-ChrisWest Chicago, ILChristopher May Fine Art Photography"In wisdom gathered over time I have found that every experience is a form of exploration." ~Ansel Adams
QUOTE: Originally posted by StillGrande Because they are trying to keep service comparable to a truck going 75 on a highway to the same place.
QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken Muuahaha [}:)][}:)][}:)] Don't know where the genius part came from, but please consider: (1) They have the capability to run faster if someone pays for it (Read up on Santa Fe's Super-C and later the "Q" train experiment) (2) Most do not even run 60 anymore to conserve fuel.... (3) Think about how transportation contracts are shopped around..... Back to the LabOratory, Igor is sending telepathic messages to the Iron Swami of Iraq. Vertical hold on reality slipping again I see..... [}:)][}:)][}:)] Evil Feathers
QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe CopCarSS, I meant $1 extra for a beer--i.e. buying the 16oz beer for $5 instead of the 24oz beer for $6. Thanks for your contribution. I think perception is a likely culprit. Too bad, as there is so little difference in the actual time, I think the mere slowing of intermodal trains would add capacity to routes for less than free--as it would also save fuel costs. Gabe
QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan Probably because it takes so darn long to get everything ready at the port, sooner the better for an inbound to get there so they can get all the cards on the table. If the ports could get more docks and workers to sort out the containers, speedy container trains would make more sense.
Originally posted by gabe Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply greyhounds Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Antioch, IL 4,371 posts Posted by greyhounds on Thursday, June 16, 2005 11:19 AM As has been stated, there are different intermodal market segments. Some require speed, others require less speed. All require good reliability. Reliability is the downfall of carload transport - and not much can be done about it. On heavy volume intermodal lanes some railroads are able to seperate the segments. BNSF has several different classes of intermodal service and the customer gets what he pays for. Stack trains for international containers get less horsepower per ton because they're not as time sensative as the UPS Z trains. On lower volume lanes, such as Chicago-New Orleans, all the cargo must go on one train so segmentatiion is difficult. The railroad has to make a decision as to wether the incremental revenue from the business requiring the premium service covers the incremental cost of running the train at higher speeds. There is a cost saving from speed. Equipment utilization is a key to intermodal profitability. Getting the flatcars to destination, unloaded and reloaded back out as quickly as possible does reduce the number of cars required and cuts the ownership costs for such equipment. This also applies to the domestic containers/trailers used in IM movements. Again, this saving must be compared to the added cost of greater speeds. "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. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, June 16, 2005 12:13 PM Look at it another way... Why must commuters in large pickup trucks roar down the interstate for 30 miles at 90 mph in the morning knowing they will be stuck in congestion as US 67 meets I40 and I30 for little Rock where everyone else is also going. 1000 miles takes about one day in a 18 wheeler. You forgot it can take a whole day or more to get unloaded and reloaded. So call it 3 days on that 1000 mile run. Let's extend your theory a bit further. I dont have the shipping numbers at hand but assume.... Portsmouth England to Baltimore and then west to LA has got to be a *** sight faster than Portsmouth to Panama then up to LA. I used to work the docks with containers to and from ships and noticed that explosive growth of container-on-rail that changed intermodal from the east coast to the west coast back in the early 90's SeaGirt in Baltimore has a yard now where boxes are taken off ships and thrown onto trains really fast. That train probably would arrive in LA while the ship is still negotiating the Canal down in central america. Cape Horn at the tip of South America is a feared passage for Mariners and not really a good option. Regarding the rest of the time lost ... the freight sometimes sits in the warehouse for a few days upon arrival as arrangements are made for final delivery. I theorize the life that I had when I would be given 10 days to get from Baltimore to California at 20 cents a mile in the early 80's that allowed plenty of time to do the job right with meals, showers sleeping etc... and following the speed limits etc...(Err sorta) Is not the life that I finished in 2001 with 4 day Baltimore to LA team runs stopping for nothing but fuel three times for a total of one hour the whole trip for .38 a mile. And emptying that 5th day AM, reloaded by dinner time and passing Flagstaff AZ by the end of the next day. Life has speeded up alot. Look at the people who dont have time to do anything but go to work, come home from work and race to work the next day. All other errands and important needs are left until Fridays and Weekends where extra delay is experienced due to the crush of people running the same errands you are. Railroads are sure running them trains. Maybe it is the crossing. Perhaps they will have less accidents running thru town at 70 mph to make the cars wait for them. If they plodded thru at a nice safe speed, they will have had to stop for all of those crossing gate runners. Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, June 16, 2005 12:27 PM Gabe- It's a good quesiton. The sorta stupid answer is that it's a trade-off between cost and value. Actually, the "sunk cost" of the trans-Pacific portion of the trip is irrelevant. What matters is the what's the value to the customer versus your costs. If you go 40 intstead of 60, maybe you lengthen the time from port to shelves a day or two. What is the inventory carrying cost of that merchandise for another couple of days balanaced against how much you might save in shipping? For the RR, you slow down, now you need more equipment to move the same amount of stuff. That's big bucks. You would save fuel, but enough to offset the extra equipment costs? And, enough to make up for the lower rates you'd have to charge to cover you customer's increased costs? Finally, many intemodal trains server multiple masters. They may carry UPS pkgs as well as empty steamship containers going back to port. While 40 mph might work OK for the empty steamship containers, delaying a sort or two for UPS would result in that taffic going to truck. In practice, it isn't too hard to mix 60 mph intermodal with 40 mph bulk traffic most places. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, June 16, 2005 12:51 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe It may seem like there is an obvious answer to my question. But, please read on. I was watching an interesting show about the Panama Canal last night. It was showing ocean liners carrying intermodal containers and it talked about the transit times of these ships. Think about it: The time it takes to transport the containers from the factory in China to an intermodal port, the time it takes to load these containers onto the ship, the time it takes for these ships to transport these containers several 1000s of miles at 15 knots, the time the ships spend waiting for a berth to open up in port, the time it takes to unload them, the time it takes to sort them, and then the time it takes to load them on the train. It seems to me that the time saved by running the train at 60-65 mph instead of 40 mph is so meaningless compared to the overall time it takes to ship the container that the benefit is almost unnoticeable. It is like trying to save $1 by buying the small beer at a NFL football game after you have already spent $300 on the tickets and $200 on the other over-priced amenities. Furthermore, running trains at significantly different speeds makes for greater dispatching problems and cuts into line capacity. I understand why some purely domestic trains, roadrailers, and UPS trains are run faster than normal, but Maserik intermodal containers? I don't get it. Hope to have an excellent discussion with everyone to make up for that other topic that the evil genius out smarted us all with . . . again. Gabe Hehe, I watched that too. I think I caught the late one because it was like 1 A.M. Anyways, did you also notice they called the locomotives there high-powered and able to put up to 35 tons? I don't consider that too powerful, but thats just me... [:D][;)] There was two on last night, were you watching the history channel or the discovery channel? Reply Edit gabe Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Indianapolis, Indiana 2,434 posts Posted by gabe on Thursday, June 16, 2005 1:46 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Having worked in the steamship industry my entire life I would say you are making some very poor ASSUMPTIONS. I would suggest you contact say a Hanjin/"K" line/APL/Maersk to see how they operate. In the North Atlantic try Maersk/Sealand. Also, no where did I see the words letter of credit mentioned in your post. That is what the consignee has taken out in favor of the shipper before the shipper will produce the goods ordered. Once the consignee takes out the L/C the amoint of that L/C is deducted from the consignee bank account immediately so that $$$$$$ is no longer available to payl bills/employees/etc. The consignee may have to take out a bridge loan which means they are also then paying interest to the bank. That is why consignees put so much pressure on the SS line to get the goods from point A to Point B ASAP. Also most L/C contain a clause that the goods must be shipped by a specific date or the L/C becomes null & void if the shipper gets a bill of lading dated after the L/C shipping date has past. Originally posted by gabe Wow, I have to role up my sleeves twice in the same day. (1) Your comments have to be the biggest non-sequitor that I have ever seen in my entire life. Why didn't you just say I got it wrong because I don't like puppy dogs? What heck does a bill of credit—which, as an attorney, I am more than familiar with—have to do with the fact that the time a steamship takes to ship a container is so long that another 5-10 hours that is saved by doing 60 instead of 45 is insignificant? (2) Hong Kong is 7233 miles from LA, and that is as the crow flies! Now, if I got it wrong, it was because I was WAY too conservative. You say that it can make the voyage in under a week? That is a remarkable claim, as—even if the ship did not have to go around any islands—the ship would have to make 45 knots to do that. I think the SS United States was capable of 45 knots, but she had the blue ribbon steam record and that was at flank speed that could not be maintained for a week. I don't know of too many steam ships that average more than 15-20 knots. (3) In your other disjointed posts, you are fond of pointing to Trains magazines for support. Look back between one and two years. You will see an article that shows that, due to port congestions, steamships often wait between two days and a week to berth at port. So, what assumption did I get wrong? Gabe Reply UPTRAIN Member sinceJune 2002 From: Independence, MO 1,570 posts Posted by UPTRAIN on Thursday, June 16, 2005 1:50 PM They create as much revenue as coal, get them on down the line so we can get another in right behind it, and another, and another, and a coal train, and another, and another... Pump Reply gabe Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Indianapolis, Indiana 2,434 posts Posted by gabe on Thursday, June 16, 2005 1:54 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds As has been stated, there are different intermodal market segments. Some require speed, others require less speed. All require good reliability. Reliability is the downfall of carload transport - and not much can be done about it. On heavy volume intermodal lanes some railroads are able to seperate the segments. BNSF has several different classes of intermodal service and the customer gets what he pays for. Stack trains for international containers get less horsepower per ton because they're not as time sensative as the UPS Z trains. On lower volume lanes, such as Chicago-New Orleans, all the cargo must go on one train so segmentatiion is difficult. The railroad has to make a decision as to wether the incremental revenue from the business requiring the premium service covers the incremental cost of running the train at higher speeds. There is a cost saving from speed. Equipment utilization is a key to intermodal profitability. Getting the flatcars to destination, unloaded and reloaded back out as quickly as possible does reduce the number of cars required and cuts the ownership costs for such equipment. This also applies to the domestic containers/trailers used in IM movements. Again, this saving must be compared to the added cost of greater speeds. Greyhounds and others, Thank you for some excellent responses. I think I now understand some of the reasons for what seemed to be an illogical practice. For purposes I will sum them up. (1) Speed can be for the benefit of the railroad itself, because it minimizes the amount of containers used. This makes a lot of sense, and I am in no way taking issue with your contention. I am just asking for clarification: Why don't they do this with all trains then? Box cars, lumber carriers, and auto carriers would seem to cost more than a container. Also, with higer speed trains, wouldn't that require more engines, which would also cut into the efficiency created by turn around time? Furthermore, my understanding is higher speed trains eat up capacity, which would seem to also cost money. (2) Most convincingly, they cannot organize a train for the less time sensitive freight and where they can, they do. I didn't realize this. I thought UPS and other shippers didn't bring their containers to ports, but now that I realize it, I think it is a hech of a point that explains my dilema. Thanks for the contribution. Gabe P.S. Greyhounds once talked about Chicago - St. Louis intermodal opperations. In so doing, you implied there was more than one train a day in each direction. Was this the case? I am just curious as an IC fan. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, June 16, 2005 2:35 PM Didn't the pre Conrail Split CSX tried to save fuel through that "Pace 40" program to all to trains ran at a max at 40 MPH. I heard it was big disaster. And Intermodals went back up to a 60 MPH max. I think they found the biggest cause of delays and biggest place for cost savings was in the yards not on the road. I believe and correct me if I am wrong that the UP runs loaded coal trains at 60 MPH on its Central Corridor to keep the line fliud with all that Intermodal traffic and expedited merchandise traffic such as that "Express Lane" service they run with CSX . For only we had a sane transportation policy in this country and the RR would recieve gov't infastructure funds to reinstall multitrack mainlines on all routes that see at least 20 GMTs a year and maintain them to at least FRA Class 4 standards. Maybe then we will see alot more 70 MPH freights and just on certain BNSF and UP routes. Reply Edit gabe Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Indianapolis, Indiana 2,434 posts Posted by gabe on Thursday, June 16, 2005 2:48 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Colin Didn't the pre Conrail Split CSX tried to save fuel through that "Pace 40" program to all to trains ran at a max at 40 MPH. I heard it was big disaster. And Intermodals went back up to a 60 MPH max. I think they found the biggest cause of delays and biggest place for cost savings was in the yards not on the road. I believe and correct me if I am wrong that the UP runs loaded coal trains at 60 MPH on its Central Corridor to keep the line fliud with all that Intermodal traffic and expedited merchandise traffic such as that "Express Lane" service they run with CSX . For only we had a sane transportation policy in this country and the RR would recieve gov't infastructure funds to reinstall multitrack mainlines on all routes that see at least 20 GMTs a year and maintain them to at least FRA Class 4 standards. Maybe then we will see alot more 70 MPH freights and just on certain BNSF and UP routes. I don't know about CSX/Conrail, and you are correct about UP's coal trains. However, those are just speeds at certain choke points to increase capacity. As for the remainder of your contention, I Greyhounds is the best person to field this one. Gabe Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Thursday, June 16, 2005 2:59 PM I think you forgot about the demands of the customer of the steamship line to secure there cargo at the earliest possible moment. [:o)][:)] Originally posted by gabe [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply gabe Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Indianapolis, Indiana 2,434 posts Posted by gabe on Thursday, June 16, 2005 3:56 PM OK, they secure it at the earliest possible moment. So how does that take away from the fact that you are looking at betwen 20-30 days from the time the product leaves the factory to the time it is loaded on a train and 5-10 hours doesn't really seem like that big of a deal when you consider that it takes 20-to-30 days? However, I do think Greyhounds et al does a pretty good job of explaining the rationale to me. Gabe Reply BaltACD Member sinceMay 2003 From: US 25,289 posts Posted by BaltACD on Thursday, June 16, 2005 5:03 PM Three simple letters drive Intermodal Train speed in the US. UPS That says it all in the rail industry. Never too old to have a happy childhood! Reply MP173 Member sinceMay 2004 From: Valparaiso, In 5,921 posts Posted by MP173 on Thursday, June 16, 2005 5:14 PM This has been covered extremely well. Greyhound is a very knowledgeable resource on this matter. I will offer just a bit more insight to this that I believe has been overlooked. As previously stated, there are various levels of service. The best example of this is on the BNSF Transcon line. Trains did an article several years ago which very accurately described the system put in place by ATSF in the early 90's in which customers could order the level of service required and pay the corresponding price....slow service, low price, premium service, high price. Thus, you will have certain trains moving at rates of speed to meet that premium pricing. Lower rated freight will move slower, often this may be in terminal dwell times. My guess is that on the rails, trains tend to move at track speed if possible. Now, for the other part to the equation. Schedules are developed based on customer's needs, or at least in theory. Premium service trains are built based on afternoon loading of freight at the origin and morning delivery at destination. This is critical to understand for at least three segments....UPS, LTL and Truckload. The entire shipping community is based, particulary in package (UPS) and LTL on afternoon PU's and morning deliveries. Thus, schedules are built based on an evening departure from origin so the trucks can make it to the terminal. Think of what happens at UPS. Brown makes the pickup at 5pm, back to the terminal at 6:30, unload truck, stuff a trailer destined for LA, CA and then run the trailer to the intermodal yard by _________pm in order to hit the cutoff time. Train runs to LA, CA and MUST be there in time for Brown to pickup at the rail terminal, take to break bulk, unload, and load on delivery truck, which is out the door by 9am, if not sooner. Ditto LTL (Roadway, Yellow, ABF, USF). Sorta ditto for TL, although not as severe as schedule due to nature of the freight. Thus, evening cutoffs are critical and morning deliveries are critical. Based on the mileage involved, that leaves X hours to get the train from Chicago to LA. Thus, some intermodals run hard, very hard, because Brown says so. Why does Brown say so? Because FEDEX is mostly running by truck and these schedules must be competitive for market share. Gabe, if you notice on my NS Chicago line thread, the Intermodals are schedule inbound to Chicago in the AM and outbound at night...for the most part, exception being 217 to Greensboro. BTW....yesterday's 217 had 5 FedEx 28' pups in tow, the first I have ever seen. Hope this helps. ed Reply MP173 Member sinceMay 2004 From: Valparaiso, In 5,921 posts Posted by MP173 on Thursday, June 16, 2005 5:19 PM One other thing...why are shpments picked up in the pm? Because it gives the shipper all day to process orders and still ship the same day. Many distribution centers are located near Memphis to hit FEDEX outbound departures. Thus, a company can take an order for computer parts at 7:30 CST and still deliver to the air terminal and hit the outbound FED EX jet at 1am. JIT (just in time) levels of inventory have created an entirely new method of how costs are treated. ed Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, June 16, 2005 6:45 PM Actually JIT means getting rid of warehouses and associated costs. I dont ship ground if I can avoid it. Most of my orders for personal use comes off the west coast by 2nd day air. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, June 16, 2005 7:10 PM my un-educated opinion would be along the lines of what highiron said. not much is stored and/or warehoused these days. it's all distribution centers ship it in, sort it and ship it out. everything is so fast paced because the inventory isn't there anymore. go to your local car dealership and try to get anything other than an oil filter..."uhh, yea we'll have that UPS'ed to you in 2 days" it's all just fast paced nowadays. the boat goes as fast as it can, the unloading/loading goes as fast as it can so why not run the train to what its capable of? Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, June 16, 2005 9:18 PM Gabe, Congrats on another excellent topic. Greyhounds pretty much nails it, but your focus should be on equipment inventory costs as well. For cross country traffic, the difference between 40 mph and 60 mph is at least one day. If it takes 10 days round trip at the faster max speed vs 12 days round trip at the slower max speed, then the faster speed results in 5 extra revenue trips per year. Those 5 extra trips can mean you pay off your equipment rents a lot sooner, so you're more likely to achieve profitability sooner. Unfortunately, for many other commodities, this idea of "warehousing in transit" has infected the supply chain, and it has introduced a sort of backhanded inefficiency. Yes, warehousing is an expense that one tries to minimize as much as possible, but if warehousing must take place, it is better if it takes place in an actual warehouse than in transit. One giant 400,000 square foot building is more efficient for warehousing than 100 4,000 square foot boxcars or 160 ISO containers. One wonders if this warehousing in transit concept has induced slower transit speeds. Remember the posts regarding the car of lumber that gets shuttled around the country here and there as the forwarders play pattycakes with their customers? Who's paying the costs of this more expensive form of warehousing? Ultimately, it is all of us, as such represents a loss of productivity. You also should not discount speds analysis. If you've already paid for an item, do you want it sooner or later? A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, or so the saying goes. It has been noted in other posts (by yours truly) that trucks of all types travel at the same speed on the nation's highways (outside of mountain grades), irregardless of the commodity being transported. A truckload of gravel travels the same 60, 65, or 70 mph speed limit as the truckload of perishables. Why are the railroads so invested in this idea that only the varnish goes the highest allowable speed, while the mixed freight or the unit train of aggregates must clog up the mainline at half that speed? Fuel efficiency is not the answer. The savings on fuel costs by travelling slower are outweighed by the combination of the equipment's revenue utilization and the axiom of doing your best to placate the customer (by getting his goods to him in the most expedient manner). Or to put it another way, you cannot conserve your way to an increased customer base. Reply Edit Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Thursday, June 16, 2005 11:08 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan Probably because it takes so darn long to get everything ready at the port, sooner the better for an inbound to get there so they can get all the cards on the table. If the ports could get more docks and workers to sort out the containers, speedy container trains would make more sense. Even if they could get the container from the vessel to the train instantaneously, I don't think my premise would change. The ocean liner does, at best 15 knots, over an incredible vast distance and sometimes have to wait outside the port for a bearth for a very long time. 5-7 hours compared to this time is NOTHING. Gabe Don't the container ships run on schedules? Andrew Reply 1234 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » 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 More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe It may seem like there is an obvious answer to my question. But, please read on. I was watching an interesting show about the Panama Canal last night. It was showing ocean liners carrying intermodal containers and it talked about the transit times of these ships. Think about it: The time it takes to transport the containers from the factory in China to an intermodal port, the time it takes to load these containers onto the ship, the time it takes for these ships to transport these containers several 1000s of miles at 15 knots, the time the ships spend waiting for a berth to open up in port, the time it takes to unload them, the time it takes to sort them, and then the time it takes to load them on the train. It seems to me that the time saved by running the train at 60-65 mph instead of 40 mph is so meaningless compared to the overall time it takes to ship the container that the benefit is almost unnoticeable. It is like trying to save $1 by buying the small beer at a NFL football game after you have already spent $300 on the tickets and $200 on the other over-priced amenities. Furthermore, running trains at significantly different speeds makes for greater dispatching problems and cuts into line capacity. I understand why some purely domestic trains, roadrailers, and UPS trains are run faster than normal, but Maserik intermodal containers? I don't get it. Hope to have an excellent discussion with everyone to make up for that other topic that the evil genius out smarted us all with . . . again. Gabe
QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Having worked in the steamship industry my entire life I would say you are making some very poor ASSUMPTIONS. I would suggest you contact say a Hanjin/"K" line/APL/Maersk to see how they operate. In the North Atlantic try Maersk/Sealand. Also, no where did I see the words letter of credit mentioned in your post. That is what the consignee has taken out in favor of the shipper before the shipper will produce the goods ordered. Once the consignee takes out the L/C the amoint of that L/C is deducted from the consignee bank account immediately so that $$$$$$ is no longer available to payl bills/employees/etc. The consignee may have to take out a bridge loan which means they are also then paying interest to the bank. That is why consignees put so much pressure on the SS line to get the goods from point A to Point B ASAP. Also most L/C contain a clause that the goods must be shipped by a specific date or the L/C becomes null & void if the shipper gets a bill of lading dated after the L/C shipping date has past. Originally posted by gabe Wow, I have to role up my sleeves twice in the same day. (1) Your comments have to be the biggest non-sequitor that I have ever seen in my entire life. Why didn't you just say I got it wrong because I don't like puppy dogs? What heck does a bill of credit—which, as an attorney, I am more than familiar with—have to do with the fact that the time a steamship takes to ship a container is so long that another 5-10 hours that is saved by doing 60 instead of 45 is insignificant? (2) Hong Kong is 7233 miles from LA, and that is as the crow flies! Now, if I got it wrong, it was because I was WAY too conservative. You say that it can make the voyage in under a week? That is a remarkable claim, as—even if the ship did not have to go around any islands—the ship would have to make 45 knots to do that. I think the SS United States was capable of 45 knots, but she had the blue ribbon steam record and that was at flank speed that could not be maintained for a week. I don't know of too many steam ships that average more than 15-20 knots. (3) In your other disjointed posts, you are fond of pointing to Trains magazines for support. Look back between one and two years. You will see an article that shows that, due to port congestions, steamships often wait between two days and a week to berth at port. So, what assumption did I get wrong? Gabe Reply UPTRAIN Member sinceJune 2002 From: Independence, MO 1,570 posts Posted by UPTRAIN on Thursday, June 16, 2005 1:50 PM They create as much revenue as coal, get them on down the line so we can get another in right behind it, and another, and another, and a coal train, and another, and another... Pump Reply gabe Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Indianapolis, Indiana 2,434 posts Posted by gabe on Thursday, June 16, 2005 1:54 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds As has been stated, there are different intermodal market segments. Some require speed, others require less speed. All require good reliability. Reliability is the downfall of carload transport - and not much can be done about it. On heavy volume intermodal lanes some railroads are able to seperate the segments. BNSF has several different classes of intermodal service and the customer gets what he pays for. Stack trains for international containers get less horsepower per ton because they're not as time sensative as the UPS Z trains. On lower volume lanes, such as Chicago-New Orleans, all the cargo must go on one train so segmentatiion is difficult. The railroad has to make a decision as to wether the incremental revenue from the business requiring the premium service covers the incremental cost of running the train at higher speeds. There is a cost saving from speed. Equipment utilization is a key to intermodal profitability. Getting the flatcars to destination, unloaded and reloaded back out as quickly as possible does reduce the number of cars required and cuts the ownership costs for such equipment. This also applies to the domestic containers/trailers used in IM movements. Again, this saving must be compared to the added cost of greater speeds. Greyhounds and others, Thank you for some excellent responses. I think I now understand some of the reasons for what seemed to be an illogical practice. For purposes I will sum them up. (1) Speed can be for the benefit of the railroad itself, because it minimizes the amount of containers used. This makes a lot of sense, and I am in no way taking issue with your contention. I am just asking for clarification: Why don't they do this with all trains then? Box cars, lumber carriers, and auto carriers would seem to cost more than a container. Also, with higer speed trains, wouldn't that require more engines, which would also cut into the efficiency created by turn around time? Furthermore, my understanding is higher speed trains eat up capacity, which would seem to also cost money. (2) Most convincingly, they cannot organize a train for the less time sensitive freight and where they can, they do. I didn't realize this. I thought UPS and other shippers didn't bring their containers to ports, but now that I realize it, I think it is a hech of a point that explains my dilema. Thanks for the contribution. Gabe P.S. Greyhounds once talked about Chicago - St. Louis intermodal opperations. In so doing, you implied there was more than one train a day in each direction. Was this the case? I am just curious as an IC fan. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, June 16, 2005 2:35 PM Didn't the pre Conrail Split CSX tried to save fuel through that "Pace 40" program to all to trains ran at a max at 40 MPH. I heard it was big disaster. And Intermodals went back up to a 60 MPH max. I think they found the biggest cause of delays and biggest place for cost savings was in the yards not on the road. I believe and correct me if I am wrong that the UP runs loaded coal trains at 60 MPH on its Central Corridor to keep the line fliud with all that Intermodal traffic and expedited merchandise traffic such as that "Express Lane" service they run with CSX . For only we had a sane transportation policy in this country and the RR would recieve gov't infastructure funds to reinstall multitrack mainlines on all routes that see at least 20 GMTs a year and maintain them to at least FRA Class 4 standards. Maybe then we will see alot more 70 MPH freights and just on certain BNSF and UP routes. Reply Edit gabe Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Indianapolis, Indiana 2,434 posts Posted by gabe on Thursday, June 16, 2005 2:48 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Colin Didn't the pre Conrail Split CSX tried to save fuel through that "Pace 40" program to all to trains ran at a max at 40 MPH. I heard it was big disaster. And Intermodals went back up to a 60 MPH max. I think they found the biggest cause of delays and biggest place for cost savings was in the yards not on the road. I believe and correct me if I am wrong that the UP runs loaded coal trains at 60 MPH on its Central Corridor to keep the line fliud with all that Intermodal traffic and expedited merchandise traffic such as that "Express Lane" service they run with CSX . For only we had a sane transportation policy in this country and the RR would recieve gov't infastructure