this - it is sounding like Cold Train was undercapitalized and barely making ends meet when they were getting the 90% performance. There is a whole novel of things that are not being published about this happening.
What effect will this have on the somewhat similar McKay TransCold operation that BNSF had planned on starting in May 2014 ? Link to March 4, 2014 NewsWire article:
http://trn.trains.com/Railroad%20News/News%20Wire/2014/03/BNSF%20set%20to%20launch%20refrigerated%20unit%20trains%20in%20May.aspx
See also its webpage, at:
http://www.mckaytranscold.com/new-rail-logistics.html
BaltACD The more articles I read about this - it is sounding like Cold Train was undercapitalized and barely making ends meet when they were getting the 90% performance. There is a whole novel of things that are not being published about this happening.
Paul_D_North_Jr What effect will this have on the somewhat similar McKay TransCold operation that BNSF had planned on starting in May 2014 ? Link to March 4, 2014 NewsWire article: http://trn.trains.com/Railroad%20News/News%20Wire/2014/03/BNSF%20set%20to%20launch%20refrigerated%20unit%20trains%20in%20May.aspx See also its webpage, at: http://www.mckaytranscold.com/new-rail-logistics.html - Paul North.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
A whole novel? Well maybe.
But remember, most new businesses fail. And those that don't rely on a good cash flow to keep their heads above water. Cold Train lost any good cash flow situation it had when BNSF's service went to Hell.
The amount of cash Cold Train had coming in was determined by how many loads it could handle. The number of loads it could handle was dependent on the turn around time of its containers. How many days did it take for a container to cycle from Quincy, WA to Chicago and back. The fewer days for the cycle, the more loads (and cash) Cold Train brought in.
For example, if they were doing 200 loads per week and the BNSF's problems reduced that to 100 loads per week because of longer transit times their revenue would be cut in half. But their expenses would not be reduced by half. They'd have to pay the note on their containers anyway. It would be a fixed cost that they could not reduce.
This destroyed their cash flow. A start up cannot stand a negative cash flow for any length of time. They could not pay their bills and raised the white flag. (Additionally, they were loosing loads because customers will not put up with crap service.)
It's too bad. They had a good business plan and a great shot at success. But they were reliant on one supplier, the BNSF, and when that supplier got into trouble Cold Train got in to a coffin. It's a good rule to have more than one supplier, but I don't know how Cold Train could have worked that out.
As always Greyhound, you add great points. Being stuck with one supplier placed them at the mercy of a company many times larger. Cold Train had no bargaining chip to play.
Others have options.
Lovely Mrs. MP173 and I had dinner last night with friends including a VP/Sales for a large (very large) TL carrier which uses intermodal. As always the discussion turned to trucking, drivers, and ultimately railroad service. BNSF's service is melted and they have shifted their business to UP ("at least UP is trying, BNSF has pretty much given up on the refer business"). Perhaps UP is more sympathetic to the produce business since they are running the "apple trains" to CSX on a 4x week basis and understand a service issue in intermodal trickles down (or trickles up).
Truck driver shortage are major problems, particularly since the economy has picked up. Drayage drivers is becoming more and more of an issue. Expect to see these containers beginning to stack up at the terminals.
Ed
THEIR SIDINGS ARE ON THE BNSF, BUT WAS THERE NO WAY THE UP COULD HAVE HANDLED THIS BUSINESS?
Greyhounds said the following:
[snipped] "...It's too bad. They had a good business plan and a great shot at success. But they were reliant on one supplier, the BNSF, and when that supplier got into trouble Cold Train got in to a coffin. It's a good rule to have more than one supplier, but I don't know how Cold Train could have worked that out..."[snip]
BaltACD SAID: "...The more articles I read about this - it is sounding like Cold Train was undercapitalized and barely making ends meet when they were getting the 90% performance. There is a whole novel of things that are not being published about this happening..."
I would wonder if there could have been any thought of a possible rerouting to a different line towards the East? Realizing that any extra miles would cause additional expenses to Cold Train, but it sure seems counter-productive to not try a longer route to save their operation? Could not CN or CP provide a route out of Northwestern Washington State?
