dehusmanThe proposal is to steel wheel intermodal cars from Chicago to Souix City, ground them there. Are they loaded in? Will they be loaded out? One way loads doesn't pay very much. It requires having a facility, enough ground space to park the trailers/containers/chassis, a loading/unloading machine (with a back up for down time), physical security (fences,lights), human security (guards/gate people), and an operating staff (loaders, hostlers, clerical, billing, management). The alternative is to haul loads to a larger hub (Omaha/Council Bluffs or Des Moines), ground them, dray them to Souix City. All the infrastructure is in place and the additional costs are all incremental based on volume. If you serve Souix City with one train, then the customer has one option. They are going to ship to or from Chicago. If you serve out of a hub on a major corridor there are many more options for routing. If the same or better service for the same or better rates can be provided for the dray option as a the local load option, why does the customer care which option the railroad uses? I have heard numerous proposals for local ramps, the flaw in virtually all of them is they are entirely focused on getting the trailer on the car and getting the car outside the city limits. There is no understanding of what happens to the car once it reaches the class 1's track. It is possible that draying a trailer 200 miles to a larger ramp can be a day or more faster than an all steel route that has to travel hundereds of miles to get to a network. A small city in SE Arkansas was proposing an intermodal hub. They were served by a shortline that connected with a class 1 railroad. Sounds good so far? Problem is it connected with a N-S line with no intermodal product on it. The cars would have to go about 50 miles north or 200 miles south to connect with a line that has an intermodal network on it. At those junctions there is no existing ramp or work, all the current trains are through. To make the plan work the railroad would have to add stops. Either of those locations would provide options to Los Angeles, and either Memphis or New Orleans. On the other hand if they dray the trailers 100 miles to a major ramp they can make connections with trains to Chicago, New Orleans, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle. It involves no extra stops to any trains and all the moves would be direct to destination with no connections. Which option has the least opportunity for failure and thus highest reliability? Which option provides the most flexibility and gives the CUSTOMER the most options? Which option requires the least capital expense? Which option incurs the least in incremental variable cost due to additonal work events and train miles?
Before letting this thread slip off into oblivion, I'm going to try to give a better answer to this post than I did last time I tried. But first, a quote from Michael Ward, CSX Chairman and CEO:
"We'll look to intermodal for growth. Right now we're moving about 3.2 million domestic containers per year. Out average haul is 525 miles. It's about the same for NS. There's plenty of potential out there for both of us. We also think the length of the average haul will go down. Truckers are benefiting from lower fuel prices, but they've still got a lot to deal with. They're putting in electronic log books to monitor hours of service. Intermodal will definitely become a bigger piece of our industry." (This is from an interview published in the May, 2016 issue of Trains. Emphasis added by myself.) 525 miles and going down! No wonder they have closely spaced IM terminals.
How much drayage costs can be absorbed into a dock to dock intermodal move is heavily dependent on the length of haul. More dray cost can be absorbed by a 2,000 mile move than by a 1,000 mile move, etc. We're talking about movements from Iowa and eastern Nebraska to eastern/southeast population centers. Storm Lake, IA, a major protein production center, is 1,237 highway miles to Jersey City, NJ. I've got the truckload refrigerated rate at $3,363.28/load. That's $2.72/mile inclusive of a $0.17/mile fuel surcharge. The dray from Storm Lake to Council Bluffs is 260 miles round trip. At only $2.00/mile this will cost $520.00. That's 15% of the available money just to get the load to the origin rail terminal. The railroad can do better. They can't put an intermodal facility at every shipper, but when there is a major center of production, such as Storm Lake, and it's on the railroad's 'Main Line', serving it with a low cost IM terminal is going to be less costly than a $520 dray bill.
Intermodal terminals need not be costly and need not employ such things as: "a loading/unloading machine (with a back up for down time), physical security (fences,lights), human security (guards/gate people), and an operating staff (loaders, hostlers, clerical, billing, management". All you need is a contract with a local drayage company. They'll dray, load (We'll use circus loading. It's efficient for the volumes involved), unload, and bill for a lot less than $520/load. You will need some fencing, lights, sensors and cameras. But there will be no need for someone on the gate. Once your contracted drayage company accepts the load, it's yours. No need for a gate check in. Here's a CP IM facility in Milton, ON. Does this look expensive? (Remember, the rail cars don't go east of Chicago. East of Chicago the containers will be operated in existing double stack service.)
