• Can CSX,NS make money with high speed freight trains?

  • General discussion of passenger rail systems not otherwise covered in the specific forums in this category, including high speed rail.
General discussion of passenger rail systems not otherwise covered in the specific forums in this category, including high speed rail.

Moderators: mtuandrew, gprimr1

  by gearhead
 
What Mike Ward seems to be saying is that there customers are quite content having there intermodal trains take 3 days to get to Chicago from Albany. Germany runs high speed container trains at 100 plus MPH and France has a high speed mail train using old TGV equipment. If there were some high speed trains run for Fed EX to there hubs would it make money? I remember the history about the high speed "Silk Trains" of the 1930s. What commodity is out there that needs to get there overnight? Can rail compete for Air Freight? (Air Freight is 2 percent of the market or so I hear). Last time I heard that all railroads want to haul is bulk long distance at a average speed of 15 mile per hour. Even Containers are not in a hurry as there ladings are cheap imports or LCL bulk that is not in a big hurry.
  by Oldsmoboi
 
I think the only way high speed freight is viable is for the package shipping companies (UPS, FedEx, DHL, USPS Priority Mail Packages)
  by 2nd trick op
 
A lot of years have passd since I left Penn State with a B S in Business Logistics back in 1972, but the imbalaces out there in the real world, and the questions they raise, are panfully familiar.

It was a time when the accelerated completion of the Interstate Highway System was pulling what little time-sensitive or high-value freight remained off the Eastern trunk line railroads fast, and the flooding from Hurricane Agnes that June did a lot to finish the job. So I gave up early on a rail career and sidelined into trucking, starting out with the suburban-Philadelphia-based Jones Motor Company. Jones had begun life as a local "cartage" firm near the turn of the (20th) century,, but had not operated west of Pittsburgh until 1960. Interestingly, the capital to transform it into a sizeable regional carrier came from the Alllegany Corporation, a multi-faceted transportation holding company, with some very deep (and unlikely) roots.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleghany_Corporation

By the time I came on board, Jones was ranked as the nation's 18th-largest trucker by Commercial Car Journal. it operated from the eastern Seaboard inland as far as the Mississppi, but didn't go south of the Ohio except for a fray into the Shenandah Valley (I-81) and all of North Carolina, The motor carriers of the day operated under regulation very similar to that for railroads. You could only serve communities into which you (or a predecessor) had been granted authority b the Interstae Commerce Commission, presumably baxk in the Thirties. And most of the major players had gaps in their authoity .... Jones was weak in Southern Ohio and shut out of all of Indiana, Branch couldn't serve Chicagoland, and Cooper-Jarrett had no rights into Detroit.

The two big players who got to most of the places that counted were Yellow Freight and Roadway Express, and they still depended heavily on locals to fill in some of the gaps. My fellow Penn Staters of a certain age might recall, for example, that Lewistown-Based Noerr and Altoona's Ward were the only playrers in Happy Valley before 1978. The thnking at Roadway and Yellow at the time was that a long haul was the quickest path to profitability. So a lot of the competitors began to shed their own short hauls. Jones had gained entry into Chicago, Detroit and Cleveland by acquiring a successful company based in Niles, Ohio, but within a few years, had cast the short-haul opportunities asde, and was reportedly trying, with Alleghany financing, to go coast-to-coast via a meger with Texas -based TIME-DC. Ironically, when the economy tightened in 1974, it decided to go after the short-haul business again.

One of the stories I wiill never forget happened one night when the "office snoop" (not me!) found a copy of a memo to the sales department. It seemed that one of the "sales lanes" the company was pursuin was Philadelphia-Cleveland, and a few days before, a local manufactuere had favored us with a small-but-hot pallet of freight just when a near-truckload for Clevelansd turned up. We ran the two together, and neeless to say, the shipper was delighted. But now the sales rep had to explain that the unstable nature of the busines just wouldn't allow such a perfomance on a daily basis.

My tenure with Jones ended when a recession set in during the winter of 1974-75. A few years later, the deregulation phenomemon was to bankrupt about 3/4 of those "Top 100" truckers listed in CCJ back in the red-hot early Seventies. (The auction of the operating rights of bankrupt Associated Transport drew a "who's who" from just about the entire industry, but most of those present were to find their own heads on the blok within a few years.) Irregular-route, specific-commodity operations like Schneider and Werner were to become dominant, and Roadway and Yellow were fated to merge, then reorganize iin the light of the new realities. And one of the biggest success stories, J B Hunt, was to structure mosty of it's operation around rail-domionant line-hauls. When I worked in a DHL package hub frm a year in 2008, the process had gotten even more exotic. Truckload carriers were, for example, running solid shipments iinto UPS, FedEx or DHL hubs, and letting thefolks in brown (or blue, or yellow) take care of the delivery.

And as a final note, i think it should be recognized that "picking freight" ... taking it away from another carrier ... wasn't really that hard. the challenge lay in handling the stuff profitably. Santa Fe gave up on its passenger-speed freight Super C after a last fling with the Post Office, and Conrail tried a New York-Buffalo overnight RoadRailer service called the Empire Sate Express that never quite panned out.

Oh, the more it changes, the more it stays the same;
and the hand just rearranges the players in the game.

Al Stewart, "The Eyes of Nostradamus"
Last edited by 2nd trick op on Wed Jul 13, 2011 7:09 pm, edited 4 times in total.
  by jstolberg
 
gearhead wrote:What commodity is out there that needs to get there overnight?
Maine lobster and Louisiana shrimp need to stay fresh and won't survive the current freight rail trip to Chicago. I once knew where a guy would drive a refrigerated truck full of shrimp 15 hours from New Orleans to Chicago, sell his shrimp from the back of the truck on Friday afternoon/evening and then turn around and do it again the next week.
  by gearhead
 
To get intermodal times go to Skedz.com I use it to optimize my railfanning



Origin: ABY - Albany, NY Dest: CHI - Chicago, IL


Cutoff/
Depart Leave Arrive/
Avail. Arrive Origin
Carrier Dest
Carrier Eq SL Hours First Train Last Train Route
Hour Day Trml Hour Day Trml
Detail CO 23:59 Mo ABY AV 06:00 Th C47 NS NS B 55 205 205
Detail CO 23:59 Tu ABY AV 06:00 Fr C47 NS NS B 55 205 205
Detail CO 23:59 We ABY AV 06:00 Sa C47 NS NS B 55 205 205
Detail CO 23:59 Th ABY AV 06:00 Su C47 NS NS B 55 205 205
Detail CO 23:59 Fr ABY AV 06:00 Mo C47 NS NS B 55 205 205
Detail CO 23:59 Sa ABY AV 06:00 Tu C47 NS NS B 55 205 205
Detail CO 23:59 Su ABY AV 06:00 We C47 NS NS B 55 205 205



Cutoff Arrival Transit Hours
  by gearhead
 
Thank You 2nd trick op. As far as I understand it NS Roadrailers are autoparts trains bound for Detroit and the midwest. CSX who started the Roadrailer has not picked it up. And last I heard hardly any mail goes Intermodal anymore not even bulk mail or that the USPS does not contract directly with railroads for the movement of mail on TOFC. They might go thru JB Hunt who then at there discrection puts it on a train but not directly?
  by twropr
 
With electro-pneumatic braking technology available (it's already being used on unit coal trains and the engineers love it) and cost the railroads are bearing in installing PTC, I'm amazed that there is not a push to increase the speed of intermodal trains. In addition to improving equipment utilization, increased speed would allow longer crew districts for selected runs, which translates to MORE REVENENUE PER T&E EMPLOYEE HOUR. Less train stops would partially offset any increased fuel consumption associated with faster running.

Andy
  by 2nd trick op
 
My only point in that little essay was that changes in a system built upon mass-marketing and mass-distribution usually come about gradually. The rail industry bottomed out a quarter-century ago, but most of the recaputre of traffic has come about in the markets where it had the capacity to move freight both cheaply and in huge volumes. The continuing long-term economic trends will likely make it pssible to skim away more of the high-quality business, but not overnight.

Same rules pretty much apply for passengers; growth will be incremental. and the first and best will be outward from those markets and segments where the industry is already doing a good job. You can't design a sophisticated HSR system from scratch, and then try to force it on a skeptical public with an attitude of "If we buuild it, they will come!"

Some of the older regulars here have been esploring these points for years; we have seen some new ground broken, developed a sometimes-grudgng respect for each other in the process, and I'm sure most of us would welcome new blood to pass the torch along.

But first and foremost, let's continue the effort to keep things civil. .... Thanks, all!
Last edited by 2nd trick op on Fri Jul 15, 2011 9:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
  by amtrakowitz
 
gearhead wrote:What Mike Ward seems to be saying is that there customers are quite content having there intermodal trains take 3 days to get to Chicago from Albany. Germany runs high speed container trains at 100 plus MPH and France has a high speed mail train using old TGV equipment. If there were some high speed trains run for Fed EX to there hubs would it make money? I remember the history about the high speed "Silk Trains" of the 1930s. What commodity is out there that needs to get there overnight? Can rail compete for Air Freight? (Air Freight is 2 percent of the market or so I hear). Last time I heard that all railroads want to haul is bulk long distance at a average speed of 15 mile per hour. Even Containers are not in a hurry as there ladings are cheap imports or LCL bulk that is not in a big hurry.
The way they regulate railroads in this country, it is not possible. There used to be some high-speed freights under steam, ironically (the 4-8-4 was one of the better dual-service steamers). Then the liberals came along with their government support of highways and air transportation infrastructure.

As for Germany, Deutsche Bahn has a blank check. That company has been buying up railroads within and outside Europe, and you can bet that they'll start bleeding those holdings of capital in order to keep their domestic and strategic European ops afloat if they need to.
  by mtuandrew
 
amtrakowitz wrote:The way they regulate railroads in this country, it is not possible. There used to be some high-speed freights under steam, ironically (the 4-8-4 was one of the better dual-service steamers). Then the liberals came along with their government support of highways and air transportation infrastructure.
Dwight Eisenhower, durn liberal. :wink: Not to mention, Jimmy Carter deregulated the railroads in 1980. :grin:

Technologically, it's very possible to run freights at fairly high sustained speeds. On this continent, the Santa Fe did so, averaging over 60 mph from Los Angeles to Chicago in the 1970s until they lost their US Mail contract. Amtrak has also done so, using its Material Handling Cars (boxcars riding on passenger-style trucks) at up to 79 mph. And of course, the TGV La Poste runs at 270 km/h, nearly 170 mph. The FRA's regulations about maximum speed don't encourage innovation, but neither does the freight industry's lack of suitable track to use at high speed. The crunch on capacity could be lessened if all or nearly all of the trains ran at higher speeds, but throwing one or two fast freights into the mix gums up everything - see the example of Amtrak on coal-hauling lines.

If a freight railroad on this continent saw both a need and a profit to be made from 80+ mph haulage, it would invest in the necessary track and signal upgrades. Until then, they seem willing to cede the fastest freight to trucks and aircraft.
  by kato
 
gearhead wrote:Germany runs high speed container trains at 100 plus MPH
The only freight trains doing 100 mph (160 km/h) are the Parcel InterCity (PIC) connections, a postal train connecting parcel distribution centers during the night that take on containers from customers to make the trains economically viable (the parcels alone would not keep it afloat). The primary PIC connection transports up to 1,000 tons from other customers per night.

In general there's a blanket speed limit for freight trains at 75 mph (120 km/h) in Germany mandated by law. The above PIC operates with a special permit excluding it. At the moment (mid-2011) all PIC trains are limited to ~88 mph (140 km/h) due to a lack of faster freight locomotives.
  by David Benton
 
mtuandrew wrote: If a freight railroad on this continent saw both a need and a profit to be made from 80+ mph haulage, it would invest in the necessary track and signal upgrades. Until then, they seem willing to cede the fastest freight to trucks and aircraft.
given thier record i would say they will do it about 20 years after it should be done . so maybe in 20 years time .
  by mtuandrew
 
David Benton wrote:
mtuandrew wrote: If a freight railroad on this continent saw both a need and a profit to be made from 80+ mph haulage, it would invest in the necessary track and signal upgrades. Until then, they seem willing to cede the fastest freight to trucks and aircraft.
given thier record i would say they will do it about 20 years after it should be done . so maybe in 20 years time .
Probably more like 30. It'll happen though, when the railroads are scrambling to retain their market share with the opening of the Northwest Passage and a wider Panama Canal.

I keep wondering whether CP Rail and NS could operate at high speeds on the Michigan Central corridor, and UP and CN on the Chicago & Alton, by renting use of the Amtrak signaling equipment. At the moment, none of the four companies have expressed interest in moving faster than 79 mph, but those two routes are (will be) signaled for 110 mph without having the huge passenger service density of the Northeast Corridor. Theoretically the NEC could handle fast freights from Washington to New Jersey, but Amtrak is understandably skittish after Chase.