In 1976, the Louisville and Nashville Railroad pretty much ended service to its small town piggyback ramps. However, it seemed like a pretty good system offering trailer to dock service across Middle Tennessee. Today, if you want to ship intermodal you have to get your container or trailer to Nashville and CSX's Radnor Yard.
Why would it not work for me to load my own trailers? Lets speculate the Nashville and Eastern opened a ramp in Cookeville (80 miles east of Nashville) and I was a non rail shipper. And, lets say I had two truckloads regularly going to Tacoma, Washington.
It would seem that loading two trailers on a flat car, the Nashville and Eastern then taking the trailers to Nashville and interchanging with Radnor's intermodal yard would be an easy way to get these trailers on the national rail network and on their way to Tacoma (minus the cost of two drivers and numerous tanks of diesel fuel).
Of course, getting the trailers back from Tacoma empty or loaded might be a problem. But it seems to me this scenario would work in bringing many over the highway loads back to rail. Is the small town intermodal concept really dead for loading trailers? Or was closing down small town ramps a way to "rationalize" and justify abandonment of branchlines?
Jim Norton
Huntsville, AL
Small town TOFC was probably a mistake from the outset since it treated TOFC as no different than carload freight. Consider that many of these ramps did not generate much TOFC business and any rail service was probably slower than using highway to get the trailer to a major terminal.
In the example used, the 80-mile trip from Cookeville to Nashville is better served by a highway haul since it is short and probably avoids the trailers waiting to be picked up by N&E's local.
But if speed were not an issue, I can't see why my two hypothetical trailers would be no different than a boxcar load of my products going to Tacoma. The appeal for the railroad is that my business can go on rail without having a siding.
The Tennessee Central started TOFC service in 1965 serving small cities such as Crossville, Cookeville and Lebanon. Lebanon was just about 35 miles from Nashville's Radnor Yard and a connection with the L&N. So that was a pretty short haul for Piggyback. According to TC reports, piggyback contributed to the bottom line of the ailing railroad. Then, L&N took over in 1968, piggyback gone 8 years later and the line put up for abandonment in another 8 years (1984).
If a company built its own ramp and hired its own driver to load the pigs on flatcars.......how would this differ from a boxcar load from the viewpoint of the Nashville and Eastern? When my two trailers get to Tacoma, they are unloaded at the lift and the consignee picks them up. Once again, short of the backhaul, this appears like a good way to gets lots of non-rail traffic on rail.
Going a step further....if a small city had a way to lift containers would this attract industry with no sidings? Gather containers from around the area, assembly these into carload type traffic and let the short line deliever to the class one. The big hurdle hear is a small town intermodal yard and crane. But, once on a Class One container train the rest is academic!
The Indiana Railroad has done similar on a larger scale with Central Indiana customers and the Idiananapolis hub. Traffic to and from Asia.
I must be missing something here:
(1) Where is the mechanical inspection (FRA Mandated) coming from?
(2) Who has the lease on the TOFC Dock site/ COFC lift and storage site?
(3) Who is building/maintaining/lease or owning the track?
(4) Who (qualified) controls blue flags and derails?
(5) Insurance
(6) AAR waybills and routing?
(7) security for the satellite site?
(8) how does wayfreight suddenly get priority handling vs being just another loose car?
jimnorton Going a step further....if a small city had a way to lift containers would this attract industry with no sidings? Gather containers from around the area, assembly these into carload type traffic and let the short line deliever to the class one. The big hurdle hear is a small town intermodal yard and crane. But, once on a Class One container train the rest is academic! The Indiana Railroad has done similar on a larger scale with Central Indiana customers and the Idiananapolis hub. Traffic to and from Asia.
I think you pose some good questions, Jim. How much revenue has been lost over the years in the name of "efficiency?"
