My understanding is that the 53’s are not ISO certified for international transport, that is the main roadblock to trying this idea. Yes, many Asian ports lack warehousing space, but there are some which do have that kind of space and thus ideal for a real world tryout of transporting 53’s should ISO certification come into fruition.
Even with the one to two weeks time delay from Asia to the U.S., you are still in better position to respond to inventory changes if you are transporting in 53’s vs 40’s on the ocean leg. There would be a significant time savings using 53’s vs 40’s on the transload from ship to railcar, and if it became apparent that some cargo redistribution became necessary due to inventory changes it is easier to transload from a 53’ to another 53’.
So please explain how your idea of ‘open access’ differs from the current rules of interchange. How will this ‘open access’ increase capacity and make it better for a) the railroads and b) the shippers.
I am not sure your idea of stacking yet another loaded container over a shared truck of a stack car will not lead to overloading of the weight limits of that truck. Those 20’ boxes can get really heavy. I see a problem in trying to load it on the intermediate platform if the wells on both sides are designated to have both a lower 48’ box and an upper 53’ box loaded.
What adding more axles under a railcar (or a truck trailer for that matter) does is to increase the overall load factor while still minimizing wear and tear on the tracks (or the road). Adding more axles allows higher net cargo weights to be hauled per car, thus your ratio of cargo weight to tare weight is improved, and the resultant savings usually shows up on the bottom line.
As for what is the optimal max weight per axle, some studies have suggested that a max weight of 71,500 lbs per axle (e.g. 286,000 lbs per four axle car) gives the best results. Simply allowing more weight per axle such as the proposed 78,750 lb per axle/315,000 lbs per four axle car standard may result in the law of diminishing returns kicking in, e.g. the increase in wear and tear on the trackage would result in a greater cost than the savings of the increased load factor. I would suggest that a fail safe per axle weight should be more in the 65,000 lb per axle range, since most studies on axle weights don’t take into account the frequency of flat spots on wheels and/or deferred maintenance, and other such intangibles.
“My understanding is that the 53’s are not ISO certified for international transport, that is the main roadblock to trying this idea. Yes, many Asian ports lack warehousing space, but there are some which do have that kind of space and thus ideal for a real world tryout of transporting 53’s should ISO certification come into fruition.”
I submit that there are no Asian ports which have that kind of space. And I submit that it is pointless to work on ISO certification of 53s when there are so few places overseas that you can take them. If they were useful in that regard, certification would have happened a long time ago.
Futuremodal continued:
“Even with the one to two weeks time delay from Asia to the U.S., you are still in better position to respond to inventory changes if you are transporting in 53’s vs 40’s on the ocean leg. There would be a significant time savings using 53’s vs 40’s on the transload from ship to railcar, and if it became apparent that some cargo redistribution became necessary due to inventory changes it is easier to transload from a 53’ to another 53’.”
Each transload event is $100+ per box plus dray charges, say, $200 US port-to-warehouse-to-rail terminal or Asian port-to-warehouse-to-Asian port.
It pays to re-load in 53s given you operate a distribution warehouse near the US port. (It even pays to move your warehouse from an inland US point to a point near the US port, if most of your goods come from Asia and if they come from various suppliers in different containers.) It doesn’t pay to transload to a bigger box if the entire box contents are going to one place inland in the US. And it certainly doesn’t pay to transload to a 53 near an Asian port given the box is only going as far as a warehouse near the US port.
Regarding open access, it has been deceminated quite well in this thread, but to recap: Current rules of interchange allow for certain anti-competitive auspices such as bottleneck rate gouging, paper barriers for shortlines which could in theory interchange with more than one Class I, limiting operators allowed on underutilized proprietary trackage when logic dictates that allowing other operators would maximize utilization, et al.
Regarding the Stack n’ Half, it is similar to drawbar connected well cars which have 70 ton trucks on both ends, these cars have a net carrying capacity of 160,000 lbs cargo. What I did was replace the interior 70 ton trucks with 100 ton trucks to allow an additional 70,000 lbs cargo over the mini-spine. Do the math and you’ll see it all fits together quite nicely.
Without giving away confidential information, all I can add is that any logistical technician will look for ways to improve the supply chain. Don’t forget, what works over here (moving 40’ boxes 100 miles inland away from congested ports for transloading into larger boxes) can work in reverse overseas.
