JOC published an article last night titled UP, NS Intermodal Service Cuts to Test Shippers. The article talks about UP and NS "dump[ing] the responsibility of trucking containers between Chicago terminals onto shippers and intermodal marketing companies". There are some other choice quotes in the article like:
RailRoader608JOC published an article last night titled UP, NS Intermodal Service Cuts to Test Shippers. The article talks about UP and NS "dump[ing] the responsibility of trucking containers between Chicago terminals onto shippers and intermodal marketing companies". There are some other choice quotes in the article like: "The biggest challenge for rail shippers and IMCs in Chicago is finding a truck to do then crosstown dray. It can take days of waiting until a driver is available because of strong demand. But detention and per-diem fees apply when containers aren't retrieved quickly enough." "The scaling back of EMPU service - the formal name of the UP-NS interline network - came three months after UP and CSX slashed nearly 200 services, causing shippers to foo the bill on crosstown drayage in Chicago that can range from $80 to $300" What on earth is going on here? UP and BNSF have intermodal facilities south of downtown in Joliet and Elwood - why aren't they entering into trackage right agreements with CSX and NS so that containers can be transferred between eastern and western railroads without waiting days for a drayman to charge you $80 to $300 to drive your container to another facility? You'd save shippers both time and money, make handoffs easier for the railroads (although now they're putting that headache onto their customers), and get a bunch of truck traffic off the roads around Chicago reducing both congestion and infrastructure repair costs. Is there some kind of classic Chicago corruption at play here? I don't see what kind of sway the city would have - the terminals and tracks south of town already exist - the railroads should be able to negotiate trackage rights with one another and the STB to simply cut out the cross town drays altogether. I feel like I'm missing a piece of the puzzle and would love someone to fill me on the reality!
Intermodal is today's railroad's LCL. Most if not all intermodal cars are capable of handling multiple trailer/containers. The trailer/containers from a loading point do not all have the same ultimate destinations.
To be able to load intermodal cars for all rail handling a great deal of care must be utilized in matching ultimate destinations - for the most part, there will be a insufficient number of trailer/containers to fill a intermodal rail car to the ultimate destination. To be financially effective, rail carriers must load intermodal cars to their full trailer/container capacity. A 5-pack intermodal car has the potential to carry 10 or more contaners to the ultimate destination of the rail car.
If say, Baltimore originates 20 53 foot containers that are destined to Tuscon, Seattle, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland, Spokane, Sacremento, Phoenix, El Paso, Dallas - with some destinations on UP and others on BNSF - how do you load a intermodal car, effectively, to the final destinations.
Chicago has become that point where the trailer/containers move between the carriers, like it or not, by draying them across town by truck.
If a movement of 100 containers a day between a single origin and a single destination were to be developed - that movement could be handled all rail. Those movements, for the most part, don't exist in today's transportation marketplace.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACDChicago has become that point where the trailer/containers move between the carriers, like it or not, by draying them across town by truck.
Interesting! Thank you for your response. So let's agree that Chicago has become a hub where east and west railroads meet and containers go through this highly complex dance of routing and re-routing. If most of the containers aren't destined for Chicago then why are they being loaded and unloaded in relatively small, urban terminals that require truck drayage through a congested city? Why not make all the same transfers and routing changes but in a larger, rural terminal south of town? Sign trackage agreements to give all the railroads rail access to it and handle all these complex logistics in a contained area where land is cheap?
BNSF has a monster terminal down in Elwood that looks like it has plenty of land available around it.
Oops, I typed a longer response but I don't see it popping up.
Thank you for your thoughtful response! Let's agree that Chicago is a necessary hub that adds a lot of logistical value in terms of organizing and sorting containers as they move east and west. Why does all that work have to be done in relatively small, dispersed urban terminals that require truck drayage on congested city streets to move between? BNSF has a monster facility south of Chicago in Elwood and UP has another in nearby Joliet. Why not build a huge facility in this area with lots of available land and do all the complex loading and unloading on site? Eliminate cross town drayage all together.
