How to double capacity of U.S. railroads (without even building a single mile of new track)

[mudchicken]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken

Roadmaster's point of view:

(1) You can have your Rail Whales IF AND ONLY IF you also pay to upgrade the light rail and the sharp curves (6 degrees radius and above)and turnouts (#9 and below) that are cause and effect linked to track/train dynamics failures.

(2) Open Access? - Not on my watch! (Shippers unwilling to pay for track maintenance as part of the cost of doing business. The shipper beancounters are no more qualified to do brain surgery than they can determine track maintenance. As bad getting funding to do proper track maintenance now is, Open Access would make it really scary.)[|(][|(][|(]

Regarding Rail Whales and their effects on track, it is my understanding that the eight axle cars are just as flexible as four axle cars, because they are really two sets of pairs of two axle trucks. And with the advent of radial steering, three axle trucks no longer have a problem with curve negotiability. I can see where cars of 400,000 lbs plus would be a problem on branchlines that still have a problem with the 286,000 lbs cars.

I think we will agree to disagree on open access. I do think the idea has evolved to the point of there being an understanding that open access in conjuction with government incentives (to reduce the capital liabilities) would probably be the way to go. If it can be proven that some type of open access + federal incentives would result in overall reduced capital expenditures for railroad operating companies, then logic dictates that they would take a more positive outlook on the whole idea.

(1) Span-bolster or radial truck, the moment you leave the main track the L/V forces will cause mega-troubles. Radial trucks help, but are not the panacea for what gives here.

(Lotsa fun when only the center truck of a "C" 3-axle locomotive truck hits the ground, especially on switch points. I'm sure Randy, Ed and the others can attest.)

(2) If Uncle Sugar has to subsize the thing on a national basis, you have already lost in today's political environment. All most (not all) shippers worry about is costs, consequences do no enter into the equation.

The difference in opinion is more akin to theory colliding with reality in the real world.

From one who has been there on the ground. (Have the dirty boots to prove it.)

Mudchicken

[dehusman]

Futuremodal said:
If FEC, KCS, or NS provided service to some mill in the Pacific Northwest, why would this be a bad thing? No matter how you analyze it, it suggests nothing but benefits for all involved.

Back to the original premise : doubling CAPACITY

If you now have the BNSF, the UP, the NS, the FEC and your shortline operating on the same line, you haven't doubled the capacity, youv'e doubled the load and possibly even worse you now have more trains dividing up the same pie of carloadings. So now all the roads are less profitable since they haul fewer loads for the same operating costs.

Reducing the profits of the home road doesn't appear to be a benefit.

Yes you might have underutilized capacity on less efficient routes, but If I am going to get open access I don't want to run on the branch, if I'm going to LA I want to be on the BNSF's transcon (where there is less available capacity).

I fail to see how putting more trains carrying the same busines on the same tracks increases capacity. Open access might have some positive arguements for it, but I can't see how enhancing capacity could be one of them.

Dave H.

[Junctionfan]

Open access is more suitable for mainline runs like the Canada Southern. This line if possible, would benefit CSX and NS for their Selkirk / Buffalo to Detroit trains as well as some of the east coast/ Chicago intermodals. CP did at one time have thoughts about an Expressway train between Buffalo and Detroit. CN could run their Sarnia / Buffalo train at least to St.Thomas where they head toward the Sarnia bound Stratroy Sub. VIA and Amtrak might find use of the line and run trains with possible stops at places like Simcoe, Alymer, Hagersville, St.Thomas and a few other town (Windsor and Fort Erie included). Trillium Railways which operates in Niagara and St.Thomas areas, might find use of it too. This open access line wouldn't effect anybody as right now but in fact would reduce traffic on the NS Bellevue and CSX Cleveland and Willard Subs as well as the CN Dundas and add revenue to CP if they still want to do the intermodal service there. VIA and Amtrak would have also options. VIA might do all the servicing of the stations in Ontario but Amtrak could run a through train between Detroit and Buffalo. I think at one point Amtrak did this and the train was called the "Rainbow".

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dehusman

Futuremodal said:
If FEC, KCS, or NS provided service to some mill in the Pacific Northwest, why would this be a bad thing? No matter how you analyze it, it suggests nothing but benefits for all involved.

Back to the original premise : doubling CAPACITY

If you now have the BNSF, the UP, the NS, the FEC and your shortline operating on the same line, you haven't doubled the capacity, youv'e doubled the load and possibly even worse you now have more trains dividing up the same pie of carloadings. So now all the roads are less profitable since they haul fewer loads for the same operating costs.

Reducing the profits of the home road doesn't appear to be a benefit.

Yes you might have underutilized capacity on less efficient routes, but If I am going to get open access I don't want to run on the branch, if I'm going to LA I want to be on the BNSF's transcon (where there is less available capacity).

I fail to see how putting more trains carrying the same busines on the same tracks increases capacity. Open access might have some positive arguements for it, but I can't see how enhancing capacity could be one of them.

Dave H.

If we take your example one step further, if all the Class I's are competing for cargo at all available railheads, then something has happened to drastically increase the rail industry's share of intercity freight.

Of course, logic would dictate that FEC or NS would only get a shot at traffic from the PNW if BNSF or UP first turned it down, and if BNSF and UP couldn't provide the service at an agreeable price for the shipper, then it is unlikely a traditional Eastern road could trump them. Then again, maybe the shipper requested a different modal approach (such as RoadRailer or RailRunner) that UP or BNSF didn't want to deal with, but NS with it's background in Triple Crown decided it was right for them.

Yes, if you wanted to ship from LA to Chicago, you'd first want to use the BNSF transcon, but if you are the late player in the scenario and BNSF or UPS has priority over this line, are you going to shift to trucks or take advantage of an available secondary line? Are you willing to run trains during non-peak hours, or offer a premium to the track owner to get more prime access? Open Access provides new variables to current market forces that suggest innovative introductions of new market techniques that are otherwise suppressed under monopolistic practices.

The point of this exercise is to give theoretical insights to current capacity issues, sans new track construction. If there is still congestion over the prime mainlines due to open access, but also a corresponding increase in rail's share of intercity freight, then you certainly have increased capacity for a given amount of total freight haulage.

[dehusman]

But if you have true open access, new player, late player, first player, last player, it doesn't matter, you HAVE to be given access and you HAVE to be given equitable treatment. So if you give open access and I want to go to LA on the BNSF transcon and I can meet the operating requirements (hp/tt, length, train type etc) then the BNSF has to give me operating rights if I have the money, regardless of whether I am a new player or the oldest RR in America.

The only thing open access is good for is to give shippers a wedge to attempt to drive rates down. It serves no purpose in any form of capacity enhancement.

Dave H.

[rob_l]

I don't want to take away from the general thesis that we should strive to improve space utilization in intermodal trains and carload trains as a means of increasing capacity. That is a noble goal and one where progress can be made, perhaps along the lines suggested in some of the posts on this thread.

But I'll poke some holes into some of the specific proposals. First, I'm afraid the idea of loading domestic boxes in Asia is not going to fly. Try to take your 53 out of an Asian port to some factory in the vicinity to get it loaded, and you will find you cannot make it around the first or second corner you come to.

There is a reason the North American transportation vehicles have become radically larger than the those of the rest of the world. We have the loading gauge, and they don't. It will require an enormous investment in infrastructure by the rest of the world to come up to our standard. I doubt it will happen in my lifetime. And that's why they don't build vessels to accommodate our big boxes (except above-deck).

So transloading from small international boxes into large domestic boxes at warehouses somewhat near the US ports is a way of life we will have to get used to and a way of life we will have to make efficient. Perhaps it will involve short-haul intermodal of the marine boxes to an inland "virtual port" surrounded by a complex of distribution warehouses, perhaps something else.

As for trying to shift domestic trailer traffic into containers, let me comment as follows. Excluding the new offering just unveiled by Schneider, domestic 53s have about 9-10% less usable cube than 53 trailers. Trailer service is faster through the interchange terminals - faster ramp/de-ramp, and no chassis to mess with. So lightweight and time-sensitive freight shippers don't like containers. The UPSs of our world refuse to use the domestic containers. So far, anyway. Maybe Schneider's new box might tilt the balance some.

"Open Access" was the wrong term for what is really needed and raises a can of worms that is beside the point. Strategic trackage rights exchanged between parallel carriers is more like it. We are now out of capacity on western North American transcon main lines, and I believe this state of affairs, although unprecedented, will become permanent. Capacity is not equitably allocated among competing western carriers. And because the RR managements view forcing a competitor to spend large sums on track capacity as an effective competitive strategy, there are going to be substantial wasteful expenditures at a time when we really need to make every dollar count.

UP being stuck with a single-track line through the Gorge while BNSF over Stampede is mostly idle was a good example. An even better example is Cajon Pass, where BNSF is preparing to spend a very big pile of ca***o put in a third main track from Verdemont up to Summit, yet a few feet away the UP's fine 2.2% main line is hardly used - what, 6 trains each way to/from Bakersfield, plus about a like number of UP WBs that BNSF is able to slough off on UP at Silverwood? Suppose BNSF took over dispatching this track and we built a crossover at Devore (opposite direction from existing crossover at Keenbrook) and a third track only from Silverwood to Summit. We could run all trains of both RRs on a flexible three-track main between Devore and Summit. It would cost drastically less.

But UP will not deal, it wants to force BNSF to spend the money. In response, I suppose BNSF won't do anything to help UP out of their PNW predicament.

I hate to say it, but at some point, after enough cash is wasted, I expect the Feds will get involved.

Best regards,

Rob L.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dehusman

But if you have true open access, new player, late player, first player, last player, it doesn't matter, you HAVE to be given access and you HAVE to be given equitable treatment. So if you give open access and I want to go to LA on the BNSF transcon and I can meet the operating requirements (hp/tt, length, train type etc) then the BNSF has to give me operating rights if I have the money, regardless of whether I am a new player or the oldest RR in America.

The only thing open access is good for is to give shippers a wedge to attempt to drive rates down. It serves no purpose in any form of capacity enhancement.

Dave H.

Since there is an inherent limitation on how many trains can occupy a certain section of track at a given time, more than likely an open access rail policy would be first come first serve e.g. the original owner getting a Grandfather clause to some degree to be the priority user for currently heavily used lines. This type of policy would keep other railroads from overtly cherry picking the best lines at will, while still encouraging use of currently underutilized lines.

Ideally though, an open access policy intended to maximize capacity should allow certain types of trains on certain lines regardless of operator or original owner, e.g. heavy trains using more level but perhaps longer water level routes, while intermodals and empties gravitate toward shorter but perhaps more steeply graded lines. Obviously, in this scenario it would serve the purpose of optimal utilization of capacity.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rob_l

I don't want to take away from the general thesis that we should strive to improve space utilization in intermodal trains and carload trains as a means of increasing capacity. That is a noble goal and one where progress can be made, perhaps along the lines suggested in some of the posts on this thread.

But I'll poke some holes into some of the specific proposals. First, I'm afraid the idea of loading domestic boxes in Asia is not going to fly. Try to take your 53 out of an Asian port to some factory in the vicinity to get it loaded, and you will find you cannot make it around the first or second corner you come to.

I'll reiterate on this example. What is occuring now is that cargo from 40' containers just unloaded from the container ships is being transloaded pallet by pallet into 53' domestic containers and dry vans at our congested U.S. ports. What I have suggested along with others is that this same operation could be done more cheaply over at the foreign port, and the 53' domestics would then be loaded onto the container ship for transport to the U.S. port, at which point the process of moving the cargo from ship to chassis or well car goes alot quicker. I am not suggesting that drivers in China or Japan try to drive around to the factories with these containers as these places probably cannot handle that lenght of trailer. We are only suggesting that the 53's would stay within the foreign port district, wherein the transloading operation would take place.

Obviously, transporting 100,000 cubic feet of "Roboslugs" on containerships in 53' containers rather than the smaller 40' containers will increase the load factor on these ships. It will decrease the total number of lifts for all 100,000 Roboslug packages if they are packed in 25 53' containers rather than 35 40' containers. Less total lifts also means faster train assembly, so the time factor also comes out favorably. In this scenario the domestic container wins out over the dry van, and if the railroads have a say in the matter, they would rather haul double stacks of domestic containers rather than spine cars of trailers since the number of paying boxes per train length of the former is relatively two to one over the latter.

[GMS-AU]

A quick note, some of those 53' and 45' make it to Australia. Trucks have been modified to accommodate this. One thing not mentioned here is if you have bigger and bigger containers what about weight. Ok if you are handling plastic toys or the like but when the cargo gets heavier like power tools and other metals or even kilnware then you will find the box is only half full but max on weight. Or the other problem is in foreign ports weight is not considered and the container is overloaded and when reaching a new port it has to be unloaded anyway. I find it amazing that you would go to the trouble of unpacking a 20' or 40 ' to load into a 53'. Well cars can take two 20's on the bottom and what ever on the top. Are standard containers that frowned upon in the US?

The other point of reducing axle weights yet putting more axles on the rail via 6 and eight axle wagons. Its all weight the loco's have to pull and that cost's money.

Finally, on open access, is it possible for a third party to build or own a track and charge others to use it. Say an infrastructure company decided to build another route out of LA and connected with BNSF and UP, then either could use it when it wants to or anybody else for that matter. Has this ever been looked at? A cheaper option would be buying and abandoned line although most Roads wouldn't abandon it unless it was really redundant. Or is it more like " I don't need it but I'm sure as hell not let anybody else have it! "

G M Simpson

[rob_l]

QUOTE: Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill

No trouble is gone to, G.M. Have you seen what U.S. wages consist of? Think of the repack center as a hump yard for toys, clothes, and consumer electronic goods. The major reason containers are repacked stateside is to take solid containerloads of one commodity and distribute those contents among dozens of containerloads of mixed commodities. Those containers can then move straight to the retail store dock or to a local distribution center, rather than to a regional distribution center inland that would do the exact same thing! (Moreover, it greatly increases the rail share of the haul.) It's a very intelligent relocation of the distribution center as far upstream as possible, to eliminate duplicate mileage as you move the goods to a distribution center inland, sort to the final destination, then move back over some of the same route to final destination. Since there is no land west of Los Angeles, only ocean, that's the logical place to put the repack center. You'd still have the repack centers even if the 53' container didn't exist. But since they do, why repack into a smaller container than necessary?

That is the reason it is done in So Cal rather than inland USA. The reason it is done in So Cal rather than in Asia is because Asia is another 1-2 weeks away from the retail stores in the USA. Which means the accuracy of forecasting sales is much worse. In order to sustain the same retail sales, I calculate a Wal-Mart would require a 20% increase in the inventories in its US retail stores if they moved their distribution centers from the vicinity of US Ports to Asia. Even if labor in Asia were totally free, it would be a disastrous move for them. Moving their distribution centers from inland US locations to locations near the US ports saved them a lot of money, but moving them to Asia would lose them a lot of money.

The other issue: There is no space at ports for large-scale transloading operations. Not at US ports, and especially not an Asian ports. All the new distribution centers are built 50-100 miles away from the ports, that is the closest place you can find the space to do it. So even for traffic where no distribution/sorting en route is involved (a rare thing anyway), transloading to North American-sized boxes just ain't gonna' happen in Asia.

So futuremodal, don't get your hopes up, transloading to 53s and related distribution operations to re-pack containers for US store destinations ain't gonna' move to Asia. Like I said, the interchange between international containers and domestic transportation vehicles near our ports is something we have to learn to live with and something we have to learn to make efficient. The economics are just too compelling to do otherwise.

Best regards,

Rob L.

[Anonymous]

Rob,

My understanding is that the 53's are not ISO certified for international transport, that is the main roadblock to trying this idea. Yes, many Asian ports lack warehousing space, but there are some which do have that kind of space and thus ideal for a real world tryout of transporting 53's should ISO certification come into fruition.

Even with the one to two weeks time delay from Asia to the U.S., you are still in better position to respond to inventory changes if you are transporting in 53's vs 40's on the ocean leg. There would be a significant time savings using 53's vs 40's on the transload from ship to railcar, and if it became apparent that some cargo redistribution became necessary due to inventory changes it is easier to transload from a 53' to another 53'.

[arbfbe]

So please explain how your idea of 'open access' differs from the current rules of interchange. How will this 'open access' increase capacity and make it better for a) the railroads and b) the shippers.

I am not sure your idea of stacking yet another loaded container over a shared truck of a stack car will not lead to overloading of the weight limits of that truck. Those 20' boxes can get really heavy. I see a problem in trying to load it on the intermediate platform if the wells on both sides are designated to have both a lower 48' box and an upper 53' box loaded.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by GMS-AU


The other point of reducing axle weights yet putting more axles on the rail via 6 and eight axle wagons. Its all weight the loco's have to pull and that cost's money.


G M Simpson

GM,

What adding more axles under a railcar (or a truck trailer for that matter) does is to increase the overall load factor while still minimizing wear and tear on the tracks (or the road). Adding more axles allows higher net cargo weights to be hauled per car, thus your ratio of cargo weight to tare weight is improved, and the resultant savings usually shows up on the bottom line.

As for what is the optimal max weight per axle, some studies have suggested that a max weight of 71,500 lbs per axle (e.g. 286,000 lbs per four axle car) gives the best results. Simply allowing more weight per axle such as the proposed 78,750 lb per axle/315,000 lbs per four axle car standard may result in the law of diminishing returns kicking in, e.g. the increase in wear and tear on the trackage would result in a greater cost than the savings of the increased load factor. I would suggest that a fail safe per axle weight should be more in the 65,000 lb per axle range, since most studies on axle weights don't take into account the frequency of flat spots on wheels and/or deferred maintenance, and other such intangibles.

[rob_l]

Futuremodal said:

"My understanding is that the 53's are not ISO certified for international transport, that is the main roadblock to trying this idea. Yes, many Asian ports lack warehousing space, but there are some which do have that kind of space and thus ideal for a real world tryout of transporting 53's should ISO certification come into fruition."

I submit that there are no Asian ports which have that kind of space. And I submit that it is pointless to work on ISO certification of 53s when there are so few places overseas that you can take them. If they were useful in that regard, certification would have happened a long time ago.

