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.
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.
greyhoundsAs 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.
And how can anyone object to that? What a refreshing change from the usual excuses one hears. Too bad you cannot go back a shake up IC's workings.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
A lot of talk about moving IM between Chicago and Omaha/Council Bluffs.
I don't know about BNSF, but all UP's IM business out of Omaha/Council Bluffs is to/from western points. IAIS (UP uses their ramp facilities in Council Bluffs) does handle IM business between there and Blue Island.
Once in a great while, a UP eastbound IM train will pick up at Council Bluffs. I think though it's usually cars that were accidently set out (the conductor didn't read his train list to see his CB cars were behind some through ones) rather than IM originating there for the Chicago area terminals.
Jeff
Unless there is still a fair amount of TOFC equipment in service with full decks and bridge plates, circus loading and unloading would be out of the question since what was once standard would now be specialized equipment.
Intermodal helicopter
wanswheelIntermodal helicopter
Very high cost container crane.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
It doesn't take much ground space, though.
Johnny
CSSHEGEWISCHUnless there is still a fair amount of TOFC equipment in service with full decks and bridge plates, circus loading and unloading would be out of the question since what was once standard would now be specialized equipment.
I believe we can add full decks and bridge plates to some existing spine cars and hold them in captive service. It should not be a major expense.
Don't get stopped by a problem, find a solution.
zugmann When those trailers/bogies hit the end of life, it'll be interesting to see if they buy more.
Just in contemplation of the "the fleet's all worn out" theory, I still see a lot of conventional equipment riding down the rails with "Southern Pacific" painted on the side of it, and I know that triple crown replaced all of it's 40' trailers with 53' units well after the Southern Pacific existed as a seperate and disctinct entity.
Convicted One zugmann When those trailers/bogies hit the end of life, it'll be interesting to see if they buy more. Just in contemplation of the "the fleet's all worn out" theory, I still see a lot of conventional equipment riding down the rails with "Southern Pacific" painted on the side of it, and I know that triple crown replaced all of it's 40' trailers with 53' units well after the Southern Pacific existed as a seperate and disctinct entity.
Conventional rail equipment and triple crown roadrailers have different life expectancies.
Those Viking ships with the large brakets where built to last forever. Flatcars have a unlimted lifespan
Couple articles in the Wall Street Journal in the past 2 -3 days about automating contianer handling at the ports. Labor issues at most, but Long Beach is trying it.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/massive-robots-keep-docks-shipshape-1459104327
Ports introduce automated cargo handling, as free-trade pacts drive flood of goods
http://www.wsj.com/articles/automated-cargo-handling-glides-into-ports-1459104026
Container terminals seek lower labor costs, productivity improvements of up to 30%
http://www.wsj.com/articles/supersize-ships-prompt-more-automation-at-ports-1459202549
Southern California is the destination of choice for large container ships
- Paul North.
BaltACDConventional rail equipment and triple crown roadrailers have different life expectancies.
Got any hard data to qualify and back that up? It's a logical assumption, but I'm guessing that is all that it is.
Convicted One BaltACD Conventional rail equipment and triple crown roadrailers have different life expectancies. Got any hard data to qualify and back that up? It's a logical assumption, but I'm guessing that is all that it is.
BaltACD Conventional rail equipment and triple crown roadrailers have different life expectancies.
FRA railcar life rules - haven't seen many 40 year old highway trailers still rolling down the highways (and I hope I am never in their way). Then apply railroad train handling stresses to trailers and ..... Roadrailers are stressed harder per pound of vehicle weight in their railroad use than rail cars are and pay the price in their life span.
BaltACDFRA railcar life rules - haven't seen many 40 year old highway trailers still rolling down the highways (and I hope I am never in their way). Then apply railroad train handling stresses to trailers and ..... Roadrailers are stressed harder per pound of vehicle weight in their railroad use than rail cars are and pay the price in their life span.
Given that RRs are lighter than conventional railcars, not so sure about that. Perhaps the shorter lifespans of truck trailers is more a function of heavy corrosion from salt.
TOFC requires either (i) the loading of trains using gantries or cranes; or (ii) circus loading where the trailers are driven along the train to the next vacant place on a flat car.
Circus loading is like trying to load a subway train by permitting passengers to use only one set of doors at one end of the train. The longer the train, the slower loading/unloading becomes. Since economy of scale is rail's big selling point, this is a serious disadvantage.
Ideally, it would be best if at TOFC loading points, many trailers could be loaded or unloaded simultaneously (just as on a normal subway train, many passengers can get on or off the train quickly). It would be possible to load a long TOFC train quickly by using many cranes/gantries simultaneously, but the capital cost of each loading point would be horrendous.