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
1,3,4,5,6: The local shortline
2: Me
7: Me
Its my hypothetical dock and the real live operations of the host shortline.
schlimm jimnorton Going a step further....if a small city had a way to lift containers would this attract industry with no sidings? Gather containers from around the area, assembly these into carload type traffic and let the short line deliever to the class one. The big hurdle hear is a small town intermodal yard and crane. But, once on a Class One container train the rest is academic! The Indiana Railroad has done similar on a larger scale with Central Indiana customers and the Idiananapolis hub. Traffic to and from Asia. I think you pose some good questions, Jim. How much revenue has been lost over the years in the name of "efficiency?"
How much of that 'lost' revenue covered the real costs that were involved in securing that revenue. Beginning in the 80's with the passage of Staggers, railroad began applying cost accounting principles to the traffic they were handling - the traffic whose revenue didn't exceed the costs of securing that revenue were ushered away from the traffic mix.
My carrier had a number of small time 'intermodal' locations - the revenues of which barely covered a fraction of the costs of the business being handled.
Today's carriers bring their revenues to the bottom line - pre Staggers, not so much.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
.
16-567D3A that is the argument that the industry has established. Your points are right on...however, if we replace the word "intermodal" with "carload"....Then individual carload traffic should be the same money loser as individual intermodal loads. (based on this long standing argument)
In my argument the shortline treats the arriving empty flat just like it would an arriving empty gondola for scrap loading. The shipper loads the trailers just like the scrap yard loads the scrap. The shortline then delivers the 2 loaded trailers to Nashville just like it would deliver the loaded gon.
Once in Nashville, the loaded scrap gon is switched into the proper manifest freight and the flatcar of trailers is switched into the proper intermodal train. We have not reinvented the wheel here. So, why is one 8 wheeled railcar a valid way to ship and the other 8 wheel railcar is not?
BaltACD schlimm jimnorton Going a step further....if a small city had a way to lift containers would this attract industry with no sidings? Gather containers from around the area, assembly these into carload type traffic and let the short line deliever to the class one. The big hurdle hear is a small town intermodal yard and crane. But, once on a Class One container train the rest is academic! The Indiana Railroad has done similar on a larger scale with Central Indiana customers and the Idiananapolis hub. Traffic to and from Asia. I think you pose some good questions, Jim. How much revenue has been lost over the years in the name of "efficiency?" How much of that 'lost' revenue covered the real costs that were involved in securing that revenue. Beginning in the 80's with the passage of Staggers, railroad began applying cost accounting principles to the traffic they were handling - the traffic whose revenue didn't exceed the costs of securing that revenue were ushered away from the traffic mix. My carrier had a number of small time 'intermodal' locations - the revenues of which barely covered a fraction of the costs of the business being handled. Today's carriers bring their revenues to the bottom line - pre Staggers, not so much.
Actual railroaders have said much the same. It is easy only listen to the cost-cutting beancounters and to focus on the low-lying fruit and discard the more service-intensive revenue sources. But when that low-cost, easier bulk commodity unit train business decreases (coal? oil?) you need to start finding new sources. And as Jim says, we are talking intermodal, some of which can be collected by shortlines. And there are other possibilities requiring divergent thinking, aka, imagination if you want to have growth.
It is also easy to ignore the benefits of added marginal revenue, when the cost accountants attach too large a percentage of fixed costs to it. Ask greyhounds.
Jim,
You are going about this in about the most awkward way possible.
The questions always are what will it cost to do this vs. do that.
There are two alternatives; direct truck or dray to Nashville. Truck is always the competition. Direct truck will be the better service, so the rail offering has to be cheaper and the slower it is the lower the rate has to be AND the rail rate must cover all costs. There is a reason the railroads have organized the IM biz the way they have, they have to drive the cost low enough to be more than price competitive.
Your proposal has lots of costs that individually probably would not kill the notion, but in the aggregate certainly do.
