adkrr64 Bruce D Gillings Unfortunately, it seems they don’t have the volumes that the railroads want to deal with: the railroads are more focused on fewer larger truckers. I am curious: Does a trucker have to have their own contract with a RR to move their trailers/ boxes on a train? For example - let's say a couple of smaller truck firms, one near Yuma and one near Chicago agreed the deliver each other's refrigerated trailers, with transport between cities provided by rail. Would it be easy or hard for those two firms to do this? Can a trucker drive up to an intermodal ramp and ask that trailer be taken to a particular city, sort of like when one goes to a UPS store to have their package shipped to someone? I know accounts need to be setup and all that, it is more of a question as to how available intermodal services are to customers who might only want to use it on an occasional basis.
Bruce D Gillings Unfortunately, it seems they don’t have the volumes that the railroads want to deal with: the railroads are more focused on fewer larger truckers.
I am curious: Does a trucker have to have their own contract with a RR to move their trailers/ boxes on a train? For example - let's say a couple of smaller truck firms, one near Yuma and one near Chicago agreed the deliver each other's refrigerated trailers, with transport between cities provided by rail. Would it be easy or hard for those two firms to do this? Can a trucker drive up to an intermodal ramp and ask that trailer be taken to a particular city, sort of like when one goes to a UPS store to have their package shipped to someone? I know accounts need to be setup and all that, it is more of a question as to how available intermodal services are to customers who might only want to use it on an occasional basis.
Not very available. The railroads just are not set up to deal with smaller, occasional customers. That's not a failing. Many large companies are not set up to deal directly with such customers. We don't buy our cars/trucks directly from Ford and we don't buy our ketchup directly from Hunts.
Products and services are delivered through channels of distribution that, absent government interference, will configure themselves in the most efficient manner.
Smaller shippers can go through intermodal marketing companies that aggregate the volumes into amounts a large railroad can readily deal with. (It was taught to me as "Descrepancy of Size.") Just like Ford sells through dealers.
But first, UP needs to put an intermodal terminal at Yuma.
Bruce D GillingsUnfortunately, it seems they don’t have the volumes that the railroads want to deal with: the railroads are more focused on fewer larger truckers.
At one time BNSF (and even as far back as ATSF) had ramps in Bakersfield, Fresno, Empire (east of Modest on the M&ET), North Bay (San Pablo – UPS exclusively) and Richmond. They shut down Bakersfield before the BN merger, and ultimately Richmond and Fresno (I believe both of those right around the opening of their own new ramp at Mariposa just east of Stockton). Although there are many food producing facilities and DCs throughout the Bay Area and the San Joaquin Valley, ATSF/BNSF found it made sense to get all of that focused at one ramp. That allowed them to build solid trains, or trains with limited blocks, to dispatch out to DFW, Memphis, Atlanta, KC and Chicago. The drayage took care of the seasonal issues, and the challenge of many smaller blocks. BNSF gets a lot of cold trailers, and some cold containers, out of Mariposa.
San Bernardino in the LA Basin also handles many cold trailers and containers; Hobart less so. Recently they have re-opened the ramp at Barstow, with a goal to get more cold boxes from the southern San Joaquin Valley (EB) plus the DCs to serving Las Vegas and the Victorville market (which is not all that large: most of Vegas’s supplies come out of the LA Basin RDCs and NDCs). It will take the pressure off of San Bernardino as well as capture more of the highway 58 cold traffic. I’m not sure on the success of this yet. But overall BNSF focuses on fewer ramps, longer drays, and generally longer hauls. That seems to make the most sense to them. Couple that with a number of lanes with multiple schedules and relatively good service, and so far it seems successful.
The other consideration is that, with the seasonality of markets (ie: Salinas Valley – Yuma for lettuce), a lot of that type of business seems to go by owner-operator truckers rather than the big boys like Prime, Stevens, FFE, etc. And it seems to also work for the more nimble smaller operators that Shadow the Cats owner represents, where service is job one. Those operators seem to be flexible enough to move around. Unfortunately, it seems they don’t have the volumes that the railroads want to deal with: the railroads are more focused on fewer larger truckers. Will more stringent trucking regulations and spiraling insurance costs push more traffic to the larger trucking companies? Will be interesting to see.
