Another post discusses the Conrail intermodal operations.
In reading Conrail Commodities (published in 1994), it is interesting to take a serious look at how Conrail handled the automotive industry. Quite a network of terminals were in place, along with pretty tight schedules for the movements of auto parts (I have yet to read about the auto rack trains). Fascinating stuff.
A couple of basic questions…Jeremy Taylor repeated discusses “stampings”. What exactly are stampings? I am guessing they are the outer body parts such as quarter panels, fenders, etc…
In reading the book, it is very obvious there were a number of parts suppliers that moved considerable amounts of freight to assembly plants. How does the system of the Detroit carmakers differ from the newer plants established in the US, such as Honda, Toyota, Nissan, etc. Taylor described the blocks of traffic moving on a regular (daily?) basis, such as from Sterling Heights to Belvidere, Il (to name but one) that required movement to Elkhart and then a train from Elkhart to CNW Proviso.
Did the newer foreign owned plants establish closer suppliers, or do those parts move in similar type movements?
The above two paragraphs can be summarized as follows…did Detroit pay higher transportation charges, as a percentage of revenue that the foreign companies? How much of Toyota’s and other are handled on containers from Asia?
In reading this book and coupling the contents with the current automotive situation, it becomes very obvious the auto parts manufactures are on very shaky ground. Very shakey.
Stampings are where you take a piece of metal (in the case of automobiles it was sheet metal in the form of coils) and stamp it into the shape that you want in a press with a die to force the metal into the shape (e.g. automible hoods, roofs, or door panels).
Stampings are indeed the sheet metal and are pressed at a plant near the assembly plant. As an example, Ford has a stamping plant in Chicago Heights which supplies the Chicago Assembly Plant. The stampings are usually shipped in high-cubes.
I got a public tour of Toyota’s Georgetown, KY plant shortly after it opened in somewhere around 1987-88. I recall some comments from the guide when we were viewing the presses in stamping section of the plant. The presses were designed so that the dies could be changed in about two hours. This was said to compare to typical US domestic model stamping plants where die change out took 24 hours. As a result of the efficiency built into Toyota’s system, a production run might turn out the quantity of a part to meet the need for assembly production for just a few shifts.
I’m not an expert on the subject, but in contrast, I believe the domestic auto producers might have made a production run of up to a 60 day supply of a given part. Perhaps not in every case, but the domestic producers often had stamping plants separate from and serving several assembly plants. They obviously went for the economy of scale for production, and left inventory carrying cost as a secondary consideration.
At the time they were building the Georgetown plant, it was noted that Toyota expect to locate EOM’s for parts not produced by Toyota within a 100 mile radius of the plant. That would keep the transportation aspect of the logistics plan quite simple and keep parts order quantities small and lead times short.
In contrast, domestic model producers left their logistics managers to deal with the movement of parts from large scale production facilities to multiple assembly operations. The end result was a fairly costly transportation requirement, but I would say that the railroads did a good job of meeting the service requirements. In an effort to keep inventories and warehouse space requirements at assembly plants as low as possible, delivery requirements were fairly tight. As a consequence, trains set up to handle auto part
Thanks for the explanation on the 100 mile radius. That makes sense, if designing a plant from the ground up. The two hour vs 24 hour die changeout time would be critical for manufacturing planning and production runs.
How were these stampings shipped in high cubes? Was each crated (expensive) or were they nested to maximize space? If so, surely they were painted at the assembly plant, werent they?
It was stated during the 70’s that if PC shut down that GM and others would be out of business within days.
Taylor has a fascinating book…has anyone else read it?
I got a public tour of Toyota’s Georgetown, KY plant shortly after it opened in somewhere around 1987-88. I recall some comments from the guide when we were viewing the presses in stamping section of the plant. The presses were designed so that the dies could be changed in about two hours. This was said to compare to typical US domestic model stamping plants where die change out took 24 hours. As a result of the efficiency built into Toyota’s system, a production run might turn out the quantity of a part to meet the need for assembly production for just a few shifts.
I’m not an expert on the subject, but in contrast, I believe the domestic auto producers might have made a production run of up to a 60 day supply of a given part. Perhaps not in every case, but the domestic producers often had stamping plants separate from and serving several assembly plants. They obviously went for the economy of scale for production, and left inventory carrying cost as a secondary consideration.
At the time they were building the Georgetown plant, it was noted that Toyota expect to locate EOM’s for parts not produced by Toyota within a 100 mile radius of the plant. That would keep the transportation aspect of the logistics plan quite simple and keep parts order quantities small and lead times short.
In contrast, domestic model producers left their logistics managers to deal with the movement of parts from large scale production facilities to multiple assembly operations. The end result was a fairly costly transportation requirement, but I would say that the railroads did a good job of meeting the service requirements. In an effort to keep inventories and warehouse space requirements at assembly plants as low as possible, delivery requirements were fairly tight. As a consequence, trains set up to handle auto parts, and the associated interchange an
Yup. Made operations difficult. Some of your merchandise traffic has to move on scheduled trains, and some as tonnage dictates and you have to remember which is which without fail.
