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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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".

[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.

[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

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dehusman

I know we are talking about the PNW. That's not the point.

The reason I mentioned the NS and KCS is because you are talking OPEN ACCESS. What started this whole thread was that Dave futuremodal wanted to operate a 3rd party train on the BNSF. If you have open access you will have every railroad in the country going every which way. There is nothing to stop any shortline from establishing transcontinental service. So thinking that establishing open access and then only parallel routes will use it is not realistic.

If you have open access there is nothing to prevent or limit the NS or the KCS or the FEC from offering service from the east coast to the Puget sound.

Dave H.

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. On the larger picture, if rail shippers have more competitive rate offerings from more than one railroad, doesn't that make it less likely that they will ship by truck or barge, and thus rail's share of intercity freight increases?

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.)[|(][|(][|(]

[dehusman]

I know we are talking about the PNW. That's not the point.

The reason I mentioned the NS and KCS is because you are talking OPEN ACCESS. What started this whole thread was that Dave futuremodal wanted to operate a 3rd party train on the BNSF. If you have open access you will have every railroad in the country going every which way. There is nothing to stop any shortline from establishing transcontinental service. So thinking that establishing open access and then only parallel routes will use it is not realistic.

If you have open access there is nothing to prevent or limit the NS or the KCS or the FEC from offering service from the east coast to the Puget sound.

Dave H.

[daveklepper]

I think it makes a better case for heads-up thinking on the part of railroad managements like the deals worked out by NS and CN, for more intensive use of the old D&H in the East, and CN and UP routing more traffic to bypass Chicago. I wouldn't be surprised to see a deal worked out by UP and BNSF. They do some power sharing in the Powder Raiber Basin.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dehusman

Assuming that the BNSF had a better route and open access allowed the UP to use it at a rate that matched the costs of the UP operating on their own line, what incentive would the UP have to maintain or even retain their route. If they can run on the BNSF for the same cost, abandon their line and just use the BNSF.

Besides what will you do with the NS and KCS trains operating over that corridor?

Dave H.

The example we are discussing involves taking some of UP's Puget Sound trains off the heavily traveled UP mainline through the Columbia Gorge in Oregon and transferring them onto BNSF's underutilized Stampede Pass line. UP is not going to abandon the water-level Columbia Gorge for rights over Stampede Pass!

What we are trying to point out is that heavily used e.g. congested mainlines of one railroad often are parallel to some degree to underutilized lines owned by another railroad. Obviously, taking empties back over the underutilized line makes sense and frees up capacity on the overused line. But because of the owner-operator makeup of the U.S. railroad industry, that aspect of common sense goes wanting. That in and of itself makes a strong case for open access.

[dehusman]

Assuming that the BNSF had a better route and open access allowed the UP to use it at a rate that matched the costs of the UP operating on their own line, what incentive would the UP have to maintain or even retain their route. If they can run on the BNSF for the same cost, abandon their line and just use the BNSF.

Besides what will you do with the NS and KCS trains operating over that corridor?

Dave H.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM

Dave,

You picked a good example but there are some problems.

First you are going to one way operations on both legs. Portland is crew change on UP. Getting from Tacoma to Hinkle in one crew day would be a challenge so UP would probably have to change crews at Yakima. This means you have four working crews plus four deadhead crews per round trip. You have doubled UP crew costs. Not very appetizing..

Second problem is there is nothing preventing UP from making BNSF an offer. You are assuming, without evidence that BNSF would want an outrageous rate, and that UP wants to go over the mountain.

Third problem is this would no where near double anybody's capacity. As you know there are two lines down the gorge, UP and BNSF. I doubt that the UP has as much as one grain train per day to Tacoma. Rerouting less than one train per day, and one way at that is a long, long way from doubling UP capacity.

In fact rerouting does not increase capacity at all. The capacity of all the routes involved in you example, and I suspect in general, is what it is as controlled by track configuration and signal system. It may be true that BNSF could run a few more trains via Stampede. They have plenty of their own they could divert to it at considerable saving in mileage. Why have they not done so?

The moral problem is that you are proposing to rob the BNSF to pay the UP. How can you justify a below market rent to UP? Remember BNSF invested a reported $165 million in Stampede to reopen it. I might love to have the government make you let me live in your spare bedroom for free, but I sure do not want you in mine.

I am not convinced on either practical or ethical grounds.

Mac

Mac,

You give some good counterpoints.

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.

My assumption of BNSF either not allowing UP to reroute over Stampede or else wanting an exhorbinant rate is based on my own business experiences with BNSF trying to establish a third party short haul intermodal move from Yakima/Pasco to the Puget Sound. No matter how favorably we crunched the numbers in BNSF's favor, they just didn't want to be bothered with it. Go figure!

Also remember that this is just one aspect of an aggregate solution for increasing capacity. Open access by itself would not double capacity, you would need to incorporate the other possible solutions provided in this thread.