Also, if you will notice, the 53’ boxes made by Jindo are of the same corrugated side construction as your standard 40’ boxes. Indeed they are built for stacking multiple units. This is already done on container on barge service between Alaska and Puget Sound. It will work. Whether Stoughton’s new boxes can handle multiple stacking heights remains to be seen. I have contacted them for an answer and have not received a reply, so possibly even they don’t know. Probably their new design was only meant for nothing more than double stacking.
IMHO open access could lead to something similar to the airlines after deregulation. A massive Class I price war at the first business downturn, regionals and startups with less debt and better labor agreements cherry-picking business, potential United Airlines style bankruptcies(CSX???) . It would be good for shippers and ultimately competition, but getting there could be pretty painfull and expensive and I really don’t see it increasing capacity on the lines that have the most problems. Another issue not mentioned in relation to subsidies is they get cut when budgets are tight. The Interstates which the public see’s are in need of pretty massive infrastructure improvement as a result of defered maintenance. Rail would fare even worse.
An alternative I’ve been thinking about addresses a number of issues raised recently and I’m sure creates others I haven’t considered, so fire away. This wouldn’t double capacity by any stretch, but it would increase it significantly.
Modern locos are more fuel-efficient and reliable than ever before. I’d use the savings to increase average train speeds by ~10 mph. Aside from just running them faster, I’d look at eliminating or automating un-necessary FRA-mandated stops and inspections that don’t compromise safety. If fueling is an issue, I’d use auxiliary fuel tenders(didn’t BN do this on the northern transcom at one time?). Some trains may have to be shorter, others may need more power. Double track in critical locations would also cut delays and the extra expense would be partially offset by longer rail life since tonnage is split over 2 tracks instead of one.
Increasing train speeds allows the same miles in less time, so I’d put most of the train crews on a 12 hour on/12 off arrangement, leaving most of the crew change locations the same. This still isn’t a regular 9-5 type work day, but it’s better than what crews have now. The railraods get greater productivity and should be able to attract new hires. The railroaders don’t have to take
I have lurked on this thread for sometime but feel I need to raise a point that has only been lightly mentioned. The true capacity bottlenecks in our transportation system today (rail, highway, and air) are the terminals. None of these suggestions do much to much to address that issue. If you can’t get the containers out of LA/Long Beach ports, it doesn;t matter if you have 4 tracks over Cajon. If you can’t get them into Chicago, double tracking Abo canyon doesn’t gain much (well it does provide more places to park blocked trains - but I don’t think that’s the point.)
Further, the bulk of the tonnage today is in unit trains – coal, grain, autoracks, and chemicals. These very interesting suggestions do not address these very significant components in the capacity equation.
Had to attend to life for a couple of days so could not respond to yours of 29th until now. As I read that post you conclude that BNSF wants an exhorbitant rate over Stampede Pass because you could not get a low enough rate to do intermodal from Yakima to the ports of Seattle and Tacoma. I do not think the facts support your conclusion, and here is why.
I assume you are looking at import-export traffic, which would be mostly export from Yakima. That is a one way load. Yakima to Seattle and Tacoma is about 150 one way highway miles, 300 round trip. I suspect truckers would do this move for $1.25 per mile or $375 per round trip. You have to offer shippers two discounts, one for slower service, and one to use you versus somebody else. I can not imagine that less than 20% would do it, so your maximum rate becomes $300 per box round trip.
You have two drays, one at the port and one in Yakima. If you got them for $75 each, round trip I would be surprised. That is $150 per box.
Terminals are not free either. If you gould get on and off for $50 per lift you have $200 in terminal costs. Considering there is no terminal in Yakima, I guess you figured to build your own and recover the operating and capital costs at $100 per box. If so, you are a braver man than I.
The problem is we are to $350 in costs before we get to linehaul issues. There are some minor complications here. First you have to use single stack equipment because double will not fit thru
Stampede. That makes your business a lot less attractive in the terminals at Seattle and Tacoma because your equipment takes twice as much track space as double stack equipment.
Another issue is that your traffic is split between the ports so you go to them on differend days or have two small blocks each day.
How you would get to the intermodal terminals is also a puzzle as the trains now being operated do not go to SIG nor the Tacoma dock yards which are
Had to attend to life for a couple of days so could not respond to yours of 29th until now. As I read that post you conclude that BNSF wants an exhorbitant rate over Stampede Pass because you could not get a low enough rate to do intermodal from Yakima to the ports of Seattle and Tacoma. I do not think the facts support your conclusion, and here is why.
