Trains.com

Opportunity Knocks

5355 views
93 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,020 posts
Posted by tree68 on Wednesday, June 15, 2022 10:34 PM

charlie hebdo
Well of course it is.  The discussion was about marketing and seeking new revenue streams.

But those activities cost money.  Can't be doing that.  I want that money in my pocket, not used to pay some marketing flack...

We here would certainly like to see the railroads seek new markets, but past accounts of railroad activity don't seem to support that concept.

LarryWhistling
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...

  • Member since
    October 2014
  • 1,139 posts
Posted by Gramp on Wednesday, June 15, 2022 11:08 PM

Parasites from every direction feeding off the host until the host succumbs. Then it's off to find another host. 

  • Member since
    May 2019
  • 1,314 posts
Posted by BEAUSABRE on Wednesday, June 15, 2022 11:38 PM

As far as PSR goes, the idea of running huge trains less frequently isn't new, Under William Deramus back in the Fifties, Chicago Great Western was famous (or notorious) for mu'ing every locomotive on the roster and hauling the entire contents of a yard to the other end of the railroad once a day. And cost cutting? Look up his economy measures on the CGW, MKT and KCS. Makes Hunter Harrison seem like a nice, sweet pushover.

"Deramus moved quickly to improve the Great Western’s fortunes and fatten it up for takeover by Chicago & North Western. He promptly dieselized, pushed piggyback, improved the physical plant, cut back on passenger service, abandoned low-density branch lines — the classic moves of the era. He also vigorously cut the payroll, sparking a difficult 1953 strike by the operating unions.

To shed some additional light, I called my friend H. Roger Grant, professor of history at Clemson University and author of The Corn Belt Route: A History of the Chicago Great Western Railroad Company (Northern Illinois University Press, 1984).

As Roger explains, Deramus could seem brutal. “As I point in my CGW book, he fired Rosalie O’Hara, a receptionist and switchboard operator, because she didn’t have a big smile on her face.

“But he really made a name for himself at the Katy. Yes, he sought to upgrade and modernize the railroad, but he took draconian steps. Employment was slashed to the bone. All ‘frills’ ended, including the Katy’s monthly employee magazine and abolishment of its public relations department.”

Roger recalls one infamous incident at Missouri-Kansas-Texas. “In March 1957, without notice to Katy employees, Bill ordered the closing of offices in St. Louis and Parsons, Kans. Under the cover of darkness, records and equipment were placed in moving vans and hauled off to Texas. Needless to say, office morale sank. There was this memorable response: the St. Louis Chamber of Commerce expelled the Katy from its membership. Its executive committee unanimously made this unprecedented decision.”

And Deramus wasn’t finished. In 1961, he succeeded his father as president of KCS and stayed for 12 years. “He was not especially popular on that road either,” says Roger. 

I don't think I'd like to go drinking with Bill Deramus, but he kept his railroads afloat and operational at a time of great change in railroading.

So count yer blessings with PSR

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Thursday, June 16, 2022 2:27 AM

One big, major difference:

Deramus never ever compromised on safety.

Harrison most definitely did.    Remember his ending three-point-protection?

Before Harrison, if signal-protection for a facing-point switch into a siding wads disabled for a week before PTC replacemenbt, there would have been additional supervision or a slow-order on the affected stretch of trasck.  And an Amtrack train would not have plowed into stading freight cars after taking the siding-aligned switch at almost track speed.

  • Member since
    December 2012
  • 310 posts
Posted by Cotton Belt MP104 on Thursday, June 16, 2022 9:35 AM

 

Greyhounds, Jeff, Euclid, Ulrich, right on. Charlie Hebdo, In My Humble Opinion not so much. 

 

Tree68, I’ve been there. As a Customer Service agent for an international sales company, I finally quit. 

 

Dad’s (company founder) philosophy was “take of them and they will take care of you”. I witnessed that success. 

 

Sonny boy, new one in charge, SELL new product, don’t fool with parts that customers need. Even with tremendous mark-up for the customer to pay.….. They ONLY need the part and are more than happy to pay the exorbitant price. 