funds to reinstall multitrack mainlines on all routes that see at least 20 GMTs a year and maintain them to at least FRA Class 4 standards. Maybe then we will see alot more 70 MPH freights and just on certain BNSF and UP routes. I don't know about CSX/Conrail, and you are correct about UP's coal trains. However, those are just speeds at certain choke points to increase capacity. As for the remainder of your contention, I Greyhounds is the best person to field this one. Gabe Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Thursday, June 16, 2005 2:59 PM I think you forgot about the demands of the customer of the steamship line to secure there cargo at the earliest possible moment. [:o)][:)] Originally posted by gabe [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply gabe Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Indianapolis, Indiana 2,434 posts Posted by gabe on Thursday, June 16, 2005 3:56 PM OK, they secure it at the earliest possible moment. So how does that take away from the fact that you are looking at betwen 20-30 days from the time the product leaves the factory to the time it is loaded on a train and 5-10 hours doesn't really seem like that big of a deal when you consider that it takes 20-to-30 days? However, I do think Greyhounds et al does a pretty good job of explaining the rationale to me. Gabe Reply BaltACD Member sinceMay 2003 From: US 25,289 posts Posted by BaltACD on Thursday, June 16, 2005 5:03 PM Three simple letters drive Intermodal Train speed in the US. UPS That says it all in the rail industry. Never too old to have a happy childhood! Reply MP173 Member sinceMay 2004 From: Valparaiso, In 5,921 posts Posted by MP173 on Thursday, June 16, 2005 5:14 PM This has been covered extremely well. Greyhound is a very knowledgeable resource on this matter. I will offer just a bit more insight to this that I believe has been overlooked. As previously stated, there are various levels of service. The best example of this is on the BNSF Transcon line. Trains did an article several years ago which very accurately described the system put in place by ATSF in the early 90's in which customers could order the level of service required and pay the corresponding price....slow service, low price, premium service, high price. Thus, you will have certain trains moving at rates of speed to meet that premium pricing. Lower rated freight will move slower, often this may be in terminal dwell times. My guess is that on the rails, trains tend to move at track speed if possible. Now, for the other part to the equation. Schedules are developed based on customer's needs, or at least in theory. Premium service trains are built based on afternoon loading of freight at the origin and morning delivery at destination. This is critical to understand for at least three segments....UPS, LTL and Truckload. The entire shipping community is based, particulary in package (UPS) and LTL on afternoon PU's and morning deliveries. Thus, schedules are built based on an evening departure from origin so the trucks can make it to the terminal. Think of what happens at UPS. Brown makes the pickup at 5pm, back to the terminal at 6:30, unload truck, stuff a trailer destined for LA, CA and then run the trailer to the intermodal yard by _________pm in order to hit the cutoff time. Train runs to LA, CA and MUST be there in time for Brown to pickup at the rail terminal, take to break bulk, unload, and load on delivery truck, which is out the door by 9am, if not sooner. Ditto LTL (Roadway, Yellow, ABF, USF). Sorta ditto for TL, although not as severe as schedule due to nature of the freight. Thus, evening cutoffs are critical and morning deliveries are critical. Based on the mileage involved, that leaves X hours to get the train from Chicago to LA. Thus, some intermodals run hard, very hard, because Brown says so. Why does Brown say so? Because FEDEX is mostly running by truck and these schedules must be competitive for market share. Gabe, if you notice on my NS Chicago line thread, the Intermodals are schedule inbound to Chicago in the AM and outbound at night...for the most part, exception being 217 to Greensboro. BTW....yesterday's 217 had 5 FedEx 28' pups in tow, the first I have ever seen. Hope this helps. ed Reply MP173 Member sinceMay 2004 From: Valparaiso, In 5,921 posts Posted by MP173 on Thursday, June 16, 2005 5:19 PM One other thing...why are shpments picked up in the pm? Because it gives the shipper all day to process orders and still ship the same day. Many distribution centers are located near Memphis to hit FEDEX outbound departures. Thus, a company can take an order for computer parts at 7:30 CST and still deliver to the air terminal and hit the outbound FED EX jet at 1am. JIT (just in time) levels of inventory have created an entirely new method of how costs are treated. ed Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, June 16, 2005 6:45 PM Actually JIT means getting rid of warehouses and associated costs. I dont ship ground if I can avoid it. Most of my orders for personal use comes off the west coast by 2nd day air. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, June 16, 2005 7:10 PM my un-educated opinion would be along the lines of what highiron said. not much is stored and/or warehoused these days. it's all distribution centers ship it in, sort it and ship it out. everything is so fast paced because the inventory isn't there anymore. go to your local car dealership and try to get anything other than an oil filter..."uhh, yea we'll have that UPS'ed to you in 2 days" it's all just fast paced nowadays. the boat goes as fast as it can, the unloading/loading goes as fast as it can so why not run the train to what its capable of? Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, June 16, 2005 9:18 PM Gabe, Congrats on another excellent topic. Greyhounds pretty much nails it, but your focus should be on equipment inventory costs as well. For cross country traffic, the difference between 40 mph and 60 mph is at least one day. If it takes 10 days round trip at the faster max speed vs 12 days round trip at the slower max speed, then the faster speed results in 5 extra revenue trips per year. Those 5 extra trips can mean you pay off your equipment rents a lot sooner, so you're more likely to achieve profitability sooner. Unfortunately, for many other commodities, this idea of "warehousing in transit" has infected the supply chain, and it has introduced a sort of backhanded inefficiency. Yes, warehousing is an expense that one tries to minimize as much as possible, but if warehousing must take place, it is better if it takes place in an actual warehouse than in transit. One giant 400,000 square foot building is more efficient for warehousing than 100 4,000 square foot boxcars or 160 ISO containers. One wonders if this warehousing in transit concept has induced slower transit speeds. Remember the