Shadow the Cats owner Yes there's all kinds of protein that moves to eastern and western markets in the USA on trucks. However what everyone who is wanting the railroad to get into this market is forgetting is what is the backhaul going to be for 6 months of the year in some areas of the nation out west when the produce is being grown in Arizona and imported from around Nogales and Yuma areas. Are they willing to eat a 500 mile deadhead to reposition the equipment to get it into place if needed. Plus a lot of these protein loads are multiple drops going across the nation. My husband would pickup a get loaded out of 3 different plants with a mix of beef and pork then have 4 drops that started off in Wendover Nevada then on to Reno then 1 in Sacramento with a finish in San Francisco about one a month at one place he drove for. The driver's called it the Western meatpacking local. Then depending on if it was Salinas season for produce or winter get their reload assignment. In the winter they would be sent to Oregon to get bare root roses to bring back to the midwest. The export stuff the railroad can have as much of that as they freaking want. Why the less times it's handled before it's on that export container out of the nation the better less chance for damage.
Yes there's all kinds of protein that moves to eastern and western markets in the USA on trucks. However what everyone who is wanting the railroad to get into this market is forgetting is what is the backhaul going to be for 6 months of the year in some areas of the nation out west when the produce is being grown in Arizona and imported from around Nogales and Yuma areas. Are they willing to eat a 500 mile deadhead to reposition the equipment to get it into place if needed. Plus a lot of these protein loads are multiple drops going across the nation. My husband would pickup a get loaded out of 3 different plants with a mix of beef and pork then have 4 drops that started off in Wendover Nevada then on to Reno then 1 in Sacramento with a finish in San Francisco about one a month at one place he drove for. The driver's called it the Western meatpacking local. Then depending on if it was Salinas season for produce or winter get their reload assignment. In the winter they would be sent to Oregon to get bare root roses to bring back to the midwest. The export stuff the railroad can have as much of that as they freaking want. Why the less times it's handled before it's on that export container out of the nation the better less chance for damage.
Thank you for ceding the export loads. Very nice of you to do that.
The UP does need an intermodal terminal at, or near, Yuma. The harvest does shift to that area during the colder months. There is year round traffic to handle, although August and September are really low volume. (USDA data).
As to the deadhead miles (empty, non revenue), they're a fact of life for any transportation company. It would be a rare freight transportation operation that had two way loading perfectly in balance between two points. You try to minimize deadhead miles, but they cannot be eliminated. Some of the trucks going in to Yuma may have a revenue load. But the volume going in is much less that the volume going out. So trucks have to deadhead in. As the UP would have to do.
What this gets us to is the cost. The marginal cost of moving the empty equipment in by rail is significantly lower than the marginal cost of driving an empty truck to Yuma. Yuma is on the way from LA to Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, etc. via the UP. Just put the containers that moved the meat to southern California (Lots 'O people.) on an eastbound through Yuma. Set 'em out at Yuma. Get 'em loaded and put them on an existing shedule going east. The marginal cost to the railroad will be lower than anything the truckers could compete with. Of course you have to then get the containers back to the packing house. But the truckers have to get back to the packing house too. Again, the marginal cost advantage of rail will be a railroad advantage.
As to northern California, I don't know how many loads of bare root roses move out of Oregon. But there's no reason they can't move on a train. The UP could move empties out of northern California to apple loads in Washington or potatoes from Idaho. Again, this can be done with low marginal cost when existing train service is used.
The loads with multiple deliveries will have to be worked out one at time.
This is where a Ro-Ro TOFC/COFC comes into play.. Backhaul you say? How's California's hay production to date? Yuma also host a major portion of Arizona's Cattle production. If you really want to get creative stuff import goods into reefer containers for backhaul. UPS did this for years with it's Martrac fleet.. Parcels west, perishables east
Victrola1If the Union Pacific does not want business in Cedar Rapids maybe the CRANDIC does. Would the service to the west coast be any better routing it via the Iowa Interstate to BNSF?
IMHO, this is a misdiagnosis of the problem. It isn't that the UP doesn't "Want" the business, it's that they don't grasp the opportunity. They haven't made an informed, reasoned, analyzed decision to forgo the traffic. They just don't have the ability to evaluate it. This may sound farfetched, but I believe it to be the reality.
