schlimmIs that made with the assumption that one container load = one Roadrailer?
I'd change that to read: "It is made with the 'Knowledge' that one container load = one RoadRailer." In terms of loadability the two pieces of equipment are basically interchangeable.
Even 20' containers are = one RoadRailer. Twenties are used for high density, heavy loading freight. They minimize the space used on a ship (They're basically all international boxes.) They don't waste the space on a ship when the shipment can fit in to 20' instead of 40'. Due to highway weight limits a RoadRailer will carry the same weight as a 20' on chassis.
Thanks for the clarification!
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
http://www.nscorp.com/mktgpublic/MKTGApp
These figures are all 1st Quarter to date = Year To Date to 03-05-2016; I've done the math to convert to a daily average (divide by 65 = 31 Jan. + 29 Feb. + 05 Mar.):
Container 50,059 = 770
Trailer (-36,477)* = (-561)
___________________________
Total Intermodal 13,582 = 209
Considering that containers often load 2 per well (double-stacked) but trailers usally load only 1 per well, these changes roughly amount to adding 3 container trains (@ 250 containers) per day, losing 4+ trailer trains (@ 125 trailers) per day, for a net of a little less than 1 additional container train per day.
So the net effect is NS has 1 less train start (3 of containers - 4 of trailers) per day, but adds the revenue from almost an additional trains' worth of containers.
[*That's how it is in the NS report - "-" symbol, parens, & red - so is that a triple redundacy ???]
This might be the kind of added profitability that fends off CP's attempts at a merger and change in NS' management.
- Paul North.
greyhoundsRemember the goal. The train mile is a cost element. It is "A production run" for a railroad. The railroad needs to aggregate units of sale (revenue loads) so as to exceed train mile costs. Adding "non-interoperable" equipment (such as RoadRailers) to the network greatly increases the difficulty of the needed aggregation. The result is added train miles (cost) to move revenue loads that can simply be added to other trains instead. (no added train mile cost) In short, it's more efficient (profitable) to move the freight in containers than to move it in RoadRailers.
I see, thanks for your efforts sorting that out.
Convicted One greyhounds I see, thanks for your efforts sorting that out.
greyhounds
This is particularly ironic, because of course one of the 'original' reasons for the original C&O version of the "RoadRailer" idea was low-tare-weight vehicles that could be added as 'tagalongs' to existing trains to maximize the ton-miles per train. One 'classic' use for this if I remember a recent discussion correctly was on IC passenger trains.
It is on C&O's "Pere Marquette" passenger trains that I remember them, from photos in 1960s TRAINS.
WizlishThis is particularly ironic, because of course one of the 'original' reasons for the original C&O version of the "RoadRailer" idea was low-tare-weight vehicles that could be added as 'tagalongs' to existing trains to maximize the ton-miles per train.
I suspect there to be multiple motives at play here, not the least of which being Railroad's decreasing interest in being anything other than wholesale suppliers of transportation moving large unit train type shipments long distance.
For instance, if you were Joe Doaks of the Doaks Widget Manufacturing company and you wanted Triple Crown to show up at your dock three times per week and pick up loaded trailers, that would mean someone would have to keep track of you,and (**shudder**) actually care about your operations and what they might do to help you. Far too much to ask for just three stinking trailers a week!!
Now, if you happen to be Ford, otoh.....
Convicted One Wizlish This is particularly ironic, because of course one of the 'original' reasons for the original C&O version of the "RoadRailer" idea was low-tare-weight vehicles that could be added as 'tagalongs' to existing trains to maximize the ton-miles per train. I suspect there to be multiple motives at play here, not the least of which being Railroad's decreasing interest in being anything other than wholesale suppliers of transportation moving large unit train type shipments long distance. For instance, if you were Joe Doaks of the Doaks Widget Manufacturing company and you wanted Triple Crown to show up at your dock three times per week and pick up loaded trailers, that would mean someone would have to keep track of you,and (**shudder**) actually care about your operations and what they might do to help you. Far too much to ask for just three stinking trailers a week!! Now, if you happen to be Ford, otoh.....
