During lunch today I watched an EB NS RoadRailer train (2 locos, about 55 RRs trailing) go by, and it got me to wondering yet again:
Why haven’t other types of trailers caught on as RoadRailers ? So far, they’re all pretty much box or van trailers - maybe a few reefers. But there aren’t any flats, tanks, auto-carriers, dumps, open-tops, etc. as you would see out on any highway. Why not ?
From a structural standpoint, since all trailers are engineered to be supported under road conditions, it’s not that much harder to build a chassis that can put up with the slightly greater loading imposed the locations of the RR supports - the tongue in front and the truck just to the rear of the highway bogie = slightly longer “internal bridge” or span length between those supports. The van-type trailers - being taller - can act somewhat like short deep girders or truss bridges, which is an advantage over these other types.
I know that beefing up the trailer to handle the RR’s loads adds a couple thousand pounds to the trailer’s tare or empty weight - which is just as unpopular there as on a Hollywood starlet or model - but I don’t see why that would automatically disqualify all of these other types of trailers from being of use or being able to compete at least in some lanes and for some commodities. Yes, the extra weight and costs and associated loss of revenue capacity and the fixed-route structure are disadvantages, but I would think there are some applications where they would still be worthwhile. An easy one is the long-haul garbage traffic - that usually loads light, I believe, so the extra tare wouldn’t be an problem. It’s also traffic that moves regularly in large volumes on the same lanes from transfer stations to the landfills or incinerators, and needs to be portable on at least 1 and maybe both ends, so that would seem to be on
My thoughts were always with milk tankers like RoadRailers…rebirth of the industry or what goes around comes around. Still waiting somehwere in the circle.
If I remember correctly, when the Roadrailer idea was resurrected by Wabash National back in the 80s, they mentioned the possibility of lots of other van types. And some time later, an auto carrier (fully enclosed, with cars stacked on an angle, IIRC) made it to the drawing-board stage.
I would think that grain carriers might have had potential, but they probably lost too much volume to their unloading systems.
Roadrailer tank trucks would probably be required to be built to railroad car standards, which means that they’d probably weigh too much for over-the-road transport. Just a guess.
Paul, I think you pretty well answered your own question. I’ve seen NS-branded RoadRailers as far south as the Folkston Funnel (hauled by CSX of course), prob. with auto parts that originated in Northern Ohio. But here is what NS has going for it:
enough motive power and (ownership of or access to) the specialized freight cars to handle those fairly long, semi-articulated carriers with no “slow track,” tortuous curves, etc.
premium, trademarked service that was probably worked out ahead of time with the shipper(s) as a result of
actually listening to shippers and learning their needs, fostering
good shipper relations backed up by aggressive marketing, therefore ensuring
premium price and premium profit within the context of
“listen and learn” experiences on all three sides: shipper, carrier, recipient (some might call this a “marketing cycle” or “marketing feedback”)
possibly since the freight is not quite “double-stack” high it may still save some distance in not having to dodge any remaining tunnels on the Pokey
and 8) NS (or whoever) keeps the rolling stock in great shape.
As you witnessed, the Road Railer trains run about 55 cars in length, so a whole train could probably fit on the kind of siding that holds a 130-car coal train.
And possibly, 10) recipients value delivery regularity more than sheer travel time.
IOW the special and somewhat burdensome equipment is justified by the enhanced revenue and dependability of long-term shipping contracts.
I wonder of the possibility of gaining too much weight with other types of RR’s such as tanks…covered grain cars and possibly others, that they would not be acceptable to run with current RR “vans”, considering the strength required to be hauling a line of heaver cars {and loads}, in the consist.
I’m thinking that the relatively ubiquitious nature of the RoadRailer Van trailer makes it fairly easy to load in both directions, making it economically viable, whereas other trailer types have more specific products that would move in / on them and therefore it would be harder to run a load-load operation and would not be as financially viable.
Well, here’s a RoadRailer competitor with open top trailers for aggregates, trash, grain, etc. It can take a 46,000 pound load on the road and meet the weight laws. That’s impressive.
This equipment has been tested on the CP and elsewhere. The last I heard they were waiting approval of FRA “waivers” so it could be commercially operated. (It’s not standard rail equipment so it needs “waivers”.) I can see the need for safety regulation, but this thing is just beng held up for no dicernable reason. Even “reasonable” regulation causes real problems.
This RailMate equipment is designed to solve the fatal flaw of RoadRailers. From the get go RoadRailers have been positioned to operate in RoadRailer only trains that are seperate from the rest of rail traffic. This makes their adoption very difficult.
