I was taking a look at Mi-Jack’s container ThruPort plans, which have been around for a while. (Edit 7/18) http://people.hofstra.edu/Jean-paul_Rodrigue/downloads/TRB2007_Shared_Terminals.pdf Essentially the intermodal terminal consists of really large straddle cranes, around 200’ in span, which would allow multiple intermodal trains to be parked under one crane’s reach. The idea would allow for container sorting between trains to be performed by the crane, avoiding drayage transfers over city streets.
To me cities such as Chicago would benifit greatly from the reduced congestion and pavement destruction yet I have not seen any attempt to pay for a portion of the savings through the Federal gas tax. This represents the worst aspects of conventional transportation planning. A solution exists which would immediately cut down on public expenditures, pollution, and accidents on the city streets yet there are no “intermodal equity” funds available (at least that I know of) from the “Intermodal Surface Transportation Act” all while highway projects with much worse public rates of returns continue to be built. Similar to the fate of CREATE, things will not be done as they should (unless I have missed some developments).
Will we see a rearrangement of intermodal trains with a convergence through a star network on a central point where sorting will be done, allowing for the consolidation of loads to three or more terminals in one train. Will domestic intermodal traffic be bouyed by the ability to consol
It seems to me that what you are referencing is the notion of direct ship-to-rail transloading of containers. According to some on this forum, it can’t be done, for these reasons:
Usually there’s not enough dockside acreage to allow whole trainsets under the cranes.
It is difficult to arrange containers in their proper tier in the well car, aka heavies on the bottom, lighter’s on top. The containers on ships are also arranged as such, so you have to remove the lighter containers and put them aside, remove the heavier containers and load them into bottom platform of the wells, then go back and get the lighter containers for the top platform.
Because of the light/heavy conundrum, single stack would work better with direct ship-to-rail transload, but then you have that rail congestion problem.
Since rail congestion is a problem, and is probably due to the shift of rail freight from boxcars to well cars, it may be that the best solution is to restuff import cargo from ISO’s into unit boxcar trains for cargo not especially time sensitive, and run single stack COFC/TOFC for the time sensitive stuff.
As such, the Mi-Jacks solution would work great with single stack consists, but not necessarily with double stack consists.
You can build machines that will throw the boxes around very fast.
But still run into the need to call a human, instruct that human where that box goes and wait for it to happen. In the time you are dispatching one box, 5 more will have been stacked behind you waiting to go out of the gate house with a human.
You could have all the humans needed to deliver boxes gathered at the dockside when the ship arrived. Each and every human will know what to do and where to go. But the cranes can only work so fast and the paperwork can only flow so much per hour. Add to that Customs, Inspectors, RIP and other issues… you finally reach a point where you simply cannot move more boxes.
If you are saturated at one port… then open another port and get things going there…
Back home in Maryland at Baltimore you might be unloading 5 ships and departing 3 but you still have dozens of ships waiting for thier turn at the dock down the Bay in a special waiting area.
I think one question VPayne is asking is about transferring boxes by crane directly from one train to another. For instance, from transcon trains at Chicago to shorter distance feeder or disperser trains on adjacent tracks straddled by the crane. Perhaps the trains could be fed under the crane somewhat like a unit coal or grain train does to load and unload.
Sorry, I didn’t paste the correct website at the top. It should have been http://people.hofstra.edu/Jean-paul_Rodrigue/downloads/TRB2007_Shared_Terminals.pdf The idea is purely for a sorting of containers between trains with nothing to do with ports despite the name. With a span of around 200’ the crane can move containers from adjacent trains or directly to the ground or temporary stacks, no chassis and terminal tractors needed unless it is going out to the customer.
What really interests me is why large span cranes are being installed in Memphis by BNSF, there are of course a few major railroads with intermodal services in the region, NS, CSX, CN, UP, and BNSF. Will the large span cranes, not made by Mi-Jack, be used just to enhance the flow of a single road terminal, or will they be used to sort trains for run through moves to other railroads?
Would this allow for more intermodal routes in the South where the traffic volumes are widely varied and no good concentrated lanes show up other than SW to NE. By allowing for multiple destinations to be routed to one point and then sorted, economic train lengths can be had.
I would agree that it might be possible to use the cranes to sort and build new destination specific blocks (or full trains) for rail interchange, but using the cranes in that manner would depend on several factors. The first factor would be the cost of a rail interchange vs. rubber interchange. Obviously, it would cost more to move one box via rail than it would for rubber interchange, but at some number of boxes (or cars) two men and a locomotive would be cheaper.
The second factor would be the time comparison for rail vs. truck. I suspect that at least some portion of the interchange business is time sensitive such that a box or trailer arriving at the destination terminal for railroad A in the morning needs to be over to Railroad B’s terminal in time to make the cut-off for the afternoon departure. Other gateways may be more suited to rail interchange, but the interchange routes in Chicago are quite jammed up.
There is also the factor of what the receiving railroad will accept. If the rail transfer is made up of boxes for one destination, the receiving railroad may only have to make one switch to add the cars to the outbound train. However, if there are more destinations in the transfer, then the receiving railroad may be faced with rail switch moves that are costly or grounding and re-loading the boxes.
I don’t know that there is anyone on the forum with actual knowledge of intermodal interchange or if any details are public and it is hard to say off the top if there is a big potential. However, I have no doubt that the railroads will take a look at it.
While desination blocking for rail interchange is the flavor of the day in Chicago I have to wonder if instead of even having an interchage the railroads might be better served to originate some trains at the ThruPort. The idea would be for the ThruPort to be a terminal railroad in effect. I am not saying this is what BNSF is doing in Memphis, they seem to be attempting some as of yet undisclosed operational change. It is interesting to note that BNSF has intermodal east of Memphis so this is a mid-point intermodal terminal for some flows.
Current intermodal interchange between railroads on a rubber tire could only make worse the chassis management problems. Rail interchange would make worse the car management problem. Perhaps something like this is the answer.
However, my contention is that the public would benifit greatly by not having rubber tire interchange yet there are no monies (to my limited knowledge) available from obvious sources such as the Federal portion of the diesel tax, to pay for even half the public benifits in investment cash. The railroads have every right to use the streets on the same conditions as any other motor carrier but there is a quite substantial public good to be had if the USDOT actually acted correctly.
Would a domestic intermodal ThruPort be able to solve problems such as CSXi’s recent curtailment of service below?
The problem that is mentioned in the news piece is the dispersed terminal arrangement in Chicago not lack of volume in the lane. They won’t even offer a rubber tire transfer in the rate base.
The other problem is the fact that a Cleveland bound box must go through Chicago to begin with. I suppose this is since there is only enough volume to Chicago for a block.
Could solid unit trains of well cars move say 300-500 miles between ThruPort terminals arranged in a grid where the sorting was finished within say 3 hours? For a domestic 1000 mile move that would only represent 3-6 hours of delay on an existing 32-36 hour transit time for a run through, but the volumes could be so much higher.
Now, how to get the Federal Diesel road tax to pay for the savings to society in reduced road accidents, pavement wear, and congestion?
"CSXI Cancels Service from Tampa and Orlando to Cleveland
Effective August 10, 2007 CSXI will cancel service from Tampa and Orlando, Florida to Cleveland. The cancellation is necessary since the connection at Chicago now arrives at our Bedford Park terminal and the Cleveland departure is moving out of our 59th Street terminal. Customers still interested in service for these lanes can send two separate rail bills (example: TPA-CHGO and CHGO-CLEV) and arrange their own cross-town at Chicago. CSXI will still provide through service in the reverse direction (Cleveland to Orlando and Tampa)."
“Let’s stop focusing railroad tracks to and from Chicago. There are several hundred other cities ya know.”
I shudder to think if a Bad Arab can derail a train at one spot in Chicago and cause the whole country to stop because everything has to go through that one place. UGH.
Most Intermodal Interchange happens at Chicago for two reasons;
Chicago has the most customers of any city in the US.
Chicago is served by the all of the Big 6 Class I railroads, St. Louis and Memphis have 5, but have serious physical limitations. New Orleans has 4 and also has physical limitations, and few local customers even before Katrina.
Actually as congested as Chicago is there are several routes through. I’ve read that destroying the major rail bridges across the Missisippi could be far more damaging to the economy…