BaltACD If you can't get the boxes OUT of the terminal - it doesn't make any difference how efficiently you handle the boxes IN the terminal. Terminals have a finite number (and ground area) of boxes that the terminal can hold and still operate. Getting boxes OUT is dependent on chassis availability and trucker availability as well as the footage of railcars available to load during a period of time. One statistic I haven't heard from the Terminals - what are the percentages of loaded to empty boxes that are on the ground in the terminal at any point in time. Trucks and trains that enter the terminals routinely bring in boxes to be shipped, that have to be handled before outbound boxes can be loaded.
If you can't get the boxes OUT of the terminal - it doesn't make any difference how efficiently you handle the boxes IN the terminal. Terminals have a finite number (and ground area) of boxes that the terminal can hold and still operate. Getting boxes OUT is dependent on chassis availability and trucker availability as well as the footage of railcars available to load during a period of time.
One statistic I haven't heard from the Terminals - what are the percentages of loaded to empty boxes that are on the ground in the terminal at any point in time. Trucks and trains that enter the terminals routinely bring in boxes to be shipped, that have to be handled before outbound boxes can be loaded.
Euclid BaltACD charlie hebdo NittanyLion Curiously, they also noticed that the most efficient port operations in the world tended to be manual or hybrid, rather than automated It would appear that study is out of date, given the mess in LA/LB. The LA/LB issues go far, far beyond having the cranes automated or not. Even automated systems come to a stop when there are not places to put the boxes that they contain at the time. The point of automation is to speed up the sorting so there is less need for space to store boxes. Indicentally, the automation being highlighted in China goes way beyond automating the cranes. Almost all action in the port complex is automated. It is all artificial intelligence special machines doing the job without head scratching. However, it is too late to solve this current crisis with automation or even with new ports or improvements to existing ports. And there is no letup in sight. This is going to build until the bubble bursts. Printing money for people has set off runaway demand, and this has set off ruaway financial losses of the supply chain failure due to the over-demand. It cannot end well.
BaltACD charlie hebdo NittanyLion Curiously, they also noticed that the most efficient port operations in the world tended to be manual or hybrid, rather than automated It would appear that study is out of date, given the mess in LA/LB. The LA/LB issues go far, far beyond having the cranes automated or not. Even automated systems come to a stop when there are not places to put the boxes that they contain at the time.
charlie hebdo NittanyLion Curiously, they also noticed that the most efficient port operations in the world tended to be manual or hybrid, rather than automated It would appear that study is out of date, given the mess in LA/LB.
NittanyLion Curiously, they also noticed that the most efficient port operations in the world tended to be manual or hybrid, rather than automated
It would appear that study is out of date, given the mess in LA/LB.
The LA/LB issues go far, far beyond having the cranes automated or not. Even automated systems come to a stop when there are not places to put the boxes that they contain at the time.
The point of automation is to speed up the sorting so there is less need for space to store boxes. Indicentally, the automation being highlighted in China goes way beyond automating the cranes. Almost all action in the port complex is automated. It is all artificial intelligence special machines doing the job without head scratching.
However, it is too late to solve this current crisis with automation or even with new ports or improvements to existing ports. And there is no letup in sight. This is going to build until the bubble bursts. Printing money for people has set off runaway demand, and this has set off ruaway financial losses of the supply chain failure due to the over-demand. It cannot end well.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
The point of automation is to speed up the sorting so there is less need for space to store boxes. Incidentally, the automation being highlighted in China goes way beyond automating the cranes. Almost all action in the port complex is automated. It is all artificial intelligence special machines doing the job without head scratching.
Convicted One Euclid I take it to mean that when fines being accrued for failure of truckers and railroads to move the containers, those fines will be accruing to the ocean carriers, and not to the truckers and railroads. And suppose you are an ocean carrier that has accrued a significant amount in fines, how anxious will you be to bring in the next ship full of boxes?
Euclid I take it to mean that when fines being accrued for failure of truckers and railroads to move the containers, those fines will be accruing to the ocean carriers, and not to the truckers and railroads.
