Intuitively doublestack makes alot of sense… by stacking containers you shorten the train and you improve the loaded verses tare weight ratio. But when I look at a double stack train I see alot of empty space between well cars… so each set of stack containers catches the wind and the space savings gained in stacking containers appears to be negated to some extent by the huge gaps between well cars. Compare to a standard COFC…you’ve got what looks like an unbroken string of containers with a relatively low center of gravity. So one has to wonder…taking into account the specialized equipment for doublestack… the greater clearances… the specialized equipment and facilities needed to on and off load…just how much more efficient is double stack over COFC?
Despite all the problems that you adeptly mention, I believe that double-stack is still quite a bit more efficient than COFC (= ‘‘Container-On- FlatCar’’, single-level) for the following reasons:
COFC also needs specialized equipment, so it has no huge advantage there - either a ‘skeleton’ car for maximum tare weight advantage, or a TTX-type flat with the box connectors, or something in between - as well as for loading/ unloading.
Instead, I suspect that the real devil in what you’re observing is the evolution and variation in container sizes - esp. lengths - in the existing fleet and certain markets - 20 ft., 40 ft., 48 ft., and 53 ft., plus possibly 28 ft. and 45 ft. That length variation would also afflict a COFC operation and leave a lot of spaces there, too.
The more favorable aspects of double-stack operations are that they use the available carrying capacity of the railroad system more efficiently in the following 2 ways:
- The cars, trucks, and track structure are loaded more to their full weight-carrying capacity than a COFC operation would be. The precise numbers elude me at the moment, but even a full-length street-legal container at 45,000 lbs. payload - maybe 55,000 lbs. gross = 27.5 tons - will barely compress the springs on a 2-truck railcar; or, a pair of 20-ft. boxes at the same full load would be 110,000 lbs. = 55 tons. Nor - if several such containers are carried on a ‘car’ / ‘platforms’ with an articulated shared-tr
Well, I’m looking at page 173 of “Piggyback and Containers” right now. On that page DeBoer calculates the terminal to terminal cost of a 6,000 ft train operating 1,000 miles. He includes only three cost elements: 1) fuel, 2) car capital and maintenance, 3) Box (trailer or cotnainer) capital. His per box calculated costs are:
TOFC (conventional flatcar) $413
COFC (conventioal flatcar) $401
TOFC (spine car) $413
COFC (spine car) $400
Double Stack $312
RoadRailer $430
The book is from 1992 and so are these numbers. DeBoer estimated over the road trucking costs in that time frame to be $0.75/mile or $750 for that 1,000 mile run.
The figures are misleading. As DeBoer notes " All rail costs are route specific and may vary greatly."
Most importantly, the comparision leaves out a very large cost element, the drayage. At the calculated $0.31/mile it would appear that DS would defeat truck rates right and left. But that advantage quickly goes away when the complete cost of the intermodal move is consisdered. Drayage expenses are what limits intermodal competitiveness with trucking and DS exaserbates the problem.
Additionally his calculated double stack economics are dependant on getting that 6,000 foot long train. That’s possible on a very few long haul, high volume routes such as Chicago-Los Angeles. It’s much harder to do on other routes such as Chicago-Dallas, Chicago-Memphis, etc.
Double stack works very well in its niche. But it’s not the Alpha and Omega of intermodal transportation. As long as the railroads were “full” and could simply load 6,000+ foot stack trains to the capacity of their networks they had no incentive to
Doublestacks forced a major change in how containers were handled. All too often the container was actually on a highway chassis riding piggyback (TOFC). With doublestacking, the unnecessary trailer was finally left behind. Canada was ahead of the US in this regard, with containers placed directly on (single level) flatcars as normal practice from the early days of the container revolution.
I am sure the large gaps between containers must create extra turbulence and wind resistance, but quite possibly that is an issue that is not “politically correct” to investigate. But a double-stacked train is still shorter for the same number of containers, an important consideration on single track where siding lengths can be a constraint.
John
greyhounds, thanks for pulling out that data. [tup]
For a container, double-stack at 31 cents per mile is 27 % less expensive and so it seems pretty compelling as against COFC at 40 cents per mile, which is $90 per box per 1,000 miles = $200 or so for LA-Chicago, $280 or so LA- NYC [again, all figures are 1992, hypothetical, and ‘‘YMMV’’].
greyhounds’ point about drayage costs is true and well-taken - but beside the point for this question [even though I agree and also think that’s a topic for further discussion]. In this context, those drayage costs are for the portion of the move outside of the terminal gates, and as such would apply equally well [or badly] to all containers at a particular terminal, regardless of whether they are moved to or from the terminal by either double-stack or COFC [unless there’s some ‘off-the-wall’ condition like a so-far-unstated clearance or weight restriction that would preclude the double-stack train from getting to that terminal and so make the dray haul much longer, etc.].
cx500 - wind resistance / air turbulence has been investigated - the topic is not at all ‘politically incorrect’ - and I believe it was addressed as part of a thread here like 6 to 8 months ago. I don’t recall the conclusions with any degree of confidence, other than maybe it can be a really large figure and have a big effect for high speeds on flat terri
Like Balzes it’s “Beside the Point”.