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=3180599
As has been pointed out, there are westbound loads available to produce revenue in both directions. But there are going to be some empty miles. There isn't a transportation company in the world that doesn't have to move empty equipment around. The goal is to minimize empty, non revenue miles, but you cannot eliminate them.
One final throught, I suspect that one reason intermodal service to/from Iowa isn't on CN's radar is because the line cannot clear domestic double stacks. Well, double stacks are wonderfully efficient, but when they cannot be used it's time to find another way. Don't just give up and let the truckers have the business.
greyhounds As to why I want to use rubber tire interchange in Chicago: 1) It's much quicker 2) It's very efficient 3) The NS and CSX both have multiple IM terminals in Chicago. Each terminal originates trains to different destinations. To do a rail interchange you'd have to unload the containers at the CN terminal, sort them by destination, then reload them on multiple transfer runs to several different terminals. It's better to just let a local driver take the load to the proper terminal. It'll be done in two hours.
1) It's much quicker
2) It's very efficient
3) The NS and CSX both have multiple IM terminals in Chicago. Each terminal originates trains to different destinations. To do a rail interchange you'd have to unload the containers at the CN terminal, sort them by destination, then reload them on multiple transfer runs to several different terminals. It's better to just let a local driver take the load to the proper terminal. It'll be done in two hours.
Could it be because CN has to go though Chicago to reach points south, while BNSF and UP can basically bypass Chicago to get to points south?
Even though CN has it's own bypass to some degree with the J.
But BNSF in particular has more direct routes to both Memphis and DFW from MSP.
But even a look at the BNSF Intermodal Network Map shows a heavy concentration on east-west versus north-south.
http://www.bnsf.com/customers/pdf/maps/intermodal-map-large.pdf
greyhounds daveklepper What about other railroads if CN lacks the sense to be interested? And why drayage ini Chicago? Especially if it is CN. The eastbound can terminate and the westbound originate in the same yard that CN uses for its existing Chicago intermodal operation, and the intermodal transfer runs the same to CSX and NS that exist now, assuming there is at least one each day for each. Or do NS and/or CSX have trains directly to and from the CN Chicago yard that could handle this additional traffic with minimum delay? No other railroad serves the Iowa/Nebraska "Meat Belt" for eastbound loads like the CN does. In fact, the old IC's Iowa Division was referred to as "The Main Line of Meat". (For those younger than 65, the IC called itself "The Main Line of Mid America.") The UP has great opportunities for meat to the west coast. This would produce an empty reefer in California or Washington. That's an opportunity for an eastbound transcon perishable load. As to why I want to use rubber tire interchange in Chicago: 1) It's much quicker 2) It's very efficient 3) The NS and CSX both have multiple IM terminals in Chicago. Each terminal originates trains to different destinations. To do a rail interchange you'd have to unload the containers at the CN terminal, sort them by destination, then reload them on multiple transfer runs to several different terminals. It's better to just let a local driver take the load to the proper terminal. It'll be done in two hours.
daveklepper What about other railroads if CN lacks the sense to be interested? And why drayage ini Chicago? Especially if it is CN. The eastbound can terminate and the westbound originate in the same yard that CN uses for its existing Chicago intermodal operation, and the intermodal transfer runs the same to CSX and NS that exist now, assuming there is at least one each day for each. Or do NS and/or CSX have trains directly to and from the CN Chicago yard that could handle this additional traffic with minimum delay?
No other railroad serves the Iowa/Nebraska "Meat Belt" for eastbound loads like the CN does. In fact, the old IC's Iowa Division was referred to as "The Main Line of Meat". (For those younger than 65, the IC called itself "The Main Line of Mid America.") The UP has great opportunities for meat to the west coast. This would produce an empty reefer in California or Washington. That's an opportunity for an eastbound transcon perishable load.
As to why I want to use rubber tire interchange in Chicago:
Having grown up not far from the IC/ICG/CC/CN Iowa Division mainline in eastern Iowa, all I can do is simply underscore everything that Greyhounds has said wrt the fact that CN is vastly underutilizing this physical plant and if there was ever a way to increase revenue on it, this would be it. But aside on that, the only other thing I want to add is that I think that we may be missing out on potential north-south corridors here. I'll never understand why there isn't a push to expand intermodal options in a corridor like Twin Cities - Dallas/Ft Worth or Twin Cities - Memphis/New Orleans.
