How to Increase Rail Capacity

[greyhounds]

Put the IT guy in charge!

As a guy who makes his living writing computer code, and as a guy who really likes trains, I really like this.

www.microsoft.com/business/peopleready/news/forbes/railroad.mspx

[Anonymous]

Hey hound, The article is in the Febuary 13, 2006 issue of FORBES with Wick Mooreman's picture on the cover. Well written as is most of Forbes' materal. Hopefully we will see more of this kind of coverge in the business press. PL

[solzrules]

That was a great article!

[tree68]

And we trust a technology that has indicators on its equipment for "collisions?"

[swg]

Actually that's the ethernet part of things - the computer communications. The electrical engineering approach to traffic flow is interesting. The idea of grouping cars together as early as possible may seem like a no-brainer, but it takes either a lot of people or the computing capabilities of a single entity (a computer) to be able to quickly sort them out.

The railroads are already using RFID (radio tags) to track cars. How long can it be before they are able to locate the cars instantaneously, in real time?

[Anonymous]

Quotes of interest:

"The ultimate competition, after all, is trucks."

Yep, those trucks were right at the cusp of winning those coal hauling contracts and all that land bridge container business.[;)] (The preceeding smilie is the closest this forum has for representing sarcasm)

The truth is, there is no real compeition for railroads right now. Intramodal competition is confined to limited areas e.g. the Gulf Coast. Obviously, there aren't enough trucks in existence to handle that aforeto mentioned traffic which the article credits for railroads' revival. Until and if the Panama Canal is enlarged to handle the post-Panamax ships, land bridge traffic is safe. And as far as I know, there are no new plans for coal slurry pipelines (the only concievable competition for transporting coal).

"But the long train brought costs of its own. Ten trains would arrive in the span of two hours, then there would be none for eight hours. Locomotives and crews got bunched up in yards when they were needed elsewhere, so the company had to pay for extra crews to move the locomotives around. The longer other railroads' cars were sitting on Norfolk Southern's tracks, the higher the fees charged to those companies. And, of course, the delay might rankle customers whose stuff was sitting on the tracks for an extra day."

Exactly what some of us had been saying for months now. The long train model, while being the bean counter's pet, has flaws that end up hurting the bottom line. Granted, NS hasn't yet endorsed the IT "packet" equivalent of shorter faster trains, but the idea has certainly gotton back on the board.

"A train can carry a ton of goods 202 miles on a gallon of fuel, while a truck can take it only 59 miles."

Using the old numbers shows the writer hasn't kept up with the times.

" Also, railroads don't pay as much fuel tax as trucking companies. Fair enough, since the taxes pay for asphalt."

Hmmmm, that statement is discredited by the following admission:

"Norfolk Southern is spending up to $100 million to upgrade its main route from Norfolk to Columbus, Ohio, where it is building a yard at the old Rickenbacker Air Force Base to offload the double-stacked containers. (The federal highway bill includes an additional $90 million for this project.)"

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

So, what's your point? I see a lot a words but nothing being said.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

So, what's your point? I see a lot a words but nothing being said.

As opposed to saying little and still saying nothing as above?[}:)]

What I am pointing out is the typical regurgitation of rail industry myths....

1. "Trucks are the competition"
2. "Longer train consists are more efficient than shorter train consists"
3. "Trucks don't pay their fair share of highway funds"

....and refuting them....

1. Trucks are not the competition for railroads. Outside of areas with waterways and coastal shipping opportunities, only railroads are the competition for railroads. The writer seems to think that when a trailer or container is taken off a truck and put on a railcar, the truckers are "losing" business to the railroads, when in fact the truckers are getting a net benefit by shipping their trailers and containers by rail instead of hauling them over the highways. If the truckers were losing to the railroads by utilizing TOFC and COFC, JB Hunt et al wouldn't allow a single trailer or domestic container to go by rail. Since TOFC and COFC is a win-win for both railroads and truckers, it is not a competitive arena, it is rather a cooperative arena.

And I'm still waiting to here about those trucking companies bidding for coal hauling contracts out of the PRB!

2. In this the writer and NS have got it right. Longer consists are not the economic panacea *professional* railroaders have extolled for years, rather those longer consists can end up costing the railroads business. Railroads can running shorter, more frequent consists and make better money, all by using the "Information Highway" model. Look for a revival of the shorter faster consist model in the years to come.

3. Not only do trucks pay their fair share of federal highway fees, they apparently are also subsidizing the railroads with their fuel taxes and other fees, as per mention in the article regarding the federal aid for NS's upgrades. You can argue legitimately that truckers don't pay a sufficiently apportioned portion of state and local highway costs, but this is non-sequitor for the railroads vs trucks debate, mostly due to the fact that it is the elective will of state and local highway jurisdictions to use in part property taxes and/or sales taxes and/or bonding to provide those types of road funds. Railroads don't have any redress for local road usage since they don't offer those types of shorthaul services, and indeed are completely dependent on trucks to serve that "last mile" between rail terminal and consumer.

