BaltACD What is the power source for all the autonomous rail cars? What is the cost of the autonomous rail cars?
What is the power source for all the autonomous rail cars? What is the cost of the autonomous rail cars?
See "Autonomous Trucks". I'm just saying that if one, then the other. If Autonomous Trucks never become both operationally and financially feasible, then forget about autonomous railcars.
^^^ Nice of you to do that but it is also illegal to cut and paste paid for content to an area that can be publicly accessed.
There's a timely article in the WSJ about automation of the US railroads. I've saved the article into four JPGs so everyone can read it
http://i.imgur.com/LD8XKsR.jpeg
http://i.imgur.com/8yyJR6M.jpeg
http://i.imgur.com/Mz7CQ6N.jpeg
http://i.imgur.com/6m7Y7ly.jpeg
And here's the article on WSJ: American Railways Chug Towards Automation
We have been led to believe that a culture of self-driving, electric cars is right around the corner. It is one of the several new utopian visions coming at us these days. Apparently the trucking industry has bought the hype because they too use highway vehicles. So railroads are eyeing this trend and starting to feel like they have to do something to keep up with the automation of trucking, or they will be left behind.
Actually, I believe railroads will be the first to automate running because they already own self-guiding track, which is a key advantage in automating vehicles. Also, they don’t have to share their running with trucks and cars. But, unlike the nimbleness of self-driving trucks, self-driving trains will be first to show up as the longest and heaviest unit trains as exemplified with Rio Tinto.
Self-driving cars and trucks will have to wait until we improve their guidance by making extensive modification to their roadways.
The self-driving railcars are an attempt to give rail the same advantage as trucks in being autonomous. But self-driving railcars come with the basic disadvantage of needing railroad tracks, which are not necessary for single railcar loads competing with single loads in truck trailers on roads.
That's the big reason Autonomous OTR trucks are not going to be hitting the roads soon. Estimated cost for one is coming in right at 1 million bucks plus their software can not refuel the truck know how to respond to bad weather an accident or open or close the doors of the trailer. Even with the wages we pay here with the benefits included we still come out over 400 grand ahead over one automated truck just in captial outlay alone.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
The shipper will just love it when the autonomous railcar arrives at their plant with bits of rotting deer guts plastered all over the front! And in a significant part of the continent they will have winter to contend with. Might have trouble bucking snowdrifts. Empty movements may not have the necessary weight to stay on the rails through an iced up flangeway.
zugmann CNSF I don't see why an autonomous railcar would cost more than an autonomous truck. But who knows how much that would be? Maybe, by the time they get there, it would be $10 million with inflation. We can agree more than an old ex-Penn Central hopper.
CNSF I don't see why an autonomous railcar would cost more than an autonomous truck. But who knows how much that would be? Maybe, by the time they get there, it would be $10 million with inflation.
We can agree more than an old ex-Penn Central hopper.
I can see it now: the original prototype test car actually is an old ex-PC hopper, with a futuristic iPhone in a retrofitted DeLorean bolted to it. And it can travel back in time to avoid demurrage charges!
OK, I'd better sign off now. It's getting late and I think I'm nearing my tequila limit. Thanks for engaging, it's been a fun discussion!
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
zugmann CNSF By the way, where did you get the $2Million price figure for the automated railcar? Is that how much a semi tractor plus trailer goes for these days? That was the cost of a new locomotive a few years ago (probably double that now).
CNSF By the way, where did you get the $2Million price figure for the automated railcar? Is that how much a semi tractor plus trailer goes for these days?
That was the cost of a new locomotive a few years ago (probably double that now).
I don't see why an autonomous railcar would cost more than an autonomous truck. But who knows how much that would be? Maybe, by the time they get there, it would be $10 million with inflation.
CNSFBy the way, where did you get the $2Million price figure for the automated railcar? Is that how much a semi tractor plus trailer goes for these days?
zugmann I'm not saying that this may not be the reality in the future, but I have my doubts we will see it in our lifetimes.
I'm not saying that this may not be the reality in the future, but I have my doubts we will see it in our lifetimes.
Yeah, you're probably right about that, for the same reason that trucks didn't take over from boxcar overnight. The current infrastructure is optimized for the current technology, and the type of changes we're talking about are more likely to be incorporated only in brand-new facilities rather than retrofitted into existing ones.
By the way, where did you get the $2Million price figure for the automated railcar? Is that how much a semi tractor plus trailer goes for these days?
RailRoader608 Now this is interesting. I have a few questions on this very subject: When you say carload shipments are as good as dead, is that referring to boxcars loaded with pallets as opposed to say, intermodal containers? Do essentially all finished goods on the rails move via intermodal containers because those don't get humped? Is it a generally accepted fact that rail does more damage to freight than trucking? And, if so, is that mostly (entirely?) due to railcars slamming into one another at 4mph at hump yards? Is there a whole market of more delicate stuff that just doesn't consider rail for this reason? [I've suspected this is true about rail being more damaging but there's not a lot of research out there about it] If railroads are really this damaging, do the finished goods that do move via intermodal containers require more packaging/protection than those goods moved via truck? In other words, if a container is moving via truck instead of rail do they go in and start strapping things down more and adding styrofoam blocks? If true this additional expense in time, money, and materials doesn't do rail any favors in its competition with trucking, huh? And finally, are these extra opportunities for damage exclusive to hump yards? Do flat yards with motive power moving the blocks around bang train sets together with as much force?
Now this is interesting. I have a few questions on this very subject:
The questions you raise would be a good subject for a whole new thread. I'll try to be brief.
- Damage is definitely one reason many finished goods have shifted from boxcar to container. There are several others - transit time, schedule reliability, end loading is better than side loading, higher freight dock productivity, etc. etc.
- 'Rail' doesn't necessarily do more damage than trucking. In the rail environment, you have to protect against lateral (end to end) impact - which is caused by either humping or careless flat switching. The forces involved can be substantial. In trucking, you have to guard more against vertical movement - either the sudden shock of hitting a pothole or going over a curb, or a more constant bouncing or vibration that can cause damage by repeated rubbing. So you load differently for each mode. And if it's going intermodal you generally load as you would for truck (see next point).
- Modern intermodal ride quality is often actually better than either carload or truck, because there's very little vertical movement on the rail, and switching of loaded intermodal cars is minimal at most. Many intermodal trains run intact, ramp to ramp, with no switching of loaded cars at all. This is one of the factors that sold JB Hunt on rail, and which helped power their rapid growth. That's not to say intermodal is bulletproof - you sure don't want the lift going wrong!
- Flat switching gives an engineer and ground crew a shot at outperforming an automated, computerized hump, but it doesn't necessarily mean they will.
CNSFIs there anyone "on" those railcars at the customer site today, or is it just a guy on the ground with a beltpack operating the locomotive remotely? It wouldn't be that different, really, except you do away with the locomotive, and whoever is moving the cars around (think model railroad here) could be in a nice climate-controlled office equipped with camera feeds. And what would the departure track be used for? Wouldn't each car just be sent off on its way whenever its ready to go?
Still lots of engineer-conductor crews working locals. Even if it's remote, you still have someone lining railroad, spotting cars, doing intraplant switching, etc.
How's the empty LPG car supposed to get from it's spot 6 deep on a siding, through 10 switches, open the gate, and go find the jockey truck driver to move that trailer parked on the siding, move that piece of pipe someone dropped in the flangeway, etc, to get to the main? Model RRing doesn't always capture all these fun aspects of industrial switching.
That doesn't even begin to answer the question of who is going to pay for all this technology. Somehow I don't think that small farm supply place that is getting end-of-life hoppers for potash is going to be ready to help pay for $2million+ railcars or wire their sidings up for this level of technology.
zugmann CNSF I imagine it would be an incremental process that could take decades to fully play out. Also what do we do with industries that have many tracks, spots, and switches? I guess they'll ahve to build a departure track and invest in trackmobiles. They probably won't be keen on railcars moving around their properties with nobody on them, either.
CNSF I imagine it would be an incremental process that could take decades to fully play out.
Also what do we do with industries that have many tracks, spots, and switches? I guess they'll ahve to build a departure track and invest in trackmobiles. They probably won't be keen on railcars moving around their properties with nobody on them, either.
Is there anyone "on" those railcars at the customer site today, or is it just a guy on the ground with a beltpack operating the locomotive remotely? It wouldn't be that different, really, except you do away with the locomotive, and whoever is moving the cars around (think model railroad here) could be in a nice climate-controlled office equipped with camera feeds. And what would the departure track be used for? Wouldn't each car just be sent off on its way whenever its ready to go?
oltmanndCarload shipment of finished manufactured goods is as good as dead. One main reason? Switching. 4 mph impacts can break a lot of toasters. Notice there is no humping of autorack or IM cars in the railroad world these days.
Notice there is no humping of autorack or IM cars in the railroad world these days.