greyhounds Rubber Tire Interchange with Thousands of Trucks going on the highwars of Chicagoland at the same time! Better get that Great Lakes Basin Railroad up and running matter of fact they just applied for a Enviromental permit 2 weeks a ago with the STB daveklepper What about other railroads if CN lacks the sense to be interested? And why drayage ini Chicago? Especially if it is CN. The eastbound can terminate and the westbound originate in the same yard that CN uses for its existing Chicago intermodal operation, and the intermodal transfer runs the same to CSX and NS that exist now, assuming there is at least one each day for each. Or do NS and/or CSX have trains directly to and from the CN Chicago yard that could handle this additional traffic with minimum delay? No other railroad serves the Iowa/Nebraska "Meat Belt" for eastbound loads like the CN does. In fact, the old IC's Iowa Division was referred to as "The Main Line of Meat". (For those younger than 65, the IC called itself "The Main Line of Mid America.") The UP has great opportunities for meat to the west coast. This would produce an empty reefer in California or Washington. That's an opportunity for an eastbound transcon perishable load. As to why I want to use rubber tire interchange in Chicago: 1) It's much quicker 2) It's very efficient 3) The NS and CSX both have multiple IM terminals in Chicago. Each terminal originates trains to different destinations. To do a rail interchange you'd have to unload the containers at the CN terminal, sort them by destination, then reload them on multiple transfer runs to several different terminals. It's better to just let a local driver take the load to the proper terminal. It'll be done in two hours.
Rubber Tire Interchange with Thousands of Trucks going on the highwars of Chicagoland at the same time! Better get that Great Lakes Basin Railroad up and running matter of fact they just applied for a Enviromental permit 2 weeks a ago with the STB
What about preblocking the containers and cars when loading and when assembling the train and then having CN-CSX run throughs to their main midwest intermodal yard (blocking on its name, but it can transfer containers easily car to car), and then do the same for NS if they have a similar intermodal center? Only two destinations on the CN, CSX and NX. or possibly a third one, Chicago, for local area business.
Sounds good. If the business grew enough, maybe then there could be a run through to NYC, increasing the profits?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
daveklepperWhat about other railroads if CN lacks the sense to be interested? And why drayage ini Chicago? Especially if it is CN. The eastbound can terminate and the westbound originate in the same yard that CN uses for its existing Chicago intermodal operation, and the intermodal transfer runs the same to CSX and NS that exist now, assuming there is at least one each day for each. Or do NS and/or CSX have trains directly to and from the CN Chicago yard that could handle this additional traffic with minimum delay?
MidlandMikeWould most of the units coming out of Souix City be refrigerated? If so , would they be appropriate for carrying backhaul, like packaging material?
Yes, they would be appropriate for such use.
It happens all the time. Perishable cargo one way, dry freight the other way. Works like a charm.
Dakguy201While I agree with the overall content, a backhaul to the area is not entirely out of the question. For example, the Lincoln NE SMSA is 130 rail or road miles from Sioux City and on the BNSF Chicago/Denver mainline. It is a metropolitan area of 300,000 with "industries" (state government and education) that produce no physical goods. It has to be badly unbalanced with inbound loads.
You're right. And I should have been more explicit with the backhaul opportunities.
Lincoln, Omaha/Council Bluffs, Sioux City and Sioux Falls all consume goods that need to be moved in. I could have done that better.
Would most of the units coming out of Souix City be refrigerated? If so , would they be appropriate for carrying backhaul, like packaging material?
greyhounds Sioux City is kind of an epicenter of meat production/processing. (A new, additional pork plant will open there in 2017. This new plant will have the capacity to slaughter 11,000 hogs per shift.) NW Iowa has also recently developed as a concentration of egg production. A good portion of the Iowa eggs are shipped out as processed egg products. Many consumers of this protein live over 1,000 miles away on the coasts where US population concentrates. I've gone over the volumes available before. They are significant. (I'll work them up again if you so desire.) As has been pointed out, there is currently no truck competitive rail service available to serve this long haul, high volume market. (I'll get an example of the current trucking charges soon.) I'm simply proposing such a rail service. The proposal is simply to operate truck competive IM trains between Chicago and Sioux City/Omaha. Westbound the train splits at Ft. Dodge and the sections continue to Sioux City and Council Bluffs (Omaha). Eastbound the trains combine at Ft. Dodge. Eastbound loads of protein connect at Chicago (rubber tire interchange) to existing IM trains which service the LARGE population from Miami to Montreal. Westbound loads to Omaha, Sioux City, Sioux Falls are going to be an issue. But the truckers have the same problem and must put their empty mile costs in their eastbound rates. The railroad can do the same. Yes, there is a need to look at the alternative of draying to an established terminal. But with the volumes involved drayage is going to get to be a very large pure cash outlay. The numbers I have looked at favor IM terminals in Sioux City, Storm Lake, Council Bluffs, Waterloo and Denison, IA. The CN in Iowa is a greatly underutilized railroad. It needs to take a good long, hard look at what is produced in its service area and come up with a way to make some money hauling that production to the consumers.
