It looks like the Alameda Corridor will finally be getting more utilization. BNSF is investing $1.5B into a new inland port with transloading capability. I believe this project will conicide with the new Pier B yard at the Port of Long Beach.
https://www.railwayage.com/freight/class-i/bnsf-going-big-in-barstow/
Go big or go home.
Perhaps the SD70J will be the Y6b of the shuttle trains.
How many rail miles will it be from BIG to the Ports of LA/LB?
How much will they have to pay people to live in Barstow? It’s not exactly the vision that most think of when they think of Southern California…
And with the right earthquate, it will no longer be an inland port!
Victorville is not that far away. I have friends who have lived there and loved it.
But, he’d have to go back to Annandale…
I found the current practices rather comical and also rather stupid to be designed that way to begin with.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/bnsf-unveils-1-5b-barstow-195847688.html
Why transfer from shorter international containers to domestic 53 footers? I see plenty of international containers coming in Chicago on UP
Why? Because transloading is cheaper. Herer’s the transload ratio;
4:3
4x40’=160’
3x53’=159’
Removing an extra box move save’s money. Transloading allows better inventory control through deferment. Since retail inventory varies. This can achieve inventory balancing across DC and fulfillment center stock. The steamship lines also don’t like their boxes venturing inland unless they have solicited a backhaul such as agri-business.
Mind you BNSF does has the largest share of IPI(Inland Point Intermodal) vs. UP. So while transloading is preffered. IPI moves (which mean no transloading takes place) where the box moves directly from Ship to an inland DC still has its place, and will continue to.
A few of us have been advocating over the years for this to happen. Not only is the IE running out of real estate. BNSF and UP have very little room to build or expand current IM ramps. Hence why UP is slowly converting West Colton into its IE IM ramp. It won’t be a full conversion as WC still plays an important role in Sou Cal carload business… WC will probably mo
Wasn’t that Lex Luthor’s plan in the first Superman movie?
About 130
Thanks, '9500!
I mentioned in the Locomotives forum that I could also see this driving electricifcation in the Basin and potentially over Cajon…Not saying I’m bullish on that, but a 130mile route that is going to be a massively busy corridor with a lot of trains ending at Barstow is a pretty good test subject for electrification.
Barstow isn’t going to win any awards for California living. and the Traffic on I15 is already terrible, but It is convinent to Las Vegas and the Inland Empire while still being a day trip to LA. I don’t think it will be that hard a sell.
I recall when we first heard rumblings about an “Inland port” concept, there were a lot of naysayers saying that Barstow was too far away and such a thing would have to be in the Inland Empire. Clearly BNSF disagrees, but I wonder, those discussions seemed focus on the length of haul, the need to go over Cajon and the idea that and boxes destined for the basin would then be clogging up 15 moving back. But, Cajon is now triple tracked and this is going to, one assumes, reduce existing unit trains moving over cajon so that the traffic profile may not change all that much. Boxes destined for the Basin MIGHT be a problem, but you could probably also just run a train of domestic trailers back into the basin if that were actually an issue. PRobably not a super cost effective move in isolation, but possibly worth it on net.
I seem to remember BNSF purchasing this land many years ago with this in mind.
Heh!™
From Barstow, he’d have to take the Southwest Chief back to Chicago, then the Wolverine to Detroit. Since the Wolverine now ends in Michigan rather than going through to New York as in New York Central days, and the Canadian Southern is no longer, Uber to Windsor. Then VIA to Niagara Falls, Uber to Buffalo, then either Empire Service or the Lake Shore Limited to Poughkeepsie. Then Uber to Bard College.
Well played, tree68. Well played indeed!
It seems to me that if either railroad knew the clients business a little better. And both railroads should be asking detailed questions to learn their clients business so they can tailor their service levels better. This whole practice could have been resolved a lot sooner and more efficiently at far less cost. To me this seems very reactive vs proactive and only reacting when the situation becomes an obvious logjam.
Haven’t you read about the “Internet” model of design, where you wait for problems to become insurmountable or ‘emergent’ before you design ad hoc fixes that cost as little as possible… then lather, rinse, repeat for the next time? [D)]