Double stacks tend to force rail intermodal traffic into large trains operating between a very few large terminals. In some places, this i
OK - understood. You’re quite right, I concede that I’m looking the narrow view of the rail operations only, mainly because that’s how I understood the question that was posed.
In contrast, yes, I can see that you’re looking at the broader system-wide view, where the drayage costs become significant, for the reasons that you state. If we take this as a question of ‘‘Which arrangement is the better [or optimum] intermodal system - COFC, double-stack, others such as RoadRailer, Iron Highway, etc., or some combnation of them ?’’, then everything else you’ve mentioned also becomes very relevant.
If that’s where we’re going with this, then I need to see if I have anything to add, because I think you’ve laid out the groundwork and dilemma pretty well, and there’s no fundamental difference between us.
Although let me ask this, as a ‘devil’s advocate’ - Would you be able to justify not running a more-efficient and economical double-stack operation, so as to provide more volume to one of the otherwise lesser-used intermodal methods, so as to reduce its unit costs ? In other words, how do we evaluate and decide which of our intermodal ‘children’ do we sacrifice to save the others ? Tonight, that seems like a pretty challenging intellectual and economic question to me. Your thoughts ?
- Paul North.<
No sacrifice needed…I see a good mix of double stack, traditional COFC, TOFC, and roadrailer. Double stack seems to dominate…and that would make sense as most container traffic originates and terminates at large terminals. To ask which of these options is best is kind of like asking which tool is better…a hammar or a saw…it really depends on the job at hand.
Good question .
Double stacks are great but do seem over rated. The big gap between double stack cars might not present a big enough wind drag now, but if speeds were to increase it would matter. So for “slow” trains double stacks is good.
Also the cost of height clearance must matter, this cost might be low in the west but it is more costly to to gain the tall clearnces in the east on older railroads. I’ve observed a “double stack” train get rerouted with considerable delay to get under an overpass, and in reality there was only one car loaded as a double stacker. This must cost alot when trains are delayed many hours for this kind of reason. Especialy when the whole idea of double stacking is to be efficient. I can only see double stacking efficient as long as the height clearances of the railroads are easy to obtain and the train speeds are relatively low. But it seems to have just turned into a convention now since it has proved itself under certain conditions.
No. And I don’t think I’d ever even try to justify such a thing. You’re looking at this as an “either or” proposition, and it’s not. There would be no reason to get rid of a double stack operation to support a RoadRailer (or other) operation. The idea is to just hook the RoadRailers (or preferably RailMate) on the back of the DS train and operate an integrated intermodal system using each technology to the best of its advantage.
I’ll use an example to illustrate.
BEEF!
In 2008 the US produced 26.7 BILLION pounds of beef. That would be about 636,000 loads @42,000 pounds each. The beef production is very concentrated. Just 14 plants produce 55% of this beef. Plant locations are concentrated. Five of the 14 are in the Texas Panhandle. Four are in southwest Kansas. Two are in Colorado north of Denver. One is in Grand Island, NE. One is in Dakota D
Minor quibble – Dakota Dunes SD is a very upscale residential community whose only “industrial” activity is medical clinics escaping the Iowa income tax, which can be very significant for high income individuals. It is the corporate headquarters of the company formerly known as IBP, now a division of Tyson Foods, as a former IBP CEO sought a low tax enviroment for himself and his executives.
In one of their last acts of arbitrary regulatory insanity, the ICC ruled that a TOFC train of meat departing from a nearby Nebraska IBP plant represented unfair competition and ordered it discontinued. The freight went back to trucks, where it remains to this day.
From the beginning I looked at Californias HSR system as a means to move priority freight either in Containers or as trailers. My idea since the system would be totally independant of the freight lines why remain at 4’8" why not sixteen foot rail width. In that way the HSR could carry two wide containers or trailers on a lower level and passengers and packages on the upper level. I originally thought of the Boeing 727 QC madel that operated as passenger planes during the day, at the end of the day the passenger interiors were rolled out and freight was hauled all night. The next morning the passenger interiors were once again rolled in and the plane was ready for passengers. With passengers and package express on the upper level this would certainly maximize the use of the trains. I also felt it would be great to extend the HSR corridor north from Sacramento to Redding in order to take traffic off I-5 coming from Washington and Oregon. In this way there would be no need to widen I-5. Trucks and containers would be whisked to LA and San Diego or the Bay area in less than a day. A truck coming from Washington could be delivering in those places the same day it arrives in Redding something impossible to do today. My original idea was also to make the system with Mag-Lev so 300 mph speeds could be attained. It is time to begin thinking outside the box. and we in California have a unique opportunity to show the world what good old yankee enginnuity can come up with.