Sioux City is kind of an epicenter of meat production/processing. (A new, additional pork plant will open there in 2017. This new plant will have the capacity to slaughter 11,000 hogs per shift.) NW Iowa has also recently developed as a concentration of egg production. A good portion of the Iowa eggs are shipped out as processed egg products.
Many consumers of this protein live over 1,000 miles away on the coasts where US population concentrates. I've gone over the volumes available before. They are significant. (I'll work them up again if you so desire.) As has been pointed out, there is currently no truck competitive rail service available to serve this long haul, high volume market. (I'll get an example of the current trucking charges soon.) I'm simply proposing such a rail service.
The proposal is simply to operate truck competive IM trains between Chicago and Sioux City/Omaha. Westbound the train splits at Ft. Dodge and the sections continue to Sioux City and Council Bluffs (Omaha). Eastbound the trains combine at Ft. Dodge. Eastbound loads of protein connect at Chicago (rubber tire interchange) to existing IM trains which service the LARGE population from Miami to Montreal.
Westbound loads to Omaha, Sioux City, Sioux Falls are going to be an issue. But the truckers have the same problem and must put their empty mile costs in their eastbound rates. The railroad can do the same.
Yes, there is a need to look at the alternative of draying to an established terminal. But with the volumes involved drayage is going to get to be a very large pure cash outlay. The numbers I have looked at favor IM terminals in Sioux City, Storm Lake, Council Bluffs, Waterloo and Denison, IA.
The CN in Iowa is a greatly underutilized railroad. It needs to take a good long, hard look at what is produced in its service area and come up with a way to make some money hauling that production to the consumers.
While I agree with the overall content, a backhaul to the area is not entirely out of the question. For example, the Lincoln NE SMSA is 130 rail or road miles from Sioux City and on the BNSF Chicago/Denver mainline. It is a metropolitan area of 300,000 with "industries" (state government and education) that produce no physical goods. It has to be badly unbalanced with inbound loads.
greyhoundsAnd what we're talking about here is red meat which has a production concentration in Iowa (pork) ...
What about other railroads if CN lacks the sense to be interested?
And why drayage ini Chicago? Especially if it is CN. The eastbound can terminate and the westbound originate in the same yard that CN uses for its existing Chicago intermodal operation, and the intermodal transfer runs the same to CSX and NS that exist now, assuming there is at least one each day for each. Or do NS and/or CSX have trains directly to and from the CN Chicago yard that could handle this additional traffic with minimum delay?
dehusmanI would question the "need" of those smaller intermodal terminals. The proposal is to steel wheel intermodal cars from Chicago to Souix City, ground them there. Are they loaded in? Will they be loaded out? One way loads doesn't pay very much. It requires having a facility, enough ground space to park the trailers/containers/chassis, a loading/unloading machine (with a back up for down time), physical security (fences,lights), human security (guards/gate people), and an operating staff (loaders, hostlers, clerical, billing, management). The alternative is to haul loads to a larger hub (Omaha/Council Bluffs or Des Moines), ground them, dray them to Souix City. All the infrastructure is in place and the additional costs are all incremental based on volume. If you serve Souix City with one train, then the customer has one option. They are going to ship to or from Chicago. If you serve out of a hub on a major corridor there are many more options for routing. If the same or better service for the same or better rates can be provided for the dray option as a the local load option, why does the customer care which option the railroad uses? I have heard numerous proposals for local ramps, the flaw in virtually all of them is they are entirely focused on getting the trailer on the car and getting the car outside the city limits. There is no understanding of what happens to the car once it reaches the class 1's track. It is possible that draying a trailer 200 miles to a larger ramp can be a day or more faster than an all steel route that has to travel hundereds of miles to get to a network. A small city in SE Arkansas was proposing an intermodal hub. They were served by a shortline that connected with a class 1 railroad. Sounds good so far? Problem is it connected with a N-S line with no intermodal product on it. The cars would have to go about 50 miles north or 200 miles south to connect with a line that has an intermodal network on it. At those junctions there is no existing ramp or work, all the current trains are through. To make the plan work the railroad would have to add stops. Either of those locations would provide options to Los Angeles, and either Memphis or New Orleans. On the other hand if they dray the trailers 100 miles to a major ramp they can make connections with trains to Chicago, New Orleans, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle. It involves no extra stops to any trains and all the moves would be direct to destination with no connections. Which option has the least opportunity for failure and thus highest reliability? Which option provides the most flexibility and gives the CUSTOMER the most options? Which option requires the least capital expense? Which option incurs the least in incremental variable cost due to additonal work events and train miles?
I would urge you not to judge all proposals for new IM services by some local government spawned turkeys you have seen in the past.
It all starts with the market for freight services. I don't know what the small town in Arkansas was planning on moving, but the Sioux City/Omaha service proposal is based on a solid, growing, high volume, long haul market potential.
Food production in the US is remarkably concentrated with regards as to what is produced where. For example, 59% of the apples grown in the US come from Washington. Chicken concentrates in the southeast. And what we're talking about here is red meat which has a production concentration in Iowa (pork) and eastern Nebraska (beef and pork). Sioux City is kind of an epicenter of meat production/processing. (A new, additional pork plant will open there in 2017. This new plant will have the capacity to slaughter 11,000 hogs per shift.) NW Iowa has also recently developed as a concentration of egg production. A good portion of the Iowa eggs are shipped out as processed egg products.
dehusman The alternative is to haul loads to a larger hub (Omaha/Council Bluffs or Des Moines), ground them, dray them to Souix City. All the infrastructure is in place and the additional costs are all incremental based on volume.
The alternative is to haul loads to a larger hub (Omaha/Council Bluffs or Des Moines), ground them, dray them to Souix City. All the infrastructure is in place and the additional costs are all incremental based on volume.
It would be better to use the Omaha/Council Bluffs IM facility. There is no IM facility in Des Moines, or anywhere else in central Iowa. Iowa Interstate used to have one in Newton but they closed it (and the one near Iowa City) some years back.
Jeff
I would question the "need" of those smaller intermodal terminals.
The proposal is to steel wheel intermodal cars from Chicago to Souix City, ground them there. Are they loaded in? Will they be loaded out? One way loads doesn't pay very much. It requires having a facility, enough ground space to park the trailers/containers/chassis, a loading/unloading machine (with a back up for down time), physical security (fences,lights), human security (guards/gate people), and an operating staff (loaders, hostlers, clerical, billing, management).
If you serve Souix City with one train, then the customer has one option. They are going to ship to or from Chicago. If you serve out of a hub on a major corridor there are many more options for routing.
If the same or better service for the same or better rates can be provided for the dray option as a the local load option, why does the customer care which option the railroad uses? I have heard numerous proposals for local ramps, the flaw in virtually all of them is they are entirely focused on getting the trailer on the car and getting the car outside the city limits. There is no understanding of what happens to the car once it reaches the class 1's track. It is possible that draying a trailer 200 miles to a larger ramp can be a day or more faster than an all steel route that has to travel hundereds of miles to get to a network.
A small city in SE Arkansas was proposing an intermodal hub. They were served by a shortline that connected with a class 1 railroad. Sounds good so far? Problem is it connected with a N-S line with no intermodal product on it. The cars would have to go about 50 miles north or 200 miles south to connect with a line that has an intermodal network on it. At those junctions there is no existing ramp or work, all the current trains are through. To make the plan work the railroad would have to add stops. Either of those locations would provide options to Los Angeles, and either Memphis or New Orleans.
On the other hand if they dray the trailers 100 miles to a major ramp they can make connections with trains to Chicago, New Orleans, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle. It involves no extra stops to any trains and all the moves would be direct to destination with no connections.
Which option has the least opportunity for failure and thus highest reliability? Which option provides the most flexibility and gives the CUSTOMER the most options? Which option requires the least capital expense? Which option incurs the least in incremental variable cost due to additonal work events and train miles?
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Convicted One greyhounds Carloads were down 5.7% That appears to suggest a "story within a story" imported loads continue to trend up, while domestic loads continue to tend down.
greyhounds Carloads were down 5.7%
That appears to suggest a "story within a story" imported loads continue to trend up, while domestic loads continue to tend down.
Not all intermodal traffic is imported goods. I see quite a bit of 53' containers on the rails these days. Those are all domestic goods.
Conrail had a Piggyback ramp with circus loading just about in every town that they served over 50,000 people from the 1970 to 1990. I remember one in Elmira NY. The issue here is do the railroads have to serve the common small buisness? I mean gee we paid our hard earned tax dollers to bail them out right? If Conrail had failed the whole railroad industry would have been dead by 1982.