Finally, I do not believe we are robbing BNSF or any other railroad company by breaking up the vertical oligarchy, anymore so than suggesting that AT&T was "robbed" by its breakup. The fortunes of the telecom industry exploded after that breakup, and given the economic points in favor of open access, you could see a lesser but still substantial increase in railroading's share of intercity freight. If anything, we are doing BNSF and all the other Class I's a favor by removing a huge part of their capital liabilities, and opening the door for substantial public investment in the rail infrastructure. The moral question thus is not whether breaking apart infrastructure from operations is a form of "taking" private property, but whether it is right to give public aid to companies that will continue to restrict access to the infrastructure to only their trains. If the railroads really want (or need) public assistance for infrastructure upgrades, then that infrastructure must be accessable by all qualified operating companies. Otherwise we are subsidizing a monopoly.

[PNWRMNM]

Dave,

You picked a good example but there are some problems.

First you are going to one way operations on both legs. Portland is crew change on UP. Getting from Tacoma to Hinkle in one crew day would be a challenge so UP would probably have to change crews at Yakima. This means you have four working crews plus four deadhead crews per round trip. You have doubled UP crew costs. Not very appetizing..

Second problem is there is nothing preventing UP from making BNSF an offer. You are assuming, without evidence that BNSF would want an outrageous rate, and that UP wants to go over the mountain.

Third problem is this would no where near double anybody's capacity. As you know there are two lines down the gorge, UP and BNSF. I doubt that the UP has as much as one grain train per day to Tacoma. Rerouting less than one train per day, and one way at that is a long, long way from doubling UP capacity.

In fact rerouting does not increase capacity at all. The capacity of all the routes involved in you example, and I suspect in general, is what it is as controlled by track configuration and signal system. It may be true that BNSF could run a few more trains via Stampede. They have plenty of their own they could divert to it at considerable saving in mileage. Why have they not done so?

The moral problem is that you are proposing to rob the BNSF to pay the UP. How can you justify a below market rent to UP? Remember BNSF invested a reported $165 million in Stampede to reopen it. I might love to have the government make you let me live in your spare bedroom for free, but I sure do not want you in mine.

I am not convinced on either practical or ethical grounds.

Mac

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM

Dave,

I am no fan of open access as I see it only as another way for shippers to beat carrier's rates into the ground, which believe me they try to do daily. Setting that aside, how will open access improve capacity? I see no necessary or natural connection between the two.

Mac

Mac,

I'll give you an example of how an open access system could alleviate congestion. In the Pacific Northwest, UP's line to Puget Sound runs through the Columbia Gorge to Portland, then up the I-5 corridor via BNSF trackage rights to Seattle-Tacoma. When UP hauls a unit grain train to a Puget Sound port, it runs through the heavily congested Gorge then up the congested I-5 lines. After it is emptied, it runs back the same way. Of course, BNSF owns a line over Stampede Pass that runs from the Puget Sound down to the Tri-Cities (and a UP connection) and has only a few trains a day e.g. it has alot of extra capacity. If UP could run their eastbound empties back over this line, it would obviously free up capacity through the Gorge and the I-5 lines. But of course, BNSF won't let them do that, at least at some reasonable price, whereas if that line was open access, UP could take advantage of it.

I'm sure if one could study the situations of one line being heavily congested while a competitor's parallel line has extra capacity, you would find literally hundreds of such scenarios.

[dehusman]

Everybody looks at the mainline when they talk open access but very few people address the terminal issues. OK, I have access to drive my train from A to B, but what do i do with it at the other end? Where do I put the cars and engines not on spot? How do i switch or block the train? In order for open access to work each user has to have a yarding facility at the other end.

So I guess we form terminal companies that operate the terminals. Then since you have onesy-twosey runs all over theplace, not enough to support a stable crew structure, you could have a third party that provided qualified crews.

So you have one comany that owns the mainlines, one that runs the terminals, one that provides the equipment and one that provides the crews. Sounds great?

Betcha if you did that within 10 years they would start merging and you'd end up with one overall company that provided the track, the terminal, the equipment and the crews, which is pretty much right where we are now.

I fail to see how splitting up the transportation product up into a dozen smaller subcontractor pieces, each getting their own profit will result in cheaper, more efficient operations. When we had a gazillion little railroads and each town was served by many different roads, the rates weren't cheaper.

Dave H.

[Overmod]

tree, there will be MUCH more to it than that. Aside from specific and ongoing mechanical inspection and maintenance assurance, etc., there is the question of destination capacity and handling.

