If I remember, I'll ask our intermodal guy about single vs double stack load time.
Nick
Take a Ride on the Reading with the: Reading Company Technical & Historical Society http://www.readingrailroad.org/
I know there are ALOT of truckers online here, how many drove duoble axle sea bisquits, besides me, ya! Not MANY, yeah?! ya'll don't know! 6 years, I did! Thats a LONG TIME in intermodal. The average being 6-10 months. I drove for PTI.Pennsylvania Truck Lines. Polish Truck Lines, we called it. The same Pennsyalvania RR. trucks. The Cunninghams owned it. The stories there need there own web site, yea! 0k are a laugh!!Logs books are a luagh Cowboy truckin', yeehaa!!!! I'm not belittleing Triple digiters, just the yahoo's that think they got the cure!!!
It's a different world. we were, and probebly still are, considered the "SCABS" of the bissuness!
We haul, regardeless of weight, anything they throw at us! Cowboy truckin' And ya'all wanna do what? Idiots!!! I love All truckers, GOD knows how many, despite our differences, helped me, kept me goin', makin' money, RIGHT? Pay forward, the motto!!!! ya' bastards think ya gotm the cue? !!! Try livin' in a 3x6 for a while, for 30cnt a mile!!
Chickens Hualers(you'll all know), I'll love ya all, wish I made it that big! 72 in a Keny was the best I got. You know we hauled YOU KNOW IT! I'll drive a fork for now on!! Do I really got to take this from someone who THINKS they know something? Tell me?
Futuremodal, you need to change you're handle, cause you no nothing about past, present, or even the future of intermodal!
I think containerships are going to be MONSTERS, and we better get ready for them. I dont know anything about them specifically enough to stand up to cross-examination but I expect Containerships to increase in tonnage capacity two to four times while lengths might double and speeds double.
If one of those shows up in Baltimore I dont think it will fit. They might have to actually build a new port somewhere else and have the boxes brought in to be sorted.
I worry that we will outsource all of our production and when other nations feel that they are taking the time to outsource THIER domestic needs the way we did, all the containers are going to dry up. I have seen about 20 years with this and I dont know how long we can keep this going.
Another factor FM hasn't grasped is that if his logic were true, the same could be said for an 8000 TEU containership vs. a 4000 TEU containership.
The Dutch have studied container port design very throughly, and they have decided that it is best not to load containers direct from ship to train but rather to buffer each process using robot shuttle vehicles. Also their next container quay will be designed to have a much higher dock surface, and the shuttle vehicles will be as close to the ship's side as possible. The idea is to minimize both hoist distance and traverse distance for the container spreader on the container crane. They want the container crane to move the container no further than necessary, either horizontally or vertically.
Lets see if I read you right..
Moving more stuff faster and cheaper is bad for the supply chain?
Wow, and all this time....
Again, double stack is good for the railroads in a circumspect way, but is bad for the supply chain.
23 17 46 11
futuremodal wrote: What Ed is oblivious to is the fact that it takes more than twice as long to load a double stack train as it does a single stack train, and the longer the train the longer the wait to get it loaded and out of the yard. It is this dedication to the long slow concept that is causing all the delays at ports. Again, double stack is good for the railroads in a circumspect way, but is bad for the supply chain.
What Ed is oblivious to is the fact that it takes more than twice as long to load a double stack train as it does a single stack train, and the longer the train the longer the wait to get it loaded and out of the yard. It is this dedication to the long slow concept that is causing all the delays at ports. Again, double stack is good for the railroads in a circumspect way, but is bad for the supply chain.
No Dave. The supply chain would have snapped years ago without the stacks. Capacity is tight in places now, it would be overwhelmed without the stacks.
As to taking longer to load a longer train, it doesn't have to. It all depends on the resources assigned to the task. The BNSF can load 400 containers just as fast as it can load 100 containers, if it assigns more lift equipment and personel to the task.
And, going back to your previous postings, the "cross subsidy" exists only in your mind. The BNSF isn't selling any service below incremental costs - and unless something is being sold below incremental cost there is no "cross subsidy". Whatever you think of railroad management, they are not collectively stupid. They would have to be collectively stupid to sell any ongoing service at a price below their incremental costs. It's just something else you've made up and, unfortunately for you, you actually believe.
futuremodal wrote: edblysard wrote: No David,Ships at anchor and awaiting a berth are not in the purview or under control of the railroads management...if your ship is delayed for its berth time, that is the problem of the local port authority...and unloading delays are the direct responsibility of the stevedore company, who, like the port authority, don't work for the railroad.Just like the City of Houston, the Cities of Long Beach and LA own, operate and manage their docks...not the railroad.If you had read at least one or two newspapers, maybe even watched the national news once in a while, you would have read or heard about several cities attempting to sell/turn management and part ownership of their port operation and docks/ intermodal facilities over to a group of Saudi investors... But that's ok, everyone here already knows you dislike railroads, how they are run and managed, what they do, and what you wish they would do.We understand you are going to cast railroads, BNSF in particular, in a disparaging light, even at the expense of facts and reality. If they were to deliver the Flat Earth Weekly directly to your doorstep, you would still complain, it is who you are and what you do.Again, saving this one for the moderator - once again it is Ed B who initiates the personal attacks.What Ed is oblivious to is the fact that it takes more than twice as long to load a double stack train as it does a single stack train, and the longer the train the longer the wait to get it loaded and out of the yard. It is this dedication to the long slow concept that is causing all the delays at ports. Again, double stack is good for the railroads in a circumspect way, but is bad for the supply chain. The ships are having to wait precisely because of the way railroads operate in the port cities. For proof, look at the European port operations - their port congestion problems are much less becaue the open access railroads are very expedient, using mostly short fast single stack trains. (Yeah, I'm sure we'll get a note from John B with an example or two of just the opposite, notwithstanding.)Hey, that's all right! Everyone knows that the Class I's hate the USA, otherwise why would they continue to subsidize imports on the backs of domestic shippers? And frankly, BNSF is it's own worst enemy on the PR front with the hard wired arrogance it displays toward American rail shippers. That's fact, that's reality, and there's nothing disparaging about pointing this out.
edblysard wrote: No David,Ships at anchor and awaiting a berth are not in the purview or under control of the railroads management...if your ship is delayed for its berth time, that is the problem of the local port authority...and unloading delays are the direct responsibility of the stevedore company, who, like the port authority, don't work for the railroad.Just like the City of Houston, the Cities of Long Beach and LA own, operate and manage their docks...not the railroad.If you had read at least one or two newspapers, maybe even watched the national news once in a while, you would have read or heard about several cities attempting to sell/turn management and part ownership of their port operation and docks/ intermodal facilities over to a group of Saudi investors... But that's ok, everyone here already knows you dislike railroads, how they are run and managed, what they do, and what you wish they would do.We understand you are going to cast railroads, BNSF in particular, in a disparaging light, even at the expense of facts and reality. If they were to deliver the Flat Earth Weekly directly to your doorstep, you would still complain, it is who you are and what you do.
No David,
Ships at anchor and awaiting a berth are not in the purview or under control of the railroads management...if your ship is delayed for its berth time, that is the problem of the local port authority...and unloading delays are the direct responsibility of the stevedore company, who, like the port authority, don't work for the railroad.
Just like the City of Houston, the Cities of Long Beach and LA own, operate and manage their docks...not the railroad.
If you had read at least one or two newspapers, maybe even watched the national news once in a while, you would have read or heard about several cities attempting to sell/turn management and part ownership of their port operation and docks/ intermodal facilities over to a group of Saudi investors...
But that's ok, everyone here already knows you dislike railroads, how they are run and managed, what they do, and what you wish they would do.
