As some of you may remember, I’m an enthusiastic proponet of increasing the movement of temperature controled freight (vegetables, fruit, red meat, poultry) by rail. I can go in to the numbers if anyone wants me to, but for right now I’ll just say the volume is huge, the distances are long, and trucks dominate the business.
The railroads can handle this freight very well. They did so for decades. A major factor in the diversion to truck was the insane economic regulation of rail rates by the Federal Government. Please know that interstate truck rates of vegetable and fruit movements were never regulated. Truck rates on killed chicken were deregulated by a Supreme Court decision in the early 50’s. The truckers played the market and the railroads lost the business.
Well, the harmful, totally unnecessary, rail rate regulation is now mercifully gone. The rails have been trying to claw back in to the traffic since that happened in 1981. Market development is a very weak area for US railroads.
One significant issue was the reefer containers used in double stack service. (If the rails can put double stack economics combined with decent service against long haul trucking, they’ll have a winning record.) The initial DS reefer containers had a problem with interior floor length. The refrigeration unit took up too much space in the 53’ length. So the rail reefers could carry fewer rows of pallets than their truck competition. Not good. Especially on the backhauls where lighter weight dry freight is often handled.
A slimmer reefer system has been designed that allows the rail containers to carry an extra row of pallets. (Note the promotion of such on the JBI container.) I see this as a major step
Those containers with a chassis are still 3 tons heavier than a 53 foot trailer from 10 years ago and with what they are coming out with soon for the Reefer industry about to make that close to 4 tons. Yeah your reading this right some engineer has come up with a lighter weight insulation for trailers that offers 50% better insulation than the current spray foam stuff. I have not heard when the stuff will be released into the market by which trailer builder but I can tell you this much which ever one does get to use it will have Prime’s attention for a very long time.
The reefer unit on a trailer is attached to the nose of the trailer and sticks out from the front of the trailer think of it like a very massive and heavy window AC unit. In a container they have to make it fit in that space and shape of the container along with the fuel needed to make it run. It normally takes in the area of around 4 feet or 2 pallet spots in the trailer to make it fit. In a 53 foot reefer or dry van container or trailer if you put the pallets in sideways you can put 30 pallets in the trailer in the space and still get the doors closed. With the current reefer containers the max is 28.
Problem is, Yuma is on the UP, which is now “drinking the Kool-Aid” of PSR.
Better odds with BNSF because it’s looking to grow traffic, but it’s closest point on the Southern TransCon is Needles, which is about 185 mi./ 3 hrs. due north, and not really headed in the right direction.
Might be worth looking at going to Phoenix instead, which is kinda sorta in the right direction. From there it’s a windy twisty branch line (“Peavine”?) up to the junction with the TransCon main at Ash Fork. However, that branch line is on BNSF’s Intermodal Map ( https://www.bnsf.com/ship-with-bnsf/maps-and-shipping-locations/pdf/intermodal-map-large.pdf ), so it’s not too much of a stretch to think that might be possible. Also, there’s a yard in Phoenix that looks like it has some extra capacity, so it might be feasible.
I don’t see any reason why the new insulation couldn’t also be used on the rail reefer containers. So they’d get the weight benefit too.
Yes, a container/chassis combination will weigh more than a trailer of the same length. But you can get weight back by using a highway tractor specified for intermodal service.
Briefly, you’re generally allowed 80,000 pounds gross vehicle weight on the highway (there are exeptions). This includes everything; tractor, trailer, payload, fuel, the driver, the driver’s lunch, everything. All else being equal, the extra weight of the container chassis combination would cause a reduction in the allowable payload weight. This isn’t a problem with most freight because it will fill the cubic capacity of the trailer/container before it hits the weight limit. It is a problem with perishable freight because perishables are mostly water and they load heavy. So the extra weight of the container/chassis combination could be a disadvantage to rail movement by reducing the possible payload.
But you can get weight back on the highway tractor. An over the road long haul tractor will have a structure enclosing a bed and basic living quarters for the driver(s). It will also have l
Containerized Cargo: An annual permit may be issued authorizing the movement on highways of containerized cargo that exceeds the maximum vehicle gross or maximum axle weights specified in Subchapter C (relating to maximum weights of vehicles). Except as set forth in subsection (b), the weight of any combination permitted under this section shall not exceed 90,000 lbs. overall gross weight and 21,000 lbs. on any axle. A brake retarder is not required on a combination permitted under this section while the combination is operated within the counties of Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, and Philadelphia. A vehicle operating with a permit authorized under this section may be driven 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, except on holidays and in inclement weather as specified in departmental regulations (Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. tit. 75, §4974).
And subsection (b) allows 107.5K GVW for refrigerated meat products in Phildelphia and the surrounding counties, if using certain equipment:
Refrigerated Meat Products: An annual permit may be issued authorizing the movement on specified highways of containerized cargo consisting of refrigerated meat products that exceeds the maximum vehicle gross weight or maximum axle weights specified in Subchapter C
Shadow the Cats owner
Shadow the Cats owner wrote the following post an hour ago: Those containers with a chassis are still 3 tons heavier than a 53 foot trailer from 10 years ago and with what they are coming out with soon for the Reefer industry about to make that close to 4 tons. Yeah your reading this right some engineer has come up with a lighter weight insulation for trailers that offers 50% better insulation than the current spray foam stuff. I have not heard when the stuff will be released into the market by which trailer builder but I can tell you this much which ever one does get to use it will have Prime’s attention for a very long time.
