I do remember seeing early Roadrailers (usually one or two) on the back of the "Pere Marquettes" in the mid-1960's.
Bi-Modal Corporation revived the concept in the late 1970's and obtained the necessary amendments to the Safety Appliance Act to allow them to run in regular service without extensive modifications. The design may have been licensed to Wabash National some time after that.
ATSFGuy When were the roadrailers first introduced?
When were the roadrailers first introduced?
Also I think the term 'Road/Railer' {May or maynot have been a copywrited term for Wabash Trailer Company of Lafayette, Indiana (?) at least they were making Road Railer Trailers in the late 1980's, then bought the system in the early 1990's} Anyway, at some time in the 1960's (?) North American Van Line of Ft. Wayne got into the Freight business, and was involved, I think with Road/Railers out of their Corporate HQ in Ft. Wayne(?). I recall seeing them around that area in the early 1970's.
NAVL sold out the technology and name/ to Norfolk Southern which created the "Triple Crown Service" in about the late 1980's(?) By that time the R/R Trailer Systems had been through versions from Mark I to V . As they sought on how to deal with the added weight of the railroad wheels attached to the trailers [tareweight].
ATSF Guy: Hope this will help. bear in mind my dates and times may be a little fuzzy, but I think overall may be close and accurate.
Roadrailer Grave Yard or Pit Stop to a Second Career as a Road Trailer?
Here are several thousand Triple Crown trailers being stored at the former International Harvester location in Fort Wayne. Are they going to be scrapped, or will they become road trailers? Due to their age and higher tare weight, they probably don’t have much value.
The track in the foreground is NS, former Union Belt of Fort Wayne. The second track was added years ago to keep from parking Triple Crown trains on the main lines. The track runs between the ex Wabash mainline and Triple Crown yard , ex PRR Piqua yard.
http://www.fwarailfan.net/community/download/file.php?id=5180&t=1
http://www.fwarailfan.net/community/download/file.php?id=5181&t=1
To add some information to the preceeding post of Paul North :
Here is a link to a European System called "Cargo Beamer" [ Would seem to need an investment in a dedicated fixed loading system. See link @ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ugx87dSmBg
And this system called " Megaswing": See link @ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIwXPvGXnho
And in this video, the loading of T/T units (combinations) onto flt cars for transport over Brenner Pass [Note: the 'chocks' used to hold and position the equipment on the cars] @ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCoSD-2-oPY
and similarly: @ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvZNd-S7Re8
Paul Milenkovic [snipped - PDN] . . . I don't remember much of anything said [in the DeBoer book, PIGGYBACK and CONTAINERS - PDN] of Stedman side-transfer: given that I grew up on The Professional Iconoclast, I would remember anything substantive said pro or con." . . . The side-transfer system in Europe that is linked is intriguing -- I will have to study this more.
. . .
The side-transfer system in Europe that is linked is intriguing -- I will have to study this more.
So somebody else read Kneiling and paid attention to him, eh ? (In one column he had a CN photo of the Steadman system, and decribed it in several columns and articles.) A few years back I looked up the 2 or 3 U.S. patents associated with it.
Just to add a note to this discussion of other Contaqiner/Trailer loading systems, in use in UK and or European Railways:
Transporting Complet T/T units over Brenner Pass:
@ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCoSD-2-oPY
The DeBoer book does mention, describe, and include a photo of the Canadian Steadman System (Stedman was used in 1 caption) on pages 59 and 60, together with a U.S. version - Railiner by Southern Car & Manufacturing Company, and a brief mention of an REA system that apparently used wire cages within a container. DeBoer's comments and the end of this description about the efficiency of that system being killed by "the regulatory mind" echoes the views often expressed here by greyhounds. (Mr. Milenkovic: Since you know of Kneiling and are not afraid to reference him, if you contact me off-line I'd be glad to scan and e-mail or mail those 2 pages to you.)
The DeBoer book also has a set of equipment - capacity - cost tabulations on pages 172 - 173, similar to that by greyhounds in his previous post.