They're not going to spend a lot of money developing the needed intermodal terminals on "Hey, why don't we." The marketing folks have to be able to identify, quantify, and come up with a plan that will add money to the bottom line. They currently cannot do this. They don't know how. Until developing that ability becomes a corporate priority that railroad is going to wander in the woods. And run from any opportunity that they cannot understand.
There is going to be internal pushback. There should be such internal pushback. Every plan is not a good plan and all such plans must be required to "Stand Trial" before money is spent. At the same time there has to be an acceptance of risks. If you never fail you're not trying hard enough.
But I don't see many of today's marketing people as having an understanding of what a railroad can/cannot do. They fold at the first opposition.
From my own personal experience with the UP.... I was working with a 3rd party group to get that westbound Iowa/Nebraska meat on the railroad. There is a large volume of meat going to the west. Both for domestic consumption and export to Asia. I wasn't in the meeting but I was told the UP marketing guy said he wanted to get to a unit train. Well, this is silly. It's not one origin to one destination. It's going all over. From Seattle to San Diego. A unit train will not work. Just put it on existing expedited trains and save the expense of running an additional unit train. But all the guy knew was "Get unit trains." So he tried to do that. They need to do better. (RailEx was a classic blunder. They tried to shove perishables in to a once or twice a week unit train. Not good.)
They have made some progress. They're now putting export meat on existing trains. And Lance Fritz has condemed "Boutique" unit trains. But they've got a ways to go.
The logistics services provider on Jan. 28 bought four property parcels totaling 131.85 acres for a combined sum of $1,389,302, city and Linn County property records show.
The land all falls along the Cedar Rapids and Iowa City Railway — or CRANDIC — which made it a “unique and appealing” purchase for future rail-related uses, said Jeff Woods, director of business development and marketing for Alliant Energy Transportation
https://www.thegazette.com/subject/news/business/alliant-picks-up-1-4-million-in-vacant-cedar-rapids-land-along-crandic-railway-20200211
If the Union Pacific does not want business in Cedar Rapids maybe the CRANDIC does. Would the service to the west coast be any better routing it via the Iowa Interstate to BNSF?
zugmann greyhounds And it needs to be an executive level boot. How can you be a precisely scheduled railroad operating with as few locomotives and people as possible if you have marketing people out there trying to drum up more business?
greyhounds And it needs to be an executive level boot.
How can you be a precisely scheduled railroad operating with as few locomotives and people as possible if you have marketing people out there trying to drum up more business?
There's people out there trying to drum up buisness? It seems more like someone (and the number's probably dwindling) to answer the phone or check e-mail/website contacts. Our employee website has a place to tell them of business opprotunities the field work force sees so they can follow up.
That is, if it's "appropriate business" that they haven't convinced themselves that's not worth their time.
We make announcements that we're all in on an intermodal facility on a short line (Shell Rock IA - Iowa Northern) but won't load containers for the cereal companies at Beverly IA. It was said local management was working with those companies, but Marketing told them we weren't going to do it and to mind their (local mgmt) own business. It wouldn't be the first time they've turned up their nose at business that only nets them 5 or 6 million dollars.
Jeff
[/quote]
greyhounds You cannot habituate a farm animal to transport. It stresses them. (dogs are different, they love a ride) A steer will loose 100 pounds in the first 24 hours of transport. If someone has just spent a lot of time, money and effort to put weight on the steer this will drive that person nuts.
You cannot habituate a farm animal to transport. It stresses them. (dogs are different, they love a ride) A steer will loose 100 pounds in the first 24 hours of transport. If someone has just spent a lot of time, money and effort to put weight on the steer this will drive that person nuts.
Greyhounds is absolutely correct about transporting livestock being very stressful for them. My grandmother had cows before I was born and until she passed away, when some passed to my father, who had cows until he passed away long after I left home. My uncle had cows the entire time I was growing up and until after I was gone. None of them except one (more on that in a moment) enjoyed being hauled around, and I've seen one or two which absolutely lost their minds when put in a stock trailer. Unless you've been present when cows are moved, it is hard to believe how much manure a group of cows can put into a formerly clean cow trailer during a 30-minute ride, from the stress of being moved.