Come to think of it a couple of years ago I did see containers sitting in the water while taking the Late Short Limited Westbound
Convicted One zugmann Thanks for the info. Were those trains any more prone to "string lining" than a conventional train?
zugmann
Thanks for the info. Were those trains any more prone to "string lining" than a conventional train?
We do know they were able to be blown off the Sandusky Bay bridge.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Convicted OneThanks for the info. Were those trains any more prone to "string lining" than a conventional train?
I wouldn't know. Greyhounds would be a better one to ask.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
zugmannbut there were a few cases of trailers being ripped apart, coming off their bogies, or rubber wheels dropping down on the main. Whether it was due to trailer fatigue, train handling, or a combination of both I don't know.
PNWRMNM than the loss of revenue in the roadrailer case.
I seem to recall discussion a while back, stating that auto parts loads tend to "cube-out" before they max out the weight limitation, so perhaps that is a factor in why NS is willing to continue serving the auto corridor with TC?
schlimmWhat is preventing some of this from happening? Inertia? Lack of skills? Lack of imagination?
I'd opine a little of all, plus a belief that the ROI isn't there (or isn't large enough to warrant attention).
When the ROI on some of these lesser traffic sources starts to look attractive, you'll see movement.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Very specific and pragmatic. What is preventing some of this from happening? Inertia? Lack of skills? Lack of imagination? The coal business surely isn't coming back at the same level, if that. Oil is sporadic. Ethanol may come to an end also. Imports?
schlimmBut why have the railroads reduced the number of those terminals so greatly? Centralization is efficient, of course, but at the expense of much longer drayage charges to and from potential sources and targets.
When the IC and GM&O merged they had 106 intermodal "Terminals". The only way to serve that many terminals was to put the TOFC on local freights. This destroyed the ability to compete with motor freight service and also killed equipment utilization. The 106 terminals were largely the result (once again) of inane government regulation which greatly limited the distances a railroad could use a truck to move a load to destination. The inane government also required shipment of two trailers at a time to get to a truck competitive rate level. So, we had to get two trailers at a time by the same shipper into a place such as Carbondale. We didn't have much success, and the excess terminals destroyed intermodal profitibility. Get them shut down.
Having said that, I reason that the railroads now need additional IM container terminals. Our plan was based on union excess crew requirements. We had to use at least 16 crew person days to get a train from Chicago to Sioux City. When you've got to make those payments you want to get as much work out of a train as possible. Load it up with everything you can and have it do all the work you can. This again generally destroyed the ability to be service competitive with motor freight.
This has changed, but I don't think railroad strategy has adjusted to the change. Four crewmembers (not 16) can now take a train from Sioux City to Chicago. There need to be container terminals in production areas such as Yakima, WA, Sioux City and Storm Lake, IA, etc. I'll fault my oft cited railroad weakness of poor market development for the lack of container terminals where they're needed.
The Chippewa Falls ramp is intended to serve the 3-million-population Twin Cities metropolitan area. It is about a 90 minute dray on 4 lane Interstate-grade roads.
schlimm I believe in the days of TOFC, there were simple unloading facilities (an old flatcar with one truck removed on a siding) in medium -sized towns all over. I notice now there is not one IM facility in many entire states. There are none in Milwaukee or anywhere else in WI.
I believe in the days of TOFC, there were simple unloading facilities (an old flatcar with one truck removed on a siding) in medium -sized towns all over. I notice now there is not one IM facility in many entire states. There are none in Milwaukee or anywhere else in WI.
The CN has two intermodal terminals in WI, located in Chippewa Falls and Arcadia.
http://www.cn.ca/en/our-business/our-network/intermodal-terminals
The terminal in Arcadia appears to be located next to Ashley Funiture's factory.
An "expensive model collector"
In contrast, take a look at the NS System Overview map here, and then click on the Intermodal icon at the lower left. You'll see there are quite few IM terminals, with many states having 2 or more:
http://www.nscorp.com/content/nscorp/en/system-overview.html
There are 2 labeled in the Harrisburg, PA area - Harrisburg and Rutherford (ex-RDG yard only a few miles away) - plus one about 60 miles SW at Greencastle (and CSX's nearby, too).
But what I don't understand is why when you 'mouse over' the icon for the one just west of Columbus, the label comes up as "Ayer, MA" . . .
- Paul North.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.