St. Lawrence & Atlantic Railroad (SLR/SLQ)

CN reporting flooding on the SLR and in Canada.

In addition, some SLQ shortline railway tracks located in South Paris, ME, are currently flooded. Their activities are expected to resume later in the week. In the interim, CN is holding traffic destined for this line until clearance is given by the other carrier.

Full advisory here...

http://www.cn.ca/en/customer-service-ra ... atus.shtml

393 headed out of Lewiston Junction at 21:07 tonight.

How busy is Island Pond? I've noticed that there's a pretty large lumber yard up there and wanted to know how busy it is/has been in recent years.

That would be RCP Reload along side of Rte105. Canfor and west Fraser have lumber on the ground along with other western candian lumber producers. Last Tuesday 3202 was on the siding in Groveton at the mill. There a big cut of boxcars,tank cars and a few flats on the siding as you headed north out of downtown Groveton alot CN markings must have been close to 75 or 80 cars. Were those there due to flooding or are they destined to the NHCR?

This will likely come as somewhat of a surprise but as reported today via The Associated Press the Gorham, NH mill on the SLR is going to be restarted.

Rail isn't discussed directly but I see no reason to believe that the new owners won't want to use rail.

From the Bangor Daily News, June 19, 2011, "Last northern NH paper mill can make it, reps say", via the Associated Press by Ms. Kathy McCormack (apparently a staff writer for the Concord Monitor)

GORHAM, N.H. — A cheaper source of fuel, a dedicated sales team and workforce, and an investment in a tissue machine will help the last paper mill in New Hampshire’s North Country succeed, state and mill industry representatives say.

The changes come to the mill in Gorham as the papermaking industry fights growing competition from overseas plants in recent years. Some mills in northern New England have had staying power because they have developed business in specialized papers. Others have had to contend with rising oil costs to run the plants and a loss in demand as email and the Internet have replaced the need for some types of paper.

The Gorham mill, shut down for eight months but newly acquired by a New York private equity firm, is scheduled to reopen Wednesday with the startup of its paper towel machine and at least 70 of its approximately 240 workers called back. The plans are to add more staff and operations in July.

The bigger news may in fact be the plans to build a new machine (very rare these days for northern New England mills).

That's good news for the regional economy and it will likely be of at least some benefit to SLR (inbound pulp?). Unfortunately, tissue is light loading and, therefore, a truck-oriented product.

Cowford wrote:That's good news for the regional economy and it will likely be of at least some benefit to SLR (inbound pulp?). Unfortunately, tissue is light loading and, therefore, a truck-oriented product.

I agree, definitely good news, still very surprised overall. Especially the product line choice. I couldn't help but wonder if part of the 'opportunity' that Tilton sees in this project is related to high fuel costs and increases in costs for Chinese labor somehow making it unprofitable to produce and export tissue to the U.S. (whereas over the last decade this might actually have been profitable).

I gave some thought to the mention of tissue as a 'light-loading' product. Why is this more of an advantage for trucks as opposed to rail? Wouldn't it be about the same or are we talking about a 'cube' issue where one can spend less money and time loading more trucks with product because of the 53' trailer size vs. 40' side door boxcars? I take it this more than makes up for the fuel cost advantage for rail (assuming intermediate distance of 250-750 miles)?

Noticed a few SLR 89 foot flats heading south through Port Newark the other day. Assuming they're heading for scrap in Perth Amboy, NJ.

gokeefe wrote:I gave some thought to the mention of tissue as a 'light-loading' product. Why is this more of an advantage for trucks as opposed to rail? Wouldn't it be about the same or are we talking about a 'cube' issue where one can spend less money and time loading more trucks with product because of the 53' trailer size vs. 40' side door boxcars? I take it this more than makes up for the fuel cost advantage for rail (assuming intermediate distance of 250-750 miles)?

Contemporary rail carload, with a service disadvantage vs. highway, has up to a ~5 or 6:1 potential capacity competitive advantage when it comes to weight, but generally has no advantage when it comes to the cubic capacity of contemporary highway trailers. So, for a light density commodity, like tissue paper, that "cubes-out" before it "weighs out" often there is no competitive advantage. Oftentimes rail must have at least a 3:1 weight capacity advantage for a particular commodity to overcome its service deficiencies in order to compete.

QB 52.32 wrote:

gokeefe wrote:I gave some thought to the mention of tissue as a 'light-loading' product. Why is this more of an advantage for trucks as opposed to rail? Wouldn't it be about the same or are we talking about a 'cube' issue where one can spend less money and time loading more trucks with product because of the 53' trailer size vs. 40' side door boxcars? I take it this more than makes up for the fuel cost advantage for rail (assuming intermediate distance of 250-750 miles)?

Contemporary rail carload, with a service disadvantage vs. highway, has up to a ~5 or 6:1 potential capacity competitive advantage when it comes to weight, but generally has no advantage when it comes to the cubic capacity of contemporary highway trailers. So, for a light density commodity, like tissue paper, that "cubes-out" before it "weighs out" often there is no competitive advantage. Oftentimes rail must have at least a 3:1 weight capacity advantage for a particular commodity to overcome its service deficiencies in order to compete.

