I'm watching carefully.
I too am anticipating this discussion.
This is going to be interesting as to how the rails can capture 45 loads of meat daily to the Northeast, 34 loads to the California/Nv/Az market and 23 loads to Florida from Iowa.
A couple of questions:
1. Is the meat processed into final products in Iowa? In other words is the meat from Iowa packaged? I seriously doubt if it is on the hook, as the meat arrived at my father's store back in 1970 (which he then cut into final products). Or does the semi processed meat move from Iowa to locations where it is further processed into final products?
2. For this to work, there must be a very active backhaul market developed. Are you suggesting that the rails handle this retail aspect of backhauls, or will this be up to the 3PL groups?Looking forward to this.
Ed
IBP (Iowa Beef Packers) has a huge plant in Dennison Iowa. It is served by rail as seen on the Google photograph.
Caldreamer
MP1731. Is the meat processed into final products in Iowa? In other words is the meat from Iowa packaged? I seriously doubt if it is on the hook, as the meat arrived at my father's store back in 1970 (which he then cut into final products). Or does the semi processed meat move from Iowa to locations where it is further processed into final products?
Some of the meat is made case ready in Iowa. i.e., you may buy a pound of bacon just as it was sliced and packaged in Iowa. Some of it goes out for further preparation at locations closer to the the retail sale point. Either way, it's freight out of Iowa. I don't know of any meat that still shipped on the hook.
MP173 2. For this to work, there must be a very active backhaul market developed. Are you suggesting that the rails handle this retail aspect of backhauls, or will this be up to the 3PL groups?
2. For this to work, there must be a very active backhaul market developed. Are you suggesting that the rails handle this retail aspect of backhauls, or will this be up to the 3PL groups?
Got to use 3PL. Otherwise we'll spend a decade or more developing backhauls.
caldreamerIBP (Iowa Beef Packers) has a huge plant in Dennison Iowa. It is served by rail as seen on the Google photograph.
OK, I'm not all knowing about this. So I am open to corrections.
But Tyson bought out IBP long ago. As far as I know Tyson has closed the Dennison facility. Farmland (owned by Smithfield) has a large pork facility in Dennison.
greyhoundsI don't know of any meat that still shipped on the hook.
I may not see this correctly -- but I think all the different options are equally 'grist for this mill' -- they can all be packed/encapsulated to ride together, and dunned, and even the packaged items would benefit from reasonable CA and temperature control, so in theory all the long-distance units could be common, or different types of unit 'blocked' for efficient handling. And they all fill up a train faster together than 'separately routed'...
greyhoundsGot to use 3PL. Otherwise we'll spend a decade or more developing backhauls.
Most meat nowadays is shipped in either cyrovac primal cuts for further cutting at the stores or fully cut into retail cuts for sale on the direct sale to consumers. On the production of deli meats it is shipped in 1 ton combo bins of whatever cut that manufactor requires. So if you buy a pork butt from the store that is in a cryovac pack that is how it left the packing plant. Same with any beef cuts like that. Ground meats in those tubes are packaged at the plants.
Thanks Cats.
So, the issue is not where the beef is consumed per se, it is where the next step is in the supply chain. We know that if the meat is going to a big retailer it is going to a distribution center for final mile delivery, probably on the retailer's own trailer to the store. Thus, the keys are...where is the beef process, and where is it shipped to for final mile.
My guess is that there is considerable LTL movements on the meat, probably more than anticipated....just a guess. I have a customer who is a refer LTL carrier in Chicago. Next time I am in front of them (who knows when that will be) I will engage in topic.
ed
greyhounds Those Cedar Rapids – Chicago trains, they operate with a one-person crew.
How do the special 53' containers with slimlines make it back to Chicago (to be shuttled back to Cedar Rapids) expeditiously to hold the overall cost of containers and service to a minimum? Are there alternate lanes for backhaul that would serve to get them back 'more profitably' with the necessary assurance?
What is the point where 'full loading' of the 53' length goes into on-road overload with reefer container plus underframe, vs. TOFC on properly constructed (heavier) van trailers (for the anticipated initial traffic)? Is there a point where there is actual loadout before cubeout for the 53' containers (unless we're assuming they will often or always be bulk-broken/cross-docked at the end-terminal "intermodal" facilities rather than promptly sent outbound from there as 'loaded' -- a case could be made for that)?
I like this discussion, but I see backhaul as being a huge issue. It would be interesting to know the backhaul situation on CSX and NS...how many of these JBH, Schneider, EMP, and other domestic containers are moving empty from the east coast? About the only thing the east coast is producing these days in quantity is trash.
Take a look at the daily Selkirk Columbus train Q635 someday and count the loaded gons of trash. Usually about 70 - 90 per day. Could trash be handled in these containers and then sanitized for food grade? I doubt it.
While containers and covered hoppers are hard to judge, I find that many of the symbol pairs seen through Deshler are loaded in one direction and empty in the other. That includes steel, taconite, coal, coke, autos, oil, ethanol, potash, and grain.
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...
Just double checked my self. The Google maps picture of the IBP (Tyson Foods) plant in Dennison, Iowa shows automobiles accross Lincoln Way, rail cars and trucks on different sides of the plant. It looks like it is still an active plant.
What would be loaded west from east coast cities on the road reefers today? The reefers and tractors are getting back to Iowa at some cost now somehow.
The Tyson plant in Denison no longer slaughters or processes meat. They still do rendering for other Tyson operations. The old operations office building across the street is now a church.
Jeff
My husband used to haul processed meat like bacon from OH to CA southern produce like peanuts Florida produce frozen foods from plants out east back towards the Midwest. Cool Whip is made in upstate NY along with Yoplait plus whatever they can find to get back to the midwest. Imported produce and dairy goods from overseas is a huge market that OTR drivers haul back from airports to the Midwest. That and Specialty brewed beers are huge backhauls.
Before I hired out on the railroad, I worked for 3 1/2 years for IBP at Perry, IA. It was a two shift operation. First shift did Nippon export. They bought the hogs, directed how the cuts would be made. This went out in ocean boxes.
Second shift did IBP hogs. At the time, IBP did not have a line of case ready meats. You couldn't buy an IBP labeled product in a grocery store at that time. It all went out for further processing. IBP did have some processing for commercial use, like pizza toppings, etc, but that was done at IBP plants set up to do that. I left before Tyson took over, but IBP was trying to develope a line of meats to be sold in stores with the IBP name.
The Perry plant shipped out via railroad reefers frozen meat. This was done through a subsidiary company in a wing of the plant, called the "freezer" by workers.
Truck load IBP product went out in full truck loads to customers. There were some partial truck loads that would pick up at another IBP plant, or Perry might be the second or possibly third pick up stop. The loads might also at times go to multiple stops for a receiving company. Loads could be either boxes of various sized depending on cut or the big "combo" boxes. I recall pork bellies, among other cuts, usually were in those large combo boxes. (I remember Nestles being a receiver. All I could think of was that they'ld be coming out with a line of chocolate covered port.)
I worked the kill floor for the first six months, then went over to load out doing inventory. I was also trained to load trucks and bill them out. I worked 3rd shift, which usually started shortly before 2nd was done. The rest of 3rd was like greyhounds said, the plant got a thorough cleaning.
One time once everyone else in loadout had left, a truck (actually a container of export meat) came back. It had been picked up out of the drop yard, not directly out of the dock. So when the driver went and weighed it at a local scale, he was overweight on his back axles. He had done all the axle adjustments possible, but still needed about 1500 lbs moved forward. So I moved it forward in increments of 5 and 10 lbs boxes. Once we thought enough had been moved, he went to the scale. He came back twice, needing more moved. Finally, the third time was it, he didn't come back.
I'd heard Nippon was a stickler for neat and tidy placement of the boxes. I can tell you that by that last time, those boxes weren't in a neat and tidy arrangement. Someone probably had a heart attack when they opened those container doors.
This is an educational discussion.
This is one of the reasons I back, and look forward to when East meets West. The Mississippi is an old barrier that needs to fall. I imagine inefficiencies in interline movement hinders markets from being developed to their full potential. Iowa would benefit from such a final round of mergers. Some significant freight lanes lie in the Midwest corridor. When it comes to backhaul it wouldn't be much a problem to fill the Westbound boxes with import traffic. Especially now that the East Coast has become a major player in ocean trade.
greyhounds The Chicago Hub exists. We’ve got to use it to an advantage, not as a barrier or a problem. The food from Iowa is going to various east coast population centers from Maine to Florida. Some of it even goes to Canada. The containers need to be sorted for destination somewhere. Chicago is the perfect place to do the sorting. Chicago currently originates expedited intermodal trains to several east coast destinations. Adding Iowa food containers to those existing trains will result in low marginal costs. But it will result in high marginal revenue. Go for it. (If I were doing this for any reason other than fun, I could buy information as to the current truck freight rates. Last time I looked they were damn high.) To get to those east coast trains we’re going to
The Chicago Hub exists. We’ve got to use it to an advantage, not as a barrier or a problem. The food from Iowa is going to various east coast population centers from Maine to Florida. Some of it even goes to Canada. The containers need to be sorted for destination somewhere. Chicago is the perfect place to do the sorting. Chicago currently originates expedited intermodal trains to several east coast destinations. Adding Iowa food containers to those existing trains will result in low marginal costs. But it will result in high marginal revenue. Go for it. (If I were doing this for any reason other than fun, I could buy information as to the current truck freight rates. Last time I looked they were damn high.) To get to those east coast trains we’re going to
To this day I still believe CSX's North Baltimore ICTF was built in the wrong location.
greyhounds Florida itself needs to bring in 145 loads per day, 365 days per year to meet its meat demand.