There have been a few recent intermodal innovations in Europe which might point the way forward, for example CargoBeamer and Modalohr:
http://www.cargobeamer.eu/How-it-works-849768.html
http://lohr.fr/lohr-railway-system-en/
The key advantage of the systems above is quick turnaround times at terminals. Train length does not impact on loading times, capital cost at loading points is low and the road trailers do not need to be adapted or specialised in any way. Dwell time for both trucks and trains is low, benefitting both railroads and trucking companies.
schlimm BaltACD FRA railcar life rules - haven't seen many 40 year old highway trailers still rolling down the highways (and I hope I am never in their way). Then apply railroad train handling stresses to trailers and ..... Roadrailers are stressed harder per pound of vehicle weight in their railroad use than rail cars are and pay the price in their life span. Given that RRs are lighter than conventional railcars, not so sure about that. Perhaps the shorter lifespans of truck trailers is more a function of heavy corrosion from salt.
BaltACD FRA railcar life rules - haven't seen many 40 year old highway trailers still rolling down the highways (and I hope I am never in their way). Then apply railroad train handling stresses to trailers and ..... Roadrailers are stressed harder per pound of vehicle weight in their railroad use than rail cars are and pay the price in their life span.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy Siding schlimm BaltACD FRA railcar life rules - haven't seen many 40 year old highway trailers still rolling down the highways (and I hope I am never in their way). Then apply railroad train handling stresses to trailers and ..... Roadrailers are stressed harder per pound of vehicle weight in their railroad use than rail cars are and pay the price in their life span. Given that RRs are lighter than conventional railcars, not so sure about that. Perhaps the shorter lifespans of truck trailers is more a function of heavy corrosion from salt. It seems logical to me. The roadrailers would receive that extra stress from the railroad equipment coupled to them.
It seems logical to me. The roadrailers would receive that extra stress from the railroad equipment coupled to them.
Maybe this I am wrong, but weren't they usually coupled at the rear of a train when mixed with other equipment? Or run as an entire, separate train?
schlimm Murphy Siding schlimm BaltACD FRA railcar life rules - haven't seen many 40 year old highway trailers still rolling down the highways (and I hope I am never in their way). Then apply railroad train handling stresses to trailers and ..... Roadrailers are stressed harder per pound of vehicle weight in their railroad use than rail cars are and pay the price in their life span. Given that RRs are lighter than conventional railcars, not so sure about that. Perhaps the shorter lifespans of truck trailers is more a function of heavy corrosion from salt. It seems logical to me. The roadrailers would receive that extra stress from the railroad equipment coupled to them. Maybe this I am wrong, but weren't they usually coupled at the rear of a train when mixed with other equipment? Or run as an entire, separate train?
schlimm BaltACD FRA railcar life rules - haven't seen many 40 year old highway trailers still rolling down the highways (and I hope I am never in their way). Then apply railroad train handling stresses to trailers and ..... Roadrailers are stressed harder per pound of vehicle weight in their railroad use than rail cars are and pay the price in their life span. Given that RRs are lighter than conventional railcars, not so sure about that. Perhaps the shorter lifespans of truck trailers is more a function of heavy corrosion from salt. It seems logical to me. The roadrailers would receive that extra stress from the railroad equipment coupled to them.
The slack action generated when being handled at the rear of a conventional train or in a train of up 150 road railers is signifigantly greater than anything highway vehicles area ever subjected to. Stresses over time in RR service are way higher than in highway service. Additionally whatever vertical stresses that are applied when in rail serivce are not attenuated by the highway suspension system.
IslandManThere have been a few recent intermodal innovations in Europe which might point the way forward, for example CargoBeamer and Modalohr: http://www.cargobeamer.eu/How-it-works-849768.html
Fascinating system, but it also appears to have significant capital cost and weather issues. Speed is impressive, though.
NorthWest IslandMan There have been a few recent intermodal innovations in Europe which might point the way forward, for example CargoBeamer and Modalohr: http://www.cargobeamer.eu/How-it-works-849768.html Fascinating system, but it also appears to have significant capital cost and weather issues. Speed is impressive, though.
IslandMan There have been a few recent intermodal innovations in Europe which might point the way forward, for example CargoBeamer and Modalohr: http://www.cargobeamer.eu/How-it-works-849768.html
Looks like a high cost solution in search of a low cost problem!
BaltACD schlimm Murphy Siding schlimm BaltACD FRA railcar life rules - haven't seen many 40 year old highway trailers still rolling down the highways (and I hope I am never in their way). Then apply railroad train handling stresses to trailers and ..... Roadrailers are stressed harder per pound of vehicle weight in their railroad use than rail cars are and pay the price in their life span. Given that RRs are lighter than conventional railcars, not so sure about that. Perhaps the shorter lifespans of truck trailers is more a function of heavy corrosion from salt. It seems logical to me. The roadrailers would receive that extra stress from the railroad equipment coupled to them. Maybe this I am wrong, but weren't they usually coupled at the rear of a train when mixed with other equipment? Or run as an entire, separate train? The slack action generated when being handled at the rear of a conventional train or in a train of up 150 road railers is signifigantly greater than anything highway vehicles area ever subjected to. Stresses over time in RR service are way higher than in highway service. Additionally whatever vertical stresses that are applied when in rail serivce are not attenuated by the highway suspension system.
