Eastern Railroad Discussion > CSX Intermodal

CSX has an ad concerning new intermodal service from Memphis Ten to various points in the Midwest and East

What struck me was the service days as follows:

Mem to NW OHIO 4 days
Columbus 5 days
Chambersburg Pa 5 days
Baltimore 5 days
Philly 5 days

Is it just me but these are terrible service offering for todays expected service levels

I would think most TL carriers offer next day or second day---LTL carriers offer 2 day

This maybe results of Mr Harrisons operating plan but I don't think intermodal will grow very fast--NW OHIO and Chambersburg Pa are relative new ramps offering services to large areas

Why would you offer this service in todays market?

Dale Smith

A little clarification is needed on this one. The Memphis to NW Ohio isn't 4 days. It will be available on Day 4 in the morning (this is per CSX Intermodal's website). If the cutoff time is say 5:00pm on Day 1, then it is really only 2 full days transit time, about 2 1/2 to 3 days. While I am not saying this is fast at all, this needs to be mentioned. The Memphis to Philadelphia by the morning of Day 7 is absolutely terrible. I believe the CSX and BNSF can get almost get a container from Los Angeles to Chicago in that time.

Please note, I don't know the cut-off times for CSX and if the day you drop off isn't Day 1 but instead "Day 0", then it only gets worse.

This is the current Memphis to Northwest Ohio cutoff and available date and times from the CSX website.

---

BNSF6400 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is the current Memphis to Northwest Ohio
> cutoff and available date and times from the CSX
> website.

Still, a truck could make two round trips in a week.

BNSF6400 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Memphis to Philadelphia by the
> morning of Day 7 is absolutely terrible. I
> believe the CSX and BNSF can get almost get a
> container from Los Angeles to Chicago in that
> time.

It requires four different trains to get a container from Memphis to Philadelphia.

1. Q125 between Memphis, TN and Nashville, TN
2. Q142 between Nashville, TN and North Baltimore, OH
3. Q158 between North Baltimore, OH and Kearny, NJ
4. Q191 between Kearny, NJ and Philadelphia, PA

NS eats CSX's lunch in this lane, providing 3rd day availability. One connecting train is needed between the two markets.

1. 202 between Rossville, TN and Rutherford, PA
2. 24K between Rutherford, PA and Morrisville, PA

Andrew

The problem with all these services is CSX takes the intermodal to Northwest Ohio ramp in North Baltimore Ohio and changes trains there which has the load sitting for a period of time. This ramp in N Baltimore is just a service killing ramp that does nothing but sort intermodal by unloading and reloading it in the corn fields of Ohio. I cussed this ramp from the day it was built years ago. My Boston to Chicago freight was delayed days by this ramp.
I have heard they plan another such ramp in North Carolina. I hope not.
Hunter Harrison had nothing to do with this intermodal plan, it was in before 2015 when I retired. Maybe he will fix it.
No other railroad has a ramp that sorts intermodal in the middle of a corn field in a rural area. I never could or will understand CSX decision to build North Baltimore.
UP did build Global 3 in Rochelle IL in rural area, and it can delay some service but not on a regular basis.
Intermodal should be run from major ramps to major ramps or dropped off at major ramps. Never sort intermodal enroute in rural areas.

gmojim

Everyone knows truck is a better transit. Intermodal is about rate in many cases.

I ramp rice loads at CSX Memphis to points SE and East. Commodity is low in value and cheap transportation is more important than transit. 7 days door to door to Miami and Tampa. Transit time is built into the customers purchasing program. Everybody's happy.

.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/05/17 16:21 by darkcloud.

DLM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Everyone knows truck is a better transit.
> Intermodal is about rate in many cases.
>
> I ramp rice loads at CSX Memphis to points SE and
> East. Commodity is low in value and cheap
> transportation is more important than transit. 7
> days door to door to Miami and Tampa. Transit time
> is built into the customers purchasing program.
> Everybody's happy.

Yeah but in many lanes the price isn't all that much different.  Most freight carrys more value than that service would support.

Turning a 3 day lane into a 5 day is one thing.  Turn a 10 hour lane into an all week lane is another.  And then, how reliable is the service?