Did you take into account the beef produced in Florida, which is one of the largest beef-producing states east of the Mississippi River? I don't know how the industry is structured here, so I can't say where the cattle are "fed out", but it's easier to haul feed than live animals. That makes me suspect the cattle go to feedlots somewhere in-state and are butchered in-state, but I don't know that to be true.
SALfanDid you take into account the beef produced in Florida, which is one of the largest beef-producing states east of the Mississippi River? I don't know how the industry is structured here, so I can't say where the cattle are "fed out", but it's easier to haul feed than live animals. That makes me suspect the cattle go to feedlots somewhere in-state and are butchered in-state, but I don't know that to be true.
Well, below is what I'm going from. The USDA data show Florida producing 36.1 million pounds of red meat in 2019. I've got the Florida population at 21,477,737. So that means Florida produced 1.68 pounds of red meat per resident. The US per capita annual consumption of red meat was 111.2 pounds in 2019. So I'll stick with the concept that Florida has to bring in a whole lot of red meat.
You're more than welcome to check and question my numbers. I can make a mistake. But in this case I got it right.
Publication | Livestock Slaughter Annual Summary | ID: r207tp32d | USDA Economics, Statistics and Market Information System (cornell.edu)
Just as information, how Tyson packages to its customers. We don't buy meat/poultry from Tyson, we buy it from a grocer. The grocer buys from Tyson. The grocer is Tyson's customer.
Innovation - Tyson Fresh Meats
Following with great interest (I live here!).
Brian (IA) http://blhanel.rrpicturearchives.net.
What we do not know is how does the meat flow to the customer.
I have two customers that I can think of off the top of my head which are distributors to grocery industry. One is meat the other is a wide range.
The meat distributor receives refer trailers and then redistributes the meat to either smaller retail operators (regional groceries), restaurants, or perhaps even to the big retailers.
The general reseller (their term) purchases product (either full or partial truckload) and then distributes...both refer and dry freight.
My guess is that the current distribution supply chain is fairly efficient and does not incorporate full truckloads of meat from Iowa to each state. My guess (only a guess) is there are partial truckload (volume LTL) on many of these shipments.
Perhaps we will learn more from this discussion.
Thanks Greyhound for your passion on moving meat from Iowa!
We seem to be thinking that most meat that people consume goes straight from processing to end market with no stops in between. Knowing the shape most Americans are in, I suspect that a lot of the meat is consumed when eating fast food, which may have one or two processing or storage locations enroute.
BackshopWe seem to be thinking that most meat that people consume goes straight from processing to end market with no stops in between. Knowing the shape most Americans are in, I suspect that a lot of the meat is consumed when eating fast food, which may have one or two processing or storage locations enroute.
I don't think that at all. But one thing is for certain, meat produced in Iowa and consumed in Boston needs to be transported to Boston. Very, very little of the meat goes directly from a slaughter facility to a retail store.
Why would this matter?
greyhounds Backshop We seem to be thinking that most meat that people consume goes straight from processing to end market with no stops in between. Knowing the shape most Americans are in, I suspect that a lot of the meat is consumed when eating fast food, which may have one or two processing or storage locations enroute. I don't think that at all. But one thing is for certain, meat produced in Iowa and consumed in Boston needs to be transported to Boston. Very, very little of the meat goes directly from a slaughter facility to a retail store. Why would this matter?
Backshop We seem to be thinking that most meat that people consume goes straight from processing to end market with no stops in between. Knowing the shape most Americans are in, I suspect that a lot of the meat is consumed when eating fast food, which may have one or two processing or storage locations enroute.
For example--it could get slaughtered in Iowa, turned into patties in Ohio and distributed from a warehouse in New York.
Greyhound:Backshop brings up a very valid point. The meat going to food service companies such as Sysco, Gordon, and others who serve the restaurants (and particularly the big chains...McDonalds is delivered by Martin Brower) will take a much different path than that going to Wegmans, Walmart, Kroger, etc. Much different paths.
We dont know how that moves, my guess it is a bit more complex.
I would call my marginal costs to the customer lower when it costs my boss 500 bucks to have each car switched out of our SIT yard by the BNSF when they get dropped or picked up. That is a grand a car or half a cent a pound we have to charge our customers that buy the resins out of those cars. If I know I am getting an extra grand in drop and delivery fees on a load I can deadhead my drivers about 300 miles we do still make a profit. Also when your picking up a multi stop load most of the time your grabbing them in the same area. It is rare that you have to go hundreds of miles to get the next pickup made. Normally your going 5-10 miles to another cooling house or less to get that pickup done.
They can beat us on the longhaul yes but for short and medium haul and also for cost of service well the OTR industy has them beat in spades. For what the Class 1 railroads charge just in switching fees to service a local customer anymore a good OTR carrier can haul for that same customer a load up to 500 miles away for them at 2 bucks a mile and get it there before the railroad even gets the next train on the way for that city. Yes the customer will have more trucks going there normally about 4 for every 1 railcar but the service level is worth it in the eyes of their CEO and their logistics departments. Until the railroads start thinking that service to their customers is more important than lowering their Operating Ratios they are still going to be losing market share to the OTR industry regardless of costs. Why you can propose all the service you want but until you deliver it on time and then get the empties that the customer needs back to them every single time so they can keep their production running they will not trust you at all.
Shadow the Cats owner would call my marginal costs to the customer lower when it costs my boss 500 bucks to have each car switched out of our SIT yard by the BNSF when they get dropped or picked up. That is a grand a car or half a cent a pound we have to charge our customers that buy the resins out of those cars.
She goes on.
The BNSF is getting $500 per switch? Their pricing folks are doing a good job.
The Cat's owner's post has nothing to do with what I've proposed. I would never try to move meat in traditional railroad carload service.
Shadow the Cats ownerI would call my marginal costs to the customer lower when it costs my boss 500 bucks to have each car switched out of our SIT yard by the BNSF when they get dropped or picked up. That is a grand a car or half a cent a pound we have to charge our customers that buy the resins out of those cars. If I know I am getting an extra grand in drop and delivery fees on a load I can deadhead my drivers about 300 miles we do still make a profit. Also when your picking up a multi stop load most of the time your grabbing them in the same area. It is rare that you have to go hundreds of miles to get the next pickup made. Normally your going 5-10 miles to another cooling house or less to get that pickup done. They can beat us on the longhaul yes but for short and medium haul and also for cost of service well the OTR industy has them beat in spades. For what the Class 1 railroads charge just in switching fees to service a local customer anymore a good OTR carrier can haul for that same customer a load up to 500 miles away for them at 2 bucks a mile and get it there before the railroad even gets the next train on the way for that city. Yes the customer will have more trucks going there normally about 4 for every 1 railcar but the service level is worth it in the eyes of their CEO and their logistics departments. Until the railroads start thinking that service to their customers is more important than lowering their Operating Ratios they are still going to be losing market share to the OTR industry regardless of costs. Why you can propose all the service you want but until you deliver it on time and then get the empties that the customer needs back to them every single time so they can keep their production running they will not trust you at all.
You are entitled to one placement and one pull of a car for FREE - it is a part of the freight rate and charges.
All moves between the original placement and the final pull are chargable, every time you move a car around in your SIT yard you are increasing your overhead..
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
MP173Greyhound: Backshop brings up a very valid point. The meat going to food service companies such as Sysco, Gordon, and others who serve the restaurants (and particularly the big chains...McDonalds is delivered by Martin Brower) will take a much different path than that going to Wegmans, Walmart, Kroger, etc. Much different paths. We dont know how that moves, my guess it is a bit more complex. Ed
I'll agree. You'll have to sit down with each potential customer and see how any system fits their needs. Changes will certainly be required.
My Ex Wife used to work in distribution for McDonalds. They streamline it as much as they can. It is a cost to them and they don't want any additional loading/unloading or delays that add costs. Same thing with grocers. Groceries are low margin and any extra handling will cut that margin.
But you're right. There's a need to sit down with each customer and try to fit your service to their needs. The railroads would probably cede this task to a third party intermodal trucker.