Murphy Siding SD70Dude BaltACD oltmannd Notice there is no humping of autorack or IM cars in the railroad world these days. Mostly because they are 'long' cars that have wide swinging drawbars and couplers that will very likely bypass when attempting to couple and create a derailment on the track(s) they were switched to. A typical day at the Symington (Winnipeg) hump. Look what's about to go over: https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-MTIAjB7qoNc/V9hd8u68d0I/AAAAAAAAyxE/Uaa9ApXB6YE7BhQ2wfXR96USGXYLN1FCgCLcB/s1600/7522%2B7511%2BWinnipeg%2B20160903%2BSLB.jpg Hey- thats my wood in the foreground! Tolko oriented strand board and West Fraser framing lumber. We've received lumber cars that have been banged around enough that most of the lumber had shifted.
SD70Dude BaltACD oltmannd Notice there is no humping of autorack or IM cars in the railroad world these days. Mostly because they are 'long' cars that have wide swinging drawbars and couplers that will very likely bypass when attempting to couple and create a derailment on the track(s) they were switched to. A typical day at the Symington (Winnipeg) hump. Look what's about to go over: https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-MTIAjB7qoNc/V9hd8u68d0I/AAAAAAAAyxE/Uaa9ApXB6YE7BhQ2wfXR96USGXYLN1FCgCLcB/s1600/7522%2B7511%2BWinnipeg%2B20160903%2BSLB.jpg
BaltACD oltmannd Notice there is no humping of autorack or IM cars in the railroad world these days. Mostly because they are 'long' cars that have wide swinging drawbars and couplers that will very likely bypass when attempting to couple and create a derailment on the track(s) they were switched to.
oltmannd Notice there is no humping of autorack or IM cars in the railroad world these days.
Mostly because they are 'long' cars that have wide swinging drawbars and couplers that will very likely bypass when attempting to couple and create a derailment on the track(s) they were switched to.
A typical day at the Symington (Winnipeg) hump. Look what's about to go over:
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-MTIAjB7qoNc/V9hd8u68d0I/AAAAAAAAyxE/Uaa9ApXB6YE7BhQ2wfXR96USGXYLN1FCgCLcB/s1600/7522%2B7511%2BWinnipeg%2B20160903%2BSLB.jpg
Hey- thats my wood in the foreground! Tolko oriented strand board and West Fraser framing lumber. We've received lumber cars that have been banged around enough that most of the lumber had shifted.
Sorry, I'll try to be gentle next time!
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
CNSFI imagine it would be an incremental process that could take decades to fully play out.
jeffhergert On the major lanes I would think you would need two sets of tracks for both directions with possibly more crossovers to allow traffic to go around robot cars that have broken down. Or those which can't or won't run as fast. (All traffic will move as fast as the slowest vehicle if one can't easily pass another.) And since these cars are now without a person on board, wouldn't almost every switch on the rail system need to be powered? I would expect as a robot car approached a junction, it would tell the switch (by radio) which route it needed to use. The switch would then line itself accordingly. We won't discuss, for now, who will operate the switch if for some reason it fails to line or lock up. Jeff
On the major lanes I would think you would need two sets of tracks for both directions with possibly more crossovers to allow traffic to go around robot cars that have broken down. Or those which can't or won't run as fast. (All traffic will move as fast as the slowest vehicle if one can't easily pass another.)
And since these cars are now without a person on board, wouldn't almost every switch on the rail system need to be powered? I would expect as a robot car approached a junction, it would tell the switch (by radio) which route it needed to use. The switch would then line itself accordingly. We won't discuss, for now, who will operate the switch if for some reason it fails to line or lock up.
Jeff
You're right, all the traffic would be moving at the same speed, as if on a conveyor belt, and all the switches would need to be powered. Also, single track mainlines would be doable, but inefficient, as traffic would have to be bunched together and "fleeted" over the sections between sidings - so a lot of stopping and waiting. In that case you'd still have the look and feel of a train, only it would be made up of whatever traffic is at hand, kind of like when a road is down to one lane due to construction or whatever. I suspect we'd see a lot of new double track.
A breakdown could delay scores of shipments, but then again, isn't that what happens today when one car in a 10,000-foot train goes bad order?
It's interesting to think about how the rail network might be reconfigured to be optimized for autonomous railcars, and how the transition from the status quo would play out. I imagine it would be an incremental process that could take decades to fully play out.
CNSFHmm, good question. My initial reaction is that I'm not sure you would need a separate ROW, unless you want to run the single or smaller-group shipments at a much faster speed than the big unit trains. I doubt that would be necessary though, since you're already saving so much time by not having those smaller lots sitting around in yards waiting to be aggregated into a big train, waiting for connections, etc.
oltmanndNotice there is no humping of autorack or IM cars in the railroad world these days.
Carload shipment of finished manufactured goods is as good as dead. One main reason? Switching. 4 mph impacts can break a lot of toasters.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Euclid What is it about PSR that customers don't like?
What is it about PSR that customers don't like?
For one, having their arm twisted to be open to 24/7 service when they'd prefer M-F 8AM to 4PM...with demurage changes to match.
Lack of service if their local customers. Being charged higher rates if they refuse to provide the same amount of loads everyday higher demurrage rates when the railroad misses their own switch times. Then throw in if your a smaller customer like my boss is on his resins they might just say sorry your not worth the effort anymore to even service and refuse to even switch you. We average 10 cars each week with the BNSF and worry if they went to PSR if that would be enough. Salic Plastics one of our larger OTR customers in Ottawa just north of us was required to ship 30 a day for CSX to keep servicing them. They were only shipping on average 25 a day. US Silica was told 40 a day or loose their shipping on CSX when EHH took over. That give you an idea on why customers hate PSR.
Murphy siding part of your problem might be what your shipper or their broker is offering to pay for those loads. SE South Dakota is not exactly a hotbed of outbound Flatbed loads. Most of the time out of there they have a 3-400 mile deadhead to a better lane of freight. Now if it comes in on a reefer they can get stuff quicker outbound.
The biggest issue facing the railroads force marching themselves on the alter of EHH towards PSR and to hell what it does to customer relations. Just keep driving them away to the point that unless they do trainloads a week you won't do business with them. Sooner or later the STB will get involved again and look out when they do. The carnage will be massive and the railroads will be going oh crap.
While autonomos rail cars may help carload and intermodal, there is still much unit train and bulk traffic which would still move more efficently by trainload. Would the autonomous cars need their own grade seperated ROW?
BaltACD MidlandMike Murphy Siding Why does intermodal freight all have to go so fast? True, some things need to go fast and people are willing to pay more. But, at some point doesn't it make sense for Walmart to order those containers of toasters into the distribution center a week earlier and ship them by rail at lower rates? Walmart or someone has to pay the carrying costs for that extra week the inventory is on the books. Also the retailer has to rely on one week older sales stats to guess how many toasters to order, so more likely missed sales or overstock. There are reasons for just-in-time. Wal-Mart traffic can lose a week or more on its trip from China to US Ports.
MidlandMike Murphy Siding Why does intermodal freight all have to go so fast? True, some things need to go fast and people are willing to pay more. But, at some point doesn't it make sense for Walmart to order those containers of toasters into the distribution center a week earlier and ship them by rail at lower rates? Walmart or someone has to pay the carrying costs for that extra week the inventory is on the books. Also the retailer has to rely on one week older sales stats to guess how many toasters to order, so more likely missed sales or overstock. There are reasons for just-in-time.
Murphy Siding Why does intermodal freight all have to go so fast? True, some things need to go fast and people are willing to pay more. But, at some point doesn't it make sense for Walmart to order those containers of toasters into the distribution center a week earlier and ship them by rail at lower rates?
Walmart or someone has to pay the carrying costs for that extra week the inventory is on the books. Also the retailer has to rely on one week older sales stats to guess how many toasters to order, so more likely missed sales or overstock. There are reasons for just-in-time.
Wal-Mart traffic can lose a week or more on its trip from China to US Ports.
Which is why manufacturing will eventually return to North America; once robots are as functional and cheap as any foreign labor.
MidlandMike CNSF Autonomous railcars aren't so much about eliminating crews. They're about eliminating the need for trains. If you don't need trains, you don't need yards, switching, or terminal dwell time. Every shipment travels on its own from origin to final destination. No waiting until you have enough volume to run a train, or for a rested crew; no missed connections or misrouting due to blocking errors. That might be workable if the rail system was electrified. However, tens (or is it hundreds) of thousands of diesel motorized railcars running around needing maintenance and refueling, and maybe many mini-terminals, would lose much of rail's advantage. Plus then you would still need a truck for the last mile.
CNSF Autonomous railcars aren't so much about eliminating crews. They're about eliminating the need for trains. If you don't need trains, you don't need yards, switching, or terminal dwell time. Every shipment travels on its own from origin to final destination. No waiting until you have enough volume to run a train, or for a rested crew; no missed connections or misrouting due to blocking errors.
That might be workable if the rail system was electrified. However, tens (or is it hundreds) of thousands of diesel motorized railcars running around needing maintenance and refueling, and maybe many mini-terminals, would lose much of rail's advantage. Plus then you would still need a truck for the last mile.
I've heard that BNSF has given up on their LNG experiment and is now interested in battery power. I believe the idea is for battery-pack cars (tenders?) that could swapped out as needed at enroute terminals. That seems like a more realistic way to electrify the entire rail network than catenary or third rail. However, that would likely require further improvement in battery technology.