I don’t see any reason why the new insulation couldn’t also be used on the rail reefer containers. So they’d get the weight benefit too.
Yes, a container/chassis combination will weigh more than a trailer of the same length. But you can get weight back by using a highway tractor specified for intermodal service.
Briefly, you’re generally allowed 80,000 pounds gross vehicle weight on the highway (there are exeptions). This includes everything; tractor, trailer, payload, fuel, the driver, the driver’s lunch, everything. All else being equal, the extra weight of the container chassis combination would cause a reduction in the allowable payload weight. This isn’t a problem with most freight because it will fill the cubic capacity of the trailer/container before it hits the weight limit. It is a problem with perishable freight because perishables are mostly water and they load heavy. So the extra weight of the container/chassis combination could be a disadvantage to rail movement by reducing the possible payload.
If railroaders could somehow temper PSR with a more focussed and robust marketing and sales effort they’d be hard to compete with. That’s likely coming… After everyone has milked the PSR cow dry they’ll be looking for new frontiers… and some EHH visionary of the future will “discover”… marketing.
Truth be told there’s ALOT of low hanging fruit (pun… yeah I know) out there that goes by truck now that would be entirely amenable to rail… But to get at it would require close collaboration between sales and operations…as most loads would involve truck drayage and transhipping along with careful coordination from pickup to delivery… PSR is fine… PSR guided by intelligent marketing and sales and supported by an overriding interest in customer service would be fantastic.
One characteristic of PSR is drastic slashing of marketing/sales personnel. Even easier to get ROI by slashing those folk than by slashing operating personnel.
Yep, come up with a new idea, or even a recognition of something new going on, and you’ll get people coming out of the woodwork explaining why it’s stupid and can’t work. These people often throw irrelevant “facts” against the wall hoping to confuse the situation and defeat something they don’t like. Such as:
That may be true, but it’s also irrelevant to the subject at hand. “Most” OTR drivers have relative short hauls, i.e. Chicago-Cincinnati, that allow them to handle several loads per week. Perishables move longer distances, i.e. Salinas-New York. There’s no way for a single driver to deliver more than one load a week on that route. We’re talking about the long haul perishable business here.
Because D&H (drop and hook) is rare now doesn’t mean it won’t work for rail intermodal. (Drop and hook is a system whereby a trucker brings a load to a facility, such as a grocery distribution center, drops the load by unhooking his/her tractor, and hooks to an empty pervisously unloaded. The driver then leaves with the empty trailer. The driver doesn’t have to wait around to get unloaded. That’s a big advantage for rail intermodal.) Our intermodal was mostly D&H which was facilitated by our trucking being local drayage from and
A good deal of what I’ve seen about PSR is that it’s great for the investors, not so much for the business of running a railroad.
A smart business person would be looking for ways to get more business, even if it was in a fairly narrow range (ie, IM, bulk/unit trains). You don’t do that by getting rid of the people who go out and find that business for you.
Likewise, you can’t cut operating and business costs without having some effect on actually running the railroad. That’s not to say that there wasn’t some fat to be cut, but how much is too much? This is why I suggested elsewhere that an analysis needs to be done post-EHH to see what stuck and what didn’t, and the long-term effects on the railroad.
Many of the ideas put forth as PSR go back years. Cutting dwell time and increasing velocity predate PSR. So do deferred maintenance and clearing out perceived “deadwood.” We will have to wait to see how it all falls out in the end.
PSR was actually the operating plan pre-Staggers. Cut everything because railroads as a business have no future. ICC regulations pre-Staggers slowed it’s implementation. Staggers enabled it with serious plant rationalizations and customer shedding. Harrison didn’t invent anything - he just put a name on it. Wall Street, the Whiz Kids, still don’t believe railroads have a future and a purpose for existing - that is why they have flocked to PSR.
PSR is really just a buzz phrase for “let’s run it efficiently by optimizing the use of people and assets”. As with most things, too much of a good thing defeats the whole purpose. I think NS has the right idea by easing into PSR over a couple of years… Running 10 KM every day is also good… but very bad to start out with that if you’ve been a couch potato for the last 20 years. Use the assets efficently but focus on customer service metrics. Better to have a higher OR and outstanding customer service numbers than a very low OR and a bunch of unhappy shippers.
UP handles most of our plastic resins as far as KC then they are interchanged to the BNSF for final delivery to us here. Since the UP has started to implement PSR our delivery times have gone up by on average 3 days to the point we are wanting BNSF to carry the traffic direct for us from the Chemical Coast to us. It’s getting to the point were at times we have less than 200 tons of each of our primary resins in stock for blending. Our normal supply is over 400 tons. The problem for us is while the BNSF has trackage rights they can not service the customers on the Chemical coast they can only haul what UP allows them to haul. Also the PTRA of Houston does not service most of the plants where we get our resins from. So we have to deal with the UP and trying to get them to change the Interchange point to Houston forget about it. They wanted to double their charges to us to do it. If that is PSR then they can have it.
