New cross country perishable train

[chad thomas]

Ed, They have addressed this issue. Re-read the second paragraph:

The unit trains will feature 64-foot refrigerated box cars, each designed to move perishables — including apples, pears, onions and potatoes — equal to four truckloads. The cars are equipped with enhanced insulation, energy-efficient cooling systems and Global Positioning System monitoring to control temperature

Of course there is not much they can do if the refer goes out in the middle of nowhere, but at least they will know when it does.

[TrainFreak409]

The creation of this train will certainly be interesting. I hope it does well, but if not, no skin off my nose.[:p]

[Anonymous]

Why does the UP Asst VP talk about offering an alternative to over-the-road? Does the service provide better over-all service/price to the customers or not? Why offer it if it doesn't?

[edbenton]

QUOTE: Originally posted by chad thomas

Ed, They have addressed this issue. Re-read the second paragraph:

The unit trains will feature 64-foot refrigerated box cars, each designed to move perishables — including apples, pears, onions and potatoes — equal to four truckloads. The cars are equipped with enhanced insulation, energy-efficient cooling systems and Global Positioning System monitoring to control temperature

Of course there is not much they can do if the refer goes out in the middle of nowhere, but at least they will know when it does.

Yes they may be using a new unit with all of the state of the art technology in the cars, but the fact is that the tracks are a heck of a long way away from the nearest reefer unit dealer for service and so the RR is looking at a lot of service calls to get the repairs done and service calls are not cheap last time I had one it was 85 bucks an hour plus mileage for the mechanic to come out.

[chad thomas]

I don't dissagree with you Ed, I was just pointing out that they were addressing the issue. I guess they better get reliable refer units and keep up on the preventative maintainance.

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edbenton

Another probelm with hauling produce of any kind on a train is if that reefer unit on the car goes down there is no way of knowing about it till the next inspection point. 100 tons of pears is roughly 150-200 thousand in cost to the railroad. and pears are a hardy produce they ake alot of abuse. Cherries apricots and strawberries look at them wrong and they go bad. A trucked load of produce has an advantage if something does happen to the reefer unit a driver is going to know about it right away. I pulled reefer and when you are hauling produce and all of a sudden the unit stops during the middle of the night you are out of bed and seeing what ahappened to the unit.

So absically it is going to be have a unti that gets checked during a 1000 mile inspection or having someone in the cab keeping an eye on it 5 days plus or 4 days delevery. I say this new service will not last to long sooner or later the profit margin will be to low for even CSX to want to run it.

Ed,

The railroads can, and do, haul perishable freight successfuly and profitably. When I was with ICG marketing I got Chiquita bananas back on the rail. We also handled meat out of Sioux City. The best current examples are the Tropicana shipments of orange juice out of Florida.

And it gets easier as technology improves. The reefer units and temperatures can be monitored remotely. The railroads employ people who can repair malfunctioning units. If there's a problem just call the guy out and pay the overtime. They've projected a failure rate for the refrigeration systems and included the costs of repeairs and freight damange claims in their business plan.

This freight largely, but never entirely, left the railroads. It left because Federal economic regulaiton of freight rates on these commodities (ag products) applied to railroads but not to truckers. Rail rates were fixed. Truck rates moved with supply and demand. The railroads had to sell below market in times of peak seasonal demand. The truckers could raise their rates and put money in the bank. In times of slack demand the truckers undercut the rail rates and kept their equipment in operation. The rail cars sat idle.

Eventually, the railroads pretty much gave up. They lost the expertise needed to move these commodities - once you do that, it's hard to get back in the business.

I'm glad to see they're trying.

Ken

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: From FM

but for some reason BNSF has an aversion to making money from bi-modal innovation. I know this from personal experience. Perhaps they were afraid that the RoadRailer operations might be too successful, causing a supply chain shift away from newly ordered boxcars and well cars. Hmmmm, it is interesting to note that a truly integrated transportation company would never behave thus, but unfortunately for the USA our rail system is closed access, and such irrational behaviour is the result. But I am open for other excuses besides tried and true monopolists theory.

This just doesn't make sense.

If the BNSF was "adverse" to making money using bi-modal equipment:

1) Why did they invest heavily in refrigerated RoadRailers and start the Ice Cold Express

2) Why do they operate a Tripple Crown RoadRailer train between Kansas City and Dallas/Ft. Worth

The fact is, they aren't. If they could make money running an all-Pullman streamliner between Chicago and Los Angeles, they'd do it. (Although the Government would probably get in the way there.) If they could have made money running the Swift trains, those trains would still operate.