Given that most people who are talking about autonomous trucks are also talking about battery-powered electric trucks, I'm guessing that issues such as maintenance and recharging/battery swapping enroute would be more or less equal regardless of mode.
The really big change is to start thinking about the railroad as an alternative form of highway. To hear people on this forum tell it, trucking with its higher costs has pushed rail almost to death's door. Maybe, if the rails functioned more like a highway, they wouldn't need such a big cost advantage?
You're right about still needing a truck for first and last mile - assuming you're dealing with containers. I suspect that the big winner in this system would be general merchandise carload, rather than intermodal. Imagine if a tank, hopper, or box car could simply pull out of the customer spur onto the mainline and navigate its own way all the way to the destination spur, stopping only for battery swaps or whatever. That could lead to a boom in new rail-served facilities.
Murphy SidingWhy does intermodal freight all have to go so fast? True, some things need to go fast and people are willing to pay more. But, at some point doesn't it make sense for Walmart to order those containers of toasters into the distribution center a week earlier and ship them by rail at lower rates?
CNSFAutonomous railcars aren't so much about eliminating crews. They're about eliminating the need for trains. If you don't need trains, you don't need yards, switching, or terminal dwell time. Every shipment travels on its own from origin to final destination. No waiting until you have enough volume to run a train, or for a rested crew; no missed connections or misrouting due to blocking errors.
Murphy Siding RailRoader608 I suspect a large percentage of truck freight doesn't need truck speed half as much as it needs truck reliability. That's where rail falls on its face. Ding!
RailRoader608 I suspect a large percentage of truck freight doesn't need truck speed half as much as it needs truck reliability. That's where rail falls on its face.
I suspect a large percentage of truck freight doesn't need truck speed half as much as it needs truck reliability. That's where rail falls on its face.
Ding!
You mean to say that those couple of containers of hay that were in my stack train's consist the other night weren't a priority?
Murphy Siding working conditions of the majority of trucking companies
Russell
Shadow the Cats owner The so called Driver Shortage is the biggest myth screamed by the Mega carriers in History. Where I am at we never have a shortage of drivers. But then again my boss treats his drivers like human beings instead of slaves and dogs that need to be whipped. Our drivers are spoiled rotten and they know it when it comes to equipment in the trucks plus wages and benefits they do get from us. When a carrier runs a 150% turnover rate on their drivers a year it's the Carrier thats the problem not the driver. Some of the mega fleets are worse than that. You can tell the carriers that treat their drivers well they are the ones that drivers are always trying to get on with. The others well their records speak for themselves. The horror stories I have heard about some of the mega's from my drivers would make even the most jaded railroad employee go damn.
The so called Driver Shortage is the biggest myth screamed by the Mega carriers in History. Where I am at we never have a shortage of drivers. But then again my boss treats his drivers like human beings instead of slaves and dogs that need to be whipped. Our drivers are spoiled rotten and they know it when it comes to equipment in the trucks plus wages and benefits they do get from us. When a carrier runs a 150% turnover rate on their drivers a year it's the Carrier thats the problem not the driver. Some of the mega fleets are worse than that. You can tell the carriers that treat their drivers well they are the ones that drivers are always trying to get on with. The others well their records speak for themselves. The horror stories I have heard about some of the mega's from my drivers would make even the most jaded railroad employee go damn.
charlie hebdo CNSF There was a truck driver shortage when I entered the transportation industry back in the 1980s. I think we can now safely assume this is a permanent situation for as long as trucks require human drivers. Autonomous OTR trucks and trains may have an increasingly important place over the next 10 years. Regardless, Rails need to figure out how to be predictable in pick up and delivery. The slowness in leading and off-loading in terminals needs and can be made up for in much higher sustained speeds between terminals. This can be made more possible through PTC providing greater capacity on track and fewer slow, bulk cargo (coal, sand, etc) unit trains.
CNSF There was a truck driver shortage when I entered the transportation industry back in the 1980s. I think we can now safely assume this is a permanent situation for as long as trucks require human drivers.
Autonomous OTR trucks and trains may have an increasingly important place over the next 10 years. Regardless, Rails need to figure out how to be predictable in pick up and delivery. The slowness in leading and off-loading in terminals needs and can be made up for in much higher sustained speeds between terminals. This can be made more possible through PTC providing greater capacity on track and fewer slow, bulk cargo (coal, sand, etc) unit trains.
Bulk unit trains aren't the problem. They don't significantly affect intermodal (or passenger) trains if the line isn't congested. If the line is congested, then it doesn't matter what type of train you're trying to meet, you're going to take pretty much the same delay.
Having said that, I do agree with you that you can only mix so many high-speed trains with low-speed trains before running into congestion. If all trains are running the same speed, you can actually run more of them without problems. I also agree with others who have commented that most truck freight is more sensitive to reliability issues than pure speed. You don't have to run the intermodal trains fast, but you do have to maintain 90%-plus on-time performance, door to door, to compete with truck.
So if a railroad wants to have a healthy intermodal franchise, they have to have enough line capacity to ensure on-time performance. That's why Rob Krebs wanted to doubletrack Santa Fe's transcon line, and insisted on 95% on-time performance. The resulting traffic growth on that line over the past two decades has proved him right.
CNSFThere was a truck driver shortage when I entered the transportation industry back in the 1980s. I think we can now safely assume this is a permanent situation for as long as trucks require human drivers.
Autonomous OTR trucks and trains may have an increasingly important place over the next 10 years. Regardless, Rails need to figure out how to be predictable in pick up and delivery. The slowness in loading and off-loading in terminals needs and can be made up for in much higher sustained speeds between terminals. This can be made more possible through PTC providing greater capacity on track and fewer slow, bulk cargo (coal, sand, etc) unit trains.
Greetings "NKP Guy"
All great points you make here about the Erie Lackawanna (EL) and the Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroads. During its heyday, the P&LE was quite a railroad with a considerable amount of bulk traffic for the steel industry. As a subsidiary of the New York Central Railroad, it managed to stay out of the post-bankruptcy collapse of the Penn Central Railroad in 1970 (and in fact managed to remain profitable in the early/mid 1970s). When John W. Barriger III was president of the P+LE in the late 1950s/early 1960s (1956-1964), he had thought it could become a model "Super Railroad" in the image of what envisioned for super-efficient, heavy-haul, well-engineered railroad with the ability to haul long trains at low cost. In its day, the P+LE was knnown as "The Little Giant". But when the steel industry in Pittshburgh and the Ohio valley collapsed in the 1980s, the P+LE was clearly doomed. It was finally wound down and taken over by CSX in 1992.
As for the Erie Lackawanna (EL), yes, they had too many commuter operations in northern New Jersey that lost them trainloads of money. I think NJ property taxes were pretty onerous for the EL as well, since the EL had a lot of facilities and property there to tax.
CMStPnP NKP guy Do you work for the Erie Lackawanna? The Pittsburgh & Lake Erie? I think with those two examples their issue wasn't lack of opportunity or traffic rather lack of competitiveness due to lack of diversification of their traffic mix. They found a large chuck of volume in one or two primary markets and stuck with it to the exclusion of almost anything else. P&LE = Steel Industry related traffic over reliance E-L = Inability to shed money losiing passenger operations, reliance on coal and fruit shipments (which St. Lawerence Seaway cut into). Inability to quickly respond to rising passenger deficits and declining frieght traffic. Could make the argument that railroad regulation by the Feds made E-L Management complacent.
NKP guy Do you work for the Erie Lackawanna? The Pittsburgh & Lake Erie?
I think with those two examples their issue wasn't lack of opportunity or traffic rather lack of competitiveness due to lack of diversification of their traffic mix. They found a large chuck of volume in one or two primary markets and stuck with it to the exclusion of almost anything else.
P&LE = Steel Industry related traffic over reliance
E-L = Inability to shed money losiing passenger operations, reliance on coal and fruit shipments (which St. Lawerence Seaway cut into). Inability to quickly respond to rising passenger deficits and declining frieght traffic. Could make the argument that railroad regulation by the Feds made E-L Management complacent.
Pity the EL couldn't survive on its own, it was a truly fascinating railroad. If only railroad deregulation had come earlier, say in the 1973, rather than 1980, maybe the EL would still be around? (And the Rock Island? And the Milwaukee Road?).
If only?
Cheers!
charlie hebdo..... but what about the future, especially if OTR solves its shortage of drivers issues? Railroading really needs to start looking ahead else it will always be playing catch up or the "we're (almost) as good as..." game.
Of course the railroads need to always be planning ahead for the future. How big of a slice of the pie is intermodal traffic now? What is the potential for it in the future? What type of investments would it take to get deeper into that market slice and would it justify the investment? Would it enough for the railroads to someday be in the position to say “we may not be as fast and reliable as trucks may be, but we can wax them on the cost, and we’re making a pretty fair profit doing so”?
