The concept was more relevant back in the days of the Spanish crown land grants.
Last several decades it's been more used to satirize Los Angeles' insistence upon being the bully in all matters of Southern California .
"Inland Empire"--what a misnomer. That's like calling the south side of Chicago "South Beach".
Inland Empire - San Bernadino/Riverside Counties.
And a lot of the dist facilities in the IE are being replaced by facilities in Phoenix and Kingman-now that Cali wants to use "emission-free" trucks.
YoHo1975Would this make more sense if the inland ports were Barstow (BNSF) and Las Vegas (UP)? Presumably BNSF could add a ramp at Barstow relatively cheaply (RELATIVELY) compared to breaking new ground. Granted, the run back to Riverside and San Bernardino has it's own set of issues.
The market is the strip and restuff facilities in the IE, so Vegas and Barstow are irrelevant.
Mac
charlie hebdoThankfully that won't happen,
We must remain ever-vigilant in our forward thinking?
Murphy SidingAcronym check- IE? Inland ….something
Empire
Acronym check- IE? Inland ….something?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Convicted OneOnce the Canadian lines pick east coast merger partners, most of the business still going to LA will shift north of the border anyway, so why set ourselves up for a second round of disappointment? Ashes to ashes,...etc
Thankfully that won't happen, certainly not with the current STB.
SD60MAC9500 A service case exist.. It's not about why it can't work. HOw do we make it work?
SD60,
I think you are trying to say that a service case exists. I am embarrased to say that I spent half of last nignt thinking about this move. I think you are right that about 8,000 containers per day move from Port to IE. I planned on 1800 per day.
My best guess is that truck cost is about $500 based on a 7 hour round trip at $75 per hour. I could be off a bit, but the fact is easy to find if anyone cares.
Here is my estimate of rail costs using 6 sets of 100 box trains.
Crew of 2 BNSF or UP men @ $250 for 8 hours $ 500 trip.
Fuel 2 units of 2000 HP, 600 gallons at $3 $1800 trip
Engine wet lease 2x$1000/3 trips/day $ 700 trip
Car hire $6/slot/day 3 trips/day $ 200 trip
Trackage rights at $.50 per loaded mi on 90 mi. $4500 trip
Overhead at profit on Op cost at 100% $3200
Total $10,900, say $11,000 per trip is $110 per box line haul
Now the hard part - Terminal costs assumed to be $75 per lift at 4 per round trip, is $300 per box
IE dray not over 15 miles 3 hours at $70, say $200.
Total per box is $110 + 300 + 200 = $610 before the hard parts
What equipment? Existing 40' double stack or very light single axle spine cars in blocks of 9? Probably cost a couple of million to create and test new car design which would deliberately not be interchangeable.
Terminals. Do they exist now, if so will the owners let them displace long haul (good) traffic for short haul (bad). I would not. How many million would they cost in capital driving what lease/operating costs. This makes my $75 per lift suspect. It is the terminal costs that will keep this notion dead absent some public investment.
Congestion - I figured cycle time as an hour to load, 2 hour run time, an hour to unload, two hours back. Crew time on to off duty 8 hours. Three turns per day for each train. We need 6. To get three turns per day can not stand any more than an hour per trip delay. Can class I roads perform to that standard? If not rail operating costs go up.
What are the Poor Mexican Truckers going to do? Simple enough, they will lower the rate to hold the business until they get their tractors repossessed. Shippers will use them until they drop.
I would not consider investing in this if I were UP or BNSF.
Terminal costs are the killer, not any labor savings that may be associated with the Harbor Line. Look at where the costs are!
SD60MAC9500The AC has benefited local surface traffic. However the prime reason the AC is underutilized is due to changes in the logistics chain. T
I thought the A.C. was a great idea when it was built. Mostly because I am a cement and rebar junkie......
But, I really really have grown averse to pitchmen thinking the only thing standing between them and the promised land is $10,000 spent for architectural renderings to use as bait in wooing a public commitment to their dreams.