So it's less than 250 miles from Cedar Rapids to Chicago with I-80 the direct route. With an intermodal ramp in Cedar Rapids, you'd have a short haul to Chicago, where the train would have to be busted up for multiple destinations. I'd say it's cheaper and faster just to truck it to Chicago and rail it from there.
BackshopSo it's less than 250 miles from Cedar Rapids to Chicago with I-80 the direct route. With an intermodal ramp in Cedar Rapids, you'd have a short haul to Chicago, where the train would have to be busted up for multiple destinations. I'd say it's cheaper and faster just to truck it to Chicago and rail it from there.
Basic to the idea is to get the money for the railroad. Not to hand over the dollars to truckers.
greyhounds Backshop So it's less than 250 miles from Cedar Rapids to Chicago with I-80 the direct route. With an intermodal ramp in Cedar Rapids, you'd have a short haul to Chicago, where the train would have to be busted up for multiple destinations. I'd say it's cheaper and faster just to truck it to Chicago and rail it from there. Basic to the idea is to get the money for the railroad. Not to hand over the dollars to truckers.
Backshop So it's less than 250 miles from Cedar Rapids to Chicago with I-80 the direct route. With an intermodal ramp in Cedar Rapids, you'd have a short haul to Chicago, where the train would have to be busted up for multiple destinations. I'd say it's cheaper and faster just to truck it to Chicago and rail it from there.
Shorthaul intermodal can work, it is simply what value are you placing on it.
CSX runs trains Q47 and Q48 between Chicago and Columbus...roughly the same distance. The westbound this morning had 18 containers. Someone (UPS) is paying a premium for that train. Why? Probably a shortage of drivers and a high demand of moving the freight (holiday season which has extended into January no doubt due to all of the returns).
I will say this...there is an opening for this to work, with the influx of containers now entering the eastern ports. Not all of that freight moves in full containers to destination. There will be opportunities for breakbulk of those containers at eastern ports and moving freight east in domestics containers or trailers.
Cats...regarding the $500 movement fee, take a look at what Hoffman does at their SIT yard not too far from you. He takes care of that charge internally.
I mentioned on another thread a few months back that the local managers at Cedar Rapids were working with a couple of the cereal companies to load containers at Beverly Yard. The higher ups at the railroad put an end to it. The point is, initially one of the cereal companies approached the railroad. The loading would've been for both directions on alternating days.
That eastward trip would only be as far as Chicago, where they would have to change railroads. The railroad was going to make money on the move, the cereal companies were willing. I can only guess that the profit wasn't enough under PSR guidelines.
Now Vena is gone (senior advisor for the last six months of his contract) and doesn't hold sway, other PSR types have been reassigned duties and titles. The rumor is Black Rock is out and Vanguard is top dog now. And they aren't happy the way things were going. Maybe some of the projects rejected the last few years need to be resubmitted. It sounds like they are starting to put into place people who realize you need business to keep making money.
BackshopShorthaul intermodal doesn't work according to what I've read.
Well, we've got to do more than read. We've got to understand and think.
We've got to understand what the problems were and think of ways to solve such problems.
Okay greyhounds, you started a thread, asked for suggestions and shot just about all of them down. How would YOU solve the the problem?
BackshopOkay greyhounds, you started a thread, asked for suggestions and shot just about all of them down. How would YOU solve the the problem?
jeffhergert The thing is that sooner or later someone that has enough brains takes a GOOD LONG look at what PSR actually does to a railroad and goes it does not actually work. Why it did so well at the IC at first was they were actually overbuilt and did not have the traffic to justify a double track mainline and all the other stuff EHH cut. The problem was EHH thought that was the only way to run a railroad after that since it worked so well at IC and to heck with what actually worked at the railroads he took over after that. All you have to do is look at the BNSF compared to UP recently with the surge in IM loads. BNSF did what was needed to service customers and more than likely had massive gains in revenue. UP was fining customers since they wanted more slots on trains instead of adding cars to the trains. Backshop So it's less than 250 miles from Cedar Rapids to Chicago with I-80 the direct route. With an intermodal ramp in Cedar Rapids, you'd have a short haul to Chicago, where the train would have to be busted up for multiple destinations. I'd say it's cheaper and faster just to truck it to Chicago and rail it from there. I mentioned on another thread a few months back that the local managers at Cedar Rapids were working with a couple of the cereal companies to load containers at Beverly Yard. The higher ups at the railroad put an end to it. The point is, initially one of the cereal companies approached the railroad. The loading would've been for both directions on alternating days. That eastward trip would only be as far as Chicago, where they would have to change railroads. The railroad was going to make money on the move, the cereal companies were willing. I can only guess that the profit wasn't enough under PSR guidelines. Now Vena is gone (senior advisor for the last six months of his contract) and doesn't hold sway, other PSR types have been reassigned duties and titles. The rumor is Black Rock is out and Vanguard is top dog now. And they aren't happy the way things were going. Maybe some of the projects rejected the last few years need to be resubmitted. It sounds like they are starting to put into place people who realize you need business to keep making money. Jeff
The thing is that sooner or later someone that has enough brains takes a GOOD LONG look at what PSR actually does to a railroad and goes it does not actually work. Why it did so well at the IC at first was they were actually overbuilt and did not have the traffic to justify a double track mainline and all the other stuff EHH cut. The problem was EHH thought that was the only way to run a railroad after that since it worked so well at IC and to heck with what actually worked at the railroads he took over after that. All you have to do is look at the BNSF compared to UP recently with the surge in IM loads. BNSF did what was needed to service customers and more than likely had massive gains in revenue. UP was fining customers since they wanted more slots on trains instead of adding cars to the trains.
[/quote]
Greyhounds brings up a great point about utilizing exisitng trains to increase IM business. As mentioned drayage incurs huge cost. As do those massive IM facilities with Straddlers, and Mi-Jacks which make sense for high volume IM lanes.. Though. If someone could develop a cheap to build anywhere low volume double stack terminal for P/U S/O's, that could be a game changer!
Something similar to this lift chassis might be the tool to accomplish that..
Think of a terminal akin to a Triple Crown Ramp. You could use gravel, or whatever cheap recyclable material for a pad. No need to keep any cranes, or lifts on site.
www.railrunner.com
SD60MAC9500Something similar to this lift chassis might be the tool to accomplish that..
Note that the stabilizing feet have to extend before and behind the container -- you will not run this on a 'rake' of articulated wells without significant modification, and possibly complications to the railroad car suspension arrangement. Not impossible, mind you, but requiring significant modification to every car involved if it is to work.
There are all sorts of cockamamie approaches to onboard container handling, including some built to travel with the equipment. None of them even remotely approaches the convenience of a straddle crane with appropriate pads that can lift vertically from double or single stack with a regular balanced spreader and set down "one lane over" on a plain old low-tare container chassis.
The only customers for RailRunners after a very long, very well-marketed campaign were some select markets where tare and expense weren't primary considerations -- I wish I could remember precisely where it was -- somewhere in the Caribbean? I kept expecting someone there to figure out how to make a well-car version, but apparently some level of common sense did prevail there.
Personally I don't think any level of container-on-RoadRailer-chassis stands a chance of competing with proper TOFC on the one hand and articulated-well-car double-stack on the other. If you are interested (and have a line of credit) I can tell you how to build a RoadRailer well chassis ... but you won't get much good use out of them compared to costed-down alternatives or easy adaptation.
For this and other applications of moving containers, we could learn a lot from a look at the huge yards for that purpose in Hamburg and Rotterdam. Computerized sliding cranes on rails do the job.
https://www.hafen-hamburg.de/en/container-terminals
I hope this is not off-topic as I think it has applications here.
charlie hebdoI hope this is not off-topic
Even in areas like Forrest Yard in Memphis, where there are no 'fixed' cranes, only a number of Mi-Jacks, a great throughput of containers between modes (and using the ground) can be relatively easily achieved. These are more flexible than the railborne versions, and for 'inland' loading to railroad lading (which all the non-export Cedar Rapids transport would conform to) their capacity for high-speed transfer is adequate.
Where the question for these 'self-powered' and small-scale handling devices come in is at the some of the distributed destination points for the traffic that would putatively be originating in a combination of bulk and optimized LCL in Cedar Rapids. The point has been raised about specialty traffic to the various companies supplying restaurants and chains; this is business that could easily be taken down to LCL 'scale' if appropriate dunnage and internal handling methods were put in practice. That to me is not business a modern railroad is set up to exploit, but is certainly an effective niche for a joint-venture partner at appropriate scale. As with the express companies of the late 1800s, there may also be 'aggregators' who make up full container lots of LCL shipments for the railroads to forward. The question then becomes: what is the best way to expedite these smaller shipments past the point of efficient rail double-stack shipping, where the economics and convenience of trucks exceed even what is possible from automated handling.
Backshop Shorthaul intermodal doesn't work according to what I've read.