Futuremodal continued:

"Even with the one to two weeks time delay from Asia to the U.S., you are still in better position to respond to inventory changes if you are transporting in 53's vs 40's on the ocean leg. There would be a significant time savings using 53's vs 40's on the transload from ship to railcar, and if it became apparent that some cargo redistribution became necessary due to inventory changes it is easier to transload from a 53' to another 53'."

Each transload event is $100+ per box plus dray charges, say, $200 US port-to-warehouse-to-rail terminal or Asian port-to-warehouse-to-Asian port.

It pays to re-load in 53s given you operate a distribution warehouse near the US port. (It even pays to move your warehouse from an inland US point to a point near the US port, if most of your goods come from Asia and if they come from various suppliers in different containers.) It doesn't pay to transload to a bigger box if the entire box contents are going to one place inland in the US. And it certainly doesn't pay to transload to a 53 near an Asian port given the box is only going as far as a warehouse near the US port.

Best regards,

Rob L.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by arbfbe

So please explain how your idea of 'open access' differs from the current rules of interchange. How will this 'open access' increase capacity and make it better for a) the railroads and b) the shippers.

I am not sure your idea of stacking yet another loaded container over a shared truck of a stack car will not lead to overloading of the weight limits of that truck. Those 20' boxes can get really heavy. I see a problem in trying to load it on the intermediate platform if the wells on both sides are designated to have both a lower 48' box and an upper 53' box loaded.

Regarding open access, it has been deceminated quite well in this thread, but to recap: Current rules of interchange allow for certain anti-competitive auspices such as bottleneck rate gouging, paper barriers for shortlines which could in theory interchange with more than one Class I, limiting operators allowed on underutilized proprietary trackage when logic dictates that allowing other operators would maximize utilization, et al.

Regarding the Stack n' Half, it is similar to drawbar connected well cars which have 70 ton trucks on both ends, these cars have a net carrying capacity of 160,000 lbs cargo. What I did was replace the interior 70 ton trucks with 100 ton trucks to allow an additional 70,000 lbs cargo over the mini-spine. Do the math and you'll see it all fits together quite nicely.

[Anonymous]

Rob,

Without giving away confidential information, all I can add is that any logistical technician will look for ways to improve the supply chain. Don't forget, what works over here (moving 40' boxes 100 miles inland away from congested ports for transloading into larger boxes) can work in reverse overseas.

Also, if you will notice, the 53' boxes made by Jindo are of the same corrugated side construction as your standard 40' boxes. Indeed they are built for stacking multiple units. This is already done on container on barge service between Alaska and Puget Sound. It will work. Whether Stoughton's new boxes can handle multiple stacking heights remains to be seen. I have contacted them for an answer and have not received a reply, so possibly even they don't know. Probably their new design was only meant for nothing more than double stacking.

[Anonymous]

IMHO open access could lead to something similar to the airlines after deregulation. A massive Class I price war at the first business downturn, regionals and startups with less debt and better labor agreements cherry-picking business, potential United Airlines style bankruptcies(CSX???) . It would be good for shippers and ultimately competition, but getting there could be pretty painfull and expensive and I really don't see it increasing capacity on the lines that have the most problems. Another issue not mentioned in relation to subsidies is they get cut when budgets are tight. The Interstates which the public see's are in need of pretty massive infrastructure improvement as a result of defered maintenance. Rail would fare even worse.

An alternative I've been thinking about addresses a number of issues raised recently and I'm sure creates others I haven't considered, so fire away. This wouldn't double capacity by any stretch, but it would increase it significantly.

Modern locos are more fuel-efficient and reliable than ever before. I'd use the savings to increase average train speeds by ~10 mph. Aside from just running them faster, I'd look at eliminating or automating un-necessary FRA-mandated stops and inspections that don't compromise safety. If fueling is an issue, I'd use auxiliary fuel tenders(didn't BN do this on the northern transcom at one time?). Some trains may have to be shorter, others may need more power. Double track in critical locations would also cut delays and the extra expense would be partially offset by longer rail life since tonnage is split over 2 tracks instead of one.

Increasing train speeds allows the same miles in less time, so I'd put most of the train crews on a 12 hour on/12 off arrangement, leaving most of the crew change locations the same. This still isn't a regular 9-5 type work day, but it's better than what crews have now. The railraods get greater productivity and should be able to attract new hires. The railroaders don't have to take a massive pay cut.

In terminals, particularly Intermodal, I'd speed up the loading/unloading process. In some places this might be as simple as more Mijack cranes, but I'd look to automate the process in larger terminals. With standard sized containers, ship to train should be possible with laser reflective reference markings on the ship, containers, and rail cars so the crane's computer would know exactly what's where. For train to truck transfers, a car-wash like guideway could be used to accurately position the trucks. Industrial robots do all kinds of precision laser guided operations on automated manufacturing lines, automated container transfers shouldn't be that difficult.

Faster speed and efficiency should allow greater pricing power for some of the traffic and allow the railroads to go after new business they can't get now.

[dldance]

I have lurked on this thread for sometime but feel I need to raise a point that has only been lightly mentioned. The true capacity bottlenecks in our transportation system today (rail, highway, and air) are the terminals. None of these suggestions do much to much to address that issue. If you can't get the containers out of LA/Long Beach ports, it doesn;t matter if you have 4 tracks over Cajon. If you can't get them into Chicago, double tracking Abo canyon doesn't gain much (well it does provide more places to park blocked trains - but I don't think that's the point.)

Further, the bulk of the tonnage today is in unit trains -- coal, grain, autoracks, and chemicals. These very interesting suggestions do not address these very significant components in the capacity equation.

Respectfully,

dd

[PNWRMNM]

Dave,

Had to attend to life for a couple of days so could not respond to yours of 29th until now. As I read that post you conclude that BNSF wants an exhorbitant rate over Stampede Pass because you could not get a low enough rate to do intermodal from Yakima to the ports of Seattle and Tacoma. I do not think the facts support your conclusion, and here is why.

I assume you are looking at import-export traffic, which would be mostly export from Yakima. That is a one way load. Yakima to Seattle and Tacoma is about 150 one way highway miles, 300 round trip. I suspect truckers would do this move for $1.25 per mile or $375 per round trip. You have to offer shippers two discounts, one for slower service, and one to use you versus somebody else. I can not imagine that less than 20% would do it, so your maximum rate becomes $300 per box round trip.