Al - in - Stockton
greyhounds - OK, thanks for the example. I wasn’t so much thinking of ‘getting rid of’ either one or any of them, but in the context of a marketing and costing approach - where some could clearly best go via 1 method, but others are pretty much indifferent and ‘up for grabs’ - asking the more general question of, “How do we sort out which of the ‘tools’ to use for each segment of the market ?” Sure, I know, ‘lowest cost and most efficient’ for each - but what if the economics get much better for 1 method by not using another one, at the present or projected levels and sources of traffic ?
A couple of further and different thoughts:
Rail lines that are mostly unoccupied and not used at maximum capacity with frequent trains are a potentially lost ‘opportunity cost’ - just the same as the single-level COFC train in my example above that doesn’t use near all of the weight capacity of the cars or track structure, or space capacity of the clearance diagram.
Most days I take my lunch and eat up by the double-track NS Reading Line in the hopes of seeing a train - and most days I could sit between the tracks and not be disturbed by anything on either track during that 30 or 45 minutes, or if something does comes by, it’s usually just the local switcher. To be fair - and to illustrate the point - other days there are as many as 3 trains that go by, sometimes in the same direction on as close as 10-minute headways/ spacing.
When I drive west during the day on essentially parallel I-78 from Allentown to Harrisburg, to relieve the boredom I count the tractor-trailers = potential loads going east in 10-minute increments - it’s usually in the 120 to 130 range. Why aren’t more of them on the rails ?
Others here have said that the railroads have optimized their revenue/ profit yield with th
[quote user=“greyhounds”]
No. And I don’t think I’d ever even try to justify such a thing. You’re looking at this as an “either or” proposition, and it’s not. There would be no reason to get rid of a double stack operation to support a RoadRailer (or other) operation. The idea is to just hook the RoadRailers (or preferably RailMate) on the back of the DS train and operate an integrated intermodal system using each technology to the best of its advantage.
I’ll use an example to illustrate.
BEEF!
In 2008 the US produced 26.7 BILLION pounds of beef. That would be about 636,000 loads @42,000 pounds each. The beef production is very concentrated. Just 14 plants produce 55% of this beef. Plant locations are concentrated. Five of the 14 are in the Texas Panhandle. Four are in southwest Kansas. Two are in Colorado north of Denver. One is in Grand
Thank you. I switched Dakota Dunes, SD and Dakota City, NE in my listing. I’m glad you caught it.
The communities are about 13 highway miles apart. As you say, the offices are in Dakota Dunes. The mega beef plant is in Dakota City.
The comment above from passengerfan/ Al-in-Stockton reminded me of another comment that I meant to post earlier, as follows:
A COFC-only opportunity that I think both Amtrak and NS are missing is to run a couple of daily trains thru the Amtrak tunnels under the Hudson/ North River, thru/ past Penn Station, and under the East River to an new low-budget intermodal terminal on Long Island, which is a grievously underserved rail and intermodal market. Plus, from there a short dray back-haul would get into Manhattan and the other NYC boroughs on that east side of the Hudson. These are all potentially huge and basically truck-only now - the present rail route can’t be truck-competitive on the scheduling/ running times. Aside from the car-float, it’s to Albany, then either down Metro-North on the east side of the Hudson, or over to and through Connecticut back down by some devious route.
Instead, to first be able to get through the tunnels, I’d propose compiling or blocking the train, including ‘filleting’ [= unloading the 2nd level of double-stacks as needed to make it into a single-level COFC train] NYC-bound double-stacks and other containers as needed at a close-in terminal, such as the LVRM Beth-Intermodal terminal in Bethlehem, PA. Either there, or maybe doing that and/ or running a dedicated COFC train from further out west - like Harrisburg or Chicago.
