How to Increase Rail Capacity

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

[
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.

Yes, I'm sure the beer went northbound. It would have been far less attractive to us if it had been a southbound move. Strohs bought out a failing Schlitz, shuttered the Milwaukee brewery and began supplying the Chicago and Milwaukee markets from a Memphis brewery.

We had an imbalance southbound, we had more loads south than north. So the NB beer represented an opportunity for revenue on train/trailer miles that otherwise were performed with less/ no revenue.

Nailed it cold. I remember making our proposal to the Strohs transportation honcho. He said something like, "That's very impressive, but..." Then he pulled a piece of paper out of hiis pocket and said something like: "But Badger Freighways (a trucker Dave says were weren't competing with) is offering..." The Strohs guy then stopped, looked at the paper and put it back in his pocket. "You've done your homework", he then said.

There was still a question as to wether we could offer the service quality needed to match the trucker. Our salesman, the late Joe Loesel, was on the dock when the first TOFC trailer from Memphis arrived. So was a reprsentative from Badger Freightways (that trucker we weren't, according to Dave, competing against.). Joe told me that when the Badger guy saw the condition of the load he looked sick. We had delivered the load overnight from Memphis in good condtion at a rate Badger couldn't meet.

It was a large volume of TOFC freight, something like 15 loads/day from Memphis to the Chicago ramp. Last I heard, it was still moving in part. Strohs latter acquired a Minneapolis brewery and switched the Chicago and Milwaukee source to Minnesota. But for some reason they still supplied northwest Indiana from Memphis and that volume continued to move up the Main Line of Mid America.

Dave is know for rash, unsupported statements, but this one is especially silly:

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

[
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.

Back to beer.

We operated three intermodal trains each way per day between Chicago and Venice, IL (St. Louis) - 275 miles. Dave has obviously never tried to compete (oh, I forgot, according to him there is no competition) with trucks at 275 miles. I have.

Budwieser supplied Chicago out of its St. Louis brewery. Again, it was a large volume northbound move and we would have benifited greatly by hauling it Trouble was, by the time we drayed the beer from the brewery to the Venice ramp, loaded the trailer on the flatcar, then unloaded the trailer from the flatcar in Chicago, then delivered the load to the Budwiser distributor in the Chicago area, there was no room to get under the direct truck rate. (which, according to Dave, we weren't competing with.)

We could not make it work. We only got Bud loads during the summer when beer consumption peaked and the truckers (which, according to Dave, are the last resort for a shipper) ran low on equipment and drivers. Shoot, we had equipment avaialble year 'round, but for some reason Budwieser kept choosing their "last resort".

We had good quality transit times, three trains per day, and rock bottom prices - but we couldn't get that large volume freight off the highway. Carload was a non-option. Their terminal costs were higher than intermodal's and they would have had to return their equipment to St. Louis empty. We at least could easily get a southbound load for the trailer that brought the beer north.

Dave doesn't understand a lot of things, but he especially doesn't understand transportation costing and pricing. (They are two very different things.)

The only relationship is that costs put a floor under your price. Costs don't determine price, but they do provide a lower limit.

A typical rail shipment must go through at least five "cost events"

1) Gathering - ie. dray to the intermodal terminal

2) Aggregation- ie. individual shipments must be gathered together to make the railroad unit of production, which is a train.

3) Line haul - the actual rail movement

4) Sorting - the "disaggregation" of the train into delivery units

5) Delivery - getting the load from the line haul terminal to the receiver's freight dock

Unless it's really a long haul, the majority of costs are in steps 1, 2, 4, and 5. Step 3, rail line haul is unbeatable by truck. Rail is unbeatble costwise once you get a train together and before you take it apart. But that don't count.

You have to cover all the costs in all the steps - and on shorter hauls those 1, 2, 4, 5, steps, the terminal costs, eat rail efficiency alive.

Truckload shipments, such as the Budwiser beer, don't have to gather, aggregate, sort, and deliver from a final terminal. The driver just takes the load from the origin dock to the receiving dock. It takes a significant amount of line haul miles to overcome that natural truckload advantage.

Dave's too emotional about this. He says the rails don't "want" shorter hauls. That's silly. They'd haul a load four feet if it put money on the bottom line. It's not what they "want", it's what they can compete profitably for.