If you ask me (and yes, you didn't, but I'm gonna say it anyway) railroads should also pay the same federal diesel fuel tax as the truckers do, since (a) railroads are increasingly turning to the federal government to provide aid for capacity improvements, and (b) railroad retrenchment has contributed to increased truck usage of those roads in corridors vital to the supply chain.

[Anonymous]

Truckers, buses and motorists do not pay for the full cost of roads. Highways are provided primarily as a subsidised public utility. Railroads are expected to pay the full cost of their infrastructure and pay property taxes to local municpalities which state highway authorities do not do. With respect to fuel taxes there is a problem of perspective. The trucking industry claims that fuel taxes are part of the money that they pay for the road. There is some truth and hence the reduction in fuel taxes for railroads. If one treats fuel taxes as a consumption tax similar to sales tax then there should not be a difference in the tax rates between railroads and trucks. This would mean that if the infrastructure were provided on the same basis to both modes then the mode with the best efficiency would have the lowest costs.
Railroads are also part of the problem since they view infrastructure as their private property, which it is under the current regime. As a result they are often not to cooperative on government supported projects that might impinge upon their ability to control the infrastructure.
Governments could provide major funding for grade separations and crossing protection through the highway fund and both the railroads and the highway user would benefit. You may notice that on interstate and other divided highways that there are usually no grade crossings. If one views a double or triple track railroad as the railway equivalent of the divided highway you will still see grade crossings. This is becuase the needs of railroads have been deemed subservient to the interstate highway system by both the federal and state (and provincial in Canada) governments.
The way to increase capacity is to increase speeds and mutiple track. Speeds can only be increased with shorter trains and increased crossing protection. Look at the maps in Trains comparing multiple track segments in 1950 and 2006. It is a sad state of affairs. Do you think that when gasoline costs 5$/gallon that we will shut down one lane of the interstate if traffic volumes decline? Somehow I don't think so but that is exactly what the rail industry did with government approval in both the US and Canada.

[MP173]

That is a great article.

NS seems to run it's trains on a pretty tight schedule, at least here in my town of Valparaiso, In. I can usually tell when I hear a whistle, which train it is...not always, but probably 75% of the time.

Visual inspections of the trains indicate several things:

1. Often the general freight trains are short. I have seen train 307 with as few as 15 cars between Bellevue, Oh and Chicago.

2. Trains such as 17R, which runs off of the CN (Fond du Lac to Columbus, Oh) are monster trains, often 150 cars and heavy (lots of lumber). At some point CN and NS have to revisit that operation and run 2 trains instead of just one. The train often dies before it reaches Ft. Wayne. It just cant seem to get thru Chicago, no doubt the size of the train restricts it, as there are only a few places it can park, instead of keep moving.

3. NS instituted a rash of new trains last summer/fall. This was probably in response to the Elkhart yard work done and running the data. Trains 17R, 324 and 365 were added. 324 and 365 are Elkhart - Fort Wayne and Fort Wayne to Elkhart trains which run west on the Conrail line to East Chicago then, south to the Nickel Plate line at Osborn (5 miles) and then back east to Fort Wayne. This circulous routing doesnt seem to make sense, but there is not an easy way to go straight. The trains are usually 45 to 70 cars, not huge, but the cars move daily.

4. Their intermodal trains are usually extremely punctual.

5. Those intermodal trains are usually very large, often with 150 to 200 containers or units. Often these trains run in second sections. Their marketing seems to be paying off quite well.

6. The line in quesition is a 60mph railroad, single track CTC handling 30+ trains daily. They are also investing in the line, the tie and surface crews are out in full force.

In case you cannot tell, I think the NS is one heck of a railroad...just from casual observations.

ed

[Anonymous]

It sounds like you keep a close watch over NS's operations in your area. The only point I would like disagree with is that the 60mph railroad is only 60 mph when the train is actually moving at full speed. When you have 150 car trains it takes either a lot of horsepower or time to get the train up to 60mph unless the sidings are more like short sections of double track allowing moving meets. Ultimately the only way to increase capacity is to lay more rail.
I noticed on the Trains map of June 2006 that the Southern Railway appears to be double track all the way from Washington DC to Atlanta GA in 1950 and now it only has short sections of double track. Is that correct or am I misreading the map? Hopefully with the joint venture with KCS there will be growing volume to allow the route to be double tracked again.
I beleive that the railroads need to pick certain key routes and concentrate on them just as BNSF has on the transcon line. Otherwise it is a case of spending too little money to too few areas to make much of a difference.

[MP173]

Good point about the 60mph. We are also very close to the Chicago area...about an hour from their Calumet yard, so things slow down.