Wizlish This is particularly ironic, because of course one of the 'original' reasons for the original C&O version of the "RoadRailer" idea was low-tare-weight vehicles that could be added as 'tagalongs' to existing trains to maximize the ton-miles per train.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
WizlishOne 'classic' use for this if I remember a recent discussion correctly was on IC passenger trains.
AFAIR, it was Flexivans tacked on the end of Iowa Division passenger trains on the IC. But Greyhounds would be the best source for that.
Murphy Siding you make it sound as if the railroad should be spending more on obtaining those 3 carloads a week than what they receive on the bottom line. If you ran the railroad, would you?
I guess what it comes down to, is how strongly do you wish your business to grow? When times are good, you don't reach as hard for marginal business. When you become "highly motivated" (*cough -cough**) you get more creative, "leave no stone unturned" etc.
These are supposedly becoming "lean times" with the demise of coal, and other traffic (if you believe everything you read here, anyway) So, it just stands to reason if you need to supplement your revenue stream, and truck drivers are making money by taking three loads a week from a particular customer, ASSUMING YOU ARE AT LEAST AS COMPETENT as those truckers, YOU SHOULD be able to make money off those loads as well.
So, it's a matter of how highly you are motivated, and motivation is usually a creature of need.
Back when I was doing sales work, if you were exceeding your quota, you could get away with murder. But when the company was on lean times, the biggest mistake you could possibly make (organizationally) was to "not care enough" about finding new sources of revenue. You beat the bushes to a pulp, or you didn't last very long. (it was a salary + bonus gig, so you never starved, but you HAD to care)
Convicted One Murphy Siding you make it sound as if the railroad should be spending more on obtaining those 3 carloads a week than what they receive on the bottom line. If you ran the railroad, would you? I guess what it comes down to, is how strongly do you wish your business to grow? When times are good, you don't reach as hard for marginal business. When you become "highly motivated" (*cough -cough**) you get more creative, "leave no stone unturned" etc. These are supposedly becoming "lean times" with the demise of coal, and other traffic (if you believe everything you read here, anyway) So, it just stands to reason if you need to supplement your revenue stream, and truck drivers are making money by taking three loads a week from a particular customer, ASSUMING YOU ARE AT LEAST AS COMPETENT as those truckers, YOU SHOULD be able to make money off those loads as well. So, it's a matter of how highly you are motivated, and motivation is usually a creature of need. Back when I was doing sales work, if you were exceeding your quota, you could get away with murder. But when the company was on lean times, the biggest mistake you could possibly make (organizationally) was to "not care enough" about finding new sources of revenue. You beat the bushes to a pulp, or you didn't last very long. (it was a salary + bonus gig, so you never starved, but you HAD to care)
Murphy Siding having business that lost you money
"make it up on volume"
Murphy SidingYou don't know if the railroad can make money with those same loads while being competitive with the truckers' prices
Actually I believe I hinted that they can't in my earlier post lamenting their indifference to Doaks Manufacturing.
(confession) My "at least as competent" comment was one of sarcasm.
I think the fallacy is to suggest that the railroads aren't trying to find business. We don't know that. It's pretty easy for us to look at it from our perspective.
In railroads, demand for transportation is more elastic than supply (capacity). So in the good times you still can only supply as much as you have capacity for.
MidlandMike In railroads, demand for transportation is more elastic than supply (capacity). So in the good times you still can only supply as much as you have capacity for.
Capacity can be elastic to some extent also - bigger trains come to mind.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Until you have one too many trains longer than the available sidings, then your "elastic capacity" snaps back to zero, for a while anyway. I'm not aware of a "triple-saw-by" manuver.
rrnut282 Until you have one too many trains longer than the available sidings, then your "elastic capacity" snaps back to zero, for a while anyway. I'm not aware of a "triple-saw-by" manuver.
You do have to use some 'uncommon' common sense in how you operate large trains - nominally in one direction to permit opposing trains to clear in sidings.
Murphy Siding I think the fallacy is to suggest that the railroads aren't trying to find business.
I think it is a fallacy to presume that the railroads shouldn't go after business because "truckers are taking the loads (on the cheap) as backhauls.
Bars are full of salesmen better at rationalizing why they can't make a sale, than closing deals (funny how often it works that way)
Convicted One Murphy Siding I think the fallacy is to suggest that the railroads aren't trying to find business. I think it is a fallacy to presume that the railroads shouldn't go after business because "truckers are taking the loads (on the cheap) as backhauls. Bars are full of salesmen better at rationalizing why they can't make a sale, than closing deals (funny how often it works that way)
Convicted OneBars are full of salesmen better at rationalizing why they can't make a sale, than closing deals (funny how often it works that way)
"Glengarry Glen Ross" has some great lines dealing with that.
Leads, they need good leads.
Electroliner 1935 Leads, they need good leads.
Sometimes that takes thinking outside the box, and all too often thinking outside the box is a punishable offense...
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...
Murphy Siding I'd really be interested in how you'd go about competing with truckers using small shippers to fill their backhauls. Do tell. I'll take notes.
Well, I kinda thought we were talking about business that Triple Crown once had (That the railroad evidently has lost it's passion for).
I wouldn't think that the (previous) Triple crown business was "backhauls" to begin with, would you? The point I thought I was trying to make was that Doaks Widgets LLP is a small volume shipper, and that the railroad (ostensibly) only has interest in large volume shippers. (The Fords, and other potential "wholesale" users)
Speculating: perhaps the sales force has been downsized? It takes more sales reps to follow the needs of hundreds of small shippers, whereas one customer offering 200 loads a month can be served by one rep? I don't know that to be the case, but something like that could be a factor.
Convicted One Murphy Siding I'd really be interested in how you'd go about competing with truckers using small shippers to fill their backhauls. Do tell. I'll take notes. Well, I kinda thought we were talking about business that Triple Crown once had (That the railroad evidently has lost it's passion for). I wouldn't think that the (previous) Triple crown business was "backhauls" to begin with, would you? The point I thought I was trying to make was that Doaks Widgets LLP is a small volume shipper, and that the railroad (ostensibly) only has interest in large volume shippers. (The Fords, and other potential "wholesale" users) Speculating: perhaps the sales force has been downsized? It takes more sales reps to follow the needs of hundreds of small shippers, whereas one customer offering 200 loads a month can be served by one rep? I don't know that to be the case, but something like that could be a factor.
Weren't the roadrailers and bogies hitting the end of their service lives? To continue serving the Widget company with roadrailers would take a large investment to replace the fleet. And I don't think there were any special requirements that neccesitated the widget company using roadrailers vs. conventional TOFC.
Roadrailers were a neat idea, but they seem to just be too specialized, time consuming, and fragile to mix in with the current standard railroad practices.
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
The Doaks Manufacturings of the world/U.S. are the companies that what used to be known as Intermodal Marketing Companies, Third Party Shippers and/or Logistics Providers are more than happy to serve. I worked for an IMC/Third Party Logistics company for 17 yrs, one that eventually became part of Pacer Global Logistics(which itself was just purchased by a much larger company last year, after sellling the Pacer Stacktrain business to UP, mistake in my opinion but that's an entirely different subject).
Anyways, RoadRailers could be tacked onto the end of any intermodal train if needed, but it was easier to just run them as a separate train because the carriers(don't forget Swift Intermodals RoadRailer service on the BNSF between Los Angeles, CA and Portland, OR/Seattle, WA) didn't want to add the paved over trackage to their existing intermodal yards when they had areas that it was easy to just pave over a branch or mainline and presto, instant RoadRailer ramp.
