MP173 Well, does anyone know how the carload and intermodal billing actually works today in the industry? Is the industry still using a combination of rates over the gateway? If so, that seems rather inefficient and probably more expensive. Back in my old "traffic days" combination of rates were much more expensive than "thru rates". I would think the accounting would be a nightmare for shippers to be paying two freight bills on every movement...but perhaps that is my 1980s way of thinking of things. It would be very interesting to see where the actual traffic is flowing in the United States. I am thinking about the trains passing thru on the NS and CSX mainlines here in NW Indiana and there are numerous run thru trains off of UP, BNSF, CN, and CP daily...for carload, unit train, and intermodal. Hmm...now I am thinking. Mudchicken...are these frac cars loaded at Streator or just staged there? Last spring I was in Ottawa, Il and stumbled on the IR's shop. Talked to a manager and was told they were generating huge trains of frac sand just west of town at a quarry. It would make sense that some of that would be interchanged to BNSF at Streator. Ed
Well, does anyone know how the carload and intermodal billing actually works today in the industry? Is the industry still using a combination of rates over the gateway? If so, that seems rather inefficient and probably more expensive. Back in my old "traffic days" combination of rates were much more expensive than "thru rates".
I would think the accounting would be a nightmare for shippers to be paying two freight bills on every movement...but perhaps that is my 1980s way of thinking of things.
It would be very interesting to see where the actual traffic is flowing in the United States. I am thinking about the trains passing thru on the NS and CSX mainlines here in NW Indiana and there are numerous run thru trains off of UP, BNSF, CN, and CP daily...for carload, unit train, and intermodal. Hmm...now I am thinking.
Mudchicken...are these frac cars loaded at Streator or just staged there? Last spring I was in Ottawa, Il and stumbled on the IR's shop. Talked to a manager and was told they were generating huge trains of frac sand just west of town at a quarry. It would make sense that some of that would be interchanged to BNSF at Streator.
Ed
Actually, from a Revenue Accounting standpoint, Rule 11 shipments are much easier to deal with than through, prepaid or through, collect shipments in the Interline Settlement System (I.S.S.). While I myself always liked working with through rates, getting the foreign road to agree to the divisions per the governing contract could be (and still are) challenging.
MP173: Loaded directly from covered hopper truck to covered hopper railcar at CP Iowa by portable screw-auger conveyor, half a mile straight east of the Vactor Plant. NS switches the place 2-3 times a day.
Mudchicken...thanks for the update. NS switches 2-3 x daily. Is that switching for the cars moving east on NS? I see a large number of such cars on the 10R train which comes off of BNSF at Streator. I always thought those were BNSF originated, but perhaps not. Also these cars move on the 36J...Kankakee - Elkhart. now I realize why NS has such a run. Loaded with sand. I need to pay closer attention to it.
466 and Rams...thanks for commenting on the rate division/proportionate rate issue. I was one of those "green eye shade" guys back in the 80s with an LTL trucking firm. The divisions of revenue were an interesting subject back then.
So...part of developing a rate is a component for pickups, line haul, and delivery. At least in the LTL days. Pickup and delivery components were significant as there was considerable labor costs involved. Costs were spread out over multiple shipments tendered...thus "discounts" came into play.
Were the Conrail "proportionate" rates less than the point to point rates for a similar move? Lets say you received interchange from a carrier at point A and delivered to point B. At point A you received a big interchange...lets call it a 100 car train. In my world of reasoning, costs for moving that 1 car (of 100) would be considerable less than picking up 1 car at a siding and moving to destination. Does that make sense? Were these "interline rates" somewhere between the interline division and the point to point rate?Hope this makes sense.
I seem to have a wisp of a memory that at some point in the 1980s or so ATSF owned TP&W and had some sort of intermodal terminal just over the Indiana state line.
Remington, IN (floundering)
MP-173... Goes both directions, but primarilly eastbound.
kgbw49 some sort if intermodak terminal just over the Indiana state line.
It's got a new purpose now:
Convicted One kgbw49 It's got a new purpose now:
kgbw49
I have driven I-65 through the area - Wind Farm on both sides of the Interstate for about 6 or 7 miles. Wind Turbines as far as the eye can see!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Land spreadin' out so far and wide! Keep Manhattan, just give me that countryside!
Why do I think Mr. Haney is leasing the land to the turbine owners on a per-kWh basis?
MP173 asked: "Were the Conrail "proportionate" rates less than the point to point rates for a similar move?"
There were so many variables, that I hesitate to answer. But perhaps ... typically ... maybe ... yes. "Proportional" rates (not all the common, in reality) were made for a variety of reasons, and could be made subject to a variety of limitations. Among conditions was that the resultant revenue from the "combination" rate would divide "as made" or with existing divisions.
While railroad rate makers assiduously made "market-based" rates, not "cost-based" rates, the realities of distance and terminal costs (origin/termination costs higher than interchange costs), would usually result in less revenue for an interline movement from A to B (for furtherance) than a local move A to B.
kgbw49 Land spreadin' out so far and wide! Keep Manhattan, just give me that countryside! Why do I think Mr. Haney is leasing the land to the turbine owners on a per-kWh basis?