They're in business to make money, however they legally can. They're not going to turn down profits. If a corporate honcho did that, he/she would be in big legal trouble. Corporations (including railroads) aren't run on whims. They don't get everything right, but they make reasoned decisons. Now sometimes their reasoning is wrong - but then our (you and me) reasoning is sometimes wrong.

Ken

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds

QUOTE: From FM

but for some reason BNSF has an aversion to making money from bi-modal innovation. I know this from personal experience. Perhaps they were afraid that the RoadRailer operations might be too successful, causing a supply chain shift away from newly ordered boxcars and well cars. Hmmmm, it is interesting to note that a truly integrated transportation company would never behave thus, but unfortunately for the USA our rail system is closed access, and such irrational behaviour is the result. But I am open for other excuses besides tried and true monopolists theory.

This just doesn't make sense.

If the BNSF was "adverse" to making money using bi-modal equipment:

1) Why did they invest heavily in refrigerated RoadRailers and start the Ice Cold Express

2) Why do they operate a Tripple Crown RoadRailer train between Kansas City and Dallas/Ft. Worth

The fact is, they aren't. If they could make money running an all-Pullman streamliner between Chicago and Los Angeles, they'd do it. (Although the Government would probably get in the way there.) If they could have made money running the Swift trains, those trains would still operate.

They're in business to make money, however they legally can. They're not going to turn down profits. If a corporate honcho did that, he/she would be in big legal trouble. Corporations (including railroads) aren't run on whims. They don't get everything right, but they make reasoned decisons. Now sometimes their reasoning is wrong - but then our (you and me) reasoning is sometimes wrong.

Ken

Ken,

You're right, it doesn't make sense, but there it is as plain as day. I spoke with a Swift rep a while back about BNSF pulling the rug from the I-5 RoadRailer service, and his opinion was that both BNSF and Swift profited from the service, but for some reason that has never been explained BNSF management suddenly turned cold to bi-modal. Speaking of investment, not only did BNSF shortchange their own investment in the service, they also hurt Swift's investment in the project as well, and basically left Swift holding the bag. Perhaps that was BNSF's strategy all along - sucker the "enemy" into an ostensible partnership, then yank the rug out from under them after the check clears. At least that explanation is as good as any other. If I heard the rep correctly, Swift has vowed never again to waste time trying to work with the UP/BNSF duopoly on new concepts.

The impression I got is that Swift dearly wishes it could run it's own trains without having to deal with the railroads.

[ericsp]

Ed Benton, the reefers are inspected and the refrigeration units tested before each trip.

Greyhounds, are you sure the Tropicana train is the best example? I would think the Express Lane Service would be a better one.

Futuremodal, did you ever talk to BNSF to get their side of the story regarding Swift?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ericsp


Futuremodal, did you ever talk to BNSF to get their side of the story regarding Swift?

No. Do ya think they'd spill their guts to little ol' me?

What stands out is this - BNSF went into this arrangement beforehand with their numbers intact, and one can assume that they showed enough of a profit to jump into the action, else they wouldn't have ventured thus in the first place. I doubt they went into this with the thought of making it a loss leader for it's first few years, because there's just no end game for the tactic in that market. Either you're making money running bi-modal, or the customer goes back to the highways or TOFC/COFC (in this case Swift went back to the highways, although I expect some of that traffic must have gone onto TOFC/COFC consists).

All I have gotten from this episode is this:

1. Both Swift and BNSF invested in this operation.
2. Both Swift and BNSF ran their numbers, else one of the parties would have opted out beforehand.
3. BNSF got cold feet in a relatively short amount of time, certainly not enough time to analyze the project's growth potential.
4. Both BNSF and Swift ended up eating a loss on the initial investment because of BNSF's untimely pull out.
5. Since this is partnership was in the public eye, you can bet Swift and the rest of the trucking industry will think twice when approached by one of the railroads for another "partnership".

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Greyhounds,

The statement that "bi-modal technology has failed again and again" is a bit presumptuous, given that the technology is still being tried out on a basis of slothful attrition by the railroads. We know that the modal transfer times using bi-modal are exceptional, in some cases saving days over pallet transfer. Bi-modal reefer trailers have more capacity than reefer containers, so it even beats COFC.

Frankly, given what we see in the success of Triple Crown vs the other operations, it is apparent that only by the prime directive of a trucking firm will bi-modal get a fair chance at success. Conversely, if we leave it to the railroads, they will surely find a way to turn lemonade into lemons and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

This is from an unpublished writing by me. It's evident that it was written a while ago.