You have two drays, one at the port and one in Yakima. If you got them for $75 each, round trip I would be surprised. That is $150 per box.

Terminals are not free either. If you gould get on and off for $50 per lift you have $200 in terminal costs. Considering there is no terminal in Yakima, I guess you figured to build your own and recover the operating and capital costs at $100 per box. If so, you are a braver man than I.

The problem is we are to $350 in costs before we get to linehaul issues. There are some minor complications here. First you have to use single stack equipment because double will not fit thru
Stampede. That makes your business a lot less attractive in the terminals at Seattle and Tacoma because your equipment takes twice as much track space as double stack equipment.

Another issue is that your traffic is split between the ports so you go to them on differend days or have two small blocks each day.

How you would get to the intermodal terminals is also a puzzle as the trains now being operated do not go to SIG nor the Tacoma dock yards which are on the Muni. Implies either very small, hence expensive, dedicated trains or set out blocks and a lot of switch engine hours to get from the setout points to the intermodal yards. Switching to and from the dock yards adds cost, transit time and unreliability to your system.

My point is that even if BNSF was willing to do the linehaul for free, the teminal costs and issues kill you. Open access is not the solution to your problem. BNSF was simply smart enough not do do something that does not make economic sense.

Mac

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM

Dave,

Had to attend to life for a couple of days so could not respond to yours of 29th until now. As I read that post you conclude that BNSF wants an exhorbitant rate over Stampede Pass because you could not get a low enough rate to do intermodal from Yakima to the ports of Seattle and Tacoma. I do not think the facts support your conclusion, and here is why.

I assume you are looking at import-export traffic, which would be mostly export from Yakima. That is a one way load. Yakima to Seattle and Tacoma is about 150 one way highway miles, 300 round trip. I suspect truckers would do this move for $1.25 per mile or $375 per round trip. You have to offer shippers two discounts, one for slower service, and one to use you versus somebody else. I can not imagine that less than 20% would do it, so your maximum rate becomes $300 per box round trip.

You have two drays, one at the port and one in Yakima. If you got them for $75 each, round trip I would be surprised. That is $150 per box.

Terminals are not free either. If you gould get on and off for $50 per lift you have $200 in terminal costs. Considering there is no terminal in Yakima, I guess you figured to build your own and recover the operating and capital costs at $100 per box. If so, you are a braver man than I.

The problem is we are to $350 in costs before we get to linehaul issues. There are some minor complications here. First you have to use single stack equipment because double will not fit thru
Stampede. That makes your business a lot less attractive in the terminals at Seattle and Tacoma because your equipment takes twice as much track space as double stack equipment.

Another issue is that your traffic is split between the ports so you go to them on differend days or have two small blocks each day.

How you would get to the intermodal terminals is also a puzzle as the trains now being operated do not go to SIG nor the Tacoma dock yards which are on the Muni. Implies either very small, hence expensive, dedicated trains or set out blocks and a lot of switch engine hours to get from the setout points to the intermodal yards. Switching to and from the dock yards adds cost, transit time and unreliability to your system.

My point is that even if BNSF was willing to do the linehaul for free, the teminal costs and issues kill you. Open access is not the solution to your problem. BNSF was simply smart enough not do do something that does not make economic sense.

Mac

Mac,

All I can tell you is the 3PL that I was working with came up with a per box price that beat the current trucking rate, paid the equipment lease rate, and still made good money for BNSF, well over and above the cost of a crew, locomotives, etc. Don't forget, the trucking outfits are looking for ways to move their loads in a constant climate of driver shortages. Anytime someone comes up with a way to take trucks off the roads to their benefit, they are more than willing to participate. The technology we were using was a combination of spine cars and RailRunner bi-modal chassis. We also were going to use DPU's to max up the number of boxes to up to 175 per trip. The use of bimodal and spine cars allowed us to access rail on dock facilities, cutting back on demurage costs.

The point is, if a 3PL was willing to take this risk, then it is apparent that if we had open access the project would have gone forward. But because of BNSF's unwillingness to try out this project because they did not have the patience to work out the kinks, that was the turning point in my former opposition to open access. I firmly believe the current monopoly climate in the rail industry is the cause of this lack of aggresiveness and innovation, and only some action that forces competitiveness onto the rail industry will break this attitude.

Maybe it's time the feds started taxing railroads every time trucks are forced onto the highways when they don't want to be bothered with business opportunities or when they decide to abandon more trackage. I don't know. But the current railroad monopoly climate is keeping the nation from maximizing the opportunities to take trucks off the highways. If you have a better solution than open access for maximizing the use of non-highway movement of trucks, I'm all ears.

[VerMontanan]

Futuremodal stated:

"My understanding of BNSF operations in the PNW is that they do route empty grain shuttles back over Stampede, and (correct me if I'm wrong) I believe they do manage to run from Tacoma to Pasco in one trip. For UP to shuttle a crew between Hinkle and Pasco would only take 20 minutes or so, so there would be no need for increasing crew costs."

You are wrong. Train crews run from Seattle or Tacoma only to Ellensburg where crews are changed for the run to Pasco. As for the UP to drive a crew from Hinkle to Pasco in 20 minutes: Unlikely, since it's 35 miles one way.

[VerMontanan]

Futuremodal stated:

"5. Reroute Amtrak off high density corridors onto lower traffic lines. There are examples of routes where Amtrak runs over heavily used freight lines while parrellel lines with less traffic are available. Take Amtrak off BNSF's High Line and put it on the ex-NP (nee MRL) line through central Monana and North Dakota. Take Amrak off the ex-Santa Fe LA to Chicago line and reroute it to the ex-RI/SSW/SP line. This may increase the travel time for Amtrak passengers and deprive some towns of rail passenger service, but Harve and Minot's loss is Bozeman and Bismark's gain. It would certainly help clear up the heaviest used freight lines."

A couple of points here:

The proposal Amtrak off the ex-ATSF line to the UP (ex-CRIP/SP) line shows that the gentleman stating this is unaware of the fantastic delays that have occurred to Amtrak's Sunset Limited over the past year on the former SP line west of El Paso. Certainly, there is no capacity there to handle another Amtrak train, so his proposal is a "lose/lose" scenario.