My hunch is that there's not enough demand for that to be economical at this point. But if that's the case then it's kind of a chicken and the egg situation, isn't it? Intermodal demand is low because operations are slow, complex, and inefficient. Perhaps investing the money in terminal infrastructure and eliminating this bottleneck would increase demand while reducing overall costs and headaches.
Wasn't that part of the idea with North Baltimore?
And going with the Baltimore angle - given available resources, why not load a car with just cans headed for BNSF, f'rinstance, and add more at other locations? I know it's not that easy, but the concept remains.
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...
tree68Wasn't that part of the idea with North Baltimore? And going with the Baltimore angle - given available resources, why not load a car with just cans headed for BNSF, f'rinstance, and add more at other locations? I know it's not that easy, but the concept remains.
North Baltimore's purpose was to make trainload all rail intermodal trains to the Western carriers, and to break down and 'classify' trains recieved from the Western carriers for CSX destinations. The purpose of North Baltimore was to save one to two days transit time in passing through Chicago - in both directions. I don't know what level of buy in UP and BNSF had on the North Baltimore plan. I do know that CSX and it's connecting carriers developed 'agreed to' routings and blocking through interchange points for the benefit of both carriers; I have to presume that similar agreements were in place for the creation of North Baltimore.
EHH being the North end of a Southbound horse could only think in terms of car load freight and was not able to comperhend the intermodal operation. When your only thoughts are to cut costs you have no concern for the customer - and it shows.
I kinda suspect that until we have a round of east-west mergers, there will be little incentive to come up with ways to speed up Chicago transfers or arrange to have some traffic bypass Chicago. As it is, each road gets the traffic to Chicago as efficiently as possible and forgets about it. The out-going load doesn't exist until it's ready, so that road doesn't worry about it till then. If the same road is responsible for the whole trip, it'll figure out a way to expedite it.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Awesome reply! I think I'll have followups to this but my posts are still getting sent to the "waiting for moderator approval" queue for some reason. I'll just say that this:
But the REAL killer is wait-time. Having spent 7 years working at CSX Intermodal in West Springfield, MA, on a GOOD day, a trucker can bring in an empty, drop it in a spot, find his next load by driving around until he finds the matching number, hook on, inspect it, then head out the gate…25-30 minutes for most drivers. That’s 25-30 minutes of their NOT earning money. Even with 6 or more gates at each of the Chicago ramps, waiting in line is a major factor discouraging truckers from doing the 10-minute ‘hop’. Figure it out…bob tail into Ramp A, find your load (5 minutes), hook on and inspect it for flat tires, working lights, etc (10 minutes), wait in line to take the load out the gate (10 minutes), drive 1-5 miles in city traffic (15 minutes), wait in line again to enter Ramp B (10 minutes), drop the load and bob tail out (5 minutes if there’s a ‘bobtail only’ lane). Total: 50 minutes! Of that time, he/she was only ‘making money’ for 15 of those minutes. Even if they get paid $20 per trip (estimate on my part), it works out to $22.50/hr before the cost of fuel, insurance, maybe a toll, etc. They personally end up making about $10/hr BEFORE TAXES! Compare that to a long haul of 100 miles where they spend the same time getting in and out of the intermodal ramp (25 minutes), drive for 2+ hours (mostly interstate highway), drop the load at the consignee (15 minutes, including ‘check in’ at the gate – but sometimes they have to wait an hour to back it into a door), find any of the available empties to bring back to the ramp and hook on, inspect and outgate (15 minutes), 2+ hours back to the ramp, and another 15 minutes to ingate and drop the empty. Total: 5 hrs, 10 minutes. Total pay: About $400. Fuel at 4mpg loaded: 25 gals. Fuel at 5mpg with empty 20 gals. 45gals x $4.00 = $180. Wear & tear & insurance: $25. Pretax income to trucker: $195 or $38.25/hr. THAT’S WHY THEY DON’T WANT THE SHORT HAUL!!