First problem is that the railroads are operating two separate networks, a carload network and an intermodal network. Your proposal requires a crossover between networks with no obvious thought about what cost in time and money is required to accomplish that. At best case if the carload and intermodal yards are adjacent to each other, your flatcar has to be switched out, set asside, and then transfered to the IM yard. One or two hours of switch engine time at $250 or so an hour. If yards are any distance apart fugitaboutit. Your flatcar is also a redheaded stepchild at the IM yard because instead of blocking the outbound train as trailers are loaded, the IM switcher, if there is one, has to cut your one car into some departing train. That is 30-60 minutes delay in departure and occupancy of very expensive, very valuable, IM terminal trackage.
If the shipper is going to own the trailers, they have to be railroad strong, you just can not take any old highway trailer. Another problem is that there are no IM flats set up for circus loading any more. They have all been converted to lift on/off. That means you have to have a picker/packer. You might be able to buy a decent used one for $500K or lease for $5K per month, maintenance not included.
Your system is more exposed to damage from switching in the carload yard, and of course you have to block and brace the load to keep it in the trailer if you expect the carrier to entertain, let along pay, damage claims.
Your system is slower than direct truck by 2-3 days each way, at best.
The railroad will solve the backhaul problem by quoting you a loaded rate in both directions. That means you have to find a backhaul. Trucks are very good it this since they can triangulate. Rail IM is not so good at triangulation. With your nonstandard equipment it will be impossible. Be prepared to pay full rate both ways.
If you want to try rail intermodal to Tacoma call Hub group or JB Hunt and get a quote. Compare it with truck rates. Decide. If you order the equipment, they will dray their containers from Nashville and will get them loaded in the normal flow of business.
The costs of what you propose are way, way too high to be competitive.
Mac McCulloch
Directly above answers #8 and most of 1-6. The point of the exercise is that the something for nothing tribe needs to get a grip on reality. # 7 is negotiable, but the freight trucker is expected to pay for all or a good part of 1-6. Mechanical people and possibly other folks are gonna have to be on site and won't be productive for 75-90% of the day, 7 days a week on the site. Shortlines have some flexibility, but only to a point. Unreal expectations.
PNWRMNMYou are going about this in about the most awkward way possible. The questions always are what will it cost to do this vs. do that.
Your logic makes sense in terms of local intermodal ramps. They don't work like carload freight, partly because you just can't put as much stuff in/on a truck as you can with a railcar. Railcars are economical partly because they can haul a ton of stuff.
That being said, I'd like to see some regional intermodal feeder facilities. I live in southern CT, and I'm fed up with all the drayage going through CT from Newark/Bayonne to god knows where. Since there is no rail connection until the cross-harbor tunnel is built, they could use feeder barges for now, or an intermodal rail connection via Selkirk and Worcester, and maybe drop down to a couple of regional yards. In theory, they could be barged and re-loaded to COFC in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn, or floated across on COFC on a barge, but either would probably be way too expensive and kludgy.
In the future, I'd envision these feeders using COFC through the tunnel and up the NEC, much like many European countries do. Then, JB Hunt, HUB, and other domestic intermodal operators could offer medium-distance domestic COFC shuttles that go through NYC to get truck traffic off of our roads.
It's too bad that there isn't a way to economically offer container delivery directly to rail-connected industries, but it would probably be rather uneconomical, and the industry would have to figure out how to unload them.
I think one of the biggest spots for growth in rail shipping are bulk transfer yards where stuff can be transloaded, and one rail car might be able to handle several truckloads going one way or the other. This would likely vastly increase the number of industries that can use rail service, since often something goes from an industry with rail service to one without or visa versa.
What I think would also be an incredible system for the US is open intermodal, where vehicles are driven onto a string of flats RoRo style, parked, chained down, and the drivers go with their vehicles in passenger cars. Think Auto Train but with full-sized trucks. Combined with electrified super-railroads, this would offer an incredibly efficient way to move stuff that doesn't currently fit the rail model, everything from regular cars to specialized trucks to moving vans to RVs to independent truckers and expediters with customers who require fast service to race car trailers and small businesses who need to travel distances. Add high-speed (70-90mph) operation to the trains, and they would enable incredible connectivity. If enough passenger cars and light trucks go on the system, autoracks could be added between the passenger cars and flats to more efficiently handle them.
schlimmI think you pose some good questions, Jim. How much revenue has been lost over the years in the name of "efficiency?"