We understand you are going to cast railroads, BNSF in particular, in a disparaging light, even at the expense of facts and reality.
If they were to deliver the Flat Earth Weekly directly to your doorstep, you would still complain, it is who you are and what you do.
Again, saving this one for the moderator - once again it is Ed B who initiates the personal attacks.
What Ed is oblivious to is the fact that it takes more than twice as long to load a double stack train as it does a single stack train, and the longer the train the longer the wait to get it loaded and out of the yard. It is this dedication to the long slow concept that is causing all the delays at ports. Again, double stack is good for the railroads in a circumspect way, but is bad for the supply chain. The ships are having to wait precisely because of the way railroads operate in the port cities. For proof, look at the European port operations - their port congestion problems are much less becaue the open access railroads are very expedient, using mostly short fast single stack trains. (Yeah, I'm sure we'll get a note from John B with an example or two of just the opposite, notwithstanding.)
Hey, that's all right! Everyone knows that the Class I's hate the USA, otherwise why would they continue to subsidize imports on the backs of domestic shippers? And frankly, BNSF is it's own worst enemy on the PR front with the hard wired arrogance it displays toward American rail shippers. That's fact, that's reality, and there's nothing disparaging about pointing this out.
Hey FM, I heard they had a shootin' in your own private Idaho. Glad to see you are still here, otherwise who could we lampoon...FOFLMAO...
Well, it's nice to see that some things never change, you are still living in your little fantasy world of OA and no BNSF. What did you say you got a degree in again?
The Class 1s carry whatever makes them money, hardly subsidizing anyone...but, nice try...
How is tilting at windmills going? You actually hit one yet? No, well, color me shocked...
LOL...
LC
futuremodal wrote: CSSHEGEWISCH wrote:FM seems to have missed Ed's point, that modern container shipping is planned so carefully as to build up its efficiencies. A lot of advance planning is obviously needed, and I'm sure that the other factors that FM mentions in his posting are considered as well. Nothing happens unless it's planned.Actually, how would such "careful planning" explain the constant port delays? If a dozen ships are sitting at anchor for a week waiting for an open berth, something's amiss. If the delays are related to lack of expediant transfer capacity, doesn't that fall onto the railroads' shoulders?
CSSHEGEWISCH wrote:FM seems to have missed Ed's point, that modern container shipping is planned so carefully as to build up its efficiencies. A lot of advance planning is obviously needed, and I'm sure that the other factors that FM mentions in his posting are considered as well. Nothing happens unless it's planned.
Actually, how would such "careful planning" explain the constant port delays? If a dozen ships are sitting at anchor for a week waiting for an open berth, something's amiss. If the delays are related to lack of expediant transfer capacity, doesn't that fall onto the railroads' shoulders?
I'm just wary of this obsession railroads have with maximizing their load factor (via longer and longer trains), while the inevitable delays due to these long slow trains end up being forced upon the other aspects of the supply chain, and the chain overall ends up less efficient. We've seen it in the grain hauling business.........
edblysard wrote: Gabe,From the moment the container seal is snapped in place to the moment the container is opened at the WalMart distribution center, a "clock" starts and the container is tracked.The time it takes to load onto the ship, the ocean transit time, the time required to unload and drop on a boogie truck or straight to the railcar is a known, anticipated part of the shipping time.You don't have to "marshal" the containers...they are already sorted, stacked and inventoried in the ship, already assigned a train, down to the car they go in.Container shipping and operations are the most efficient type of railroading, in that every single movement of the box is already planned, and its movement is refined down to within a few minutes.The shipping lines who own and operate the ship can tell you where in the ship the container is, how much the container weights, when it will hit the railcar, down to the expected departure time of the train, from the moment the door closes on the box at its point of origin.The lift operators have a computer generated "map" of the containers; they can drop one on average in 30 seconds or less from the ships hold to platform, truck or railcar it will travel on.The shipping lines pay a stiff penalty if they delay these things even to a time frame as small as 30 minutes.The stevedore company in charge of unloading them also works on a clock, and pays if they miss the trains scheduled departure time...zero tolerance there for the most part.Both BNSF and UP have mobile repair crews that can swap out wheels, replace brake shoes, do pretty much anything to the railcars, while the other cars in the same train are being loaded. The shipping lines have it down to the point they can tell you how much money they allocate in fuel cost to each container, depending on where it is picked up and delivered to and how much it weights, and the total transit time for that one box from any given point in transit to any given point you choose...you can log on and track your container and it's ETA to your load out facility, and usually that ETA is accurate to within a hour...not too shabby. If FM had done real research, he could, (but most likely wouldn't) have told you that these things are scheduled so tight, and run on such a demanding time frame, that they would have made the old Santa Fe passenger trains look sloppy.BNSF has such a tight time frame on these things they almost squeak!I have listened on the radio to the TD3 Spring dispatch center shut down the hump operations at Strang yard, so they can give a bunch of green boards to the stack train headed to Barbors Cut...think about that, shutting down the hump crew so a stack train can make up 25 minutes time by not running under restricting signals. We run a small stack train out to Barbors Cut, an intermodal terminal on the Houston ship channel.If our crew isn't standing trackside to relieve the BNSF crew when they pull in to Pasadena, we get a nasty call from the BNSF corridor manager, followed by an equally nasty call from the local BNSF trainmaster.If we don't have the train checked in at the gate to Barbors Cut at the required time, not early and defiantly not late, but right on the dime, we don't get paid for the move.The facility manager has an employee who stands at the gate, and notes the exact time the nose of the locomotive passes the gate...their clock to load the ships starts right then.BNSF is serious about stack trains.
Gabe,
From the moment the container seal is snapped in place to the moment the container is opened at the WalMart distribution center, a "clock" starts and the container is tracked.
The time it takes to load onto the ship, the ocean transit time, the time required to unload and drop on a boogie truck or straight to the railcar is a known, anticipated part of the shipping time.
You don't have to "marshal" the containers...they are already sorted, stacked and inventoried in the ship, already assigned a train, down to the car they go in.
Container shipping and operations are the most efficient type of railroading, in that every single movement of the box is already planned, and its movement is refined down to within a few minutes.
The shipping lines who own and operate the ship can tell you where in the ship the container is, how much the container weights, when it will hit the railcar, down to the expected departure time of the train, from the moment the door closes on the box at its point of origin.
The lift operators have a computer generated "map" of the containers; they can drop one on average in 30 seconds or less from the ships hold to platform, truck or railcar it will travel on.
The shipping lines pay a stiff penalty if they delay these things even to a time frame as small as 30 minutes.
The stevedore company in charge of unloading them also works on a clock, and pays if they miss the trains scheduled departure time...zero tolerance there for the most part.
Both BNSF and UP have mobile repair crews that can swap out wheels, replace brake shoes, do pretty much anything to the railcars, while the other cars in the same train are being loaded.
The shipping lines have it down to the point they can tell you how much money they allocate in fuel cost to each container, depending on where it is picked up and delivered to and how much it weights, and the total transit time for that one box from any given point in transit to any given point you choose...you can log on and track your container and it's ETA to your load out facility, and usually that ETA is accurate to within a hour...not too shabby.
If FM had done real research, he could, (but most likely wouldn't) have told you that these things are scheduled so tight, and run on such a demanding time frame, that they would have made the old Santa Fe passenger trains look sloppy.
BNSF has such a tight time frame on these things they almost squeak!
I have listened on the radio to the TD3 Spring dispatch center shut down the hump operations at Strang yard, so they can give a bunch of green boards to the stack train headed to Barbors Cut...think about that, shutting down the hump crew so a stack train can make up 25 minutes time by not running under restricting signals.
We run a small stack train out to Barbors Cut, an intermodal terminal on the Houston ship channel.
If our crew isn't standing trackside to relieve the BNSF crew when they pull in to Pasadena, we get a nasty call from the BNSF corridor manager, followed by an equally nasty call from the local BNSF trainmaster.
If we don't have the train checked in at the gate to Barbors Cut at the required time, not early and defiantly not late, but right on the dime, we don't get paid for the move.
The facility manager has an employee who stands at the gate, and notes the exact time the nose of the locomotive passes the gate...their clock to load the ships starts right then.
BNSF is serious about stack trains.
Someone want to remind Ed B that the heavy containers go on the bottom, the lighter ones on top? Same for well car, same for the ship's hold.
So to state that the containers are normally sorted on the ship ready to go directly to the well cars is a rather miseducated statement, but par for that course....
There was talk in the shipping trades a while back regarding the concept twin-lifting containers directly from ship to railcar to avoid the marshalling yards and to cut the cost per lift in half (think longshoreman wages), but of course that would require (1) the pre-double stacked containers to be pre-weight distributed, and (2) a logistical game plan presented in a tight formation to prevent any flusterclucking foulups. For #1 to work, you must have two 40's of relatively equal weight distribution - you can't have the heavy-on-bottom/light-on-top pre-stacked arrangement on the ship because that would throw the ship's weight distribution out of kilter. And you can forget about trying to pre-stack the two-20's-on-the-bottom/one-40-on-top arrangement......
Thus, only if you have a shipload of homogenous container loads can you use the direct twin-lift concept.
Of course, if railroads would just revert back to single stacking container trains, then direct ship-to-rail container transfer could become the norm.......hey, if train length is no longer an issue, then single stack could make a comeback in the USA......
....yeah right, when pigs fly.......
.....or when open access is instituted on the US rail system and all these rail execs end up flipping burgers while the trucking companies dominate rail operations!
I would have several really beefy company officials hand me paperwork and order me to catch the Maresk or whatever ship at the Port pronto. No lunch, no breaks no nothing. Just get down to the ship right away.
Sometimes that port is 250 ground miles to the south in Norfolk or Portsmouth.
As long as they grab the box with the crane and gets it onto the ship, Ive done my job.
We also relied on the shipyard to really quickly change out the load and grab another box. I think one yard in Chester PA was absolutely elite in thier work. It would take less than 40 minutes to drop a box, dump the chassis, grab another, get it inspected and have a new box put on and back on the interstate. For me, Chester was the very best.
It was a bit of trust to sit in the yellow box while a big crane roared towards your chassis with a swaying box that weights a great deal and slams it down just so.
Not like some shipping lines in Baltimore where the inspectors would leave 70 trucks idling while they took thier 1 hour lunch with another 100 due by dinner time.
Railyards inland were even more demanding, only they knew exactly where everything was and will be within the hour. It was up to the driver (Me) to be in the right place at the right time with the right trailer or box.
Grabbing number 1501414 when you should be getting 1504141 will get you royally chewed out.
gabe wrote: mudchicken wrote: Time sensitivity is still an issue for intermodal, and running such absurdly long trains will only add to the time penalties. Don't forget, all those containers disgourged from those ships have to be marshalled first and sorted, then and only then are they loaded onto the well cars. And on the operating side of things, such long trains can only cause havoc to the other trains using the Transcon, including those time sensitive UPS trains. I wonder how UPS feels about this spector of long double stacks potentially clogging up their priority trains? Are there enough passing opportunities built into the Transcon to allow an Eastbound UPS to glide past a long eastbound double stack without losing speed? -FM....want to try to rethink this? Unless a short ride in a bomber chassis is somehow equated to marshalling...Not to pick on FM, but I have always found the contention that ship-generated intermodal was time sensitive very dubious. UPS-generated intermodal on the other hand, there is no question that it is time sensitive.Once you view the time it takes to get that countainer in to the port in China, loaded on the ship with all of the rest of the containers, the ship to cross the vast waters of the pacific, to wait for a berth in LA, be unload, and then placed on a train, the thought of saving a day or two by making the rail run time sensitive is akin to ordering a diet soft drink when you are eating a super-sized value meal at McDonnalds with a side of chicken nuggets.Gabe
mudchicken wrote: Time sensitivity is still an issue for intermodal, and running such absurdly long trains will only add to the time penalties. Don't forget, all those containers disgourged from those ships have to be marshalled first and sorted, then and only then are they loaded onto the well cars. And on the operating side of things, such long trains can only cause havoc to the other trains using the Transcon, including those time sensitive UPS trains. I wonder how UPS feels about this spector of long double stacks potentially clogging up their priority trains? Are there enough passing opportunities built into the Transcon to allow an Eastbound UPS to glide past a long eastbound double stack without losing speed? -FM....want to try to rethink this? Unless a short ride in a bomber chassis is somehow equated to marshalling...
Time sensitivity is still an issue for intermodal, and running such absurdly long trains will only add to the time penalties. Don't forget, all those containers disgourged from those ships have to be marshalled first and sorted, then and only then are they loaded onto the well cars. And on the operating side of things, such long trains can only cause havoc to the other trains using the Transcon, including those time sensitive UPS trains. I wonder how UPS feels about this spector of long double stacks potentially clogging up their priority trains? Are there enough passing opportunities built into the Transcon to allow an Eastbound UPS to glide past a long eastbound double stack without losing speed? -FM
....want to try to rethink this? Unless a short ride in a bomber chassis is somehow equated to marshalling...
Not to pick on FM, but I have always found the contention that ship-generated intermodal was time sensitive very dubious. UPS-generated intermodal on the other hand, there is no question that it is time sensitive.
Once you view the time it takes to get that countainer in to the port in China, loaded on the ship with all of the rest of the containers, the ship to cross the vast waters of the pacific, to wait for a berth in LA, be unload, and then placed on a train, the thought of saving a day or two by making the rail run time sensitive is akin to ordering a diet soft drink when you are eating a super-sized value meal at McDonnalds with a side of chicken nuggets.
Gabe
All intermodal has a vested interest in time sensitivity, some (UPS parcels) more than others (Walmart widgets). If BNSF wants to *maximize* the efficiency of moving Wallyworld's widgets via longer trains, then it can only interfere with the efficiency of moving UPS's parcels.
The question is, which one pays the huge mark-up, UPS or Wallyworld's widgets? The second question is, why endanger the premium priced move to more economically facilitate the low margin move?
dldance wrote: gabe wrote: dldance wrote: gabe wrote: So 24 hours matter, when it takes over three weeks to ship? I don't doubt you, but it just seems counter-intuitive?GabeSo, just one of his customers generates about $700,000 per hour in revenue. 24 hours = $1.6 million. Yes - it matters.ddI guess what I do not understand is that the customer operates on a zero-based inventory?Once again, I am sure you are right, and am not arguing with you. I am just having trouble with the concept.GabeOne of the most famous exports from Japan is the "Toyota Production System" also known as "Lean Manufacturing." The goal of this system is Zero Inventory. Now back to my client's customer - that 2,000 gallon ISO chemical represents about $6 million in inventory. No way is that customer going to have 2 or 3 extras ISOs in line for processing. BTW my client's average trans-Pacific transit time is less than 10 days. Ships move at different speeds. He pays for fast ships.dd
gabe wrote: dldance wrote: gabe wrote: So 24 hours matter, when it takes over three weeks to ship? I don't doubt you, but it just seems counter-intuitive?GabeSo, just one of his customers generates about $700,000 per hour in revenue. 24 hours = $1.6 million. Yes - it matters.ddI guess what I do not understand is that the customer operates on a zero-based inventory?Once again, I am sure you are right, and am not arguing with you. I am just having trouble with the concept.Gabe
dldance wrote: gabe wrote: So 24 hours matter, when it takes over three weeks to ship? I don't doubt you, but it just seems counter-intuitive?GabeSo, just one of his customers generates about $700,000 per hour in revenue. 24 hours = $1.6 million. Yes - it matters.dd
gabe wrote: So 24 hours matter, when it takes over three weeks to ship? I don't doubt you, but it just seems counter-intuitive?Gabe
So 24 hours matter, when it takes over three weeks to ship? I don't doubt you, but it just seems counter-intuitive?
So, just one of his customers generates about $700,000 per hour in revenue. 24 hours = $1.6 million. Yes - it matters.
dd
I guess what I do not understand is that the customer operates on a zero-based inventory?
Once again, I am sure you are right, and am not arguing with you. I am just having trouble with the concept.
One of the most famous exports from Japan is the "Toyota Production System" also known as "Lean Manufacturing." The goal of this system is Zero Inventory. Now back to my client's customer - that 2,000 gallon ISO chemical represents about $6 million in inventory. No way is that customer going to have 2 or 3 extras ISOs in line for processing. BTW my client's average trans-Pacific transit time is less than 10 days. Ships move at different speeds. He pays for fast ships.
No slow boat for this one then. The money is there to pay for fast ships.
I was thinking about those 20 dollar toasters that arrive to the walmart slightly abused and banged up from thier trip.
Yes the Fan is the customer.
If they dont get that widget the USA sits idle or find the widgets elsewhere.
Those who "lost" the widgets for whatever reason are the ones that get splattered. If the captian of the ship sank it, the shipping company gets splattered along with the brokers who arranged and promised delivery.
Which is why I feel it's easier to have the widgets made right here at home, gotta find a way to put all of those new immigrants to work in someplace other than farm fields.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
mudchicken wrote:For the industries living (and dying) by the "just-in-time" method of inventory management, it certainly does...
Well if they are willing to wait three weeks on a container ship to get to the USA across the pacific and then get all sweaty and lathered over 24 lost hours.... something is seriously bent wrong in the minds of the industry.
I loved the McDonalds analogy to the diet soft drink someone posted. Outstanding. I dont eat McFatty. I prefer to story buy and cook my meals at home (Or at least microwave them LOL)
MP173 wrote: Mudchicken...I never noticed until tonight that you list Denver/LaJunta (I assume your locale). I took the Chief from LaJunta to Kansas City in 1966. That was quite a ride. Is BNSF running any freights thru LaJunta any more? I know that Raton Pass is brutal, but it always seemed that could be used as a outlet for the Transcon line. Now that TC is nearly double main, it may not be needed.ed
Mudchicken...I never noticed until tonight that you list Denver/LaJunta (I assume your locale). I took the Chief from LaJunta to Kansas City in 1966. That was quite a ride. Is BNSF running any freights thru LaJunta any more? I know that Raton Pass is brutal, but it always seemed that could be used as a outlet for the Transcon line. Now that TC is nearly double main, it may not be needed.
ed
Only regular through freights are a daily manifest freight each way and bare table moves....
Still used as an escape route for screw-ups between Amarillo & Belen and during congestion. Still is faster than the Belen CutOff (If somebody will pay for the extra fuel &/or HP, properly run, it is not as brutal as legend has made it out to be)....crew availability is now a big issue.
Gabe - I have clients in the high value chemicals business. They are always importing and exporting various finished materials using ISO tank containers across the Pacific. These are very time sensitive. Because of the nature of the products air transport is not feasible - so they book slots on container ships for their ISOs. Trans-Pacific transport time is actually quite fast - but more important the time is very predictable. That allows them to schedule manufacturing operations to include the loading and unloading of ISOs. With the selling prices of these materials being in the range of thousands of dollars per gallon - they are very time sensitive.
I can't speak for other containers - but these are definately time sensitive. (Note during the last Oakland dock strike, they lost several million worth of material because the product's active life expired - waiting for unloading.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.