And the railroads are doing a very good job with that competition. JB Hunt grosses more from its rail intermodal operation than it does from its over the road trucking. But the two are in competition. If JB finds it more advantageous to send a load over the road than by rail it can, and will, do so in a blink of an eye.

The railroads have to compete with that, no matter what silly statements Dave makes.

Ken Strawbridge

[Anonymous]

It seems with respect to rail capacity that there is little long range planning at the corporate or government level. To me, it would seem reasonable for lines that already have existing CTC and are at or near capacity to start with building a segement of double track that fills in between sidings at the mid-point between division points. Having a 10-15 mile section would allow trains to meet without having to stop. Then as time, traffic and money permit work on a section between the mid-point and the division point. Obviously in some areas geographic constraints such as grades and river crossings have a detrimental cost impact. In the current era of 150 car long trains, this becomes crucial if railroads want to minimize delays from stationary meets as most sidings are not of sufficient length to handle rolling meets. The railroads need to focus on what will become their next mainline similar to BN's transcon and direct more investment on these lines. Just think if 10 miles per year were double tracked in 10 years there would be 100 miles and if there was only 10 miles between each double track section there would then be 1,000 miles of trackage that would be operating almost as if it were continuous double track. If just UP, BN, NS and CSX did this in 10 years there would be a minimum of 4,000 miles of track giving a major boost to capacity while not overwhelming the financial capacity of the railroads. Start with something small but be consistent and before you know it you have a interstate rail system. One only has to look at CP where according to them an investment of 160 million Cdn$ increased track capacity by 12% by extending sidings and adding sections of double track. If this investment had been spread over time instead of concentrated in last year, they would have reaped the benefits of it earlier and gradually.

[CrazyDiamond]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal


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.

We have a gypsum train here in Nova Scotia, and as far as I know the train brings it from the mine to the buyer. No trucks involved.

[MP173]

Ken:

That was a really great post (about the beer run) and the transportation costs.

Were those Venice - Chicago intermodals run thru Clinton or down to Duquoin? Were those 2 man crew trains?

Back in the day (late 60's, early 70's) there were piggyback movements on the line thru my hometown, which was on the Evansville - Mattoon line. There actually was a piggyback ramp at Olney, if I recall correctly, it was made of railroad ties.

ed

[Anonymous]

Here is how not to increase capacity and how to waste money at the same time while satisfying the short term investors of the NYSE and TSE. Picture on railpictures.net Via Rail train at Henry House, Alberta taken recently showing an area that was double tracked in the 1980's by CN and now courtesy of Mr. Harrison just the old rail is left behind. Henry House is on the main line near Jasper Alberta connecting Prince Rupert and Vancouver with Edmonton.Progress? This is the sort of thing that shareholders never find out about until after the fact. This is called taking out costs according to Mr. Harrison and others of his type also called short term gain for long term pain.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by 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.[:)]

What you are missing is the fact that railroads under regulation had to offer a bid for such services. Just because they did haul oddities 300 miles doesn't mean they wanted to. When trucks and decent highways came along, the railroads were more than happy to pawn this type of haul onto the mode of last resort.

And I will tell you this - If for some reason trucking companies no longer wanted this business, it would no longer get hauled. Do you really think the railroads would want this back? HEdoubletoothpicks No!

The mode of last resort. Learn it, memorize it, engrain it.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

[
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.

Yes, I'm sure the beer went northbound. It would have been far less attractive to us if it had been a southbound move. Strohs bought out a failing Schlitz, shuttered the Milwaukee brewery and began supplying the Chicago and Milwaukee markets from a Memphis brewery.

We had an imbalance southbound, we had more loads south than north. So the NB beer represented an opportunity for revenue on train/trailer miles that otherwise were performed with less/ no revenue.

Nailed it cold. I remember making our proposal to the Strohs transportation honcho. He said something like, "That's very impressive, but..." Then he pulled a piece of paper out of hiis pocket and said something like: "But Badger Freighways (a trucker Dave says were weren't competing with) is offering..." The Strohs guy then stopped, looked at the paper and put it back in his pocket. "You've done your homework", he then said.

There was still a question as to wether we could offer the service quality needed to match the trucker. Our salesman, the late Joe Loesel, was on the dock when the first TOFC trailer from Memphis arrived. So was a reprsentative from Badger Freightways (that trucker we weren't, according to Dave, competing against.). Joe told me that when the Badger guy saw the condition of the load he looked sick. We had delivered the load overnight from Memphis in good condtion at a rate Badger couldn't meet.