The efficiency looks really cool when you are standing at the ramp and you watch the COFC roll towards the class 1. After that, not so much.
A friend was talking to me about the feasibility of a small local ramp at a fair sized town that was served by a shortline that connected with a class 1 railroad. The town was pretty good sized and was about to be on a new interstate route. Teh idea was to attract truckload business, consolidate it and then steel wheel it long distance. Sounds great (and right up the line about this discussion).
Once they haul the car to the class 1 what happens? Most intermodal routes are E-W and the class 1 route they connected with was N-S. The class 1 had no existing intermodal network on that route. There was literally nothing to connect with other than a loose car freight train. To get it to a route with an intermodal presence would require going 100 miles north or south and then through one or more hump yards.
Lets say that this local ramp generates 50 boxes a day. Sounds great doesn't it? that five double stack 5-packs. Neat. Except that 11 boxes go to LA, 6 boxes to Oakland, 8 to Atlanta, 12 to New York, 5 to Seattle, 3 domestic to Houston, and 5 domestic to Chicago.
11 boxes is two 5 packs,
6 boxes is one 5 pack,
8 boxes is one 5 pack
12 boxes is two 5 packs,
3 boxes is one 5 pack
5 boxes is one 5 pack
5 boxes is one 5 pack.
What you really have are nine 5 packs, some of which are single loaded and some have empty wells. Lets say the ramp can get only single platform cars, that would mean 27 single double stack patforms. And they are going in multiple directions on different lanes.
Once the class 1 gets teh cars they would have to haul them to a ramp that had connections to the different routes, set them out, switch them and get them on the connections that do go in the direction the cars are going.
Or........
You can drive the boxes 4 hours to a ramp with connections to all the different routes, put it on a car consolidated with dozens of other boxes all going in the same direction and run it on the proper lane right off the get go.
Which is more efficient in the overall network? Which option is more efficient from the customer's standpoint? the one that takes two days and 4 trains to get it into the right flow or the one where the box starts out in the right flow the same/next day?
The local ramp thing has been tried. The hub ramp is better for the railroad and better for the customer. Maybe not so much for the shortline in the boonies.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Granted. What is said is true. But the Piggyback model worked for small town ramps when it was first initiated. The Tennessee Central annual reports credited piggyback loads as a ray of hope in creating additional traffic and revenue for the terminally ill carrier. The big difference today is intergrating this concept with the efficency of intermodal traffic lanes. And it indeed fails for all the reasons mentioned.
But doesn't an 89' flat with two trailers as carload freight have any potential?
There are abandoned spurs all over the land. Take one of these in Cookeville, Tennessee and build a crude dirt and gravel ramp at the end of it (or an elaborate concrete one). Purchase two former intermodal trailers (there are plenty). Train one of my current hypothetical workers to load circus style. Request a pig flat. If unavailable work with the Nashville and Eastern to equip one as such. All of these, with the exception of equiping the flat for circus loading, have been paid for by me....the shipper. Heck, I might even pay for the car modification!
Now here is a new twist. If another shipper in Tacoma has done what I have in Cookeville (i.e. built his dirt ramp for his trailer loads).....Then, route the car to this shipper's ramp and pay his man, who he has trained to unload circus style like mine, to unload my trailers for the Tacoma consignee to pick up. There is no hurry and the "carload of trailers" never even has to enter any intermodal lane. It travels from Cookeville to Tacoma just like a boxcar!
Have
Volume! Volume! Volume!