posts regarding the car of lumber that gets shuttled around the country here and there as the forwarders play pattycakes with their customers? Who's paying the costs of this more expensive form of warehousing? Ultimately, it is all of us, as such represents a loss of productivity. You also should not discount speds analysis. If you've already paid for an item, do you want it sooner or later? A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, or so the saying goes. It has been noted in other posts (by yours truly) that trucks of all types travel at the same speed on the nation's highways (outside of mountain grades), irregardless of the commodity being transported. A truckload of gravel travels the same 60, 65, or 70 mph speed limit as the truckload of perishables. Why are the railroads so invested in this idea that only the varnish goes the highest allowable speed, while the mixed freight or the unit train of aggregates must clog up the mainline at half that speed? Fuel efficiency is not the answer. The savings on fuel costs by travelling slower are outweighed by the combination of the equipment's revenue utilization and the axiom of doing your best to placate the customer (by getting his goods to him in the most expedient manner). Or to put it another way, you cannot conserve your way to an increased customer base. Reply Edit Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Thursday, June 16, 2005 11:08 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan Probably because it takes so darn long to get everything ready at the port, sooner the better for an inbound to get there so they can get all the cards on the table. If the ports could get more docks and workers to sort out the containers, speedy container trains would make more sense. Even if they could get the container from the vessel to the train instantaneously, I don't think my premise would change. The ocean liner does, at best 15 knots, over an incredible vast distance and sometimes have to wait outside the port for a bearth for a very long time. 5-7 hours compared to this time is NOTHING. Gabe Don't the container ships run on schedules? Andrew Reply 1234 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » 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 More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Originally posted by gabe
Pump
QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds As has been stated, there are different intermodal market segments. Some require speed, others require less speed. All require good reliability. Reliability is the downfall of carload transport - and not much can be done about it. On heavy volume intermodal lanes some railroads are able to seperate the segments. BNSF has several different classes of intermodal service and the customer gets what he pays for. Stack trains for international containers get less horsepower per ton because they're not as time sensative as the UPS Z trains. On lower volume lanes, such as Chicago-New Orleans, all the cargo must go on one train so segmentatiion is difficult. The railroad has to make a decision as to wether the incremental revenue from the business requiring the premium service covers the incremental cost of running the train at higher speeds. There is a cost saving from speed. Equipment utilization is a key to intermodal profitability. Getting the flatcars to destination, unloaded and reloaded back out as quickly as possible does reduce the number of cars required and cuts the ownership costs for such equipment. This also applies to the domestic containers/trailers used in IM movements. Again, this saving must be compared to the added cost of greater speeds.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Colin Didn't the pre Conrail Split CSX tried to save fuel through that "Pace 40" program to all to trains ran at a max at 40 MPH. I heard it was big disaster. And Intermodals went back up to a 60 MPH max. I think they found the biggest cause of delays and biggest place for cost savings was in the yards not on the road. I believe and correct me if I am wrong that the UP runs loaded coal trains at 60 MPH on its Central Corridor to keep the line fliud with all that Intermodal traffic and expedited merchandise traffic such as that "Express Lane" service they run with CSX . For only we had a sane transportation policy in this country and the RR would recieve gov't infastructure funds to reinstall multitrack mainlines on all routes that see at least 20 GMTs a year and maintain them to at least FRA Class 4 standards. Maybe then we will see alot more 70 MPH freights and just on certain BNSF and UP routes.
Originally posted by gabe [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply gabe Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Indianapolis, Indiana 2,434 posts Posted by gabe on Thursday, June 16, 2005 3:56 PM OK, they secure it at the earliest possible moment. So how does that take away from the fact that you are looking at betwen 20-30 days from the time the product leaves the factory to the time it is loaded on a train and 5-10 hours doesn't really seem like that big of a deal when you consider that it takes 20-to-30 days? However, I do think Greyhounds et al does a pretty good job of explaining the rationale to me. Gabe Reply BaltACD Member sinceMay 2003 From: US 25,289 posts Posted by BaltACD on Thursday, June 16, 2005 5:03 PM Three simple letters drive Intermodal Train speed in the US. UPS That says it all in the rail industry. Never too old to have a happy childhood! Reply MP173 Member sinceMay 2004 From: Valparaiso, In 5,921 posts Posted by MP173 on Thursday, June 16, 2005 5:14 PM This has been covered extremely well. Greyhound is a very knowledgeable resource on this matter. I will offer just a bit more insight to this that I believe has been overlooked. As previously stated, there are various levels of service. The best example of this is on the BNSF Transcon line. Trains did an article several years ago which very accurately described the system put in place by ATSF in the early 90's in which customers could order the level of service required and pay the corresponding price....slow service, low price, premium service, high price. Thus, you will have certain trains moving at rates of speed to meet that premium pricing. Lower rated freight will move slower, often this may be in terminal dwell times. My guess is that on the rails, trains tend to move at track speed if possible. Now, for the other part to the equation. Schedules are developed based on customer's needs, or at least in theory. Premium service trains are built based on afternoon loading of freight at the origin and morning delivery at destination. This is critical to understand for at least three segments....UPS, LTL and Truckload. The entire shipping community is based, particulary in package (UPS) and LTL on afternoon PU's and morning deliveries. Thus, schedules