It was a large volume of TOFC freight, something like 15 loads/day from Memphis to the Chicago ramp. Last I heard, it was still moving in part. Strohs latter acquired a Minneapolis brewery and switched the Chicago and Milwaukee source to Minnesota. But for some reason they still supplied northwest Indiana from Memphis and that volume continued to move up the Main Line of Mid America.

Dave is know for rash, unsupported statements, but this one is especially silly:

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

[
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.

AHA! GOTTCHA! This is a TOFC move, ergo the product is still moving in a TRUCK TRAILER!

This is what Ken doesn't understand. With TOFC, the product is still moving by truck (trailer). If you read his example closely, you will notice that what really happened was that one trucking company (in this example Badger Freightways) simply lost the business TO ANOTHER TRUCKING COMPANY, who then utilized TOFC.[^]

E.g. there was no net loss of trucking business. The shift came at the infrastructural level, not the transporting level. The federal highway system lost the pathway wear and tear from user equipment to the railroad tracks. There was no aggregate loss of business, but it probably resulted in a small loss of fuel taxes for the Highway Trust Fund.

QUOTE: Back to beer.

We operated three intermodal trains each way per day between Chicago and Venice, IL (St. Louis) - 275 miles. Dave has obviously never tried to compete (oh, I forgot, according to him there is no competition) with trucks at 275 miles. I have.

Again, NO, you did not compete with the trucking industry, you instead cooperated with them. Since the stuff still moves in a trailer, a trucking company still garnered the revenue they would have had anyway even if the load had moved over highways. Ostensibly, one would think that the trucking company came out ahead with TOFC, so the net effect is a gain for the trucking industry. That's what TOFC does, it provides a win/win for both trucking companies and railroad companies. There is no net loser with TOFC, other than the Highway Trust Fund, and it's not a business so it doesn't count.

You see, under modal competition there is a modal winner and a modal loser. When there is no modal loser, it ain't compeition.

No need to comment on the rest of your novel, since the answer is still the same.

FM truism #5 - Under TOFC, there is no modal loser, hence no modal competition, only modal cooperation.

[CrazyDiamond]

I don't know as much about the RR business as some of you seem to, but I do know a few things about 'network fundamentals'. So from that I conclude:

#1 There is a sweet spot for the length of a train. Trains shorter than this will reduce efficiency, and train longers create a set of issues that only money can fix.

#2 Computers and software applications can do what humans can't. RRs that invest in the right applications will get more from there network. Better signaling/CTC, scheduling, Shortest Path First (SPF) selection, communications (voice and data), etc, etc will increase capacity and lower costs.

#3 Optimizing your traffic, CTC operations, and sidings to give the benefit of double track 'all the way' without actually having double track. (Ties into #2) (Kinda like driving on a single lane roadway with occasional passing lanes.......a passing lane in the right location is just as good as a two lane roadway, but a passing lane in the wrong location is useless.)

#4 Partnering with the right trucking/intermodal companies to deliver the last mile will increase total geographic capacity without increasing the burden of under-utilized track.

NOTE: Shortest Path First does not mean literally the shortest path is best. It is a 'nickname' for Dijkstra's algorithm which calculates the best path through a network.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dijkstra's_algorithm

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

[
AHA! GOTTCHA! This is a TOFC move, ergo the product is still moving in a TRUCK TRAILER!

This is what Ken doesn't understand. With TOFC, the product is still moving by truck (trailer). If you read his example closely, you will notice that what really happened was that one trucking company (in this example Badger Freightways) simply lost the business TO ANOTHER TRUCKING COMPANY, who then utilized TOFC.[^]

E.g. there was no net loss of trucking business. The shift came at the infrastructural level, not the transporting level. The federal highway system lost the pathway wear and tear from user equipment to the railroad tracks. There was no aggregate loss of business, but it probably resulted in a small loss of fuel taxes for the Highway Trust Fund.


You see, under modal competition there is a modal winner and a modal loser. When there is no modal loser, it ain't compeition.

No need to comment on the rest of your novel, since the answer is still the same.

FM truism #5 - Under TOFC, there is no modal loser, hence no modal competition, only modal cooperation.

I still haven't found FM truism #1, let alone #5.

Do you ever get tired of going off half cocked - without knowing the revlavent facts? Aparently not.