Shorthaul intermodal doesn't work according to what I've read.
Tell that to Florida East Coast Rwy.
The military installation where I worked regularly loads and unloads containers from railcars using rubber tire loaders. They do so on a gravel working surface in one of the yards.
Granted, they aren't dealing with time constraints as you would see with foodstuffs, but the container handling does occur.
It's not beyond the possible that expedited movement of containers could be done on a shorter haul.
tree68The military installation where I worked regularly loads and unloads containers from railcars using rubber tire loaders. They do so on a gravel working surface in one of the yards.
greyhounds tree68 The military installation where I worked regularly loads and unloads containers from railcars using rubber tire loaders. They do so on a gravel working surface in one of the yards. Do you think they'd have any of those loaders for sale as army surplus? Because that's what I'd be looking for to start up a Cedar Rapids operation. Nothing particularly innovative. No new technology. Just a tried-and-true proven system. We used such a system to operate our intermodal terminal serving St. Louis. Let’s do one innovation at a time. The more innovative you get, the more changes you make, the more opportunity you give to people to proclaim, “It’s dumb and it will not work.” And such folks will be damn adamant in their quest to stop change. I think we’ve seen some of that on this thread. Let’s keep it simple. Remember, this concept proposes using existing, stored locomotives to move the trains. Not anything new. Does the UP have any GP-38’s still in storage? I think one of those would do for pulling the proposed trains. Keep it simple and cheap. Innovation will be more acceptable that way. The initial target is 80 loaded containers per day out to eastern destinations. (On two trains.) So, we’ve also got to bring 80 containers, loaded or empty, into Cedar Rapids per day. Figure around 160 lifts per day on and off the railcars. (It isn’t going to be a steady 160/day. Volumes will move around some.) At six minutes per lift, which is somewhat slow, that will require 960 minutes, or 16 hours, of machine operation per day. With two used lifting machines we’ll have 48 hours of machine time available per day. So, we’ll be good, and we’ll be cheap. And we’ll have backup if one machine throws craps. If both machines go down at the same time we’d be in trouble.
tree68 The military installation where I worked regularly loads and unloads containers from railcars using rubber tire loaders. They do so on a gravel working surface in one of the yards.
You will probably have a better chance getting the CN to try this than UP.
The boss agreed to the higher switch fees in order to get better service from the BNSF at the time. For years he literally got daily switch service then they changed to weekly. Well our contract is coming up for renewal this year we're demanding a drop in the fees since their no longer honoring the terms that are in the contract that states why we agreed to them. So far every lawyer has said we will win if they refuse and we take it to the STB.
If the Army doesn't have anything for sale. I'm sure you can find some good used side loaders here.
SD60MAC9500 To this day I still believe CSX's North Baltimore ICTF was built in the wrong location.
I think this kind of thing is what NWOH is built for. Lets take Greyhound's 40 car double stack train coming off of the UP or CN in Chicago. The train only changes crews there, none of the power swap BS, and goes to NWOH. There it is broken up, trains depart from there to the east coast, southeast, Canada, even Detroit. A perfect setup to make this concept work.
An "expensive model collector"
Agree (from an outsider viewpoint). NWO seems to be the ideal spot.
However, will revenue support a 40 container train from Iowa to NWO? Why not merge the Iowa train into the existing UP daily train to NWO? It is under utilized now...plenty of capacity.
Granted, it might slow down the overall time involved, but perhaps not. If the containers need to be deramped in Chicago, crossed towned, then reramped...that is considerable time.
Merge the Iowa Meat Express (IMX) with the Q192 in Chicago and print $$$$ for shareholders.
The railroad already shot down running 3 to 5 double stack five packs a day. That would've been handled in existing trains.
Never mind trying to get a single person crew for right now. You'll have to get agreement for an interdivisional run from Cedar Rapids to the Chicago area. Clinton is the dividing line for the two seniority districts. Iowa crews can't go east of Route 84 on the Illinois side. Illinois crews can't go west of a place called "Hawkeye" about MP 5. (Anytime I've ran east I don't remember an Illinois crew going beyond Central Steel crossing, the first crossing west of the Camanche control point.)
I'd almost wager getting a single person crew agreement might be easier than getting the interdivisional agreement.
Jeff, how many hours does it typically take for a priority train to run from Cedar Rapids to Clinton? And from Clinton to the Chicago area?
Renegotiating contracts is useless if the new run cannot be completed with the HOS limitations.
We have a similar sort of scenario out here, about 25 years ago CN negotiatied the ability to run trains across two steam-era crew districts with a single crew, this practice being commonly referred to as "extended run" or "double sub".
But most of our trains still change crews at all the old steam-era locations across western Canada, and there are very few lines where all trains are operated with extended run crews. Why? Because you cannot reliably make it over the road in 12 hours. Heck, it isn't exactly uncommon for single sub crews to run out of hours and get rescued before they have even gone 100 miles.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Making the run (Chicago - Cedar Rapids) within HOS wouldn't be a problem under normal circumstances. The CNW, before the UP, wanted to run through Clinton to Cedar Rapids/Beverly. That would also have meant running through Boone to Council Bluffs/Fremont. The big obstacle was the Mississippi River bridge.
It still is to a great extent. IF they ever build a new, non-draw span bridge I look for Clinton and Boone to be run through. Then Beverly may or may not be the intermediate crew change. There are other options that have been suggested. I hear something about it every so often, but I don't know if I'll ever see it before I retire, and I have at least 10 years to go.
PS. We have trains that can sail across our historic crew districts in 4 to 6 hours. Then there are others, usually the ones that have to work intermediate yard(s) that have to be recrewed. Usually because more than one train that needs to work an intermediate yard shows up at the same time. One has to wait while the other(s) work. No matter what they try to do to stagger arrival time of the workers, it never seems to work. They all still seem to show up at the same time.
jeffhergert PS. We have trains that can sail across our historic crew districts in 4 to 6 hours. Then there are others, usually the ones that have to work intermediate yard(s) that have to be recrewed. Usually because more than one train that needs to work an intermediate yard shows up at the same time. One has to wait while the other(s) work. No matter what they try to do to stagger arrival time of the workers, it never seems to work. They all still seem to show up at the same time. Jeff
Same thing out here!
jeffhergertNever mind trying to get a single person crew for right now. You'll have to get agreement for an interdivisional run from Cedar Rapids to the Chicago area. Clinton is the dividing line for the two seniority districts. Iowa crews can't go east of Route 84 on the Illinois side. Illinois crews can't go west of a place called "Hawkeye" about MP 5. (Anytime I've ran east I don't remember an Illinois crew going beyond Central Steel crossing, the first crossing west of the Camanche control point.)
n012944I think this kind of thing is what NWOH is built for. Lets take Greyhound's 40 car double stack train coming off of the UP or CN in Chicago. The train only changes crews there, none of the power swap BS, and goes to NWOH. There it is broken up, trains depart from there to the east coast, southeast, Canada, even Detroit. A perfect setup to make this concept work.
Using NWOH instead of Chicago is probably a good idea.
But, but, but....
greyhoundsOk, enough. I’m tired of arguing with people who have never had anything to do with moving one pound of freight one mile in their life.
Yes but not always the case does "experience" equal the best method is in use or has been chosen or the person speaking knows their job. I can cite a big example from my life experience in another area.
CMStPnP greyhounds Ok, enough. I’m tired of arguing with people who have never had anything to do with moving one pound of freight one mile in their life. Yes but not always the case does "experience" equal the best method is in use or has been chosen or the person speaking knows their job. I can cite a big example from my life experience in another area.
greyhounds Ok, enough. I’m tired of arguing with people who have never had anything to do with moving one pound of freight one mile in their life.
BackshopI agree. I also think the OP has a condescending attitude. Of course, most of the people here aren't in transportation management. What did he think? Why did he start this thread then? Was it so that he could flaunt his "superior" knowledge?
I explained why I started the thread when I started the thread. I said:
" Please know and accept that this is just a mental exercise involving something that interests me. If you care to chime in, please feel free to do so. It’s all about having something interesting to do while I’m on lockdown and waiting to be vaccinated. Nothing more. I’d love to go out for a good steak and baked potato, but that isn’t going to happen anytime soon. So……"
greyhoundsUsing NWOH instead of Chicago is probably a good idea.
greyhoundsI want those large volume red meat loads going to Florida, Georgia and the Carolinas. Can we just set those out in Chicago?
What are the reasons why the points named in the far southeast couldn't be preferentially reached via the National Gateway or likely connections? Can we negotiate reduction or elimination of 'misuse charges' if an assigned reefer container returns via a different route from the partially 'dedicated' arrangement it departed Cedar Rapids using? Things like this tell me the experts know their current business too...
n012944 SD60MAC9500 To this day I still believe CSX's North Baltimore ICTF was built in the wrong location. I think this kind of thing is what NWOH is built for. Lets take Greyhound's 40 car double stack train coming off of the UP or CN in Chicago. The train only changes crews there, none of the power swap BS, and goes to NWOH. There it is broken up, trains depart from there to the east coast, southeast, Canada, even Detroit. A perfect setup to make this concept work.