I see no reason why coordination of private 'scheduling' systems and dispatch won't work at least as well as an "ATC" (here, air-traffic control) model -- we're not talking time-critical operations in three dimensions, at high speed, with no safe way to 'hold everything' in case of emergency. But the coordination will specifically include strategic delays and optimizations to 'normalize' yard and terminal capacity for the 'open access' train movements. You wouldn't, for example, be able to stick your 100-car intermodal into the approach queue for an already-overloaded facility on short notice, whether you paid the basic "toll" or not -- that's fundamental unfairness to the pre-existing operators. What the system for allocating 'open' routing would be is, of course, open, but I advocate surcharges and incentives to influence it via market mechanisms, rather than re-introduce massive amounts of 'bureaucracy' (and associated opportunities for influence-peddling, special favors, enforcement actions and New York Times outcry against perceived special favors, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseam...

[jchnhtfd]

Seems to me... that there is a fundamental difference between 'open access' on a rail system vs. either a telcon (e.g. AT&T) or the air traffic control system (and I have been involved in all three, at one time or another). With a telcon, with modern technology, it is quite simple for multiple transmissions to occur over the same path (be it fiber optic, coax, or conventional copper). There is a complete break between the 'message' and the carrying medium, up to the capacity of the line (which, with fiber optics, is immense). Open access is, and never really has been, a technical problem; rather a regulatory or political problem. In a very real way air traffic is similar: the capacity of the travel lanes, while not unlimited, is very large indeed (although some airports are restricted -- and -- surprise! -- there you do not have open access at all). Further, conflicts between units run by different groups -- in this case, airplanes -- are easily resolved; you can move up, down, or sideways to pass or go in different directions. Same thing is true of highways, within broad limits. With rail, however, there is a distinct difference: you are on a track. Opportunities to pass or meet are few and far between (ask any dispatcher!) and everything has to go through specific terminals -- which are highly capacity limited. If one were to have open access, just who would decide who could go when? And which way? Please note that the FAA does NOT do that for air service; it's first come, first served except at those airports where there is a reservation system (and those reservations, called slots, are fixed -- and very very expensive). Would we have a Federal agency trying to dispatch the system in response to unpredictable demand? Oy... If you think Union Pacific has had problems now and then, I hate to think...

[tree68]

True open access would require a national control system, a la FAA. In fact, the very operation would probably resemble that of air - filing a "flight" plan, etc, etc. There would have to be a nationally recognized license (like a CDL), and a means of certifying operators for specific routes. After all, if there is open access and I want to develop a market and run trains from here to there, all I need is the necessary equipment and licenses. I pay my tolls and run my trains.

[PNWRMNM]

Dave,

I am no fan of open access as I see it only as another way for shippers to beat carrier's rates into the ground, which believe me they try to do daily. Setting that aside, how will open access improve capacity? I see no necessary or natural connection between the two.

Mac

[Overmod]

Dave H., not quite the right operational model.

More like telling AT&T Longlines that they "have" to let resellers (competitors) buy blocks of bulk time or bandwidth, or cable operators that they have to allow open access to the 'last mile'.

Of course, the situation is much the same as for post-deregulation branch lines: while the Government may still deny abandonment, there is no rule that forbids railroads to charge rates that recover costs... which, in essence, may be so prohibitively high that shippers give up and allow abandonment. Presumably any open-access arrangement would involve full pro-rata allocation of the 'stranded costs' of the infrastructure involved... and of any improvements or changes necessary to make the operation practical, such as additional service or maintenance facilities. It would also probably involve as full an indemnification of the "owning" carrier as possible (cf. Amtrak's arrangements). I suspect that any railroad that didn't want open-access traffic could find as many Mickey Mouse objections and petty restrictions as needed to make a "competitor's" operations ultimately inconvenient or unprofitable, but this is really no different from current procedures involving trackage rights (cf. KCS/TexMex over UP in Texas!)

I did not see Federal Express turning down the carriage of USPS traffic... last time I looked, just as much a "competitor" as UPS or DHL in certain segments...

Andrew, having run a hardware store, I can tell you that the weekly resupplies are handled from distributor warehouses via truck runs, and several stores may be supplied off the same truck. You might get the original supply to these warehouses -- in your example, from Black and Decker's plant -- via rail shipment, but I strongly suspect that both the convenience and the cost-effectiveness of truck-based ground or intermodal service would outweigh a setup involving rail moves for anything less than full containers... and if you have full containers there's no need for an intermediate stripping/stuffing setup at a cross-dock facility.

In my childhood, I remember the local hardware stores would receive lumber via rail (on the Northern branch of the EL) which would be set out on flatcars and picked up and transferred via a straddle loader, a piece of equipment that particularly fascinated me then. Long ago this changed to truck delivery, straight to the lumberyard, with either self-unloading (via truck-mounted crane or, as in Home Depot's bulk delivery, straight truck with 'pup' lift attached) or yard unloading with a simple forklift. I'm sure there are still a few chains that receive end deliveries by rail, but none of the 'chains' I'm familiar with (Ace, True Value, ServiStar) or the specialty hardware suppliers do that.

