This is fairly interesting.
I’ve only gotten through the first couple of pages (after the table of contents), and so far it seems to be all BS and handwaving. I hope that it gets better, but some reason, I have a hard time reading material written in this manner.
There. (Hit the space bar after the end of the URL.)
Okay, after my first overview of the document, my impression is that the railroads are saying, “Gee, shorthaul intermodal really isn’t a profitable business for us. But if the “public” is willing to bear the cost of building and operating the intermodal terminals (after all, the public receives a benefit from less truck traffic on the highways) then we (the railroads) would love to handle the profitable business of moving intermodal freight between the terminals”.
Thanks for summing it up.
Terminal expenses are a huge cost factor in intermodal. If the railroad can get someone else to build and operate the terminal, they can almost always make a profit on the run. But every time in the past where the railroad has tried short haul TOFC using RR owned facilities, the cost factors of the terminal operation pushed the rail rate far above what “the truckers” would stand for - or their customers, for that matter. It was back to the rubber on the road.
I agree. Shorthaul railroading (both intermodal and non-intermodal) can work great when unit train logistics are employed and terminalization is minimized. And there’s nothing wrong with having local jurisdictions take the lead role in building and maintaining multi-modal interchange facilities. In fact, most probably do so today.