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……"
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.
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.
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.
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....
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.)
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
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
ed
SD60MAC9500 To this day I still believe CSX's North Baltimore ICTF was built in the wrong location.
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"
If the Army doesn't have anything for sale. I'm sure you can find some good used side loaders here.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
www.railrunner.com
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.
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.
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.
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.
[/quote]
BackshopOkay greyhounds, you started a thread, asked for suggestions and shot just about all of them down. How would YOU solve the the problem?
Okay greyhounds, you started a thread, asked for suggestions and shot just about all of them down. How would YOU solve the the problem?
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.
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.
Ed
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.
Basic to the idea is to get the money for the railroad. Not to hand over the dollars to truckers.
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.