Volume indeed. Intermodal is driven by economies of scale. And intermodal is relatively complex and requires alot of people, coordination,big terminals, and heavy equipment. Conversely, trucking is about as simple as it gets. Load truck... get Bubba to drive it to destination..unload... and done. Simple all around.. and simple to price as well. Intermodal may shave off a few dollars on some lanes where density makes the numbers work, but the price is greater complexity and more variable service levels. But as an HO scale modeller, I love the small ramps and piggyback trailers!
Two words - fixed costs. Land, infrastructure, insurance in case Bubba rolls the trailer off the flat car while circus-loading the trailer at the small town ramp...
Trailers these days are almost exclusively 53', so it would be one per 89' flatcar (and intermodal 89' flatcars are becoming increasingly rare), unless you buy more specialized equipment.
Will your cost savings by increasing the rail haul and decreasing the truck haul by 80 miles pay for all of these investments? I doubt it. The guy to inspect the loaded flatcar (and presumably trailer) will have to drive from the intermodal terminal, be paid to sit around and do nothing all, or quit as soon as he gets a better paying job (which probably will not take long), so that will eat all of your savings.
"No soup for you!" - Yev Kassem (from Seinfeld)
Ulrich But as an HO scale modeller, I love the small ramps and piggyback trailers!
But as an HO scale modeller, I love the small ramps and piggyback trailers!
You have to, unless you have a warehouse and a large fortune to model a large intermodal terminal.
ericspWill your cost savings by increasing the rail haul and decreasing the truck haul by 80 miles pay for all of these investments? I doubt it. The guy to inspect the loaded flatcar (and presumably trailer) will have to drive from the intermodal terminal, be paid to sit around and do nothing all, or quit as soon as he gets a better paying job (which probably will not take long), so that will eat all of your savings.
All of which means that there is a break-even point where it would be economically feasible to load your own. UPS does it, but they're on the high end of the scale.
I suspect we'd be talking a pretty good volume. What we here on the forum lack is the in-depth knowledge of the specifics that would be necessary to know what that volume is.
A nearby shortline routinely leaves strings of cars for interchange with CSX. The cars are on air and ready to go - all CSX has to do is come in off the main and pick them up. It's not hard to imagine those cars being IM. The next stop happens to be a yard with IM facilities.
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...
tree68All of which means that there is a break-even point where it would be economically feasible to load your own. UPS does it, but they're on the high end of the scale. I suspect we'd be talking a pretty good volume. What we here on the forum lack is the in-depth knowledge of the specifics that would be necessary to know what that volume is.
Tree,
Of course there is a break even volume for a low volume terminal, but it is much higher than a couple of trailers every now and then. Consider some factors. First, customers are NOT interested in anything that is more expensive or slower. To make them even consider slower, you have to buy the business with lower rates.
What are you competing against? Answer - dray cost and additional terminal cost imposed on Class I IM terminal you will use to integrate traffic from the country terminal with the national network, AND in some cases where the first rail move is in the wrong direction, direct truck.
For illustration I will adopt a previously suggested origin in Connecticut, say Hartford and will imagine that there is a willing short line there. This is not my country, so I make no representation as to the reasonableness of this assumption. Assume our feeder train interchanges with the national network at Selkirk, and that Selkirk has a high volume IM terminal. My motor carrier atlas shows this to be about 150 mile truck haul. Boston is about the same and will assume there is no other ramp within 150 miles.
What is our cost ceiling? Based on truck dray and a rate of $100 to touch and $4 per one way mile we have a $700 dray. Looks good so far BUT our terminal will also absorb a dray on same basis, say $200 average so we have a spread of $500 to live on.
What technology? Trailers or containers? The old circus stye 89' flats are gone, either scraped or converted to fixed stantion. That means we need a lift machine. Assume we can lease a used one for $5,000 per month. Assume $2,500 per month for fuel and maintenance. That is $150 per day based on 25 days per month, or daily except Sunday.
We need access to Selkirk, cars, a lift machine, a fleet of chassis, at least five guys: machine operator, ground man, tractor driver or two, gate man, car man. Say $200 per day fringes included. Add a boss at $300 per day, say 75,000 per year
Access to Selkirk and to cars requires that CSX be willing to play with the new terminal operator. Our cut of cars requires Selkirk to do things differently. They have to unload, hold and reload our containers AND they have to load our cars to get rid of them. Ours will be a small cut in a world of unit trains. This could be ameliorated if we use standard cars, which we should anyway, but that brings up another problem, we are not members of TTX. Here again CSX can help, but they gotta wanna. CSX incurrs the same lift costs at Selkirk terminal that they would in the normal course of biz, one off, one on. No way they are going to pay us for delivering by rail, and frankly they may NOT be too thrilled about the idea, just because it is not standard. The best we can reasonably hope for is that CSX will charge us car hire while the cars are in our service. Assume 48 hour round trip at $30 per day per 10 pack at 80% slot utilization is $7.50 per container. Also need to think about load ballance. The $7.50 assumes all loads, a very unlikely situation. Car hire will be in range of $7.50 to $15 per load.
How will CSX deal with our traffic? They could run a dedicated turn out of Selkirk. This would certainly be the best quality service AND not disrupt the rest of their railroad. They might even do it if we would pay for it! Next choice is stop an IM train to set out and another to pick up. Figure half an hour to s/o and an hour to p/u. One man crews are glacially slow! What does that do to CSX schedule? What about hours of service? Advantage is that our boxes end up in IM terminal. Next choice is to use a manifest train. This puts our cars on an arrival track at hump yard, from which they must be rescued and transfered to the IM yard. Same logic in reverse to a departure yard track. CSX will not think much of this plan. Count on it!! Of course they might go along if we pay them enough.
Now the big problem, what capital investment do I have to make to create a terminal? How long will it take to fight the NIMBYs into submission. What pile of permits do I have to get at what cost in time and money. Do I have the track or do I have to build it. Do I have ground to store three or four day's worth of containers. How much grading? Do I have to pave anything, or can I get by with 4-6 inches of crushed rock, or with nothing at all? These are big money items and are highly site specific.
Since we do not have real operating and investment costs is impossible to do much analysis here but if we arbirtarilly assume some numbers we can at least see shape of ball park
Revenue = $500 average net dray savings
Daily operating cost $1200 per day machine and labor
Car hire $10 per load
Train operations ?????
Terminal capital costs $2,000,000 a low guess
Terminal cost recovery $400,000 per year.
Staying only with obvious big ticket items, which makes project look better than it is.
Op cost $1150 per day 300 days = $345,000
Boss = $ 75,000
Capital recovery = $400,000
Total cost = $820,000
Break even volume absolute minimum 1640 loads per year.
We have not considered rate concession to customer to use us becuase we are slower than dray over Selkirk. If it was $100 per load, then our margin drops from $500 per load to $400 which increases break even to 2050 loads per year.
Remember, any rational person or business who invests all the blood sweat and tears required to make this work will not do it for break even. Not hard for me to see why we do not have many low volume "country" IM terminals.
This figure does not include the cost of a CSX turn from Selkirk, which would provide the highest possible service qualtiy. At $5,000 per trip, 300 days per year that is another $1,500,000, or 3,000 loads per year. Would probably save us the $100 per load rate concession to customers however.
Mac
PNWRMNM - Thanks! That puts real numbers (or at least fairly realistic ones) on the face of the question.
I would throw an assumption into the mix - chiefly, that once loaded, the IM cars would not have to be reloaded - they're headed for a relatively fixed location (perhaps IM yards near the end customers).
The case I mention would involve Utica, with the cars westbound to Syracuse (Dewitt). The pickups are currently done using a regular manifest train (Q621) on its westbound trip out of Selkirk (it turns north at Syracuse for Massena).
If properly loaded, one might presume that the cars could be routed to the appropriate IM facility with minimal handling enroute.
Still, there are the factors you've mentioned, and without a hypothetical destination, any and all cost comparisons are purely hypothetical.
tree68 I would throw an assumption into the mix - chiefly, that once loaded, the IM cars would not have to be reloaded - they're headed for a relatively fixed location (perhaps IM yards near the end customers).
Assuming that they are loaded to a blocking pattern that the forwarding IM yard can mesh with their operations and that each car is "pure" only having boxes for one block on each car.
The case I mention would involve Utica, with the cars westbound to Syracuse (Dewitt). The pickups are currently done using a regular manifest train (Q621) on its westbound trip out of Selkirk (it turns north at Syracuse for Massena). If properly loaded, one might presume that the cars could be routed to the appropriate IM facility with minimal handling enroute.
That is also part of the barrier. Manifest trains originate and terminate in manifest classification yards. IM trains originate and terminate in IM ramps. The two facilites are not necessarily co-located. That means either the manifest train has to make an additional set out at the IM facility or the cars have to go into the manifest yard and be transferred to the IM facility. Either way it is additional cost and time that has to be absorbed.
Another "cost" is time, most IM traffic has some sort of time sensitivity to it. Cars moving out of network or in a manifest network will have a longer transit time than cars in an IM network. Every time a box has to wait for a connection or make a connection, be it train or transfer job, or be switched and cut into a block, the car accrues dwell time.
At what point does the additional time to steel wheel the car to an IM hub become a cost the shipper cannot bear? At what point does the time lost making all the connections make rubber tire to the IM facility more cost effective? At what point does the time lost making all the connections make rubber tire to destination more cost effective?
That happy assumption is not likely to be true. Much more likely is need to sort to the country terminal someplace, likely Syracuse, and to sort boxes comming out of country terminal. Both ways, and probably onesies and twosies. That is why I assumed going into CSX terminal, stripping the country equipment and then reloading it.
That does not necessarilly imply a captive fleet to the country terminal, in fact non-captive would be better for several reasons, but will still have to strip and load to sort boxes at Syracuse.
Real life is allways more complicated than it looks from the outside.
ALEXANDER WOOD PNWRMNM You are going about this in about the most awkward way possible. The questions always are what will it cost to do this vs. do that. Your logic makes sense in terms of local intermodal ramps. They don't work like carload freight, partly because you just can't put as much stuff in/on a truck as you can with a railcar. Railcars are economical partly because they can haul a ton of stuff. That being said, I'd like to see some regional intermodal feeder facilities. I live in southern CT, and I'm fed up with all the drayage going through CT from Newark/Bayonne to god knows where. Since there is no rail connection until the cross-harbor tunnel is built, they could use feeder barges for now, or an intermodal rail connection via Selkirk and Worcester, and maybe drop down to a couple of regional yards. In theory, they could be barged and re-loaded to COFC in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn, or floated across on COFC on a barge, but either would probably be way too expensive and kludgy. In the future, I'd envision these feeders using COFC through the tunnel and up the NEC, much like many European countries do. Then, JB Hunt, HUB, and other domestic intermodal operators could offer medium-distance domestic COFC shuttles that go through NYC to get truck traffic off of our roads. It's too bad that there isn't a way to economically offer container delivery directly to rail-connected industries, but it would probably be rather uneconomical, and the industry would have to figure out how to unload them. I think one of the biggest spots for growth in rail shipping are bulk transfer yards where stuff can be transloaded, and one rail car might be able to handle several truckloads going one way or the other. This would likely vastly increase the number of industries that can use rail service, since often something goes from an industry with rail service to one without or visa versa. What I think would also be an incredible system for the US is open intermodal, where vehicles are driven onto a string of flats RoRo style, parked, chained down, and the drivers go with their vehicles in passenger cars. Think Auto Train but with full-sized trucks. Combined with electrified super-railroads, this would offer an incredibly efficient way to move stuff that doesn't currently fit the rail model, everything from regular cars to specialized trucks to moving vans to RVs to independent truckers and expediters with customers who require fast service to race car trailers and small businesses who need to travel distances. Add high-speed (70-90mph) operation to the trains, and they would enable incredible connectivity. If enough passenger cars and light trucks go on the system, autoracks could be added between the passenger cars and flats to more efficiently handle them.
PNWRMNM You are going about this in about the most awkward way possible. The questions always are what will it cost to do this vs. do that.
I often have to use the Ct. turnpike and, while I admire your fine state, I have to agree with you on the congestion issues but;
I work in a logistics intensive business(though not on the logistics side), my major customer imports a large amount of product via container.
When I drive past the port in Newark, I note that it's about a 4-5 hour ride on a highway chassis from the port's ramp area to most destinations in the major population centers North in New England (which, for the most part is the "God knows where" you mention in your reply although I'm sure some of those boxes make it into Quebec and the Canadian Maritimes)..
From a logistics manager's perspective, this is a quick trip and there isn't a shortage of day rate truckers available..
I am very dubious that;even if Amtrak would cooperate, you could get the rate on COFC under the wire as you are proposing down to such a point that businesses find it competive without some kind odf major subsidy, let alone going ship to barge to train to truck like you are also suggesting ..
But that's not the big problem: there is no way that the Northeast Corridoe North of NYC has enough capacity to allow that amount of tonnage on 90 MPH COFC trains without absolutely messing up the 125-150 MPH commuter and regional trains that are vitally important to many people traveling in the region. Put those folks back on the interstates in cars and the gridlock will be even worse.
Back in the late 80's early 90's Conrail and Norfolk Southern were floating the idea of running Roadrailers up the NEC through the NY tunnels in partnership with Amtrak. The idea was to use amtrak crews and locomotives north of New Jersey. The passenger carrier rejected the idea beacause of concerns about congestion and the possibility of a roadrailer train accident blocking the tunnels.
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Its all how the bean counters spin it: Using absurdity to illustrate the justification for ending small town piggyback:
I employee numerous hypothetical field inspectors who travel and are paid $100.00 per hour. Recently, the accounting department has questioned them fueling thier automobiles.
The bean counters have presented the following justification: Each time refueling is required the driver must switch from the interstate to a secondary road to find a gas station. This can take an average of ten minutes to complete. And, this is ten minutes that can't generate income.
This ten minutes equates to $16.66 of lost revenue per fill up. If our field inspectors fill up three times a week that equates to $50.00 per field inspector per week.
We have 25 field inspectors. 25 inspectors x $50.00 x 52 weeks = $65,000.00 per year lost in fueling stops.
Conclusion: by eliminating fueling stops the company can recoup $65,000.00 of billable time. Therefore, in order to optimize revenues fueling must be eliminated.
That's the great thing about this forum - there are plenty of things to learn, and even if it takes several people to work out some wrinkles, we end up knowing more than when we started.
jimnorton Its all how the bean counters spin it: Using absurdity to illustrate the justification for ending small town piggyback: I employee numerous hypothetical field inspectors who travel and are paid $100.00 per hour. Recently, the accounting department has questioned them fueling thier automobiles. The bean counters have presented the following justification: Each time refueling is required the driver must switch from the interstate to a secondary road to find a gas station. This can take an average of ten minutes to complete. And, this is ten minutes that can't generate income. This ten minutes equates to $16.66 of lost revenue per fill up. If our field inspectors fill up three times a week that equates to $50.00 per field inspector per week. We have 25 field inspectors. 25 inspectors x $50.00 x 52 weeks = $65,000.00 per year lost in fueling stops. Conclusion: by eliminating fueling stops the company can recoup $65,000.00 of billable time. Therefore, in order to optimize revenues fueling must be eliminated.
And then they are standing alongside their vehicles on the Interstate at $100/hr waiting on the 'super conductor' to come along an fill them up - if the 'super conductor' can find them and has enough fuel to be able to do it.
Have the bean counters wait for the 'super conductor' when they need to fuel their vehicles - after all, they are likely higher rated than you field personnel, and the savings would multiply.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.