I was wondering why roadrailer service isn’t more popular. I know that it is cheaper to do double stack, but wouldn’t it also make sense to use roadrailers than trailers on flat cars?
Roadrailer is a good idea and works in certain markets…but it requires specialized equipment…its biggest limitation. Trailers used in roadrailer service aren’t your standard highway trailer…they are built stronger and are thus heavier than your ordinary over the road trailer. TOFC, in contrast, can be used by anyone who has a trailer to ship…in that sense it is much more versatile. However, the weight of the flatcar (or skeleton car) and terminal handling costs detract from overall efficiency, and TOFC is generally not competitive where length of haul is less than 600 miles. So Roadrailer and TOFC complement one another…Roadrailer works best in dense lanes where length of haul is relatively short while TOFC is more suitable for the longer hauls.
RoadRailer is one of three competing “Carless” technologies. These are systems that dispense with the intermodal flatcar and mount the highway vehicle (trailer or container chassis) directly on a rail wheel assembly. (Known for some reason as as a “boggie”) The other systems are RailRunner and RailMate. Niether RailRunner or RailMate is in commercial use. Of the three, I think RailMate is the best.
It’s been almost 30 years since the first commercial use of RoadRailer between Memphis and Louisville on the old ICG. In those three decades the success of RoadRailer can, at best, be described as “quite modest.”
I was working at the ICG in intermodal marketing when the RoadRailer service was developed, started, and shut down. It was obvious to just about everyone that the service wouldn’t be successful. The person who really supported the service was the one person that really counted, ICG Intermodal Vice President Peter Novas. He was going to put those trains on come Hell or High Water.
I was one of the people assigned to identify potentail customers for the trains and determine what types of rate/service packages would be required to get their business. While doing this work RoadRailer’s “Fatal Flaw” became readily evident. There was a lot of production in the Louisville area. Appliances, alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, TVs and more appliances drayed in from Bloomington, IN. There was freight to be had with the right price and service.
We just couldn’t haul it anywhere besides Memphis. RoadRailer has always been conceptualized as a stand alone system operating seperately from the intermodal network. It uses it own trains and is not mixed with other intermodal equipment. This is its “Fatal Flaw”.
A load of tobacco products out of Louisville to New Orleans c
Greyhound,
If the Railmates were adopted, would they do what the RoadRailer has not done?
George
Regardless of the technology used, the objective is to bring on more business and to improve margins. In my opinion the railroads should stick with the older proven technology and focus more on improving their sales and marketing…make it easier for smaller and midsized businesses to use rail. The technology is great…but if it still takes me a week to get a quote…if I can’t get a customer service rep to call me back…then I’m not going to use rail. I have some business that would work great on rail… but it doesn’t because my own customers expect rates and service information from me within 30 minutes of their call. So the end result is that I have containers moving 900+ miles via flatbed truck…even though from a technology and environmental perspective these should move by rail. As Greyhounds seems to be pointing out… Roadrailer was developed along the lines of “let’s build it and they will come”… unfortunately they never came because… throughout the process no one bothered to ask customers what they want.
Is / was “Roadrailer” similar to what we see travel thru here on a daily basis on NS…“Triple Crown” to the deep south…?
RailMate was concieved and designed from the beginning to operate within the existing intermodal network. RoadRailer was concieved and designed from the beginning to operate outside the exiting intermodal network.
As presently used, RoadRailers require a whole seperate system. That gets really expensive. RailMate has the potential to “fit in” and compliment the existing system. That’s much less expensive.
It is very difficult to aggregate an entire train load of IM freight going from one origin to one destination on a timely basis. RoadRailers require this difficult task. RailMates don’t. (NS/Triple Crown deals with this by opeating a “Hub” in Ft. Wayne, IN. This “Hub” allows on train to serve multiple destinations.)
I recently started a thread on a BNSF intermodal train that I saw near Galesburg. The train carried JB Hunt 53’ double stacked containers, UPS trailers (28’ long and up), one 53’ CR England reefer trailer, and several 53’ Central Refrigerated reefer trailers. The dang thing was a mile long. It could reach that length, bringing in significant economies of scale, because it could carry any intermodal load to any destination with an intermodal terminal.
A RoadRailer operation destroys those ecnomies of scale. There would have to be two seperate trains, each smaller. This would send expenses through the roof. In sharp contrast, RailMates could simply be added at the rear of the train. This would further improve the economies of scale instead of destroying them as is required by RoadRailer.
Improving instead of destroying, that’s what RailMate could do that RoadRailer has not done.
Where would you do this adding? I’ll suggest Grand Island, NE where JBS Swift h
Triple Crown is roadrailer. Just NS’s name for it.
Thanks…figured it might be, but wasn’t sure.