Those were what we then called Plan II loads. That meant no, none, zero, nada over the road trucking company was involved. I did the pricing work. I know how the beer move was structured. If you knew anything about rail transportation, you would have realized that if we were cooperating with a trucker to get the business they would have handled the presentation to the customer. If you understood the business you would have picked up on that one. You didn't. Enough said.

We moved the beer in ICG insulated trailers, which we acquired for the business. It was picked up by an ICG driver with an ICG tractor under the kingpin. (we did lease owner operators and local draymen to supplement our fleet.) Delivery was by the same method, it was ICG from dock to dock. We were not cooperating with any over the road trucking company in any way. We were competing with them in every way.

Trains and trucks compete. You just can not coceptualize it because it doesn't fit your very warped ideology.

Ken Strawbridge

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173

Ken:

That was a really great post (about the beer run) and the transportation costs.

Were those Venice - Chicago intermodals run thru Clinton or down to Duquoin? Were those 2 man crew trains?

Back in the day (late 60's, early 70's) there were piggyback movements on the line thru my hometown, which was on the Evansville - Mattoon line. There actually was a piggyback ramp at Olney, if I recall correctly, it was made of railroad ties.

ed

They went through Springfiled and Boomington on the old C&A. They carried the brand name "Slingshots".

They actually came about as a result from a proposal by the UTU General Chirman. That line had very little frieght south of Joliet. So he just kept loosing jobs. He saw the writing on the wall and took a Bold Step. He proposed short, fast, frequent intermodal trains between Chicago and St. Louis with two person crews. (In the mid 1970's, two person crews were herasy in union land.)

The railroad was sceptical about making any money with it, but when the union was willing to work with us to develop new business it was time to take a chance.

On the old C&A lines there was no BLE representation. Engineers belonged to the UTU. That meant there wasn't the ususal inter uniion stand off as to who gave up the jobs when the crew size was reduced. It all worked. And it created jobs for engineers and conductors. The General Chairman did his job well.

The brand name "Slingshots" was created by George Stern, then Asst. VP, Intermodal for the ICG. He wanted a name that represented something simple, cheap and effective. i.e., a "Slingshot". He had a "Slingshot" made from a branch of a tree and it hung on his office wall.

I had that "Slingshot" for years. It was in the attic in the house in Downers Grove. After "the wife" left, I had to move and I've lost it. Maybe it's around here somewhere.

I've always wanted to return it to Stern.

The "Slingshots" were limited by union agreement to 15 cars. You have no idea how many problems that caused. I got the phone calls from the shippers whoes trailers were left behind. After dereg we were able to institute a two tier pricing system that allowed a shipper to get a lower rate if he endoresed the bill of ladding "Move at Carriers Convienience". If he wanted his load moved pronto, he could pay more. If he was willing to catch the next train to St. Louis, he paid a lower rate.

I think the "Slingshots" proved once and for all that short, fast, frequent train service is a non starter. The shippers wanted the overnight trains. Our 8:00 AM departure from St. Louis ran virtually empty.

It was worth a try.

Ken Strawbridge

[Anonymous]

Dave
1) I think you're getting quite a bit full of your self and more than a little obnoxious

and

2) There is a lot of freight out there that will NEVER, EVER touch a train because the decision maker (i.e. shipper) does not a) trust the service reliability of rail and/or b) the transit on rail does not fit the shippers need. The shipper will not even consider rail and the truck is the first choice of the shipper as the mode of preference. This applies to many commodities and many lanes.

This is coming from somebody who works in the intermodal dept of one of the largest intermodal and trucking providers in the U.S. who sees about 10,000 loads per day moved on our trucks. Those are 10,000 loads per day that I'd love to see put on rail, but the shipper and or transit criteria would never allow it to happen. And it happens every hour of the day, every day of the year.... even as you are reading this right now.

Ergo, your arguement holds no water - so pull your horns in a bit.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by 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.[:)]

What you are missing is the fact that railroads under regulation had to offer a bid for such services. Just because they did haul oddities 300 miles doesn't mean they wanted to. When trucks and decent highways came along, the railroads were more than happy to pawn this type of haul onto the mode of last resort.

And I will tell you this - If for some reason trucking companies no longer wanted this business, it would no longer get hauled. Do you really think the railroads would want this back? HEdoubletoothpicks No!
The mode of last resort. Learn it, memorize it, engrain it.