As for rerouting the Empire Builder, there are many reasons this proposal is simplistic:
1.)The train is Amtrak's most successful train in terms of ridership, on time performance, and public utility(serving many areas without other public transportation). It should not be rerouted for alleged capacity issues.
2.)Rerouting the train via the ex-NP line would require 6 to 8 hours more running time than is currently the case. Considering the Empire Builder's turnaround time for equipment in Seattle and Portland is only about 6 hours now (the least of any long distance Amtrak train), doing this would mean having to create another entire set of equipment just for this reason. Of course, anyone that knows anything about Amtrak's equipment availability lately knows this isn't going to happen.
3.)Being very familiar with the operation of the Empire Builder along BNSF, I would like any evidence that it is hindering capacity of the route. Actually, the train is beneficial to BNSF as it is the primary method of deadheading crews on a route with little or no other public transportation to assist in crew movements.
4.)The ex-NP route east of Billings, Montana does not have any extra capacity, due to the large volume of coal on a line that has areas of inadequate siding length and very little CTC.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by VerMontanan

Futuremodal stated:

"My understanding of BNSF operations in the PNW is that they do route empty grain shuttles back over Stampede, and (correct me if I'm wrong) I believe they do manage to run from Tacoma to Pasco in one trip. For UP to shuttle a crew between Hinkle and Pasco would only take 20 minutes or so, so there would be no need for increasing crew costs."

You are wrong. Train crews run from Seattle or Tacoma only to Ellensburg where crews are changed for the run to Pasco. As for the UP to drive a crew from Hinkle to Pasco in 20 minutes: Unlikely, since it's 35 miles one way.

Thanks for the clarification. It is 121 miles by rail from Tacoma to Ellensburg, which means either trains are averaging 10 miles an hour over this route, or crews are running round trip Tacoma-Ellensburg-Tacoma (and Pasco-Ellensburg-Pasco). If it's 10 mph, that is just pathetic, especally since eastbound grain trains out of Tacoma are empties, and fewer than 5 or 6 trains a day are currently using the line. For crying out loud, I know people that commute round trip daily from Ellensburg to Seattle to work!

If Pasco (or more likely Kennewick ) is too far for a Tacoma origin UP empty to travel in one crew time slot, they could always try for Kiona or Prosser and still shuttle crews from Hinkle. The point is UP could run trains eastbound over the Stampede Pass line without the cost of having to establish a new crew district, and this move would relieve some congestion on UP's Columbia Gorge line, which is the gist of this thread e.g. relieving capacity constraints sans new track construction.

And just for the record, I have driven from Kennewick to Umatilla in under 15 minutes.

[VerMontanan]

futuremodal stated:
"Thanks for the clarification. It is 121 miles by rail from Tacoma to Ellensburg, which means either trains are averaging 10 miles an hour over this route, or crews are running round trip Tacoma-Ellensburg-Tacoma (and Pasco-Ellensburg-Pasco). If it's 10 mph, that is just pathetic, especally since eastbound grain trains out of Tacoma are empties, and fewer than 5 or 6 trains a day are currently using the line. For crying out loud, I know people that commute round trip daily from Ellensburg to Seattle to work!"

**Actually what is occuring is none of the scenarios you obviously claim to know about. No, the crews aren't taking 12 hours to go the distance, but they're not running from Tacoma to Ellensburg and back again, either. First of all, most trains are on duty about 8 to 10 hours, but that's because the crew sometimes will take their train to Auburn for inspection first prior to departing, or will be delayed waiting for the train to be inspected at Tacoma, which they just started doing. In any event, the crew is on duty several hours prior to departure, so couple that with transit time, and they really don't have enough time to handle another train back to Seattle (the westbounds, both of them, go to Interbay); and, a short-time westbound train is not desirable between Easton and Kanaskat because it is totally inaccessable to a relief crew (should the need arise) in an automobile. That's the main reason they don't aggregate back. That there is more to this is much different than simply labeling it "pathetic."

futuremodal continues:
"If Pasco (or more likely Kennewick ) is too far for a Tacoma origin UP empty to travel in one crew time slot, they could always try for Kiona or Prosser and still shuttle crews from Hinkle. The point is UP could run trains eastbound over the Stampede Pass line without the cost of having to establish a new crew district, and this move would relieve some congestion on UP's Columbia Gorge line, which is the gist of this thread e.g. relieving capacity constraints sans new track construction."

**
Well, would not Kiona or Kennewick to Hinkle be another crew district anyway? What you're really proposing is that while you don't want to call it a crew district, that the crews just be sent as far as they can go from Tacoma. Not a good plan. Besides, your optimism seems to dismiss that the UP crews would undergo a similar type of initial terminal delay departing Tacoma. Right now, BNSF is requiring northbound UP trains on duty at Portland to have at least 6.5 hours to work before they will allow them on their track at North Portland Jct. for the run to Tacoma/Reservation (yes they often arrive that short on time, just miles from the intitial terminal), so their track record initial terminal delay in the Northwest has not been great.

futuremodal continues:
"And just for the record, I have driven from Kennewick to Umatilla in under 15 minutes."
**
Glad I wasn't along. The Rand McNally atlas shows the distance as 28 miles. And since you did it in less than 15 minutes, that's in excess of 112 MPH. Though, I don't see your point in mentioning this as your original claim was driving Hinkle to Pasco in 20 minutes, and Hinkle's another 7 or so miles beyond Umatilla.

[Anonymous]

VerM, you miss (I presume purposefully) the whole point. Exaggerations aside, the first question is how far from Tacoma an eastbound could travel before the crew goes dead, that is if the railroad really tried. As I remember from various John Kneiling columns, the old 100 mile crew district went out with the steamers, and crew districts of 300 miles are more the norm. This assumes of course that average speed in practice has also evolved along with the technology. I can see where line congestion can cause average speeds in the teens, but for a line with extra capacity such as the Stampede Pass line this is not an excuse. When BN spent the $100 million OR SO to rehab this line, they did so with the stated purpose of it handling 20 to 30 trains per day. Right now it has 5 OR SO per day. Thus the Stampede Pass line is not going to have the time constraints of the more congested I-5 corridor. It is axiomatic that the more trains you can take off these more congested corridors and reroute to the less congested lines, the more capacity you free up on the more heavily used lines for the higher paying cargos. If UP could reroute trains via Stampede Pass due to open access, then it is certainly a win win fromt the standpoint of UP operations and maximizing utilization of a currently underutilized line. You mention the I-5 time constraints as proof that better times cannot be made on the Stampede Pass line, when in contrast the lack of traffic on Stampede would not force these constraints, so in that vein it is a poor example of counterpoint.