CP recently signed on with Genessee & Wyoming to haul CP intermodal trains on a leg from Chicago to Jeffersonville, OH, with assumed drayage to Columbus, Dayton, Cincinnati and Louisville.
BNSF recently signed with CSX to haul BNSF intermodal trains from Southern California on a leg from Chicago to North Baltimore, OH with assumed drayage to Detroit, Toledo, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Columbus, Cincinnati and Louisville.
Could perhaps these deals be designed to get over the hurdles mentioned in several of the prior posts?
It will never happen but if the RRs could get together and form a single RR that would haul all connecting IM traffic to a giant green field IM terminal that would sort for all RRs then the cranes could lift up a container and put some onto another train to certain destinations. Other containers could go on chasis to storage or to another part of IM terminal for additional spots.
CN also turns a significant number of intermodal cars over to the Indiana Railroad for ramping in Indianapolis. Presumably many of those boxes could be drayed to points further east or south such as Columbus, Cincinnati and Louisville.
It is not necessary to have a single RR. Just have existing RR's work in concert with each other to perform tasks for their mutual benefits.
Of course PSR dictates, I will minimize my own costs and forgo any benefits I may recieve from other carriers. The FU form of corporate cooperation.
Intermodal is the 21st Century's LCL of the first half of the 20th Century.
Even UPS and FedEx are getting into 'shipment aggregating' with another carrier USPS - the US Postal Service. UPS & FedEx do the pick up and line haul function and then turn the shipments over to USPS for the final mile to the cusomer's door.
With Chicago a bottleneck for decades now and also the foreseeable future, why don't railroads make connections at St. Louis, instead? Why does it always have to be in Chicago? It seems to me that buying land for railroad facilities and connections would be cheaper in St. Louis than in Chicago.
NKP guy With Chicago a bottleneck for decades now and also the foreseeable future, why don't railroads make connections at St. Louis, instead? Why does it always have to be in Chicago? It seems to me that buying land for railroad facilities and connections would be cheaper in St. Louis than in Chicago.
There are nominaly four gateways between East and West - Chicago, St. Louis, Memphis, New Orleans. All of them are used to varying degrees.
The Class 1 main lines to Chicago are the lines the carriers have built with the highest capacity, in many cases they are two or more main tracks. The main lines to St. Louis, Memphis and New Orleans by all carriers, both East and West are single track lines with the resultant capacity restrictions.
Thanks, Balt! That explanation works for me.
RailRoader608 fill me on the reality!
I believe that an often overlooked aspect to this problem is, varying priorities.
Cost control vs operational fluidity comes to mind, where the beancounters are forever looking to ways to reduce costs, regardless of long term consequences.
Look, for example, at the alternative routes around Chicago that have been allowed to languish, if not disappear all together.
TP&W, TStL& W, Streator Illinois The consolidation of the two PC lines east from St Louis.
It's all sunshine and roses when the accounting department tells you how much money you will save by moving all bridge traffic from one line over to the other, then rationalizing the former.
Everafter, capacity restraints impact your ability to absorb spikes in business as well as future growth potential.
The "problem" of Chicago is a deal the railroads have made with the devil. They must like it that way, seldom do they try to do anything truly constructive about it.
I have said this before and I will ask the question again. Why won't the east coast railroads use Kansas City and St Louis for transfer to UP or BNSF. Both cities have intermodal yards and could be direct connects for the the Class 1 railroads for intermodal service?
Caldreamer
Well I don't know, bottlenecks have always existed in one form or another, but it seems to me the railroads managed to get the job done and the supplies the military needed during World War Two moved in a pretty expeditious manner, no excuses accepted. I won't say it was easy, far from it, but they got it done.