To BaltACD's point... It seems to be a given, in most start-up operations, that undercapitalization is a real problem,. I would be curious to know if they had negotiated a Contract with the BNSF for a level of guaranted services for their Trains[Cold Train's]] over a given routing with BNSF. If that is an affirmative answer: Then the question would seem to be come one of "Who Dropped the Ball'? As was said.. There HAS to be a lot more to this story than is being made public right now...
Here is a link to what may be "the rest of the story" [Note: It may require a free registration to view it?]
http://www.joc.com/rail-intermodal/intermodal-shipping/cold-train-ends-intermodal-service-citing-poor-bnsf-performance_20140807.html
[snipped] FTA : "...Since November, Cold Train said, the BNSF service issues have cost it more than 70 percent of its business, which was primarily hauling refrigerated apples, onions, pears, potatoes, carrots and cherries.
"This loss of (BNSF) service along with an anticipated record 2014 tree fruit crop in Washington State, is making it increasingly evident that apple and pear shippers will be scrambling to find other transportation options to ship cargo eastbound from Washington State at a time when over the road transportation is already experiencing extreme shortages causing delays and lost sales opportunities," Charles Pomianek, Wenatchee Valley Traffic Association executive director, wrote in a July 15 letter to the Port of Quincy. The association represents 30 tree fruit growers that ship 60,000 truckloads of fresh fruit annually.
The reduction in BNSF service coincides with the growth of apple production in Washington state, Kirk Mayer, manager of the Washington Growers Clearing House, wrote to the port in a July 16 letter. The Cold Train last year shippped more than 4,000 containers, or about 5,000 truckloads, of Washingtion tree fruit, which was primarlily apples, Pomianek said. Washington apple and pear producers were expected to double the loads they put on the Cold Train this year, he added..." [snipped]
I really don't see as much reason for pessimism as would have been the case back in the days of intense regulation. The rail industry has seen a number of outbreaks of optimism since the corner was turned back in the Eighties, and as has been noted in Mr. Frailey's recent columns and subsequent commentary, there is now more than one approach to customer relations and service.
The basic driving forces behind the rail industry's revival -- energy efficiency and, misdirected attempts at fine-tuning aside, a smaller environmental "footprint:" -- remain in force.
So, Quincy is easy of the passes. which means it isn't involved in the Iron Triangle and the headaches of getting over the cascades. So what the heck BNSF bottlenecks are there after that? I thought the major capacity constraint on the Northern Transcon was getting over the Cascades?
Further, Do I understand that This service was in intermodal reefers rather than in box car reefers? Why couldn't it have been trucked to UP? Perhaps a smidge more expensive and that may explain it, but UP is running the Apple Train and the Salad shooter without issue.
After a recent trip to Portland that included a stop for lunch in Medford, I was going to ask here if Harry and David still shipped by rail at all since there is a Siding and while the Siskyous pass is currently closed, they could go north. Or justify reopening. I think this thread just answered that for me.
Cold Train was using refrigerated containers. The UP-served Railex terminal at Wallula is some 110 miles south of Quincy. Customers that used to truck to Quincy could have more, or less, distance to travel to reach Wallula, depending on where their product originates. Cold Train offered almost daily departures for containers, which were typically picked up by a Z-SSECHC. Railex and UP are currently offering only one departure per week from Wallula, according to their summer schedule. That business appears to have declined from its peak of two or more departures per week with 40 to 55 car trains, but perhaps it's just a seasonal shift. Last Monday's inbound train was less than 25 cars.
As for traffic patterns, the Iron Triangle keeps things fairly fluid Auburn-Pasco via Stampede Pass and Pasco-Vancouver via the Columbia River, but gets a bit more congested Vancouver-Auburn thanks to UP and Amtrak. Outside the triangle, congestion is more serious because trains are moving in both directions. Not just Pasco-Spokane, but also Everett-Wenatchee-Quincy-Spokane. In fact, that northern route through Quincy has received very little in the way of capacity expansion in the past few years compared to other routes in the region, therefore the 25-30 trains this line can see per day is considered at or above practical capacity for that route.