Appliance crossdocking was traditionally done within the confines of an equipment supplier's facility, and would almost never involve the kind of full or partial carloading that would make your proposal a worthwhile proposition on the regular basis necessary to establish it. The whole point of a distributor's warehouse is to allow full-carload, or distinctive LCL block deliveries to be made periodically, with subsequent delivery to retailers from stock -- crossdocking is for special or custom orders, which are almost never of sufficient volume to invalidate the advantages of truck delivery.

Dedicated rail transloading facilities are a cute idea, and technically feasible if you had a 'clean sheet of paper' -- but are utterly divorced from the reality of business operations today.

[dehusman]

Just remember that railroads are not public domain, they are private companies. Forcing railroads to provide open access to anybody that wanted to run a train would be like telling GM that they had to let Ford build cars in their plant, or telling Coke that they had to bottle Pepsi, or telling UPS they have to let Fedex or DHL use they trucks for shipments.

Dave H.

[jeaton]

Andrew

I agree that you don't need a warehouse to do box car to truck transloading. What I was saying is that facilities capable of doing this kind of transloading exist all over the place. They have the docks, the material handling equipment and the people to do the work. Given that it is a very competitive business, you would probably find that a facility strictly dedicated to this work would not offer any significant cost savings for the customer.

Jay

[Junctionfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

Andrew

I believe there are a number of transloading operations around the country where carloads of bulk materials are transfered to trucks for final delivery. I think this is, or at least was, an effictive way to move plastic pellets to small plastic product manufacturers who were off rail. I am sure other products have also moved this way.

When it comes to finished products, i.e., anything that is packaged ready for sale to the end user, the transloading is performed at warehouse or breakbulk facilities that are owned by,or under contract to the manufacturer, wholesaler, or retailer. Ownership of warehouse facilities is very diverse and the business is very competitive. These facilities will receive carload or truckload shipments from multiple manufacturers and reload the products in trucks for delivery to retailers. Because of the handling and storage costs associated with this process, it is sometimes less expensive to ship direct from the manufacture to the retail store, but often this only works when full truck loads can be shipped either to one consignee or with multiple stops in a peddler operation.

Here is my point. There is a very large infrastructure in place to get retail products to the point of sale. In turn, there is a large and effective management force that making the decisions as to the most cost effective way to move the goods. Frankly, I do not believe the railoads would want to get into the warhousing and final distribution end of the chain. First, it is difficult to make good return on the investment in this business, and second, it won't do anything to increase the business moving on rails. So, what is the point?

Jay

Don't really need werehouses for this. All you need is an unloading facility and the customer's trailer or the deliverer's trailer. If they don't show up right away, haul it to a parking spot and they can pick it up later. As far as I know, the railroad usually doesn't own the transloading facility but rather the trucking company does and so any warehousing involved would be owned by them.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

Number 1. What is it?

Go to the U.S. Patent Office website at....

http://www.uspto.gov/

......and search for patent numbers 6,510,800 and/or 6,546,878. Basically, it is a set of well cars with a mini spine body in between to handle 20' containers in the intermediate position.

For a look at six and eight axle freight cars e.g. the "Rail Whales", go to.....

http://railwhales.railspot.com/

[Wdlgln005]

I'd only worry about Amtrak trains on high density passenger corridors. One train each way for the Empire Builder should be no problem. There could be some adjustment in stations for the freight to stay off the passenger lines, and keep passengers out of slow yards. I'd build some higher speed connections out of major cities like Chicago so it dosen't take an hour to go 50 miles from downtown.

[jeaton]

Andrew

I believe there are a number of transloading operations around the country where carloads of bulk materials are transfered to trucks for final delivery. I think this is, or at least was, an effictive way to move plastic pellets to small plastic product manufacturers who were off rail. I am sure other products have also moved this way.

When it comes to finished products, i.e., anything that is packaged ready for sale to the end user, the transloading is performed at warehouse or breakbulk facilities that are owned by,or under contract to the manufacturer, wholesaler, or retailer. Ownership of warehouse facilities is very diverse and the business is very competitive. These facilities will receive carload or truckload shipments from multiple manufacturers and reload the products in trucks for delivery to retailers. Because of the handling and storage costs associated with this process, it is sometimes less expensive to ship direct from the manufacture to the retail store, but often this only works when full truck loads can be shipped either to one consignee or with multiple stops in a peddler operation.

Here is my point. There is a very large infrastructure in place to get retail products to the point of sale. In turn, there is a large and effective management force that making the decisions as to the most cost effective way to move the goods. Frankly, I do not believe the railoads would want to get into the warhousing and final distribution end of the chain. First, it is difficult to make good return on the investment in this business, and second, it won't do anything to increase the business moving on rails. So, what is the point?

Jay