Or maybe it was the idea in the back of everyone's mind that if the stuff didn't get where it had to be quickly then someone's son, either your brother's, your sister's, your neighbor's, your co-workers, or yours was going to die if you didn't.
Pretty powerful motivator, that.
caldreamerI have said this before and I will ask the question again. Why won't the east coast railroads use Kansas City and St Louis for transfer to UP or BNSF. Both cities have intermodal yards and could be direct connects for the the Class 1 railroads for intermodal service? Caldreamer
KC is only reached by one Eastern carrier on a single track line from St. Louis.
Both Eastern carriers arrive St. Louis on single track lines.
After Staggers, all carriers did 'plant rationalization' and pared down their physical plant. A number of lines were abandoned and many double track lines were single tracked with CTC. In the single tracking, the sidings were configured for the train size of the early 80's; today's trains are well beyond the size of 80's trains.
Single track lines have a finite capacity - 'one more train' can put a whole subdivision into grid lock in a heartbeat.
BaltACDall carriers did 'plant rationalization' and pared down their physical plant. A number of lines were abandoned and many double track lines were single tracked with CTC
Precisely!!
Firelock76 Well I don't know, bottlenecks have always existed in one form or another, but it seems to me the railroads managed to get the job done and the supplies the military needed during World War Two moved in a pretty expeditious manner, no excuses accepted. I won't say it was easy, far from it, but they got it done. Or maybe it was the idea in the back of everyone's mind that if the stuff didn't get where it had to be quickly then someone's son, either your brother's, your sister's, your neighbor's, your co-workers, or yours was going to die if you didn't. Pretty powerful motivator, that.
Rail capacity was greater in WWII. Since then, some mainlines have been removed, and double or multi-track lines made single track or downgraded.
In a Fred Frailey blog about Chicago congestion, I also asked why St. Louis was not used more. Fred said that St. Louis is where trains go to die.
Aren't the containers also loaded on the rail cars by their initial placement arrangement on the intermodal loading ramp than grouped by their individual destination?
I think they could be more efficiently exchanged by rail if Chicago had an efficient and rapid belt line to do it. Truck is much faster becuase it is faster and more direct to move a container in a large city than is by rail.
I can picture in the future that large drones that fly the container to the next freight yard.......maybe faster than truck.
CMStPnP BaltACD Chicago has become that point where the trailer/containers move between the carriers, like it or not, by draying them across town by truck. Aren't the containers also loaded on the rail cars by their initial placement arrangement on the intermodal loading ramp than grouped by their individual destination? I think they could be more efficiently exchanged by rail if Chicago had an efficient and rapid belt line to do it. Truck is much faster becuase it is faster and more direct to move a container in a large city than is by rail. I can picture in the future that large drones that fly the container to the next freight yard.......maybe faster than truck.
BaltACD Chicago has become that point where the trailer/containers move between the carriers, like it or not, by draying them across town by truck.
I have not worked IN INTERMODAL. However, in one of my Trainmaster gigs servicing the Chessie System Baltimore trailer ramp was my responsibility.
Like most work facilities, there IS NOT unlimited room or time to perform the functions needed to complete the overall task. In the case of the Baltimore ramp at that time there were six tracks available for circus loading and unloading. Four tracks were for 'straight' loading/unloading and two tracks for 'reverse' loading/unloading. The 'straight' tracks held seven 89 foot TTX cars each, the 'reverse' tracks held four cars on one and three cars on the other. A total of 35 89 foot TTX cars - where inspection and running repairs, unloading and loading took place 24 hours a day. Under the constaints of the operation, which built three blockings for dispatchment on two trains daily, there was no time for wasted moves. Inbound arrived on two trains the New York Trailer Jet and the Philadelphia Trailer Train. Outbound was dispatched on the Chicago Trailer Train and the St. Louis Trailer Train, which handled a block for Cincinnati in additon to St. Louis.
For the most part, to have cars to load outbound, you had to empty the cars that came inbound first. Spotting loads for unloading, pulling loads for dispatchment required yard crew time with the Yard Crew doing the bidding of Ramp Management as to the switching required.