You can run those stacks into an exisitng train. No ones running 80 boxes on a dedicated shooter from Chicago to NWOH.. You'll only get treatment like that from BNSF during peak season and your name must be UPS.. NWOH would be a better fit in the Chicago area combining volumes from both UP, BNSF, etc.. Building those trains and block swapping enroute as they do currently. No need to touch those boxes more than twice.. Regardless of how you feel about him. Hunter Harrison made the right call to change the dynamic of NWOH.
SD70Dude Renegotiating contracts is useless if the new run cannot be completed with the HOS limitations. We have a similar sort of scenario out here, about 25 years ago CN negotiatied the ability to run trains across two steam-era crew districts with a single crew, this practice being commonly referred to as "extended run" or "double sub". But most of our trains still change crews at all the old steam-era locations across western Canada, and there are very few lines where all trains are operated with extended run crews. Why? Because you cannot reliably make it over the road in 12 hours. Heck, it isn't exactly uncommon for single sub crews to run out of hours and get rescued before they have even gone 100 miles.
I agree with this. BNSF just recently put back it's crew change at Ashfork on the Peavine line from Phoenix. Prior to that it was a 300 Mile district between there and Winslow, AZ. Crews rarely made the entire district. I back one man as well on some trains, but what will it matter if they constantly run into HOS?
Regarding one man crews...how is that handled when a train must be inspected due to equipment failure or hot box?
Not against 1 man crew but that aspect has always puzzled me.
MP173 Regarding one man crews...how is that handled when a train must be inspected due to equipment failure or hot box? Not against 1 man crew but that aspect has always puzzled me. Ed
For some things the engineer might be able to handle simple things, like a sticking brake or airhose. They'll probably need to change a few rules and practices, but they already do that. Bigger things like a separation or knuckle failure, you'll have to wait for help to arrive. Maybe minutes, probably hours.
That's why the late EEH was not for one person crews.
Thank you, Greyhounds, for puttiing up this very interesting and informative topic.
SALfanThank you, Greyhounds, for puttiing up this very interesting and informative topic.
You're welcome.
Next, I'm going to talk about chicken.
I concur with Jeff that the UP has no interest in touching this traffic, or any other C1 for that matter... As he mentioned before UP turned away cereal business that would have brought revenue to the bottom line. Though if what he mentioned about Vanguard is true maybe they will have a change of heart?.. Not holding my breath.. Greyhounds your proposal would be better suited to the Cedar Rapids & Iowa City, and/or the Iowa Interstate.. Travero is building a logisitcs park in Cedar Rapids which will be served by the CRANDIC. CRANDIC could build the blocks at this LP handing off to the IAIS. Or since IAIS has trackage rights into Cedar Rapids on the CRANDIC via South Amana. They could make this an all IAIS move. IAIS doesn't have the high speed overland route, but it would be a low cost service and consistent. Let CRANDIC build the trains at CRLP. IAIS can move them for block swapping at South Amana.
greyhoundsThe high population states such as California, Texas, Florida, New York, etc. don’t come close. So, they’re bringing in eggs from Iowa and some other states. (Indiana is #2 with 10% of US egg production.)
Remember that most of the population in NYS is in the city. Out here in the sticks, our ratio of eggs produced to eggs consumed is much higher. For that matter, I can get farm-fresh eggs from any of several local farmers. No need to go to the store.
Of note with all of this should be the reason the East India spice trade ended. Recall that one of the purposes for which clipper ships were built was for that trade.
The invention of the refrigerated railroad car was the reason - it was now possible to deliver milk and butter from "out in the sticks" in consumable condition. A major use for the spices was to cover the taste of the rancid butter...
tree68Remember that most of the population in NYS is in the city. Out here in the sticks, our ratio of eggs produced to eggs consumed is much higher. For that matter, I can get farm-fresh eggs from any of several local farmers. No need to go to the store.
Oh, for sure. I grew up in a small central Illinois town. We raised chickens for home slaughter but we bought our eggs from a local farmer. Illinois passed a law against buying eggs directly from a farmer. The law was ignored.
Such eggs do not show up in any government statistics. And I doubt that many of those cash transactions show up on income tax returns.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
I believe it stands for NorthWest OHio...in other words, North Baltimore.
greyhounds OK, I know I said I was going to talk about chickens. But I’ve been diverted. This is about eggs.
So now we know the answer to that age old question of which came first.
The eggs come first.
Backshop I believe it stands for NorthWest OHio...in other words, North Baltimore.
That's correct. The folks on the Deshler webcam chat made the change because using "NB" for "North Baltimore" and for "northbound" got confusing. And I believe that is the official CSX designation is NWO, so it didn't just get pulled out of the air.
.
SD60MAC9500 I concur with Jeff that the UP has no interest in touching this traffic, or any other C1 for that matter... As he mentioned before UP turned away cereal business that would have brought revenue to the bottom line. Though if what he mentioned about Vanguard is true maybe they will have a change of heart?.. Not holding my breath.. Greyhounds your proposal would be better suited to the CRANDIC, and/or the Iowa Interstate.. Travero is building a logisitcs park in Cedar Rapids which will be served by the Cedar Rapids & Iowa City. CRANDIC could build the blocks at this LP handing off to the IAIR. Or since IAIR has trackage rights into Cedar Rapids on the CRANDIC via South Amana. They could make this an all IAIR move. IAIR doesn't have the high speed overland route, but it would be a low cost service and consistent. Let CRANDIC build the trains at CRLP. IAIR can move them for block swapping at South Amana.
I concur with Jeff that the UP has no interest in touching this traffic, or any other C1 for that matter... As he mentioned before UP turned away cereal business that would have brought revenue to the bottom line. Though if what he mentioned about Vanguard is true maybe they will have a change of heart?.. Not holding my breath.. Greyhounds your proposal would be better suited to the CRANDIC, and/or the Iowa Interstate.. Travero is building a logisitcs park in Cedar Rapids which will be served by the Cedar Rapids & Iowa City. CRANDIC could build the blocks at this LP handing off to the IAIR. Or since IAIR has trackage rights into Cedar Rapids on the CRANDIC via South Amana. They could make this an all IAIR move. IAIR doesn't have the high speed overland route, but it would be a low cost service and consistent. Let CRANDIC build the trains at CRLP. IAIR can move them for block swapping at South Amana.
The Iowa Interstate had a ramp at West Liberty IA, just east of Iowa City. They closed it a few years ago. They also closed their Newton IA ramp. I forget the time frame. I think Newton was after the Maytag factory was closed. West Lib was probably about the same time frame.
That being said, I agree that IAIS would likely be more receptive to Greyhounds' idea than UP.
Off topic but several of Dallas Northern Suburbs allow backyard chicken coups for the raising and consumption of fresh eggs, there is no limit on acerage and you can do so on a city lot. I believe there is a limit on number of laying hens per residence though. Never checked into myself, my suburb allows it but not a lot of people do it.
SD60MAC9500I concur with Jeff that the UP has no interest in touching this traffic, or any other C1 for that matter... As he mentioned before UP turned away cereal business that would have brought revenue to the bottom line. Though if what he mentioned about Vanguard is true maybe they will have a change of heart?.. Not holding my breath..
greyhounds SD60MAC9500 I concur with Jeff that the UP has no interest in touching this traffic, or any other C1 for that matter... As he mentioned before UP turned away cereal business that would have brought revenue to the bottom line. Though if what he mentioned about Vanguard is true maybe they will have a change of heart?.. Not holding my breath.. Agree. Some years ago, I was involved with a group consisting of railroad people of far greater stature than myself who took a good, at least in my mind, plan to the UP to haul Iowa/Nebraska meat. The UP’s response was pathetic to say the least. Forget the Chicago interchange. There’s a huge volume of such freight moving to the west coast. Both for domestic consumption and export. That’s long haul, high volume freight. I’ve got California alone bringing in 172 truckloads of red meat per day 365 days per year. California also requires 58 truckloads of eggs per day. And I calculate they bring in 157 loads of chicken per day. That’s a total of 387 long haul reefer truckloads. Please know the chicken does not come from Iowa. Chicken production in the US is centered in the southeast. But Georgia to California is a UP market opportunity. An empty reefer container in California is also an opportunity, not a problem. The UP marketing guy wanted to get the meat into a unit train. How dumb can you get? This isn’t unit train business. It’s going from a concentrated origin, that’s true, but it’s going to diverse destinations and that doesn’t work with a unit train. You can’t fix ignorance. The UP marketing people don’t know their markets and they don’t understand how the railroad can fit in to market requirements. The marketing folks should be the leading light for any company. After all, the company must sell its service/product. If it doesn’t know what service or product to offer for sale, it’s going to get in trouble. The UP is wandering in the wilderness. And there’s no manna from heaven to be found. If they started today it will take years to build a good marketing department. I won’t live to see them do that. I’m 70 with no pressing health issues. But I’ll be dead and gone before the UP could possibly get its act together. I tend to agree with railroad actions that other people throw a fit about. I often see the business logic in such decisions, or at least I think I do. But the Union Pacific, they don’t have a clue.