Murphy Siding charlie hebdo zardoz Murphy Siding Why does intermodal freight all have to go so fast? True, some things need to go fast and people are willing to pay more. But, at some point doesn't it make sense for Walmart to order those containers of toasters into the distribution center a week earlier and ship them by rail at lower rates? There you go again: making sense. It needs to be able to compete with OTR trucking for time and reliability, endpoint to endpoint, not just cost. True, but as I mentioned up above somewhere the trucking industry is working through some issues that are making them less timely and less reliable. Maybe the railroad industry doesn't have to raise their standards as high as was previously thought in order to compete with trucking?
charlie hebdo zardoz Murphy Siding Why does intermodal freight all have to go so fast? True, some things need to go fast and people are willing to pay more. But, at some point doesn't it make sense for Walmart to order those containers of toasters into the distribution center a week earlier and ship them by rail at lower rates? There you go again: making sense. It needs to be able to compete with OTR trucking for time and reliability, endpoint to endpoint, not just cost.
zardoz Murphy Siding Why does intermodal freight all have to go so fast? True, some things need to go fast and people are willing to pay more. But, at some point doesn't it make sense for Walmart to order those containers of toasters into the distribution center a week earlier and ship them by rail at lower rates? There you go again: making sense.
There you go again: making sense.
It needs to be able to compete with OTR trucking for time and reliability, endpoint to endpoint, not just cost.
True, but as I mentioned up above somewhere the trucking industry is working through some issues that are making them less timely and less reliable. Maybe the railroad industry doesn't have to raise their standards as high as was previously thought in order to compete with trucking?
Maybe that is so right now and for the rest of 2019 and 2020, but what about the future, especially if OTR solves its shortage of drivers issues? Railroading really needs to start looking ahead else it will always be playing catch up or the "we're (almost) as good as..." game.
charlie hebdo It needs to be able to compete with OTR trucking for time and reliability, endpoint to endpoint, not just cost.
Arguably it needs to compete with trucking on reliability and cost while not taking an inordinately long time to get there. Truck + a day or two would work if the reliability were there. I don't think rail has to be as fast as truck to compete for most loads.
Autonomous railcars aren't so much about eliminating crews. They're about eliminating the need for trains. If you don't need trains, you don't need yards, switching, or terminal dwell time. Every shipment travels on its own from origin to final destination. No waiting until you have enough volume to run a train, or for a rested crew; no missed connections or misrouting due to blocking errors.
Now that's an interesting idea! Of course utilization rates would go through the roof if you could sort out the blocking/PTC issues but then you're giving up the efficiency of 2-3 locomotives moving hundreds and hundreds of containers. If you drop down to a 1:1 or 1:10 ratio you improve delivery times and utilization rates but the economics are going to suffer.
I completely agree. I just read something from the DOE the other day saying that rail intermodal could be extremely competitive with trucking if it could reach the same levels of on-time reliability and breakage even if it couldn't compete with outright speed. I suspect a large percentage of truck freight doesn't need truck speed half as much as it needs truck reliability. That's where rail falls on its face.
It depends if the 'customer' is into PSR, Precision Scheduled Retailing at the lowest costs possible.
Does Wal-Mart want to pay Neiman Marcus freight rates?
cx500The long trains are very efficient, until a problem arises, at which point correcting it can tie up the whole railroad for hours. Just walking the length of a 12,000 foot train will take most of an hour, and as long again to walk back to the headend.
daveklepperTrains don't spend 24-30 hours in classification yards, cars did-- Before precision ralaroading?
and after
As long as railroads normally service a particular location with one train a day then cars going to those locations will lay somewhere for 24-30 hours to catch that particular train (on average - some cars may arrive and be processed within windows that allow lesst time to make their destination train).
Trains don't spend 24-30 hours in classification yards, cars did-- Before precision ralaroading?
I think (for better or worse) the biggest change in railroad operations will be crew size.
I fully expect to see Engineer-only train operation within my career. In Canada the Lac-Megantic disaster and lack of PTC will probably delay it 10 years behind the U.S, but it is coming.
As long as there is local work with hand-operated switches, Janney couplers and gladhands then Conductors will still be found on certain jobs.
zugmannSometimes a car gets in the wrong block of cars and goes for a ride. When it is one of 150 cars on a train, does it make sense to delay the other 149 cars on a train to kick out one?
Of course not. But it exemplifies the opposing philosophies of maximizing train operating efficiency vs maximizing customer service. Doesn't matter how efficiently the trains are run if the customers are not there to fill them. The long trains are very efficient, until a problem arises, at which point correcting it can tie up the whole railroad for hours. Just walking the length of a 12,000 foot train will take most of an hour, and as long again to walk back to the headend.
The Class 1s seem have adopted the first as their religion; meanwhile the short lines focus more on the service. Both philosophies have provided satisfactory results, for the moment at least. The happy spot is probably somewhere in the middle but that might nudge the almighty operating ratio a point or two higher.
Shadow the Cats owner If and it's a big if in both my boss and my eyes. The railroads need to improve customer service period. My boss that received over 500 cars last year on the BNSF and 400 on the NS half the time can't even get his phone call returned by his assigned representative. Yet anyone of our customers can call us up during our business hours and within seconds know were their load is have an eta on the delivery plus if there is a problem can talk to anyone up to the CEO of the company to get it resolved. We're lucky to get a 1 week window on when a hopper with 100 tons of resin in it will show up. I can tell a water plant exactly were his needed chemicals are within 100 yards of the exact spot. A railroad can barely tell me when the car I need last left a yard. You see why trucks are beating the freaking pants off railroads now on short to medium hauling. We know were are stuff is and freaking don't send it 500 miles the wrong way to sort it into a train coming the right way. BNSF sent one of our cars from Kansas City to Amarillo then back just last month.
If and it's a big if in both my boss and my eyes. The railroads need to improve customer service period. My boss that received over 500 cars last year on the BNSF and 400 on the NS half the time can't even get his phone call returned by his assigned representative.
Yet anyone of our customers can call us up during our business hours and within seconds know were their load is have an eta on the delivery plus if there is a problem can talk to anyone up to the CEO of the company to get it resolved.
We're lucky to get a 1 week window on when a hopper with 100 tons of resin in it will show up. I can tell a water plant exactly were his needed chemicals are within 100 yards of the exact spot. A railroad can barely tell me when the car I need last left a yard. You see why trucks are beating the freaking pants off railroads now on short to medium hauling. We know were are stuff is and freaking don't send it 500 miles the wrong way to sort it into a train coming the right way. BNSF sent one of our cars from Kansas City to Amarillo then back just last month.
CNSF The railroads have had over a century to sort this service, yard dwell, and terminal cost stuff out. I don't see them doing it as long as they have to aggregate many loads together into trains. This is why they should be thinking about autonomous railcars with centralized traffic control (also largely automated). It should be much easier to develop safe, functional autonomous vehicles for use in the relatively controlled environment of a railroad than in the free-for-all of public roads and highways. If the trucking industry beats the rails in the race to autonomous vehicles, shame on the rails. They ought to be way ahead of the truckers. Autonomous railcars aren't so much about eliminating crews. They're about eliminating the need for trains. If you don't need trains, you don't need yards, switching, or terminal dwell time. Every shipment travels on its own from origin to final destination. No waiting until you have enough volume to run a train, or for a rested crew; no missed connections or misrouting due to blocking errors.
The railroads have had over a century to sort this service, yard dwell, and terminal cost stuff out. I don't see them doing it as long as they have to aggregate many loads together into trains. This is why they should be thinking about autonomous railcars with centralized traffic control (also largely automated). It should be much easier to develop safe, functional autonomous vehicles for use in the relatively controlled environment of a railroad than in the free-for-all of public roads and highways. If the trucking industry beats the rails in the race to autonomous vehicles, shame on the rails. They ought to be way ahead of the truckers.
Great ideas that are an updated John Kneiling vision.
Why use a 53' trailer when you could send those widgets case by case in a fleet of autonomous Tesla model 3s?
I'm no economist, but doesn't the economy of scale come into play here?
RailRoader608 Murphy Siding Where do you see the opportunity for railroads to make big inroads into intermodal traffic? I think for rail to make significant strides in intermodal the railroads need to develop new technology to drastically reduce terminal time and time in classification yards. Being cheaper isn't enough and rail already beats the pants off trucking in linehaul efficiency. We need innovation in terminal design or transhipment technology that allows freight to be loaded and unloaded quickly so that unit trains aren't the only type with which intermodal works. Why have all the innovations in transshipment failed? There's so much room for improvement when trains spend 24-30 hours in classification yards!
Murphy Siding Where do you see the opportunity for railroads to make big inroads into intermodal traffic?
I think for rail to make significant strides in intermodal the railroads need to develop new technology to drastically reduce terminal time and time in classification yards. Being cheaper isn't enough and rail already beats the pants off trucking in linehaul efficiency. We need innovation in terminal design or transhipment technology that allows freight to be loaded and unloaded quickly so that unit trains aren't the only type with which intermodal works.
Why have all the innovations in transshipment failed? There's so much room for improvement when trains spend 24-30 hours in classification yards!
Sometimes a car gets in the wrong block of cars and goes for a ride. When it is one of 150 cars on a train, does it make sense to delay the other 149 cars on a train to kick out one?