>
>
> gmojim Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The problem with all these services is CSX
> takes
> > the intermodal to Northwest Ohio ramp in North
> > Baltimore Ohio and changes trains there which
> has
> > the load sitting for a period of time. This
> ramp
> > in N Baltimore is just a service killing ramp
> that
> > does nothing but sort intermodal by unloading
> and
> > reloading it in the corn fields of Ohio. I
> cussed
> > this ramp from the day it was built years ago.
> My
> > Boston to Chicago freight was delayed days by
> this
> > ramp.
> > I have heard they plan another such ramp in
> North
> > Carolina. I hope not.
> > Hunter Harrison had nothing to do with this
> > intermodal plan, it was in before 2015 when I
> > retired. Maybe he will fix it.
> > No other railroad has a ramp that sorts
> intermodal
> > in the middle of a corn field in a rural area.
> I
> > never could or will understand CSX decision to
> > build North Baltimore.
> > UP did build Global 3 in Rochelle IL in rural
> > area, and it can delay some service but not on
> a
> > regular basis.
> > Intermodal should be run from major ramps to
> major
> > ramps or dropped off at major ramps. Never sort
> > intermodal enroute in rural areas.
> >
> > gmojim
darkcloud Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I recall from a similar thread on N. Baltimore a
> few years ago that CSX did offer a faster New
> England-Chicago service, but you or your clients
> chose not to pay the higher price of that option.
> Thus a slower trip on lower priority service
> through N. Balt.
>
> N. Balt is about price over time, aggregating
> traffic that enable many more service lanes, city
> pairs that didn't have enough volume on their own
> to run direct service or large blocks.
>
> So a load dropped off in Memphis on Monday by the
> 5pm cutoff leaves pre-dawn Tuesday on Q125 and the
> N.Balt block is setout in Nashville that afternoon
> (uses 1 crew.) Usually a decent sized cut,
> because there are perhaps a dozen destinations
> combined within. Wed morning Q142 picks it up,
> works Louisville and/or Cincinnati, and ends at N.
> Balt on Thursday (3 crews.) Available Friday
> morning or sorted and forwarded on trains to its
> destination.
>
> N. Balt is a hub, just like the airlines do at
> Atlanta, Denver, Chicago, etc.

All North Baltimore does is add cost to a low margin business,  They force business into this flawed terminal to justify the expenditure.  As gmo said, if it's a winner, why doesn't NS copy it or other use it a simular concept? 

It is a hub where none is needed.
 

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/05/17 16:22 by darkcloud.

darkcloud Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NYSWSD70M Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > All North Baltimore does is add cost to a low
> > margin business, They force business into this
> > flawed terminal to justify the expenditure. As
> > gmo said, if it's a winner, why doesn't NS copy
> it
> > or other use it a similar concept?
> >
> > It is a hub where none is needed.
>
>
> NS was doing it before CSX, in Harrisburg,
> Atlanta, and to a lesser extent in Danville and
> Colehour. Mostly manually switching blocks of
> cars instead of using cranes to reload, but that
> also isn't necessarily the most efficient if you
> have a large number of origin-destination pairs.
> BNSF has had Clovis, UP N. Platte.
>
> Are you not aware of the massive rubber tire
> intermodal interchange between the railroads in
> Chicago? The same thing as what happens in N.
> Balt (and for basically the same reasons), except
> in N. Balt the drive is across the parking lot
> instead of across town.
>
> It also seems that BNSF has recently made their
> Alliance intermodal site more of a hub, swapping
> (and probably unloading and reloading like N.
> Balt) for Mexico and Houston.

Block swapping is much different than creating an entire terminal to do an intermediate swap.  Harrisburg and Atlanta are huge destinations for NS and some block swaps are a minor addition.  Neither Danville nor Colehour ramp anything.

Yeah railroad have been doing the rubber tire interchange in Chicago for years.  As an example, the EL's UPS business arrived and at 51st street, cut off the Chicago's and the rubber tired interchange and then proceeded with the Dallas business over to the former C&EI/MP.  The rubber tire interchange was and is costly and inefficient but necessary to meet and acceptable service level.

What NS isn't doing is adding a huge overhead where their is little to no local traffic and then performing a third ramping operation of a container moving 900 miles.  A block of containers dropped in Harrisburg and then pickup up by a later train is certainly not the same thing.  NS doesn't have any ramp who's (almost) sole purpose is to sort freight. 

Moreover, CSX envisioned even more overhead.  Warehouses and repair facilities and on and on.  As far as terminating volumes, why would CSX what to handle a container from Chicago to North Baltimore?  Freight from the east?  Good luck.  To the east?  To short haul.

