Thanks for the clarification!
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
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.
greyhoundsThrough March 5, 2016 they are down 36,477 trailers (mainly RoadRailers) compared to 2015. But their container loadings are up by 50,059 revenue loads. This more than compensates for the Triple Crown cut back.
Is that made with the assumption that one container load = one Roadrailer?
Convicted OneIf a domestic load can be "profitably" picked up, mode-converted, and transported via standard container, shouldn't Roadrailer be just as "worthy" a candidate? The thought process is targeted directly at your comment that roadrailer is "macht nicht". If you can make money routing the same shipment via container, Roadrailer service should be able to do so as well.
No, because RoadRailers have a huge "interoperability" issue that containers do not have.
Remember 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.
That's been proven several times in several countries. And that's what we want for the economy. The greatest output for the least amount of resources used.
NS intermodal is doing OK, even with the large reduction in RoadRailer services. Through March 5, 2016 they are down 36,477 trailers (mainly RoadRailers) compared to 2015. But their container loadings are up by 50,059 revenue loads. This more than compensates for the Triple Crown cut back.
Not bad.
http://www.nscorp.com/mktgpublic/MKTGApp
rrnut282 Triple crown trailers could be loaded onto piggy back cars as some are now doing. Their biggest 'achilles heel' was interoperability. NS operated them separately with another train start and another crew. If they could be reliably tacked onto the back of existing trains, they might have lasted longer, imo, because, then they would have been 'gravy' instead of a cost center. Amtrak, CN, UP, and CR couldn't find a way. I feel Triple Crown was profitable at NS, it just wasn't profitable enough. They were staring down the barrel of large re-equipping costs as the bulk of their fleet of trailers 'timed-out.'
Triple crown trailers could be loaded onto piggy back cars as some are now doing. Their biggest 'achilles heel' was interoperability. NS operated them separately with another train start and another crew. If they could be reliably tacked onto the back of existing trains, they might have lasted longer, imo, because, then they would have been 'gravy' instead of a cost center. Amtrak, CN, UP, and CR couldn't find a way.
I feel Triple Crown was profitable at NS, it just wasn't profitable enough. They were staring down the barrel of large re-equipping costs as the bulk of their fleet of trailers 'timed-out.'
That's always been my thing with the Triple Crown RoadRailers. If they could somehow be operated with other equipment; i.e., intermodal flats/spine/platform cars, you would think that would dramtically reduce costs. Would like to hear what Greyhounds thinks about this.
On another front, if you're looking at medium-distance corridors, do they necessarily HAVE to be east-west corridors? For example, what about Twin Cities -Kansas City or Kansas City - Dallas/Ft.Worth?
Paul_D_North_JrIf it's covering its short-term incremental variable costs, and there's nothing better (more profitable) to do with the crews, equipment, and / or track that is devoted to the specific traffic. A lot of experience and judgement goes into that evaluation. - Paul North.
Yes. Setting a price for railroad service is more of an art than a science.
BaltACD greyhounds Convicted One And yet Norfolk Southern appears about finished with Roadrailers. RoadRailers are macht nichts. ("Makes Nothing"). It's not the equipment, it's the money. Candaian Pacific is continuing its intermodal service between Montreal and Toronto. About 340 miles. (If that service surived Hunter, it's good.) The FEC is doing OK at around 80% intermodal business and a maximum haul of 350 miles. I'll put the minimum profitable rail intermodal haul at around 400 miles. That's a rule of thumb. It does depend on the situation. Drayage costs and volume are keys. It does depend on the situation. But rail can be competitive on the Chicago-St. Paul, Chicago-Omaha, Chicago-Memphis, etc. lanes. While FEC's share of the haul is on 350 miles or thereabouts; most of the traffic they carry is interline traffic with both CSX and NS - so the actual haul for the traffic is much longer than 350 miles.
greyhounds Convicted One And yet Norfolk Southern appears about finished with Roadrailers. RoadRailers are macht nichts. ("Makes Nothing"). It's not the equipment, it's the money. Candaian Pacific is continuing its intermodal service between Montreal and Toronto. About 340 miles. (If that service surived Hunter, it's good.) The FEC is doing OK at around 80% intermodal business and a maximum haul of 350 miles. I'll put the minimum profitable rail intermodal haul at around 400 miles. That's a rule of thumb. It does depend on the situation. Drayage costs and volume are keys. It does depend on the situation. But rail can be competitive on the Chicago-St. Paul, Chicago-Omaha, Chicago-Memphis, etc. lanes.