You're comparison of a small trucking firm to a class 1 railroad is about as apples and oranges as you can get.
Murphy SidingWhere do you see the opportunity for railroads to make big inroads into intermodal traffic?
RailRoader608 charlie hebdo RailRoader608 The data from the OECD says that in 2016 the US moved 5.3 trillion tonne-km of ground freight with 44% moving via rail. The EU with all its programs moved 2.1 trillion tonne-km in 2016 and over 80% of it was via truck. Does ground freight refer to all freight other than that carried by air or water? If so, the statistic cited is fairly meaningless in any discussion of container freight, since the US has longer endpoint distances and has far more heavy unit trains of coal, sand, oil, ethanol and grain than Europe. That would greatly increase the ton-km figure. And Europe has far more cities very close together where truck transportation would be more efficient. Apples and oranges. Sure, apples and oranges in terms of market conditions but also apples and oranges in terms of public funding of efforts to move freight by rail. I'm only making the comparison to say that if economically viable short-haul intermodal is the holy grail then Europe isn't there either. The US could further improve its share of freight moving via rail if we had the politcal stomach/interest to tax truck for its true costs on society and use that money to build rail infrastructure or subsidize rail transport. But we a) have a less interventionist government and b) don't care about climate change nearly as much as our European friends.
charlie hebdo RailRoader608 The data from the OECD says that in 2016 the US moved 5.3 trillion tonne-km of ground freight with 44% moving via rail. The EU with all its programs moved 2.1 trillion tonne-km in 2016 and over 80% of it was via truck. Does ground freight refer to all freight other than that carried by air or water? If so, the statistic cited is fairly meaningless in any discussion of container freight, since the US has longer endpoint distances and has far more heavy unit trains of coal, sand, oil, ethanol and grain than Europe. That would greatly increase the ton-km figure. And Europe has far more cities very close together where truck transportation would be more efficient. Apples and oranges.
RailRoader608 The data from the OECD says that in 2016 the US moved 5.3 trillion tonne-km of ground freight with 44% moving via rail. The EU with all its programs moved 2.1 trillion tonne-km in 2016 and over 80% of it was via truck.
Does ground freight refer to all freight other than that carried by air or water? If so, the statistic cited is fairly meaningless in any discussion of container freight, since the US has longer endpoint distances and has far more heavy unit trains of coal, sand, oil, ethanol and grain than Europe. That would greatly increase the ton-km figure. And Europe has far more cities very close together where truck transportation would be more efficient. Apples and oranges.
Sure, apples and oranges in terms of market conditions but also apples and oranges in terms of public funding of efforts to move freight by rail. I'm only making the comparison to say that if economically viable short-haul intermodal is the holy grail then Europe isn't there either. The US could further improve its share of freight moving via rail if we had the politcal stomach/interest to tax truck for its true costs on society and use that money to build rail infrastructure or subsidize rail transport. But we a) have a less interventionist government and b) don't care about climate change nearly as much as our European friends.
That's all true in varying degrees. My impression from observations of rail freight in Germany is that Western Europe is a lot farther along in container shipping, time-sensitive rail shipping and the JIT inventory process. I realize that is anecdotal, but I also maintain the stats you gave are rendered less than helpful because we ship a lot of heavy, bulk materials long distances.
RailRoader608 Murphy Siding RailRoader608 Running larger trains between fewer, larger yards may be more efficient for the railroads but it's exactly the opposite of the direction intermodal freight is moving. Why double down on efficiencies benefiting your commodity moves of coal and grain when the future of freight transport is in intermodal? (Not saying you're wrong, but I think this would be foolish of the railroads to do) I see what you're saying, but there's a good arguement to be made that we're talking about 2 different kinds of freight and customers with two different needs. I think the intermodal may be going smaller to go faster. The bulk of railroad traffic is goods that need to move cheaper. You're right - and I totally agree. I think the railroads are doubling down on efficiencies that allow it to move the coal and bulk commodities cheaply and not doing enough to be competitive for the other kind (time sensitive intermodal). I get it, railroads are great at moving large quantities of cheap, heavy stuff so it's tempting to just focus on improving what you're good at but the future of freight is the other cateogry, the intermodal shipments.
Murphy Siding RailRoader608 Running larger trains between fewer, larger yards may be more efficient for the railroads but it's exactly the opposite of the direction intermodal freight is moving. Why double down on efficiencies benefiting your commodity moves of coal and grain when the future of freight transport is in intermodal? (Not saying you're wrong, but I think this would be foolish of the railroads to do) I see what you're saying, but there's a good arguement to be made that we're talking about 2 different kinds of freight and customers with two different needs. I think the intermodal may be going smaller to go faster. The bulk of railroad traffic is goods that need to move cheaper.
RailRoader608 Running larger trains between fewer, larger yards may be more efficient for the railroads but it's exactly the opposite of the direction intermodal freight is moving. Why double down on efficiencies benefiting your commodity moves of coal and grain when the future of freight transport is in intermodal? (Not saying you're wrong, but I think this would be foolish of the railroads to do)
Running larger trains between fewer, larger yards may be more efficient for the railroads but it's exactly the opposite of the direction intermodal freight is moving. Why double down on efficiencies benefiting your commodity moves of coal and grain when the future of freight transport is in intermodal?
(Not saying you're wrong, but I think this would be foolish of the railroads to do)
I see what you're saying, but there's a good arguement to be made that we're talking about 2 different kinds of freight and customers with two different needs. I think the intermodal may be going smaller to go faster. The bulk of railroad traffic is goods that need to move cheaper.
You're right - and I totally agree. I think the railroads are doubling down on efficiencies that allow it to move the coal and bulk commodities cheaply and not doing enough to be competitive for the other kind (time sensitive intermodal). I get it, railroads are great at moving large quantities of cheap, heavy stuff so it's tempting to just focus on improving what you're good at but the future of freight is the other cateogry, the intermodal shipments.
Most of the intermodal yards I worked at just had pad tracks that were too short. Took forever to break a train up or put one together from 3 or 4 tracks. They can be loaded/unloaded quick enough, but to get them in or out the door was time consuming.
Esp. when short-sighted management makes rules like "no riding cars in the intermodal yard", and then cuts the crew vans from the budget. Yeah, let's just let the conductor walk 13 miles to spot a train up.
Of course there's always a crossing you have to cut halfway in the yard. Heaven forbid a truck drive an extra 1000' to go around the train (unless it's for the packers. Then I guess it makes sense).
RailRoader608 tax revenue would get dumped into the general budget or some slush fund
I don't disagree with you there. Besides, even if we taxed trucks to recover 100% of the damage they do to our roads I'm betting the tax revenue would get dumped into the general budget or some slush fund and our roads and bridges would still be woefully underfunded.
[quote user="RailRoader608"] tax truck for its true costs on society. Don't think that will ever happen.
CMStPnP Try running a fully loaded ore train in the United States at 80-90 mph and watch what happens.
AFAIK, nobody on here (other than you) has mentioned doing anything like that. You are making the fallacious straw man argument.
RailRoader608The data from the OECD says that in 2016 the US moved 5.3 trillion tonne-km of ground freight with 44% moving via rail. The EU with all its programs moved 2.1 trillion tonne-km in 2016 and over 80% of it was via truck.
It would cost hundreds of billions of dollars for the U.S. to attempt to immitate the European model, it's not just a management change. Try running a fully loaded ore train in the United States at 80-90 mph and watch what happens.
I'm also not convinced the European model is all that efficient as far as capital spending is concerned. I tend to think the U.S. model of capital spending is still far more efficient than Europe. If European railroads had the same operating ratios American railroads now have the Europeans would be falling over themselves to slap new taxes on them.
Why do you say Europe is exceling in short haul intermodal?
I've looked into the market and while the EU has been throwing billions of dollars trying to effect a freight shift from truck to rail they're doing considerably worse than the US due to shorter hauls and inefficient public train services. The data from the OECD says that in 2016 the US moved 5.3 trillion tonne-km of ground freight with 44% moving via rail. The EU with all its programs moved 2.1 trillion tonne-km in 2016 and over 80% of it was via truck.
Maybe it's impressive that Europe is doing as well as 19% since Japan has also tried to shift freight to rail for environmental and labor shortage reasons but is even worse off than Europe with 9% of ground freight moving via train (in a country with essentially one freight rail company so different issues than Europe!).
Anyway, the US freight system looks pretty good when you compare it to its European and Japanese counterparts where the government(s) are much more willing to tax trucks and spend on intermodal for climate reasons. That tells me the issue isn't economic, it's performance based. The savings associated with inventory reduction must be so high that companies can't offset them through shipping with cheaper, slower, less reliable rail. I don't even think rail has to beat trucking performance in speed - companies and customers are demanding that companies be greener, so if you could move freight reliably at truck + 1 day in a much greener manner I think you could capture significant freight flows. Unfortunately (but understandably) the railroads have structured their networks to play to their strengths: massive, long, double stack unit trains moving 750+ miles. Great for moving containers from ports to Chicago and Dallas but not flexible or nimble enough for modern domestic supply chains.