[(-D] Whatever,Dave. It appears that repeating something over and over until you believe it sure has worked for you. Would the railroads want this (or any other lost business)back? Absolutely, IF they could make a decent profit on it. Who wouldn't?
In my field of work, trucks and trains compete with each other to haul building materials. I wonder why that's different in your part of the world.[xx(]

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by 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.[:)]

What you are missing is the fact that railroads under regulation had to offer a bid for such services. Just because they did haul oddities 300 miles doesn't mean they wanted to. When trucks and decent highways came along, the railroads were more than happy to pawn this type of haul onto the mode of last resort.

And I will tell you this - If for some reason trucking companies no longer wanted this business, it would no longer get hauled. Do you really think the railroads would want this back? HEdoubletoothpicks No!

The mode of last resort. Learn it, memorize it, engrain it.

I worked in pricing for the ICG. We didn't have to "bid" on anything.

We had to have a rate in place. The rates we had "in place" were called "class rates". They were "classification rates", inherited from the 19th centruy and based on the value of the commodity shipped. They became obsolete with the advent of truck competition.

Dave doesn't understand this.

We just let 'em be subject to general increase after general increase. They got so freaking high that no freight moved on them. We moved freight on "commodity" rates tailored to what we analized was in our best interest.

Dave, again, is oh so wrong.

Ken Strawbridge

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by 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.[:)]

What you are missing is the fact that railroads under regulation had to offer a bid for such services. Just because they did haul oddities 300 miles doesn't mean they wanted to. When trucks and decent highways came along, the railroads were more than happy to pawn this type of haul onto the mode of last resort.

And I will tell you this - If for some reason trucking companies no longer wanted this business, it would no longer get hauled. Do you really think the railroads would want this back? HEdoubletoothpicks No!
The mode of last resort. Learn it, memorize it, engrain it.

[(-D] Whatever,Dave. It appears that repeating something over and over until you believe it sure has worked for you. Would the railroads want this (or any other lost business)back? Absolutely, IF they could make a decent profit on it. Who wouldn't?
In my field of work, trucks and trains compete with each other to haul building materials. I wonder why that's different in your part of the world.[xx(]

Gee, I could carry a hod of coal on my bicycle if the price was right. Of course, that price would be so out of kilter as to make a coal power plant shut down quicker than a 90's dotcom. IF they would just pay me enough, I'd do it!

You know nothing of transportation, only the transparency you see from your silo. There's literally thousands of opportunities where railroads could get business currently being hauled by trucks, if only they wanted it. Apparently, they don't, for the reasons listed previously (which you seem to have either missed or ignored.) Many of those lost opportunities have occured right in my backyard, simply because the railroad is engaged in something other than maximizing the customer base.

Go back to a past issue of TRAINS, there's an article by Bruce Kelly regarding railroading in Eastern Washington. In it, he states what I have tried to drill into your head, namely that the railroads don't want certain business. His example is of (then) BN and UP seemingly glad to allow grain hauling to drift to the truck/barge combo, ostensibly because the 300 mile haul to the coast is too short. His near exact wording was "the railroads were glad to let go of this business, prefering the longer grain hauls out of the Upper Midwest."

The reason that coal from Gillette moves by truck instead of rail is that the railroads don't want it. Why? As I stated previously....

1. It is a short haul - which means only a unit train operation would work - short haul carload doesn't happen
2. It would require cooperation for a short haul move by the two connecting lines (BNSF and DM&E) - ain't gonna happen.
3. The road mileage point to point is significantly shorter than the existing rail mileage, which wipes out the 4 to 1 efficiency advantage of the railroad.
4. In case you haven't been reading the papers lately, there is a capacity shortage out of the PRB - why would BNSF want to add a short haul shuttle when they're having so much trouble getting the long haul (e.g. *profitable*) trains out of the PRB in good shape?

Up here in God's Country, BNSF is (and has been) engaged in systematic destruction of carload services off the shortlines. Doesn't matter that there is inherent profit in this business, the fact is BNSF and other Class I's aren't as motivated by the profit motive as they are the political motive.

You seem to be under the impression that, if there is transporation business to be had, that some mode will pick it up when the price becomes high enough. It might suprise you that plants have shut down due to lack of rail service. "Gee, why didn't they just switch to trucks, trucks compete with trains?" Because there are commodities out there that need the efficiencies of railroads to be viable, and if rail service isn't offered, there is no competition to turn to, ergo THEY SHUT DOWN. Trying to ship by trucks would blow their cost structure out of the water.

