Western Railroad Discussion > New photo:: ABF Trucking container on BNSF in daylite

Last night this new ABF Trucking container passed thru La Plata MO westbound on BNSF. Not a good photo off computer as the camera is very close to track.
ABF joins YRC, Estes, Marten, KLM-FFE with new railroad intermodal containers in recent months. 

gmojim



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/09/19 11:41 by gmojim.

---

Photo in daylight today in Belen.

gmojim

---

As may be seen, even the LTL guys are converting to domestic containers. One more nail in the coffin of TOFC.

Best regards,

Rob L.

rob_l Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As may be seen, even the LTL guys are converting
> to domestic containers. One more nail in the
> coffin of TOFC.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rob L.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do not believe that trailers will be eliminated completely, too much trouble with chassis management at destination. Top priority loads would move in trailers.  BNSF said they will continue to offer trailer service, but container rates are cheaper.

gmojim

UP handles only containers, no trailers, in the Tacoma-Seattle market.  What are the savings, equipment, etc., when you don't handle tofc?

mapboy

mapboy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> UP handles only containers, no trailers, in the
> Tacoma-Seattle market.  What are the savings,
> equipment, etc., when you don't handle tofc?
>
> mapboy
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The freight rate charged by the railroad is the cost factor. I am not sure of the cost difference as I was an operations guy not concerned with rates. The railroads are planning to raise their trailer freight rates higher to push double stack containers as a cost savings. Just guessing, the difference could be several hundred maybe 600- 900 depending on the lane. I do not know this for sure, I retired 4 years ago, before the railroads started this trailer rate program to move to containers. Maybe someone working in intermodal rates could give us a quote,
Definitely more containers can be hauled in the same space on the train, so there is a big cost difference,

gmojim

> I do not believe that trailers will be eliminated
> completely, too much trouble with chassis
> management at destination. Top priority loads
> would move in trailers.  BNSF said they will
> continue to offer trailer service, but container
> rates are cheaper.
>

Pricing is a means to curtail the trailer business.

The railroads want no part of intermodal except in long-haul, high-volume corridors where the investment in expensive terminals and chassis inventories make sense.

UPS is almost out of trailers on rail. LTL is moving out of it. UP has very little trailer volume left. BNSF has trailer volume, but the shippers pay a serious premium and are vulnerable to compeition using domestic containers.

Trailer market share will continue to decline, and I predict that unless there is legislation or subsidy to the contrary, eventually it will be gone.

Best regards,

Rob L.

gmojim Wrote:

> The freight rate charged by the railroad is the
> cost factor. I am not sure of the cost difference
> as I was an operations guy not concerned with
> rates. The railroads are planning to raise their
> trailer freight rates higher to push double stack
> containers as a cost savings. Just guessing, the
> difference could be several hundred maybe 600- 900
> depending on the lane. I do not know this for
> sure, I retired 4 years ago, before the railroads
> started this trailer rate program to move to
> containers. Maybe someone working in intermodal
> rates could give us a quote,
> Definitely more containers can be hauled in the
> same space on the train, so there is a big cost
> difference,
>
> gmojim

Yes, there are more revenue loads within the same train length if double stacked.

In addition, less weight per revenue load.  As railroad cost accounting goes (It's a can of worms.) many costs relate back to gross ton miles.  The wear on track and bridges, fuel required, number of locomotives required, etc. all relate back to the gross tonnage.   With double stack containers the gross weight per revenue load is reduced vis a vis TOFC, so the cost per revenue load is reduced.  

So put the two together:  1) longer trains = lower crew/dispatching cost per load and, 2) less weight = less track wear, less fuel, few locomotives, etc. per load.  It all makes for quite an incentive. 

In additiion to all that, double stack can increase terminal capacity.  A 6,000 foot terminal track can hold more double stacked containers than trailers.  So the railroad can grow terminal capacity without the expense of adding track.  (They will need more parking space.)

It's important to know that the first significant use of intermodal rail containers was for LTL/LCL.  It began in the 1920's with the New York Central and spread to other railroads.  (I am not making this up!)  It was focused on their LCL business.  Their containers offered better service to customers, lower rates to customers, and higher income to the railroads.  Can't beat that.  Unless you're a government regulator.  The government (ICC) shut it down in 1931 by ordering the container rates increased to non competitive levels.  Yes, the regulators were that stupid.    

gmojim Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> rob_l Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > As may be seen, even the LTL guys are
> converting
> > to domestic containers. One more nail in the
> > coffin of TOFC.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Rob L.
> --------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------------
>
> I do not believe that trailers will be eliminated
> completely, too much trouble with chassis
> management at destination. Top priority loads
> would move in trailers.  BNSF said they will
> continue to offer trailer service, but container
> rates are cheaper.
>
>

Or just over the road trucked period. I’ve heard that UPS is moving more of their “hotter” business off the rails and trucking it over the road now.

With Celadon Trucking bankruptcy now UPS can hire more drivers for this over the road operation.
>
> Or just over the road trucked period. I’ve heard
> that UPS is moving more of their “hotter”
> business off the rails and trucking it over the
> road now.

rob_l Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > I do not believe that trailers will be
> eliminated
> > completely, too much trouble with chassis
> > management at destination. Top priority loads
> > would move in trailers.  BNSF said they will
> > continue to offer trailer service, but
> container
> > rates are cheaper.
> >
>
> Pricing is a means to curtail the trailer
> business.
>
> The railroads want no part of intermodal except in
> long-haul, high-volume corridors where the
> investment in expensive terminals and chassis
> inventories make sense.
>
> UPS is almost out of trailers on rail. LTL is
> moving out of it. UP has very little trailer
> volume left. BNSF has trailer volume, but the
> shippers pay a serious premium and are vulnerable
> to compeition using domestic containers.
>
> Trailer market share will continue to decline, and
> I predict that unless there is legislation or
> subsidy to the contrary, eventually it will be
> gone.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rob L.

I see a lot of UPS trailers on trains. I don't think they are almost out of trailers on the rails. UPS leases a lot of trailers. In their yards I see many of them.

Posted from Android

Greyhounds Wrote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Yes, there are more revenue loads within the same
> train length if double stacked.
>
> In addition, less weight per revenue load.  As
> railroad cost accounting goes (It's a can of
> worms.) many costs relate back to gross ton
> miles.  The wear on track and bridges, fuel
> required, number of locomotives required, etc. all
> relate back to the gross tonnage.   With double
> stack containers the gross weight per revenue load
> is reduced vis a vis TOFC, so the cost per revenue
> load is reduced.  
>
> So put the two together:  1) longer trains =
> lower crew/dispatching cost per load and, 2) less
> weight = less track wear, less fuel, few
> locomotives, etc. per load.  It all makes for
> quite an incentive. 
>
> In additiion to all that, double stack can
> increase terminal capacity.  A 6,000 foot
> terminal track can hold more double stacked
> containers than trailers.  So the railroad can
> grow terminal capacity without the expense of
> adding track.  (They will need more parking
> space.)
>
> It's important to know that the first significant
> use of intermodal rail containers was for
> LTL/LCL.  It began in the 1920's with the New
> York Central and spread to other railroads.  (I
> am not making this up!)  It was focused on their
> LCL business.  Their containers offered better
> service to customers, lower rates to customers,
> and higher income to the railroads.  Can't beat
> that.  Unless you're a government regulator. 
> The government (ICC) shut it down in 1931 by
> ordering the container rates increased to non
> competitive levels.  Yes, the regulators were
> that stupid.  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Very good points, Greyhounds 

gmojim



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/11/19 07:05 by gmojim.