Most of their trains are not 150 cars, the 17R seems to be the only monster, tho the intermodals seem to be stretching out in length. Part of the problem is the siding lengths are limited. There is a 10,000 siding, but most are in the 6500 -8000 length. It is a challenge operating this district, but they certainly do a great job at it.

ed

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

So, what's your point? I see a lot a words but nothing being said.

As opposed to saying little and still saying nothing as above?[}:)]

What I am pointing out is the typical regurgitation of rail industry myths....

1. "Trucks are the competition"
2. "Longer train consists are more efficient than shorter train consists"
3. "Trucks don't pay their fair share of highway funds"

....and refuting them....

1. Trucks are not the competition for railroads. Outside of areas with waterways and coastal shipping opportunities, only railroads are the competition for railroads. The writer seems to think that when a trailer or container is taken off a truck and put on a railcar, the truckers are "losing" business to the railroads, when in fact the truckers are getting a net benefit by shipping their trailers and containers by rail instead of hauling them over the highways. If the truckers were losing to the railroads by utilizing TOFC and COFC, JB Hunt et al wouldn't allow a single trailer or domestic container to go by rail. Since TOFC and COFC is a win-win for both railroads and truckers, it is not a competitive arena, it is rather a cooperative arena.

And I'm still waiting to here about those trucking companies bidding for coal hauling contracts out of the PRB!

From the Trains Newswire:

Electric utilities in good shape for summer, says coal experts

WASHINGTON - Electric utilities are in good shape for the upcoming summer months when the demand for electricity is at its highest, and have adequate coal stockpiles that continue to grow, according to the federal government, coal experts, and coal publications, the Association of American Railroads said yesterday.

Last week, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, a branch of the U.S. Department of Energy, released a report stating that “coal stockpiles are well above last year’s levels.

Platt’s Coal Trader, a leading trade publication, reported that “utilities have good stockpile levels of around 30 days,” and noted that many utilities have stopped buying coal on the spot market, due to strong inventory and the drop in natural gas prices.

The AAR said U.S. railroads delivered 72 percent of the coal used by the nation’s coal-fired utility plants in 2005, a record.

End of article.

So, if trucks aren't the competition, maybe you can explain how the other 28% of the coal is getting to the power plants.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

2. In this the writer and NS have got it right. Longer consists are not the economic panacea *professional* railroaders have extolled for years, rather those longer consists can end up costing the railroads business. Railroads can running shorter, more frequent consists and make better money, all by using the "Information Highway" model. Look for a revival of the shorter faster consist model in the years to come.

In selected cases, depending on what's being hauled and where. The fact that a train is shorter does not allow it to run faster on the same section of track, the speed limit is determined by the condition of the track and the train's tons per operable brake. Running shorter consists in heavily traveled corridors will slow things down, due to the spacing required between trains by the signal or traffic control system.

[n012944]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

So, what's your point? I see a lot a words but nothing being said.

As opposed to saying little and still saying nothing as above?[}:)]

What I am pointing out is the typical regurgitation of rail industry myths....

1. "Trucks are the competition"
2. "Longer train consists are more efficient than shorter train consists"
3. "Trucks don't pay their fair share of highway funds"

....and refuting them....

1. Trucks are not the competition for railroads. Outside of areas with waterways and coastal shipping opportunities, only railroads are the competition for railroads. The writer seems to think that when a trailer or container is taken off a truck and put on a railcar, the truckers are "losing" business to the railroads, when in fact the truckers are getting a net benefit by shipping their trailers and containers by rail instead of hauling them over the highways. If the truckers were losing to the railroads by utilizing TOFC and COFC, JB Hunt et al wouldn't allow a single trailer or domestic container to go by rail. Since TOFC and COFC is a win-win for both railroads and truckers, it is not a competitive arena, it is rather a cooperative arena.

And I'm still waiting to here about those trucking companies bidding for coal hauling contracts out of the PRB!

2. In this the writer and NS have got it right. Longer consists are not the economic panacea *professional* railroaders have extolled for years, rather those longer consists can end up costing the railroads business. Railroads can running shorter, more frequent consists and make better money, all by using the "Information Highway" model. Look for a revival of the shorter faster consist model in the years to come.

3. Not only do trucks pay their fair share of federal highway fees, they apparently are also subsidizing the railroads with their fuel taxes and other fees, as per mention in the article regarding the federal aid for NS's upgrades. You can argue legitimately that truckers don't pay a sufficiently apportioned portion of state and local highway costs, but this is non-sequitor for the railroads vs trucks debate, mostly due to the fact that it is the elective will of state and local highway jurisdictions to use in part property taxes and/or sales taxes and/or bonding to provide those types of road funds. Railroads don't have any redress for local road usage since they don't offer those types of shorthaul services, and indeed are completely dependent on trucks to serve that "last mile" between rail terminal and consumer.

If you ask me (and yes, you didn't, but I'm gonna say it anyway) railroads should also pay the same federal diesel fuel tax as the truckers do, since (a) railroads are increasingly turning to the federal government to provide aid for capacity improvements, and (b) railroad retrenchment has contributed to increased truck usage of those roads in corridors vital to the supply chain.

Funny, I did not know the only things that a railroad hauls were coal, TOFC and COFC. Trucks are still competition, while not the only one, they are the major one.


Bert

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
3. Not only do trucks pay their fair share of federal highway fees, they apparently are also subsidizing the railroads with their fuel taxes and other fees, as per mention in the article regarding the federal aid for NS's upgrades.

The only thing coming close to a subsidy for the railroads in the article:

"The port of Norfolk is undergoing an $880 million expansion that it hopes will attract the ships. Norfolk Southern is spending up to $100 million to upgrade its main route from Norfolk to Columbus, Ohio, where it is building a yard at the old Rickenbacker Air Force Base to offload the double-stacked containers. (The federal highway bill includes an additional $90 million for this project.)"

I guess since the containers aren't being offloaded onto trucks, this is strictly a subsidy to the railroad?

Again, you're ignoring the facts presented and reading your own agenda into it.

[zardoz]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

2. In this the writer and NS have got it right. Longer consists are not the economic panacea *professional* railroaders have extolled for years, rather those longer consists can end up costing the railroads business. Railroads can running shorter, more frequent consists and make better money, all by using the "Information Highway" model. Look for a revival of the shorter faster consist model in the years to come.

In selected cases, depending on what's being hauled and where. The fact that a train is shorter does not allow it to run faster on the same section of track, the speed limit is determined by the condition of the track and the train's tons per operable brake. Running shorter consists in heavily traveled corridors will slow things down, due to the spacing required between trains by the signal or traffic control system.

I beg to differ regarding the comment on shorter trains.

From an operational standpoint, you can run more, shorter trains on a given section of track due primarily to the relative ease in handling a short train. Not nearly as much consideration needs to be given for slack, and a shorter train is much more predictable in handling. If I was running a 150-car train behind another train, I would sit and wait until I had at least 1, preferably 2 clear signals ahead of me. To try and nurse a huge train through restrictive signals just begs for problems. I would have no hesitation following a train into a signal block if I had the short train.

In addition, there are problems of where to park the 150 car train if the one in front breaks down or has some other problem. A 30-50 car train can be run almost as easily as an unoccupied passenger train.

And a point-to-point shorter train COULD be operated with only one crewman.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

2. In this the writer and NS have got it right. Longer consists are not the economic panacea *professional* railroaders have extolled for years, rather those longer consists can end up costing the railroads business. Railroads can running shorter, more frequent consists and make better money, all by using the "Information Highway" model. Look for a revival of the shorter faster consist model in the years to come.

In selected cases, depending on what's being hauled and where. The fact that a train is shorter does not allow it to run faster on the same section of track, the speed limit is determined by the condition of the track and the train's tons per operable brake. Running shorter consists in heavily traveled corridors will slow things down, due to the spacing required between trains by the signal or traffic control system.

I beg to differ regarding the comment on shorter trains.

From an operational standpoint, you can run more, shorter trains on a given section of track due primarily to the relative ease in handling a short train. Not nearly as much consideration needs to be given for slack, and a shorter train is much more predictable in handling. If I was running a 150-car train behind another train, I would sit and wait until I had at least 1, preferably 2 clear signals ahead of me. To try and nurse a huge train through restrictive signals just begs for problems. I would have no hesitation following a train into a signal block if I had the short train.

In addition, there are problems of where to park the 150 car train if the one in front breaks down or has some other problem. A 30-50 car train can be run almost as easily as an unoccupied passenger train.

And a point-to-point shorter train COULD be operated with only one crewman.

As I said, that would depend on the limitations of your traffic control or signalling system in conjunction with your railroad's operating rules. What you "prefer" to do is tempered by these limits.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

So, what's your point? I see a lot a words but nothing being said.

As opposed to saying little and still saying nothing as above?[}:)]

What I am pointing out is the typical regurgitation of rail industry myths....

1. "Trucks are the competition"
2. "Longer train consists are more efficient than shorter train consists"
3. "Trucks don't pay their fair share of highway funds"

....and refuting them....

1. Trucks are not the competition for railroads. Outside of areas with waterways and coastal shipping opportunities, only railroads are the competition for railroads. The writer seems to think that when a trailer or container is taken off a truck and put on a railcar, the truckers are "losing" business to the railroads, when in fact the truckers are getting a net benefit by shipping their trailers and containers by rail instead of hauling them over the highways. If the truckers were losing to the railroads by utilizing TOFC and COFC, JB Hunt et al wouldn't allow a single trailer or domestic container to go by rail. Since TOFC and COFC is a win-win for both railroads and truckers, it is not a competitive arena, it is rather a cooperative arena.

And I'm still waiting to here about those trucking companies bidding for coal hauling contracts out of the PRB!

