Shadow the Cats ownerReasons like this are why the pershible market for railroads has died. My boss is starting to dab his toe in the water of this market so to speak with return loads from Texas back to Illinois. Our drivers are literally going to up to 10 different places to get a trailer load of produce for a local grocery warehouse. Let alone if we ever decided to play in the West Coast markets. I asked my hubby that pulled produce out of California for years how many places he picked up out of. He pulled out his map of the coolers of Salinas and stopped counting at 90 places in a 30 mile radius of that one city. Then throw in Oxnard for berries Bakersfield for grapes and carrots the rest of the Central Valley for other produce. He literally picked up out of 300+ places in his career that all where going to about anyplace in this nation. Just imagine the railroads and their limited marketing departments trying to keep up with that today.
I strongly disagree. Perishables by rail haven't died. But they sure were hurt by government price regulation. Such regulation never was fostered on truck shipments. That's not just dumb, it's "Government Dumb."
Anyway, the things you cite may be true, but they are also irrelevant. It does not matter how many cooling sheds are visited to make up the long haul load. Nor does it matter how many stops for partial unloading are required on the destination end. Rail transport comes in on the long haul from say, Salinas to New England. Do the loading/unloading stops by truck and use a train for the long haul move. There isn't a truck in North America that can compete with a good double stack schedule and price if enough miles are involved.
Railroad marketing does suck. But, it too is irrelevant in this case. We'll leave the marketing work to intermodal truckers such as KLLM.
Well I have heard from my close hold sources at KLLM and Marten that they are not ordering more Reefer Containers again. The tare weight issue is still way to much along with the loss of flexiblity for them to absorb. Yes JB Hunt is buying them however JB Hunt hasn't bought a regular trailer in 20+ years except for their dedicated accounts that require them. The loss of 3 tons of cargo is just still way to much for them to absorb.
greyhoundsAnyway, the things you cite may be true, but they are also irrelevant. It does not matter how many cooling sheds are visited to make up the long haul load. Nor does it matter how many stops for partial unloading are required on the destination end.
I thought her comments WERE relevant. She was emphasizing that trucking provides flexibility in originating loads, compared to the railroad's insistence that you "bring the mountain to Mohammad, so that he can move it".
Convicted OneShe was emphasizing that trucking provides flexibility in originating loads, compared to the railroad's insistence that you "bring the mountain to Mohammad, so that he can move it".
That is not something a combination of local traffic aggregating to trainload (or even blockload) make-up points is likely to match. But it is likewise not representative of 'ordinary' trucking economics, even in ttrraaffiicc's ideal world of electrified autonomy. What he is likely proposing is similar to what he proposed for 'cold train' service: a network of short-distance (or even medium-distance) providers all converging TOT on a scheduled train or block, traveling to strategic points centered on rapid delivery (as Rotterdam was said to be for New York and New England demand points) where the 'reverse' TOT for distributed short-distance delivery is conducted. None of the drivers wastes time or capacity traveling the whole distance, and everyone can sleep in a real bed while working full or nearly-full logbook hours...
And yeah, it's the railroad 'bringing the mountain to Mohammed' -- and then making it possible for it to be redistributed quickly on arrival -- and yeah, I expect the individual trucking companies to be aggressive and customer-centric as appropriate, and yeah, I expect the railroads' "logistics divisions" to be aggressive both in helping the truckers with customer-centricity and lead generation, etc. and in providing a clean, reliable, least-cost scheduled service that GETS THERE... as in the old Apple slogan, 'it just works'. And assuredly that is one of the things PSR could provide if you run it correctly instead of as a kludge or excuse.
OvermodThat is not something a combination of local traffic aggregating to trainload (or even blockload) make-up points is likely to match. But it is likewise not representative of 'ordinary' trucking economics, even in ttrraaffiicc's ideal world of electrified autonomy.
I propose that we need to establish a "Godwin's Law" type principle for anytime a poster tries to incorporate ttrraaffiicc's reasoning into their own argument(s)
Not a trucker!
What sort of time frame are we talking about for a trucker to aggregate a return truckload? I suspect the minimum time involved in picking up one part of a aggregated load will be in the neighborhood of one hour at best - getting to the facility, finding out where to go in the facility, loading and securing the part load, securing and signing the paperwork and then departing the facility. How much travel time to the next part load facility, rinse and repeat. All this time the HOS clock is ticking and subtracting from over the road time. Suspect the same relative times are a part of the delivery cycle on the destination end. While I quote a single hour - it could easily be two, three or more hours for each segment of the load.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
I am learning more about the reefer side of this industry from another company that all they do is haul meat out to the west coast and then make multiple pickups to fill their trailers up to head back to the midwest to do it all over again. The boss of that carrier showed me his numbers on his return loads his rate per mile on average is HIGHER than what he is getting on his contract loads out to his customers. They literally are making more with doing more pickups thru brokers than on a dedicated contract load.
MP173 Union Pacific originates a train at their intermodal terminal south of Joliet (ICOG4) which is handed off to CSX (Q192) for North Baltimore, the big sorting yard for containers. B
Union Pacific originates a train at their intermodal terminal south of Joliet (ICOG4) which is handed off to CSX (Q192) for North Baltimore, the big sorting yard for containers.
B
One small correction, the Q192 train originates off of the UP out of G3 in Rochelle. The train is handed off of the UP to CSX at 16th St from the Geneva sub, to the Blue Island sub.
Interestingly the CSX to UP train, Q191, does go to G4. It changes crews on the IHB at 71st Street, and goes onto the CN at Argo to reach G4.
An "expensive model collector"
Thanks for the update.
I have noticed that Q192 eastbound seems to be handling general freight cars in addition to the intermodal containers. Is there a special provision contractually for that? Seems to be capped at 30 cars, often refers.
Ed
There's another part of the produce business most of you are missing...most major cities in the past had central Produce markets that would receive the bulk of produce in carload quantities. The produce markets housed multiple produce brokers that sold the produce to the retail outlets that would pick up from the produce market and deliver to their retail facilities. There are still produce markets in operation in many cities, but they no longer handle the volumes as in the past, and it's more specialized now. When I was in the intermodal business we had one customer that was an onion/garlic/watermelon shipper/broker and used insulated vented trailers/containers(and regularly overloaded up to 50k). Loads would actually be picked up from either the fields directly or a packing shed related to the field(s), delivered to the intermodal terminal and shipped off east to Chicago and Eastward, at first it was mostly to New York(Hunts Point Produce Terminal), Baltimore, Philadelphia, and others from mostly the Central Valley of California. Eventually, by the time I left the business loads would originate from almost all Western States except Nevada and go across the East Coast and even down as far as Miami. Eventually the BNSF got rid of their fleet of insulated vented trailers(the SFVZ 73 series), not sure about CSX(CSXU 7 series containers), but all I remember is the additional charges always incurred at loading and/or destination, and the profits that customer would make.
greyhounds CMStPnP It's kind of stupid.........is my problem with it. Well, so much for trying to have a reasoned, intelligent discussion on this forum. With a response like this one, that can't happen. It would have been nice during this winter lockdown. But NO. The response is "It's kind of stupid..." As told in my presence by one Robert Reebie (As in the RoadRailer Robert Reebie) a union intermodal terminal was proposed for Chicago when he was working for the New York Central marketing department. The proposal made it all the way up to the Real Mayor Daley, AKA King Richard the 1st. Hizhonordamayor was reported to be quite enthused with the proposal. But then some folks with pencils, paper and adding machines (It was the 1950s) started analyzing the numbers. Things just didn’t work out money wise. If any such facility had been built it would be antiquated today. While containers and trailers stay on their railcars through Chicago when it makes sense to do so, rubber tire interchange also is used when it’s the better option. If you’re response to this is: "It's kind of stupid..." I’ll just say you’re in denial of reality.
CMStPnP It's kind of stupid.........is my problem with it.
Well, so much for trying to have a reasoned, intelligent discussion on this forum. With a response like this one, that can't happen. It would have been nice during this winter lockdown. But NO. The response is "It's kind of stupid..."
As told in my presence by one Robert Reebie (As in the RoadRailer Robert Reebie) a union intermodal terminal was proposed for Chicago when he was working for the New York Central marketing department. The proposal made it all the way up to the Real Mayor Daley, AKA King Richard the 1st. Hizhonordamayor was reported to be quite enthused with the proposal.
But then some folks with pencils, paper and adding machines (It was the 1950s) started analyzing the numbers. Things just didn’t work out money wise. If any such facility had been built it would be antiquated today.
While containers and trailers stay on their railcars through Chicago when it makes sense to do so, rubber tire interchange also is used when it’s the better option.
If you’re response to this is: "It's kind of stupid..." I’ll just say you’re in denial of reality.
Greyhounds thanks for mentioning this. I understand rubber tire dray across town has it's merit, as does steel wheel. I always thought a Clearing type of IM ramp would make more sense. Numbers don't lie. If a union type facility was a better option it would've been built, but it has not, and will not.
I assume the Memphis to Chicago RR you refer to is the former IC...now the CN. In your example the CN also serves Twin Cities and Toronto...and by a more circuotous conection on the old Soo (the track,,,not the CP subsidiary) also serves Milwaukee. Would CN rubber tire loads to themself across town rather than rail?
RailPlannerI assume the Memphis to Chicago RR you refer to is the former IC...now the CN. In your example the CN also serves Twin Cities and Toronto...and by a more circuotous conection on the old Soo (the track,,,not the CP subsidiary) also serves Milwaukee. Would CN rubber tire loads to themself across town rather than rail?
No. The CN has consolidated its Chicago intermodal operations at the site of the IC's old Markham Yard. So, no need to rubber tire between CN terminals. To my knowledge the CN does not have an IM terminal in the Twin Cities. That load could move past Chicago on the BNSF out of their Cicero, IL terminal. It probably would be rubber tire interchanged.
CN does have another Chicago area IM terminal near Joliet to serve the large "Inland Port" there.
The Milwaukee load should be on tires from Chicago north. It's something like 90 miles. Just have a driver hook to it and deliver it.
Edit to add. A very true story.
So, Thibodaux, LA is in a sugar producing area. And, as a result, they had a candy factory that made, in this case, Christmas candy. Christmas candy doesn't have much value after Christmas. Their logistics people obviously didn't know what they were doing and shipped two TOFC trailers of Christmas candy to Milwaukee routed ICG-Louisville-Milwaukee Road. Bad idea.
So, we screwed it up from the get go. The trailers didn't go to Louisville, they came in to Chicago. Our Chicago IM terminal manager, who rarely knew what he was doing, should have just sent them to the Milwaukee Road in Chicago. We would have paid a deprived revenue claim, but hey, we did misroute the loads.
So, this less than adequate individual decides the thing to do is load the trailers back up on a flatcar and send them down to Louisville. We didn't have direct service to Louisville so I don't know how long it took them to get there.
We interchanged the flatcar with the trailers to the Milwaukee. Again, I don't know how long that took.
The Milwaukee Road got them on a train north from Louisville. It was a really rough early winter that year and the Milwaukee train got stuck in a southern Indiana blizzard. And there the candy sat, with Christmas fast approaching.
I took a call from the shipper. He was literally pleading for a way to get this candy delivered before Christmas. I couldn't do much. The loads were on another railroad. I ask him what the Milwaukee Road said. He said they said: "Call back with the flatcar number." I had the flatcar number and I gave it to him. That sure didn't get the car unstuck from the snow.
The moral of the story is: If you've got the load in an intermodal terminal 90 miles from the consignee just have a driver hook to it and deliver it.
MP173 Thanks for the update. I have noticed that Q192 eastbound seems to be handling general freight cars in addition to the intermodal containers. Is there a special provision contractually for that? Seems to be capped at 30 cars, often refers. Ed
I don't think there is a cap. The Q192 has really become a combo of the old QNPSKP (Q390) and the Apple train (Q090), with some general intermodal thrown on board.
The Q192 is growing...lately it is in the 40-60 general freight cars with 15 or so refers, plus the domestic containers.
As of right now, Q192 hasn't run through Deshler yet. Yesterday it hit the diamond around 4PM.
It's only listed as going to North Baltimore.
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...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.