SD60MAC9500 I concur with Jeff that the UP has no interest in touching this traffic, or any other C1 for that matter... As he mentioned before UP turned away cereal business that would have brought revenue to the bottom line. Though if what he mentioned about Vanguard is true maybe they will have a change of heart?.. Not holding my breath..
Feature that is not a UP blindspot - it is a PSR cardinal rule.
PSR is predicated upon trainloads, not carloads.
PSR thought doesn't want to get involved in originating or terminating individual carloads. Carloads require terminal handling of one form or another and PSR wants to eliminate all Terminal costs in their operating plan. With all the hump yard closures it is manifestly evident that the PSR carriers want to distance themselves from carload freight. They will 'suffer' their existing 'BIG' customers carload traffic but will not seek out any new carload traffic, no matter how much it brings to the bottom line.
BaltACDFeature that is not a UP blindspot - it is a PSR cardinal rule. PSR is predicated upon trainloads, not carloads.
Where they seem to have the 'problem' is in waiting for the traffic to come to their grand opportunity, rather than establishing it for different specific targets -- as greyhounds is doing -- and then actively soliciting for enough aggregate to start building blockloads to make trainloads.
They certainly need to expand into the areas concerned with effective point-to-multipoint logistics... but that is not particularly 'rocket science'. I suspect greyhounds and STCO alone could explain it in enough detail to set about implementing properly.
Greyhound:
The key words are "a few years ago". Back then the rails were packed with crude oil and coal.
Today, not so much crude nor coal.
My guess is the UP would be more receptive in 2021 than they were a few years ago.
Probably needs to go to a Logistics Park somewhere in Ca.
What percentage of domestic COFC/TOFC is reefers? I don't see a whole lot.
MP173The key words are "a few years ago". Back then the rails were packed with crude oil and coal. Today, not so much crude nor coal. My guess is the UP would be more receptive in 2021 than they were a few years ago. Probably needs to go to a Logistics Park somewhere in Ca.
Supposedly the UP is hiring more marketing people. I'm afraid though that it will be more of answering phone/e-mail inquiries instead of actually going out and beating the bushes. Also will they continue the long haul only mentality? Hopefully I'm wrong.
Unit trains really are out. While they want to run large trains, they are trying to move as much unit train business into the regular manifest trains as possible. One of their mantra's now is it's about moving cars, not trains. While some customers are still better served with unit trains, they aren't above moving manifest business cut into unit trains. Especially on the unit train's empty leg.
Even some intermodals are carrying blocks of manifest business. I should note that blocks of auto racks and reefers have moved in intermodal trains. By manifest I mean box car, hopper (covered or not), tank car, and gondola traffic.
The unit train concept is one that was used to death. The C1's are so used to having a one track mind... They forgot how to market and service individual customers.. Imagine if coal was never the savior of the railroad industry? Unit trains makes sense only where the volumes exist demanding that service.
Jeff:
I have noticed that the CSX UP train to NWO (Q192) typically will have about 30 manifest cars, heavily concentrated with refer cars.
A few years ago UP/CSX ran dedicated "apple train" about 3x weekly from California and Washington to the Albany area for distribution into the Northeast. These were typically 40 - 60 refer cars. These trains are gone. Do you know if the business went away or is it in regular trains?
SD60MAC9500The unit train concept is one that was used to death.
Another problem is that they don't fit into the "land barge" concept of operations. I believe most unit train facilities are set up for ~100 car trains. Nowadays, such short trains are unusual, at best. It's not unusual to to see two such trains turned into one. Trains of 13,000 feet are common under PSR.
Those trains were run for Railex. UP bought them and turned it into Cold Connect, which they shut down last year. The loading/unloading points for RailEx/Cold Connect still show in the reefer network. However, there is no dedicated train and I haven't seen any blocks of reefer only traffic in intermodal trains. (It does seem westbound intermodals are more likely to fill out with manifest traffic than east bounds.)
I first noticed something was up soon after UP bought RailEx. I didn't know that had happened at the time, but one day we were held for a long pool train to go around us. It was the salad shooter with a large block of regular manifest business. Then soon after they started combining the California and Washington trains east of Green River or Cheyenne. Then they went away and blocks started moving in intermodals.
I still see (reading train lists) that there are reefers moving to Selkirk/Rotterdam, but it's in manifest trains. I don't know how the volume compares now against the time it was RailEx.
The RailEx-Cold Connect appeared to me to be an internal company 'power struggle' probably involving peak train speeds and expedited operation vs. using PSR to 'assure' things like longer-but-precise delivery time.
In practice, one of the PSR "imperatives" is to facilitate operations at restricted notch -- and this can be done in a way that actually 'saves fuel' rather than just the kind of feel-good speed reduction that Don Oltmann and some others have commented on. This is turn facilitates maintaining the 'railroad' for 45-55mph maximum speeds, and this is just as consequential for civil as it was in the days of William H. Vanderbilt.
If intermodal business, now, can be precision-scheduled at lower peak road speed, and I suspect UP knows much better than I do what its shippers actually require in this regard vs. what they're willing to pay for, then it begins to make sense to run 'merchandise' blocks in with the specialized intermodal equipment ... provided there is no serious unanticipated delay in yarding the intermodal equipment correctly for automated container or trailer exchange vs. those 'other' cars.
This ought to make us remember all the myriad ways the Amtrak MHC concept failed ... and what practical things might have been done to make it work.
If PSR is not correctly implemented -- and it's my impression that UP was comparatively late to the table with this PSR-priority planning, and perhaps not particularly skilled or experienced in what it actually implies vs. what analysts or other arb-type saprophytes 'enforce' it as being -- then you'll start to see blocks of convenient opportunity shoved on "intermodal" trains that merely slow them down, as I suspect was one of the issues with the Rotterdam Cold Connect service. Does anyone have the actual metrics of speeds and delays/dwells for Cold Connect consists, particularly on that part of CSX from east of Chicago to the point on the Chicago Line there is observable excess capacity much of the time?
What would be interesting would be Z-train speed with dedicated blocks of reefers handled in consist, something that I'd think ought to be technically possible, perhaps with some vehicle improvements. The logistics, including scheduling and delay handling, shouldn't be difficult or particularly arcane to develop. Something of this sort might be a potential opportunity for certain of the routes to disparate destination points out of the facility or facilities that receive the block traffic out of Cedar Rapids -- or the smaller blocks for some of the other originating traffic mentioned so far.
OvermodWhat would be interesting would be Z-train speed with dedicated blocks of reefers handled in consist, something that I'd think ought to be technically possible,
The UP has actually done that. Tropicana reefer cars were modified to be able to operate at 70 MPH. They took orange juice from Floirida to California and were handled in 70 MPH intermodal trains.
One of the tennants of PSR is to run a balanced network. Run the same number of trains in each direction. If there are 5 eastbounds and 6 westbounds, divide the traffic in that 6th train into the remaining 5. (Or run off enough business so you only need 5 trains.) Then retire (store, sell, furlough) any excess assests not needed to run the "balanced" network. Only retain enough assests to run the balanced network, not allowing for any possible upticks in business.
Unit trains, especially the low frequency users) throws off the balance. The idea is to move that low volume traffic into the manifest network. Instead of waiting 10 days for a 100 car train, work the industry more often and move the smaller blocks in manifest trains. That way extra equipment and manpower doesn't have to be retained for the unit train.
From what I read elsewhere, that's what got Vena and some of the other PSR types removed/reassigned. The Chinese were/are buying US grain due to their own ag problems. UP was looking at a 50% increase in grain trains to the west coast/PNW. Vena didn't want to do it because it would throw off his balanced network. Others on the board started askng why we have all these assests in storage instead of out producing revenue. Throw in the rising customer complaints, which I imagine are becoming harder to hide or explain away, the possible change of who's in the driver's seat and you have the possibility of them pulling back from the heavy, gung-ho PSR.
Every other railroad that has gone all out for PSR has eventually reached that point. They don't pull away completely from all tennants of PSR, but they've cut and gutted to the point they can't cut any more. They need to grow business. UP may have reached that point.
greyhounds Overmod What would be interesting would be Z-train speed with dedicated blocks of reefers handled in consist, something that I'd think ought to be technically possible, The UP has actually done that. Tropicana reefer cars were modified to be able to operate at 70 MPH. The took orange juice from Floirida to California and were handled in 70 MPH intermodal trains.