It IS possible to operate RoadRailers in conventional service. However, the operational restrictions make them a gigantic headache. There are two or three PAGES of restrictions in my Restricted Equipment book. They have to be on the rear, you can’t shove against them, etc.
It’s worth noting that Amtrak used them “successfully” on it’s passenger trains, until they dumped the express business altogether.
Nick
Greyhound:
I had forgotten about the L’ville - Memphis service.
How long did it last? About how many trailers/day did it handle? Why were those two points chosen?
ed
What is RailMate?
Well, I’ve got one agreement with “Nick” and one disagreement.
First, the disagreement. Amtrak did not use RoadRailers “successfully”. The RoadRailer operation on Amtrak was shut down because it was uneconomical. The operation was not successful because it did not cover its costs. Anyone can do about anything if they don’t have to worry about covering its costs.
Now for my agreement:
As I said: “As presently used, RoadRailers require a whole seperate system.” I aknowledge that RoadRailers can be physically used on the rear of existing IM trains. They’re just not used that way.
A RoadRailer is just another “tool” for moving freight. Any sane manufacturer producing a new tool will realize that they will have to teach potential customers how to use the tool. Show them its advantages. Show them how it can improve their bottom line.
The RoadRailer people, who were initially on their own, then once part of North American Car ( a defunct railcar builder), then once part of Thrall Car (another defunct railcar builder), and are now part of Wabash National (a trailer manufacturer) have steadfastly refused to promote and develop the operation of their product in any manner exept its operation in dedicated RoadRailer trains or Amtrak trains. Niether one of these options has been really successful over almost 30 years. This doe
That’s why I put successful in quotes. I do realize that Amtrak was unable to make money with them, or express in general.
The shoving ban is a big deal when you need helpers, and during switching. The book says TOW (trailer on wheels) equipment must be handled separately from convention equipment during switching.
You are right that it’s a clear lack of initiative on RoadRailer’s part to promote it’s product and overcome the Operating Department’s skittishness over the equipment. With a few exceptions, we actually have a system ban on TOW equipment.
Nick
One year, replaced by a conventional intermodal train (that could handle all loads).
I don’t remember. The target we were given was 30 loads per day out of Louisville and 20 into Louisville. There was no chance of hitting the target, and we didn’t.
The points were chosen because the then VP Intermodal at the ICG was, IMHO, an egotist who thought everyone else was stupid. HE was going to show the world that HE could take freight off the highway and put it on the railroad. He insisted that every load on the RoadRailer trains had to come off the highway. You can’t do that. When you introduce a new service you’re going to take some business from your existing service. That’s just a fact of life. When Kellogg introduces a new cereal they know that some of the customers for their new product will come from their existing brands. Pointing out facts like this just got you yelled at.
Everyone ran from this impending disaster. Harry Bruce called a round table meeting in his office to discuss operating RoadRailers between Louisville and Memphis. Everybody above me managed to get out of Chicago to avoid the meeting and I wound up sitting around a table with all these VPs and AVPs in Bruce’s office. (Nice 27th floor view of Lake Michigan) That VP of Intermodal tried to get Bruce to skip me and they all voted to go ahead.
Now I could have said: “Based on analysis, the freight isn’t there to support the operation.” But I would have gone home without a job. I remember this clearly. When Harry Bruce asked me about operating the taiins I, in a very rare political dodge, said: "I don’t see
I agree with your assestment. While riding the CAL Z out of Denver Two of the 3 units failed up the east slope and we crept up and into Moffett tunnel. A UP freight behind us offered to push but couldn’t because of the Roadrailers. At Helper (Price) the decision to not add a helper set to the front was a disaster as the two units failed again, the train stalled, and a helper set could not be added to the rear and no units were at the summit. 2-1/2 hours later the engineer finally got 1 more unit running and we crept up the grade. Go to Emeryville only 3 hours late due to some good UP dispatching. If you were AMTRAK would that kind of consequences soon sour operations personnel on placing them on the rear??.
That’s pretty cool. I could see where there is some potential to that.
I just don’t see it gaining widespread usage although I’m sure it is useful in some specialized markets. Good old fashioned TOFC doesn’t require specialized trailers…requires only a ramp to on and off load…and is far less complex in that nothing more complex than a flatcar with a pin hook is required.
I am under the impression that “circus loading” of TOFC trailers is not very common in North America anymore. Loading trailers with cranes and “piggypackers” is far more common due to the time saved in loading/unloading, in those operations reinforced trailers are required. I know about the CP Expressway service but that uses specialized equipment to carry unmodified OTR trailers…
The various “carless” systems seem to be primarily aimed at distances shorter than what is considered generally to be profitable for standard intermodal service. So their utility is in specialized markets.