double-stack vs piggyback

[Anonymous]

Since the economic argument in favor of double-stack trains must be quite strong, for what reason would we continue to see piggy-back trains?  Have the number of piggy-back trains/shipments gone down over the last few years, or have they stayed about the same?

Riprap

[jsoderq]

It mostly depends on the shipper. The package delivery guys use trailers not containers. Much of the container stuff is from overseas, much of the local is trailers.

[tree68]

Shipping containers require a secondary investment - the skeletons that make them highway ready.  Some vendors are pretty specific about whose container gets put on whose skeleton.   You also need some pretty specialized equipment to load and unload containers from the cars.

A trailer requires only a tractor, and it doesn't care what the name on the door is.  While there is undoubtedly special equipment for handling trailers, you can, in theory, unload TOFC with a big forklift (assuming it won't damage the trailer).  At one time it was drive-on, drive-off...

There is a specific market for each mode.  I don't think you'll see either go away any time soon.

[rluke]

Tree68

  When you mention 'Skeletons',  Are you refering to the tractor/trailer 'chasis'?

                                  thanks  Rich

[tree68]

Tree68

  When you mention 'Skeletons',  Are you refering to the tractor/trailer 'chasis'?

                                  thanks  Rich

Yep - those things that they set the containers on with road wheels.

I've read that the owners are pretty specific about having their own containers put on their equipment.

[ndbprr]

Another reason is economics.  Trailers can run to $200,000 dependent on features and materials.  Until they are fully depreciated they won't be replaced by containers and skeletons.  I doubt they will ever be completely replaced but the shift toward containers will continue with time.  Picture them as the 21st century box car.

[BaltACD]

The simplest way to view Piggyback/Stack equation.

Piggyback Trailers are primarily domestic picked up at the Shippers loading dock and delivered to the Consignees loading dock....over the road on both ends within the country.

Containers arrive at the Docks on vessels without wheels...get loaded on a chassis to go to their consignee and then return to the docks for loading back onto a vessel without wheels.

[CShaveRR]

Don't forget, too, that a trailer weighs less than container + chassis.  That means more payload. 

If I'm not mistaken, J.B. Hunt once converted from trailers to containers.  Now, you see their trailers again.  Probably for that reason.

[Anonymous]

Since the economic argument in favor of double-stack trains must be quite strong, for what reason would we continue to see piggy-back trains?  Have the number of piggy-back trains/shipments gone down over the last few years, or have they stayed about the same?

Another excellent topic.

In short, the railroads favor double stack over TOFC, while the trucking companies prefer TOFC over COFC.

This shouldn't be too suprising, since each player is trying to maximize it's respective load factors.  Railroads can fit 250 or so domestic containers per train in double stack mode vs 125 or so trailers in TOFC mode.  The problem is that 53' domestic containers have about 10% to 15% less capacity than 53' high cube wide body dry vans.  In order for a domestic container to have nearly the same capacity as the ultra capacity dry vans, those domestic containers would have to be 10 1/2 feet high.  Since double stack clearances only allow two 9.5' high containers, an ultra high container would have to ride single stack or on top of an 8.5' high container.  If a domestic container is riding single stack, it defeats the purpose of going container vs trailer.  Thus, trucking companies have to limit their load factor to conform to the railroads' double stack ideal.

Because of the railroads' pricing power, they have basically forced domestic intermodal players to utilize the less efficient containers as opposed to the prefered (and more efficient) ultra high cube dry vans.  Which is why (1) we still have gobs of over the road trucks on our highways, (2) most of the growth in intermodal is for international containers, (3) and why the trucking industry still carries 80% of revenue intercity tonnage.

