Triple Crown...still with long string of trailers...

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

A coach I knew once opined: "Develop to your strengths to avoid exposing your weaknesses". Triple Crown has obviously done this in its traffic solicitations and route network. Whether it would work elsewhere remains to be determined since TC is not going to willingly expose its weaknesses.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173
It is a amazing that NS has made this work. To me it must be a very low margin operation.

Compared to what? TOFC? COFC?

All intermodal is low margin.

Nonsense. Re-read the NS article in last month's Trains. Particularly what Don Seale (SVP Mktg) has to say about Intermodal profitability.

You're talking about the October 2005 issue, right? I re-read the article twice and could not even find the name Don Seale. What is in there is this: There is a quote from Vice Chairman and CFO Hank Wolfe stating "Intermodal earns it's cost of capital - that's my feeling." (Italics mine) He goes on to state how the OR has gone down 5 points with 70% of the increased carloads being intermodal. Not to be too cynical, but that sounds more like a PR Newswire-type statement than a statement of transparent accountability.

What is also mentioned is that the Triple Crown operations are positioned in lanes mostly void of COFC and TOFC, e.g. the bi-modal operations are not allowed to compete head to head with the other intermodal traffic, so it's hard get a first hand accounting of how and if bi-modal might be superior to COFC and TOFC. One has to wonder what would accrue if bi-modal operations were allowed in all the viable intermodal lanes. Could it spell doom for traditional COFC and TOFC? Is that why NS's Intermodal honchos keep the RoadRailers out of other logical bi-modal lanes?

It is also mentioned that Triple Crown is growing faster than NS's other intermodal business, and is limited "only by the number of RoadRailers we own." Seems like yet another case of a rail company short selling itself for the sake of outdated tradition. If the bi-modal business has greater growth potential than the COFC and TOFC business, why wouldn't the company exploit that potential to maximize revenues to it's stockholders?

My bad. It was the Wolfe quote I was thinking of.

As for your last question, you can be sure that is exactly the kind of discussions that take place. It's a "bird in hand vs. two in the bush" situation, perhaps.

[Modelcar]

UPTRAIN...Yes, those 140 cars would make a "train" roughly 1.3 miles in length....And standing rather close and counting them one realizes it is a long one.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Then you will come to grasp the reality of what truckers would do if only they could independently access the property.

LOL

[UPTRAIN]

I don't live anywhere near a Roadrailer route that I know of, Amtrak used to be, that sure made the back end of the Texas Eagle interesting for a few years. I remember when I was about 6 and we paced an NS TC train in Illinois for about 30 minutes at 60 mph, that was cool. I've never seen one that long as described above. Yes, I have seen several trailers on the highway, some still bearing the Conrail logo (yay)!

[rrnut282]

What do you mean TC doesn't run head to head with regular TOFC? TC train 264 runs from Atlant to Chicago, as does TOFC train 216. TC 261/267 covers Allentown (with highway service to NYC) to ST Louis, the same as TOFC trains 21T and 21A.

Let's not forget that TC is a wholly owned subsidiary of NS. TC handles all the "back office" and logistics to get the trailer to the rail terminal and "buys" expedited transportation from NS. They are the fastest trains on the line (restricted to 60 mph most places) and often overtake trains going in the same direction. Some of the older dispatchers liked to call them road rockets.

Autoparts may be TC's bread and butter, but they haul a lot of other stuff as well. At one time one eastbound out of St Louis hauled mostly beer for east coast markets.

Triple Crown succeeds because they want to and work hard to make it succeed. They provide a service that just happens to have a large rail component

[Anonymous]

The article also states that NS has in some cases arranged for boxes to be loaded directly onto railcars from the containership. It does not elaborate, so we can only make educated guesses regarding whether they are loading the containers as they come off the ship onto spine cars (less likely), or the containers have been positioned on the ship at the port of origin in such a way that allows for logical loading of weighted containers in the bottom of a double stack well and lighter containers at the top (more likely). If it is the latter, then it is likely this type of ship loading is very specialized, and not something that can be expanded to all container unloading needs.

Since TC has tested out the RailRunner COBMC (Container On Bi-Modal Chassis) technology, it does suggest that the direct loading from ship to train would work great for the RailRunner system. NS could have trains of pre-connected RailRunner chassis simply glide into place dockside, and the containership company wouldn't have to worry about specialized preloading of containers. They could simply take the containers as they come off the ship, position them onto the RailRunner chassis, and off TC goes, no need for drayage, no need for shipboard specialized pre-positioning, and if there is multiple dock-side track, TC can have multiple RailRunner consists ready and waiting.

