My boss looked into buying some of the old NS roadrailers a few years back. They weighed in over 1 ton heavier than our heaviest trailer we had in the fleet and those are 48 foot reefers. We are talking about a 53 foot trailer that has a tare weight of almost 18K lbs ready to roll down the road. Yes we could have reduced that somewhat by removing the nose extension and some other modifications but they are way to freaking heavy. We would have lost 2 tons of cargo per load on them. That is way to much weight to give up in cargo. When you have a hard weight limit your required to meet and if you can not haul as much as everyone else your not going to get that contract. They are great for hauling auto parts that are lightweight. But for normal loads of things like paper or other heavy weight items forget it.
SAMUEL C WALKEROne Roadrailer container chassis was built in 1980. Triple Crown Services never attempted to serve the market. Inherent problem to use of Roadrailer was it was against a national interstate system. It is very difficult to compete against an interstate highway system limited to a region and a single railroad company.
I might as well reply to this.
As I have stated, I worked for RoadRailer in marketing. Before I did that I worked for the ICG in intermodal marketing. The ICG attempted to establish the 1st commercial freight operation using RoadRailer equipment in 1980. Only one person in the ICG Intermodal Department thought it would work. Unfortunately, that person was the VP Intermodal and he forced it through. It lasted one year. And By God we tried. We were calling every potential customer we could identify from state manufacturers directories. We bought research data from Transearch. We did everything we could think of to make it work. RoadRailers were just too limited in what they could be used for.
Later, when I was at RoadRailer, we tried to sell that thing to anyone in the world. I don't remember, but it was a lot, how many people from Canada, Europe, China, India, Mexico, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, wherever, I took out to dinner at Gino's Steak House in the Chicago south suburbs. Then I'd take them over to the NS Calumet Yard at 103rd and Stony Island in Chicago to show them how a RoadRailer train was put together. (The people from India could be a problem, since they could be vegetarians. But Gino's served them a very good vegy meal while I enjoyed my expense account steak.)
We had a container chassis design for them. Nobody was interested. Sometimes, what seems like a good idea just doesn't work.
The problem with RoadRailers was not, as was stated, that they competed with a national Interstate network. The fatal problem was that they were positioned, by RoadRailer itself, to be incompatible with the existing rail business. The railroads were encouraged (required?) to operate RoadRailer only trains. And this made their use uneconomic.
There were other problems with containers on RoadRailers. First, containers come in various lengths. If you've got a 20 foot container to move and a 40 foot chassis what do you do? No, you can't just put it in the middle the engineers told me, it makes it unstable on the rail. Then there is the weight problem. Making a highway trailer in to a railcar, a la RoadRailer, ads weight. This decreases the payload capacity on the highway because of highway gross weight limits.
A chassis/container combination also ads weight. Making the chassis in to a RoadRailer would compound the highway weight issue.
Nobody in the world could figure out a way to make it work. And we sure tried.
There are a couple of other folks on this forum who have direct RoadRailer experience. If they want to chime in, I'll welcome their thoughts.
One Roadrailer container chassis was built in 1980. Triple Crown Services never attempted to serve the market. Inherent problem to use of Roadrailer was it was against a national interstate system. It is very difficult to compete against an interstate highway system limited to a region and a single railroad company.
SAMUEL C WALKERWrong equipment - period. Roadrailer container chassis. Forget lifting equipment. Forget circus style loading. Forget tare wight of heavy TTX equipment. A seaborne company invented the container and implemented container carriage on railroads. Maybe a seaborn company will order Roadrailer container chassis and charter its own trains for the linehaul efficiencies of rail without the terminal costs and time delays. TTX - no. Raodrailer - yes.
Totally bogus dude. And I worked in marketing for RoadRailer.
The intermodal container concept was developed by the New York Central Railroad in the early 1920s under the leadership of its president, Alfred Holland Smith. He started with the railroad as a messenger boy at age 14 when his father died and earned his way up to presidency of the NYC.
That railroad, and other competing rail lines, were rapidly expanding container service until they were stopped in their tracks by the stupid fools of government regulation. I've been though this before and I'll go over it again if required.
