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.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
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.
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.
Great ideas that are an updated John Kneiling vision.
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.
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?
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
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
Russell
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.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.