I’ll give you an example of how an open access system could alleviate congestion. In the Pacific Northwest, UP’s line to Puget Sound runs through the Columbia Gorge to Portland, then up the I-5 corridor via BNSF trackage rights to Seattle-Tacoma. When UP hauls a unit grain train to a Puget Sound port, it runs through the heavily congested Gorge then up the congested I-5 lines. After it is emptied, it runs back the same way. Of course, BNSF owns a line over Stampede Pass that runs from the Puget Sound down to the Tri-Cities (and a UP connection) and has only a few trains a day e.g. it has alot of extra capacity. If UP could run their eastbound empties back over this line, it would obviously free up capacity through the Gorge and the I-5 lines. But of course, BNSF won’t let them do that, at least at some reasonable price, whereas if that line was open access, UP could take advantage of it.
I’m sure if one could study the situations of one line being heavily congested while a competitor’s parallel line has extra capacity, you would find literally hundreds of such scenarios.
You picked a good example but there are some problems.
First you are going to one way operations on both legs. Portland is crew change on UP. Getting from Tacoma to Hinkle in one crew day would be a challenge so UP would probably have to change crews at Yakima. This means you have four working crews plus four deadhead crews per round trip. You have doubled UP crew costs. Not very appetizing…
Second problem is there is nothing preventing UP from making BNSF an offer. You are assuming, without evidence that BNSF would want an outrageous rate, and that UP wants to go over the mountain.
Third problem is this would no where near double anybody’s capacity. As you know there are two lines down the gorge, UP and BNSF. I doubt that the UP has as much as one grain train per day to Tacoma. Rerouting less than one train per day, and one way at that is a long, long way from doubling UP capacity.
In fact rerouting does not increase capacity at all. The capacity of all the routes involved in you example, and I suspect in general, is what it is as controlled by track configuration and signal system. It may be true that BNSF could run a few more trains via Stampede. They have plenty of their own they could divert to it at considerable saving in mileage. Why have they not done so?
The moral problem is that you are proposing to rob the BNSF to pay the UP. How can you justify a below market rent to UP? Remember BNSF invested a reported $165 million in Stampede to reopen it. I might love to have the government make you let me live in your spare bedroom for free, but I sure do not want you in mine.
I am not convinced on either practical or ethical grounds.
Assuming that the BNSF had a better route and open access allowed the UP to use it at a rate that matched the costs of the UP operating on their own line, what incentive would the UP have to maintain or even retain their route. If they can run on the BNSF for the same cost, abandon their line and just use the BNSF.
Besides what will you do with the NS and KCS trains operating over that corridor?
The example we are discussing involves taking some of UP’s Puget Sound trains off the heavily traveled UP mainline through the Columbia Gorge in Oregon and transferring them onto BNSF’s underutilized Stampede Pass line. UP is not going to abandon the water-level Columbia Gorge for rights over Stampede Pass!
What we are trying to point out is that heavily used e.g. congested mainlines of one railroad often are parallel to some degree to underutilized lines owned by another railroad. Obviously, taking empties back over the underutilized line makes sense and frees up capacity on the overused line. But because of the owner-operator makeup of the U.S. railroad industry, that aspect of common sense goes wanting. That in and of itself makes a strong case for open access.
I think it makes a better case for heads-up thinking on the part of railroad managements like the deals worked out by NS and CN, for more intensive use of the old D&H in the East, and CN and UP routing more traffic to bypass Chicago. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a deal worked out by UP and BNSF. They do some power sharing in the Powder Raiber Basin.
I know we are talking about the PNW. That’s not the point.
The reason I mentioned the NS and KCS is because you are talking OPEN ACCESS. What started this whole thread was that Dave futuremodal wanted to operate a 3rd party train on the BNSF. If you have open access you will have every railroad in the country going every which way. There is nothing to stop any shortline from establishing transcontinental service. So thinking that establishing open access and then only parallel routes will use it is not realistic.
If you have open access there is nothing to prevent or limit the NS or the KCS or the FEC from offering service from the east coast to the Puget sound.
(1) You can have your Rail Whales IF AND ONLY IF you also pay to upgrade the light rail and the sharp curves (6 degrees radius and above)and turnouts (#9 and below) that are cause and effect linked to track/train dynamics failures.
(2) Open Access? - Not on my watch! (Shippers unwilling to pay for track maintenance as part of the cost of doing business. The shipper beancounters are no more qualified to do brain surgery than they can determine track maintenance. As bad getting funding to do proper track maintenance now is, Open Access would make it really scary.)[|(][|(][|(]
Regarding Rail Whales and their effects on track, it is my understanding that the eight axle cars are just as flexible as four axle cars, because they are really two sets of pairs of two axle trucks. And with the advent of radial steering, three axle trucks no longer have a problem with curve negotiability. I can see where cars of 400,000 lbs plus would be a problem on branchlines that still have a problem with the 286,000 lbs cars.