Lmsr Maybe the railroads should look to Europe. Coal traffic is only a shadow of what it was and the distances travelled by railfreight are extremely short by American standards. Yet many state and private operators still manage to transport considerable quantities of freight and turn a profit. Not only that but the operators have to fit their freight trains on top of extremely intensive passenger operations which always get priority. In Europe dwell times at yards have been cut to virtually nothing and cars seldom stay in terminals for more than a few hours.Look at a large sorting yard in Europe and most of the time they are empty. Then a brace of trains will arrive and the activity is frenetic as cars are swapped between trains. Within 2/3 hours all the trains will have left and peace descends until the next rush.
Maybe the railroads should look to Europe. Coal traffic is only a shadow of what it was and the distances travelled by railfreight are extremely short by American standards. Yet many state and private operators still manage to transport considerable quantities of freight and turn a profit. Not only that but the operators have to fit their freight trains on top of extremely intensive passenger operations which always get priority. In Europe dwell times at yards have been cut to virtually nothing and cars seldom stay in terminals for more than a few hours.Look at a large sorting yard in Europe and most of the time they are empty. Then a brace of trains will arrive and the activity is frenetic as cars are swapped between trains. Within 2/3 hours all the trains will have left and peace descends until the next rush.
I've noticed this also. It's too bad that both Juniata and Volker Landwehr were pushed out of the forum. They knew the European operations first hand.
Which is exactly what is required of the best use of computer technology, along with relearning that short trains can be profitable in some situations.
daveklepperTo me. dsriverless trucks makes even less sense from a safety and environmental angle than driverless freight-trains! I still think both ideas are rediculous.
I think driverless freight trains make sense but labor costs on a train are so much lower per ton-mile than in a truck (one of the big benefits of a train is two people can haul hundreds of containers, right) that the incremental savings of automating the labor piece isn't that meaningful. I think manned trains could be very competetive with driverless trucking if railroads could provide a comparable level of service.
That's the big hang up, right? Railroads today can't deliver goods with sufficient speed and reliabilty for the the modern supply chain. If they could figure out a way to do this then I think the inherent efficiencies of steel wheels on steel rails and hauling hundreds of containers with a couple locomotives could let rail compete with driverless trucking for years in the future. Especially if the government started taxing freight trucks for all the damage they inflict on our roads and highways...
Anl I think the full power of computer technology has yet to be exploited to obtain the advantages of Asset-Utilization-Railroading (i. e. "Precision Railroading") from Customer-Responsive railroading. I hope BNSF will show the way on this.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL BaltACD ATLANTIC CENTRAL mkwelbornjr Regulation killed the Erie. P&LE was purchased by CSX...and commen sense is that you don't need two main lines that are parallel serving the same markets. Hence CSX kept only the strategic piece of P&LE. And yet CSX and NS run parallel thru northeastern Maryland so close to each other the Engineers can wave at each other in lots of spots. In my not so expert opinion, the future of rail transportation is in solving the problem of making intermodal faster portal to portal, and thereby getting more long distance trucks off the road, with or without drivers........ Sheldon Ownership in Northeastern Maryland is CSX and Amtrak. NS is a tennant wherever they operate on the NEC and the do not operate any 'through freight' on the NEC. I am not a student of modern railroads, I just see NS freight trains on the ex PRR, now AMTRAK line here around Havre de Grace on a fairly regular basis. Where they go, what type operations they are, I have no idea. And three hundred feet away on the other side of US 40, I watch the ex B&O line, now CSX........ In the early 1960's my father, a manager in the trucking profession, briefly worked for the Southern Railroad's piggyback operation. The problem then was prompt loading/unloading, seems that is still the issue. I like trains, I build model trains, but I am an economic capitalist and a realist. If railroads want to survive, they need to figure out what their customers need and deliver it. Sheldon
BaltACD ATLANTIC CENTRAL mkwelbornjr Regulation killed the Erie. P&LE was purchased by CSX...and commen sense is that you don't need two main lines that are parallel serving the same markets. Hence CSX kept only the strategic piece of P&LE. And yet CSX and NS run parallel thru northeastern Maryland so close to each other the Engineers can wave at each other in lots of spots. In my not so expert opinion, the future of rail transportation is in solving the problem of making intermodal faster portal to portal, and thereby getting more long distance trucks off the road, with or without drivers........ Sheldon Ownership in Northeastern Maryland is CSX and Amtrak. NS is a tennant wherever they operate on the NEC and the do not operate any 'through freight' on the NEC.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL mkwelbornjr Regulation killed the Erie. P&LE was purchased by CSX...and commen sense is that you don't need two main lines that are parallel serving the same markets. Hence CSX kept only the strategic piece of P&LE. And yet CSX and NS run parallel thru northeastern Maryland so close to each other the Engineers can wave at each other in lots of spots. In my not so expert opinion, the future of rail transportation is in solving the problem of making intermodal faster portal to portal, and thereby getting more long distance trucks off the road, with or without drivers........ Sheldon
mkwelbornjr Regulation killed the Erie. P&LE was purchased by CSX...and commen sense is that you don't need two main lines that are parallel serving the same markets. Hence CSX kept only the strategic piece of P&LE.
Regulation killed the Erie. P&LE was purchased by CSX...and commen sense is that you don't need two main lines that are parallel serving the same markets. Hence CSX kept only the strategic piece of P&LE.
And yet CSX and NS run parallel thru northeastern Maryland so close to each other the Engineers can wave at each other in lots of spots.
In my not so expert opinion, the future of rail transportation is in solving the problem of making intermodal faster portal to portal, and thereby getting more long distance trucks off the road, with or without drivers........
Sheldon
Ownership in Northeastern Maryland is CSX and Amtrak. NS is a tennant wherever they operate on the NEC and the do not operate any 'through freight' on the NEC.
I am not a student of modern railroads, I just see NS freight trains on the ex PRR, now AMTRAK line here around Havre de Grace on a fairly regular basis. Where they go, what type operations they are, I have no idea.
And three hundred feet away on the other side of US 40, I watch the ex B&O line, now CSX........
In the early 1960's my father, a manager in the trucking profession, briefly worked for the Southern Railroad's piggyback operation. The problem then was prompt loading/unloading, seems that is still the issue.
I like trains, I build model trains, but I am an economic capitalist and a realist. If railroads want to survive, they need to figure out what their customers need and deliver it.
NS runs from Perryville to Bayview Yard in Baltimore on the NEC. The ConRail 'through' freight was put on the B&O route when Amtrak forced through freight off the NEC after they got title to the NEC in 1976 (I think - I may be wrong on the date). From Perryville NS trains operate up the 'Port Road' to Harrisburg to join the rest of the NS system. East of Harrisburg NS freights operate on Reading and CNJ tracks, not the former PRR tracks that Amtrak own.
Amtrak allows NS to serve individual customers whose plants are located on the NEC. NS does not get any priority for their operations along the NEC.
To me. dsriverless trucks makes even less sense from a safety and environmental angle than driverless freight-trains! I still think both ideas are rediculous.
Automatic operation to enhance safety is a good idea. But a driver-engineer should still be able to take control when required and now how to respond to possible unusual situations.
The future of freight rail is in the basements and garages of an aging subculture.
charlie hebdoMaybe there were lunchpails in Cheesehead Paradise many years ago, but none on Metra.
Lol, is this the user formerly known as Schlimm?
BaltACDThe Cloud - is ripe for data theft. Brick & mortar data centers get hacked - so will The Cloud and the damage will be far worse than anything yet experienced.
Perhaps someday they will but with machine learning the computer will be rapidly responding to hacks and viruses via it's own defensive code. Analogous to constantly changing whatever the vulnerability was. For one you would have to pit another faster learning machine against it to change the attacks faster then the defenses. I am not arguing it could not happen, it will be more difficult. Though I am certain in early versions of the Cloud before that barrier is put in place you can probably hack as you can a regular computer system now. The purpose of the cloud though is not security but to take humans out of the equation of programming computers.
CNSF To CMStPnP: For clarity, whose "dream" are you referring to? Your post is confusing to me.
To CMStPnP: For clarity, whose "dream" are you referring to? Your post is confusing to me.
The dream that driverless trucks will change much in the transportation industry. It might be true if the revolution in trucks were happening independently of all other transportation modes but it is only one component of many that is changing.
mkwelbornjrRegulation killed the Erie. P&LE was purchased by CSX...and commen sense is that you don't need two main lines that are parallel serving the same markets. Hence CSX kept only the strategic piece of P&LE.
ConRail retired the Erie - not CSX. By the time CSX acquired its portion of ConRail the Erie was no more than right of way without track.
CMStPnPI can tell you as a former resident of Wisconsin......your going to piss off Joe Lunchpail in Chicago at a very minimum, even if he rides the Metra Express to work.
Maybe there were lunchpails in Cheesehead Paradise many years ago, but none on Metra.
ROBIN LUETHEtrains do not need to go at breakneck speed to compete - they just always need to be moving, say at 40 50 mph.
