MP173I dont really would want him fired, but wow...I was trained to answer the phone and listen. Perhaps he needs a bit of training.
Maybe he knows something, but either it's going to affect him negatively or he's been instructed to keep his mouth shut.
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...
Ulrich MP173 I dont really would want him fired, but wow...I was trained to answer the phone and listen. Perhaps he needs a bit of training. Ed Maybe more training on how to use a telephone. Actually not a bad idea..
MP173 I dont really would want him fired, but wow...I was trained to answer the phone and listen. Perhaps he needs a bit of training. Ed
I dont really would want him fired, but wow...I was trained to answer the phone and listen.
Perhaps he needs a bit of training.
Ed
Maybe more training on how to use a telephone. Actually not a bad idea..
"Hello, you've reached the PSR Railroad. How may you help us?"
Jeff
greyhounds Anyway, 30 such pallets load the boxcar with only 15 tons of freight. If they can devise a system to "Double Stack" pallets in the boxcar just think of the possible per car revenue. I know some trailers had two levels for loading and it's probably possible in a boxcar.
MP173 My enthusiam of yesterday is somewhat tempered today. First of all it is next to impossible to talk to anyone at NS these days. I called numerous times, the Calumet Yard in Chicago, Intermodal phone number, Marketing phone numbers, and a couple others. The two people I talked to in Intermodal were not aware of the LCL program, nor did they seem interested in helping. ONe actually (Robert) hung up on me in mid sentence. I was told to reach the Marketing Dept...which I followed the prompts for Marketing....and it lead me back to the original message asking me to enter the number for the department needed. A never ending circle it was. I get it that in a large company there will be associates who are unaware of a new program. What I do not get is the inability to reach a person who can at least assist the caller. If NS is going to "sell" this program based on the numerous attempts I made today...this program will have a very difficult time in succeeding. The potential for success is there. I was able to secure an LTL rate from a national carrier and for 1000 pounds the cost was $457.00 with 3 day transit. The size submitted was for a standard pallet of what I would consider to be class 55 freight....think along the lines of a pallet of paper or perhaps fasteners/nails, etc. Looking at my 1997 Car and Locomotive Cyclopedia, the interior of a 60 ft box car is appx 60'9" in length by 9'6" width. Interior height vary but can be up to 13'0....lots of capacity. Thus, if a boxcar held 30 pallets (it could) each 1000 pounds one could theoritically see revenue of $13710...assuming the $457 rate is accurate (probably is too high) and each of the 30 shipments was 1000 pounds. Doubtful if the boxcar would be filled to capacity, but given time it might. It is entirely possible that a boxcar of LCL freight could generate $8-10000 of revenue, split between railroad and two carriers. Worth it? Depends on the allocated terminal costs. This is my scrap paper analysis...open to suggestions and critiques. Ed
My enthusiam of yesterday is somewhat tempered today.
First of all it is next to impossible to talk to anyone at NS these days. I called numerous times, the Calumet Yard in Chicago, Intermodal phone number, Marketing phone numbers, and a couple others.
The two people I talked to in Intermodal were not aware of the LCL program, nor did they seem interested in helping. ONe actually (Robert) hung up on me in mid sentence.
I was told to reach the Marketing Dept...which I followed the prompts for Marketing....and it lead me back to the original message asking me to enter the number for the department needed. A never ending circle it was.
I get it that in a large company there will be associates who are unaware of a new program. What I do not get is the inability to reach a person who can at least assist the caller.
If NS is going to "sell" this program based on the numerous attempts I made today...this program will have a very difficult time in succeeding.
The potential for success is there. I was able to secure an LTL rate from a national carrier and for 1000 pounds the cost was $457.00 with 3 day transit. The size submitted was for a standard pallet of what I would consider to be class 55 freight....think along the lines of a pallet of paper or perhaps fasteners/nails, etc. Looking at my 1997 Car and Locomotive Cyclopedia, the interior of a 60 ft box car is appx 60'9" in length by 9'6" width. Interior height vary but can be up to 13'0....lots of capacity.
Thus, if a boxcar held 30 pallets (it could) each 1000 pounds one could theoritically see revenue of $13710...assuming the $457 rate is accurate (probably is too high) and each of the 30 shipments was 1000 pounds. Doubtful if the boxcar would be filled to capacity, but given time it might. It is entirely possible that a boxcar of LCL freight could generate $8-10000 of revenue, split between railroad and two carriers.
Worth it? Depends on the allocated terminal costs.
This is my scrap paper analysis...open to suggestions and critiques.
Hopefully someone in senior managment at NS reads your comment and addresses it (and finds out who Robert is and fires him).
adkrr64Also - seeing numerous references to box cars - would the existence of box cars potentially slow down an intermodal train due to speed restrictions on box cars vs. intermodal equipment?
Amtrak ran boxcars on their trains, for a while, anyhow. Given the fact that the LCL cars would be in dedicated service, it would not be a reach to believe they could be configured for high-speed service.
Greyhound...those rates are probably high. Our Shipping Manager was too busy for him to give me a 'legit' rate with XPO LTL for 1000 of class 55 to Atlanta. We are buried with outbound orders with no end in sight.
My frustration is with NS's inability to even have a contact on this. The one Intermodal Dept person told me to talk to either Accounting or Marketing to get a rate. Yet, both prompts were dead ends on the phone loop.
there is plenty of freight which can be double stacked, I used to see it on the inbound pups from CF and other line haul trailers. These 60 ft boxcars could generate significant revenue...if properly marketed and sold. Again, I believe the key is for NS to provide the wholesale and let the local Chicago carriers pound the phones and give out Chicago Black Hawk Tickets and play golf with key people.
On the other hand, perhaps NS was having a bad phone day and some of those voice mails I left will be answered.
MP173The potential for success is there. I was able to secure an LTL rate from a national carrier and for 1000 pounds the cost was $457.00 with 3 day transit. The size submitted was for a standard pallet of what I would consider to be class 55 freight....think along the lines of a pallet of paper or perhaps fasteners/nails, etc. Looking at my 1997 Car and Locomotive Cyclopedia, the interior of a 60 ft box car is appx 60'9" in length by 9'6" width. Interior height vary but can be up to 13'0....lots of capacity. Thus, if a boxcar held 30 pallets (it could) each 1000 pounds one could theoritically see revenue of $13710...assuming the $457 rate is accurate (probably is too high) and each of the 30 shipments was 1000 pounds. Doubtful if the boxcar would be filled to capacity, but given time it might. It is entirely possible that a boxcar of LCL freight could generate $8-10000 of revenue, split between railroad and two carriers.
Good Grief! That's $45.70/cwt. (Unless I got the math wrong, which is entirely possible these days.) Things sure have changed. I never dreamed of freight rates that high.
Anyway, 30 such pallets load the boxcar with only 15 tons of freight. If they can devise a system to "Double Stack" pallets in the boxcar just think of the possible per car revenue. I know some trailers had two levels for loading and it's probably possible in a boxcar.
adkrr64 I have heard numerous anecdotal stories over the years about how the operations side of the RR business can torpedo new business ideas from marketing because the new ideas don't fit into the current/ preferred operational paradigms. Having to add even a few cars to a train that did not have them before is more work for someone. Is this a potential thorn in the side of this plan, or are we talking about such an inconsequential amount of work so as not to be an issue? Also - seeing numerous references to box cars - would the existence of box cars potentially slow down an intermodal train due to speed restrictions on box cars vs. intermodal equipment?
Does anyone here have the interchange requirements for the Super C (or to lesser extent the BSM) handy?
The principal concern would be the trucks, and what couldn't be addressed with careful assembly and maintenance could be addressed by swapping in a better replacement pair a la MHC.
Logically a car in this service would require a fairly long-travel cushion underframe, and there might be some run-in concerns if the car is heavily loaded running behind one of those misblocked cuts of empty well cars NS seems to love to stringline. Again simple to determine and if necessary handle in the operations plan. Air resistance is greater with the wider gap but this is easier to address with dedicated cars, and is less concerning at 'modern PSR fuel conserving speeds'...
If I were doing it as outlined above I'd at least look at some kind of 'all door' car, with dunnage and damage-free loading arrangements to facilitate at least very quick unloading with best automation. That becomes more critical if a train is 'precision scheduled' to stop at a crossdocked platform rather than set the car(s) out at a separate "distribution center" at less than economical-block scale...
greyhounds That would be great. If an intern or a young rookie new hire from a good business school did come up with this plan, he/she should be rewarded with praise and adulation. Along with a nice monetary bonus. In fact, anyone who developed the concept and backed it up with research and analysis should be so rewarded.
MP173Balt hit on what I was thinking....someone at NS told a summer intern, perhaps from Northwestern or another Transportation or Supply Chain school to investigate possible LTL movements within the NS system. That information is out there.
I have been away for a few days and am glad to see this conversation is drawing healthy discussion, from mainly people with transportation / railroad backgrounds.
My first 13 years of my adult life was in LTL in the Chicago / NW Indiana market. This stage of my worklife ended in 1990 as I moved into a far more lucrative and enjoyable sales career (often selling to LTL and TL carriers). Therefore, while I do not have diesel fuel running thru my veins, I know a little bit about the LTL industry.
Balt hit on what I was thinking....someone at NS told a summer intern, perhaps from Northwestern or another Transportation or Supply Chain school to investigate possible LTL movements within the NS system. That information is out there.
Here is where I think NS is going with this, or where I would take it. Contact the the leading Local and regional LTL carriers in Chicago and Atlanta, not YRC, FedXFreight, Holland, and others but companies such as Moran, Double D, or Monroe...that service that Chicago area like a glove. These carriers often have relationships with other similar LTL carriers in areas such as Twin Cities, Kansas city, St. Louis, etc. They market those areas as direct service and run a line haul unit(s) to each market and swap loads. Thus, ABC in St. Louis meets XYZ from Chicago nightly somewhere near Lincoln, Il and swaps out trailers. Next day freight is delivered. These carriers do not necessarily compete with the major LTL carriers, but provide great service to their customers...who do not want to deal with a number of LTL carriers.
So, NS should contact these LTL carriers in both markets and offer the line haul service. Let these carriers use their sales and marketing forces to reach out and find the freight....and they will. Cross dock at the LTL carrier terminal and send a trailer to Calumet Yard in Chicago where it is loaded on a boxcar. Same thing in Atlanta. Probably drop and switch trailers, so driver time in minimized. Split the revenue with originating and delivering carrier picking up 30% each and NS getting 40% for the line haul.
Meanwhile NS turns that portion of Calumet Yard into sort of a transload facility. Yes, there is plenty of room there. This LTL program is perhaps the first seed planted into that concept. As it develops, then add more regional LTL carriers, such as LaPorte Transit from Indiana and perhaps a Wisconsin based carrier. Grow the LCL business by partnering with those folks who understand teh LTL markets....BTW, lots of Chicago business crossed the borders into Indiana and Wisconsin to escape.
No way NS can go head to head against ABF, XPO, Saia, Old Dominion, et al. Their sales and marketing is based on wholesale...LTL carrier reps are in front of customers (given COVID restrictions) frequently. BTW, those carriers are at capacity now anyway. The timing is perfect for NS to dive into this. LTL service is running slower as capacity issues are a factor. The market is disruptive and can use capacity. Interesting that NS is startign with Chicago - Atlanta lane. I would expect, if they have patience...and they should as carload and coal are on the decline and new business is required.
Ulrich...BTW Overnite Transportation was a beast in LTL prior to selling to Union Pacific. They had the lowest operating ratio and premier service blanketing the Southeast, Eastern Middle Atlantic, and into the Midwest. Everything changed when UP purchase them, then continued with UPS. I not only worked with OVNT but also owned shares.
If this works, what would be next? Probably Chicago - Pittsburgh (NS 22W drops off TOFC en route to Rutherford). The key would be to merge the LCL with existing movements with premium UPS or LTL TOFC drops. The Chicago - Harrisburg would be another candidate, as would Chicago - Baltimore. Perhaps even Kansas City/Decatur, Il to Harrisburg with perhaps a drop in Cleveland. And what about the New Jersey carriers? Chicago to Jersey would be attractive.
Ulrich BaltACD Why do I get the feeling that this LCL 'program' is being 'developed' by some senior excecutive's progeny or progeny in law that graduated with 'high honors' from some Ivy League college and he/she has been given this 'project' as their 'Doctors Thesis' in being the newest 'Wiz Kid' attempting to get the 'priority groove' to the NS Board Room. It's possible that someone or a group of people with personal ambitions is behind this. Good for NS if they're able to attract Princeton/Harvard/Yale people..
BaltACD Why do I get the feeling that this LCL 'program' is being 'developed' by some senior excecutive's progeny or progeny in law that graduated with 'high honors' from some Ivy League college and he/she has been given this 'project' as their 'Doctors Thesis' in being the newest 'Wiz Kid' attempting to get the 'priority groove' to the NS Board Room.
Why do I get the feeling that this LCL 'program' is being 'developed' by some senior excecutive's progeny or progeny in law that graduated with 'high honors' from some Ivy League college and he/she has been given this 'project' as their 'Doctors Thesis' in being the newest 'Wiz Kid' attempting to get the 'priority groove' to the NS Board Room.
It's possible that someone or a group of people with personal ambitions is behind this. Good for NS if they're able to attract Princeton/Harvard/Yale people..
All large organizations work to attract 'superstars' from the educational community. Some that they attract have sufficient chutzpah to propose 'out of the box' projects and the follow through to get given a small budget to attempt to bring it to reality. Railroads attempt to attrack more than just Community College drop outs.
Over the course of time - some projects succed by failing and other projects fail by succeding. Superstars, can sometimes develop their own solar systems and other times they explode into super novas and collapse into black holes.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BackshopThis is rich! You of all people. You're forever complaining that companies are doing stuff wrong and they should listen to you. Now, that some others have doubts about something, you don't understand it.
greyhounds I have to say that I’m flummoxed by some of the posts on this topic. The NS is trying to develop new business in a new market and some people are upset about it. Why?
.
I see that with increased speed and increased blanking of posts in progress, we also have accelerated doubling of posts...
UlrichThe value would be in the ability to combine both for maximum benefit.
The question is whether the railroad is capable of operating the subsidiary (or allowing it to operate) effectively, rather than imposing micromanagement or wacky PSR ideas on them or performing the usual Chainsaw-Al kind of control over expenses and fear-based employee control to "minimize expenses" to improve the trucking equivalent of OR.
Personally, I think the idea of NS 'accepting' LTL brought to a purpose-designed crossdock facility and then 'providing' carload to be reloaded as LTL to whatever range of subdistribution or customers is a model that makes greatest sense for a railroad designing a service using fixed railcars. A system that used TOFC instead would have a very different operating model, and very different criteria for either acquiring or creating LTL 'partner' organizations to handle traffic at any transfer point of a rail lane...
It might be interesting for someone like greyhounds who has done this for a living to compare the economics of a carload LTL transfer with its equivalent in TOFC... the latter with the further assumption that the "LTL" comprising the individual "TOFC" trailer loads would be aggregated for a particular stop's distribution area, and that one-stop hookon would then produce full "LTL" service to all customers for the freight in that particular trailer.
Such a model would require LTL providers to do careful truck loading, and presumably any prep for the rail link, and either to serve the origin/destination pair area with sufficient volume or to make arrangements with destination drayage providers {probably including O/Os and small contract providers) to handle all the area deliveries at suitable cost and performance. On the other hand, it would provide nearly identical opportunities for low dwell and quick intermodal transfer with controlled on-site storage conditions that a full railroad-owned TOFC operation would, and could be nearly seamlessly co-conducted with one.
SD60MAC9500 To the comments above between Greyhounds and Backshop. Greyhounds is correct about the difference. Freight and Express are not the same. One difference. Express is handled by a single asset provider (prime example FedEx express moves goods entirely within FedEx distribution channels from origin to destination. REA did the same with its own assets). While freight moves amongst various logistic providers. Ulrich best way to go about it would be to buy into it by purchasing an LTL carrier (or carriers). No need to take on the cost of buying and operating an LTL Carrier. Along with their associated networks. The margins are better by rail using boxcars. As stated above the cost are marginal adding a few boxcars to a premium IM serivce lane. You'd be better off vertically integrating an existing FM/LM provider. It would be cheapr to buy an operate FM/LM LP.
To the comments above between Greyhounds and Backshop. Greyhounds is correct about the difference. Freight and Express are not the same. One difference. Express is handled by a single asset provider (prime example FedEx express moves goods entirely within FedEx distribution channels from origin to destination. REA did the same with its own assets). While freight moves amongst various logistic providers.
Ulrich best way to go about it would be to buy into it by purchasing an LTL carrier (or carriers).
best way to go about it would be to buy into it by purchasing an LTL carrier (or carriers).
No need to take on the cost of buying and operating an LTL Carrier. Along with their associated networks. The margins are better by rail using boxcars. As stated above the cost are marginal adding a few boxcars to a premium IM serivce lane. You'd be better off vertically integrating an existing FM/LM provider. It would be cheapr to buy an operate FM/LM LP.
Transloading LTL cargo from a truck to a boxcar just adds an unnecessary step. That's why I said it would be better to just make it a TOFC or COFC load. Transloading takes labor, which is a major cost.
Backshop I think building up the needed infrastructure would be cost prohibitive. All the freight houses, team tracks and even sidings have been razed or pulled up. That's a lot of money that would need to be spent to figure out if "build it and they will come" will work in this case. Railroads biggest advantage over other types of transportation is in heavy and bulk items. They should concentrate on that.
I think building up the needed infrastructure would be cost prohibitive. All the freight houses, team tracks and even sidings have been razed or pulled up. That's a lot of money that would need to be spent to figure out if "build it and they will come" will work in this case. Railroads biggest advantage over other types of transportation is in heavy and bulk items. They should concentrate on that.
Constructing brand new rail served warehouses specifically for this type of service probably wouldn't be a profitable venture at this point, certainly not for a couple cars each day.
But there are still a lot of older buildings with rail loading docks in existence. Some are very close to current intermodal terminals. If it's already there why not try to use it?
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
greyhoundsI am very tired of this “It won’t work, don’t even try, attitude.” The railroad needs to do the market research and analysis as much as is reasonable. If that shows promise, then try it. If you never fail, you’re not trying hard enough.
Make this work. Of course you won't get any extra jobs, crews, or engines, and if it fails you'll be lucky if we keep you around to to be the thrid trick relief terminal trainmaster in an armpit city, but hey - give it a go!
Besides, that popular operating plan strategy that's so the rage can barely serve half of what it has now.
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
I have tried to answer a couple of dubious-logic points multiple times, but with the increased speed of the site now come increased resets of posting without warning, so I see I have to be even quicker about posting sentence by sentence.
Making some nominal distinction between express and freight in response to Backshop's points is a red herring at best, even if we make allowance that he was probably referring to named divisions of FedEx in shorthand; I'm sure you're well aware that the reference to REA was operational and not historical, relating to widely duplicated ground facilities as necessary to transloading between truck and fixed-body railcars.
Even very limited facilities for superior forms of intermodal transfer have failed to thrive -- massively and consistently in my view -- when inadequate volume is involved. Any of the small ramp facilities built with the advent of piggyback haven't contributed anything cost-effectively salable to shippers, and that would likely be true even if they didn't involve expensive switching and dwell time to use. Concentrating the rail move into the right number of transload or crossdock facilities in the right 'area' locations -- which of course is why I brought up Rotterdam as an example, not so you could show off your knowledge of failure -- is going to be essential, and starting with a minimal number of fixed bases to prove the concept is likely preferable to trying to 'open nationally' before you can prove your execution works.
Backshop What would be the value added by actually purchasing an LTL carrier vs just hauling LTL trailers for others? It adds a business, that while similar, is different. While FX made Freight work, UPS failed, and their business model is a lot closer to freight trucking than a railroad's is.
What would be the value added by actually purchasing an LTL carrier vs just hauling LTL trailers for others? It adds a business, that while similar, is different. While FX made Freight work, UPS failed, and their business model is a lot closer to freight trucking than a railroad's is.
The value would be in the ability to combine both for maximum benefit. And from a customer's standpoint, they would be dealing with an asset based carrier than can provide transportation using both truck or rail. You would have a transportation provider verses a trucker or a railroad. By purchasing an existing LTL carrier, a railroad would in effect be buying its way into the market verses growing it organically, which takes a much longer time.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.