 

Nope, I was cut short of a relatively easy process and thus taking care of customers, add due to the son’s view of doing business. endmrw0616220929

The ONE the ONLY/ Paragould, Arkansas/ Est. 1883 / formerly called The Crossing/ a portmanteau/ JW Paramore (Cotton Belt RR) Jay Gould (MoPac)/crossed at our town/ None other, NOWHERE in the world
  • Member since
    December 2012
  • 310 posts
Posted by Cotton Belt MP104 on Thursday, June 16, 2022 9:49 AM

After my post, a refresh of the forum had several new posts: Zugmann = Eventually? Yep, so true. endmrw0616220948

The ONE the ONLY/ Paragould, Arkansas/ Est. 1883 / formerly called The Crossing/ a portmanteau/ JW Paramore (Cotton Belt RR) Jay Gould (MoPac)/crossed at our town/ None other, NOWHERE in the world
  • Member since
    August 2004
  • From: The 17th hole at TPC
  • 2,283 posts
Posted by n012944 on Thursday, June 16, 2022 1:09 PM

daveklepper

Before Harrison, if signal-protection for a facing-point switch into a siding wads disabled for a week before PTC replacemenbt, there would have been additional supervision or a slow-order on the affected stretch of trasck.  And an Amtrack train would not have plowed into stading freight cars after taking the siding-aligned at almost track speed.

 

 

As has been said before, you are incorrect.  The only "slow order" that would have been put out would have been the restrictions for being dark territory (49 MPH), which were in effect for the accident you reference.  I have done lots of signal suspensions before and after EHH, you are not talking facts.

An "expensive model collector"

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Thursday, June 16, 2022 1:55 PM

n012944
 
daveklepper

Before Harrison, if signal-protection for a facing-point switch into a siding wads disabled for a week before PTC replacemenbt, there would have been additional supervision or a slow-order on the affected stretch of trasck.  And an Amtrack train would not have plowed into stading freight cars after taking the siding-aligned at almost track speed. 

As has been said before, you are incorrect.  The only "slow order" that would have been put out would have been the restrictions for being dark territory (49 MPH), which were in effect for the accident you reference.  I have done lots of signal suspensions before and after EHH, you are not talking facts.

I'll second that.  Speed limits in Dark Territory (unsignaled - for whatever the reasons). Freight maximum speed is 49 MPH; Passenger is 59 MPH.

 

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    September 2017
  • 5,636 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Thursday, June 16, 2022 10:39 PM

tree68

 

 
charlie hebdo
Well of course it is.  The discussion was about marketing and seeking new revenue streams.

 

But those activities cost money.  Can't be doing that.  I want that money in my pocket, not used to pay some marketing flack...

We here would certainly like to see the railroads seek new markets, but past accounts of railroad activity don't seem to support that concept.

 

Just a thought.  In some cases, the railroads may be approaching the current limit of operation capacity.  I don't know if that is true or not.  I have noticed that the UP in western Chicago  is running more and longer freight trains now than four years ago.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 21,669 posts
Posted by Overmod on Friday, June 17, 2022 8:03 AM

We had the whole discussion about facing-point switches in threads about the Cayce wreck, and it need not be repeated here.  As a short opinion:

Joe (who operated on the New Haven and successors) pointed out that "safety" involves restricted speed commencing at a known distance from "any" facing-point switch -- with the idea that a train would stop in half the distance to misaligned switchpoints.  You flag that distance with temporary MOW boards f you can't rely on pilots or route knowledge.  I note that the actual 'reaction' distance is comparatively short distance, with very little effective difference between freight and passenger trains, so reduction to effective 'restricted speed' would have to commence comparatively far from each switch.

Note that specialized legislation regarding SPAFs might as well have been printed on toilet paper for all it did in the particular circumstances.   That, to me, does not bode well for operation at 59mph in the absence of signals or PTC functionality that would detect and flag an open facing-point... or misaligned trailing-point... switch for a passenger movement.

Can we get back to opportunities knocking in freight facilitation?

  • Member since
    August 2003
  • From: Antioch, IL
  • 4,371 posts
Posted by greyhounds on Friday, June 17, 2022 10:40 PM
OK, everybody has got their favorite villain.
 