Trucks are no competition for railroads.

I notice another forum participant indicated that the Deadwood power plant shut down. How can that be? Since trucks are competition for railroads, they should've been able to hum right along even without rail service. Apparently, the trucks couldn't hack it. Some competition they were (insert sarcastic smilie here).

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by 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.[:)]

What you are missing is the fact that railroads under regulation had to offer a bid for such services. Just because they did haul oddities 300 miles doesn't mean they wanted to. When trucks and decent highways came along, the railroads were more than happy to pawn this type of haul onto the mode of last resort.

And I will tell you this - If for some reason trucking companies no longer wanted this business, it would no longer get hauled. Do you really think the railroads would want this back? HEdoubletoothpicks No!

The mode of last resort. Learn it, memorize it, engrain it.

I worked in pricing for the ICG. We didn't have to "bid" on anything.

We had to have a rate in place. The rates we had "in place" were called "class rates". They were "classification rates", inherited from the 19th centruy and based on the value of the commodity shipped. They became obsolete with the advent of truck competition.

Dave doesn't understand this.

We just let 'em be subject to general increase after general increase. They got so freaking high that no freight moved on them. We moved freight on "commodity" rates tailored to what we analized was in our best interest.

Dave, again, is oh so wrong.

Ken Strawbridge

A rate offering is a bid. If you offered a rate, you offered a bid. Didn't they teach you about how multiple words can have the same meaning back there in Deliverenceville?[:o)]

And those class rates became obsolete long before highways were built and trucks began to haul the stuff railroads didn't want (as per their collective actions toward shippers).

You should read a wonderful book I've been reading. It's entitled "The Box That Changed The World" by Arthur Donovan and Joseph Bonney. In it, you will see that it wasn't McClean's intention to compete with railroads (from an economics standpoint an impossible thing), rather it was to take advantage of the railroad's rate regulation quagmire by offering to ship those freight items disenfranchised by the regulatory nightmare. If not for the ICC, practically all truck trailers would have been carried via TOFC even back in the 1930's. Of course, it would be fooli***o blame the ICC for all the railroads' resistence to TOFC. Mostly, the railroads should blame the railroads themselves.

You will notice that McClean never considered that his trucking venture was competing with the railroads. In fact, all he wanted was for the railroads to carry his product (which happened to be trailers full of goods), and you know what? The railroads could even profit from that venture! But noooooooo! The railroads decided to try and make a *competition* out of what by all natural and economic accounts was the perfect cooperative venture.

Perhaps this explains why even today railroad types are always refering to the "rail vs truck" ghost rivalry, while today's trucking companies just see railroads as another option (along with highways and waterways) for moving their trailers from Point A to Point B. No one who still considers trucks as *competition* for railroads can be considered an elightened individual in this day and age.

[CrazyDiamond]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

2. It would require cooperation for a short haul move by the two connecting lines (BNSF and DM&E) - ain't gonna happen.

From what I have been told it happens all the time up here in Canada. RRs partner and do hand-offs all ther time...if they didn't they would lose more business.

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Doesn't matter that there is inherent profit in this business, the fact is BNSF and other Class I's aren't as motivated by the profit motive as they are the political motive.

That's a pile of 'BS'. Today they are exceptionally motivated by profit.

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Trucks are no competition for railroads.

Yeah right, and cable companies are no competition for telephone companies. Up here in Canada the trucking industry is very real hard competition for the RR business. The trucking companies acquired a bunch of business the RR used to have. How they do that? They went door-to-door and show businesses how their transport model was better. Depending on the specifics it was likely either cheaper, and/or faster, and/or more reliable. In some cases it could have been a bit more expensive but way way faster, and in today's world of get to market the next day this can be reason alone to switch your transporter.

But futuremodeal does have a point although I'm not sure he has presented it the way I think he meant to. Not all business is good business. Yes a run from A to B might be a bit profitble, it might employe a few people but the possible long term consequences could be risky enough to draw the conclusion of not going down that road. In today's very aggressive very calculated business world, building a solid business plan and sticking to it is absolutely mandatory.

But the comment about the trucking industry being the mode of last resort.......rubbish.

[Murphy Siding]

[(-D][(-D] Dave, Dave, Dave. Get a grip man, or you'll have us rolling out door laughing![(-D] You've changed your statement from "trucks can't compete with railroads", to "trucks can compete with railroads on any item/route that the railroads let them compete."[;)] You're right. I agree with that 100%. How could I have been so wrong for all these years? Wow! I feel better now, just knowing that all those materials that come to us by rail had to go through the *Railroad/truck hotline, so you can ask us if it's all right to compete* system first! I am amazed.[(-D][(-D]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CrazyDiamond

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

2. It would require cooperation for a short haul move by the two connecting lines (BNSF and DM&E) - ain't gonna happen.

From what I have been told it happens all the time up here in Canada. RRs partner and do hand-offs all ther time...if they didn't they would lose more business.

Anecdotal pap. Out west here in the USA, trying to get BNSF and UP to cooperate on anything is nearly impossible. Otherwise, there'd be trains aplomb running from Sweetgrass MT to LA via CP, BNSF, ,MRL, Montana Central, and UP (in that order, north to south). Facts are this: In Murphy's Gillette to Rapid City example, there is a railroad in Gillette called BNSF. There is a railroad in Rapid City called DM&E. BNSF and DM&E do interconnect with each other. So why no BNSF/DM&E coal trains between these two fine cities?

QUOTE:

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Doesn't matter that there is inherent profit in this business, the fact is BNSF and other Class I's aren't as motivated by the profit motive as they are the political motive.

That's a pile of 'BS'. Today they are exceptionally motivated by profit.

More anecdotal BS. You have no understanding of the non-profit motivated actions of railroads. I have offered first hand accounts time and again of how BNSF turned down perfectly good business opportunities over underutilized tracks. Why? Because they have a political agenda that trumps the pure profit motive. In most cases, the new business would also benefit other railroads, or trucking companies, or barge lines, or start up 3pl's. BN tore up tracks that connected to barge ports just to keep a lucrative rail/barge multimodal move from taking place, which eventually forced the business onto trucks. Even now, BNSF and UP refuse to offload certain grain trains at available barge ports to free up rail capacity in the Columbia Gorge, even though having a waterway division would make sense if indeed BNSF and UP are true transportation companies. BNSF spent big bucks upgrading a major brancline in the late 1970's, only to embargo that same line five years later after a change of management. The welds on the rails had barely had time to cool, the new clean ballast barely had time to get a coat of farm dust on it.

And you calll that being "exceptionally motivated by profit"? Any sane person would call it what it was and is - political motivation trumping profit motive.

QUOTE:

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Trucks are no competition for railroads.

Yeah right, and cable companies are no competition for telephone companies. Up here in Canada the trucking industry is very real hard competition for the RR business. The trucking companies acquired a bunch of business the RR used to have. How they do that? They went door-to-door and show businesses how their transport model was better. Depending on the specifics it was likely either cheaper, and/or faster, and/or more reliable. In some cases it could have been a bit more expensive but way way faster, and in today's world of get to market the next day this can be reason alone to switch your transporter.

Specifics? What is this "traffic" that both railroads and truckers are competing for? Coal? Grain? TOFC? COFC? Chemicals? Lumber? Autos? Hmmmm, that's most of what is profitable for railroads to move, and we're assuming such is moving in bulk over decent distances. Trucks only get such business when the dynamics do not jive with railroad fundamentals -

1. In corridors where railroads do not exist
2. In corridors where rail service is not direct
3. In corridors where rail capacity issues force traffic onto highways
4. In small amounts where it isn't worth the time and effort to use rail

QUOTE:
But futuremodeal does have a point although I'm not sure he has presented it the way I think he meant to. Not all business is good business. Yes a run from A to B might be a bit profitble, it might employe a few people but the possible long term consequences could be risky enough to draw the conclusion of not going down that road. In today's very aggressive very calculated business world, building a solid business plan and sticking to it is absolutely mandatory.

I notice you've mentioned nothing of truck/railroad cooperation in TOFC and domestic COFC. I have stated before that the trucking companies don't give a rat's***if a trailer moves over the highway or by TOFC. All they care about is if the trailer makes it in time from Point A to Point B. Trucking companies are true comprehensive transportation companies, railroads are modally limited transporation companies. If railroads were true transportation companies, they wouldn't care how a commodity got from Point A to Point B as long as they got the profit.

Railroad tracks and highways are different modal pathways. One is beter suited for multiplicity, the other is best suited for expediency. Combine the two and you get intermodalism. If and only if highway's were allowed by law to host multiple trailer combinations of tens and twenties could highways be seen as true competition for railroads. It isn't, so it ain't.

What you guys are missing is the fundamental difference in closed access vs open access transportation systems, which is why you are stuck in this railroads vs trucks mythology. Because railroad companies own both the transporter equipment and the tracks, they have to have goods move over tracks for them to get any benefit. Trucking companies only need the goods to be placed in their trailers and containers to get the benefits. They don't care if the trailer moves by highway or rail, in the end they get their piece of the pie. Contrarily, railcars can only move by rail. There is no Railcar On Flatbed Trailer moves out there that I know of.

QUOTE:
But the comment about the trucking industry being the mode of last resort.......rubbish.

You are showing that you have no conception of the context of the statement. Trucks via highways are the mode of choice for small lot shorthauls and expedient deliveries. Other than that, sending trailers by highways over long distances thar are also covered by railroads makes no sense.

You see, it's not really about trucks vs railroads, it's about highways vs railroads. Once you understand the infrastructural modal ideal can you truly appreciate the "mode of last resort" tenet. Since railroads really only care about the long haul, if a company has to choose between loading a railcar or a truck trailer for long distance delivery, they have no idea if that trailer is going over the road or by TOFC at some intermodal terminal. So they are not making a conscious decision of railroads vs highways, they are only making a decision on the type of container their product is moving in. If they put it in a trailer it can still move by rail, but if they put it in a railcar it can only move by rail.

For most long distance deliveries, they would prefer the railcar over the trailer since they can fit more onto a railcar than onto a trailer, but if the railcar is not available to them in an expedient fashion, they go to truck trailers as a last resort. After trailers there are no more options. It's a hierarchy, and it goes in descending order railcar - trailer - squat.

[Anonymous]

I believe you have your hierarchy in the wrong order. Most shippers that are not shipping bulk look first to trucks because that is what they are familiar with, that is probably the only sales person they have ever seen, and the service is probably supplied by a local trucking company thereby giving them more influence over the transportation provider and then rail. Rail will only be a factor when the points you listed come into play or the trucker cannot provide the service due to price ( including backhaul), availability of drivers and availability of equipment. When I say most shippers, I am not referring to bulk shippers but to manufacturers and distributors.
I worked for a trucking company where the biggest problem was finding a backhaul at a resonable price to get back home. That is how most of the logistics carriers make a profit since every carrier's head haul is someone elses backhaul. The railroads on the otherhand will run empty for 1000's of miles in order to keep cars in a cycle or allocated to specific a customer as in the case of unit trains.

[CrazyDiamond]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

You are showing that you have no conception of the context of the statement. Trucks via highways are the mode of choice for small lot shorthauls and expedient deliveries. Other than that, sending trailers by highways over long distances thar are also covered by railroads makes no sense.

You are showing that you are either business/market ignorant or have some oher self-serving agenda. Sending trailers over long distances via asphalt highways makes a ton of sense to a lot of very successful trucking companies AND TO THE COMPANIES THAT USE THEM AS THEIR FIRST CHOICE OF TRANSPORT. There are dozens of trucking companies that specialize in long haul from one end of the country to the other, and there are thousands of companies that know their needs are best looked after via tractor-trailors not trains. YOu've done a great job of convincing yourself, a weak job of convincing the rest of us....and a crappy job of covincing the shippers that trains will serve them best. I wish everything went by train, but it does not...and a lot of what does not go by train goes by truck because truck is the best way......you should go argue with my family....my uncle and a freind too each owns a tractor trailer company, and my dad and father-in-law are retired from the RR, my cousin works with CN, and my brother-in-law works in the yard. Ironically they all agree about the state of affairs with todays transport industry. None of them share your opinions.

It is what it is. [:)]

[n012944]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Originally posted by Murphy Siding

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.[:)]

I notice another forum participant indicated that the Deadwood power plant shut down. How can that be? Since trucks are competition for railroads, they should've been able to hum right along even without rail service. Apparently, the trucks couldn't hack it. Some competition they were (insert sarcastic smilie here).

Hold on here, you know what they say about assumeing things. There are many reasons why the power plant could have shut down, was it clean air compliant? Was there a new one built? Somehow I think there is more than just the trucking of coal that made the plant close.


Bert

An "expensive model collector"

• Reply