The slack action stress the Roadrailers would receive would be no more than what any ordinary railcar would receive in the same location. Obviously they received more stress than trailers in highway service. However, you claimed they were "stressed harder per pound of vehicle weight in their railroad use than rail cars are."
You win - they will last forever! They experience less strees in the rail world than they do on the highway.
Representitive trailer - TCSZ 364200 built in 2000 and Gross Vehicle Weight 65000 pounds - Tare Weight 15200 pounds - Allowable load 49800 pounds
schlimm BaltACD schlimm Murphy Siding schlimm BaltACD FRA railcar life rules - haven't seen many 40 year old highway trailers still rolling down the highways (and I hope I am never in their way). Then apply railroad train handling stresses to trailers and ..... Roadrailers are stressed harder per pound of vehicle weight in their railroad use than rail cars are and pay the price in their life span. Given that RRs are lighter than conventional railcars, not so sure about that. Perhaps the shorter lifespans of truck trailers is more a function of heavy corrosion from salt. It seems logical to me. The roadrailers would receive that extra stress from the railroad equipment coupled to them. Maybe this I am wrong, but weren't they usually coupled at the rear of a train when mixed with other equipment? Or run as an entire, separate train? The slack action generated when being handled at the rear of a conventional train or in a train of up 150 road railers is signifigantly greater than anything highway vehicles area ever subjected to. Stresses over time in RR service are way higher than in highway service. Additionally whatever vertical stresses that are applied when in rail serivce are not attenuated by the highway suspension system. The slack action stress the Roadrailers would receive would be no more than what any ordinary railcar would receive in the same location. Obviously they received more stress than trailers in highway service. However, you claimed they were "stressed harder per pound of vehicle weight in their railroad use than rail cars are."
Murphy SidingMathmaticaly, yes that is true. It's a comparion of stress that's being pointed out. Let's say both a rail car and a roadrailer car receive the same amount of stress from something like slack action. If the roadrailer weighs less thab a rail car (it does), it is stressed harder per pound of vehicle weight than the rail car. Bottom line- same stresses are applied, roadrailers, not being built as heavy as rail cars suffer proportionaly higher from those stresses.
Probably so if resistance to stress is simply a function of weight of the object in question. A materials science person or mechanical engineer would know. I still think corrosion from salt is a much bigger problem. Autos and pick ups in the North (especially around metro areas) last far less long than those in the South and on the west coast and that has nothing to do with stresses applied.
IslandManThere have been a few recent intermodal innovations in Europe which might point the way forward, for example CargoBeamer and Modalohr: http://www.cargobeamer.eu/How-it-works-849768.html http://lohr.fr/lohr-railway-system-en/ The key advantage of the systems above is quick turnaround times at terminals. Train length does not impact on loading times, capital cost at loading points is low and the road trailers do not need to be adapted or specialised in any way. Dwell time for both trucks and trains is low, benefitting both railroads and trucking companies.
Something that I noticed with these systems is that for a large operation you need tracks 3 times the train length to load/unload. You have the length of the platform, then you need one vehicle length of open space between the platform and the bogies to get the inbound truck off and one vehicle length of open space between the platform and the bogies to get ithe outbound truck on. That would probably limit the application to smaller ramps.
Other questions would be reliability of 3 vs 1 air joints and mechanical connections per platform/car vs. conventional equipment.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
IslandManCircus loading is like trying to load a subway train by permitting passengers to use only one set of doors at one end of the train. The longer the train, the slower loading/unloading becomes. Since economy of scale is rail's big selling point, this is a serious disadvantage. Ideally, it would be best if at TOFC loading points, many trailers could be loaded or unloaded simultaneously (just as on a normal subway train, many passengers can get on or off the train quickly). It would be possible to load a long TOFC train quickly by using many cranes/gantries simultaneously, but the capital cost of each loading point would be horrendous. There have been a few recent intermodal innovations in Europe which might point the way forward, for example CargoBeamer and Modalohr: http://www.cargobeamer.eu/How-it-works-849768.html http://lohr.fr/lohr-railway-system-en/ The key advantage of the systems above is quick turnaround times at terminals. Train length does not impact on loading times, capital cost at loading points is low and the road trailers do not need to be adapted or specialised in any way. Dwell time for both trucks and trains is low, benefitting both railroads and trucking companies.
Nope.
Keep those damn expensive Tinker Toys in Europe.
All you basically need is:
1) Some space around a track with some white rock dumped on it
2) A driver who knows what he/she is doing
3) Some ramps
4) Flatcars
Anything more than that for a smaller market intermodal terminal is a waste of money. You do not have to back the length of a whole train with the tractor. You can break the train (or more likely the set out/pick up) between cars and move portable ramps into position. Then you can load/unload very quckly.
This isn't rocket science and it doesn't benefit from expensive Tinker Toys.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.