[chicagorails]

lots of containers are china products, but i see more and more new domestic containers than i see new import containers,ie jb hunt,stax,emp,schnider,csx,ect. i see them on bnsf thru galesburg ill. and up thru rochelle ill.  thought i also saw a few ups  containers (grey) on bnsf line(atsf).

its less work to load n unload pigs than cont. you dont have to store skeletons and make extra trip for them but containers can be stored more efficient in yard one on top of each other 5 high or more. and more containers on a train than trailers and less weight,   but containers hold less cu ft.

why dont they make containers out of aluminum(domestic) so more can be carried?  too weak?

road railers are great as usually only one engine is needed (thru tolono ill).

thats my guess!   sweet dreamzzzz

[MP173]

Just remember that UPS ships by trailer, both their own and leased.  As long as they ship trailer, railroads will continue to offer.

Dave...I never heard there is a difference between container heights and trailer heights.  Not saying that I disagree with you, I have never heard it and I have been around trailers for years.  Something to check into.

I am not sure of a trailer costing $200,000 each.  It would have to be LOADED.  Standard trailers today are in the $20-$25000 range.  A refer unit will more than double that. 

ed

[Anonymous]

FutureModal (or anybody else out there), could you explain in a little more detail about RR's pricing power, and how it forces shippers to accept higher prices, ergo the continuing preference for trucks?  This sounds intriguing....

Riprap

[Anonymous]

FutureModal (or anybody else out there), could you explain in a little more detail about RR's pricing power, and how it forces shippers to accept higher prices, ergo the continuing preference for trucks?  This sounds intriguing....

Riprap

"Force shippers to accept higher prices"?  Continuing preference for trucks?  Shippers like price and service.  They do business with whomever offers the best.  There is no preference for transportation modes (shippers don't care if it moved by magic broom), only a preference for a good deal.  Trucking is much cheaper, relative to rail, than many railfans want to think.  The smart railroad, or the smart trucker, will price very closely to each other, as does any merchant because there's no glory in leaving money on the table.  Not that either have much choice in the matter because the split between price and cost is extremely thin in transportation.  No one in railroading or trucking is obtaining a large profit margin, except on high-service express package business (FedEx and UPS) which have onerous costs of entry.  (Remember Purolator?  Airborne?)  Freight moves by truck when truck has lower costs relative to the desired service, and by rail when rail has lower costs relative to the desired service.  Trucking in general has higher costs on a line-haul basis but that's not the only cost the shipper thinks about.  He also has cost of location, cost of inflexibility, cost of time, cost of service predictability, and so forth.  The growth in rail intermodal is due to several factors: faster increase in cost of trucking vs. increase in cost of rail; overall volume increases which drive rail costs down but don't do the same for trucks (because trucking is not a batch process); shippers increasing in size enabling them to achieve volume efficiencies such as distribution centralization; and a shift toward foreign sourcing which increases line-haul distance, which increases rail's attractivness.

S. Hadid

[beaulieu]

Tree68

  When you mention 'Skeletons',  Are you refering to the tractor/trailer 'chasis'?

                                  thanks  Rich

I've read that the owners are pretty specific about having their own containers put on their equipment.

The railroads are working on that nonsense too. The new rule is that the railroads will provide some space for pool chassis, non-pool chassis must leave after they are unloaded, they cannot be parked in the terminal.
That is the rule in Denver right now, it will be the rule everywhere soon, at least on BNSF and UP. There is a steamship company chassis pool that has been formed for this and is active in Denver right now, but not all companies belong yet. A few companies are holding out saying the chassis cost is too high, the others say that this is because the holdouts practice deferred maintenance on their chassis, only fixing things when forced too by law enforcement.

[TomDiehl]

Tree68

  When you mention 'Skeletons',  Are you refering to the tractor/trailer 'chasis'?

                                  thanks  Rich

I've read that the owners are pretty specific about having their own containers put on their equipment.