This is the time when the railroad and its cars became moveing warehouses and part of the assembly line at the same time. The auto industry counted on precise pick ups and deliveries so that they wouldn’t have to have to warehouse inventory (building, maintaining, heating, paying taxes, et al.). The railroads were willing and able to do the job. Conrail, in effect, was a pioneer in this process.
With due respect, I’d have to differ with you on the idea that Conrail was a pioneer in providing services meeting the high levels required by the auto industry. I couldn’t put a starting time on it, but but at least a decade (maybe two) before Conrail, the railroads that had large shares of auto traffic were establishing pools of the special box cars used in parts service and running those cars in what today is called “scheduled” service. While it could be said that the development of the service was a collaborative effort between the auto companies and the railroads, I suspect that pressure on the part of the auto companies was the greater factor. In effect the auto companies said “If you want our business, this is what you need to do.” Not that the railroads were forced to do something they didn’t like. With large volumes, very predictable movement patterns, and reasonably good profit margins, most were happy to get the business.
Larger stampings (body panels) are shipped in specifically designed racks that maximize density (nesting) while protecting them from potential damage. These racks are designed so they can be loaded and transported in either hi-cube box cars or trailers, depending on the distance from the stamping plant to the assembly plant.
The trend in the last 15 years or so has been to locate the stamping facilities for the major body panels adjacent to the assembly plant’s body shop. Reason is to reduce in-process inventory and improve product quality. As noted earlier, this philosophy was introduced in North America by the Japanese transplants. To make this work, one had to learn how to make quick, rapid die changes. This became a priority with the domestic manufacturers in the 1980’s.
As you suspected, stampings are shipped unfinished with only a light coating of die lube protecting them.
Many auto parts travelled in racks or bins from manufacturing facility to assembly plant. Some racks were placed beside the assembly line and others went to “shops” at the plant to be processed before assembly.
Those racks and bins had to get back to where they came from. So the “empties” going back to the manufacturing facility really weren’t empty, they were hauling empty racks, bins, carriers, etc. Did the railroads transport the empties back free? I would think getting paid for hauling both directions would be a big incentive for the railroads to provide the service the automotive companies needed.
No doubt autos and auto parts were carried by the railroads since the widespread popularity of the auto. But the concept of being part of the assembly line came about in the 70s. Up to then, parts would arrive and be warehoused until needed. Manufacturers got rid of the warehouse space by getting timed shipments between plants so that the parts arrived on an as needed basis. Not the same as carting parts from parts manufacturer to assembly plant weeks and months in advance of their need.
And, yes, in the assembly line period, there was a more effective use of cars on return trips…maybe they’d be loaded for something at another assembly line closer to the home of the origination, etc.
As I recall, logistics equipment used in the car for the loaded haul, or an in kind amount, would be return free of charge with the empty movement. I think that there may have been a generic “allowance” provision that would be tacked on the rate item for a loaded haul that would allow such a free movement. Generally. the provision would only be available for traffic in cars that were in a pool assigned to a specific loading point that would normally be returned empty to that point.
However, it would be reasonable to assert “no free lunch”. The rate established for the loaded movement would be set to include the cost of the empty return of the car and any equipment in the car.
I just finished chapter 2 on automotive. The network of automotive (both parts and racks, plus empties) was impressive.
Taylor indicates to a degree there was a certain level of yard humping of auto racks. Does that practice still occur? Elkhart and Selkirk were destinations of trains with autoracks. Usually those trains were general merchandise handling racks. There seemed to be a movement to avoid the hump yards, no doubt due to damage.
Are autoracks still humped? Gibson Yard in Hammond (IHB) has been designated as a yard for western carriers. Are there other yards around with that function? Or is Gibson in an ideal location (east meets west)?
Also, Taylor had several photos of the old style racks with open tops. Kinda neat. When were those gone?
That was part of my question. Since a car filled with empty parts carriers, be they custom racks, bins or whatever, has to be routed back to the source of those parts, i.e. isn’t truly an empty available for any load, how was that movement paid for. How did pool cars affect that? What was the cost-sharing split on pool cars?
I believe unit trains and private/lease cars usually are running under contract so empty return is built into the pricing. Same would be true of the “assembly line” trains.
On the cost sharing question. Going back to my time, the plans for car pools were a spin off of the auto plant’s production plan for a model year. I don’t know the details, but the auto company would provide a forecast that in turn would be used to establish the number of cars of each type required for a given pool. Then, the railroads participating in the movement would be expected to provide cars at a ratio roughly equal to each railroads share of revenue for the move. Needless to say, in the days of 20+ Class 1 railroads, the plans were a bit more complicated than now. However, I have no doubt that the planning and coordination between all the auto companies and railroads continues at a very high level.
Gibson is still the interchange point for autoracks in Chicago. With auto loads where they are these days there has been some talk of shutting it down and moving the interchange to Blue Island, though as far as I know it is just talk at this point.
Humping auto racks was done…but damage claims got so high that railroads came to realize that is was not a good idea.
Its a good example of how railroads clung to old ways, normal ways, of doing things not realizing that new products and new services could not or should not be handled the same ol’ same ol’!