My uncle had a Charolais bull that did enjoy being moved, but he had a good reason. My father had a stock trailer, and my uncle had the bull. They struck a deal for my father to use the bull to breed his 10 or 12 cows, and for my uncle to use the stock trailer when he needed it. That bull was mean and stubborn, and loading him to move him to a different group of cows was no fun at all the first few times. However, that stinker figured out that being moved meant he was about to be put together with a fresh group of willing cows, and after that we didn't even need a loading chute to get him in the trailer. We could just tow the trailer out into the pasture, open the gates, and get out of the way; he would walk up to the trailer and get in, without being enticed with treats or forced to get in. We had the last laugh, though - the last time we moved him, we took the trailer out into the pasture, the bull walked right in, and instead of taking him to a new batch of cows my uncle hauled his ornery butt to the market and sold him. Fun times.
Union Pacific is very irritant as of late.. The largest Class1 in the Nation. They should be leading the pack! If they truly wanted the business. Then contract marketing out to a 3PL, or allow: G&W, Omnitrax, Watco... to handle such transactions. That's what I would do. Matter of fact have a TM (Traffic Mgr) from each of those companies setup shop right in dispatch whilst utilizing their regional offices to solicit traffic. You can even get UPS in on it.. I see though why UP doesn't bother.. A record operating ratio is more important than record profits.. Smh..
Iced reefers lasted into the early 70s. They would be reiced as needed. UP had an ice house (now the radio shop) at Council Bluffs. IC had facilities at Waterloo. CNW at Clinton IA. RI at Silvis IL. I'm sure the CBQ, CGW and MILW also had facilities between Chicago and Council Bluffs at one time.
Overmod charlie hebdo AFAIK, the IC carried a lot of pre-mechanical reefers from Iowa eastward. Stands to reason ... to Chicago. Would they have distinctive competence in handling reefer traffic over other roads running, say, from Council Bluffs to the Chicago area? Otherwise I think most of the interesting traffic for IC with reefers might have happened once it turned southward rather than 'eastward', not being interchanged in the Chicago area, IC being predominantly a north-south carrier on a variety of routes. Deggesty might have some interesting historical Memphis notes in this respect. Yes, I suspect greyhounds would know, and I'd also suspect he knows firsthand about traffic in at least some part of the mechanical-reefer era...
charlie hebdo AFAIK, the IC carried a lot of pre-mechanical reefers from Iowa eastward.
Stands to reason ... to Chicago. Would they have distinctive competence in handling reefer traffic over other roads running, say, from Council Bluffs to the Chicago area?
Otherwise I think most of the interesting traffic for IC with reefers might have happened once it turned southward rather than 'eastward', not being interchanged in the Chicago area, IC being predominantly a north-south carrier on a variety of routes. Deggesty might have some interesting historical Memphis notes in this respect.
Yes, I suspect greyhounds would know, and I'd also suspect he knows firsthand about traffic in at least some part of the mechanical-reefer era...
Johnny
BaltACDI suspect the big change in the market forces was the perfecting of mechanical refrigerator cars.
You may be right, but I think the real change started earlier: with the advent of mechanical refrigeration for icemaking (which was well-established by the 1870s). This allowed the making of ice for reefers that could be piled in at 0 degrees F or below, and allow pre-frozen content similarly subcooled to remain in that state, or at least not to reach the 'dangerous range' of temperature for spoilage and other forms of biological danger during the possibly extended transit time.
That wasn't the revolution, though, with 'land-based' refrigeration: that would be in 1925 with the development of 'dry ice', first as a refrigerant actually capable of maintaining deep frozen products in that state, and second as a means to produce controlled atmosphere displacing air. Note that this approach is considerably cheaper than providing and specialty-maintaining mechanical refrigeration rigs on interchange cars in that era, and would certainly serve to maintain frozen meat in priority traffic (there was a network of dry-ice production as early as 1931 specifically organized for railroad demand).
At least some modern cold-transport providers run mechanical refrigeration only to make up some of the heat losses enroute, depending on an initial charge of cryogenic material (like liquid nitrogen) both to cool the car initially and provide most of the sustained internal low temperature of the prefrozen cargo.
