Western Railroad Discussion > TTX & Autorack Ownership

What is the reasoning for the railroads owning the upper part of an auto rack and TTX owning the flat car part?

 

Since no one else has answered yet, I will ask you a question? What makes you think different parts of the car are owned by different entities?

After all, I am sure you know that many if not most new locomotives are leasers not owned by the railroad, yet are painted in the railroad colors and have the railroad name on them.

jst3751 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Since no one else has answered yet, I will ask you
> a question? What makes you think different parts
> of the car are owned by different entities?

He is right. TTX tells you so:

https://www.ttx.com/about/equipment/

"Typically, the railroads own the rack structure and TTX provides the underlying flatcar."

My guess is that if a railroad wants to participate in moving new vehicles, they have to put some "skin in the game".
 

Hopefully someone with more actual knowledge can chime in, but my understanding is the rack was/is considered a separate piece of equipment (appurtenance) because it can be moved around between cars.  I think this was more common when the flats were more generic and could swap between TOFC and autos.  Also, a railroad may serve a truck plant, and so just want bi level racks.

The reason I am asking is on TTX cars anyway the auto rack has number from the rail road owner and the flat car is a different number.

I am not up on all the current rack requirements for all the different type of autos being shipped.  The tri verses bi level part of the fleet is based on manufafcturers forecasts, what railroads move what trafic origin-destinations and shifts that occur when the auto companies change carrier contracts.  The chock systems that hold the vehicles while shipping them is a variable.  The TTX flatcar has a longer operating life than the rack.  The rack is flexing all the time during movement and what in-train forces happen affect the life of the rack too.  Autorack cars always do poorly in derailments so the fleet size will change too.  The addition of European, Japanese, Korean, and other car manufacturers influence fleet requiements.  Turn times really influence requirements, shorter turn times reduce fleet needs.  Then at model change time, racks get parked for several weeks.  It is dynamic managing these fleets and train service everyday.  That is a simple overview of a complex market to serve.  Throw in auto parts by boxcar and container for more fun.

Jim Wilson

And who owns TTX
The RAILROADS

Mike Root
Madras, OR

I've always wondered the same thing..........

Bill Root
Oceano, California

Waybiller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hopefully someone with more actual knowledge can
> chime in, but my understanding is the rack was/is
> considered a separate piece of equipment
> (appurtenance) because it can be moved around
> between cars.  I think this was more common when
> the flats were more generic and could swap between
> TOFC and autos.  Also, a railroad may serve a
> truck plant, and so just want bi level racks.
Some of the TTX flat car designs could be equipped with hitches for TOFC use or have a autorack attached to the car. However, they were not swapped back and forth regularly as they were welded to the cars. A car might go into service with a rack attached and maybe years down the road the rack  is worn out and the car is sent to be "deracked". Typically they would go to a contract facility that would remove the old rack and clean up the flat car.so that it could then be used for whatever the demand was at that time. It could for TOFC, back to autorack service, or equipped with tiedown chains for moving tractors or military trucks.  

Early rack wearout may be a problem but there are still rusty SP racks out and about.
RB

It's not uncommon for a single transportation product to have multiple ownership titles on various pieces..  It's very common for airliner engines to have different titles and owners than the airframe of the same aircraft.  In one well known case, Kingfisher Air had its engines foreclosed and removed by GE for failure to pay on the loan obligation. 

(I saw a line of their aircraft in Vienna a few years ago. They looked very desolate, with the engines removed and tarps covering the open space.)

I have the book, 'The TTX Story', and this is addressed in Vol 2. In 1960, the Board for TTX decided that it was up to the member railroads to deal with rack ownership and quantities. Mainly since back then there wasn't a standardized rack design. Once there was, TTX also didn't want to get into the business of deciding how many bi-levels vs tri-levels there should be. That would be a railroad/factory dependent decision. Of course, that has bitten roads in the backside like a few years ago when there was a lack of bi-levels around because so many people where buying trucks and SUVs. 

And yes, the other side of it is that TTX can use the flat for another use if a rack isn't placed on it. 

Hope that answers your question. The TTX Story books are a good read and well worth the $95.  

Mojacket Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have the book, 'The TTX Story', and this is
> addressed in Vol 2. In 1960, the Board for TTX
> decided that it was up to the member railroads to
> deal with rack ownership and quantities. Mainly
> since back then there wasn't a standardized rack
> design. Once there was, TTX also didn't want to
> get into the business of deciding how many
> bi-levels vs tri-levels there should be. That
> would be a railroad/factory dependent decision. Of
> course, that has bitten roads in the backside like
> a few years ago when there was a lack of bi-levels
> around because so many people where buying trucks
> and SUVs. 
>
> And yes, the other side of it is that TTX can use
> the flat for another use if a rack isn't placed on
> it. 
>
> Hope that answers your question. The TTX Story
> books are a good read and well worth the $95. 

If I remember correctly (it's been a few years) the pool of 'racks' (not flats) is a percentage of total volume hauled by the railroad, which is why you saw a bunch of CSX / UP relettered racks a few years back.

On a side note, where I come from - autoracks are called multilevels. Racks are the autoparts cars that haul racks of parts.

 

glendale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> On a side note, where I come from - autoracks are
> called multilevels. Racks are the autoparts cars
> that haul racks of parts.
>
>  

Same here... If you say "autorack" where I work you will get a confused look from the non-railfan railroaders... Even the rule books address them as "multi-levels".

"Multilevel" was also the term Conrail applied to auto carrier trains ML-401, etc.

NJ Transit uses the term for its three level passenger cars.

Interesting read on the management of empty multilevel cars,

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/trnews/rpo/rpo.trn112.pdf


gmojim

In reference to my post above about control of empty multilevels, I searched for current info on empty control of TTX racks.
Unable to find any info. I believe TTX controls the destination for empty TTX multilevel racks. With universal chocks and tie down, any multilevel can go to any assembly plant or port. 
Anyone with info on the destination control of empty TTX multilevel racks would be appreciated.
I know for fact that NS receives full empty multilevel trains in Memphis and a 3rd party management group will sometimes change the destination after the train departs Memphis.

gmojim 

Very interesting topic. 

Just from observing the autorack operations at Mira Loma and San Bernardino, CA it appears to me that the cars are in pools just like many other cars that work in the automotive industry.