And suppose you are an ocean carrier that has accrued a significant amount in fines, how anxious will you be to bring in the next ship full of boxes?
Feature the fines would go to the Terminal - it is their land that is being used - used by the ocean carriers, used by the truckers and used by the railroads.
Fines to be paid by who 'contols' the movement of the box from the terminal - be that the ocean carriers, the truckers or the railroads.
Convicted One Just in, California Port authorities have a solution!! https://www.dailyherald.com/article/20211025/business/310259867 Once containers are unloaded, trucking companies have 9 days, railroads have 3...to get the containers out of the port facility, or fines begin to accrue. Nothing can possibly go wrong there?
Just in, California Port authorities have a solution!!
https://www.dailyherald.com/article/20211025/business/310259867
Once containers are unloaded, trucking companies have 9 days, railroads have 3...to get the containers out of the port facility, or fines begin to accrue.
Nothing can possibly go wrong there?
While the term was not used this is simply demurage. Is obviously OK when the State imposes it, but not railroads!
Call the STB! or not.
Mac
NittanyLion I'd have to go back to the papers to find some of the specifics, but the gist was major international gateways function best as automated terminals and transship points work best manually operated. Despite being major international gateways, places like Los Angeles/Long Beach function more like transshipment ports than gateway ports. The benefits derived from automated operations don't manifest themselves in our gateways as a result, which is why you see more manual operations in North America.
What is the source and reasoning behind these conclusions?
NittanyLionCuriously, they also noticed that the most efficient port operations in the world tended to be manual or hybrid, rather than automated
adkrr64 Getting back to my original question about intermodal doubles....... In order to run doubles, the first trailer needs to be equipped with connections on the rear to pass the brake signal/ lights/ air lines back to the dolly and to the second trailer. I've never seen any such apparatus on an intermodal chassis. So it is probably not a safety or regulatory thing so much as nobody want to spend the extra money to equip the chassis pool with equipment that may or not be needed.
Getting back to my original question about intermodal doubles.......
In order to run doubles, the first trailer needs to be equipped with connections on the rear to pass the brake signal/ lights/ air lines back to the dolly and to the second trailer. I've never seen any such apparatus on an intermodal chassis. So it is probably not a safety or regulatory thing so much as nobody want to spend the extra money to equip the chassis pool with equipment that may or not be needed.
We run double 20' ISO boxes here in Michigan. However we have a 164Klbs. GCVWR limit to pull off such moves.
NittanyLion Euclid are our ports not doing the same? Because it isn't a magic bullet. I was doing some academic work the other day on exactly this topic. There is significant evidence that port automation is less useful for certain types of port activities and more useful for others. I'd have to go back to the papers to find some of the specifics, but the gist was major international gateways function best as automated terminals and transship points work best manually operated. Despite being major international gateways, places like Los Angeles/Long Beach function more like transshipment ports than gateway ports. The benefits derived from automated operations don't manifest themselves in our gateways as a result, which is why you see more manual operations in North America. Curiously, they also noticed that the most efficient port operations in the world tended to be manual or hybrid, rather than automated. I suspect that it was because they tended to be transship ports that preferred the flexibility that manual operations hold onto that automated ports lack.
Euclid are our ports not doing the same?
Because it isn't a magic bullet.
I was doing some academic work the other day on exactly this topic. There is significant evidence that port automation is less useful for certain types of port activities and more useful for others. I'd have to go back to the papers to find some of the specifics, but the gist was major international gateways function best as automated terminals and transship points work best manually operated. Despite being major international gateways, places like Los Angeles/Long Beach function more like transshipment ports than gateway ports. The benefits derived from automated operations don't manifest themselves in our gateways as a result, which is why you see more manual operations in North America.
Curiously, they also noticed that the most efficient port operations in the world tended to be manual or hybrid, rather than automated. I suspect that it was because they tended to be transship ports that preferred the flexibility that manual operations hold onto that automated ports lack.
What are the definitions of a 'Gateway Port' and a 'Trans-ship Port'?
Convicted OneJust in, California Port authorities have a solution!! https://www.dailyherald.com/article/20211025/business/310259867 Once containers are unloaded, trucking companies have 9 days, railroads have 3...to get the containers out of the port facility, or fines begin to accrue. Nothing can possibly go wrong there?
Why are truckers being held to a lesser standard than railroads?
Euclidare our ports not doing the same?
Also the weight and extra insurance costs involved. Years ago my father in law drove for a carrier that at one time thought about doing 48 foot doubles across those states that allowed them. They even had ordered trailers and dollies that could be used. Then they got the trailers in. The leader of the set's were over 1200 pounds heavier than their standard trailer and then their insurance company called in with the costs of running double 48s. Now this was 30 year's ago and just for Ohio Indiana and NY it was going to be an extra 3 million dollars a year for insurance coverage plus the extra money in tolls. The company decided nope not worth it.
adkrr64...nobody want to spend the extra money to equip the chassis pool with equipment that may or not be needed.
There is also the provision of suitable dollies with hitch and fifth-wheel height suitable for these underframes and loads... that includes intra-yard moves of ship-only loading.
charlie hebdoData citation to support that?
Most of what I've seen in 40+ years of studying ITA is that automobile motorists do cause a large percentage of accidents with large trucks and trained drivers. The 'ringer' is that fewer and fewer drivers seem to be experienced or even well-trained, and working conditions less and less satisfactory. Add to that the (much!) greater skill needed to run 48s on regular pool underframes.
The extent to which auto traffic makes double-container drayage more difficult or dangerous would be interesting to discuss, but it's something of a distraction to bring it up, and definitely a distraction when it invokes a call for references or fact-checking. I think a better line of discussion is how to run doubles most effectively to accomplish best 'unsticking' of logistics, or to enhance safety operating them as needed.
Shadow the Cats ownerWith most fleets now mounting dash cams even rear end accidents are beginning to be proven the fault of the car.
I assume you referring to "rear end accidents" as ones where the truck hits the car. By what reasoning would such rear end accidents be deemed the fault of the leading vehicle?
OTR trucking companies have 'Safety Officers' that respond to the company's incidents. A Safety Officer vs. a civilian in 'accident investigation' leaves the civilian left out of the equation.
Data citation to support that?
adkrr64 Ajsik adkrr6 There are bottlenecks everywhere. If the port bottleneck is (ever) relieved by automating, then everything else that comes after (RR's, chassis's, drivers to haul them) will need to have appropriately upgraded capacity to handle the increased volume. It's not at all clear that such capacity exists at this point. As a general question, is there anything that would prevent one truck driver from hauling a double trailer of two intermodal boxes? I ask because while I regularly see doubles on the NY State Thruway, I simply cannot remember ever having seen a double that consisted of intermodal boxes/ chassis's. Might just be a fluke of where I usually drive, but was wondering if there might be some other explanation. I am surprised truckers haven't latched onto Double Stacking as a solution to capacity issues like the railroads have; however both are far behind the maritime industry stacking the boxes 10 -15 - 20 high on vessels. Wouldn't the circuitous routings necessary to ensure proper clearances take a significant bite out of any efficiencies gained? Allow me to clarify: I meant two single height trailers pulled behind a single tractor, not two containers stacked on a single chassis. I never seen intermodal containers being moved like that around here, so was wondering if there was some reason for that.
Ajsik adkrr6 There are bottlenecks everywhere. If the port bottleneck is (ever) relieved by automating, then everything else that comes after (RR's, chassis's, drivers to haul them) will need to have appropriately upgraded capacity to handle the increased volume. It's not at all clear that such capacity exists at this point. As a general question, is there anything that would prevent one truck driver from hauling a double trailer of two intermodal boxes? I ask because while I regularly see doubles on the NY State Thruway, I simply cannot remember ever having seen a double that consisted of intermodal boxes/ chassis's. Might just be a fluke of where I usually drive, but was wondering if there might be some other explanation. I am surprised truckers haven't latched onto Double Stacking as a solution to capacity issues like the railroads have; however both are far behind the maritime industry stacking the boxes 10 -15 - 20 high on vessels. Wouldn't the circuitous routings necessary to ensure proper clearances take a significant bite out of any efficiencies gained?