Put another way, if New Market tax incentives had existed back in PT Barnum's day, I seriously doubt he would have ever entered the circus business.
Here's what I believe:
The argument that the A.C. improved the quality of life in the neighborhoods it traverses, is hyperbole. I've driven those neighborhoods myself, and the most noteworthy improvement is that now there is a gulch subdividing the blight and sprawl.
The container traffic on the old Harbor line never bothered me. So the claimed urgency to build the A.C. in order to get the traffic off of it looked like a solution in search of a problem, from day one. I used to actually think it was cool seeing live freight crossing up over Hawthorne Blvd there at 190th street.
Once the Canadian lines pick east coast merger partners, most of the business still going to LA will shift north of the border anyway, so why set ourselves up for a second round of disappointment? Ashes to ashes,...etc.
Convicted One SD60MAC9500 I can name plenty of public monies that go wasted in other sectors. Well, let me begin with an assurance that "this" is not intended as a personal attack. I enjoy reading your posts. But, the above is what I call "stinkin thinkin". And we see a lot of it. "The government subsidizes airports, therefore passenger rail is "owed" a subsidy" "The government subsidizes highways, therefore freight rail is owed infrastructure subsidy"...etc etc Sorry, but thinking like that inspires me to resist. If the bag of goods the taxpayer was sold for the A.C. turned out to be a pie in the sky. I just don't see more big dreamers with fancy architectural renderings as anything besides "more of the same ol same ol". If it was such a grande opportunity, then lazy rich people with no desire to do any real work themselves would be lining up for the chance to allow their money to work for them..
SD60MAC9500 I can name plenty of public monies that go wasted in other sectors.
Well, let me begin with an assurance that "this" is not intended as a personal attack. I enjoy reading your posts.
But, the above is what I call "stinkin thinkin". And we see a lot of it. "The government subsidizes airports, therefore passenger rail is "owed" a subsidy" "The government subsidizes highways, therefore freight rail is owed infrastructure subsidy"...etc etc
Sorry, but thinking like that inspires me to resist.
If the bag of goods the taxpayer was sold for the A.C. turned out to be a pie in the sky. I just don't see more big dreamers with fancy architectural renderings as anything besides "more of the same ol same ol".
If it was such a grande opportunity, then lazy rich people with no desire to do any real work themselves would be lining up for the chance to allow their money to work for them..
No need to preface Convicted One. You understand the pricinple of civil discourse. It maybe a bad line of thinking. When I said other sectors I meant to say outside of transportation.
The AC has benefited local surface traffic. However the prime reason the AC is underutilized is due to changes in the logistics chain. This was otuside the realm of the AC.
PNWRMNM This is not the railroad's problem. A shuttle will have to stand on its own merits, make a contribution to overhead and profit, and not impose delay costs on other traffic, and not displace high revenue traffic from the IE terminal. The traffic will not pay the rates required. If the politicians want to shift IE box traffic to rail that all they have to do is slap on a high enough out gate charge on truck traffic to the IE, eliminate the ACTA charge, and use some or all of the truck surcharge to pay part of the rail rate on such a move. That would be revolutionary and I do not expect to see it even in supposidly 'green' California. I say again, this is NOT a railroad problem. The industry has plenty of its own. No need to borrow trouble as a former boss used to say. Mac
A shuttle will have to stand on its own merits, make a contribution to overhead and profit, and not impose delay costs on other traffic, and not displace high revenue traffic from the IE terminal. The traffic will not pay the rates required.
If the politicians want to shift IE box traffic to rail that all they have to do is slap on a high enough out gate charge on truck traffic to the IE, eliminate the ACTA charge, and use some or all of the truck surcharge to pay part of the rail rate on such a move. That would be revolutionary and I do not expect to see it even in supposidly 'green' California.
I say again, this is NOT a railroad problem. The industry has plenty of its own. No need to borrow trouble as a former boss used to say.