Leading the pack of villains is PSR.  Well, the railroads didn’t try to develop this market before PSR and they’re not trying to develop this market with PSR.  So, I’ll reason that PSR is not, therefor, a factor.  But people like a villain to blame and PSR will do just fine.  True or false, it’ll do.
 
Some years ago, I was involved in an effort to move meat by rail from the Sioux City area to the west coast.  We found out that Tyson, all by itself, had 300 loads per week going to the west coast.  And Tyson is just part of the market opportunity.  (A market opportunity that is being increased by the Farmer John closure.)
 
What is the issue?
 
Just what is there to lose by establishing a small, low-cost intermodal terminal in Marshalltown, Iowa? Then adding the originating loads to an existing schedule?  It’s in no way a bet the company situation. 
 
You’d have to go talk to Tyson, JBS, Quaker, and General Mills.  You’d have to come up with an operation that met their needs.  If you can do that, go ahead.  If you can’t do that, go on to the next perceived opportunity.
 
If it flops, it flops.  There is no certainty.  So do the research and analysis as best you can.  If it looks good, give it a go.  If you never fail, you’re not trying hard enough. Why doesn't this happen?
 
Of course, the operating officials will be adamant that a pick up at Marshalltown is absolutely out of the question. 
"By many measures, the U.S. freight rail system is the safest, most efficient and cost effective in the world." - Federal Railroad Administration, October, 2009. I'm just your average, everyday, uncivilized howling "anti-government" critic of mass government expenditures for "High Speed Rail" in the US. And I'm gosh darn proud of that.
  • Member since
    April 2016
  • 1,447 posts
Posted by Shadow the Cats owner on Saturday, June 18, 2022 9:31 AM

Well given that the STB just ordered the UP to service Foster Farms as the CUSTOMER needs I highly doubt that UP would care if they had this plant to service.  They literally had to be ordered to serivce the 4th largest chicken processor in the nation with daily serivce and the largest in CA.

  • Member since
    August 2004
  • From: The 17th hole at TPC
  • 2,283 posts
Posted by n012944 on Saturday, June 18, 2022 10:53 AM

charlie hebdo

 

 
tree68

 

 
charlie hebdo
Well of course it is.  The discussion was about marketing and seeking new revenue streams.

 

But those activities cost money.  Can't be doing that.  I want that money in my pocket, not used to pay some marketing flack...

We here would certainly like to see the railroads seek new markets, but past accounts of railroad activity don't seem to support that concept.

 

 

 

Just a thought.  In some cases, the railroads may be approaching the current limit of operation capacity.  I don't know if that is true or not.  

 

 

It is not true.  

An "expensive model collector"

  • Member since
    September 2002
  • From: Sterling Heights, Michigan
  • 1,691 posts
Posted by SD60MAC9500 on Saturday, June 18, 2022 10:54 AM
 

greyhounds
OK, everybody has got their favorite villain.
 
Leading the pack of villains is PSR.  Well, the railroads didn’t try to develop this market before PSR and they’re not trying to develop this market with PSR.  So, I’ll reason that PSR is not, therefor, a factor.  But people like a villain to blame and PSR will do just fine.  True or false, it’ll do.
 
Some years ago, I was involved in an effort to move meat by rail from the Sioux City area to the west coast.  We found out that Tyson, all by itself, had 300 loads per week going to the west coast.  And Tyson is just part of the market opportunity.  (A market opportunity that is being increased by the Farmer John closure.)
 
What is the issue?
 
Just what is there to lose by establishing a small, low-cost intermodal terminal in Marshalltown, Iowa? Then adding the originating loads to an existing schedule?  It’s in no way a bet the company situation. 
 
You’d have to go talk to Tyson, JBS, Quaker, and General Mills.  You’d have to come up with an operation that met their needs.  If you can do that, go ahead.  If you can’t do that, go on to the next perceived opportunity.
 
If it flops, it flops.  There is no certainty.  So do the research and analysis as best you can.  If it looks good, give it a go.  If you never fail, you’re not trying hard enough. Why doesn't this happen?
 