Convicted One And yet Norfolk Southern appears about finished with Roadrailers.
RoadRailers are macht nichts. ("Makes Nothing").
It's not the equipment, it's the money. Candaian Pacific is continuing its intermodal service between Montreal and Toronto. About 340 miles. (If that service surived Hunter, it's good.) The FEC is doing OK at around 80% intermodal business and a maximum haul of 350 miles.
I'll put the minimum profitable rail intermodal haul at around 400 miles. That's a rule of thumb. It does depend on the situation. Drayage costs and volume are keys. It does depend on the situation. But rail can be competitive on the Chicago-St. Paul, Chicago-Omaha, Chicago-Memphis, etc. lanes.
While FEC's share of the haul is on 350 miles or thereabouts; most of the traffic they carry is interline traffic with both CSX and NS - so the actual haul for the traffic is much longer than 350 miles.
FEC's market is not "normal" - South Florida is almost exlusively a southbound market for transportation. Most anything going south of Jacksonville will have an empty return haul of 300-600 miles, which just kills driver utilization. Add some of the worst traffic in the US along the southern third of the FEC, and suddenly intermodal becomes very attractive.
greyhounds schlimm How to assign fixed costs/overhead is also tricky and a false picture could be obtained if not properly done. On a given stretch of track, the overhead from 'administration, dispatchers, sales force, etc. is the same whether 20 trains operate or none. Typically it is spread out equally, I believe. But a more useful method would assign it to a smaller number of trains until the break even point is reached. Then any trains/loads beyond that are largely gravy. That tends to encourage the finding of more loads, even those with a small margin above actual operating costs of crew and fuel, thus increasing the overall bottom line. If that is attempted it will lead to all kinds of very bad decisions. The overhead has to be covered. It is a very real cost. But to make decisions on accepting sales by assiging overhead will lead to disaster. If the firm can't cover its total costs, including the overhead, it will fail. But railroads don't make money by not hauling freight. So you charge as much as you can and work your costs down as much as you can. If you can't cover all the costs after doing that, you're financially dead.
schlimm How to assign fixed costs/overhead is also tricky and a false picture could be obtained if not properly done. On a given stretch of track, the overhead from 'administration, dispatchers, sales force, etc. is the same whether 20 trains operate or none. Typically it is spread out equally, I believe. But a more useful method would assign it to a smaller number of trains until the break even point is reached. Then any trains/loads beyond that are largely gravy. That tends to encourage the finding of more loads, even those with a small margin above actual operating costs of crew and fuel, thus increasing the overall bottom line.
If that is attempted it will lead to all kinds of very bad decisions.
The overhead has to be covered. It is a very real cost. But to make decisions on accepting sales by assiging overhead will lead to disaster. If the firm can't cover its total costs, including the overhead, it will fail. But railroads don't make money by not hauling freight. So you charge as much as you can and work your costs down as much as you can. If you can't cover all the costs after doing that, you're financially dead.
"Railroad Regulatory Accounting in a Era of Rail Deregulation" -
http://www.cluteinstitute.com/ojs/index.php/JABR/article/viewFile/6236/6314
"Costing Individual Railroad Movements" -
http://www.ugpti.org/pubs/pdf/DP153.pdf
"Rail Costing and Regulation: The Uniform Rail Costing System" -
http://www.gcbpp.org/files/Railroad/Wilson.Wolak.pdf
From slide 29 of 33:
"The Usefulness of Cost Information
• Large portions of total cost of railroad do not vary with tonnages or even its composition
– Railroads therefore must price above average incremental costs on most if not all shipments to recover total costs"
But, I still haven't found the book I referenced above.
- Paul North.
If it's covering its short-term incremental variable costs, and there's nothing better (more profitable) to do with the crews, equipment, and / or track that is devoted to the specific traffic.
A lot of experience and judgement goes into that evaluation.
rrnut282...it just wasn't profitable enough.