I assume you are looking at import-export traffic, which would be mostly export from Yakima. That is a one way load. Yakima to Seattle and Tacoma is about 150 one way highway miles, 300 round trip. I suspect truckers would do this move for $1.25 per mile or $375 per round trip. You have to offer shippers two discounts, one for slower service, and one to use you versus somebody else. I can not imagine that less than 20% would do it, so your maximum rate becomes $300 per box round trip.
You have two drays, one at the port and one in Yakima. If you got them for $75 each, round trip I would be surprised. That is $150 per box.
Terminals are not free either. If you gould get on and off for $50 per lift you have $200 in terminal costs. Considering there is no terminal in Yakima, I guess you figured to build your own and recover the operating and capital costs at $100 per box. If so, you are a braver man than I.
The problem is we are to $350 in costs before we get to linehaul issues. There are some minor complications here. First you have to use single stack equipment because double will not fit thru
Stampede. That makes your business a lot less attractive in the terminals at Seattle and Tacoma because your equipment takes twice as much track space as double stack equipment.
Another issue is that your traffic is split between the ports so you go to them on differend days or have two small blocks each day.
How you would get to the intermodal terminals is also a puzzle as the trains now being
“My understanding of BNSF operations in the PNW is that they do route empty grain shuttles back over Stampede, and (correct me if I’m wrong) I believe they do manage to run from Tacoma to Pasco in one trip. For UP to shuttle a crew between Hinkle and Pasco would only take 20 minutes or so, so there would be no need for increasing crew costs.”
You are wrong. Train crews run from Seattle or Tacoma only to Ellensburg where crews are changed for the run to Pasco. As for the UP to drive a crew from Hinkle to Pasco in 20 minutes: Unlikely, since it’s 35 miles one way.
“5. Reroute Amtrak off high density corridors onto lower traffic lines. There are examples of routes where Amtrak runs over heavily used freight lines while parrellel lines with less traffic are available. Take Amtrak off BNSF’s High Line and put it on the ex-NP (nee MRL) line through central Monana and North Dakota. Take Amrak off the ex-Santa Fe LA to Chicago line and reroute it to the ex-RI/SSW/SP line. This may increase the travel time for Amtrak passengers and deprive some towns of rail passenger service, but Harve and Minot’s loss is Bozeman and Bismark’s gain. It would certainly help clear up the heaviest used freight lines.”
A couple of points here:
The proposal Amtrak off the ex-ATSF line to the UP (ex-CRIP/SP) line shows that the gentleman stating this is unaware of the fantastic delays that have occurred to Amtrak’s Sunset Limited over the past year on the former SP line west of El Paso. Certainly, there is no capacity there to handle another Amtrak train, so his proposal is a “lose/lose” scenario.
As for rerouting the Empire Builder, there are many reasons this proposal is simplistic:
1.)The train is Amtrak’s most successful train in terms of ridership, on time performance, and public utility(serving many areas without other public transportation). It should not be rerouted for alleged capacity issues.
2.)Rerouting the train via the ex-NP line would require 6 to 8 hours more running time than is currently the case. Considering the Empire Builder’s turnaround time for equipment in Seattle and Portland is only about 6 hours now (the least of any long distance Amtrak train), doing this would mean having to create another entire set of equipment just for this reason. Of course, anyone that knows anything about Amtrak’s equipment availability lately knows this isn’t going to happen.
3.)Being very familiar with the operation of the Empire Builder along BNSF, I would like any evidence that it is hindering capacity
Thanks for the clarification. It is 121 miles by rail from Tacoma to Ellensburg, which means either trains are averaging 10 miles an hour over this route, or crews are running round trip Tacoma-Ellensburg-Tacoma (and Pasco-Ellensburg-Pasco). If it’s 10 mph, that is just pathetic, especally since eastbound grain trains out of Tacoma are empties, and fewer than 5 or 6 trains a day are currently using the line. For crying out loud, I know people that commute round trip daily from Ellensburg to Seattle to work!