The InnovaTrain ContainerMover system has some quirks. First, it requires a special adaptor platform/ frame to be mounted on the car:
http://www.innovatrain.ch/en/containermover/wagenadapter/
That might be difficult to coordinate here in the US.
More troublesome, it's limited to 20-ft. containers:
http://www.innovatrain.ch/en/containermover/
However, there are at least 3 roughly similar systems in use world-wide, which are capable of handling 40-ft. containers (but not 53-ft. ones, as far as I can ascertain) - in no particular order:
1. Swinglift: http://www.swinglift.co.nz/# and
http://www.swinglift.co.nz/products.php?filter=1
2. Steelbro:
http://www.steelbro.com/products/sidelifters/sidelifter-models.html
3. Hammar: http://www.hammarlift.com/
The eastern NS RoadRailer and other intermodal types terminal - Lehigh Valley Rail Management/ Beth-Intermodal - is only a few miles (20 mins.) from me, in Bethlehem, PA. And Pennsylvania allows trucks hauling intermodal containers to have a GVW of 90,000 lbs., instead of just the usual 80,000. Also, the adjoining industrial park notes that because all of its roads are private, there's no such weight limit on trucks running around inside of it to deliver to the warehouses and industries there. If I was smarter or had more time and $, I'd come up with a business plan to do something with this . . .
- Paul North.
There used to be spine cars for COFC. They were in the NTTX 66000 series. Apparently they did not work as well as double stacks.
Trinity has built spine cars, http://www.railcarphotos.com/Search.php?SearchCarType=Spine+Car&SearchBuilder=Trinity&Search=Search. Gunderson has also built spine cars but the Gunderson product in the comparison was a well car.
"No soup for you!" - Yev Kassem (from Seinfeld)
I bet if the nation’s railroads, combined, had lengthened all sidings to 11,000 to 12,000 feet on all single track lines that had regular intermodal service, the cost would have been a fraction of the money spent increasing clearances to accommodate double stack cars. But I under how double stack evolved from Southern Pacific’s perspective.
I have to question the cost comparisons between spine cars and well cars. I did not find spine cars in either Gunderson’s or Trinity’s product list. All the spine cars I see are multi-purpose to accommodate containers or trailers. I would say that extra tare weight is added to handle trailers.
Gunderson has an 85 foot car designed for 40 & 20 containers whose tare weight per container is close to the spine car. But this car has to support about 50% of the payload in the center of the car. I think a spine car built exclusively for containers, with most of the payload weight near the wheels, could bring the tare weight close to the well car. But that is neither here nor there as the railroads aren’t going to make investments that would jeopardize their double stack investment.
avonlea22That whole East end is new and looks like it's set up for Road Railers. That's why I'm wondering why they would build all of that and then get rid of the Road Railers. If the plan is to eventually expand the intermodal, then it all makes sense.
Nope. All that new stuff is for conventional intermodal.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
oltmannd The intermodal terminal is on the west end of Rutherford yard. The Triple Crown terminal is on the east end.
The intermodal terminal is on the west end of Rutherford yard. The Triple Crown terminal is on the east end.
Yup, thats exactly were I was talking about. That whole East end is new and looks like it's set up for Road Railers. That's why I'm wondering why they would build all of that and then get rid of the Road Railers. If the plan is to eventually expand the intermodal, then it all makes sense.
Paul MilenkovicOn the subject of double stacks, yes, you pack more containers into a siding, but I am far from convinced you get anything like twice as much. Whenever I see double stacks in real life along where Highway 41 parallels the CN north of Oshkosh, WI or in photos, there are big gaps between the containers owing to the linear distance taken up by the two-axle trucks at the articulated junctions, even bigger gaps at the ends of the articulated sets.
Double Stack won the contest a couple decades ago. For very good reasons. This is a comparison of a Trinity built five platform spine car and a Gunderson built three well double stack car. It isn't even a close contest. For current intermodal operations double stack is clearly the most efficient car type. (I hope this comes through in good format.)
The spine car train would be over a mile longer and have a tare weight of 1,700 tons more. That would require an extra locomotive to make IM speeds. (That's wasted money big time.)