Of course, the operating officials will be adamant that a pick up at Marshalltown is absolutely out of the question. 
 

It can be done. However you're going to need a partner as I mentioned above to operate these small facilties. Just like Savage partnered with UP in Pocatello. The same formula needs to be applied here.

The C1's don't want, and are not going to use their CAPEX toward low density terminals..

This is one of the reasons why shorthaul intermodal won't take off.. What needs to possibly happen is the C1's continue to operate their high volume stack facilites. With agents (Again WATCO, or Savage) operating these low density terminals, and performing traffic solicitation. This would be similar to how CSX's NWO hub and spoke network.

To the term PSR I guess we might as well stop using it. As the railroads don't even practice PSR.. It should be called ORR..

 
 
 
 
Rahhhhhhhhh!!!!
  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 21,669 posts
Posted by Overmod on Saturday, June 18, 2022 11:11 AM

I keep thinking back to Aberdeen and Rockfish and their double-stack operation with those funky lime-green containers...

Is there some reason the traffic wouldn't accommodate either a reasonable block of 3/6-container cars or a dedicated intermodal shuttle -- assuming this is a container move?  Same would apply for spines in van service, with some allowance for intermodal van moves in the latter case.

Where is the nearest convenient long-distance train makeup facility to Marshalltown?  (I'm too lazy to pull up Open Railway Map).

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 21,669 posts
Posted by Overmod on Saturday, June 18, 2022 11:16 AM

Gramp
 
Ulrich
 
California ahead of the curve again as they are on so many things.

Is that why so many Californians have moved to Arizona, kept their California jobs, and work remote from Arizona? ;)

Once again, the lack of /s tag shows itself.

  • Member since
    June 2007
  • From: Brooklyn Center, MN.
  • 702 posts
Posted by Los Angeles Rams Guy on Saturday, June 18, 2022 3:07 PM

greyhounds
OK, everybody has got their favorite villain.
 
Leading the pack of villains is PSR.  Well, the railroads didn’t try to develop this market before PSR and they’re not trying to develop this market with PSR.  So, I’ll reason that PSR is not, therefor, a factor.  But people like a villain to blame and PSR will do just fine.  True or false, it’ll do.
 
Some years ago, I was involved in an effort to move meat by rail from the Sioux City area to the west coast.  We found out that Tyson, all by itself, had 300 loads per week going to the west coast.  And Tyson is just part of the market opportunity.  (A market opportunity that is being increased by the Farmer John closure.)
 
What is the issue?
 
Just what is there to lose by establishing a small, low-cost intermodal terminal in Marshalltown, Iowa? Then adding the originating loads to an existing schedule?  It’s in no way a bet the company situation. 
 
You’d have to go talk to Tyson, JBS, Quaker, and General Mills.  You’d have to come up with an operation that met their needs.  If you can do that, go ahead.  If you can’t do that, go on to the next perceived opportunity.
 
If it flops, it flops.  There is no certainty.  So do the research and analysis as best you can.  If it looks good, give it a go.  If you never fail, you’re not trying hard enough. Why doesn't this happen?
 
Of course, the operating officials will be adamant that a pick up at Marshalltown is absolutely out of the question. 
 

Am wondering, however, if this might actually strengthen the case for a new intermodal facility at, say, Cedar Rapids which would probably have a higher volume and be a bit more of an attractive option for a UP or a CN.

But I'm like you in that I'm perplexed as to why CN won't finally get off its dole and start really taking a hard look at these types of opportunities in Iowa.   

"Beating 'SC is not a matter of life or death. It's more important than that." Former UCLA Head Football Coach Red Sanders
  • Member since
    December 2017
  • From: I've been everywhere, man
  • 4,269 posts
Posted by SD70Dude on Saturday, June 18, 2022 4:03 PM

greyhounds
What is the issue?
 
Just what is there to lose by establishing a small, low-cost intermodal terminal in Marshalltown, Iowa? Then adding the originating loads to an existing schedule?  It’s in no way a bet the company situation. 

You're right, it's definitely not a 'bet the farm' situation. 

But it probably is a 'bet my job' situation for the manager who suggests spending money on this sort of thing.  And that's how middle to upper management will view this sort of situation, they can only think of the costs and downsides if it doesn't work perfectly, not the potential upside and greater revenue. 

Why would anyone stick their neck out and risk everything when they can just putter along doing day to day tasks and fly under the radar of upper management? 

It's not just train crews who are looked down on and viewed as disposable and replaceable. 

This didn't start with the PSR, but it has definitely made it a lot worse.  

Greetings from Alberta

-an Articulate Malcontent

  • Member since
    September 2002
  • From: Sterling Heights, Michigan
  • 1,691 posts
Posted by SD60MAC9500 on Saturday, June 18, 2022 4:14 PM
 

Overmod

 

Where is the nearest convenient long-distance train makeup facility to Marshalltown?  (I'm too lazy to pull up Open Railway Map).

 

 

https://iowadot.gov/iowarail/railroads/maps/basemap.pdf

 
Rahhhhhhhhh!!!!
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Saturday, June 18, 2022 5:58 PM

SD70Dude
 
greyhounds
What is the issue?
 
Just what is there to lose by establishing a small, low-cost intermodal terminal in Marshalltown, Iowa? Then adding the originating loads to an existing schedule?  It’s in no way a bet the company situation.  

You're right, it's definitely not a 'bet the farm' situation. 

But it probably is a 'bet my job' situation for the manager who suggests spending money on this sort of thing.  And that's how middle to upper management will view this sort of situation, they can only think of the costs and downsides if it doesn't work perfectly, not the potential upside and greater revenue. 

Why would anyone stick their neck out and risk everything when they can just putter along doing day to day tasks and fly under the radar of upper management? 

It's not just train crews who are looked down on and viewed as disposable and replaceable. 

This didn't start with the PSR, but it has definitely made it a lot worse.  

In the Class 1 hierarchy those in the Board Room feel that they are the only ones that aren't just common labor.  Everyone else is expendable and will save money for the corporation if they are shown the door.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    March 2018
  • 145 posts
Posted by Ed Kyle on Saturday, June 18, 2022 8:39 PM

Overmod

Where is the nearest convenient long-distance train makeup facility to Marshalltown?  (I'm too lazy to pull up Open Railway Map).

 

Council Bluffs is the only active intermodal terminal in Iowa, I believe.  The other nearest terminals are in the Twin Cities and Kansas City to the best of my knowledge.  UP has within the last year or so begun doublestack service to/from St. Paul, using blocks in existing manifest freights. 
 
 - Ed Kyle
  • Member since
    August 2003
  • From: Antioch, IL
  • 4,371 posts
Posted by greyhounds on Saturday, June 18, 2022 9:40 PM

SD70Dude
But it probably is a 'bet my job' situation for the manager who suggests spending money on this sort of thing.  And that's how middle to upper management will view this sort of situation, they can only think of the costs and downsides if it doesn't work perfectly, not the potential upside and greater revenue.  Why would anyone stick their neck out and risk everything when they can just putter along doing day to day tasks and fly under the radar of upper management? 

So, how did it get to this point with the railroads?  (And I’ve been there.)  How do the railroads get past this point?
 
Each year, many thousands of new products and services are introduced into the North American market. Most of them are failures.  Each year many thousands of new businesses are started. Most of them fail.  Most new software development projects fail. People in other endeavors are not in fear of their jobs for a market attempt that fails.
 
Why are railroads, in particular, so reluctant to even try?
 
Other businesses are subject to the same financial pressures that the railroads face.  Why the reluctance to even try on the railroads?
 
There are some bright spots.  NS is going after LCL with boxcars added to intermodal trains.  CSX is going after the Florida perishable business and actually acquiring its own reefer trailers.
"By many measures, the U.S. freight rail system is the safest, most efficient and cost effective in the world." - Federal Railroad Administration, October, 2009. I'm just your average, everyday, uncivilized howling "anti-government" critic of mass government expenditures for "High Speed Rail" in the US. And I'm gosh darn proud of that.
  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: Central Iowa
  • 6,901 posts
Posted by jeffhergert on Saturday, June 18, 2022 10:35 PM

Overmod

Where is the nearest convenient long-distance train makeup facility to Marshalltown?  (I'm too lazy to pull up Open Railway Map).