From the Trains Newswire:

Electric utilities in good shape for summer, says coal experts

WASHINGTON - Electric utilities are in good shape for the upcoming summer months when the demand for electricity is at its highest, and have adequate coal stockpiles that continue to grow, according to the federal government, coal experts, and coal publications, the Association of American Railroads said yesterday.

Last week, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, a branch of the U.S. Department of Energy, released a report stating that “coal stockpiles are well above last year’s levels.

Platt’s Coal Trader, a leading trade publication, reported that “utilities have good stockpile levels of around 30 days,” and noted that many utilities have stopped buying coal on the spot market, due to strong inventory and the drop in natural gas prices.

The AAR said U.S. railroads delivered 72 percent of the coal used by the nation’s coal-fired utility plants in 2005, a record.

End of article.

So, if trucks aren't the competition, maybe you can explain how the other 28% of the coal is getting to the power plants.

They're called "barges". Basically, a squarish steel bin that floats on water, and can typically hold the equivalent of 30 to 35 railcar loads per barge e.g. 3500 tons. A typical four barge tow holds the same as a typical unit train.

So, where's that article that shows how trucks are the competition for those coal hauling contracts?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by idhull

Truckers, buses and motorists do not pay for the full cost of roads. Highways are provided primarily as a subsidised public utility.

So what is the % of the Highway Trust Fund that is funded by other than fuel taxes and trucking fees?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

So, what's your point? I see a lot a words but nothing being said.

As opposed to saying little and still saying nothing as above?[}:)]

What I am pointing out is the typical regurgitation of rail industry myths....

1. "Trucks are the competition"
2. "Longer train consists are more efficient than shorter train consists"
3. "Trucks don't pay their fair share of highway funds"

....and refuting them....

1. Trucks are not the competition for railroads. Outside of areas with waterways and coastal shipping opportunities, only railroads are the competition for railroads. The writer seems to think that when a trailer or container is taken off a truck and put on a railcar, the truckers are "losing" business to the railroads, when in fact the truckers are getting a net benefit by shipping their trailers and containers by rail instead of hauling them over the highways. If the truckers were losing to the railroads by utilizing TOFC and COFC, JB Hunt et al wouldn't allow a single trailer or domestic container to go by rail. Since TOFC and COFC is a win-win for both railroads and truckers, it is not a competitive arena, it is rather a cooperative arena.

And I'm still waiting to here about those trucking companies bidding for coal hauling contracts out of the PRB!

2. In this the writer and NS have got it right. Longer consists are not the economic panacea *professional* railroaders have extolled for years, rather those longer consists can end up costing the railroads business. Railroads can running shorter, more frequent consists and make better money, all by using the "Information Highway" model. Look for a revival of the shorter faster consist model in the years to come.

3. Not only do trucks pay their fair share of federal highway fees, they apparently are also subsidizing the railroads with their fuel taxes and other fees, as per mention in the article regarding the federal aid for NS's upgrades. You can argue legitimately that truckers don't pay a sufficiently apportioned portion of state and local highway costs, but this is non-sequitor for the railroads vs trucks debate, mostly due to the fact that it is the elective will of state and local highway jurisdictions to use in part property taxes and/or sales taxes and/or bonding to provide those types of road funds. Railroads don't have any redress for local road usage since they don't offer those types of shorthaul services, and indeed are completely dependent on trucks to serve that "last mile" between rail terminal and consumer.

If you ask me (and yes, you didn't, but I'm gonna say it anyway) railroads should also pay the same federal diesel fuel tax as the truckers do, since (a) railroads are increasingly turning to the federal government to provide aid for capacity improvements, and (b) railroad retrenchment has contributed to increased truck usage of those roads in corridors vital to the supply chain.

Funny, I did not know the only things that a railroad hauls were coal, TOFC and COFC. Trucks are still competition, while not the only one, they are the major one.

Competition for what? Grain? Chemicals? Aggregates? Lumber?

Do you understand that beyond short hauls, the only medium to long haul traffic the truckers can truly run is that which the railroads either won't touch, or in those corridors where rail service is not existent. There is also the truck/barge combination that can effectively compete with railroads, but that is almost a non-existent scenario these days, since the average truck haul to the railhead is nearly the same length as the average truck haul to the nearest barge port, thus we have "truck/barge" vs "truck/rail" combos for the most part, no more "truck/barge" vs "rail" anymore. The loss of branchline/carload service over the years has pretty much given all this connecting traffic to trucks.

In other words, the trucks didn't "compete" for this traffic, rather the railroads simply gave it away to the truckers in their quest to consolidate terminals.

Trucks are simply the mode of last resort for medium to long haul bulk-type traffic over dry land. Usually, the railroads are offered this traffic first, and it's only when they turn it down (via service refusals or outrageous price quotes) that the shipper resorts to using trucks (at a higher cost to the shipper).