[Anonymous]

They would operate definately, whether they own or lease all depends niche contractors, and this comes from conversations with trucking representatives.

For you see, the trucking companies just want to get the truckload from point A to point B as quickly and inexpensively as possible. They're not hung up on traditions borne of buggy whip technologies, and they are extremely service oriented toward their customers. They have to be, they are in a very competitive market. Right now they use rail intermodal as it is offered by the railroad companies, not as they would utilize rail if they could call the shots. Double stack may be "efficient" for the railroad companies to move boxes from Terminal A to Terminal B, but it is not necessarily the most cost or service efficient way to move a boxload from Dock A to Dock B. TOFC may involve equipment that is more acceptable to traditional railroad practice, but it is extremely anachronistic compared to bi-modal.

[jeaton]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

As usual, both jeaton and greyhounds miss the point: The statement is that IF truckers could run their own trains they'd probably go bi-modal. Of course, under the closed access system they can't, so any evidence presented to the contrary does not invalidate the what-if statement, rather it reafirms the reality of what the current restricted situation will allow.

You play the hand what's dealt ya (and hope for a better deal for the next ante).

And your evidence that "IF" they could, truckers would jump at the chance to own and operate their own trains comes from where?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE:

What is also mentioned is that the Triple Crown operations are positioned in lanes mostly void of COFC and TOFC, e.g. the bi-modal operations are not allowed to compete head to head with the other intermodal traffic, so it's hard get a first hand accounting of how and if bi-modal might be superior to COFC and TOFC. One has to wonder what would accrue if bi-modal operations were allowed in all the viable intermodal lanes. Could it spell doom for traditional COFC and TOFC? Is that why NS's Intermodal honchos keep the RoadRailers out of other logical bi-modal lanes?

It is also mentioned that Triple Crown is growing faster than NS's other intermodal business, and is limited "only by the number of RoadRailers we own." Seems like yet another case of a rail company short selling itself for the sake of outdated tradition. If the bi-modal business has greater growth potential than the COFC and TOFC business, why wouldn't the company exploit that potential to maximize revenues to it's stockholders?

Interesting observation and ponderance..

My own best guess is that TC succeeds because it is managed in such a way that it doesn't go head to head with "modes" that offer stiff competition.

Protecting it from "dog eat dog" competition, or, to borrow a concept from baseball, "platooning" it the way you might a particular batter so that he only faces the kind of pitchers he handles well.

Just a thought.

My opinion, but I don't really think it is "truckers" per se that NS is going after with it's TC operations.

The net effect is that it gets trucks off the highways, that's the side of it that we see. But My guess is that NS has really just taken a look at the types of freight that historically has had to be trucked between origin and railhead or between railhead and destinarion, and cut the truckers out of that loop. A nd dome so in such a way as to make handling the transitions between modes, more cost effective.

Plus, once a shippers goods are on a TC trailer, well you know that CSX isn't going to cut into that revenue stream against you.

I think TC is more of a component in a growth strategy than it is an end all by itself

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173
It is a amazing that NS has made this work. To me it must be a very low margin operation.

Compared to what? TOFC? COFC?

All intermodal is low margin.

Nonsense. Re-read the NS article in last month's Trains. Particularly what Don Seale (SVP Mktg) has to say about Intermodal profitability.

You're talking about the October 2005 issue, right? I re-read the article twice and could not even find the name Don Seale. What is in there is this: There is a quote from Vice Chairman and CFO Hank Wolfe stating "Intermodal earns it's cost of capital - that's my feeling." (Italics mine) He goes on to state how the OR has gone down 5 points with 70% of the increased carloads being intermodal. Not to be too cynical, but that sounds more like a PR Newswire-type statement than a statement of transparent accountability.

What is also mentioned is that the Triple Crown operations are positioned in lanes mostly void of COFC and TOFC, e.g. the bi-modal operations are not allowed to compete head to head with the other intermodal traffic, so it's hard get a first hand accounting of how and if bi-modal might be superior to COFC and TOFC. One has to wonder what would accrue if bi-modal operations were allowed in all the viable intermodal lanes. Could it spell doom for traditional COFC and TOFC? Is that why NS's Intermodal honchos keep the RoadRailers out of other logical bi-modal lanes?

