Atlanta-Minneapolis Single Line Intermodal - Why Can't BNSF Do It Now

Trains Magazine General Discussion
1

In the November 2016 issue of Trains, the article regarding future mergers uses the difficulty of shipping intermodal loads between Atlanta and Minneapolis as one example of the case for transcontinental mergers. It seems the assumption is that such an intermodal lane would have to go through Chicago.

I am not saying overall there is not a case for transcontinental mergers, but as I read that example I thought “Hold your horses. Doesn’t BNSF have single line access from Minneapolis via Galesburg through St.Louis through Memphis to at least Birmingham, and haulage rights to Atlanta from Birmingham over CSX?”

http://www.bnsf.com/customers/pdf/maps/intermodal-map-large.pdf

So it begs the question - why can’t BNSF develop that intermodal lane right now?

Are there double-stack clearance or track capacity issues that would make that difficult?

I am hoping some of our expert contributors to the Forum would be willing to lend their expertise to that discussion.

2

kgbw49, asked: "…So it begs the question - why can’t BNSF develop that intermodal lane right now?.."

For starters, BNSF does not connect in Georgia, except by trackage rights (Location at Fairburn,Ga: I suspect is a facility to load unload autos(?) not sure about TOFC there(?). The line in Fairburn,Ga. [IIRC ] is CSX. BNSF terminal in Birmingham, is former SLSF (from Memphis,via Amory,Ms).

Once in Memphis, a connection could be made, at W. Memphis,Ar. area (Marion,Ar(?) to the former SL-SF ’ River Line’ North to St.Louis, and then North to Minneapolis-St.Paul.

The questions then would be: Is this route on the River Line cleared for ‘Double-Stacks’? Or is it ‘heavy’ enough to support the extra traffic ?

My recollection is, it might be classed as a ‘secondary line’, except for the steel mill traffic south of Osceola (Armorel),Ar. area(?)

An NS/BNSF Routing could be made North to a BNSF Connection in Southern, Ill.

{ NS runs or used to daily service through Jackson,Tn to St.Louis, and Chicago via a connection in Centralia,Il. -(Not sure how they would welcome another ‘dance partner’ on that service?)

CSX is in Jackson,Tn. as well. Then there is another potential connection at Jackson,Tn. with the West Tennessee RR (It operates between Corinth, Ms (on NS) and The Fulton,Ky area. (CNR)

3

samfp1943, good stuff! Thank you!

4

The CSX terminal in Fairburn, Ga is in fact a rather large intermodal ramp. Almost exclusively BNSF power in there, with CSX people running the operation. About a year ago they underwent some improvements and BNSF had to reroute traffic to Memphis and dray our boxes to Atlanta on their dime. Pretty nice facility as far as they go, they could easily handle the added traffic if needed.

5

Well, you can bypass Chicago but you cannot bypass its functions.

I’ll tell you right now without looking that there is not enough business between Minneapolis and Atlanta to justify a through dedicated intermodal train.

The Achilles Heel of rail intermodal is the need to aggregate individual shipments in to economical volumes to make a train viable. Truckers do not have this problem. One over the road truck is a viable economic entity. One truck on a train is not.

So the railroads have to aggregate. The more destinations a train from Minneapolis handles, the more expeditious and efficient the aggregation out of Minneapolis will be. At the hub, currently Chicago, the loads are dispersed to other trains which serve the various destinations. It’s the best a railroad can do.

The hub doesn’t have to be Chicago. The hub can be N. Baltimore, Ft. Wayne, wherever. But there has to be a hub.

The railroads have to compensate for this in their deal with the customer. Usually they do this by charging a lower price than the direct truckload movement.

The “Donut Hole” or “Chicago Wall” is a problem. A very big problem. But solving that problem is a different issue than the requirement for a hub.

Minneapolis, Sioux City, Omaha and other points generate high volume, high revenue truckload movements to eastern/southeastern destinations. But the

6

Does Trains actually come out and say there’s a need for BNSF to develop that lane right now?