Really, this is what we're discussing. Is there some point at which "not profitable enough" becomes "it's making some money anyhow, we should stick with it?"
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...
schlimmReden Sie nicht um den heißen Brei herum
Thanks. den nagel auf den Kopf treffen.
greyhoundsI'd say about 100%.-<snip>- What is your point?
If a domestic load can be "profitably" picked up, mode-converted, and transported via standard container, shouldn't Roadrailer be just as "worthy" a candidate?
The thought process is targeted directly at your comment that roadrailer is "macht nicht". If you can make money routing the same shipment via container, Roadrailer service should be able to do so as well.
greyhounds schlimm How to assign fixed costs/overhead is also tricky and a false picture could be obtained if not properly done. On a given stretch of track, the overhead from 'administration, dispatchers, sales force, etc. is the same whether 20 trains operate or none. Typically it is spread out equally, I believe. But a more useful method would assign it to a smaller number of trains until the break even point is reached. Then any trains/loads beyond that are largely gravy. That tends to encourage the finding of more loads, even those with a small margin above actual operating costs of crew and fuel, thus increasing the overall bottom line. I know I'll never convince you of this, but overhead (fixed costs) cannot realistically be "Assigned" to any particular business segment. It can be sometimes assigned to specific fixed facilities, such as a branch line incurring taxes, but it cannot be assigned to any particular traffic over the branch line. If that is attempted it will lead to all kinds of very bad decisions. The overhead has to be covered. It is a very real cost. But to make decisions on accepting sales by assiging overhead will lead to disaster. If the firm can't cover its total costs, including the overhead, it will fail. But railroads don't make money by not hauling freight. So you charge as much as you can and work your costs down as much as you can. If you can't cover all the costs after doing that, you're financially dead.
I know I'll never convince you of this, but overhead (fixed costs) cannot realistically be "Assigned" to any particular business segment. It can be sometimes assigned to specific fixed facilities, such as a branch line incurring taxes, but it cannot be assigned to any particular traffic over the branch line.
I actually agree with you completely. I was merely airing some suggested compromises that make it possible to go after supposedly "money-losing business" that could enhance the bottom line.
Back in the late 1970's/ early 1980's a ConRail guy wrote a book with a title like "Cost Accounting for Railroads". I gave it to a still-active and successful rail exec, so going from memory only, I recall that it dealt with this kind of problem pretty straightforwardly. Basically it created "levels" of cost related to the activities/ operations that incurred them, with the lowest being the crew cost, the next being the diesel fuel, track maintenance (tonnage-based) further up, signals (time-based), and at the top such things as management overhead. The whole point of it was to correctly assign and allocate costs to the activities that caused them, so that changes could be accurately evaluated for their effects at each level and short vs. long term.
As Kneiling used to say, station painting was the same whether 1 train or 100 ran.
schlimmHow to assign fixed costs/overhead is also tricky and a false picture could be obtained if not properly done. On a given stretch of track, the overhead from 'administration, dispatchers, sales force, etc. is the same whether 20 trains operate or none. Typically it is spread out equally, I believe. But a more useful method would assign it to a smaller number of trains until the break even point is reached. Then any trains/loads beyond that are largely gravy. That tends to encourage the finding of more loads, even those with a small margin above actual operating costs of crew and fuel, thus increasing the overall bottom line.
schlimm Convicted One Sprechen Sie nicht um den heißen Brei herum. The idiom is actually "Reden Sie nicht um den heißen Brei herum" "Don't beat around the bush!"
Convicted One Sprechen Sie nicht um den heißen Brei herum.
The idiom is actually "Reden Sie nicht um den heißen Brei herum" "Don't beat around the bush!"
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Convicted OneSprechen Sie nicht um den heißen Brei herum.
Even in Memphis, one of the major distribution-center hubs (and container graveyards) of America, essentially ALL the last-mile container deliveries go by chassis, and the stripping and stuffing carried out expressly away from intermodal yards equipped with any kind of organized container handling equipment.
Tennessee Yard was just massively expanded, but I do not think there was or is any on-facility warehousing or break-bulk activity, either BNSF or second-party. I think there used to be something associated with Forrest Yard when I was little (I think it had to do with refrigerated transport), but there appears to be nothing like that now. I see a couple of loaded articulated flats in the NS 'local' going west toward Collierville from time to time, where they presumably have something that does containers 'directly', but I don't know what it is (or if it involves rail transport to a different rail interchange location).