It is also mentioned that Triple Crown is growing faster than NS's other intermodal business, and is limited "only by the number of RoadRailers we own." Seems like yet another case of a rail company short selling itself for the sake of outdated tradition. If the bi-modal business has greater growth potential than the COFC and TOFC business, why wouldn't the company exploit that potential to maximize revenues to it's stockholders?

[Anonymous]

I live in Langhorne PA and the NS Morrisville line runs right behind my house. I do not see Roadrailers but a lot of other intermodal souch as double stack. I do see a lot of Triple Crown trailers on the road. I wonder why they do not run on the Morrisville line?

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173
It is a amazing that NS has made this work. To me it must be a very low margin operation.

Compared to what? TOFC? COFC?

All intermodal is low margin.

Nonsense. Re-read the NS article in last month's Trains. Particularly what Don Seale (SVP Mktg) has to say about Intermodal profitability.

[MP173]

I have said it before and will repeat it. I believe owners of trucking companies are some of the best businessmen out there. Not all of them, but the good ones are in a high class.

It is a rough environment. But, they do well in their field. They are very capable of maximizing margins in a very thin operating environment.

The fact that they dont want any part of railroading doesnt surprize me. Completely different environment. Trucking has options for movement of freight, with multiple routings. Also pretty standard equipment.

Hunt, Schneider, et al have pretty much maximized their leverage with the rails by combining the best of both worlds. It must be working as the numbers of their trailers/containers seems to keep growing.

ed

[Anonymous]

As usual, both jeaton and greyhounds miss the point: The statement is that IF truckers could run their own trains they'd probably go bi-modal. Of course, under the closed access system they can't, so any evidence presented to the contrary does not invalidate the what-if statement, rather it reafirms the reality of what the current restricted situation will allow.

You play the hand what's dealt ya (and hope for a better deal for the next ante).

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

You need to pull your head out of your FRED and talk to a trucker once in a while. Then you will come to grasp the reality of what truckers would do if only they could independently access the property. Here's a set of clues: They wouldn't touch a boxcar, they'd rather you didn't try to lift their trailers with one of those oversized forklifts, and if it came to choosing between using a dry van or a domestic container the dry van would win out every single time.

But of course, they're not "professional" railroaders like you.

Well, the truckers do have a choice and they sure do use a lot of containers. JB can ship a dry van trailer OR a container and they CHOOSE the container a lot.

Swift just bought a bunch of containers - and they could ship in their trailers just as well, so what are you talking about? The railroad does offer a lower rate on containers - containers generally cost less to move long distances - maybe that's the "choice" the truckers make.

The point is that the truckers do have a choice and often choose containers.

I've also had some experience with truckers trying to railroad. They get lost. It's a whole different situation. The costs pile up differently as in the ratio of fixed to variable costs. We brought in a bunch of truckers from Spector Motor Freight at the ICG and by God they were lost.

They tried to bluff their way through. They'd lie. For example, on an intermodal move from Mississippi to Wisconsin where we did the trucking on each end of the rail line haul their party line was that we made money on the trucking and lost money on the rail move.

This was what they'd resort to. We charged one through rate on the move. If they allocated on paper enough revenue to the trucking operation they could make it look good. It didn't mean anything, except it supported their line of bull.

If you called 'em on it they got mad at you. They couldn't do anything else, logic and reason were not on their side.

I'm not saying trucking management is inadequate, I'm saying that trucking and railroading are two vastly different situations and no one can just flip between the two.

[MP173]

There seems to be a line drawn in which most transportation companies dont cross.

The truckers dont want to rail and the rails (other than NS) dont want to truck. Even the best transportation company out there (UPS) leaves the railroading to them. When I see UPS or FEDex making a capital investment in a railroad, then it will send a big signal.

Other than NS with TC and UP involvement into OVNT, which didnt really pan out the rails have not really gotten involved with trucking. Sure, back in the 60's and 70's the railroads had their motor carrier subsidies, but I am not sure tha owning a railroad with large investment and low return is desirable at this time.

ed

[jeaton]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
It is my contention that OA or some variation thereof would result in greater utilization of bi-modal concepts.

You can contend from now until the ice caps melt and refreeze, but you are still wrong.

You need to pull your head out of your FRED and talk to a trucker once in a while. Then you will come to grasp the reality of what truckers would do if only they could independently access the property. Here's a set of clues: They wouldn't touch a boxcar, they'd rather you didn't try to lift their trailers with one of those oversized forklifts, and if it came to choosing between using a dry van or a domestic container the dry van would win out every single time.

But of course, they're not "professional" railroaders like you.