Most RoadRailer routes have failed commercially because it is virtually impossible to get enough business from one origin to one destination together on a daily basis to support a dedicated intermodal train. The services were introduced, marketed, operated for a while, then shut down because it became obvious that there was never going to be enough business to make them economically viable. There are a few routes that can support such trains. Very few.
RailMate avoids this fatal flaw. It is designed to operate in the rail network, not seperately from that network. You can put a RailMate block on the end of a standard double stack/intermodal train. Heck Fire, you don’t even really need to put it on the back of an intermodal train. The “Tremont Local” could handle RailMates behind the covered hoppers and car boxes if that was a desireable thing to do.
When the dang government finally moves the dang pap
Gee–I saw those Santa Fe things and it didn’t dawn on me that that’s what they were! I saw them shoved into a BNSF spur in Downers Grove, after which they probably went to meet their maker…or worse. I could look it up, but I’m pretty sure that some of them were lettered Conrail for a time.
Santa Fe only had 5 of the snazzy red and silver AutoRailers, which were eventually purchased by Honda and sent to Mexico IIRC. Swift, the trucking company, had at least 50 AutoRailers in service. I was lucky enough to get photos of a Swifty here in WI when a Chicago regional driver got lost and stopped off at our fire station for directions. He had no idea what trailer he was even pulling until I told him what it was and he realized he had the wrong trailer! I had the chance, and I know he would have opened the doors for a few pics of the car racking system, but I was so excited to actually see one of these trailers I forgot about the inside…
Wabash also had prototype DumpRailers, ChassisRailers and 28’ PupRailers (for LTL and package haulers) constructed for demos but none have been sold so far. Good concept, but equipment intensive with trailer mods being next to impossible to convert an existing trailer to a RoadRailer. The competing RailRunner concept uses a slightly modified normal trailer which cuts down on the investment. Both are proven though.
OK, so the truck driver hooked to the wrong RoadRailer and then got lost. Back at the terminal there is another driver trying to find that trailer and deliver the load. Check at the gate reveals that the first driver took the wrong trailer. Terminal manager calls first driver and asks where he is. First dirver says he isn’t exactly sure where he is but that he has found a helpful firefighter who knows all about his trailer.
Terminal manager tells the lost driver to take the load to its rightful destination. Driver says he will be out of hours before he get there. Terminal manager calls consignee to tell them their load will be late. Consignee becomes “unpleasant” with terminal manager. Sends angry email to terminal manager’s supervisor. Terminal manager stops at a bar on way home from work. Gets home late for dinner with liquor on his breath. Wife upset.
Well, here’s a RoadRailer competitor with open top trailers for aggregates, trash, grain, etc. It can take a 46,000 pound load on the road and meet the weight laws. That’s impressive.
This equipment has been tested on the CP and elsewhere. The last I heard they were waiting approval of FRA “waivers” so it could be commercially operated. (It’s not standard rail equipment so it needs “waivers”.) I can see the need for safety regulation, but this thing is just beng held up for no dicernable reason. Even “reasonable” regulation causes real problems.
This RailMate equipment is designed to solve the fatal flaw of RoadRailers. From the get go RoadRailers have been positioned to operate in RoadRailer only trains that are seperate from the rest of rail traffic. This makes their adoption very difficult.
Most RoadRailer routes have failed commercially because it is virtually impossible to get enough business from one origin to one destination together on a daily basis to support a dedicated intermodal train. The services were introduced, marketed, operated for a while, then shut down because it became obvious that there was never going to be enough business to make them economically viable. There are a few routes that can support such trains. Very few.
RailMate avoids this fatal flaw. It is designed to operate in the rail network, not seperately from that network. You can put a RailMate block on the end of a standard double stack/intermodal train. Heck Fire, you don’t even really need to put it on the back of an intermodal train. The “Tremont Local” could handle RailMates behind the covered hoppers and car boxes if that was a desireable thing to do.
When the dang government finally moves the dang paperwork, the RailMate concept is going to open up__&n__
The “empty return” problem is always there, regardless of whether the grain is shipped in regular highway trailers (dump most likely, maybe flat with stake sides, or least likely, vans), RoadRailers, the suggested RailMates, covered hopper railcars, barges, whatever.
If lucky, some return moves or 3-way moves as mentioned might be found. The more flexible the equipment, the easier and hence more likely that is. So, the barge and the railcar probably don’t, the highway trailer has the best chance, and the RoadRailer and RailMate probably don’t either, unless there’s a well-developed system / network with the necessary “critical mass” to support many traffic lanes between Origin-Destination pairs.
Which tends to support a simple but effective “return empties immediately” policy. That may result in 50% empty mileage, but at least the equipment gets back for the next paying trip soon - and probably sooner than having it sit around while trying to find a paying load. Plus, a string of such empties makes the most / spreads out the costs of the crew and loco to haul them - unlike a highway trailer, where the driver time to haul the empty back is just about 100 % of the time needed to haul the loaded move.