Go here, and flip to page 28 (63 by the centerspread navigation tool):
http://issuu.com/railwayage/docs/july_2014_railway_age/1?e=5256929/8540691
With so much track work under way, and increased levels of traffic, it is simply unrealistic to try to operate a corridor or regional system that neatly accommodates multitudes of high-tonnage unit trains, higher-speed high-priority intermodals, and passenger, all on the same one or two tracks, without having to apply some degree of compromise. Demoting Z trains to Q trains was one such compromise. The question is, for how long.
Eddie Sand I really don't see as much reason for pessimism as would have been the case back in the days of intense regulation. The rail industry has seen a number of outbreaks of optimism since the corner was turned back in the Eighties, and as has been noted in Mr. Frailey's recent columns and subsequent commentary, there is now more than one approach to customer relations and service. The basic driving forces behind the rail industry's revival -- energy efficiency and, misdirected attempts at fine-tuning aside, a smaller environmental "footprint:" -- remain in force.
Mind you, I'm not advocating that at all, but I would not be surprised. Recall the saying: "Never let a good crisis go to waste" (attributed to both Winston Churchill as well as Rahm Emanuel . . . ).
A new player is trying out refrigerated intermodal from the Pacific Northwest in the wake of Cold Train's demise:
Infinity Transportation on Monday, Nov. 10, 2014 announced "a new expedited refrigerated domestic intermodal container service operating from the Pacific Northwest to the Midwest and East Coast." Read the Railway Age blurb here: http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/intermodal/intermodal-reefer-service-to-link-ectopia-east-coast.html
Read the Railway Age blurb here:
http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/intermodal/intermodal-reefer-service-to-link-ectopia-east-coast.html
Infinity will be using ramps at established terminals in destination cities, not the former ColdTrain facility in Quincy WA 'in the sticks'.
Infinity Transportation Logistics, LLC. will have a service radius of about 160 miles from intermodal ramps inSeattle, Spokane and Portland. As a result, ITL will be able serve many parts of Washington, Oregon andIdaho including the greater Portland area, Willamette Valley, Hood River, the Columbia Basin of WA & OR, the Yakima Valley, Skagit Valley, the Puget Sound area and the greater Spokane area. ITL will also bring refrigerated and frozen foods and some dry goods back from the Midwest and East Coast to the Pacific Northwest. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/infinity-transportation-to-launch-new-expedited-refrigerated-domestic-intermodal-service-from-the-pacific-northwest-282131251.html
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/infinity-transportation-to-launch-new-expedited-refrigerated-domestic-intermodal-service-from-the-pacific-northwest-282131251.html
Curiously, when doing a Google search for "Infinity Transportation" the most prominent results are for a limosine service in South Florida.
Radar,
The origin area for the traffic they are targeting is "in the sticks". Quincy had the advantage of shorter truck hauls than will the infinity plan. My personal opinion is that BNSF did not want to stop a hot train to make the Quincy pick-up. My prediction is infinity will be eaten up by dray costs.
FWIW I grew up in Wenatchee, the self proclaimed Apple Capital of the World. The ideal play for Cold Train would have been a terminal in Wenatchee, a crew change point. They would have to build one track through the former roundhouse site. Start from Wenatchee with apples, use the Quincy terminal to p/u fresh and frozen spuds, make a Spokane pickup to fill out the train and run like hell for Chicago.
Perishables are time sensative. I am skeptical of the BNSF's ability to perform. Remember that the story they put out when they pulled the plug on Quincy was that they could not get over the road. Reverting back to established terminals does nothing to get trains over the road.