Marshalltown.  Beverly.  Boone.  Des Moines.  They all have yards.  Des Moines regularly originates and terminates trains long distance trains.  Marshalltown, Beverly, Boone, and Clinton have originated and/or terminated long distance trains depending on the Transportation plan in effect.  They all still occasionally originate or terminate extras.  All have multiple through trains that pickup or setout daily.  (The extras come when the yards have too many cars that the regular trains can't handle.)  A lot of traffic going through these places isn't destined for them, but part of the block swapping brought on by PSR.   

Des Moines recently started construction on a transload facility to be served by all the railroads serving Des Moines.  I don't believe an intermodal facility is included at this point.  It would probably be a good place to have one.  Traffic would move in manifests, at least to the point where they could be added to other trains.

Iowa Interstate used to have intermediate ramps at West Liberty (east of Iowa City) and Newton.  Both have been closed and only their Chicago area and Council Bluffs ramps remain.  I believe the West Liberty ramp closed because of lack of business and Newton closed with the loss of Maytag.

Jeff  

  • Member since
    March 2018
  • 145 posts
Posted by Ed Kyle on Sunday, June 19, 2022 8:00 AM

greyhounds
So, how did it get to this point with the railroads?  (And I’ve been there.)  How do the railroads get past this point?

Isn't it all about the minimum length of intermodal haul required for profit?  What is that, something like 500-700 miles?  Perhaps that determines the intermodal terminal spacing.  Most trucks going to/from Iowa from the greater Midwest aren't going to use rail.  If the load is going far west via. intermodal, it'll be driven to the ramp in Council Bluffs.  If east, it'll drive to Chicago.  If south, Kansas City, etc.

If UP did try to open a small ramp in Marshalltown, making intermodal blocks for the PSR trains to pick up, wouldn't it still be faster to drive the loads to the existing terminals?  The pick-up trains are just going to crawl to those terminals anyway, and upon arrival the blocks would sit in them for many hours, probably.

Multiple railroads have tried and almost all have failed at short haul intermodal.  The local drayage cost and the cost per lift are key factors.  The move away from traditional piggyback hasn't helped.   Someone needs to invent a low-cost rapid loading railcar technolgy.

 - Ed Kyle

  • Member since
    September 2017
  • 5,636 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Monday, June 20, 2022 9:15 AM

greyhounds
So, how did it get to this point with the railroads? 

Perhaps because with rails there is greater need for capital infrastructure which would be unrecoverable if the new project failed?

  • Member since
    July 2016
  • 2,631 posts
Posted by Backshop on Monday, June 20, 2022 3:53 PM

Railroads do best with bulk commodities that don't need repetitive handling.  Look at it this way---a unit train of trailers may be 200 trailers moving long distance with minimal handling.  It needs a haul of at least 550-600 miles to be competitive with an OTR driver who needs to rest for 8-10nhours after that amount of time.  So you have 6-8 railroaders doing the work of 200 OTR drivers.  When you get below that, the driver can finish the haul in under a day.  Also, once you get down to, let's say 20 trailers, the ratio of drivers to train crew is a lot closer.  Forget about any "we'll just get cheaper labor to handle it" scheme, as railroads are having trouble finding good help at current wages.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Monday, June 20, 2022 4:24 PM

charlie hebdo
 
greyhounds
So, how did it get to this point with the railroads?  

Perhaps because with rails there is greater need for capital infrastructure which would be unrecoverable if the new project failed?