The railroads are working on that nonsense too. The new rule is that the railroads will provide some space for pool chassis, non-pool chassis must leave after they are unloaded, they cannot be parked in the terminal.
That is the rule in Denver right now, it will be the rule everywhere soon, at least on BNSF and UP. There is a steamship company chassis pool that has been formed for this and is active in Denver right now, but not all companies belong yet. A few companies are holding out saying the chassis cost is too high, the others say that this is because the holdouts practice deferred maintenance on their chassis, only fixing things when forced too by law enforcement.

I was about to say (in a cheesy Superman voice) "This is a job for TrailerTrain." Or at least the same concept. But it sound like things are already moving in that direction.

[Anonymous]

 

Dave...I never heard there is a difference between container heights and trailer heights.  Not saying that I disagree with you, I have never heard it and I have been around trailers for years.  Something to check into.

The standard height of a trailer is 13'6" from ground to top.  Some of the newer high capacity trailers use smaller diameter wheels tridems that allow the box's platform level to be lower, thus more cubic capacity (the box itself can be 10'6" in height if I remember correctly), while keeping to the 13'6" road height standard.  I think they utilize air suspension to allow the platform height to match dock height.

A 53' container + chassis also will have more tare weight than a 53' dry van.

[Anonymous]

FutureModal (or anybody else out there), could you explain in a little more detail about RR's pricing power, and how it forces shippers to accept higher prices, ergo the continuing preference for trucks?  This sounds intriguing....

Riprap

"Force shippers to accept higher prices"?  Continuing preference for trucks?  Shippers like price and service.  They do business with whomever offers the best.  There is no preference for transportation modes (shippers don't care if it moved by magic broom), only a preference for a good deal.  Trucking is much cheaper, relative to rail, than many railfans want to think.  The smart railroad, or the smart trucker, will price very closely to each other, as does any merchant because there's no glory in leaving money on the table.  Not that either have much choice in the matter because the split between price and cost is extremely thin in transportation.  No one in railroading or trucking is obtaining a large profit margin, except on high-service express package business (FedEx and UPS) which have onerous costs of entry.  (Remember Purolator?  Airborne?)  Freight moves by truck when truck has lower costs relative to the desired service, and by rail when rail has lower costs relative to the desired service.  Trucking in general has higher costs on a line-haul basis but that's not the only cost the shipper thinks about.  He also has cost of location, cost of inflexibility, cost of time, cost of service predictability, and so forth.  The growth in rail intermodal is due to several factors: faster increase in cost of trucking vs. increase in cost of rail; overall volume increases which drive rail costs down but don't do the same for trucks (because trucking is not a batch process); shippers increasing in size enabling them to achieve volume efficiencies such as distribution centralization; and a shift toward foreign sourcing which increases line-haul distance, which increases rail's attractivness.

S. Hadid

I don't disagree with anything you've said there.  What I am saying is that, in the vein of COFC vs TOFC, since railroads prefer COFC over TOFC (more revenue units per consist), they are using their monopoly power to try and "nudge" trucking companies to use COFC over TOFC.  Trucking companies would prefer TOFC, since that allows them to minimize their equipment inventories while maximizing their equipment utilization.  As it is now, the big trucking companies like JB Hunt have to expand thier equipment inventories to include not only the standard dry van but also alot of chassis and containers, while not necessarily expanding their business relative to that superfluous equipment fleet.  Again, a domestic container has less capacity than a dry van, so using domestic containers cuts into those thin margins to which you alluded.

[arbfbe]

One huge advantage to the railroad is that stacks offer a huge space savings over piggyback.  A 150 unit piggyback train takes up 150 x 53' of space.  Even more actually allowing for the articulation, trucks and couplers needed to make it move.  On the other hand, 150 units of double stack only takes 75x53' of space plus the articulation, trucks and couplers.  Now that is a massive savings in investment in more yard capacity, siding capacity and teminal capacity when intermodal traffic is increasing.

[Anonymous]

 

Dave...I never heard there is a difference between container heights and trailer heights.  Not saying that I disagree with you, I have never heard it and I have been around trailers for years.  Something to check into.