If Pasco (or more likely Kennewick ) is too far for a Tacoma origin UP empty to travel in one crew time slot, they could always try for Kiona or Prosser and still shuttle crews from Hinkle. The point is UP could run trains eastbound over the Stampede Pass line without the cost of having to establish a new crew district, and this move would relieve some congestion on UP’s Columbia Gorge line, which is the gist of this thread e.g. relieving capacity constraints sans new track construction.
And just for the record, I have driven from Kennewick to Umatilla in under 15 minutes.
futuremodal stated:
“Thanks for the clarification. It is 121 miles by rail from Tacoma to Ellensburg, which means either trains are averaging 10 miles an hour over this route, or crews are running round trip Tacoma-Ellensburg-Tacoma (and Pasco-Ellensburg-Pasco). If it’s 10 mph, that is just pathetic, especally since eastbound grain trains out of Tacoma are empties, and fewer than 5 or 6 trains a day are currently using the line. For crying out loud, I know people that commute round trip daily from Ellensburg to Seattle to work!”
**Actually what is occuring is none of the scenarios you obviously claim to know about. No, the crews aren’t taking 12 hours to go the distance, but they’re not running from Tacoma to Ellensburg and back again, either. First of all, most trains are on duty about 8 to 10 hours, but that’s because the crew sometimes will take their train to Auburn for inspection first prior to departing, or will be delayed waiting for the train to be inspected at Tacoma, which they just started doing. In any event, the crew is on duty several hours prior to departure, so couple that with transit time, and they really don’t have enough time to handle another train back to Seattle (the westbounds, both of them, go to Interbay); and, a short-time westbound train is not desirable between Easton and Kanaskat because it is totally inaccessable to a relief crew (should the need arise) in an automobile. That’s the main reason they don’t aggregate back. That there is more to this is much different than simply labeling it “pathetic.”
futuremodal continues:
"If Pasco (or more likely Kennewick ) is too far for a Tacoma origin UP empty to travel in one crew time slot, they could always try for Kiona or Prosser and still shuttle crews from Hinkle. The point is UP could run trains eastbound over the Stampede Pass line without the cost of having to establish a new crew district, and this move would relieve some congestion on UP’s Columbia Gorge line, which is the gist of this thre
VerM, you miss (I presume purposefully) the whole point. Exaggerations aside, the first question is how far from Tacoma an eastbound could travel before the crew goes dead, that is if the railroad really tried. As I remember from various John Kneiling columns, the old 100 mile crew district went out with the steamers, and crew districts of 300 miles are more the norm. This assumes of course that average speed in practice has also evolved along with the technology. I can see where line congestion can cause average speeds in the teens, but for a line with extra capacity such as the Stampede Pass line this is not an excuse. When BN spent the $100 million OR SO to rehab this line, they did so with the stated purpose of it handling 20 to 30 trains per day. Right now it has 5 OR SO per day. Thus the Stampede Pass line is not going to have the time constraints of the more congested I-5 corridor. It is axiomatic that the more trains you can take off these more congested corridors and reroute to the less congested lines, the more capacity you free up on the more heavily used lines for the higher paying cargos. If UP could reroute trains via Stampede Pass due to open access, then it is certainly a win win fromt the standpoint of UP operations and maximizing utilization of a currently underutilized line. You mention the I-5 time constraints as proof that better times cannot be made on the Stampede Pass line, when in contrast the lack of traffic on Stampede would not force these constraints, so in that vein it is a poor example of counterpoint.
Okay, so let’s take your position that UP can’t run this route without establishing a new crew district somewhere along the line, even though it is only 247 miles by rail from Tacoma to Kennewick. Is the cost of this new crew district going to outweigh the benefits of opening up capacity on the Gorge and I-5 lines? We know that UP has has to turn away business to avoid a meltdown. Wouldn’t it be a net gain if UP could retain this business without going into m
Actually, it is 19 miles from the I-82/395 junction to the McNary bridge, or 21 miles from the McDonalds, and I never went over 85, as I was just going with the traffic flow. And no, I wasn’t running a stop watch on myself, just a quick glance at the dashboard clock. I may like to get to where I’m going in good time (one reason I’d never waste my time riding Amtrak), but I’m not reckless.
And for the record, what I said was that one can make it from Hinkle to Pasco in 20 minutes OR SO. For an Amtrak defender, you are sure an ironic stickler for time descriptions.
Futuremodal states:
“VerM, you miss (I presume purposefully) the whole point. Exaggerations aside, the first question is how far from Tacoma an eastbound could travel before the crew goes dead, that is if the railroad really tried. As I remember from various John Kneiling columns, the old 100 mile crew district went out with the steamers, and crew districts of 300 miles are more the norm. This assumes of course that average speed in practice has also evolved along with the technology. I can see where line congestion can cause average speeds in the teens, but for a line with extra capacity such as the Stampede Pass line this is not an excuse. When BN spent the $100 million OR SO to rehab this line, they did so with the stated purpose of it handling 20 to 30 trains per day. Right now it has 5 OR SO per day. Thus the Stampede Pass line is not going to have the time constraints of the more congested I-5 corridor. It is axiomatic that the more trains you can take off these more congested corridors and reroute to the less congested lines, the more capacity you free up on the more heavily used lines for the higher paying cargos. If UP could reroute trains via Stampede Pass due to open access, then it is certainly a win win fromt the standpoint of UP operations and maximizing utilization of a currently underutilized line. You mention the I-5 time constraints as proof that better times cannot be made on the Stampede Pass line, when in contrast the lack of traffic on Stampede would not force these constraints, so in that vein it is a poor example of counterpoint.”
Sorry, it is you that missed my point, which is that you simply were labeling something YOU didn’t understand as “pathetic”. I don’t think that’s fair. Also, the problems the UP is having in Portland have nothing to do with capacity along the “I-5”. As another person stated, the problems are in terminals, and that’s where the UP is burning their time, and it’s before they even get on the joint track with BNSF. True, 100-mile crew
Futuremodal states:
“Actually, it is 19 miles from the I-82/395 junction to the McNary bridge, or 21 miles from the McDonalds, and I never went over 85, as I was just going with the traffic flow. And no, I wasn’t running a stop watch on myself, just a quick glance at the dashboard clock. I may like to get to where I’m going in good time (one reason I’d never waste my time riding Amtrak), but I’m not reckless.”
Well, the distances keep changing. I’m not familiar enough to know where the McDonald’s is of which you speak, but you did originally stated from Umatilla to Kennewick. The bridge is not the town of Umatilla and the I-82/US-395 junction is about 5 miles out of Kennewick. Now we have the rest of the story, as Paul Harvey would say:
futuremodal continues:
“And for the record, what I said was that one can make it from Hinkle to Pasco in 20 minutes OR SO. For an Amtrak defender, you are sure an ironic stickler for time descriptions.”
Well 20 minutes from Hinkle to Pasco OR SO is a lot different than 15 minutes from the McNary bridge to the US395 junction. However, my point was to show that you exaggerated the time to help bolster your claim of a single crew from Tacoma to wherever (in retrospect, since it would require another crew, I don’t know what this had to do with it). As for being a stickler for time descriptions, I’ll simply reference your previous statements: “So what if it adds 6 to 8 hours to the schedule, people don’t ride Amtrak to make good time” and the classic, “Based on the latest news, an 8 to 10 hour delay is the norm for Amtrak” as coming from someone that really can concoct some interesting “time descriptions”!
Other than possibly Amtrak, I would say that 300+ mile crew districts are certainly no the norm. A closer figure would be 200-250 miles for and interdivisional run.
You seem to be taking the “best case scenario” and assume that is the standard. For example your drive time example. Remember that the crews will be in a commercial van or SUV and will not be “flying” low. The crews will have to come on duty, complete any outstanding paperwork from the previous trip, get paperwork for the current trip, read it, have a job briefing on it, then load their gear into the van. They will spend 45" to an hour on duty before they get in the van, let alone the transit time.
Clearly the BNSF did not think the traffic was “good money” for them. Your third party logistic outfit probably used some sort of standard cost estimation program. I suspect it grossly underestimated terminal costs, which as I tried to illustrate dominate the economics of this move.
If you were running the terminals at the Port, and were anywhere near capacity, you would sure want to be paid well for your lifts. Remember you are competing for space with transcontinental traffic. Not taking low paying short haul business to keep capacity for the transcontinental traffic makes all kinds of sense to me. When you are capacity constrained, you must be very careful about what business you handle. I suspect that and the drays is what killed your deal, not the line haul costs. How much detail did your logistics outfit share and did you sit in on talks with railroad?
“Thank you” to the several others who corrected your misstatements about crew issues. I could have but wanted to concentrate on more basic issues.