Then move under conventional diesel power aross North Jersey to arrive at the Hudson River tunnels in the early evening - after the outbound commuter rush in the opposite direction is mostly done, but
Original Post -
Ulrich, since you’re from Canada, I meant to ask this before:
What’s the ‘word’ or consensus on CPR’s ‘‘Expressway’’ [formerly ‘‘Iron Highway’’] operation, which now has a network from Montreal [1 terminal] to and through Toronto [2 terminals - Milton and Agincourt], to Detroit [1 terminal] / or Windsor [1 terminal] ? For the CPR website for it, see:
http://www8.cpr.ca/cms/English/Customers/New+Customers/What+We+Ship/Expressway/default.htm
[quote user=“Paul_D_North_Jr”]
greyhounds - OK, thanks for the example. I wasn’t so much thinking of ‘getting rid of’ either one or any of them, but in the context of a marketing and costing approach - where some could clearly best go via 1 method, but others are pretty much indifferent and ‘up for grabs’ - asking the more general question of, “How do we sort out which of the ‘tools’ to use for each segment of the market ?” Sure, I know, ‘lowest cost and most efficient’ for each - but what if the economics get much better for 1 method by not using another one, at the present or projected levels and sources of traffic ?
A couple of further and different thoughts:
Rail lines that are mostly unoccupied and not used at maximum capacity with frequent trains are a potentially lost ‘opportunity cost’ - just the same as the single-level COFC train in my example above that doesn’t use near all of the weight capacity of the cars or track structure, or space capacity of the clearance diagram.
Most days I take my lunch and eat up by the double-track NS Reading Line in the hopes of seeing a train - and most days I could sit between the tracks and not be disturbed by anything on either track during that 30 or 45 minutes, or if something does comes by, it’s usually just the local switcher. To be fair - and to illustrate the point - other days there are as many as 3 trains that go by, sometimes in the same direction on as close as 10-minute headways/ spacing.
When I drive west during the day on essentially parallel I-78 from Allentown to Harrisburg, to relieve the boredom I count the tractor-trailers = potential loads going east in 10-minute increments - it’s usually in the 120 to 130 range. Why aren’t more of them on the rails ?
Others here have said that the railroads have optimized their revenue/ profit yield with the present mix of intermodal and regular trai
[quote user=“greyhounds”]
[quote user=“Paul_D_North_Jr”]
greyhounds - OK, thanks for the example. I wasn’t so much thinking of ‘getting rid of’ either one or any of them, but in the context of a marketing and costing approach - where some could clearly best go via 1 method, but others are pretty much indifferent and ‘up for grabs’ - asking the more general question of, “How do we sort out which of the ‘tools’ to use for each segment of the market ?” Sure, I know, ‘lowest cost and most efficient’ for each - but what if the economics get much better for 1 method by not using another one, at the present or projected levels and sources of traffic ?
A couple of further and different thoughts:
Rail lines that are mostly unoccupied and not used at maximum capacity with frequent trains are a potentially lost ‘opportunity cost’ - just the same as the single-level COFC train in my example above that doesn’t use near all of the weight capacity of the cars or track structure, or space capacity of the clearance diagram.
Most days I take my lunch and eat up by the double-track NS Reading Line in the hopes of seeing a train - and most days I could sit between the tracks and not be disturbed by anything on either track during that 30 or 45 minutes, or if something does comes by, it’s usually just the local switcher. To be fair - and to illustrate the point - other days there are as many as 3 trains that go by, sometimes in the same direction on as close as 10-minute headways/ spacing.
When I drive west during the day on essentially parallel I-78 from Allentown to Harrisburg, to relieve the boredom I count the tractor-trailers = potential loads going east in 10-minute increments - it’s usually in the 120 to 130 range. Why aren’t more of them on the rails ?
Others here have said that the railroads have optimized their revenue/ profit yield with the present mix
Nahh - no ‘good’ reason - just reasons, mostly bad or indifferent, to wit: Maybe just the usual corporate/ bureaucratic inerita and lack of vision or ‘imagination’ [funny how often that word has come up in various contexts during the last few years, isn’t it ?].
Plus, compounded by insufficient time to think about it or resources to do something about it, due to work overload from the downsizing that seems to be a continuous process anymore. Economizing ourselves right out of business, it seems to me.
And/ or the ‘circular’ one of - ‘‘We don’t have any of that business now, so I/ we can’t justify spending any time or money trying to get it.’’ Huh ?
But to be less facetious - and I’ll certainly defer to other experts here on such things: Probably because there is no ‘champion’ or ‘Product Manager’ such as I understand there is at Procter & Gamble to oversee and ‘ride herd’ on the development and growth and management of each product line in the business. No one ‘owns’ it and has primary responsibility for it, so to speak. That, to me, is the biggest reason.
The next question is what to do about it. Go talk to a CN marketing guy ? The shippers ? One of the '3PL’s = 3rd Party Logistics provider or contractor, or a sharp trucking/ intermodal outfit like Pacer, J.B. Hunt, Schneider, etc. ? I don’t know, but for sure that doesn’t mean that no one else does, either.
- Paul North.