I believe I once read that it was the reefer (the original, iced version) that killed the East India spice trade.
As the story goes, a primary use for those spices was to cover the taste of rancid butter.
The ability to ship milk, and milk products, over greater distances meant that said use of spices was no longer necessary. The first shipment of butter in an iced reefer was in 1851.
One might argue that had such use been more widespread by 1871 that Mrs. Leary wouldn't have had a cow to kick over the lantern...
The Chicago stockyards burned at least once, a major conflagration. That such yards were located in and near major cities speaks to the need to get the finished meat quickly to market.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
charlie hebdoAFAIK, the IC carried a lot of pre-mechanical reefers from Iowa eastward.
AFAIK, the IC carried a lot of pre-mechaical reefers from Iowa eastward. Not sure when that fizzled out, but greyhounds would know.
chutton01 greyhounds You cannot habituate a farm animal to transport. It stresses them. (dogs are different, they love a ride) A steer will loose 100 pounds in the first 24 hours of transport. If someone has just spent a lot of time, money and effort to put weight on the steer this will drive that person nuts. The solution is to minimize transport of the livestock. That's why the packing houses are near the production areas ... I recall reading in Jeff Wilson's Livestock & MeatPacking industry book that railroads back in the day (turn of the 20th century or so) wanted to haul livestock vs. butchered meat parts, as they would make more revenue hauing the whole animal (bones, hide, fat, etc) at premium rates (and they could also bill the shipper for feeding the livestock as well), which is why we still had the beloved of modelers stock cars till the 1960s (yes, yes, a few made it into the 1990s - very few). Companies eventually moved the abattoirs out to the areas where cattle were raised, closed the huge union stock yards in urban areas, and shipped the dressed meat saving money. I suppose by the 1940s/50s the cost of labor made livestock handling for resting, feeding, and watering too much of a hassle for the railroads as well.
greyhounds You cannot habituate a farm animal to transport. It stresses them. (dogs are different, they love a ride) A steer will loose 100 pounds in the first 24 hours of transport. If someone has just spent a lot of time, money and effort to put weight on the steer this will drive that person nuts. The solution is to minimize transport of the livestock. That's why the packing houses are near the production areas ...
The solution is to minimize transport of the livestock. That's why the packing houses are near the production areas ...
I recall reading in Jeff Wilson's Livestock & MeatPacking industry book that railroads back in the day (turn of the 20th century or so) wanted to haul livestock vs. butchered meat parts, as they would make more revenue hauing the whole animal (bones, hide, fat, etc) at premium rates (and they could also bill the shipper for feeding the livestock as well), which is why we still had the beloved of modelers stock cars till the 1960s (yes, yes, a few made it into the 1990s - very few). Companies eventually moved the abattoirs out to the areas where cattle were raised, closed the huge union stock yards in urban areas, and shipped the dressed meat saving money. I suppose by the 1940s/50s the cost of labor made livestock handling for resting, feeding, and watering too much of a hassle for the railroads as well.
I suspect the big change in the market forces was the perfecting of mechanical refrigerator cars.
Icing pre-mechanical refers would not keep temperature suitable for shipping processed meat. The most effective way to ship meat in that era was 'on the hoof'. Since then mechanical refers changed the equation.
In today's world of railroading there are no longer any facilities that would permit the transportation of meat on the hoof - there are no longer any feed, water and rest facilities on any of the Class 1 carriers, let alone the personnel to operate them.
The first couple of years of my stint as Trainmaster (1971-73), the B&O was still handling live hogs to the EssKay meat processors in East Baltimore - a couple of cars a day.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
greyhoundsYou cannot habituate a farm animal to transport. It stresses them. (dogs are different, they love a ride) A steer will loose 100 pounds in the first 24 hours of transport. If someone has just spent a lot of time, money and effort to put weight on the steer this will drive that person nuts. The solution is to minimize transport of the livestock. That's why the packing houses are near the production areas ...