"The BNSF just recently suspended operation of its “Ice Cold Express” RoadRailer
trains. The elimination of these trains, which operated between Los Angeles and Chicago, is disturbing for two reasons.

First, they were targeted on the California produce transportation market. This
market is huge, long haul, and predominately moves via motor freight. California produces about one half the fresh fruits and vegetables consumed in North America. This equates to around 500,000 refrigerated tractor-trailers leaving California each year.

Most of these trucks are on long haul runs to eastern population centers. These truckers don’t return to California empty, they maximize their revenue by getting “backhaul loads” from those eastern cities to California. That makes the total market, including backhauls, 1,000,000 long haul loads per year.

The railroads successfully handled this business for years, but were driven out in
large part by Federal rate regulation. For the DECADES since, the railroads have
generally conceded this long haul business to the truckers.

The now defunct Ice Cold Express was a strong attempt by the BNSF to get more
of this business back on the rails where it belongs. It’s sad to see such a false start in such a worthy, important effort.

Secondly, this is yet another setback for RoadRailer. For a while, it looked as if the
Ice Cold Express might have ben RoadRailer’s big break through. A major railroad had made a major investment in refrigerated RoadRailer equipment for the first time. Two intermodal marketing companies, Alliance Shippers and Clipper Exxpress, also joined the operation.

These companies also made substantial investments in the service by purchasing their own equipment to operate in the trains. The CN established a connecting RoadRailer Service to Toronto and Montreal. These cities are both major markets for California produce. CSX established its own connecting service to the US east coast. It looked as if RoadRailer might be finally on its way.

Then things began to fall apart. First, the CSX and CN connecting services at
Chicago were shut down. Now the Ice Cold Express no itself longer operates.

Just what the Hell went wrong? Why did the Ice Cold Express join the ranks of
other failed RoadRailer operations?"


This service wasn't marketed by the BNSF. It was marketed by Mark VII Transportation, an outfit owned by R.C. Mateny. R.C. had started National Piggyback Services. This was an intermodal marketing company with a strong presence in the perishable market.

When American President Lines needed to establish a domestic intermodal network to compliment their international stack train operations, they bought R.C. out and National Pig became APL Domestic and now Pacer Stack Train.

R.C. aparently got tired of playing golf every day and started Mark VII. BNSF went to him to market their Ice Cold Express RoadRailer service. And even he couldn't make it work.

The Ice Cold joined other failed RoadRailer ops on the CN, UP, CSX, etc. Even Swift Transportation, a very successful trucker couldn't make it work on the West Coast.

Tripple Crown has gone basically nowhere in 20 years. Yes, I know, they've got a relatively new run up to Minneapolis. Big Deal. They're basically where they were 20 years ago.

It ain't workin'. It could work in some places. But that Washington fruit, onions and potatoes will move just fine in refrigerated boxcars.

Ken

Nice article. Could be published if you include a few observations that were left out, such as the fact that it was BNSF that yanked all bi-modal service, not Swift or RC. If you remember correctly, when it came time to renegotiate the Swift RoadRailer agreement, BNSF suddenly jacked up the rate, so high that it then became cheaper for Swift to take these trailers over the road. We all know that both BNSF and Swift profited from the RoadRailer operation, but for some reason BNSF has an aversion to making money from bi-modal innovation. I know this from personal experience. Perhaps they were afraid that the RoadRailer operations might be too successful, causing a supply chain shift away from newly ordered boxcars and well cars. Hmmmm, it is interesting to note that a truly integrated transportation company would never behave thus, but unfortunately for the USA our rail system is closed access, and such irrational behaviour is the result. But I am open for other excuses besides tried and true monopolists theory.

Question: Is there anyone out there who thinks that box of cherries is going to get from the orchard to NYC just as fast as the over the road truckers, or at the same cost to the grower/marketer? Don't forget, there are plenty of storage facilities already in place, so why would the growers want to yank their investments there and commit to a centralized rail distribution center? They will still need truckers to take the fruit from one facility to the new facility, transload the pallets into the faciltiy, then reload the pallets onto the fridge cars, mosey along to NYC in 5 days, where the process will have to be reversed, then mosey on back to Washington State. By that time, the over the road truckers will have handled two cross country trips between existing facilities, probably with backhaul to boot, which totally negates rail's efficiency advantage since the truckers will have hauled just as much freight in that time period as the rail cars.