QB 52.32,

I'm pretty sure I understand what you're talking about. Could you explain more precisely what the ratios represent? Are we talking about 3lbs. over rail for every 1 lbs. by truck?

G'OK, what I'm saying is that, in general terms, rail carload becomes competitive for those more dense commodities where highway trailer or intermodal container weight limitations vs. railcar weight limitations allow rail to handle in one car what would take 3 or more highway trailers (and, therefore, truck trips) at a 1:3 railcar:highway trailer ratio. In a very general sense, with lots of variables, I'd say rail carload service becomes competitive against highway (and intermodal) for those commodities that weigh about 20-25 lbs per cubic foot. Roughly speaking, those commodities that weigh below 10 lbs/cubic foot will generally fill up the cubic capacity of a modern high-cube highway/intermodal trailer and non-86' high-cube boxcar before bumping up against weight capacity limits ("cubing out" instead of "weighing out").

There's no meaningful cubic capacity advantage with today's average boxcar vs. highway/intermodal trailer/container while there's a sizable service disadvantage. This leaves only a weight capacity advantage, though one that must also overcome the lower service level disadvantage in order to be competitive. This has pushed rail carload's advantage, especially boxcar, to the heavier commodities. Then, too, besides weight there's distance, volume, and handling characteristic variables that define rail's competitive advantages and the markets it serves.

QB 52.32 wrote:G'OK, what I'm saying is that, in general terms, rail carload becomes competitive for those more dense commodities where highway trailer or intermodal container weight limitations vs. railcar weight limitations allow rail to handle in one car what would take 3 or more highway trailers (and, therefore, truck trips) at a 1:3 railcar:highway trailer ratio. In a very general sense, with lots of variables, I'd say rail carload service becomes competitive against highway (and intermodal) for those commodities that weigh about 20-25 lbs per cubic foot. Roughly speaking, those commodities that weigh below 10 lbs/cubic foot will generally fill up the cubic capacity of a modern high-cube highway/intermodal trailer and non-86' high-cube boxcar before bumping up against weight capacity limits ("cubing out" instead of "weighing out").

There's no meaningful cubic capacity advantage with today's average boxcar vs. highway/intermodal trailer/container while there's a sizable service disadvantage. This leaves only a weight capacity advantage, though one that must also overcome the lower service level disadvantage in order to be competitive. This has pushed rail carload's advantage, especially boxcar, to the heavier commodities. Then, too, besides weight there's distance, volume, and handling characteristic variables that define rail's competitive advantages and the markets they serve.

QB 52.32, [edited]

Thanks for the explanation.

I asked because I understood the general concepts that were being pointed at and some of the math but I wanted to make sure I really understood the specifics. A lot of what was mentioned above is material that we've discussed many times over the years but this is one of the most succinct presentations of such that I can remember.

Along the same line of thought, based on what is being said here (and what I see on the road everyday) I take it that wood pulp logs and pulp chips aren't heavy enough for rail to make any sense.

G O'K, thanks for the compliment!

There's some element of weight, particularly with chips, but probably the larger issue is that it's generally moving shorter distances limiting rail's competitiveness, especially over the long-run when you have to consider equipment and infrastructure investment.

Uhoh, you're giving me credit where it's not deserved! You're in good hands with QB, though.

If I could add a bit about boxcars: The 40' boxcar you referenced earlier went the way of the dodo ages ago. Up until, say, 15 years ago, the standard boxcar was the 70-ton, plate C 50' and 60' car. Today, the boxcar of choice is the 110-ton, plate F 50' and 60' car. (Those cars can be ID'd by the white ends below the roof profile to signify the plate F height.) Going back to the discussion on weight and cube advantages, here's why the plate C car is passe: Today's standard 53' trailer (or domestic intermodal container) has a loading capacity of ~24 tons/4000 cu ft. The low cap'y, plate C car has a ~1.5:1 cube advantage and a 3.25:1 weight advantage. In contrast, the high cap'y, plate F car has between a 1.75:1 (50') to 2.1:1 (60') cube advantage and a 4.25:1 weight advantage (if the railroad can handle 286K). Consider this: about 5-7 years ago, about 225,000 boxcars plied the rails. Today, the count is down to about 125,000. Now, part of the decline can be attributed to the improved efficiency of the high cap'y cars, and boxcars ain't going away any time soon. But I wouldn't expect a market renaissance.

By the way, if the likes of Senators Collins and Snowe get their way in pushing through more liberal over-the-road weight laws (from 80,000 to 97,000lbs with the addition of a third axle), those weight ratio advantages will narrow, further compromising the viability of the plate C cars (and plate F cars, for that matter).

To your points on pulpwood and chips... I don't believe pulpwood's primary issue is weight but proximity to consumption point. However, woodchips are (a) not dense, and (b) low value. Google "NS wood chip car" cand you'll see how huge these cars have become to be economically viable.

And the heavier the trailer trucks, the more damage to our already crumbling and overtaxed highway infrastructure.