CN9634 wrote:Only equipment the RR has to provide are the well cars.
What railroad is responsible for providing well cars? NBM? Doesn't being a non TTX partner add cost to car hire?
CN9634 wrote:Also NAFTA 2.0 solved the customs issue (which I asked customs officials and experienced freight forwarders a pointed question about this type of situation in 2012) with a streamlining of electronic submission of customs paperwork and an e-manifest. They were piloting several trains with this system back then running from Prince Rupert into the US or via the US to points in Canada. It's now a moot point and intermodal trains cross in and out of the US across the country all the time now.
Very interesting indeed. Im surprised another go at the Sunbury trains hasn't been attempted.
CN9634 wrote:No way you'd see an NBM-CMQ-CP-CSX routing... too many hands in the pot.
Well now I'm really curious how you propose CP gets into the fray here. If CP was to capture some of this traffic, your suggesting it not economically feasible to interchange with one more road? So Mechanicville, Montreal and/or Toronto are your unloading sites?
I guess I am stuck in an operations based reality. In my mind full DS from Saint John to NY/NJ via Montreal beats single stack service over PAR. It takes advantage of the cost effectiveness of DS even with a possible 24-36 hours addition to trip time but on a consistent time table.
Back to the original topic.... you do realize that for years CDAC and MMA ran intermodal across Maine? We aren't re-inventing the wheel here, they'll likely just use pool TTX equipment that comes in on CP, maybe some other stuff mixed in.
You have to consider that intermodal is such low revenue that adding in a fourth carrier could be a deal breaker, even with double stack cost efficiencies. CMQ/NBS are minor players on the grand scheme, because you also have to remember that CP already has intermodal services established. So it is likely on the CP side of the equation, there would be no need to add a new train, just add to an existing service (assuming there is capacity) or blend it into the current scheme along their established network. It's certainly possible you might get a whole new trainload out of it, but that would have to be a lot of daily volume going to somewhere like Toronto, Detroit, Chicago or beyond (But in all honesty, that hasn't been unheard of either through this port historically).
And also I'm stuck in operations based reality too, trust me I work the ops side and am told by the finance/accounting people what needs to be done to make what we do cost efficient. In intermodal trucking there are metrics like drays per driver per day, loaded ratio and average bobtail miles. On the rail side, it works like a boat at a port, load and unload efficiently, streamline train service, reduce dwell time.... this isn't manifest stuff, you can't just route a container to just anywhere, it's hub and spoke. Often times to route something from say New England to the mid-Atlantic if there was no direct train service you would have to go to Chicago, take the box off one train, put it on another, and send it southeast. You only open a new lane if you have density to support it. For intermodal operations wise, less is more and simplicity is the key, especially when you are competing with trucks which is the most simple way of moving something there is.