I can’t imagine there’s enough traffic density between those points to support dedicated runthrough consists with existing intermodal consists. Especially since about the only driver of such a thing would be some kind of optimized manufacturing … and most of those JIT applications are much more concerned with accurate guaranteed delivery time than with reduction of the end-to-end delivery time.

The situation might change if shorter/quicker consists were to be cost-effective, but I see no way any aspect of that is practical any time soon. I’d be interested to see whether there are alternative workable intermodal hubs or transfer points for such a service, but again there would need to be enough guaranteed traffic in lane to adjust or coordinate the trains involved in providing it.

7

What is the traffic need for such a lane? Does it approximate 200 - 300 trailer/containers per day? If there is such a traffic volume, the lane will develop itself. Without that level of sustained volume (or UPS and/or FedEx participation) it is a non-starter.

Railroads today, don’t adhere to the ‘Field of Dreams’ theory of operations - ‘Build it and they will come.’

8

BNSF haulage on CSX Birmingham <> Fairburn (ATL) has reached saturation. Several years ago CSX doubled Fairburn’s capacity but now it is full and trains sometimes back up. BNSF has aactually taken out a haulage contract for NS to carry some intermodal Memphis <> Austell (ATL).n

As far as known there is no more room at Fairburn unless part of CSX terminal was to go west of US 29 ?

9

One might not think that the CSX Montreal Secondary (former CR/NYC St. Lawrence Sub) would warrant an intermodal train, but it currently does, and I’ve seen discussion of an Atlanta/Montreal pair via the line.

Never say never.

10

It is a business that CSX is trying to grow. It isn’t growing very fast at present.

11

Market development is a very weak part of the railroads. They’re just learning how to do it. Some are learning faster than others.

Data is available on the number and types of trucks moving freight on individual lanes. You can also get the motor freight rates. This data must be purchased, but it is available. (Nobody is going to do the work of collecting this data for free.)

However, having the data (information) and using it effectively are two different things. Somebody in the railroad’s marketing department may have the data, but moving that information forward to establishing a new service faces all kinds of obstacles.

BaltACD is an operating man. His attitude is that: “Does it approximate 200 - 300 trailer/containers per day? If there is such a traffic volume, the lane will develop itself. Without that level of sustained volume (or UPS and/or FedEx participation) it is a non-starter.” This is a going out of business stategy. This attitude from the operating department is a big part of the problem.

Domestic freight lanes just don’t have that kind of volume and the idea of business developing itself ain’t gonna’ happen unless people are driving up shiploads of containers to a port.

The railroads have to get the data and, more importantly, develop a culture that will allow them to exploit opportunities. Letting the operating department control the show will always prevent that kind of corporate culture from de

12

Yes, I am operating oriented. With the configuration of today’s main line railroading the physical plant is near maximum capacity. When coal and oil were both operating at the peak volumes two years ago - many lines were operating somewhat beyond their efficient capacity. In such an enviornment, train space is critical to the operation of all trains. One more (or two more in the case of an O-D pair) can bring line segments to effective melt down. As such running minimially loaded trains trying to develop new business disadvantages the existing business on the affected territory.

CSX’s Lineville Sub, which is the bulk of the mileage between the Fairburn Ramp and interchange with BNSF at Birmingham is single track line that is currently operating at capacity. I have no idea of the physical constraints on BNSF territories. As one poster on this thread has stated, Fairburn Ramp is also at capacity. How much do you invest in Fairburn Ramp and the Lineville Sub based on ‘prospective, but not confirmed’ traffic? Investing several hundred million $$$$$ demands anticipation of real traffic to utilize the enhancements, otherwise it becomes as waste of scarce capital investment resources.

13

And a partial quote from greyhounds’ Post:"…Market development is a very weak part of the railroads. They’re just learning how to do it. Some are learning faster than others.

Data is available on the number and types of trucks moving freight on individual lanes. You can also get the motor freight rates. This data must be purchased, but it is available. (Nobody is going to do the work of collecting this data for free.)