Mac
Rader Sidetrack A new player is trying out refrigerated intermodal from the Pacific Northwest in the wake of Cold Train's demise: Infinity Transportation on Monday, Nov. 10, 2014 announced "a new expedited refrigerated domestic intermodal container service operating from the Pacific Northwest to the Midwest and East Coast." Read the Railway Age blurb here: http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/intermodal/intermodal-reefer-service-to-link-ectopia-east-coast.html Infinity will be using ramps at established terminals in destination cities, not the former ColdTrain facility in Quincy WA 'in the sticks'. Infinity Transportation Logistics, LLC. will have a service radius of about 160 miles from intermodal ramps inSeattle, Spokane and Portland. As a result, ITL will be able serve many parts of Washington, Oregon andIdaho including the greater Portland area, Willamette Valley, Hood River, the Columbia Basin of WA & OR, the Yakima Valley, Skagit Valley, the Puget Sound area and the greater Spokane area. ITL will also bring refrigerated and frozen foods and some dry goods back from the Midwest and East Coast to the Pacific Northwest. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/infinity-transportation-to-launch-new-expedited-refrigerated-domestic-intermodal-service-from-the-pacific-northwest-282131251.html Curiously, when doing a Google search for "Infinity Transportation" the most prominent results are for a limosine service in South Florida. The intermodal entity "Infinity Transportation" appears to actually be part of Infinity Rail: http://www.infinityrail.com/about.html
The last link in the Thread posted by Rader Sdetrack says in part:
[snipped] "... an enterprise created to acquire used rail, intermodal and other transportation equipment, repair, modify or renovate it as needed, lease the equipment to railroads and shippers and sell the leased assets to financial lessors after four to seven years. The first IT operating entity, Infinity Transportation, LLC (IT, LLC), was formed in 2009 and over the next several years acquired several hundred million dollars of used rail transportation assets as well as both Infinity Rail funds..."[snipped]
There is also a sidebar statement that its officers (Infinity Trans. LLC.) have a total of 78 years in the transportation field..(paraphrased). My thoughts are that if this is an organization that was started to capture and use "used" railroad assets. And to raise capital ( est. of about $400+ milion raised). Is their main goal to raise a pool of 'Millions of dollars'.. is that their primary goa ? Or is it to spend it on starting up a 'new business'. OR Fail, and then cash out and disappear? I guess I am just naturally suspicious.....
Actually, I do hope they can make it a good model to grow on and produce, but I've see folks in the transportation business ( Trucks) and trying to partner with the railroads, fall victim to too much exhuberance about how well they'll do and then they run afoul of Government Regulators, and shifts in other companies business models.. a seemingly good model, starts to fall apart of its own gravity and other organizations interests. ( Cold Train looked like a pretty good deal, til the of the BNSF 'pulled their plug, ' ) Here is one of 'those deals": @ http://www.leagle.com/decision/1979826470FSupp356_1752.xml/TRANSCON%20LINES%20v.%20A.%20G.%20BECKER%20INC
[If you are interested, investigate the fate of P-I-E Truckline(and then Ryder-PIE, later PIE Nationwide).. started in about 1980's it canged hnds a number of times before it went belly up about 1985(?). Holding Companies Maxitron(?)> IU International (?) essentially cleaned it out and finally into bankruptcy... not to mention the Central States Pension Fund of the Teamster's Union, and the loss it took.] I am just personally, very suspicious of those "deals that seem to be too good to be true". The Infinity enterprise will be interesting to watch.
PNWRMNMThe origin area for the traffic they are targeting is "in the sticks". Quincy had the advantage of shorter truck hauls than will the infinity plan. My personal opinion is that BNSF did not want to stop a hot train to make the Quincy pick-up. My prediction is infinity will be eaten up by dray costs. FWIW I grew up in Wenatchee, the self proclaimed Apple Capital of the World. The ideal play for Cold Train would have been a terminal in Wenatchee, a crew change point. They would have to build one track through the former roundhouse site. Start from Wenatchee with apples, use the Quincy terminal to p/u fresh and frozen spuds, make a Spokane pickup to fill out the train and run like hell for Chicago.
I agree with Mac.
A whole lot of business originates out there in "The Sticks" and the railroads have to develop a way to serve that business or let a whole lot of income pass them by.
I know, the operating folks just want a train loaded at origin and delivered intact at destination. Life is so much simpler that way. But such operations leave mega bucks on the highway. And the railroads could easily get those dollars if they could figure out a way to serve intermediate points, such as Wenatchee, with existing trains. It would be a whole lot of revenue added with minimal cost.
I do not know when it became so difficult to do a pick up/set out en route. I realize it cannot be done efficiently for one carload. But it can well be done for 20 carloads of apples (or lettuce, or beef, etc.) to be moved 2,500 miles.
This is something I believe they need to deal with and develop a solution for. Hell, put a brakeman on the train if you have to. The revenue from one car of the pick up/set out will more than pay for him/her.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.