I never said it was a railroad problem as I'm not putting the onus on the BNSF, UP, or the Pacific Harbor Line. The whole point is how do we utilize an underperforming assest such as the AC to it's potential. A shuttle service using the Pacific Harbor Line from dock to the IE would be the immediate solution to getting Trucks off the 710, etc.. Putting that traffic onto the AC can help to recover it's cost going forward. There's currently around 40,000 trucks/day utilizing the 710 from and to the ports. Let's say 20% or 8,000 trucks are TEU moves. That's pretty substantial.. Getting that traffic off the 710 will reduce traffic along with better local air quality. So there's environmental benefit as well.
PNWRMNM Rail service to the IE is non competitive because the haul is too sort to recover the terminal costs and the ACTA's fee which is about $60 per TEU or $120 for a 40' box, in the few miles involved. After 60 years of reducing on train labor content, labor costs are not the big deal they once were. The minor savings in labor cost that might be gained by shortlining a container shuttle to the IE would not be worth the labor relations costs, and there are far bigger issues.
Rail service to the IE is non competitive because the haul is too sort to recover the terminal costs and the ACTA's fee which is about $60 per TEU or $120 for a 40' box, in the few miles involved. After 60 years of reducing on train labor content, labor costs are not the big deal they once were. The minor savings in labor cost that might be gained by shortlining a container shuttle to the IE would not be worth the labor relations costs, and there are far bigger issues.
Which one is it? Is the length of haul the problem or is labor not the issue?
Yes we understand it's expensive for BNSF, and UP to haul this traffic. However for a shortline such as Pacific Harbor Line it's not.
The ports approached BNSF, and UP years ago to discuss this very idea I mentioned here.. The only difference is the proposal had the C1's providing the service. Using a shortline such as PHL would get low cost and consistent service. PHL already has rights on the AC to Lynwood. Extend rights to the entire AC which terminates at Redondo Jct. Getting trackage rights on UP's Alhambara Sub and/or Los Angeles Sub maybe the best bet due to it's higher capacity (map here Lynwood is where the old Cargill site was on the map). Or maybe they can get slots on Metrolinks nearby Alhambra Sub. Overnight service? A service case exist.. It's not about why it can't work. How do we make it work? Or should the ports eliminate the TEU charge and pay a subsidy to BNSF, and UP to cover CAPEX and OPEX?
What is excess and how does it create shortage?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1JlYZQG3lI
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BackshopSo you want a bunch of "yes men"? Ain't gonna happen. How many movements to the IE would your 15-25 container "trains" add?
greyhounds zugmann Witha that reasoning, you already won your argument. Just going from experience. Any time anyone suggests change people line up to explain why it can’t possibly work.
zugmann Witha that reasoning, you already won your argument.
How many movements to the IE would your 15-25 container "trains" add?
greyhoundsAny time anyone suggests change people line up to explain why it can’t possibly work.
Typical reaction to new ideas on here, as in most places. Homeostasis is dominant, unfortunately.
greyhoundsOK, let us think outside the box here.
Lake Havasu was really thriving before the pandemic. I say: flood the A.C., install a couple boat ramps, build a casino or two, and use any money left over for a nice wetlands restoration project.
greyhoundsDo you have a serious comment on this?
We're being serious?
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
zugmannI do like the idea of taking a Brandt truck home with me. Save me on my gas. Neighbors might not be on board, thoug
Quick way to get HSR running from Union Station to Long Beach ..
I do like the idea of taking a Brandt truck home with me. Save me on my gas. Neighbors might not be on board, though.
zugmannWitha that reasoning, you already won your argument.
zugmann greyhounds OK, what I’d like is suggestions on how to make it work. What I’m expecting is a lot of reasons why it can’t possibly work. Witha that reasoning, you already won your argument.
greyhounds OK, what I’d like is suggestions on how to make it work. What I’m expecting is a lot of reasons why it can’t possibly work.