The standard height of a trailer is 13'6" from ground to top.  Some of the newer high capacity trailers use smaller diameter wheels tridems that allow the box's platform level to be lower, thus more cubic capacity (the box itself can be 10'6" in height if I remember correctly), while keeping to the 13'6" road height standard.  I think they utilize air suspension to allow the platform height to match dock height.

Toured the local Swift base this morning.  Indeed there were sizes of dry vans that are obviously larger height-wise than the one domestic container + chassis sitting down there, so it stands that dry vans today have more capacity than domestic containers.  Those ultra high dry vans do indeed have smaller wheelsets (not necessarily tridems, some were regular tandems), but since the tractor units have the same kingpin height the front end of those vans must exceed the 13'6" road standard.  I guess it pays for those outfits to have a list of low clearances (such as those pesky railroad overpasses from the 1930's!) to avoid.

[Anonymous]

One huge advantage to the railroad is that stacks offer a huge space savings over piggyback.  A 150 unit piggyback train takes up 150 x 53' of space.  Even more actually allowing for the articulation, trucks and couplers needed to make it move.  On the other hand, 150 units of double stack only takes 75x53' of space plus the articulation, trucks and couplers.  Now that is a massive savings in investment in more yard capacity, siding capacity and teminal capacity when intermodal traffic is increasing.

I'm not sure it's wise for the railroads to treat the intermodal customers like they do the coal and grain customers when it comes to load factor vs service flexibility.  Usually if given a choice, the domestic shipper will want to use the box with the most capacity and the greatest flexibility, and that means dry vans, not containers.  So what if a railroad can fit 250 domestic containers in the same space as 125 trailers - just because it fits the railroad's internal goals doesn't mean it's what's best for the supply chain.  Railroads have lost sight of the one thing everyone wants to accomplish - taking long haul trailers off the roads.  TOFC can accomplish this without forcing the road mode folks to change it's equipment specs.  Domestic COFC on the other hand has forced the road folks to buy/lease extra equipment that has less relative efficiency.

It would be interesting to see what percentage of domestic intermodal boxes (containers and trailers) spend on the rails and what percentage is spent on roads.  Unless these boxes spend most of their time on the rails, I can't see where domestic containers would be an asset to the supply chain rather than a detriment.

[TH&B]

CPRail got out of piggy back completely recently exept for Toronto to Montreal. And they got out fast. I wonder why?

ps; I'm not new to this forum but it won't accept my old titel. So now I'm CNR

[Anonymous]

One other thing about this double stack vs piggyback debate, and it plays into the perception that US railroads favor foreign producers over domestic producers - While most dry vans are still manufactured in the US and North America, most domestic containers these days are manufactured overseas.  Thus, the railroads' preference for COFC over TOFC ends up favoring foreign manufacturers over US manufacturers.

It's bad enough that differential pricing schemes always cross subsidize foreign importers at the expense of captive US rail shippers.  Now the railroads are adding to that anti-US aspect by favoring domestic double stack over TOFC.

Well, that's par for the course, isn't it?

[JSGreen]

...and it plays into the perception that US railroads favor foreign producers...

PERCEPTION is the correct word here...what is that famous socio/politico rule of thumb..."Follow the money".   The railroads are going to do what they calculate is in their best interest, which often equated to the often maligned "Bottom Line" of thier profit/loss statement.  Sometimes it will be the monthly statement that rules, others the annual.  Depends on how forward thinking the management is, and what kind of pressure they feel from the board of directors...or, what kind of pressure the board of directors percieve from the stockholders.  So the railroads are not "Forcing" trucking industry to do things because of an ulterior motive...it is a financial motive.  They offer a service to the trucking industry, both COFC and TOFC.  They are priced differently, and both are priced so the railroad can make a profit.  They may not even offer the same margin or return to the railroad.  The customers will decide which they will use, based either on lowest cost or greatest convienience.  That is why the hot shots cost more, there is more percieved value, from increased service level.  When the shippers find a better way to do things, they will turn to that, or use that to renegotiate with the railroads to change the rate structure. 