Containerization was not developed by Malcom McLean of Sea Land, or any other "Seaborn" company. McLean was the first to be allowed by the damn government to really use it, but the railroads beat him by 35 years or so to the concept.
And!
In all these years no one, anywhere on Planet Earth, has figured out how to use RoadRailer chassis to move containers in an economically viable method. You can design the hardware to do it, but making the benefits exceed the costs just hasn't worked.
SAMUEL C WALKERRoadrailer container chassis.
They were called RailRunners, and you will do well to study their design, history, and more importantly reasons for general nonacceptance in detail.
Why you would think the tare weight of an underframe plus ISO oceangoing container structure would be less than that of a van RoadRailer is a mystery to me. Perhaps you've chosen not to read the lettering on the vehicles and do the corresponding math.
Wrong equipment - period. Roadrailer container chassis. Forget lifting equipment. Forget circus style loading. Forget tare wight of heavy TTX equipment. A seaborne company invented the container and implemented container carriage on railroads. Maybe a seaborn company will order Roadrailer container chassis and charter its own trains for the linehaul efficiencies of rail without the terminal costs and time delays. TTX - no. Raodrailer - yes.
Here's an update on a new short-haul intermodal service in the PNW that was first announced earlier this year, Portland-to-Seattle:
http://www.capitalpress.com/Business/20180503/container-business-grows-at-portland-intermodal-facility
Google Port of Portland for some background on how it lost most of its container biz a while back, and how it's slowly getting some of it back.
I believe BNSF also has the Alliance Logistics Park, the Joliet Logistics Park, and the Kansas City Logistics Lark In Operations. They might not have those exact names, but they are in operation. They are pretty much set up as described above.
There is a simple, yet high investment solution.
Instead of draying the boxes to the railroad, build highly concentrated distribution center/logistics parks facilities at or very closely to the railroads. These would be very similar to airports in concept in which industry would locate at these locations.
The concept is already in place....Willow Springs UPS sort center is located on the BNSF.
Drayage costs would be dramatically reduced and manufacturers/distributors could take advantage of state of the art facilities (highly automated). The companies which choose not to invest in the facilities will be able to utilize the traditional truckload service. The companies at the "logistics centers" will be able to realize transportation and chain logistics savings.
All it takes is real estate and $$$.
Same concept could be done in Clear Lake, Iowa. Build consolidated loads of multiple producers for concentrated deliveries. Sort of like a shuttle elevator.
Ed
ruderunnerErik, my thinking is that drayage of the smaller containers could be done by the customers themselves. Class 6 trucks are cheap and could handle a smaller containers.
Oh, for sure!
The smaller trucks, think of two axles with no trailer, could handle a small container. And the drayage could be done by the customers themselves.
But that wouldn't maximize the profitability of short haul intermodal, and would be a fatal error. The relative importance of drayage costs increases with the shortness of the haul. And dray costs are THE determining factor in the competitive success of shorter haul intermodal vis a vis over the road trucking.
If the railroad shifted the responsibility for the drayage to the customer it would be establishing a terminal to terminal rate. Such a charge is automatically wrong in two ways. It will simultaneously overcharge freight with a higher drayage cost while undercharging freight with a lower drayage cost. Bad news either way.
The overcharge will divert freight to motor movement that could contribute to the railroad's bottom line. The undercharge will leave money on the table that could contribute to the railroad's bottom line. A terminal to terminal rate cannot be "Right". And that's what you'd have if you left drayage up to the customer. No way to be "Right" with the price.
A railroad can do the "Right" pricing in partnership with a trucker, on a door to door basis. But it can never do "Right" pricing on a terminal to terminal basis.
So, in this thread we have discussed multiple smaller TOFC ramps and indivdual customer-loaded containers on wheels loaded from team tracks - sounds like concepts straight from Jeff Wilson's historical railroading books "Express, Mail & Merchandise Service" and "Piggyback & Container Traffic". Don't get me wrong, I think they were great concepts for their time, but somehow they didn't seem to transtition well to the post 1970 commercial landscape. Maybe they can have another go at expanding Amtrak Express...
Any data of how many trailers move daily (on average) between Chicago and lets say:
St. Louis, Twin Cities, Detroit, Columbus, Pittsburgh, Memphis, Cincy, Louisville for example?
Currently NS is operating a daily Chicago - Detroit intermodal (20N) which is almost exclusively international 40 ft containers... usually 30 - 100 per day.
The Chicago - Columbus train (26N) is a mixture of international containers and JB Hunts. My guess is this is a run thru from BNSF.
Their Chicago - Pittsburgh (26W) is an interesting train. Since implementation about a year ago it has grown from about 20 units per day to 40 to 60 per day. It is mostly a UPS train. Interestingly it departs Chicago around 5am. Thus, the overnight delivery option is not offered.
CSX runs a daily "Christmas train" from Columbus to Chicago (we have discussed this in the past) which is a short intermodal. My guess is that it is typically retail consumer moves possibly zone jumpers.
Short haul intermodal can be done. But you need a great base of business and build off of it. Gathering a load here and there will not work. A UPS, FedEx, Amazon base is almost required...in my opinion.
erikem You recall correctly. There were several different implementations, a couple were driven by RR's, and one was pushed by Kroger. As Greyhounds pointed out many times, the idea was pretty much killed by short sided regulators in 1931 - one can only imagine the help these containers would have been during WW2.
You recall correctly. There were several different implementations, a couple were driven by RR's, and one was pushed by Kroger. As Greyhounds pointed out many times, the idea was pretty much killed by short sided regulators in 1931 - one can only imagine the help these containers would have been during WW2.
Erik, my thinking is that drayage of the smaller containers could be done by the customers themselves. Class 6 trucks are cheap and could handle a smaller containers.
Modeling the Cleveland and Pittsburgh during the PennCentral era starting on the Cleveland lakefront and ending in Mingo junction
tree68 Ulrich Pick pallets up by truck.. Perhaps the pallets would be more along the lines of containers. A container might be full width for the box car, and would simply be loaded into the doorway, then moved (rollers) toward the end of the car. Rather like how cargo containers are loaded on to aircraft. I realize I'm probably talking equipment that doesn't exist today. One upside would be that a pallet could be left "open," ie, materiel stacked on the pallet and secured, but not covered as such. I also don't know if there is a market for such a system... Just thinkin' out loud...
Ulrich Pick pallets up by truck..
Perhaps the pallets would be more along the lines of containers. A container might be full width for the box car, and would simply be loaded into the doorway, then moved (rollers) toward the end of the car. Rather like how cargo containers are loaded on to aircraft.
I realize I'm probably talking equipment that doesn't exist today. One upside would be that a pallet could be left "open," ie, materiel stacked on the pallet and secured, but not covered as such.
I also don't know if there is a market for such a system...
Just thinkin' out loud...
Seems like there was an article in TRAINS within the last couple of years about a system something like this, for moving containers of produce about the size of the cargo containers used on planes. Can't remember if it was actually in use or just someone's proposal, but it your idea sounds very similar to what I remember. IIRC, the containers had spherical "rollers", so that they could be used with any boxcar/reefer and box truck/refrigerator truck, and no special floor with rollers would be needed in the warehouse.
iirc the original railroad containers were of the 8' cube range. Maybe something closer to that size could come back. Say a half TEU?
UlrichPick pallets up by truck..
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...
tree68The total cost to load/unload a container is the capital cost of the loader and the Diesel and personnel to make it run. Maybe some snow plowing in the north country in the winter.
Two ramps sounds a lot cheaper and easier.
Ulrich Pick pallets up by truck.. have them transferred to a BOXCAR at a transload facility.. let the railroad haul the boxcar to wherever it needs to go... move the pallets from the boxcar back onto a truck for last mile delivery to receiver. I know that's how it was done years ago.. worked well then.. can work well again today and into the future!
Pick pallets up by truck.. have them transferred to a BOXCAR at a transload facility.. let the railroad haul the boxcar to wherever it needs to go... move the pallets from the boxcar back onto a truck for last mile delivery to receiver. I know that's how it was done years ago.. worked well then.. can work well again today and into the future!
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
From today's WSJ Logistics Report:
“I don’t win any awards for how many truck trailers I move on our railroad. I win points as to how profitable my enterprise is at the end of the day.”
John Kneiling is smiling on this thread (esp. Larry/ tree68's points).
- PDN.
Ashley Furniture in Arcadia, Wi. is an excellent example of a customer off the beaten track that makes use of container rail right from their plant. Former GB&W, now CN, to connection with BNSF Mississippi River line. I think Ashley has been more innovative than the average duck when it comes to distribution.
tree68 Murphy Siding If my truck is on the 27th car, Your business wouldn't get switched. Your car would get dropped with all the others for your area at what would amount to a team track. Once it was driven or lifted off the car, the last mile would be by road. Going back to what I was saying earlier, if your load can be lifted, and the ability to do so is near your business, the train might stop briefly to unload your trailer/container without removing the car from the train at all.
Murphy Siding If my truck is on the 27th car,
Your business wouldn't get switched. Your car would get dropped with all the others for your area at what would amount to a team track. Once it was driven or lifted off the car, the last mile would be by road.
Going back to what I was saying earlier, if your load can be lifted, and the ability to do so is near your business, the train might stop briefly to unload your trailer/container without removing the car from the train at all.
Murphy Siding Riddle me this Batman: If you have TOFC, you have a whole train of them. If my truck is on the 27th car, the train crew would need to break the train at the 27th car and switch the car up to my ramp-facing the right way. At work we have about a 1/4 mile spur off a BNSF main. It's about a 20 minute process to spot or pull a car. That's with a roving switchman in a pickup. How would you account for downtime on a line like the CN through Storm Lake, for example?
Riddle me this Batman: If you have TOFC, you have a whole train of them. If my truck is on the 27th car, the train crew would need to break the train at the 27th car and switch the car up to my ramp-facing the right way. At work we have about a 1/4 mile spur off a BNSF main. It's about a 20 minute process to spot or pull a car. That's with a roving switchman in a pickup.
How would you account for downtime on a line like the CN through Storm Lake, for example?
It wouldn't necessarily have to be facing the right way on the ramp track. There are portable ramps that can be moved.
I don't think downtime on the CN at Storm Lake would be a problem.
Jeff
UlrichTOFC might the best option to capture shorthaul business.. mainly because of quick turn around and low cost terminal costs. All one really needs is a ramp on both ends.. and a truck to pull the trailers on and off. The main issue with containers is that expensive terminals are required. A ramp is relatively cheap and easy to operate and can be built in almost any community served by rail.
I agree with that!
And you'll not have the expense and headache of owning and managing a chassis pool in a place such as Storm Lake, IA. (Storm Lake generates a lot of freight; pork and turkey, with eggs on the side.) The CN runs right through there and doesn't haul a bit of it. And I think it is a damn fool thing to pay for trucking a load to a distant terminal when the trains roll right close.
Serve the smaller terminals with trailers or "Tee'd up" containers on a chassis. If the containers go through a major hub, such as Chicago, on their way to the east coast population centers, they can be double stacked east of Chicago.
But keep the smaller terminals low cost by using circus loading. And keep the drayage cost down by having a number of such terminals.
UlrichThe main issue with containers is that expensive terminals are required
See my previous post.
The area used for handling containers at the military installation isn't even paved. The total cost to load/unload a container is the capital cost of the loader and the Diesel and personnel to make it run. Maybe some snow plowing in the north country in the winter.
I don't know how long it takes to handle a container in that situation - 10 minutes?
In theory, a train could stop anywhere that the big-wheeled loader could reach the train and have a few containers on or off in minutes. If the skeleton trailer is waiting to be loaded, a container could be off the property in no time, while the car that carried the container never leaves the train.
TOFC might the best option to capture shorthaul business.. mainly because of quick turn around and low cost terminal costs. All one really needs is a ramp on both ends.. and a truck to pull the trailers on and off. The main issue with containers is that expensive terminals are required. A ramp is relatively cheap and easy to operate and can be built in almost any community served by rail.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.