I have often wonderd why there hasn’t been a plastic or synthetic fabric disposable liner that could be applied or layered into an empty car, truck or container for return use. This could be used especially for safety of a load, suppose a dirty coal car used for garbage or wood chips on return moves. It would help keep any car clean, allow for various uses of cars which now are in a captive servcie…grain hoppers could be used for plastic pellets, say…I am sure that truly imaginative and creative marketing managers and railroad traffic people could find ways to do it. It certainly would cut down on the number of cars needed for all kinds of services and improve utilization (return on investment) on cars in use.
Actually, there already is - essentially a giant, clear, thick plastic bag - think dry-cleaning bag on steroids, only much thicker and tougher. It’s been a few years since I saw those, so I don’t have the names/ references/ links handy, though. My recollection is that they were used to line the shipping containers that were being used to send recycled cardboard and paper back to China for processing into new whatever, plus the woodship example that you mention. Maybe one of the members here who is more into the logistics business will have that info handy before I can look it up again.
Paul North
EDIT: Here’s 1 such supplier, with “thumbnail” photos of many different types:
A search for “container liner” and “plastic”, and “shipping container” and “plastic” and “liner” found what looks like several more - but this should be enough to prove the point. - PDN.
Roadrailers are a very finicky piece of equipment. I had a roadrailer train regular for a few months, and they are a pain. They’re not as forgiving as other equipment, so if you hit them too hard you can easily damage them (and no, I don’t speak from experience!). Anything goes wrong with them, you have to wait until the Roadrailer company (Triple Crown, etc) sends guys out as the equipment is specialized and we have nothing to do with it. If you would even look at the automatic brakes, the thing would kick (go into emergency). There’s no place to ride them, so if you have to reverse them for any reason you have to get a ride ahead, or “walk” them. That isn’t a problem so much in yards, but out on the main is another story. And if some of the bogies start acting up and causing air problems, then you get stuck a few hours at the yard walking the 8000’ train with the roadrailer employees looking for that offending bogie. All while the TM shows up wondering why the train hasn’t left the terminal yet.
As far as use, many of the trains I conducted had many empties. It was not unusual to have a 150 car train (the max allowed under normal circumstances per rulebook) with 120 being empties. I guess the 30 loads were real profitable. Then you can only send them to yards that can handle the equipment. (those yards are nothing fancy - all you need are some paved tracks, some forklifts and jockey trucks). But it’s not like a railbox that can be routed “next load, any road”.
OK, cool. An interesting discussion while I’ve got time to participate. I woke up this morning with no running water. My well pump threw craps and I’ve had to take the day off while it’s replaced.
Paul has an interesting take on things and I’ll respond next to his post.
I didn’t say the NS couldn’t do this. It’s not that they can’t, it’s that they won’t. When NS established its RoadRailer network it intentionally “siloed” the Triple Crown operation. That means they set it up to operate seperately from the rest of the railroad as much as was possible. They effectively put it in a “silo” with its own operations from top to bottom. About the only interaction TC has with the rest of NS it to have engines and crews take the equipment from on terminal to the other. Marketing, billing, equipment ownership, terminal operations, etc. are all intentionally seperated from the rest of the NS.
This has some advantages, but it also precludes synergy between the RoadRailer operation and the rest of the NS intermodal system. RoadRailer operations are limited to routes where the NS can put together entire RoadRailer trains. They do use a hub at Ft. Wayne to facilitate the operation. Triple Crown has been around for over 20 years now and it hasn’t grown much beyond its original network. It’s grown some, but not much. The reason for this minimal growth is that they can not put together solid RoadRailer trains of economical size on more than a few routes. Operating mixed consists of RoadRailers and other equipment would open up more routes. Bu
IMHO the sucess of NS’s Triple Crown Services has been that they are NOT RAILROADERS. They are a trucking company, staffed by people who understand the trucking industry. And as Greyhound pointed out, a totally separate company. They do the marketing door-to-door, so they can get the premium traffic that is willing to pay for that level of service. They started out concentrating on auto parts to assembly plants and gradually expanded their market base to include printed materials, and fermented beverages, among other things to weather downturns better. Triple Crown tries to have a back-haul before they open a new market so that they don’t have to pay NS to haul empties (unless they have to).
They also negotiated with NS to move their trains in an expedited manner. Rarely will you see a Roadrailer sitting in the siding, unless it’s for another intermodal, or they are waiting for their turn in the yard. One NS dispatcher, whom I think is now retired, referred to them as “road rockets”.