I think we will agree to disagree on open access. I do think the idea has evolved to the point of there being an understanding that open access in conjuction with government incentives (to reduce the capital liabilities) would probably be the way to go. If it can be proven that some type of open access + federal incentives would result in overall reduced capital expenditures for railroad operating companies, then logic dictates that they would take a more positive outlook on the whole idea.
If FEC, KCS, or NS provided service to some mill in the Pacific Northwest, why would this be a bad thing? No matter how you analyze it, it suggests nothing but benefits for all involved. On the larger picture, if rail shippers have more competitive rate offerings from more than one railroad, doesn’t that make it less likely that they will ship by truck or barge, and thus rail’s share of intercity freight increases?
(1) Span-bolster or radial truck, the moment you leave the main track the L/V forces will cause mega-troubles. Radial trucks help, but are not the panacea for what gives here.
(Lotsa fun when only the center truck of a “C” 3-axle locomotive truck hits the
Futuremodal said:
If FEC, KCS, or NS provided service to some mill in the Pacific Northwest, why would this be a bad thing? No matter how you analyze it, it suggests nothing but benefits for all involved.
Back to the original premise : doubling CAPACITY
If you now have the BNSF, the UP, the NS, the FEC and your shortline operating on the same line, you haven’t doubled the capacity, youv’e doubled the load and possibly even worse you now have more trains dividing up the same pie of carloadings. So now all the roads are less profitable since they haul fewer loads for the same operating costs.
Reducing the profits of the home road doesn’t appear to be a benefit.
Yes you might have underutilized capacity on less efficient routes, but If I am going to get open access I don’t want to run on the branch, if I’m going to LA I want to be on the BNSF’s transcon (where there is less available capacity).
I fail to see how putting more trains carrying the same busines on the same tracks increases capacity. Open access might have some positive arguements for it, but I can’t see how enhancing capacity could be one of them.
Open access is more suitable for mainline runs like the Canada Southern. This line if possible, would benefit CSX and NS for their Selkirk / Buffalo to Detroit trains as well as some of the east coast/ Chicago intermodals. CP did at one time have thoughts about an Expressway train between Buffalo and Detroit. CN could run their Sarnia / Buffalo train at least to St.Thomas where they head toward the Sarnia bound Stratroy Sub. VIA and Amtrak might find use of the line and run trains with possible stops at places like Simcoe, Alymer, Hagersville, St.Thomas and a few other town (Windsor and Fort Erie included). Trillium Railways which operates in Niagara and St.Thomas areas, might find use of it too. This open access line wouldn’t effect anybody as right now but in fact would reduce traffic on the NS Bellevue and CSX Cleveland and Willard Subs as well as the CN Dundas and add revenue to CP if they still want to do the intermodal service there. VIA and Amtrak would have also options. VIA might do all the servicing of the stations in Ontario but Amtrak could run a through train between Detroit and Buffalo. I think at one point Amtrak did this and the train was called the “Rainbow”.
If we take your example one step further, if all the Class I’s are competing for cargo at all available railheads, then something has happened to drastically increase the rail industry’s share of intercity freight.
Of course, logic would dictate that FEC or NS would only get a shot at traffic from the PNW if BNSF or UP first turned it down, and if BNSF and UP couldn’t provide the service at an agreeable price for the shipper, then it is unlikely a traditional Eastern road could trump them. Then again, maybe the shipper requested a different modal approach (such as RoadRailer or RailRunner) that UP or BNSF didn’t want to deal with, but NS with it’s background in Triple Crown decided it was right for them.
But if you have true open access, new player, late player, first player, last player, it doesn’t matter, you HAVE to be given access and you HAVE to be given equitable treatment. So if you give open access and I want to go to LA on the BNSF transcon and I can meet the operating requirements (hp/tt, length, train type etc) then the BNSF has to give me operating rights if I have the money, regardless of whether I am a new player or the oldest RR in America.
The only thing open access is good for is to give shippers a wedge to attempt to drive rates down. It serves no purpose in any form of capacity enhancement.
I don’t want to take away from the general thesis that we should strive to improve space utilization in intermodal trains and carload trains as a means of increasing capacity. That is a noble goal and one where progress can be made, perhaps along the lines suggested in some of the posts on this thread.
But I’ll poke some holes into some of the specific proposals. First, I’m afraid the idea of loading domestic boxes in Asia is not going to fly. Try to take your 53 out of an Asian port to some factory in the vicinity to get it loaded, and you will find you cannot make it around the first or second corner you come to.