Many years ago, an official rode with me from Proviso to Butler, in order to see how the upgrades to the New Line sub were coming along (the line was being brought up from many 10mph slow orders to a constant 30mph standard). The line had numerous premanent speed restrictions (30mph over Deval, 35mph through Gurnee SS, 25mph at St. Francis and Belton). I asked him why not upgrade to 40 or 50mph. He said that the small amount of time saved going from 30 to 50mph (where possible) was so small compared with the huge cost of going from 30 to 50, did not justify the cost, and that the railroad would realize far greater efficiencies if that same amount of money were spent improving yards.
However, he did agree that the efficiency gained from going from 10 to 30mph WAS justified.
Door-to-door, nothing is faster than a dedicated delivery vehicle; and nothing is cheaper than train.
The scary thing for trains is that using some rules on thumb, one RR car can carry as much as 4 trucks, and a train can be 100 or more cars long. Now I know that the arithmetic and algebra comparison is not all that realistic, but a train with two workers is having trouble competing with 400 trucks with 400 workers. What will happen if for safety reasons there are only 100 worker/supervisers for 400 trucks?
Somehow RR freight needs work on competing with shorter runs. Given the efficiency of container boxes, small cranes, computers and better scheduling perhaps it will be happening. Positive train control may be able to run trains closer together. And another matter of arithmetic, those trains do not need to go at breakneck speed to compete - they just always need to be moving, say at 40 50 mph.
LmsrMaybe the railroads should look to Europe. Coal traffic is only a shadow of what it was and the distances travelled by railfreight are extremely short by American standards. Yet many state and private operators still manage to transport considerable quantities of freight and turn a profit. Not only that but the operators have to fit their freight trains on top of extremely intensive passenger operations which always get priority. In Europe dwell times at yards have been cut to virtually nothing and cars seldom stay in terminals for more than a few hours.Look at a large sorting yard in Europe and most of the time they are empty. Then a brace of trains will arrive and the activity is frenetic as cars are swapped between trains. Within 2/3 hours all the trains will have left and peace descends until the next rush.
It sounds as if Europe is doing better than the US at short-haul intermodal but unfortuantely I don't think they've cracked the code either. European governments have been pushing intermodal rail harder than the US government but rail still moves ~12% of EU freight vs 50%+ for trucking.
https://www.ajot.com/premium/ajot-europe-strives-to-build-more-intermodal
But I agree the US could learn some best practices from the Europeans and perhaps reduce the break even distance at which rail becomes competitive with trucking.
^^^ Nice dream your having there but let me try to return you to reality:
1. Driverless trucks need significant additional road capacity if they are to shift from rail to highways. Your going to have a very massive traffic jam if you try to empty all the intermodal trains onto the interstate highway system. I can tell you as a former resident of Wisconsin......your going to piss off Joe Lunchpail in Chicago at a very minimum, even if he rides the Metra Express to work.
2. Driverless trucks even if powered by electricity might be cheaper to operate but there is no way they will ever compete with the cost efficiency of long-haul freight railroads......unless maybe they float in the air and burn hydrogen, even then your looking at buying more equipment and a lot of dead birds on the ground.
3. Crewless freight trains? Railroads are not entirely implementing PTC for altruistice reasons of preservation or safety of passenger trains. They expect to use the automation feature on the freight hauling side and also achieve additional fuel cost savings.
Now, back to the original question - what do I see for the future of freight rail?
Autonomous vehicles would be the big game-changer, if the technology were to develop. There's been a lot of debate here and in other Trains threads about how realistic autonomous trucks are, at least in the relatively near future. I've recently come to believe that we've been asking ourselves that question from the wrong point of view, and with blinders on.
Let's say your goal is to build a vehicle capable of delivering a load of freight from point A to point B without a human driver on board. What's the shortest path to achieving that goal? Is it to develop AI smart and reliable enough to distinguish lane markings in snow and fog, or a pedestrian from a traffic cone, or anticipate how a human in a nearby vehicle might react to a sudden unexpected situation? Or is it to develop a vehicle capable of navigating its way through a national network of private, controlled roads reserved exclusively for such vehicles for most if not all of the trip? Roads which could use steel rails for guidance? I suspect that much, if not most, of the technology that would be needed for this already exists on the vehicle side. It's only the national network of exclusive freight shipment roads that needs some rethinking and retuning (and maybe expansion?)
Here's another question I've been pondering lately. Why did the rail industry develop 'trains', if not to be able to handle multiple loads with one crew? Is there any other reason to aggregate shipments going to and from different locations together, given all the time-consuming and expensive switching that's required? If autonomous vehicles could find their own way through the rail network (with perhaps some help from a centralized traffic control system), why not let them make the trip on their own, the way trucks do on the interstate system today?
CN's purchase of TransX is nothing like UP's purchase of Overnite back in the 80's or whenever that occurred. TransX has been one of CN's biggest intermodal customers since the late 90's, so it's more akin to BNSF buying JB Hunt, but without the complications of TransX having relationships with all the other railroads as well (CN offers TransX coast-to-coast coverage of the Canadian market).
The Cloud - is ripe for data theft. Brick & mortar data centers get hacked - so will The Cloud and the damage will be far worse than anything yet experienced.
zardozNah. Once AI really takes off, and starts developing technology we humans cannot even imagine, maybe we'll see Star Trek-type inanimate matter transporters...no need for trucks, trains, etc.
Thats the plan. Most governmental IT systems are moving to the Amazon Cloud which is also probably stoking the Trump-Bezo's fued. They are already training people in machine learning and AI. By 2025 Alexia will probably be able to file your IRS tax return as well as give you a status on the refund check. It's not as far in the future as most people think. And almost just in time too.
There will be a brief overlap period but ironically the automation in the workplace is coinciding with our first ever global population declines. In some countries already population is on the decline but by 2050 in most countries it is forecasted that populations will be declining among humans. I think I read it will level out at some point but I forget the number.
CShaveRR Is it a stretch to say that CN is involved with Algoma Central's fleet of boats? They aren't used for coal, rather to carry aggregate to places like Grand Haven, my home town.They were probably divested when CN (or WC, to be precise) took over the Algoma Central Railroad.
Is it a stretch to say that CN is involved with Algoma Central's fleet of boats? They aren't used for coal, rather to carry aggregate to places like Grand Haven, my home town.They were probably divested when CN (or WC, to be precise) took over the Algoma Central Railroad.
The shipping line was tied to the steel company like the railroad and they split at the same time. Algome Central Corp. carries Iron Ore from Duluth/Superior to Nanticoke, ON and also from Sept, Ile, QC to Nanticoke and Sorel. It moves grain from Thunder Bay to Quebec City and other ports on the lower St. Lawrence River, plus Salt, Cement and Limestone.
CN owns the ships of the Great Lakes Fleet but due to the Jones Act is in no way involved in their operation. Instead they are operated by a company called Key Lakes, Inc.
Just looking at the numbers that have been in front of our face for the past 30 years, the future is INTERMODAL.
Loads have grown a bit faster than the economy while carload continues to shrink and coal continues it's death spiral.
For railroad to prosper in the future, they have to have a plan to configure themselves in a manner that optimizes intermodal and still accomodates "botique" carload traffic.
This means railroads have to look like the BNSF transcon and NS Chicago line, and not single track, laid on the dirt, three+ degree curve, crawling through yard limit, 8 mph up the ruling grade, 15 mph "connections" on through route, 1-1/2 hr to make a set out, 19th century wonders.
And they better wake up soon.
rrnut282Twenty years from now, it might be acceptably accurate, but by that time Amazon could have a conveyor belt to every address in the US that drones can't reach and trucks won't be needed.
Perhaps 20 years sounds too soon, but consider....it was only 20 years ago that Google was founded; the first Apple iMac came out; Microsoft became the largest company in the world and Windows 98 released; MP3 players were all the rage; only 100 titles were available on the new-fangled DVD players; etc.
In all likelyhood, the only thing safe to say about the future is that it will be nothing like we imagine it will be.
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
The Great Lakes Fleet is what's left of US Steel's ore boats. There aren't that many boats in the fleet and shipping on the Lakes has declined mostly in line with the decline of North American steelmaking.
I don't see any particular need for CN to get into overseas shipping. It's doing just fine interchanging containers with existing ship lines.
CN already owns the Great Lakes Fleet, acquiring it when they purchased the BLE and DMIR. Like TransX will be, it is operated seprately from the railway.
CN has an in on Great Lakes shipping and some car ferry services on the east and west coasts. It's entirely possible we could see CN get into more marine business.
10000 feet and no dynamics? Today is going to be a good day ...
RailRoader608 Coal shipments are declining every year and will, someday, go to zero. Intermodal picked up a bit in 2017 with the truck driver shortages but autonomous trucking looks like it will boost truck freight capacity while lowering rates in the next 10-20 years. There are some other heavy, bulk commodities like gravel but is that it? Will rails in 2050 just be carrying mixed bulk freight and the occasional double stack unit train from LA to Chicago? Does managment at the Class 1s talk about this question? Are they acutely aware of the headwinds rail is facing and looking for ways to do something about it?
Coal shipments are declining every year and will, someday, go to zero. Intermodal picked up a bit in 2017 with the truck driver shortages but autonomous trucking looks like it will boost truck freight capacity while lowering rates in the next 10-20 years. There are some other heavy, bulk commodities like gravel but is that it? Will rails in 2050 just be carrying mixed bulk freight and the occasional double stack unit train from LA to Chicago?