If EHH has his way North Baltimore may become cornfields again soon.

Posted from iPhone

darkcloud Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I recall from a similar thread on N. Baltimore a
> few years ago that CSX did offer a faster New
> England-Chicago service, but you or your clients
> chose not to pay the higher price of that option.
> Thus a slower trip on lower priority service
> through N. Balt.
>
> > N. Balt is a hub, just like the airlines do at
> Atlanta, Denver, Chicago, etc.
>
>
>
Stopping full intermodal trains running between Boston and Chicago to sort them in the corn fields of Ohio makes no sense to me, never will. NS ran the lane without stopping to sort and they were faster with a good rate.

North Baltimore Ohio is not Atlanta, Denver, Chicago last time I checked the metro areas.

gmojim

Had LA to Toledo Ohio freight on UP. CSX wanted too much money to move the loads Chicago to N Baltimore. So we continued to take the loads off in Chicago and run truck to Toledo which was cheaper overall thru rate than running to N Baltimore.

gmojim

.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/05/17 16:23 by darkcloud.

darkcloud
Up until 2015 when retired up to 80% of my Boston to Chicago freight stopped in N Baltimore. On NS the transit was faster than stopping in N Baltimore to be sorted and reloaded. Before N Baltimore, my loads sailed thru to Chicago.

I believe using cranes to set loads on ground and sort is slower than just stopping a block of cars for another train to pick up. With block swapping the containers are never touched.

I much prefer moving thru Chicago with Pacella Trucking making the rubber tire crosstown transfer between the railroads, many times a better rate than thru rate and much faster in and out of Chicago than the railroads can interchange.

I see CSX using N Baltimore to try to maximize their profit by filling well cars but they killed service up until 2015 and I would guess it is still going on but do not know.

When another railroad builds such a intermodal sort terminal in a rural area I will be interested to see that.

gmojim

darkcloud Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> gmojim Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Stopping full intermodal trains running between
> > Boston and Chicago to sort them in the corn
> fields
> > of Ohio makes no sense to me, never will.
>
> They aren't doing that. The trains stop to make
> setouts and pickups. The Worcester-Bedford Park
> through traffic goes through, the shorts are
> sorted and then picked up by other trains.
>
> > NS ran
> > the lane without stopping to sort and they were
> > faster with a good rate.
>
>
> CSX current schedule Worcester to Bedford Park:
> Mo 1800 cutoff, We 1200 available.
>
> NS current schedule Ayers to 47th St: Mo 0800
> cutoff, Th 0500 available.
>
> There's no way NS ever offered a faster than CSX
> (or even close to) schedule Boston to Chicago.
> Now if one insisted on a discount rate I could see
> CSX listing a longer transit time, based on the
> possibility of having to hold some low paying
> traffic for another train based on slot
> availability.
>
>
> > North Baltimore Ohio is not Atlanta, Denver,
> > Chicago last time I checked the metro areas.
> >
> > gmojim
>
> Neither is Clovis, NM, nor N. Platte, NE. You
> don't need massive originating traffic to block
> swap. And that is what this is, block swapping,
> using a crane instead of switch engines and lots
> of track. The intermodal equivalent of a hump
> yard. Shifted a lot of swapping that was already
> taking place in crowded and expensive Chicago and
> elsewhere.
>
> Not that CSX didn't make mistakes in
> implementation, but the theory was sound.

Earlier you said they were grounding containers and moving them via rubber tires. Now you are talking about block swaps.

Block swapping in Clovis does not require the infrasture​ that CSX built in North Baltimore. The BNSF didn't build it and they aren't going too. As I said before, the terminal adds cost and provides no benefit.

The theory is NOT sound. It adds cost in what is a low margin business. They built an entire terminal to avoid doing the consolidation in Chicago? That is absurd! Make a high cost terminal more expensive by reducing units of output by adding a second overhead??? This is nonsense. Two overheads always cost more than one AND IT HAS NO UNIQUE SERVICE OFFERING.

So, they added cost, slowed service and gained no new market? Great plan!

Posted from Android

.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/05/17 16:23 by darkcloud.

This is going nowhere, N Baltimore is a bad idea and NOBODY is going to EVER change my mind. Only other railroads building intermodal sort terminals in rural areas will change my mind,maybe.

gmojim