Overmod What would be interesting would be Z-train speed with dedicated blocks of reefers handled in consist, something that I'd think ought to be technically possible,
The UP has actually done that. Tropicana reefer cars were modified to be able to operate at 70 MPH. The took orange juice from Floirida to California and were handled in 70 MPH intermodal trains.
I don't know if they had to do much modification. All reefers and auto racks are allowed 70 mph on the UP.
That being said, other restrictions like Tons per Operative Brake can reduce a 70 mph train to 60 or 50 MPH.
greyhounds Overmod What would be interesting would be Z-train speed with dedicated blocks of reefers handled in consist, something that I'd think ought to be technically possible, The UP has actually done that. Tropicana reefer cars were modified to be able to operate at 70 MPH. They took orange juice from Floirida to California and were handled in 70 MPH intermodal trains.
As does BNSF.. BNSF does not run unit reefer trains. They run reefer blocks for the most part in their z-train network.
Must have been some very potent PSR kool-aid they were drinking to turndown grain trains to the coast. You build the rate to cover the return MTs.
Which leads to the next questions, why hasnt a system been developed to load all those MT international containers with grain going to China? Shouldnt be too difficult to figure that out.
MP173 Which leads to the next questions, why hasnt a system been developed to load all those MT international containers with grain going to China? Shouldnt be too difficult to figure that out.
That's already happening. But it adds additional handling costs compared to bulk shipment of grain.
UP sad to say right now could really care less about more business. They still are in the throes of PSR and to hell with growing business right now. A company could offer them a million dollars a day contract that required local switching and UP more than likely would say no. If you look at their intermodal trains they do have anything but 3rd party logistics and maybe a few England containers. Then look at BNSF they're getting everything else. When SWIFT refuses to even consider the UP for intermodal you're in a problem. England uses them since well they don't have much choice in Salt Lake City.
MP173 Which leads to the next questions, why hasnt a system been developed to load all those MT international containers with grain going to China? Shouldnt be too difficult to figure that out. Ed
For corn or wheat you're never going to match the efficiency of a unit train. But for some products that are generated in smaller volumes or that are more differentiated, that would otherwise move as carload freight in manifest service, "ag-in-a-box" is a real thing.
I know of two ways in which ag-in-a-box products are shipped to the west coast.
The first is on regular intermodal trains. As with all such moves, it works best if the trip origin is close to the rail terminal.
The other way is that some companies have opened what are basically unit train facilities, except with well cars in place of hoppers. The railroad delivers a trainload of empty containers, the customer has a certain amount of time to deramp and load the cars up with loaded containers, and the train departs. A relatively new service of this type recently opened in Minot, ND for pulses and other specialty crops being exported through the PNW, but it is not the first. Individually the products do not generate whole trainloads to a single destination, but collectively they do.
The key feature for anything that uses intermodal equipment is just that there has to be a large number of containers moving from one terminal to another. With carload you can sort cars into blocks in a classification terminal; with intermodal, they are loaded into blocks at the originating rail terminal.
As I understand it, North Baltimore was an experiment in trying to create the functional equivalent of a classification yard for containers, so that intermodal could operate as a network instead of a fixed and limited set of O/D pairs. Apparently it was not considered a success. Given the massive investment required, don't expect anyone else to rush to try again for a while. If you want to open a rail intermodal terminal, you'll have to show that you can aggregate a large number of trips - probably a train's worth, in most cases - from your new terminal to a single destination terminal.
Dan
dpeltier MP173 Which leads to the next questions, why hasnt a system been developed to load all those MT international containers with grain going to China? Shouldnt be too difficult to figure that out. Ed For corn or wheat you're never going to match the efficiency of a unit train. But for some products that are generated in smaller volumes or that are more differentiated, that would otherwise move as carload freight in manifest service, "ag-in-a-box" is a real thing. I know of two ways in which ag-in-a-box products are shipped to the west coast. The first is on regular intermodal trains. As with all such moves, it works best if the trip origin is close to the rail terminal. The other way is that some companies have opened what are basically unit train facilities, except with well cars in place of hoppers. The railroad delivers a trainload of empty containers, the customer has a certain amount of time to deramp and load the cars up with loaded containers, and the train departs. A relatively new service of this type recently opened in Minot, ND for pulses and other specialty crops being exported through the PNW, but it is not the first. Individually the products do not generate whole trainloads to a single destination, but collectively they do. The key feature for anything that uses intermodal equipment is just that there has to be a large number of containers moving from one terminal to another. With carload you can sort cars into blocks in a classification terminal; with intermodal, they are loaded into blocks at the originating rail terminal. As I understand it, North Baltimore was an experiment in trying to create the functional equivalent of a classification yard for containers, so that intermodal could operate as a network instead of a fixed and limited set of O/D pairs. Apparently it was not considered a success. Given the massive investment required, don't expect anyone else to rush to try again for a while. If you want to open a rail intermodal terminal, you'll have to show that you can aggregate a large number of trips - probably a train's worth, in most cases - from your new terminal to a single destination terminal. Dan
If grain in containers is to be a 'thing'. Surprised that Covered Hopper style containers have not been developed.
BaltACDIf grain in containers is to be a 'thing'. Surprised that Covered Hopper style containers have not been developed.
I would opine that the ease of moving containers (including tipping for loading and unloading) would preclude the complexity of making them operate like a hopper car.
Such tipping is already done.
BaltACD If grain in containers is to be a 'thing'. Surprised that Covered Hopper style containers have not been developed.
Santa Fe experimented with just that back in the early 80's it was a part of their fuel foiler intermodal line.. The goal was to move goods to the Midwest loading the containers with grain for the return move to the West Coast. They were called A-Stacks and proved to be inefficient and cumbersome.
Sounds like loading and unloading containers with grain uses a similar technique to that used with boxcars in years gone by. It probably includes a similar amount of leakage while in transit.
For 'ag-in-a-box' seasonal intermodal, I developed the GrainTainer, which was basically a folding frame with membrane container which could be collapsed vertically and locked for storage or empty handling. This was designed to be accessible by forks from below, spreaders from above, and some systems of sideloading, with the idea that 5 or more 'folded' could fit in the space on a rack flat occupied by a single ISO (I admit I designed for series 3, not series 1) container. Folded containers could be stored, or handled 'asynchronously' on single flats or small blocks, to return them for 'reloading' as necessary. I had them set up to be loaded at the top, with multiple internal 'cells', much like covered hoppers; there are a number of possibilities for emptying them although 'end doors' are not a good mechanical solution -- you would be amused by a couple of the options.
This was in the '70s, in the Fuel Foiler years, when sideloading into 'kangaroo pockets' was the coming thing for fast oil-saving TOFC and there was still a perceived benefit in COFC (as for Flexi-Van) in lower wind resistance. While it's possible that collapsible units could be built to be stack-loaded, much of the effectiveness of the design, particularly with regard to a number of types of service failure, would be compromised if strengthened to allow that... this includes ground-handling. Of course you would never allow this construction on a ship .
As a means of extracting grain from multiple loading points and converging it effectively and 'as quickly as cost-effectively desired' on bulk loading locations, it was, and I think it still remains, an interesting alternative. In the West, where the 'jumping-off place' for most prospective grain shipments is now, the transition to 'bulk' is not as amenable to river/waterway loading as traffic toward the Mississippi or some of the logical eastern-port destinations.
CSSHEGEWISCH Sounds like loading and unloading containers with grain uses a similar technique to that used with boxcars in years gone by. It probably includes a similar amount of leakage while in transit.
Also labor intensive, probably. It appears OM's notion never made it to production, if that.
charlie hebdoIt appears OM's notion never made it to production, if that.
Back to hauling meat from Iowa...
I woke up this morning and suddening realized why this has not been implemented, or at least in my simple mind.
Earlier this week thru the wonders of a news feed on my phone a quarterly earnings report from JBHunt was featured. I read it (yes I actually read financial statements...that is how uneventful my life is) and a key metric was the intermodal loads - 524906 during 4Q, 2020. Quite impressive. However, it took JBH 98689 containers to move those loads....an average of 5.31 loads per quarter, or one load every 16.9 days (based on a 90 day quarter).
Break down the info a bit more (trusty slide rule at my side) and that is $140 per day revenue for each container. That is not very much.
Consider that the JBH intermodal is in very concentrated lanes and their average length of haul is 1711 miles with average revenue per load at $2360 ($1.38 per mile for those of you wondering). The mileage from LA to KC is roughly 1700 when drayage is considered...perhaps a bit more.
Five and a fraction loads per quarter for a container moving in highly concentrated lanes 1700 miles does not seem very efficient to me. Or am I overlooking something?Cats...what is the efficiency of your trucking operation? How many loads are you turning with a trailer each quarter?
Greyhound...how would you bend the cost curve to allow this Iowa Meat Express (IMX) to work?
I havent even went down the rabbit hole as far as container costs and refer container costs are concerned, but $140 per day of revenue/dry van container doesnt seem very rich to me.
Comments?One final thought...EHH has been hated for the PSR, but one of the key components was the reduction of assets thru more efficient usage. Perhaps there is a need, based on JBH's financials for a PSIntermodal (PSI). That asset usage is very leaky.
SD60MAC9500 Regardless of how you feel about him. Hunter Harrison made the right call to change the dynamic of NWOH.
Regardless of how you feel about him. Hunter Harrison made the right call to change the dynamic of NWOH.
He didn't. Which is one of the reasons why after his death, NWOH went back to operating much closer to its original purpose.
MP173Back to hauling meat from Iowa... I woke up this morning and suddening realized why this has not been implemented, or at least in my simple mind. Earlier this week thru the wonders of a news feed on my phone a quarterly earnings report from JBHunt was featured. I read it (yes I actually read financial statements...that is how uneventful my life is) and a key metric was the intermodal loads - 524906 during 4Q, 2020. Quite impressive. However, it took JBH 98689 containers to move those loads....an average of 5.31 loads per quarter, or one load every 16.9 days (based on a 90 day quarter). Break down the info a bit more (trusty slide rule at my side) and that is $140 per day revenue for each container. That is not very much. Consider that the JBH intermodal is in very concentrated lanes and their average length of haul is 1711 miles with average revenue per load at $2360 ($1.38 per mile for those of you wondering). The mileage from LA to KC is roughly 1700 when drayage is considered...perhaps a bit more. Five and a fraction loads per quarter for a container moving in highly concentrated lanes 1700 miles does not seem very efficient to me. Or am I overlooking something?Cats...what is the efficiency of your trucking operation? How many loads are you turning with a trailer each quarter? Greyhound...how would you bend the cost curve to allow this Iowa Meat Express (IMX) to work? I havent even went down the rabbit hole as far as container costs and refer container costs are concerned, but $140 per day of revenue/dry van container doesnt seem very rich to me. Comments?One final thought...EHH has been hated for the PSR, but one of the key components was the reduction of assets thru more efficient usage. Perhaps there is a need, based on JBH's financials for a PSIntermodal (PSI). That asset usage is very leaky. Ed
One element that is routinely overlooked in equipment utilization - weekends. Many (most) businesses don't work weekend. A load that arrives after close of business on Friday won't be handled until start of business on Monday, at the earliest.
Secondly, containers are not necessarily handled 'immediately' upon arrival for either loading or unloaded. I have no idea what JBH's rules are for 'free time' on their equipment with their customers are; 'free time' is something that is built into all haulage to allow for expeditious loading/unloading of the container.
Good point BALT...but there seems to be a trend for more and more 24/7 shipping/receiving, particularly by the large DCs. With the reduction of quarterly data from 90 days to 65 days (13 weeks * 5 days per week) one still has a load factor of every 12 days....based on an average haul of 1711 miles. Not very efficient.
It would be interesting to go behind the scenes of JBH, Hub, Schneider, and others to see how these truckload carriers actually operate.
MP173 Good point BALT...but there seems to be a trend for more and more 24/7 shipping/receiving, particularly by the large DCs. With the reduction of quarterly data from 90 days to 65 days (13 weeks * 5 days per week) one still has a load factor of every 12 days....based on an average haul of 1711 miles. Not very efficient. It would be interesting to go behind the scenes of JBH, Hub, Schneider, and others to see how these truckload carriers actually operate. Ed
Part of the slow cycle time could very well be chassis availability.
MP173a key metric was the intermodal loads - 524906 during 4Q, 2020. Quite impressive. However, it took JBH 98689 containers to move those loads....an average of 5.31 loads per quarter, or one load every 16.9 days (based on a 90 day quarter). Break down the info a bit more (trusty slide rule at my side) and that is $140 per day revenue for each container. That is not very much. Consider that the JBH intermodal is in very concentrated lanes and their average length of haul is 1711 miles with average revenue per load at $2360 ($1.38 per mile for those of you wondering). The mileage from LA to KC is roughly 1700 when drayage is considered...perhaps a bit more. Five and a fraction loads per quarter for a container moving in highly concentrated lanes 1700 miles does not seem very efficient to me. Or am I overlooking something?
I know that our trailers on average 4 loads or more a month based on logbook records. That is for our van side our tanker side is closer to 6 loads a month for the acid boys and our peumatics are around 4 to 5 loads a month also. Our tank division is a shorter distance hauled normally 800 miles or less and unless we have a tank wash in the area they come back empty.
Shadow the Cats owner I know that our trailers on average 4 loads or more a month based on logbook records. That is for our van side our tanker side is closer to 6 loads a month for the acid boys and our peumatics are around 4 to 5 loads a month also. Our tank division is a shorter distance hauled normally 800 miles or less and unless we have a tank wash in the area they come back empty.
You are doing 12+ loads per quarter while the other guys' calculation was 5.31 loads. It doesn't seem like they are competitive.
charlie hebdo Shadow the Cats owner I know that our trailers on average 4 loads or more a month based on logbook records. That is for our van side our tanker side is closer to 6 loads a month for the acid boys and our peumatics are around 4 to 5 loads a month also. Our tank division is a shorter distance hauled normally 800 miles or less and unless we have a tank wash in the area they come back empty. You are doing 12+ loads per quarter while the other guys' calculation was 5.31 loads. It doesn't seem like they are competitive.
Doesn't seem like apples and apples are being measured.
BaltACDDoesn't seem like apples and apples are being measured.
The chief difference is in the oversight, and consequent control, of the "dispatching" of the load-carrying equipment -- for these purposes it is almost immaterial if they are trailers or containers. Admittedly STCO's equipment is often purpose-built and probably of expensive construction with expensive maintenance, so there's more of an incentive to minimize dwell and maximize turns. But outside the time actually spent moving in consists, the handling of truck-line-owned boxes is little different from handling of trailers, with only the consideration of 'chassis management' complicating it -- and this kind of consideration is well-understood with respect to other intermodal efforts from Flexi-Van through the 'second iteration' of RoadRailer with articulated three-piece trucks to the present.
Reading between the lines, the relatively long turns may be perceived as 'adequate' by the operators -- there are certainly ways, some of them very simple and cost-effective to implement, to reduce that time. I'm quite sure there are people at the various companies at least as knowledgeable, and perhaps disinclined to lay out their reasoning in a competitive environment, which may be a strong indication to study the actual service to see where speed is needed vs. where it costs more than it contributes.
As we get further into the supposed game-changing alternative-power autonomously-enabled future, we can expect both the market and the economics to change, at which point I'd certainly anticipate the railroads' part in the exercise to b 'streamlined' where they deem practical. It would certainly be fun to see at least one of the big operators heavily invested in box traffic, like J.B. Hunt, test some of the methods earlier.
If Shadowcat is correct, the capacity/weight carried in trailers is considerably more than that of containers. This also figures into the economics.
charlie hebdoIf Shadowcat is correct, the capacity/weight carried in trailers is considerably more than that of containers. This also figures into the economics.
Were the containers to be loaded to 'ship' standards, they would of course carry far more than any road-going or domestic container, and the usual ISO marine container is of course designed to that capability by standard. In my opinion it would be far easier to refit (or build new) railroad equipment capable of marine loading than to attempt to build road chassis (likely with multiple axles and sophisticated weight-sensing and accommodating suspension) to handle it -- and rely more on a break-bulk or cross-dock type of operating model at the various 'regional' intermodal points in the supply chain.
Two points:
1. Obviously I was referring to above tare weight as the phrase "capacity/weight carried" clearly means.
2. If additional containers are need to carry the same given load than trailers, obviously that certainly influences the economics.
Well this should tell you something about the tare weight issue. That Prime looked into reefer containers and decided that there was NO way that for their business model that they could make the tare weight issue work for them. The loss of almost 3 tons of cargo capacity was just to much for them to even consider even with the newest models able to carry 30 skids in them. The weight difference is just to much. When you can scale 5k more pounds with full tanks when hauling beef or produce you tend to make more money when your paid by the hundred weight.
Shadow the Cats ownerWell this should tell you something about the tare weight issue. That Prime looked into reefer containers and decided that there was NO way that for their business model that they could make the tare weight issue work for them. The loss of almost 3 tons of cargo capacity was just to much for them to even consider even with the newest models able to carry 30 skids in them. The weight difference is just to much. When you can scale 5k more pounds with full tanks when hauling beef or produce you tend to make more money when your paid by the hundred weight.
Prime can make their own decisions about their own equipment. Other truckers with intermodal reefer operations have acquired the reefer containers. (KLLM, for example.)
Prime is apparently going with lightweight reefer trailers for intermodal. Fine with me. As long as they go intermodal.
A railroad can keep TOFC trailers competitive with its pricing policy. I know BNSF has done this at times.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.