greyhounds Los Angeles Rams Guy I'm with ya all the way on this matter Greyhounds but I personally want the livestock as well. :) I keep hoping and praying that one day, some day not terribly far down the road, the CN will finally realize what potential they have for meat and meat products in Iowa. We can only hope. No livestock. A very wise and experienced mentor once taught me that the two most difficult things to transport are: 1) ice cream and, 2) livestock. If you have a problem moving either one you're going to buy the load. Ice cream is but a cost. Livestock gets in to the humane care of animals. Something I insist on. Now, I like to eat meat. I have no objections to proper slaughter of animals for human consumption. But until the proper kill is done the animal must be handled humanely. I've shot animals, cleaned and dressed them, and eaten them. I think that's just normal You cannot habituate a farm animal to transport. It stresses them. (dogs are different, they love a ride) A steer will loose 100 pounds in the first 24 hours of transport. If someone has just spent a lot of time, money and effort to put weight on the steer this will drive that person nuts. The solution is to minimize transport of the livestock. That's why the packing houses are near the production areas such as Iowa. Or in Nebraska, Kansas, the panhandle of Texas, and western Illinois. (Alright, Sioux Falls, southern Minnesota, and Missouri too) The railroads have a large volume, good revenue, long haul opportunity. They just don't see it or know how to exploit it. That's the problem. As far as the CN goes, if a marketing person walked in to his/her boss and proposed going for a relatively short haul where the revenue had to be split with an eastern carrier that would get most of the money, they'd be putting their career in jeopardy. A solution for the vastly underutilized CN lines would be to give the NS trackage rights to Sioux City, Council Bluffs and St. Paul. Then it would be a single carrier long haul move to the east coast population centers.
Los Angeles Rams Guy I'm with ya all the way on this matter Greyhounds but I personally want the livestock as well. :) I keep hoping and praying that one day, some day not terribly far down the road, the CN will finally realize what potential they have for meat and meat products in Iowa. We can only hope.
I'm with ya all the way on this matter Greyhounds but I personally want the livestock as well. :)
I keep hoping and praying that one day, some day not terribly far down the road, the CN will finally realize what potential they have for meat and meat products in Iowa. We can only hope.
No livestock. A very wise and experienced mentor once taught me that the two most difficult things to transport are: 1) ice cream and, 2) livestock. If you have a problem moving either one you're going to buy the load. Ice cream is but a cost. Livestock gets in to the humane care of animals. Something I insist on. Now, I like to eat meat. I have no objections to proper slaughter of animals for human consumption. But until the proper kill is done the animal must be handled humanely. I've shot animals, cleaned and dressed them, and eaten them. I think that's just normal
The solution is to minimize transport of the livestock. That's why the packing houses are near the production areas such as Iowa. Or in Nebraska, Kansas, the panhandle of Texas, and western Illinois. (Alright, Sioux Falls, southern Minnesota, and Missouri too)
The railroads have a large volume, good revenue, long haul opportunity. They just don't see it or know how to exploit it. That's the problem.
As far as the CN goes, if a marketing person walked in to his/her boss and proposed going for a relatively short haul where the revenue had to be split with an eastern carrier that would get most of the money, they'd be putting their career in jeopardy.
A solution for the vastly underutilized CN lines would be to give the NS trackage rights to Sioux City, Council Bluffs and St. Paul. Then it would be a single carrier long haul move to the east coast population centers.
Interesting idea. You are creative in suggesting ideas for new revenue sources, a quality sadly lacking or not valued in rail management.
Your idea also points out the problems with not consolidating to one or two transnational systems.
In implementing PSR, CSX basically eliminated what little Marketing Dept. they did have.
jeffhergert Once I had the new paperwork I think I saw why the Z did this. It was mostly (about 3/4 of the containers) meat going west. I think it was all export and I assume it was pork out of western Iowa. They may still have the long haul mentality , but at least it's a start. There were a lot of those power unit containers with cables running to individual containers. I think it was the most I've ever seen of those and I was amazed at how far they ran the cables to the containers. Jeff
Once I had the new paperwork I think I saw why the Z did this. It was mostly (about 3/4 of the containers) meat going west. I think it was all export and I assume it was pork out of western Iowa. They may still have the long haul mentality , but at least it's a start.
There were a lot of those power unit containers with cables running to individual containers. I think it was the most I've ever seen of those and I was amazed at how far they ran the cables to the containers.
I'll come back to this. There is nothing as good as boots and eyes on the ground (or in the cab).