Okay, so let's take your position that UP can't run this route without establishing a new crew district somewhere along the line, even though it is only 247 miles by rail from Tacoma to Kennewick. Is the cost of this new crew district going to outweigh the benefits of opening up capacity on the Gorge and I-5 lines? We know that UP has has to turn away business to avoid a meltdown. Wouldn't it be a net gain if UP could retain this business without going into meltdown?

As for rerouting Amtrak, as you must be aware the BNSF has tried to get Amtrak off the Stevens Pass route onto Stampede and the ex-NP line. Why would they propose this other than to free up capacity on the Stevens Pass line? Apparently, it is important. As for rerouting the Empire Builder via MRL through Montana and the ex-Milwaukee through South Dakota (a line that only hosts a few coal trains now and then), it is a similar situation, as there are fewer trains on the ex-NP line than the High Line. So what if it adds 6 to 8 hours to the schedule, people don't ride Amtrak to make good time. Based on the latest news, an 8 to 10 hour delay is the norm for Amtrak, the only diffence with the I-90 corridor reroute is that the delay is built into the schedule. If that time delay is to egregious, we can go one step further and just eliminate Amtrak altogether. Don't you think the railroads would be in favor of that? If so, why? Is it not to free up the lines for the freights?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by VerMontanan



futuremodal continues:
"And just for the record, I have driven from Kennewick to Umatilla in under 15 minutes."
**
Glad I wasn't along. The Rand McNally atlas shows the distance as 28 miles. And since you did it in less than 15 minutes, that's in excess of 112 MPH. Though, I don't see your point in mentioning this as your original claim was driving Hinkle to Pasco in 20 minutes, and Hinkle's another 7 or so miles beyond Umatilla.

Actually, it is 19 miles from the I-82/395 junction to the McNary bridge, or 21 miles from the McDonalds, and I never went over 85, as I was just going with the traffic flow. And no, I wasn't running a stop watch on myself, just a quick glance at the dashboard clock. I may like to get to where I'm going in good time (one reason I'd never waste my time riding Amtrak), but I'm not reckless.

And for the record, what I said was that one can make it from Hinkle to Pasco in 20 minutes OR SO. For an Amtrak defender, you are sure an ironic stickler for time descriptions.

[VerMontanan]

Futuremodal states:
"VerM, you miss (I presume purposefully) the whole point. Exaggerations aside, the first question is how far from Tacoma an eastbound could travel before the crew goes dead, that is if the railroad really tried. As I remember from various John Kneiling columns, the old 100 mile crew district went out with the steamers, and crew districts of 300 miles are more the norm. This assumes of course that average speed in practice has also evolved along with the technology. I can see where line congestion can cause average speeds in the teens, but for a line with extra capacity such as the Stampede Pass line this is not an excuse. When BN spent the $100 million OR SO to rehab this line, they did so with the stated purpose of it handling 20 to 30 trains per day. Right now it has 5 OR SO per day. Thus the Stampede Pass line is not going to have the time constraints of the more congested I-5 corridor. It is axiomatic that the more trains you can take off these more congested corridors and reroute to the less congested lines, the more capacity you free up on the more heavily used lines for the higher paying cargos. If UP could reroute trains via Stampede Pass due to open access, then it is certainly a win win fromt the standpoint of UP operations and maximizing utilization of a currently underutilized line. You mention the I-5 time constraints as proof that better times cannot be made on the Stampede Pass line, when in contrast the lack of traffic on Stampede would not force these constraints, so in that vein it is a poor example of counterpoint."

***
Sorry, it is you that missed my point, which is that you simply were labeling something YOU didn't understand as "pathetic". I don't think that's fair. Also, the problems the UP is having in Portland have nothing to do with capacity along the "I-5". As another person stated, the problems are in terminals, and that's where the UP is burning their time, and it's before they even get on the joint track with BNSF. True, 100-mile crew districts are no longer the norm, and I'm not advocating it....just explaining why BNSF does it the way they do. As for what the UP could do, that's another issue, but I just wonder how receptive BNSF would be to allowing UP trains to run on a district where trains would require relief crews 100 percent of the time. After all, a crew change is a crew change, and as someone who as managed crews, there are advantages to crew districts where trains are not constantly up against the hours of service every trip. And since 100 percent of these trains (under your plan) would expire their hours of service prior to arriving Hinkle, I guess if I was BNSF I'd wonder if UP would have relief crews always available because they don't now most places on their system. Or, perhaps you're advocating not having fixed crew change points. It's an interesting concept, but relief crews have to based somewhere.

futuremodal continues:
"Okay, so let's take your position that UP can't run this route without establishing a new crew district somewhere along the line, even though it is only 247 miles by rail from Tacoma to Kennewick. Is the cost of this new crew district going to outweigh the benefits of opening up capacity on the Gorge and I-5 lines? We know that UP has has to turn away business to avoid a meltdown. Wouldn't it be a net gain if UP could retain this business without going into meltdown?"
**
Absolutely. I'm not saying that the UP shouldn't use the line. Just pointing out that there is more to doing so than you pointed out in some of your posts (like that BNSF crews are turning back from Ellensburg, or that they're taking 12 hours to get there).

futuremodal continues:
"As for rerouting Amtrak, as you must be aware the BNSF has tried to get Amtrak off the Stevens Pass route onto Stampede and the ex-NP line. Why would they propose this other than to free up capacity on the Stevens Pass line? Apparently, it is important."
***
This is old news, and only a rumor from 2001. I challenge you to produce any documentation that BNSF actively persued this, especially in light of the fact that it would cost millions of dollars in track improvements to implement. It would also cost Amtrak another set of equipment it doesn't have. As a matter of FACT, BNSF is working with Amtrak and the Washington DOT to establish yet another stop for the Empire Builder on the Stevens Pass line at Leavenworth, planned to start in 2005. Why are they going to allow this? As anyone from the Washington DOT can tell you, a reroute is beyond a dead issue.

futuremodal continues:
"As for rerouting the Empire Builder via MRL through Montana and the ex-Milwaukee through South Dakota (a line that only hosts a few coal trains now and then), it is a similar situation, as there are fewer trains on the ex-NP line than the High Line. So what if it adds 6 to 8 hours to the schedule, people don't ride Amtrak to make good time."
***
Well, the Milwaukee line is largely unsignalled now, so that would add a lot more than 6 to 8 hours (at 45 MPH maximum), and you still don't address the question of how Amtrak is going to come up with the equipment for these trains on severely lengthened schedules. Please tell us.