There are bottlenecks everywhere. If the port bottleneck is (ever) relieved by automating, then everything else that comes after (RR's, chassis's, drivers to haul them) will need to have appropriately upgraded capacity to handle the increased volume. It's not at all clear that such capacity exists at this point.
As a general question, is there anything that would prevent one truck driver from hauling a double trailer of two intermodal boxes? I ask because while I regularly see doubles on the NY State Thruway, I simply cannot remember ever having seen a double that consisted of intermodal boxes/ chassis's. Might just be a fluke of where I usually drive, but was wondering if there might be some other explanation.
I am surprised truckers haven't latched onto Double Stacking as a solution to capacity issues like the railroads have; however both are far behind the maritime industry stacking the boxes 10 -15 - 20 high on vessels.
Wouldn't the circuitous routings necessary to ensure proper clearances take a significant bite out of any efficiencies gained?
Allow me to clarify: I meant two single height trailers pulled behind a single tractor, not two containers stacked on a single chassis. I never seen intermodal containers being moved like that around here, so was wondering if there was some reason for that.
Most OTR drivers want zero to do with pulling double 48s and for one reason it's called safety. The second the weather goes to crap in NY the first thing banned on the thruway are the twin 48s. Why normal car drivers cause enough accidents in dry clear weather let alone when the stuff is a mess. Yes my industry has it's share of accidents where we're the one's at fault however in 2019 I'm not including 2020 yet as the data is somewhat limited due to we all know what limited traveling. Over 80 percent of all accidents involving a commercial motor vehicle in the class 7 or 8 range meaning a combination vehicle and a car the car was at fault. With most fleets now mounting dash cams even rear end accidents are beginning to be proven the fault of the car.
1) Stimulated demand.
2) Delays in product shipping.
Euclid Overmod Let's see. We'll assume a cost-effective lock at the center pin -- this is nontrivial with most contemporary three-piece trucks as constructed, but iirc the FRA thinks positive locking is a plus so we'll stipulate it. We lift the car and the wheelsets fall off -- the only thing 'locked' to the car is the bolster. We fix that and the weight of the wheels and sideframes hangs off the end of the bolster, probably stressing the wedges that keep the sideframes aligned with the bolster. Meanwhile we put a rotation lock on the center bearing, which MC would call a bozo-no-no of nearly Biblical proportions if it locks or binds with the car moving in traffic. Were you going to arrange this like those Kadee trucks that self-align with the axis of the car when you lift it? You're surely not expecting that carmen in this automated GHA future are going to be pulling some kind of lock and then remembering to release it a few tracks over... or pay Carmen to check disengagement along with retracted shoes and the like. The car is stressed relative to the center pivots and the side bearings, and may not be amenable to being lifted loaded by its jacking points. Certainly if this is something other than a well car, much of the strength is in the center sill, which is difficult to reach with an overhead lift arrangement. Meanwhile your center lock needs to be highly precise to get all eight wheels precisely on the railhead when lowered... on uneven track or on a windy day. No banging the flanges on a 'near miss', either -- and you don't have the long inching time GM could spend lowering Cadillacs in those silly containers. Far worse is the lifting arrangement. You'll probably finance catenary easier than full-span gantries over a yard, so I'd expect some kind of cable-supported spreader system... more degrees of freedom to acquire lost motion, stretching, wind-induced torque... automating this reliably could be done, but not for the putative gains over existing flat or hump switching per car actually moved. Only now do we get around to most practical intermodal sets being articulated. Do not ask me to tell you how to build cost-effective apparatus that lifts randomly-loaded 5-well or even 3-well sets, swings 'em over multiple tracks, and lands 'em with all the treads perfectly on the railhead -- over and over, faster and faster, with any defect or problem at all promptly stopping the car, operations on the affected tracks, the expensive handling equipment, and who knows how many trained or experienced people to address. Cable problems? Attachment point problems? DOWN it tumbles out of the sky, turning over as it goes... and Lo! What's underneath??? And the big savings from 0-5-0 analogue switching is what, exactly, in bottom-line dollars and cents net of TVM and capital cost? Much of that cost being truly stranded as having no other good use but a weird operating premise about car switching... I can start addressing the really difficult problems, like darkness, and snow, and malicious vandalism or sabotage, but I think you get the idea by now. I would not add any locking devices to the railcar. All of the new mechanical action would be confined to the lifting hoist. The hoist would lower a precision grapple that would index on dedicated lifting point features on the car sills, then hydraulically close, and clamp onto those lifting features. So then the grapple will be locked onto the railcar frame at its four corners. When this primary grapple is closed, it prevents the rail car from moving up or down in relation to the grapple jaws. Then a secondary hydraulic grapple action, carried on the primary grapple frame, would close under each of the two car trucks. This secondary grapple action would apply lift to the car trucks and draw their side frames, wheelsets, and bolster up tight against the frame at the truck center bearing. In this process of the secondary grapple latching onto the truck components, it would at the same time, lock the truck rotation in line with the car frame, and thus in line with the straight tracks that will give up and receive these car lifts movements.
