Western Railroad Discussion > RoadRailers - when were they discontinued?

Never having seen a set in person, when were they generally discontinued and why?

I believe NS is/was the last to have them in service.

The Swift sets were often seen in CA and current railroad rules still have information on them for train makeup.

I believe that there is one NS operated service left. IIRC it is Detroit to Kansas City via Ft. Wayne, IN and Decatur, IL.

SOO6617 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I believe that there is one NS operated service
> left. IIRC it is Detroit to Kansas City via Ft.
> Wayne, IN and Decatur, IL.

This is correct.

NS discontinued other routes about a year ago -- I don't remember offhand if it was late 2015 or early this year.

NS discontinued the roadrailers primarily because the equipment was becoming of age and investment in new equipment just didn't give a good return on investment--I suspect the rates were low also

Dale Smith

Posted from iPhone

Reason was to switch to new containers because as mentioned the cost of new road railers was not worth the return, having a dedicated pool. When most road railers terminals were close to the newer container terminals. Makes sense to cut out so you can use them elsewhere if market drops out again..

Posted from Android

You can't stack RoadRailers so not cost-competitive with domestic containers.

RoadRailers are heavier than ordinary trailers so highway gas mileage is worse.

Life expectancy of RoadRailers is less than domestic containers or trailers. So capital cost is high in the long run.

While the RoadRailer train weighed significantly less than a train of trailers on spine cars, considering the above two factors it wasn't an advantage in the long run (i.e., when it comes time to replace the equipment) for the total door-to-door service.

So RoadRailers came and went. Where there are clearances for double-stacked domestic containers, that option gets the lion's share of the market. Trailer intermodal has been reduced to a niche player, catering to LTL, ground/package express and refrigerated traffic. But even UPS and reefer customers are increasingly using domestic containers.

Best regards,

Rob L.
 

A shadow of the MILW electrification.: replacements costs done them in.
RB

I believe RoadRailers are still in play Down Under (Australia) ; When I was there a number of years ago I saw both R/R's and Double Stacks on the Transcontinental run between Port Agusta and Perth.As a point of intrest the D/S well cars were 48' five platform units.

Regarding the cost to replace these trailers.   If I understand correctly, many or most of these trailers are Wabash Duraplate-style boxes.   That particular model is still in production (or a version close to it).   So adding the running gear and bogies makes the cost that much higher?   If so, that is too bad.  It seems the main structure is already available to be utilized.   One advantage compared to containers that no one is mentioning is the ability for these trailers to be driven directly to wherever they need to be delivered or loaded.  That cuts down on some switching, chassis, and drayage time (got to be worth something).

up833 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A shadow of the MILW electrification.:
> replacements costs done them in.

Actually, no. Done in because the RR as a whole could not make money and before de-reg it could not be broken up to cast off unprofitable midwestern branch lines and retain a profitable core (the transcon) without declaring bankruptcy (in which case, somebody else would get to decide how to restructure the company).

GE and the power companies jointly offered to electrify the Gap, increase the electrification's output capacity and efficiency, and provide enough new motive power to totally electrify main line operations west of Harlowton with zero cash outlay required of Milwaukee. Only requirement was to maintain traffic levels and continue as a going concern so that operating savings from electric in lieu of diesel operation would retire the GE/power co. investment. Milw had to say no because it could not afford to keep the track up. More to the point, the tentative deal Milw had for BN to take over the entire Milw Rd required Milw to not enter into any long-term commitments.

Best regards,

Rob L.

I would think the Roadrailers are considerably stronger than a standard trailer. Going up even a slight grade with several dozen more loaded trailers behind the ones up front will put quite a bit of stress on them, espicially if the train is accelerating (the same is true going down a grade and slowing but to a lesser extent).

https://flic.kr/p/pvsJBt

I was looking to find a third-party financial commentary so it didn't look like I was unnecessarily editorializing.

http://marketrealist.com/2016/11/why-norfolk-southerns-intermodal-revenues-declined-in-3q16/

​Around here, there had been a very effective niche for roadrailer marketing to local industry for many years.   Obviously, converting those customers over to conventional intermodal didn't go quite as planned.  You can blame that on a variety of things; equipment, service, pricing...and people.  All of which changed.     If you can believe that you can convert those customers over to less-expensive systems and keep the volume, you're a hero.   If not, well, see the results.

​See: http://www.ttnews.com/articles/basetemplate.aspx?storyid=39492

​The other thing that hit the bottom line was the write-off of the remaining equipment.

​I'm still not sure if this single-handedly caused the 2016 decline in AAR reported intermodal traffic - which, along with NS is finally recovering.    But this was part of the first major national decline in intermodal traffic in recent memory that wasn't directly linked to underlying economic activity.   Read the impact of Triple Crown here:
http://www.logisticsmgmt.com/article/iana_reports_first_quarterly_decline_in_25_quarters



 



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/07/16 08:32 by randgust.

Fizzboy7 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Regarding the cost to replace these trailers.  
> If I understand correctly, many or most of these
> trailers are Wabash Duraplate-style boxes.   That
> particular model is still in production (or a
> version close to it).   So adding the running
> gear and bogies makes the cost that much higher?
>   If so, that is too bad.  It seems the main
> structure is already available to be utilized.  
> One advantage compared to containers that no one
> is mentioning is the ability for these trailers to
> be driven directly to wherever they need to be
> delivered or loaded.  That cuts down on some
> switching, chassis, and drayage time (got to be
> worth something).

A Cadillac Escalade uses the same chassis as a Chevy Suburban. So they should be about the same price, right?

Duraplate only refers to the basic structure. But by the time you add door styles, axles styles, rear bumbler styles the price between them can be great. Plus the roadrailer requires a special purpose nose plate. That alone adds extra weight and is lot more expensive that a standard nose plate.

Yes, the car manuafactor loved the roadrailers. But you could only fit 6 cars inside compared to a normal enclosed car carrier that can fit 8-9. You also created a situation where now the driver had to know how to operate the lift equipment and properly tie down the cars inside.

Roardrailers required a special underframe that was much beefier than a standard trailer to handle the buff and tension forces of a 125 trailer train.

Ted Curphey
Ontario, OR

so with the running gear weight ; heavier empty weight , you can max out state load limits faster on any pavement portions, hauling less than a regular semi, or container perhaps, on heavy goods.

still love the concept would like to see  it revisted  on amtrak and  freight .



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/07/16 14:47 by dan.

dan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> so with the running gear weight ; heavier empty
> weight , you can max out state load limits faster
> on any pavement portions, hauling less than a
> regular semi, or container perhaps, on heavy
> goods.

Yes, not useful for weight freight. But the lion's share of dry-van traffic is cube freight.

Best regards,

Rob L.