If this was export meat it tells a story. The west coast produces minimal pork. They're also deficient in the production of beef and chicken relative to the wants and needs of their population. So red meat and chicken are brought in from the Midwest and South. In great volumes.
Of course the west coast, along with Arizona and Idaho, produce a lot of the fruits and vegetables consumed in the eastern parts of the US and Canada. So there's a great opportunity for two way revenue movement.
The fact that the UP is handling the export meat to the west coast while leaving the large volume of domestic shipments on the highway speaks to the weakness of their marketing efforts. Add 20 domestic loads, for example, to that pick up and the marginal cost of doing so would be negligible. The added revenue would be not negligible. They've got to see these opportunities and act on them.
Murphy Siding greyhounds Paul_D_North_Jr Ken - check your units: 3,474 trucks/ month x 21 tons = 72,954 tons. 145,904,141 lbs. = 72,952 (2,000 lb.) tons. That said, I agree with your basic premise - but you know the territory way better than I ever will. Many have commented before on the rails' lack of ability to market - this is just one more example. - PDN. Paul, It's 145,904,141 tons (short tons), not 145,904,141 pounds. There's a whole lot of pork moving from the Midwest to Mexico and the UP needs to get in the game. Ken I don't want to belabor things, but can you restate the math part? I'm, coming up with almost 7 million trucks of pig parts shipped to Mexico in December 2019.145,904,141 tons divided by 21 tons/truck = 6,947,816 turucks per month?
greyhounds Paul_D_North_Jr Ken - check your units: 3,474 trucks/ month x 21 tons = 72,954 tons. 145,904,141 lbs. = 72,952 (2,000 lb.) tons. That said, I agree with your basic premise - but you know the territory way better than I ever will. Many have commented before on the rails' lack of ability to market - this is just one more example. - PDN. Paul, It's 145,904,141 tons (short tons), not 145,904,141 pounds. There's a whole lot of pork moving from the Midwest to Mexico and the UP needs to get in the game. Ken
Paul_D_North_Jr Ken - check your units: 3,474 trucks/ month x 21 tons = 72,954 tons. 145,904,141 lbs. = 72,952 (2,000 lb.) tons. That said, I agree with your basic premise - but you know the territory way better than I ever will. Many have commented before on the rails' lack of ability to market - this is just one more example. - PDN.
Ken - check your units: 3,474 trucks/ month x 21 tons = 72,954 tons.
145,904,141 lbs. = 72,952 (2,000 lb.) tons.
That said, I agree with your basic premise - but you know the territory way better than I ever will.
Many have commented before on the rails' lack of ability to market - this is just one more example.
- PDN.
Paul,
It's 145,904,141 tons (short tons), not 145,904,141 pounds. There's a whole lot of pork moving from the Midwest to Mexico and the UP needs to get in the game.
Ken
I don't want to belabor things, but can you restate the math part? I'm, coming up with almost 7 million trucks of pig parts shipped to Mexico in December 2019.145,904,141 tons divided by 21 tons/truck = 6,947,816 turucks per month?
Restated: as in Paul is right. I screwed up on my original post and switched tons for pounds. I got the number of trucks right, but I did mislable the volume number. My bad.
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
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
charlie hebdo Why attempt to market services that you can't deliver?
Why attempt to market services that you can't deliver?
Oh, the the UP can deliver the required service. They just need a reason to do so. And that reason/justification has to come from the marketing department. I've been involved with moving meat by rail. It works fine as long as the operating people are motivated. Sometimes they do need a boot up their rear. And it needs to be an executive level boot.
Flintlock76 charlie hebdo Why attempt to market services that you can't deliver? Or don't want to, for whatever reason. I'm more annoyed by the sloppy reporting. Pig parts? Looks more like whatever was on that rig was processed and packaged. "Pig parts" sounds more like something nasty rolling around loose. Was the news story written by a vegan?
Or don't want to, for whatever reason.
I'm more annoyed by the sloppy reporting. Pig parts? Looks more like whatever was on that rig was processed and packaged. "Pig parts" sounds more like something nasty rolling around loose.
Was the news story written by a vegan?
"Pig parts" certainly does not sound enticing as a food.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.