"Canadian Pacific inks deal to move open containers"Published: October 18, 2011
I have seen TOFC with loaded flatbed trailers, and seen container trailers stacked in well cars for movement, but have never seen any of these stackable deck systems on Intermodal trains around this area. (BNSF Transcon).
FTA: TORONTO: “…Canadian Pacific, has signed a deal that will see it carry a new style of intermodal container that aims to capture pipe, beam, and other industrial products business. CP has been testing the Contrans Raildecks container, a flatbed conveyance with vertical supports capable of double-stacking…”
The article carries a photo of the system, stacked and loaded into a well car. It will be of interest to hear what other Posters here that are in the Trucking Transportation business have to say about this.
That segment (Flatbeds) of the industry was always pretty price driven, and competitive. Will be interesting to see how these “decks” work in the day to day, dog-eat-dog world of Flatbeds and railroads work out. Will they be strictly a niche type movement, or will they gain wide spread use?
Looks like a great innovation. I’m not sure how much this will affect flatbed trucking though…I’m in the steel hauling business and almost all of my shippers and receivers have railroad sidings and the ability to move loads easily via flat or coil car, door to door. But having said that, the folks at CP have undoubtedly done their due diligence and have found that this is a worthy undertaking. Most probably they’re looking at the oil industry in Alberta and the amount of pipe and steel that moves west out of Ontario, Quebec and other areas. Flatbed trucking rates are very high going west across Canada… I get $7000 to $10,000 per truckload for loads from Ontario to Alberta/BC. Moreover, oil fields don’t have sidings to my knowledge, so this development along with a nice length of haul might be just the ticket.
I was hoping you would see the Post and weigh in. It seems to be a pretty useful concept to tackle. I believe you are right on target. They would be useful in moving steel pipe (oil field drill pipe, and other types). Can’t speak to the situation in Canada, but having worked on an inland river port that received steel import pipe in barge loads; it would be an easy way to get overseas shipment of various diameters of imported pipes into, as well as, out of the ports and to destination.
By shipping the pipe already loaded on the ‘Raildeck’ concept, the shipper saves the stevedore charges at the Port. Not to mention the speed that that process would gain in movement out of the port to final destination.
Drayage is the only potentially, problematic part of the process IMHO. Not sure about Canadian law, but in the US; road tractors were/are (?) required to be equipped with a “Headache” Rack behind the cab, when puling flatbeds.
The Flatdecks have a bulkhead on each end that is erect when they are loaded. The real advantage is that four of them with the bulkheads and supports folded down, will fit in one container’s space on an empty backhaul. So there is much less pressure to find a backhaul load.
It’s a new wrinkle on a concept that I’ve seen before. I have seen 20’ bulkhead flat “containers” with machinery or similar loads at UP’s Canal Street yard several years ago, and as mentioned in the above post, the bulkheads could be folded down and four could occupy the cubic space of one regular container.
I also remember an article in TRAINS about 35-40 years ago when British Rail first came up with the Freightliner container train. The British had a similar open container called a “Lancashire flat”.
I’m pretty sure that John G. Kneiling had sketches of similar ‘containers’ in his book Integral Train Systems and various articles in Trains, but it’s still nice to see the idea achieve wider adoption. I too have seen similar racks from time to time on the highway - never able to snap a photo, though - and occasionally in magazines.
That does look rather interesting though…wonder when this will start to come about here…I can see myself doing some railfanning by a certain park I know…
On grade crossing cross-bucks where the words are still spelled out, Canadian signs say Railway Crossing as opposed to the US, Railroad Crossing. Our British ancestry, don’t you know.
A useful spotting feature to detect movies shot in Canada. Particularly prominent in the original Christopher Reeve “Superman” movie.
Back on topic: See my comment below the TRAINS Newswire story.
We shouldn’t be too hard on our American friends, after all, our own media still incorrectly uses the CP Rail name. CP Rail goes back to when the Company was a conglomerate consisting of hotel, mining interests, trucking, an airline, and shipping.But talk about a strong brand. CP Rail has been “gone” for some 15 years yet that’s still often how the railway is referred to. You don’t see BNSF mistakenly referred to as the Santa Fe, or CSX as the Chessie… CP’s marketing people in the 70s were really on to something when they created the powerful CP Rail, CP Air, CP Ships, CP Hotel brands.
Actually, many (and I mean many… from trainmasters, dispatchers, and T&E guys) on my railroad still refer to CSX as the Chessie. Just sounds better than saying CSX, I guess.
And of course, we still call it “CP Rail”. Or sometimes the D&H, depending on line/train.
I didn’t mean to be sarcastic on the railway thing, and off-topic again, but you forgot one of the CPR’s most lucrative assets, that being real estate, they own millions and millions of acres of prime real estate (along with the mineral rights) and a lot of land is in the centre of large cities, they got it for putting in a railway, I believe their real estate arm was (is) called Marathon Realty. And, there are afew Railways in the U.S.
Way to HEAVY for most normal stuff hauled via a Flatbed. For what the Container weighs on its OWN you have the Tare weight of the Flatbed Trailer. Then you have to add in the Chassis to haul it. If you are wanting to haul Lumber with this your going to be hauling 10K LESS than the guy who hauls it OTR and you better give your customer one hell of a discount for having to take 5 loads on a Can cimpared to the 4 OTR loads. Sorry but for hauling Lumber they are SOL. Steel same thing when your paid via a Hundred weight lighter is BETTER.
Just what John Kneiling used to write, and for the same reason.
Depends on whether the total bill for 4 OTR loads from wherever the lumber is coming from (Canada ?) - that’s including driver(s) and fuel - is less or more than 5 x (dray at start + container rate + dray at end), +/- some administrative hassle factor, and maybe the benefit from a backhaul to reduce the cost of returning the empties. As is often the case, a long enough rail haul that’s cheaper enough than the OTR rate, and with short drays that don’t eat up that differential too much, can win the business - sometimes.
Unless, of course, the shipment is in Pennsylvania at one end or the other, where since 1994 containerized freight is allowed an extra 10,000 lbs. to 90,000 lbs. GVW (21,000 lbs. per axle) per 75 Pa.C.S.A. Sec. 4974. Permit for Movement of Containerized Cargo., (a) General Rule. (middle of page 33 of 41 of this compilation of the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code, Title 75: http://www.dmv.state.pa.us/pdotforms/vehicle_code/chapter49.pdf ) So the tare weight handicap that Ed correctly identifies and diagnoses for other locations is not a factor here (the permit is only $150 per year, good for up to 5 trucks, too, last time I looked, as best as I can recall).
Oh, by the way - Did I mention that Canadian Pacific has a significant presence and operations in 2 urban areas in Pennsylvania - Scranton/ Wilkes-Barre
N. W. Emmott was not impressed - see his poem “The song of the holy name” which I transcribed about 11 months ago at this thread here (2nd post on Page 2 of 2): http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/forums/p/182717/2000289.aspx#2000289 As you’ll see, it ends with: