NS Triple Crown Basically Done

[CN9634]

Hello All,

Today, Triple Crown is restructuring to basically a one lane service.... this is essentially the end of traditional Triple Crown Service as we know it.


http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases ... 45559.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[QB 52.32]

Makes sense in this era of tight rail capacity and financial pressure from declining coal traffic as well as the much better economics and efficiency of doublestack technology as an alternative either as a direct replacement or in a general sense of where to spend time and money.

[XBNSFer]

Makes sense in this era of tight rail capacity and financial pressure from declining coal traffic as well as the much better economics and efficiency of doublestack technology as an alternative either as a direct replacement or in a general sense of where to spend time and money.

"Much better economics and efficiency" of doublestack "technology" has nothing to do with it. The benefit of doublestacks is over conventional piggyback (TOFC/COFC), due to less equipment weight (or "tare" weight) per "box." Doublestack "technology" just feeds the conventional "how much cargo can I cram on a given stretch of track" and "how huge a train can I run" philosophies, it doesn't promote "economics" or "efficiency" except when compared to conventional TOFC/COFC. Roadrailers didn't catch on only because they couldn't be intermixed with conventional intermodal equipment (and because nobody could independently implement a nationwide network, given the lack of coast-to-coast systems as of yet) and run in monster trains, not because of "economics" or "efficiency." Roadrailers have less tare weight per "box" than doublestacks, even with "bogies," given they eliminate the need for a separate railcar entirely. Roadrailers also don't have the wind-resistance issues of 20+' high trains with big spaces between "boxes," and have essentially zero slack, cutting fuel costs to the bone. Nor do Roadrailers have clearance issues requiring massive expenditures to allow them to run - they can go anywhere tracks go. Terminal costs are sky-high for double stack, dirt cheap for Roadrailers.

You should have stopped at "tight rail capacity." Roadrailers can do something that doublestacks could never do, which is to make the railroads a legitimate competitor in hauling high value cargo in short haul traffic lanes. "Tight rail capacity" is the only thing in the way of that, but more and more hauls are, from a railroad perspective, "short," which means the continued embracing of doublestacks for intermodal to the exclusion of all else is going to make that business increasingly marginal as time goes on. The high speed, premium service such high value, short haul freight requires is not a good "fit" for doublestacks, because the terminal costs make it UNeconomic and INefficient.

[Cowford]

This reminds me of the old joke: Nobody goes there anymore; it's too crowded.

Roadrailer has, unfortunately, failed in just about every market in which it has been introduced - here and abroad. And it's ALL about economics and efficiency. (Interoperability, train length restrictions and freight hauled per train-foot are integral measurements of both.)

[mtuandrew]

How much is due to reduced auto plant capacity? I understand that the Big 3 used Roadrailers fairly extensively, while few others did.

Related, did any other roads take Roadrailers in interchange? KCS-NS seems an obvious choice for transshipment from American Rust Belt auto plants to Mexican plants and return. So do CP and CN, to and from Canadian plants, and BNSF from Pacific ports.

[QB 52.32]

Triple Crown's reduction has come as a result of NS' need to improve their operating performance while faced with the investment decision whether to replace a large part of the roadrailer fleet but up against the economic superiority of domestic doublestack. At its peak, Triple Crown served Dallas and Minneapolis/St Paul and other points as well, I believe, via rights over connecting carriers.

Because domestic doublestack is superior, that's the technology that serves the Mexican auto production supply chain.

As an aside, I chuckle when I see Triple Crown management extolling the viability of short-haul intermodal, when in fact, they pursued viability by pursuing medium- and long-haul traffic. Even with that strategy the technology could not achieve long-term economic viability.

[XBNSFer]

This reminds me of the old joke: Nobody goes there anymore; it's too crowded.

Roadrailer has, unfortunately, failed in just about every market in which it has been introduced - here and abroad. And it's ALL about economics and efficiency. (Interoperability, train length restrictions and freight hauled per train-foot are integral measurements of both.)

First of all, Triple Crown was no "failure" - they don't run services that aren't "economically viable" (to quote another detractor below) for 30 years any more; Staggers fixed that.

It is definitely NOT about "economics and efficiency." Double stacks are great in "conventional" intermodal operations - high volume, long hauls, big expensive terminals. They are all about railroads playing to their traditional strengths and improving upon "conventional" TOFC/COFC intermodal services. "Interoperability, train length restrictions and freight hauled per train-foot" are NOT "integral measurements" of "economics and efficiency" - they are all about "INSIDE the box" railroading and nothing more.

There is no way double stacks beat Roadrailers on "economics" or "efficiency," because domestic double stack adds about 7,000 pounds of tare weight per "box" compared to Roadrailers including the Roadrailer bogies, and that's making the generous assumption that every "well" has two containers loaded in it (FAR from reality) - so even more extra tonnage per "box" in reality. There's NEVER any "empty buckets" on a Roadrailer train, either - the "boxes" ARE your train. Ditto for the wind resistance encountered moving trains which are 20 foot+ high with big spaces between "boxes." BNSF basically had to add an extra 4400hp unit (from 4 to 5) to keep their schedules on their "Z" trains between Chicago and California when UPS wanted to be able to start using double stacked containers (as opposed to TOFC/COFC with spine cars). Roadrailers, by comparison, have essentially NO wind resistance, since they are low and closely coupled.

Double stacks also require big terminals (including lots of track space for "empty buckets" awaiting their next outgoing loads/trains; you can move Roadrailer "bogies" off the track and have it available for another train without all the extra "storage" tracks being required) with big "lift" equipment, heavy pavement, and "chassis management" logistics headaches (which generally leads to a large "oversupply" of chassis, to ensure the ability to "ground" boxes - more inefficiency), none of which are needed for Roadrailer operations. A forklift to move "bogies" and a track with gravel or cinders up to the rails so you can back a truck up onto the track is all you need.

So, double stack has higher tare weight, higher wind resistance, and higher terminal and logistics costs. Not to mention the massive cost of "clearance" projects needed for double stack operations, which are totally unnecessary for Roadrailers. Which means double stacks have lower efficiency and are less economic compared with Roadrailers.

[NHV 669]

Roadrailers are done as of last month, so apparently the investment wasn't worth it.

[bostontrainguy]

I always thought the Roadrailers were an interesting animal and maybe could create services never before possible like freight through Penn Station. Some have mentioned a possible third rail clearance problem but it would be a lot cheaper and quicker then the proposed freight tunnel if it could be done.

There is another similar concept out there that G&U may be interested in promoting. It seems like Railrunner is having a problem getting traction and I thought they were just about dead but their equipment has been recently spotted on G&U property.

https://railrunner.com/

[QB 52.32]

This reminds me of the old joke: Nobody goes there anymore; it's too crowded.

Roadrailer has, unfortunately, failed in just about every market in which it has been introduced - here and abroad. And it's ALL about economics and efficiency. (Interoperability, train length restrictions and freight hauled per train-foot are integral measurements of both.)

First of all, Triple Crown was no "failure" - they don't run services that aren't "economically viable" (to quote another detractor below) for 30 years any more; Staggers fixed that.

It is definitely NOT about "economics and efficiency." Double stacks are great in "conventional" intermodal operations - high volume, long hauls, big expensive terminals. They are all about railroads playing to their traditional strengths and improving upon "conventional" TOFC/COFC intermodal services. "Interoperability, train length restrictions and freight hauled per train-foot" are NOT "integral measurements" of "economics and efficiency" - they are all about "INSIDE the box" railroading and nothing more.

There is no way double stacks beat Roadrailers on "economics" or "efficiency," because domestic double stack adds about 7,000 pounds of tare weight per "box" compared to Roadrailers including the Roadrailer bogies, and that's making the generous assumption that every "well" has two containers loaded in it (FAR from reality) - so even more extra tonnage per "box" in reality. There's NEVER any "empty buckets" on a Roadrailer train, either - the "boxes" ARE your train. Ditto for the wind resistance encountered moving trains which are 20 foot+ high with big spaces between "boxes." BNSF basically had to add an extra 4400hp unit (from 4 to 5) to keep their schedules on their "Z" trains between Chicago and California when UPS wanted to be able to start using double stacked containers (as opposed to TOFC/COFC with spine cars). Roadrailers, by comparison, have essentially NO wind resistance, since they are low and closely coupled.

Double stacks also require big terminals (including lots of track space for "empty buckets" awaiting their next outgoing loads/trains; you can move Roadrailer "bogies" off the track and have it available for another train without all the extra "storage" tracks being required) with big "lift" equipment, heavy pavement, and "chassis management" logistics headaches (which generally leads to a large "oversupply" of chassis, to ensure the ability to "ground" boxes - more inefficiency), none of which are needed for Roadrailer operations. A forklift to move "bogies" and a track with gravel or cinders up to the rails so you can back a truck up onto the track is all you need.

So, double stack has higher tare weight, higher wind resistance, and higher terminal and logistics costs. Not to mention the massive cost of "clearance" projects needed for double stack operations, which are totally unnecessary for Roadrailers. Which means double stacks have lower efficiency and are less economic compared with Roadrailers.

Doublestack is absolutely more efficient and with better economics than roadrailer as train load factor as a determinant outweighs all of those characteristics in which roadrailer has the advantage. The proof is in the pudding. To quote Tom Finkbiner, who established NS' roadrailer program and ran NS' intermodal business, coming over from North American Van Lines after NS purchased them, now president of Tiger Cool, in the March 2019 edition of Trains magazine, "You don't have to be Archimedes to figure out that it's more profitable to haul twice as much revenue in the same space."

[Safetee]

in my eyes, a roadrailer operation is a retail shorter haul higher rated move viz a viz double stack with it's huge yards handling equipment etc being the bulk freight market.

[QB 52.32]

Yeah, roadrailer has always had a close association with boutique operations retailed in shorter-haul corridors, like its start on the C&O hauling mail on the back of passenger trains, Conrail's NY State-sponsored Buffalo-NYC Empire Express service, and Triple Crown's initial auto parts and short-haul market targets that morphed into longer-haul lanes to boost its financial performance. But, boutique, retail, premium and short-haul in and of itself can also be, and is, applied to doublestack technology as well. For example, close to home CSX's Boston Line hosts short-haul market traffic but with the advantage that it is hosted interoperably and efficiently within the doublestack train network. And, while I was disappointed that CSX's attempted doublestack short/medium-haul hub and spoke system didn't cut it in the new PSR world, I believe there's always a chance it could re-emerge in another iteration.

[Cowford]

XBNSFer - to set the record straight, I did NOT say TCS was a failure, I stated that the Roadrailer technology has failed to take hold in most of the markets (here and abroad) it's been introduced.

You're obviously passionate about the technology. If, as you claim, the technology is so superior to stack, why has it not taken root? Blaming close-minded railroaders won't cut it; at the end of the day, the guys and gals on the railroad that write the checks are rational folks. It's not like Roadrailer technology wasn't given a chance. How would you propose a network be developed?

[bostontrainguy]

There are reports on another site that Norfolk Southern is running RoadRailers 255/256 again! Surprise to all that the RoadRailer concept may not have died as earlier reported.