Trucks aren't "competition" for railroads anymore than Dobie Gillis is competition for Lance Armstrong.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

So, what's your point? I see a lot a words but nothing being said.

As opposed to saying little and still saying nothing as above?[}:)]

What I am pointing out is the typical regurgitation of rail industry myths....

1. "Trucks are the competition"
2. "Longer train consists are more efficient than shorter train consists"
3. "Trucks don't pay their fair share of highway funds"

....and refuting them....

1. Trucks are not the competition for railroads. Outside of areas with waterways and coastal shipping opportunities, only railroads are the competition for railroads. The writer seems to think that when a trailer or container is taken off a truck and put on a railcar, the truckers are "losing" business to the railroads, when in fact the truckers are getting a net benefit by shipping their trailers and containers by rail instead of hauling them over the highways. If the truckers were losing to the railroads by utilizing TOFC and COFC, JB Hunt et al wouldn't allow a single trailer or domestic container to go by rail. Since TOFC and COFC is a win-win for both railroads and truckers, it is not a competitive arena, it is rather a cooperative arena.

And I'm still waiting to here about those trucking companies bidding for coal hauling contracts out of the PRB!

From the Trains Newswire:

Electric utilities in good shape for summer, says coal experts

WASHINGTON - Electric utilities are in good shape for the upcoming summer months when the demand for electricity is at its highest, and have adequate coal stockpiles that continue to grow, according to the federal government, coal experts, and coal publications, the Association of American Railroads said yesterday.

Last week, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, a branch of the U.S. Department of Energy, released a report stating that “coal stockpiles are well above last year’s levels.

Platt’s Coal Trader, a leading trade publication, reported that “utilities have good stockpile levels of around 30 days,” and noted that many utilities have stopped buying coal on the spot market, due to strong inventory and the drop in natural gas prices.

The AAR said U.S. railroads delivered 72 percent of the coal used by the nation’s coal-fired utility plants in 2005, a record.

End of article.

So, if trucks aren't the competition, maybe you can explain how the other 28% of the coal is getting to the power plants.

They're called "barges". Basically, a squarish steel bin that floats on water, and can typically hold the equivalent of 30 to 35 railcar loads per barge e.g. 3500 tons. A typical four barge tow holds the same as a typical unit train.

So, where's that article that shows how trucks are the competition for those coal hauling contracts?

With an open ended article like this, you can assume anything you like, which you obviously have. I didn't see any mention of the percentage hauled by any squarish steel bins floating on water that hauls this coal. Your assumption.

And we all know where the word "assume" comes from.

[Murphy Siding]

Dave, 25 years ago, my father drove truck for a company that hauled coal from the Wyodak mine, at Gillette, Wyoming to power plants in Deadwood and Rapid City, S.D. BN pulled up rail lines to Deadwood in the 80's. Unless DM&E hauls coal up to Rapid City (doubtfull), the trucks still haul the coal.
In 2006, the lumberyard I work at receives about 50% of it's lumber via train, through wholesalers who ship by rail, then deliver by truck. The other 50% of the lumber, and 100% of shingles,siding, gypsum,cement, etc..., comes in directly on trucks from the source. It's not uncommon to get a product, studs for example, from the same mill in both traincars/trucked and truck direct.
So yes, trucks do compete with trains.

[daveklepper]

Bascically, trucks were the competition for railroads when railroads were truly full-service transportation companies. But they don't really do any LCL business these days. All independent surveys have shown that trucks do NOT pay their fair share of highway maintenance costs and that highway taxes from private cars do make up the difference. But again, I must bring up the whole question of land use, particularly with regard to expresways through cities and other buit-up areas.

But in general, today, trucks and railroads coexist and don't compete. Railroads have locked up some markets and trucks others. On long distances piggyback and containers, they cooperate.

And the coal that doesn't move by railroad largely moves by water, not trucks, or just by wire with mine-mouth power plants.

And maybe autos should subsidize trucks. Most truck trips are essential to the US economy. Much auto traffic is leasure. I am asking the question, not rendering an opinion. But I say again that all highway traffic is subsidized because of land use.

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

Bascically, trucks were the competition for railroads when railroads were truly full-service transportation companies. But they don't really do any LCL business these days. All independent surveys have shown that trucks do NOT pay their fair share of highway maintenance costs and that highway taxes from private cars do make up the difference. But again, I must bring up the whole question of land use, particularly with regard to expresways through cities and other buit-up areas.

But in general, today, trucks and railroads coexist and don't compete. Railroads have locked up some markets and trucks others. On long distances piggyback and containers, they cooperate.

And the coal that doesn't move by railroad largely moves by water, not trucks, or just by wire with mine-mouth power plants.

And maybe autos should subsidize trucks. Most truck trips are essential to the US economy. Much auto traffic is leasure. I am asking the question, not rendering an opinion. But I say again that all highway traffic is subsidized because of land use.