Witha that reasoning, you already won your argument.
Who was the Alameda Corridor project intended to benefit the most?
To my mind - taking trains away from disrupting all the other surface transportation means makes the public in the area served by the Corridor project the big beneficaries with every local trip they make each and every day they live. The fact the it benefits the railroad is a secondary consideration.
greyhoundsOK, what I’d like is suggestions on how to make it work. What I’m expecting is a lot of reasons why it can’t possibly work.
SD60MAC9500 Mac you'll have to go back and re-read my OP. The core of the problem is that the ACTA will have a difficult time recovering the cost of operation leading into negative cashflow. The ACTA is a seperate entity from the ports of LA, and LB. The containers are going to move regardless.. Due to changes in the supply chain many more TEU's are leaving the ports of LA, and LB via the 710 alongside the other routes I mentioned instead of the Alameda Corridor. Most containers from the ports go to the IE for transloading into 53' domestic boxes. Traffic has been on a steady decline year over year on the Alameda Corridor. Tolls are collected per TEU. Non TEU tolls are collected as well from other types of railcars. Read the two links I included in my OP..
Mac you'll have to go back and re-read my OP. The core of the problem is that the ACTA will have a difficult time recovering the cost of operation leading into negative cashflow. The ACTA is a seperate entity from the ports of LA, and LB. The containers are going to move regardless.. Due to changes in the supply chain many more TEU's are leaving the ports of LA, and LB via the 710 alongside the other routes I mentioned instead of the Alameda Corridor. Most containers from the ports go to the IE for transloading into 53' domestic boxes. Traffic has been on a steady decline year over year on the Alameda Corridor. Tolls are collected per TEU. Non TEU tolls are collected as well from other types of railcars.
Read the two links I included in my OP..
I read your referenced documents and a recent credit rating by Moodys. It must have been a slow news day at Railway Age.
The names are changed: the ACTA owns the asset, which was paid for with callable bonds that mature in 2037. The ports are on the hook to each make up 20% of any cash flow short fall. The ACTA is now retiring about $200 million of debt per year, without participation by the Ports, so there is plenty of cash flow in sight to pay the debt. I did not see what the total owed is, but did not read each and every document.
The ACTA's base agreement goes to 2062, so they have time to refinance the debt if necessary.
This is not the railroad's problem.
SD60MAC9500 Convicted One SD60MAC9500 It will require some public monies. Yet if ACTA ever plans to collect funding to pay off state and local bonds I say this is the plan that should move forward. What say you? So I guess you are saying the only way to recover the public monies already sunk into the project, is to spend more public money? Sure! What could go wrong? How about we just pave over the rails and create a "high occupancy vehicle" expressway? Is this anything new? I can name plenty of public monies that go wasted in other sectors.. The difference here the subsidy would benefit local infrastructure and air quality.
Convicted One SD60MAC9500 It will require some public monies. Yet if ACTA ever plans to collect funding to pay off state and local bonds I say this is the plan that should move forward. What say you? So I guess you are saying the only way to recover the public monies already sunk into the project, is to spend more public money? Sure! What could go wrong? How about we just pave over the rails and create a "high occupancy vehicle" expressway?
SD60MAC9500 It will require some public monies. Yet if ACTA ever plans to collect funding to pay off state and local bonds I say this is the plan that should move forward. What say you?
So I guess you are saying the only way to recover the public monies already sunk into the project, is to spend more public money? Sure! What could go wrong?
How about we just pave over the rails and create a "high occupancy vehicle" expressway?
Is this anything new? I can name plenty of public monies that go wasted in other sectors.. The difference here the subsidy would benefit local infrastructure and air quality.
Whenever tax money isn't spent on some party's 'favorite project', they feature that the money has been wasted. Nothing to see here, move along.
At even one train a day the benefits to the residents of the Alameda Corridor area are incalculable vs. prior routings and the surface disruption train movements caused.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.