Overmod Let's see. We'll assume a cost-effective lock at the center pin -- this is nontrivial with most contemporary three-piece trucks as constructed, but iirc the FRA thinks positive locking is a plus so we'll stipulate it. We lift the car and the wheelsets fall off -- the only thing 'locked' to the car is the bolster. We fix that and the weight of the wheels and sideframes hangs off the end of the bolster, probably stressing the wedges that keep the sideframes aligned with the bolster. Meanwhile we put a rotation lock on the center bearing, which MC would call a bozo-no-no of nearly Biblical proportions if it locks or binds with the car moving in traffic. Were you going to arrange this like those Kadee trucks that self-align with the axis of the car when you lift it? You're surely not expecting that carmen in this automated GHA future are going to be pulling some kind of lock and then remembering to release it a few tracks over... or pay Carmen to check disengagement along with retracted shoes and the like. The car is stressed relative to the center pivots and the side bearings, and may not be amenable to being lifted loaded by its jacking points. Certainly if this is something other than a well car, much of the strength is in the center sill, which is difficult to reach with an overhead lift arrangement. Meanwhile your center lock needs to be highly precise to get all eight wheels precisely on the railhead when lowered... on uneven track or on a windy day. No banging the flanges on a 'near miss', either -- and you don't have the long inching time GM could spend lowering Cadillacs in those silly containers. Far worse is the lifting arrangement. You'll probably finance catenary easier than full-span gantries over a yard, so I'd expect some kind of cable-supported spreader system... more degrees of freedom to acquire lost motion, stretching, wind-induced torque... automating this reliably could be done, but not for the putative gains over existing flat or hump switching per car actually moved. Only now do we get around to most practical intermodal sets being articulated. Do not ask me to tell you how to build cost-effective apparatus that lifts randomly-loaded 5-well or even 3-well sets, swings 'em over multiple tracks, and lands 'em with all the treads perfectly on the railhead -- over and over, faster and faster, with any defect or problem at all promptly stopping the car, operations on the affected tracks, the expensive handling equipment, and who knows how many trained or experienced people to address. Cable problems? Attachment point problems? DOWN it tumbles out of the sky, turning over as it goes... and Lo! What's underneath??? And the big savings from 0-5-0 analogue switching is what, exactly, in bottom-line dollars and cents net of TVM and capital cost? Much of that cost being truly stranded as having no other good use but a weird operating premise about car switching... I can start addressing the really difficult problems, like darkness, and snow, and malicious vandalism or sabotage, but I think you get the idea by now.
Let's see.
We'll assume a cost-effective lock at the center pin -- this is nontrivial with most contemporary three-piece trucks as constructed, but iirc the FRA thinks positive locking is a plus so we'll stipulate it.
We lift the car and the wheelsets fall off -- the only thing 'locked' to the car is the bolster.
We fix that and the weight of the wheels and sideframes hangs off the end of the bolster, probably stressing the wedges that keep the sideframes aligned with the bolster.
Meanwhile we put a rotation lock on the center bearing, which MC would call a bozo-no-no of nearly Biblical proportions if it locks or binds with the car moving in traffic. Were you going to arrange this like those Kadee trucks that self-align with the axis of the car when you lift it? You're surely not expecting that carmen in this automated GHA future are going to be pulling some kind of lock and then remembering to release it a few tracks over... or pay Carmen to check disengagement along with retracted shoes and the like.
The car is stressed relative to the center pivots and the side bearings, and may not be amenable to being lifted loaded by its jacking points. Certainly if this is something other than a well car, much of the strength is in the center sill, which is difficult to reach with an overhead lift arrangement.
Meanwhile your center lock needs to be highly precise to get all eight wheels precisely on the railhead when lowered... on uneven track or on a windy day. No banging the flanges on a 'near miss', either -- and you don't have the long inching time GM could spend lowering Cadillacs in those silly containers.
Far worse is the lifting arrangement. You'll probably finance catenary easier than full-span gantries over a yard, so I'd expect some kind of cable-supported spreader system... more degrees of freedom to acquire lost motion, stretching, wind-induced torque... automating this reliably could be done, but not for the putative gains over existing flat or hump switching per car actually moved.
Only now do we get around to most practical intermodal sets being articulated. Do not ask me to tell you how to build cost-effective apparatus that lifts randomly-loaded 5-well or even 3-well sets, swings 'em over multiple tracks, and lands 'em with all the treads perfectly on the railhead -- over and over, faster and faster, with any defect or problem at all promptly stopping the car, operations on the affected tracks, the expensive handling equipment, and who knows how many trained or experienced people to address. Cable problems? Attachment point problems? DOWN it tumbles out of the sky, turning over as it goes... and Lo! What's underneath???
And the big savings from 0-5-0 analogue switching is what, exactly, in bottom-line dollars and cents net of TVM and capital cost? Much of that cost being truly stranded as having no other good use but a weird operating premise about car switching...
I can start addressing the really difficult problems, like darkness, and snow, and malicious vandalism or sabotage, but I think you get the idea by now.
How are you going to deal with shelf or tightlock couplers? For that matter even regular ones won't move vertically if there is tension or compression on them, it's common to see them pop up or down a bit when you bunch it up for a pin or uncouple.
I watched a passenger car get unloaded from a flatcar once. It was shipped complete and on its wheels, the flatcar had little rails made out of square tube that were welded to the deck, and the truck frames were chained to the carbody so they would stay straight and there would be no risk of anything falling off (this car was converted to roller bearings in the old plain journal boxes, so the wheelsets could not fall out by themselves). While quite necessary, this truck securement became a bit of a hassle because it had been loaded from a straight piece of track but ended up getting unloaded on a curve, and getting the wheels to line up with the track proved to be quite a challenge. The swivel pin of one truck ended up being bent badly and had to be replaced.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
What is the situation of the Pannama canal ? Does it still have lack of water in the lake ? If so is the canal still limited in the number of ships that can transit? Might not be a way ffor more ships to use the canal ? Does the canal have a future booking system ?
Regardless of any other factors - the old adage 'Too many cooks spoil the dish' is fully in play.
Every element in the supply chain think 'THEY' are the ones that should be calling the tune. The foreign shippers, the oceanic carriers, the port terminals, the truckers, the railroads, the ultimate business consignee - everyone is trying to call a tune that benefits themselves - but all the tunes are in conflict with each other - as a result we have what we have - A ABSOLUTE CLUSTE...K.
Somewhere there has to be some 'organization' that brings ORDER to the entire chain. At present, each participant in the chain is losing 'profits' hand over fist because of the disorganization.
Electroliner 1935Just like many do on their model layouts.
SW5 switchers...
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...
I think the shipping companies are already working on that. I saw where a ship dumped some more containers into the Pacific recently.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
BaltACD Why don't we implement rotary car dumpers for containers? [/sarcasm]
Why don't we implement rotary car dumpers for containers? [/sarcasm]
Some of our packages already look like they were dropped out of high-flying aircraft already. Don't make it any worse!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.