are built based on an evening departure from origin so the trucks can make it to the terminal. Think of what happens at UPS. Brown makes the pickup at 5pm, back to the terminal at 6:30, unload truck, stuff a trailer destined for LA, CA and then run the trailer to the intermodal yard by _________pm in order to hit the cutoff time. Train runs to LA, CA and MUST be there in time for Brown to pickup at the rail terminal, take to break bulk, unload, and load on delivery truck, which is out the door by 9am, if not sooner. Ditto LTL (Roadway, Yellow, ABF, USF). Sorta ditto for TL, although not as severe as schedule due to nature of the freight. Thus, evening cutoffs are critical and morning deliveries are critical. Based on the mileage involved, that leaves X hours to get the train from Chicago to LA. Thus, some intermodals run hard, very hard, because Brown says so. Why does Brown say so? Because FEDEX is mostly running by truck and these schedules must be competitive for market share. Gabe, if you notice on my NS Chicago line thread, the Intermodals are schedule inbound to Chicago in the AM and outbound at night...for the most part, exception being 217 to Greensboro. BTW....yesterday's 217 had 5 FedEx 28' pups in tow, the first I have ever seen. Hope this helps. ed Reply MP173 Member sinceMay 2004 From: Valparaiso, In 5,921 posts Posted by MP173 on Thursday, June 16, 2005 5:19 PM One other thing...why are shpments picked up in the pm? Because it gives the shipper all day to process orders and still ship the same day. Many distribution centers are located near Memphis to hit FEDEX outbound departures. Thus, a company can take an order for computer parts at 7:30 CST and still deliver to the air terminal and hit the outbound FED EX jet at 1am. JIT (just in time) levels of inventory have created an entirely new method of how costs are treated. ed Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, June 16, 2005 6:45 PM Actually JIT means getting rid of warehouses and associated costs. I dont ship ground if I can avoid it. Most of my orders for personal use comes off the west coast by 2nd day air. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, June 16, 2005 7:10 PM my un-educated opinion would be along the lines of what highiron said. not much is stored and/or warehoused these days. it's all distribution centers ship it in, sort it and ship it out. everything is so fast paced because the inventory isn't there anymore. go to your local car dealership and try to get anything other than an oil filter..."uhh, yea we'll have that UPS'ed to you in 2 days" it's all just fast paced nowadays. the boat goes as fast as it can, the unloading/loading goes as fast as it can so why not run the train to what its capable of? Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, June 16, 2005 9:18 PM Gabe, Congrats on another excellent topic. Greyhounds pretty much nails it, but your focus should be on equipment inventory costs as well. For cross country traffic, the difference between 40 mph and 60 mph is at least one day. If it takes 10 days round trip at the faster max speed vs 12 days round trip at the slower max speed, then the faster speed results in 5 extra revenue trips per year. Those 5 extra trips can mean you pay off your equipment rents a lot sooner, so you're more likely to achieve profitability sooner. Unfortunately, for many other commodities, this idea of "warehousing in transit" has infected the supply chain, and it has introduced a sort of backhanded inefficiency. Yes, warehousing is an expense that one tries to minimize as much as possible, but if warehousing must take place, it is better if it takes place in an actual warehouse than in transit. One giant 400,000 square foot building is more efficient for warehousing than 100 4,000 square foot boxcars or 160 ISO containers. One wonders if this warehousing in transit concept has induced slower transit speeds. Remember the posts regarding the car of lumber that gets shuttled around the country here and there as the forwarders play pattycakes with their customers? Who's paying the costs of this more expensive form of warehousing? Ultimately, it is all of us, as such represents a loss of productivity. You also should not discount speds analysis. If you've already paid for an item, do you want it sooner or later? A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, or so the saying goes. It has been noted in other posts (by yours truly) that trucks of all types travel at the same speed on the nation's highways (outside of mountain grades), irregardless of the commodity being transported. A truckload of gravel travels the same 60, 65, or 70 mph speed limit as the truckload of perishables. Why are the railroads so invested in this idea that only the varnish goes the highest allowable speed, while the mixed freight or the unit train of aggregates must clog up the mainline at half that speed? Fuel efficiency is not the answer. The savings on fuel costs by travelling slower are outweighed by the combination of the equipment's revenue utilization and the axiom of doing your best to placate the customer (by getting his goods to him in the most expedient manner). Or to put it another way, you cannot conserve your way to an increased customer base. Reply Edit Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Thursday, June 16, 2005 11:08 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan Probably because it takes so darn long to get everything ready at the port, sooner the better for an inbound to get there so they can get all the cards on the table. If the ports could get more docks and workers to sort out the containers, speedy container trains would make more sense. Even if they could get the container from the vessel to the train instantaneously, I don't think my premise would change. The ocean liner does, at best 15 knots, over an incredible vast distance and sometimes have to wait outside the port for a bearth for a very long time. 5-7 hours compared to this time is NOTHING. Gabe Don't the container ships run on schedules? Andrew Reply 1234 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » 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 More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan Probably because it takes so darn long to get everything ready at the port, sooner the better for an inbound to get there so they can get all the cards on the table. If the ports could get more docks and workers to sort out the containers, speedy container trains would make more sense. Even if they could get the container from the vessel to the train instantaneously, I don't think my premise would change. The ocean liner does, at best 15 knots, over an incredible vast distance and sometimes have to wait outside the port for a bearth for a very long time. 5-7 hours compared to this time is NOTHING. Gabe
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.