Truck traffic in the few blocks of highway 78 past Tennessee Yard is always congested, especially at the intersection with Winchester. That is the point of maximum concentration, before traffic splits off to the different 'distriplexes' and warehousing operations.
Something I have not seen "in action" is equipment that loads or unloads containers 'to the ground' at all the stores that use them for 'temporary storage' or peak inventory times like the Christmas season. All of this involves either wooden cribs/supports or actually sitting on asphalt - no special foundations or landing legs that I've seen - and I wonder whether these are being delivered via Dumpster-like roll-off chassis and picked up empty the same way. (Probably requires special dunning but lots of this stuff probably cubes out and is attitude-insensitive and reasonably tolerant of short 'tips')
Convicted OneI wonder what percentage of imported containers find their way onto rubber tires before reaching their ultimate destination versus being unloaded immediately after finishing the rail segement?
I'd say about 100%.
The whole point of an intermodal system is to use each transportation tool, be it train, truck or vessel, to its most economically efficient advantage.
Trains make very inefficient pick up and delivery systems for individual container sized shipments. (or carload shipments) So intermodal rail shipments move between terminals where the cargo is transfered to/from a trucking mode. The truck makes the pick up or delivery and the train does the line haul. In this manner each transportation tool is used to its best advantage.
What is your point?
Murphy Siding If the traffic moving on Triple Crown equipment slows, it would seem that equipment would sit idle. More conventional equipment could be shifted to another trade lane?
Murphy, glad you could seinen senf dazugeben!!
Sprechen Sie nicht um den heißen Brei herum.One thing that occured to me after I last posted, the equipment required to transfer TC from rail to road, is not ubiquitous, so seeing roadrailers as a solution to providing "the last 50 miles" of transport is probably unrealistic. "Last 250 miles" might be more often the case. I wonder what percentage of imported containers find their way onto rubber tires before reaching their ultimate destination versus being unloaded immediately after finishing the rail segement? ......................................................................................................................................................................????
Could it be the next best intermodal traffic lane be medium distance hauls that cannot be covered by one driver's HOS ? That is more than 10 hours driving time or more than 20 hours ?
Murphy Siding Convicted One n012944 That's the thing, the tare of two Triple Crown "bogeys", have got to be less than that of a doublestack well car. So one would think that TC has a weight advantage. One valid criticism you do hear about TC trailers is that they are heavier than standard trailers for the rubber-tire segment of travel. But, if the Triple Crown business model is one of providing the first 50 or last 50 miles of transport over the road as a tool to get the lion's share of travel onto the rails.....one would think that the advantages of the latter would more than compensate for the former. Some how I doubt that NS is expending much energy arranging conventional container substitutes to Triple Crown customers. They likely just hand their former customer listings to somebody like Hunt or Schneider, and let them make the best deal they can. Maybe it has more to do with equipment utilization? If the traffic moving on Triple Crown equipment slows, it would seem that equipment would sit idle. More conventional equipment could be shifted to another trade lane?Edit: It appears I was supposed to add an appropriate German phrase. All I could come up with was fahrvergnügen
Convicted One n012944 That's the thing, the tare of two Triple Crown "bogeys", have got to be less than that of a doublestack well car. So one would think that TC has a weight advantage. One valid criticism you do hear about TC trailers is that they are heavier than standard trailers for the rubber-tire segment of travel. But, if the Triple Crown business model is one of providing the first 50 or last 50 miles of transport over the road as a tool to get the lion's share of travel onto the rails.....one would think that the advantages of the latter would more than compensate for the former. Some how I doubt that NS is expending much energy arranging conventional container substitutes to Triple Crown customers. They likely just hand their former customer listings to somebody like Hunt or Schneider, and let them make the best deal they can.
n012944
That's the thing, the tare of two Triple Crown "bogeys", have got to be less than that of a doublestack well car. So one would think that TC has a weight advantage. One valid criticism you do hear about TC trailers is that they are heavier than standard trailers for the rubber-tire segment of travel.
But, if the Triple Crown business model is one of providing the first 50 or last 50 miles of transport over the road as a tool to get the lion's share of travel onto the rails.....one would think that the advantages of the latter would more than compensate for the former.
Some how I doubt that NS is expending much energy arranging conventional container substitutes to Triple Crown customers. They likely just hand their former customer listings to somebody like Hunt or Schneider, and let them make the best deal they can.
Maybe it has more to do with equipment utilization? If the traffic moving on Triple Crown equipment slows, it would seem that equipment would sit idle. More conventional equipment could be shifted to another trade lane?Edit: It appears I was supposed to add an appropriate German phrase. All I could come up with was fahrvergnügen
Well - VW is having some crediability problems....
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Convicted One n012944 The railroad will work with shippers and logistics partners to convert other business handled by Triple Crown Services into Norfolk Southern’s current intermodal network. That's the thing, the tare of two Triple Crown "bogeys", have got to be less than that of a doublestack well car. So one would think that TC has a weight advantage. One valid criticism you do hear about TC trailers is that they are heavier than standard trailers for the rubber-tire segment of travel. But, if the Triple Crown business model is one of providing the first 50 or last 50 miles of transport over the road as a tool to get the lion's share of travel onto the rails.....one would think that the advantages of the latter would more than compensate for the former. Some how I doubt that NS is expending much energy arranging conventional container substitutes to Triple Crown customers. They likely just hand their former customer listings to somebody like Hunt or Schneider, and let them make the best deal they can.
n012944 The railroad will work with shippers and logistics partners to convert other business handled by Triple Crown Services into Norfolk Southern’s current intermodal network.
Perhaps "it" is just this simple: Intermodal shipments originating on foreign shores tend not to originate in roadrailers. Only some shipments originating domestically originate in roadrailers. Perhaps NS's crystal ball says that imports will be so predominant that domestic sources are insignificant? (yes, there is a political message in that nutshell for those of you who enjoy snitching)
Götterdämmerung indeed!!
RoadRailers are oddball equipment that never really caught on with any other operators beyond Triple Crown. Does anybody know if Wabash National (or any other firm) still lists RoadRailers in their catalog?
n012944The railroad will work with shippers and logistics partners to convert other business handled by Triple Crown Services into Norfolk Southern’s current intermodal network.
Does anyone know if the transition to containers actually happened, or did those customers just give up and go to trucks?
http://www.triplecrownsvc.com/sites/default/files/newsletters/NS%20News%20Release%20-%20TCS%20Restructure%202015-09-18.pdf
"NORFOLK, Va., Sept. 18, 2015 – Norfolk Southern Corp. (NYSE: NSC) is restructuring its Triple Crown Services (TCS) subsidiary to focus on the transportation of automobile parts. The railroad will work with shippers and logistics partners to convert other business handled by Triple Crown Services into Norfolk Southern’s current intermodal network.
Triple Crown Services specializes in the use of RoadRailer® equipment in dedicated trains. TCS will continue RoadRailer service for automobile parts between Detroit and Kansas City for the foreseeable future but will transition to containers in other NS lanes. "
An "expensive model collector"
greyhoundsRoadRailers are macht nichts.
Or perhaps götterdämmerung? Let's dig a little deeper. I was under the impression that the impetus behind Triple Crown was to give the railroad access to customers who were not rail served, a better opportunity to wrestle business away from trucks. Recently reading a book about William Brosnan and the Southern, a great deal of effort was devoted to making TOFC work because that was seen as a key opportunity for competing with the trucking industry. Triple Crown ultimately being a sensible improvement to the tare ratio (vs TOFC).
It appears to me that what NS is saying is that providing the first 50 miles, or the last 50 miles of transportation is not getting it the long hauls in between that it considers necessary to make the end-runs worth while?
Does NS intend to continue serving the customers once served through Triple Crown via standard containers, or are they simply walking away from that business?
Perhaps if they feel there is inadequate revenue opportunity from those customers, and they are gladly surrendering that segment to trucking, perhaps the true operand is "schadenfreude"?
Or perhaps I'm looking a little too deep for meaning? Could the driving force be more of a nature related to the changing of the guard at NS? Perhaps TC was a Wick Moorman pet that has now been cast to the wayside?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.