Here is a bulletin for you. I talked to truckers for many years and also ran a trucking operation myself. I have also known truckers who came into the railroad business with the idea that the railroad could do business just the same way truckers do and could therefore capture huge chunks of business. Didn't work.

I have yet to ever hear of a trucker or a third party intermodal service provider even hint that they were interested in buying locomotieves and cars and hiring crews to run "their" trains. Just like railroaders, truckers are not dumber than you are.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
It is my contention that OA or some variation thereof would result in greater utilization of bi-modal concepts.

You can contend from now until the ice caps melt and refreeze, but you are still wrong.

You need to pull your head out of your FRED and talk to a trucker once in a while. Then you will come to grasp the reality of what truckers would do if only they could independently access the property. Here's a set of clues: They wouldn't touch a boxcar, they'd rather you didn't try to lift their trailers with one of those oversized forklifts, and if it came to choosing between using a dry van or a domestic container the dry van would win out every single time.

But of course, they're not "professional" railroaders like you.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173


D. Not the best of sorting facility (Ft Wayne) from the earlier posts on this forum and the Terra Server shots.

Others tried, only one has succeeded.

ed

To their credit, they do make great use of what they have, and in terms of yard and depot area, they have plenty.

Piqua is by no means a size constraint.

It's just that orientation.

And even then, it probably works adequate most of the time. But, when everybody shows up at once, it does look like a mess.

The limiting factor seems to be a lack of flexibility.

[jeaton]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
It is my contention that OA or some variation thereof would result in greater utilization of bi-modal concepts.

You can contend from now until the ice caps melt and refreeze, but you are still wrong.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173

Yes, it is all low margin, but for the railroad to
A. Invest in equipment that only works in one application.

For the railroad it is only one application, but for the comprehensive transportation company it had multiple applications. Truck trailers are the most versatile pieces of transportation equipment out there.

QUOTE:
B. Control all aspects of the transportation from pickup/line haul/delivery and to have the infrastructure in place not only for the rail movements but also the truck movements.

Again, for railroads it is (insert voice of talking Barbie doll here) "so haaard", but for a multimodal transportation company it is all in a day's work.

QUOTE:
C. Have the model work on primarily short hauls with both drayages to be paid.

All rail sponsored truck hauls (COFC, TOFC, or bi-modal) will require drayage between terminal and dock.

QUOTE:
D. Not the best of sorting facility (Ft Wayne) from the earlier posts on this forum and the Terra Server shots.

Others tried, only one has succeeded.

So far. It begs reference to the hypothetical of trucking and intermodal companies being able to run their own trains vs having to contract with the owning railroad. It is my contention that OA or some variation thereof would result in greater utilization of bi-modal concepts.

[Anonymous]

Are roadrailers still being used in Europe? I remember seeing photos of them over there.

I think TC has worked because it's actually a trucking company that uses rail that thinks like a trucking company. I remember the CEO saying that when trainloads are over 100 trailers, it becomes very profitable.

[Anonymous]

I live 2 blocks from the BNSF north south line out of denver colorado i see at least 1 cofc only train a day out of 8 to 12 trains a day glennbob

[MP173]

Yes, it is all low margin, but for the railroad to
A. Invest in equipment that only works in one application.
B. Control all aspects of the transportation from pickup/line haul/delivery and to have the infrastructure in place not only for the rail movements but also the truck movements.
C. Have the model work on primarily short hauls with both drayages to be paid.
D. Not the best of sorting facility (Ft Wayne) from the earlier posts on this forum and the Terra Server shots.

Others tried, only one has succeeded.

ed

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173
It is a amazing that NS has made this work. To me it must be a very low margin operation.

Compared to what? TOFC? COFC?

All intermodal is low margin.

[MP173]

I wonder how the Delphi bankruptcy and the Visteon situation is going to affect the TC operations? I wouldnt be surprized if more and more of the auto parts stuff starts coming from Asia.

It is a amazing that NS has made this work. To me it must be a very low margin operation. It would be interesting to know the average length of haul and the rates for their service and compare to truckloads.

ed

[Modelcar]

I'm not here to dispute your word on 53'ers....but I don't believe my perception is off that much to not notice the difference in trailer lengths....What I thought I was seeing was a consist of minority numbers of 53's.....I was up there today at our depot within the past 2 hrs. or so watching for it {the TC train}, to come rolling by south but it did not come...but 2 north bound trains did...A double stack {not all filled with double stacks}, and a local.

[oltmannd]

Yup. I just double checked. Last 48'er was retired 4/1/04