However, having the data (information) and using it effectively are two different t

14

Beancounters held sway on ‘excess’ capacity from the time Staggers was enacted until the late 1990’s. Plant Rationalization was their rally cry. In the mind of those beancounters railroads were a part of the rust belt decay and the best way to preserve shareholder value was to pare away plant that was eating up revenue in maintenance and property taxes. Lines were either abandoned with track materials pulled up and sold for scrap value or spun off to short line operators to get them off the books. The thinking at the time was that railroads would have little if any purpose as the world moved into the 21st Century. Shortsited? You bet! But it was the reality of that period of time.

The ConRail split period of time sounded the bell for a new spirit of railroad thinking. Marketing the services that railroads can provide to new marketing areas with the idea that railroads are not a dying form of transportation. All carriers have added back some of the capacity that they had rationalized in the 70’s & 80’s as being required to sustain fluid operations in the 21st Century. The railfan’s refrain ‘why didn’t they keep it’ fails to acknowledge that if they had kept it, th

15

Is the BNSF new Portland-Alliance TX train an example where they might be trying to build a corridor where they now have excess capacity? It apparently is routed across Montana Rail Link and then down the Powder River Basin trackage to the Joint Line, then Amarillo to Alliance.

Here is a recent example of QPTLALT descending Mullan Pass on 09/15/16…

16

Well, a couple of things.

First, the fact that the traffic exists can be documented. But it’s currently moving by over the road trucking. Can the railroad divert it to intermodal is the first question. A following question is will the amount diverted to intermodal and the resulting revenue justify any necessary expenditures?

Remember what a wise old railroad man (Southern Pacific) once said: “There is no certainty, only reason and experience to guide us.” Taking prudent and evaluated financial risks is a part of any business, including railroading. Don’t get reckless. But totally avoiding business risks is its own significant risk. As they reportedly say in the Army: “Anything you do can get you killed, including nothing.”

Second, look for alternatives. If Fairburn is at capacity can the business go through Hulsey? Does this freight have to go on the Birmingham-Atlanta line or can it move on a different route? Maybe BNSF-Chicago-CSX works better than BNSF direct.

Third, make it good but do it as economically as possible. Don’t add trains. Add loads to existing trains. That does wonders for the bottom line.

Above all, don’t just stop. If the attitude is "

17

[quote user=“greyhounds”]

BaltACD
CSX’s Lineville Sub, which is the bulk of the mileage between the Fairburn Ramp and interchange with BNSF at Birmingham is single track line that is currently operating at capacity. I have no idea of the physical constraints on BNSF territories. As one poster on this thread has stated, Fairburn Ramp is also at capacity. How much do you invest in Fairburn Ramp and the Lineville Sub based on ‘prospective, but not confirmed’ traffic? Investing several hundred million $$$$$ demands anticipation of real traffic to utilize the enhancements, otherwise it becomes as waste of scarce capital investment resources.

Well, a couple of things.

First, the fact that the traffic exists can be documented. But it’s currently moving by over the road trucking. Can the railroad divert it to intermodal is the first question. A following question is will the amount diverted to intermodal and the resulting revenue justify any necessary expenditures?

Remember what a wise old railroad man (Southern Pacific) once said: “There is no certainty, only reason and experience to guide us.” Taking prudent and evaluated financial risks is a part of any business, including railroading. Don’t get reckless. But totally avoiding business risks is its own significant risk. As they reportedly say in the Army: “Anything you do can get you killed, including nothing.”

Second, look for alternatives. If Fairburn is at capacity can the business go through Hulsey? Does this freight have to go on the Birmingham-Atlanta line or can it move on a different route? Maybe BNSF-Chicago-CSX works better than BNSF direct.

Third, make it good but do it as economically as possible. Don’t add trains. &nb

18

Sounds like a discussion between marketing and operations in many companies: the former looking to expand, the latter defending the status quo. Successful businesses are led by the former, with vision.

19

Marketing is capable of selling Rolls Royce’s - but if the assembly line is only able to build Yugo’s what has been accomplished? Customer dissatisfaction - in spades. Marketing and Operations have to be pulling in the same direction for a organization to thrive.

20

The point is valid. A business will also have a lot of dissatisfied customers if Marketing brings in customers in excess of production capacity, leading to missed deadlines, delivery schedules falling apart, etc. The sales rep may get his commission but may not get a satisfied customer.