The RoadRailer is a perfect piece of equipment for the Postal Service, it would kill two birds with one stone, so to speak. USPS spends a fortune on OTR service between mixing/sorting centers, imagine how much money they could save if all that mail was shipped in RoadRailers door to door between the large bulk/sorting centers. Just watch some of the OTR trailers sometimes, they'll have U.S. Mail stenciled on them, but be a private carrier(such as Matheson), the drivers could them just become more localized pickup/delivery of the RoadRailers from the railroad to the bulk/sorting center...and the USPS would save untold millions in fuel costs vs the current OTR routings.
GERALD L MCFARLANE JR The Doaks Manufacturings of the world/U.S. are the companies that what used to be known as Intermodal Marketing Companies, Third Party Shippers and/or Logistics Providers are more than happy to serve. I worked for an IMC/Third Party Logistics company for 17 yrs, one that eventually became part of Pacer Global Logistics(which itself was just purchased by a much larger company last year, after sellling the Pacer Stacktrain business to UP, mistake in my opinion but that's an entirely different subject). Anyways, RoadRailers could be tacked onto the end of any intermodal train if needed, but it was easier to just run them as a separate train because the carriers(don't forget Swift Intermodals RoadRailer service on the BNSF between Los Angeles, CA and Portland, OR/Seattle, WA) didn't want to add the paved over trackage to their existing intermodal yards when they had areas that it was easy to just pave over a branch or mainline and presto, instant RoadRailer ramp. The RoadRailer is a perfect piece of equipment for the Postal Service, it would kill two birds with one stone, so to speak. USPS spends a fortune on OTR service between mixing/sorting centers, imagine how much money they could save if all that mail was shipped in RoadRailers door to door between the large bulk/sorting centers. Just watch some of the OTR trailers sometimes, they'll have U.S. Mail stenciled on them, but be a private carrier(such as Matheson), the drivers could them just become more localized pickup/delivery of the RoadRailers from the railroad to the bulk/sorting center...and the USPS would save untold millions in fuel costs vs the current OTR routings.
Whatever a roadrailer can do - a trailer or container can do with less tare weight.
I thought when Rorarailer started it was with the idea that loads from lots of small shippers could be amalgamated into one long train, shipped over the road and then sorted out and delivered to lots of small receivers. (I believe greyhounds has gone over that concept a time or two.) All I've ever read about Roadrailers made it sound like they almost exclusively hauled auto parts. (?) Did they do muc business with ConvictedOne's Widget factory, or was it all bigger shippers and receivers like most railroad traffic?
Murphy Siding I thought when Rorarailer started it was with the idea that loads from lots of small shippers could be amalgamated into one long train, shipped over the road and then sorted out and delivered to lots of small receivers. (I believe greyhounds has gone over that concept a time or two.)
That's what intermodal, not just RoadRailer, does. The railroad can do it with containers. If they can do it with containers why would they use RoadRailers?
The three shipments per week guy has his/her loads moved to the line haul train's terminal by truck. For such shipments a truck is a more efficient pick up/delivery tool than a local or an industry job.
Murphy Siding All I've ever read about Roadrailers made it sound like they almost exclusively hauled auto parts. (?) Did they do muc business with ConvictedOne's Widget factory, or was it all bigger shippers and receivers like most railroad traffic?
All I've ever read about Roadrailers made it sound like they almost exclusively hauled auto parts. (?) Did they do muc business with ConvictedOne's Widget factory, or was it all bigger shippers and receivers like most railroad traffic?
The base load on many Triple Crown trains was auto parts. It's nice to have a good traffic base. But they certainly handled many other commodities. TC was retail and they took what they could profitably get.
Murphy SidingAre you sure that the roadrailers were even used for smallish shippers? Perhaps those little guys were unprofitable no matter what kind of rail equipment was used?
Your concept of small volume shippers getting the low ball pricing flys in the face of everything I've learned about "pricing power". They might get lucky with a cheap back haul now and then, but if they require regular service, they are going to have to deal with the market, and I believe the best rates usually go to the big boys.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.