The terminals are a critical factor. Track space in a terminal is precious. And the fact that the DS cars can put more containers through a terminal on less track space is mondo important.
Please study the cost structures of railroads. Those extra revenue loads are flat out golden. Areodynamics counts, but it's only one (of the smaller) factors in the cost equation.
Paul MilenkovicGiven the height and gaps between containers in the double stack, I fail to see how this doesn't use a lot more fuel than single-level containers. This is owing to really ragged aerodynamics at intermodal speeds. That is, unless double stacks are run at substantially below normal truck speeds.
Positioned on top of the first freight container, the 48-foot Arrowedge® has a tapered body that allows air to more easily flow around the train's top frontmost containers. This reduces aerodynamic drag for more efficient transport of customers' goods. In addition, drag reductions decrease the amount of locomotive power required to propel the train, UP says,
avonlea22 zugmann That yard is for conventional intermodal, not roadrailers. And I think the plan is to eventually expand the intermnodal yard into the space currently occupied by Triple Crown (but don't quote me on that). Ah, ok. I've seen it filled with roadrailers so assumed it was for them. Thanks.
zugmann That yard is for conventional intermodal, not roadrailers. And I think the plan is to eventually expand the intermnodal yard into the space currently occupied by Triple Crown (but don't quote me on that).
That yard is for conventional intermodal, not roadrailers. And I think the plan is to eventually expand the intermnodal yard into the space currently occupied by Triple Crown (but don't quote me on that).
Ah, ok. I've seen it filled with roadrailers so assumed it was for them. Thanks.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
I believe I have read the DeBoer book as it is in the collection of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin. There is discussion of how the PiggyPacker was inspired by a type of forklift-style log loader. The account of Super C is interesting (should we call it "A Land-Bridge too Far"?) along with a snarky view of a "tandem crew" operation of trucks over that distance to compete with it on speed (described as a concept that works "if you are willing to kill people" in highway accidents, presumably from driver fatigue).
I think it talks about Flexi-Van and attempts to interline for a coast-to-coast service, but not much discussion of "how it works" along with the "cycle times" for loading and unloading the containers. I don't remember much of anything said of Stedman side-transfer: given that I grew up on The Professional Iconoclast, I would remember anything substantive said pro or con.
On the subject of double stacks, yes, you pack more containers into a siding, but I am far from convinced you get anything like twice as much. Whenever I see double stacks in real life along where Highway 41 parallels the CN north of Oshkosh, WI or in photos, there are big gaps between the containers owing to the linear distance taken up by the two-axle trucks at the articulated junctions, even bigger gaps at the ends of the articulated sets.
Given the height and gaps between containers in the double stack, I fail to see how this doesn't use a lot more fuel than single-level containers. This is owing to really ragged aerodynamics at intermodal speeds. That is, unless double stacks are run at substantially below normal truck speeds. As to tare weight, the double stack might be weight saving over the old 89' piggyback/container flatcars that were quite heavy, but to they save that much weight over modern articulated spine cars?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Good for the Wabash Line between Fort Wayne & Decatur
avonlea22 This story confuses me a bit as NS/Triple Crown have just completed a huge new Roadrailer yard in Harrisburg, PA. Seems illogical to plan and build this yard just to get rid of it. I just saw my first Roadrailer train ever in person about a month ago. I didn't know they still existed. Shortly after I saw the new yard in Harrisburg. Poor planning or the story doesn't cover everything. I guess we will see.
This story confuses me a bit as NS/Triple Crown have just completed a huge new Roadrailer yard in Harrisburg, PA. Seems illogical to plan and build this yard just to get rid of it. I just saw my first Roadrailer train ever in person about a month ago. I didn't know they still existed. Shortly after I saw the new yard in Harrisburg. Poor planning or the story doesn't cover everything. I guess we will see.
Perhaps of interest here: today, October 3 at 10:00 AM, I witnessed a complete NS Roadailer train including NS power EASTBOUND at Emporia, KS on the BNSF transcon.