A view on business in general as to how we have gotten to were we are - 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaCSbdNsLQk

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    August 2003
  • From: Antioch, IL
  • 4,371 posts
Posted by greyhounds on Monday, June 20, 2022 4:49 PM
[user="Ed Kyle"]
Isn't it all about the minimum length of intermodal haul required for profit?  What is that, something like 500-700 miles?  Perhaps that determines the intermodal terminal spacing.  Most trucks going to/from Iowa from the greater Midwest aren't going to use rail.  If the load is going far west via. intermodal, it'll be driven to the ramp in Council Bluffs.  If east, it'll drive to Chicago.  If south, Kansas City, etc. If UP did try to open a small ramp in Marshalltown, making intermodal blocks for the PSR trains to pick up, wouldn't it still be faster to drive the loads to the existing terminals?  [/quote]
 
Well, I don’t like “Magic Numbers” such as 500-700 miles.  There is an interplay between numerous factors that determines the most efficient transport mode at any mileage.  Drayage and terminal costs are certainly some of those factors.  Also, a factor is the rail line haul cost.  Adding loads to an existing schedule will produce low incremental line haul cost while the incremental revenue will be set by the competing truck charge.  It should be money thrown to the bottom line.
 
Note: Incremental costs and revenues are what counts.  Projecting them tells you where you will go.  Using average costs tells you where you’ve been.
 
It would be possible to truck the westbound loads to the Council Bluffs intermodal terminal.  But the trucker would get a disproportionate amount of the through revenue.  Why give away the money?
 
This is about money, not miles.  It would take research and analysis, but it’s worth a good, hard look.  My contention is that the Union Pacific doesn’t have the ability to do the research and analysis.  It also doesn’t seem to have any inclination to acquire that ability.
 
[user="Ed Kyle"]
 
The pick-up trains are just going to crawl to those terminals anyway, and upon arrival the blocks would sit in them for many hours, probably. Multiple railroads have tried and almost all have failed at short haul intermodal.  The local drayage cost and the cost per lift are key factors.  The move away from traditional piggyback hasn't helped.   [/quote]
 
This isn’t short haul intermodal.  These loads are moving close to 2,000 miles.  The question is how to get the freight and revenue on the railroad in the most advantageous way.  If you want to see how to do it, look at the UP’s operation at Sparks, NV.
 
[user="Ed Kyle"]
Someone needs to invent a low-cost rapid loading railcar technolgy. [/quote]
 
See the former CP “Exxpresway” for such a system. (They used it incorrectly.)
"By many measures, the U.S. freight rail system is the safest, most efficient and cost effective in the world." - Federal Railroad Administration, October, 2009. I'm just your average, everyday, uncivilized howling "anti-government" critic of mass government expenditures for "High Speed Rail" in the US. And I'm gosh darn proud of that.
  • Member since
    August 2003
  • From: Antioch, IL
  • 4,371 posts
Posted by greyhounds on Monday, June 20, 2022 5:06 PM

Backshop
Railroads do best with bulk commodities that don't need repetitive handling.  Look at it this way---a unit train of trailers may be 200 trailers moving long distance with minimal handling.  It needs a haul of at least 550-600 miles to be competitive with an OTR driver who needs to rest for 8-10nhours after that amount of time.  So you have 6-8 railroaders doing the work of 200 OTR drivers.  When you get below that, the driver can finish the haul in under a day.  Also, once you get down to, let's say 20 trailers, the ratio of drivers to train crew is a lot closer.  Forget about any "we'll just get cheaper labor to handle it" scheme, as railroads are having trouble finding good help at current wages.

It's in no way about going down to 20 trailers.  It's about going up to 220 trailers.

Railroad operating people will insist on running past all kinds of money and freight to avoid making a pick up.  It's just too hard for them.

"By many measures, the U.S. freight rail system is the safest, most efficient and cost effective in the world." - Federal Railroad Administration, October, 2009. I'm just your average, everyday, uncivilized howling "anti-government" critic of mass government expenditures for "High Speed Rail" in the US. And I'm gosh darn proud of that.
  • Member since
    July 2016
  • 2,631 posts
Posted by Backshop on Monday, June 20, 2022 6:35 PM

You keep talking about adding your business to current trains, yet railroaders keep telling you that the trains are too long already. Do you know how long these extra pickups take?  It's different than the days of 4 man crews and 80 car trains.

Why don't you take your ideas to professional executive railroaders if they are so great and sure moneymakers?  That's right, because they told you "bye-bye" 30 years ago.

 

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy