I would think that eventually one will sue the other for copyright infringement of the RailRunner/Rail Runner name. Or does the inclusion of a space between “Rail” and “Runner” make it all good?
Anywho…
Good to see RailRunner NA get a lucrative deal with North Star Rail Intermodal in Minnesota for the use of it’s bi-modal chassis…
…but I thought that a while back RailRunner was going to do something similar in North Dakota with BNSF. What happened to that deal? This latest deal involves CP and the Twin Cities and Western railroad. Hmmmmm…
Meanwhile, down in New Mexico, the Rail Runner commuter line has a new station…
What I’m wondering is whether this latest attempt at implementing the RailRunner technology is the same proposal for a North Dakota based RailRunner idea from a year ago…
This one envisioned a Minot ND to Minneapolis RailRunner service, 125 container per consist over BNSF’s ex NP main, which would then be transloaded to double stacks at the Twin Cities for haulage to the Pacific Northwest ports via BNSF. Haven’t heard anything since, so I was wondering if this new item was an adaptation of the ND idea?
They run from Milbank SD (via trackage rights Milbank to Appleton MN) to Minneapolis. At Milbank, they connect with the BNSF’s ex-Milwaukee PCE line and with a shortline to Sisseton. That seems to be quite a ways from the heart of North Dakota, but it’s not inconcievable that ND products could be trucked to Milbank or Sisseton using RailRunner chassis and containers, then RailRan (?) to the Twin Cities via TC&P.
I don’t quite understand what you’re saying there…I thought RoadRailers used containers as well…Unless you are refering to something different than I am thinking…
As far as I know, Wabash/RoadRailer isn’t restricted to just dry vans and reefers, and RailRunner isn’t restricted to just container chassis. But since the bi-modal market is so small, each seems predicated to their chosen niche.
Nope, RoadRailers are trailers only in North America. (maybe some overseas operation adapted to containers.)
This has been one of RoadRailer’s major shortcommings. Since the railroad has to be able to handle containers, the implamentation of a RoadRailer operation would require dual intermodal systems and operations.
Well, I hope not. These folks actually seem to know what they are doing.
Anybody who thought they were going to originate trains of 125 containers from Minot didn’t have a foot in the reality circle. This concept has good potential, but it’s not a stand alone.
Make a pick up with an existing train. Don’t try to establish a whole new “train start”.
I’m curious. Would it be normal to haul from Minot to the Pacific Northwest via the Twin Cities? Isn’t that like going several hundred miles out of the way?
Also, if I recall correctly, Minot isn’t on the ex-NP main, but rather the ex-GN main.
Correct. Since BNSF has virtually eliminated all intermediate intermodal terminals between the Twin Cities and Puget Sound, any containers originating or terminating in that big wasteland between will have few if any options for direct online origination/termination of ISO’s. If the Billings MT intermodal terminal was still up and running in full comprehensive capacity, they could run westward from ND with the RailRunners, then transload to double stacks there and save a couple hundred miles of doubling back.
Also, although the posted article mentioned Minot as a possible RailRunner terminal, there was also talk of establishing that terminal in Jamestown or Bismark on the ex-NP, one reason being that BNSF didn’t really favor adding a local to the busy ex-GN mainline, instead favoring the less traveled ex-NP line farther south.