Does managment at the Class 1s talk about this question? Are they acutely aware of the headwinds rail is facing and looking for ways to do something about it?
Coal shipments may decline, but they won't go to zero, ever. Unless we stop producing steel, there will be a need for met coal (coking coal) to adjust the carbon content of the steel. Will it ever be King Coal again? No, but it will be around for quite a while.
Autonomous trucks are still a pipe dream. Machine vision systems needed for a truely autonomous vehicle still have trouble distinguishing lane lines and pedestrians in heavy rain and snow. Twenty years from now, it might be acceptably accurate, but by that time Amazon could have a conveyor belt to every address in the US that drones can't reach and trucks won't be needed.
Despite the images of dis-connected, pampered fools in ivory towers in-charge of the railroads, looking to the future is one of the things they get paid to do.
Same was done many years ago at Canadian Pacific.. famously branding each division as CP Rail, CP Air, CP Express, CP Hotels etc. They were way ahead of their time, which is why it didn't work out as well as it might have. The regulations back then were much more restrictive and not conducive to a far flung diversified undertaking. Today we have less restrictive economic regulation.. much better technology to manage it.. and probably most important, we have customers who need that capability. A major change since 2000 is that customers.. even the big ones.. have offloaded the supply management to their vendors. Its nolonger good enough to service one or a couple of lanes or to offer only one mode. The key now is managing all of the shippers' logistics needs, including what mode (s) are to be used. All shippers really want to do is provide the shipment stats and service expectations... the rest is up to the vendor. Fewer shippers are saying "we need a boxcar" or we need a flatbed trailer".. increasingly they're saying "here is my shipment X.. make it appear in Saint Louis on May 3". In part this is because shippers have grown and become more complex themselves, and in part this is because shippers, like most other businesses, want to divest themselves of work that isn't core to what they do. It's been a steady progression in that direction for a few years now toward a one stop "supply chain management"... and as an added benefit to transportation vendors, it provides that proverbial moat that separates those few who can from the many who can't.. Conversely, providing nothing more than capacity in specific lanes and calling that a niche works less well every day... those guys will be gone soon.
UlrichRailroads will likely be as important as ever in 30 years from now, although they'll become part of larger, global, multimodal transportation entities. Further mergers between the larger railroads makes less sense than strategic mergers and partnerships with other modes that extend capabilty and global reach. CN's recent purchase of TransX is probably a good indication of what's to come. No doubt CP and the other Class 1s are looking to make similar acquisitions.. maybe the next will be the purchase of an ocean shipping line or a railroad in Europe or Asia. Although no one of course can predict the future, it stands to reason that future transportation entities will need to meet the demands of a more global marketplace where shippers tend to require more diversifed far reaching service capabilities from their vendors. It's why third party logistics companies have grown so rapidly over the last couple of decades... they're able to provide diverse services using different modes and across international borders, albeit on someone else's equipment. The next step in the evolution of transportation services will be companies that can do more using their own assets.. 3PLs generally fall short in being able to assure capacity as that capacity, whether its rail cars or trucks, is owned by others.. large asset based multimodal carriers that span the globe would fix that.
CSX went that 'diversification' route in the mid 80's to the early 90's. They purchased Texas Gas Corp. which in addition to its natural gas holdings also owned American Commercial Barge Lines and SeaLand, the originator of containerized ocean shipping.
From my point of view, I never saw any real synergies get developed between the railroad, barge line and container line.
From a purely personal view point, when the purchase was made, company official bonus's weren't paid account what the purchase cost. Later as the various components were sold off in individual transactions, the proceeds from the sales were never included in the income line for company officials bonus as they were listed a 'extraordinary income'. So the company's non-contract employes got jobbed on all ends of the transactions.
Railroads will likely be as important as ever in 30 years from now, although they'll become part of larger, global, multimodal transportation entities. Further mergers between the larger railroads makes less sense than strategic mergers and partnerships with other modes that extend capabilty and global reach. CN's recent purchase of TransX is probably a good indication of what's to come. No doubt CP and the other Class 1s are looking to make similar acquisitions.. maybe the next will be the purchase of an ocean shipping line or a railroad in Europe or Asia. Although no one of course can predict the future, it stands to reason that future transportation entities will need to meet the demands of a more global marketplace where shippers tend to require more diversifed far reaching service capabilities from their vendors. It's why third party logistics companies have grown so rapidly over the last couple of decades... they're able to provide diverse services using different modes and across international borders, albeit on someone else's equipment. The next step in the evolution of transportation services will be companies that can do more using their own assets.. 3PLs generally fall short in being able to assure capacity as that capacity, whether its rail cars or trucks, is owned by others.. large asset based multimodal carriers that span the globe would fix that.
Well, no one can see the future.
What I do see is that many of the restrictions on rail business growth are not inherent. That means they can be overcome with thought and reason. Something easier said than done. Emotions are powerful things, and they're often fueled by ignorance. Emotions can readily trump thought and reason. And therein lies the real problem.
We need to look at the economics of rail freight movement vs. motor freight movement. Yes, it does all come down to money. People will get all emotional and talk about "An assault on the middle class" or "Corporate Greed", etc. Blaming a villain is emotionally satisfying, but it's not really productive. And in the end the most economically efficient system will win.
The Achilles Heel of railroading is in its high terminal costs. Including the resultant delays needed to aggregate shipments in to economical trainload lots. A trucker just goes from origin to destination. A trucker doesn't have the rail's terminal costs. What to do?
It's obvious. Reduce the rail's terminal cost. How do we do that? We do that by running smaller, lower cost trains from smaller, lower cost terminals. Railroads will still have more terminal costs than truckers, but rail line haul efficiency is much better than a trucker's. Use that!
Lower cost trains mean trains with less labor, among other things. (And here we go! I'll get called every dirty name allowed.) But I reason that there is no reason that a train with a one person crew operating from Cedar Rapids, IA to near a Walmart distribution center serving Chicago would be unsafe or inefficient. Cedar Rapids is a major production point for breakfast cereal. And the rail share from the largest cereal plant in Cedar Rapids (Quaker) is 0.00%.
I reason it's worth a try. But emotion will certainly get in the way. CN has a very underutilized line between Cedar Rapids and Chicago. What does anyone, including rail labor, have to loose by trying it?
jeffhergertThey'll look for business that the major carriers pass up. I've said it before, maybe the big carriers should divest all but their major routes.
Thats not a bad idea. I can see what you said with WSOR though. Under Milwaukee Road stewardship a lot of those weed grown branchlines, had maybe a tri-weekly run on them at the end. Now some of them are maintained to secondary mainline standards and carry multiple trains a day including some from BNSF with the large road power (before as a branch being weight restricted to four axle power or smaller). Seems lack of marketing attention as well as line investment drove a lot of potential traffic away in the last days of the Milwaukee Road. Of course abandoning the poorer of the two lines in joint C&NW, Milwaukee Road territory and consolidating traffic on one line, helped as well.
BTW, as I was leaving Milwaukee back to Dallas, saw a UPRR Coal train crossing I-94 on the former Butler Yard belt line over the new bridge with empty coal hoppers with light blue ends.
Then as the Amtrak Hiawatha headed South of Milwaukee another UPRR Coal train empty and headed South on CP with UPRR power on the front, same light blue ended hoppers (possibly could have been the same train but I don't think there is a connection between lines in Milwaukee). Unusual to see two coal trains at once in Milwaukee from the same RR. My guess is WE utilities were stocking up coal.
NKP guyDo you work for the Erie Lackawanna? The Pittsburgh & Lake Erie?
I think the worry about autonomous trucks is overrated at this time. Most trucks I see on I-80 are small companies. While the large truck load and LTL carriers may go into autonomous trucks, I think the smaller ones won't for quite a while. I also don't think you'll see fully autonomous trucks. Rather, there'll still be a driver for certain tasks and conditions a human will be needed for. Partially autonomous trucks could alleviate the driver shortage by allowing one driver to make as many miles as a team.
Instead of worrying about new trucking technology, I'd be worried about production of goods actually moving back to the US. (Whether done by humans or automated machines doesn't matter for this.) I'd guess if new means of production had to be built, it would be located nearer where the major consumer markets would be. That would lessen the number of miles freight would travel and almost favor trucks, driverless or not. Moves under a certain number of miles (dependent on railroad company) fall off their radar.
If you look at the industry only by looking at the class one carriers, the industry is doomed to a few major routes handling bulk and intermodal long distances. Look at the entire industry, the short lines and regionals, the prospects are much better. Many thrive without ever having much or any coal in the first place. They thrive because they are willing to provide service to their customers. They'll look for business that the major carriers pass up. I've said it before, maybe the big carriers should divest all but their major routes. Let the smaller companies do the first/last mile while the class ones do the long line haul.
traisessive1Trains aren't going anywhere.
Do you work for the Erie Lackawanna? The Pittsburgh & Lake Erie?
Everything changes.
Trains aren't going anywhere.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.