[oltmannd]

  most domestic containers these days are manufactured overseas. 

Really?  By whom?  How do they get them here?

There's 95,000 53', 102" wide containers  in UMLER. 

These are the backbone of the domestic stack service.

As far as I know, most of these can't be stacked more than two high, so shipping them on container ships is problematic.  Also, I've never heard of 102" wide OR 53' foot containers moving on container ships. 

JB Hunt's came from Wabash National.  Scheider has some, too.  From their press release.

Container features include:
· Same load configuration as a van trailer
· Ability to be double-stacked when used on the rail
· High-durability, lightweight painted/galvanized steel that is rust-resistant to protect transport of food, garments and other sensitive cargo
· Easy loading, reduced product damage and smooth, clean look of non-corrugated, plywood-free interior sidewalls
· 109 ½ inch interior height for greater loading capacity
· Authorization for use on any railroad

[CSXrules4eva]

One other thing about this double stack vs piggyback debate, and it plays into the perception that US railroads favor foreign producers over domestic producers - While most dry vans are still manufactured in the US and North America, most domestic containers these days are manufactured overseas.  Thus, the railroads' preference for COFC over TOFC ends up favoring foreign manufacturers over US manufacturers.

It's bad enough that differential pricing schemes always cross subsidize foreign importers at the expense of captive US rail shippers.  Now the railroads are adding to that anti-US aspect by favoring domestic double stack over TOFC.

Well, that's par for the course, isn't it?

I guess it must be cheaper for the railroads to ship COFC, due to the fact of what futuremodel stated in regards to railroads perfering to ship overseas containers instead of domestic. I do have a question as to why, it is cheaper to ship COFC vs. TOFC?? I'm a bit stumped here. Maybe this is one of the reasons why  I don't seen anymore TOFC here in Philadelphia, it's mainly COFC. Some of the only times I see TOFC, is in a mixed consist here in Philly.

[SactoGuy188]

Just remember that UPS ships by trailer, both their own and leased.  As long as they ship trailer, railroads will continue to offer.

For one reason: that way UPS can use the trailer on either over-road trucking service or on TOFC train service. Every BNSF Z train in UPS service I've seen go through Stockton, CA essentially are standard UPS truck trailers mounted on spline cars.

This is why I sometimes wonder why didn't UPS work with Wabash National to develop a low-weight/high-strength RoadRailer trailer that can carry the type of loads UPS normally carries. That way, this specialized RoadRailer trailer could either be used in over-road trucking service or tied together in a long RoadRailer train on long-distance runs.

 

 

[JSGreen]

This is why I sometimes wonder why didn't UPS work with Wabash National to develop a low-weight/high-strength RoadRailer trailer that can carry the type of loads UPS normally carries. That way, this specialized RoadRailer trailer could either be used in over-road trucking service or tied together in a long RoadRailer train on long-distance runs.

 

Two good reasons I can think of off the top of my head:

1.  The piggy back service did not start out as piggy back, it grew into piggyback.  The railroads offered UPS a cheaper way to get the 28' pups from spot to spot, they tried it, and liked it.  When they stop liking it, they can go back to the triples behind a cab.

2.  Cost.  The cost of the road-railer would be borne by UPS.  The cost of the Flat is born by the railroad.  The extra mechanical complexity of the roadrailer means it costs more, and is good for only one thing.  One thing that might make this an interesting option to consider, is if it is quicker to get road railer units from the arriving track over to the sort facility, or would result in a shorter time to build a train, thus allowing a later arrival for the departing train.

An article I read in Trains last year, I believe, talked about how the TOFC's are loaded on and off the flats, taken to a UPS sorting center nearby, everything inside is sent inside to be resorted, and the trailer is refilled and sent back to the railyard for the trip in the other direction.  WIth a straight TOFC, any trailer can be used for any mode.  WIth road-railer, those units would be reserved for strictly rail use, or they might end up with all the road railers out on the highway somewhere and not have enough roadrailers available for the traffic.  Just my .

[oltmannd]

Just remember that UPS ships by trailer, both their own and leased.  As long as they ship trailer, railroads will continue to offer.

For one reason: that way UPS can use the trailer on either over-road trucking service or on TOFC train service. Every BNSF Z train in UPS service I've seen go through Stockton, CA essentially are standard UPS truck trailers mounted on spline cars.

This is why I sometimes wonder why didn't UPS work with Wabash National to develop a low-weight/high-strength RoadRailer trailer that can carry the type of loads UPS normally carries. That way, this specialized RoadRailer trailer could either be used in over-road trucking service or tied together in a long RoadRailer train on long-distance runs.

There are some 28' containers out there that UPS uses primarily because the RRs are trying to get them interested.

[VPayne]

The question of the time split between road and rail is the primary driver IHMO for the existance of 53' plate vans in TOFC service. The large over the road guys are looking to move loads in any direction possible using standard equipment if at all possible. By adding a few hundred pounds of structural upgrades, if that, to a standard OTR dry van they can have a intermodal option for the move but also move the trailer by road with little penatly and actually a stronger trailer body.

[arbfbe]

One huge advantage to the railroad is that stacks offer a huge space savings over piggyback.  A 150 unit piggyback train takes up 150 x 53' of space.  Even more actually allowing for the articulation, trucks and couplers needed to make it move.  On the other hand, 150 units of double stack only takes 75x53' of space plus the articulation, trucks and couplers.  Now that is a massive savings in investment in more yard capacity, siding capacity and teminal capacity when intermodal traffic is increasing.

I'm not sure it's wise for the railroads to treat the intermodal customers like they do the coal and grain customers when it comes to load factor vs service flexibility.  Usually if given a choice, the domestic shipper will want to use the box with the most capacity and the greatest flexibility, and that means dry vans, not containers.  So what if a railroad can fit 250 domestic containers in the same space as 125 trailers - just because it fits the railroad's internal goals doesn't mean it's what's best for the supply chain.  Railroads have lost sight of the one thing everyone wants to accomplish - taking long haul trailers off the roads.  TOFC can accomplish this without forcing the road mode folks to change it's equipment specs.  Domestic COFC on the other hand has forced the road folks to buy/lease extra equipment that has less relative efficiency.

It would be interesting to see what percentage of domestic intermodal boxes (containers and trailers) spend on the rails and what percentage is spent on roads.  Unless these boxes spend most of their time on the rails, I can't see where domestic containers would be an asset to the supply chain rather than a detriment.

 

Perhaps the railroads have given up on the train vs trucks war.  The BNSF even throws a party every year to show their appreciation to all the truckers they deal with.

One of the biggest problems in railroading now is the capacity issues.  The RRs have more business than they can handle.  UP is even turning away the highest priority business most competitive to truckers since all those Z trains, actually just a few Z trains gum up the entire railroad.  So they have told UPS to just put it on the rubber, the UP is not interested any more.  So chasing the glamor business makes it hard to run the coal and grain trains and the lower priority merchandise trains and the railroads have opted to run all the trains at the same speed at the same priority where capacity is an issue.  The Z trains on the BNSF on the old GN northern line seem to work pretty well but that line is far from being at full capacity.

So the best thing for the railroads with capacity issues is to make the trains shorter and taller for the same tonnage to aleve the need to lengthen sidings and yard tracks.  If the truckers do not like it, they can buy more tractors and hire more drivers and buy more diesel and do it them selves.  The railroads have all the intermodal business they can handle right now and much of it comes off the ship prepackaged anyway.

 

The railroads have always been a pretty arrogant bunch to deal with, why expect them to change now?