Another factor is a Brandt truck is limited. We use a lot of 6-axles on our locals now. 6 axles that are just as comfortable doing yard work or hauling coal trains.
With the Present Status of Railroading we are doing - everything has to be able to do anything else and be in constant use.
I think you are correct about the type of thing that would disqualify a Brandt from meeting FRA regs for a locomotive. If anyone were interested, they could apply for a waiver and likely get one if Labor consented.
In the USA, Brandt trucks can move cars under authority types usually used for trains, e.g. by signal indication in CTC territory, without having to be able to stop within 1/2 of the available sight distance. In pre-PTC days, this just required a conductor pilot along with the regular driver. Used to be pretty common whenever, say, the Brandt was being used to move a tie gang’s empty flat cars 100 miles from the unload point to the reload point. I don’t know what the effect of PTC has been.
Probably the bigger regulatory issue with operating as a revenue train this way is that FRA requires a certified locomotive engineer, and most engineers are not qualified to operate a Brandt. It makes crew management much more complicated if certain movements require the engineer to have both FRA and DOT certifications - not to mention complying with two different hours of service regimes.
I really don’t think this is the limiting factor, though. I’m having a hard time seeing how a Brandt truck changes the fundamental economics of short-train, short-distance freight transport.
The only place they change the equation is if you cou
I suspect that Brandt trucks fall into a limbo area. As MOW, they don’t require an “engineer,” but I’ve seen them pushing a half dozen gondolas down the Chicago Line from Utica to Herkimer, about ten miles.
As I wasn’t listening to the dispatcher channel at the time, I don’t recall what they had for authority/permission. But away they went.
Recall that the GE 44 tonner was built at 44 tons as 45 tons required a fireman.
Nobody said it changed the fundamental economics of short-train, short-distance freight transport.
This is not, in any way, short-distance freight transport. For example, if the Joslin origin beef is going to the New York City market it’s moving 797 miles. If the railroads cannot be truck competitive at that distance they’re done. (I’m assuming a Harrisburg, PA area distribution center.)
I worked up more than enough intermodal freight rates to know that the “Killer” in rail competitiveness is the drayage costs. Use of a Brandt, or a small locomotive, in lieu of highway trucking from Joslin to Chicago would reduce the rail system costs and increase the competitiveness of rail transport.
The railroads do not now have the needed intermodal terminals in many production areas, such as the Quad Cities or Cedar Rapids, to be competitive for this freight. Using small locomotive power on small trains could help with this.
Of course, the unions would have to cooperate.
You are proposing to do the drayage from Joslin to Chicago by rail. That puts this segment of the journey in direct competition with trucks, which can also dray containers to the Chicago.
Dan
Boston?
Oops. Auto-correct at work. I fixed it to say Joslin.
Dan
How would the DOT HOS work with trucking/RRing combined?
Yes, I am. I want the revenue to go to the railroad, not the trucker.
Think about what we’ve got here.
An underutilized rail line with plenty of excess capacity.
A single origin for freight
A single destination for freight (The CSX Chicago terminal.)
This is a unit train opportunity. Granted, it’s a mini unit train, but it’s still a unit train. Railroads can be competitive with trucks at short distances using unit trains. They do it all the time.
What destroys railroad competitiveness at shorter distances is their terminal costs. They do have lower line haul costs, but there must be enough line haul miles to overcome th
The rail line that’s “right there” is the BNSF Barstow sub, about 5 miles away from the first capacity improvement project I ever worked on. The Barstow sub doesn’t go to Chicago. I think you’re thinking of the IAIS, which is 15 minutes away in Geneseo.
I don’t know how the IAIS is for capacity, but I’m very doubtful you can get from Geneseo to a production track in any CSX intermodal terminal without going through a congested area. For starters, the production tracks and the leads in and out of the CSX intermodal terminal are probably pretty busy.
&nb
You got it all right here!
If you come up with some concept to put freight and revenue on the railroad instead of the Interstate Highway you’ll be met with “NO, IT WON’T WORK” from people in the operating department who view more freight and revenue as a problem instead of an opportunity.
There is not one word, or one thought, in dpeltier’s post about how to make it work. There are only reasons for “NO, IT WON’T WORK.” That attitude is all too common. Growth opportunities should be developed, not refused.
It goes almost without saying that my initial concept can and should be improved. But improvement is not where he’s going. He’s Hell Bent for “NO.”
And then he takes us on a tour of things he does not like or that he wants. He apparently participated in operating a train to Montana that had too few containers for his liking. Well, it’s not the number of containers that really counts. What counts is the incremental revenue vs the incremental costs. dpeltier doesn’t mention that.
There are certainly ways to deal with smaller markets. I was part of a start up that wanted to move meat in reefer boxcars on the BNSF. We wanted those cars handled on BNSF intermodal trains. The railroad’s reply: “Our operating department doesn’t like to mix intermodal and carload.” So, market development and growth were controlled by what the operating department “Liked.” This was stupid. It’s now been changed. But someone probably had to retire first.
There’s a whole lot of freight available in the Quad Cities area. The railroads should have more of it than they do. But they must fight their own people to get it.
As far as the Tyson plant being in the BNSF instead of the
So now you have BNSF having to send a switcher to pick up a few cars to interchange with another railroad just a few miles away. Are they going to use a truck, too? Does BNSF have a switcher on duty at the needed times?
If you keep repeating variations on the same dumb ideas over and over again, of course you’ll get the same response.
I’m sorry I got sucked into it this time. I try to only participate when I think I have something non-obvious to add. I thought some people might be interested to know a little more about how the Brandt Roadrailer does and doesn’t operate like a locomotive. I should have stopped there.
You’ve shown over and over again that you are the one who doesn’t want to listen to what anyone else has to say. I will not respond to any more of your posts, just like I don’t respond to Euclid.
Dan
No, that’s not the concept. You need to understand the concept. The concept may well need adjustments and improvements. But to do that you must understand it first.
THE CONCEPT is to originate a small unit train at the Tyson facility and run it directly to a CSX (or NS) intermodal terminal in Chicago. This will minimize drayage and switching costs. At the Chicago terminal the containers of beef will be transferred to trains going to various destinations. Boston, New York City, Atlanta, Tampa, etc.
It is long haul freight that is not on the railroad. A major factor limiting rail competitiveness is the high cost of the drayage from Joslin to Chicago. A small unit train operation should mitigate those cost.
The fact that the Tyson beef facility is on the BNSF is of little or no consequence. BNSF can easily grant the Iowa Interstate rights to operate these proposed trains over the few miles between the Tyson facility and the Iowa Interstate. No need for BNSF switching. The Iowa Interstate is gre
Switching is not in the PSR Operating plans.
And what Railroad would let a customer on THEIR railroad get switched by a foreign entity to be delivered to a DIFFERENT railroad? NEVER going to happen. TOO logical. Or guess how much they want to charge for “reciprocal” switching?
Oh, this predates PSR. By a long time.
I remember R. L. Rushing, VP of Sales for the ICG, complaining about a division superintendent who didn’t want some offered business because it would create more paperwork.
I took to calling them the non-operating department because it seemed like their goal was to not operate.
I personally like the concept of PSR.
Then you’ve obviously never worked under it.
If it’s a “Dumb Idea” but it works, it’s not a “Dumb Idea.”
You have provided absolutely no evidence or reason why this won’t work. It may not work. But if a person or company never fails, they’re not trying hard enough.
If a man is to be judged by the enemies he makes, and I believe that to be so, then I’m proud to have you as a foe.
Focusing on the Brandt is a Red Herring. The Brandt is in no way a “RoadRailer” as you falsely call it. The essence here is to get small, efficient motive power for a small train. I think a Brandt would work, but a small Republic locomotive might be better.
Get the freight and revenue on the railroad. At a profit.
First, thinking anyone is your “enemy” is taking your self-importance way too far. You’re way too wrapped up in this. This is a hobby site. Maybe you should take your ideas to a professional railroader site.
Second, you’re in marketing. That means you think of things to do. The Operations Department has to make them work. Not all ideas, good or bad, translate to something that works in the real world.
If this was such a great idea, someone would’ve done it by now. How do I know? Because if it was a great idea, it would still be happening because it would be profitable. But it isn’t, so it’s not.
For a train to make it 180 miles, into Chicago, on one crew, would require it to have special treatment. That equates to a higher rate, that few shippers want to pay.