I did not count the loads because I was caught by surprise but I would guess more than fifty.
There was enough business for TCS to sustain a fluid business. I live in Fort Wayne, and it would be unusual to see a train with less then 100 trailers. In listening to the scanner at night, alot of the trains maxed out at 150 trailers, sometimes more as I would hear the TCS dispatcher advising there would be some OTR trailers There was a lot of traffic from/to Fort Wayne as you would see Triple Crown trailers being pulled aound town all the time.
I believe what ended it was that NS did not want to invest in new equipment. I heard they had a lot of 3PL business, which would be priced wholesale. NS probably did not want TCS going after its customers business. Oh well, it provided a lot of good train watching while it lasted.
tl;dr version:
Tare weight is an input variable. When you solve for it, the resultant rail vehicle is problematic. See: GM's Aerotrain.
I would also caution against HSR proponents insistence that removing weight via the FRA buffer requirements will make the numbers work.
carnej1As far as the contentions about well cars, I would be interested to hear from other posters who work in the industry but I thought that the dominance of doublestacking over other intermodal systems in North America was primarily because the lower tare weight per weight of freight moved offered significant fuel savings.
Double stack offers two significant advantages as compared to the 89' flat car which was the standard when SP introduced double stack technology. Reduced fuel cost is one, greater capacity per train, given a length limit, is the other.
My personal opinion is that the latter is probably what drove SP. SP served the Port of Los Angeles and traffic to and from the port moved predominately over the Sunset Route and the SSW. Both of these routes were single track with passing tracks of about 8,000 feet. Net of power and caboose that left 7, 500 feet and it was desirable to enter the siding at 20-30 MPH, which means there has to be running room at the end to avoid having to creep up to the far end of the siding. Lets assume our target train length is 6,000 feet of cars. At 95 feet over the pulling faces, that is 63 cars or 126 containers for the default equipment of the day. In comparison, double stacks in five pack configuration for 40' containers were about 250 feet long. 24 cars with a capacity of 240 containers will fit in that same 6,000 feet.
Holding revenue per container constant, revenue per train mile is doubled. The railroad can handle a given traffic with half as many train starts, or has doubled its capacity per unit of time at a stroke.
Train delay for meets and passes is said by those who know to increase as the square of the number of trains per day. That means 20 TPD will experience 400 units of delay, whicle 25 will experience 625 units, both per crew district. Those units of delay cost money. These capacity improvements were a big deal to the single track SP. If a route is entirely two main tracks or double track, then the line haul capacity gain is less significant and fuel savings would be relatively more important.
The capacity per length of track becomes important again and always in the terminals. If single stack trains have half the capacity, then have to turn over tracks twice as fast for any given throughput. I would expect the single stack terminal to gridlock before the double stack. Again we have superior track productivity with the double stack and in a situation where physical expansion is frightfully expensive.
Mac McCulloch
Paul Milenkovic The whole point of intermodal, and I suppose Autotrain by extension, is that you don't send a cut of express autoracks loaded with Grandpa Henry's GMC Yukon careening down a hump yard. So Triple Crown can "switch" trailers in a RoadRailer consist using "lifts"? You need something a little bit more robust, by the way, than a generic factory forklift. The Piggypacker was inspired by log loaders, but it is a fairly heavy, expensive machine that limits its use to high-volume terminals. So you lift a trailer out of a RoadRailer consist -- how to do couple it back together into a train without damaging stuff? When you assemble a RoadRailer consist, you are using a truck tractor to gently back each trailer, one at a time, into a train, and that process akin to "circus style" piggyback contributes to its inflexibility. What do you do when you have a whole string of trailers that you need to couple to another string? Besides the intermodal aspect, that you don't need to unload deliveries from trucks and then load boxcars, the intermodal concept at least is supposed to eliminated both flat switching and hump yards as a way of shipments making connections between trains on the railroad network. Lifting, I am told, is much more gentle on cargo than switching. The Stedman side transfer system (hydraulically dragging a container between a truck trailer and a spine car with container guides) was claimed to be as gentle as lifting. Dumpster is a similar dragging transfer system, but Stedman didn't require tipping the container as done in the Dumpster system. Low capital cost, random access, OK, OK, alright already, didn't support stacking, but double stacks introduce a whole lot of other problems of container tare weight and train fuel consumption for what is probably marginal overall benefit of a few more boxes per siding-length constrained train. So the Stedman system, what was there not to love?