I don't know what LCL has to do with it, but trains and trucks are in continuous, ongoing competition day in and day out.

Take as an example a load tendered to JB Hunt by a shipper. Hunt has basically three ways to move it:

1) Use a company employed driver and company owned highway tractor.
2) Use an independant owner operator with his own highway tractor.
3) Take it to a railroad intermodal faciility and send it by train.

The three options involve rail vs truck competition within JB Hunt. Hunt will select the option that best meets the needs of the shipment in terms of price and service. To get the load the railroad has to compete with the trucking options and make itself the best value to Hunt.

Another example is the 500,000 loads of produce leaving California by truck each year, mostly on long haul journeys to eastern population centers. Those trucks don't return to California empty. So, that's 1,000,000 competitive long haul loads right there.

Anyone (FM) who says there is no truck/rail competition doesn't understand reality. When I was in intermodal marketing I went head to head with truckers all the time. If I had time I'd tell you all about the beer move from Memphis to Chicago and Milwaukee we snatched away from the truckers - and it was a 500 mile rail haul.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

Dave, 25 years ago, my father drove truck for a company that hauled coal from the Wyodak mine, at Gillette, Wyoming to power plants in Deadwood and Rapid City, S.D. BN pulled up rail lines to Deadwood in the 80's. Unless DM&E hauls coal up to Rapid City (doubtfull), the trucks still haul the coal.
In 2006, the lumberyard I work at receives about 50% of it's lumber via train, through wholesalers who ship by rail, then deliver by truck. The other 50% of the lumber, and 100% of shingles,siding, gypsum,cement, etc..., comes in directly on trucks from the source. It's not uncommon to get a product, studs for example, from the same mill in both traincars/trucked and truck direct.
So yes, trucks do compete with trains.

A short haul is considered anything under 300 miles, and today railroads won't touch shorthauls unless there is a) sufficient volume to run a unit train operation, and b) there is sufficient capacity to handle a shorthaul train within the long haul network. Keep in mind these would be closed operations, aka all the rail traffic is via one company, so you're not going to get a unit train short haul by rail if it involves UP, BNSF, and DM&E all having to cooperate.

Gillette to Deadwood is about 110 miles by highway. It was about 200 miles by rail - when the tracks were active all the way between Gillette and Deadwood. For a railroad to handle such a coal move right now, it would have to move by BNSF via Newcastle to the nearest active interchange with DM&E, then back up to Rapid City to Sturgis, then would still have to be transloaded to trucks for delivery to Deadwood. When and if DM&E's PRB gets built, BNSF can tranfer to DM&E near Edgewood, if an interchange track is built. Of course, if DM&E comes to fruition, the Rapid City power plant can then (and most likely will) revert back to rail, with DM&E getting the entire haul (e.g. there would be no need to have to get the coal from a Gillette mine, since the coal from the mines that DM&E will access will be just as good as any Gillette coal.)

Since there is no, nor is it likely any rail access to Deadwood will come to fruition, it is likely that coal will continue to move by truck from Gillette to Deadwood, assuming that power plant continues operation. It is a cost to transload anything from rail car to truck, so trucking will still be the lowest cost option (as well as the shortest mileage for this particular corridor).

So you see, trucks are not the competition in this example. They are, as I have stated many times, the tranport mode of last resort. If somehow there is built a direct rail connection between Gillette and Deadwood owned by a single entity (and of course such will never happen), you would see that traffic shift to rail, since it then would fit the short haul unit train characteristics.

As for the lumber, again, I ask you, do the railroads even try to get the "shingles,siding, gypsum,cement, etc" and/or studs if indeed they might come from the same source as present rail traffic? The answer is probably no. In other words, if the trucks didn't bring it, nobody would. Keep in mind, Murphy, there are plenty of opportunities for railroads to move this type of stuff, but they choose not to for a variety of reasons. Maybe they require timing the railroads won't provide, maybe the railroads have no additional cars available to move such things, or the cars require some type of specificity that precludes current equipment, or....they just plain don't care (picture the bloated stomache of a diner as he turns down a free piece of pie...)

Thus....(everyone repeat after me....)...."the product shifts to trucks as the last resort."

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

Bascically, trucks were the competition for railroads when railroads were truly full-service transportation companies. But they don't really do any LCL business these days. All independent surveys have shown that trucks do NOT pay their fair share of highway maintenance costs and that highway taxes from private cars do make up the difference. But again, I must bring up the whole question of land use, particularly with regard to expresways through cities and other buit-up areas.

But in general, today, trucks and railroads coexist and don't compete. Railroads have locked up some markets and trucks others. On long distances piggyback and containers, they cooperate.

And the coal that doesn't move by railroad largely moves by water, not trucks, or just by wire with mine-mouth power plants.

And maybe autos should subsidize trucks. Most truck trips are essential to the US economy. Much auto traffic is leasure. I am asking the question, not rendering an opinion. But I say again that all highway traffic is subsidized because of land use.