There is a reason the North American transportation vehicles have become radically larger than the those of the rest of the world. We have the loading gauge, and they don’t. It will require an enormous investment in infrastructure by the rest of the world to come up to our standard. I doubt it will happen in my lifetime. And that’s why they don’t build vessels to accommodate our big boxes (except above-deck).
So transloading from small international boxes into large domestic boxes at warehouses somewhat near the US ports is a way of life we will have to get used to and a way of life we will have to make efficient. Perhaps it will involve short-haul intermodal of the marine boxes to an inland “virtual port” surrounded by a complex of distribution warehouses, perhaps something else.
As for trying to shift domestic trailer traffic into containers, let me comment as follows. Excluding the new offering just unveiled by Schneider, domestic 53s have about 9-10% less usable cube than 53 trailers. Trailer service is faster through the interchange terminals - faster ramp/de-ramp, and no chassis to mess with. So lightweight and time-sensitive freight shippers don’t like containers. The UPSs of our world refuse to use the domestic containers. So far, anyway. Maybe Schneider’s new box might tilt the balance some.
Since there is an inherent limitation on how many trains can occupy a certain section of track at a given time, more than likely an open access rail policy would be first come first serve e.g. the original owner getting a Grandfather clause to some degree to be the priority user for currently heavily used lines. This type of policy would keep other railroads from overtly cherry picking the best lines at will, while still encouraging use of currently underutilized lines.
Ideally though, an open access policy intended to maximize capacity should allow certain types of trains on certain lines regardless of operator or original owner, e.g. heavy trains using more level but perhaps longer water level routes, while intermodals and empties gravitate toward shorter but perhaps more steeply graded lines. Obviously, in this scenario it would serve the purpose of optimal utilization of capacity.
I’ll reiterate on this example. What is occuring now is that cargo from 40’ containers just unloaded from the container ships is being transloaded pallet by pallet into 53’ domestic containers and dry vans at our congested U.S. ports. What I have suggested along with others is that this same operation could be done more cheaply over at the foreign port, and the 53’ domestics would then be loaded onto the container ship for transport to the U.S. port, at which point the process of moving the cargo from ship to chassis or well car goes alot quicker. I am not suggesting that drivers in China or Japan try to drive around to the factories with these containers as these places probably cannot handle that lenght of trailer. We are only suggesting that the 53’s would stay within the foreign port district, wherein the transloading operation would take place.
Obviously, transporting 100,000 cubic feet of “Roboslugs” on containerships in 53’ containers rather than the smaller 40’ containers will increase the load factor on these ships. It will decrease the total number of lifts for all 100,000 Roboslug packages if they are packed in 25 53’ containers rather than 35 40’ containers. Less total lifts also means faster train assembly, so the time factor also comes out favorably. In this scenario the domes
A quick note, some of those 53’ and 45’ make it to Australia. Trucks have been modified to accommodate this. One thing not mentioned here is if you have bigger and bigger containers what about weight. Ok if you are handling plastic toys or the like but when the cargo gets heavier like power tools and other metals or even kilnware then you will find the box is only half full but max on weight. Or the other problem is in foreign ports weight is not considered and the container is overloaded and when reaching a new port it has to be unloaded anyway. I find it amazing that you would go to the trouble of unpacking a 20’ or 40 ’ to load into a 53’. Well cars can take two 20’s on the bottom and what ever on the top. Are standard containers that frowned upon in the US?
The other point of reducing axle weights yet putting more axles on the rail via 6 and eight axle wagons. Its all weight the loco’s have to pull and that cost’s money.
Finally, on open access, is it possible for a third party to build or own a track and charge others to use it. Say an infrastructure company decided to build another route out of LA and connected with BNSF and UP, then either could use it when it wants to or anybody else for that matter. Has this ever been looked at? A cheaper option would be buying and abandoned line although most Roads wouldn’t abandon it unless it was really redundant. Or is it more like " I don’t need it but I’m sure as hell not let anybody else have it! "
That is the reason it is done in So Cal rather than inland USA. The reason it is done in So Cal rather than in Asia is because Asia is another 1-2 weeks away from the retail stores in the USA. Which means the accuracy of forecasting sales is much worse. In order to sustain the same retail sales, I calculate a Wal-Mart would require a 20% increase in the inventories in its US retail stores if they moved their distribution centers from the vicinity of US Ports to Asia. Even if labor in Asia were totally free, it would be a disastrous move for them. Moving their distribution centers from inland US locations to locations near the US ports saved them a lot of money, but moving them to Asia would lose them a lot of money.
The other issue: There is no space at ports for large-scale transloading ope