I never kept track of inbound statistics, however, because I was responsible for the outbound dispatchments the maximum outbound for one day was 105 car - the total ramp turned over three times - the normal was in the 70-80 cars per day. Under these kinds constraints loading to the greatest extent was on a first in, first on the car. There was a ramp 'cut off' time that was nominally two hours before the scheduled departure of the appropriate train - needless to say, there were only a few trailers that flirted with the cut off time and those were from high priority customers.
As Intermodal demands and the customer base changed, the ramp a Wicomoco Street was closed and moved to the Port Covington section of Baltimore and subsequently to the Sea Girt Marine Terminal area of Dundalk Marine Terminal. I never visited the Port Covington operation and have no idea of what their operation consisted of. The Sea Girt operation uses modern container/trailer cranes - no more circus loading, however, it is still faced with having to unload to reload and time and space constraints - as is virtually every other intermodal terminal in the country.
All rail initial loading can be done - but at what final total cost
BaltACDIt is not necessary to have a sing
BNSF could be handing off to NS multiple east bound trains per day at WB junction, totally avoiding Chicago in the process. But I guess they don't want to "short haul" themselves, so they embrace Chicago with all it entails.
Perhaps "solving Chiocago" might be used as an argument supporting the final round of consolidations? An NS-BNSF merger would make WB junction prime real estate indeed. (no more "short haul" considerations)
BaltACDAll rail initial loading can be done - but at what final total cost
That is really the crux of the matter. The cost at the originating terminal is certainly going to be somewhat higher, and require more management. But by not doing it, costs are passed on to Chicago where everything has to get resorted. But maybe that is all on "someone else's" budget.
John
cx500 But maybe that is all on "someone else's" budget.
Exactly. "Not my job." I am a total outsider, but it seems to me that there could be some effort made at originating sites to at least divide the traffic into two categories: into Chicago and past Chicago. Again, I'm not in the business.
And, while I'm not advocating more big mergers, as I mentioned before, I don't see much incentive to speed up the through traffic unless it becomes a problem that belongs to the same road at both ends.
The thing about highway interchange in Chicago is that it has been taking place for over 50 years - during those 50+ years the operation among all the carriers has been polished to a high degree of relative efficiencty. With that being the case all the carriers know their costs. Figuring the costs for enhanced loading organization to permit all rail connections - ideally on run through trains that only change crews in the Chicago area - that is something to be measured and calculated, also to be calculated how such operations affect traffic that is properly destined to Chicago for drayage to local customers.
The amount of traffic that is actually destined to the Chicago intermodal service area is one thing many people discount in thinking about their 'grand plans' for intermodal in and through Chicago. What is the car load point that it becomes profitable for BOTH carriers to all rail a intermodal train through Chicago and will the operation of that 'all rail' train require the operation of a second train for Chicago proper traffic.
charlie hebdo Firelock76 Well I don't know, bottlenecks have always existed in one form or another, but it seems to me the railroads managed to get the job done and the supplies the military needed during World War Two moved in a pretty expeditious manner, no excuses accepted. I won't say it was easy, far from it, but they got it done. Or maybe it was the idea in the back of everyone's mind that if the stuff didn't get where it had to be quickly then someone's son, either your brother's, your sister's, your neighbor's, your co-workers, or yours was going to die if you didn't. Pretty powerful motivator, that. Rail capacity was greater in WWII. Since then, some mainlines have been removed, and double or multi-track lines made single track or downgraded.
Quite true. But remember, I said it still wasn't easy, especially considering the sheer increase in volume.
For a great tutorial (if you haven't read it already) pick up a copy of "Decade Of The Trains" by Don Ball Jr. and Rogers E.M. Whittaker. Whittaker was assigned to the Office Of Defense Transportation during the war and his prose gives you a front-row seat as to what was involved. A great read!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.