I don't know what LCL has to do with it, but trains and trucks are in continuous, ongoing competition day in and day out.

Take as an example a load tendered to JB Hunt by a shipper. Hunt has basically three ways to move it:

1) Use a company employed driver and company owned highway tractor.
2) Use an independant owner operator with his own highway tractor.
3) Take it to a railroad intermodal faciility and send it by train.

The three options involve rail vs truck competition within JB Hunt. Hunt will select the option that best meets the needs of the shipment in terms of price and service. To get the load the railroad has to compete with the trucking options and make itself the best value to Hunt.

Another example is the 500,000 loads of produce leaving California by truck each year, mostly on long haul journeys to eastern population centers. Those trucks don't return to California empty. So, that's 1,000,000 competitive long haul loads right there.

Anyone (FM) who says there is no truck/rail competition doesn't understand reality. When I was in intermodal marketing I went head to head with truckers all the time. If I had time I'd tell you all about the beer move from Memphis to Chicago and Milwaukee we snatched away from the truckers - and it was a 500 mile rail haul.

BFD

First of all, the only reason such traffic moved by truck at all was that a corresponding rail service didn't exist. Once the railroad decided it could be bothered with that traffic, it naturally shifted to the railroad. 500 miles is a decent length for a rail corridor. Trucks cannot compete with railroads in anything longer than 250 miles. It's only when railroads don't want to provide the service that it shifts to trucks.

And are you sure that beer moved from Memphis to Milwaukee, and not the other way around?[;)]

And intermodal is not rail vs truck competition, it is rail and truck cooperation. The railroad is competing with another entity in your example, but that entity is entailed in the comparative infrastructure e.g. highways, not the trucking companies. This is where railroaders get all mixed up, because they think infrastructure and transporting operations are inseperatable. Meanwhile, those of us in the real transporation world don't get the two all tied together.[^]

Thus, the competition for rail intermodal is the federal highway system.

Or, using Ken's logic, the trucking companies have to choose between using railroads or highways. If railroads are the competition(sic) for trucking companies, then it follows that highways are also the competition(sic) for trucking companies. Obviously, that is asinine.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal


A short haul is considered anything under 300 miles, and today railroads won't touch shorthauls

The fact that railroads gave up this business means they couldn't compete for the business-the trucks won, in this case.[:)]

QUOTE:



As for the lumber, again, I ask you, do the railroads even try to get the "shingles,siding, gypsum,cement, etc" and/or studs if indeed they might come from the same source as present rail traffic? The answer is probably no. In other words, if the trucks didn't bring it, nobody would. Keep in mind, Murphy, there are plenty of opportunities for railroads to move this type of stuff, but they choose not to for a variety of reasons.

Well, they actually do haul all these materials by rail and truck out of the same facilities to the same customers[;)]
Qualifying your answer to say that trucks only get the business that railroads don't want doesn't mean they don't compete.

[jeaton]

FM

Are you trying to say that if an entity can produce a good or service of comparable quality at less cost than anybody else, there is no competition? I don't think you understand the concept.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE:
Since there is no, nor is it likely any rail access to Deadwood will come to fruition, it is likely that coal will continue to move by truck from Gillette to Deadwood, assuming that power plant continues operation. It is a cost to transload anything from rail car to truck, so trucking will still be the lowest cost option (as well as the shortest mileage for this particular corridor).

If you're referring to the Kirkwood Power Plant (behind the Homestake Mine at Lead,) its been out of service for over 10 yrs and is largely dismantled.

I'd disagree strongly that trucks are a mode of last resort. Every bit of freight has a mode of choice which is based largely on the inventory value of that product. If the inventory value is high, you use a fast, but more costly service product (i.e. air freight) because the cost of stockpiling the product is greater than the cost of transportation via air.

Conversely, if you're moving coal, which has a very low relative inventory cost, you move it the cheapest way possible and stockpile what you need to. Barges fit a similar low value, bulk commodity model.

Freight that moves via truck falls in between those two points in the spectrum. (i.e. Air, Truck, Rail, Barge). Its the same reason that UPS offers Next Day, 2nd Day, Ground, etc.

Different items that need to be shipped have different needs (hey, I should copyright that saying.)

Its a big continuum and the shipper makes trade-offs between speed, cost and reliability based on the nature of the product. There is no simple default answer for all products (i.e. your contention that trucks are the mode of last resort.) By the way - I make my living in providing the customer mode options to fit their need.

Oh, and we do move beer TO Milwaukee - and its for a company that also makes beer in Milwaukee. They fill one kind of container at a Southern brewery and a different kind of container in Milwaukee. Some southern beer comes north and some northern beer goes south... and all it right in the world.

[MP173]

Bottle trains run from Northwest Indiana steel mills to South Chicago, a distance of about 30 miles....on mainlines no less.

ed