Anyone with any brains can see that this situation was made for bi-modal. The facilities are already in place, and all we need is two terminal sidings for the modal transfer. Under open access any number of 3PI's would jump at the chance if they had fee simple right of access to use the rails, and the net result is a more efficient expenditure of capital. Unfortunately, we all have to deal with the royal idiots of the current rail oligarchy, who even with monopolistic pricing still can't cover their ROI targets.

In response to the "cherry picker" comments, who is obviously in the trucking industry; let me see if I can give you a different perspective on the "womb to tomb" scenario. If the farmer in Washington State harvests his cherries and puts his 3 month window into his state-of-the-art coolers and then has his salesmen pound the phone for over the road truckers as in the past but most recently to no avail, those cherries just "hand around the coolers with no where to go for up to 7-10 days at times, depending on whether or not the reliable trucking industry feels like working their way up from Cal where the supply is better and less driving. Now 5 days go by and low and behold, here comes a 48 footer with an attitude!! He loads his truck with those beautiful bings, load locks himself in, and off to Boston he goes. He checks his unit and its 90 degrees outside but its a cool 36 degrees in his trailer. He goes down the road and has 5 days till his delivery. More chances than not the driver is getting 5-6 grand for the trip so on the second day he says what the f... and desides to go to his favorite truck-stop and cop some crystal meth!! Any trucker with any brains knows he can make the trip in 4 days so WHY NOT HAVE A LITTLE FUN! Couple of white-trash rest area "hoes" glass pipe and who needs to call in!!!! Meanwhile the cherries inside ain't feeling so good because the unit tripped and now the temperatures a rising faster than the blood pressure of our "California turn-around" driver. We all know the story from here. Driver misses delivery, brings unit back down to temp first, loses the temp recorder, retailer rejects load, and rather than transload through a temp controlled rail center and inspect and deliver cherries through a destination point on the eastern seaboard for "just in time delivery" you are telling me that we should rely on the present "highly efficient" trucking inddustry that takes up 90 percent of the day, looking for these past heroes of the highway. Good for the railroad for showing some steel!!! I'd rather be on a GPS refrig train the first day out of a cooler than a truck attitude the 7th day out of the same cooler, without the glass pipe!!!!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Mallman64

In response to the "cherry picker" comments, who is obviously in the trucking industry; let me see if I can give you a different perspective on the "womb to tomb" scenario. If the farmer in Washington State harvests his cherries and puts his 3 month window into his state-of-the-art coolers and then has his salesmen pound the phone for over the road truckers as in the past but most recently to no avail, those cherries just "hand around the coolers with no where to go for up to 7-10 days at times, depending on whether or not the reliable trucking industry feels like working their way up from Cal where the supply is better and less driving. Now 5 days go by and low and behold, here comes a 48 footer with an attitude!! He loads his truck with those beautiful bings, load locks himself in, and off to Boston he goes. He checks his unit and its 90 degrees outside but its a cool 36 degrees in his trailer. He goes down the road and has 5 days till his delivery. More chances than not the driver is getting 5-6 grand for the trip so on the second day he says what the f... and desides to go to his favorite truck-stop and cop some crystal meth!! Any trucker with any brains knows he can make the trip in 4 days so WHY NOT HAVE A LITTLE FUN! Couple of white-trash rest area "hoes" glass pipe and who needs to call in!!!! Meanwhile the cherries inside ain't feeling so good because the unit tripped and now the temperatures a rising faster than the blood pressure of our "California turn-around" driver. We all know the story from here. Driver misses delivery, brings unit back down to temp first, loses the temp recorder, retailer rejects load, and rather than transload through a temp controlled rail center and inspect and deliver cherries through a destination point on the eastern seaboard for "just in time delivery" you are telling me that we should rely on the present "highly efficient" trucking inddustry that takes up 90 percent of the day, looking for these past heroes of the highway. Good for the railroad for showing some steel!!! I'd rather be on a GPS refrig train the first day out of a cooler than a truck attitude the 7th day out of the same cooler, without the glass pipe!!!!

All I can say is [wow], do you truly believe even 10% of truckers would be acting this way? I don't. I am not pro-truck, but please don't insult me with that. After about the 10th load lost, he wouldn't have enough money to pay his bank note, or if employed OTR driver, I would bet he would be working or hanging at Labor Ready ® for a job.

Nice story but trucks are going strong, they do ahve a purpose. Reading the Trains article back last year about SP and the lettuce runs, SP also was to blame, union attitudes about quit time, wouldn't load trailers on the ramp, reducing crews in the area, pulling infastructure, they also are to blame for growers being a little chilled to the whole RR idea. At least that was my take.

• Reply
• Edit