The whole point of intermodal, and I suppose Autotrain by extension, is that you don't send a cut of express autoracks loaded with Grandpa Henry's GMC Yukon careening down a hump yard.
So Triple Crown can "switch" trailers in a RoadRailer consist using "lifts"? You need something a little bit more robust, by the way, than a generic factory forklift. The Piggypacker was inspired by log loaders, but it is a fairly heavy, expensive machine that limits its use to high-volume terminals.
So you lift a trailer out of a RoadRailer consist -- how to do couple it back together into a train without damaging stuff? When you assemble a RoadRailer consist, you are using a truck tractor to gently back each trailer, one at a time, into a train, and that process akin to "circus style" piggyback contributes to its inflexibility. What do you do when you have a whole string of trailers that you need to couple to another string?
Besides the intermodal aspect, that you don't need to unload deliveries from trucks and then load boxcars, the intermodal concept at least is supposed to eliminated both flat switching and hump yards as a way of shipments making connections between trains on the railroad network. Lifting, I am told, is much more gentle on cargo than switching.
The Stedman side transfer system (hydraulically dragging a container between a truck trailer and a spine car with container guides) was claimed to be as gentle as lifting. Dumpster is a similar dragging transfer system, but Stedman didn't require tipping the container as done in the Dumpster system.
Low capital cost, random access, OK, OK, alright already, didn't support stacking, but double stacks introduce a whole lot of other problems of container tare weight and train fuel consumption for what is probably marginal overall benefit of a few more boxes per siding-length constrained train. So the Stedman system, what was there not to love?
I highly recommend David J. BeBoer's book "Piggyback and Containers" for those interested in the evolution of intermodal operations and equipment. The author is an industry insider and there is a great deal of coverage of various ideas that were tried out and why they were adopted (or not) by the industry.
The concept of single stacked, unreinforced containers for domestic service is an interesting one, does anyone know what the tare weight would be compared to the current standard boxes? Given that the COFC side of the industry started by moving ISO boxes, which must be stackable, and given that international containers are still a major part of the traffic flow, that probaly explains why nobody has serioulsy looked at the idea. I guess an exception might be the NYC Flexi vans, which were designed to be loaded unloaded without stackers or cranes.
A similiar concept is the Stedman equipment is being promoted in Europe, it includes a side loading system:
http://www.innovatrain.ch/en/
As far as the contentions about well cars, I would be interested to hear from other posters who work in the industry but I thought that the dominance of doublestacking over other intermodal systems in North America was primarily because the lower tare weight per weight of freight moved offered significant fuel savings.
I am under the impression that this has been prooven empirically and a lot of study led to it becoming the industry standard....
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Paul,
Do you know that Triple Crown operates a yard in Fort Wayne where trailers are switched from one train to another? Triple Crown routes are like an *. So, unlike your Autotrain comparison, Roadrailers can and do pick/up and drop-off enroute. (as a sidenote: autotrain could make enroute stops by loading rack cars at each stop and just adding them to the end of the train.)
With the latest generation of trailers, it could be done just about anywhere a forklift can get beside the tracks, so individual shippers along the route could have loaded and "lifted" their trailers on their siding. However, no one ever operated them like this to my knowledge. It would have required too much coordination between the customer's forklift operator and the train crew to make the lawyers comfortable.
Not sure if I agree with the premise that service is completely separated from technology.
One of the features of the Chicago commuter trains is that their entry into the Loop parallels major freeways. The commuter train riders are just "flying" during those last miles into the city because their trains have their own right-of-ways, and furthermore, they make only limited stops within Chicago city limits as that traffic is for the CTA El and subway trains. The Expressway traffic, on the other hand, is just clogged.
I was on such a train with a passenger train advocate offering, "Look at those poor souls in their cars!" The idea that you are a train zipping along, looking out among motorists on a road turned parking lot is not an original concept either. But on the way inbound (we came from Wisconsin, got on at Harvard, Il., and made every stop along the way), my associate was pointing out how the boarding passengers had been "trained" (excuse the pun) to form queues on the platform for where the boarding doors were expected to line up at that stop.
So the motorists were in a queue on the JFK Expressway to gain access to the Ohio Street off ramp, but the Metra riders formed queues where they had to wait for the train to arrive and for them to board it. The queues were just in different times and places in the journey to the Loop.
Back to RoadRailer. Intermodal is a form of freight aggregation, but every form of railroad freight is some form of aggregation, and each offers various pros and cons.
What RoadRailer is supposed to do is greatly reduce the tare weight and aerodynamic drag of and hence fuel and capital costs of truck trailers aggregated into trains. There is some tare weight penalty in the road mode, but maybe not as much in Gen II RoadRailers that ride on 2-axle trucks supplied during their assembly into a train as opposed to Gen I that had single guided rail axles on the truck trailer. But even though there is a tare weight penalty for the trailer to take the buff and draft forces of a train, it is not nearly enough to take the buff and draft of a conventional train, general freight, intermodal, or passenger.
Hence RoadRailer has to run as "unit" consists at the tail ends of such trains or run as its own train. And this need to run its own trains is a "bug not a feature" to free it from the comings and goings of other intermodal trains not to even contemplate a general merchandise freight that gets broken up and reformed in yards.
What RoadRailer is also supposed to do is reduce the capital costs for the intermodal terminal. You don't need gantry cranes or Piggy Packer loaders -- I believe you just need specialized truck tractors to assemble the truck vans into trains, similar to the "circus loading" Clejan piggyback system. So you are stuck with not only the aggregation of loads into trains, you are stuck with something akin to circus loading of flatcars, restricting you to trains run between city pairs without intermediate stops. This is much like the Amtrak AutoTrain service, which has helped restrict it to just one city-pair market.
And as mentioned above, isolated city pairs that are not stops on a larger network simply don't generate enough trailer loads to aggregate into frequent enough train service. So it is not a question of service being a matter of corporate will, the RoadRailer technology simply does not "do" anything where loads are added and removed at intermediate stops, and perhaps make connections to other trains at those stops. You cannot stop at an intermediate intermodal terminal and pull a trailer out of the consist with a "lift", or maybe you could, but you would start banging up the remaining RoadRailers in the consist to recouple them, and at that point, you may as well revert to boxcars that get smashed around gravity hump yards (Shock Control Service!).
So I still think that Intermodal is about the right technology to perform the necessary aggregation without smashing up the lading and taking forever to get there, and RoadRailer isn't quite "it."
John Kneiling, however, thought that the Stedman side-transfer of containers between specialized truck trailers with "the gear" and single-level container flat cars was "the magic bullet." You were restricted to containers, and you could not double-stack them, but stackable containers take a tare weight penalty and how much do double stacks gain on siding train-length limitations -- there are mighty big gaps between the containers on double stacks, which must also exact an air drag and hence fuel penalty.
If you were willing to go container instead of piggyback trailer, if you were willing to live without double stack, you had this low capital cost way for one-person random-access transfer of a container by dragging it on guides rather than lifting it. Your "intermodal terminal" was simply a concrete strip paralleling a raiload siding big enough to take the intermodal train when it made a stop, and you loaded and unloaded containers like passengers boarding or disembarking from a passenger train at an intermediate stop.
What was there not to like about that system? Was it Canadian and hence not invented here? Was it not double stack, but then piggyback intermodal isn't either? Did it take inordinate amount of skill from the truck driver/transfer operator to work? Did it have a long "cycle time" that would tie up the intermodal train? What gives that we never hear that it even existed (in Canada)?
Wow...lots of good stuff to chew on here. Thanks Greyhound for that discussion on ICG, Roadrailers, and the economics of intermodal transporation. Reebie sounds like a job I would have enjoyed back in the day, as I was trying to fil LTL trailers in the 1980s before I moved on to a much more enjoyable and lucrative career.
Today, I fill my "traffic" needs by watching the NS run it's intermodal (and general freights) thru Chesterton, In on the webcam and webscanner. My evolution has been from simply watching an NS train to identifying the NS trains and monitoring their performance (timing) to now trying to understand WHY NS is running these trains (both intermodal and general freight).
The intermodal puzzle is interesting and can be pieced together with a little work. By integrating the trains I see (and hear) passing Chesterton with NS's intermodal schedule one can piece together pretty good understanding of their operations.
For instance...Harrisburg, Pa and Columbus, Oh feature big intermodal trains in the late afternoon, often running within a few minutes of each other (3-4pm)...26N and 26T. These are heavy domestic (and some international) double stacks that come off the BNSF in Chicago and feature heavy JBHunt trailers...often over 100 cans per train are JBH. These trains often exceed 250 containers total. HUGE movements of product to Columbus and Harrisburg.
Why to these two cities? I can only guess these are major distribution centers for the New York - Washington and the Ohio regions. JBH has established these two locations as core terminals (obviously).
Surprizingly, the Chicago - Detroit pass thru intermodal train handles no JBH nor have I ever seen a domestic can on the 20N (noon -2pm). It is extremely short, usually 70 cans with 1 motor. Nor are the EMP or Hub cans on this train.
So, BNSF (and possibly UP) can solicit thru the intermodal retailers domestic business for Harrisburg and Columbus but not Detroit....Why? Yet NS runs a Chicago to Toledo intermodal (train 24N) which I have never seen but allegedly handles UPS. Why does this train run such a short distance. One night I will stay up and watch it...it probably has considerable JBH (which would serve Detroit)...but that is only a guess.
Meanwhile, the UPS trains are another story. Do not delay the "mail trains". Take a look at 24M some morning around 630am. This is a Chicago - Baltimore TOFC single stacker which usually has 50 -90 trailers and containers. UPS often has 50% of the business, but tucked midway into the train is a block of international cans, then more UPS containers and trailers at the rear. Why? A peak at the NS intermodal schedule notes that 24M handles Pittsburgh TOFC in addition to the Baltimore traffic. Thus, there are not 30-50 UPS loads going to Baltimore (and Washington DC), but probably half of those are dropped in Pittsburgh. I dont know whether it is the front block or rear, but it makes sense.
The Croxton trains are another interesting operation. There are stacks, but these trains often are a majority of refer units with a healthy load of LTL pup trailers, and freight forwarder (Clipper, Alliance, etc). Why? Not sure, but my guess is the refers are carrying meat and produce to the NYC/New Jersey area for distribution rather than the Harrisburg area. The terminals for those operations are necessarily close to the consumers.
But wait, there is more (much more). Watch the 24W in late afternoon and you will find quite a mixture. This train appears to come off of the BNSF and is bound for Harrisburg again...but it has International cans, JBH, and UPS! Thus, UPS is running thru Chicago to the east coast, probably from Kansas City, or possibly the west coast. Walmart and other retailers even get in the act on this train around November and December.
I think NS has a pretty good intermodal network set up, primarily based on the alliance with JBH and BNSF and also with the refer community and UPS. Interestingly, there are very few UPS loads on the Croxton trains...these seem to go via CSX (their HOT HOT HOT Q010). Both 20E (NS) and Q010 provide TOFC service from Chicago to New Jersey with both trains departing Chicago around 6am daily. Both are very healthy trains with TOFC loads well over 100 and often 150 or more.
Details, details. You gotta know the market if you haul freight for a living.
My guess is the Roadrailer just doesnt work and can be worked into the NS system. There is plenty of auto parts moving between KC and Detroit area, thus providing the service...for now.
Ed
Anyone have an idea what will happen to the Minneapolis Triple Crown freight? Will there be a conventional intermodal terminal built or will the containers be trucked to Chicago?
Jeff
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.