The “Trains” writer concludes: “… But solving the big puzzle at 75th Street and Grand Crossing with much-needed but completely unfunded infrastructure investment is only a long-term mirage.”
It appears to me that the Class 1s believe the "mirage" is the hype about "the big puzzle."
466lexMP173 asked: "Were the Conrail "proportionate" rates less than the point to point rates for a similar move?" There were so many variables, that I hesitate to answer. But perhaps ... typically ... maybe ... yes. "Proportional" rates (not all the common, in reality) were made for a variety of reasons, and could be made subject to a variety of limitations. Among conditions was that the resultant revenue from the "combination" rate would divide "as made" or with existing divisions. While railroad rate makers assiduously made "market-based" rates, not "cost-based" rates, the realities of distance and terminal costs (origin/termination costs higher than interchange costs), would usually result in less revenue for an interline movement from A to B (for furtherance) than a local move A to B.
I really didn't mention proportional rates. I wrote of combination rates over Chicago. With a combination rate multiple waybills are created. Each participating railroad waybills the shipment from its origin to its destination. Each railroad individually sends the responsible party a freight bill for payment.
Unless this factor is taken into account an analysis of waybill origins and destinations (which you did) will produce a wrong answer. Even if the amount of combination rates used is negligible the analyst needs to know, rather than assume, that it is, in fact, negligible. I'll call your 4% movement through Chicago numbers unsubstantiated.
greyhounds: The accuracy of the result of my analysis is certainly open to refinement. Data that would improve the result of the estimate would be welcome. I am unaware of a public source of such.
So I am comfortable with the fact that the transcon intermodal business has evolved greatly from the 1970s practice of tariff-based "FAK" combination rates, using the industry's most opaque "rate item" out of TC-1 for the western "division."
I don't believe the J.B. Hunt-BNSF relationship or the UP-APL relationship or any other of the dominant multiplicity of contract-based transcontinental commercial arrangements are based on such an archaic practice. Can I prove it? No, of course not.
That said, my estimate seems consistent with my contention that "fixes" for the "Chicago bottleneck" are solutions in search of a problem that the "majors" don't see as pressing.
One solution to the Chicago problem.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVZ28O4NCpU
Is that from a bad horror movie called "The Beginning of The End"
CSSHEGEWISCH Is that from a bad horror movie called "The Beginning of The End"
"Good morning, Mr. Phelps."
Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to clear a path through the City of Chicago for a major transportation project. Should you, or any of your impossible mission force be caught, or killed, the Sec. of Transportation will deny any knowledge of your mission.
Victrola1"Good morning, Mr. Phelps." Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to clear a path through the City of Chicago for a major transportation project. Should you, or any of your impossible mission force be caught, or killed, the Sec. of Transportation will deny any knowledge of your mission.
25% is the commonly cited number for national rail traffic transiting Chicago. Whether that's tonnange or carload, and what percentage is loose car, unit moves or intermodal, and what is local O&D, I'll leave for others to sort out.
MPAS claims that total TEU lift numbers are on par with the port of LA-Long Beach.
What happened? Coal, oil and steel are down, creating a capacity cushion, so why worry about it?
So 4% or 25%? My hunch is that it is 25%, +/- 2.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Is there anything happening with the proposed open-access Belt route?
(Trains, Sept. 2013)
This was discussed in another blog. Wheatland to Knox is not the simple solution thought. North Judson and the Hoosier Valley Railroad Museum across the right-of-way, followed by and industrial park. There are houses across the right-of-way from there to KnoX. At Knox, an industrial park sits across the right-of-way. Simpler solution would be Wheatland to La Cross. What I don't understand is Streator, IL to Union Mills, IN @ 240 miles, and figuring $2 million per mile would cost less than half the reported $1 billion cost of the next CREATE project. Using Streator to Union Mills at that cost would yeald a double track PTC speedway. If they threw in another $100 million, they could bridge all the cross overs and do away with any worry about delays. Over in Indiana, they would connect wih NS, CF&E, CSX and CP. For another 14 miles, NS to Elkhart. Still well under CREATE costs.
NS as owner of the Streator line would likely only want to connect to it's three eastward options - the former Nickel Plate, former Pennsy on which they have trackage rights, and former NYC. Perhaps if BNSF purchases NS, or works some sort of "Meridian Speedway" type of deal, something like this will happen to cut transit time for time sensitive intermodal. Fred's solution is a compelling one.
Imagine killing two giant pterodactyls with one stone. A grade-seperated express rail or two roughly from the Strangler (CN) to the Skyway (NS) over BNSF and CSX yards and "finishing" the missing link in Interstate 90 along the same route. 16 miles instead of 22 on the road. The ability to get trains thru Shikaakwa in hours instead of days for the rails. The transport hub of the US needs a shot of grease.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.