And, for the record, the Milwaukee line across South Dakota does NOT "ONLY host a few coal trains now and then." This line has been busy for over a year with grain trains, which are being moved in record numbers on BNSF, and South Dakota probably has more 110-car unit facilites than any other state served by BNSF. The ex-MILW line west from Aberdeen is the main route for westbound trains out of the state, and there is also a fair amount of east grain moved. Grain traffic on the line averages six trains daily, so your statement about ONLY coal is highly inaccurate.

futuremodal continues:
Based on the latest news, an 8 to 10 hour delay is the norm for Amtrak, the only diffence with the I-90 corridor reroute is that the delay is built into the schedule. "
***
Based on WHAT latest news? Other than the Sunset Limited, name other Amtrak trains that consistently operate this late. And the Empire Builder isn't one of them. Through 2004, it had the best on time performance of any long distance passenger train. This is definitely a flippant, unsupportable statement.

futuremodal continues:
"If that time delay is to egregious, we can go one step further and just eliminate Amtrak altogether. Don't you think the railroads would be in favor of that? If so, why? Is it not to free up the lines for the freights?
***
Well, certainly the effect of your proposals would kill Amtrak, and I'm surprised that you just didn't state that right from the beginning. The railroads might like to get rid of Amtrak, but I sense that you think that to be a fact, and that's just not true. First of all, if it was, BNSF would treat Amtrak the way CSX treats Amtrak. BNSF treats it like the customer it is and reaps several million dollars a year in incentive benefits. The Empire Builder, as an example, is a small part of the 45 or so trains a day that move on the Hi-Line across Montana, so one would have to wonder whether it's that big of a deal to get rid of it to BNSF (which, as I said earlier, benefits BNSF by providing crew transportation in all weather where there is no parallel public transportation). Also, as a matter of FACT, BNSF's official position is that they prefer to deal with Amtrak rather than various state entities that may impose rail passenger service on their lines (which they can and have done). That's why in California and Washington, for instance, BNSF has embraced expanded intercity and commuter rail service to benefit from the infrastructure improvements that actually increase capacity. In this case, having Amtrak around has been a big boost to BNSF handling more traffic in the area.

And, let's not forget the original topic of your post: "How to double capacity of U.S. railroads without even building a single mile of new track". Well, if one of the ways was to eliminate some of the trains (Amtrak) so that others can operate, I for one, hardly consider that as exceptionally creative. Unlike you evidently, I believe we need passenger trains.

[VerMontanan]

Futuremodal states:
"Actually, it is 19 miles from the I-82/395 junction to the McNary bridge, or 21 miles from the McDonalds, and I never went over 85, as I was just going with the traffic flow. And no, I wasn't running a stop watch on myself, just a quick glance at the dashboard clock. I may like to get to where I'm going in good time (one reason I'd never waste my time riding Amtrak), but I'm not reckless."
****
Well, the distances keep changing. I'm not familiar enough to know where the McDonald's is of which you speak, but you did originally stated from Umatilla to Kennewick. The bridge is not the town of Umatilla and the I-82/US-395 junction is about 5 miles out of Kennewick. Now we have the rest of the story, as Paul Harvey would say:

futuremodal continues:
"And for the record, what I said was that one can make it from Hinkle to Pasco in 20 minutes OR SO. For an Amtrak defender, you are sure an ironic stickler for time descriptions."

Well 20 minutes from Hinkle to Pasco OR SO is a lot different than 15 minutes from the McNary bridge to the US395 junction. However, my point was to show that you exaggerated the time to help bolster your claim of a single crew from Tacoma to wherever (in retrospect, since it would require another crew, I don't know what this had to do with it). As for being a stickler for time descriptions, I'll simply reference your previous statements: "So what if it adds 6 to 8 hours to the schedule, people don't ride Amtrak to make good time" and the classic, "Based on the latest news, an 8 to 10 hour delay is the norm for Amtrak" as coming from someone that really can concoct some interesting "time descriptions"!

[dehusman]

Other than possibly Amtrak, I would say that 300+ mile crew districts are certainly no the norm. A closer figure would be 200-250 miles for and interdivisional run.

You seem to be taking the "best case scenario" and assume that is the standard. For example your drive time example. Remember that the crews will be in a commercial van or SUV and will not be "flying" low. The crews will have to come on duty, complete any outstanding paperwork from the previous trip, get paperwork for the current trip, read it, have a job briefing on it, then load their gear into the van. They will spend 45" to an hour on duty before they get in the van, let alone the transit time.

Dave H.

[PNWRMNM]

Dave,

Clearly the BNSF did not think the traffic was "good money" for them. Your third party logistic outfit probably used some sort of standard cost estimation program. I suspect it grossly underestimated terminal costs, which as I tried to illustrate dominate the economics of this move.

If you were running the terminals at the Port, and were anywhere near capacity, you would sure want to be paid well for your lifts. Remember you are competing for space with transcontinental traffic. Not taking low paying short haul business to keep capacity for the transcontinental traffic makes all kinds of sense to me. When you are capacity constrained, you must be very careful about what business you handle. I suspect that and the drays is what killed your deal, not the line haul costs. How much detail did your logistics outfit share and did you sit in on talks with railroad?

"Thank you" to the several others who corrected your misstatements about crew issues. I could have but wanted to concentrate on more basic issues.

Mac